r/TournamentChess

What Anti-Sicilian lines would you recommend for someone who wants to avoid the mainline Sicilian theory?

How to crush this very solid opening system?

i have found plenty of courses on what i would call the "traditional" Semi-Tarrash with Nd5. I hae yet to find one on the modern line which is much more popular now. I understand that this is probably the case because most people deem it to be too dry but i find the endgame very interesting. It would also be good if the material was relativley recent since the line as had a lot of developments in the past years.

Thanks in advance

I'm looking for a training partner who is able to play with me longer time control games such as standard classical tournament time controls (60+30/90+30). Drop a comment or a DM if you're interested.

For me, it's a significant factor why my online chess rating is in plateau.

Wondering if there are any known draws. Thanks

As someone rated ~2100, I feel like drawing has become incredibly easy. I can almost draw anyone below 2300-2350 at will. However, at the same time, winning has become so much harder.

I can prepare a variation in 2-3 hours, get a solid position, and steer it to a draw. But, everyone is so well booked up these days that it gets very difficult to win. In the past year, the share of games I have draw has gone up significantly.

All this to say: how do I beat these higher-rated players? Since I have a K factor of 40, winning is highly rewarded. Just winning 2-3 games and drawing one will put me at 2200. How do I win more? Do I play a very wide range of openings and keep playing something new since a lot of my games are online?

As I formally started building out my repertoire files, I realized that I'm not entirely sure why I decided to start playing 2. Nf3 instead of 2. c4. I mean, I kind of remember: it was mainly to avoid some black options within certain openings, but I still end up facing the opening eventually anyway (and you avoid the Budapest, but that's probably not something that one should be avoiding).

Basically, it got me wondering if I should play 2. c4, and what practical benefits I'm gaining by going 2. Nf3. Of course the answer also depends on what first move black played.

One thing I realized was that after 1. d4 e6, now 2. Nf3 is not good because 2... c5, and to keep a good edge I have to be willing to enter the e6-Sicilian structure (and I'm not an e4 player, so I don't want to do that) because the other moves don't give white anything. So this is one line where I necessarily have to play 2. c4.

Also if I commit to Nf3 on move 2, then there are some lines by black that take us into Benoni structures/lines, and in some of them you'd rather not have Nf3 committed already (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I remember something along those lines).

So for 1. d4 mainline players out there, what are the key things you take into account while making this decision?

TL;DR: Would it be against USCF rules to make a small mark next to a move to indicate a critical position (not the quality of the move made), with the intention of checking that assessment after the game? And would it be cheating to circumvent that proscription by writing down clock times only in such positions?

---

I hope it's okay to ask a question here that relates to tournament procedure as opposed to the study of the game. My understanding of rule 20C, prohibiting the use of notes as a memory aid during one's ongoing game, is that it prohibits annotation symbols (e.g. +=, !, ?!) on the scoresheet.

The text of the rule, for reference:

>The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the

moves, draw offers, and clock times, and the header information normally found on a scoresheet. This is a much less

serious offense than 20B; a warning or minor time penalty is common, with more severe punishment if the offense is

repeated.

I am hoping someone can give me some guidance on whether it's also prohibited to make a marking (or write differently) with the goal of guiding my analysis after the game. I heard someone talking in the break area at a tournament a couple months ago about wanting to use heavier writing to remind himself of a move he thought was bad, and the guy he was talking with said that he just puts a little dot next to the line on the scoresheet after his move if he thinks the position was messy or that he was pretty sure he didn't find a good move. They were talking pretty openly, so I assume they weren't concerned about the TD handing down a penalty. But I assume, based on my reading of the rule, that it's illegal.

My emotional memory isn't great, which is to say that I can remember things that happened, but it's hard for me to remember later how I felt about them at the time. That does make it harder to assess my ability to assess how critical a position is (and how much that ability diminishes during live play), so I'd love to be able to record my thoughts on that. But it's also very important to me to play strictly by the rules, regardless of whether there's any risk of being caught, so I don't want to get into it if it's not allowed. My integrity is more important to me than any game outcome; I'm as reluctant to make that little mark if it's illicit as I am eager to do it if it's kosher. Am I getting unnecessarily tripped up by the phrase, "as a memory aid," in the text of the rule? Is it something that I would be better off just emailing the TD of an event about? Should I say something to the TD if I notice someone else doing it? And if such a marking is against the rule, is it also prohibited to (e.g.) write clock times selectively to achieve the same effect?

What's your Fide/online rating and what's your goal?

I know some basic endgames like K vs K+P and Phillidor and Lucena positions. But i am prone to always mishandling endgames i get in my own games. I feel i am lacking concrete moves in critical positions because i my strategy is just "make the king active and pray." Particularly in pawn endings when both sides have pawn all over the board, i manage to lose even the most drawn positions. I do fairly okay in Rook endgames, but that is about it.

Minor piece endgames or just pawn endings are the bane of my existence. I also lack the understanding to figure out whether an endgame is losing or drawing. How to improve this aspect of my play? I have never actually studied this part of the game in a structured manner. Any suggestions are welcome. Ideally i would like to become a very strong endgame player in the future so i drop less points. Im around 2150-2200 Rapid on both sites.

I had a situation wherein it's difficult to spot a tactic after a forced line. Help me to overcome my myopic vision. I'm a 2100 blitz player in lichess.

I've recently begun learning 1.e4 e5 from the Black side, and as a lifelong Sicilian player it's a bit painful, but very instructive. My main goal is to learn to play very solid and equalize, then vie for an advantage. I actually really enjoy the Berlin and its resulting positions after 3.Bb5, maybe because it comes easy to me, and the Italian is very manageable (where I play 3...Nf6 4.d6 Bc5 opting for a quick ...0-0 and ...d5 against the Giuoco Pianissimo (and 6...Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 in the Polerio Defence)). I've also really enjoyed neat lines such as the Caro Gambit against the Ponziani (as a former Benko player this positional sort of pawn sacrifice appeals to me).

What I'm really struggling to find something against though, is the Scotch and the Scotch Gambit. So I'm hoping for any 1...e5 players to share their wisdom, pet line, or just general approach to these openings specifically - and, if there are any other lines similar to the Caro Gambit in style that appears after 1.e4 e5 then I'd love to hear about them.

Thanks y'all!

(Title)

I'm currently trying to delve more deeply into studying the Tartakower, but the majority of content (mostly YouTube videos) I've briefly covered either only explains kingside castling or simply says (quite vaguely) to "pawn storm" the queenside. My main issue is understanding how to handle my h5 pawn's weakness since it acts as a hook for my opponent's kingside pawns, given it no longer serves as strong of a purpose positionally when the White king is on the other side of the board.

For context, this is the position that is probably the most commonly reached move-order/position in both my games and master games that I assume are mostly blitzed out, although of course from this point onwards it branches out a lot more since I have no idea what I'm doing when all of my pieces are seemingly pointed the wrong direction LOL

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ exf6 6. c3 Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8.

Qc2 Re8+ 9. Ne2 h5 10. Be3 Nd7 11. O-O-O Nf8 12. Kb1 Be6 13. c4

https://preview.redd.it/aigcj076hijh1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=a0a0f435381bbc7292ce13678e32ac53240dac1e

It seems that higher rated opponents in recent years will almost exclusively prefer queenside castling over kingside while playing as White, and attempt to wipe Black off the board as fast as possible, especially in blitz; given this, it almost seems too easy to do given the positioning of the rooks and pawns on the kingside. Most of my games won with Black are because my opponent misplayed a pawn push and allowed me to completely blockade the attack rather than needing to counterattack on the queenside, but I assume this is not really how most high-level games in this variation are meant to go.

As I'm writing this, I'm also going through some master games to see how they play the position out, but it would definitely help to get some good book recommendations to get some concrete theoretical knowledge on this. One of my main resources for a while as been Schandorff's "Playing the Caro-Kann", and he does seem to have a few games in the latter half of his chapter on the Tartakower dedicated to queenside castling, but doesn't really go into it that much. I think Johnson and Hansen's "Win with the Caro-Kann" doesn't even go into it at all. Both books are decent for other variations, though.

P.S., if anyone has any resources and/or model games on combatting an early b5 by White (it seems to be dubious most of the time since theoretically you should be able to undermine the center, but it has the appearance of being very aggressive in blitz and is harder to effectively counter there) in the Panov Attack and the Forgacs Variation in general, please also let me know :)

I have a bit of free time today, and would love to do a training match against anybody of any skill because i have a tournament soon and need to practice staying focused for a long time.

I am free in around 1 hour, would anybody like to play?

What is the theoretical status of the 8. Rb8 anti Marshall?

Now 8. b4 is by far the mainline, and very good and quite interesting, but obviously there's a lot to know there, and there is only source to study it from as the only course on it (Krishnater & Surya e4 e5) recommends some rare, concrete sidelines, although I'm not ruling it out completely, if anyone has this course let me know what you think of their lines in the anti-marshall. There are two big systems with either 9. d4 or 9. d3, and the positions look more or less pleasant, but I'm also considering other directions due to lack of material to study from.

I've always played 8. Bb7 following Gustafsson's lines with the Nd7 stuff, but I've always felt uncomfortable and those lines are not very intuitive, and as far as I know, there isn't any material out there that covers the mainline with Na5.

I recently discovered a course by Cheparinov on modern chess where he covers the 8. Rb8 Anti-Marshall and it got me interested. It's very rare comparatively, only played about 6% of the games, but has been played so many times by Carlsen, Dubov and Esipenko.

I was wondering if there is something inherently wrong with this Rb8 line for it to be so unpopular? and how is it theoretically compared to the alternatives? What i like about it is you kind of get very similar positions from my brief analysis in most lines, with typical ideas of trading in the centre and playing some d5 followed by Ne4: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a4 Rb8 9. axb5 axb5 10. c3 d6 11. d4 exd4 12. cxd4 d5 13. e5 Ne4 14. Nc3 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Bf5

This is the typical type of position, other other times your pawn is on b4 and you start with bxc3.. followed by exd4 and d5 and Ne4 with a very similar position, and there are other lines where white doesn't open the a-file, but againt you get a similar pawn structure in the centre.

I understand it relinquishes the a-file, but 8. b4 does relinquish the c4 square which is a big source of play for white in the 9. d4 lines, and 8. Bb7 does weaken your king when your bishop is stuck staring at the d3-e4 pawn chain for a long time but discourages any setups with d2-d4, so they all have their pros and cons.

8. Rb8 doesn't seem too theoretical, but there is this doubt in my mind that this line is still very rare due to some sort of issue with it, and despite Carlsen playing it in the world championship and many times after, it still hasn't become mainstream. Hoping for someone with experience to explain this.

Thank you.

Hi guys, I really want to get some chess courses and Dina’s chess school has been coming up a lot lately. I like the idea of having group courses etc but has someone tried it and what is your opinion on this?

I'm a 2000 rating blitz in lichess. I've tried a Sicilian dragon and a caro-kann but the win rates are so disappointing. Do you have recommendations? What books and resources should I get? Any advice or insight would be appreciated.