r/TournamentChess

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Qd3

Alonso Rosell recommends this in his Catalan course on Chessable.

1680 FIDE, want to start studying endgame. Which would you guys recommend for my first endgame literature?

I’m working on a chess training tool that looks through your games and tries to find repeated mistake patterns, like missed tactics, loose pieces, opening problems, or losing control of winning positions. It then turns those patterns into practice based on your own games. I’m mainly looking for honest feedback from chess players — would anyone be willing to try it and tell me what feels useful, confusing, or inaccurate? deepline.coach

Soooo...my first OTB tournament(rapid 10 +5) was 4 days ago. I guess most first tournaments are underperformances but that was just bad. I got only 3.5/9 points, and from 73 people finished 58th. I got first rating of 1491, which is low for me, I mean, I have played a friend who is 1740 rapid and won 5:3 and my online rating on chess.com is 2100, so yeah, that was rly bad tourney for me.

With that said, it was one if the best expiriances if my life. Interesting games, met very cool people. And on top of that I had 4 brilliants moves for the whole tournament-2 in one and 2 in another game.

One game, against 1550 kid I sacked my queen and then I sacked my rook for a win.

Then, against 1676 kid, which was my strongest oponent, and my best win, I sacked 2 rooks for a draw. I had a bit of a worse position so I found a draw. If he did not accept the 2 rooks I would have mated him.

I hope that I will do better next tournament.

Just played a a classical tournament where my mentality was win every game. I learned my lesson in my third game of the tournament which was my second classical game that day. Before the game I was on a 2/2 score.

I was battling it out with my NM opponent in mutual time trouble (less than 1 min). I wanted to grind him out and win an equal endgame. This was my second game of the day, both games that day I played for 4 hours each. I had the option to go into a forced draw but instead I blundered a piece and lost, ruining my chances of getting top 3 or an NM norm.

Lesson learned is to respect when your opponent is playing well and accept going into a draw rather than gambling.

Felt painful but this a lesson learned.

Hi everyone, working through Jeremy Silmans endgame manual, and would like to get recommendations for practicing endgames online (with the exception of chess dot com) What are your go to tools

Feel a bit stupid. I have been playing OTB chess for around 2 years now. I never analysed games, and never even kept the gamesheets. I have some game sheets lying around (perhaps 10 percent of games played), but I wish I had a record of all the games I have played.

Going to make a change from now on, to analyse all my games, preserve every game sheet, and it may be ambitious but I would like to commit my future games played to memory as best as I can.

Reason for the post is my friend was dumbfounded that I didn't save all my games, and called me a fool. Have the majority of you guys saved every game you've ever played OTB?

Hey folks! I'm rated 1800 FIDE and found myself in an OTB position after Ne5 in which I discarded the best move Qd8 on account of Nxc6 bxc6 Ba6 as I stopped calculating and evaluated the loss of the exchange to favor White:

r1r3k1/pp1qbppp/2n1pnb1/1B1pN3/3P1B2/NQP4P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 14 14

During game analysis with the engine I realised I was mistaken as the engine gives the position -3. Apparently, after Rcb8 Bxb8 Rxb8 Qa4 Rxb2 White is in a world of hurt with moves such as Qd6 and Ne4 leading to a decisive attack on the kingside:

3q2k1/p3bppp/B1p1pnb1/3p4/Q2P4/N1P4P/Pr3PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 19

I see this as an important lesson for me because I need to stop thinking “loss of exchange = bad” but instead to actually look at what is happening on the board: Is the loss of the exchange really bad or do I get compensation for it?

In principle, this seems identical to stop thinking “doubled pawns = bad” which took me quite a while to internalise. Nowadays, I keep calculating when I see the “threat” of doubled pawns in a line I'm calculating to see whether the doubled pawns are an upside or a downside.

When I think of improving chess as climbing up a flight of stairs, I would argue I have already taken the step regarding doubled pawns but now I have reached the step about giving up an exchange for compensation. Do you guys have any advice for me on how to take that step and continue to climb the flight of stairs that is chess improvement?

Hi guys,

I (~1950 fide) have been happily playing the accelerated dragon for a while, and have booked up pretty nicely. Whenever white didn’t play sicilian sidelines or Nc3, and opted for the maroczy bind with 5. c4 however, I’ve basically been winging it.
I’ll get around to learning the Maroczy lines from my chessable course at some point, but I’ve considered another approach.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6?!

Via this moveorder black gets the desired accelerated dragon positions after 6. Be3

The refutation of this concept, 6. Nxc6 is played ~25% on 2200+ lichess. After 6… dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8, I get Black really never should be winning these games, but they seem practically just fine to hold?

Marin advocates for this approach in his Modern Chess article under the name Pseudo-Dragon , though I haven’t seen what his recommendation is after 7… Kxd8

After 8. Bc4 there are two approaches for Black, either 8… Ke8 or 8… Bg7

In Giri’s e4 course he gives the following under the less flattering name of ‘Bad Dragon Endgame’:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. a4 Rf8 10. Bf4 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6

And the (according to him) better 8… Ke8 line

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Ke8 9. e5 Nd7 10. e6 fxe6 11. Bxe6 Bg7 12. Be3.

Yes it looks slightly miserable, but white probably has less experience in these positions than Black will and the alternative of allowing a Maroczy is often not considered superb either.

Saric’s chessable course extends the line with 12… Nf8 13. Bb3 Be6 14. O-O-O Bxb3 15. axb3 also claiming a nice endgame for white

Miguel Santon’s chessable course gives the same line as Giri against 8… Ke8. And against 8… Bg7

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. a4 Rf8 10. Bf4 Ke8 11. a5

FM Nemec’s Stomp the Sicilian gives the same line as Giri and Santon

Is it crazy to decide to spend some time learning the ideas in this endgame instead of the hundreds of Maroczy lines? Do you guys have any experience in this endgame?

Tldr: wishing to avoid the Maroczy for a bit, or as a fun surprise, I’m considering the endgame after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 with either 8… Ke8 or 8… Bg7. Thoughts?

Hello everyone, i currently play the falkbeer countergambit move order against the Kings Gambit because it was the only thing i learnt. However i find myself not enjoying these positions because i get them rarely and the opponent seems to know them much better. For context this is the move order

1. e4-e5 2. f4-d5 3. exd5-exf4 4. Nf3

I am looking to switch it up and was just looking for perhaps a more annoying variation against the Kings Gambit, i dont mind if its a sideline and i dont mind if you suggest me the absolute mainlines of Kings Gambit accepted, i am open to all as i have no experience in this opening

As a d4 player I know how annoying can be to face openings with different positions as the usual d4 -d5 ones, and where tactical themes can extend well into the middlegame. This can be seen in the kings indian, the benoni and the Benko, for example. Actualy it makes sense that these openings are the ones with my lowest score. So I want to play them myself as black.

Im leaning more towards the Benko because Its lighter in theory than the KID and sounder than the Benoni. I have played against all 3 of them as white and I find the Benko to be the most dangerous as well. One mistake and black equlizes easily, getting a more comfortable position thanks to the superior pawn structure.

I know that the Benko theory is more oriented towards knowing tactical patterns and plans rather than concrete lines and variations. Besides the first moves where white can accept or not the gambit, as well as defend the pawn with e3, but after that the positions are pretty similar.

So Benko players what are some books, courses, tips… resources in general you found useful and important to play the Benko with success? And Also what do you find annoying or comfortable from white to play?

Consider an endgame: 4vs3 pawns on the kingside with no moves included, kings behind pawns: Which pieces give the best winning/losing chances?

Possible options:

K, K+B, K+N, K+R, K+Q;

I know most of these are theoretical draws but I care about your experience in OTB play under pressure. Looking for some opinions, your own example games are also welcome :)

I played a game recently against a guy nearly 400 points lower than me (national grade, fide difference was around 200) I gained fide rating points for the game but I lost 1 point in my national grade. I don't know if this can be a thing, I haven't ever noticed it before but I didn't think it would be possible to win a game but lose a rating point.

This move has become almost as common as 14..b4 at top level, but literature on it is almost non-existent. What's going on here?

Hey everyone,

I see a lot of posts like “Looking for sparring partner” or “Im learning X opening and I would like to practice the middle games arising from that” here in r/TournamentChess. I have done some sparring myself with some redditors, but I think we can benefit from each other in a deeper level and get useful insights of our chess from other players. Here is what I thought about:

First, and in the line of the type of posts mentioned, instead of sparring openings in 3-4 games with your partner, I think it would be better to get feedback/opinion of him about said opening. For example, I am now learning the Classical Sicilian for black, so let my partner explain his view of this opening (if he plays e4 of course) and see what are his preferred lines and why, the most annoying for him black can play etc. Also in the case he is an experienced player it can be useful with which lines he feels comfortable in or not. We all know what the critical lines are and what the engines mark as best, but we don’t know what players our same level would actually play, so I think this a better way to learn further the new opening we are studying. Of course if my partner is interested in an opening I play we may exchange knowledge. Personally, I wouldn’t mind even exchanging PGN files.

Second, and focused for serious club players (my case), we can do a simulation of what our preparation would be like if we had to play in a tournament. And eventually, if both agree, play a game. This comes from the fact that lots of players starting around 1800 FIDE have games uploaded in the database (my case too) and any player can prepare any engine line because they know what you play. So I think it can be helpful to have other player our same level doing a simulation of what preparing a game against us would be like and preparing against them (sharing our FIDE profile with each other). And then, explain our preparation to each other and exchange PGNs. This way, if we find we can be prepared against very easily, we can act in consequence learning new must-know-lines or having a secondary opening to avoid unpleasant surprises over the board.

It may sound that I put too much emphasis into the opening, but I think its where we can benefit each other the most. We can improve our endgame and middle game play independently reading books, and playing and analyzing games by ourselves. Surely it can be helpful, but I don’t think a sparring partner is absolutely necessary for middle game and endgame improvement.

This being said, Im interested in doing both approaches, as I have games on the databases and Im aware people can and will prepare the games with me knowing what I play, as well as Im interested in getting insight in the openings Im learning, and can give insights myself on the openings I play. If you are interested too, please comment your level, openings you can play and can explain, and openings you are learning and want feedback from opposite color players. Just like this:

-Im 1950 FIDE (Im playing well so I think I can reach 2050 fairly easily)

-Openings I play and I can give feedback on:

\-As white: 1-d4. Catalan and Fianchetto variations against everything but Benko. Benko I play the e4-Bxf1-Kxf1 and g3-Kg2 variation. I also used to play and I have experience with the Queens Gambit minority attack.

\-As black: I play Dragon Sicilian and sometimes the Modern Defense against e4 (and learning Classical Sicilian). And QGD against d4.

-Openings Im learning and I want feedback on: Classical Sicilian as black with the 2…d6 d4 cx Nx Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 move order. Also I will start learning the Benko gambit to have something Sharp against d4

Please comment yours. Looking forward your answers and hope we can help each other out.

Hi everyone! I know there have been plenty of posts like this on this subreddit before, but I'd still like to hear advice from stronger players specifically for my case.

Hi everyone! I know there have been plenty of posts like that on this subreddit before, but I'd still like to hear advice from stronger players specifically for my case.

Also, I'll be sharing some of my own thoughts and analysis of lines, so apologies in advance, this is going to be a long post. I hope that those who aren't interested just won't waste their time on it. For those who, like me, enjoy digging into openings – you're very welcome! I'll be glad to hear your thoughts on the topic.

Right now I'm around 2050-2100 classical on Lichess. I've recently started playing OTB tournaments, so it would be important for me to finally settle on a full repertoire. I really love studying openings as such – I enjoy rich, plan‑filled positions that leave some room for independent exploration and finding your own theory (with engine help, of course). I get genuine pleasure from digging into a position, studying the plans for both sides, and the near‑ideal interpretation of positions (grandmaster games, computer moves). So please don't tell me that such deep opening study is pointless. For me, it's a hobby in itself, just like playing chess!

Given my preferences, it's not hard to guess that I try to stick to main lines:

As White: main lines of the Spanish, Nc3 against the French, English Attack against the Pirc, main lines in the Open Sicilian (except Rossolimo against Nc6).

As Black against 1.d4: I'm very happy with the Nimzo/Ragozin complex.

Against 1.c4: I'm not afraid to answer 1...e5 at all.

I really love the idea of playing "top" openings – an opening that will grow with you throughout your life, and you won't have to change it. I've been loyal to the Spanish as White and to the Nimzo/Ragozin for a very long time – I don't think I'll ever want to replace them as my main openings. So this search for the "perfect opening" might actually have an end, haha!

Rossolimo / classical closed Spanish (like Breyer, Chigorin) as White or the Ragozin Defence as Black – these are perfect examples of theoretically fascinating openings that leave room for independent research! I was surprised how differently you can interpret various Ragozin lines, or – I won't even mention the enormous number of ideas White has in the main Breyer tabiya.

Probably my favourite opening of all is the Spanish (especially the closed variations) for both colours, although as Black I do have some problems with it (more on that later).

About my playing style: I'd say I have a fairly wide chess horizon. I know many ideas, plans, openings. Strategic positions suit me well. I love calculating long, complex forced lines deeply. Endgames.. I play about as well as others at my level. My main problems: frequent board vision lapses (I started playing chess as an adult, so from time to time I still make one‑move blunders). I almost always miss some tricky opponent's resources, which makes me very afraid to give my opponent "room to breathe" – I try to keep up the pressure. Because of that, I force the game too much. I'm worse than many at spotting simple threats, and I'm terrible at fast time controls. I'm used to coming out of the opening with an advantage, so I don't play equal balanced positions very well. I'm a bad defender. I hate playing with a weak king, because no matter how hard I try, I always miss some cheap tricks.

So, to the point: I can't decide on a defence to 1.e4.

For me, the choice comes down to only two options: 1...c5 or 1...e5. I don't consider anything else.

Right now I play 1...e5. I'm happy with almost everything except the Spanish as Black. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the Four Knights Spanish, but 4...Bd6 looks like an interesting move to keep more pieces on the board.

I even found something against the main line of the Four Knights. Here's a rough sketch against 10.Bg5:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8. exd5 cxd5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Qf3 Be7 12. h3 h6 13. Bh4 c5 14. Rad1 d4 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Ne4 Be7 17. Nd2 Bg5 18. b3 Rc8 19. Rfe1 Bd5 20. Qg4 g6 21. f4 Bf6 22. Ne4 Be6 23. Qf3 Kg7

Interesting lines after 10.h3 with 10...Rb8, previously mentioned on this subreddit:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O d5 9. exd5 cxd5 10. h3 Rb8 11. Qf3 Rb6 12. Bg5 Bb7 13. Rad1 h6 14. Bh4 Re8 15. Qf5 g6 16. Qf4 Bf8 17. Na4 Rbe6 18. Qd4 Qd6 19. Qxa7 Qc6 20. b3 d4 21. f3 Nd5 22. Qxd4 Ne3

But against the Spanish... I don't like anything. I don't want to play some "slightly" sidelines like the Cozio or Fianchetto defence and such, where White should be a little better anyway. I also don't like the Open Spanish. In general, I have a rather negative attitude towards overly forced lines (like the Botvinnik System in the Semi‑Slav, for instance). The Berlin is not my cup of tea either.

Right now I'm trying to play a Marshall‑based repertoire, but I'm not fully happy with it. I don't really want to play the Marshall itself (despite good results at club level). My problem is the excessive forcing nature of it. Also too many pieces come off the board too early. An FM friend of mine (a coach) said about the Marshall: "you learn a ton of theory, and in the end it's still a draw." Sure, at my level the draw problem doesn't really exist, but I still don't like such dry positions. Also, it's quite hard to find something against d3 lines. Recently the Marshall with ...Bb7 instead of ...c6 has become relatively fashionable, but I don't think it's something that will make White tremble with fear.

And while in d4 lines you can still try to find interesting, less trodden paths, the d3 lines really didn't appeal to me. I looked at Gustafsson's recommendations, and some lines indeed end in forced draws. (Again: I know that's not a problem for me, and nobody will play that against me, but the very fact that the opening in a sense "exhausts itself" at some level is telling. I accept that chess is a draw, but I'd like to have a decent alternative when I don't want to "force events.")

I haven't studied Ganguly's new Marshall repertoire in detail, but as far as I know, the pawn‑down endgames and forced draws are there too. I fully understand that as Black you can't have everything in the opening, but still, the nature of the fight in the main Marshall lines genuinely bothers me.

I didn't like what I saw in d3. So I decided to look into 13...Qh4 instead of the usual 13...Bf5 (which Gustafsson called bad). Still, a lot of time has passed since his analysis...

This endgame comes out almost forced after 13...Qh4 with best play for both sides:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d3 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 Nf6 16. Rh4 Qf5 17. Nd2 Ng4 18. f3 Ne3 19. Qe2 Nd5 20. c4 Nf6 21. Ne4 Nxe4 22. dxe4 Qg6 23. Bc2 Bxg3 24. e5 Bxh4+ 25. Bxg6 hxg6

It's quite hard for me to evaluate this with my modest level, but intuitively it feels like if anyone wants to win here, it's White.

(Again: I perfectly understand that nobody will play this against me, but I just don't like learning an opening where such an endgame is the dream scenario. The main problem here isn't that with perfect play I can't win (especially as Black) but that Black has absolutely no deviations. After ...Qh4, Black essentially has only one move at almost every turn, while White has various options.)

In essence, I'm only playing the Marshall because I want to get improved versions of closed Spanish positions. But I still haven't figured out what to do if someone actually goes into the main Marshall tabiyas. I just don't like it.

I thought for a long time that maybe I should just play the classical closed Spanish (I mostly looked at the Breyer), but after studying it in detail, my conclusion is: the effort is not worth the reward. White has a million move orders, and Black needs extreme precision in every line. It's just too passive. Sure, nobody refutes the Breyer, but the positions are simply nicer and easier for White, and you get winning chances mostly when your opponent overpresses. White can basically play almost any legal move in the main tabiya and still be no worse.

You could even play something like this:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. c4?! – a pretty interesting and underrated (imho) sideline.

In short, the positions are wonderful, but I'd prefer to have them only as White.

My current main candidate(in e5): the Archangel with ...Bc5. I haven't looked at these lines much, but I don't like, again, the unbelievable number of White setups. Almost any natural move leads to a great position for White. As Black, you need extremely high precision. It feels like a very fine line and a strategically risky endeavour. As far as I understand, it (yes, yes, like (almost?) everywhere) doesn't save you from forced draws and quick drying out of the position. Besides the main tabiyas, some unpopular move orders can be very unpleasant too, for example something like this:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. a4 Rb8 8. c3 d6 9. d4 Bb6 10. Qd3 O-O 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. axb5 axb5 14. Qxb5

In other words, my problem with the Archangel is that I'm not sure the risk is worth the reward. Right now it's my main candidate if I stick with 1...e5. People often call the Archangel "the Sicilian of the e5 world". And that's when it occurred to me: if I'm going to play that kind of style anyway, maybe 1...c5 would suit me better than 1...e5?

Regarding 1...c5 – I've never been able to find a suitable Sicilian as Black.

Again, I want to play only the main, most critical tabiyas, so all second‑tier options (e.g. the Kan) are out.

The most critical Sicilians (as far as I understand the state of theory) are the Sveshnikov and the Najdorf.

Sveshnikov problem: the Rossolimo. I play it as White and understand those positions a bit. I'm not ready to study the Sveshnikov just to get hit with Bb5. I wanted for a long time to make it work as Black. But I just cannot learn to love it. I've looked at it from White's perspective a lot, and I've found millions of dangerous ideas and setups. It reminds me of the Breyer in the Spanish – yes, the play is rich and strategic, yes, nobody will ever refute it... but White is just a bit better, that's all. And Black doesn't get much in return. Besides (I don't know how true this is), I recently saw someone very strong on this subreddit mention that the Sveshnikov at the top level nowadays is more of a drawing weapon – and the Marshall would do that job just as well, if not better.

Najdorf – very, very scary. I tried it once long ago. Until recently I thought it was madness. More on the Najdorf later.

Taimanov – I recently looked at these lines deeply. Apart from the famous Qf3, White has a hundred other dangerous forced or slower strategic attempts to choose from. Without doubt, it's a great practical weapon. The positions are very combative and breathtaking! But my conclusion is that it's so risky and requires so much theory, and still has a worse theoretical reputation than the Najdorf. And actually, White has even more moves against the Taimanov than against the Najdorf! (It's just that the theory isn't as developed. But that doesn't reduce the number of dangerous tries.) If White wants, he can just dry out the game (e.g. the Qf3 endgame). So my conclusion was: if you're going to play something that risky and theory‑heavy, why play this when the Najdorf exists?

Four Knights Sicilian: I've heard many say it's the most underrated Sicilian and the best at club level. I decided to check... Gentlemen, the main lines after Nxc6 are madness! A very, very narrow path for Black. It all holds up according to the engine, yes. BUT! White actually has a lot of side deviations, and for each such deviation Black has to play 20 only‑moves just to keep the position within equality.

Example:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qc7 9. f4 Qb6 10. a3 (sideline! Played in 7% of master games) 10...Ne3 11. Qd3 Nxf1 12. Rxf1 Ba6 13. c4 f5 14. exf6 d5 15. Be3 (this is actually a novelty – no games) 15...Bxc4 16. Qc3 Qb3 17. Qxb3 Bxb3 18. Nc5 Bc4 19. Rf3 gxf6 20. Rc1 – Black has only moves everywhere. White has branches at almost every step. In the main tabiya after 10.c4, White similarly has branches at every move, and Black only moves.

In short, honestly, a paradise for preparing a pet line as White. I found the quiet move 8...Bb7?! interesting:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 – and honestly, I even managed to make it work more or less. It seemed to me there's much less forced madness on the board! I finally found a way for Black to have some choices. Plus, it's incredibly good practically – many opponents will be surprised by move 8, and you can expect the most common answer to be 9.c4, where Black seems to have many comfortable options.

Here are examples of "critical" lines after 8...Bb7?!:

First line:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. Be2 c5 10. O-O Qc7 11. c4 Ne3 12. Bxe3 Bxe4 13. Bf4 Be7 14. Qd2 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16. h3 Bc6 17. f4 g4 18. hxg4 hxg4 19. f5 O-O-O 20. f6 Bf8 21. Bf4 Rh4 22. Kf2 Bh6 23. Bxh6 g3+ 24. Ke1 Bxg2 25. Rg1 Qxe5 26. Be3 Re4

Second line:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. Be2 c5 10. O-O Qc7 11. Nd6+ Bxd6 12. exd6 Qc6 13. f3

In practice, it seemed to me that White can easily get into trouble. Here's an example of how an unprepared White can lose:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Bb7 9. c4 Nb4 10. a3 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qxe5 12. axb4 Qxe4+ 13. Be2 c5 14. f3 Qd4 15. b5 Qxb2 16. O-O

However, this made me think: what do I do against an attempt to transpose back into the Sveshnikov? And I didn't find an answer.

The line called the Cobra variation is fun, of course, but definitely not a "lifelong main opening", no way:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Ndb5 Bc5 7. Bf4 O-O 8. Bc7 Qe7 9. Bd6 Bxd6 10. Qxd6 Qd8

For fast time controls, it looks amusing, I'll admit.

This probably holds too, but White actually has attempts here that seem even more dangerous than the main theory. It's just rarely played at the highest level, so the theory isn't that developed.

The main theoretical move is 6...Bb4, but honestly, again, I'm not thrilled by lines like:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Ndb5 Bb4 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Nxc3 d5 9. exd5 exd5 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Bg4 12. f3 Bh5 13. Bg5 Qb6+ 14. Kh1 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bxe4 Qxb2 17. Qb1 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Rfb1

So probably the Sveshnikov transposition is the most interesting path, but I'm not sure I want all the additional lines (including the side 7...Bb7 in the main Four Knights) just to play the Sveshnikov and avoid the Rossolimo... Sounds very questionable.

In the end, I thought: maybe the Najdorf isn't such a stupid idea for someone like me (a theory lover).

Regarding the Najdorf, I had long concluded that if even top grandmasters stopped playing it because they don't want to be targets of insane computer preparation, then at amateur level it's an even worse idea. My image of Najdorf games is that Black spends 60‑70% of his time in the opening (I'm talking classical, mostly) just to figure out the details and not lose by move 15, then gets into time trouble and loses in the second half of the game, or if lucky, makes a very nervous and hard‑fought draw.

When I looked at the Najdorf as Black, the real reason I decided against it was 6.Bg5. I didn't want to play the Poisoned Pawn (then I'd really be better off with the Marshall, hah), and in 6...Nbd7, at the time, it seemed White was better everywhere.

The main e6 systems also didn't appeal to me at all. Today (as before), I still think 6...Nbd7 is the best move for Black.

When analysing the main tabiyas (for example this one):

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. Bc4 Qb6 8. Bb3 e6 9. Qd2 Be7 10. f3 Nc5

– I came to the conclusion a few years ago that White has a bunch of move orders (not necessarily Bc4, there's also Qe2, etc) that lead to Black just barely surviving, and Black's margin for error is extremely low. I found many ideas with material sacrifices and crazy attacks for White. It looked very, very scary for Black, as if the position could fall apart at any moment. So I gave up on the Najdorf.

In practice – I haven't played the Najdorf much in classical. But I almost always got winning positions. Every game followed the same script: I calculated a lot and heated up during the game. Slowly built an advantage and seized the initiative, while my opponent made average moves. By the end of the game, I was so tired that I made one‑move blunders in winning positions. (That can happen with any opening, but in the Najdorf I always throw away technically winning positions because I feel very tired after intense thinking early in the game.) In general, I find it very easy to get good positions from Sicilians, but for some reason I convert winning positions in 1...c5 much worse than winning positions in 1...e5 – at least that's my feeling. If I'm winning in an e5 game, I can usually just stay calm, but even with an extra piece in a c5 game (especially in blitz), my opponents always find counterplay against my weaknesses.

I am very afraid when my king is under attack. I'm not good at sharp tactical positions. So playing the Najdorf feels very, very scary. I've heard that you should do exactly what scares you, hah! Maybe the Sicilian will help me get rid of my weakest points. I love any anti‑Sicilian, and I'd be happy to play 1...c5 in every game if my opponents always played an anti‑Sicilian against me! In 1...e5, it makes me a bit sad when I've done my homework well and know my lines, and my opponent plays the Four Knights against me.

Currently, I'm considering these options (from most likely to least):

1. Switch to the Najdorf.

2. Сontinue playing 1...e5, answering the Spanish with the Archangel.

3. Continue playing 1...e5 and go into the Marshall (but I'm still unsure about specific Marshall lines).

4. Play the Sveshnikov directly via 2...Nc6.

5. Try to play the Four Knights Sicilian with 8...Bb7 and transpose to the Sveshnikov if White wants.

I would very much like to hear from players who have played (or play) any of the above! I'm especially interested in the experience of those who play or have played the Najdorf. Please share your personal experiences! How often, for example, do you get caught off guard and not allowed to leave the opening phase? I feel very nervous about playing the Najdorf in otb tournaments essentially, I'd have to "survive" the first phase of the game. Given that I'm an extremely slow player, that usually means I won't have time left to finish the game properly without obvious blunders.

I guess I would like to have something in my arsenal that could best be described as "high work, high reward". My main question: do you think the Najdorf is the one that fits this description best?

Thanks!

Looking for recommendations on difficult calculation books. I've recently managed to trudge through the Aagard Calculation book on the recommendation of everyone that gets asked about calculation books. For reference, im 2100 FIDE (closer to 2200 at this point). I don't mind books that don't have calculation as the main topic as long as there are difficult problems in the book, so any book that does that is welcome :)

Hey everyone, I’m a developer and a huge chess nerd, and I’m playing around with an idea for a new web tool.

I want to build a tool based on the available chess datasets to answer specific questions.

Examples of what you could search :

“What is the exact win rate of the Sicilian Defense in 1-minute bullet games for players rated between 2000-2100, played specifically in the year 2024?"

"In 2024, how often do 2000-rated players actually fall for the main trap in the Caro-Kann Advance variation in rapid games?"

“Show me the top 5 most successful responses to 1.e4 for 1200-rated players in bullet chess."

My Questions for You:

If this existed as a clean, simple website, would you use it for your own opening prep?

Are existing free tools already "good enough" for your level, making this unnecessary?

What specific filters or stats do you wish you could see in current opening explorers?

Would love some brutally honest feedback before I start building.

Thanks!