I’ve started relearning chess. I’d forgotten so much. It’s going to be awhile before I can ask @glee for a study game That’s a very kind offer
I have taught young pupils the way to win King, Bishop + Knight v King (as stated, a maximum of 33 moves.)
Computers have produced amazing results for lengthy forced wins in pawnless endings e.g.
King, Rook + Bishop v King, Knight + Knight can take 223 moves
Buy now whilst stocks last! 
My Dad taught me when I was ~8yo. I have no idea of special openings or moves. Fork or whatever.
I did start playing against the computer about 20 years ago. I’d do it in the airport when waiting for a flight.
My wife got interested in this and asked me how to play. I did. I taught her. It took ~100 games for her to beat me. She is… competitive. An IronMan. But she did it.
We now play about 15 games a week.
We have played about 2000 games since. And like it very much. It’s a social interaction. We have a travel chess board and it goes where ever we do. We are the odd people playing chess by the pool.
Keeps the brain working. Better than TV.
This is perhaps interesting - I’m a GIS guy. Spatial analysis. Chess is strategy, but also very, very spatial. That’s been my job for 35 years. It gives me an edge.
Chess is also patience. Lose a piece, if you have a perfect attack, wait for your opponent to allow you to make that attack.
Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.
Or as Kasparov said, the winner of a game of chess is the player who makes the second-to-last mistake.
Keeping in mind, of course, that Kasparov’s mistakes are still much better moves than most of us make.
No idea if this is of any use in learning how to play chess.
But it is a fun chess puzzle with new ones posted every day.
I can’t see how it would be.
I’ve very proud of my wife. She has become quite good.
What she does do is make unexpected moves that often interrupts, or completely changes any plans I’m making. Good on her part. I often can’t figure out if it’s a plan or not. Uhhh. What??
She’s only played for ~5 years.
I have gotten my Wife to stop playing defense all the time. That’s a losing game. Get that power out there.
She is very good with her pawns but leaves the power behind.
I’m very good at making a distraction, willing to lose a powerful piece and setting up a check mate.
You only need one or two pieces in the right spot.
In any case, it’s very fun. Classic rock and a few beers.
I sort of have to agree. It’s a very complex game. Rarely will you ever see the same set up.
Though after teaching my wife, she does see certain attacks I make. And blocks them.
Chess.com sets you up with people at the same skill level as you. From all over the world. Or play the computer, or play a puzzle. It will analyze it and tell you what you should have done.
And when my wife and I are away from each other, we can play a game or three online.
I was very proud of myself when I beat someone from Russia. But who knows, they may have just started playing.
Ok for you chess players out there… Or not really…
Watch the short series ‘Queens Gambit’ it’s great.
I’ve had the computer tell me I made a bad move when it was a move that actually led to imminent victory. Maybe it’s thinking further ahead to a different part to victory, I dunno, but I’m sure MOST of the time it knows its shit. I’m not very good. I am bad, to be honest, though part of the problem on Chess.com is that I really, really struggle to play on a screen to an extent I don’t at a real board. I’m talking 500, 600 points of rating different.
A forced victory, or victory because the opponent also didn’t play the best move? If it was forced, then it would still be a mistake if there was a faster mate.
All quality chess play involves:
- finding some good-looking moves to play next
- analysing each proposed move to see how it turns out
- picking the best move
At first you’re just checking to see if your proposed move is a blunder (good idea )
As you get better at chess, you can see slightly further ahead.
When my ELO was around 2300, I tried to see 4-6 moves ahead (i.e. 2-3 of mine and 2-3 of the opponent) for each proposed move.
I wasn’t always successful 
, but did well enough.
Interestingly, if I did predict say 4 moves ahead accurately, it almost always meant I was winning. 
And if my opponent came up with an unexpected move (that I had rejected), it almost always meant I was losing.
To continue.
- If you have a good plan, you don’t have to stick with it.
- Always have a backup plan
- Losing a piece not developed is a good way to make plan one work. Draw them off with something like an easy Knight or Bishop that is not involved in your plan. Let them take it. It’s a bluff and may get them to move that one critical piece you need out of the way.
I bluff quite a bit in chess. Get their attention away from the real game.
Also. Allow yourself to retreat from the first plan. A castle does this of course. If you can grab a piece of your opponents on the retreat all the better. Pick up that pawn. That can distract your opponent.
Unfortunately I think that bluffing only works against inexperienced opponents!
Chess is a full information game (unlike poker, for example), so an opponent can see through your bluff.
It’s best to try to play good moves throughout the game…
Of course it’s good if you understand the purpose of your moves but your opponent doesn’t… but the only way to do that is to have a better understanding of the game than they do, and that tends to lead to wins anyway.
Which can be distractions, that they must deal with.
Once players reach a certain standard, there aren’t really ‘distractions’. There are just moves that one player has overlooked…
And that level is actually pretty low. I’m like 1300 on chess.com and gambits are already kinda rare, even the book ones.
You don’t have to stick to a plan, but if it is good, and working, beware of moves that look advantageous but distract from the plan, don’t jump from plan to plan. And don’t make moves because its something you “ought to do”
“Castle because you must, castle because you will, but don’t just castle because you can.”
Always have contingencies, but your opponent gets a vote on your plans. Playing the game so you have a lot of options often leads to positions in which you have none.
To “lose a piece” deliberately, which is called a gambit if it is in the opening or a sacrifice or “sac” later in the game, requires a level of play that allows an understanding of the strategic value of a sacrifice. I would suggest reading Spielmann’s The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. Its a discussion of the “why” of sacrifice, not a compendium of tricks and traps. It was revelatory to me when I read it as a ~1700 player and I credit it with allowing me to “level up” to about 1900, but wouldn’t have been useful before then (I was all tactics, no strategy).
Agree. But, if you don’t really have a good move because your opponent is in the way. Castle. It’s also a good way to help develop another rook, and hope your opponent will make a mistake.
My wife and I have a typical night of three games of chess and one game of cribbage. I do better at chess because of my spatial background (GIS) my wife does better at cribbage because of her numbers background (property appraiser). That is my belief anyway.
Cribbage involves skill but luck as well. Perhaps my wife is better at predicting the numbers and the odds of what will show up.