# Why do I suck at chess? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 19, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455 "2012-11-19T00:38:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/41 "2012-11-20T17:24:46Z")
Novice Nook looks awesome. [Here is the link](http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice%20Nook) in case any others are interested. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/42 "2012-11-20T17:29:13Z")
Personally I like the idea of working backwards. Starting from games where a mate is available in a few moves. I think it would be a lot easier to play if I had some idea what kind of board setup I was trying to accomplish instead of re-analyzing on every move starting from the opening. Knowing the opening moves won’t help much if I don’t know what they can lead to. (from the point of view of someone who doesn’t really know anything except how the pieces move) ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/43 "2012-11-20T19:24:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Wrong. You would be starting the game from a well established position. A position that a beginner might not have been able to establish on their own. > > Since “Nonsuch” already knows the basic movement of the pieces and specifically asked how to put that knowledge INTO PRACTICE, I see no reason why he should not study the moves of the masters. Studying the commonly used openings would also allow him to better comprehend how to coordinate all of his pieces into a solid attack or defense. Why did Nimzo(witch) use a particular opening and how did he benefit from it would make for a good case study. > > “Nonsuch” didn’t ask how to beat a particular opponent in a particular game but to understand the strategies involved in the game. And that’s just what he won’t get by trying rote memorisation of an opening like the Nimzo-Indian - or, still worse, the Sicilian - to twenty ply deep. A thorough reading of _My System_ would grant him a far better understanding of Nimzowitch’s ideas than any amount of opening study. There’s nothing so useless to a beginner as a well-established position that he doesn’t know how to handle. If someone can’t articulate why the Nimzo aims to control e4 with the Nf6 and the Bishop b4 pinning the Nc3 - or why he might prefer such a system to occupying the centre with pawns - then it’s not going to benefit him being dropped off twenty moves deep with the helpful hint that current opening theory makes this line about 53% for Black. No. First grasp the basics of strategy and tactics, learn how to win material, learn _why_ not to lose material, learn how to win simple pawnless endings, learn when K&P beats bare King and when it doesn’t, learn how to win Rook and Pawn endings (because they come up so often), learn why centre control is important, learn not to _lose_ games by sheer laziness or stupidity (which besets us all) and then, when the OP is already playing to fair club standard on a regular basis, it will be worth studying some openings. And not before. > [@borchevsky](#): > > It doesn’t hurt to know some common strategies. However, a distinction should be made between opening strategies and opening theory. It’s very useful to know the common types of plans in different situations, but it’s much less useful, especially at novice level, to know specific opening lines to any real depth. This, a thousand times this! ---
**Author:** ![K364](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k364/32/5_2.png) [@K364](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K364)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/44 "2012-11-20T20:10:50Z")
You can do all the book-larnin’ you want, but in a real game it will be all ruined by stupid blunders. Even advanced players will start by looking a move and a half ahead: Your opponent has moved a piece: - what squares and pieces is it attacking? - what squares and pieces have been left undefended by the move? - is it a tactical move? what is it threatening on the next move? - is it a development move? what can be done to limit/counter the developed piece? You are considering moving a piece: - can your piece be captured or pinned? - can your piece be attacked immediately, and do you have a response to that? - what squares/pieces will be left undefended by the move? ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/45 "2012-11-20T20:28:32Z")
I also suck at chess, but found working through a checklist like **K364’s** makes me suck slightly less. The only step I’d add to both is looking at the Kings. Does my opponent’s move expose his king or threaten mine? Are any pieces now pinnable/pinned against a king? Is a fork possible now? Methodically working through the checklist has cut down my stupid blunders quite a lot (over 50% I’d say). My major weakness now is tunnel vision - I’m so wrapped up in my own cunning plan I often fail to notice what my opponent is doing. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/46 "2012-11-20T22:01:02Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > And that’s just what he won’t get by trying rote memorisation of an opening like the Nimzo-Indian - or, still worse, the Sicilian - to twenty ply deep. A thorough reading of _My System_ would grant him a far better understanding of Nimzowitch’s ideas than any amount of opening study. There’s nothing so useless to a beginner as a well-established position that he doesn’t know how to handle. If someone can’t articulate why the Nimzo aims to control e4 with the Nf6 and the Bishop b4 pinning the Nc3 - or why he might prefer such a system to occupying the centre with pawns - then it’s not going to benefit him being dropped off twenty moves deep with the helpful hint that current opening theory makes this line about 53% for Black. > > No. First grasp the basics of strategy and tactics, learn how to win material, learn _why_ not to lose material, learn how to win simple pawnless endings, learn when K&P beats bare King and when it doesn’t, learn how to win Rook and Pawn endings (because they come up so often), learn why centre control is important, learn not to _lose_ games by sheer laziness or stupidity (which besets us all) and then, when the OP is already playing to fair club standard on a regular basis, it will be worth studying some openings. **And not before**. Ah-ha. I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. I’m not suggesting that a player can get by “only” with rote memorisation. Knowing openings are a useful tool but not by themselves. So are middle games and end games. Studying how the masters and better players use those openings should lead to a better understanding of why some pieces are used in groups and when. Why start with those two particular pawns and a knight? Why hide a rook behind a bishop? Why castle at that particular point in the game? Why not castle later? So how is remembering what you’re learned, including openings, become a bad thing? How dare someone attempt to learn this game without your permission. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/47 "2012-11-20T23:24:04Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > So how is remembering what you’re learned, including openings, become a bad thing? How dare someone attempt to learn this game without your permission. Any person can learn whatever the hell they like. But some things will be more useful to a beginner than others. I wouldn’t teach a beginner about triangulation for example. Similarly, learning opening books is unlikely to improve a relative novice’s win rate, plus they’ll likely find it boring and frustrating. And drop the whole “Well excuse me for trying to help”. No-one’s been tough on you, people have simply disagreed and given reasons why. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/48 "2012-11-21T01:32:39Z")
It’s irrelevant whether it’s beneficial to memorize an opening to 30 moves, because beneficial or not, it’s impossible. If we assume that every move has 2 or 3 viable responses, and further take “30 moves” to mean “30 ply” (that is, 15 moves by each player), then you’d have to memorize somewhere between 2^15 and 3^15 different lines. This is already too much for any human to memorize, and it just gets worse if we increase the number of viable responses, or if your opponent throws in a less-viable move just to knock you out of your book. As for starting from a “well-established position”, there is no position that’s more well-established than the position at the start of the game. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/49 "2012-11-21T04:17:07Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > **Any person can learn whatever the hell they like**. > > But some things will be more useful to a beginner than others. I wouldn’t teach a beginner about triangulation for example. > > Similarly, learning opening books is unlikely to improve a relative novice’s win rate, plus they’ll likely find it boring and frustrating. Lol. Not according to “Malacandra”. Maybe you should re-read his referrence to “worst advice”. “Nonsuch” can take whatever advice he sees fit or chose to ignore it. His choice. I offered an option. You jump to the conclusion that “Nonsuch” will find books on openings to be boring and frustrating. I don’t know hiim that well. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/50 "2012-11-21T04:26:13Z")
My advice is to start with endgames not opening moves. Start with simple endings like queen and king vs king and learn how to force the mate. It’ll teach you basic principles. Try different combinations until you’ve got them mastered. Then make it little less simple - try things like queen and king vs rook and king. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/51 "2012-11-21T10:12:39Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You jump to the conclusion that “Nonsuch” will find books on openings to be boring and frustrating. I don’t know hiim that well. No; I said he’ll _likely_ find memorizing openings to be boring and frustrating (because most beginners do IME; boring because it’s just rote memorization and frustrating because it doesn’t improve a beginner’s win rate significantly). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/52 "2012-11-22T19:50:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Ah-ha. I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. I’m not suggesting that a player can get by “only” with rote memorisation. Knowing openings are a useful tool but not by themselves. So are middle games and end games. > > Studying how the masters and better players use those openings should lead to a better understanding of why some pieces are used in groups and when. Why start with those two particular pawns and a knight? Why hide a rook behind a bishop? Why castle at that particular point in the game? Why not castle later? > > So how is remembering what you’re learned, including openings, become a bad thing? How dare someone attempt to learn this game without your permission. Right, because I was insisting people seek my permission. :rolleyes: But meanwhile, make your mind up what point you’re making. A few posts ago you were arguing for beginners learning to play the first 20 or 30 moves from memory. Now you’re coming around to the idea that understanding middle games and end games is necessary too, and even redefining your stance on openings. I’ve no quarrel with aiming to understand the basic _principles_ of opening play - as already well outlined by other posters in this thread - but that’s very different from trying to memorise book lines 20 moves deep; especially in an opening as complex as the Sicilian…! @ **LittleNemo** - ironically, your “making things a little less difficult” example is one of the hardest in chess; K+Q v K+R is notoriously hard to play well. 🙂 But the basic idea is sound. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/53 "2012-11-23T04:47:34Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > @ **LittleNemo** - ironically, your “making things a little less difficult” example is one of the hardest in chess; K+Q v K+R is notoriously hard to play well. 🙂 But the basic idea is sound. But endgames are useful because they’re so focused. There’s only three or four pieces on the board and the goal has been reduced to checkmating the opposing king. A player learning the game doesn’t get overwhelmed by all the possiblities. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/54 "2012-11-23T06:28:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But endgames are useful because they’re so focused. There’s only three or four pieces on the board and the goal has been reduced to checkmating the opposing king. A player learning the game doesn’t get overwhelmed by all the possiblities. All very true. Even an ending like K + B + B v K is an excellent exercise in piece coordination, although unlikely to come up in practical play (it’s really unusual to reach an ending exactly two Bishops up with no pawns on the board!). ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/55 "2012-11-23T14:36:36Z")
Indeed it is - presumably there are endgame studies where the solution relies on an underpromotion to bishop, for example, which is only won because 2 bishops + king vs king alone is a win. Probably not a very interesting idea nowadays, but I’d be surprised if it hadn’t been done at some point, given the variety and ingenuity of endgame studies. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/56 "2012-11-23T15:16:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Indeed it is - presumably there are endgame studies where the solution relies on an underpromotion to bishop, for example, which is only won because 2 bishops + king vs king alone is a win. I’d doubt that, myself. The underpromotion could only be necessary if promotion to a queen would be immediate stalemate, which would require that the enemy king be far enough from the promoting piece that it wouldn’t be immediately checked, which would in turn mean that the advantaged player has an opportunity to twiddle pieces for a turn or two so the enemy king would get out of the instant-stalemate position. The waste of time doing so wouldn’t even be significant, since a queen endgame (especially with another piece offering support) is far quicker than a two bishops endgame. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/57 "2012-11-23T17:06:24Z")
One example that I know of: White: King a4, Knight e3 Black: King a2, Bishop f6, Pawn b2 White plays Nd1, threatening to take the pawn, so black’s only winning chance is to promote. But 1…b1=Q (or b1=R) 2.Nc3+ Bxc3 is stalemate. The only winning move is b1=B. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/58 "2012-11-23T17:50:55Z")
Hm, yeah, that would do it. The knight then forks the king and newly-promoted piece, so black must respond by either capturing the knight, or by giving up the promoted piece and being left with insufficient mating power. Though this is probably getting pretty far afield of the OP: Situations where underpromotion are optimal are so rare that it’ll probably never make a difference in actual play if you don’t know it’s even possible. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/59 "2012-11-23T18:50:11Z")
Yep. The reason underpromotions are popular in compositions is exactly because positions requiring them are so rare. Incidentally, there is a similar thing to be aware of when studying master games (to get back to the OP a bit). Often such games are selected for publication because they’re unusual, which makes them interesting but maybe not as useful for a novice trying to learn principles. Of course there are many famous games that show expert execution of basic principles as well. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455/60 "2012-11-23T20:49:05Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > One example that I know of: > > White: King a4, Knight e3 > Black: King a2, Bishop f6, Pawn b2 > > White plays Nd1, threatening to take the pawn, so black’s only winning chance is to promote. But 1…b1=Q (or b1=R) 2.Nc3+ Bxc3 is stalemate. The only winning move is b1=B. Heh. Whereupon Black wins in 70 (!) with best play. I guess K + B + B vs K + N is a quoted exception to the 50-move rule? (And I for one would not have a clue how to win without a tablebase.) eta: Black could also underpromote to Knight, but K + B + N don’t beat K + N with best play. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-i-suck-at-chess/641455.md?page=4)