Esoteric Wisdom of the Ancient Bughouse Masters

Theory

Bughouse is far too chaotic for theory to play the role that it does in standard chess. In standard chess, theory may proceed for thirty or more moves. This is possible because there are no external factors, such as a possible Knight and Queen drop before move five. After the moves 1.d4 N@e4, White would be unwise to continue playing "theory", here.

2.Nf3 would invite 2...Nxf2 and if White plays 3.Kxf2, the whole game is virtually decided by chance--will a Black Knight and pawn be coming from the other board? Chance should only be introduced when you are at a disadvantage of skill--when you need to throw things off course. 

A better move for White would be 2.B@d5.

This move threatens both the Knight and the f7 square. And if Black continues with 2..Nxf2, White plays 3.Bxf7+, and while both Kings are uncomfortable, it is Black's King who is compelled to capture, and so White has some initiative. 

Alternatively, if Black tries 1.N@g4, White can hope for B@h5, which has the same idea. Black probably should go 2.N8h6, defending g4 and f7. 

Style

Many players think of themselves as having a style, and enjoy categorizing players accordingly. But the notion of "style" frequently leads to rigid thinking. Some of the usual stylistic judgments are.

• I'm an attacker who needs lots of trades.
• I'm a fast player who must make a lot of premoves.
• I'm "chessy" and I like to get ahead on time and use my endgame technique to win.
• I'm materialistic and I like to take free pieces. 
• I'm "positional" and so I must always avoid open games.
• I'm "tactical" so I must always avoid closed games.

It's not so hard to see what the pitfalls for all of these "styles" is. Usually it involves asking for unreasonably high feed, or asking for impossibly low feed. Many players premove the same openings and get killed by a low-risk anti-premove, such as the following.

The pitfall is essentially always the same--not addressing the needs of the position, or of a match scenario. Style is only possible when there is strength. Some moves are just bad. Take, for example, a common trap. 

"

Bg4 is at best, unduly risky. It begs for a sacrifice on f7.

On the surface, Bg4 has a lot going for it. It develops a piece, restricts the movement of White's Knight. Refraining from castling is frequently advisable. But it fails for tactical reasons here. Black should either play 6...B@h5 (defending f7 without giving up the c8 bishop, which is an important defender of the light squares) or 6...0-0. A defender of 6..Bg4 might respond by saying that Black is only in trouble if too many pieces come. But this response is inadequate. There is such a thing as reasonable flow--less than an entire army, but more than a pawn and a minor piece, and because Black lost both time, king safety, and light square control, in this line, Black is hurt by even less than reasonable flow. The fact that Black's partner has a Queen is irrelevant unless it is close to mating, since the Queen cannot be given back, and Black's partner is playing under more constraints and with fewer resources. Frequently Black's partner is forced to do unnatural things to their position just to hold certain pieces. Lines which force your partner to contort themselves to hold pieces are probably worth avoiding. 

Let's take another "stylistic" position. 

White pins the pawn on c6, and poses Black some difficult problems. But if Black gets an early Knight, it gets dropped on d4, and White is either passive or losing the Queen for little to no compensation. White's scheme of development, moving the Bishop and Queen, leaves both g2 and c2 weak. Not playing Nf3 means that Knight drops on d4 and h4 are annoying for White. I consider this early Queen move a paradigmatic case of bad strategy. In fact the best explanation comes not from chess, but from a Go proverb: don't go fishing when your house is on fire. 5.Qf3 does exactly that. Even if White gets what they want, which is something like the following...

...the resulting position is still not great, since White is still somewhat vulnerable. Both of the diagrammed positions with 6...Bg4 and 5.Qf3 are inadvisable unless they are executed with the greatest speed, since in bughouse the distinction between speed and move quality is somewhat blurry, and a bad or dubious move can be playable or even good if executed quickly, and if the team in question has uniformity of purpose. But even if a move like 5.Qf3 is playable with great speed, that same speed would be better spent on other more solid lines. White's only active piece is the Queen. 

It's true that these criticisms are guided by stylistic considerations also. The styles you can see are influenced by the style you have, and perhaps also by the sort of matches you get into. I prefer to stay flexible, to ask little from my partner. I will frequently stress that trades are nice, but not necessary. But here it is important not to be "bewitched by language". The word "style" can be misleading. Stylistic differences can only exist between viable alternatives. The difference between 1.e4 and 1.d4 is stylistic. The difference between 1.e4 and 1.h4 is not a difference of style. And so we should distinguish between style and "style".

Sometimes it is possible (and fun) to exploit such obsession with style. It's especially likely to happen against players who have little stylistic variance. They are always trying to attack, or always trying to win material. Style can give players a sense of identity and importance, but often it's just an exploitable weakness, and the procedure is often obvious. If you are playing diagonally from a player stuck on "style", they can be dead lost and not know why. Sometimes it's possible to pull this off against a team which is stronger on both boards, leaving the other team a bit confused--but it's just a loophole. 

• Playing diagonally from sac sitters, trade low. 
• Playing diagonally from materialists, trade high. 
• Playing against fast players, make mental notes of their premoves.
• Play openings your opponents don't like. 

Players who think of themselves as "chessy" frequently overestimate the need to chess, sometimes going through convoluted maneuvers in order to win a rook ending when the partner can just take a piece that mates instantly. Sometimes they ask their partners to sit at awkward times, leaving the partner unsure of how to proceed once they are told "go". I haven't figured out how to exploit this--players tend to inflict it on themselves. But it is good to be aware of it and to avoid it--always take the simplest win. 

I used to think of myself as a positional player. And with this blinker on, I would go into the following sort of line. 

Black is probably already slightly better here, with more active minor pieces. White has conceded too much in an attempt to keep the position closed. But there's a much better way for White to get a d4 setup or something better. I can only blame my obsession with style for my two year long failure to see this.

The idea that some players are purely positional might just mean that they are bad at tactics. But no strong player can neglect either positional or tactical play. If you are bad at either, it is better to work on those aspects, rather than trying to impose a style on a position where it doesn't fit. 

a3 is not a bad move to play in general. But it would not work so well if players did not repeat the same systems. I'll show one where I was anti-premoved, and it's far worse than the previous two examples. Needless to say, my opponent observed me carefully over a few encounters and realized I was premoving a bit too much, and craftily punished me for it. 

It does not really make sense to prohibit premoves, even risky ones. Ideally one premoves only when it cannot go wrong, but since bughouse skill depends on speed, players need to save time where they can. Time is a commodity just like material. But variability helps here. 

It can be very helpful to be completely outplayed in one of your pet systems. Sooner or later, the best thing to do is to stop looking for improvements, and just to change to something else. Most of the top players in bughouse play both 1.e4 and 1.d4 with White. Some even play fianchetto systems. They also vary within these opening choices. You can slow down your opponents over games with variance, and you will be less vulnerable. It is helpful to think about bughouse globally not only over two boards, but over long time frames, such as a match series. 

The opening most players fear seems to be 1.e4 e5. They dislike the volatility of the positions. And I suspect that they dislike the long forcing lines which reduce the scope for choice and for individuality. But 1.e4 e5 is worth playing, even if only to give you more variability. And there are always more options and resources in the resulting positions than anyone realizes. 

Real Style

In the theory section we could have eliminated theory, or enlarged the notion to include more relevant factors. In general I find the second option better. If I were to divide players stylistically, I would do it according to the following criteria, which can be mixed and matched according to the player. 

• Materialism  does the player spend pieces, hunt them with the King, or something in between? 
• Speed/move quality how much time is invested in finding strong and sometimes non-routine moves? 
• Variance/consistency how often does the player vary their openings and other aspects of their game?
• Tactical/positional  does the player go for forcing or non-forcing lines? 
• Risk/safety the most relevant risks are with going into time scrambles, and with King safety. 
• Drop reliance/chess this one favors strong chess players--they have skills that simple bughouse players don't have. Some players mate slowly up a Queen, others convert slightly better endgame positions with great speed. 
• Flexibility does the player do well with different kinds of piece flow? Can the player retreat safely when attacked, or do they only know how to press forward?
• Global/local awareness Bughouse is played not only on two boards, but between two boards, and often over time. 

Variance does not only apply to openings. Frequently strong players will say "I am sac sitting too much". Often when players are struggling to achieve a 2000 rating, it's because they only know aggression. Although sometimes it is important to sac sit more. For instance, suppose the following occurs on your partner's board. 

You would be unwise not to sac sit if this is the sort of flow coming to your board. And if you know this sort of thing is going to happen, then you can try for Nxf7 before your opponent has castled. As Black, it can be hard to hold the flow. In that situation, it helps to have a partner who can play assertively with White. 

The criteria I give in this section lead to a certain messiness, but then bughouse is a messy game. And if the messy criteria matches the messiness of the game, then describing the player's styles will be neater and more accurate--and most useful--with more criteria, you will not leave out important aspects of your opponent's style, if he or she even has one. 

Don't mind the clickbaity title--and don't take it seriously. Really this post was about revising some of my older posts (or explaining why they no longer exist). I've learned a few things since those posts. Hopefully there are some useful things to think about.