All 101 Reasons I Hate Chess

This is all about love and hate. And where they intersect in my chess. And sometimes bisect.

We won't talk about everything chess. But we will give brief shoutouts to the following: Players; Bloggers; Streamers; Game Ending Conclusions; How to Improve at Chess; The Pieces; Openings; Endings; Variants that use a Standard Board; Variants that use Nonstandard Boards; and finish with Clocks and Time Controls. 

If you hated that each element of the blog series kept you on the hook for the next publication, here's everything, everywhere, all at once. Not to be confused with the Academy Award-winning movie. Plus, you can see my Bottom Ten List at, you guessed it, the bottom. What makes your bottom ten list? Think about it while you're scrolling through.

The Players
1. Computer-assisted cheaters 
We usually can't tell who they are. Though it's fun to scan your archive once in a while and see who got banned for unfair play and you just had a feeling that they were getting outside assistance. Thankfully, chess.com can spot them! Even better, chess.com can restore any lost rating points! For a more sarcastic look at cheating, both old school and new, I'll refer you to my blogs How to Cheat...at Chess and How to Cheat at Chess: Today's Tawdry Tricks to Tomorrow's Taunting Truths, both posted earlier this year.

2. Abusers 
In particular, I'd like to point out the people who lose a series of games to you. Then win once because of a mouse slip, poor time management, simple distraction (e.g., a 120-pound mastiff who thinks they are still a lap dog), or sheer boredom on your part. And only then do they ask to chat so that they can pour scorn upon you. Thank goodness for reporting and blocking!

3. Losers who quit moving 
A brief message to those folks. Were you realistically expecting to win by seeing if I had the patience to stare at a position on the board for three minutes in a blitz game? Did you honestly think I'd lose patience and abandon the game, thereby losing, because you sat there for three minutes while your clock ticked down to almost zero before you finally mouse-clicked for the final time? Don't you know I can open other tabs and windows and amuse myself while letting your clock dwindle to zero? Besides, it was obvious you should have resigned or just made some random move and accepted mate upon receipt of my next move. Or were you hoping chess.com would create a "Sore Loser" badge, and you wanted to be first in line? Note that this particular poor sport may not have faced a threat of mate but may have simply realized they were about to lose material and be a Queen, or the piece/pieces of your choice, behind and attempted the same strategy.

4. Sandbaggers 101: Rating manipulation to get a higher rating 
I've played a few 2500+ rated players on chess.com who didn't seem to be very good. In some cases, they were just having a bad game. Happens to everybody. In instances...well, a little research in their game archives of three distinct accounts led me to realize why they weren't very good. In each case, they opened three or more accounts at the same time on the site with usernames that were all slight variations of the same username. Then a series of round-robin games were played amongst those accounts. And the primary account, the one that "earned" the highest inflated, fictional rating, always beats the extra accounts to balloon the rating of that primary username. Then the extra accounts were closed. And then the primary user played only unrated games. And proceeds to accuse people who beat them of using assistance. Yeah, right.

5. Sandbaggers 201: Ratings manipulation to get a lower rating 
I know they're out there. People who purposely lose a large number of games so they can compete for prizes against those who are objectively their inferiors. And then win prizes. It's been a while since I encountered this particular misfit. My encounters were always in OTB tournaments. I assume the same treacherous behavior has crept into certain online events as well.

6. Winners who run 
A particular pet peeve of several folks I know. I get it. Someone clearly inferior to you wins a game by some misfortune on your part, whether a distracting phone call, a surprise visit by a pet (cat on the keyboard, anyone?), an intrusive family member, or the hated mouse slip. Then the better-lucky-than-good victor doesn't offer you a return match. On the other hand, they could have had to run off for valid reasons. So, this one is a double-edged call. Life happens sometimes. Still sucks though. So, I am including this category. With mild reluctance since it could simply have been circumstance or habit that prevented a rematch offer. With apologies to those of my friends who get extremely fired up on this topic.

The Bloggers
7. The Spammers 
Those wonderful humans, presumably, who post five to ten blogs in a matter of seconds on the "All Blogs" page. Frequently each blog includes the following: the same title; some simplistic thumbnail image that is repeated ad nauseam; and a few nonsense characters, often less than ten characters, in the main body of the blog.  Not words, just random characters. And their aimless creations clutter up the All Blogs page when I'm trying to see what others have posted for the day. I don't know. Maybe it's performance art? But it seems fairly Foxtrot Uniform to me.

8. Great thumbnails
Pure jealousy on my part, the green-eyed devil peering out from a mental cage. I briefly try to eat my heart out when I see one...puzzling all the while over where and how that phrase could have originated. Some kind of zombie reference? I thought their protein of choice was brains, not hearts. And with that reminder about brains, when I see a great thumbnail, and I'm not talking about a manicure and stylish choice of nail polish, I then try to learn a new trick from whatever thumbnail just earned my full appreciation. After all, stupid is easy. But thinking is hard. So, every once in a while, I put some effort into trying to think. Until I can smell the word burning in my sawdust-filled head. But I still have to ask. How do you get a picture of a board dead center in the middle of a paragraph of text that surrounds the picture??

9. The time I invest in writing blogs
I could be...well, actually, in what possible way could I be making better use of my time? Some might argue I should stick to writing chess books. Certainly, a better return on the time invested one might argue. Except I happen to know, as the author, that my blogs and chess books feed off each other. Not in any kinky kind of way mind you. More synergy than sin. And no zombie cannibalism either.

10. Blogs that are too long
Like this one.  I started out intending to create a short list of love-hate statements and ended up with a novelette. I do tend to blather on. Ten mea culpas and one rosary for me. 

The Streamers
11. The Great Ones (Hikaru, GothamChess, the Botez sisters, et al)
 Again, pure jealousy on my part, though a slightly different type of green-eyed devil. I'm not camera-ready on my best days and have always found that I can chatter patter glibly for an hour...and then I am done for the day. Perhaps done for an entire week. So, I would NOT be a good streamer. In my opinion. That does not mean I cannot be jealous of those who do not suffer from my inabilities.

12. The time I spend watching streamers
Well...technically, I am retired. So, I probably shouldn't worry about the "lost" hours spent binging on various chess streams. Okay, superego, cancel that order of self-hatred. I love myself and I'm very special...in some way that isn't readily apparent at this time.|

Game Ending Conclusions
13. Loss on time
Yeah, that's me. I'd like to blame it on internet lag time or wireless mouse lag. But the truth is I often spend too much time thinking about a beautiful attack only to suddenly realize my opponent has two minutes more than me on the clock and my would-be initiative is no better than theirs. That's a recipe for failure.☠️

14. Draw - Insufficient Material
Talk about your love-hate relationship. I can't count the number of times I've "saved" a draw by capturing my opponent's last piece, just before my clock expired. Sure, I didn't lose because I eliminated that last, mangy pawn before my clock ran out. But I was up a Queen and who knows how much else material. Well, I know. Argghhhh! And not a pirate's call to rum! Just a stupefying realization that I am too slow at blitz.☠️

15. Checkmate
Hey! Hey!! The fans actually want to see checkmates appear on the board!!! Titled players are so rude, always ignoring the fans wishes.

16. Stalemate
Well...it's good if I was on the losing side. Frustrating yet humorous if I was winning in a blitz game and got caught delivering stalemate during a time crunch. It's better than losing, I guess. But it would be gut wrenching at a rapid or slow time control.  That hasn't happened yet, so perhaps I should quit now before that particular, inevitable catastrophe enters my oeuvre.

17. Perpetuals
See stalemate. That said, there are some beautiful perpetuals that don't involve the King. Ahh...almost as good as a cup of hot coffee on an oh-dark-thirty, cold winter's morning in the woods.

18. Mouse slip
Eek, that hurts. ☠️ If you haven't been there, you ain't playin' enuff online games. 'Nuff said.

19. Pre-moves that fail
Sigh. And again. Some pre-moves are safe. But I'd say I lose a couple games a month with thoughtless pre-moves that don't account for the fact my opponent could do something else.

20-21. Zugzwang
20. First, it just hurts my head. "The laws of Chess do not permit a free choice: you have to move whether you like it or not", Emanuel Lasker. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Got it. But given the laws of chess, what is this stuff and nonsense about losing material or making positional concessions whether I move or don't?

21. Second, the experts disagree about what constitutes a "real" zugzwang. So, I've created the term zugzwang light. It sounds like a light beer in that it offers fewer expectations. But the truth is, it's easier to swallow. At least for me. It admits that sometimes one side has a piece that can shuffle around meaninglessly, but to no more effect than not being able to move at all. Meanwhile the other side slowly improves. Zugzwang light is actually more painful than a pure zugzwang. In the pure case you have to concede something immediately. In the not-so-lighthearted case you are forced to watch the other side slowly make inroads, like some ephemeral staph infection that slowly eats at your soul.

Here's a very short puzzle to test your ability to create a lighter version of zugzwang. Drink up, me hearties! 

Here's an example of a pure zugzwang where the opponent has to make immediate concessions, offered as a puzzle. Even a zugzwang-dolt like me managed to spot this one. Of course, that is probably because I'd seen a very similar example the week before in a game between GMs.

How to Improve at Chess

22-25. Opening Books
22. Sheer Volume - Why, why, why are there so many opening books? I suspect at least one new opening book is published daily, and that is just in English. Can't we just go all alpha-Zero and push the h-pawn two squares on the first move? Preparing to promote from that outside passing lane. Surely Simon Williams, aka the GingerGM, would approve.

23. Updates - Then there is the continuing flurry of updates, revisions, software updates, videos and authors who promise that if you forget about memorizing variations and focus on thematic ideas your forces will inevitably carry the day. As long as you buy whatever snake oil they are selling that day.

24. Trust Me - Each author promises that their work is the end all and be all of existence. That your enemies shall cower before your mental might and your followers shall heap praise upon thy victories, scatter rose petals before your path, and shower you with bitcoins. You shall be anointed with scented unguents and crowned with a wreath made with wild-olive leaves from a sacred tree. Riiiigghhhhtt.

25. An Unfortunate Truth - Sorry, folks. Between the opening and the end of the game comes all the important stuff. In the opening phase, you will occasionally benefit from an opponent slipping into a trap. But given that people of similar skills have access to the same materials and methods as you, what are the odds that your fifth, tenth, or fiftieth opening book will make a huge difference?

26-27. Middlegame Books
26. Sheer Volume...Again - Oh my. The sheer number of topics. Does anyone realistically have the time to read every book on all the following topics: pawn structures; mating patterns; thematic middle game ideas in your opening repertoire; classic games that illustrate a thematic concept such as prophylaxis or control of space or key squares; when to make an Exchange sacrifice for positional consideration instead of tactical considerations; what GM Suba means when he talks about "energy"; whether or not Bobby Fischer's "sac, sac, sac, mate" really demolishes the Dragon Sicilian; which gambits are sound, a bit queasy or pure gaslighting; and so forth. You get the point. The real question is, how do titled players do all that????

27. Not so Ageless - Books published before 2000, possibly as recently as 2010, are now all accused of failing objectively as computers spit upon the analyses of the analysts. Sigh. So, perforce, it is determined that I must hate all those books? Even though I am usually playing humans and not computers...as far as I know. Barring chess.com's bots of the month...except for that one that is always rated over 2600. Shouldn't what's good enough for humans still be good enough for us? Or must we drink only of the honeyed, yet silicon-tainted, evaluations of computer science and computer engineering? The worst part is I have degrees in both those majors. Sigh.

28-29. Endgame Books 
28. What's Missing? - I frequently ask myself why nobody has provided a list of, "Here are the endgame books you need at each level of proficiency." (Actually, I suspect Chess University has produced such a list.)  Further, IM Silman has an endgame book that indicates which endgames you absolutely must know at each proficiency level. And he defined proficiency by FIDE ratings. Stopping at around 2000 FIDE if I remember correctly...I have not looked at his book in 5-10 years so am going on cloudy memories. But where's a simple list, in a blog, that offers reasoned opinions on which book(s) at each level and why. In two pages or less. Is that too little to ask for? Meanwhile, with the recent FIDE adjustment to ratings, how relevant are his recommendations that were based on rating?

29. My Ultimate Love-Hate Endgame Manual - So easy that it's impossible. I love and hate Dvoretzky's Endgame Manual. It stretches my mind, in much the same way as Douglas Hofstadter's book Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid scoured and renewed my synapses back in the 1980s.

Just one lagoon in an ocean if you were thinking of boiling the whole thing.

30. Study the games of the greats
Oh. That sounds like a reasonable piece of advice. Beware, pilgrim. You're talking about a lot of games. And even more games if you use the data that can be found at Chess Database with Master Chess Games - Chess.com. If you insist on taking a stab at some piece of this, then pick your favorite two or three players. I started with Morphy and went through every world champion until Alekhine. I'm about halfway through all his games. Beware. It's a habit-forming hobby that may not offer the best use of your time.

Authors
31-32. IM Silman and IM Lakdawala
 Love-hate earns them both a green-eyed devil named Jealousy. Their works are the bane of and the inspiration for my chess writing existence. They've written about everything chess. I've bought books that I didn't need, but their writing was so good I got the book anyway. Is there a category for throwing good money after great stuff? Anyway, my complaint is that their writing is so good that it was a constant background theme when writing my first and second chess books. Is this good enough to at least be in the same library as their stuff? Not on the same shelf, just allowed in the door.

By the way, if you expand the view enough and peer at the bottom of the pages of the book, you will find some devilish twists on the names of these hall-of-fame authors. 

33. GM Sokolov
Wow. Talk about bruising my brain. For a while, I always carried a book of his with me on flights where I was not the pilot. Or when I was on road trips. Or sitting in some office for the seemingly mandatory hour before a scheduled appointment time. And my magnetic chess set has long since disappeared. So, when going through one of his analytic variations I often had to push my short-term memory far past its tenuous limits. Sure, I know that's "good for me." But what a pain!

34. IM John Watson
I knew John back in the day when he was one of the three masters in Colorado, USA. A great guy who ran chess tournaments on weekends and played blitz against the up-and-comers who were a few years younger than him. Little was I to know that a half-century later I'd be awarding him a green-eyed jealousy monster for his chess achievements. John earned the US and British Chess Federation "Book of the Year" awards for his classic Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. And has penned other fantastic works. Yes, paint me envious.

35. All the other great chess writers
I'll start with Greco and Philidor, move on to Steinitz and Lasker, Capablanca, Romanovsky, Bronstein, Pachman, Nunn, Soltis, Kasparov, and skip over many prominent authors to stop with GM Mauricio Flores Rios. I consider his Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide to be a masterpiece, particularly for players looking to develop an opening repertoire that fits together. All of you earn a green-eyed devil.

36-37. Writing your own chess book
36. You can read about my painful growth experiences at Secrets of Trapping Pieces: My Experience Writing a Chess Book and My Experiences Writing a Second Book – "Secrets of Trapping Pieces: Foundations". Six months and a labor of love is far more hateful work than I expected. Only to be exceeded with the second book. Then again, it has twice as many puzzles and more than fifty, fully annotated illustrative games whereas the first book had fewer than twenty fully analyzed games. 

37. The leftovers - On a final tragic note, I have material for at least another two thousand problems tied to the themes of trapping pieces. And rejected well over 20,000 candidate games while whittling my list down. Thank goodness I didn't boil any oceans! But all these factors leave me uncertain I want to write a third chess book. Maybe on a new topic? Break out of my niche? Okay. How to analyze a chess game without a computer, that's the ticket. I'll call it KIMPLODES! 

Coaches
38. IM Attila Turzo - my coach
One two-hour session and often I find myself mentally done for the day, exhausted by the problems he set me to solve and calculations he asked me to perform out loud, without moving the pieces...what's not to hate about that? On the other hand, his lessons inspired me to write my first chess book. Indirectly. You see, I trapped his Queen in a simul he was giving that included a number of his students and fans. Then later that year I trapped a CM's Queen in an online tournament game. And suddenly started noticing a lot of Queens getting trapped at the titled player level in games that were annotated on chess.com. Next thing I knew, I had an idea 💡. Which turned into a book 📔. And now I've written a prequel, an introduction to the topic of trapping pieces, based on his feedback regarding the first book. His bottom line: the first book was written at too high a level. Ouch! Another bruise for me. Then again, I have improved. At chess. Whether the writing has improved is a far different matter.

39. IM Dvoretzky (or Dvortesky, depending on your source)
Anyone who has had that much impact earns a green-eyed devil of jealousy for the huge positive impact he had across the chess world. And I particularly envy all the students who knew him directly, and not just through reputation and books.

40-45. Analysis
40. Game of the Day on chess.com
Over 1,300 games. Let me say that again. Over 1,300 examples in their database. Holy shamoley. A lot of good material to go through. But there are only so many hours in one lifetime. And yes, I do have a full copy of their DB on my hard drive.

41. White/Black resigns because Black/White is clearly winning
"What?" I sputter. "What does that mean?" I count up the pieces. Hmm...equal material. I look at who has an initiative. Okay, got it. And clearly, I can see that unsafe king in that tiny corner with sweat beading his brow. But where's the actual win?

42. Hey! What happens if they grab that pawn? Or trade those pieces instead?
I have a growing problem with analysis that doesn't answer the questions that a titled player apparently considers too trivial to consider, but that my tiny little brain struggles with. All too often analysis offers zero or minimal consideration of what I consider useful questions. Actually, it would be the answers that would be useful. But I digress.

Is there a solution to this lack of completeness? Well, it's not realistic, but maybe if the titled analysts could submit their analysis to an amateur then that person could generate a list of questions whose answers would be useful to a broader audience. Then again, if I had all the time in the world I'd do many things differently. So, a partial pass for the cognoscenti, since we ignorami would always like to see more.

Of course, I could try to answer those questions on my own. But everyone needs a good whine cocktail now and then.

43. Evaluation (+0.37)
Huh? And you tell me that if I just let the engine of my choice run long enough the evaluation will probably drop to triple zero? So why am I chasing my tail in some scatter-brained attempt to play the "best" move?

44. Evaluation (+8.5)
The other side of the evaluation bar. What do you mean the GM who had an evaluation of +8.5 lost? Did they lose on time in a bullet game? No! Suddenly north is south and the sun rises in the west. So what good are these silly computer programs?

45. How to Analyze
No, really. How are you supposed to do that? Every coach and every book tells you, repeatedly even ad nauseum, how critical that is to your chess development. But do they tell you "How"? I thought not. So, where's the book? The only one I found is great for correspondence chess where you have days to think.

Out of sheer annoyance with this lack of guidance I created a blog series earlier this year. KIMPLODES! is an acronym to guide you through the process of analyzing a chess game based on factors such as King safety, Initiative, etc. Every week I posted another letter in the acronym. But why should you trust an untitled player who struggles with simple questions (see #42 above.) A summary can be found at KIMPLODES! Cogito ergo sum: An Explosive Analysis Approach, along with links to all the other blogs. 

46. Opinions, everyone has one 
I think that says it all. #asterisk #bs #rukiddingme #*.

The Pieces

49. And another Aron aphorism: "Even the laziest King flees wildly in the face of a double check!" Lazy. That's the word I focus on. Seems they all too often lollygag in the center and the rest of the team has to pay the price in the form of an early return to the dark confines of the box. Or, even worse, a bag. Banging not just into each other, but the guys who they met in battle on the board.

50. I still hate the fact that in one of the "innovations" of modern chess they took away the ability of the King to make one Knight move per game. I ask you, how is that different from castling? Sure, it covers a few more squares and would occur in that awkward, frog-footed fashion of your typical mounted cavalrymen, but dam' that would be fun to see on the board.

51-52. Her Majesty, the Queen
51. Awfully flighty. They dash hither and yon, creating great fear, but sensitive to the lash of any importunate suitor who approaches them without welcome. I'm shocked at how often they find Their Royal Selves in a pickle, trapped in some misbegotten trap. After all, "What transpires, Caissa?" As a goddess, a Thracian dryad, one would think thou disposed to smile most favorably on this singularly striking representation of thy divine self on the 64 squares of the board. Or is it that your expectations are higher for one molded, though to a lesser mortal degree, in thy image?

52. "It’s like chess, you know. The Queen saves the King." Terry Pratchett, The Shepherd's Crown, part of the Discworld themed stories. I put this in here because I am so disappointed that I don't own this book. Plus, it has a chess quote. And I love Terry Pratchett's work. But hate him because he writes so well in a genre I love.

53-54. The Roooook, aka Elephant, aka Tower, aka Hogs on the Seventh...but don't call me Castle

53. Why couldn't Jeremy Silman have talked about "raging rhinos, rampaging on rear ranks" instead of "hogs on the 7th"? It's so much more evocative for me. And quite alliterative. Not to mention that the sixth and eighth ranks can be just as effective as the seventh. I have a wonderful example. But just so that you'll get this whole love-hate relationship at a personal level, or perhaps simply because I have a petty soul, I shall withhold it.

54. Just kidding. But to keep this blog under 101 pages here's a link to a blog that has a nice game with Rooks on the 7th and then the 6th ranks. Go to Analyze with KIMPLODES! L = Lines, scroll down to the endgame section, and look at the diagrams and game for Trifunovic, Petar - Rellstab, Ludwig Sr, Olympiad-11 Final A, 1954.09.23. Which should leave you semi-hating me for making you go someplace else to satisfy your curiosity. SUCCESS! Well, of a peculiar sort. Satire, sarcasm and humor aren't necessarily my strongest suits.

55-58. His Eminence, the Bishop, color-coded cleric confined to 32 squares
55. Only good half the time
I mean, c'mon, after all they are limited to half the board. Except in hexagonal chess where they are confined to approximately one third of the 91 squares that comprise the board. That's a second reason to hate Bishops, but we cover that configuration later in this seemingly endless blog. Anyway, back to le sujet du moment (or so the online translator indicated), how could you love a piece that is useless on such a large percentage of the board. On the other hand, opposite color Bishops do offer intriguing attacking opportunities. Hmm.

56-58. Bad Bishops 
First, they tell you that if your central pawns are on the same color squares as one of your Bishops, then you have a bad Bishop. Second, they add that it is even worse if that bad Bishop is stuck behind its own pawn chains. But THEN...wait for it...they tell you that sometimes a bad Bishop is really very good. Even it all it is doing is acting like a giant pawn. Finally, just when you've come to terms with that, you find a game where a Bishop is not only bad, but it is trapped on h8 by enemy pawns on f6 and g5, with an enemy h-pawn ready at a moment's notice to extend that chain by playing h4. So, you might think that White is effectively playing a piece up. But, NO!! Turns out that Bishop sitting on h8 is just fine. And can eventually sacrifice itself on f6 while maintaining equality on the board both prior to and after the sac. So, if you don't hate all this contradictory advice and sage wisdom, then perhaps this satire is not for you. 😉 

Here's the game with the buried Bishop on h8. I don't want to offer you an extra reason to love-hate this blog because I mentioned a specific game but then did not show it.

59-60. The Knight: None shall pass! But I leap blithely over thee all!!
59. Knights on the Rim are Grim
There are some fanciful legends surrounding medieval knights. One legend found them mounted for combat on their destrier and discussed the danger of going to close to the edge of the list, the jousting field. Apparently, that was a parlous location where demons lurked. As for me, I'll discount those legends and assume it is like wrestling. Step out of the circle and you are penalized, perhaps even forfeited. Lucky for our chess Knight above that he cannot step over the edge, eh!!

60. Location, location, location: It's all about the real estate
Put a pair of Knights next to each other near the center of the board and they can dominate. Put a Knight on the side of the board, and it may find itself distraught, deprived of the ability to safely move. Well, until the 21st century. Now Knights grin on the rim, ecstatic to explore this realm. Unless dominated by some other piece. Heck, even a King can dominate and win a Knight unfortunate to find itself in a corner with the enemy King controlling the only two squares the Knight can reach. So. Which is it?

61-65. The Pawn Who Would be Queen (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling's novel of similar name)
61. Talk about social climbers! The minimum promotion they will accept is to the knighthood or as a member of the church hierarchy!

62. Sure, it may provide support to an outpost for one of your pieces. But every advance seems to leave a hole behind it. Sometimes two holes. Until your King's battlements more closely resemble Swiss cheese. Or a rusted through pickup truck on cinder blocks next to the abandoned trailer in your neighbor's back yard.

63. Salacious little critters. Why else would Nimzowitsch have talked about their "lust to expand." Does that mindset really have a place in the cloistered confines of the Royal Game. (I snicker while writing this. And not the candy bar which would require a trademark symbol. But this snicker was satisfying.)

64. Dismal, frowzy creatures those isolated pawns. Nimzowitsch stated that they "cast gloom over the entire chessboard."

65. When I was a yewt (at least, that's what it sounded like when Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci) used the word "youth" in the movie My Cousin Vinny) I thought that once I won a pawn, I was guaranteed to win the game. Sigh, that is so not true. But I probably won a lot of games just because I was so confident I would win. Then experience crept in. And my results have declined ever since with the advent of experience. I hate that. But console myself with the thought the quality of my opponents has increased. Sure. Then I remember that it's possible to rationalize anything. That's why we use logic to explain decisions we've already made based on emotions.

66-70. Openings
66. The Bongcloud - Really? Is this some hookah-inspired insanity? And what's the link between this opening and the King of the Hill variant? Is the same potboiled genius responsible for both of these travesties? What were they smoking? "Dam' bunch of hippies," if you ask certain antediluvian types.

67. The Englund Gambit - That bit me once in the most heinous fashion, gathering in my Queen after a vile Bishop check on f2. That particular assault on my sense of propriety never happened again. But I did lose an online tournament game in a far more complex way. Then again, more recently I crushed a 2200+ in an online blitz game on chess.com. That was our first game. He chose not to try that opening again in his next two outings against me as Black. Wisdom often prevails quickly, even in a short blitz match of six games.

68. The Benko Gambit - I hate gambits that are relatively sound. Particularly in an encounter between carbon-based units. Evans Gambit falls into the same category but it would have felt like cheating to use another obvious example of a gambit that hardly constitutes a gambit.

69. The Marshall Gambit - This shouldn't even be called a gambit! Black gets great compensation for the pawn in this Ruy Lopez line. And yes, this is akin to the solidity of the Benko and Evans gambits. So, I changed my mind. Sue me.

70. The Grob - Just the name sounds like some mucousy monster from an H.P. Lovecraft horror tale. I'll leave it at that, and not dissect the other negative attributes of the opening.

71-75. Endings
71. Bishop and Knight versus King 
Well, I've learned this at least four or five times. And still never used it. That reeks. And my memory leaks.

72. Rook and Pawn 
Can't we just call them all draws and move on? Sigh. I know it's important. And I put time into it. But let me step away for a few months and the Vancura position and building a bridge all start to run together in my tiny little noggin. Actually, I wear a 7-3/4 (U.S.) sized hat but all that may suggest is that I have a thick skull. Good for falling objects, not so good for memory tests.

73. Queens and Pawns
Hah! At least rook and pawns versus rook and pawns is occasionally quite slumbersome. Replace the rooks with queens and suddenly it's a furball on the board. And in #19 we already talked about my love-hate relationship with perpetuals. In these endings, it's a key focus. Whether you're the side desperately seeking a perpetual or the side trying to earn the full point. This is certainly not a restful proceeding if you have a limited amount of time before your next round.

74. Queen versus Rook and Pawns
Sure, I get the gist of it. Grossly oversimplified, create some space between the rook and king so that a series of checks can pick off the hapless rook. Often that requires a collaboration between king and queen to chase the opposing king to an insecure location and create a zugzwang (hated items #20-21) that levers the rook away from the king. Oh. And watch out for #75. Or look for it if you're the side cursed with the rook. Hey, that all sounds simple, right? Right? Sigh. I'm not hearing me.

75. Fortresses
Wait a minute. I thought the castled position was supposed to be a veritable fortress, securing His Majesty against the slings, arrows, and outrageous misfortunes their enemy would heap upon them. Nope, it's an endgame thing. And I one time accepted a draw in a tournament because I was so physically ill that I didn't have the energy (I got put on bed rest when I went to the doctor the next day) to figure out how to break a pseudo fortress of rook and three pawns against my queen and three pawns on the kingside. Then they published it in a Kansas state chess newsletter as a brilliant example of a fortress. "Oh, no", I thought. "This shall not stand." Healthy now, I sent a robust explanation of how the fortress could have been dismantled. Had I been able to focus even a smidgen. They published my rebuttal. I felt better and worse. That draw cost me both money and rating points. Mono sucks.

76-80. Variants that use a Standard Board
76. King of the Hill 
What's next? A Ring around the Rosie variant? [The poem may have origins in the bubonic plague. Oh, that's a fine starting point...NOT! But bear with me as I digress...a frequent occurrence in my ramblings/stream of conscious style. In my presumptive "Ring around the Rosie" variant, play can only occur on the first two ranks of each side and along the a, b, g, and h-files. No worries about controlling the center now!!) Or perhaps a chess version of "Red rover, red rover, send a piece (of the opponent's choice) on over." And then attempt to trap that piece. Hmm...on second thought...I am the author of a book on trapping pieces, so perhaps this variant would appeal to me.]

Moving back to the variant that is the brunt of my hatred, my historical bent constantly has me asking, "Which came first, the Bongcloud opening or King of the Hill?" And what happens when negative transference finds me running my King to the center in standard chess because I'd just binged on 24 hours of King of the Hill. Sierra hotel.

77. Fischer Random/Chess960/Freestyle Chess 
Sure, just when I've spent enough years learning a few openings to occasionally take down a titled player if they wander into one of my sweet spots, the titans of the chess world change the game. No more classical opening theory, no sirree. Instead, just to evade that tiny chink in their armor, they're monetizing this variant for the top players in the world...like they need any more help against my ilk. Carlsen, Buettner Unveil Extravagant Chess960 Grand Slam Tour Across Five Continents. Thanks so much!! 

78. Three Check 
On the plus side, it reinforces a mindset of keeping a very wary eye on the f2 and f7 squares. On the downside, there are already basic concepts in place and even some theory. I just wish someone create a version that uses Chess960 setups to avoid what has already allowed knowledge of some simple plans to flourish in Three Check based on the classic piece placements. After all, I need all the help I can get against people who have spent some time thinking about those f2 and f7 squares, not to mention some other unpleasant tricks of the trade.

79. Suicide Chess 
Well, first there's the name. Most societies have cultural norms that abhor suicide as a solution. Hmm...what else? Actually, I kind of find this variant relaxing. I just cannot bring myself to take seriously the notion of losing all one's pieces to win the game, so it's kick back, drink a beer, and go with the flow. No pressure. Kind of a relief. The real pain involved here is choosing between captures if you get caught up in winning. Not that a type-A personality, such as I, would ever care about winning.

80. Bughouse 
Here's my first problem. I lived in a bug house. Technically, a bug-infested house. So, this gives me the willies to start with. Second, I've watched these blitz-happy games. And there are actual strategies and tactics for the experts. It's amazing to watch! Although there is nothing more depressing when both sides reach a mutual zugzwang (#20-21) and the best strategy is for both sides to stop moving and let the clocks run down to almost nothing. And then try to blitz out a victory in what is now a bullet game. And we'll get to my loathing of bullet chess (#100).

81-98. Variants that use Nonstandard Boards
Time to move beyond the binding confines of 64 traditional squares! First of all, as any serious gamer knows, hexagons are the preferred formatting. That way it's the same distance from the center of any hex to any adjoining hex. Important stuff in board battles!! But let's stick to a bit more conventional approach first, shall we? We'll get back to the hexagons later. After which I abandon completely any thoughts of playing chess with hex (perhaps it should be called "chex"😉).

81. Symmetric Chess - On a 9 by 9 board!

Symmetric Chess (chessvariants.org)

Oy, vay. Now we have extra Queens who will no doubt feel doubly venturesome and find themselves trapped needlessly. Probably for as simple a reason as forgetting that one, and only one, of the enemy Bishops must move one square and change color on its first move. And a flighty Queen will be sure to have forgotten that. So, at least two reasons to hate this one. Maybe more. But my abacus is running out of beads. As is your patience, no doubt.

82-87. Centennial Chess - 100 squares of glorious freedom and new pieces!

CENTENNIAL CHESS (chessvariants.org)

Six new pieces. SIX!! O-k-a-y, ne'er mind. That's way too much for me to comprehend, even with an early morning cuppa joe in front of me. Although emotionally I feel quite favorably towards the lions. If only they could have added some tigers and bears. Meanwhile, camels are filthy, mean beasts who as soon spit in your eye as look at you.

And the spearmen (spearperson? spearmint?) bring to mind hoplites. Now, if only I knew what a hoplite was, but I'm afraid my knowledge of ancient Greek history fails me at the moment. Are there hopheavies? Or is that making a hashish of the situation?

Sigh. If only I had stewards to counsel me. Oh, wait. I do in this variant.😁 Bottom line: I hate each and every new piece because I have to learn how they move and coordinate: stewards, camels, three types of spearman (middle, left, and right), and lions. Even without double counting, that is six reasons to hate this variant. Groan. At least the pawns are still the same distance apart. Though I have no idea why that trivial factoid should console me.

88-89. Hexagonal Chess - 91 cells on which to ambush and trap the enemy!
88. A construct originally conceived in the 19th century has now invaded our sanctified software spaces. Well, okay. Nothing is pristine on the web. But you do get an extra member of the religious hierarchy to add to your team! No more Bishop pair questions. It's gotten worse! Now the holy trinity travels on three different colors, never exchanging views, unless they occasionally slant sidelong glances at the heretics of the other colors. Hate it!

Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (chessvariants.com)

89. OMG. Just look at the starting position and how the pieces move. On the plus side, His Majesty has some additional freedom, though it resembles the awkward jumps of classical knights. On the negative side of the scale, this color scheme gives me a migraine. No ordinary headache, an out-and-out migraine. Shards of light splinter behind my closed eyelids. What witch has hexed me, I ask myself, that I chose to delve into this devilish chess configuration with its outrageous color scheme. Tis no wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury banned chess, clearly the tool of demons, from his congregation in the year of our Lord, 1291. And at one time the Orthodox church banned the game due to its gambling nature. (As a side note, it therefore should come as no surprise that many titled players have taken up poker as a profitable sideline career. Jennifer Shahade and Boris Avetik are prime examples.)

90. Is this variant enough to drive me bonkers? So that I soon find myself hosting Mad Hatter tea parties? Well, the Scientific American Magazine, July 1859, article Chess Playing Excitement, contributed to speculation amongst many that chess playing contributed to insanity. Future articles touted the deaths of Steinitz and Murphy as examples. Certainly, this board drives me nuts!

Hmm...perhaps not. Even though a friend of mine had a mother who insisted that he see an analyst because of his passion for the Royal Game. Sigh. She'd have been better off spending that money on a chess coach for him.

91-98. Four Player Chess
Eight versions of the board, eight reasons to hate this one!! Even more versions to hate if you count the inexplicable "four half-boards that can be joined in every possible way." Escher would have loved that one. So, I tried to imagine that below.

Sigh, they can't even agree on the board design. Let alone whether your partner sits next to you or across the "board"? Those ridiculous circular boards remind me of that hideous math joke about the radius of a circle, "Pie are not square. Cake are square. Pie are round." Surely you jest? No. And don't call me Shirley.

That said, the mathematician in me quite likes the challenge of determining how four half-boards can be connected in every possible way. Particularly since there seems to be no restriction that limits the connections to a single plane. This could quickly escalate into a tower. Sigh. Below is my initial vision of the eighth option, four half-boards connected in every way possible. On a side note, it's too bad it wouldn't be possible to develop a tesseract...to the best of my knowledge. For those of you who are not cursed with more math knowledge than you ever got to use in real life, a tesseract is a four-dimensional hypercube. 

Okay, bottom line. I have enough difficulties with two-player chess. Now you want to double the number of opponents and pieces, increase the number of squares, and pair me with another player in some kind of cooperative effort. Yeah. Right. Paraphrasing the Neanderthal kid in one of Gary Larson's The Far Side cartoons, "May I be excused? My brain is full." 

Not counted. My proposal for smaller boards! (Please feel free to skip this section!!!)
I did not, nay could not, count this one since, thankfully, it does not exist. But I do enjoy the mental exercise of searching for memes with which to torture both myself and those few readers who may also tend to love puns and mental anguish.

One benefit to my proposal is that it would eliminate the need for Armageddon Chess in playoffs. Instead of bidding on colors by offering a specific time on the clock, the players would instead play the first tiebreaker on a board of only 49 squares, a 7 x 7 layout.

But there would still be a decision process as they would have to choose which seven pieces to deploy. A king since, perforce, one must acknowledge the point of the royal game is regicide. One, and only one, queen, though selecting a queen is not mandatory. And no more than two of any other particular pieces could be selected, so no more than two rooks, bishops, or knights. And the players get to choose where to deploy them. So, it would be possible to have two bishops on the same color! After all, why not? After selecting their pieces, the players would take turns placing one piece at a time on the board. And are allowed a maximum of sixty seconds to place each piece.  So, the best of Fischer Random and Stratego(TM)! Dice are rolled, or bingo cards filled, to determine who has to place a piece first.

Note that in case of a subsequent draw, the board would be reduced to 36 squares, with a 6 x 6 configuration, as seen below. And so on. Until reaching a king and pawn endgame that would be a dual stalemate, by definition. The tournament sponsor would simply have to pony up the cash for an additional, identical trophy. That could prove troublesome if, like the Stanley Cup, the trophy changes hands annually. 

Note that if drawn results continue until play is reduced to a 2 x 2 board, then the players might each choose a Knight as their second piece. Why? Because knights can sometimes enforce checkmate on the first move given a 2 x 2 board! So, the strategy of when and where to place pieces becomes paramount, given that king safety is the be-all and end-all of chess existence (Analyze with KIMPLODES! K = King Safety). Accordingly, after the pieces are placed one additional rule is enforced. A coin flip determines who has the first move. In the potential position shown below, White to move would win with 1. axb3#. If Black wins the coin flip the result will be entered in the archives as 1...bxa2#. Wonderful David and Goliath mates, dontcha think! 🤣

99-101. Chess Clocks and Time Controls
99. The invention of the clock
I'm up in the air on this one. Without clocks, there is no bullet chess. A big plus for someone as slow as me. But without clocks, any game could stretch out forever. Even daily games have a time limit. On the other foot, I must admit that even seven days per move can be painful if your opponent does that. I know I am doomed to endless tortures when they take the full seven days on each of the first two moves of the game. Just kill me. Time for either suicide chess or a quick resignation.

Now for a brief spot of trivia that quickly spins into another zone! Chess clocks were invented by Thomas Wilson of Manchester Chess Club. My understanding is that some tournament players used to attempt to outsit their opponent before the introduction of clocks. Ah, there's a sport for Kings! Sitting on the throne, reading the Sunday paper, smoking a good cigar, ignoring the children and spouse screaming outside the door. Considering whether beer is the perfect pairing for breakfast cornflakes. (The truth of the matter is that there are inventive souls who have used cornflakes as part of their home brew when no flaked corn was available.) Yes, a man's throne is his castle. Wait. Wrong topic.

Anyway, clocks were first used during competition at the London 1883 tournament. Now they are everywhere, including any other competition I can think of. Even tennis players and golfers are on a clock. Though enforcement may be uneven.

100. Bullet
Bottom line up front. I AM TOO SLOW! Still, I enjoy watching Hikaru and Naroditsky. And for your enjoyment, here's a case where Hikaru got caught pre-moving in the opening, lost a Rook to Andrew Tang by move four, and still won!!

See below for my Bottom Ten! What are Yours?

# 1 Trolling in at #1 and earning the Fool's Gold Medal is...let's hear a muffled roll of groans, please! And now, let's hear some hoots, hollers and jeers for #1 Computer-Assisted Cheaters! Those folks take their well-earned spot in the very central pit of Hades! It may be the last thing they actually earned on their own, since they chose to skip the steps involved in actually learning the Royal Game.

Final visual

Yeah, the chess life is tough.