Forum

Bughouse doesn't show up in open challenges. I create a challenge and sometimes I can't get a game at all. I'm sure people are playing. Do I just have to wait and hope a game starts?

Hi everyone, we'll be hosting a high level bughouse match between 4 experienced players within the next 12 hours! I'll be teaming up with crazyhouse co-champion chickencrossroad to take on Berlin bughouse gathering champions eekarf and caspiwins. Time: 7th Jan (6pm GMT; 1pm US ET; 10am US PT) twitch.tv/jannleecrazyhouse https://www.chess.com/blog/JannLeeCrazyhouse/high-level-bughouse-stream-on-7th-jan

There are several very good bughouse players (some NMs, IMs, etc.) who have decided to sandbag their bughouse ratings down to 400 so they can partner friends (or simul with themselves) and get other accounts up to 3000 by cheating. Is there anything that can be done about such cheaters?

study the beginners game by pafu. http://sk-dugoselo.weebly.com/uploads/7/8/6/6/7866084/thebeginnersgame.pdf

Note: Tournament is no longer running. Sorry guys, I could not manage to get people to regularly show up monthly at a scheduled time. Therefor I have decided to discontinue running this tournament. Hi everyone! After some feedback I have decided to start this tournament. It is a monthly tournament where you play bughouse chess with one partner throughout the tournament. If you're interested in joining, here is all you need to know: Signups can be done in this forum or at the same time as reporting results for the first match. Using a team name is optional. Feel free to use this forum when looking for a partner. Each match (one team versus another team) will be a best of 5 (first to 3 wins) with the time control 3|0 After each match the results must be reported in this forum with match score and name of all players. Communications between teams in live chess will be done in the Bughouse chat room (for challenging other teams). Communication between partners within a team can be done with any tool, such as skype or private chat. You may only have one match against the same team once each month. To get a match started there are three ways to do it: Find another team in live chess and just challenge them at any time Communicate with another team and schedule a match in advance Get into live chess during a special time where all teams are advised to enter live chess. The special time where all teams go into live chess will be the third Saturday of each month at 10:00 ET (use this time zone converter to see what that is in your time zone). If that time does not fit you, feel free to make feedback, so the time can be improved for the future. That is all you need to know. Below are some additional rules: All teams start with 0 points. After each match the winner will get 3 points, the loser gets 1 point. Tie break will be the number of won games. At the end of each month a winner will be declared and points will be reset for the next month. Rules are subject to change. Feel free to ask questions or suggest improvements. Remember to have fun! Standings February 2017: Team Points (3*match wins + match losses) Tie Break (game wins) @Sorsi and @MiniGreat 0 0 Frisky @ChessMN16 and @croskie 0 0 Rockers @smartykids and @attackchesskid 0 0 @NJNJFamily and @SloppyCalculator 0 0 @Lord_axe and @Noah2017 0 0

For the last hour or so my games never appeared when they started. I lost 10-15 points per game on move 1 to game abandoned when I didn't move because I never saw the game. Eventually we realized my partner would have to tell me a game started on Skype and I would have to reload the browser to see it each time. When she remembered early enough I could join the game only 10 seconds down. When she remembered too late, I would lose the game before it ever appeared. I lost about 70 points. I tried unpartnering and repartnering, restarting my browser, and re-login to chess.com. None of that solved the problem. Note: I am not saying my partner's game didn't appear, which of course has been a continuous problem for months for everyone I've talked to. What I'm saying is MY OWN GAME didn't appear. I hope chess.com eventually fixes all these bugs. Until they do, does anyone have any suggestions for dealing with this when it happens -- other than begging my partner to tell me immediately when a game starts so I can frantically reload my browser?

I do pretty well at crazyhouse. My rating has been up in the 1700s. It's dropped to the 1600s, but I think I was doing too many speculative attacks that cost material, and I've tried to cut back on that with positive results. I have a win over a 2100 player (@zalizagen, https://www.chess.com/live/game/1846449025), and a win over a titled player (WFM @makalexa, https://www.chess.com/live/game/1846053863). Just now I almost beat a 2000 player (@Sandpacer, https://www.chess.com/live/game/1860024622), and I have a number of other wins against players in the 1700-2000 range. I had three occasions where I nearly qualified for the recent championship, and only just fell short. I do have some losses against 1400-1500 players, but I think crazyhouse has a lot more upsets than normal chess, and it's no surprise if I'm on both ends of them; a 1400 player is certainly good enough to punish you if you make a mistake at the wrong time.In bughouse, though, my rating tends to wander around in the 1300s and low 1400s.The discrepancy puzzles me. I've played a fair bit of bughouse OTB, although not at a particularly high level; I'd never played crazyhouse until the recent qualifiers. One would think that if I was going to be strong at one and weak at the other, it would be bughouse where I was good and crazyhouse where I was weak.Any ideas why there could be such a difference?

Just curious to get some extra thoughts (while I'm deep in these weeds).  Let's say we have 4 players who get matched for a game.  Adam is rated 1200.Becky is rated 1300.Charlie is rated 1500. Daniel is rated 1600.  How should they get paired? I'll show the options and you can vote. In each case I'll format like this:  Team A(1) vs Team B(1)Team A(2) vs Team B(2) So one team is on the left, one is on the right, and you can see pairings.    Option #1: Attempted Balanced Average  Daniel(1600) vs Charlie(1500)Adam(1200) vs Becky(1300)   Option #2: Closest Ratings Match Daniel(1600) vs Becky(1300)Charlie(1500) vs Adam(1200)   Option #3: Staggered Daniel(1600) vs Charlie(1500) Becky(1300) vs Adam(1200)   Option #4: Random ? vs ?? vs ?  

@chuckmoulton wrote ... "Still very buggy... apparently my partner and I had 3 games open at the same time. I didn't see any of them. By the time my partner told me there were games, I had lost 1 to game abandoned (-12 points), won 1 to resignation (+0 points), and was 15 seconds down a third game that we eventually won (+0 points). Over 50% of my total losses on this server have been to server bugs with games not starting and losing without having a chance to make a move." @cwfrank (me, myself and I) response ... "Yo, @chuckmoulton -- references? (Forum post.) -- I've suspected something funky like what you describe for a while, given how often games are immediately or arbitrarily resigned or abandoned or timed-out. It would be helpful if you track and log specific circumstances." ===== Point being ... Sometimes I'm left searching, or immediately connected to a game ... and almost immediately I get a "resigned" or "abandoned" notice. (Sometimes with points assigned, other times just arbitrary.) The whole "I WANT MY POINTS" factor was something I previously complained about with the same team or individuals regularly resigning or aborting games ... this shortly after initial v3 release / publication. That's "handled" in the sense that sometimes points are assigned, and other times the game is simply terminated. (Assuming some aggregated data measure to determine such factors.) It is still of concern that the same set of team and/or random member can be assigned to the same game(s) repeatedly, without play, and the same team (or game members) can resign without penalty multiple times. That said ... @chuckmoulton's observation is relevant to the above articulation of details, such that settings may allow multiple games, but the UI may not be switching between or allowing or properly pushing multiple games to the client UI, and then negatively impacting players who are capable of such; or whose UI may be configured to allow such (client-server communication) and then not communicated back and forth properly. Note: I have my settings such that multiple games are not allowed. Such that... if I have multiple seeks, all others are canceled when a game starts. I'm irritated by connecting to a game, and then having it almost immediately terminated. (sometimes several times in a row, often by the same team or set of assigned players). Note / Aside: I understand that such observations and demands make things significantly more computationally complex; but, since I don't have access to information to help this process along, I can't make any better or further suggestion beyond calling-out the observation. I'd love to help, but, I don't have data to be of any further assistance.) And @chuckmoulton's observation is not irrelevant to this factor. Blah In fact, if all that are available are the same team and/or random members, and the same team or members decline to play against another team or randomly matched opponent(s) on a regular basis (repeated) ... there needs to be a more significant and regular penalty factor (in addition to @chuckmoulton's observation -- though it might cause @chuckmoulton some heartache, I think these two situations and circumstances are intertwined in a way that needs to be fixed or solved with some [deterministic] degree of finality, including public dissemination of the particular circumstances of the conditions that lead to one circumstance or situation, or the other). $0.02 (paid in full) Can we please get a response to how matching is done, and how and when multiple games are allowed, and how that impacts score ... especially when there are multiple bad (teams) or resigned or declined games in close sequence among the same set of players abandoning or resigning games. Oh, and, don't forget @chuckmoulton's observation(s). Thanks, and sorry for the obtuse font and call-out.

Unless you have opponents that accept rematches (which is extremely rare on this site), it takes 10-20 minutes to get a match when you click "New Game". Are there any chess.com admins that monitor this board? Are there any chess.com programmers that monitor this board? What is going on?!!! Can you please just roll back the code to what you had 2 weeks ago when seeks instantaneously resulted in matches?

Hi everyone. I was thinking about whether it is a good idea to start some sort of tournament in a forum for bughouse. I'm not sure how big the interest is and I'm not sure about the best format, so this forum is meant for brainstorming a format that works and to see if there is interest. Some basics to the tournament: There will be a forum where people can sign up, post when they can play and report the result. I will be updating the forum regularly to display the standings in the tournament. The chat room in live chess for Bughouse could be useful when trying to start a tournament game. A couple of questions: Should the tournament be individual/teams? - Meaning do you want to stick with the same partner the whole tournament? Do you want it to be never-ending or a monthly thing (or some other time interval) Prefered time control? - Currently I'm thinking to use 3|0 best of 5 (first to 3 wins) Should it be focused on quality or quantity? - meaning should the best players get on top or the most active players. Should there be a handicap based on rating differences? If so, how much? - For example: Average Rating difference Worse team needed wins to win better team needed wins to win 0-49 3 3 50-99 3 4 100-149 2 4 150-299 2 5 300+ 1 5 In case anyone is interested: here is a table where the estimated score is the same: Average Rating difference Worse team score better team score 0 3 3 50 3 4 125 2 4 160 2 5 310 1 5 Tournament format example: Monthly leaderboard (very casual): Players sign up individually Anyone can play with anyone against anyone Games are handicapped based on the example made earlier After each match the players earn points. Win = 3 points, Draw = 2 points. Loss = 1 point The points will be reset at the start of each month and a winner of the previous month will be declared. Maybe an additional rule can be that the same team cannot play against the same team twice during the same month. However, any other combination for more matches is allowed. For example if A and B play a match against C and D, they can later have a match with A and C against B and D.

Probably the most simple opening to play as black.

We as partners get continuallly jerked around thru cycles of: having to X partner and reselect partner from 'recent opponent' list >>> "you cant partner with JohnDoe at this time". Both partners having to go out to select PLAY >> BUGHOUSE >> SELECT PARTNER >> (ONE) ACCEPT >> PLAY. All of this takes as long as playing a game AND I am not including WAITING FOR OPPONENT. Chess.com needs to get the basic activity of playing games correctly. Maybe you should have had the programmers working over the holidays. Thanks for attempting to have Bug on the system.

Uh, so, I'm a little confused on something ... and I thought I'd just air the dirty laundry here ... ===== I'm a little confused.User: rooroobearURL: https://www.chess.com/member/rooroobearI was just playing against this user in live chess ... Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1866502664?username=rooroobear Team Member's Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1866502665 I'm familiar with @rooroobear from the Crazyhouse Championship tournament. The impression I had is that @rooroobear is a user from FICS or lichess, or some other Crazyhouse forum. So, I opened the user's profile to see why this user was rated 585 in our Bughouse game. Most Bughouse and Crazyhouse players are reasonably good at both variants. It didn't make sense. (And, @rooroobear was playing with @DrunkenMushy, another good Bug/ZH player.)When I opened the user's profile, it says: "Closed: Abuse" with an (X) next to the user.Okay, whatever, I don't have a problem with this person, but, ... if the account is closed for whatever reason ... Why is this person playing under a closed account??? That does not make any sense what-so-ever. ===== I don't really have a problem playing @rooroobear, no matter whatever circumstances I'm unaware of. It just doesn't make much sense that the user is actively playing on live chess despite a closed account. It was a Bug game, though I'm familiar with @rooroobear playing ZH ... Anybody got a clue or a hint or an explanation of why this is allowed or happening? I'd hesitate to call this a "bug," so much as ... well ... I dunno what it is, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Just spotted a bug. Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1863101041 Team Member's Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1863101042 We were stuck, in a lost position ... @intralith hadn't moved for a while. My team member and I were discussing. Next move (or two) was mate for my team member, and my opponent wasn't moving. (Time is a tactical, team decision in Bughouse.) I hit "resign" -- and then received the standard warning (when someone times out or aborts too many games or disconnects): "intralith may have violated our Fair Play policy - it has been noted and they may have their account restricted." This is unfair to inralith, and any other player who this warning comes up against, for this message to pop-up after an opponent resigns. I'm the opponent. I resigned. No warning should have been issued.

Title says it all... I mean, when we click on a member's profile, we can only see the "played against" stats. However, because bug has been released on chess.com, it would make sense to add the "played with" stats - these stats would also provide a good compilation of all the games one pair has played. I know the developers are working hard on fixing other big issues and this is just a small feature request, but it's something that IMO should be implemented. Cheers.

The bughouse game review interface is currently extremely primitive. You can't see pieces in hand (which is also a serious problem in crazyhouse), and there's no convenient way to see the two games side by side and watch how they develop together.Here's an example of an interface that does a very good job of handling both issues: http://www.bughouse-db.org/cgi-bin/searchbug.cgi?gID=3479621Note that you have three options for stepping through the game:1. Step through the moves on the left board. The right board will update to stay in sync with it.2. Step through the moves on the right board. The left board will update to stay in sync with it.3. The middle option: step forward to whichever move was played next, regardless of which board it was played on.This makes it easy to step through and watch how pieces taken on one board are made available to the other board. You can see if one player sits to wait for events on the other board. You can see if one player sacs their queen to get the knight their partner wants. And so on. Moves that make no sense if you only see one board make much more sense if watching the two together. A pause on one board that might be totally overlooked (or mistaken for a pause for thought) is explained as sitting to wait for developments on the other board. And so on.What that interface fails to do, though, is display the move list on each board. It would be nice to keep that.What we ideally want is:1. Both boards on a single display2. The ability to step through them together or individually, but with the two boards staying in sync either way3. All four clocks displayed4. All pieces in hand displayed5. The move list for both boards.Really, these are all necessary to be able to accurately say chess.com has full bughouse support (other issues, such as better communication and live tournaments, might be essential too, but are discussed elsewhere). Right now, it feels more like a standard chess site that has some limited bughouse support. With some work, though, this could become a first-class bughouse site.Anything else I overlooked?

Bughouse live tournaments are more complicated than normal live tournaments, due to the fact that it is a team game. You need to be able to handle drop-outs, odd numbers of participants, etc.There are two main approaches: team tournaments (where you keep your partner all the way through), and individual tournaments (where you get a different partner every game).Both approaches have their merits, but I suspect the the team tournament, where you have the option to choose a partner or get one assigned randomly but keep your partner for the entire tournament, would be more popular. However, I believe it has a few more complications than the individual tournament, so maybe the initial implementation should go with the individual tournament, and team tournaments can be added later.(One problem with team tournaments: if your partner bails out after a couple games, you're stuck without a partner. Are you then forced out too? You could then be paired up with someone else who lost their partner, but how do you report that in the standings? Whose results from the first two rounds does the new team get - the better set, or the average of the two? How do you do tiebreaks for someone who beat one of the two original teams? I think a solution can be found for all the problems, but it will take some work.)So, assuming an initial implementation of individual tournaments, here's a possible design.1. You get a new partner randomly assigned on every round (although not fully randomly, as described below).2. In a normal swiss-style tourney, you are matched against someone with a similar score. For bughouse, you should be paired with someone with a similar score. Thus, a strong player may be saddled with a weak partner in the early rounds, but this will be rare in later rounds. The top games in later rounds should generally have four strong players.3. In a normal Swiss-style tournament, you cannot meet the same player twice. However, for bughouse, you should be able to end up in the same game as another player a maximum of three times: once as partners, once as opponents on the same board, and once as opponents on the opposite board.4. Once a tournament has started, new players should be allowed to join as reserve players. If, due to dropouts or an odd number of initial entrants, there are stranded players with no partner or opponent, players will be drawn from the reserve pool to make up the numbers. The system should, where possible, try to choose players that, based on their rating, will result in a roughly even match. These reserve players will remain for the rest of the tournament unless they too drop out; thus, a reserve player who joins early enough and then wins most of their games could theoretically win the tournament. If there are not sufficient reserve players to complete a match, they should remain in the reserve pool and any stranded players should get a bye.5. Tiebreak should be based not only on the scores of your defeated opponents but also on the scores of your winning partners. A good way to do this would be to add the scores of all your defeated opponents and subtract the scores of your winning partners. If Adam and Ben beat Charles and David, Adam's tiebreak from that game would be the number of games Charles won, plus the number of games David won, minus the number of games Ben won. This means you are rewarded both for beating strong opposition and for winning when partnered with a weak player. (Note: this means negative tiebreaks are possible if a weak player's only win comes when partnered with a strong player against two other weak players.)Any complications I've overlooked? Any other thoughts/comments?

A few days ago, I wanted to satirize a funny Bug exchange of words. And I held off. Maybe not that funny. Here's the punchline... my team member is berating me for not giving him pieces. (Usually I'm berated for giving-up too much due to my beginning experiences playing with more experienced players who alternate telling me "feed" and "sit." -- So, I feed, then sit if I don't have pieces to hold off an attack, unless I can go on an attack, then I start yelling: "FEED ME!") In any case, I'm berated, and, rather than ignore any try to play, I respond. Such that I'm down on time. Punchline: We win on time. Turns out, the other team's opponent (my team member is playing the other guy) is laughing so hard at our exchange that he forgets to play, and we win on time. This is why (public) communication is valuable in Bughouse. Not only do you learn and know about the other team's strategy, but, like other team sports: You get to distract them with BS related (or not related) to strategy. I can't make the point any other way.I can't make that point any better, let alone any other way.Communication is key... even if it distracts your opponent from their thought.It's not like (sports) teams aren't watching the other's side-line or aware of their typical strategy and tactics. (And, sometimes in bughouse, there's nothing you can do against a better rated or prepared team.) It goes something along the lines of: Team Member: "Yo, give me pieces." Me: "I can't force the Italian Fascist to do something he doesn't want to do." (trade / exchange pieces) ... some other (BS) conversation ... Me: "You won't like it... if I play the sacrifice-way, people in Bughouse hate me for sac'ing." Team Member: "I can see why." My Opponent: "^" (In other words, my opponent, the guy I'm playing against agrees with my team member... Y'all just freaking hate me no matter how I play. Whatever. Play on.) ... and the trash-talk continues ... (I'm down on time, obviously.) So, here I am laughing, and just a few moves later:"cwfrank and TeamMember win on time" And I'm like... wait... WTF happened? Turns out, my opponent's team member was laughing so hard at the exchange that he lost track of time, forgetting to play, and... we won. I <3 Bughouse.

How do you draw on chess.com?! My opponent repeated a position 50 times, but there was no draw button and typing "draw" or "/draw" on the console did nothing. Did they really not implement draws here? If so, this isn't real bughouse.