fraserhm wrote:
I play d4 so I don’t got to deal with all the theory
fr
🤔🔥What's your biggest chess HOT TAKE🔥🤔
Sort:
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2703
MoistPrinterBreath wrote:
smiley_face10 wrote:
fraserhm wrote:
smiley_face10 wrote:
fraserhm wrote:
smiley_face10 wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
smiley_face10 wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
Hot Take: Eminem is 🔥. Ig that is hot.
I need another opening to practice, expanding repertoire.
What openings do you know already?
Well I play e4 99% of the time, Ruy and Italian. I play a lot of KID and Sicilian. I need to study Najdorf. I'm going to look into Nf3, I stopped playing 1. Nf3 because I couldn't figure out how/when to push e pawn. Any ideas Smiley?
Well first of all I think you should replace the Sicilian with the caro-kann since the sicilian is just extremely theory heavy. You can keep playing the e4 openings but you should definitely try testing a couple d4 openings like the queen's gambit.
I tried QG and now I love it and it’s all I play. Would recommend playing d4 as a change-up though. Why caro though…
Caro is actually really good and people just think it's bad because gothamchess glazes it all the time(yes that's true but it doesn't mean the Caro is bad). It's also fairly easy to learn which makes it really good for ~1000 players
Fairly easy to learn is good. French defence, alekhine, Nc6, are all also good for that you don’t need theory since your opponent won’t have it.
Rarely anyone knows much theory against the caro-kann as white even at our levels. There is also a variation of the caro-kann called the botvinnik-carls defense which I really like and is very similar to the french defense except the light squared bishop can get out and isn't rendered useless from the start.
I don't have much experience at your level but I can say based on my experience, caro kann is not a very good choice even at 1500, najdorf is just stupid below 1800 but caro kann i dont think is ideal in any way
Not really. The caro-kann is really good at my level. I have a 60% win rate using it.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2705
REDWolfXD wrote:
the wood board is the best lol
Like irl or on chess.com? Regardless I agree with both lol. I prefer the burled wood over regular wood on chess.com though.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2706
smiley_face10 wrote:
REDWolfXD wrote:
the wood board is the best lol
Like irl or on chess.com? Regardless I agree with both lol. I prefer the burled wood over regular wood on chess.com though.
Yessss both irl and chess.com
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2707
Bughouse would be more popular if people didn't constantly resign when their partners are even 100 ELO lower.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2708
Abirdwithinternetyt wrote:
Bughouse would be more popular if people didn't constantly resign when their partners are even 100 ELO lower.
I think the only actually popular variant that people regularly play is chess 960.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2710
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2711
I used to always go back n forth between wood and the tournament board. I've been on the tournament board since I began this account. May switch it up now. Idk
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2712
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2713
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2714
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
So can we objectively say some people overrate castling?
I am sure as a chess player you wouldn't say getting your king to safety or linking your rooks are overrated. Because this is two birds that get stoned when we castle, so to speak. Certainly there are positions where castling is a bad move, or moreso not necessary.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2715
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
So can we objectively say some people overrate castling?
I am sure as a chess player you wouldn't say getting your king to safety or linking your rooks are overrated. Because this is two birds that get stoned when we castle, so to speak. Certainly there are positions where castling is a bad move, or moreso not necessary.
I feel that's fair, if anything I probably underrate castling, I tend to often leave castling as long as possible.
Overall I castle over half of my games in the middlegame (whatever insight says is the middlegame), and I don't castle more often than I castle in the opening.
But that's just how I play chess.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2716
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
So can we objectively say some people overrate castling?
I am sure as a chess player you wouldn't say getting your king to safety or linking your rooks are overrated. Because this is two birds that get stoned when we castle, so to speak. Certainly there are positions where castling is a bad move, or moreso not necessary.
I feel that's fair, if anything I probably underrate castling, I tend to often leave castling as long as possible.
Overall I castle over half of my games in the middlegame (whatever insight says is the middlegame), and I don't castle more often than I castle in the opening.
But that's just how I play chess.
If your king feels threatened, castle! Otherwise, you don’t really need to.
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2717
smiley_face10 wrote:
REDWolfXD wrote:
the wood board is the best lol
Like irl or on chess.com? Regardless I agree with both lol. I prefer the burled wood over regular wood on chess.com though.
I really like wood boards, but ever since I got the marble one it’s all I use : )
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2718
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
So can we objectively say some people overrate castling?
I am sure as a chess player you wouldn't say getting your king to safety or linking your rooks are overrated. Because this is two birds that get stoned when we castle, so to speak. Certainly there are positions where castling is a bad move, or moreso not necessary.
I feel that's fair, if anything I probably underrate castling, I tend to often leave castling as long as possible.
Overall I castle over half of my games in the middlegame (whatever insight says is the middlegame), and I don't castle more often than I castle in the opening.
But that's just how I play chess.
Some video I watched ages ago said "if you haven't castled by move 18 either something is wrong or you don't need to".
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2719
fraserhm wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
Etymologist35 wrote:
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
DonkeyChezburger wrote:
Castling is overated
This isn't a hot take, it's objectively correct.
No, it's not. Castling is taught as inherent to most positions. At the very least getting your back rank clear and have the option to castle to either side. It is literally a skill to prevent your opponent from castling.
This is why castling is overrated. I'm not saying castling isn't a useful move, in a lot of situations it is, but if you fall into dogmatic thinking and just castle automatically then castling becomes overrated, because knowing when and where to castle is a skill in itself. Which by the definition includes where not to castle and when not to castle.
So can we objectively say some people overrate castling?
I am sure as a chess player you wouldn't say getting your king to safety or linking your rooks are overrated. Because this is two birds that get stoned when we castle, so to speak. Certainly there are positions where castling is a bad move, or moreso not necessary.
I feel that's fair, if anything I probably underrate castling, I tend to often leave castling as long as possible.
Overall I castle over half of my games in the middlegame (whatever insight says is the middlegame), and I don't castle more often than I castle in the opening.
But that's just how I play chess.
If your king feels threatened, castle! Otherwise, you don’t really need to.
😁😁😁
Feb 20, 2026
0
#2720
fraserhm wrote:
smiley_face10 wrote:
REDWolfXD wrote:
the wood board is the best lol
Like irl or on chess.com? Regardless I agree with both lol. I prefer the burled wood over regular wood on chess.com though.
I really like wood boards, but ever since I got the marble one it’s all I use : )
Talking about wood boards the board I ordered came a week ago. It's pretty nice but man the stench of the preservative chemicals they put on it sucks(it eventually wore off though).
I play d4 so I don’t got to deal with all the theory