Opening principles don't work, most online advice is BS, here's how to actually win

This post is not intended for the toxic chess.com / reddit crowd. It's for your average player, that's gonna type something on google or chatgpt and find this thread. If that's you, don't bother reading the replies, we already know what they're gonna say.

First of all, allow me to clarify something : my ranking is currently sitting at 653. That means I'm a better than average player.

Wait what ? You read that right. Simply look at the statistics tab of chess.com. Currently, 60% of the playerbase has a lower ranking than I do.

Now why is that important ? Because people online will want you to believe that anyone under 2000 is trash, and anyone under 1000 literally move their pieces randomly : that's a lie.

This simple fact is crucial to understand why most chess advice is trash.

Let me ask you a question: what's the point of learning a strategy that's "working" in a league where you'll never play ?

Does it make sense to say that such or such playstyle is "bad" because at 2000 elo (<1% of the playerbase) where you will likely never play, it doesn't work anymore ?

This is the reason why so many of you have immediately started to lose rankings after you've taken lessons, "studied grand masters games", or watch a tutorial on youtube: what you've learned doesn't work at your elo.

Your brain got used to certain patterns, certain techniques that works in your games, but suddenly you stop playing these because people on the internet told you that it's bad, even though it's literally what brought you to where you are.

To make a point, I'm going to quickly mention 2 strategies that are incredibly annoying yet extremely powerful, even if people on the internet tell you they don't : pawn pushing, and early queen attacks.

Notice how when your opponent does that it puts your under incredible pressure ? notice how you feel that at the slightest mistake, you'll lose ?

Guess what : it means the strategy works.

Another hint ? the guy literally got to your level playing these, otherwise you wouldn't be playing him.

A bad strategy isn't a strategy that's "not supposed to work" at "high elo" (high elo means where less than 1% of players play, btw).

A bad strategy is a strategy that makes it effortless for your opponent to win.

Whenever the guy does something that gives him 10 options and only gives you 1 ? It's a good strategy, bro.

And the opposite is also true.

Say that a guy got to 1000 playing early queen attacks. Internet will tell you "well that works only in low elo" I'm sorry low what ? 1000 elo means you're better than 80% of the player base.

See, if something works very well where 80% of the players play, I call that a good strategy, and I really don't care if it doesn't work anymore at 2500+.

So here's my advice : each time you hear that something only works in "low elo", understand "where 90% of players play". If that's you, do that very thing. It works.

Each time you hear "that doesn't work if you have a decent elo" understand "where 5% or less of players play" and ignore the advice if that's not you.

And last but not least : if you notice a strategy that your opponent plays that is incredibly oppressive, don't google "how to counter X". Start playing X. It works, you just saw it working against you.

Now, here are some practical strategies that will work if you're under 1000 elo :

1. early queens are extremely strong, just dont blunder them

2. always prioritise poneys over bishops. Bishops suck. You've been told bishops are better then poneys. That's not true. Get your poneys out and get them hoping, they're literally a casino. Soon enough you find some crazy fork and win a rook or a queen. If you can, do trade your bishop against their poneys.

3. push pawns, a lot. Pushing a pawn is a low risk high reward move. It protect your pieces. It prevents your opponent from getting there. It's just obnoxious. And worse case scenario, you've blundered a pawn. 

4. Don't castle if your opponent didnt get his queen out. You're wasting time. You get a rook out there, but they're useless as you can't trade them against pawns, poneys or juicers. I can't count how many times my attacks have been stopped by 2 rooks that have been sleeping the whole game because my opponent didn't waste time castling. When you castle, you're wasting time while your opponent gains tempo. You've been told castling is a development move. That's a lie.

5. On the other hand : do castle if they get the queen out, or they will check you and destroy you. Which leads me to :

6. Always check when there's a check. They told you that "beginners check for no reason". There is a reason : they know that 9/10 times it's going to be bring something good. Either it does nothing, or the opponent panics and blunders and they get something, or the opponent move the king in the wrong direction and you can get a mate. So often I thought "this check wont get me anywhere but let's do it" and it unlocked some crazy tactic I didn't even see. ALWAYS check.

7. At the end of the day the more you play the better you'll get, even if you don't analyse your games. Analysing your games can be worthwhile, analyse GM games is entirely useless, your opponent won't do anything remotely close to what you've "studied".

8. Opening don't matters, but learning cheeses (fried liver, scholar's, etc..) is definitely worthwhile. You can cheese a lot of games. Worse case scenario your cheese won't work, and they'll you that you "end up in a bad position", here's the thing though : bad positions don't actually exist. Get your queen and your poneys out and suddenly you're in a "good position".

9. Very important : DO NOT have a gameplan. I've lost so many games having a gameplan. You're game plan won't work, it won't happen, you'll just blunder or play inefficiently because you're focusing on the wrong thing. Instead, play reactively. Look at what they do, and just try to 1. not blunder and 2. get some kind of threat on the next move. That's it.

10. Don't focus on their king. Sure, look for checks, but don't insist too much. While you're focusing on a piece that's hidden and inaccessible, the guy is discretely pushing a pawn revealing a bishop that's been sleeping the whole game but that's now going to snipe your rook or queen. Focus on what they do and play reactively, not proactively.

Once you get the material advantage, which you'll get if you follow these advices, just clean the board, get another queen and end the game with a super braindead checkmate.

Good luck ! 

PS : Oh and by the way, stalemate is a completely retarded rule. If you've been stalemated and you're furious at how dumb the rule is, you're absolutely right, it is incredibly dumb. It's a massive taboo in the community so I had to say it. 

chomp on hanging pieces

There is so much wrong with this post that it's almost impossible to figure out where to start.

1. The only reason an Elo of ~650 is in the "top 60%" is because Chess.com also counts people who have abandoned their accounts or aren't even trying to improve. If you were to not count those people in the rankings, the actual average rating would probably be around 1400-1500 and you would be in the bottom 20%.

2. The fact that you unironically think pawn pushing is good, early queen attacks are good, bishops are bad pieces, etc. is part of the reason why you're still at 600 Elo. The only reason you think these strategies are good is because you don't know how to counter them and have never encountered anyone who does know how to counter them.

3. Related to the above: thinking a strategy is "good" because it works on most of the people you play it against is another reason you're still hovering in the 600s. If your "strategies" were actually good, your rating would be going up pretty fast. But a quick look at your profile makes it plainly obvious that it's not going up at all.

4. Your first "point" about castling is completely wrong. No explanation is needed here, other than that some of your last few games are proof that it's wrong.

5. Your "point" about always checking whenever possible is wrong. Again, no explanation is needed.

6. The only reason you're mad about stalemate is because you once stalemated your opponent when you had an incredibly obvious mate in one and can't cope with the fact that it was entirely your fault. There's no shame in admitting it; it's happened to all of us at least once.

Seriously, dude. You might be the most downright delusional person to ever post in the forums since the "GM within 6 months" guy.

The fact that, as of this writing, you've lost seven of the last ten games you've played and your Elo is now 585 (meaning you went down a whopping 68 points from the 653 Elo you had when you made this post) is proof of that.

Furthermore, the fact that people who follow the videos you disparage so much are in fact much higher ranked than you and would utterly destroy you in a match — even with the godawful "strategies" you incorrectly think are good — is even further proof of that.

You're bad at chess. Period. Writing an entire "nothing is ever my fault" essay and giving a whole bunch of completely incorrect advice to other newcomers is not going to change that.

I think this general point is true...

What is bad at higher levels is just fine at lower levels. How much study you need to do and how precise you need to play is dependent upon how high of a rating you would like to achieve.

So what is good advice for one person is bad advice for another. But the main truth is that everyone new to chess will benefit from greater board vision and better knowledge of tactics.

you may reach 1000 with those tips but your psyche of playing chess will be rotten and you will be forever 1000 if you keep doing that.

A player who is 653 on chess.com should probably concentrate on learning stuff, not trying to teach winning strategy.

Also, all this cutsie talk about "juicers" and "cheeses" and "ponies" is simply irritating, The guy is trying to suggest that he is a member of some elite club with an elite speaking style, but it does the opposite.

And to crown all this, every advice in the opening post is horrible. Some of them are completely ridiculous (like "push pawns a lot" or "always check"), the others are simply bad.

I stopped reading after this

P.S. And I dont want to pretend a chess expert, I am trash at chess myself regardless any ratings

But he's a pureblooded aristocrap.

If low-level and average-level chess operates in different rules to elite chess, then how do you explain GMs winning in speed runs? Why do they not lose against 200s and 300s? It is a very weird way of thinking.

Why is 1000 not good enough?

GMs understand positions and have many positions memorized.

Opening principals exist for a reason. Opening theory exists for a reason. If OP tries early queen attacks against a competent opponent, it will be punished every time. Beginners, please don’t listen to him - there is no reason you can’t get far higher rated than 600 - and ignoring conventional chess wisdom will only hinder your chances.

By all means don’t play ultra-mainline theory that you (or I) don’t understand, as the reason it’s played at the highest level is because the understanding of the game by GMs etc is beyond our comprehension! Sidelines and whacky openings are fine, but stick to ones that have at least been studied!

So much bad advice but hey keep ignoring opening principals and keep wondering why you do not advance at a steady rate. Sure you should leave opening moves when you see an advantage but most other reasons are foolish.

If you know tactics, opening principles will come naturally.

Memorizing what is generally good is far inferior to playing the board.

Funny how I mostly do what the op says and I'm much higher rated than you.

You just called a Knight a "Pony". That's good enough advice for me

By the way, Mr. "Here's how to actually win" has lost the last 6 games against 600-rated opponents, including this gem:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/144362261974?username=purebloodedaristocrat

Bir fafafafafafaf

You can cherry pick any number of games...here is one that I won which broke opening principles but for a reason.