Chess Question

Does anyone else find they play chess better on a board than online?

It's the opposite for me! I find I play better against bots than real people, whether that's on a board or online. I think it's down to not being worried I'll get judged if I mess up (which is often ;-; ).

Bots tend not to play like humans. The lower rated bots don't simulate human games well, they make easy blunders.

True, I try not to play bots <1000. I like the Streamer bots on chess.com.

Yes. I definitely play better over the board.

Chess on a board is way better than online anyway- no stupid mouseslips.

Although bots still don't simulate human play.

What is your elo? Chess.com/lichess?


What's your online elo (chess.com/lichess), and official Elo (for example FIDE)

Although bots still don't simulate human play.

What is your elo? Chess.com/lichess?

Of course, but they're still okay for casual practise. I just don't like playing users tbh, when I have done so they've either been really sore losers or extremely arrogant winners. Doesn't apply to everyone on the site of course but I guess I just have bad luck- and there are literally no people I actually know irl that can play chess well or at all, annoyingly.
I don't have an official elo but my rapid rating is 1235 on chess.com- although I haven't played on my current account much, recently not at all (been busy with school). What's yours?

When I play there aren't really sore losers/extremely arrogant winners.

My rapid rating is 900 something, which means I'm still pretty bad at chess (often blundering pieces, missing simple tactics).

Until at least 1200 elo people aren't good at chess at all.

Have you tried joining a chess club, somewhere else?

Good for you if you've never met those kinds of people! Hopefully you'll meet some nice people who'll help you improve, I'm sure you can get that 1200 no problem if you keep at it

I was in a really good club in primary/elementary school for a long time, we went to multiple national tournaments and I never won big but still got some awards and all that. Now I'm a good way into secondary/high school and there's still no good chess clubs. There's a casual one where you can just go and play, but you don't get taught how to improve and it's not a school 'team' where we compete with other schools or anything. I can't go anyway- I have some annoying maths club I have to attend that overlaps- and also you have to bring someone to play with you, and like I said I don't know anyone who can play.
If I were to join a club it would have to be one where I get taught strategy and stuff, and where I can go to competitions (even if I'm just an average player). It'd look good on an application if nothing else.

Hopefully i could get 1200 or something. It's a decent goal, although I'd like to go further (even though I know I've started late... I probably won't get a FIDE title but...)

You're right. Although 1200s rapid chess.com is different from OTB... so I might need to prepare for a real shock.

1200 shouldn't be a problem, once you have basics and some tactics learnt it's really easy to get there. Key is to learn and study specific openings, attacks, positions etc. that suit your play style. And since you're already 900 I think you probably won't find this too hard- once you get to 1000 it's easy to increase a lot faster.
It is harder to get titled if you didn't start very young, but I don't think it'd be extremely difficult if you practise regularly and study openings and other tactics outside of just playing full games. I don't even do that all too often but once I get more free time I think I could work towards CM or even FM. Of course it'd definitely be a struggle and very challenging, but with dedication it hopefully wouldn't feel impossible.
And yes, it is definitely a shock to go from chess.com to otb competitions- I remember doing really well practising online (although this was vs. low level bots) for a competition, and then losing REALLY badly in a lot of the competition matches to opponents I should've been able to beat according to my online games. To be fair, I was 8 or 9 and really nervous. But still, definitely try and get some otb matches/matches against real people in if you ever try otb competitions.

I think it won't be a problem, but which openings do I study? Attacks and positions, like middlegame and transition endgame?
Is the Vienna Gambit good? What about openings for Black (i'm weaker for Black)

I practise regularly enough, study openings and tactics outside of full game.
Even CM is very impressive to achieve, remember most chess.com players are stuck about 500-600 chess elo. Titles are basically reserved for elite chess players and to be an elite chess player would take a lot of time and perhaps natural talent/intellect.
And at this rate it'll probably a multi year goal, even several year or a goal that'll take a decade. After that it gets exponentially harder to move further.

As White, I'd say the London System is pretty good to have in your arsenal, since it's easy to learn and plays it pretty safe. However it's not very ambitious in terms of setting up future attacks in the middlegame. People don't like it for some reason but I don't think that makes any difference. Worth noting is that despite it being a very safe and solid position for White it's also dead easy to play against, so for a more risky but also more advantageous strategy I'd suggest the Danish Gambit (involves sacrificing 2 pawns to develop a strong attack) or the King's Gambit (very aggressive, even if your opponent knows how to counterplay it won't disadvantage you).
The Vienna is nice, very aggressive gameplay which is what I like, but it only works if the opening is right. For example I would never play it in response to 1. ...e5 because it can easily be dismantled that way. I only played it a few times to try it out so don't take my word for it but it's kind of difficult and requires just the right first moves, and I've only ever seen it work in high rated games (like 1600>)
For Black, I'd suggest the Sicilian Defence or the King's Indian Defence for some really aggressive play. I've also tried the Latvian a few times but this is quite a risky tactic and often ends up blowing up in my face lol, although when I don't mess up it allows a lot of freedom to move for Black later in the game. I also tried learning a few tactics like the Lasker trap, which can be very useful if the game is right.
In terms of middlegame and endgame, it depends on the opening (a Sicilian middlegame will be different to a King's Indian middlegame, for example). So once you've picked some openings you like then further research on their continuations would be helpful
Personally, my favourite opening as Black is the Caro-Kann Defence- if you can pull off the fantasy variation, this gives you literally perfect piece development for brilliant attacks (especially pins) in the middlegame.
But just to note, all of the above are things I personally found helped improve my game, since my playing style is quite aggressive and attack-oriented. If you like to play up the defence/not that aggressively then not all of these would work for you (except the London and some types of Caro-Kann).

And yeah, I don't really expect to get a title. It'd be fun to try though since I do feel like I have at least a little natural aptitude for the game. I did say that I would have to have lot more time on my hands to even get started on that.

Wow, I feel like my responses are really long. Sorry if it's annoying😅

The Danish Gambit is not a sound opening. Once I sacrifice three pawns, as white my advantage goes from 0.3 all the way to -1.1 (which is pretty damn bad). Why should i play an opening that makes me lose 1.4 pawns worth?

Kings Gambit is not that great, it isn't that great of an opening. What about the Vienna Gambit?
Vienna, the good point is that there's not a lot of theory to learn (and I hate learning lots of theory, i don't want to memorise 10+ moves in opening)

I'm not that aggressive of a player, I usually play e5 when white goes e4 anyway.

I don't play that aggressively, especially when I don't really know the moves. Although what about Queen's Gambit for white?

Titles are extremely hard to get. At our progress we're talking a decade of hard work and that's for the CM title. The higher you go, the more difficult it gets.

Does anyone else find they play chess better on a board than online?

Better on board with real opponents. No blame for virtual contestants, I just think there are other and better things they can be done online.

Practicing online is more flexible, as you don't need to get out to a real board.

Additionally, your tournament rating doesn't have to decrease.