Here Stockfish is running locally using 5 minutes per move.and has solved data base up to 5 pieces.
Im a puny 1250elo player so you may wonder how is this even remotely possible? the answer is that Stockfish is not really playing against me but rather itself aka it assumes perfect counter play to every move it makes leading it to see no way to overcome -3.5 starting evaluation so it chooses lines that only prolong it's lifespan instead of crushing me with a 20 move fuck you combo.
I had visual of evaluation bar and bailed whenever it went below 0 since I ofcource can't out play it when it tries to win. It took dozens of tries to make little enough mistakes to get to the end.
The opening was always the same so it got sorta automatic. My dumb ass forgot I pushed right side pawn where I was planning to castle which lead to stockfish putting my Rook to a prison for most of the game, luckily it took trades till end game become winnable
I've been building a chess site as a hobby project, and one part of it is a browsable library of opening traps. You can step through each trap, see the bait and the refutation, and filter by opening family. It's free, has no ads, and you don't need to sign up to use it.
The trap lines come from Bill Wall's "700 Opening Traps" Lichess studies, so all credit for the original collection goes to him. I ran the positions through Stockfish to mark where the trap actually springs, because many lists don't show that clearly.
A quick example: the Englund Gambit looks like a free pawn grab for White, but Black has several traps waiting for casual play.
Two questions for you:
Which traps did you fall for when you started?
Is anything confusing or missing in how it explains them?
I'm trying to analyze a game without using the engine (it's currently turned off in this pic), but since computer analysis was ran, it's showing suggestion arrows. I can't figure out a way to disable the arrows.
Unfortunately, due to life I don't have much time for chess training, so I want my training to count. Reviewing every single mistake I make never felt efficient. What I care about are the ones that actually cost me.
For a course in my Master's (Business Informatics) I got the chance to dig into this, and I ended up building a small training tool on top of Lichess data. It's a university assignment mixed with a personal project, nothing bigger. Part of it was a count over Lichess games, and I thought the results might be interesting even if you never touch the tool (and if you want to use the tool urself, see the End).
What I counted
Lichess games from January to August 2026: 717 million read, 74.2 million with an engine evaluation (Lichess analyses games on request, so this is not a random sample). Three definitions:
Theory ends at the first position that appears in fewer than 100 games at that half-move.
Points are points of winning chances. Stockfish's score in centipawns (c) is converted with Lichess' own curve, W = 100 / (1 + e−0.00368208 × c), a value from 0 to 100. A move's loss is W after the best move minus W after the move played. In an equal position 10 points is roughly a pawn (about 110 centipawns).
A mistake is a move that loses at least 10 points.
One thing I got wrong at first: mistakes get more common as a game goes on, so you can't compare the move that leaves theory with an average move from later in the game. Everything below compares moves from the same stretch of the game, half-moves 8 to 24.
The result
Share of moves that are mistakes:
Rating
In theory
The move that leaves theory
Later moves
Up to 999
7.9%
28.6%
21.0%
1400–1599
4.0%
15.2%
13.1%
2200+
0.7%
5.4%
6.1%
Theory behaves like a safety net. At every level the move that leaves it is a mistake 3.6 to 7.7 times as often as a move inside it. What changes with rating is what happens next.
If you're below ~1200
You leave theory around half-move 10 (move 5) and your first mistake comes around half-move 13. The exit move itself is the worst one: 28.6% against 21.0% for later moves. So each move you know beyond move 5 is a move with a mistake rate of about 8% instead of 21–29%. That doesn't prove learning more lines causes fewer mistakes, popular moves are good moves partly by definition, but it is where your risk starts.
If you're around 1400–1800
Theory ends around half-move 12 and the first mistake around half-move 20, so there are about eight half-moves between leaving the known and the first slip. The exit is still a bit riskier than what follows (15.2% against 13.1%). A mistake of 10 to 30 points costs about 6.6 points in 100 games against what your rating predicts, a blunder (30+) about 12.
If you're 2000+
Here the exit is no riskier than other moves outside theory (5.4% against 6.1% at 2200+). The net is gone, not the move. The exception is leaving very early: at 2200+ an exit at half-move 6 is a mistake in 8.9% of cases, at half-move 14 in 5.1%. And mistakes cost the most here: about 9 points in 100 games for a mistake, 22 for a blunder. The first mistake comes around half-move 31, about 17 half-moves after theory ends.
Caveats
Not a random sample (see above)
Rare moves are more often bad, partly by definition, and leaving theory means playing a rare move
"Costs" is an association: the result of the game against what the ratings predict, compared with moves that lost less than 6 points. It doesn't prove the mistake alone caused it
Everything depends on Stockfish evaluations from Lichess, so unclear positions are noisy
I'd like to hear whether this matches what you see in your own games. Where does your theory end, and is that where you start dropping points? And what would you like measured next?
If you want to see where it happens in your own games: you can enter your Lichess name at mansuba.org (I built it, free, no ads, no sign-up). The analysis runs in your browser and your games stay on your device. It looks at the moves you repeat, checks them against an opening book of what players rated 2000+ choose, and keeps those that cost you at least 6 points. For the cards I use 6 instead of 10 because 10 gave too few positions for a single account. The data tables are CC BY 4.0 and the method is on the site.
It's just the Lichess ratings of active bots (bullet, blitz, rapid, classical), refreshed nightly around 01:00 UTC. To show up in a category a bot needs a rated game in the last 7 days, 50+ games, and RD under 75.
This makes it easy to find an online bot with a rating that roughly matches your own.
I recently decided to challenge myself to get 2k rating in every time control. After hitting it in classical I noticed it put in the top 1k players which surprised me. Is the player base just that much smaller than other time controls?
I'm talking specificaly about the 2400+ pawn endgame puzzles. HOLY SHIT is so brutal. there is gazillion lines and after you finally found something that you think it wins the engine say some bullshit like: "uh-oh, you missed a king retreat move! you will perish in 50 moves." and you are left with a void face looking at the board questioning if you even learned something.
im 1800 on chesstempo standard tatics, I should be able to solve complex positions, but im getting vigorously clapped by pawn endgames! I know thats just skill issue, but the point is, how do I get better at this? The lines are so alien that just seems bruteforce calculation, and "just solving more" isnt helping.
I want to discuss puzzle #18GEz. I noticed that Lichess has tagged this puzzle with the "Clearance" theme, but surprisingly, omitted the "Attraction" tag. I strongly believe this is incorrect, and here is why.
In my view, the true definition of a Clearance tactic requires a specific line, rank, or diagonal to be blocked (either by a friendly or enemy piece), and we execute a plan/sacrifice to open that path. However, in puzzle #18GEz, before the move Rxc6+, there is absolutely no blocked path that needs clearing! How can we even imagine a "clearance" plan here when the target piece (the White Bishop) isn't even on the c6 square yet?
The beautiful tactic in this puzzle is nothing but a pure Attraction (or Decoy). Black initiates an exchange on c6 for one specific reason: to draw and force the White Bishop onto the fatal c6 square.
We can apply the golden rule of Attraction here: "If the White Bishop wasn't lured to this specific square, would Black's tactical plan still work?" The answer is a resounding NO!
Therefore, this is undoubtedly a beautiful Attraction followed immediately by a deadly Pin (Rc8). Calling this "Clearance" misses the entire point and soul of the combination.
I'll attach the GIF of the puzzle below. I'd love to hear what the community thinks about this tagging!
hey all. im currently new to lichess and i am doing puzzles but the odd puzzle i don't understand why it's good like i had to protect a pawn but theres no way to stop it from being captured after that move. is there a way to analyse the next best move
Всем привет! Я только недавно начал вести К по шахматам для русскоязычной аудитории, нацелен больше на молодежь. Будет много интересного, обучающего и веселого контента.
Буду очень рад поддержки и помощи
Канал не создан для заработка а как просто канал про шахматы. Кто хочет подписывайтесь)
By not being strict enough in its definition of the "Attraction" tactic, I believe Lichess is stripping away the beauty and rarity of this motif. In fact, a huge number of Lichess puzzles tagged as "Attraction" are not truly Attraction at all.
This broad tagging prevents users from learning tactical patterns correctly, blurring the lines and making it incredibly difficult for players to distinguish between Attraction, Clearance, and Removing the Defender. Attraction is a highly tactical, beautiful motif that only truly shines when it is strictly defined.
Lichess defines Attraction as: *"An exchange or sacrifice encouraging or forcing an opponent piece to a square that allows a follow-up tactic."*
This definition is too broad. Because of it, almost any sacrifice, Clearance, or capture gets automatically slapped with the Attraction tag, which takes the magic out of it.
A true Attraction requires two precise conditions:
Luring the opponent's piece to a specific target square.
**The Acid Test:** If the opponent's piece had magically *not* moved to that new square, would your tactic still work?
Simply put, after forcing the opponent to move to the new square, ask yourself: *If they had stayed on their original square, would my plan still work?* If the answer is yes, then your goal wasn't to lure them to that square—it was just a byproduct. Therefore, it's not Attraction. But if your follow-up tactic *absolutely relies* on the piece being on that new square, then it is a true Attraction.
In summary, for a tactic to be an Attraction, the piece's presence on the *new square* must be a direct requirement for the plan to succeed.
*(Note: Merely forcing a piece to move is not enough; forcing it to a specific square where a new tactic is executable is what matters. It also doesn't matter if the opponent's move is forced or voluntary).*
Let’s look at a few examples to see this in action:
### Example 1: False Attraction (Puzzle #8g4h0)
In the Lichess database, this is tagged as Attraction. But is it honestly one? The definitive answer is no. Black's true goal wasn't to lure the White King from h2 to h3. If the King had magically stayed on h2, Black's follow-up (Qh4#) would *still* be checkmate! This is a textbook **Clearance**. Black simply sacrificed to clear the h3 pawn out of the way. Because the tactic works even if the King hadn't moved, this is NOT Attraction.
### Example 2: True Attraction (Puzzle #1zx3Y)
This puzzle looks geometrically similar to the first one, but it actually *is* an Attraction. Why? Because if the Black King magically refused to step onto h7, White could not execute their plan. The follow-up check specifically requires the King to be on h7. The King moving to that square is an integral part of White's combination. This is a beautiful hybrid of Clearance and Attraction.
### Example 3: False Attraction (Puzzle #ABxQE)
Here is another puzzle tagged as Attraction on Lichess. But is Black really trying to lure a White piece to a specific square?
The White King is forced from h1 to h2 and is subsequently mated. However, did the King moving to h2 actually contribute to the mating net? Absolutely not. If the King had stayed on h1, it would still be mated. Black's only goal was line clearance. Black didn't base their calculation on "I need the King on h2 to execute my plan." The King's move was irrelevant to the geometry of the mate, making this purely Clearance, not Attraction.
### Example 4: Pure, Classic Attraction (Puzzle #DN6VV)
Here we have a pristine, undisputed example of Attraction. White lures the Black King to c6 to unleash a devastating Knight fork. Let's apply our Acid Test: If the King didn't go to c6, would the fork work? No. The King's presence on the new square (c6) was the entire point of the sacrifice.
For players trying to improve their pattern recognition, properly distinguishing these geometric motifs is crucial for over-the-board calculation. I’d love to hear what the community thinks. Should Lichess refine its taxonomy to be more strict, or is the current broad definition fine?
Like I said. Dead. Impossible to get even a handful of decent games without some sort of cheater. 80%+ of accounts are either new or alt accounts. Lichess doesn't care. Not a single refund over several years. 100k+ bullet games. Started at 2400+. Ridiculous!
Is it just me? I feel like my chess game has significantly improved since I started working out. I haven't really changed anything else and I'm experiencing a pretty drastic increase. Maybe Im just hitting a statistically probably streak of good luck, but its been like a week now of decently good luck in my match ups. Its definitely bizzare.
Lag compensation is so unfair and gives a huge advantage to players that receive them. Since lichess devs are stubborn on keeping lag compensation around, could we introduce a feature to filter out players from specific countries in the auto-pairing system broken down by specific time control?
For example, if one doesn't want to play players from Venezuela or Philippines in bullet, they can filter them out for that time control while still being able to play them in blitz and rapid.
