MyChessPlan

Tag: stockfish

  • Lichess vs Chess.com for Adult Improvers: A Coach’s Side-by-Side Audit of the Two Free Tools You Already Have

    Lichess vs Chess.com for Adult Improvers: A Coach’s Side-by-Side Audit of the Two Free Tools You Already Have

    If you are an adult improver, you almost certainly already have accounts on both Lichess and Chess.com. That is the easy part. The hard part is that most of us bounce between them like browser tabs during study time, never asking the question that actually matters: which platform should you be using for each specific job?

    After watching dozens of students wrestle with this from 1100 up through 1900, I have come to a conclusion that contradicts most “Lichess vs Chess.com” articles online. The answer is not that one platform is better. The answer is that they are extraordinarily different tools that excel at completely different parts of the improvement process — and using the wrong one for a given task is one of the most common quiet reasons adult improvers stall.

    This audit walks through six core jobs every improving player needs done, and assigns the right tool to each. No vague “both are great!” hedging.

    The Six Jobs You Actually Need a Chess Platform to Do

    Before we compare features, here is the honest list of things adult improvers spend study hours on. Everything else is a distraction:

    1. Playing rated games at the time control that grows your rating
    2. Analyzing those games to find recurring mistakes
    3. Studying openings with spaced repetition that sticks
    4. Drilling tactics that match your real game weaknesses
    5. Studying endgames in positions you will actually reach
    6. Building a working notebook of personal patterns and ideas

    Both platforms claim to do all six. Only one of them does each one well.

    Job 1: Playing Rated Games

    Verdict: Chess.com for under-1800, Lichess for 1800+

    This is the only category where the larger player pool genuinely matters. Below roughly 1800 Glicko, Chess.com’s pool is deeper and the match-finding is faster, which means you complete more games per study hour. That translates directly into more analysis material.

    Above 1800, however, Lichess produces noticeably tougher opposition at the same rating number because of how its rating distribution compresses. Many of my students see a 50–80 point Lichess drop relative to their Chess.com rapid rating once they cross 1900, and that gap reflects genuine difficulty, not rating inflation drama.

    One important caveat: 15+10 rapid is the only time control that meaningfully improves adult players who study fewer than ten hours per week. If your platform encourages you to play 3+0 blitz instead, switch platforms.

    Job 2: Analyzing Your Games

    Verdict: Lichess, by a wide margin

    This is the category where the gap between the two tools is largest, and it is the one most improvers get wrong. Chess.com’s “Game Review” is a marketing product. It assigns moves cute labels (“Brilliant!”, “Great move!”) and dispenses praise generously. Adult improvers consistently misread these labels as evidence that they are playing better than they are.

    Lichess analysis is colder and more useful. It gives you Stockfish depth, three engine lines, a clean blunder/mistake/inaccuracy summary, and — critically — the ability to step move-by-move with full annotation tools without paywalls or animations.

    If you want a deeper guide to extracting real improvement from engine output rather than just trophy moves, our piece on reading chess engine analysis like a coach walks through the exact post-game routine I give students.

    Tip: Use Lichess “Learn from your mistakes” mode

    This feature does not exist on Chess.com in any equivalent form. It replays every blunder and mistake from your game as a puzzle, forcing you to find the move you missed under the same emotional conditions. Twenty minutes here is worth two hours of casual review.

    Job 3: Studying Openings

    Verdict: Lichess Studies for building, Chess.com for drilling

    Lichess Studies are the single most underused tool in adult chess improvement. They give you free, unlimited PGN notebooks with chapters, branching variations, annotations, and the ability to embed engine analysis right inside the position. You can build a working repertoire that lives in your account forever, organized exactly the way your brain remembers it.

    Chess.com’s opening book is broader and prettier, but it does not let you build anything. You can browse community lines, but the structure belongs to the platform, not to you.

    The right workflow: build the repertoire in Lichess Studies, then drill it using Chess.com’s opening trainer or Chessable. If you have not yet picked a starting repertoire, our rating-based opening repertoire blueprint covers how to scope this without burning twenty study hours on theory you cannot remember.

    Job 4: Tactics Training

    Verdict: Lichess puzzles, with one specific exception

    Lichess Puzzles are tagged by theme (fork, pin, discovered attack, back-rank, deflection, decoy, and so on) and you can filter your training to a single theme until it sticks. This is the closest thing to deliberate practice that a free tool offers. The puzzles are also drawn from real played games, which means the positions feel like positions you actually reach.

    Chess.com’s puzzles are pleasant and gamified, but the rating system rewards speed and the theme filters are weaker. Treat Chess.com Puzzle Rush and Puzzle Battle as warmup or recreation, not training.

    The one exception: Chess.com’s “Custom Puzzles” feature generates puzzles directly from your own lost games. This is genuinely valuable for plateaued players and worth the membership for a few months if you are stuck.

    Job 5: Endgame Training

    Verdict: Lichess endgame trainer for technique, Chess.com Lessons for concepts

    Lichess’s endgame practice tool lets you play out specific endgame types against Stockfish from random starting positions — Lucena, Philidor, Vančura, opposite-coloured bishops, queen vs rook. This is irreplaceable for technique. Drill the same position thirty times against a strong engine and the conversion patterns become reflexive.

    Chess.com’s structured endgame Lessons are better for the concepts — when to trade pieces, when to push pawns, when to triangulate. They explain. Lichess drills.

    If you are not sure which endings deserve your finite attention, our piece on the endgame hierarchy ranks the seven that produce real rating gains under 2000.

    Job 6: Building a Personal Pattern Notebook

    Verdict: Lichess Studies, no contest

    This is the job that virtually no improver does, and it is the difference between players who plateau and players who keep climbing. Every time you encounter a pattern in your own games — a tactical motif you missed, a structural idea you want to remember, an opening trap you walked into — you need somewhere to save it. Not a folder of PGNs. A searchable, annotatable, position-aware notebook.

    Lichess Studies do this for free. Make a “Personal Patterns” study, add a chapter every time you find something worth remembering, annotate the key move. Six months in, you have a curated improvement document that no course or coach could replicate, because it is built entirely on your blind spots.

    The Combined Workflow I Give Adult Students

    The right answer is not “use Lichess” or “use Chess.com.” It is to use them as two parts of the same study system:

    Play rated 15+10 games where the pool is strongest for your rating. Analyze every loss on Lichess (paste the PGN, hit “Learn from your mistakes”). Save each interesting pattern into a personal Lichess study. Drill tactics on Lichess filtered by your weakest theme, ten minutes daily. Practice endgames on Lichess against Stockfish, one position per week until conversion is automatic. Maintain your opening repertoire as a Lichess study, drill it on Chess.com if you prefer the interface.

    That workflow takes about five hours a week and beats every premium “training plan” I have seen sold to adult improvers, because it is built on tools you already have free access to.

    What Each Platform Will Not Do For You

    Neither platform will tell you which of these jobs is the bottleneck holding back your specific rating. That diagnosis is the work that turns hours into points. If you do not know whether your blocker is tactical pattern recognition, structural understanding, time discipline, or psychological steadiness, no amount of platform switching will fix it. Our guide to breaking the 1500 plateau walks through the three hidden skill gaps most commonly responsible.

    If you want a personalized diagnosis, the free MyChessPlan archetype report takes about six minutes to complete and identifies your dominant playing style and the three skill areas most likely to unlock your next rating tier. For improvers who want the full curriculum mapped to their archetype, the $14.99 premium plan turns the diagnosis into a 30-day weekly schedule using exactly the Lichess and Chess.com tools described above.

    Take the free archetype assessment →

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Is Lichess really completely free, or are features hidden behind a subscription?

    Lichess is genuinely free, open source, and ad-free. Every feature mentioned in this article — Studies, full Stockfish analysis, the puzzle trainer, endgame practice, and “Learn from your mistakes” mode — is available without payment. The optional “Patron” tier exists purely to support the nonprofit and unlocks no features beyond a profile badge.

    Should I cancel my Chess.com Diamond membership if I switch most study to Lichess?

    Not necessarily. The most defensible Chess.com membership benefits for adult improvers are the unlimited tactics, the custom puzzles drawn from your own games, and the Lessons curriculum. If you use those weekly, keep it. If you are paying mostly for the rating points and the unlimited Game Review, you are likely better served putting that money toward a coaching session every couple of months.

    Which platform is better for OTB tournament preparation?

    Lichess, primarily because the longer time controls (30+0, 45+15, classical) have a healthier pool of serious players, and because the analysis tools let you prepare opponent-specific lines using their public game history. Chess.com is better if your tournament prep mostly means playing many fast games to keep your tactical sharpness up before the event.

    Can I use both platforms without diluting my rating progress?

    Yes — and you should. Rating is just a measurement; it is not the work itself. Use each platform’s rated games as feedback for the study you are doing elsewhere. Adult improvers who switch their entire study system every time their rating dips on one platform are the ones who never break through.

  • How to Read Chess Engine Analysis Like a Coach: Turning Centipawn Loss Into Real Improvement

    How to Read Chess Engine Analysis Like a Coach: Turning Centipawn Loss Into Real Improvement

    Every chess player who clicks “Computer Analysis” on Lichess or Chess.com sees the same thing: a row of green, yellow, and red dots, an accuracy percentage, and a centipawn loss number. Most players glance at it, feel either smug or defeated, and close the tab. They miss the actual point of the analysis entirely.

    Engine output is not feedback. It is raw data. A coach turns that data into a diagnosis. The difference between players who improve from engine review and players who don’t is not the engine they use — it is the framework they apply to what the engine spits out. This post is that framework.

    Why Raw Engine Numbers Mislead Most Players

    Stockfish 16 evaluates positions with near-perfect accuracy at depth 20+. That is precisely the problem. It judges your moves against a standard no human will ever match, then condenses the verdict into a single number — centipawn loss — that hides almost everything useful about why the move was bad.

    A player who loses 80 centipawns by missing a 14-move tactical sequence has made a categorically different mistake than a player who loses 80 centipawns by playing the wrong pawn break in a closed position. The engine prints the same number. The first mistake is unfixable for a 1400. The second is the single most important thing that player needs to learn this month.

    This is why we have an entire post on how engine analysis differs from coaching — and why simply running games through Stockfish does not produce improvement on its own.

    The Three Layers of Engine Output

    Every modern chess engine report contains three layers of data. Players who improve learn to read them in a specific order, weighted by what is actionable.

    Layer 1: Move Classifications (Blunders, Mistakes, Inaccuracies)

    These are the colored dots. Chess.com and Lichess use slightly different thresholds, but the standard is roughly:

    • Inaccuracy: 50–100 centipawns lost (a noticeable error, but the position is still playable)
    • Mistake: 100–300 centipawns lost (a real positional or tactical concession)
    • Blunder: 300+ centipawns lost (a game-changing error)

    This is the most overrated layer of the report. Players obsess over their blunder count and ignore that where in the game the blunders happened matters far more than how many there were. Five inaccuracies in the opening phase from the same player almost always indicate a single recurring repertoire gap — not five separate problems.

    Layer 2: Centipawn Loss and Accuracy Percentage

    The “accuracy” score most platforms display (e.g. 87.3%) is derived from average centipawn loss per move. It is a useful comparison metric across your own games at the same time control. It is nearly worthless as a comparison against other players.

    Here is the rule that actually matters: your accuracy should be roughly stable across game phases. A player whose accuracy is 92% in the opening, 76% in the middlegame, and 81% in the endgame has just diagnosed themselves. The middlegame is where their skill drops off. That is the training target — not “play fewer blunders.”

    Layer 3: Evaluation Swings (The Layer Almost Nobody Reads)

    This is the most important layer and the one no platform highlights well. It is the graph of how the evaluation changed throughout the game. The pattern of swings — not the individual values — tells you what kind of player you are.

    Three common patterns:

    • Sawtooth: Evaluation oscillates wildly between +2 and −2. Indicates poor risk assessment and impatient play. Common in attackers who push positions before they are ready.
    • Cliff: Evaluation holds steady for 20+ moves, then drops sharply once. Indicates a knowledge gap (usually endgame or transition into a specific structure). Common in well-prepared defenders.
    • Slow leak: Evaluation declines by 30–50 centipawns every few moves with no single bad move. Indicates strategic drift — the player does not have a plan. Most common pattern at 1200–1600.

    This is the diagnostic information a coach extracts in five seconds and most players never see.

    A Coach’s Three-Question Framework

    When a strong coach reviews an engine report, they ask three questions in order. You should ask the same three.

    Question 1: Where Does My Accuracy Drop?

    Open the move-by-move centipawn loss graph. Identify the phase (opening, early middlegame, late middlegame, endgame) where your accuracy is consistently lowest across your last 10 games. That is your training target for the next month. Not the blunder in move 34 of last night’s game.

    Question 2: Are My Mistakes Tactical or Strategic?

    Look at the engine’s recommended move in each flagged position. If the engine’s suggestion is a forcing sequence (a capture, check, or threat that wins material), your error was tactical — you missed calculation. If the engine’s suggestion is a quiet positional move (a pawn break, piece reroute, or prophylactic move), your error was strategic — you misread the position.

    This single distinction determines your entire study plan. Tactical mistakes are fixed by puzzle work. Strategic mistakes are fixed by studying annotated master games in similar structures. Our framework on calculation training covers the first case in depth.

    Question 3: Is This Move a Pattern or a One-Off?

    A single blunder is noise. The same type of mistake across three games is signal. Before you “fix” anything, check whether the same kind of position has tripped you up before. The engine cannot do this for you. You do it manually by scanning your last 5–10 game reports for the same diagnostic flag in Question 2.

    Most rating plateaus are caused by a single recurring weakness that the player never identified as a pattern because they reviewed each game in isolation. Our diagnostic method post walks through how to maintain this pattern log.

    Three Common Misreads That Waste Your Study Time

    Even with the framework above, players consistently misuse engine output in three ways.

    Misread 1: Treating “Best Move” as the Lesson

    The engine’s top move is often a computer move — a line that requires 8 moves of perfect calculation that you will never reproduce. Don’t memorize it. Instead, look at the engine’s second and third choices. Those are usually the moves a human coach would have recommended, and they teach the underlying idea without requiring engine-level calculation.

    Misread 2: Trusting the Opening Evaluation

    Engines evaluate opening positions based on a long-horizon search that does not reflect practical playability. A line evaluated at −0.3 may be the most testing line for your opponent. A line evaluated at +0.2 may be a dry equality you cannot win. Use a database (Lichess opening explorer) for opening decisions, not raw engine evaluations.

    Misread 3: Reviewing Won Games Less Carefully Than Lost Ones

    This is the single most common mistake at 1500–1800. Players review their losses obsessively and skim their wins. But the engine often reveals that a “won” game was actually lost on move 18 — the opponent simply blundered later. Reviewing wins is how you find your real weaknesses before your rating starts to reflect them.

    How This Connects to Your Playing Style

    The patterns above are not random — they correlate strongly with playing style. Attackers consistently show sawtooth evaluation graphs. Defenders show cliffs. Strategists show slow leaks. Tacticians show clean accuracy with occasional huge swings on missed combinations.

    This is why a generic “review your games with Stockfish” recommendation produces such inconsistent results. The same data means different things depending on what kind of player is generating it. If you have not yet identified your archetype, our chess archetypes guide is the place to start — it determines which engine patterns are diagnostic for you and which are just noise.

    From Diagnosis to Plan

    Reading engine analysis correctly gets you a diagnosis. Turning that diagnosis into a training plan is a separate skill. A diagnosis says “your middlegame accuracy drops 16% versus your opening.” A plan says “spend 20 minutes per day for 3 weeks on prophylactic thinking drills in IQP positions, then re-measure.”

    If you want this done for you — a full diagnostic on your last 50 games, an archetype assessment, and a 30-day training plan calibrated to your specific weaknesses — that is exactly what the $14.99 MyChessPlan personalized improvement plan produces. It is the same workflow a $150-per-hour coach uses, automated against your real game data. You can also get a free archetype report first if you want to see the framework before committing.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a good average centipawn loss for my rating?

    Roughly: 1000 rated ≈ 60–80 ACPL, 1500 rated ≈ 35–50 ACPL, 2000 rated ≈ 20–30 ACPL. But comparing your ACPL across different opponents and time controls is misleading. Use your own historical ACPL as the benchmark, not other players’.

    Should I use Stockfish, Leela, or Chess.com’s engine?

    At depth 18+, all three give equivalent verdicts on practical mistakes below master level. Use whichever is convenient. The engine is not the limiting factor in your improvement — the interpretation is.

    How many games per week should I analyze?

    Two to four, deeply, beats ten games skimmed. Pattern recognition across your last 10 games matters more than depth on any single game. Block 30 minutes per analysis session and stop when you have identified one actionable pattern.

    Does engine analysis still work for opening preparation?

    Only when combined with a master games database. Pure engine prep produces theoretically sound lines that are practically unfamiliar. Use the engine to validate the candidate moves a strong player would consider, not to generate them.

  • How to Analyze Your Own Chess Games: A Diagnostic Method That Targets Your Real Weaknesses

    How to Analyze Your Own Chess Games: A Diagnostic Method That Targets Your Real Weaknesses

    Most players already know they should “analyze their games.” The advice is so common it has become useless. You open a tab, click Game Review, scroll through the bouncing evaluation bar, nod at the mistakes Stockfish flags, and close the tab. A week later your rating has not moved.

    The problem is not that you are lazy. The problem is that engine-driven game review is a verification tool, not a diagnostic method. It tells you where you went wrong; it does not tell you why you keep going wrong in the same way. After coaching club players from 1100 to 2100, I have found that almost every plateau is caused by one of five recurring decision errors — not by gaps in opening theory or missed tactics in the moment.

    This article gives you a five-pass diagnostic framework I use with students. It is designed to surface patterns across many games rather than chasing single-move blunders. By the end, you will know exactly what to study next — and why.

    Why Standard Engine Review Fails

    An engine evaluates positions; it does not evaluate decisions. When Stockfish flags move 23 as a “?” and suggests an exchange sacrifice you never would have found, the engine is correct about the position and useless about your improvement. You did not lose that game because you missed a +1.4 exchange sacrifice. You lost it because you committed to an attacking plan three moves earlier without checking whether the defender had a stable structure.

    That earlier moment — the one with no “?” annotation — is where your rating lives. The engine cannot see it because the engine has no model of you. For more on this trade-off, see our breakdown of Stockfish analysis vs a human coach.

    The Five-Pass Diagnostic Method

    Run every serious game (classical, rapid 15+10, or longer) through these five passes. Skip blitz; the time pressure introduces noise that drowns out the signal. Each pass takes 6–10 minutes once you are used to the system, so a full analysis runs about 30–40 minutes — far less than the hour most players waste on engine-only review.

    Pass 1 — The Memory Pass (no engine)

    Replay the game from move 1 without an engine open. At every move, write a one-line note: what you were thinking, what you feared, and which candidate moves you considered. If you cannot remember, write “no plan.” That answer is the most useful diagnostic data you will produce all week.

    The Memory Pass forces you to separate positional understanding from engine-aided hindsight. A pattern of “no plan” notes between moves 15 and 25 is the classic middlegame-drift fingerprint. You are not losing because you blunder; you are losing because you stop having opinions.

    Pass 2 — The Critical Moments Pass

    Now turn on a low-depth engine (depth 18–22 is plenty; the deeper analysis is noise for human improvement). Mark every move where the evaluation swings by 0.8 or more. These are your critical moments. Ignore everything else.

    For each critical moment, label it with one of five tags:

    • Calculation error — you saw the right idea but miscounted a line
    • Evaluation error — you reached the end of a line and judged the resulting position wrongly
    • Candidate error — the right move never entered your list of options
    • Time error — you knew the answer but were rushed or burning clock
    • Plan error — the local move was fine but served a broken long-term plan

    These five tags are deliberately mutually exclusive. Forcing yourself to pick one is the entire point. If you find yourself wanting to tag a move “candidate + calculation,” your tagging muscle is not yet developed — pick the earlier root cause.

    Pass 3 — The Pattern Pass (across games)

    Single-game analysis tells you almost nothing. The diagnostic power lives in cross-game patterns. After tagging 10 games, count your tags. The distribution will look something like this:

    • Candidate errors: 14
    • Plan errors: 11
    • Calculation errors: 6
    • Evaluation errors: 4
    • Time errors: 3

    This player does not need a tactics course; they need a candidate-move discipline (the look-wider-before-deeper habit) and a planning framework. A different player with 14 calculation errors and 2 candidate errors needs the opposite — visualization drills and a structured way to calculate variations cleanly.

    The point is that your tag distribution prescribes your study, not the other way around. Most players have it backwards: they pick training material based on what is fashionable or what their favorite YouTuber covered last week, and the training touches none of their actual leak points.

    Pass 4 — The Archetype Pass

    Now zoom out further. Across your last 10 games, which kinds of positions did you mishandle?

    Sort your losses into three buckets:

    • Sharp, open positions with king safety and tactics dominant
    • Closed, maneuvering positions with pawn-structure decisions dominant
    • Endgames where technique and conversion dominate

    A player who loses 7 of 10 in sharp positions but wins maneuvering games is not a “calculator who needs more tactics” — they are a positional player whose opening repertoire forces them into sharp lines they cannot defend. The fix is usually a repertoire change, not 1,000 more puzzles. This is why we think about improvement in terms of chess archetypes: your archetype determines which training transfers and which is wasted.

    Pass 5 — The Decision-Tree Pass

    For one or two of your worst games, build a decision tree at the most pivotal moment. Write out the three candidate moves you considered, why you rejected two of them, and what you believed the third would achieve. Then compare to the engine’s top three options and notice where your decision tree diverged from the correct one.

    Most players discover, repeatedly, that the right move was in their original candidate set — they rejected it because of a single concrete line they miscalculated, or because of a fuzzy “this feels bad” intuition that turned out to be wrong. This is gold. Intuitions you can name are intuitions you can retrain.

    How to Use the Diagnostic Output

    After running this method on 10–15 games, you will have three pieces of data: your tag distribution, your archetype loss profile, and a small library of decision trees. Together they tell you what to do next:

    • If candidate errors dominate, you need a candidate-move protocol (e.g., the “list three before calculating any” rule from Kotov, adapted for online time controls).
    • If plan errors dominate, you need pawn-structure study tied to the actual structures you reach from your openings — not generic middlegame books.
    • If calculation errors dominate, you need short, daily visualization work; long puzzle sets are mostly noise.
    • If time errors dominate, you have a clock-management problem, not a chess problem — see our piece on chess time management at every rating.
    • If evaluation errors dominate, you need to study annotated master games slowly, predicting moves and explaining your evaluation before turning the page.

    Notice that none of these prescriptions is “do more of everything.” Improvement is not a volume problem. It is a targeting problem.

    Common Mistakes When Self-Analyzing

    Three failure modes show up reliably when players try to run this method on their own.

    Tagging is too generous. Almost every player initially under-counts plan errors and over-counts calculation errors, because plan errors are uncomfortable to admit. If your distribution shows zero plan errors across 10 games, your tagging is wrong, not your play.

    Engine depth becomes a crutch. Running Stockfish at depth 40 to “verify” your analysis defeats the purpose. The diagnostic value is in your process, not in the engine’s evaluation. Cap the engine at depth 22 and move on.

    The Memory Pass gets skipped. It is the most boring pass and the highest-leverage one. The whole framework collapses without it, because you lose access to what you were actually thinking during the game.

    Where the $14.99 Plan Fits

    If you would rather not run this manually, the MyChessPlan personalized improvement plan automates the tag distribution and archetype profile for you — you upload 10 games and receive a written diagnosis and a 4-week training plan calibrated to your specific leak points. It is the same five-pass logic above, but the bookkeeping is done for you and the training prescriptions are pulled from a structured library rather than rebuilt from scratch each time.

    You can also start with the free archetype report, which gives you the Pass-4 information by itself. That alone is often enough to reorganize a stagnant training routine.

    The Bottom Line

    Stop running engine review as if it were analysis. Engine review verifies; this five-pass method diagnoses. Diagnosis is what unlocks targeted study, and targeted study is what moves rating. Most players are not under-trained — they are mistrained. The fix starts with knowing exactly which of the five errors is bleeding the most points out of your game.

    Run the method on your next 10 serious games. Write the tags down. Then come back and look at the distribution. The training plan you need is the one the distribution writes for you.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    How many games should I analyze with this method?

    Ten games is the minimum for reliable tag distribution; 15–20 is ideal. Fewer than 10 produces too much noise for the patterns to emerge. Use only classical or rapid (15+10 or longer) — blitz noise corrupts the data.

    Can I use Chess.com Game Review or Lichess analysis for this?

    Yes, but only for Pass 2 (Critical Moments) onward. Pass 1 (Memory) must be done with the engine off. Both platforms work; for a comparison of their analysis features see our piece on Lichess vs Chess.com analysis.

    How long does the full method take per game?

    About 30–40 minutes once you are practiced. The Memory Pass is 6–10 minutes, Critical Moments 8–12, Pattern is essentially free (you tally tags across many games), Archetype takes 5 minutes, Decision-Tree takes 10–15 for the games you choose to deep-dive.

    Do I need a coach to do this?

    No. The method was specifically designed for self-analysis. A coach accelerates Pass 4 and Pass 5 because they have seen the patterns before, but most players can run Passes 1–3 alone after a couple of attempts. If you would prefer an automated diagnosis, the MyChessPlan personalized plan does the tagging and archetype work for you.


  • Chess Archetypes: How Your Playing Style Predicts the Fastest Path to Improvement

    Chess Archetypes: How Your Playing Style Predicts the Fastest Path to Improvement

    Most chess players treat improvement like a generic prescription: study openings, solve tactics, drill endgames, repeat. After coaching hundreds of club players and analyzing thousands of games through automated review pipelines, a clearer pattern emerges. Players who break through plateaus rarely do it by adding more hours. They do it by aligning their training with the way they actually play.

    That alignment has a name: your chess archetype. It is the cluster of decisions, tendencies, and blind spots that defines how you handle a position when no obvious move exists. Two 1600-rated players can have identical ratings and almost nothing else in common, and a training plan that works wonders for one of them can be useless for the other. This guide explains what archetypes are, how to identify yours from your own games, and what to do once you know.

    What a Chess Archetype Actually Is

    An archetype is not a personality test. It is an empirical description of how you behave at the board, measurable from your game history. When a modern engine reviews a few hundred of your rated games, certain patterns surface with surprising consistency: the kinds of moves you find quickly versus the ones you miss, the phase of the game where most of your blunders happen, the structures you steer into when given a choice, and the time you spend per move at critical junctures.

    Group those signals together and most amateur players fall into one of five recognizable categories. None of these is better than the others. Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, and Ding Liren each fit a different archetype, and all three are world-class. The point is that the fastest improvement path is different for each one.

    The Five Common Archetypes

    The Tactical Attacker. Sees combinations quickly, plays for the initiative, and is happiest when the king is exposed. Wins by calculation, loses when forced to maneuver in quiet positions. Typical fingerprint: high accuracy in sharp middlegames, accuracy collapse in endgames, frequent “missed mating attack” notes from the engine.

    The Positional Strategist. Plays slow, structural chess. Loves prophylaxis, weak squares, and small advantages. Often grinds out wins from balanced endgames but gets blown off the board when the opponent sacrifices material. Fingerprint: high move-time on calm positions, low blunder rate overall, occasional tactical disaster when the position erupts.

    The Endgame Grinder. Slightly worse than average in the opening, average in the middlegame, dramatically above their rating band in the endgame. Often older or self-taught players who learned chess from classic books. Fingerprint: opening accuracy 8–12 percentage points below their endgame accuracy.

    The Counterpuncher. Plays solid, slightly passive openings and waits for the opponent to overreach. Excels at converting opponent mistakes but rarely creates winning chances on their own. Fingerprint: high draw rate against lower-rated opponents, win rate that depends heavily on opponent accuracy.

    The Universal Player. No glaring strength, no glaring weakness. Improves slowly but steadily. The rarest archetype below 2000 and the most common above it, because reaching the upper levels requires patching every leak. Fingerprint: accuracy across phases within a 3-point band.

    Why Generic Training Advice Fails

    If you have ever followed a popular YouTube training routine and felt that nothing changed after three months, this is usually why. The advice was correct, but it was correct for someone else. A Tactical Attacker who spends 90 days on rook endgames will not improve much: they were already losing those endgames because they reached them in a bad mood, low on time, and emotionally exhausted from a failed attack. The fix is not more endgame study; it is learning when to switch from attack to consolidation.

    Conversely, a Positional Strategist drilling 50 tactics puzzles per day will improve their puzzle rating but not their game rating, because they almost never get sharp positions in their own games. Their rating gap is somewhere else entirely. We have written before about how a rating can drop right after a player feels they are improving, and archetype mismatch is one of the most common causes: the player got better at something their archetype rarely uses.

    How to Identify Your Archetype

    You do not need a coach or a $400 software suite to do this. You need a representative sample of your own games, an engine you can read, and an honest hour.

    Step 1: Pull at Least 100 Recent Games

    Both Lichess and Chess.com let you export your games as PGN. Use rated games at your main time control from the past 60–90 days. If you play multiple time controls, run the analysis separately — your blitz archetype and your rapid archetype are sometimes different people.

    Step 2: Measure Accuracy by Phase

    Run engine analysis (Stockfish 16 or higher) on the batch and record three numbers per game: opening accuracy (moves 1–15), middlegame accuracy (16–35), and endgame accuracy (36+). Average them. A 5-percentage-point gap between any two phases is meaningful. A 10-point gap is your archetype shouting at you.

    Step 3: Classify Your Blunders

    Blunders are diagnostic. Open the engine review on your 20 worst games and label each blunder as one of: missed tactic, positional misjudgment, time pressure, opening preparation gap, or endgame technique. The category with the highest count is your real weakness, and it almost always points to your archetype’s blind spot. For context on how engines describe these mistakes, our comparison of Stockfish analysis versus a human coach is worth a read.

    Step 4: Check Your Time Distribution

    Where do you burn your clock? Tactical Attackers usually spend their time looking for forcing moves and have little left for technical phases. Positional Strategists run low on time because they overthink quiet decisions. The pattern is informative on its own.

    Training Prescriptions by Archetype

    Once you know your archetype, the training plan almost writes itself. Here is the short version.

    For the Tactical Attacker

    Stop solving more puzzles. You are already good at calculation. Spend 70% of your study time on positional structures (isolated queen pawn, hanging pawns, minority attack) and basic endgame technique. The goal is to make a calm position less uncomfortable. Review your wins and ask which ones you would have lost against a calmer opponent.

    For the Positional Strategist

    Add sharp openings to your repertoire even if you hate them. A King’s Gambit or a Najdorf Sicilian once a week, played for real, retrains the brain to handle chaos. Drill 15 tactical puzzles every morning at increasing speed. Read annotated games of Tal and Shirov instead of Karpov.

    For the Endgame Grinder

    Your endgame is fine. The leak is the opening. Pick one solid system as White and one against 1.e4 and one against 1.d4 as Black, and study the typical middlegame plans, not lines. Aim to reach a roughly equal middlegame from a known structure every game. The endgame will do the rest.

    For the Counterpuncher

    Force yourself to play with initiative. Adopt one aggressive opening on each side and commit to it for three months. Solve attacking puzzles where you have already sacrificed material. The goal is comfort with imbalance.

    For the Universal Player

    Find the one phase where you are 3+ points below the others and pour your training there until it catches up. Then repeat. Players in this archetype improve fastest with periodic micro-audits rather than long themed cycles.

    The Plateau Problem Through an Archetype Lens

    Plateaus are the moment your archetype’s strengths stop being enough. At 1000, raw calculation wins games. At 1400, opponents stop hanging pieces and structural understanding starts to matter. At 1800, the player on the other side has their own archetype and is actively trying to steer the game toward your weakest phase. Our deeper guide on breaking the 1800 plateau approaches this from a different angle, and the two pieces complement each other.

    If you have been stuck for more than 200 rated games at the same range, the odds are very high that you have an archetype-shaped hole in your training. More volume will not fix it. Targeted, archetype-aware study almost always will.

    Get Your Archetype Identified For You

    Doing the analysis by hand works, but it takes time and a willingness to read engine output critically. MyChessPlan automates the entire pipeline: connect your Lichess or Chess.com handle, the system analyzes your last 100+ games through Stockfish at depth 22, classifies your archetype, and returns a phased training plan calibrated to the leak that is actually costing you rating points.

    The free archetype report tells you which of the five archetypes you fit and the single highest-impact weakness in your games. The $14.99 personalized improvement plan extends that into a 30-day study schedule with specific puzzle sets, model games, and structural drills chosen for your archetype, plus a rating target based on the historical improvement curve of players with the same profile. One purchase, no subscription, lifetime access to updates.

    If you have been training without seeing results, the cheapest experiment you can run is finding out whether you have been training the right thing.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Can my archetype change over time?

    Yes, but slowly. Most players stay in the same archetype for years because it reflects how their brain processes positions, not just what they have studied. The most common shift is from Tactical Attacker toward Universal Player as a player crosses 1800, because the gaps in quiet play start hurting more than the strengths in sharp play help.

    Is one archetype better for reaching high ratings?

    Not below 2200. Above 2200, Universal Player becomes the dominant profile because every weakness becomes exploitable. Below that, every archetype has produced strong club and tournament players. The Endgame Grinder is statistically the most efficient archetype for adult improvers because endgame skill compounds and doesn’t decay with time off.

    How is this different from a regular game review?

    A standard game review tells you what move was best in a specific position. Archetype analysis tells you what pattern of mistakes you make across hundreds of positions, and what to study so you stop making them. One is reactive; the other is structural.

    Do I need a chess.com diamond membership or Lichess account?

    A free account on either platform is enough. MyChessPlan reads your public game history through the official APIs. No login or password sharing is required.

  • Stockfish Analysis vs Human Coach: Pros and Cons

    Stockfish Analysis vs Human Coach: Pros and Cons

    The Modern Chess Improvement Dilemma

    Twenty years ago, chess improvement meant finding a coach. Ten years ago, engines became strong enough that many players wondered if coaches were obsolete. Today, we have Stockfish calculating at superhuman depth for free. So why do chess coaches still exist? And more importantly, which approach should you use?

    The answer depends on your rating, budget, learning style, and goals. Having built our free analysis system that combines engine power with human-readable insights, I’ve thought deeply about what each approach does well and where each falls short.

    Premium analysis tools on Chess.com

    Advanced game review, personalized lessons, and training paths.

    Start Free Trial →

    Stockfish Analysis: The Strengths

    Tactical Perfection

    No human can match Stockfish’s tactical accuracy. It finds every combination, every defensive resource, every forced sequence. If your question is “what’s the best move here?” Stockfish gives you a definitive answer. For tactical analysis — finding blunders, missed combinations, and calculation errors — the engine is unbeatable. Our tactical vision guide discusses how to learn from engine tactical suggestions.

    Always Available, Always Free

    Stockfish runs on Lichess for free, 24/7. You can analyze at 3 AM, review 20 games in a row, and never worry about scheduling or cost. This accessibility is genuinely revolutionary for chess improvement.

    Objective Evaluation

    Engines don’t have biases, bad days, or favorite openings. They evaluate positions objectively based on calculation. This objectivity is valuable for settling debates about position evaluation and ensuring your analysis isn’t colored by wishful thinking.

    Stockfish Analysis: The Weaknesses

    The Explanation Gap

    Stockfish tells you move Rd1 is better than Re1 by 0.4 pawns. It doesn’t tell you why. Is it because the rook is more active? Because it prevents a specific plan? Because it prepares a pawn break? Without understanding the reasoning, you can’t apply the lesson to future games. This is Stockfish’s fundamental limitation — it calculates, but it doesn’t teach.

    Inappropriate Suggestions

    Stockfish’s top choice is often a move that requires 15 moves of precise follow-up that no human would find. For a 1200-rated player, the “best” engine move might be practically worse than a simpler alternative. Engines don’t account for human playability, which means their recommendations can actually hurt your play if followed blindly.

    Analysis That Explains, Not Just Evaluates

    Get free analysis with personalized explanations suited to your level.

    Get Free Analysis →

    Human Coaching: The Strengths

    Understanding Your Thought Process

    A good coach doesn’t just find the best move — they understand why you chose the wrong one. Are you miscalculating? Misunderstanding a strategic concept? Applying the right idea in the wrong context? This diagnostic ability is uniquely human and incredibly valuable for targeted improvement.

    Personalized Study Plans

    A coach assesses your complete profile — strengths, weaknesses, learning style, available time — and creates a training plan tailored specifically to you. This is something no engine can do. The right study plan is worth more than hours of undirected analysis. Our training routine guide provides general frameworks, but a coach customizes these to your specific needs.

    Motivation and Accountability

    Having a regular coaching session creates structure and accountability. You’re more likely to follow through on study plans when someone is checking your progress. The motivational aspect of coaching is underrated — especially during plateaus and burnout periods.

    Human Coaching: The Weaknesses

    Cost

    Qualified chess coaches charge $30-100+ per hour. For weekly sessions, that’s $120-400+ per month. This is a significant investment that many players can’t afford, and it raises the ROI question: how much improvement per dollar are you getting?

    Coach Quality Varies Enormously

    A great coach accelerates your improvement dramatically. A mediocre coach wastes your money. Finding the right coach requires research and often trial sessions. Not every strong player is a good teacher, and not every good teacher fits every student’s learning style.

    The Optimal Combination

    The Hybrid Approach

    For most improving players, the best approach combines engine analysis for tactical review with periodic coaching for strategic guidance. Use Stockfish daily to review your games and catch tactical errors. Schedule coaching sessions monthly or bi-monthly for strategic assessment, study plan adjustment, and conceptual instruction.

    This hybrid gives you the tactical precision of engines, the strategic understanding of human instruction, and manages cost effectively. Our free analysis is designed to bridge this gap — providing engine-depth analysis with human-readable explanations.

    Bridge the Gap Between Engine and Coach

    Get AI-powered analysis with human-level explanations — free.

    Get Free Report →

  • Lichess vs Chess.com Analysis: Which Is Better

    Lichess vs Chess.com Analysis: Which Is Better

    The Two Giants of Online Chess

    Every chess player eventually faces this question: Lichess or Chess.com? Both platforms offer game analysis tools, and the quality of your analysis directly impacts your improvement speed. But the two platforms take fundamentally different approaches — different engines, different interfaces, different pricing models, and different analysis philosophies.

    This isn’t a “which platform is better for playing” comparison — that depends on factors like player pool, UI preferences, and community features. This is specifically about analysis quality: which platform helps you understand your games better and improve faster?

    Having used both extensively for our game analysis service, I have detailed experience with each platform’s strengths and limitations.

    Get the most from Chess.com

    Premium game review, advanced analysis, and personalized training.

    Start Free Trial →

    Lichess Analysis: The Open-Source Powerhouse

    What You Get (Free)

    Lichess provides unlimited Stockfish analysis at server-side depth for every game. You get a full evaluation graph, move classifications (blunder, mistake, inaccuracy), opening explorer with millions of games, and endgame tablebase access. All of this is completely free with no premium tier — Lichess is a non-profit that runs on donations.

    Strengths

    Lichess’s analysis is technically deep. The server-side Stockfish runs at substantial depth, and you can run local analysis even deeper in your browser. The opening explorer is excellent, pulling from both master games and Lichess player games filtered by rating. Studies feature lets you save and annotate analyses. The interface is clean and fast.

    Limitations

    Lichess gives you raw engine evaluations without much explanation. It tells you a move is a mistake but doesn’t explain why in words. For beginners, a centipawn loss number without context isn’t particularly helpful. You need enough chess understanding to interpret what the engine is showing you.

    Chess.com Analysis: The Polished Experience

    What You Get

    Chess.com’s game review provides accuracy percentages, move classifications with color coding, and — in premium tiers — verbal explanations of mistakes and suggested improvements. The interface is polished and beginner-friendly. Premium members get unlimited analysis; free members are limited to a small number of reviews per day.

    Strengths

    Chess.com’s game review excels at accessibility. The accuracy score gives you a single number to track over time. Move explanations help beginners understand not just that they made a mistake, but what kind of mistake it was. The integration with lessons means you can be directed to relevant study material based on your mistakes.

    Limitations

    Free analysis is limited. The engine depth may be lower than Lichess for free-tier users. Premium required for full features adds monthly cost. Some analysis features feel designed to encourage upgrade rather than educate.

    Want Deeper Analysis Than Both?

    Our free analysis goes beyond raw engine lines with personalized improvement insights.

    Get Free Analysis →

    Head-to-Head Comparison

    For Beginners (Under 1000)

    Chess.com’s game review is more helpful because it explains mistakes in words rather than numbers. The accuracy score provides a simple improvement metric. Lichess’s raw evaluations can be overwhelming at this level. Our beginner guide recommends starting with simpler analysis and graduating to deeper tools.

    For Intermediate Players (1000-1600)

    Both platforms work well. Lichess’s free unlimited analysis becomes more valuable as you develop the chess understanding to interpret engine suggestions. Chess.com’s premium features are worth considering if you value the structured learning environment. Many players at this level use both — check our analysis apps comparison for more options.

    For Advanced Players (1600+)

    Lichess becomes increasingly attractive for serious analysis work. The combination of deep Stockfish, opening explorer, studies, and zero cost is hard to beat. Advanced players can interpret raw engine output and don’t need verbal explanations. That said, Chess.com’s large database and premium tools have their own advantages for opening preparation.

    The Best Approach: Use Both

    Many serious improvers use both platforms strategically: Chess.com for its larger player base, lesson content, and polished game review; Lichess for deep free analysis, studies, and the excellent puzzle system. This isn’t about loyalty — it’s about using the best tool for each specific need.

    For analysis that goes beyond what either platform offers, with personalized improvement recommendations tailored to your specific patterns, try our free game analysis. It combines engine depth with human-readable insights designed for improvement.

    Get the Best of All Worlds

    Free personalized analysis that complements both Lichess and Chess.com.

    Get Free Report →