First of all I would like to say I really enjoyed reading your article. It was well-written and thought-provoking, although I do not quite agree with everything being said in it. Below are some comments of mine. Feel free to put my comments on your Web page as long as you correct any grammatic - or other - errors that you may find. After all English is not my native language.

Yours sincerely,

Andre Nilsson, a.k.a. Gnejs

Actually, aside from modifying one item to include some comments Gnejs left me on the ICC, I've changed very little to the text he sent me. A few typos were corrected, and that's about it. English may not be his native language, but he still uses it better than most people I know. (I'll let his spelling of the word "realise" stay in, since I think that's the European spelling. Europeans invented the language, so I suppose they have the right to spell the words the way they want.)

Okay, if you want to get back to the main article, here's a chance to practice navigating with that return dot:

1 (foreword)

You say that board sight and pattern recognition can not be taught. I disagree. For instance I improved my recognition of mating patterns in chess a lot by reading the excellent book "The Art of Checkmate" by Renaud and Kahn. The problem is of course that there are no good books on bughouse.

Well, Gnejs is correct, of course, that board sight can be improved with practice. What I meant by my comment was that we are all born with physical, mental, and psychological limitations that determine how good we can get at doing a given activity. For example, I'm certain that even if I had started playing tennis at the age of three, I'd have still never gotten good enough to win Wimbledon, due to a limitation that can best be described as "a lack of athletic ability". However, just because we can't become World Champion at something doesn't mean we can't see how good we can get at it. So, sure, practice your game of choice and see how far you can go.

A special note to readers under the age of 16: ignore the previous paragraph. You're too young to know what your limitations are, so just go out there and assume you are capable of anything. Eventually you'll realize you have limitations, but for now, aim for the stars. To shoot for anything less only risks selling yourself short on your abilities.

As for improving your board sight in bughouse: Gnejs is right that you'll have a hard time finding a book that will help in this area, but I think there are ways to improve board sight on your own. For starters, go through my bughouse quizzes to sharpen your board sight and familiarize yourself with an assortment of tactical tricks. However, if you're really hard core about learning this game, I think the most important step is: don't just play a lot of bughouse, look at your games afterward and see what you could have done better. Yeah, when you review your games, you'll probably kick yourself occasionally over missed opportunities, but it's guaranteed you'll teach yourself better bughouse technique by doing this.

2 (#1: "Feed me!")

I would say 95% of all bughouse players start attacking much too early in the game, before they have gathered momentum and can use more than a couple of dropped pieces in the attack.

3 (#1: "Feed me!")

You say that unless a forced mate is involved, asking your partner to compromise his position to get you a particular piece is a bad idea. As long as your partner's position does not get more compromised than your opponent's, it is okay to ask for a certain piece (given that you have considered the time aspect).

4 (#1: "Feed me!")

Some advice: If you have a good position where you can make good moves that preserves the initiative, it is usually better to just keep playing rather than waiting for a killer piece. Also, and this is very important, try to opt for positions where you do not depend on your partner getting you a certain piece. You never know when you might have to start playing "chess".


5 (#2: "...can you hear me, Major Tom?")

Another very common mistake is to ignore your partner's request for "just" one move, completing a trade first, only to realise that you are down on time and you will not be able to live up to your promise that your partner will get that piece the next move since your opponent now sits.

6 (#2: "...can you hear me, Major Tom?")

In my experience the biggest reason why people fail to respond to your tells is that they have not turned off shouts and seeks.

Actually, this is a particularly good tip, as it's one even a class Z player can utilize. I have to admit (head lowered in shame) that, when I started playing bughouse on the Internet, I missed a few messages because I had seeks turned on. When I found out I could turn off seeks, I stopped missing those messages. (I leave shouts turned on because, except on the rare occasion some snotty little kid decides to send the same shout 50 times, shouts don't come in too quickly. Yeah, about 80% of all shouts are pretty inane, but I'd hate to miss the occasional gem.)


7 (#2: "...can you hear me, Major Tom?")

"Why'd you want that piece so badly, anyway?" ... Some people just do not want to defend, so instead of dealing with the inevitable, they throw in a few checks - often while sacrificing material - only to realise that their "attack" was nothing and that the piece used for the "attack" would have been necessary for putting up some resistance once his opponent gets the move. The level of defense in bughouse is no better than it was in 19th century chess.

8 (#3: <chuckle> "We do stuff like this to him through the whole picture.")

You say that you can continue to sit for as long as you stay ahead on the clock. Sometimes, when the games are going fast on both boards, it can be wise to stall for a piece for a few seconds, even if you are down on time. It will take some time for your opponent to realise that you are stalling, and if that piece is very good for you and it is likely it will come, you might consider sitting even when being down.

9 (#3: <chuckle> "We do stuff like this to him through the whole picture.")

I got this question a while back: "I often run into situations, especially early in the game, where I can get a decent attack with material and conversely my opponent can also get an attack if he gets material. Should I wait for stuff and attack, or move and hope he doesn't get material on his move and get a good attack on me?"

This was my answer:

Time can be your best friend or your worst enemy in bughouse, depending on how fast you play. The only situation - except when creating a mating net - where some extra seconds of contemplation might be in order, is when both players are struggling for the initiative. But before you start wasting precious time there are a couple of questions you should ask yourself:

1. Is my team up on time? If not, forget about stalling and try to catch up on the clock instead.

2. Does my attempt to gain the initiative involve sacrificing material? If so, reconsider unless you get substantial compensation, like a long-term bind or a possible mating net.

3. How dangerous is my opponent's attack if he gets material? The more dangerous the more important is it that you make up your mind quickly. If you sit around and wait for stuff that never comes, every second ticking by is making your opponent's attack more likely to succeed. I usually go for the defence since that leaves your opponent where you just were - with a tricky decision to make.

10 (#3: <chuckle> "We do stuff like this to him through the whole picture.")

Some people believe that there is a huge difference between playing with, for instance a 1 0, 3 0 or 5 0 time limit. As long as you are able to finish the game within the time limit there is very little difference. You can not think longer, except during "sitz-kriegs", since the important thing is not how much or little time you have left on your clock, but what is the time difference between your clock and your diagonal opponent's.

Well, I would dispute the statement that a 1 0 game isn't much different from a 5 0 game, since I think 1 0 bughouse generally produces poorly played games that are decided by the clock. Fans of 1 0 games don't need to play bughouse, they can just have races to see who can move their mouse the fastest. However, Gnejs' basic point here is correct: a bughouse game with, say, a 15 0 time control, wouldn't be better than a 5 0 game, it would just produce a lot more sitting. As Gnejs points out here, there are two clocks to watch in his game, yours and your diagonal opponent's. If your diagonal opponent's clock shows a lot more time than yours does, you'd better be darn close to mating your opponent -- and even if you do succeed in forcing your opponent to sit, don't be shocked if you still lose. (See the scenario at the end of item #5 in the main article if you're not sure why.)

I've noticed that when four very strong players get a match going, they frequently play with a 3 0 time control, evidently on the theory that only wimps play 5 0. Well, personally I think 3 0 is a good time control for players in the average to moderately good categories (rated 1500 to 2000, say), but games involving top players would actually benefit from 4 0 or slower time controls. The reason I think this: when four very strong players have at it, frequently 40 moves get played with nobody getting mated. When this many moves have been played in a 3 0 game, this typically means at least two players, if not all four, are in major time trouble, and the game degenerates into a mouse race. Sure, clock management is part of the game, but a checkmate is a far more satisfying result in bughouse. I believe a 4 0 time control would produce more checkmates, less mouse races. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller was not contacted for permission to use this line -- sure hope I don't get sued.)

11 (#4: "De fastest mouse in all of Mexico!")

When it comes to speed it is a question of finding the balance. Zon Jan used the term "time-differential" about me, meaning that I sometimes play some moves slow (possibly because I am waiting for the right pieces) so I can get a good and easy-to-play position, where I most likely will regain the invested time. You put a lot of pressure on your partner if you play slow, since you can never stall, but you also put pressure if you get a bad position, since he can not trade the pieces he wants to.

12 (#5: "I am the God of Hell Fire!...")

As a general rule, bishops in hand tend to be more useful than knights. The bishop is more of an all-round piece, good in both attack and defense, whereas the knight is a poor defender but, of course, a strong attacker. Yes, it does not take long for a new player to realise that knight checks are a great way to start mating attacks, but some players never realise that only half the game is attack and the rest is defense. Rooks are hard to evaluate. They are useful when delivering mate, and also when covering your own back rank, but on an open board they do not accomplish very much and they suffer from the "value paradox": The strong pieces are in a sense weak since the have to give way to the weak pieces threatening them.

Actually I don't like measuring the value of the pieces in points, but rather say: rs, bs and ns are worth about the same, a piece (r, b, n) is worth about two ps, and the q is worth about two pieces (but r+b/n is worth more).

Gnejs' comments here are in response to some statements I made in the original version of my article, when I claimed knights were slightly stronger than bishops. As is now stated in the main article, I have recanted my position on this -- bishops are just as good as knights. As Gnejs says, bishops make better defenders than knights (and not just in the situation where your opponent's queen checks your king along a diagonal, when a bishop interpose is obviously better). For example, when your position is a little shaky, a bishop can be used to neutralize several squares near the king or defend key pawns, something a knight can't do nearly as well. I have to admit, there are few situations in bughouse more futile than trying to launch an attack against a king that is surrounded by pawns and bishops -- when pawns and bishops are linked together in mutual defense, each piece you lop off just brings another in its place. You feel like you're fighting a seven-headed hydra, watching a new head grow back each time you cut one off.

A few other strong players wrote to me to point out the bishop's advantage in "attack-defense moves", when a piece is dropped to both defend a weak point and attack an opponent's weak point. (See my Bughouse Quiz #2 for more about attack-defense moves, along with a good example of one.) In summary, the higher you go up the bughouse food chain, the better bishops start to look to you -- knights are great to get those sucker mating attacks started, but the best players don't walk into those combinations too readily. Knights are better for the cheap shots, but bishops are more useful for almost anything else.

13 (#5: "I am the God of Hell Fire!...")

It makes little sense saying an x-second lead on the clock equals an x-material advantage. If you and your partner have good positions and are up on material, even a one minute time advantage for your opponents probably will not help them.

It took me awhile to fully understand Gnejs' comment (about two years, actually), but the light bulb finally came on in January, 2000. The point I suddenly realized is that time advantage is not in direct proportion to material advantage. As I visualize it in my mind now, the time advantage vs. material advantage relationship is actually more of a bell-shaped curve -- it's good to be 10 seconds up on your clock and better to be 20 seconds up, but the first 10 seconds are more valuable than the second 10 seconds. Or, here's an even better example: the difference between being ten seconds ahead on your clock versus ten seconds behind on your clock is significantly more than the difference between being thirty seconds ahead versus ten seconds ahead.

This brings up an interesting point on time management. A lot of buggers, ever conscious of the value of time in bughouse, are always moving quickly, always looking to add every second they can to their time advantage. Well, respect for time is understandable and good, but, when you have a substantial time advantage, adding to this advantage does not accomplish much. Instead, it often makes more sense to turn this time advantage into positional advantage by picking a good moment to sit. For example, if you are 30 seconds up and your opponent's king is exposed, stop moving for the moment and see what your partner can get you in the way of offboard material. Giving up some or even all of your time advantage is well worth it if the return on your investment is a mating attack.

14 (#5: "I am the God of Hell Fire!...")

There are two reasons, I think, why people continue to play silly-sac attacks and wait for the partner to feed them. One is what you mention: some people have a very selective memory and tend to forget all the times their strategy did not work very well. (This is like a gambler who think all the times he wins is thanks to skill and all the times he loses is due to bad luck.) The other reason is that people do not get punished as often as they should since their opponents use the same strategy! Let me give you an example: The so-called Leaf gambits starts with the moves 1.e4 d5?! 2.exd5 e6?!, sacrificing a pawn. Black gets a reasonable game with open diagonals for his bishops, but not only is he a pawn down - his partner ends up being a pawn down as well. But what if the other board plays the same opening? Then both gambiteers will have a pleasant position with an extra pawn in hand - no wonder they will not quit playing the gambit.

During last year's bughouse meeting in California I played some one-on-one simul against Ebenfelt - one of the foremost advocates of the Leaf gambit - and instead played 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 P@b4 on the other board, immediately putting that extra pawn to work. He almost quit playing the Leaf then, but now he is back to his old bad habits again. :)

Gee, I just have to say something in response to Gnejs' criticism of the 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 opening, since this is an opening dear to my heart. Yes, it is an ambitious opening -- Black is attempting to steal the initiative right out of the box -- but it also has some characteristics that should appeal to certain players. The opening usually leads to open positions (unlike another popular line: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5, when the common 3. e5 leads to a closed game), making it a good choice for players who prefer open games. And, certain White partners may like the flow that generally occurs: White usually gets a pawn very quickly, and as a rule more diagonal movers follow. (Granted, his opponent gets two pawns very early, but, when it comes to pawns, I think the real issue isn't which player has more, but where can they be dropped.) Finally, since Black's knights generally don't come out right away, which means they don't get exchanged right away, Black opponents who audaciously open with ...Nf6-e4xf2 and then wait for a knight to drop usually discover they have sacrificed a knight for very little.

I once found a Web page created by Bill Noyes, aka Chaos Rules, where he and another player claim to have invented 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 during the Iran crisis of 1979. (I recall his Web page was quite good but is no longer in service -- I sure hope he revives it so I can activate a link to it.) Well, the truth is, I and another bugger named Ed Ipacs independently discovered, analyzed, and extensively played this opening a few years before Noyes and his friend did. (Okay, Ed was actually the one who thought of it, so I guess I'll have to give him the credit.) Oh, the memories... Ed Ipacs, who died tragically while still in his 20s, was the first bughouse god I ever knew. His creativity in the opening was unmatched. One of his ideas (and as far as I know, this was really his idea, not something he stole while watching others play) was the 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 line. Granted, our treatment of the opening was a little different from the way you currently see it played on the 'Net; for example, after 3. de Bxe6 4. d4, we liked to play 4...Bc5, offering a bishop to get a queen exchange. I'm sure Gnejs would disapprove of this sacrifice, but Ipacs and I were very non-materialistic in our approach to the game. Our thinking was, since our partner with the White pieces usually got a good game, it was worth sacking a bishop to get partner a queen in hand.

Ipacs and I were a pretty tough team back then -- at a New York tournament once, I remember beating up a couple of buggers, one of whom was a kid named Joel Benjamin. (Of course, I am sure if anyone tells Benjamin about this comment, he will say he has never, ever played bughouse in his entire life.) Following our example, this line got to be a pretty popular opening among bughouse players in the Hartford area.

Ipacs came up with some other interesting opening ideas. For example, one of them was 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 d5!? 3. exf6 ef. We both thought the attack after 2...Ne4 followed by ...Nxf2 was speculative at best, so Ed's thinking was, if you're going to give up the knight anyway, use it to get your pieces mobilized. (Also, the pawn on f6 was helpful defensively.) The plan after that was for his White partner to get some Black pawns, and, of course, if the opponent playing Black was - gag! - foolish enough to open the game with 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6, then it was guaranteed that two Black pawns would be coming immediately. Once Ed had a few pawns, he'd be in control of the kingside and his opponent would be gasping for air, wondering how it is that he has the White pieces but his opponent has all the space.

Now, maybe you're wondering what would happen if, after 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 d5 3. exf6 ef, the Black opponent played to limit pawn exchanges. Well, the answer is, the opening wasn't quite as effective, but that's the point I want to make here: this is an example of co-ordinating your opening play with your partner. (Another example would be the plan Gnejs describes when he played his simul with Ebenfelt.) Some players may think that 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 is a bad way to start the game. Well, if their opponents are anticipating the line and have cooked up a nasty way to utilize the two pawns that will be coming, then they're absolutely right -- it is bad. You can't judge the effectiveness of an opening until you know what is happening on both boards.

15 (#5: "I am the God of Hell Fire!...")

People who can not stay objective about their own game do not improve. Advice: Try asking a friend and see what he thinks of your weaknessess and strengths and you might be surprised!

16 (#6: "What Am I Holding Now, Swami?")

Communication on the net is, I think, overrated. Two strong bughouse players should be able to see what he should and should not trade on his board just by glancing at his partner's board. As you said, the times you really need to tell your partner is usually when him trading a certain piece is bad for you. Much too often people request pieces they do not really need, which sometimes results in his partner sacrificing material and worsening his position for no reason at all.

Yes, and let me add that sometimes partners ask for material they don't have when they could probably mount an effective attack with the material they do have. For example, your partner may have his opponent dangerously exposed, and he sees that a knight check would be crushing. Unfortunately, he has bishops and pawns in hand, but no knights. So, he sends you the message "need knight!" and waits, but you can't get him one. Well, give your partner credit for setting up nicely for the kill, but his follow-through needs work. Requesting the knight is fine, but with a good position and a few pieces in hand, he shouldn't base his plan on your getting a piece he doesn't have. Instead, he should see if all those bishops and pawns he has can't be used to get to the king just as effectively, and, when the opponent's king is exposed, this is often the case. In short, Gnejs' advice in his comment #4 also applies here: if you can keep moving without giving up the initiative, do so.

17 (#7: "Brother, can you spare a few rating points?")

I am not sure, but the "it will grow back" phrase sounds like Zon Jan.

18 (#8 "It's not your fault")

I myself rarely partner below 2000, simply because lower rated people are usually slower and that fact causes weird problems such as my board will suddenly empty, with no pieces to drop. The game gets very random. Also, no offense, it is quite boring to baby-sit and watch your partner's back all the time. It is much more fun when all four players are within, say, 200-300 points at the most.

Well, I am really glad Gnejs made this comment about the problems with partnering much lower-rated players, because if a nobody like me made the same comment, the lower-rated players I've had trouble playing with would think I'm just making an excuse for my own crummy play. However, now that the World's most respected bughouse player has gone on record by saying that partnering much lower-rated players isn't much fun, I think we can have a frank discussion on the matter. Here we go...

Assuming there are no compatibility problems (this issue is discussed in item #10 of the main article), the best partners for you are players fairly close to your own ability. The attack is more balanced when both players are at about the same level. Problems arise when one player is rated much higher than another player, and we can start by talking about the added pressures on both players: The low-rated player is under pressure not to blunder into mate or lose much material, so his high-rated partner has enough time and material to win. The high-rated player is under pressure to win quickly, before his low-rated partner blunders into mate or loses much material.

Naturally, the opposition keys on the low-rated player, since he should be the more beatable player. This attack can take one of two forms, either: (a) playing straight for mate, or (b) picking off so many pieces that even the high-rated player has no defense on his board. (Speaking for the high-rated players for the moment, let me say this is a particularly ignominious situation -- you are getting mated by someone 400 points under you because you don't have the material to fight back with, and no doubt your low-rated partner is wondering what is wrong with you tonight.) Regardless of the approach the opposition takes, the team is going to have problems, and it is all due to the lack of balance in the partnership. To put this another way, a 1400 player and a 2000 player do not make a 1700 strength team -- two 1700 players should win a comfortable majority of games from them.

Oh, there are a few exceptions to the rule, and, when you are looking for bughouse opponents, you need to watch for them. The first exception is when you see a high-rated and low-rated player partnered and the low-rated player is obviously grossly underrated. This is a standard rating scam. Stop playing with them, and, if you work for the IRS, audit their tax records. (They're probably cheating at that, too.) The second exception is when the difference between ratings is really extreme, like 1000 points. In this case, the high-rated player is most likely controlling both boards. Don't play with him and his lame duck partner. If you think of a way to do this, convince him to find a partner with a realistic rating, then immediately challenge him, because he is probably a good 200 points overrated -- players who depend on tricks like this to keep their ratings up usually are.

As Gnejs says, the best bughouse competition takes place when all four players are at about the same levels. (Yes, Gnejs' estimate of a 200 to 300 point rating difference at most is a good one, I think.) The competition between four 1400 players can be just as exciting as between four 2400 players, even if the 1400 players don't send the mountains of Olympus rumbling. So, and I say that with complete respect: I know you're underrated, like 99% of the bughouse players out there, but work your way up by first learning how to beat the players at your rating level. We all want to be major leaguers someday, but learn how to hit the minor league pitching before you take on Maddux and Glavine.

19 (#8 "It's not your fault")

Some people seem to think that the best player is the one who can slaughter 1200-1400's faster than anyone else. I think that the best players in each team should play each other unless all players are within the same rating range.

Yes, I also think that, when two teams have players with substantially different ratings, the better players should play each other. I am always suspicious when a team with two players having highly disparate ratings wants to play their lower-rated player against the better opponent -- it often turns out the lower-rated player has a problem with lag (which in many cases I am sure is created deliberately), giving the higher-rated player an unfair advantage.

20 (#9 "Sit! Stay! Roll over! Good doggie!")

If you partner someone with about the same rating as yourself you should not get this problem. However, if your partner sends requests, trust them and if they were not correct, discuss it after the game.

21 (#10 "The Truth About Cats and Dogs")

If two players are both attackers who sacrifice and sit for material, they will most likely not do very well together. A more subtle reason why two people do not fit together is that their openings are not coordinated, e.g. one player plays a system where he does not want his opponent to get several diagonals early on and his partner plays a line which allows his opponent to trade (yes, not sacrifice) a knight for two pawns.

Ebenfelt also made the observation about what can happen when two attackers play together -- see Ebenfelt's letter in the main article. As in tennis and other doubles games, players with dissimilar styles often match up better than players with identical styles. You might think that having a partner who plays just like you would be great, since you're both on the same wavelength, but in fact it often works against you. As a rule, any weaknesses in your own game tend to be magnified when your partner has the same weaknesses.

22 (#9 "Sit! Stay! Roll over! Good doggie!")

That last part about taking advantage of you partner's strengths and so on was very interesting and well-written!