Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Create a game Tournament Simultaneous exhibitions
Chess basics Puzzles Practice Coordinates Study Coaches
Lichess TV Current games Streamers Broadcasts (beta) Video library
Players Teams Forum Questions & Answers
Analysis board Opening explorer Board editor Import game Advanced search
Sign in
  1. Forum
  2. General Chess Discussion
  3. Antichess?

Antichess is the only game I can't crack and I'm awful at it.

Is Antichess completely 'solved'? Is there perfect opening lines I can learn? When I experiment with Stockfish, it says that EVERY white opening is losing, except e3. Some by absolute force!

Is it best to learn the e3 lines to get better or are there dubious openings that still work if you are against inexperienced players?

It's solved in the sense that we know perfect play from white (starting with 1. e3) will win the game. It's not solved in the sense that we have no guarantees regarding other moves (maybe 1. b3 or something also wins). We also don't know what is the status (won/draw/lost) of all possible positions (e.g. after 1. h3 h6, maybe white can force a win, or not, etc.).

There exists a "perfect opening line" (called the antichess solution, starting with e3), but you can't just "learn it" because it's impossible to remember all the branches.

If you want to get better at antichess, I suggest asking strong players for advice (along the lines of "open lines are good, piece mobility is important"), and playing.

You may be interested by this thread :

Thank you, that was a very helpful post. I could never remember all the branches, but I could go all learn some common e3 lines.

My goal is to get to 1700+ (like all my other ratings) and then I will never play it ever again. Because I can't stand this game.

Ah then I suggest reading which got me from 1500 to 1800.

The one most helpful piece of advice I remember was "bishops are YUGE : sac yours as early as possible, and try to hook your opponents'". I won most of my games by hooking a bishop and having it go through all I had.

I have just learned recently how evil bishops really are.

Hi, lecw. Thought you'd like to know I hit my 1700 goal.
I took some tips off what you posted.
But I mainly got there by playing 30 sec games and using my bullet skills. Not going to play it again, I'm done.


@rickrenegade Personally, I kinda feel like antichess is just broken.

Its the only variant that discourages thought and encourages memorization.

Literally, each move; there is only 1 or MAYBE 2 lines that aren't guaranteed losses (assuming the other player knows their moves)

And unlike chess; or other variants; the number of potential outcomes is VERY small. In the thousands; compared to the millions at standard or billions at ZH.

Obviously; I am HORRIBLE at it. So I realize this probably skews my perception a bit. But, facts are facts despite my being as good at it as a monkey is at driving.

It's a disgusting, broken and 'solved' game that only favours repetition and memory.

A 960 version of antichess may have some skill to break players learning the perfect openings. (That's not a suggestion Lichess - please don't create it).


A person after my own heart. I wasn't gonna be that savage; but I couldn't agree more. I lold at your ( )

That would actually be a good idea; if one wanted to play antichess; that would be the only logical way to make it interesting.
But, Personally; I would be perfectly fine if the variant completely disappeared from existence.

It bothers me that Racing Kings gets less players than stupid arse antichess. RK is great. Lotta tactics and thought involved.


@breakreign, ever played atomic ? I can tell you memorization will get you a LOT further in atom than in anti.

From all variants RK is least like chess, with the king being invincible. More like a whole different game, really. Probably the reason why it gets few players.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.