Revised November, 1998
Direct links to selected Reader Responses: (Ebenfelt Leonard Vakil Kingwalker)
Since I uploaded Top Ten Ways To Tell You Have a Bad Bughouse Partner, I have received a good 30 or 40 letters about it, which by my standards is practically an avalanche of mail on the subject. The most noteworthy of these letters came from some of the World's best players, who not only commented on the article but added their own thoughts and strategy tips on bughouse play.
I'm more than happy to pass along this collection of comments
from my "mailbag". If you have played a fair amount of bughouse,
you will recognize some of the names, for sure.
BG Response #1 (from Anders Ebenfelt, March 23, 1998):
Anders Ebenfelt of Sweden is not only a top bughouse player, he is a genuinely nice guy -- receiving an e-mail from him about my article was quite exciting! Here are his interesting comments and strategy tips, with minor changes to the text (English is not his first language):
Thanks for your page, it's really very well-written and the best
strategy page on the net! Also it's an entertaining page. I think you cover
all the important parts of the common strategy a team
must have. Bughouse articles are usually written for only one board,
but this is more important!
Here is an example I've seen related to your #10: when two attackers
play together, sometimes it doesn't work very well. Both start attacks
and both sacrifice some stuff, sacrifices which are in itself sound --
if only one board had sacked. However, if both players on a team
sacrifice, the sacs can be unsound as the other team gets too much material.
You eventually get to a point where both players demand each other
for the decisive piece, and neither one can get the piece the other needs!
After all, you don't have to attack on both boards as it's unnecessary to
mate on more than one :). Maybe that should be pointed out with bold type:
There is only need for mate on ONE board to win the match. It is
meaningless to "win" on both.
About sacrificing partners: Please add something about the terrible Nxf7.
Some partners play an early Ng1-f3-g5xf7 and they seldom get more than a
marginal attack (mostly they just sit and wait for another knight to drop
on g5 with the same poor result). The enemy king is usually safe on e7
and what happens on the other board is that your opponent, as white,
gets a free knight and you get nothing. So, you get a bad opening and
end up in some trouble. (You can try, in a friendly manner, to tell your
partner not to do it again but it seldom works.:) )
You are right when you several times indicate that it is often the
partner to the mated player who has caused the loss.
I think that is overseen by most players.
Thanks again ! -Anders Ebenfelt
When I wrote this article originally, I decided I wasn't going to recommend or criticize specific openings, since (a) other Web sites already do that, and (b) as a rule, the real effectiveness of an opening depends on what is happening on the other board. To illustrate the latter point: most players with moderate experience think anyone who opens 1...e5 in response to 1. e4 must know nothing about bughouse, but I once had a player tell me that was his planned defense, along with how he intended to defend the bishop sac if White continued Bc4xf7 and what exchanges I should avoid to keep him out of hot water. Obviously, the guy had done some homework, so I was more than happy to go along with him, and we did very well together.
Having said that, let me add that I completely agree with Ebenfelt that 1. Nf3-g5xf7 is a lemon. Not only does White throw a knight away with little in a way of a follow-up attack, he makes three straight moves with the same piece when he should be utilizing his first move advantage to get control of some key squares. His partner, meanwhile, has to contend with the added defensive burden of knowing his opponent has a knight in hand. This is not my idea of a well-conceived plan.
By the way, if you're still not "bugged out" after reading all my
stuff and want to surf to another bughouse page, I think
Ebenfelt's Bughouse Page
is one of the best. His page mixes strategy with politics and is an
entertaining read.
BG Response #2 (from Josh Leonard, March 13, 1998):
I really liked point #8 in your article. Guys
who rag on partners, especially newbies, need reigning in. I have met a
few guys who nearly fell over when I didn't blame them for everything.
They'd first played with the usual few ego maniacs. Oh well...
"Wait a second, Josh Leonard?" you're saying, "He's no Bughouse God!"
Well, maybe not to you, but he is to me. Everytime I pair up with this
guy I play well -- he is proof of that compatibility theory I give in
item #10. And, besides, his comment here is 100% on the mark.
BG Response #3 (from Stephen Vakil, July 7, 1998):
Hello,
Several things about your article:
The most obvious one to me, and maybe it was just my failure to
understand your comments, resides around the assumption that 1. ... Nf6
is intended to be a boring sac of the knight on f2. In fact, this sac
is somewhat rare -- seeming to only occur with any soundness upon play
of 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ne4 3. Nh3 d5 4. d3 Nxf2 5. Nxf2 d4! which can result
in a large swing in favor of black in terms of momentum. More common in
my experience are:
Another comment is really more of an addition. Another bad partner
is one who lags. I know a lot of people would say that a lagging
attacker can be very successful because they can sit for pieces,
but on the whole I think that a partner who lags consistently is just
going to get you in trouble, especially since they will usually
be sacking attackers.
If, God forbid, you need to sit for a defending piece because all your
partner has given you is three pawns for your opponent's rook, bishop,
queen, and two knights, then your partner thinks you are an idiot.
Another comment I have is really a comment about Gnejs' comment. His
claim is that:
I don't necessarily agree with this. A lot of people have a style
which involves positional superiority. When this is not present, their game
crumbles. Generally, they're good players and all, but they spend
a lot of time trying to infiltrate your camp, and when they're out of pieces
and they haven't managed to molest your king, they can be defeated
much more easily. Even if their partner's position is crushing,
it is possible that their partner's opponent will win anyway.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of asking your partner to do
stuff that greatly detracts from what makes them successful.
Another comment is sort of based on your comments and Gnejs' comments on
partner's not seeing tells, etc. My thought is that people don't have
the right resources configured. A player with an interface that
colorizes text based on what the content is, and which can play sounds
on events such as tells, will generally have a hard time not seeing
partner tells even with a lot of spam. An interface with these features
is invaluable. Sure some players can monitor the text window enough to
see tells anyway, but wouldn't it be nice to not have to?
Another one is this: Although it is true that partnering someone really
low rated can be frustrating and less fun, I think there is a set of
skills it can teach you which will prove useful in the long run.
Learning to improvise and make do with what happens is a skill that a
lot of buggers (myself included) lack. If your partner's games are
random, then you will probably be forced to accommodate each game as it
occurs. Throw out the plan of strategy you had set up to defeat your
opponent and make some interesting tactics up. I'm trying to tap into
this lately a lot more now that I
have discovered the use.
As to the "Leaf Gambit", aside from the minor point that Leaf is
probably the foremost advocate of it, I think Gnejs' point is that it's
a questionable opening. Black's sacrifice of the pawn is not
necessarily going to lead to a decent position. I don't know about this
Bc5 stuff, it sounds pretty odd to me. Especially when considering the
new Gen X buggers tend to play 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 3. Bb5+
I will email you more comments as I think of them, if you don't mind.
Also I remember the comment about your rating growing back as being one
from Ebenfelt in regards to the issue of lag aborting / disconnection
rule. Who knows if he said it first.
--Thufir@fics, TAsunder@ICC
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).
Stephen Vakil is a 2300 player, which qualifies as a bughouse god in my book. His e-mail is also one of the most interesting letters I've received so far about my bughouse article. (If you'd like to see more from Vakil, he has an excellent Web site devoted to bughouse -- check out TAsunder's Web page for stuff by Vakil and his esteemed colleagues that range from the technically amazing (a large online database of bughouse games played on the FICS) to the downright quirky (well, I have to admit, I get a kick out of that live cam shot of his apartment).
In response to a few of Stephen's comments:
Generally speaking, I'm pretty open-minded about what constitutes a good opening. As I say in the article a few times, the true effectiveness of an opening really depends on what is happening on the other board. Gnejs alludes to the same point when he says sometimes players do not match up well because their openings do not co-ordinate well. To give an example: I play that 1. e4 d5 thing a lot with Black. With that opening, I find I tend to get good positions when my partner creates some flow, not so good positions when my partner restricts flow (by starting with 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5, for example).
By the way, that ...Bc5 idea I mention off-handedly isn't something I still play. It worked 20 years ago when my partner was the best bughouse player in Connecticut, so he knew better than his opponent what to do with the queen in hand. Internet players tend to be a little savvier, so sacking the bishop to create the queen exchange isn't necessarily helpful to my partner. I also found that sometimes good opponents used that pawn on c5 very effectively by dropping new pawns on d6 or b6. So, my comments about ...Bc5 weren't meant to be an endorsement, and if anyone tries it and gets his butt kicked, well, serves him right for listening to an 1800 player.
As for 1...Nf6, I don't think it's bad - and I would never use the word "boring" to describe it! In fact, I play it myself to vary my openings. As Stephen said, 1...Nf6 doesn't have to be played with the intent of sacking the knight immediately, and it's not unusual to see a clever Black player steal the initiative in this line, even against good opponents.
On laggers: I don't know if you can call them bad partners - it's probably not their fault the connection is so slow. But aside from that, Stephen is 100% correct, and I detest playing with a partner who lags. What I hate most about playing with a lagger is that, looking at the clocks, I think I am ahead on time, but in fact I'm not, as the lag will eat up my time advantage. Lagging also ruins the piece flow, so if you are playing with a lagger, all the pieces generally end up on the other board. With your board essentially reduced to an endgame, the position gets very random, the winner being the one who happens to be on move when one or two key exchanges occur on the other board. I suppose some players can handle lag better than others, but as far as I'm concerned, it isn't bughouse.
On compromising your position to get your partner a particular piece: I don't totally agree with Gnejs' comment either, but I decided to let it stand without any reply on my part. At the very least, it takes some sophisticated judgement on your part - you are giving up any realistic chances to win your game, figuring your partner will win his. I think it's easy for your partner to overestimate his chances - or his ability to find the right moves!
On playing with much lower rated partners: There are a few buggers I partner fairly regularly who are around 300 points lower than me. The most noticeable thing about their play is its unpredictability. Some nights they play great, way better than their rating. Other nights they're sucking gutter water. I wish I knew what causes their off nights. Aside from asking them point blank what the problem is (which I've tried once or twice, e.g. "You should have warned me you were playing on queeludes tonight") I don't know how to handle the situation. At any rate, when a lower rated partner is not playing well, clever improvising on your part isn't going to pick up the slack.
On the "if the old rating was deserved, it will grow back" line:
let's see, at last count, five players have either claimed credit
or claimed to know the originator for this line!
Quite amusing. Personally, I think the line most likely originated at
Pfizer, the makers of Viagra, since I hear they can make anything grow
back (heh, heh).
BG Response #4 (from "Kingwalker", July 21, 1998):
I just read your article and I think that something is missing. When
you are in a "lousy position" (aka King running) most players request
the partner to sit to "clean up the barn" and end up saying
"go, I'm dead". I (being named Kingwalker) know a little about this
for my "nutsy" kind of play and I usually request "go for the throat"
so my partner may force mate or to make his opponent request
"slow trade" which may save my butt. Of course, I may end up dead
for his sacs but it is all a question of speed, timing and skill
to avoid mate for as long as it takes. Sometimes you may pass by the
opportunity to get safe in order to get pieces for your partner's attack!!
I also agree with Gnejs regarding bishops. The problem is most players,
when they play defense, do not plan for offense. (Example: you have to
defend the e2 and the d1 square with both players without castling, more
player will put the bishop in f3 when they can put it in g4 that also
attacks d7!!)
Regarding almost everybody's comment regarding the Leaf: I play several
variations with differents results (even when I don't study, I just play
them!) 1. e4 d5 2. ed e6 3. Bb5+ c6 4. dc Nc6! or 2...e5 instead of
2...e6 (I am still trying to figure out if it is good)
or even 2...c6 (as long as my opponent doesn't have a pawn to put on e6)
and end up with a game that may not be great but gives me
the kind of position that I feel comfortable with.
Thanks for the page
Kingwalker
I especially like Kingwalker's point about the players that tell you to sit when they get caught in a mating net and end up having to sit anyway. With your partner now sitting and you having lost any extra time you had, you've pretty much squandered your last chance to save the game. The best chance is usually for the player in trouble to grab any material he can and for his partner to play aggressively (and fast!), hoping an attack materializes that lets you steal one.
As long as we're on the subject of those "sit! stay!" partners, here's another scenario I've seen cause trouble: You are playing with one of these guys, they see you are a little ahead on the clock (20 seconds, say) and they have what would be a good position for regular chess. So, they tell you to sit and they play regular chess for awhile, trading off a bunch of material and maybe winning a piece or two. As you are sitting, you see the offboard material mount up on both sides of your board. Well, this would be great if you have your opponent's king in a little trouble. However, if you are the one with a somewhat exposed position and your opponent is in no danger, then the exchanges helped your opponent much more than you, even if you got a bit more material. It doesn't matter that it is your move, since you can't start an immediate attack, and it doesn't matter that you have six pieces in hand to your opponent's four. What does matter is your opponent now has material to attack with, and, to make matters much worse, he got the material while your clock was ticking!
The point to this story is: even if having your partner sit while
you're trading down would appear to help you, it's probably not a good
idea to tell him to sit unless it also helps him.
If you're not sure having your partner sit is the right thing to do,
save yourself the keystrokes.
What, you mean to tell me there are some significant points
related to bughouse strategy that still haven't been mentioned?
E-mail me your remarks
then, and I'll work them into an update of this document, plus I'll
credit you with the words of wisdom.
Like everything else that is decent on the Internet, this is a work
in progress. It will be updated periodically as we all learn more
about this intriguing game.
Back to the Ferrante chess page