# Question
Title: What are examples of very aggressive openings?
One of my favorite openings is the King's Gambit. It is extremely aggressive, and makes for a sharp tactical game without sacrificing too much material. It isn't played much at the highest level at standard time controls, but even today it is occasionally used in blitz by top level players such as Hikaru Nakamura.

What other openings for black or white would force these kind of very aggressive, tactical, sharp and open games? (Without putting yourself in *too* bad a position.)

# Answer
> 117 votes
The most (overly-)aggressive openings I know of that aren't *too* bad would probably be the Danish Gambit (Accepted) and the Fried Liver Attack.

---

**Danish Gambit Accepted**:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

```

*White gets three open files and both bishops on open diagonals facing black's king; black gets two pawns. Usually considered slightly better for black, but played occasionally even up to master level.*

---

**Fried Liver Attack:**

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7!? Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3

```

*White sacrifices a knight to get Black's king out right away. Proper defense is extremely difficult over the board, but played correctly, black is thought to have a slight advantage. In most lines, white wins their material back.*

# Answer
> 38 votes
As there other answers cover only white's options, let me throw in some black thoughts...

The Benko Gambit is a sharp, but sound and deep opening:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5

```

The aggressive, but not-so-sound Budapest Gambit. However, if the opponent doesn't know the theory, she can be soon in serious trouble:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e5
3. dxe5 Ng4

```

Finally I like to play the Steinitz variation in the Scotch game, especially in blitz. If the opponent doesn't know the theory, it's quite unlikely he comes up with the only correct plan Nb1-c3-b5 by himself:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 exd4
4. Nxd4 Qh4!?

```

# Answer
> 37 votes
Probably **the most aggressive opening without being unplayable** in chess is **Double Muzio Gambit** in King's Gambit, which **suicide-bombs two minor pieces at f7 for a wildest possible opening attack**:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Double Muzio Gambit"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O! {Strongest continuation, Muzio gambit! White sacrifices a piece for better development and attack(a very wild one)} gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 {after Qxe5, white can play d4 with tempo, increasing deveolpment advantage} Qxe5 8.Bxf7+!!? {Double Muzio Gambit, doubles the fun, now its kill or to be killed. White has two big pieces in f-file, and also black king is on the same file, white has a clear development advantage, shortly white has the wildest possible attack in 8 moves}

```

I invite you to see this nice analysis about Double Muzio Gambit

I played this variation succesfully in OTB games. If you think that this can't be playable, then check this master game:

```
[Title "Kuznetsov, Sergei (2396) vs. Korjakin, Boris (2274) - 2007"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5
8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qf6 11. Nc3 fxe3 12. Qh5+ Kg7 13. Rxf6 Nxf6
14. Qg5+ Kf7 15. Rf1 Bg7 16. Nd5 e2 17. Rxf6+  1-0

```

Not satified? Another master game:

```
[Title "Lanzani, Mario (2371) vs. Sheskin, Matan (2207) - 2010"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5
8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qf6 11. Bxf4 Ne7 12. Nc3 Qf5 13. Qe3 d6
14. Bg5 Nbc6 15. g4 Bg7 16. Nb5 Qxf1+ 17. Rxf1+ Ke8 18. Bxe7 Nxe7
19. Nxc7+ Kd7 20. Nxa8 b6 21. Rf7 Be5 22. Qg5 Re8 23. Nc7 h6 24. Qh4  1-0

```

If you think that the line is unplayable and white is winning just because of being stronger about 130 Elo, then check this evaluation of Komodo-9.3. A GM-slayer chess engine can't find a winning advantage too:

```
[Title "After 10...Qf6 | Komodo-9.3 Depth:31 -0.30"]
[FEN "rnb2bnr/pppp1k1p/5q2/8/5p2/4BQ2/PPP3PP/RN3RK1 w - - 2 1"]

1. Nc3 Nc6 2. Bxf4 d6 3. Nd5 Qf5 4. Be5 Qxf3 5. Rxf3+ Bf5 6. Bxh8 Nge7
7. Nxc7 Rc8 8. Nb5 Ke6 9. g4 Bxg4 10. Rf6+ Kd7 11. Rxd6+ Ke8 12. h3 Be2
13. Nc3 Bh5 14. Ne4 Nf5 15. Nf6+ Kf7 16. Rd7+ Kg6 17. Nxh5 Bc5+ 18. Kh1 Kxh5
19. Bc3 h6 20. Re1 Bf2 21. Re6 Rf8 22. b3 Ncd4 23. Bxd4 Bxd4 24. Rxb7 Kh4
25. Kh2 Rg8 26. Rb4 {-0.30}

```

If it can't find, we can say that our opponents can't find over the board too. Therefore, we can say that this line is definitely not a cheap opening trap, and absolutely playable. Black seems to have only a little advantage in this very uncomfortable extremely sharp defensive position, while White is enjoying the attack.

# Answer
> 36 votes
The Latvian Gambit (ECO: C40) is an agressive opening.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f5

```

# Answer
> 29 votes
It is difficult to force an aggressive position in any opening. Even in the King's Gambit, Black can simply play `2...d6 or Bc5` to reach a more positional type of position.

With that said, some popular openings traditionally thought to be more aggressive include the Sicilian Defence, the Dutch Defence, the Albin Counter-Gambit, the Benko Gambit, the King's Indian Defense, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and an array of gambits on `1. e4`.

# Answer
> 27 votes
Perhaps the most insanely aggressive opening that's remotely playable is the **Halloween Gambit**,

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Halloween Gambit"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nxe5?!

```

It seems to defy logic that White can sacrifise a whole knight for merely a pawn and a speculative advantage in space and time, but sometimes aggression has a logic all its own. The White pawns roll up-board, attacking moves come naturally for White, while Black mis-steps can rapidly lead to catastrophe.

Strangely enough, Black's best idea in practical play may be to calmly counter-sac his own knight and play for a slight but sure positional advantage.

See also the **Cochrane Gambit**, a similar idea, but with a more distinguished pedigree.

# Answer
> 25 votes
I've tried out the Goring gambit several times, and it has worked in ~1500 level tournament play. I don't think it's sound at the master level, but it's fun and open with lots of tactical options along the diagonals attacking the kingside.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Goring Gambit"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 exd4
4. c3

```

Also, the Evans gambit. Probably also not sound at the master level, but it's quite similar, opening up the diagonals to attack the kingside after getting those pesky pawns out of the way for fast development.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Evans Gambit"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4

```

# Answer
> 24 votes
The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: is an agressive opening.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Blackmar-Diemer Gambit"]

1. d4 d5
2. e4 dxe4
3. Nc3

```

# Answer
> 21 votes
I can't believe that no one mentioned the Lolli attack, very similar to the fried liver attack, but the Lolli attack is better!

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Lolli Attack"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O

```

From there, you actually have 4 main variations, watch this youtube video, it will tell you everything you need to know about the attack.

# Answer
> 19 votes
The Open Sicilian (1.e4 c5 followed by 2.Nf3 and 3.d4) counts, in my view. White immediately gets a lead in development and great attacking chances, in return for some positional sacrifice, most notably the 1v2 pawns in the center.

This opening is famous for its wild sacrificial attacks, in my opinion even more so than the king's gambit. Piece sacrifices on b5, d5 and e6, and black exchange sacrifices on c3 are the order of the day.

And best of all: almost all top players play it. It's actually *good*.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Sometimes, one way to get overtly aggressive in a reasonably sound way is to throw out an early g4 pawn thrust in an otherwise vanilla, mainline position. For instance, in the Anti-Meran `6.Qc2` variation of the Semi-Slav, the gambit move `7.g4!?` was popularized by Shirov and Shabalov:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4!?

```

Speaking of Shirov, he pioneered a similar idea with `5.g4!?` against the Pirc move-order of the Philidor Defense, and one could also try it a move earlier:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 (4.g4!?) e5 5.g4!?

```

# Answer
> 13 votes
**Indirectly Benoni Defense is one of the best opening for modern chess player. (A66)**

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Beoni Defense"]

1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 c5
3.d5 e6
4.Nc3 exd5
5.cxd5 d6
6.e4 g6
7.f4

```

# Answer
> 13 votes
The Smith-Morra Gambit is aggressive for white.

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 (4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2)

```

White has sacrificed a pawn (or two) to free up his development.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Let me recommend two sharp opening variations for the black pieces: the Sicilian Najdorf and Semi-Slav Botvinnik variation. They lead to dynamic and complicated positions with chances for both sides. They are excellent for playing for a win with the black pieces. To master one or both of these variations, I recommend getting at least one modern book per variation and study these in great detail. Also, check all grandmaster games you can find and explore the ideas for both sides in these positions.

The starting position of the Sicilian Najdorf is reached after

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6

```

Let's try to understand this position. Black has a statically better position thanks to the semi-open c-file. This means that an exchange of queens in this position is beneficial for black. White will fight for the d5 square and try to plant a light piece there. Black will try to deliver the d6-d5 center blow, thematic for the Sicilian system. White castles queenside in the sharpest Najdorf variations. Black castles kingside, queenside or stays with the King in the center, depending on the situation. Black chooses between the setups e7-e6, e7-e5 and g7-g6. White chooses between f2-f3 and f2-f4.

When white castles queenside, black attacks with the b- and a-pawns as well as the thematic exchange sac Rc8xNc3 bxc3, ruining the queenside pawn structure. If this exchange sac can be followed by picking up the e4-pawn, then it can be done at virtually any moment. Another thematic plan for black is placing a knight on e5 (after white's f-pawn is either on f5 or exchanged off) or c4 (attacking the b2-pawn and undermining the c3-knight).

The starting position of the Semi-Slav Botvinnik is reached after

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5

```

At first glance, black just grabbed the c4-pawn and is trying to hold on to it for dear life. Yet things are more subtle than this. Black has entered an assymetric position where white has to find dynamic plans to compensate for the material loss. It also looks like white is winning with e4-e5. Yet again, things are not so simple at all. A bit deeper we reach the following position

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 11.exf6

```

White will try to win using the extra kingside pawns. White can also launch an attack on the black King. Black will try to win by launching an attack on the white King, after developing with Bc8-b7, Qd8-b6 and O-O-O. White will most probably castle kingside, since staying in the center or castling queenside looks spooky. Black will open the a8-h1 diagonal and attack the isolated d4-pawn. I have used both these variations with joy and success. They are simply awesome!

# Answer
> 12 votes
Two interesting gambit trees to be aware of are:

1) The Scotch/Goring/Italian/Danish gambit complex (there's a lot of opportunity to transpose among them). These start out with:

```
1. e4 e5 2. d4 ed 3. c3 (Danish)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed 4. c3 (Goring)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed 4. Bc4 (Scotch)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 (Italian)

```

The transpositions among them (and into both the Two Knight's and the Max Lange) should be enough to gratify anyone.

2) The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. The basic line of this is:

```
1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3

```

But the utility of this gambit lies in the great potential for transposition from semi-open `e4` defenses:

```
1. e4 d5 2. d4 (from Center Counter)
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Be3 de (from French)
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3 5. bc de 6. f3 (also French)
1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 (from Alekhine's)
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de 4. f3 (from Caro-Kann)

```

You can basically run any response to `e4` except `...e5` and `...c5` and `...d6` into a BDG (and with the Sicilian or Pirc, you might find enough life in the `f3` systems to keep you playing some sharp games even then).

# Answer
> 12 votes
**Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation, Yugoslav Attack**

Another pretty sharp opening for both sides is The Sicilian Dragon, with the Yugoslav Attack being one of the sharpest variations. It differs from most of the openings listed here because it's not a gambit, but still a very sharp and dangerous opening with lots of threats for both White and Black.

`9. Bc4` being the more aggressive move and `9. O-O-O` goes for more tactical play.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Sicilian Defense / Dragon Variation / Yugoslav Attack"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 (9. O-O-O)

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
The Alekhine's defence (1.e4 Nf6) is also a great attacking weapon for black, as it is a highly aggressive and provocative opening that lures white into overextending its centre, which can then be targeted (generally) via the knights on c6 and b6, trading the knight on f3 for your light square bishop, and sometimes even castling on the queen side to really target white's d pawn.

Take a look at the opening moves in the most common variations (Modern, Albert, Carlsen, 4 pawns, etc) and see if you like the resulting positions for black. It is a good practical weapon in tournament play, and white is frequently caught off-guard, as it is a rare opening (however, many world champions have played it (Fischer, Spassky, Tal, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe etc. and it is still sometimes used at the highest level today by Carlsen, Shabalov, Kamsky etc.)

# Answer
> 10 votes
**Ruy Lopez, Schliemann Defense**

Very sharp response to the Ruy Lopez. In blitz it is playable at all levels. At slower time-controls, should be solid even for master play.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
I would recommend the Schara-Hennig-Gambit for black:

```
[Title "Schara-Hennig-Gambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4 Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5
7. Qxd5 Nf6 8. Qd1 Nc6

```

It is pretty rare (the Tarrasch is 10 times more common after 3…c5), according to the computer it is sound and if white doesn't know what he is doing he can go down very quickly.

Here one of my own games, where my strong opponent started burning time after move 5 and couldn't find a way to quell the black initiative.

```
[Title "2325 Elo vs BlindKungFuMaster"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5
7. Qxd5 Nf6 8. Qb3 Na6 9. Nf3 Nc5 10. Qd1 Nce4 11. e3 Bb4 12. Qd4 Qe7
13. Bd3 Rd8 14. Bxe4 Bb5 15. Qxa7 Nxe4 16. Bd2 Bxc3 17. Bxc3 O-O
18. Qa5 Nxc3 19. bxc3 Bc4 20. Rd1 Ra8 21. Qb4 Qxb4 22. cxb4 Rxa2
23. Nd4 Rfa8 24. h4 Rb2 25. Rh3 h5 26. b5 Bd5 27. Rg3 Raa2
28. f3 Bc4 29. Rc1 g6 30. f4 Bd3 31. Rg5 Rf2 0-1

```

One word of warning: White doesn't have any structural weaknesses, so black has to come up with something before his initiative evaporates. If you are confident that you will be able to do that, the Schara-Hennig-gambit is the perfect weapon for you.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't know whether these 2 opening positions have a name. But I have been on the losing side playing black in both these different types of games.

At the end of the game for these 2 boards, the white wins by checkmate. And I don't think they are very trivial board positions either.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 exd4
4. Ng5 h6
5. Nxf7 Kxf7
6. Bc4+ Ke8
7. Qh5+ Ke7
8. Qf7+ Kd6
9. Bf4+ Kc5
10. Qd5+ Kb6
11. Qb5#

```

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 h6
4. Nc3 d6
5. O-O Bg4
6. Nxe5 Bxd1
7. Bxf7+ Ke7
8. Nd5#

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
I don't think anyone has mentioned the Staunton Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6

```

which I had the opportunity to play successfully against the computer earlier this week when it played the Dutch Defense. It can be seen as a sounder relative of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4) since 1...f5 does not contribute to Black's development and leaves the black king slightly exposed, which 2.e4 aims to take advantage of. It's sufficient for dynamic equality and can provide White with a very dangerous attack if Black is not adequately prepared for it. And the From Gambit is a strong, albeit double-edged, response to Bird's opening (1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 \[2. e4 transposes to the King's Gambit\] d6 3. exd6 Bxd6). If White is careless, Black can generate some quick Fool's Mate variation kingside mating attacks based on the absence of the f2 pawn and the weakness on the e1-h4 diagonal.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think the second diagram in this answer is a position called Mat de Legal.
This variation of the Scottish gambit is quite aggressive too:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Scottish gambit / Mat de Legal"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O *

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I like the Colorado Counter Gambit for Black in Blitz. Here's an example:

**Colorado Counter-Gambit:**

```
[Event "FRG-ch corr"]
[Date "1987"]
[White "Hallier, Karl Heinz"]
[Black "Winckelmann, Thomas"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 d5 4. Nh4 e5 5. Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6 Nf6 7. g7+ Nxh5 8.gxh8=Q Qxh4 9. d4 Bf5 10. Bd3 e4 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. g3 Bb4+ 13. c3 Qe7 14. Qxd8+ Kxd8 15. Bxh5 Nxd4 16. Bd1 Nf3+ 17. Ke2 Qc5 18. Ba4 Qc4+ 19. Kd1 Bg4 0-1

```

You might notice who was playing Black: the famous Thomas Winckelmann (of Winckelmann-Riemer Gambit fame). *And* it was a correspondence game. *And* he beat White, who had essentially all the time in the world, in 19 moves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
For me, it has to be Scandinavian Alekhine. Although it could be responded by Alekhine's defence (B02), Spielmann variation and would prove better.

Both sides' queen, both sides' centre pawn, both sides' knight with good position lost as soon as the 7th move.

**Alekhine Defense: Scandinavian Variation:**

```
[Event "Computer Chess Test B02"]
[Date "2016"]
[White "Stockfish 9"]
[Black "Komodo 10"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 d4 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2 6. Qxd2 Qxd2 7. Bxd2 Bxg7 8. O-O-O

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I recommend to try Grob's Attack. This opening is very agressive for both white and black. And a lot of players don't know to play correctly in this opening as I found.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. g4

```

Black can answer with Romford Countergambit, for example:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 d4 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 d3

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I personally like the Grob opening, especially for blitz.

It goes:

1. g4

And, just an example of a continuation: .. d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 e6 4. Qb3

I also like using the same idea as black playing against 1. e4. For example:

1. e4 g5 2. d4 Bg7 3. Bxg5 3. c5 4. Be3 Qb6

The computer evaluation isn't always sound, but in practical play (in blitz), it works pretty well.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Caveman variation (Caro-kann advance variation sideline) should do the trick:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bg5 Qb6 6. Bd3!? Bxd3 7. Qxd3 Qxb2 8. e6!

```

If Black takes the free rook, you get a strong attack.

The only problem is that you'll have to get your opponent to play THE EXACT SEQUENCE OF MOVES, which is very difficult considering the length of the line.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Fried Liver is good, and according to Stockfish, black would NOT have a "slight advantage" even if they defend properly.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Luccini Gambit

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 f5 5. Ng5 f4 6. Nf7 Qh4

```

Nakhmanson Gambit

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Nc3 dxc3 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qd5+

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are several openings in chess that are known for their aggressive nature, as they seek to control the center of the board and launch quick attacks against the opponent's king. Here are some examples:

The King's Gambit: This opening begins with 1.e4 e5 2.f4, offering a pawn sacrifice in order to quickly develop the pieces and attack the opponent's king.

The Sicilian Defense: While not necessarily an "aggressive" opening for white, the Sicilian Defense is a very popular choice for black players who are looking to play aggressively. Black allows white to occupy the center with pawns and then looks to launch counterattacks with the pieces.

The French Defense: The French Defense is another opening that is popular among players looking to play aggressively as black. By playing 1.e4 e6, black seeks to control the center with the d5 pawn and then launch attacks against the white pawn structure.

The Grunfeld Defense: This opening begins with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6, allowing white to occupy the center with pawns and then attacking the pawn structure with pieces.

The Alekhine Defense: This opening begins with 1.e4 Nf6, allowing white to occupy the center with pawns and then attacking the pawn structure with pieces.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I read all the comments , by your post I think you need a new opening to learn which has a solid reputation but aggressive in nature which always favorite of many chess player club players and grand masters . If you are trying to find new gambit lines then you can try The gambit by M.yudovich , but if you want aggressive but solid openings first, I want to recommend you Vienna Game it also can transfer from the bishop's opening which goes like , 1.e4 e5 2. (Nc3/Bc4) (Nf6/Nc6/Bc5/others) 3.(Bc4/Nc3) {now after nf6 there is also frakenstein-dracula line which will be like 3..Nxe4 4.Qh5 which always a drawish line but you can pressurize your opponent and he/she can fall into your traps} 3....Bc5(after nf6) 4.d3 d6 5.Ne2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Kh1 Be6 8.f4(and suddenly you can see it is a solid version of king's gambit) which always played by many top players recently it's been a fashion for top players to refute petrov defence or russian defence (1.e4 e5 2Nf3 Nf6). Now e4 is played for many many years to have the main purpose checkmate the king with controlling the f7 square. In the e4 lines I also like the opening called the Najdorf sicilian english attack, (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6.Be3) , 6. Bg5 is also aggressive which all comes into the main pawn race with g4 , g5 , and in the side of d4 openings solid and aggressive lines can be found in the A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire by Aaron Summerscale , ( the barry attack is one of favourites from that book which goes like 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 , with the plans of going in pawn race with h4 or g4 this opening also been mastered by GM mark hebden and also a new form of this opening been played by famous GM baadur jobava and the opening is named as jobava opening . Now you can also read A Ferocious Opening Repertoire by C. LAKDAWALA which includes veresov opening with f3 lines . And with black against e4 my favorite opening is najdorf (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6)and also can play tiger modern (1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6) and against d4 you can play Grünfeld Defence(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5) and you can play dutch defence (1. d4 f5 ) and this is also aggressive but solid played by many player you will find many examples in the ginger gm youtube channel.I don't recognize benko gambit as a aggressive opening cause a if your opponent knows then it can be not an aggressive one.And also other openings. Anyway Best Of Luck!!

---
Tags: opening, aggressive-play
---


title: Detailed History of Touch Move Rule

text:
# Question
Title: Detailed History of Touch Move Rule
What were the different versions of the touch-move rule over history?

There are various chess problems, particularly from 19th century, which depend upon it, and they seem to make different assumptions about the players' choices.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The touch-move rule has existed since at least 1497, although possibly earlier since there was little documentation of chess at that time. Up until a few years before 1931, there was a rule that if the move was illegal you had to move your king. This did not mean that you could not castle (assuming that you hadn't touched a piece other than the king). However, if one made an illegal move and then was forced to move their king, they could not castle (as it also involved the rook).

This led to problems, such as an 1893 game wherein a player was forced to move their king on move three, possibly resulting in checkmate (sources are unclear). This was documented in Edward Winter's Chess Notes 5381.

```
[Title "Lindemann-Echtermeyer, Kiel, Kiel Germany, 1893"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Ke2?? Qe4#

```

---
Tags: rules, history
---


# Question
Title: Is there ever a reason to promote to a bishop? If so, what is it?
Is there ever a reason to promote to a bishop? If so, what is it? I understand why one would promote to a queen, rook, or knight. I won't go into why here, see other questions. But why would one ever promote to a bishop? Not to show off, there must be a real reason that promoting to a queen, rook, or knight would all be worse.

# Answer
> 2 votes
One reason is to avoid stalemate. Suppose you are playing blitz chess and you don't have much time left. In hurry, you can't think much so you choose to promote to bishop. So chances of stalemate decreases.

---
Tags: bishops, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: How to set depth of GNU chess in winboard?
I have downloaded GNU chess 5.07 in windows 10. I am running it in winboard 4.8.0. When I start GNU chess in winboard, it plays with full strength. However, I want to set particular depth and want GNU to play at that level. How can I do that? I read help sections of Winboard and GNU chess. They have given command to set depth. However, I don't know how and where to write those commands? For example, Where should I write "depth 2"? How to give that command?

Other pre-installed engines (Fairy max, fruits) are too strong for me. When I click "engine 1 settings" in winboard options, no option to set depth appears.

# Answer
> 1 votes
To set a depth, you can use the "force" command. Here is how:

1. Click "Engine 1 Settings" and then "Edit" to open the command prompt. Then, type "new" to start a new game.
2. Type "force" to put it in "force" mode. This let's you make moves for the engine.
3. Make the first few moves for all sides. This should be done by typing the moves into the command prompt. For example, you may type e3 and then it will move the pawn to e3.
4. After you have made the opening moves, you should type "go depth X" to it search for X moves ahead.
5. Finally, you should type "move" to make it play its move on your desired depth.

Repeat 4 and 5 until the end of the game. It will not make any moves automatically. You will have to use the move command every time.

---
Tags: engines, depth, winboard
---


title: Why did Garry Kasparov retire?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Garry Kasparov retire?
I have heard that he was rather upset at the establishment, but I don't know why? What this the only reason, or were there others?

# Answer
From his Wikipedia article:

> After winning the prestigious Linares tournament for the ninth time, Kasparov announced on 10 March 2005 that he would retire from regular competitive chess. He cited as the reason a lack of personal goals in the chess world. When winning the Russian championship in 2004, he commented that it had been the last major title he had never won outright. He also expressed frustration at the failure to reunify the world championship.
>
> Kasparov said he might play in some rapid chess events for fun, but he intended to spend more time on his books, including the My Great Predecessors series, and work on the links between decision-making in chess and other areas of life. He also stated that he would continue to involve himself in Russian politics, which he viewed as "headed down the wrong path.

So: lack of motivation, and changing interests.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, famous-players, kasparov, tournament-directors
---


# Question
Title: What Elo rating does The Chessmaster 2000 have?
A recent agadmator video pitted The Chessmaster (NES) against Stockfish 14 NNUE. What is more impressive to me is that this chess engine, released originally in 1986 and written by David Kittinger in 6502 assembly, was advertised at playing at 2000 Elo, on quite constrained hardware by today's standards. However, according to The Spacious Mind, it only plays at 1550-1600 Elo.

I am looking for calibrated Elo computer tournaments or personal experience with playing Chessmaster 2000 in gauging an accurate Elo rating. The Spacious Mind does not state how its Elo estimate for the software was derived, only that the site pitted various C64 engines against each other in a personal "2009 Commodore 64 Open Championship".

# Answer
The NES Chessmaster has previously faced Stockfish in the "Elo World" competition by Tom Murphy VII, presented at SIGBOVIK 2019 and on YouTube.

This is a rather unconventional tournament, to say the least. There are no human players in it, and the Elo values are uncalibrated (and probably skewed a bit by the presence of many strange/weak players). Nonetheless, NES Chessmaster and Stockfish are both in it. Stockfish 10 with a think budget of 1 million nodes and opening/endgame databases disabled receives a score of 2644 Elo; NES Chessmaster on "Level 2" receives a score of 989 Elo.

`chessmaster.nes_lv2` outperforms `stockfish1m_32768`, a "dilution" of Stockfish that plays the same move as `stockfish1m` 50% of the time and plays a random legal move 50% of the time, but it underperforms `stockfish1m_r16384`, which plays Stockfish 75% of the time and a random move 25% of the time.

If someone were inclined to put NES Chessmaster online as a bot to collect calibrated data, as proposed by Minot in comments, a starting point might be tom7's harness, found in `chessmaster.cc` / `chessmaster.h`, and dependent on the fceulib wrapper for the FCE Ultra NES emulator.
> 1 votes

# Answer
We don't know. The manufacturer believed it have been rated around 2000, but we don't know if this is correct. The computers were very slow and therefore it is impossible to know how well it really played
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, history, rating, computer-chess, elo
---


# Question
Title: Name for the "folding magnetic chess set" variant?
Does anyone know the name of the chessboard variant where you fold a standard board along the line between the d-file and e-file, to get a double-sided 8x4 board? A piece on top can move past the edge of the board, in which case it flips and continues underneath. And vice versa. Otherwise the starting position is the same, and the rules are the same.

Many chessboards do fold this way. And if it's magnetic, then the pieces can stick to both halves, so you can play the variant as is. Folding magnetic sets are hardly new or rare -- I've had a cheap one for 30+ years.

chessvariants.com and David Pritchard's Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants have all sorts of other wacky warped chessboard variants. But I haven't been able to find this one there, or anywhere else online.

I don't remember this variant being called anything particular, we just "played on a folded board". Has anyone else here heard of it?

---

##### Extra information

Here is an equivalent game that you could play on an 8x8 unfolded board. You might find it more convenient, even if you do have a folding magnetic chess set -- the folded board just shows you what the rules should be.

The left and right edges are considered to be joined, so that a-file and h-file are adjacent (just like in cylindrical chess). But also, the left half of the top edge joins to the right half of the top edge, in such a way that continuing up from a8 goes to h8, b8 goes to g8, c8 goes to f8, and d8 goes to e8, and vice versa. The bottom edge joins to itself as well, so that going down from a1 goes to h1 and so on. That is, the a-file and h-file form a single 16-step loop, as do b-g, c-f, and d-e (just like the 4x16 rings in circular chess).

You can check that these rules are equivalent to the folded variant.

You may wonder if there isn't a hidden equivalence between this and, say, this torus variant or these spherical variants.

On this board, you can check that from 56 squares the king has 8 distinct moves. From 8 corner squares (a1,d1,e1,h1,a8,d8,e8,h8), two of the eight moves end up on the same square, and one of them ends up where it started. For example, from e8 its moves are, starting from 3 o'clock and going clockwise: f8, f7, e7, d7, d8, "d9", "e9", and "f9". The first five are the usual moves, "f9" is c8, "e9" is d8 (redundant), and "d9" is e8 (null move).

On the other boards, the king has 8 distinct moves from all 64 squares. Therefore they are not equivalent variants.

(Those "spherical" chessboards are actually not simply connected. The Encyclopedia does list some spherical variants, with boards that are simply connected, compact surfaces without boundary. But the ones I saw had 66 or more cells, so obviously they are not equivalent to this.)

# Answer
I believe that you are talking about the Ultima. It is also possible that you could be reffering to Cylindrical Chess.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, terminology, chessboards, identify-this
---


title: A possibility to beat a chess computer

text:
# Question
Title: A possibility to beat a chess computer
Related, but outdated: Tips on how to beat a computer?

How to beat a super Go computer: https://paperswithcode.com/paper/adversarial-policies-beat-professional-level

This of course suggests that the same specific weakness holds for (the newest era - it won't work against, say, Stockfish) chess computers. Do you know of any scientific work on the area? Or at least of a severe blunder by a NN/DL-based computer?

# Answer
People have tried, to no success. My justification for saying this comes from two angles:

1. Leela Chess Zero is trained by getting each new neural network to beat the previous one. In other words, each new network is an "adversary" of the previous network.
2. At one point, people also tried to create "Antifish" which was a neural network built to beat Stockfish (which was at the time using handcrafted eval). Antifish didn't beat Stockfish convincingly, and was noticeably weaker than Leela. The project has since been discontinued, as you can see from the fact that the last update to that repository was 5 years ago.

That doesn't mean NN engines don't blunder catastrophically, see e.g. the answer I wrote here.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, reference-request
---


# Question
Title: Visualizing the number of pieces attacking each square
Are there any software programs or tools available that can display the number of pieces attacking each square?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This python script will show how many white/black attackers on every square.

It will also generate an image in `png` format where the attacked square is marked with `X` and the attacker locations are colored green.

Edit: Added code to generate an attack heatmap. Edit: Update attack heatmap board labels.

## Code

```
"""
pip install chess
pip install cairosvg
"""

import chess
import chess.svg
from cairosvg import svg2png

def main():
    fen = 'rn1r3k/pp2qpp1/1bb1p3/6p1/2BP4/P4N2/1PQ1RPPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 19'

    board = chess.Board(fen)
    print(board)
    print()

    for square in range(64):
        sq_name = chess.square_name(square)
        w_attackers = board.attackers(chess.WHITE, square)
        b_attackers = board.attackers(chess.BLACK, square)

        svg = chess.svg.board(
            board,
            fill=dict.fromkeys((w_attackers | b_attackers), "#00FF00"),
            squares=(chess.SquareSet([square])),
            size=350,
        )

        png_fn = f'{sq_name}_board.png'
        svg2png(bytestring=svg, write_to=png_fn)

        print(f'sq: {sq_name}, wattackers: {len(list(w_attackers))}, battackers: {len(list(b_attackers))}')

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

```

## Sample Image Output

a4\_board.png

---

e6\_board.png

---

## Sample Text Output

```
r n . r . . . k
p p . . q p p .
. b b . p . . .
. . . . . . p .
. . B P . . . .
P . . . . N . .
. P Q . R P P P
. . . . R . K .

sq: a1, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: b1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: c1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: d1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: e1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: f1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: g1, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: h1, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: a2, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: b2, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: c2, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: d2, wattackers: 3, battackers: 0
sq: e2, wattackers: 3, battackers: 0
sq: f2, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: g2, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: h2, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: a3, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: b3, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: c3, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: d3, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: e3, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: f3, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: g3, wattackers: 2, battackers: 0
sq: h3, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: a4, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: b4, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: c4, wattackers: 1, battackers: 0
sq: d4, wattackers: 1, battackers: 2
sq: e4, wattackers: 2, battackers: 1
sq: f4, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: g4, wattackers: 0, battackers: 0
sq: h4, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: a5, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: b5, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: c5, wattackers: 1, battackers: 2
sq: d5, wattackers: 1, battackers: 3
sq: e5, wattackers: 3, battackers: 0
sq: f5, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: g5, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: h5, wattackers: 0, battackers: 0
sq: a6, wattackers: 1, battackers: 2
sq: b6, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: c6, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: d6, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: e6, wattackers: 2, battackers: 2
sq: f6, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: g6, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: h6, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: a7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: b7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: c7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: d7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 4
sq: e7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 0
sq: f7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: g7, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: h7, wattackers: 1, battackers: 1
sq: a8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 0
sq: b8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: c8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1
sq: d8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: e8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 3
sq: f8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: g8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 2
sq: h8, wattackers: 0, battackers: 1

```

You have to change the FEN in the code for other positions.

## Updated code to generate an attack heatmap

The map is saved in html file.

```
"""
pip install chess
pip install cairosvg
pip install numpy
pip install plotly
"""

import chess
import chess.svg
from cairosvg import svg2png
import plotly.express as px
import numpy

def main():
    fen = 'rn1r3k/pp2qpp1/1bb1p3/6p1/2BP4/P4N2/1PQ1RPPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 19'

    board = chess.Board(fen)
    print(board)
    print()

    att = {i: 0 for i in range(64)}

    for square in range(64):
        sq_name = chess.square_name(square)
        w_attackers = board.attackers(chess.WHITE, square)
        b_attackers = board.attackers(chess.BLACK, square)

        att[square] += len(w_attackers) + len(b_attackers)

        svg = chess.svg.board(
            board,
            fill=dict.fromkeys((w_attackers | b_attackers), "#00FF00"),
            squares=(chess.SquareSet([square])),
            size=350,
        )

        png_fn = f'{sq_name}_board.png'
        svg2png(bytestring=svg, write_to=png_fn)

        print(f'sq: {sq_name}, wattackers: {len(list(w_attackers))}, battackers: {len(list(b_attackers))}')

    # Create a heatmap using plotly.
    att_list = []
    for k, v in att.items():
        att_list.append(v)

    np_arr = numpy.array(att_list)
    np_arr_8_by_8 = np_arr.reshape(8, 8)
    np_arr_8_by_8_flip = numpy.flip(np_arr_8_by_8, 0)

    fig = px.imshow(np_arr_8_by_8_flip, text_auto=True,
                labels=dict(color='numattacks'),
                x=['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'],
                y=['8', '7', '6', '5', '4', '3', '2', '1'])
    fig.write_html('attack_heatmap.html')
    # fig.show()

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

```

Output

---
Tags: software, chessboards, visualization
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for a chess variant where you are allowed to capture your own pieces?
I occasionally think it might be fun to play a chess variant that is exactly the same as regular chess, except that it is permitted to capture your own pieces as well as your opponent's pieces - so, for example, if your king was alone on the back rank with some pawns in front of it, and your opponent moved a rook or queen to the back rank and that attacking piece could not be legally captured (which would be checkmate in normal chess), it might be possible in such a variant to escape checkmate if the king could "capture" one of it's own pawns in front of it. In the way I imagine this variant, "friendly" pieces captured in this way would be removed from play permanently, just as an opponent's piece would be - so (in this example), you've jettisoned some of your own material (which is now gone for good), but at least you were able to save yourself from checkmate...

I can imagine other scenarios where it might also be useful to give up some of your own material by "capturing" it like this, in support of the greater good....

Is this a known chess variant, does it have a name that people might recognize? I've tried searching around and haven't been able to locate any discussions of a variant like this - but I can't be the first person to think about this.

Just as full disclosure, the only variant I really know anything about is bughouse, I'm not familiar with other variants, so I'm not sure I'm even Google searching for the right words...

# Answer
In German, we would call this "Schlagschach". The German Wikipedia translates this to "Capturechess".

However, I could not find an English resource that describes this variant. But there is a thread on chess.com where someone asked about the exact same thing.

**Edit**: Thanks to @bitchaser who dug that thread more thoroughly and found a link to another page that calls this variant "Self-Eliminator", which states:

> John Gallicano and Steve Mann invented this variant in 1997.

There is also a Java applet on that page, which is not easy to use nowadays, since for security reasons, modern browsers just don't support Java applets anymore.

---

I hope, this is not too off-topic for Chess.SE, but for those of you, who are interested, here follows a short instruction on how to run the game, nonetheless:

The applet should pop up and show you the game screen:
> 23 votes

# Answer
Browsing the "modest variants" at chessvariants.com, I found Option Suicide Chess by A. Black as the closest match. Besides self-capture it allows also captureless removal of own pieces and even self-capture with removal of the own capturing piece.
> 11 votes

# Answer
There are several such chess variants. One is "**free capture chess**" which is almost the same as "**bicapture**" (only different in the way to check the own king). In german the first one is called "**Reformschach**". For the german definition see https://www.dieschwalbe.de/lexikon.htm

All this kind of funny variations are used in chess problems. Actually I know only one problem using free capture chess, see https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1317666
> 7 votes

# Answer
There is a variant called 'Recycle Chess' which allows that.
You can play it at *brainking*: https://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=98; it's actually a lot of fun.
> 6 votes

# Answer
A recent paper investigating how chess variants change the game calls this variant simply **self-capture** chess. This paper used neural-network AIs to play through many games to find patterns of play. According to the paper's authors, they found that self-captures happened not infrequently and in some interesting ways.

> Self-capture moves can be used to open files and squares for the pieces in the attack; opening up a blockade by sacrificing a pawn in the pawn chain; or in defence, while escaping the mating net.
> 5 votes

# Answer
On chess.com it is called Any-Capture on the varients page Just go to Custom on Most Popular then Custom Rules and turn Any-Capture on or use this link https://www.chess.com/variants/capture-anything
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


title: Strategic plans in the openings

text:
# Question
Title: Strategic plans in the openings
I premise that I have an Elo score of 800. I'm reading a 7-book series by Garry Kasparov that seems quite comprehensive: it initially covers the general principles of an opening, then goes on to study the various endings, and then moves on to all the tactics, pawn structures, etc. In short, it is a complete series.

So far I have only read the first chapters on: general principles to follow in openings, checkmate with various pieces remaining. I already know most of the tactics and other scattered concepts, so it's just a matter of getting deeper as I continue reading.

However, having the feeling that I play openings randomly (while still following the basic principles) it occurred to me to start learning a couple of openings for white and a couple for black and understand them thoroughly by playing them. The problem is that I am totally stuck: both the series of books I have and many other books I have checked out merely describe variations of an opening by reporting what the best moves are. Taken individually, these moves make sense; the problem is that I can't find anywhere what the basic strategic plan of the variant is in order to understand it thoroughly. Let me explain. I started to see something about the Italian opening and main lines and some variants. Let's say the basic plan of the Italian game is clear to me, that is, piece development to castling quickly and targeting black's weak pawn f7. At this point, suppose we get into the gioco piano and, in particular, the variant of the gioco pianissimo (Just an example): after reaching this structure (After pushing the d pawn on d3) what are the strategic plans of black and white to continue playing? Where will white go to attack and where will black attack? What weak points should be attacked?

I can't find any book/video/site that explains the variants in this way; they all just come up with the best moves, but without indicating what is the strategic plan of black and white in making those moves, that is, what is the plan to follow once a particular variant is set up on the board. It seems pointless to me to study openings in this way, without understanding what is the plan to follow when entering a given variant and memorizing the best moves.

That said, are there any sources to draw from for studying openings/variants in this way? Or is this simply something that I need to leave alone for now because I am not yet able to understand it and first I need to deal well with all the tactical aspects and pawn structures and other things, continuing in the reading of the book series I have?

The fact is that I would like to learn at least one variant in a decent way, since I have the feeling that I play the openings in a casual way, simply respecting the general principles, but, precisely, I cannot grasp (or I do not find described explicitly) what precisely the strategic plan of that particular variant is, regardless of the best moves that then need to be made: if one understands the strategic plan, I think the best moves come accordingly. Do you have any advice for me?

# Answer
> 3 votes
A number of books focus on the "ideas" of the opening, so this answer is by no means exhaustive. For example, at the most basic level GM Yasser Seirwan's "Winning Chess" series starts with *Play Winning Chess* which focuses on his four principles and includes the main opening principles, though he has a separate book dedicated to explaining opening ideas in *Winning Chess Openings*.

Though some call it dated, Chernev's *Logical Chess: Move by Move* literally explains every move made in the annotated games and includes the strategic ideas for the openings it covers. Most chess players are significantly beneath the level of these former masters, so the book is still highly instructive for all but the upper echelons of the chess ratings.

FM Sunil Weeramantry's book with Eusebi, *Best Lessons of a Chess Coach* also covers strategic ideas in openings, including the strategic idea behind moves to punish some mistakes (one example in the Grand Prix: after 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3, if Black plays 4...e6?, the book explains the strategic reason for White's 5. d4!).

For more advanced players, a popular option is *Chess Structures* by GM Mauricio Flores Rios that covers various common pawn structures, the openings they arise out of, and the long-term plans for both White and Black in those structures. You can hear the author discuss the book as well as hear IM John Bartholomew's book review.

Other potentially useful references:

* Understanding Your Openings, YouTube series by IM Andras Toth
* Hanging Pawns: YouTube channel with multiple playlists on various openings and their ideas
* *Understanding Chess Move by Move* by GM John Nunn

I'm sure other resources are out there with similar content.

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Where does the queen go in the Ponziani with 5 ..?
Consider this line

```
[Title "Ponziani"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "14"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Bc5 6. dxc6  Bxf2 7. Ke2 Bb6 8. Qd5 (8. Qc2) Nf2 9. Rg1 bxc6

```

I saw here that Eric Rosen played 8. Qd5.

This now allows 8. ..Nf2 9. Rg1 bxc6, opening the light-squared bishop with tempo.

Wouldn't 8 Qc2 be an improvement? The queen is safe there, the knight is still hit, and after the rook moves, I don't see a good way to stop Be3.

Did I miss something?

# Answer
After 9...bxc6, white has 10.Qxe5+. If 10...Qe7, then white can exchange off the queens and a piece with 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Be3. So black plays 10...Kf8, and then white can block the bishop's path with 11.Nd4, and black's knight is in some trouble. Here black doesn't get enough compensation for the sacrificed piece.

So instead of 9...bxc6, black usually replies **9...0-0**, sacrificing a second piece after 10.cxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7. Now the e-pawn is poisoned, white can't allow the e-file to open. And sometimes black can get a rook into play quickly with Ra8-b8xb2+. Amazingly, engines say that black has compensation for the two pieces here and may even be slightly better -- but in practice it's really hard to calculate everything for both sides, in my experience.

The main line ends up in a repetition draw though:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.d5 Bc5 6.dxc6 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 Bb6 8.Qd5 Nf2 9.Rg1 O-O 10.cxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7 Qf6 12.Qd5 c6 13.Qd2 e4 14.Nd4 e3 15.Qc2 Bxd4 16.cxd4 Ng4 17.Rh1 Nf2 18.Rg1 Ng4 {=}

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


# Question
Title: Running out of RAM while generating moves
I'm currently building chess engine in Rust from scratch but I am having RAM problems even on calculating 6 ply.

According to **Shannon's calculation** there are **119,060,324** possible games after ply 6. If you store board position in 100 bytes that is over 11 GB. Machine I am using has 16 GB RAM (~5 GB used by system).

Here is core of my board representation:

```
pub struct ChessBoard {

    pub white_to_move: bool,

    pub white_pawns: u64,
    pub white_rooks: u64,
    pub white_knights: u64,
    pub white_bishops: u64,
    pub white_queens: u64,
    pub white_king: u64,

    pub black_pawns: u64,
    pub black_rooks: u64,
    pub black_knights: u64,
    pub black_bishops: u64,
    pub black_queens: u64,
    pub black_king: u64,
}

```

**How is it even possible to calculate to 15+ depth when number of positions grows exponentially with each ply? How do chess engines on mobile calculate positions with even less RAM? Am I missing something?**

# Answer
Calculating moves 15-deep doesn't require keeping billions of boards in memory at once, only **16**. To simplify: at each ply, you have a current board. You generate legal moves for that board, and maybe prune them. For each remaining legal move, you generate the board resulting from that move, evaluate that board (recursively), and store the resulting score along with the move, then finally return the min/max score. But there's no reason to ever store the complete game tree; you only need the boards on your current call stack, which depends on the *depth* of your search, not the *breadth*. The only thing you really need when all is said and done is the single move that you want to play at the first ply.

In fact, there are tricks you could use to get by with less. For instance, with a suitably deterministic move generation algorithm you could avoid ever generating a *list* of candidate moves — at each level you would only store the "current" candidate move, the best candidate seen so far, and the best score seen so far, and you would have an algorithm to generate the "next" candidate given a board and the "current" candidate, in a way that would reliably explore them all. Similarly, you could have a *single* board instead of one copy per level, as long as you can perfectly "undo" each move after evaluating it. But those are techniques for engines that only have a few *kilobytes* of working memory available; for someone who has entire megabytes at their disposal they're probably distractions.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm a general programmer, never worked on a chess engine, so take this with a grain of salt. Do you need to keep every position in RAM all at once? Could you instead encode positions as a series of moves away from the current one once it is evaluated, then free the memory? The stockfish code says:

```
/// A move needs 16 bits to be stored
///
/// bit  0- 5: destination square (from 0 to 63)
/// bit  6-11: origin square (from 0 to 63)
/// bit 12-13: promotion piece type - 2 (from KNIGHT-2 to QUEEN-2)
/// bit 14-15: special move flag: promotion (1), en passant (2), castling (3)

```

That means up to fifty tempos deep it's smaller to just store the move list than the resulting position. And then you could further optimize, if two move orders transpose into one another you only have to store one in memory. I'm sure this doesn't even scratch the surface of tricks that chess engine developers use to save memory.

Like Charles said, some phone apps do contact a server. Lichess, for example, does when you request analysis. I do not know about chess.com.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Does 'dead position' consider the 75 moves rule?
In 5.2.2 of the FIDE laws it says:

> The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’.

and in 9.6.2 it says

> \[If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:\] any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

In a discussion we were wondering whether these rules combine, i.e. whether a position where it is not possible for mate to occur within the 75 moves rule can be considered dead. (for 50 moves we suspect the answer is no but for 75 moves it seems less clear) I suppose the same question can also be raised for 5-fold repetition.

EDIT: Since there appears to be some confusion I will add an example which is very similar to the game that caused my question. Consider the following position after White move 74: There have not yet been 75 moves without a capture or pawn move, however, it is impossible to reach a mate position within the 75 move rule. Black loses on time. Should the position have been declared dead already?

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4KBN1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke2 Ke7 2. Kd2 Kd7 3. Ke3 Ke7 4. Ke4 Ke8 5. Ke5 Kd8 6. Kd6 Kc8 7. Kc6 Kb8 8. Be2 Kc8 9. Bf1 Kd8 10. Be2 Ke8 11. Bf1 Kf8 12. Bg2 Kg8 13. Bf3 Kh8 14. Bg2 Kg8 15. Bf3 Kh8 16. Bg2 Kg8 17. Bf3 Kh8 18. Bg2 Kg8 19. Kd6 Kf8 20. Bf3 Kg8 21. Bg2 Kg7 22. Be4 Kf7 23. Bd3 Kg7 24. Be2 Kg8 25. Ke6 Kg7 26. Bd3 Kg8 27. Bc4 Kg7 28. Bb5 Kg8 29. Ba6 Kg7 30. Bb7 Kg8 31. Bc6 Kg7 32. Ba8 Kg8 33. Bd5 Kg7 34. Be4 Kg8 35. Bf3 Kg7 36. Bg2 Kh8 37. Kf6 Kg8 38. Bf3 Kh8 39. Be4 Kg8 40. Bd5+ Kh8 41. Bc6 Kg8 42. Bb7 Kh8 43. Ba8 Kg8 44. Bh1 Kh8 45. Bg2 Kg8 46. Bf3 Kh8 47. Be4 Kg8 48. Bd5+ Kh8 49. Bc6 Kg8 50. Bb7 Kh8 51. Nf3 Kh7 52. Nh4 Kh6 53. Ng6 Kh7 54. Bd5 Kh6 55. Ba2 Kh7 56. Bb3 Kh6 57. Bc4 Kh7 58. Bd5 Kh6 59. Be6 Kh7 60. Bf7 Kh6 61. Bg8 Kh5 62. Ne5 Kh4 63. Kf5 Kg3 64. Ng4 Kg2 65. Bc4 Kf3 66. Bf1 Kg3 67. Be2 Kh4 68. Kf4 Kh5 69. Bd3 Kh4 70. Bg6 Kh3 71. Ne3 Kh4 72. Ng2+ Kh3 73. Kf3 Kh2 74. Kf2 {Black loses on time. Should the position already have been declared dead?}

```

# Answer
> 14 votes
In section 3.10.1, the laws define what legal moves are:

> 3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.

The mentioned sections 3.1 to 3.9 only define how the pieces move, what check is, and that the King can't move if in check.

And in section 1.4, they define what a checkmate is, again using the term "legal moves":

> 1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. 1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king

Applying these definitions to the "dead position" rule:

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves.

It seems pretty clear that neither the 75-moves-rule nor 5-fold repetition should be considered since they don't impact the legality of moves.

This is specifically considering the FIDE Laws of Chess though. As far as I'm aware, USCF tournaments (and probably some others as well) have different rules for dead positions.

# Answer
> 4 votes
First, there are positions where white can force a mate but with perfect defense by black it takes more than 75 moves to do (Ant referenced this reddit post) and that do not involve captures or pawn moves. I recall a question about these kind of situations on this site as well but I can't find it right now.

If you arrive at such a position a strict reading of the rules would be as follows. 5.2.2 says 'sequence of legal moves' so it suffices that each move individually is legal, it doesn't matter how long the sequence is. It does not say 'legal sequence of moves' which could be interpreted as accounting for the 75 moves rule. Hence the game is not a dead position, the condition for a dead position is not fullfilled. So the game continues.

If both players play perfectly 75 moves later the game will be ruled a draw by rule 9.6.2. If they only play human moves other outcomes may be possible and the game may come to a dead position a few moves later.

There is no contradiction here. One could say all 9.6.2 does is allow the players to skip doing 75 moves if they can agree beforehand that it will not change the outcome anyway. In situations where it would take more than 75 moves this shortcut is not available.

# Answer
> 4 votes
My feeling is that it *should* consider the 75 move rule. The current wording strictly speaking doesn't say that, as benediktwerner's answer explains (considering it only mentions "legal moves", and the strict definition of what legal moves are does not consider the 75 move rule).

But the wording of the 75 move rule and the 5 times repetition rule use the phrase "this immediately ends the game", just like the definitions of checkmate and stalemate do. It's a final, mechanical thing.

Consider also the recent tightening up of the rules concerning draws, aimed at making it impossible to win a game that cannot be won on the board. Especially the new rule 5.1.2 -- "The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), *unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.*" (emphasis mine). That's going quite far, that it is considered important that a drawn game can't even be won by resignation of the opponent.

Now say that 74 moves without captures and pawn moves have already been played, and in the next move it's not possible to capture anything, move a pawn, or checkmate a player. Whatever the player to move does, it's going to be a draw -- if they actually do something.

Then if either clock runs out now, it would still count as 1-0 or 0-1?

In my opinion, the *spirit* of the current rules is that in that situation neither player can actually win on the board anymore (the "series of legal moves" can not actually be played, because of the 75 move rule), and therefore the result of the game should be a draw. And indeed, by the dead position rule. So there wouldn't be a need to wait for a clock to fall, although in practice this won't often be noticed.

So I would claim the Preface applies:

> The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws.

And I would consider this case to be a dead position draw.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I agree with other answerers: over the board, DP does not have visibility of 75M or 5Rep. I agree that perhaps it *should* have visibility, since the spirit of 75M and 5Rep was to allow the arbiters to turn the lights out and go home.

So much for over the board, but what about the compositional world?

The Codex excludes 75M currently, and 50M applies for "retro" compositions only. A mandatory 50M behaves qualitatively like 75M, so it's worth describing - eventually problemists may embrace 75M too.

The general view of specialists is that for retro compositions, DP rule should see 50M rule. For non-retro DP problems (e.g. help-DP) we would need to switch on 50M in the stipulation. No-one's explored this area yet.

The space of endgames is substantially enriched if the game state can include the 50M count. This is true even though there maybe no reasonable way that a count of e.g. 22.5 could have been accumulated by sensible prior play. For compositions, we never presume competent play prior to the diagram position anyway. This is a computationally-challenging area for tablebases to manage, because optimal play (go for zero or mate) depends upon the precise count. Revel in Gale Huntington's ground-breaking work at http://galen.metapath.org/egtb50/

By comparison, for a help-DP problem, some cognoscenti suggest the DP rule should *not* have visibility of 3Rep (draw by repetition). This is because it is usually too easy to set up a position where the player to move is doomed to hit 3Rep. Such lines seem as common as weeds, and very hard to make unique. For "simplicity", should we make the same policy for 50M? Personally, I don't think we should do so in advance of actual compositions existing.

---
Tags: rules, draw, dead-position, 75-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: How do you set up two engines to play each other on a cloud server?
I am exploring a semi-novel idea in the London system, where I play 2...b5!? after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4

A main line goes 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.e3 and now:

4...a6 5.Bd3 e6 or Nh5 4...a6 5.c4 bxc4/b4 4...b4 5.Bd3 e6/Nh5/c5 4...b4 5. a3 a5

The order in which White plays Nf3 and e3 is interchangeable.

2...b5 is worth exploring, and would be interesting to see outside of blitz games at the top level. White may finally start to get out of their comfort zone with a non-standard pawn structure and black activity.

Based off of Caruana vs Vachier-Lagrave 2018 1/2-1/2, (blitz)

Where White may decide to go on autopilot with the standard Nbd2, h3, 0-0. However, I believe that black's option to either attack the queenside or preserve the LSB is a powerful counter to the London's boredom.

**As with any rare line, there is a lack of games and they are not exactly uniform. To simulate new games (let's say 100), I propose letting two engines play each other from the starting position after the second move. Local computer would probably explode if I tried to do this, which is why I am asking if it can be done on the cloud. What would be the best way to do this?**

# Answer
From the comments, you can use cutechess to arrange matches between engines.

For the line of play you described (1.d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 b5) Stockfish 15.1 models 70 wins, 929 draws and 1 loss.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, statistics
---


# Question
Title: is there a name for the opening moves 1. e4 b5?
While this is a terrible opening which gives up a pawn for nothing I would like to know if it has a name.

Wikibooks state that it is called O'Neill Gambit but its citations lead nowhere. The only citation it has is a 365chess page which just says `B00: King's Pawn Opening`

Is there a reliable source which verifies this? Any idea how it got the name?

# Answer
There's no name in Oxford Companion to Chess, so there was probably no name in general usage up to 1990 or so. It would be classified as a 'Royal Opening' by 1. e4.

There may be later names, but I know of no equally authoritative source. There's a certain cachet in opening names, so unless there are multiple sightings of a name, preferably independent, any finds should be taken with a grain of salt. (I find it unlikely that anyone would be in need of a name of this opening.) Of course, additional moves may produce a position that can also be reached in another opening, in which case its name may be more appropriate.

As the purpose of using a name presumably is telling someone what the opening is ... but unless the name is already accepted and well-known it obviously doesn't work. If there is a useful ECO code, it may be better than names. In this case, it would be a B00 opening, but I have to leave any further refinements to someone with an up-to-date ECO code table.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, terminology, gambits, 1.e4, eco
---


# Question
Title: What are the ideas and plans in the Boor Attack in the Exchange Slav?
In Friday morning's round (31st March 2023) in the Reyjkavik Open Simon Williams played the Boor Attack in the Exchange Slav, characterized by 5. f3 \[Ben Finegold: "Never play f3"\], as white against Anastasiya Rakhmangulova:

```
[Title "Simon Williams - Anastasiya Rakhmangulova, Reyjkavik 2023"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "9"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 e6 6.e4 dxe4 7.fxe4 Nc6 8.Nf3 Bb4 9.Bd3 Ba5 10.e5 Nd5 11.O-O Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxc3 13.Rb1 h6 14.Ba3 a5 15.Qa4 Bd7 16.Rxb7 Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Bxa4 18.Nxe6 Qh4 19.Rfxf7 Bb4 20.Rf8+ {20... Rxf8 21. Bg6+ Rf7 22. Bxf7#}

```

I've never heard of this or seen it before. What are the plans and ideas?

I'm looking for answers with concrete lines not general, boilerplate platitudes.

# Answer
Icelandic FM and FIDE Trainer, Ingvar Johannesson, has just posted a YouTube video with his analysis of this game. What makes this special is that Williams played this game after conversation with Johannesson down the pub before the tournament where Johannesson shared his analysis of this opening.

He explains some of the tactical ideas behind the move 5. f3 which he shared with Simon Williams. Significantly he doesn't say much about the reply 5... Bf5 apart from to mention white ideas like Qb3. So, he keeps some secrets.

Let's look at the replies Johannesson covers in the video.

**5... Nc6**

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2n2n2/3p4/3P4/2N2P2/PP2P1PP/R1BQKBNR w - - 0 6"]

6. e4 dxe4 7. d5 Ne5 8. fxe4 e6 9. Nf3 Nxf3 10. Qxf3 exd5 11. e5 Ne4 12. Bb5+ Bd7 13. Rf1 {avoiding Qb6+ after O-O and with a massive attack for white}

```

**5... Qb6**

```
[fen "rnb1kb1r/pp2pppp/1q3n2/3p4/3P4/2N2P2/PP2P1PP/R1BQKBNR w - - 0 6"]

6. e4 dxe4 7. fxe4 e5 8. Bb5+ Nc6 9. d5 Bb4 10. Qd3 a6 11. Ba4 Qa5 12. Bd1 Nd4 13. Ne2 Nxe2 14. Bxe2 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Bxc3+ 16. bxc3 Qxc3+ 17. Kf2 Qxa1 18. Be3! Qxh1 19. Qxe5+ Be6 {only move to avoid immediate checkmate} 20. dxe6 O-O 21. e7 Rfe8 22. Bd4 f6 23. Bc4+ Kh8 24. Qxf6! {and mate in another move or two}

```

**5... e6**

```
[fen "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/4pn2/3p4/3P4/2N2P2/PP2P1PP/R1BQKBNR w - - 0 6"]

6. e4 dxe4 (6... Nc6 7. e5 Nd2 8. f4 {with a good version of the French for white} ) 7. fxe4 Nc6? (7... Bb4 8. Qd3 (8. Bd3? Nxe4! 9. Bxe4 Qh4+ 10. Kf1 Bxc3 11. bxc3 Qxe4)) 8. Nf3 Bb4 9. Bd3! Ba5 (9... O-O 10. e5 Nd5 11. Bxh7+) {aiming to play Bb6 and increase pressure on the d pawn} 10. e5 Nd5 11. O-O

```

**Update 12/4/23**: Simon Williams has now published his own YouTube video giving his thoughts from the game. He doesn't give the same depth of analysis as Ingvar but he does give his brief thoughts on ...

**5... Bf5**

```
[fen "rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/3p1b2/3P4/2N2P2/PP2P1PP/R1BQKBNR w - - 0 6"]

6. g4 Bg6 7. g5 Nh5 8. e4

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: When was the last time Magnus Carlsen lost 2 classical games in a row to the same player besides to Wesley So?
Related questions:

1. When was the last time Magnus Carlsen lost 3 classical games in a row besides to Wesley So?
2. When was the last time Magnus Carlsen lost 2 classical games in a row to the same player besides to Wesley So?

---

In the 2023 Tata Steel, Magnus lost 2 classical *chess* games in a row, namely to Anish Giri and Nodirbek Abdusattorov. It's said that the last time this happened was in 2015. But that's for different players.

If you allow chess960 and focus only on the same player:

In the 2019 WFRCC, Wesley So beat Carlsen 3x in a row in classical world championship games.

**Question**: Besides that, when was the last time this happened: Magnus lost 2 classical (chess or chess960) games in a row to the same player (focusing only on their games only of course)?

* Case 1: Draws counting eg Win-Loss-Draw-Loss-Win means only 1x
* Case 2: Draws not counting eg Win-Loss-Draw-Loss-Win means 2x
* Note: In either case, I don't mind if it's all chess games, all chess960 games or a mix of chess and chess960 games eg for Case 1 Win any-Loss chess960-Draw any-Loss chess-Win any is ok.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This happened recently. First, in December 2022, Magnus Carlsen lost to Fabiano Caruana in the 2022 World Blitz. Then, in January 2023, Magnus Carlsen lost again to Fabiano Caruana in the 85th Tata Steel Masters. Source:https://www.365chess.com/players/Magnus\_Carlsen

---
Tags: history, chess-variants, statistics, time-control, chess960
---


# Question
Title: Does every series of first moves have an opening name?
Recently, I just noticed how many openings there are. This gave me a question. Does every set of first legal moves have an "opening" name. I am referring more than just reasonable moves; all legal moves are included.

# Answer
Every first move by White has a name. There does not appear to be a name for every *set* of first moves, however. I could find no name for `1. a3 f6`, for example. But there *is* a name for every Black move after `1. e4`.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's important to realize that opening names *aren't official*. There are lots of opening names that e.g. someone invented for their website or database program, but that nobody in the chess world who doesn't use that program recognizes. The set of widely recognized names is much smaller.

E.g. I have no doubt that 1.h3 has been given names. I also believe that if you went to a huge tournament with lots of GMs present and asked everyone for the name of that move, *nobody* will offer one. A name for an opening isn't much use if it can't be used to refer to those moves when talking to chess players.

Computers will tell you that 1.Nf3 is the "Zukertort Opening". But I've only ever heard chess players refer to it as "Nf3", and that's what many opening books do too (like the *1.Nf3 -- Opening for White According to Kramnik* series). *Fundamental Chess Openings* calls 1.Nf3 the "Reti Opening", but others reserve that name only for 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. And so on.

So yes, lists of opening names can get very long, but that doesn't necessarily mean very much. Your question ("does every series of first moves have a name") should mention which particular list of opening names you're talking about.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the most effective way of reducing blunders?
Many people suggest tactical exercises as the best form of study for this purpose but I find that it only attacks the problem from one dimension (not making the strongest in a position). Analyzing my own games I find that I'm much more likely to lose a game by making a dumb blunder rather than missing a winning combination, so solving more chess puzzles doesn't seem very effective at improving that. Any other forms of exercise that could help with this?

# Answer
> 35 votes
If you want to avoid "dumb blunders" - i.e. just dropping a piece you've left hanging on the other side of the board - a simple method is to take an inventory of the position before you do anything else on each move. Checking **which of your pieces are attacked** and **which of your pieces are hanging** would be a good start. The brain will catalogue this information into 8x8-grid punch-card type patterns in your head that act as a warning system against stupid errors.

It can however be surprisingly difficult to take a regimented approach like this even if on the surface it seems quite a trivial task to complete at the start of each of your moves. The brain has a tendency to immediately want to investigate interesting lines and will wander sometimes never to return. Even harder if you're an older player who has never applied such discipline.

But if you stick at it over time it becomes second nature and you just see better and don't blunder as much.

# Answer
> 14 votes
As a human you are intrinsically self biased. This is hypothesized to be an evolutionary adaption and it is impossible to suppress it, or more accurately to think objectively about yourself. Until you are accurately able to gauge and control the degree to which your self-bias affects your own thinking, this will be the primary cause of blunders in your chess games.

## How can you be so certain that self-bias is the primary cause of blunders?

Well, let's examine the definition of a blunder more closely:

> Especially among amateur and novice players, blunders often occur because of a faulty thought process where they do not consider the opponent's forcing moves. In particular, checks, captures, and threats need to be considered at each move. Neglecting these possibilities leaves a player vulnerable to simple tactical errors.

The fragment

> blunders often occur because of a faulty thought process where they do not consider the opponent's forcing moves.

implies that blunders occur because a lack of diligence on the side of he who blunders. Excluding time-control troubles, there are only a few remaining possible reasons for not considering the best moves of your opponent and most of them deal with the self-bias:

* Too focused on attacking to see that your opponent has the stronger attack and you are better served by defending
* Fail to evaluate a tactic to a quiescent position because you feel like you're better than your opponent so it must work out in your favour
* You are several points up in material, you don't have to work any more, your opponent should just keel over and give you your well-earned victory, why must they insist on fighting on?

## How can I overcome this?

Short answer: you can't. By definition, it's part of you, unless you are born with some weird genetic mutation. Luckily, there are all sorts of ways to "trick" your brain into avoiding a thought process that is controlled by the self-bias. My favorite trick is simplest of all and it comes from an old adage:

> Before you judge someone walk a mile in their shoes, that way you are a mile away and you have their shoes :)

To make it clear, what I mean is simply look at the game from your opponen'ts perspective, and search for that "killer" move to win the game, but on his side. That way, you can spot it and direct the game away from it.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Chuzhakin's System is written in 70 PDF pages. video:Chuzhakin's System intro

It has 18 Rules to find so called "Hazardous Elements" - HE. Before making the move which we selected we need to check for blunders. All be blunders means that we do not see any HE or we do not see a method how to use HE (about 20 typical methods descirbed in the System). Thinking algorithm to avoid blunders is in the scheme.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Tactics cover a broad area that doesn't only concern mistakes that your opponents make. The pattern recognition faculties that you improve through tactics also help you realize the blunders that you yourself make. I don't recommend trying to change your style of play at all - I tell my students that at an early level, one of the most important things is to not hang pieces and to take advantage of your opponents' hanging pieces. Thus, before you make your move, specifically ask yourself if you see any potential tactics for your opponent. Likewise, do the same after every single opponent's move.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Personally I have noticed many of my worst blunders seem to come from trying to play on a square I don't control. Basically I'll get so focused on trying to attack a particular target that I will hang a piece trying to get at it. If I see myself starting to do that, I'll stare at the square I'm likely to blunder on and tell myself "NO" (not out loud unless I am trying to freak my opponent out...) or imagine a big red X over it. Seems to help a little.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I see a lot of responses recommending looking at the game from the opponent's point of view, and I can see why, ever since I started adopting this technique in my games. It really works.

Until very recently, I always used to look at my game from my view, my plan, my killer tactic, my decisive blow -- which, theoretically, if implemented perfectly should be sufficient. But recently one of the approaches I use is to analyze every move my opponent makes with a "Okay, so what's his plan?" or "Why did he do that?" before I start working out my plan. If I see his idea easily and feel its not threatening enough, I proceed with my plan.

If I can't seem to find his idea easily, I conclude that either I need to look harder because there's a killer attack coming on or that it's a weak/aimless move. I do dismiss activating pieces, like I used to do earlier, as aimless moves, but instead look for ways to stifle this. The downside of this approach is that you have be good at time management, since first working out your opponent's plan, assessing the threat, and then formulating your own plan usually takes more time than if you were just thinking from your perspective.

# Answer
> 5 votes
1. always ask yourself what is your opponent trying to achieve with his last move.
2. make your move in your head without submitting it, then find the best reply for your opponent (if he can do something serious, undo your move and try to stop it, if it is too late to stop it, then consider resigning).

This will greatly cut down the *direct blunders*. However, as you play with stronger opponents, you will need to do #2 several times to see more than 1 move into the future, but it gets pretty hard depending on how well you calculate and what time settings you play with.

Also, as a bonus, study lots of tactics, and learn how they can be used against you. The most common ones I think are:

* having overloaded pieces
* leaving pieces hanging
* not seeing that he just did something sneaky like a discovered attack or preparing a fork

But one can never do enough calculations. It would be unfair to say white blundered in this game.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Blumenfeld's Rule: Once you have decided on a move, stop thinking about your analysis and look at just that move as if you were reading it in a book, or having it played against you.

The "full monte" on this is that you write the move on your scoresheet, but some players started using this to excuse taking notes during a game (writing 4 and 5 moves down before playing one) so it's now illegal in USCF events. But just fixing it afresh in your mind will be almost the same.

# Answer
> 3 votes
From my own experience, and i'm not a highly rated player or anything like that, the best way to eliminate blunders is not to play aggressive openings, defensive players commit less blunders, they may lose because they don't have the space advantage but they don't make blunders as much as aggressive players.

**Why do players make blunders usually?**

1. They start to attack without counting how many defenders are there.
2. They exchange pieces trying to open up the game or to counter an attack, without counting how many defenders they have.
3. They start to attack without securing the king safety.
4. They rush into the middle game, without having completed developing their pieces.
5. They rush into the end game, trying to finish the opponent too early.
6. They play complex positions, they don't even understand.

From my experience, the majority of the blunders is simply because the players fail to count the defenders or because they rush to attack. Of course failing to understand your opponent opening will result in blunders but this is usually isn't the main cause with average players.

So take your time, develop all the pieces, try to control the pace of the game, space advantage is so important but don't rush it, and keep your game simple, don't play positions you are not familiar with.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here's an interesting alternative. Play bullet chess. Bullet chess is all about seeing your opponents threats and dumb blunders. It helps you familiarize with the pieces and how they move and helps you to avoid blunders and see threats quickly. Bullet also improves your ability to cope in time pressure, and that is where most blunders happen. Of course, bullet chess should not be the main means of improvement, but it does improve one's abilities during time pressure.

# Answer
> 2 votes
*"Blunders are nothing but tactics you didn't saw from your opponent's side"*

I will tell you my story and my improvement over this problem of blundering.

I was blundering and blundering very badly even after I started seriously studying chess. This was particularly frustrating as I was spending time studying endgames themes, positional ideas in middle games and the next day I am losing my queen to a pin in 12th move.

## What did I do?

* **I noted down all the key tactical themes and kept an eye for them in every single move of my opponent.**

Hanging pieces | Pin | Fork | Skewer (X-ray attack) | Discovered Attack | Removing the defender | Trapping pieces | Decoy | Back Rank Weakness.

* **I found out the tactics which I was more susceptible to.**

I found that I was mostly falling for pins, Interestingly only for pins along diagonals but never for pins along ranks or files.

I saw I am falling many times for the "removing the defender" tactic.

one other common thing I noticed was that I sometimes did the mistake of blocking my own defender and end up hanging one piece.

(90% of my blunders were one of the above three)

* **Avoid impulsive moves**

Whenever I had 2-3 candidate moves in a position and I reject the first choice after some analysis I had an impulsive tendency to play the second choice without thinking much. This was also one of the major parts of the game where I blundered most.

* **Decided to play next 100 games with only one objective - "Don't make any blunder"**

To force myself to do all the above,

> I had to play slower time control games

So I shifted from blitz to 15|10 rapid games in online sites.

I was totally fine with losing, My only intention was to have 100 games where I didn't make any stupid blunder.

## Epilogue

Yes, I had my 100 games without any blunder and that was a confidence booster. These 100 games helped me fix my eyes for the tactics I was missing, And I am making far fewer blunders these days (even in blitz games).

**One Last suggestion:**

chess.com offers an option to practice for selected tactical themes under the puzzles sessions and you have an option to choose from a wide variety of themes.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Practice a different sort of tactics!

According to chess teacher and author Dan Heisman, traditional tactics puzzles (e.g. "Mate in 3" puzzles) present you with a situation in which you are trying to exploit a mistake your opponent has made. While this may help you recognize some mistakes, it doesn't train your brain to look for mistakes you have made or are about to make. Thus Mr. Heisman has written a book titled ***Is Your Move Safe?*** which shows positions and asks you to determine whether a move (or set of moves) is safe to make.

After a disappointing result at my last tournament - in which I blundered away two games in which I had clear advantages (up a rook in one of them) - I bought this book. While I'm only into the second chapter of puzzles, I like it so far. Unfortunately, things being what they are right now (we are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic as I type this), I have not yet had an opportunity in a tournament setting to see if it is helping.

Heisman has another book titled ***Looking For Trouble***. I do not have it (yet). However, from the write up about it, the emphasis seems to be similar, although more aimed at identifying and defending against threats your opponent has.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The shortest ways to prevent Blunders is

1. Look for which Opponent's Piece is coming more into your Territory or can cross half of the Board . It is also one way of finding the most aggressive reply of your opponent .
2. When you move your Piece make sure you check the Placement of your Opponents Pieces . It would be worth if you can start with the most Worthy Piece from Q/R/B/K/Pawn.
3. Make sure you play Blitz/Bullet Chess and there your Objective would not be to win the game but to prevent any Blunders . Make sure that you do an Anti Blunder Check before you move your Piece.

I saw this Video from one of my Chess Teachers GM Igor Smirnov . Here is the link from his Youtube channel . I hope this would be of some help to you.

How to Eliminate Blunders - 1

How to Eliminate Blunders - 2

# Answer
> 1 votes
This answer may be redundant by now, but when I was regularly playing tournament chess, I wrote down 2 pieces of advice for myself in advance on a 3x5 card (which is probably illegal now). They were "Anticipate" and "No Blitz". since most of my blunders stemmed from not checking my opponent's potential replies and from moving too quickly before I had double checked my own intended move. This worked pretty well, for me at any rate.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> **Slow down**

At least for beginners, most blunders come from simply rushing to a move that you think is *obviously* correct. If you arent stretched for time, wait a moment and check it over

---
Tags: learning, psychology, best-practice, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Why does GM Larry claim that this sacrifice is brilliant?
On this webpage GM Larry Kaufman claimed (at least up to 2012) that the following move was brilliant:

```
[Title "Kasparov vs Shirov (Horgen 1994)"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartPly "33"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5 a6 9. Na3 b5 10. Nd5 Be7 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. c3 Bb7 13. Nc2 Nb8 14. a4 bxa4 15. Rxa4 Nd7 16. Rb4 Nc5 17. Rxb7? Nxb7 18. b4 Bg5 19. Na3 O-O 20. Nc4 a5 21. Bd3 axb4 22. cxb4 Qb8 (22... Kh8 23. Ncb6 Ra7 24. Bb5 f5 25. exf5 Rxf5 26. O-O Bh6) 23. h4 Bh6 24. Ncb6 Ra2 25. O-O Rd2 26. Qf3 Qa7 27. Nd7 Nd8 28. Nxf8 Kxf8 29. b5 Qa3 30. Qf5 Ke8 31. Bc4 Rc2 32. Qxh7 Rxc4 33. Qg8+ Kd7 34. Nb6+ Ke7 35. Nxc4 Qc5 36. Ra1 Qd4 37. Ra3 Bc1 38. Ne3

```

Lichess Stockfish 10+ at depth 20 disagrees with Black's play, claiming that `22... Qb8` is a mistake, and it seems that `Kh8` is one of the optimal moves at that point and it eventually leads to a draw. So was GM Larry wrong?

# Answer
**Because it *is* brilliant**

No, Larry was not wrong, and neither are all the grandmasters and chess commentators who praised (and are still praising) the move 17.Rxb7!!

Nobody, and I am sure neither Kasparov nor Kaufman, is pretending that the move would be winning outright (after all, we are just getting out of the opening and Black hasn't made anything horrendous), so it is quite expected that a deep analysis can reveal a path to equality for Black - especially computer-assisted analysis with engines released a quarter of a century after the game has been played.

But that's not the point.

The concept of sacrificing an exchange for no immediate reward but the long term domination of light squares and the passivity of Black minor pieces is brilliant. Notice how both Bf6 and Nb7 are limited by the pawn structure c3-b4 vs d6-e5, and the lack of open files for Black's rooks.

It made Black's position extremely hard to play and even a top grandmaster like Shirov collapsed in the next 20 moves. And even if Shirov had chosen 22...Kh8 followed by ...f5 with some feeble counterplay, nobody can tell if he would have been able to save or even overturn the game - the position remains extremely delicate to handle. (Btw, I don't understand the move 24.Bb5 in your engine line.)

Producing such a deep and surprising idea demonstrates Kasparov's superior understanding of the position, as he had to balance strategic factors, Black's material gain vs White's blocade, whose effects won't become concrete before at least ten more moves.

Moreover, there is no doubt that White wouldn't be winning either after any other 17th move.

All in all, 17.Rxb7!! is a brilliant concept, and the best move in the position both on a theoretical and a practical sense. There is no doubt that given the chance, any grandmaster would happily go for it nowadays with White - but Black is now avoiding that 12...Bb7 line.
> 28 votes

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play, middlegame, grandmaster, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: How to use Static Analysis of any chess engine
Probably all chess engine uses static analysis to evaluate the position and find moves. My question is that how can a human make use of static analysis? In Stockfish static analysis comes using the command eval, below is one such output

Position:

output of eval

you can check more example on https://scriptchess.com/free-chess-engine

# Answer
This question is impossible to answer definitely, except by someone who has made a detailed study of chess engines, and if and how they make static analysis available to end users, and for what purposes that happens. It does not seem to be a subject of general interest, so you probably will have to do your own research in order to cover 'any chess engine', as stated in your question.

Any static analysis presented by a chess engine is likely to be specific to that engine or that family of engines. It is unlikely to be intended for a typical end user; it probably has some use for debug or troubleshooting purposes. The info from from stockfish is remarkably extensive -- it may be that it has other uses.

The best answer is to suggest that you ask each engine manufacturer separately. In some cases, the information may already be present in engine documentation; in other cases you may have to ask the developer directly. But you are most likely to get different replies from each of them.

If you would ask about a specific chess engine, it may be that someone here already knows.

That from Stockfish may possibly be useful to trace how the individual attributes change during the course of a game, but I can't see any immediate practical use for that. (Added: Except perhaps regression testing during development.) Perhaps the Stockfish people can.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


title: Kid struggling with Lichess 7

text:
# Question
Title: Kid struggling with Lichess 7
My kid is able to play Lichess 6 and win most time. I'm looking for ways to help him win with Lichess 7. He tries and fails and Is getting disillusioned. I'm wondering if there is too much jump between 6 and 7. Not much of a chess player myself to help him out.

FYI: He is being coached.

# Answer
First things first, results against bots aren't a great indicator of chess strength. A chess bot is an opponent that can play almost perfectly but will make mistakes at random to let you win, so this is not a great model for how "real" chess works. Too many factors like luck, style, time/focus and so on can have an impact on the result.

Either way, the best strategy to beat stronger bots is improving your overall chess skill. This means keeping to work on tactics, calculation, strategy, openings and endgames. But still, for a better assessment of how fast progress is happening, results against real humans are a much better reference.

I'm not sure about the levels of the different Stockfish bots on Lichess, but level 8 is basically unbeatable even for top level humans.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: lichess
---


# Question
Title: How do you attack a king castled behind an open g file?
In a recent game, I got to this position as black:

```
r2qk2r/4bppp/p1n1pn2/1p1p2B1/3P4/1BNQ1P2/PPP2P1P/R4RK1 b kq - 0 12

```

I wasn't really sure how to proceed. The black king looks vulnerable. Are there particular strategies to employ here? Additionally, what should I be doing with my king in the meantime? Castling kingside and queenside both seemed dubious, so I ended up leaving it in the middle.

Stockfish gives the position -2.7 and recommends Nh5.

# Answer
Chess games are rarely decided by one single factor. Pawn structure is important, but White can play Kh1 and Rg1 making their king safe at least in the short term.

Black's plan should probably be a slower one, trying to exploit the weak squares left on the enemy kingside. Perhaps that'd lead to a mating attack but it could also be just a favorable endgame.

...Nh5 is a decent way to start here as the knight can now think of jumping to f4 (probably the most exploitable weak square in White's side of the board) and it also threatens to trade the dark-squared bishops (that would make the f4 square even harder to protect). If White decides not to trade and retreats with their bishop, then Black can respond with ...Bd6 keeping control of the f4 square and preparing an immediate attack with ...Qh4.

The game could probably continue with something like 1...Nh5 2.Bxe7 Qxe7 3.Kh1 Qh4 4.Ne2, with Black starting to put pressure on the different White weaknesses.

But even if Black went just 1...0-0, their position would still be fantastic, as they're keeping a better pawn structure and more active pieces (for instance, what's the bishop on b3 supposed to be doing?). It doesn't look like White can really attack through the "g" file, as not many pieces can really join in. On the other hand, leaving the king in the middle could cause trouble later on with sacrifices on b5 or d5 to open up the position (also tricks like 1...Rc8 2.Rfe1 h6? 3.Bxf6 Bxf6 4.Bxd5)
> 7 votes

---
Tags: strategy, attack
---


# Question
Title: To call this a "rook-pawn endgame" ... just a typo?
In this chess.com tutorial, the caption describes this as a rook-pawn endgame. It seems likely to me this is a typo. But being a noob, I wanted to be sure it wasn't a reference to some well known style of endgame which, although known as "rook-pawn", is more widely applicable?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The caption shows that it is not called a "rook=pawn" endgame but a "wrong colored bishop rook-pawn endgame".

This is indeed a well known endgame. The rook's pawn's queening square is h1 which is white, while black's bishop controls the black squares. That means the bishop cannot be used to force the white king away from h1 and so white will draw the game.

For example:

```
[fen "8/8/8/2b5/6kp/8/7K/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kh1 h3 2. Kh2 Kh4 3. Kh1 Kg3= (3... Kg4 4. Kh2 Kh4 5. Kh1 Kg4 6. Kh2 Kh4= (6... Kf3 7. Kxh3=))

```

White will either be stalemated, take the pawn or get a 3-fold repetition.

Now see what would happen if the bishop was the "right-colored bishop":

```
[fen "8/8/8/1b6/6kp/8/7K/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kh1 h3 2. Kh2 Bc6 {Not allowing the white king into the corner} 3. Kg1 Kg3 4. Kf1 h2 5. Ke2 h1=Q

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Adding to Brian Towers's answer, pawns are usually referred to by the piece starting at their column. This is a legacy of the descriptive notation system that used to be popular before algebraic notation became standard.

This convention of referring to pawns as "rook pawn", "knight pawn", "bishop pawn" and "central pawn" is still useful in endgames due to the symmetry of the board. In other words, endgames featuring an "a" pawn will show the same themes as those with an "h" pawn. In openings and middlegames it's not as useful since king safety is a key factor therefore events happening on the kingside are usually different from those on the queenside. For instance, the King's Gambit and Queen's Gambit lead to totally different types of positions, but a pawn endgame is usually the same as its mirror image

---
Tags: endgame, bishop-endgame
---