title: Help with discovered checks

text:
# Question
Title: Help with discovered checks
I'm new to chess and I've found that while certain tactics come relatively easily to me(double fork), certain others are quite harder.

I've been missing out on a lot of opportunities to take advantage of discovered checks. Is there something I should be looking out for? Has anyone else faced a similar difficulty?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A **Discovered Check** is a "discovered" attack against a King--when a pawn or piece moves aside, to reveal a check by another piece. It's a powerful weapon, because check is given by a piece that does not have to move--and therefore, the piece that *does* move is free to make other threats, or even captures.

To a certain extent, you will naturally begin to see opportunities for discovered checks as you play more, because they, like all discovered attacks, are all about lines of influence. Tactics practice--all tactics, not just discovered check tactics--will help you begin to visualize these without searching for them specifically. A google search for "chess tactics" produces a decent selection of online tactics trainers.

To look for discovered checks in particular, look for *pieces that would be checking the opponent's King, if not for one of your own pieces blocking the way*. For example, in the diagram below:

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/3p4/2b1p3/3nPPQ1/2NB4/PPP3PP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

```

*Black to move.*

Black's Bishop on `c5` *would* be checking White's King, if not for the Black Knight on `d4`. If Black's Knight moves, it will reveal a discovered check. In fact, Black has an opportunity to win material here:

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/3p4/2b1p3/3nPPQ1/2NB4/PPP3PP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nxc2+! 2.Kh1 Nxa1

```

Even though the pawn on `c2` is defended by White's Bishop, the Black Knight may take it with impunity, because White *must* respond to the discovered check. Then Black is free to win a further exchange, Knight for Rook, after White's King runs away.

---

Pawns can reveal a discovered check as well, and they're sometimes much more dangerous than pieces, since they can effectively threaten anything, and even advancing at all can make them powerful weapons.

In the situation below, material is equal and there's a lot of tension on the board, but White has a devastating discovery that wins instantly...

```
[FEN "1k4rr/pp1n1pq1/2b2p2/2p1P3/5Q1p/2N2N2/PP3PPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 0"]

1.exf6+!

```

White's pawn will take the Black Queen next turn, with no real repercussions, and he should go on to win with ease (if Black doesn't simply resign on the spot!).

---

One common pattern is often called a "windmill": where one piece takes advantage of a trapped King by repeatedly alternating between giving check and discovering another check. The position is from a somewhat famous game by a 13-year-old player you might have heard of:

```
[White "Donald Byrne"]
[Black "Bobby Fischer"]
[FEN "r3r1k1/pp3pbp/1Bp3p1/8/2bP4/Q1n2N2/P4PPP/3R1K1R w - - 0 0"]

1.Kg1 Ne2+ 2.Kf1 Nxd4+ 3.Kg1 Ne2+ 4.Kf1 Nc3+ 5.Kg1 axb6

```

By the end of the windmill, Black has already gained a Bishop and a pawn, and he will soon pick up the Rook on `d1` as well, and go on to win handily.

---

A common thread in discovered check tactics is long, open lines directed at the enemy King. Because discovered checks are generally delivered from a medium or long distance, an open board and few pawns around the King make them easier to engineer. Look for pieces that *could* deliver check, if only some other piece or pawn was removed.

If you find a discovered check, look at all the places that the discovering piece could move: can you take free material? Make other threats that your opponent can't answer? Use a windmill to pick up many different objectives? Discovered checks are one of the most versatile threats in the game--when you get used to seeing them, your tactical levels will improve dramatically.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Discovered Checks (Attack) is a form of double attack. In these sorts of attacks, typically a stationary piece gives check while the one that moves is free to threatens another piece. Creating a threat that cannot be parried is pretty much the goal of chess. Discovered attacks do exactly this.

They are something you want to get good at spotting. Your opponent will have to spend time to prevent them from happening.

Here are some tactics exercises. Play through them, then search for others.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Discovered attacks are almost like reverse pins. With a pin your piece prevents or inhibits and opponent's piece from moving by threatening to capture a piece behind it. With a discovered attack, your opponent piece is threatened by moving your piece exposing it to attack from a piece behind it.

Here's what you should look out for:

1. Any time you can move a piece with a discovered check, you should carefully consider all of those moves. In this case, the piece that moves is likely to be able to move freely without threat of capture. This makes it possible to threaten or capture a valuable piece with perhaps no defense or move in for mate.
2. Any time you can move a piece and discover an attack on your opponents Queen. If your opponent leaves his queen where it may be attacked by discovery, you may be able to use it to your great advantage to win a piece or trap the queen.
3. Any time a piece is undefended and subject to a discovered attack. Undefended pieces are always weaker than defended pieces.

---
Tags: learning, tactics, check
---


# Question
Title: It seems to me that draw is all Black can get, but maybe I am wrong?
Recently I have played a game against a computer and came to the following position :

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "3r4/p3Q1pk/1pp3p1/8/3qP3/P7/1P3RPP/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

I have played `...Rd7` and soon the game ended as a draw by threefold repetition.

Was I able to win?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I didn't see a thing, and nether did Stockfish.

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "3r4/p3Q1pk/1pp3p1/8/3qP3/P7/1P3RPP/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rd6 2.Qh4+ (2.Qxa7?? Rf6 ) Kg8 3.Qh3 Qe5 4.Qc8+ Kh7 5.Qh3+ Qh5 6.Qxh5+ gxh5 7.b4 Kg6 8.Rf8 Rd4 9.Rc8 Rc4 10.Ra8 Rxe4 11.Rxa7 Rc4 12.Kf2 Rc2+ 13.Kf3 b5 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 h4 16.Ra6 Kf5 17.Ra5+ Kf6=

```

Just because there's no forced win doesn't mean the game is without tension and opportunity. I have lost games similar to this game after move 12.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In this position, I would be pleased to draw as Black.

On the Queen side, Black does have the advantage of three pawns to two. But Black's pawns aren't particularly far forward, and White can contain them easily.

On the king side, White has two healthy pawns against two doubled pawns. The preponderance is more like 2 to 1 (White), than 2 to 2.

In the center, White is a clear passed pawn ahead, giving him an advantage in terms of pawn structure.

Black does have a countervailing advantage in terms of his grip on the Q file. But if he tries to "chase" White's pawns, he can do so only at the cost of relinquishing this advantage. I've seen more games lost than won when someone gives up a real advantage in order to pursue an illusory advantage, thereby allowing his opponent's advantages to prevail.

A "draw by repetition" often occurs because the "repeated" positions are optimal for both sides. You deviate from your optimum position at your own risk. Grandmaster Richard Reti once lost an important tournament game to Alexander Alekhine (the future world champion) by declining a draw by repetition.

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Larsen Ideas in the semi-slav

text:
# Question
Title: Larsen Ideas in the semi-slav
Once when I was reading a book from Kasparov he quoted that most of the modern ideas in the semi-Slav came from Larsen games. Does anyone know good novelties that Larsen brings in this opening?

# Answer
Kasparov in *My Great Predecessors, Part 4*:

> Generally speaking, Larsen's contribution to the development of opening theory is not very great, since usually he aimed to lure his opponents into little-studied variations and mainly relied on his skill in the middlegame. Nevertheless, he played a key role in the development of what is currently one of the most popular lines in the Semi-Slav Defence, the so-called improved Meran Variation: `1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5 e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dc4 7.Bc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7!?`

One of Larsen's ideas was to allow a check on `b5` and give up castling rights. In return he got a strong knight on `d5`. He first used this idea in the Candidate match Ivkov-Larsen 1965, see game below. Read more about it here.

Sample games:

```
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Larsen-Ivkov Candidates Quarterfinal Match"]
  [Site "Bled YUG"]
  [Date "1965.07.05"]
  [EventDate "1965.06.27"]
  [Round "6"]
  [Result "1/2-1/2"]
  [White "Borislav Ivkov"]
  [Black "Bent Larsen"]

  1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4
  b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.e4 b4 10.Na4 c5 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 13.dxc5
  Nxc5 14.Bb5+ Kf8 15.Qd4 Qb6 16.Be2 h6 17.O-O g6 18.Bd2 Kg7
  19.Rac1 Rac8 20.Qh4 g5 21.Qg4 Ne4 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Qxe4 Nf4
  24.Qe3 Qxe3 25.fxe3 Nxe2+ 26.Kf2 g4 27.Ng1 Nxg1 28.Rc1 Rxc1
  29.Bxc1 Bxg2 30.Kxg1 Bd5 31.Bd2 Bxa2 32.Bxb4 Kg6 33.Kf2 Kf5
  34.Bc3 h5 35.Kg3 Kg5 36.h4+ Kf5 37.Bd4 a5 38.Bc3 a4 39.Bd4 Ke4
  40.Kf2 1/2-1/2

```

.

```
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "1/4"]
  [Site "Cm  Las Palmas (06)"]
  [Date "1971.??.??"]
  [Round "6"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [White "Wolfgang Uhlmann"]
  [Black "Bent Larsen"]
  [ECO "D47"]

  1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4
  b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.e4 b4 10.Na4 c5 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nxc5 Nxc5 13.dxc5
  Bxc5 14.Bb5+ Ke7 15.O-O Qb6 16.Bd3 h6 17.Qe2 Rhd8 18.Bd2 Kf8
  19.Rac1 Rac8 20.Rc2 a5 21.Rfc1 Kg8 22.h3 Ne7 23.Ne1 Bd4
  24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rxc8+ Nxc8 26.b3 Ne7 27.Nf3 Bc5 28.Be1 Nf5
  29.Kf1 Qc6 30.Bb5 Qc7 31.Bd3 Nd4 32.Nxd4 Bxd4 33.f4 Qc1 34.Qd2
  Qa1 35.Qc2 Bc3 36.Qb1 Ba6 0-1

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, slav-defense, novelties
---


title: Fen - Check if King is on e1/e8

text:
# Question
Title: Fen - Check if King is on e1/e8
Is there some easy way to check whether the black king is on e8 or the white king is on e1, when using fen?

> Here the black and white king are on d1/8 `r2k3r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1QK2RR`
>
> Here both are on the right field `r3k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR`

The problem is that there is really no regularity, to check by indexing whether the King is on e1/e8.

> The fen above, could also be `rb2k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR` and would still be valid.

Checking for the rocks are pretty easy, since they have to be at the beginning or the end of the fen.

# Answer
Thanks to Henry for the tip. Here is my solution.

```
var kingOnRightField = function (groundRow, king) {
    var index = 0;

    for (var i = 0; i < groundRow.length; i++) {
        var number = parseInt(groundRow[i]);
        index += isNaN(number) ? 1 : number;

        if (index == 5 && groundRow[i] == king) return true;
    }

    return false;
};

var fen = "r3k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR";

var blackGroundRow = fen.split("/")[0];
var whiteGroundRow = fen.split("/")[7];

var blackKingOnRightField = kingOnRightField(blackGroundRow, 'k');
var whiteKingOnRightField = kingOnRightField(whiteGroundRow, 'K');

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: castling, fen
---


# Question
Title: Best Continuation for this Counter to Queen's Gambit Accepted
```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5

```

I've tried just taking the pawn at c4, but he takes my pawn at d4 and after exchanging some pieces I end with a broken pawn structure while we still have equal pieces.

I've came across this move many times and is dumb-struck at finding a solution.

# Answer
At that point Black is simply equal and there is nothing you can do to change it ( you would do better to play `e4` instead `e3` but `...e5` still solves all of Black's problems ). If you wish to play `e4` instead of `e3` then you need the book *Lars Schandorff-Playing the Queen's Gambit ( 2012!)* and be sure to get the **second edition** ( first was in 2009 ). He covers this line quite well.

Your best bet is to try and steer the game into main lines with isolated queen pawn. There you will find subtle move orders that may offer you a small advantage. I can not remember the details, so I can not show you the lines, but the position you aim for is something like this :

```
[Title "Typical position for QGA"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/8/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/R1BR2K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

You will need good coverage of this opening as theory changes rapidly. I can recommend the following books:

To learn how to play with the isolated queen's pawn you can get *Andrew Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess ( 1995 )* ( perhaps my answer to this question can help you too; if you need further help feel free to ask by leaving a comment ) and for Queen's Gambit accepted I will recommend the one written by *Semkov & Sakaev* or *J.Rizzitano-How to beat d4*. You can also get *Starting out-Queen's Gambit Accepted ( 2006 )* if you need to grasp the basics.

## SUMMARY:

Play `Bxc4`, then `Nf3` and try to get into favorable line of the QGA. If you fail to do so, do not panic! You are both fine, better player wins here! Learn how to play these positions and you will have equal chances to win the game.

Good luck and best regards!
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy, queens-gambit, queens-gambit-accepted
---


title: Can Black draw this endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black draw this endgame?
I was playing this game just a few minutes before posting this, and tried to save the game by entering the following endgame:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/6k1/1p2Kn1p/7P/1P6/5B2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

I intended to sacrifice the knight for the `b-pawn` and then get theoretical draw by entering the following endgame :

```
[Title "Theoretical draw"]
[fen "8/6k1/4K3/7P/8/5B2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

In the game, I played `1...Ne8` with the intention of posting it on `d6`. Then I could defend it with my king ( on the dark squares of course ). White can break this blockade with *zugzwang* ( he can make proper bishop moves to achieve this ), but I believe that Black has sufficient squares at his disposal to defend.

Is there a way for White to breach my defense that I have missed?

# Answer
To me, it looks like your plan is to move your king forward to d6. After he takes your pawn, you play Kd6 keeping opposition and blocking the pawn advancement with the Knight on c7. Looks dead drawn after that.

```
[Fen "8/6k1/1p2Kn1p/7P/1P6/5B2/8/8 b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Ne8 2. Kd7 Kf7 3. Kc6 Ke6 4. Kxb6 Kd6 5. Ka5 Nc7

[Fen "8/2n5/3k3p/K6P/1P6/5B2/8/8 w - - 3 6"]

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, draw
---


# Question
Title: Solving the Game of Chess: Trans-Computational in Nature or No?
Mathematicians have categorized chess as a trans-computational problem. A transcomputational problem is one in which a computer would need to exceed the size of the earth in order to have the processing power to complete the theoretical problem through brute force. Also, to solve the game of chess means that everything would have to be decided on the first move and any subsequent deviation from the 'correct line' would result in a guaranteed loss. It is categorically different than having an engine who can win every game. Other games have been 'solved' like checkers, where the national championship has seen the exact line of play for numerous years in a row.

Also worth noting, the expression 'transcomputational' comes from Bremermann's limit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s\_limit \- read up if you are unfamiliar.

My question is whether or not this is an accurate diagnosis? Does the math take into account the growing sophistication of chess engines, or even computers for that matter? Will we ever have a chess engine that can 'solve' the game of chess without exceeding the size of the earth. I guess to simplify my question; what is the context of this mathematical limit?

# Answer
> Also, to solve the game of chess means that everything would have to be decided on the first move and any subsequent deviation from the 'correct line' would result in a guaranteed loss.

Then this will never happen, even theoretically. Chess does not have that much instability. In many positions multiple moves are equally good. This is both obvious and has been proven (see tablebases).

Assuming now that you are just talking about "playing theoretically optimally" (if it is possible to win it wins, otherwise if it is possible to draw it draws), then it is certainly possible that a computer merely the size of the earth could play perfect chess, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a computer the size of the earth could *prove* that it was playing perfect chess. No one has been able to prove things about the state of a chess position except by, effectively, brute force (except for special cases where the situation is simple enough that you can reason logically about it, such as bishop and wrong rook pawn).

(The context of the mathematical limit is the number of possible chess positions, which has been estimated to be on the order of 10^43.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines
---


# Question
Title: Is there any transposition available in between QGA and other openings?
I'm a chess player with ELO 1600. Now I'm trying to learn transpositions in chess. QGA is my favorite opening as white. But most of the time black chooses Queen's Gambit Declined. So now I'm trying to get to get QGA by transposition. Chess is all about positions. But I just want to know:

**Are there any transpositions available in between QGA and other openings?**

# Answer
One transposition white can try is from the French Exchange variation (if you know your opponent plays the French).

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 dxc4 (4... Nf6) 5. Bxc4

```

It transposes to the variation `1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 e5 4. Bxc4 exd4 5. exd4` from this question.

In the French move order, clever black players won't take the pawn on `c4` already on move 4, but will wait until white plays `Be2`. If white then later regains a pawn with `Bxc4`, the bishop will have lost a tempo.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit-accepted, closed-position, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: How to get a license to have an Elo rating in USA
Which link should I follow to get a license in order to have an Elo rating in the USA?

# Answer
> -2 votes
FIDE (the international chess organization) gives Elo ratings, and individual countries recognize them. There should be no need to have a USA-specific "license". If FIDE says you have a given Elo rating, that's your Elo rating, worldwide.

Complicating this a bit is the fact that Elo ratings are actually a ratings methodology created by Professor Arpad Elo, which in theory could be used independently of FIDE, but the historical association is so strong as to be able to consider "Elo rating" and "FIDE rating" as functionally synonymous.

Disclaimer: I've been out of tournament chess for quite a few years. Something could have changed in the interim.

---
Tags: rating, elo, fide
---


# Question
Title: Why is engine's speed slow at the start?
I noticed that the nps (nodes per seconds) of different chess engines is very low at the start of the analysis and only after several seconds reaches is peak value. Does anybody have an explanation of this strange phenomenon?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Right after starting the analysis of a position the engine has to prepare the hash table in the memory or check it if there is one allready. You can verify this by giving your engine a low ammount of RAM (e.g. 32 MB). You will notice that the nps accelleration will go up. However, this heavyly will decrease the strength of the engine.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Can the Scotch Game really give White chances to get an opening advantage?
If I remember well, Kasparov once said that, besides the Ruy Lopez, the Scotch Game is the only *serious* attempt for White to get an early advantage in the opening after `1.e4 e5`. Is that true?

The Scotch Game begins with:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

```

I'm only a discrete player, and my opening repertoire with White for open games includes Italian Game/2-Knights, 4-Knights ... and King's Gambit, just for fun. :)

I've tried the Scotch Game but perhaps I didn't understand the logic and the strategy behind its main lines, since I managed to win only against beginners that played `3... exd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4`.

So, *what* kind of "advantage" can the Scotch Game provide? And *how* can White take it in its main lines? And why is it that openings like the Italian or the 4-Knights do not provide any "serious attempt to get an advantage?"

# Answer
I like your question a lot. Though I don't play either side of any `1. e4 e5` openings, it got me thinking about the motivations behind playing the Scotch Game. Though you were clearly happy with the answer you accepted, I'm adding another answer because I don't personally understand how that one addresses the question as you asked it, and I think some further thoughts might be useful for others who come upon the question. So here's an alternative way of looking at things.

---

To answer your question, yes, against a peer, the Scotch Game really does offer chances of obtaining an opening advantage; Kasparov's record using it against his peers, including Karpov, is a case in point (even though, yes, he is Kasparov and we are not). The Scotch Game will not lead to an opening advantage against equal play by your opponent, but that is no different than with *any* opening. For example, that is just as true for the Scotch Gambit which Tony's answer recommends as an alternative. (And, incidentally, if the opponent declines the Scotch Gambit, you can just end up in the Italian Game anyway. If we're dismissing out of hand the "standard positional play" in the Scotch Game as offering no hope for an advantage, as expressed in Tony's answer, then I don't know why we wouldn't do the same for the Italian Game. No reason has been given for dismissing either.)

Regarding Kasparov's assertion that only the Ruy Lopez and the Scotch Game are "serious" attempts at obtaining an opening advantage for white after `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6`, it is safe to say that he was speaking in terms of what he considered to be a serious attempt where he lived, i.e. the very highest echelon of the chess world. I am of course completely unqualified to confirm or dispute Kasparov's opinion on that matter; judging from the frequency of which openings appear after those moves, it does seem that that is the consensus among top players.

---

In any case, while I won't compare or contrast the Scotch Game with those "lesser" alternatives, I will try to give you a bit of an answer to your question as to what kind of an advantage white can seek in the Scotch Game. As stated above, I don't typically play either side of this opening, and even if I did, I'm not a strong enough player to really be trusted. So I decided to look up John Emms' introductory book *Starting Out: The Scotch Game*; the thoughts below come from the beginning of that book, and all opinions expressed here are those of Emms, not myself. (If you find any of this explanation enlightening, then consider it a good advertisement for the rest of his book.)

After `3. d4 exd4`, white has induced black to give up the center, and we have this pawn structure:

```
[FEN "4k3/pppp1ppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

This structure is already inherently better for white, with greater control of the center and more space for the pieces. Since black typically wants to avoid `4... Nxd4 5. Qxd4`, which centralizes white's queen in a nice way, white often ends up exchanging the knights himself with `Nxc6`, when black has two choices for recapturing. If `...dxc6` is played, then we have the following pawn structure, which is also typical of the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez.

```
[FEN "4k3/ppp2ppp/2p5/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

Here white's structural superiority offers a significant advantage in the long-term. For instance, most king-and-pawn endings in this structure are wins for white, because of the ability to create a passer on the kingside, while black cannot do so on the queenside. Everything's not as simple as that, of course, as black can develop pretty painlessly and so has good short-term prospects; but white's structural advantage is the basis for his optimism.

If black instead recaptures via `...bxc6`, then her central control is improved, and ideas of playing `...d5` are in the air. White often pushes with e5, and we have this structure:

```
[FEN "4k3/p1pp1ppp/2p5/4P3/8/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now white has even more space, and the e5 pawn cramps black's position. Black will try to free her position with a `...d6` or `...f6` pawn break, and white will try to prevent this, or make it as disadvantageous as possible.

In none of these scenarios does white obtain an advantage by force (though again, that's just chess for you), but we see that white has structural pluses which offer hopes for an advantage (especially in the long-term) in the Scotch Game. Here's a review of both Emms' book and a similar one by Gary Lane; if you want more guidance on this opening, that review, at least, is positive about both books.
> 19 votes

# Answer
I know this is a 2 year old post now, which I've visited a few times before now but now I couldn't resist posting my comment. The Scotch has been my favorite White opening for the last 3-4 years. I really like it and it helps me that top players(including Kasparov play it..not that I am anywhere near that standard!!).

It can give an opening advantage, but of course, this is not guaranteed! In order to get an opening advantage with it you will need to be an expert in it's many variations e.g. (Ghulam Khassim, Classical, Mieses, Steinitz, Malanuik,a nd several others and also the Scotch gambit as noted in earlier posts!). As a chess beginner the opening is very easy to learn and get to after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 etc. However (with the exception of the Ghulam Khassim...e.g. Nxd4 Qxd4 which is relatively very simplistic ) all possible variations are sharp and the Scotch opening generally is not too difficult for black to play reasonable moves against and get equality at the least.

There are many ideas for White to grasp when playing the Scotch in the many variations it has. Not least is the open game nature that 3.d4 invites very early. White needs to be able then to play sharp positions well to get an advantage in the Scotch and this may not suit a beginner so much as the Italian game or a 1.d4 system opening (such as the Colle). Also black can avoid the Scotch and play other openings after 1.e4 (e.g. Sicilian, French, Alekhine's, Philidor's, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Scandinavian etc etc..the joys of playing 1.e4!). The earlier post about typical Scotch pawn formations is very important to remember when getting toward the end game.

Finally I may add some black players are hoping after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 for the more common openings of a Ruy Lopez(Spanish) or Giuoco Piano (Italian game) and they may not know much about the Scotch!

Anyway, I hope you settled with the Scotch opening and that you enjoy your Scotch games as much as I enjoy playing the Scotch opening and which I am still learning to improve after using it for around 3/4 years now!
> 5 votes

# Answer
To answer your question, no, against a peer, the Scotch Defense will not give you an opening advantage. `3. d4` followed by standard positional play by white doesn't seem to do the trick.

However, the Scotch Gambit is more daring. If accepted, it yields an asymmetrical advantage of time versus material. If you're tactically sharp you may score some points with it. If declined, the game can transpose into a number of well known positions. GMs don't often play it often, but we're not GMs.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, kasparov, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Can Black reach full equality in this game?
I have played this game as Black against computer( difficulty was set to `HARD` ). I was trying to test *Alatortsev line* I found in *ECO D, 1987* that claimed Black was equal:

```
[Title "Taken from ECO D ( published 1987 )"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Bf6 7.e3 Ne7 8.Bd3 g6=

```

saying "with the idea of `Bf5`".

After `g4` my position became **barely tenable.**

Is there something I could have done better in order to reach full equality?

How does modern theory evaluate `8...g6`?

Here is the game:

```
[White "Shredder"]
[Black "AlwaysLearningNewStuff"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Bf6 7.e3 Ne7 8.Bd3 g6= 9.Nf3 Bf5 10.Bxf5 Nxf5 11.g4! $40 Ne7 12.Qb3 Qb6 13.Qa3! Na6 14.g5 Bg7 15.O-O-O Qb4! $7 16.Qxb4 Nxb4 17.a3 Na6 18.e4! $16 $40 O-O-O 19.Be5! Bxe5 20.Nxe5 Rhf8 21.exd5 Nxd5 22.Ne4! Nac7 23.Rhe1 Ne6 24.h4 Kc7 25.Nc5?! Nxc5 26.dxc5 f6!= 27.Nd3 Rde8 28.Kc2 Kd8 29.Rxe8+ Rxe8 30.Nf4 fxg5 31.Nxd5 cxd5 32.Rxd5+ Kc7 33.hxg5 Re2+ 34.Kc3 Rxf2 35.b4 Rf3+ 36.Rd3 Rf5 37.Rh3 Rxg5!= 38.Rxh7+ Kc6 39.Rh8 a5 40.Kb3 axb4 41.axb4 b6 42.cxb6 Kxb6 43.Rb8+ Kc6  44.Kc3 Rb5 45.Rc8+ Kb6 46.Kc4 Rf5 47.Rb8+ Kc6 48.b5+ Kc7 49.Ra8 g5 50.Ra7+ Kb6 51.Ra6+ Kb7 52.Rg6 Re5 53.Kb4 Rf5 54.Ka5 Re5 55.Rg7+ Kb8 56.Ka6 Re6+ 57.b6 Re8 58.Rb7+ Ka8 59.Rg7 Kb8 60.Rb7+ Ka8 61.Rg7 Kb8 62.Rb7+ 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Deep Rybka's 4 opening book (with pre-calculated scores on positions in it) gives the position resulting by

```
    1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Bf6 7.e3 Ne7 8.Bd3 g6

```

a +0.52 score, so definitely some advantage for White. It contains the following continuations:

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bf4 c6 6. Qc2 Bf6 7. e3 Ne7 8. Bd3 g6 9. Nf3 Bf5 10. h4 (10. O-O Bxd3 11. Qxd3 O-O 12. h4 (12. b4 Nd7))

```

and several sub variations.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'll play.

So, first I checked on the `11.g4`. Stockfish didn't care for it, instead preferring

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pp3p1p/2p2bp1/3p1n2/3P1B2/2N1PN2/PPQ2PPP/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 11"]

1.O-O-O O-O 2.Kb1 Nd7 3.g3 Nb6 4.h4 Ng7 5.Bh6 Re8 6.h5 Nc4 7.g4 Qd7 8.g5 Be7 9.Bxg7 Kxg7 10.Rdg1 Kg8 11.hxg6 fxg6 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.dxe5[+.84]

```

So White has a bit of an advantage in that line.

After `11.g4?!`, however, black retorts with (flip the board colors)

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pp3p1p/2p2bp1/3p1n2/3P1BP1/2N1PN2/PPQ2P1P/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 11"]

1... Nh4 2.Nxh4 Bxh4 3.Qb3 b6 4.O-O O-O 5.Rac1 Nd7 6.Ne2 Rc8 7.Rc3 Nf6 8.f3 h5 9.h3 Qe7 10.Qa4 Qd7 11.Qa6 c5 12.Be5 hxg4 13.hxg4 Rfe8 14.b3 Bg5[+.32]

```

`g4` is a weak move because it begs Black to exploit the loose knight on `f3`. If the Knight does not capture, White is punished for not castling by `Ng2+` followed by `Nxf4` which nukes White's Bishop, isolates the d pawn, and removes White's opportunity to castle. And there's a fully open center file with Queens on the board.

But while Stockfish doesn't like `11.g4`, it likes Black's response to it even less. After `11...Ne7` we see

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pp2np1p/2p2bp1/3p4/3P1BP1/2N1PN2/PPQ2P1P/R3K2R w KQkq - 1 12"]

1.g5 Bg7 2.h4 Qd7 3.h5 gxh5 4.Ne5 Bxe5 5.Bxe5 Rg8 6.Bf4 Ng6 7.Rxh5 Nxf4 8.exf4 Na6 9.O-O-O O-O-O 10.Rxh7 Rdf8 11.a3 Nc7 12.Rg1 Ne6 13.Ne2 Kb8[+1.45]

```

Black's sensible looking move cedes a real advantage. The problem is that Black is giving White too many tempos on the Kingside. At move 15, Black has not one piece past the second rank. His position is very passive and he has not castled. Bleh.

To somewhat answer the OP's original question, I think Black has decent chances after `11. g4 Nh4`. However, I don't know if this counts as 'full equality' - that's up to the OP to decide.

**EDIT**

I let the machine run all night at 10 minutes per move. Here's the game with the `11. g4 Nh4` variation. White is unable to convert his (its?) slight advantage. The game finishes with a draw by repetition.

```
[FEN " 1/2-1/2"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Bf6 7.e3 Ne7 8.Bd3 g6 9.Nf3 Bf5 10.Bxf5 Nxf5 11.g4 Nh4 12.Nxh4 Bxh4 13.Qb3 Qb6 14.Qxb6 axb6 15.Ke2 Nd7 16.a4 Be7 17.g5 f6 18.gxf6 Nxf6 19.f3 Kd7 20.Be5 Rhf8 21.Rhg1 Bd6 22.Bxd6 Kxd6 23.b4 Nh5 24.b5 Ng7 25.Rgb1 Nf5 26.bxc6 bxc6 27.Rxb6 Rfe8 28.Nb5+ Kd7 29.Rb7+ Kd8 30.Na7 Nxd4+ 31.Kd3 Re7 32.Rxe7 Kxe7 33.Kxd4 Rxa7 34.Kc5 Ra6 35.a5 Ke6 36.h3 g5 37.Ra2 Kd7 38.Ra3 h6 39.e4 dxe4 40.fxe4 Ke6 41.Kd4 h5 42.Ra2 Kd6 43.Ke3 c5 44.Ra1 Ke5 45.Rg1 Kf6 46.Rf1+ Kg6 47.Ra1 Kf6 48.Rf1+ Kg6 49.Ra1 Kf6 50.Rf1+ Kg6 51.Ra1 Kf6 52.Rf1+ Kg6 *

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I prefer 6... Nf6 to Bf6. That would have put your N on its best square, and refrained from moving your B twice so early in the opening. Also, the N on f6 protects the h pawn, which your B does not.

---
Tags: analysis, theory
---


# Question
Title: What are the disadvantages of delaying c7-c5 in QGA?
In main lines of queen's gambit accepted, sometimes White has the option of playing dxc5, and entering a certain type of endgames that Black might find unpleasant. Is there any disadvantage to delaying the push of the c pawn, and playing all the other useful moves first - Nf6, e6, a6, b5, Bb7, Nbd7, Be7, 0-0, and only then - c7-c5 ? Are there any top grandmasters who follow this approach? For example:

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 a6 6. O-O b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Nc3
Nbd7 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Rd1 O-O 11. a3 c5

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I was looking thoroughly for the omission of `...c5` in many repertoire books ( *Semko & Sakaev-Queen's Gambit Declined 3rd ed., Iakov Neishtadt-The Queen's Gambit Accepted, James Rizzitano-How to beat d4,Raetsky & Chetverik-Starting Out The Queen's Gambit Accepted* ) and found **absolutely nothing** about the pros and cons of delaying this move!

This is rather disappointing as the idea is quite reasonable, **and can come to any player rated from 1800 up to 2400** so it should be explained in repertoire books. However, after trudging through the *ECO D 1987* I was able to find something:

```
[Title "Black delays c5 break"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 a6 ( 5...Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nc3 c5 ( 7...b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.e4 $16 ) 8.e4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qc7 10.Qe2+/= ) 6.O-O ( 6.Nc3 b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.O-O ( 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.a4 b4 10.Ne4 c5 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.dxc5 Qc7= ) 8...Nbd7 9.e4 b4 10.e5 bxc3 11.exf6+/= ) 6...b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.a4! b4 9.Qe2 Nbd7 10.e4 Be7 11.Nbd2 c5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nc4 $16

```

In either case White can favorably open the game ( he will have more space and is better developed, also notice that his center is solid and your `...c5` will only free your game but will not give you sufficient counterplay ) and get good attacking chances.

In the main line in the above diagram, you seem to have solid position but do not be fooled. Yes, White has `e5` square no more, but you are weak on the `c-file` since your `b-pawn` is on `b4` where it does nothing useful. White was able to outplay Black by posting knight to `c4`, which is wonderful square for him. He can also attack on the kingside. Black on the other hand, has no viable counterplay and will probably have to weaken himself further with `...h6` at some point.

As for `6.Nc3` sub-line from the above, you can achieve typical position with isolated pawn after `...c5` at some point, but again White is just so superior in development and has typical space advantage. You lag in development, thus you will need time to organize counter-attack while White can already start creating problems to further delay you, like regrouping pieces for kingside atack.

As for `5...Be7` line, White also has superior development and wonderful centralization of his minor pieces. He has more space and his queen is well posted, **unlike yours** as she is prone to harassment with `Nb5` ideas. You will need to play `...a6` at some point, further losing time which is dangerous if we take White's lead in development and space advantage into account. Black may get playable position but it will be a series of accurate moves and even then White will have at least small advantage.

It seems that this is the point of `5...c5`, to ensure Black gets enough space in the center and hinder White from harmoniously developing his pieces, by forcing him to count on entering endgame or simplifications.

This is all I was able to find, if anyone has the latest *ECO D* I would highly appreciate the update on lines I listed above...

Hopefully this answer helped, as there is nothing else at this moment I can do. Best regards.

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit-accepted
---


# Question
Title: Which side should I castle if I have opportunity to castle on both sides?
It's a little bit confusing for me to make good decisions when I have opportunity to castle on both sides.

Can somebody explain **what are the factors should be considered** if we have opportunity to castle on both sides?

# Answer
> 11 votes
> can somebody explain what are the factors should be considered if we have opportunity to castle on both sides?

**1. The most important factor is king safety;**

Long castle is less safe than short one, because king is closer to the center, thus can be attacked faster. You will lose a tempo to properly secure the king with `Kb1/Kb8` ( thus protecting the loose `a-pawn` as well ). In many openings `c-file` is open/semi open which heightens the danger for the king.

Short castling moves the king far away and there are no loose pawns to protect. Furthermore, opponent must **invest considerable amount of time** to organize the attack by moving his forces to the kingside. This means that he must abandon some squares/pawn protection which enables you to organize strong counterplay.

**2. King's activity in an endgame;**

Long castle is preferred as your king will be close to the center. This fact can constitute a big advantage in endgame as king now becomes very powerful.

**3. How fast do you need to develop pieces/launch an attack?**

You need 2 moves to castle short ( you must move `f1` bishop and `g1` knight and you are done ), while you need 3 for long castle ( you need to move the queen, `c1` bishop and `b1` knight ). In opening speed is very important, therefore super GMs prefer short castle.

On the other hand, when castling long, rook lands immediately to `d1` which is **the best square for him**, while with short castle **you need to spend extra tempo** to centralize rook with `Re1`.

When choosing where to castle, you should also ask yourself where do you lead the attack. If you play in the center **and you plan a fast attack**, prefer long castle. If you do not know what will you do at the moment than short castle is more flexible.

## PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE ABOVE:

First you need to form a general plan based on the factors listed above **and personal preferences:**

1. Will you attack or play positionally?
2. Are you willing to play the endgame or you are going for mate?
3. On which side of the board are you stronger, regarding your piece placement?
4. How well are you placed to attack on kingside/queenside?
5. Is your pawn structure healthy, on the side where you want to castle?
6. What is the state of center of the board -\> is it closed/open/semi-open?

**If you have opportunity to castle both sides than first look at your pawn structure.** Is it healthy ( pawns are at starting positions ) or you have doubled pawns/pawn islands/"holes"? You should prefer the side that has healthy pawn structure.

Once you answer this question ask yourself the following: **How well are my pieces placed to defend my king from opposing forces?** If you have enough defenders, then go for that side.

*This was the easy case, you have healthy pawn structure and solid defense **on one side** of the board, but what if you are good on both sides? What if your pawn structure and piece placement is good on both wings?*

**Then you must take endgame into consideration!** If you can force a lot of exchanges go for the long castle ( even better if opponent went short castle! ). If the game will last long, and will be sharp or simply there are no signs for lots of exchanges, **then you need to take attacking potential into consideration.** Maybe you could go for "opposite side castling" because you will get promising pawn storm, or you could go for quiet game by castling to the same side as the opponent since you plan to attack in the center? **This is really position-dependent part.**

## PRACTICAL EXAMPLES THAT ILLUSTRATE THE ABOVE:

Let us take a look at the following position and apply the above principles:

```
[Title "Where to castle?"]
[fen "r1bqr1k1/pp1nbppp/2p2n2/3p2B1/3P4/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 1"]

```

First factor, king safety: we see that White is safer on kingside, and if he castles there he has good prospects for minority attack on the queenside, and for "f4 push" on the kingside ( please see my answer to this question for detailed coverage of these plans if you need further explanations ). The later option is beneficial for positional players.

Second factor, the activity of the king in the endgame, is bad for White since his king is further from the center then it would be after long castle. But if he wishes to play for minority attack he need both rooks on quenside, and in those positions the endgame will not appear for a long time.

Third factor, speed, is in favor of short castling, since White can generate minority attack or "f4 push" faster than the kingside pawn storm ( again see my answer to the question I linked above, if you need concrete explanations/examples ).

Since a positional player will always keep his options open and his king safe, castling short would be a good option, and is played most of the time at top level.

OK, this all sounds great but what about long castle? What about players who like sharp play?

White has healthy pawn structure at queenside, queen + bishop battery is directed on kingside, and `Bg5` \+ `Nf3` are aggressively positioned. White also has space advantage and better development, **but Black can open `c-file` with `...c5`** at some point. Therefore, based on the first factor, this should scare White a little.

But notice that I stated that we must take opponents attacking chances as well. Black will lose a lot of time to prepare an attack, and even then White can just play `Kb1` and simply use rook on `d1` to pressure the `d5` pawn after the `dxc5` exchange. The point is that long castle **speeds up White's development thus strengthening his development advantage and central pressure** according to the third factor.

This is the reason some GMs took the risk to castle queenside, **claiming that Black is misplaced for queenside counter-attack so they counted that they will be faster on the kingside** ( again, third factor is more important here then king safety ) which proved to be true. Therefore Black had to enter an endgame to keep equal chances ( again, see my answer I linked before ), but the second factor I mentioned helped White to still keep small pressure ( king is closer to the center and rook controls `d-file`, these are all important things in an endgame ).

I could give you another example in Caro-Kann, but I have "ran out of steam" :(

The point is to do the same as I did in the above practical example:

1. Evaluate kings safety ( your pawn structure, piece placement, opponents attacking chances on that side of the board... );
2. See how castling long/short **fits into your overall plan** ( is there a high probability for an endgame to arise or do you need sharp position and so on... );
3. How fast do you really need to mobilize your forces ( do you need fast action **in the center** or can this wait; can you afford slightly exposed king to get sharp position with "opposite side castling" and so on.. );

If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Briefly, the main purpose of castling is to **avoid** attack.

So you should castle on the side where your opponent has fewest chances of attack (all other things being equal). In a few cases, that may even mean leaving the king in the center.

Some players adopt a strategy of letting their opponents start an attack on one side, "waste" moves there, and then castling on the **other** side.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Castling serves 2 main purposes -

1. Move the king to a safer place by taking it away from the center
2. bring the rook to a more active position.

Apart from this, one should also take note of -

1. how compromised are your pawn structures
2. developed the opponent's pieces are (queen side/ king side) and also
3. if the opponent has already castled then what side did they castle.

a much more thorough list of suggestions can be read at - http://chess.about.com/od/improveyourchess/qt/When-And-Where-To-Castle.htm

# Answer
> 4 votes
A simple rule of thumb is that it's generally better to castle to the side of the board that has fewer enemy pieces as it will generally be safer long-term.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, positional-play, castling
---


# Question
Title: (How) should I avoid bishop exchange in Sicilian (Dragon) style setups?
I often play the Sicilian, and out of that, sometimes I end up in situations like the one below, when my dark square bishop is fianchettoed and my opponent is getting ready to get rid of my bishop (after Bh6 the bishop exchange is forced), leaving me with dark square weaknesses.

```
[FEN ""]

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

```

How do you defend in such situations? Is there a general idea or solution to this problem? Or should I just ignore my weakened dark squares and try for a good bishop vs. bad bishop game?

I'm more interested in general tactics than specific lines, in other words, ideas that can be applied to other games, not only this one. This situation can occur for both sides in lots of openings.

Thanks

# Answer
Generally, in such type of structures, Black can avoid an exchange by moving away the rook from **f8**, so that when White's bishop comes to **h6**, the Black bishop on **g7** is not pinned to the rook and can move to **h8**.

```
 [FEN "5rk1/4ppbp/6p1/8/8/4B3/3Q4/4K3 b - - 0 1"]

 1...Re8 (1...e6?! 2. Bh6 Bh8? 3. Bxf8)2.Bh6 Bh8

```

However, in this specific position, White doesn't have time to play **Bh6**, because Black's counterplay is too strong after **8...Nc6!** The only way White can manage the exchange if by playing **9. Nxc6** and then **10. Bh6**, but then White doesn't gain much in that line. Black has strong central control and a semi-open **b-file** for the counter attack.

I would suggest that you study the theoretical lines of the dragon variation after **8...Nc6**

```
  [FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2ppbp/3p1np1/8/3NP3/2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/R3KB1R b KQ - 0 1"]

  1...Nc6 2.Bh6
  ( 2.Nxc6 bxc6 3.Bh6 Rb8 )
  ( 2.O-O-O d5! )
  2...Bxh6 3.Qxh6
  ( 3.Nxc6 Bxd2+ )
  3...Nxd4

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
I've been caught out facing the Dragon by Black players who bring the rook to e8, where attempts to exchange the bishops then fails to 10. ... Nxe4:

```
[FEN ""]

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. O-O-O Re8 10. Bh6 Nxe4! 11. fxe4 Bxd4

```

And Black is up a pawn with the option of retreating the bishop.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In addition to what Wes said, playing Bh6 isn't even White's main attacking idea in the Dragon and by itself is harmless. I would be happy if my opponent went for Bh6 first. The more dangerous threat is h4-h5, which **sometimes** is accompanied by Bh6. You should be attacking as quickly as possible on the queenside with b5 and a5, touching the kingside only to stop h4-h5 by playing h7-h5 yourself.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The side that wants to change the fianchettoed bishop is making 2-3 moves only to do so and why are they doing this depends on the position, but you could think that they don't know what to do with they pieces, e.g. the black bishop, and they waste time to remove one of you active pieces. In other words you have 2-3 moves to activate your position (e.g. place you other pieces on better positions) and present your opponent with the same problem (a.k.a. what should I do?!).

You say that you have *weakened dark squares*. But your opponent does not have a dark squared bishop, so you have the things going :)

Another note: when you play 2... d6 go for Najdorf or if you want to play Dragon, a.k.a. fianchettoed bishop and so on, 2... Nc6 and delay the push of the d6 pawn. (This is called Accelerated Dragon - gives very solid position, when white play as if they play agains normal Dragon, they fell usually into a opening trap; there is one with 2... g6 which is even more Accelerated if that is an advantage :D) When you do this you could push d5 in one move (which in the variation that you show is a life saver, or life bringer because h2-h4-h5 is simple and strong attack which wins.. \[and doesn't work so well when you could play d5 in 1 move\])
> 0 votes

# Answer
I would refrain from castling so early (seventh move), and start moving out my queen side pieces with Nc6 or Bd7. That way, when White embarks on his bishop exchanging maneuvers, you're not caught with the king on the kingside. In fact, if you manage to castle queen side, White's king side maneuvers might end up being a waste of time.

Nc6 has the particular merit of attacking the N on d4, and distracting White's dark squared bishop and/or queen from h6, or forcing White to move his knight with a loss of time.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense
---


title: Can I buy IBM DeepBlue?

text:
# Question
Title: Can I buy IBM DeepBlue?
The IBM DeepBlue which is a chess computer that won against the one of the world's top chess players Kasparov was an IBM research project. Would it be possible for me to buy it?

# Answer
I guess you have to ask IBM, but it's probably not for sale. Right now the custom made computer is on display at the Computer History Museum.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Most (all?) modern chess computers are software programs which can be run from anyone's computer. Back in the bad old days of 1999, though, IBM couldn't get what they wanted from some random laptop. They made Deep Blue using custom hardware which made mass production economically impossible. So no, you cannot buy it because they were never made for sale.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Deep Blue is a computing machine designed by the IBM research group, and is very customized. There is only one, and there is no intention to recreate it.

The machine itself is so tied with IBM's legacy and triumphs, even today, that it would be unthinkable for them, at this time, to part with it for any reason.

Further, it is not in a playable state, and requires significant effort to set up and run. It is unlikely that they would find a reason or need to bring it back up to a playable state, because as long as it remains unpowered it can't be beat. Similar to retiring after a major win, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming out of retirement.

The 15 year anniversary was celebrated by IBM with the creation of a tumbler:

http://ibmdeepblue15.tumblr.com/

So even now they still use it as part of their marketing and outreach efforts. Read the articles and watch the videos there and you may get a glimpse of the effort require not only to create the machine, but to run it.

If you believe you have the resources or wherewithal to convince them to part with it or make it playable, you had best discuss the topic with them directly - this site is not a Deep Blue support board:

http://www.research.ibm.com/
> 2 votes

# Answer
If I am not mistaken, it was sold off to two different museums.

See

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_Blue\_(chess\_computer)

> Today, one of the two racks that made up Deep Blue is held by the National Museum of American History, having previously been displayed in an exhibit about the Information Age,\[14\] while the other rack was acquired by the Computer History Museum in 1997, and is displayed in the Revolution exhibit's "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics" gallery
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, history
---


# Question
Title: Why is the f6 pawn break in Advanced French so important for black?
I am new to the French (so forgive me if the question seems elementary). I've just come across the pawn break `...f6` for black in the French advance variation, and I find the pawn break quite dubious for me for several reasons:

1. When we are attacking the opponent's pawn chain, we are told that to attack the pawn chain, the best way is to attack its base. But in this case, black seems to be voluntarily giving up his pawn chain, as the base of the f7-e6-d5 pawn chain is at f7. Isn't black self-destructing his pawn chain in advancing the f-pawn, as white can now attack the e6 pawn?
2. After the inevitable exchange of the pawns (exf6 Rxf6), to me, black is left with a backward pawn (e6) and it is easily exploited by white. My question is: how is the backward pawn favoring black's position, and why is gxf6 not played, as black can get rid of the backward pawn by playing e5 on the next move.
3. If it's argued that f6 develops the black light-squared-bishop by the maneuver Bc8-d7-e8-h5, why can't black just play b6 and fianchetto the bishop or even play Ba6?

# Answer
> I am new to french (so forgive me if the question seems elementary) I've just came across the pawn break f6 for black in the french advance variation, and I find the pawn break quite dubious for me for several reasons

You must understand one whole new concept of chess modern strategy : **Weakness is not a weakness if it can not be exploited.**

And another thing: **Opening theory chooses only the strongest moves as mainlines.**

These moves are the strongest moves known today, so if Black is willing to play with a backward pawn, then be sure he has very good compensation for that!

So you have a backward `e-pawn`, so what? **What are the other features of the position?**

1. Can you get active piece play for this weakness?
2. How easy is for White to attack it? Does he have to give up "something" ( development/control of a key square/etc ) in order to attack it?
3. Can you sacrifice that pawn in the near future for **strong** pressure/initiative?
4. Is it really a weakness or is it simply **ugly**?

Once you change your point of view like this, you will see the other potentials that you have totally neglected or simply underestimated.

> When we are attacking the opponent's pawn chain, we are told that to attack the pawn chain, the best way is to attack its base. But in this case, black seems to be voluntarily giving up his pawn chain, as the base of the f7-e6-d4 pawn chain is at f7. Isn't black self-destructing his pawn chain in advancing the f-pawn, as white can now attack e6 pawn?

Can White really attack the `e6` is the question here that is important. The modern practice proves that White can not do this **advantageously.** I have provided an explanation why, and have posted some examples below.

> After the inevitable exchange of the pawns (exf6 Rxf6), to me, black is left behind with a backward pawn (e6) and its is easy to be exploited by white. My question is: how is the backward pawn favouring black's position, and why is gxf6 not played as black can get rid of the backward pawn by playing e5 on the next move.

Black has clear math behind this:

1. White has lost a tempo with `e5` by playing twice with a pawn;
2. **White is passive** and for now only **maintains** space advantage;
3. Because of #1 and #2, White needs time to finish development so he can "cash in" his space advantage;
4. White pieces are slightly **misplaced** -\> `Nb1` belongs at `c3` but the pawn is there, `Bc1` should go to `g5` or `e3` but is hindered by `...Qb6`;

Now the important part:

If Black removes `d4 + e5` chain then his superior development will be felt and he will get **mobile central phalanx** -\> mobile center phalanx + superior development/piece placement = high chances to win.

**This is very stressful moment for White, and he needs accurate play just to survive.** He needs to finish his development but his strong pawn chain is gone. That is why **he has no time to attack `e5`, it is just too dangerous.**

So you see, Black will follow `...f6` with `...c5` in order to get his central pawns rolling, and since he will get his pieces ideally placed, the initiative he obtains might be decisive.

Furthermore, **`f-file` \+ `Qb6 + Nf6 + Bc5` make tremendous pressure at `f2`**. There is thematic `...Nxf2/Bxf2` sacrifice with subsequent `...e4` that regains the piece but retains the initiative. You have never mentioned that you are aware of this plan! Without knowing these plans it is easy to look at Black strategy as bad. Now you understand why `...gxf6` is usually a mistake.

> If it's argued that f6 develops the black's light-squared-bishop by the manoeuvre Bc8-d7-e8-h5, why can't black jus play b6 and fianchetto the bishop or even play Ba6?

On `b6` usually sits Black queen, so the plan you mentioned fails. She is so well placed there, while `...Ba6` would achieve little. With the pawn center rolling ( after Black plays `...c5-cxd4` and `...f6-fxe5` ) bishop will come into play just in time, and on a good `g4` or `f5` square with strong effect.

## PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF ABOVE STATEMENTS:

I will quote some theoretical lines form the Advance French just to show you above plans in action. The sample lines are quoted from *J.Watson-Play the French 4th edition ( 2012 )* :

```
[Title "Black demolishes White pawn chain and obtains dynamic piece play"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bxc5 6.Bd3 f6 7.Qe2! fxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Nf6 10.O-O O-O ( 10...Bd6 11.Qg5 O-O 12.Nc3 e5 13.f3 Be6 ) 11.c4 Ng4! ( 11...Qb6!? ) 12.Qh5 Rxf2 13.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 14.Kh1 Nf6 15.Qe2 Bb6

```

"and White has some, but not fully sufficient, compensation for the pawn."

Also notice that after `11...Qb6!?` sideline if White plays `12.Qe2` Black plays `12...e5!` threatening both `...e4` and `...Ng4`.

Here is another example:

```
[Title "Black demolishes White pawn center and obtains equal position"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Be2 f6 7.O-O fxe5 8. Nxe5 Nf6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Nd3 ( 10.b4? Bxf2+! ) 10...Bd6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.f4 O-O 13.Nd2 e5 ( 13...Bd7! ) 14.fxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.Nf3 Bd6 17.Kh1 Bg4 18.Bg5 Kh8 19.Bxf6 Rxf6 20.Nd4 Bxe2 21.Qxe2 Bxh2 22.Rxf6 gxf6 23.Qe6=

```

The whole point of `...f6` is to demolish White pawn chain **so you can start rolling your own central pawns** and exploit your development advantage/better piece placement. After `...f6` make sure you can follow up with `...c5` and just open the game. You should be just fine after that.

This is the plan that was not familiar to you, but this plan is the one that "holds" this line "together". If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Playing ...f6 is less common in the Advance than certain other French lines (such as the 3... Nf6 Tarrasch). As with most thematic moves to open the position, the f6 break has to be timed correctly or white will indeed have a great target on e6.

1. Your pawn chain isn't particularly weak in the normal French f7-e6-d5 configuration (it's really strong, actually). Black is indeed self-destructing his pawn chain in advancing the f-pawn, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You are making a weakness on e6 by playing f6 but that's part of what you're giving up to get the activity that the break usually brings.
2. The backward pawn isn't favoring black's position. It's a liability, but the open f-file, access to the d6 square and less cramped position generally provide compensation. It is only 'easy to be exploited by white' if black has played the f6 break at a bad time. Black doesn't play gxf6 because it would block the f-file and severely weaken black's king position. Getting to play e5 and suddenly having weak pawns on d5 and e5 isn't an attractive possibility.
3. I played the French for a long time and I never tried the Bc8-d7-e8-h5 maneuver which you describe, but it sounds horribly slow. Most players in the Advance put it on d7 sometime between move 5 and 9 and accept that it's going to be bad for a while.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, french-defense, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: What different time control rules are there in chess tournaments?
I am trying to find all possible time control rules that are used in various tournaments (not only regular chess, but also speed chess).

For example on one of the website I am using the following time controls are available:

```
10sec + 1 sec
1 min
1 min + 1 sec
...
10 min
...
30 min
60 min

```

Is there any list of chess control rules for rated tournaments (normal or blitz)?

# Answer
The FIDE-approved classical time control is: (taken from the handbook)

***07 Time Control*** ***There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.***

This time control is used in many major chess events such as the Olympiad, FIDE Grand Prix and World Cup.

Another popular international time control for classical is **90 minutes with a 30 second increment.**

The classical time control used in the World chess Championship is: (from Wikipedia) ***120 minutes, with 60 minutes added after move 40, 15 minutes added after move 60, and 30 additional seconds per move starting from move 61***

**Blitz** time controls is simpler, with just two that dominate tournaments.

**3 minutes with a 2 second increment** is very popular in top level tournaments, being used in the recent World Blitz chess Championships and most, if not all the top level blitz events, this is because FIDE wants to avoid wins on time, to preserve the quality of top-level chess and also because there are significant prize funds at stake.

**5 minutes** is the most popular however, as it is easier to schedule as the games can only go as long as 10 minutes, whilst with an increment in can take a while.

For **Rapid**

**15+10** (15 minutes with a 10 second increment) was the time control used in the recently concluded FIDE World Rapid and Blitz chess Championships.

**25+10** Is very popular in top level rapid chess and all around as well, it was used in the World Cup in 2013 for the rapid tiebreak stage.

**25** This is the most popular for the same reasons as **5** is for blitz.

This is for the rest of the world.

For the United States, its a whole different story,

http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/info/time.html
> 11 votes

---
Tags: rules, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Which rule was recently introduced/modified in chess officially?
Chess has lot of interesting rules such as castling, en passant, 50 move rule, stalemate, etc. I am interested in knowing the history behind the introduction of chess rules.

Can anybody explain **which rule was recently introduced/modified in chess officially?**

# Answer
Do you mean what rules have been changed the most recently? FIDE, the international federation of chess, just changed some rules four days ago (2014 July 1). Changes include:

* You are now officially allowed to promote a pawn by removing it from the board while it is still on the 7th rank and then placing a new piece on the 8th rank, rather than moving the pawn to the 8th rank and then removing it. You may also place the new piece before removing the pawn. (The move has not changed, just the list of allowable ways of executing it.)
* If 75 consecutive moves have been played without a pawn move or a capture, or the same position has occurred for 5 consecutive alternate moves in a row, the arbiter is allowed to step in and declare the game drawn (without a player claiming a draw).
* Players may not bring cell phones into the tournament hall at all.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The rules of chess have varied over time and various authors have written them down over the centuries.

Philidor is most often credited for formalising the rules for tournament use, however the problem still remained that there were no common set of rules accepted by everyone.

In the 1920s FIDE was formed, and there was an attempt to standardised the rules. This was successful to to a degree, however different interests still maintain their own rules: for example the English Chess Federation base their rules on the FIDE rules but with some modifications, and some tournaments or matches may add their own rules e.g. The Sofia Rule.

There is therefore no universal set of rules, but the FIDE rules are use in FIDE organised tournaments, which are most of the top level ones. Minor changes are made to these every so often. Mostly these are to clarify existing rules but occasionally you get new rules such as the ones forbidding 'note taking' and those prohibiting the use of electronic devices which have been added relatively recently.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, history
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish website offer many apps to download?
I want to get a strong engine to practice while I'm not home. Look at: http://stockfishchess.org/download, we see a list of apps to download for the Stockfish engine.

Why are there three apps to downloads for the same engine? Which one should I choose? What are their advantages and disadvantages? Which one is the strongest? Which one is the easiest to use? What functionality do they offer?

PS: I have an iPhone 5 and Android tablet.

# Answer
On the Android tablet, you download the version for Android, and for the iPhone you can download the iPhone version.

Stockfish engine's source code is written in C++, and therefore **it has to be compiled for the platform** (Windows, Android, iPhone, etc.) on which it will run. Thus, you have different "versions" (not in the strict sense) of the same engine.

For Android, I recommend you download the app called DroidFish. I use it myself. It is very convenient.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You see those distributions because they're built for each platform. If you have iOS, use the iOS binary. If you have Android, use the Android binary.

Now, you ask for which one is strongest, advantages etc. On theory, Droidfish on Android is the weakest among three apps (SmallFish, Stockfish and Droidfish). It's weakest because it's a 32 bits app while the other two are 64 bits.

SmallFish and Stockfish are the two choices that you can make on the iOS (Android has only one). While the Stockfish app is older, SmallFish has better functionality includes evaluation graph, annotations and Online Store. The Stockfish app is solid but it offers nothing more than regular game playing. SmallFish goes for more.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: learning, engines, stockfish, android
---


# Question
Title: How to save black's position in this Game?
In this game black made some mistakes which leads to the final position.
While analyzing this game the engine is not willing to capture the bishop.

```
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "2014.07.05"]
[Round "-"]
[White "ahesham"]
[Black "myking64"]
[Result ""]
[WhiteElo "1455"]
[BlackElo "1398"]
[Time "23:33:01"]
[TimeControl "900"]
[FEN "r1q2r2/1pp2pk1/p1n1bNp1/2b1P1Pp/4PQ1P/8/PPP1BP2/2KR3R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Bxh5 gxh5 2.Nxh5+ Kg6 3.Ng3 Be7 4.h5+ Kg7 5.Nf5+ Bxf5 6.exf5

```

Without capturing the bishop on the 1st move how can I proceed as black ?
What are possible plans for black after the 6th move to get an advantage?

# Answer
> What could be possible plans for black after 6th move to get advantage?

None. **1...gxh5** is a huge mistake, after which Black is definitely losing.

```
   [Date "2014.07.05"]
   [White "ahesham"]
   [Black "myking64"]
   [WhiteElo "1455"]
   [BlackElo "1398"]
   [FEN "r1q2r2/1pp2pk1/p1n1bNp1/2b1P1Pp/4PQ1P/8/PPP1BP2/2KR3R w - - 0 1"]

   1. Bxh5 gxh5 2. Nxh5+ Kg6 3. Ng3 Be7 4. h5+ Kg7 5. Nf5+ Bxf5 6. exf5 Rd8 (6...
   Rg8 7. f6+ Kh8 8. fxe7 Qe6 9. g6 Rg7 10. Qf6 Qxe7 11. h6 Qxf6 12. hxg7+ Kxg7
   13. exf6+ Kxg6 14. Rh3) 7. f6+ Kg8 8. g6 Qe6 9. Qh6 Bxf6 10. exf6 Qxf6 11.
   Rxd8+ Rxd8 12. Rg1 Nd4 13. Qh7+ Kf8 14. g7+ Ke7 15. Qe4+ Ne6 16. Qb4+ Kd7 17.
   g8=Q Rxg8 18. Rxg8 Qxf2 19. Qd2+ Qxd2+ 20. Kxd2

```

> Without capturing bishop at 1st move how can i proceed as black ?

**1...Bd4** is an excellent move, immediately threatening the pawn on **e5**. The positions that arise after **1...Bd4** are extremely complex. I have attempted to analyze a few with the help of the Houdini 1.5 and Stockfish 4.2 engines. Black is able to hold the position after **1...Bd4** and make a draw.

```
 [Date "2014.07.05"]
 [White "ahesham"]
 [Black "myking64"]
 [WhiteElo "1455"]
 [BlackElo "1398"]
 [FEN "r1q2r2/1pp2pk1/p1n1bNp1/2b1P1Pp/4PQ1P/8/PPP1BP2/2KR3R w - - 0 1"]

 1. Bxh5 Bd4! 2. Be2 (2. Rxd4 Nxd4 3. Bd1 Rh8 4. c3 Nc6 5. h5 Qd8 6. h6+ Kf8 7.
 Bc2 Qe7 8. h7 Rd8 9. Qh4 Qc5 10. Qh6+ Ke7 11. Qg7 Qxe5 12. Ng8+ (12. Kb1 Rxh7
 13. Qxh7 Qxg5 14. Nd5+ Bxd5 15. exd5 Rxd5) 12... Ke8 13. Nf6+ Ke7 14. Ng8+ Ke8
 15. Nf6+ Ke7) 2... Bxe5 3. Qe3 Qb8!! 4. f4 Qa7 5. Qg3 Bd4 6. Kb1 Qb6 7. c3 Bf2 8.
 Qg2 Rfd8 9. h5 Qe3 10. Bf3 Ne7 11. hxg6 Nxg6 12. Rh7+ Kf8 13. f5 Rxd1+ 14. Bxd1
 Bc4 15. Qh1 Rd8 16. fxg6 Bg1 17. g7+ Ke7 18. g8=N+ Kd6 19. b4 Bd3+ 20. Bc2
 Bxc2+ 21. Kxc2 Qe2+ 22. Kb3 Qd1+ 23. Kb2 Qd2+ 24. Kb1 Qd1+ 25. Kb2 Qd2+

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Maybe trying to break the pawn structure with something like:

```
[White "ahesham"]
[Black "myking64"]
[FEN "r1q2r2/1pp2pk1/p1n1bNp1/2b1P1Pp/4PQ1P/8/PPP1BP2/2KR3R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Bxh5 Bxf2 2. Qxf2 Nxe5

```
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, learning, online-chess, middlegame
---


title: How Does The Sicilian Defense Work?

text:
# Question
Title: How Does The Sicilian Defense Work?
Having just discovered this move (I'm new to all the terms and strategies, being just a beginner hobbyist), I was wondering how the move works.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what it is (in terms of the movement), but I don't understand what it accomplishes (i.e. how it counters white's move).

I hope this made sense, and thanks in advance for the responses!

# Answer
> 6 votes
1.e4 e5 is played to stop white from playing yet another pawn to the center with 2.d4. Sicilian Defense (1...c5) also accomplishes this with the c pawn. This way if you end up trading on d4 you can still have both of your central pawns unlike your opponent and have an advantage in the center.

Symmetric positions like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 usually don't give much of a winning chance to black and tend to be drawish. Sicilian on the other hand creates imbalance in the first move and shows black is here for the win! Imbalance creating openings (Sicilian, Nimzo Indian) become popular for black, otherwise it's hard to get the advantage. White tends to get the initiative early on but the pawn structure suggests black is better if he can survive the early middlegame.

I realize this is a basic explanation and misses lots of exceptions but.. it is just move 1, don't expect too much from me!

---
Tags: sicilian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there a formula that converts a number from 0 to 959 to a corresponding chess960 position?
I am looking into a website with starting positions for chess960.

```
000 BBQNNRKR
001 BQNBNRKR
002 BQNNRBKR
003 BQNNRKRB
004 QBBNNRKR
005 QNBBNRKR
...
959 RKRNNQBB

```

So there is a table that converts any number from 0 to 959 to a starting position. For example `chess960(518) = 'RNBQKBNR'` normal starting chess position.

What is this formula? How can I do this without storing all the table?

# Answer
From Wikipedia:

> White's Chess960 starting array can be derived from its number N (0 ... 959) as follows:
>
> a) Divide N by 4, yielding quotient N2 and remainder B1. Place a Bishop upon the bright square corresponding to B1 (0=b, 1=d, 2=f, 3=h).
>
> b) Divide N2 by 4 again, yielding quotient N3 and remainder B2. Place a second Bishop upon the dark square corresponding to B2 (0=a, 1=c, 2=e, 3=g).
>
> c) Divide N3 by 6, yielding quotient N4 and remainder Q. Place the Queen according to Q, where 0 is the first free square starting from a, 1 is the second, etc.
>
> d) N4 will be a single digit, 0 ... 9. Place the Knights according to its value by consulting the following table:
>
> ```
> 0     N   N   -   -   -
> 1     N   -   N   -   -
> 2     N   -   -   N   -
> 3     N   -   -   -   N
> 4     -   N   N   -   -
> 5     -   N   -   N   -
> 6     -   N   -   -   N
> 7     -   -   N   N   -
> 8     -   -   N   -   N
> 9     -   -   -   N   N
>
> ```
>
> e) There are three blank squares remaining; place a Rook in each of the outer two and the King in the middle one.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, mathematics, chess960
---


# Question
Title: Is it forbidden to laugh when playing in a chess tournament?
I have read this, but it still hasn’t filled my brain yet. When I play chess, sometimes I'm often laughing and putting some pressure on my opponent. Is it forbidden in legal game? Is there a rule about it?

# Answer
> 16 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **11.5** It is forbidden to *distract* or *annoy* the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a *source of noise* into the playing area.

Distracting or annoying the opponent in any manner (other than making good moves!) is forbidden, and making noise is forbidden. So laughing in order to give pressure to your opponent is forbidden.

---
Tags: rules, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Is there any software (open source and/or free) that reads chess notation?
I would like to convert a chess notation into a game. How to do that?

I have a game in algebraic notation, let say,

```
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6 3.d4 e6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 a6 6.Bc2 Be7 7.Qd3 b5 8.b3 Qc7
9.Nbd2 Bb7 10.0-0  c4 11.bxc4 bxc4 12.Qe2 0-0 13.Nxc4 d5 14.Nce5 dxe4
15.Nh4 Qxc3 16.Be3 Nc6 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Rac1 Bb5 19.Qd1 Bxf1 20.Qxf1 Qa5
21.Bb3 Rfc8 22.Rd1 Qh5 23.g3 Ng4 24.Ng2

```

Is there any software that reads this?

# Answer
Yes, there are several.

Your question is very vague, though. Arena is an OK choice if you're on Windows; otherwise Lichess is an online option. All of these are free, but there are many more, both free and costly ones (but I don't have enough reputation for more links, and I don't know exactly what you're after).

The computer-readable format of algebraic notation is called Portable Game Notation (PGN), which might help you with searching for alternatives.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: software, notation
---


# Question
Title: Which World Champions other than Viswanathan Anand had a jolly personality?
First of all, congratulations to Viswanathan Anand for winning the Candidates 2014 tournament and qualifying for a rematch with Magnus Carlsen later this year!

I saw this interesting gesture made by Anand towards Karjakin after their game in the Candidates 2014 tournament (video here at 5:42:54). Anand just needed a draw to win the tournament and qualify for the World Championship, but Karjakin dragged the game for a whole 90 moves, making Anand patiently work and wait for the result. After Karjakin finally accepted the draw, Anand made a joking gesture as though he was going to attack Karjakin.

It seems to me that chess players can be often thought of as "**too serious**", but World Champions like Anand have helped change the outlook on that.

Which other World Champions in chess history had a jolly personality like Anand? Or is Anand unique in that regard?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Ah. I somehow missed that during live relay. Thanks for sharing.

Mikhail Tal comes to mind based on his Life and Games. He mentioned about 'forgetting' to stop his clock during tournament games for the sake of his time troubled opponents.

I don't know how many of us mere mortals could consider doing that. He must have been a jolly good fellow.

# Answer
> 5 votes
OK, the only World Champion I can name for being jolly besides already mentioned Mikhail Tal is probably Vladimir Kramnik, who is always a pleasure to listen to in interviews, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCURWc4tlYQ

If your counting the FIDE world champions then Ruslan Ponomariov springs to mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSirU4aJbKU

NOT world champions, but some top Grandmaster's who are very jolly

Levon Aronian is known for being an exceptionally nice fellow, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoAfCInRTqY

Boris Gelfand is also very jolly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glHKPCYfxus

Vassily Ivanchuk also known for being jolly, if a little eccentric, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prsnlyfv4kQ, here he is dancing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L\_R1lUsiFdg

# Answer
> 2 votes
Magnus Carlsen looks jolly to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY27lgnPKWI

---
Tags: world-championship, anand, karjakin
---


title: Is this rook endgame won for white?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this rook endgame won for white?
In *Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, 2nd Edition* from 2006 the following important practical rook endgame with a distant passed pawn is analysed. The whole analysis (of the same position with white to move and black to move) is on pages 194-200.

```
 [Title "White to move"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/R4p2/P4kp1/7p/7P/4K1P1/r4P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1.Kd4! Rxf2 2. Rc7 Ra2 3. a7 Kf5 4. Kc4!! {Johannes Steckner} Kg4 5. Kb3! Ra6 6. Rc4+ Kxg3 7. Ra4 Rxa7 8. Rxa7 Kxh4 9. Kc3 Kg3 10. Kd2 h4 11. Ke2 Kg2 12. Rxf7 h3 13. Rf2+! Kg3 14. Rf6 +-

```

The author claims, with very long analyses to back it up, that white wins after `Kd4!`, but he warns:

> Nothing could be further from my mind than to label the analyses presented \[...\] as the "last word of theory" - long, complicated variations rarely turn out error-free.

Have there been any new developments since 2006?

I know 11-men tablebases are a long way off, but are we still confident this endgame is a win for white?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This entire endgame has been analyzed thoroughly on ChessPub. It seems that member *Wes* was right -\> `...g5` is the main move. This was confirmed with a lengthy analysis at ChessCafe -\> see the first position on the page ( there are some other games analyzed after the analysis of this position finishes ). I am sorry for posting links but the analysis is huge!

Good luck and hopefully this answered your question!

Best regards!

---
Tags: analysis, theory, endgame, rook-endgame
---


title: What is the result of this endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the result of this endgame?
Can Black draw this position or does White win after all:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/P4R2/8/6kp/3K4/6P1/r7/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

I need variations that clearly illustrate your answer.

# Answer
> 4 votes
White has a very simple strategy to win this position -

1. **Prevent the g-pawn from being captured for free by the Black king** (the Black rook cannot capture it because it is tied to the defense of the **a-pawn** promoting on **a8**. White wins if White can win the **h-pawn**)
2. Move the White king over to support the promotion of the **a-pawn**.
3. At the right moment, occupy the **b-file** with the White rook and support the **g-pawn** from **b3**. Then White's king can have a safe square on the **b-file** to promote the **a-pawn**.

```
 [FEN "8/5R2/P7/6kp/3K4/6P1/r7/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. a7 Kg4 (1... Kg6 2. Rc7 Ra5 3. Kc4 Kf6 4. Kb4 Ra1 5. Kc5 Ke6 6. Rh7 Rc1+ 7.
 Kb6 Rb1+ 8. Ka6 Ra1+ 9. Kb7 Rb1+ 10. Kc8 Rc1+ 11. Kb8 Rb1+ 12. Rb7 Ra1 13. a8=Q
 ) 2. Rg7+ Kh3 3. Kc3 Kg2 4. Kb4 Kh3 5. Kb5 Ra3 (5... Rxa7 6. Rxa7 Kxg3 7. Rg7+
 Kf3 (7... Kh3 8. Kc4 h4 9. Kd3 Kh2 10. Ke2 h3 11. Kf2 Kh1 12. Rg1+ Kh2 13. Rg3
 Kh1 14. Rxh3#) 8. Rh7 Kg4 9. Kc4 h4 10. Kd3 Kg3 11. Ke2 h3 12. Kf1 h2 13. Rh6
 Kg4 14. Rxh2)6. Kb6 Rb3+ 7. Ka6 Ra3+ 8. Kb7
 Rb3+ 9. Ka8 Rb5 (9... Rb2 10. Rg5 Rb1 11. Rxh5+ Kxg3 12. Rh8 Kf4 13. Rb8 Ra1
 14. Kb7 Rb1+ 15. Kc7 Rc1+ 16. Kd7 Rd1+ 17. Ke7 Re1+ 18. Kf7 Ra1 19. a8=Q) 10.
 Rb7 Ra5 11. Rb3! Kg4 12. Kb8 Ra2 13. a8=Q

```

---
Tags: rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Why is the Ragozin 4... Bb4 not even considered against 4. Bg5?
The Ragozin variation of the Queen's Gambit starts with `1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4`:

```
[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4

```

It seems that the `Bb4` move is only sound in that position, and not if white played `4.Bg5` instead of `4.Nf3`.

```
[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (4.Nf3 Bb4) Bb4

```

This line is, in my experience, not even mentioned in common opening books, as if it were "obviously" wrong... I'm not sure why. If this is bad for black, which would be white's best answer?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm not an expert but my guess is black doesn't want white to develop his g1 knight to e2 in a variation he commits his bishop to b4.

For example after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.e3, wouldn't you be more comfortable with your f3 knight on e2? You can get that in the other variation!

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4!? 5.e3 keeps the g1 knight flexible. Now if 5...h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Nge2 and white slightly improved his position. That is if you agree the knight is better on e2. There are more than hundred master games played in my database with 4.Bg5 Bb4 so I don't believe it's dubious, just slightly inferior.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Playing Bb4 before White puts his knight on f3 in the QGD isn't *bad*, but it can be uncomfortable for Black. Let's look at some lines:

```
[StartPly "10"]
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 d5

```

This is the Nimzo-Indian Sämich with an early d5 which is known to be comfortable for White. He has long term chances associated with exchanging on d5, pushing f3 and e4 and going for a king side attack as in the classic game Botvinnik–Capablanca, 1938 (from the AVRO tournament):

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "AVRO"]
[Site "Rotterdam, NED"]
[Date "1938.11.22"]
[EventDate "1938.11.06"]
[Round "11"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[Black "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[ECO "E40"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5
exd5 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Ne2 b6 10.O-O Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Bb2 Qd7
13.a4 Rfe8 14.Qd3 c4 15.Qc2 Nb8 16.Rae1 Nc6 17.Ng3 Na5 18.f3
Nb3 19.e4 Qxa4 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qf2 g6 22.f4 f5 23.exf6 Nxf6 24.f5
Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Re8 26.Re6 Rxe6 27.fxe6 Kg7 28.Qf4 Qe8 29.Qe5 Qe7
30.Ba3 Qxa3 31.Nh5+ gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 Qc1+
35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+
40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 1-0

```

So playing Bb4 before White puts a knight on f3 gives White an extra option which Black probably doesn't want to do.

PS: You're unlikely to find the move order `1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3` in a high level game since `4.cxd5` followed by Bg5+e3+Bd3+Nge2 and eventually castles and f3+e4 with chances for a king side attack is great for White who scores 60% or so in that system (IIRC).

# Answer
> 1 votes
After Bb4 white can play Qa4 forcing Nc6: here you can see a difference emerging. With the B in g5 you can play 5.Qa4 Nc6 6.e3 and on 6... h6 retreat in h4 keeping pressure. While in the Ragozin this seems less effective since after 5.Qa4 Nc6 6.e3 locks the B inside, while after 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 dxc4 becomes interesting, hence 7.Bxf6 is seen played, where black seems fine. Nothing final of course, still a possible explanation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If White plays his B to g5, the best place for Black's black squared bishop is e7, according to Capablanca (Chess Fundamentals), breaking the pin on the Knight. This move may reveal White's B as being overextended, and allow Black to simplify with e.g. Ne4 or Nd5, bringing about an early equality.

The Bb4 variation is "bad" against Nc3 because logically, Black should take the knight and double White's pawns on the c file. But doubled c pawns are good for White, because he can capture Black's d pawn with his c4 pawn, then have an extra "center" pawn at c3 (formerly on b2) supporting his d pawn.

If Black wants to play Bb4, he should refrain from advancing his d pawn to d5 so that White cannot exchange his c4 pawn for it.

Source: Fred Reinfield, "Attack and Counterattack in Chess."

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Can White engineer a winning breakthrough?
I have managed to create a temporary "fortress" after losing the exchange. Analyzing the position after the game ended, I was able to find a plan for White to breakthrough. After further analysis I was able to find the defense for Black.

My "gut feeling" tells me that White should win anyway but I need help in finding the solution.

Below is the position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

```

## EDITED on July, 21th 2014 :

Since nobody ( not even engines! ) considered option of penetrating on the kingside with the King via light squares, I am submitting lines that can guide others when constructing their answers.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 c5!? 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3.bxa5 bxa5 4.Rb1! Ra7 $8 5.Kf2! Ne6 6.Kg2! Ng5 ( 6...Nc5 7.Rxc5! dxc5 8.g5!+- Kxc6 ( 8...hxg5? 9.Rb7+ Rxb7 10.cxb7+- ) ( 8...Ra8 9.Rb7+ Kxc6 10.Rxf7 hxg5 11.h6 Kd6 12.h7 Ke6 13.Ra7! Rd8 14.Kh3 Kf6 15.Kg4 Kg6 16.Rxa5+- ) ( 8...f6 9.g6!?+- )  9.Rb8!+-  ) 7.Rb5! f6 ( 7...Ne6 8.g5!+- ) 8.Rb1! $22 Ne6 9.g5!! Nxg5 ( 9...fxg5 10.Rb7+! $8 Rxb7 11.cxb7 Kxb7 12.Kh3+- ) ( 9...hxg5 10.Rb7+ Rxb7 11.cxb7+ Kxb7 12.h6+- ) 10.Rb5! Ne6 11.Kh3 $22 Nc5 ( 11...Ng5+ 12.Kg4+- ) ( 11...Ng7 12.Kg4+- ) 12.Rcxc5!+- dxc5 13.Rb7+ Rxb7 14.cxb7 Kxb7 15.Kg4+-

```

Based on the above lines, I have tried to "sit in place", and came to the critical position where Black seems to hold:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 f6 2.bxa5 Rxa5 $8 ( 2...bxa5? 3.Rb1+ Kc8 4.Rbb6! Kd7 5.Rb7+- ) 3.Rcb4 Nf7 4.c4 Nd8 5.Rb5! Rxb5 ( 5...Ra8 6.a5! ) 6.cxb5! $8 Nf7 7.Ra3! Ng5 8.Kd2 Kb8 ( 8...Nf7!? ) 9.Kc2 Kb7 10.Rc3! Nh7 11.Kb3 Nf8 12.Kb4 Nd7 13.a5 bxa5+ ( 13...Nc5!? 14.a6+! $8 Kb8 15.Kc4! Nd7 16.Kd3 Nc5+ $8 ( 16...Nf8 17.a7+!+- ) 17.Ke2 Ka7 $8 ( 17...Na4? 18.a7+!+- ) 18.Kf2 Kb8 $8 19.Kg2 Ka7 20.Kh3 Kb8 21.g5!+- fxg5 $8 22.Kg4 Ka7 23.Kf5 Kb8 24.Rc2!! Ka7 25.Rc1! Kb8 26.Rg1! Nb3 27.Rxg5!! Nd4+ 28.Kg4! Nxb5 29.Rg6 Ka7 ( 29...Nd4 30.Rxh6 b5 31.Rh7! b4 32.a7+! Kxa7 ( 32...Kb7 33.Rxc7+!+- ) 33.Rxc7+ Kb6 34.Rc1+- ) 30.Rxh6 Kxa6 31.Rh7 Kb7 ( 31...Nd4 32.Rxc7+- ) 32.h6 Nd4 33.Rg7+- ) 14.Kxa5

```

It seems that Black can indeed create an impregnable fortress. Sacrifice with `b6` does not work, and knight will always be able to reach `g5` in time to stop White king from penetrating via `g5` sacrifice. If White sacrifices on `g5` too early, Black will always have `Nf6` and will move around his king, maintaining blockade. Lines where White sacrifices rook on `g5` end bad since Black sacrifices the knight and has won pawn endgame.

I will investigate few more ideas ( like `c5` sacrifice ), before I officially accepting an answer...

## END OF EDIT

# Answer
To aim for a draw for Black, I would play against the fact that the white rook has trapped itself out of play on c4 once the move `c3` was played. If Black can get in `...c5` then even after an en passant capture, White will never be able to force a pawn break that yields freedom for the rook. Some illustrative variations follow where `...c5` isn't stopped. Among such lines, the main line of the next PGN viewer offers the most "freedom" for the rook, *but even after `6...Kxb7` below the rook has no safe squares*, and never will so long as Black sits tight:

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4
            ( 1.Rb1 c5 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3.b4 Ra7 )
1...c5 2.dxc6+
            ( 2.Rb1 Kc7 )
2...Kc7 3.bxa5
            ( 3.b5 f6 )
3...bxa5 4.Rb1 Ra7 5.Rb7+ Rxb7 6.cxb7+ Kxb7 *

```

So White really needs to prevent `...c5`, and so must try `1.Rc6` in order to hope for progress. Even here, Black can go for the same plan via `1...Ne6`, aiming for `...Nd8` to force `Rc4` and get `...c5` in after all. The side variations below illustrate this idea. The main line below shows the only idea I see to force freedom for the rook; *it works, but at the cost of sacrificing the g-pawn to gain enough time*. I think Black should be able to hold the final position, but at least White has won the b4 square to get that rook back in the game. I think this is White's best chance to play for a win, as all his pieces are back to life, and there is at least the possibility of play on both wings now.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 $5
    ( 2.Rb1 Nd8 3.Rc4 f6 4.b4 Kc8 5.bxa5 bxa5 6.Rb6 Kd7 )
    ( 2.Rg1 f6 3.Rb1 Nd8 4.Rc4 c5 5.dxc6+ Kc7 6.Kd3 Ra7 7.b4 Ra8 )
    ( 2.b4 Nd8 3.Rc4 f6 )
2...Nxg5 3.b4 Ne6 4.bxa5 Rxa5
    ( 4...bxa5 $4 5.Rb1+ Kc8 6.dxe6 )
5.Rc4 Ng7 *

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
After 10 minutes, Stockfish says:

```

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rb1 c5 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3.b4 Ra7 4.Rb3 Ne6 5.Rb2 Ng5 6.Rb1 Ne6 7.b5 Ng5 8.Kf2 Ra8 9.Rd1 Ne6 10.Rd2 Nc5 11.Ke2 Ne6 12.Rd1 Rg8 13.Rc1 Ng5 14.Rh1 Ra8

```

...with the machine clearly not finding a plan. But what happens if we play a 'do nothing' move for Black's first move?

```

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rb1 f6 2.b4 Ra6 3.bxa5 Rxa5 4.Rb3 Ra8 5.Rcb4 Nf7 6.Ra3 Ra5 7.Rb5 Ka6 8.Ra1 Nd8 9.Kd3 Nf7 10.Rxa5+ Kxa5 11.Rb1 Ng5 12.Ke2 Ka6 13.Rb4 Ka7 14.Kf2 Nh7 15.Rb5 Ka6 16.Ke2 Ng5  (663.81)

```

White removes the Black Rook but then it gets pretty slow. Black's superb Knight and that weak `f` pawn are keeping Black in the game.

So what about the obvious 1.b4?

```

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 f6 2.bxa5 Rxa5 3.Rb4 Rc5 4.Ra3 Ra5 5.Rb5 Ka6 6.Ra1 Nf7 7.c4 Nd8 8.Ra3 Nf7 9.Kd3 Ng5 10.Kd2 Nh3 11.Ra1 Ng5 12.Ke2 Nf7 13.Kf2 Nd8 14.Ke1 Nf7 15.Ra2 Ng5 16.Kf2 Nf7 17.Ra3

```

No dice. Black looks solid.

From what I can see, Black holds.

**EDIT**

ALNS asked about this variation: `1.Rc6 Ne6! 2.g5 Nd8!?` so I fired Stockfish back up.

I couldn't get past that hanging g-pawn, so the first variation is `1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5`. Stockfish used 4800 seconds on this (80 minutes).

```
[Title "1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nxg5 3.b4 Ne6 4.Rc4 Ng5 5.bxa5 Rxa5 6.Rb4 Nh7 7.Rbb1 Nf6 8.Kd3 Nxh5 9.Rh1 Nf6 10.Rxh6 Nd7 11.Rh8 Nc5+ 12.Kc4 Na6 13.Rf8 b5+ 14.Kb3 Nc5+ 15.Kb4 Rxa4+ 16.Rxa4 bxa4 17.Rh8 Kb6 18.Rh6 Kb7

```

So it's kinda sharp, but again it is hard to see how any progress will be made. The position is rated .59 White's favor - the least favorable score for White for any variation we've discussed.

Now, on to the main variation `1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8`

```
[Title "1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8 3.Rc4 hxg5 4.h6 c5 5.h7 Nc6 6.dxc6+ Kxc6 7.Rh1 Rh8 8.Kf2 Kd7 9.Rh6 Ke7 10.Kg2 f6 11.Kf2 Ke6 12.Rh1 Ke7 13.Rh2 Ke6 14.Kg2 Kf7 15.Kf1 Ke7 16.Rh6 Kf7 17.Kf2

```

That's after almost 2 hours. White is rated +3 and seems to be able to engineer a break on the Queenside. This is enough for a win. The Knight seems misplaced on `d8`. I'd grab the pawn on `g5` instead.

**EDIT** \- ALNS has 2 more variations to look at

```
[Title "5... Ne6"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rc6 Ne6 2. g5 Nd8 3. Rc4 hxg5 4. h6 c5 5. h7 Ne6 6.dxe6 fxe6 7.Rh1 Rh8 8.Kd3 Kc7 9.b4 Kd7 10.bxa5 bxa5 11.Ke2 Kc6 12.Kd2 Kd7 13.Kd3 Ke8 14.Ke2 Kf7 15.Rd1 Rxh7 16.Rxd6 Rh2+ 17.Kf1 g4 18.fxg4 Ke7 19.Rc6 Kf6 20.R4xc5 Kg5 21.Rxe5+ Kxg4 22.Rcxe6 Kf3 23.Kg1 Rg2+ 24.Kh1 Rc2 25.Rxa5 Rxc3 26.Rf5 Rc1+ 27.Kh2

```

With, after several hours of processing, a healthy score of +7.5 in White's favor. Black is dead lost. I like to add complete variations to these threads, but all these moves are suspect after moves 4 or 5. In this variation, Black captures the pawn on `h7` but in doing so allows White to run amok. I don't care much for the Knight sacrifice; holding when down a full Rook is tough.

edit - 8.Kd3 is a killer move. Black can get the Rook with `8... d5` but after `9.Re4 dxe4 10. Kxe4` Black's king-side pawns all drop.

```

[Title "5. dxc6"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8 3.Rc4 hxg5 4.h6 c5 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rd1 Kc7 7.b4 Kd7 8.bxa5 Rxa5 9.h7 Ra8 10.Rb1 Kc7 11.Rh1 Rh8 12.Rh5 Kd7 13.Kd3 f6 14.Rh6 Kc7 15.Ke2 Kd7 16.Rh5 Kc7 17.Rh2 Kd7 18.Kd3 Kc7 19.Rh1 Kd7  (10405.71)

```

This comes up as +2.2 for White. I don't like this because it allows the misplaced Knight on `d8` to reposition with tempo. The simpler `5. h7` puts the pressure on Black and wins the Knight and then the game per the previous diagram.

**EDIT** This is in regards to the "White King Infiltrates" variation mentioned in the OP's post.

```

[title "Infiltration"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 c5 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3. bxa5?!+= (3.Rc1 Ne6 4.b5 Rg8 5.Rb1 Re8 6.Ra1 Ra8 7.Rd1 Rd8 8.Kf1 Ra8 9.Rd2 Nc5 10.Kf2 Ne6 11.Ke2 Rd8 12.Kf1 Ra8 13.Kf2 Nc5 14.Ke2 Ne6 15.Rb2 Rh8 16.Kf1 Rh7 17.Kf2 Nc5 18.Rd2 Rh8+/-) 3... bxa5 4. Rb1 Ra7 5.Kf2 Ne6 6. Kg2 Ng5 7.Rb5 f6 8. Rb1 Ne6?! ( 8...Nh7 9.Kf1 Ng5 10.Ke2 Ne6 11.Rb5 Ng5 12.Rb2 Ne6 13.Rd2 Ra8 14.Rd5 Ng5 15.Kf2 Nh3+ 16.Ke1 Ng1 17.Rd3 Nh3 18.Rd1 Ng5 19.Rb1 Ra7 20.Ke2+/-) 9. g5 Nxg5?! (9...fxg5 10.Kh3 Nc5 11.Kg4+/-) 10.Rb5 Ne6 11. Kh3 Nc5?? (11...Ng5+ 12.Kg4 Nh7 13.Kf5 Ng5 14.Kxf6 Nxf3 15.Rb2 Ng5 16.Kg7 f3 17.Kxh6 Ne6 18.Rb1 Nf4 19.Kg5+/-)

```

The variations show a significant deviation from what Stockfish thought was best. All variations except for the last indicate a move that loses perhaps a pawn. Black's 11th move is fatal, however. The associated variation shows White with a moderate advantage. Black can make White work for it.

**FINAL EDIT**

Here's Stockfish playing itself at 15 minutes per move.

```

[title "Granite is tasty"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.Kf1 f6 3.b4 Nd8 4.Rc4 Kc8 5.Kf2 Kd7 6.Rc1 Nf7 7.Ke2 Ra7 8.Rc2
Ra8 9.Ra2 Ra7 10.Ra1 Ra8 11.Kf1 Nd8 12.Ra2 Nf7 13.Kf2 Ra7 14.Ra1 Ra8 15.
Ke2 Nd8 16.Kd3 Nf7 17.Ra2 Ng5 18.Ke2 Nf7 19.Ra3 Nd8 20.Kf2 Nb7 21.Ra2 Nd8
22.Rc2 Nf7 23.Rc1 Ng5 24.Rc6 Nf7 25.Ke2 Nd8 26.Rc4 Nf7 27.Rc2 Kc8 28.Ke1 *

```

...with White clearly not finding a break-through. Black holds, thanks to that magnificent Knight... and White's Rook being bottled up.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You appear to have almost succeeded. If you c pawn were on c5 instead of c7, I'd say that you had succeeded.

I would play b4 as White. (And NOT b5 afterward.) That forces open one, if not two files among the two leftmost files. White should aim for an "outside" passed pawn on the a file, which should be enough for him to win.

Your knight is on the kingside, and being "slow moving," probably won't get to the queen side fast enough to stop White's penetration there.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Downloading Fritz

text:
# Question
Title: Downloading Fritz
My apologies if this has been asked already - I couldn't found it though. I have been trying to download Fritz, the chess game analyzer, and I have been tirelessly searching on the internet for ways to do so, but to no avail. Does anybody know where I could do so? Thanks in advance!

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's available on Steam (Fritz Chess 14\*), or the ChessBase shop (Deep Fritz 14).

---

\*The Steam version is *significantly* cheaper. The developer makes some claims in a discussion thread that it's equivalent to true Deep Fritz (with the multicore 64-bit support enabled). I'm not sure if that's actually the case, though; the price reduction is suspicious, and historically Fritz Chess has been released as a watered-down version of Deep Fritz, so I'd be careful with that. Make sure you know what you need and what you're actually buying.

---
Tags: software, fritz
---


# Question
Title: Number of positions with specifically a number of pieces
What is the number of legal positions in a chess game?

This is a question asked earlier on the site. Now I am wondering, what can be the number of positions for a certain number of pieces. Like 8 pieces for example.

Is there a top bar formula like in that case? Thank you!

# Answer
This answer is extended from my comment to Ross Milikan's answer to your question Numerical FEN writing.

There is a website devoted to counting the number of legal positions up to equivalence with given number of pieces. Currently they have results for positions with 2 to 8 pieces.

```
2:                     462
3:                 368,079
4:             125,246,598
5:          25,912,594,054
6:       3,787,154,440,416
7:     423,836,835,667,331
8:  38,176,306,877,748,245

```

With their definition, a position is legal if:

* It has exactly one white and one black king
* There are no pawns on the 1st and 8th lines
* Side to move is not giving a check

Note that with these definitions, some positions could be legal even if they cannot be achieved in a real game. Edit: As @Pimgd pointed out in the comments, an example is a position with white pawns on a2, b2 and a3.

Two positions are considered equivalent if they are essentially the same, in this case, one position can be obtained from another by combining the following operations:

* Any position: Swapping the colours of the pieces, the side to move, and mirroring the position around the horizontal line such that the square a1 becomes a8 etc.
* Positions with no castling rights: mirroring the position around the vertical line such that the square a1 becomes h1 etc.
* Pawnless positions with no castling rights: mirroring the position around the horizontal line such that a1 becomes a8 etc.
* Pawnless positions with no castling rights: Mirroring the board diagonally

Depending on the existence of pawns and castling rights, each "unique" position thus corresponds to 2 to 16 different positions.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: pieces, game-complexity
---