# Question
Title: chess engine: alpha beta pruning starts evaluating moves incorrectly
I'm writing a simple chess engine in Go and have been running into some issues related to search. I'm currently using iterative deepening and alpha-beta search using the negamax pruning. My issue I think comes from alpha beta search.

For example, in the following position (engine trying to play black)

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 a6 2. Bc4 a5 3. Qf3

```

many moves lead to Scholar's mate. Putting this position into my engine like so

```
isready
readyok
position rnbqkbnr/1ppppppp/8/p7/2B1P3/5Q2/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - 1 3

```

I get

```
info starting search at depth 1
info currmove a5a4 score 0 pv
info score cp 0 depth 1 nodes 1 pv a5a4
info currmove b7b6 score 0 pv
info currmove c7c6 score 0 pv
info currmove d7d6 score 0 pv
info currmove e7e6 score 0 pv
info currmove f7f6 score 0 pv
info currmove g7g6 score 0 pv
info currmove h7h6 score 0 pv
info currmove b7b5 score 0 pv
info currmove c7c5 score 0 pv
info currmove d7d5 score 0 pv
info currmove e7e5 score 0 pv
info currmove f7f5 score 0 pv
info currmove g7g5 score 0 pv
info currmove h7h5 score 0 pv
info currmove b8a6 score 0 pv
info currmove b8c6 score 0 pv
info currmove g8f6 score 0 pv
info currmove g8h6 score 0 pv
info currmove a8a6 score 0 pv
info currmove a8a7 score 0 pv
info score cp 0 depth 1 nodes 21 pv a5a4
info starting search at depth 2
info currmove a5a4 score -1 pv c4f7
info score cp -1 depth 2 nodes 64 pv a5a4 c4f7
info currmove b7b6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove c7c6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove d7d6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove e7e6 score -1 pv c4e6
info currmove f7f6 score -3 pv c4g8
info currmove g7g6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove h7h6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove b7b5 score -1 pv c4b5
info currmove c7c5 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove d7d5 score -1 pv e4d5
info currmove e7e5 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove f7f5 score -1 pv e4f5
info currmove g7g5 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove h7h5 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove b8a6 score -3 pv c4a6
info currmove b8c6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove g8f6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove g8h6 score -1 pv c4f7
info currmove a8a6 score -5 pv c4a6
info currmove a8a7 score -1 pv c4f7
info score cp -1 depth 2 nodes 605 pv a5a4 c4f7
info starting search at depth 3
info currmove a5a4 score -29997 pv c4f7
info score cp -29997 depth 3 nodes 708 pv a5a4 c4f7
info currmove b7b6 score -29997 pv c4f7
info currmove c7c6 score -29997 pv c4f7
info currmove d7d6 score -1 pv c4f7 e8d7
info score cp -1 depth 3 nodes 975 pv d7d6 c4f7 e8d7
info currmove e7e6 score 0 pv b2b3 a5a4
info score cp 0 depth 3 nodes 1133 pv e7e6 b2b3 a5a4
info currmove f7f6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove g7g6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove h7h6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove b7b5 score 0 pv c4f1 a5a4
info currmove c7c5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove d7d5 score 0 pv e4d5 d8d5
info currmove e7e5 score 0 pv b2b3 a5a4
info currmove f7f5 score 0 pv e4e5 a5a4
info currmove g7g5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove h7h5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove b8a6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove b8c6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove g8f6 score 0 pv e4e5 a5a4
info currmove g8h6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove a8a6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info currmove a8a7 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4
info score cp 0 depth 3 nodes 2275 pv e7e6 b2b3 a5a4
bestmove e7e6

```

Here something strange is going on because at the start of searching at depth 3, it correctly evaluates `a5a4` as leading to checkmate. However, once it finds a move that avoids instant checkmate, in this case first identifying `d7d6` and then `e7e6`, all further moves then have their score capped to the best move found so far. For example, `a8a7`, which leads to checkmate, is evaluated to have a score of `0`. As far as I understand, although the `alpha` value stores the best value that we can guarantee, this shouldn't affect the evaluations of each move.

Things get stranger with even deeper searches. Here for example is the end of the search at depth 7:

```
info starting search at depth 7
info time 3000 ndes 3729598 nps 1243199 score 0
info time 4000 ndes 4916163 nps 1229040 score 0
info currmove a5a4 score -29997 pv c4f7
info score cp -29997 depth 7 nodes 5572093 pv a5a4 c4f7
info time 5000 ndes 6105741 nps 1221148 score 0
info time 6000 ndes 7218855 nps 1203142 score 3
info currmove b7b6 score -29997 pv c4f7
info time 7000 ndes 8430976 nps 1204425 score 0
info time 8000 ndes 9647996 nps 1205999 score -9
info time 9000 ndes 10866782 nps 1207420 score -1
info currmove c7c6 score -29995 pv c4e6 a5a4 e6f7
info score cp -29995 depth 7 nodes 12123230 pv c7c6 c4e6 a5a4 e6f7
info currmove d7d6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 d6d5 c2c3 d5d4
info score cp 0 depth 7 nodes 12123237 pv d7d6 a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 d6d5 c2c3 d5d4
info currmove e7e6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 e6e5 c2c3 b7b6
info currmove f7f6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 f6f5 c2c3 f5f4
info currmove g7g6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 g6g5 c2c3 g5g4
info currmove h7h6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 h6h5 c2c3 h5h4
info currmove b7b5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b5b4 c2c3 c7c6
info currmove c7c5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove d7d5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 d5d4 c2c3 d4d3
info currmove e7e5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info time 10000 ndes 12123300 nps 1212330 score 0
info currmove f7f5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 f5f4 c2c3 b7b6
info currmove g7g5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 g5g4 c2c3 g4g3
info currmove h7h5 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 h5h4 c2c3 h4h3
info currmove b8a6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove b8c6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove g8f6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove g8h6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove a8a6 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info currmove a8a7 score 0 pv a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 b7b6 c2c3 b6b5
info score cp 0 depth 7 nodes 12123356 pv d7d6 a2a3 a5a4 b2b3 d6d5 c2c3 d5d4
bestmove d7d6

```

Now all the outputted principle variations seem to just be in lexiographical order. I can't spot in my code where there might be an issue but am worried that I'm missing something obvious. My code is as follows:

```
func (s *AlphaBetaSearch) Root() error {
    var pv pvList      // Holds the principle variation
    var childPV pvList // Holds the principle variation of the position after the first move is made

    childPV.new()

    for request := range s.requests {
        pos := request.pos // Position we are searching

        s.startTime = time.Now()    // Record start time so we know to stop if time is up
        s.nextTime = time.Now()     // Record next time as a counter so we can periodically print information
        s.nodeCount = 0             // Record number of nodes so we can stop after searching a certain number of nodes
        s.options = request.options // Store options in the search struct so we don't have to explicitly pass around.
        s.options.Stop = false      // Make sure we don't stop straight away if we were told to stop previously

        // Keep track of the best move found so far. This is outside the loop so that we can return the best move found
        // if we are asked to stop searching at a particular depth.
        bestMove := position.NoMove

        // Generate legal moves and annotate them with the evaluation after they've taken place so we can improve
        // move ordering in the search.
        legalMoves := pos.MovesLegalWithEvaluation(position.EvalSimple)

        // For loop for iterative deepening
        for depth := uint(1); depth <= s.options.Depth; depth++ {
            // Sort legal moves by the evaluation calculated above
            legalMoves.Sort()

            // Best score for a move found so far
            bestScore := position.NoEval

            // Alpha and beta
            // Alpha here is the best score we can be guaranteed to achieve
            // Beta here is the best score the opposing player can achieve
            alpha, beta := position.MinEval, position.MaxEval

            for _, move := range legalMoves.AsSlice() {
                // Clear the child PV so it can be used again for this move
                childPV.clear()

                // Make move, evaluate score of this position, and then undo move.
                pos.MakeMove(move)
                score := -s.search(-beta, -alpha, depth-1, 1, &childPV, pos)
                pos.UndoMove(move)

                s.responses <- fmt.Sprintf("info currmove %s score %d pv %s", move.String(), score, childPV.String())

                // Store evaluation of this move so that on the next iteration the move ordering is more effective
                move.SetEval(position.ScoreFromPerspective(score, pos.SideToMove))

                // If this is the best move we've seen so far...
                if score > bestScore {
                    // Update bestScore to reflect this
                    bestScore = score

                    // Update the principle variation to use this move instead
                    pv.clear()
                    pv.catenate(move, &childPV)

                    // Record this as the best move
                    bestMove = move

                    // Set alpha to this score
                    alpha = score

                    s.responses <- fmt.Sprintf("info score cp %v depth %v nodes %v pv %s", bestScore, depth, s.nodeCount, pv.String())
                }
            }

            s.responses <- fmt.Sprintf("info score cp %v depth %v nodes %v pv %s", bestScore, depth, s.nodeCount, pv.String())
        }

        s.responses <- fmt.Sprintf("bestmove %s", bestMove.String())
    }

    return nil
}

func (s *AlphaBetaSearch) search(alpha int16, beta int16, depth uint, ply int, pv *pvList, pos *position.Position) int16 {
    s.nodeCount++

    // If we're at depth 0, stop recursing and instead return a static evaluation of this position.
    if depth <= 0 {
        return position.ScoreFromPerspective(position.EvalSimple(pos), pos.SideToMove) // TODO: make more customisable
    }

    // Clear the principle variation
    pv.clear()

    // Generate all legal moves in this position
    legalMoves := pos.MovesLegal()

    // Initialise bestMove and bestScore to hold the best move found so far.
    bestMove, bestScore := position.NoMove, position.NoEval

    // TODO: doesn't yet understand draw by threefold repetition

    var childPV pvList

    for _, move := range legalMoves.AsSlice() {
        childPV.clear()

        pos.MakeMove(move)
        score := -s.search(-beta, -alpha, depth-1, ply+1, &childPV, pos)
        pos.UndoMove(move)

        // If this is the best score we've found so far...
        if score > bestScore {
            // Update bestScore and bestMove to track this (might not need bestMove)
            bestScore = score
            bestMove = move
            _ = bestMove

            // Add this to the principle variation
            pv.catenate(move, &childPV)

            // Beta cutoff:
            // The opposing player can guarantee a better position for themselves, so there's no point pursuing this position.
            if score >= beta {
                return score
            }

            // If this is better than the best score we can guarantee so far, then update alpha to reflect this
            if score > alpha {
                alpha = score
            }

        }

        // Print info if required
        if time.Since(s.nextTime) >= time.Second {
            diff := time.Since(s.startTime)
            s.responses <- fmt.Sprintf("info time %v ndes %v nps %v score %d", diff.Milliseconds(), s.nodeCount, s.nodeCount/int(diff.Seconds()), bestScore)
            s.nextTime = time.Now()
        }

        // If required to stop early, return alpha since this is the best we can do.
        if s.options.Stop || time.Since(s.startTime) > s.options.MoveTime {
            return alpha
        }

    }

    // If we have no moves available, it's either checkmate or stalemate, so return values
    // that reflect this.
    if legalMoves.Len() == 0 {
        if pos.KingInCheck(pos.SideToMove) {
            // Checkmate
            return -30000 + int16(ply) + 1
        }

        // Stalemate
        return 0 // TODO: return contempt value instead?
    }

    return bestScore
}

```

Can anybody spot what might be the mistake here?

---

EDIT: Here's the evaluation logic:

```
const (
    MaxEval  int16 = 30_000
    MinEval  int16 = -MaxEval
    MateEval int16 = MaxEval + 1
    NoEval   int16 = MinEval - 1
)

// Evaluator decides the numerical value of a position.
// An int16 is used so that evaluations can be packed into moves compactly.
// TODO: Consider refactoring into seperate package
type Evaluator func(p *Position) int16

var EvaluatorInfo = map[string]Evaluator{
    "simple": EvalSimple,
}

// GetEvaluator looks up an evaluator by name.
func GetEvaluator(name string) Evaluator {
    return EvaluatorInfo[name]
}

// ScoreFromPerspective takes in a score where negative scores represent good positions for black and positive positions
// for white, and takes in a side to move, and returns a positive evaluation from their perspective.
func ScoreFromPerspective(score int16, sideToMove Color) int16 {
    if sideToMove == Black {
        return -score
    }

    return score
}

var simpleEvalTable = map[Piece]int16{
    Pawn:   1,
    Knight: 3,
    Bishop: 4,
    Rook:   5,
    Queen:  9,
    King:   1_000,
}

// EvalSimple evaluates the position using a simple material count.
// TODO: This could definitely be sped up by using bitboards instead of the pos.Squares.
func EvalSimple(pos *Position) int16 {
    overall := int16(0)

    for i := 0; i < 64; i++ {
        curr := pos.Squares[i]

        switch curr.Color() {
        case White:
            overall += simpleEvalTable[curr.Colorless()]
        case Black:
            overall -= simpleEvalTable[curr.Colorless()]
        }
    }

    return overall
}

```

and the movement code:

```
// MakeMove makes a move on the chess board, or returns an error if it is invalid.
// Bitboards for occupation and piece locations are updated through the setSquare function.
func (p *Position) MakeMove(m Move) bool {
    // Need to handle 6 special cases:
    // - White king moving
    // - Black king moving
    // (These two cases can move two pieces at once and disable castling)

    // - White rook moving
    // - Black rook moving
    // (These two cases mean some castling privileges may be lost)

    // - White pawn moving forward two squares onto an empty square
    // - Black pawn moving forward two squares onto an empty square
    // (These two cases either perform an en passant capture or set the en passant target square)

    movingPiece := p.Squares[m.From()]
    var newEnPassantTarget uint8 = NoEnPassant

    switch {
    case movingPiece == WhiteKing:
        // Disable any type of castling for the white king as they have moved.
        p.Castling.off(longW | shortW)

        // The king has moved two squares and so it is known they have castled.
        // Here we only need to worry about moving the rook, as the king is moved by the general code outside of the switch.
        if abs(int(m.From())-int(m.To())) == 2 {
            // Determine if they have castled long or short.
            if m.To() == SquareG1 { // Short castle
                p.setSquare(SquareF1, WhiteRook)
                p.setSquare(SquareH1, Empty)
            } else { // Long castle
                p.setSquare(SquareD1, WhiteRook)
                p.setSquare(SquareA1, Empty)
            }
        }
    case movingPiece == BlackKing:
        // Disable any type of castling for the black king as they have moved.
        p.Castling.off(longB | shortB)

        // The king has moved two squares and so it is known they have castled.
        // Here we only need to worry about moving the rook, as the king is moved by the general code outside of the switch.
        if abs(int(m.From())-int(m.To())) == 2 {
            // Determine if they have castled long or short.
            if m.To() == SquareG8 { // Short castle
                p.setSquare(SquareF8, BlackRook)
                p.setSquare(SquareH8, Empty)
            } else { // Long castle
                p.setSquare(SquareD8, BlackRook)
                p.setSquare(SquareA8, Empty)
            }
        }
    case movingPiece == WhiteRook:
        // Disable castling for the king on the side where the rook has moved.
        if m.From() == SquareA1 {
            p.Castling.off(longW)
        } else if m.From() == SquareH1 {
            p.Castling.off(shortW)
        }
    case movingPiece == BlackRook:
        // Disable castling for the king on the side where the rook has moved.
        if m.From() == SquareA8 {
            p.Castling.off(longB)
        } else if m.From() == SquareH8 {
            p.Castling.off(shortB)
        }
    case p.Squares[m.To()] == WhiteRook:
        // Disable castling when a white rook is taken.
        if m.To() == SquareA1 {
            p.Castling.off(longW)
        } else if m.To() == SquareH1 {
            p.Castling.off(shortW)
        }
    case p.Squares[m.To()] == BlackRook:
        // Disable castling when a black rook is taken.
        if m.To() == SquareA8 {
            p.Castling.off(longB)
        } else if m.To() == SquareH8 {
            p.Castling.off(shortB)
        }
    case movingPiece == WhitePawn && p.Squares[m.To()] == Empty:
        if m.To()-m.From() == 16 {
            // The pawn has moved two full squares onto an empty square.
            // Therefore there is a new en passant target on the rank between its original position and its new position.
            newEnPassantTarget = m.From() + 8
        } else if m.To()-m.From() == 7 || m.To()-m.From() == 9 {
            // The pawn has moved diagonally onto an empty square -- this must be an en passant capture.
            p.setSquare(p.EnPassant-8, Empty)
        }
    case movingPiece == BlackPawn && p.Squares[m.To()] == Empty:
        if m.From()-m.To() == 16 {
            // The pawn has moved two full squares onto an empty square.
            // Therefore there is a new en passant target on the rank between its original position and its new position.
            newEnPassantTarget = m.To() + 8
        } else if m.From()-m.To() == 7 || m.From()-m.To() == 9 {
            // The pawn has moved diagonally onto an empty square -- this must be an en passant capture.
            p.setSquare(p.EnPassant+8, Empty)
        }
    }

    p.EnPassant = newEnPassantTarget
    p.setSquare(m.From(), Empty)

    if m.Promotion() == None {
        p.setSquare(m.To(), movingPiece)
    } else {
        p.setSquare(m.To(), m.Promotion().OfColor(p.SideToMove))
    }

    p.SideToMove = p.SideToMove.Invert()

    if p.KingInCheck(p.SideToMove.Invert()) {
        p.UndoMove(m)
        return false
    }

    // If the side to move is now white, we can update the fullmove clock.
    if p.SideToMove == White {
        p.FullMoves += 1
    }

    // If there has been no capture and it's not a pawn move, then we need to increment the halfmove clock.
    if movingPiece != WhitePawn && movingPiece != BlackPawn && p.Squares[m.To()] != Empty {
        p.HalfmoveClock += 1
    } else {
        p.HalfmoveClock = 0
    }

    return true
}

```

# Answer
I ended up finding the issue -- the move sorting wasn't working correctly. This meant that at the start of every iteration for iterative deepening, a bad move would be considered first and so set as the best move by default. Then when search time was up, this bad move would be returned as the best move to play.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Ding liren is 2nd in the asia, who first?
It's says that he's second, but isn't he first?

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/8603677

# Answer
FIDE says he's 1st for active Asian players, so there can only be one inactive player who still has a rating so high: Garry Kasparov! (apparently somehow rank 0 among active players)
> 6 votes

---
Tags: fide
---


# Question
Title: What are the pros and cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?
Chess 960 is a popular chess variant that can be played on many platforms. All rules are standard, except the starting position is randomly generated. Some of these 960 positions give more than usual advantage to white. In some of these 960 starting positions, *the king is not really safe even after castling*.

One big de-merit of chess 960 is the complicated castling rules. A case is made for chess without castling in this answer **by Remellion** (also, see other answers for the same question).

So, why not kill two birds in one stone? **What are the Pros and Cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?**
It may or may not take off. But, there are so many chess variants now. So, I don't see any demerit (see this answer **of Jeorje** for related comments). I have seen this suggestion in forums (example). But, *this variant is never made nor considered seriously to my knowledge* (e.g. currently, we cannot make this with make custom variant option of chess.com). To be fair, one could play this in existing chess 960 platforms by inserting some initial moves that manually moves all 4 rooks or 2 kings and then get back to the initial position (see the 1st position is this answer for an example).
**Why is not chess 960 without castling considered seriously?**

# Answer
**Pros**

Most people don’t know the castling rules anyway

Chess engines often struggle to castle effectively in games or recognize it as a move

It would open the game up to beginners

Comment: Somehow the world champion of the game (Wesley So) tried to castle out of check during a game of 960

**Cons**

It would be dwarfed by the largest followed chess variant of all time, causing its players to switch to 960 to be able to play more

It’s an unnecessary change, liken it to changing the standard of math from pi to tau

You would lose all the benefits that castling brings in the first place, such as shortening the process from 3-5 moves to one

Castling opposite sides would no longer exist, and the kings would be slightly stuck in the center, leaving the edges of the board out of the game
> 2 votes

# Answer
An obvious reason why chess 960 without castling doesn't make sense is that there would be no reason for it to be chess *960* any more.

The reason it's called chess 960 is that there are exactly 960 permitted starting positions for each player that have bishops on opposite colours and the king between the rooks. But the only reason for the latter restriction is so that castling works.

Therefore if you were going to remove castling from the game, for consistency you should also remove that artificial restriction and make it chess 2880.
> 1 votes

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


title: How easy is Q vs. N supposed to be?

text:
# Question
Title: How easy is Q vs. N supposed to be?
Reading the first chapters of Jeremy Silman’s endgame book I breezed through the exercises, as I expected. It starts with KRR vs K and KQ vs. R – even half-asleep I can do this reliably against a computer. The next step in the book is mating with a queen against a minor piece and I found KQ vs. KB similarly easy.

However, right after comes KQ vs. KN and here I run into trouble: the computer defends so accurately that I cannot see how to make progress.

Silman’s description leads me to believe it is supposed to be quite easy ("Queen versus Knight is a fairly simple win”) and the topics before and after are very easy, yet against the computer I can often not win within 50 moves (sometimes I am lucky). Sometimes I can break through the wall of checks given by the knight briefly, only to have the opponent’s king escape back to the middle a few moves later.

According to Silman a player rated below 1200 is supposed to be able to do this. What am I missing?

# Answer
> 3 votes
> How easy is Q vs. N supposed to be?

It is sufficiently easy that it is hard to find books showing how it is done.

Comparing with the much more problematic king + rook vs king + knight we see that that is a draw unless the knight is separated from the king when it is possible for the rook and king to hunt down the knight. If the knight is close to the king then it is safe and it can also defend the king from checkmate.

With king + queen, however, the knight is not mobile enough to prevent checkmate. Like king + rook, the knight must stay close to the king to avoid being lost.

So, given that we know what to do, i.e. checkmate the king, the method becomes clear.

The king has first to be driven to the edge of the board. To do that our king is needed to help. Our queen will generally be used a bit like a rook to cut the king off along a rank and our king brought up to a position in opposition. Except that when we drive the king back with our queen we generally do that from one of the squares in front of the king because our queen can also move like a bishop as well as a rook.

If the knight checks from next to the king when we are in opposition to the king then we will move our king 2 squares diagonally opposite the knight (diagonal opposition to the knight) and prepare to check with our queen on the square between our king and the opposing knight.

Here is an example taken from that old classic, Reuben Fine's *Basic Chess Endings*:

```
[Title "KQ vs KN"]
[fen "8/8/3nk3/8/8/8/8/KQ6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb2 {first bring the king up} Kd5 2. Kc3 Ne4+ 3. Kd3 Nc5+ 4. Ke3 {First diagonal opposition to the knight} Ne6 5. Qf5+ {driving the king back} Kd6 6. Ke4 {king up} Nc5+ 7. Kd4 Ne6+ 8. Kc4 {diagonal opposition to the knight again} Nc7 9. Qc5+ {drive the king back again} Kd7 10. Qb6 {cut the king off} Ne6 11. Kd5 Nc7+ 12. Ke5 Ne8 13. Qe6+ Kd8 14. Qf7 Nc7 15. Kd6 Nb5+ 16. Kc5 Nc7 17. Kc6

```

---
Tags: endgame, queen-and-knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Winning in a KBBvKN endgame: possible or too hard for humans?
Apparently, two bishops and a king can mate a king supported by a lone knight, according to endgame tablebases, but it generally takes more than 50 moves, which is why it seems that one is studying that endgame.

Watching optimal play of such a position looks inhuman. It seems that the bishops really dominate the knight and that there are some complicated maneuvers where the king can be forcibly separated from his knight or where he can be pushed towards an edge. In the end, the king and knight are trapped in a quadrant and their moves can be methodically restricted such that the knight is pinned against the black king. Then zugzwang leads to the capture of the knight. So it looks like the game can be seperated into phases but it is really hard to to quantify "progress" just by looking at a position.

Do there exist *any* analyses or resources on how to learn this endgame anywhere or is it too hard / irrelevant for humans? Do grandmasters have the skills to play this endgame (with or without 50-move rule)?

# Answer
John Nunn discusses this endgame in the last chapter of his book titled *Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings*. His analysis includes the pre-tablebase history of the ending and philosophical musings about the use of tablebases. He also includes analysis of the endings based on tablebases, with an attempt to set forth general rules how to play the ending.
> 4 votes

# Answer
**Too hard for Humans**

Nobody really understand what happens in the very long manoeuvring phase that ultimately lead to the domination of the knight.

Of course, there is very little incensitive to work on this: it a very harduous task, you will probably never face this in practice, and even if you do you'll be limited by the 50-moves rule, and very few of the skills you develop might be useful in different positions.

If a grandmaster devoted half a year to study and practice this endgame, he would probably be able to win it against other humans in a match without the 50 moves rule. But even so, he still won't have any chance to win it against the tablebases.

I am flabbergasted to see a *National Master* (a title delivered by the US-federation title, not by FIDE) publish a video like this one were he certainly worked out one or two useful patterns but wrongly present them as a simple general solution to the BB vs N endgame.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I don't recall having that endgame, however, every time I saw GMs have it, it ended in a draw. So in that sense it is probably not worth learning. The GMs actually do make progress sometimes, however, they don't (usually) seem to manage to finish it off within the 50 moves rule. (I suspect some might manage it without the 50 move rule but that is just a guess of course)

It may be useful to know the defensive ideas though, as to make it likely that you yourself won't lose it if you get that endgame. The main idea is to keep the king and knight together, once they get separated the attacker should win. And then an important setup to know is Nb2 Kb3 (or some other adjacent square not on the edge of the board). This was for a long time thought to be a fortress. The tablebase shows that the two bishops can break this fortress, however, against a human this is a good defensive setup to fall back on when you get pushed back. Then if you get forced out of this setup you can try to reach it in another corner again.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, recommendations
---


title: A difficult same color Bishop endgame

text:
# Question
Title: A difficult same color Bishop endgame
Is this position a White win or a draw?

```
[Title "Black to move : "]
[FEN "3B4/5p1p/4k1p1/2b1P3/8/5P2/1P4PP/5K2 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
It is a draw.

```
[Title "Black to move : "]
[FEN "3B4/5p1p/4k1p1/2b1P3/8/5P2/1P4PP/5K2 b - - 0 1"]

1... Bd4 2. b3 Bxe5 3. h3 Kd5 4. Bb6 Kc6 5. Ba5 Kb5 6. Be1 f5 7. Ke2 Kc5 8. Kd3 Bf6 9. Bc3 Be7 10. Bd2 Bf6 11. Bc3 Bd8 12. Bd2 Bf6 13. Be3+ Kb4 14. Kc2 Bg7 15. Bd2+ Kc5 16. Bc1 Kb4 17. Bd2+ Kc5 18. Bg5 Be5 19. Be3+ Kb4 20. Bd2+ Kc5 21. Bc3 Bg3 22. Kd3 Bh4 23. Bd4+ Kb4 24. Kc2 Bg5 25. Be5 Kc5 26. Kc3 Be7 27. Bg7 Bd6 28. Bd4+ Kb5 29. Be3 Be5+ 30. Bd4 Bd6 31. Bf6 Kc5 32. Bg5 Be5+ 33. Kd3 Kb4 34. Kc2 Kc5 35. Be3+ Kb4 36. Bd2+ Kc5 37. Ba5 Bf6 38. Kd3 Bg7 39. g4 Bf6 40. gxf5 gxf5 41. Bc7 Bg7 42. Ke3 Bh6+ 43. Kd3 Bg7 44. Ba5 Bf6 45. Bd2 Bg7 46. Bc3 Bf8 47. Be1 Bg7 48. Bc3 Bf8 49. Bd2 Bg7 50. Bg5 Kb4 51. Kc2 Bf8 52. Bf6 Bd6 53. Bc3+ Kc5 54. Bg7 Kb4 55. Bc3+ Kc5 56. Bh8 Kb4 57. Bb2 Be7 58. Bg7 Bd6 59. Bf6 Bf8 60. Bc3+ Kb5 61. Bd2 Be7 62. Kc3 Bf6+ 63. Kd3 Kc5 64. Kc2 Kb5 65. Bf4 Kc5 66. Bb8 Bd8 67. Be5 Kd5 68. Bc3 Kc5 69. Kd3 Be7 70. Bg7 Bd6 71. Bh6 Kb4 72. Kc2 Kc5 73. Kd3 Kb4 74. Kc2 Kc5 75. Kc3 Be7 76. Be3+ Kb5 77. Ba7 Bf6+ 78. Bd4 Be7 79. Bg7 Kc5 80. Be5 Bf8 81. Bg3 Bg7+ 82. Kd3 Bf8 83. b4+ Kxb4 84. Kd4 Be7 85. Ke5 Kc4 86. Kxf5 1/2-1/2

```
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: What to do if opponent has poor hygiene?
Are there regulations on what to do when your opponent has poor hygiene and it negatively influences your performance?

I do not want to be disrespectful or shame anyone, but bad breath or body odor really can negatively impact your mind, especially if you have to spend hours opposite of the person. It is not fair to have to play under such conditions (in my opinion).

# Answer
> 12 votes
According to Article 12.2.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess it is one of the roles of the arbiter to -

> 12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained

Your first course of action should be to bring the matter to the attention of the arbiter. It is not a pleasant thing for him or her to deal with but it is part of the (usually unpaid) job of the arbiter to resolve such problems.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Unless the tournament organizer wants to do something aobut it, I am afraid you will have to deal with it. Theoretically, FIDE rules prevent these situations from happening, but in practice, you have no real power to enforce them by yourself

# Answer
> 1 votes
I played live tournament chess for maybe 15 years and I never encountered this directly or indirectly.

The good thing about most chess players (in contrast to poker) is most people play chess not for the money but because they find the game interesting and I think usually both players want to generate a memorable game so winning because you manage to make your opponent uncomfortable is not consistent with this.

So the few times I did something -- more than once people objected, to my surprise, to my standing instead of sitting -- I simply stopped doing it instead of making a federal case out of it. And my opponents, like the guy who started flossing his teeth at the table, also stopped when I said something.

I suspect had the director been called, the flossing would have been stopped but the standing, which i did due to an injury which made sitting uncomfortable for long periods, maybe the director would have said, would u mind sitting?

But if the opponent was objectionable due to hygiene, I think the director would talk to the guy and ask him to take a shower before the next round -- what could he do about the current game? Nothing.

A sad for all concerned situation. I imagine the guy whose hygiene was bad might have some sort of mental illness and therefore bigger problems than chess games.

An aside on poker: There was a time when there were simply no rules short of laws protecting people from assault -- that is to say, nothing about what you said or did seemed to be prohibited except u could not punch someone not because of poker rules but because u can't punch people. And some players thoroughly took advantage of this, even some very well known players. Cards were thrown at dealers, at least once hitting a dealer in the eye and dealers and other players were verbally abused. Borderline cheating did not get punished even.

The addition of official penalties as poker became huge was necessary or someone might have literally been killed in a fight. Fortunately chess never need such penalties (like sitting out for a round or I guess even longer and sometimes expulsion) -- in chess, I would guess occasionally players might have been expelled from the event but I never saw this happen -- I do know of at least one fight, but what happened to the players, whether they were allowed to play the next round I do not know.

---
Tags: rules, tournament, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to gauge someone's chess strength quickly?
I plan on teaching a chess class (5 classes in a sequence, each building off the previous, 1 hour each) to high schoolers, with emphasis on applying chess principles to real life. Now, it'll be unproductive to have players of maybe \<1200-1300 strength, since they won't quite understand positional and tactical ideas well, and will likely find the class advanced/unproductive.

Given the short time frame, I'd like to somehow assess their playing strength at the beginning of the first class in as short amount of time as possible, so as to make the rest of the sessions most productive for the rest. Any suggestions?

I thought of tactical puzzles, and someone suggested multiple choice format for guess the move, but both will require a good 10 minutes for the students to have a good chance at getting them right.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Perhaps show them positions and ask them to assess them and analyze the various salient features (i.e., king safety, piece mobility, central control, weak squares/color complexes, etc.). Naturally, novice players likely won't be able to formulate a cogent response, but if you're looking to identify at least reasonably strong/experienced players, then I would imagine that kind of approach would be more efficient than presenting them with tactical puzzles.

Tactical puzzles are also slightly scattershot; a strong player can occasionally overlook a tactic, but classic positional motifs are typically readily apparent (as long as the positions you select aren't either overly subtle or purely tactical in nature). I wouldn't expect them to formulate concrete positional plans on the spot and in a short amount of time, but I think the mere ability to identify positional imbalances is a sufficient indicator of some chess skill.

I think you could present a few tactical puzzles as well, as long as they comprise common motifs and don't require overly long combinations. Puzzles that would take ten minutes strikes me as excessive. As an indicator of playing strength, the (in)ability to solve a few fairly simple puzzles in a short amount of time would be relatively conclusive. If the puzzles are short, you can also administer more of them, which is apt to yield more accurate data than the results from a smaller number of more complex puzzles that each require deep thought.

# Answer
> 9 votes
**The best way to assess a player's strength is to play a game against them**. I would guess that the stronger the player the more accurate that player is able to gauge their opponent's playing strength. Presumably the teacher (you) is a relatively strong player.

It may also be useful to record a few games for each student at the beginning of the course for comparison or analysis at the end of the course, to see if they have improved for example (if it were me, I'd probably allocate time for a game every session in fact, probably at the end so the students can apply what they've learnt and ask questions).

If it's impractical to play each student yourself before the first session, you might get them to play each other and have a look over the game afterwards.

Another approach is to simply ask each of your students how strong they think they are. Perhaps you could combine this with a simple questionaire - a few questions on chess fundamentals, such as:

* Do you know how to mate with king rook vs king?
* Do you know what a bad bishop is?
* Do you know what a knight outpost is?
* Do you know the three opening principles?
* Do you know what a fork is?
* etc.

Perhaps some general questions might help:

* How often do you play chess?
* When did you start playing chess?
* Do you have a FIDE rating or played in any formal tournaments?

Keep it simple and keep it fun.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Get the class to play a blitz round robin. This is then a measurement of strength as opposed to a subjective guess. Plus it's fun.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I had this questionable test done on me:

Watch a game being played quickly in front of you, your task is to remember all moves and replay the entire game from scratch.

This test is quite subjective, I know many players who are terrible at blitz play and are extremely strong players with long time controls. I also know the opposite type of players. I think this type of test only tests for blitz ability.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I used to help run a chess club.

Some of the signs of a weak player are:

1. lack of imagination;
2. distraction;
3. little to no calculation power.

Some of the signs of strong or son-to-be-strong players:

1. interesting, if sometimes crazy, moves;
2. focused on the task at hand (though can be distracted between moves)
3. generally can crunch through a difficult tactic, or they see and appreciate the logic behind a great tactic.

So how to test?

Pure chess puzzles may not be good, because everyone can have a bad puzzle day. A pure blitz round robin is good, but, again, everyone can have a bad day. And with the latter, one bad game at the beginning can be the end of even a strong player.

Why not combine the two? Have the round robin -- 5 minute games (because bullet chess is just not for everyone). Have puzzles at each table, very difficult, multi-move ones, but make sure they are all different, and for the opposite color (if a student is playing a game as white, his puzzle is for Black). Imagine the brain gymnastics that this requires, especially during blitz! I know that I would have fun doing this, and at the end of the day it should be clear who are the better players.

Good Luck!

# Answer
> 0 votes
## Preface

I have two methods to propose, and I shall post them as separate answers (so that people can upvote/downvote them separately).

First, I remark that trying to estimate player strength under 10 minutes is not a good idea unless you intend to train them specifically for blitz (not everyone work well under such time pressure). Hence, spending 15 or 20 minutes for this is required to avoid feeling too much pressure (and this time is worth spending since measuring strength of the audience before doing other sessions is important).

The first one is similar to tactics puzzles idea \*\[Note1\].

## Answer

Instead of giving tactics puzzles that have a right solution which is probably tricky, give positions and ask them to give their moves if that occur in their games. In those positions, there may or may not be a tactical resource. The side to play may even be lossing. The idea is to give positions that simulate actual game situation, and to test **judgement** in addition to **caluclation** ability.

My suggestion is the "**What's your move**" exercise (appears as Practice (3) in this answer; the usual tactics training method is Practice (2) ).

A set of 6 or 8 positions are given. Each student should select 4 of them and answer the question "What is your move in this position?" for those four. A position in the set may or may not involve a tactic, and it may have more than one answers (e.g. depending the plan the player comes up with). This simulates the game situation more closely. I suggest to include easily winning positions, clearly lossing positions, calm positions, and so on. The player has to decide which positions require a more thorough calculation. There is no guarantee that there is tactical resource for you (e.g. no automatic sacrifices). Deciding when to calculate deeply is a crucial skill for a serious chess player.

I also suggest to include positions with different point values for answers. E.g.: there may be a hanging piece, a royal fork and a quick checkmate available. The move that initiates the checkmate is the best move and gets full points (say 5 points), still the royal fork gives 4 points, and capturing the hanging piece gives 3 points. The bottom-line is not to evaluate answers as binary (best move or not).

A set of positions similar to this idea is available at this link (although the webpage cannot properly do the task claimed, this should be sufficient for your task). Of course, you need to bring down hardness level of the puzzle set to suit your intended audience.

\*\[Note1\] By the way, the multiple choice idea is bad since it eliminates some important aspects of tatics such as creativity, and tests only others such as decision making skill.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Note: Please read the preface to the previous answer.

This activity is similar to the idea of having them play each other, but with a **vote chess** element. Since not every good player can play blitz well, this activity will take around 1 hour. The idea I propose is to make sure the activity takes not more than 1 hour.

Divide the class into two teams. Team 1 plays white against team 2 on a single board in a timed game (say 15min+3sec). First, the clock starts and a player from team 1 proposes two candidate moves. The rest of team votes between the two moves (discussion allowed), and move with most votes is played as the team's move.
Then, it's black turn and the same process is done with Team 2. Next, it is white's turn again, and this time another player gets to propose two candidate moves. The game contiues in this fashion.

**The choice of moves selected by each player, and more importantly the discussion they have for choosing moves would give a decent idea of their playing strength.**

One idea to ensure the game ends in one session itself is to start with a position with fewer pieces on the board (but the players still has to do piece development, and so on).

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is an old test that I've found it to be quite reliable on the few times that I've tested it. But note that it doesn't work on players who've practiced doing the test beforehand.

* Position the player as if s/he was playing W on an empty chessboard.
* Add B pawns on c3, c6, f3, and f6.
* Add W knight on a1.
* The player should make legal moves to bring the knight sequentially along the first rank from square a1 to square h1. So a1-b1-c1-d1-e1-f1-g1-h1.
* After reaching h1, the player has to continue moving the knight, but now along the second rank. So going from h1 to h2 and then along to a2.
* Repeat sequentially for each of the other ranks.
* **BUT** (and this is the important part), the player must never allow the knight to occupy any of the 8 squares attacked by a B pawn.

The faster the player can move the knight legally from a1 to h8 (row by row) without using any square attacked by a B pawn, the stronger the player is.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Can Loss by Checkmate be Avoided by Invoking the 50-Move Rule Immediately After the 100th Half-Move?
The FIDE Laws of Chess state the 50-move rule as follows:

> 9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
>
> 9.3.1 he/she indicates his/her move, which cannot be changed, by writing it on the paper scoresheet or entering it on the electronic scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his/her intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
>
> 9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

Suppose player A makes a legal move such that:

* The last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture
* Player A's move puts player B in checkmate

Can player B invoke 9.3.2 to avoid the loss by checkmate?

## EDIT TO ANSWER A QUESTION IN THE COMMENTS

Question: *Is it Player A's 50th or 51st move that puts B in checkmate?*

It is the 100th **half-move** (made by player A) that puts player B in checkmate. So in my example, player A makes the even-numbered half-moves (e.g., 100) and player B makes the odd-numbered half-moves. In turn, this means that player B had the first (odd) half-move. So, the move sequence after the last pawn move or capture went:

```
1. B A 2. B A ... 50. B A#.

```

Therefore, it is player A's 50th move that checkmates player B.

# Answer
> Can player B invoke 9.3.2 to avoid the loss by checkmate?

No.

A player can only invoke the 50 move rule if the game is still being played. Checkmate ends the game. Once the checkmate is on the board the game is over, player A has won, player B has lost. Absent proven cheating, the result stands.

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his/her opponent’s king. **This immediately ends the game**, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
> 11 votes

# Answer
I’ve grappled with this point before, trying to understand how the FIDE Laws (which are the basis of chess problems) should work.

Essentially the Laws might have been split cleanly into rules of play and tournament guidelines. The rules would basically say that 50 moves without capture, pawn move or checkmate allow a draw claim. The tournament guideline would engage the paraphernalia of scoresheet, clock and arbiters. But that split is not made, so it’s a bit of a mess.

As other answers have said, the mated person cannot claim the draw, because it’s too late. But the other side of the coin is whether the mater might, in principle, interrupt their own mating move in order to claim the draw instead. That would not be rational, but it does appear to be legal.

Maybe for subtle tournament reasons it would be advantageous for a player to draw rather than win. I wonder what an arbiter would make of this?
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, 50-move-rule, claim-draw
---


title: Unknown "Mystery" Engine

text:
# Question
Title: Unknown "Mystery" Engine
Recently, a strange engine with a mysterious nickname "Mystery" appeared on CCC, there is no information about it except the most basic one. One of the strangest things is that at 'CCC 20 Rapid: Qualifier #2 (10|3)' it performed poorly. But at the same time, in a one-on-one battle with the "Berserker", it won confidently. And now beats "Ethereal", one of the strongest engines.

Is there any additional information about it? About its developers? And how can you explain such a different level of play? And it is not clear why, if the "Mystery" showed a poor result, it was put in a one-on-one battle with the strongest engines. Not that important, but it also doesn't have TB Hits.

# Answer
On July 13th, chess.com revealed Mystery as its new closed-source engine, Torch:

Announcing Torch: New #2 Chess Engine

> Torch is a brand-new chess engine built from the ground up by top chess engine developers. The team is composed of: Andrew Grant (Ethereal), Finn Eggers & Kim Kåhre (Koivisto), Jay Honnold (Berserk), and Michael Whiteley & Dietrich Kappe (Dragon). Mark Lefler and Larry Kaufman have been advisors to the project.
>
> Many on the team have long discussed joining forces to produce an engine capable of contending with the best out there. Through the support and funding of Chess.com, we have done exactly that. A single unified effort by our developers has allowed us to rapidly produce the new number-two engine according to Torch’s performance in the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship. Our goal is to be number one.
>
> The development of Torch is supported by many open-source tools, including pytorch-nnue, Cutechess, and OpenBench. While Torch would not be as strong as it is today without these tools, the entire source code of Torch is an original effort with no code being used from any other engine.
>
> Torch is not yet publicly available but will be made available to certain relevant third parties for ratings. It will also be available through Chess.com’s analysis in the future. The team hopes to bring new ideas to the engine to allow greater insights to be delivered to the chess community. Chess is an infinitely fascinating game, and our goal is to push further into the depths.
>
> * The Torch Team
> 4 votes

# Answer
According to Neil Wagner commenting on Silicon Road: Great Engine Middlegames! A second brush with Mystery! CCCC Mystery vs Koivisto Bonus:

> Andrew Grant, the tournament director of CCC and author of Ethereal, seems to be the only one who knows mystery's true identity. He did clarify that it was not a dumbed down version of stockfish or dragon as that would be rather lame. It seems to be an older engine (Maybe laser?) with NNUE added to it but no tablebase support.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Perhaps a large language type AI involved in setting the neural net? With considerably more parameters? It's making so much progress that it can challenge Stockfish now. And it achieved this without end game table base.

At the moment Mystery is beating Dragon in their bullet match. Here is a short win from a French position where Dragon could only draw. Watch the brilliant knight manoeuvre from f4-d3-c5-e6 plus sacrifice that took Dragon by surprise: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc20-bullet-challenger-match&game=136

This game lost on the table base though: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc20-bullet-challenger-match&game=509 Repetition error by Mystery: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc20-bullet-challenger-match&game=12

Looks like it would be easy to improve on it and give Mystery a big chance to win in the world computer chess championships.

Exciting for chess!

P.S. The secret is revealed here: https://www.chess.com/news/view/torch-chess-engine

But Stockfish is torching the engine formerly known as Mystery! https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc20-bullet-finals&game=283 In many cases because of wrong end game evaluation due to missing table bases in this early version of Torch.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why did I lose -> I thought I can swap king and castle to avoid checkmate?
```
[FEN "6nN/Bp1k2pp/2n5/p7/Q4R1P/5pP1/P3qN2/4K2R w K - 0 1"]

```

As you can see my king got checkmated through the enemy's queen and pawn.

My question is, why is this a checkmate? I haven't moved the king as well as the castle to the right.

Why can't I swap them, so King=g1 & castle=f1, saving the king and evading checkmate?

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 3.8.2.2 Castling is prevented temporarily:
>
> 3. If the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces

So, there are two reasons why you may not castle:

1. You are in check
2. Your king would need to pass over the square f1 which is attacked by the enemy queen
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, rules, checkmate, beginner, castling
---


# Question
Title: A player falls asleep during the game and his friend wakes him -- illegal?
I witnessed this: a player who burnt the candle at both ends fell asleep during the game and his friend woke him up. His opponent vehemently objected. How should this have been handled?

I do not recall if his friend simply shook him awake or used the pretext of bringing him a sandwich -- the latter I do not think could be objected to nor if a phone call had been made to the site asking for a player (Does a director tell the a player during a game if a non-emergency call is received? this was pre-cell phone.)

I do not recall how the director handled things. Forfeiting the sleeper seems extreme -- a warning, which does nothing except if the director said, "if this happens again and your friend wakes you up I consider this illegal aid and I will forfeit you."

The opponent wanting to win that way seems more than a little unsportsmanlike but if the official rule is that not only can a third party not wake someone but even his opponent can't, then rules should be observed.

My opinion: I think the rulebook should explicitly say that waking someone should be allowed and even the director can do this. Maybe the rules do this.

# Answer
> 35 votes
> A player falls asleep during the game and his friend wakes him -- illegal?

No.

In fact article 12.2.6 of the FIDE Laws of Chess suggests that the arbiter should do so if they see a player asleep:

> 12.2 The arbiter shall: ... 12.2.6 take special measures in the interests of disabled players **and those who need medical attention**,

Falling asleep at the chess board is not normal healthy behaviour. It may be innocent but it could also be the result of a medical condition.

In any case it should be a worrying event for the arbiter. The last thing the arbiter wants is for a player to die during the tournament. The arbiter should urgently attempt to wake the player to see if medical intervention is required.

# Answer
> -2 votes
In chess, it is generally considered illegal for someone to physically wake a player who has fallen asleep during a game. According to the FIDE Laws of Chess, specifically Article 12.9, "During the game, a player is not allowed to have any electronic device in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game." While falling asleep during a game is not explicitly mentioned, it is typically considered the player's responsibility to remain alert and attentive. If a player is found asleep, it may be considered a violation of fair play and could result in penalties or loss of the game, depending on the specific tournament or competition rules.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Fastest from a complete beginner to FIDE 2200?
There are pictures of Reshevsky playing simuls at a very young age -- I think there is some controversy over his exact age since the younger he was supposed to be, the more interesting. He also, even as an adult, was not very tall so I suspect SR looked very young at a given age.

His opponents were sometimes grey beards and I think he played 20 cadets and won almost every game at West Point -- even though Elo ratings did not exist and most players I suspect had not much access to top competition or even that many books in the early 1920s, I would suggest that the simul at the US military academy must imply near master strength.

I think Morphy's games when he was under 12 probably show him to be a master quite young and same thing with Capablanca. Both of these players had access to very good competition that few people in the 19th century had although neither lived in London or Paris which I think were top cities for chess competition then.

In modern times where there were ratings, do we know the fastest, starting from learning the moves to 2200 Elo (FIDE) at any age the shortest time to master? I suspect it might be a kid but I also think a teenager starting from scratch would reach master sooner than say a six year old also starting with no knowledge -- most six year old kids lack the temperament to study and also in general have less ability to pick up concepts.

On the other hand, if it were a foreign language, the younger the better with some aspects of language being very hard to learn the older a human gets.

I note that the youngest Polgar became the best, and I think she not only started earliest but she obviously had the advantage of two older siblings who knew the game very well. It is also argued that the younger one starts, the slower the decline in old age. Some people became GM level starting in their teens or even 20s but the ones I have in mind did not play to late old age. (I wonder if Morphy, had he continued to play into middle and even old age would have been like Korchnoi, a top player as he approached 80 -- Morphy quit and passed away so young that he seems very much part of the mid 19th century but had he lived to his 90's, he could have potentially played with people who were 20th century world champions including certainly Lasker but also even Botvinnik -- imagine in the mid 1920s Morphy in his 80s meeting a young Botvinnik as Korchnoi met a young Caruana.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
The first thing to note is that there is no reliable record of when players first learn the moves. The closest we have to this is when they get their first FIDE rating and even with that there are some obvious hurdles to overcome.

1. FIDE have only relatively recently lowered the bar for getting a FIDE rating to what could be considered beginner levels.
2. If a player doesn't play FIDE rated chess until they are already quite strong then it also cannot be determined.

With this in mind I have queried my database of historic FIDE rating data built up from both Olympbase and FIDE data. I have requested the minimum difference in periods between first receiving a FIDE rating (which must be under 1200) and first achieving a rating of 2200 or more. Both these for standard time controls.

These were the top 5:

1. Prithu Gupta 1187 in October 2013 to 2219 in September 2016 (2 years 11 months)
2. Pilshofer, Paul 1127 in June 2018 to 2243 in September 2021 (3 years 3 months)
3. Bharath Subramaniyam H 1009 in December 2013 to 2204 in May 2017 (3 years 5 months)
4=. Juhasz, Agoston 1055 in September 2014 to 2211 in March 2018 (3 years 6 months)
4=. Pranav, V 1150 in November 2013 to 2234 in May 2017 (3 years 6 months)

Bharath Subramaniyam H with a starting rating of 1009 is perhaps the most convincing beginner.

---
Tags: learning, rating, training, records
---


title: Why are opening books so popular?

text:
# Question
Title: Why are opening books so popular?
As title above, why are opening books so popular? I am sure that most players know that middlegame and endgame books are ultimately much more important for improving one's chess strength. That is not to say that openings are not important, but it seems to me that a good 80% or so of chess literature are opening / repertoire books, and that means that these are the most bought ones.

# Answer
I think there are number of reasons why these are so popular:

* It is easy to start learning openings. You can read about ideas and memorize some lines. It is not so easy to learn middle game or end game in similar fashion.
* A lot of players want to get an edge from the start- hence the focus on openings.
* People enjoy reading them
* They are easier to write than good middle game books (as indicated by different chess authors)

It is questionable if middlegame or endgame books are more important. There is an argument to be made that you need something other than books to learn good middlegame / endgame skills. Openings on the other hand can be easily learned from books.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Opening books offer a much bigger return of investment than middle- or endgame books to a much bigger target group.

Middle- and endgame books are better for the relatively small group of people with a lot of time and ambition. They want to seriously invest time to seriously improve at the game (and potentially reach a 2000+ rating). For this goal, one needs to cover every important aspect of the game and "dive deep", even if it's a chore sometimes.

People with no or not much ambition will most likely never touch any chess book at all. They are probably the biggest group, but irrelevant to the publishers.

However, people who don't have the time, but still some ambition will find that a good(!) opening book will serve them well enough (if it is focused on middlegame plans instead of memorizing lines). They may not learn all possible middlegame patterns (arising from any possible opening), but they will learn the typical middlegame patterns of their opening of choice, and that will probably cover about 70-80% of the games they play. They won't be as easily able to switch opening lines as part of preparation against some opponent, but as long as they get to play "their" opening, they will feel comfortable enough. Likewise, they will lose some endgames because they lack the theoretical knowledge, but again, this will most likely only affect a small percentage of their games.

An important point here is that if they *do* invest a small amount of time to go to their local chess club's training sessions, opening books get even more efficient: Collective training is more likely to cover universal topics "that everyone should know" like common endgames for example, while opening theory will at most be dealt with very superficially (after all, everyone has to agree on the topic, and it's unlikely they will all like the same opening). This way, one can use the training sessions to fill the most important gaps not covered by the opening book, and use the opening book to fill the gaps of the training sessions.

This third group will most likely not get as good as the first group, but **good enough** for their taste, with considerably less effort. And I'd argue that it outnumbers the first group, and is thus more interesting for publishers.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think it is because it is a lot easier to memorize some opening moves than it is to analyse positions. People are lazy and want to be told what is slightly better for White or whatever. And hey, they can survive the opening and look like they know how to play. They might even win a game without having to think for themselves!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Because not everyone who is "interested" in chess is trying to optimize their chances of getting better.

A number of people treat chess games as if they were "stories." They start reading a game/story, get bored, and either move on to another one, or two a past time altogether. They're interested in how things start, less interested in the middle or the end of it. That is, they lose interest when things get beyond a certain point.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Opening and repertoire books are popular because if one doesn't have a good beginning how is a good, playable middlegame or endgame to be reached?
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think it is primarily because they are the easiest subject to write about, especially with computers today, and thus, beginners see so many opening books that they believe they should be buying opening books.

Frankly, for most players below 2200 (prodigies excepted), I believe that this is the wrong approach totally. There is a difference between studying openings, which usually means rote memorization, and studying opening pawn structures. Learning opening pawn structures teaches one how to play various openings and what the general plans should be.

Rather than memorizing opening moves where you are on your own when your 1200-rated opponent doesn't know book; it teaches you HOW to play the chess opening, and what you are trying to achieve, in general. When you know this, it is much harder to be left out on your own. You will also pick up specific lines along this path.

Some examples of these books are:

1. "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Ruben Fine
2. "Pawn Structure Chess" by Soltis (it has many mistakes, but the general ideas are usually very good.
3. "Chess Opening Essentials" (volumes 1-4) by various authors at New in Chess
4. Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide by GM Mauricio Flores Ríos
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are already good answers here that provide some of the reasons for opening books' popularity. Here is another reason that hasn't been suggested yet. Surely everyone who's played chess several times has had the experience of losing (whether by checkmate or a large loss of material) within just a few moves of starting the game. Sometimes this is via a trappy opening in which we think we are following opening principles, but our opponent's moves render those principles moot. Having experienced this, we may want opening books that show us how to avoid the trap(s) we fell into. Also going forward we may want to know how to set similar traps in an effort to get a quick win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
> a good 80% or so of chess literature are opening / repertoire books, and that means that these are the most bought ones.

That figure sounds very believable. The reason so many more are produced on openings than the middlegame and endgame is very simple.

Theoretical advances and changes in the middlegame are very rare. Theoretical advances in the endgame nowadays mostly come from extensions to tablebases and these are of little interest or use to the vast majority of players.

However advances in opening theory come thick and fast. The top players have teams of support staff whose job it is to come up with novelties for their masters to play in important tournaments and championships. These feed the chess news and provide ample material for authors of books and Chessable courses.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame, books, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Better-known term for "cyclic" zugzwang?
What's the term for a zugzwang position P where

1. White is winning, with or without the move
2. White's best way to win from P is to execute a tempo-losing manoeuvre which leads back to P with Black to move?

Admittedly, by the strict definition of zugzwang, any position where White wins if Black has the move qualifies as "zugzwang" only if White to move can't win. So that would exclude positions satisfying criterion 1. I am thinking here of positions where having the move doesn't deny White a win -- that win just takes longer. "Zugzwang" is often used in this looser sense.

One term I've come across is "cyclic zugzwang", a phrase which seems to be due to Árpád Rusz. But it is very little used -- all I see are uses by Rusz, John Beasley and Guy Haworth. I just wondered if there's a more prevalent term so that Googling it will locate more useful stuff.

Tantalizingly, John Beasley, in an appreciation of Guy Haworth (d. June 2021) on his page about chess endgames, says "One of Guy’s original contributions was to the finding of all “cyclic zugzwangs” (White to move can win, but only by manoeuvring back to the same position, or a rotation or reflection thereof, with Black to move) with not more than five men. \[...\] a paper describing the results was essentially complete at the time of his death." I don't know if that paper got published, but I can't find any evidence of it on the web. (Come to think of it, it was only recently that Haworth died, so if, at his death, the paper was still only work in progress, and thus hadn't been submitted for publication, we shouldn't expect its publication just yet.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Is this process called triangulation?

---
Tags: endgame, terminology, zugzwang, tempo
---


# Question
Title: When is K vs K+R in antichess winning? How to win these endgames?
*Note: This is not a question on standard chess, where obviously K+R vs K is a win for K+R.*

Here are two example K+R vs K positions in **antichess**, both having white to play and white having K+R.

Position #1 (This is a winning position after Kf5 according to lichess's antichess engine):

```
[Title "White to play and win - anti-chess"]
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/6K1/8/8/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

```

Lichess analysis board

Position #2 (This is a drawn position according to the same engine):

```
[Title "White to play and draw - anti-chess"]
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/8/6K1/8/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

```

Lichess analysis board

---

In antichess, what are the principles / guidelines for determining whether or not a K+R vs K endgame is winning or a draw for the side with K+R?

# Answer
in the upper position there is Kf5 Kg8 Re8 Kh8 Kg5 and the pattern continues

the strategy is very simple: if KR loses king then it is a win if KR loses R and there is no immediate sacrifice of the king, it is a draw from that follows, KR can only win if he can force the king onto a square where he can follow with a king sacrifice - how is that possible? WK is on the 8th rank BK is on the 5th rank the WK needs to come to the 7th rank, ROOK sacrifice! then BK comes to the 6th rank, KING sacrifice there is no possibility to force the WK from the 7th to the 8th rank so if the king escapes the edge, under typical circumstances, it is a draw
> 1 votes

# Answer
Using a table base, this is easy to explain.

In the first diagram it is lost in 3, 10 or 12 moves with optimal play because of the possibility of `Kf5`. All other white moves are drawn or lost.

**Because white can cage the black K, it results in a win for white.**

*For simplicity I ignored alternate lines that where equally fast.*

```
[Variant "Antichess"]
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/6K1/8/8/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf5 Kg7 {a R vs K end game is now certain} (1... Ke8 {loses faster} 2. Rd7 Kxd7 3. Ke6 Kxe6#) ( 1... Ke7 {loses faster} 2. Rd6 Kxd6 3. Ke5 Kxe5) (1... Kf7 {loses faster} 2. Ke6 Kxe6 3. Rd7 Kxd7#) (1... Kg8 {is the hardest try} 2. Re1 Kh7 3. Ke6 Kh6 4. Re4 Kh7 5. Re5 Kh8 6. Kf5 Kg8 7. Re6 Kh8 8. Rf6 Kg7 9. Rh6 Kxh6 10. Kg6 Kxg6#) 2. Kg6 Kxg6 {RvsK is lost for the K!} 3. Re1 Kg5 4. Re3 Kg6 5. Re4 Kg7 6. Re5 Kh8 7. Rf5 Kh7 8. Rf3 Kh6 9. Rf4 Kh7 10. Rf5 Kh8 11. Rf6 Kg7 12. Rf7 Kxf7#

```

The second diagram is drawn, because the black K can reach the e column which forces the white R from the d column. Because of this the K escapes from its cage and with optimal play it's a draw. According to the table base the possibilities seem endlessly, but they all draw.

E.g. If we choose `Kf4` as the first move (for the parallelity with the first diagram), we can see that the e column must be abandoned within 3 moves to prevent a loss. Since black can't permanently shrink the cage on the K, there is no way to make progress. However, Black must constantly play accurate to keep the draw (e.g. only `1.Kf7` and `1.Ke8` are drawing), but with optimal play it is possible and eventually repetition or the 50 move rule will end the game in a draw.

*Other moves than `Kf4` are also drawn, just as it was in the first diagram.*

**Because white can't make progress to cage the black K, it is a draw.**

```
[Variant "Antichess"]
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/8/6K1/8/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf4 Kf7 (1... Ke8 2. Rd7 (2. Ra1 {forfeits the control of the e column.}) 2... Kxd7 {Is a well known draw}) 2. Ra1 {forfeits the control of the e column.} (2. Rd2 Ke8 3. Rd7 (3. Ra2 {forfeits the control of the e column.}) 3... Kxd7 {Is a well known draw})

```

Note that it will take a very strong Antichess player to not lose this as black.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, losing-chess
---


# Question
Title: Does move disambiguation happen before or after legality checking?
I am wondering if disambiguation occurs before or after the legality of such moves has been established. Given this position:

```
[FEN "5k2/5n2/3R4/1n6/8/5Q2/8/4K3 b - - 0 1"]

```

Both knights are targeting d6, but the one on f7 is pinned. In PGN notation, should the move `b5d6` be written as `Nd6` or `Nbd6`/`N5d6` nonetheless?

# Answer
On the assumption that you are asking about PGN, the answer can be found in section 8.2.3.3 Basic SAN move construction in the PGN standard itself. Note that SAN, (i.e. Standard Algebraic Notation) not necessarily describes the same thing as FIDE notation.

Also assuming that the position you use as explanation has A1 in the upper right corner.

Section 8.2.3.3 says, among other things:

> In the case of ambiguities (multiple pieces of the same type moving to the same square), the first appropriate disambiguating step of the three following steps is taken: First, if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating files, the originating file letter of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter. Second (when the first step fails), if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating ranks, the originating rank digit of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter. Third (when both the first and the second steps fail), the two character square coordinate of the originating square of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter. The result of the SAN actions described so far is called "the basic SAN move notation".

In the case you describe, you do not have a situation where two pieces may move to the same destination square, as only the move Nxd6 is legal. For that reason, move disambiguation is not really relevant. (Added: That is, move disambiguation assumes that the moves are legal.)

If you drop the wQ, removing the pin, the steps above would be applied, resulting in N5xd6 or N7xd6.

(Correction: No, that was wrong. Nbxd6 or Nfxd6 would be the correctly disambiguated moves. Just read the quoted passage from the PGN standard ... )
> 14 votes

# Answer
It should not be written `N5xd6` as rank disambiguation is done if file disambiguation is not sufficient to determine the piece. In this case, giving the file is enough. On a pgn, `Nxd6` should be written (the given move is a capture).
> 2 votes

# Answer
Of course disambiguation occurs after checking for legality. Consider the following slightly different position.

```
[FEN "6k1/6n1/3R4/1n6/8/5Q2/8/4K3 b - - 0 1"]

```

Now certainly it is just `Nxd6`: you don't need to write `Nbxd6` because capturing with the other knight would be an illegal move. Why should the illegal move in your example be treated any differently?

(Note that I am still assuming the board is rotated so the b file is towards the right.)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: pgn, notation, pins
---


# Question
Title: Which are the ideas in the Van't Kruijs Opening?
In a game with a friend, he made a really unexpected move, e3:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/4P3/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Afterwards, when analysing the game I found its name is Van't Kruijs Opening and I was wondering which are the ideas to play it.

For white, this seems a passive move, giving advantage in the centre to black. But on the other side, like e4, it opens the way to the King's Bishop and Queen. It can also lead to aggressive variations like the Keoni-Hiva Gambit, where white sacrifices a pawn for development, which seems dangerous.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e3 d5 2. Nc3 e5 3. f4

```

Could you confirm/refute this analysis? Could you discuss other ideas?

# Answer
I've come across 1. e3 from one of my regular opponents quite often. These are my observations for why White might like this line:

1. Psychological: White plays a non-theoretical, flexible opening that White is likely to have played far more than Black.
2. Familiarity with an opening uses clock time more efficiently. Black may have to spend more time on the opening moves to check that there are no tactical deficiencies
3. As you rightly state, the move liberates the Queen & Bishop
4. Transposition tricks: White has the opportunity to transpose to the English, reversed French, reversed Dutch & Queen pawn openings, e.g. the Colle
5. Solidity: White has a solid structure which facilitates safe development & early castling

The Van't Krujis leads to many opening lines, the named ones from Wikipedia are:

```
[title "Keoni-Hiva Gambit"]
[fen ""]

1.e3 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3 e5 4.f4 exf4 5.Nf3

```
* White gambits the pawn to castle kingside & target f7
* White often plays b5 to either fianchetto the queen side bishop to attack the king side
* Black sometimes jettisons the d5 pawn to the c3 knight with Nxd5 to reduce White's initiative
* Also, 3. a3 prevents a disruptive Bb4, threatening to remove the knight & simplifying when Black will soon be up a pawn

and

```
[title "Amsterdam Attack"]
[fen ""]

1.e3 e5 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.b3 Nf6

```
* This is a transposition to the English opening, Bremen line

and

```
[title "Ekolu Variation"]
[fen ""]

1.e3 e5 2.Nc3 d5 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3

```
* Similar analysis to the Keoni-Hiva Gambit

and

```
[title "Alua Variation"]
[fen ""]

1.e3 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3

```
* Similar analysis to the Keoni-Hiva Gambit

and

```
[title "Akahi Variation"]
[fen ""]

1.e3 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3

```
* Similar analysis to the Keoni-Hiva Gambit

and

```
[title "Bouncing Bishop Variation"]
[fen ""]

 1.e3 e5 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3

```
* White aims to pressure the centre & Black's kingside with the Bishop on b3, similar to lines of the Ruy Lopez where White plays Bf1-b5-a4-b3
> 7 votes

# Answer
White can transpose to the Stonewall or the Colle systems after 1...d5 or if 1...e5 attempt a reverse French.

Otherwise 1. e3 is a move which needs no attention or search for ideas, because there can be none.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned, none other than Magnus Carlsen recently played 1. e3 in the Olympiad. His teammates said that when he told them his intentions, they suddenly realized what a "punchable face" he had, but he ended up winning a very nice game. As for the opening, it transposed into a well-known variation of the Queen's Indian Defense.

If you see a strong player open with 1. e3, their intentions are probably like Magnus's: to transpose to another opening, perhaps after confusing their opponent a bit.

Take the variations given on Wikipedia and the like with a grain of salt. For example, the so-called Keoni-Hiva Gambit, 1.e3 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3 e5 4.f4 exf4 5.Nf3, is nothing more than a series of mistakes by white, leaving black a pawn up with a better position. My computer already gives -1.3.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I post this answer for completeness and in response to @Dag Oskar Madsen's comment. According to the ICCF games database, after 1. e3 d5 2. Nc3 e5 3. Qh5!? the main line is the following one:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e3 d5 2.Nc3 e5 3.Qh5 Nc6 4.Bb5 Qd6 5.d4 exd4 6.exd4 Nf6 ( 6...a6 )

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
I play 3 minutes games on a smartphone and am usually around 1500-1600. In my personal experience it works well for me for the following reasons:

I open with the second bishop also (sometimes called ultramodern opening) and against weaker players I sometimes get the knights pawn on the opposing end and then a rook too because sometimes people just don't see a long diagonal.

If the opponent opens with a knight on the third row I can pin that knight to the king and get that pawn in the center.

In some worst case scenarios I double the opponents pawns and develop a little better.

One of the main ideas of these openings is giving up the center at first and then gaining it a bit later.

Also, I feel my game is stronger in the mid and tactical part when I still have knights so exchanging bishops early makes this possible and also makes it easier for me to think about castling sides and combinations if my opponent misses the black or white bishop...
> 1 votes

# Answer
In my view a chess opening is characterized by a typical pawn structure and plans associated with it. As such a single move like 1. e3 should not deserve to be called an "opening' because there are no ideas behind it besides that it allows you to develop queen and bishop. True it can transpose to somewhat decent openings like the Colle system, reversed Stonewall, reversed French and the English, but it is impossible to give you a single "idea" that is behind all these openings. Similarly you would not get a good answer asking for the "ideas" in 1.e4 openings, because it can turn into so many different openings each with its own ideas. Call it "too broad" if you prefer.

OK, 1. e3 is not the worst first move you can make, but it is unambitious, basically giving black free choice in the final pawn structure in the center.

In my opinion the only "ideas" behind 1. e3 are not found on the board, but rather in

1. getting the opponent out of book, and
2. surprise.

It is nothing that black should fear and does not require any preparation for black either, as you can just play whatever setup you want against it.

As for the Keoni-Hiva Gambit and similar suspicious lines, I don't see how playing f4 helps white's development. Perhaps if black gets greedy and starts eating pawns (fxe3, exd2) white can get a lead in development but black is not forced to do so and just playing normally I'd be happy to face the Keoni-Hiva Gambit with black.
> 1 votes

# Answer
```
[fen ""]

1. e3 d5 2. d3 e5 3. Ne2 Nc6 4. b3 d4 5. e4 Bg4 6. c3 Nf6 7. cxd4 exd4 8. Nd2 Be7 9. Nc4 Qd7 10. Qc2 Nb4 11. Qd2 Nc6 12. Bb2 Bb4 13. Qxb4 Nxb4 14. Nxd4 c5 15. Nf5 Nc2+ 16. Kd2 Nxa1 17. Nxg7+ Kf8 18. Bxf6 b5 19. Ne5 Qd6 20. Nxg4 c4 21. bxc4 bxc4 22. Be2 h5 23. Nf5 Qf4+ 24. Kc3 Rg8 25. Nge3 Qxf2 26. Bxh5 Qxa2 27. Be7+ Ke8 28. Nd5 Qb3+ 29. Kd4 Qxd3+ 30. Kc5 Nb3+ 31. Kd6 Qxe4 32. Nc7#

```

Worked alright for me ;)
> 0 votes

# Answer
Black wins. This is the first 7 moves:

```
[fen ""]

1. e3 c5 2. Qh5 d5 3. f3 Nc6 4. e4 Nf6 5. Qh4 h6 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. Bc4    Qf5 {-0.85}

```
> -3 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory
---


title: Noisy opponent -- your responsibility?

text:
# Question
Title: Noisy opponent -- your responsibility?
My opponent seemed to me (then a teenager) an elderly guy but I think he was just in his 50s or 60s.

Anyway, he literally was audibly and somewhat loudly talking to himself, saying, "If I go there, then he goes there... but then... and I got him!" -- even in a casual game, much less in a large and crowded tournament, this would not be acceptable.

He was older than my dad and he was losing anyway so I did not say anything. Then another player, also eccentric looking and acting (I knew of this guy, a "B" player who called himself a pro -- almost impossible because if he did manage to win a class prize, he would move up to "A" anyway: I think only a GM, in those days before the Internet allowed pretty girls and articulate FIDE masters etc. to make money from Youtube) came to our board and, fairly loudly himself, asked, "Is there something *wrong* with you??"

My opponent looked somewhat offended but said nothing and then significantly did shut up and I wonder if the whole thing was some sort of act trying to distract me.

But the guy who had chastised him then stared accusingly at me before walking off, as if to say, "Why are you making ***me*** do this?"

I am pretty sure I had no special responsibility -- I doubt if this specific thing is mentioned. I am sure there is a "silence" rule but I doubt that the opponent is supposed to be the first line of defense.

However, maybe informally I should have been the first to gently shush him.

This does not come up much in adult events (never played in a kids-only event).

# Answer
> Noisy opponent -- your responsibility?

Of course not!

1. You may be deaf and totally unaware.
2. You may also be playing somebody with mental health issues and you choose to show some understanding and make allowances.

**You** are the one to decide if **you** are unduly disturbed by your opponent (or anybody else's opponent, for that matter) and it is entirely up to you to decide if you want to request silence from your opponent or to take it further with the arbiter.
> 3 votes

# Answer
**Whether or not you decide to complain to the Arbiter is indead up to you** *(don't forget to pause your clock!)*.

It is important to note, however, that the Arbiter or another player in the Tournament Hall *can autonomously decide* to complain or take action.
Disturbing your opponent is indeed forbidden, as stated in Articles 11.5 and 11.6 of 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.
>
> 11.6 Infraction of any part of Articles 11.1 – 11.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 12.9.

Which leads to Article 12.9 that states the penalty options of the Arbiter (anything from a simple warning to the complete expulsion of the Tournament).
Also, article 12.2 mentions that the Arbiter must respectively ensure 'that players are not disturbed'.

**Conclusion:** both your adversary and the interfering player should have been penalized by the Arbiter. If the Arbiter didn't do it (because perhaps he didn't see it), your (noisy) adversary could have asked him to do it. Additionally, the interfering player should have asked the Arbiter to penalize your adversary instead of disturbing your game. You, as a young player, were perhaps to shy to complain, but the interfering player (or the Arbiter) should've done it in your place.

Personally, I tend to observe adversaries of younger players more rigorously than adults since those kind of 'mind tricks' tend to occur rather regularly. In large tournaments that's unfortunately not always possible. But the focus of the Arbiter should've been to prevent the entire situation in the first place (with perhaps only a warning for your adversary).

If I were the Arbiter then, I would have penalized both players with a time penalty and a clear warning. However, I am well aware that these situations are influenced when e.g. it all happened in an internal club competition or the Arbiter and the offender(s) know each other personally etc.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


# Question
Title: How can I deal with low confidence and 'chess esteem' while I am learning to play, even when I repeat mistakes?
I posted a popular question a couple of days ago, and it brought up another topic that is worthy of a question.

For reference, I've been playing 6–7 weeks, and my chess.com rating is a laughable ~300. I am the whipping boy of the chess club, am nowhere near winning a game against even the other beginners, and actually don't get any advice on how to fix my current blundering and hanging piece issues (general board vision). After some thought about it, they're patient, but not helpful, despite all having 30–50 years experience.

For instance, I asked the 2,100 player for direct advice after being an opponent in a simul. I was only told, "You're improving" – this despite getting forked by a pawn in the first few moves, and missing a knight fork that caused me to resign. These mistakes sink me immediately.

I try to dedicate two or three hours a day. You can see from the linked question the type of effort I put in. However, you can see from this move (14. ...Ng6??) in a current daily game that my efforts are fruitless at the minute as I completely missed the obvious and clear 15. Bd2:

In short, my confidence is incredibly low, and I'm being discouraged from putting in the work if I can't improve. I'm desperate to win games of chess because I'm working hard to try and improve, and don't want to give up. However, I want to be competitive and equal to the rest now, while feeling like the work I'm doing is paying off. I'll reiterate – I'm desperate to do much better than I am and want to be a winning chess player.

My question:

* How can I keep my confidence intact after constant losing and repetition of the same silly and basic mistakes I'm always making?

Losing feels awful, isn't fun, and doesn't come with any feedback (although what feedback I can get other than a magic bullet I don't know). I'm trying my hardest and best to improve.

My fanciful long-term goal is to be a 2,000 rated player someday. A mid-term goal is to be 1,600–1,800 to get on the league team. A short-term goal is to get to 1,300 fast to at least be able to beat the lowest rated player. The reality is that I'm 40 years old, 300 rated on chess.com, and not learning from my blunders and stupid mistakes. Indeed, giving up seems like the worthwhile improvement!

# Answer
2100 is a National Master by the way. Less 0.1% of chess players are that or above. If you are a beginner, expect to be demolished by a National Master. It will be rare if you can even get up on the game score in any game. Maybe make that your goal. I would suggest playing on chess.com though, so you play against players youre rating. Once it figures out have good you are, you should win (and still lose) a bunch. Then, I would suggest using Game Review. Look at your blunders. Figure out why you made those mistakes and try to avoid them. This will be a long process. In addition to improving your chess, this will improve your confidence as you see that you no longer make those same mistakes. I went from a chess.com 100 to now 700 this way, although I spend nowhere near how much time you do. The key is to try avoid making the same mistakes. Then you will get better playing wise and confidence wise.
> 1 votes

# Answer
While losing may not be fun, it's not the case at all it comes with no feedback. In fact, I welcome losses as they teach you more than wins at what you can improve. One of my favorite chess activities as a beginner (~1000 on chess.com, ~1300 Lichess) is to open up my game in Lichess's very helpful Analysis Board and play through all the possibilities that could've been played. Of course it can be demotivating having all your blunders laid out in front of you, but at beginner level not making blunders is the fastest way to improve. Even after reviewing a few games you will come back with valuable personalized tips if you understand how to work with an engine. An example tutorial is How To Analyze Your Chess Games With A Computer (Chess Engine) To Learn From Your Mistakes! by Chess Vibes.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I was originally planning to make this as a comment, but then it became a bit longer than planned, and maybe not as coherent as I would've liked.

Realistically, going from ~300 to 1300 rating as an adult should be considered as a long-term goal and is an achievement in and of itself. Improving by 1000 rating points in a short amount of time is more or less only seen in children due to their abnormal ability to learn anything. Maybe you can find an adult who is really good at Shogi (the Japanese version of chess) who would be able to quickly get to a rating of 1300 in regular chess as well, but such a massive rating increase in a short amount of time is extremely rare.

I can give you a personal story: my father has been playing chess in a club since his 20's and has known how to play since he was a child. He's in his 60's now. His peak rating was about 1800 Elo. Never really close to 2000. That's a milestone that most people don't reach in their lifetime.

Although seemingly unrelated to the question at hand, how long do you think it would take you to become fluent in a foreign language that you have no previous familiarity with? How far do you think you would be able to come in a month? Would you be able to hold a basic conversation with a native speaker? Would you be able to read a children's book written in that language?

Using this as a loose analogue for chess improvement, what language milestone would correspond to going from being a complete beginner to being able to score wins against other other players on a consistent basis? I think it can be helpful to make these comparisons so we don't get overwhelmed by disappointment. Learning chess is certainly no easier than learning a new language, so we should not expect massive progress in a short amount of time.

The reason why I wanted to write this answer in this way is because it's a well-known phenomenon for people in any kind of discipline to to have a crisis of confidence causing them to just become completely incapable of succeeding despite knowing that they **should** be doing better. This happens in chess as well, and many people get so used to losing at one point or another that they kind of forget how to actually win. It all becomes a negative spiral that gets increasingly difficult to escape with time: every time you lose, it only reinforces the idea in your mind that you can't win.

I remember GM Alex Yermolinsky giving some advice on this specific topic in some stream I watched a couple of years ago. His advice was simple: fake it 'til you make it! Look yourself in the mirror every day and proclaim with confidence that you're the best chess player in the world, no matter how true it is. Make an effort to tell yourself that you are in fact capable of winning, and do it often. Especially after losing a game. And in case you win, you tell yourself "See? I was right all along, I AM the best chess player in the world!"

I wish you the best of luck with your chess going forward. Hopefully you'll start seeing some rewards for your efforts.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A perhaps strange advice (I'll explain it in a bit) is to play some (not constantly!) **antichess** games. You can easily play them online. Don't worry if you lose, because that is not the point. It will improve your overall sight of the board, improve the coordination of your pieces and you'll learn to see all the loose pieces. Flipping that mindset is less difficult than you might think.

A second piece of advice: what's better? *Losing your game on time* or *blundering your nice game with (too) quick play*? Don't be afraid to lose on time control. Actually, **playing slower** might help you win using the clock. Your invested thinking time produces better moves which forces your opponent to think longer.
Under the motto: `"Don't see a good move? Think. See a good move? Think more."`
E.g. check mate is better than grabbing a queen.
I actually improved 100 elo by 'sitting on my hands', I did it to prevent myself from directly playing what came up in my mind.

Also, try to avoid (over)analysing your game. Surely, **analyse your game**. But do it without a computer first, perhaps your OTB opponent is even open to some analysis afterwards? You don't need a 3000 elo strong machine to tell mistakes that you can figure out yourselve. Re-evaluate your thought process: what where you thinking? Where you planning a mighty mate-in-four, but forgot the backrank mate threat of your opponent?

And finally, **focus on your opponent**'s threats and plans first, prevent those and then focus on your own plan. And surely, an experienced player will have threats of three, four moves deep that you might not see, but you're not aiming to beat that kind of player.
Yet.

*PS. Don't mistake elo for your actual chess level! Before you know it, you're afraid to play, because you might lose 'some elo'.* **Chess is real, elo is but a virtual number!**
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, beginner, psychology, blunder, board-vision
---