title: Engine vs Engine Database

text:
# Question
Title: Engine vs Engine Database
Does anyone know of engine vs engine databases? Like stockfish vs leela vs komodo pgns for 1000s of games with a lot of time per move? I want data for how draw rate changes as engine rating goes up, and am willing to sift through the data.

I see there have been tournaments recently, but I'm having trouble getting the data. The more variant the data (multiple engines, multiple ratings, multiple dates) the more useful.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If you go to this site:

https://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040/games.html

You should be able to download pgns of games by month, or games played by any specific engine of your choosing.

Also on the home page:

https://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040/

You can search around and find stats of how certain engines score against each other.

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


title: Hanham Variation Philidor Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Hanham Variation Philidor Defense
I want to find a way of transposing into the Hanham Variation of the Philidor Defense, without a way for White to deviate. For example, in the normal move order, White may have the move 3. Bc4 or 3. Nc3, which I want to avoid. I have tried the Pirc defense, but it doesn't work. Is there any other opening which will transpose?

# Answer
> 10 votes
No. Black cannot reach the Hanham variation (e.g. the Philidor setup with Nd7, Nf6, e5 and sometimes c6) by force.

The modern move order to reach the Hanham variation, however, is 1. e4 d6! 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5. This is black's best move order to reach the Hanham variation because white usually transposes to the Hanham variation with 4. Nf3.

Experienced white players usually don't avoid the Hanham with the above move order because the main alternative 4. dxe5!? lets black equalize easily as recent results have proven.

---
Tags: transpositions, philidor-defense, hanham
---


title: A little chess joke

text:
# Question
Title: A little chess joke
I've been studying the Bird's opening, and I wonder if I could launch a surprise with this line

1. f4 d5 2. Kf2?! I can artificially castle, and I can develop naturally. Is this move playable, or just plain bad?

# Answer
> 4 votes
This move is bad, however, depending on your opponent it has merit. If your opponent is 2100 and above with an understanding of how to break open a position and kill a king then it won't end well for you. On the other hand, if your intention is to provoke your opponent to attack you and then counter-attack when an opening is created it may well be okay. You must have some idea of the attacking patterns against your king and how to protect your king in those circumstances.

I wouldn't play this opening personally unless for fun and to improve my overall play -- not necessarily results. I still see some merit if you are targeting an opponent who is not a great attacker or prefers not to attack early or at all. There are some opponents who always play consolidating or slow moves in the middle of an attack which gives away the advantage. These types of opponents would be a lamb to the slaughter since you are forcing them to do something they would prefer not to do.

This is a more psychological ploy that will work against certain opponents. Of course, it goes without saying that you will have to play well since you are playing from behind. Play like a tiger and take advantage of every blink by your prey. Stalk (develop), stalk (secure king), stalk (arrange pieces to pounce), stalk (wait for a mistake -- blink), pounce.

# Answer
> 7 votes
It's a bad move. Sure it would be surprising, but a surprising move is only effective if it's challenging for your opponent to play against (here that's reversed). The only value would be playing this as a joke in a fun game with a friend or something.

Stockfish 11 at depth 31 gives -1.48 after Black pushes 2...e5.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The most important question here is: why? There is no benefit in castling artificially at this stage. There are two reasons people do that:

1. the rook is needed on the a/h file
2. they are forced to.

Neither of these apply in this situation. So artificial castling is not a good reason. Then two options remain: is the king safer on f2 or is the king providing assistance to an attack? Obviously the answer to both questions is no.

It does not matter what the level of your opponent is. There is never any benefit in playing a move that is bad *regardless of the response*.

The only valid reason is psychological and therefore most appropriate in blitz games: many opponents will feel a strong urge to destroy your position and might very well make some fatal mistakes in doing so. Having the initiative can be a curse, especially in blitz games.

---
Tags: opening, birds-opening
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish is considering a move in a book by GM Mihail Marin as a blunder
In the book English opening volume 1 by Mihail Marin at this position

```
[fen "3nrrk1/bppq2p1/p4p1p/2Pp4/1P1P3N/P1BQ2P1/5PKP/4RR2 w - - 2 21"]

1. Qg6 (1. Ng6)

```

He suggests Qg6 whereas stockfish suggests Ng6 and evaluation drops from +4.3 to +1.1 after Qg6. I know this is analysed by humans but I am confused about reading rest of the book because I cant trust it now. Any suggestions?

# Answer
Mihail Marin simply missed that 1.Ng6 is winning, even faster than 1.Qg6. During opening analysis, and even during a game, sometimes when you find a satisfying continuation you forget to follow Lasker's advice and look for an even stronger one.

This is a slight mistake in his analysis, but his evaluation of the variation remains correct (White is winning, even faster than he thought) and I see no reason not to continue studying his book and learning from it.

No chess book is completely void of analysis mistakes. If this is the worst one in the book, then the work is still very trustworthy. However, I encourage you to keep your good habit of checking the author analysis, with your own mind and with engine: First, to prevent falling for a bigger hole in a flawed variation if there is one ; Second, to better understand and remember the positions.
> 34 votes

---
Tags: analysis, theory, stockfish, books, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there value to learning openings as a new player?
Am a new player (had played before hadn't picked up a board for 3 years having never taken the game that seriously) and am going to try and commit to at least 1 rapid (10+5) game per day.

Have made it to 950ish on Lichess (and was disappointed to find that puts me in the bottom 2%). In my approx. 15 games I've found on analysis I've opened up at least a couple of times (unintentionally 25 or 30%) with the Kings Pawn: Leonardis variation or the French Defense: Classical variation as black. I've just tried to play what I thought was a sensible move and this is what the analysis classed it as.

Is there any value to learning openings as a new player? My only comparison is Poker where it's advised not to use game optimal theory on new players as they don't know what the correct play is a lot of the time. Conversely I'm thinking in Chess the chance of getting a new player to not make a mistake or blunder in the first 10 moves is very low (& if someone goes off of a line I'm figuring it lowers the value of an opening). I'm figuring also if you get a completely different move to what you anticipated back (e.g. e4, d5) it would also lower the value of it? (so hence lowering the value of welding yourself to one opening).

Is there more value at this stage to be looking at pattern recognition and positional awareness and then specializing on an opening at a later stage?

# Answer
> 18 votes
The opening in those games depends on your opponent just as much as you, so with the sample size being so small, don't take the statistic too much into account.

The analogy with poker doesn't really work out too well. You definitely want to play "optimally" in chess against beginners! While in poker you can choose between different strategies that will lead to different expected amounts of cash/chips gained on a hand, in chess there are only three results: win, draw and loss. If you play "GTO-like", you'll win 100% of the time.

The problem is that, when you're still a beginner, studying openings won't make you much closer to being an "optimal player". We should distinguish two things here: you should definitely learn how to play the opening well (as in: develop your pieces, control the center, put your king into safety, prevent your opponent from doing these three things and similar strategic ideas). Don't just stick to the "slogans". Take a look at a variety of examples. However, this is not the same as learning a lot of moves deep into opening theory. Learn mainly by reviewing your own games (by yourself, not with a computer) and by watching how more skilled players treat the positions you reach.

The main reason why deep study of "opening theory" is not so profitable for beginners is that the difference between play "perfectly" and making a small opening mistake is much smaller than when those mistakes happen later in the game. The other main point I'd make is that it is much easier to remember opening theory when you are a skilled player that understands the underlying tactics/strategy and only has to rely on memory for a few critical situations. One of the opening mistakes I commonly see among beginners is making the "right move" in the wrong position (as in, thinking you are in a given theoretical position where the right move is X but it turned out it wasn't the same position)

# Answer
> 16 votes
> Is there any value to learning openings as a new player?

Yes. The main reason is to get a feel for the kind of patterns of the way the pieces develop in different situations.

There are also good reasons to start with highly tactical openings since most of your improvement will come from improving your tactics, most of your wins will come from your tactics (and most of your losses from tactics you missed) and the quickest way to get a tactical game is to play a tactical opening.

If you play a lot of stuff like this then you will become very comfortable in wild positions which scare the life out of higher rated but more staid opponents who suffer outside of their comfort zones of the English Defence or similar.

These tactical thoughts are not mine. We have a guy in our chess club in his 80's who has been teaching beginners for about 60 years! and he always starts with teaching his kids the King's Gambit with exactly these ideas in mind. He tries to get his kids to develop fast and attack and pay more attention to the initiative than pawns. As a result a surprising number of our regions strong players were taught by him.

# Answer
> 13 votes
This is a very difficult question, and there are several sides to it.

1: This is the most important advice you will ever hear: **Chess is 99% tactics.** It is all about tricks, forking and pinning your opponents. I can not count how many times I have played a wonderful opening, gotten some advantage on the long term to lose on some simple blunder. If Bill Clinton could rephrase it, he would say: **It's the tactics stupid.**

2: Having said that, I believe the best way to actually learn openings is by studying their specific tactics. Especially if you are just starting out, it makes a lot of sense to study miniature games (short games under 20 moves). Those are always won or lost by some specific trick (tactic is basically a synonym for trick). Repeat those games several times until you understand what is going on. Afterwards you can try to copy those tricks for yourself and *voila* you have an opening!

3: To get you started you can find a lot of books with the term miniatures. You could also search on youtube for traps, although my personal preference is to play through the game and not wait for it listening to 20 minutes of blabla on youtube.

So that's it for the recommendation. If you are going to study openings instead of tactics, you should study opening tactics to make the most progress.

Cheers!

# Answer
> 8 votes
You should focus on understanding the openings principles- center, development, king safety. If you understand those ideas you'll usually be able to find good moves even if you don't know the theory.

Play openings that lead to open and tactical positions because those are the ones that will help you improve the fastest. 1.e4 with white. 1.e4, e5 with black.

Avoid heavily theoretical openings like the Sicilian Dragon or Najdorf. Those openings can take decades to learn and it's not really going to benefit you until you get up into the 2300 range.

# Answer
> 4 votes
True: When playing against (other) beginners games will rarely follow the text book openings for long. So yes, you have a point that learning deep openings as a beginner is a waste of time from a utilitarian point of view.

But the logical conclusion from this realization is clear:

**You should focus on *understanding* each opening,** as deep as you choose to look into it, which doesn't have to be very deep at all. The *discussion* of the opening is at least as important as learning the moves.

**What exactly** makes the canonical continuation better than the alternatives? What are the typical ways beginners deviate from that, and **how do I exploit these mistakes?**

# Answer
> 4 votes
When you're new to the game, rote memorisation of a bunch of lines in an opening:

* puts you in a reasonable position in the midgame if your opponent plays the moves you learnt;
* takes a huge amount of your time; and
* is incredibly boring.

It's a fantastic way to kill any enthusiasm you might otherwise have in the game, unless you are a very specific type of person, one whom likely wouldn't ask the question in the way you did, or at all.

No, what's much more important is *understanding* the moves in an opening, or any moves at all in fact. It's all very well knowing that 1. d4 is a good starting move, but without knowing why, you'll be unable to capitalise on the advantage it affords you if your opponent also doesn't know why, fails to respect the advantage, or forgets about it later on.

To this end, I'd recommend checking out Jerry's videos in the youtube series Beginner to Chess Master, which builds up very good game sense from not knowing much about the strategy or tactics of chess at all.

Personally, I found that the shorter time controls were much more fun, too, and the "fail fast" nature of them allowed me to more quickly iterate upon my understandings. I mention this because you say you want to "commit" to a certain amount of games, but I think you should be compelled to play them by the fun and interest they provide, rather than some arbitrary goal you may have set yourself. It's a game, after all.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I like Magnus Carlsen's philosophy: You can play any reasonable opening and still outplay your opponent. Here's a great post on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/How-strong-is-Magnus-Carlsen-in-the-openings

TL;DR: Rather than spending a ton of time on deep opening prep, Magnus will play slightly offbeat lines that might allow an opponent to have a slightly better position when Magnus plays Black, or an equal position when Magnus plays White. But there will be sufficient complexity in the position that he can exert his superior skill over the long haul.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes there is an advantage, but not the one that is expected. I recommend studying a couple of basic openings not for the oepning itself, but rather for patern recognittion. Many chess games, will have similar positions and pattern recognition allows you to play the right move to gain an advantage, additionally the main aspects of openings, center control, development, is critical for any beginner to learn if they want to play well. Many people on low ladder do not play the exact moves in a main line or the play weird openings, for example, I play the Sicilian a lot, especially the dragon, but most people do not follow the main lines, instead opting for 'the Bowdler attack ' which is really bad, but because the basic principles of an opening never change, you can usually play and turn out well, i can usually force a hyper-accelerated dragon, and still turn out okay, because the basic principles, like center control, and piece development and optimal positioning stay relatively the same from opening to opening

# Answer
> 3 votes
A lot of useful and excellent advice has been provided.

Chess is a war game whose object is to destroy (checkmate) the enemy King!

So, mobilise your army and/or demobilise your opponent's army.

Try to seize the centre of the board, centralised pieces are more powerful!

Start with just one or two basic openings like e4:e5, d4:d5 until you get a feel for the type of positions you enjoy.

With a real board and pieces play through as many master games as you can, preferably annotated.

(Like a musician who develops skill by practice, practice, practice..... your brain and fingers will absorb moves and patterns and soon almost instinctively will know what to do.)

You may not at first have much of a clue what is going on but gradually you will learn a lot about pawn structure and piece play in attack and defence.

Above all, enjoy the game!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Is there any value to learning openings as a new player?

Very little - you'll be wasting your time for the most part. The best way to learn a new complex subject is a top-down approach. While there is "some" value in learning openings at this stage, your time will be much better spent on learning general theory, ideas behind openings (without focusing on any particular one), middlegame, endgame, and, of course, tactics. Opening preparation becomes somewhat important at about 2000, critical at about 2500, and crucial at the super-GM level.

---
Tags: opening, theory, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Moving the queen early in the game - beginner
Ok, I know this will be a vague question... I recently played against a friend three games, and lost all of them, and the problem was that he played his queen very early in the game (second move). I was told that this isn't a very good strategy, but the truth is that I lost...

Can somebody give me the main themes for a early queen, and how to respond?

# Answer
> 19 votes
The main issue with developing your queen early is that it is a very valuable piece, so pretty much any time your opponent threatens to take it, he is threatening to win material. (Contrast with developing your knights, say; if your opponent threatens to take it, unless he's threatening to take with a pawn, he is often just really offering an equal exchange.)

The best way to take advantage of your opponent's early queen development is to exploit this by attacking it while developing your own pieces. If you can combine development with attacking the queen this way, you'll get all your pieces onto useful squares while he wastes time moving his queen around, and you'll be in much better position to do something in the middlegame.

A simple example of this is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6, developing the knight while attacking the queen.

# Answer
> 13 votes
It is true (per @dfan) that bringing the Queen out early invites attack and wastes the Queen-mover's time. In more advanced play, this is very very bad.

But for beginners, it doesn't matter a bit. Beginners waste moves all the time. It's simply part of (and perhaps the definition of) a beginner. Chances are, you won't know exactly how to exploit the premature Queen even if you chase her around with piece development.

On the other side, move your Queen early and see what happens. Play daring, play dashing, take chances, have fun, and cut some heads. You'll score a lot of wins by being aggressive. And you'll get your head cut some, too. /shrug

Against better opponents, this will not work as well and you'll have to up your game.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Although I don't know exactly what moves your opponent used, in the beginner ranks sometimes people use Scholar's Mate as an attempted opening. It involves getting the queen out and parading her around the board for an attack and possible mate on f7.

The basic counterstrategy for a Scholar's Mate type opening from White is to keep protecting f7 for Black, and then to take swipes at the opponent's queen while developing your minor pieces. If you do this patiently without giving up any tactical moves, you can get all your pieces awake and developed, while your opponent's pieces remain asleep at home.

# Answer
> 2 votes
To some good answers I'll add this minor "psychological" point. Faced with rapid Queen development, one may feel pressured to strike back in a big way--to counterattack, or to trap the Queen. These attempts at dramatic "payback" usually end in giant frustration. The key against early Queen deployment is to be satisfied with small gains. Protect that weak f-square or central pawn. Defend against any bishop pins that the opponent may use in conjunction with the Queen's moves. Anticipate forks (checks with attacks on weak squares such as b-pawns), and resolutely hold everything together. Weather the storm, bide your time, and before too long your superior development of minor pieces and better control of space will mean that either you can trap the Queen or, more likely, cause her to turn tail and flee, leaving you with a better position.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If your opponent played his queen on the second move, the game probably resembles this:

1. e4 e5
2. Qh5?!

Now you can just develop your knight

2. ... Nc6

If he chooses to continue calmly, you can follow up with Nf6, and his queen is already forced to move. So probably he will continue like so:

3. Bc4

Now you need to resolve the threat, after which you can simply continue your development with a small advantage. For example:

3. ... g6
4. Qf3 Nf6

And here most players would prefer to play black, so we can conclude that white lost his opening advantage by wasting time.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The queen is a very powerful piece. If she moves, she's probably attacking something.

Make sure that if your friend attacks something with his queen, you defend (or move) it. Not doing so and letting the queen take your piece (without being recaptured) is a good way to lose.

If the queen keeps moving, and you keep defending, pretty soon you'll have everything defended, and the queen will have nothing left to attack. You'll be ahead in development, and have the advantage.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As what has already been said, early Queen development can be exploited by gaining time in development through threats to the Queen.

A small thing to add from my side is that from the Queen mover's perspective, the Queen cannot really do much at such an early stage since any piece out there is "cheaper" than her and as such, it's simply wasting precious tempi to orchestrate anything concrete against the opponent.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Just attack the queen with knights, bishops and pawns! If you don't make any huge mistake (letting a mate happen on f7 or something) then you'll be ahead and have an advantage later on in the game. :)

# Answer
> 0 votes
When you move the Queen early in the Game it is subjected to attacks by minor pieces Bishops & Knights which occupies central squares and important diagonals . Bringing the Queen out early is an uncanny choice and it would lead to a big loss of Tempo which is important to understand from beginner's point . Moreover the Queen can be trapped by opponents minor pieces and then the Game would be easily won by opponent .

# Answer
> 0 votes
Playing against an opponent who brings their queen out prematurely is a lot like playing Tic-Tac-Toe.

Basic strategy in Tic-Tac-Toe is as follows:

1. If you can win the game with your move, make it.
2. If no winning move exists and your opponent has a winning move next turn, stop them.
3. Make a two of a kind to threaten a win.
4. If none of the above apply, play in the center.

The way this translates to chess is as follows:

1. If you can take your opponent’s queen with a lesser piece, take it. You’ll be up a bunch of material and are in good shape to cruise to a win.
2. Defend against your opponent’s threats. Can they take an undefended piece or pawn for free? If so, make a move that prevents such a capture.
3. If you can’t win the queen and all your material is safe, can you make a threat on their queen? If you attack their queen and force it to move away, you effectively got to make your move for free.
4. If none of the above apply, just look for generally good opening moves. Develop a bishop or knight. Castle. Move pawns to control the center.

It’s important to go through this checklist every move, and the order really matters. If their queen is threatening an undefended pawn (2) and you attack the queen without defending the pawn (3), then yeah, you force the queen to move, but their move is to take the pawn, which they wanted to do anyway.

# Answer
> 0 votes
```
[fen ""]
[Event "Tradewise Gibraltar"]
[Site "Catalan Bay GIB"]
[Date "2015.01.27"]
[EventDate "2015.01.27"]
[Round "1.2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Jovana Rapport"]
[Black "Hikaru Nakamura"]
[ECO "A80"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "66"]

1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 c6 3. e3 Qb6 4. Nd2 Qxb2 5. Rb1 Qc3 6. g4 Qa5
7. gxf5 Qxf5 8. h4 Qa5 9. Nh3 g6 10. Bd3 d6 11. Qf3 Nd7 12. h5
Ndf6 13. hxg6 hxg6 14. Bxg6+ Kd8 15. Bf4 Kc7 16. Ng5 Rxh1+
17. Qxh1 Bh6 18. Qh4 Bd7 19. Bd3 Nd5 20. Ne6+ Bxe6 21. Bxh6
Nc3 22. Ra1 Qb4 23. Kf1 Nxa2 24. Rd1 Nc3 25. Re1 Nxh6 26. Qxh6
Bd7 27. f3 a5 28. Kf2 a4 29. Qg5 Rh8 30. Qg3 Nd5 31. Rd1 c5
32. Bc4 Nc3 33. Re1 b5 0-1

```

You are not the only one having problems against it... Developing your queen early probably will give your opponent an advantage in development. If you want to learn to play against it, learn how to utilise development, there is no more precise rule to be followed.

---
Tags: opening, queens, beginner
---


title: Forced mate: 2 queens vs king

text:
# Question
Title: Forced mate: 2 queens vs king
On the board, there are 2 queens (of the same color) placed on random squares. The opposing side has only a king, placed on a random square (and not in check). There obviously exists a mating sequence. What is the biggest possible 'n' such that there is a forced Mate in 'n'? In other words, given the above situation, what is the upper bound on the minimum number of moves required to give a checkmate?

# Answer
The longest KQQ-K mate whilst maintaining optimality is a mate in 4.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/5K2/8/4Q2Q w - - 0 1"]

```
> 14 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, queens
---


# Question
Title: Open source Chess engines under MIT license?
What are some of the open source Chess engines under the MIT license?

> The purpose of the search is to find a suitable strong engine to be used in our chess hardware/software product. Thanks.

# Answer
* Crafty
* Arasan

I don't recommend Pulse or NG-Play in the other answer as they're no longer maintained. The three engines I cited are still very active.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Some searching yielded:
> 1 votes

# Answer
Fairy-Max and micro-Max are not particularly strong, but they are in public domain and have been used in different devices.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Deducing brilliant sacrifices

text:
# Question
Title: Deducing brilliant sacrifices
Is it possible to deduce brilliant sacrifices by analyzing a match's PGN along with the corresponding evaluation score after each move? If not, what other non-visual information would be needed to be able to deduce when a player made sacrifices to help his cause?

# Answer
It would be easy to detect sacrifices- if the material count in the position suddenly drops, but the computer evaluation position doesn't drop a lot, and the material isn't restored within a short number of moves (to avoid simple exchanges being considered sacrifices), then it would be a sound sacrifice. This would miss out on a lot of unsound sacrifices or sacrifices that computers don't understand, however- there are many cases of this with fortresses etc. Detecting brilliant sacrifices would probably be even harder.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: evaluation, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: What is the name or origin of this opening for Black?
I was playing online, and I noticed some players go for this opening and I don't know its name or if it's a move order to another opening for Black.

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 d6 5. f3 Nbd7

```

Is it a sideline in the Modern, Kings Indian, Hippo, or Neo-old Benoni Defense? Or is it a new opening? In the Neo-old Benon,i Black doesn't fianchetto the bishop, and in the Hippo Black doesn't commit to c6 at an early stage like that.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is no name that I can find. However, I can identify some factors of this opening.

1. White has a Samisch setup
2. Black has played a type of Gurgendize modern defence.

Perhaps this opening is a move order in the Samisch where Black delays ...Nf6 and ...e5.

---
Tags: opening, history
---


# Question
Title: Isn't the Bogo-Indian just busted with this line?
I know openings often tend not to be busted, and I'm obviously not really suggesting that the Bogo is busted. But I recently played a Bogo-Indian where I just couldn't find any follow up quite early in the game and my moves just looked natural...

I also just don't understand that white's 9.e4 move in the diagram has never been played in the database but shows +1 advantage...

Maybe some help on how black should approach those lines? (By the way, I'm new to that opening)

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 d6 7. Nc3 Nbd7!?
(7... O-O) 8. Rd1 b6 9. e4! {I can't understand why this move hasn't been played
before, but engine already gives quite the advantage to white...} 9... Bb7 10.
Qc2 Qe7 {Getting away from the d1 rook but not sure how solid it is} 11. Be2 O-O
12. O-O {ok now what? Already a bit lost on what to do,  played the following
move to claim myself some space but it just gave white a big hole to look for on
b5 and weak b6} 12... c5?! (12... h6 {engine, but can't see what this does})
(12... Rfe8 {also engine}) 13. d5 exd5 14. cxd5! Rfe8 15. Nd2! *

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well, the Bogo-Indian as an opening is hardly busted, but the way black played that opening, there is no doubt that white has a huge advantage in the final position.

The main reasons that black gives up the dark-squared bishop are not to lose time, but then, and this is more important, because he can regain some dark-square control by placing the pawns on d6 and e5, and pressure e4. Often the Nd7 can also find a very nice home on c5 since a5 has been played.

The way it was played in that game, black never did that, and black did not even attempt to contest the center. It was a recipe for disaster. The final straw was exposing the huge hole that was created on b5.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 d6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 (7... O-O {The most common move here.} 8. g3 Nbd7 9. Bg2 e5 $14 {Is a main line. } 10. O-O exd4 11. Nxd4 a4 {Securing c5 for the Nd7.}) 8. Rd1 (8. e4 {Why not this immediately? This is the main move.}) 8... b6?! {This is not necessary here, and we are not even sure that the bishop will go on b7, which I tend to doubt...it may come to g4 and trade for a Nf3 even. It also ruled out a later c6, which would have been desirable later after e5.} (8... Qe7 {This is more natural here, aiming again for e5, and removing the Qd8 from the same line as the Rd1 and Qd2 battery.}) 9. e4 Bb7 10. Qc2 (10. Bd3 {Finish development is more natural here, and later if the black king castles short, then the Bd3 will be aimed at right it.}) 10... Qe7 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O c5? {This just looks wrong. You still want e5, and if d5, then you have Nc5 and a4 solidifying the Nc5's position. Also, this shows how dead the bishop is on b7} 13. d5 exd5 $2 {This natural move really secures white's advantage because the hole at b5 becomes palpable.} 14. cxd5 Rfe8 15. Nd2 $16 {White almost has a significant, and almost winning, advantage.}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, The Bogo-indian is not a forced loss in this line. Black has only played badly, thus resulting in a White advantage. If Black had played more accurately, the game would be equal.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, strategy, bogo-indian-defense
---


title: The strength of Smith-Morra gambit

text:
# Question
Title: The strength of Smith-Morra gambit
I am a beginning player in chess.(~1300 on chess.com/blitz: 5 and 10 minutes) And I mostly like to attack and favor fully open positions to closed and defensive. In response to e4, when the opponent plays c5, I don't have much options left. I don't like nf3, d4 too much. So, I have to resort to d4 and the Smith-Morra gambit. And, I really like this opening. However, this opening is not famous among top chess players and I wonder why. Please explain the merits and demerits of this opening apart from the early loss of a pawn to white.
Further information about openings I like and I'm comfortable with: Scotch Gambit, King's gambit. Please explain in simple terms and don't use terminology related to chess theory as I'm not familiar with those. I only play chess on chess.com and sometimes practice a few puzzles.

# Answer
Merits for white:

* easy and quick development
* attacking chances, particularly against f7 (with a bishop on c4) and on the open c and d files (after putting rooks on c1 and d1
* potentially (depends on the opponent) playing off-beat openings like this can avoid theory/preparation of the opponent

Demerits for white:

* you lost a pawn
* if black plays properly there is no danger from the white attack
* black is not forced to accept the gambit (does not have to take the pawn on c3). There are basically two ways to decline it: **(1)** 3.... d3, which can be annoying for a Morra-Gambit player because now you don't get as nice squares for the pieces (knight cannot go to c3 and after capturing on d3 the bishop is blocked by the e4 pawn). **(2)** 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 which is the Alapin variation and a bit dry/boring (for me playing this with black), so also not what somebody looking for a wild game wants.

If you look at regular Sicilian lines, in many you get very nice open tactical positions with lots of attacking potential and you are not a pawn down.

Why is it not popular at the highest level?

Simply because after all, if black plays correctly (as grandmasters tend to do most of the time), white ends up just a pawn down with no compensation for the pawn.

This does not mean that you have to give up playing the Smith-Morra if you like it. At your level I am sure you can have fun with it as black will often not play perfectly. However as you improve towards Elo 2000 or so, you might want to look at more normal openings.
> 7 votes

# Answer
If you like the Morra gambit, then there is no reason not to play it. It indeed leads to open positions where white has a lead in development. Moreover, black players are typically more familiar with the main lines than the Morra, while white's initiative can be quite dangerous.

Profound analyses can be found in Mayhem in the Morra!, written by IM Marc Esserman in 2012. The forewords in the sample pages are interesting and fun to read.

The theoretical status of the Morra is that black is fine: white has enough compensation for the pawn, but nothing more. White has better chances for an advantage in the main lines after 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. Therefore, the Morra gambit is not seen very often at the top level.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I believe the main reason it isn't popular at high level is that there are so many viable defences against it, on top of a good practical way for black to avoid it completely. It's just not *practical*.

Most players will reply 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 (and then 4.e5 Nd5), transposing to the most popular reply to 2.c3, 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 et cetera. Since they have to study that anyway (2.c3 is much more popular than 2.d4), they get this reply to the Morra "for free" and don't have to do more work.

But *White* playing the Morra has to know how to reply to all sorts of Morra defences, many of which are good. Just for the case that someone did put in the work and prepared one of them in detail.

IM Esserman really wants to play this line, and he did put in all that work. His book had great reviews and he had many brilliant wins over strong players. Maybe he is right and there is in fact nothing wrong with the line in a chess sense.

But then the practical implication is still that White has to do a lot of work, and black can just play 3...Nf6 to transpose to a line he already needs to know. That's not what strong players are looking for.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I played Morra at 1500- level, and Morra is very fun to play. I have big lead in development and opponent will make obvious tactical mistakes for me to take advantage of.

Now I'm at 1800-2000 level and I stop playing Morra. The reason is that at this level, opponents book up to some extent. They won't make obvious tactical mistakes and my understanding in Morra and tactical skill isn't enough to carry out the initiative successfully. In many Morra variations, if your opponent isn't very well booked up, you'll probably have one shot at Nd5 sac, you miss it and they'll develop properly and you are just down a pawn. On the other hand, even if you make the right sac, it still requires lots of tactical skill to make it winning.

I believe at 2000+, players will have better understanding of initiative and much better tactical skill. Then opponents' less obvious tactical error is punished properly and Morra becomes dangerous again.

At world top level, the reason that Morra disappeared is because you can't surprise you opponent anymore. Every GM game is in a database and your opponent can check your opening repertoire and prepare accordingly.

In any case, if you play Morra, don't fall into the Siberian trap (the second time).
> 2 votes

# Answer
A gambit is the giving up of material for time, generally a pawn in the opening. Accordingly, you must maximize your use of the time advantage before your opponent catches up, when your pawn shortage will become a long-term deficit. Since these types of games such as the Smith-Morra and the other gambits you have mentioned become tactical very quickly and your opponent won't have time to analyze all the variations with probable resulting inaccuracies, they would seem to be particularly well suited to quick play. In slower games, your opponent would be able to avoid these tactical pitfalls and emerge into an ultimately winning position after completing his development.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: How to deal with your opponent's queen if your opponent rejects any trades?
If my opponent brings out his/her queen early in the game, I usually attack it with my own queen. The opponent can either accept the trade or reject it. If he/she accepts, I have no questions at all. The game continues, and I am happy.

The question is: what if the opponent refuses to make any trades after I suggest the trade of queens? E. g. I am playing white; my opponent, black. He brings out the queen, I attack it. Then he simply moves the queen to a safe square. Quite often it results in me being checkmated in about 10 next moves, or I lose a piece.

So if the opponent constantly refuses to trade queens in the opening, what should I do? Keep attacking the queen (possibly searching for forks/pins/skewers?), or develop my minor pieces, or try to defend my king? Thanks.

# Answer
> 42 votes
There is no need for an early queen trade. Just develop your pieces, if possible by attacking the queen. Here is an example from the *Wayward Queen Attack* also known as *Patzer Opening*.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Nf6 5. Ne2 Bg7 6. Nbc3 O-O 7. d3 d6

```
* `2.Qh5` threatens to take `e5`, so we defend it by developing a piece: `Nc6` (`d6` is also possible).
* `3.Bc4` threatens to mate on `f7`, so we defend it by attacking the queen with `g6`, creating a square for our bishop as a side effect.
* `4.Qf3` renews the threat, so we develop another piece, `Nf6` and block the queen's access to `f7`.
* Then we develop our bishop, castle and get a nice game with a development advantage.

The best punishment for an early queen development is not a queen trade, but using this queen to develop your minor pieces with a tempo: by forcing the queen to move again and again.

**Update**

In the example you gave in the comment, you play just the same way: Develop your other knight, get castling in, and have a good game. There is a reason why you don't see this line in games by players with a decent rating.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 Qa5 3. Nc3 d5 4. Be2 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bf5 6. Ng3 Bg6 7. O-O Nd7 8. d4

```

First let me say that `2.Nf3` is not the best move against the Caro-Kann. `d4`, `Nc3` or even `c4` are better and therefore more common. See my Caro-Kann study for more ideas.

After `2…Qa5` you just play `Nc3` which develops a piece and unpins the d-pawn. Then you clear the `f1` square by developing yet another piece, `Be2`, castle as soon as possible, and *then* play `d4`.
Black is at this point seriously behind in development: the entire kingside is still in the default position while you have already some very annoying moves like `Nh4`, `c4`, or `Bf4`. Your queen on d1 is keeping everything together. It's not in the way of any other piece and much better than Black's queen – and you didn't even move it!

So, again: stay calm, develop your pieces, castle, and then question your opponent's position with your own minor pieces.

# Answer
> 33 votes
Trying to encourage a queen trade in this sort of situation is usually the wrong strategy.

The exaggerated version of the answer is this. Your opponent has just proved that they don't know how to use their queen properly. Instead of saying, "That's OK. I'll trade off the queens so this isn't a problem for you", you should say "I'll keep exploiting this big weakness in your play." This isn't completely true, because it's not always wrong to bring your queen out early. But it's a good rule of thumb.

Bringing out the queen early is (usually) bad because the queen is valuable so, every time it's attacked, it must be moved out of the way. Unless it's attacked by the queen, it must be moved: defending it doesn't work, because the attacker is less valuable. So, when your opponent brings out their queen early, you can usually make sensible developing moves that attack it, which forces your opponent to keep moving their queen around. If you're lucky, they'll get their queen trapped and you'll win it. Otherwise, you're still in a great position because you've developed most of your pieces and probably got your king to safety, while your opponent has just been moving their queen around.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It doesn't really mean anything to attack (or exchange) a piece if you don't get anything from it. Also, it can end up getting you in a worse position if you don't pay close attention.

If he brings his queen out, unless there is a threat, keep bringing your pieces out and develop your game. And if you can attack his queen while developing a piece to force him to move it, it'll be much more beneficial for you than trading queens at the beginning.

# Answer
> 5 votes
You seem to be saying "I'm a weaker player than my opponent, but if I can trade off all my material, then obviously that'll be a draw by insufficient material. How do I force my opponent to accept this draw, instead of going for a win?" And there isn't much answer to that other than "Be a better chess player". If your opponent is willing to move their queen back to avoid a trade, then apart from tempo, you're in the same position as if they hadn't moved the queen out at all, so you're pretty much asking how to trade queens in general. And there isn't really any way to do that other than getting your opponent in a position where they will lose material and/or position if they don't trade, and asking "How do I create threats to force a trade" is not only an extremely broad question, it's not a *good* question. You shouldn't be trying to create a situation where your opponent can avoid material/position loss by trading their queen, you should be creating situations where you opponent *can't* avoid material/position loss no matter what they do.

Another thing to consider is that while it's sometimes easier to get your queen in a position where it can trade for the opposing queen than to get another piece in a position where it can attack the queen, that's not usually the case, and once a piece is threatening their queen, having that piece be your queen does not make it any more of a forced trade. If anything, attacking with your queen rather than another piece gives your opponent more options. All else being equal, any situation where your queen is attacking theirs would be improved by it being another piece attacking. The only advantage to it being your queen that's attacking is baiting them into a blunder, and relying on your opponent to make a mistake isn't good strategy.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Ideally, you should be setting up trades that are good for you and bad for your opponent - equal material but better positioning for you, for example. At the same time, you need to make your moves such that if your opponent is declining the trade, it still leaves you with a better position.

If you spend a move attacking a queen, and the queen "retreats" but actually puts itself in a better position, then perhaps don't make that attack yet. All you're doing is throwing away your tempo.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here is a demonstrative game to show how you should deal with a 'queen raid'.

```
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Nf6 5. Qb3 Nd4 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Qc4 b5 8. Qc3 Kxf7 9. h3 Bb4 10. Qg3

```

Gain tempo by attacking the queen, and attempt to launch a quick attack. c2 and f2 are spots to target.

---
Tags: opening, queens, attack
---


title: How to win in this position with White

text:
# Question
Title: How to win in this position with White
```
[FEN "rq6/p1k4p/2n2p2/1p1p2b1/pP1P2Q1/P1B3N1/6PP/3R3K b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

```

I felt like I had a pretty decent position but I love exchanging pieces. So after a few moves, the queens were off the board and unfortunately the match ended in a draw. What was the correct procedure to win this position?

# Answer
If your opponent's pieces aren't well positioned and/or their king is in danger, it's important to refrain from exchanging pieces (generally). The reason is that each of your pieces has a higher relative value than their opposites. They tend to control more space, or have more opportunities to prove dangerous to the enemy king.

Assuming it's White to move (even though it was Black to move in the game), a good choice would be 1.Nf5, at which point SF 11 gives over a +6 evaluation. Here you can aim to trap the g5-bishop with h4. If 1...Kb7 or 1...Kb6 is played, enabling ...Bf4 (due to the Black queen's protection), you could further control the f4-square with 2.Rf1. Now it looks like Black is unable to save the bishop from h4.

An alternative 2nd move is 2.Qf3, preparing to take on d5 and get dangerously close to Black's king. If this happens, the queen and knight could end up conducting a decisive attack together. The fine point is that if Black protects the pawn with 2...Qg8/2...Qd8, f4 is no longer contested so 3.h4 wins the g5-bishop.

EDIT - so it's actually Black to move in the position. White's general plan is still similar: going after the g5-bishop. Nf5 could be played soon (maybe on the next move). Black could try exchanging queens via ...Qe8-...Qe4, but then after doing so White could play g3, keeping the g5-bishop from escaping via f4. Another idea is 1...Qf8, when after 2.Nf5 Black might play ...Bh6 if needed. But now White could dramatically activate the c3-bishop with Be1-Bg3+. Pushing a4 is another idea, further increasing the pressure on Black.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Better structure, safer king, and more active pieces. White's advantage is huge.

How to proceed from here? Assuming there is no immediate tactics, the right questions to ask yourself in such a position are: "Which of my pieces are doing nothing? Where would my pieces be the most effective?"

In this case, your queen is very active and your knight is ready to jump to f5. Bc3 and Rd1, however, do nothing but protect a pawn (that Black might not be able to take anyway). Where do they want to go? Open files and diagonals. The most obvious plan then is:

* Nf5 : to a strong outpost in front of the isolated pawn.
* Be1-g3 : to a great open diagonal heading towards black's king.
* h2-h3 (or even better h2-h4 kicking the black bishop out of its post): securing your king against back rank tricks.
* Re1 (or Rd1-d3-c3) : to an open file.

After these easy 5 or 6 moves, I would be surprised if Black will hold their position together. But even if no decisive tactics appears then, you will find new prospects for your active pieces (rook or queen to the 7th rank maybe) that Black defensive measures will have opened for you.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


title: About solving Atomic Chess

text:
# Question
Title: About solving Atomic Chess
Is it possible to weakly solve Atomic Chess as a win for White? I've analysed a few lines good for White, but I am not sure about a general solution.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As a decently strong atomic player fairly connected with the atomic community including the strongest players, I feel I can answer this one. The short answer is: **white probably wins, but there is no weak solution nor does it currently seem achievable to find one**.

---

**Outcome?**

The current consensus among the strongest players and opening theoreticians is that White wins, but as of yet there is no public and/or convincing and exhaustive proof. Opinions differ on whether many different openings and lines are winning or drawn; however there tends to be agreement that the lines after `1. Nf3 f6 2. Nc3 Nh6 3. g4` (the *first* tabiyas in this rabbit hole would be after `3...c6 4. d4 e6 5. e4 f5 6. Nh4 or exf5` with many sideline branches on black's 2nd, 4th and 5th moves) give no hope for black *if* white plays perfectly (and by "perfectly", that tends to be 20+ move deep, widely branching theory in complicated middlegames, leading to nontrivial endgames). That said, from a practical point of view, these are also not easy to meet as black at high levels.

This, however, does not constitute a weak solution. We do not have an exhaustive (or even very aggressively pruned) game tree that leads to white wins everywhere. All we have is a lot of opening theory where both sides play sensible moves and where with precise play by white, just about everything leads to what seem to be winning white endgames. **The branching factor for plausible moves appears to be too high for a weak solution to be within reach**, though -- in addition, the endpoint endgames themselves may not be easy to evaluate for humans, and not for engines either.

---

**A word on engines**

The modern engine for atomic analysis is Stockfish 9, but using the 2018 or earlier builds, as more recent builds seem to give pruning issues leading to outright blunders and misevaluations in certain cases. Other engines exist like Atomkraft (an older engine), and offer different but also strong opinions.

A major shortfall of atomic engines in general, though, is their endgame knowledge is poor. One commonly-occurring situation is a pawn endgame where one side is up a whole bishop, yet cannot win because the bishop cannot take an enemy pawn, nor can passed pawns be created. This is known as "pawnitisation" (common enough to have a name since more than a decade ago!) and engines cannot detect this reliably, often giving a +3 to +4 evaluation to draws. They also, due to the horizon effect, tend to misevaluate simple endgames where one side is up two pawns for minor (yes, *up*) with rooks on the board, which is winning in general but can take many moves.

While 6-man tablebases exist for atomic, these do not solve the problem; many of these endgames have more than six units on the board.

This leads to the issue that **engines, despite being stronger than humans** (still not completely invincible though!), **may not be fully relied on to accurately evaluate a position**.

---

**Conclusion**

An engine-only "solution" of atomic would be met by skepticism due to their inability to accurately judge a fair number of endgames. In fact, even an engine-assisted weak solution would seem unattainable, also because of the high branching factor of plausible moves, and high depths (think at least 40+, probably more than 60+) needed for reliability.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I know there is at least some degree of theory in Atomic Chess, which indicates it hasn't been solved. Also from this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic\_chess

Under the "Strategy" section, it says "no attempts to prove a win for White have been successful". Although the article notes that White's advantage is much larger in Atomic Chess than regular chess, which obviously makes sense.

There's a version of Stockfish out there that can play Atomic Chess. I doubt it's as strong in the game as regular Stockfish is in chess, but it shows that even with strong tools available the game seems to have not been solved.

I don't know whether it's possible to solve it in the future though. It's highly unlikely regular chess will ever be fully solved, due to the sheer complexity of the game tree. For Atomic Chess though, maybe it's possible that there's some forced win (or forced draw?) relatively early on. This could be due to a few reasons:

1. As noted already, White has a larger advantage in Atomic Chess.
2. Pieces tend to come off the board faster, due to the explosions when a piece captures. This reduces the branching factor (i.e., number of possible moves), which reduces the complexity of how many paths need to be considered in the game tree. It also simplifies the game, potentially bringing it closer to some theoretically drawn endgame (in atomic chess).
3. While strong, I'm not sure how good this version of Stockfish actually is in Atomic Chess, since it was developed for standard chess. Our current engines could have to get stronger in the variant before finding a hidden solution.

---
Tags: atomic-chess, solving
---


title: Looking for a historic chess game

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for a historic chess game
I'm looking for an historic chess game, and I don't remember if Capablanca or Kasparov played it. In it, both queens are face to face and neither let pass the other one, for almost 7 or 10 movements, in the middle of the board. I remember saw it on chessgames.com in 2005.

The queens moved horizontally, 1 or 2 spots. One was in the above row and the second one in the bottom, for e.g. the black queen in the 5th row and the white queen in the 4th row. So neither can't go forward, as they are blocking each other. I'm not sure if it was Capablanca or Kasparov, only about 70% sure.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You could use Python and code it to sift through Capablanca or Kasparov games. When there is a position where the queens oppose in the center, make the program put it to the side. Then, you can look through the games until you find the one you want.

If you don't know how to use Python, you could get someone else to help you, or to get a program with the same function from online.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Query Language is a tool you can use to search for games like these in your database of games of choice. It shouldn't be too hard to do this- certainly easier than the (good!) suggestion of Python by others

---
Tags: famous-games, kasparov, capablanca
---


title: Latvian Gambit recommendations

text:
# Question
Title: Latvian Gambit recommendations
The Latvian gambit:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5!?

leads to a sort of King's gambit reversed. I've had a large winning percentage for this opening as Black in club games. Would this opening be good for a 1500-Fide level tournament?

# Answer
Yes, I believe so.

The key point here is this:

> I've had a large winning percentage for this opening as Black in club games

Play what you know best, and are most comfortable with, and at 1500 FIDE Latvian Gambit is sound enough; this is is probably true even at 2000 FIDE if not higher.

Edit:

I took a look at some statistics on Latvian Gambit at lichess.org database

Masters:

All Lichess.org users:

The results indicate that Latvian Gambit is very questionable on Masters level, but at lower levels has good practical results.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It might barely be playable at 1500 FIDE. However, as others pointed out, if someone prepares for you, then you will be in big trouble. My recommendation to to avoid playing this gambit at all costs.

I'm around ~2170 USCF, and my main repertoire is non traditional(morra gambit, kings gambit, alekhine, dutch....). This is coming from someone who's played many gambits over the years.

I tried earnestly to incorporate the Latvian gambit as some sort of surprise weapon. It is just unplayable. Even when my opponents were significantly weaker than me and obviously didn't know what was going on in the opening, they usually get an edge, and it could be a big one too. If they happen to have studied the latvian, then you are pretty toast. I don't even recommend it for blitz. This is just my anecdote, but it's clear to me that for strong chess players the latvian is not sound, and it is not hard for white to deal with.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Absolutely. You can. Even if your opponent plays well and gets an edge, at the levels we are discussing that won't be decisive. But the question is "why?":

If you enjoy or feel comfortable with that particular type of position, and it will make you have a nice time playing the kind of chess that you like, then sure. Go for it!

If your choice is based on results only, then is the Latvian really the best you can do? Of course it's a nice surprise weapon and you can use it against the type of player that will have a hard time against it, but I bet the time you need to have a decent knowledge of the Latvian gambit would be better invested in something like the French (not only in the short term due to the objective advantages but also in the long term as your chess will improve)
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm assuming you're asking if this would be good for Black to play. If so then it seems fine for a 1500ish level. However, if your opponent is specifically prepared before the game (e.g., with engines and/or a coach), then you might run into some trouble.

You could incorporate this gambit into your repertoire, but I'd recommend playing other lines too, in order to make it harder for opponents to potentially prep for you. If you alternate between 5 lines and this is one of them, it becomes that much harder for people to be ready for you.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, latvian-gambit
---


# Question
Title: What does Stockfish NNUE mean for Stockfish?
Apparently there was a major update to Stockfish recently such that it gained +50 elo (per regression tests). I'm told that the difference is coming from the new NNUE (efficiently updatable neural network) eval function. In other words Stockfish is now a hybrid engine utilizing AB search & NN eval.

Questions:

* Is this picture correct?
* If so, how is the NNUE being trained? Is it only being trained on Stockfish games, or does it also utilize games by other engines?
* If NNUE is being trained on Stockfish games, does that mean Stockfish's original handwritten eval will continue to be tested and improved on? Or will Stockfish NNUE be trained on Stockfish NNUE games in the future (i.e. the handwritten eval is now obsolete and will not be developed anymore)?
* Does this mean Stockfish's update process will now take longer? In the sense that for every new patch, a new NNUE would need to be trained, and then the new patch + new network plays against the old patch + old network?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Answers to your question:

> Is this picture correct?

You got it exactly right. It's exactly that- ab search with NN eval.

> If so, how is the NNUE being trained? Is it only being trained on Stockfish games, or does it also utilize games by other engines?

Basically, it's given a bunch of positions and the SF eval at a certain depth, and is trained from that data. I'm not sure where the positions come from but I believe SF self-play.

> If NNUE is being trained on Stockfish games, does that mean Stockfish's original handwritten eval will continue to be tested and improved on? Or will Stockfish NNUE be trained on Stockfish NNUE games in the future (i.e. the handwritten eval is now obsolete and will not be developed anymore)?

Yeah, handwritten eval will continue to be worked on. It's also worth noting that SF (the one after the merge) technically uses its old eval in certain types of positions- sadly I can't go into more detail since it's constantly changing with new elo-gaining patches, but as I understand it, classical eval is meant to be used in "messier" positions, while NNUE is used in quieter positions.

> Does this mean Stockfish's update process will now take longer? In the sense that for every new patch, a new NNUE would need to be trained, and then the new patch + new network plays against the old patch + old network?

Nope, patches should come at the same speed (currently they're coming at a much faster rate due to obvious improvements being all over, like, I go to sleep, I wake up, already several patches gaining elo....). As I understand, there'd be no need for a new NNUE.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: King's Gambit, Fischer's Defence 6. Ng1. Wait, what?
I'd like to play the king's gambit without getting into piece sacrifices, but Fischer's Defence is unsettling me. This appears to be described as the "main line".

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 *

```

Attempting to be impartial, I look at the board as white after `6. Ng1` and think:

* I'm white and I expect to be slightly better in the opening (which I would be if I choose a more mainstream opening).
* I've given up a pawn (which black could probably hold onto with `...h5` and `Bh6`), so I expect compensation.
* I played `2. f4` for the purpose of having the initiative.
* I have a damaged kingside, and maybe black will completely demolish it with `...f3`.
* I have a nice pawn center.

My conclusion: while white does not seem losing, there has to be a better choice of openings for white.

*Questions*: Is this position as bad as I think it is? (Are there some subtitles I'm missing?) Are there reasonable non-mainstream deviations from this line?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Your objective assessment of White's position after **6. Ng1** is quite on the mark.

**A. Objectively speaking...**

It's hard to see how this position could be good for White.

**On the plus side -**

1. White has a good center.
2. Black's pawn on f4 is weak.
3. Black's kingside is a bit loose.

**On the minus side -**

1. White is a pawn down at the moment.
2. White's own kingside is weak.

Is a good center worth a pawn? Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In this position, it can be shown that at best White is only equal. There is no line that gives White an advantage.

**B. Subjectively speaking...**

White played the King's Gambit because White wanted a sharp tactical game.

**On the plus side -**

1. The White player has successfully achieved a complex tactical position which suits his/her style of play.
2. Complex tactical positions may not suit the Black player's style of play. Perhaps he/she played **1...e5** with the intention of getting a quieter position.
3. If the White player is better at tactical positions than the Black player, White has greater chances of winning the game.
4. The White player may be better prepared in the opening than Black player for this particular line.

One example - Nigel Short, a master of tactical positions, outplayed his strong Grandmaster opponent Vladimir Akopian in this position, playing White.

**On the minus side -**

1. Complex tactical positions may suit the Black player's style of play and Black might enjoy these complications.
2. Black might be as good as White in tactical positions or even better. Thus, White has good chances of losing the game.
3. Black might be very good at defense and at best White will only manage a draw.
4. The Black player might be prepared just as well in the opening as the White player or even better in this particular line.

One example- the great champion of the King's Gambit and a master of tactics, Boris Spassky himself, played this position both with White and with Black, winning the game with Black.

It seems to me that **White's reasons for going into this line are more subjective than objective**. The computer evaluations all favor Black slightly, but that's expected because Black is materially a pawn ahead and computers often are biased towards material. Objectively speaking, here are some lines which show that White doesn't get anything special out of this opening. In my opinion, in the line after **6...f5!?**, White is even slightly worse.

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [Event "6...f5!? and Black might be slightly better"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 f5 (6... Bh6 7. Nc3 c6 (
    7... Nf6 8. Nge2 Nh5 9. g3 O-O 10. Bxf4 Nxf4 11. Nxf4=) 8. Nge2 Qf6 9. g3 f3
    10. Nf4 Qe7) 7. Nc3 fxe4 8. Bxf4 (8. Nxe4 Qe7 9. Qe2 Nc6 10. c3 Bf5 11. Nf2 Bh6=+
    ) 8... d5 9. Qd2 c6 10. Nge2 Nf6 11. O-O-O Be6 12. Kb1 (12. Ng3 Bd6) 12...
    Nbd7 13. Ng3 Bb4 14. a3 Ba5 15. Be2 Bc7 16. Rdf1 Bxf4 17. Rxf4 Qe7 18. Rhf1
    O-O-O=+

```

One sample Grandmaster game in this line -

Hector vs Peter Leko 0-1 1995

**4. Bc4!?** is a perfectly playable alternative to **4. d4**. The point is that Black has to **"waste"** a move playing **4...h6** first and cannot play **4...g5** directly. If **4...g5**, then White get's a better position after **5. h4!** as follows -

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [Event "Black cannot play 4...g5 after 4. Bc4!?"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 g5? 5. h4! g4 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. d4 Bg7 8. Bxf4+=

```

However, I should mention that after **4...h6** and **5...g5**, Black is very solid in the mainline resulting position and it's not easy for White to break through.

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [Event "4. Bc4 h6!? 5.d4 g5 and Black is doing well"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. O-O Bg7 7. c3 Nc6

```

> Are there reasonable non-mainstream deviations from this line?

Considering the above discussion, I think a reasonable non-mainstream deviation would be to play **4. Bc4** and **5.h4!?**, preventing **g5**. Objectively speaking, White is still slightly worse because of the material deficit, but subjectively speaking, the position is quite complicated with plenty to play for. One idea for White's would be to hold on to the strong pawn center, castle queen side and attempt to put pressure on Black's **f4** pawn with moves like **Ne2**.

```
      [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
      [Event "5. h4!? is worth a try"]

      1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. h4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 (6... Bg4 7. d4
      Nh5 8. Ne5! dxe5 9. Qxg4 Nf6 10. Qf5 Nc6 11. dxe5 Nd4 12. Qxf4 Nxc2+ 13. Ke2
      Nxa1 14. exf6 Qxf6 15. Nd5 Qxf4 16. Bxf4 O-O-O 17. Rxa1+/-) (6... c6 7. d4 b5
      8. Bd3 Nh5 9. Ne2) 7. d4 Nh5 8. Qd3

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
I recommend you check the book "Winning with the King's Gambit", from Joe Gallagher (the book is a bit old, from early 90s, but is still a nice collection of games) he examines this line in the first 8 games of the book. Black replies include 6. ... f3, 6. ... Nf6, 6. ... Bh6, 6. ... Qf6.

The general idea is, White has a strong centre, Black has space in king side, sometimes they get a strong f3 pawn passed & protected. But they also have several weaknesses (Black squares in king side (exchanging dark bishops is good for White)).

White sometimes castle kingside, but more often queenside, or not castle at all. The breakthrough e4-e5 is key in White's attack plan.

Here are a extract games from the book (without annotations):

First Game:

> ```
> [FEN ""]
> [Event "Bad Woerishofen op 7th"]
> [Site "Bad Woerishofen"]
> [Date "1991.11.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Gallagher, Joseph G"]
> [Black "Bode, Wilfried"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C34"]
> [WhiteElo "2520"]
> [PlyCount "37"]
> [SourceDate "2003.09.15"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 f3 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Qd2 f6
> 9. Bh6 Nxh6 10. Qxh6 Be6 11. gxf3 gxf3 12. Nxf3 c6 13. Nc3 Qa5 14. Ng5 fxg5 15.
> Qxe6 Nd7 16. Bc4 Rf8 17. O-O-O gxh4 18. e5 d5 19. Bxd5 1-0
>
> ```

Second Game:

> ```
> [FEN ""]
> [Event "Orange"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "1987.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Hebden, Mark"]
> [Black "Borm, F."]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C34"]
> [WhiteElo "2515"]
> [BlackElo "2420"]
> [PlyCount "63"]
> [SourceDate "2003.09.15"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Nf6 7. Bxf4 Nxe4 8. Bd3
> Qe7 9. Ne2 Bg7 10. O-O O-O 11. Bxe4 Qxe4 12. Nbc3 Qc6 13. Qd2 d5 14. Ng3 Qf6
> 15. Be5 Qxh4 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Nxd5 f5 18. Qf4 Nc6 19. Nxc7 Rb8 20. Rae1 Kg8
> 21. d5 Ne7 22. Nh5 Qxh5 23. Rxe7 b5 24. Rfe1 Rb6 25. d6 Qh4 26. g3 Qf6 27. Ne8
> Qxb2 28. Qg5+ Kh8 29. Rxh7+ Kxh7 30. Re7+ Kh8 31. Qh5+ Kg8 32. Qh7# 1-0
>
> ```

Third Game:

> ```
> [FEN ""]
> [Event "BCF-ch"]
> [Site "Blackpool"]
> [Date "1988.08.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Gallagher, Joseph G"]
> [Black "Jackson, Sheila"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C34"]
> [WhiteElo "2445"]
> [BlackElo "2245"]
> [PlyCount "81"]
> [SourceDate "2003.09.15"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Bh6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2
> Qf6 9. g3 f3 10. Nf4 Qe7 11. Bd3 Bg7 12. Be3 h5 13. Qd2 Nd7 14. O-O-O Nf8 15.
> Rhe1 Bd7 16. e5 dxe5 17. dxe5 Ne6 18. Ne4 Bxe5 19. Nxe6 Bxe6 20. Bc5 Qc7 21.
> Nd6+ Bxd6 22. Rxe6+ Be7 23. Bd6 Qxd6 24. Rxd6 Bxd6 25. Ba6 O-O-O 26. Qc3 Ne7
> 27. Rxd6 bxa6 28. Rf6 Rhf8 29. Qc5 Rd7 30. Qxh5 Rfd8 31. Qxg4 Kb7 32. Qxf3 Nd5
> 33. Rxf7 Nb6 34. b3 a5 35. h5 a4 36. Kb2 axb3 37. axb3 a5 38. h6 a4 39. h7 axb3
> 40. cxb3 Ka7 41. Rxd7+ 1-0
>
> ```

# Answer
> 1 votes
White clearly has to move the knight. We see that White has 3 options:

1. Ng5
2. Nd2
3. Ng1

The first option clearly doesn't work, as ...f6 traps the knight and wins material. The second option is not so good as it blocks the c1-bishop and impedes further development. The only option left is Ng1. This undevelops a piece, but Black doesn't have any development either!

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit
---


title: Why is it not a checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is it not a checkmate?
I am new to chess. I have tried to learn checkmate from the video lesson in chess24 website. There, in one question, it marked my answer wrong and said that it was not checkmate. Can anyone please explain the reason ?

# Answer
Welcome to Chess Stack Exchange.

I believe you're doing well here. It is surely a checkmate. Probably the website isn't programmed that way to recognize that move. But, as per your question, this is clearly a checkmate that resembles the one-rook-mate pattern.
> 38 votes

# Answer
The sidebar says "1. Qe7# (1. Qc8#) (1. Qb8#)".

In case you're not yet familiar with chess notation, this means:

* **1.** (White's move number 1)
* **Q** (the Queen)
* **e7** (moves to space E7)
* **#** (and checkmates.)

After that, your move "(1. Qc8#)" is highlighted in red, indicating it was not one of the answers they were looking for. But note that it is given the checkmate mark (#), confirming that your move in fact a correct move, one that they simply forgot to include in the list of answers.

"(1. Qb8#)" written at the end is an additional move which is equally as valid as the first one. Qc8# should have been included here, but it was mistakenly left out.
> 23 votes

# Answer
That is checkmate. You are simply using a bad tool.

For simple mate in one exercises I recommend my own website. For example, this link https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzles/mate-in-1/?2vs1 has mate in 1 puzzles where the stronger side has two chessmen against a lone king. The good points about my system are:

(1) all alternatives are accepted,

(2) if you play an incorrect move then the computer will simply reply with a move that demonstrates that there was no checkmate after your first move.

Moreover, you can study the checkmate position by trying to make moves with the checkmated side. Then you will see arrows pointing to moves that would capture the king.

You can also move on a step further and try to solve puzzles where the task is to avoid getting mated on the next move. For example https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzles/mate-in-1-avoid/?2vs1 has the same positions as the first link but now you play with the lone king to avoid mate.

More puzzles for beginners are listed on the table of contents at https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzles/
> 7 votes

# Answer
That is indeed checkmate, I've been playing chess for months.

It must be an issue with either the code (which is probably the problem), or the client or server (which is very unlikely, but could be the case). There are other chess websites where you can learn, such as https://lichess.org/learn#/ and https://www.chess.com/lessons.

Those should work better, while they still have a few problems, it's not really too much.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The website (or that chess problem on that site specifically) is clearly buggy.
All 3 of the moves listed as correct answers are mates, and even shown with #
Qe7# Qc8# Qb8#

My guess as to what happened:

* The web site supports various different kinds of problems, including "one correct move".
* It doesn't have a chess engine checking for mates, just that they match some pre-programmed answers. **It relies on humans to set up the correct-answer conditions separately from the question and answer text.** (Introducing the possibility of human error causing this problem.)
* **A human entered correct problem and answer text, but accidentally marked it as only the first answer being correct.** Or some kind of syntax error or other mis-use of the problem-setting tools that made the website not understand that any of the answers were valid.

That would explain why all 3 listed moves have a `#` checkmate symbol after them: those are manually-entered text, and the web site doesn't truly *know* they're checkmates. Or doesn't know that they question is looking for checkmates, because programming that is separate from writing the text.

---

In future, if you encounter something online that seems to be telling you something that seems wrong, you can load up the position in a chess engine you trust and try it. Maybe you'll find there was a legal move you didn't spot.

As a beginner (or for any human) it's certainly possible to make mistakes. But this case is simple enough that it's pretty easy even for me (very much non-expert) to be pretty sure that all 3 of those moves are mates, and that there aren't any other mates. But it wouldn't take much more complexity for me to *not* be sure if a problem was buggy or if I was missing something.

In this case, the 3 listed moves that pop up being shown with `#` makes it fairly clear it's a bug, though.
> 3 votes

# Answer
While everyone is correct here in assuring you this is a checkmate and the tool is wrong , I am not seeing them explaining how you could verify this and since you are learning this might be useful to you:

1. The black king is indeed in check by the white queen as the white queen can move anywhere on row eight
2. The black king does not have any moves where it would not be in check. It has five possible moves, two to the row eight which , as we just noted, are covered by the white queen and three to the row seven all of which are covered by the white king.

For example moving the queen to D7 or D8 would not be a checkmate. Can you figure out why in each case? The reasons are different.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Definitely a checkmate. Must’ve been a computer glitch or maybe it was asking something else. Maybe was asking for a stalemate. Or it asked if you could stretch it out to 3 moves. Just to stretch it out as an exercise. Rather than mate in one.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The highlighted "Qc8#" in your screenshot means, I think, that the displayed move is not the one you made but Qc8# (which means that the queen moves to the c8 square, effecting checkmate). You probably made a different move which is not shown in your screenshot.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes, I have used Chess24 once, and it does have some problems. On Chess24 lessons, it has only one fixed solution, where there are many equally good lines.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, online-chess
---


title: The Borg against d4?

text:
# Question
Title: The Borg against d4?
Until recently, I played the London System, which served be well and was very solid, but every game I played was very similar and dull.

However, I have now started playing "Grob's Attack" as white, which is 1. g4 as well as "The Borg" as black which goes 1. e4 g5. I have found that these openings are a lot more interesting and my chess games are more fun.

However, now I do not have a response against 1. d4. My question is, if 1. ... g5 is a valid response after 2. bxg5. Keeping in mind I play chess for fun at about the 1500 level, does this line hold any possibilities for black? And if not, do you have any recommendations for an unorthodox aggressive opening against d4?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The position after 1. d4 g5 is close to the worst Black can possibly have after the first move. If you really want to give up a pawn on the first move, the Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5) is better, relatively, without being popular.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Accepting the Grob gambit, after 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 is considered risky, because 3.c4 puts some pressure on Black and there are a lot of tactical tricks to be aware of. But after 1.d4 g5 2.Bxg5 Black has a minus tempo in comparison to the previous line and the gambit in my view is not justified.

Anyway, why should you give a Pawn right at the first move, when there are plenty of playable defenses for Black vs. 1.d4?

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, you cannot play the Borg against d4. I believe that you should, if you want something exciting, to play the Benoni defence, Dutch defence, King's Indian defence, or the Albin Counter Gambit(depends on what White plays).

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: Does this process ever becomes a second nature?
I have started playing "real chess" but the problem is it takes too much time. How will I able to win in small time-controls? Does this process of searching the opponents threats and looking for candidate moves ever become a second-nature?

# Answer
If you are interested in the psychology of learning and improving in chess, I really recommend reading *Chess for Zebras* from Jonathan Rowson (and/or *Move First Think Later* from Willy Hendriks, which has a very similar message).

tl;dr: **Yes**, finding the "best" move continually becomes more and more natural (and thus faster!) while you improve (although even masters never reach the point of perfection).

Rowson explicitly distinguishes between *Knowledge* (theory learned from books etc.) and *Skill* (the practiced ability to actually use that knowledge on the board). If you think about learning languages, the former would be knowledge about grammar and vocabulary (you can learn that to a reasonable degree in school), and the latter would be the ability to speak/write **fluently** (you can only really learn this by constant practice of the language). Someone with only school *knowledge* will have to consciously think about everything and thus needs more time than a *skilled* speaker to form sentences - even if he/she knows all the parts!

It works roughly the same way in chess, up to the point that strong masters can often subconsciously "feel" a move within seconds and then "just" have to use their calculation abilities to make sure it actually works.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You've got to be able to instinctively know how to play a position for blitz/bullet chess. You don't have time to ponder over tactics, so you should be able to do those things instinctively(you can check your move with calculations in rapid chess, and if you have time in blitz).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Why not 4.e3 Bxc3+ in the Nimzo-Indian?

text:
# Question
Title: Why not 4.e3 Bxc3+ in the Nimzo-Indian?
Why is 4.e3 Bxc3+ almost never played in the Nimzo-Indian, with idea of 5.bxc3 c5, considering that this is a relatively feared move after 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 Bxc3, et cetera (Huebner Variation), so that a lot of White players switched to 5.Ne2 to avoid this system in recent times?

```
[fen ""]
[title "Nimzo-Indian Defense with 4. e3 Bxc3+"]
[startply "7"]
[startflipped "1"]

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e3 Bxc3+
5. bxc3 c5

```

Same question from a different perspective: is one tempo that important in a relatively closed position? (e.g. 4.a3 Bxc3+ is generally considered a good game for Black). Then why shouldn't it be after 4.e3 Bxc3?

# Answer
In this case, one tempo is important due to the concrete nature of the current position. White doesn't have to use it to play Nf3:

4.e3 Bxc3 5.bxc3 c5 6.Bd3, and if Black plays in the style of the Huebner with 6...Nc6 then White has 7.Ne2! and now 7...d6 8.0-0 e5 9.Ng3! gives White an edge (Stockfish says around +0.60). His knight controls the key e4- and f5- squares, and an f4 push is coming soon. This position is a major improvement for White over the normal Huebner system, where instead of playing Ne2-Ng3, White plays Nf3-Nd2 (to avoid Black's threat of playing the ...e4 fork). A knight on g3 can become an active attacker on the kingside, while a knight on d2 just blocks in the c1-bishop.

Note that if Black refuses to play in the style of the Huebner (6...Nc6, 7...d6, 8...e5) then White plays an early e4 push and gets a crushing position in the centre.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The variation beginning 4.e3 Bxc3+ is not very popular, but it is better than its reputation, and it's a very efficient way of cutting out a lot of theory if you're just taking up the Nimzo-Indian as Black. It hasn't been tried and found wanting; it just hasn't been tried (very much).

Essentially, Black would like to set up a dark-square pawn structure and would be happy to transpose into the Huebner Variation should White be so inclined. As II has pointed out, White's main way of avoiding the Huebner Variation is to choose Ne2-g3 instead of the more direct Nf3. But Black can generate pressure against White's center with or without ...e5, and in the Ne2-g3 lines he may well adopt the setup 5.bxc3 d6 6.Bd3 c5 7.Ne2 Nc6 (or even ...b6) 8.e4 0-0 9.0-0 b6 when he has ideas like ...Ba6 and ...Na5 or even ...Nh5 and ...Qh4. Stockfish 10 chews on the position for a while and coughs up an evaluation of 0.00. That doesn't mean the position is actually perfectly equal (see the discussion in Sadler and Regan, *Game Changer*, for some insight on what that 0.00 actually tells us), but it does mean that if you're a human being and you like Black's position and think you understand it, you should feel free to try it out.

At GM level, the Armenian GM Ashot Anastasian (d. 2016) frequently employed 4...Bxc3+, and it shows up occasionally in the practice of GM Paweł Jaracz, GM Leonid Yudasin, GM Dmitry Andreikin, GM Chanda Sandipan, and GM Roman Ovetchkin. In the Mega 2013 database Black scores a respectable 44% with it out of 166 games at master level (2200+ for both players).
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's a Saemisch variation for White, but White has an extra tempo. Perhaps White will be able to build a big center before Black can target the c4-pawn.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, nimzo-indian
---


# Question
Title: How should one play as Black vs. the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation?
As the title above states, how should one play as Black vs. the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation? In other words, after \`

```
 [FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6

```

(The Exchange Variation), White's Pawn structure is superior, and an endgame would eventually favour him, for the potential Passed Pawn. But Black's compansation, it is said in the books, is in the Bishop Pair. But in practice, what strategy (or strategies) should Black adopt, to make this a real thing and not just an abstract advantage?

\`

# Answer
> 2 votes
1. Do not exchange pieces, since this will bring White close to a winning endgame.
2. Use your two bishops and open up the board, so that you get a better middlegame.
3. Put your doubled pawns into action.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, ruy-lopez, exchange, bishop-pair
---


# Question
Title: Was this “caterpillar” strategy a good way to advance my pawns?
I recently played an endgame as Black in which I thought up a silly, but effective, to advance my doubled pawns. Here is the relevant part of the game.

```
[FEN "8/6p1/2p2kp1/1p1p4/p2P2K1/P1P5/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf4 g5+ 2. Kg4 g6 3. Kg3 Kf5 4. Kf3 g4+ 5. Kg3 g5 6. Kg2 Kf4 7. Kf2 g3+ 8. Kg2 g4

```

Then White ran out of time and I won.

We were both down to the seconds on the clock, and I thought that this was a good idea. That was because I thought, “Why must I think, when I can just herd the White king down the board is a systematic manner that saves me from wasting too much time on future thought?”

However, was my “caterpillar” plan really a good strategy in this endgame situation?

# Answer
tl;dr: "Yes."

Discussion: Technically, this position is governed by the basic concept of the "Outside Passed Pawn" and the winning method is to use that pawn to restrict the opposing king's ability to defend the other pawns on the board.

The purest expression of that concept is in David's answer, which is to just use the one pawn and leave the other as a Damoclean Sword dangling over the head of your opponent's king.

But, given the special case of this situation (you actually have *two* outside passed pawns, not just one) you could also decide play it strictly as a single g-pawn endgame, but with tempo move in hand. To do this, you would use the caterpillar's "head" (the lead g-pawn) along with your king to drive the opposing king backwards to the back rank. (While doing this, when your king moves beside your pawn, keep it to the center -- f file -- side of your g-pawn.) When that is accomplished (let's say your K reaches f3, the pawn g3 and your opponent's K goes to f1 to prevent your king from advancing in front of the pawn) you simply push the g-pawn forward to g2 and when he moves to g1 to block the advance of the pawn, then you move the rearmost g-pawn from g7 to g6, leaving your opponent the choice of getting out of the way of your lead g-pawn and letting it queen, or moving one of his other pawns and letting you create a queen from one of your other pawns.

I would probably have played it that way, simply because it seems the least complicated to me, but there are multiple winning ideas in this position, and none of them are objectively better than any other.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Overall, that is totally fine, and it worked great. That said, without a detailed calculation of any promotion and stalemate possibilities on the k-side, the easiest win will be running to b2 and just queening the a-pawn since you may well have to do that anyway. That is best done with the p on g6 still far away, and white cannot ignore it, so he has to go take that first, and that is VERY slow.

My initial instinct was to run to b2 much earlier. It is simpler.

P.S. Also, as Taemyr first mentioned, and then OverlordAlex, there really is no stalemate threat since even if you get to g2+; Kg1 Kg3; white still has b3 ab; a4 b2; a5 b1=Q and mate. I should not have even worried about that.

```
  [FEN "8/6p1/2p2kp1/1p1p4/p2P2K1/P1P5/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf4 g5+ 2. Kg4 g6 3. Kg3 Kf5 4. Kf3 g4+ 5. Kg3 Ke4 6. Kxg4 Kd3 7. Kg5 Kc2 8. Kxg6 Kxb2 9. Kf6 Kxa3 10. Ke6 Kb3 11. Kd6 a3 12. Kc6 a2 13. Kd5 a1=Q

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
White is in zugzwang so the basic idea of forcing white back using the pawns for extra tempos is perfectly correct.

You still need to figure out how to queen without stalemating but you have the right idea.
> 9 votes

# Answer
It was OK, but unnecessary. You could have left your "back" pawn on the starting square to make your opponent lose more time while going to capture it. Then you are free to go into the queenside to take all of his pawns.

The endgame is easily won anyway so there is no one road do victory, though. For instance, you could end up with your pawns leaving the White king with no moves, forcing him to give his panws away (but beware of stalemate!)
> 6 votes

# Answer
It was a very sensible strategy. You never have to worry about stalemate because at the key moment, like round about now, your king can head over to the queenside to take the pawns on b2 and a3 and then queen your a pawn while your opponent is busy taking your g pawns.
> 1 votes

# Answer
From the end position without the queenside pawns White can move to g1, claim the opposition, and have a draw. If you had just advanced the front g pawn until it got to g3 you would have g6 available to take the opposition and queen the front g pawn.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Your strategy was good. The best idea would be to stalemate White's king, and then to wait for White to lose a pawn by force. Then, you promote and checkmate Black's king easily.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, positional-play, doubled-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't 5. f4 considered strong in the French Advance, main line?
Why isn't 5. f4 considered a strong move in the main line French Advance, after

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6

```

Everyone plays 5. Nf3 here, but isn't it logical to support e5 with a Pawn and later 6. Nf3, as it is for example in the Steinitz Variation of the Classical French, after

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3

```

# Answer
After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4, black can put white's center under pressure very quickly. For example, after 5....Nh6 6.Nf3, black is already better after 6....Qb6 or 6....cxd4 7.cxd4 Nf5.

In contrast, one of the main lines of the Tarrasch variation goes 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3. In this line, white has a firm grip on the center, while black cannot manoeuvre Nd7 to the outpost on f5.

```

      [StartPly "4"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 (3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3) c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4 Nh6 6.Nf3 cxd4 (6...Qb6) 7.cxd4 Nf5

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
In the Advance French, you are already down development. You can't waste time with 5.f4, which gives Black a large initiative with ...Qb6. Thus, the best move is Nf3.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, 1.e4
---


title: King's gambit line refutation

text:
# Question
Title: King's gambit line refutation
In the King's gambit, a strong opponent has played against me(as black): 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 h6(trying to hold onto the f-pawn). I have found a variation where White probably has a strong initiative, but he still insists that Black is fine and is slightly better. 4.d4 g5 5.h4 Bg7 5.hxg5 hxg5 6.Rxh8 Bxh8 7.Qh5

I have stopped my analysis here, since Black has a refutation 7... Qf6. I put this position into the engine, which gives White a large advantage, but Black has an extra pawn. Where did I go wrong?

# Answer
So I'm not sure if you're asking where you went wrong analyzing this line for Black (because of the large advantage the engine gives to White) or for White (because you think Black being up a pawn is important).

If you mean analyzing for Black, 4...g5 is a poor move (3...h6 is also not great, although Black still seems alright). There are a few better moves, such as 4...d5. The point is to meet 5.Bxd5 with 5...Nf6, and 5.exd5 with 5...Bd6. Probably a more challenging try for White would have been 4.Nc3, aiming to prevent ...d5. Coming back to Black's point of view, by the time 6.hxg5 is played White already has a clear edge. But still a better response would have been 6...Nc6 or 6...d5; 6...hxg5 gives White a winning position.

If you mean analyzing for White, the only arguable improvement in your analysis is 4.Nc3 instead of 4.d4. By the final position after 8...Qf6, the engine gives White a huge advantage - the lost pawn is irrelevant. White could follow up with Nc3, Nf3, e5, etc, enjoying an overwhelming initiative. Reaching this position is a disaster for Black, and definitely not for White.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: What's the best strategy against the Hippo?
What's the best strategy against the so-called Hippopotamus opening or defense, in which White or Black pushes almost all of her pawns on the 3rd or 6th rank, except perhaps the a and h pawns, and then possibly moves her Knights and Bishops on the 2nd or 7th rank? Would you try a breakthrough with the d or the e Pawns, or something else?

# Answer
In my opinion, against these openings, the best strategy is to maintain the tension. Move around your pieces building up threats, and prevent the opponent's pawn breaks. Against these positions usually there is no forced win, but it is very hard to play them because of the cramped position, so your opponent will sooner or later make some mistake, and then his/her position will collapse.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Check out this extremely useful video: How to Fight the Hippopotamus Defense
> 3 votes

# Answer
The Hippo does not do well against a 3 pawn center. For example, d4, e4, f4. Then with Nf3, Bd3 and 0-0 White can play f5 breaking the position. Tiger Hillarp Persson wrote a couple books on the Modern defense, where has a chapter on the Hippo. In the book he warns against using it when White can get 3 pawns in the center and has great explanations.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Make a pawn break on a flank and bring a minor piece into the now weakened square.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Hippo does not do well against a large pawn center, since White can rip up the position before Black castles. Also, White can trade off the g7-bishop and take advantage of the weaknesses caused on the f6-square for occupation with a piece.

If you look at the engine evaluation of Black's position, then you can see that White has a large advantage.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


title: How to play the French as White

text:
# Question
Title: How to play the French as White
Club opponents frequently play the French Defence again me, and I have trouble countering it with the Advance variation, since Black gets active pieces. Is there another good variation that avoids the Winawer, while giving White less problems?

# Answer
Your best bet is to play the Exchange Variation with 3. ed.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5

```

Yes, white's advantage after this is very small but you will get a more open game which is probably not what your opponent was hoping for. It has a bit of a dull, boring reputation because one line is symmetrical but there is lots of scope for both players to play more adventurously by breaking the symmetry. The tactics just take a bit longer to build.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Three most common replies to the French are `3.Nc3`, `3.Nd2` and `3.e5`, in your question you are ruling out `3.Nc3` and `3.e5`, so `3.Nd2`, the Tarrasch, seems like a natural suggestion, and it is less sharp than Winawer and if closing of the center happens it is on better terms for white than in Advance variation, so it might be worth a look. But if you want to avoid French structures in general, then by all means play the exchange variation that Brian Towers has suggested.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


title: Chess Problem: Reset The 50-Move Rule!

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Problem: Reset The 50-Move Rule!
While chess problems and such are usually meant for Puzzling Stack Exchange, I thought that this one should be an exception since it’s more relevant IMHO.

Resetting the 50-move rule, i.e. restart the 100 ply cycle, requires either a pawn push or a capture. Checkmate does not restart it of course.

```
[Title "Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe, MatPlus.net Forum 8/14/2013, White To Move"]
[FEN "1K6/2p5/p5pr/q2k3n/P1pPp1rP/1pP1PpPR/1P3P1B/3N3N w - - 0 1"]

```

Given that White is playing to reset the 50-move rule and Black is trying to avoid it, how many moves will it take to for White to reset the 50-move rule? Or, in layman’s terms, after how many moves can White make a capture or a pawn moves while Black avoids doing or allowing that to happen?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Since no one has managed to solve this problem entirely, here is the answer. Credit goes to @NoseKnowsAll and @Scrounged in the comments for identifying the mechanism White uses to force the reset. This answer merely shows how White can avoid a perpetual check by Black.

```
[Title "Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe, MatPlus.net Forum 8/14/2013, White To Move"]
[FEN "1K6/2p5/p5pr/q2k3n/P1pPp1rP/1pP1PpPR/1P3P1B/3N3N w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc8 Rh8+ 2. Kd7 Rh7+ 3. Ke8 Rh8+ 4. Kf7 Rh7+ 5. Kg8 Nf6+ 6. Kf8 Nd7+ 7. Ke8 Nf6+ 8. Kd8 Nh5 9. Bg1 Rh8+ 10. Kd7 Rh7+ 11. Ke8 Rh8+ 12. Kf7 Rh7+ 13. Kg8 Nf6+ 14. Kf8 Nd7+ 15. Ke8 Nf6+ 16. Kd8 Nh5 17. Rh2 Rh8+ 18. Kd7 Rh7+ 19. Ke8 Rh8+ 20. Kf7 Rh7+ 21. Kg8 Nf6+ 22. Kf8 Nd7+ 23. Ke8 Nf6+ 24. Kd8 Nh5 25. Rg2 Rh8+ 26. Kd7 Rh7+ 27. Ke8 Rh8+ 28. Kf7 Rh7+ 29. Kg8 Nf6+ 30. Kf8 Nd7+ 31. Ke8 Nf6+ 32. Kd8 Nh5 33. Bh2 Rh8+ 34. Kd7 Rh7+ 35. Ke8 Rh8+ 36. Kf7 Rh7+ 37. Kg8 Nf6+ 38. Kf8 Nd7+ 39. Ke8 Nf6+ 40. Kd8 Nh5 41. Rg1 Rh8+ 42. Kd7 Rh7+ 43. Ke8 Rh8+ 44. Kf7 Rh7+ 45. Kg8 Nf6+ 46. Kf8 Nd7+ 47. Ke8 Nf6+ 48. Kd8 Nh5 49. Re1 Rh8+ 50. Kd7 Rh7+ 51. Ke8 Rh8+ 52. Kf7 Rh7+ 53. Kg8 Nf6+ 54. Kf8 Nd7+ 55. Ke8 Nf6+ 56. Kd8 Nh5 57. Re2 Rh8+ 58. Kd7 Rh7+ 59. Ke8 Rh8+ 60. Kf7 Rh7+ 61. Kg8 Nf6+ 62. Kf8 Nd7+ 63. Ke8 Nf6+ 64. Kd8 Nh5 65. Rc2 Rh8+ 66. Kd7 Rh7+ 67. Ke8 Rh8+ 68. Kf7 Rh7+ 69. Kg8 Nf6+ 70. Kf8 Nd7+ 71. Ke8 Nf6+ 72. Kd8 Nh5 73. Rc1 Rh8+ 74. Kd7 Rh7+ 75. Ke8 Rh8+ 76. Kf7 Rh7+ 77. Kg8 Nf6+ 78. Kf8 Nd7+ 79. Ke8 Nf6+ 80. Kd8 Nh5 81. Ra1 Rh8+ 82. Kd7 Rh7+ 83. Ke8 Rh8+ 84. Kf7 Rh7+ 85. Kg8 Nf6+ 86. Kf8 Nd7+ 87. Ke8 Nf6+ 88. Kd8 Nh5 89. Ra3 Rh8+ 90. Kd7 Rh7+ 91. Ke8 Rh8+ 92. Kf7 Rh7+ 93. Kg8 Nf6+ 94. Kf8 Nd7+ 95. Ke8 Nf6+ 96. Kd8 Rh8+ 97. Ke7 Ng8+ 98. Kf7 Nh6+ 99. Kg7 Rg8+ 100. Kxh6

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
White can get the rook out of the cage, and then it could threaten a capture. However, Black may attempt a perpetual check.

---
Tags: strategy, problems, 50-move-rule
---