# Question
Title: Why is Stockfish giving me this weird move?
When I ask for the best move for this FEN:

> 1rbq1rk1/b4p2/p2p3p/3Bp3/P3P3/2P4P/R2Q1PP1/4K2R w -- - 0 30

```
[FEN "1rbq1rk1/b4p2/p2p3p/3Bp3/P3P3/2P4P/R2Q1PP1/4K2R w - - 0 30"]

```

Stockfish (via Python) replies

> e1e2

which is a losing move, since there's a free pawn on the 6th rank that the white queen can take. Instead, Stockfish wants me to move the white king for some bizarre reason.

Why does it do this?

I suspect it may have something to do with the ending to the FEN, namely the part where it says

> -- - 0 30

I wrote the first part of the FEN by hand, and it is correct, but I didn't know what move it was or how to describe castling, so I just made up the "-- - 0 30" part. Is that the reason Stockfish gives this confusing answer?

# Answer
> 7 votes
You have a bug in your script. Try it on Stockfish yourself:

```
position fen 1rbq1rk1/b4p2/p2p3p/3Bp3/P3P3/2P4P/R2Q1PP1/4K2R w - - 0 1
go movetime 1000

```

> bestmove d2h6 ponder c8e6

How many nodes have you given Stockfish to think?

# Answer
> 5 votes
In addition, your made-up FEN may be a part of it. As it stands, you have described a position where castling kingside is not a legal move, so perhaps the program wants to develop the king's rook.

Have a look at the Wikipedia page on FEN or similar resources to see how you can include castling.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Difficult to answer, not seeing your python script.

The best move in this position is Qxh6. Important, it comes with the idea of perpetual check via Qg6+ Qh6+, i.e. a draw. White is down a piece for nothing, so this perpetual/draw is the best white can hope to achieve here.

Qxh6 is not particularly difficult to find for an engine or even a human, but stockfish might miss it, if it is severely crippled.

The most obvious reply to Qxh6 is Rb1+ winning the rook on h1, which could scare engines and humans if they don't look ahead more than a move or two. So in order to find Qxh6, your stockfish would need to:

* look ahead at least 6 moves
* be aware of the possibility of perpetual check

If any of these is not satisfied, it would try to find the second best move. In this sense, Ke2 avoids the skewer with Rb1+ and activates the rook on h1, so is a decent move (in an otherwise lost position).

If in the initial position whie is alllowed to castle, your FEN is wrong. You would need to add a capital K after the "w" in order to indicate that white can castle kingside. Ignoring the perpetual with Qxh6, the best move would then be 0-0.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The made up part of the FEN (`-- - 0 30`) says, in order:

1. Neither side has any castling rights. This is the only part relevant to this question and has been covered by user1583209 and sjb-2812. Note that it should be a single hyphen.
2. There are no en passant rights. The arrangement of the pieces already shows this, so it must be irrelevant.
3. There have been 0 moves since the last capture or pawn move. This seems to be the normal value used for FEN, unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. It is used for the 50 move rule. I can’t see how it would be relevant here.
4. The current move is move 30. The normal value is 1, but, with no time control and no earlier moves to refer to, it is meaningless.

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What are the benefits of having a space advantage in a closed position?
I notice that in my closed games when I find myself with an advantage in space, I have more mobility for my pieces and thats all good but once I reach this position I'm never really able to find a plan and never know how to make use of this advantage. Does anybody know how I can make use of it whether that be by opening up a file or trying to create a passed pawn? I never really know how to identify these ideas and generally look for a tactical line or idea that never comes up.

# Answer
Michael Stean, in his "Simple chess" introduced the idea of the "capacity" of a given Pawn structure. How many pieces can live inside it without getting in each others way. If your opponents pawns do not have enough capacity for his pieces, he will have difficulty manoeuvering them to defend. This introduces the "principle of two weaknesses" You inflict two weaknesses in your opponents structure. You can switch your attack from one to the other faster than they can switch their defence. The nature of the weaknesses can be whatever is in the position. A vulnerable King, a weak Pawn, a desirable exchange, establishing control of a file...It can be an end in itself or a stepping stone to something else. Search for "two weaknesses" on Youtube.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you have a material advantage, do not play as if it in itself guarantees a win. Act aggressively and seek an active plan. This principle is often violated especially by less aggressive chess players, who often stop active play, having achieved a material advantage, believing that it will automatically lead to victory. This is not the case, and as a rule, the opponent seizes the initiative. Striving for risk-free play in a winning position allows the opponent to extend resistance and sometimes gives him a chance to escape. The main thing is to keep the initiative. Steinitz's rule: "the one with the advantage must attack under the threat of losing this advantage." You should also analyze the position that interests you (analyze the game). after the game, of course, establish and analyze the moves using a computer in order to understand where you make mistakes and miscalculations. Deconstruct Nimzowitsch's games!

Steinitz's main thesis is: "set yourself a plan that would be in accordance with the situation."

1. If there are no flaws in the opponent's position, then you need to create a weakness in his camp;
2. The object of attack in the endgame are pawns, and therefore you need to try to form a weak fight in a pawn structure rival.
3. The key to the opponent's position may be the capture of the field. Practice creating weaknesses in your opponent's position. Remember that it is important to find the most vulnerable spot in his defense. Targeting the weakest point in the enemy position. Note further that, although the combination recedes into the background in Steinitz's teachings, it is still for achieving consistent good results is very important. for with its help the advantageous position turns into a win. There is a well-known dictum: “the most difficult thing is to win a won position” - it shows that most often chess players lack the ability to combine accurately and sharply. To achieve this, it is necessary to study deeply the game of Andersen and Morphy before turning to the Steinitz method.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawns, closed-position, space
---


# Question
Title: Can I play chaturanga on any of the main chess sites?
Inspired by this question What rules are known for Chaturanga?

Chaturanga seems quite interesting, and some aspects of it, like no castling are being introduced in other variants: Kramnik's chess. Given that, say, lichess.org has so many variants, is there a reason why Chaturanga is not of them?

Possible reasons:

1. The rules are not exactly known.
2. Queen (Mantri) is much less powerful and pawns don't have a 2-square move option on the first move, which makes the game less interesting / drawish to many people.
3. Strategies were developed to draw fairly easily, (and that's why rule changes were introduced). This is a stronger version of 2), and probably not likely.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You answered your own question, with 1) and 2) being the main causes!

I don't know about 3), tbh, but it seems at least somewhat plausible (although stalemate was also a win in chaturanga so who knows!).

You say that it's not on main chess sites, but chess.com at least has it as a playable variant- can't speak for how easily you'll find a game there however.

It's also presumably not trivial to code the game, which is probably another reason why.

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: World championship games where underpromotion was necessary
I have been frequenting tactics puzzles and a few books over the past year. I come across these underpromotion puzzles frequently, however, I never find them in real games.

1. Has there ever been a world championship game where an underpromotion was necessary?
2. And if not, what was the highest level game that involved an underpromotion?

# Answer
Found a Rubinstein game!

```
[fen ""]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[White "Alapin, Simon"]
[Black "Rubinstein, Akiba"]
[WhiteElo "2500"]
[BlackElo "2640"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 Nf6 3.f4 Nxe4 4.d3 Nc5 5.fxe5 d5 6.d4 Ne6 7.Nf4 c5 8.Nc3 cxd4 9.Ncxd5 Nc6 10.Bd2 Nxf4 11.Nxf4 Nxe5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Qe2 Bd6 14.c3 O-O 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 16.cxd4 Nc6 17.O-O Nxd4 18.Qd3 Bxf4 19.Bxf4 Rad8 20.Rad1 Qg4 21.Rde1 Ne6 22.Qe3 b6 23.h3 Qh5 24.Be5 Rfe8 25.Qa3 f6 26.Bd6 Qd5 27.Bg3 Qc5+ 28.Qxc5 Nxc5 29.Bc7 Rxe1 30.Rxe1 Rd2 31.Re8+ Kf7 32.Ra8 Rxb2 33.Rxa7 Kg6 34.a4 h5 35.a5 bxa5 36.Rxa5 Rc2 37.Bg3 Kh6 38.Bf2 Ne4 39.Be3+ Kg6 40.Ra4 Ng3 41.Bf4 Ne2+ 42.Kh2 h4 43.Bd6 Kh5 44.Ra5+ Kh6 45.Rf5 Kg6 46.Rf2 Rd2 47.Bf4 Rc2 48.Bd6 Kf7 49.Ba3 Ke6 50.Bf8 g6 51.Bg7 f5 52.Bh6 Kf6 53.Bf8 g5 54.Bd6 Ke6 55.Bb8 Rd2 56.Bc7 g4 57.hxg4 fxg4 58.g3 h3 59.Bb8 Kd5 60.Bf4 Rc2 61.Be3 Ke4 62.Bg5 Kd3 63.Bh6 Nd4 64.Rxc2 Nxc2 65.Bf4 Ke2 66.Bb8 Ne3 67.Kg1 Kf3 68.Bc7 Nf1 69.Bb8 Nxg3 70.Bc7 Ne2+ 71.Kh2 Nf4 72.Bb6 g3+ 73.Kh1 Nd3 74.Kg1 h2+ 75.Kh1 Nf2+ 76.Bxf2 gxf2 77.Kxh2 f1=R 78.Kh3 Rh1#  0-1

```

and just now, one by lasker:

```
[fen ""]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1892.11.01"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Gustave Simonson"]
[Black "Emanuel Lasker"]
[ECO "C67"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.O-O Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6
7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 h6 10.Bf4 Be6 11.Rad1+ Kc8
12.Ne1 g5 13.Bd2 b6 14.Nd3 c5 15.f4 c4 16.Nf2 gxf4 17.Bxf4 Kb7
18.Nfe4 Kc6 19.Rd2 Be7 20.h3 Rad8 21.Rfd1 Rxd2 22.Rxd2 Rg8
23.Kf1 Nh4 24.Bg3 Ng6 25.Ne2 Kb7 26.Nf6 Rh8 27.c3 c5 28.Ne4
Kc6 29.Kf2 Rd8 30.Rxd8 Bxd8 31.Ke3 Bc7 32.Bf4 b5 33.Bxh6 Bxe5
34.Nf4 Nxf4 35.Bxf4 Bg7 36.h4 b4 37.Bg5 Bd5 38.Bf6 Bh6+ 39.Bg5
Bf8 40.h5 Kd7 41.h6 Bxe4 42.Kxe4 Ke6 43.g4 f6 44.h7 Bg7 45.Bh6
Bh8 46.a3 bxa3 47.bxa3 a6 48.a4 f5+ 49.gxf5+ Kf7 50.Bd2 Kg7
51.Bf4 Kxh7 52.Be5 Bg7 53.Bxg7 Kxg7 54.Kd5 Kf6 55.Kxc4 Kxf5
56.Kxc5 Ke6 57.Kb6 Kd5 58.a5 Kd6 59.c4 Kd7 60.c5 Kc8 61.Kxa6
Kb8 62.c6 Kc7 63.Kb5 Kb8 64.Kc5 Kc8 65.Kd6 Kb8 66.Kd7 Ka8
67.c7 Ka7 68.c8=R 1-0

```

Both were found on https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/minor.htm
> 9 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure about a world championship game, but genuine underpromotions do occur now and then in grandmaster games.

For a starting shot, here is the famous 2012 game with a knight promotion by Hikaru Nakamura. According to the FIDE rating website, Nakamura's **rating** at the time was **2783 the month game was played.** By "highest level," I took that to mean the highest rating of a player in a professional game with a genuine underpromotion occurred.

```
[Title "Hikaru Nakamura-Vladimir Kramnik, Chess Olympiad, Istanbul Turkey, 9/6/19"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "122"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. c4 c6 5. d4 d5 6. cxd5 cxd5 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Qb3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 O-O 10. Nd2 e6 11. e4 Nc6 12. O-O Na5 13.  Qd1 Qc7 14. Qf3 b6 15. Ba3 Rd8 16. e5 Ba6 17. Rfe1 Rac8 18. Bb4 Bh6 19. Qd1 Nc6 20. Ba3 Na5 21. Bb4 Nc6 22. Ba3 Na5 23. Nb1 b5 24. h4 Nc6 25. Bc5 Qb8 26. Qe2 Na5 27. Nd2 Rxc5 28. dxc5 Qc8 29. Nf3 Qxc5 30. Nh2 Bg7 31. h5 g5 32. h6 Bxh6 33. Qh5 Bg7 34. Qxg5 Nc6 35. Ng4 Qe7 36. Qxe7 Nxe7n37. a4 d4 38. axb5 Bxb5 39. Rxa7 d3 40. Rxe7 d2 41. Rd1 Be2 42. Ne3 Bxe5 43. c4 h5 44. Ra7 h4 45. Ra2 Bxd1 46. Nxd1 hxg3 47. fxg3 Bxg3 48. c5 f5 49. Ra7 e5 50. c6 e4 51. Bh3 Rc8 52. Ra6 Rf8 53. Ra5 f4 54. Kf1 e3 55. Ke2 Rf6 56. Ra8+ Kg7 57. Ra7+ Rf7 58. Rb7 Kf6 59. Kf3 Re7 60. Rxe7 Kxe7 61. c7 e2 62. c8=N+ Kf6 63. Kxe2 Ke5 64. Nb6 Kd4 65. Bg2 Be1 66. Nd5 Ke5 67. Nb4 Bh4 68. Nd3+ Kf5 69. Kxd2 Kg4 70. Ke2 Bf6 71. N1f2+ Kg3 72. Bf3 Bd8 73. Ne4+ Kh4 74. Ne5 Bc7 75. Ng6+ Kh3 76. Ne7 Bd8 77. Nf5 Bb6 78. Kf1 Kh2 79. Bg4 f3 80. Nh4

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, pawn-promotion, master-games, famous-games
---


title: A mysterious mate in one

text:
# Question
Title: A mysterious mate in one
Here's a question that's a little off the usual format, but problem questions like this have been done before and are on topic, so here we go!

Question: Can you find the mysterious mate in one? The trick is not board rotation, removing a piece, retracting any moves, completing a move, or an illegal move-there is but one solution. Have fun solving!

```
 [Title "White checkmates Black in one move"]
 [FEN "5nRQ/6PR/1p6/p2P4/p1B5/3Pp3/8/1b1K4 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 48 votes
Looking at the problem as if the black King is currently invisible...

> gxf8=Q# All squares are now covered. So where ever the black King is hiding, the game is over.

# Answer
> 15 votes
A solution may be that it used to be possible to

> promote to an enemy piece, as mentioned e.g. here. This loophole has long been fixed in the official rules, but under old rules it was allowed to do `1. g7xf8=(black)K` which would be mate.

Would that really explain

> the tag?

Perhaps, in the sense that

> we *do* need to go back in time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is easy.

> The Black king is somewhere on the 8th rank. It is checkmated in one move by pawn x knight on f8, queening. Now the new queen is giving check, and the rook on h7 prevents the king from going anywhere, resulting in checkmate.

---
Tags: problems, checkmate, retrograde-analysis
---


title: How does one memorize a chess game?

text:
# Question
Title: How does one memorize a chess game?
I study games from books, and would like to retain some of them in my memory, especially the opening part. I also want to remember my own games (I play about 5-10 tournament games - mostly against \>2000 ELO rated players, and some rapid ones here and there). Are there any particular techniques or tips?

# Answer
> 15 votes
In my experience, memorization of chess games simply came from improvement. I first realized that I could remember the games of past tournaments when I was around 1600 ELO, and as I improved my visualization became sharper and I could recall games played years ago. My advice to you is to have the games notated and not just read, but ***play through*** them regularly. This repeated process of playing the moves of a game will help you retain the information necessary for you to recall the game in the future.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Memorizing things move by move is very hard indeed. There's evidence that masters use something called chunking. Google chess masters chunking to see various links. A basic example would be instead of Nxd5 Bxd5 Bxd5 cxd5, you might think "everything is exchanged on d5." Masters might think "OK, we set up the King's Indian formation."

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Chunking

Once you understand basic structures and motifs, memorization will be easier. Until then, it may feel like studying for a test in a class you don't like.

# Answer
> 5 votes
In chess, memory is related to learning. The deeper you study, the easier it is to remember the most important points. Its about quality not quantity. You can "cram" openings, but unless you understand the position you'll start making mistakes. You'll play better if you focus on the types of positions that interest you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are a few techniques to remember openings -

1. In the beginning, stick to a single opening. Ex: play only `1.e4`
2. Choose an opening that has fewer variations or that has (more or less) standard set of moves. For ex: King's Indian Defense or Sicilain Dragon variation. You can mostly play standard moves without worrying about white's moves.
3. Study common traps in your opening
4. Last (but not the least) - practice. Study more games and play often.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I found that flashcards are a great tool to help memorize complete games and game openings. They allow one to implement in practice many concepts mentioned in earlier answers.

There are many flashcard software available, including free ones. Some allow to schedule future reviews based on the difficulty of a recall. The idea is to drill difficult moves more often then easier ones.

A single flashcard could be created by taking a screen shot of a particular game position and inserting it in the question part of a flashcard. The answer part will contain the screen print of the next position of a game.

One potential drawback of this method is that it can be time consuming. A game containining 70 moves will require 140 screenshots. There are ways to streamline it and even fully automate it. For example this website will create chess flashcards automatically out of a game saved in Portable Game Notation (PGN) file. Full disclosure: I am the author of this website.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Maybe just write the openings and some games down and read them very often. Just hang them up on some mirror, for example in the bathroom and then every time you brush your teeth, you see it and will remind it. You could probably also hang some post its on your cupboard / desk.

On the openings part, just play your opening often and then you will automatically remember it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As trivial as it sounds, learn the board first. To the point where you can instantly identify any square just by randomly pointing at it. This will make memorizing easier by abstracting the board component while trying to "burn" a game into your brain.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Understand why the moves have been made. Once you have gotten a notion of the game, then memorization becomes much easier.

---
Tags: master-games
---


title: Best move arrow in Scid vs PC

text:
# Question
Title: Best move arrow in Scid vs PC
Is there a way to display the best move found by the engine on the main board? Lichess has arrows showing the best move (and even for the second, third, etc best lines). Is this possible in Scid vs PC?

# Answer
According to the Scid vs PC help use menu options:

Options / Moves / Show Variation Arrows
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, scid
---


# Question
Title: How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings?
I heard that Capablanca never liked to bother with openings, would never study chess or read books. Despite all this, he became world champion. Is this an exception to the rule? Have times changed today were players are too strong and study is mandatory?

# Answer
> 20 votes
Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study *formal* chess (as it was understood in his time).

On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."

Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.

Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Reading helps, unless you're Capablanca and can work it all out for yourself, which most can't, even the GM's. I would suggest do both, but you don't need to overdo it with either. Just concentrate on your weaknesses and read/figure out whatever is necessary for you to improve. Best of luck :)

# Answer
> 3 votes
GM Jonathan Rowson recently answered the question "how does anyone get good at chess?" on Twitter in fewer than 280 characters as follows:

> Start young (5), fall in love with chess, get lucky with the characters in your particular chess world.
> Keep going, be willing to lose a lot, admire someone, study, play, repeat. Befriend computers.
> Lose some more. Scream in frustration.
> Keep going. Win.
> Takes at least a decade

The bad news is that "study" comes about halfway through his list. The good news is that he seems to prioritise other things above study in his list but the first three are things you don't have much control over. They do, though, apply to most if not all of the top players today. Starting early, falling in love with chess and having good mentors / role models in your early development are all key.

I'd just echo the Biblical quote which, although in another context, also applies here:

> faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love

The point being that when you really love something then studying doesn't feel like studying. It is just more fun doing what you love.

# Answer
> 2 votes
One can have a natural talent for the skills inherent in chess, such as spatial relations and pattern recognition, but without knowing some of the basic principles of chess, most easily obtained through study, it's difficult to see how one could become truly great. Capablanca was supposedly such a natural talent, particularly in endings, but even he found it necessary to study openings when he reached the higher echelons of chess in order to continue to compete successfully. Other natural talents such as Reshevsky found the same to be true.

# Answer
> -4 votes
In those days, people do not have to reckon with tactics and preparation at the level of silicon beings, they just need to play better than the other guy. If Capablanca were still alive today, he would be crushed by most elite players because general principles do not stand up to tactical refutations, especially if they came from the computer.

---
Tags: theory, learning
---


title: Why does White play Nc4?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does White play Nc4?
I was solving some problems on chesstempo. This one caught my eye (the White just played Ng2, we play as the Black):

```
[FEN "1k5r/pp4p/5b1p/qPP/N2r1p/P4P/K1Q3PP/2R3R w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb2

```

I saw that the right move was Rd2, yet I failed to foresee White's play.

I reckoned the best move for the White to be Qb1:

```
[FEN "1k5r/pp4p/5b1p/qPP/N2r1p/P4P/K1Q3PP/2R3R w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb2 Rd2
2. Qb1 Rb2
3. Qb2 Bb2
4. Kb2

```

I might be missing some moves playing as black, yet it still seems to me that White wins more material playing Qb1 instead of what appeared to be the solution:

```
[FEN "1k5r/pp4p/5b1p/qPP/N2r1p/P4P/K1Q3PP/2R3R w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb2 Rd2
2. Nc4 Rc2
3. Rc2

```

Why did White play Nc4, not Qb1? What am I missing? I can't see any forks or something, which would justify the attack on the Queen.

# Answer
> it still seems to me that White wins more material playing Qb1 instead of what appeared to be the solution

No, if you compare the two final positions the only difference is that in the Nc4 line white has an extra knight and black has an extra bishop, so no difference if you are counting points.

> Why did White play Nc4, not Qb1? What am I missing?

Good question!

Both final positions are completely lost for white. The only practical difference is that in the Nc4 line the extra piece for either side creates more possibilities for white to try and create something. Black has more work to do to get the full point. In particular the knight can land on d6 where it is a very good piece.

Another significant point is that in the Qb1 line in the final position Qxb5 comes with check and tempo whereas in the Nc4 line Qxb5 is not check.

Small points perhaps but noting them helps you build your ability to fight on in lost positions.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Black has a completely winning position after 1...Rd2 2.Qb1 Rxb2+ 3.Qxb2 Bxb2
> 0 votes

---
Tags: check, puzzles, pins
---


# Question
Title: What is meant by the term "challenging" a move?
I was reading Tal-Botvinnik 1960 and came across a term I had not heard of before. Tal says in the book, in exact words, "Why doesn't black challenge the move a4". For context, this was about Game 2 in which Tal explores a variation where White goes a4 to stop b5. Does the term "challenge" mean to just go b5 anyway?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes,`challenge` means to "just go b5 anyway" when considered tactically, but this misses the ideas.

Chess is a game of who has the better idea. When deciding on a move will you further your own idea or challenge your opponents idea?

The game is a benoni structure where Black may try to expand rapidly on the queenside with great effect, ..a6, ..b5 etc. gaining space while driving back White's pieces.

White's a4 counters this idea, trying to suppress queenside expansion with the idea of a further a5

Challenging a4 means "You cannot stop me, I will expand on the queenside anyway!" this doesn't necessarily mean that ..b5 is the next move.

I didn't find Tal's sidelines very illuminating. Try this amazing game which features a battle of whether Black can expand on the queenside, with a thrilling conclusion.

```
[Event "European Club Cup"]
[Site "Ohrid MKD"]
[Date "2009.10.08"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Maxim Rodshtein"]
[Black "Vugar Gashimov"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2740"]
[ECO "A62"]
[EventDate "2009.10.04"]
[WhiteElo "2623"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.cxd5 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 O-O
9.O-O Re8 10.Bf4 a6 11.a4 b6 12.Re1 Nh5 13.Bg5 Qc7 14.e4 Nd7 15.Rc1 h6
16.Bd2 Qb8 17.Bf1 Ra7 18.b3 Nf8 19.h3 Rae7 20.Qc2 g5 21.Kg2 Ng6 22.Bd3 Nf6      23.Rh1 Qb7 24.Rce1 Bd7 25.Bc1 b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.Bb2 c4 28.bxc4 bxc4 29.Bxc4 Bxh3+ 30.Kg1 Rc8 31.Ba2 Nxe4 32.Rxh3 Nxc3 33.Rxe7 Nxe7 34.Bxc3 Rxc3 35.Qe4 g4 36.Qxg4 Qa6 0-1

```

---
Tags: learning, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible Alpha Zero will eventually solve chess?
I googled this question and ended up here. From previous questions, it seems Alpha Zero has not solved chess yet and if it does it will take a very long time. Nonetheless, it may be possible one day. I am wondering whether the programmers, or whichever title designers of the Alpha Zero system prefer to use, have built anything into Alpha Zero to detect if it discovers a solution. Also, even though the time required to solve chess is clearly enormous, even with the power of Alpha Zero has anyone attempted to calculate how long it might actually take? Is it likely to be more or less than 7.5 million years and is it possible it will involve the number 42? Perhaps all chess games can always be concluded in 42 moves with perfect play.

# Answer
No, it can't.

Even if you had it train on a zillion self-playing games and it miraculously achieved perfect play somehow, we would have no way of *proving* that it had achieved perfect play without first solving chess some other way and then comparing AlphaZero's play to perfect play in all possible positions.

Its approach simply doesn't result in a solution for chess, it's just a way to find good moves. A solution is a mathematical proof.
> 48 votes

# Answer
Nope. AlphaZero's entire architecture (and the architectures of most other engines) is such that it cannot "find a solution", and in any case, if a solution was to be found it would be through programs meant to do just that. Such programs do not exist, due to the absurd complexity. Also, note that AlphaZero (as far as I know) is no longer under active development.

As for how long, I will just quote from the fundamental paper Programming a Computer for Playing Chess by Claude Shannon

> However, even at this figure \[prior to this, he gave a conservative estimate of how much stuff is needed for solving chess\], there will be 10^120 variations to be calculated from the initial position. A machine operating at the rate of one variation per micro-second would require over 10^90 years to calculate the first move!

Doubt it'd have 42, and I'd guess quicker than 7.5 mil
> 8 votes

# Answer
No, it is impossible, even for Alpha Zero. Solving chess in a scientific sense means to prove the value of every possible move in every possible position. Without a mathematic model still to be found, that means: brute force calculation from the regular starting position (or even all 960 starting positions of Chess960) to a regular end: mate, stalemate, dead position; including the tournament rules: 5fold repetition, 75 moves rule. There will be not enough time to do this. And this is not the task Alpha Zero is created for.

It MIGHT be that Alpha Zero will not be beaten for centuries by man or engine. But that’s not solving chess.
> 6 votes

# Answer
# Compressibility

When we talk about chess, we almost always talk about *time*, because for humans, that is the relevant variable. But when you talk about *the space of all games*, time suddenly shrinks into the background, and you suddenly realize: "this is an enormous *space*". When we talk about "proofs", we think of things which are a few to a few hundred pages long. So space is rarely an issue. But suppose we played a game called "Build a Snowflake". The snowflake has to be less than 1 cm in its largest dimension (so it's finite, and realistically so). It follows the physical laws of snowflake construction, so solutions to this game must be physically realizable. What kind of program could solve "Build a Snowflake"?

If we encoded quantum mechanics in a way that only allows the exact set of atomic combinations which result in a snowflake, we could likely produce a program that, while large, is much smaller than, say, the set of all "snowflake images". But what if we didn't trust this program? What if we said: "This program is so far removed from human experience that I reject the notion that it is even a proof." What if we demanded that this program actually provide a "constructive proof" of the set of all snowflakes? Well, it couldn't do it. There are too many ways to build a snowflake, and not enough fundamental particles in the universe. Nor would we live long enough to examine the boundaries of such a "proof".

# Chess Proof

So suppose that I show you this program, and I call it a "Chess Oracle". I tell you that it has solved chess, and to demonstrate, I offer to let you challenge it with any combination of human and non-human chess players you can muster. What would it take for you to accept that it has "solved chess"? The answer is: it depends on the nature of the proof. If chess turns out to have a subtle and deep symmetry which admits for a compact and comprehensible algorithm that could be described in, say, a few pages, then probably most mathematicians would ultimately accept such a proof, after analyzing it carefully. However, it seems *extremely* unlikely that such a proof exists.

But if it does, what exactly does that mean? Well, it means that, like the number pi, while the set of all chess games is extremely large, the space required to *generate* the set of all chess games is rather modest (just like many algorithms to compute the digits of pi are just a few lines long). It would mean that chess is *extremely compressible*, that it has a compact representation as code that fits into a human-understandable space (so, not \> 1 million pages of code). Given the variety of chess games we know about, I think that almost nobody believes that chess can be compressed in this way.

Most likely, any "chess solution" will be a mix of high-level principles, medium-level tactics, and fine-grained exceptions. But let's think about what this means. Ultimately, a chess solution could simply be a collection of the set of all legal chess board states along with a set of best next moves for white or black, along with an indication of whether white or black can force a win with perfect play. And, it is theoretically possible to construct such a solution. You just need to play every possible chess game, and write down the results as you go. Since AlphaGo is just a very fancy "play lots of games and remember the outcome, sorta" system, then AlphaGo could theoretically perform this task.

# Memory Alpha?

The reason all the other answers say this is impossible is because the number of games you or AlphaGo would have to play to draw out the full game tree is beyond astronomical. Even if every star in every galaxy had 10 planets full of 10 billion chess players cooperatively building this chess proof non-stop, they would not finish in the lifetime of the universe. Also, they would not have enough space to write it down. But let's say that somehow, they did! When they are all finished, they wouldn't just leave it as one giant game tree. They would look for structure. They would say: "Hmm...in virtually every game, strong development of the queen predicts the winner." And this becomes a high-level principle which characterizes much of the game tree without telling you which move to make. Whereas: "don't trade your queen for a pawn" is a tactic which would appear in nearly every game. And the games where trading your queen for a pawn actually leads to a win would appear as the lowest-level "exceptions".

This tactic described above basically says: "the game tree below the point at which you foolishly traded your queen for a pawn is not worth exploring, because in most branches it leads to a loss with perfect play." And thus, it "prunes" all of those subtrees, which compresses the "proof". The exceptions allow you to develop the tactics above, while saying: "There are 3,284 games in which trading your queen for a pawn leads to a win. These are the board states in which you may make this trade for perfect play." Whereas, there may be 10^30 board states downstream of a "bad QxP", which we can basically ignore because of the tactic. This reduces the size of the proof dramatically.

So if all this is possible, AlphaZero will eventually solve chess, right? Nope. While AlphaZero does "remember" the games it plays (including games it doesn't actually play, but only "imagines" playing), it does so in a sloppy way, not unlike human memory. AlphaZero "remembers" its chess performance via a neural network, which has a rather small capacity compared to the total number of chess games. So even if it were somehow possible for AlphaZero to *play* every possible chess game, there is no way it could *remember* all of them, even if you kept expanding the size of its neural network. On the one hand, the neural network *does* perform the "compression" described above...in an indirect way. And so, it is trying very hard to build that ultimate "chess proof". On the other hand, its ability to distill chess knowledge is quite limited, and it appears that it isn't getting much better than it already is. Perhaps with a larger NN, its play could improve, but most likely there are strongly diminishing returns. At some point, you may need to give it 1000x more memory to increase its win rate against, say, Stockfish by 1%.

Furthermore, we know that while neural networks are very powerful optimization engines, they can get "stuck" in a non-optimal part of the search space. It's entirely possible that instances of AlphaZero running today are already stuck in a "local maximum", and would improve more if they could be nudged out of it. So the architecture of AlphaZero itself is not really conducive to finding a "final proof" of chess (nor was that ever a design goal).

# Big Numbers

At the end of the day, the real problem here is Very Big Numbers(TM). Our cave man brains are simply not equipped to reason well about numbers much bigger than a few hundred. For instance, if I told you that the majority of orderings of a standard deck of 52 playing cards has never been shuffled in the entire history of playing cards, would you believe me? There are almost 10^68 possible orderings. If the standard card deck has been shuffled a billion billion times since cards have been invented, then we have gone through no more than 10^18 such orderings. That means we would need to do that billion billion shuffles about 10^50 more times to have any chance of seeing all possible orderings. You cannot even intuit how large 10^50 is.

The number of possible chess games is also incomprehensibly large. Just storing the information about which board states lead to a win for white or black or a draw is incomprehensibly large. There are about 2^150 legal chess board states. Each board state can be encoded in about 200 bits, which is about 2^8. So it takes about 2^158 bits to represent every legal chess board state. Way back in 2014, the global computer memory storage was estimated at a ballpark of 2^83 bits. So let's say in a century, we increase storage by 1000x. Furthermore, let's say that our "chess proof" can compress the full game tree by a factor of a billion. It would still take a *billion* earth-interwebs to store the *compressed* game tree.

Needless to say, AlphaZero is not getting close to that any time soon.
> 5 votes

# Answer
We can start by asking what it means to "solve" a problem. It seems to me that this is almost an unanswerable question. It means in practice that a sufficient number of "experts" are convinced by the "proof" We have this situation in Mathematics, with the famous Haken-Appel computer proof of the four-color theorem, where a computer essentially reduces a problem about an infinite number of possibilities to a finite (but still huge) number of special cases. The role of the experts in this is to confirm that nothing has been forgotten. AFAIK the jury has almost decided that the proof is OK but slight doubt remains.

If there is to be agreement that chess has been solved, it will have to be arrived at by some process like this. At present we cannot imagine what that process could be, but never is a long time.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It seems quite improbable. The number of moves in the largest chess game possible is in the 5000s, and the number of possible positions even larger than 10^16! Alpha Xero can filter our obviously bad lines, but even afterwards, it has to get to an extremely high depth, which I estimate to be around 200.

My theory is that it is a win for White with perfect play. Black can neutralize white's opening advantage with the move. so White always plays perfectly and gains the small advantage of the tempo.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: alphazero, solving
---


# Question
Title: Candidates for the longest 8 man checkmates?
Are there proven 8 men checkmates that have a good chance to be the longest checkmates? How were they proven and why are they good candidates?

# Answer
> 2 votes
One might try adding an extra piece to the well-known mate in 549, thereby adding at least a move or two. But although these may be plausible to Stockfish, these are not *proven*. In other words, they are not 100% exhaustively verified by a tablebase engine.

In that sense, the longest **proven** sequence I know of is a mere **64 moves long.** This was given by Guy Haworth in his 112 page online PDF about the longest tablebase checkmates.

```
[Title "KBBBB-KRR, 1-0, 2014/2/27, 8m, 5-3m, KBBBBKRR= KB4KR2, GBR 0690.00_40/22: SV+C,-/SV+C, +, Annotations By Guy Haworth"]
[FEN "6r1/8/B4rB1/8/1B6/5k2/7B/K7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh5+ Ke3 2. Bbd6 Rd8 3. Bc5+ Kd2 4. Bae2 Re6 5. Beg4 Rc6 6. Bf4+ Kc3 7. Be5+ Kd2 8. Bcd4 Rd5 9. Bb2 Rb6 10. Bbc3+ Ke3 11. Bf7 Rd8 12. Ba2 Rb5 13. Bf6 Rd6 14. Be7 Ra6 15. Bcb4 Rb8 16. Bbc5+ Kd3 17. Bf3 Kc2 18. Ba3 Kc3 19. Bad6 Rbb6 20. Bc5 Rb5 21. Bh1 Rb8 22. Bed6 Rb5 23. Be4 Raa5 24. Ba3 Kd4 25. Bf3 Ra7 26. Bab4 Ra4 27. Be1 Kd3 28. Bd1 Ra7 29. Beb4 Rab7 30. Ba3 Kc3 31. Be2 Ra5 32. Bf3 Rbb5 33.  Be7 Ra7 34. Bfd5 Raa5 35. Bb2+ Kc2 36. Be4+ Kd2 37. Bc6 Rb8 38. Bd5 Kc2 39. Bba3 Kc3 40. Bed6 Rbb5 41. Be5+ Kd2 42. Bf4+ Kc3 43. Bb2+ Kc2 44. Be4+ Kd1 45. Kb1 Rb4 46. Bc2+ Ke2 47. Bd6 Rh4 48. Bba3 Rb5+ 49. Bab3 Rh3 50. Bd1+ Kf1 51. Bdb4  Rh4 52. Be7 Rc4 53. Ka1 Rc8 54. Bg4 Rc7 55. Bge6 Kf2 56. Bbc4 Rh5 57. Bd8 Rh1+  58. Kb2 Rg7 59. Bc5+ Kg3 60. Bd6+ Kf2 61. Bb6+ Ke1 62. Kc1 Rg2 63. Bb4+ Rd2 64. Bxd2#

```

---
Tags: engines, endgame
---


# Question
Title: Did the 2018 World Chess Championship feature any theoretical novelties in the Sveshnikov Sicilian?
I am interested in how the Sveshnikov theory developed in the last decade, and one of the biggest events heavily featuring it was the WCC match in 2018. Very few books on the opening were published since then.

Did the match contribute something to the opening theory of the Sveshnikov?

Links to articles or annotated games are very welcome, as well as references to books or other material covering the novelties.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Carlsen introduced 8... Ne7 (after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5) instead of 8...Nb8. He played this in round 12 and then again in game two of the tiebreak. The line was known before but not played at the highest level and therefore not considered a serious approach by black.

You can find the analyzed games here at chess.com. 12... h5 is given as novelty in this line.

---
Tags: opening, theory, sicilian-defense, world-championship, sveshnikov
---


title: 2. e5 in the Robatsch (Modern) Defence

text:
# Question
Title: 2. e5 in the Robatsch (Modern) Defence
Since the modern defence is a hypermodern opening, it focuses on controlling the center through pieces not pawns. Therefore, I find it an advantage to block these pieces by pawns. So, I defend against the modern defence like this ..

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 g6 2. e5

```

The idea is to block the bishop that is coming to g7 with 2...Bg7, and to prevent the knight from going to f6 and thus prevents castling kingside.

Now, if Black tries to attack the pawn, this happens ..

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 g6 2. e5 f6 3. d4 fxe5 4. dxe5 d6 5. Nf3

```

If Black takes the pawn, then white is clearly ahead in development. If he doesn't, then he can't deploy his pieces effectively.

Anything wrong with this plan ?

# Answer
> 5 votes
OK, not really an answer as it's looking entirely at what I, a complete Pirc addict, would play, there may well be better lines. But unfortunately you can't stick a pgn in a comment, so here's a few minutes work with Fritz to see what it thinks - after all it's a much better player than I. Numbers are in units of pawns, negative numbers mean advantage to black. Note the numbers appear in the box below the board once the last move of the line is played. Lines quoted are from the top 4 selected by Fritz, biased where appropriate by the comments above, and in each case I left it a few minutes for the evaluation to settle down.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B06"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 g6 2. e5 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. f4 c5 5. Nf3 (5. dxc5 Qa5+ 6. Qd2 {-0.21}) (5.
c3 dxe5 6. fxe5 cxd4 7. cxd4 {-0.32}) (5. d5 dxe5 6. fxe5 Bxe5 {-0.48}) 5...
cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nh6 (6... Nc6 7. Qd2 {-0.70}) 7. Bb5+ {-0.77} *

```

So not disastrous for white but according to Fritz at least he has thrown away his first move advantage.

Oh, and the point about the tempo is that by playing e5 **before** black has played Nf6 is that the knight can wait snuggly at home, thinking about where to go. If you wait until after Nf6 has happened black has to "waste" a move, after which you can further your evil plan. Compare the above with

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B09"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[TimeControl "1"]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 {+0.07} Ng4 *

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am old enough to remember when the Pirc and Modern were new and controversial. At that time, when explaining them to beginners, one talked about "luring the White Pawns forward to where they can be attacked". With 2.e5, White voluntarily sticks his head above the parapet. The reply ..f6 does not meaningfully attack the Pawn, but creates a weakness and impedes the development of two pieces. I like 2..c5, to followed by ..Nc6 ..Bg7 and ..d6. White is then definitely on the defensive (but probably not yet lost)

---
Tags: opening, modern-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to research openings and endgames in a browser?
Basically, I just want to know if there’s any easy way to use websites to practice endgames and openings by just opening my browser. I keep finding downloads to Windows programs, which is a problem when I play chess on mobile devices. Then there are the options that require to pay, which isn’t really something I could do.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Three options I can think of immediately:

https://chess-endgame-trainer.firebaseapp.com/home is a fantastic chess endgame trainer.

Chessable also lets you create your own courses (for free) which you can then do spaced repetition on.

Listudy is another option.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would strongly suggest looking into chess.com as they have an extensive "Learning" module on end game and end game tactics. You are limited to the amount of modules you can complete per day unless you are willing to pay for a subscription. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as learning to much can result in concepts not necessarily taking hold.

Alternatively lichess.com has study section which is comparable but in my opinion not to the same standard. That being said it is free so might be a solid option. Those would be the two I would strongly suggest for web based.

There is another option which is to look into programs like ChessBase or SCID and look at creating positions of end games and trying to play them out with computer analysis. That is a fairly advanced method of doing this though and I would suggest that you do that once you feel well established.

One of the best EndGame trainers I have seen was in ChessMaster GrandMaster Edition with a learning course by Josh Waitzkin which is narrated and well presented.

---
Tags: opening, learning, endgame, online-chess, best-practice
---


title: What is the meaning of "dead draw"?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the meaning of "dead draw"?
I heard the term "dead draw" a lot, but I don't know its meaning and when a position is "dead draw".

# Answer
A dead draw is a position in which no player has any chance of winning.

Sometimes erroneously used in a position where theoretically someone could win but both players believe it is so basic and simple that neither will make a fatal mistake so the other player would win.
> 17 votes

# Answer
A "dead draw" position is an endgame neither side can make further progress. It's not an immediate forced draw, meaning that the "stronger" side does not have to play a line that leads to stalemate or insufficient material, three-fold repetition or anything like that. However, all attempts they have to win can be stopped with an accurate defense that shouldn't be too hard to find. Eventually, the side trying to win will have to accept the draw or reach the 50-move rule.

It's not always easy to draw a boundary for what counts as "dead draw". The most useful definition is probably "a position where neither side can win where one of the players could make the game last forever (without the 50-move rule)"

Fortresses are an example of dead draw position. Positions with all pawns blocked are often, too. The Philidor position is a basic theoretical dead draw. Opposite-colored bishops often lead to a lot of dead draw endgames.
> 9 votes

# Answer
dead draw is a king vs king, stalemate, or a position where literally nothing can happen in the position like captures and checks and a king and a minor piece vs a king.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The answer is when neither of the players can proceed further, both players are playing fairly well but the stipulated number of moves by both players have ended when one player who must exercise onus with moves, play his pieces a queen, a Bishop or rook with moves perpetually the same moves again and again to avert a possible check, and especially stipulated time and moves as per FIDE rules have come to an end. This is a dead draw in a chess tournament.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: draw, terminology
---


title: Getting rid of a chess addiction

text:
# Question
Title: Getting rid of a chess addiction
How do I get rid of achess addiction? Both winning and losing just make me play more, and in the end, after many hours of play, I feel miserable.

# Answer
You are probably referring to online chess and I know this problem, because I've suffered from online chess adiction at least a year or so. It helped me to realise that those imaginary rating points online are not worth anything and that playing at fast time controls does not improve your chess (too much bullet might even harm it).

Therefore, I suggest, you approach chess a bit more seriously over the board, so you have successes you can be proud of. This means that you don't need the kick of online chess anymore, or at least that was the case for me.

Try finding something that makes you happy when you do it. For me, it is, at least sometimes, to be productive in any kind of way (choose an area of your liking) or to simply relax or hang out with friends. Generally speaking, playing lots of online chess is one of the LEAST PRODUCTIVE things you can do and nothing that will propel your skill in any area. Hanging out with your friends for instance, is a much better way of spending your time. I mean, I could go on about this, but those are my initial thoughts. If you have any specific questions about how I got rid of my online chess addiction, you may as well shoot me a message.
> 10 votes

# Answer
A suggestion would be to delete your account on the website you are playing. It's hard to click "delete", losing all your statistics and games, but after it's done you might feel like going back to the point you were before would take too much time, so you decide to do something else instead.

I had this issue with a particular video game, I decided to delete my character and never played the game again. I had urges, but I felt like it would take too much time to get back where I was and I didn't want to redo the same things I did before. I mean, you can easily rank up in chess with a new account, but the idea is that you might not want to do it.
> 6 votes

# Answer
"How do I get rid of chess addiction? Both winning and losing just make me play more, and in the end, **after many hours of play**, I feel miserable."

You have a very solvable problem. 'many hours of play' is the real culprit.

Limit yourself to a set timeframe. I won't play more than an hour or so in a day, which for me, would be 2 games at a time control of G15 (15 minutes per side for entire game). I find it gives me enough time to play reasonably, and the games are enjoyable.

With the following time controls, in 1 hour you can play:

G3 - 10 games

G5 - 6 games

G10 - 3 games

G15 - 2 games

G30 - 1 game

An important aspect of this is that with G10 and slower, you should always review your games. Spend any additional time after playing on this and learn something.

Chess is to be played and enjoyed.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you are playing online, one thing you can do is to make a password like "dontplaytoomuch" or something. It sounds silly, but having this sort of password (I mix it up with numbers, for any hackers watching) is a small but nice nudge. There are studies showing these small things can add up, which is fortunate, because so often small things can send us into a time wasting spiral.

Addictive behavior in general is tricky to deal with, and it's important to recognize when you are just playing out of inertia. Often this becomes obvious if you make a really dumb mistake. There's a double benefit to this: you save rating points. Maybe you can even step back and look to improve your game.

But regardless of how your addictive behavior invades your life, there are ways around it. For instance, I caught myself playing FreeCell to put off things I needed to do, so I

* deleted the Windows Freecell.exe app
* installed a SiteBlock extension for my various web browsers to avoid a certain freecell site. I googled "add-on to restrict time on a website" and found some nice ones. Now, you can use a password to re-enter a site, but the point is, it's deliberately intrusive and difficult.
* Finally, I wrote a FreeCell game in Python, to learn something. You may not want to take the drastic step of writing a chess engine, but I know I played chess out of inertia a lot, forgetting the main reason I played it was that I could learn and enjoy trying new things. So maybe you need to evaluate something you really want to learn that might give you the same happiness you used to get from chess.

Other points: \- this may seem paradoxical, but set aside a half-hour per day for playing games. If you can stick to it, this will help you feel you aren't totally missing out. \- I don't know if you have options to set up a profile, but even typing "I like to play chess, but sometimes I lose track of time play too much. If I've been on for an hour, and I challenge you, can you poke me to get back to work?" may help. This is true without beating yourself up, and maybe it will help other people get back to stuff you need to do. \- Write a program to kick yourself out after an hour, or you might even ask on various channels if someone has written a time-management program that allows you an hour per day. You probably aren't the first to ask about this!

There are many tools out there to help you. But as @postnubilaphoebus says, and @Habbo commented, it's important to recognize there are better ways to spend your time. Playing chess has definite diminishing returns to scale.

Having goals outside chess helps. Maybe it is just getting through a book before it is due at the library, or working out, or connecting with old friends, or making new ones. If you're worried you might not be good at it, well, you're not alone in getting sucked into online life.

The main thing I've found with addictive behaviors is framing it as "I want to give myself a reason to do something cooler" works a lot better than "I have to stop doing this."

Good luck! I think all of us chess players can be prone to going into a chess-playing shell, so don't be too ashamed of getting in a rut even if it's lasted a while. I hope you get lots of other suggestions on this topic, because moving on from habits that aren't quite as fun any more isn't as easy as it seems it should be. And some things work much better for some people than for others.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I gave the password of my online chess account to a best friend. She controls when I can have access to my online chess app. I can create a new account, however, I don't because I want to play with my existing account, which has a long history. It worked. I ask her for it during the weekend and in the evening. It was the last measure I had to do after everything else failed. Online chess can be very addictive.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Here's a search engine trick that may help. You can block and unblock websites, so maybe you can block the chess site you're on, take a rest for a few days, and then unblock and start playing again. You don't have to delete your account.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Beginner book that has endgame scenarios
I’ve been looking for free online books on endgame scenarios, since I'm very bad at them. So far, I haven’t gotten any luck.

By the way, I only know the pieces moves and some other basic stuff.

# Answer
BCE (Basic Chess Endings) by Fine was the one I used. It is long out of print. There are some newer books but I can't say which of them might be good now. Also online has the sort of info you want and would be easier to find what you think is good for you.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, books, beginner
---


title: How good is 4. d3, the Anti-Berlin?

text:
# Question
Title: How good is 4. d3, the Anti-Berlin?
The Berlin Defense is drawish if we reach the Berlin endgame. Yet White doesn't have to go into the endgame, and can instead play 4; d3. However, I hear that the Ruy Lopez is getting less popular in top level because of the Berlin defense. This implies that 4. d3 somehow is not as good compared to the mainlines, such as 3... a6 of the Ruy Lopez. **What makes 4. d3 not as good as the Ruy Lopez's mainlines for White?**

# Answer
> 3 votes
In the Ruy Lopez White usually wants to play with c3 and d4 to claim the center. If you play d3 instead then you lose a tempo if you still want to go for that plan.

Of course it is not the only possible plan but then the question becomes, if you answer 3...Nf6 with 4.d3, why would you not play the Italian instead where you might get a similar structure after for instance 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3, but arguably keep a bit more flexibility.

Still, 4.d3 against the Berlin is a fine way to play, it just doesn't have a clear benefit over other similar setups.

# Answer
> 1 votes
4.d3 The main alternative to the move 4.0-0, it avoids Berlin endgame. White do not seek to squeeze the maximum from the debut, carrying the weight fight in the middle of the game. although elite grandmasters have recently become addicted to this continuation, his theory is still developing (comment from the book practical guide to the Berlin defense. Louis Bernard).

# Answer
> -2 votes
it depends on how good you are. At the GM level, it will likely draw a lot more than if you are not even an IM and play at a local club. 4. d3 works well for me. But then again, I am not a GM nor are my opponents.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: How can I minimise my opponent's chances to make use of a weak square in my position?
For example, the Nimzo Indian where I don't want black to use the c4 square or the Benoni where I don't want white to use the d6 square. Is the only way to prevent this to have pieces tied down to defending that square because to me that seems like a waste.

# Answer
> Is the only way to prevent this to have pieces tied down to defending that square because to me that seems like a waste.

No, it isn't the only way. There are two other better ways:

1. If you don't like the positions that can arise in a particular opening then don't play it. Play an opening you do like.
2. Normally in an opening where one side has weaknesses there is some compensation for the other player in the form of either counter weaknesses or attacking chances. Good players who choose such openings do so because they want to take advantage of those counter weaknesses and attacking chances. If they do this skilfully then their attack hits home before their opponent can take advantage of those weaknesses. But in any case they get the kind of double edged game they like.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy, nimzo-indian, benoni
---


# Question
Title: Timeline of key historical changes to FIDE Laws & WFCC Codex?
A well-answered question here: FIDE Laws of Chess pre-2017 asks for locations of historical sets of FIDE Laws. I am asking for something which partially builds on that.

Is there a timeline of "key" historical changes to rules (FIDE, USCF and earlier) & the WFCC Codex of Chess Problem Conventions, please? It's not going to be perfect initially or ever, but something which can grow.

Having such an artifact would allow us to assign a historical context to those chess compositions that riff on specific rules and conventions, for example: Dummy Pawn, Bosma theme, Dead Reckoning, Retro Strategy & Partial Retro-Analysis. This would be a general foundation for specific timelines listing relevant compositions themselves, e.g. the one at When (if ever) was it a rule that pawn promotion was optional?

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Is there a timeline of "key" historical changes to rules (FIDE, USCF and earlier)

Not so far although former FIDE rules commission member, Stewart Reuben, recently said:

> To make it clear. I am writing a book, together with my co-authors Alex McFarlane and Sean Press. It is called A History of the Laws of Chess. Alex is dealing with the first section, from about 600 AD to the 15th century with the old rules. Sean is dealing with the introduction of the augmented powers of the queen, bishop and pawn 15th century to the formation of FIDE. I am dealing with the Laws since FIDE was formed IN 1924. That section is more-or-less completed.

---
Tags: rules, problems, history, fide
---


# Question
Title: What if you messed up your notation a lot?
While playing in an OTB game where both players take notation, it's not uncommon for people to make a mistake here and there. Is there any rule regarding having a lot of mistakes? Furthermore, what if you deliberately make mistakes such as writing in a random move every turn? Is there any penalty for doing this? Perhaps there's a difference between USCF and FIDE rules.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Is there any rule regarding having a lot of mistakes? Furthermore, what if you deliberately make mistakes such as writing in a random move every turn?

There is no obvious rule against this. The obvious place to start for FIDE is article 8.1.1:

> **Article 8: The recording of the moves**
>
> 8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

You must write the moves down but there is no obvious penalty for mistakes, deliberate or otherwise. Which begs the question - Why bother? Why bother writing the moves down at all let alone why try and not make mistakes?

Well, that is answered obliquely in Appendix C:

> **Appendix C. Algebraic notation**
>
> FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. ***Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose.*** An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

Makes sense. If your scoresheet is needed to settle a dispute or make a claim and it isn't suitable (either because you used the wrong notation or it can't be read) then your claim is likely to fail.

Two examples:

> 9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
>
> 9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move

and

> 9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
>
> 9.3.1 he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture

If you don't have a legible, correct scoresheet then you can't demonstrate a 3 fold repetition or 50 moves without a capture or pawn move for a 50 move draw claim.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A good argument could be made that it is illegal, if it's intentional.

According to USCF rule 15A (similar to FIDE rule 8.1.1):

> In the course of play each player is required to record the game (both the player’s and the opponent’s moves), move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.

You are required to record the game. If you're not recording the game and are instead recording gibberish, you are in violation. While a lot of leeway is given for accidental mistakes, intentional ones would probably be punished, perhaps after a warning.

Furthermore, under USCF rule 20C (similar to FIDE rule 11.3.1):

> The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves, draw offers, and clock times, and the header information normally found on a scoresheet.

In your scenario, you would be hard-pressed to argue that what you are doing is the "actual recording of the moves".

According to USCF rule 13C7 regarding a "reasonably complete scoresheet":

> Minor ambiguities in scorekeeping or errors involving no more than one symbol are of no consequence. The common error of omitting one move by one player and subsequently putting moves in the wrong columns counts as only one error. Moves that are indecipherable or recorded only with check marks are considered missing.

> TD TIP: An example of a minor ambiguity would be for the player of the black pieces to write Nf3 on a scoresheet in place of Nf6 in the opening when Nf3 is clearly not even possible.

If you've got non-minor mistakes in more than three move pairs, you can't claim a win on time in a non-sudden-death time control (because you can't prove how many moves were made) and you can't claim a draw by repetition or 50 move rule (because you can't prove how the game unfolded).

---
Tags: rules, fide, notation, uscf
---


title: Why doesn't Black play Bd4?

text:
# Question
Title: Why doesn't Black play Bd4?
This puzzle on chesstempo caught my eye (we play as White):

```
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7

```

The move I made was e6, and it was the right one. Yet, the Black's second move was not quite something I foresaw:

```
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7 e6
2. Ndc5 Bg7

```

I believe there is a word for the situation the black bishop finds themself in after 1... e6: no matter what the next move is, it gets captured. As one can see the Black can't play Kg7 on the 2nd board as it is protected by the White queen. Therefore, I would have gone for the White bishop with the *"doomed"* Black bishop straight away:

```
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7 e6
2. Bd4 Nd4

```

Why does Black choose not to play as I did on the 3rd? Besides, what is the word for the *"doomed"* pieces, such as the Black bishop here?

---

**Note:** chesstempo users went over those moves in the comments under the puzzle, yet the discussion there is quite cumbersome, so I decided to bring this question up here.

# Answer
Nxd4 is not the best response to Bxd4, instead exd7 counter-attacking the Black Queen wins a piece:

```
[Result "*"]
[FEN "4q1k1/p4pb1/r4npp/4P3/n2B4/5NNP/5PP1/Q4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nd7 2.e6 Bxd4 3.exd7 Qxd7
    ( 3...Bxa1 4.dxe8=Q+ )
4.Nxd4 *

```

I think the term you are looking for is *desperado*, even though it doesn't seem quite a typical use to me. Quoting wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperado\_(chess))

> In chess, a desperado piece is a piece that is en prise or trapped, but captures an enemy piece before it is itself captured. This can be in either a situation where both sides have hanging pieces, "...in which you use your doomed piece to eat as much material as possible before it dies";\[1\] or alternatively a sacrifice that will result in stalemate if it is captured.
> 5 votes

# Answer
After e6, black has two pieces threatened. The knight is threatened with tempo: if exd7 is allowed, the pawn threatens dxe8. And dxe8 simultaneously captures the black queen and promotes to a white queen. Since dxe8 gives white two queens, taking the queen at a1 is insufficient compensation. This means that exd7 is a "free move", as black must spend their next move dealing with the dxe8 threat.

When faced with two pieces being attacked, one with tempo and the other without, it's generally better to save the one attacked with tempo.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, blunder, captures
---


# Question
Title: How to make an AI chess engine which can play like a human of similar rating?
We have lot of sophisticated chess engines, but I always prefer playing with a human online, because they make genuine mistakes / blunders which adds a human touch. Playing with computer at a high level is boring as it is too difficult to crack and at low levels it makes a random blunder which practically a human will never do.

Can someone either point me to an existing engine which plays like a human based on your level or recommend me some guidelines as how we can make it using AI?

# Answer
> 10 votes
You can take a look at the Maia Chess project. What they've done is that they've built a customized version of Leela Chess wherein instead of the policy value looking for the best move, it looks for the most likely human move. The github has 9 weight files for lc0 from 1100 to 1900 elo.

It claims to better predict the moves of players compared to Stockfish and Leela Chess. You can also play these bots at Lichess.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As far as I know, every chess playing program combines a depth-limited search of the game tree with a heuristic algorithm to estimate the favorability of each position. There's a tradeoff between using a cheaper heuristic allowing more positions to be evaluated and using a sophisticated heuristic on fewer positions.

Humans play in more or less the same way, but evaluate far fewer positions using a far more sophisticated heuristic.

I'd expect that the most human-like computer players would be the ones that evaluate the fewest positions per unit time using more sophisticated heuristics. AlphaZero, for instance, evaluates about 0.1% as many positions as Stockfish (though still many orders of magnitude more than a human), and I'd expect it to be somewhat more human-like than Stockfish as a result. I have no actual experience to back that up, though.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In theory, chess is a Markovian game -- the current state says it all, how you reach the current state, ie all the previous moves, doesn't matter. This is how computers play chess.

For humans, previous moves matter a lot. On one hand, people think in plans, so could easily forgo better moves if it is not consistent with their plan. On the other hand, human mood swing also has a great effect. Reaching an endgame after a crazy tactical middle game or reaching the same endgame after many boring exchanges can lead to different moves onwards.

So at least on this aspect, computers cannot play like humans.

# Answer
> 4 votes
## Use a number of weak engines. Make them vote.

Suppose you take any number of relatively weak engines - some with deep searches but poor evaluation heuristics, some with shallow searches, some using neural networks but with limited training, some with random factors added to make them blunder a bit - and at each turn you have them vote for the best move. The result will be quite human-like - a fact that should not be too flattering for us humans!

For the most part, the composite engine would play decently - some significant amount better than any individual engine. It would rarely blunder blatantly, but it would miss deep tactics and subtle strategic moves. In particular, it would rarely (if ever) make the "computer move". Most engines, when given a position where there is an obvious very good move and a completely opaque move that is infinitesimally better, have the search depth necessary to find the latter move and make it - thus revealing their inhumanity. But most of our engines will either fail to find the weird move or their heuristic won't be fine enough to recognize its superiority. The vote will usually go to the more obvious move.

Engines also reveal their inhumanity in the precision of their defensive play and opening book. Our composite engine would lack the search depth necessary for precise defense - even if a few of the constituent engines had the depth, they would be outvoted on occasion (and it takes just one mistake to seem human). In the opening, the composite will stay on book for a while - although it will be hard to guess just which lines it will prefer. But it won't be long before the book-less or book-light engines win a vote and make an "imprecise" move. The quickest way to get the composite engine "out of book" would be to offer a sacrifice - the composite will surely be a sucker for opening gambits . . . just like most humans.

To improve the effect, the length of time displayed between moves should be proportional to the amount of agreement between the engines. If a move is unanimous to the engines, it likely would be obvious to a human, as well (if not simply forced). If there is a lot of disagreement among the engines, than the position is likely a bit tricky and the sort which would cause a human mind to linger. (Some adjustment would be required in the opening phase, in which the engines would surely have lots of disagreements simply because there isn't a lot going on in the position yet.)

## Someone really needs to do this.

When I came across this question, I was a little surprised that no one knows of anyone who has tried this. The Maia engine has a bit of this idea cooked in. By trying to predict what an 1100-rated player will do, Maia achieves are rating of about 1500. But Maia isn't a composite of a bunch of 1100-rated engines, like I propose. Creating the composite that I describe doesn't seem like a difficult task. If anyone knows of an attempt, I would love to hear about it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Can someone either point me to an existing engine which plays like a human based on your level or recommend me some guidelines as how we can make it using AI ?

There is simply no such thing. AlphaZero, Stockfish, LC0, Komodo, everything else don't play like a human. In my experience, chess engines are either very strong, very weak or artificially tuned down to play bad chess.

You will need train a network on it. To my knowledge, nobody has done it successfully. You will need to feed a good amateur chess game database. The games will need to come with filtering.

# Answer
> 2 votes
By programming it using human concepts and thinking instead of just pure raw brute-force calculation (like a computer). There was an old engine \[Wchess\], used in the Power Chess 98 and Majestic Chess games on PC, which applies concepts like tropism (e.g. king safety for the AI is described as how many pieces are surrounding it). So some logical human-like heuristics thrown in with an occasional mistake or two, made it the most human-like chess engine to date.

Humans all succumb to tactical mistakes eventually, it should be possible for an engine to simulate such behavior although this would be a niche interest and take a very different approach from those "industrial-grade" engines.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Some of them make random errors to simulate a human. Others limit the number of moves they look ahead to do it. None of them play like a human, but that is the state of the art as of now for faking it.

The best approach would be to train the AI program by playing against actual humans of the given strength level being simulated, but that would be impractical as it would take too long and the players being used would likely change rating (hopefully upwards as they learn too) as they play.

# Answer
> -6 votes
I say: Take a normal, strong AI, and have it play P-R3 at random.

Bad players play P-R3 whenever they can't think of anything to do. They think if an enemy unit lands on N5, then P-R3 is a great attacking move. Or maybe they play P-R3 to *prevent* an enemy piece from coming to N5. Either way, win! And it's such a small positional concession, what harm could P-R3 do?

Bad players waste more time on useless P-R3 moves than any other, so a computer that plays P-R3 willy-nilly would approximate crappy chess play in that fashion.

Chessplayers: NM Dan Heisman's "Guide to P-R3" is such a valuable read, available at chesscafe.

---
Tags: engines, human-versus-machine
---


title: Xboard and a remote engine

text:
# Question
Title: Xboard and a remote engine
I want to analyse chess games with xboard and stockfish. Locally this is no problem. But my PC is slow, so I have rented a faster linux server, and I want let stockfish run on it.

How can I use xboard on my PC, to connect to stockfish running on the linux server?

I have tried on the command line:

```
1) ssh -p <port> <user>@<host> /usr/games/stockfish

```

This works. But:

```
2) xboard -fcp "ssh -p <port> <user>@<host> /usr/games/stockfish" -fUCI

```

does not work. There is a connection to stockfish on the server, xboard gives the correct version of the engine, but as soon as I enter the first move, it terminates with error of "broken pipe."

# Answer
First, thanks to "Ángel" for going to such great lengths in trying to help me and come up with a solution.

After reading some other posts/howtos on the internet (can't remember where exactly), I got it working this way:

```
xboard -fcp "./ssh user@host './start_stockfish'" -fd
"/home/user/Remote

```

putting ssh, polyglot and Stockfish.ini into the "Remote" directory on the remote server. "start\_stockfish.sh" (also on the remote server) simply looks like this:

```
cd ~/Remote
polyglot ./Stockfish.ini

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
You need to connect to your server with `ssh -X` command to enable X forwarding. The details of how this needs to be configured can be found in this answer on Unix and Linux Stack Exchange.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have tried to replicate your setup. To this end, I prepared to virtual machines.

First one, let's call it xboard, with `xboard` and `polyglot` installed, but -while not strictly required- not `stockfish`, `fairymax` or other engines.

Second one, let's call it stockfish, runs a ssh server and does have stockfish installed.

xboard machine is able to connect to stockfish machine via ssh. In this case `ssh host` suffices but using the full `ssh -p <port> <user>@<host> /usr/games/stockfish` in the command works as well.

The command you provided

```
xboard -fcp "ssh -p 22 user@stockfish.host /usr/games/stockfish" -fUCI

```

works perfectly. xboard is started locally and connects to stockfish via ssh.

I would recommend to set up ssh key authentication. OTherwise, when you start xboard you will need to manually input the password on the terminal where you are running xboard (and if you waited too long, the connection could timeout).

The error you are facing I can reproduce if manually killing polyglot. If ssh failed, polyglot is providing an error.

I don't see why it would be failing (maybe your versions aren't able to properly cope with spaces in the parameters=), but since directly playing with stockfish via ssh works I would try running:

```
polyglot -noini -ec "ssh -p 22 user@host /usr/games/stockfish" -ed . -uci NalimovCache=4 -pg ShowTbHits=true

```

which is the command that my xboard runs to connect.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, software, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Are score sheet booklets allowed to be in use?
Is it allowed to use a score sheet booklet for notations (with a recording of previous games), as opposed to a single "stand alone" sheet?

Reasons for not allowing this may, of course, be due to the possibility of cheating, for example, by having opening line reminders on previous pages and making use of them during the game. On the other hand, one may also have such notes in one's pocket, and I don't believe there's a prohibition against this, only against the usage thereof.

# Answer
According to an annotated version of the FIDE rules (*FIDE Laws of Chess 2017*, by the Chess Arbiters' Association), it's banned in some tournaments, which presumably means it's not banned in *all* tournaments. The relevant annotation (the bottom of p.23) says:

> Article 11.3.1 has resulted in some tournaments banning the use of scorebooks. Where these are allowed arbiters should ensure that players do not refer to earlier games.

I've never played in a FIDE tournament, but I've played in USCF tournaments. The relevant USCF rules are similar to the FIDE rules. A tournament can prohibit using scorebooks, but in my (amateur) experience they don't; probably many tournament directors are happy to not have to provide as many scoresheets.

USCF rule 15A (similar to FIDE rule 8.1.1) states that you are to record your moves "on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition". This is clear, but it's also only relevant if the competition prescribes a scoresheet.

USCF rule 20B (simiar to FIDE rule 11.3.1) states you are forbidden to "make use of" notes or recorded matter - it doesn't prohibit having them in a place where you can't see them. Generally a notation booklet will be open in such a way that you only have the current game visible, and not any previous games. Browsing notes on previous pages would of course be cheating, but it would also be fairly obvious to your opponent and any bystanders. The only legitimate reason to flip a page after the game has started is if you get to move 50 or so, and by that time any opening notes would be rather useless.

While USCF rule 15G (similar to FIDE rule 8.3) does state that the scoresheets are property of the sponsoring organization, I've never had a tournament ask me to rip a page out. I get the feeling that this rule is mostly there so a player can't refuse to show it during a dispute, and it allows the arbiter/TD to insist that the opponent be able to use it to fill in his own sheet.

And finally, the USCF sells these score books on their website, calling them "A must for the 'organized' tournament player!". Presumably, they would not do so if it was ordinarily illegal to actually use them for their intended purpose.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Generally speaking the answer is "No". The reason being this section of the FIDE Laws of Chess -

> 11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

In practice it will depend on the competition. If it is your local chess league or internal club competition where everybody knows everybody then probably no problem. However if it is a large congress then if the arbiter sees you doing this or your opponent does and complains to the arbiter then you will be asked to put the scorebook away and use the provided scoresheet.

There is not normally a punishment for a first offence. Repeated offences against this rule can lead to defaulting the game as happened to Wesley So when he repeatedly looked at notes he had written to himself not with chess moves but inspirational advice.

Note also Article 8.3

> 8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organiser of the competition.

For serious FIDE rated tournaments the scoresheets will be collected each round, the games entered on a computer and the PGNs published. For norm events these PGNs must be sent to FIDE. For these events your scorebook is not acceptable and you will be asked to use the scoresheet provided.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Some tournaments (usually the higher level ones), provide score sheets that you have to hand in after the game. They use them to publish the games on their website, to TWIC, and so on. They are often carbon paper so you get a copy to keep as well.

In my experience, such tournaments make using those sheets mandatory, so alternatives aren't allowed. And tournaments where you don't have to hand in the sheet don't care what your record your game on.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, scoresheet
---


title: Shorter game for play with kids

text:
# Question
Title: Shorter game for play with kids
I am teaching my children (5 and 7) to play chess, and we are pretty much at the which piece can move where phase. However while they do enjoy the game, they don't really have an attention span that can play a full game.

What I would like is some way to make changes to the game that will cut game time down so that my kids can enjoy the game, as quality time with Dad and hopefully learn something.

# Answer
> 11 votes
A few ideas:

* Michael Goeller's Pawn Battle which introduces a checkers-like game (that still follows the rules of chess) that wonderfully folds in key pawn concepts like break moves, sacrificing to clear a line and even zugzwang. This exercise also helps kids learn to appreciate calculating outcomes beyond just "Hope Chess"-ing it out.
* Some of the handouts at ProfessorChess.com contain exercises and drills that are fun and instructive.
* **Basic won endgames** : These can be fun, simple positions which very direct goals and often gets done within minutes as they start to figure out how to solve them. Start up with KQ vs K setups and move up the ladder of complexity to KR vs K and even KP vs K. These fundamental skills stay with them as they progress with their chess.

+ An added funsy way of doing the above is to use 2 x 8-sided dice to randomly assign squares for pieces in the starting position (e.g. K goes here, other K goes there, the Queen goes here. Play to win!). You could go all out and even create a roulette wheel of different drills to perform!

# Answer
> 9 votes
ALL MINI-GAMES COURTESY OF **STUDYING CHESS MADE EASY BY ANDREW SOLTIS**

```
8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 1

```

"Pawn Wars" is a great way to play and teach kids about chess, each player starts with only pawns on their starting squares and the winner is the first one to reach the eighth rank, this teaches kids about pawn play and promotion. Then later you can bring in the kings, then they will rarely forget the power of the king in the endgame.

```
7n/8/2pppp2/2p2p2/2P2P2/2PPPP2/8/N7 w - - 0 1

```

This one is called Forbidden City, this is probably the best way to learn how to play with the Knights, Whites goal is to get to h8 and return to a1, blacks goal is to get to a1 and return to h8. Neither Knight can land on a square where they can be eaten by a pawn, or a square which contains a pawn and they can never enter the square the pawns have formed, thus the name, Forbidden City. Of course whoever moves first should win but it is not so easy for beginners.

```
r7/8/8/8/8/8/2PPPPPP/8 w - - 0 1

```

This is called Rook vs Pawns, White wins if one of the pawns queens and Black wins if he/she can eat all of White's pawns, this can help teach kids the power of passed pawns and the lateral attacks of the Rook.

# Answer
> 3 votes
One fun game is Knight's tour. You will need 64 pieces for that (you can play it without the pieces, but it's more fun with the pieces), including the knight. The objective is to capture all the pieces with the knight. The knight can start on any square, but one of the central squares is preferred. It would be a fun game for your kids, while at the same time improving their ability to calculate ahead.

A shorter version of knight's tour would be to play it on one half of the board, with 32 pieces.

By the way, I learned chess when I was 4 or below. Never underestimate kids!

# Answer
> 3 votes
When I was studying chess my teacher started from explaining opposition concept. After that pawns were added, and rooks, bishops, queen and knights. Just start from small number of pieces and invent new ones when interest to the games will start dawning.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Perhaps instead of playing full games with them you setup positions where some/most of the pieces are off of the board? You could get board positions from tactic training books or chess puzzle books. If you did this, you could give them one specific objective - "How fast can you capture my bishop?" Or "Try to beat me in two moves."

This would create shorter interactions with chess that had discernible and able-to-be-quickly-achieved goals (to help with the attention span). Also, they would still be playing "real" chess.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

# Answer
> 2 votes
I really like "Let's catch the lion" (dobutsu shogi) for young kids, and I've built a Duplo version of the game to play with my almost 5-year old daughter. Winning seems to be a big motivator so she likes it best when I play with only my lion and remove my other pieces from the game (not in hand). So far I have also been playing without chick to chicken promotion. For older kids there is goro goro dobutsu shogi.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Blank Chess is a great introduction to chess pieces and movement. Check out the rules at http://www.blankchess.com.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess minigames are ideal for teaching children. One challenge is that most chess software doesn't support playing positions with no kings or the other specific rules that many chess minigames include.

Worth checking out Acorn Chess which has extensive support for chess minigames and even creating custom minigames.

Disclaimer: I developed Acorn Chess as I couldn't find anything that met my needs.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Maybe cut the board down to half (in width) so there's 1 rook, 1 bishop, 1 queen, 1 king, and 4 pawns each?

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Free offline demonstration software with arrows, sidelines and engine
I'm looking for a software where I can demonstrate games in a lecture. The software shall have these features:

* usable without internet connection on a Windows 10 PC
* free
* input and save a game as pgn easily
* import pgn possible
* possibility to easily draw arrows and mark squares
* add variations by moving pieces
* an engine with multi-pv showing at least the best four lines
* bonus: engine can be chosen by me

I've tried these: Arena (no arrows), LucasChess (no variations), Scid vs PC (no arrows), Tarrasch (no arrows), Chesspad (no arrows), Lichess studies (not offline, no choosable engine), Chessity (not offline)

UPDATE: David Miedema's answer tells me that there is a comment window in Scid vs PC, that I can draw arrows and I can even mark squares with any of a lot of signs and colors. Marking squares on the main board with ScidvsPC is a bit clumsy - you have to mark them on the comment board first and then press a button to transfer to the main board. Also, I found out that you can add marks and arrows and one engine in Chesspad.

UPDATE 2: In between I found out that ChessX would also suit my requirements quite well. So there are ChessX, ScidVsPC, Chessbase Reader and Chesspad which would seem to be ok.

UPDATE 3: I added the two requirements: to input and save games. I took those to be a given.

# Answer
Did you already give Scid a really good look?

### Drawing Arrows

Arrows can be drawn in two ways. In the Main Board, hold Control and click on the start square and then end square. Or in the Comment Editor arrows can be drawn (and erased) by dragging between two squares.

Of course there is Chessbase in many sorts and sizes. You're probably able to find an old version for free if you search well.

Hope this brings you a bit closer.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I have asked a similar question before: Can I host lichess server to my local machine to use the study offline?

Because I was obsessed with lichess-study, I had chosen to use it offline. If you are on a Linux (or Mac) machine, I think that's the best option you have. If you are on Windows, then installing lichess on localhost is a bit tricky and also time-consuming.

In that case, I think it's better to grab a look at the software, called **Lucas Chess**.

It's **FREE, open-source** and as well as very feature-packed. There, you can choose your own engine as you like, can draw the arrow for better understanding and also can encircle squares as your requirements in the latest edition. Hope the developers will include more features in the upcoming editions of this frequently-updated project.

Here are a few screen-shots of the software:
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chessbase Reader is free, and will do all of this. It took me forever how to figure out how to draw arrows on the board, though - it's not obvious (click-and-drag the mouse while holding down ALT, CTRL+ALT, or SHIFT+ALT to get different colored arrows).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Acorn Chess meets some of these requirements but not all. Firstly it is not free but you can download a free trial and the license cost is one time only not recurring.

It is written in Java and so runs on Windows, MacOS and Linux.

It works offline - it only uses internet if you want to check for updates. It supports board annotation with arrows and circles in tutor edition. It has a built in engine with 6 levels. It also supports saving games to PGN. Loading of PGN's is coming as is a position library database.

Disclaimer: I developed Acorn Chess as I couldn't find anything that met my needs.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, teaching
---