title: What is chess style?

text:
# Question
Title: What is chess style?
People talk about chess stylet. Obviously, some players such as Tal or Shirazi sought out highly tactical positions but is there anything more to it than that? The only alternative to being a tactician appears to be a positional player. Are there other dimensions of style or is that it? I suspect there are other dimensions. For example Petrosian, Carsen and Karpov are more positional players but their styles were quite different. Similarly, Spassky is a tactical players but quite different from Tal.

# Answer
ChessPersonality.com lists the following chess styles, listed with a great player who exemplifies that style and opening recommendations:

Each style varies according to where players typically sit on the following spectra:

* Attacking - positional play
* Aggressive - solid
* Intuitive - calculating
* Emotional - calm
> 9 votes

# Answer
When you say the word "Chess Style " the kind of Play the Player will reveal. The Style means what kind of play he is adept with and he likes to play the most. Yes Styles can even be transitioned .e.g. Bobby changed his playing style and his opening repertoire in 1992 match against Spassky . Chess Style reflects your own Personality and brings out the facets of the game according to your own way. The Style is something you are born with.

There are not many different kinds of Style that Chess has been bestowed . Already you have named the different Players where they categorise .

1. Fischer/Kasparov :- Tacticians and also Positionally sound .
2. Mikhail Tal :- Highly imaginative & Wild Tactician play.
3. Botvinnik/Karpov/Petrosian :- Very Positional
4. Capablanca :- Fights with small force.
5. Alekhine :- A Style as Brilliant as Sunlight . Brilliant Tactician.
6. Nimzowitsch :- His Opponents proclaimed Magical Moves as like Wizard.
7. Rubinstein/Magnus Carlsen :- End Game Experts
8. Rudolf Speilmann :- Art/Master of Sacrifice.
9. Vishy Anand :- No specific style but lots of Hard work and effort with some ultrasonic gigantic calculating ability .
10. Vladimir Kramnik :- Very mobile with pieces.

There are many other players whom I cannot define everyone but what I mean I can look into any games of these above players and I can tell by looking at the Style that it belongs to Tal/Capa/Magnus or any other .
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, carlsen, style, tal
---


# Question
Title: Refutation of the Maróczy Bind, suitable for correspondence chess?
I've been meaning to develop my understanding of the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6) as Black, mainly by playing a few correspondence games and working through deep positional analyses. Most of what I read about this opening centers on the Maróczy Bind as White's typical response, as it's the most efficient restriction on Black's dynamic play. I haven't yet read any solid ideas for Black to play for an advantage against the Maróczy. Most sources that I've been able to find could basically be summed up as "Stay sharp and wait for White to lose concentration." However, this isn't realistic when it comes to correspondence games (particularly against centaurs). It seems that facing an ideal offense from White, Black's position gets irredeemably worse:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.Be3 O-O 10.Qd2 Be6 11.O-O Qa5

```

In fact, there are several OTB games between high-rated players that feature this line, such as two games between Ivanchuk and Anand in 1994. Actually, after 12.b3, it seems that White has never lost an ICCF game from this position, nor does the database at 365Chess have any winning games for Black. Is the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon just not a viable opening for Black in a correspondence game? Can anybody point out where Black might improve their play along this line? Thanks in advance for your time.

# Answer
In *Beating the Sicilian 3* by Nunn and Gallagher, they claim (emphasis is mine):

> Although the Maroczy Bind is slightly passive for Black, players such as Larsen, Petursson and Velimirović have shown that **by patiently waiting for a lapse of concentration from White** this line can offer winning chances for Black. The theoretical opinion is that White should maintain a slight advantage, but no one should believe that this is a line in which White cannot lose.

As you know, in a correspondence game lapses of concentration are rarer than in over-the-board.

My generic advice would be to be alert to weaknesses induced by white's last move, and take advantage of that. If you want more specific advice, please post a new question requesting feedback on your middle/endgame play.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The correspondence chess database includes many wins for Black. Black typically wins by queenside attack or because his pawn structure is superior to Whites for the endgame because it is a bit over extended. The best way to prepare is to look at games from the best players you can find. There are plenty of opportunities for Black to win if he understands the position.
> 1 votes

# Answer
**INTRO TO POSITION**
With B27 Sicilian (Hungarian): **1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6** 365Chess.com lists black chances at 33% compared to Whites 35.9% (draw: 31.2%). That seems to be pretty even.

Carry on to the Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon: **1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6** and 365Chess.com has whites chances pretty much the same but black's chances dropping to 29.5% (draw: 35.4%).

White's **5. c4** (making it the Maróczy) seems to suggest play ahead is sharp. Blacks chances are restored at 35.5% but whites also improve at 39.6%.

> Draw's chances fall to 25% so these percentage changes don't suggest black's chances are disadvantaged. Rather it suggests this position presents many traps for both white and black. So the recommendation to 'stay sharp' applies equally to both black and white, not just black.

I was able to find 11621 games with this position in my SCID Database (my SCID DB is 3.3M games). Here's a couple of games to look at:

**EXAMPLES**
Fischer used this opening to beat Bent Larsen:

```

[Event "Fischer - Larsen Candidates Semifinal"]
[Site "Denver, CO USA"]
[Date "1971.07.08"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Bent Larsen"]
[Black "Robert James Fischer"]
[ECO "A30"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "108"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Nc3 d6
7. Be2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7 9. Bg5 h6 10. Be3 O-O 11. Qd2 Kh7
12. O-O Be6 13. f4 Rc8 14. b3 Qa5 15. a3 a6 16. f5 Bd7 17. b4
Qe5 18. Rae1 Bc6 19. Bf4 Nxe4 20. Nxe4 Qxe4 21. Bd3 Qd4+
22. Kh1 Rce8 23. Be3 Qc3 24. Bxh6 Qxd2 25. Bxd2 Be5 26. Bf4
Bxf4 27. Rxf4 gxf5 28. Rxf5 Kg7 29. Rg5+ Kh6 30. h4 e6 31. Rf1
f5 32. Re1 Rf7 33. b5 axb5 34. cxb5 Bd7 35. g4 Ra8 36. gxf5
exf5 37. Bc4 Ra4 38. Rc1 Bxb5 39. Bxf7 Rxh4+ 40. Kg2 Kxg5
41. Bd5 Ba6 42. Rd1 Ra4 43. Bf3 Rxa3 44. Rxd6 Ra2+ 45. Kg1 Kf4
46. Bg2 Rb2 47. Rd7 b6 48. Rd8 Be2 49. Bh3 Bg4 50. Bf1 Bf3
51. Rb8 Be4 52. Ba6 Ke3 53. Rc8 Rb1+ 54. Kh2 Kf4 0-1

```

From the emergence of the Maróczy bind position white is encouraged **NOT** to castle queen-side as there are many traps black can exploit. From the Maróczy the main line continues with black **5. .. Bg7** or **5. .. Nh6**

**BLACKS RESPONSE**
The Stockfish chess engine has **5. .. Nh6** as the stronger response with a 20 move analysis, but let it run for a while with deeper analysis (36 moves) and it really favours **5. .. Bg7**:

**36 +0.40 5.... Bg7 6.Be3 (1048.58)**

It really doesn't matter because whichever move you play **Nh6** or **Bg7** either has the other move following quickly in the sequence anyway. In the above game Fischer played **5. .. Nh6** . Stockfish eventually (after a really long analysis) has the very counter-intuitive **5. .. d6** emerging as strongest:

**37 +0.40 5.... d6 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.Be3 O-O 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.O-O Be6 12.b3 Rfc8 13.Rfc1 Ng4 14.Bxg4 Bxg4 15.Bd4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Be6 17.a4 Qc5 18.Qxc5 dxc5 19.Nd5 Kf8 20.f3 Rd8 21.Kf2 Rac8 22.Ke3 f5 23.exf5 gxf5 (1513.20)**

It's such a long advantage it's likely best stick with **5. .. Nh6** or **Bg7** since even the best humans can't see that far ahead.

**STATISTICS**
Some statistics for the Maróczy with a black **5. .. Bg7** response are as follows (SCID):

> **Most frequent players (White)**
>
> 1: 14 1988-2000 64% 2605 Nijboer, Friso \[2,3,7,88,105\]
> 2: 12 1991-2013 67% 2609 Korneev, Oleg \[24,35,63\]
> 3: 10 1993-1998 70% 2570 Wojtkiewicz, Aleksander \[55,101\]
> 4: 9 1993-2014 83% 2599 Kotronias, Vasilios \[37,61,102,105\]
> 5: 8 1995-2012 69% 2732 Lékó, Péter \[45,55\]
> 6: 8 1980-1998 69% 2475 Székely, Péter
>
> **Most frequent players (Black)**
>
> 1: 21 1991-1998 43% 2515 Nielsen, Peter Heine \[55,79,88,94,100,105\]
> 2: 20 1973-2006 55% 2575 Velimirovic, Dragoljub \[18,23,34,41,45,49,50,54,...\]
> 3: 17 1987-2014 29% 2395 Afek, Yochanan
> 4: 16 2000-2016 56% 2646 Guseinov, Gadir \[2,62,63,78,89,96,102\]
> 5: 14 2009-2013 39% 2492 Plat, Vojtech \[9,29,30\]
> 6: 13 2013-2016 54% 2661 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo \[3,8,48,88,89,96,103,105\]
>
> **Oldest game**
> =-=(20) Keres - Benkő, Moskou olm 1956.09 \[38\] (Draw)
>
> **Newest game**
> =-=(17) Kovalev 2596 - Guseinov 2623, Konya TUR 2016.07.21 \[102\] (Draw)

**FIRST MATCH?**
This is likely the original Maróczy match with Maróczy winning (from Chessgames):

```

[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Site "Monte Carlo MNC"]
[Date "1904.02.11"]
[EventDate "1904.02.08"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Rudolf Swiderski"]
[Black "Geza Maroczy"]
[ECO "B38"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[FEN ""]
[PlyCount "96"]

1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3
d6 8.Be2 Bd7 9.O-O O-O 10.h3 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.Qd3 Nd7
13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.b4 b6 15.Rfd1 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 Qc7 18.Nd5
Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rxa1 20.Rxa1 f5 21.Qe6 Ne5 22.exf5 Rxf5 23.Ra8
Rf8 24.Rxf8 Kxf8 25.c5 dxc5 26.f4 Nf7 27.Bc4 Qxf4 28.bxc5 bxc5
29.Qc8+ Kg7 30.Qxc5 Qe5 31.Qc8 Nd6 32.Qg8+ Kh6 33.Qf8+ Kg5
34.Bf1 Qe3+ 35.Qf2 Qxf2+ 36.Kxf2 Kf4 37.Bd3 Ne4+ 38.Ke2 g5
39.Bc2 h5 40.Bb3 e5 41.Bf7 h4 42.Bc4 Nf6 43.Kf2 Ke4 44.Bf7 Kd3
45.Bg6+ e4 46.Bf5 Kd2 47.Bxe4 Nxe4+ 48.Kf3 Kd3 0-1

```

**AGAINST FISCHER**
And here is Pál Benkő using it as black to keep Bobby Fischer at bay in New York in a draw. Note: my SCID DB has this game in 1960 but Chessgames has it taking place in 1961:

```

[Event "New York ch-US  Rd: 10"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1961.01.01"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Pal Benko"]
[ECO "B36"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3
Nxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Be2 Bg7 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2 Be6 11. O-O Qa5
12. f4 Rfc8 1/2-1/2

```

**CONCLUSION**

> I'm not sure what you mean by "**nor does the database at 365Chess have any winning games for Black**". I found many (and this one for example). It's not true this opening is necessarily weak for Black. Mikhail Tal (Oliver Reeh vs Mikhail Tal, Deutschland Cup (1989)) and Viswanathan Anand (Vassily Ivanchuk vs Viswanathan Anand, Tournament (thematic) 1994) have both had success with it.
>
> Perhaps they know its opening theory better than others but it seems to be whoever knows their theory best has the greatest chance to win unsurprisingly.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, sicilian-defense, correspondence-chess
---


title: BigData of chess

text:
# Question
Title: BigData of chess
im posting this from my blog: http://chessratios.altervista.org/

Surprisingly engines like Stockfish and Houdini (the top 2!), Are not very close in this table ordered by Captures.

Carlsen is 1 point under the other humans.

What do you think about this?

Edit:

The Following data analysis of chess games where made by me, the Engines games where extracted from de **CCRL page** in the category of “40 moves in 4 minutes” , also known as “404”.

The analysis was made game by game, and move by move… so the information, I think, is very precise.

All the analyzes and indicators presented here do not mean that one engine or person is better than another, they are only characteristics of their personality.

**Captures:** This are amount of captures that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.

**Checks:** This are amount of checks that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.

Other: Represents all the other moves that are not Captures or Checks.

**Rank:** The Rank column is the rank in CCRL of the engine at the moment when the data was downloaded.

All calculations are averaged with the number of games of each engine/player.

I add 4 human players to see the difference against the Engines analysis of these factors. And also added a ‘middle strength’ engine name Zotron (Ranked 441), also for the same cause, to see how these factors behave in different Engines.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think the human-engine comparison is fair, because the engine data is restricted to 40 moves in 4 minutes, whereas the human data is, as far as I know, not restricted in the same way.

Given this limitation, I will address the possible differences between the human-computer data:

* **Threefold repetition**: the computer data has more checks, which may imply that more games end in threefold repetition
* **Endgame bias**: three of the human players you've included are famous endgame players, therefore their games are likely to include a lot of captures. Maybe a player like Tal would have fewer captures but more checks?
* **Maintaining the tension**: computers are better at maintaining the tension than humans. They just don't have the need to simplify the position with a capture to alleviate the strain of calculating many variations like humans have.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'd be careful drawing conclusions from this data only. Most captures (in %) happen in the opening/mid game, so shorter games will result in a higher percentage in the "captures" column. I would expect this to be the main reason for the data you see in that column (and not Carlsen avoiding capturing pieces). Perhaps you could analyze the average number of moves of the players!?

There can be various reasons for shorter/longer games:

* Humans resigning/drawing earlier than computers
* If a player is playing at a much higher level than his opponents (which is not so much the case nowadays anymore, but perhaps was at the time of Kasparov and before), this could result in those players winning games out of the opening.
* Different style; a more tactical player might have overall shorter games than somebody like Carlsen who likes to slowly build up an advantage
* Particularly in recent years top players, when facing much weaker opponents, try to avoid exchanging pieces. This is done to keep the position complicated and not necessarily represents best play.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why did Shirov not trade bishop for knight in this position to play against doubled, isolated b-pawns?
In *The wisest things ever said about chess* by GM Soltis, he quotes this about tempi and gives the following example:

> Tempi should not be counted but weighed.

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1b1nb1/n2p1pp1/3Pp2p/2N1P2B/2N2P2/PP2B1PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[Site "Istanbul"]
[Date "2000"]
[White "Gelfand"]
[Black "Shirov"]

  1. a4             Qb8
  2. Nb5 (2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7)           Rc8
  3. Bf2            Bh6
  4. Qb3            Nc5
  5. Qa3             *

```

The point of the example is that white started with 2 extra tempi in a King's Indian structure, that allowed him to place pressure on the queenside.

My question is, **why didn't black play 2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7 to gain chances to win one of the b-pawns**?

# Answer
After 4.Qb3 in your proposed line, there aren't any real chances to win the b5 pawn. If Black continues to add pressure with ...Qe8, then after the knight on c4 moves, the bishop on e2 will provide enough protection to defend the b5 pawn.

In the meantime, white gets the advantages of the bishop pair, the semi-open a-file for his rook, and a black knight that has no future on c7. Black doesn't appear to my eyes to have quick enough counterplay on the kingside while white can continue building up forces on the queenside and has a potential pawn break with the move b5-b6. The resulting position in your proposed variation would be static and strategically miserable for black.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> why didn't black play 2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7 to gain chances to win one of the b-pawns?

1) The bishop on d7 is a particulerly fine bishop fighting for control of some very important white squares contested by white pawns. Getting rid of it seems a shame.

2) It's not clear that black is going to win the resulting white pawn on b5 any time soon and in the meantime it is very annoying indeed.

3) Maybe white is going to follow up with b6 and either that pawn is going to be a monster or if it is swapped off white is going to end up with a knight on b6 instead supported by the bishop which is going to move to f2. The white squared bishop is going to come to b5 and there is no corresponding bishop for black.

4) It is going to be difficult for black to compete for the a and c files.

All in all only a masochist is going to go down that route.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: knights, bishops, kings-indian
---


title: Moving a piece out of the way to check

text:
# Question
Title: Moving a piece out of the way to check
I was recently told that you may not move a piece out of the way of a second piece to allow the second piece to put the other player in check.

For example,

* I have my queen and rook lined up on a diagonal with my opponent's king.
* I move my rook, opening the path for my queen to their king putting it in check.

According to my opponent, you aren't allowed to do this. You have to actively move the queen into a check position.

Is this a standard rule?

# Answer
> 18 votes
You can move your other piece to make your queen attack the king in a normal position such as:

```
4r3/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1

1.Bf3+**[Discovered-Check]
(1.Be4+**[Double-check])

```

---

But you are forbidden to do so if the piece you move will put your own king in check, such as:

```
3r4/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1

1.Bf3**[illegal-move]

```

Here both Be4 and Bf3 are illegal because the rook on d8 will be attacking your King.

So to conclude, there is no standard rule avoiding you to play discovered check except when the move puts your own king in check.

# Answer
> 7 votes
As mentioned by others, this move is perfectly legal (unless it puts your own king in check) and is called **discovered check** or more generally **discovered attack** (if the attacked piece is not the king).

This is usually a deadly tactic because the piece moved effectively gets to move twice while the opponent has to deal with the check from the other piece. This allows you to:

1. The moved piece can move to a square where it attacks a stronger piece which it will capture in the next move. (Bh7+ in the example below). The attacked piece cannot escape because the king is in check.
2. The moved piece can capture anything directly without being recaptured. (Bxc6+ in the example below).

Take a look at the following example:

```
[FEN "6q1/1p6/2p5/4k3/3pB3/6P1/5P1P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh7+ {Black has to deal with the check and cannot capture this bishop with the queen} (1. Bxc6+ {Even though this pawn is protected by the pawn on b7, black has to deal with the check and cannot capture the bishop} Kd6 2. Bxb7 {White won two pawns}) Kd6 2. Bxg8

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
For USCF rules, there is no such rule as long as the piece you are moving does not expose your king to check in the process.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It's perfectly accurate to say that there is no such rule in the Laws of Chess. Also, if your queen, your rook and his king are in a row his king is already in check, so his last move must have been illegal.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, check, discovered-check
---


# Question
Title: Why is chess dominated by relatively young players?
The top FIDE rated players (2700 chess) are all under 50 years old. Most of them seem to be around the 23-32 age range. Why is this the case? I don't really know if this has always been the case or if it this is just something apparent in the current generation.

I'm guessing this is the case for a number of reasons that may include:

* Leaving chess
* Lacking needed attention
* Lacking stamina
* Impaired memory of positions and theory

# Answer
> 7 votes
Well, all you mentioned are probably the reasons for some players.

I would also add 'lack of time' as one of the reasons. When you get older you may need to go to a college/university (chess don't bring much money, unless you are at the top), then family life/kids (chess players have to travel regularly a lot) makes travel harder... So, many people 'switch' to teaching and playing only in local tournaments.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It may be possible for an older man to "maintain" a certain level of play, but people's ability to *improve* and learn new things peak in their early 30s.

Chess is a dynamic and changing game. Someone who had trouble keeping up with the latest developments would fall behind, even with the same level of raw ability. That describes most people after, as opposed to before, age 30.

This phenomenon has become more pronounced with the current generation because chess is changing faster than it used to. Ditto for Go.

# Answer
> 3 votes
All the reasons you (and others) mentioned are very valid, however they don't explain the trend that top players become increasingly younger.

I do believe that this has a lot to do with how chess is learned. In the past this was much harder: You had to find a coach, analyze openings by hand and gradually gain experience through many games. All of this took time.

Nowadays, in the time of databases and chess engines, all the information is only a click away and accessible to everyone. Experience gained from playing chess is not all that important anymore.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In addition to the plausible answers already given, I'd venture another psychological aspect that resonates well with Leo Skhrnkv's point about family life and other 'distractions':

Lack of single-mindedness. Generally, when people get older, they also get (to the extent applicable to them) wiser. Outside of competitive sport this is a good thing, but in fields like chess it means that not winning a game is not quite the same disaster for one's self esteem that it used to be, other fields of interest start to seem more important, etc. Younger people feel a stronger need to prove themselves and tend to feel that they can afford to put everything but their chosen field into second place.

Compare to this that Magnus Carlsen famously said in an interview that the only reason in his opinion that John Nunn never became world champion is that Nunn is 'too smart', i.e. too good at and too interested in too many other fields.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Note that all the exciting, major World Chess Championships occurred about 20-30 years ago (Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik).
Hence, young people (people who are now in their 30s) got interested in chess.
This occurred especially in Europe and somewhat in US's major cities like NYC.
So, more than mental capacity, it is the history and motivation 20-30 years ago that accounts for large volume of GMs in 30s.

# Answer
> 2 votes
For chess at tournament level, good physical condition is an absolute must. And it is well known that physical condition decreases after an age of about 30 years. Chess players can remain top-level somewhat longer than professional football players (maybe because of a lesser frequency of physical injuries, and because stamina lasts longer than sprinter qualities), but nevertheless they are affected by age. The effect was clearly visible in the World Championship match between Carlsen and Anand: Carlsen played out his superior physical condition against Anand (e.g., by playing out drawn looking endgames and making games longer).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess is dominated by young players because other than your brain no part of the body is really involved. True, you need to have a healthy and fit body to concentrate on the game hard, but technically your brain is the only part that is involved.

During your childhood, your memory and intelligence are sharper compared to your youth years. Your learning capability is much more, and your intake for remembering patterns is higher. One more plus as a child is that your focus is not deterred by other factors. Your parents make sure you get more learning, and other responsibilities are taken care by them. You even get more time to learn but when you are in your 20s, then there are various factors which does not allow you to concentrate entirely on chess which makes you sometimes learn more slowly.

# Answer
> 1 votes
To all the factors already listed, I would also add **fatigue** and, to some extent, **boredom**.

If you start playing chess at the highest level when you are still in your mid-late teens, by the time you're 40 you've been around for more than 20 years, and that is 20 plus years of being around, traveling for the good part of the year and studying chess many hours every day.

It is very natural that when your intellectual abilities and your capacity of recovering from stress starts fading you may be willing to slow down your pace and that itself has an impact on your playing strength.

---
Tags: super-grandmaster
---


title: Don't understand why white resigned

text:
# Question
Title: Don't understand why white resigned
In the 2017 Women's World Chess Championship match (Round 3, game 2) between Yang Shen (white) against Nana Dzagnidze (black) I don't understand why white resigned. There was not a time control issue and it appeared that white could at least get a draw.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "77"]

1. e4 c5
2. Ne2 e5
3. Nbc3 Nc6
4. g3 g6
5. Bg2 Bg7
6. d3 Nge7
7. Bg5 d6
8. Nd5 h6
9. Be3 Nxd5
10. exd5 Nd4
11. Nc1 O-O
12. c3 Nf5
13. Bd2 Ne7
14. Ne2 Bf5
15. Be3 Qd7
16. Qd2 Bh3
17. Bxh3 Qxh3
18. c4 b5
19. Nc3 bxc4
20. dxc4 e4
21. O-O-O Rfb8
22. b3 a5
23. Nb5 a4
24. b4 Qd7
25. bxc5 Rxb5
26. cxb5 Qxb5
27. Qc2 Qb4
28. Rd2 Bc3
29. Re1 Rc8
30. Kd1 f5
31. cxd6 Qxd6
32. Bf4 Qd7
33. d6 Bxd2
34. Qxd2 Qb5
35. dxe7 Qb1+
36. Ke2 Qb5+
37. Ke3 Qb6+
38. Ke2 Qb5+
39. Kd1 0-1

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The game ended in a draw. Chessbomb isn't an official source, but it recorded the game as a draw, and the comments there indicate that the game was originally reported (by the digital board, perhaps) as a win for Black, but it has been corrected to a draw. These glitches happen from time to time.

As for the position: it doesn't seem possible for white to escape perpetual check, and black cannot force a mate and is far behind in material. Therefore, it's a draw.

---
Tags: resigning
---


# Question
Title: Meaning and origin of 'theory' in 'opening theory'
What *precisely* does 'opening theory' mean? Generally when I see the word 'theory', I'd expect a conceptual move away from the particular towards the universal. That is, I would expect 'opening theory' to refer to a generalizing reasoning about strategic options and dangers implicit in an opening, aiming for the formulation of guidelines and principles. But the way I see it used in the chess world, 'opening theory' seems to pertain to the memorization of particular variations. Is this correct? If so, I find this slightly odd: How did this use of the word come about?

# Answer
> 2 votes
In common usage, "theory" often refers to knowledge gained by someone authoritative and at least somewhat verified by a process of critique and reasonably accepted by experts in the field, which you then study/copy/apply as required to solve a problem. It is sometimes used as a synonym for "book-knowledge", which stands opposed to "practice", where you obtain knowledge through invention/experimentation yourself.

This use of the word makes no distinction about the *kind* of knowledge so obtained. Both specific variations of an opening, as well as underlying principles and techniques, can be defined as "theory".

# Answer
> 4 votes
You are right in your assessment of the usage.

**Opening theory** refers to particular variations; but also to typical plans specific to the respective openings.

**Opening principles** (develop pieces, occupy the center...) are of a more general nature applying to all (or most) openings and is closer to what one would consider a "theory".

I don't have a good answer to your question, but in recent years at least there has been a trend away from playing based on opening principles towards concrete play. So perhaps at one point in time, "opening theory" was a lot more based on principles and less concrete lines!?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I view it as theory *as opposed to practice*, where practice is what happens in actual games.

Theory is developed at home, published in books, debated in articles, and so on.

It's also a *search for absolute truth* (as opposite to practical chances); in particular, it's a *quest to find a white advantage* -- when full equality for black is proven to be available by force from some position, the theoretical interest in it is over. We already know plenty of ways to get an equal game with white.

A move may lead to an advantage according to the latest theoretical articles but not chosen by grandmasters in actual games because the positions, even if slightly better, are just too hard to play correctly. And on the other hand an opening may be completely uninteresting to opening theory because it clearly leads to an equal position, but there may be so much play left in the position that it's very popular in actual play.

Opening books are often produced as works of theory -- they're attempts to improve on the analysis that's been done before, white strives for an advantage, black for equality, and the analysis goes much deeper than is useful for the average reader. Although the trend nowadays is away from that, towards books that explain and instruct more to help the practical player get better results -- even though theory couldn't care less.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think the word theory, in the context of chess, means what is thought to be the best line. It has a parallel to comparing an experimental result to the theoretical one, the one that's suppose to be correct. Like scientific theories, they are corroborated by a lot of evidence, but sometimes people find a hole and theories are proven wrong. This happened a lot when computers became strong enough to aid professionals in their theoretical work, and many pre computer analysis was shown to be sub-optimal. Of course, it's not all about what computers think, but also what type of positions you like, which line brings the most winning chances... And computers are much weaker in the opening anyways(depending on the position), but they do help to give inspiration and check tactics especially.

---
Tags: opening, theory, history
---


# Question
Title: How can I add the Komodo chess engine to ChessBase 9?
I bought the Komodo 10 chess engine.

Nowhere in the instructions that I could find does it explain how to add it as an engine, nor can I find any "komodo.eng" file in the Komodo directories.

What happens when try to add Komodo as a UCI engine. First this screen appears as I open "ChessEngine15.exe" in the Komodo directory:

Notice how the "OK" button is grayed out. Then after I click "Open" this happens:

The screen stays like this for about 20 seconds, then the Komodo front page disappears and the "Loading ChessProgram15.exe" box disappears as well, but the "Set up UCI Engine" dialog remains the same with the OK button grayed out, so there is no way to proceed other than Cancel. Clicking the "Parameters" button results in a "Loading" box, followed by a dialog box "Doesn't have parameters":

# Answer
The problem is that the main exe is not the engine. The engine EXE is kind of hidden.

I was able to find the engine by using the SysInternals tool "Process Explorer". By starting Komodo and running Process Explorer I found that the main Komodo program launches the engine EXE as a child process.

The location of this child process on my Windows XP machine was the following:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\ChessBase\Engines.uci\Komodo 10\

By browsing to the exe in this folder in the UCI engine selection shown in the question, it worked.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Convert between different rating systems
Is there a table somewhere that shows how to convert between all the various rating systems?

US Chess seems to indicate that ratings would be converted from others to play in their tournaments.

# Answer
I assume that you're interested in conversions involving USCF ratings. Here you can see the algorithm used.

As an example the conversion between FIDE and USCF is USCF = 180 + 0.94\*FIDE if the FIDE rating is under 2000 and USCF = 20 + 1.02\*FIDE if the FIDE rating is over 2000 elo points.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The official conversion rate for ECF to FIDE is FIDE=7.5\*ECF+700, see

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/fide-elo-conversion/

Again comments about this being approximate are appropriate.

I don't know of a more general table.
> 2 votes

# Answer
This tool converts between USCF and FIDE ratings:

http://beginchess.com/2017/03/04/chess-rating-conversion-tool/
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, tournament
---


title: Ways to evaluate a position?

text:
# Question
Title: Ways to evaluate a position?
I was wondering if the only way to evaluate a position is by looking for next moves like a chess engine does.

Is it possible with only a static evaluation of the board to get a correct evaluation about which side has the best position?

# Answer
> Evaluate without calculating.

Source: *The wisest things ever said about chess* by GM Soltis

So yes, we should evaluate a position before selecting candidate moves and calculating concrete variations. Considering whether the opponent's king is safe will help you decide whether you should look for a mate in *N* type move, which is very different to capitalising on a space advantage.

From *Tune your chess tactics antenna: know when (and where!) to look for winning combinations* by Emmanuel Neiman, he recommends the following steps to selecting a move.

1. **Global vision**: think of this as walking past a game and your first impression being 'white is winning' or 'it's about equal'
2. **Analysis of the position**: This is where you look at king safety, material, space etc.
3. **Looking for the theme**: is there the potential for a pin, fork, back rank mate etc. in the position?
4. **Looking for candidate moves**: based on steps 1-3, generate a small list of candidate moves (usually 2 or 3)
5. **Calculation of variations**: work out the candidate moves as far as you can, and evaluate that final position

I would argue that steps 1-3 fall into the category of evaluating a position without looking ahead.
> 3 votes

# Answer
How to Evaluate a Chess Position would cover up a Book or two . There would be some infinite Chess Advices from different GMs in respective Positions .It is also a Time factor parameter . It really matters how much time you have on Clock to determine the various elements .

Some of the Simplest way to determine is

1. How many Pieces are Active on respective side . You can count the number of squares occupied by your Opponent's pieces .
2. Who has an Attack ? I mean whose pieces are covering up on a particular side of the Board .
3. Is your King safe and Opponent's Bishops , Rooks are not pointing towards your King .
4. Do you have a Passed Pawn and Opponent's Pieces are tied up to block the parser .
5. let's assume you are in Middle game and you have a chance to exchange the Pieces and go to End Game directly . You have two Pawns one on either side of the flanks and your Opponent has the same material (two Pawns) and on same side of your King where it can Blockade easily .

So above are some of the factors where Position can be evaluated and you can make the Critical decision .
> 1 votes

# Answer
> Is posible only with a static evaluation of the board to get a correct Score about who side Is in best position?

Not sure what you consider *correct Score*. You can certainly evaluate a score for the current position basically in the same way that engines do, giving points for material, piece activity... And that's what humans do first when looking at a position: they look for material imbalances, piece activity, space advantage, king safety, etc and end up with an evaluation of the position including an idea about who is better.

Based on this evaluation you would develop a general plan: do I need to improve piece activity, do I need to defend my king,...?

Only then you would think of concrete ways to implement this plan, candidate moves and calculate variations. Because of the initial analysis of the position you would already have limited the number of variations that you want to calculate.

Obviously if you calculate a score from the current and possible future positions like engines do, the score will be more reliable than if you only calculate a score from the current position.

I can think of two exceptions to all this and that is

1. forced lines, where you don't have much choice (e.g. re-capture after a capture, getting out of check,...).
2. highly tactical concrete positions, where an evaluation on general principles will be useless and you won't be able to get a meaningful score without considering possible variations.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: What are the advantages of the QGD over the Slav?
I don't have an extensive knowledge of the opening theory of the two openings mentioned in the title. However, I do understand that, at a very basic level, in response to the Queen's Gambit the moves 2...c6 and 2...e6 have the effect of defending the d5 pawn as well as erecting a solid position for Black.

However, the move 2...c6 has a simple advantage: Black's queen bishop is more easily developed.

Why, then, is the move 2...e6 even played? What advantages does it have over 2...c6? It seems to me as though the move just impedes the development of a piece.

The same consideration applies to semi-slav type structures in which the queen bishop is still on c8. Why would one want to play e6 before playing Bg4 or Bf5?

# Answer
It is not so easy to develop c8 bishop to f5 or g4 in any of these systems. You run into many tactics like Nh4 winning bishop on f5 for a knight, f3 e4 as in open Slav or Qb3 Ne5 stuff with bishop on g4. The bishop is often developed to b7 in both semislav and QGD. It is safe and effective square for him. It is better to have the bishop passive for a while than to go for long term disadvantage of exchanging it for a knight.

That being said, e6 is good developing move even with bishop on c8. Now you can look for differences in 2...c6 and 2...e6 systems. The advantage of c6 is that it threatens to win a pawn forcing white either to close the c1 bishop (meran) or to be prepared to sacrifice it (botvinik, moscow). The advantage of e6 is obvious, the active c7-c5 will be played in one move, it doesn't take c6 square from knight and it helps you develop kingside faster.
> 10 votes

# Answer
2...e6 has the advantage of facilitating the development of the kingside, allowing for quick castling. Thus in a sense 2...e6 is the more "solid" move, while 2...c6 delays development to pursue strategic gains.

As hoacin points out, developing the light-squared bishop is easier said than done after 2...c6. To give one example, after the natural moves 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3, 4...Bf5? is a mistake because after 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3, there is no good way to defend the b7-pawn. Therefore black usually plays A) 4...dxc4 5. a4 and only now 5...Bf5, but this involves the concession of giving up the center, or B) 4...e6, blocking the bishop after all and moving into the Semi-Slav.

Of course, when you're talking about established openings with countless games, a few abstract ideas and lines don't tell the whole story, but hopefully this at least gives you a few ideas.
> 3 votes

# Answer
QGD had more strategic & Tactical Games in Database compared to Slav . Even it has more to learn and has wider variations. The above technical explanations also hold true .
> -1 votes

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


# Question
Title: How to survive a Kingside Attack in Chess?
When I play the game of chess, I feel that I am quite weak when my kingside is being subjected to attack.

I have two games to demonstrate as an example. I am black in both cases. Can someone place their annotations with analysis to determine my strategic mistakes, and what I should have done earlier to prevent the attack from happening in the first place?

Game 1

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bd7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Be3 a6 8.h3 e6 9.Qd2 b5 10.Bd3 Be7 11.a3 Rc8 12.Nf3 Na5 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Ne2 Nc4 15.Qc1 Nxe3  16.Qxe3 Bc6 17.Ng3 O-O 18.O-O Nd7 19.Qe2 Bf6 20.c3 g6 21.Rfe1 Rfe8 22.Qd2 d5 23.Nh2 Ne5 24.Ng4 Nxg4 25.hxg4 Rcd8 26.Qe2 Be5 27.Nf1 Qe7 28.g3 d4 29.f4 Bc7 30.c4 Bb6 31.Kg2 b4 32.Ra1 a5 33.Nd2 a4 34.Rh1 bxa3 35.Rxa3 Bc5 36.Ra2 Rb8 37.Bc2 Rb4 38.Nf3 f6 39.g5 f5 40.Ne5 Ba8 41.Rh6 Qg7 42.Kf1 Reb8 43.Bd3 Bd6 44.Nxg6 hxg6 45.exf5 Qxh6 46.Qxe6+ Kh7 47.gxh6   1-0

```

Game 2

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.e5 Bf5 6.Nc3 e6 7.Nf3 Bb4 8.Bd3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nge7 10.O-O O-O 11.Bg5 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 h6 13.Bh4 Rc8 14.Rab1 b6 15.Nd2 Na5 16.f4 Qc7 17.Rbc1 Nf5 18.Bf2 Nc4 19.Nf3 Nb2 20.Qc2 Nc4 21.Qe2 Qc6 22.g4 Ne7 23.Qd3 Ng6 24.Bg3 Ne7 25.f5 f6 26.Nh4 fxe5 27.dxe5 Rcd8 28.f6 Nc8 29.Qg6 Rf7 30.fxg7 Rdd7 31.Qxh6 Rxf1+ 32.Rxf1 Rxg7 33.Ng6 Qc5+ 34.Kh1   *

```

# Answer
## 1st game

As in the second game you gained a good position out of the opening, exchanging the strong dark-squared bishop for a knight. Around move 25 black just seems better having the bishop pair, dominating the dark squares and having no apparent weaknesses.

* Around move 25 you seem to start playing without clear plan. A natural plan would be to play a5-b4 (after preparation) which would make white's queenside pawns very weak
* around move 30/31 could think of playing bxc4 31 Bxc4 a5 and work against the b2 pawn, or alternatively think of closing the kingside by playing e5 or even g5.
* 32.. a5 You certainly do not want to recapture a5xb4 (since this would give white a protected passed pawn on c4 the open a file...). That's why perhaps 32.. bxa3 33 Rxa3 a5 (and work against the b2 pawn) or 33 bxa3 (and white has weak a and c pawns) might have been better.
* around move 35: Black is still better. You created a weak pawn on b2 and nothing should happen on the kingside since the white king is rather weak. Not sure whether black can achieve much from here. Perhaps you need to create some tactical ideas with a3 later on. First of all I would try to close the kingside/center with e5 which would also make the white bishop even weaker than it is. After black's e5, because of the weak pawn on e4 white is basically forced to respond with f5 after which nothing dangerous should happen to you on the kingside. If needed you can always play f6, g5 and defend the h pawn with heavy pieces from the 7th rank.
* 36..Rb8!? allows 37 Nf3 which makes closing the center more difficult
* around move 40: you allowed the white knight to get to e5. Compare this to the position after blocking the center with black pawns on e5, f6, g5 where white would have virtually no counterplay. With the pinned pawn on e4 black should still be better but now you need to be more careful with tactics compared to the blocked kingside variation.
* 41..Qg7 Using a queen for the only purpose of defending a pawn is not something you want to do, but seems to be the only normal defense. A better (but not that easy to see) choice would have been to play 41..d3 42 Bxd3 Bd4 which prevents the knight sacrifice on g6 because now the square h8 (which in some lines allows the white queen to enter) is covered by the bishop.
* 43..a3 works here and would allow your rooks to get very active. After 44 bxa3 you can play 44..Rb1+ and white is lost if playing 45 Bxb1
* 44..hxg6 loses. You could have tried fxe4, but even then white should be much better.

Summary: Out of the opening black had a good position and also created some targets (weak pawns) on the queenside. Intentionally or not intentionally (?) black chose to not close the kingside and to keep the pawn structure flexible. This is not necessarily a bad idea considering the weak white king. Basically you made a choice between: (a) closing the kingside and playing safely for a win (with admittedly decent drawing chances for white) or (b) Keeping the structure flexible allowing additional options in the center in case black cannot achieve anything on the queenside. Unfortunately, black then lost to a tactics (Nxg6). I would not really consider this game an example for a kingside attack, because basically you lost because of that tactics only.

## 2nd game

You achieved a quite decent position around move 12, having exchanged the strong white bishop on d3 and created a weak pawn on c3. There does not seem to be any attack on the king side threatened soon. Black should be slightly better at that point.

* At move 13 you should consider how to continue your play on the queenside. Obviously a rook or two will go on the c-file, the knight seems to have a nice square on c4, but also you might want to use a knight to attack the pawn on c3 from b5 or a4. The queen would have a good square on a5 from where it attacks the pawns on a2 and c3. You started with 13 .. Rc8, which is certainly not wrong, but Qa5 might be more correct as it un-pins the knight on e7 and prevents being locking in the queen after b6.
* 14 .. b6 makes your play on the queenside much more difficult as your queen cannot go to a5 anymore. And also it prevents activating rooks via Rc6-Rb6 or Ra6. 14.. Na5 might have been better.
* 18 .. h5 could have been an idea in order to prevent white playing g4.
* 19 ... Nb2 seems useless unless you want to move the knight to a4.
* Activating the queen via Qe7-Qa3 (this does not work yet because after g4 you'd lose the knight on f5, but could be prepared, with h5) or via Qb7-Qa6-Qa3 or Qa5 could be a long-term plan. But first of all you really need to prevent white from playing g4-f5 here, which is basically the only way for white to gain any counter-play. 19 .. h5 seems like a logical move here, unless you want to go for a passive setup with g6, Ng7 which does not seem attractive to me.
* 23 ... Ng6!? does not seem like a good square to me. White will want to play f5 anyway and this just gives him an extra tempo since the knight will be attacked.
* 24 ... Ne7 You noticed your mistake, but as with the Nb2-Nc4 maneuver, you are wasting tempi in a position where you should either play very strongly on the queenside or think of defenses.
* 25 ... f6? Not a good move as it weakens the light squares and gives the bad bishop on g3 lots of squares if white plays exf6. Your best option might have been to play with rook against two minor pieces after 25..exf5 26 gxf5 Nxf5 27 Qxf5 Ne3 With the weak white bishop and weak pawn on c3 chances might not have been that bad.
* 27 .. Tcd8? White is threatening f6 which does look pretty deadly. 27 ... Qc5+ with the idea to play Qe3 looks like an option since exchange of queens would be good for black. If white responds to the check with 28 Bf2 this would block the rook on f1 from supporting the f6 push and would give black another tempo to play Qc7 attacking the e5 pawn again. In fact white's only good option might be to return with the bishop to g3, making this a move repetition..
* 28 f6 Black is basically lost after this move, so there is no point analyzing further.

Summary: Out of the opening black had a good position. You did not really get anywhere on the queenside though (perhaps because of b6) and also you wasted a few tempi moving knights back and forth. White has basically only one plan in this position which is a kingside attack with g4-f5-f6... When breaking through on the queenside seemed impossible you should have focused on how to prevent white from carrying out this plan. You missed two defensive tactics which could have given you a draw.

A few ideas on what to do in general against this plan in positions like this:

1. Play h5 to prevent g4 and to strengthen the position of your knight on f5. If white plays h3 with the idea to play g4 sometimes you can play h4 or you can go for a setup (after g4 hxg4 hxg4) with knights on h6 and e7 and queen on d7 all working against f5
2. Put a rook on the 6th rank (c6 in your case) which could help to prevent f6 later
3. Escape with the king to the center
4. Open the center. This is kind of what you tried playing 25 .. f6. However this would have been more effective e.g. with the rook from c8 on e8 defending the knight and putting pressure on the center. Generally opening a center is a good response to a pawn storm.
5. Be faster on the queenside.

## What should you do?

Looking at the two games, I would say that in the second you really encountered a kingside attack which is not easy to defend against and is perfectly possible to lose even with best play. There is no reason that you should lose to the first game's "kingside attack" though, because: you have very good counterplay (b2, e4 pawns), have the option of preventing any of white's activity by closing the center/kingside, don't have many threats to defend against.

Some ideas on how to improve your play against kingside attacks:

* Work on your tactics, which is always a good idea. In game 1 you missed 41..d3 and 43..a3; in game 2 you missed 27..Qc5+ and the tactics around moves 25-27 (exchange of two pieces for a rook).
* You could also think about changing your opening repertoire to playing for instance 1 e4 e5 which does not run into problems with such kingside attacks as easily. In many of the Sicilians you do run into such kingside pawn storms, similarly in many French and in the Modern/Pirc.
* Study how masters handle kingside attacks for pawn structures that occur in your games.
* Consider whether you can close the pawn structure on the kingside.
* Be quicker with your queenside counterplay (don't fool around).
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would suggest that you try to avoid moving your pawns in front of your castled king unless there is a really good reason to do so.

The 20...g6 move in your first game and the 12...h6 move in your second game were both unforced and didn't accomplish much. However, both moves created weaknesses that white took advantage of later in the example games. the reason why this is the case is that these moves cost black in terms of having flexibility in determining a defensive pawn structure to cover the king depending on the attacking formation that white chooses.

Also, in the Sicilian defense, white pretty much always has much the better of it on the kingside anyway. Black's usual plan is to try to crash through on the queenside first. So it becomes a race to see who breaks through first.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: The number of possible moves in Chess

text:
# Question
Title: The number of possible moves in Chess
Question is related to chess computing about *number of possible moves in chess*.

I'm not talking about the number of possible positions but about **the number of ways a piece can go from one square to any other.**

Example 1:

> A piece can be on any one of the 64 squares and (approximately) it can go to any other. Thus, the number of possible moves are `64*64 = 4,096`. This is clearly an overestimate. In other words, **what's the actual number of "from square" and "to square" combinations?**

Example 2:

> For the square `a1`, there are 23 possible *from - to combinations*. Because a knight can go to two squares and a queen can go to twenty one squares (the other pieces don't add any).

# Answer
> 4 votes
Unless I misunderstand your question wouldn't that just be (for every from square) the number of (to) squares that a knight can go to plus the number of squares that the queen can go to. As in the following diagrams which show to how many squares the respective piece can go.

You'd just need to add the two numbers from the diagrams for every square.

Depending on what you need all this for you might have to consider separately the special moves of castling, en passant and pawn promotion.

---
Tags: pieces
---


# Question
Title: How is Kasparov vs Shirov 1992 a victory?
There is no check. Was it a victory on time? Or did Shirov resign? In all the discussion over this game it's just accepted that Kasparov won, without anyone mentioning the reason for his victory. And it is so often called a great game, whereas I don't see any great brilliance. Just 2 guys trading blows. There's hardly a significant difference in material in the final position.

# Answer
> 25 votes
Shirov resigned: the thinking was that despite both sides left with pawns and a knight, the advantage went to Black.

Black has an extra pawn and Black's pawn chain is mutually supporting. White is down a pawn and they are split. White's king is buried too deeply in the corner to either prevent a black pawn advance to promotion or to save White's pawns.

True, White does have a pawn that is more advanced, but Black's king is already central, pretty much attacking the pawn and knight. The white knight is insufficient to protect that pawn. That pawn is pretty much gone, so really Black's advantage effectively becomes two pawns.

With White's advanced pawn gone, advantage becomes three black pawns and a knight against White's single king-side pawn and a knight, except even here Black's knight is already attacking that pawn so it, too, is effectively gone.

Kasparov would truly have to make some blunders to fail to promote a pawn, so pawn promotion was seen to be unavoidable given the position. Hence White resigns.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Black has (almost) three connected passed pawns which will be unstoppable.

White is not going to promote his pawn without the king, which is far away and likewise is not going to get a passer on the a or b file soon.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Think of white's next move. The pawn in g is lost. If you move the pawn in e, black just leaves the king there and the white knight is pinned. So the only reasonable move is b1, to start taking the king to where the action is. Black can now take the g pawn and start advancing the three pawns to get to promote one of them. I might screw that up, but not a GM. Shirov resigned.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Black's next four moves will be Nxg3, (unless White advances the g pawn, in which case Black plays f5xg4), Ne4, Ng5, and Nxe6, unless White moves his N to protect it, in which case Black moves Ke7.

White's best plan is to activate his king to b1, c2, b3, and a4.So White's king is at a4, his N at c6 with two pawns in a2 and b2, having lost both his king side pawns. Black has a N at e6 and a K at e8, two queenside pawns and three king side pawns.

White takes two Black pawns with his next two moves, Ka5 and kb4. Black plays his h pawn to h5 and h4. White moves his N to e5 Black pawn to h3, White N to f3, temporarily blocking the pawn. B moves g5, "chasing" the WN, which goes to h2.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's a race.

If White is next then:

The White knight can take on a5, whilst Black moves to g5. If White tries to rush the pawn to a4, Black takes en passant. This leaves the Black king to atack e6 and the Black night to attack g3.

But pawn tof4 signals the start of black pushing their pawns forward. which creates a queen on the same diagonal as the white pawn, which is being pushed along on the b-file

If Black turn is first then game over already, because Nxf3, and pawn pushing asap.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Of course, Shirov resigned in this position. Black has got three connected pawns on the K-side to which white has only one and it will fall soon. The black knight makes it more difficult to stop those pawns. The white king is in the corner on a1, and it will never reach the kingside on time to stop any of the black's pawns. As far as the queenside is concerned, the pawns on a2 and b2 are blockaded by a5 and b4. The white pawn on e6, though far advanced, is just a hollow threat, which aided by knight is not enough to threaten the black monarch. Once the white knight moves, the black king will occupy the e7 square. The entire play is on black's side, and white has to wait for his defeat, fighting till the end, only to lose.

---
Tags: endgame, famous-players, kasparov, famous-games
---


title: Books for chess traps

text:
# Question
Title: Books for chess traps
I have seen (and studied) some books on opening theory. They basically deal with chess openings and various lines in which those openings can transform into. But I haven't found a book which completely focuses on opening chess traps. I want to learn chess traps which originate from various openings. I have looked online and found traps like "Legal trap", "Fishing pole trap", etc. Can someone recommend me a book or even some other online material(s) which basically have a compilation of such kind of traps?

# Answer
Chess.com has a review of 700 Opening Traps by Bill Wall:

> Bill Wall is a well known chess writer and his book '700 opening traps' is available as a free download from the website mentioned above, as well as his many other books and articles.

The book is available for download at http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/ (this opens the book as a PDF).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Pandolfini wrote at least one book titled "Chess Openings, Traps and Zaps". In addition, there are numerous books of miniatures, which are, in some cases, traps.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps Gary Lane. The blurb on the back says"There is no easier way to win a game of chess than by luring your opponent into a devious trap. Similarly, there's nothing worse than being the one on the receiving end. Tricks, traps and swindles lie in wait everywhere, especially so in the opening phase of the game, and many battles can be won or saved simply through learning and mastering the most important ones. In this instructive and fun book, Gary Lane looks back through chess history and at modern times to create a list of his own favourite tricks and traps. Selecting from hundreds of contenders, Lane examines a variety of factors in order to decide which ideas are most worthy of inclusion. Discover the stories behind the most cunning tricks and traps of all time; how you can utilize them to score easy wins; and how you can avoid being tricked yourself. This is an entertaining guide to the best ever tricks and traps. It offers invaluable advice from a seasoned tournament player and is ideal for players of all levels."
> 1 votes

# Answer
Perhaps Taming Wild Chess Openings, written by IM Watson and FM Schiller, is interesting for you. The book contains a collection of tricky openings and the authors show how to react and, if possible, refute them.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is even more . You can go to chessmaniac.com and there is an option of Mini Games at the left corner where you can see a lot of Tactical miniatures which consists of various Chess openings . Link of the Website is below .

Chessmaniac Mini games

Even you can go across the You tube Videos of Kevin from Chess Website and Gunjan Chess Videos by the name " Dirty Chess tricks " where you can learn a lot of miniatures .Hope it helps.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: Strategic implications in this puzzle by S. Polgar/P. Truong
Usually chess puzzles at my level (beginner) have just one or two forced variations and a clear achievement, like a substantial material gain or checkmate. Once in a while, though, a puzzle leaves me wondering, why the solution is actually supposed to be such a good thing.

The following puzzle is from Susan Polgar's and Paul Truong's book "Chess Tactics for Champions", #11 from the chapter on trapping. White to move:

```
[White "Puzzle by Susan Polgar"]
[Black "Trapping: #11"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "2rr2k1/p3bpp1/1p2pn1p/2p5/8/2P1PPB1/PP2B1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

The solution is:

> This example demonstrates well the power of the pair of bishops 1.♗a6 ♖c6 (1...♖a8 2.♗b7) 2.♗b7.

After 2...♖cd6 3.♗xd6 ♗xd6 (or 3...♖xd6?) White wins the exchange. So far, so good, numerical material gain. However, I'm trying to make my very first baby steps in understanding strategy: In an actual game, assuming I'd see the variation, I'd be hesitating to play it. My -- probably naive -- reasoning would go like this: "A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3."

It's not that I don't trust Polgar/Truong, but I would like to understand. Is it, because after the exchange White is now able to control the d-file? Or am I completely off the track somewhere else?

# Answer
> 12 votes
> A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3.

Congratulations! You are taking your first steps to moving away from using the Reinfeld piece values as a method of evaluation.

The reason why winning the exchange is good here is because:

1. Material appreciates as the endgame approaches. For example, if you have 8 pawns vs. 7, you are up a pawn. If you reduce that to 1 pawn to 0, you are still up a pawn but now you are very likely to win (or certain to draw)
2. Building from point 1, white can take control of the crucial d-file and likely trade down more material, going into an even better endgame
3. Owning the bishop pair is *usually* worth 1/2 a pawn, but in this position the rooks are the most important pieces because the pawn structure means that the black minor pieces don't have great squares (a somewhat blocked bishop and a knight with no forward outpost)

Please note that winning material isn't always advantageous. This example in *Mastering Chess Strategy* by GM Hellsten shows white sacrifice the exchange to gain a good outpost for his knight and play against a bad bishop:

```
[FEN "r4r2/1pp1q1bk/3p2b1/p2Ppp2/1nP5/1PN1BP2/P2N2PP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Hellsten"]
[Black "Cramling"]

  1. Qe2            f4
  2. Bf2            Bd3
  3. Qd1            Bxf1
  4. Qxf1           Bf6
  5. Kh1            Bh4
  6. Bg1            Rf7
  7. Nde4           Rg8
  8. a3             Na6
  9. Rc2            Rg6
 10. Rb2            Qd8
 11. b4             axb4
 12. axb4           Be7
 13. c5             Nb8
 14. Qc4            Kh8
 15. b5             Nd7
 16. c6             Nb8
 17. cxb7           Rg8
 18. Ra2            Bh4
 19. Ra8            Rfg7
 20. Qf1            Qd7
 21. Ba7             1-0

```

---

**Addendum:** Regarding how material appreciates as the ending nears, consider the case of K+8P vs. K+7P:

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

```

Compared to K+P vs. K, which is the same material difference of 1 pawn but a higher material ratio for the attacker, the first example is a likely draw, whereas the second example is a theoretical win.

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

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
Material trumps positional factors, unless the positional factors are *extremely* pronounced.

The advantage of the bishop pair is often estimated at half a pawn - enough to pressure the opponent, but not always force a win. Rook vs. knight is an advantage of roughly two pawns - clearly winning - so you're gaining a lot in terms of material.

You should cash in the bishop for the rook and look forward to a clearly winning position. You're not likely to have a better opportunity.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3.

Sure, but the rook doesn't have to stay on c8. After, say, ...Rd2 and ...Rcd8, Black's rooks start to look a lot more useful. Being up the exchange is a long-term advantage; Black's rook not being very useful on c8 is a short-term feature of the present position.

---
Tags: strategy, beginner, puzzles
---


title: How to relax when playing chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How to relax when playing chess?
I always tend to be tense when playing. I guess you could say I find chess somewhat stressful? I see it as a fight to win as opposed to some ordinary board game like Monopoly. I really can't relate to well with people who just play chess because they find it relaxing. For some reason though, I still like the game, even though it's stressful to a certain degree, who knows why?

Would you say this is normal chess player behavior? What do you feel when it comes to chess, I would like to hear some other players' experience. Did you feel stressed out when you first started? Are you still tense or do you find the game purely relaxing?

# Answer
I play a lot of board games and a lot of chess in particular. I can tell you that every chess player has a certain element of nervous energy whilst playing. This keeps us sharp. These are the reasons I believe chess generates nervous energy in the players:

* **Competitiveness**: Chess is purely competitive and we are all playing to win on some level, whether it is to beat the opponent, get a draw against a Grand Master, or to improve our game, i.e. beat ourselves
* **Skill**: There is no random component. I can't blame the dice gods if I lose
* **Not a team game**: Similar to how I can't blame the dice gods if I lose, I can't even blame my team mates! Even when chess is played as a team (e.g. Olympiad), what my team is doing during my game doesn't affect the outcome of my game
* **Ratings**: This relates to pride, but if I am playing against someone who I see as being a weaker player (lower rating/child player/patzer), then I'll be extremely embarrassed to lose. Similarly, I want to beat higher rated players to inflate my ego
> 12 votes

# Answer
In a 1972 interview with Bobby Fischer the following famous exchange took place:

> WALLACE: Winning for winning's sake is important, but do you like to beat another man?
>
> FISCHER: Yes, I like to beat another man.
>
> WALLACE: You smile about it. Do you like to crush another man's ego?
>
> FISCHER: Uh-huh, so when they go home that night, they can't kid themselves that they're so hot.

I think a watered down version of that mentality drives many chess players. It generates a lot of stress which can make you feel really good when you win, really bad when you lose but more importantly it disturbs the calm thinking you need to find the best move and win.

It is a very Western way of thinking and behaving. A more Eastern approach where you enter something like a Zen state, calmly looking for the "truth" in the position, searching objectively for the best moves for you and your opponent, is likely to produce better results by reducing the errors that arise from over-strong emotions and reduce the stress levels.

Of course that stress high may be what some players play the game for. Bungee jumping levels of adrenaline without leaving your seat.

You will often see very strong players sit and think for several minutes before making their first move. Of course it could just be that they are trying to remember their opening computer preparation. I prefer to think that they feel they haven't arrived at the board in the optimum calm state of mind and are composing themselves, trying to enter the necessary Zen state :-)
> 6 votes

# Answer
This (or variations thereof) is a common graph from performance psychology. As you can see, some level of arousal is good, but too much can be a problem. Too much stress is certainly a common problem (as is the opposite, too little arousal leading to lack of focus or energy). If you find yourself too far to the right side of the graph, there are many techniques to reduce your arousal. One very helpful idea is to learn some breathing exercises. For example, inhale deeply, count to three, then exhale slowly. This can be surprisingly effective for calming down.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> "People ask me what I do when I want to relax and are often baffled when I tell them I race motorcycles. They don't seem to understand that when you're traveling 120mph around a corner with a knee a quarter inch off the asphalt, if you're not relaxed, you're @!^&ed."

The things which relax people are often baffling. I, for one, do not understand how running long distances can ever be considered relaxing, but people do it!

I would argue that there are two reasons why a game like chess is not relaxing. The first is the competitive nature. If you focus on winning the game above all else, you will naturally enter a stressing mindset. For some environments, such as tournament play, this is desired. In more casual games, it can be undesirable. It can help to reframe the game not as a way to compete with the other person, but as an opportunity to better yourself, sharpening your claws within the rules of the game.

The other reason is that you use stressing approaches. This can happen to anyone, and can go completely unnoticed. We often have many different ways of resolving a situation, each of which taxes the brain in different ways. For example, we may be able to use a gut instinct approach to play where you slowly look at the position until it makes itself clear to you, or we may use a highly analytical approach which involves keeping mental maps of game trees and board positions in our head. Choosing the latter will add to stress, no matter how much you focus on bettering yourself.

The Zen solution to this is not just to focus on bettering yourself, but to focus on letting the game make you more aware of what is going on inside. When you realize that you are using a particularly punishing approach to a position, revel in it. Use it as an opportunity to learn how to use that tool. In general, this leads to a decrease in stress as you home that tool into something which is just as effective, but far less stressful.

We do see a pattern in human nature for relaxation. Many people who learn to relax while doing an otherwise stressful action teach themselves to strive towards something which can only be attained by relaxing. Through this, they gain the skill to relax anywhere, and that is a powerful skill.

There are people who are at their calmest jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. I'd call them freaks, but who am I to judge. The things which relax us are tremendously personal. I recommend exploring them.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Bug in Stockfish/Suggesting bad move

text:
# Question
Title: Bug in Stockfish/Suggesting bad move
Why does Stockfish suggest this move in this position for white? It is a clear losing position if the king moves that way, as supposed to a draw if the king chooses f7 instead...

This is a real game that ended up this way.

# Answer
I can't be sure, but I suspect Stockfish just hasn't completed its move or flushed the current move to your UI. Or the UI you are using isn't giving all the information.

My Stockfish (6) gives '1. Kf7', unsurprisingly.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I tried Stockfish 8 for your position, but unable to reproduce the issue. Your depth is very low for this simple position. Can you wait a few more seconds in your analysis?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


title: How do I become chess world champion?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I become chess world champion?
If I play better than the current world champion, Carlsen, and I am able to win him - how would I do to become world champion as fast as possible? Would I have to go through long tournaments or is it enough to consistently beat the world champ?

If that is the case, I wonder why Vassily Ivanchuk isn't the world champion?

# Answer
The rules for becoming world champion have changed over the years and might very well change in the future.

With the current rules, in order to become chess world champion, you have to beat the reigning world champion in a match over 12 games and potentially (if the score is 6-6) additional tie-break games. The next match will be in 2018. Rules for this **FIDE World Championship Match** are found in the FIDE Handbook

In order to qualify for this match for the world championship you have to win the **Candidates Tournament**. The following qualify for the next Candidates Tournament according to the FIDE Rules and Regulations:

1. Sergey Karjakin (as runner-up of the previous WC match),
2. the first two of the FIDE World Cup 2017,
3. the first two of the FIDE Grand Prix 2017,
4. the two highest rated players who are not otherwise qualified and who have participated in the FIDE World Cup or FIDE Grand Prix
5. one player nominated by the organizer with a rating of at least 2725 in 2017

Some more detail regarding the Candidate tournament you can find in this question and answers

What is the quickest way to the Candidate tournament?

If you are just starting out with chess, it will take you many years to reach a level of 2725 (required for the organizer wildcard) or of being among the highest rated players not qualified otherwise (which would be in the 2800 range).

Qualification for the FIDE Grand Prix is also aimed at top level players. If you are interested you can read about it here

There are many ways to get to the FIDE World Cup (see here) including winning continental championships. If you are from a part of the world where chess is not all that popular, qualifying as IM is not impossible. In any case this seems to be the easiest route for getting to the Candidates Tournament.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: world-championship
---


# Question
Title: What kind of statistics should I run on a database?
I have written a python script to verify the strategical rule of "controlling the center".

I have parsed the free 2.2 million games database (it takes about 5 minutes) and I have found that the winner of a game controls the center at any given time with (on average) 1 more piece than the losing side.

I'd like to look at the correlation of other strategical principles with winning. What would you suggest would be an interesting list to look into? (I'm thinking of castling vs no castling, knights on the rim...)

EDIT: I would like suggestions for interesting statistics that you would like me to run. I could then send an article (say, to chess.com, or TWIC) with the results, referencing the suggestions posted here.

# Answer
To extend your center squares analysis, it might be interesting to determine the expected winning percentage in the database when one side has 0, 1, and 2 pieces on average central square advantage. This would begin to show just how important the advantage is as I would think the winning percentage would increase as the advantage becomes more pronounced.

Also, a knight on c3 covers two central squares e4 and d5. Are you counting the number of times the central squares are controlled or are you counting just the knight on c3 once?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, statistics
---


# Question
Title: When will the 2018 FIDE Candidates tournament be held, and who will qualify for it?
We've just had the World Championship match between Carlsen and Karjakin, so one qualifier for the next Candidates is known: Karjakin.

I assume it will be held in 2018, is anything more known about the date?

What are the rules for qualification of the other players?

# Answer
> 21 votes
The Candidates will be held in **Berlin, Germany, on 10-28 March 2018** (source).

According to FIDE's Rules & Regulations for the Candidates Tournament of the FIDE World Championship cycle 2016-2018, the following will qualify, in order of priority:

**1. The loser of the previous World Championship Match -- Sergey Karjakin.**

**2. The 2 finalists of the FIDE World Cup 2017 - Ding Liren and Levon Aronian.**

This is a 128-player knockout tournament, currently being held from **1 to 25 September 2017**, in Batumi, Georgia, with the final in Tbilisi, Georgia (see Wikipedia, which also has details about qualifiers to the World Cup that go too far for this answer).

Karjakin and Carlsen played the World Cup so a situation could have arisen where a player not in the final would qualify, but they were both eliminated.

Quarter finals:

* **Maxime Vachier-Lagrave** beat Peter Svidler 2.5 - 1.5
* **Wesley So** beat Vladimir Fedoseev 1.5 - 0.5
* **Ding Liren** beat Richard Rapport 1.5 - 0.5
* **Levon Aronian** beat Vassily Ivanchuk 1.5 - 0.5

Semi-finals:

* **Levon Aronian** beat Maxime Vachier-Lagrave 5-4
* **Ding Liren** beat Wesley So 3.5 - 2.5

Final (not relevant for the Candidates, but for completeness):

* **Levon Aronian** beat Ding Liren 4-2

**3. The top 2 winners of the FIDE Grand Prix 2016/2017.**

There are four events:

* 18-27 February 2017, in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
* 12-21 May 2017, Moscow, Russia
* 6-15 July 2017, Geneva, Switzerland
* 16-25 November 2017, Palma Majorca, Spain

Top standings after 3 events:

1. **Shakhriyar Mamedyarov** (3/3 events played): 340
2. **Alexander Grischuk** (3/3): 336 3/7
3. Teimour Radjabov (2/3): 241 3/7
4. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (2/3): 211 3/7

(players with 3 events and insufficient points left out)

**4. The 2 players not otherwise qualified with the highest average rating (among those that participated in the WC or GP).**

Calculated using the 12 rating lists from january 1 to december 1, 2017.

```
| Name                      | Avg  | Jan  | Feb  | Mar  | Apr | May | June| July| Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov |
|---------------------------|------|------|------|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
| Caruana, Fabiano          | 2808 | 2827 | 2827 | 2817 | 2817| 2802| 2808| 2807| 2807| 2799| 2794| 2799|
| So, Wesley                | 2806 | 2808 | 2822 | 2822 | 2822| 2815| 2812| 2810| 2810| 2792| 2788| 2788|
|---------------------------|------|------|------|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
| Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime   | 2796 | 2796 | 2796 | 2803 | 2803| 2795| 2796| 2791| 2789| 2804| 2794| 2796|
| Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar    | 2786 | 2766 | 2766 | 2772 | 2772| 2772| 2800| 2800| 2797| 2797| 2791| 2802|
| Nakamura, Hikaru          | 2785 | 2785 | 2785 | 2793 | 2793| 2798| 2785| 2792| 2792| 2781| 2774| 2780|
| Anand, Viswanathan        | 2785 | 2786 | 2786 | 2786 | 2786| 2786| 2786| 2783| 2783| 2794| 2783| 2783|

```

**5. One organiser's nominee.**

**Vladimir Kramnik** was chosen as the wildcard.

This could have been player with a rating of 2725 or higher in one of the rating lists in 2017.

*Next update: the final Grand Prix, result 25 november.*

# Answer
> 9 votes
According to Agon (who owns the rights), it will take place from March 8 to March 29, 2018.

I don't think anything else is known at this point in time.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, finalist from the previous cycle is one of the candidates; two more spots go to the latest World Cup winner and runner-up, a couple of spots are determined by Grand Prix results, one spot is the host's choice (that's how Aronian got into the last Candidates), and the rest are determined by the FIDE rating list. That is, more or less, what was used for the last tournament - I don't know if that's subject to change or not.

---
Tags: fide, world-championship, candidates
---


# Question
Title: Good format for library of chess positions w/tags?
I'd like to create a library of chess positions with associated tags. For example, one position might be tagged "Tactics", "Counterplay", and "Knight Forks". The goal is to be able to search the positions by tag to create examples/exercises for a specific idea without spending a huge amount of time digging up new positions. Does anyone know of a program/format that would be well-suited for this?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You could use a MySQL database with a column for the fen string and a column for the category. MySQL pairs well with php, perl, and python depending on what you w ant to use the database for (such as a website or something you can just use personally through a browser), a WAMP server can make this easier to set up.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chessbase.

It has a build in Medal system, and positions are searchable by piece maneuvers, text, fuzzy position searches, etc.

Why reinvent the wheel?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I suggest to read about **Extended Position Description(EPD)**, a format based on *Forsite Edward Notation (FEN)* with specifications to store additional information.

In chessprogramming, there is a EPD syntax description of this standard.

It allows to record comments in fields c0 through c9, that are appropriate for your purpose.

Several years ago, EPD2diag version 1.5p5 was a good option to edit, save, analyze and annotate epd files. Now is older but could give you an idea of what can be obtained with such a program.

---
Tags: database, problems
---


# Question
Title: What happens if me and my opponent only have kings?
So, you can capture any piece in chess except for the king. But what happens if me and my opponent get all pieces captured (except for the king)?

# Answer
Since you can't move your king into check, you can't legally check the other king.

The Laws of Chess, section 5.2b, states that:

> The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
> 10 votes

# Answer
When you only have Kings then you can take a tour of the entire board till the end of the World without any hesitation . :-) (Just Joking ) .

The Game at this point is a DRAW . Since neither Player can play without any objective and Game of Chess is all about Checkmating your King then without any material resistance it is DRAW . Infact a lone King with a Knight or Bishop and also against another King is also a DRAW material is not sufficient to Capture King .
> 3 votes

---
Tags: kings, dead-position
---


# Question
Title: Can it be said that draws occur less often between top-level players of equal caliber, rather than machine draws?
We would be considering, of course, the over the board rating of the respective machines and/or players. I'm ultimately wanting to see evidence that suggests there is an increase of draws amongst machines with modern technology paired against one another, over humans paired with similar ratings. For example, if we compared games with both players at 2700 strength, would they have a higher draw rate than the best machines, when paired off opposing one another?

I know that this tends to happen when considering humans alone. Does the trend extend, ratings wise anyway, beyond human playing strength?

# Answer
> 0 votes
The draws among chess-playing machines tend to be far more than players of 2700-plus Elo Level. Of 100 games, and I mean in 100 matches, machines will have 60-70 draws compared to humans where they may have 50 draws.

Now the score can fluctuate a lot from the players side owing to different conditions .

1. Both players are not in a Spirit/mood for fighting as like Kasparov/Karpov 1985 WCC.
2. Unlike a computer, a strong 2800 player may not be in his best form. He may have different reasons like health/family problems, or other factors which may cause a setback .
3. A Player may even make a basic tactical mistake and lose the game like Anand did against Carlsen in 2014 WCC match.

These are some reasons that a machine does not encounter at all, and plays freely. You can even check the database among players, and if possible there is a lot fo history associated with famous chess games. You could find many interesting stories which would adjudge many of the reasons above and even attract various other info.

---
Tags: engines, draw
---


title: How do I become less materialistic?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I become less materialistic?
I've identified that the weaknesses in my game are:

* **Materialism**: Most of my wins are where I've won some material and converted the advantage in an endgame. However outside of this plan, e.g. launching a mating attack, my knowledge is not up to scratch
* **Missing strong sacrifices**: I can see pawn sacrifices in exercises, but I know in a game situation I would not make them. After all, my materialism screams "don't make a material concession!"
* **Undervaluing the initiative**: I tend to underestimate an initiative advantage based on superior development, both for myself and my opponent. E.g. I might lag behind in development to ensure a superior pawn structure

My question is, **can you recommend a training plan to boost my understanding of the initiative and making sacrifices?**

Background info:

* Rated 2050 Elo
* Playing 1. d4 as White, Slav and Caro-Kann as Black

# Answer
> 9 votes
A suggestion I have is to start playing gambits, and high-risk-high-reward openings. For example, playing the King's Gambit as White forces you to utilize any initiative you are given. Playing the KID as Black will force you to sacrifice pieces now and then to win istead of losing.

Basically what you need to do is to start appreciating initiative by experiencing it for yourself. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to dare making risky decisions based on tempo and piece activity, if you've never done it successfully before.

Based on what you wrote, I guess you tend to play mainly rather slow and positional setups in the opening. Then you have to expect it to be rather difficult to learn about this style of play, as you are probably not very familiar with it.

Other things you can do is to look for inspiration in games by e.g. Kasparov. He was excellent at utilizing the initiative, and just crushing his opponents with daring attacks. Just look at the notable games at his personal page on chessgames.com, some of them are rather amazing examples of this.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would recommend playing training games in which you try to sacrifice a pawn as early as possible. Once you are down material you are forced to look for dynamic chances.

I developed into a dynamic player by playing games against an old board computer which just grabbed every pawn it could get. I quickly found out that the easiest way to beat it was to sac' a few pawns and then build a winning attack from the development advantage.

A more realistic way is probably to create a blitz repertoire consisting of gambits and to use this repertoire in online blitz. I once compiled such a repertoire for my wife, who plays extremely solid chess appr. on your level, and it did work at least short term while she was practising with it.

Such a repertoire might contain the king's gambit, the Chochrane gambit, the French wing gambit, 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3, the Morra gambit for white and the Portuguese, the English wing gambit and the Schara-Henning gambit for black.

Of course it would require some study but the point is not to learn the theory really deep. You rather try to get the general idea and then just ditch a pawn and attack in every game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
One other recommendation alongside some good ones.....

Play speed chess. In speed chess material advantage is worth less than it normally would be. Instead, attacking is valued in this type of play more.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The key lever that stands out for me in your self-critique is the "knowledge of mating attacks" deficit. Just do a whole lot (hundreds) of mate-in-two and mate-in-three problems. It might crack the "blind spot" you are reporting in general. (I like the Polgar book ("Chess") myself for this (5000+ problems), but any reasonable source of -in-2 and/or -in-3 problems should work.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
1. Study games of attacking players who play d4 e.g. Kasparov. Or just attacking players in general e.g. Morphy.
2. Read Art of Attack in chess by Vukovic.
3. Practice tactics especially mating tactics in the middlegame.
4. Find your weaknesses by analysing your own games and finding out where you could have sacrificed.

# Answer
> 1 votes
One important aspect that you can consider apart from Material is

1. Check how much Space you are occupying on a particular side of the Board .Here what I mean is sometimes your opponent has captured some Squares around your King but is material down . So when he gives up the Material (Sacrifice) to open up a line or deflect a Piece from your K-side do not accept the Material .
2. Follow games of Kasparov/Shirov/Fischer where they have sacrificed Material to gain Activity .
3. When you already have an ELO of 2000+ I do not feel you will be having difficulty in understanding the concept that Activity of Pieces is the sole purpose when you play a Chess Game .
4. Follow Sicilian Dragon games from Black side where Rook is exchanged for Knight on c3 . Sicilian Dragon is one of the best example for Activity instead of material .
5. There are a lot of tactics which focuses on Space advantage and Activity instead of Material . Practice those .

# Answer
> 1 votes
Study openings that are known for being tactical rather than positional.

Work lots of tactical puzzles (but it sounds like you already are).

Play unranked games against weaker opponents and limit your repertoire to very aggressive and sacrificial attacks. Work your way up to stronger opponents.

Take positions you have seen in games that are dynamic and tactical (from high rated players) - enter them into a chess program and play the side of the attacker without studying the conclusion of the game.

---

At the end of the day, just accept that you are a positional player and enjoy being who you are.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> Play the isolani like a gambit

Source: *The wisest things ever said about chess* by GM Soltis

Many answers have advised playing gambits (+1 to them) to learn the trade off of material with time. I've also been playing isolated pawn positions to learn more about the initiative, which even if the initiative dissipates, then the isolated d-pawn is not a fatal weakness.

---
Tags: training, psychology, sacrifice, material
---


# Question
Title: Efficient ways to go from pseduo legal to fully legal move generation
so I've written an entire pseudo legal move generator as well as a simple gui to interface with. I also have my AI only play the best move available without going into a minimax tree. Before I begin any further AI coding I need to factor in putting a king into check and how it changes the list of legal moves. My question is how should i go about this. Given a board state and a list of pseudo legal moves, am I forced to then generate all responses by my opponent to ensure none of these moves will checkmate me? If I go from generating legal moves for 10 of my pieces would I then have to generate all responses to make sure none of those moves result in a checkmate? How also would I go about taking this response-parse requirement for a minimax algorithm? Would I store multiple boards in memory one for each node that I've traversed? Let me know what kind of design principles you think I should look out for.

# Answer
This is my understanding:

* You have a pseudo-legal move generator
* Now, you want to get rid of the illegal moves

How serious do you want your engine be? You can always write a function that takes a position and checks your king. Everytime when you wants to check a pseudo-legal move, you call the function. It will definitely work, and it's simple but it's slow.

Let's study at what a modern engine does. The source code for Stockfish is: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/position.cpp

```
/// Position::legal() tests whether a pseudo-legal move is legal

bool Position::legal(Move m) const {

```

Check en passant:

```
// En passant captures are a tricky special case. Because they are rather
// uncommon, we do it simply by testing whether the king is attacked after
// the move is made.

```

Do you want move your king?

```
// If the moving piece is a king, check whether the destination
// square is attacked by the opponent. Castling moves are checked
// for legality during move generation.

```

You can make the move if it's not pinned. Or it's pinned, but it still protects the king.

```
// A non-king move is legal if and only if it is not pinned or it
// is moving along the ray towards or away from the king.

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming
---


# Question
Title: Can white really not win this rook endgame?
When playing against a player rated ~2500 Stockfish 8 managed merely to draw when playing white. This was the endgame before the draw (the draw occurred because it was king vs. king in the end).

Black played rook to h7 and then Stockfish played the rook to a7.

# Answer
According to the Shredder database (sorry, I can't link directly to a position), the position after Rh7 is won in 32 moves and Ra7 gives the win away.

There are some similar positions with a- and b-pawns which *are* drawn, but this is not one of them. Actually, playing around with the database, I found that the initial position with the black king on b8, *is* drawn (and Rh7 is one of the two moves keeping the draw).

Another example is this one, where the white rook is tied to the defense of the b pawn and the white king can't really help.

```
[White "J. van der Wiel"]
[Black "P. Boersma"]
[Result "1/2"]
[FEN "8/2k5/1R6/PP5r/8/4K3/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke4 Rh4+ 2. Kf5 Rh5+ 3. Kg6 Rc5 4. Kf7 Rh5 5. Rc6+ Kd7 6. a6 Rxb5 7. a7 Ra5 8. Re6 Kc7 1/2-1/2

```

source: Fundamental Chess Endings by Müller and Lamprecht
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, stockfish, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: How many attacks can be focused on one point?
How many "possible" attacks can be focused on one point on the board? For instance the pawn in E5:

What is the maximum (realistic) amount of attacks that are focused on a single point on the board?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Not sure what you mean by "realistic".

Basically you can attack it with 8 knights plus 7 other pieces attacking horizontally/vertically/diagonally, i.e. from each cardinal direction (North, NorthEast, East,...) except for one.

For example:

```
8/3N1N2/2NBQBN1/3RpR2/2NPK1N1/3N1N2/8/8 w - - 1 1

```

Notes:

1. At the start of the game each player has 16 pieces of which two are bishops of opposite color. That's why one of the bishops will not be able to attack the square and the maximum number is 15.
2. In the example 7 of the knights are fixed. You can think of (1) using other pieces to attack along the cardinal directions or (2) replace one knight with a piece attacking from f4.
3. You can move pieces that attack along the cardinal directions further away from the attacked square but this does not help to focus more pieces on the square unless you count batteries double. In any case you are running out of pieces to achieve more than 15 attacks.
4. It is possible to get 8 knights and two dark squared bishops through pawn promotion. In the example 6 pawns have been promoted to knights and one pawn to a bishop which together with the remaining pawn sums to 8 pawns.

---
Tags: problems, attack
---


# Question
Title: XiangQi (Chinese chess) textbook or video tutorial
I know how the pieces move and understand basics, like forks and pins. Now I am looking for additional tutorials in English. So far, I've only found this book: "Introduction to Chinese Chess (XiangQi) for International Chess Players".

Can you please suggest video tutorials or books in English.

# Answer
The book I learned from is Chinese Chess: An Introduction to China's Ancient Game of Strategy by H. T. Lau.

The book is mostly examples and exercises. There could have been more explanatory text.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: books, xiangqi
---


# Question
Title: Where do black's centre pawns and light square bishop belong in the symmetrical English?
I played a rapid game last night and got this symmetrical English position as black:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "116"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. d4 cxd4 7. Nxd4 O-O 8. Nxc6 bxc6

```

I found it hard to know where to put my d and e pawns, and how to develop my light square bishop. So, **thematically where do black's central pawns and light square bishop develop to and why?**

# Answer
> 2 votes
If your opponent is the type to bring his own rope to commit a suicide, I would certainly go for Rb8 d6 Bd7 c5 and later a5 a4 setup, hoping knights will go off the board (on d5) as soon as possible ruining white's gueenside later in the style of Benko gambit, with equal material and stupid (but nice looking) bishop on g2 aiming to nowhere. Reasonable opposition will do everything to stop this plan so the game will certainly not be easy, especially white should stay with knight on c3 or a4, never exchanging it without good reason. Still Rb8 c6 d6 e7 Bd7 looks like setup I would call good plan. Then you just make usefull waiting moves. I don't like d5 plans much as it weakens c5 square making white the captain of the queenside. It is however respectable approach restricting g2 bishop and putting pawn to the center, different handling of the same position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This does not seem *symmetrical* to me.

After 8...dxc6 you could have reached a symmetrical and very drawish position.

Playing 8...bxc6 seems more ambitious. Seems like black will want to play d5 sooner or later to get rid of that backward pawn on d7 and to limit the white bishop on g2. Depending on what white does, this might require to play e6 and/or to put the bishop on b7 to support d5 or to a6 to ask white how he wants to defend the c4 pawn. I don't see how the c8 bishop could find any good square along the h3-c8 diagonal anytime soon.

---
Tags: english-opening, development
---