# Question
Title: What is the record for the most stalemates in one?
Is there a known record for the most possible stalemates in one in a legal position, for with and without promoted pieces? I did some constructing myself for a start.

For without promoted pieces, I found **105**, counting different promotions as different moves.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 2/24/2020, Stalemate In 1"]
[FEN "kN6/P1PPPPPP/2P5/4K3/6Q1/2NBB3/1R6/R7 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

For promoted pieces, I remembered a position from elsewhere on this site. I switched two pieces, made come counting deductions, and I arrived at a number of **205** moves for with promoted pieces.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 2/24/2020, Stalemate In 1"]
[FEN "R6B/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/pp1Q4/kBNN1KR1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
I managed to find the ultimate records in the Die Schwable Chess Problem Database.

---

```
[Title "Anthony Stewart & Mackay Dickens, Feenschach 9/1969, 113 Stalemating Moves"]
[FEN "6R1/PPPPPP2/7R/1K6/2N1BN2/2B4p/P4P1k/3Q4 w - - 0 1"]

```

Source Page

---

```
[Title "Anthony Stewart & Mackay Dickens, Feenschach 1/1969, 211 Stalemating Moves"]
[FEN "4Q2R/1K4Q1/3Q4/Q4Q2/2Q4Q/4Q3/1Q4Rp/1N1BB1Nk w - - 0 1"]

```

Source Page

---
Tags: problems, records, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: For Black, against the Caro-Kann Advance Shirov variation 4. Nc3 which move tends to lead to the most positional, slow, solid and strategic positions?
I'm a 1800 Elo player that likes positional, quiet, drawish, slow, boring and strategic openings.

As Black against 1. e4 I play the Caro-Kann. But there is one variation of the Caro-Kann that I slightly dislike: the Advance Shirov (4. Nc3).

```
  [StartPly "7"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 (4... Qb6) (4... h5) (4... a6) 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 (6... f6) (6...h6) (6... Ne7) (6... Bb4) (6... Nd7) (6... Be7) c5 7. h4 h5 (7... h6) (7...cxd4) 8. Nf4 Bh7 (8... Nc6) 9. Nxh5 cxd4 (9...Nc6)

```

It seems to be much more sharp, aggressive, chaotic, wild and tactical than every other variation of the Caro-Kann. And so I don't know what to play against it.

I could go for the main line with 4... e6 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2, but then I don't even know which variation to choose next among all the available options.

Or I could choose to stop 5. g4 with 4... Qb6, 4... h5 or 4... a6, but I don't even know if any of these three moves are objectively good.

I've included everything in the FEN diagram.

And so my question is: which variation tends to lead on average to the most positional, solid, safe, quiet, drawish, slow, boring and strategic positions? (i.e. the least sharp and tactical positions)

But note that the variation also needs to be objectively good and reliable. And if possible it needs to be played reasonably often by Grandmasters. I don't want to play something bad just for the sake of not entering into complications. (i.e. I would still prefer something that is both tactical and good over something that is both positional and bad.)

# Answer
At this point, it's very hard to keep the game quiet. You have two choices: keep the center closed (then a flank attack will be justified and advantageous), or open things up. The good news is that if you open up the position according to modern theory, or at least play accurately, you will be objectively better, and White's flank attack will be turned into a weakness.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Arguably, 4.Nc3 is one of the most aggressive variations against the Caro-Kann. For black, it is not easy to steer the position into quiet waters, but here are some ideas:

* 4....Qb6. The idea is to play 5.g4 Bd7 and to continue with e6 and c5. The most popular reply is 5.Nf3 and after 5....e6, we have a position is similar to the main line 4.Nf3 e6. A recent example is Yu Yangyi - Margvelashvili.
* 4....e6 5.g4 Bg6 6.Nge2 f6. After 7.Nf4 black can play 7....Bf7 or 7....fxe5. The reply 7.h4 is more popular, after which black can continue with 7....Nd7, finish his development and counterplay with c5. A recent game is Onishuk-Matlakov.

In order to make a choice (not necessarily from these two ideas, but in general), you can look for some grandmaster games to see which variations lead to which type of positions.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "7"]

      1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 (4...Qb6 5.Nf3 (5.g4 Bd7) 5...e6) 5.g4 Bg6 6.Nge2 f6 7.Nf4 (7.h4 Nd7) 7...Bf7 (7...fxe5)

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Perhaps you could try **3..c5** followed by **4..Nc6** and a delayed **Bf5**.
> 0 votes

# Answer
> I'm a 1800 Elo player that likes positional, quiet, drawish, slow, boring and strategic openings.

Good luck with never being able to advance. ;) OK, seriously, you *must* embrace the "other", "meaty" part of chess as well. If you want to make progress, don't work on the parts where you feel comfortable, work on your weaknesses!

This question is a perfect example of the limitation of only following the "strategic, drawish (etc.)" route. Let's put it simple: *There is no boring response to this variation*, which is probably why Shirov likes it.

However, you're missing an interesting option here, probably because it's marked as dubious in all the old books (if mentioned at all):

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 Qh4

```

Yes, this is indeed a possible move which can throw White off guard - it obviously attacks that naughty pawn on g4, prevents a further h4 and puts some immediate pressure on f2. Combine it with a quick Bb4 and suddenly White must display some imagination in coming up with an attack plan. If this is not to your taste, follow up with c5 and Nc6, maybe even h5, and suddenly White must have some fear that his beloved d4 pawn may lose its balance. Most White players will try trapping the queen, which is generally speaking impossible and gives Black quite some time to come up with pressure against the center. I have this variation in my repertoire, and I like it - the results are also within the acceptable range.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I stopped playing Bf5 because that is the most explored Caro-Kann line... I recommend playing 3..c5 instead (Botvinnik–Carls Defense). Yes, it is sharp, but I find it relatively straightforward to learn, and play.

If you still prefer Advance-Shirov, then I recommend either 4..Nd7 (I like it because Black develops another piece) for a quiet/solid opening, or as you mentioned, 4..e6. However, if you would like to have a complicated game, I recommend immediate 4..h5!? I play this move with success quite often as it confuses White, plus it is a perfectly sound move. If it works for GM Sergey Kasparov it should work for us, club players...
> 0 votes

# Answer
Most positional move here is Nc6 after c5 which bring a new piece and attack the pawn chain base and the center. This lead to a unpleasant things after bishop b5, Knight e7, but after moving the queen and castle queenside the position is pretty quiet.
> -3 votes

# Answer
Buy Chessbase 14 and the latest 2018 Database and in partnership with some free engine, like Stockfish, to have 3400 assistance to every chess question. Alternatively, there are wide selections of far less expensive books, say from someplace like Chess Direct, to cater for your general 1800 improvement and in particular of any opening you feel troubled with. In this computer day and age, there is no end to the software support available. Good lucky, and do try to stretch away for your present grade.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy, positional-play, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Conceptually, what makes the Sicilian opening sensible for black?
We all know the Sicilian as shown below, is one of the most famous and commonly employed openings in chess. But compared to the other replies, which tend to be more about fixing the center (such as `e5`, or the French `e6-d5`, Caro-kann `c6-d5`), the Sicilian tends not only to not fix the center, at least more often than not, but it also starts from a pawn non-central pawn move which doesn't liberate any of our bishops or knights. On top of that, it is not a move on our kingside, which means relative to white's `e4` we will be slower in developing our kingside pieces. As opposed to starting with `e5` and still stopping `d4.`

I started pondering this question after I had read the discussions on this post, which was about the point behind Ruy-Lopez and why it's good for white. So considering those discussions and the above points, my question is:

* At a conceptual and strategic level, what makes the Sicilian a sensible opening for black?

Diagram:

```
 [title "The Sicilian opening"]
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]

```

# Answer
*Note: Discussions are primarily from black's perspective.*

It may be relevant to remind that one way or the other, most often, the Sicilian continues with white preparing the `d4` pawn push, which leads to a trade of the `c5-d4` pawns. Common starting lines are shown in the following diagram:

```
 [title "common starting lines"]
 [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6) (2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4) (2...g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4

```

At a very basic and fundamental level, the Sicilian `1.e4 c5` achieves the following:

1. Claims immediate control over the center, otherwise white would happily take the full sweet center with `e4-d4.`
2. Leads to a trade of a non-central pawn (`c7`) for a white's central pawn (`d2`)!
3. Provides a certain degree of flexibility in how to commit the central `e-d` pawns. And also breaks the symmetry right from the start, which tends to make the continuation of the game more dynamic.

For the purposes of your question, I will further expand on the first two points:

## **Expanding on point 1:**

Claiming their share of control over the center: white's `e4` actives the queen and bishop, but more importantly it provides light square control in the center as it takes away `d5-f5` from black. That does not mean `d5` is unplayable, in fact that opening exists (see Scandinavian Defense) but it simply means black can't **establish** a pawn on `d5` and maintain it, as white will immediately take. Similarly, black's `c5` in return, provides dark square control as it controls `b4` and more importantly `d4.` On the plus side, it stops white from landing a pawn on `d4` without having had to commit their central pawns (black's `e & d` pawns remain flexible still). But on the other hand, `c5` is not a move that provides activity to any minor piece, in fact it only activates the queen, therefore, the setback of it is that it doesn't directly contribute to black's minor piece development, as you also hinted at in your question.

## **And on point 2: not all pawns are equal**

At a basic level of pawn consideration: the Sicilian almost always leads white to trade a central pawn for a non-central pawn, and that in itself is a gain for black!

To see why consider the following thought process: generally, we say pawns have a value of `1,` as a means of quantifying their worth relative to the other pieces, which are dynamically faster and move reversibly. But amongst the pawns themselves, do they all have the same value still?

Well let's consider e.g. white's queenside pawns: the `a2` pawn which is at the boundary of the board, only provides control over one square, namely `b3.` In contrast, the `b2` pawn being slightly away from the boundary, provides control over 2 squares, `a3` and `c3.` And even when you push these pawns, the relative control they provide remains similar. However, things become more interesting towards the more central pawns: the `c2` pawn, also provides control over 2 squares, but when pushed for example to `c4`, it also provides us with control over a central square, namely `d5,` and a non-central and less important square, `b5.`

And finally, the pawn on `d2,` when pushed to `d4,` it provides control over a central (`e5`) square and a near-central (`c5`) square, meaning it secures more central space than a `c` pawn is capable of doing2. So, with all that in mind, doesn't it stand to reason that the central pawns are in fact worth more than the side pawns? and indeed it does. Intuitively, if you imagine the `b2` pawn being worth `1,` then the `a2` pawn is something like `0.9,` and the `d` and `e` pawns are probably close to `1.1-1.2.` But the absolute values you assign to them do not matter much, it's more important to remember conceptually their differences. To conclude this point, in the Sicilian, black is in fact exchanging the pawn on `c7` for the pawn on `d2,` so clearly, black's getting away with a better deal in that regard1.

I guess the common denominator of all these discussions and different points boils down to the control over the center. This cannot be emphasized enough: Having the center, your pieces move and reroute more efficiently across the board, they also see a larger portion of the board when centralised. So much like the pawn comparison above, it's as if their relative worth increases when they are placed more centrally. Compare a bishop on `e5` which sees 13 other squares distributed over two diagonals (so sees both the king and queen side), to a bishop on `h8` which sees 7 squares only, and all of them along the same diagonal.

---

**Two Caveats:**

1: All things considered, it begs to ask: doesn't all this mean that black should even be better by playing the Sicilian? What does white have to gain by allowing all this? **Short answer:** tempo and initiative. **Longer answer:** To understand these things you need to always remember than chess is never that linear, and that there are many more angles to consider before we can fully assess a position. In this case, white has the better activity and develops more efficiently. These stem from the fact that in the Sicilian white's first 2 pawn moves in the game are (often) `e4` (by definition) and `d4` (after being prepared by `Nf3`). Thus, both our bishops are activated, and nothing prohibits our knights from being developed centrally. Sure, white trades a better `d2` pawn for a `c` pawn, but in return the `d` file becomes semi-open for white, along which white will exert pressure (and so should do black along its own semi-open file, namely the `c` file). Being up in development means we castle faster, and have more pieces in play, so white will still be for the most part dictating the flow of the game.

2 One might ask whether the relative worth of the `e-f-g-h` pawns follows symmetrically from the discussion of the queenside pawns. Partly yes, but major difference is that these are *kingside* pawns, and as such, their movement leaves behind weaknesses around the king. So if you will, the king is what breaks the symmetry between the left and right side of the board. For example, when the `c2` pawn moves, it leaves light square weaknesses behind it but these are squares that are of lesser concern for black as often the king will not lie behind them. In contrast, when the `f` pawn moves, it weakens the dark squares around the king and exposes it to diagonal attacks (and leaves holes for pieces to land on near your king.)
> 3 votes

# Answer
**Bent Larsen** said the Sicilian defense is an opening trick. Referring to an open Sicilian where White trades his d-pawn for Blacks c-pawn. Suddenly Black has a pawn majority in the center and if he can, say trade the d-pawn for White's e-pawn he can then get his e-pawn to occupy the center; thus getting an advantage.

**Bobby Fischer** said the Sicilian is not a defense but a vicious counter-attack. Whether a closed or open Sicilian, Black is going for counter-play.

You argue that c5 doesn't help development and you are correct! This is the entire argument for playing the open Sicilian as White. Can Black survive to capitalize on his extra center pawn? Clearly there are tons of games where Black is blown off the board, but there are also plenty of games where Black smashes White (just look at Kasparov's games).

So, what makes it "strategically sensible"? Well, it has proven to be strategically sound; sensible would have to consider your goals for that particular game. Do you want to have a all out fight or do you want to be safer with less chances for a full point?
> 2 votes

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


# Question
Title: How many different ways are there to checkmate in the early game?
We all know the shortest possible checkmate is 4 ply:

> 1. f3 e5
> 2. g4 Qh5#

This isn't the only possible move order. In fact, there are 8, depending on whether white moves the f or g pawn first, whether he moves the f pawn to f3 or f4, and whether black plays e6 or e5. Of course, this makes up only a tiny fraction of the possible 4-ply sequences of moves, but these are the only ones that end the game.

What I'm looking for is, for small numbers of ply, how many sequences of moves end in checkmate vs not ending in checkmate. Ideally what I'd like is something along the lines of

* 4 ply: X non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates
* 5 ply: Y non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates, N 5-ply checkmates
* 6 ply: Z non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates, N 5-ply checkmates, M 6-ply checkmates

and so on for as deep as this is reasonable to do.

This is inspired by a Math.SE question about the probability of two players making random moves resulting in the same chess game. I suspect the short games heavily dominate this probability, which should make the probability easy to approximate, but it'd be nice to have the real numbers to work with.

# Answer
> 29 votes
There are no checkmates from 0-3 ply.

```
4 ply: 8 checkmates, 197,281 total nodes
5 ply: 347 checkmates, 4,865,609 total nodes
6 ply: 10,828 checkmates, 119,060,324 total nodes
7 ply: 435,767 checkmates, 3,195,901,860 total nodes
8 ply: 9,852,036 checkmates, 84,998,978,956 total nodes
9 ply: 400,191,963 checkmates, 2,439,530,234,167 total nodes

```

"checkmates" is the number of checkmating moves made on the final ply. So for 5 ply, there are 347 checkmating sequences of exactly length 5.

These values are from: https://www.chessprogramming.org/Perft\_Results

Currently there is no checkmate data for 10 ply and above, presumably due to the computational resources needed.

To obtain more specific data (e.g. the lines themselves), you would need to write your own perft program which saves lines ending in checkmate.

# Answer
> 14 votes
This sequence of integers is known as A079485 in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) and numbers up to and including 13 ply are known with various references available.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Here's a simple Python program that answers the question but is slow, taking 40 minutes to run to 5 plies on my laptop (and increasing at least 30-fold per additional ply). A nice thing is that it prints out the games, if you need that. I could post the output here but didn't want to make a 347-line long answer... :-)

```
import chess
from chess import pgn

def dfs(board, depth):
    global n
    result = board.result(claim_draw=True)
    if result != '*':
        game = pgn.Game.from_board(board)
        print(game.mainline())
    elif depth > 0:
        moves = list(board.legal_moves)
        for move in moves:
            n += 1
            board.push(move)
            dfs(board, depth-1)
            board.pop()

n = 0
try:
    board = chess.Board()
    dfs(board, 4)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
    pass
print(n, 'positions checked')

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
The top person that I know for this kind of analysis is François Labelle, who has computed many numbers associated with chess (including an estimate of the maximum growth rate of the number of chess games as a function of ply) and in particular has computed the number of checkmates up to ply 13. For values up to ply 12, see the figure in http://wismuth.com/chess/chess.html.

Then at http://wismuth.com/chess/statistics-games.html, he gives specific figures up to ply 13, which has 346,742,245,764,219 checkmate games apparently.

For the total number of games, he quotes results from others who've gone up to ply 15(!) but I think they didn't track checkmates.

From plies 5-13 there's about 1 chance in 10,000 that a move delivers mate. But it seems to be significantly easier to mate as White compared to Black:

The growth rate of number of games is also greater for White moves over Black moves, but that's just about 1%, much weaker than the pattern identified here.

I enjoy random games of chess. Sometime it would be nice to link that with an online quantum random number generator, to have a program which is playing all games of chess, if the multiple worlds hypothesis holds.

---
Tags: opening, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: If a pawn is promoted to queen beside the king is the king instantly in check?
If a pawn is promoted to queen adjacent to the enemy king, is the king instantly in check?

# Answer
Per FIDE Chess Laws, rule 3.1, a piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the player’s piece can make a capture on that square (and in one more special case not relevant here). In full:

> It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.
>
> A piece is considered to attack a square even if this piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.

Per rule 3.9, the king is in check when it is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces.

Therefore, as soon as the move is completed, the king is in check.
> 11 votes

# Answer
If the pawn is adjacent to king before promoting, it's already in check. For example, pawn is on e7 and King is on d8, king is in check.

However, if pawn is 1 rank away from king and is promoted to queen, yes king is instantly in check. For example, pawn in on c7 and king is on e8, if c8Q, king is in check.

It is applicable for all the pieces not only for Queen.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I initially thought that it isn't possible to promote a pawn on a back rank square that is adjacent to the king, as that would suggest that the opposing king was left in check on the previous turn. But remellion pointed out that a pawn could promote on a square adjacent to the king if it captures on its promoting move.

Either way, assuming no pieces are between the promoted pawn to queen and the opposing king, the white king would be in check on this next turn.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion, check
---


# Question
Title: Is a piece hanging if it is defended by a higher value piece?
In this extreme examplethe c5 pawn is defended three times, though white can take the pawn with an advantage.

```
 [FEN "2r1k3/2r5/2q5/2p5/8/8/PPR5/KN4B1 w - - 0 1"]

```

What about if the defender is a higher value piece than the attackers, even though it's defended and attacked twice? Clearly, White can take the pawn with an advantage.

```
 [FEN "8/8/3k4/2p2q2/8/8/PPR5/KN4B1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now it's not hanging:

```
 [FEN "8/8/3k4/2p2r2/8/8/PPR5/KN4B1 w - - 0 1"]

```

What do you call these type of situations if it's not hanging piece?

This position also has a hanging piece:

```
[FEN "2b4k/3q2pp/8/5p2/8/2B1N3/PP6/KN4Q1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
This would still be called a hanging piece. **If the piece can be taken with impunity**, it is a hanging piece. It is irrelevant how many attackers there are on the piece, how many defenders there are on the piece, or the point value of the attackers/defenders.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics, patterns
---


# Question
Title: Why did I get only 5 points even though I won?
I'm learning chess and I practice in the chess.com app. I don't understand how the winning points are calculated in every match.

# Answer
> 20 votes
Most chess sites use some variant of the Elo rating system

If you have a much higher rating than your opponent, the expectation is that you will win. So if you do win, then we haven't gained that much information, so the change in rating for both you and your opponent will be small. If your opponent wins, there will be a much larger change in rating as their win was less expected.

In your case, you have a rating of 775 and your opponent had a rating of 651. Since you have a much higher rating, winning didn't result in a large rating increase. If you had won against someone much higher rated than you, you would have experienced a much larger rating increase.

Mathematically, the rating change of each player is calculated as some empirical constant (K, 32 is often used) multiplied by the difference between the actual score and the expected score of that player against the other. The expected score is calculated from the difference of the two ratings.

---
Tags: rules, rating, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: How do I raise my tactic trainer rating to 2300?
I'm currently a 1600 USCF with a tactic rating on chesstempo.com of high 1600. My chess.com tactic rating is 1600 as well. Though my best tactic rating has been high 1700 on chesstempo.com. The problem is that my tactic rating always oscillates between 1600 and high 1700. I can never reach higher tactical levels than 1700. I practice 30 minutes of tactics every day as my chess coach recommended. However, I haven't seen any improvement. Any advice to raise my tactic rating to 2300+?

# Answer
> 8 votes
As noted in the comments, 2300+ tactical ability is a ridiculous goal to aim for, if your current level is 1600-1700. This will only lead to disappointment on your part, as improving your tactical level to 2300+ will probably mean that you will have to raise your overall playing strength by maybe 300-400 rating points. This takes years to accomplish, unless you have lots of time, resources and talent, in which case it will probably still take at least a year.

A suitable primary goal is instead to raise your tactical level by roughly 100 points. Depending on your situation, this can be done in a few weeks. However, just doing tactics problems on problem sites will not accomplish this very efficiently. Exercises are good, but not doing anything else will not improve your play by much.

I suggest you read a good book about tactics if you haven't already. One that I enjoyed very much was "Understanding chess tactics" (I think later editions of the book is called "Chess tactics from scratch") by Martin Weteschnik, containing many good examples and clear explanations of themes. However, it's not the only good tactics book, and if you have a chess coach, that person may have some suggestions on what to read.

You'd probably also want to play against strong opponents (1800+ at your level), as they're very likely to be better than you tactically. This will be good for your overall play and toughness at the board, which goes hand in hand with tactical ability.

# Answer
> 6 votes
My advice is, and it worked for me, prioritizing quality over quantity.

For every problem spend as much time as you need. Try to find out one or more tactical motifs in the position to guide you in your guessing. If you haven't, read the tactical motifs help page before.

Once you find the tactical motifs, note them down and start thinking in how to get advantage from them; look for intermediate moves (yours and from your opponent), and all possible responses. Exhaustivity is even more important than depth, most times you'll fail a problem because you miss a move than because you didn't think deep enough.

At first it will take you too much time to solve every problem: that is good. As you practice you'll be able to recognize patterns faster AND to solve harder problems.

Doing the opposite (trying to solve the problems the faster the better hoping that you'll learn to do it better by repetition) won't help you.

# Answer
> 3 votes
2300 is a lofty goal, but I'll humor you. You need to progress with baby steps. Also, 30 minutes a day is nothing. Perhaps you need more practice a day. Now, you said you were high 1600s, but I'll assume 1700 for an easy number to crunch. This means 600 point of improvement, and this will make you a tactical master. You are probably miles away from a master, which is okay, and must take this slowly.

Here are some tricks to help make you very strong in a year, assuming you commit yourself religiously. This did work for me. I am only rated 1539 because I haven't done tournaments in a while, but I learned how to consistently draw/beat 2100s easily, because I played several skittles games and nonrated events at camps, my tactics in standard on chess tempo are well above 2000, and I've met people with the exact same story (except they are more active than I in tournaments). Plus, you have coaching experience, and I don't. You have an advantage that I don't have, so I think you can do it too.

1. Discipline. Mastery is a commitment. It takes long working hours, a lot of homework, and a strict critic, which is yourself. Buy yourself complex endgame books, like that of Jesus de la Villa or Mark Dvoretsky. Purchase Think Like a Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov to boost tactics even further and learn how to analyze complexities properly. Now, at 1600, these books are tricky, but they hold everything you need for mastery except maybe opening knowledge, which is more crucial than some think. You just need to harness it, and you can do that with tactics. Read these books front to back, and you will see significant improvements, but be sure to read it for content. As with tactics, I'd recommend two hours a day. At this point, tactics matter most (arguably).
2. Projections. If you are like me, you like numbers, and chess tempo offers great opportunity for that. Set a criteria daily, weekly, and/or monthly/bimonthly as to how much comprehensive studying you want to get done within these time periods. Daily schedules are the most important. Want to be 2300 in a year? 600 divided by 365 is 1.643..., which should be paired by your side goal or two hours a day, meaning you still need to practice that long a day, but you want to be that many points higher. So, day one you are 1700 and you mess up and drop to 1690 after two hours. The goal was 1702 today (I'm rounding to 2) and the day is done. Tomorrow is 1704. What now? Well, I hope you know why you got these problems wrong, because you're shooting for 1704 tomorrow. This doesn't seem like a whole lot, and it isn't. The point is you can still, at this rate, make it to 2300 during your year, and you also have the time to absorb the knowledge from every level. As with reading, read maybe 10 pages of endgame a day with 10 pages of middlegame theory or book tactics, like Think Like a GM by Kotov and a constant stream of opening patterns and theory in your favorite openings, which I won't really focus on.
3. Practice playing somebody frequently who beats the crap out of you all the time. Analyze your games on chess.com and figure out your mistakes you that you don't make similar ones again.

For me, I used an engine, which is a great resource. Try stockfish, because it's cheap and easy to get your hands on it. I used an app called Chess Tiger, in which the computer is rated 2790 FIDE, apparently, on its max level, but it's not reliable and is frankly a bad engine.

I played chess with this thing so much it can't beat me anymore, but draws. This does not mean I'm a good player. It just means I figured out how to counter a predictable playing pattern from a lousy engine.

But the benefits are great! You learn how to go down with a massive struggle and play brilliantly to the endgame, where things get most interesting. Plus, you learn how to think like that computer, which is a venomous weapon employable on the chess board. Play serious chess with it, though, thinking long periods of time just like if it was a human on OTB. You may not be able to beat it, but getting the crap beaten out of you teaches you how to defend yourself. Maybe you'll beat your first grand master someday!

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


title: Psychological tricks in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Psychological tricks in chess?
Are there any psychological tricks that can be used in chess to throw off an opponent regardless of rating? It also does not matter if it is the opening, middle, or end game.

By psychological, I really don't mean rude/annoying gestures to upset the opponent, but more tricks or tactics that have more to do with making psychological moves to throw an opponent off and they can be specific instances, for example, a specific move for a specific line that might make the opponent wonder "what is going on here...".

# Answer
> 25 votes
Sometimes when your opponent is in zeitnot (English: "time trouble"), it can make him nervous if you repeat moves a couple of times.

Also when your opponent is in zeitnot, it is a good idea to think on your moves thoroughly and not to try to play as fast as your opponent does. This also applies to when you're in zeitnot; you should at least try to make your opponent play as fast as you do.

I often try to learn rarely used variations to disturb my opponent and make him think with his own brain instead of mindlessly replaying moves from theory.

If I know that my opponent is rather a strategic player, I will try to play very tactical positions against him and to out-calculate him. When my opponent is better at tactics then I'll try to play more closed, maneuvering positions. In other words, when I know my opponent well, I'll try to play positions that he feels least comfortable in.

I've heard of other tricks of questionable taste, and I personally don't think they fall under "fair play" in my understanding of it.

Another thing I always do (though it is hardly psychological), is that I never inform my opponent if he forgot to press his clock. I use his time for analyzing the position, and make my move only after the opponent pressed the clock.

# Answer
> 18 votes
This episode from a game in the 1961 Botvinnik - Tal match does not directly answer the question, but I believe is interesting enough to point out.

One of the comments to the game quotes Botvinnik:

> "After two days of play and two sleepless nights I was thoroughly tired out, yet I did not take my usual thermos flask of coffee with me to the adjournment session - this would be the most weighty proof that I would make just a few more moves and then resign the game. It was during these few moves that Tal had to miss the stalemate". - Botvinnik.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "match"]
[Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia) (20)"]
[Date "1961.05.08"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "20"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Mikhail Tal"]
[Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[ECO "B12"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "242"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4 h6 5.Ne2 e6 6.Ng3 Ne7 7.Nc3 Nd7
8.Be3 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.cxd3 h5 11.Nce2 g6 12.Qd2 Ng8 13.O-O-O
Bh6 14.Kb1 Bxe3 15.fxe3 Nh6 16.e4 Qe7 17.exd5 exd5 18.Qa5 Nf8
19.Rdf1 Ne6 20.Rf3 Qd8 21.Qa4 Qb6 22.Rc1 Ng4 23.Nf1 O-O 24.Ne3
f5 25.g3 Nh2 26.Rf4 Ng4 27.Ng2 Rae8 28.Qa3 Rf7 29.Rc3 a6
30.Rb3 Qa7 31.Qd6 Qb8 32.Qxb8 Rxb8 33.Rf1 Nh2 34.Rc1 Re8
35.Ngf4 Nxf4 36.gxf4 Ng4 37.Rb6 Kg7 38.Rh1 Nh6 39.Nc3 Rc7
40.Na4 Nf7 41.Kc2 Nd8 42.Kd2 Ne6 43.Ke3 Rd7 44.b4 Kf7 45.Nc5
Nxc5 46.bxc5 Ra8 47.Kd2 Ke6 48.Rg1 Rg7 49.Kc3 Ra7 50.Kb4 a5
51.Ka4 Ra8 52.Rgb1 Ra7 53.R1b5 Rg8 54.a3 Re8 55.Rxa5 Rea8
56.Rxa7 Rxa7+ 57.Kb4 g5 58.hxg5 h4 59.a4 h3 60.Ka3 h2 61.Rb1
Ra8 62.g6 Rg8 63.Rh1 Rxg6 64.Rxh2 Rg3 65.Rh6+ Kd7 66.Rh7+ Kc8
67.e6 Rxd3+ 68.Kb2 Re3 69.e7 Kd7 70.e8=Q+ Kxe8 71.Rxb7 Kd8
72.a5 Re2+ 73.Kb3 Re1 74.Kc2 Re2+ 75.Kc3 Ra2 76.Rb6 Kc7 77.a6
Ra1 78.Kb2 Ra4 79.Kb3 Ra1 80.Rb7+ Kc8 81.Rb6 Kc7 82.Rb7+ Kc8
83.Ra7 Rb1+ 84.Kc3 Ra1 85.Ra8+ Kc7 86.Kb3 Rb1+ 87.Kc3 Ra1
88.Kb3 Rb1+ 89.Ka2 Rb5 90.a7 Ra5+ 91.Kb3 Kb7 92.Rf8 Rb5+
93.Ka4 Kxa7 94.Rxf5 Rb1 95.Rf6 Kb7 96.f5 Ra1+ 97.Kb4 Rb1+
98.Kc3 Rc1+ 99.Kd2 Rf1 100.Ke3 Kc7 101.Rf7+ Kd8 102.Ke2 Rf4
103.Kd3 Rf3+ 104.Kd2 Kc8 105.Ke2 Rf4 106.Ke3 Rf1 107.Rf8+ Kd7
108.Rf6 Kc7 109.Rf7+ Kd8 110.Ke2 Rf4 111.Kd3 Rf3+ 112.Kc2 Kc8
113.f6 Kd8 114.Rf8+ Kc7 115.Kd2 Kb7 116.Ke2 Rf4 117.Ke3 Rf1
118.Rf7+ Kc8 119.Kd2 Rf3 120.Kc2 Kd8 121.Rf8+ Kc7 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
Draw offers are useful for psychological reasons, provided of course that you don't particularly mind getting a draw as a result of your offer now and then.

Let's say you have a more or less equal position, where both players have to play pretty cautiously, neither can really attack at the moment. Then you offer a draw, and your opponent declines. Now he will a) feel morally obligated to play for the win, and b) believe you are only playing for a draw! This leads to excessive risk taking by your opponent.

Another way to use them is to be just slightly obnoxious, when you know he isn't going to accept. Let's say you know he's traveled two hours to get here, he outrates you and you offer a draw after 8 moves. Irritated people have trouble staying objective and he's more likely to take excessive risks, again. Although I don't actually do this as I think it's over the line.

Another thing I do is when I'm walking around while my opponent is thinking, and he is really using too much time for this move and seems unable to make up his mind, then I will continue walking around. The moment you sit down is often the moment they take a decision and make a move, I want to make them waste as much time as possible in those situations.

Of course, when I'm walking around, notice I've actually made a blunder but he may not have seen the combination yet, then I will sit down immediately hoping he'll promptly move... If he doesn't, just get up again.

# Answer
> 13 votes
**TL;DR**: When your opponent has an extremely cramped position, sometimes they can "crack" and make bad moves (if you don't help them out of it, and give them time).

The Chessmaster series of games had an (IMHO) excellent set of instructional videos by Josh Waitzkin. Although probably nothing revolutionary, he had one regarding the psychology of chess, which I've found to be very interesting.

One of the concepts involved games where your opponent found themselves in a cramped (but otherwise balanced / drawish) position. Here, if you are able to bide your time (in such a way that you don't give up tempo), you can often cause your opponent to attempt to break out of the cramped position without sufficient preparation. In the video, Josh played quiet moves to bide his time, and without any obvious forced defensive moves to play, his opponent had to try come up with something new. Unfortunately for the opponent, there were no "excellent" moves present; he really had no way to break the position open in a way that was beneficial (but neither did the other player). Objectively, the position was equal, but one player felt that pressure was building up. Eventually, Josh's opponent decided to open the game up, and ended up losing very quickly.

I guess this would be the chess equivalent of "give somebody enough rope (to hang themselves)", and it's also a pretty good example of legitimate psychological tricks in chess. I'm not sure how this would apply at high levels of play, but it's certainly applicable up to low-level tournament play, in my opinion. If you do decide to try this, just make sure you're not giving your opponent the free tempos they need to win the game (this is the hard part).

# Answer
> 10 votes
As mentioned in comments, staring at your opponent might off-balance some of them, just as behaving abnormally in anyway — constantly replacing pieces, or smiling as if there was a reason comes to mind.

As I mention elsewhere, you can try the long-shot trick of not pressing your clock to distract them. Probably not achieving much though.

Obviously nothing of that belongs to fair play, but I guess that's not much of this question's issue.

---

What actually happened to me in the last game of a 15-minutes tournament, as I had not much time remaining¹ was my opponent² — in an obviously losing position — play very fast, misplacing many pieces on the way, and, as I played my move and replaced some pieces on their squares, play his, and pretend I had touched the piece I was replacing, therefore had to play it³.

As I made the move I wanted, he would move the piece back and press his clock again, repeatedly, muttering some foreign words⁴ about “having to play”. In the end, he would keep his finger pressed on the mechanical clock, preventing me from stopping it. I lost most of my time to all of that, and wouldn't have had enough to mate would he have played till the end after the referee finally came and let me play the bishop. Hopefully, he just went self-righteous against the referee, so I won by “that”.

Not very psychological, will definitely get you a bad reputation, and unlikely to achieve anything in major events, but definitely throws-off your opponent, probably also for the next game. Rank pressure helps, especially after a tense game, etc.

---

¹ Like 4 minutes : well enough to win the endgame-with-a-bishop-advantage the combination we where playing lead to, but not enough to deal with nasty clock tricks.
² Ranked ~150 better than I did, he was playing for a prize, I was playing for 4th place and to enhance a friend's prize.
³ Hence faking a trebuchet zugzwang where I was about to move the said bishop.
⁴ It sounded like engrish, but in a French town that'll definitely catch off-guards your usual chess player.

# Answer
> 10 votes
If your opponent is low on time, try to keep the position complicated. Avoid making moves that have an obvious answer (e.g., captures and checks), and try to keep tension on the board, so that he has lots of options to consider every move.

# Answer
> 9 votes
One suggestion I read, and really liked -- is that your opponent is more likely to miss a tactic if it looks like an ordinary developing move.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Here's another trick it's worth knowing about. It's not one I've ever managed to pull but I've fallen for it a few times and lately I've managed to spot it and avoid it. Sadly I didn't learn the trick by analyzing what was going on in my games rather I spotted it when watching friends fall for it.

It's funny how your rating drops 200 points when you sit down to play and rises 200 points when you stand up and go and watch someone else's game ;-)

The setup: a 400+ rating difference and the game is heading for a draw! In fact it is dead drawn. So dead drawn that as long as the weaker player steadfastly sticks to his ambition to draw it is going to be a draw.

With such a large rating difference the stronger player really can't afford a draw. The tactical draw offer isn't likely to work. The stronger player can't accept the draw. So, what is he going to do? What he needs is a sucker punch.

My club runs a regular Monday night 9 round Swiss standard FIDE rated competition with large enough prizes that 3 or 4 grandmasters will usually turn up to hoover up the prize money. Nevertheless for us low life players we occasionally get the chance for a shot at glory against one of these chess demi-gods. Usually it ends quickly and ignominiously, fortunately before any of our friends' games have finished so they don't witness our humiliation.

But once or twice a year you'll get up from the finish of your game, look up to see how Joe is getting on against the GM and, lo and behold! the pair of them are still sitting at the table. Maybe he's in there with a chance?

About a year or so ago I got up in that situation and saw that a regular sparring partner was in that exact position. Not only that, the game looked to be a dead draw. 2 rooks and a few pawns each, a couple of weaknesses each, no real chance to mount a serious attack against any of the weaknesses. All Joe had to do was hold his nerve and glory (at least from his peers) was guaranteed.

They must have just recently reached the position because Joe made the regulation draw offer and without blinking or hesitating the GM made his move and pressed his clock. What followed was some fairly meaningless looking maneuvering by the GM. Joe didn't move from his bunker. Then the GM made a weak looking move. Joe could move one of his rooks into the GM's position and make a couple of threats. They were easy enough to parry but there was no danger. If the threats didn't come off Joe could always move his rook back into the bunker.

The GM parried the threats but did so clumsily. Joe could, if he wanted penetrate even deeper and it looked like he could win a pawn. However with my extra 200 ratings courtesy of supporting my weight on my feet rather than backside I could see that once that pawn was won the rook would take a while to get back into play and in the meantime his remaining bunkered rook and king wouldn't be able to handle the threats from the GM's two rooks and king.

"Don't do it!" I wanted to shout, but it wouldn't have made any difference, apart from getting me thrown out. Joe was seeing through red mist, he thought he'd won the lottery. He wasn't just going to draw with the GM, he was going to win! The GM landed his sucker punch and Joe was the sucker.

Losing a dead drawn game to one of your peers hurts a bit but doing so against a much, much stronger really hurts. It hurts so much that the pain spreads to the spectators. Everybody loves an underdog and an upset and you nearly did it.

Why did it happen? If you're like me your whole game plan was aimed at the draw. Luck was on your side and you cooly managed to execute 98% of the plan. You did the hard work but at the last moment you let emotion overwhelm your rational side and fell for a cheap trick from the GM.

Remember the GM has earned his title. If he appears to do something stupid just remember who you are playing. You have two choices. The first is to trust your opponent and stick to your plan blindly. A bird in the hand and all that. Opportunities like that are scarce. The second option is to suspect that despite all the evidence your opponent has made a mistake. After all, he played badly enough to let you get the drawn position in the first place. Maybe it just isn't his day?

If you are going to do that you better have plenty of time on your clock and you better put in your maximum effort in analyzing the consequences.

If you massively outrate your opponent and you end up in very drawn position what do you do? You give him hope of even greater glory, a win! You lure him gradually down a path of getting more and more out of position with the promise of material or positional gain. Only you've seen just a little bit further. The alluring path leads to his doom.

This is an old trick and is standard procedure against computers, usually with prepared variations. Often prepared with the help of computers ;-) Lure the computer with a sacrifice who's payoff is outside the computer's calculation range and it will blindly fall into the trap.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The most famous example of a psychological play is this game between Lasker and Capablanca:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 Bd6 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. f4 Re8 11. Nb3 f6 12. f5 b6 13. Bf4 Bb7 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Nd4 Rad8 16. Ne6 Rd7 17. Rad1 Nc8 18. Rf2 b5 19. Rfd2 Rde7 20. b4 Kf7 21. a3 Ba8 22. Kf2 Ra7 23. g4 h6 24. Rd3 a5 25. h4 axb4 26. axb4 Rae7 27. Kf3 Rg8 28. Kf4 g6 29. Rg3 g5 30. Kf3 Nb6 31. hxg5 hxg5 32. Rh3 Rd7 33. Kg3 Ke8 34. Rdh1 Bb7 35. e5 dxe5 36. Ne4 Nd5 37. N6c5 Bc8 38. Nxd7 Bxd7 39. Rh7 Rf8 40. Ra1 Kd8 41. Ra8 Bc8 42. Nc5

```

This is the 1914 St. Petersburg Tournament, where the first Grand Master titles were allegedly awarded to the top five players by none other than Czar Nicholas II (they were Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Tarrasch, and Marshall). It was the most important tournament at the time and Lasker as reigning World champion had a moral obligation to win, particularly since he had not played in a tournament for five years.

Unfortunately for him there was this young upstart by the name of Capablanca who had only won one major event (San Sebastian 1911), and who pulled ahead to first position. At the very end, Lasker was trailing by half a point, and a win was necessary. In the second to last round he met Capablanca, and the stage was set for an epic clash. Needing a win against an all-confident opponent, Lasker decided to play the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez. This surprised everyone since this choice leads to the elimination of queens and drawish endgames. Needless to say, Capablanca lowered his guard and was unprepared when Lasker's real strength came to the surface. The champion outplayed the newcomer, edged ahead in the table, and won the tournament by 1/2 a point.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Reading @RemcoGerlich's answer about walking around reminded me of a situation that happened between Tal and Fishcer:

> Every player has his own habit: one will first make his move and then write it down, while another will do things the other way around. Incidentally, in recent years Fischer has actively objected to this 'other way round', expressing the opinion that a scoresheet is not a black-board for writing down exercises. However, in our game Fischer first wrote down the move 22.Rae1!, without a doubt the strongest, and wrote it not in his usual English notation but in European, almost Russian! Then he not very deftly pushed the scoresheet towards me. 'He's asking for an endorsement', I thought to myself, but how was I to react? To frown was impossible, if I smiled he would suspect 'trickery', so I did the natural thing. I got up and began to calmly walk up and down the stage. I met Petrosian, made some joke to him, and he replied. The 15-year-old Fischer, who was essentially still only a large child, sat with a confused expression on his face, looking first at the front row of spectators where his second was sitting, and then at me.
>
> Then he wrote down another move. 22.Qc6?, and after 22...Rd7 23.Rae1+ Be7 24.Rxf7 Kxf7 25.Qe6+ Kf8! 26.Qxd7 Qd6 I held on to my extra piece and adjourned the game in a won position. When I later asked Fischer why he hadn't played 22.Rae1, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down!' - Mikhal Tal

Here is the game:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. f4 b4 9. Na4 Nxe4 10. O-O g6 11. f5 gxf5 12. Nxf5 Rg8 13. Bd5 Ra7 14. Bxe4 exf5 15. Bxf5 Re7 16. Bxc8 Qxc8 17. Bf4 Qc6 18. Qf3 Qxa4 19. Bxd6 Qc6 20. Bxb8 Qb6 21. Kh1 Qxb8 22. Qc6 Rd7 23. Rae1 Be7 24. Rxf7 Kxf7 25. Qe6 Kf8 26. Qxd7 Qd6 27. Qb7 Rg6 28. c3 a5 29. Qc8 Kg7 30. Qc4 Bd8 31. cxb4 axb4 32. g3 Qc6 33. Re4 Qxc4 34. Rxc4 Rb6 35. Kg2 Kf6 36. Kf3 Ke5 37. Ke3 Bg5 38. Ke2 Kd5 39. Kd3 Bf6 40. Rc2 Be5 41. Re2 Rf6 42. Rc2 Rf3 43. Ke2 Rf7 44. Kd3 Bd4 45. a3 b3 46. Rc8 Bxb2 47. Rd8 Kc6 48. Rb8 Rf3 49. Kc4 Rc3 50. Kb4 Kc7 51. Rb5 Ba1 52. a4 b2

```

game at chessgames.com

# Answer
> 6 votes
Something I like to do in online chess is if I lose a Pawn or more in material, and if I'm higher rated, I offer them a draw. That usually burns a few seconds on the clock as they try to weigh the utility of accepting the draw while up material or whether or not they should play on and convert, but the opportunity cost of them even contemplating this decision means they lose time on the clock.

It's kinda stupid, maybe disrespectful, and will definitely make your opponent rage if they decide to play on and lose, but just a little something I like to do.

If you are interested in this topic, there is a book called "How to get lucky in chess" that you should look up and download (pretty sure there is a pirated copy somewhere online) that discusses issues you ask about in your post.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I think most psychological tricks that still fall within the boundaries of fair play are connected to time trouble. Here are some tricks to deal with an opponent in time trouble:

* If he just got into time trouble and he is hovering at the board, hand ready to move, eyes wide open … wait (if you still have plenty of time). After 15-20 min his adrenalin level will drop and he will be much less ready to deal with what follows.
* Don't go for a forcing variation. If possible, change the pawn structure. Play in time trouble is often conducted on a higher level than blitz, because the time trouble addict can draw on all his thoughts about the structure from earlier in the game. If you change the pawn structure, you take that away from him. If you cannot change the pawn structure, just making a quiet move is often very hard to react to.
* Think deeply about the position and try to anticipate his response. Then bang out the next 3-4 moves. If you have done it right, he will be in terra incognita, with no time, low adrenaline and a new pawn structure to adapt to.

Another little thing, that for some reason works incredibly well against some players: If you see him fall into deep thought, stand up and go away from the board. But whenever he straightens up and seems ready to move, go back to the board and just look at the position. Often that is enough to make him "go back to sleep" again.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As already pointed out the tactical draw offer is a fine psychological weapon.

The variant that I used to fall for and then later adopted went like this.

The Setup: A rating difference (ELO or equivalent) of 100 - 200 points. The weaker player struggling in the opening.

The Hit: Just as you are about to equalize make the offer.

The Psychology: Improving kiddies in my chess club used to do this regularly to me as their ratings approached mine. The feeling in the "mark" is one of indignation. "How dare this patzer / pipsqueak (or whatever) make such an impudent offer? I'm going to crush the little \****!"

The losing blunder often follows shortly afterwards.

Once I cottoned on to what was happening I managed to fix my attitude and even used the ploy myself successfully a few times against a stronger player in our club.

EDIT: I've been rereading Jonathan Rowson's "Chess for Zebras" ( an excellent book, by the way) and came across this example where he fell for the tactical draw offer from the weaker player. I've just included two of Rowson's comments. He comments almost every line at times giving great insight into his thinking.

```
[FEN "1k1r4/1p3p2/p3b1pp/P1nN4/2PRP3/5BP1/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "Bundesliga"]
[Date "2000/1"]
[White "Straeter"]
[Black "Rowson"]

1.Bd1 h5 2.Kf2 Rh8 3.Ke3 h4 4.gxh4 Rxh4 5.Nf4 Bc8 6.g3 Rh8 7.Rd5 Ne6 8.Bf3 Re8 9.e5

```

> My opponent offered a draw with this move. Had I accepted, the match would also have been drawn, and this would have been a huge disappointment for our team, but not a complete disaster. In any case, I didn't really come to terms with the fact that my position had deteriorated over the last few moves, and I felt somehow possessed, as if I had to win this game at all costs. I arrogantly rejected the offer with an immediate "No!" and this arrogance tainted my thinking in what follows.

```
[FEN "1kb1r3/1p3p2/p3n1p1/P2R4/2P1PN2/4KBP1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "Bundesliga"]
[Date "2000/1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Straeter"]
[Black "Rowson"]

1.e5 Nd8 2.Rc5 Ne6 3.Nxe6 fxe6 4.Kf4 Rh8+ 5.Kg4 Rd8 6.Kh4 Rh8+ 7.Kg5 Rh3 8.Kg4 Rh8 9.Be4 Rg8 10.Kg5 Bd7 11.Kf6 g5 12.Bg6 g4 13.Bf7 Rh8 14.Ke7 Bc6 15.Bxe6 Kc7 16.Bd5 Rh5 17.Bg2 Rf5 18.Be4 Rh5 19.Kf6 Rh3 20.e6 Rh6+ 21.Bg6 Kd6 22.Rxc6+ bxc6 23.e7 Rxg6+ 24.Kxg6 Kxe7 25.Kf5 Kd6 26. Kxg4 Kc5 27.Kf5 Kxc4 28.g4 1-0

```

> A truly painful defeat, compounded by the fact that it meant our team lost the match, and with it any realistic chance of winning the league that year. In any case, this game made a deep impression on me and I resolved to understand what happened, not so much on the board, but psychologically - in terms of my competitive attitude.

EDIT END:

Whether or not you try any of these tricks in your own games you should take away one important point. You should work out in advance what your approach is to draw offers to make sure you yourself don't fall for these tricks.

The first point to note is that the reason your rating is 200 points higher than your opponents is because over the long run you make fewer mistakes than your opponent. It does not mean that you are superior to him in every way nor are you entitled to win every game. There will be days when he plays well and you play badly and if he offers you a draw when he is clearly winning then take it!

Unless there are special circumstances (e.g. last round, prize money at stake) I ask myself two questions when I'm offered a draw:

1) Is it just too early? I'm enjoying myself too much in the struggle?

2) Do I have a plan to win the game?

If both answers are no then I accept the offer.

Special circumstances and question 1 are answered very quickly. For question 2 I can take as much time as I have left on the clock minus the time I estimate it will take to implement the plan. Take my time, try and work out a winning plan. If I don't find one then irrespective of our relative ratings I accept the offer. It must be a good day for him and a bad day for me but let's not make it worse.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The only ethical psychological "tactics" in my opinion are

1. getting opponent out of "book" by playing "unusual" moves,
2. playing "trappy" openings if you want to risk opponent already knowing the trap (e.g. Blackburne Shilling, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 (4.Nxe5? Qg5)), and
3. if opponent is not using good time management, that is, playing either too slowly or too quickly, then shade your own time management in the opposite direction -- play just a little quicker against dragging opponents and a little more deliberately against impatient opponents.

# Answer
> 3 votes
doing something like **38.Qxd3** in Emanuel Lasker vs Johann Hermann Bauer (1889):

```
[fen ""]

1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 e6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nc3 Bb7 7.Nf3
Nbd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Ne2 c5 10.Ng3 Qc7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qc6
13.Qe2 a6 14.Nh5 Nxh5 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8 17.Bxg7 Kxg7
18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rf3 e5 20.Rh3+ Qh6 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qd7 Bf6
23.Qxb7 Kg7 24.Rf1 Rab8 25.Qd7 Rfd8 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.fxe5 Bg7
28.e6 Rb7 29.Qg6 f6 30.Rxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxf6+ Ke8 32.Qh8+ Ke7
33.Qg7+ Kxe6 34. Qxb7 Rd6 35. Qxa6 d4 36. exd4 cxd4 37. h4 d3
38. Qxd3 1-0

```

hehe :)

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you are the underdog (in rating points), be satisfied with a draw. Let him come to you, because he will lose rating points from a draw, and you will gain them. He is likely to overreach in those circumstances.

As a previous poster pointed out, make sure that you calculate any potentially winning candidate in that situation right to the end. What's the best move for each player *after* everything has settled down and you're ahead in material or positionally? If you find another potential tactic, your analysis isn't finished.

As for draw offers, by all means make one if you think a) the draw would be a good result for you, and b) it might antagonize him. Nigel Short once said, "If your opponent offers you a draw, try to work out why he thinks he's worse." So, expect the draw offer to be rejected unless your opponent has demonstrated that he's committed to winning.

Don't make repeated draw offers. It constitutes annoying behavior, and can get penalized.

If your opponent is low on time and you have plenty, don't try to blitz him in the hope that you'll deprive him of thinking time on your move. You have an advantage; *use it*. I once played an opponent rated 250 ELO higher than me, and pinned one of his pieces. There was no way out, but he thought for half his time about how to fix the problem. ***I just walked around the room for nearly half an hour***, letting him stew.

He finally made a move when he had only 15 minutes left on his clock, and I had nearly 45. When he got down to a minute left on his clock, he went for an all-out pawn storm against my king's position. After each of his moves, made in 10 seconds or less, I would spend *at least* 45 seconds on an obvious reply, and 3-4 minutes on moves that could complicate the position but were still winning. I burned another 15+ minutes playing defense, but when it was over, his attack was simply coming apart, and he lost on time anyway.

BTW: Don't mess around with using the scoresheet in psychological games. USCF has changed the rules so that the player must make his move ***before*** he writes it down. Writing it down first can (and should) be claimed as illegal, and earn you a time penalty.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There's an old example that I forget when and where it happened, but a man wrote very clearly each move he made before he made it. Of course this took some extra time, but an opponent was sure to notice it.

At some point when he was in not such a good position, he wrote down three moves ahead, the sign for losing the game for himself.

That particular opponent interpreted this as a concession coming, but curious to play three more moves.

After those three moves, he simply crossed out the concession and continued playing and his opponent, in euphoria, had lost significant position in those turns and ended up with a draw.

He was kind enough to say that this wasn't intentional on his opponent's part, but I'm not so sure.

Though... these kind of psychological tricks can be as much as a distraction as they can have an effect. Kinda like astrology sometimes.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This was said by a team-mate while returning by car from an away match.

"I do hope I play old Frank in the return match. After our game tonight we analysed a line in the Giuoco Piano. Its good for White, in fact very good, but I was letting him win the analysis."

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Strategy in middlegame from boring positions
I get into these rather vanilla, or as I call them, boring positions. Not much is happening tactically, and I can't fathom what the right course of action should be strategically.

Here is an example. I am White in this position. My pieces are in what I view as "neutral" (not good, not bad) position, I think the position is about even, and I have no clue what plans to form next.

```
[fen "r4rk1/p2nbp1p/1qp1bpp1/3p4/3P4/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Obviously there is no right answer for strategy, but maybe some more experienced players could give me some general heuristics to ponder as I plot my chess board domination. Walking through this example would help too =)

Cheers

# Answer
> 37 votes
> "Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do." -- Savielly Tartakower

What follow are the most salient features of the position that jump out at me, and these are the sorts of things one needs to look for when there seems to be nothing to do:

* You have no structural weaknesses yourself.
* Black has a weak backward pawn on the c-file that could become a very nice target.
* Black can attack down the semi-open b-file, but that's less significant since the move `b3` leaves White's pawn secure.
* At the moment, Black's bishop pair isn't of much use due to the relatively closed nature of the position.

Having noted those things, it's safe to say that Black would love to get in the freeing move `... c5`, which would allow her to exchange off her most significant weakness, while also starting to open up the position for her bishops. So a good course of action for White here is to try and prevent that move from Black, or at the least to make it as disadvantageous for her as possible.

With that in mind, a good start is `1. Na4`, which leaves both the knight and the Qc2 eyeing the c5 square (and opens the way for the rooks to bear down on it as well), and doing so with tempo thanks to the attack on the Qb6. After `1. ... Qb7 2. Rac1 Rfc8` (note: it's these rooks in particular because White might want his other rook being able to go to the d-file if `... c5 -> dxc5` occurs, and Black might want her other rook to have access to the b-file), we see Black trying to support the `... c5` break and White trying to stop it.

```
[fen "r4rk1/p2nbp1p/1qp1bpp1/3p4/3P4/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Na4 Qb7 2. Rac1 Rfc8 3. Qe2 a5 4. Rfd1 c5 5. dxc5 Nxc5 6. Nxc5 Bxc5

```

In this case, Black cannot be prevented from achieving the desired pawn break, and so White will need to switch gears and find new goals. For instance, here `3. Qe2` (threatening `Ba6`) `... a5 4. Rfd1` is a good idea (as mentioned before), so that we will be well-positioned after `dxc5`, with our rook on the newly half-opened d-file pressuring Black's isolated pawn. For instance, play might proceed `4. ... c5 5. dxc5 Nxc5 6. Nxc5 Bxc5`:

```
[fen "r1r3k1/1q3p1p/4bpp1/p1bp4/8/3BPN2/PP2QPPP/2RR2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. h3

```

Now Black's bishop pair is improved, but d4 is an inviting outpost for the white knight. If Black were to trade the dark bishop for the knight after it lands on d4, and we could recapture with a piece, then our structure and our bishop would be significantly better than Black's remaining one, and we would have good prospects for strong pressure against the isolated d-pawn. With that in mind, a good next step is `7. h3`, which prevents Black playing `... Bg4` and trading off *that* bishop for our knight instead, and has the side benefit of creating luft for our king. Unfortunately for us, everything is basically level, as Black has ideas like playing `... d4` herself to open up her bishops and rid herself of her remaining weakness.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some idea of the kinds of thought processes that can be fruitful in "boring" positions like this one, the kinds of features that you should be thinking about when you're not calculating tactical possibilities (which you can never forget about!), and the sort of improvements that White could aim for from your initial position if Black were to fall asleep at the wheel.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I'm going to speak more to the general question and not the specific board that you provided.

In my experience this is where it is important to know yourself, what you do well and what you struggle with. Additionally it is important to know your opponent as well as possible, but if this is your first game against someone that is not always possible.

Some chess players are great attackers. These players excel in creating chaos on the board and slipping an attack under their opponents nose. This kind of player will take a trade of equal, or even lesser, value if it creates a break in their opponents defenses or if it just makes their opponent change plans.

Other players are great defenders. These players excel in maintaining a balanced board until their opponent makes a mistake, and then take full advantage of that mistake. When two players of this type face off it can indeed seem very boring. I feel that I tend to fall into this category, so I focus on opening as many attacking lanes as possible while maintaining a solid defense until I see an opening.

Of course, plenty of players don't fall into one specific category, but for the most part we all fall somewhere on this spectrum. If you don't know where you are on this spectrum then practice different styles. Play a few games aggressively and see how you do, then play a few defensively and patiently and see how you do. Try this against a variety of opponents. Eventually you will get a feel for what is comfortable for you, and where you excel. Then when you practice, be sure not to neglect what it is you struggle at so that you can continue to round out your game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Actually this is a pretty interesting position.

You have two "pawn islands" (Capablanca's term) to three for Black. One of them is an isolated rook pawn, two of them are "hanging" c and d pawns. Black's king side pawns are doubled. You have an open c file on your side to attack Black's backward c pawn.

Try to keep your pawns on dark squares to give your light-squared bishop as much mobility as possible to attack Black's pawn on the light squares.

Black's only advantage is a the bishop pair, but that's not much of an advantage with so many pawns on the board. Note that Black's light-squared bishop is somewhat "bad," so try to trade one of your knights for his DARK squared bishop.

One way to try to do this is to move your c3 knight to a4, chasing the Black Queen. Your followup threats are a3, b4, and Nc5. If Black exchanges knights and you recapture with the b pawn, the pawn structures make *both* of Black's bishops "somewhat bad."

Black can counter this threat by moving c5, offering the exchange of his c pawn for your d pawn. You gladly accept because this isolates Black's d pawn and gives your f3 knight a fine outpost on d4 (see the diagram in ETD's answer).

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's funny... I find this sort of position much more interesting than tactical positions. I actually have to discipline myself to limit my thinking time. Some questions I could ask:

* Should White play against the c6-pawn or consider a plan with e4, or both?
* If/when Black counterattacks against b2, should I move it to b3, b4, or neither? (on b3 it may invite ...Ba3, and on b4 it may invite ...a5)
* Where to place the rooks? b1 + c1, c1 + e1, or what? And when?
* Same for Black: a8 + c8, b8 + c8 (this would be the fairly routine way), c8 + d8 (could backfire if he doesn't get in ...c5), or c8 and e8 (with ideas of counterplay down the e-file)
* Can Black get counterplay with f5-f4? Even if White plays g3, this may still be playable. Or how about f5 and Nf6-e4? Will a well-timed ...Bg4 ever be an issue? (causing the f3-knight to move away from d4 may be helpful)
* Is Black just hanging on for a draw or is there any offensive plan for him? As White, is this position risk-free or do I need to be careful of overextending? (Could Black's 2 bishops be a latent danger?)
* Can Black respond to Na4 with Qa5? Does it matter? (on a5 the queen eyes a4 and c5, but could lose time to a3 and b4)
* Should I play h3 to deter Bg4? Does that strengthen the f5-f4 plan?
* What are the virtues of trading queens? Should I consider that a valuable objective? (likewise for Black)
* What are Black's goals here? (How) can I prevent them?
    + one goal might be to achieve the semi-comfortable arrangement a5, Qb8, and Rfc8. Should I prevent this by acting fast, but committing to a particular approach?
* What are likely transformations that could happen, and how appealing are they? (various minor piece exchanges, pawn structure changes, transition to endgame...)
* Bearing the above in mind, what are some 'typical' or 'representative' variations for me to start with? Perhaps:
    + 1. Na4 Qa5 2. a3;
    + 1. Na4 Qb7 2. Rfc1;
    + 1. e4;
    + 1. Rfd1 (to deter ...c5);
    + 1. h3;
    + 1. Rab1 (to encourage ...a5 without moving my own b-pawn);
    + etc.

I would keep iterating over these until I found something clearly best or, failing that, I make progress with the above questions. I might also rely on general policies that I have adopted over the years (for example, make multi-purpose moves; avoid unnecessary weakening moves; and so on)

I guess what I'm saying is that I think there's a lot going on here, and your difficulties knowing what to do come from the same place as your feeling that the position is boring or dry -- you just need a little more exposure to the world of strategy!

Hope this helps.

# Answer
> 0 votes
My first strategic thought would be to see if tactically I could get to a position with pawns on a3 and b4, rooks on c1 and d1, knights on f4 and b3. Alternative might be the B on b3 with the Knight on a4 and the other knight dropping in to d3 instead.

Like all such "schematic thinking" approaches to the game, you have to spend the time to figure out what your opponent can do to stop it. (And what those moves give you. For example, if you get the pawns to a3/b4 and knock off the dark-squared bishop early, you can consider planting a knight on a5 to further pressurize the c-pawn.)

"Who stands better?" is always the main question, but I can say I'd rather be playing White than Black in that position. For example, White can probably force a passed pawn eventually while there's no way short of a massive blunder Black ever will. I think this position could be classed as "Carlsbad," only in the real Carlsbad positions the black pawn is on e6 and not f6. Personally, I think f6 is a worse place for the pawn, so the Carlsbad strategies should be even easier and stronger.

White's quietest path to victory is to swap d and e pawns for Black's c and d pawns, at which point removing the pieces is a won endgame for White. The most important piece swap is Knight for dark-square bishop, because doing so eliminates a horde of horrible opposite-colored Bishop endgame possibilities, none of which are won.

So I'd spend my thinking time evaluating these strategic ideas, trying to see which ones I would be able to impose tactically, keeping them in mind and being willing to switch between them as opportunity dictated.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are already good answers tothis question, and the position is indeed full of food for thought. The position is very interesting because it is about to take on a clearer shape. Whoever makes the best preparation could obtain a big advantage. Not much has happened yet in this game. Certainly neither player has made a major error. In such situations it is usually a mistake to try and force matters. You just quietly get on with things. But what?

A really bad idea would be to focus all your thinking on forcing through with e4 to create a King-side attack. For one thing, you have to do a lot of work getting your pieces over there. For another, you will be wrecking your nice pawns by isolating your d-pawn. Also, he has no weaknesses over there for you to exploit. If K-side attacks are what you enjoy, why did you play this opening?

Dont try quite yet to decide the best plan, but play moves that will fit in whatever happens. The crucial question in this position is probably "what will happen on the c-file?" Is that backward pawn stuck there forever? Perhaps it is, because playing ..c5 does have some drawbacks, leaving the d-pawn isolated. So Black has a difficult choice to make. (Never do anything to make your opponents decisions easier!) Rfd1 comes into consideration. Your opponent will be reluctant to open up that Rooks file.

I don't really like Na4. It is tempting because it does attack both the Q and a weak square, but it puts the N on the rim. It does not yet threaten to move to c5, when White must retake with a P, after which his half-open file has disappeared, and even a N on the good square d4 does not achieve much. Leaving the N where it is still discourages ..c5 because of the pressure against d5. But there is not much to work with apart from the c-file, so suppose we try to prepare our play a bit, until we could put the N on c5 when we are able to retake with a piece. This needs some preparation, like N-d2-b3 (Maybe I should not play b3 because although it protects the pawn, it blocks the N trek. Arien would like to play a3 and b4, but then Black might get play with ..a5) Creating an outpost will not do much in itself, but it may prepare for pieces to penetrate in the endgame. Think of the K striding through. This is going to be a 60-move game! Blacks only counterplay seems to be a diversion on the K-side involving f6-f5-f4 after a lot of preparation. Attacks down the b-file can be parried by Qe2 and Rc2.

I have not looked at this position hard enough to know what I would play, and my choice may not be the best anyway, but I do know how I would try to think about it. White must try to exploit the c-file; it is the only asset he has gained from the opening. If you can think of a way to manoeuver your pawns and pieces, plan this so they dont get in each others way. Dont settle on a definite plan too soon. Books will tell you that a bad plan is better than no plan. Don't believe them. Play, as far as possible, moves that can contribute, even indirectly, to as many possible plans as there may be. The nature of the best plan will reveal itself in the next phase of the game, as you both jockey for position.

Good luck to you. You are taking the right steps to enjoy a deeper appreciation of the game.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, middlegame
---


title: Bird's Opening and the Dutch Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Bird's Opening and the Dutch Defense
A naturally positional class-C player (c. Elo 1500), I have learned in recent years to push my f-pawn two squares early in the opening, to force myself to play tactical chess. The King's Gambit (which I had never tried until three years ago) surprises me in how often it unnerves my black opponent: I have won more games with it than I should have thought possible, mostly because of my opponents' blunders. Even against the Sicilian, `3. f4` has proved an interesting move though it lacks the sheer psychological impact of the King's Gambit. With the black men, I have been trying the Dutch Defense `1. d4 f5`. I have been losing, but I have been trying it, and eventually I hope to figure the Dutch out.

My question therefore is this. If `f4`and `f5` are such interesting moves in the opening, then why should Bird's Opening `1. f4` be so much less common than the Dutch Defense `1... f5`? Is it only because the King's Gambit is better than Bird's, or is there some other reason?

To be clear, my question today is not whether pushing the f-pawn two spaces is wise or fundamentally sound. Believe me, having tried it over and over during recent years, I have learned a lot of ways to lose by pushing that pawn! My question regards rather, among aggressive players who will push the f-pawn, why black tends to push the pawn earlier than white does. Given the increased risk black runs by pushing the f-pawn at the disadvantage of a tempo, one would think that white, not black, would be the leading f-pusher -- whereas 365chess.com has `1. f4` in 0.6 percent of all games, compared against `1... f5` in 3.6 percent of games that have begun `1. d4`.

In light of the relative popularity of the Dutch, why should Bird's Opening be relatively so uncommon?

# Answer
> 15 votes
Good question, and to understand the differences, we have to first discuss "reversed" openings.

The most common example of a reversed opening is the King's Indian Attack (`1. Nf3 2. g3 3. Bg2 4. O-O 5. d3`). Compare that to the King's Indian *Defense* (`1... Nf6 2... g6 3... Bg7 4... O-O 5... d6`). The only major difference between the following two positions is which "side" has the move:

King's Indian Defense

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/2PPP3/2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R w - - 0 1"]

```

King's Indian Attack:

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "r1bqkb1r/pp3ppp/2n2n2/2ppp3/8/3P1NP1/PPP1PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

In the second diagram, white has a full extra tempo over black in the first diagram. However, this extra tempo is not so useful. Depending on what white does, black will adopt various formations to nullify white's extra move. In the first diagram, black can wait to see how white develops before committing.

In fact, Bobby Fischer said (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in the following symmetrical position, *black* has the edge:

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/8/3P1NP1/PPP1PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. ( 1. c4 e5) e4  c5

```

If white plays `6. e4`, then black will respond with `6... c5`, but if white plays `6. c4`, then black will play `6... e5`, in both cases leading to a fighting game.

So with that lengthy introduction, now we can look at the Bird. To begin, after `1. f4`, black can immediately strike with From's Gambit: `1... e5!` when black scores incredibly well (49.5% from the link in EdDean's answer). White's best might be to transpose to a King's Gambit with `2. e4`.

Furthermore, black will again have an edge that white usually does not have in the Dutch - the ability to see how white develops and then react accordingly. White can certainly play a quiet system like `1. f4 2. Nf3 3. e3 4. d4 5. c3` and play with that color complex, but if white does that, he is squandering his first move advantage and can claim only equality.

If white tries an enterprising system like the Leningrad Dutch (`1. f4 2. g3 3. Nf3 4. Bg2 5. O-O 6. d3` with the plan to play `e4`), then black will have the opportunity to strike back with `h7-h5-h4` when white will have to defend against a fairly vicious attack. In the Dutch there are various ways to avoid this plan from white although they are beyond the scope of this question.

Hopefully this gives you a bit of an introduction to not only the differences between the Bird and the Dutch, but also how to evaluate reversed openings.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Looking at some results drawn from 2,000,000+ games, we have these winning percentages for the two openings:

```
        White Draw Black
        ----- ---- -----
Bird's  34    25   41
Dutch   42    30   28

```

So White scores 46.5% in Bird's Opening, while Black scores 43% in the Dutch Defense. Going purely from those numbers, it might at first seem that, yes, Bird's Opening shouldn't be so much less popular for White than the Dutch is for Black, since it scores a higher percentage than the Dutch does. But of course that ignores the fact that the Bird's players are getting to play with White, and that's important.

Looking at some overall numbers that reveal White's winning percentage in different eras of chess play, we see that it sits somewhere in the range of 52.16% to 55.47%. Seen in that light, the Dutch's winning percentage of 43% for Black shows it to be a respectable, if perhaps slightly inferior, opening choice (and that seems to match its general reputation). But Bird's Opening comes out looking terrible, as its 46.5% winning percentage is well below that typical White range. So that is rather weighty empirical evidence that Bird's Opening fails to live up to what White's expectations should be, while the Dutch offers about the chances that Black should reasonably expect, and that is why the latter is significantly more popular than the former.

One crude way to think about the issue is this. The move `1. ... f5` in response to `1. d4` doesn't seem to be objectively best, but Black already starts off with a disadvantage anyway, and one thing this move can accomplish is unbalancing and complicating the game in an attempt to wrest away the typical persistent advantage that the first move can give White. On the other hand, because of the advantage that White comes to the table with, he has more to lose, and `1. f4` accomplishes that unnecessarily.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I personally play 1. f4 quite a lot, and as with EVERY opening, White gains and loses something with his first move. The pros are that White can clamp down even tighter on the e5-square from the get-go and possibly save tempos with not having to navigate Nf3. The downsides are that this move is committal (not a terrible thing, just that White has immediately committed himself to a stake on the kingside) and he has less piece development available to him with move 1 than other moves, such as 1. e4 or 1. d4. In addition, he has slightly weakened his king's position, so these are factors to note.

A GM I used to study under called Bird's Opening a "defensive" opening. It is not necessarily a bad opening, just that it does not claim as much opening advantage as a more central pawn push would do. However, for what it lacks, it is a fully playable opening with PLENTY of room for exploration.

One big advantage to this opening is being in your own territory, as Taylor claims. A Bird player has an advantage of playing on his own turf, and a Black player who coasts along with "auto-pilot" moves can find themselves in hot water. White has TONS of room for exploring ideas, and with a lack of Game Explorer, the Black player is left to his own devices.

All in all, 1. f4 in the hands of a knowledgeable White player leads to a fun game.

With that being said, I also play the Dutch, and yes, the theory handles easier on the Black side than it does on the White side. A Birdie should not handle these positions identically to their Black counterparts, as the tempo does make a difference.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You're all missing a rather obvious point. An f5 setup by black is strongest when white plays d4, weakening his e4 square (which f5 of course attacks). In the Dutch, black already KNOWS white has played d4, so there is already strategic logic in the reply. However in Bird's, white is committing to f4 quite speculatively and black can if he wishes avoid d5, often making the f4 advance rather less useful (while still having the inherent risks). This is the main (positional) reason the Dutch is preferred to Bird's, and indeed is slightly stronger than it: it is reacting to an already-created weakness rather than attacking one that isn't even there yet...

# Answer
> 2 votes
There may be a psychological element. My impression is that 1.f4 is often played by weaker players, just to avoid the main line "book" that they fear from a strong opponent (although I dont want to impute that motive to anyone here). On the other hand, I think that 1..f5 is often played by strong opponents to prevent a weak White player from playing it safe.

---
Tags: opening, dutch-defense, birds-opening
---


title: Lockheed draw rules

text:
# Question
Title: Lockheed draw rules
I recently played Lichess game that left me confused.

My opponent had 1 second left on the clock when the game was suddenly drawn. There was no repitition nor was the 50-move rule invoked. Did the program cheat me?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This was a draw by threefold repetition.

The final position:

```
6k1/pp1r2p1/2n4p/3p4/3P4/1BP1R3/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 19 37

```

had been repeated three times in the game.

It first appeared after `32. ... Kg8`, then after `34. ... Nc6` and finally after `36. ... Nc6`.

Although players normally have to claim a draw by threefold repetition manually, Lichess performs the claim automatically if the time left on their clock is below some predefined threshold. Since your opponent only had 1 second left, this is likely what happened.

---
Tags: rules, draw
---


# Question
Title: Why don't chess tournament organisers use top-down camera angles?
I don't watch chess tournaments because it is such a poor experience. The live stream of the players showcases the board at an angle and I struggle to see what is going on.

Meanwhile, the digital image of the board that is usually also there is often behind the actual game. In classic, maybe not a big deal, but it's a dealbreaker for blitz and rapid.

Why don't chess tournaments solve this issue by using a top-down camera angle? It's not hard to extend the camera down from a pole attached to the roof, or you can even use a camera connected to a flexible cable which you can extend and then curve downwards, kind of like on a lamp:

This would then give the following much more clear viewing experience:

Obviously you'd use a high quality camera, and you also need to use pieces which are more easily distinguishable from a top-down view, which are both minor changes, that could lead to great improvement.

# Answer
I see a couple of reasons not to do this:

1. It's a lot harder to distinguish the pieces. For example, bishops and pawns look really similar, and the black queen and king look similar too.
2. When you watch a game as an on-site spectator, you don't view it top-down either. Even better: the players *themselves* don't view the board top-down, but from an angle.
3. Video streams are often accompanied by a live analysis board, which *is* top-down and offers much more (the remaining time for both players, the evaluation of the current position and the best lines according to a strong engine). A top-down video stream would basically duplicate this.

They can, as you say, be a little out-of-sync with the video (on a slow connection, the live board can be even faster because of buffering) but that seems (to me) like a better problem to tackle. Maybe the next generation of livestreams will be able to do this?

The lamp standard in your picture would rather annoy me as a player, but hanging from the ceiling (like some other lamps) would bypass that particular problem.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: tournament, online
---


title: Introduction to the Sicilian

text:
# Question
Title: Introduction to the Sicilian
I am trying to work on my openings and start playing the Sicilian as a response to 1. e4 but I am slightly overwhelmed by the huge amounts of resources available. I am rated around 1850 FIDE and I mainly play the French as a response to 1. e4 and the Gruenfeld as a response to 1. d4.

What would be a good resource for a player of my level to get used to the Sicilian? My goal is not to get an extensive knowledge of the opening, I just want to play/become familiar with a few variations, i.e. the Najdorf, the Sveshnikov and the 3. Bb5+ variation after d6

# Answer
> 9 votes
There's no known recipe that works for everyone for how to approach the Sicilian (or any new opening) as a newcomer to the opening, but it definitely helps if you concretize your target even more than what you've described in the OP. To do that, you might find the following **general** considerations helpful, specially given that Sicilian is a vast and rich system in opening theory:

## **Mindset and approach:**

* Find players whose approach to employing the Sicilian suits your style, in terms of: the type of play (closed, open, sharp), depth of needed theory, whether it's midgame or endgame oriented etc, and study their games (e.g. Kasparov's games).
* When studying such games, for at least the first 10 moves, constantly ask yourself what the purpose of each move is in theory (for the move order you're trying to learn), and if you find the point of a move goes over your head, follow through a few variations with the engine *with* and *without* that move and see what repercussions it has on the ensuing variations.
* Even more important than understanding specific moves, try to learn what the underlying plan of the particular Sicilian variation you're studying is, this really cannot be emphasized enough. Once you know what the line aims to achieve from a strategic point of view (e.g. is it to create an isolated pawn structure, is it to establish a permanent knight post in the centre, is it to trade bishops or keep bishop pair, etc), making sense of the moves and the ensuing play becomes much easier to grasp.
* Once your particular type of Sicilian system (Kan, Sveshnikov, Dragon, Taimanov, etc) is decided, then you can focus your resources on that system and your search becomes much more meaningful.
* Once you get a grip of the basic ideas behind the system of choice, start carving your own version of the system, personalize it according to the kinds of positions you feel comfortable playing and where your skills lie (middlegame, tactical, strategic, endgame player etc), and in that regard learn the relevant transpositions, while always checking your new ideas with an engine.
* Keep practicing your developed system, 1-2 two blitz games won't cut it, you need to play many many games until the concepts start to sink in and you form a good intuition for the opening. Keep analysing each game irrespective of the outcome, go back to the opening stage and find improvements.
* A training exercise that is often quite helpful is to: play the opening lines you're trying to master in your head without any visual aid (board, phone) against yourself, e.g. when on a commute or during a nice walk. When playing blindfolded against yourself, saying the moves helps a lot to remember the position (that is, literally saying to yourself `Nc3`, `d5`, etc).

## **Tools for the learning process:**

* To keep a clear note of the ideas you learn along the way for each line and move order, **create a study** on lichess and fill it up with annotations and arrows, and go over these studies to review and brush up on what you've learnt every now and then.
* Similarly, create a study for the personalized system you start building for yourself. These studies can be made private, and of course they will always be work in progress as you will regularly update them with any new finding. For more on lichess studies see also this post.
* To explore opening lines and try new ideas, use the opening explorer on lichess (and many other available ones online) with the Stockfish cloud engine active in the background, **play through the lines** and cross check your ideas with the engine.
* There exists various **video series** on the Sicilian, e.g. on chess24 see here (for instance the Taimanov one by Robin van Kampen has become quite well reviewed).
* **Other online resources:** Check out the content on various chess youtube channels, e.g. ChessExplained or ChessNetwork, they provide very clear commentary as they play or analyse games, and they both frequently play the Sicilian too. And of course the wonderful lectures by Yasser Seirawan, e.g. on the Pin variation or the Accelerated Dragon.
* Last but not least, **books, books, books!** They still remain the best resources in chess. There are plenty written on the Sicilian too (e.g. see the recommendations by Chris), find one author and book level that matches your taste and get started! Reading chess books is almost always an interactive process, where either you're pausing to calculate something blindfolded, or setting up a board and going through some variation discussed in the book. Generally, they're not read cover to cover, and specially if they are extensively covering something, such as *Endgames in chess*, or *Pawn structures*, you will be jumping around the book frequently to read up on the bits that currently are relevant for your improvement. Remember that there's no one book that is the best, these things are always subjective to our preferences, so try to explore and find one that you like and read up patiently ;)

# Answer
> 4 votes
If you start playing the Sicilian, I wouldn't recommend to become familiar with Najdorf and Sveshnikov. Both are very complex openings and it takes a huge amount of time to get familiar even with the main lines in both of them.

Apart, I can recommend several things: 1.) To get familiar with plans more then variations, the best thing is to analyse games from strong players who plays Najdorf/Sveshnikov. For Najdorf I can recommend to take a look at a number of Vachier-Lagraves games.

2.) A good book for 1800-1900 is usually the Starting Out Najdorf book from Richard Palliser. It's not really up to date, but I think below 2200 that doesn't really matter and gaining an understanding of the structures and the positions is much more important.

3.) Another good resource for the Najdorf is the PowerPlay DVD from Daniel King. He also has a quite good DVD for anti Sicilians.

4.) One of the best Sveshnikov books is the quite old "Sveshnikov Reloaded" from Dorian Rogozenko.

That are more or less the resources I can recommend based on the given information. Be aware, that Bb5+ variation after d6 doesn't help you much if you want to play the Sveshnikov.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are great answers to your question already, but to give you a concrete opening advice, you can look into the Kalashnikov variation (Nc6 with e5).

Why is that a good choice:

* you don't need much theory - just learn the ideas from any of the good players who are playing this opening
* you develop your pieces very fast securing you a full game where you cannot instantly lose and can later outplay the opponent
* the position is very unbalanced (your weak d5 square) - which is typically the case in Sicilian. You cannot evaluate the position statically but the dynamics of ideas will mainly influence the result
* Unlike the Sveshnikov where many completely different kind of positions can arise, here you reach about three position types in any case

# Answer
> 0 votes
> Had I not played the Sicilian with Black I could have saved myself the trouble of studying for more than 20 years all the more popular lines of this opening, which comprise probably more than 25 percent of all published opening theory! \- Bent Larsen

# Answer
> 0 votes
The main question is whether or not the Sicilian is a better fit for your style of play. The French is a perfectly viable opening up to GM level. If it's working for you why spend all the time to learn something else?

If I were learning the Sicilian from scratch I would start with some of the simpler lines like the Qb6 lines, 4 knights, Kan or the Nimzo, work on the anti-Sicilians, before trying to tackle something like the Najdorf. Honestly, if you're older than 5 and not a professional, you probably don't have the time to spend learning the Najdorf and even if you did I'm not sure it would be worth it.

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