# Question
Title: Is there any android app or software that allow me to create my own chess puzzle so I can solve or study it later on?
I want to improve my tactics skills; is there any Android app or software that allows me to create my own chess puzzle so I can solve or study it later on?

# Answer
LiChess or Chess.com have apps accessible to Android, in which you can find an analysis board and study from there. You can save the boards as well until further use.

Plus, there are a lot of features, such as finishing game with computer, analysis from engine etc.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I recommend my own chess puzzle editor https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzle/editor.php

On this long page with many links https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzles/ you can get an idea for what kind of puzzles my editor can create.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, puzzles, android
---


title: A mobility puzzle

text:
# Question
Title: A mobility puzzle
```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/pp6/kp6/1p6/1K6 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

This is a well-known position: both sides are stalemated (if it's their move). It's the lightest position with this property.

Devise the lightest positions where *each* piece of each side has exactly n moves. (So this would be n=0, you may go up to n=8, which is of course solved by putting only the kings into the free field.)

"Lightest" is defined in the standard way: first piece count, rather pawns than figures, rather black than white.

Experts, please hold you back, it's a very easy puzzle. :-)

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is true that for larger numbers of moves it becomes easier. From the following solutions, the ones from n=2 to n=8 are clearly optimal. The solution for n=1 looks good, but it may not be optimal.

### All pieces have 1 move

```
[FEN "8/8/8/1pp5/8/K7/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]

```

### 2 moves (found by ghilesZ)

```
[FEN "2k5/K1p5/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

### 3 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/K7/2k5 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

### 4 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/K7/8/2k5 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

### 5 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/K7/8/3k4 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

### 6 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/1K6/3k4/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

### 7 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1K6/8/3k4/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

### 8 moves

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1K6/8/4k3/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, puzzles, records, mathematics
---


title: Is castling bad in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Is castling bad in chess?
One of my chess opponents said that he doesn't think castling is good because the king is in the corner and it is easy to checkmate. However, many articles and books suggest that I castle early when I get a chance. Why is castling a good move in chess?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Castling is generally a good move because it gets your king out of the center in the early and mid game. The center is contested in the early and middle game. The classical idea behind controlling the center is that with more space to place pieces and maneuver, that player has a positional advantage that can transform into a tactical advantage if their opponent plays imprecisely. Getting the king away from tactics and scary pieces is a good way to avoid getting checkmated. Once those scary pieces have been traded off, the king is best placed in the center where it is often the most powerful piece of the endgame.

It's true that the king is easier to checkmate in the corner, but the king is also easier to defend in the corner.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess is a game of specific posiitons more than one of general principles. Normally, kings are safer in the corner because players want to fight for the center, so it's not a good idea to have the king in the middle of the action. But this doesn't mean that a castled king will always be safer than one in the center or vice-versa

---
Tags: castling
---


# Question
Title: Up to which rating is my strategy in the opening is applicable?
I don't want to waste time on opening preparation. By this, I mean that I don't want to have to understand/memorize the moves or the typical plans in the middlegame. I just want to develop my pieces, castle the king, and connect the rooks. From there, I wish to wing it, try not to blunder anything, and look out for tactics. Is this enough to reach 2000ELO?

# Answer
This is an opinion based question as there is no way to know. For Bobby Fischer it might have been, but I met Bobby and know that he memorized all the openings.

Would it work for you?
My tournament experience says no.
These days there are too many people memorizing everything along with all the better training for tactics than when I learned.

Your more likely ceiling would be 1500, with possibly 1700 *IF* you were really good.

After that, positional play would start to be a factor and by 2000 most players would beat you with traps, better/deeper tactics, or positional play.

And since they do know the openings they would come out of most of them with an edge in position as well as the initiative. So just routine play would give them the edge to win if they were at 2000 already. And if they do not beat you in the middle game with strategy then they will win in the endgame because they are far better than lower rated players at endgames.

If you want to make even uscf 2000 let alone ELO 2000 you will have to specialize in ONE opening for white and one for black and become so familiar with them that you do not need to memorize them as the moves will be obvious because you do understand them. And you will have to be totally fluent with ALL tactical motifs and recognize them in different game settings.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Whereas the question is very opinionated, I assure you this might strongly depend on the player type. (See the recent book of Müller/Engel.) I had a peak ELO of 2350, clobbering a lot of grandmasters on a good day, and this without any concrete opening knowledge. (Sometimes I even invented a new line ten years before it was played in GM praxis, but those ganeffs never give me any credit :-) Your minimum needs: a good intuition and keen tactics. But woe, in the time of computer outpreparation, it probably doesn't work anymore. Especially if you "don't want to know the plans". You won't get away with *that*. (Imagine just trading all pieces in the Ruy Lopez Exchange.)
> 7 votes

# Answer
It is not enough. I think you have to respond to your opponent's play. Try to prevent what they are trying to do is the best way, even though you do not have a plan.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Personally, I am 1845 ELO and I have not deeply studied any particular openings. Regarding my middle game, I know some basic tactics (grab any hanging pieces, look for weaknesses, gain space, keep your pieces safe etc) and nothing too complex. however, I would recommend doing only 1 opening i all your games and master that opening to the point where you could create your own traps. However, I would not go as far as to say that you should spend time learning particular traps.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It really depends on whether you're really able to not blunder anything. Surprisingly, it is not so straightforward as it seems. Yet, if you really manage to play like this, I believe 2000 elo is possible.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Why is e5 the strongest move here for white?
```
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/pp1pp2p/2p2ppn/q7/2BPP3/5N1P/PPPN1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 3 8"]

```

I'm a noob at chess, as I just started playing a week back. I played as White here, and Stockfish recommended e5 as the next move. I understand the correct move for Black would be f5 after I play e5, but just in case black plays fxe5, I'd have to take that pawn with dxe5. So Black lost a side pawn in exchange for my center pawn and my pawn on d4 got stuck alone on e5 and will be easier to kill rather than a pawn chain. What am I missing here in this move being the strongest move at this position? It cannot be queened since d6/d7 is coming. What does this do apart from just threatening the Black pawn, from going d6/d7, and breaking black into 2 pawn islands?

# Answer
> 14 votes
You've given some good, very long-term reasons not to play e5. But in this position, dynamic considerations outweigh these long-term reasons.

Look again at the position: you have developed (if you have not encountered this term before, it means moving your pieces from their starting squares so they can participate in the game) two knights, a bishop, and castled. Your opponent has developed a queen and a knight, and hasn't castled. In other words, you are well ahead in development. It's for this reason Stockfish already says your position is very strong - SF 11 is giving +3 eval at depth 22.

A lead in development is usually a signal to attack - you have more pieces that can attack than your opponent can defend. Therefore you want to attack in this position. You want open lines so your major pieces can infiltrate, and you definitely want to do this before your opponent completes their development and castles. e5 does that. Follow what Stockfish gives as the principal variation after e5.

```
[fen "rnb1kb1r/pp1pp2p/2p2ppn/q7/2BPP3/5N1P/PPPN1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 3 8"]

1. e5 f5 {You also mention 1...fxe5, but this move would be even worse since after 2.dxe5 White can now play Ne4-d6+. If Black plays ...exd6 then the King would be on an open file and perish quickly, but if Black plays ...Kd8, Bxh6 followed by Nf7+ still wins material. Stockfish even wants to play 2.b4 Qxb4 3. Rb1, sacrificing a pawn to develop even faster, illustrating how much attacking potential White has.} 2. Bb3 {Threatening Nc4-d6 with the same plan as the analysis in the previous move. Note White can also play on the kingside with Ng5 or in the center with Re1 intending e6.} Nf7 3. Nc4 Qd8 {"Undeveloping" the Queen. Black could play ...Qc7 but at this point Black needs first and foremost to guard against White's attack. Still, having to undevelop the Queen shows just how awful Black's position is.} 4. Ng5 {Knight's defended by the c1-Bishop.} e6 {Or what? White threatens Nc4-d6+. If Black plays ...Nxd6, then exd6 would threaten both Bf7# and Nf7 winning material. 4...Nxg5? Bxg5 simply threatens Nd6+ winning the Queen, and 5...Bg7 6. Nd6+ Kf8 7. Nf7 still wins material. Black has to block the a2-g8 diagonal.} 5. Nxf7 Kxf7

```

Black's kingside looks like Swiss cheese and White has many promising ideas such as Nd6+ (effectively forces Bxd6) followed by Bh6, Qf3 intending g4 to pry open Black's pawn shield, etc. Either way, White is attacking, and the position is one where long-term pawn structure is not important.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think the (already good) answer left out a very concrete important point. White has a scary lead in development. Standard plan: rip open a few lines and massacre the king who is a sitting duck in the center. Of course Black has a plan too: run for the hills. Castle short: only possible after e6, but the kingside looks like Swiss cheese. Or d5, which is the lesser evil, with a backward e pawn. Thus my plan would be d6, Bd7, Na6, keep the center closed and praying to the deity of choice. After e5, both plans are scrap: d6 or d5 always leads to exd and the opening of the e line. The best continuation for Black might be b5, Bb7, Na6, O-O-O. His position is atrocious. Yet, he would gladly exchange it against the one after d5 or d6, if he had the move. Thus, e5 is not only attacking, but also prophylaxis.

---
Tags: analysis, pawns, pawn-structure, doubled-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Software for reading aloud the moves of a chess games in Arena or SCID vs PC
I have just downloaded the **Arena** and **SCID vs PC** GUI clients. Both seem wonderful and work seamlessly with most of the chess engines like Rybka and Stockfish. I can't wait to get started by analysing the chess games of the masters.

I also have a physical chess board, and would like to play out such games by having someone sound out the moves: for each move read out by the "voice-assistant", I would move the pawn or piece to the appropriate square. This help me with drilling the coordinates of the 64 squares down into bones and improve my chess visualization. Besides I am also quite a tactile learner.

Sure, I can read the moves and then move the relevant piece with my hand, but that seems too distracting to look back and forth between the board and the screen.

Having some sort of "extension" (just like in Firefox) to **Arena** or **SCID vs PC** that can read of the moves of a game recorded in PGN, one-by-one (which can be paused at the press of a key) could be immensely valuable. Does anyone here know of software that has this built in? Or possibly any hacks? (Other than having my dad read out the moves of course...haha.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Scid vs Pc offers Speak-out-moves. Assuming Version 4.21. (latest at the time of writing)

* Go to `Options` `Sounds`
* Under **Move announcement**, tick from the list what you want. For eg. **Announce new moves** will speak out loud the new moves on board.

For a basic installation, the **Sounds folder** must be chosen (on top of **Move Announcement**). For that, Scid offers a set of sound files. To download and call use it with Scid,

* Go to support files
* Choose and download `sounds.tgz`
* Put it in your Scid vs Pc installation folder. For eg. `C:/Scid vs Pc/lib`.
* Extract `sounds.tgz` file which contains `sounds.tar`. Extract `sounds.tar` that contains `sounds` folder.
* In the Scid vs Pc gui, under `Options` `Sounds` *Sounds Folder*, choose `C:/Scid vs Pc/lib/sounds`.

Restart Scid vs Pc and you will be good to go.

---
Tags: software, scid, arena
---


# Question
Title: Are there statistics on the results of armageddon games at the GM level?
I've tried finding statistics on the results of competitive armageddon games played at a high level (say, GM level), but to no avail. Evidently, these statistics must exist, as for example FIDE changed the time controls in the official rules from 6 minutes-5 minutes to 5 minutes-4 minutes in preparation for the Carlsen-Karjakin WC match (thus indicating that they felt that 6-5 gave black too much of an advantage compared to 5-4).

Basically, does white really have a ~50% win rate in GM-level armageddon chess games?

# Answer
> 12 votes
The earliest Armageddon games I can find go back to the Women's World Chess Championship 2001, and the FIDE World Championship in 2002, which GM Ruslan Ponomariov won. This is probably a fairly complete list since Armageddon really only lends itself to knock-out tournaments or matches, and the question did ask primarily about GMs and Armageddon. There might be the occasional country championship that goes to tiebreaker, which I did not find, similar to when GM Irina Krush lost to IM Anna Zatonskih in 2008 for the U.S. Women’s Championship in a controversial finish.

So, while these stats may not be 100% complete, they can give a good idea about the overall statistics.

I am amazed by the results of this: Out of the 48 games I found, 24 were 1-0, 15 were 0-1, and 9 were ½-½. If you look at that both the 0-1 and ½-½ count as wins for black, then the result was exactly 24-24. Seemingly quiet a fair tiebreaker system.

Here is the data I used to compile this estimate.

FIDE World Chess Championship 2002

This was the only FIDE World Championship to use Armageddon during the period of when Kasparov broke off with the title until it was unified in 2006. Prior to this, in 1998 and 2000, they continued playing additional blitz games, and in 2005, FIDE reverted to a double-round-robin tournament.

GM Zoltan Gyimesi defeated GM Stuart Conquest 4-3 in round one. Gyimesi had white 1-0. GM Emil Sutovsky defeated GM Alonso Zapata 4-3 in round one. Sutovsky had white 1-0. GM Lazaro Bruzon defeated GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu 4-3 in round one. Bruzon had white 1-0. GM Jaan Ehlvest defeated GM Ilia Smirin 4-3 in round three. Ehlvest had white 1-0. GM Alexey Shirov defeated GM Veselin Topalov 4-3 in round four. Shirov had black 0-1.

Chess World Cup 2005

GM Yuri Shulman defeated GM Vadim Zvjaginsev 3.5-3.5 in round one. Shulman had black ½-½. GM Predrag Nikolić defeated GM David Navara 3.5-3.5 in round one. Nikolić had black ½-½. GM Sergey Erenburg defeated GM Zviad Izoria 4-3 in round one. Erenburg had black 0-1. GM Evgeniy Najer defeated GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 4-3 in round two. Najer had white 1-0. GM Yuri Shulman defeated GM Vadim Zvjaginsev 3.5-3.5 in round two. Shulman had black ½-½. GM Sergei Tiviakov defeated GM Oleg Korneev 4-3 in round two. Tiviakov had white 1-0. GM Loek van Wely defeated GM Alexander Moiseenko 4-3 in round two. van Wely had white 1-0.

Chess World Cup 2007

GM Michael Roiz defeated GM Varuzhan Akobian 4-3 in round one. Roiz had white 1-0. GM Konstantin Sakaev defeated GM Nikita Vitiugov 4-3 in round one. Sakaev had black 0-1. GM Zhou Jianchao defeated GM Andrei Volokitin 4-3 in round two. Zhou had white 1-0. GM Kiril Georgiev defeated GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov 4-3 in round two. Georgiev had white 1-0.

Chess World Cup 2009

This year, by some accounts a mistake, the tiebreaker was changed to four rapid games, then up to five pairs of blitz games, and only then, Armageddon. Not surprising, but there were no Armageddon games, however, GM Varuzhan Akobian did defeat GM Pavel Tregubov 9-7, just one game short of Armageddon.

Chess World Cup 2011

Starting this year, they went back to the previous tiebreak format, but with two shorter 10+10 rapid games added after the 25+10 rapids. GM Yuri Drozdovskij defeated GM Alexander Motylev 5-4 in round one. Drozdovskij had white 1-0. GM Leinier Domínguez Perez defeated GM Igor Lysyj 5-4 in round three. Domínguez Perez had white 1-0.

Chess World Cup 2013

GM Evgeny Tomashevsky defeated GM Alejandro Ramírez 5-4 in round one. Tomashevsky had white 1-0. GM Julio Granda defeated GM Hrant Melkumyan 5-4 in round one. Granda had black 0-1. GM Daniil Dubov defeated GM Ruslan Ponomariov 5-4 in round two. Dubov had white 1-0.

Chess World Cup 2015

GM Gabriel Sargissian defeated GM Mateusz Bartel 4.5-4.5 in round one. Sargissian had black ½-½. GM Michael Adams defeated GM Viktor Láznička 5-4 in round two. Adams had white 1-0. GM Hikaru Nakamura defeated GM Ian Nepomniachtchi 5-4 in round three. Nakamura had black 0-1.

Chess World Cup 2017

GM Levon Aronian defeated GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave 5-4 in the semi-finals. Aronian had white 1-0.

Chess World Cup 2019

GM Anish Giri defeated GM Evgeniy Najer 5-4 in round two. Giri had black 0-1. GM Yu Yangyi defeated GM Nikita Vitiugov 5-4 in the quarter-finals. Yu had white 1-0.

Women's World Chess Championship 2001

Note: I could not confirm the format with 100% accuracy. I am reasonably guessing that this used the same format as the men, and the women in 2008, which I could confirm. In addition, the brackets had the 4-3 results as in the men’s tournaments.

GM Zhu Chen defeated GM Maia Chiburdanidze 4-3 in the semi-finals. (no data)

Women's World Chess Championship 2004

GM Peng Zhaoqin defeated IM Joanna Dworakowska 4-3 in round one. Pend had black 0-1. WGM Ketino Kachiani defeated WGM Nguyễn Thị Thanh An 3.5-3.5 in round one, Ketino Kachiani had black ½-½.
IM Tatjana Vasilevich defeated WGM Xu Yuanyuan 4-3 in round one. Vasilevich had black 0-1. IM Lilit Mkrtchian defeated then WGM Monika Soćko 4-3 in round one. Mkrtchian had white 1-0. Then WGM Kateryna Lagno defeated then untitled Ekaterina Atalik 4-3 in round two. Lagno had black 0-1.

Women's World Chess Championship 2006

None.

Women's World Chess Championship 2008

IM Elisabeth Pähtz defeated WGM Ilaha Kadimova 4-3 in round one. Pähtz had white 1-0. GM Monika Soćko defeated WGM Sabina-Francesca Foisor 4-3 in round one. Soćko had white 1-0.

Women's World Chess Championship 2010

Then IM Harika Dronavalli defeated then IM Mariya Muzychuk 4-3 in round three. Harika had black 0-1 (on time in a lost position!).

Women's World Chess Championship 2012

This was the first year of the extended tiebreaker with the rapid 10+10 games added. Then IM Mariya Muzychuk defeated WGM Cristina Adela Foișor 4.5-4.5. Muzychuk had black ½-½.

Women's World Chess Championship 2015

GM Tatiana Kosintseva defeated WGM Mary Ann Gomes 5-4 in round one. Kosintseva had black 0-1. Then WGM Aleksandra Goryachkina defeated IM Lilit Mkrtchian 5-4 in round one. Goryachkina had white 1-0.

Women's World Chess Championship 2017

IM Anastasia Bodnaruk defeated WGM Mitra Hejazipour 5-4 in round one. Bodnaruk had white 1-0. GM Tan Zhongyi defeated GM Anna Ushenina 4.5-4.5 in round two. Zhongyi had black ½-½. IM Nino Khurtsidze defeated then IM Nino Batsiashvili 5-4 in round two. Khurtsidze had black 0-1. GM Tan Zhongyi defeated GM Harika Dronavalli 5-4 in the semi-finals. Tan had black 0-1.

Women's World Chess Championship 2018

GM Kateryna Lagno defeated WGM Natalia Pogonina 5-4 in round three. Lagno had white 1-0.

US Women’s Championship 2008

Then IM Anna Zatonskih defeated IM Irina Krush 3-2. Zatonskih was black, and white flagged, 0-1.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/us-women-s-armageddon-reactions-from-our-readers

World Chess Armageddon Series 2019

Nepomniachtchi -Karjakin 0-1 Radjabov-Karjakin ½-½ Radjabov-Dubov 1-0 Radjabov-Kramnik ½-½

https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2019-world-chess-armageddon-series

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just wanted to augment the excellent answer above with some further examples:

Smirin vs Anand, 1994, 0-1

Mamedyarov vs Lputian, 2004, 1-0

Ye Jiangchuan vs Ni Hua, 2004, 1-0

G. Sargissian vs Tiviakov, 2004, 0-1

Radjabov vs P.H. Nielsen, 2004, 1-0

L. Dominguez vs V. Malakhov, 2004, 1-0

Hamdouchi vs Kudrin, 2004, 1-0

P. Smirnov vs Aronian, 2004, 1-0

Dreev vs Sakaev, 2004, 1-0

Ni Hua vs Vladimirov, 2004, 1-0

Nisipeanu vs Kharlov, 2004, 0-1

L. Dominguez vs Radjabov, 2004, ½-½

Anand vs Nakamura, 2015, 0-1

Aronian vs Vachier-Lagrave, 2017, 1-0

Paikidze vs A. Wang, 2018, 1-0

Karjakin vs Giri, 2019, 1-0

Aronian vs Yu Yangyi, 2019, ½-½

Vachier-Lagrave vs Mamedyarov, 2019, 0-1

Harikrishna vs Karjakin, 2019, ½-½

Dubov vs Nakamura, 2020, 1-0

Carlsen vs Firouzja, 2020, 1-0

Caruana vs Carlsen, 2020, 0-1

Aronian vs Carlsen, 2020, 0-1

Nakamura vs Carlsen, 2020, 0-1

So vs Vachier-Lagrave, 2020, ½-½

Nepomniachtchi vs Radjabov, 2020, ½-½

Carlsen vs Dubov, 2021, 1-0

Giri vs van Foreest, 2021, 0-1

Mamedyarov vs Nakamura, 2021, 0-1

This adds 24 examples of which the results for White are +14 -10 =5. Combining this with PhishMaster's +24 -15 =9 and Ellie's examples (+6 -1 =2) we arrive at +44 -26 =16 or, with Black's draw odds, **44-42 in favour of White**. Therefore, the tiebreaker seems pretty balanced but if anything, actually slightly advantages White.

(As an aside, Carlsen's record is Armageddon in the games we have assembled so far is 12-1.)

# Answer
> -1 votes
The answer is no, as theere is data. But it has not even been aggregated. Nobody is known to have done meaningful statistics on that data.

Armageddon is somewhat arbitrary as it tries to balance the effect of time versus the probability that black could draw or win so as to have a definitive play off winner instead of a long long string of drawn games.

But it is still a stretch to say that it truly represents the 'winner' of a tournament or a match at a much longer time control.

---
Tags: tournament, statistics, time-control, blitz, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: How to proceed after declined Queen's Gambit?
I am a intermediate-level player. How can I proceed after a declined Queen's Gambit, as White?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are multiple options here. I'm not sure what you mean by "an intermediate player", so the amount of specific lines you'd like to study can differ. I'll focus instead on types of pawn structures and middlegames you can reach. Let's take the reference position **1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6**, even though there are different move orders available:

Black will sometimes play an eventual ...c5. This can lead to two types of pawn structures: the Semi-Tarrasch type, where you get pawns on e4 and d4 (see for instance **3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4**). This often leads to a comfortable position for White due to his superiority in the center and not enough counterplay chances for Black to compensate for it. Here you have an example from top level players.. This line has some similarities with the Grünfeld Defence (see **1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3**), but I'd say Black has more chances in the Grünfeld. In my opinion you should try to reach this pawn structure as often as possible.

Another typical pawn structure that is often reached is one with an isolated "d" pawn. You'll probably play both with and against that isolated pawn in several occasions, you that's also something you may want to get familiar with. chess.com has an article about it that you may want to check out Note that this structure can also be reached when the Queen's Gambit is accepted.

Then there's the "minority attack" type of game. This happens when you capture on d5 and your opponent retakes with his "e" pawn but ...c6 has been played instead of ...c5. Here you can play on the queenside trying to get your semi-open "c" file fully open. I'm not really well-versed here so I'll let someone else choose an illustrative example by editting this answer.

Finally, there are some lines where Black will enter some variation of the Slav Defence (with ...c6). I don't know how well you know the lines after **1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6** and your preferred move choice can chance according to that. For instance, you can try **3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3** so now you can answer to **4...c6** with **5.Nbd2!?** if that's the particular line you enjoy against the Slav (here your plan would be to make a quick e4 push). But if you're not interested in playing that then you may prefer **3.Nc3**. There are several lines you can choose from and plenty of transpositions between them.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Matthew Sadler's book Queen's Gambit Declined has received very high and widespread praise. Again it depends what you mean by "intermediate", but the book contains a ton of instructive games, and its clear and deep discussions of ideas should be helpful to players of a wide range of strengths.

---
Tags: gambits, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: I'm struggling to find the full solution of a chess problem
I'm starting to think that this puzzle, found on chess.com here in the 5th post down, does not have a correct full solution. But it features a nice line if Black moves wrongly, so judge by yourself.

```
[Title "White to move and win"]
[FEN "8/8/7B/K7/8/7p/4Bkp1/6Rb w - - 0 1"]

```

I think I have found the first move, after which black has two options, and I have found the solution for one of the two:

> 1.Ba6 Kxg1 2.Be3+ Kh2 3.Bf4+ Kg1 4.Bg3 h2 5.Kb5 $3 Kf1 6.Kc5+ Kg1 7.Kc4 Kf1 8.Kd4+ Kg1 9.Kd3 Kf1 10.Ke3+ Kg1 11.Bf2#

The only problem is that black is not forced to pick this line, and could go for the other option:

> 1.Ba6 h2

In which case i'm completely stuck. I've tried using a browser version of stockfish, which can't solve it either. So does this puzzle really have a (full) solution?

# Answer
Yes, there is indeed a full solution. There is a move that you missed that wins for White after 1. Ba6!.

```
[FEN "8/8/7B/K7/8/7p/4Bkp1/6Rb w - - 0 1"]

1. Ba6 h2 2. Bf8!

```

Now, no matter what Black plays, White will play 3. Bc5 and control g1. Thus, White is able to prevent Black from obtaining a queen for long. As such, White wins as stipulated.

However, it is very understandable why one would consider the resulting position as a draw. The Shredder tablebase proves that White can squeeze out a win by slowly cutting off the Black king. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a human to even find the right ideas. Therefore, it makes sense that Stockfish can't find either, if not rather quickly. It's an easy mistake.

```
[FEN "8/8/B7/K7/8/5k2/6p1/6Bb w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb5 Kf4 2. Kc5 Ke5 3. Bc4 Ke4 4. Kd6 Kf5 5. Bb3 Kf6 6. Be6 Kg6 7. Ke5 Kg7 8. Bd5 Kg6 9. Bc4 Kg5 10. Bd3 Kg4 11. Bc2 Kg5 12. Bf5 Kh4 13. Kf6 Kh5 14. Bh3 Kh4 15. Be6 Kh5 16. Bf5 Kh4 17. Kg6 Kg3 18. Kg5 Kf3 19. Bd3 Kg3 20. Be2 Kh3 21. Bg4+ Kg3 22. Kf5 Kh4 23. Bf2#

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles
---


title: Longest sequence of forcing moves?

text:
# Question
Title: Longest sequence of forcing moves?
What is the longest fixed consecutive series of moves for one player such that the other player's response is forced every move? Assume draw rules must be obeyed (threefold repetition, 50-move rule, etc.).

---

Note that the moves are only forced for the opponent or 'forced' player; for the forc*ing* player, there is no requirement their moves be forced (as in Longest sequence of mutually forced moves). The forcing player's moves need only be a fixed predetermined sequence to which every response of the opponent is forced.

The sequence ends when a) the forced player plays their final forced response, such that whatever the forcing player does next move, the forced player will have a choice of multiple replies; or b) the game terminates (checkmate, stalemate, draw by threefold repetition, draw by 50-move rule, etc.).

# Answer
The longest sequence I have created is **3648.5 moves** long, abusing the 50-move rule to its fullest. Throughout the entire sequence, Black has only one legal move as stipulated. I can guarantee that threefold repetition is avoided all the way through. It is a very simple trick of committing to using king, knight, and bishop moves all around the board.

Firstly, we start with this position. The first step is to use up all of Black's pawn moves. Black has 11 pawn moves that can be made before they all must be captured. Each capture adds on 49.5 moves due to parity. This gives us a total of (11x50)+(49.5x3)=698.5 moves to start with.

Here is a demonstration without all of the interim moves. This shows why this calculation is made as it is.

```
[FEN "5BNk/p1p1pB2/Q1R1Rp2/5K2/8/P6P/P1PPPP1P/6N1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf3 Kh7 2. Nh4 Kh8 3. Ng6+ Kh7 4. Kf4 f5 5. Nh4 Kh8 6. Ng6+ Kh7 7. Kf3 f4 8. Nh4 Kh8 9. Kxf4 Kh7 10. Kg3 Kh8 11. Ng6+ Kh7 12. Re5 e6 13. Nh4 Kh8 14. Ng6+ Kh7 15. Re4 e5 16. Nh4 Kh8 17. Ng6+ Kh7 18. Re3 e4 19. Nh4 Kh8 20. Rxe4 Kh7 21. Re3 Kh8 22. Ng6+ Kh7 23. Rc5 c6 24. Nh4 Kh8 25. Ng6+ Kh7 26. Rc4 c5 27. Nh4 Kh8 28. Ng6+ Kh7 29. Rcc3 c4 30. Nh4 Kh8 31. Rxc4 Kh7 32. Rcc3 Kh8 33. Ng6+ Kh7 34. Qa5 a6 35. Nh4 Kh8 36. Ng6+ Kh7 37. Qa4 a5 38. Nh4 Kh8 39. Ng6+ Kh7 40. Qb5 a4 41. Nh4 Kh8 42. Qxa4

```

Now White can go crazy with promotion and sacking their pieces. With the pawns on the a to e files, White has 29 available moves. Excluding the king, queen, light-squared bishop, and f to h file pawns, White has 10 pieces to sack. This makes for a total of 698.5+((29+10)x50)=2648.5 moves.

All of these moves can be seen without all of the interim waiting.

```
[FEN "5BN1/5B1k/8/8/Q6N/P1R1R1KP/P1PPPP1P/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg4 Kh8 2. Qg5 Kh7 3. a4 Kh8 4. a5 Kh7 5. a6 Kh8 6. a7 Kh7 7. a8=Q Kh8 8. Qa6 Kh7 9. Qag6+ Kh8 10. Qh7+ Kxh7 11. a3 Kh8 12. a4 Kh7 13. a5 Kh8 14. a6 Kh7 15. a7 Kh8 16. a8=Q Kh7 17. Qe4+ Kh8 18. Qh7+ Kxh7 19. Rc6 Kh8 20. Bg7+ Kh7 21. Bh8 Kxh8 22. Ne7 Kh7 23. Nd5 Kh8 24. Rg6 Kh7 25. Rg7+ Kh8 26. Rh7+ Kxh7 27. Nf6+ Kh8 28. Nh7 Kxh7 29. c3 Kh8 30. c4 Kh7 31. c5 Kh8 32. c6 Kh7 33. c7 Kh8 34. c8=Q+ Kh7 35. Qcf5+ Kh8 36. Qh7+ Kxh7 37. d3 Kh8 38. d4 Kh7 39. d5 Kh8 40. d6 Kh7 41. d7 Kh8 42. d8=Q+ Kh7 43. Qd3+ Kh8 44. Qh7+ Kxh7 45. Re6 Kh8 46. Rg6 Kh7 47. Rg7+ Kh8 48. Rh7+ Kxh7 49. Nf5 Kh8 50. Ne7 Kh7 51. Nd5 Kh8 52. e3 Kh7 53. Nf6+ Kh8 54. Nh7 Kxh7 55. e4 Kh8 56. e5 Kh7 57. e6 Kh8 58. e7 Kh7 59. Kf4 Kh8 60. e8=Q+ Kh7 61. Qe4+ Kh8 62. Qh7+ Kxh7

```

Next, White shifts the Black king to the other side of the board. Now the remaining pieces, minus the queen, may be sacked. In total, this allows for 17 more pawn moves and one piece to sack. This brings the total to ((2+17)x50)+2648.5=3598.5.

```
[FEN "8/5B1k/8/6Q1/5K2/7P/5P1P/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf5 Kh8 2. Kf6 Kh7 3. Bh5 Kh8 4. Bg4 Kh7 5. Qh5+ Kg8 6. Be2 Kf8 7. Qh7 Ke8 8. Qg7 Kd8 9. Qf7 Kc8 10. Qe7 Kb8 11. Qd7 Ka8 12. Bb5 Kb8 13. Ke6 Ka8 14. Bc6+ Kb8 15. Ba8 Kxa8 16. f3 Kb8 17. f4 Ka8 18. f5 Kb8 19. f6 Ka8 20. f7 Kb8 21. f8=B Ka8 22. Be7 Kb8 23. Bd6+ Ka8 24. Bb8 Kxb8 25. h4 Ka8 26. h5 Kb8 27. h6 Ka8 28. h7 Kb8 29. h8=B Ka8 30. Bg7 Kb8 31. Be5+ Ka8 32. Bb8 Kxb8 33. h3 Ka8 34. h4 Kb8 35. h5 Ka8 36. h6 Kb8 37. h7 Ka8 38. h8=B Kb8 39. Be5+ Ka8 40. Bb8 Kxb8

```

Lastly, White shuffles their king around for 50 moves. The game will automatically end as a draw for a total of 3598.5+50=3648.5 moves. This is the only way to ensure that extra last play that checkmate, stalemate, or a dead position all deny.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: problems, records, forced-move
---


title: Reach this position in four moves

text:
# Question
Title: Reach this position in four moves
I recently came across this chess problem. The requirement is to reach this position (starting from a basic board set up board) in 4 moves. How do you do it?

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 1. e4 e6 2. Bb5 Ke7 3. Bxd7 c6 4. Be8 Kxe8
> 2 votes

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


title: Chess480: Why 480?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess480: Why 480?
From wiki:

> Lewis has named this chess variation "Chess480"; it follows the rules of Chess960 with the exception of the castling rules. Although a Chess480 game can start with any of 960 starting positions, the castling rules are symmetrical (whereas the Chess960 castling rules are not), so that mirror-image positions have identical strategies; thus there are only 480 effectively different positions. The number of starting positions could be reduced to 480 without losing any possibilities, for example by requiring the white king to start on a light (or dark) square.

Ok someone tell me the maths here please. Why do the castling rules make this 480 from 960?

# Answer
Consider two starting position that are each other's horizontal mirror images. Say, the normal chess starting position, and the one with king and queen reversed.

In chess 480, those two are essentially the same game, normal chess: in normal chess you can castle long with the king ending on c1, and short with the king ending on g1. In the reversed position you can castle long with the king ending on f1 and short with the king ending on b1; as a result, any position resulting from the chess starting position is equivalent to a position from the reversed chess position, every possible move and strategy has a direct reversed equivalent. They're the same.

In chess 960, in the reversed starting position, long castling still ends up with the king on c1 and short with the king on g1, and that is different from normal chess position because the queen started on e1 instead of d1.

So chess 480 has half the positions of 960 because they are pairwise equivalent due to symmetry.
> 9 votes

# Answer
In Chess960, after castling, the kings and rooks end up in the same place as they do in standard chess. That is, if white castles kingside, the king will always be on g1 and the rook will always be on f1.

In Chess480, my understanding from your quote is that if the white king starts on e1, f1, or g1, then after castling kingside, it will end on g1 and the rook will be on f1. However, if the king instead starts on b1, c1, or d1, then castling kingside is castling "long", and the king will end up on the f1 square, and the rook will end on the e1 square.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, castling, mathematics, chess960
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to be in check by three pieces?
Is it possible to be in check with three pieces? My thoughts so far:

* A normal move can't, due to the fact that you may only unblock one piece to make a discovered check, and then that piece may also threaten.
* Castling also can't, due to the fact that when you castle you can't result in check (or even move through check).
* Possibly en passant can, because you move one piece, and doing so may create a discovered check. Removing the pawn also creates a discovered check.

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to the current FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 3.9.1 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check.
>
> 3.9.2 No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

This means that one piece can move and give check and simultaneously uncover an attack from a second piece. There is no way for the moving piece to uncover two pieces attacking the king. Hence it is not possible for the king to be attacked by more than two pieces. However, it wasn't always so.

According to the 1985 version of the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 9.1 The king is in check when the square it occupies is ***attacked by one or two of the opponent's pieces***; in this case the latter is or are said to be "checking the king."
>
> 9.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following.

The limitation to being attacked by only one or two pieces means that if your king is attacked by one or two pieces and you make a move which leaves your king attacked by 3 pieces then, in 1985, this did not count as being in check.

Once this was pointed out FIDE changed the rules to stop this.

This loophole was used in 1988 to construct this wild problem, as first shared here on CSE.

```
[Title "Robert Norman, CHESS Magazine June 1988, White To Move And Win"]
[FEN "1n5k/1r6/5K2/4Q1Pb/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g6 Nd7+ 2. Kf7+ Nxe5++ 3. g7+! Kh7 4. g8=Q+ Kh6 5. Qg7#

```

Crazy as it sounds the move 3. g7+ by white is legal according to this loophole. The white king is attacked 3 times and so is not in check! The black king is attacked only once so is in check and so black must get out of check on the next move. This remains the case for all the rest of the moves.

# Answer
> 3 votes
En passant also doesn't work. You can, potentially, discover two checks, one because the capturing pawn moves off a file and one because the removed pawn unblocks a diagonal. However, you can't simultaneously discover a check via the removed pawn and give check with the capturing pawn, because the only two squares threatened by the capturing pawn are a knight's move away from the removed pawn. So if the opponent's king is on one of these squares, it is not in line with the removed pawn. Consequently at most two checks can occur (either both discovered or one discovered and one normal).

# Answer
> 1 votes
No. As you said, when you make a move, you're uncovering at most one extra line (say a diagonal or file) to attack a king.

If your one move uncovered two different lines that attack a king, that would mathematically mean that the king would have to be at the intersection of these two lines. Thus, your king was previously on the square at the intersection of these two lines. Clearly this is impossible as that would mean the king was already in check by two different pieces before the original move.

---
Tags: check, discovered-check
---


# Question
Title: Insufficient material draw on lichess.org
```
[FEN "8/8/1k5K/8/1p1N4/8/p7/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

I had KPP material and my opponent had KN. My time ran out and I lost the game. Shouldn't this have been a draw?

# Answer
> 21 votes
FIDE laws of chess: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

"6.9 Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

So as long as there is a way to checkmate the opponent, them timing out constitutes a win for a player. Which is the case here, e.g.:

```
[FEN "8/8/1k5K/8/1p1N4/8/p7/8 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1... Ka5 2. Kg5 Ka4 3. Kf4 Ka3 4. Ke3 Kb2 5. Kd2 Ka1 6.Kc1 b3 7.Nxb3#

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
well, technically you could promote to a knight or a bishop and then help your opponent checkmate you (as in Ka1, Bb1; Ka3, Nb3, or Ka1, Nb1; Kb3, Nc2). So the checkmate positions exist, I guess this is why it was not a draw. Whether this is fair or not is of course a totally different question.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is how this situation is handled on different sites:

### FIDE

In FIDE OTB games (over-the-board) the following rules apply:

* If a players flag falls, and he can be mated *anyhow*, then he loses. Otherwise it is a draw.
* In standard and rapid time controls, but not in blitz, a player can claim draw *before his flag falls*, if his opponent "can not make progress by normal means".

### Online chess

In online chess things need to happen automated. Some sites like Lichess have millions of games per day, so it would be unmanageable to have human intervention.

* All sites declare draw in the simple cases like K against K(B or N). Lichess also includes some more advanced cases like K(Q)\* against KN and K(R)\* against KB.
* No site detects all cases where mate is not possible. It is an unsolved technical challenge. All non-trivial cases where mate is not possible will incorrectly be counted as loss in online chess. That's life.
* *chess.com*, *ICC* and less frequented sites always declare draw when the player has just knight or bishop. On ICC, if a forced mate was possible, one can later claim to get the points, but not the win.
* *Lichess*, *chess24* and *schach.de* apply the above FIDE blitz rules. The above chess.com example would be a loss for white on these sites.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Under the old rules of chess, this configuration would be sufficient for a material tie to be considered. However, I believe that these rules have been updated and, while there is the possibility of checkmate, there is no way to consider the technical tie.

---
Tags: rules, draw, material
---


title: A weird way to play the Advance French?

text:
# Question
Title: A weird way to play the Advance French?
I was watching Lichess TV the other day and I saw a game between two IMs go something like this:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6 4.Nf3 f5 5.Bd3 Nh6 6.O-O Nf7

```

The computer evaluates this as something like +1.5 for White so it's technically unsound, but I think it still seems interesting. If White isn't careful it seems like Black can go for a kingside pawn storm and put White under lots of pressure, and the plans are completely different from the regular Advance French. Does this have any potential as a playable opening in shorter time controls?

# Answer
well, having seen f5 in my game, I would probably reply with h4 and then bring a knight from b1 to f4 and a rook to g3 (if necessary). I remember something like this being discussed in one of the Dvoretsky's books as a response to early f5. I don't think black has any potential of developing a king side play after that. Of course, in short time control everything is playable, especially if white is expected to premove Bd3 and 0-0
> 1 votes

---
Tags: french-defense
---


# Question
Title: How should a beginner improve gameplay speed?
I am a fairly low skill player and am wanting to improve my game, but I feel as though I need to gain at least a bit more speed in my decision making to make better progress. I am a fairly analytical person and because of this I tend to over-analyze a situation and take an extremely long time to deliberate my moves. For example, I have played casual games with friends that ended up taking 2 hours to complete mostly because of my slow-decision making. I really think if I could speed up my gameplay I'd be able to play more games in less time and see more benefit out of that. It would also mean less irritation when playing in person games, which would also be nice.

I would like to clarify that I understand speed isn't normally a main focus for beginners when compared to learning tactics and gaining a more general understanding of the game. However, in my case (and I am sure other people like me) it is a concern. I have considered many options to remedy this issue, such as trying to play with a time-limit, but I fear that may just cause me to rush and make a lot of mistakes. Would I be better off to put in more time to studying tactics and moves so that I just recognize ideal choices faster? I didn't see any questions involving the same problem and any advice here would be helpful.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You should only be spending time on a couple of candidate moves. This might shorten the thinking time if you rapidly dismiss moves that bring nothing to your position.

IM Jeremy Silman says in his book The Amateur's Mind that each move should have at least two purposes (amongst attacking, defending, gaining space, developing, gaining initiative, etc.).

You can also limit the lines you calculate to one and a half move : your move, the opponent's most likely reply, and then your next move.

I hope this helps.

# Answer
> 2 votes
When I started playing it was often the case that I lost matched due to timeouts in rapids, but with time the frequency reduced significantly. With experience you will be able to analyze the move quickly than you are able to do now. Don't worry just enjoy the game. Also, You may play more of 1 day or 3 day chess till you feel confident enough.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Everybody learns in a different way.

I found that playing at exactly ten seconds per move, which was the original speed chess standard before these digital clocks, forced me to think 20 seconds and then make a decision and move. Note you think during the opponents ten seconds as well as yours before you actually move.

My observation is that current speed chess with clocks at 10SD even with a delay is counterproductive. If you play that way then it should be closer to 15SD to a max of 30SD.

And I would suggest that G1 minute plus delay of ten seconds would be even better.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Play a lot of 5 minute games, just over and over, one right after the other, not fearing the ranking loss, just for practice. And, as you do this, plot your average wins per game. This will slowly increase! The mind will develop quick chess assessment skills only by lots of practice. The other answer above jgadory is something that will follow naturally from this.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Treat the game less serious. !!! It's only a game and since you think you are still a beginner then what's the harm. A lot of moves or combinations will become more familiar when you play more and more. Don't be afraid to make a mistake. It's only a game. Try online chess portals for rapid or blitz games. You'll see. It's fun.

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---


title: How to understand inaccuracy in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How to understand inaccuracy in chess?
Mistake and blunder are easy to understand but inaccuracy is so different, i don't have deep chess understanding to see why

# Answer
Mistakes and blunders are normally a loss of material and easy to understand. An inaccuracy is therefore a loss in the evaluation due to a positional mistake. These mistakes are mostly based on the pawn position and sometimes on piece position, although a successful side attack often involves moving the pieces to that side.

Pawns structure provides for many weaknesses and some strengths. Weaknesses are doubled pawns, backward pawns, isolated pawns, weak squares caused by pawn moves (often called holes), and lack of space due to not advancing the pawns far enough. The strengths provided by pawns are the advantage of space when they are advanced (although they can become weak if advanced too far without support) and providing support for you pieces. (You learn better if you exert yourself, so the research of these concepts should be left to you.)

Since the center is the most important portion of the board, pieces are (normally) best placed when they are controlling the center or occupy the center specifically the short-range knight. The long-range pieces can affect the board from a distance, but the rook is best in four positions: 1) on open files (files with no pawns present) to invade your opponent's position, 2) on your seventh rank to harass the opponent's pawns, 3) behind pawns to support your own or harass your opponent's pawns, and 4) any position where you attack some weakness to encourage an opponent's piece to become passive/defensive.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Queen versus rook endgame: to check or not to check?
Most tutorials the K+Q versus K+R endgame claim that at some stage, the key is to force the rook away from the king, then it is supposed to be easy: give a series of checks and fork/skewer the rook.

However, when training with computer, it turns out that it's a bit more subtle. For example, I often reach an "almost Philidor's position" below, from which I don't know what to do, so I learned the following sequence:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/4KQ2/6rk/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qc6 Kh3 2. Kf3 Rg3+ 3. Kf2 Rg5 4. Qe4! Ra5 5. Kf3! Ra3+ 6. Kf4 Kh2 7. Qc2+ Kh3 8. Qc1! Ra4+ 9. Kf3

```

After black's 4... Ra5, the rook got separated from the king, however, there's no way to win it with checks. Instead, we have to make several quiet moves *allowing rook checks*, but using the fact that checks run out, and mate threats prevent the rook from rejoining the king. In the final position, Kh2 is the only move that stops both mate threats, but then Qd2 and the rook is finally forked next move. This is all rather non-obvious (to me). A similar situation occurs when the computer suddenly abandons the third-rank defense.

So, my questions are about the position after 4...Ra5, and concretely, about the property that one shouldn't try to win the rook by checks:

* is there a rule to recognize such positions, or is this an exceptional setup that one needs to know? The geometry in position after 4...Ra5 does look somewhat special to me, in that white King blocks the e1-h4 diagonal so that the rooks cannot be forked form e1.
* if this is a position one has to know, what are other other positions with a similar property? Among them, are there positions that have no quick win (so that white would need e. g. to allow the queen and the king to rejoin and set up some kind of 3rd or 2nd rank defense)?

# Answer
For a human, winning Q/R against a computer is more difficult than expected. Indeed, the key is not checking itself but avoiding that the rook checks the king away. Of course, the best concrete strategy in some position may giving some checks first, just to lead the Q to the correct field without losing a tempo. Note that in the final position the Q controls the vital a3 field. Also observe that 1.Qc6 is fastest, but not most lucid in terms of human strategy. I surely had begun with 1.Qh5+ and trying to convert it into the Philidor position. But also here the trick is that attacking the rook hinders it on returning, e.g. : 1.Qh5+ Kg3 2.Qh1 (again, losing a tempo is more elegant, Black to move will be forked quickly) Ra2! 3.Qf3+ Kh2 (otherwise a fork comes soon again) 4.Qd5! (the key move) Rg2 5.Kf3 Rg3+ 6.Kf2 and again, Black is out of checks. (The point being, after your king lands on f3 uncontested, the defense collapses.)
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, check, queen-and-rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Theoretically, is the analysis of the moves more complex if the objective is to be the first to be checkmated?
I have seen variations of other board games or strategy games where the aim is to actually 'lose' the game by forcing your opponents to make moves. Applying this concept to the rules of chess, would it require a completely different set of skills and thinking to let your opponent checkmate you first? Is the variation of moves and the analysis of the moves different if the winning objective or condition is reversed?

# Answer
Although selfmate is a popular type of chess problems, the concept you have described simply would not work in a chess game played from the starting position; your opponent would need to cooperate with you if you want to get yourself mated. This means that any game played by chess players of any skill level would almost certainly end in a draw under your rules, which unfortunately makes your question moot.
> 7 votes

# Answer
This is actually interesting, as there is a certain counter-intuitive way to win. If you end up with a huge material advantage, in some positions you can force your opponent to checkmate you.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It would be a different kind of game. You'd still want to build up a material advantage to be able to force your opponent to checkmate you. But you would almost always need more material than that which is required to checkmate your opponent.

It would also be more difficult to win material by threatening your opponent's king since your opponent would only need to defend when a move to get out of check is required. Similarly you would need to worry about getting your king out of check but not about being checkmated.

More positions would likely be drawn than in standard chess so you could say the analysis is simpler in this sense. Then again finding a win when one exists would be more difficult for a random position than in standard chess so the analysis is more complex in this sense.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I write this as an answer (even if it doesn't contribute that much, but it would get too long).

If you ask any expert of the selfmate genre in problem chess, he will give you an immediate enthusiastic yes: Selfmate strategy is much more complex than n#. Here is an especially glaring example: Motive inversion. In "normal" chess, you will never make a move that hurts yourself, with only one exception: if you play for stalemate. In selfmate, you might play moves with positive and with negative aspects, even with both at the same time, and to top it, White might use *the exactly same motive* that Black used to parry a selfmate threat (say, unpinning a piece of his to harmlessly interpose a check), and use it for his own good (whoops, now the unpinned piece must mate). I googled a random example \- try understanding the strategies of both sides without getting a knot in your brain!

That said, in a practical game, you probably don't need such fine details. Follow the advice of ericw31415 and user11382: win all the material of your opponent, except a safely blocked pawn. Then force your own mate by zugzwang. The minimum material needed is KQB/KP. If your opponent still has major force, say a Q, the "standard" strategy in long s# is "checking the opponent into place" until you can give the decisive check that immediately forces selfmate.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, theory, checkmate, chess-variants, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: Why do GMs repeat moves instead of offering a draw?
Watching recaps of the 2021 Candidates Tournaments, so many games end in consecutive repeating moves. I have a general impression that lots of top level games are drawn by repeating moves. Why do the grandmasters do this instead of offering a draw?

# Answer
A repetition giving the opponent the opportunity to claim a draw is a de facto draw offer but not a de jure draw offer.

What does that mean? Well the "de facto" part means that in practice it has the same effect as a formal draw offer while the "de jure" part means that legally it is not a formal draw offer.

Psychologically it makes a subtle difference but practically it makes an important difference. The difference is the legal aspect. Why is this important?

According to article 11.5 of the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, ***unreasonable offers of a draw*** or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

Normally arbiters interpret this to mean repeated draw offers in a small number of moves. That is why you are instructed to notate your game as follows in Appendix C.12 -

> C.12 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=).

Repeating the position does not constitute a formal draw offer and so cannot be part of a claim of disturbance due to repeated draw offers.

> What do you think the psychological difference is?

When you ask for a draw you are a supplicant. It's like you are asking for a favour. "Will you please give me a draw?"

When you repeat the position you are saying something completely different which is why in some positions the experts advise you to repeat once (so no possible draw offer) to demonstrate dominance, let the other player know who is the boss.

If you are a much lower rated player and you repeat twice in a forcing situation you are effectively saying "What ya gone do, punk? Repeat and give me the draw? Or deviate, play a bad move and give me a chance to win?"

I have won several games with that exact tactic. It's surprising when it works but some players have more ego than common sense. It's like their response is something like "No way am I accepting a draw against you. I'm so much better than you that I can beat you from a losing position". I have to admit I've been on the opposite side too. I've played a bad move rather than accept the draw and I've paid the price.
> 46 votes

# Answer
In many top level tournaments you are not allowed to offer a draw before a certain number of moves are played (often 30 or 40). The purpose of such a rule is to prevent very quick draws.

However, one of the ways to make a draw anyway is to simply repeat moves.

Even if that rule is either not active or the move number has passed, it may still be encouraged to do, if nothing else to have the game end naturally for the spectators, rather than by agreement.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Often, Grandmasters need to reach the 40-move mark. This standard time controls gives them 30 extra minutes if this milestone is reached. Often times, they will play very similar moves just to get pushed past this time, and may end up drawing here as well

In the endgame, grandmasters seldom offer draws. So may games end in draws, but they will always try to play them out. Offering a draw is not as concrete as playing a draw, where there is still a chance to continue it out.
> 6 votes

# Answer
While the existing answers are great, and relevant to especially OTB tournaments, it's worth noting in online matches there are often extremely short time controls with players moving (or even pre-moving) so quickly, it's only possible to obtain a draw by repetition. The act of offering a draw and waiting for the opponent to accept or decline would simply take far too long.

A recent example of a draw offer ending badly would be the GM Eric Hansen vs GM Hikaru Nakamura match, described here on Reddit. Also see the video for yourself if you wish to make your own mind up what happened.

Quote from the Reddit post linked above

> Eric and Hikaru are playing a blitz match, Hikaru is winning 2-1.
>
> They reach an endgame that is better for Eric, although theoretically a draw. Hikaru has around 10 seconds, Eric 5.
>
> Hikaru doesn't offer a draw, instead tries to flag Eric. Eric doesn't go down easy though, and almost neutralizes Hikaru's time advantage. Eric offers a draw, which Hikaru doesn't respond to and keeps playing. Eventually Hikaru loses his time advantage completely, and they both have 4 seconds each.
>
> Hikaru offers a draw which Eric didn't notice since he assumed Hikaru was trying to flag him. Hikaru simply lets his clock run down to 0 and accuses Eric of intentionally trying to flag Hikaru to gain rating.
>
> Hikaru leaves and starts playing Alireza instead, calling Eric a liar and saying that he has bad etiquette, which is SUPER ironic since Hikaru is the one who flags his opponents in the most dead drawn positions.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: draw, grandmaster, etiquette, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: Why does FIDE classical chess have a time limit for the first 40 moves?
From this answer:

> The FIDE-approved classical time control is: (taken from the handbook)
>
> 07 Time Control There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

Why is 40 moves special? Would the right increment handle this problem? I'm puzzled why there is a special time control for the start of the game, it seems an artificial constraint. What is the logic behind this?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Factually you ask two different things, "how" and "why", and maybe considering the "how" first makes things clearer.

Obviously, the FIDE time control is recent. In early history of chess there was no time control at all, the problem with that should be obvious. I am old enough to have played 40 moves/2 hours + adjournment, thus it's more recent than you might think.

Now to the "why". There is *nothing* special with 40 moves or two hours. Clearly 41 moves would be silly, man automatically thinks in round numbers. I daresay (experienced from thousands of tournament games, and only judging from the time spent by my opponents - I'm a notorical "blitzer") that 30 moves are too short: the hectic of time trouble would hit the midst of a game. 50 moves are too long - we are in the endgame already and could as well play it out. The same holds for "2 hours" which is not as carved in stone as you might think, I played lot of games in lower leagues with shorter, and also in higher with two time controls (40/2h+20/1h+rest/30m).

That said, the standard time control before the invention of electronic chess clocks was just a rounded compromise - almost anyone could live with it. Nowadays, indeed almost all games (at least the "top" ones) are played with Fischer bonus, which admittedly has advantages, especially for the referees (I'm one too and can acknowledge that).

**tl;dr:** No logic, just evolution, which includes clinging to accustomed numbers. If chess would be invented today, one might converge to another time control.

---
Tags: tournament, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Which countries have the most GMs per capita?
This interesting site has a "World map of chess grandmasters" which looks like this:

Apart from the fact that Russia is very wide (it looks like it crosses 10 time zones), it looks like Iceland has more GMs per capita than Russia. This is a nice picture but doesn't give the figures.

So, what are the top 50 countries ranked by GMs per million? And how does that change if you make it GMs per thousand players (FIDE registered players)?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here are the results of queries on the latest (April 2021) FIDE rating list.

Interesting to note that Iceland is actually only in 2nd. I guess in the map in the question Monaco is too small to see. The first big country (population \> 1 million) is Armenia in 5th. Russia, the country with the most GMs - 240, is only in 31st place. No sign in this list of China or India.

**Country - GMs - GMsPerMillion**

1. Monaco - 3 - 79.4
2. Iceland - 13 - 39.1
3. Andorra - 2 - 27.9
4. Faroe Islands - 1 - 20.3
5. Armenia - 40 - 13.3
6. Montenegro - 6 - 9.6
7. Georgia - 30 - 8.0
8. Croatia - 30 - 7.1
9. Serbia - 50 - 7.0
10. Latvia - 11 - 5.6
11. Hungary - 53 - 5.4
12. Slovenia - 11 - 5.3
13. Israel - 44 - 5.2
14. Macedonia - 10 - 4.8
15. Bulgaria - 33 - 4.58
16. Estonia - 6 - 4.57
17. Czech Republic - 34 - 3.2
18. Norway - 16 - 3.1
19. Lithuania - 8 - 2.8
20. Azerbaijan - 26 - 2.7
21. Mongolia - 8 - 2.6
22. Denmark - 14 - 2.5
23. Cuba - 27 - 2.4
24. Slovakia - 13 - 2.4
25. Netherlands - 38 - 2.24
26. Sweden - 22 - 2.23
27. Bosnia Herzegovina - 8 - 2.1
28. Ukraine - 87 - 2.0
29. Belarus - 17 - 1.78
30. Moldova - 6 - 1.68
31. Russia - 240 - 1.64
32. Scotland - 7 - 1.31
33. Greece - 14 - 1.29
34. Poland - 49 - 1.27
35. Qatar - 3 - 1.24
36. Spain - 57 - 1.23
37. Germany - 95 - 1.17
38. Switzerland - 9 - 1.08
39. Romania - 21 - 1.06
40. Turkmenistan - 5 - 1.05
41. Austria - 9 - 1.03
42. Kazakhstan - 15 - 0.85
43. Belgium - 9 - 0.796
44. France - 51 - 0.791
45. Finland - 4 - 0.727
46. Singapore - 4 - 0.723
47. England - 36 - 0.679
48. Paraguay - 4 - 0.584
49. Uruguay - 2 - 0.575
50. Uzbekistan - 17 - 0.548

When you look at GMs per thousand FIDE registered players the picture changes. Armenia moves to the top and China appears in the list at no. 5.

**FullName - Players - GMs - GMSPerThousandPlayers**

1. Armenia - 1789 - 40 - 22.4
2. Monaco - 136 - 3 - 22.1
3. Qatar - 147 - 3 - 20.4
4. Andorra - 151 - 2 - 13.2
5. China - 3783 - 48 - 12.7
6. Macedonia - 1048 - 10 - 9.54
7. Georgia - 3377 - 30 - 8.88
8. Cuba - 3080 - 27 - 8.77
9. Israel - 5316 - 44 - 8.23
10. Turkmenistan - 606 - 5 - 8.25
11. Bulgaria - 4512 - 33 - 7.31
12. Scotland - 994 - 7 - 7.04
13. Uzbekistan - 2417 - 17 - 7.03
14. Belarus - 2648 - 17 - 6.42
15. Montenegro - 1031 - 6 - 5.82
16. Iceland - 2244 - 13 - 5.79
17. Ukraine - 15318 - 87 - 5.68
18. United States - 18067 - 96 - 5.31
19. Moldova - 1139 - 6 - 5.27
20. Azerbaijan - 5223 - 26 - 4.98
21. Serbia - 10151 - 50 - 4.93
22. Hungary - 11116 - 53 - 4.77
23. Netherlands - 8152 - 38 - 4.66
24. Tajikistan - 232 - 1 - 4.31
25. Vietnam - 2996 - 12 - 4.01
26. England - 9464 - 36 - 3.80
27. Canada - 4059 - 14 - 3.45
28. Mongolia - 2331 - 8 - 3.43
29. Latvia - 3284 - 11 - 3.35
30. Paraguay - 1210 - 4 - 3.31
31. Sweden - 6694 - 22 - 3.29
32. Estonia - 1853 - 6 - 3.24
33. Croatia - 9292 - 30 - 3.23
34. Bosnia Herzegovina - 2794 - 8 - 2.86
35. Russia - 96262 - 240 - 2.49
36. Faroe Islands - 404 - 1 - 2.48
37. Czech Republic - 14000 - 34 - 2.43
38. Norway - 6671 - 16 - 2.4
39. Germany - 39740 - 95 - 2.39
40. Argentina - 10001 - 23 - 2.3
41. Finland - 1781 - 4 - 2.245
42. Slovenia - 5201 - 11 - 2.11
43. Philippines - 6200 - 13 - 2.1
44. Australia - 4824 - 10 - 2.07
45. Romania - 10165 - 21 - 2.066
46. Switzerland - 4528 - 9 - 1.99
47. Denmark - 7074 - 14 - 1.98
48. Kazakhstan - 8056 - 15 - 1.86
49. Lithuania - 4575 - 8 - 1.75
50. Poland - 28878 - 49 - 1.7

---
Tags: fide, statistics, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: What are all the world chess championships (such that...)?
Wiki says: Magnus Carlsen is 'the current World Chess Champion, World Rapid Chess Champion, and World Blitz Chess Champion'. Wesley So is the 'current World Fischer Random Chess Champion'.

1. What world chess championships are **both Magnus Carlsen and Wesley So eligible for** (aside from possibly World Championship of Chess Composition, World Chess Solving Championship and World Team Chess Championship and world women's in case fide allows transgender)?

I wasn't able to find a list of world championships in chess except for the wiki one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World\_championships\_in\_chess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Chess\_Championship#Other\_world\_chess\_championships

One reason I'm asking is that I want to clarify my understanding:

> Magnus Carlsen is the world chess champion in every possible standard category. He is the world chess champion in every possible category except chess960. Wesley So is the world chess champion in the only category that Magnus Carlsen can be but isn't. (The previous sentences exclude World Championship of Chess Composition, World Chess Solving Championship and World Team Chess Championship.)

2. Where can I find an **official list of world championships** in chess? I mean, the one above is just wikipedia. I just figure FIDE might have some list on its site somewhere.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Where can I find an official list of world championships in chess? I mean, the one above is just wikipedia. Idk I just figure FIDE might have some list on its site somewhere.

The closest official FIDE list is in section ***D. REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPETITIONS*** of The FIDE Handbook. There you will find many subsections specifying the regulations for all the different competitions that FIDE organises.

For most of them it is obvious whether both players qualify. For example, neither of them qualify for the various age-limited world championships for juniors and seniors (detailed in most of D.04).

Slightly more difficult is to decide whether or not a competition qualifies as a World Championship. Your mileage may vary. For example I would classify the FIDE World Cup (D.01.03) as the World Knockout Championship. It isn't classified as a world championship because many people think knockout is an unfair form of competition - too much luck of the draw.

Section D.07 has the regulations for the world open rapid and blitz championships and D.08 for Fischer Random.

---
Tags: fide, world-championship, carlsen, wesley-so
---


# Question
Title: Why are avoidable openings played instead of systems?
It's been a while since I've played OTB chess, but I've gotten back into playing it online. Before my break (I was rated ~1400 USCF), I was a heavy advocate of the English Opening:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2P5/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR w kqKQ c3 0 1

[Event "Local Tournament"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "Opponent"]
[White "BaroclinicPlusPlus"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1. c4

```

with the idea that instead of seeing any opening prep that I make not being thrown out the window, I could force my opponent into lines that I felt comfortable playing. For example, if I was preparing the Scotch Game, and was faced with an opponent who played the Sicilian

```
rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq c6 0 2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "BaroclinicPlusPlus"]
[Black "Well Prepared Opponent"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 c5 *

```

I'd be in murky waters. So to prepare for the Scotch Game, I'd have to learn the Sicilian Defense, Caro-Kann defense, French Defense, and any other defense I could see.

My question is this: **If you do not know your opponent ahead of time, what advantage is there in preparing openings like 1. e4 when your opponent can nullify any preparation?**

That is, most opening prep for white relies on Black playing 1. ... e5, which is not only avoidable, but also lines that I am not usually prepared. The same can be said about 1. d4 and the Queen's gambit (ignoring the increasing popularity of the London System). I've tried moving beyond the English, just to be left with either needing to learn a ton of theory and opening traps or face a better-prepared opponent.

\*Speaking from experience, where I have a Black defense for 1. e4, 1. d4, and 1. c4.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When chess players reach a certain level, they will know how to play against non mainstream openings(often also they can figure many things over the board as well). Therefore, if you play anything other than e4,d4,Nf3, or c4, the black player will be fine as the other moves are objectively not as good and white will find it hard to get any edge. So basically the advantage of playing 1e4/1d4/1Nf3/ or even 1c4, is that they are objectively good and offer white good chances to fight for an advantage. While if you play something like 1g4, you will not be able to fight for an advantage at high levels(in fact, you will be struggling to not lose). That is, despite your opponent having knowledge about how to play against 1e4 or 1d4, it's still a good idea to play 1e4 and 1d4 because those first moves are that good, and you also have knowledge of those openings. If instead you choose to play things like 1b3, 1f4, strong chess players will equalize easilly against them. At lower levels, it very much would be advantageous to play something people don't know much about. So at the lower levels, you can have a repertoire of unsound gambits and tricks, and you'll be fine. But of course, if you face stronger oppositions, you'll have trouble.

---
Tags: opening, preparation
---


# Question
Title: How many unique pawn structures are possible?
In an effort to classify chess games, I thought it would be useful to identify a set of positions by their unique pawn structure that would form a family of positions. There are indeed many positions but my rough calculations indicate 10^12 to be a upper limit of all possible combinations (I may be very wrong as I don't trust my calculations). But interestingly, it is way lower than the number of sensible position,s i.e. ~10^46. I am very interested to know the actual number of pawn structures (mwithout promotion). I guess actual number of legal positions would be difficult to estimate but a general idea might be good.

# Answer
> 3 votes
To classify pawn formations, a good source is chess master books that explore that topic. The book by Boris Persits comes to mind, for example.

I add that it seems impractical as you have been told, to make an exhaustive index of all the combinations that pawn chains can take.

However, it is useful to connect families of openings (classified by ECO, or by open / closed / flank, positional or tactical) and also by the types of endings that can be found according to the pawn structure.

This information has didactic utility for chess plans. There are books that touch on the subject of pawn structures and chess plans.

The pawn chain structures could be described with the characteristics: doubled or solitary / past / advanced / delayed / blocked pawns, V chain or inverted V chain, castling with / without fiancheto and other descriptors that I cannot imagine.

In this way, the number of pawn formations is much less than combinatorial theory can estimate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I've wondered the same thing, and agree with you that there could be some value in classifying board states this way.

Combined with a roster of the remaining pieces on the board (regardless of their positions) the pawn structure specifies a unique board state that, once transitioned out of, can never be reached again in the same game. They form a partial ordering, with no cycles. Every other legal combination of positions for the other pieces can be cycled in and out of any number of times and can always be reached again -- until a piece is captured or a pawn moves (or both.) Those are the only truly irreversible moves in chess.

I think one way to approach determining the number of possible pawn structures is to consider a chess variant I call "pacifist chess" (though it's different from the chess variant of the same name on some chess variant sites I've seen.) No captures are allowed, but otherwise all the rules are the same (including rules about check.) The way the game plays out is that eventually the pawns form a sort of impenetrable wall, or sometimes a wall with one or more "holes" in it. Sometimes, pieces can be trapped inside the pawn wall. Once that happens, the pawn structure of the board cannot change any further. Since pawns can only move forward in pacifist chess, it's easy to generate every possible "earlier" pawn structure that could have led to a given final pawn structure.

Next, consider versions of the game where play proceeds normally for some time, some pieces are captured (and perhaps some pawns moved diagonally one or more columns) and THEN the game switches to pacifist rules. Again, you can (based on the remaining pieces and positions of the now-pacifist pawns) determine the possible final pawn structures and generate the full set of preceding ones. Repeat that for every combination of captures that impact pawn structure (or just shuffle through the roster of other pieces) and you've enumerated every possible pawn structure.

I haven't actually worked all of this out yet, but I think that general approach might be dealing with numbers of a reasonable enough size that computer simulations could work out the rest.

# Answer
> -2 votes
For unique pawn structures I would not recommend going by any formula where you will have 10 to the power of n or any indices calculation. The best way to understand pawn structures is to know multiple openings in. There are more than 2000+ opening variations where the middlegame differs in many aspects along with the piece placement. It is always good to understand the patterns of the pawn structures by playing the openings and learning the middlegame.

This way, you can prepare some of the openings and understand the pawn structures which suit your style. This way, GMs prepare themselves. No one has a direct number of exactly how many pawn structures there are. Not even Kasparov or Carlsen might be interested in that unless you are able to show the perfect differences between each kind of pawn structure.

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, mathematics
---


title: Intuitive play vs learning strategies

text:
# Question
Title: Intuitive play vs learning strategies
When I first 'learned' chess, it was just the moves of each piece and then I started playing. I had no plan at all other than just moving pieces and trying to take from my opponent and protecting myself from losing pieces so in a way it was the shortest of short sighted play.

I never thought about the centre of the board or piece development or openings but now, I've seen videos and books etc that talk about these things extensively.

My question: Is it dishonest to start out playing serious chess by learning from books and such instead of coming up with a lot of this stuff independently at first?

To clarify:

I'm concerned that I should have independently realized that the centre of the board is the most important and that certain moves are good because they open the way for other pieces and some moves are bad because they block other pieces etc.

I'm also wondering if I should have independently been able to come up with things like Queen's gambit accepted/declined or the Sicilian defense etc.

I suppose I don't want to cheat myself and I also don't want to 'beat' others by regurgitation.

It's for this same reason I never looked at Rubik's cube algorithms online because I know for a fact that many of these super solvers of the cube just do it by playing around. I won't let myself solve a cube by a recipe.

# Answer
> 7 votes
If you compare games of past masters with modern master games you will find that the modern masters are playing at a significantly higher level. This is because modern chess masters are able to draw inspiration from and refine the ideas of the older masters. If they weren't doing this, chess theory would become stagnant and new ideas would be few and far inbetween.

Chess is a very difficult game, and nobody will fault you for trying to improve by reading general chess theory. In fact, most people (myself included) would commend you for studying chess to become a stronger player. If you want to become great at chess you have to become a great student of the craft, as with any artform. Indeed, you will struggle to find a single great artist in the history of mankind who didn't study the work of people that came before them. It's simply a very important aspect of how human beings learn things, and it is what drives society forward.

Don't romanticize/fetischize the idea of reinventing the wheel, it's a fool's errand. If you want to improve, it is not wrong to ask for guidance from people who are better than you (with the caveat that not every good chess player is also a good chess teacher). With knowledge comes confidence, and with confidence comes independence and creativity. This doesn't really depend on whether you discovered the knowledge or if someone gave it to you.

As a final note, positional concepts like central control and piece activity and coordination are far more difficult to come up with than they are to understand (at least superficially) once explained. Just because a concept is easy to understand doesn't mean that it's easy to come up with, so don't feel bad for not coming up with these things on your own. Believe me, while most players know about these concepts only very few players have actually managed to master these concepts completely. And with regards to specific openings: you have absolutely no chance of coming up with these concrete openings on your own! The modern theory of Queen's gambit/Sicilian is the result of centuries of intensive development by the greatest players of their time trying to outfox their competitors by coming up with one creative new idea at the time. Some of these ideas became part of established theory and others fell into obscurity, but every single one of these innovations required a great deal of effort. There is no way a single human being could ever dream of coming up with all these ideas on their own.

---
Tags: opening, rules, learning, strategy, training
---


# Question
Title: Reading PGN files using thr Stockfish engine
Is there a way to read a PGN file using the Stockfish engine? If so, please give a sample command.

# Answer
Stockfish is an engine that's called by apps that read PGN files, it doesn't read the PGN data itself.

There are many very good free apps that can read PGN files and analyse the games they contain using Stockfish (which is also free) and/or similar engines (mostly not free)

A lot of good free PGN reader apps that are able to call Stockfish can be downloaded and installed from SourceForge, such as

ChessX An old app but a good one

Scid The most popular app on SourceForge at the time of writing

PGN ChessBook Which comes with the requested Stockfish engine built in

If you search for "pgn" on SourceForge you should find more apps, but in my opinion these are the best ones currently available.
> 6 votes

# Answer
No. Stockfish is an engine not GUI, it doesn't know or understand PGN. The bigger problem is why would you do that? Why would you want to use an engine on a PGN game? This is like giving a calculator your math exam and hope it'll give out answers magically. Please rethink why you would want to do this.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The answer is NO. The stockfish engine does not have a concept of a chessboard state. Each position should be completely described through FEN notation. If you want to make a move, you then again describe the complete position and append your moves all in one command string then press ENTER on the keyboard. The engine does not remember the current position for you.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You can use 2 programs to do that.

1. Use pgn-extract to format the pgn files in a good format. This pgn-extract is available at this url: download pgn-extract
2. You need this CLI tool: UCI analyzer
3. Lastly, you need a chess engine that supports UCI installed, such as Stockfish.

I used these tools to perform a massive analysis of 2 million games on multiple machines.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, pgn, stockfish, uci
---


# Question
Title: Generate an entire chess game up to a position
I recently found a chess problem YouTube video with this position.

```
[FEN "r4rq1/5p1p/p5kn/R1B1Q1b1/6p1/5p2/PNP2P2/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

```

I want to turn this position into an entire game of chess. Does anybody know of a way that I can generate moves that would lead up to that position to make a full game? I don't want to find out the exact moves that were played if this position ever happened. However, I want to find out if I could make this into an entire chess game that looks legitimate.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is very easy to generate a "proof game" for this positions (and if you are too lazy, you can use problemists tools like Natch or Jacobi, but I think it will be very hard to make the proof game look "natural". (It gets worse as the position itself is rather unnatural. Did the Kg6 have a death wish? Maybe if the last move pair was Rf6xg6+!, it looks a bit more believable, but still the Qg8 is ridiculous.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think the best approach for loose positions like this without retro interest is to have three structured phases:

1. Knights marraud to eliminate captured pieces not required for pawn balance. If necessary, c & g pawns edge forward to avoid check being given. This gives a homebase diagram.
2. Move pawns to final positions, including captures. This gives diagram A.
3. If it's not obvious, use Jacobi in demolition mode to go from A to B (here in something like 10.0 moves).

This approach can obviously be generalized. But if it fails to work, it will fail to work for a specific reason, and you can see whether this is a fundamental blocker or the solution approach has to be adapted.

---
Tags: retrograde-analysis
---


title: How to solve proof games?

text:
# Question
Title: How to solve proof games?
The following question deserves to be asked!

"I see a lot of proof game problems, where I am given a diagram and have to find the unique way to reach that position in the specified number of moves. They look fun, but difficult. Can I have some tips or strategy for solving them, please?"

# Answer
> 18 votes
Although solving proofgames is not that difficult, the large number of moves involved may seem impressive at first. Let me share you a few tips by showing how I solve a proofgame.

```
[Title "Étienne Dupuis, Problemesis 2001, PG in 13.5"]
[FEN "rn2k1nr/ppp3pp/4p3/8/4q3/1N1bb2P/PPPP1P1P/RNBQKB1R w KQq - 0 1"]

```

In this diagram, it is not obvious at first sight how white has spent 14 moves, as we count 3 for the Nb3, and 1 for Ph3. For black, we count a minimum of 2 moves for the queen, 2 for each bishop, and one for Pe6, for a total of 7 moves.

We need to find a hint, and here the hint is given by the white pawn h3. It must have captured a black piece, but which one? Since black is only missing pawns in the diagram and that no black pawn can reach h3, we must deduce that black has made a promotion.

Let us then enumerate various possibilities:

1. Black promoted a pawn on e1, and the promoted piece was captured on h3. This requires seven extra moves by black, yielding a total of 14 moves, one too many, hence impossible.
2. White pawn h3 captured a black piece and black promoted a pawn on e1 or g1 to *replace* this captured piece. This is the correct solution. No other promotion squares are possible since black can only capture one white piece.

Which black piece is an *impostor*?

1. The rooks and knights are too far away; it would take too many moves to reach h3 and bring back the promoted piece.
2. The dark square bishop cannot be captured on light colored square h3.
3. The light square bishop could, but cannot be promoted on dark squares e1 or g1.
4. The queen is the only candidate. It requires two moves to bring the queen to h3, and six moves to promote pawn d7 or f7 to a queen on e1 and bring it to e4.

At this stage, we have accounted for all thirteen black moves. We are not exactly sure if the queen played Qd8-h4-h3 or Qd8-d7-h3 or even Qd8-d3-h3 but we'll figure it out later. We also do not know which black pawn promoted, but we know the one of the two did not move at all and was captured *at home*.

Turning to white's side, we must find moves to

1. Capture the d7 or f7 pawn.
2. Get the king out of the way for the black promotion to occur.

Getting the king out of the way not as easy as it looks like. Keeping in mind that black will promote a queen on e1, and then play Qe1-e4, the king must step at least two squares away and he cannot come back through e2. Hence he must come back from f1, indicating the Bf1 must also move out of the way. This requires at least 6 moves and the king would go at least to g1 or g2.

Who captured the black pawn?

1. The white pawn e2 can capture the d7 pawn, and then black would have played Qd8xPd7 before Qd7-h3 to get rid of the white pawn. This requires four white moves. However, it's not possible, as the f7 pawn would have no one to capture to reach e1.
2. A white knight can capture both. It would require two extra moves for Nb3 to capture on d7 and four extra moves to capture on f7.
3. White bishop and queen cannot capture as it would give check and black has no moves to spare.
4. White rook h1 could but would required eight moves. Impossible.

The missing black pawn was thus captured by the white knight.

**It is now time to take out a chessboard and move the pieces along to try finding a solution keeping in minds all the deductions we have made**.

Try moves, in any order. You will quickly stumble on an additional difficulty. To bring back the white king, we must shield the check from the Bd3. This bishop must be present on that square before black plays Qe1-e4, as the bishop played Bc8-f5-d3.

Who shields?

1. This shielding could be performed by the white bishop, in which case we need at least one extra move, if the bishop plays Bf1-a6-e2-f1 for example. But wait, Bd3 is in the way again. Hence if it's the bishop, it's from the other side and we need two extra moves.
2. Shielding could be performed by the white queen, also two extra moves.
3. Shielding can also be provided by the Nd3 for free, assuming it played Ng1-e2-d4-b3. However, this looks impossible, as who would capture the black pawn on d7 or f7?

With this additional observation, we get to eight moves for moving the white king out of the way (four for the king, two to move the Bf1 somewhere, and two for shielding on e2, by the queen or the bishop). This implies that the missing black pawn was captured by the white knight and that white Pe2 has not moved at all!

If it has not moved, white started by playing with the knight and black has no choice but to wait for the Pd7 to be captured; he cannot push Pe6 before playing Bc8-f5.

The solution is quickly found to be:

```
[Title "Étienne Dupuis, Problemesis 2001, PG in 13.5"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 f5 2. Ne5 f4 3. Nxd7 f3 4. Nc5 Qd7 5. Nb3 Qh3 6. gxh3 Bf5 7. Bg2 Bd3 8. Kf1 fxe2+ 9. Kg1 e1=Q 10. Bf1 Qe4 11. Be2 e6 12. Kf1 Bc5 13. Ke1 Be3 14. Bf1

```

The reasoning made to find the solution gives us also a high confidence that the solution is unique, it cannot be something else.

Hopefully this extensive explanation will help you enjoy solving proof games!

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


# Question
Title: Why is my rating not increasing on lichess.org?
I played some rated games and don't understand why my score doesn't go up. Usually, my score either goes up or goes down, depending on if I win or not. This time, it didn't even change. It is weird.

# Answer
> 5 votes
You probably have accepted an unrated friendly match. Friendly games don't affect your rating on lichess.

---
Tags: rating, lichess
---


# Question
Title: What is the fastest en passant checkmate after all other such captures?
I had an odd idea. What is the fastest way to checkmate via en passant after all other en passants have been completed?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Addendmum 5/21/2021-It is done at last! I have finally found a way to achieve it in just **36 ply** as previously estimated. I am wholly certain that faster is not possible. This is because 32 plies alone are needed for all eight en passants, the White king must be on the second rank, and White must also fill in the king's square for the checkmate.

This self-imposed challenge. nearly 2.5 years later, has at last been completely solved.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 5/21/2021, Non-Unique Proof Game In 18.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. a4 d5 2. a5 b5 3. axb6 d4 4. c4 dxc3 5. d4 a5 6. d5 c5 7. dxc6 a4 8. b4 axb3 9. f4 g5 10. f5 e5 11. fxe6 g4 12. h4 gxh3 13. e4 h6 14. e5 f5 15. exf6 h5 16. Kf2 Qd3 17. Qe1 h4 18. g4 hxg3#

```

---

It turns out that at least a further ply can be shaved off of @DM's answer.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 4/29/2021, Non-Unique Proof Game In 18.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. a4 d5 2. a5 b5 3. axb6 d4 4. c4 dxc3 5. d4 a5 6. d5 a4 7. b4 axb3 8. Qd3 e5 9. h4 e4 10. f4 exf3 11. h5 g5 12. hxg6 h5 13. e4 h4 14. g4 hxg3 15. e5 f5 16. exf6 Kd7 17. Qe4 Na6 18. Bf4 c5 19. dxc6#

```

I am not sure if it is possible to shave off a further ply due to the need to cover the king's potential escape squares. But if it can be done, I think 36 ply is the fastest possible sequence.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here's one try:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 b5 2.d5 c5 3.dxc6 b4 4.a4 bxa3 5.b4 d5 6.b5 a5 7.bxa6 d4 8.c4 dxc3 9.h4 f5 10.h5 g5 11.hxg6 f4 12.e4 fxe3 13.g4 Bb7 14.g5 h5 15.gxh6 e5 16.Ke2 e4 17.Qe1 Bc5 18.Nh3 Bxc6 19.f4 exf3#

```

While this probably isn't the fastest possible, it can't get *much* faster. There are 8 en passants possible, and each takes 4 half moves to set up and execute (advance to 4th rank, advance to 5th rank, opponent moves pawn, capture pawn.) Those 32 half moves takes you through move 16, and you obviously need other moves somewhere to make it be a checkmate.

---
Tags: problems, records, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: What is the physical response to a high level chess game?
Chess is used as an example of how the body can be influenced purely by brain activity:

> In the middle of a chess Grand Master tournament these people are maintaining blood pressure for 6 hours' running that you only see in a marathon runner

> These people are going through thousands of calories per day doing nothing more than thinking

and even that:

> one of these chess Grand Masters who's just taken down an opponent ... has the exact same physiology as some ... baboon on the Savanna who's just ripped the stomach open of his rival!

Also note, it's mentioned here that Fischer was

> built like an olympic athlete

In terms of heart rate, breathing, energy consumption ('calories'), and other biometric indicators, what are the typical physiological responses of the human body to an important, high-level classical chess game?

# Answer
The video in the original question featured Robert Sapolsky, also author of *Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers*, who famously has said that a grandmaster can burn 6000 calories in a day of chess. I believe the following is from Sapolsky's book:

> The definitive study on chess players was carried out by the physiologist Leroy DuBeck and his graduate student Charlotte Leedy. They wired up chess players in order to measure their breathing rates, blood pressure, muscle contractions, and so on, and monitored the players before, during, and after major tournaments. They found tripling of breathing rates, muscle contractions, systolic blood pressures that soared to over 200—exactly the sort of thing seen in athletes during physical competition.
>
> See the original report, Leedy’s thesis, “The effects of tournament chess playing on selected physiological responses in players of varying aspirations and abilities” (Temple University, 1975) or their brief report (Leedy, C, and DuBeck, L., “Physiological changes during tournament chess,” Chess Life and Review \[1971\]: 708).
>
> In a telephone conversation, DuBeck also tells the story of the international match in the early 1970s between grand masters Bent Larson and Bobby Fischer, in which the former had to be given antihypertensive medication in the middle of his losing match; his blood pressure remained elevated for days afterward.
>
> The Kasparov-Karpov report is from the New York Times, 20 December 1990. And for that special chess fan out there who just can’t get enough of this subject, may I suggest as the perfect gift a copy of Glezerov, V., and Sobol, E., “Hygienic evaluation of the changes in work capacity of young chess players during training,” Gigiena i Sanitariia 24 (1987), in the original Russian.

I got the above from Christoffer Torris Olsen's answer to Does playing chess burn as many calories as running? on \[skeptics\] Stack Exchange.
> 1 votes

# Answer
European Journal of Applied Physiology studied the physiological consequences of the tension caused by playing chess in 20 male chess players, by following heart rate, heart rate variability, and respiratory variables. We observed significant increase in the heart rate (75-86 beats/min), in the ratio low frequency (LF)/high frequency (HF) of heart rate variability (1.3-3.0) and also a decrease in mean heart rate variability with no changes in HF throughout the game. These results suggest a stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system with no changes in the parasympathetic system. The respiratory exchange ratio was rather elevated (over 0.89) at the start and significantly decreased during the game (0.75 at the end), indicating that energy expenditure progressively switched from carbohydrate to lipid oxidation. The changes in substrate oxidation and the sympathetic system seem to be due to high cognitive demands and bring new insight into adaptations to mental strain.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: psychology, statistics
---