# Question
Title: Longest pondering in a standard-time control game
Inspired by the LiChess "French leave" question:

In a standard time-control you can think almost two hours about your move, and even two-and-a half or three if you blitzed beyond the 40 move control. Personally, I recall the one or other opponent of mine thinking a whopping hour about a tempting sacrifice I allowed them to make - bad idea, they regularly lost when I produced even more chaos on the board and they wished they had more time to analyze :P

Thus, my question: What is the longest reported time for a single move under 2h+X/40? (Including Fischer bonus, what argueably makes this even easier. Non-OTB is allowed too, which has the advantage of the data being explicitely recorded.) Tal's "Hippo incident" comes to mind, and Sämisch was an expert for this in almost every game. Still, I lack concrete values.

# Answer
Tal wrote\* about this game:

> it was here that Uhlmann established his record, thinking over the move 12...exf5 for 1 hour 50 minutes

Judging from other comments by Tal about this game, I think the time control must have been 2 hours and 30 minutes for the first 40 moves.

```
[Title "Mihail Tal-Uhlmann, Wolfgang, Alekhine Memorial, Moscow Russia, 11/30/1971"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "23"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nc6 5. Bb5 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Bd7 7. Bg5 Qa5+ 8. Nc3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bb4 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 Qxc3 12. Nf5 exf5 13. Re1+ Be6 14. Qd6 a6 15. Bd2 Qxc2 16. Bb4 axb5 17. Qf8+ Kd7 18. Red1+ Kc7 19. Qxa8 1-0

```

(\*) *The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Everyman Chess (2003), p. 401.*
> 5 votes

---
Tags: time-management
---


# Question
Title: What's the point of the Two Knights French?
According to lichess, if Black simply goes 3...Nf6 against the Two Knights Variation, then the main line is 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4. This is the exact same position as White would have reached if they'd played 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nf3. Why play the Two Knights at all then if Black can just transpose into territory they're more familiar with? Is it just to avoid the Winawer?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Another idea of the two knights variation is to provoke 3...d4 and get some kind of reversed Old Indian. Some players like these pawn structures, and it also may not be blacks taste to be the one with the space advantage.

For example:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Analysis"]
[StartPly "99"]

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 d4
    ( 3...Nf6 )
4.Ne2 c5 5.c3 $1 Nf6
    ( 5...d3 $6 6.Nf4 c4 $2 7.Qa4+ $18 )
6.cxd4 cxd4
    ( 6...Nxe4 $5 )
7.Ng3
    ( 7.e5 Nfd7 8.Nexd4 Nxe5 $10 )
7...a6 $1
    ( 7...Nc6 8.Bb5 $14 )
8.d3
    ( 8.Bc4 $6 b5 9.Bb3 $2 d3 $1 $17 )
8...Nc6 9.Be2 e5 $13

```

Objectively black is minimal better due to his space advantage, but white operates with the vacuum which d5-d4 has created in blacks position. He will sooner or later play f2-f4 and attack the pawn chain e5/d4, for example by playing h3 and Nh2. If black takes on f4 this will isolate the d4 pawn, and white may be able to win it. Of course that will not work if black plays it sensible, for example by protecting the pawn with Qb6 and Rd8. The stronger player will win.

But as you already said, Black can play 3...Nf6 and this transposes to the main lines.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You've pretty much answered your own question. Black can go 3...Nf6 and go for the mainline, but White is managing to avoid some other lines like the Winaver.

Anyway your question could be reversed just as well: why play the main move order whne you could go for the Two Knights French all the time instead?

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


# Question
Title: How to install stockfish on winBoard 4.4.5?
I want to install stockfish to winBoard 4.4.5. But winBoard 4.4.5 doesn't seem to have the same protocol as stockfish. Is there a way to do it on windows 10? I would like to install the latest version of stockfish to winBoard 4.4.5.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Stockfish supports the UCI protocol, Winboard supports the Xboard (or CECP) protocol. What you're looking for is a Winboard to UCI adapter, that sits between Winboard and Stockfish and does the translations between the two protocols.

The other alternative is using a chess GUI that supports UCI, e.g. Arena, ChessX, scid. even give Tarrasch a try.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


title: SCID not recognising transpositions

text:
# Question
Title: SCID not recognising transpositions
I like going through open variations and taking notes and saving them in my database.

However I have a problem. When I get to two of the exact same board positions and same color to play, if I got there via two different variations, any future variations I make and comment will be considered separate.

For example, suppose I start a game with 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 and add some variations with, e.g., 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 and make some comments. Then, in the same database, I add a game with 1.Nc3 e5 2.e4 Nf6. This leads to exactly the same position but the variations and comments from the 1.e4 variation are not shown.

How do I merge these variations or get SCID to understand that it's the same so it shows the variations after both move orders? I don't want to write a whole new tree and branches just because I switched up one move.

Or if anyone knows a different program I can use for this to save uncompleted games such as opening variations and I can write my notes that would be great.

# Answer
When you add comments, they exist on the current game only. If you want to comment on the position (independent of any individual game), you can do that by adding a mask.

The tree window shows you statistics on the current position (moves played, etc). Masks allow you to add additional information on top of that. Here is a resource to help get you started:

https://sourceforge.net/p/scid/wiki/HowToUseMasks/
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess Position Trainer recognizes transpositions in exactly the way that you're after, as it stores its opening books in a way that's designed to address this issue. Whenever two variations (like your `1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6` and `1.Nc3 e5 2.e4 Nf6`) that converge to the same position, it is automatically recognized that they do, so you'll never end up with two "versions" of the same position in the first place. As far as I know there's no good way to get that same functionality in SCID.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Scid *does* detect transpositions:

* Create a game starting with **e4 e5 Nc3**
* Add your lines and comments.
* Save the game and put e.g. "has comments" into the "white player" input entry (looks prettier in the notation).
* Create another game starting with **Nc3 e5 e4**, save it too, put e.g. "is transposition" into the "white player" entry.
* Now you have two games, the game with the comments and the one with the transposing line.
* In the game list, make the "white player" header visible (right-click on the column headings).
* Also in the game list, press the "filter by position" button (the bottom-most left which looks like a chess board, it may be hidden because the game list is not high enough).
* Now, whenever you enter the moves **e4 e5 Nc3** or **Nc3 e5 e4** into a new game, the game list will show the game which "has comments", which you can click and edit.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Is this a result of the fact that the FENs are likely to be different. For instance; after e4 d6 e5 f5 White can capture ep, but after e4 f5 e5 d6 they cannot; and although the board may look the same, the possible moves are different.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, software, scid
---


# Question
Title: How can I make a chess exhibition exciting for 'laypeople'?
I've been asked recently to try to put on a few chess exhibitions for some local kids and their parents in a mostly urban setting, and one thing that I'm keenly aware of is the basic 'uncoolness' that surrounds the game for some people. I'm trying to fight that tooth and nail, and doing that means figuring out how to make the game Fun with a capital F.

One idea revolves around 'slam chess', which one of my acquaintances from DC introduced me to. Basically it involves allowing extravagant moves (such as tossing your queen up in the air and catching it before moving her) and allowing mild smack talk if someone falls for a trap or something. Doing some research, it turns out Maurice Ashley learned chess this way. I've never been introduced to this before so I have no idea how people will react to it.

Another idea is to get deconstructionist and to not worry about the overall game as much as putting up a bunch of tactical problems that people can engage and solve, with people giving hints if need be, with the ultimate goal having people solve 3-5 tactical problems to frame chess as a bunch of little victories instead of one longer game.

The big goal is to make the game exciting and get the human element involved in it; the two big pieces of feedback I heard when asking around were after the fashion 'nobody plays chess' or 'it's too much work to learn'. The solution as I see it is to just make the game fun, then people play and it's not work to mess with it (it's fun). I'm decently familiar with programming, video editing, etc so if anyone has a particular idea for websites or media production to help a presentation I'm all ears as well.

PS: I saw this question, but it more related to talking to individual people than putting on a show for a group.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I've been to a lot of events that have featured the live-action chess game. It's usually a big hit with people not normally into chess. Make a giant chess board with paper or tape or whatever and bring costumes along for people to act as the pieces. You'll want to run quick games that way so the people don't get bored. And be prepared for the kids to get antsy and run off. Having some backup players on the wings to take over can be helpful.

Try to work up a crowd with a couple "main events", and steer people around to the shorter things like your tactical idea on the side-lines. More often than not, a big crowd in one part will create interest for others, even if they wouldn't be interested normally.

# Answer
> 5 votes
What always comes across as pretty impressive, is blindfold chess. But of course "wow"ing people is different from convincing them something is fun.

I also think blitz usually comes across as dynamic and fun, especially if you can show the game on a big screen with some good commentary. Another idea is to have the clock on an separate table so you always have to do a little sprint to press your clock. That definitely involves a lot of action.

But you also have to consider whether it really should be your objective to win over those people, who have a decidedly negative attitude towards chess. Chess IS an activity, where you sit down for hours and think. The attraction of chess, is the attraction of mental activity. So you definitely shouldn't move to much away from that, just to accommodate people who aren't interested anyway.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As a variant on the "live chess" thing, one exhibition that we used to do was to use large (and sometimes fanciful) pieces. (I remember doing one with a piece set based on farm animals for a state fair exhibit, for example.)

The idea is two players who call out the moves and one or two volunteers who walk around on top of the board and move the pieces. People will often stop and watch as the players circle the large board looking at the position and thinking. The farm board mentioned above was also elevated, so we often moved around as if "sighting" down a diagonal or file. There's lots of opportunity for physical comedy or other theater in those cases, as well as trash talk. (Trash talk is a good tool for engaging the crowds, so long as it's good-natured and fun, rather than violent or personally offensive. The line between isn't always clear, and changes with the potential audience for the exhibition.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
A couple ideas...

1) I remember kids really loved battle chess back in the day... Its fun seeing the pieces actually fight. I bet it wouldn't be too hard to resurrect that computer program.

2) I remember kids at the Berkeley Chess club were really into Bughouse chess... having a teammate made for crazy complication and cooperation. It tended to be a much noisier game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In my experience, people have shown distinct interest (though often fleeting) when presented with the idea of chess variants. This is a hit-or-miss topic, since it has not uncommonly caused people to quirk their eyebrows in askance, but it's intriguing more often than not -- "*and there's no such thing as bad publicity*".

If you get people talking about it, even if it's to debate the very idea, then they **will** still have been drawn in (as well, it sometimes cascades to their conversations with friends and family, later), and *some* of them find their opinions swayed. :-)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have an idea for a fun event to attract attention. What makes chess less interesting to the majority is (i) the level of patience required (rather than skill or intelligence), and (ii) chess being a 2-player game rather than a team game.

My idea is to adapt chess to team game situation (not team chess). The event is human chess (i.e. pieces are people), but the twist is that it is not a 2-player game. The pieces get to make some decisions. Apart from pieces, there are black and white counselors who decide which piece to move, and the pieces will decide where to move (including capture, castle, and en-passant). This will bring some team dynamics to the game in a social sense (already co-ordination of pieces has a team-dynamics in chess, but not to the beginner's eye). Counselors should know some chess. But, it is okay for the chess pieces to know only basic rules. In this format, mistakes are unavoidable, but it will be good for a fun event I suppose.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Show the 1995 Dutch movie Lang leve de koningin ("Long live the queen") with subtitles in your language.

This is a great kids movie about (among other things) chess.

Here is the trailer on Youtube. There's even a (probably illegal) full length copy on Youtube.

You'd have to find out about legal rights to show it of course.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The chances are small that you can set this up, but it would be great:

Organize it when there's an important chess match going on and have that broadcast live during the exhibition, maybe with someone commenting.

---
Tags: learning, clubs
---


title: How to sort a chess PGN game by date

text:
# Question
Title: How to sort a chess PGN game by date
Is there a way to sort a PGN chess game by date and export the sorted games as a new PGN file?

# Answer
I have not tried this myself, but there is a forum post on chess.com that has instructions on how to do this in SCID (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/sorting-a-pgn)

1. Make an empty scid database
2. Import your games
3. Do database maintenance - Sort by date
4. Export your databse to PGN
> 3 votes

# Answer
I am sure there are many programs that include this functionality. I would be surprised if SCID (http://scid.sourceforge.net/) did not have it. There should be one or more online services that provide this function. In the end of the day, you can write your own script in e.g. Python that does this easily and nicely. The trick is that some games appear as duplicates in less well maintained PGN files. Another trick is that some games are missing certain annotation fields. Some fields could also be filled in with incorrect type of data or simply be empty. So if you go down the road of writing your own scripts, consider writing quality check scripts that make sure the PGN format is followed and that the information is complete.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You can do it with ChessBase: http://chessbase-shop.com/en/products/chessbase12\_download
> 1 votes

# Answer
The accepted answer does currently (2021) not work with the latest Scid versions. Bug? But it works with Scid vs PC:

* In Scid vs PC, open the PGN database which you want to sort (*File**Open*).
* Open the game list, if it is not visible already (*Windows**Game List*).
* Create an empty Scid database via *File**New* (make sure it is a `*.si4` database, not a `*.pgn` database). You should now see both database buttons below the game list.
* Select the PGN database by clicking its button.
* Sort the PGN database by your desired criteria. You can do that directly in the game list by clicking on the column headers, or by doing it via *Tools**Maintenance**Sort Database* (you can reset any sorting by right-clicking a column header in the game list and choosing *Reset*).
* Drag-drop the button of the sorted PGN database on the button of the empty Scid database. This imports all games, sorted in the same order. Test it by resetting the sorting. The sorting should stay the same as in the sorted PGN database.
* Finally export the Scid database to a new PGN database using *Tools**Export All Filter Games**Export Filter to PGN*. I recommend to not set the encoding to utf-8, I encountered problems in other databases when I did that.

Voilà
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, pgn
---


title: Why is 12... d4 a blunder?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is 12... d4 a blunder?
I recently played a game featuring the Old Sicilian with a bit of a branch-off. White played 3. Bc4 after 2. Nf3 Nc6, which I don't deal well with. I ended up playing 12... d4, attacking the White knight, which the analysis later marked as a blunder. I'm not an advanced chess player, and I can't find out why this would be so.

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "23"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 g6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. b3 O-O 8. Bb2 Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 e6 11. f4 d5 12. Bb5 d4 13. Bxc6 dxc3 14. Bxb7 cxb2 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. Ba6 Nh5 17. Rxb2 Nxf4 18. Qf3 Qg5+ 19. Kh1 Bxb2 20. Rg1 Qe5 21. Rb1 Ba3 22. Qg3 c4 23. dxc4 Bd6 24. a3 Rb6 25. Bb5 Bxa3 26. Ra1 Bd6 27. Rxa7 Ne2 28. Qe3 Qh2#

```

Can anybody please can clue me in to how 12... d4 was a blunder?

# Answer
> 17 votes
Because black can play **12...Nd4** instead. The threat is to catch the bishop b5 with **...a6** and **...b5** and eventually **...c4**. I do not see how white can prevent this. White loses a piece.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Computers have a different idea of what the word "blunder" means than a human. To a computer a blunder is any move that changes the evaluation of the position in a bad way more than a pawn's worth, even if the reason is not obvious. To a human, a blunder is an obviously bad move.

So, your move is not really a blunder, it's just a missed opportunity. By playing Nd4 instead of d4, you would be threatening 13...a6 14. Ba4 b5 winning the bishop which is trapped. There is no way for White to escape this because if plays 13. b4 to try to make a luft for the bishop, then Black just plays 13...cxb4 and the White knight is under attack. If the knight moves, then the bishop is lost because the knight on d4 is attacking it.

This position is a good example of why you want to get your pieces out of attack and put pressure on the enemy pieces. Nd4! does both. It removes the knight from the bishop's attack and makes an attack of its own, two things at once.

# Answer
> 0 votes
because white plays Na4 and attacks the pawn at c5. Impossible to secure with b4 because the Knight will be lost after that.

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Have there been brilliancy prizes awarded to the losing player?
Have there been brilliancy prizes awarded to the losing player? Preferably, it would be at a grandmaster level.

# Answer
Not exactly a prize, but answers your question in spirit: Immortal Losing Game Wikipedia's summary of the game is:

> The Immortal Losing Game is a chess game between the Soviet grandmaster David Bronstein and the Polish International Master Bogdan Śliwa played in 1957 in Gotha. The name is an allusion to the more famous Immortal Game between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky. The game acquired its name because Bronstein, in a completely lost position, set a series of elegant traps in an attempt to swindle a victory from a lost game, although Śliwa deftly avoided the traps and won.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: tournament, history, grandmaster, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Is there Python code to use the Leela neural network?
I am interested in doing some analyses of chess games using the neural network trained for Lc0. To that end I need to be able to turn PGN into the right kind of input vectors and to load and use the neural network trained for Leela chess.

My question is whether there is python code for this somewhere. Especially for the first step, using the neural network shouldn't be a problem.

Alternatively an explanation of how the input vectors are computed might enable me to write it myself.

# Answer
Python utilities for experimenting with Leela Chess Zero a neural network based chess engine: https://github.com/glinscott/leela-chess/

Here: https://github.com/so-much-meta/lczero\_tools This allows you to run the network in Python on specific board positions via python-chess, and get policy/value outputs. (Works with pytorch, and is also able to run the network using the tfprocess training module included in Leela).

https://github.com/dkappe/leela-chess-weights/wiki/Supervised-Learning A newer, faster tool for converting pgn to training data can be found here.
> 6 votes

# Answer
note that there are newer tools and an official api here!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, pgn, leela, python
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to continue the game in this situation and maintain my advantage?
White to move. I did a queen sacrifice which took away my advantage and led to a perfectly even game which I blundered. What am I supposed to do that isn't a queen sacrifice? My rooks are stuck and my queen cannot protect the knight unless I go to h5, which chess.com showed also took away my advantage. I have +4.51 so there must be a really good move somewhere, right?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I will expand a bit on the statements above. Just look objectively into the position:

* There is no threat to either king. Q+N can be a weapon of mass destruction, but nothing happens here.
* Everything is hanging: your Q and N, his Q and R.
* Thus the position is very "hot" and you just have to calculate the most urgent things: check, capture, or God save the queen.
* 1.Nxf8+ and you are an exchange up. After that, you retreat your queen (1...Rxf8 2.Qd4, preferably, or 2.Qd3) and especially hang on to your weak pawns on c4 and e4 until you come to playing Rc1/b3 and Re1/f3. Technically easily won, note that Ba6 does nothing after you consolidated.
* 1.Nxe7 cxd5 and unlucky recapturing cxd5 hangs your rook, thus 2.Nxd5 Bxc4 3.Rfd1, about += (you are still a pawn up and have the better structure).
* 1.Qh5 and Black loses the exchange anyway, since he must go out of the fork. 1...Qxe4 2.Nxf8+ Rxf8. Same as variant 1, still won, only Pe4 will write "I hate you" on his tombstone, as you wasted him for nothing. Arguably, call it a sacrifice to quickly invade with your rooks via the e-file, but I'm a materialist.

In blitz I'd play Nxf8+ in a second.

---
Tags: advantage
---


# Question
Title: Are there any computer vision chess programs which can be used for online games?
I want to play online chess with a real chess board. I learned that lichess can read the opponent's moves out loud, so I don't have to stare at the screen, which is a good start. Now I need a way to send my moves to the PC.

I don't have a few hundred dollars laying around to buy a DGT board, but I do have a webcam, and I know that computer vision chess is a hot topic of research- I've seen many demonstrations on youtube. Is this technology available yet for online play?

# Answer
It seems this GitHub project provides what you're looking for:

"Program that enables you to play online chess using real chess board. Using computer vision it will detect the moves you make on chess board. After that, if it's your turn to move in the online game, it will make the necessary clicks to make the move."

https://github.com/karayaman/Play-online-chess-with-real-chess-board
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: How much worse do GMs play in their blitz and bullet games?
How much of a skill drop is there when a GM plays a blitz game or a bullet game versus rapid and classical?

What I mean is, imagine if Carlsen was given 1 minute to play in, and he played against somebody who was given 1 hour to play in. What must the rating of this opponent be in order for them to be equally matched? In other words, what is the "classical rating"-equivalent of Carlsen's bullet-rating? And the same for blitz?

Obviously you cannot answer this by actually playing Carlsen against somebody who can think for longer, because Carlsen would also be able to think while his opponent is taking their time and that's not what I'm looking for.

But I suspect by analyzing the *quality* of the games that Carlsen plays, one could compare them to his classical games and perhaps estimate what "classical-rating" skill-level he is playing at when he plays blitz?

# Answer
> Handicapping

I've played in blitz tournaments where the higher rated player was handicapped 1 minute per 100 rating points with a maximum of 3 minutes deducted.

When you play with one 1 minute physical ability becomes a huge factor. If you are not fast enough to move a piece while your opponent is reaching for his clock, and then hit your clock near immediately after your opponent, you will likely lose on time.

There is an endurance factor as well. When you play blitz or bullet it is typically a lot of games in succession. You might note that in the recent Côte d’Ivoire Rapid & Blitz (which Magnus dominated), the quality of the blitz games dropped significantly as the day went on -- this is typical of these type of tournaments and you often see players brains just stop performing.

> Overall Strength

We don't have data on GM's playing with huge time handicaps as you proposed, but we can see their quicker games and compare them to their slower games. Of course they have multiple FIDE ratings to represent this. Magnus is further ahead of the world in rapid than he is in classical.

I personally think that when the players are young and in great form, they don't need much time. When Anand was a rising star he played classical games at blitz speed. Kamsky too played fairly quickly. This is strategic as older GMs need to take their time and would get into time pressure.

Probably a computer program could rate the quality of the games to get a non-opinion based answer to your question. My personal opinion is that if classical was level 10, rapid would be 7-8, blitz 5-6, and bullet under a 4.

Then it would be interesting to compare these against IM or Master games. My guess is that GM games at Rapid are still better than IM classical games.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Not much. Certainly not against non GMs. There is a bit more chance involved between those both at the highest levels.

I would estimate that given 5 minutes a top GM would beat most players up to 2200 possibly higher.

With one minute there is too much nimbleness involved to move and hit the clock that the numbers become more meaningless.

Low ranked players often do much worse playing at speed chess variations whether bullet blitz fast or whatever.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Most of the modern GMs nowadays who have grew up with online chess are very good with blitz or even faster time formats.

GMs who were trained in classical way, with over the board analysis and sound fundamentals, might play quite poorly online as they will not be able to convert even one time scramble.

Just to give an extreme example, GM Nihal Sarin from India is 17 years old, and he plays ultrabullet chess (15 seconds for all the moves per side), quite accurately, using a mouse and medium speed internet. This goes to show how the GM level calculation does help in super fast time controls, where flagging and running with the king is a possibility.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rating, blitz, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is the history of online Ultrabullet Chess?
Is the ultrabullet chess format (15 seconds for all your moves), which has been running on lichess for quite some years now, give chance to give good quality games?

I would like to know on which servers in the past, ultrabullet was played and its origins.

# Answer
The origin for Ultrabullet on lichess in particular is an April's fools that somehow stuck around https://lichess.org/blog/WN7V-jAAAAdH8ITR/announcing-instant-chess .

Does it lead to quality games? Depends on what exactly you mean by that. If it is about "objectively good" play in the traditional sense, then the answer is no. Strategically it is played very differently, because of the enormous time pressure. (even just playing moves that allow for a good premove followup as well as playing moves aiming to punish opponent premoves and so forth)

In that sense it may be fair to say that Ultrabullet is more akin to a chess variant with its own dynamics, similar to the likes of Crazyhouse or other variants.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: bullet-chess
---


title: Will I have to memorize all this?

text:
# Question
Title: Will I have to memorize all this?
I never studied openings so decided to try it.My plan is to play e4 openings and Caro-kann for black. Now to learn the Caro-kann,I have to look at the Advance,exchange and Nc3/Nf6 stuff variations. After e4,if e5 I will play ruy lopez which also have variations like chigorin,breyer,exchange,etc. For french defense I would've to look at exchange,advance stuffs. This all seems like a hastle.I thought chess was a intuitive game,how can I memorise all these?,Any tips?

# Answer
The answer depends on your strength. Unless you're a master, the answer is "no". Note that memorization of opening theory is easier the stronger of a player you are (as most moves will become "obvious", so you won't need to commit them to memory).

At this stage in your development as a chess player, the best thing you can probably do to help the study of openings is improving your chess skills (tactics and strategy).

But you can make the test yourself. Take a sample of your last few games and check how many of them would have had a different result if you knew by heart the lines you're about to study. The answer is probably "not many of them".

Ultimately it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to master openings for the sake of mastering openings, then yes, you should memorize all of that. But odds are that what you're actually trying to improve is your overall chess strength, and there are definitely more effective ways to achieve that than rote memorization.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there a site where I can play 30 seconds games?
I only know, from the fastest time controls, which chess sites to play 1+0 and 0+1 on. But is there a possibility to play 30 second games?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Not only does lichess.org has the option to berserk in 1m bullet-games, but after a recent update you are able to to start a 30sec game. You will learn nothing though.

# Answer
> 5 votes
If you play on a tournament in http://lichess.org, you have the option to go into Berserk mode. This effectively halves your time (NOTE: not your opponent's), for the possibility of winning more points. If you're playing a 1 minute tournament, then berserking every game will allow you to effectively be playing 30 second games.

That being said, you won't learn much by playing 30 second games because the game will almost always come down to who's faster with the mouse as opposed to who's a faster thinker... but I'm assuming you already knew that.

**EDIT**: Since I originally wrote this, Lichess has implemented a stand-a-lone 30 second tournament mode. That is, both players are automatically forced to use 30 seconds for the whole game without having to berserk.

# Answer
> 4 votes
chesscube.com allows you to play with any time you want even 10+1sec. A fine bullet game with quality players can be played on chess.com but you have 1min option there.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The website http://chesstempo.com allows 10 seconds bullet games as the shortest possible.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess.com now allows games down to 10 seconds and no increment. However, it's hard to find anyone playing faster times than the normal 60 second bullet. I just played a 10 second game after seeking for about two minutes.

I pulled this announcement off Facebook just now:

I tested how low the time control is allowed to be set. I found that the system seeks for a ten second game, but if you input 9 seconds as the time control, it will reject the input.

# Answer
> 0 votes
On lichess you can play, 15 seconds chess as well, and there is lag compensation, for your unstable internet connection. Also if you premove, you do not lose anytime on your clock, as long as your premove is a legal move in the next position of the ongoing game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can do this in lichess.org. First go to lichess main site and click on "Create a game". On the drop-down list, chose "realtime" and you can chose 1/2 minute which equals 30 seconds. Click "Create the game" and you all set!

---
Tags: online-chess, time-control, websites, bullet-chess
---


title: An interesting positional chess riddle

text:
# Question
Title: An interesting positional chess riddle
I was thinking about a situation on a chessboard. You can call it a riddle, but I am not sure whether it is solvable or not.

Let's say that there are more than 5 pieces for both Black and White, including the kings, on a chessboard and it is White's turn.

The Riddle: Is it possible to arrange all the pieces on the chessboard, in such a manner, so that, for **every possible move** by White, the Black king gets checkmated? Can you construct such a position?

---

What I've thought so far:

Since King can't give a checkmate (apart from exceptional cases of a two queens/two rook mate), the White king should be immovable. Otherwise, the criteria of the riddle can't be fulfilled. But thinking about it this way, I can't set up any position that meets the criteria of my riddle.=

# Answer
```
[FEN "K3k2n/7n/rr1R3N/7n/8/8/4BQ2/4R3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxa6#

```

Here is a much more simple situation where White only has only one legal move, which is a discovered checkmate.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This is a very easy concept to construct, and it has already been done on Tim Krabbe's site as noted by Ian Bush in a comment. Here are the current records, i.e. the highest that has been constructed by chess problemists so far.

I found two cases of **55** forced mates with promoted pieces in Tim Krabbe’s Diary Entry #383.

```
[Title "Ludwig Zagler, Feenschach 1972, 55 Forced Mates"]
[FEN "1rB1Q1Q1/1PRQ3Q/2b2k2/2pQ1N1Q/4KRPp/5N2/1R6/B3nn1b w - - 0 1"]

```

---

```
[Title "Sampsa Lahtonen, Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #383 2008, 55 Forced Mates"]
[FEN "B3n1bb/1R6/4pN2/4KRPp/2pQ1N1Q/2b2k2/1PRQ3Q/1rB1Q1Q1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Without promoted pieces, the record is 29, as Krabbe reported in his Diary Entry #334.

```
[Title "Harold Holgate Cross, The Problemist FCS 4/1936, 2251"]
[fen "8/1b6/p1N5/P1r5/P3KPr1/QBk1NRP1/P2R1P2/4B3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```
> 4 votes

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


# Question
Title: Most common tactic motifs in the opening phase of chess
On analyzing my games, I found that I usually miss tactics in the opening than during middlegame and endgame. To supplement my study by solving tactical problems based on motifs, it would be helpful if I understand the key motifs I must stress on. Hence the question below.

**Based on different tactical motifs like fork, pin, deflection, double-attack, etc. what is the most common tactical motif during the opening phase statistically?**

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Lichess categorization of tactical motifs is not bad, but these are not common tactical motifs of the opening phase, in my opinion. They describe motifs which happen in the final phase of the game.

I created a GitHub repository where I have put some CQL scripts which I used to search for the motifs I consider typical in the opening phase. The first twenty moves were considered. I searched in a GM database containing 370,000 games. The database is contained in the repo.

The results are listed in a table, and the matching games can be found in the folder named *output*.

You can download or fork this repo and play around with those scripts. You can also run them on your own PGN databases.

Happy chess research :-)

# Answer
> 8 votes
# Opening puzzles

On Lichess it's possible to train opening related puzzles:

https://lichess.org/training/opening

Puzzles for other phases of the game are available as well:

https://lichess.org/training/themes

Keep in mind, that the puzzle selection will be only as good as the votes given by Lichess users. Also, as far as I know, it's not possible to select specific openings.

# Statistics

Because of a question by @BCLC in the comments I found this link, where you can download all Lichess puzzles. I made a little table based on all puzzles tagged with "opening". Actual motifs are marked in **bold** other tags in *italic*.

Remember, that the statistics will be only as good as the data. Apparently there is one puzzle tagged with "opening" and "rookEndgame".

| Tag | Count | Perc. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *short* | *71723* | *74.27%* |
| *advantage* | *58328* | *60.40%* |
| *crushing* | *25978* | *26.90%* |
| **fork** | **20514** | **21.24%** |
| *long* | *11694* | *12.11%* |
| *oneMove* | *11204* | *11.60%* |
| **mate** | **9170** | **9.50%** |
| **hangingPiece** | **8307** | **8.60%** |
| **discoveredAttack** | **8110** | **8.40%** |
| **kingsideAttack** | **7507** | **7.77%** |
| **pin** | **6299** | **6.52%** |
| **mateIn2** | **4618** | **4.78%** |
| **trappedPiece** | **4150** | **4.30%** |
| **mateIn1** | **3597** | **3.72%** |
| **attackingF2F7** | **3451** | **3.57%** |
| **sacrifice** | **3412** | **3.53%** |
| *equality* | *3099* | *3.21%* |
| **intermezzo** | **2842** | **2.94%** |
| **defensiveMove** | **2683** | **2.78%** |
| **attraction** | **2003** | **2.07%** |
| *veryLong* | *1954* | *2.02%* |
| **deflection** | **1952** | **2.02%** |
| **capturingDefender** | **1605** | **1.66%** |
| *master* | *1042* | *1.08%* |
| **advancedPawn** | **1022** | **1.06%** |
| **clearance** | **892** | **0.92%** |
| **mateIn3** | **784** | **0.81%** |
| **skewer** | **741** | **0.77%** |
| **exposedKing** | **740** | **0.77%** |
| **quietMove** | **582** | **0.60%** |
| **doubleCheck** | **550** | **0.57%** |
| **interference** | **455** | **0.47%** |
| **queensideAttack** | **416** | **0.43%** |
| **smotheredMate** | **393** | **0.41%** |
| **backRankMate** | **212** | **0.22%** |
| *enPassant* | *177* | *0.18%* |
| **mateIn4** | **120** | **0.12%** |
| *castling* | *110* | *0.11%* |
| *masterVsMaster* | *91* | *0.09%* |
| **promotion** | **89** | **0.09%** |
| **bodenMate** | **57** | **0.06%** |
| **mateIn5** | **51** | **0.05%** |
| **xRayAttack** | **47** | **0.05%** |
| *superGM* | *35* | *0.04%* |
| **doubleBishopMate** | **28** | **0.03%** |
| **dovetailMate** | **20** | **0.02%** |
| **underPromotion** | **4** | **0.00%** |
| **anastasiaMate** | **3** | **0.00%** |
| **hookMate** | **1** | **0.00%** |
| **arabianMate** | **1** | **0.00%** |
| *rookEndgame* | *1* | *0.00%* |

# Code

Here is the Kotlin snippet I used to generate the table:

```
val data = File("lichess_db_puzzle.csv").readText().trim().split('\n')
    .map { it.split(',')[7].split(' ') }.filter { it.contains("opening") }.flatten()
    .groupingBy { it }.eachCount().toList().sortedByDescending { it.second }
for (i in 1..data.lastIndex) {
    val t = if (data[i].first in listOf("advancedPawn", "anastasiaMate", "arabianMate", "attackingF2F7", "attraction", "backRankMate", "bodenMate", "capturingDefender", "clearance", "defensiveMove", "deflection", "discoveredAttack", "doubleBishopMate", "doubleCheck", "dovetailMate", "exposedKing", "fork", "hangingPiece", "hookMate", "interference", "intermezzo", "kingsideAttack", "mate", "mateIn1", "mateIn2", "mateIn3", "mateIn4", "mateIn5", "pin", "promotion", "queensideAttack", "quietMove", "sacrifice", "skewer", "smotheredMate", "trappedPiece", "underPromotion", "xRayAttack", "zugzwang")) "**" else "*"
    println("| %-24s | %10s | %11s |".format("${t}${data[i].first}${t}", "${t}${data[i].second}${t}", "${t}${"%.2f".format(100.0 * data[i].second / data[0].second)}%${t}"))
}

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
During all standard / book openings tactical motifs which win material don't feature. They wouldn't be book openings if they did. That rules out forks, deflections, double attacks, etc. and leaves only pins.

As it happens pins are very common and feature sooner or later in a lot of openings but they only win material if the player with the pinned piece lets something else go wrong. Usually the pinned piece is a knight pinned by a bishop against king or queen and usually the player with the pinned piece has the opportunity to break the pin with a bishop move or force the pinning bishop away with a couple of pawn moves.

I think you are wasting your time looking at tactical motifs in standard openings, i.e. in openings which are played properly. What you really need to do as a priority is look at what tactical motifs you miss in *your own* games. As a second priority you need to improve your knowledge of the openings you personally play. The openings I play or which are played most often generally are no use to you if you don't play them.

You need to be familiar not just with pages of moves and analysis. Much more useful is to be familiar with the ideas behind the openings *you* play. You need to be familiar and comfortable with the kinds of positions which arise from those openings and know how to handle them.

That way you are much less likely to make tactical mistakes playing moves that go against the ideas of your favoured openings. That way, too, you are more likely to spot when your opponent makes a move which doesn't "fit in" with the ideas of the opening and which may be some kind of "hope chess" trap. Then you are more likely to avoid falling into it and maybe even taking advantage of your opponent's deviation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This will not be really an answer to the question that wanted only statistics. This is answer to why you have those errors and how to improve that. Obviously reason is lack of pattern knowledge for tactics typical for openings. Improving it is easy - read books on miniatures - I'll not mention any specific as there are lot of those in different languages. Additionally - you can use some chess database and tools to search for games under 20-25 moves and this way you will get lot of miniatures. Studying miniatures will greatly improve your skills of opening phase of game and show you all the typical errors and good books will explain what would be a good move played instead of error that lead the game to become miniature.

---
Tags: opening, tactics
---


# Question
Title: What openings can I play against most openings?
I'm looking for a "universal" opening. One example is the King's Indian, which you can play against e4, d4, and several other openings. What other openings, for Black or White, can be played versus most classical openings?

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you like the King's Indian with black I see no problem with going with the King's Indian Attack with white.

Also, for those who want an opening that fits all black responses the London System seems the way to go.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As white the task is much easier because you make the first move and dictate terms.

You have:

* 1. g4 The Grob
* 1. f4 Bird's
* 1. Nf3 Reti
* 1. b3
* 1. b4 Sokolosky

As black you are more limited and have to play much more passively to be able to play the same moves against almost any white response.

The Hedgehog where you play to try and reach this kind of position:

```
 [fen "2r1r1k1/1bqnbppp/pp1ppn2/8/2P1P3/8/PP3PPP/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

The Hippopotamus which looks like this (Don't mess with the Hippo!):

```
 [fen "r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Systematic approach to learning opening/endgame theory?
Some relevant information: I've been playing chess for 4 years, and for 3 in tournaments, although I've only played in about 10 tournaments so far (3 big ones, like the Pan Ams and Chicago Open). My current rating is 1650 UCSF, and my chesstempo rating is 2100, if that is relevant. I'm fairly strong at tactics (and getting away with unsound sacrifices), and decent at positional play (I can recognize the value of controlling dark/light squares, using/creating outposts, securing open files, removing defenders, playing with a space advantage etc).

The Problem: Theory. Although I play the King's Gambit as white, and the Alekhine's Defence/Grunfeld as black, all highly theoretical openings, I don't actually know theory beyond, say 5-8 moves at best. I'm a highly tactical player, so I just seek to create complications from the opening, and end up having a decisive game in the middlegame due to the ensuing fireworks. I've reached the endgame exactly twice so far (out of ~70 games, in tournaments), and hence have very little experience in them. But recently, I've been getting outplayed in the openings, and have decided that its time to man up and learn opening/endgame theory. Since its an arduous task, I request to you, wiser, more experienced players to give me advice on how to fight this monster. Where should I start? Is learning theory just rote memorization? How much is enough (certainly, 8 moves of theory won't do in the King's Gambit or Grunfeld, but may suffice in the Alekhine)?

I've tried to read two books on chess so far: Silman's "Reassess Your Chess", and Taylor's "Alekhine Alert!". While both are highly interesting, I lose patience when they spit out a 50-move continuation after showing an interesting position, and due to not having a board around, I slam the book shut. Do you guys know of any books that don't do that/other resources to help learn theory in an entertaining way?

P.S. I'm very scared of the French and the English because they are highly theoretical, and score very badly against them because I keep trying odd responses (I play the KIA against the French to avoid having my d4 pawn targeted, but get crushed on the queenside anyway, and try the Dutch defence against the English to not lose due to boredom, but lose due to inferior pawn structure (mainly) anyway).

# Answer
I will preface this by saying that I'm a 2150 USCF player who has had the same issues that you are struggling with in the past. What I'm about to tell you comes straight from my own experiences playing chess all these years.

Don't study or memorize any theory straight up. I find it difficult to retain information like that and the potential for it to be used is minimal. The best way to learn theory is to first forget about it, and instead play games with that opening. Then after the game, when you are at home look up the theory for whatever variation you are playing and learn the theory AFTER you've played a tournament game with it. This usually consists of finding books related to the opening you've played, poring quickly through some GM games in the same line, and annotating the game you just played.

The amount of theory you need to know is enough that you
1) won't fall into any opening traps and
2) that you have a general sense of how to play your position once you are out of book.

There isn't a set number of moves you need to memorize, but these two criteria are questions you should ask yourself if you think the amount of theory you know in the opening is insufficient.

You might say that you are scared that if you don't know the theory, you might lose straight out of the opening. From my experience, you will win if you are the better player no matter what opening you play, and you will lose if you are the worse player even if you are armed with loads of theory. You say yourself that you feel that these other players outplay you out of the opening, but honestly, I have a feeling that they would've outplayed you no matter what the opening choice. Upping your entire game, and analyzing what you could have done better in the resultant opening and middlegame positions is far more important than a few temporary setbacks in tournament play.
> 31 votes

# Answer
As an ex-player, I draw on a wider range of experiences, like go and scrabble. Most folk do not sit down and learn the tournament wordlist by rote starting AA and working to ZYZZYVA. You learn words with 'hooks', anagrams and high-probability pickups (the letters RETAIN combine with any letter except ABQVXYZ to make a bonus word). In the opening moves of go, you learn to apply general principles in specific situations. In chess, I guess one of the important factors is the way one opening line can transpose into another. MCO would be even bigger (and more inpenetrable) if it simply documented a hierarchy.

Have fun
> 10 votes

# Answer
Your profile reminds me of that of a master named David Janowski. His nemesis was a world champion (and a personal friend) name Jose Raul Capablanca. Capablanca published a book called "Chess Fundamentals" which details a number of games he won against Janowski (and others). I would study this book from "Janowski's" point of view. The book is one of the few in the public domain, and can therefore be viewed online.

Capablanca was not a particularly good opening player. But he was the best endgame player of his time. So his book will show you how he won endgames, and "finessed" unfamiliar openings.
> 7 votes

# Answer
With respect to learning more positional theory, I can't recommend Nimzowitch's *My System* highly enough. If you haven't already read it, it is really wonderful. He gives plenty of examples but accompanies them with great exposition. My entire style of play has been modeled after the Nimzo hypermodern school.

My repertoire:

As white: I play your dreaded English. I tend to play it as a Reverse Dragon.

As black: Against 1. e4 I play the sicilian, aiming for the Dragon. Against 1. d4 I play the Nimzo-Indian. Against 1. c4 I go for a hyper-symmetrical english shooting for something like the pawn structure of the dragon.

What you'll notice about this choice of repertoire is that the pawn structure (excepting the Nimzo-Indian) is identical (or nearly so) in all of my games. I find that this is key to having a good positional strategy. By keeping the pawn structure the same, I am able to utilize similar tactics and positional strategy in all of my games. I know that I am going for a semi-open game that will focus my attack on the queenside. Following Nimzowitch, I am a fan of indirect control of the center--- every opening I play involves a fianchetto for one of my bishops (usually kingside, except the Nimzo, where it is a queenside fianchetto).

Another thing that is good to learn is how to transpose openings into your preferred opening, or at least something relevantly similar.

One good reason to play the Sicilian Dragon: it is such a bookish opening that at any level below the master level, you will be in a position to exploit your superior knowledge of the opening. It is also a SUPER sharp opening, which should mesh well with your aggressive style of play. I tend to not like sharp openings (hence my preference for the English, which tends to be intermediate between the super positional and super tactical openings), but the Dragon is so bookish that you can utilize a nice stock of tactics.

All of this being said, my weak-point is tactics, my strong-point is positional play. I attribute this to my study of Nimzowitch, which really helped me understand position.

As for endgame play: I have to disagree with flicflac. I tend to think it is crucial, although admittedly it is less crucial at lower levels. The best resource for endgame study is Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Why do I think endgames are so good to learn? Well, I've seen Silman say that you can get to master level with only study of tactics and endgames. From what I've seen of very strong players, these aspects of their game tend to be very well honed.

A great resource for positional strategy is also Keres and Kotov's *The Art of the Middlegame*. It is the only book I know of that focuses on a detailed and comprehensive study of midgame strategy.

I hope this is of some use. No doubt a good portion of it is idiosyncratic, and may very well not be for everyone, but it has served me well.
> 6 votes

# Answer
# Openings:

Problem: You reported being dissatisfied with learning from books, if they have long variations between diagrams, since you study without a board.

Recommendation: Study with a board, or use DVD-based material or at least digital books that offer replay (search elsewhere on chess.stackexchange for tips on these).

Problem: You find that you're getting outplayed in the opening.

Recommendation: If you don't know many book moves of either the KG or Alekhine's Defence, then you may not lose much by switching. Keep in mind that they are highly idiosyncratic openings; few others transpose into and out of them (Vienna Gambit to KG in some lines is all I can thin of), so this knowledge and understanding of opening sequences may be largely untransferable. So, keep them fresh and use them as surprise weapons, say in blitz games.

Decide which type of opening you like to play, and try to keep your return on investment of time spent learning it. That means try to find pairs of openings for Black&White that share ideas (as Dennis recommends), like the English Dragon Reversed and the Sicilian Dragon, the KIA and the KID, the Dutch and Bird's, etc. Play through some games from each to see how well you intuitively understand what's going on, and whether you feel at home with them.

You don't *have* to follow this philosophy, but it's one way to save time learning theory. You'll learn the moves faster in the reversed color.

Or, you can learn theory-sparse openings, like the London System, the Two Knights' Tango, and so on. They won't offer you the rate of decisive middlegames you're used to, so you'll need to boost your endgame play substantially.

# Endgames

Problem: You don't know much about them, and don't play them often enough to learn more.

Recommendation: Endgames are often considered dull, because the same pieces seem to be going to and fro, there are long sequences of maneuvering, the pace seems to be slower because it's mostly about creating and pushing a passed pawn, the queens are gone, there are few mating opportunities, etc., etc.

But that doesn't have to be *your* take on them (it's *not* mine). Endgames are where the pieces come into their own, where their smooth cooperation is most important, and where tactics and tricks hide in the most unlikely places.

Take a look at this study from Troitsky. *Yeah, I know it's not from an actual game*, but look at what the knights are doing. The starting position offers no hint of what's about to happen:

```
[FEN "8/2N3K1/8/5k1q/4pPpP/8/4PPN1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Date "1935"]
[White "Troitzky, A."]
[Black " "]
[Result "1-0"]

1. Ne3+ Kxf4 2. Ncd5+ Ke5 3. Nf6 Qxh4 4. Nd7+ Ke6! (4... Kd4 5. Nf5+) (4...Kf4 5. Ng2+) 5. Nf8+ Ke7 6. Ng6+ 1-0

```

So, two knights beat a queen in the right circumstances, and although they don't seem to be cooperating, they shepherd the king inevitably into a fork that wins the queen, even with so little material left on the board.

By replaying this (and other positions like it ) a few times and trying to visualize which squares the knights controlled directly, and which were the tips of knight forks, I got much better at knight handling *in every part of the game*.

That's the secret of endgame study; few players do it well, but if you do it, you'll be better than most of your opponents at handling the pieces both in the endgame *and in the middlegame* too.

A fun book to learn about endgames from is Van Perlo's *Endgame Tactics*. There's none of the usual "this is what you have to know" stuff; it's all about practical games, mistakes players made when they could have saved the draw or won the game *if* they'd known the theory, and amazing ways the pieces cooperate to accomplish things they could never do alone, including some pretty wacky checkmates.

Eventually, you should be able to recognize which endgames are better than others, so you can steer your middlegame in that direction. "*Should I swap my bishop for his knight?*" and "*Should I exchange off a pair of rooks, or all of them?*" are the kinds of questions you can't answer if you don't have any knowledge. For that, you will need to hit a book or two about theory. I *don't* recommend Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual for this (although I own it and occasionally use it); that book is for Masters. Instead, find something light and easy; there are lots of choices. A quick and ready choice is Jesus de la Villa's *100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player*.
> 3 votes

# Answer
# What is the main idea of the opening I am playing?

In many chess openings there is a main idea of the opening which should guide you to the middlegame. And for every chess opening you should know what white/black tries to achieve. Once you know it for the openings you play often, you should learn what other plans are available. I give you a few examples here.

## King's Gambit

**White**: they want to mate the black king as soon as possible. White does not care about material (they sacrifice the f-pawn to open the f-file, in some variants they sacrifice knight in f3, bishop on f7, etc.), the primary goal is a fast checkmate. **Black**: you grab white material and try to avoid to be checkmated. You hope to survive the opening/middlegame, and win in the endgame, because you will have material advantage.

## Alekhine's Defence

**Black**: you give up the idea to control the center, and start to attack it immediately. White will control the center, but your play is to attack it and white figures which support the center. **White**: you will have space advantage, you try to use it for fast development, you try to control the center and prevent black from finishing the development.
> 2 votes

# Answer
First, learn the game backwards. This was an idea popularized by Capablanca and is the heart of the "Soviet system". Learn endgames first. Then learn middle games to reach winning endgames. Then pick your openings to reach favorable middle-games.

As far as openings, use the one move a game technique. Create a skeleton opening Your main lines should be about 8 moves deep. Look at the top three variations for each line and generally just go one move past that. After that, play what you think is the best move. If the move you choose is bad, look up what the main lines are and make a better choice. This way you are learning and not memorizing and the fact that you are using your own ideas will lead to a lot of original play.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Regarding the endgame, there are a few ways you could approach it.

If you want to systematically shore up your endgame knowledge, you could start by studying the piece-only endings, then pawn-only, then mixed piece-pawn. Piece-only endings you can get through rather quickly, say, 2-3 months of deliberate study/practice and would include up to, but not beyond, BBvK, BNvK, and Philidor positions for RBvR and QvR. Pawn-only are more complicated but you can do it in a year. Mixed piece and pawn can take you from simple rook vs pawn, all the way up to middlegame-type positions, and I'd do that last.

Another approach would be study the endgames based on their statistical likelihood of occurring OTB, and there are plenty of resources around to determine that (Mueller's fundamental endings, or De La Villa's book both have lists).

The most practical approach would be to study adjourned endgames from the openings you actually play the most, so you'll get to identify the most common themes you're likely to encounter (eg, pawn majorities, major/minor piece combinations). Play the positions out against your computer where you take the losing side, and see how it should be played.
> 1 votes

# Answer
## Openings

Play through lots of uncommented games of Super GMs quickly. Aka, get a chess database. I am not talking of online opening explorer xyz, no, get a real chess database on your local computer. E.g Scid. As input you can take the database from one of my GitHub repos, that's enough, and it has old games.

Try out what the Masters play in your own games. Experiment. Check your errors against their games.

Edit: YouTube tutorials are also underrated.

## Endgames

There is no way around reading one or two endgame books. But if you don't enjoy analyzing endgames, why do you play chess at all? Endgames contain all the chess beauty in its pure form.

I myself read some Averbakh books and Smyslov/Cheron, but today I would suggest Rosens "Chess endgame training", it's the shortest of them all, and good quality. Work through it from start to end.

And then just enjoy some games from "Endgame strategy" by Sherevsky. At this point you should already have gotten used to reading chess books like prose, and you will find your own way.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame, theory, aggressive-play
---


# Question
Title: How to avoid falling into unfamiliar traps in the opening stage?
I will be playing with a player in a few days and his level (1400ish) is slightly lower than mine (1500ish). However, he is very familiar with dubious gambits and opening traps and I can easily lose the game in the first 10 moves if I am not careful. On the other hand, if I can survive the opening stage and enter a quiet and equal position, then I have good chances to win the game.

I am planning to play the London system (if I play white) and have studied some possible gambits (traps) that he may play, including the Englund gambit and Old Benoni Defense. But there are so many traps to avoid and I am not sure if I can study all of them. I have even considered starting the game with the very rare Saragossa Opening if I am planning to enter the London system anyway. Here I am asking general principles when facing unfamiliar gambits/traps.

1. What should I do if my opponent plays a seemingly unreasonable gambit if I am unfamiliar with this position? Is it generally safer to decline the gambit and solidify one's own position instead?
2. In general, how to avoid being a victim of opening traps?
3. What are some opening options that are relatively "safer" that one is less likely to face ambitious gambits?

# Answer
As a practical matter, if you're playing to win, and you encounter a gambit you haven't seen before, don't take the material. Play defensively. This will be sub-optimal by engine standards, but will usually lead to a position that is easier to play. This is particularly true in your case, where you expect to outplay your lower rated opponent given enough time on the board.

That said, *personally*, at ~2100 Lichess Rapid, I almost always accept gambits, even if I'm unfamiliar with them, because it gives me good experience trying to stubbornly hang onto the material or punish my opponent's shaky position, And then, when I inevitably lose to some silly line that I never studied, I analyze it after the game, and try to remember the refutation next time. This is how I've treated the King's Gambit, and I'm slowly getting better at refuting it. I don't care much about winning or losing a single game, if I can learn from it and improve.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Study Opening principles. At least get the basic foundation (first 5 moves ) of common openings. The biggest problem with opening tricks is that if you know how to counter them, you will have a decisive advantage.

At the 1400 level, players will seldom do random gambits and openings. The most common you will see from white is Queen or King's gambit, evans gambit/smith morra gambit are not as common but still there. Here's a list of common opening gambits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit

If by chance your opponent plays a random gambit, it depends on the position. You have to find the right time to win it, or return it for counterattack. You want to try to counter gambits by playing aggressively, as giving a pawn away just gives central space.

To avoid an opening trap, the opponent will deviate from the "main or accepted line" This will give you an advantage, as long as you visualize the board and make sure you watch for the minor piece, common pieces used in traps. Common opening traps to study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_chess\_traps

For common openings, there are so many and not a really "safe" opening. Check out this useful article for how to avoid opening mistakes https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-failures-and-how-to-avoid-them

here is a forum for some "safe" openings to play https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/safest-chess-opening

Good Luck!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Well, study your opening more. At this level, your opponent isn't capable of creatively playing a new gambit. It's not hard to find some material of known gambits of your particular opening.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you want to play a London System and avoid the Elephant gambit then start with **1. Nf3**, and after **1... d5 2. d4** gets you into familiar lines.
> 1 votes

# Answer
From your post, I get the idea you might feel uncomfortable playing wild gambit positions. I would say: try to get a position you feel comfortable in. I feel most gambits your opponent will play, will be unsound, but then you will have to know some theory for that.

Old benoni: just play 2.d5 and play on from there. The position will be quite closed and white generally has a bit more space and better chances.

Englund: I would take the pawn and after 2...Nc6, in your case play 3.e4. This way you sidestep some of the wild activity you might not feel comfortable in. Although from a theoretical standpoint, I would accept the gambit and play from there. The Englund is considered overall unsound, given you know the theory.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, gambits, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: Find an opening based on the position of one player only
Given a position for just one player, how can I check to see if there is a standard opening that leads to that position?

For example, how could I find if there is an opening that leads (or may lead, if the line is followed by black) to a position like this for white?

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/3PP3/2P2P2/PP4PP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Using my free, open source pgn-extract program you can specify a grep-like FEN pattern to be searched for in a PGN file of games. The program comes with a file of opening lines (eco.pgn) so a search such as:

```
pgn-extract --fenpattern "*/*/*/*/3PP3/2P2P2/PP4PP/RNBQKBNR" eco.pgn

```

would output any matches along with the associated ECO information in the tags. I didn't find anything for this particular pattern.
> 8 votes

# Answer
As kentdjb already noted, there is no variation with that exact position which has an ECO entry.

But it happened in sub lines of some ECO codes. I did a search on this database (only contains GM games and games before 1900).

Both pgn-extract and this CQL query ...

```
cql() Ra1 Nb1 Bc1 Qd1 Ke1 Bf1 Ng1 Rh1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc3 Pd4 Pe4 Pf3 Pg2 Ph2

```

... find 40 results.

Most often the position appears in:

* B07e: Pirc, 3.f3 (**1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3** and now **3...c5 4.c3**)
* B22e: Sicilian, Alapin, 2...d6 (**1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6** and now **3.d4 Nf6 4.f3**)
* B12d: Caro-Kann, Fantasy Variation (**1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3** and now **3... g6 4.c3**)

The positions reached via Pirc and Alapin are the same, they are reached via transposition.

It also appears in one game starting with B00f: Owen (**1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7** and now **3.f3 g6 4.c3**) and in two games starting with B06g: Modern, 3.c3 (**1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c3** and now **3...d5 4.f3** and **3...d6 4.f3**).

The oldest game is this one (Owen move order):

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]
[Event "Sixth American Chess Congress"]
[Site "New York NY USA"]
[Date "1889"]
[Round "24"]
[White "Judd, Max"]
[Black "Gunsberg, Isidor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B00"]

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.f3 g6 4.c3 Bg7 5.Bd3 e5 6.d5 Nf6 7.Be3 O-O 8.Ne2 d6 9.
Nd2 Nbd7 10.Nf1 a5 11.Rc1 Nc5 12.g4 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Nd7 14.Rc2 Nc5 15.Qd2
Qf6 16.Bxc5 Qxf3 17.Qe3 Qxg4 18.Ba3 f5 19.c4 fxe4 20.Rg1 Qf3 21.b3 Rf7 22.
Bc1 Bc8 23.Nc3 Bf5 24.Rf2 Qh5 25.Ng3 Qh4 26.Qg5 Qh3 27.Ncxe4 Bxe4 28.Nxe4
Rxf2 29.Nxf2 Qc3+ 30.Qd2 Qf3 31.Qe3 Qf5 32.Qe4 Qf7 33.Be3 Rf8 34.h4 Kh8
35.Nh3 h6 36.Qxg6 Qxg6 37.Rxg6 Rf3 38.Bxh6 Rxh3 39.Bxg7+ Kh7 40.Rg4 Rh1+
41.Kd2 Rh2+ 42.Kc3 Rxa2 43.Bf6 Rf2 44.Bd8 Rf7 45.Kd3 Rd7 46.Bg5 Kg6 47.Ke4
Rf7 48.Bd8+ Kh7 49.Rg3 Rf4+ 50.Ke3 a4 51.bxa4 Rxc4 52.Rg2 Kh6 53.Ra2 Kh5
54.a5 bxa5 55.Rxa5 c6 56.dxc6 Rxc6 57.Ke4 Rc4+ 58.Kf5 Rf4+ 59.Ke6 Rd4 60.
Bf6 Kg6 61.Ra7 Rf4 62.Rg7+ Kh5 63.Bg5 Rf1 64.Kxd6 e4 65.Re7 Re1 66.Kd5
Rd1+ 67.Kxe4 Re1+ 68.Kf5 Rf1+ 69.Bf4 1-0

```

The highest rated games in the Pirc/Alapin move orders are these:

(Pirc move order):

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]
[Event "FIDE World Blitz 2014"]
[Site "Dubai UAE"]
[Date "2014.06.20"]
[Round "18.36"]
[White "Moiseenko, Alexander"]
[Black "Jobava, Baadur"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2707"]
[BlackElo "2713"]
[ECO "B07"]

1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 c5 4.c3 e6 5.Be3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Qb6 7.Qd2 Bd7 8.dxc5 dxc5
9.Na3 Qc7 10.Ne2 Ne5 11.O-O O-O-O 12.Nc4 Nxd3 13.Qxd3 Bb5 14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.
Qxb5 a6 16.Qc4 b5 17.Qb3 c4 18.Qc2 Bxh2+ 19.Kf2 Bd6 20.a4 Bc5 21.Bd4 e5
22.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 23.Kg3 Kb7 24.axb5 axb5 25.Ra5 Ra8 26.Rfa1 Rxa5 27.Rxa5 Ra8
28.Rxa8 Kxa8 29.Qd2 h6 30.Qd8+ Kb7 31.Kh2 Qe3 32.Qe7+ Kc6 33.Ng3 Qf4 34.
Kh3 Nh7 35.Qe8+ Kd6 36.Nf5+ Kc7 37.Qe7+ Kb6 38.Qd8+ Ka7 39.Qa5+ Kb7 40.
Qxb5+ Ka7 41.Qd7+ Kb6 42.Qd6+ Ka7 43.Qc7+ Ka8 44.Qc6+ Ka7 45.Qc5+ Kb8 46.
Qb5+ Ka7 47.Qa4+ Kb6 48.Qb4+ Ka7 49.Qc5+ Kb8 50.Qb6+ Ka8 1/2-1/2

```

One month later Jobava had this position with white (Alapin move order):

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]
[Event "ACP Golden Classic 2014"]
[Site "Bergamo ITA"]
[Date "2014.07.14"]
[Round "3.2"]
[White "Jobava, Baadur"]
[Black "Nepomniachtchi, Ian"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2713"]
[BlackElo "2730"]
[ECO "B22"]

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.f3 Nbd7 5.Be3 g6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.Ne2 O-O 8.O-O a6
9.Nd2 b5 10.a4 Rb8 11.axb5 axb5 12.b4 c4 13.Bc2 e5 14.h3 Re8 15.f4 exd4
16.Bxd4 Bb7 17.Ng3 Ra8 18.Re1 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Nb8 20.Qd1 Nc6 21.Bf2 Nd7 22.
Ne2 Nf6 23.g4 Qa8 24.Ng3 Nd7 25.e5 dxe5 26.f5 Nf6 27.Nde4 Rd8 28.Nxf6+
Bxf6 29.Qc1 Bg7 30.Bb6 Rc8 31.Rf1 Qa6 32.Bc5 Nb8 33.Qd2 Re8 34.Ne4 gxf5
35.Nd6 Rd8 36.Qg5 Rxd6 37.Qxf5 Bd5 38.Qxh7+ Kf8 39.Qg6 Ke7 40.Qxg7 Nd7 41.
Qg5+ Ke8 42.Be4 f6 43.Qh5+ Bf7 44.Qh8+ Ke7 45.g5 Nxc5 46.bxc5 Qa7 47.gxf6+
1-0

```

Highest rated game in the Caro-Kann Fantasy move order:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]
[Event "World Blitz"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2009.11.17"]
[Round "27"]
[White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Black "Leko, Peter"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2739"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[ECO "B12"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 g6 4.c3 Qb6 5.Qb3 Nf6 6.e5 Ng8 7.f4 h5 8.Nf3 Nh6 9.
Be3 Bf5 10.Nbd2 e6 11.a4 Nd7 12.a5 Qxb3 13.Nxb3 Be7 14.Be2 Kf8 15.O-O Kg7
16.Rfc1 Rhc8 17.h3 c5 18.Bb5 cxd4 19.Bxd7 Rd8 20.Bxd4 Rxd7 21.Bc5 Be4 22.
Nfd4 Nf5 23.Bxe7 Rxe7 24.Kf2 Rc7 25.g4 hxg4 26.hxg4 Ne7 27.Nb5 Rd7 28.Nc5
Rdd8 29.Nxb7 Rh8 30.Kg3 Rh7 31.a6 Rah8 32.Rf1 Rh2 33.f5 g5 34.f6+ Kg6 35.
fxe7 R8h3# 0-1

```

Other CQL queries you may try:

```
// exact position, including flipped positions
cql() flipcolor { Ra1 Nb1 Bc1 Qd1 Ke1 Bf1 Ng1 Rh1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc3 Pd4 Pe4 Pf3 Pg2 Ph2 }

// Exact pawn structure
cql() Pa2 Pb2 Pc3 Pd4 Pe4 Pf3 Pg2 Ph2

// Exact pawn structure, including flipped positions
cql() flipcolor { Pa2 Pb2 Pc3 Pd4 Pe4 Pf3 Pg2 Ph2 }

// Exact pawn structure, but pawn on c2
cql() Pa2 Pb2 Pc2 Pd4 Pe4 Pf3 Pg2 Ph2

// Exact pawn structure, but pawn on f2
cql() Pa2 Pb2 Pc3 Pd4 Pe4 Pf2 Pg2 Ph2

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, database
---


# Question
Title: Why is capturing the bishop in this position a blunder?
```
[FEN "r2n1rk1/pp1bppbp/1n4p1/q1N5/3P3N/PB2B2P/1P3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 3 18"]

```

Why is Nxd7 a blunder in this position?

I think that once the light squared bishop comes to c6 it will become very strong and hence removing it should be a good move, but according to Stockfish after Nxd7 the evaluation drops from around +4 to +0.6.

# Answer
It is a blunder because White can **win a piece** instead. The Black queen is in a molasses of its own pieces, and White has a very good chance of trapping it. Capturing the bishop loses this chance, making the move a mistake.

Here is White's best line of play that quickly plants Black a firm loss.

```
[FEN "r2n1rk1/pp1bppbp/1n4p1/q1N5/3P3N/PB2B2P/1P3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. a4 Qb4 2. a5

```

By playing a4, White threatens to play Bd2 on the next move, winning the Black queen. Moving the Black knight on b6 to clear room for the queen doesn't help. This is because moving it will lose the bishop on d7, which is attacked by the White knight on c5. As such, Black's best move is Qb4. Now White can play a5 and win a piece. Either the Black knight is taken by the pawn, or it moves, and the bishop is lost.

In other words, playing **Nxd7 is a blunder** because the **chance to win a piece**, and likely the game as a result, **is lost.** This teaches that it is very important to look out for any threats that you can make.
> 25 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, middlegame
---


title: Fastest way to parse a bitboard

text:
# Question
Title: Fastest way to parse a bitboard
I am making a chess engine, and for now I’m working on the move generation. I’m using bitboards, and so for example my magic bit boards file for a knight on d4 is

00000000
00000000
00101000
01000100
000N0000
01000100
00101000
00000000
Which is represented by some unsigned long long integer.

I need this in a format where I can store the moves in a move list, and also make the move. E.g. {10,12,17,21,33,37,42,44}

What would be the fastest way to get the indices of the “1” bits in the bitboard during runtime? Currently I isolate the least significant 1 bit with x &= -x, and then XOR the position until I get 0. But is there a faster way to do this?

# Answer
I found some well hidden pages in the Chess Programming Wiki.

The first one basically introduces your solution:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Bitboard\_Serialization#Single\_Bits

However, the next chapter states that most applications are interested in the index of the square rather than its bitboard representation:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Bitboard\_Serialization#Square\_Index\_Serialization

This is done using a **bitscan** routine. There is another page dedicated to them:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/BitScan

It shouldn't be a surprise that the fastest method is to use processor specific instructions:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/BitScan#bsfbsr

If this is not possible, there are many other algorithms described there, which you can choose from.

There is also a Java dedicated version of this page, which describes API methods, which may be intrinsified by the VM:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Java-Bitscan
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, bitboard
---


# Question
Title: Why is black playing ...f6 to attack the e5 pawn a bad move in the King's Indian Attack?
I have been studying the King's Indian Attack a bit recently, and have started reading through Neil McDonald's Move by Move book on it.

Earlier today I played a game against a 2100 on Lichess (I am around 1700 rapid) and attempted to play the KIA against my opponent's e3 Sicilian. After the first few moves I pushed my e4 pawn to e5 like the McDonald book talks about and then my opponent played 10..f6, leaving no way for me to keep my pawn. I thought that if this were viable I must have messed up the move order and quickly resigned after losing my only central pawn. Checking it with the engine, it looks like a slight inaccuracy from my opponent, going from about a -0.5 evaluation to 0.5 in my favour. But why is this? How am I supposed to "punish" this decision?

```
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[FEN ""]
[Date "2021.04.13"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2021.04.13"]
[UTCTime "04:29:14"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-2"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+8"]
[ECO "B40"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: French Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 d5 4. Nbd2 Nc6 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 Qc7 10. Qe2 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 0-1

```

I looked in the database for similar games but at least in the masters' database I'm having difficulty finding the common theme in white's winning plan. From what I have seen, I'm thinking black's e6 pawn becomes a target now that it's sad and alone, and maybe if a c4 pawn break was built up, the c4-f7 diagonal to the king is dangerous? Would anyone with a better understanding of chess be able to tell me if this is correct or if there might be anything else wrong with ..f6?

# Answer
You are right that e6 is your target and also that a winning plan is not trivial to find, that is because there is no clear win. The weak square e5 and the weak pawn e6 often do not guarantee a win, but usually white has a long-lasting slight advantage.

**f7-f6** attacks a pawn chain (ok, this is not really a pawn chain, but it would be, if your pawns were on c3 and d4) from the front (the e5 pawn). **c7-c5** (or **b7-b5-b4**) attacks it at the base (the d4 pawn, which is not on d4 in this example). **c7-c5** is less weakening than **f7-f6**, because **d4xc5** does not weaken the d5 pawn, but **e5xf6** weakens the e6 pawn. Still, **f7-f6** is often ok (this view has changed during chess history), when black gets dynamic counterplay. We see these ideas often in the French defense. Sometimes black manages to play **e6-e5**, completely freeing his game, though the then slightly weak d5 pawn is something black has to take care of.

So in this game you should have played calmly for control of the e5 stop square (see Kmoch:"Pawn Power in Chess", diagram 75), bring your bishop to h3, your knights to f3 and e5, and triple your heavy pieces on the e-file.

Once all your pieces are placed well, and his are bound to the e6 pawn, open a second front, for example with **a2-a3** and **b2-b4** or with **c3-c4**, or by pushing your pawns on the king side. This is according to Dworetzkys "Theory of the two weaknesses", which says that one weakness (e6 in this case) can be defended, but two or more weaknesses often can not.

Edit: And what you obviously should not do is resigning just because you have no idea what to do. In such a case, check out which of your pieces are not well-placed, and improve their position (Rowson: "Talk with your pieces"). ~~For example, I would have played **12.Ng5!** and on **12... e5 13.c4!**, and if he plays **13...d4** then I have a beautiful square e4 for the knights. Looks won for white, at least in a human vs. human game.~~ For example, the bishop c1 (and therefore Ra1) are bad pieces here, so play (the slightly unusual) **12.b3!** in order to control d4 and e5 with the bishop b2.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The ...f6 move is definitely a playable idea in many KIA positions, and it decreases your chances for building up a steady kingside attack. It also opens the f-file for Black's rook, and if you're not careful you could find yourself being attacked on the kingside. However, the drawbacks of ...f6 are that it weakens the e6-pawn, as well as the e5-square. So your plan would be to clamp down on e5, ensuring that the e6-pawn remains a weakness. If Black can get away with pushing ...e5, things won't be good for you.

On that note, I like the c4 idea you suggested. This puts pressure on the d5-pawn, discouraging the e6-pawn from moving (as it would weaken the d5-pawn). Although after playing c4, I wouldn't advise immediately playing cxd5, as this will just relieve Black of his backwards pawn after ...exd5. Instead, it's better to just leave the pawn on c4, where it will continue to pressure the pawn chain. If Black slips up at some point, such that he is unable to recapture on d5 with ...exd5 (maybe some pin on the e-file), then you can go ahead with cxd5.

If possible, develop your c1-bishop to f4, helping to watch the e5-square. Alternatively, the bishop could develop to b2 with the same purpose. Black could block the bishop with ...d4, but then this will give your d2-knight access to the c4-square, allowing it to control e5. So if you play Bb2, it's better not to play it in conjunction with pushing your pawn to c4. Note that ...d4 would also open up your g2-bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal.

As mentioned earlier, Black might try attacking on the f-file. So h3 is a move you could consider, controlling g4 and stopping any ...Ng4 ideas. Although at the same time, h3 could be used by your light-squared bishop in order to attack the e6-pawn. The bishop would be a bit vulnerable here, and it being off g2 weakens the f3-knight, so maybe only play this move when you think it's definitely worth it to attack the e6-pawn further. Another option for attacking the e6-pawn is Ng5, although like Bh3 this isn't really a move that puts your piece in a long-term stable position. And if you play Ng5 prematurely, you weaken your control over the e5-square, potentially allowing Black to push ...e5. However, one idea to consider is moving the f3-knight, pushing your f-pawn to f4, and then retreating the knight to f3. This will leave you with additional control over the e5-square.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: pawn-structure, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: An online dictionary of fairy chess pieces indexed by move
While trying to accurately describe the intended movement of the "doubled knight" in this chess puzzle, I realized that what I really wanted right at that instant was a "dictionary" that would let me look up the established name for a fairy chess piece based on its movement (or lack thereof).

Ideally, I'd like to be able to load up a graphical board like in lichess's editor, drag-and-drop pieces (including a placeholder for "my mystery fairy piece") to create a position, and then mark subsets of the squares as "attacked" or "not attacked," something like this:

and then the tool would tell me, "Ah, the piece you're referring to is commonly known as a 'Marseillais knight'," or whatever. (Note that I still don't know what my piece's name is.)

Does such a tool already exist anywhere? I've found glossaries such as this excellent one by Stephen Emmerson for the British Chess Problem Society, but nothing that would actually let me look up a piece by "allowed moves," and certainly I've found nothing interactive.

(If, as I predict, no such tool exists yet, I'd be interested to hear about difficulties one might encounter in implementing such a tool, and good authoritative sources of fairy-piece names other than Emmerson's.)

# Answer
The best tool (online, but not a web tool) was (note past tense) the list you referred to. You need to learn about movement rules (the square root notation, or x/y notation) and base piece movements, but then you can just search for movement rules. (In a few cases, you may need to update it first ...)

It is almost certainly not up-to-date anymore, though, even though it's only two years old, and that makes it non-best by the standards you set. Keeping it up-to-date as well as complete ... is probably a kind of job that very few people would do without being paid for it. Do it once, yes. Do it for five years, ... doubtful.

Some obvious issues:

Some fairy pieces (generally called Mimics, but that term is not in the glossary as far as I can find) get their movement rules from other pieces on the board (see Imitator and Joker for two.)

Some have movement rules that separate movement and attack. In, say, Rifle Chess they apply to all pieces, and may thus be seen as a general rule or condition, but individual rifle pieces have been observed. And many of the conditions described in the glossary can also be applied to individual pieces.

So for pure movement, this might work. But it would require the user to know beforehand that the piece is a pure 'mover', and not a mimic or another type of piece, or the lack of search find would be misinterpreted. That user is probably advanced enough to be able to go to Emmerson's list, or to Encyclopedia of Chess Problems and the relevant articles (Combined Pieces, Hoppers, Leapers, etc.), or perhaps the Piececlopedia. Even so, the probability is fairly high that the piece won't be listed.

Fairy pieces are invented fairly rapidly: a 'piece finder' would not stay up-to-date more than about ... 6 months (guess)? Encyclopedia of Chess Problems warns that its list of combined pieces is far from complete. So there's also a management problem: someone must keep all this updated.

That also leads to the question of being 'authoritative'. As there's no clearinghouse for naming of fairy pieces, this means keeping track of names and discussions in all chess problem literature, probably to the level where actual chess problem activities would be hurt. And one person would probably lose interest after some time, so there must be an active and working hand-over system to ensure it stays alive. (The chess problem community is not known for doing that kind of thing well.---personal note)

I suspect that if there is a tool such as you describe, it will be short-lived. Instead, let the would-be searcher after fairy pieces create his problems without bother about terminology, and then send them to an appropriate fairy chess journal, and the editors will help with the piece names.

(I think it was J. Berger or perhaps Ph. Klett who said that unorthodox chess should be regarded as a disease. You may be seeing one of the effects of such disease ... :-)

(Added: and it just strikes me that fairy chess boards, such as grid boards, or circular boards, or torus boards would probably also add to the complexity of identifying a mover piece.)

(Added again: I would not be surprised if there already was a sub-type of fairy chess problems, where the moves are listed, and the problem is to identify the fairy piece types and their positions that make that solution 'correct'. Hm ... )
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is the Wikipadia page "Fairy Chess Piece" with a table of popular and well known fairies. You can re-order the table by Betza notation or Parlett notation to get an ordering by move pattern. I think this is the best resource available, given your demands.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, websites, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: Did Hans Berliner win the world ICCF championship using computer help?
Way back when, Hans Berliner worked for IBM. I met him at an IBM data center one time, but he worked in the Federal division and just used the center for a demo. I had known him from the Washington Chess Divan earlier.

I know he had done a computer program to help with chess. It was the first as far as I can tell. This was in the days when the s/360 was ruling the market, and there were no PCs, and pdp8s and the like were not up to the job although they did cause IBM a lot of grief by their cheap price and what they could do for small special-purpose jobs.

The question I always had was did Hans use the IBM computers to assist his game when he won the ICCF world championship? I know that Hans was very good as a player, but was he **so** good that he could have won the ICCF world championship without the computer's help? It is certainly possible, but having a really good computer analysis on some tough positions had to be helpful.

# Answer
> 16 votes
Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".

He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.

My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.

I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.

# Answer
> 5 votes
**Humans VS machines in the 60s-70s:** one way of putting this accomplishment in perspective is by regarding the results of the match between Bobby Fischer and MIT Greenblatt computer program (Running Mac-Hack, a software written by the great Richard Greenblatt himself) in 1977.

I do believe that in 1977, Fisher was still very representative of what humans can do at their best at chess (even though he was retired), and so was the MIT Greenblatt computer for the machines. Still, Fischer obliterated the machine (3-0). This was 12 years after Hans Berliner won his title.

Now going back to your question, it seems fairly obvious that the gap between Greenblatt's computer and any computer 12 years older is very considerable. However, it appears to me that the gap between Fischer and Berliner is not *that* big. This is enough evidence for me, that, as a master, using/trusting a computer in 1965 was completely inappropriate, if not to say suicidal.

**From the programmer's perspective:** Berliner entered Carnegie Mellon in 1969 (4 years after his title) to do his PHD, where he came with the idea of programming HiTech, a chess engine. From Wikipedia:

> It performed well, but only until it ran into transitions, that is, points in the game when the balance between the players changed. This led Berliner to conclude that HiTech was weak in board evaluation.

He then gave up on solving chess and focused on another simpler problem: Backgammon. His first prototype was released in the early 70's. It took him nearly 10 years to achieve a strong level after he applied principles from fuzzy logic. Once again, Wikipedia:

> in 1979, BKG 9.8 was strong enough to play against the ruling world champion Luigi Villa. It won the match 7–1, becoming the first computer program to defeat a world champion in any game \[..\] Berliner states that the victory was largely a matter of luck, as the computer received more favorable dice rolls.

He then goes back to trying to solve chess, and re-develops HiTech (with other big names of chess software, like Murray Campbell) and he finally obtains a computer program with master strength (2500~ elo) in 1985.

**Temporality of events does not line up**, according to his own words in the early 70's "*HiTech was weak in board evaluation*." It's only 20 years after his title, (which corresponds approximately to two eternities regarding advances in computer science) that he obtains a software having the strength of a master. Said software would have probably not won the world ICCF championship at the time, as it was still way weaker than the super GMs of the 80s.

If he used a computer in 1965, either the computer was garbage and would have been completely ineffective, in which case Berliner would have been stupid to use it, or he had a 2600+ strong software at the time, and then faked the next twenty years of his life by developing 1800+ software to hide his secret.

**TL;DR** No.

---
Tags: engines, analysis, world-championship, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Developing the king before developing most of your pieces
I saw this opening for the first time and was amazed by the position of the white king.

```
[FEN "?"]
[startply "21"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h6 5. g4 Bd7 6. h5 e6 7. f4 c5 8. c3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Qb6 10. Kf2 O-O-O 11. Kg3

```

In this position, white made one knight move, two king moves, and no moves with the other pieces. Usually, we should castle early and hide the king in a safe corner. In this opening, white does the opposite by moving his king to g3 in the opening stage **before developing most of their pieces**. Is it really a good idea? Are there any other openings that you develop your king early in the game?

# Answer
Don't try this at home. ;-)

* First of all, a simple LiChess search gives this is B12 Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation, Tal Variation, i.e. it has even a name and is legit.
* Second, 8 games listed, with IMs playing it, so it's still rare.
* Third, standard Black move is Kb8. He doesn't even try to immediately throw everything except the kitchen sink at the white king!
* And that is because the king is rather safe there. Usually you now would try the can opener g6 or f6, but it's not so easy as the king side of Black is underdeveloped and White can keep the relevant files closed. Black can't simply pile up major force, and already Steinitz said you need a force plus to storm the defense.
* This is caused by the large space advantage of White at the kingside.
* A concrete advantage of wK on g3 is that it does something useful (protecting g4) and avoids something annoying (tactics on e1, pins on g1...).
* Note that the center is totally barricaded, otherwise it would be suicide.
* Summing up, yes, *in this concrete position* (modern chess is hyperconcrete) it might be a good idea.

Concerning your last question (are there other variants?), this could be easily answered by a search in a Megabase. Steinitz Gambit of course comes to mind immediately.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann, kings, development, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: Trying to remember a zugzwang puzzle/study position
I am trying to remember a puzzle position, or maybe was it originated from a real game, i dont remember.

> After Rook c8, we have a nice zugzwang, which forces black to have as only legal move Rook from a7 to a8, making it *en prise* for white's rook.

Something like (white to move):

```
7R/rp6/pk6/p7/P7/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1

```

I would like to know where is this puzzle/game from. I'm not sure that this was the exact position, but it was quite similar.

# Answer
The original position has the White King on a4, no White pawn. It's the end of a composed study by Gorgiev that I find as #753 in Sutherland and Lommer's *1234 Modern End-Game Studies* (1938, Dover reprint 1968), pages 126 and 290. The full study is:

```
[Title "White to move and win (Gorgiev, Pravda 1928: Mention)"]
[FEN "1k6/rp6/p7/p5B1/K7/8/8/7R w - - 0 1"]

1.Rh8+ Kc7 2.Bd8+ Kc6 3.Bb6! Kxb6 4.Rc8! 1-0

```

The final position is mutual Zugzwang: Black loses (the only legal move is Ra8, and then 5.Rxa8 wins easily) but would draw if it were White's move.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: problems, puzzles, zugzwang
---


# Question
Title: What is the correct way to play this endgame?
```
[FEN "4k3/1pp2ppp/p1p5/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

I win this position vs the computer sometimes, and sometimes not. But I assume there is a principal way to play this endgame that always wins such as fixing the pawns, centralizing the king, etc. Doing so would guarantee that I always win this endgame. **I want to know the "theory" of how to win this position.**

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the starting position you give it is easy for white to create a passed pawn on the kingside and more difficult for black to do the same on the queenside. To guarantee that black cannot create a queenside passed pawn you need to aim for this position:

```
[fen "4k3/1pp2ppp/p1p5/8/P1P1P3/1P6/5PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

From here the win is still not easy or guaranteed but black has no prospects whatsoever and just has to try and find a way to draw.

White can ignore all black queenside pawn moves apart from captures. If black captures on the queenside then white recaptures leaving, again, a structure which does not allow the extra pawn to generate a passer. Otherwise white doesn't touch the queenside pawns and can concentrate on creating a kingside passed pawn.

Once a passed pawn is created white tries to push it as far up the board as possible before abandoning it to capture the queenside pawns while black captures the passer. Black's job is to stop this plan.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In this position you basically pawn up. Even though it is not easy to win, There are two things you must remember

1- Centralize your King. **This is almost important in every endgame position.**
2- Do not allow your opponent to fix his queen-side pawn structure such as exchanging the pawns.

After do that, You must use 4 to 3 pawn structure with forcing the king-side

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is answered by Wikipedia's article on the Ruy Lopez, Exchange variation:

> If White can exchange all pieces, the pawn structure is a big advantage in the endgame. Max Euwe gave the pure pawn ending (without pieces) resulting after the exchange of White's d-pawn for Black's e-pawn as a win for White. The winning procedure is detailed in *Secrets of Pawn Endings*. In essence, the winning plan is to create a passed pawn on the kingside, while Black is unable to do the same on the queenside because of the doubled pawns. The passed pawn ties down the black king and allows the white king to transfer to the queenside at an opportune moment, forcing a pawn through to promotion.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: How to score a certain move in a PGN, for how well opening theory is followed
I am making a bot that plays opening moves from a PGN. When the player reaches a position out of PGN, I want to give a score to the player how well he followed the PGN. What kind of statistics can I give the player for entertainment.

I am thinking:

`ply` The ply number that is reached.

`plies to next branch` Number of plies to next branch.

`branches` Number of branches that has been taken.

Would this be accurate, and what can I add to them?

# Answer
There can't be a standard here so you can choose your scoring system in the way is makes most sense for your particular case. I'm not sure what its intent really is so it might be different from what I have in mind. We can all agree on what a 100% score would look like, but what does it really mean to have a 50% or a 75% score?

If it's intended as a training tool, I'd include the evaluation of the final position. For me it's not the same to stop following the PGN with a blunder than doing that with an interesting alternative. But maybe for your particular case it is! It's ultimately up to you to decide. For example, I don't see why the number of branches taken should have anything to do with "how well" you folowed the PGN.

Some possible criteria you can use (I'm thinking of a training tool that helps me memorize an opening line here):

* Number of moves played correctly.
* Number of non-forced moves played correctly.
* Number of moves until the "end" of the line.
* Evaluation after deviating (compared to evaluation at the end of the line)
* Mainline penalty (being a bit more lenient with errors in weird sidelines than with errors in the mainline).
* Critical position bonus (selecting a few specific positions that are considered "critical" in a given line and give extra weight to those in the final score).
* Previous success ratio (give extra weight in the final score to positions the user got wrong frequently in the past)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, pgn, evaluation
---