title: Why is Bxh6 not preferred here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Bxh6 not preferred here?
```
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppppqppp/4p2n/4P3/2PP4/2PB1N2/P4PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 3 9"]

```

I was just post-analyzing a game of mine with an engine and to my surprise in the position displayed above, it didn't even consider taking the knight on `h6` as one of the top few moves.

Can someone explain me why that is? In many positions where the opponent's knight goes to `a6` or `h6` it's beneficial to take with an undeveloped bishop and I'm not sure why it's not here. It doubles my opponent's outer pawns which seems quite bad to me especially when he's likely to castle king side. Instead the engine prefers castling which allows the knight to go to `f5` next square which seems like an OK square for the knight.

* Is my dark squared bishop that important in this position or what's the idea behind this?

# Answer
> 21 votes
> Is my dark squared bishop that important in this position or what's the idea behind this?

Yes, your dark squared bishop is very important in this position. Your opponent doesn't have one, so yours is unopposed. Furthermore you have the minor advantages of the two bishops.

Doubling your opponent's pawns isn't as big a plus as you imagine in this position. Yes, it weakens Black's kingside but it also opens the g file for his rook which could, in the short term, more than compensate.

Finally, you have some very good threats with your bishop against the awkwardly placed Black queen. They don't quite work immediately but both Bg5 and Ba3 could be very embarrassing with the right preparation. A move like Qb3 prepares both and could be a good move to start with.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The main reason is, simply, not that Bxh6 is bad, but that the computer, being so strong sees that many more lines that are crushing for white. After looking at it with a computer, what I saw is that black simply cannot finish development without serious concessions....much more than Bxh6, which did not even make the top 5. That is the answer to the question "Why?"

P.S. One other comment, and I mentioned this in an answer the other day, but it also comes down to "cashing in too early". You have a lot of strong pieces, and black is very unfortunately placed, the Qe7 in particular, and these pieces when working together will win material eventually. Keep your threats, and build the pressure. Learning when to cash in on an advantage, and when to keep up the pressure, is a skill that is not often discussed in chess.

Also, many weaker players, and I am not lumping you in to this since I do not know your level of play, but they tend to see doubled pawns as the end-all-be-all of chess. Some doubled pawns are bad, and some are not. Here, they would not be great, and h6 is lost by force if white wants it, but there is just so much more to be had in this position.

```
 [FEN "rnb1k2r/ppppqppp/4p2n/4P3/2PP4/2PB1N2/P4PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 9"]

 9. O-O (9. Bxh6 gxh6 10. O-O O-O 11. Qd2 f5 12. exf6 (12. Qxh6 Qg7 {And you still have to win.}) 12... Rxf6 {And you do have a large advantage, but not as much as you could have.}) 9... Nf5 10. a4 {And it is impossible for black to develop effectively.} Na6 {This is best per the computer, but only delays the problems of finishing development.} (10... b6 11. Be4 c6 12. Ba3 {With a winning position.} d6 $2 13. Bxf5 exf5 14. exd6 $18) (10... d6 11. Bxf5 exf5 12. exd6 Qxd6 (12... cxd6 13. Re1 Be6 14. d5 $18) 13. Ba3 $18 {And Re1 and d5 next should black block.}) (10... O-O 11. Bc2 d6 12. Qd3 g6 13. Bg5 {With a crushing position.})

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
You have the bishop pair plus that dark knight at h6 is not at a good position. Taking that knight may also open the g-file giving an opening for the rook at h8 to attack while leaving the Dark King at the center.

Exchanging that dark square bishop may weaken the pawn island on the dark squares.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


title: Chess thought process

text:
# Question
Title: Chess thought process
Can any of the higher rated players here (1500+) talk about their thought process during a game so I can improve my own?

For example, my own process goes like this:

1. Am I hanging a piece with this move?
2. Does this move create a hole in my camp?
3. Can the opponent put me in a nasty fork after this move?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I would recomend getting tips on how to think from CJS Purdy's blog; see the associated links on the right hand pane.

CJS Purdy was the first World Correspondence Chess Champion. Bobby Fischer praised his didactic abilities.

My view is that the basis of winning chess revolves around the double threat. (A triple threat is rarer but even better!) The double threat may be directed at your opponent's material but may also be directed at certain key squares in the position. You must be able to see quickly all the basic double attacks such as the pattern of forks each piece is capable of and of course the possible double attacks your opponent could unleash!

Your thought process will vary depending on whether it is your move or your opponent's move.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The first thing is that you should have a general idea where your play is, whether on the queenside, center, or kingside. Your plan as to where your place your pieces, and how you open that part of the board is going to be based on the opening pawn structure.

If it is later in the game, you want to try to figure out where the opponent is weakest. From there, you want to figure out which of your pieces you can aim at that weakness. This is called "planning".

From there, you have to analyze the best order of moves to move your pieces to attack that weakness, while taking into account your own weaknesses, knowing that your opponent will be trying to do the same to you. Sometimes, you have to just wait and defend if you are much worse.

A lot of this is intuitive based on your level of play, but from there, you just have to calculate variations.

Lastly, as I have gotten older, and tend to miss obvious things more, I like to look at every possible move for both sides, no matter how absurd a move seems. I am not analyzing them, but sometimes, it is just that simple consideration of a move that makes me see a tactic I might have missed, or a mistake I am about to make. I am only talking about spending seconds total looking at all the moves.

Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov, and I think I have seen other strong GMs say it, say that most calculation errors happen in the first couple of moves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
1. What are the priorities/responsibilities of my pieces?(there are times where a piece is protecting more than a single square.)
2. Is there a move that can force the opponent a certain move? If there is, how can I take advantage of it?
3. Is there a move that has multiple purposes?
4. How will my opponent respond to my move?
5. Is the sacrifice worth it?

These are the questions I ask myself when I play long games.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, learning, board-vision
---


title: Variation in Max Lange Attack

text:
# Question
Title: Variation in Max Lange Attack
In the position at 15:29 of this video, what are some possible variations the line starting with the move 12...Qe5 that lead to an advantage for white?

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nf6 6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. Re1+ Be6 9. Ng5 Qd5 10. Nc3 Qf5 11. Nce4 O-O-O 12. g4 Qe5

```

# Answer
In that position, 12...Qe5 is the main line since the other lines all lead to clear advantages for white. 12...Qd5 and 12...Qg6 are forced losses in short order, while 12...Qg4, even though not best, it leads to crazy lines, which I also added to the analysis. Even then, there are a thousand more lines, but I added in only some of the most reasonable alternatives. If you wonder about about a line that was not included in a tactical sequence of captures, there is probably some obvious win that you should be able to find with a little thought.

After 12...Qe5, there are only two decent moves for white, which both lead to roughly equal games, but it is still incredibly complicated: 13.Nxe6, which is the main move, and even 13.fxg7 is not bad.

I used both my database, and what it shows has been played before, and a fairly strong computer running Stockfish 11 to come up with these lines. There is A LOT of stuff here, and I do not recommend trying to memorize all of it if that is your goal, but you can play through it and just enjoy some of the tactics.

In super tactical lines like this, especially as you get stronger, many players memorize a few of the main branches of such lines, but they know that if the opponent varies from them, that there is something there, and spend more time to try to find it over-the-board. In other words, the opponent not playing the memorized line is like a big flag waving that there is something hidden there, and you have to find it.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nf6 6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. Re1+ Be6 9. Ng5 Qd5 10. Nc3 Qf5 11. Nce4 O-O-O 12. g4 Qe5 {This is the main move because the other two are bad to just losing in a few moves.} (12... Qd5 $4 13. fxg7 Rhg8 14. Nf6 Qd6 15. Nge4 Qe5 16. f4 d3+ 17. Kg2 Qd4 18. c3 $18 {And the queen is trapped. This has been played three times in my database.}) (12... Qxg4+ $2 13. Qxg4 Bxg4 14. Nxf7 gxf6 $1 (14... Bd6 15. Nxd8 Rxd8 16. Nxd6+ cxd6 (16... Rxd6 $4 17. Re8+ Kd7 18. fxg7 $18) 17. fxg7 $16) 15. Nxh8 Bb4 (15... Rxh8 16. Nxc5 Nb4 17. f3 Bf5 18. c3 Nc2 19. Bf4 Nxa1 20. Rxa1 dxc3 21. bxc3 $18) (15... Bh3 16. Nf7 Rg8+ 17. Ng3 Bb4 18. Re4 Bf5 19. Re2 d3 20. Re3 Bg6 (20... d2 21. Bxd2 Bxd2 22. Nh6 $18) 21. c3 Bc5 22. Nh6 Rd8 23. Nf1 Bxe3 24. Bxe3 $16) 16. c3 dxc3 17. bxc3 Nd4 (17... Ne5 18. Bf4 Nf3+ 19. Kg2 Nxe1+ 20. Rxe1 Be7 21. Ng3 Ba3 22. f3 Bd7 23. Nf7 Re8 24. Rd1 $16) 18. Bf4 f5 (18...Nf3+ 19. Kg2 Nxe1+ 20. Rxe1 Be7 21. Ng3 Ba3 {As above.}) 19. cxb4 Nf3+ 20. Kf1 Nxe1 (20... fxe4 21. Rxe4 Bf5 (21... Rxh8 22. Rxc4 c6 $18) 22. Nf7 Bxe4 (22...Rg8 23. Nd6+ $3 {Only move.} cxd6 (23... Kd7 $4 24. Nxf5 Rg1+ 25. Ke2 Rxa1 26. Kxf3 $18) 24. Rxc4+ Kd7 25. Rd1 $18) 23. Nxd8 Kxd8 24. Ke2 $16) 21. Nf7 Nd3 (21... Nc2 22. Rc1 Rf8 $4 23. Ned6+ cxd6 24. Nxd6+ Kd7 25. Rxc2) 22. Nxd8 Nxf4 (22... fxe4 23. Bg5 h6 24. Bf6 c3 25. Bxc3 Kxd8 26. Kg2 $18) 23. Nxb7 Kxb7 24. Nc3 $16) (12... Qg6 $4 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. fxg7 $18 {As both Bc5 and Rh8 hang.}) 13. Nxe6 fxe6 (13... Qxe6 $4 14. Nxc5 $16) 14. fxg7 Rhg8 15. Bh6 {It is important to prevent that rook from becoming active against your king.} d3 (15... Be7 {Keeping an extra piece on g5, which may be relevant later. It also stops Nxc5.} 16. Qf3 Qd5 (16... d3 17. c3) 17. Qf7 $1 $16 {Stopping Ne5 with Rad1 next.}) 16. c3 d2 {This is the main line, but there may be room for improvement here.} 17. Re2 Rd3 18. Qf1 Qd5 19. Nxd2 {This natural computer move is new, and should leave black looking for improvements on move 16.} (19. Rd1 {This is the line that was played previously.} Ne5 20. Nf6 Qf3 21. Nxg8 Qxg4+ 22. Kh1 Qf3+ 23. Kg1 {Withe perpetual check.}) 19... e5 (19... Ne5 $2 20. Rxe5 Qxe5 21. Nxc4 Qe4 22. Ne5 $1 $18) 20. Ne4 Qe6 21. g5 $16 Qg4+ 22. Ng3 $18

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, italian-game
---


title: Is Bobby Fischer hanging a knight?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Bobby Fischer hanging a knight?
So I've been looking at the "Game of the Century" between Bobby Fischer and Donald Byrne. There's something I can't get over.

In move 18, that queen is tempting, but there's also a knight on c3 that is not immediately protected.

```
[Title "That knight on c3 appears to be hanging"]
[fen "r3r1k1/pp3pbp/1qp1b1p1/2B5/2BP4/Q1n2N2/P4PPP/3R1K1R w - - 0 1"]

```

Is there a reason, which I don't see, why White shouldn't just take the knight here? It seems to me that this takes the wind out of the sails of most of Black's attacks. It appears Black has no good way to recover, as Black still has to move his queen or lose it and the knight. And there's suddenly not a lot of good spaces to move it to either.

# Answer
I would not normally answer this question since the other answer points out the basis for the first move of the variation, but only the first move. It left out why white is so lost in that variation, and why Byrne did not play it.

At the end of both lines below, there are written notes explaining the resulting position.

```
 [Event "New York Rosenwald-03"]
 [Site "New York"]
 [Date "1956.10.17"]
 [Round "8"]
 [White "Byrne, Donald"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D97"]
 [PlyCount "82"]
 [EventDate "1956.10.07"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "USA"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. d4 O-O 5. Bf4 d5 6. Qb3 dxc4 7. Qxc4 c6 8. e4 Nbd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. Bg5 Na4 12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4 14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4 Nxc3 16. Bc5 Rfe8+ 17. Kf1 Be6 18. Bxb6 (18. Qxc3 Qxc5 19. dxc5 (19. Rc1 Bxc4+ 20. Qxc4 Qf5 {And in this position, it is particularly hard to get the white king out because g3 is impossible due to Qxf3 (and if it moves or becomes defended, then Qh3 sealing in the Rh1), and again white is down a pawn with the worse minor piece, d4 is weak, and white is behind in development with a weak king. That the queens did not come off exacerbate that issue.}) 19... Bxc3 20. Bxe6 Rxe6 {And white is lost because he is down a pawn, the black bishop is much better than the white knight, both a2 and especially c5 are weak, and white is behind in development and has to deal with getting the Rh1 out. One more thing that would probably come into play also is that with the dark-squared bishop, f2 is particularly vulnerable too.}) 18... Bxc4+ 19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Nxd4+ 21. Kg1 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Nc3+ 23. Kg1 axb6 24. Qb4 Ra4 25. Qxb6 Nxd1 26. h3 Rxa2 27. Kh2 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxe1 29. Qd8+ Bf8 30. Nxe1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Qb8 b5 33. h4 h5 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Kg1 Bc5+ 36. Kf1 Ng3+ 37. Ke1 Bb4+ 38. Kd1 Bb3+ 39. Kc1 Ne2+ 40. Kb1 Nc3+ 41. Kc1 Rc2# 0-1

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
There're some notes on this game on Wikipedia.

I think the key point is this: if Bryne takes the knight, he's going into a cheerless endgame after 18...Qxc5!. He'd be down material and have positional weaknesses to boot. The best he can hope for is a draw; against a player of equal caliber, his position is losing.

Therefore he goes for the complexities of taking the offered queen. Objectively it is not the best move, but it is complex, and complex positions give strong players a chance to outplay weaker ones.
> 6 votes

# Answer
After white takes the knight, black could play Qxc5 and then white couldn't retake with xc5 as the d-pawn is pinned to the white queen.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, fischer
---


# Question
Title: What to play if someone ignores your King's Gambit?
So I'm an (unranked, but ~1500 on lichess) amateur who's been working on developing my opening strategy for some time, and I've basically been using the King's Gambit for a variety of reasons:

1. It is easy to play and fairly straightforward
2. Castling opens my kingside rook, which I tend to use a lot
3. Most casual players are unfamiliar with the technicalities of the gambit

While I may not be using the King's Gambit for the most optimal reasons, I am fairly comfortable with it and usually play the following:

1. e4 e5
2. f4 exf4
3. Nf3

After this I pretty much know all the major strategy, and can also play against some of the more common defenses (classical defence, Falkbeer Counter Gambit, etc).

What really gets me, however, is when players just ignore the gambit altogether and do something like

3. Nf3 Nc6

Now what am I supposed to do? I know that these are not good moves and will be appropriately penalized, but I often find it frustrating because all of a sudden I am placed in an unsure position. This particular case has happened to me several times in the past, but players often also play other strange moves like

3. Nf3 d6

What would I attempt when players simply ignore the Gambit (i.e. neither accept nor defend?)

# Answer
Well, it is funny that 4.Nc3 is then the most popular move, with 4.d4 a distant second. In practice though, 4.d4 scores a very high 73.3% for white, compared to only a typical 56.7% for 4.Nc3. In addition, Stockfish much prefers 4.d4, and it is not even close (-.54 to +.92).

I will take that big center, and get my pawn back with an open f-file any day. The reality is that you do not have to do much there other than to develop your pieces as black has no space. I will give a suggested setup below. Black really should fight back earlier, try to hold the pawn, or maybe not take on f4 to begin with.

For the record, as soon as they play exf4, they have accepted the gambit, but they may not try to hold it with g5.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 d6 5. Bxf4 Bg4 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Qd2 {With a fantastic position.}

```

Here is a suggestion based on your supplemental question. Keep in mind that there are a virtually infinite number of ways that black can deviate from the path, but just develop your pieces, and you will get a decent game.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 (3... f5 {The most popular move here.} 4. d3 {This is the main line, but does not really try to punish black.} (4. exf5 {Might be a better try, but there are many lines here.}) 4... d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 g6 7. Bg2 Bg7 8. O-O) 4. Nc3 Nd4 {And this strange moving of a piece twice is the computer's first choice, and the most commonly played in practice.} 5. d3 {And just finish developing with Be3, Be2 and Qd2.} Bg4 6. Be2 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. Be3 $16 {With a very comfortable game.}

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
About the second line, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6:

This line is known as the King's Gambit, Fischer defense. One thing it isn't is "ignoring your gambit" - Black is stopping you from playing Ne5 after the well-known Black maneuver ...g5-g4 in the King's gambit main lines.

The most common line now is 4. d4, when 4...g5 5. h4 g4 forces White to play 6. Ng1 (6. Ng5? f6 traps the knight). Neither side has developed a piece after six moves, but White has typical King's gambit compensation: central control, open lines, and quick development. To hold on to the pawn on f4 Black will usually play 6...Bh6 or 6...Qf6, both of which you can follow up with 7. Nc3 followed by developing the queen and advancing in the center.

Alternatively, you can play 4.Bc4, when again Black needs to play weakening moves like h6-g5 in order to hold on to the gambit pawn (if Black doesn't hold on to the gambit pawn, then you can play Bxf4 at your leisure and enjoy the central control). Looking at the lines with an engine, play is reminiscent of the main lines, especially if you challenge Black's position with h4.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Naman Kumar asks "Now what am I supposed to do?" if the gambit pawn is declined.

Naman, you play the King's Gambit for sharp, tactical games (although I think it was David Bronstein who played it as a positional opening?) so by declining the gambit you already have a small concession by Black.

Your play should be to rapidly develop and castle: so typically you would play moves like Nf3, Bc4, O-O depending of course on exactly what Black responds.

A plan to open the f file is good with a direct attack against the weak f7 square. If you can open the centre before Black can castle you will get an advantage.

Another plan could be to delay the development of the Kt on b1 and play c3 with the idea of creating with Qb3 a nasty battery against f7 with the B on c4.

As Black I always take the gambit pawn and aim for the Fischer defence: it works well in online blitz!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, gambits, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Why do people say blitz chess can be bad for your chess?
I keep hearing blitz chess is bad for you but the I've only been offered two explanations for why that is. The first reason I've been told is that it ruins your ability to focus since you it forces you to play fast so I suppose they say it makes you less patient as well. The second was that blitz is not a very efficient way of improving chess since you can't put as much thought into it in general. But surely that isn't the only reason people say not to play blitz right? After playing blitz I still maintain my ability to focus and as long as it doesn't make me play chess worse I should be fine with reason 2. I really want to understand what this whole deal is about since with my personality if I play blitz or play around with chess in an absent-minded or quick manner I get paranoid and start thinking "Oh no, am I making myself worse at chess or something like that?".

# Answer
I am answering only as an expert player, so who am I to answer this, but I think that "blitz ruins your chess" was a very popular view some time ago rather than nowadays... Anyway, given the very limited time at your, and your adversary, disposal, in blitz chess a player is not generally searching for the best move(s) but the one that gives you most chances. This may encourage, in the long run, a player to "stay away" from very deep considerations, tactical or strategical, and this is ultimately not good for improving chess strength. When you face strong players with plenty of time at their disposal you have to find the best moves, because they haven't 30 seconds on the clock or so, unless they are in zeitnot, to answer you.
> 24 votes

# Answer
I am answering this as an intermediate level player. Making good moves in fast chess results from remembering positions or patterns. The repretorie of strong moves in a given position developes when you have already evaluated similar positions and made similar moves. You will make strong moves only when you have thought through more number of outcomes, which is a slow process. Therefore, real learning comes through slow chess. You will be good at fast chess when you are good at slow chess! **Only** playing blitz (10 minutes or less per player) is a waste of time.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Playing blitz chess got me in a rut. I played simply to win the game, or to confuse my opponent, or to get in wood-shifting positions where I wasn't thinking of strategy. I was just playing for the immediate move and skating on what I knew instinctively.

That said, playing blitz chess is very worthwhile if you have a plan and use it to try out new ideas or openings to get quick ideas of where you go wrong, or what variations give you trouble in practical play. If I got back to more regular playing, I'd take notes on my losses.

But if you start playing by rote or just for short-term competition or excitement, it may damage the long-term view. For me it was too tempting to go in for gotcha moves instead of more careful planning.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I think that all this talk about slow chess allowing one to find "the best move" is nonsense. Read the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. I suspect that blitz chess trains one's intuitive chess mind while "slow" chess trains the analytical chess mind. They're both valuable. Magnus Carlson says that he always "knows" immediately what his next move should be. When asked why it then sometimes takes him many minutes to make that move, he smiled and said that he had to analyze the board to prove to himself that this move was indeed the right one. "Almost always", he said, "it is."
> 8 votes

# Answer
It's to do with the reward system.

If you play 10 blitz games (e.g. on playchess), you'll be matched against similar players of similar strength and should expect a payoff of 50% (equal numbers of wins and losses with some draws).

By the nature of blitz, you have limited time to digest and analyse the position. Therefore you could attribute a win to luck, a draw to time and defeat to bad play. In reality, time is the biggest factor.

The best thing about playing a long play game where you have time to analyse is that in general you have time to digest and learn from where you went wrong or could have improved (even if you win). Therefore it's a learning experience which you develop from. After a blitz game you'll generally just go to the next one, digesting nothing and the whole thing begins again!

Happy playing.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Chess is a game of insight. Short time controls don't encourage insight. Therefore, blitz and bullet aren't chess. Or so goes one popular line. ;)

I'd say blitz has its pluses, but only after you have mastered the long game. Magnus is good at blitz because he is good at "real chess," and not the other way around.

I'd also add that engaging in blitz marathons shares the dynamic of addictive gambling. You're in it for the rush rather than the quality of play. Careful not to get sucked into it.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Playing blitz chess gives you a lopsided set of skills. It does improve your ability to think quickly, and to find a "good enough" move for most situations. In this regard, it is good training for the times (in tournaments), when you get into time trouble.

The problem with "blitz" is that real mastery does not come from finding "good enough" moves, but rather finding the best move, time and time again, which requires slow play. Here, blitz is counterproductive, because your highest achievable level is based on the best moves you can find. Using "good enough" moves keeps you below that level.
> 5 votes

# Answer
My experience has been that playing blitz creates bad habits that carry over to my slower games, such as rushing my moves and missing obvious attacks by both players. And of course unless you're a real chess savant, it's impossible to analyze all the pertinent combinations within a short period, leading to superficial play. Of course, your opponent is under similar constraints, so mistakes on both sides will abound. If you want to play better at slower time controls, you must develop the ability to think deeply into the position, which blitz will never foster. To play blitz well, you must have a firm grounding in the basics of chess first. That can only be accomplished with study and serious play, which implies slower time controls and subsequent detailed game analysis as well as study of master games. I'd start out with a chess manual to be sure I understood the basics and then progress from slow to faster play as you improve.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Playing blitz makes you worse at rapid and longer games because you get used to playing moves that aren’t well thought out. Additionally, it trains you to think quickly instead of deeply.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It depends on the exact time control and type. I went straight from zip to 1750 USCF by playing weekly at the club in their lightning tournaments. Every 10 seconds a buzzer or bell rings and you have to move immediately.

Games looked more like movies. You had enough time to plan decently and to make your move. They taught a lot more than playing one slow game in that evening. Plus the fun and incentive of playing a full RR and seeing your results.

I blame the electric clocks and all the oddball add ons and delays for making blitz chess bad for most players trying to improve.

Perhaps a slower time control would have been better e.g. 20-30 seconds per move. But ten was the standard back then before electric clocks. The alternative was SD10 using push button mechanical clocks.

I would say that now playing G15SD would be near the sweet spot.
My friends now want to play G10 +delay4. They often run out of time near the end while I usually have a few minutes left.

Playing exactly ten seconds a move trains you to both think and to move promptly. I suspect that regular OTB trains people to take lots of time and then they get into time trouble and have problems. Too many people do not pace themselves and use their time wisely.

Clock management is a key to playing OTB well. It does no good to get an advantage by taking lots of time early only to lose the game later on when you have time trouble.

While blitz may help with play during time trouble, it also tends to make you impulsive and move too fast early on.

My experience says if you want to do well at OTB then do not play blitz but do play at faster time controls like exactly ten seconds per move or at G15SD. G30SD would be the slowest I would suggest if you truly want to improve. Perhaps if your clock does this you could try delay5+5second add on per move to try to simulate the exactly ten second time control. The problem with both add ons and delays alone is that when the other person moves immediately you do not get the extra time to think like the old must move only on and not before the ten second bell chimed, and that it is possible to save up too much time to be good for training purposes.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There are different styles of playing blitz, and it is true that in most blitz games cheap tricks come into it sooner or later. But I have known players who approach it differently. Say as White they play an Exchange Lopez, trade all of the pieces and promote a King-side Pawn. In all situations, they try to play some favorite line with a strong strategic plan where they know exactly what they should be doing. This can be very hard to play against.

This would not suit everyones style, but it is a form of blitz that reinforces your approach to the regular game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Because in blitz you (mostly) reproduce what you already know in terms of chess knowledge and don't learn anything else. Things could be learned best in analysis mode.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This answer uses some ideas from Andrew Sainsbury's answer. I'll make a guess. According to https://www.wikihow.com/Speed-Run-a-Video-Game, sometimes when people start speedrunning a game, the speedrunning can transfer into other tasks. There was a guy with username EnNopp112 on www.twitch.tv who said his speedrunning transferred to other ares such as making a sandwich.

I think that similarly, the habits of playing like you're playing Blitz can transfer to matches with a longer time control like a 90 minute base time with 30 second increments.

I think that in Blitz tournaments, you have less time to think. You can expect that your opponent also has less time to think as well. In general, when you have less time to think, you cannot think as far ahead. I think that sometimes when somebody is playing Blitz a lot but no chess with a longer time control or no clock, after they immediately start playing a chess game with a longer time control, they still have the habits from when they were playing Blitz. They don't take advantage of the time they have to think further ahead whereas their opponent does. If they keep their habits from when they were playing Blitz in a regular tournament, that might cause their rating to go down.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychology, blitz
---


# Question
Title: Is there a way to prove a checkmate in 3 problem is not solvable?
I have been working on a checkmate-in-3 problem for a long time. So long that I am becoming convinced it is not solvable.

Is there a way to prove it is not solvable?

I want to avoid putting the problem in an engine, in case it will show me a solution. For the same reason I do not want to share the problem.

# Answer
Three moves is probably in the realm where you could manually brute-force it, although it may take some effort.

Pick a move, a reply, a second move, and a second reply. Then start looking at whether White has a checkmate from that position. If not, then White's second move was incorrect, so change it. If you eliminate all possible White second moves this way, then go back to White's first move, and change it. If you eliminate all White first moves too, then you have proven that a mate in 3 does not exist.

If you do find a White checkmate from one of these positions, then change Black's previous move. If the solution is valid, White will have a checkmate for *all* possible Black replies.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The only way to prove it with 100% accuracy is to use a special engine. Since you do not want to see the solution yourself, then you could ask someone you trust to use it for you. Having a friend sit there and attempt to solve it will not really prove anything since he is human, and may not be strong enough to guarantee a correct answer.

You are almost asking an impossible question in that you want to know the answer, but not willing to let anyone see it or to use a computer to solve it yourself. You cannot have it all.

There are special engines that are designed to prove or disprove mate-in-x problems. The ChessBase program Fritz has always had this function. I am not sure if others do though.

Here is a screenshot of the help file.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


# Question
Title: How can I migrate my openings from Chess Position Trainer to another database when the pgn too large to import?
I have used Chess Position Trainer for years. I now only play "postal" chess and no longer memorize openings. Also chess position trainer is the only application I have the requires windows and I would like to stop using windows.

Some of my openings seem to be too large to import. I have tried importing into chess tempo, ChessBase, and a local HIARCS chess explorer and they all error on import for large openings.

Chess Position Trainer supports exporting as a single PGN or a game per variation. exporting as a game per variation scales better but still does not work for my largest openings such as King's Indian as black.

How can I migrate my openings from Chess Position Trainer to another database?

I am using Chess Position Trainer 5.04

My preference was to use Chess Tempo but would be happy for suggestions of other chess database software to try, either browser based or local for my mac.

# Answer
You can export subsets of your tree of moves or export each variation as an individual game within the same file. Acording to the manual: "You can export an opening or topic as PGN file which then can be imported by many other chess programs. Several options let you configure the export to your preferences. The most importantone might be the option to export as “One Game” or “One Game per Variation” (the latter is only available for openings).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Why is it a mistake to trap this bishop?
In the below position, I played pawn from g7 to g5, trapping the white bishop. The computer didn't like that at all, and gives white a huge advantage. Instead, it wanted me to just simply develop my light-squared bishop.

What is wrong with my move?

# Answer
You get a bishop in exchange two pawns and initiative for white piece.

This is the explanation: After you go to g5, your opponent can play knight takes g5 and if you recapture the knight with your pawn, queen opponent will go to h5 and it is a check. Your pawn on g5 will be captured in the next move by your opponent queen. Black position is vulnerable and d5 pawn is the weakness that can be exploited by white.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The problem, and it really comes down to feel and analysis, is primarily that your king position can be compromised indefinitely.

In addition, virtually all of your pieces are not "harmoniously" placed, meaning they do not help each other out at all. In every line, they just get in each other's way, and nothing defends each other. In chess, we sometimes have a piece that is not defended, but you either cannot develop, or you have multiple pieces that are not protected, or weakly defended. Combine that with a king that can be pushed around, and attacked from random squares, white is sure to win the material back via a double-attack.

Specifically, the Rh8 is hanging in some lines; the only place the Bf8 can go to is g7, where it also hangs; the Qb6 is in the way of the king running away to that square; d5 hangs allowing white to push the king to worse squares, including one that allows more tactics with e4; and even the Nc6 can be attacked strongly, and when removed, it allows tactics on that Rh8 I mentioned.

White almost has enough material just winning the two pawns, and seeing that d5 is probably a goner. Add in your king position, and loose pieces, it was an easy call to play Ng5.

Here are some sample lines:

```
 [FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2p1pp/1qn2p2/3p4/3P1B2/1P2PNP1/P4PBP/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

 1... g5 2. Nxg5 fxg5 3. Qh5+ Kd8 4. Bxg5 Be6 (4... Bf5 5. Bh4 (5. Bxe7+ $4 Nxe7 ) 5... Bg6 6. Qxd5+ Ke8 (6... Kc8 7. Rac1 Kb8 8. Rxc6 Qxc6 9. Qe5+ Qc7 10. Qxh8 )) 5. Rac1 (5. e4 {Is also great.} Nb4 (5... Nxd4 6. Rad1) 6. a3 Nd3 7. Rad1 Nb2 8. Rd2 Qxb3 9. Rb1) 5... Bg7 6. Rc5 Qc7 7. Bxd5 Bxd5 8. Rxd5+ Kc8 9. Bf4 e5 10. dxe5 Qe7 11. Qf5+ Kc7 12. e6+

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
In addition to the reasons why you are not doing great after g5, it seems to me that there is no urgency to trap the bishop immediately. If you start with Bg4, how can white keep their bishop safe from a future g5? There is nowhere for it to go, and if they try to create an escape route with e4 then dxe4 wins the knight instead. So g5 is still a possibility and they will now need to deal with the pinned knight somehow in order to still be able to get two pawns for a piece after it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Your king is weak when one of the pieces ( probably knight ) takes your pawn on g5, then he will get two pawns for a minor piece + opened bishop that threats a 3rd pawn ( which is almost equal ) and a big initiative with a strong attack on your open king, and you will be busted in about 5-10 moves
> 0 votes

# Answer
Looks like a sac by either bishop or knight takes that pawn, then qh5+. Would have to be calculated to see that the follow up gives white enough, though he gets 2 pawns anyway. Its kind of an engine, or master like move.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, tactics
---


# Question
Title: After a blunder, is it better to resign or keep playing?
I often wonder if it is better to resign or keep playing at a disadvantage after making an obvious blunder (for instance, leaving a piece hanging, only to realize too late that you made the mistake).

Let me be clear: I am referring only to casual games (not tournament), and my main goals are 1) to have fun and 2) to improve.

It can be frustrating to keep playing at a disadvantage, but does that additional challenge help make you stronger, or is it better to just resign and start a new game?

An example would be the game below, where I blundered (black) on move 13 and left my bishop hanging... should I keep playing or resign?

```
 [FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Qxd7 8.Nc3 Nxd5 9.d3 Nc6 10.O-O Nxc3 11.bxc3 O-O-O 12.f4 f6 13.Ne4 Bc5+

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, I would try and keep a very straight face, and maybe your opponent will "trust" you, and overlook the blunder. It has happened before even with very strong players.

That said, if the opponent takes it, you should probably decide based on your level of skill and your perceived level of skill of the opponent, and if the position is messy.

For example, if you are playing a master, and the position is just a clear piece down, you should probably resign. If you are playing an 800-player, then it is very possible that you can play on despite your error.

What I mean by "messy" is if the position is a tactical mess even without the piece, it is more likely that your opponent can still make an error, but if it is just a clear piece down with no tricks, as in the position you gave, then you may as well resign if your opponent is a reasonably decent player.

Lastly, is it a blitz game, or an over-the-board tournament game? (I know in this case, you said it was casual.) If it is blitz, it really does not matter as much either way since it will be over soon; but if it is OTB, it matters more, but your opponent also has that much more time to figure things out.

In the end, there is no right or wrong answer, and you have to evaluate the circumstances, and do what you think is best at that moment.

Do keep in mind that if it were a tournament game, that playing it out may also tire you for the next game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In general, there is one question you should ask yourself to help decide whether a given position is worth playing out: **"With colors reversed, would I have any trouble whatsoever winning this?"** If the answer is yes, then you should definitely play on. If the answer is no, and you have a reason to believe that your opponent will not mess the win up, then there is no real point in continuing the game.

In the example you gave, I would say that it depends entirely of the level of play. If it's a game between titled players I would expect a resignation from black but at lower levels I don't think it would be necessary to resign quite yet, as I think there is enough life in the position for a master to turn the game around as black against the average club player (with this I simply mean that there is plenty of room for mistakes left in the position).

# Answer
> 2 votes
I understand that one of your goals is

> 2) to improve.

Think of this as an opportunity to improve. Regardless of evaluation "what is the best move?" is a useful question. How to play for a win when down material is a skill to work on. When losing it becomes more important than usual to find moves that provoke or trouble your opponent and aim for a swindle. These are good chess skills.

As @Akavall points out in this position "anything can happen" you definitely can play actively here.

I once won a game where I dropped a piece in the opening. I won a pawn but went into the ending of rook vs rook+knight and won because it turned out my opponent had no idea how to play this ending.

I always play on if I drop a piece in the opening because there is so much to try. Usually I end up resigning in the early middlegame.

I read an article by a GM that I cannot find right now where he said winning a game where he lost a piece in the opening was the critical game in his chess development. It is when he realized that he was going to be very good at chess. I think it was a chess.com article.

Since this is a casual game you may consider whether you are annoying your opponent. Folks get annoyed for any reason and you may wish to behave so that they continue to want to play you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I would not resign this. With opposite side castling and queens still on the board, anything can happen.

---
Tags: etiquette, blunder, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Going from a winning position to losing one
I often go from winning positions to losing positions. What could I do to stop doing this?

For an example, take a look at this games of in which I played as Black.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 {0} 1... e5 {4} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... Nc6 {3} 3. Bc4 {0} 3... Nf6 {7} 4. d3 {0} 4... d6 {4} 5. Ng5 {0} 5... Be6 {28} 6. Bxe6 {0} 6... fxe6 {6} 7. Bd2 {0} 7...Qe7 {22} 8. Nf3 {0} 8... O-O-O {2} 9. Nc3 {0} 9... d5 {27} 10. O-O {0} 10... d4 {3} 11. Na4 {0} 11... Qe8 {55} 12. Qe2 {0} 12... Nb4 {6} 13. b3 {0} 13... Nxc2 {7} 14. Rac1 {0} 14... Na3 {27} 15. Nxe5 {0} 15... Bd6 {31} 16. Bf4 {0} 16...Nh5 {23} 17. Qd2 {0} 17... Nxf4 {31} 18. Qxf4 {0} 18... Rf8 {16} 19. Qg5 {0} 19... Qe7 {33} 20. Qxe7 {0} 20... Bxe7 {2} 21. Rfd1 {0} 21... Nb5 {42} 22. Re1 {0} 22... Bd6 {56} 23. Nf3 {0} 23... e5 {9} 24. Nc5 {0} 24... Rde8 {18} 25. Rc2 {0} 25... Na3 {11} 26. Rcc1 {0} 26... b6 {55} 27. Na6 {0} 27... Kb7 {20} 28. Nxc7 {0} 28... Bxc7 {3} 29. Nh4 {0} 29... Rf7 {15} 30. Nf3 {0} 30... Nb5 {32} 31. Ng5 {0} 31... Rd7 {38} 32. Nxh7 {0} 32... Nc3 {3} 33. a4 {0} 33... b5 {10} 34. axb5 {0} 34... Nxb5 {1} 35. Rc5 {0} 35... Nc3 {64} 36. Ng5 {0} 36... Bd8 {22} 37. Nf3 {0} 37... Bf6 {43} 38. Ra1 {0} 38... Rc7 {7} 39. Rxc7+ {0} 39...Kxc7 {1} 40. Rxa7+ {0} 40... Kb8 {6} 41. Ra5 {0} 41... Kb7 {27} 42. h4 {0} 42...Ra8 {8} 43. Rxa8 {0} 43... Kxa8 {1} 44. g4 {0} 44... Ne2+ {112} 45. Kf1 {0} 45... Nf4 {5} 46. g5 {0} 46... Bd8 {14} 47. Nxe5 {0} 47... Kb7 {28} 48. b4 {0} 48... Kb6 {1} 49. Nf3 {0} 49... Kb5 {3} 50. Nxd4+ {0} 50... Ka4 {8} 51. Nc6 {0} 51... Bb6 {9} 52. d4 {0} 1-0

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is not a lot of depth necessary to the analysis. Both sides made a lot of tactical errors. In annotating this game, I did put in a lot of written positional notes along the way. This game, more than anything, shows that you need to spend more time looking at tactics problems. That is the primary thing that you need to do to stop going on these wild swings from winning to losing.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 d6 $4 {Just loses a pawn.} 5. Ng5 $1 Be6 6. Bxe6 fxe6 7. Bd2 $2 {But then, he does not take it.} (7. Nxe6 Qd7 8. Nxf8 Rxf8 9. O-O $16) 7... Qe7 (7... Qd7 {This is the more natural square for the queen, and then 0-0-0.}) 8. Nf3 $2 {He should have left the N there until it had to move. It was defended, so he should have developed.} O-O-O 9. Nc3 d5 (9... h6 $1 {Chance are that white is going to castle short, and your current pawn formation controls a lot of squares, and you are almost developed completely. h6 and g4-g4 will force the knight to an uncomfortable square soon, and also prepare the pawn storm if the white king does castle short.}) 10. O-O d4 $2 {You need to get the Bf8 out, and putting pawns on the same color as the bishop is only going to limit its mobility. Eventually, if the bishop were on c5, with the open f-file, f2 could be come very weak.. Also, the pawns where they were controlled all the central square already.} 11. Na4 $2 {Puts the knight offside. It is trapped, and most times this common tactic is without complications, but here a weakened black king if black plays b5 gives white the counterplay necessary.} (11. Ne2 h6 12. b4 {and e5 is already very weak.} a6 13. a4 {Changes nothing.}) 11... Qe8 (11... b5 12. c4 bxa4 13. Qxa4 Nb8 14. c5 {With a strong attack that compensates for the piece.}) 12. Qe2 $4 Nb4 $2 (12... b5 $1 {With the white queen no longer able to get to a4, now, this just wins a piece.}) 13. b3 $2 (13. a3 $1 Nxc2 14. Rac1 Qxa4 15. Nxe5 $16 {with threats of Nf7 and the Nc2 is trapped. White will end up ahead in material.}) 13... Nxc2 14. Rac1 Na3 15. Nxe5 Bd6 16. Bf4 $4 {This just loses an exchange to the pin.} Nh5 (16... Nd7 $1 17. Nxd7 Bxf4 18. Ndc5 Bxc1 19. Rxc1 b6 20. Na6 Kb7 21. Nb4 {And while you do not catch the Nb4, you are crushing here up an exchange in a favorable position.}) 17. Qd2 Nxf4 18. Qxf4 Rf8 $4 (18... Qh5 {Or Qb5 win this knight due to the pin.}) 19. Qg5 {But white got out, and now, you are only slightly better.} Qe7 (19... Rg8 {This is a very hard-to-find move, but the basis is that you need to defend g7, and it prepares to advance the kingside pawns.}) 20. Qxe7 Bxe7 21. Rfd1 $2 (21. Nc5 {Bringing the wayward knight back into play with a threat of Nxe6 is the most natural move.}) 21...Nb5 (21... Bd6 22. Nf3 b6 {Restricting the knight from c5. I will make note of this in a later note, but on the other side of the board.}) 22. Re1 (22. Nc5 {Again, this is more natural.}) 22... Bd6 23. Nf3 e5 $2 {This is bad for two reasons. One, in general, you are making your bishop worse by placing more pawns on its color, thus limiting its scope. Second, there is a direct tactic.} 24. Nc5 {He finally does it, and now it is wrong. The maneuver Nb2-c4 would have kept a black bishop and rook tied to e5 for a while.} (24. Nxe5 Bxe5 25. Rc5 {And it is still equal because the rook will be out of play after taking the knight back.}) 24... Rde8 25. Rc2 Na3 (25... Nc3 {This belongs on this nice square, which keeps the Rc2 very passive.}) 26. Rcc1 b6 27. Na6 $4 Kb7 28. Nxc7 Bxc7 29. Nh4 {The natural move here would have been g6 keeping the knight restricted from f5. This is a very common idea in chess.} Rf7 30. Nf3 Nb5 $6 {This is not wrong, but you did not see the white's threat, and the refutation of it.} 31. Ng5 Rd7 32. Nxh7 $4 Nc3 $2 (32... Bd8 $1 {And the knight h7 is trapped, and it will cost too much positionally to extricate it.} 33. h4 Bxh4 34. g3 Bd8 35. f4 Rh8 36. Ng5 Bxg5 37. fxg5 Nc3 $19 {You got the pawn back, and improved the position a lot too.}) 33. a4 b5 $2 {Still Bd8.} 34. axb5 Nxb5 35. Rc5 Nc3 {The knight finally goes to the nice square, but the white rook is active so a lot of the sting was taken out of it.} 36. Ng5 Bd8 37. Nf3 Bf6 $6 {This is very passive.} (37... Bc7 {Is better with Bd6 next moving the rook out of the nice c5 square.}) 38. Ra1 Rc7 $4 {Just loses a pawn.} 39. Rxc7+ Kxc7 40. Rxa7+ Kb8 41. Ra5 Kb7 (41... Ne2+ $1 42. Kf1 Nc1 43. Ne1 Kb7 44. b4 Re6 {Keeping a big advantage.}) 42. h4 $2 (42. Kf1 {Was necessary to stop that Ne2-c1 maneuver}) 42... Ra8 $2 {Now it is equal.} (42... Ne2+ 43. Kf1 Nc1 44. Ne1 Kb6 45. b4 Bxh4 $19) 43. Rxa8 Kxa8 44. g4 Ne2+ 45. Kf1 Nf4 46. g5 Bd8 47. Nxe5 Kb7 48. b4 Kb6 {Now d4 can be attacked and it is hard to defend it.} 49. Nf3 Kb5 $4 {Missing the last tactic, a fork on c6.} 50. Nxd4+ Ka4 (50... Kxb4 $4 51. Nc6+ Kc5 52. Nxd8 Nxd3 53. h5 {And queens. Pro tip: Knights are horrible at stopping rook pawns.}) 51. Nc6 Bb6 52. d4 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
1) Pawns are important. It's great that you never gave up an entire piece (for example, you do notice the fork and don't play 50...Kxb4.) But it's bad that you gave up so many pawns.

2) When a piece is pinned, attacking the defender will sometimes work, but it's usually preferable to attack the pinned piece again. You should at least *consider* doing so.

3) Look for opportunities to trap pieces. Knights on the rim are often a good target for this, as they have few squares they can move to. You did take advantage of one opportunity to trap his knight, but you missed two others.

4) Although tactics are generally more important than openings, you may want to learn at least a little bit about the Two Knight's if you're going to play it. You can get in trouble fast if you don't know what you are doing. I have no idea why he didn't just take your e6 pawn on move 7.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, learning, middlegame, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Why was 3...c5 for black was a bad move?
I played a player ranked about 450 points higher, and I was out-played. I managed to give a fight but was trailing all along.

The player used the English opening and on third move I (black) played c5. My aim was to control centre, and dissuade white from playing d4.

So ,I thought it was a good move, but upon doing analysis with computer it calls it an inaccuracy. Can anyone share why it is an inaccuracy, i.e. why is it a bad move?

```
[FEN ""]
1. c4 b6 2. Nc3 Bb7 3. e3 c5 4. Qc2 e6 5. Nf3 h6 6. b3 f5 7. Bb2 Nf6 8. O-O-O d6
9. d4 Nbd7 10. Nh4 g5 11. Ng6 Rg8 12. Nxf8 Rxf8 13. f3 g4 14. Nb5 Nb8 15. dxc5
d5 16. Nd6+ Ke7 17. Nxb7 Qc7 18. c6 Nxc6 19. Ba3+ Kf7 20. Bxf8 Kxf8 21. cxd5
Nxd5 22. Bb5 Nxe3 23. Qxc6 Qxc6+ 24. Bxc6 Nxd1 25. Rxd1 Rc8 26. Rd8+ Rxd8 27.
Nxd8 Ke7 28. Nb7 h5 29. Kd2 Kf6 30. f4 e5 31. Ke3 e4 32. Be8 h4 33. g3 hxg3 34.
hxg3 Ke7 35. Bg6 Kf6 36. Bh7 Ke6 37. Bxf5+ Kxf5 38. Nd6+ Ke6 39. Nc8 Kd5 40.
Nxa7 Kc5 41. a3 b5 {<br /><br /><em>Game may have continued...</em>} (41... b5
42. Kxe4 Kd6 43. Nxb5+ Ke7 44. f5 Kd8 45. a4 {+25.6}) 1-0

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
In short, it did not really dissuade white from playing 4.d4, as it could have been played, and was one of the best moves, along with 4.Nf3. White could take the center, and you were not in a position to successfully fight for it in return.

The main thing that I noticed is that in looking at your opening is that despite it being a relatively closed opening, you cannot afford to delay your kingside development that much. The whole b6 and Bb7 idea, while fine in the long run, is premature as king safety can become a problem. There is a reason we typically develop the kingside first, as you may be forced to compromise your position in the center because you neglected to develop the kingside (see the sample snippet of a game below).

If you want to play c5, you should probably do it on move 1, after 1.c4 c5, and then play Nf6, e6, and at least prepare for d5. Once you can finish your kingside development immediately or in very short order, then you can consider combining it with b6 and Bb7...but as long as you can get your king to safety quickly.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. c4 b6 2. Nc3 Bb7 3. e3 c5 4. d4 cxd4 {5.d5 was a positional threat} 5. exd4 Nf6 6. Nf3 {And white is already threatening d5 with a positional cramp that is well-known.} d5 $4 {But the cure is worse than the disease: The light squares are too weak on the a4-e8 diagonal, so you are not prepared to fight for the center.} 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Ne5 $18

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
IMO, `3...c5` by itself, is not really a problem, after the strongest continuation `4.d4` stockfish gives 0.5, and after 4th move in the game stockfish gives equality. And I think your reasoning is fine, it is generally good to trade a c-pawn for d-pawn.

But it looks like it is a part of bigger problem: You made too many pawn moves `5...h6` And `6...f5`, and later `8..d6`, while not developing your pieces and getting your king to safety. Also by making these pawn moves you created weaknesses, for example your opponent was able to exploit weakness on g6.

Make sure that you focus on developing your pieces and getting your king to safety, and avoid making unnecessary pawn moves.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, strategy, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to extract "sub-scores" from an engine's evaluation?
Does anyone know of an engine that gives "sub-scores" (e.g., for material, king safety, space, activity) in addition to its total evaluation? Lots of people have wished over the years that engines could help players understand why their moves are bad, and although having access to sub-scores wouldn't be a total solution, it might help. Even if the engine doesn't output these scores directly, if they're part of the evaluation--and if the engine is open-source--a sufficiently interested user might be able to make use of them.

Of course, I'm assuming that something like a "sub-score" is part of some modern engine's evaluation function. They could all be too advanced and/or non-linear for that now.

# Answer
What about?

The `eval` command will do what you want. However, it's not useful for chess learning. They are just static evaluations. What you're after is more like extracting features from the analysis. Stockfish doesn't have it.
> 6 votes

# Answer
If you go to this page and enter a position, you can click the links on the left (or the "table" and "graph" tabs on the top) to see the sub-scores for Stockfish.

Note that this is a static evaluation that does not look ahead. If you want to use it, you should look at the line Stockfish gives you, and enter the position at the *end* of that line.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Is there an online chess game or app that allows for custom setup of pieces and printing this setup?
I want to setup positions for my grandsons to show different tactics and print them. Lichess is excellent except that it won't print the pieces on the board. Any suggestions?

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you are using Windows, the easiest way may just to set up the position you want on lichess.org, and use the Windows "Snipping Tool" to grab, and print, whatever part of the screen that you want.

This is not a tactic, but that is what I just did here:

# Answer
> 1 votes
My diagram editor allows you to set up a position and save it as an image file, which can be printed separately: https://www.apronus.com/chess/diagram/editor/

---
Tags: online-chess
---


title: Alternatives to chessbase on OS X

text:
# Question
Title: Alternatives to chessbase on OS X
Most of my chess preparation and studying used to revolve around ChessBase products. I stored my databases and notes in .cbh files, used computers with the ChessBase interface to study and do preparation, and used the tools that Fritz 12 gave as an aid.

Unfortunately, ChessBase doesn't seem to make these products for the OS X operating system. What software is there that lets me study chess, open .cbh files, and use chess computers on a Mac?

# Answer
> 15 votes
I highly recommend Scid ("Shane's Chess Information Database"). Here's a screenshot of the Mac version (more to be found at Softpedia):

It is completely free, has lots of functionality, and is fast (handles my 5.2M game database quickly and fluidly). I have only used Scid in its Linux and windows versions, not the Mac. But from what I understand there are no appreciable differences in the software across these operating systems, and I've certainly never noticed any real differences between the Linux and windows versions in my own use. A few notes:

**1.** Scid cannot open .cbh files directly, but you should be able to use the ChessBase products you've been using to export to PGN, which Scid can then import into databases in its own format.

**2.** This doesn't apply to you, but for those who have never owned ChessBase but do have some ChessBase files that they'd like to import into Scid, there is a way to do so without buying any ChessBase products, at least on a PC. The old Fritz 5.32 is now freeware, and can be used to convert ChessBase files to PGN. (Amazingly, I know of no other free program that can do this; maybe someone else does.)

**3.** Scid plays very well with chess engines for use in analyzing games. I have Houdini 1.5 (the free version before it went commercial with 2.0), some version of Stockfish (free), and some version of Crafty (free) in use with my Scid.

**4.** One potential drawback, but only if you're on an older OS X: you can download the Mac version here, and it is pointed out there that the executable is available only for Mac OS X 10.5 or later; if you're using an older version, you'll have to build the program from its source code. They have instructions for doing so though, so it might not be too big of an issue anyway.

**5.** While I'm at it, I'll point out that some other developer made a free android app called Scid on the go, which I have used on my android tablet. It's scaled down from regular Scid quite a bit, and I've really only used it in a read-only way (data entry's not really fun on a tablet anyway IMO). But I have my big games database synced across devices using Dropbox, and it's nice to be able pull up games when I've only got my tablet with me.

I'll end by adding that Scid is the only database program I've ever really used, so do know that my recommendation comes without me having much experience with ChessBase or other commercial alternatives to compare it to. But that's also because I've never had any reason to; Scid really is great, and again, all the software I've mentioned here is completely free.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I agree that installing Windows via Bootcamp is a good course of action. You may also want to consider Hiarcs' Mac Chess Explorer:

http://www.hiarcs.com/mac-chess-explorer.htm

It has many of the same functions as ChessBase, and is from a developer who has an excellent history of supporting his Mac products. The program works with .pgn files, so being able to use ChessBase via Bootcamp is convenient for converting files from .cbh for .pgn format.

Having paid a lot of money for the original Mac version of ChessBase, which was total vaporware, I will never buy another Chessbase product. Frederic Friedel stole my money once. He will not get a chance to do so again.

# Answer
> 5 votes
For native OSX databases you're pretty much limited to SCID and Exachess unless you want to go the Parallels route and use windows software from there. You might be able to rig up WINE and run it on the later versions of OSX; not sure, never tried it.

In both of these you'll be missing the high-end features of chess base, such as the opening report. I'm not aware of anything on OSX that opens the .cbh format files. ChessBase got really closed after the older (CB6 and earlier) file format was decoded and distributed. I'm not aware of anyone who has decoded their cbh format.

ChessBase, back in the day, tried to create a Mac product, but it was slow, buggy and under-featured compared to their Windows version, and when it didn't sell well they blamed the Mac user base instead of their own lack of skill for it and vowed never to build another version for the Mac.

As for "use chess computers," I suspect you are referring to top chess-playing software. Fritz, being a CB product, will never appear for OSX. However, most of the rest of the top names already have an OSX version: HIARCS, Shredder, Stockfish; Rybka and Houdini have yet to appear on OSX.

# Answer
> 4 votes
It's probably a lot easier to install Windows (via Bootcamp) on your Mac, which is hopefully not too old.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I was able to install ChessBase on in OSX Yosemite using crossover. It is working well for me, and this way i don't have to boot a separate virtual machine just to launch it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As it is related closely to this question (but please read my comment qualifying this also):-

I would like to add my post on setting up : CHESS ANALYSIS ON MAC OS X LION 10.7 USING STOCKFISH AND HIARCS ENGINE

http://fianchetto.org/2012/02/12/chess-analysis-on-mac-os-x-lion-10-7-using-stockfish-and-hiarcs-engine/

Summary below: INSTRUCTIONS

Basically to get a strong chess computer on Mac you have to do 2 things:

1) get the engine that basically analyses the possible moves and gives you the evaluation of current position with “best play” - This engine is usually free, this can be HiARCs or Stockfish and there are probably others.

2) you need a GUI – a interface basically so you can easily drag moves and then you link this to your engine. For HiARCs and Stockfish you need what is called a UCI type of GUI.

Now if you have 30 euro spare then you might want to try Shredder which has a demo version for free and you can get this from their website. This is engine and GUI in one and simple and reasonably professional.

However – if you are a bit intrepid and stingy as I am then you could follow these instructions:

1) Get the engine first, download Stockfish – you want a binary version, as of writing this is here:

2.2.2 binary download for mac.

Now once downloaded, open up the .zip and inside go into the Mac folder. Now click Finder \> Edit \> copy and we will paste this file in a short while, into our GUIs engine folder. So we must get that now…

2) Now next you need your GUI app. For the GUI I recommend a free one – JOSE

Just check the link for full discussion.

# Answer
> 0 votes
"CBH to PGN 1.0.4" is an android app that works flawlessly as far as i can see. once again, the android kids are leaving us PC fogies in the dust. ;o)

# Answer
> 0 votes
On my MBP, I had initially bought ExaChess, but later switched to Hiarcs, which has a much better (though not perfect) UI. It gets the job done.

I've never used ChesBbase. Hiarcs does not directly open .cbh files, but I believe you can find a third-party app to translate your .cbh files to PGN.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You asked, "What software is there that lets me study chess, open .cbh files, and use chess computers on a Mac?"

The Games menu in Chess Openings Wizard for Mac does quite a bit of the work of a game database like ChessBase, indexing millions of games in PGN format. No direct support for .CBH files though. When it comes to studying chess and using the strongest chess engines on a Mac, it's a decent alternative.

Chess Openings Wizard for OSX is in pre-release beta testing as of June 2016.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The question relates to *alternatives* to ChessBase for OS X.

Since numerous posters have responded by suggesting that you try to run ChessBase in a virtual machine or emulator, I thought it would be relevant to raise an important consideration regarding this strategy.

Elsewhere on chess.stackexchange.com I have enumerated several known defects in ChessBase, in multiple versions. There are 2 that I would expect to manifest in an emulator-based environment:

1. My versions of ChessBase (from 6-11) all exhibited crashes every few hours, just in regular use. Some of these crashes appear to be related to:

* Leaving a dialog open in one window/instance, (say, the annotation window for a game, or the statistics window for a games list, or the filter window for a games database), and then trying an action in other instance/window that requires a dialog.
    * Trying to close a games list with the \[Esc\] key, instead of mousing over and clicking the \[X\] button on the window header bar. This sometimes works, and sometimes causes a crash.

Obviously, dialogs *should* be independent and completely decoupled objects, but the dialog handler appears to have a design flaw. This isn't the only case of an action that causes ChessBase to crash, of course.

To make matters worse, ChessBase 11 is so buggy that when it crashes in Windows 10, it fires up multiple instances of the Windows Crash Resolution Dialog (not its real name), and keeps cycling through them so insistently that you can't even toggle to another application. If I don't want to sit around for several minutes while this resolves itself, I have to override this behavior by pulling an interrupt with the Task Manager and use the End Task function to rip ChessBase out of the OS application stack. Even then, I still have to click "Ok" in the Close Program dialog box. It's vampire-like behavior dressed in a software cloak.

2. Context-handling is erratic. When a database games list window is opened, the list may have context (i.e. one item is selected), or it may not. The resulting odd behaviors include:

* In the 1st case, pressing \[Enter\] opens the game, and in the 2nd, nothing happens.
    * In the 1st case, pressing \[Ctrl\]-F opens a filter window for that games list. In the 2nd case, either nothing happens, or, if you messed up and happen to have another games list window open in the background, *the filter window opens, but when you run the search, it will be applied to the background window's games list.*
3. When no game is selected in the games list: sometimes pressing \[Up\] or \[Down\] will select one, and sometimes not. Sometimes pressing \[Tab\] once will select a game, sometimes pressing it twice will do so, and sometimes no number of presses of \[Tab\] will do anything. Sometimes switching windows and coming back will select a game, and other times it will do nothing.

I've completely given up trying to use the HotKeys feature for many types of action, because the context is so unpredictable.

4. Switching between several ChessBase windows can be done fast enough to overwhelm ChessBase's context management functions, in which cases it simply freezes up and never comes back. I'm not talking breakneck, try-to-break-the-program switching, I'm talking normal-expert-hotkey-switching use.

\-
5. When a database games list search completes, sometimes the selected games appear in that window, and sometimes the context handler arbitrarily puts the games list in the background and switches to another ChessBase window, such as an open game board. Once it starts doing this, it will do it repeatedly until ChessBase is restarted. Plus, you can't just use the \[Alt\]-\[Tab\] hotkey to switch windows just once, to get it back; you have to do 2 operations, and you have to toggle multiple windows to find the window where the games list is. I now just hold the \[Alt\]-\[Tab\] hotkey down while I mouse over the window selection display to find it. \[BTW: This is the display that best shows what goes on after ChessBase crashes. It's a high-speed kaleidoscope of 3-Card Monte with as many cards as you have windows open in Windows. As impressive a mind-boggling feat of buggy coding in a commercial product as I've ever seen.\]

Now, keep in mind that all these behaviors are being exhibited in the *native target environment for which ChessBase was written*. If they make you shudder, just imagine how you'll feel when you see what happens when the emulator tries to handle them.

As a footnote, I should add that in no other Windows package that I own that was built to for the Windows XP architecture has there *ever* been any serious issue with backwards compatibility in Windows 10. Windows 10 is *very* capable of resolving these issues, when they present, including *multiple* configuration options to roll back how operating system calls are handled to prior versions. *None* of these recovery / compatibility functions make a bit of difference with ChessBase 11.

To be fair, ChessBase GmbH don't claim that CB 11 is Win 10 compatible, but they also say the only solution is to buy two upgrades at the upgrade price, or a full-price copy of the newest CB. Given that 5 prior versions in a row exhibited so many defects, some of them persisting through all the generations of the product, I'd say it's a poor bet that 13 will delight the user in this area. There are very few software products that *actually have user-rant websites dedicated to criticizing them*, but ChessBase is one of these.

So, I implore you not to make things worse for yourself by trying to run the product in a non-native environment. The question poser asked for *alternatives* for Mac OS X, and this is one good reason why.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't know of a mac native .cbh file reader.

ChessX seems to use pgn as it's database which can be slow. Using the opening tree and a pgn of 100,000 games it took 30 seconds to show the full tree after each move. This is too slow to be usable for me.

I understand that ScidvsMac is more of a true database application and is fast for large databases by using a native database format. However, with 64 bit only OSX catalina it is buggy and slow according to known issues

> macOS Catalina and later are only supported by the buggy and slow 64 bit version.
>
> 64 bit ScidvsMac uses Cocoa Wish, which is improving, but still very buggy.

I have Hiarcs Chess Explorer and it is fast with a pgn database. It's opening explorer is best for finding games and understanding the most popular moves in a database. I'd like to be able to annotate moves in the explorer window rather than having to go to a game to see pgn annotations.

My preference is to have something without an install. I tried ChessTempo's opening training which works fine, but only supports 60,000 positions at the highest level of membership. I need 500,000 positions.

chessply looks interesting but it not finished. And based on the video it supports only small databases at this time.

---
Tags: engines, software, macos, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: How to save/open games on Stockfish for Mac
I just downloaded Stockfish, input a couple games, and saved them. They look like generic documents when I save and try to open. I just used the default Save function in Stockfish. Finder tells me they are .pgn documents. The problem is when I try to open I get this message:

The document “example” could not be opened. Stockfish cannot open files of this type.

So what are the steps to save a game so that it can be opened later? (This question is so basic that I couldn't find any forum help on it so I guess I'm the only one dumb enough.)

# Answer
I don't own a Mac, so I can't test these myself (and the solutions' efficacy might vary with software/firmware), but here are some solutions that have worked for others:

Per ref. 1:

* *Note: Invalid moves in the PGN file seem to prevent the file's opening.*
* At the end of every line in the PGN file, add a space. Then they should open with the current version of Stockfish for Mac.
* Open the PGN files with a text editor and convert the line endings to CRLF (Windows line endings). Then they should open with the current version of Stockfish for Mac.
* Compile and run the latest Stockfish for Mac development version from GitHub. This has the fix.

Per ref. 2:

* If you're playing a chess variant, then add a FEN tag to the PGN file (if there isn't one there already).

*FEN tag example:*

> OTHER TAGS GO HERE \[FEN "brkbqnrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BRKBQNRN w KQkq"\] \[SetUp "1"\]
>
> MOVES GO HERE

---

**References:**

1. http://support.stockfishchess.org/discussions/problems/3362-pgn-files-not-opening-stockfish-for-mac
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2w9zgf/how\_do\_i\_use\_stockfish\_with\_chess960/
> 1 votes

# Answer
I am on El Capitan. I was previously using the following app on Yosemite and it also worked their.

Assuming that your chess files aren't corrupted in some way, go to the App store on Mac and search Stockfish. Download that application and try using it.

This is a gui version so you don't have to worry about any binary files or using the command line.

If there is any question as to whether or not the site download is working, this app will answer that question.

**EDIT August 25, 2016:** I just tried opening a lichess game in stockfish and it was giving me a

> "Stockfish could not parse the move text. Edit your PGN file and try again."

error. I think this issue is coming from lichess pgn generation (if you are using lichess). I tried opening a game from chessgames and it worked properly.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I'm having the same issue and I know why it happens. When I have a game with comments/annotations after any of the moves that are within the annotation tags (as viewed in a text editor) like "1.e4 {this is normal} e5, then if I add a variation in the app such as "1. e4 *this is normal* 1...e5 (1... d5!?)" and then hit save, then stockfish app has saved the file in a way that removes the {} from my comment, so that it is no longer readable as a pgn file.

I've been using a text editor to correct this by adding my {}'s back in when necessary, but I agree this situation is not ideal.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


title: ChessBase 15 "fast" reference search

text:
# Question
Title: ChessBase 15 "fast" reference search
I am actually drilling methodically several lines (1...e5 and 1...e6 2...d5 but the question won't depend on that) of the english opening, using ChessBase 15 fast reference search.

The qualifier "fast" is from ChessBase as I am facing really bizarre behaviour, more precisely : I highlight the "Reference" window and start playing moves on the board, and then, even for the first moves (even the very first) I have lags. After the 4th or 5th move the lags are huge and the reference window is really slow to refresh.

Plus, if I change to "Notation" window and come back to "Reference" window then the window is empty and stays empty. I sometimes succeed in making it refresh (and being non empty) by taking back the last move and replaying it, sometimes not. By the way, I am not totally convinced by the fact that the results in this windows are put in some cache so that the whole result in the window is re-searched again. (Yes, really).

Two facts :

* one playing against me : my reference database it a fully up to date Mega Database 2020 with 8.1M games ; I can conceive that searching in a fairly big database can take time (but cache should be used and I hope/guess it is used, but then I don't understand the behaviour I am facing)
* one playing for me : I have a machine with quite aggressive specs : Intel Core i7 7700K CPUs @4.2Ghz, 32GB RAM, 2x GeForce GTX 1080Ti all supported by an MSI Z270 Gaming pro carbon (that I don't use for gaming though, ah ah)

Has anyone experienced such a behaviour ?

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have the same behavior for both parts of your question, and the first behavior (the slowness to populate the reference) is by necessity since it has to search all 8 million games to populate the "Reference" window. The second behavior is just a bug, but I will tell you how to refresh it.

Regarding the slowness of populating the "Reference" pane, I want to make sure that you have done two things:

1. Gone to File\>Activation\>Update program, and that you are running the latest build.
2. And this, which may be exacerbate your problem: Right-click on the Mega 2020 Database, and go to Tools, and "Delete Search Booster". Then "Create Search Booster". I do this every time I add new games.

To refresh the "Reference" pane after coming back to it, just play any move, and if necessary, then go back to the previous move. You can also click on the "Openings Book" tab, among others, and then go back to the "reference", and it will refresh.

I agree that it is not cached, and re-searched, but with the search booster and now that the database has been read into memory, for me, it only takes under a second for the refresh.

P.S. Go into File\>Options\>Limits, and set the "Cache Size Reference DB" to at least 6GB since right now, it is barely over 5GB. That way, once you read through it once, it will all be cached in memory.

---
Tags: software, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: What's the correct way to calculate centipawn loss?
I've been letting the engine analyze a position at depth D, then making the player's move and letting the engine analyze the resulting position at the same depth D, and then taking the difference between the first score and the second score (both from the same player's perspective, of course). This procedure has the property that it's possible to have a negative centipawn loss: it will be negative if the engine prefers the player's move to its initial choice after seeing one ply farther in the line beginning with the player's move. Is this expected and acceptable? The alternative would be to have the engine analyze the position after the player's move at depth D - 1, which would guarantee a non-negative centipawn loss.

# Answer
> 3 votes
No. Your assumption is based on searching everything up to depth `D`, but no modern chess engine would do that. It's complicated to explain, but fair to assume only some subtrees up to depth `D` are explored. The other trees got "cut" off for various reasons, most likely they are not good.

Chess programming is all about skipping the search tree accurately. The conditions could depend on the depth to the root, previously visited nodes, and many others. As you make a move on the board, all parameters change, even the cache for keeping the transposition table change. Trees that are previously visited may now be skipped, and vice versa. The change of information in the transposition table could have a significant impact in the new search path.

> it will be negative if the engine prefers the player's move to its initial choice after seeing one ply farther in the line beginning with the player's move. Is this expected and acceptable?

Anything can happen. The difference can be positive, negative, or remain unchanged.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why do some players never accept a draw offer?
Some of the people I play against will *never* accept a draw offer, even in positions that are a theoretical draw.

I know it's a draw. They know it's a draw. But they want to play until:

* Draw by stalemate
* Draw by insufficient material
* Draw by threefold repitition
* Draw by the 50 move rule

In a recent casual game (i.e. no arbiter, no clocks), my opponent forced a stupidly long draw (49 moves with no captures or pawn moves, then 1 pawn move to recent the count. Repeat until insane).

My question is, **why do some players never accept a draw offer, even in dead drawn positions?**

# Answer
> 11 votes
I'm going to assume here you're playing against people you don't know very well in a park somewhere.

While you both know it's a draw, he's assuming that you don't know how to play it out or that you'll lose your patience and make a blunder. After you both have played against each other some time, you'll both know what you can and can't win against each other and he will offer draws out of his own initiative. Unless, of course, your opponent is very stubborn then you just have to put up with it.

# Answer
> 10 votes
As a player who rarely accepts draws, I will try to explain why higher rated players do not take draws. For a higher rated player, even in a drawn position, the only two results are a win and a draw. Obviously, sometimes he loses, but that chance is much smaller than the chance that he wins. The higher rated player doesn't take a draw because he can usually get more from playing on. Secondly, the higher rated player knows that you will be frustrated if he grinds for the next 100 moves. Each move increases the chance you make a mistake, and eventually you get so bored of the position you make a mistake and lose the game.

Note: Don't offer draws against higher rated players unless it's three move repetition or a forced draw. Almost all of the time they decline, and you give them more confidence because it tells them that they can't lose.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Some people just have the psychology that they will not offer or accept a draw. Period.

A couple of months ago I was watching a game between a 2300 and a young (12 year old) 2050. I know the 2300. He doesn't accept draws. It's not a question of grading. Earlier he had a draw if he wanted against a GM. He played on and lost. In this game they reached a position where the 2300 had a perpetual check if he wanted. They both had about 1 minute on the clocks with 30 second increment. The 2300 didn't want the draw. He played another move instead. Now the 2050 had a perpetual. He started to play it. The 2300 deviated. Sharp intake of breath from the watching crowd. Two moves later he lost his queen and the game. He knows the 2050 player. He is not going to change. That's just the way he is.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It might be something players who know each other very well might do when they're playing casually, but I can't understand the reasoning of a player who just refuses to accept a clear draw. My mother taught me to play when I was very young, and I played a lot against her and not much against anyone else. I don't think we had very many draws, but we never ever resigned; we always played it out to the bitter end, even in positions where it might be considered rude not to resign. This wasn't something we really talked about, but it probably helped me a lot with developing my endgame play, and with identifying mating patterns. Against anyone else, I would resign if the position warranted it, and accept a draw if one was justified, but against Mum, I guess I felt like we both learnt more from finishing the game than from just ending it with an agreed draw or resignation.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are many theoretically drawn positions which are difficult verging on impossible to draw without prior knowledge of the drawing strategy. R+B v R is a good example. But as a player who rarely accepts draws myself can you explain why I "ought" to accept one when I don't want a draw. If it's drawn then just demonstrate the draw and stop focusing on the opponent's behavior.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Some kids are taught to never accept a draw nor to resign. They insist on being mated. Guessing they dont expect you to accept a draw either.

I had one keep playing when he was down a QBN and insisted that I mate him. I only played that kid once.

If there was no money on the game (or rating points) I would just say I am leaving the game is a draw. GOODBYE and never play them again.

But are you sure it was actually a draw. An alleged expert came up to my game last week and said its a draw. I said it is a clear win for my side. NOTE: This was a fun game at the club.

I won after another 20 moves. Needless to say this expert is great at middle game sacs and attacks but he knows little to nothing about endgames.

If he would learn openings a little better and learn endgames he could be a NM or maybe SNM.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Might not be what you're thinking of, but **mind games**. I quote from the Wikipedia article on the World Chess Championship 2010:

> Topalov demanded that the match be played in silence ... Anand replied that he would not comply, prompting Silvio Danailov, Topalov's manager, to say "If Vishy doesn't agree to the rules he will be forced to, because Topalov will not offer him a draw and he will not speak to him." \[and by implication will ignore any draw offer by Anand\]

See the cited source.

Somehow they still managed to draw game 10 by mutual agreement, but the rest of the draws all came from 3-fold repetitions.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Either they are higher rated and hoping that you make a mistake, or they are total patzers who will waste your time and play every single game out to it's final conclusion because they think it's bad sportsmanship to do otherwise.

---
Tags: draw, etiquette
---


title: Why not 7.Qa4+ in Carlsen vs Navara QGD

text:
# Question
Title: Why not 7.Qa4+ in Carlsen vs Navara QGD
In the game of `Carlsen` vs `Navara` **Biel Chess 2018,** on move `7` why did `Carlsen` play `e3` instead of playing `Qa4+` and taking that hanging `bishop`?

# Answer
I guess you mean the game below and at the 7th-move: `7.Qa4+` doesn't win the bishop because black can reply with `Nc6` blocking the check and defending the bishop.

```
 [title "Biel, Carlsen vs Navara 2018"]
 [fen ""]
 [startply "12"]

 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.e3 (7.Qa4+ Nc6) O-O 8.Rc1 dxc4 9.Bxc4 c5 10.dxc5 Nd7 11.O-O Nxc5 12.Nb5 a6 13.Nbd4 b5 14.Be2 e5 15.Nc2 Rd8 16.Nxb4 Rxd1 17.Rfxd1 a5 18.Nd5 Qd6 19.Nxe5 Bb7 20.Bf3 Rc8 21.Ng4 Qf8 22.h4 Nd7 23.Rxc8 Bxc8 24.a3 h5 25.Nh2 g6 26.Be2 Ne5 27.Bxb5 Bb7 28.Nc3 Qe7 29.Rd4 Qe6 30.Nf1 Qb3 31.Rd2 Nc4 32.Rd7 Nxb2 33.Rxb7 Qxc3 34.Be8 Kf8 35.Bxf7 Qc6 36.Rxb2 Kxf7 37.Rd2 Qa4 38.Rd3 Qxh4 39.Rd7+ Kg8 40.Rd4 Qe7 41.a4 Qa3 42.g3 Qa1 43.Kg2 g5 44.Nd2 g4 45.Ne4 Qc1 46.Nf6+ Kf7 47.Nxh5 Qc6+ 48.Kg1 Qc1+ 49.Kh2 Kg6 50.Nf4+ Kf6 51.Ng2 Kg5 52.Rf4 Qd1 53.Nh4 Qc2 54.Nf5 Qd3 55.e4 Qd7 56.e5 Qh7+ 57.Kg1 Qg6 58.Nd6 Qe6 59.Rf5+ Qxf5 60.Nxf5 Kxf5 61.f4 gxf3 62.Kf2 Kxe5 63.Kxf3 Kf5 64.Ke3 1-0

```

In case white tries to further pressurise the knight on `c6` after `7.Qa4+ Nc6,` with e.g. `8.Ne5` black always has the option of taking on `c3` first with check and then reacting to `Ne5` with `Bd7.`
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think this is the game you mean, and it was on move 7. Qa4+, and Nc6 saves the bishop. Qa4 is a well-known line, and the second most popular move after 7. e3.

This is a black defense to the QGD called the Ragozin Defense. It is considered a very active defense, and black gives away certain positional aspects in exchange for piece activity.

Here are a few books on this defense.

"The Ragozin Complex" by GM Vladimir Barsky.

"The Complete Ragozin" by GM Matthieu Cornette

"Playing the Ragozin" by IM Richard Pert

By the way, a move is considered one for white and for black, so 1.d4 Nf6 is one move.

```
 [Event "Biel GM 51st"]
 [Site "Biel"]
 [Date "2018.07.22"]
 [Round "1"]
 [White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
 [Black "Navara, David"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "D38"]
 [WhiteElo "2842"]
 [BlackElo "2741"]
 [Annotator "Krasenkow,M"]
 [PlyCount "127"]
 [EventDate "2018.07.22"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "10"]
 [EventCountry "SUI"]
 [EventCategory "20"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e3 (7. Qa4+ Nc6 {And the Bb4 is protected} 8. Ne5 $2 {This is just bad, and is pushing for something that just is not there} Bd7 9. Nxd7 (9. Nxc6 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Bxc6 11. Qb3 O-O $17 {And with better development, and pressure on g2, black is just better.} 12. c5 $6 b6) 9... Qxd4 $1 {Threatening Bxc3+ winning.} 10. Qc2 Qxc4 11. e3 Qg4 12. Bb5 Kxd7 {And white does not have enough for the two pawns.}) 7... O-O 8. Rc1 dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 10. dxc5 Nd7 11. O-O Nxc5 12. Nb5 a6 13. Nbd4 b5 14. Be2 e5 15. Nc2 Rd8 16. Nxb4 Rxd1 17. Rfxd1 a5 18. Nd5 Qd6 19. Nxe5 Bb7 20. Bf3 Rc8 21. Ng4 Qf8 22. h4 Nd7 23. Rxc8 Bxc8 24. a3 h5 25. Nh2 g6 26. Be2 Ne5 27. Bxb5 Bb7 28. Nc3 Qe7 29. Rd4 Qe6 30. Nf1 Qb3 31. Rd2 Nc4 32. Rd7 Nxb2 33. Rxb7 Qxc3 34. Be8 Kf8 35. Bxf7 Qc6 36. Rxb2 Kxf7 37. Rd2 Qa4 38. Rd3 Qxh4 39. Rd7+ Kg8 40. Rd4 Qe7 41. a4 Qa3 42. g3 Qa1 43. Kg2 g5 44. Nd2 g4 45. Ne4 Qc1 46. Nf6+ Kf7 47. Nxh5 Qc6+ 48. Kg1 Qc1+ 49. Kh2 Kg6 50. Nf4+ Kf6 51. Ng2 Kg5 52. Rf4 Qd1 53. Nh4 Qc2 54. Nf5 Qd3 55. e4 Qd7 56. e5 Qh7+ 57. Kg1 Qg6 58. Nd6 Qe6 59. Rf5+ Qxf5 60. Nxf5 Kxf5 61. f4 gxf3 62. Kf2 Kxe5 63. Kxf3 Kf5 64. Ke3 1-0

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, queens-gambit-declined, ragozin-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is an example of a very difficult one-move checkmate?
Usually one-move checkmate puzzles are easy. However, I am wondering if there is a relatively more difficult one-move checkmate puzzle. Here are a few thoughts:

1. There are many legal moves.
2. One or several legal moves are tempting but incorrect. Especially under time pressure, an inexperienced player tends to choose such a "wrong" move.
3. Finding the checkmate move requires some out-of-the-box thinking. It is a move that most players will not normally consider, expecially under time pressure.

Anyone knows a good "difficult" one-move chekmate problem?

# Answer
*Very difficult* is relative and given enough time players of most strength should be able to find a mate in one.

I don't have a concrete example, but in my view the following features would make it more difficult (some of these exclude each other):

* a large number of possible moves (i.e. lots of pieces on the board and an open position)
* the mating move is done by a piece moving to the back (towards the mating player)
* it is a non-standard mate (not one you have seen before in your tactics excercise, but rather of a studies type)
* the mating move is a move where the moving piece uncovers a piece that helps in the check mate (either by taking away squares from the king, or more tricky by pinning a possible defender)
* lots of pins are involved that prevent defenders from defending
* there are tempting moves that don't work for not-too-obvious reasons
* the move is an en passant capture or an underpromotion or castling
* (not sure this counts) the mate requires retrograde analysis to prove that en passant capture is allowed or that castling is allowed
* large distances are involved, both in the move itself and in the attacking of the king (say moving a queen from h8 to a1 to check mate a king on a8 might not be that obvious)
* the position is such that the pawns move unexpectedly in a direction you would not expect (down, left, right)
* asking for a *mate in one* for black (without specifying that it is black's move) This can be particularly tricky if it looks as if white could mate as well.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


# Question
Title: Black repertoire for players who love the English Opening
When I started playing chess I picked 3 openings (Queens Gambit as white, Caro-Kann and QGD as black) and pretty much stopped studying the openings to focus on endgames and middlegames. Some months ago I started analysing the games of Ulf Andersson and fell in love with the English Opening. I am wondering if there are black openings who are similar.

My current repertoire looks like this:

• White: English

• Black: Caro-Kann (vs. 1.e4) and Nimzo/QID (vs. 1. d4)

Some info on what I like in the English and in general:

1. My preferred way to win is getting a small advantage and converting into a winning endgame. I love endgames.
2. I really like playing against structural weaknesses.
3. I do enjoy queenless middlegames.
4. I like quiet games with time to maneuver and frequently employ a double fianchetto as white.

# Answer
The reality is that you cannot force such openings as black, but you can pick openings that may suit your style.

I really think that the Nimzo-Indian/Queens-Indian may suit your style very well. They will not get you queenless positions too often right out of the opening, but the nature of the Nc3 in the Nimzo, and it often getting exchanged resulting in doubled pawns for white, you will get a lot of strategically complex positions that have structural weaknesses to work against (usually in exchange for the bishop pair), and there is often a lot of maneuvering. In the Queens-Indian, you get the fianchettoed bishop you like, and nice control over e4, which allows you to try and chip away as the white center. I have also gotten a number of nice kingside attacks too against the white Kg1.

This has been my bread and butter opening pair as black against 1.d4 for decades, and I like the type of positions that you like. The theory is old now, but if you can get a hold of the book "Understanding the Queens Indian Defense" on eBay, it does a great job of teaching the underlying ideas. You can also study Karpov's games, as this was his main weapon as black during his peak years.

In the Nimzo take this famous game in the Huebner variation of the Nimzo. Of course, there are many variations, and you would have to learn more than just the Huebner.

```
 [Event "World-ch27 Fischer-Spassky +7-3=11"]
 [Site "Reykjavik"]
 [Date "1972.07.20"]
 [Round "5"]
 [White "Spassky, Boris Vasilievich"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E41"]
 [BlackElo "2785"]
 [PlyCount "54"]
 [EventDate "1972.07.11"]
 [EventType "match"]
 [EventRounds "21"]
 [EventCountry "ISL"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5 9. d5 Ne7 10. Nh4 h6 11. f4 Ng6 12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15. O-O O-O 16. a4 a5 17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2 Qe7 20. Bc2 g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1 Qg6 23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+ Kxf8 26. Bd1 Nf4 27. Qc2 Bxa4 0-1

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, english-opening, repertoire
---


# Question
Title: Magic Bitboards, Feeding in Randoms - Why have to find magic instead of just loading from disk?
I read about Looking for Magics for Magic Bitboard, they mentioned the method "Feeding in Randoms".

As I understand, this method works like this:

```
label RETRY;
magic = random();//trial

for (all cases of current square: from first case to last case)
{
  if (magic fails at any case)
    go to label RETRY;//and error
}
//Passed all cases -> success! now we have the magic for square 1, 63 more squares to go

```

The author said

> On my Core Duo 2.8 GHz, it takes less than a second to find magic numbers for rooks and bishops for all squares

If we successfully get magic numbers with this "Randoms" method, why not just save the magic numbers to disk and load it from disk instead of running the "Feeding in Randoms" code every time at startup (that the author cares about how fast this method, isn't it faster just read the magic from disk instead of trial and error with random. If load from disk, it doesn't matter if the method takes whole day to find magic)?

Maybe I misunderstand something about this. So I want to ask Why have to find magic instead of just loading from disk?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Computing magics at statup is fine because it's done only once and not very slow.

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/bitboard.cpp

```
// init_magics() computes all rook and bishop attacks at startup. Magic
// bitboards are used to look up attacks of sliding pieces. As a reference see
// www.chessprogramming.org/Magic_Bitboards. In particular, here we use the so
// called "fancy" approach.

```

Stockfish did it. Leaving the constants in the code is also fine. It's all about implementation.

---
Tags: engines, programming, bitboard
---


# Question
Title: Is there a trick to help kids know which direction pawns are going?
My 5-year-old old daughter very often forgets which direction a pawn is moving. This is confusing especially at endgame studies.

I use a marker pen to draw two eyes on the pawns so that her pawns are facing the enemy and their pawns are looking at her. But this is not applicable online and I am fearful of its side effect when she plays with others on an unmarked board later.

Any suggestions?

# Answer
At 5 years old a child's brain is still very immature. The good news is that it is also developing very fast. The easiest and most effective solution is just to wait. Within a year or two the problem will have solved itself as your child's brain develops enough to satisfy your expectations.
> 31 votes

# Answer
On a screen, the pawns are always moving "up".

You know her better, so you could pick on of the following things as an example, and let her compare them to the pawns on a screen.

```
airplane.
balloon.
elevator.
escalator.
helicopter.
ladder.
rocket.
stairs.

```

Or, if you are religious, well there is that "up" too.

When then playing on a board, she would need to realize that they move away from her.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The best way I believe is to put them in front of the board and explain that ***pawns are so brave they only move forward and never move back***. If they know the other pawns are his/her opponent's they would understand they move towards them as it's their’s opponents forward.

The trickier part would be to explain how the pawns eat. I may say that they eat looking left with their left arm, and looking right with their right arm, but never with both at the same time (which would be eating in front of them).

# Prechess

I would suggest at an early age to use didactic games like **`PreChess`**. Not sure if that term exists in english, but in spanish we have `PreAjedrez` games.

You can find nice `PreChess`games within http://www.ajedrezparalaconvivencia.edu.uy/preajedrez/ , pity the web is only in spanish by now.

Specifically for practicing pawn moves I would suggest the "Pawn Race" and "Rescuing Snow White".

The clue with these kind of games is to play with less pieces and fewer rules involved. So the kid can focus on the pieces you want him/her to learn how to move.

**Note**: Just a note about ages. I started playing `PreChess` games with my son when he was around three years old. He liked very much "searching for the treasure" which was eating pawns with a rook, one by one, trying to eat a pawn in each move. You would create a kind of labyrinth of pawns to eat.

Let me give some description in english so as you get what the games are about:

## Pawn race

The aim of the game is to promote one pawn, which would be take one pawn to row 8 for White and row 1 for Black. Of course this game can end in a draw if nobody promotes a pawn.

It's a good game to practice moves and captures for pawns, and to explain the promotion of pawns.

Below you can see the initial set of the game:

## Rescuing Snow White

The dwarfs (eight white pawns) need to rescue Snow White that was captured by the witches (two bishops and a horse).

The dwarfs can rescue Snow White if at leat one dwarf gets to the last row and then makes a final move to rescue her (bare in mind that this is not possible in chess. It's a modification to create this PreChess game). Once she is rescued White win the game.

It the witches capture all the pawns then the dwarfs can't rescue Snow White and Black win the game.

Below you can see the initial set for the game:
> 8 votes

# Answer
This is similar to helping a kid distinguish "left and right".

Kids at that age are visual, so you could use a **black sticker and a white sticker**, placing these on opposing sides and tell her that **white pawns move towards the white sticker and black pawns towards the black sticker**.

You can use stickers with images for fun, for example teddy bears.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I remember seeing in a children's chess book that the pawn is like a peasant armed only with a pitchfork. He marches only forward (one or two at the start, one otherwise). He only attacks to the left or right side. And he never moves backwards.

> The pawn ... historically represents infantry, or more particularly, armed peasants or pikemen. Source
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, children
---