# Question
Title: Is the first game of World Chess Championship 2013 the shortest game in WCC history?
The first game of the 2013 World Chess Championship, Carlsen vs. Anand, ended in a draw after just 16 moves.

Is this shortest game in the history of the World Chess Championship?

# Answer
There have been some shorter ones, for instance

Kasparov-Kramnik (2000), game 7, draw in 11 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252046

Kasparov-Anand (1995), game 18, draw in 12 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241980

Karpov-Kasparov (1984), game 29, draw in 13 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1293014

The shortest games in WCC history I believe are the two 10 move draws at the end of the 1963 Botvinnik-Petrosian match, but it's clear Botvinnik had more or less given up the match before those games.

The shortest decisive game in a WCC match is reportedly Anand-Gelfand (2012), game 8, in which black resigned before his 17th move:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1666558
> 17 votes

# Answer
Technically speaking, the shortest game in a World Championship is Game 2 of the Fischer vs Spassky Match 1972, where Fischer did not show up to play and lost by forfeit. Fischer was supposed to play White in this game, so no moves were made on the board.

Another similar situation occured in Game 5 of Topalov vs Kramnik World Championship match in 2006, where Kramnik who was supposed to play White didn't show up for the game.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: history, world-championship, carlsen, anand
---


title: What is "Rook Box" and its use?

text:
# Question
Title: What is "Rook Box" and its use?
When I once watched a chess game on television, one player use a trick named "Rook Box" to draw a game. I didn't understand its move and so, I want to know what is "Rook Box" in chess.

I know it's a good trick for making a game draw.

# Answer
Well, it is as simple as encasing a rook in a virtual box. We'll take the example and see it.

```
 [Date "????.??.??"]
 [Result "*"]
 [FEN "1k5r/1P3K2/8/2p2p2/7p/4P3/8/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1.e4 fxe4 2.Kg7 Rh5 3.Kg6 Re5 4.Kf6 Re8 5.Kf7 Rh8 6.Kg7

```

We see that the rook is trapped inside a 4x4 box. Losing the rook means losing the position, and the only way not to lose it is to stay inside the box, and be constantly pushed by the king. If White doesn't do so, he is in serious trouble.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: endgame, draw, rooks
---


title: How can the french opening be avoided?

text:
# Question
Title: How can the french opening be avoided?
I'm really not good at the french when I'm with white, is there a good way to avoid it and get my opponent outside of their preparation?

# Answer
I'm assuming that you are trying to avoid French-like positions, rather than avoiding the named opening - the latter is latter impossible after 1.e4 as most texts consider the French beginning as soon as black plays 1.e6.

In short, if you want to play 1.e4 regularly there is no way of avoiding the French Defence with a 'standard' opening. After 1.e4 e6, all sensible moves from White can be made to resemble some features of the French if Black wants to press the game in that direction.

To give some general advice: avoiding an opening by playing really unusual moves almost always results in objectively worse positions if your opponent plays correctly. Because of this, I'd recommend putting time into finding a *response* to the French that gives you a position that you feel more comfortable with. The Exchange variation is very different from the Advance, which is different again from the Classical and Winawer. With the number of different lines you should eventually be able to find something you at least don't feel too uncomfortable playing. Alternatively, a system-like approach with the King's Indian Attack (KIA) or similar could work if you don't want to learn lines that your opponent may be more familiar with.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Depends on your style. You may go with `2 c4` or `2 g3` would lead to very different positions
> 1 votes

# Answer
> This is the most monotonous and annoying play you can imagine - it rarely gives rise to combinations of some interest. - Serafino Dubois

That's one of that really say about french opening. As you said you're playing as white, I'd like to Recommend you to go for 1. d4 (in french opening it starts with 1. e4 e6) and go for King's Indian Defence, It's really useful and I personally won 60% Matches with it. Otherwise if you for 1. e4 you have a less chance for French Opening, as there is High for King's Gambit \[Source : My personal games\]

Let's say that you get French Opening, then go for French Defense:Frankfurt Variation that is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Ng8 6.Be3 b6 It's really belived to be Advantage for white.

Anyways, It's Chess and Completely Depends upon How you play it.
> -10 votes

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


title: Why did Anand start with d4?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Anand start with d4?
As far as I remember, Anand was(is) primarily an 1.e4 player throughout his career. Yet in the first game of the Carlsen-Anand match he opted to open with 1.d4. What are the potential benefits of such an opening choice in a situation like this? Is Anand simply wary of having to face the Berlin Defense, or is there another benefit to choosing 1.d4?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Anand primarily played 1. d4 in each of his 3 successful world championship matches between 2008 and 2012. In his 2013 match vs. Carlsen he favored 1. e4 before switching to 1. d4 for his last white of the match (game 9). Given the disastrous result of the 2013 match for him, I don't think it's surprising that he is apparently relying on 1. d4 this time.

---
Tags: carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal to record moves that have not yet been played?
In a hypothetical tournament game where there is a completely forced series of moves for your opponent (e.g. their next move is an only-move and you have already decided on the response), would it be legal to record the moves before they have been played?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well, it isn't legal for two reasons,

One, lets say that the opponent gave you an handshake. That would mean that the recorded moves are null, and it may cause some troubles with the arbiters.

Two, Article 8.1:

> In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the score sheet prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.. A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the score sheet. (Appendix C.13) If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way

Note especially the:

> It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a..

You can find the rulebook here.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The answer from Tal refers to the FIDE rules, the USCF rules are a little bit different, but have recently been changed to be less friendly to writing down moves before making the move. The specific situation you refer to in your question, writing down a string of moves ahead of time, would be illegal under both FIDE and USCF rules. While the USCF rules do not specifically state you can only write the next move, they definitely infer it by stating a move may be written before the move is made (old rule), and that no other notes except those mentioned in the rule book are allowed.

The rules have changed since the addition of electronic scorecards, and it is now illegal to record a move before making it. Though the penalty recommended to TDs is just that a warning be issued.

The USCF rulebook is not available in electronic form, so I can't copy and paste the relevant sections, nor link to them.

---
Tags: rules, notation
---


# Question
Title: Examples of recent early opening novelties at the top level
The world elite usually practises extremely deep opening preparation based on established theory, with the first move that has never been played before often coming after the 20th turn.

What are some recent (last 20 years) examples of top-class players deviating from theory early (say, on the 8th move or before)?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Aronian vs Anand at Candidates 2014 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1751406) was out of theory after Black's 3rd move, but only because White played an extremely odd opening which will probably never be repeated at the top level.

Aronian vs Leko at Morelia-Linares 2008 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486033) featured a strong novelty on White's 9th move.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The most bold novelty I have seen in recent chess is definitely the one played by Richard Rapport against Leinier Dominguez Perez on the 2014 Tata Steel tournament. You can find the game here. As a peek of the game, the first moves were:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Richard Rapport"]
[Black "Leinier Dominguez Perez"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g4!!

```

I find that Richard Rapport is a player that will most likely shock your chess, no matter what level do you have. He plays unconventional and uncompromising chess, trying new things against the best players. Even in this tournament, one of the best of the year, he played innovative chess in many of his games.

For a compilation of all his games in said tournament, click here.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Another famous example is Zvjaginsev in the Russian Championship Superfinal 2005, against ex-FIDE World Champion Khalifman:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "ch-RUS Superfinal"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2005.12.20"]
[EventDate "2005.12.19"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vadim Zvjaginsev"]
[Black "Alexander Khalifman"]
[ECO "B20"]
[WhiteElo "2659"]
[BlackElo "2653"]
[PlyCount "73"]

1. e4 c5 2. Na3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qc7 4. Nf3 g6 5. c3 a6 6. Bxc6 Qxc6
7. O-O Bg7 8. d4 d6 9. d5 Qc7 10. h3 Nf6 11. Bf4 O-O 12. Re1
b5 13. Qd2 Bb7 14. Rad1 Rfe8 15. c4 Qb6 16. Bh6 Bh8 17. b3 e6
18. Ng5 exd5 19. cxd5 Re7 20. Re3 Rae8 21. Rde1 a5 22. Nb1 b4
23. Qc2 Nd7 24. Nd2 Ba6 25. Ngf3 Ne5 26. Bg5 Nxf3+ 27. Nxf3
Rd7 28. e5 dxe5 29. Nxe5 Rxd5 30. Nxf7 Rxe3 31. Rxe3 Kxf7
32. Re7+ Kf8 33. Qe4 Rd1+ 34. Kh2 Qd6+ 35. f4 Bf6 36. Bh6+ Kg8
37. Qa8+ 1-0

```

After 2.Na3!? Khalifman allegedly pointed at the knight and laughed out loud, but he still lost in the end. Zvjaginsev repeated the move quite a few times afterwards and other GMs have played it.

In general, novelties after move 20 are quite rare. Yes some opening theory goes that deep, and sometimes those lines are played, but especially the absolute top GMs tend to avoid such lines because the earlier both players are thinking on their own, the higher the chance the better player wins. Between move 10 and 15 is probably about normal.

---
Tags: opening, novelties
---


# Question
Title: Anand - Carlsen Game 1 WCh 2014, why not 12.Qc3+?
In game 1 of the World Championship 2014 between Carlsen and Anand, Anand chose 12.gxf3. Why not play 12.Qc3+ instead? It takes control over the a1-h8 diagonal and prevents the black Nc6 to jump to d4 or e5. In addition, it gives white the option to grab on f3 with the queen, keeping the pawn structure on the kingside intact.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.08"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Eventdate "2014.11.08"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bd2 Bg7 6.e4 Nxc3 7.Bxc3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.d5 Bxf3 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.Qc3+

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
```
           [FEN ""]
                [Event "WCh 2014"]
                [Site "Sochi RUS"]
                [Date "2014.11.08"]
                [Round "1"]
                [White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
                [Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
                [Result "1/2-1/2"]
                [Eventdate "2014.11.08"]

                1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bd2 Bg7 6.e4 Nxc3 7.Bxc3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.d5 Bxf3 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.Qc3+ e5 (13.dxc6 Be4 14. Qe5 f6 15. Qc3 Re8 16. Be2 Bxc6)
    (13.gxf3 Nd4 )
   (13.Qxf3 Nd4 )
   (13.dxe6 Qf6 14. Qxf6 Kxf6 15. gxf3 fxe6)

```

Computer Houdini 1.5a w32 suggests 13... e5

Now four options for white 13.dc 13.de ep, 13.gf or 13.Qf3 anything else loses a piece.

* After 13. dc black replies 13... Be4 and white cannot take pawn on e5. If 14. Qe5 then 14... f6 15. Qc3 (15 Qe4 loses a queen). 15... Re8 this forces white reply 16. Be2 and black just takes on c6 16.... Bc6 , this is a win for black.
* 13.gxf6 black moves its knight to the centre 13... Nd4 Knight on d4 cannot be moved. Pawn on f3 is weak. Black is better.
* 13.Qf3 Again same idea – black’s knight occupies the centre Nd4 and whatever white answer is black threatens to crush the white centre 14... c6. Again black is better (maybe not as good as after 13. gf)
* 13.dxe6 e.p. black needs to cover the diagonal – 13... Qf6 or 13... Qd4 anything else consolidates white’s position in the centre.
13...Qf6 14 Qf6 (otherwise black takes on c3) 14... Kf6 (forced) 15 gf (forced) 15... fe again black is better (weakness on f3)
13...Qd4 white cannot take on d4, so 14. e7 (if 14. gf black takes on c3 and again weakness on f3 is giving black an advantage) 14... Re8 15. gf again cannot take on d4. And now either 15...Re7 or 15... Qc3 and black has better pawn structure.

---
Tags: world-championship, anand, carlsen, carlsen-anand-2014, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Carlsen-Anand, Game 2. Could Black hold if not for 34...h5?
At Black's 34th move in Game 2 of the Carlsen-Anand match, Anand blundered with `34...h5??`. What were his chances for salvaging the draw if he had defended actively via, say, `34...Qd2` or `34...Qd4`, counterattacking the f2 pawn?

```
[fen "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "WCC"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "2014.11.09"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.g3 h5??
    ( 1...Qd2 )
        ( 1...Qd4 )
2.Qb7 1-0

```

I'm looking for explanations of how White should then push for victory, and how Black should best respond, backed up with concrete analysis. **Please note that I'm not at all interested in pure engine evaluations**, but rather verbal, human annotations of the possibilities (though engine-*checked* analysis is certainly encouraged).

# Answer
In my analysis, I found Black's kingside position to be more solid than it seems at first glance. After **Kh8** and **Rg8**, Black defends **g7** very well. Black should play **34...Qd2**, after which his Black's strategy is simple - push **h6** to create a flight square for the king. Keep the queen active and target White's c-pawn and a-pawn. In some situations, Black can even go for a queen exchange and enter into a drawn rook endgame.

**35. Qxf3** is drawn, as per what I analyzed. Black grabs the c-pawn and it's impossible to break Black's kingside without advancing the kingside pawns. But if White advances the kingside pawns, then his own king is opened to to checks by the Black Queen. I played this position in a Blitz game with Houdini 1.5 and Stockfish 4 and was able to draw both. Here's the sample game with Houdini and Stockfish.

```
  [FEN "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5pP1/2P2P1K/8 b - - 0 34"]
  [White "Houdini 1.5/Stockfish 4"]
  [Black "Wes"]

  1... Qd2 2. Qxf3 Qxc2 3. Ra7 (3. Kg2 Kh8) 3... Qd2 4. Kg2 Kh8 5. Qc6 Qb4
  6. Rc7 Rg8  7. Qd5 Qxa4  8. Rxc5  h6  9. Rxa5  Qb4  10. Ra7  Re8  11. Rd7  Qe4+
  12. Qxe4  Rxe4  13. h5  (13. Rd8+ Kh7  14. h5  Ra4  15. Rf8  Rb4=) 13... Kg8
  14. Kf3  Ra4  15. g4  Rb4 16. Kg3 Rb3+  17. f3  Rb4  18. Rc7  Ra4  19. Rb7  Rc4
  20. Ra7  Rb4  21. Rd7  Ra4  22. Re7  Rb4 23. Kg2  Ra4 24. Rd7  Rb4  25. Rc7  Ra4
  26. Kf2  Ra3  27. Rb7  Rc3 28. Rd7  Rb3  29. Re7  Ra3 30. Rc7  Rb3  31. Kg2  Ra3
  32. Rb7=

```

White can also try the tricky idea of **35. Qe6+!?** followed by **36. Qe3**, hoping to go into a slightly better rook endgame, which by no means is easy to win and probably drawn. Black doesn't have to go into this endgame and can choose to simply follow the former plan of keeping the queen active and targeting White's queenside pawns.

```
   [FEN "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 34"]
   [White "Carlsen"]
   [Black "Anand"]

    1. g3 Qd2 2. Qe6+!? Kh8 3. Qe3 (3. Re8 Qxf2+ 4. Kh3 Qf1+ 5. Kg4 h5+! 6. Kxh5 Rxe8
    7. Qxe8+ Kh7=) (3. Qf7 Qxf2+ 4. Kh3 Qf1+ 5. Kg4 h5+! 6. Qxh5+ Kg8 7. Qg6 Qc4+
    8. Kxf3 Qf1+ 9. Kg4 Qd1+ 10. Kh3 Qh1+ 11. Kg4 Qd1+=) 3...Qd5 (3...Qxc2 4. Re8+-)
    (3... Qxe3 4. fxe3 Rb8 5. Kg1 g5 6. fxg6 hxg6 7. Ra7 Rb2 8. Kf2 Rxc2+
    9. Kxf3 c4 10. Rxa5 Ra2 (43... f5) 11. Ra7 Kg8
    12. e4 (12. Ke4 c3 13. Kd3 c2 14. Kd2 f5 15. a5=) 12...c3 13. Ke3 Rg2
    14. Rc7 Rxg3+ 15. Kd4 Rg1 16. Rxc3 Ra1 17. Rc4 Kf7
    18. Kd5 g5 19. hxg5 (19. h5 Rd1+ 20. Kc6 g4 21. a5 g3 22. Rc2 Ra1
    23. Kb6 Rb1+ $11) 19...fxg5 20. e5 Rd1+ 21. Rd4 Rb1+=)
    4. Re8 (4. Rc7 Rg8 5. Rxc5 Qd1 6. Rc3 h6 7. Qxf3 Qxf3 8. Rxf3 Rc8=)
    4... Kg8 5. Qe7 Qf7 6. Rxf8+ Qxf8 7. Qc7 h6 8. Qxa5 Kh7 9. Qb6 c4 10. a5
    Qa3 11. a6 Qc1 12. g4 Qxc2 13. a7 Qe4 14. Kg3 c3 15. Qc5 c2=

```

A successful strategy for White therefore would involve keeping the **a-pawn** and **c-pawn** alive and also try to push **g4-g5** to break Black's kingside. Black can still counter this approach with the strategy of active play.

A good try for White is **35. Qc4+!?**, grabbing the **c-pawn** and creating a passed pawn. White will try to break Black's kingside with **g4-g5**. The drawback of this line is Black's pawn on **f3** remains alive and therefore Black is able to set up a counter attack against White's **f2** pawn (White's king cannot defend it) and also set up mate threats on **g2**. Black can also counter the threat of **g4-g5** with the incredible idea of **Kh7** followed by **Rh8!** in some variations.

I believe **35. Qc4+!?** is the most interesting line, but Black can still hold with active play. Here's some analysis -

```
   [FEN "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 34"]
   [White "Carlsen"]
   [Black "Anand"]

    1. g3 Qd2 2. Qc4+!? Kh8 3. Qxc5 h6 4. Rc7 (4. c4 Rd8 5. Qa7 (5. Qe3 Qd1 6. Qe1 Qd4
    7. Re3 Qxc4 8. Qxa5 Rd1 9. Qa8+ Kh7 10. Qxf3 Ra1 11. Re2 Rxa4) 5... Rd4!!
    6. Qa8+ Kh7 7. Qxf3 Rxh4+ 8. gxh4 Qd6+ 9. Kh3 Qxe7) (4. Ra7 Re8 5. Rxa5 Qe1
    6. Ra7 Qf1) 4... Re8 5. Qa7 Rg8 (5... Re2 6. Rc8+ Kh7 7. Qf7 Rxf2+ 8. Kh3 Rh2+
    9. Kg4 h5+ 10. Qxh5+) 6. Qe3 (6. c4?? Qe2 7. Qe3 Re8!) 6... Qd6 (6... Qxe3
    7. fxe3 Re8 8. Kg1 (8. Rc3 Re4 9. Kg1 Rxa4 10. Kf2 Kh7 11. Kxf3 Ra1 12. Rc7 h5
    13. c4 a4 14. Ra7 a3 15. e4 a2 16. Kg2 Kg8 17. c5 Rc1 18. Rxa2 Rxc5 19. Ra8+ Kh7
    20. Kf3 g6 21. Ra7+ Kh6 22. Ra6 Kg7) 8... Rxe3 9. Rc5 Re2 (9.. Re5
    10. Rxe5 fxe5 11. c4 Kg8 12. c5 Kf7 13. g4 Ke7 14. g5 hxg5 15. hxg5 Kd7
    16. f6 gxf6 17. g6) 10. c4 Rg2+ 11. Kf1 Rxg3 12. Rxa5 Rg4 13. Rc5 Rxh4 14. Kf2 h5
    15. a5 (15. Kxf3 Kh7 16. a5 Rh3+ 17. Ke4 Ra3 18. Rb5 h4=) 15... Kh7
    16. Rc7 Rh2+ 17. Kxf3 Ra2 18. Ra7) 7. Rc4 Qa6 8. Qc5 Kh7 9. g4 (9. Qc6 Qxc6
    10. Rxc6 Re8 11. Rc5 Re2 12. g4 Re4 13. Rxa5 Rxg4 14. Kh3 h5 15. Ra7 Rg2
    16. Rc7 Rxf2 17. Kg3 Rf1 18. a5 f2 19. Kg2 Ra1 20. Kxf2 Rxa5=) (9. Qc7 Qa8
    10. Kh3 Qe8) (9. Kh3 Re8 10. Qb5 Qxb5 11. axb5 Rb8 12. Rc5 a4 13. c4 a3
    14. Rd5 a2 15. Rd1 Rc8 16. Ra1 Rxc4 17. Rxa2 Rb4 18. b6 Rxb6 19. Kg4 Rb4+
    20. Kxf3 Rc4=) 9... Qb7 10. Qc6 Qb8+ 11. Qc7 (11. Kh3 Qb1 12. Kg3 Qg1+
    13. Kxf3 Rd8=) 11... Qe8 12. Qg3 Qe2 13. Rc7 Rh8! 14. Rc3 Qe4 15. Qxf3 Qxa4
    16. Rc7 Rd8=

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
Anand could have chosen

```
[fen "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "WCC"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "2014.11.09"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.g3 Qd2 2.Qxf3 Qxc2 3.Kg2

```

After which we reach a Queen+Rook middlegame. In such middlegames, the following factors are critical:

1. King safety
2. Piece harmony (coordination and collaboration between the Queen and Rook)

My evaluation of the position above is as follows. Black's King is less safe, since the f-pawn is on f6, exposing the seventh rank for the white Re7 and making it possible for white to attack the g7-square. Further, the white Re7 is better placed than the black Rf8. The white Qf3 is controlling the h1-a8 diagonal, safe guarding the white Kg2 as well as threatening Qf3-g4, Qf3-d5 and Qf3-b7.

White can have the following strategy: use the better King safety and harmony to attack the enemy King and checkmate and/or win material along the way.

Black can have the following strategy: keep the pieces active, try to make them collaborate better, seek a counter attack on the enemy King, try to exchange queens.

I think the position is better for white yet black can still fight. For example

```
[fen "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "WCC"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "2014.11.09"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.g3 Qd2 2.Qxf3 (2.Qe6+ Kh8 3.Qf7 Qxf2+ 4.Kh3 Qf1+ 5.Kg4 h5+ 6.Qxh5+ Kg8=) Qxc2 3.Kg2 Kh8 4.Qg4 (4.Qb7 Qxf5 5.Rxg7 Rd8) Rg8

```

Conclusion from the position after 1...Qd2:

```
[fen "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5p2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "WCC"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "2014.11.09"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.g3 Qd2

```
1. Black should play Kg8-h8, Rf8-g8 and h7-h6 to secure the kingside.
2. Black should trade all the pawns on the queenside and play 3 against 4 on the kingside.
3. White should try to prevent this from happening.
> 8 votes

# Answer
As a small contribution, I would like to quote GM Dejan Bojkov from his analysis and commentary of the game, where he mentions a line similar to one already thoroughly analysed by Wes:

```
[FEN "5rk1/4R1pp/3q1p2/p1p2P2/P3Q2P/5pP1/2P2P1K/8 b - - 0 1"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]

1...Qd2 2.Qxf3 Qxc2 3.Ra7 Re8 4.Rxa5

```

> Magnus would still need to show good technique to deserve the full point. - GM Dejan Bojkov
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'll make the answer clearer later, but for now, yes Anand had perfect drawing chances, for several reasons:

* Rook and Queen endgames tend to be harsh and fighting, they are like semi-endgames semi-middlegames, but still drawish. Constant checks and the long range pieces make it easy to cover all bases, sometimes even 2 pawns down.
* If a piece was exchanged, the situation would be even more drawish than it was before.
* Usually in endgames, engines can't see a draw, because they have to search really deep. That's why we have tablebases. While the engine gave carlsen a plus, it was a fake advantage. With correct play from both sides, draw would probably ensue.
* The game was a technical one. After the time trouble, Anand would probably find the draw. It is a technical endgame, so I'd have no fear on it.

I'll add some examples, and engine analysis.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, carlsen-anand-2014
---


title: How to fix 1 turn tactical errors

text:
# Question
Title: How to fix 1 turn tactical errors
I am a very good attacking and tactical player. There is just one problem. While I catch combinations that might even require 5 or 6 moves, I cannot find 1 turn ones. Let's see this game I played today:

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bc4 Ne5 7. Bb3 Be7 8.
Bf4 O-O 9. Qd2 Ng6 10. Bg5 Re8 11. O-O-O c6 12. h4 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Bxe7
Ndxe7 15. h5 Ne5 16. h6 g6 17. Qf4 Nd5 18. Nxd5 cxd5 19. Nf3 Nxf3 20. Qxf3 Qg5+
21. Kb1 Bg4 22. Qc3 Qe5 23. Qxe5 Rxe5 24. Rxd5 Re2 25. Rhd1 Ree8 26. R1d4 Re1+
27. Rd1 Rxd1+ 28. Rxd1 Bxd1 29. f3 Be2 30. c4 b5 31. cxb5 Bxb5 32. Bd5 Rc8 33.
Be4 f5 34. Bc2 Kf7 35. a4 Rxc2 36. Kxc2 Bxa4+ 37. b3 Bb5 38. g4 f4 39. Kc3 Kf6
40. Kd4 Kg5 41. Ke4 Bc6+ *

```

I was white. This is the one I am presenting, but there are many games where I missed 1 turn tactics. Please help me.

# Answer
It is a common problem to calculate all the variations and then suddenly realize that the first move was simply terrible. Actually, there is a rule that should be applied after finishing a complicated calculation, the Blumenfeld rule!

The Blumenfeld rule is formulated roughly as follows. After finishing a complicated calculation, take a fresh look at the position on the board. Try to picture the position directly after the next move you plan to make. Check whether you are missing something trivial. Are you perhaps losing a piece after this move? Are you missing a simple check that makes you lose material? Perhaps you will even be checkmated in a few moves? Only after completing this check for terrible blunders can you now go on and make your move.

This rule does not come easy to any player at any level!
> 14 votes

# Answer
The answer is simple and cruel -\> evaluation of the position. Unfortunately, being inactive for 10+ years, I suffer from the same problem so I know what I am talking about.

You will not find a winning move, nor winning lines, unless you evaluate that they are there in the position. That is why you miss those moves -\> you didn't even consider that such possibilities exist in the position.

Can you answer me these questions:

* How did you evaluate the position in the game, after your opponent played `17...Nd5` ?
* Did you even consider `18.Bxd5 cxd5 19.Nxd5!` since `19...Qxd5?? 20.Qf6 Nd3+! 21.Rxd3 Qe5 22.Re3! Qxf6 23.Rxe8#` mates? Did you see this line, and if you did why did you dismissed it?
* Why didn't you play `19.Bxd5!` with the same mating tactic as above, instead of weak `19.Nf3` ?

What I am trying to say is that you didn't evaluate the position properly. Maybe you thought it was advantage for White ( `+0.80` or something similar... ) while I believe it was won for White ( `+1.60` at least ).

**I strongly believe that you would have found these lines on your own if you thought you had a won position.**

Solving tactical puzzles can fix this problem to some extent, but you really need to learn how to evaluate the position properly and this comes with experience. Reading books about typical middlegame positions helps as well, so does strong knowledge of endgames. These will help you in the beginning.

I advise you to start with tactical puzzles, and then move towards typical middlegame positions.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You missed at least TWO tactical chances.

On move 26, you made a very common mistake; you failed to realize that your king was smothered in your "back rank." If you had realized this, you would have moved your rook on d1 along the first rank, instead of "chasing" the bishop, and allowing what turned out be a deadly pin.

Many players play h3, or in this case, a3, as soon as possible, because of all the potential combinations that can arise from this pattern, which appears time and again. (You should have played a3 on move 25 before moving the rook to d1). I would guess that a lot of your "one move" faux pas arises from not knowing patterns like these. Learn them, and a lot of mistakes will go away.

You can see how your rook on d1 was "hobbled" by the insecurity of the king's position. The safety of the king is the first priority in chess.

As pointed out by Always Learning New Stuff, you also missed an opportunity on move 19 to play Bxd5, capturing the d pawn, and "forking" the knight and f pawn (the latter leads to mate). When Black defends the f pawn, you can capture the knight with B, thereby avoiding the "skewer" of your queen and rook by the Black bishop.

But the "back rank" problem is the more common one, which is why I answered it first.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: training, blunder, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Why is the move 4.Nc3 rare in Bird's defence?
After:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nc3

```

it looks like white is leading in development at the moment.

# Answer
While it is true that at the moment white is leading in development, the move `Nc3` interferes directly with white's plans. This is why it is seldom played. From now on I will severely criticize this move, but it is by no means a losing one or one that offers any immediate advantage to black.

In every opening, but this is particularly important in the Ruy-Lopez, the two main goals are to control the center and develop your pieces (remember, a piece is developed when it's doing something useful in the square it is. Sometimes a piece is better left on its starting square if you don't see a good place for it). To do so, a normal plan after `Bb5` is to play `c3` preparing `d4`, when white will achieve the perfect center (namely a pawn on `d4` and another on `e4`) even if black captures on `d4`, as he will be able to recapture with a pawn. So, even if your knight is "developed" (my next point will be that the knight is probably not specially useful here), it prevents the pawn from reaching `c3` and interferes with one of the two main goals of an opening.

The move has also a number of drawbacks that are conceptually maybe not so important as this one, but that also put people back from playing it. The most common is that after black plays `d6`, the natural square for his light squared bishop is `g4` pinning the knight. If white is able to play `Nbd2`, he defends the pin and the queen is free to move without compromising the pawn structure, but if his knight is already on `c3` the pin can be quite annoying. Another important one is that if the bishop is chased away via `a6` and `b5`, sometimes he can hugely benefit from being placed on `c2`, defending the `e4` pawn and having attacking prospects on the kingside if the pawn ever moves.

Finally, in this particular position, with this move you are giving up the bishop pair. It is true that you gain a temporary initiative, but with so few developed pìeces it is hard to get an attack going, specially when black is only a couple of moves away from castling. I do not think this initiative is something special, whereas the two bishops will bring a lot of pain after `c6` and `d5` (not necessarily right away, but that is a plan), opening up the position.

Summing up, while you are developing a piece, a considerable number of small concessions are being made, and this adds up to something that you may do not want out of the opening: you have poor coordination from the start, you may have lost the bishop pair and not even have any structural advantages for it (as in the Exchange Ruy-Lopez) and you must look for a new non-standard plan as you have blocked your `c` pawn.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Why has the number of games decreased over time in WCC?
The World Chess Championship between Lasker and Capablanca in 1921 was organised as the winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting, and if this goal was not reached, the player with more points after 24 games would be declared the winner. Lasker forfeited after 14 games.

The winner of the World Chess Championship between Karpov and Kasparov in 1984 would be the first to achieve 6 victories. The match was suspended after 48 games.

Those are only two examples of extremely long scheduled matches with many interesting games. However, nowadays the matches are much shorter. The 2013 World Chess Championship was scheduled to be only 12 games, and the last two were not necessary so there were only 10 games!

Is there any particular reason why the matches are now much shorter?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer for this: Terms are decided largely by FIDE with a small amount of input from the incumbent champion and challenger, meaning that people like us can't really know. I can however highlight a few factors that I think play a role.

* As GuRoux hinted at, not running over other tournaments is a plus. Not just because of divided attention of the community, but because it means that at least two (and likely more, considering the role of seconds) of the worlds top players won't be able to compete in any other tournament while the WCC is ongoing.
* Attention span. As an extreme example, the 1984 championship went for 48 (not a typo) games before the match was called off by the president of FIDE. It's hard to expect players or spectators to put aside such large amounts of time when there's no garuantee of a result, and people who are not really 'into' chess will likely stop watching quite quickly.
* Increased costs. Aside from the high costs that are present in all post-Fischer-era matches (venue, hotels, prize pool, etc). there are a number of other expenses that have come up in recent years. To give only one example, the current (2014) match between Carlsen and Anand is being streamed live to the internet, which requires a production crew (streaming like that is harder than it looks) and commentators (I can't imagine the experience and quality of a top player and commentator such as Svidler coming cheap). It's true that this allows for advertising possibilities which might cover those costs, but that means that you need to find even more sponsors to cover both new and traditional expenses, and with more sponsors you can ask for less money as they share less of the limelight.
* The format promotes attacking chess, in much the same way that 20/20 cricket promotes high-risk/high-reward play over the traditional test match format. The aforementioned Karpov-Kasparov match went for 48 games, but at the conclusion the score was 5-3 (five times as many draws as wins, and the ratio was even worse but for the last two games). Even people already interested in chess would likely lose interest with continual draws, not to mention attempting to attract new players. In a shorter format, you are forced to go on the offensive, because there is less time to make up a mistake arising from a mistake after passive play. Tiebreaks with decreasing time controls also means that the luck factor increses there, and so both players will likely want to avoid that.

In general I agree that 12 games is very short, but it's almost inconcievable that at 24-game match would occur these days, and even 16-18 would likely be stretching things considering the chess world's continued problems with finding and maintaining sponsorship.

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


# Question
Title: How do I use the “Mate Search” function of either Houdini 3 Pro x64 or Fritz 12? It doesn’t seem to work…
The “Mate Search” function of my two chess engines, Houdini 3 Pro x64 and Fritz 12, does not work.

I click on “Levels” and then on “Mate Search”.

Then a small “Mate Search” window pops up.

When I click on “Parameters” it does nothing. When I click on “OK” the “Mate Search” window just disappears and nothing happens.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In short, you don't have an engine installed that is able to use the mate search function. The scrollable box should show all engines you have installed that are capable of the mate search function, so either you don't have one installed (unlikely if you have a legitimate copy of Fritz 12) or the UI is unable to recognize it for some reason.

---
Tags: engines, programming, houdini, software
---


# Question
Title: Does SCID allow to draw arrows on the board?
I figured out that holding shift allows me to highlight a square I click on, but no luck finding the shortcut for arrows. Using SCID Vs. PC 4.9.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Hold down `Control` and click on the starting square to begin the arrow, then on the square the arrow will be pointing at.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I use Scid 4.2.2, which is quite old, but maybe what works there also works in Scid vs PC.

You can open the Comment Editor window, and besides editing the comment and adding things to squares, you can also click and drag over the board to create arrows.

Make sure to *store* the comment before you enter the next move, or it will be lost!

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can only draw arrows and other board diagrams in the comment editor. However, the code for these arrows will show in the pgn window, which is annoying.

This would be a welcome change to the program. I would also like to see a return to the old best game tree window where you could choose the number of games and the result.

---
Tags: scid
---


# Question
Title: What is the maximum Elo rating that Magnus Carlsen could have if he loses the 2014 WCC to Anand?
What is the maximum Elo rating that Magnus Carlsen could have if he loses the World Chess Championship 2014 to Anand? Would this result from a 6.5-5.5 result or would the relative rating change mean that if he lost more quickly that would be better? Also, are the players playing 12 rounds regardless of the current score?

# Answer
In a hypothetical situation where Carlsen knew that he was going to lose the match and his number one priority was to preserve his rating points, then his best option would be to lose as quickly as possible. As pointed out in this question (EDIT: Values updated as per JiK's comment below), Carlsen will lose 1 rating points for each game he draws with Anand. The only way that he could extend the match and *not* lose points in the process would be to win as many games as possible before losing.

Assuming Anand wins with the minimum possible score of 6.5/12, Carlsen will lose a minimum of 17 points (11 draws x 1, 1 loss x 6). This does not change if draws are replaced by a win for either side.

However, if Anand was going to win with a draw and 6 wins, then Carlsen stands to lose 37 points. If Carlsen somehow knew this would be how Anand would win, then he could attempt to interpose as many of his own wins (up to 5) as possible, ameliorating the loss somewhat. Even in this situation, Carlsen's best result remains a net loss of 17 points.

**EDIT:** And to answer the question as it is worded in the title: Carlsen's rating (assuming no results outside the WCC match are counted) would be no more than 2863.0 - 17 = **2846.0**
> 4 votes

---
Tags: elo, world-championship, carlsen, anand, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Anand - Carlsen WCC 2014 ( game 3 ) -> at which moments Black was able to equalize?
I am trying to return to competitive chess after 10+ years of inactivity. I am playing the QGD so the third game of the Carlsen - Anand match is very important for me. It seemed to me that Black had equal position in these lines yet now I am not so sure. That `17.Ng5` leap is really nasty, and after `20.fxe4` White also seemed in command.

Since I don't wish to change repertoire I am asking here for help to improve the game for Black so he can reach fully playable position.

Here are the moves of the game:

```
[White "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]

[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 c6 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. Bxa6 Rxa6 12. b5 cxb5 13. c6 Qc8 14. c7 b4 15. Nb5 a4 16. Rc1 Ne4 17. Ng5 Ndf6 18. Nxe4 Nxe4 19. f3 Ra5 20. fxe4 Rxb5 21. Qxa4 Ra5 22. Qc6 bxa3 23. exd5 Rxd5 24. Qxb6 Qd7 25. O-O Rc8 26. Rc6 g5 27. Bg3 Bb4 28. Ra1 Ba5 29. Qa6 Bxc7 30. Qc4 e5 31. Bxe5 Rxe5 32. dxe5 Qe7 33. e6 Kf8 34. Rc1 1-0

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Analysing the whole game, not just the opening moves, the main problem with black's position was the dark squares. Despite having his dark squared bishop, once the pawn marched to `c7` the dominance of `Bf4` over `Be7` was beyond any doubt. It is true that Carlsen made a few mistakes with several recaptures, but these moves were natural and probably every human would have made them in his position.

This is why my main suggestion is to play the line arising after `6... Nh4`, getting rid of that annoying bishop and avoiding the pawn from ever reaching `c7`. The game may then steer into semi-Slav (if black plays `c6`) or Tarrasch (if black plays `c5`) pawn structures, where the choice is only yours.

# Answer
> 1 votes
After 3 days of analyzing the position and searching through the Internet, I have decided to switch from playing `7...c6` to `7...Nh5`. It seems that Black has easier time here, with fully equal chances.

Next, I have searched online for comments about `17...Nxg5` as I really liked the move. That didn't turn out too well for Black, so I had to satisfy myself with the game continuation.

I will use this opportunity to give credit to the GM Erwin l'Ami and GM Daniel King. Their analysis was very helpful and helped me to cut the amount of time I spent analyzing the whole game.

```
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1-0"]
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 c6 ( 7...Nh5!) 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. Bxa6 Rxa6 12. b5 cxb5 13. c6 Qc8 14. c7 b4 15. Nb5 a4 16. Rc1 Ne4 ( 16...Ra5?! 17. Bd6 Rxb5 18.Bxe7 b3 19.Bxf8 Nxf8 20.O-O ) 17. Ng5 Ndf6 ( 17...Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Ra5 19.Be7!? Rxb5 20. Bxf8 Kxf8 21. Qxa4 Ra5 22.Qxb4+ Ke8! $13) ( 17...Nxg5?! 18.Bd6 Ra5 19.Bxe7 Rxb5 20. axb4! $16) 18. Nxe4 Nxe4? ( 18...dxe4!? 19.Nd6 Bxd6 20.Bxd6 b3 21.Bxf8 Kxf8 $13) 19. f3! Ra5 20. fxe4!N Rxb5 21. Qxa4 Ra5 22. Qc6 bxa3 ( 22...dxe4 23.a4! ) 23. exd5 Rxd5 24. Qxb6 Qd7 25. O-O?! ( 25.Qa6! Rc8 26.Rb1! Rxc7 27.Rb8+ Bd8 28.Bxc7 Qxc7 29.Rc8+-) 25...Rc8 26. Rc6 g5 ( 26...Bf6 27.Qa6 e5 28.dxe5 Bxe5 29.Bxe5 Rxe5 30.Rfc1 Rd5 31.Qxc8+!! Qxc8 32.Rb6+-) 27. Bg3?! ( 27.Be5!? Bb4 28.Qxb4 Qxc6 29.Qe7! $36) 27...Bb4! 28. Ra1! Ba5? 29. Qa6 Bxc7? 30. Qc4! e5 31. Bxe5 Rxe5 32. dxe5 Qe7 33. e6 Kf8 34. Rc1 1-0

```

---
Tags: analysis, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Is there retrograde analysis puzzle like "Point on the incorrectly drawn chess piece"?
Does anybody know a nice chess puzzle, where question states: "Exactly one piece is drawn incorrectly on this diagram, another piece must be drawn on it's position. Find incorrectly drawn piece."? One needs to make retrograde analysis of the given position and find, which from all pieces is drawn incorrectly.

I really would like to find such a puzzle.

---

P.S. I would rather like to *find* Old puzzle like this than to see you *creating* a new one, because:

1. I understand that it is easy to create a simple puzzle like this. But this would be too simple.
2. When you try to create it, it is easy to miss some combination. Meanwhile old puzzles are checked "by time".

But if you really would like to try to create a nice puzzle like this - you are welcome.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Raymond Smullyan's *Chess Mysteries of the Arabian Knights* has some problems where one of the pieces is actually a different piece; you have to figure out which piece.

The problems there which fit this description appear to be these:

3 5 23 28 29 30 39 41 42 43

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


# Question
Title: Carlsen - Anand, game 6 WCC 2014 -> why Black didn't play 10...Ne4 to try to equalize?
What is wrong with `10...Ne4` instead of `10...Nd7`?

It seems to me that it was a better move -\> Black exchanges one more piece which relieves his cramped position and he obtains the bishop pair.

Can someone explain why `10...Ne4` is inferior to `10...Nd7`?

Here is the position I am talking about:

```
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bk3r/1p3ppp/p1p1pn2/4P3/1bP5/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 1 "]

1...Ne4

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
**10...Ne4** doesn't help Black preserve the bishop pair. After the surprising move **11.a3!**, Black is forced to take the knight on **c3** with the bishop and then we reach a position similar to the one in the game, except that Black's knight is on a more vulnerable e4 square than on a safe square like **d7**. The pawn on **c3** cannot be captured without a significant positional loss to Black.

```
   [FEN "r1bk3r/1p3ppp/p1p1pn2/8/1bP1P3/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B1KB1R w KQ - 0 10"]
   [White "Carlsen"]
   [Black "Anand"]

   1. e5 Ne4 2. a3! Bxc3+ (2... Nxc3?? 3. axb4 Ne4 4. f3! +-) (2... Ba5 3. b4 Nxc3
   4. bxa5+=) 3. bxc3 Kc7 (3... Nxc3? 4. a4! Ne4 5. Be3 f6 6. Bd3 Ng5 7. O-O
   Nf7 8. exf6 gxf6 9. f4 +=) 4. Be3 b6 5. Bd3 Nc5 6. Bxc5 bxc5 7. O-O-O+=

```

---
Tags: analysis, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Promotion race between three non-confronting pawns
Two evenly matched players have reached the endgame after exchanging off all their pieces except the King and 3 Pawns. Having castled on opposite sides, we have now reached the following interesting position.

```
8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1

```

Quite clearly, this is now a race for pawn promotion. What should be the strategy in this position (for both players)? Should your King go after the enemy pawns, or lead your own pawns to promotion?

# Answer
The two previous answers both suggested that this position is a draw, but I believe it's a win for White.

Stockfish 5 evaluates the position at more than +10 if left to run for long enough (e.g., to depth 40), which sounds pretty decisive, but of course Stockfish isn't infallible. I generated a FinalGen tablebase for the position, but unfortunately it wasn't able to solve the position fully, though it did show that the moves 1.Kf3 and 1.Kf1 lose. Stockfish evaluations for the positions after 1.Kf3 and 1.Kf1 eventually drop below -10, which suggests that Stockfish does understand what is going on here, and its evaluations (at depth 40 or more) should be taken seriously.

The question, of course, wasn't about the game-theoretic status of the position, but about the strategy. The basic strategy is to block the opponent's pawns and aim for zugzwang. White's first move appears to give him a decisive advantage in doing this, provided he starts by moving his king towards the queenside (1.Kd1, 1.Kd2 or 1.Kd3). Here's a sample line:

```
[FEN "8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd3 Ke6 2.h4 Kf7 3.h5 Kg7
( 3...a5 4.Kc4 a4 5.Kb4 b5 6.f4 c5+ 7.Ka3 c4 8.Kb4 Kg7
( 8...Kf6 9.g4 Kg7 10.f5 )
9.f5 Kg8 10.g3 Kg7 11.g4 Kg8 12.h6 Kh7 13.g5 Kg8 14.g6 Kf8 15.f6 $18 )
4.g4 Kh6 5.Kc3 a5 6.f4 a4 7.f5 Kg5
{ The kingside is now mutual zugzwang: Black can't move there without allowing promotion, and White can't move there without losing a pawn. Play therefore switches to the queenside. }
( 7...b5 8.f6 $18 )
8.Kb4 b5 9.Ka3 c5 ( 9...c6 10.Kb4 c5+ 11.Ka3 c4 12.Kb4 $23 { Zugzwang. } )
10.Ka2 b4 11.Kb2 a3+ 12.Kb3 c4+ 13.Ka2 c3 14.Kb3
{ The queenside is now also mutual zugzwang, so Black to move loses. }
14...c2 15.Kxc2 a2 16.Kb2 b3 17.Ka1 Kf6 18.h6 Kf7 19.g5 Kg8 20.g6 Kf8 21.f6 1-0

```

Black could try to avoid zugzwang by mimicking White's moves, but he can't mimic checks, and this is in any case a recipe for losing a direct race to promote. Here's a sample line:

```
[FEN "8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd3 Ke6 2.h4 a5 3.Kc4 Kf5 4.h5 a4 5.g4+ Kg5 6.Kb4 b5 7.f4+ Kh6 8.f5 c5+
9.Ka3 c4 10.f6 c3 11.g5+ Kxg5 12.f7 b4+ 13.Ka2 b3+ 14.Kb1 a3 15.f8=Q a2+
16.Ka1 c2 17.Qc5+ 1-0

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
I used to think the following draw by repetition looked optimal for complicated reasons (detailed below), but now I doubt it. White may well have a winning strategy, involving putting Black in zugzwang on both sides. See Stephen's answer.

```
[FEN "8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1. h4  a5  2. h5 Ke7 3. h6 Kf6 4. g4 a4 5. Kd2 Kg6 6. g5 a3 7. Kc2 b5 8. Kb3 b4 9. Ka2 Kh7 10. Kb3 Kg6 ½-½

```

Neither player can advance the `♟c`/`♙f`, or will end up in zugzwang.

# If White advances the `♙f`, Black wins.

```
[FEN "8/2p5/6kP/6P1/1p6/pK6/5P2/8 w - - 8 9"]

  9. f3 c6 10. f4 c5 (9. f4 c5) 11. f5+ Kh7 12. Ka2 (12. f6 Kg6 -+) c4 13. Ka1 b3 14. Kb1 c3 15. Ka1 c2 (13. Kb1 b3 14. Ka1 c3 15. Kb1 b2 16. Ka2 c2 17. Kxa3 c1=Q -+(16. Kc2 a2 17. Kxc3 a1=Q -+)) 16. g6+ Kxh6 17. g7 c1=Q# (15. Kc1 a2 -+)

```

# If Black advances the `♟c`, White wins.

Notice how it falls back to White playing `♙f4` with reverse colors.

```
[FEN "8/2p5/6kP/6P1/1p6/pK6/5P2/8 w - - 8 9"]

  9. Ka2 c6 10. f4! c5 (9... c5 10. f3! c4 11. f4 +- see Wf4) 11. Kb3 c4+ 12. Ka2 +-

```

I wouldn't call that a full analysis, especially as the first moves are played so hastily, but I don't think neither player is in zugzwang *from the start*, as back-and-forth moves on columns seem free.

As neither the rush of pawns work, nor helping one's pawns with one's king (which must stay in the opponent's far-pawn's square), I think the position is symetrical enough to be a fair draw.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Unless there is careless pay, I see this ending up in a draw, play might continue:

```
[FEN "8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd3 Ke6 2. g4 a5 3. h4 a4 4. h5 Kf6 5. Kc3 b5 6. h6 Kg6 7. g5 a3 8. Kb3 b4 9. Ka2 Kh7
10. Kb3 Kg6 11. Ka2

```

Black can't do `11... c5`, because then it is basically over with:

```
  [FEN "8/pppk4/8/8/8/8/4KPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kd3 Ke6 2. g4  a5  3. h4  a4  4. h5  Kf6  5. Kc3  b5
 6. h6  Kg6  7. g5  a3 8. Kb3  b4  9. Ka2  Kh7  10. Kb3  Kg6
 11. Ka2  c5  12. f3 c4  13. f4  c3  14. Kb3  a2  15. Kxa2  c2
 16. Kb2 b3 17. Kc1  Kh7 18. f5  Kg8  19. f6  b2+  20. Kxc2  Kf7
 21. h7  Kg6 22. h8=Q

```
> -2 votes

---
Tags: pawn-promotion, passed-pawn, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Why was move 26 in Carlsen-Anand 2014 WC Game 6 a blunder by both players?
In the Anand vs Carlsen Match 6, why was move 26 a blunder for both players?

```
[White "Carlsen"]
[Black "Anand"]
[FEN "6rr/1k3p2/1pb1p1np/p1p1P2R/2P3R1/2P1B3/P1B2PP1/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd2? a4?

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
Carlsen's `26.Kd2` is a a blunder because it exposes the White King to a tactic that wins two pawns and gives Black terrific pressure. The tactic is effectively a guarantee of victory for Black:

```
[FEN "6rr/1k3p2/1pb1p1np/p1p1P2R/2P3R1/2P1B3/P1BK1PP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nxe5! 2.Rxg8 (2.Rxe5? Rxg4) Nxc4+! {The Knight gets out of danger, with check and an extra pawn--you couldn't ask for anything better!} 3.Kd3 (3.Ke2 Rxg8) Nb2+ 4.Ke2 Rxg8 {Black is now two full pawns ahead, with lots of pressure on the weak g2 pawn and vastly better pawns for the endgame. }

```

The point is that `2...Nxc4+` wins Black a second free pawn, by virtue of the check against the White King. Without the ability to get the Knight out of danger with check, `...Nxe5` is not possible (because White could then simply trade Rooks and then recapture the Knight with a winning position).

---

Anand's mistake on *his* twenty-sixth move was that he missed this tactic, playing `26...a4` very quickly and allowing Carlsen to correct his mistake by moving his King away from `d2`.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Carlsen's move(26.Kd2) was a blunder because of Anand's practically winning move(26...Nxe5!) which had a discovered attack on the rook on G4(and potential to take on C4). The double blunder occurred when Anand missed this move and played A4 which is a clear blunder when he had another great move available to him.

---
Tags: blunder, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Carlsen-Anand, game 8 -> how can Black repel 25.Rc7?
Instead of `25.Rfc1` as played in the game, why not `25.Rc7` to try for slight advantage or small initiative ( `Ne5` could follow or trying to bring other rook to the seventh rank... )?

```
[White "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[fen ""]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.a3 Nc6 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rd1 Qa5 12.Bd3 h6 13.Bh4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 a6 15.O-O b5 16.Ba2 Bb7 17.Bb1 Rad8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Nc5 Bxc5 21.Qxc5 b4 22.Rc1 bxa3 23.bxa3 Qxc5 24.Rxc5 Ne7 25.Rfc1 Rc8 26.Bd3 Red8 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Rxc8+ Nxc8 29.Nd2 Nb6 30.Nb3 Nd7 31.Na5 Bc8 32.Kf1 Kf8 33.Ke1 Ke7 34.Kd2 Kd6 35.Kc3 Ne5 36.Be2 Kc5 37.f4 Nc6 38.Nxc6 Kxc6 39.Kd4 f6 40.e4 Kd6 41.e5+  1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
It is definitely worth considering, and probably an equally good move, but unfortunately it only leads to a similar simplification of the position (rather quickly), so `Rc7` wouldn't really give an edge because black is well prepared to face it, as `Ne7` prepares it. Either black replies by `25.Rc7 Bc6`, locking the rook in to force the exchange, e.g. `26.Nd4` is just met by `Rc8`. Alternatively black can just exchange on f3, and play for minor activity himself, e.g. `Nd5` or `Rd2` after `gxf3`. (not necessarily a desired double-pawn structure for white either). Instead Anand went for activating his other rook and double his c-file, but black is just prepared enough to challenge it with an immediate Rc8, so long story short, the position just doesn't have much left in it to play for.

```
[White "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[fen ""]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.a3 Nc6 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rd1 Qa5 12.Bd3 h6 13.Bh4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 a6 15.O-O b5 16.Ba2 Bb7 17.Bb1 Rad8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Nc5 Bxc5 21.Qxc5 b4 22.Rc1 bxa3 23.bxa3 Qxc5 24.Rxc5 Ne7 25.Rc7 Bc6 (25...Bxf3 26.gxf3 Rc8 27.Rfc1 Red8 28.Be4 a5 29.f4 Kf8) 26.Nd4 Rc8 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 (27.Ra7 Bd5) 28.Rc1 Bb7

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Is it important to have pawns at the centre of the board?
Is there any strategic importance in having pawns at the centre of the board? Please provide a detailed explanation.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm going to assume that the importance of the center in general terms is already something you are aware of. In short, controlling the center means that your pieces will be able to access/utilize the whole board much better than if your opponent does.

Pawns allow a strong control of the center by virtue of the fact that they are both weak (meaning your opponent will be unlikely to trade a stronger piece for one) and the fact that they cannot move backwards or readily across files (meaning that it's relatively easy to create situations where one side's pawns cannot be attacked by the opponent's pawns, even if material is even). This of course assumes that one player is occupying the center with pawns (see: 'big center') and the other is not.

A more likely situation is one where both players are occupying the center with pawns, and the more important effect of this is that it helps determine the character of the game. If the center is blocked, the position is often vastly different to when the center pawns are traded for each other, leaving plenty of room for the long-range pieces to move around. Neither of these situations is inherently better for one side, but can allow a player to reach positions they are more comfortable with, or use their pieces more effectively than the opponents (e.g. a wide-open position can generally be said to favor a side that has bishops instead of knights, if there in an inequality there).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Let's imagine a white pawn on e4. It has the following functions

1. Control the central squares e4 and d5.
2. Create two posts on d5 and f5 for light and heavy pieces.
3. Close the diagonals h1-a8 and b1-h7 from enemy diagonal pieces.
4. Dynamic possibility of e4-e5, e.g. kicking a black knight from f6.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Is it important to have pawns at the centre of the board?

No it is not. Actually, it is not mandatory. To understand why, we must go down the chess history lane a bit.

In the old days, there was an opinion that if you don't have pawns in the center you can't really count to survive the game.

Practice showed the wonderful benefits of pawn center: they can move forward, pushing away opposing pieces into passive or simply bad squares, while weakening opposing pawn structure. The further they advance, the greater the chance for their owner to get extra piece, since there is no other way to stop their promotion. If you manage to somehow block them, you are still in danger -\> you need time to organize your badly placed pieces and your good pieces are restricted in action because they have to block the central pawns. Furthermore, you will find yourself lacking space for maneuvering. Meanwhile, owner of the central pawns gains HUGE amount of time and strong central outposts for his pieces, not to mention space advantage.

It is no wonder why such games ended fast in favor of the side owning central pawns. One good illustrative example is the following one:

```
[Title "Italian game"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb6? 7.d5 Ne7 ( 7...Na5 8.Bd3 c5 9.d6! ) 8.e5 Ng4 ( 8...Ne4 9.d6 Nxf2 10.Qb3 ( 10.Qe2 Nxh1 11.Bg5 Bf2+ 12.Kf1 c6 13.Bxe7 Qb6 14.Ng5 Rf8 15.Qh5+- ) 10...Nxh1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5! ) 9.d6 cxd6 ( 9...Bxf2+ 10.Ke2 ) 10.exd6 Nc6 11.Bg5!

```

Things got even worse when Queen's Gambit was discovered. Since White was able to **always** return the gambited pawn **and maintain central dominance** all GMs of that time switched to `1.d4` since all Black could do is to fight for a draw from the very start. He could never create really dangerous counterplay. The game started dying, which is best illustrated in Capablanca-Alekhine world championship match.

Soon a rebellion came in view of young masters who were prepared to take radical measures in order to revive the game, and improve Black's chances to win. They came to an idea to control center from afar **with pieces only** but that didn't turn out well. Their movement was called hypermodernism. In the end, space advantage provided by central pawns was too much to offer equality. Although it was enough in the beginning, over time White would simply "suffocate" Black. Hypermodernists recognized that they need to **include pawns as well** into the fight and once that happened chess was saved. A whole new set of openings was created and they were playable.

The dogma of having pawns in the center in order not to lose was crushed and new strategy was born. An opening that best illustrates this principle is the main line of the Grunfeld's defense. Here is an illustrative game that shows hypermodern concept of battling pawn center with pieces:

```
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Ernst Gruenfeld"]
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Ne4 5. cxd5 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Qxd5 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. e3 c5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. c4 Qe4 11. O-O Bxb5 12. cxb5 Nd7 13. Rc1 b6 14. Qb3 h6 15. Bh4 O-O 16. Rc4 Qe6 17. Rd1 Rfe8 18. d5 Qd6 19. Bg3 e5 20. dxe6 Qxe6 21. Rd6 Qe7 22. Ra4 Nf8 23. Qd5 Rad8 24. Nd2 Rxd6 25. Bxd6 Rd8 26. Nc4 Qd7 27. h3 Ne6 28. Qe4 Bf8 29. Bxf8 Qd1+ 30. Kh2 Qxa4 31. Be7 Re8 32. Bf6 Ng7 33. Qd3 Qxa2 34. Bb2 Re6 35. Qc3 f6 36. Qd3 h5 37. e4 Qa4 38. Nd6 Qb4 39. Nc4 Qxb5 40. f4 Qc6 41. e5 f5 42. Nd6 Re7 43. Qg3 Kh7 44. Qg5 Qd7 45. Qg3 Ne6 46. Qf3 b5 47. Qa8 Qd8 48. Qd5 b4 49. g3 a5 50. Qc6 Qd7 51. Qa6 a4 52. Ba1 a3 53. Qc4 Qc6 54. Kg1 Qf3 55. Kh2 Qf2+ 0-1

```

This prelude is important for your next question:

> Is there any strategic importance in having pawns at the centre of the board?

Yes. To continue from above: although Black was able to "snipe" White from afar, and counterstrike his center from wings, White found a way to fight for advantage, thanks to his central pawns.

Nowadays, White will use central pawns to seize space thus containing Black's development advantage. He also is the one who usually has more plans available as he has stronger presence in the center. This is best illustrated in King's Indian defense -\> Black usually has only one good plan, to push `...f5`, while White's space advantage ( which stems from his central pawns ) gives him several plans available: he can open center, he can castle kingside launching queenside action, he can castle queenside launcing kingside pawnstorm, and he can try to control entire board by leaving king in the center and play `h3` \+ `g4` ( I think this is called Makagonov system ).

King's Indian defense and Grunfeld defense really illustrate well *pawns in center* vs *no central pawns* pros and cons.

I am too tired to continue, and I slowly start to lose my focus so I will top here. If you have further questions leave a comment. Best regards.

---
Tags: opening, positional-play, pawns, center
---


title: Can Black capitalize?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black capitalize?
I have played a game against a computer and came to the following position:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[fen "3q2k1/pp1r1p1p/2p1p1p1/2Pr2P1/P2P1P2/4Q3/1P1R3P/3R2K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

I gave my best to capitalize, but in the end game was spectacularly drawn (3 queens were on the board at some point, but I have managed to save myself with perpetual check).

I feel sad because I believe that Black should be able to win the game from the position above.

Can you demonstrate a winning plan from this position?

# Answer
After **1...b6!** Black can win a pawn. Whether that will be a winning endgame or not is a different matter, but I don't see a better plan for Black. So **1...b6** looks like the most reasonable way to pursue a win.

```
[FEN "3q2k1/pp1r1p1p/2p1p1p1/2Pr2P1/P2P1P2/4Q3/1P1R3P/3R2K1 b - - 0 1"]
[White "Comp"]
[Black "ALNS"]

1... b6 2. cxb6 (2. b4 a5 3. cxb6 axb4 4. Rc1 Qxb6 5. Rc4 b3 6. Rb2 Rxd4 7.
Rxd4 (7. Rxb3 Rd1+ 8. Kg2 R7d2+ 9. Kf3 Qd8) 7... Qxd4 8. Qxd4 Rxd4 9. Rxb3 Rxa4
10. Rf3 Kf8) 2... axb6 3. b4 (3. Kf1 c5 4. Qe4 cxd4) (3. Rc2 c5 4. Rc4
cxd4) 3... c5 4. bxc5 bxc5 5. h4 cxd4

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why and how do great chess players become "crazy"?
I know that this question may be for a more psychology-focus forum, and "great" is an understatement for players such as Fischer; yet, I want to know your opinion on this question. Is it intelligence? Is it pressure? Or is it the game itself? Whatever is the ultimate answer, I wonder if the grand gift or talent has a big backlash, or even at a lower level of play, does playing game become harmful then?

edit: Maybe I should rephrase my question a little bit. Why and how do some great chess players become mentally ill, and why and how do others stay mentally stable? I would like to hear more about the other side of the discussion.

# Answer
> 11 votes
I am a chess player and one of the many premier ones in my state. Clearly, I don't agree with the stated fact. There are a lot many chess players and that too people with gigantic chess conceptions who lead a normal (maybe slightly happier and proud than people not acquainted with the game) life. Any doubts check out on chess giants like Magnus Carlsen, Vishy Anand, Vladimir Kramnik, Peter Svidler, Levon Aronian and etc. The list can go on and on. These people are the elite among professionals and still they are humble, witty and very pleasant people to be with. Of course there is Fischer, Paul Morphy and the eccentrically behaving Ukranian genious Vassily Ivanchuk. But these people are an exception and not the rule. The misconception largely has to do with the popularity of the late Sir Robert James Fischer among the non chess playing people. Like any other generalization, this is also not true.

# Answer
> 9 votes
King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game is about this. The age-old question is:

## Does chess make you mentally ill or are mentally ill people attracted to chess?

* Chess has the highest suicide rate of any sport by a long-shot.
* Many chess world champions were mentally ill.

There's a whole bunch of other supporting facts about chess being linked to insanity, but I'd have to re-read the book to recall all of them.

All the insanely brilliant people in my life have some form of mental illness. I consider myself extremely fortunate to know these people. They're genius about things I can't begin to understand. There's two bipolar geniuses and two Aspergers geniuses. I know three of the four love chess.

And then there's my 135 IQ friend who's bipolar, her boyfriend from back in the day who was a genius and schizophrenic, my straight A friend who's depressed and maybe a little autistic, my aspergers 130+ IQ friend, my nerdy (aka autistic/aspergers traits) friend with depression who's 138.

So basically every intelligent person I can name has some sort of "disorder." Remember that by definition, being intelligent isn't normal. Who's to say one is the correct or incorrect way to think? Just because the majority of people think at a normal intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that's the right way to think. That's just how **almost everyone thinks**, so they only diagnose the exceptional people. Maybe you could argue that having a **normal** level of intelligence should be its own **mental disorder**.

For example, normal people don't *get* intelligent questions. Look at some questions on here written by geniuses and you'll see they're immediately flagged and closed. People rationalize it after the fact. It's unfocused, or too specific, or not a real question, or misguided, or all over the place, or off topic, or whatever. The kind of thinking that seems obvious to the intelligent person needs to be justified to normal people. Remember that as a society we villainize intelligence. Nobody normal is interested in big ideas. That's weird. All they care about is whether or not this is going to make their life more comfortable. And I'm not really sure why we were put on this Earth, but I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't to make ourselves comfortable.

See where I'm going with this?

My Calc professor left his copy of that book on my desk the day I went in to take my final exam for his class. He loves chess and mathematics. I'd visit him in his office after my class ended to say hi. We'd talk about intellectual giants and infinity and chess. Sometimes you can get caught on a problem, and start thinking about it forever. And eventually it'll drive you crazy. That's what happened to a lot of these mathematicians. Maybe these chess guys just got too absorbed in their own world. But it takes a tremendous mind to be capable of creating a world.

See where I'm going with this?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Great talent and great psychological instability go well along in an altogether very unbalanced life.

I don't think the game in itself causes that, nor that being crazy¹ helps to play, only that *concentrating the focus of a lifetime to a single thing can very wall harm one's sanity*, especially as powerful minds are dedicated to it.

Cantor comes to mind, relatedly.

---

¹ In all it's fuzziness. Define “crazy” if you want answers to try and be objective.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I do not agree with you describing Fischer as crazy. I'll do my best to explain this. Someone is called crazy when he can no longer control his thoughts or actions.

Simply because Fischer attacked the Americans' politics doesn't mean he's crazy. Maybe he had different political opinions than yours and you just have to accept this. Well, if anyone who doesn't like the American politics and the Israelis is called crazy, then more than 60% of the population will be crazy, since Russia, China, pretty much all Africa, the Arabic world and many other countries don't agree with the Americans.

Is Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or others crazy?

Even Bin Laden wasn't crazy. A murderer? No doubt about it. A hater? of course. A man with no conscience? True. But he wasn't crazy because he calculated his every move, he had goals, he knew his enemies, and he knew what he was doing.

Someone who calculates his moves is probably not crazy. He might be evil because he uses his intelligence for the wrong purposes, but not crazy.

I'm not gonna discuss the right and the wrong. Everyone judges it from his own perspective. I think there's no right and no wrong in politics. Politics is always dirty. The dirtiest hands usually wins. Ask the CIA, or any intelligence agency around the world. All are ready to do the bad actions for what they think is the greater good.

So what is crazy? John Nash was definitely crazy, at some point in his life, a schizophrenic who won Nobel prize in economics. See, Nash lost it, he couldn't control his thoughts. Fischer was just against the American politics; there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me ask you a question: is Kasparov crazy? He's against the Russian politics and been arrested for that reason, just like Fischer. So if you want to call Fischer crazy, you should do the same with Kasparov.

To answer the initial question, there's no doubt that someone who's intelligent might be crazy. He overthinks stuff and might become a conspiracy theorist. What you define as crazy is normal for him, or other people who think the same way. What's normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.

Al Mutanabbi once said

ذو العقل يشقى فى النعيم بعقله . . وأخو الجهالة فى الشقاوة ينعم

```
That with intellect suffers in bliss with his mind
And the ignorant in misery lives blissfully

```

So what he's trying to say is simple, ignorance is bliss.

# Answer
> 4 votes
*Unlike my fellow answerers, I am not a high ranking player yet, but I am well read in psychology.*

**Belief** I believe the logical mindset of top class players mixed with the element of uncontrollable uncertainty at that level combined are two main contibuting factors of stress in high level chess players which ultimately leads to mental degredation.

**Argument** At it's highest level chess is a very volatile game, and any single mistake can cost you the game even with a fantastic strategy. In the Game of the Century the knight sacrifice was only possible due to a slight error on the part of Byrne. It is my belief that when you're at that level a certain degree of chance enters into it.

Playing in an entirely unique position in every game against a similarly skilled opponent surely introduces the possibility of chance intervening and giving your opponent the victory. I imagine for someone that's dedicated their carreer to the game having to succumb to the unknown uncontrollable element of chance, it would have to be pretty stressful.

I imagine it on a similar vein to top class poker players who for all their control in the game can't escape the occasional big loss by what is essentially luck. I believe that's why Fischer wanted the opponent to have at least 2 wins over him in the 1975 championship.

I used to know a guy that was very, very intelligent and a poker player, and he had great trouble dealing with hands he lost, despite the fact that losing occasionally is inevetable.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm the biggest fan of Fischer as a chess player but toward the end he was unstable/crazy. Some examples: he thought he was black-listed by world jewery (quote), he thought every move of every game of the Kasparov-karpov matches was pre-arranged, he thought that the Russians might try to control his brain by sending signals through his tooth fillings (true?), he did not believe that the holocaust occurred, he did not shave for six months or so while in a Japanese jail, he did not defend his title (he was certainly justified in not playing under FIDE rules but why not independently?), he accused Jews of mutilating their children (quote) because they circumcised their children, he refused all offers after beating Spassky, he went into hiding for twenty years after winning the title. One or two of these might not be a big deal but collectively they signal something was wrong.

---
Tags: fischer, grandmaster
---


title: Does Deep Blue give handicaps?

text:
# Question
Title: Does Deep Blue give handicaps?
IBM's "Deep Blue" computer can beat any human being, including a former world champion such as Gary Kasparov. Thus, it follows that Deep Blue must give a handicap to a human player in order for a human to have a chance of winning.

In games like golf, handicaps are relative to "par," that is, the number of strokes a "scratch" golfer would require to play a hole or a field. By definition, most players require a positive handicap relative to "par;" a few can get by with a negative handicap. In "Deep Blue's" case, all the handicaps would be positive.

Has Deep Blue, in fact, given such handicaps to humans (a pawn, piece, or more)? If so, what were the results? Can a handicapping system be constructed around how large a handicap a human player would need to beat "Deep Blue?"

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm going to answer this question from a literal interpretation - dfan's answer gives some nice background that may be what you're looking for but doesn't answer the question directly.

There are three things to note about **Kasparov - Deep Blue specifically**:

* The match was actually really close. There have been accusations that IBM actually cheated by not just using an engine but also GM assistance during the match, and even discounting this you could probably argue that Kasparov would have come out on top if it weren't for the distractions surrounding the games rather than the games themselves. As a result it seems fair to assume that Deep Blue was at beast around the same strength as Kasparov was, and so pawn odds would probably be unnecessary as it would give the human too much of an advantage.
* Deep Blue was dismantled almost immediately after the match, so the answer to whether it's possible to play an odds game *now* against it is no. Similarly, nobody has played against it since the second match.
* It's very likely that at some point the developers *did* play odds games against the engine while developing it - GM Christiansen was involved with the development but it's very common for software/hardware developers to test things out as they make them and they wouldn't have been able to test out the machine's full functionality without odds because they likely weren't world-class GMs themselves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Note that IBM's chess computer was called "Deep Blue", not "Big Blue". It was dismantled a long time ago and current chess engines are significantly stronger than it anyway.

There have been some handicap matches against computer chess engines, although I'm not aware of any very recent ones.

In 2007 Rybka played a match against GM Jaan Ehlvest with pawn odds, winning 5.5-2.5.

In 2008 Rybka played a match against GM Dzindichashvili with pawn and move odds, winning 2.5-1.5.

Also in 2008 Rybka played a match against GM Milov with two regular games (winning 1.5-0.5), two pawn and move odds games (losing 1.5-0.5) and four games with exchange odds (losing 2.5-1.5).

I'm not aware of more recent handicap matches. At this point I think that the handicap required for a GM to have an equal chance against the strongest chess engines would be large enough that the GM would not find such a match appealing.

---
Tags: handicapping
---


# Question
Title: Is there a setting in recent versions of Fritz to turn off checkmate announcement?
In one of the recent versions of Fritz, every time I analyze a position in infinite analysis mode, and hit a checkmate position, Fritz pop-ups a dialog box and a voice with German accent loudly says "Checkmate", or some variation of it. Does anyone know how to turn that off? While not a big deal, but after analysing a few combinations a day, this gets annoying more than one would imagine.

# Answer
Turning off the audio announcements should be possible by going File \> Options \> Multimedia and then setting Audio to 'off'. I have no idea if this will disable the blunder dialog, but I cannot see anything else that would do it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Try deleting the wav file that relates to the checkmate audio. All sounds can be modified or deleted directly from the files. There's nothing wrong with deleting these files ... I've done so for years and never had any problems.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: Is this Sicilian opening dubious?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this Sicilian opening dubious?
I have used this opening some times and I won.But sometimes I was almost destroyed.Is the move 6.Qd4 dubious or am I doing something wrong later?

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Qd4 Nf6 7.e5 Ng8 8.e6 Nf6 9.exf7

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
No, **6. Qd4** is not a dubious move. In the variation that you mentioned, the moves that are actually dubious are **7...Ng8** and **8. e6**

**8. e6** is dubious because it "forces" Black to develop his knight to a good square (!) and also gives up White's strong central pawn on **e5**, which could have hindered the development of Black's knight on **g8**. After **9. exf7+**, it may seem that Black is robbed of the castling option, but that is just superficial. Black can easily develop his bishop to **g7** and bring the h8 rook to e8 or f8 as needed. None of White's pieces can really exploit Black's king position on **f7**, so White gains nothing from giving up the e-pawn.

**7...Ng8** is dubious because there is a better square for the knight - **d5**. Also, after **7...Ng8**, White isn't forced to play **8. e6**, so the knight will have to waste another tempo for development.

**6. Qd4** is playable. It has been played by players of the calibre of former world champion Emmanuel Lasker and also Grandmaster Beliavsky. After 6...Nf6 7. e5 Nd5, the position is equal but playable for both sides.

```
 [FEN ""]
 [White "6.Qd4"]
 [Black "Playable"]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. Qd4 Nf6 7. e5 Nd5 (
 7... Ng8?! 8. Nd2! (8. e6?! Nf6 9. exf7+ Kxf7) 8... Bg7 9. Nf3 d6 (9... f6 10. e6
 dxe6 11. Bc4 Qxd4 12. Nxd4 e5 13. Nxc6 Bb7 14. Bb5) 10. Bf4) 8. Nc3=

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
'Dubious' is a vague term. Rauan's answer would seem to suggest that an engine would have little trouble defending the position as either side, but there's a little more to it than that.

Firstly, an engine being able to hold a position does not necessarily mean that it is not 'dubious' - it may be extremely difficult for a human to play without the resourcefulness of an engine, and probably means that you would be playing for a draw against a strong human.

Secondly, with the move Qd4 you have given up almost all of white's initiative because the queen will lose time once attacked. As white you generally want to be pushing for a win and be able to make as much use of the first move advantage as possible, but that advantage has just been lost. As expected, engine analysis goes from a (very) small plus for white to more or less equal.

Finally, Black has a much easier time finding moves from this position - his plan of developing pieces while gaining time where possible on the queen, then moving the kind to safety, making use of the half-open files and occupying the center gives him several options at every turn. By comparison, white will likely spend much of the next few moves reacting to black's choices while hoping that long-term kingside safety is enough compensation for the lead that black should get in development, central control and attack.

Objectively you are not worse in this position (engine searches eventually give a small minus score, but so small as to be negligible), but that does not mean that Qd4 was a good move when you had a small advantage beforehand. This is not to say that *you* shouldn't play it if you find that the resulting games are enjoyable, but it is hard to argue that it is objectively the right decision.

# Answer
> 2 votes
After a quick check, the final position after

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Qd4 Nf6 7.e5 Ng8 8.e6 Nf6 9.exf7 Kxf7

```

is evaluated as equal by the engine (Komodo 6). Black has the king on f7, where it can become a target along the a2-g8 diagonal and by a white knight reaching e5 or g5. Yet, black is ready for d7-d5 and the white g1-knight has been exchanged off the board. Meanwhile, black has better control in the center thanks to the e7-pawn ready to push e7-e5 at some point.

Black has a more or less clear plan with Bf8-g7, e7-e5, Rh8-e8 and d7-d5. Black probably wants to exchange queens with Qd8-b6 at some point. While white has to be a bit more creative and try to launch an attack on the enemy king. Perhaps with Bf1-e2 and h2-h4-h5.

All in all, the position is interesting and rich in ideas. It seems fully playable for white as well as black.

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


title: Why did Polgar resign?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Polgar resign?
My question concerns the final position in the game

Judit Polgar vs Garry Kasparov It (cat.19) (1996) · Sicilian Defense: Najdorf. Amsterdam Variation (B82) · 0-1

```
[White "Polgar"]
[Black "Kasparov"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.Qf3 Qb6 8.a3 Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.b3 Bb7 11.Bb2 d5 12.Bd3 c5 13.exd5 exd5 14.O-O-O O-O-O 15.Na4 Qc7 16.Bf5+ Kb8 17.Be5 Bd6 18.Qc3 d4 19.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.Qxc5 Qxf4+ 21.Kb1 Rd5 22.Rdf1 Qe5 23.Qc4 Rb5 24.Qxf7 Bd5 25.Qxg7 Rg8 26.Qh6 Bxb3 27.cxb3 Rxb3+ 28.Kc1 Qc7+ 29.Bc2 d3 30.Qf4 Rc8 31.Qxc7+ Rxc7 32.Rf2 Ne4 33.Rf8+ Ka7 34.Rf7 Rbb7 35.Rxc7 Rxc7 36.Rd1 Rxc2+ 37.Kb1 Rxg2 38.Rxd3 Rxh2 39.Rd7+ Kb8 40.Re7 Nd2+ 41.Kc1 Nb3+ 42.Kd1 h5 43.Re3 Nd4 44.Nc5 a5 45.Nb3 Nc6 46.Rc3 Kb7 47.Ke1 Kb6 48.Kf1 Rh4 49.Kg2 Nd4 50.Nxa5 Kxa5 51.Rc5+ Kb6 52.Re5 Kc6 53.Kg3 Rh1 54.Kg2 Kd6 55.Ra5 Rh4 56.Kg3 Rg4+ 57.Kh3 Ne2 58.Rxh5 Rg3+ 59.Kh4 Rxa3 60.Kg4 Ke6 61.Rb5 Rg3+ 62.Kh4 Rg1 63.Rg5 Rf1 64.Ra5 Kf6 65.Ra8 Rg1 66.Rf8+ Ke5 67.Re8+ Kf4 68.Rf8+ Ke4 69.Re8+ Kf3 70.Kh5 Ng3+ 71.Kh6 Nf5+ 72.Kh7 Kf4 73.Rb8 Rg7+ 74.Kh8 Rd7 75.Re8 Kg5 76.Re6 Nd4 77.Re1 Kf6 78.Rd1 Rd5 79.Ra1 Ne6 80.Ra6 Kf7 81.Ra7+ Kg6 82.Ra8 Rd7 83.Rb8 Rc7 84.Kg8 Rc5 85.Ra8 Rb5 86.Kh8 Rb7 87.Rc8 Nc7 88.Rg8+ Kh6 89.Rg1 Rb8+ 90.Rg8 Ne8 0-1

```

White resigned, but I cannot find a win for Black. As long as Black keeps his R & N on the 8th rank, White shuttles his R between g8 and f8. If Black moves his N, W plays R takes R. If Black moves his R, W plays R x N.

The idea I'm missing must involve moving the Black King. But I would appreciate a detailed explanation.

# Answer
If white ever trades her rook for black's knight, the game is lost. The only move for her is thus **91.Rf8**, which is answered by **92.Kg6 Rg8+ 93.Kf7** resulting in the following position:

```
[FEN "1r2n1RK/5k2/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 66 93 "]

1. Rg1 (1.Rxe8 Rxe8 2.Kh7 Re6 3.Kh8 Rh6#) (1.Rg7 Nxg7 2.Kh7 Rb6 3.Kh8 Rh6#) (1.Kh7 Nf6+) Nf6  2. Rg8 Rxg8#

```

and now any rook move loses to the discovered mate Nf6# or loses the rook entirely
> 15 votes

# Answer
```

[FEN "1r2n1RK/8/7k/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf8 Kg6 2. Rg8+ Kf7 3. Rg1 Nf6+ (3. Kh7 Nf6+ 4. Kh6 Nxg8 (4...Rxg8??)) 4. Rg8 Rxg8#

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, kasparov
---


# Question
Title: How long would it take China's Tianhe-2 Supercomputer to produce an 8-man tablebase?
Wondering how long it would take a TOP10 Supercomputer to fully construct an 8-man tablebase.

# Answer
From the bottom of this page:

> Unfortunately the size of 7-man tablebases **(sic. - the author means 8-man here)** will be 100 times larger than size of 7-man tablebases. To fully compute them, one will need about 10 PB (10000 TB) of disk space and 50 TB of RAM. Only top 10 supercomputers can solve 8-man problem in 2014. So don't hold your breath expecting new breakthroughs too soon - the first 1000-move mate is unlikely to be found until 2020 when a part of a TOP100 supercomputer may be allowed to be used for solving this task.

This doesn't give a complete answer, but it would suggest that if you could find an estimated time for the Tianhe-2 to generate a 7-man tablebase and then multiply that result by 100, you should get a ballpark figure for the time required, probably accurate to within an order of magnitude.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tablebases
---


title: Can Black win this bishop endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black win this bishop endgame?
```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "8/p3k3/1p2b2p/2pBPpp1/7P/P1P1K1P1/2P5/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Computer played `1.c4?`after which I played `1...Bxd5!`and the pawn endgame was lost for White. I wonder if there was a way for Black to win this game, with best play from both sides?

# Answer
It seems that member *Dag Oskar Madsen* was right, `...Kd7!`, cutting off the White bishop's access to `c8`, is the winning idea. The only trap Black must evade is to lose the bishop after `...Ba2`. Below is my analysis:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "8/p3k3/1p2b2p/2pBPpp1/7P/P1P1K1P1/2P5/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bb7 $8 { Every other move lose the pawn on e5. } ( 1.c4? Bxd5 2.cxd5 b5!-+ ) 1...Kd7! { As member Dag Oskar Madsen pointed out, this move offers best winning chances because it cuts of bishop's access to c8 square. Now when Black bishop moves White will not be able to stop Black king to reach e6 and the e5 pawn will fall. } 2.Kd3 b5! ( 2...Ba2 3.hxg5 hxg5 4.c4 Ke6 5.a4! Kxe5 6.Kc3 f4 7.gxf4+ Kxf4 8.Bd5 $8 g4 9.Kb2 Bxc4 10.Bxc4 Ke4 11.Kc3 g3= ) 3.Ke3 $8 { Otherwise Black plays Bc4+ and gets time to play Ke6, winning the e5 pawn and with it the game. } Bc4 4.Ba6 Ke6 5.hxg5 hxg5 6.a4 Kxe5 7.Kf2 { There is no need to fear axb5 because White can not keep that pawn in the long run because his bishop is badly placed. White will need to reposition the bishop in order to fight Black passed pawn, after which Black bishop takes the b5 pawn. } Ke4 8.axb5 Ke5 9.Kf3 Bd5+ 10.Ke2 Be4 11.Ke3 Bxc2 $17

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Eating and drinking before and during a game
Food and liquid intake provides a human body with energy. Yet having a meal before a chess game can cause the body to focus more on digestion than chess. While lack of energy during a six hour game can cause loss of focus and thereby mistakes. Getting thirsty can have a similar adverse effect. When and what should one eat and drink before and during a chess game with classical time controls?

# Answer
I have played tennis and chess both quite seriously for several years and my preparation towards a game when it comes to food, is basically the same. I try to eat around 4 hours before the game, some pasta with a light sauce or no sauce at all, avoid red meats 24 hours prior to the game and rink only water the day of the game. If I am to start in the morning then a light breakfast. In general I would rather play with a non-full stomach but here's the "secret", I do eat a chocolate bar at the beginning of my chess games and have a bottle of water at hand, this helps me greatly to keep my blood pressure normal, and able to focus on the game without feeling hungry even after 4 or 5 hours of play.

I guess my advice is to know what works for you, I have seen that avoiding heavy meals is generally good for performance but if you (like me) need an extra kick, pick up an energy bar of some sort (I would avoid coffee because of the possibility of needing to go to the toilet at a bad time).

All the best and hope it helps! :)
> 5 votes

---
Tags: best-practice
---


title: A Really Good Site

text:
# Question
Title: A Really Good Site
Do you guys know some site that is really good, well organised, with video lectures for learning general concepts of chess like openings, middle-game, end-games, tactics, and, furthermore, for free? What do you recommend? Grateful!

# Answer
It's hard to make a suggestion without knowing your rating of approx. level, but here's a try.

My suggestions would be the following YouTube channels:

(1) Majnu. Especially check out the "Chess middlegame training" and "Practical chess endgames" playlists. I like Majnu's videos because, not only is he a good player, but he also manages to explain ideas and plans in chess in a very simple manner. The concepts really stick in your mind, and you get to actually use them in your games. And from the way he explains things, you can see that he loves the game, which is also inspiring. I recommend Majnu highly (especially to beginners).

(2) SeanGGodley. Excellent analysis of famous games and players. The book "My system" by A. Nimzowitsch is considered to be one of the most important books in chess history, and Sean has a playlist dedicated to this book. Excellent and (pretty) detailed analysis make him one of my favourite YouTube channels for improving my game. Also, Sean is a great narrator in my opinion, and that makes it easier to follow his thoughts. However, Sean's videos are maybe too much for beginners.

(3) thechesswebsite. Many videos on openings and traps, as well as other things. Just check out the playlists on this channel. Great stuff!

Of course, there are more interesting channels out there, but these are my favourites. I would also like to mention KingsCrusher, who produces videos on a daily basis (for couple of years now). This channel discusses a lot of different chess topics, so it's very likely that you'll find something of interest there.

Enjoy!
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Chess Website

And If you go premium on Chess.com you can have full access to their video library

Of course youtube is a very good source, many very good chess channels
> 1 votes

# Answer
Try my blog.I am posting some postion and some videos that are made by me currently I am making videos in marathi language but hope I will be doing in english soon..The position given are very instructive..I hope you too like them the link of the site is http://koravichess.blogspot.in/
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, websites
---


# Question
Title: Is this continuation of D85, Gruenfeld Defence, Exchange Variation, tenable?
I am watching some commentary on the World Championship Games. This is from Game 1:

```
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/6p1/8/3PP3/2B5/PP1Q1PPP/R3KBNR b KQ - 0 8"]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Carlsen"]

```

The commentator states that Carlsen has several moves available to him at this point, including one which confuses me: 1. ...Bg4. I see that it stops White from castling, but after 2. f3 that Bishop seems silly. The pawn structure looks unfavorable but not fatally so after a bishop retreat. Alternatively, White can also play 2. Nf3, 2. Ne2 or 2. Be2 to set up an exchange.

What's the deal with 1. ...Bg4?

# Answer
I have little idea about the Gruenfeld **(hopefully someone who is more familiar or a better player than I am can give a more complete answer)**, but a few points you may have overlooked:

* After **1...Bg4 2.f3**, as you say the pawn structure is marginally weaker, but there's also a bigger problem of how white will develop the g1-knight. Nf3 is now impossible, Nh3 looks bad and if black's bishop stays on the c8-h3 diagonal he can then give white doubled h-pawns. Ne2 might look plausible, but there's then a problem of how to move the knight from there. c3 and d4 can't be reached without a move vacating that square first, which will probably require other preparations as well, Nf4 too soon is dangerous as it could force white to make even more concessions in pawn structure if Bh6 is allowed, pinning the knight to the queen. Finally, g3 is a poor spot for the knight as the g6-pawn takes away two future squares and e4 is already being taken up by a pawn.
* In grandmaster praxis, a draw with black is a respectable result, and trading off the bishops after **1...Bg4 2.Be2** gets black somewhat closer to this result.
* **1...Bg4 2.Nf3** gives white doubled pawns after the exchange, and the half-open file that results isn't that useful as it faces onto a reinforced pawn. It also leaves the knight on e2 (assuming white does not want to lose castling rights or lose the d4 pawn) with the same problems as mentioned above.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, carlsen-anand-2014, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to play chess against a large number of players simultaneously?
Lately, we have done an experiment in our chess club and liked it much. We were 4 players, and we wanted to play simultaneous each against each other. This setup worked (more or less, see the following diagram):

The players 1, 2, and 3 may sit on their tables, but the player 4 (myself) had to walk around from board to board (identified by `Pl4`).

Then a 5th player came around, and we could not find a reasonable setup where we can play and know who is playing where.

Is this a known problem, and for how many are solutions known? For 2, 3, and 4, it is easy, but how about higher numbers?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here are some ideas that might help!

---
Tags: chess-variants, simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: Inconsistent timings of world championships
According to Wikipedia recent world championship tournaments have been played in these years:

2006 2007 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014
2016

What is logic behind this, sometimes they are played every year and some there is gap of year? I can't find explanation for this inconsistency. Why wont there be game in 2015?

# Answer
The world chess championship has been notorious for having inconsistencies in the years it is played in. Allegedly the world champion had been able to refuse challenges in the past for a plethora of reasons(not enough money, not wanting to play in a certain country) as well as issues with financing for the world championship(after all someone's gonna have to pay these people their millions).

Carlsen had made a point out of being okay with being challenged more consistently. Still to host a world championship each year would be very difficult due to aforementioned issues and the fact that a lot of players want their chance at the title which means they'll have to play in a separate tournament just to decide who is allowed to actually challenge Carlsen for the title. People get their qualifications to try and qualify for the world chess championship by winning certain tournaments which can also lead to delays when it comes to the final.

A lot of time has passed when all that has happened which leads to inconsistent timings of the world championship.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Due to funding and other problems with FIDE, the world championship schedule has been changed many times during past few years. TLDR: After the title reunification match in 2006, there was a tournament in 2007, followed by matches in every two years, starting from 2008. The 2013 match was an exception.

The match in 2006 was the reunification match between the FIDE world champion (decided in knockout tournaments by FIDE) Topalov and the classical world champion (decided by matches against the current classical world champion) Kramnik. Before the match, FIDE had announced that there is a world championship tournament in 2007. Kramnik and Topalov agreed to that. Before the 2007 tournament, there was also an agreement that if Kramnik (2006 winner) does not win, the winner of 2007 tournament needs to play against him in a match in 2008.

After that match, FIDE had decided to have a 2-year world championship cycle. However, there were some problems with some players withdrawing from the qualification tournaments because rule changes by FIDE, see e.g. the list in Wikipedia's page on the 2012 match or Carlsen's interview. FIDE apparently reacted to that and shortened the world championship cycle: the qualification cycle for the 2012 match started in 2008, and the qualification cycle for the 2013 match started in 2011.

As to when it was decided that there are matches in both 2013 and 2014, my memory fails me. The lists in Chessbase and FIDE web site, both dated on March 28th 2012, are different. The FIDE contract with Agon in early 2012 might also have something to do with it.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tournament, world-championship, fide, carlsen-anand-2014
---


# Question
Title: Looking for information on PARADISE (software)
I am working on developing statistics around the middlegame. During searching I found a little information about PARADISE (PAttern Recognition Applied to DIrecting SEarch), which was developed by Wilkins in 1980. Do you know anything about PARADISE? Or do you know any similar software? I will appreciate any kind of answer which helps me dig deeper.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A very informative article about PARADISE was published by Wilkins himself in "Artificial Intelligence, Volume 14, Number 2" (September 1980), which I was lucky to get my hands on years ago when I was writing my diploma thesis on chess programming and kept it since then.
Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get at these days. But the article should have been reprinted in "Computer Chess Compendium", by D. Levy, which still appears to be available: Abe Books
Other than that, I was only able to dig out some working notes related to the program (written in a dialect of Lisp) again by Wilkins himself, which also apparently contains some program fragments: Working notes on Paradise chess patterns
Should you stumble upon additional sources, please keep us informed.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, middlegame, patterns
---


title: Open Ruy Lopez for Black

text:
# Question
Title: Open Ruy Lopez for Black
Why there are no good videos on Open Ruy Lopez for Black? Is the variation too bad for Black? There are lots of videos from the White side, but I did not find any good videos from the black side; why is it so?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Why are you looking for video? How about looking for a game? Checkout chessgames.com then search for Open Ruy Lopez ECO code to look for games won by black. It will show you how black piece should play against open Ruy Lopez

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez
---