# Question
Title: If 1. e4 c6 is considered as a sound defense for black, why is 1. c3 so rare?
At 365chess.com, 1.c3 is ranked as the 14th most common first move for white. If the Caro-Kann defense is considered as a sound defense, why is the Saragossa opening so rare for white? After all, white is preparing to play 2. d4 in the next move and transfer into some solid defense systems. For example, one possible line is

1. c3 e5 2. d4 (reversed Caro-Kann with one extra tempo for white.)

Another possible line is

1. c3 d5 2. d4 (reversed Slav with one extra tempo for white.)

# Answer
> 24 votes
## "Reversed" Openings in general

A black defense and its white mirror counterpart will often play out quite differently (compare the rather sharp Sicilian Defense and the rather quiet English Opening).

The right to move matters, *in both ways*. By moving, you give away information to your opponent - the set of variations you can choose from shrinks with every opening move. Early moves are usually played to either proactively increase your control over the board or reactively counter your opponent's moves (the best moves do both). This second category of moves only make sense as answer to one of the first category: If your opponent doesn't play a move that you have to react to, you'd want to play a move to advance your own plan rather than a "counter" to a plan your opponent has not committed to yet. Commitment is an important factor here. If you parry right before knowing which side your opponent will commit to, they can now simply swing left and catch you off-balance. Even if they cannot immediately strike that way, you will still have wasted time you could have used for more useful moves. The further in advance your opponent knows what setup you are heading for, the easier it is for them to screw your plan.

Most openings are a series of moves reacting to each other. Simply playing a "reversed" opening won't lead to the same result because the dynamics can be totally different depending on who strikes first.

## Caro-Kann vs. 1.c3

The Caro-Kann defense strategically centers around the d5 square. Playing 1...c6 merely is a means to the end of playing 2...d5 next turn and being able to take back on d5 with a *pawn* if White plays exd5. Playing 1...d5 right away is certainly possible (leading to the Scandinavian Defense), but then Black concedes that he has to take back on d5 with a *piece*, when he will obtain a half open d- instead of c-file (generally speaking, a half-open c-file and two center pawns are more desirable than a half-open d-file and only one center pawn). Of course, White can refuse to take on d5, but that's the idea.

Now, let's have a look at the same idea, but from the white side. Sure, White can play 1.c3 to prepare 2.d4. But since Black obviously did not have time to play ...e5 yet, this is simply not necessary and White can play 1.d4 right away! Now Black won't even be able to play ...e5 with ease (the best moves: activity as well as prevention). Isn't preventing the black pawn from entering e5 not much better than preparing to attack it with 1.c3 after the fact? And remember, Black did not commit to this pawn move yet anyways and may answer 1.c3 with a completely different move, leaving White look rather silly for preparing against something that may never happen.

On the other hand, if Black does not play ...e5, White doesn't actually have to defend d4 by playing c3 ... and the c-pawn is free to be moved to c4, from where it attacks d5. If it now gets traded for Black's d-pawn, we may actually arrive at a similar situation as in the Caro-Kann exchange variation: White has pawns on both central files and a half-open c-file.

To no surprise (and in contrast to 1.c3), 1. d4 2. c4 is one of the most popular ways to open the game as White of all time. So why not go for a Queen's Gambit if you like the Caro-Kann?

# Answer
> 9 votes
1. c3 (and 1. d3 and 1. e3, which can lead to reversed Pircs, French defense or QGD) aren't bad in that they give White a worse position. So those moves might have some merit as a surprise weapon (if you don't do it too often). But they *do* offer Black the advantage of setting the first foot in the center and the possibility to defend it, which is normally White's role in the game.

Another question which you should ask yourself: why does Black play c6 in the openings you mentioned? In the Caro-Kann, Black needs to play c6 in order to be able to play d5 (and not having to take back with the queen). In the Slav, the pawn is already on d5 but the idea is the same: Black wants to keep a pawn on d5, thereby establishing a bit of control in the center. For White, this isn't necessary; he can just put a pawn on d4 and play c3 only if it's under attack (e.g. in the Colle system).

Looking at it from another angle: in the two examples you mention, if you're going to play 2. d4 anyway, why not play it on the first move? If your opponent doesn't respond with 1... d5, you have more options. For example, suppose (s)he plays 1... f5; I think the pawn is actually *worse* on c3 than on c2, since it blocks the natural development of the queen's knight and a possible fianchetto of the queen's bishop (in the Leningrad variation).

# Answer
> 4 votes
Because White has the initiative and usually feels that s/he can do better than "a sound/solid defense".

# Answer
> 4 votes
c3 is an inferior first move. White has the advantage of moving first and should use it to seize the initiative and put black on the defensive. The basic idea behind the Caro Kann is to counterattack in the center with d5 after white plays d4 without blocking the light-squared bishop as in the French.

The key word here is "counterattack." White should not be looking to counterattack at this stage. As the first player, white should be putting black under pressure and forcing black to respond to threats like dominating the center. 1. c3 is more of a defensive move and it just doesn't make sense for white to play defensively on the first move of the game.

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: Why did the (Black) computer play 9. ... Ke7 here?
Not having played chess in ~5 years, I started playing against the computer on my phone at ELO~800 (I've since reached ~900). I do not know what engine the app uses (`Chess` for iPhone by **Mastersoft Ltd**).

In my most recent game, which I ended up winning, the computer (Black) played what looked to me like an odd move (9. ...Ke7).

I'm wondering if anyone can shed some insight into this particular move. Why play it?

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 e6 2. h4 Be7 3. Bf4 Bxh4 4. e3 Qf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Na5 7. Bb5 Qd8 8. Nxh4 g6 9. Qd3 Ke7

```

---

For the curious, the full game is

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 e6 2. h4 Be7 3. Bf4 Bxh4 4. e3 Qf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Na5 7. Bb5 Qd8 8. Nxh4 g6 9. Qd3 Ke7 10. Qa3+ c5 11. Qxc5+ Ke8 12. Bd3 Qb6 13. Qe5 f6 14. Qe4 Qxb2 15. O-O Kf8 16. Nd2 Ke7 17. d5 d6 18. Qa4 e5 19. Qxa5 Kf7 20. Qc7+ Kf8 21. Nc4 Qb4 22. Rad1 exf4 23. exf4 Bg4 24. Rde1 Qb5 25. Qxd6+ Kg7 26. Na3 Qd7 27. Qc5 Rd8 28. Nc4 a6 29. f3 Qc8 30. Qa5 Bd7 31. Nd6 Qb8 32. Nf7 h6 33. Nxh8 Kxh8 34. Nxg6+ Kh7 35. Re7+ Nxe7 36. Nxe7+ Kh8 37. Qc3 Qd6 38. Nf5 Qf8 39. d6 Bxf5 40. Bxf5 Rxd6 41. Qb3 Kg7 42. Qxb7+ Kh8 43. Qh7#

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
The answer to your question is that ***there is no good reason to play this move.*** I plugged the position *before* Ke7 into StockFish on lichess. At depth 27, StockFish gives the position a **+6.3** for white. *After* Ke7, the analysis jumps to **+10.8** for white. Ke7 is a blunder.

StockFish aside, the only thing that this move *does* do is remove the pin placed by the white Bishop on the f-pawn. A better move to accomplish this goal (and indeed the one that StockFish suggests in this position) is **a6**.

This computer program is set to play generally poor moves - the 800 rating of the computer indicates that the computer is almost playing randomly - playing any better would increase its rating.

*Note: I analyzed the position with SF (and mentally) because I didn't just want to tell the OP that the computer was playing poorly \[it is, but that wouldn't make a good stand-alone answer IMO\].*

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


# Question
Title: Threatening the Queen in the bishop with Bg5
I have long been playing games in which I can develop my bishop to g5 like in the following positions:

The truth is I have trouble deciding if such moves are useful. In the diagrams, what pushed me to playing such move is specially my pawns on e5. But maybe come to think of it, that is not much of a compelling factor. Is there anyway to reliably determine when this move would be worth it?

# Answer
One-move threats are *usually* not the most productive moves to make. There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule. These exceptions should answer your question.

1. The attacked piece is on a very strong square (or has to escape to a very weak square). In this case, the black queen is on a kind of "meh" square - it's fine where it is for now, and it'll still be fine if it has to evacuate that square.
2. Setting up a pin. If black's only recourse in this situation was to put the knight in between the bishop and the queen, then a pin would be set up. However, there are other options for black to take, so this isn't the case.
3. (related to 1) Removing a defender - occasionally, one-move threats can force the attacked piece to stop defending another attacked piece. This is not the case here.
4. Messing up the opponent's pawn structure. If black's only recourse here was to play f6, it would be nice to bring out their f-pawn so early. However, black has other options.
5. Trapping the attacked piece (self-explanatory).
6. Developing your pieces. In this case, the attack isn't even the main point - it's developing your pieces that's the point. This happens regularly in the early opening of a game.

Consequently, if a one-move threat doesn't accomplish one of the above things, I would *generally* advise not making it. Of course, there are always exceptions to the exceptions to the rule.
> 3 votes

# Answer
When your pawns are on the dark squares, as in your examples, it is often "Positionally" desirable to exchange your dark squared Bishop so responses like ...Be7? would leave Black weak on the dark squares.

But in chess you must be concrete, which means you must calculate. What if Black plays ...f6 which is often a thematic assault on your pawn chain -- now with tempo.

Look over grandmaster games and learn from what they do.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: bishops
---


# Question
Title: Where is there a mate in four (pawn moves)?
From Fine's BCE:

I can only see the pawn getting to a2 after 1.d6+ Kd8 2.e6 a4 3.Kf6 a3 4.e7+ Ke8 5.Ke6 a2 6.d7#. That's three pawn moves, not four.

What is the more resistant defence I missed?

# Answer
> 4 votes
1.d6+ Ke8

2.e6 a4 (pawn move 1)

3.Kf6 a3 (pawn move 2) \[Note: 3.e7 Kf7!\]

4.e7 a2 (pawn move 3)

5.Ke6 a1=Q (pawn move 4)

6.d7 mate

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, problems
---


# Question
Title: Move first, record later; or vice-versa?
Is it better to teach young players to record their move first and then make it? Or should they be taught to move first and write later? Is one considered better etiquette over the other?

# Answer
> 11 votes
It hasn't always been so, but these days (at least according to FIDE rules) it's illegal to write your move down before making it, outside of some situations in which a draw is being claimed or the game is being adjourned. Here are the exact details as to when a move should be recorded (with the most relevant part italicized):

> **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 legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet 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.

I believe the reason that it's against the rules now is because writing the move in advance could be construed as some sort of analysis aid. (I'm not arguing that that's a good reason for the rule; it's just what I understand to be a rationale for the rule.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
The common advice for kids was to record the move first, then check it one last time and look for missed opponent moves, before playing it. This is a way to slow down to avoid rushed moves and reduce blunders.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Despite the rules, Elizabeth Spiegel in her 2019 chess educator of the year talk continues to recommend to her kids the pre-writing of moves for blunder checking. She said that in almost all circumstances for kids no one will have a problem, and if anyone makes an issue of it it will be adults.

---
Tags: notation, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: What rating system does the Play Magnus app use?
I played a total of 261 games against the Play Magnus app at different ages. My overall score is 144 wins, 99 losses and 16 draws. My last game was against the 10-year-old Magnus. Prior to the start of the game I was rated 1248. I won the game and my rating increased by an astonishing 133 points, so I was wondering what is the rating system used.

Most weird is that I sometimes draw against a far higher rated Magnus and lose rating points (I once drew 26-year-old Magnus and lost 18 rating points when I was rated only 1486). Is there any explanation for that, or is it a bug in the app?

# Answer
This is a list of Magnus Carlsen’s ratings at each of his birthdays.

* 9 years old: 900
Norwegian rating.
* 10 years old: 1645
Still Norwegian rating.
* 11 years old: 2127
FIDE rating now.
* 12 years old: 2250
Magnus became an FM at age 11.
* 13 years old: 2450
Magnus became an IM at age 12.
* 14 years old: 2581
Magnus became a GM at age 13, the youngest in the world and the second youngest ever at the time.
* 15 years old: 2570
Magnus went through his only real slump that year.
* 16 years old: 2698
Magnus played in his first super tournaments right around this time.
* 17 years old: 2714
Magnus reached 2700 at 16 as the youngest ever, a record that has since been beaten by Wei Yi.
* 18 years old: 2786
Magnus was now number four in the world.
* 19 years old: 2801
Magnus reached 2800 at 18 as the youngest ever. The record still stands.
* 20 years old: 2802
Magnus became the highest rated player in the world at 19, as the youngest ever.
* 21 years old: 2826
Magnus solidified his top spot on the world rankings this year, and has held it since.
* 22 years old: 2848
Magnus was really closing in on Kasparov’s rating record now, and surpassed it shortly after his 22nd birthday.
* 23 years old: 2870
At this point there was a whopping 70 point difference between Magnus and the second rated player, Aronian.
* 24 years old: 2863
Magnus peaked at 2882 (unofficially 2889) that year, the highest rating ever.
* 25 years old: 2850
A minor dip in form.
* 26 years old: 2853
Still number one by a good margin.

About the app - of course there may be flaws, concerning its system there is no information. Although I don't see any reason why they would deviate from the ELO system (which is used in official FIDE games), whose formulas aren't secret and can be found even on Wikipedia.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Using the tree window in SCID on a subset of games in the database
With a database open in SCID, one can use the tree window to explore openings. Among other things, it shows the frequency of each move that has been played in the current position and how well that move has scored.

Is there a way to combine this with SCID's filter functionality so that the tree window only uses the subset of games selected by the current filter? For example, this could be used to explore openings based on 2600+ games or games where the opponents are close in rating.

It is possible to do this by creating a copy of the database and then removing all games that are not in the filter, but this is an inconvenient workaround. Is there a better way?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes. In the tree window, there is an "All Games" checkbox. Unchecking this will make the tree window use the filtered games instead of all the games.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A more practical workaround to go about this in SCID vs. PC is to copy the filter games to the clipbase and open a tree window for the clipbase database. Admittedly it's still inconvenient compared to the functionality in SCID.

---
Tags: opening, software, database, scid
---


# Question
Title: When you check someone, do you have to say "check"?
Yesterday I was playing with a friend, I was almost out of time, he checked me, didn't say anything, I didn't see the check as i was in a hurry to make my move. And I was mated.

Computers don't let you play any move when you're in check. Therefore in reality, are you allowed to make a move when you're in check? or you cannot make any move? I mean should you undo any move that you do by mistake or not? And should your opponent warn you about being checked or not?

# Answer
> 30 votes
In a tournament game, you are not supposed to speak at all other than to offer a draw or adjust a piece. This includes saying check. This tends to seep into casual games among more experienced players (I haven't said check in years).

For players that do not compete in tournaments at all, I don't think that there is any obligation to point it out.

When your opponent makes an illegal move, though, as it sounds like you did after missing the check, it has to be pointed out. You can't just follow it up with a mate immediately. In blitz, making an illegal move means a loss. In a longer game, a minor time adjustment.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Lynob, announcing check is not required in the USCF Official Rules or FIDE Laws of Chess. In fact, there is a statement specifying that it is not an obligation. The requirement was abandoned in the early 20th century. Before that, players would even say "garde" to alert an opponent that his queen was being attacked. How polite can you get? After all, it is purportedly a spirited competition.

That said, old school or beginners alike may be hard put to suppress the impulse to announce check, but if said frequently an opponent may request intervention by a TD to admonish the offending player against verbal distraction. It's not prohibited in friendly games but even there it's no longer a vital fixture. Nor is it an abandonment of politeness so much as a logical extension of over-the-board etiquette. We don't want to be distracted ourselves and so we avoid distracting our opponents.

It might even be taken as a tad insulting considering that there are only two participants in a game that takes place on a playing field just 20 inches square. Given that check is the most serious forcing move that can possibly occur, it's a given that both players are expected to be paying keen attention to what's happening right before their eyes. One may see "deeper" than another, but they both see the same physical thing!

I admit, nonetheless, that players of any skill level do often enough fail to notice they are in check, so rapt are they in contemplation of potential future activity. In a rated tournament, the conventions require that if a player makes an illegal move instead of resolving check and then punches the clock, the opponent may immediately press his own clock button to restart the player's time and then politely inform him that he has overlooked check. The touched piece illegally moved would then be required, if possible, to intervene with the check. If not possible, there is no penalty and any move that alleviates check must be made before the player can again punch the clock.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In informal games, it is customary to announce "check" when making a move that puts the opponent's king in check. However, in formal competitions check is rarely announced (Just 2014).Rules\_of\_chess

# Answer
> -1 votes
Especially in friendly games, a person should be polite. Politeness, especially announcing "check" (or even "discovered check" when an opponent accidentally moves a pinned piece) goes a long way to contributing to everybody's enjoyment and their desire to continue playing the game.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I think you should say check, because if the other player is less experienced than you, then he/she would probably get better at it.

---
Tags: checkmate, etiquette, check
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a real game ending by ... Nf6! leading to a perpetual check by White
My colleague Prof. Dr. S. writes a fictional story with symbolic elements involved. One of them is a simultaneous game played by a grandmaster with a gifted schoolboy. Prof. S. wants to represent it by a real game by players of similar strength. But for some symbolic reasons, unknown even to the author, :-) the end of the game *must* match the following pattern. At the final stage Black finds a unique saving move ... Nf6 and after one move White has nothing better than a perpetual check. I failed to find such a game by Google and I am not acquainted with chess databases, so I ask here for a game instance matching the given pattern, preferable with mentioned strength of the players. Thanks.

**Update (May 7).** I have a talk with Prof. S. He thanks to all who offered help. Below are results of our discussion of the problem conditions.

The move …Nf6 followed by a perpetual check is a necessary game condition. But between ... Nf4 and the start of the perpetual check (which we consider as the first check in the series) are allowed a few intermediate moves, preferable at most three (at most four in the worst case).

Prof. S. understands how hard is to find a required game and thinks that it is needed a lot of luck for this. If it will fail than then, as already proposed @Brandon\_J and @Scounged, there is an option to construct a fake game of sufficiently strong players (especially White) which satisfies the above conditions and does not looks artificial. In this case it is preferable to start a game from a move 1. d4.

On the very worst case when even a construction will fail there is a option to construct only the final position, which looks as a plausible position from a game of sufficiently strong players.

Unfortunately, the game between Ward and Lalic does not fit the purpose of Prof. S. He needs a *material* advantage for White which is kept after the move …Nf6. Nevertheless, also is required that this move is not an obvious, and this is a problem. The advantage, the bigger the better, but it can be sufficient for White to have a superfluous or a passed pawn. The aim of this condition is to provide for the amateur audience a game position which seems to be winning for White.

# Answer
This game meets the criteria of Black plays the best move Nf6, and after one move, White has nothing better than a perpetual. However, it's probably not quite what you're looking for. If Black plays the second best move, Stockfish evaluates the position as +0.12, which is a rather slim advantage for White. So it's hardly the "only saving move". Furthermore, White has the option of not pursuing the perpetual and playing on - according to Stockfish, the resulting position is "nothing better than" the perpetual, but it's not really worse either.

The Nf6 move that is relevant occurs on move 44 by black, and soon thereafter white perpetually checks black with their rook. 17 moves later a draw occurs.

White was rated 2500, and Black was rated 2537. Both were grandmasters at the time.

```
[Event "Redbus KO"]
[Site "Southend"]
[Date "2002.04.01"]
[Round "4.2"]
[White "Ward, Chris G"]
[Black "Lalic, Bogdan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2500"]
[BlackElo "2537"]
[ECO "A20"]
[EventDate "2002.03.29"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[Source "ChessliB"]
[SourceDate "2003.01.21"]
[FEN ""]

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5 7.Nc2 Qh5 8.h3 Bc5
9.b4 Bb6 10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.Ne3 O-O 12.Nc3 Re8 13.Qc2 Qg6 14.b5 Bd4 15.bxc6
bxc6 16.Qa4 c5 17.Rb1 Nb6 18.Qc2 Bd7 19.a4 Bxc3 20.Bxc3 Bxa4 21.Qa2 Nfd7
22.h4 Qe6 23.Qxe6 Rxe6 24.h5 Bc6 25.h6 g6 26.O-O f5 27.Ra1 Na4 28.Bg7 Ndb6
29.Rfc1 Rd8 30.Ra2 Bb5 31.Kf1 a6 32.Ke1 c4 33.Nc2 Red6 34.Na3 Nc5 35.f3
Nb3 36.Rcc2 e3 37.dxe3 Nd5 38.Nxc4 Rc6 39.Ne5 Re6 40.Rcb2 Nc5 41.Rd2 Red6
42.Kf2 Ne6 43.f4 Nxg7 44.hxg7 Nf6 45.Rxd6 Rxd6 46.Rc2 Kxg7 47.Rc7+ Kg8 48.
Rc8+ Kg7 49.Rc7+ Kg8 50.Ra7 Nd7 51.Nf3 Nf6 52.Ne5 Nd7 53.Ra8+ Kg7 54.Ra7
Kg8 55.Ra8+ Kg7 56.Ra7 Kg8 57.Nf3 Nf6 58.Ne5 Nd7 59.Nf3 Nf6 60.Ne5 Nd7 61.
Nf3 Nf6 ( 61...Nf6 32:+0.00 62.Ne5 Rd2 63.Ra8+ Kg7 64.Ra7+ Kg8) 1/2-1/2

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: master-games, perpetual
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible for an engine to be stronger at short time controls, and weaker at long time controls?
Is it possible for engine A to be decisively better than engine B at short time controls (say, 5 min/game) but decisively weaker at long time controls (say, 1 hour/game)?

If the answer is yes, what could possibly be the source of the discrepancy? If the answer is no, why do we need long time control tournaments like the TCEC superfinal, when we could just get both engines to play each other at short time control much more often?

# Answer
Why not? I don't have an example here, but cache implementation could be a major factor.

A cache algorithm that doesn't scale well with time will not perform well on a long time control. No matter how much memory you have, at longer control it will surely be filled up very easily and very quickly.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Here's an argument for how this might happen, but I don't know if it applies to real engines out there.

Imagine engines A and B are able to calculate to the same depth at short time controls, but due to better optimizations, B can calculate deeper at long time controls. And then imagine engine A has a better evaluation function. It seems to me that engine A might have an advantage at fast time control, but a disadvantage at slow time control.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Longest forced sequence that ends with checkmate and every move is a check
What is the longest move sequence that ends with checkmate and every move is a check by both players?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'm not aware of any resources documenting the specific situation you're asking about. The closest available is probably this page from Tim Krabbé's chess records which documents the longest known series of mutual checks, but not ending in checkmate.

One of the puzzles from the page could end in checkmate via 14.. Qb7# instead of 14...Bxb7+, so this would be an example of a checkmate after 27 consecutive checks. This series of checks could be considered "forced" by the objective of the puzzle.

```
[Title "G. Leathem, Fairy Chess Review, 1938, 28 Consecutive Checks"]
[FEN "K2kn2r/NP1P1PPP/1PPPnNq1/1Rr1Bb1Q/4R3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. c7+ N8xc7+ 2. bxc7+ Nxc7+ 3. dxc7+ Ke7+ 4. g8=N+ Rxg8+ 5. hxg8=N+ Qxg8+ 6. f8=Q+ Qxf8+ 7. Qe8+ Qxe8+ 8. d8=Q+ Qxd8+ 9. c8=N+ Rxc8+ 10. bxc8=N+ Qxc8+ 11. Bb8+ Bxe4+ 12. Nd5+ Bxd5+ 13. Nc6+ Bxc6+ 14. Rb7+ Bxb7 (14...Qxb7#)

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The question asked in the title is different from the question asked in the body.

If it is required that every best option is check, but it is allowed for the players to have non-checking alternatives, then I offer the following. Every best option for White, i.e. every White move which enables White to mate in time against any Black defence (not just checks), is check. White has other moves available which are not check, but they fail to mate in time. Every best option for Black, i.e. every Black move which gives White only one move-sequence which enables White to mate in time, is check. Black has other moves available which are not check, but they either enable White to mate sooner, or give White a choice.

```
[Title "J. Rotenberg, Problemiste 2012, 1st pr.; PDB 1298074. #11"]
[fen "3Bn1N1/qrrpbppn/1Pppp1p1/2QR1Nk1/3PKR2/8/b2p2P1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1.Nfxe7+ exd5+ 2.Nxd5+ Nef6+ 3.Ndxf6+ d5+ 4.Nxd5+ Nf6+ 5.Ndxf6+ d5+ 6.Nxd5+ Re7+ 7.Ndxe7+ Bd5+ 8.Nxd5+ Re7+ 9.Ndxe7+ f5+ 10.Nxf5+ Qe7+ 11.Nfxe7#

```

---

Here's Rotenberg's original problem of which the above is a correction.

```
[Title "J. Rotenberg, Europe Echecs 1978; Morse, 1st ed., 835; PDB 1298046. #11"]
[fen "3Bn1N1/qrrpbppn/1Pppp1p1/2QR1Nk1/3PKR2/1b6/6P1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1.Nfxe7+ exd5+ (1... cxd5+ 2.Nxd5+ Nef6+ 3.Ndxf6+ d5+ 4.Nxd5+ Nf6+ 5.Ndxf6+ d5+ 6.Nxd5+ Re7+ 7.Ndxe7+ f5+ 8.Nxf5+ Re7 9.Qxe7+ Qxe7 10.Bxe7+ ~ 11.Rh4#) (1... f5+ 2.Rdxf5+ exf5+ 3.Rxf5+ Kg4 4.Rf4+ ~ 5. Qc3+ Kh2 6.Rh4+) (1...e5 2.Rxe5+ dxe5 3.Qxe5+ f5+ 4.Rxf5+) 2.Nxd5+ Nef6+ (2... f6 3.Ndxf6+ {and mate in 9}) 3.Ndxf6+ d5+ 4.Nxd5+ Nf6+ 5.dNxf6+ d5+ 6.Nxd5+ Re7+ 7.Ndxe7+ Bd5+ 8.Nxd5+ Re7+ 9.Ndxe7+ f5+ 10.Nxf5+ Qe7+ 11.Ndxe7#

```

The sideline after 1... cxd5+ is not best for Black because it gives White the duals 9.Qxe7+ Qxe7 10.Bxe7+ and 9.Bxe7+ Qxe7 10.Qxe7+. And it also gives Black non-checking options which force White to take the full 11 moves.

The sideline after 2... f6 is not best for Black because it enables White to mate in 9.

The above observation, and the choice of sidelines, are by Morse.

Unfortunately this problem is cooked. PDB notes a shorter win in 9.

---

If it is required that every White move and every Black move is forced, I don't know the answer.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Rosie F’s answer is a wonderful one.

However, if you want it to be forced in terms of returning a check with a check, and having to make that move by the laws of chess, I have a different answer. The positions are legal and are checkmating problems as required.

The record with each player having multiple legal moves is 22 ply.

```
[Title "Alexey Khanyan, Tim Krabbe’s Website #267 2008, Mate in 11"]
[FEN "4Q2Q/4r3/4n1n1/1bbK1krn/RR1RR1RR/2qn1R1n/4n1nN/Q3Q3 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ng2f4+ 2. Rfxf4+ N2xf4+ 3. Rgxf4+ Nh3xf4+ 4. Rhxf4+ Ndxf4+ 5. Rxf4+ Nhxf4+ 6. Rxf4+ Ngxf4+ 7. Rxf4+ Nxf4+ 8. Rxf4+ Kxf4+ 9. Qee5+ Qxe5+ 10. Qaxe5+ Rgxe5+ 11. Qxe5+ Rxe5+ 12. Qxe5#

```

Source: Diary Entry #267

If you want it so each player has only one legal move, the known record is 15 ply.

```
[Title "shoopi, www.chess.com 6/11/2013, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "rk1KB3/b1q1QQQR/bnqQ1q2/1Rq1Q1q1/2q1rQ1q/6B1/6QQ/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxc7+ Qxc7+ 2. Qxc7+ Qxc7+ 3. Qxc7+ Qxc7+ 4. Bxc7+ Kb7+ 5. Bb8+ Qxe7+ 6. Qxe7+ Qxe7+ 7. Qxe7+ Qxe7+ 8. Rxe7#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

Additional Source: The original page!

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


# Question
Title: What was the source of randomness in the Alpha Zero vs Stockfish match?
My understanding is that Alpha Zero's algorithm was fixed after the "learning" phase, so would it come up with the same move for every position? Was the variability in the match entirely due to a Stockfish setting, or did Alpha Zero also display an element of randomness in its move selection?

# Answer
I've noticed AlphaZero played 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 in http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=91944&crosstable=1. Possibilities:

* Mutlithreading (any software engineer can tell you it's not deterministic)
* Monte Carlo Tree Search (the algorithm draws random paths, so it can't be deterministic)

Please note while the model's parameters are "fixed" (your own words), the actual move might be different. We don't have the source code for AlphaZero, but multithreading and MCTS are likely two major casues.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The LC0 authors studied the AlphaZero paper very carefully, ran their own experiments, and they came to the following conclusion. AlphaZero, despite calling it's algorithm Monte Carlo tree search (All Monte Carlo methods are by definition explicitly random), does not employ any explicit non-determinism after a certain number of moves (I believe this is 15 moves).

There are two different parts to MCTS that could introduce randomness into move selection.

1. During the search phase, AlphaZero assigns weights on which moves to explore based on 2 factors: the win probability as evaulated by the neural network, and also some sub-tree size statistics of the parent and child move sub-trees. The first factor ensures that more promising lines are evaluated first, and the second factor ensures that less promising lines are eventually searched. In a natural implementation of MCTS, it would use weighted random choices between these weighted possibilities. In reality, AlphaZero chooses between these completely deterministicly, by just choosing the max weight every time. It does this because the randomness in this step does not turn out to be helpful, and only distracts the engine from the more important variations, on average.
2. During the moving phase, it can make a weighted choice between move candidates which already have deep and accurate evaluations calculated by the search phase. The idea is to make slightly suboptimal moves to try to introduce diversity in its play, so it doesn't play the same game every time. This is especially important during training, but also leads to more interesting match results. It turns out that AlphaZero only does this for the first 15 moves or so, after that it always chooses the best move. This determinism turns out to be essential for its extremely accurate endgame play, where tiny differences in evaluation turn out to be the difference between draws and wins.

This is true during both training and evaluation.

In other words, once it is out of the opening, its play is as deterministic as a traditional engine.

However, note that it will have the same sort of multithreading and time control non-determinism as traditional engines.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: Endgame problem: How to avoid stalemate and win?
I'm stuck on this problem a friend shared with me recently, with barely any pieces left and apparently white is able to force a win but I've been hitting a wall with everything I've tried so far, as everything seems to immediately lead to stalemate...! Here's the diagram of the problem, with white to move and win.

This problem was created by Josef Prokop, and published in Prager Presse in 1924.

```
 [title "White to move and win"]
 [fen "6k1/6P1/5BP1/p7/8/K7/p7/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

I know that if I entered this position into an engine I'd probably get the answer immediately, but to be honest as opposed to just seeing the answer, I'm more interested in how one should approach or reason about such problems in order to systematically get closer to finding the solution. So I would appreciate it if someone could flesh out how they approached the problem and step by step got to the solution, that would be incredibly helpful.

# Answer
> 42 votes
It's quite a fun problem to think about, before getting to the calculation of long variations, try to first spot the key idea needed to crack the problem.

Here are the first observations that come to my mind which eventually led me to spot the solution, let's break them down step by step:

* **a)** With our bishop eyeing `g7` and our doubled pawn formation on `g6-g7`, black will draw by stalemate as soon as they run out of pawn moves on the `a` file.
* **b)** With a) in mind, try some basic moves to develop a feel for the position and nuances in terms of timing. So let's attempt to see through some of our king move options: `1.Ka4` is no good as it will end immediately in a draw after `2...a1=Q+ 3.Bxa1`, similarly with `1.Kb2 a1=Q+ 2.Kxa1 a4` and the draw is trivial.
* **c)** Count black's remaining moves: in principle there are a total of 5 pawn moves, then it's a stalemate unless we give the black king on `g8` a legal move.
* **d)** To ensure the latter, the only way is clearly to let the `g7` pawn fall, as `g6` cannot move anyway.
* **e)** But how to give away the `g7` pawn, while *i)* our bishop still eyes the promotion square (`a1`), and *ii)* afterwards not leave hanging our 2nd and only remaining pawn on `g6` which is a light square pawn!
* **f)** observations in e) basically tell us that we cannot leave the `a1-h8` diagonal with our bishop or else black promotes. So in order to leave `g7` unprotected, our only option is to blind the bishop by blocking the long diagonal with the king!
* **g)** Assuming we leave our bishop on `a1`, then there are various options for blinding the bishop, for instance getting the king to `c3` or `d4` or `e5`, ... which is the right one?
* **h)** We can resolve that by remembering our observation e, *ii)*, namely that after black takes on `g7` we need to be in time to protect `g6,` that means in the very next ply! Therefore, our only option is to block the bishop's sight via `e5`, let black take, and defend `g6` immediately with `Kf5,` right on time. In fact `Kf5` will unavoidably be with check as our bishop is still on the long diagonal! Once `g7` is removed and `g6` is defended, black has spare king moves and there are no threats of stalemate anymore.

**Summary of our discovered idea:**

>

Now it simply remains to execute our plan correctly, which means a bit of concrete assessment of the position in order to find the right move order:

* We know we want our bishop somewhere between `a1-d4`, so let's try the immediate `1.Ba1`: `2...a4` and black draws immediately. All other bishop moves lead to the same situation after `2...a1=Q` forcing `Bxa1.`
* Let's not waste tempi at start with the bishop since it'll be naturally drawn to `a1` anyhow as we let black promote. Instead, let's use all our tempi to get our king to `d5` as fast as possible and prepare our `Ke5-Kf5` maneuver.

**Solution:**

> So let's try: `1. Kb3 a4+ 2. Kc4 a3 3. Kd5 a1=Q 4. Bxa1 a2 5. Ke5 Kxg7 6. Kf5+ kg8` the difficult bit is done! Now we just have to shoulder away the king from the promotion square (`g8`). `7. Ke6 Kf8 8. g7+ Kg8 9. Ke7 Kh7 10. Kf7` and the rest is trivial.

*I really recommend to either go through the above discussions without using an analysis board to try out moves, or to try and solve it on your own with mental calculations only, considering our observations a to h. As there are only few pieces in this problem, it can make for a very useful exercise of concentration and calculation.*

**Animated solution:**

>

# Answer
> 10 votes
Right now Black can only move his/her pawns. There are 1+4 moves left. To win, White needs the black king to capture the g7 pawn but not the g6 pawn. Therefore, the King must protect it (probably from f5). Let's try to get the king there:

1. Kb3 a4+ 2. Kc4 a3 3. Kd5 a1Q 4. Bxa1 a2 5. Ke5 (conveniently blocking the long diagonal) Kxg7 6. Kf5+

Now 6... Kg8 is the hardiest defense, since Kf8 would give away the opposition in a basic king + pawn vs. king endgame. Can White win after 6... Kg8?

> Yes, (s)he can with 7. Ke6, since the normal defense in a king + pawn vs. king endgame, 7... Kg7 is not possible thanks to the bishop.

I hope you can take it from here, it's not too difficult anymore.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I approached this problem in reverse. I transported my king to a winning position at F5 and then tried to figure out how he got there. I also realized that my pawn at G7 had to be removed with Black's help, but my own bishop was preventing that. Eventually, I saw that my King could block my bishop and for the sacrifice of G7. All of this has to be done while still giving Black a legal pawn move to avoid stalemate.

# Answer
> 0 votes
How to approach this problem. First you must understand just what the problem is, as you would with any problem. - It's obvious that white must promote a pawn to win. He'll never be able to move the g7 pawn, so the g6 pawn is the only candidate. To accomplish that he must sacrifice the g7 pawn while gettng his king over to defend the g6 pawn. But the question is whether he'll have enough tempi to do that. A quick count seems to indicate that he won't before black runs out of moves and is stalemated. Hence some "trickery" must be in order, i.e. the white king's interfering with the white bishop's protection of the g7 pawn long enough for the black king to capture it while the white king can then protect the g6 pawn. Now that we know the method, we can apply it, as follows - 1. Kb3 a4+ 2. Kc4 a3 3. Kd5 a1(Q) 4. Bxa1 a2 5. Ke5! Kxg7 6. Kf5+ Kg8 7. Kg5 Kf8 8. Kh6 Kg8 9. g7 Kf7 10. Kh7 Ke6
11. g8(Q)+ wins. (if 6..., Kh6 7. Kf6 Kh5 8. g7 Kh6 or Kg4 9. g8(Q) wins).

---
Tags: endgame, problems, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: How to beat King's Fianchetto Opening Modified (White)
```
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n1p3/3p4/3P4/6P1/PPP1PPBP/RNBQK1NR w - - 0 1"]

```

I have a few friends who I play with. Recently they have picked up on one of our better player's openings and it's surprisingly effective for development of the white pieces and positioning.

I can't figure out how to beat the opening effectively. I need to be able to shut it down where it starts. This should be noted, the pawn that was moved to `d4` is there to help develop the Queen. After this the next step for white is to develop the dark-squared bishop to `b2`, and after that to move the knight from `g1` to `h3`. After which comes a king side castle.

I'm unsure how to interrupt this opening other then to make an island on `d5` and `e6` to protect my rook. Is there any way to fully shut down this opening?

I know this opening relies on the bishops but I do not know how to get rid of them without suffering losses worse than gains.

# Answer
You can develop your pieces pretty much any way you want and no big trouble can be caused to you by White.

However, I would postpone the ...e6 move, as your light-squares bishop gets blocked for no benefit (you could also try ...e5 with enough preparation). You may also want to break the center with a ...c5 push, so, although there is nothing particularly wrong with your play, my favourite move order would be

```
 [fen ""]

 1.d4 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c5!?

```

now forcing White to make a choice
> 5 votes

# Answer
**General plan suggestions:**

* Like @David said, don't play e6 so early (or possibly at all). You want your light-squared bishop alive and active in any situation, and *especially* here for a possible trade-off of bishops.
* Try mixing things up a little bit with a move like c6, supporting the d5 pawn against the fiancetto-ed bishop. You'll then want to swing your light squared bishop out to g4 or f5, and then put your knight on d7. *Note: You mentioned moving your bishop to b7. Don't do that if you've already played d5; it blocks in the bishop.*
* **Number one flaw in white's position**: White has an extremely solid position, but no opening is perfect, and there is a small weakness: **g4**. This square is not easily defended, and can become an excellent post for one of your pieces. Hammer down on this. Play Nf6. Keep your light squared bishop on the kingside.

**First move suggestions:**

* Try fiancetto-ing yourself! Play 1...g6 and simply imitate his strategy for a few moves.
* Try playing 1...e5. If he counters with e4, you've successfully blocked in his bishop. If he counters with d4, take with the pawn, let him take with queen, and then develop your knight to c3, pushing the queen back and winning a tempo.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Classical Chess Opening Repertoire

text:
# Question
Title: Classical Chess Opening Repertoire
I decided that I want to learn classical chess. Although I'm rated in the 1400's, I want to really gain a strong understanding of basic ideas and principles in chess and improve my tactical ability. Thus, I want to generally go for open games. I also don't want anything theory-heavy or complex. Just nice, simple, classical/traditional openings and/or openings that involve playing with the innitiative or defending against the innitiative that will are good for learning and also viable at the top level. So the opening repertoire I'm going with now is:

As white:

1.e4

Versus Sicilian Defence: Alapin Variation

Versus 1...e5, Four Knights Game (regardless of 2...Nc6 or Petroff)

Versus French Defence: Tarrasch Variation which will either lead to the Rubinstein Variation or 3...Nf6, after which I'll try to get into the Nunn-Korchnoi Gambit

Versus Pirc/Scandinavian/Caro-Kann/Alekhine/Modern: I'll just play relatively main lines and/or develop by opening principles.

As Black:

1...e5

Versus King's Gambit: Decline with 2...Bc5 Versus Danish Gambit: Accept and defend the best I can (after I get destroyed, I'll probably look up how to do it) Versus Italian Game: Giuoco Piano Versus Scotch Game: Main Line with 2...Bc5 Versus Spanish Game/Ruy Lopez: Classical/Cordel Variation with 3...Bc5 Versus Ponziani: Dish out that relatively brief line I learned yesterday from the FCO so I don't get destroyed again Versus Four Knights Game: Play symmetrically and/or develop with opening principles

Versus 1.d4, TRADITIONAL QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED - not the Lasker Variation, but the one where you fianchetto the light-square bishop.

Is this a good learning repertoire?

# Answer
> 3 votes
That opening repertoire looks good to me. However, I must warn you about over-focusing on opening theory at your rating level.

Right now I am going through a phase where I am focusing on other areas besides opening theory. Some of the old masters, such as Lasker, didn't even bother with it. Although I'm not sure if he would get away with that today. I do think that a lot of lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory. In most of your games, opponents aren't going to be playing the books moves, so it may actually be a waste of time to learn a bunch of opening theory. Instead it may be more beneficial to REALLY learn a solid set of chess principles, and even more importantly **patterns**.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yassir Seirawan's Winning Chess series (starting with Play Winning Chess) is ridiculously good. I first read the series when I was 12. Every time I re-read it (aged 15, 17, 20, 22, and so on), I got noticeably better. To this day, I don't know much opening theory (beyond Alekhine's) and I can hold my own against 1600+ even after going without playing for a couple years. It's all about knowing the patterns.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would also recommend taking a look at the Queens Gambit Declined: Tarrasch defense, Because you are playing the Alapin against the Sicilian, and the Tarrasch against the French you have a pretty good chance of playing with or against an Isolated Queen Pawn (IQP) which can teach you a lot about active piece play. In IQP positions knowing the plans and the typical tactics of the positions are way more important than knowing opening moves.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This looks like a pretty complicated repertoire, so I would focus on my openings as Black first (with White, it's harder to get smashed in the opening) You don't really need that much opening thoery, so I'd rather "learn by doing" (play a bunch of games and analyse them)

The Danish gambit is not a problem at all, just accept it and after 5.Bxb2 d5! 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4 the game is at least equal. Other attempts can be answered by a quick ...d5, like 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 or 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5. You can also be fine against the King's gambit with your move, so I'd focus on Italian, Spanish and Scotch

But maybe we are doing this the wrong way, after all, there are still three main openings to study, and White will always have the ability to choose the one they prefer. That's why I would suggest you to play the either 2...d6 (Philidor Defence) or 1...e6 (the French Defence)

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What levels should theoretical endings be learned at?
When I am introducing beginners to the game, I immediately teach them KQvK, KRvK and KPvK. I follow that up with KBBvK at around the 800 level. Are any resources on when one should learn/teach the following techniques: Lucena win, Philidor draw, KBNvK, KQvKR, KRBvKR, KNNvKP? Each of these teaches valuable lessons with applications beyond just the endgame but the last two may not be worth studying seriously until the IM+ level.

# Answer
> 9 votes
The more I look at *Silman's Complete Endgame Course*, the more I agree with how he has organised it.

1. Overkill mates where the stronger side is up by at least two rooks worth of material. KQQk, KQRk and KRRk. Especially KRRk is good because it emphasises the importance of having a plan. With queen(s) on the board, mindlessly checking might let the student accidentally fall into a mate, but checking over and over again in KRRk is unlikely to produce progress.
2. KQk and KRk. The two basic mates. Further hammering in the importance of having a plan.
3. KQkb and KQkn. Easy enough to win, but especially the latter one takes surprisingly many moves against a stubborn defender.
4. KPk, opposition and the square of a passed pawn. Nothing much needs to be said. This is obviously required knowledge.

These four represent what I'd call the bare minimum needed. And the third is really more of a case of "head fake learning". When one is better at chess, one can obviously figure out how to win KQk{b|n} over the board, so from the viewpoint of teaching theory this is at best marginally useful. The student is actually learning about what the pieces can and cannot do which is always going to be useful.

Beyond this, I think the most practically useful are KQkp, Lucena, Philidor (the KRPkr draw, *not* the KRBkr win) and a small selection of minor piece theoretical draws (wrong-coloured bishop + rook pawn, KNPk with pawn on h7, etc.).

You want to minimise memorisation while maximising useful knowledge gained for practical play. Not just in the endgame but also the ability to formulate and execute plans (try KRRkr for this) and gaining familiarity with the capabilities of the pieces.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This type of question has no real answer, because it is just an opinion... but here goes...

I agree with teaching KQK and KRK immediately. I also usually show KRRK to a new player also. I do this because it is an easy way for them to begin visualizing how the pieces move and control squares, ranks or files. It also shows them how to checkmate the opposing king and the objective of the game without the complexity of 32 pieces on the board. I often show them these mates right after they learn the game.

Except for the Lucena win and Philidor draw, all the others are almost academic unless your a very good player. I don't believe I've ever had to play KQkr or KQkn or KBBk or KBNk in a real game before. At what level do you consistently get to an endgame before someone is lost? I think better players learn them for fun at one point, and they may illustrate some good concepts. e.g. KBNk may show that the N+B work best positioned on the same color squares, but really does that help me in a game? Usually, I'm only concerned about controlling important squares.

Anyway, maybe a 1400 or 1600 player should learn the Lucena and Philidor draw, but the others aren't that important unless it is just giving them a task to hone their thinking skills.

# Answer
> 1 votes
From teaching my kids I would agree with starting with KQvK and KRvK but I found that the ideas behind KPvK were a bit too tricky for this level. The opposition and getting the king in front of the pawn were a bit too tricky for beginners. I found KRRvK to be very good not just because it is easy but also because it gives an easy introduction to the "hungry hogs", 2 rooks on the 7th rank. So, KRRvK comes at the same time as the other two basic endings.

Before going for KPvK I would introduce games with just 8Pv8P (no kings), first to get a pawn to the 8th wins, then add kings, same rules. Not being funny but I think this ending comes much later, say at 1200. For Philidor and Lucena I would say around about 1500 or 1600

# Answer
> 0 votes
Based purely on opinion, but could serve as reference:

1. As an absolute beginner, you should be able to mate with RR, Q and R against a lonely king.
2. About the time you play your first tournament (people nowadays love ELO, so let's say 1200, I mean actual ELO, not that UBSCF), you should also know KP-K endgame, mate with two bishops, and probably both the basics of KRP-KR (Philidor and Lucena) as well as KQ-KP
3. Later on, you should explore the minor piece positions (I mean KBP-KN, KBP-KB(same colour), King and multiple pawns bith oppsite color bishops, and so on...) while improving your knowledge of rook endgames. Also, some exchange advantage positions may help. KBN-K will eventually become a MUST as well!
4. Finally, you may want to explore "fortresses" that occur in more complicated endgames (queen vs rook with a few pawns in certain positions or KQ-KBN, for instance) If you can do all of that, you will have a good endgame knowledge up to an IM level

# Answer
> -5 votes
You have to start right away.

The Art of Learning by Joshua Waitzkin has more information about it. Students tend to become results-oriented (as opposed to learning-oriented) if time is spent studying openings.

---
Tags: learning, endgame
---


title: Examples of forced stalemate

text:
# Question
Title: Examples of forced stalemate
The usual case one often sees specially in blitz play is when one side (usually the winning) mis-plays and then stalemate occurs with the losing side dodging a loss. But are there positions where stalemate is a forced (maybe planned) outcome no matter what the opponent does?

# Answer
> 32 votes
Oh sure, here are two examples (annotated):

This is a neat puzzle from the chess.com tactics, with white to play!

```
 [title "White to play!"]
 [fen "1q6/2b2ppb/4p1k1/7p/2Np1p1P/3P1Q2/6PK/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1.Ne5+ Bxe5 {black has to take else white either checkmates or wins the queen.} 2.Qg3+ fxg3+ {Pawn takes queen is forced else white checkmates} 3.Kh3 {and black has no way to avoid the imminent stalemate, any move draws!}

```

Sometimes stalemates are exploited strategically or tactically to force a draw, e.g. in the game below between So and Karjakin, where black may have had the stalemate setup in mind already when the white pawns got to `g6` and `h7`.

```
 [title "W. So vs S. Karjakin 2017, black to move"]
 [fen "4r2k/4P1pP/2pB2P1/2P2K2/8/8/R7/4r3 b - - 0 1"]

 1.R8xe7 {black switches to antichess style of play to force the draw.} Bxe7 2.Re5+ {and white has no way to avoid the stalemate, the rook will keep checking the king where ever it goes.} Kxe5

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
Viswanathan Anand vs Vladimir Kramnik is a notable one:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "World Championship Tournament"]
[Site "Mexico City MEX"]
[Date "2007.09.15"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[ECO "C42"]
[WhiteElo "2803"]
[BlackElo "2811"]
[PlyCount "130"]
[StartPly "128"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O
Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6
13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 16.Qa4 Bd7 17.Qc2 Qf5
18.Qxf5 Bxf5 19.Bb5 Bd7 20.d5 Ne5 21.Bxd7 Nxd7 22.Bxc7 Rxc7
23.d6 Rxc3 24.dxe7 f6 25.Rad1 Rc7 26.Nd4 Ne5 27.f4 Nc6 28.Nxc6
bxc6 29.Rd6 c5 30.Ree6 c4 31.Rc6 Rexe7 32.Rxc4 Rxc4 33.Rxe7
Ra4 34.Rb7 h6 35.f5 Rxa3 36.Kf2 h5 37.g3 a5 38.Ra7 a4 39.h4
Ra2+ 40.Kf3 a3 41.Ke3 Ra1 42.Kf2 Kf8 43.Kg2 a2 44.Kh2 Ke8
45.Kg2 Kd8 46.Kh2 Kc8 47.Kg2 Kb8 48.Ra3 Kb7 49.Ra4 Kb6 50.Ra8
Kc5 51.Ra7 Kd5 52.Ra4 Ke5 53.Ra5+ Ke4 54.Kh2 Kf3 55.Ra3+ Kf2
56.Ra4 Kf1 57.Kh1 Ke1 58.Kg2 Kd1 59.Ra7 Rc1 60.Rxa2 Rc2+
61.Rxc2 Kxc2 62.Kf3 Kd3 63.g4 hxg4+ 64.Kxg4 Ke4 65.Kh5 Kxf5
1/2-1/2

```

Anand forces the draw with 65. Kh5, after which 65... Kxf5 is stalemate, while not taking the pawn allows white into a winning pawn endgame.

# Answer
> 11 votes
The most common is the situation with King + Pawn vs King, if it's a draw. Okay, the stalemate isn't forced, but everything else is a draw too and it's important that the stalemate exists:

```
[FEN "8/3k4/8/3KP3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.e6+ Ke7 2.Ke5 Ke8 3.Kd6 Kd8 4.e7+ Ke8 5.Ke6 {Stalemate}

```

There is also a sideline in the so-called Saveedra position:

```
[FEN "8/8/1KP5/3r4/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]

1.c7 Rd6+ 2.Kb5 (2.Kc5? Rd1! {followed by Rc1(+), =}) Rd5+ 3.Kb4 Rd4+ 4.Kb3 Rd3+ 5.Kc2 Rd4! 6.c8=Q? (6.c8=R! Ra4 7.Kb3 {White wins}) Rc4+ 7.Qxc4 {Stalemate}

```

Instead 6.c8=R wins, because the stalemate isn't there.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Here is a (rather simple) example of a position where stalemate is forced, *no matter what either player does*:

```
[FEN "8/p1p3pp/5ppk/6q1/5PPK/6P1/P1P3PP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. fxg5+ fxg5+ 2. Kh3 a6 3. a3 a5 4. a4 c6 5. c3 c5 6. c4

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Glorfindel’s answer shows an example of a forced mutual stalemate. On a similar note, in the below position the soon to be stalemated side must stalemate themselves or lose, and the opposing side has no choice but to allow it. Forced here is a bit of a combination of best move and must make a move due to the king being in check. I made the sequence absurdly long just for fun.

```
[Title "Me, chess.stackexchange.com 5/19/2019, Black Draws"]
[FEN "3Rbk1K/qqqqq1NQ/6Qq/6QQ/6Qq/2b3QQ/1B4Qq/q5R1 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Qexg7+ 2. Qxg7+ Qdxg7+ 3. Qxg7+ Qcxg7+ 4. Qxg7+ Qbxg7+ 5. Qxg7+ Qaxg7+ 6. Qxg7+ Bxg7+ 7. Bxg7+ Qaxg7+ 8. Rxg7 Qxh7+ 9. Qxh7  Qxh7+ 10. Qxh7 Qxh7+ 11. Kxh7

```

---
Tags: tactics, draw, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: How much of the Principal Variation can I trust?
Chess engines will have a Principal Variation (PV) that may be as many as 30 (or more) ply deep. Of course, the PV and the other facets of the engine help to determine the best move at the root position (the first ply).

However, how accurate is the rest of the PV? Some of the PV is most certainly wrong; for example, the very last ply of a depth 30 search will almost certainly change in evaluation if it were instead treated as the root position. Is there an easy way determine how much of the PV is trustworthy, and how trustworthy it is?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The answer is, of course, it depends:

Sometimes the engine will accurately calculate a very long sequence of forced moves and all of it will be correct (the more powerful the engine, the most likely this is to happen)

Other times, not even the first move will be correct. It may also occur that the computer plays "correctly" but still gives a wrong evaluation (this is often the case in positions with fortresses)

In summary, your question is too broad, as the answer will vary too much depending on what software you are using, on which machine it is running, and most importantly, what position they are evaluating.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Can you mate with each of your 16 pieces on its original square?
An opinion poll conducted by problem composer Roberto Osorio over 10 master-level chess players in the Argentine Chess Club produced 100% wrong answers! :-)

When the right answer is posted here, I will post a follow-up problem.

EDIT: OK here is the follow-up:

```
[title "R.Osorio - StrateGems 2007 "]
[fen "rnb2rqb/pppp4/6p1/7p/6n1/7k/PPPPPPNP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

```

This is the position after White's 16th move. What was the exact sequence of moves?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Obviously the last white move was 16. Nf3g1+.

I note that black needs at least 15 moves to place the pieces as they are:

* 4 moves to swap queen with rook as they are (various movements possible),
* 2 moves for the bishop (Bf8g7, Bg7h8),
* 2 moves for the knight (Ng8f6, Nf6g4 or Ng8h6, Nh6g4)
* 1 move each for the two pawns (g7g6 and h7h5)
* 5 moves for the king (any direct route)

Together with the information that it is black's 16th move, this means that **all of black's pieces must have taken a direct route to their destination.**

---

Note that black did not capture any white pieces, because white still has 16 pieces on the board. This means in particular that the pawns on g6 and h5 are the pawns from g7 and h7 respectively.

---

White has promoted the g pawn for a knight. Since black has still the original g pawn, and all pieces except for two pawns, this is only possible, if **the white g pawn moved to g6, captured the black pawn on f7 and promoted on f8 for a knight**.

---

The white pawn could only be promoted after the square on f8 was emptied, i.e. the order of moves is roughly: 1) white pawn moves to g6, 2) white pawn captures black pawn on f7, 3) black plays g7g6, and Bf8g7

---

Before white captured g6xf7, the black e pawn must have been gone as otherwise (with e7, Qd8, Bf8 and Ke8 present), black would have been forced to recapture the white pawn on f7 since it is check (and the black king would have no squares to escape).

---

Counting the minimum number of white moves now until the position after blacks's 15th move (i.e. with white knights on f3 and g2)

* white's g pawn: 5 moves (g2g4, g4g5, g5g6, g6xf7 f7f8N)
* return the promoted knight from f8 to either f3 or g2: 3 moves
* capturing the e7 pawn and returning the piece: If this was done by the rook, it would take at least 8 moves. This would make the total (5+3+8\>15), so is not possible. So e7 was captured by a white knight, which returned. Both options (a) white knight from g1 capturing e7 and returning to g2 or f3 or (b) white knight from b1 capturing e7 and returning to b1 plus the move Ng1f3; would take 7 moves.

5+3+7=15, meaning that also white moved its pieces on shortest possible routes without any time for waiting moves.

As for the rest, basically it comes down to check how to achieve the main plans in order, i.e.:

1. capture the pawn on e7 with a knight and return the knight at least partially (so that the black king is able to get to e7); as mentioned this needs to be done before white captures gxf7
2. capture gxf7 and promote the pawn
3. return all white pieces to their final destination

During phase "1." black is very limited in moves since the g pawn cannot move yet (has to wait for the white pawn to play gxf7). This leaves as the only possible first moves for black 1....h5 2...Rh6 ... 3...Rf6 4....Nh6.

These four moves are just enough time for white to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1 and to return the knight to c3 (making space for the king on e7, i.e. giving black additional "waiting" moves (waiting for white to push the pawn to g6 and play gxf7). Note that white has to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1, because trying to capture it with the knight on g1 would take one move longer and black would run out of waiting moves. So the first four moves are: 1. Nc3 h5 2. Nd5 Rh6 3. Nxe7 Rf6 4. Nd5 Nh6 5. Nc3 Ke7.

Phase two starts and white has to push the g pawn forward, because playing for instance 6. Nb1 black would run out of "waiting" moves and would not manage to regroup queen/rook/bishop in time. So, the next three and a half moves (6. g4 Ke6 7. g5 Kf5 8. g6 Kg4 9. gxf7 ) are basically black pushing the king on the shortest available route towards h3 and white pushing the g pawn forward. As mentioned black has to wait with playing g6 until white captures gxf7, so black can only push the king during this phase.

The final phase (9....g6 10. Nf3 Bg7 11. f8=N Bh8 12. Ne6 Qg8 13. Nf4 Rf8 14. Ng2 Kh3 15. Nb1 Ng4 16. Ng1#) is basically just moving the pieces to their final squares. There are no alternative move orders possible. For instance white cannot play Nb1 earlier, because with 14. Ng2 he is just in time to block the bishop from attacking h3, allowing 14. ... Kh3.

# Answer
> 9 votes
The thoughts mentioned in user1583209's answer more or less summed up mine, but I couldn't find a way to get the king out in time without requiring extra moves. The final trick is

> to have the b1 knight capture the e7 pawn; this opens the way for the black king. Black has just enough moves (thanks again @user1583209) he can make with his kingside:

---

```
[FEN ""]
1. Nc3 h5 2. Nd5 Rh6 3. Nxe7 Rf6 4. Nd5 Nh6 5. Nc3 Ke7 6. g4 Ke6 7. g5 Kf5 8. g6 Kg4 9. gxf7 g6 10. Nf3 Bg7 11. f8=N Bh8 12. Ne6 Qg8 13. Nf4 Rf8 14. Ng2 Kh3 15. Nb1 Ng4 16. Ng1#

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'd say

> yes, but you need to allow at least one pawn to promote (and return to its original square). E.g. promote the white a pawn to a queen, move it back to a2 and put a knight on a3. Then, move the black king to a4, black pawns to a5 and b4 and a black rook to b5. In the meantime, White can just play Ng1-h3-g1 etc. The move Na3-b1 will then be checkmate, and the white pieces will all be on their original square.

# Answer
> 2 votes
After some thinking, as I did not look at the other answers, I concluded that it is indeed possible to checkmate with all 16 pieces on their original squared. Doing this requires a promoted piece to travel back to its “original square.”

Then I looked at Roberto’s excellent problem and thought “there must be a faster way to do that.” Of course, his problem is special in its own right because there is only one way to reach the position. But the effect that it shows is beatable without the uniqueness

There are two variants to consider. Type #1 focuses on the least possible disturbance, meaning that Black has 13 pieces (think about it) at home when mated. Type #2 is without regard to that. @Rebecca J. Stones did much-appreciated work on this in the comments. Here are the results.

```
[Title "Rebecca J. Stones, chess.stackexchange.com 5/10/2019, Type #1, Non-Unique Proof Game In 11.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. g4 g5 2. Nf3 f5 3. gxf5 Bh6 4. f6 Kf8 5. f7 Kg7 6. f8=N Kf6 7. Ne6 Kf5 8. Nf4 Kg4 9. Ng2 Kh3 10. Ne5 Bf8 11. Nf3 g4 12. Ng1#

```

---

```
[Title "Rebecca J. Stones, chess.stackexchange.co 5/11/2019, Type #2, Non-Unique Proof Game In 7.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. a4 f6 2. a5 Kf7 3. a6 e5 4. axb7 Ne75. bxc8=Q Kg8 6. Qxd7 Ng6 7. Qa4 Nd7 8. Qa2#

```

Secondly, it is also of interest what can be done with **discovered checks.**

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 5/10/2019, Type #1, Non-Unique Proof Game In 15.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

  1. h4 g5 2. hxg5 f6 3. g6 Nh6 4. g7 Kf7 5. g8=R Ke6 6. Rg3 Kf5 7. Rgh3 Kg4 8. R3h2 Ng8 9. Nh3 Kh5 10. g4+ Kh4 11. g5 Nh6 12. g6 Ng8 13. g7 Nh6 14. g8=R Kh5 15. Rgg2 Ng8 16. Ng1#

```

---

```
[Title "Rebecca J. Stones, chess.stackexchange.co 5/11/2019, Type #2, Non-Unique Proof Game In 10.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 h5 2. e4 h4 3. e5 f6 4. exf6 Kf7 5. fxe7 Kg6 6. exd8=Q Kh5 7. Qe7 g6 8. Qee2 Rh6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Nb1 Bg5 11. Ng1#

```

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


# Question
Title: Looping through the same lines while solving puzzles
When solving tactics sometimes I spend a lot of time (20-30 minutes) looking at the same line over and over again. Sometimes I have a feeling that one particular line is the right one but my vision gets blurry after 4-5 moves and I'm unable to go on without moving the piece.

Do you have any suggestions (books and/or training methods) on how to improve in this area?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Establish an order to analyse the lines!

I would begin by the most forced moves (checks, mate threats, captures...) and finish with those where the opponent was multiple possibilities. Respect that order strictly so you won't be jumping back and forth.

Use the same criteria also for sorting subvariations (ie: start by the most obvious check, pick an opponent's answer, now calculate checks, threats and captures after that particular answer and so on)

---
Tags: tactics, board-vision
---


# Question
Title: If we move white's bishop to a dark square in the Fisher-Taimanov (1971) bishop vs. knight endgame, can white still win?
My coach showed me a famous game Fisher vs. Taimanov (1971) where Fisher expertly used the bishop's advantage over a knight in an endgame.

```
[fen ""]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Mark Taimanov"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7 5. Nc3 e6 6. g3 a6
7. Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Bf4 d6 11. Qd2 h6
12. Rad1 e5 13. Be3 Bg4 14. Bxc5 dxc5 15. f3 Be6 16. f4 Rd8
17. Nd5 Bxd5 18. exd5 e4 19. Rfe1 Rxd5 20. Rxe4+ Kd8 21. Qe2
Rxd1+ 22. Qxd1+ Qd7 23. Qxd7+ Kxd7 24. Re5 b6 25. Bf1 a5
26. Bc4 Rf8 27. Kg2 Kd6 28. Kf3 Nd7 29. Re3 Nb8 30. Rd3+ Kc7
31. c3 Nc6 32. Re3 Kd6 33. a4 Ne7 34. h3 Nc6 35. h4 h5
36. Rd3+ Kc7 37. Rd5 f5 38. Rd2 Rf6 39. Re2 Kd7 40. Re3 g6
41. Bb5 Rd6 42. Ke2 Kd8 43. Rd3 Kc7 44. Rxd6 Kxd6 45. Kd3 Ne7
46. Be8 Kd5 47. Bf7+ Kd6 48. Kc4 Kc6 49. Be8+ Kb7 50. Kb5 Nc8
51. Bc6+ Kc7 52. Bd5 Ne7 53. Bf7 Kb7 54. Bb3 Ka7 55. Bd1 Kb7
56. Bf3+ Kc7 57. Ka6 Ng8 58. Bd5 Ne7 59. Bc4 Nc6 60. Bf7 Ne7
61. Be8 Kd8 62. Bxg6 Nxg6 63. Kxb6 Kd7 64. Kxc5 Ne7 65. b4
axb4 66. cxb4 Nc8 67. a5 Nd6 68. b5 Ne4+ 69. Kb6 Kc8 70. Kc6
Kb8 71. b6 1-0

```

I want to consider the position at move 45 (with black to move), but move white's bishop to a dark square. Let's say this position:

```
[fen "5B2/8/1pnk2p1/p1p2p1p/P4P1P/2PK2P1/1P6/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

All I've done is move white's bishop from b5 (a light square) to f8 (a dark square). This seems substantially harder for white to win, and perhaps it's unwinnable for white.

**Question**: If we move white's bishop to a dark square in the Fisher-Taimanov (1971) bishop vs. knight endgame, can white still win?

I think white cannot win, and if that's correct, then there's an interesting nuance in the position: Fisher didn't simply win because "the bishop is better than a knight", but because he organized his pawns to suit.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would say no.

Black's king is doing a very good job at protecting the queenside, with no possible threats on the kingside. Also, the e4 square could be a great source of counterplay for Black. In short, I wouldn't say that White even has an edge in that position. I'd prefer being Black if I could choose.

Finally, the statement "the bishop is better than the knight" is just meaningless. Even if such an advantage exists, other existing factors in the position will make too big of a difference to apply the general principle. By the way, knights are OFTEN better than "good bishops" at defeating "bad bishops"

# Answer
> 3 votes
The thing is, with the light-squared bishop White could attack two weaknesses. His bishop could attack Black's g6-pawn while the king could attack the b6-pawn. If the bishop is dark-squared, White has no piece that can get to Black's g6-pawn. He can only attack the one weakness on b6.

Granted, White can attack the b6-pawn with more firepower, but since Black only has to focus on defending that one pawn it isn't too hard to draw. So White probably can't win with the bishop on a dark square.

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: I play better on the board than online. How can I play better online?
I live in a small town. I only play a couple of tournaments a year and about two rapid games a week with my teamates. Therefore, playing online should be my primary source of practice, but I find it really hard to focus and calculate when playing online (rapid or even classical). As a result, I play way better on the board than online. Is there something I can do to play better online?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Have you tried setting up a chessboard by the computer and playing the online moves on the board before transmitting them? This may be more difficult with rapid than classical games, but if you find seeing the pieces in 3 dimensions more desirable, it seems like a practical altenative to looking at them in 2 dimensions on the computer screen. When I work on online problems, I set them up on a board before solving them for that reason.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Have a board beside you when playing online. Make all the moves on the board and think/calculate by only looking at the board. If you're playing a standard time control this won't cost you much time on the clock.

If you're asking about blitz/bullet then I unfortunately have no solution for you, though most people tend to be better online in fast time controls.

---
Tags: online-chess, best-practice, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why was castling bad for white in this game, and engine strongly prefered trading queens?
I'm a novice player, trying to improve. In the following game I played as white recently on chess.com, I analysed afterwards and my worst move of the game was apparently when I castled. The engine strongly favoured trading queens on move 9.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. d4 Nc6
5. Bb5 Be7
6. Bxc6+ bxc6
7. dxe5 dxe5
8. Nxe5 O-O
9. O-O Bg4
10. Nxg4 Nxg4
11. Qxg4 Bb4
12. a3 Bxc3
13. bxc3 Rb8
14. Be3 a5
15. Bd4 Rb4
16. Qxg7# 1-0

```

Why is this? I can't quite see why the trade is beneficial, and so much better than castling at this point.

Maybe I'm giving up initiative by allowing black to initiate a trade? Or perhaps I'm better developed, so it makes more sense to trade down and benefit for more activity with my pieces? It was a strong 2 point difference from what seems like a fairly even choice from my perspective.

Any ideas why the castling move at that point was such a bad choice?

# Answer
Castling (9. 0-0) is not a very bad move. You still have a very solid advantage after it due to being a pawn up and having the better pawn structure (black's pawns on a7, c7, c6 are weak and vulnerable).

However you had a better move...

The pawn on c6 is hanging and you could have simply taken it. Both 9. Nxc6 or taking the pawn after queen trades (9. Qxd8 Bxd8 10. Rxd8) are good.

Taking the pawn after queen trades is better, because you will also exchange the knight later on for black's dark squared bishop (which is due to the pawn structure, the stronger piece).

For instance an almost forced sequence could be:

```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/4N3/4P3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 1 9"]

9. Qxd8 Bxd8
10.Nxc6 Bb7
11.Nxd8 Rfxd8
12.f3

```

In the end white is left with two pawns up, a strong pawn structure and the better bishop.
> 8 votes

# Answer
9.Qxd8 followed by 10.Nxc6 wins you another pawn. Meanwhile, 9.0-0 gives Black time to protect the c6-pawn.

Given this, 9.Nxc6 is almost as good as 9.Qxd8 for the same reason (winning a pawn). However, 9.Qxd8 is slightly preferable since Black's bishop is out of play on d8 when it recaptures via 9...Bxd8 (if Black recaptures with 9...Rxd8 then 10.Nxc6 exchanges the bishop off with a fork).
> 5 votes

# Answer
As already pointed out by user1583209, 9.Qxd8 Rxd8 10.Nxc6 followed by Nxe7+ wins an extra pawn. However I wouldn't say that trading your knight Black's dark-squared bishop is good for you because of the strength of the bishop (your knight is also a great piece).

The reason why this continuation is so powerful is, apart from the material advantage, simplification. You remove both queens and a pair of minor pieces from the board, which reduces risk and allows your advantage to be more notorious in the endgame.

Finally, I would strongly suggest you against computer-assisted analysis if you want to sharpen your chess skills. Try to review the game by yourself instead
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, castling, exchange, trading
---


# Question
Title: Why would one promote a pawn to a knight?
I know that it is makes no sense to promote a pawn to a bishop or a rook as the queen can compensate for both but a knight is something different. However, the queen is still much more powerful. So what situations would provoke you into promoting your hard-labored pawn to just a knight rather than a queen?

# Answer
> 35 votes
White to move:

```
[FEN "8/q1P1k3/8/8/8/8/6PP/7K w - - 0 1"]

```

Since my example is rather contrived and artificial, I'll also say that the so-called Lasker trap in the Albin Countergambit gives a more realistic setting, and one where a knight promotion is the best option as early as move 7:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3 $2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3! 6.Bxb4 $4 exf2+ 7.Ke2
fxg1=N+ $1 8.Ke1 Qh4+ 9.Kd2 (9.g3 Qe4+) Nc6 $19

```

Oddly enough, I happened across that line for the first time just earlier today.

Oh, and there are situations where underpromotion to a bishop or rook is necessary in order to avoid a stalemate that a queen might create. For instance, in the sequence of moves coming from the Saavedra position, if white were to create a queen with `6. c8=Q`, this would allow black to draw by stalemate, and so white must instead play `6. c8=R` in order to win:

```
[FEN "8/8/1KP5/3r4/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]

1.c7 Rd6+ 2.Kb5 Rd5+ 3.Kb4 Rd4+ 4.Kb3 Rd3+ 5.Kc2 $1 Rd4 $1
6.c8=R $1 (6.c8=Q $2 Rc4+ $1 7.Qxc4 $10) 6...Ra4 7.Kb3 $18

```

# Answer
> 20 votes
During round 9 of the Istanbul 2012 Chess Olympiads, at the Nakamura-Kramnik table of the USA vs Russia match, we've witnessed another one of those promotions to knight at move 62 by white.

The relevant position (white to play):

```
[fen "8/2P1k3/8/8/5p2/5KbB/3pp3/3N4 w - - 1 62"]

1. c8=N+ (1. Kxe2? f3+ 2. Kxf3 Bxc7)

```

We can see here that if

```
62. Kxe2

```

then

```
62. ... f3+

```

and the bishop on `g3` will take the `c7` pawn next move resulting in a draw.

To avoid that, Nakamura promotes his pawn to a knight with check to save his advantage.

Here are 4 different commentaries of the game, pick your favorite one!

# Answer
> 18 votes
After answering this question, I was reminded of another important situation where underpromotion is necessary:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/2K5/1p5R/2k5 b - - 0 1"]

1... b1=N+! (1... b1=Q 2. Rh1++)

```

In this position, `1...b1=N+` is the only move to draw. Any other move will allow a quick mate, but after knighting the pawn, black sets up a drawing fortress.

While this is a slightly contrived example, it *does* come in handy sometimes. As an anecdote, I was playing a rook and pawn endgame where I was up a pawn. In one variation, my opponent could sacrifice his rook for my last pawn and reach this position:

```
[FEN "8/8/2K5/1p5R/2k5/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... b4  2.Rh4+ ( 2. Rc5+ Kd3 3. Kb5 b3 4. Ka4 b2 5. Rb5 Kc2 6. Rc5+ Kd2) Kc3 3.Kc5 b3 4.Rh3+ Kc2 5.Kc4 b2 6.Rh2+ Kc1 7.Kc3

```

I was able to recognize that this is actually a draw because black can play `1...b4 2.Rh4+ Kc3 3.Kc5 b3 4.Rh3+ Kc2 5.Kc4 b2 6.Rh2+ Kc1 7.Kc3` reaching the position above. Due to this, I went into another variation and won. Without knowing this idea, however, it would have been very hard to resist winning my opponent's rook.

# Answer
> 11 votes
There are even positions where one promotes R or B to save a draw by *getting* stalemated (rather than win by *avoiding* stalemate). One example is the Traxler-Dedrle setup:

```
[FEN "4rN1K/5qP1/8/8/8/8/k7/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g8=B!! (1. g8=Q Rxf8 2. Qxf8 Qxf8) Rxf8

```

WTM loses with 1 g8Q? Rxf8 2 Qxf8 Qxf8+ but draws with 1 g8B!! when Rxf8 is stalemate (NB the g8B pins Qf7).

There's a famous study by Rusinek where White must promotes *both* R and B (as well as N) to guarantee a draw; see the position shown in Rusinek's Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan\_Rusinek.

# Answer
> 8 votes
If you are down on time, and see a mate-in-1 with an additional knight? :-)

# Answer
> 7 votes
```
[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/3r4/8/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]

1. c8=Q? (1. c8=R!) Rc4+ 2. Qxc4

```

When you said it made no sense to promote to a Rook or Bishop, it brought this position to mind. Here, if White promotes to a Queen, the game is drawn, but if White promotes to a rook, White wins.

on 1. c8/Q Black would answer 1 ... Rc4+ 2, Qxc4 stalemate. But on 1. c8/R 2. Rc4+ White can capture the rook without fear of stalemate.

Sometimes the queen is *not* the most powerful piece available. Every position is different, and the extra move possibilities of the Queen can work against you sometimes. Whenever you promote, think. Most of the time, yes, a Queen is the best choice; but not always. Look around and see if a different piece would be better, or if there is a danger of stalemate posed by the queen's extra moves.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Here is a fun tactic, involving underpromotion, to finish off the game if you are two connected pawns up in a rook endgame. I saw this in an endgame manual a long time ago, but cannot find the source anymore. The tactic is totally unnecessary as white has other ways to win. Still, it's quite impressive.

```
[FEN "r6k/8/6PP/5RK1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rf8+ Rxf8 2.g7+ Kh7 (2...Kg8 3.Kg6) 3.gxf8=N+!(3.gxf8=B!)(3.gxf8=Q??)(3.gxf8=R??)

```

After `1.Rf8+ Rxf8 2.g7+` black doesn't play `2...Kg8` because of `3.Kg6` and mate next move (`4.h7#`). Instead black plays `2...Kh7` hoping for stalemate. Then `3.gxf8=N+!` and `3.gxf8=B!` both win, while `3.gxf8=Q??` and `3.gxf8=R??` lead to immediate draw.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here, 29. ... Ba3+!! and promoting to knight could've save the game!

```
[Date "2012.05.12"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "Ni Hua"]
[StartPly "57"]
[WhiteElo "2673"]
[Black "Le Quang Liem"]
[BlackElo "2703"]
[Event "Asian Continental Open Championship"]
[Site "Ho Chi Minh City"]
[Round "8"]
[ECO "B84"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2 Qc7 8.g4 b5 9.g5 Nfd7 10.a3 Bb7 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f4 Nc5 14.Bf3 Qb7 15.Qd4 e5 16.fxe5 Ne6 17.Qd2 dxe5 18.Nd5 Bd6 19.O-O-O O-O 20.h4 a5 21.h5 b4 22.h6 bxa3 23.b3 Rfc8 24.Nb6 Bb4 25.Qh2 Bxe4 26.hxg7 a2 27.Kb2 a4 28.c4 axb3 29.g6 Ba3+!! 30.Kxb3 a1=N+!! 31.Rxa1 ( 31.Kc3 Rxc4+!! ( 31...Bb4+! 32.Kxb4 Ra4+!! 33.Kc3 ( 33.Kxa4 Nc5+ 34.Bxc5 Qc6+ 35.Ka3 Qxc5+ 36.Ka2 Qa5+ 37.Kb2 Qxb6+ 38.Kxa1 Qa5+ 39.Qa2 Qc3+ 40.Qb2 Ra8# ) 33...Rcxc4+!! 34.Kd2 ( 34.Nxc4 Qb4# ) 34...Ra2+ 35.Ke1 Rxh2 ) 32.Kd2 ( 32.Nxc4 Qb4# ) ( 32.Kxc4 Qc6+ 33.Bc5 Qxc5# ) 32...Rc2+ 33.Ke1 Rxh2 ) 31...Qxb6+!! 32.Bxb6 Nd4+!! 33.Kc3 ( 33.Bxd4 Rcb8+ 34.Kc3 ( 34.Ka2 Bc5# ) 34...Bb4+ 35.Kb2 Bd2+ 36.Bb6 Rxb6# ) 33...Rxc4+!! 34.Kxc4 ( 34.Kd2 Nxf3+ 35.Kd1 Nxh2 36.Rxh2 fxg6 ) 34...Rc8+ 35.Bc5 Rxc5#
0-1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Sometimes the reason to promote to a knight is not that it avoids stalemate, forks, skewers, or saves a game. It can simply be that it is the strongest move in the position.

According to Tim Krabbe, on his site's page "Chess Records," the game Schweber-Wexler, Buenos Aires, 1964 (link the chessgames.com) has such a position.

> "This is the only game with two Knight promotions that were the strongest move. Promotions to Queen would have been equally strong, but as the Knight promotions were checks, they were more obvious, and therefore genuine."

```
[Title "Schweber-Wexler, Buenos Aires, 1964"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "90"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Qc7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Qe2 d6 8. f4 Nbd7 9. Kh1 Be7 10. c4 b6 11. Nc3 Bb7 12. Bd2 O-O 13. Rae1 Rad8 14. Bb1 Rfe8 15. f5 exf5 16. Nxf5 Bf8 17. Bg5 Rc8 18. Nh6+ gxh6 19. Bxf6 Nxf6 20. Rxf6 Bg7 21. Qg4 Re5 22. Rxh6 Qe7 23. Nd5 Qg5 24. Qxg5 Rxg5 25. Ne7+ Kf8 26. Nxc8 Bxh6 27. Nxd6 Bc6 28. Rf1 Be8 29. Nf5 Bg7 30. Nxg7 Kxg7 31. Kg1 Rc5 32. Bd3 Bd7 33. Kf2 Be6 34. b4 Rc7 35. Rc1 Kf6 36. Ke3 Ke5 37. a3 f6 38. c5 b5 39. a4 bxa4 40. Bxa6 a3 41. b5 a2 42. b6 Rg7 43. b7 Rg8 44. c6 Kd6 45. c7 a1=Q 46. c8=N+ Rxc8 47. bxc8=N+.

```

Stockfish 8 seems to agree with Tim Krabbe. I replicated Black’s last move in the position before White’s promotion, and Stockfish promoted to a knight. I followed with the same rook capture. Once more, the computer again played what White did; the second knight bounced along.

Another good reason is that it comes with a checkmate. The score comes from chessgames.com.

```
[Title "Wiede-Alphonse Goetz, Strasbourg, 1880"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "13"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. b3 Qh4+ 4. g3 fxg3 5. h3 g2+ 6. Ke2 Qxe4+ 7. Kf2 gxh1=N#

```

Finally, maybe you are Hikaru Nakamuru and you want to *horse* around some for fun! Once more, the score comes from chessgames.com.

```
[Title "Crafty Computer-Hikaru Nakamura, ICC Blitz, 2007"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "178"]

1. Nc3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Bc4 e6 4. Nf3 Ne7 5. O-O d6 6. d4 O-O 7. Bg5 h6 8. Be3 b6 9. Qd2 Kh7 10. d5 e5 11. Ne1 f5 12. f3 f4 13. Bf2 g5 14. Nd3 h5 15. Rae1 Ng6 16. Re2 Bh6 17. Ne1 g4 18. Qd3 a6 19. a4 Nd7 20. Kh1 Nf6 21. b4 Rf7 22. Rg1 g3 23. hxg3 fxg3 24. Bxg3 h4 25. Bxh4 Nxh4 26. g3 Ng6 27. Rh2 Kg7 28. Kg2 Rf8 29. Nd1 Rh8 30. Rgh1 Bg5 31. Rxh8 Nxh8 32. Nf2 Ng6 33. c3 Qe8 34. b5 a5 35. Nc2 Ne7 36. Nh3 Bxh3+ 37. Rxh3 Qg6 38. Kf2 Rh8 39. Rxh8 Kxh8 40. Ba2 Nd7 41. Ne1 Nc5 42. Qc2 Qh6 43. Ng2 Ng6 44. Bc4 Qh2 45. Bf1 Kg7 46. Qa2 Nf8 47. Bc4 Nh7 48. Kf1 Qh1+ 49. Kf2 Qc1 50. Be2 Nf6 51. Qc4 Bd2 52. g4 Qxc3 53. Qxc3 Bxc3 54. Bd1 Bd2 55. Nh4 Ng8 56. Ke2 Bg5 57. Nf5+ Kf7 58. Bc2 Ne7 59. Ng3 Nd7 60. Kd3 Ng6 61. Nf5 Kf6 62. Kc3 Nh4 63. Nxh4 Bxh4 64. Kd2 Kg5 65. Bd1 Kf4 66. Ke2 Nf6 67. Kf1 Nh7 68. Kg2 Be1 69. Kf1 Bg3 70. Be2 Ng5 71. Kg1 Nxf3+ 72. Kg2 Ne1+ 73. Kf1 Nc2 74. Kg2 Ne3+ 75. Kh3 Be1 76. g5 Kxg5 77. Kh2 Kf4 78. Bd3 Ng4+ 79. Kg2 Nf2 80. Bc2 Nxe4 81. Bb3 Nc5 82. Kf1 Nxb3 83. Kxe1 Nc5 84. Ke2 Nxa4 85. Ke1 Nc5 86. Kf2 Ke4 87. Kg2 Kxd5 88. Kg3 Kc4 89. Kg4 Kxb5 90. Kg3 a4 91. Kf3 a3 92. Ke3 a2 93. Kf2 a1=N 94. Ke3 Kc6 95. Kf3 Nab3 96. Kg4 Nd4 97. Kg5 Nde6+ 98. Kf5 Kd7 99. Kg4 b5 100. Kf3 b4 101. Kg3 b3 102. Kf3 b2 103. Kg4 b1=N 104. Kf5 Na3 105. Kg4 Nb7 106. Kf5 Nf8 107. Ke4 Nd8 108. Kd3 Nb5 109. Kc4 Na7 110. Kd3 Nc8 111. Ke4 Ke6 112. Ke3 d5 113. Kd2 c5 114. Kd1 e4 115. Kc2 d4 116. Kb2 Kd5 117. Kc1 c4 118. Kd2 e3+ 119. Ke1 Ke4 120. Kf1 d3 121. Ke1 c3 122. Kd1 c2+ 123. Kc1 e2 124. Kd2 Kd4 125. Ke1 c1=N 126. Kd2 Nb3+ 127. Ke1 Kc3 128. Kf2 Nc5 129. Ke1 Nce6 130. Kf2 Nc7 131. Kf3 e1=N+ 132. Kf2 Nc2 133. Kf1 Ne8 134. Kg2 Nfe6 135. Kf2 Nf6 136. Kf3 Nd6 137. Kg3 Nc6 138. Kg2 N2d4 139. Kh3 N4f5 140. Kg2 Nfe7 141. Kf2 Ng6 142. Ke1 Kc2 143. Kf2 d2 144. Kg2 d1=N 145. Kf1 Nc3 146. Kf2 Ncd5 147. Kg2 Nce5 148. Kg1 Nde4 149. Kg2 Nd4 150. Kg1 Ngf4 151. Kh1 Nfg4152. Kg1 Nde3 153. Kh1 Ndf5 154. Kg1 Nf3+ 155. Kh1 Nfg3# 0-1

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
In some cases the knight's ability to attack in L-shaped directions is more useful than a queen's straight line attack vectors. Delivering an immediate mate with a knight would be an example.

Also, promoting to a rook/bishop can be preferable to a queen since it could avoid a stalemate. The same logic can also be applied to a knight.

---
Tags: endgame, pawns, knights, pawn-promotion, point-value
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to manually alter initial values in a chess engine?
I am curious of the games that would arise if I changed the initial value of a knight to -1 or make standing on e5 worth -10 points.

How would I go about to create such an engine? Is it possible to alter an existing engine in such a way and let it play against itself?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes. You can download the source code for Stockfish here. Once you have done that you need to work out where the evaluation functions are and change them according to your requirements. Then recompile and run.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why is 7...Ne4 8.Bd2 such a popular line in this variation of the Queen's Indian Defence?
This is the opening I'm referring to:

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.O-O Be7 6.c4 O-O 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Bd2!?

```

The other white book moves at this point seem sensible `8.Qc2` or `8.Qd3`, or even `8.Nxe4` (which seems to almost always draw). I'm unsure about `8.Bd2`, as it seems to give up the bishop pair (and `8...Nxd2` has been played, e.g., Gelfand vs. Radjabov, 2017) and it puts the bishop on a fairly modest square, but it's listed as having 1500+ master games at LiChess.

**Question**: Why is 7...Ne4 8.Bd2 such a popular line in this variation of the Queen's Indian Defence?

The most popular continuation on LiChess is the following:

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.O-O Be7 6.c4 O-O 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Bd2 f5 9.d5 Bf6 10.Rc1 Na6 11.a3 Nac5 12.b4 Nxc3 13.Bxc3 Ne4 14. Bxf6 Qxf6

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
White wants to avoid doubled c-pawns and all of the moves you mention, Qc2, Qd3, Nxe4 and Bd2 achieve this.

As you note, Nxe4, exchanging knights tends to be drawish, so is not what most white players want.

With the queen moves (Qc2, Qd3) your queen will end up on c3, which is a bit of an unusual square for the queen. Also the c1-bishop is not developed yet, so white would still have to connect his rooks and likely move the queen to a better square.

8. Bd2 is a modest development move for the bishop, but it does make space for the rooks. Also, if black takes Nxc3, Bxc3 and the bishop has found a very nice square on c3.

I would not be concerned about giving up the bishop pair. The black knight on e4 is a rather strong piece while the dark squared bishop is the weaker of white's bishops due to the pawn structure.

---
Tags: opening, queens-indian
---


# Question
Title: Has there ever been a game where multiple humans play against a single chess computer?
I'm wondering if the following scenario has ever been played out:

> Once side of a chess game is played by multiple humans at once, collaboratively determining what the next move will be. This could, perhaps, be enforced by some sort of game logic where the move with the highest percentage is the chosen-move. Let's pretend that there could be as many as 1000 humans contributing to the decision making. The other side is played by a single chess computer, and a reasonably-good one at that.

Has anyone ever attempted something like this? If so, what was the outcome? Does adding more human players to make decisions for one side of the game increase the likelihood of that side defeating a computer opponent?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Six months ago a match was held on ICC: Komodo, one of the strongest engine, faced hundreds of people combined. Komodo won.

http://www.chessclub.com/article/icc-vs.-komodo-online-voting-match

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here's a source about how GM David Howell and three others took on AlphaZero in a game. They played two games, both drawn.

Caveat: AlphaZero isn't like conventional engines. Conventional engines have a "contempt" score that tweaks how it plays against weaker opposition. With a high contempt score, conventional engines are very likely to have beaten GM David Howell and his three teammates.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, usually in Freestyle tournaments (which normally consist of mixed human and computer teams). There is some detail on them here, dealing particularly with the PAL/CSS tournaments.

This Freestyle site is worth a look too, though the focus is specifically Centaur (i.e. human & computer) entries. There's a little more on this topic in the Wikipedia article for Advanced Chess.

Be careful of sites that say Freestyle is just like Correspondence chess, there is a key difference. In Freestyle you can use any aspect of computer assistance, including engine analysis. In correspondence (using the ICCF rules) you cannot analyse games or positions, but using opening books or looking up databases is acceptable (it is considered the same as reading books or exploring openings). The point being that you need to be the one making the assessment and the decision.

---
Tags: engines, software, study, human-versus-machine, simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: Why did Black allow White to capture en passant two times in a row?
I read about this game on Tim Krabbe’s website and found it on chessgames.com. I am severely confused by Black’s 30th and 31st moves.

```
[Title "Sergey Gennadyevich Kudrin-Rudy C Douven, GMA Baleares op, Palma de Mallorca Spain, 12/1989"]
[startply "59"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qc7 13. O-O-O Ngf6 14. Ne4 O-O-O 15. g3 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 Nf6 17. Qe2 Bd6 18. Ne5 c5 19. Rh4 Bxe5 20. dxe5 Nd7  21. Rg4 Rhg8 22. Re1 Qc6 23. Qe4 Nb8 24. Rf4 Rd7 25. Qh7 Rgd8 26. Ba5 b6 27. Bc3  Qd5 28. b3 b5 29. Kb1 b4 30. Bb2 f5 31. exf6 g5 32. hxg6 Rxh7 33. gxh7 e5 34. Rxe5 Qf7 35. Re7 Qf8 36. f7 Qxe7 37. f8=Q Rxf8 38. Rxf8+ Qxf8 39. h8=Q Qxh8 40. Bxh8 h5 41. Kc1 Kd7 42. Kd2 Ke6 43. Ke3 Kf5 44. f3 Nd7 45. Kd3 Nb6 46. Bg7 a5 47. Bf8 Nd7 48. Bd6 Ke6 49. Bc7 Kd5 50. c4+ bxc3 51. Kxc3

```

Why would Black let White capture en passant two times in a row and gain two very powerful passed pawns? Sure, the queen gets nabbed, but I just don’t think that it’s a good idea. What good is nabbing one queen when two more might soon pop up?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The point was to win the queen. Yes, White gets two passed pawns, but a passed pawn won't necessarily get to be promoted.

Sure it happened in the game, but that's not really the point here.

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, positional-play, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: What are the quckest helpmates delivered by the rook, knight, bishop, and pawn?
What are the quickest helpmates, which is where both sides help administer checkmate to one side, delivered by the rook, knight, bishop, and pawn? The said piece has to deliver the checkmate on the final move.

# Answer
Here's what I came up with.

Bishop took me 3 moves:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 f5 2.Be2 g5 3.Bh5#  *

```

Knight took me 3 moves as Black:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 Nc6 2.Ne2 Nd4 3.g3 Nf3#  *

```

Pawn took me 5 moves:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 Na6 2.Bc4 Nb4 3.e5 Na6 4.e6 Nc5 5.exf7#  *

```

Rook initially took me 6 moves, with 1.h4 f5 2.Rh3 f4 3.d4 f3 4.Rxf3 g6 5.Bh6 Nc6 6.Rxf8#. But I found a quicker way to checkmate with a rook - promote to one! This results in a checkmate in 5:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. g4 Nh6 2. g5 g6 3. gxh6 Bg7 4. hxg7 Na6 5. gxh8=R#

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
I came across a rook mate in 4.5 moves *without* promotion on a page called "Shortest Mates in Proof Games" at janko.at/Retros/index.htm. This elected curiosity for other types of shortest mates, including a shorter pawn mate than the accepted answer.

Non-Promoted Rook

```
[FEN ""]

1. a4 c5 2. a5 Qxa5 3. Rxa5 c4 4. Rc5 c3 5. Rxc8#

```

Pawn

```
[FEN ""]

1. e3 e5 2. Ke2 Qh4 3. Kf3 f6 4. Be2 e4#

```

Pawns can also do double-steps. Nick's Mad Chess Blog provides one of many possible sequences.

```
[FEN ""]

1. c4 d6 2. Qb3 Kd7 3. e3 Kc6 4. Qxb7+ Kc5 5. d4#

```

Via Bishop Promotion

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 g6 2. d5 Bh6 3. d6 Kf8 4. dxe7+ Kg7 5.Qd6 Qf8 6. exf8=B#

```

Via Knight Promotion

```
[FEN ""]

 1. h4 d5 2. h5 Nd7 3. h6 Ndf6 4. hxg7 Kd7 5. Rh6 Ne8 6. gxf8=N#

```

Another option is to promote, and then give mate.

With A Promoted Bishop

```
[FEN ""]

 1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 Qb6 3. c6 Nh6 4. cxb7 Nc6 5. bxc8=B Nd8 6. Bxd7#

```

With A Promoted Knight

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. g4 Nc6 2. g5 e6 3. g6 Nce7 4. gxh7 g5 5. hxg8=N Rh3 6. Nf6#

```

With A Promoted Rook

```
[FEN ""]

1. g4 h5 2. gxh5 g6 3. h6 Bg7 4. hxg7 Nf6 5. gxh8=R+ Ng8 6. Rxg8#

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's not in your original question, but the game here can be adapted for a mate-in-5 by the king:

```
[FEN ""]

1. f3 e5 2. Kf2 Ke7 3. Kg3 d6 4. Kh4 Kf6 5. g3 Kg6#

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory, checkmate, pawns, problems, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Could playing in chess tournaments make you really good at chess?
This is essentially the same as my question https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/23207/could-being-given-unlimited-tries-to-correctly-answer-an-open-ended-question-be except that it's specifically about chess. I'm linking that question because I'm not sure if it would be self plagiarism if I didn't because this question appears to be a derivative work based on it. I have other stuff on my mind and am not myself interested in devoting a lot of attention to chess and grew to dislike chess because of the detrimental effects it appeared to be having on my brain by my standards and very rarely play actual chess games these days, but am asking this because I think it could be useful for other people.

I think that sometimes when somebody takes a chess lesson or reads a chess book, it can give them some help but if they don't play in tournaments, the lessons and books alone will not be enough to make them a grandmaster because they will not be able to figure out the underlying high level abstract concepts that are the underlying reason the books and the lessons say what they say. On the other hand some people, if they regularly play in tournaments with a 90 minute base time and 30 second increments, might begin to notice some predictable pattern to the way their game play affects the game play of their opponent in future matches. The pattern is pretty much this. Every opponent with the same rating will have essentially the same probabilistic distribution on their style of play from the outset because they're randomly paired with somebody of similar rating and don't already know that person's style of play, and the combination of information about how each of your games went; which colour you played as in each match; and the rating of each of your opponents and the rating you had before the match determines what your rating will be changed to after the match. Also what your rating is determines how they will pair you in your next tournament. With the predictable pattern in how your game play determines the game play of your future opponents, their rating, and your rating, the brain can adapt to have you realize that although you can't get a high rating right away, you can get it eventually and then you can adopt the creative thinking approach for slowly figuring out the solution to the problem of how to eventually get a really high rating.

Is there any research on whether playing in tournaments in general is a really great way to become really good at chess? If so, do you know if it's the case that most people who regularly play in tournaments end up really good at chess?

# Answer
They key word here is balance. You need to study, train and practice in the appropriate proportion you feel a significant improvement.

Many players have seen high improvements at the lower level by playing their first tournaments, but game analysis is probably the largest cause of that difference (it helps the player identify mistakes and avoid them in the future)
> 1 votes

# Answer
> Is there any research on whether playing in tournaments in general is a really great way to become really good at chess?

No, for the very obvious reason that the only way we find out that a player is good at chess is by their tournament performance over a period of time. A "player" who never plays any tournaments will never come to the chess world's attention as being any good.

> If so, do you know if it's the case that most people who regularly play in tournaments end up really good at chess?

According to the rating system most players who play regularly in tournaments improve as indicated by their rising rating however, almost by definition of "really good at chess", few players end up being really good at chess. So, no, most people who regularly play in tournaments don't end up being really good at chess.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, strategy, rating, tournament
---