title: HElp! Can i still reach master level?

text:
# Question
Title: HElp! Can i still reach master level?
I started playing chess when i was 13, year 2009. After a year and a half i reached 1850 peek ncfp(philppines) rating, i was 14 turning 15 that time. Due to personal reasons, I stopped playing chess when i was 16. Leaving my ncfp rating 1805. Now im turning 21. I started playing again. I stopped for nearly 5 years without playing. And just got back my interest in the game recently. The question is can i stil be at leastt ba national master or is it too late. I practiced almost everyday again and have a 1860 rating in chess.com. is it still possible for me to get into master level?? Because since i started playing. I dreamed to be a master. Its a broken dream for me that i want to continue. I have a hard time playing because i think that im left out with my batchmates from chess . Some of them are masters already. Thankss!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, with enough study and practice, it's possible to become a master at any age. There's even a book titled "Chess Master at any Age", written by a player who became a master at the age of 50.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you are not dead, you still have time.

> I think im stronger when i was young. But im having a hard time getting it back. What should i do?

Take shortcuts, cheat, drink at tournaments...

Come on, man. Take a deep breath and realize that there's nothing to be anxious about. It's going to happen as fast as it's going to happen. But you can get started on that process by opening a chess book, reading it, and applying what you learned over-the-board (and by yourself at home, playing against yourself).

Any chess book that you learn even just one thing from was useful. Here's my list:

1. *100 Endgames You Must Know* by Jesus De La Villa
2. *Re-assess Your Chess* by Jeremy Silman
3. *Art of Attack* by Vladimir Vukovic

Those three are more than enough to get you started.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: How do you teach chess to a beginner / rookie?
Recently, I got some students (beginners) in chess, and I would like to teach them how to play but I don't know where to start! They already know how to move pieces and some concepts on how to play, but still they are rookies. Where can I start from ?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The chess teacher Elizabeth Spiegel has a beginner curriculum that she points to in this blog post. It assumes no prior knowledge of chess on the part of the students.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have a couple of suggestions, some tried and true, others more experimental using modern technology.

**1. Start from the endgame**

**Pros**

* Starting backwards will allow the player to understand chess at a deep, fundamental level
* If you learn the endgame first, you are constantly moving toward a place *you are comfortable with* when you play the game (as opposed to a middlegame player, who is constantly moving *away* from his comfort zone)
* The endgame is grounded on the concrete, but requires sound positional understanding to play well, thus learning it allows you to learn all aspects of the game

**Cons**

* It can sometimes be tedious to teach and learn the endgame (I'm having this problem myself)
* It requires a lot of initial investment from the student, for what seems to be little return (they may get caught by tactics, or opening traps in OTB games, making them discouraged)

**2. Teach a thinking algorithm**

Basically, create a simple step-by-step process (allow the student to come up with their own and then help them tweak it) which aids in making decisions OTB (i.e moves).

**Pros**

* Very easy to do and has almost immediate results (an anti-blunder check at the end of every move goes a long way to improve one's game)
* A fundamental skill which is necessary for every phase of the chess game
* Can be built upon as more knowledge about the game is garnered

**Cons**

* None, except for the fact that you aren't focusing on any one thing in particular

**3. Tactics, tactics, tactics!**

This is more experimental and involves drilling tactical puzzles (I recommend this book, the puzzles are beautifully arranged so that they build on one another) until they can be done "by hand" (i.e directly from memory).

**Pros**

* All the benefits that tactical training provides, including:
    1. Able to handle complex positions with little difficulty
    2. Increase in visualization abilities
    3. Confidence in one's own moves (i.e that they won't be subverted by a missed tactic)
    4. General decrease in blunders and increase in noticing opponents blunders
* Memorization of the positions, allows the creation of "building blocks". These are useful because you can often simplify complex positions in these basic blocks
* Its just more fun to explore tactical fireworks

**Cons**

* Focusing on just tactics, does not give a true *understanding* of the game, which is really more important for future success
* There is a diminishing return, after which no amount of drilling will help
* It can be tedious

# Answer
> 0 votes
As a coach to kids, I usually start with how to win games, figuring that, if they can't win a won game, they won't get anything else I try to teach. I'll give them a queen and king versus my king and see if they can checkmate me. Then we do it with a rook. Also, checkmates. I love "How to Beat Your Dad at Chess". If you just try to get your pieces in similar locations to the winners in those problems (and avoid the locations of the one being checkmated), you'll probably do quite fine for quite a while. "Tactics for Kids" is a good second book. When you get good enough that the game comes down to promoting a pawn, you will need to find an endgame book (but that's another question). Opening theory is last. There are plenty of good opening moves available, so there is no need to learn a particular sequence until you have the rest of the game figured out.

Good luck and have fun.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have been training a few students for the past year and a half now. I have been a player myself for the past ten years. Recently, I wrote a trainer's manual on chess. I feel that it is important for the trainer to instill a sense of confidence in the student's mind for chess. It is imperative to teach the correct rules and regulations of the game according to the latest tournament rules. For a complete beginner, it is necessary to make the student learn how to checkmate in one-two moves, the basic opening position and principles, the basic middle game principles, and some basic endgame checkmates(a single rook, two rooks, a pawn, a queen). It is also important to make the student aware about the happenings in the world of chess. Make the student know about the different world champions, different world tournaments, and the various chess events across the world. One can also start making the student participate in a few local events to get the confidence up. Trainers must also make use of practice play and must guide their students on their overall development of the game.

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory, teaching, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Why is it a good idea to teach chess in schools?
There is a "movement" towards teaching chess in school and perhaps introduce chess as its own subject. What are the advantages of teaching chess at schools? In what ways is chess similar to other school subjects (e.g. math)? What "life skills" will the students learn by learning chess?

# Answer
> What are the advantages of teaching chess at schools?

That depends. If you like chess, the advantage of having chess classes for free from good teachers (assuming they are good) is that you play your favourite game / learn something you like / have people to play with / all of this is free. It is really good for average chess players (who will be able to find steady income by teaching others).

But knowing this you have to understand that there are people who do not like chess. How will you feel if right now you will be forced to learn how to play the triangle (kind of funny musical instrument that I by myself find kind of lame). What would you think if your child instead of math/biology/whatever subject you find important would be wasting his time learning triangle/chess which in my opinion will not help his career (assuming he will not become pro triangle / chess player)?

Also forcing a child to do something is not a good way for him to like this something. I enjoy playing chess, but if when I was child I would be forced to go study chess - most probably I would hate this game. There are a lot of places for a person to play chess in his free time enjoying it, so why spoil the fun with compulsory things?

> What "life skills" will the students learn by learning chess

What life skills will you gain by swimming / playing the triangle? You will not drown fast in case of flood. You will become a good swimmer. You will learn how to play the triangle and will be able to properly hear/understand music. People can argue that music will make you a better person, swimming will make you more fit, organized, but I am not aware of the proper studies conducted. What skills will you gain by training to solve IQ tests every day? Will you perform well in physics, economy, history, programming? Highly doubtful, and average person who spends 1/10 of your time learning one of these things will perform better. IQ tests will make you a better IQ test solver.

The same way with chess - by learning chess you will learn how to play chess, maybe will learn abstract thinking, thinking ahead and analyzing your options.

I by myself was speaking with some of the top 200 grandmasters and based on their discussion, chess is hard to make money on. You spend thousands of hours on learning preparation, dedication to mastery. And if you are not in top 20 it is really hard to get normal money out of it. Yes, you can publish books, create videos, participate in paid tournaments (which requires a lot of time and effort), but after this amount of time spent in economy you can secure a steady good income.
> 5 votes

# Answer
# The Benefits of Chess in Education

Take a look at The Benefits of Chess in Education *(original link)* from the Kasparov Foundation, which gives a detailed overview about the benefits of teaching children to play chess.

The document describes among other things the following points:

## Academic benefits

* **Focusing**: Children learn to concentrate, because they have to if they want to play good
* **Visualizing**: Children have to image a sequence of actions before it happens
* **Planning**: Children need to plan longer goals and take steps towards them if they want to win
* **Weighing Options**: Children need to weigh options. They are taught not doing the first thing that pops into their mind.
* Furhtermore: **thinking ahead**, **analyzing concretely**, **thinking abstractly**, **juggling multiple considerations simultaneously**

## Social benefits

Chess...

* ... often serves as a bridge to **bring together** children of any kind
* ... helps **building friendships**
* ... teaches **sportsmanship** (how to win graciously, how to lose - like in other sports clubs)
> 4 votes

# Answer
The following study holds that chess in schools helps students with low-level gains in intelligence, but no high level gains. In other words, if I'm correct in my memory of the study it can teach "life lessons" like sports, but with no gains in intelligence versus sports. So, knowledge of the game would only lead to knowledge in the overlap of fields. Of course, depending upon your view as to the size of "chess-related" mathematics and computer science this would affect your judgement as to the effectiveness of teaching the game.

The paper is below, judge for yourself.

This flies in the face of what I first thought, but is an interesting take. As one who publishes in the field of "chess-related" mathematics and played scholastically for 12 years (yes 1st grade through 12th), I say the paper underestimates the vastness of the overlap between mathematics, computer science, and chess (not to mention sociology, philosophy, and other fields).

http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstffg/preprints/chess\_and\_education.PDF
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think a lot of this debate centres around differences between boys and girls and men and women. If we are not allowed IQ or intelligence skills, then what could we possibly actually mean by "life skills" - sometimes, this is not an easy question either at the chess club,or in the classroom, or outside the pub at closing time.... I could go on. (But I won't). Will they eventually give us a "Life Quotient" and will it be measured by the number of kids you've got, or divorces you've experienced -- will it be means tested???? As I say I could go on.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chess is a fun and interesting game to learn and play. It has many benefits for youngsters and thus it is important for the chess in schools to take shape. Founding my own project, where I teach chess to underprivileged and blind children, I discovered the many benefits of chess for these children.

1. Chess builds up confidence and makes the players motivated.
2. It also provides a recreation for the students who otherwise waste their time on television and video games.
3. It provides a growth medium for the brain and is like a brain gym. In the future, the risk of Alzheimer can be prevented.
4. Chess makes the player positive and focused.
5. Chess also helps a player to excel in other school activities.
6. It develops a strong personality for the player and helps the player to survive strong battles.
7. It leads to a change in the thinking and pattern recognizing abilities. Improvement in both these areas are visible in most chess players.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There really cannot be any educational value in just knowing the moves of the pieces, or memorizing how to mate with a Rook, or making random moves on your side while another kid makes random moves on the other.

The justification has to be that a good teacher who is also a chess enthusiast will find the game to be an inexhaustible source of teachable moments, and will use these to convey valuable lessons whether thay are on the syllabus or not. Very few studies of the benefits or lack of benefits ever seem to describe HOW the game was taught, and therfore offer no valid basis for any conclusions
> 0 votes

---
Tags: teaching
---


# Question
Title: How to send uci messages from c# app to stockfish on android?
I downloaded the binary of Android Stockfish arm64-v8a and looked in the CPP source files. In main() there is all initialization, and then there is UCI::loop(), which catches standard input with getline() and writes back with sync\_cout(). How can I write to the engine from a c# (xamarin) application? And is it necessary to make some additional initialization?

I found this, which could be close to my problem, but maybe it is not. I don't want to spend three days just to see I'm doing complete nonsense.

Also I don't know how to recognize Stockfish's console. Is there only one console, no matter how many different libraries the program can use?

As I don't understand the technical part much, I'm including a screenshot of what I expect to be the Stockfish I should communicate with :-). If it is wrong from the beginning, please let me know.

**EDIT**: What file type is the stockfish-8-arm64-v8a, is it android native library or native shell executable or something else? Where to put the file, how to set it up (in Visual Studio 2015), how to call it from code? I have some code that I tried here but still I can't make it work.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Finally I made it work with big help of @SmallChess and @Andrew. The first problem came with file `stockfish-8-armeabi-v7a` with no extension and not much informations about. That's why I asked here. The answer by SmallChess was precise, I just couldn't make things work and I couldn't confirm it for very long time. I run into various problems, more or less easy to deal with, but this one took a lot of time:

> I correctly copied the file to folder of my application, but I didn't have permission to run it.

So I had to change it with

```
string[] cmd = { "chmod", "744", Path.Combine(strToFolder, fileName) };
Java.Lang.Runtime.GetRuntime().Exec(cmd);

```

and things started to be very easy from now, as Andrew's answer provides fully functional code, which would take also a lot of time to write with not much understanding of the problem, so big thanks to him too.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When you're using C#, you can use any UCI engine in the same manner. With C# you have to add an event handler to the `OutputDataReceived` event (and optionally the `ErrorDataReceived` event). As a quick example:

```
ProcessStartInfo si = new ProcessStartInfo() {
    FileName = uciPath,
    UseShellExecute = false,
    CreateNoWindow = true,
    RedirectStandardError = true,
    RedirectStandardInput = true,
    RedirectStandardOutput = true
};

myProcess = new Process();
myProcess.StartInfo = si;
try {
    // throws an exception on win98
    myProcess.PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.BelowNormal;
} catch { }

myProcess.OutputDataReceived += new DataReceivedEventHandler(myProcess_OutputDataReceived);

myProcess.Start();
myProcess.BeginErrorReadLine();
myProcess.BeginOutputReadLine();

SendLine("uci");
SendLine("isready");
SendLine("ucinewgame");

```

And the methods alluded to above:

```
    private void SendLine(string command) {
        myProcess.StandardInput.WriteLine(command);
        myProcess.StandardInput.Flush();
    }

    private void myProcess_OutputDataReceived(object sender, DataReceivedEventArgs e) {
        string text = e.Data;
        //Debug.WriteLine("[UCI] " + text);
    }

```

This is an incredibly simplified example. In my own code I have a semaphore in order to fully process each output line before moving on to the next one and several semaphores in the UCI start and "isready" handling.

For a full overview of the UCI protocol, check out the specification.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You're using the compiled Stockfish binary so you don't need to worry anything about C++. You only need to think about C++ if you're compiling the Stockfish source code yourself (but you're not).

The link you have is about calling a DLL in C# - this has nothing to what you want to do. The Stockfish program you have is independently compiled, and has nothing to do with Microsoft's DLL implementation.

You're looking for this:

> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4291912/process-start-how-to-get-the-output

You should start a new engine process, run it and communicate with the engine by UCI protocol.

**EDIT:**

I see you have started +100 bounty, but I think it's a **mistake**. I believe my answer is accurate but I'm unable to debug your environment. Your problem is the unknown file path. Have you added a text file, and try to read it in your app? If you can't load a text file in your program, you can't start a chess engine. Please give a go.

* Save a new text file to where you have the Stockfish engine
* Try to read the text file
* You may want to do it on a simulator. On your PC simulator, you can use path like `C:\Engine\SF_engine`.

Your technical difficulty has nothing to do with chess engine or UCI protocol, and thus off-topic here.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming
---


# Question
Title: How do GMs and IMs prepare for tournaments?
I was wondering, how does a normal training day look like for the higher-rated players? How much time do they allocate daily/weekly for opening and endgame preparation, tactical training etc? I assume that most of them know openings and endgames quite well, so what is that they try to improve, and how are they doing it?

# Answer
This question is too broad, everyone is training differently. There is also much more motivation on the side of strong young IMs than on side of weak GMs. A lot of colleagues just play, rarely train something, teach children, write articles, books, makes videos and try not to go much under 2500. They made a lot of hard training to get there, but are not working much anymore. Players of these strengths not overly motivated try to learn something from the additional chess work they do and I think the majority of them suffers as they recognize that such a chess work don't help them much to get better. But it probably helps them not to go down fast. And it certainly helps them get some money as this strength players often don't have hard everyday jobs. For me, team championships are all that matters and I try to be there always as well prepared as possible. I play tournaments too, but usually I prepare here much less and sometimes I just treat them like holidays. This is quite typical for my region, different parts of the planet will view things differently.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: training, grandmaster, preparation
---


# Question
Title: Does threefold repetition apply in a rapid game?
I had a winning position in a 10+5 OTB game, but I was low on time. I repeated position to gain some time. My opponent stopped the clock and claimed a draw. The arbiter was called, ans ww agreed that the position had been repeated three times. The game was judged a draw. I protested as I didn't think this rule apply to rapid chess. Who is correct?

# Answer
**TL;DR:** Claiming draws based on threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule is possible in rapid and blitz games as well. Contrary to RemcoGerlich's answer, it is not strictly necessary to record the moves to be able to claim a draw.

*Note: This is based on the version of the Laws coming into effect after 1 July, 2017. However, as I am not aware of changes afffecting my reasoning, the following also applies since at least 1 July, 2014.*

In rapid and blitz games, the tournament rules apply unless a certain rule is abrogated by the Appendices A and B for rapid and blitz games, respectively.

Up to July 2014, the rules made this very obvious (A.4 for rapidplay):

> Where supervision is inadequate the Competition Rules shall apply, except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Rapidplay:
>
> \[...\]

This provision has disappeared from the rules, but it is clear that this interpretation still holds.

Claims of draw by threefold repetition are covered by Article 9.2.1 of the Laws of Chess:

> 9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
>
> 9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
>
> 9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
>
> 9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
>
> 9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
>
> 9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

Let's not forget the paragraph immediately preceding article 9.2.1, applying both to threefold repetition and the fifty-move rule:

> 9.1.2.3 A claim of a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

Therefore, if a claim is made in accordance with the rules and the position has in fact appeared on the board for the third time, the arbiter must declare the game drawn. *(I would argue even if the player does not write down the move he intends to make the arbiter should declare the game drawn. See below.)*

Note that if the opponent of the player claiming the draw

* agrees to the implicit draw offer
* or agrees that a threefold repetition has, in fact, occured on the board,

the arbiter may declare the game drawn without further inquiry.

Really nitty-gritty nitpicking: If the claim has not been made in a formally correct way and the opponent agrees that a threefold repetition has occured or if both players wrongly agree the same position has occured three times, technically, the rules demand that the game is to be continued.

If neither of these criteria are met, the claimant has the **burden of proof**. In my opinion (other arbiters may disagree), the arbiter needs to be presented with "clear and convincing evidence", to use legal terminology, to determine the game drawn. Clearly, a correctly filled out scoresheet usually meets this standard of evidence.

However, the arbiter may also convince himself using other sources of information available to him. The following cases come to mind:

* As mentioned by RemcoGerlich, if the arbiter has been observing the game for a while (e. g. because it is the last game of the current round), he may conclude that a threefold repetition has occured. However, he may only intervene upon a correct claim of the players.
* If the game is played on an electronic chess board, the arbiter may certainly use the information provided there. (Even in normal games, I sometimes deem it necessary to check a claim using the livechess software.)
* The arbiter may ask neutral, objective bystanders. However, he has to be sure about their objectivity and understanding of the game.

Regarding the provision "\[...\] if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move \[...\]":

Many players and even arbiters will agree that following the procedure to claim a draw correctly can be quite complicated. The reason is that these rules ensure that **the opponent will be distracted as little as possible**. This is why you may not claim the draw when your opponent has the move. You are required to write the move down on the scoresheet as an indication that you intend to play that move. In rapid games, you usually don't write moves down. However, I would argue that clearly communicating your intent to the arbiter in those cases may be considered sufficient for a claim. In the new rules, this is made explicit by article A.2:

> Players do not need to record the moves, but do not lose their rights to claims normally based on a scoresheet. \[...\]

Even in the past, this has been the usual interpretation of the rules, at least in the German-speaking chess community. A similar case appeared in the German Bundesliga back in 2009. The final decision (in German) can be found here. Even though the player claiming the draw (a grandmaster) had neither stopped the clocks nor written down the move on his scoresheet, the deciding body ultimately ruled that the player clearly conveyed his intent to claim a draw by making a certain move and declared the game drawn.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: rules, threefold-repetition, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: On how old hardware can modern engines be run, and how strong are they?
For example, could modern Stockfish theoretically, with the hardware at the time, be entered into the 1974 World Computer Chess Championship? If so, would it be grandmaster level?

# Answer
> 3 votes
> could modern Stockfish theoretically, with the hardware at the time, be entered into the 1974 World Computer Chess Championship?

No. Modern Stockfish is not compatible with 1974 computer architecture.

Modern engines which can run on 64-bit Linux should be able to run on an early 90's Digital Equipment Corporation 64 bit Alpha PC running Unix with a suitable recompile and perhaps tweak of the code.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish is a C++ source code chess engine, so it will work if you can compile it. However, the C++ language was invented **after** the 1974 World Championship, so it wouldn't work even if you had the source code back in 1974.

No. Nothing would play at a grandmaster level on the 1974 hardware. Don't believe me? Limit your Stockfish to 100 nodes per move, and see what happens.

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


title: Entering and saving chess games

text:
# Question
Title: Entering and saving chess games
I used a chess pad to enter games. However, it lacks an undo feature and there is no way to correct an incorrectly entered position.
What other program can do this?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chesspad allows for deleting and adding new lines. To delete, right click on move in movelist and select delete. To add new variation, move back to move you want to add variation to, by either clicking or left arrow, and enter new move. Right clicking any variation will give you the option to make this the main line.

# Answer
> 1 votes
http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php is a free online tool where you can enter a chess game on an interactive chessboard and then save to PGN or to a bookmark link that leads back to the game.

---
Tags: engines, software
---


title: What next? I'm stuck!

text:
# Question
Title: What next? I'm stuck!
Sorry if this question is waaay too long, but I just want professional chess players to know exactly what I think and help me. I'd appreciate it if anyone interested went through my question thoroughly to address my problems. Plus, the game's **only 20 moves long**, so I hope you don't mind having a look at it.

Here is one of the best (honestly) games I've played. Beating a player rated 300 points above me (before the match, he was 1529, and I was 1229)is unprecedented, for me. But I've got a few problems. Firstly, I made it to move 10 comfortably only because the Slav defense was one of the **few** openings I am familiar with, having studied it when I was 13. I don't know why some of the moves in the opening were done, I did them just because they were in the Slav defense.

Next, I struggled to find the right moves after move 10. Till move 14, I went about with vague plans of building an impregnable defense. You might notice that my pawns sort of inhibited my opponent's minor pieces *(that's my take on it, I'm welcome to other opinions).* In the remaining moves, I tried to reposition my pieces because it was the best I felt I could do. My defense might have looked secure to me, but I felt that it was as *stable as a deck of playing cards*, and moving *even a single pawn to mount an attack* would likely bring it **crashing down** (I've learnt this the hard way). Thing is, my opponent thought a lot on his move and lost on time. I want your advice on a couple of issues:

* Was my idea of *repositioning* my pieces from the 10th move onwards good? As in, did I gain anything by doing so? I didn't have any other ideas.
* How would you rate my defense? Were my ideas good? I was just implementing Fred Reinfeld's advice.
* What should I do in such situations(which I often come across in middle games), where no attack seems to present itself to me? I'm usually good at noticing forks, checks, captures and so on(forcing moves), but when there are none, I sort of run out of ideas. I often risk pushing a pawn to mount an attack, only to see my defense unravel!
* Plus, I can't predict my opponent's thoughts. What general rules must I follow, especially if my opponent's moves mystify me(as they seem to have no direct purpose).
* If my moves weren't good (quite possible), please suggest an *alternative game plan*. Mine was to *defend solidly and pounce on weaknesses*. But defending is okay in the beginning, I have no idea how to carry on my plans in the middle game. I often resort to weak moves when I see no strong ones, just to keep moving. **To repeat something that is obvious**, I find it hard to mount attacks due to my defensive choices. But then, what else can I do? And don't some famous players play defensively?
* To summarize, I want to know if my moves (10th onwards)were effective, and if they weren't, what I should have done.

I value *both general and specific advice* equally!

I played **black.**

```
 [Site "Chess.com"]
 [Date "Jun 20, 2017"]
 [White "RDR22"]
 [Black "JoshuaFischer007"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [WhiteElo "1508"]
 [BlackElo "1337"]
 [TimeControl "1 in 0 day"]
 [Termination "JoshuaFischer007 won on time"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 Be7 7. e3 O-O 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Be2 Bf5 10. O-O Nbd7 11. a3 a6 12. b4 Qc7 13. Bd3 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Rae8 15. Rac1 Bd6 16. Bxf6 Nxf6 17. g3 Re7 18. Rc2 Rfe8 19. Rfc1 Qd7 20. Kg2 g6  0-1

```

PS: Did I get the tags right?

# Answer
> I made it to move 10 comfortably only because the Slav defense was one of the few openings I am familiar with, having studied it when I was 13. I don't know why some of the moves in the opening were done, I did them just because they were in the Slav defense.

At your level you should really forget about any "official" openings and focus on learning general principals, common themes like pawn breaks, weak/strong pieces,... and how to evaluate a position. Based on this you will come up with a plan that either improves on your weaknesses or works against your opponent's weaknesses. This will be useful for opening/middlegame/endgame. There is really no point following blindly some moves because they are in the book without understanding the idea behind them.

Regarding your game:

White played the opening rather timidly, posing no problems to you. 8. cxd5 exd5 helped black to free the bad bishop on c8. 9. Bd3 might have been more ambitious, aiming for the black king. 9. Be2 on the other hand gave you a nice square on f5 for your bishop.

I am not a Slav player but based on the position around move 10, I believe the natural plan for white is to play against the pawn on c6 by putting rook(s) on the c file and pushing the pawn to b5 (likely needs support from a pawn on a4). Black could work against this plan by

1. starting a counterattack on the kingside, making use of his more active pieces there or
2. by defending passively against the b5 break playing a6, perhaps the queen to d7, transferring a knight to d6, etc. Or prevent white from playing a4 by attacking the b4 pawn. Also, by just playing a6 you always get the option to take on b5 once (axb5) and get the open a file for counterplay. In that case you want your rook to be on a8.

White did not do much after move 10, exchanged a few pieces and played g3 which weakens the light squares (playing h3 would be better if you want to free the Nf3 from protecting the h2 pawn).

You doubled rooks on the e file, however you are not going to achieve anything there with just the rooks. You really need to play f5 and f4 (if necessary after g5) to weaken the white pawn structure. For this plan, it is not clear whether you want to have both rooks on the e file or perhaps one on the e and one on the f file.

Starting with 15. Rac1, you are in danger of running into tactics related to Nxd5 or Nxb5 (after b5 axb5) because of the pin of the c6 pawn. Might want to move your queen out of this pin, e.g. to d7 or b8.

It is unclear to me why you played 20...g6.

---

To your specific questions:

> Was my idea of repositioning my pieces from the 10th move onwards good? As in, did I gain anything by doing so? I didn't have any other ideas.

Looks mostly like natural development to me. One could argue about the rook placement and the queen as per above.

> How would you rate my defense? Were my ideas good?

You did not say what your "ideas" actually were. The moves were natural and mostly fine, but it was not really a challenging game/opening. Please replace the word "defense" with "opening play" in the question, as otherwise it suggests that you had to defend which you did not.

> What should I do in such situations(which I often come across in middle games), where no attack seems to present itself to me?

That is the tricky part of chess. In a position like this, where neither side has any real weaknesses and not much tactics going on, you can try to create weaknesses. This is often done by pawn breaks. For instance in the position you have, white wants to play b5 in order to either (i) capture on c6 (or on a6) which would leave you with a backward pawn on c6 which could easily be attacked; or (ii) if you capture twice on b5, leave you with doubled isolated pawns on the b file which would also be an easy target for the white rooks.

In a similar fashion, black could try to work against the e3 pawn or against the white king by breaking open the white pawn structure with f4.

> Plus, I can't predict my opponent's thoughts. What general rules must I follow, especially if my opponent's moves mystify me(as they seem to have no direct purpose).

Basically in the same way that you are coming up with a plan for yourself, you should come up with a plan for your opponent... and then see if that plan poses any danger to you, etc If you can't figure out what purpose your opponent's move have (as in this case they indeed seem to have no purpose), there is nothing you can do but go through with your plan.

> If my moves weren't good (quite possible), please suggest an alternative game plan.

They were pretty decent moves for a player of your level. Alternative I suggested above.

> Mine was to defend solidly and pounce on weaknesses.

Solid it was, not sure where you pounced on weaknesses.

> But defending is okay in the beginning, I have no idea how to carry on my plans in the middle game. I often resort to weak moves when I see no strong ones, just to keep moving.

As above, you are not defending here. The word "defense" in "Slav defense" (or any other chess opening name) has no meaning really. It is not good to play without plan.

It is essential to understand and evaluate a chess position in order to come up with a plan. Focus on learning about pawn structures (see link for themes/plans), about weak/strong pieces, about pawn breaks, about backward/isolated/doubled pawns, about safe/unsafe king positions (potential for attack), etc

Reading or watching annotated/commented games is a good idea as is having a better player go through your own games.

> To repeat something that is obvious, I find it hard to mount attacks due to my defensive choices. But then, what else can I do? And don't some famous players play defensively?

Yes, some players play more defensively than others, but still you are not going to win a game (most of the time) by just moving aimlessly around. Even defensive players, will need to find ways for counter play as otherwise they would just be overrun.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You played fine, denying him play but he really lost on time before the game started.
> 3 votes

# Answer
20...Ne4 is preferable, occupying the central light squares, but the position seems a little dead. Black might try getting white to trade on e4 and recapture with fxe5 (after f5), opening the f-file, with some play on the kingside. White has very little to do on the queenside it seems, so he's pretty much in a defensive posture, but it should easily be defended. Draw is a likely outcome.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame, defense, attack
---


title: One of my games

text:
# Question
Title: One of my games
I played black. The game was over in two hours. I would like anyone's opinion on my game.

```
 [Event "Let's Play!"]
 [Site " Chess.com"]
 [Date "Jun 19, 2017"]
 [White "PATELAKSHAY"]
 [Black "JoshuaFischer007"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [WhiteElo "1354"]
 [BlackElo "793"]
 [TimeControl "1 in 1 day"]
 [Termination "PATELAKSHAY won by checkmate"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 d6 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Nc3 Qxd1+ 6. Nxd1 Be6 7. a3 O-O-O 8. Ng5 Rd7 9. Bb5 a6 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Bc4 Nd4 12. Ne3 b5 13. Bb3 Nxb3 14. cxb3 Nf6 15. f3 Rd3 16. b4 c5 17. Bd2 cxb4 18. axb4 Bxb4 19. Bxb4 Rxe3+ 20. Kf2 Rb3 21. Bc3 b4 22. Bxe5 Rf8 23. Rxa6 Ng4+ 24. Kg3 Kb7 25. Rxe6 Nxe5 26. Rxe5 Rxb2 27. Re7+ Kb6 28. Rxg7 b3 29. e5 Re2 30. Rb1 b2 31. e6 Re8 32. e7 Rb8 33. Rf7 Ka5 34. Rf8 Rb3 35. e8=Q Rxe8 36. Rxe8 Kb4 37. Rb8+ Kc3 38. Rxb3+ Kxb3 39. f4 Kc2 40. Rxb2+ Kxb2 41. f5 Kc3 42. f6 Kd4 43. f7 Ke5 44. f8=Q Ke6 45. Kf4 Kd5 46. Qe8 Kd6 47. Ke4 Kc5 48. Qd8 Kc4 49. Qd4+ Kb5 50. Kd5 Ka5 51. Kc5 Ka6 52. Qb4 Ka7 53. Kc6 Ka8 54. Qb7#  1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
OK, I understand what you mean here. You want us to judge you as a player and point out your mistakes. You seek improvement by posting this game and want some expert comments.

True, you must try posting questions which are more specific, and should relate to a particular chess idea or position, or else explanations get cringe-worthy, and become offbeat, but I do not see any problem in posting the entire game here.

Anyways lets discuss the game and frame bullet points.

* Your 7th move should have been f6 or h6 and not castle. You should have preserved your bishop instead of the knight.
* I did not understand the move, 8) Rd7. You must try developing your minor pieces quickly.
* 17th move c\*b4 is a blunder. The b4-pawn can wait to be taken. You are opening up the queenside, and making his rook active. A better plan would have been to wait and play Be7 and then doubling up rooks on e-file. You should have navigated the knight to Q-side for attacking the weak pawns. Nd7-Nb6-Na4/Nc4.
* At move 23rd R\*a6 from white you are practically over.

My Summary is black should have shown some patience, and not attacked every move. There is a chapter called maintaining the tension, which I believe you must watch on YouTube, and which will give you great benefits. You should attack where you are strong. You had the Centre e-file, and suddenly you opened up the Q-side.

This game from Black is somewhat a 1300-1350 Elo rated Player .

# Answer
> 0 votes
First off, there's no question that there's no question.

Even if your question was "can I have someone's opinion about my game," it would not be appropriate for StackExchange as questions should not be "primarily opinion-based," nor "with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer."

Questions like this are better:

* "What is the point of 5. Nc3, or is it purely a mistake?"
* "What defensive technique should I have employed in the double rook endgame?"

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: How was vishwanathan anand?

text:
# Question
Title: How was vishwanathan anand?
I am fairly new to chess. I don’t know anything. The time I am taking interest in chess it is already proclaimed that this is the time of carlsen (except that yui person). I wish to know about vishwanathan anand. For one that he was predecessor and for two that I am an Indian so I have some sort of subconscious obligation to know about him.

I want to know from you guys, The chess community. (I can get facts on Wikipedia but I can't understand the environment and energy of his era and niether will successive generation know about carlsen) How was the rise and fall of V. Anand ? Why isn't he good now ? Doesn't he has more experience which should make him better player !

# Answer
Here are some revelations. Firstly, chess is a sport. It's not called that by formality, it actually is a sport. It takes both physical and mental endurance to play the sport at a high level. This seems silly to anyone who has never seriously played a 6-hour game, but it does not to anyone who has been through that experience. Especially if you start dozing off at move 50 and make a blunder that pours half a day of work down the drain. Then you realize going to tournaments and doing this frequently at a much higher level must put a big strain on both body and mind.

Your mental faculties and your body both deteriorate, starting when you are around 22 years old. Experience may seem very useful in chess, but opening theory is constantly developing while the rest of the game relies on pattern recognition and calculation. These skills do not improve beyond a certain point which a player like Anand has reached decades ago. Thus, experience plays a limited role in chess and does not properly compensate for the deterioration of your mind and body. At a certain point you need to put in many hours of practice every week just to keep your skills from deteriorating, all the while your body is deteriorating regardless. In a game like chess, this is not as noticeable as in the more physical sports of course, but it is nonetheless significant and thus it is exceptional that Anand has remained in the top 10 for such a tremendously long amount of time. This is the exception, not the rule.

So instead of wondering why Anand is falling off, I would wonder why he has been able to maintain such a superb position for such an incredible amount of time. It's the exact opposite of the proposed question, which indeed comes off as a bit ignorant as people have pointed out, considering that Anand is not just "still good" but rather "still among the world elite which has been developing and growing constantly while he was getting older". It's amazing, really.

The rest of the question is a bit unclear. I have no idea how I could possibly know something about an elite player that cannot be found on the internet and I don't know what kind of specialty you expect surrounds players who sit behind a board and make good moves very consistently. Aside from the few rather strange fellows like Fischer and, to a lesser extent, Kasparov, most chess players are just people like you and me.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tournament, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: After Bc4, is it better to play e6 to stop the bishop?
In Sicilian, I see white plays Bc4 after or before I castle. I saw a lot of players responding to this move by playing e6.

```
rnbqkb1r/1p2pppp/p2p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1

1. Bc4 e6

```

In this case people usually respond with e6.

What is good about e6?
Doesn't e6 create a weakness on d6?

# Answer
> 8 votes
You have already mentioned one good thing about `e6`, it blocks the c4-bishop. It may not seem very important, but the white's attack on `a2-g8` diagonal can be rather unpleasant later on, especially after white's moves `f4` and `e5`.

Other important factor is the `d5` square. `Nd5` can be sometimes very unpleasant, so you want to avoid it. It potentially stops even `Bd5` (for example after b5).

Black in these structure usually opts for a central break with `d5` and `e6` supports this plan. That's another reason for playing this move.

We shouldn't also forget the fact that `e6` allows to develop the bishop on `e7`.

---

To the "weak" pawn on `d6`:

Here's the deal. You protected `c5`, `d5`, `e5` and `f5`, you have avoided some nasty moves like `Nd5` or `Nf5`, you have made some space for your bishop on `f8`... but there's a price for that. Your d-pawn has become a bit weak.

It's not such a problem, though. Bishop and queen is guarding that pawn and later you can even put a rook on the d-file. Also, as I said, `d5` should be coming. That means the weak pawn won't be there forever.

---

I would say `e6` has many more advantages than disadvantages... so I would go for it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Conceptual Question and almost answered correctly by KMartin . This variation is a favourite of Bobby Fischer and is named as Sozin Variation of Sicilian . The main point in playing e6 is Black protects the f7 square . Let's assume Black plays g6 and then White plays f4 . Black develops the Bishop on g7 . White e5 , de5 fe5 and then Qf3 . So you see that f7 is vulnerable .

One more important function is e6 protects d5 square . Study more Sicilian Schevengien games and you would know it better .

# Answer
> 0 votes
In addition to given answers, there is a sacrifice on e6 that one should be aware of while playing e6.

Say after black plays Be7 and Nbd7, then Bxe6 fxe6, Nxe6 attacking Queen at d8 and g7 pawn and getting 3 pawns(e6, f7, g7) for a piece and also opening the king side.

Brajovic vs Rodic 1992

The sacrifice is still on after black castles (say ... Be7, ... Nbd7, ... 0-0). Then after Bxe6 fxe6, Nxe6 the knight attacks Queen at d8 and Rook at f8, Ending up slightly better for white.

I have won few games with this sacrifice in local tournaments. It can come as a surprise if not aware. Better cover up for it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
White's light squared bishop "belongs" on f3. By putting it on c4, White prevents the bishop from finding that diagonal, but attacks the c4-f7 diagonal instead.

E6 defends against the latter threat, against the pawn on f7. I would play this either before or after playing bd7 and Nc6. Depending on how the play goes after be6, I would consider castling queen side to get my king away from the influence of that bishop.

---
Tags: sicilian-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is the best opening for a beginner who wants few pieces on the board?
I am a beginner and someone who likes less pieces on board. I don't like complexity and have weak point for knights. My rating is 950 rn and has touched 1010 at best.

So far I have used the Stone defence when playing with white and the King's Indian defence when playing with black.

Needless to say that defensive openings increase complexity.

What is best opening for black and white for me ?

I don't mind pieces exchanging. I just want less pieces on board that helps my mind process faster.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If your rating is around 1000, you should definitely abstain from the King's Indian for now. It is not a bad opening by any means, but it indeed is one of the more complex ones (requiring some sound strategic knowledge) .. too complex for your current skill level most likely, no offense.

That said, there is no "best" opening for beginners or anyone else, everyone has their own taste and has to find out themselves. You have to try different ones and make up your mind what works best for you. In general, focus more on learning the core principles of opening play (development of pieces, fight for the centre, etc.) rather than on memorizing exact variations. As long as your opponents don't play along (because they have no clue about the "correct" continuations), they are not of much use anyways.

You should definitely have a look at the category of the open and semi-open games (everything where White starts with 1.e4) instead of the closed ones you tried so far. Each opening has its own sharp or quiet lines (and your opponent has a word to say on that too!), but 1.e4 openings generally have a tendency to be more on the sharp side and are usually advised to be learned first by beginners because they are more educative at this level (less strategic and more tactical on average).

For the pinnacle of aggressive openings, there's the group of gambits. They do have some added complexity though because you have to be very accurate to maintain your lead in initiative (if your attack ever loses steam without getting the gambitted pawn back, you are in a bad spot) unlike the "mainstream" openings where a standard developing move usually doesn't lose on the spot (unless you fail to parry an urgent threat). Most of them are not "sound" enough to be played at GM level, but that does not have to concern you as you will rarely play against GMs. You have to do more preparation of variations than in other openings, so I suggest you don't start with gambits until after you tried the conventional openings for a bit.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There may be nothing wrong with playing the KID as a beginner, if you are playing against other beginners who don't understand it any better than you. In fact, if you make it your regular defense, you will almost certainly understand it better than they do. Dont be misled by the name Kings Indian DEFENCE. Black has every intention of launching a counterattack at the first opportunity.

There is one drawback with playing the same opening all the time, which is that if you are always playing the same people, they can prepare some tricky line against you. But even in that case, you will be educating each other.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You perhaps should worry more about just getting your pieces out onto good, safe squares than playing any formal opening system. Once you discover for yourself what types of formations you like (fianchettos? e4 opposed to d4?, other things), that will point you towards learning more about a formal system.

You're a beginner - just play and gain experience. Don't be in a hurry to learn opening "theory" (the most misused word in chess) and just play.

2c. Cat A Player, USCF.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I used to play the Stonewall with white (which is not really a good opening) and the KID with black, even at rating around 2200. My main motivation was laziness, as you can to some extend play more or less the same moves independent of what your opponent does (aka "system opening"), so you don't need to learn lots of theory.

However, at your level, opening theory should not be a concern at all and lack of opening knowledge is most likely not the reason why you lose games. If you want to improve in chess, focus on:

* not blundering pieces/always being alert when your opponent blunders pieces
* learning basic tactics
* learning basic strategy

This will be a lot more useful currently, than learning any opening lines by heart, since you are unlikely to understand the point of the moves yet.

If you are happy with the "openings" you play now, it is fine to keep playing them, but for the time being I would not invest more time in learning a formal opening. If you are not too happy, you could just play the opening based on general principles, i.e. develop the pieces, occupy the center, castle, and take it from there.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As a beginner who doesn't like knights, I would play the (relatively) simple "four knights" openings that often lead to early exchanges of knights.

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How can I teach the endgame to someone who feels it is "boring"?
I have a student who is in the 1600-1700 range, who has lost his last few games due to improper handling of endgame positions. Some were drawn, which he lost; some winning which he drew; and some where he could have forced a winning endgame (by simplification) and painlessly won, but instead created further complications (to his credit he won most of those games, but lost the ones thereafter, due to being mentally exhausted) leading to unbalanced, and often uncertain positions.

The cure is obviously to focus on endgame theory, but the problem is, he finds endgame theory boring (as I think many chess players do; in fact, I have this problem myself!). I've been teaching him from Panchenko's `"Theory and Practice of Chess Endgames"` which I've found is a superb guide to endgame theory, but he doesn't seem to be enjoying it.

When I queried him regarding his disinterest he gave me the following reasons:

* He claims he has a poor memory and that endgame theory contains too much memorization (he's partially right, he has a superb ability to remember positions, but not so much move order, which is essential in most theoretical positions)
* He cites the old "Before the endgame, the gods have placed the middlegame" addage, saying he can make up for this weakness with better middlegame play (but even *he* knows he is pushing it, since he's lost several games despite good middlegame play)
* He claims endgame study takes too long and does not have immediate results OTB (citing that most of the theoretical positions are ones he has never encountered; this, while true, is ignoring the fact that he avoids the endgame like the plague to begin with)
* He just doesn't find endgame study to be exciting (though he has admitted that it is necessary)

I've tried to address these concerns with brute force but I'd like to use a little more finesse in my method.

# Answer
Many old endgame books are like encyclopedias, they have sections about one type of endgame and then a lot of analysis about all the various situations one might encounter in that endgame. I find those boring and very hard to remember. Let's forget about those.

I can think of three things to mention that might be helpful:

Jeremy Silman's endgame book is organized with *chapters based on rating level*. His point is that a 1600 player doesn't need to know all the intricacies of the endgame in the way a 2200+ player does. He also has a fun writing style. Maybe concentrating on the first chapters of that book helps.

Also, *exercises*. Both the Steps Method workbooks and Yusupov's series of books are full of exercises on chess in general, including chapters on various endgames. Challenging exercises are fun to solve and when you finally see how the solution works (usually there's only one way that works), that's memorable.

Thirdly, and probably the most work for the trainer, is to find a good, hard *endgame study*, and turn that into a whole lesson. I remember a training session I once had with GM Yge Visser (alas, I can't remember the position), where he showed a complicated endgame position. We, the students, could propose some lines but really had no clue.

He then wiped the board and started talking about various *building blocks*: the K+Q v K+pawn endgame (how it's usually a win, how the a and c pawns can draw, a few exceptions, then lines in which the white king is close enough that he can let black's pawn promote but threaten unpreventable mate on the next move, et cetera). He made this interesting by constantly asking the students, some of them knew some things already, nobody knew everything.

There were other building blocks like this, like the Reti study with the two passed pawns where it seems the black king has no chance to catch the white pawn or help his own promote, but then does it by cleverly keeping both options open.

After two hours or so of this sort of thing, he put the original position back -- and we recognized the main theme, and could suggest relevant moves. As we got a few moves in, it turned out that all those blocks were relevant, and eventually it was a mate in 8 or so, and we found it! "And if you manage to see all this during a game, then you're about GM level."

Although I can't remember the position anymore, I still learned everything I know about K+Q v K+pawn in that session, and it was great fun.

But to find such positions and to turn them into lessons that good takes quite a lot of experience as a trainer, I guess.

In short: **don't teach him theory, challenge him with exercises and puzzles.**
> 11 votes

# Answer
Maybe starting with endgame *theory* is the wrong approach. Learning stuff by heart and then reproducing it isn't much fun for most people. To productively study theoretical positions you ideally already have the interest and motivation to do so.

So I would recommend to start with two other aspects of endgames:

* Endgame tactics: If he likes the middle game, he probably likes tactics and solving tactical problems. He might learn a lot of typical maneuvers if they are part of a combination or even a study.
* Practical Endgames: Take interesting endgame positions and play them out. Maybe several times. The important difference to studying theoretical positions is that he is actually playing and finding ideas on his own. No memorisation.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'm not quite sure on this one. For me, endgames only became fun when I dug into a couple of examples I found by myself and discovered how intricate they were. I think most intermediate players realize two things when they actually try an endgame just for the practice. 1. They suck at endgames. 2. These things are richer than they look. And with the help of a good endgame book, 3. It truly is amazing what a Capablanca or a Karpov can do in the endgame.

I will say that some endgames are rather dry, but they're challenging in a different way. The ability GMs have to assess these things from 2-4 moves away is amazing.

In many ways, this is symbolic of chess. This happens many times to players, where they have to get past a "boring" part of the game. I've found in my 15 months of serious chess that there is no substitute for going and doing it yourself.

I can supply a couple of interesting positions that I've used if you need them.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think that RemcoGerlich and BlindKungFuMaster are on the right track: challenge him with suitable exercises, especially exercises which become much easier to solve once you know a certain endgame by heart. It seems that your student acknowledges the fact that endgames are important, but doesn't fully grasp WHY they are important. Giving exercises that requires some knowledge to solve can greatly help your student in this regard. After some consideration I've decided to give a simple example of what I have in mind for a "suitable exercise":

Take the following position:

```
[FEN "R7/P5kp/6p1/8/6P1/8/r4P2/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now, say "White to move and win", and give your student some time to solve it. Since you have noted your student's poor endgame skills, it wouldn't be surprising for him to fail (The only surefire way to win this is by playing 1.f4! Why is that so? Don't reveal the solution just yet!).

Now it is time to really make your student think about how difficult this problem is to solve. Is this type of position really beyond his level of understanding? If he thinks so, the effect of this exercise could become a confidence boost.

Now you go over this position:

```
[FEN "R7/P5k1/8/8/8/8/r7/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Ask your student what the evaluation of this endgame is if white is to move. Let him play around with the pieces if necessary, and then let him explain in his own terms why this is a draw.

What pitfalls are there for black? It should not be too difficult to get your student to realize that black must keep his king on the own second rank, and his rook behind the a-pawn.

What may be harder to realize initially is why black needs to keep his king on g7 and h7. It is necessary to notice the underlying skewer idea that white can use: after ...Kf7, white wins with Rh8!, as the a-pawn then is taboo.

Now you could ask your student to choose where to put a pawn for white: on f2, on g2, or on h2? Where would your student want to place it if he were white? With this, you should be able to get your student to realize that white wins if there is a passed f-pawn on the board for white as well, due to the skewer idea mentioned earlier: the f-pawn will eventually force the black king away from g7 and h7.

Now it may be time to go back to the initial position, and again ask your student to solve it. If your student gets stuck, give hints, such as "How does this relate to the other position we looked at?" and "What should be white's main goal here? What will black do if white does nothing in particular?"

It would not be surprising if your student got the exercise right this time around, and the basic theoretical ending involved would be more likely to stick than if you just went through the theoretical position by itself.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The answer to this question is mostly psychological in nature. Tell him first that most amateurs thinks it's boring and doesn't spend much time studying the endgame. Then say that it is exactly this that we must take advantage of. The "fun" part is knowing what to do in the endgame and slowly squeeze your opponent like an anaconda and cherish every moment when the opponent starts squirming in his chair and ultimately resign. Bobby Fischer loved to see the opponent in agony. I spent many months playing openings that led directly to the endgame to grind my opponents down and improve my endgame. Mednis wrote an excellent book from opening to endgame.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Sorry, but I absolutely disagree that you need to memorize move order in theoretical positions. You only need to memorize **the ideas.**

Once you know the ideas, you can calculate two, three, or more moves to attain the ideal position, because those calculations are based on **not making the wrong move.**

# Outflanking, Counting, and the Opposition

```
8/5K2/8/4pk2/4R3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

I have not memorized a single move in how the winning variation ends, but one thing's for certain:

1. White needs to get on the opposite side of the king if he's going to capture that pawn.
2. Black's king is like a bodyguard, preventing the white king from getting past him.
3. Black will control the queening square in seven moves. Black moves after me, so I have seven moves to capture the pawn, or the game will be drawn.

These ideas are known as *outflanking*, *counting*, and **the opposition**. Unless you have studied endgames, you won't have a clue about them (see point #3 further below).

Now I can ask myself which moves accomplish these ideas. After 1. Ra4?? or (1. Rh4??) 1...e4! The black king remains where he's at, and he better: He's got the opposition.

1. Re1?? Yep, this doesn't do it. The black king also keeps the opposition: 1...e4! 2. Rf1 Kg4 and the white king is late for his appointment. We can try to outflank: 2. Ke7 Ke5!! **Opposition.**

The only way to force the king to lose the opposition is to entice him forward: **1. Re3!!** (or 1. Re2!) The black king will lose the opposition, despite attacking the rook. If he tries 1. Kf4 2. Re1 Kf5 (after **1. Re3!!**), you'll notice that we're back to the original starting position, but with the rook on e1 now. With that extra tempo, we can now outflank: 3. Ke7 e4 4. Kd6 Kf4 5. Kd5 (The pawn is now under attack) e3 4. Kd4 and the pawn has been won.

Black's only option is to give up the opposition, unfortunately. **1. Re3!!** (or 1. Re2!) **e4 2. Re1 Kf4** (2... Ke5 3. Kg6 leads to the above variation with kings on opposite sides) **3. Ke6! Kf3 4. Kd5** (The pawn is now under attack) **e3 5. Kd4 e2 6. Kd3** *We have done it!* We have prevented black from controlling e1 in seven moves or less.

And notice a key difference between the variations where the black king was on f4 and g4: The rook was on f1 in the latter. White loses a move when the black pawn hits e2, because his rook is attacked. So in reality, white only had not six, but FIVE! (because of Re1-Rf1+ and Rf1-Re1) instead of seven moves in that losing (drawing) variation.

# King Centralization, Counting

```
7K/7p/k1P5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

Well, clearly it's a draw, just capture the black pawn, get some lunch at Subway, and go on with my day...except that's not the case. Black to move.

### WHAT?!

**1... h5**

Now this is interesting. Most amateurs would say it's lost despite the problem stating "White draws".

At the end, they succumb to an engine and suddenly change their minds...I cannot stand the lack of emotional control of some people (ironically), but I digress...

But then I remembered the famous grandmaster Richard Réti's words.

> ‘I once heard a story where a reporter asked the famous master Jose Capablanca, “How many moves do you see ahead?” He jokingly said, “Fifty!” The reporter, not knowing much about chess, wrote that down in his notes and then proceeded to ask another famous master, Richard Réti, the same question. Réti said, “One! But always the right one.” There is something to be learned from this: **You only need to see as deep as necessary to establish the best move for the position.**’ - *Page 39 of Winning Chess Tournaments by Robert M. Snyder (Lincoln, 2007)*

Well, the white king is threatening the pawn if he goes down, but he's also making an attempt to promote his if he goes sideways.

He can't do both, he must choose one or the other...

WAIT! He can just move diagonally, and move down and sideways at the same time.

It doesn't even matter if we can make it in time or not. We have no choice.

**2. Kg7! Kb6 3. Kf6!! f4** (Kxc6 4. Ke5 draws) We're getting closer to not just one, but both pawns. Black can also try 2... f4 3. Kf6 f3, but the choices are the same:

1. This is the easier variation. Black promotes in three moves; if we promote in four (because White moves first) we are drawn. We are also only one tempo behind the pawn. If the king moves at some point, the pawn is ours! Thus **4. Ke5!!** and now 4... f3 Kd6 promotes in time whereas 4... Kxc6 Kf4 gives us the required tempo.
2. It's clear that the king cannot reach the pawn anymore, but he is within the distance to help his pawn safely promote. 4. Ke6!! Kb6 (4...f2 5. c7 h1=Q 6. c8=Q is the same) Kd7 5. c7 h1=Q 6. Qc8+ 1/2-1/2

These are my favorite positions: Once you know the theory, everything is easy. Most people will overthink it by analyzing, **but the endgame is not about analysis**. It's about ideas. Analysis paralysis!

# A Means to an End

Both of these positions have taught me how to play correctly. (They're also studies by Réti, and you can find them here and here.) Because of the second one, I know it is absolutely ideal to centralize my king, because I have more options. (I wish I could bold that, but that's overdoing it.) King centralization is essential in the endgame, and I wouldn't have realized it without that study; I used it in one game so far, and won it without a sweat.

On a final note, *of course* he's never encountered those "theoretical" positions - **he hasn't tried to create them.** He doesn't know how, or he's trying to force a different position:

1. Attacking when it is better to wait, because the opponent would be in zugzwang.
2. Winning material when simplifying would be easier. Perhaps even trading the rook - AND a pawn - for just the opponent's bishop, but creating a won pawn endgame, would be better than material gain with complications (but it would certainly **be more fun**, which it looks like what your student wants).
3. Making a simple mistake, **because you don't know what you're doing.** Sorry, but if you don't know the ideas behind these positions, it will simply cost you points in tournament games.

# Learning the Hard Way

At the Chicago Open in 2017, all (ten) of my games were won (according to later analysis by Stockfish).

I had trained really rigorously for this tournament by reading up on positional play and tactics. I also gave some, but not too much, attention at the endgame.

I gave perhaps thirty minutes to the opening over a matter of weeks. It really isn't important at all; the opening is just a subset of the middle game, and its study is just important to avoid traps. *That's it.*

Back on topic, my opponents could not touch me to save their life in the middle game. That training had really paid off, and I was able to convert my imbalances (space, pawn structure, bad bishops to good, etc.) easily. If you had given me my opponent's position, I'd say they're simply lost, because I wouldn't know what to do with them.

But in six of those ten games, I did one of the three above points. I attacked prematurely. I complicated things. And I simply didn't know what to do in two of games, which I vividly remember LOSING: **Rook and pawn endgames.**

Coincidentally, those endgames are the ones I hated the most. I did not know the Philidor position (LOL).

Now I've picked up *Secrets of Rook Endings* by John Nunn and have devoted more time to Jesus De La Villa's *100 Endgames You Must Know*. You couldn't pay me to get me to read a middle game book, because I'm simply not interested.

You can know one endgame idea really well and force a draw - even win on your opponent's negligence - or you can know one opening really well and hope he doesn't survive the middle game.

And hope chess is ALWAYS a fast road to nowhere.
> 2 votes

# Answer
From a Cat A player, on the contrary, it is the endgame that you have to be the most accurate in concrete analysis. If you are sloppy in your endgames (with fewer pieces), your middle games will suffer. Of course, you can get by playing principled chess as road signs to winning ideas, but you eventually have to hunker down and analyze accurately. A minor slip up/tempo misplay can throw away a win easily enough. At 1600-1700 levels, you only *really* need De La Villa's book. Anything else is probably too much, and at those levels, misplays are common enough. So, to answer the question:

**How can I teach the endgame to someone who feels it is “boring”?**

So, let's go over his 4 'points', interesting as they are:

1: *Boring and requires too much memorization* \- My guess he does not feel this way about opening play. So, treat endgame play like openings, and play training positions in tournament settings against him.

2: *reference to a bad chess adage* \- there is a cure for that outside of trying to convince him this kind of thinking is exactly why he is not progressing. ***Perhaps convincing him that middlegame play is there for two reasons: a) a successful attack on the king or b) material gain and transition into a winning endgame.*** By not knowing endgames, he essentially is removing half of his ability to score the full point.

3: *Endgame study takes too long* \- Here's your hat, what's your hurry. His impatience is a thing of ugly. ***Chess is a lifestyle game and requires long periods of study and equal amounts of play***. He will never know everything about endgame play. *He must efficiently study those kinds of positions that are likely to occur in games.* The most frequent are Rook plus minor piece endgames (~15%), R vs. R (~9%), 2R vs. 2R (~3-4%), B vs. N (~3%), and pawn endgames (~3%) \[Fundamental Chess Endings - Muller/Lamprecht, 2001\].

4: *Not exciting* \- Well, that is on the teacher to convey this. All you. Since he is under your tutelage, it is up to you to assign work and impress on him how important it is. Simply make it a hard point he must progress through.

Good luck. Chess students can be real PITA's sometimes.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think endgames are the essence and soul of chess. One should focus on middle games and end games in the intermediate stage to improve to the elite level of 2000+ elo. Learning from books is an effective way but at times students do not enjoy it that much. They find it extremely tough to solve the positions and sometimes lose focus and concentration. This leads to a loss of interest and makes the player think that the endgames are boring.

The best way to deal with this situation is to study grandmaster and classical games and study the effects of an endgame position. One should set up a board and start playing the game from the opening. Once one reaches the endgame, one can put a clock and play against another player. This way there is a motivation to play that position and one can learn from actual games, not relying solely on prepared positions/theory. Although it is important to know the basics, but this is relatively simple and does not require much effort. Once one knows the basic points of endgame theory, one can easily follow this method of watching grandmaster games. Studying games of Capablanca, Carlsen, Botvinik,Anand, and Kasparov are some of the ways that one can learn end games from the masters. One can even analyse the position with different views and then check the original version of the game.

It is important to note that endgames can essentially win crucial matches. Every advanced player will take his game till the endgame and will look to crunch the victory from there. Thus, it is imperative that we also know how to do the same. Learning via grandmaster games is a method that is effective and quite interesting.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think you're just going to have to explain to him that his game won't improve beyond a certain point if he doesn't do endgames. Simply put, if you're that bad at them your openings and strategy won't do you much, because you won't know in what kind of endgame you're trying to transpose to, which pieces you should keep in certain positions etc. I'd recommend you to try with Reuben Fine's book about endgames, I had a colleague just like that who hated studying endgames but then we found some books that he loved, and Fine's was one of them. Anyhow, if you love something you'll love the bad" parts of it too. :)

Because chess isn't all fun and games. :D
> 0 votes

# Answer
I'm going to add a second answer here that was triggered by another comment.

When you are floundering down in the 1400 - 1600 levels, you can't progress above that if you do not study endgames efficiently, because the competition you meet at the 1600 - 1800 level have some inclination that there is more to chess than a frontal assault on the king. These players typically figure out how to (relatively) effectively transition from the middlegame to a winning endgame, or avoid that transition into a losing one. Take any recent games from 1400 players and you find many examples. This transitional knowledge is largely experiential, meaning you can't "teach" it, but you have to experience through gameplay, know it is possible, and know that it is something you should be seeking out when the position warrants it. Vocal 1400 players don't do that - they are scared to death of the endgame because a) they have studied it too much, studied it wrong, studied the wrong stuff, and don't understand it b) they have studied it but don't apply it during their games as a transition mechanism for a position or c) Have a crappy attitude towards endgame play in general.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think of the endgame as a "countdown." That is, at the beginning, you need "many" moves to win (or resolve the game). In the endgame, you need only a few moves for resolution.

Basically, you want to teach your student to "resolve" his games in the clearest, simplest way. That's what endgames are for. The ones to begin with might be the ones where he could have "simplified" quickly into a won endgame and failed to do so, and had to win the "hard" way.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, teaching
---


title: Always losing to the same opponent?

text:
# Question
Title: Always losing to the same opponent?
I am just asking if anyone here suffers a problem of always losing to the same opponent. This problem occurs to me so often against one particular player. Well, the story goes like this:

When I first played chess, I met a chess player, let him be A. At first, my chess skills are lower than his and I always lose to him (this is normal). But then as my chess skill progresses, even if I can beat other players (let them be B), I still can't beat A.

**So here's an absurd situation of A beating me, me beating B, B beating A.**

I have to emphasize, this situation occurs every time. And by B, I mean every other club player, but not A. A is not a particularly good player, but somehow I just cannot manage to beat him.

**The question I am asking is whether this is occurring to you all and how can I overcome it**

Is this a psychological problem, as his opening repertoire is normal for me?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 11 votes
We were all there, it is normal.

It is a psychological problem, but without 3+ sample games there is nothing I can do to help you. If you could edit your post with 3+ games **that illustrate typical scenario**, I could engage in solving your problem with greater effect.

Without the games the best I can advise you is :

1. Know your opening -\> ask here if you need help;
2. know how to play your middlegame pawn structure ( isolated pawn / d4 vs c6 + e6 / sicilian formations... ) -\> ask here if you need help;
3. Make smart exchanges in the endgame -\> ask here for help by posting the endgame position;

To cut it short, work on your technique and this problem will solve itself. As for psychological aspect of this problem, **keep your nerves calm** when you reach good / winning position, as that is the point when "mind tricks" will start to mess you up.

This is especially true when you reach winning position, the "victory rush" will loosen your sense of danger and you might miss opponent's saving tactics. **Even if the game is still won for you**, the psychological blow it will make will be devastating and will shake you so much that you might lose the game in the next move ( happened to me countless times ).

This is not the case when you play other opponents because your mind is calm, and you are able to control "victory rush" by carefully and **objectively** assessing the position. This is the place that you must work on hardest -\> keep your emotions under control during the game and assess position **objectively.**

As soon as you feel fear that you will "f\*ck it up" because he's lucky or destiny chose him to punish you for your chess sins, **STOP PLAYING.** Take 1 minute to breathe and calm down. **This is the crucial moment in the game, so use that 1 minute to calm down -\> no thinking, calculating, assessing lines, NO!** Just breathe and calm down, that is all you need ( you can always spare a minute even in blitz games ). Tell yourself "I've got this!" and just **aim not to lose the game.** Your main goal is not to lose, so even if you draw the game in an overwhelmingly won position for you, it is still a success as you broke the losing streak. In your mind he will no longer appear as "SuperChessMan", but after not losing that game he will become simply yet another player. The moral boost you will feel in that moment will disperse all the previous psychological barriers and you should be able to engage him successfully in the next game.

Another thing that helped me was analysis of my own games against such opponents. You should always do this when you lose the game, always! Just turn on the engine and see its suggestions, that is enough for a start. You can always post your game here for help, we don't bite people's heads off! :)

For now, this is all the advice I can offer.

Good luck!

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have had a similar issue. My gym professor, as strange as it may sound, is a good chess player, and we used to play a lot of games. I usually lost or drew, until at one moment I used a tactic to win just one game. From then my score on him has improved, and I have won a couple more times. The only thing to do is break a win once, and you will beat him always.

Hope it helps!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Interesting! Yes I think to some extent we've all had similar experiences but probably under very different circumstances (school chess, club chess, tourneys, between friends etc).

Chess is a very dynamic game, in the sense that beating someone doesn't always mean you're necessarily better or understand the game better, it may very well be so. Of course this is because of the inherent nature of the game where making mistakes is so common and part of each game. Point being you may be 100 times better than someone but if you're the one making the last crucial mistake of the game you will lose.

As mentioned in some of the other replies, approaching the problem from a complete psychological angle is possible, but I have another suggestion for you, which is technical and stays chess-related.

If you say you've played so many times vs this person A, since the time you started learning the game, then you must surely be able to tell "how most of the time you end up losing to him". This is important because if say, you always out play him in the opening but end up failing at converting your advantage in the middle game due to silly cheapo tactics from your opponent, then you can tell yourself "ok in the middle-game I should double check the tactics vs this guy...".

Or alternatively, if most of the time you end up messing your openings, then you can forget known opening lines and just play solid-development style against him.

Finally if you know it's the endgames that cost you the games, then either try to finish him off before an endgame, or if you do reach one, again go for simple plans that work well (assuming you've reached the endgame with some advantage), i.e. cutting the king, simplifying the position with key exchanges, covering space with pawns,... the usual stuff.

Finally if you're saying that each time you lose to him in a completely different way that you've ever lost before, then again, same idea can be applied, you should always assume your opponent is the best player and will find your mistakes, this means you should never assume "ok I'll play this hoping he won't see the check or the fork...". In chess you don't hope, you plan things out and follow your strategy.

Long story short, I think you can overcome this rather strange nemesis of yours, by simply paying attention to "the ways" you lose to him/her. Get yourself some stats on the losses, and start working things out.

# Answer
> 3 votes
An article by IM Silman, interestingly explains this at the elite level (\>2700 club) Check this out-

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-difficult-opponent

# Answer
> 1 votes
These things typically happen because you get into a type of game that represent's A's strength and your weakness. That's true, even if you do better than A against random players, "B," who don't fall into this pattern.

Find out how the B's outplay A. Maybe A outplays you tactically, and B outplays him positionally (or vice-versa). Then try to imitate the positions and tactics used by the B players, even if you don't feel comfortable with them. You should be able to do this *better* than the B's since you outplay them.

There is a proverb: "Never change a winning game and always change a losing game."

---
Tags: psychology, losing
---


# Question
Title: What's the point of 7 Kf1(Krakow Variation) of the Italian game?
The variation goes(I will do it through the scotch gambit)

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Kf1 (7.Bd2)(7.Nc3)

```

I suppose the alternative is to play Bd2, but I believe that black manages to often hold a draw here because of theoretical repetition lines. White could of also played Nc3, though tricky, Black seems to be doing fine if they know the theory. Thus, it seems like Kf1 is played to avoid a draw. However, if avoiding a draw is desired, why not simply play e5 instead of cxd4? Is there really anything in this Kf1 variation or is it harmless?

# Answer
I guess it's a surprise weapon, no need to be excellent objectively. The position is around equal after Kf1 and black must deal with new situation, while white probably knows what to do next moves. Black must deal now with vulnerable bishop on b4 and two connected central pawns. He goes wrong, he can get into trouble. He goes right, the position will be normally playable for white. The point is not to allow the bishop b4 to be exchanged. This bishop can run to various tactics.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The point of 7.Kf1 is more of a refrain from playing Bd2/Nbd2/Nc3 and allowing black to exchange off his dark-squared bishop: he wants to play against the bishop on b4. However, subsequent analysis shows that white gives up more than he gains; for example, black can take on e4 and survive the complications that follow after 8.d5, which is why this isn't the most popular variation for white.

As with most off-beat lines, this is a trappy variation; if black doesn't react correctly, and/or doesn't understand the position well enough, he will get into trouble. For example, in this case, when faced with this position over the board as black, the first thing you'll probably need to work out is whether 7...d5 would lose after 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Qb3 intending 10.d5. If you decide against it, and play something timid like 7...Be7, intending to play slowly, white just goes Nc3, perhaps Bg5 and h4, and suddenly white's position looks pretty great.

For the sake of completeness, to answer your question: 6.e5 is a well-known variation. White could, of course, try to win a theoretical battle, but this is neither a strictly better nor worse approach than trying to catch your opponent off-guard.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The point of Kf1 is to gain time or tempo for white. White has a large pawn centre and he has to depend upon it. Black's b4 bishop now becomes useless with nothing to attack and becomes vulnerable. After Kf1 if Black takes the e4-pawn with knight then d5 and then Qe2 the knight gets pinned. There can be plenty of lines which can be analysed. White's open files and diagonals are much more open and gives a promising attack. Objectively, black's best move for a HUMAN is d5 here but if he fails to play then white's attack can be ruthless enough for a win.

If instead of Kf1 Bd2 or Nc3 is placed then the bishop has something to attack and can be exchanged which favours black and he has a comfortable game.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Jesus De La Villa's 100 Endgames book: Ambiguity
Here we have two scenarios where the stronger side has one passed pawn in a KPP vs. KP ending. The other pawns block each other.

In Ending 83, the author states that rook's pawns, if they're not blocked, should be advanced as far as possible. But in Ending 85, he concludes that the stronger side always wins with a passed bishop's pawn (on the same wing) if the rook pawn has remained on the second rank (i.e. not advanced).

Should the rook's pawn be advanced or not?

# Answer
Those endgames are fundamentally different - one has rook pawns and a distant passed pawn (83); the second has rook pawns and a passed bishop pawn on the same wing (85).

The reason in the second case (85) is you may need a tempo move with the rook pawn on its original square. It's explained very clearly in the book.
> 1 votes

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


# Question
Title: What will be the best move in this position?
I am a lower rated (1200-1300) player, and I am quite hesitant while making sacrifices. In the current game I see that black's king is unprotected and a bishop sacrifice at f5 can open up an attack against the black king. Is this the best move in the current position?

# Answer
Almost certainly Bxf5 is a winning move, but it may not be what you want to play. I asked if exf6 was legal. If it is, play it. After Black recaptures play Bg6+ and your attack is just as strong without sacrificing.

In the diagram position, Blacks position is dreadful, probably lost. If you can win without taking risks, why not?

You are not sure if the sacrifice works. That is, you do not trust your analysis. Under those circumstances, should you sacrifice and risk losing? Generally speaking not, if you have a very good position and can see other ways to make progress. Generally yes if you think that your position is bad, and the sacrifice is a last shot.

But perhaps you should sacrifice anyway, just to find out how good your analysis is. Much depends then on the circumstances of the game, Friendly skittles? Last round of tournament? But if you find that it does not work, try to learn something. What did you not see? Why did you not see it? Is there something you should now remember to look for? Did you win, but only because your opponent defended badly? You should look at these things post mortem if you opponent is willing.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think so, yes.

Black cannot ignore the sacrifice as there is the threat of Bg6#.

Moving the queen away to make space for the king won't help: 1.. Qb6 (Qc7, Qa5) 2. Bg6+ Kd8 3. Nf7+

Same for the bishop: 1.. Bxg5 2. Bg6+ Kd7 3. Qf7#

Or the pawn: 1..d6 (d5) 2. Bg6+ Kd7 3. Nf7

So he probably has to take the bishop. You take back with your queen, threatening Qf7# now.

Same options (after 1. Bxf5 exf5 2. Qxf5):

2.. Qb6 3. Qg6+ Kd8 4. Nf7+

2.. d6 (d5) 3. e6 Bxe6 4. Qg6+ Kd7 5. Qxe7+ Kc7 6. Nf7 (4.. Bf7 5. Nxf7) (4.. Kf8 5. Nxe6+)

2.. Bxg5 3. Bxg5 Qc7 4. Qg6+ Kf8 5. Rh3 and he won't be able to parry Rf3+

2.. Bxg5 3. Bxg5 Ne7 4. Qf6 Rf8 5. Qh6 Qc7 6. Rh3 is probably the way to go, but it will be very hard to defend for Black.

Additional option: 2.. Nh6 3. Qg6+ Kf8 4. Rh3 without a good answer to Rf3+ too

This looks like a lot of variations, but basically it all boils down to either the fork on f7 (if the king manages to escape to the queenside) or the manoeuvre Rh3-Rf3 (if the king stays at the wide open kingside) that he cannot properly parry because his pieces on the queenside are so out-of-play.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I ran this through Stockfish on a decent computer for about 11 hours. You can see that after move 8 White has recouped the sacrificed piece and Black is down 4 pawns. This is decisive. However, the pawn on e7 is commanding and Black gives up a little more material. Now he's down 3 pawns and the exchange. Very ugly.

```

[FEN "rnbqk1nr/p2pb3/2p1p3/1p2PpNp/3P3P/2PB1Q2/PP3PP1/RNB1K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Bxf5 exf5 2.Qxf5 Bxg5 3.Bxg5 Ne7 4.Qf6 Rh7 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Qd7 7.dxe7 Qe6+ 8.Qxe6 Bxe6 9.Ne4 Rxe7 10.Bxe7 Kxe7 11.O-O Na6 12.Rfe1 Re8 13.Ng3 Kd7 14.Nxh5 Rf8 15.Re5 Bd5 16.g3 b4 17.Nf4 bxc3 18.bxc3 Nc7 19.Rb1 Kc8 20.a4 Rf6 21.Re7 Bf7 22.h5 Kd8 23.Re5 Nd5 24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.Rb7 a6 26.Ra7 Bc4 27.a5 Bd3 28.g4 Rf4 29.Rg5 Bc4 30.Rg6

```
> 0 votes

---
Tags: middlegame, sacrifice, attack, aggressive-play
---


# Question
Title: What motivates you to play chess and continuously get better at it?
I notice that many chess player, especially kids lose their ability to motivate themselves, especially because of the highly commercialization of the game. It seems as if playing for fun today isn't very relevant, and people disappear out of the game.

# Answer
There are 4 motivations to playing the game, which will vary by person:

* **Aesthetic appeal**: Some players are motivated by compositions where paradoxical moves are required. Others are motivated by sweeping combinations or profound ideas. Recall the feeling that you had the first time you saw a smothered mate. This is the aesthetic motivation
* **Competitive struggle**: Some people are motivated to win, to show their supremacy at the board. Or they are motivated to show their fighting spirit or tenacious defensive abilities against strong opposition. They might be motivated to win a trophy or prize money. These are the kinds of people who see chess as a sport primarily
* **Personal improvement**: For myself, I was drawn to chess because I wanted to improve my concentration. Others are drawn because they want to develop a way to think logically that they can apply elsewhere in their lives. Others do it to develop their memory
* **Fun**: Contrary to your post, many people just play for the fun of it! For example, when I held a chess club in my workplace during lunch, people sacrificed liberally, took big risks and (heaven forbid) had a chat whilst playing!

Each person is likely to have a combination of these motivations.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Well you have to feel the beauty of the marriage of its artistic component to it scientific(should i say mathematic for more accuracy?) component in order to appreciate the game. Plus it makes you feel smart and let others think you re smart even if you're dumb.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chess via phone application had provided me the time to play whereas I did not for many years due to lack of finding an opponent in person. I play chess every day, sometimes a full game and sometimes just a few moves. It's now convenient, so I play more often.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chess is considered variously as an art, a science, a game and a sport. I personally am attracted by its artistic and scientific elements. I try to create beautiful games to satisfy my artistic temperament. In the scientific realm, I'm interested in artificial intelligence and enjoy playing the computer for that reason to see what advances have been made in its development and what is its current level of ability. I also try to keep the game aspect in mind and have fun when I play. These preceding aspects are sufficient motivation for me to want to play. I'm not a highly competitive individual, and downplay the sporting aspect of the game. This latter way of looking at the game would probably be necessary to be driven to get better at it. If one plays regularly and tries to apply the general principles for successful play, improvement would most likely occur naturally over the years anyway.
> 0 votes

# Answer
> In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame. - *Jose Raul Capablanca*

The fact that almost no dedicated amateur studies endgames seriously (as I found out in the Chicago Open) drives me to improve. It's no surprise that half of Capablanca's *Chess Fundamentals* is comprised of endgame examples.

When I play knowing that any rook and pawn endgame is mine, it gives me a confidence that allows me to focus on an astounding middlegame attack. I can willingly sacrifice pieces and other material, but I'll always come out ahead because I know how to play the endgame.

If somehow my attack doesn't checkmate the enemy king in the middle game, I can focus on re-capturing material while my opponent catches up on development. By that time, I'll surely be up mentally, even if we're even in position. Because I know how to play the endgame, I'll be able to finish.
> 0 votes

# Answer
To quote Judit Polgar

> Work hard and see yourself winning is very addictive

(She said that at a presentation, probably not the exact words)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---