# Question
Title: Arrange 5 non-attacking knights on a 5x5 toroidal board
The celebrated British mathematician and lover of public transport, Simon Norton, passed in 2019. He was the subject of a wonderful biography. He was not a particular fan of chess, but here is a tiny gem due to him.

*“Toroidal” means the board has no edges. You can leave on the left and just appear in the board on the right. You can leave at the top and just appear at the bottom. And vice versa.*

---

**EDIT:** Jörg P. has totally nailed it, so he gets the green tick. But his solution doesn't give any insight as to *why* the number is what it is. So I guess that's a bonus question:

* **Bonus question:** why do you get this number (120)?

# Answer
> 9 votes
This is my answer :)

Spoiler alert: Answer is in a comment in the last line of the code block

```
using System;

namespace Toroidal5Knights
{
    class Program
    {
        static int solution = 0;
        static bool[,] board = new bool[5, 5];

        static int[] dx = { -1, 1, 2, 2, 1, -1, -2, -2 };
        static int[] dy = { -2, -2, -1, 1, 2, 2, 1, -1 };

        static int Wrap(int position)
        {
            if (position >= 5) return position - 5;
            if (position < 0) return position + 5;
            return position;
        }
        static bool PlacePossible(int posX, int posY)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < dx.Length; ++i)
            {
                if (board[Wrap(posX + dx[i]), Wrap(posY + dy[i])]) return false;
            }
            return true;
        }
        static void SolveFiveKnights(int posX, int posY)
        {
            if (posY >= 5)
            {
                if (IsSolution())
                {
                    PrintSolution();
                    solution++;
                }
                return;
            }
            if (posX >= 5)
            {
                SolveFiveKnights(0, posY + 1);
                return;
            }

            if (PlacePossible(posX, posY))
            {
                board[posX, posY] = true;
                SolveFiveKnights(posX + 1, posY);
                board[posX, posY] = false;
            }
            SolveFiveKnights(posX + 1, posY);
            return;
        }
        static bool IsSolution()
        {
            int count = 0;
            for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < 5; ++j)
                {
                    if (board[i, j]) count++;
                }
            }
            return count == 5;
        }
        static void PrintSolution()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~");
            for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < 5; ++j)
                {
                    if (board[i, j])
                    {
                        Console.Write(1);
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        Console.Write(0);
                    }
                }
                Console.WriteLine();
            }
            Console.WriteLine("~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~");
        }
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            SolveFiveKnights(0, 0);
            Console.WriteLine(solution);
        }
    }
}
// So the number of solutions is 120.

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
I noticed a simplification of @RosieF's solution:

> Label the squares with two-number labels as follows:
>
> ```
> 4,2 0,3 1,4 2,0 3,1
> 1,0 2,1 3,2 4,3 0,4
> 3,3 4,4 0,0 1,1 2,2
> 0,1 1,2 2,3 3,4 4,0
> 2,4 3,0 4,1 0,2 1,3
>
> ```
>
> Then two knights may occupy two squares x,y and X,Y iff those squares' first numbers x and X are different and their second numbers y and Y are different.

Since there are 5 knights and only 5 different numbers in each direction, that means that every x-value must be occupied by a knight, and each of the possible y-values must be assigned to one of those knights. If we sort the knights' coordinates by their x-value, then list only the y-value, then we wind up with some permutation of the numbers from 0 to 4. Every valid placement of the knights produces a permutation of the numbers 0-4, and every permutation of those numbers corresponds to a valid arrangement of the knights.

The total number of valid arrangements of the knights is thus 5!, or 120.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Label the squares with two-number labels as follows:

```
4,2 0,3 1,4 2,0 3,1
1,0 2,1 3,2 4,3 0,4
3,3 4,4 0,0 1,1 2,2
0,1 1,2 2,3 3,4 4,0
2,4 3,0 4,1 0,2 1,3

```

Then two knights may occupy two squares x,y and X,Y iff those squares' first numbers x and X are different and their second numbers y and Y are different.

Regard these numbers as modulo 5. Then the two-times table is as follows:

```
 y 0 1 2 3 4
2y 0 2 4 1 3

```

So if y and Y are different, so also are 2y and 2Y.

If we have a solution, then what happens if we move each knight from x,y to x,2y? The knights' x's were all different from each other, and each x remained the same, so they remain all different from each other. Their y's were all different from each other, and different y's are still different after they get doubled, so they remain all different from each other. So the result is a solution.

What does this doubling of the y's correspond to on the board? Magnifying it by a factor of sqrt(2) linearly, and turning it 135 degrees clockwise. Having magnified a solution once, we may magnify a second time (two magnifications double the solution linearly and turn it through 90 degrees) and a third, but a fourth magnification results in the original again.

We may start with this solution

```
. . . . .
. . n . .
. n n n .
. . n . .
. . . . .

```

and magnify it 0, 1, 2 or 3 times, yielding a total of 4 solutions. In each case, the rows can be be cyclically permuted in any of 5 ways, as can the columns, to yield 25 cyclic permutations of each of these 4 solutions, for a total of 100.

In addition we have the following solution

```
. . . . .
. . . . .
n n n n n
. . . . .
. . . . .

```

This, too, may be magnified 0, 1, 2 or 3 times, yielding a total of 4 solutions. Each of these 4 solutions has only 5 cyclic permutations, for a total of 20 cyclic permutations from these 4 solutions.

This makes a grand total of 100 + 20 = 120.

As Jörg P. has shown, there are no more.

# Answer
> 7 votes
There are essentially six solutions that are rotationally and translationally unique. Two of them yield five translations and five more rotated translations each, for a total of twenty:

```
NNNNN
.....
.....
.....
.....

N....
.N...
..N..
...N.
....N

```

The remaining four unique solutions can be translated to each of the 25 positions on the board, but are rotationally symmetric, giving a combination of 100 solutions:

```
..N..
.....
N.N.N
.....
..N..

.....
..N..
.NNN.
..N..
.....

N...N
.....
..N..
.....
N...N

.....
.N.N.
..N..
.N.N.
.....

```

This yields the total of 120 solutions found by @JörgP.'s program.

# Answer
> 7 votes
(EDIT: substantially revised because I hadn't thought carefully enough about Rosie F's labeling. The result is even cooler!)

Thanks for all the great answers. I would like to add my own solution.

It's key to label squares in the torus, as Rosie F and Brilliand did:

```
4,2 0,3 1,4 2,0 3,1
1,0 2,1 3,2 4,3 0,4
3,3 4,4 0,0 1,1 2,2
0,1 1,2 2,3 3,4 4,0
2,4 3,0 4,1 0,2 1,3

```

But we can do more than just label the squares: we can view the labeling as a map (transformation) from the torus to itself!

Suppose we fix the centre cell 0,0 as an origin (and relabel 3 & 4 to -2 & -1 respectively). Let's track what happens to the straight lines under the labeling map. There are 6 straight lines each of 4 cells running through this origin. 6x4+1 = 25: check.

The lines come in 3 pairs:

* vertical & horizontal for rooks
* dexter & sinister for bishops (terminology from heraldry: maybe related to the line through which a right-handed swordsman would commonly sweep his sword?)
* left-turn & right-turn for knights (knight moves forward 2, then turns left or right)

Labelings are completely determined by two values: e.g. where to place 1,0 & 0,1, and we build up everything from there linearly. In particular, Rosie F started with:

```
1,0 -> -2,1
0,1 -> -2,-1

```

This maps both the rook lines to knight lines. Now adding/subtracting these gives:

```
1,1 -> 1,0
1,-1 -> 0,2

```

So we are mapping bishop lines to rook lines. And adding another dose of "rook":

```
2,1 -> -1,1
1,2 -> -1,-1

```

And hence we are also mapping knight lines to bishop lines.

Since R-\>N-\>B-\>R, we can view knights and bishops as just being rooks in other frames of reference. The number of ways to arrange 5 non-attacking rooks is obviously 5!, so the same must be true for 5 non-attacking knights - and **also true for 5 non-attacking bishops**!

There are 480 possible labelings (known to their close friends as GL(2,5)). Each gives a frame of reference from which to view the antics of chess pieces. From some, e.g. bishop lines are fixed, while knights and rooks are swapped (e.g. 1,0-\>-2,-1 & 0,1-\>1,-2). Others are much more alien, and pieces behave like chimerae (e.g. a combination of vertical rook and dexter bishop). It follows that even for these weird "half-man-half-biscuit" pieces, the number of ways that 5 can appear is exactly 120.

EDIT: generalize to larger boards

What happens if we generalize to different size boards? Let's say we have a pxp toroidal board, where p is an odd prime (in order to avoid division issues). Then through any point Z there are p+1 lines (with gradients 0,1,...,p-1 and infinity. Each line contains p points, including Z. Check: (p-1)(p+1) + 1 = p^2 ok

Any non-singular 2x2 matrix will map the points A (1,0) & B (0,1) to any two points C, D which are not collinear with O (0,0). But this defines a mapping from the lines including OA & OB to the lines including OC & OD, if we ignore the precise points mapped to.

Doing some counting, there are (p^-1)(p^-2p) non-singular matrices and any pair of lines through the origin are mapped to any other pair of lines by (p-1)^2 matrices. There are thus (p-1)p line-to-line mappings, which is what you would expect.

In larger boards, knights will not have a role, as they are "local" in action and can only access 8 squares. But nightriders are relevant to consider. Their lines are not as symmetric as rooks or bishops: a nightrider accesses twice as many lines, or twice as many squares. We would have to compare the left-nightrider and the right-nightrider with rook and bishop to have pieces of equivalent power.

If p=7, then there are 8 lines through any point: rook, bishop and nightrider cover them all. If p=11, then we get 4 more lines due to a unit we can call camelrider. (If a knight's move is (2,1) then a camel's is (3,1).)

# Answer
> 3 votes
More general answers:

1. OEIS A172532: Number of ways to place 5 nonattacking knights on an n X n toroidal board.
2. my book Non-attacking chess pieces (6ed, 2013), page 308, chapter "k Knights on an n x n toroidal chessboard".

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here is an answer in simple terms without coding. 120 because assuming there is one way to configure the pieces and the board is torodial and there are 25 squares 5 of which that are occupied by knights leaving 20 left. then the knights can occupy all remaining squares since the board is essentially infinite due to the torodial nature. plus they can occupy the four other squares that knights are currently on by rotating with other knights thus giving each knight 24 other squares to occupy 5\*24=120 i believe this works.

---
Tags: problems, knights, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: Which piece combinations can mate a lone king without being aided by the attacking king?
Clearly not a practical question since the king can and should be used in the endgame, but I was curious if anyone has done a comprehensive analysis of which combinations of pieces (including some unrealistic combinations) can force a checkmate against a lone king in a pawnless endgame without being aided by their own king. Let's just pretend the attacking king doesn't exist (or maybe, as a looser restriction, tuck it in a remote corner where it might be allowed to make waiting moves).

There are some easy combinations that can force a checkmate:

* queen and any other piece
* two rooks

On the other hand, there are these classic endgames where it is possible to mate with the help of the king, but not without it:

* queen
* rook
* two bishops
* bishop and knight

It seems to me that the following combinations of pieces can force a checkmate:

* rook and two bishops
* two bishops and two knights
* four bishops (two pairs!)

And the following don't:

* rook and bishop
* rook and knight (you can mate, but can you force it?)

But there are many other combinations I haven't looked at in detail yet:

* rook and two knights
* rook and knight and bishop
* two bishops and knight
* two knights and bishop
* three knights
* three bishops
* four knights
* ...

# Answer
## Possible

**queen and any other piece**

The queen can on its own push the king to the edge of the board by following it a knight-distance away and making use of zugzwang. Once on the edge, it is easy to bring the second piece and mate with the queen in front of the king. The only exception would be if the second piece is a pawn on the next to last row

Example for a knight (similar for any other piece).

```
3k4/3Q4/8/4N3/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1

```

**two rooks**

Well known lawnmower mate.

**rook and two bishops**

Easy mate. Two bishops cover the escape route of the king while the rook checks from the side. Sample game to demonstrate the method:

```
8/8/8/8/3k4/8/6RB/6KB w - - 0 1

1. Re2 Kd3 2. Re8 Kd4 3. Bf4 Kd3 4. Bf3 Kd4 5. Rd8+ Kc4 6. Be3 Kc3 7. Be4 Kc4 8. Rc8+ Kb4 9. Bd5 Kb5 10. Rb8+ Ka5 11. Bc5 Ka6 12. Bc6 Ka5 13. Ra8# *

```

**two (opposite colored) bishops and two knights**

Easy mate. Push the king to the edge of the board where the two bishops can jail the king on two squares. Then take those two squares with the two knights.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/3k3K/6NB/6NB w - - 0 1"]

1. Nh4 Kd4 2. Bf4 Kc4 3. Bf3 Kb4 4. Be5 Kb5 5. Be4 Kc4 6. Ngf3 Kb4 7. Nd2 Ka4 8. Bd6 Kb5 9. Bd5 Ka6 10. Bc6 Kb6 11. Bd7 Kb7 12. Nc4 Ka6 13. Bc6 Ka7 14. Bc7 Ka6 15. Nf5 Ka7 16. Nfd6 Ka6 17. Ne5 Ka7 18. Nd3 Ka6 19. Nc5+ Ka7 20. Nc8#

```

**Two pairs of (opposite colored) bishops**

Very easy mate. Four bishops cover lots of squares and it is even possible to mate the king in the middle of the board.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/3k3K/6BB/6BB w - - 0 1"]

1. Bf4 Kc4 2. Be4 Kc3 3. Bge3 Kc4 4. Bhf3 Kb4 5. Be2 Ka3 6. Be5 Ka4 7. Bc5 Kb3 8. Bb5 Ka2 9. Bc4#

```

**rook + bishop + knight**

Easy mate. Similarly to rook and two bishops you can cover the escape squares while the rook checks from the side.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/3k4/7K/6NR/7B w - - 0 1"]

1. Nh4 Kc3 2. Nf5 Kb3 3. Rd2 Kc4 4. Be4 Kb4 5. Rc2 Kb3 6. Bd3 Kb4 7. Nd4 Ka5 8. Rb2 Ka4 9. Bc4 Ka3 10. Rb6 Ka4 11. Nc2 Ka5 12. Ra6#

```

**rook and two knights**

Easy mate. Similar to the king+rook mate, you can create a box with one knight protecting the rook. You have the second knight free to take further squares from the king and thereby make the box smaller. Mate is similar to rook + two bishops or rook+bishop+knight with the rook checking from the side and the knights taking away the escape squares.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/3k4/8/6NR/6NK w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh3 Ke5 2. Rh4 Kd6 3. Nf3 Kc5 4. Rd4 Kb5 5. Ne3 Kc6 6. Rd5 Kc7 7. Nd4 Kb6 8. Nc4+ Kc7 9. Rd6 Kc8 10. Nb5 Kb8 11. Rd7 Kc8 12. Rh7 Kd8 13. Ne5 Ke8 14. Nd6+ Kf8 15. Nf5 Kg8 16. Rh6 Kf8 17. Rh8#

```

**four knights**

Easy mate. Keeping the knights together you take lots of squares and it is easy to push back the king and mate him.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/3k4/7N/6NN/6NK w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf2 Kc4 2. Nhf3 Kb4 3. Nf4 Kc4 4. Nge2 Kc5 5. Nd2 Kd6 6. N2d3 Ke7 7. Ne4 Kd7 8. Nd4 Ke8 9. Ne5 Kd8 10. Nd5 Ke8 11. Nd6+ Kf8 12. Ne6+ Kg8 13. Nf6+ Kh8 14. Ndf7#

```

---

## Impossible

* **queen** or
* **rook** or
* **two bishops** or
* **two knights** or
* **bishop and knight** or
* **rook and bishop**

There is not even a theoretical mating position for these.

**rook and knight**

There is a theoretical mate (Arabian mate), but it cannot be enforced. For an analysis see this question

**two (opposite colored) bishops and knight**

This is not obvious. Let's just look at the potential mating positions. You can easily convince yourself that the only way to mate is if the king is in the corner (let's say in a8, similarly for other corners) and if the mate is done by a bishop (along the a8-h1 diagonal) while the other bishop and the knight cover the escape squares b8 and a7. I can see three fundamentally different mates. (other mates are mirror symmetric or differ only in the distance of the bishops so are essentially the same).

```
k7/B7/8/1N6/4B3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

or

```
k7/8/N7/8/3BB3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

or

```
k7/3N4/8/8/3BB3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

Doing a small retro-analysis, you see that in all cases the last move was Be4+ and that bishop came from somewhere along the b1-h7 diagonal.

What was black's last move?

* If the king came from a7 or b8, it could as well have gone to b7 in the last move (note that b7 was not covered by any piece since the light squared bishop came from the h7-b1 diagonal). If it went instead of a8 to b7 there was no mate possible.
* If the king came from b7 in the last move, it was not forced to move to a8 either since at least one of the squares c8 or a6 were available as well.

So in summary, there is no forced mate with two bishops and a knight.

**three bishops**

Similar argument as with two bishops and a knight. You easily convince yourself that (theoretical) mate is only possible if the king is in the corner of the color of the single bishop. If there are two dark squared bishops and a light squared bishop, there are essentially two different (up to symmetry) mating positions on a8:

```
k7/B7/8/8/3BB3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

or

```
k7/8/8/8/3BBB2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

In either case, the last white move was Be4 and that bishop came from somewhere along the b1-h7 diagonal.

If the king was before on a7 or b8, it could have gone to b7. If the king was before on b7 it could have gone to c8 or a6. In any case there is no way to force the king to the corner and mate him.

---

## Impossible but no analytical proof yet

* two knights and bishop
* three knights

For a proof by computer analysis see the answer below by Vaclav Kotesovec.
> 11 votes

# Answer
See my book Fairy chess endings on an n x n chessboard (2017), chapter "Endings without the white king", p. 592

Especially:

**two knights and bishop** against bare king, see p. 685. The ending is won only on a 7x7 chessboard, on boards 8x8 and greater the ending is drawn.

**three knights** against bare king, see p. 706. The ending is drawn on a board of any size. Mate can be forced only if the Black king is already trapped in a corner of the board.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, problems, combinations
---


# Question
Title: Is it necessary to write your calculations?
I have heard many times that while you're doing endgame studies,you should write your calculations,like candidate moves,variations.Is it really necessary?Can't i just check each variation one at a time in my head without having to write it down.

# Answer
> 3 votes
No. You could do it if it helps you.
I would not waste the time writing it down when I could be using it to learn something else.

---
Tags: endgame, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Why is a player allowed to resign in an impossible to lose position?
Today I played a game on lichess where my opponent had a King and two Knights vs my lone King. I believe my opponent intended to offer a draw, but they accidentally resigned.

What is the rationale for allowing this?

In my opinion resignation means: "I trust my opponent's skill to convert this position into a win". Therefore, if it is impossible for someone to win then resignation should not be an option, and the game should be drawn.

(My question is inspired by Resignation when a draw is offered, but though my question is related, it is not the same question.)

# Answer
Unfortunately, there is no objective way of saying that a position is 'completely winning'. The rules of chess try to avoid subjectivity as much as possible. Consider the following example (which is related, but not directly pertaining, to your question):

* Player A is clearly winning against Player B. In practical terms, there is no way in which Player B could beat Player A, although in theory it is still possible
* Player A's flag falls, meaning that B wins the game

Obviously, this situation is not ideal. Player A was clearly winning, and yet they still lost the game. Now consider this related scenario:

* Player A is clearly winning against Player B. It is *impossible* for Player B to achieve a win against Player A through a legal sequence of moves
* Player A's flag falls, meaning that the game is drawn

In the vast majority of cases, there is no difference between these two situations, and it is unfortunate that in one case Player A loses, and in the other, Player A draws. However, declaring that 'completely winning' positions should also be drawn in this scenario opens up a Pandora's Box that makes the rules of chess much more difficult to enforce. The main issue is, how do you define 'completely winning'? Let's consider a couple of possibilities:

> 'Completely winning' means that the arbiter believes there is no conceivable way in which Player B could beat Player A, even if it is technically possible.

What if the arbiter misreads the position and doesn't realise that it is 'completely winning'. Or, even worse, they declare a position to be 'completely winning' even though Player B has many more chances than you might expect. Wouldn't one arbiter have a different interpretation to another?

> 'Completely winning' means that when the position is fed into an engine, it spits out +10.00 or -10.00.

Well, engines are giving an *objective assessment* of the position. A position which is in theory +10 might be much harder to win than a position evaluated as +2, but is in reality just a well-known theoretical endgame. Also, what engine do you use? How long do you let the engine inspect the position? The list goes on...

In summary, it is much harder to enforce 'clearly winning' positions instead of just saying, firmly and clearly: 'if it is *impossible* for a player to win this game, then the following rules apply...'

Applying these lessons to your question gives us the answer: allowing accidental resignations is the least worst option when it comes to enforcing the rules of the game. And yes, in practice, two knights vs a king should end up as a draw, and your opponent was very unlucky. But it *is* possible for two knights vs a king endgame to end in a win, and changing the rules of the game would have far worse consequences than first thought.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is possibly the way the Lichess site is programmed. They clicked on the button but the software is not programmed to recognize positions such as those you mention.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, resigning
---


title: Resignation when a draw is offered

text:
# Question
Title: Resignation when a draw is offered
In a recent online game, I offered a draw when the endgame is clearly drawing. To my surprise, instead of replying to my draw offer, my opponent resigned. I have no idea why they did so and my best guess is a misclick.

I am brainstorming and I guess there might be some possible scenarios that one may resign when a draw is offered:

* In a tournament, if winning is the only meaningful result for a player while drawing and losing make virtually no difference to them. Seeing winning is hopeless, they may resign instead of accepting the draw offer.
* A player is clearly losing while his opponent who does not need to win the game, or in a hurry to leave, offered a draw. Embarrassesd at this draw offer, the player chooses to resign instead.
* A player chooses to lose a game on purpose, such as keeping their rating lower so that they can enter some tournament with a restriction on rating.

I have two questions related to this:

1. When a draw is offered, can a player resign as a reply? I think it should be technically legal for them to decline the draw offer first and resign on the next move, but is it legal to reply with resignation when a draw is offered?
2. Though extremely rare, is it considered unsporting (if legal at all) to resign at a draw offer?

# Answer
> is it legal to reply with resignation when a draw is offered?

Of course. This is all that the FIDE Laws of Chess has to say about resignation:

> 5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

You can resign at any time during the game. It doesn't even need to be your turn. I have done this. I once played a move that would blunder my queen, realized as I pressed the clock and immediately resigned before my opponent could play the move I missed.

> is it considered bad sportsmanship ... to resign at a draw offer?

No. Why should it be? There are some circumstances where it could be considered *good* sportsmanship. Suppose, in the last round of a tournament, player A requires just a draw to win the tournament outright and offers his opponent, player B, a draw in a completely winning position. Player B could accept the draw but it might be more sporting to just resign.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Anybody can resign at any time.

Why he did not take the draw sounds like he is throwing the game to hurt someone else in the standings. He needed a win for himself but otherwise he preferred x lose and y win (or place higher).
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, draw, etiquette, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Elo rating software with automatic random matchups
This question is not about chess per se, but I am looking for a software that could generate random matchups through a list of 200ish options/people, then I could choose the winner and it would rank the outcomes with Elo rating (or something similar that would also work).

I'm currently using EloRater, but I have to manually generate random numbers from an external source to then create the matchups, scroll down through the list, find them, choose the winner, etc. I am doing simulations and I need to do many, many matchups from a list. Thus, something that is user-friendly and speeds up the process would greatly help.

I think such software probably exists for chess. Does anyone of anything that could help me?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Dont know elorater but there is likely a way through the opsys to randomly pick (that part is easy) players to match and then insert them automatically into elorater instead of typing them in. If they have a way to import tournament results you might be able to automate it even easier. Just create all the random matchups you want and then submit it for rating.

---
Tags: software, programming, elo
---


# Question
Title: What is some basic advice for playing blitz or rapid?
A decade back i used to play chess, but just OTB and without time control. I now got back into chess and often play something like 15+10, where I very rarely lose on time and I am now rated ~1500 on Lichess. I tried playing shorter time controls but i lose almost every game (rated 900 blitz) on time. I also dont seem to improve at all an do not really know where to start to get better at those time controls. Are there some ressources that could help me improve or should i just change my playstyle for blitz?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Welcome to Chess StackExchange!

You say the transition from games at 15+10 to blitz sees you going from rarely losing on time to almost always losing on time.

Can I ask if the blitz is still with increment eg like 5+5 or some such?

When I switch from say bullet to 5+5 to 8+5 and such it always takes me several games to get into the rhythm of the new time control.

Do you have a sense at the shorter time controls that you are falling behind in the opening phase, middle game or end game? Are you spending too much time in the openings to get a good position but then run out of time to win?

One way to cope with the time issue is to play a small number of quieter openings. You will learn how to play their characteristic pawn structures and where to put your pieces. For example I aim to play as white the London System and as black against e4 the French Defense. Against d4 I like the NimzoIndian.

There are online games repositories with notes that can help you.

A good area to study is the endgame, an extra effort here will dramatically improve your results.

Rook and pawn endings are quite common and it's worth studying them. I find it's the area where my opponents often stumble. Always try to get your rook active even at the cost of a pawn and remember that whether in attack or defence the rook belongs behind the passed pawn!

Pay particular attention to your king safety or your opponents lack thereof. In a time scramble an exposed king position can be a nightmare.

Best of luck!

# Answer
> 2 votes
What do you call blitz? When I played it was zero seconds per move. Now it seems to be variable like SD1 to SD5.

At your rating it really does not matter what you do. For sure you will not ever improve if you play blitz. It is more likely to reduce your actual rating a LOT.

What you need to do is improve your skills. Then practice at playing at exactly ten seconds per move. Get in the habit of not moving instantly, but also not taking time that would run your clock out before the game ends.

You need to study tactics and learn an opening thoroughly.

15+10 is like postal chess to me.
What do you do with all that time?

Play 1+10 and force yourself to learn to move faster. You wont play much worse for a while and you will improve. But do study tactics and learn openings. Then learn end games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I can understand your situation. Because I am also a classical player, rated 2109 on lichess; but performing poorly on the blitz (1712) and bullet (1741). Moreover, there are more than 30 games, where I lost on time though the positions were in my favour. So, I think, I can give you some tips to improve your ratings by at least **+300** points.

1. **Smooth Transition**: As per other answers, I think you should try 15+0 \[Rapid\] \>\> 10+5 \>\> 10+0 \>\> 5+5 / 5+3 \[Blitz\] \>\> 5+0 \>\> 3+2 \>\> 3+0 \>\> 2+1\[Bullet\] \>\> 1+0, in following manner: If you can complete (win/lose) **10 games** **in a row** within the given **time** then go for the next tier.
2. **One Opening man**: Instead of experimenting with different openings, you must stick with a single one and simultaneously have to study it deeply. After studying a line properly, set a target to play first 10 moves within 10 sec. If you follow a single line (eg., 1.d4) for more than 100 games; then you will find that it is quite easy for you to reply not only fast but also accurate. And it will help you significantly in time management.
3. **Pre moving**: After "*mastering*" an opening, try to pre-move \[This is crucial in the bullet, not in blitz\]. Just make sure to play first 10 moves within 5 seconds!! and you will rock on bullet \[at least below 1500 tier\].
4. **Pattern Recognition in Middlegame**: A simple way to play ultrafast middlegame is pattern recognition (eg., if both King and Queen are in the same diagonal, then try to find your bishop to set a "*Royal Fork*"). The only way to achieve this is by practising a lot of puzzles. So, be prepared to try at least 20 puzzles (If possible 50) each day.
5. **Accurate Endgames**: "*All's well that ends well.*" So, be focused at your endgame. First, master the checkmate patterns (Staircase mate, smothered mate etc.) and then try the comparatively advance theory (like opposition). If you are already good at endgame, then invite your opponent directly from the opening, by exchanging valuable pieces early in the game.

It's a long journey, but if you follow the aforementioned steps, you will definitely improve in a significant margin.

Best of Luck.

---
Tags: blitz
---


# Question
Title: Mouse vs Touch performance for bullet chess
Though I have played chess for a long time, only picked up bullet chess very recently. And with better results than expected. However, as I play at random times I find myself playing in different settings:

1. With a mouse
2. With an Ipad (touchscreen)
3. With a smartphone (touchscreen)

What surprised me is that the mouse does not significantly outperform the alternatives.

Though I am struggling to analyze this numerically, I feel that the mouse is by far best when making planned moves (especially something like a4-a5-a6-a7 or Ra1-Ra2-Ra1-Ra2...) where the smartphone is faster for making unexpected/semi expected moves (typically allowing me to build up pressure in the midgame where I kind-of know what kind of moves to make but cannot commit to an exact order in advance).

Now my question:

# Are there any evaluations on touch vs mouse speed/accuracy for 'normal people' done beyond the scale of an individual? Especially for different kind of moves?

This is more a question of curiosity, but perhaps there could be practical applications. For instance, if the results are conclusive I might get some of the top players to test using a touchscreen instead, or if the switching is not to bad this could even be done for just the midgame.

---

What have I tried:

* As mentioned I tried it myself
* I searched online, found plenty of individuals who say one option or the other is better. Also found several statements specifically about the mouse being faster in a pre-move setting.
* I checked what (top) players do in chess and other games. Most of them use a mouse, however this may simply be because they cannot afford to be slower at expected moves/pre-moves.

I am still thinking on how to investigate this myself. Of course chess based analysis would be the best, but perhaps it is sufficient to tap into more general research on device control.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your question is interesting. I think I can share my experience because I am playing bullet for quite some time now. I used to use a touchscreen (Galaxy Tab S5E), but for the last couple of months, I am using a mouse.

Both of them have benefits as well as drawbacks to their side. The best benefit for the touchscreen is reachability with accuracy. You can touch wherever you wish to and that too with accurate (assuming you are using 5.0+ inch touchscreen). On the other hand, the mouse is fast, but not accurate and may also **"slip"** in the crucial move (often known as mouse-slip).

So, the question is why is the mouse still the favourite option to major chess players?

The answer is **"Polling Rate"**. An average wired gaming mouse offers a polling rate of **1000 Hz**, compared to 120Hz *touch refresh rate* from the touchscreens. And this plays the crucial role in bullet because of each **millisecond** counts in it. So, I think, it's important to choose almost 10x faster equipment, though it's not that accurate.

Last but not least, *Hardware*. I ran lichess lag test on Google Chrome in my PC \[Windows\] as well as in the official android app \[Pixel 3A XL\]. Both of them were connected to the same wifi network. Though the lichess-server latency was the same in both devices \[0.1 milisecond\], "*Network between Lichess and you*" (i.e ping) varies significantly from mobile (181ms) to PC (103ms). So, clearly, mouse in a PC is more superior choice than the touchscreen, at least for me.

Thank you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Depends on you, your hand-eye coordination, and how well your mouse or touch screen works. There is no one answer that is right for everyone to use.

---
Tags: online-chess, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: Aggressive variation against Queen's Gambit Declined?
My style favors aggressive, complicated openings. I have constructed a suitable repertoire with White beginning with 1. d4 with one exception. I have so far been unable to find a satisfactory response to

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6.

```

I would prefer not to play the Exchange Variation because it is extremely popular among my regular opponents, but if it is the only option I would consider it. However, this would mean also finding something against the Alatortsev (3... Be7).

Can anyone give me a good suggestion? I'm willing to go into less popular lines if they have been tested by a 2700+ at least once.

Edit: To be clear, I'm already set vs. the Slav/Semi-Slav. I'm purely concerned with situations where Black does not play c6 at some point.

# Answer
Maybe the 5.Bf4 lines are a good fit. In the 5.Bg5 lines, black can often exchange bishops with the Lasker/Capablance maneuver, involving an early ...Ne4 or ...Nd5 forcing the bishop exchange, and it is hard to get aggressive play against that. 5.Bf4 avoids that, with the drawback that there is less pressure on d5, allowing ...c5 by black. Usually white takes the pawn.

There's an all star list of top players who have used it -- Kasparov, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Gelfand, Korchnoi, et cetera.

I should probably add an example game here but I don't know one from the top of my head and I don't have much time...

A recent book that advocates this line is Burgess' "A Cunning Repertoire for White", which is a generic 1.d4 opening repertoire book.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'm pretty sure I have seen strong grandmasters play a setup with Nf3, e3 and g4!?. You may want to look closer at this.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I recommend the Rubinstein Attack for an aggressive variation against the Queen's Gambit Declined.

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Qc2

```

The main idea is to play `Qc2` to castle queenside and launch a pawn storm against the black king. This is in contrast to the Exchange Variation, where the typical strategies are to play `Qc2` for a break in the center or minority attack on the queenside while castling kingside.
> 0 votes

# Answer
For your style my suggestion is e4 followed by f3 if he capture with the pawn, if he capture with the knight,take knight and then f3!
> -2 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: What insights have neural networks revealed about chess?
I've been interested to see an analysis of the decision making processes of an NN in determining the difference between good and bad moves. The only writings I've seen is about how NN can be applied to other fields. I've heard that grandmasters are using NNs to train for tournaments.

Can anyone point me to such sources relating to this particular query?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think NN's brought us 3 main types of knowledge about chess: Specific good types of positions, that playing positionally is viable at a high level, and that we are nowhere near creating a perfect chess engine.

1. Fawn pawns (6th rank pawns that are safely nested in opponent pawns) are the clearest example here. Another example would be the strength of a pair of opposite color bishops which most AB engines underestimated.
2. AlphaZero/LC0 both play in a much more positional manner. While hard to quantify, this basically means playing to maximize space and mobility rather than pure material.
3. The fact that LC0 plays so differently than SF and is about at the same level means that neither are close to perfect play. The intuition here is that as you approach optimal strength, all strategies should converge, so the difference between play styles implies that there is a lot of ability for both to grow stronger.

---
Tags: engines
---


title: One board tournament

text:
# Question
Title: One board tournament
I work at a public library and we used to offer a monthly chess night, which is on hold right now due to lockdown regulations. We are planning to offer a small garden chess tournament outside the library with one chess set and maybe pre-registration to control crowd size.

What would you say is a good time format to offer? What tournament mode?

I was thinking to just do some "winner stays at the board, 6 challenges 15+0" kind of thing?

# Answer
That'd probably be the best way- yes. A typical tournament would be difficult. Probably a blitz time control (something like 3+2) would be best, so games are over quickly. You'd also have to consider what'd happen if a draw occurs- my suggestion is to let the guy who won the game before that stay, or play another game. Also colours have to be decided- id say flipping a coin'd be best (other random selection alternatives are also good).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: East and West German Chess

text:
# Question
Title: East and West German Chess
Interested in chess history, I wonder if there is an accessible data set that lists all players from East and West Germany in the 80's, ideally with information like the FIDE website (name, national Elo rating, gender and year of birth). I would also be interested in the same data for Germany in the 90s and 2000s.

Note 1. Wikipedia lists I know are too sparse (East German or German players).

Note 2. @BrianTower's answer is very useful but I'm afraid that by focusing only on FIDE players I would miss good players who were not FIDE rated because of the old rating floors for men (2205) and women (2005).

# Answer
> 3 votes
> I wonder if there is an accessible data set that lists all players from East and West Germany in the 80's

The Olimpbase site has a downloadable zip file of FIDE rating data from 1967 to 2001. It is accessible in the sense that you can download it but the data you want would have to be extracted from the dataset which isn't in an easily readable form. It is also quite "dirty".

Now I have already done this so for me it is just a matter of executing the right sql command. Here are the results for East German players. Note that FIDE Ids came in just as the GDR ceased to exist so some of the players don't have proper FINs. Nevertheless my DB requires a unique FIN for each player so the shorter FINs were either the 5-digit, one-year FINs which FIDE created initially before they thought maybe they should cater for more than 100,000 players or they were auto-constructed by my load program.

FullName FIDEID DoBYear Sex MaxRating
Apel, Stefan 4612116 1969 M 2265
Aring, Gerd 4665791 1963 M 2230
Babrikowski, Peter, Dr. 4611942 1956 M 2320
Bade, Heidrun 4612710 1945 F 2040
Barth, Rainer 4611918 1958 M 2280
Bauer, Reinhard, Dr. 4611772 1954 M 2310
Baum, Bernd, Dr. 4611853 1945 M 2265
Baumbach, Friedrich, Dr. 4611721 1935 M 2460
Becker, Michael 4611667 1957 M 2330
Belke, Frank, Dr. 4612337 1963 M 2230
Beltz, Martina 4612485 1962 F 2160
Besser, Hans 4601033 1935 M 2460
Birke, Andreas 4612140 1966 M 2255
Boehlig, Heinz, Dr. 4614283 1943 M 2450
Boehnisch, Manfred 4611543 1941 M 2390
Boensch, Uwe 4611268 1958 M 2575
Boettcher, Ilse 17753 NULL F 2045
Bonsch, Uwe 17771 NULL M 2505
Borriss, Martin, Dr. 4611950 1970 M 2300
Brameyer, Hermann 4612019 1939 M 2270
Braun, Gottfried, Dr. 4611489 1933 M 2400
Braun, Regine 4612744 1954 F 1910
Broeder, Iris 4612426 1962 F 2225
Broemel, Richard 4612256 1958 M 2240
Bromel, Richard 78522 NULL M 2240
Brueggemann, Joachim 4611861 1951 M 2365
Bueder, Thomas 4612183 1967 M 2260
Burchardt, Brigitte 4612213 1954 F 2295
Camin, Gesine 17844 NULL F 2020
Casper, Thomas 4611403 1959 M 2435
Csulits, Anton 4611705 1942 M 2345
Daemering, Katrin 4612604 1966 F 2100
Dietze, Wolfgang, Dr. 4611802 1950 M 2340
Enders, Peter 4611314 1963 M 2490
Espig, Gesine 4612523 1959 F 2135
Espig, Lutz 4611276 1949 M 2490
Espig, Thomas 4612027 1954 M 2380
Feibert, Petra 4606191 1958 F 2255
Feustel 18116 NULL M 2305
Frommelt, Hans-Juergen 4612159 1954 M 2255
Fuchs, Reinhart 4611357 1934 M 2460
Gaffron, Petra 18169 NULL F 1820
Gauglitz, Gernot 4611365 1962 M 2480
Gautzsch, Christina 4612620 NULL F 1980
Geibler, G. 18204 NULL F 2055
Geissler, Grit 4612655 1967 F 2050
Goehler, Antje 4612469 1967 F 2220
Goldberg, Alexander, Dr. 4611560 1965 M 2340
Golz, Werner 18253 1933 M 2410
Grigorov 18292 NULL M 2205
Grottke, Hans-Joachim, Dr. 4612167 1942 M 2280
Gruenberg, Hans-Ulrich 4611306 1956 M 2510
Hackel, Mario 4611780 1970 M 2360
Harnisch, Diana 4612531 NULL F 2025
Hartlapp, Jutta 4612612 NULL F 1985
Heinatz, Dr. Gundula 4612434 1969 F 2195
Heinatz, Thomas 4611748 1965 M 2355
Heinen 18363 NULL M 2265
Heinig, Wolfram, Dr. 4611926 1954 M 2365
Heinsohn, Guenther 4641140 1945 M 2235
Heinsohn, Wilfried 4612400 1947 M 2215
Heintze, Marion 4612191 1954 F 2235
Hennings, Artur 4611594 1940 M 2475
Hesse, Peter 4611519 1944 M 2440
Hobusch, Cornelia 4612574 1960 F 2000
Hoeckendorf, Hartmut 4612302 1954 M 2255
Hoelzlein, Christina 18391 1951 F 2140
Hoffmann, Helga 4608933 1932 F 2015
Hoffmann, R. 18392 NULL F 2205
Hofmann, B. 18393 NULL F 2230
Jahn, Constanze 4612450 1963 F 2210
Jahnel, Guenther 4636147 1958 M 2315
Jakat, Thomas 4612329 1959 M 2270
Janssen, Lieselotte 4612515 1937 F 2040
Jaster, Robert, Prof. Dr. 4612418 1964 M 2225
Jeske, Eckhard 4641485 1952 M 2235
Jeske, Kirsten 4612728 1963 F 2025
Just, Gabriele, Dr. 4612558 1936 F 2155
Kaminski, Uwe 4611381 1962 M 2405
Keller, Manfred 4607368 1945 M 2325
Keller-Hermann, Edith 4611870 1921 F 2190
Kestler, Hans-Guenther 4601076 1939 M 2450
Kimpinsky, Frank 4611934 1960 M 2300
Kleeschaetzky, Rainer 4611985 1963 M 2290
Kliefoth, Christel 4612752 1957 F 1880
Kluss, C. 18592 NULL F 1880
Knaak, Rainer 4611250 1953 M 2565
Kobe, U. 18597 NULL M 2270
Kobe, Ulrich 4612035 1941 M 2270
Kopfer, Michael 89915 NULL M 2235
Kosowski, Todor 4612310 1970 M 2235
Kroggel, Rita 18658 NULL F 1840
Krug, Peter 18662 NULL M 2220
Kube, Hannelore 4612760 1953 F 2005
Kunze, Kerstin 4612493 1971 F 2215
Kyas, Juergen 4618157 1955 M 2230
Lamm, Steffen 4612175 1963 M 2280
Lang, Jens, Dr. 4611756 1960 M 2315
Lehmann, Christina 4612442 1951 F 2075
Lenk, Wolfgang 4612388 1938 M 2250
Liebert, Heinz 4611438 1936 M 2485
Litkiewicz, Kurt 4612264 1934 M 2240
Lorenz, Gerd 4612272 1944 M 2275
Luther, Thomas 4611420 1969 M 2425
Malich, Burkhard, Dr. 4611330 1936 M 2535
Manger, Carola 12092 1959 F 2110
Meissner, Hans-Juergen 4611969 1953 M 2290
Melzer, Monika 4612680 NULL F 1940
Mevissen, Ulrich 4612736 1938 F 2025
Moehring, Guenther 4611462 1936 M 2450
Mueller, K. 18988 NULL F 1870
Mueller, Klaus 4611578 1942 M 2470
Mueller, Werner 4612370 1954 M 2215
Mueller, Werner 18992 NULL M 2205
Neukirch, Detlef 4611624 1940 M 2375
Nobis, Martina 4612779 1959 F 2005
Nowarra, Waltraud 4612361 1940 F 2120
Nuenchert, Eveline 4612540 1943 F 2145
Oetzel, Roland 4612043 NULL M 2270
Okrajek, Alexander 4612221 1956 M 2230
Pachow, Joerg 4612230 1961 M 2255
Packroff, Hermann 4611896 1941 M 2290
Paehtz, Thomas 4611349 1956 M 2515
Petigk, Falk 4611373 1930 M 2420
Pfeil, Hartmut 4611810 1951 M 2300
Pfretzschner, Roland 4612086 1958 M 2265
Poldauf, Dirk 4611470 1965 M 2390
Pollak, Georg 4611551 1946 M 2350
Postler, Reinhard 4611608 1944 M 2375
Pranner, Marion 4612582 NULL F 1990
Prussas, Claudia 19262 NULL F 1835
Raitza, Olaf 4611675 1934 M 2325
Ramseier, Jana S. 1302329 1969 F 2080
Riecks, A. 19343 NULL F 1805
Roesch, Arnd, Prof. 4611632 1965 M 2335
Roesler, Matthias, Dr. 4611977 1966 M 2270
Rosenthal, Dirk 4611586 1970 M 2280
Rossmann, Helmut 4612094 1956 M 2360
Rozental, D. 19388 NULL M 2305
Ruebensam, Helmut 4612051 1955 M 2270
Schilar, Michael 19465 NULL M 2225
Schmidt, Gerhard 4605233 1940 M 2275
Schneider, Frank 4612299 1945 M 2240
Schoene, Ralf 4611535 1961 M 2310
Schoeneberg, Manfred 4611845 1946 M 2470
Schurade, Matthias 4611497 1959 M 2385
Seidemann, Ulricke 4612639 1955 F 2080
Seils, Gudula 4612671 1961 F 2045
Seils, Joerg 4612078 1963 M 2255
Skibbe, Diana 4612698 1961 F 2040
Sommaro, Katja 4612590 1966 F 2135
Starck, Bodo 4611829 1934 M 2325
Starck, Ines 4612477 1963 F 2135
Stern, Rene 4611799 1972 M 2335
Stettler, Michael 4611454 1961 M 2375
Syre, Christian 4611993 1954 M 2285
Teske, Henrik 4611500 1968 M 2425
Thal, Olaf 4611683 1935 M 2355
Thormann, Wolfgang 4611713 1949 M 2360
Tischbierek, Raj 4611322 1962 M 2500
Uhlmann, Wolfgang 4611284 1935 M 2590
Vogt, Lothar 4611292 1952 M 2520
Volke, Karsten 4611411 1965 M 2395
Wagner-Michel, Annett 4612205 1955 F 2230
Walter, Guenter 4612108 1942 M 2370
Weyrich, Morten 4611659 1959 M 2290
Wieland, Ilse 4612507 1957 F 2045
Wolf, Sylvia 4612701 1962 F 2025
Wolff, Sonja 19903 NULL F 1815
Womacka, Mathias 4611390 1966 M 2395
Zahn, Juergen 4612345 1946 M 2225
Zinn, Lothar 19958 1938 M 2435

Running the same query for Germany gives almost 1100 rows which is too much to post here IMHO. If you can find a way you are happy with sending me an email address I can send you some bigger query results.

---
Tags: rating, history, fide
---


title: Horde Chess Guide?

text:
# Question
Title: Horde Chess Guide?
I have recently discovered Horde Chess on lichess.org and was wondering if there is somewhere a online guide on some openings or on some general tactic?

I'm really a beginner in general chess itself also, but this seems like its simpler and more fun.

# Answer
> 7 votes
It's been a while since that question was asked, but now there is the new Horde Chess Blog (Full disclosure: I wrote it), which has both opening and general tactics guides, with reviews of example games.

More content is expected to be added with time, but so far, it has general tactic guidelines.

The guideline for Black (the pieces) are:

> Attack from behind. In that method, the queen sneaks into the first ranks and then tackle the pawns from there. This incursion typically involves breaking the pawn wall in one of the marginal columns (a or h), since the pawns there are protected only by one pawn. (the intrusion tactic)

Or the alternative blockade tactic

> First, black positions his pawns and pieces in a way that prevents any white pawn advancement. Then, he moves one of his pieces back and forth, forcing white to eventually make advancement and lose pawns.

For White (the pawns), there is the Phalanx tactic:

> Just advance all of your pawns until you get to promote one of them to a queen. Once you have a queen, in most cases winning is straightforward \[...\] with enough patience, caution, and a little bit of luck this method will work flawlessly.

In addition, there is a post on common Horde Chess openings.

Hope this helps the OP or whoever watches this question now.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**TL;DR**: White should target the rook files and get to the back rank. Black should keep the pawns together an promote.

I found this guide on the lichess forum, found after Googling "Horde Chess Strategy". Tips for white are:

> \[Winning with white\] is most easily achieved by getting to the back of the horde. The weakest files are the a, and h file, as those pawns are only defended once. The easiest way to immediately create pressure on either of those files is 1. a4 (or h4). This forces the b5 (or g5) pawn to choose between capturing or being captured, and thus opening up the file for the rooks.

Tips for black are:

> The goal for black is to checkmate. This is most easily achieved after promotion (by which time white will probably resign after all of their sacrifices). As aforementioned, black's weakest files are the a, and h files. Black must guard these files and the backrank. Black must remember that the power is in the horde, and therefore must not spreadout his pawns in an easily permeable, checker like structure. Accept or reject sacrifices as the position calls for. Black must also keep in mind that should white get to the back of the horde, it's not always the end of the game. It takes valuable time for white to capture all of the pawns rank by rank -- time black could be using to promote pawns. And if all else fails, it's often quite possible for black to play for a draw -- stalemate -- when black has no legal moves.

# Answer
> -6 votes
It's not chess, however. So that is the major drawback.

Only advice to give is to just play, and forget about approaching it with the same ideas as in standard chess. It won't last long.

---
Tags: learning, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Can I host lichess server to my local machine to use the study offline?
Lichess is a free, Ad-free and Open-Source chess server. To me, it has the best **STUDY** option over the internet. I am thinking whether it's possible or not to host a localhost setup using the source code of lichess into my PC. The sole reason is to use it for studying the game.

Since *Stockfish.js* is available, I am thinking to retain the web layout.

By the way, I have tried **Scid Vs PC** with the free database, provided by Lichess, but its UI and UX is not at all refined. So, my question is,

"**Has anyone tried to host Lichess to their local machine, that ran smoothly offline? If not, is it possible to do so ?**"

# Answer
Yes. I did it a little while ago. It's of course possible. You will need to be technical capable of doing it as it won't be like a one-click installer.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> "Has anyone tried to host Lichess to their local machine, that ran smoothly offline? If not, is it possible to do so ?"

I was asked to do such a thing a couple of years ago as a paid project. I'm retired and really have no interest in doing paid work so I handed on the idea to one of my sons who is a young and very enthusiastic software engineer.

He had a look at this but what put him off was that it uses a strange programming language (Scala?) and the non-relational database MongoDB. He happily installed the programming language and had a play but baulked at MongoDB. He ended up declining the project as what was being offered came nowhere near matching the amount of work involved according to his estimation.

If you seriously want to pursue this then this github page would be a good place to start.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, software, study, lichess
---


title: How to watch PGN at different speeds?

text:
# Question
Title: How to watch PGN at different speeds?
I am looking for a program for Windows or an online service for viewing PGN at variable speed. I know that lichess has fast and slow speed, but I want more adjustable settings.

# Answer
My own web application can help you

https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzle/editor.php

(1) Paste the PGN text into the 'PGN import' tab.

(2) Adjust the speed of animation on the 'diagram' tab.

(3) Click 'download animated diagram'.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, programming, pgn, online, windows
---


title: How can I move quickly in time?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I move quickly in time?
I am a slow chess player. I have 3 digits rating in blitz. How I can play fast so that I do not loose on time ?

# Answer
I think, yesterday, I have answered such a question here.

I am just pasting the answer and adding a few resources to it. You should keep these in your mind.

1. **Smooth Transition**: As per other answers, I think you should try 15+0 \[Rapid\] \>\> 10+5 \>\> 10+0 \>\> 5+5 / 5+3 \[Blitz\] \>\> 5+0 \>\> 3+2 \>\> 3+0 \>\> 2+1\[Bullet\] \>\> 1+0, in following manner: If you can complete (win/lose) 10 games in a row within the given time then go for the next tier.
2. **One Opening man**: Instead of experimenting with different openings, you must stick with a single one and simultaneously have to study it deeply. After studying a line properly, set a target to play first 10 moves within 10 sec. If you follow a single line (eg., 1.d4) for more than 100 games; then you will find that it is quite easy for you to reply not only fast but also accurate. And it will help you significantly in time management.
3. **Pre moving**: After "mastering" an opening, try to pre-move \[This is crucial in the bullet, not in blitz\]. Just make sure to play first 10 moves within 5 seconds!! and you will rock on bullet \[at least below 1500 tier\].
4. **Pattern Recognition in Middlegame**: A simple way to play ultrafast middlegame is pattern recognition (eg., if both King and Queen are in the same diagonal, then try to find your bishop to set a "Royal Fork"). The only way to achieve this is by practicing a lot of puzzles. So, be prepared to try at least 20 puzzles (If possible 50) each day.
5. **Accurate Endgames**: "All's well that ends well." So, be focused at your endgame. First, master the checkmate patterns (Staircase mate, smothered mate etc.) and then try the comparatively advance theory (like opposition). If you are already good at endgame, then invite your opponent directly from the opening, by exchanging valuable pieces early in the game.

Here are a few resources you can check:

Beginners training kit at lichess.

Tactics training at Blitz-tactics

Puzzles at lichess

Hope it helps. Good luck.
> 3 votes

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


title: Games with three en passants

text:
# Question
Title: Games with three en passants
Games with two en passants in them are are uncommon, and games with three are exceeding rare, and four has never been achieved as far as I know.

I only know of four games with three en passant captures in them, with game #2 arguably being the most famous one because of Tim Krabbe.

1. A S Segal-K H Podzielny, 1980
2. Kudrin-R Douven, 1989
3. G N Gopal-S Zhigalko, 2005
4. Naiditsch-B Predojevic, 2006

Can more games with three en passants that exist be found?

# Answer
I made a program that reads PGN files that contain thousands of games.
It read 1 317 676 games and found six that fit the criteria.

1. A Bitalzadeh vs E L'Ami, 2013
2. I Shahaliyev vs E Ghaem Maghami, 2014
3. M Petrov vs M Ozdover, 2016
4. Vi Balint vs G Kjartansson, 2017
5. J Bonin vs M Paragua, 2019
6. N Berry vs A Roy, 2019

More could be found. I downloaded all the 1.3 million games from The Week in Chess.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: en-passant, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Why do high level players memorize specific games?
Inspite of having such a large number of possible positions and games why do high level players bother about some specific game from some million years ago ? It may be helpful in understanding techniques and tactics but memorizing them seems very unusual. In fact memorizing games puts the person with more calculating ability at a disadvantage in time constrained games. Shouldn't the goal be to develop the chess aptitude rather than memorizing.

# Answer
Memorization is mostly a side effect, not the end goal. Top players can spend hours or days analyzing a single game to try to understand all of the instructive ideas. Memorization naturally flows from that.
> 44 votes

# Answer
It's not as if top players sit down to memorize an old game. They don't spend time only memorizing, memorization is not a goal.

But they study lots of games. Old games, new games, famous games, their own games. Constantly.

And they have amazing memory so they remember these games, as a side effect of studying them, move by move.

Of course there are also players who don't quite study constantly, or who don't have amazing memory. But they tend not to become top players. Memory is very important in chess at the very highest level.
> 10 votes

# Answer
"Seems very unusual": source? Every time I've heard a good player (from club-competent to world-class) talking about his games, they were remarkably capable of precisely recalling positions. So I would say that

* it is "very usual";
* it stems from thinking long and hard about those positions, either during games or while studying;
* it seems like a good trait, to the extent that I assume that a particularly good memory is a requirement for a good player.
> 7 votes

# Answer
When studying an old game, you can take however long you want to analyse if its the best move. The conclusion that this is the best move came from "calculating ability" and not from "memory".

There is not need to "calculate" this again when in a match. It's faster and easier to play from memory.

Kinda the same as when learning the times tables as a kid, you first learn to understand how they work. Then you memorize them for quick and easy use.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Memorization of entire games from a million years ago was never used as a method to train young players; or at least not those players who went on to become grandmasters. (There are other things that do end up taught repeatedly and usually mainly memorized, like crucial opening tactics and endgame strategies.)

It is easier, for a strong player, to memorize somebody else's game just after seeing it played out once than you might think possible, because chess has taught them the logic connecting the moves together. In fact they were likely able to *predict* many of the moves even before they learned which move was actually made in a given position.

A strong player will be good at remembering chess-like positions as well as sequences of strong (natural, logical) moves, and they will be correspondingly weak, compared to weak players, at remembering "positions" created by randomly positioning pieces on the chessboard, or poor, nonsensical, randomly selected moves. It is because every position objectively determines the strongest continuation or a few strong options, but there's often fifty more weak moves, including many that no player would normally consider in the given position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If there is a long complex line it is easier than trying to figure out the right move while the clock is ticking.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Why is White considered so much better in this position?
I'm not sure I understand why Stockfish considers White so much better here. A look at the two strongest lines for White by Stockfish doesn't really give me much intuition about what White is playing for. I see that Black's LSB is stuck defending the pawn on d5, and Black's rook looks awkward on h5, and White has a potentially strong passed pawn on c5, but I'm not sure I understand why this is worth a score of +2.3.

If someone could explain what the essence of White's advantage is (or a combination of key elements that gives rise to the advantage) that hopefully naturally explains the rationale behind the moves suggested by Stockfish I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Using the Dorfman method to evaluate the position, White is ***statically*** much better, and probably close to victory (which may explain the +2.3). Both kings are safe and the material is balanced. However:

* The d4-square is a fantastic outpost for the knight, which it can reach easily via e2.
* The pawn in d5 is isolated and weak. Its advance will be prevented by the display of the Knight in d4.
* White has 2 islands of pawns against 3 for Black. A timely a4 may create an additional weakness in b5 or a6.
* White has a protected passed pawn which can be easily pushed.
* An exchange of queens would be very favourable to White. The Bishop in b7 would indeed be stuck to the pawn's defence in d5, and Black's rook would be awkward.

So Black must play **very dynamically** to balance the game. They must achieve coordination of their pieces and find a counterplay in the Kingside. But it's not easy, the white king is safe.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Here's my theory for this position. The engine is evaluating +2 advantage because black's rook can be trapped.

First, watch carefully, that rook on h5 is isolated from the main game and has only another safe square to move (i.e, f5), where it can be backed by Queen (on e6), as well as the pawn on g6. So it is dubious to exchange white queen for a rook.

So now, white's idea is to activate its knight in the game. Watch carefully, Nd4 can trigger a threat to the Queen on e6, as well as on f5 square (previously discussed safer square for the rook). And, after black's reply, white can simply play Bf3, that creates some nasty threat for the rook on h5. If rook goes to h3, then after Kg2, it's completely trapped.

So, black can try something like Rh6. And then, white can simply take by Bxh6. Now, as rook is worth 5 pawns, and the bishop is worth 3; so it's (5-3) = +2 advantage for white.

# Answer
> 8 votes
White has a protected passed pawn on c5, which means almost all endgames will favour White.

The d4 square is also a great spot for the white knight (indeed the engine suggests Ne2 preparing for that) If Black has to give away his g7 bishop, then the king could be in trouble due to the weaknesses of the dark squares around it. And things aren't much better if he doesn't

Black can't really use its "good" g7 bishop to attack any targets, not play ...a5 to try to create new ones. The "bad" b7 bishop is in an even worse situation as it's pretty much doing nothing where it stands

Black pieces are poorly coordinated (its attack can't go anywhere precisely because of the bishops being unable to join) The h5 rook could even be in big trouble, but it's probably not worth to even exchange it for a white minor piece (White would still be winning after that of course)

Unlike White's c5 strong pawn, the d5 pawn is a weakness and Black will have to constantly look after it.

For all of these reasons I think White has a very significant advantage, but one of the problems with assigning a number to it is that it obscures its nature. It's not really a material advantage that will always be there unless we screw up badly. White needs to play with energy (Ne2-d4 among other things) and try to transition to a favourable endgame. Otherwise Black will eventually activate its pieces and be OK.

Anyway beware that Stockfish often likes to change its mind a lot until it analyzed the position in great depth! But I think that in this case if it does change mind it'd say White has an even bigger advantage!

# Answer
> 0 votes
If that wasn't enough White's rooks are very mobile and can attack down the d or e files, potentially doubled, or supported by the queen.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: How to learn chess if you're still a 3-digit rating after a few years
I know how all the pieces move and I've learned about castling and en passant. But all I do is play online against other people and get wrecked because I don't know how to "play."

I make moves like Knight to h3 on my first move because I have no idea what I'm doing (I only learned this move is bad because a nice person pointed it out to me while I was playing against them).

I also manage to mess up situations where the opponent only has like two pieces left and I have like five but I still lose or draw the game. Sometimes I make bad decisions or miss checkmates in one move.

But most of the time, I have the majority of my peices taken from me so the opponent has an overwhelming number of pieces more than me (this happens like 80% of the time unless I get lucky). I have been playing on and off leisurely for a few years now, but I still don't know how to "play" properly.

What am I supposed to do at this point if playing more games does not improve my gameplay?

# Answer
> 39 votes
Very simple.

Join a chess club and play people face-to-face. You'll improve rapidly after that.

# Answer
> 26 votes
The first thing to learn once you know how the pieces move is basic tactics and general strategy.

**Tactics**: In certain positions it is possible to gain an advantage doing a certain move or sequence of moves. This is referred to as tactical motif/pattern and for a list of all kinds of motifs take a look here. You don't need to start learning all of them at once, but eventually you will. The idea is that you recognize the pattern (not a particular position) that enable these tactics and burn the pattern into your brain so that you immediately recognize it when playing chess. As a beginner I'd start with the following motifs:

* *hanging piece* (make sure that you always check which of your pieces are attacked and which of the opponent's pieces you attack) and related to this the motif of *counting* (if there is a sequence of captures); knowing about the value of pieces is essential here
* *simple mating patterns* (back rank mate, Scholar's mate and similar mates,..., king and queen vs. lone king, etc)
* *double attack*; particularly pawn and knight forks

You can practice your tactics by solving puzzles on many websites like chesstempo, lichess, chess.com... Usually (if it is a good website) the problem you are given to solve is adapted to your level.

**Strategy**: This refers to general rules on how you should play in order to gain an advantage in the long term. Most important for a beginner I'd consider the following *opening* principles:

* *develop pieces* (knight, bishop) quickly in the opening; don't move a piece twice unless forced to do so
* *occupy the center* (typically you rather want to move the central pawns (on c-d-e-f files) two steps (or more) than the outside pawns (a-b, g-h files).
* *put pieces on meaningful squares*, usually so that they attack something or cover many squares
* *king safety* (usually this means castling and hiding behind your own pawns)

Your move 1. Nh3 does not do anything to occupy the center (1. Nf3 would be more suited for that) and also knights on the border of the chess board are somewhat limited (as they say: "a night on the rim is dim").

As with tactics, there are also positional/strategic motifs. However these are a bit more difficult to understand than tactics. The best way to appreciate them IMO is to read/listen/watch commentated games of masters or even better to have your own games analyzed.

You should still keep on playing games, but avoid blitz or other short timed games. And analyzing your games afterwards to see where you went wrong (or where you made a great move) is also a good way to improve. On lichess (and perhaps other websites) you have a very useful feature that let's you have your games analyzed by a computer which will point out inaccuracies/mistakes/blunders.

And yes, if you can join a chess club that would be more efficient and fun than trying to learn everything on your own.

# Answer
> 19 votes
I recognize that attitude.

Remember, first, that *chess is HARD*. That's why it took so long to get computers to be able to play it well. The rules are simple enough but understanding how those rules fit together to build strategy when the opponent is also building their own strategy, is very difficult. It's not even quite like backgammon, where I like to tell new players that the point of the game is to *manufacture more luck* than your opponent (and thankfully chess does not have a doubling cube, too!). Because there is no "luck" per se in chess.

You will start where you were a few years ago: you know the rules of movement but you are giving up pieces because "oh, I didn't see you were threatening me there." Then you will graduate to where you are now: you are not giving up pieces pointlessly, but you do not really understand all of your possible moves and have a way to evaluate them.

Probably the next good things for you to learn are a little *opening theory* about trying to get this wall of pawns usefully out of your way so that your stronger pieces are doing more useful work in the game, and *forks and pins*.

Opening theory is just something that you should watch YouTube videos on. It seems like a lot of "oh memorize this opening and its variations" but I want to tell you that if you are stuck in that rut you are doing it wrong, learn the *principles* that make openings good or bad, about "I want to get these knights out and have my bishops threatening more than just the backsides of my pawns" and "ok, I will let you take my pawn so that you can have doubled pawns and my rook can take this open file," and "well if I'm moving that pawn anyway I might as well *fianchetto* my bishop up there and simultaneously get my bishop doing something useful as well as get one step closer to castling." Those sorts of ideas are just as important as "there is this variation where you give up this pawn to take control of the right-hand side of the board, putting pressure on the opponent's king." Eventually you'll see enough of these videos that some game you will say, "oh, we castled on opposite sides, in this one YouTube video they suggested that those games turn into pawn-storms, let me start pushing my pawns forward and see if I can't get the drop on him first with that" and it'll at least lead to a really interesting game, even if there's no win in it for you.

A *fork* is when you move a piece to threaten two other pieces at once. "I am either taking your queen or your knight, pick one." Look for these and begin to understand when you're vulnerable, for example in these endgames that you have been losing, start thinking "oh, if she's still got her white-square bishop then I shouldn't line my pieces up on white diagonals." A good fork has no defense, but you should be aware that there are two common defenses: either "I take your forking piece, let's trade" (sort of seizing the initiative so that you don't give up a piece for nothing) and counter-threats: "You can have my queen, because I move my knight to \__ threatening YOUR queen if you take mine." In the best counter-threat you check the king so that it's not even your opponent's *choice*, so the sequence is

```
Alice: Knight to C4 (forking Queen on D6 and Bishop on E5)
Bob: Queen to C5, check.
Alice: King to H1.
Bob: Queen takes C4 (if undefended), or Bishop to F6 or D4.

```

Similarly I would learn about *pins*. A pin is a threat to a big piece (queen or king, sometimes rooks in the late game) which is blocked by another piece. For example you might pin a bishop to the queen, or you might pin the queen to the king: the bishop and queen respectively are standing in the way of a threat to the queen and king respectively. That other piece is then "pinned", it cannot move freely. Either it cannot move freely at all (when pinned to the king; can't move into check) or it cannot move freely without giving away the big piece for cheap. So you can basically make the piece somewhat useless. Similarly you get *out of a pin* either by moving the Big Piece, or by putting a second piece like a pawn also in the way of the pin, or (if you're not pinned to the king) by making an equivalent counter-threat.

Finally I'd recommend that you learn some of how one checkmates others. Keeping someone in check so that they are forced to react, rather than act, is a good start. Understand the threat of back-row checkmate, where pieces start to get into the way of the king's escape from a simple threat from the Rooks or Queen. Both defend yourself against it and use it in your games.

If you learn these things your brain will have the "seeds" of thinking strategically, but it will still take years to nurture those seeds into strong trees.

# Answer
> 6 votes
My suggestion would be to begin with endgame study. This seems counter-intuitive -- "Surely the place to begin learning chess is by studying the beginning of the game, the openings." This seems quite logical. But someone said/wrote "Until you can learn to manage a few pieces effectively in the endgame how can you hope to manage all 16 pieces you begin the game with against your opponents 16 pieces?"

So I'd suggest going to a local bookstore (or public library) with a good selection of chess books. Or shop online. Look for a book that begins with basic chess endings -- e.g. King vs King and Rook; King and pawn vs King; King vs King and two bishops...and so on.

These basic endings are the place to start. You'll learn how to make just one or two pieces operate effectively with your King and begin to gain some ability to size up quickly at least some endgame positions. Some can be quite complicated as you work your way through endgame studies.

But once you begin to gain some understanding of the endgame you can begin to work on your middle game using insights learned from endgame theory.

You may say, "I'm already losing before I even get to the end game so what good will studying endgames do me?" That's true of almost all players at the start. But persevere in endgame study and when you do get to the endgame with equal or better chances than your opponent you'll have some insight into how to move to win efficiently and effectively.

I don't mean that you should pay no attention to openings or the middle-game as you study the endgame. But rather than playing through many lines of particular openings where you don't really understand the reasons for many of the moves, find a book with a discussion of opening principles and begin to evaluate moves in the opening on those general principles.

For example, some general principles of opening chess play are:

1) Fight to gain control of the center squares of the board or at least maintain equality.

2) Don't move a piece twice during the opening.

3) Develop knights before bishops.

4) Don't move your queen in the opening moves.

There are more opening principles so look for a book (or read online sources) to not only learn these principles but also to understand the reasons for them.

You will also have to learn when there is good reason to ignore an opening principle. For example, if you opponent has left a piece hanging and you can take it without incurring an equal or greater loss, well then you'll probably find it worth it to move a piece twice, or bring out a bishop earlier than you might have otherwise, to capture the hanging piece. But only after studying the board and making certain there's not a trap or serious positional disadvantage you'll be stuck with if you make the capture.

So that's my advice. Begin with the study of basic chess endgames and learn how to use just a few pieces effectively. You'll feel you've really learned something not just by rote, but with comprehension. And that can lay the foundation for further and deeper chess study.

In reality almost anyone who wants to better their game can gain useful chess skills by studying the endgame. With more pieces on the board in the endgame the positions can be quite perplexing. And there are complex endgames to learn with only a few pieces. Without studying it first, put a black king on one side of the board and on the other side put the white king and a bishop and a knight.

White king, bishop, and knight vs lone black king. Should be an easy checkmate, right? Give it a try playing both white and black yourself. How many moves did it take (assuming when you played the black king you really tried to keep from being mated) to force the checkmate? Or were you able to do it at all? Basic endgame study will teach you what you need to understand to force checkmate in with king, knight and bishop against a lone opposing king.

What if you tried white king with his two knights vs a lone black king? How many moves would that take to force checkmate with the pieces set up on opposite sides of the board? I won't make you torture yourself with that one, as **it's impossible to force mate with king and two knights vs lone king**. Note the word "force". I'm not saying that a poor black player couldn't get mated if the white player has his king and two knights, only that against a reasonably skillful black player white cannot **force** checkmate. This is another example of basic endgame knowledge.

Off the top of my head I can't suggest an endgame study book. But start with one that covers basic checkmates in the endgame. Most important, choose a writer who makes sense to you. An impressive chess background doesn't necessarily mean a given master or international master is necessarily a good beginners teacher.

Chess, as one other respondent noted, is a very complex game and you can begin to appreciate the depth of the complexity in studying the tremendous variety of endgame positions.

I suspect you can find an old Fred Reinfeld book about both basic chess endings and chess opening principles though there are probably newer and better books available.

I hope this is some help and good luck. ;-)

# Answer
> 4 votes
As said above, if you have a local club, then go there. If not, and you have a few bucks, get this book:

Complete Chess Course

It is a step-by-step course that covers a broad spectrum of issues that beginners struggle with, and gives good advice on how to deal with such problems along with clear reasoning. Based on the original post and my 44 years of playing and teaching chess to beginners, that book works well as it gives it to you in digestible amounts.

If you do not have any money, then go to your local library. They probably have similar books for beginners.

Keep playing, record your games, and look over your losses with a stronger player, or come back here and post your game and ask for a review.

# Answer
> 2 votes
To complement the other answers, I would like like to recommend a beginners' book that was wonderful to me: *Journey to the Chess Kingdom*, by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin. The book is written in a very entertaining way, and covers from the very basics to openings, strategy, and end game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Play long time control games. With this it is possible to avoid any sort of blunder like hanging pieces, overlooking a basic threat etc.,

# Answer
> 2 votes
Recognizing that you're lacking somewhere is the first step to improvement. There are two areas you could be lacking in chess - 1. **knowledge** and 2. application of the knowledge which comes through **practice**.

My suggestions:

1. **Online Tutorials**: Both chess.com and lichess.org \[the only two sites I am familiar with for chess\] have tutorials for starters. It's a good practice to go through them. Signing up for their courses would be an overkill.
2. **Tactics Trainers**: Once you've gone through the tutorials, I also suggest you download both chess.com and lichess apps for mobile. They have various tactics puzzles which you should try solving. These will expose you to common mistakes which shouldn't be made and common opportunities which shouldn't be missed. Also, I've found apps from this publisher on Google Playstore to be very helpful. Even after solving a tactics puzzle, you might want to spend time on it to figure out why other moves are not as good as the ones the puzzle expected.
3. **Analyse your matches**: simple example, if you play on lichess.org, after every game, you can request a computer analysis of the game. If you're using the desktop site for this analysis, it not only tells you your blunders, mistakes and incorrect moves, but also prompts you to think what the best move could have been. Again like in tactics trainers, spend time on thinking why other moves are bad.
4. **Books**: After the basic tutorials mentioned in point 1, you can also start reading books if interested. Two of my recommendations (though I haven't finished them myself) are: *My System* by Aron Nimzowitsch (who is probably the best known chess writer while he was like the third-best chess player of his time) and *Art of Attack* by Vladimir Vukovic. Having a chessboard around while reading these is definitely helpful. Also, I would advice against the Kindle versions, at least of Art of Attack, reading around figures can be tedious at times. As mentioned in comments below, this can wait, like Part II of the My Systems book is totally not for beginners.
5. Lastly, you can read the Chess 101 that I wrote. It's meant for people like us :), has been written in story-sort of fashion and in case you do not find it helpful, your feedback on how to make it more helpful is welcome.

Hope you and many others find these suggestions helpful.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess is not hard, despite what people tell you, but there is a trick and you won't learn it unless you play people willing to share. The 'trick' to chess is that it is not the pieces that are important, it is the spaces and what makes one piece more powerful then another is how many spaces it can control. When you control a square, you can move another of your pieces into it, but your opponent can't and this is how you force your opponent to do what you want them to.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First learn basic openings by referring to books and using the internet. A good chess website is Chess.com; it has lessons and tactics which will improve your understanding on Chess.

Then play regularly with some good chess players face to face. Even if you lose every game you will learn something from it. Review the games afterwards and try to identify where you have erred, and then try to avoid that mistake in future games.

Also, review games of high rated players, preferably games of grandmasters. Try to work out the basic ideas of the moves and then to apply the ideas in your next game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
slow down... all novice players move too fast...suggest you look at the Whole board 1st with a + pattern then with a x pattern..then look away from the board 2 seconds..repeat patterns..then make your move. How can you eat 500 gallons of ice cream ? Answer..1 bite at a time." Below 1600 don't worry about openings " Susan Polgar. Basic opening theory each move should 1 develop power 2 gain board control 3 help get your K safe \[ castle \]..dont move the same peice twice without a good reason..get your whole team active..thats all you need for now. Have Fun knowing you are building a better brain..Yes ..playing chess helps make you smarter.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Something that I usually do is set a goal what you want to get, like a certain piece you want to take, and then find out a way how to get it, without losing your piece or making the loss worth it.

Try to manipulate the chess board to your liking. meaning plan out your moves and sometimes plan another move if something doesn't go the way you like it, also always check before making a move,will your piece be in danger or will they be able to take it. And of course playing in real life and reading books works too, sometimes even playing games where you have to use strategy helps.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The old maxim about developing your minor pieces toward the center and castling within a dozen moves or so still applies. That's why 1. Nh3 isn't a good move. It doesn't contribute to center control. Castling not only helps safeguard your king but also connects the rooks. Any basic chess manual will point all this out. Control of the center is valuable to give you a base from which to maneuver your pieces and is also essential for a king-side attack. The manual will also cover the ending and basic checkmates, so you have a goal to strive toward. Practicing tactics will also contribute to your improvement, since that's how you win material. Regular play and analysis of your games to find your mistakes will also benefit you along with study of annotated master games. But play alone will not be enough without some study and understanding of the general principles which a manual will provide. As an old-timer, I'm not conversant with current chess literature, but in my youth I read beginner books by Al Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld which provided this information and which can be found on e-bay at nominal cost.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I am sure this has been said before but I'd like to point it out once again. Before you start studying tactics and openings, just make one thing sure: All of your pieces are defended! It seems so trivial but in my opinion most 'bad' players would play a lot better if they would keep this in mind.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I hope you have learnt playing good chess in the past 3 years and 5 months since you asked this question but for anyone seeking an answer I would just like to state my experience and hope it helps. For an absolute beginner, I would advise to them to learn like a baby and avoid all "books and tutorials". Just install an app, set the level to minimum and start playing. Avoid worrying about tactics and positions at this stage. Just attack and defend. Is my piece being attacked, how can I defend it, how can I defend twice , or thrice. That's all there's to worry at this stage. I myself learned like this and through this simple raw learning I got to about 1400 rating (on lichess) then I started to study chess(like openings and endgames,popular variations, etc).I still haven't improved much after that, just to 1600 and oscillating there, but the point is I know for sure anyone can and should improve after playing regularly and seriously.

If you can get help from someone then it is very good otherwise it is not that hard to get to an okay level. I had a friend who was ordinary at studies but played good chess just by being careful and not giving away pieces. He had absolutely no formal knowledge of chess. I contacted him and we discussed about chess and that people "study" chess and all, well he was baffled. So the thing is just enjoy while playing , developing an interest is the quickest way to learn something. Chess is a game with simple rules and many possibilities, it is hard only at the higher levels( which any game is).

One more thing I would like to add that depending on the person the growth trajectory will not be linear in any case, meaning you might lose a lot of games in a stretch then start a winning streak. I lost 150 points playing whole day with about 46% wins and then other morning I gained like 200 points, it depends on your physical as well as mental conditions how well you perform on a given day. Here is my profile if you want to have a look.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Also, search this site. This question has been asked in one form or another many times and there are a lot of excellent answers with book recommendations, studying tips, etc.-you name it.

---
Tags: learning, strategy, theory, training, beginner
---


title: Caro Kann opening

text:
# Question
Title: Caro Kann opening
Is the Caro Kann Advance variation winning for White? In a game largely shown on a video , Stockfish 11 beat Komodo 14 with it. Since the prevailing consensus was that the move of Komodo Kh4?!was a mistake , I went into the position and put in the computer the suggested Ng4 instead. It seems that White is winning anyway after Bd7! (Three quarter of a hour, depth = 37/79 +2.23 for White. At that point only seven pieces remained on the board. I checked the 7 men tablebases and it was a win for White.(Houdini6.02). Is the Caro Kann winning for White , at least in the Advance variation?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't know the game you're referring to, but I doubt it shows, all by itself, that the Caro-Kann Advance is winning for White (and therefore the Caro-Kann itself is losing for Black.) Surely Black could have varied somewhere before getting down to tablebases.

The fact that an engine will play the opening at all means it is programmed into the engine's opening book - which means that, at least, the makers of that opening book think it's worth playing as Black.

One database shows that Black wins in the Caro-Kann Advance 29.7% of the time, and White wins 42.5% of the time. That's slightly worse for Black than average, but White still cannot manage a win in half the games, so therefore I don't think you can say it's "winning" for White. If it were winning, White would win!

# Answer
> 2 votes
"Is the Caro Kann Advance variation winning for White?"

Not proven so far.

Engines and centaurs (engine plus human) are in continuous improvement so the last word on a particular opening variation is yet to be uttered.

You don't give a link to the game nor the particular configurations of the engines.

For the tournament to find the strongest engine a test bed is set up, two engines play in the finals, 100 games where they in turn take the white and black side of the same opening variations (a human picks the variations to check and hopefully provide a good contest).

The most recent championship was won by Stockfish over Leela and the 100 game match could be found on chess24 site. You could check the games where the Caro Kann was played, I don't know off hand if the variation you are interested in was played.

When engines rated 1000 and more Elo above Magnus Carlsen sometimes the moves played are quite mysterious, well more than sometimes!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have recently analysed the Short variation of the Advance Variation quite thoroughly with Leela and heavily with Sockfish, and I can say that I have not found a forced win at all.

There are several ways to a draw for Black. Overall, lines with an early ...c5 performed better.

---
Tags: analysis
---