# Question
Title: Chess engine: Quiescence Search increases required time by a factor of 20
I am currently trying to implement a basic chess engine and got to the following point:

I have got Alpha-Beta Pruning implemented and extended it with a transposition table. To further increase stability I implemented Quiescence Search and this is where I ran into problems.

The result clearly looked better but the required time for this was out of this world.

I was using Alpha-Beta pruning with a depth of 6 half-moves. Each evaluation was carried out by Quiescence Search. Without limiting the allowed depth of the Quiescence Search, my program ran for multiple minutes without any result. I limited the depth of the Quiescence Search 10 half-moves and got to the following result for the second move:

```
visited nodes:   6915527
quiescent nodes:   104313894
>>> 79502 ms <<<

```

Without Quiescence Search (the listed quiescent nodes are the leafs of the main tree)

```
visited nodes:   8472808
quiescent nodes:   4978606
>>> 9227 ms <<<

```

You can see that the Quiescence Search takes up most of the time.

What could I do to improve the time my engine needs?

---

```
private double alphaBetaSearch(double alpha, double beta, int currentDepth) {
    _visitedNodes ++;
    long zobrist = _board.zobrist();
    double transposition = transpositionLookUp(zobrist, currentDepth);
    if(!Double.isNaN(transposition)){
        return transposition;
    }

    List<Move> allMoves = _board.getAvailableMoves();
    if(currentDepth == _depth || allMoves.size() == 0 || _board.isGameOver()){
        double val = Quiesce(alpha, beta,quiesce_depth );
        transpositionPlacement(zobrist, currentDepth, val);
        return val;
    }

    orderer.sort(allMoves,currentDepth,zobrist,_transpositionTable_pv);

    for (Move m : allMoves) {
        _board.move(m);
        double score = -alphaBetaSearch(-beta, -alpha, currentDepth + 1);
        _board.undoMove();
        if (score >= beta) {
            transpositionPlacement(zobrist, m);
            return beta;
        }
        if (score > alpha) {
            transpositionPlacement(zobrist, m);
            alpha = score;
            if (currentDepth == 0) {
                _bestMove = m;
            }
        }
    }

    transpositionPlacement(zobrist, currentDepth, alpha);

    return alpha;
}

private double Quiesce(double alpha, double beta, int depth_left) {
    _quiesceNodes ++;
    _evaluatedNodes ++;
    double stand_pat = evaluator.evaluate(_board) * _board.getActivePlayer();
    if(depth_left == 0){
        return stand_pat;
    }
    if( stand_pat >= beta)
        return beta;
    if( alpha < stand_pat )
        alpha = stand_pat;

    List<Move> allMoves = _board.getAvailableMoves();

    for(Move m:allMoves){
        if(m.getPieceTo() * m.getPieceFrom() < 0){

            _board.move(m);
            double score = -Quiesce( -beta, -alpha, depth_left-1);
            _board.undoMove();

            if( score >= beta )
                return beta;
            if( score > alpha )
                alpha = score;
        }
    }

    return alpha;
}

```

# Answer
Because you said

> Without limiting the allowed depth of the Quiescence Search, my program ran for multiple minutes without any result

I'm assuming that you haven't implemented any capture ordering in your quiescence search.

When you don't do this, you allow your computer to calculate rather silly situations very deeply. For instance, say I have one capture: my queen takes your (defended) pawn. This is obviously a bad choice, and we want your computer to recognize this quickly.

You could simply recapture (choice A), but you have another capture available (choice B) your bishop takes my pawn. Say for the sake of example that these are the only two available captures. You now have two options for searching these moves:

First B, then A

If you search B first, my queen might have the option to take another piece (now that it has moved to a different square). You'll call the quiescence function again (maybe your bishop can now take another piece) and after that, maybe my queen can take yet another piece. You're calling the quiescence function over and over again. It'll have to end at some point, but when you're doing this for *every* leaf node, this takes time.

First A, then B

If you search A first, I will no longer have a queen with which to take pieces, meaning I am substantially less likely to have to have more captures available, meaning your quiescence search will likely stop here. Then, when you inevitably search B, you will be much more likely to create a beta cutoff because capturing the queen with a pawn was given a very high value.

---

Hopefully this illustrates the importance of move ordering in quiescence search.

The way we typically do this is with MVV/LVA, which stands for "most valuable victim, least valuable attacker," which does exactly what it sounds like. For each capture, compute the value of the victim minus the value of the attacker, then search the largest captures first. This should massively reduce your qsearch times.

All this being said, limiting your qserach is sometimes a legitimate thing to do, (is it *actually* useful to see the 10th capture in a row?) but first you should see how the capture ordering shakes out, then make a decision.

Hope it helps.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I am speculating that you have too many quiet positions to continue with the quiescence checking, especially at that extra depth. You will have to limit the number of extra quiescent moves you check or get a faster computer; or be willing to wait longer for an answer.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The point of a quiescence search(QSearch) is to get a better static evaluation. By the number of nodes your searching, it seems that your just extending your main search function. By limiting your QSearch to only captures, promotions and maybe checks, you should greatly reduce the QSearch.

An interesting observation is that QSearch is the function mainly used to call the evaluation function. This is the most time consuming function, so the QSearch would account for the most time used.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201106232751/members.home.nl/matador/Inside%20Rebel.pdf is a useful reference.

Note: By providing some code, it would be easier to suggest a better answer.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, time-management
---


# Question
Title: It's true that a middle game plan is to push the rest of central pawns?
A master 2250 said to me that i should put my pieces so all my central pawns to be pushed.

For example if I have e4 d5 with white, a valid plan is advancing c4 and f4. Or with black if I have for example d6, e5, I should prepare f5, d5, and c5. Is this a plan for general middle game positions? Advancing e4,d4,c4,f4 for white and e5,d5,c5,f5?(Order doesn't matter).

# Answer
> 2 votes
This might be a valid plan, if you opponent doesn't fight for the centre at all. But in almost all games such a plan is either impossible or carries the risk of overextending.

It is true that pawn levers are important. Such a pawn lever might be the advance f4-f5 or c4-c5. But usually you only play a pawn lever at the side of the board where you are stronger and ready to exploit the opening of the position. Not just everywhere …

In my view it would be much more correct to state the building of an ideal pawn centre as a standard plan. But the "ideal pawn centre" consists only out of the e and d-pawn, both advanced two squares. And even the building of this modest 2-pawn centre is usually fought tooth and nail by your opponent.

```

[FEN ""]
[Event "Nanjing Pearl Spring Tournament"]
[Site "Nanjing CHN"]
[Date "2010.10.24"]
[EventDate "2010.10.20"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[ECO "C78"]
[WhiteElo "2826"]
[BlackElo "2805"]
[PlyCount "63"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3
d6 8.a4 Rb8 9.axb5 axb5 10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Re1 Bd7 12.c3 Ra8
13.Rxa8 Qxa8 14.d4 h6 15.Nf1 Re8 16.Ng3 Qc8 17.Nh4 Bf8 18.Ng6
Na5 19.Nxf8 Rxf8 20.Bc2 Re8 21.f4 Bg4 22.Qd3 exf4 23.Bxf4 Nc4
24.Bc1 c5 25.Rf1 cxd4 26.cxd4 Qd8 27.h3 Be6 28.b3 Qa5 29.Kh2
Nh7 30.e5 g6 31.d5 Nxe5 32.dxe6 1-0

```

Take this brilliant game as an example: On move 14 Carlsen creates the "ideal pawn centre", it persists until move 30, where is proves its power by advancing and initiating a deadly attack. There is even a pawn lever thrown in at move 14, which opens up the f-line for the rook. But Carlsen didn't try to just move his c,d,e and f-pawn forward. He created the ideal pawn centre, which controls a lot of squares and can at times advance with deadly effect. He used a pawn lever to open up lines for the attack. Every move had a purpose.

# Answer
> 1 votes
That seems to be an overgeneralization. Controlling the center is of supreme importance for a number of reasons, such as for example giving your pieces more freedom while conversely limiting your opponent's mobility, and letting you ultimately generate a kingside attack. A standard rule of thumb is that when you have played e4, you should aim for d4 safely, and vice versa. Moving the c and particularly f pawns might entail more risk. If you have castled kingside, disturbing the pawn structure in front of the king (hence f4) must be given long and careful consideration. Moving ALL your central pawns might be ideal if your opponent permitted it and it didn't entail any risk, but that's unlikely to be the case against any opponent of substance. Getting your e and d pawns out and all your pieces mobilized would seem to be sufficient to allow you to pursue sound and productive middle game plans.

# Answer
> 1 votes
That is *A* plan. Whether it is best or even good depends on the actual opening and position. Remember the hypermodern approach is to let them have the center but attack it usually with fianchettoed bishops. Which plan is best? Depends on a lot of other factors. Including the opponent.

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame, planning
---


# Question
Title: What is the fastest way for a player to reach the stage where they are not opening with nonsense moves?
Assuming a player knows the rules, are there any free, one-player simulations that will rapidly teach a single player on their own how to move beyond opening with nonsense moves.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The concept that caused me to stop making nonsense moves is **control the center**.

That meant moving out the d and e pawns, possibly with the c and f pawns, either abreast, or in support. More likely, I'd move a knight to c3 or f3 (c6 or f6 if Black), then a bishop or two. Castle as soon as possible, before undertaking activities on the wings.

That eliminated a lot of bad opening moves like `b3`, `g3`, and worse, `a4` and `h4`.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the area of openings, I don't think a one-player simulation will serve you as well as a good read. For a start, I would suggest the Wikibook *Chess Opening Theory*, perhaps after reading the more basic version.

Of course, experience playing with others will strengthen your opening a good deal, once you have the principles down.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'd be careful of the word 'nonsense' since it means different things to different people. Kasparov would consider nonsense things that you or I would consider *totally groovy*.

I think a player can learn the main lines of a few openings and learn the basic principles behind those moves (occupy the center, develop pieces...) in not too much time.

How long before you can find the correct response to the 10th move of a sharp variation of the Ruy Lopez? Perhaps a bit longer.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Open with `1. d4`, `2. Nf3`, `3. g3`, `4. Bg2` and then do whatever you want. By that point, it's hard to find nonsense moves that aren't obviously nonsense. Finding the best move is very difficult, but if you're a beginner you don't need to worry about it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Pick ONE opening and specialise in it. Do not worry about any other openings. For black that is a bit harder but you can find sound defenses to limit how much you need to know.

Play over GM games with that opening. Play every one you can find. Be totally familiar with all the usual variations and how the middle games turned out.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Are there any "underground" openings or gambits?
Playing a lot of blitz online, from time to time I meet quite strong players who regularly use very dubious lines that can have some shock or practical value in blitz or bullet chess, such as these, as White:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+

```

Or, as Black:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6

```

---

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 d6

```

---

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe6+ with Qg6 and an early Nc6-b4 attack

```

I was wondering if all of this means that some players have their private analysis of some (objectively bad) lines for use in speed chess.

Are you aware of other similar lines? As you can see, I don't mean Grob's Gambit or Cochrane's Gambit, but the very bad lines...

# Answer
In bullet chess (1 min or less), you basically don't have time for thinking and will pre-move or make moves instantaneously often making assumptions about your opponent's moves. In such situation playing the best moves becomes less important; basically you just need to move fast without blundering too much. Playing chess at such short times becomes more about bluffing and less about thinking.

The practical value of dubious lines/moves can be two-fold:

* your opponent has to think (=losing valuable time) to refute the move
* your opponent plays a standard (pre-move) which is not the best in this situation

Due to the limited time it is difficult to refute such dubious lines even if you lose a minor piece. So there is little risk involved.

I doubt there is much private analysis involved. I also doubt there is much value in trying this at longer times (3 min or more).
> 6 votes

# Answer
There are tons of first 4 moves that involve ridiculously unsound sacrifices, but most of these usually involve Bxf7+ and have no place in opening theory.

These 'openings' are largely based on a gross overvaluation of castling rights: you can just slowly castle by hand, especially since the attacker usually has no other pieces developed yet (e.g. after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7, the only developed piece is black's); if the defender loses, it's a result of being outplayed, and is no fault of the opening.

Therefore, such lines are hardly worth studying to defend against, and even worse to learn to use. Just fall back to basic principles (develop your pieces, do *not* play h6 without thinking it through...) when facing these, and you will emerge with a long-term advantage.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Sometimes there's some practical value in taking a line others feel is unplayable and making it somewhat playable. At best, you should be aiming for a line that gives the opponent lots of chances to go wrong but allows you drawing chances if the opponent plays perfectly. I could give ideas but your opponent could be reading this too. It's best to come up with your own ideas.

Some examples though: I recall Silman analyzing Damiano's defense and concluding that black's side was playable.

I remember years ago playing a Fried Liver as white on FICS. My opponent was undoubtedly using an engine. I lost and lost badly but that just goes to show what you can do if you analyze deeply enough.

I sometimes play the Englund gambit (1.d4, e5) as black. I can equalize about 99% of the time.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes, there are quite a few dubious lines one could try out when there is nothing much at stake.
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 f6 comes to mind.

There was a book on blitz openings, but those variations are "fundamentally sound" according to the reviewer.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A qualified yes. I played in Philadelphia in the mid 50s and ran into a weird opening that is probably sound if not the best and had trouble with it. Turns out it was very popular in the Philly area but unheard of , back then, anywhere else. Now it is in opening books and even has a name.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, gambits, online-blitz, bullet-chess
---


title: Unusual Caro-Kann Variation

text:
# Question
Title: Unusual Caro-Kann Variation
I'm looking for information about the unusual Caro-Kann variation that appears to be a sort of Pirc. I recently ran across this line and I'm struggling to understand why you would deviate from 2... d5.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d6

```

I can't seem to locate any information on this unusual line. Book suggestions would be helpful.

# Answer
Its likely a transposition to the Pribyl defense. 1. e4 d6 2. d4 nf6 3. nc3 c6 where black plays e5 at some point.

Its covered in a few books about 1 .. d6 lines where black does not play g6. Also it can transpose to the Old-Indian defense when white plays c4.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is a line of the Pirc, the Ufimtsev-Pytel Variation, that includes these moves after 1.e4 and 2.d4:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Pirc Defense"]
[Black "Ufimtsev-Pytel Variation"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 (2... c6 3.Nc3 (3.c4! {taking advantage of Black's move order to install another center pawn} Nf6 4.Nc3 {may transpose to a Classical KID after ...g6 and ...Bg7, with or without the Kazakh move ...Na6 thrown in}) Nf6 {transposes}) 3.Nc3 c6

```

But if Black omits 2... Nf6, then there's no pressure for White to play 3.Nc3. In fact, 3.c4 seems best, taking advantage of Black's omission, and only playing Nc3 in reply to ... Nf6, after that.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It was not ever a Caro. It was the start of one of many less used defenses. Often I see it turn into a variation of the hedgehog. Sometimes it becomes a kings indian.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann, 1.e4, pirc-defense
---


# Question
Title: Are there any moves in the opening stage that are perfectly sound but not book moves?
In the opening stage, are there any moves that are perfectly sound but are not book moves? Here a book move, is defined in Wikipedia as follows:

> Opening moves that are considered standard (often catalogued in a reference work such as the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings) are referred to as "book moves", or simply "book". Reference works often present move sequences in simple algebraic notation, opening trees, or theory tables.

By a sound move, I mean a move that is completely reasonable in a certain opening position and does not create any weaknesses. (There may be a better definition, but you probably know what I mean.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Obviously, you are not the first chess player to think about alternatives to the 'book moves'.

I think it is a solid assumption that all possible moves that deviate from the book move have been considered by someone already, and probably by someone with some playing strength.
So either those moves are good enough (equivalent) to 'book moves' and therefore they would have made it in the books by now, or they are (considered) at least slightly inferior.

If you consider playing an inferior move, you will have to balance the expected 'loss' from the inferiority against the potential 'gain' from forcing your opponent into a non-book variant (which *you* have analyzed in depth before, and he probably didn't). Depending on his strength in 'book openings' compared to his strength in 'think-yourself', this might be a good deal for you or not.

Note that this is not an uncommon idea - nearly all chess players I know have taken this approach from time to time, and more or less successful. Try it, but don't expect your opponent to be shocked out of his mind.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Depends what you mean by sound. And what book you think is the authority.

Could a computer beat that move? Maybe.

Would a person beat it? Much less likely.

There are many playable moves that are not in the book. I found an absolutely sound one that is not in the book and always gives some advantage. I also found an excellent one for time limited OTB play that gives a good winning percentage.

Eventually every good move will be played and should end up in the book.

# Answer
> -1 votes
No, not because there are not things that are not sound, but virtually every early divergence, if at all good, has been played...and virtually every bad divergence.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: Is rotating a pawn so that it faces a different direction and then moves in that direction technically permitted according to the 2018 FIDE Laws?
While browsing the Chess and Puzzling Stack Exchange sites, I've come across several instances where people have found loopholes in the rules of chess, causing these loopholes to be patched out eventually. In fact, while reading through the current (since Jan 1, 2018) FIDE Laws of Chess, I noticed the following paragraphs:

> 3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or
>
> 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or
>
> 3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.

Now I'm curious about the wording of these paragraphs, especially the phrase "in front of it". This "front" direction is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the Laws. Its usual meaning is "towards the rank furthest away from the pawn's initial location", but what if it weren't?

Suppose "front" is taken to mean the facing of the physical pawn (imagine figurine pieces with a clearly identifiable "front"). In that case, if a pawn is placed facing a different direction than usual, White could move a pawn to a lower rank or capture on a lower rank. Moving along the same rank is forbidden by the wording of 3.7.2.

Here are two examples I'm thinking of:

1. e4(facing e3) e5 2. e4e3

1. e4 d5 2.e5(facing d5) d4 3. e5xd4

In this case, it could even be technically permitted to rotate a pawn (changing what is "in front of it") using "j'adoube" before moving it.

Alternatively, the "front" direction could be defined as the direction the player is facing. However, in this case, Article 2 insufficiently defines how the chessboard is to be placed:

> 2.1 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares).
>
> The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the right of the player is white.
>
> \[...\]
>
> 2.3 The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows: \[depiction of standard positions\]

It is not mentioned which pieces start closer to which player, so according to this interpretation, it is technically not illegal to start with the white pieces on the side of the board closer to Black. "Front" would then mean that pawns could only move one step (assuming you get the pieces out of the way), but not promote afterward (since the promotion rank is defined in paragraph 3.7.5.1 as "the rank furthest from its starting position"). Alternatively, a player could rotate the chessboard by 180° before moving.

I'm aware that all this is nitpicking the rules, of course, that's not the intended way to play chess, I get that. So here's the question I'm actually interested in: Suppose that during a FIDE tournament, some player makes a move that is legal only by one of the above interpretations of the rules. How would this situation be resolved properly, considering Articles 11 and 12 of the Laws?

# Answer
> 59 votes
This sort of thing is what the Preface of the Laws of Chess is for:

> **PREFACE**
>
> The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.
>
> FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.

No, the laws don't define what the square in front of a pawn is. But arbiters have freedom of judgement to deal with that kind of omission from the rules.

And there is no way an arbiter will let you move a pawn in an illegal way during a FIDE tournament based on this argument.

It will just be treated as an illegal move (some bonus time for the opponent, have to make a legal move with the pawn if possible, and if it happens a second time the game is lost).

# Answer
> 21 votes
There is no loophole. Rules 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 allow pawns to move forwards along the same file, or diagonally forwards onto an adjacent file.

The only argument here seems to be that "forwards" is not explicitly defined but it is implicitly defined by 3.7.5.1 which beings with the following quote: "When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position".

As the pawn can only move forwards and we know that a pawn can reach the rank furthest from its start position, then forwards must mean "towards the rank on which his opponent's king was set up".

The diagram accompanying 3.7.3 also make it clear which direction forwards is:

> 3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or
> 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or
> 3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.
> Source: https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article

Even if for some bizarre reason you were to setup the board with the white pieces next to the black player and vice versa, there is no ambiguity as to which direction "front" is. For a white pawn, forwards is always towards the rank where the black king was set up.

There are also no rules allowing for any sort of rotation of a piece, so even if you had say the viking style chess pieces where the pawn model itself has a face, the direction in which the pawn model faces has no meaning in the rules.

# Answer
> 15 votes
This is a good question, as much as some may be instinctively frustrated by it, because finding room for improvement in rulesets is useful and can prevent future issues where arbitration is required.

My understanding is that "front" is defined by the piece's colour, not it's rotational orientation. This is consistent with the definition of "last rank" in the case of queening a pawn.

However, I'm not familiar enough with the FIDE ruleset to know where (if anywhere) this is mentioned.

# Answer
> 14 votes
No matter how a chess piece is shaped, FIDE rules do not define "front" or any other direction relative to the orientation of the piece.

Chess pieces do not have a front, rear, direction of advance, and so forth. Only the board has these.

# Answer
> 12 votes
The official PDF of the FIDE Laws of Chess includes illustrations of the legal moves for each piece. These clearly show the white pawn moving "up" the file (including the two-square move from the starting rank), and the black pawn moving "down" (only one square, because it's shown away from the starting rank).

Moving the pawn along a rank is explicitly ruled out by the text, which mentions movement only along the file except for captures, which always occur in the adjacent files on the next rank. The definition of "rank" and "file" is given in Article 2.4.

The direction of "forward" from the starting rank is unambiguous, since no fewer than *three* movement rules involving the pawn only make sense for one along-file direction for each player. These are 3.7.b (double move permitted from the starting rank; this would land off-board if reversed), 3.7.d (the en-passant rule, which requires pawns of opposite colour to approach each other on adjacent files), and 3.7.e (promotion upon reaching the furthest rank from the starting rank, which would be impossible if only allowed to move away from it).

The very concept of a "forward direction" being mentioned in the movement rules, but no provision being made in those rules for rotating or reversing that direction, indicates clearly that the direction implied by the above paragraph is invariant for all subsequent pawn moves as well. That which is not explicitly permitted is implied to be forbidden.

Furthermore, FIDE tournaments are normally conducted with standard Staunton-style pieces, in which the pawn is rotationally symmetric and has no apparent "front". Indeed only the knights and bishops lack this property, but unlike the pawn they have rotationally symmetric movement patterns. The rules do not explicitly mention Staunton pieces except in the context of visually impaired players (who must identify pieces by touch), but providing an exotic form of chess pieces for a tournament game would be highly irregular, and could legitimately be considered unfair in itself.

I do agree that an explicit definition of "forward" would make a precise interpretation easier to arrive at purely from the text. This could be "along the file, towards the rank furthest from the player". This is unambiguous even for Black, since Article 2.1 places the board between the players and specifies its orientation (though even this could be improved, since it doesn't specify that the players must sit on the side of the board at which their pieces start).

# Answer
> 5 votes
The "on the same file" language already takes care of this. 2.4 The eight vertical columns of squares are called ‘files’

Moving based on some notional "facing'" of the pawn would take the pawn off the file.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Sorry I am late to this party.

The question is about how FIDE resolves this issue. I can only answer about chess problems.

Although the text says that they only apply to over-the-board chess, I know from discussions with a FIDE rules writer that they have been concerned about their responsibilities as owners of a document which problemists will take seriously, maybe even more literally than players.

For over-the-board chess there are arbiters to help interpret the language, but what about the poor lost lambs who are fairy chess enthusiasts who want to know what happens if you change the rules. E.g. if a pawn ends up on a1 somehow, how can it move?

It is always possible to read text in multiple ways. Some are just silly e.g. suppose the players are bridge players. Or suppose the pieces melt in the middle of a game and occupy multiple squares. Some of these silly ideas can form the basis of so-called joke problems. See “Outrageous Chess Problems” by Bert Hochberg for many of these.

A couple more points about your idea.

* If pawns can be rotated then we can’t assume in a problem that a pawn in second rank can necessarily make double move. It might already have moved and after rotation come back to the second rank again.
* If a pawn has been rotated some angle which is not a multiple of 90 degrees, it won’t be able to move at all. Maybe this is what a dummy pawn is?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to unless it were making a diagonal capture. Pawns and pieces per se have no front or back. Maybe FIDE should define it that way for people who want to be lawyers and pick at the rules.

# Answer
> -1 votes
There's another loophole with 3.7.3 and it happens when you turn the pawn's front to the left or to the right. You can then capture opponent's piece at the diagonal at the previous rank. Since it's at the adjacent file, the move is a "bona fide!" chess move. ex: white pawn at e4 turning to left and capturing Knight at d3. These loopholes can be removed by introducing an amendment 3.7.xx like "pawns can not move to a lower rank with the exception of 'en-passant' law, where they're technically moved by the opponent one rank below and captured, if the opponent prefers at the immediate move after the two square move of the pawn."

---
Tags: rules, fide, pawns, loopholes
---


# Question
Title: How likely am I to beat a grandmaster through random play?
Understatement of the week: Grandmasters are good at chess. I am not.

I was wondering because of this how likely it would be through complete random play to beat a grandmaster, and whether or not it was more likely for me to beat one through random play than out of my own skill set. (I am about 1400 FIDE, and therefore probably actively discount a lot of moves which would actually be quite good. So my questions are: 1. How likely am I to beat a GM through random play? 2. Is this more likely than through my own skill?

# Answer
> 11 votes
The ELO system is very good at predicting what percent win chance that a player has to beat another player. There is a table that we can consult to see the exact percent chance that one player has to beat another. Let's take a look.

A quick summary of the table is...

* Difference of 0 rating points = 50% chance of higher rated player winning
* Difference of 100 rating points = ~65% chance of higher rated player winning
* 200 is ~75%
* 300 is ~85%
* 400 is ~92%
* 500 is ~96%
* 600 is ~98%
* 700 is ~99%
* 735 is 100%

Grandmasters tend to be around ELO 2500-2700 FIDE. Let's assume that a typical grandmaster is 2600.

With that in mind, let's take a shot at answering your questions.

## 1) Can you (FIDE 1400) beat a grandmaster?

The difference in rating between you and the grandmaster is 1200 points. So according to the statistics, no. You'd have to be 735 ELO points away from the grandmaster or closer to stand a chance. So you'd need to be ELO 1865 to have a 1% chance of winning (winning 1 time every 100 games).

## 2) Can a player playing randomly (let's assume ELO 100) beat a grandmaster?

Now we are talking about a rating difference of 2500 points. Definitely not within our 735 point threshold. The answer here is definitely "no".

# Answer
> 9 votes
The chance is **absolutely zero**. Not just against grandmasters, but against anybody.

In fact, it would be hard to win a game with random play against someone actively **trying to lose**, after all you would just as likely remove your pieces from the vicinity of the opponent's king than play the checkmating move, if the opponent finally managed to get to a position where mate is possible.

Everybody who knows the rules and has some sort of goal in mind plays much better than random play.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Let's try to quantify why random moves are so bad. In an average chess position there might be 35 legal moves. Often there is only one good move in a position, but sometimes there are several. Let's say, to keep the math simple, that 10% of moves are "good", and if you always play a "good" move, you can beat a GM. Let's say that a typical game in which you beat a GM takes 40 moves. Therefore your probability of playing such a winning game at random is 10-40.

Now let's imagine that you have 10 billion people each play 100 thousand random games. That's a total of 1015 games. That's still almost nothing compared to the 1040 games that it would take to have a reasonable chance of having *one* win against a GM!

(Note that it is not nearly as unlikely as having a monkey type the entire works of Shakespeare at random. It would be maybe like typing the *first line* of the works of Shakespeare at random! Still, pretty unlikely. :-)

# Answer
> 3 votes
Funnily enough, there is some way to calculate this probability, and it's not vanishingly small. Reference: Elo World, a framework for benchmarking weak chess engines. This is more of a parody paper than anything, but the gist is that one can easily code weak chess engines and get them to play against strong ones millions of times.

To illustrate, some of the weak engines used are:

* *random\_move*. Self-explanatory, and directly relevant to this question.
* *same\_color*. When playing White, put pieces on White squares; when playing Black, put pieces on Black squares. If all pieces are already on the "right" color, make a random move.
* *generous*. Move so as to maximize the number of possible captures the opponent can make on our pieces. The more valuable the piece we're giving away, the more weight we give to that move.
* *reverse\_starting*. "This player thinks that the board is upside-down, and as white, tries to put its pieces where black pieces start."

(I did say it's a parody paper, right?)

There're also a few serious engines. The strongest one playing is Stockfish1m. This is Stockfish, the strongest traditional chess engine, when asked to play a move after 1 million nodes (this means move after it has searched exactly 1 million positions). Exactly how strong this is I don't know. I know I can beat Stockfish 1 node fairly easily, but at 1 million nodes it's obviously a lot stronger, and it's likely strong enough to crush most humans.

If we assume that Stockfish1m is about as strong as a grandmaster, then there's an interesting table on the last page. Unsurprisingly there are many engines that are worse than random\_move, and unsurprisingly Stockfish1m is the strongest engine. random\_move is a full 2200 elo weaker than Stockfish1m, *but* it has a nonzero chance of winning a tournament between all these engines. In fact, p(random\_move winning tournament) is 0.00000462. Small, but not zero.

Caveat: This isn't a direct head-to-head probability of random\_move beating Stockfish1m.

Caveat #2: I am not completely sure where the line between the parody and the serious work is. It's possible the author is spoofing the use of Markov probabilities here, because p(random\_move winning) = 0.00000462 sounds awfully large. Naively, I'd have expected something several orders of magnitude smaller.

**Edit**: I've convinced myself that the above is part of the satire. Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation for the probability of random\_move winning. If we assume that the grandmaster will never resign (and they presumably won't, since a random mover can always blunder a game) then the game might take 80+ moves to end in a mate, probably longer. Chess has a branching factor of about 35. Therefore, the random move needs to make "hit" roughly 35^(80) times in a row to win, making the odds around 10^(-123) against.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't understand... Losing to a random player by checkmate is very hard. There is no way a GM would lose to a random player. No chance. You are more likely to win the world championship than the random player.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Epsilon! \[That is a math joke!\] Say zero if you are not a mathematician:)

Playing randomly, you are guaranteed to lose. \[Again random as mathematicians and most English speakers would use that word.\]

If you played your best then you might win, as it has happened. But the probability is extremely small.

# Answer
> 0 votes
For question 2, it might be best to combine yourself and random play. As you stated, you are blind to some good moves, and a GM could probably beat you with rook odds. So you might as well let random computer play until you are a queen up, then play at your strength to convert that to a win.

---
Tags: grandmaster
---


title: How do you get to this trap position?

text:
# Question
Title: How do you get to this trap position?
```
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/2B3b1/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1"]

1...Nf6 2.Bxf7+ Kxf7 3.Ne5+ Kg8 4.Nxg4

```

It's black to move. There is a trap: 1...Nf6 2.Bxf7+ Kxf7 3.Ne5+ Kg8 4.Nxg4 and white wins a pawn (from Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals). I wonder how do you get to the initial position. The only way I've thought of involves black playing a bad opening, moving a piece twice. For instance:

```
[FEN " w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Bc4

```

Is there a more natural way to get to the position?

# Answer
Your proposal is a plausible way to get to that position. I wouldn't call the Scandinavian "bad" just because it moves a piece twice. It's perfectly playable.

When the trap was played in the following game, it was the knight rather than the queen which moved twice.

```
[Site "Sao Paulo (Brazil)"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[White "Nobrega Adaucto Da "]
[Black "Barata Hemar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Ne5+ Kg8
8. Nxg4

```

And by the way, you have to be a little careful when playing this. Someone once tried this on me, but the position was slightly different:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Bg4 D 7.Bxf7+?

```

And now after Kxf7 8.Ne5+, Black has Qxe5+ 9.dxe5 Bxd1 and will end up with an extra minor piece.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The initial way you gave is the overwhelming favorite way to get to that in the Mega Database. Out of the 72 games, that move order occurred 59 times (three times, white played Nf3, and only after did Nc3 Qd8 get played).

The other 13 times, saw Nd5; Bc4 Nc6 as in the game below. That game was the only one that had an ECO code of B02 somehow, with the rest all being B01.

Once, instead of taking Kxf7, black played Kd7.

```
 [Event "FIN-ch U18"]
 [Site "Finland"]
 [Date "1989.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Koskela, Niina"]
 [Black "Kosonen, Marko"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [PlyCount "39"]
 [EventDate "1989.??.??"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "FIN"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Ne5+ Kg8 8. Nxg4 Nc6 9. d3 Qd7 10. Nxf6+ exf6 11. O-O Kf7 12. Bf4 h5 13. h4 Be7 14. Ne4 Rag8 15. c3 Ke8 16. Re1 Kd8 17. d4 g5 18. hxg5 fxg5 19. Bh2 Rg6 20. d5 1-0

```

The one game with Kd7.

```
 [Event "NOR-chT"]
 [Site "Karasjok"]
 [Date "2008.01.11"]
 [Round "1.3"]
 [White "Takle, Dan"]
 [Black "Lanes, Mikal"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B01"]
 [WhiteElo "2220"]
 [BlackElo "1249"]
 [PlyCount "23"]
 [EventDate "2008.01.11"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "5"]
 [EventCountry "NOR"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bxf7+ Kd7 7. Ne5+ Kc8 8. Nxg4 Nbd7 9. d4 c6 10. O-O Nb6 11. Be6+ Nbd7 12. Ne5 1-0

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8

```

Above is a playable line of the Scandinavian defense. 3...Qa5 and maybe also 3...Qd6 are more popular, but Qd8 isn't horrible.

The tactical trick itself is more general. It can occur, for example, in the following gambit line:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Bg4

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, opening-traps, capablanca
---


# Question
Title: Which chess server is most stable in mainland China?
I had been playing mostly on chess.com. Recently I moved to Shanghai, and chess.com is really unstable here. I had numerous abandoned games due to disconnection, and I can check that my internet is ok during the disconnection countdown.

Maybe due to internet censorship? But surely a chess site can't be sensitive...

Could players in mainland China recommend a more reliable site please?

# Answer
I suspect it is more about your Internet connection than which chess server you are connecting to.

I was watching the recent Nakamura-Duda quarter final in the speed chess championship, and Nakamura, who is known to have a great connection, was playing from a hotel somewhere but had connection issues, and lost a game. He continued virtually the whole match with no video feed due to this. The only thing that changed was his connection. Other Chinese players in the tournament have also had problems.

Many places are famous for their bad Internet, and that is the likely culprit, not the server you are connecting to.

That said, with a bad connection, the Internet Chess Club, and its predecessor, the Free Internet Chess Server, both use protocols that are require very little bandwidth to have a decent connection. I doubt there are any servers that require less as they are UNIX-based, and were started at a time when bandwidth was nothing compared to today.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


title: Help with game phase identification

text:
# Question
Title: Help with game phase identification
I'm working on a chess AI for a school project and I am looking into ways to identify the current phase of a board, meaning the opening, middlegame, and endgame. I have seen an article explaining Tapered Evaluation, however I don't really understand what the point of this is. I want to be able to change my overall board evaluation heuristic depending on what state the game is in. This way, in the middlegame, I can prioritize king protection and development and other strategies.

# Answer
I think you don't need this. You shift from opening to middle game when your opening book for this line runs out. The middle-end phase is less relevant in AI, and your algorithm will handle those the same. You could define a line, e.g. when your search depth could be increased over some threshold, because the board has only a handful of pieces left, but I don't think it's an important change.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The definition of "the middlegame" is a somewhat gray area.

There's no commonly-accepted, sharply-defined definition for when the middlegame starts/ends.

I suggest you start with one of these definitions, test it, and refine it if it gives poor results:

**Middlegame Definition #1:**

* Castling has occurred, OR
* 10 moves have been played

**Middlegame Definition #2:**

* One player's rooks are connected, OR
* 12 moves have been played

**Middlegame Definition #3:**

* One player has castled AND has moved all minor pieces at least once AND has moved at least 1 pawn, OR
* 12 moves have been played

The endgame is generally defined as being "when the Kings are ready to join the battle", which usually occurs when there are few pieces left on the board. Start with defining the endgame as when there are 12 pieces left on the board and improve it if that definition ever fails.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is no sharp definition that would say x moves and y moves is where.

The opening is pretty much over when you have exhausted moves that have been played so many times by many players. It could be short if someone makes an unusual move, or, for a very long time, play some extremely old lines especially when GMs want to play safe for a draw.

Endgames would tend to start when there is really not enough material to mount a mating attack by force. Just trading queens is not enough if all the other pieces are still in play.

But none of this should matter to an AI program. They are just arbitrary identifiers to help indicate the stage of the game.

A good AI program would evaluate the position independently of what stage you thought the game was in. Not doing so would lead to a number of places that give weird results. Anyway, isn't AI supposed to determine those weightings for itself based on the position?

The problem is you can't train AI with enough examples to really make AI work the way it normally does.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As a rough estimate, I've once seen the definition that the endgames begins when each side's pieces has a strength of 13 or less (counting 9 for queen, 5 for rook, 3 for bishop/knight and ignoring pawns) Can't remember the source, though.

The opening is often said to end when all of the pieces are developped, but it's not always so clear. You may want to alow one piece to stay on its starting square and call it the middlegame already
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the most unsportsmanlike conducts witnessed in over-the-board play?
Back when I was in high school, I played chess with a group of other students. One of the students would pick on me sometimes. Once, we decided to play and he cornered me into a forced mate in two. Before the threat turned into the final execution however, I swept my arm across the chessboard vehemently, blasting the pieces across the room. Needless to say, he got very mad. I spontaneously kept doing this for a few more games (to my sole entertainment).

Curt von Bardeleben is known as the opponent who never returned. After move 25 in the Battle of Hastings, Steinitz's opponent mysteriously disappeared:

> At this point, Steinitz's opponent left the tournament hall and never reappeared. By these offensive means he hoped to deprive Steinitz of 'a piece of immortality', ... - Art of Attack, V. Vukovic. pp 21

What are some of the most unsportsmanlike manners witnessed in over-the-board chess play?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here are some examples of unsporting behaviour I have heard of before:

* Kicking opponent under the table (from Josh Waitzkin in the Chessmaster tutorials)
* (Added for interest) Running down the clock in correspondence chess with the aim of waiting for an opponent to die of old age (this shouldn't be a major issue under the ICCF, as games with deceased players are now cancelled or substitutes are called, but they could be misrecorded as a loss on time)
* Using an iPhone for analysis (hat tip to @SmallChess)

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is a book on the topic. "Underhanded Chess: A Hilarious Handbook of Devious Diversions and Stratagems for Winning at Chess", by Jerry Sohl. It was originally published in the '70s, but apparently has been picked up again by a publisher and is available from on-line booksellers. Bobby Fischer, naturally, gets a lot of ink from the author.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Being rated, 1700 I played against a 1880 and he lost essential material. He shot down all the pieces and they fell on the floor.

We were playing om four boards, it was a club match, and my club partners and opponents were amazed because of the noise.

After that, we were winning the match 2-1. It was last round and we were virtually classified for next league, while the club of this guy was not going to promote to next league because they needed to beat us at the match.

The last game ended on a blunder of the player of the club of my angry opponent, so we won 3-1, classifying ourselves.

He started to shout to his club partner: "How can you play that?"

I felt a lot of embarrassment. He had the eyes flushed.

I go to tournaments for fun and because chess is good for my brain; I don't understand why some people take an amateur sport so seriously.

# Answer
> 3 votes
"Blackburne made an insulting remark, Steinitz spat towards him – though not necessarily hitting him – and Blackburne smashed him in the face with his fist. It happened at the City of London Chess Club." (From Edward Winter's excellent Chesshistory.com site)

# Answer
> 3 votes
In a game I was personally playing in, my opponent was a first-time tournament attendee. It was an early round and I would say the position on the board was about equal. But my opponent made a blunder that left him open to a mate-in-one, which I found. He got angry, and used his arm to sweep the pieces off the board, on to the floor. Then he stormed out of the tournament hall. He did not come back for the next round, I don't think he ever played another tournament game again.

I've seen (as a spectator) a well known local player in our city get upset with himself during a game because he blundered in a good position - he picked up the clock and threw it hard against a wall, breaking it. Fortunately (sort of...), it was his own clock.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Three examples listed by James Eade in *Chess for Dummies* (excerpt here):

1. Alexander Alekhine once resigned a game by picking up his king and hurling it across the room. (This incident is also mentioned by Edward Winter.)
2. Aron Nimzowitsch once lost a game which cost him first place in the tournament, and apparently got up on a table and shouted: "Why must I lose to this idiot?" The game is here, you can see various remarks about it in the comments section.
3. An unnamed Danish player once lost his queen after a finger slip. That night, he slipped back into the tournament hall and cut the heads off all the queens.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Trash talking during a game and calling the opponent fish or patzer. Usually only seen during casual games with relatively fast time controls.

I have seen it with IMs and GMs doing it , usually I think in 'fun' without an evil intent, but sometimes it is definitely meant to win unfairly especially when they have money on the game.

---
Tags: sportsmanship
---


# Question
Title: What are the merits of Anand's exchange sacrifice in game 9 of 1995 World Chess Championship?
From various sources (some of which I have mentioned below) I have heard Vishy Anand's 27th move in game 9 of 1995 world chess championship match against Gary Kasparov , which was an exchange sacrifice is considered to be one of his greatest moves.

Link to the game.

Kasparov accepted the sacrifice, but had to resign game 8 moves later.

Obviously due to my incompetence, I fail to see the merit of the move. I checked with engines, neither stockfish is recommending the move nor engine is giving any significant improvement in evaluation of the position in favour of white after the move compared to before the move.

What are the merits of this move?

What improvements does this move bring for white?

Sources:

1. Anand's new book "Mind Master" mentions this game and the move. (I have not read book)
2. Chessbase India has a series of YouTube videos asking different top grandmasters to guess some of Anand's famous moves by showing the position. This game and position is featured there in the videos. Link to Magnus Carlsen's video is here and this position is discussed around time 1:10
3. Popular Chess YouTube channel of Agadmator covers this game and infact this position is the thumbnail of the video. But still don't explain why this move is important or how it improves things for white.

# Answer
Well, the obvious answer is that taking it leaves white with two connected passers (possibly after a future a6). That is incredibly strong since they control so many central squares, and threaten to advance strongly at any moment. This keeps the opponent tied down, and constantly worried about their advance.

I once saw Joel Benjamin sac a whole piece just for connected passers on the 5th. I think it was at the 1985 World open versus Sandeep Joshi, a prodigy at the time. It has been a long time, but they were so strong, i don't think that he never moved them.

Frankly, the other point behind it is that white is going to double rooks. Kasparov was wrong, at least practically, to take. In his notes to the game, Anand give Nxd5 two question marks, and recommends waiting with 27...h5.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, sacrifice, anand
---


title: Symmetrical opening

text:
# Question
Title: Symmetrical opening
In Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals" this symmetrical oppening is considerd.

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5

```

The author then claims that a long analysis shows that black is forced to 7...Bxc3 since otherwise 8.Nd5 is winning for white. Where can I find this analysis? My engine doesn't seem to find the winning moves.

# Answer
First, the great Capablanca aside, Bc3 is not forced at all. It is considered the slightly preferred move by Stockfish 10 on my computer, which is fairly strong. In the Mega 2019 database, it occurs 1788 times, and has a winning percentage for white of 54.5%.

Almost equal per the computer (both eval at 0.00, but initially 7...Bc3 is a little better for black at -.07, but then it levels out), and the second most common move per Mega 2019, is 7...Ne7. It actually wins only 47.7% of the time for white but with a much stronger average level of competition at 2271-2288 (these are the average ratings for white and black in that line) compared to 2200-2177 for Bc3. This means that it may actually be a better practical continuation for black. Further study would be required actually examining the games, and deciding what it best for you.

Other alternatives for black at move 7 seem to be much worse.

Lastly, you have to realize that the book was originally written in 1921, so a lot has changed in 99 years (OK, 99 years next month, but he probably did not write it all in December), and overall chess understanding has improved exponentially in that time.

Also, I believe that he might have been influenced by some traps that were well-known then where black continues to try to copy white:

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 Bg4 8. Bxf6 gxf6 (8... Qxf6 9. Nd5 Qd8 {Other moves are no better} 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Nxb4 a5 12. Nxc6 Qe8 13. Ncxe5 dxe5 14. h3 $18) 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. h3 $16

```

Here is another similar copying trap that may have also been on his mind, although it is from a slightly different variation with the bishops on c4 and c5, but it is fun to see. After 11Ne7+, black can no longer copy, and is done!

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Bg5 Bg4 8. Nd5 Nd4 9. Qd2 Qd7 10. Bxf6 Bxf3 11. Ne7+ {black can no longer copy} Kh8 12. Bxg7+ Kxg7 13. Qg5+ Kh8 14. Qf6#

```

These four knights games were more common then, but the teeth have been taken out of them over the many years since.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, capablanca
---


# Question
Title: Portisch-Radulov, Moscow 1977. Doesn't 16.c5 lose a pawn?
```
[title "Portisch-Radulov, Moscow 1977"]
[fen "2r2rk1/pb1n1ppp/1ppqp3/8/2PPQ3/1P3NP1/P4PBP/R2R2K1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Doesn't 16.c5 just lose a pawn?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The short answer is “no” due to the tactics after 16. c5 bxc5 17. dxc5 Nxc5? 18. Qb4 Qe7 19. Rdc1 winning the piece. This is a famous combination from some books I have read.

The position is really a lot deeper than just that tactic, and it is worth mentioning that great move, and why Portisch played it.

First, even though not all of this came to fruition, Portisch probably thought about a lot of this. c5 did the following things:

It deadened the Bb7 on the more important h1-a8 diagonal. It might still have found a home on the f1-a6 diagonal, but there it would not be anywhere near as effective on that diagonal since there was nothing to attack there. It made it a partially bad bishop. Later, on move 25, Portisch also made the great decision to trade on d5, leaving a good N vs. bad B. That affected the game to the end when he finished with a pretty combination.

Although black will get control of d5 with Nf6-d5, with tempo even due to the Qe4, the d6 square looks like a very nice spot for the Nf3-d2-c4-d6. It might take four moves to get there, but it would have been very powerful on that square. It turns out that how the game played out, Portisch preferred to put the Nf3 on e5, where it still was intolerable, and kept black tied to c6. Note that, as Fischer said, you have to give squares to get squares; but I will add that if they are for knight outposts, usually it is a good trade if your knight outpost is much deeper in the opponent’s territory that his is in yours. So, giving up d5, which is not even on your side of the board, in exchange for an outpost on e5 or d6, it is a good trade in most cases. It can really divide the board for your opponent when it is posted that deeply on the other side of the board. As it turned out, black felt forced to weaken his king-side and dark squares further with f6 because the Ne5 was so well-placed.

```
 [Event "EU Team-ch06 Final"]
 [Site "Moscow"]
 [Date "1977.04.??"]
 [Round "6.1"]
 [White "Portisch, Lajos"]
 [Black "Radulov, Ivan"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "E08"]
 [WhiteElo "2625"]
 [BlackElo "2500"]
 [PlyCount "79"]
 [EventDate "1977.04.13"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 e6 3. Bg2 Be7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d5 6. d4 c6 7. Qc2 b6 8. Rd1 Nbd7 9. b3 Bb7 10. Nc3 Rc8 11. e4 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Qc7 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Bxd6 Qxd6 16. c5 Qe7 (16... bxc5? 17. dxc5 Nxc5? {This makes it worse} 18. Qb4 Qe7 19. Rdc1 $18) 17. b4 Rfd8 18. Qc2 Nf6 19.Ne5 Nd5 20. a3 b5 21. Be4 g6 22. h4 a5 23. bxa5 Ra8 24. a4 b4 25. Bxd5 Rxd5 26. Rab1 f6 27. Ng4 Rad8 28. Rxb4 Bc8 29. Ne3 R5d7 30. Rb8 e5 31. d5 cxd5 32. c6 Rd6 33. c7 Rf8 34. Rxd5 f5 35. Qc5 Re6 36. Qxe7 Rxe7 37. Rxc8 Rxc8 38. Rd8+ Re8 39. Rxe8+ Rxe8 40. Nd5 1-0

```

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Is a queen for two rooks reasonable in this position? What are the disadvantages?
Is Qxe8 reasonable?
I always wanted to trade off a queen against two rooks and the engine likes this idea, but am I leaving my pawns unprotected in this situation?
It would be hard to protect those with rooks.

# Answer
> 9 votes
This is a losing position for White. Normally, trading for a queen against two rooks is reasonable but Black has an extra knight here...

The best objective move sequence would be:

```
1.Qxe8 Rxe8 2.Rxe8+ Kf7 3.Re2 Qb6+

```

White's position after 3...Qb6+ is absolutely hopeless - the rooks have no useful squares. White has **no** counterplay, **no** attacks, **no** chance for Black to make a mistake. Very easy win for Black.

If this were a GM game, the White player would have resigned. Here, your best swindle move is **1.Qd3**. By keeping the queen on the board, you --might-- be able to generate a miracle comeback.

A possible line:

```
1...Nxf4?? 2.Rxe8! Nxd3 3.Rexf8# checkmate!

```

The above line is not impossible in a blitz game. But it wouldn't have happened if you played 1.Qxe8.

**Don't** follow the computer analysis. Computer lines are meaningless in a lost position. You will need to try a human move. Don't trade your queen for the rooks. You need it to give troubles for the Black players.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In this particular position Qxe8 is the best possible chance even though white is still in a bad shape.

White is down a piece and any other queen move(Qf3/d4/d3) would simply drop f4 pawn after Rxe1 and N(R)xf4 and leave no counterplay for white.

The general rule of thumb is that 2 rooks are worth a queen and a pawn in an endgame.

Queen can be worth more if rooks are disconnected, while two rooks can be worth more if queen's pawns are isolated. Two rooks can support a single advanced pawn rather well.

Once again, generally you'd be happy to give up a queen for two rooks provided you are not dropping anything else within the next few moves.

Vice versa if have a chance to win a queen for two rooks, you better make sure your queen can wreck some extra damage.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In order to get a good assessment of a position, you should consider as many factors as there are: material, tactical, positional, dynamical, permanent, structural, technical, king's safety, etc.

These factors have different weight. And in the given position, the clearly dominant feature is the material disequilibrium (as usual): black is a full knight ahead and such a big material advantage is decisive. Some other minor considerations have little weight.

But in general, two Rooks are better than a Queen, unless the rooks coordinate poorly.

So, in conclusion: White is lost because is a piece down, and probably the best move it has is Qxe8.

# Answer
> 0 votes
No. Q+N can run rings around two rooks, especially passive ones like yours will be protecting , or trying to protect, your pawns.

---
Tags: analysis, queens, rooks
---


title: Attacking play in chess

text:
# Question
Title: Attacking play in chess
How do I play in an attacking manner? I know it sounds silly, but whenever I play, I am usually on the defensive. My opponents attack, forcing me into a corner, and usually won. The few times I attack, the opponent easily rebuffs my attacks, since I often lose control of the situation trying to attack. Plus, attacking moves do not come obviously to my mind. I find that my opponents usually move in a different manner than I expect them to. In short, I'm usually good at tactics, but rather less so at strategy. I'd like some advice.
I played black. The game was over in two hours. I would like anyone's opinion on my game.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

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

```

**My analysis:** **1-5:** Started off as the Italian game, though this variation is a bit unusual for me. **5... Qxd1** To throw him off balance, hopefully. **6-8:** To castle early, bishop placement intended to be safe. **9... a6** Taken from Morphy defense. **10.....** General move **11... Nd4** Planning for a fork on King and Rook. **12... b5** Driving away the bishop. **13...Nxb3** I prefer to exchange a Knight for a bishop. **14... Nf6** General development. **15... Rd3** in the futile hope of a pawn win. **16-19:** Thought I had a fair exchange. **20... Rb3** Threatening to take away the bishop. **21... b4** felt I had the momentum, wanted to press forwards. **22... Rf8** Defending my knight. **23... Ng4+** Thought I had a brilliant fork. **24...Kb6** To Avoid being skewered by 25. Ra8+ **25... Nxe5** At least I had an even exchange. **26... Rxb2** Planning for pawn promotion. **27... Kb6** Wanted my king to be in the middle of the action, not limited to last rank. **28... b3** Furthering pawn promotion **29...Re2** To attack his pawn moving ahead. **30... b2**. To save my pawn, and also restrict the movement of the rook on front of me. **31... Re8**. To doubly attack his pawn. **32...Rb8** Wanted to support my almost promoted pawn. I had vague plans of bringing my other Rook onto the first rank, let his rook capture mine, and promote my pawn by taking his room. **33... Ka5** Hoping to connect my rooks and also move my king ahead. **34... Rb3** Continuation of my promoting plans. Failed to notice his promoting plans! Got reckless, I guess.

**35 onward**: Doing my best to delay defeat.

*I wonder how he held off my promotion attempts with just one rook, and got his promotion done using the other. Two of my rooks could do nothing*

# Answer
> 10 votes
"In short, I'm usually good at tactics" - most of what you wrote up to that point kind of does contradict that: Your attacks are easily rebuffed, you cannot easily find attacking moves, and you fail to correctly predict your opponent's answers.

You have to understand that strategy and tactics go hand in hand. Good strategy uses tactical threats to force your opponent to make trade-offs, and good tactics are almost always prepared by strategically placing the pieces in supportive positions.

My guess is that what you were trying to say is that you are good at solving tactical puzzles where someone else already placed the pieces for you and you just have to find the mate in two or three. Now the question is how to get there, right? For this, try to expand the scope of the puzzles, e.g. try to find mates in 4 or 5, or try tactical problems where the goal is not to mate, but just to win a piece or even just a pawn. And do a lot of these puzzles, the more the better. To improve at "attacking play" you MUST practice how these attacks actually play out. Chess skill is mostly about learning and applying patterns.

Maybe counterintuitively, deepening your tactical understanding will improve your strategical play as well! The better you start recognizing the patterns from your tactical knowledge, the further you will be able to think ahead - hopefully further than your opponent. It works in both ways: On the defense, you might spot sooner that your position is weak to certain tactical motives - *before* your opponent can actually line up his pieces to exploit this instead of when the attack starts and it's too late. On the offense, you might spot the weaknesses to certain motives in *his* position and base your strategy around that (pressuring weak points in a way to force him to make concessions elsewhere because he needs to redirect his defenders).

I personally used the IdeaTactics app during an almost 10-year-long hiatus where I only did puzzles frequently while waiting for the bus etc., but did not play on-the-board at all. And I have to say that I am much better now that I started playing for real again, especially in the department of strategy! Of course, real games are good practice too, and you don't have to use this specific app (there are loads that do the same with the same quality). Good luck!

---

## Comment to your analysis

Thanks for explaining your thoughts a little more! I have some thoughts about some of the moves, as well as your general strategy.

**1-4:** The opening is the Scotch, not the Italian Game (but who cares how it is called, this is just for clarification).

**5+6:** Good moves that delay his development.

**6:** While it generally is advisable to castle early, did you have in mind that the game tends to be a lot sharper when both players castled on opposite sides? Sometimes it is better to delay castling to see which side your opponent chooses. Since the queens are already off the board, your king is much safer from sudden mate attacks and can be allowed to remain in the middle for a few more moves. Castling here isn't bad, but it has implications. I would suggest 6.. Be7 first, development + coverage for g5).

**7:** Unfortunately, you don't give an explanation for Rd7. That move does nothing for your position at all except that it allows White a light pin on your knight in the next move. Where you scared about the possible fork on f7 and wanted to be sure? You didn't have to, because White had no way to attack f7 with another piece anytime soon (the queen was already gone and your bishop prevented his bishop to use the traditional Bc4. And Be2 can be met with Nf6 to control the h5 square while developing). To avoid the isolated doubled pawns, you probably have to play Re8, even though this loses the open d file for now (if Rd6, then Be3, threating Bc5).

**9-11:** Nothing to complain about.

**12+13:** The move b5 contradicts your plan from one move before: You force the white bishop to cover c2. Doubling his pawns on b3 might look nice, but it comes at the cost of opening your king's defense. Although, as mentioned, without queens you have a bit more freedom in that regard and your king is not threatened yet.

**14+15:** Good moves, put pressure onto your opponent.

**16:** Now your king is completely open. I see your idea, if White takes on c5, you can develop your bishop, free your rook on h8 and attack his knight. But, of course, he is smart enough to see it. Still, no harm *so far*.

**17:** Again, you completely step away from your plan from one move before. Remember, you *wanted* him to take on c5. Why destroy the bait now? Maybe you started feeling the lacking safety of your king, and indeed, he now has the option to pin your pawn with Rc1. You can however catch two flies with one hit: Kb7 not only moves your king out of the soon-to-be-open c file, but also covers the a6 pawn that will be undefended after the exchange on b4, which you can then still do next move with added safety.

**18-20:** The little combination looks fancy, but it is a terrible exchange in hindsight and the turning point of the game in my opinion. His knight was totally useless on e3 (virtually all of its forward moves are covered - even after it relocates to c2). Meanwhile, your bishop, even though still undeveloped at this point, isn't bad at all: It is a possible defender of d5, it can be used to attack his weak link on e3 some more (likely preventing him from castling) - while at the same time continue to put pressure on b4. Worse, the whole exchange frees White's own bishop to immediately pounce on d5. Your poor pawn structure was up to this point compensated by better piece activity, and you deliberately threw that compensation away. I'd still recommend Kb7 here. General rule of thumb: On the attack, you should not want to swap (unless you can force a mate/material winning combination by doing so) - after all, who is going to continue the attack when the attacking pieces are gone?

**21:** You felt like you had the momentum - big misconception. You just lost it without noticing, and have to start organising your defense now. You will lose either a6 or d5, but you won the pawn on b4 before, so that's okay. b4 does nothing for you, that bishop wanted to take on d5 anyways. Pressuring the opponent to do moves he intended anyways is not pressure at all.

**22+23:** Damn, if only your king had been on b7 already, then these moves would have been really cool and turned the game into a win once more.

**24:** Unfortunately, you have to move your king. I agree that your choice of Kb7 is better than Kd7 despite losing e6 as it doesn't open the king to checks from the rook on h1.

**25-26:** Reasonable, his bishop was much stronger than your knight.

**Rest of the game:** Let's face it, at this point you have lost anyways because of this reserve pawns on the kingside. Still, one last misplay before it could come to that, the promotion race. After 32 e7, you both have a similar situation: One rook blocking the enemy pawn, one protecting the own one from the side. You even had the additional advantage that your defending rook attacked his pawn at the same time. So how comes that..

**..he hold off your promotion attempts with just one rook?** Simple.. he never moved it away from the blocking position. To get past that block, you need at least one of your own rooks (to attack him from the side while covered by the pawn) and either the king or the other rook (to meanwhile defend the pawn).

**..and got his promotion done using the other?** With a little help from you. You did move your rook away from the blocking square. This greatly facilitates the described method: If he plays Rf7 and Rf8, with your rook still at e8, he only creates one threat (taking your rook with his) and you can simply take on e7 *with the attacked rook*, nullifying the threat. But after you moved the rook to b8, Rf8 actually creates two threats: Taking on b8 and promoting on e8. You can't cover both with the same rook, as now *the attacked rook* cannot take the pawn. The other rook is actually meaningless in this situation!

You could have resolved this particular problem earlier with 32 ..Rxe7, but you would have lost the resulting single rook endgame regardless. Maybe with slightly improved odds because your king would have been closer to the kingside compared to the continuation that happened in the game.

## General Strategy

There were many good aspects in your play already, so don't give up hope! I also got a much better perspective on why you think you are lacking in the strategy department (correct observation). I think you still live too much in the here-and-now and do not consider longer lasting effects of your moves as much as you should. This goes hand in hand with how you evaluate the pieces (or don't). To you, you swapped two minor pieces (both 3 pawn units, so equal value) and got a pawn out of it (yay). What actually happened is that you swapped one vital of your own pieces for a useless piece of your opponent and a pawn, only to loose 2-3 pawns immediately afterwards as a consequence.

Thus my main advice is to push yourself to a different state of mind: It is not important *what* a piece is, or *where* it is, what truly matters is *where it can go*. That knight on e3 was bad because it couldn't go anywhere useful soon. Your move 6 ..Be6 was good because now the white bishop on c1 couldn't easily go to a useful square (f7) anymore. This extends not only to the squares that a piece can directly reach, but also those where it can reasonably be without hindrance (e.g. the Be3-Bc5 manoevre to counter 8..Rd6).

If you look at squares rather than pieces, you can develop much better plans by going backwards: Think of the squares in your opponent's structure that you would like to control. Then backtrack and make a plan of how to get your pieces there. Your calculation skills seem to be quite decent, so you can make use of that. If you spot a structure that is vulnerable to some kind of tactic, think of how you can get your pieces into positions where you could actually execute said tactic. Or how your opponent can get stuff into position towards your own weaknesses, even before he starts doing it.

Also, don't be impatient if your opponent finds the right answers to deflect your threats. That does happen. If both opponents play perfectly for the entire game, it will end in a draw. Don't try to force things when they are not there. And remember that chess is a game of tradeoffs: If your opponent replaced a piece to cover a square that you threatened to attack, that piece now does not cover other squares anymore. Maybe you can now attack there?

All of this comes from experience. If you lose again and again because you moved your pawns away from your king, your brain will get the message at some point (as long as you correctly assess your mistakes). So if you want to get better, play, play, play. And look at your games afterwards to see where you went wrong! The best way to do this is in a club with better players that can guide you (you can't put *all* your games on StackExchange :P).

# Answer
> 7 votes
I assume that by "attacking play" you mean a direct attack (mating attack) against the enemy king.

This question is too general to be answered unless all you want is a recommendation for study resources.

> whenever I play, I am usually on the defensive

Need to see a specific game, but typically this happens if you neglect development, play too slowly or place your pieces in strange positions. Working on these might already help you.

Not every game/position lends itself to a direct attack. Sometimes it is better to play it slowly trying to gain small advantages. In the end chess is very concrete and whether an attack is successful will depend on many details. Some indications that it is time for an attack:

* there are **few defenders** around the enemy king
* your pieces are placed such (or can be placed such) that they **aim at the enemy king**; this usually means open files/diagonals or ways to achieve open files/diagonals
* **opposite side castling**; such that if you open files on the side of the enemy king it does not affect your own king safety
* a **closed center**; particularly useful for pawn storms. This prevents your opponent from starting a counter-attack in the center and also can make it more difficult for defenders to move from one side of the board to the other
* **some openings** basically force you to go for an attack while in others it is rare that you would get any attack

Once you have decided that it is time for an attack, the question is how to do it?

* Knowing/studying tactics is certainly useful.
* Also you want to concentrate your forces for the attack (without neglecting your king's safety or without pieces standing themselves in the way).
* You want to open diagonals/files in order to get an attack going. If the enemy king is hiding behind pawns (as is often the case), you can try to break this open with a pawn storm. If you do this, you need to be careful not to give your opponent the option to block/close the pawn structure on this side which will make an attack much more difficult (unless you see that you will be able to sacrifice a piece for a winning attack) Often it helps your pawn storm/attack, if the enemy pawns are not all on the same row, but if one or another has moved already, creating a "weakness" in the position.
* Studying master games for openings/positions that you play and see how they handle the attack (if they attack).

> Plus, attacking moves do not come obviously to my mind

If you decide that attacks are not for you, there is nothing wrong to play quieter, positional chess, if you pick your openings accordingly.

## Regarding the example game

This is not what I would call an attacking game from either side. Around move 7 you achieved a somewhat boring symmetric position without weaknesses for either side. It is not a position suitable for what I'd call "attacking play". The main priority should be to complete the development without worsening the pawn structure. Plenty of space in the position, so keeping bishops over knights is probably preferable.

However you ran into: (i) 8 Ng5 which is somewhat inconvenient as it gives white at least the bishop pair and in the game also left you with an isolated doubled pawn which eventually was lost. (ii) 9. Bb5 which pinned your knight on c6 and could have left you with another doubled isolated pawn on the c-file.

Around move 15 you were back at an equal position because white was so nice to give you the bishop pair (13 Ba2 would have been much better and you would always have to worry about the e6 pawn). I would have completed development with 15... Bc5, doubled rooks on the d-file and IMO your position should be perfectly fine. Instead you went for direct play on the queenside which did not really work (18...Bxb4 is the final mistake) and only helped white to develop his pieces. If you occupy the only open file, there is no point to open another open file (a-file) for your opponent's rook.

I believe the rook ending around move 30 is lost, though you could certainly have fought harder for a draw.

At this level, it is reasonable to assume that your opponent can mate with king+queen. No need (and slightly impolite) not to resign, unless he was extremely short on time.

Overall I would say that you lost the game because (i) you had your pawn structure worsened and (ii) you helped your opponent to gain counter-play. Just making normal developing moves should have given you at least an equal position after move 15.

## Regarding your analysis of the example game

> 1-5: Started off as the Italian game, though this variation is a bit unusual for me

If Bc4 Bc5 is not played, this is called Scotch game, not Italian game. Correct is 3...exd4 as after 3...d6 white can develop a tempo by playing 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4.

> 6-8: To castle early, bishop placement intended to be safe.

With queens off the board there is no real need to castle early, though long castle does make much sense because it automatically puts your rook on the open file. Bishop placement on e6 is not all that safe as it turned out.

> 9... a6 Taken from Morphy defense

In the Ruy Lopez/Morphy defense the point is that you have to deal with potentially hanging pawn on e5 which you don't have here. 9...a6 seems a bit unnecessary as nothing is threatened except for Bxc6 (leaving you with weak pawns) which you don't prevent by playing a6.

> 15-26 ...

Agree with your assessment. Mostly a miscalculated rather long semi-forced tactical line.

# Answer
> 0 votes
First have a good position.

Play positionally and get a position where the attack will work. You can not just decide to go out and attack from the gitgo.

Or else become a tactical genius and learn how to make complex sacrifices that will not sound offer chances to win.

Your play was poor in the example. But black was not especially red hot either.

On 9 you should play NxB to double his pawns and get the two bishops.

On 5 you should play Qxd8 and win a pawn or else black cannot castle for some positional advantage.

---
Tags: strategy, attack
---


# Question
Title: Why aren't 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bh6, and 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6 considered by theory?
As the title above, why aren't 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bh6, and 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6 (or eventually beginning with 1.d4) for Black not even considered by theory? Isn't the eventual early trade-off of White's strong Bc1 and Bf1 for Black's Bishop an asset for Black? What is the best reply for White vs such irregular defences? Should he trade the Bishops or avoid that? (i.e. with f2-f4 and c2-c4)?

# Answer
White should trade bishops and use the unprotected knight to gain some extra tempo and gain a massive lead in development, e.g.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bh6 3. Bxh6 Nxh6 4. Qd2 Ng8 5. Nc3

```

4... Ng4 is best met by 5. h3 Nf6 (forced) 6. e5 Nd5 7. c4 Nb6 8. Qh6 and Black has problems completing his development, though there is no forced win at the moment.

I haven't analyzed the b6/Ba6 lines but I guess a similar concept holds.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I would argue that both of these lines are incorrect on principle. g6 weakens the dark squares on the kingside. In such positions, typically one wants to keep the dark squared bishop on the board to help defend the dark squares. Playing Bh6 lets white trade the dark squared bishops for nothing.

Moreover, the reason for playing a move like g6 is usually to put the bishop on the long diagonal where it can be very strong. If you just trade it off instead, black has gained nothing by the tempo that was lost when g6 was played.

The same applies to the other line.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> Opening moves that don't have remotely reasonable ideas don't have a place in theory.

Your only assertion seems to be that Black is eliminating "strong Bishops". Why are they strong? They haven't even left home yet.

A) White trades bishops: Black ends up with a silly looking undefended knight on the rim coupled with weakened squares.

B) White doesn't trade bishops: White can just keep developing, it doesn't really matter how.

Either way White ends up with a large development lead and the center.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The assumption that White's bishops are much stronger than Black's is faulty. After 1...g6, Black has weakened his dark squares and requires a bishop to "fill in the gap". Playing 2...Bh6 betrays this duty, and to make it worse Black's knight will have to go to the unattractive h6-square to recapture. The same logic is applied to 1...b6, 2...Ba6.

Against the finachetto White often spends a few moves to actually initiate a bishop exchange (e.g., Be3, Qd2, Bh6).
> 4 votes

# Answer
They were considered and rejected as so bad as to not be worth more effort.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, 1.e4, modern-defense, owens-defence
---


# Question
Title: Are there any sources of massive transposition tables?
Do transposition databases exist the way tablebases do? Would an engine be able to take advantage of a pre-calculated TD? Is there a benefit to players when studying if they had access to pre-calculated positions?

What I am imagining is a sort of Wikipedia for chess positions. Rather than focusing on perfect endgames or history of play, the emphasis would be on the position itself rather than the moves leading up to it. Users would then “kibitz” the individual positions, with popular ones rising to the top based on visits or appearance in games.

Does something like this already exist? I’m aware this is similar to some of the features of “Let’s Check” from Chessbase. I’m thinking open, like tablebases are.

And on that note, are there any proprietary table bases?

# Answer
What you're talking about is basically opening books. If an engine has access to hard-set evaluations of common positions fairly early on in the game, then it can play better.

But having a pre-made transposition table/database of positions occurring far after the opening isn't useful, since the chance of reaching any particular position late in the game is extremely low. Unless this position is part of theory, in which case it would be in an opening book.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, database, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: Is a wasted tempo with an early ...a6 or ...h6 by Black in the opening really compromising?
Is a wasted tempo in the opening for Black with an early ...a6 or ...h6 really dangerous? For example, in the following opening:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 a6 (or 3...h6)

```

Or in the following:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 a6 (or 3...h6)

```

Or in the English Opening:

```
[FEN ""]

1.c4 a6 (or 1...h6)

```

And so on. Is Black's position really compromised, or can he afford to do that without much trouble?

# Answer
At such an early stage, there is plenty of room for speculation, but the answer is that it can be dangerous in some positions, and not so dangerous in others. I will go into detail in a moment. The biggest drawback of playing those moves so early is that you are not yet sure if they will fit into, and if they will be useful (very important), as the position develops. A good rule of thumb is to play moves that you know you will need earlier, and then see what other moves fit in with your plan as the game has developed.

In the first position, you have a double-king-pawn opening, aka an open game. It is called an open game for a reason...because the position will be very open. Very open positions often rely on tactics and tempo, so losing a tempo on move three could easily evolve into a lost game by move 15. I would say in that position, it is the most dangerous.

In the second and third positions, both are closed games, and thus, losing a tempo is not as likely to be fatal. Again, whether you can make a6 valuable in those positions, it is not clear. In either case, even if it does not lead to an immediate win, I would expect white to have a MUCH better chance at obtaining a solid +/- out of the opening, instead of the more typical +/= or =.
> 3 votes

# Answer
That early the answer is usually yes against a good player.

Don't know the level of your opponents, but not everybody can take advantage of those type moves.

In that English there is less risk it is wasted but still not one of the better moves.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: How to play vs the 1...e6 and 2...d6 Pawn structure?
I've noticed that sometimes beginners play 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 as Black.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6

```

As strange as it may seem, I find it difficult to play vs this neglected defense. Is it better to increase central control with an early 3. c4 (neglecting piece development) or to follow-up with 3. Nc3? Then, assuming Black continues to neglect the center, would you follow-up with an early f2-f4, or would you prefer piece development with an early Nf3? Any ideas would be much appreciated.

# Answer
> 4 votes
By choosing these moves black is giving you a lot options, and you are free to choose what you prefer with a good game.

Most aggressive is probably `Nc3` followed by `f4`, `Nf3`, `Bd3`, `0-0`, and looking for attack on the king's side, with `f5` or `e5` depending on what black does.

But more positional approach with `c4` is totally fine.

Another alternative is to fianchetto the light squared bishop, and maybe eventually play f4.

Just play the game that fits your style.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The plan with Be3, f3, Qd2, g4 and h4 seems to be very strong. Obviously, not too many strong players play this as black, but here are a few games. I think the most important thing is to be patient, and develop reasonably, and only then, try to break through and attack.

This is the highest-rated game in this opening, by far, in the Mega 2019 database.

```
 [Event "CZE-ch op"]
 [Site "Plzen"]
 [Date "1999.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Voloshin, Leonid"]
 [Black "Novotny, Jiri"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C01"]
 [WhiteElo "2422"]
 [BlackElo "2280"]
 [PlyCount "61"]
 [EventDate "1999.??.??"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "9"]
 [EventCountry "CZE"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d6 2. e4 e6 3. Be3 g6 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. Qd2 h6 6. f3 Bg7 7. O-O-O Nd7 8. g4 a6 9. h4 b5 10. Kb1 Bb7 11. Nce2 Nb6 12. Ng3 d5 13. exd5 Nc4 14. Qf2 c5 15. f4 Nxe3 16. Qxe3 cxd4 17. Qf2 Nc6 18. Nf3 Rc8 19. Bd3 Qa5 20. f5 Nb4 21. a3 Nxd3 22. Rxd3 Bf8 23. fxe6 fxe6 24. Nxd4 Be7 25. Nxe6 Rc4 26. Rf1 Rh7 27. Nf8 Rg7 28. Nxg6 Rxg4 29. Nxe7 Rxe7 30. Qf8+ Kd7 31. Qf5+ 1-0

```

The level of competition goes way down quickly, but here is another good example that is textbook.

```
 [Event "POL-chT 2nd League"]
 [Site "Wysowa"]
 [Date "2003.09.13"]
 [Round "10"]
 [White "Nowak, Dominika"]
 [Black "Milanowska, Agata"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C01"]
 [WhiteElo "2182"]
 [PlyCount "47"]
 [EventDate "2003.09.06"]
 [EventType "team-swiss"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "POL"]
 [WhiteTeam "Bytom Szombierki"]
 [BlackTeam "Pawlowice GKS Pniowek 74"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "POL"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "POL"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 3. Be3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f3 Be7 6. Qd2 O-O 7. g4 e5 8. d5 Nb4 9. a3 Na6 10. Nge2 b6 11. Ng3 Bb7 12. h4 Re8 13. g5 Nd7 14. Nf5 Bf8 15. h5 f6 16. g6 h6 17. Bh3 Bc8 18. Bxh6 gxh6 19. g7 Bxg7 20. Nxg7 Kxg7 21. Rg1+ Kf7 22. Qxh6 Rh8 23. Rg7+ Ke8 24. Qg6+ 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Create a pawn center and develop your pieces. A breakthrough should be easy when you have prepared for it. I would play 3 f4 next then develop some pieces before more pawn moves.

One master wrote to have 4 pawns in these positions and you can always break through. Black will be cramped so even if you have to sac a piece you can end up winning in the middle game as black will have rooks that are not both in play and the other pieces will be less useful too.

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: What was the first "Opening Repertoire" book?
As title above states, what was/were the first "Opening Repertoire" book/s? I remember that opening books of the 1970s and early 1980s weren't actually repertoires for White or Black, but treatises on the various openings and defences. Now the concept of "opening repertoire" is very popular.

# Answer
**1939:** *White to Play and Win* by Weaver Adams. Adams believed that 1.P-K4 (1.e4) wins by force. In this book he presents his recommendations for White against the various Black defenses. For example, against 1...e5 he recommended the Bishop's Opening 2.Bc4. He continued to revise his system and write more books, e.g., he switched from 2.Bc4 to 2.Nc3 in his 1946 book *Simple Chess*.
> 8 votes

# Answer
"How to Think Ahead In Chess" by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld was published in 1951. For white it covers the Stonewall attack. For black its the Sicilian dragon and the Lasker variation of the Queens gambit declined. An odd combination of openings.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In 1561 Ruy Lopez (pronounced Rue-y Lopeth) de Segura (1530-1580) wrote Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez, por Ruy-Lopez de Sigura, clerigo, vezino dela villa Cafra. He wrote the book in response to Damiano's book. It contains 66 games. In 1584, his book was translated into Italian by Gio. Dominico Tarsia and printed at Venice by Cornelius Arrivabene. In 1655, it was translated into French and published at Brussels.

http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/oldtexts.htm
> 5 votes

# Answer
This might be the first one: "Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player" by David Levy and GM Raymond Keene. It was first published in 1976.

Here is another in a similar format: "The Chess Opening for You: A Complete System for White and Black". It was first published in 1975.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Practical Chess Openings had openings in the 50s & 60s like Modern Chess Openings had later, and others have now.

I suspect there were some opening books that go back a lot further but they would have been more limited.

I also recall a few, not many, books that specialised in a given opening.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I recall reading My System by Nimzovich. That must have predated the 1970ish books noted. Assuming repertoire means what it seems to mean otherwise PCO would have been earlier than 1970ish.

It would appear to have been a series of booklets later put into the form of a single book circa 1930s.

I still suspect there were earlier books from Italy and europe.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, repertoire
---