# Question
Title: Castling long in the King's Indian Defence (for white)
When does white do it? *Why* does white do it? What kind of strategies should both sides adopt in such games? What kinds of games does it give rise to (i.e. positional or tactical)? Which players are well known practitioners of such a setup as white?

# Answer
The most common way to end up with queenside castling for white in the KID is via the Saemisch Variation `5.f3`. Black often attacks on the kingside in the KID, and the Saemisch is typically a way to avoid that, and ideally to attack on the kingside oneself. Of course, whole books have been written about what's going on in this variation, and I don't play either side of it myself, so this answer only addresses the last part of your question, concerning well-known practitioners.

The link above notes that

> The Sämisch has been played by numerous grandmasters, including world champions Mikhail Botvinnik, Mikhail Tal, Tigran Petrosian, Boris Spassky, Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov.

True enough, and so did Alekhine. But if my database is to be trusted, none of these champions has all that many games on record in the Saemisch, and even less against serious competition. For instance, Karpov played such a setup twice in his 1990 world championship match against Kasparov, scoring a draw (round 21) and a win (round 23), which is a nice endorsement. But he seems not to have played that way often; in my database, the only other classical game for Karpov in this setup against a player who is truly a peer of his is a draw against Timman from round 18 of their 1993 FIDE championship match.

The late Svetozar Gligoric has 18 games on the white side of this in my database (scoring 12.5 points), and his games could be particularly enlightening since he was a well-known proponent of the black side of the King's Indian; in fact, I also see him scoring 22.5/37 on the black side of this, so there's plenty of Gligoric games from boths sides to chew on.

But the most frequent assayer that I find is Florin Gheorghiu, and he's also a very successful one, with a phenomenal 35.5/43 score. So if you want a "hero" to follow for this kind of setup, Gheorghiu might fit the bill nicely. (Or conversely, if you want to know what might be coming at you as black.) To whet your appetite, what follow are two of his wins, each with Gligoric playing black in fact. The first is from the 1966 Havana Olympiad:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Havana ol (Men) fin-A"]
[Site "Havana"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Gheorghiu, Florin"]
[Black "Gligoric, Svetozar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E87"]
[EventDate "1966.10.25"]
[PlyCount "81"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 9.
O-O-O Nd7 10.Bd3 Ndf6 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Nge2 Qd7 13.g4 Bxd3 14.Qxd3 e4
15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.gxh5 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.hxg6 Rae8 19.gxh7+ Kh8 20.Nc3
Bh6+ 21.Kb1 Re3 22.Qg6 Qg7 23.Rhg1 Rfxf3 24.d6 cxd6 25.Rxd6 Rf8 26.Nd1
Ref3 27.Qxg7+ Bxg7 28.Rg5 b6 29.a4 Kxh7 30.a5 Bd4 31.axb6 axb6
32.Rxb6 Re8 33.Rg2 Re4 34.Rc6 Rh3 35.Rd2 Kg7 36.Nc3 Re1+ 37.Kc2 Kf7 38.Nb5
Be3 39.Rd7+ Ke8 40.Rb7 Re2+ 41.Kb1

```

And the other is from the 1968 Lugano Olympiad:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Lugano ol (Men) fin-A"]
[Site "Lugano"]
[Date "1968.11.03"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Gheorghiu, Florin"]
[Black "Gligoric, Svetozar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2520"]
[BlackElo "2575"]
[ECO "E87"]
[EventDate "1968.10.17"]
[PlyCount "95"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 9.
O-O-O Nd7 10.Bd3 Ndf6 11.Nge2 fxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Nf6 14.Bc2 Bf5 15.
Ng3 Bxc2 16.Qxc2 c5 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.h4 Qa5 19.Kb1 e4 20.h5 Qe5 21.Nxe4
Nxe4 22.Bd4 Qe7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.h6+ Kf7 25.Rhe1 Rae8 26.Rxe4 Qf6 27.Qa4
Rxe4 28.fxe4 Rc8 29.Qxa7+ Qe7 30.Qd4 Re8 31.Rf1+ Kg8 32.Rf4 g5 33.Rf5
Qxe4+ 34.Qxe4 Rxe4 35.Rxg5+ Kh8 36.Rg7 Re6 37.Rc7 Rxh6 38.Rxc6 Kg7 39.c5
Rh1+ 40.Kc2 dxc5 41.Rxc5 Rg1 42.Rg5+ Kf6 43.Rg8 h5 44.Rf8+ Kg5 45.Rf2 Kg4
46.Re2 Kg3 47.a4 h4 48.a5

```
> 10 votes

---
Tags: strategy, castling, kings-indian
---


title: Mutually agreeing to draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Mutually agreeing to draw?
I was involved in an endgame where it was my `King` against my opponents `King`, `Knight`, and `Bishop` and I knew he could checkmate me, but he wasn't aware how. I just kept going in circles, dancing around his pieces and he could not figure out how to checkmate me. Into move 140, I was getting frustrated and thought about either resigning or asking for a draw. I eventually asked for a draw and he agreed, so my question is whether you are on the losing end or the winning end, when is it time to mutually agree to a draw?

# Answer
When to mutually agree a draw depends on the skill level and the position in question. An agreed draw is most logical when neither side believes they have real winning chances (Sometimes people just chicken out in complex positions...). In the case you describe, practically speaking, there are no real winning chances for either side. Alternatively, 2 GMs may rightly agree a draw in many drawn theoretical endgames where mortals such as you and I should probably play on.

For the rulebook perspective... the rules state that "The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game." It is correct to offer the draw after making the move but before pressing the clock. You and your opponent may agree to a draw at any time. In terms of etiquette, it is generally considered poor practice to offer a draw when losing or significantly worse. It is also poor etiquette to repeat draw offers and the TD may penalize you for "annoying the opponent". As a matter of preference, I offer a draw only when I believe that I have no real chance of losing. Rules such as 3 move repetition and the 50 move rule are there to ensure that your opponent cannot meaninglessly torture you in a position such as the one you describe.

In your given situation, it may be useful to claim a draw by the fifty move rule. The fifty move rule states: "The game is drawn when the player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture or pawn move." The case of B and N versus King is a classic example where 50 moves may elapse without a pawn move or capture.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Dan Heisman (a great chess coach imho) suggests for beginners (where a beginner I think is anyone below around 1500 elo, this may very well not apply to you) to *never* agree to a draw. His thought, and I tend to agree, is that playing out games that seem hopeless either due to draw or a losing position (in which case you might be considering resigning) is good practice. It is good to learn to play from behind or play to a draw.

That being said. There are some cases where it is an obvious case of perpetual check or something similar. If you find yourself in one of those situations, then there is no value in continuing play. If one of the draw rules don't kick in (which they likely would), then a mutual draw would make sense.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I want to add that as the side with only a king, it is a bit against etiquette to offer a draw. Your opponent can already get a draw if he wants one -- by letting his clock run out, by giving away his pieces, whatever, the game is impossible to lose for him. He is the one who can offer a draw, you should concern yourself with writing down moves and counting for the 50 move rule (or threefold repetition).

In this case, apparently you knew you were on move 140, so it's likely to you could already claim a draw based on the 50 move rule and didn't need to offer it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: draw
---


# Question
Title: What determines an opening continuation vs an opening varation?
Are these determined from historical play? For example, when the `English` was first played with `1. c4`, why was the `English` in this case determined to just be `1. c4` and anything afterwards is considered a `variation`?

# Answer
The original distinction was mainly so that chess players have a common vocabulary (for teaching, discussing, kibbitzing) there is the concept of a "***main line.***" Other reasonable continuations are said to be *variations*. This helped the teachers and the players to learn the opening lines.

Yes, history did play a role in what was considered the main line, and which options were variations. Very often, variations would be given the name of the GM who first played it as a *novelty,* or the one who plays it very commonly to good results. (Remember, this was in the days when most people learned about games printed chess magazines that showed up several weeks after a game was played.)

These days, thanks to very powerful chess engines and massive databases, the **mainline** is arguably simply the line that is the most frequent continuation (played by those with high ELOs.)

It is also important to remember that as more games are added to the database, the mainline tends to shift to other moves, especially as ***refutations*** are discovered by the opponents.

Hope that helps.
> 9 votes

# Answer
There really isn't any regularity to the names of openings, there's never been any system behind it, it's always been very informal and the names sort of grew over the centuries. Almost every name has its own distinct history behind it.

1.c4 probably wasn't called the English right away, or everywhere. I don't know the actual story behind this one, but I guess that some time in the 19th century there were a few English players who were known for using it and after it got referred to as "that opening of those English players" it got the nickname "English opening", and it happened to stick.

Openings like 1.e4 that everybody played never got a nickname.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How to get opening analysis published and in ECO?
My friend and I have done substantial research on a number of various lines over the years, and now that we are not really active anymore we were hoping to publish some of the gems. Most of the analysis is in uncommon openings (Veresov, Bird's, Budapest) so we are pretty confident that it isn't already known. Our goal was to see some of our lines in MCO or to have a variation make its way into ECO; we think it would be really cool to be using Fritz to look at a game and have it give the variation name as one that we analyzed. How would we go about doing this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Just a few ideas for you to try:

1. Have you checked the latest Mega and Corr databases to see if your lines/variations are in there?
2. If have access to a few powerful engines (Fritz, Shredder, Houdini and many others) run some analyses on them to see how they fare in terms of evaluating your lines.
3. You can make these engines play against these lines, and have your own "run-offs"
4. Show these lines to some strong players (IMs and above) and see if you can interest them in trying it out, or at least in getting their opinions. (It would be tricky to find players who have these openings in their repertoire if these are uncommon openings.)
5. I've personally found the Chessbase folks to be very approachable. (I am talking about quite a few years ago.) You can write to Frederic Friedel and ask to be put in contact with their resident opening experts. If the lines are good, they will figure out ways to add them to their opening books. (But you'll have to do the other steps first before approaching them. I suspect that they get contacted by many.)

Hope that helps.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Regarding ECO,

According to `Josip Asik`, the CEO of ChessInformant:

> In general, your analysis could be implemented in the ECO series. It would be useful to a to see samples of your work and to let them know if was made mostly as a personal/human chess work or as a computer generated output.
>
> The ECO series is consisted of five bookes (and databases) that are not updated too often. For example, the plan is to produce ECO A and ECO B in 2013 and the openings you mentioned might not belong to those specific series.
>
> In general, they prefer internationally well-known authors with a chess background (GM and IM titles).
>
> Also, they would need further explanations from you and need to know if this is an enthusiastic or commercial based interest.

My recommendation is that you contact `Josip Askik` to discuss more with him about this. He is a very approachable person and would be willing to work with you and actually seemed enthusiastic in finding out more about your findings.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would send email to the authors of the relevant sections of chesspublishing.com . If they like the quality of your analysis, they can share it with the world in one of the site's updates, and then it's published with you as the source. If any book authors decide to use it, they should credit you.

It's unlikely that any analysis will actually be *named* after you. For that, you should play it in a serious game against strong opposition, the idea should be so special or original that people in the worldwide chess community actually talk about it, and it should also have lasting power. A one-time fantastic novelty that means that variation is never played again won't get a name, but Zviaginsev's 1.e4 c5 2.Na3!? against Khalifman or the Gajevski (10...d5!? in the Ruy Lopez Chigorin) are new moves from recent years that are still played and analyzed, and people refer to them using their inventors' names, so they're basically named after them now.

Also, ECO, being an encyclopedia, can't really contain absolutely everything, they have to edit heavily and only keep the most important stuff. I think it's more likely that your analysis will first end up on Chesspublishing, then in books on the opening your analysis is in, and if the variation stays around and is played a lot, maybe possibly in ECO.

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


# Question
Title: Game drawn without enough material to mate even if opponent runs out of time?
Does this apply to OTB chess as well? I was playing an online game on FICS and my opponent ran out of time, but I did not have enough material to mate, so the game was drawn.

# Answer
> 7 votes
### Yes.

This is an official rule, see *Article 6: The chess clock* of the FIDE rules handbook (E.I.01A. Laws of Chess). Section 6.9 goes :

> Except \[in checkmate and stalemate cases, mutually agreed draws and resigned games,\] if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player.
>
> **However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.**

---
Tags: otb-chess
---


title: Mate in N. What is the largest N known?

text:
# Question
Title: Mate in N. What is the largest N known?
What known position has one side with a forced mate in N moves, with N the largest? I came across one with 517 moves using only 7 pieces, so there should be much be larger. (Ignoring the 50-move rule).

Dont know if this is on-topic here, - but how large can we make N (asymptotically) on an nxn chess-board with any number of pieces and placements?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think answers to this question fall into 2 categories : problem composition and computer-driven few-pieced endgames' thorough analysis. The second one — to which your discovery belongs — being a tad bit more efficient than the first, that's probably all there is to say about it, if you're about sheer numbers. Art still has a long way to go on this road.

Regarding computer-driven endgames, the longest known so far is 549 moves long.

```
[FEN "1n1k4/6Q1/5KP1/8/7b/1r6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: analysis, theory, records
---


title: Scotch gambit: 4... Qf6

text:
# Question
Title: Scotch gambit: 4... Qf6
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Qf6

```

This move `4... Qf6` defends both the `d4` and `f7` pawns; now if `5. Bg5` to drive it away, `5... Qg6` and the bishop becomes a liability, preventing White from taking on `d4`; furthermore the `e4` pawn comes under attack as well. How should White play from this position after `4... Qf6`?

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to the 365chess database, `5. Bg5` yielded a 6-2-0 record for amateur players. There were no master games.

The pawn on `e4` isn't too much of a liability as long as Black's King is in the middle of the board.

Here's a game where White is a FIDE(?) 2095 player. White's cute little combination on move 12 ought to tell Black he's in for a long day.

```

[fen ""]
1.  e4  e5
2.  Nf3 Nc6
3.  d4  exd4
4.  Bc4 Qf6
5.  Bg5 Qg6
6.  O-O f6
7.  Bf4 d6
8.  Nxd4    Bh3
9.  Bg3 Nxd4
10. Qxd4    Bd7
11. Bxg8    Rxg8
12. Qd5 Qf7
13. Qxb7    Rd8
14. Nc3 Qc4
15. Qxa7    Rc8
16. Rfd1    Qc5
17. Qxc5    dxc5
18. Nd5 Bg4
19. f3  Be6
20. Nxc7+   Kf7
21. a4  c4
22. a5  Bc5+
23. Kf1 Rgd8
24. a6  Rxd1+
25. Rxd1    c3
26. b4  Bb6
27. Nxe6    Kxe6
28. Rd6+    Ke7
29. Rxb6    Ra8
30. Rb7+    Kd8
31. a7  Rxa7
32. Rxa7    g5
33. b5

```

---
Tags: opening, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Are there innate limits in chess performance?
Are they tied to IQ and amount of deliberate practice, and if so, does that mean if you know the player's IQ you're able to estimate the time of deliberate practice spent learning?

# Answer
'IQ' is a notoriously flawed way of measuring intelligence.

A high rating (NM and higher) is a sign of intelligence, talent, and hard work.

Talent is missing from your equation. It's why some people who play once a decade can mop up on normal club players.
> 8 votes

# Answer
## The Role of Deliberate Practice in Expertise: Necessary but Not Sufficient

Fernand Gobet (Centre for the Study of Expertise, Brunel University)

**The Deliberate Practice Framework**

> In an influential paper, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) proposed that expertise is acquired only through practice deliberately designed to improve one’s own skill. Deliberate practice (DP) consists of goal-directed and repetitive activities that enable immediate feedback. These activities, performed individually, are typically effortful and not enjoyable, and cannot be carried out for more than a few hours a day. Inherited factors are not excluded, but these factors are limited to motivation and general activity levels, with cognitive abilities being explicitly excluded. The DP framework has had a considerable impact in the field of expertise, and numerous studies have been carried out to examine the role of practice in domains such as art, sports, games, and professional activities.

**New Data on Deliberate Practice in Chess**

> Much of what we know about expertise comes from chess (Gobet et al., 2004) and it is therefore a good domain for examining to what extent DP accounts for the development of expertise. Gobet and Campitelli (2007) collected data from a sample of 104 Argentinean players ranging from weak amateurs to grandmasters. They found that, while DP accounted for 34% of the variance in skill (measured by players’ national rating), several results did not fit the DP framework. Although the average amount of DP necessary for reaching master level was considerable (11,053 hours), there was also a substantial amount of variability, with the slowest player (23,608 hours) taking nearly 8 times as long as the fastest player (3,016 hours). Some players with more than 25,000 hours of DP never reached the master level. These results violate Ericsson et al.’s (1993) assumption that DP yields monotonic benefits. In addition, group practice was a better predictor of skill than individual practice, and the age at which players started playing chess seriously correlated with current rating even after the number of hours of practice was controlled for statistically.
>
> Analyzing longitudinal data from the same sample, Campitelli and Gobet (in press) found that, after playing chess seriously for three years, masters had a higher rating than Experts although they had not practiced more. The Experts’ ratings did not improve much thereafter, in spite of substantial amounts of DP. This study also presented evidence that practice in chess is more complex than previously thought and is not limited to the kind of repetitive and feedback-rich activities described in the DP literature.

**Other Factors Mediating Expertise in Chess**

> If practice does not explain all of the variance, what are the other factors that are involved in the development of chess expertise? Gobet and Campitelli (2007) showed that chessplayers’ degree of handedness is weaker than in the population at large. Two studies have also shown a correlation between chess skill and intelligence (Bilalić et al. 2007a; Grabner, Stern & Neubauer, 2007), adding to a complex pattern of data (Didierjean & Gobet, in press). Personality differences exist as well (Bilalić et al., 2007b). Finally, Gobet and Chassy (2008) discovered that expert chess players in the northern hemisphere tend to be born more often in late winter and early spring than the overall population. The results briefly reviewed here show that practice encompasses more varied training activities than argued by Ericsson et al. (1993). They also highlight the importance of individual variability and show that other factors play a role in the acquisition of expertise. Practice is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for reaching high levels of expertise.

---

**SOURCE:** Cognitive Science Society's Journal Archive
> 7 votes

# Answer
There is likely a cutoff around 110-130 IQ, where if you have higher than this it will have negligible impact on your chess performance, but if you have less than this you will likely not be able to reach the highest levels. The argument for this is, Kasparov had an IQ of 135, and many top players are quoted with IQ around 120, but does anyone know of a world class player with less then 110 IQ?
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, iq
---


title: Early f3 in d4 openings?

text:
# Question
Title: Early f3 in d4 openings?
Are these openings playable for white? I use the first move order to counter my friend's very well prepared Benoni, and manage to whoop him many times, but its only in blitz. I was wondering if early f3s are playable in "actual" i.e. longer games as well. I'm aware that the second position often transposes into Neo-Gruenfelds or Kings-Indians, but wasn't sure if the other positions below were playable/if they provided white with good attacking chances in compensation for creating the early king-side weakness.

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 (2... g6 3. f3) (2... e6 3. f3) (2... d5 3. f3) 3. f3 *

```

# Answer
`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. f3` The first two moves signify an A56 Benoni but `3. f3` does not show up in my database as a typical continuation.

`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3` is a playable E60 King's Indian. `3. ... Bg7` is a good followup for Black.

`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. f3` The first two moves signify an E00 Queen's pawn game and are very drawish. `3. f3` is not a typical continuation. `3. e3` gives White more chances for the point.

`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5 3. f3` The first two moves of this are also an A50 Queen's pawn game. Again, `3. f3` is not commonly played.

I suspect `3. f3` isn't popular for good reason and would recommend you try another continuation.

EDIT - so, why is `f3` bad? In the first continuation, Stockfish believes it drops a 'pawns worth' of value:

```

[fen ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. f3 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd2 e6 6.Nc3 d5 7.e3 Bc5 8.a3 a6 9.b4 Ba7 10.c5 O-O 11.Nge2 e5 12.Bb2 Be6 13.Rd1 Re8 14.Na4 Rc8 15.Qc2 h6

```

We see that by after his 7th move, Black is having a splendid game. After the moves above, Black controls the center and is doing fine. White hasn't even castled yet. The problem with `f3`, ultimately, is that it doesn't do anything to constrain Black. It takes a good square from the Knight which will eventually deploy to the passive `e2`. Further, `f3` looks silly if it isn't followed by `e4` sometime soon. White only manages the passive `e3`. I don't like how `f3` opens the `e1-h4` diagonal and nor do I like how it allows a Queen or Bishop on the `a7-g2` diagonal to look at the King which will likely be sitting on `g1` in most variations.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4
---


title: A simple free opening editor?

text:
# Question
Title: A simple free opening editor?
I am looking for a ***simple*** and free opening editor where I can save openings and variations. I know Chess Position Trainer is free, but I am looking for something much more simple.

# Answer
You can go here: http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/pgn-editor.php and select the tab "2. Game Moves", then make your moves. The fourth tab will show the `fen` and the `pgn` of the game.

As far as where to store them, create a folder somewhere named openings, and save each different set of fen/pgn as a text file with the output.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: How are PGN ambiguities handled?

text:
# Question
Title: How are PGN ambiguities handled?
How are ambiguities handled when writing the PGN when more than one piece of the same type can move into the same square?

```
[FEN "1R4QQ/R1R4Q/8/6pP/5P1P/8/NK1k4/1N1N4 w - g6 0 1"]

```

**Note:** It isWhite to move, with an en passant capturing square on g6.

**What would happen if**:

1. the top rook moves to `b7`?
2. one of the bottom rooks moves to `b7`?
3. the left pawn takes `xg5`?
4. the bottom right pawn takes `xg5`?
5. the top right pawn takes `xg6` by en passant\_?
6. the top left knight goes to `c3`?
7. one of the bottom knight goes to `c3`?

**Edit (bonus question):**

* What would happen if any queen wants to go to `g7`?

# Answer
> 12 votes
From the specification:

> A basic SAN \[Standard Algebraic Notation\] move is given by listing the moving piece letter (omitted for pawns) followed by the destination square. Capture moves are denoted by the lower case letter "x" immediately prior to the destination square; pawn captures the file letter of the originating square of the capturing pawn immediately prior to the "x" character.

And

> In the case of ambiguities (multiple pieces of the same type moving to the same square), the first appropriate disambiguating step of the three following steps is taken:
>
> First, if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating files, the originating file letter of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.
>
> Second (when the first step fails), if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating ranks, the originating rank digit of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.
>
> Third (when both the first and the second steps fail), the two character square coordinate of the originating square of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.

1: `Rbb7`

2: `Rab7` or `Rcb7`

3: `fxg5`

4: `hxg5`

5: `hxg6`

6: `Nac3`

7: `Nbc3` or `Ndc3`

Note that this is simply how the specification is written. En passant captures should not be an edge case, but they are unlikely to be implemented correctly 100% of the time. You'll have to test your replayer to see whether it handles these cases correctly or not.

# Answer
> 4 votes
We need to use the *first* step that that removes the ambiguity:

1. Use the originating file letter (if the ambiguity was not removed, see #2).
2. Use the originating rank number (if the ambiguity was not removed, see #3).
3. Use both the file and rank from the originating square.

---

1) `Rbb7` (because **#1**)
2) `Rab7` or `Rcb7` (both because **#1**)
3) `fxg5` (no disambiguation needed)
4) `hxg5` (no disambiguation needed)
5) `hxg6` (no disambiguation needed)
6) `Nac3` (because **#1**)
7) `Nbc3` or `Ndc3` (both because **#1**)

Now for the bonus example:

in the case of **g8** queen to *g7*:`Qgg7` (because **#1**)
in the case of **h7** queen to *g7*:`Q7g7` (because **#2**)
in the case of **h8** queen to *g7*:`Qh8g7` (because **#3**)

# Answer
> 3 votes
```

[FEN "1R4QQ/R1R4Q/8/6pP/5P1P/8/NK1k4/1N1N4 w - g6 0 1"]

```

What would happen if:

**1.** the top rook moves to b7?

`Rbb7`

**2.** one of the bottom rooks moves to b7?

`Rab7` or `Rcb7`

**3.** the left pawn takes xg5?

`fxg5`

**4.** the bottom right pawn takes xg5?

`hxg5`

**5.** the top right pawn takes xg6 by en passant?

`hxg6!`

**6.** the top left knight goes to c3?

`Nac3`

**7.** one of the bottom knight goes to c3?

`Nbc3` or `Ndc3`

**bonus** What would happen if any queen wants to go to g7?

When all else fails, be explicit. `Qh8g7` or `h8g7`

---
Tags: notation, pgn
---


title: Blitz games relation to opening theory?

text:
# Question
Title: Blitz games relation to opening theory?
How do blitz games help with your opening theory? I thought they would not help because you might tend to make a lot of mistakes during blitz or is this the reason, to keep playing them over and over until you make the right moves?

# Answer
Here are a few reasons for why players use blitz games to prep for openings.

1. There are only a limited number of standard games (normal speed 20-30 moves/hr) that one can play. However, you can run through a lot more blitzes in one evening.
2. If you want to try to familiarize yourself with the positions that result from some variation, you can play a few blitzes to get the feel for it.
3. Blitz games serve to remind you of the standard motifs that go along with certain openings. Also, you get to see how opponents not well-versed in the openings handle your moves.
4. Some players try out *new* openings (to their repertoire) in blitzes before trying them out in tournaments.
5. I have encountered blitz opponents who will routinely resign after the first 20 moves or so (no matter whether or not they had a better position) just so that they can focus on the opening again. (They don't care for their blitz ratings.)

So in sum, blitzes can be of good help to the amateur, but it should not be the *only* preparation for learning openings.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Blitz games allow you to test your understanding of openings. The time crunch makes it extremely obvious when there are gaps in your understanding of a particular opening. This should serve as an opportunity to go back and better analyze the opening.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, blitz
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't there a big advantage in this position for black?
I was browsing some interesting games, and found this one *"Jerzy Lewi vs Jan Adamski"* (1969):

```
[fen "r1b2r1k/1pq3bp/8/3Qp2n/1P1n1pp1/2NP2P1/3BPPBP/1R2NRK1 b - - 0 0"]

1... Qxc3 2. Bxc3 Nxe2+ 3. Kh1 Nxc3 4. Qb3 Nxb1 5. Qxb1 f3 *

```

(**note**: the game continued, but I want to focus in this position)

From this position, the white bishop is inevitably going to be taken, so we can say with certainty that the captured material *difference* is `R+B+B vs Q+(possibly a pawn)`.

To my perspective, black's advantage is notably greater, however chess engines says that white is behind only by about `-0.70`.

How is that this *apparently* crushing advantage turns out to be just a small advantage? What am I missing here?

# Answer
Here's a variation from Stockfish. What we see is that after the smoke clears, Black's advantage actually is pretty small. Here's why:

1. If we just 'added up points', which is not a bad way to get an immediate feel for a position, we'd see White is down a single pawn, 13 vs 14.
2. We also notice White has two pawn islands of two pawns each. Black has two pawn islands but one of his pawns is isolated. This is a slight advantage for White. Further, if Black connects his two-pawn island, his King will be completely exposed. In reality, all of Black's pawns are isolated and will have to be defended by pieces.
3. Black's King is exposed; with White's Queen on the board any mistake could lead to a perpetual check.
4. Black's Bishops obviously can't protect each other. Given the exposed Black King, any of Black's pieces could be picked off by a Queen fork. Black will have to be very careful to ensure he doesn't lose material to the rampaging Queen.

Items 3 and 4 will make it hard for Black to go on the offensive.

```

[fen "r1b2r1k/1pq3bp/8/3Qp2n/1P1n1pp1/2NP2P1/3BPPBP/1R2NRK1 b - - 0 0"]

1... Qxc3 2. Bxc3 Nxe2+ 3. Kh1 Nxc3 4. Qb3 Nxb1 5. Qxb1 f3 6.Qc1 fxg2+ 7.Nxg2 Bf5 8.Rd1 Be6 9.Kg1 Nf6 10.Qc7 Nd5 11.Qxb7 Rab8 12.Qa6 Rb6 13.Qa5 Rxb4 14.Ne3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Rfb8 16.Qc7 Rb1 17.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 18.Kf2 *

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
So it's about this position, right ? Let's pick Tony's move for White, and see what happpens next :

```
[fen "r1b2r1k/1p4bp/8/4p2n/1P3pp1/3P2P1/5PBP/1Q2NR1K b - - 1 1"]

1... f3 2. Qc1 fxg2+ 3. Nxg2

```

Let's count material : with ♕♙ for ♜♝♝ (*11-11*), **much depends on the pieces actual prospects**, and neither side is much better on these grounds.

**White**'s case is simpler : the `♘g2` belongs to `f4`, but it wouldn't be misplaced at `e3`, attacking a pawn, and being well centralized. White can manoeuver with his queen and rook, essentially on the *c* file and *h6-c1* diagonal, to attack Black's many lone pawns.

The main problem White faces is his *lack of pieces*, meaning he cannot attack anything more than twice, whereas Black can easily defend anything twice or thrice.

Regarding **Black**'s pieces, it's a bit more of a comedy. The `♟e5` is annoying *as hell*, blocking the bishop, necessary *f4* defender, *to be defended* or the `♙d6` is passed… The `♞h5` really has nowhere to go in a nearby future, as White's own knight can prevent it from going to `d5`, and it cannot stay at *f6* because of the hanging pawn. But it is to be moved, for `♟h5` to be pushed at some point (and because you don't want to defend it where it stands right now).

Hopefully for Black, the `c` file is his for the time being, but it won't be long before White defends `♙f2` with his king (and White's knight can chase Black's rook out of `f3` anytime). And he has many pieces, but he'll have to defend them all, and soon link his rooks, without dropping the `b7` pawn.

I think it all comes down to **who will fix his problems fastest**, and how White's queen can outmanoeuver Black's many pieces. *If Black manages to settle down a strong defense*, he should win because of numerous pieces, but that's easier said than done.
> 7 votes

# Answer
At 26 moves of analysis, stockfish suggests white is behind `-1.57`.

After the exchange, in this position:

```

[fen "r1b2r1k/1p4bp/8/4p2n/1P4p1/3P1pP1/5PBP/1Q2NR1K w kq - 0 6"]

```

at 26 moves of analysis, stockfish suggests white move Qb3 being behind `-1.77`.

It is important to wait for the chess engines to examine for a few minutes to get an accurate reading of their analysis. Only allowing them to check 15 moves ahead is not reliable. Anything less than 21 should be avoided.

This position only gets worse for white. White to move, `-2.06` after 24 moves of analysis.

```

[fen "r2r3k/1p1b2bp/5n2/4p3/1P4p1/1Q1PN1P1/5P1P/2R4K w kq - 5 10"]

```

So, I am not sure why you got back a lower advantage for black. There is a clear advantage here, and it only gets stronger as the game progresses.

A note on stockfish: You must let it calculate for a while in order to get accurate analysis. Don't just use its first suggestion.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Can 'Favorites' tagged with "Scid on the Go" be searched for in Scid on PC?
In "Scid on the go" I can label games as favorites, but then the search filter on Scid Vs. Pc 4.8 does not show a way to search those favorites in the database. Is "Favorites" - Scid on the Go feature? Or am I missing something in SCID PC interface?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Found the answer - 'Favorites' in "Scid on the Go" show up as a "User" Flag in SCIDvsPC, and can be searched for that way as well.

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


# Question
Title: Approach to learning one opening and its variations?
When learning a new opening, do you learn the opening every time you encounter a new variation or do you try to learn them all at once?

I read this article on chess.com about learning an opening in one hour and wanted to know your thoughts (agreements and disagreements) with the article.

# Answer
When learning a new opening, I tend to stick to a line which suits my style. At first, I will play strictly to the book and usually end up in traps, getting a piece horribly out of position, or with a pawn structure that prevents defending myself. After a while I begin to realize the traps that are associated with the opening and can avoid those. Eventually I will have my pieces in the right alignments, usually by the 8th move or so. And after a long time, I will have become used to setting up the pawn structure so that I am well defended by the 15th move.

Once those basics are covered, I will begin to look for places in those first 15 moves where I can get in a simple tempo changer, like a bishop check, so that I can castle with tempo, or perhaps there is a nice trap somewhere. This is just me though, I am not sure how everyone fares with learning new openings or if they just pick them up right away.

An example of this situation for me was the English (1. c4 .. 2. Nc3). I really enjoy this opening, but figuring out how and when to advance the e and d pawn took me a while to learn. As did figuring out if or when I should fiancetto, or advance the f pawn after `0-0`, or how to avoid a kingside pawn rush, etc.

As for the question of learning all the lines. I did not, I just learned the one which I felt was similar to my tastes, and then learned all the nuances to that one, including its transpositions to other similar lines. Sometimes I have noticed the English can transpose to the London, which I enjoy.

Specifically about the article you link, I agree that playing towards an outdated but proven trap can be beneficial, but I honestly doubt your opponent is going to play that exact line. So in the mean time, you will have to deal with all the other facets of the opening you only learned the one trap for. Note that the author states "All you need is a desire to learn new stuff.". I think that is the key to learning an opening. Learn the main line you like, and then play it for a while knowing you are going to get cheap shotted, trapped, blocked, out of position, and be in a funk while learning it. Once you get over having all that happen to you, then you will have that shiny polished diamond.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: What openings were former and current masters experts in?
In referencing the following article, it is stated that one way to efficiently learn new openings is to study masters that were experts at the particular opening you want to study. Part of the article states:

> Say, you want to learn the Najdorf Sicilian for Black, then get the games played by Kasparov who was the biggest expert there. Looking to play the Petroff? Then Vladimir Kramnik is your man!

So what other masters were considered experts in certain openings?

I will limit the question to specific openings:

* Grunfeld
* English
* Ruy Lopez
* Scilian
* Kings Indian
* Queens Indian
* Nimzo Indian
* French
* Pirc
* Caro-Kann
* Catalan

# Answer
> 4 votes
Black (1.d4):

1. King's Indian: Fischer, Radjabov, Kasparov, Gufeld
2. Queen's Indian: Anand, Karpov, Carlsen
3. Grunfeld: Svidler, Ftacnik
4. QGD, Slav: Wang Yue, Sokolov
5. QGD, Semi-Slav: Shirov, Anand
6. Nimzo Indian: Kramnik, Ivanchuk
7. QGD, Classical: Petrosian, Karpov

After typing this, I realized that any answer covering all the common openings played at top level would be ridiculously long. I think you can make things easier for yourself by consulting chessgames.com whenever you want to see top practitioners of any particular opening. For example, typing in "Sicilian, Najdorf" in the search box will give you this page, where you can see which top level players employ it the most. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are the authority on said openings. But, given that the list will almost always include strong GMs (2650+), you can be assured that studying their games in said openings will allow you to learn a lot about those openings, which I assume, is the point of you asking the question in the first place.

Another way of going about this is looking at the player profiles of some of the strongest players of all time (like World Champions, and World Championship contenders), and looking at their opening repertoire.

In the end, "expert" is a very loose term in your question. So really, you'd be safe in assuming that some of the strongest GMs (and some IMs as well, such as Nezhmetdinov) of all time *are/were* experts in whichever openings they employed the most.

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: Does playing gambits improve your tactical skills?
I once heard that you can sharpen your tactical skills by playing gambit openings? If this is true, obviously you would and should improve your game. Does anyone have any information or proof of this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think that there are important skills you can learn from playing gambits, like how to use an advantage in development and the initiative, or just the fact that material isn't everything. It's probably also useful to learn those things early on in your chess career.

I'm not sure about them being better for improving tactics though. Every chess game has tactics.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Indeed, learning to part with material for minor and major positional advantages is a key in the recipe to learning to play on the "edge." In a gambit, the player who is ahead (gambitee) must eventually "give back" some material, otherwise risk getting in a losing position. The player who is behind in material (gambiter) usually enjoys greater maneuverability and tactical lines.

It is the goal of the gambiter to not necessarily trade back for the loss of material, but to gain a better position or a strong attack. It is the goal of the gambitee to "give back" the material in such a way that he does not weaken his own position, preferably he can strengthen it. The outcome of the gambit is usually determined by how *sound* the gambit is and which player has more patient: the gambitee should not overextend to defend the material gain, the gambiter should not seek to immediately reclaim lost material.

---
Tags: gambits
---


# Question
Title: A resource that shows how many ways an opening can be reached?
Is there a resource (book/online) that shows how many ways an opening can be reached?

# Answer
> 8 votes
The point from chubbycantorset's answer about the futility of seeking the number of *all* ways to reach a position is a good one. Scid has a way of offering more limited (and more practically useful anyway) information than that. Its Opening Report tool allows you to input a position, and then generate a comprehensive statistical report covering games that reached that position (in whatever database you have open). Among the data presented is a tally of how many move-orders were used to reach the position in question *that appeared in actual games from the database*, as well as a list of the most popular.

For instance, in my big database of millions of games, when I generate a report for the standard Sicilian Scheveningen position

```
[fen "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

part of the information I receive is as follows, where the numbers in parentheses indicate how many games feature the move-order in question:

```
There were 82 move orders reaching this position. The top 8 are:
  1:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  d6 (18538)
  2:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  e6 (11028)
  3:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. d4  Nf6 4. Nc3  cxd4 5. Nxd4  e6 (646)
  4:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. Nc3  d6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  Nf6 (597)
  5:  1. e4  c5 2. Nc3  e6 3. Nf3  d6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  Nf6 (258)
  6:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  d6 5. Nc3  Nf6 (144)
  7:  1. e4  e6 2. d4  c5 3. Nf3  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  d6 (117)
  8:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. Nc3  Nf6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  e6 (92)

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't think so, because, for example, the french defence can be reached in the following way: `1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nb1 Nb8 5. e4 e6`. Of course, the knight moves can be repeated more times, with different combinations. Also, `e4` can be delayed with `e3`, when black "wastes" a move with a knight. Thus, it's not too useful to have such a resource.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a free list of a strong GM (2575+) annotated games?
Where can I find a free list of strong GM (2575+) annotated games?

# Answer
> 4 votes
www.chessgames.com has a big collection of annotated games.

---
Tags: master-games
---


# Question
Title: What's the difference between "White is winning" and "White is better"?
Many times in literature there are statements like "White/Black is winning" or "White/Black is better". How does one differentiate between the two? How could it be possible for White to be better and not be winning, or be winning and not better? Is there really a difference between the two or are they the same thing?

# Answer
> 6 votes
In the late stages of the game, an advantage can be easily recognized to be enough to win or not. In the earlier stages (the end of the opening, typically), it's a lot harder to tell.

If White is better, **and if he manages to obtain something sizeable out of this avantage**, then he will win. If Black fights well, he'll still manage to draw, or turn the tables and win.

# Answer
> 4 votes
"Winning" means that the advantage is large enough that one side can be expected to win, not merely draw. "Better" means that one side has an advantage but it is not necessarily enough to claim a win.

The terms aren't scientific; there can be a lot of grey.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"White is winning" means that White should be able to FORCE a win with proper play.

"White is better" means that White has a clear advantage, but if Black plays perfectly going forward, he will be able to draw (or win).

It often takes only one more advantage to get from "White is better" to "White is winning."

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check

text:
# Question
Title: Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check
In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check.

The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.

Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.

# Answer
The following can be found on USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips:

> “Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical values.
>
> Blundercheck gives much more "hard" information than does "full analysis".
>
> The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much simpler form.
>
> “Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves which are actually worse.

You can find much more information on the website provided above. The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The "blunder check" option is for errors only. The level of these errors can be controlled by the "threshold" value that you can define. This threshold also applies to full analysis.

The threshold value is defined in terms of Pawn weights. A high value (say 200) will result in annotation of moves that are bad enough for +-2 pawn or greater change in evaluation, probably indicating immediate or imminent loss of material. A low value (say 30) will show also small improvements indicating where errors resulted in a positional loss equivalent to about a third of a pawn or more.

Full analysis is more detailed and can create references to the DB games and also add visual cues to the commentary it generates.

Both blunder check and full analysis show where the game was lost or won according to the threshold setting.

The full analysis helps in a more detailed study of how the game developed, additionally showing interesting possibilities both good and bad outside the threshold values. So, if one side plays the best move where there was a very tempting bad move (big improvement on small number of ply analysis but turning badly negative on higher number of ply analysis) it will often show the tempting bad move with appropriate commentary.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, software, blunder, fritz
---


# Question
Title: Giving up a knight and bishop for castled rook and pawn
The opening shown here is quite common. Is it generally a good or a bad idea to give up a kKnight and a bishop for the castled Rook and the f-pawn? In terms of their "standard" value, both pairs are generally considered as being worth 6 points.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Ng5 O-O 5.Nxf7 Rxf7 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7

```

# Answer
> 13 votes
This whole sequence is bad for white. The minor pieces are stronger at such an early stage of the game. White has virtually no development, while black now has more development and tempo. Almost any player should value 2 pieces over 1 rook. Just continue developing instead of the overly optimistic `Ng5`.

This may be acceptable in the `dilworth attack` or `Open Ruy Lopez` where black sacrifices 2 pieces for a `rook` on `f2`

# Answer
> 8 votes
That early in the game, it's a *bad idea*. White is now very behind in development and won't be able to take advantage of the misplaced black king.

Consider this: black is ahead by the `♞f6` and the `♝c5`. White is ahead by the `♖a1` and `♙f2`. Which pieces are the most useful? Black's, definitely.

I think this exchange is considered inferior in most cases, that is, it's a good idea when it leads to a powerful attack on the lone king, but no less. It'll often be easy for Black to capture the pawn back, with his “piece advantage”.

*I* do enjoy these exchanges, as they tend to unbalance the games (and I hate draws), but it's only a reasonable option if White's rooks can be quickly put to good use.

# Answer
> 6 votes
An interesting line after the Sozin attack (or Fischer attack) 6.Bc4 in the Scheveningen has gained popularity in the last years, and presents a similar concept:

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

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bc4 Be7 7. Bb3 O-O 8. Be3 Nbd7 9. Bxe6 fxe6 10. Nxe6 Qa5 11. Nxf8 Bxf8

```

The sacrifice of two smaller pieces for a Rook and two pawns is not uncommon and the position reached after the exchange proposed here is considered "dynamically balanced"

The mere "pawn value" is not enough to determine which side is better, one has to take into consideration the positional (relative) value of the remaining pieces.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A knight and bishop together are worth SEVEN points, not six, at least in early part of the game because of the synergies. (Or, if you will three and half for the minor pieces).

Also, to make this sequence work, the knight and bishop make more moves, so White is actually sacrificing MOVES. Note that Black has two pieces developed, White none.

World Champion JR Capablanca once let E Canal exchange a rook and pawn for a bishop and knight and still won the endgame. But this was because the exchange of queens was forced as a result, increasing the power of Black's rook.

And then he was Capablanca.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Which sites offer good tutorials for novices to improve?
Can anyone recommend sites that they have personally had experience with to be good for learning by novices? I play chess regularly, but I have never studied theory and while I am doing fairly well against most of the regulars I play against, there are several people who are able to have a clear advantage by the midgame.

I'd like to improve my openings by studying theory, but I've never looked at it before, so I wouldn't be helped much by a dry treatise on how to develop a pawn line against, for example, `1.d4`. I'm looking for an objective analysis of websites that teach the theoretical principles of openings, with good examples and a minimum of references to various famous openings.

# Answer
IMHO if you are struggling with the middle-game it makes more sense to study that particularly (as well as the endgame) instead of focusing on openings. I would advise you to learn to record your games in Algebraic Notation in order to learn from your mistakes (preferably with a stronger player). As far as online material you can use I can recommend Novice Nook by Dan Heisman and Modern Ideas in Chess by Richard Rèti
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: Italian Game: Two Knights Defense, Kloss Gambit (C57)
In my recent effort to play as many `Evan's Gambit` games and an ocassional `Lolli Attack`, I recently had this game as `White`:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nb4 6. Nc3 Nbxd5 7. Nxd5 Nxd5
8. Nxf7 Kxf7 9. Qf3+ Ke8 10. Bxd5 Bd6 11. Qf7#

```

`5...Nb4` is the `Kloss Gambit` and I have never seen this move played against me so was curious how `White` should proceed? Now I obviously played `6. Nc3` to add a defender to `d5`, but according to some databases, `White's` best move is `6. d6`. I also noticed that there is only one game (although I am not completely sure of this) that has the move `5...Nb4` at chessgames.com found here

# Answer
First of all I disagree with Andrew.

Why exactly `d4` is the best move? There is nothing wrong with it and in fact it is nice, but in my opinion 0-0 better. Other nice moves (d4 is in the list)

```
6) 0-0
6) d6
6) d4

```

Depending on what type of play do you prefer you can choose either of them.

0-0 is more aggressive. Idea behind it is that you are already one pawn up and there is no point to save that pawn. So you are developing (hiding your king and preparing to put the rook on e1 attacking the king of the opponent). If your opponent is eating the pawn 6 ... Nbxd5 7. Re1

Here you are ready for an attack. This type of game if for a strategical opponent who can understand that material is not the most important and opening are for fast developing and getting initiative.

Idea behind d6 is easy. You are trying to maintain this pawn (actually you are forcing to exchange it). The f7 square is under attack and only reasonable way to save it is `6) ... Nbd5` which allows you to capture the pawn

```
7) dxc7 Qxc7
8) d3

```

In the end you are one move from castling (and nothing can stop you) and 1 pawn up. Your opponent is two moves and has one piece more developed than you.

With `d4`, as Andrew said d5 pawn is untouchable, and you are threatening e5 capture with attacking the knight. So if I were black, I would take `6) ... exd4` after which white would castle.

P.S how are you guys adding PNG?
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, two-knights, italian-game
---


title: Understanding the x-ray tactical motif?

text:
# Question
Title: Understanding the x-ray tactical motif?
Can someone explain the `x-ray` tactical motif? I have looked at this example, but I still don't understand it fully. If you can provide other examples, that would be great too.

# Answer
Basically, if a defending piece of your opponent has one of your pieces with the same movement "behind" it, then it's not really defending anything, as your piece standing behind also "attacks" what you want to capture **through** that defending piece of your opponent's.

In the following exampe, the `♞g6` is x-ray-attacked by the `♖b6`, through the `♜d6`, so once the other rook takes it, it is defended *through* the black rook by the `♖b6` (and the knight is lost).

```
[FEN "7k/4p3/1R1r2n1/P7/6R1/8/8/7K w - - 1 1"]

1. Rxg6

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
In

```
[Title "your example"]
[fen "4r2k/Bb1n2pp/2q1r3/1R1Qpp2/2P5/5P2/P4KPP/4RB2 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxb7 Qxb7 2. Qxb7

```

when R x b7, your Queen on d5 is guarding the rook, even though it doesn't look like it. That's because if Black plays Q (c6) takes b7, your Q (d5) can take it back.

The reason "it doesn't look like it" is because the Black Q on c6 appears to be blocking the way to b7. That is, until the Black Q herself moves to b7. Thus, your Q d5 has "xray" power to b7 through the Black Q on c6.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Basically, an x-ray attack is one where, even if one of your long range piece (queen, bishop, rook) is being blocked by another piece, then you should still look at the squares that your blocked piece can attack **through** the piece that's blocking it. Here's an example.

```
[fen "r1Q2b1r/1p1R1pp1/p1b2k2/8/2q2Np1/2P1B2P/PP3P2/2K4R w - - 0 1"]

1. Bd4+ Kg5 2. Rd5+ Qxd5 3. Qxg4+ Kh6 4. Qh4+ Qh5 5. Qxh5++

```

Here, the queen's power is unleashed on the poor g4 pawn after the rook moves after which his majesty is thrown off the board. Always look out for tricks like this, and the one in the link that you posted in the question. An x-ray attack can be used simultaneously with discovered attack. But the basic idea is that one of your pieces "sees" through another.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


title: Queen's Gambit Accepted line for white

text:
# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Accepted line for white
Have just started reading a bit about this line and was wondering if any one can explain the pros and cons of preferring `e4` over `e3` in the 3rd move - apart from the fact that `e4` gives positional advantage at the possible expense of the lost `c4` pawn.

I can see the logical advantages of `e3` but why has `e4` come to be the preferred choice now?

```
rn1qkbnr/p2bpppp/8/1p6/2pPP3/2N5/1P3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 7
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 b5 4.a4 c6 5. axb5 cxb5 6.Nc3 Bd7

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
That's known as "D20 Queen's Gambit Accepted, 3.e4"

The Queen's Gambit has two points:

1. Develop the King's Bishop with tempo
2. Take the center that black abandons

in that regard, `3. e4` is the better move though masters play `3. e3` with nearly the same frequency.

I wouldn't worry about the loss of the `c` pawn; the purpose of a gambit is to gain time. If you're going to offer a gambit, you must know enough to keep the pressure on, to keep the initiative on your side. If White plays a non-threatening move and Black plays a move with good purpose, White has lost the pawn as well as the time gained when Black took it.

`3... b5` is not played often - it's not much of a move. I checked your entire variation; it was only occurred in my masters database 3 times, yielding White 2.5 points.

Here's a master game demonstrating the Queens Gambit Accepted (D20). White has an excellent game up through the middle game seemingly having the game in hand... and then he allows Black to make a passed pawn, and the walls came down.

Robert Aghasaryan vs. Tigran Kotanjian, 1/13/2013

```

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. dxc5 Qxd1 8. Rxd1 Bxc5 9. Nbd2 b6 10. Be2 Bb7 11. Nc4 Nbd7 12. a3 O-O 13. b4 Be7 14. Bb2 Bd5 15. Nfe5 Nxe5 16. Bxe5 Bxc4 17. Bxc4 a5 18. b5 Rac8 19. Be2 Nd5 20. Bf3 Nc3 21. Rd7 Bf6 22. Bxf6 gxf6 23. Rd6 Rb8 24. a4 Rfc8 25. Rd4 f5 26. Kf1 e5 27. Rd7 Rc4 28. Rc1 Rc5 29. Bh5 Nxa4 30. Bxf7+ Kh8 31. Rxc5 Nxc5 32. Re7 Rb7 33. Re8+ Kg7 34. Bd5 Rd7 35. Rxe5 Kf6 36. f4 a4 37. Ke2 a3 38. Bc4 Ra7 39. Ba2 Ra5 40. Kd2 Rxb5 41. Kc3 Ne4+ 42. Kd4 Rb4+ 43. Kd3 Rb2 44. Re6+ Kg7 0-1

```

Here's a game where black played `b5`. Ruslan Ponomariov vs. Ivan Sokolov, 3/17/2007

```

[fen ""]
1.  d4  d5
2.  c4  dxc4
3.  e4  b5
4.  a4  c6
5.  axb5    cxb5
6.  Nc3 Bd7
7.  Nf3 e6
8.  Be2 Nf6
9.  O-O Be7
10. d5  exd5
11. exd5    Qb6
12. Bf4 Bc5
13. Bxc4    bxc4
14. Qe2+    Kf8
15. Ne5 Bf5
16. Na4 Qb5
17. Nxc5    Qxc5
18. Nxc4    Qd4
19. Be5 Bd3
20. Qd2 Qxd5
21. Rfd1    Qxc4
22. Rac1    Qa6
23. Bxf6    Nd7 (23... gxf6?! 24.Qh6+ Ke7 25.Qe3+ Qe6 26.Qxd3 Nd7 27.Qa3+ Ke8 28.Qa4 Kf8 29.Rxd7 Kg7 30.h3 Rhd8 31.Rxd8 Rxd8 32.Qxa7 Qe2 33.Qb6 Rd2 34.b4 h5 35.Qc5 Rb2 36.Qd4 Qe5 37.Qc4 Qb8 38.Qh4 Qxb4 39.Qxh5)
24. Bc3 Bb5
25. Qg5 Nf6
26. Qc5+    Kg8
27. Bxf6    h6
28. Bc3 Re8
29. Rd6 Qb7
30. Qf5 Qe7
31. Qxb5     1-0

```

After Black's 6th move, it looks like maybe he'll be able to shove those pawns forward, overpower White's Queen's Knight pawn, and win. Sometimes, advanced pawns are not easy to support. By the end of move 11, both players have developed some pieces but neither side is pushing very hard. Black's Queen on `b6` eyes the perpetually weak `f2` square and the King hiding beyond while threatening, perhaps, `b4`. White's 14th exploits Black's uncastled King. Black's response seals in the Rook.

After 17, both Black rooks and a knight are in the box. His King is exposed. He has a good bishop and Knight and his Queen is well placed. His `c` pawn looks lonely and has to be defended by the Queen. White has a great Knight and a good Bishop. His isolated `b` pawn is sad but not endangered. His `d` pawn is kinda hanging out. One of his Rooks is sort of developed and the other has good squares. But White has sacrificed a piece and needs to make something happen.

After move 24, White maintains a slight lead, even though he's down a piece. Black needs to activate his rooks to win. White must not allow this. This is where every tempo counts. White's 25th hits the weak `g7` pawn while his 26th exploits Black's exposed King. White's follow-up, `27. Bxf6` exploits the overloaded Black Queen. It protects the Bishop as well as the Knight since the last thing Black needs is for his pawns to be ripped open with Rooks on the board. if `27... gxf6` then `28. Rc3` followed by `Rg3+` and it's lights-out for Black. White saves his Bishop but the cost is that Black now has time to develop a Rook to `e8`. The end of the game isn't spectacular, it looks like Black blundered in time pressure.

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


# Question
Title: What are some lines of the Queen's Gambit symmetrical variation for white?
Some people who I play always play the symmetrical variation, and I don't know how to play it for white.

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5

```

# Answer
It's really unknown, I've never seen it actually played except for maybe one or two internet blitz games out of ten thousand. But I've looked up some lines for you.

You play **3.cxd5** and now black needs to decide what to do.

The symmetrical **3...cxd4 4.Qxd4** followed by e4 just loses a pawn.

**3...Qxd5** allows white to chase the queen, getting a lead in development:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3 Qa5 6.Nxd4

```

So black plays **3...Nf6**. Now a thing like 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 stays completely symmetrical, but white can play **4.e4!**.

*Fundamental Chess Openings* gives two lines, both a bit better for White because of better development:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Nf6 4.e4 Nxe4 5.dxc5 Nxc5 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 exd5 8.Qxd5

```

and

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Nf6 4.e4 Nxe4 5.dxc5 Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Nxd2 7.Qxd2 Qxc5 8.Na3

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
The symmetrical defense is my favorite, here is how games with me playing as black usually turn out:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.dxc5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e3 e5 6.exd4 exd4

```

This line of play of course requires white to play `3. dxc5`: it is quite a common variation I find. White cannot defend the `c5` pawn effectively and black has a clearly dominant position including a passed pawn. A word of caution: in this position development of your pieces is more important that material equality so if white chooses to defend the `c5` pawn simply allow him and develop, building pressure elsewhere or even on the pawn itself.
> 7 votes

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


# Question
Title: Open source chess playing or pgn viewing libraries
Is anyone familiar with any open source chess libraries in any language that can do any of the following:

* parse PGNs and/or FENs
* calculate valid chess moves based on position
* process an entire chess game

EDIT:

Sorry, I should be more clear. I'm not looking for open source software, I'm looking for open source programming libraries.

# Answer
# Stockfish

Stockfish (website and github) is an open source and very strong UCI engine. As such it can do all you are asking for, but usually requires a GUI in order to do so. You can however access all functionality via a command prompt/shell as well.
> 9 votes

# Answer
# Crafty

Crafty is a strong chess programm and can be used with Winboard, Xboard and Scid. So it is available for all major operating systems.

# Scid

Scid can maintain databases of chess games, you can analyse (end) games.The software is available for all major operating systems.

# Xboard

Xboard is a user interface to the Internet Chess Server. It uses the X Windows System, so I assume this runs only under GNU/Linux. Xboard can be used as a viewer and supports all forms of chess.
> 11 votes

# Answer
# PyChess

Is a chess client built in Python. You can use it's chess logic libraries without much trouble.

Are examples of how you you might use the libraries to control chess engines, but you can also use just the chess logic:

```
from pychess.Utils.Board import Board
from pychess.Utils.lutils.lmove import toSAN
from pychess.Utils.lutils.lmovegen import genAllMoves
board = Board(setup=True).board
for move in genAllMoves (board):
    print (toSAN (board, move)))

```

It's very fast, since it's used for the built in engine, and it has many advanced features such as parsing long list of SAN moves, generating check evasions and static exchange evaluation (SEE).
> 10 votes

---
Tags: programming, open-source, pgn, fen
---


# Question
Title: Does a non-copyrighted scoresheeet exist that I can print out instead of purchasing pre-printed sheets?
Please provide a download link for a scoresheet for recording moves during match-play. I could format my own but why reinvent the wheel? I am happy to provide a sample as an illustration.

# Answer
I have a scoresheet I created for my own use here:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B4uNw3C8V0SDZjZneGVUVTVaNlU/edit?usp=sharing

I have pdf versions in various colors and the MS Publisher file I used to create it. So if you have MS Publisher you can modify it.

The readme.txt file in that folder has descriptions of the files.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: notation
---


# Question
Title: Are the best engines better than the best humans?
I think the title asks it all.

Under match conditions, would the best chess engines routinely beat the best grandmasters?

If you say yes, have there been enough matches played under tournament conditions to offer credible evidence?

# Answer
> 16 votes
The engine alone is just one factor; the number of CPU's used, memory, etc. makes the engine stronger. The same engine on an Intel 286 will not be nearly as strong as on the Cray Titan supercomputer, for example.

Also, the number of cores makes a difference too. For example, Houdini 3 can take advantage of 32 cores if available. But from the list below, which gives the PC configuration along with the Elo rating, it is clear that the best engine on these PC's is even much stronger than the best chess players.

1. Houdini 3 64-bit 4CPU, **3254** Elo
2. Critter 1.6a 64-bit 4CPU, **3177** Elo
3. Rybka 4 64-bit 4CPU, **3168** Elo
4. Stockfish 2.2.2 64-bit 4CPU, **3167** Elo

(source)

This is why you do not see GM's play against computers any more (no GM wants to end up with 12-0 match result, even if it is against a computer).

So, yes, we humans are no match to computers in chess any more, it is a lost case. But we still have the game GO where humans are much stronger than computers (still). So it is not all lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_Go

PS: I was sitting in the theater in London watching the game where Kasparov lost to the computer in the 25 minutes chess game, I think this was in 1996 or so. Kasparov was really upset after the game. He rushed out of the theater surrounded by 10 or so of his entourage, and he did not look happy at all. This was what, 15 years ago?, I took many pictures of the match, since this was the first time I saw Kasparov in person. Here are 2 pictures from my personal collection:

**update:**

I found 3 more pics that are better quality. Thought to post them. I think this event was the first time Kasparov lost to a computer in an official game. This was in 1994, not 1996. I found a newspaper reference to this event

```
"THE WRITING is on the board for human domination of chess after
 the world champion, Garry Kasparov, was knocked out in the first round
 of the Intel Grand Prix by Pentium Genius 2, a remarkable piece of software
 enhanced by a new super- fast processor.

 With each player restricted to 25 minutes' thinking time, the computer won
 the first game with 8 minutes to spare.....
 .....
 He stayed at the board this time, hitting his head and pulling at his hair...."

```

So these pics are from the above game !

# Answer
> 4 votes
Engines just use brute force to find the best move. So better the hardware the better they will perform. In addition they use huge databases that contain the best games played by humans.

However the current hardware is not sufficient enough for any engine to build the entire game tree (and thus play perfect chess).

Therefore there is still a chance (albeit small and getting smaller) that the best human mind can beat an engine.

Of course the last major event that happened - Kramnik – Deep Fritz(2006) ended with Kramnik losing 2 games and drawing 4 (and winning 0).

I believe if the opening book is removed, then the GMs will have a good chance.

---
Tags: engines, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Can this exchange-down endgame be explained succinctly?
I am interested in the following exchange-down endgame (assume White to move):

```
[fen "6k1/5ppp/8/8/1r6/5KP1/5P1P/5B2 w - - 0 1"]

```

In particular, I am wondering whether this is objectively drawn (my hunch) or whether Black has a winning advantage. But really I'm after more than just the assessment of the position.

> My real interest is in knowing whether a drawing method for White or a winning method for Black can be explained in a relatively simple way. (If it can, I'm hoping for a demonstration of that fact as an answer.)

I'll say a little more about what I'm after. (First, what I'm **not** after: a synopsis of your engine's analysis. I have engines too. And the fact that, e.g. Stockfish gives this position -3.00 or so just doesn't signify all that much.) Consider the endgame where Black has no men left, while White has a rook pawn and the wrong-colored bishop. The drawing method there (assuming the black king has access to the queening square) is so simple that it can be quickly explained to a novice, and she'd be able to hold against any world champion.

The endgame I'm asking about here is more complex, of course, and any reasonably complete explanation of how to handle it will be correspondingly more complex as well. But I'm still hopeful that a fairly concise explanation of how to handle it (either how to win for Black or how to draw for White) can be given; and like the rook-pawn-and-wrong-bishop ending, I'm hoping for the sort of explanation that a relatively weak player could use as a reliable recipe for correct play.

---

No doubt, I'm setting a high bar for an answer here, but I think a good answer along the lines I'm asking for would be very valuable. And even if this particular position ultimately can't be explained well in this way, in more general terms, I think a large body of solid questions about common sorts of positions like this one, *and especially answers offering clear, short verbal explanations of these positions*, would be well suited to this site, and could also make it a useful reference, offering a sort of free, collective middlegame and endgame manual.

# Answer
This endgame is completely winning for black with best play. While there are some cases where the weaker side can build a fortress, those only occur with 1 or 2 pawns per side, not with 3 undoubled pawns.

For example, here is the most common fortress (with 2 pawns each):

```
[FEN "6k1/1R6/4K1p1/7p/8/2b3P1/7P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White cannot break down black's defense. If the white king tries to come to g5, black prevents this with `...Bf6!` when the white king appears on f4.

Dvoretsky's endgame manual explains succinctly:

> With three pawns on each side a fortress, as a rule, cannot be build. Salvation is possible only in exceptional cases: when the pawn structure of the stronger side has flaws.

As an extreme case, look at the most "advantageous case for the weaker side, with the pawns in contact (the variation is from an actual game while the main line is black's best try):

```
[FEN "6k1/3R4/6p1/5p1p/5P1P/3K2P1/1b6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc4 Kf8 2. Kd5 Kg8 3. Ke6 Bc3 4. Rd3 $1 Bb2 5. g4 $3 $18 fxg4 (5... hxg4 6. h5 Kg7 7. hxg6 Kxg6 8. Rd5 Bc1 9. Rxf5 Bxf4 10. Rxf4 Kg5 11. Ke5 g3 12. Ke4 g2 13. Rf8 Kh4 14. Rg8) 6. f5 gxf5 7. Kxf5 Kf7 8. Kg5 Be5 9. Kxh5 g3 10. Rd2 Kf6 11. Kg4 Kg6 12. Re2 Bb8 13. h5+ Kh6 14. Re6+ Kh7 15. Rg6 Bc7 16. Kf5 Bb8 17. Rb6 $1

```

Now that we've established that the stronger side can win, even with the pawns in contact, let's look at the case in the question:

Black's winning plan is quite simple, bring the king to e1 to attack the pawn on f2 with both the rook and the king (forcing its advance to f4), and then black will bring the king back to e3, bring all 3 pawns to the 3rd rank, and finally push g6-g5, forcing weaknesses.

Here is a sample line. It is just a single example, there are many other options for both colors, but hopefully it illustrates the winning plan for the stronger side.

```
[FEN "6k1/5ppp/8/8/1r6/5KP1/5P1P/5B2 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1... Kf8 2. Ke3 Ke7 3. Bd3 g6 4. Kf3 Kd6 5. Ke3 Ke5 6. Kf3 Kd4 7. Be2 Rb3+ 8.
Kg2 Kc3 9. Bf3 Kd2 10. Bc6 (10. Bd5 Rb2 11. Bxf7 Ke1 12. Bg8 Rxf2+ 13. Kg1 h6
14. Bd5 Ke2 15. Be6 Rf6 16. Bc4+ Ke3 17. Bb5 h5 18. Kg2 Rf2+ 19. Kg1 Rc2 20.
Ba4 Rc4 21. Bb3 Rd4 22. h4 Rd2 23. Bf7 Kf3 24. Bxg6 Kg4 25. Kf1 Rd6 26. Be8 Rd8
27. Bb5 Kxg3 28. Ke2 Kxh4) 10... Ke1 11. f4 Rb2+ 12. Kg1 Ke2 13. Kg2 Ke3+ 14.
Kg1 f6 15. h4 h6 16. Bd5 (16. Ba8 g5 17. fxg5 hxg5 18. hxg5 Rb8 19. Bc6 Rb6 20.
Ba8 f5 21. g4 f4) 16... g5 17. fxg5 hxg5 18. Bc6 (18. hxg5 Rb5) 18... gxh4 19.
gxh4 f5 20. h5 Rb6 21. Be8 f4 0-1

```

To finish this answer, consider the position if white has instead a dark squared bishop. In this case, black's plan is very similar - attack the f2 pawn. Black brings the king to e2, the rook to f3, and then advances the pawns (g7-g5, f7-f5-f4 - potentially including h7-h6 if needed) to break through.

Hopefully this gives you all of the plans needed to win as the stronger side. The defensive chances with fewer than 3 pawns each are also worth examination, but they're probably worth a question on their own.
> 16 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, exchange, quality
---


# Question
Title: How do I learn to visualize algebraic notation?
So, now based upon the recommendation from this question, How do I learn to understand the middlegame?, I bought how to Reassess Your Chess. It's pretty interesting, but I am struggling some with visualizing the analysis.

I am used to some analysis, as I went through the course on chesstactics.org. However, this is usually only 2-4 moves long and doesn't generally include other variations.

Just getting through the first chapter took me a couple of hours. After each move I had to stop, visualize, consider, read the next move, stop, visualize, consider. It's slow moving. I can do it, but I am not very good at it, and I forget what he is talking about by the time I get through the analysis.

Is there a good way to learn to be able to read this notation and "see" it without having to just pull out a board?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I think that improving your analysis and visualization skills is very important. I posted a question on this topic recently as well (How can one improve their over-the-board analysis skills?).

But your question is more specific and I think you need to NOT try and study the *Reassess Your Chess* book in your head. The material he covers is too complex to be followed mentally for a class player. Also, because your visualization skills are not well developed you are going to waste far too much time and energy on firming up the image of the board and not be able to dedicate enough of your mental CPU to actually digesting the ideas in the book.

Notice that I use the *Chess Success* book in my visualization training. McDonald's book has diagrams every 5 to 8 moves and his analysis is very direct with shallow trees. It's really a great tool for doing visualization training. And even though I am fully able to follow the moves in this book and accurately draw the images I still go over each game with his analysis using a board after I do my training so that I am certain I have understood everything he has said.

You need to separate the idea of study and training. When you are studying a book like Silman's or Pachman's you need a physical chess board and a computer board as well to get the full benefit. Those types of books are for study. Use something simpler for visualization training.

Here is some advice from USCF Life Master A.J. Goldsby on how to study a chess book (from his Training Program page).

> Many people think studying a chess book can be done by reading and occasionally looking at the diagrams. Nothing could be further from the truth!
>
> The only correct way to study a chess book requires AT LEAST one chess set. And a good little analysis set on the side. Maybe a magnetic set to boot.
>
> Basically, to really get any real instruction from ANY chess book, you must set up the position and play through the example. (More than once.) NEVER (!) (Even if you can play blindfold chess like me!!); think you can follow a series of moves in your head. Set up your board and play through every example and every single variation!
>
> When I study, I often set up a chess board on my table. I have a little peg set off to one side, that I keep the current position on. And I also usually utilize one magnetic set. I play over every single move, line and variation. Often I will question a line, and spend a lot of time analyzing lines the author may not have even looked at. (As a Master, I have an obligation to try to find as many mistakes in analysis as I can. And on top of all this, if it is a very complicated game, I more often than not will have the position set up on at least one chess computer, analyzing the game and the variations.)

Even though we live in a very digital age I think it is important to use a real board as well as to keep another board with the current position so that you can quickly go back to the original position and consider it at the same time as you are looking at another position for analysis on your main board.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's a good idea to train visualization.

A good start should be to train the coordinates till you can name any square in a second - without even looking at the numbers and letters on the sides. It's not hard if you train it with the board coordinates trainer.

http://chess-skills.com/chess-tips/chessboard-coordinates-trainer/

---
Tags: notation
---


# Question
Title: What is the meaning of this chess opening theory table?
On this example chess opening theory table, what does "Σ%" and the number before it mean?

# Answer
In the example given, the opening move was Nf3. A number of the main lines were given, eight more moves for Black, seven more moves for White. Then the percentages of games won by White (in tournaments) using the respective lines were tallied.

Here's a link to the table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_opening\_theory\_table
> 3 votes

# Answer
The two figures in the “Σ%” column are the number of games referenced in the database (so “Σ” should be understood in its mathematical meaning, “total” or “sum”) and the percentage of games won by White.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How do chess openings officially get recognized?
With so many combinations of moves possible, how do openings get recognized? For example, what is to prevent me from playing a series of moves and declaring it the `xaisoft gambit` or `xaisoft heart-attack`? What organization officially recognizes openings?

# Answer
There's no organization that officially names openings. Generally, the first person to publish professional-level research for a sequence of moves gets to name it.

Many openings with modern names were first played 200 years ago.
> 8 votes

# Answer
An opening is named after successful professional USE by a world class player, in world class events.

Many "openings" are played by amateurs, either accidentally or on purpose, that don't get names. But if a line is played in high level tournaments by X, and X wins a large percentage of his games, people come to recognize it as X's opening, and name it after him or her.
> 7 votes

# Answer
You don't need to publish it professionally to have an opening named under you.

Take the example of the recently played Grunfeld defense in the game 1 of WCC 2012 Anand vs Gelfand.

It's a little-known fact that the first person to play Grunfeld defence was a Moheschunder Bannerjee in 1855, but because Ernst Grunfeld used it to stun Alexander Alekhine at Vienna in 1922; hence, the opening was named after Grunfeld.

If you end up using it in a popular/famous duel then also it can be named after you.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: What are some solid attacks in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What are some solid attacks in chess?
By solid attacks, I mean, attacks that have been tested over time. They don't necessarily have to be used at the top-level. I will give an example of what I am looking for:

The `Fried Liver Attack` can be used against the `Two Knights Defense` and the `Traxler Counter Attack` can be used against the `Fried Liver Attack`.

# Answer
I think the Cochrane gambit is sound enough:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7!?

```

Also the Evans Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

```

The Marshall counter-gambit in Ruy Lopez, sacrifices are pawn and gives black a good attack. However, it seems that some Grandmasters are using it as drawing tool, but for us black should have an attack.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Why is Rashid Nezhmetdinov not as popular/known as Mikhail Tal?
I was looking at some games between of `Rashid Nezhmetdinov` and noticed he doesn't seem to be as popular (I don't know if this is the best word) or as well-known as `Mikhail Tal`. After reading some of the things said about him, you would think this is not the case:

> "Nobody sees combinations like Rashid Nezhmetdinov." Mikhail Botvinnik
>
> Nezhmetdinov is "the greatest master of the initiative." Lev Polugaevsky
>
> "His games reveal the beauty of chess and make you love in chess not so much the points and high placings, but the wonderful harmony and elegance of this particular world." Mikhail Tal
>
> "Rashid Nezhmetdinov is a virtuoso of combinational chess." David Bronstein

Here is his most celebrated brilliancy vs `Lev Polugaevsky`, featuring a stunning queen sacrifice:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e4 exd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd2 g6 7.b3 Bg7 8.Bb2 O-O 9.Bd3 Ng4 10.Nge2 Qh4 11.Ng3 Nge5 12.O-O f5 13.f3 Bh6 14.Qd1 f4 15.Nge2 g5 16.Nd5 g4 17.g3 fxg3 18.hxg3 Qh3 19.f4 Be6 20.Bc2 Rf7 21.Kf2 Qh2+ 22.Ke3 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Nb4 24.Rh1 Rxf4!! 25.Rxh2 Rf3+ 26.Kd4 Bg7!! 27...b5! and 28...Nec6#. 27.a4 c5+ 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Bd3 Nexd3+ 30.Kc4 d5+ 31.exd5 cxd5+ 32.Kb5 Rb8+ 33.Ka5 Nc6+ 0-1

```

Regarding the above game, Polugaevsky is quoted as saying, "I must have beaten Rashid a dozen times. But that one loss was so good I would have traded them all to be on the other side of the board."

# Answer
> 6 votes
Probably because he never made it to world champion, And Mikhail Tal did. Another great player that is not as popular as he deserves to be was Akiba Rubinstein

# Answer
> 1 votes
I will give a shot at answering this question as well. I found a 3 part biography on `Rashid Nezhmitdinov` which you can find on youtube here (part 1, part 2, part 3). According to the Biography, although `Rashid` beat many of the top grandmasters in his day and won the Russian championship many times, he never was able to achieve the `GM` title, but only the `IM` title. Some theorize that he was not given a fair chance (not able play much internationally) because of his Tartar heritage and his faith, but this is only theory and `Rashid` would have never made any excuses. It also seem like `Rashid` was always at the tip of being on the top, but could never place first in many tournaments. He also seemed to a be inconsistent at times.

---
Tags: famous-players
---


# Question
Title: The Pointing Rule and its relation on which side to attack?
I was watching a video by `NM Dan Heisman` and in the video he mentions what is called the `Pointing Rule`. He also makes mention that like many rules in chess, it should be taken lightly and not followed all the time. He states that the `Pointing Rule` dictates where you should attack your opponent, so if your pawns are pointing towards the queen side, attack that side and if they are pointing towards the king side, attack that side, but what if they are pointing in two different directions? Besides the `Pointing Rule`, what other factors should one consider when deciding which side to attack? I have always thought you should attack where they castled. To illustrate the pointing rule, I will make 3 diagrams with some random moves

Both White and Black should attack the King side since both their pawn formations point towards each others king side:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d3 d6

```

Both White and Black should attack the Queen side since both their pawn formations point towards each others king side:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f3 f6

```

The pawns for both sides point in both directions, so where to attack now?:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d3 d6 4. f3 f6

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
The examples in your question are not great for this "pointing rule". In general, this rule of thumb only holds when there is a locked pawn structure. In each of the examples, both colors can play for a pawn break by pushing the d pawn.

Here's a better example:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3

```

Already, the plans for both sides are clear: white *must* play on the kingside with an eventual `f2-f4-f5` push, and black must attack the c and d pawns with moves like Nc6 and Qb6. In general, the extra space can be utilized to maneuver the pieces to support the necessary pawn break or to attack a focal point.

Look at another example from the Bayonet Attack in the King's Indian Defense:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Ne8 10. a4 f5

```

Once again, the center pawns show the correct plans for both sides - white defends on the kingside and attacks on the queenside while black goes all out for a kingside attack. White has a huge lead in space - enough to be nearly "positionally winning", however black has sufficient play in the form of the attack and the opening is dynamically balanced and has been seen in top level play over the last few years when black is playing for a win.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The so called `Pointing Rule` underlines a simple concept: you should attack where you have more space and where you can manouvre freely.

When you "build" a "pawn chain", you can notice some elements:

1. Bishops and Queen can be developed very quickly with moves that "follow" the chain. On the other hand, "crossing" the chain isn't always possible.
2. If you advance pawns on the "open side" of the chain, the chain itself doesn't get weak. That's not true on the opposite side, since many pawn moves will weaken the "base" of the chain.

That said, in your last example `1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d3 d6 4. f3 f6` the formation cannot be considered a "double chain" for both Black and White. Simply, these are not chains. A closed formation like this will get in the way of Bishops and Queens (see point 1) and advancing a pawn on either side can weaken the pawns of the formation (see point 2).

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Why is the Alekhine Defense named after Alekhine?
Alekhine, a world champion, has his name on the defense Nf6 in response to White's e4. But after e.g. 2. e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4. d4, White seems to have a good game.

Did Alekhine win any notable games (or tournaments) using this defense? Did he publish any books or papers successfully defending this line? What did he see as its merits?

# Answer
> 13 votes
You're right in that white *seems* to have a good game. But in reality, not much more than that. Black continues with 4. ...d6, and can go into many variations such as the optimistic, but shaky Four Pawns Attack with 5.f4, Exchange variation with 5.dxe6, where black can respond by taking with either pawn, and will usually follow up with a kingside fiancetto if he takes back with the c-pawn. Of course, there are other variations such as the Balogh, Two pawns attack, Two Knights variation, Scandinavian variation, Modern variation (perhaps the most challenging), etc. Look them up if you wish. Black's basic idea is to get white to over-extend his center, creating targets in the form of pawns and the weaknesses left in the pawns' wake, and then undermine those weaknesses with pieces. Again, white *seems* to have a good game because of the classic space advantage in the centre. BUT, that's black's plan - The Alekhine Defence is a hypermodern idea, so black voluntarily gives up the centre in the opening, just to challenge it later on from the sides.

According to chessgames.com, the Alekhine's Defence has a win rate of 33.4% for black, which is very, very respectable; especially when compared to other very highly respected openings such as the Caro Kann, French, Najdorf etc.

I don't know if Alekhine himself won tournaments using *just* this defence, but here are a few games where he successfully employed it against strong opponents: Bogoljubov, Maroczy, Mieses, and a lesser known, but still strong Sergeant. The last game is a famous positional crush featured in a book I have on the Alekhine Defence.

Besides Alekhine, many world champions have employed it throughout history, such as Capablanca, Euwe, Tal, Bronstein, Fischer (remember the famous Spassky vs.Fischer 1972 game?), Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, etc. Even Carlsen has employed it now and then as a surprise weapon. Check out Carlsen vs. Topalov.

To conclude, I don't think its possible for anyone to answer **why** Alekhine introduced this defence (*if* he did), and what merits **he** saw. However, he must have certainly judged it to be a playable opening that matched his style (aggressive). But as I've outlined, it has become a formidable surprise weapon over time, and is even used nowadays at the very top level in major tournaments.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The moves 1.e4 Nf6 were played before Alekhine (analyzed by Allgaier in 1819), but Alekhine popularized it. Alexander Alekhine first played this defense at Budapest in September 1921 against Saemisch and E. Steiner.

By May 1922 it was being called the Alekhine’s Defense by Sir George Thomas in the British Chess Magazine. Also in May 1922, Hans Fahrni wrote the first monograph on the opening, calling it Die Aljechin-Verteidigung.

---
Tags: opening, alekhines-defense, alekhine
---


# Question
Title: What is the origin of this breakthrough combination?
If you've spent enough time in the world of chess, it's not unlikely that you've come across the following position, with white to move and win, or an essentially identical one. You'll see plenty of hits for it, for instance, if you google: chess breakthrough combination. And if you hadn't seen it before, now you have:

```
[FEN "6K1/ppp5/6k1/PPP5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.b6! cxb6 (1...axb6 2.c6! bxc6 3.a6) 2.a6! bxa6 3.c6

```

The exact position can vary; the point is that the black king is far enough removed from the pawns that white can create a queen starting with `1. b6!`, when one of the white pawns will get a clear path to promotion, and black's pawns are too far from the finish line to survive.

Botvinnik uses this position to illustrate the very concept of combinations in his "What is a 'combination'?" That short piece first appeared in Russian in a 1939 edition of the magazine *Shakhmat v. S.S.S.R.*, and it can be found in English as an appendix to his *One Hundred Selected Games*. In it, he labels the given diagram simply "An old Position," suggesting that to him it was a piece of chess folklore, without any specific known origin. So it might be too much for me to ask where/when this combination *truly* first arose. Instead, I am only wondering:

> When did this breakthrough combination first appear in the chess literature?

One can hardly ever be entirely sure that something's really the first appearance of a thing like this, so I'd be happy with any answers pointing to earlier sources than Botvinnik's. It doesn't seem too unreasonable that there's something pretty old to be found, when things like the classic `Bxh7+` sacrifice are known to appear at least as far back as Greco's chess manual of the early 1600s.

# Answer
> 12 votes
I just saw it in one of Yusupov's books, he has it credited as "Cozio 1766".

His 1766 book "Il Giuoco Degli Scacchi" is actually digitized by Google books: http://books.google.it/books?id=aCcCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs\_ge\_summary\_r&cad=0#v=thumbnail&q&f=false

Unfortunately, neither diagrams nor notation were invented yet. You're on your own to find out where he describes the position...

# Answer
> 3 votes
I first saw a similar analysis in JR Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals." Can't remember the exact page, but note that it is in the "public domain," which is to say that it is relatively easy to look up.

---
Tags: history, problems, combinations, botvinnik
---


# Question
Title: Are there good variations for White against the Sicilian that do not involve an early d4?
If White opens `e4` and Black replies `c5`, that's the Sicilian defense. Typical next moves are `2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4`, etc.

Are there good variations for White where he DOESN'T play d4?

I've heard of `3. b4` (Wing Gambit), but I don't like gambits.

Does it make sense for White to play `d3` instead, either before or after `Bc4`?

# Answer
Two `Sicilian` variations that don't have an early `d4` are:

`Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack (B51)`

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+

```

`Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation (B31)`

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6

```

I couldn't find much info on `d3` before or after `Bc4`, but in some sample openings, `d3` was played after `Bc4` such as in the following:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4?! e6 3.d3 d5!

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
It's quite common the Closed Sicilian, with, for example:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6

```

The Grand Prix Attack is of course another possible way to face any Black player after `1.e4 c5`. Nowadays the main line is:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7

```

After `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 (any) 3.g3` White can build a King's Indian Attack, which is less common and less sharp, but perfectly playable.

These variations are not as popular as the "Open" ones, but you may encounter them from time to time even during high-rated torunaments.
> 8 votes

# Answer
`3.Bb5` is fairly common.

I personally like `3.Bc4`; it just leads to a normal game with opening preparation thrown out. A plus or minus is that any type of position can result after the opening. `3.Bc4` sometimes shows up at the top-level, Vallejo beat Shirov with it, in this case the game resulted in a French structure.

```
[Fen " "]
[Event "SuperGM"]
[Site "Linares ESP"]
[Date "2002.03.09"]
[EventDate "2002.02.22"]
[Round "13"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Francisco Vallejo-Pons"]
[Black "Alexey Shirov"]
[ECO "B50"]
[WhiteElo "2629"]
[BlackElo "2715"]
[PlyCount "107"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 e6 5. Bb3 Be7 6. O-O O-O
7. c3 Nc6 8. Re1 b5 9. Nbd2 d5 10. e5 Nd7 11. d4 Ba6 12. Nf1
b4 13. Ba4 Rc8 14. Bxc6 Rxc6 15. cxb4 Bxf1 16. Rxf1 cxb4
17. Be3 Qa5 18. g3 Rfc8 19. Ne1 Qb5 20. h4 a5 21. b3 a4
22. Nd3 Rc3 23. Nf4 Nf8 24. Qg4 Qd7 25. h5 axb3 26. axb3 Rxb3
27. h6 g6 28. Nh3 Rbc3 29. Bg5 b3 30. Rfb1 Rb8 31. Kg2 Rc7
32. Rb2 Bxg5 33. Qxg5 Qe7 34. Qe3 Qb4 35. Qf4 Qe7 36. Qf3 Rcb7
37. Rab1 Nd7 38. Rxb3 Rxb3 39. Rxb3 Qf8 40. Rxb8 Nxb8 41. Ng5
Nd7 42. Qf4 Qe7 43. Qc1 Qd8 44. Nf3 Kf8 45. Ng5 Kg8 46. Nf3
Kf8 47. Kg1 Qb8 48. Qa3+ Ke8 49. Ng5 Nf8 50. Qa4+ Ke7 51. Kg2
Qb7 52. Qa3+ Ke8 53. Qf3 Qe7 54. Qf6 1-0

```

The game at chessgames.com.

Vallejo did play `4.d3`, so yeah it does make sense to play `d3`; it mainly allows the development of the dark-squared bishop.
> 7 votes

# Answer
When you get right down to it, white *must* move the d pawn sooner or later. It can either go to d4 (characteristic of the Open Sicilian) or it can go to d3 (characteristic of the Closed Sicilian).

With that said, on d3, the pawn blocks white's light squared bishop so white must make other arrangements in order to castle kingside. There are two main ways that this can be done - either white can move the bishop to c4 or b5 before moving the d pawn, or white can fianchetto the bishop.

So to bring this answer back to the specific question, white has a few concrete options that avoid d4:

* Rossolimo/Moscow (`3. Bb5` vs `2... Nc6` / `2... d6` respectively)
* Grand Prix Attack (`1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7` and either `5. Bc4` or `5. Bb5`)
* Closed Sicilian (`1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6`)

Surprisingly, almost every other Sicilian variation for white either involves white playing an early d4, or is very similar to one of the above. For example, the King's Indian Attack is really a variation of the Closed Sicilian (alternatively, the Closed Sicilian can be considered a variation of the KIA...).

Finally, the Wing Gambit merely defers d4, as does the Alapin. While white can always choose to omit d4 (`2. Qh5?!` would be an extreme example), these are generally considered dubious sidelines played at white's own peril.
> 5 votes

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