# Question
Title: Why are games more likely to last 60, 80 and 120 moves?
I've downloaded and parsed the king-base chess database (about 1.5 million games) and am looking at distribution of moves for games. When plotting the distribution for different outcomes, I see spikes at 80, 100 and 120 moves (and smaller spikes for draws at 20, 40 and 60 moves).

Why are these spikes occurring? Are people more likely to resign at these round numbers? Or are there rules in professional games that mean games are more likely to end after multiples of 20 moves?

# Answer
This is due to time control:

> the World Chess Federation FIDE sets a single classical time control for all major FIDE events, according to the handbook: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, with an addition of 30 seconds per move

Other time controls are used, but are usually based on multiples of 20 moves.

Mikhail Botvinnik, a former world champion, once said:

> The amount of errors made at time control are legion

So gross errors accumulate around the 20th, 40th, 60th etc. move, and so would resignations, loss on time and draw offers.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: statistics
---


# Question
Title: "How are the scores decided in Chess?" - Correct?
Recent question:

> How are the scores decided in Chess?

It has been argued that PV scores for Stockfish (the engine being used by chess.com) can be interpreted as something like:

> +1.0 is a pawn advantage for White. -0.5 is a half-pawn advantage for Black.

**Is that correct?** The weights and parameters in Stockfish are either manually calibrated or tuned by something like the SPSA optimiser. We only care if the optimization can give the engine gradients to a local optimum solution.

The objective function is to maximise the playing strength. Maximising playing strength has nothing to do with making sure "+1.0 is a pawn advantage for White". In fact, we should be able to **scale** all all the PV scores by a constant. As long as the engine makes the same move, the **magnitude** of the scores shouldn't matter.

This is consistent to the minimax algorithm, where both players **only care** how to minimize/maximise the evaluation. Again, there are **no efforts** to make the PV scores human-interpretable.

To me, the PV scores are only important **relatively**, not **absolutely**. For instance, we should be able to say "+2.0 is about two-times advantage for White than a position with +1.0 for White.", but that **shouldn't** have anything to do with pawns. Similarly, if I modify the source code and scale the outputs by a factor of 10. I can still say: "+20.0 is about two-times advantage for White than a position with +10.0 for White". We **shouldn't** be able to connect the scores to pawns, knights, bishops etc.

I haven't seen anybody in the Stockfish development team spent any efforts to make the outputs interpretable. To me, the scores have **no direct interpretation** to chess.

Should I call all answers in the question **technically** incorrect?

**EDIT**

This is in response to @D\_M. How would you scale the outputs to make it human interpretable? What's the algorithm? How would you define the loss function? How to test for the changes? I don't see it's a trivial problem.

# Answer
> How does the algorithm work?

Starting here, the rest become trivial extensions.

The algorithm runs under a tree structure. For example, it looks at Move A, find every corresponding move from the opponent. Then it finds all moves from yourself, over and over. We list all of these plausible positions a score. The process Balances itself out so in each case the algorithm spends most of it's time following branches of the tree that seem most likely to win, rather than obviously losing branches. The score is the key here - I have run under the assumption that it is not directly decided by position (although I could be wrong now), but based upon the material value of future positions.

As an example, if you make move A now, in a few more moves, you might have 200 plausible positions where you're up a rook, 250 where you're down a rook, 300 plausible positions where you're up a knight, 250 where you're down, 1000 where you're up a pawn, and 500 where you're down a pawn, as determined by the algorithm playing a branch. Then it just averages the material, divided by the total number of positions):

(200\*(5) + 250\*(-5) + 300\*(3) + 250\*(-3) + 1000\*(1) + 500\*(-1))/2500 = 400/2500 = 0.16.

The branch is assigned that value. But in the same branch of that tree, a slightly different course might get a score of 0.56. We accumulate a bunch of scores by looking in depth 5,6,7 (in the endgame way more) moves ahead this way for all the branches with this many moves, then average all of them and get a score for move A. We use this logic of assigning scores based upon future material gains for each of the possible moves available, until a set amount of time is up, or we've thought through a set number of moves ahead.

Finally, if it finds a branch that would make all branches lead to a capture of the king (which is in itself mate), then it would follow this as such with a mate in X moves. From playing with the machine, it seems the computer has arbitrarily set the king as worth 100 points, rather than the infinite game-ending value it really has. This simply means it's worth more than the cumulative sum of the other pieces though, so has the desired effect.

With this knowledge, we can then answer:

> Is this correct:

Yes. Going a single move ahead that has a 100% chance for being up a single pawn, a +1.0 would be the algorithm's response. A single move for black which has a 50% chance for being up a single pawn would result in an outcome from the algorithm of -0.5

> How would you scale the outputs to be human interpret-able:

To me, a better output would be % chance of win. However, while computers are beating humans, they haven't beaten the game. Just to much math. Knowing that move A gives me 4% more chance to win matters more to me then pawns I might win in the future. The computer could only spit out based upon plausible positions where wins and losses were detected, but long term strategy usually isn't to aim for repeated Scholar's Mates.

> How would you define the loss function?

It's the probability of having more material in the future. A +0.01 means you have 1% chance of being up one pawn in the future if you made the intended move.

> How to test for the changes?

This needs clarification.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Well, I found a place where a member of the Stockfish support staff says:

> Your intuition is correct. Positive values mean white is winning. Negative values mean black is winning. The units are in pawn units, so +1.00 means white is winning by one pawn.

So, it seems that they at least claim it corresponds. I don't know how exact it is; there really isn't an "exact" value for any piece since it depends on the position anyway. But I think that's your answer.

You say:

> We only care if the optimization can give the engine gradients to a local optimum solution.

I disagree. Your premise that Stockfish is only used to find the best move is incorrect - some of us actually look at the evaluation score. If I'm using Stockfish to look at a game I played, I absolutely care whether the move I played lost me 5 pawns or 0.05 pawns compared to the best move (one is a blunder, the other is a perfectly reasonable move and might not even be objectively worse.) And it makes a difference whether a move took the evaluation from -10 pawns to -20 (it was completely hopeless anyway and I shouldn't worry too much), or -1 pawns to -2 (going from disadvantaged to probably lost, and maybe I should study that a bit more to see what went wrong.)

Yes, you can scale it however you like - and since you can, why not just scale it so a pawn is 1?
> 2 votes

# Answer
> In fact, we should be able to scale all all the PV scores by a constant. As long as the engine makes the same move, the magnitude of the scores shouldn't matter.

True. We can even add a constant to all scores (e.g. an equal position would have a score of +1) without any effect on the engine's decisions.

However, it's useful to keep the well-known score definitions:

> +1.0 is a pawn advantage for White

for 'backwards compatibility', just like we still have a 'meter bar' in Paris while the meter is currently defined with Krypton 86, so the 'meter bar' is technically slightly longer or shorter than a meter.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone of us pinpoint the thinking Algorithm of Mikhail Tal?
I have read how grandmasters think, but I do not play like them. I have read about their systems of thinking, and other things, and how to emulate any of the top GMs; but I would like to see if there are a list of steps where Tal's style can be copied? True, if you imitate some of his games you may copy his style somewhat. and this applies to Fischer / Kasparov and all.

But Mikhail Tal had a style which was not only daring, but he had a charisma to intimidate his opponents with his thinking, sacrifices and moves.

I want to list out particularly his thinking system.

# Answer
Tal didn't really have an algorithm. He played on intuition:

> Many sacrifices do not require any concrete calculation at all.
>
> A glance at the resulting position is sufficient to realize the sacrifice is correct.

Source: Tal, as quoted in *The wisest things ever said about chess* by GM Soltis
> 5 votes

# Answer
@SethProjnabrata:I think above all he loved tactics.It's about playing a lot of tactics, memorizing them, and the pattern recognition would make him "see" what could work or not in a new position...memory became imagination....and bluff because one point is better than 1/2 which is better than 0. If you want to TRY to play like Tal, try practising a lot of tactics, but it's not always easy, because it requires a lot of concentration, and if you do that all days during say one month or more, you will "see" combinations in every game(the majority won't works, but some will do)...maybe it won't be the same style as Tal, but it will nevertheless worth the cost when you will see a nice trick that will make you happy.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tal
---


# Question
Title: Is the advance Caro-Kann becoming less popular?
In my own games I have seen fewer advance Caro-Kann games (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5) than the semi-open games (3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2) or the Botvinnik systems (3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 or 2. c4).

My questions are:

1. Has the advance Caro-Kann become less popular at club or master level?
2. How do we know? E.g. how can we mine a database to show opening popularity over time?

# Answer
## Summary

From the plot of games played under the Caro-Kann ECO codes (B10-19), the advance variation (in B12, but B12 does hold some other miscellaneous variations) **has been consistently the most popular line since the 1990's and peaked at 1,803 games in 2008**.

## Methodology

* I extracted the games from the *Fritz for Fun 13* into PGN format
* I ran the following R code, which extracts the year (mandatory) and the ECO (optional). The games are filtered to ECO codes B10-19 (Caro-Kann) and for games from 1927. Why 1927? That is when it debuted at the top:

> He \[Capablanca\] used it \[the Caro-Kann\] in his crushing strategic destruction of Aaron Nimzowitsch in the great New York tournament of 1927.

Source: *The Caro-Kann: Move-by-Move* by IM Lakdawala

* The raw number of games are then plotted over time. Unfortunately my data only goes to 2009

---

```
library(ggplot2) # For making the charts look nice

dat <- readLines("C:/Users/Peter/SkyDrive/Chess/Fritz for fun 13 database.pgn") # Read in the data from a local file

eco <- dat[grep("\\[ECO ",dat)] # Extract the ECO, if there is one
eco <- sub("\\[ECO \"","",eco)
eco <- sub("\"\\]","",eco)

year <- dat[grep("\\[Date ",dat)]
year <- sub("\\[Date [\"]","",year)
year <- sub("\\..*","",year)
year <- as.numeric(year)

ecoindex <- grep("\\[ECO ",dat) # Find which lines have an eco
yearindex <- grep("\\[Date ",dat)
yearindex <- yearindex + 5 # The date is always the 3rd pgn tag and is mandatory. The ECO, if present, is the 8th tag
matchindex <- yearindex %in% ecoindex  # This code finds which games have both a year and eco tag

year <- year[matchindex] # Filter out games without an ECO

countgame <- table(eco,year)
countgame <- as.data.frame(countgame) # Convert to a data frame

Carocode <- paste("B",10:19,sep="") # ECO codes for the Caro-Kann are B10-B19

Carogame <- countgame[which(countgame$eco %in% Carocode),] # Keep the data for the Caro-Kann ECO codes

Carogame$year <- as.numeric(as.character(Carogame$year))
Carogame <- Carogame[Carogame$year>=1927,]

p1 <- ggplot(Carogame,aes(x=year,y=Freq,group=eco))+geom_line(aes(colour=eco)) # Plot count of games

p1 <- p1 + ggtitle("Number of Caro-Kann games over time") + ylab("Number of games")

print(p1)

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
This advanced Caro-Kann is so tricky that few players have interest in this opening , This is much more complicated opening that sicilian dragon or the scotch game mieses variation also (i think).But it is playable , and it is recently also played in the game between Veselin Topalov and Hikaru Nakamura (2016)london chess classics .But Topi lost in that game. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1848832

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dc5 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. c3 e6 7. b4 a6 8. Nbd2 Ne5 9. Qa4 Nd7 10. Ne5 Ngf6 11. c4 a5 12. Nb3 ab4 13. Qb5 Be7 14. c6 bc6 15. Nc6 Qc7 16. f3 Bf5 17. Ne7 Rb8 18. Nf5 Rb5 19. Ng7 Ke7 20. cb5 Nc5 21. Bb2 Nb3 22. ab3 Qf4 23. Be2 Rc8 24. Rd1 Qg5 25. b6 Rc2 26. Bf6 Qf6 27. Nh5 Qc3 28. Kf1 Qe3 29. Re1 Qb6 30. Nf4 Qe3 31. g3 Qb3 32. Kg2 Kf8 33. Kh3 Qb2 34. Rb1 Qf6 35. Rhe1 e5 36. Nd5 Qe6 37. Kg2 Qd5 38. Rb4 Qd2 39. Rb8 Kg7 40. Kf1 Qh6 41. Kg2 e4 42. Rb3 Qe6 43. Re3 ef3 44. Kf3 Qh3 45. Rd1 Qh5 46. Kf2 Qh2 47. Kf3 Rc6 48. Rd4 Rg6 49. g4 Rf6 50. Ke4 Qh1 51. Kd3 Qb1 52. Kd2 Qb2 53. Kd3 Rc6 0-1 It is also reviewed by GM Daniel King - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPQJWJcGbzg
> -3 votes

---
Tags: opening, database, caro-kann
---


title: Endgame training for a 7 year old kid

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame training for a 7 year old kid
My 7 year old son plays competitive chess. He can checkmate with king and rook nicely. He can make a queen from a single pawn & king. Now, how to proceed for further endgame training?

# Answer
> 2 votes
When he is mating, is he just following a method blindly or does he understand it?

For instance in the two examples you mention, **zugzwang** and **opposition** are important themes, which are also relevant to many endgames. You can find many easy pawn only endgames with these motifs and since they are so fundamental, I'd start with these motifs. Somewhat related, **triangulation**, **key/corresponding squares** could also go here. All of these you can do in pawn endgames which, because of the few options you have, are generally easier to understand than if you add any other pieces.

Some more specific topics could be **king and rook-pawn vs king** (draw/stalemate), **mating with two bishops** (which is not all that difficult if you understand that two bishops can build something like a "wall" that the enemy king cannot cross and your own king can relatively easily push the enemy king to the border), **square rule** to quickly assess whether a king can catch a pawn before promotion.

If you think that these are too complicated at his current level, I'd forget about endgames for the time being and focus on opening/middlegame play.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"chess is a game you learn backwards"\_G.M. Susan Polgar. One of her basic lessons is to put 2 to 4 pieces on a board vs a lone K and ask how many #s can you make ? Single book with probably the most variety "chess"\_Lazlo Polgar..you need to edit for a 7 yr old- over 5 thousand problems ."how to beat your dad at chess" fairly recent # only book by G.M. Murray Chandler \[ solid book with ? title\] .Susan Polgar, Dan Heisman, Bruce Pandolfini are all modern style authors who write for novice players. In my opinion many of the mainstay classics are a bit dense and hard for kids to understand. Suggest ..stress Control the opponent vs just seeing the + . And of course keep it fun..use mistakes to get better..value the experience ..SLOW DOWN all newer players move to fast

# Answer
> 1 votes
I highly suggest the book 'Complete endgame course' by Jeremy Silman. It starts from the most basic of all mates starting with 2 queens and continues for more general endgames like Lucena and also touches advanced endgames including analysis of specific grandmaster games.

Along with the book, I suggest setting up positions to test if whoever is being thought understands what is happening and can do it easily. For example, drawing a endgame where the opponent has a pawn but you have the (distant) opposition, where the opponent is a computer.

Endgame in general requires lots of practice and experience. Do not expect one to be amazing at endgames after 1 to 2 years of practice.

Another way of practicing endgames after understanding the concept is to play Guess The Move for endgames by people like Fisher or Capablanca.

I personally feel learning endgames is better than learning middlegame after one does not blunder in the middlegame. From experience, players rated less than 1700 to 1900 do not study advanced endgames, so if one is able to survive the middlegame, knowing how to play a complex endgame is incredibly helpful. This doesn't mean to play openings like English or French which are less tactical, playing openings like Sicilian or Kings pawn/ Kings gambit can train tactical skills when learning. Of course when in tournaments you would play the openings which are more silent.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Check out the book Chess Endgames For Kids by Karsten Muller.

---
Tags: endgame, training, best-practice, coach
---


title: Stop pinned knight opening

text:
# Question
Title: Stop pinned knight opening
How can I stop my knight getting pinned like this in an opening.

I'd like to advance my knight and avoid the pin.

# Answer
> 6 votes
There are a few ways to deal with pins in general:

1. **Break the pin**. In the position you posted, a long term plan might be to play e3, Nge2 and O-O
2. **Ignore the pin**. In the position you show, if black takes on c3, he surrenders the bishop pair (specifically his better bishop) for a knight whilst giving you a semi-open b-file. But this is at the cost of a weakened pawn structure
3. **Play prophylactically**. This depends on the position though. Sometimes it is a weakening move, e.g. playing h3, O-O may allow a sacrifical attack with ...Bxh3
4. **Put the question to the bishop**. White may want to test black with a3, putting the question to the bishop of '*are you going to take or retreat?*'
5. **Play a cramped game with Nbd2**, which allows c3 if the bishop comes to b4

# Answer
> 2 votes
You will handicap yourself if you are always fearful of being pinned. Strong players know when to prevent the pin and when to allow it. Play through some well-annotated master games where a strong player allows the pin. And dont get carried away thinking about only aspect of the position

# Answer
> 0 votes
You play and develop your Knight to d2 instead of c3 or you make a delay to play the d4 move . You can even play e3 and then develop the King's knight to e2 and then Castle quickly so the Pin won't be served for a longer time .

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are a few ways to deal with (or prevent) pins. Normally it's not too big of a deal if a Bishop pins a Knight, since they are pieces of equal worth.

* Method 1: Prophylaxis - this involves taking precautions ahead of time to stop things your opponent might do to you in the future. In this case, one example would be pushing your a-pawn to a3, which prevents Bb4 (if this situation was on the Kingside, it would be playing h3).
* Method 2: Castle first and then develop the Knight to c3. This avoids being in a pin in the first place.
* Method 3: Have a Bishop ready to break the pin. If you still had your dark squared Bishop on the board, you could just move it back to d2 and defend your Knight, while at the same time breaking the pin.
* Push the Bishop away. In this case you would just play a3, and if the Bishop retreats to a5 then play b4. If you are worried about Black taking on c3 and doubling your pawns, first protect your Knight with a piece (such as Qd2 or moving your King's Knight to e2) and then push the Bishop away.

These are the main ways to deal with pins. If you really don't want to get involved with them, the easiest solution is to just play a3 before developing your Knight. It wastes a tempo, but if the game is closed like the one you have, it doesn't really matter too much.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Why is pawn to c4 opening advantageous?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is pawn to c4 opening advantageous?
Why is pawn to c4 opening advantageous in the screenshot above?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Because if black takes on c4 it loses Control of the centre and white will generally get that c pawn back sooner or later

# Answer
> 1 votes
c4 in general, controls more central square, opens Qa4 diagonal, gains Q side space. Your N can now hop to c3 without blocking your c-pawn (and in turn blocking your Q to a4 or b3).

c4 in this particular position (Queens gambit) is as @DammJoe said. To challenge d5 and black's center and white can easily regain it if black takes immediately.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Key Centre Squares of Chess are e4,e5.d4,d5 . Usually any of your Piece resides in these Squares it provides more Centre Control and best possible activity . Now coming to your Q c4 tries to deflect Black's centre pawn and opens up a diagonal for White . You see that White captures back the pawn with a Check and Queen gets activated . Similarly the c-file for White also opens up in this case .

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Finding checkmate sequence / Successful attack completion
Among my weaknesses (which I am aware of), the most irritating and the most important for me, at this point, is "checkmate blindness", whether because of time pressure or because of any other reason.

Most of the time I am able to develop a pretty tough attack that forces my opponent to defend and not letting him to seize the initiative.

The problem is that I can't see, **too often (!)**, a forced checkmate sequence and sometimes even mate in 1. Despite the fact that I am familiar with all checkmate patterns and easily checkmating a lonely king with knight+bishop etc.

My question is what is a good way to improve those checkmating skills when the board is not empty and the checkmate is not obvious? Solving checkmate puzzles doesn't help me too much because I know that the checkmate is unavoidable and I am able to find it.

For example, this is a game I played yesterday (white). Eventually, I won this game but I did not find the checkmate sequence 5 times! https://en.lichess.org/B6FRwado

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's one thing to be aware of the checkmating patterns, but it's another to have them fully cemented in your mind. The key here would for you to develop pattern recognition, which happens when you practice these checkmating tactics so much you can almost instantly see them in a real game.

I would suggest just solving countless checkmating tactics day after day. Do problems that have lots of pieces on the board - the checkmating patterns against a lone King, for example, won't help you much in a complex middlegame. Probably the best idea would be to buy a tactics book that either focuses on checkmate tactics or at least has an entire chapter dedicated to it. The other option would be to do online chess tactics, although I don't know of a site that allows you to pick which kind of tactics you want to do.

One chess book you could check out is: "1001 Deadly Checkmates by John Nunn". It's a fairly well recommended book.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm only rated ~1400 in online chess, but I think I can still provide some advice. In that game you played I can see three main problems with your checkmating attacks:

1. You're not exploiting pins on the king. There are multiple occasions where you could have taken the pawn on b6, but you miss the opportunity until later. This is just something you have to get used to. Pins on the king are a relatively simple way of attacking and if you start to think about how you can take pawns, placing the queen accross the king is usually a relatively easy way to grab one, if your opponent is unaware (which is probably the case at your rating).
2. You close up the position. On move 14, you put your pawn on b5, which immediately loses you a two pawn(!) advantage because it allows your opponent to close the position thereby protecting his king. Admittedly, I don't think I would have found Bc4 in this position either, but even if you can't find it, try to think more about your pawn moves. Pawn moves are especially important because you can't undo them. So instead of playing b5 in that position, you could just play something else entirely.
3. You let the king run away. Around move 40 you've obviously already won, but something you could improve on is keeping your opponent's king trapped. Around there you check their king with your bishop, allowing him to run away. If you're unsure what to play, just keeping your rook on a7 is fine. Eventually you can try to move around your rook and bishop to deliver checkmate.

Missing one-move checkmates is pretty normal and pretty much the same as one-move-bunders. You'll improve by playing a lot. One useful thing to think about during the game is to force yourself, every single move, to think about what your opponent's move does: Which square is it undefending? Which squares is it defending? Similarly, when you're just about to checkmating, try to think about what squares your opponent's king has and how you can take them away during every move.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As someone else has mentioned, it is important to know all the standard checkmating positions, which can be found in online tutorials. And while you are playing, you must always be aware of king safety. Many players concentrate only on their own moves and don't pay enough attention to their opponent's plans. You must always stay alert to both. Overlooking a mate in one is clearly an observation problem.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Something you might do is to practice the elementary checkmates versus a computer (KQvK,KRvK,KBBvK,KBNvK, especially the first three) I disagree here with Inertial Ignorance for two reasons. If you get one of these endings in a speed game you want to be able to finish the game WITHOUT THINKING. The second reason is that you should try not simply to force the mate, but to do so in as few moves as possible. Keep a record, and try to get better. Even in these basic end games you need to think about when to check, when to cut off the Kings escape, when to improve your worst-placed piece (and what does that even mean?) Which squares do you control and where have you left a gap? KBNvK is very hard, and although it does not come up very often, it really teaches planning, and even waiting. Do not think of learning these endings, but of learning how to think.

---
Tags: checkmate, attack
---


# Question
Title: Consistently playing moves below my potential
Basically: I make blunders. The most disgusting, reprehensible, indefensible mistakes that I would've discarded had even one neuron in my brain noticed it before I moved. I know everyone experiences them to a greater frequency than they would prefer. But I can say that they are without a doubt the **number one** deficiency in my play, and also the number one thing detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

I play mostly online, and am around 1900-2000 on lichess after several on-and-off years of chess. Up until recently I have always played with long time controls (~30 minutes with increment), although I have started experimenting with blitz in an attempt to remedy my tendency to take an unreasonably long time studying certain positions and still making outright blunders; this hasn't helped. Regardless of the time controls, I still always feel myself at an imbalance compared to my opponent because while I may have slightly superior technique that'll allow me to chisel fractions of a pawn of an advantage each move, I am more prone to naked blunders throwing the whole game away in one move (and unless it's blitz, I have little hope of recovering since my opponent can play consistently).

I really don't think this is just in my head. I've tried "slowing down" (even though my calculation/processing style is already very laid back), I've tried "checklisting" for blunders (but the checklisting just becomes a hollow routine that can't even cover all the dynamic ways I can screw up), I've tried just waiting throughout months of playing but I don't feel I'm adapting. I love studying and practicing the more refined aspects of chess, and I feel like I'm capable of it the vast majority of the time, but I'm really only as strong as the weakest link in my performance. Has anybody else that's felt the same as me managed to improve their recurrent blindness?

# Answer
I don't know that I have any good answers for your question, but I wanted to commiserate with you. One can learn a new opening variation or master an unfamiliar endgame, but such improvement is only incremental as this new knowledge gets applied only once in a while.

What you are asking for is to improve something that is central to defining your playing strength. If we could all have perfect tactical vision, we would be as strong as computer engines.

I'm also relatively weak in this area, but recently I was able to go from uscf 2200 to 2300+. One thing I tried to do was consider additional candidate moves in my thought process to better avoid tactical blunders, but I didn't find that helped much.

What did help though a bit was me focusing on bringing harmony to my pieces and position with every move. What I mean by this is that I made it a priority to make sure that my pieces protected each other instead of being potentially hanging on a limb unprotected. As GM John Nunn has said, loose pieces drop off. If you have harmony in your position among your pieces, then there are many fewer opportunities to blunder material because even if you miss something the tactics will tend to work out in your favor more often.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> while I may have slightly superior technique that'll allow me to chisel fractions of a pawn of an advantage each move

This is quite telling. I played a game myself where I've had to make a choice between 2 captures; either take a bishop or take a knight. My reasoning might be:

> I will take the bishop, because bishops are worth slightly more than knights.

Then I will be mated, as the knight supported a queen-mate.

In these cases, you need to recognize that the game is at a critical point, then calculate the concrete variations as accurately as you can.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I significantly reduced my blunders by switching to a positional style play and avoiding dynamic lines. I studied openings enough to avoid anything dynamic and force my opponent into positional play.

This had another advantage of putting me into familiar and safe openings, where I could spot my opponents traps quickly.

From a safe position, I could look for common mating patterns without worrying about throwing a piece away in a blunder. I think positional players also tend to frustrate tactical players and improve the odds of capitalizing on an opponents blunder.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Yeah, tell me about it!

The most helpful thing I was ever told is "Try to remember that every move weakens something" It leaves something (a piece or a square) unguarded, releases a pin, blocks a line for you, opens a line for him, blocks a retreat square, etc., etc. I think it was in a John Nunn book.

The least useful aspect of this is the bit about trying to remember. THAT is the problem.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, blunder
---


title: Resignation methodology

text:
# Question
Title: Resignation methodology
Is there a method to determine whether or not a player should continue playing, or resign?

I would currently consider myself a beginner at chess. So when for example I make a bad decision and lose a lot of material early, I will be naturally deflated from the loss and be tempted to resign.

# Answer
It depends on your level. At the beginner level, most people recommend not resigning and instead playing until there is either checkmate or a stalemate. If you're a beginner playing against other beginners, blunders are so common that even being a queen behind doesn't guarantee losing.

Once you get past the beginner level, an easy way is to ask yourself if you know how you would force a win if you had the other side's pieces. If you do, then you would consider resigning.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I don't think there is a universal method to determine whether you should resign. Many factors could affect your decision

First of all, if you are just playing a practice match for fun, you might want to resign earlier (assuming you have a lost position) instead of fighting till the bitter end. On the other hand, for a beginner player you can learn how to convert an advantage if you do not resign.

In a tournament however the situation is different and even if you have a theoretically lost position you might not want to resign immediately for any of the following reasons:

* if your opponent is **short on time**
* if the **position is sufficiently rich** (complicated with e.g. many pieces on the board); giving you swindle chances and your opponent options to screw up
* if you think that your **opponent is too weak** to reliably convert his advantage in a normal position (playing a beginner you might still want to continue with a queen down or so, while playing a GM in most cases they will squeeze out a win if you are down say two pawns or so)
* if you are **playing in a team** and your loss would help your opponents to adapt their strategy: for example, knowing that they have a point for sure on your board they could go for draws on other boards in some situations

Whatever you do avoid playing out until the end, completely lost/easily won positions against reasonably strong opponents.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: beginner, resigning
---


# Question
Title: I need to get rid of Black's light-square Bishop
I've self-taught myself Chess, and played against computers (as in the board shaped ones) and I quite quickly found an opening that isn't strong, but it is not bad. I'm fairly new at this "Algebraic chess notation" so if I slip up and use something like the more verbose NB1-C3 please just go with it.

f2-f4 is bad. Immediately white is defending (because black WILL do Nf6, this is a great move for black as it protects h5 and g4, h5 is a good square for a certain queen.... (another long term thing I have found to be good for black is a7-a6, as this protects b5))

g2-g4 is another bad one, Black moves d7 and the light square bishop gets it. This does achieve my goal, if my goal is also to lose my queen.

My opening (all these are white's moves) goes as follows:

1. d2-d4
2. Bf4
3. e2-e3
4. c2-c3

Depending on what black does I may do any/all of:

* Bd3
* OR Bb5 - this is either a check or a knight lock (putting pressure on black to castle high-side, giving me a good chance to attack by getting my queen to H7, a checkmate)
* ND2 (this is a good defensive move and brings that knight into play on the high side, if I've played NF3 these two cover each other Ng5 covers that A7 square I want to get my queen into, thus would be a checkmate)

This - feels - like a good technique because it forces black to keep a lot of pieces on the high side (keeping that checkmate valid)

The only problem is it doesn't really keep black's queen busy, which is why I move my dark-square bishop out of the way early, it doesn't stop me from castling if I can see something bad coming later. It's also not very useful, I find my dark-square-bishop just.. gets in the way really. Putting it there gives me the chance to sacrifice it to get rid of something annoying, it might also keep the queen off d6. Which is the only way she can attack my high-side with the pressure this puts on black's high-side (which keeps the H7 checkmate valid).

HOWEVER I am constantly foiled by Black's "useless" Bishop. The light square one that starts at C8, especially if it gets on the B1 to H7 diagonal, especially on the higher end of it.

I need help finding a variation of this that can get rid of that irritating Bishop! This method "feels" good because it has that backup-night (if my high-side one is taken, the other knight is a move behind)

Now some of you might thing this is too vague, but there is a surprisingly small number of "good moves" I think the description here should be adequate to give you an idea of what I am talking about. If not I can expand it (give me a question to answer) but I've tried loads of plays and then gone back a few moves to try a different line! I don't know how to salvage this.

There's not much I can do with my light-bishop in this game other than try and get black to castle with it. Unfortunately it's pretty much stuck on the (rather empty) low-side. I cannot bring it back onto that diagonal (B1-H7) as bait for that Black-light-square-Bishop because I cannot protect it to trade with, I'd be giving up a piece and stalling the game by a move.

I'm not quite sure what I hope for as an answer either, I found this a week ago (or so) and thought "it can't hurt to ask".

# Answer
You can try

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nh4

```

If you insist on trading a knight for black's light squared bishop, then this is how you typically achieve this, since the Bf5 cannot go home once the e-pawn is standing on e6. Playing white, you have an extra tempo, which means that you will most probably succeed with such plans.

Of course, black can choose a g7-g6 pawn structure. But then, h7 is less interesting as a target and you should either build up pressure on d5 (c2-c4, Nb1-c3, Qd1-b3) or perhaps try a Qd2-Bf4 battery to exchange off black's g7-bishop via Bf4-h6.

I guess the good thing about your setup is that you have a strong control over d4 and e5. But don't hurry with c2-c3, because you might want to do c2-c4 in a single move to attack the d5-square.

Edit 2014-03-26:

Black can insert h7-h6 to open a pocket for the bishop on h7. Same as white can do h2-h3 to open a pocket on h2. That will cost a move, yet it might be well invested. There is no "forced" way to exchange off black's light squared bishop. There are some variations, e.g. the Slav, where in some lines white manages to make this exchange happen. A well prepared player will always find ways, with both colors :)
> 2 votes

# Answer
> **John** : I need a new car.
>
> **Joe** : Ok, let's buy one!
>
> **Mark** : Wait. Why do you need a new car?
>
> **John** : Because the battery in my car is really bad and my car doesn't start quickly.
>
> **Mark** : Have you tried installing a new battery?
>
> **John** : Gosh! Why didn't I think of that?

It seems to me you are saying something similar to "I need a new car" when you say "I need to get rid of Black's light-square Bishop".

That bishop is NOT necessarily your problem and if you think it is, then you still have a lot to learn.

First of all, if you play **d4** and the system you described (**Bf4**, **e3**, **c3**), you cannot always prevent the bishop from coming to the b1-h7 diagonal. If you forcefully try to always achieve this, you will definitely compromise your own position.

It seems to me that the reason you find this bishop "irritating" is because you are **limiting** your plans to checkmating Black on h7. The bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal does foil these ideas. But maybe that should teach you that the "checkmate on h7" plan will not always work. So you should ask yourself, "**What else can I do instead of checkmating on h7?**" instead of asking how you can get rid of black's light squared bishop.
> 12 votes

# Answer
You have this fantasy of planning out an unstoppable operation based on a threat to checkmate. I believe that this is because you have had no real contact with strong human players. Nobody above a beginner level thinks like that, and Chess is much more interesting because of it. Most players begin the game with only a very vague idea of what they would like to do, and their plan constantly changes in response to the opponent's moves. Playing for mate from an early stage is seldom successful because strong players will see your obvious threats and avoid them. At a strong amateur level, pressure against a weak pawn may result in an advantageous endgame where the extra pawn becomes a Queen and only then, when you have an overwhelming force, do you start to think about checkmate. Although your opponent may very well (and really should) frustrate you by resigning. Games at master level are even subtler.

Do most of your games with the computer follow a similar course? If so, you are both persevering with some limited approach to the game. It may be amusing and satisfying for you to take on the challenge of beating that particular machine, but it won't make you a good player.

I apologise that I did not answer your question. What I tried to do was to convince you to seek a better question. Good luck with that!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory
---


# Question
Title: Get percentage amount of Stockfish usage
Is it a way to paste FEN from a game and see how many of those moves Stockfish would recommend doing? If the percentage is high, the person has most likely been using it. Is there a way of doing this? Thanks.

# Answer
This is a question related to the general topic of using of a chess engine to cheat. There has been quite a lot of research on this by people like Kenneth Reagan. I have also done some research in this area and made some open source tools available that will allow you to generate statistics on move matching with engine choices. I think these would do what you are asking.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


title: What's the name of this set design?

text:
# Question
Title: What's the name of this set design?
I'm looking to buy a nice wooden set and board, something I've wanted for a long time. I have this Kasparov vs Karpov picture as my desktop background

and I love the set, but I can't find one quite like it. Does anyone know the name of this style of set, or where I could get one?

# Answer
> 3 votes
From Tony Rotella on the reddit page I pointed to this one:

> They're DGT "Timeless" pieces: http://www.digitalgametechnology.com/index.php/products/eboard-chess-sets This has been a very standard FIDE design for a long time, though there have been slight modifications over the years to (at the least) the pawns and bishops I believe. You might also be interested in these, which are basically the same: http://www.houseofstaunton.com/the-championship-series-chess-set-3-75-king.html

---
Tags: chess-set
---


title: Chess GUI Java Swings code needs fixing

text:
# Question
Title: Chess GUI Java Swings code needs fixing
My Taken Pieces Panel clusters ugly with the pieces.

Here's my code :

```
class TakenPiecesPanel extends JPanel {
private final JPanel northPanel;
private final JPanel southPanel;
private final Dimension TAKEN_PIECES_DIMENSION = new Dimension(80, 80);

TakenPiecesPanel(){
    super(new BorderLayout());
    this.setBorder(PANEL_BORDER);
    this.northPanel = new JPanel(new GridLayout(8, 2));
    this.southPanel = new JPanel(new GridLayout(8, 2));
    this.add(this.northPanel, BorderLayout.NORTH);
    this.add(this.southPanel, BorderLayout.SOUTH);
    setPreferredSize(TAKEN_PIECES_DIMENSION);
}

void redo(final MoveLog movelog){
    this.northPanel.removeAll();
    this.southPanel.removeAll();

    for(final Piece takenPiece: whiteTakenPieces){
            final BufferedImage image = ImageIO.read(new File(BoardUtils.ICONS_PATH +
                    takenPiece.getPieceColor().toString().substring(0,1)+
                    takenPiece.toString()+".gif"));
            final ImageIcon icon = new ImageIcon(image);
            /*This didn't work too
            final JLabel imageLabel = new JLabel(new ImageIcon(ic.getImage().getScaledInstance(
                    ic.getIconWidth() - 15, ic.getIconWidth() - 15, Image.SCALE_SMOOTH)));*/
            this.southPanel.add(imageLabel);
            this.southPanel.add(new JLabel(icon));
    }
    validate();
}
}

```

The images are displayed in a single column and when the number exceeds the column limit, they are displayed in the adjacent column. This is when the panel gets ugly.

I'm a beginner in GUI programming. I've tried increasing the panel size but it won't work. Please help me out.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Your GUI design is bad. I'd just do this:

```
White pawn x3
White queen x1
Black pawn x2
....

```

Draw a chess piece and add a number to it's top-right corner. It's like how iOS and Android show the number of unread SMS messages you have.

Nobody wants to count the number of pawns in your panel. Just add a number.

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: Select and deselect piece to move mode in Arena
In Arena I select one field with piece I want to move or click some field accidentaly. Suppose after that I changed my mind and want to make move by other piece, now when I click new piece nothing happens and I have to find what field is selected and deselect it first by clicking on it. This mode is very annoying for me. How can I switch it off? I want to select new piece to move just by clicking it once.

# Answer
Although there may be a solution for your problem, I suggest you get used to it instead, as it follows the official laws of chess and deters you from doing otherwise.

> 4.3 Except as providedin Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard:
>
> a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched which can be moved

Good practice for visualization and proper chess etiquette.

Source: https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article
> 1 votes

---
Tags: arena
---


# Question
Title: What is considered a decisive evaluation of a board in chess?
Following on from this question, it was suggested in answer and a discussion in the comments that an evaluation of a board of +1.5 is 'decisive' in the sense of allowing an estimation of which side would win with reasonable certainty.

However, this was debated as to whether it would hold at a professional or amateur level as a rule of thumb. Thus, my question:

What evaluation at the amateur and professional level is sufficient to make a reasonable determination of the outcome of the game, barring highly anomalous moves by either party?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You need to realise that any number given as answer (including the 1.5) is just a rough estimate which depends on many factors. Professional players were mentioned because their play will be close to that of computers so that blunders/mistakes do not affect the statement. An evaluation around 1-1.5 in the midgame often means that the player can make use of his advantage further improving the evaluation. On the other hand in an endgame with few pieces on the board a similar evaluation can be a lot more drawish because there are few options to improve.

And there are many other reasons why you can't really give absolute numbers.

If you want to discuss the situation for amateur players it gets really vague as you need to make assumptions about the blunder rate. Perhaps the following is useful....

When analyzing a game in lichess, the engine knows three levels of error: *blunder, mistake, inaccuracy* corresponding to a change in evaluation of 3, 1, 0.5 respectively. So for instance if you start from an advantage of 5, you can make a blunder and still have a won position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Also there are times when the numerical edge doesn't mean much, or the computer can't see far enough ahead to realize it's a draw. Endgames can be particularly thorny. An extreme example is above. My chess engine (Fritz 11) gives +4.8 for White, but it's drawn. Black shuffles the rook between a2 and a1 and leaves the king at h7. A computer might see this given infinite time, but if we are looking for a relatively quick evaluation, it will misfire.

```
[fen "R7/P6k/8/8/8/8/6KP/r7 w - - 0 1"]

```

Another classic example is opposite colored bishops. Fritz 11 gives me +2.0 for White after 5+ minutes in one of the linked games ("Illustration of a drawing concept"), but Black's fortress means Black can either force e6 or exchange a bishop for two pawns.

How do you draw in an opposite color bishops endgame with two pawns down?

# Answer
> 2 votes
In the great book "How to win better positions", it was calculated that an advantage of about +1.50 is enough to win, provided both sides play PERFECTLY. If the evaluation is less than +1.50, it should be a draw if, once again, both sides play perfectly.

That being said, no one plays perfectly (not professionals, or beginners). However, it is safe to assume that professionals are much closer to this "perfect" level of play. So we only need to increase the +1.50 by a small amount. +1.80 to +2.00 should be enough to more or less guarantee a win for one of the sides in a match between two professionals.

However, there are other variables to take into account. If the position is simple and one side is up 2 clear pawns (giving a +2.00 advantage), then there is a +99% chance the professional will win. Conversly, if the position is very complex and one side is up 2 points just by the engine evaluation, then the outcome is not at all certain. The engine may evaluate a complex position to be +2.00, but for humans in a practical game it could seem equal to them.

For amateurs, we need to increase the margin far greater, since they are far from the margin of "perfect play". To guarantee a win for an amateur, one would probably need to provide at least a +3.00 advantage, due to the possibility of blunders and mistakes. Even at this level of an advantage though, it is not certain that an amateur will not make some game losing blunder.

For beginners, there is likely no advantage you can give that will ensure a win. Beginners make game losing blunders very frequently, which makes an engine evaluation more or less moot. There is no evaluation that would guarantee a win for beginners, due to the unpredictability of their skill.

To summarize, for top level professionals about a +2.00 advantage is needed to secure the win. For amateurs, you'd probably need at least a +3.00 advantage. For beginners, there is no number. For engines that play "perfectly", at least a +1.50 advantage is needed. However, it is important to keep in mind that it depends on the type of position too. Simple positions provide more certainty that the better side will win. Complex positions make the result far more uncertain.

---
Tags: evaluation
---


# Question
Title: What are the symptoms of a weak back rank?
In the search for answers beyond immediately threatening back rank mates. How early is it possible to spot that you'll have problems down the aisle, from a strategic perspective? What are the defining characteristics of this position?

# Answer
This puzzle from chess.com shows a back rank weakness:

```
[FEN "3r1k2/1p5p/pqn1Qpp1/5n2/8/5BP1/PP3P1P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxf6+ Kg8 2. Bd5+ Rxd5 3. Re8#

```

It shows that:

1. The heavy pieces have to exploit the weak back rank
2. To exploit the weak back rank, there has to be at least one open file
3. A sacrifice (2. Bd5+) may be needed to lure away a defender
4. The weak back rank is typified with there being no escape for the king if it is checked

Back rank mate is the most common checkmate. The earliest when you need to think about it is when:

1. Heavy pieces are still on the board
2. Files are being opened
3. The defending rooks are leaving the back rank (maybe deflected, exchanged off, going to the centre etc.)
4. When the king has castled, usually kingside, with no *luft* having being made e.g. black hasn't played ...h6
> 2 votes

# Answer
One of the most famous chess games ever. Both sides have back rank mates!

**29...Qb2!!** (0-1) wins the game for Black by back-rank mate

> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261680

* None of the king-side pawns move
* Both kings are behind the pawns and have no escape square
* There are open-files on the board
* Both side has a rook and a queen exploring the open files
* No white rook on the back rank defending (the white rook is on the third rank)
* The white queen is the only piece guarding the f1 square
> 3 votes

# Answer
The main hallmark of a weak back rank is that your king is hemmed in by pawns, pieces, or squares controlled by your opponent so that it can only move sideways. It may also have insufficient defenders (rooks or queen) or defenders may be blocked from defending the king by other pieces.

But the back rank is nearly always weak - what you need to watch out for is opportunities your opponent has to exploit that weakness. For example, their rook is on an open file or a file that can be opened by a tactical maneuver or sacrifice. A weak back rank can really only be exploited by your opponent's rooks or queen, so keep an eye on them, and on the availability of escape squares for your king. You basically never want those guys on your back rank if you can help it.

Yet it can also be a mistake to waste a tempo you could have used for attack to prevent a potential back rank threat that may never come, or to weaken your pawn structure in front of the king just to give him an escape square. This is why back rank threats remain such a common motif.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Najdorf poisoned pawn with or without 7..h6 8 Bh4
In the Sicilian Najdorf poisoned pawn variation what is the difference between including the moves 7...h6 8 Bh4 (as many top players do) and not including them?

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 (7...h6 8. Bh4 Qb6 9. Qd2 Qxb2) 8. Qd2 Qxb2

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
One reason is that it avoids a certain line that you would get after playing 7...Qb6, which is **8.Nb3**

If Black plays 7...h6 first, 8.Bh4 Qb6 **9.Nb3** is no longer possible because Black can play **9...Qe3+** winning the f4-pawn. This would not have been the case in the 7...Qb6 line since the bishop would have still been on g5, protecting the pawn.

Another reason is that sometimes Black would like to play ...g5.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 (7...h6 8. Bh4 Qb6 9. Nb3 Qe3+ 10.Qe2 (10.Be2 Nxe4) 10...Qxf4) 8. Nb3 Be7 (8...Qe3+ 9.Qe2)

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, 7....Qb6 is actually more popular than 7....h6. At the very top level, both moves have their supporters, e.g. Anand and Grischuk for 7....Qb6 and Vachier-Lagrave and Nepomniachtchi for 7....h6.

Both moves can easily transpose, as the main line of the Poisoned Pawn goes 7....Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 h6 11.Bh4.

After 7....Qb6, white has the option to play 8.Nb3, as mentioned by Seth-Riley. With the inclusion of 7....h6 8.Bh4, 9.Nb3 is not possible because of 9....Qe3+.

However, after 7....h6 8.Bh4 Qb6, white has the option to play 9.a3. If black takes the pawn with 9....Qxb2, white can trap the queen by 10.Na4. Instead black should continue his development, for instance with 9....Be7. Now white can play 10.Bf2, which is of course possible thanks to the inclusion of 7....h6 8.Bh4.

```

      [StartPly "13"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 h6 (7...Qb6 8.Qd2 (8.Nb3) Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 h6 11.Bh4) 8.Bh4 Qb6 9.a3 (9.Nb3 Qe3+)(9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.e5) Be7 (9...Qxb2 10.Na4) 10.Bf2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Originally the Q that you have asked would cover a book with both Variations pros & cons with Games from Top level being annotated . There are no two very different significant ideas stemming from the above lines .

You can play both and find out yourself which one you are comfortable in .

I would like to bring out one difference which is when you play the h6 and then Bh4 then Qb6 I would say that you play Be7 also which removes the Knight pin . As I can say this variation is quite difficult for White to make the K-side attack which is generally the main line .

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Nfd7 12.Bc4 Bb4 13.Rb3 Qa5 14.O-O O-O 15.Bf6

The above is one of the main lines in Najdorf Poison Pawn and extreme ultra sharp . If Black makes one single mistake he will face the danger of getting exploded . So compared to the above h6 is quite a good line to consider .

You can even play h6 later and not only on 7th move as such no such a great difference can be pulled out .

---
Tags: opening, theory, 1.e4, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Chess variants where black is considered equal?
In normal chess, black isn't that bad, but not that good either. White has the initiative and opening theory dictates how to win these positions. Variants like Chess960 have made it possible to play with common sense rather than grandmaster sense. But still correct play leads to the same result in variants that do not offer a pawn for either side right in the opening. While there are many books that try to convince me that black is OK, still the statistics show other things for normal chess at least. So that leads me to my question. Are there any chess variants where black is considered equal? Not better, just equal.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In Synchronistic Chess, both players make their moves simultaneously. Black *must* be quite equal in this variant!

Additionally, a bunch of the variants listed on the Wikipedia page could likely be considered "equal" for Black, as they may involve elements of chance that would be far more significant than the first-move advantage normally conferred on White. Some variants have arbitrary rules that change from game to game, though these may be getting so far removed from actual Chess that their inclusion is a bit questionable. ;-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here is a link with statistical information about different kind of chess960 positions. If you will look at the very bottom, where white score is the worse ( `White score = (White's winning percentage) + (Draw percentage / 2)` ), you can see that positions like `RBQKBRNN` and `RNKBBRNQ` are statistically favorable for black.

**P.S.** statistics does not really mean that they are in fact good for black. It might also mean that the engines who played black in these positions where much higher.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is the variant where the first player plays one move with white, then the second player decides which side they want to continue as. The player who ends up playing black then continues as normal. This way it is to the advantage of white to make a first move that gives both sides equal chances.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Apart from Synchronistic chess, two more variants that fall into this category are Synchronous chess and Parity chess.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: What are the possible terms for interference in the bishop endgame?
In various positions in elementary bishop endgames, the stronger side tries to prevent the sacrifice of the bishop for the last remaining pawn by interposing the diagonal with the bishop. For example, second position in this Centurini article. What are the possible terms for this idea? Besides 'interference', can it be called a 'bridge', by analogy with rook endgames?

# Answer
Dvoretsky in *Endgame Manual* just calls this technique *interferring*.

*Building a bridge* in RPvR endgames is slightly different as it is about sheltering your king from checks from the enemy rook, not about preventing the rook from sacrificing itself for the last remaining pawn.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What is the benefit of making the first move with a Knight?
I know that some moves from some opening can transpose to another.

But if I move my knight first, does it have benefit to me? In my Houdini, it shows lower value than I move a pawn first.

Best Regards,
Ahmad

# Answer
> 3 votes
## INTERLUDE:

I have answered many of your questions, and from that I conclude that you build some sort of a program or statistics.

The goal of the opening is to introduce as **many** pieces as possible, and to do it **as fast** as possible. In this process, your pieces must occupy **the most aggressive** squares available.

From the statistical point of view `1.e4` attacks 2 central squares and opens **the best diagonals** for the queen and bishop.

`d4`can not develop queen aggressively, but opens the black bishop.

**These moves do not develop a piece**, they **only claim space** ( in order to put a piece on those squares your opponent must exchange the pawn ) **preparing** the piece development.

Now let us look at the knight move:

`1.Nc3`-\>**you develop a piece**, you attack ( **but do not claim!** ) 1 central square and 1 on the wing, you fortify your own squares ( `e4` and `a4` ), but you do not open paths for other pieces.

`1.Nf3`-\>same as above, only different squares are attacked.

Why does knight move attack a square while pawn claims it? Because pawns have the lowest value, in order to put pieces at squares controlled by them you need to first exchange that pawn. Knight does not claim the square because you can **challenge** the knight more easily by putting the bishop/pawn/knight on that square.

What is better-to develop pieces or to seize space first?

First 2 moves usually seize space, and are followed by piece development. Therefore, most games start with a pawn move, and then pieces are developed.

Statistically speaking, **it is better to open with a pawn** ( it claims important central squares and opens lines for the pieces to come out ) but chess is more than just statistics.

So to answer your question:

> What is the benefit of making the first move with a Knight?

So what is the point of the knight move? To understand that observe these two examples-we shall consider only White's moves to preserve space:

`1.e4 ... 2.Nf3 ... 3.Bc4` and `1.Nf3 ... 2.e4 ... 3.Bc4`

In both cases we reach the same position.

*The point of the knight move is to **get favorable transposition** from one opening into another. It is used frequently to **sidestep sharp variations**, confuse opponent or "kick him out" of his opening.*

Objectively speaking, there is no difference between `1.e4/d4/Nf3/Nc3` because **you will need to play them all at one point**, it is all about move order. However, as someone pointed out, knight moves give opponents **greater** freedom of choice because they do not **claim space**.

This means that "knight-first" player **must learn more** than "pawn-first" one but in return has a good chance to steer the game into variations he **knows will be good for him** which can not be said **with 100% certainty** for his opponent. Also, forcing opponent to play certain opening/line makes **strong psychological impact** on him.

This might seem insignificant to you, but in professional chess this "trick" is used often by **stronger** opponent.

To preserve space, I recommend you the book *Andrew Soltis-Transpo tricks in chess*\*.

It will clarify what I have said in this post.

If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It's not worth it to analyze 1st moves with an engine. It's better to see possible variations in ChessBase's ECO view because you need to play opening which suits your mind style or antisuits your opponent's. An engine can't help you with that.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Generally moving a knight first gives your opponent more ways to respond, so you have a lower chance to steer the game in the direction you want. On the other hand it gives you a little bit more flexibility, as you postpone the decision which pawn to move.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In general, where there are significant enough amount of games played in a particular position, there is little value in looking at a computer evaluation unless you're considering some deeper novelties. And that's especially true when looking at openings, which engines have been known to show errant evaluations for and for which engines generally use user-defined opening trees (strongly encourage using these for opening practice) anyway when playing in tournaments.

A better way would be to look at actual game results. So, e.g. looking at the chessgames opening explorer win - draw - loss percentages

* 1. e4 = 37.6% - 32.9% - 29.5%
* 1. d4 = 37.5% - 36.8% - 25.8%
* 1. Nf3 = 36% - 39.9% - 24.1%
* 1. c4 = 37.5% - 37.8% - 24.7%

Now, the numbers themselves might be confusing. More importantly are expected results

* 1. e4 = .376(1)+.329(.5) = .5405 points out of 1
* 1. d4 = .375(1)+.368(.5) = .559 points out of 1
* 1. Nf3 = .36(1)+.399(.5) = .5595 points out of 1
* 1. c4 = .375(1)+.378(.5) = .564 points out of 1

So is 1. Nf3 better than 1. d4 or e4? Probably not. And it's unlikely 1. c4 is some wondrous first move that produces better results than any other. More to the point, I would be willing to wager that any difference in results here is insignificant enough to warrant a change in opening move if you're more comfortable with another one.

Also note, that the above doesn't take into account who plays the games, and many other factors. For example, one opening move may have a higher percentage of beginning player than another.

And an interesting 2-part article on chessbase recently went in-depth into the e4/d4 debate and is probably an interesting read if you actually think one opening move is going to have a strong edge here.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Using knight in first move is a good option, for instance 1Nf3 you can ilude your opponent to think you are gonna play reti or queens pawn or kings indian attack and also you avoid some crazy gambits . It's a good way of start for a queens pawn player because it reduces lots of theory

# Answer
> 3 votes
**1.Nf3** develops a piece, prevents 1...e5, gives black no targets (e.g. 1.e4 can be challenged with 1...d5 immediately) and keeps all options as far as pawn moves are concerned open.

Instead of choosing to place a pawn on e4, d4 or c4, white first sees what black's first move is. He may choose to play something like 2.g3 and 3.Bg2 to delay even further, depending.

That's quite a few benefits.

# Answer
> 2 votes
1. NC3 should not be underestimated. There is an excelent book called "Knight on the Left" by Harald Kielhack, that is also among the best general chess book I know.

I normally open 1.e4 but about one game in eight I roll out 1.Nc3. Why? THere is no risk because there is no refutation. Quite often I get into standard open or semi-open positions with my opponent having used some extra time. And Black can get quickly into trouble with some very plausible moves

1.Nc3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. Nf5! 0-0 7. Nxe7+ Qxe7 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 10. Bh6 Re8 11.e3 with a very pleasant advantage.

I dont have general philosophical justification for you, 1.Nc3 offers not quite such a good chance of opening advantage as the four main moves, but it can be effective if you pick your opponents. PLayers who are prone to time trouble, players who will try too hard to refute it, players who know much more regular book than you do.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, knights
---


# Question
Title: Is checkmate possible in knight vs knight pawnless endgame?
I see plenty of information stating that a Knight and King vs a King is a Draw because a mating position is not possible. I also see that it IS possible, no matter how unlikely, to acquire a mating position with 2 Knights, therefore that would technically NOT be a Draw. I would "assume" a Knight vs a Knight (no pawns) is also a Draw, but I don't see that stated anywhere. Does the extra Knight on the board allow for the possibility of a mating position? For example, somehow blocking it's own King in. If so, does anyone have an example?

# Answer
Yes, it is indeed possible :) I'll give you the coordinates for the pieces in a possible mating position, and you can set it up on your chessboard.

Place the White King on g6.

Place a White Knight on f7.

Place the Black King on h8.

Place a Black Knight on g8.

```
6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 1

```

In that position, Black's King is checkmated. Although, I doubt even the biggest beginner would ever let that happen to them :) You would only be able to checkmate in that endgame if your opponent literally played the worst moves multiple times in a row.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In speed games, you only win when your opponents flag falls if you have mating material. This means that mate is possible, however unlikely. So if a position with K+N vs K+N is on the board, and one players flag falls, then they have lost. Infuriating for the loser.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, knights
---


# Question
Title: Is the expression 'fixing pawns' or 'fixed pawns' - a proper term to describe blockaded pawns?
I feel this 'fix' terminology may have come as a direct translation from Russian chess literature (so I see it used in Dvoretsky's books); is 'fixed' really a proper English term to describe pawns that are blockaded (especially in the endgame) by opponent's pawns and have little or no chance of advancing?

# Answer
Often pawns are "fixed", it's more than them just being blockaded. For example assume Black's pawns are on b7 and a6. If White pushes his a-pawn to a5, he is fixing the b-pawn on the b7 square, since it's backwards and can't move. However, in this example no one would really think White's also "fixing" the a6 pawn, even though it's blockaded.

But then you have another case like the following: suppose Black has an isolated pawn on c5. If White pushes his c-pawn to c4, many would say he is fixing the weak c5 pawn, so that it can be easily attacked.

But assume Black had two extra pawns on d6 and e7, forming a pawn chain from e7 to c5. If White played c4, I doubt there would be many that considered White was "fixing" the c5 pawn.

So, when someone says "fix" they are most often talking about when you keep one of your opponent's weak pawns from moving. This is just arbitrary terminology though, and I don't think saying a blockaded strong pawn is "fixed" is *wrong*.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As far as i know, the term 'fixed pawn' is used exactly when a pawn is being blocked by other pawn, and thus can't move. The term 'blockade' is usually used when a piece is blocking the pawn, and we do use different terms for blocking with pawns and pieces because a fixed pawn (block with pawn) is static, while a blockaded pawn (block with piece) is dynamic (the blockading piece can always be kicked away from it's position, and the pawn becomes mobile again)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: Looking for way to “punish” the d5 push after 1. d4 Nf6
All is said in the title. I find the move 2. d5 after 1. d4 Nf6 pretty annoying even if it's probably not a great move. What are suitable moves to "punish” this opening play? I will add that I am more of a Benoni/Benko player.

# Answer
If you're a Benoni player, there's nothing wrong with 2... c5, which will get you in familiar territory (3. dxc6 e.p. is harmless and not something White wants to play - exchanging a center pawn for a flank pawn).

While it's not a great move, Black isn't immediately better, just about equal. So it's dangerous to try to 'punish' this move, especially if White has probably more experience with this line than you (and less with the main Benoni/Benko lines).
> 7 votes

# Answer
The most direct way to punish this move seems to be to attack the d-pawn immediately. Black gets a very slight advantage. For example

```
 [FEN ""]
 1. d4 Nf6 2. d5 c6! 3. c4 cxd5 4. cxd5 Qa5 + 5. Nc3 b5! 6. Qd3 b4 7. Qb5 Qb6 8. Qxb6 axb6 9. Nb5 Ra5 10. e4 Nxe4

```

I'd recommend that you run this line by the engines. They do tend to agree that this line gives Black a very slight advantage.
> 7 votes

# Answer
If you like the Benoni, 2...c5 is definitely an option. However, the kicker here is that White doesn't have to play 3. c4 and transpose to the main line. Instead, White could play 3. Nc3!? and if you play 3...e6 then 4. e4! could be unpleasant.

A solid option would be 2...e5. While this gets you out of your familiar territory, it does give you good play on the dark squares. Example:

3. c4 Bc5 (or Bb4+) 4. Nc3 a6 (giving the Bishop a strong home on a7) 5. e4 d6 sees Black's typically passive dark-squared bishop enjoying activity.

One last suggestion could be 2...b5. It prevents 3. c4, and if 3. Nc3 then 3...b4. Since White also can't play e4 for the moment, the d5 pawn is vulnerable. You can play Bb7 and e6 to put pressure on it and take it out.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Why is 1.d4 a good move? Partly ecause it controls the central squares c5,e5. What squares does 2.d5 weaken? c5 and e5. Good plans would take advantage of this. . 2...e5 looks very nice with ..Bc5 to follow
> 2 votes

# Answer
Wes's answer seems quite good but I think ...e6 is also a strong alternative. The point is that you just get pieces out, and d5 comes under pressure. It also seems that, since you play the Benoni, the exd5 capture will lead to positions favorable compared to the main lines, since White never has time for e4. You can castle and play Re8 (f3 is not really an option, as White's king knight will be terrible for a while). Your position will not be cramped. Here is what happens if Black tries to push pawns.

```
 [FEN ""]
 1. d4 Nf6 2. d5 e6 3. c4 (3. Nc3 Bb4) Na6 4. a3 Nc5 5. b4 Nce4 6. f3 Nd6 7. e4 Nfxe4!

```
3. ...Bb4 is also good here, and maybe less risky, as Black can just threaten to exchange the bishop for the knight, again either winning a pawn or collapsing the White center. The two bishops aren't enough compensation for the loss of time from d4-d5-dxe6 or a3.

So 2. d5 looks annoying until you find a way you like to go against it. The main thing is to attack the pawn immediately and force White to trade it for a less aggressive pawn or waste time defending it. Fortunately, there are pretty straightforward moves to dissipate White's advantage, but there are more adventurous ones like Na6 too. So I bet after you see it a few times, you will have fun neutralizing it.
> 1 votes

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


# Question
Title: How do people use chess software to improve their practical skills?
I'm currently using chesstempo to get better at tactics, reading books on strategy, analyzing grandmasters' games, etc.

My current rating is around 1800 and I am planning to gain 200-300 points within the next couple of years.

I'm considering investing in a chess software either ChessBase or ChessAssistant and would very much welcome some use cases of how you use them to improve your practical skills?

# Answer
This is a very broad question. The following topics all seem to be relevant:

1. Learning about chess theory (opening and endgame, as well as *priyomes*, which are appropriate stratagems for certain typical aspects of a position)
2. Didactic methods (i.e. how humans learn)
3. Pattern recognition and memorization
4. Productive chess play against a chess engine
5. Analysis skills improvement
6. \[I'll think of another one in a minute...\]

---

1.a Openings To learn an opening, you need to have the objective of *knowing what move to play in a given position from that opening*. The word *position* is critical; if you only learn a given sequence of moves, you will get outwitted by an opponent who starts by playing one opening, and then plays a move that isn't in that opening, but which transposes to another. For example, your repertoire includes the Dutch Defence vs 1.d4, so when your opponent plays 1.d4, you reply 1...e6 (you avoid playing 1...f5 immediately, to preclude the Staunton Gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4).

This (1.d4 e6) allows your opponent to play 2.e4, which transposes to a French Defense (normal order is 1.e4 e6 2.d4). The *position* is what tells you it's a French, not the move order.

To learn openings using positions, get a chess position trainer (some are free), and load up your repertoire. The trainer will give you flashcard-like training on random positions, and you need to reply with the correct move for that position; the way you got there is irrelevant.

1.b Endgames To learn endgames, you need to a) determine which ones to learn, b) find the theory somewhere, c) learn that theory, and d) develop competence in applying that theory.

Software can:

a) Tell you the relative frequency of different endgame types. For example, Rook v Rook endgames occur in about 50% of all endgames, but K+B+N v K occurs only once in 6000 games. Learn RvR; skip K+B+N v K.

b) Teach you the theory. The better chess software packages come with an Endgame Trainer module, but you can also just download a very inexpensive one; I recommend the Chess King app ***Ending*** for Android in the Google Play Store; it's ported from the PC version, ***Total Chess Endings*** (by ChessOK, the same company on the PC platform).

c) The Endgame module will illustrate how the ending is handled, and then pose problems for you to solve that incorporate that ending.

d) A chess database can help you find examples of that ending in practical games. You can grab one of these at the point where the game transitioned to that ending, and play it out against an engine. Then, go back to the actual game and see what the masters did. BTW: You should choose games where the players were both rated at least 2200; lower-rated players are virtually guaranteed to mishandle most practical endings to one degree or another; some 2600+ ELO players do it, too.

1.c Priyomes A *priyome* is a typical procedure for handling a specific aspect of a position. It deals with limited numbers of pieces, and implements a key idea. For example, when trying to create a passed pawn the general priyome is to *push the candidate first*, i.e. the pawn that has no opposing pawn on its file.

I haven't found a single source for priyomes in software or databases anywhere, but software can help you play out a priyome that is illustrated in a book. I can recommend "How to Choose a Chess Move", by GM Andrew Soltis, for some examples of priyomes. Find the games from that book in a games database, and play through the variations he gives.

If you can afford it, either *buy your chess literature in software form*, or *take the time to load the games from a book into a database*. If you do the latter, extract them from a large database, such as a version of MegaBase from ChessBase, or the equivalent from Chess Assistant.

Why do your chess study in software form? The fact is that chess instruction in software is much more effective than it is on paper, because:

* You don't have to spend time setting up the position or moving the pieces
* You waste no time in resetting the position to review the lesson from the beginning
* You can review a difficult variation separately, and easily return to the mainline without losing your train of thought while resetting the pieces
* You never make a mistake in setting up the position
* You can speed through uninteresting moves or even jump to critical positions effortlessly and completely accurately
* You can analyze an interesting line that wasn't included in the material, and return to the text easily
* You can use a chess engine to analyze the position at any point in the lesson, if you want to explore further or just want a better understanding of why a particular move works or fails
* You can even add notes and variations to help you learn the material
* You can test yourself not only with the exercises, but also by repeating the lesson materials, hiding the given moves and attempting to guess them instead, with immediate feedback

I only addressed the first topic, and this answer is already 2 screen's worth, so this is probably an appropriate place to take stock (and a break).

Feel free to post questions about the other topics, and I'll try to address them there.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I know that I, for one, have used them to tell me why a line not mentioned in the books is bad. Most books show you all viable lines of play and maybe a few dubious ones, but a book can't mention all possible variations. More often than not, my opponent will play something very early on in an opening that isn't mentioned in any of the books I have on hand and so I assume it's incorrect play but struggle to know why it's an inaccuracy and how I can punish the inaccuracy. This is where, in the absence of a seasoned pro, a computer can be useful.

Let me illustrate with an example. I am a Trompowsky player and I learned most of my lines from a book by Peter Wells and a video from Andrew Martin. Together they cover a lot of material and I feel reasonably prepared to play at least passed move 8 or so. In many blitz games, however, I was frequently encountering the line:

> 1. d4, Nf6
> 2. Bg5, Ne4
> 3. Bf4, g5?!

Now this *g5* move is not listed in any material I've come across. I can probably assume it's bad or it would be mentioned as a viable line, but I couldn't come up with why it was bad over the board. Maybe with careful analysis, I could, but if you are like me, time is in short supply. I am a husband and father to 4 so I need to make good use of my time. Or, in this case, good use of the computer's time. Finally getting tired of seeing this line in view of

> 4. Be5, f6
> 5. Bg3, h5

and I'm not sure where the bishop is going to go after *h4*. So I put the position into the computer after *4. Be5, f6* and let it run for awhile. After some time it came up with the surprising

> 5. e3!, ...

threatening *Qh5#*. I had completely missed this and always assumed that the bishop must keep on moving or retreat all the way back to *c1* after *3. ..., g5*. You can argue that I should have been able to find this without a computer, but the fact remains that I didn't and there are plenty of situations out there where my opponent may play something dubious but I may struggle to find out why it's dubious and what the correct response is.

In sum, I think you'll find it useful to use a computer to refute variations that appear strong on the surface, but aren't mentioned in your reading material so it's not likely that they are as strong as you fear. Computers can easily find those counterintuitive moves that will shock your opponent who isn't as prepared.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Honestly a Chess Software does not let you to learn the depth of the Game . It never helps you to learn strategy or think in terms of a human mode , for an example majority of gambits are coined into a negative score for Computers but as for Humans they are a big psychological bonuses .

Well the biggest plus is that you can improve on your openings because you need to memorize them and learn the whereabouts and you can feed a position to see which lines or moves are best in this position , what is the Score etc .

It is always good to watch videos in Chess.com, Youtube and other websites from GMs where you get the real insights of the Game .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, learning, software, database
---


# Question
Title: Is it always a good idea to trade a bishop for a knight if the enemy has castled and is forced to disrupt his castle's pawn structure?
I want to thank you beforehand for taking your time to read and (hopefully) answer this. My question is a bit ambiguous, so I'll give an example. Let's say I'm playing white, the enemy has castled king-side so his king is on g8, with his rook on f8, and his knight is on f6. Also, he's got his three castle pawns at their original positions. My dark-square bishop is fianchettoed and I can thus trade it for his f6 knight. If he can only take the bishop with the g7 pawn, opening up his king, when is it a good idea to trade (i. e. what other factors affect if it is a good idea or not)?

```
[FEN "5rk1/5ppp/5n2/8/8/8/1B3PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
As always with such questions, the correct answer is "It depends on the position!".

For example if your opponent doesn't have an e-pawn, you will create isolated doubled pawns, which are generally quite weak. But in a 4 vs 3 rook endgame, with all pawns on the kingside this structure is actually better for black than f7-g7-h7 because it is harder for white to create a passed pawn.

Taking gxf6 will often weaken the black king, but only if you are actually able to attack him. If you have all your pieces on the queenside he might just play Kh8, Rg8 and start an attack on your king!

So, this is a weakening of his structure, but you have to be able to take advantage of it. Otherwise a bishop might just be more useful than a knight.
> 8 votes

# Answer
It's "usually" a good idea to capture a knight in this situation. If possible, you might consider using a rook on f1 to make this capture. The reason is that you have a second rook to control the open file, but only one dark-squared bishop to control the diagonal a1-h8,

It's always a good idea to capture the knight if you can see a way to a winning combination. (This will often be the case.) Then finish the combination and win.

Another poster pointed out that capturing might cause endgame problems for you. That is if the game lasts till the endgame. If you capture, it's your job to see that it doesn't.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are a lot of factors which gets counted in situations like this .

1. If you see that there can be a Kingside attack after you break the castle and you have a lot of initiative with the pieces forcing a strong attack on the King .
2. According to the diagram above it might be that you will be closing the centre soon with your pawns and your pawns will belong to the dark squares so you part with your dark square Bishop.
3. A situation in End game can arise where your & your enemy Pawns are all on one flank and you do not have any other pawns in other flank . You can trade your Bishop for a knight because Knight is generally worse if you need to control both flanks .
4. If it is a Middle game and your Knights are on good central squares like d5 or f5 , h6 somewhere then it is surely a good choice (Weak Squares around the King).

There can be other factors also but the above is the most common .
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Outsmarting an intelligent copycat in the Ultrasymmetrical English
I used to be a fan of the English, but some ultrasymmetrical variations bugged me, especially if a lower rated player decided to play for a draw against me with them. There seemed to be a lot to consider to get any sort of meaningful advantage, if Black really wanted to be annoying. No players ever did, but that's probably because they themselves were worried about slipping and losing a painfully boring game where they never really had a chance.

I played e3 after c4/Nc3/g3/Bg2, so obviously one solution is to play c4, Nf3 and d4...or an entirely different first move.

But I'm wondering, how would someone get around an opponent who deliberately tries to frustrate them with smart copycat moves? Are there a couple lines that give clear convincing edges? I can see how the pawn trades at d4/d5 create a structural imbalance, but I don't see when and where White has an edge.

Fritz evaluates the position as equal below.

```
[FEN ""]
1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. e3 e6 6. N1e2 N8e7 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 d5 9. cxd5 Nxd5

```

In this case, Black finesses the copycat by not playing ...d5 on move 7, which would be bad then, but it can't be stopped on move 8.

And now it doesn't seem like anything White does gets an edge. With Nxd5, Black's pawn is isolated, but Black can return the favor. If White moves the knight, Black has a nice diagonal, and White's QB is bad.

Also, even if a symmetrical position is achieved, as after 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. O-O Nxd4 12. exd4 O-O, what is a good plan to try to shake it up? I think something like Qa4 might work. But it just seems very drawish.

Usually it's White who can force the symmetrical pawn structure e.g. with the Slav or French exchange. But here Black forces it on White.

Is it what White "deserves" for not playing more in the center, and does waiting for ...d5 defuse things for Black, or am I missing possibilities e.g. a way to inject life into this by pushing d4/taking on d4 differently? Or is there a good concrete line with, say, Nf3, where Black can copycat me for only so long? In that case 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. d4 cxd4 7. Nxd4 d5 looks bad for Black, as does 6. ...d5.

Thanks!

# Answer
> 4 votes
In general, the best way to prevent Black from copying you is to go for the d4 push. If you play the e3 system, it is indeed very easy for Black to equalize with no problems at all.

It's best to go for the main line with 1. c4, 2. Nc3, 3. g3, 4. Bg2, 5. Nf3, 6. 0-0. If Black copies you up to castling, then you immediately go for 7. d4! with a slight edge. If Black plays 6...d5 instead of castling on the 6th move, then you just take on d5. Black's now playing the position you would have had with 7. d4, just a tempo down. This tends to allow you to pressure Black with Qb3 / Qa4 ideas, combined with pressure on the g2 - a8 diagonal from your Bishop.

In any case, in this line both options for Black (copying you up until castling and playing d5 first) lead to asymmetrical positions that should be marginally better for you. But most importantly, they are not dead equal like the line you demonstrated above.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The line you give, 1.c4 c5 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.e3 e6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 d5, indeed leads to an equal drawish position.

Actually, 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.d4, the second line you give, seems to be a better try to obtain an advantage, as 6....d5 7.dxc5 should be better for white. Instead of 5....Nf6, there are probably several ways for black to maintain equality, e.g. 5....d6, 5....e6 and 5....e5, but white successfully avoided a symmetrical position.

Another way in the English to avoid symmetrical positions is 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4, as both 3....d5 4.cxd5 and 3....cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 are better for white.

```

      [StartPly "2"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.c4 c5 2.g3 (2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 (3...d5 4.cxd5) 4.Nxd4 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4) g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 (5.e3 e6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 d5) Nf6 (5...d6)(5...e6)(5...e5) 6.d4 d5 7.dxc5

```

---
Tags: opening, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Intention of two moves of Topalov vs Anand
What was the intention for the moves 23. ... Bb6 and 24. ... Bd7 ?

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Topalov"]
[StartPly "45"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. Ne5 c5 7. Na3 cxd4 8. Naxc4 Bc5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nd3 Ba7 13. Qa4 Nc6 14. Rac1 e5 15. Bxc6 b5 16. Qc2 Qxc6 17. Ncxe5 Qe4 18. Qc6 Bb7 19. Qxe4 Bxe4 20. Rc2 Rfe8 21. Rfc1 f6 22. Nd7 Bf5 23. N7c5 Bb6 24. Nb7 Bd7 25. Nf4 Rab8 26. Nd6 Re5 27. Nc8 Ba5 28. Nd3 Re8 29. Na7 Bb6 30. Nc6 Rb7 31. Ncb4 a5 32. Nd5 a4 33. Nxb6 Rxb6 34. Nc5 Bf5 35. Rd2 Rc6 36. b4 axb3 37. axb3 b4 38. Rxd4 Rxe2 39. Rxb4 Bh3 40. Rbc4 Rd6 41. Re4 Rb2 42. Ree1 Rdd2 43. Ne4 Rd4 44. Nc5 Rdd2 45. Ne4 Rd3 46. Rb1 Rdxb3 47. Nd2 Rb4 48. f3 g5 49. Rxb2 Rxb2 50. Rd1 Kf7 51. Kf2 h5 52. Ke3 Rc2 53. Ra1 Kg6 54. Ra6 Bf5 55. Rd6 Rc3+ 56. Kf2 Rc2 57. Ke3 Rc3+ 58. Kf2 Rc2  1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Well I'm no GM but for me there's a couple of things going on.

1. In the given position white is threatening to take the pawn on a6
2. If white can get a knight to d6 he will fork the rook on e8 and the bishop on f5, so winning the exchange after a move like Bd7

Thus black's move 23 protects the pawn on a6 by uncovering the line of the rook on a8. White then tries to get his knight to d6 via b7, and black stops the fork by moving his white squared bishop back to d7.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Alongside @IanBush's answer, the bishops prevent white's doubled rooks from penetrating black's camp:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Topalov"]
[StartPly "48"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. Ne5 c5 7. Na3 cxd4 8. Naxc4 Bc5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nd3 Ba7 13. Qa4 Nc6 14. Rac1 e5 15. Bxc6 b5 16. Qc2 Qxc6 17. Ncxe5 Qe4 18. Qc6 Bb7 19. Qxe4 Bxe4 20. Rc2 Rfe8 21. Rfc1 f6 22. Nd7 Bf5 23. N7c5 Bb6 24. Nb7 Bd7 {[%draw full,c4,red][%draw full,c5,red][%draw full,c6,red][%draw full,c7,red][%draw full,c8,red][%draw arrow,b5,c4,green][%draw arrow,b6,c5,green][%draw arrow,b6,c7,green][%draw arrow,d7,c6,green][%draw arrow,d7,c8,green]} 25. Nf4 Rab8 26. Nd6 Re5 27. Nc8 Ba5 28. Nd3 Re8 29. Na7 Bb6 30. Nc6 Rb7 31. Ncb4 a5 32. Nd5 a4 33. Nxb6 Rxb6 34. Nc5 Bf5 35. Rd2 Rc6 36. b4 axb3 37. axb3 b4 38. Rxd4 Rxe2 39. Rxb4 Bh3 40. Rbc4 Rd6 41. Re4 Rb2 42. Ree1 Rdd2 43. Ne4 Rd4 44. Nc5 Rdd2 45. Ne4 Rd3 46. Rb1 Rdxb3 47. Nd2 Rb4 48. f3 g5 49. Rxb2 Rxb2 50. Rd1 Kf7 51. Kf2 h5 52. Ke3 Rc2 53. Ra1 Kg6 54. Ra6 Bf5 55. Rd6 Rc3+ 56. Kf2 Rc2 57. Ke3 Rc3+ 58. Kf2 Rc2  1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
...Bb6 because the a6 pawn is hanging; ...Bd7 because of the threat of Nd6 forking the Re8 and Bf5. Black wants to keep the bishop pair.

---
Tags: beginner, anand, topalov
---


# Question
Title: What to play after 4.d3 in the Two Knights for Black
Against `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4` I usually play the Two Knights Defense, but I don't really know what to play after 4.d3. I'm bored to death in the Giuoco Pianissimo (4...Bc5) and 4...Be7 is a bit dull.

So what would you recommend for Black to play to spice it up, for a player who enjoys asymmetrical positions? Even if it's a bit inferior from a theoretical point of view to the aforementioned lines.

# Answer
If you really want an unsymmetrical position, don't play `1...e5`. White has many move order options to steer the game into a relatively quiet position in double king pawn openings.

There are a few things that you can consider in order to keep the game interesting. First and foremost, if you must win at all costs, I would recommend playing `4...Be7` in order to keep all of the pieces on the board. Black will be cramped for some period of time, but since all of the pieces remain on the board there is plenty of play left in the position.

If you just want open lines, then consider playing an early d5. For example:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 O-O 6.O-O d5

```

The downside is that lots of pieces can get traded, but black has easy development plans with Bg4, Nb6, and f7-f5 once the white bishop moves off of the diagonal.

With all that said, although black can have a hard time creating immediate imbalances, white has a very hard time getting an advantage with the Italian game, so generally keeping the pieces on the board and accepting equality will let the better player outplay his or her opponent and win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
While I wouldn't really recommend this to one of my students in a serious tournament, if you wanted to spice things up you could go for the h6 - g5 plan. The idea is simple: pawnstorm White's Kingside.

Usually this idea is very dubious, since White can counter your side attack with a timely d4 push (the attack in the center makes the pawn storm look bad). However, in your example if White has already played d3, playing d4 would waste a move, something White may not have time for.

An example of the line:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 h6 7. Rel g5!? most likely followed by ...g4, pushing your Kingside pawns and gaining some control over the d4 square.

Though to be honest, 1...e5 isn't really the best opening for getting double-edged, "non-boring" positions. Most lines in 1...e5 (Italian, Ruy Lopez, etc) lead to pretty dull games. If you want more exciting positions, I'd recommend studying the Pirc or Sicilian, though these do of course require a bit of dedicated work to play well.
> 1 votes

# Answer
With the caveat that I've only played it twice, and that was because it was an on line themed tournament (I don't normally play 1 ... e5), but I have had fun with 4 ... h6 to stop Ng5 tricks followed by a king side fianchetto. Yes it's an attempt to turn a Two Knights into what I normally play (Pirc or Modern) but it in my limited experience it seems more interesting than either of the bishop moves. The one completed game so far:

```
[Event "Italian Game Themed Tournament"]
[White "Somebody"]
[Black "Ian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C55"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 h6 5.O-O d6 6.c3 g6 7.Re1 Bg7 8.h3 O-O 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Bb5 a6 11.Ba4 b5 12.Bc2 c5 13.Nf1 Bb7 14.Ng3 Qc7 15.Nh2 d5 16.Ng4 Nxg4 17.hxg4 Rad8 18.Qe2 d4 19.cxd4 exd4 20.f4 c4 21.Kh2 Qe7 22.g5 hxg5 23.f5 Be5 24.Qg4 f6 25.fxg6 Bc8 26.Qf3 Qc7 27.b4 cxb3 28.Bxb3+ Nxb3 29.axb3 Kg7  0-1

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Games of Mikhail Tal under the influence of alcohol
It is commonly known that Mikhail Tal was an alcohol addict and also had a morphine addiction for a short time.

Are there any games where he played under the influence of drugs that affected his play, or had any troubles regarding this matter with an arbiter?

# Answer
> 1 votes
> I \[William Hartson\] remember him vying for first place with another Soviet grandmaster in a tournament in Holland. On the night before the final round they began buying each other drinks and lining up the empties on the table. When I left them at around 2am, Tal had the remains of 11 drained brandies, his rival had 11 empty rum-and-cokes. They continued for another two hours. At 8.30 in the morning, Tal trotted downstairs to start the last round looking fresh and relaxed. He won easily to take first prize, while his drinking companion was happy with a quick draw.

Source: The Independent

I'm going to search for this game when I get home this evening.

---
Tags: famous-games, tal
---