# Question
Title: What happens should a clock fail during the game?
There are a number of ways a clock can fail during a game.

Battery runs out, player pushes button by mistake and resets it, falls on floor and breaks, kiddie smashes toggle button hard with captured queen and clock stops \[I have seen that kiddie type of hitting the clock hard with a piece usually a queen on several occasions\], yada yada.

So what happens if in the middle of a game the clock stops working correctly?

This would clearly impact games more that are nearing the end and players are in time pressure, as well as for speed games where the delay in correcting the problem would have more significance than at the beginning of a long slow OTB game.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Per FIDE rules 6.10a and 6.10b (I am including the latter since it is so closely related in that it can require the arbiter to adjust the times based on judgment):

> 6.10 a. Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgment when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clocks
>
> 6.10 b. If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings.

Per USCF rules:

> 16 O. Defective clocks. Every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects. A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as aware of it. A clock with an obvious defect should be replaced, and the time used by eachplayer up to that time should be indicated on the new clock as accurately as possible. The director should use judgment in determining what times shall be shown on the new clock. A director who decides to subtract time from one or both players shall leave that player(s) with the greater of either five minutes to the time control or at least one minute for each move the player still needs to meet the time control.

Again, I am going to include this since it is closely related, and is akin to what I posted for FIDE above.

> 16 P. Erroneously set clocks.An erroneously set clock should be handled in the same fashion as a defective clock. As in 16O, the director should use judgment in deciding whether to make time adjustments. The most common situation of this type involves an analog clock set to expire at 7:00 rather than the correct 6:00. This is best handled by pointing out to both players that the time control expires at 7:00. Clocks can also be reset for the correct time controls and the correct elapsed timefor each player.Sometimes this hour difference is not pointed out and there is an eventual time claim. Even though the clock may show 6:00 with a flag down, or the signaling device on a delay or digital clock indicates a flag fall, if the total elapsed timeshown for both players is about an hour more than possible, considering when the game started, the player should not be forfeited, and should be given the hour in question.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This was more of a problem with the earlier generation (early 2000's) of digital clocks. One of them had a fault which meant that if you gave it a bit of a smack then the battery might jiggle inside, momentarily interrupting the electricity supply and it would reset.

The post 2010 clocks don't have this problem, probably they just fitted a small capacitor to maintain current. Nevertheless most arbiters with more than a few years experience will be familiar with the problem and what to do, having probably handled the situation several times in the past.

The arbiter knows the start time, the current time, the increment and the current move number. From this he can work out how much game time is left. This remaining time is split equally between the two players, the clock adjusted appropriately and the game restarted.

Variations on this scenario can occur if the arbiter has recently had cause to write down the times of the clocks and thereby take into account different amounts of time taken, however this information has to be very fresh to be fair since somebody who was 5 minutes ahead on the clock quarter of an hour ago could easily be 5 minutes behind now.

If both players have been recording the time and have up to date time notations which match then these could be used. If only one player has such notations then they can only be used if both players agree.

If the clock is faulty it should be replaced and this entails a follow up rule for tournament organisers, that they should have several spare, working clocks with good batteries available.

Also worth noting that for more critical games the arbiter should move the players away from the board while sorting out the problem. Calculating the adjustments to be made and replacing the clock will take a couple of minutes and if the players are allowed to sit in front of the board then this could confer an unfair advantage in additional thinking time for one of the players.

---
Tags: rules, fide, chess-clocks, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Good Knight Against Bad Bishop Endgame - A More Constructive Plan?
I reached the position below in a recent tournament game

```
[Event "Recent Tournament"]
[Site "Deepest, Darkest Oxfordshire"]
[Date "Feb 2020"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "A Young Victim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "~1850"]
[BlackELO "~1850"]
[ECO "C55r"]
[StartPly "52"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc6
bxc6 9.O-O Bc5 10.f3 Ng5 11.Be3 Qe7 12.f4 Ne4 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 O-O 15.
Nb3 Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 f6 17.Nc5 fxe5 18.fxe5 Be6 19.Rae1 Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 Rf8 21.
Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.Nb3 Bd7 23.Qc5 Ke8 24.Qxe7+ Kxe7 25.Nc5 Bf5 26.c3 h6 27.Kf2 Bc8
28.Ke3 Bf5 29.Kd4 Bb1 30.a3 Bc2 31.Na6 Bb3 32.Nc5 Bc4 33.Ke3 Ba2 34.Kf4 Bb1
35.h4 Bc2 36.g3 Bb1 37.Nb3 g6 38.Nd4 Kd7 39.b4 Bd3 40.a4 Bb1 41.a5 Bd3 42.Nb3
Bc4 43.Nc5+ Ke7 44.h5 gxh5 45.Kf5 Be2 46.Kg6 Bd1 47.Kxh6 Be2 48.Kg5 Bg4
49.Nb3 Bd1 50.Nd4 Kd7 51.Kf6 Ke8 52.Nxc6 a6 53.e6 Bg4 54.e7 Bd7 55.Nd4 Bh3
56.Ne6 Bxe6 57.Kxe6 h4 58.gxh4 d4 59.cxd4 c5 60.d5 1-0

```

Though I ultimately won I have to admit a good part of it was waiting for my opponent to make a mistake - my opinion was that only black could lose this one so I'd try and slowly improve things waiting for a mistake in a difficult position, and then hopefully pounce. But is there a better plan which does not involve my opponent being cooperative and I can just win whatever he does? Sample variations to illustrate ideas would be appreciated - especially as this is a thematic endgame from the opening I use, and so I would like to learn how to play it better. I should also say I saw at various points how I could win a Q side pawn or two but was worried it was taking my wonderful knight out of play and sometimes saccing the e5 pawn to get 2 Q side pawns, which again I was not convinced was a good bargain - was I being too cautious?

For what it is worth both he and me are about 1850 FIDE (converted from ECF), and my plans to improve the position were

1. Get everything on black squares so he doesn't have any targets
2. Edge my pawns forward making them closer to queening when the breakthrough occurs
3. Plant the king on d4 or f4 again for the breakthrough
4. Combine varying the angle of attack of the knight against the Q side pawns with threats of e6 to try and win one or more of his Q side pawns

# Answer
First, the good: You are probably winning this throughout the game, and thus, improving your position gradually was the perfect plan. It also was one of the best examples of Shereshevsky's "Do Not Hurry" principle that I have ever seen. Black could do nothing, so gradually improving, and eventually converting, was perfect since you had all the time in the world. Having this much time is, obviously, not that common in chess, which leads me to the next paragraph.

Now, for the bad, and you even allude to in in your question when you said "was I being too cautious?" I do not know if this is a pattern in all your games, but you showed a lack of calculating when it was just winning, and a lack of action. You need to work on concrete play. In games where you do not have that much time, that might be the difference between winning and drawing, or worse.

I am not trying to be hard on you, but rather, just to point this out. In fact, just yesterday, I read this article, and you might find it helpful.

Here are my notes to the game.

```
[Event "Recent Tournament"]
[Site "Deepest, Darkest Oxfordshire"]
[Date "Feb 2020"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "A Young Victim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "~1850"]
[BlackELO "~1850"]
[ECO "C56"]
[PlyCount "119"]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O Bc5 10. f3 Ng5 11. Be3 Qe7 12. f4 Ne4 13. Nd2 Nxd2 14. Qxd2 O-O 15. Nb3 Bxe3+ 16. Qxe3 f6 17. Nc5 fxe5 18. fxe5 Be6 19. Rae1 Rxf1+ $2 {This was, indeed, way too cooperative. The Be6 should blockade the pawn, and the rooks should seek counterplay on the queenside.} (19... Rfb8 20. b3 Rb5) 20. Rxf1 Rf8 $2 {I am tempted to give this positional lemon two question marks. } 21. Rxf8+ Kxf8 22. Nb3 (22. b4 {Is typical here, not wasting time, but since there is no good way of avoiding getting the queens off, it is worth it.}) 22... Bd7 23. Qc5 Ke8 24. Qxe7+ Kxe7 25. Nc5 (25. c3 $1 {A little refinement preventing d4 since Ke6 does not help.} Ke6 $2 26. Nc5+ Kxe5 $4 27. Nxd7+) 25... Bf5 (25... d4 26. Kf2 Bf5 {Black is still worse, but finally with some potential for counterplay.}) 26. c3 h6 27. Kf2 Bc8 28. Ke3 Bf5 29. Kd4 $18 {THE perfect initial setup.} Bb1 30. a3 (30. a4 $1 {Concrete play.} g5 31. a5 Bg6 32. Na6 Kd8 33. Nb8 Be8 34. Kc5 {And just wins.}) 30... Bc2 31. Na6 Bb3 32. Nc5 (32. Nb8 $1 {Again, you avoid concrete play.} Ba4 33. Kc5 Ke6 34. Nxc6 a6 35. Nb4 Kxe5 36. Nxa6 c6 37. Nb8 $18) 32... Bc4 33. Ke3 Ba2 34. Kf4 Bb1 35. h4 Bc2 36. g3 Bb1 37. Nb3 g6 38. Nd4 $6 {Although it loses a pawn for black, you allow counterplay, and the one move black has been trying to play the whole game, c5. It still wins, but unless you calculated it all well, it is not a move I would allow here.} Kd7 (38... c5 39. Nb5 c6 40. Nxa7 Kd7 {The computer has no doubt you are winning, but if I got here in my calculations, I would worry about the semi-trapped knight here, and even after e6+, I get it out, will the extra pawn still be winning.} 41. e6+ Kxe6 42. Nxc6) 39. b4 Bd3 40. a4 Bb1 41. a5 Bd3 42. Nb3 Bc4 43. Nc5+ (43. Nd4 Bd3 44. g4 Bb1 45. h5 g5+ 46. Ke3 {And Nf5 or e6 will win.} Be4 47. e6+ Kd6 48. e7 Kxe7 49. Nxc6+ $18 Kd7 50. Nxa7 c6 51. b5 cxb5 52. Nxb5 Kc6 53. Nd4+ Kb7 54. Nf5) 43... Ke7 44. h5 $1 gxh5 45. Kf5 Be2 46. Kg6 Bd1 47. Kxh6 Be2 48. Kg5 Bg4 49. Nb3 Bd1 50. Nd4 Kd7 51. Kf6 Ke8 52. Nxc6 a6 53. e6 Bg4 54. e7 (54. b5 $1 {Again, concrete play.} Be2 55. b6 {And queens.}) 54... Bd7 55. Nd4 Bh3 56. Ne6 Bxe6 57. Kxe6 h4 58. gxh4 d4 59. cxd4 $6 (59. h5 {While not technically a mistake, you should have seen this common mating pattern easily.} dxc3 60. h6 c2 61. h7 c1=Q 62. h8=Q#) 59...c5 60. d5 1-0

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
What a beautiful domination of black's king by the knight and pawn setup on `c5,e5,` white is essentially up a king in this endgame!

Given that black is completely unable to create any threats, you have all the tempi to centralize your king and aim for a specific setup thereafter.

One potentially simpler plan that springs to mind is, targeting black's weak pawn on `c6.` The problem for black is, they cannot prevent your king from getting to the `c5` square, and once you do, all that remains is to reroute your knight to also target `c6` and win the pawn. Once `c6` falls, then you win the `d5` pawn, or the `a7` pawn with your knight shortly after, depending on how black plays it. Here's a diagram roughly summarising our plan:

<sup> *green: our basic setup, then, blue: the knight reroute to c6* </sup>

Additionally, you want to have your `a` pawn as close to the promotion square as possible, then black can never really afford losing the `a7` pawn, which means `d5` will have to be given up \[\*\]. For the feasibility of this advance, note that once you play `a4`, which is also covered by your knight on `c5`, black can never paly `a5` to block your `a` pawn on light squares, since after `a5`, white will force a passer along the `a`-file with `b4`:

<sup> *a4 can never be met with a5: white creates a passer.* </sup>

Finally, here are a few lines, showcasing how our plan can be concretely executed:

```
 [title "concrete assessment of our queenside plan to target c6"]
 [fen "8/p1p1k1p1/2p4p/2NpPb2/8/2P5/PP4PP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1.Kf2 Bc8 2.Ke3 Bf5 3.Kd4 Bb1 (3...Bc8 {this is a line to show that in case black decides to keep the bishop on c8 preventing Na6 of our mainline, we simply achieve the same setup except c6 is targeted via Nd3 to Nb4.} 4.a4 Kd8 {black is trying to pretend there's a fortress and will only make waiting king moves, because what else can be done ...} 5.a5 Ke7 6.Nd3 Ke6 7.Nb4 Bd7 8.Kc5 Kxe5 9.Nxc6+ Ke6 10.Nxa7 {can already stop here since the win is easy from here, but let's try a few more moves} Ba4 11.a6 Kd7 12.b3 {distracting the bishop from the control of c6, so we can reroute knight to a5 and promote} Bxb3 13.Nc6 Ba4 14.Na5) 4.a4 Bc2 (4...a5 5.b4 {black cannot prevent the creation of a passer along the a file.}) 5.a5 Bf5 6.Na6 Bc8 (6...Kd8 7.Nb8 Bd7 8.Kc5 {and c6 falls anyhow, this is even a worse version than Bc8 Ke6 for black.}) 7.Nb8 {and our main setup has been established, c6 will fall forcibly.} (7.Nxc7 {would be a terrible blunder and completely inconsistent with our plan. The blunder lies in that our knight would be trapped. We want to target c6 no matter what black does.}) Bd7 {an attempt to try and hold on to the pawn} 8.Kc5 Ke6 9.Nxc6 a6 (9...Bxc6 Kxc6 {loses trivially as our king is too fast in mopping up the remaining queenside pawns and our a pawn promotes quickly.}) 10.Nb4 {either a6 or d5 fall next, and the conversion is trivial thereafter.}

```

Try to play further with these kinds of lines to see if you can find any means for black to challenge our main plan. These endgames can be a lot of fun to mull over :)

\[\*\]: since after your knight takes on `c6`, `a6` will have to be played to keep the `a` pawn, thus, the bishop is overloaded by the defense of two isolated pawns on light squares: `a6` and `d5`.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Looks like an easy win for white. You have to be careful how you do it but getting the k to the qside to pick up the rook pawn or else win the bishop as you advance the kpawn without the black king to stop it because it is guarding the rook pawn.

putting your pawns on black squares first could block your king from getting to the q side
> -3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, positional-play, knights, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Should I accept doubled pawns to remove the opponent's bishop pair advantage?
I understand that this can be very situational which is why I don't provide a position as I am seeking some more generally applicable answer or things to consider.

Assuming that the opponent has a bishop pair would you feel that a combination that leaves me with doubled pawns and the opponent with only one bishop (but no other difference in material). is worth it? I guess another way to ask the same question is whether doubled pawns are a half point disadvantage.

# Answer
In general, the two bishop advantage is worth half a pawn, while double pawns are only a minor disadvantage. Sometimes doubled pawns can be an advantage if they do not block your pieces and control important squares. OTOH, creating doubled isolated pawns on a half open file is likely to be worth the loss of a two bishop advantage.

Long term imbalances that occur early in a game are easier to deal with than those that occur late in a game. Let us take for instance the Nimzo-Indian line

```

[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.bxc3 c5 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 d5 8.cxd5 exd5

```

Black has just allowed white to undouble the pawns that he gave up his dark square bishop to double. The key to understanding this is that the doubled pawns are not such a big deal. Black is looking to keep white's dark square bishop permanently bad (because of the pawns on e3 and d4), while getting good squares for his knights. Black's light square bishop will be not so bad (still bad because of the d5-pawn) and will also look for opportunities to trade his light square bishop for white's.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I take it that you feel that you are at a disadvantage because you have a bishop and a knight against a bishop pair in a reasonably open position. (If the position were closed, having the knight might be an ADvantage.)

Most likely, your knight would be pinned by one of the opposing bishops, and this pin would result in a doubled pawn. I can think of two main cases.

1) If the exchange of the opposing bishop for the knight and a doubling of your pawns results in bishops of opposite colors, that would probably be a good result for you, because this situation is the one most likely to result in a draw.

2) The exchange of the opposing bishop of opposite color for the knight (leaving bishops of the same color). That's probably not nearly as good. Then the freedom of your bishop is the key factor. You still have good drawing chances if your pawns on on the OPPOSITE color of the two bishops, giving your bishop, maximum freedom, while presumably "locking" your opponent's pawns on the same color as the two bishops. If your pawns are on the same color as the bishops, blocking your bishop while providing fodder for his, you have losing chances.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The bishop pair is usually stronger than B+N or N+N. While doubled pawns are usually weaker than two adjacent pawns. My advice is to look at the pawn structure and king placement to guide your decision whether to allow your opponent to exchange a bishop for your knight and leave you with a doubled pawn. Let's start with the Spanish system

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6

```

practice has shown that black can handle this type of pawn structure by following the correct strategies. Next, in the Trompowsky attack

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bxf6 exf6

```

the light squares (d5, e4, f5, f7 and h5) become sensitive for black and white is better.

Next, the following silly example

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nh6 2.Bxh6 gxh6

```

shows that black simply cannot accept this sort of pawn structure to get the so called "bishop pair advantage". I would recommend to study and think about the bishop pair versus B+N or N+N situations. As well as delve a bit deeper into pawn structures and weak squares. Here are a few possible guidelines

1. Do not allow a doubled pawn that makes your king weaker
2. Do not allow a doubled pawn in the endgame unless you are sure you can hold it
3. The bishop pair gives an advantage only if you know how to use it (practice!)
4. An enemy knight placed in front of your doubled pawn can be a real pain
> 2 votes

# Answer
To directly answer the OP as asked looking for a general answer.

NO.

And it is unlikely you will get to choose.

In many cases if they wish to give up the bishop pair you may have to take the doubled pawns and have nothing to say about it.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: pawn-structure, bishops, bishop-pair, doubled-pawn
---


title: What are the rules for pawn wars?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the rules for pawn wars?
I ask about the exact rules for the chess variant known as pawn wars. The starting position contains only pawns which move exactly like in chess and the first to promote wins.

```
[FEN "8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "The first to promote wins"]

```

But it should also be stated how to evaluate the end result when the side to move has no legal moves left. Is it lost or stalemated? I have been thinking about this game for years as a study tool for beginners but also as a philosophical research project into the game of chess for advanced players. I have found it recommended on several websites by kid educators.

I would like to write an engine to play this game but I cannot make up my mind on the best statement of the rules to maximize its practical relationship to chess. Are there any guidelines by experienced educators or existing environments to play this game? Any ideas how and why to fix the rules?

# Answer
> 3 votes
A situation like this, with Black to move, is a **win** for White:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/3pP3/3P4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Why? Well consider the case where White has been skillful enough to take all of Black's pawns and promotes easily. By definition, Black has no legal moves. From a training game we do not want to teach that losing all material leads to a forced draw. That would be a poor lesson to learn for building a knowledge of King and Pawn endings on.

A note on **passing**. It seems that to implement this in a program, a player with no legal moves is forced to 'pass', just in case a situation arises that allows the 'stalemated' side to have a legal move later on.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The common version of the rules for pawns-only chess (or pawn wars) states that the stalemated player loses, see https://www.chessvariants.com/diffsetup.dir/pawnsonly.html and Is the result in mini-chess known with perfect play?. In the latter thread you can also find the outcome of the game with perfect play in case you are interested.

# Answer
> -1 votes
First you need to prove that someone can force a promotion. That is far from obvious.

Then you would need to prove that it is not , with best play, always a blocked position with the same player making the last move.

I suspect that this is just a puzzle that could be solved by computer that shows there is one best outcome that is always the same.

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: What are some non-functional features of a chess clock that would help choose the best for ones use?
All chess clocks time the match. Some just time, some add delays, some add on, and other have variations for TIMING.

What else might be a factor in deciding to buy a clock that is primarily for personal use at speed chess in a club, cafe, or park, but also useful should one play in tournaments? For examples, cost, reliability, and ease of use are some factors. What would be the features that would help guide a purchase?

There might be other subtler ones, so a complete list for consideration is what is asked for. Comments on why would be useful too. EG what value does some certification add, if any.

I am thinking there could be easily a dozen or more of these NON-FUNCTIONAL characteristics.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well I learned way more than I wanted to know about other considerations than mere timing.

This table may be collapsed into a long string of text someone please edit if that happens

Cost
Size
Accuracy
Precision
Ease of use
Color
Battery Life
Reliability
Ruggedness
Toggle method
maintenance required
Flag display
Analog/digital
Shape
Aesthetic
Ease of setting
Read out type
Safety against accidental reset
Counts moves
Useful for other than chess

*Timing variations*
\- pre/post add
\- pre/post delay
\- fischer \- bronstein
\- hourglass - seesaw
\- byo-yomi
\- canadian OT
\- guillotine
\- bonus timing
\- different periods timings

custom settings -MODIFY built in
custom settings NEW
Number of custom settings

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don’t think that it is possible to answer the question objectively. For ME, the main non-functional characteristic is the user interface. I prefer DGT-style UI, and i try to avoid Silver-style UIs.

Also, robustness is an important factor. A random drop or an emotional blow may not destroy a clock.

As i choose my clock for it’s functional characteristics, and there is ATM only one clock that fits my needs, the above non-functional characteristics would be k.o. criteria; everything else would be a mere nice-to-have list.

Your list in your answer contains a lot of functional characteristics (e.g. bronstein/fischer delay). Perhaps we have different views on functional/non-functional. Could you clarify yours?

# Answer
> 1 votes
For me, and the events I play in (and direct), my needs for functional characteristics are fairly simple - I'd like a clock to support at least a primary and a secondary time control (so it kind of has to have a move counter to be able to do that), with delay and increment settings. Most clocks on the market today have those (with the notable exceptions of the DGT 1001 and the DGT Easy \[not the Plus model\]). So my ultimate choice is going to be driven by the non-functional characteristics. As indicated by the OP in a comment on this question, getting these wrong can render the functional characteristics non-useful.

The non-functional characteristics that I personally find important are:

* Quality and size of display. I want to be able to read the clock from some distance away, without glare. So many clocks I've seen get this wrong - if you're not right at the board, it can be very difficult to read the clock (both due to display size, and glare). In currently available clocks, I believe the DGT 3000 does this best.
* For the way the player presses the clock, it would be nice if it was an actual button (well, two buttons), that actually go up and down (like an analog clock) so you can tell who's on move, and preferably with some real tactile feedback so you can know you pressed the button. Touch sensors, I can never tell if I've actually stopped my clock. The DGT "see-saw" doesn't really do it for me, as it can be difficult to see who is on move from some distance away (partly because of the color of the "see-saw" bar...) My choices for best here would be the Saitek Mephisto Competition / Competition Pro clocks (sadly no longer produced).
* Well constructed, able to take a certain amount of punishment (in terms of rough use in blitz, or drops from tabletop height), and doesn't feel like it's going to fall apart in my hand when I press the clock (I'm looking at you, Excalibur Game Time / Game Time II...).
* Ease of setting and changing the clock. I'd really like to have at least a chance of being able to set a clock without having a manual or cheat-sheet with me. Chronos and Z-Mart clocks are nightmares to me - especially as a TD, if I have to update a clock due to a time penalty or something, I'm just going to have to hope that the clock's owner knows how to do it. I know that if all you've got for user input is three buttons (which includes the two buttons that the players use to press the clock), it's sort of challenging, but still...
* Battery type and life. I certainly want the batteries to last as long as possible, preferably, preferably for at least a couple of years of play. The batteries in my Saitek clocks last practically forever (or at least that's what it seems like to me...), but if I suddenly realize I have to change them during or immediately before an event - they're C cells, and I'm probably not going to be carrying a spare set of those around with me. The DGT 3000 uses AA cells, and it's perfectly reasonable to have spares of those in my chess bag, though I'm not sure how long those batteries last in that clock. I would presume the worst battery life would be with clocks that use LED displays like the Z-Mart clocks, but that's just a guess on my part.

My "daily driver" chess clocks that meet my non-functional requirements best are my Saitek Competition and Competition Pro clocks. I've just recently acquired a DGT 3000 and may try to switch to that for a while to see how I like it...

---
Tags: rules, chess-clocks, equipment
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a chess database with MCO style reports
I'm wanting to make some binders of different opening lines in a columnar layout like MCO uses. Is there any database program that can produce this type of output, or would I be better off creating it manually in a spreadsheet?

In addition, I'd like to be able to print out annotated games with diagrams.

# Answer
> 2 votes
My suggestion does not link to a database, but you can use **Tex** to format chessboards, add your own annotations and put the content into column format.

We even have a Tex stack exchange! The link is of a question regarding a new Tex user learning how to use the chess specific packages.

Please note Tex is just a text editor though. The times I have used it (for my mathematics dissertation), I've used it to neatly represent content only. As far as I know Tex doesn't have analysis features, databases of master games etc., it just is to display text and text like objects.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Openings Wizard can produce output that is sort of the transpose of the MCO format. This isn't exactly what you want, but it might suffice.

More detail: Chess Openings Wizard (COW), by Bookup.com, are apps (Mac, Windows, iOS, Android) for training yourself in your opening repertoire that

> \[r\]ather than store lists of games, Chess Openings Wizard stores chess theory in trees of positions, much the way theory is recorded in books such as the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and the Encyclopedia of Chess Endgames.

It comes in a cheaper ("Express") and in a more-expensive ("Professional") version. According to the Comparison Chart, the Professional version "prints ECO/BCO-style sheets of analysis."

ECO and BCO refer to "Encyclopedia or Chess Openings" and "Batsford Chess Openings," respectively.

Apparently the format of ECO/BCO is sort of the transpose of the type of table used in MCO (which you referenced in your question). From Steven Lopez, "Table views and printouts in ChessBase 9," Chess News, August 31, 2006:

> Books like Modern Chess Openings use a columnar format: the variations are printed in columns on the page -- you start at the top of the page and work your way down. The majority of other compendiums such as the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Batsford Chess Openings, and Nunn's Chess Openings use a table format in which the variations are read from left to right across the page. If a variation starts with the same move (or moves) as the one immmediately above it on the page, spaces are left blank to designate that the moves are the same as the variation above.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: I was playing a tournament and some kids were talking about the game in a foreign language
I was playing and I am pretty sure that my opponent was talking about the game with his friend in another language. I don’t speak the language, but you can tell. What should I have done?

# Answer
> 28 votes
First, you should inform the tournament director, and let that person handle it. There is a parental instinct that makes me want to just take the kid aside, and say something privately first, but since that can be misconstrued, do not do that, and let the TD handle it. I am sure that they will mention it, or warn the kids, and hopefully it will be done with.

I speak Russian, and in times gone by, I would hear some of them discuss games that were not mine, and it was not so much about specific calculations, but still. Thankfully, it was not common, but it still violates the rules, and needs to be dealt with. In my case, they were always adults, who should have known better. In your case, you have kids, who often just have not been taught well enough yet, and hopefully a stern word of warning will end this before it is evolves into intentional cheating.

Playing kids is hard enough: To have to play two of them in tandem is for the birds. :)

# Answer
> 17 votes
Hi Liam and welcome to chess.stackexchange. I am sorry that you had this experience. If this tournament was played under FIDE rules, then the following articles are directly relevant:

> 11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
>
> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
>
> 12.7 \[...\] Spectators are not allowed to interfere in a game. The arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.
>
> 12.2 The arbiter shall:
>
> * 12.2.1 ensure fair play,
> * 12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,
> * 12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,
> * 12.2.4 ensure that the players are not disturbed,
> * 12.2.5 supervise the progress of the competition,
> * 12.2.6 take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention,
> * 12.2.7 follow the Anti-Cheating Rules or Guidelines

You should therefore at the time call the arbiter and explain the situation so he can take the corrective steps.

The arbiter should stop the clock (although the player has the right to do this prior to calling the judge too). The judge has absolute discretion under the laws, to come to the best solution. A wide number of different circumstances can have led to the complaint, with varying levels of penalty appropriate, and different clues are available. If cheating is suspected then a substantial interruption may be required for investigation

---
Tags: rules, tournament, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Structure-better structure or bishop pair in the endgame?
Does the bishop pair compensate for doubled pawns if there are no rooks to attack with the bishops in the endgame?

# Answer
> 3 votes
More often than not, the Bishop pair will compensate for doubled pawns in an endgame. Your unopposed bishop would have to be pretty bad (and therefore your overall position) if it's influence did not compensate.

In general doubled-pawns are not that bad if you have active piece play. Look at the games from the Kasparov-Short world championship match. Nigel Short repeatedly had doubled crappy looking pawns but because his pieces were active Kasparov was not able to capitalize on their weakness; this fact was well commented at the time.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It depends on the position, but a bishop is generally considered strong of play is on both sides of the boards and it's an open board. I would think that a sample position would help to understand what are you trying to point out.

---
Tags: endgame, pawn-structure, doubled-pawn, bishop-pair
---


# Question
Title: What's the etiquette for giving checkmate on board?
I wonder what is considered to be a polite way of giving mate on board. Should one announce the checkmate? If so, should one press the clock after making the move, or stop it, or simply do nothing?

Or should one press the clock silently as if it's a normal move and then wait until the opponent realizes (if they haven't yet) and shakes hands?

# Answer
Checkmate ends the game immediately, so there is no need to press the clock after it.

Best is to play it as a normal move, look at your opponent and usually they'll shake hands. You can say "checkmate" as you move or if he doesn't immediately realize. Just don't overdo it :-)

Sometimes you mistakenly think it's checkmate. I once did (in extreme time trouble) and said "checkmate!". My opponent shook hands and I had won our club's cup final. Until a spectator pointed out he could just capture a pawn with his king -- the checkmate pattern I thought we had would have worked had it been *his* pawn... He didn't want to play anymore and said I had won as I he had resigned, but this is still a bad taste in my mouth twenty years later.

So be certain if you're going to announce it.
> 10 votes

# Answer
This is really a question for fairly low-rated players, who tend to play things out to the bitter end. If you are reasonably strong, the only reason your opponent does not resign earlier is that he thought you played such a good game that he allows you to execute the checkmate (I have done this), or thinks that the final position is beautiful, and saw it coming.

A very good example of the latter is this game between Peter Svidler and Magnus Carlsen at Grenke this past year (2019), where Peter allowed mate on the board. Note the BIG smiles on the faces of both players in this video.

In the end, it is just common sense and human decency: Just be humble, nice, and say "checkmate" politely, and shake hands. Treat the person the way you would want to be treated.

```
 [Event "Grenke Chess Classic 6th"]
 [Site "Karlsruhe/Baden Baden"]
 [Date "2019.04.28"]
 [Round "8"]
 [White "Svidler, Peter"]
 [Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B30"]
 [WhiteElo "2735"]
 [BlackElo "2845"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Bc4 Be7 5. d3 d6 6. Nd2 Nf6 7. Nf1 Nd7 8. Nd5 Nb6 9. Nxb6 axb6 10. c3 O-O 11. Ne3 Bg5 12. O-O Kh8 13. a3 f5 14. Nxf5 Bxc1 15. Rxc1 Bxf5 16. exf5 d5 17. Ba2 Rxf5 18. Qg4 Rf6 19. f4 exf4 20. Qg5 Qf8 21. Qxd5 Rd8 22. Qf3 Ne5 23. Qe4 Ng4 24. Rce1 Ne3 25. Rf2 Re8 26. Qxb7 g5 27. Rfe2 g4 28. Rf2 Qh6 29. Qc7 Ref8 30. h3 gxh3 31. g3 fxg3 32. Rxf6 h2+ 33. Kh1 g2# 0-1

```
> 23 votes

# Answer
There's nothing impolite about delivering checkmate in the same fashion that you'd make any other move. If anything, e.g. in formal games and when there's no risk of losing on time, it might be considered bad etiquette by the losing player to continue playing on in a completely hopeless position, instead, players usually resign before the checkmate occurs (see also here for related discussions on etiquettes fo resigning or playing on).

As to what the right etiquette for giving checkmate is, there isn't really much to it and you've basically already summed it up, that is *(in the following order, with first two points being most important assuming a formal game):*

* Typically, one simply delivers the checkmating move,
* presses the clock (a move counts as officially registered \[\*\] once the clock is pressed while your flag hasn't dropped).
* and wait for your opponent to realise the checkmate if they haven't yet (also typically further signalled by making eye contact),
* at which point they will extend their hand for the final handshake of the game and scoresheets are signed.

On a more fun note, sometimes resigning before checkmate can become a bit awkward too when the losing player realises checkmate is imminent having missed a combination, like in this game between Nepomniachtchi and Sarin, and sometimes delivering it can be plainly awesome like Ivanchuk checkmating the world champion ;)

\[\*\]: This is to be on the safe side (in case the move wasn't actually checkmating), even though as pointed out by JiK in comments, according to FIDE rules (6.2.1.1) if a move ends the game, it is *completed* by default, i.e., pressing the clock is no longer necessary when it is either a checkmate or stalemate.
> 11 votes

# Answer
It usually “checkmate, endgame, thanks for the game”
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, etiquette, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Just for fun and curiosity: is there cheating on professional chess tournaments/games?
Just for fun and curiosity. Has any GM ever tried to cheat during a game? Maybe even making (on purpose or not) an illegal move that was not caught by his opponent?

NOTE: Of course when you are playing on the computer there is no cheating, because the computer won't allow it. I am talking about face-to-face real-life games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Borislav Ivanov! WOW. That's pretty crazy. Of course he was using some kind of wireless communication. It should be common sense to do a deep screening on the person body and clothes before playing, otherwise someone can be passing the moves to the player. This is a very common magic trick nowadays. Unfortunately a lot of scam bags use magic to pretend they are talking to god and fool the idiots.

For the naive people out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

# Answer
> 8 votes
There have been cheating scandals in top level chess, most notably in 2010 involving French top 100 player Sebastien Feller and in 2012 involving German GM Falko Bindrich.

These two scandals involved computer assistance. There are other forms of cheating, like throwing games, which are harder to prove.

Illegal moves aren't an issue, but Kasparov allegedly violated the touch-move rule in a game against Judith Polgar.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Tech mate? Top grandmaster claims chess is riddled with cheats using smartphones. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11487515/Tech-mate-Top-grandmaster-claims-chess-is-riddled-with-cheats-using-smartphones.html

# Answer
> 4 votes
Most answers here talk about computer assistance, but I think the OP was asking about knowingly make illegal moves, which happens from time to time at club level (I cannot think of any GM-level example apart from Kasparov's touch-move rule against Polgar, see BlindKungFuMaster)

* I have once seen a pawn on f3 advancing to f5, with mate! That happened in a slow tournament game, and the "checkmated player" accepted his loss.
* In Blitz, I know a player whose pawns run faster than most of his opponent's in pawn-race endgames. It's probably due to them moving multiple squares at a time. The same happens sometimes with the king.
* I've also seen a knight on f4 moving to h6, with mate.
* Finally, in a game between two masters (not GMs, though), one of them claimed a stalemate that didn't exist. His opponent accepted the draw

# Answer
> 3 votes
**If you slightly broaden your definition of 'cheating', you should consider Bobby Fischer's complaint of collusion during the 1962 World Chess Championship** (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Chess\_Championship\_1963).

In short, the World Chess Championship had qualifying rounds, where to advance, you needed to be one of the top candidates based on number of points accumulated during a round-robin stage. In such a system, a win is worth 1 point, and a draw is worth 1/2 points. Therefore if you are at the top of the leaderboard and are playing the 2nd place on the leaderboard, and you both tie, then you would both retain your respective #1 & #2 spots.

Fischer alleged that there was collusion amongst most of the the Soviet players, who agreed beforehand that they would draw against eachother in order to avoid a dreaded '0' points on a match. In particular, this agreement is alleged to have occurred when 'forced draws' between these Soviet players would have mathematically prevented Bobby Fischer from reaching the next stage in the championship. This collusion can be seen as sort of a 'nationalistic team spirit', when the WCC is supposed to be an individual competitor event.

Note also that 'agreed draws' were against the rules of the competition. In fact, no player was allowed to agree to a draw before the ~15th move, entirely to prevent such collusion. So instead, the Fischer alleged that the Soviet players colluded by playing well-known drawish lines, that lasted until after the 15th move, at which point they conveniently agreed to a draw. Fischer's allegation was predicated on the notion that players lower on the leaderboard would not have given their opponent a 'leg up' in the tournament by guaranteeing a draw - instead they should have been taking fighting chances for a win themselves.

**There were 3 significant fallouts from these accusations**:

(1) **The ICC indirectly acknowledged Fischer's complaints** by changing the format of the championship from Round-Robin to knockout elimination;

(2) **The chess community was faced with direct proof of the problems caused by chess being increasingly 'drawish'**. In this case, it was shown how convincingly the Soviets were able to play games that were entirely by the book, from first move to last, with no innovation. That conversation continues today (where the proportion of draws at top-level play continues to increase); and

(3) **Bobby Fischer invented Fischer Random chess (AKA Chess960)**, which is a variant that includes randomly shuffling pieces for each player before play. Fischer argued that by randomizing the pieces, innovation would increase, and no similar collusion could occur, because there would be no such thing as a known tablebase of drawish games to collude with. \[\*Note that he did not invent Fischer Random until the 90's, so whether we can say the collusion strongly led to this or not is debatable\].

# Answer
> 2 votes
Arkadij Naiditsch has accepted that he's cheated on playchess.com server.

# Answer
> 1 votes
YES!!!!!

Lombardy cheated against me in the Eastern Open round 4. He was a GM and had been world junior champ.

He got caught cheating a couple of tournaments later.

He kept books and notes in a mens room stall and would go look at them every move.

I wish I had followed him and busted him sooner by having the proof only back then no cell phone cameras and I did not have a regular camera with me.

---
Tags: tournament, grandmaster, cheating
---


# Question
Title: How to deal with people getting help on board
We all had this situation where our opponent have this fide master friend and just happen to stand next to him, whisper him things while pointing your chessboard.

I've never had the guts to call it out (that would make a mess out of no proof accusations) but that usually mess up my game as my anger take over my concentration.

I'd like to know if you've met this situation and how you dealt with it, or what would be the official way to deal with it.

Please consider that calling out referee might not be the best solution : as I said, there's no proof, and it's easier said than done to call a cheat when there's no evidences.

# Answer
> 10 votes
What you describe has never happened to me personally, but I would have no qualms of making a complaint in this situation - either by calling the arbiter (in the case of a tournament) or my captain (in the case of a league match). What you describe is clearly unacceptable conduct in any rated game.

To illustrate how little is needed for an issue to be taken seriously: I once played a kid of about 6 years old - he was a good player (on my level at least), but he struggled to write down the moves properly. His dad came over and started to correct some of his notation. My team captain immediately complained to his team captain, and the dad was asked to leave the playing area. The question of proof was not on the table - just the fact that one person may be uncomfortable about something is enough for a referee to impose strict playing conditions even if no misconduct actually occurred.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The official way is of course to tell the arbiter. Though you may have no proof, the arbiter can just tell your opponent he should not be whispering with the other person. If it happens again, the arbiter may impose fines for violating this. Also the arbiter may just keep a closer look, so while this does not lead to a loss for cheating, it certainly takes your opponents help out for the rest of the game. Of course you might also just warn them yourself that you will call the arbiter if they continue befir first calling the arbiter. On the other hand, the only one who can really impose some rules is the arbiter.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Cheating is rampant.

I have seen what the OP mentions on occasion. But it was not that common back when I was playing tournaments.

That may still happen some now, but there are so many other ways to cheat that are happening that such help is relatively small compared to the other helps used.

---
Tags: rules, cheating
---


title: En Passant Checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: En Passant Checkmate
I made a check with a pawn that was subject to an en passant movement.

The check led to a checkmate, but the rules at chess.com didn't count it as a checkmate but let the opponent make his move. He took the pawn with his pawn with an en passant movement.

It seemed a bit strange to me because, I thought that in this case the check mate would be valid, and I wonder what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece, does the checkmate become valid?

Or he is obliged (no other move allowed) to make the "en passant" movement even in the possibility he is not aware of the en-passant type of movement? (In this case I suppose the game is won, anyway)

My idea is that the rule is wrong in this case, the check mate should be counted as valid even if the idea of the en passant is that the movement ends at the time the opponent plays, but I think in this case the king is dead.

# Answer
It is not checkmate if the other player has any legal move that gets them out of check. Capturing the checking piece is one such way; whether the capture is en passant or not is irrelevant for the purpose of this question.

In this case, an en passant capture is the only legal move. If the other player didn't know the en passant rule, I suppose they might lose on time unless they figure out what's going on first. Using a website such as chess.com one might be able to discover the rule accidentally, since clicking on a piece normally highlights all the possible moves for that piece.

Regarding your question of "what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece", that would be an illegal move. A site such as chess.com simply won't allow it. In an over-the-board tournament, the consequence may vary: in blitz, the player who makes the illegal move loses; in long games, the move gets retracted and a time penalty is applied, at least for a first offense.
> 35 votes

# Answer
If White had a pawn on f4 instead of f5, would it be considered checkmate? The answer in both cases is no, since in both cases White can validly capture Black's g-pawn. There is no legal difference between performing a regular capture or capturing via en passant.

If your opponent wasn't aware of the en passant move, then you'd probably win the game via the clock :)
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you take the privilege of being able to move the pawn 2 squares, you must also accept the qualification that the pawn can be captured en passant. These two rules work together. Your footsoldier leapt past an enemy footsoldier who could stab you on the way past ("en passant") so yours was dead before he landed if the enemy took this option. A dead soldier can't check. "Stabbing on the way past" is a retrospective choice, but once the pawn has been confirmed as having safely landed ( by a different move from the enemy ) it is just like any other pawn.
> 1 votes

# Answer
That is not a checkmate. The opponent is right in taking the offending pawn *en passant*.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, en-passant
---


title: What happened to the WCC?

text:
# Question
Title: What happened to the WCC?
Just found this rating list below while looking for other items.

I vaguely remember hearing about WCC.

What happened to them? All I find now for WCC is 'world chess championship'.

Apparently they both rated top players.

> ### Combined Top 100 - January 1999 FIDE and WCC Chess Rating Lists
>
> Note: The 1999 FIDE World Chess rating came late and contained errors. This is the fourth and presumably the final version of the FIDE top 100 list. UPDATE: The Combined rating lists for July 1999 are posted at http://www.gmchess.spb.ru/ratings/july99.html

```
Rank    Name                    Country FIDE Rating Name                WCC Rating
1       Kasparov, Gary          RUS     2812        Kasparov, Garry     2803
2       Anand, Viswanathan      IND     2781        Anand, Viswanathan  2750
3       Kramnik, Vladimir       RUS     2751        Kramnik, Vladimir   2724
4       Shirov, Alexei          ESP     2726        Shirov, Alexei      2712
5       Morozevich, Alexander   RUS     2723        Kamsky, Gata        2701
6       Adams, Michael          ENG     2716        Leko, Peter         2693
...........

```

# Answer
The WCC was the "World Chess Council".

It was formed in 1998 by Kasparov after the collapse of the PCA (Professional Chess Association) in 1995. It was Kasparov's fourth attempt at an organization separate from FIDE.

It organized the candidates match between Kramnik and Shirov in 1998, which Shirov surprisingly won (5.5-3.5), and he was slated to play Kasparov for the title. The match never happened since the organization collapsed during the negotiations when the organization lost its sponsors, and folded.

The best detailing of the events of that time that I have found can be found here. (Note that this outstanding site has many more pages of history, so click the "next" and "previous" buttons at the bottom to read more. I would love to just cut-and-paste it, but it is copyrighted material, so you will have to go visit the site.)

You can also find a little information here.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Based on a similar list found on anusha.com, which is titled

> ### Combined July 1998 FIDE and WCC (PCA) World Chess Rating Lists
>
> This table enables comparison between the official FIDE Rating list and the WCC list (formerly known as the PCA list) developed by Ken Thompson. For example, Anatoly Karpov is ranked number 5 and is rated 2725 on the FIDE list but is ranked only number 8 and rated only 2687 on the WCC list.

it looks like it was a list maintained by the Professional Chess Association which existed as a separate international chess organization besides FIDE between 1993 and 1996.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rating, history, world-championship
---


title: Meaning of winning percentage

text:
# Question
Title: Meaning of winning percentage
I was wondering about the exact meaning of *winning percentage* (white/draw/black) in database systems and how to use them for studying.

1. How are move order variations taken care of? For instance, if I go to a certain position, the winning percentage is only calculated from games which had this exact position on the board, right?
2. Let's say I look at a position from an opening which had been popular for many years. So there are lots of games in the database from those years with more or less equal percentage for black and white. Then at some point a novelty was found which gave a clear advantage for white, making the opening basically unplayable for black. As a consequence people stopped playing this opening and there are very few games in the database which show this big winning percentage for white. So if I look at some position before the novelty move, the winning percentage at that position will still show more or less equal percentages for white and black (because many pre-novelty-games get averaged with few novelty-games)?

Is this correct? If yes, IMO, the *winning percentage* is of rather limited use and should not be used when assessing a single position, without traversing and analyzing all the lines originating from that position.

Have there been attempts, to create a better (more useful for actual use) parameter than the "winning percentage"?

# Answer
Winning percentages are quite useless not only because of novelties, but also because of general distribution of results. For example there is no meaningful average for line which is branching into (0,100,0) and (60, 0,40) later. I saw even more brutal examples like (55,0,45) branching on next black move into something like (100,0,0) and (0,20,80) which in original position seems like standard white advantage :D There is another problem that some lines are virtually always played by much weaker player. That can be reason why exchange Slav or 4 knights may in some books have positive score for black.

Engine evaluation / usage in corr games is in my opinion generally much closer to truth and count "N" can help you as well, even if this runs into novelty problem you pointed out. It has many drawbacks for evaluating human chess with many mistakes, but results graphs tells nothing of any value.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The percentages of triumph are very important. They tell us what types of movement have "more strength" to win. However, in chess there is no absolute truth, for many reasons. The first that comes to my mind is that during the game the player who lost is the one who committed the "last mistake". There are also reasons external to the chess logic, such as the health of the player, his strength and his psychology, which make him value in a different way the risk of losing and the variants that appeal to him.

Another aspect implicit in the question is whether the percentage of success is an evaluation of the resulting positions. The clearest answer is given above: No. However, there is some of it if we consider the percentage of success as an evaluation when it has been qualified by the ELO of the opponents. We all know that two players with an ELO difference of 400 points, it is almost certain that the result of a tournament between both is 100% for one and 0% for the other and with players with a similar ELO, it is expected 50% for both. Therefore, the winning percentage is a "statistical assessment" of the resulting positions (plural); I consider that as information.

How can we take advantage of that?

First, finding the movement in which the variant is considered a loser, for example, due to a mistake or a very difficult strategy to implement and seek a solution to that problem. We can also use percentages to choose more table-like continuations if we are facing impatient or stronger opponents than ourselves. Thirdly, I have used it to choose variants with fewer satisfactory continuations for the opponent; It seems to me that when there are few suitable continuations to the opponent, there is more risk that he chooses a wrong move. In this, the frequency of use statistic is interesting.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Winning percentages are weighted with win=1 draw=1/2 and loss=0.

It does not tell you how often white wins outright. You need wins to win a tournament not lots of draws. So players will play moves to improve outright winning chances while risking losses. That skews the statistics some.

Basically they are meaningless until you get to the end of the chain and know the actual result. But they are interesting and useful as a general guide. But they are not absolute guarantees of anything.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, database
---


# Question
Title: Fixed games in chess-is it real or just a conspiracy theory? If real, how bad is it?
One famous case of fixed chess games is the Keres vs. Botvinnik World Championship 1948. I ran across this example while looking for other such chess games from history.

It is known that Stalin was a chess player and an admirer of Keres. On the basis of this, the rumor has been that Stalin made a deal with Keres. The story goes that Keres’ life would be spared. Keres, the Estonian, would not be executed the way that Petrov, the Latvian, had been. In return for sparing his life, Keres agreed that a Russian player would become World Chess Champion and that Keres would never be world champion.

Was such a deal really made?

The five games between Botvinnik and Keres were remarkable because they seem to be the worst series of five games ever played between two grandmasters. Even the strongest grandmaster will occasionally make a horrible blunder. However, these games between Keres and Botvinnik did not merely contain a few outright blunders. Rather, they exuded weakness throughout. They looked like games between two Class A players, or possibly between two experts having a bad day. However, Keres and Botvinnik were two of the strongest players in the world.

By far the worst game of the five was the last game, in which Botvinnik lost to Keres. By winning this game, Keres was able to catch up with Reshevsky and tie for third. Keres played a patzer opening, always known to be bad. Botvinnik played like an absolute rank beginner. The presumed reason is that Botvinnik had already clenched first place and the World Chess Championship. Since Keres had thrown the first four games to Botvinnik, Botvinnik was obliged to throw one back to make the final result of 4-1 in favor of Botvinnik look more reasonable and to give Keres a share of third-place prize money.

Is there evidence of any other deals to help a given player or country win?

Rumors are rife about many such games involving Russians in the 40’s, 50,’s and perhaps even the 60’s. But what about other players from other countries, perhaps doing it for personal benefit rather than to help political leaders?

This theory is laid out here.

# Answer
I think this kind of thing belongs in the same category as discussions over "Could Morphy beat Lasker?" At one point it might have been provable (given a little different history Morphy might have survived to play Lasker, or at least Steinitz) but that train has left the station. It's a judo question, meaning your answer typically depends on which way you're already leaning.

At best the claim the 1948 games were fixed is controversial; there are, after all, zero facts supporting the contention, only opinions. Personally, I doubt they were. You could use some of the same techniques that claim to "prove" the Keres fix was in to "prove" that Spassky threw the 1972 match, after all. But the sheer number of shenanigans the Soviets pulled back in those days gives undeserved credence to those kind of theories, so we keep seeing them.

There's a lot of speculation about Botvinnik's reign. Up against the theories surrounding both the Keres and the Bronstein games, we seem to have denials from both of the losers that it happened for any reason other than chess play. (I think it was in Sorceror's Apprentice that Bronstein even hinted that he woke up the morning of that game thinking about how his life would change as champion, and he didn't think it would be for the better, but that's my memory again, so could easily be wrong.)

As to the wider speculation, that some unspecified chess games in some tournaments have been fixed: of course it's true. Games have been fixed and will continue to be fixed, both at the local levels and at world chess levels. It's why FIDE had the old 30-move rule and why the Sophia rules on draw offers were created. Seirawan discovered a great line in the Pirc that led to a forced draw by repetition, and it's been used by GMs wanting a day off. GM's have been disciplined for "selling points" in the past, throwing games for money in order to raise a local player's rating, or to help them achieve norms. (Point-shaving happens in chess, just as in other contests; wherever there's money there's fraud.) The Soviet players in the Interzonals were known to use games against each other as extra "rest days," and Korchnoi has reported in his autobiography on how the delegation was requested to "help" a pre-selected player finish higher than the Westerners. While that *may* have had an effect on the selection of a challenger, did that really help Botvinnik keep the title longer than he should have? Who knows? Only Botvinnik and his opponents, and they aren't talking. (I had hopes Averbakh was going to write about it before he died; he was in position to know a lot about those, but no, so far he's kept his silence. Which leaves us having to choose the cause of that silence; is it because he wants to keep the secrets or because there *were* no secrets?)

How large of an effect did this have? Hard to tell, because actual certainty in any of these "fixes" is hard to achieve. Only those involved know what was in their mind, whether they played a bad move to throw the game or because they were fatigued and just blundered. Like Kasparov against Deep Blue, even the best of players will have inexplicably bad games.

So we continue to recycle the theories, with no hope of ever actually knowing, especially when everyone involved directly is dead and none appear to have left anything behind in writing.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I added a link to this theory in your question.

The reality is that there is no debate as to whether the Soviet government ordered players to throw games, the only question is "did it happen here?" Chess was considered proof of Soviet superiority, and they took dominating, and holding the world title, very seriously.

Other than that link, GM Larry Evans is probably the originator of this theory, and it appears that he came up with it on his own after analyzing the games. He wrote about this in Chess Life in October 1996 (page 40 of that issue, or roughly page 956/1232 of the pdf file)

Here is a shorter story regarding this matter.

The fact is that this would have been a closely-guarded state secret, so unless the KGB, now FSB, decides to declassify the files, we will never know for sure if GM Evans was correct, but I still would not have put it past them, or Stalin personally, to do this.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory, history, master-games, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Top players have seconds to help them prepare. Do they also use engines looking to prepare lines for surprise value?
What just do seconds add to a players preparation for a BIG match? Do they use engines to help them prepare better surprising moves?

Wouldn't a room full of powerful computers running around the clock help prepare better than seconds? Or do the seconds only transfer info from computers to the Player in the match.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Seconds, and the players themselves, absolutely use engines to help them find moves, but you cannot just let an engine run and think that it will spit out useful things. There would be too much information, and most of it useless.

First, nowadays, more and more, elite players are resorting to using Leela and Fat Fritz (neural network type programs) since they tend to be better at finding better opening moves. Stockfish is still the king when it comes to brute-force analysis in the middlegame.

Second, if you assume that the game is relatively equal from the opening, just letting a computer run theoretically should not find anything except a lot of equal lines since it will only analyze best moves for both sides. You need human intervention.

That is where the second comes in. Most seconds are very strong GMs with a great depth of theoretical opening knowledge and understanding, and they look at a position, and come up with an idea that they want to test in the player's main lines, and they basically play "advanced chess", combining their great human understanding with the computer's immense analytical ability. Of course, it is not impossible that they will stumble upon a clearly winning line, but at that level, both sides have thoroughly checked their opening repertoire with computers, and the players have such a strong positional understanding, that it is highly unlikely they would play something that weak in the first place, computer-checked, or not. They are simply looking for new move that leads small advantages that lead to an uncomfortable game for the opponent...a game they can press for a long time, hoping that it will create an unforced error.

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


# Question
Title: Does Google's new quantum computer mean we will soon have a more powerful AlphaZero?
According to a paper published in Nature Google has developed a quantum computer.

> **Abstract**
>
> The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 2^53 (about 10^16).
>
> Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy for this specific computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.

On a cautionary note, Google's central claim, that they have performed in 200 seconds computation that would take current state-of-the-art supercomputers 10,000 years is disputed by IBM in a blog post which claims that:

> We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity. This is in fact a conservative, worst-case estimate, and we expect that with additional refinements the classical cost of the simulation can be further reduced.

3 minutes 20 seconds to perform what would take 2.5 days is still pretty impressive and presumably up-scaling would produce (exponentially) better results.

Note that quantum computing is not so well suited to linear processing, such as would typically be used to generate tablebases, but is ideally suited to highly parallel processes like those used in AlphaZero.

Does this advance mean we can look forward to a vastly improved AlphaZero?

# Answer
TLDR: **No**

Reasoning: Quantum Computers in the short to medium term only have some very specific things efficiently (factoring and discrete log and a few others). The algorithm google showed "quantum supremecy" on is basically simulating a random quantum circuit to generate random numbers, which is

1. about as favorable an algorithm as you could imagine
2. completely useless as an algorithm since there are plenty of simpler random number generators
3. probably not even quantum supremecy achieved IBM paper

For general tasks, quantum computers achieve a quadratic speedup assuming a large enough quantum computer (compared to exponential or more speedup for the demonstrated problem). Furthermore, to even run a basic chess evaluation function on a quantum computer you would need at least an order of magnitude more qbits than state of the art (probably way more, but I'm hedging).

Overall, quantum computers now are at about the same stage as computers were in the 1800s. It will be a while before they are useful for anything, and chess is highly unlikely to be something they are ever used for seriously.
> 9 votes

# Answer
**No!** But maybe someday. Quantum computers are overhyped as much as AI. For the near future, they are a hope on the drawing board somewhere.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: engines, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: In the opening stage, can we determine that one move is better than another by looking at winning percentage?
After 1.c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6, thousands of games have been played with the following two moves of white: 3.g3 and 3.e4. It seems that the winning percentage suggested that 3.e4 is clearly better than 3.g3, though interestingly, more games are played after 3.g3 than 3.e4.

```
    [fen ""]
1.c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6

```

So my question is that, can one conclude that 3.e4 is better than 3.g3 based on the winning percentage?

Similarly, in a position where thousands of games have been played, if say after Move A white's winning percentage is significantly higher than after Move B (say by 5%) and at the same time, the winning percentage for black is significantly lower, is it sufficient to conclude that Move A is better than Move B?

# Answer
The precise answer depends largely on the database, and the answer is still never yes.

If the database includes any players below 2500ish OR it includes blitz or rapid time controls, do NOT attempt to rely on these percentages. Inaccurate moves were likely played and possibly "moved to the top" of the possible moves.

You could possibly rely on percentages for main lines with high rated players and long games, but it's still a little risky.

I would recommend looking instead at established opening theory books/websites as well as Stockfish.
> 5 votes

# Answer
No, these winning percentages should be taken with a grain of salt, especially for as early as move 3. The percentages largely depend on the type of players that go for certain lines. For example, if more inexperienced players favour 3.e4 more often, more of the 3.e4 games will have an inexperienced player playing White.

The percentages are simply one of many indications of a move's strength. Generally you should pay more attention to the number of games a move has, since that tells you if it's the main line or not.
> 4 votes

# Answer
tl;dr Not reliably, no.

Every single database suffers from the exact same flaw (among others) when calculating winning percentage -- the bias introduced when lines are refuted. Players, especially today's players, will react far more quickly to a change in evaluation than the database results will. When the evaluation of a line changes, the lines players go into will change before the db accumulates enough data to make a big difference in the score.

Let's say there's a variation that has traditionally favored White. When you look at the winning percentages for it, you'll see a big White plus (let's say it's 50 wins, 80 draws, and 10 losses, for about 64%). Now a GM unveils a novelty 6 moves into it that completely reverses the evaluation. Word spreads, and let's say the next results show 1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses for White, at which point White decides to move on to greener pastures.

The line is bad for White, as those games revealed, which is why White stopped letting it happen. But there are more games in the db without the new idea than with it, so the winning percentage still shows an edge for White until you travel 6 more moves down the tree. That same position which before was 63%, now shows 62%, still a really good edge to White, yet its current state of results is more like 25% for White, very little short of disastrous.

You can try min/maxing from a deeper level to try and solve this, or you can limit chronologically the games you search, but both approaches while lessening that effect, will introduce biases of their own in the data.

Bottom line is never trust the win percentages from a db. They're useful as *one* indicator of the quality of a variation, but there are other considerations that can outweigh them.

There's no real utility in even searching for an "objective" best move, because you're human. You will play some positions better than others because you like them and understand them better than others. So you may conceivably get better results playing an objectively worse alternative. No one plays every position with the same skill; it's a goal top players strive for, but no one attains. Spassky lost the 1966 match with Petrosian in part because he tried to be that universal player, tried in some games to "out-Petrosian Petrosian." so to speak. He didn't try that approach in 1969, and instead concentrated more on what *he* did best, and won.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I use the opening percentages when I review my games - never before.

Sometimes I'll see that my opening scores "70%" for my opponent - not good for me, even if I did win. So why did I win?

After looking at why it scores so high for my opponent, I see he missed a good move.

But even then, the move has to be so good, it's forcing - as in, it's actually a trap. However, most of the time it only leaves my opponent with an advantage of 0.6 in his favor. I can live with that.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Where were your data taken from? What do you know about the population? If the stats were the last 10 years of GM Tournaments around the World, well that would be a good guideline for two things:

* Avoid a potential harmful move, everyone knows how to counter.
* Study for Novelties (moves that you are gonna be established in new theory of openings with ! or !? and will not give any disadvantage while they stabilize or create interesting positions.

What value do those data have if taken from online chess games though? Well since the ELO rating in that case has greater variance and the intentions, timeouts also vary, since it is not a tournament that you give your best, you just play a game on the internet, you should take those data with a huge grain of salt, as you were already told. The data do not determine anything in this case.

For instance, if 5% of the population are Masters, while the rest 95% varies significant lower, the data means nothing. On the other hand if 100% of the population are Masters, they knew what they were doing, so we can make more accurate assumptions.

If the data were for internet games, you get what they just tell. At average you should prefer a move from another on an ONLINE game.
> 0 votes

# Answer
They are a useful guide to the beginner to decide which are the better moves to consider and which ones are not worth the effort.

They are merely the statistical result on many games and do not guarantee anything about the current game if you choose that move.

The results are skewed as you need outright wins to win a tournament not just a good winning percentage. Playing for wins results in some losses too.

It would be better if they showed average score percentage as well as the win loss draw numbers. And sort them by winning score for comparison fairly to the sorted by average winlossdraw ; versus as shown in the OP which uses popularity of move to sort the display.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, database, statistics, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the 'combustion point' of a game? This was in an upvoted answer
Saw an answer and it had been upvoted. Person answering had a large rep on stack.

The term used that was not explained is: 'Combustion Point' (of a game)

My question is just what does 'combustion point' of a game mean?

Intuitively to a native speaker it would seem to mean something major like a disaster happened. That does not seem to fit as it was applied to all games around move 26 per the OP it answered.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The question you mention is here: In ChessBase 12, when viewing an Opening Tree, why do all the games always stop near move 26?

Personally, I think it is just a general English statement he used to describe the middle, and most heated analytically, part of the game based on the context. I doubt anyone else would repeat it.

Frankly, if I downvoted a lot, I would probably have downvoted that answer since it does not really begin to answer the question. The real answer is either the user was doing something wrong, and should have been shown how to do it (probably not), or simply that was the way it was in the code because that is where they arbitrarily cut off the opening, and cannot be changed (probably).

P.S. If I were to ever describe a part of a chess game as such, it would be where everything came to a head, and the tactics started to fly.

---
Tags: opening, engines, database, terminology
---


# Question
Title: How would top grandmasters fare against engines in correspondence chess?
If Magnus Carlsen, for example, faced Stockfish with the time control 1move/day, how well would Magnus do against Stockfish? It seems with so much time per move, tactical oversight disappears.

# Answer
short answer: the computer would still win

long answer: a human player has much more time to think, well. but a chess-computerprogram would also have much more time to calculate much more variants. (and every good "classical" chess-computerprogram would use this time to evaluate as many variants as deep as possible). so the skill-difference would become linear bigger whilst you give them more time to think (assuming the players can use this time really prolific productively). the limits will be reached for a human when he wants to think deeper about more variants. for computers the limits a much broader because a computer would never be confused when it analyzes millions of positions.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Since the GM would also use an engine then he should win as he can add his own judgement to what the computer suggests.

I still say Hans Berliner used an IBM 360 to help him win the world correspondence championship.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Doubt on how move as black after pawn in e5
I am still at the beginning in playing chess, and I often encounter the following situation. Consider this sequence of moves:

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. e5

```

Presuming that I am the black player, how do I respond to this? Additionally, is 2. e5 a good move to do as white?

# Answer
First, 2.e5 by white is probably not the strongest pure chess move, but it does have a huge advantage in that black is likely to be suprised by it. Anytime you can take your opponent out of his element, that is a small victory. In 40 years of playing, I have never seen that move played there, so that is saying something.

There is no question that 2.exd5 is the best move. It is one of the reasons that the Scandinavian Defense, aka the Center-Counter Defense, is considered sub-standard at higher levels. It is generally just considered a "tricky" opening, but it is also tactical in nature for those, who want that type of game.

2.e5 is likely to lead to French-Defense-type positions, which is a much more solid defense for black, so playing 2.e5 is not best, but there is nothing wrong with it chess-wise other than not being the objectively best move. That is where the intangibles of the game come into play, and black is not as likely to be as well versed in the French as white is there. That can easily outweigh the fact that 2.exd5 is better. I ALWAYS strive to take my opponent into a position they are not as comfortable as I am.

As far as what you are to do from there, you will play c5, maybe get the Bc8 out first (maybe even on that very move 2...Bf5), and then play e6, Nd7, Nge7-c6, Be7, and Qb6 but that is all very general. You will need to be careful putting your king on the short side as it may come under a big attack, but that is still where you want it if safe. Lastly, if you are going to face this often, I suggest you study the Advanced French, and use an engine to see if there are improved versions with Bf5 or Bg4 early.

There are a billion branches here, but here is a sample line I just ran on the computer. Black ends up slightly better.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. e5 Bf5 3. d4 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nd7 6. Be2 Ne7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Be3 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O {With the Bf5 able to go back to g6, if necessary, your kingside is pretty safe.} 10. a3 a5 $15

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
2.e5 should give black a very comfortable game.

Consider that 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 is a common line, the French defense. After 1.e4 d5 2.e5 black will get a similar setup to a French defense without the big strategic liability that is the closed-in Bc8.

In the French the cramped kingside and bad Bc8 often leads to kingside attacks by white or at least strategic suffering. If black is able to put the bishop to f5, there won't be the typical greek gift Bxh7 sacrifices that are a common danger to black in the French.

Because black hasn't wasted time on e6, he also has the option of grabbing some space in the center with c5 and possibly d4. White won't get the same grip on the central squares that lead to strategic suffering in many French positions.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Look at the position. It's quite analogous to the French Defense, Advance Variation, but without Black having hemmed in his light-squared Bishop. It looks easy for Black to transpose into the Caro-Kann advance as well as the French, or even into the Nimzovitch Defense (1 e4 Nc6) so you could start looking there for lines you feel comfortable playing. My personal preference as Black in this would be the C-K advance, but that's simply because I know the C-K lines better than the others, YMMV. As for White, I don't have a preference because I wouldn't play e5; I think it's a mistake to be the first one to release tension in the center. If I were feeling adventurous, I'd play 2. d4 and head for Blackmar-Diemer, otherwise I'd swap pawns.
> 3 votes

# Answer
2...Bf5 is equal. It's a French defense with the bad bishop outside the pawn chain.

2...c5 is equal too. Black wins about 60% of the time from that position. It could transpose into French lines or it could go other directions depending on what white does.

2...e6 would just transpose to the French which isn't bad but is inferior to playing 2...Bf5 and reaching the same positions without the bad bishop.

2...d4 is probably fine too but doesn't accomplish much.

2...Nc6 would be a mistake because the N blocks the c pawn.

Kingside play (f6, g6) looks a little premature
> 0 votes

# Answer
Bf5 give black a big edge; Pc5 gives black a good game as replies.

whites e5 was poor.
pxp is best for white. nc3 is least worst alternative for white instead of pxp
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory
---


# Question
Title: Why does chess tempo fail at random; what is the biggest free database online that is reliable
Sometimes chess tempo works. Sometimes it does not. Seems random. Is there another database that is completely reliable that is as big as chess tempo?

I am looking for a DB that gives the moves with winning percentage or else percent results for WDL for each move.

# Answer
This fits the bill perfectly, and ChessBase is incredibly reliable:

https://database.chessbase.com/

You will have to create a free account, and there are features that are premium, but for winning percentages, it has that for free. I am logged into this with a free account and you can see the percentages in the screenshot.

Here is what it looks like with my paid account (just the right portion of the screen changed, so I only took a screenshot of that).

Chessgames.com also has what you are looking for in terms of percentages here, but with much fewer games: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer
> 2 votes

# Answer
https://www.365chess.com/opening.php

is probably the best free database.

Chessgames.com is good but will often stop you from going too deep into lines if you don't have a membership. It does have some useful search features though.

Lichess.org has a database but it includes site games and doesn't have as many high level games as some other sites. Still it could be useful if you're not prepping for 3+ hour tourament games.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, database
---


# Question
Title: How big a rating difference between TOP GM and a patzer would be equivalent to odds games?
How big a rating difference would be needed to justify odds games of:

1 pawn and move

2 knight

3 rook

These are odds that Morphy gave to weak players.

Has chess improved that much since Morphy that the odds would not be feasible to give to anyone other than absolute beginners?

# Answer
> Has chess improved that much since Morphy that the odds would not be feasible to give to anyone other than absolute beginners?

This is certainly not the case. Kasparov played a master-level player in 2001 giving move and two pawn odds, and won 2.5-1.5.

In 2008, Larry Kaufman wrote:

> ...the Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.

Kaufman also wrote in a 1999 article that a pawn was worth about 200 rating points at master level, and a knight in the opening position was worth about 700, meaning "a FIDE 2115 (USCF 2165) player would be a fair opponent" to Kasparov given knight odds.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rating, handicap, odds
---


title: Weighted adjustment for relative Elo

text:
# Question
Title: Weighted adjustment for relative Elo
I was looking at my biggest upsets the other day and realized that the result was unsatisfying. Most of them were 500-600 point upsets when I was still really low rated (i.e. 800 beating a 1300), while the upsets I consider the greatest have been the 150-200 point ones scored as an A player or expert. Similarly, it would be a much bigger upset if a 2650 were to beat Levon Aronian than it is for a 1500 to beat a master. It seems like the higher ratings go, the greater the points matter - a 100 point difference matters a lot more the higher up you go.

Can anyone come up with a weighted or logarithmic way of representing Elo ratings on some sort of scale so that this is accurately represented and players can be compared in a consistent manner, or does such a scale already exist?

# Answer
I think the phenomenon that you're describing is due to variability in play at lower levels. Elo is defined based upon the statistical likelihood that one player will beat the other.

Here is the exact formula to get the expected score for a player (rating = Ra) vs an opponent (rating = Rb):

This means that an 800 player is theoretically as likely to beat a 1000 player as a 2200 player is to beat a 2400 player.

Obviously this is not the case because at the lower levels, there is a much higher variance in the results. This difference is captured quite well in the Glicko Rating System. Basically, a player has a rating as well as a ratings deviation (RD) which represents how well established a player's rating is. So in your case when you were rated 800, most likely you were closer to 1100 or 1200 strength but your rating had not yet caught up to your strength. It is one of the fundamental flaws in all rating systems that the rating always lags the strength. If the USCF used the Glicko system, then these early wins would have resulted in a far greater rating jump than actually happened, and your opponent would also have lost fewer points.

So to summarize, while the rating systems are not perfect and your strength will frequently be above your rating, an 800 beating a 1000 and a 2600 beating a 2800 are both equally likely from a purely mathematical standpoint.
> 7 votes

# Answer
You can build whatever scale you want... but as has been said, ratings are already calculated so that a particular ratings difference will produce a particular expected score. Adjustment will probably just skew things, especially if the adjustment is to the degree you suggest and based solely on the rating numbers (as opposed to, say, the fact that your 800s rating was *provisional*, and it went up significantly in the few tournaments it took for your rating to become established.)

I think you overestimate how uncommon it is for a 2650 to beat a 2820 or so. If there is a 170 point gap in ratings, the lower person is expected to score about 27-28%. Although much of that score is from draws, the lower player does win sometimes. To find out how often, I looked at a database with 127K games in it. I filtered it for games in which a 2800+ played someone 2650 or below. There were 230 such games. Of those, 16 were won by the weaker side. That's about 7%.

Or perhaps you underestimate how hard it is for a 1500 to beat a master. I don't have a database of lower rated players vs masters, but I looked at the USCF games history of a 2309 rated FM from my state. He's played 48 games against people rated under 1500 since they started keeping track in late 1991, and lost *zero*. He's played 104 games against people rated 1500-1699 and lost 4. Against people rated 1700-1999, he's lost 33 of 589, or about 5.6%.

Yes, I'm mixing USCF and FIDE ratings by comparing the two, but nevertheless I would say that a 1500 beating a master is actually a bigger upset than a 2650 (which is almost enough to be in the world's top 100 list) beating a 2820.

But you didn't ask about that, so I'll set it aside now. You asked about possible formulas. One formula that might be in the spirit of what you seem to intend (heavily weighting the amount of the upset based on the opponent's rating, and affecting all areas of the rating scale) is:

`A = D * 2^((R/300)-5)`

"A" is the adjusted amount of the upset, "D" is the difference in the ratings, and "R" is the opponent's rating. The 2 means the adjusted upset doubles for a given amount of opponent's rating (if it was a 3 it would triple instead), and the 300 represents the amount needed to make that change. (The 5 is just for scale.) So, by this formula, for every 300 points the opponent is rated, the adjusted amount of the upset doubles.

Personally I think that's *way* too steep (a difference in 1500 opponent's rating points means it's adjusted by a factor of 32, and I don't think you can ever say a 10 point difference is the same as a 320 point difference) but it seems to fit what was wanted. This formula would make a 2650 beating a 2820 slightly better than a 1500 beating a 2200, and would make an 1800 beating a 1950 better than an 800 beating a 1300.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You could come up with many more complicated ways to measure performance but that would not adequately fix the INCONSISTENCY and VARIABILITY of lower rated players.

Furthermore, ratings are not at all accurate at low levels because there is insufficient mixing of the competition. Top GMs play themselves which is a much much smaller group than those rating club level players worldwide or even in one large country. For that matter a small country should have more weak players than the total of ALL GMs in the world.

And ratings only estimate PAST PERFORMANCE, which as the ads say is no guarantee of future performance. Kids improve, a lot; and GMs get old and usually slightly weaker.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The weakness in the Elo rating system is that it relies on "scoring", that is, replacing trinomial chess game outcomes with binomial "scores" (win=1, lose=0, draw=1/2). Scoring causes some game outcome information to be lost. I made an empirical measure of the information loss and found it to be significant. I have proposed a two-dimensional measure of performance that is more accurate because it contains more information.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


title: What to do about my low initial rating?

text:
# Question
Title: What to do about my low initial rating?
My initial rating came out to be 1166. At the time I played the games against the rated players, which gave me this rating, I did not know much about the rating system and would often agree to draw with lower rated players. But now I see that it will be really difficult to improve my rating even if I improve my play, as defeating higher rated players will not give me much of a push. Can I reset my rating and become unrated again? What can I do?

# Answer
> 3 votes
It depends on how much more rated those players are. But you should get lots of rating defeating a higher rated player.

Aside that, the only way to improve your rating is to become better at playing chess. You can't expect your rating to increase drastically after a few games. Just improve your tactics, learn good openings, tactics, practice with better players at a chess club (this way they can help you and teach you which is useful).

Eventually you'll have an easier time defeating higher rated players and your rating will increase.

Good luck with it, just a question, you're playing online? I'd really recommend going to a chess club.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think you are too obsessed with ratings in general. Try to not think about your and your opponents' ratings and just focus on playing a good game.

Ratings only get important:

* if you want to get a title such as IM, GM
* if you want to be invited to some (usually high level) tournaments
* for prestige, e.g. if you want to teach chess for money

In any case you are very far from these and the only effect your rating currently has is that it affects pairings in (some) swiss tournaments. But if you play much above your rating, winning the first few rounds you would soon be paired to stronger opponents anyway.

A rating of 1166 is rather low and if you do improve your chess you will automatically also improve your rating. For example if you play at a level around 1800 you should be able to gain around 50 rating points in a tournament. (this rating gain will slow down as you get closer to 1800, unless you increase your playing strength further).

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Can I reset my rating and become unrated again?

In the USCF, no. Even if you stop paying your dues and become inactive, you still keep your rating.

In FIDE, it *is* possible to lose your rating. The minimum rating is 1000, and if you go below this, you become unrated and can get a new rating. However, it is unethical to purposely lose games to lower your rating. It also may take longer than you think; the fastest way to lose rating points is to lose to someone rated below you, but any player significantly weaker than you would be unrated, and losing to an unrated player does nothing to lower your rating. It would likely take multiple tournaments, plus another tournament to get a new rating. And what happens if the tournament where you get a new rating is a poor one? Are you going to throw a bunch more games and do it again?

There's no need to lose your rating. Just improve the one you have.

> defeating higher rated players will not give me much of a push.

In FIDE, the "K" value which determines how fast your rating changes is high for your first 30 games, or if you have not reached your 18th birthday (if your rating is below 2300). If you are within either of those, your rating will still change relatively quickly; a single win against an opponent rated the same as you would get you 20 points, and a win against some rated higher would get you more.

In the USCF, your rating will also change more quickly if you have few games played. Even if you've played too many games for this to apply, it also changes more quickly for low rated players. Also, in the USCF you get "bonus" rating points if your performance at a tournament is significantly better than what your rating would predict.

Let's take an example to see how this would work for you. Let's say that you have 15 games already played, your current rating is 1166, and that in your next tournament you face 4 players each rated 1300. In FIDE you would gain about 69 points if you went 3/4 against that opposition, or about 109 points if you went 4/4. In the USCF, you would gain about 138 points for going 3/4, or about 233 points for going 4/4.

So, even if you are currently underrated, your rating will quickly get to a proper level if you just play in a few more tournaments.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are two possibilities:

1. Your rating is more-or-less accurate or too high.
2. Your rating is vastly too low.

If we are in situation 1, then your solution is to play more chess and thereby get better at chess, which will get you into situation 2.

If we are in situation 2, then you will win far more games than your rating would suggest, so your rating will increase rapidly until the problem solves itself.

In either case, the solution is the same - **play more chess**.

# Answer
> -1 votes
play in a national tournament and win it. your rating WILL go UP.

---
Tags: rating
---