# Question
Title: Is there software that simulates the Tri-D or 3-D chess as seen in Star Trek?
I want to try this game without making/buying a board and it is easier to learn to play when the computer can prevent invalid moves. Does any software, preferably freeware, exist which simulates this flavor of chess?

# Answer
From wikipedia:

> There is software for playing Tri-D Chess; Parmen is a Windows application written by Doug Keenan and available free on his website.

Here are some of the external links for (software) Raumschach and Tri-D chess:

> http://www.pathguy.com/chess/Chess3D.htm
>
> http://www.cosmicchess.com/
>
> http://www.parmen.com/

There is a version available for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=awfsoft.app.TriDChess
> 10 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, software
---


# Question
Title: What are white's plans in this Scotch Gambit position?
I'll skip the long explanation, but it's not uncommon for me to reach the following position as White out of the opening:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 Bxb2

```

(Black to move, most common replies seem to be `...Nf6` and `...f6`, though `...Bf8` is also occasionally played)

A number of sources claim that this position is perhaps equal but White has good chances, and in practice I do alright. The problem is that I have trouble coming up with any short-term plans because White has almost completed development but Black's 'neutral' position means that there is little to do tactically and I'm concerned that by making too many passive developing moves (rooks onto open files, etc.) I'm wasting the development advantage that I've spent material to gain. I can see that here White has pressure on f7 and g7, and there is the possibility of tactics after `Re1`, but I struggle to come up with a concrete short-term plan.

So, in short, what are White's short-/medium-term plans?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Great question. This is a very open position (pawns are not obstructing pieces). As a result, each player has enormous choice on each move (in this case, more true for White). So, 'planning' is very hard, because predictability is very low.

That said, you can make progress after the initial development of your pieces in a few ways:

* I find it useful in open play to think about the '2nd development' of a piece. For example, the 1st development of a knight might be to c3 or f3, and the 2nd is to d5/e5/g5. So Nc3-d5 could be thought of as simply continuing development. There are many other ways to verbalize this, of course, such as 'activating a piece' or 'inviting everybody to the party'. Point is, once you've brought a piece out, it's work isn't done: it needs to cross into enemy territory and do some damage.
* You can get very far in these positions by combining the above with various concepts:

+ Make threats;
    + Make multi-purpose moves
* The nature of your question suggests that you might benefit from improving your tactical ability. This will help you make threats and seize otherwise hidden winning opportunities. Also, this type of position, where one player has a sizable lead in development, often feature sacrificial tactics, which are difficult for most amateurs, without study and practice.

You can improve your tactics in various ways. When I started, I enjoyed "1000 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations," among many others. And now we have chesstempo.com and chess.com, too.

Another thing you can do that will be extremely helpful is to find famous/classic games from 50-100 years ago, where a strong player defeated a lesser player in this type of opening. Such games are very instructive, especially if annotated.

Hope this helps! \- A semi-retired semi-pro

# Answer
> 11 votes
you next moves as white will be 7. Ng5.. and you will activate your Queen - dependig of the Blacks move it may be 8.Qf3 or 8.Qd5

Attack the King and use weakness for f7

Some exmaples:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nge7 8. Ng5 O-O 9. Qh5

```

or:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Bf8 8. Qd5

```

**7. ... Nf6**

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nf6. 8. e5

```

or

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nf6. 8. Ng5

```

**7. ... f6**

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 f6. 8. Qd5

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
White has the better position because of superior development. After Black's forced move, White's next move should be Nc3. It will head to d5 and join the kingside attack unless Black plays BxNc3. Then White gets the bishop pair to compensate for his fewer pawns.

In any event, White has cleared his first rank so that his queen and two rooks can get into action faster than Black, whose queenside is still undeveloped.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, positional-play, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Annotated games in the Makogonov Grünfeld?
I would appreciate references to sources, be they books or any other sort of media, that contain annotated games in the Makogonov Variation of the Grünfeld Defense (two possible move-orders for which are given below):

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 (4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.b4) Bg7 5.b4

```

I would imagine that some books specifically on the Grünfeld would have what I'm after, but I don't know that literature well at all, and the couple I've looked at don't have tons of info. For instance, *The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White* proposes the Grünfeld against `1.d4`, but the sum total of its coverage of the Makogonov (unless I missed something) is to give the following single line assessment, with no words or additional analysis:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.b4 c6 7.Bb2 a5 8.b5 a4 9.Ba3 Be6 $10

```

I mention that only as a fact, not as criticism, since the Makogonov doesn't seem to be regarded as a critical test for the Grünfeld, and Kaufman has to choose where to focus.

Avrukh's *Grandmaster Repertoire 8: Grünfeld Defence, Volume One* gives more to chew on, offering 4+ solid pages on the Makogonov in tree-of-variations form, and it mentions a handful of games where some of the lines come from. But still, that's not quite what I'm after; I'd like to find some Makogonov Variation games that are annotated *qua* complete games, in order to get a "feel" for this variation. So, to recap:

> Can someone point me to some complete, annotated games in the Makogonov Grünfeld?

# Answer
chesspublishing.com has seven well-annotated (by GMs Glenn Flear and Neil McDonald) games starting with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.b4, ranging from 1999 to 2009. They're not free, though.

The games are:

* Rabrenovic - Atalik 1999
* Aleksandrov - Oral 2000
* Bruzon Batista - Sutovsky 2004
* Suvrajit - Harika 2004
* Georgiev - Holzke 2007
* Akobian - Perelshteyn 2007
* Akobian - Ponomariov 2009

All have lots of verbal annotations and variations, at about the level of detail you'd expect to see in a opening book that is organized by annotated games.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Chess.com has a few hundred examples:

http://www.chess.com/games/results?e=776&ml=MS5kNCBOZjYgMi5jNCBnNiAzLk5jMyBkNSA0Lk5mMyBCZzcgNS5lMyBPLU8gNi5iNA%3D%3D
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, master-games, grunfeld-defense
---


title: strongest chess engine

text:
# Question
Title: strongest chess engine
Can somebody tell me where can i find an updated list of the strongest chess engines. I want to find out a comparison (ordered list of engines)

Information on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_engine is very outdated. Typing strongest chess engine in google either gives links for 2011 year pages or to the sites of an engine with ads that it is the best. Sometimes I see tests done by random people on the laptop with a lot of fuss.

So it looks strange to me that I can not encounter official results.

# Answer
The information on the Wikipedia page seems pretty up-to-date to me. I will retype a couple of the links from it.

* The CCRL 40/40 list runs programs at the time control of 40 moves in 40 minutes.
* The CEGT 40/120 list runs programs at the time control of 40 moves in 120 minutes.

There are four other links in the Rating List table from that Wikipedia link that may be worth exploring, though they seem to run at shorter time controls or with a smaller list of engines.

Pretty much every rating list that includes Houdini has it in the top spot.
> 6 votes

# Answer
There are several online chess engine competitions running online. The winners of those, certainly the top five, are likely to statistically be among the stronger engines.

One such competition is: http://www.tcec-chess.net/live.php

You can DDG for others.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Here you can get Stockfish, the #2 engine in the world (second only to Houdini 3), rated a cool 3100.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How high is the level of professional blitz tournaments?
A GM has an elo of at least 2500, and Magnus Carlsen has an elo of almost 2900, so I think you can safely say that *most* games between grandmasters at a level of 2400-3000 elo. This is obviously very vague, so I think you can best describe it as: **Most of the games among GM's are at a level similar to 2 chess computers, with an elo rating of 2500-3000, playing against eachother.**

If you take this description into consideration, how high would the level of games be at a blitz and at a bullet tournament for grandmasters? Would they be significantly lower (like for example 2000-2400), or would a good grandmaster like Magnus Carlsen still play at a level around 2700-2800?

# Answer
There is insufficient data to answer objectively. However, there are a few things that can be said with confidence:

* a player's bullet rating should always be less than or equal to his standard rating, because more time allows for deeper middlegame calculations
* you can't accurately predict a player's bullet rating by his standard rating and vice-versa
* some chess clubs have formulas for matches with time handicap where the stronger player gets less time depending on the rating difference between his and the weaker player, but in most cases the stronger player is a strong bullet player too and wins anyway
* grandmasters keep their knowledge of openings and endgames in bullet time controls
* certain flawed strategies work better in bullet chess
* there are many grandmasters out there who are critics of fast chess
* there are many grandmasters out there who have a style incompatible with short time controls

To get the data to answer your question, you would probably need to examine a lot of games between players of similar strength where one plays standard and the other one plays bullet and see from the results if you can consistently find the rating gap, and there aren't many volunteers for that.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, elo, blitz, carlsen, super-grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Bishop's Opening, Berlin Defense, white goes Qf3; how to exploit with Black?
So:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3

```

`Qf3` should be a mistake for white, but I just can't get a decent position whenever I play this with Black. If I go on to castle kingside the queen and bishops are already well placed to attack; if I try to develop on the queenside white just pushes the g and h pawns and my knight runs out of squares very quickly. Excuse the noobness, I'm obviously a beginner. So.. how to continue?

# Answer
> 7 votes
This opening is not dangerous.

You have no weaknesses.

White's Queen is doing nothing useful while blocking the best square for White's King's Knight.

Once you develop your Queen's Knight to c6 White has to worry about Nc6-d4 with a big gain of time.

Your f6 is fine – your knight masks it for now, and once you castle kingside it's well-defended and easily reinforced, while White will have trouble bringing up anything else to attack it.

Castling queenside is probably not indicated, although the White pawn-storm you mentioned is both premature and far too slow.

It's not like you're *winning* here, but White is not going to wrest any advantage out of this position without being given a gift. Whatever problems you're running into are not due to this opening.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You can chose **3. ... c6** to prepare **... d5:**

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3 c6

```

**3. ... Nc6** \- you can play Na5 later in the game:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3 Nc6

```

**3. ... Bc5** and **... O-O** or **... O-O-O** depending on the situation on board:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3  Bc5 4. Nc3  Nc6 5. Nge2 Na5 6. d3 Nxc4 7. dxc4 c6
8. h3 d6 9. g4   Be6 10. b3  Qe7

```

**3. ... Be7** and **... O-O** and you are safe:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3  Be7 4. d3 O-O

```

Try **3. ... d5** if you want some action:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qf3  d5

```

All this move (except **3. ... d5**) give you a good position with the opportunity to castle and to be active or wait for your opponents move to react.

If it is still not enough for you - post some more moves in the line you have problems with and I will give you more advices.

# Answer
> 4 votes
By moving out his queen prematurely, White has practically given you the "first move" advantage. That's because your N on f6 shields the pawn he wants to attack.

My personal preference is to play Nc6, threatening Na5 to harass the B. With Nc6, you have two knights out, white has none. In the opening, the rule for development is "knights before bishops," not to mention queens.

My second choice would be d6, threatening Bg4, chasing the queen. Another followup move would be Be6, forcing the exchange of light squared bishops. The doubled pawn that you get by recapturing is an advantage, because it brings a second pawn to support an eventual d5, and you open the f-file for your rook to chase the White queen.

# Answer
> 3 votes
```
So.. how to continue?

```

I depends what you want to get to. Do you want to open the game up? Play `3...c6` and follow it with `..d5`. If you are into gambits you could try `3...b5 4.Bxb5 c6` and then `..d5`, it should be sound enough. More standard moves: `3...Nc6`, `3...Bc5`, and `3...d6` are all fine too, but generally would lead to more closed positions.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Allow piece removal

text:
# Question
Title: Allow piece removal
I'm wondering about a chess variant I thought of: it's just like chess except that a player may, in lieu of (or as) a move, remove any of his own pieces (except the King) from the board. (This is illegal if his turn would end with him in check.)

* Is this a known (I mean, known previous to this posting) variant? Citation, please.
* What are pros and cons of playing this way?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I didn't ever heard of a similar variant before.

It's interesting: pieces that move along "lines" (Queens, Rooks and Bishops) can become very powerful, since a player can remove his own Pawns to increase the range of his pieces. Imagine a battery of two Rooks and the pair of Bishops looking towards a castled King: they could really be a powerhouse, since the attacking player can volountarly "open lines" himself.

On the other hand, all the other pieces are a little bit of crap: who cares about the "jumping ability" of the Knight when anyone can open a blocked position by sacrificing a Pawn? And the King will find himself in trouble, when defending: no more "blocking behind the enemy Pawn", since the "enemy Pawn" can easily disappear the next move.

I think that this variant would lead to open and very aggressive games: both players can sacrifice material at will in order to open lines.

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


title: Visually disabled and chess

text:
# Question
Title: Visually disabled and chess
I am very curious as I have seen many of them playing: How do visually disabled people learn chess? And what are all the types of equipment they use to learn the game?

# Answer
There are chess sets made for the visually impaired. They are called 'tactile' chess sets. The game is played by touch. The pieces lock into the board. Removing a lock constitutes "touch move".

Here's an example, though I am not sure it is a 'tournament quality' tactile set.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Berlin Defence or Petroff?

text:
# Question
Title: Berlin Defence or Petroff?
Which one is the better drawing weapon?

Which one is harder to beat?

Which one is more solid?

Which opening should black pick if he/she doesn't want to lose?

If black needs a draw in the last round to win the tournament, which opening should black pick?

# Answer
Before I address the questions, it's important to understand that the Berlin and Petroff are different openings in the sense that one cannot *force* the Berlin to appear over the board in a King Pawn opening. The Berlin is a variation of the Ruy Lopez, whereas the Petroff deviates from any Spanish variations on move two with `2...Nf6`.

Historically, the Petroff deals consistent results at the club, tournament, and world-class levels. However, it's known to be a relatively unambitious opening with a solid reputation (until recently, where more aggressive lines have been discovered for White, namely variations after the move `5. Nc3`).

The Berlin Defense is also known for its solidity, but it is dependent on White playing `3. Bb5`. Kramnik used it as a drawing weapon against Kasparov at the 2000 Classical World Chess Championship.

However, I do not want to make a recommendation purely based on the nature of the two openings. Investigate the two openings yourself and play them in a few online games to get the feel of the resulting positions. If you find yourself comfortable more with one over the other, then you should pursue that opening. As an aside, I wouldn't "play to draw" unless there's significant money on the line or a national title - you'll learn more by playing good chess without an end result in mind.
> 5 votes

# Answer
There no certain answer to your question. It depends.

An opening with a "drawish reputation" usually turns against the player who chooses it without having a deep knowledge of the opening itself.

That said, I think that both of these, if understood, can be a very hard match against a White player who desperately tries to win. But they're not easy to play.

In my opinion, as a `1. e4` player (so, with the "opponent's point of view"), the Berlin is quite solid but harder to play: Black has to find suitable squares for his pieces, and must play carefully to avoid White attacks.

As White, I am comfortable playing against the Petroff: for Black it's a little bit easier to play, but has many traps, and usually the Knight becomes an easy target for White pieces. Black will lose tempo while trying to defend it.

In conclusion, don't choose an opening only for its "drawish" reputation: this may be true only at higher levels, where players know very well almost every opening. At lower levels, on the contrary, the player who relies on a specific "drawish opening" in order to draw a game will find himself in trouble more often than not.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> If black needs a draw in the last round to win the tournament, which opening should black pick?

If a player only needs a draw in the last round, he or she should play normally (of course this is easier said than done) and only sometimes remember that to reach the goal they only need a draw, for example if they can force draw by perpetual. This means the player should play the opening they are most comfortable with. If the only opening black knows is Sicilian Najdorf, then they should play that.

Moreover, I don't think there is really a drawing weapon for under 2000 players; I believe draws a fairly rare at that level. Having said that, I think that the Berlin is more "drawish" in the since that it leads to exchange of queens (a least in the main-line). I don't think that the Petrov is really all that drawish, usually the position is pretty open with a lot of piece activity and opportunities for tactics.

The reason the Petrov has a drawing reputation is that many top-level GMs use it to draw. However, the main reason it works for them is that they know the Petrov really well, and often can show majic with tactical nuances, not because the position is really drawish or super solid. Even Kramnik had some quick losses with the Petrov (see Anand-Kramnik below), when the opponents had out-prepared him, those positions are tricky.

The Marshall gambit in Ruy Lopez is another opening top-level GMs often use to draw; however, that opening is hardly drawish or solid for sub 2000 players.

Here is is Anand-Kramnik game mentioned above:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Mtel Masters"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2005.05.19"]
[EventDate "2005.05.12"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[ECO "C42"]
[WhiteElo "2785"]
[BlackElo "2753"]
[PlyCount "39"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6
7. O-O Be7 8. c4 Nb4 9. Be2 O-O 10. Nc3 Bf5 11. a3 Nxc3
12. bxc3 Nc6 13. Re1 Re8 14. cxd5 Qxd5 15. Bf4 Rac8 16. Qc1
Na5 17. c4 Qe4 18. Bd1 Qd3 19. Re3 Qxc4 20. Re5 1-0

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, berlin, petroff-defense
---


title: How to deal with time-control pressure?

text:
# Question
Title: How to deal with time-control pressure?
I find myself frequently running into time trouble. Even though mentally it feels like I didn't use that much time, when I look at my clock it says otherwise. When this happens I start rushing to try and make up for 'lost time' with blunders soon to follow.

I have an idea of where the time is going -- usually it's when I'm analyzing a critical position and I'm calculating the moves out. Many times I can't seem to find a clear plan to carry out because of time pressure.

Are there any techniques or ideas to try out and practice to help with this problem? What do you guys do to tackle this issue?

**Edit**: To answer Akavall's comment on when it happens. I certainly don't run into time-pressure in every game -- eg. if my opponent made a big blunder and I'm up in material. Usually it happens when the position is about even. I take too long coming up with a plan and the most accurate candidate move. Other times it happens when I'm in an inferior position trying to size up a defense.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The two main things I do to avoid time trouble are:

1. I write down the remaining time for each player after every move. This both keeps me very aware of the amount of time I have left, and lets me know how much time I have spent thinking so far on the current move, so I can take appropriate action if I've already been thinking for 5 minutes. I also try to have a few checkpoints; for example, if the first time control is at move 40, I try to have at least half my time left at move 20.
2. This one is harder: in a non-critical position, I am willing to take less time than I'd like and just make a decent move in 2 minutes instead of spending 10 minutes looking for the best possible move. Of course you don't want to do this when the difference between the best move and second-best move is very large, which you don't know in advance, so you have to use your experience and intuition.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I know this is a very difficult situation to handle. It took me quite a long time to overcome this problem.

The best thing is to think as fast as one can. Also try to increase your concentration and keep thinking even if it is your opponent's move, as this might reduce some of time.

Study your games and make out which part (opening / middle game/ endgame) you find most difficult and find out if you like (can handle well) or prefer open positions or closed positions.

This will give you an idea about which part you need to spend more time in and where it is not required. Don't get scared about each and every move. Be confident and don't overthink.

I hope this will work well.

Thanks

# Answer
> 3 votes
This may help you playing in time pressure- practice blitz and rapid chess (5 and 15 minutes). I played a few thousand blitz games online and I am not afraid of time troubles at all. If you play 15 minutes you will get time pressure all the time, so you will get used to handling it. This usually transfers in better time management in longer games. Also- don't recalculate the same variations over and over and over again (this is quite difficult). The last suggestion is from GM Kotov ('Think like a grandmaster').

# Answer
> -1 votes
Instead of trying to calculate positions, just count the pieces.

> "If he takes, then I take, then he takes, then I take, then..."

Try this instead.

I've got 2 pieces attacking and he has 3 defending. Doesn't work.

I've got 3 pieces attacking and he has 3 defending. Doesn't work.

I've got 3 pieces attacking and he has 1... 2.. pieces defending. That works! I win.

---
Tags: learning, training, time-management
---


title: Viewing the board from the other side

text:
# Question
Title: Viewing the board from the other side
I have seen a few players going to the opponent's side of the board and then observing the position from that view. They usually do it when it is the opponent's move.

Does it really help in understanding threats or traps better?

# Answer
I have practiced this technique since I was 10 years old. My very first chess coach emphasized the importance of analyzing the chess position from different angles - it doesn't necessarily help me understand threats or traps, but rather assists me in understanding the game from my opponent's perspective. My opponent will be considering the position and potential plans, and it's usually easier to realize a valid plan for the other side when viewing the board from that side.

Furthermore, this behavior does tap into the psychological aspect of chess. If your opponent is unaware of this tactic, he or she may be uncomfortable that you are standing behind them as they are unused to such actions. This can play to your advantage as you can break their train of thought. Of course, you shouldn't try to distract them - it's simply an unusual act that may warrant a second glance.
> 7 votes

# Answer
It helps me. I've never done it in person but on a certain chess website where I play via mobile device, I can flip the board, and in most cases gain a defensive perspective, meaning I can see what my opponents strongest next move might be, and in some cases I'll see my weaknesses in my opponents camp.

The more I do this, the more I'm able to see from my side of the board without flipping, so it's a continual process of getting better. If I work hard at it, eventually I'm sure I'll be able to flip the board in my head, which would help my in person games, because standing over my opponents shoulder is probably bad etiquette, and is definitely awkward.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Yes. This tactic works. It doesn't allow you to see traps better but what it does tend to do is unsettle the most calm and collected opponent that should be largely uncomfortable when you invade their space. I find that if you accompany this tactic with the words " ah ha" and " really and then giggle " it works to a tee.

Sincerely,

Godric
> -4 votes

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Touching chess pieces in official matches
Is it a rule in official matches, that if I touch a piece I must play with that one?

Sorry for my noobness; my friend said that I should move with the touched piece.

# Answer
It's an often confusing issue. I have quoted key portions of the USCF rule book below, but the basic gist is that...

1. If you touch a piece, **excepting adjustment and accidents**, you must move it.
2. If you touch an opponent's piece, you must capture that piece.
3. If you release a piece, you have determined your move. (It is completed after you hit the clock.)

Incidentally, I once coached a scholastic, who inadvertently touched his opponent's queen (because he was too short to reach over the board easily) and his opponent claimed touch move and insisted that he capture the queen. He was only seven and not experienced enough to know to call the TD so he gave in to the older, very intimidating player and played the losing move. This was the state elementary championships, and he finished with 4 of 5 after losing this game.

New players are often unaware that accidentally touched pieces do not have to be moved. If there is doubt, call the TD. The TD should err on the side of accident and adjustment.

> **10A**. Adjustment of pieces. A player who is on the move and first expresses the intention to adjust (e.g., by saying j'adoube or I adjust) may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.
> **10B**. Touch-move rule. Except for 10A, a player on move who deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move, must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.
> **10E**. Accidental touch of a piece. A director who believes a player touched a piece by accident should not require the player to move that piece. For example, a player's hand reaching across the board may inadvertently brush the top of a nearby king or queen, or a player may hit a piece with an elbow.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: rules, etiquette
---


title: Cancel match chess online

text:
# Question
Title: Cancel match chess online
If I played chess online, there is an option to cancel the match. Does official chess game allow it or what rules define it?

# Answer
You can't cancel the match once it is started. Your only option is to resign in such case.

You're referencing something called "abort" where the match is ended with no result for either side. There is no option to "abort" in modern competitive chess, but it is worth mentioning that a few decades ago it was the norm to adjourn games that took an unreasonably long amount of time (i.e. played long into the night). It would be resumed at a later time convenient to both players.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: More Optimal Computer-Found Moves

text:
# Question
Title: More Optimal Computer-Found Moves
I am looking for examples of scenarios where the believed-best moves among experts were proven wrong by a computer.

# Answer
This might not be quite what you're after, but computer-generated endgame tablebases have revealed new knowledge that includes overturning previously held beliefs about the evaluation of certain endgames. This means that the experts were wrong about what the best moves were at plenty of points in such endgames. As an example, it's noted in the endgame study section of Wikipedia's tablebase article,

> For instance, the endgame with a queen and bishop versus two rooks was thought to be a draw, but tablebases proved it to be a win for the queen and bishop, so almost all studies based on this endgame are unsound.

That article cites John Nunn's *Secrets of Pawnless Endings* for that fact, and Nunn's whole *Secrets of ----- Endings* series would probably be a good source for more examples of this sort of evaluation turnaround, as those books are the end result of Nunn's extended exploration of tablebases.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What is the best continuation in this problem-h4 or Qd8?
In the given diagram, I have two best ways to continue for white, which is the better option out of these two and why?

```
[FEN "2Q5/p1P2pkp/1p2p3/5p2/3P4/5P1P/P2q2PK/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1. Qd8 Qf4+ (1. h4 Qf4+ 2. Kh3 Qc1 3. Qd8 Qh1+ 4. Kg3 Qe1+ 5. Kh2! f4 6. Qg5+ Kf8 7. c8=Q#)2. Kg1 Qe3+ 3. Kf1 Qc1+ 4. Kf2 Qd2+ 5. Kg3 f4+ 6. Kh4 Qe1+ ( 6. Kg4 Qxg2 7. Kh4 Qg3+ 8. Kh5 Qg6+ ½-½) 7. Kh5 Qe5+ 8. Qg5+ Qxg5 9. Kxg5 1-0

```

Also would be interesting to see what line Houdini selects and how much will be the points for each of these two moves...

problem taken from here

# Answer
> 8 votes
4...Qd2+ in your main line is an error; instead Black should play 4...f4, after which he delivers perpetual check. White can try to play on with 5.Qg5+ Kf8 6.Qxf4 Qxf4 7.c8Q+ but that's still a draw. So 1.Qd8 does not work.

1.h4 enables White to escape from perpetual check, and wins.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Qd8 is the right idea but allows a pertpetual check after 1... Qf4+. 1. h4 removes all Black's hopes.

# Answer
> -1 votes
in my Houdini views, you're already win in your normal play, and long way to be draw. `h4` is already the best move.

Black should move `5. ... Qc3` rather than `f4`, `f4` makes Black will lose inmate at maximum 2 possible combination moves.

BUT

rather lose, if I follow your inner moves `Kg4` which give draw to White, in my Houdini views, I saw **Black** absolutely **won**.

as I can say, `Kg4` move is just a curse for White because of force-move check.. ^^

```
[FEN "2Q5/p1P2pkp/1p2p3/5p2/3P4/5P1P/P2q2PK/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1. Qd8 Qf4+ 2. Kg1 Qe3+ 3. Kf1 Qc1+ 4. Kf2 Qd2+ 5. Kg3 f4+ 6. Kg4 Qxg2 7. Kh4 Qg3+ 8. Kh5! Qg6+  9. Kh4! Qh6+ 10. Kg4! f5+

```

> **(0-1)**

---
Tags: engines, analysis, problems
---


# Question
Title: Can the Sicilian Defence be reached if White didn't start with 1. e4?
If white is **not** playing 1.e4, can you still play the Sicilian Defense or is it even called that in this case?

Also, after starting with the English Opening, can you only play Reversed Sicilian if black's first move was 1.e5?

# Answer
You cannot force the Sicilian Defense after a White move other than 1.e4. The Sicilian Defense is defined by 1.e4 c5, not by 1...c5. Chess openings in general are named based on the moves played by both sides, not by just one side.

It is possible sometimes to end up in the Sicilian defense by different routes, e.g. 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4, which arrives at the same Sicilian position as 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3. But White needs to cooperate for this to happen.

Similarly, as you guessed, a reversed Sicilian implies that White and Black have pawns on c4 and e5 respectively. If Black doesn't play ...e5, it's not a reversed Sicilian. But again, he may play ...e5 later than move 1, transposing into a reversed Sicilian line at that time.
> 17 votes

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


title: What does [6/10]-611 stand for?

text:
# Question
Title: What does [6/10]-611 stand for?
I am using Chess for Android app by Aart Bik. Fairly easy to use and understand (and difficult to beat).

I get these numbers displayed below the noted moves and I think these are analysis symbols giving a summary of current position in terms of who is likelier to win. One example is in the question. Other examples are: \[4/7\]3, \[3/7\]95, etc.

Can someone interpret these numbers into English?

# Answer
> 9 votes
According to the online manual for the app,

> After each engine's move, the output `[d/s]eval` indicates a search depth d, a selective search depth s, and an evaluation in centipawns eval from white's perspective. For instance, the output `[4/8]-103` indicates that the engine searched 4 plies ahead, with some variations even 8 plies ahead, and thinks that black is ahead by about a pawn.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, notation, terminology
---


# Question
Title: What are the techniques one can use to for chess board?
What are the techniques one can use to keep all pieces on a board ? It is like an n-queen problem

Is it a combination of n-queen

# Answer
> 5 votes
**To address the edit to the question** If you're receiving the pieces in a random order and you don't have any information about future pieces, the way to arrange the pieces would be to give pieces the least amount of scope. For example, if I were to receive a queen on the first turn, I would place it in one of the four corners. Some more rules would be to keep knights close to each other and pawns stacked one on top of the other. All of these strategies are a bit obvious, but it's difficult to have a consistent strategy to use as there are so many potential combinations of pieces.

---

This seems to me as more of a programming question than a chess one, but it's interesting nontheless! After thinking for a bit, I would hypthesize that the best way to approach this problem would be to use the knights as a baseline. It's well known that the maximum number of knights one can fit on a board is 32 (simply placing them on all squares of the same color), therefore having this as your starting position is logical as this is the maximum occupancy you can have with an individual piece. This strategy extends itself to an N x N board.

Afterwards, I would use pawns as their attacking prowess is limited to forward diagonals of one square in scope. They can occupy every other column (not rows as this would be limited to 2, 4, and 6 if following conventional rules), and this will add N/4 more occupied squares for an NxN board. This generalizes to a total number of occupied squares to N/2 + N/4, or simply 3N/4 total occupied squares.

This is the result of around 5 minutes of consideration, so my algorithm may be flawed. I hope this helps answer your question!

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would think that with a random selection of pieces the basic strategy would be to place them on the board to that they attacked as few squares a possible and didn't obstruct any rank or file that was not already obstructed whenever possible. ie knights in the corners, short distance moving pieces like the king and knight on the same rank or file, and bishops on the same rank or file as other pieces. In general when choosing a square for the new piece it would be similar to a king hunt. When trying to pin down the king you want to reduce the number of squares that he can safely occupy by as much as possible (without reducing it one). Here you want each piece placed to reduce the numbers of squares still not attacked by any piece by as little as possible.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Since the problem definition was updated recently, I'm assuming that you're starting with an empty NxN board, and are given a random piece and asked to place it. When done, you are given another random piece until no more can be placed.

For a *human* strategy, I guess a good rule of thumb would be to pick a (valid) position which minimises the number of still open squares denied by the new piece. There are two main components to this, on a high level:

* Placing some types of pieces near the edge of the board may be beneficial (I say *some*, because when placing a rook, you will deny 2N-1 squares regardless of where you place it, but the logic holds nicely for knights).
* Each square being double (or triple, etc) attacked represents a potential free square somewhere else on the board. Keep this in mind to maximise truly open squares.

For a *programming* strategy, we have to look at the problem again. The way it is stated above it is not really a programming problem, since our success depends on finding the best possible strategy (which clearly we haven't done). Traditional programming will not really help in this sense, because the rules of the problem deny the computer perfect knowledge of what pieces are coming. This makes the traditional approaches of brute-forcing or backtracking (typically used to solve 8 / N-Queens problem(s)) impossible to employ.

One could, however, employed various AI techniques in search of an optimal strategy. Essentially, this would boil down to finding a way to represent a strategy in some kind of data structure. This is actually the difficult part, and could get extremely tricky. You'd probably have to create some kind of domain-specific language which would allow for rules like "pick the rightmost column which doesn't yet have a knight in it", or whatever. Then you'd essentially pick some kind of optimisation algorithm (random search, genetic algorithms, particle swarms, etc) to find a particularly good set of rules, which seems to beat out all the rest you've found so far. There's a good chance that it would be so horribly convoluted that we could never understand how and why it works so well, but it may well beat the ones we've come up with by hand.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The two main points are:

1. **Have the less amount of attacked squares at all times**, which can be reworded to "*always try to attack the same squares several times*", the logic behind is that, if you manage to stack the attacks, it will inevitably reduce the total number of attacked squares (which is what we want), making more room for other pieces to be placed.
2. **Move groups of pieces near the corners and edges of the board**, this will again, reduce the number of attacked squares. We will sometimes need to *flip* and *mirror* certain groups of pieces to know what corner will save us the maximum amount of squares (image example below).

As for an example, I will post a quick study I did on knights, it is a bit silly since we already know we can place 32 knights in a 8x8 board just by putting them all on the same color, but I still did it to see how few knights should be arranged:

(notice how point **#2** determines which arrangement is better when we have a tie)

Also, two useful links I found are:

# Answer
> -2 votes
Keep the pieces out of the center, on the sides.

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Kind of popular variation in Tournament

text:
# Question
Title: Kind of popular variation in Tournament
I am just an ordinary chess player who does not know about Chess **Tournament** even just a little thing,

as I saw at my Houdini vs my Houdini at **Tournament** level in 5 minutes
(and now I still testing in infinite time \[based on ***maximum search depth***\].. and will move when depth reaches 99. \[believe me, it's really deep\]),

in early (at 3 games) seem to be played and transposed to **`Benoni variation`**,
are there some information that in the real **Tournament**, it is often to happened too??

**if it is not,**

what kind of variation which seem to be played in any **Tournament**,
because I want to learn opening and it's transposed to another which was proved and tested in **Tournament** first.. ^^

Thanks,
Ahmad

# Answer
> 2 votes
**EDIT:** You seem to be concerned if the opening is "tournament tested." I can affirm that almost all of the mainstream openings are well-tested, and you can figure out what these are yourself by doing the appropriate research online (i.e, which openings are most commonly played. See the links I supplied with this post.)

---

It would be great if you could clarify your exact question, but I feel as if you're asking if the Benoni Defense is a respectable opening. The Benoni positions arise after:

```
[FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5

```

And here Black can play the Benko Gambit with `3...b5`or go into more typical Benoni lines with `3...e6`. Of course, there are many other moves that can transpose into Benoni positions.

As for its reputation, the Benoni is certainly playable at all levels and has been played in World Championship matches. However, in recent times, the Benoni has been considered inferior to other Indian/Hypermodern defenses against the Queen Pawn openings such as the Grünfeld or Queen's Indian.

A few years ago at a coaching seminar in New York City, former World Champion Garry Kasparov remarked (perhaps jokingly) to my friend who played the Benoni that he should find a "real opening." That being said, Tal and Fischer employed the Benoni in the middle of the 20th century, with the former winning several brilliant games in the 1950s and 1960s and the latter winning a key game in the 1972 World Championship Match against Spassky.

You can read more about the Benoni Defense here.

---
Tags: opening, tournament, transpositions, houdini
---


# Question
Title: With only a king left, how many moves remaining until a draw?
I am a beginner in chess. If I have only a king left, how many moves does my opponent have to mate me?

# Answer
Your opponent has 50 moves, but every time a pawn is moved the count is reset. So, he could have hundreds of moves if he has a few pawns on the board. If he has no pawns, then 50.

The count is also reset if any piece or pawn is captured.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Do you mean "what is the minimum necessary number of moves?", or "what is the maximum allowable?"

Tony has already answered the second question - it could legally be thousands of moves depending on the position. As long as the same position is not reached more than twice and there is no 50 move stretch without a pawn move or capture, the game can go on until there are no pieces left. Theoretically, if you have lost all your pieces and he has lost none of his, he could jockey pieces around (making sure not to allow the same position three times) while every 50 moves moving a pawn or forcing you to capture a piece. The game could go on for over 3000 moves before it must end (\[48 pawn moves + 14 captures\] * 50 moves = 3100 moves). However, this scenario is extremely improbable, as a quicker mate would certainly be preferred.

As to the first question, if you only have a king, and your opponent has sufficient material to force mate, the minimum necessary number of moves in all positions would be 33 - in the case of King, Bishop, and Knight against King. In other cases, mate could be forced sooner. See Wikipedia again for a table: a queen takes at most 10 moves to mate with best play, a rook takes at most 16, two bishops 19, and bishop and knight (as mentioned) 33. (These are the only entries in the table with the opposing king as the sole defender.) Any other pieces or pawns added would reduce the necessary number of moves.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, draw, kings, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: Why can't I analyze with Stockfish 2.0.1 in Winboard 4.5 beta?
I have to ask an engine-related question: after I installed the Stockfish 2.0.1 engine on my Winboard 4.5 beta, I can't analyze with it. What I mean is, it's giving nothing in the engine output; it can only analyze with the default engines that come along with it (Houdini 1.5a, Delfi and Phalanx). What may be the reason?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish is a UCI engine so it doesn't understand xboard as they are different protocols. As user @WesFreeman mentioned in the comments, polyglot is an adapter that can get UCI working under Xboard/Winboard. Perhaps visiting the Winboard Startup Dialog or reading the help file may assist you in resolving this issue.

Winboard can also execute polyglot internally if you use -fUCI in the command line, i.e.

`xboard -fUCI -fcp stockfish -sUCI -scp stockfish`

To download the required programs, you can type:

`sudo aptitude install xboard polyglot stockfish`

---
Tags: engines, software, stockfish
---


title: Minimum moves to checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: Minimum moves to checkmate?
What is the minimum number of moves, counting both sides, in which a checkmate can be made?

# Answer
The precise answer to your question is **four half-moves**. The only checkmate possible in two moves is by Black - `1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4#` (This mate is known as Fool's Mate). Slight variations may occur (in White's move order or in the distance Black's e-pawn or White's f-pawn is advanced):

```
1.g4 e5 2.f3 Qh4#
1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#
1.g4 e6 2.f3 Qh4#
1.g4 e5 2.f4 Qh4#
1.f4 e5 2.g4 Qh4#
1.g4 e6 2.f4 Qh4#
1.f4 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

```

If White is to mate, a minimum of five half-moves (three moves) is required, for example `1.e4 f6 2.d4 g5 3.Qh5#` (with similar variations possible).
> 10 votes

---
Tags: analysis, statistics, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Tool that suggests tactics exercises based on game analysis
Does anyone know of any common tool that can go throughout your game database (I have a couple of hundreds of my game's PGNs), and extract tactics that one should be training? I believe something as suggesting board positions related to blunders, missed mates in 1, 2, 3, missed forks, etc.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Both ChessBase and Fritz do this. I am not sure if others do it too, but this is a great feature of many products from Chessbase.

If you can pick up Chessbase, well and good. Otherwise look into Fritz that might be one version behind the latest version. They sometimes go on sale on Amazon.com and elsewhere.

Here's what you do:

1. You ask Fritz (or similar engine) to analyze your games.
2. Select the option that asks if it should create exercises during full analysis.
3. Once it completes the analysis (it can analyze all 200 of your games if you give it enough time), you can then play through the tactics from your own games.

ProTip: Players will sometimes subset only those games that have exercises, move it to a new database, and play through these exercises. You are essentially training on situations that occur in your own games, a great way to improve.

Hope that helps.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, software, tactics, training
---


title: Is castling allowed in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: Is castling allowed in this position?
```
[FEN "8/8/b7/8/8/8/8/4K2R w - - 0 1 "]

```

In this case White hasn't moved his King yet. Is castling allowed?

# Answer
It's not possible to castle, because the `f1` square is attacked.

See the Laws of Chess; article 3.8 (King moves), b(2):

> Castling is prevented temporarily:
>
> * if the square on which the king stands, **or the square which it must cross**, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or
> * if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: castling
---


title: How to win using Lucena position?

text:
# Question
Title: How to win using Lucena position?
For the ones that never heard of the Lucena position, it a position where we have a `KRP+KR` ending, and the side with the extra pawn has his king in front of the pawn.

The problem is that when you try to move the king out of the pawn's way, the enemy rook will deliver annoying checks that will not stop unless you are familiar with the Lucena position and setup your rook in a certain way that will eventually be able to block the checks from the enemy rook.

**(example of not knowing how to Lucena)**

```
[fen "1K1k4/1P6/8/8/8/8/r7/2R5 w - - 4 1"]

1. Rd1+ Ke7 2. Kc7 Rc2+ 3. Kb8 Ke6 4. Ka7 Ra2+ 5. Kb6 Rb2+ 6. Kc6 Rc2+ 7. Kb5 Rb2+ 8. Kc6 Rc2+ 9. Kb6 Rb2+ 10. Ka7 Ra2+ 11. Kb8 *

```

How do I use the Lucena position in my favor?

# Answer
> 10 votes
The Lucena is one of the most important endgame positions to know, and the nickname for it helps a bunch when trying to figure it out over the board. Remember this phrase - "Building a Bridge."

The idea is to **get your rook to the fourth rank**. Although the move looks rather odd, the idea is simple. Once you bring your king out, he needs to be protected. Your king can advance all the way to the fifth rank, and after the check the rook can block and your pawn can queen. Allow me to use your example to demonstrate the Lucena:

```
[fen "1K1k4/1P6/8/8/8/8/r7/2R5 w - - 4 1"]

1. Rd1+ Ke7 2. Rd4! Rb2 3. Kc7 (3. Ra4 Kd7 4. Ka7 Kc7 5. b8=Q+ Rxb8 6. Rc4+ {works as well, as referenced by @dfan in the comments}) Rc2+ 4. Kb6 Rb2+ 5. Kc6 Rc2+ (5... Rb1 6. Rd5! Rc1+ 7. Rc5 Rb1 8. Rb5) 6. Kb5! Rb2+ 7. Rb4

```

And the pawn queens easily. The very first check is important because it **forces the opposing king an extra file away from the queening square.** As you can see, in the final position the black king is one tempo too slow to stop the pawn from reaching the eighth rank.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, rook-endgame
---


title: KNN-K Chess Endgame

text:
# Question
Title: KNN-K Chess Endgame
```
[FEN "8/8/8/4N3/4N3/4K3/8/4k3 - - - 0 0 "]

```

I have this chess problem that I have played with. Logically, there are positions that have the Black King in checkmate. But untill now, I haven’t been able to solve it.

My Houdini returned ‘insufficient material’ when I forced a move.

---

**EDIT**

However, if I use infinite mode, Houdini calculates and returns a value approximate ’+1.30’, until ‘+1.42’ at the moment I edited this. This means it is definitely a win for White. \[Based on the Houdini guide, ‘+0.89’ means an 80% chance of a win, ‘+0.9’ for a 90% chance, and so on.

---

Can you solve it?

# Answer
The position is indeed a draw - but your edit suggests a far more interesting question. Why would Houdini give such an evaluation when the position is a known book draw? @EdDean touched upon the answer, explaining the interpretation of the point evaluation.

Houdini, along with other chess engines, will analyze the position many moves deep. The *depth* is shown in the engine box and shows you how far ahead the computer is thinking. When Houdini calculates 15 moves ahead, it sees a position where White is up two knights against a lone king. Pure Houdini will not know that White cannot checkmate black without an accompanying Tablebase. However, if enough moves are played, you can "trick" Houdini into realizing that all of its best moves are leading to the exact same evaluation with no end in sight. This will cause Houdini to automatically adjust its evaluation to 0.00 - this is the result of some code that tells it if the position evaluation has not changed for X number of moves, the position must be a draw. Interestingly enough, if you keep playing on after this 0.00 evaluation is suggested and reach a position where the next move is checkmate, Houdini sometimes will still suggest this 0.00 evaluation. I've had this happen to me several times in the past and is likely a bug in the program.

In endgames with 6 pieces or less (including kings but without 5 vs 1), the Nalimov tablebase is a preferred method. This computerized database has a precalculated and exhaustive analysis of all possible scenarios with the aforementioned conditions. It returns the game-theoretical value in any given position - essentially "solving" the position.

If you want to read more about Tablebases, check out the Wikipedia page and an example.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The position shown is a draw, as Houdini says, because a checkmate with two knights cannot generally be forced, and there is no immediate mate in the position shown.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, checkmate, knight-endgame
---


title: Exact definition of a blocked pawn

text:
# Question
Title: Exact definition of a blocked pawn
What exactly is a blocked pawn? Is it a pawn with any of the opponent pieces in front or does it have to be an opponent pawn? Will the pawn be considered blocked if it can capture?

Add any other criteria that defines a blocked pawn.

# Answer
A "blocked pawn" is a rather general term that describes a pawn that cannot advance. It can be blockaded by either an opponent's piece or pawn, and in certain rare cases it can be blocked by a fellow pawn (i.e. doubled pawns). However, perhaps the most common example of a blocked pawn is one that is isolated. Here is an example of a typical IQP position: (isolated queen pawn)

```
r4rk1/pb2bppp/1p1qpn2/3n2B1/3P4/P1NB1N2/1P3PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1

```

It is a well known positional idea to blockade the opponent's passed pawn. The reason why the square in front of an isolated pawn is commonly used as an outpost is because the d-pawn does not have a fellow e or c pawn to kick the knight out of the d5 square. Therefore, Black's plan is to blockade the pawn, exchange off the minor pieces, and eventually win the pawn in the endgame. The following position illustrates this plan:

```
3r2k1/p2q1pp1/1p5p/3rp3/3P4/P2R4/1P1Q1PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

```

Blockading your opponent's pawn is also a common idea in positions with a backward pawn:

```
2rq1rk1/1p3pp1/p1npbb1p/3Np3/4P3/1BP1NP2/PP1Q2PP/3RR2K w - - 0 1

```

Notice how the d6 pawn is blockaded by the knight on d5. Keep in mind that in positions with backwards pawns, the pawn itself is weak and the square in front of it is also begging to be occupied. A long-term plan could be perhaps to eventually win the d6 pawn.

In such, positional maneuvers are usually rooted in scenarios where the pawn is blockaded by a piece. To answer your last question, a pawn wouldn't be considered blocked if it can capture because it will have a square to go to. A blocked pawn by definition cannot move anywhere.

If you want to read more about blocked pawns and their importance in endgames, check out the Wikipedia article involving key squares and zugzwang.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: pawns, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: Where can one get a large .bin opening book?
SCID uses .bin files as opening book format, but the opening books it has available on its site are rather small in size. Is there a better place to get larger .bin opening books? Alternatively, does SCID allow taking a large database, and turning that into an opening book? Polyglot uses pgn's, which probably won't work for building truly large .bin books.

# Answer
The Stockfish opening book works with scid, follow the directions there to use it with the engine. To use it in scid itself copy the `book.bin` file to the same location you have all your other scid opening books. I hope you have scidvspcand not the original...
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, scid
---


title: How to work out advantage?

text:
# Question
Title: How to work out advantage?
I was wondering if there is any internet resource that would tell me who has the advantage in a game of chess if I input the moves? I want to follow my son online in his chess matches but it doesn't mean anything to me and it would be nice to be able to tell how he's doing....

# Answer
You're looking for a chess engine. A engine can give you the evaluation of the position - a value that relays whether white or black has the advantage. A positive evaluation means white is better - with a greater number indicating a larger advantage - and vice versa.

As for the online resource, there are many options available to you. I would recommend downloading a free graphical user interface client such as XBoard to be used in conjunction with a strong engine, such as Houdini (the free version).

To input the position of your son's game, you can either copy and paste the FEN of the position or the current PGN of the game. The former contains information regarding the position and the latter has the notation of all the moves up to the current position. From there, running the engine will return the evaluation.

There are many tutorials online on how to set up the chess software - here is one example specific to XBoard and Houdini.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: An Aggressive Response (for black) against the closed sicilian?
I am look for an aggressive response to the closed sicilian (1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 ...) in which black has strong attacking and tactical chances against white. Most of the variations I have seen result in black playing semi-positional plans on the queenside and center while white pummels black's king on the kingside.

# Answer
It's difficult to recommend an tactical line against the Closed Sicilian as White is attempting to avoid this sort play by keeping the center relatively closed/semi-open. I wouldn't characterize the play as Black playing purely positionally on the queenside and White "pummeling" black on the kingside - there are a variety of plans for both sides in the resulting middlegames. Black's expansion on one side of the board can be just as effective if not more so than White's attack on the king. An aggressive approach isn't limited to tactical play. I can recommend an approach that may make this concept more evident.

Against `1. e4 c5 2. Nc3`, I have played `2...a6` in the past. Black's idea is quite simple - as he knows he's going to be playing on the queenside anyway, he decides to expand there before developing any of his kingside pieces. He usually follows up with moves like b5, Bb7, e6, and d5. This is certainly an aggressive reply to the Closed Sicilian, and can be defined as a positional one as well.
> 7 votes

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


# Question
Title: Which was that Marshall's game with that spectacular Queen sac?
Which was the game where Marshall, I think that with Black, made a spectacular Queen sac in g3 (White pawns on f2, g2, and h2, King in g1). The Black Queen could be taken with the f and h pawns and also with a third piece, and all variants led to different checkmate themes.

I believe that the audience started throwing gold coins after Qg3 was made.

**UPDATE**: I changed Murphy's mentions in the original question to mention Marshall instead, as Marshall was the player who actually did the Queen sac.

# Answer
> 9 votes
I believe it was Levitsky vs Marshall

```

[FEN ""]
1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Be2 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8. Bg5 O-O 9. dxc5 Be6 10. Nd4 Bxc5 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bg4 Qd6 13. Bh3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Bb4 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Rad1 Qc5 17. Qe2 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qxc3 19. Rxd5 Nd4 20. Qh5 Ref8 21. Re5 Rh6 22. Qg5 Rxh3 23. Rc5 Qg3   (23... Qg3 24.Qxg3 Ne2+ 25.Kh1 Nxg3+ 26.Kg1 Nxf1 27.gxh3 Nd2)

```

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: Judit Polgar Vs Nigel Short. YouTube video
Where can I find the video with the game Judit Polgar Vs Nigel Short that by the year 2011 could be found on youtube? I'm interested in the video of the match and not in the game itself. According this this page (http://www.chesscreator.com/judit-polgar-vs-nigel-short-what-a-turnaround-6)'' This epic battle took place in New York City, 1994, at the Intel World Speed Chess Tournament''

Could someone help me?

# Answer
It is probably part of this collection, which has the footage available from the 1994-1995 season. It costs money though...
> 5 votes

---
Tags: famous-players, women
---


title: Uploading chessboard to website

text:
# Question
Title: Uploading chessboard to website
I am a beginner programmer with some experience in HTML, PHP, and Java. I would like to upload a chessboard onto my website, and I have used the following links to help me:

http://chess.geniusprophecy.com/chess-viewer.html

http://chesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/chess-viewer-deluxe.html

However, I am getting stuck in placing the code (in steps 2. and 3. of the second link) in my source code. For example, what lines should I change and manipulate in

```
<APPLET archive="Viewer-Deluxe.jar" code="ChessBoard.class"
codebase="/bin" width="631" height="560" mayscript="true">
<PARAM name=PgnGameFile value="/games/Samples.Pgn">
<PARAM name=LightSquares value=F3DCC2>
<PARAM name=DarkSquares value=DDA37B>
<PARAM name=Background value=CCCCCC>
<PARAM name=ImagesFolder value=images>
<PARAM name=PuzzleMode value="off">
Your browser is completely ignoring the <APPLET> tag!
</APPLET>

```

in order for my code to work? I've tried modifying the value="" line many many times and I'm frustrated because nothing seems to be working. I've saved my files in the right directory, subdirectory, etc. but I keep getting the error

```
java.io.FileNotFoundException

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Your issue is likely because you're running Windows instead of \*nix.

```
<PARAM name=PgnGameFile value="/games/Samples.Pgn">

```

`/games/Samples.Pgn` is a unixy way to specify a path. If you're on Windows, try the similar:

`c:\games\Samples.pgn`

Be sure you get the spelling and capitalization *exactly* right.

**Edit #1**

According to the feedback below, there's now a malformed URL exception. So the value needs to be a URL, not a file name. That's a little different - the unix-like path is correct.

First, try `games/Samples.pgn`

Note there is no leading `/`.

Make sure the capitalization is *exactly* right. This assumes that there's a folder under your web root called `games` and that your web server has access to it. The original URL, `/games/Samples.Pgn`, would likely require a folder called `games` to be hanging off the root of the hard drive and most web servers don't have access to that folder.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm not too familiar with the Java applets that you're looking at, but I recommend that you use JavaScript for this sort of job. This GitHub repository can be used to display and play through your own games (it supports PGN and FEN).

There are many other libraries out there - it's easy for you to change the design of the board and pieces to suit your site's style. You also might want to ask this question on StackOverflow as you might find some more technical advice there.

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


title: playing C00 French:KIA `2. d3 d5`

text:
# Question
Title: playing C00 French:KIA `2. d3 d5`
When played **C00 French:KIA 2. d3 d5**, I choose to move my pawn `8. ... b4` to reply `8. Bd2`.

After that, '*the battle at early game is held*' with `9. a3 bxa3 10. Nxa3 Bxa3 11. Rxa3` and at the end of game, I forced to resign in game..

I feel that `8. ... b4` is my first bad move because it enabled 'battle' at developing phase when I actually not ready for that. What should the right move to reply `8. Bd2` in this case??

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4 a6 4. Be2 d5 5. e5 Nge7 6. c3 Ng6 7. g3 b5 8. Bd2 b4
(8... b4 9. a3 bxa3 10. Nxa3 Bxa3 11. Rxa3 )

```

Best Regard,
Ahmad

# Answer
Stockfish offers the variation below. The Knight goes to the rim so it can be repositioned to `c4`.

```
[FEN ""]
    1. e4 e6 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4 a6 4. Be2 d5 5. e5 Nge7 6. c3 Ng6 7. g3 b5 8. Bd2 b4
    (8... Na5 9.h4 c5 10.Nf3 cxd4 11.cxd4 Nc4)

```

with an equal game. Look how nicely the Black Knight is perched on c4.

Stockfish doesn't think `8... b4` is a particularly bad move, by the way.

```
[FEN ""]
    1. e4 e6 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4 a6 4. Be2 d5 5. e5 Nge7 6. c3 Ng6 7. g3 b5 8. Bd2 b4
    9.f4 bxc3 10.Nxc3 Rb8 11.Nf3 Nge7 12.Bd3 Rxb2 13.Na4 Rb8 14.O-O Bd7

```

again, with a roughly equal game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'm answering without an engine to back me up, but I do have some knowledge of French positions and can answer on that account:

The move b5-b4 is not necessarily a bad move. What Black always should worry about in the French is placing all his pawns on white squares and then exchanging his dark squared bishop. It is a common theme in the Winawer variation of the French.

Here it is Bxa3 which is the most strategically dubious move. In the French, do not exchange this bishop unless you get something for it. Look at your remaining bishop, all closed in by the pawns. Your bishop at f8 was stronger than the white knight at a3.

Besides, the move bxa3 is not so strong either. It opens the a-file for Ra1 and the principle for pawn exchanges is to capture towards the center, not away for it. That put aside, Bxa3 is strategically much worse as you give up the fight on the dark squares and your bishop pair for a knight in the rim.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Why do chess engines sometimes miss good moves (or take forever to spot)?
It is not the first time that I found a greatly superior move than the chess engine did, it even takes them a while to understand these moves after you make them.

For example, the move `15 ... Bf2` in the game below:

```
[fen ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Ng4 5. h3 h5 6. hxg4 hxg4 7. Bxc6
gxf3 8. Qxf3 Qh4 9. Qh3 Qxh3 10. gxh3 dxc6 11. Re1 Bxh3 12. f3 Bc5+ 13. Kh2
Bf1+ 14. Kg3 Rh3+ 15. Kg4 Bf2 16. Rxf1 Rg3+ 17. Kf5 Rxf3+ 18. Kg4 Rg3+ 19.
Kf5 f6 20. d3 Kf7 0-1

```

The move remains unnoticed by the engine for a while, it is not until I move that it starts to see the rest of the iceberg.

I know it all depends on how much time you give them to analyze though, but it is unacceptable that sometimes humans manage to find these moves in less time than computers.

* Why do chess engines fail to spot good moves in some positions? (I once read something about a 'horizon effect', maybe this is related?)
* Are there other notable examples? (e.g this famous puzzle, it takes a while for computers to solve)

These questions contain useful information to partially explain some factors that might be causing this anomaly: What algorithms and heuristics are popular in computer chess?, When playing a Computer opponent what situations should I create to give myself a better chance of winning?, Computer evaluations: How trustworthy are they?

**Notes:** The trap is known as the *Fishing Pole*, I am aware I missed a mate in 3 (and a mate in 7) :(, the time limit per move was days (correspondence chess) but it took me like 5-10 minutes to finish calculating everything.

# Answer
> 35 votes
> Why do chess engines fail to spot good moves in some positions?

The reason are called forward pruning techniques (see http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Pruning) with ProbCut in first line.

The move 15...Bf2 is pruned on shallow deeps because it includes the sacrifice 16.Rxf1 without regaining something concrete with evidence immediately after. The matenet is also hard to see, because it includes some further 'silent' move as for example 17...Ke7, and yes also engines, not only humans have difficulties to see distant silent moves as they are often pruned.

In this concrete case you even cannot say, that engines fail to spot good moves, because also the continuation 15...Rh3h1 is a very good move and leads to an absolutely won position.

Last but not least you have to remember, that an engine's strength is always measured in terms of elo-strengh and not in the ability to find the absolute shortest way to win. It does not matter, if a engine wins in 8 moves or in 25 moves. Seeking to much for the shortest win, would mean a waste time, because most time there does not exist such a secret good move at all. And waste of time would hurt the engines ELO-Rating.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I am trying this with Houdini 1.5 (the free version). At first 15...Bf2 doesn't show up in the top 5 moves, then when it reaches depth 15, it does, as #1. Takes about 19 seconds on my four year old computer, not that long.

So it doesn't fail to spot it, instead it only considers it the best move once depth 15 is reached. Apparently, as long as it only looks 14 ply deep, other moves are better (like the also winning 15...f5+).

Apparently 15...Bf2 is a mate in 8, which is 15 ply (8 moves by black, 7 by white). But at first it just considers it +10 or so, then +20, then mate in 10, then mate in 8.

The mate in 8 line is:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Ng4 5. h3 h5 6. hxg4 hxg4 7. Bxc6 gxf3 8. Qxf3 Qh4 9. Qh3 Qxh3 10. gxh3 dxc6 11. Re1 Bxh3 12. f3 Bc5+ 13. Kh2 Bf1+ 14. Kg3 Rh3+
15.Kg4 Bf2 16.Rxf1 Rh4+ 17.Kg5 Ke7 18.Rh1 Rxh1 19.Nc3 Rah8 20.Nd5+ cxd5 21.d3 R8h5+ 22.Kg4 R1h4#.

```

Clearly when Houdini 1.5 thinks 15 ply deep, it doesn't consider *all* possible lines that are 15 ply deep, or it would see the mate in 8 the moment it finished its 15-ply-depth search.

I think that is because of *pruning*, it stops looking at some lines when it thinks they aren't promising enough. That way, it can spend more time on the promising lines, and the programmer thinks that the pros outweigh the cons. But I don't have an answer right now on what it decides to prune here (it probably makes millions of separate pruning decision at depth 15).

It may have to do with the silent moves ...Ke7, and ...Rah8, two non-check non-captures in a line where black is a piece down. It's likely that it decides somewhere that it's not useful to keep looking in this line. Only later, when it does continue the line and finds the mate at the end do other lines that prolong the game (with 18.Rh1 Rxh1 and so on) then show up.

Anyway, it's known that it doesn't work that well to let a computer think for a few seconds only if you want to get to the bottom of something, a few minutes is better.

# Answer
> 2 votes
after reading all answers and other sources, I now understand that they don't 'miss' or chose to miss these moves, the humans programmed them in such way that they follow a specific pattern on (where/how/when + to) search and more importantly when to pause search and look into more promising lines in order to save resources.

But given enough time, a computer will fin every possible combination on a certain depth.

**TL;DR**

* Q1: they never miss moves, they just haven't found them yet
* Q2: they take time because they are programmed to save resources and they will prioritize some lines over other ones (e.g the ones that don't have passive moves or don't recover material in the next few moves).

# Answer
> -1 votes
I think everyone is missing a much quicker mate. When checking the position with Houdini 3, black actually has mate in 3 on move 13. Instead of Bf1+, black should've played Bf2, and it contines with 14. d3 bf1+ 15. Bh6 Rxh6#. So, in a unusual answer to your question, maybe certain engines didn't see your move right away, but, in the case of Houdini 3, it found a much quicker mate.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, evaluation
---


title: At a strategic impasse

text:
# Question
Title: At a strategic impasse
Is there a general guideline for how to parlay a lead in development and a slight positional advantage into a definitive win? I'm playing a game now online, and I'm stuck for a way to keep and exploit the upper hand. I get stuck like this a lot, and I figure it must be for lack of principles or tactical vision.

# Answer
Converting advantages such as a lead in development or a better position are practices that operate on a higher level (conceptually, at least) than tactics. The most common forms of tactics are those than result in the gain of material or a mating net, much more tangible results than say a weak square or an initiative. Pure calculation and a sharp tactical sense are important aspects of chess, but for the majority of the game they will be largely separate from positional play. Therefore, I would say that this is more supportive of your statement that it is a lack of understanding of principles rather than a weak tactical vision.

Let's address the specific examples that you outlined in your question. First, what does a lead in development entail? There is one main principle that you can utilize - **initiative**. The initiative is dictating the flow of the game. You can force your opponent to respond to your moves, allowing you to execute whatever plan you want while placing his own goals on hold. In such, it is common for positions where one side has the initiative for that player to launch an attack, given that the opponent is not adequately prepared.

If you can elaborate on the "slight positional advantage" (Minor piece difference? Pawn structure \[backwards, isolated, doubled, hanging, passed\]? Open files? Weak squares? Space? etc.) that you mentioned in the question, I can recommend other plans that are associated with the appropriate imbalances.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Several, distinct kinds of advantage will arise during chess play. These include among others

1. a lead in development and/or the benefit of a tempo,
2. heavier influence over the center or over a key square,
3. greater space and/or room to maneuver,
4. the coordination of pieces,
5. sounder pawn structure,
6. a better bishop,
7. protection and/or overprotection,
8. a safer king,
9. the control of an open file,
10. an advanced knight,
11. an extra pawn,
12. a passed pawn, and
13. an extra piece or the exchange of a minor piece for a rook.

As you know, a player values such advantages insofar as he can convert them into either (a) a mating attack or (b) a won endgame. However, your question is: *how does a player convert?*

No one answer exists, of course, but there are indeed principles one can bring to bear. Note the order in which I have listed the several advantages. Roughly, the advantages toward the top of the list will tend to arise earlier in the game and/or to last the shortest. Likewise roughly, the advantages toward the bottom of the list will tend to arise later in the game and/or to last the longest. A player would like to convert any advantage directly to a mating attack or a won endgame if he could, but often he cannot convert directly. What he can do is *to convert one advantage to another,* generally (though not always) trading advantages down the list.

For example, a lead in development might afford you a chance to cramp your opponent's maneuvering, leaving the opponent to free his maneuvering at the expense of pawn structure or of a good bishop. You might compromise your king's safety to control an open file, and you would probably trade any of these advantages to gain the advantage of an extra piece.

Most of the list's advantages can be converted directly to a potential mating attack under the right condition. Of course, when the condition arises, you can stop trading down the list and press the mate—which either wins you the game immediately or, one hopes, at least converts to a won endgame. However, the right condition will arise only in about half of your games. In the other half, you trade advantage for advantage until the middlegame has run its course, then apply your endgame skill to convert the advantage to a win.

But, how should you decide when to trade advantages?

The answer is that one trades advantages when the chance to do so arises and either (i) the advantage to be *gained* is stronger and/or more permanent or (ii) the advantage to be *lost* is doomed to vanish in any event. For example, a lead in development and/or the benefit of a tempo is usually doomed to vanish, fast. You cannot keep it, so you had better trade it.

You have not mentioned any specifics of your games, so I cannot tell for sure, but my guess is that you may not be trading your lead in development for another advantage fast enough. The general rule is this: develop and bring to bear as many pieces (not pawns) as you can in as few moves as possible; then, *without wasting a single turn,* immediately press the attack. Your opponent must react, and his reaction is likely to present you the chance to seize another advantage.

Do not attack until all your available pieces are in the fight, then attack without delay. When your opponent reacts, seize what you can. Many exceptions exist, but this is the general idea.

See what you cannot do with such advice. Good luck.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Reply for C11 French/Steinitz after `5. Nf3 c5`
When playing C11 French/Steinitz, `6. dxc5 Bxc5` is chosen. Even in Shredder, it's most played in C11 French/Steinitz. What should White best reply after `6. dxc5 Bxc5`??

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nf3 c5 6. dxc5 Bxc5

```

Best Regard,
Ahmad

# Answer
The plan for white is to **secure the e5 square**. Black's freeing maneuver will be to play f6, and the resulting position will have a backwards pawn on e6. Therefore, white's plan will be to place his bishop on f4 and move his knight to e5, perhaps with support along the e-file from a rook or queen.

A possible variation could continue as follows:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nf3 c5 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Bf4 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Ne5 Bd7 12. Qe2

```

Keep in mind that this isn't the only way of playing the Steinitz. White more commonly plays `5. f4`, bolstering his center pawn on e5 before continuing to develop with Nf3. Also, `6...Nc6` is considered a more accurate move for black, leaving the option of capturing on c5 for a later move and saving a tempo to attack the e5 square.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It may not hit the point of the post, but I would like to show you, how I like to play against e6. I play `Qh5` after `Nfd7`, because it is very aggressive and most of the players don't know how to play against it.

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Qh5 c5 6. Nf3

```

`cxd4 Nxd4` and now black has to be careful of `Nxe6`

You will play `Be3`, sometimes `Nb5`, often `0-0-0` to protect `d4` with your rock.

You can also try to play `Ng5` with the opportunity to `Qxf7`. After `g6` you play `Qf3`.

**Nxe5 variety**

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Qh5 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 g6 8. Qg5 Qxg5 9. Bxg5 Nxe5 10. Bf6

```

**Qb6 variety**

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Qh5 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Qb6 8. Ndb5 Nc6

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to test the quality of an opening book?
Over the years I manually maintained an opening repertoire in a PGN file (with several "games" per ECO index on average), and now realized I can generate different opening "books" from it - for SCID, CA, or Fritz-based products. The repertoire had been created somewhat ad hoc - based on my games, books I read, engine analysis, database searches, etc. Now - what is the best way to automatically "test" that my book:

1. does not miss any very popular responses for one side?
2. does not contain any blunders for the other side?

Or is this type of computer checking best done on a pgn file in the first place?

Thank you

# Answer
> 6 votes
**EDIT: Answer to Revised Question Below**

Based on the way you described it, it makes sense to simply open up the PGN along with any engine and go through it line by line. I do not believe there's an automated way to iterate through all the moves and ensure their individual accuracy.

---

I'm curious as to how you generated your book to begin with - did you do it with engine-assisted analysis? If so, that will affect the accuracy of your repertoire from its inception.

What I would do in your situation is manually compare the PGN file to moves that are popularly played. Useful resources are Shredder's free opening database as well as 365 chess opening explorer. Both are intuitively organized so that the most popular response is readily available.

Depending on the depth of your preparation, blunders can be present or not at all. I would double check this with an engine, such as the free Houdini 1.5 just to be sure.

As an aside, it might be a good idea to organize your opening database into separate PGN files dependent on ECO code. This makes it easier to navigate when you want to search through particular openings.

I hope this helps! If you have any follow-ups, feel free to reach out.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A program called "Bookup" used to let you feed in a pgn file and then let the engines crunch for a couple of days and evaluate every position in the file. I think it's now Chess Openings Wizard, no idea if it can still do that.

Chess Assistant can take a game you feed it and note the "novelty" (first move outside of the normal books) as well as check for blunders on both sides. It used to have some issues with analyzing any variations you might have, sticking only with the main line of the game you fed it. It will also supply some example games of typical lines. Also, if you just walk the game move by move it'll show you the most popular moves from that position, along with the wins/losses from that position in its db.

Those are just from personal experience, I'd expect pretty much any chess engine these days would do something similar.

You might also want to check in with the Chess Analysis Project.

---
Tags: opening, theory, books, quality
---


# Question
Title: Is there still any top grandmaster who still regularly plays Queen's Gambit Accepted?
I believe Anand used to play QGA, but it seems like he stopped - presumably after losing several games to Kramnik with it.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Of players who have been inside top ten it is Ponomariov who uses this opening the most often. Ivanchuk plays it too, but then again he plays most anything. And Nakamura played it a few times last year.

You can do searches for free online at 365chess.com. Here is an example: http://www.365chess.com/search\_result.php?search=1&p=1&m=4&n=109&order=belo&ms=d4.d5.c4.dxc4&rev=&start=50

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


# Question
Title: Are there any good instructional chess videos in German with captions?
I would like to watch chess videos, and improve my German at the same time, and youtube has a a few videos with captions, but I can't find any videos that are chess-related AND in German AND with Captions.

# Answer
I have found this video(This Guy has a quite lot videos). It is in German, it is about Chess and you can turn the Captions on, but I think they were generated from a computer. Since I as a German guy can say, its not really, what he is actually saying, but it might help you.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Best White Move

text:
# Question
Title: Best White Move
I'm building a chess engine and trying to figure out how good are the moves generated. Can you tell what is the best move for white in following position and why? Thanks.

```
[fen "r1b1kbnr/2p2ppp/p1p5/3pP1q1/8/2N1P3/PPP2PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
This is kind of similar to the line (with colors reversed) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4

It's basically an identical position with colors reversed except white's knight is already on c3 which is actually a really good square for the knight. In fact I believe the main line of the line listed above is 6.. Nf6 7. Qg7 Rg8 8. Qh6 Rg6 9. (Queen somewhere) Nc6 with idea of playing e5.

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Rg6 9.Qd2 Nc6

```

Based on this I think the plan 1. Nf3 Qxg2 2. Rg1 Qh3 3. Rg3 Qd7 4. e4 looks strong.

```
[fen "r1b1kbnr/2p2ppp/p1p5/3pP1q1/8/2N1P3/PPP2PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Nf3 Qxg2 2.Rg1 Qh3 3.Rg3 Qd7 4.e4

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
IMO the best continuation is `Nf3`. Black is mostly forced to take the pawn on `g2`. After `Rg1`, white can play `e4` with fairly good advantage.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You have to defend the pawn on g2, so you should move the queen d1- f3. The best response for the blacks will be queen g5-e5 or bishop c8-g4. If the white moves their pawns they will weaken their structure. They have to make the rocada as fast as possible.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I will try to give you a simple mathematical answer. It is clearly oversimplified, but might be a way to think that helps you program your engine.

Assuming that your chess engine can calculate simple forced moves and the value of pawns it should find that White now must choose between defending the e5 pawn or the g2 pawn. What if we could simply count the number of squares attacked (including squares occupied by other pawns or pieces, even your own)?

**Defending the e5 pawn:** One variation is 1. Nf3 Qxg2 2.Rg1 Qh3. Black attacks 54 squares, while White attacks 54 squares.

**Defending the g2 pawn:** 1. Qf3 Qxe5. Black attacks 57 squares, while White attacks 50 squares.

Defending the e5 pawn puts White on as many attacked squares as White, while when defending the g2 pawn White is 7 squares down.

Of course, in the variation defending the e5 pawn playing 3. e4 is strong for White as it opens up for the bishop on c1. Just count the number of squares.

**I repeat**, this is very simplified, but in general the more active you are (the more squares your pawns and pieces attack), the better off you are all other things being equal. **This is one way used by programmers to give a mathematical value to how active a position is.**

(I might have counted a wrong, but not by much - it shows the general idea)
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Why do players attack one apparently unimportant square?
I've noticed one thing players tend to do in chess is concentrate on building up pressure on one square. I can understand early in the game if it's a central square like d4 or e5 and the king is central, but for example what about this game: Kasparov v Short 1993 Speed Challenge Game 1

Kasparov is very intent on building up pressure on the pawn at d5 but why? Is it because, if he eventually wins that exchange with the queen, he will have a pin on the king at g8? Is there ever a justification for just building up pressure on one square even if it is an unimportant square when your pieces could perhaps be better used elsewhere?

# Answer
I can't answer your question in general, but I can explain the main ideas of the game. Here is the game (actually the game lasted a few more moves, but at the end position here it is lost for Short):

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. Re1 O-O 10. Nf1 Re8 11. dxc5 Nxc5 12. Be3 a6 13. c3 Rc8 14. Qc2 Qc7 15. Rad1 b5 16. Bd4 Nce4 17. Ne3 Rcd8 18. a3 Bf8 19. Qb3 Qc6 20. Ne5 Qc7 21. Nd3 Bd6 22. g3 Qc8 23. Bxf6 Nxf6 24. Nb4 Bxb4 25. axb4 h6 26. Rd4 Re5 27.Red1 Qh3 28. Qc2 Rde8 29. Rh4 Qe6 30. Rhd4 Qh3 31. Rh4 Qe6 32. Qd3 Kf8 33. Rd4 Qh3 34. Qf1 Qe6 35. R1d3 Re4 36. Qd1 Rxd4 37. Rxd4 Rd8 38. Kg2 Rd7 39. Qd3 g6 40. h3 Kg7 41. Qd1 h5 42. Qf3 Ne4 43. Nxd5 Ng5 44. Nf4 Qb6 45. Qd3 Qc6+ 46. f3 Rxd4 47. Qxd4+ Kh7 48. Qd5 Qf6 49. h4 Ne6 50. Nxe6 fxe6 51. Qb7+ Kh6 52. Qxa6 Qe5 53. Qb6 Qe2+ 54. Qf2 Qd1 55. Qe3+ Kg7 56. Kf2 Qh1 57. Qxe6 Qh2+ 58. Ke3 Qxg3 59. Qe7+ Kg8 60. Qg5 Qe1+ 61. Kd4 Kf7 62. Kc5 Qf2+ 63. Kxb5 Qxf3 64. c4

```

**Opening**

Take a look at the position after Black's 16th move. The opening phase is over. It is a typical isolated queen's pawn position. Here Kasparov has a better pawn structure as his pawns are in two pawn islands as opposed to Short's three pawn islands. Why does that matter? A pawn island is pawns that can defend each other. As you will see the only pawn on the board that can't be protected by another pawn (except after an exchange) is the d5 pawn.

As compensation for this tiny disadvantage black normally gets more active pieces. As you can see Short has good pieces here. If Kasparov can manage to get Short on the defence then this compensation (active pieces) will disappear. This might not be much, but at the top level any kind of advantage is better than none.

Why can't Kasparov attack Short's king instead, or some other piece? Well, any piece can always move (but remember that the d5 pawn cannot move) and since Short has more active pieces any direct attack will fail.

**Moves 17-25**

What did Kasparov gain from attacking the pawn here? Well, he forced Short to give up his bishop against a knight. A bishop is considered slightly stronger than a knight, in particular in positions with pawns on both wings.

Still the d5 pawn is the easiest target to attack, although now the a6 pawn has become weak as well. It would be dangerous to attack this pawn though, as doubling rooks on the a file would leave the white king less well protected. This is something Short would have loved as it could have given him a strong counter attack.

**Moved 26-35**

During this phase Short tactically defended the d5 pawn by putting his queen on h3. Should Kasparov take the d5 pawn it would have let to a mating attack for black after rook to e1.

**Moves 36-41**

Still the d5 pawn is the only real weakness in Short's position. It still cannot move and should it drop the endgame is very difficult for Short. The plan for White would then simply to be to exchange all the pieces and win the pawn endgame. That would not necessarily be easy, but would give Kasparov an easy plan.

**Moves 42 and out**

Finally, on move 42 Short blunders tactically and loses the d5 pawn. Now the game changes character. Kasparov tried his best to exchange pieces while Short tries his best to avoid trading pieces. Short's best hope here is to trade pawns, hoping for a draw. Notice how Short avoids trading queens.

I only found the score up to move 64. Short played on, but finally he surrendered when he realised that Kasparov would get another queen by promoting the b pawn.

**Conclusion**

The pressure on the d5 square led to Short finally blundering the pawn. Had he not the game might have ended in a draw. Of course, there are other plans, but you have to pick one. Kasparov looked for the point in Short's position where he could attack and found it on d5 as the pawn could hardly move without being lost and could not be protected by another pawn.

Really strong players will find small ideas like that. Kasparov did not necessarily expect to win the pawn, but at least to force Short on the defence. If everything else is equal, having the more aggressive position is an advantage. Although it could be small, it is better than nothing.
> 10 votes

# Answer
It's very difficult to answer this type of question. The reason is that what makes a GM a GM is that they are far better able to determine what is important about a position than other players. Lower strength players look at a position and immediately begin to calculate variations. Strong players look at a position and immediately try to determine what about the position is important. You're calling that square unimportant. When Kasparov looked at that position, he decided that was the most important thing about the game.

Why did Kasparov think that element of the game was important? No way for me to know. The only real way to get insight into how a 2800 player thinks is to put it into a computer and see.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Well for one the d5 square is a central square. A very common theme in chess is to dominate the central squares. Pieces on central squares usually have maximum mobility and can exert their presence in all directions (of course this not always true, but it's a general theme). Another thing is that the black pawn on d5 is an isolated pawn -- a weakness, and when you find a weakness in your opponents position, you must exploit it. This is another common theme in chess. Of course GMs will find weaknesses to what weaker/average players will call 'unimportant', which is what makes them GMs in the first place. Attacking a weakness forces the opponent to defend it choosing between giving up (in this case) a pawn or having to allocate more valuable resources to defend it (in this case a knight, a rook, and a queen) -- and who knows, once the opponent moves pieces with the sole intent of defending a weakened piece/square, they leave space behind -- which can in turn be occupied to exert pressure and create more weaknesses.
> 3 votes

# Answer
So basically he wants to keep pressure on d5 because if black doesn't defend it, he will try to win it and then if he has an opportunity to switch fronts to attack it can be at a timing favorable to him (for example after having improved his pieces the most or set up his pawn structure exactly how he wants. It's said that the square in front of an isolated pawn is a very valuable square to control.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Obviously if your pieces could be better used elsewhere then you should do so!

The reason most games end up looking like that is because `white` has he initiative and `black` has to respond (which is not necessarily a disadvantage)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: What are the essentials of chess etiquette in a serious, over-the-board tournament game?
I'm asking this question to provide players who are starting to play in tournaments a guide on proper behavior during games. I'll give an answer myself - perhaps we could supply an answer collectively via a community wiki.

# Answer
> 9 votes
First of all, be quiet and don't talk. You can whisper, but it is still considered rude / impolite.

If the round begins at 9AM, be there punctually. In some tournaments you might even lose the game if you're not there within the first 30 minutes.

If the game begins, you can say something like 'I wish us a good game', 'Good Game' and so on.

If something happens on the board and you don't know what to do, you can ask the referee or try to fix it with your opponent.

What is the proper way to ask for a draw?

If there is a big chess game of two big chess players and you want to watch it, don't stand right next to them. Let them have their space. video

If you write your moves down on a piece of paper and you have to give it to the tournament administration, be aware that the result is the same on your slip + the opponent's slip. Both slips also have to be signed by both players.

No smart / cell phones are not allowed during your game (you need to turn them off) and it it also not allowed to turn them on if you watch some games, but you're not playing. The reason is, you could be cheating and some crap like that.

If you want, you can ask your opponent to analyze the game, after it is over.

If you have any further question, just ask.

**EDIT:**

When you are giving a Check, don't say it. Thanks Akavall

It's also considered poor behavior to eat at the board. Thanks Andrew Ng Of course, you can drink some water or something else, but be aware with the space. Normally the desks aren't that big.

---
Tags: etiquette
---