title: 5...Nf6 in Sicilian defense

text:
# Question
Title: 5...Nf6 in Sicilian defense
```
[StartPly "10"]

[fen ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 Nf6 *

```

5...Nf6 looks like a good move for black, however I failed to find analysis about this variation. Am I overseeing something, why would black not want to play this move? What is the best next move for white?

6.N1c3 does not seem good because of 6...Qa5 (6.Bg5 for the same reason), and 6.Nd2 would make white to lose the ability to pressure Nd6+ and would close the bishop at c1.

# Answer
> 4 votes
White's best move seems to be 6. N1c3, when 6... d6 transposes into the Sveshnikov.

After 6... Qa5, White just replies 7. Bd2, threatening Nd5 and Nc7. Black has nothing better than 7... Qd8 when White enjoys a huge advantage in development.

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


# Question
Title: Why do you put a knight or pawn in front of a fianchetto bishop?
I've been asked whats the point of blocking the bishop with a knight or a pawn and don't know how to answer. It seems like quite a strange idea to fianchetto and not as straightforward and logical as putting it on a natural diagonal such as on c4.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This is a typical Sicilian Dragon position. The fianchetto Bishop controls the long diagonal which helps protect the King, by protecting the h8 square and providing luft, and attacks the opposing King. The Bishop is able to control two center squares while one posted on c4 can only control one center square. The Knight does currently obstruct the Bishop, but can move with devastating effect, Nxe4 uncovers an attack on the d4 Knight. In lines where there is a Pawn blocking the Bishop, King's Indian Defense/Attack, the Pawn is pushed to release the Bishop or the Pawn is used for a kingside attack. The Bishop is often in the way of the Rooks, but does still provide good defense for the King.

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 d3?! { (0.00 ? 0.75) Inaccuracy. Best move was dxc3. } (3... dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bb5 a6 7. Qa4 Qc7 8. O-O Nf6 9. Re1 Ng4 10. Bxc6) 4. c4?! { B21 Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit Declined, Dubois Variation (0.75 ? 0.15) Inaccuracy. Best move was Bxd3. } (4. Bxd3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. O-O e5 7. c4 Bc5 8. a3 a5 9. Nc3 O-O 10. Bd2 d6) 4... g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Qxd3 Nc6 7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O-O Nf6 9. Bg3?! { (-0.24 ? -1.12) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qd2. } (9. Qd2 O-O 10. Nf3 Be6 11. Kb1 Qa5 12. Ng5 Ng4 13. f3 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nge5 15. Nxe6 Qb6+) 9... O-O 10. f4 Qa5 11. Kb1?? { (-1.06 ? -7.19) Blunder. Best move was a3. } (11. a3 Nd7) 11... Nb4 12. Qd2?? { (-6.81 ? -12.80) Blunder. Best move was Qe2. } (12. Qe2 Nxe4) 12... Nxe4 { White resigns } 0-1

```

The Bishop plays a secondary role. By controlling the long diagonal, it does support the attack. By looking at Dragon games, especially Rxc3 sacrifices, you will find that the Bishop is excellent at attacking along the long diagonal.

# Answer
> 1 votes
## Position of the Knight

The knight allows discovered attacks to take place when it moves out of the way. Consider this position:

```
[Fen "rnb1kbnr/ppp2ppp/2qp4/4p3/8/5NP1/PPPPPPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

1. Nxe5

```

## Position of the Bishop

1. The Bishop is on the long diagonal so has more scope In a on g2 Bishop controls 2 central squares (e4 and d5). A Bishop on c4 only controls 1
2. The Bishop fills up the holes left by the g-pawn

## Position of the pawn

Attacks by the major pieces (Queen and Rooks) are blunted, as the g pawn is defended by 2 pawns.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Fianchettoing your bishop is most often done to influence the center and the long diagonals. It's usually not a one-move type of thing; it's long term. You're not supposed to win on the spot after fianchettoing your bishops.

Placing the knight in front of the bishop is done simply because that's more often than not **the best square for the knight** in the opening. The point **isn't** to block the fianchettoed bishop. The knight is expected to move away from the diagonal, freeing the bishop, when the time is right.

# Answer
> 0 votes
A pawn one square in front along the long diagonal of a fianchettoed bishop can attack the enemy center (supported by the bishop). Eg W: Bg2, p f2, g3, h2 B: p d5, e4. White plays f3! to break up the enemy central pawns

---
Tags: fianchetto
---


title: Can Black crash through?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black crash through?
I wonder if White can defend below position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r4rk1/pppq2pp/2np1n2/2b1p1B1/8/2NP1N1b/PPP1BPP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
```

    [FEN "r4rk1/pppq2pp/2np1n2/2b1p1B1/8/2NP1N1b/PPP1BPP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

    1.Qd2 h6 2.Be3 Bxe3 3.fxe3 (3.Qxe3 Be6 4.Nd2 Rf7 5.Nde4 Ng4 6.Qg3 Raf8 7.Bf3 Nd4 8.Bxg4 Bxg4 9.Rac1 Be6 10.Ne2 Qa4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 {-1.82. It took Stockfish 20 minutes to find `3...Be6`. It's preferred move until then was `3...Bg4`. Black is having a fine game.}) Be6 {So what we see here is that Black's attack is over. But the damage is done. He regroups with his extra pawn and better pawn structure.} 4.a3 Ne7 5.Ne4 {This is the best White has? To induce a doubled center pawn?} (5.e4 c5 6.Rf1 Rf7 7.Qe1 Raf8 8.Nd2 Ng6 9.Kh1 Nf4 10.Bf3 Nh7 11.Nd1 Ng5 12.Ne3 Qa4 13.b3 Qd4 14.Rd1 b5 15.Bg4 Bxg4 16.Nxg4 c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.bxc4 Qb2 {-1.78. White's position is passive and he gets picked apart.}) Nxe4 6.dxe4 Qc6 7.Bd3 Rf6 8.Rf1 Raf8 9.Qb4 R6f7 10.Nd2 b6 11.Rxf7 Rxf7 12.Bc4 Bxc4 13.Qxc4 Qxc4 14.Nxc4 Rf6 15.Nd2 Kf7 16.Rf1 Rxf1+ 17.Kxf1 Ng8 18.Kf2 Nf6 19.Ke2 Ke7 20.Kd3 Ke6 21.c3 a6 22.Kc4 b5+ 23.Kd3 { -1.58 }

```

```

    [FEN "r4rk1/pppq2pp/2np1n2/2b1p1B1/8/2NP1N1b/PPP1BPP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

    1.gxh3 Qxh3 2.Bf1 Bxf2+ 3.Kxf2 Ng4+ 4.Kg1 Qg3+ 5.Bg2 Nd4 6.Rf1 Nxf3+ 7.Rxf3 Rxf3 8.Qxf3 Qh2+ 9.Kf1 Rf8 10.Qxf8+ Kxf8 {White's King is flapping in the breeze; what White may be up in material he'll lose by being purely defensive with said pieces. White will be able to pick off pawns at will.} 11.Bd2 Qh4 12.Nd1 c6 13.Be1 Nh2+ 14.Ke2 Qh5+ 15.Kf2 Ng4+ 16.Kf1 d5 17.Bd2 Qh4 18.Be1 Nh2+ 19.Ke2 Qh5+ 20.Kf2 Ng4+ 21.Kf1 Kf7 22.a4 Qg5 23.Ke2 Nh2 24.Kf2 Qh4+ 25.Ke2 Qh5+ 26.Kf2 Qg5 27.Ne3 h5 28.a5 h4 29.a6 b6 30.Nf1 h3 31.Bxh3 Qf4+ 32.Kg1 Nf3+ 33.Kg2 Nd4 34.Bg3 Qf3+ 35.Kh2 Nxc2 36.Rc1 {-2.39 }

```

It's Kentucky Derby Day, and I live in Louisville, so celebrating is mandatory. More To Come.

As always, if you have any variations you want to see, let me know.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: How to recapture more efficiently?

text:
# Question
Title: How to recapture more efficiently?
I know this sounds ridiculous but I want to learn the hand movement for recapturing in chess. It seems like a good fast way to recapture especially in blitz. Here is an example if you don't know what I'm talking about (the way they quickly recapture/capture a piece).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9NG8J2yow4

# Answer
Practice makes perfect. I've seen several different ways on how to capture pieces. It's not really something that you learn, but more like something that goes automatically. So, just try it a few times at home (without thinking, so it goes automatically), and do what feels the most *natural*.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Since the most common capture is a pawn taking a pawn, this is the one to practice most. (There is a video of a piece maker who designed the pieces so that the capture would seem natural.)
My method is to pick up my piece with my thumb and index, then I force the captured piece into the other fingers.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Replay the video and copy it? The only way is practice.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: blitz
---


# Question
Title: How does a Class B chess player become Class A?
I'm currently a 1600 chess player. I have managed to increase my rating this year by 200 points. I have trouble winning against Class A chess players. I have really good and close games, yet I still lose. What can I do this year to improve and become stronger. I have read chess books like Amateur's Mind and Silman's Complete Endgame book. These books have helped me increase my rating by 200 points. What other books or training do you recommend?

# Answer
I recommend simply playing rapid games, or longer, and a post mortem analysis with computers and self analysis. Playing games against stronger players is desired if possible. I recommend starting to learn some opening theory and form a good repertoire. Whatever your opponents play, you should have a response that you enjoy. You say that you are good at playing closed games. I would rub against your wound here and advice you to play open games. Open games also helps on your tactics, which everyone will tell you is important.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I had a very similar problem actually: I picked up (from 1635) 135 points in one tournament and after that tournament I had a hard time playing at that level. Here was how I maintained that rating-

1) start focusing your attention to openings and which is most COMFORTABLE for you to play. This will help suit your style best and allow you to play better games (in many cases)

2) Study tactics; the less stupid mistakes the better

3) Analyse all mistakes in the games that you lose, and look for patterns. If a specific idea is what is ruining your games, focus on that EXACT concept.

That is the strategy for maintaining my rating after that 'fantastic' tournament.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You have "really good and close games, and yet you still lose." These are the games to focus on.

Get a "better" player, at least "A," probably expert or master to comment on your close games, point out where you went wrong and lost, and point out missed opportunities that you may have had to win. Turning a bunch of "close games" from losses to wins will probably do more for you rating than anything else.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are plenty of people who will help you if you allow them to view you games. This is easiest on lichess, especially since they have a free computer analysis. After finding your weaknesses, you will be able to improve the fastest.

The best general book is Alekhine's Best Games. Alekhine is(was) one of the best players, and his annotations explain plenty in everyday nglish.

Some GM said that experts think the most, as masters rely more on intuition than calculating variations. So this plateau should be the hardest to overcome. Good Luck.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, tournament, training
---


title: Need help spotting whats wrong?

text:
# Question
Title: Need help spotting whats wrong?
Although I would prefer just figuring this out on my own I feel like I need a stronger or more knowledgeable player to help me out here. I keep seeing a lot of my losses are when I'm up in material, low on time and in the endgame. I just don't understand why this pattern keeps reoccurring. Although it may seem obvious that my endgame skills are the problem it just doesn't feel like that is all there is to it. Here I'll try post a couple of games as an example. I also can't seem to add annotation unfortunately which means it'll be harder to explain some of the silly errors I made. These loses always tend to be the most painful and cause me to sometimes even consider quitting all together.

I play as black in this game. Also note I was low on time in all these games (not saying as an excuse for losing)

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. d4 Nf6 c4 e6 a3 c5 e3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Be7 dxc5 Bxc5 b4 Be7 Bb2 O-O Be2 dxc4 Bxc4 b6 O-O Bb7 Qe2 a5 Rfd1 Qb8 b5 Na7 Na4 Nc8 Be5 Qa7 Bc7 Bxf3 Qxf3 Qxc7 Qxa8 Qxc4 Rdc1 Qxa4 Rxc8 Qxb5 Rac1 g6 h3 Kg7 Rxf8 Bxf8 Rc7 Qb1+ Kh2 Bd6+ g3 Bxc7 Qb7 Bd6 Qc6 Bxa3 g4 b5 g5 Ne4 Kg2 Nxg5 Qc3+ f6 Qxa3 Qe4+ Kf1 Nxh3 Qe7+ Kh6 Qxf6 Qf5 Qh4+ Qh5 Qf6 e5 Qf8+ Kg5 Qe7+ Kf5 Qd7+ Ke4 Qc6+ Kf5 Qd7+ Kg5 Qe7+ Kg4 Qd7+ Qf5 Qd1+ Qf3 Qd7+ Kh5 Qxh7+ Kg5 Qe7+ Kh6 Qh4+ Qh5 Qe7 b4 Qf8+ Kg5 Qe7+ Kg4 Qd7+ Qf5 Qd1+

```

Lost on time, I'll show one more even though I've got way too many examples of games such as these haha.

Playing white this game

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 c6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 d4 Ne2 c5 c3 d3 Nf4 c4 Qa4+ Nc6 Qxc4 e5 Nxd3 f6 Nc5 Qd6 Nb3 Be6 Qd3 Qc7 Qc2 Bd6 d4 Bf7 Bb5 a6 16. Bxc6+ bxc6 17. Be3 Ne7 18. dxe5 fxe5 19. Nfd2 O-O Bc5 Rfd8 O-O-O a5 Bxd6 Rxd6 Nf3 Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1 h6 25. Kb1 Rd8 26. Rxd8+ Qxd8 27. Nxe5 Be8 28. Nd4 c5 29. Ndf3 a4 30. Nd3 Qc7 31. b3 a3 32. h3 Qa7 33. Nd2 Bh5 34. f3 Bf7 35. Nc4 Bxc4 36. bxc4 Nc6 37. Qd2 Na5 38. Ne5 Qb8+ 39. Kc1 Qxe5 40. Qd8+ Kh7 41. Qxa5 Qf4+ 42. Kc2 Qe3 43. Qxa3 Qf2+ 44. Kb3 Qe3 45. Qb2 Qd3 46. a4 Qd1+ 47. Ka3 Qd6 48. Qb5 Qe5 49. Kb3 Qd6 50. a5 Qd1+ 51. Ka3 Qa1+ 52. Kb3 Qb1+ 53. Ka4 Qa2#

```

some obvious mistakes here like one of the many was me trying to trade dark squared bishops when his one is absolutely terrible, I regretted that choice during the game immediately

Also just remembering that my nerves tend to play up sometimes or I get quite emotional during play which I'm confident effects the ability to focus or think clearly. Although I try to work on this problem sometimes it feels like it can't be helped and everything just becomes somewhat chaotic in my mind. Maybe its my ego or my strong desire to win or not lose that is causing this, I'm not entirely sure. Honestly all these games look to me like I shouldn't be playing this bad and its not showing my real skill but that is really only what I feel about it and in reality I did play those games and there is no excuse and I guess I have to take responsibility and I deserved to lose.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here are my observations:

1. Both games are long. The average game lasts about 40 moves. No wonder you ran out of time!
2. I can see you know the principle that when you are ahead in material, trade down. However, both games involved your king being chased around by the queen. You are not trading the right pieces
3. You don't need to be up that much material to win a technical game

Advice:

1. Learn to play more efficient chess. I'm guessing it took you some time to figure out all the branches in the tactical analysis

I feel that you are trying to find the best move by calculation. I.e. that you are trying to see 5 moves ahead to see if you can win more material. What I believe you should do is aim to look 2 and a half moves ahead and base those moves on your evaluation. This is particularly useful in non-tactical situations.

For example, in your first game you win material and have to solidify. At move 31, you make life more complicated for yourself with 31...b5. Why not offer to trade queens with 31...Qe4, which needs almost no calculation? That move follows the principles and is in line with your evaluation of having to solidify and trade down.

2. When ahead in material, your first priority should be to trade queens. This is a big reduction in material and reduces the opponents counter attacking chances a great deal
3. Don't spend so much time gaining more material. Spend time either solidifying your position or reducing the opponent's counter chances

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would just like to expand a bit an answer given by @Bad\_Bishop to perhaps give you some more specific ideas to look for - his observation #3 is one of the most important things you need to start applying, and it can be seen in both of your games, considering you said that you were low on time.

You don't always need to play the best move, especially when you already have an advantage. You can even give up some of the material to simplify the position.

For example, in the first game, you were chased by his Queen, losing precious time for no gain. But when an opportunity to get out of that showed up, you did not take it. You should be more active, even if it means sacrificing some of your material:

```
[FEN "8/7p/4p1pk/pp5q/7Q/4P2n/5P2/5K2 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Qf6 Qd1+ 2. Kg2 Qg4+ 3. Kf1 (3. Kh2 Ng5 4. Qf8+ Kh5 5. Qc5 {Preventing your Knight from moving} (5. Qf4 Nf3+ 6. Kh1 Qg1#) e5 {You sacrifice a Pawn, but white will lose ability to check you on f8 when you move your King} 6. Qxe5 Kh6 7. Qf4 {Again, preventing you from moving your Knight and giving checkmate, but now you can exchange the Queens} Qxf4+ 8. exf4 Ne6 9. Kg3 a4 {As in the main line, Pawn can't be stopped, position is very simple and it requires no time to think.}) Qg1+ 4. Ke2 Qxf2+ {You end up giving your Kinght for a Pawn, but at the same time Queens are forcefully exchanged, and white has no more material for attacking back, which gives you simple and clear position.} 5. Qxf2 Nxf2 6. Kxf2 a4 {This Pawn can't be stopped, and you don't even need to think anymore, you can win this in less than ten seconds}

```

In the second game, after 46...Qd1+, you played fine but passive move Ka3. But with Qc2 you are much more active, you threaten to exchange the Queens, and you also have discovered check with e5+, which enables you to get aggressive with your middle pawns:

```
[FEN "8/6pk/7p/2p5/P1P1P3/1KP2P1P/1Q4P1/3q4 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Qc2 Qd7 2. e5+ Kg8 3. Qe2 {Support your pawn, now black has to defend and waste time thinking how to do it} Kf8 4. e6 Qe7 {Now black Queen is pinned here and he can't really afford to move it - note that there are other moves which black could do, but all end up similar because he has to defend here} 5. Qe5 Qe8 (5...Qb7+ {Your King is perfectly safe here} 6. Ka3 Qe7 7. Qb8+ Qe8 8. Qxe8+ Kxe8 9. a5 {Now you can promote either a-Pawn or e-Pawn without even thinking, depending on black's reposnse, you just need to push the one which is furthest from black King.}) 6. Qf5+ Kg8 7. Qf7+ Qxf7 8. exf7 Kxf7 9. a5 {You sacrificed your e-Pawn, but position is now very simple for you, just push this Pawn.}

```

In both of those games at the end, when you had an opportunity to make an active move, you instead went for more passive play, giving your opponent another chance to attack you. In the first game in position I referred to, you played e5, which didn't bring you anything, your opponent still had the same attacking moves and he started chasing you around while you had to lose time avoiding making some blunder. In the second game, your King was perfectly safe on b3, but instead of taking your chance to make some threats, you passively responded to opponent's moves, and you ended up making a blunder.

Remember, **defending is very time-consuming**, so try to look for active moves. Let your opponent be the one to defend and waste time, and you can already plan ahead your next few moves while he is thinking. When you have such an advantage as you had in these games, you can easily afford to even give up some of the material in order to eliminate opponent's possible threats.

You often don't need more than a Pawn to win the game, so when you have material advantage, your first priority if you're low on time should always be to simplify the position as much as possible.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You are making basic blunders as in the checkmate in the second game. Ways to avoid this are

1. Study tactics online or in books
2. Play games with longer time controls and increments.

There's no shortcut.

---
Tags: analysis, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Is it worth it to transition into more open lines when one is used to closed, positional games?
I've played the French and Queen's Gambit, which tend to lead to more closed, positional play. I've played these openings consistently for roughly 25+ years now, with no set opening before then really. I did try to learn both the Center counter, or Scandinavian, and the Danish early but eventually gave up and played random moves (I was quite young). After that it was Petrov for a year, then on to closed games. I'm currently 38 and have been at closed positions now for 25+ years. By consistent I mean every single game I've played since then. If it is relevant my USCF is around 1500, with a peak of 1620.

# Answer
> 5 votes
From a strong expert:

Just because I find open games to be more fun, I would suggest playing more open games. Also a variety of openings will expand your knowledge. (Looking at your tournament history, you may already have enough knowledge.) Just like you don't quit smoking in one day, don't switch to overly aggressive opening. Try the Scotch, Vienna, or Giuoco Piano. These openings requires the learning of more opening traps, but they should improve your quality of play.

Assuming that you have the time to invest in studying an opening, learn the common positions and plans. If after trying this style you feel uncomfortable, go back to playing the closed/positional games. If the game is not fun, it is not worth playing.

When I reached expert level, I switched to a more positional game because I thought this is what was supposed to happen. I lost many games because I hid my talent.

Some GM said that he switched to d4 because he got lazy as he got old. Anna Zatonskih said that with d4, White can make more mistakes before losing the game. You could be hanging on to the safety of known avenues.

# Answer
> 4 votes
My advice is to change openings only if you don't enjoy them and to practice tactics for when a game opens up. This is because:

1. The aim of the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. You reach a playable middlegame in any reputable opening, whether it is the wide open King's Gambit or the closed Advanced French
2. If you enjoy the openings you play, stick with them. Chess is a game afterall, and if you are having fun with the openings you use, then that's great!
3. Most games can be opened up if the opponent wants to do badly enough, so practice tactics to be prepared for open games. Think of the French Exchange Variation for example

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think you should be playing open games, tactical chess, not positional chess and closed/semi-closed positions. Positional chess is inherently more difficult than open, tactical games. It's sounds to me you suffer from the classic idea that "closed" positions somehow protect you from tactics. If you are "afraid" of a tactical fight, become better at tactics! That is a learnable skill. Positional play is way more difficult and requires a deeper understanding to become a "positional" player, which maybe you think you are, or more accurately, you think that is what you *want* to become. But, most games die by tactics. I've never lost a game to a player who outplayed me positionally - in the end, tactics decides it almost all the time. Of course, be aware of positional motifs in a tabiya, but that is experience talking there.

You should go out swinging as a C-player and trial by fire instead of ducking for cover at every opportunity. "Closed" positions for 38+ years as a C-Player should tell you something. It ain't workin'.

You're chasing the wrong kite. You need to be at least 2100+ to even think about defining your "style" in that respect.

I would go for the most violent openings you can find - Scotch, Giuoco Piano, Kings Gambit - at Class C you don't worry about theory in the least. Just know enough to get into the middlegames and take the gloves off and punch each other in the face. Last man standing.

FYI: USCF 1871

# Answer
> -1 votes
Your question is interesting but not to the point, if you allow me to say. You are speaking about openings and your problem is not about opening. When you say you have been playing closed openings for years, what do you really mean? Are you playing those out of interest or out of fear or prudence? I would advice you, given your rating, to restudy from the beginning the game of chess. Study all of its history with commented games and try to make progress tactically. Practise and practise again until you get a grip on tactics: this is the major step to mastering the basics of chess. You should be prudent: books for beginners and weaker players always insist on ideas, and they are right, but you should not forget that a minimal mastery of concrete tactical chess is unmistakenly necessary. There is no progress without this. Playing closed openings closes road for your progress. There are good books for you to study: just think of Yusupov's course in several volumes, for instance. You read the book with a board aside (computer also) and you think what you want to play and what could be annoying to you. Then when reaching your conclusion, you look up with computer assistance and finally you try to figure out why computer moves are better than yours. This is a very rude way to learn but you will make progress. You can keep on playing your openings, they are not bad, but play them with an open mind and try to master tactics. You rating will then go up. I know this is not comfortable, but there is no such thing as comfort when trying to progress. Maybe you will even lose elo points in the beginning, and so what, if you risk nothing you get nothing. Just try, it's a game, open and closed. Open games are more dangerous in the short term BUT you have to master them to understand what underlies closed positions when those get opened. Closing positions is not an aim in itself, it's just a means. Sorry for being so direct but i really want to help you ahead. Greetings!

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Bullet rating fluctuations

text:
# Question
Title: Bullet rating fluctuations
I play on chess.com and I noticed that at some times I am getting beaten by 1700 pretty easily but other times I can beat 1900 with almost no effort. I broke my record and passed 2000 in bullet recently, now I am fighting with 2000 and 2100+ bullet players. Also, I nearly broke 1900 in blitz.Can I say my game has improved? I recently started to do tactics on chess.com, and it might have to do something with it.

But the problem is when I play my brother OTB, I am slightly better, but he is 1300 blitz rated on chess.com. What is going on with my game?

# Answer
Bullet is completely different from OTB game. In bullet what tells is your experience, your ability to spot hanging pieces and combinations very fast to make natural moves and not to blunder. Also time management and focus is very important.

In an OTB game things like positional knowledge, and long term thinking are very important, and if it takes you a few minutes to notice, that the move you want to make hangs your queen, it's not a tragedy. Also you can get away with holes in your opening knowledge.

Another point: in bullet setting traps can earn you a lot of points, but in a long game traps are a lot of times counter productive.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think you have proven to yourself that bullet ratings are garbage and not in any way, shape or form an accurate way to measure "mouse skills" - because, that is all bullet is...
> -1 votes

---
Tags: rating, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Why not 6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein?
```
[fen ""]
[Title "6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein"]
[Startply "11"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3

```

What is so obviously wrong with the move 6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein? I ask because I have two "complete Black repertoire" books on the French Rubinstein and this line is not even mentioned. Other two books which deal with the French Rubinstein (not from any particular side) also fail to mention this line. But this move is played by my opponents in online blitz and I can find nothing evidently wrong with it.

There must be a reason why the the professionals writing books are so blind to it. Any idea?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Usually when a move in a relatively positional setup such as this is omitted, it doesn't mean that it's a clear mistake. It only means that the author doesn't view the move as a critical move that challenges the opponent's setup as much as other moves. Therefore, it may not be the move to prioritize, as other moves can be more challenging.

It could also be that the author doesn't know really what the plans are, and tries to make him/herself look more certain about their topic than they are.

One question though, which needs to be answered by you: Does this move give you many difficulties in your games? If that is the case, you will be forced to look up some statistics and see if the move is a legitimately challenging line, or if you just don't know how to play against it. In this case, you will need to study games played in the variation and learn important ideas by yourself if you want to be more successful. It may be a difficult thing to do, but sometimes chess isn't very easy.

I've taken the liberty to consult my personal database, which for the moment lacks some games due to my negligence with database maintenance using TWIC these last weeks, and I found this:

6.Ng3 is likely not a bad move. It has a 55% score, with roughly 600 games played in the line. The highest rated player who played this had a rating of 2535. The move is not to be scoffed at, if you face it a lot.

**HOWEVER**

There are better moves in the position:

* The main line, 6.Nxf6+, has a 63% score in roughly 4400 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2838;
* The second most popular alternative, 6.Bd3, has a 62.5% score in roughly 1800 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851;
* The third most common alternative, 6.Bg5, has a 57% score in roughly 1600 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851.

The top rating is due to Kasparov in all the lines, but all the top players in the world have used at least one of these three main moves when faced with this position.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Best programable chess game on the market
I would like to program famous chess matches into a chess program so I can watch the matches. Is there a chess program that allows this or is there already a program that has famous chess matches we can watch?

# Answer
> 1 votes
More or less every chess program is able to load games, replay them and even sometimes analyze them. Personally I use SCID for replaying PGN games. It is free and works very well.

---
Tags: software, programming, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Fischer vs. Geller, Curacao Candidates 1962
I recently came across a very interesting rook and pawn endgame from one of the games between Fischer and Geller from the Curacao Candidates Tournament in 1962. More precisely, I am talking about the endgame from this game, appearing after 33. Rc4 (see the diagram below).

It looks like a draw (to me, at least). Fischer himself was of the opinion, that the endgame is holdable, since after the game was adjourned after the 42. move, he allegedly said something like

> "I'll draw that game with my eyes shut!"

However, Geller managed to win the game.

This endgame is unfortunately out of reach of my chess understanding, but I would like to remedy that. This brings me to my question:

**Is there a detailed expert analysis of this endgame in chess literature (or on chess websites)?**

The endgame is rather long and technical. Therefore, *I am primarily asking for a reference with detailed end extensive expert analysis*, rather than a personal opinion or basic analysis. Of course, explanation of general ideas governing the way this endgame unfolded or any comments in that direction are also welcome, but please name a reference where I can learn more about it first. Thank you!

```

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "65"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[Event "Curacao Candidates"]
[Site "Willemstad CUW"]
[Date "1962.05.16"]
[EventDate "1962.05.02"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Efim Geller"]
[ECO "B88"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "136"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 Be7 8. f4 O-O 9. Be3 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 b5 11. e5 dxe5
12. fxe5 Nd7 13. O-O Bc5 14. Bxc5 Nxc5 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. Nxb5
Ba6 17. Bc4 Rab8 18. a4 Nxa4 19. Nd6 Bxc4 20. Nxc4 Nxb2
21. Nd6 Rd7 22. Rfb1 Rc7 23. h3 Rb6 24. c4 h6 25. Nb5 Rc5
26. Rxb2 a6 27. Rf2 axb5 28. Ra7 Rxe5 29. Rfxf7 Rg5 30. Rfb7
Rxb7 31. Rxb7 bxc4 32. Rc7 Rf5 33. Rxc4 Kf7 34. g4 Rf3 35. Kg2
Rd3 36. Rc7+ Kf6 37. h4 Ra3 38. Rb7 Rc3 39. g5+ hxg5 40. hxg5+
Kg6 41. Re7 Re3 42. Kf2 Re5 43. Kf3 Rf5+ 44. Ke3 e5 45. Ke4
Rxg5 46. Re8 Rg1 47. Kf3 Rf1+ 48. Kg3 Rf5 49. Rb8 Kg5 50. Re8
Kf6 51. Rf8+ Ke6 52. Re8+ Kf6 53. Rf8+ Ke6 54. Re8+ Kd5
55. Ra8 Rf7 56. Kg4 Re7 57. Ra5+ Ke6 58. Ra6+ Kf7 59. Kf3 Re6
60. Ra8 e4+ 61. Ke3 g5 62. Ra1 Kg6 63. Rb1 Re5 64. Kd4 Kf6
65. Re1 Ra5 66. Rxe4 Kf5 67. Re8 Kg4 68. Ke3 Kg3 0-1

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Geller himself analyzed this endgame in *The Application of Chess Theory*. I'm not sure if it's quite as in-depth as you're looking for but I've reproduced the post-move-33 annotations here.

```

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "65"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[Event "Curacao Candidates"]
[Site "Willemstad CUW"]
[Date "1962.05.16"]
[EventDate "1962.05.02"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Efim Geller"]
[ECO "B88"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "136"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 Be7 8. f4 O-O 9. Be3 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 b5 11. e5 dxe5
12. fxe5 Nd7 13. O-O Bc5 14. Bxc5 Nxc5 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. Nxb5
Ba6 17. Bc4 Rab8 18. a4 Nxa4 19. Nd6 Bxc4 20. Nxc4 Nxb2
21. Nd6 Rd7 22. Rfb1 Rc7 23. h3 Rb6 24. c4 h6 25. Nb5 Rc5
26. Rxb2 a6 27. Rf2 axb5 28. Ra7 Rxe5 29. Rfxf7 Rg5 30. Rfb7
Rxb7 31. Rxb7 bxc4 32. Rc7 Rf5 33. Rxc4 Kf7 34. g4 (34. g3) {An inaccuracy. Of course, the white king has come into play, but for this 34. g3 was more appropriate, retaining the possibility in certain cases of continuing h3-h4 and Kg2-h3-g4. But now the white king is cut off along the third rank, and the white pawns are insufficiently defended} Rf3 35. Kg2
Rd3 36. Rc7+ Kf6 37. h4 Ra3 38. Rb7 Rc3 {Both sides have been making waiting moves before the time control, but White suddenly changes the character of the position} 39. g5+ hxg5 40. hxg5+
Kg6 41. Re7 Re3 42. Kf2? (42. Kh2!! Re5 (42... Kxg5 43. Rxg7 Kf6 44. Rg1 Rf3 45. Kg2 Rf5 46. Re1) 43. Kh3){This last move before the adjournment loses by force. White could still have drawn with 42. Kf2!!, so as to answer 42... Re5 with 43. Kh3, not allowing the black rook to take the g5 pawn with check or to leave the e-file with check. And in the event of 42... Kxg5 43. Rxg7+ Kf6 44. Rg1 Rf3 45. Kg2 Rf5 46. Re1 a theoretically drawn position would have been reached} Re5 {By this sealed move Black wins a second pawn, and with it the game} 43. Kf3 Rf5+ 44. Ke3 (44. Ke4 Rf7! (44... e5?? 45. Rxg7) 45. Rxe6 Kxg5) {In the event of 44. Ke4 Black of course would not have continued 44... e5?? 45. Rxg7+, but 44... Rf7! 45. Rxe6+ Kxg5, and since here White's king is cut off on the so-called "long" side of the board, he is lost. Something similar also occurs in the game} e5 45. Ke4
Rxg5 46. Re8 Rg1 47. Kf3 (47. Re6+ Kf7 48. Rxe5 Re1+ 49. Kf5 Rxe5+ 50. Kxe5 Kg6! 51. Kf4 Kh5) {The e-pawn is immune, since the pawn ending in the variation is lost} Rf1+ 48. Kg3 Rf5 49. Rb8 (49. Kg4 Rf4 50. Kg3 Kf5 51. Rf8+ Ke4 52. Rg8 Rf3+ 53. Kg2 (53. Kg4 Rf1) Rf7 {and Black completes his regrouping}) Kg5 50. Re8
Kf6 51. Rf8+ Ke6 52. Re8+ Kf6 53. Rf8+ Ke6 54. Re8+ Kd5 {Before the second control Black gains time on the clock by repeating moves}
55. Ra8 Rf7 56. Kg4 Re7 {The control is passed, the rook is ideally placed, and Black has merely to escape from the checks and advance his pawns} 57. Ra5+ Ke6 58. Ra6+ Kf7 59. Kf3 Re6
60. Ra8 e4+ 61. Ke3 g5 {All the conditions have been fulfilled, and the win is not far off} 62. Ra1 Kg6 63. Rb1 Re5 64. Kd4 Kf6
65. Re1 (65. Rf1 Ke6 66. Ke3 (66. Re1 g4 67. Rg1 e3) Rf5 67. Ra1 Rf4 68. Ra5 Kf6 {and the king breaks through at h4}) Ra5! {A typical plan. Black gives up one of his pawns to break through with his king and obtain a theoretically won position} 66. Rxe4 Kf5! {Here the pawn ending would have been drawn} 67. Re8 Kg4 68. Ke3 Kg3 {White resigned in view of the following plan, which is typical} (69. Ke2 g4 70. Rg8 Rf5 71. Rg7 Kh3 72. Rg8 g3 73. Rg7 Kh2 74. Rh7 Kg1 75. Rg7 g2 76. Ra7 (76. Rh7 Re5 77. Kd3 Kf2 78. Rf7 Kg3 79. Rg7 Kf3 80. Rf7 Kg4 81. Rg7 Rg5-+) Rh5 77. Kf3 Kh1)  0-1

```

---
Tags: endgame, rook-endgame, fischer
---


# Question
Title: Why 6.Nc3 in the following position in Grob opening?
```
[StartPly "10"]

[fen ""]
1.g4 e5 2.Bg2 Bc5 3.e3 d6 4.d4 exd4 5.exd4 Bb6 *

```

In the Grob attack opening database posted in this answer the suggested next move is 6.Nc3. However, in most variations of Grob opening I looked at so far, c4 is played by White very early in the opening phase. In the above position I would pick it as the next move also.

Why is 6.Nc3 better for White here than 6.c4?

# Answer
I don't think there is a drastic difference between playing 6.c4 than 6.Nc3, but from my perspective, I don't see much utility in the move 6.c4. What are you trying to achieve with 6.c4? It may seem as though you are expanding and gaining space and challenging Black's center, but Black can immediately put pressure on the d4 square with 6...Nc6 and you must defend with 7.Be3. Now, if you had played 6.Nc3, and after your opponent plays 6...Nc6, you still need to defend with Be3, but you have an extra developed piece. Note, you obviously don't want to play d5 (if you've already played c4) after 6...Nc6 since Black can play Ne5 or Qh4 and will have a better position than White. I'm no chess expert, but those are the very small differences I see.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: How to practice tactics correctly?

text:
# Question
Title: How to practice tactics correctly?
When it comes to tactics training what is the best approach to optimize results? I've recently started only doing really hard puzzles, the only immediate change is it obviously take me a lot longer and end up maybe doing around 10-20 per day. Is it quality or quantity that's more important? Also as a side question I keep hearing that playing blindfold chess is bad for you for some reason? Can someone explain why I keep hearing that?

# Answer
I'm assuming your aim in practicing tactics is to improve your game performance. In that case, I would recommend you treat each problem not as a puzzle, but as a real game situation, because your goal is to be able to spot tactics OTB, without knowing whether or not a tactical shot exists or not.

*Thus, you should apply the thinking process you would use in a real game to the puzzle, and just try to play the move you would in a real game.*

This means that you would, after a quick evaluation of the initial position, look for (1) Forcing moves, checks/caps/threats, (2) logical, positionally sound options that increase your activity/decrease opponent's activity. Then, you should calculate and evaluate these candidate moves one by one, and determine which one is the best. This is how you would play in a real game, and thus your tactical training should be like this.

If you can't spot the tactic (get the problem wrong), then you know that something is wrong with your thinking process, and you can correct it immediately. For example, if you spotted all the appropriate candidate moves, but, after calculation/evaluation, didn't find a winner, and thus settled for a "positional" move, then you know that there's an issue in your calculation; maybe you didn't remember to find all candidate moves at every move, and thus missed something. Or perhaps you couldn't visualize a long sequence, and now you know you have to get better at this.

This is assuming you know how to improve every aspect of your thinking process. There are many free online resources, particularly youtube, that tell you how to train to improve certain things.

*I think that 10-20 difficult puzzles is plenty, as long as you apply your thinking process to each, and remember to diagnose/improve your thinking process at the end of each puzzle. Also, remember that in a real game, you have around 3 minutes per move. In critical situations, you may use more, but try not to use more than x minutes for a move, if you not spend more than x minutes on the position in a game.*

*Also, playing blindfold chess is not bad. Blindfold chess is one way to improve your visualization skills, which is crucial for calculation.*

I am a USCF expert rated player.
> 6 votes

# Answer
1. Use a book on tactics. This will help you recognize tactical patterns and subconsciously organize them into themes. A good book will also provide an appropriate amount of puzzles to each theme. Tactical themes usually occur with each other, and capitalizing on that usually involves a sacrifice, and the variations leading is called a combination. A book that fits nicely with that would be "Chess Tactics for Champions" for Susan Polgar.
2. Solve puzzles. Other than the puzzles you'd find in a book, solve lots and lots of puzzles. Solving online puzzles is a free and engaging way.
3. Play blitz. Blitz games are all about tactics and so you get to play a whole game that is based on a tactical and often sacrificial style. And what is good about blitz especially for tactics is that if your sacrifice is not sound, but good enough to catch your opponent off guard and force him to defend correctly, you would usually win on time! Blitz is all about tactics.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I find that one of the things missing in tactics training is concentrated, thematic study, i.e., you try and solve a few dozen tactical problems with the same theme - Discovered Attack, The Mill, etc. Often there is a theme you might not be that familiar with and it shows when you try and solve tactical puzzles. Even though it might seem to point you in the right direction to solve the puzzle, that's not really the point. The point is to get used to seeing these themes in action so you can quickly recognize them in your games or when solving difficult tactical puzzles in earnest. In this regard, I use Renko's Intensive Course Tactics for thematic solving practice.

So:

* Thematic Study to understand all the different tactical nuances
* Master tactics problem-solving at 70+ percent success rate

Blitz makes you lazy in calculation, so be careful. You'll "get away" with lots of bad tactics in blitz that you will pay for in real points in real games. You can generally spend 5 minutes on any position in a real game - not so in blitz.

Also, it might be worthwhile to keep a sheet of paper handy and note what "theme" you missed when you get a problem wrong. For example, let's say you failed to see a discovered check - write it down. Be honest. This will identify themes you are weak at.

2c.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


title: Key-Squares in Pawn Endgames

text:
# Question
Title: Key-Squares in Pawn Endgames
In an instructional video, I have found this position:

The instructor (Dr Muller) says about key squares that are marked with green. I am unable to get the idea behind how Dr Muller determined these squares as Key Squares. I have practiced it many times in Fritz but fail to understand the exact technique that I should employ. The instruction goes rather fast and not helpful for beginners.

Please help me to proceed as white from here.

# Answer
> 5 votes
If the white king reaches one of the green key squares, then white will win. There is no rule determining those squares, just concrete analysis. However, once we have the key squares in place, we can systematically search for pairs of corresponding squares.

* If the white king is on `d8`, then the black king must move to `f8`.
* If the white king is on `d7`, then the black king must move to `f7`.
* If the white king is on `d6`, then the black king must move to `f6`.
* If the white king is on `c8`, then the black king must move to `e8`.
* If the white king is on `c7`, then the black king must move to `e7`.
* If the white king is on `c6`, then the black king must move to `e6`.

If at any stage black to move has the king already placed on the square corresponding to the square of the white king, black is in zugzwang and will lose.

This example turns out to be a quite simple case of (distant) opposition and `1. Kb7!` wins for white.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The concept of key squares, in general, is defined for pawn endgames with immobile pawns. It defines a winning strategy in two steps.

1. Occupy one of the key squares with your king (usually, using zugzwang).
2. Once this has been done, the opposing king cannot defend his pawns passively (but you should computre whether it can counterattack).

A typical example is the theory of the endgame King+pawn vs King. The result of any position with this material can easily be determined using the key squares, as explained in: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082 .

Your example is about opposition, and thinking in the terms of key squares doesn't seem to really clarify things here. In general, an opposition should be linked to a certain "axis", and here the plan is to use the 7th row. Here is what happens if White tries to use the opposition with the 6th row as an axis:

```
[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6! Ke7 3. Kd5? Kd7 4.Ke5 Ke7 {and Black holds the opposition, while the white king has not reached the key squares. Draw}

```

The correct plan is this one:

```
[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6!  Ke7 3. Kc7!? Ke6 4. Kd8 Kd5 {The tentative of a counter-attack comes too late} 5. Ke7 Ke4 6. Kf6 Kf3 7. Kxg6 Kg4 8. Kf6 Kxg3 9.Kg5 {White wins}

```

You can find similar examples the book of Mark Dvoretsky "Endgame Manual".

---
Tags: endgame, pawn-endgame
---


title: No longer feel like playing chess?

text:
# Question
Title: No longer feel like playing chess?
Is it normal to no longer want to play chess? Or lose interest is probably a better way to put it. Is it temporary?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sure, that's normal.

Can you identify why you lost interest? Are you losing too much or not showing improvement? re-evaluate your studies.

If you are winning too much (boredom), find better opposition.

“A bad day of Chess is better than any good day at work” - Anonymous

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Software for online lessons

text:
# Question
Title: Software for online lessons
I'm interested in teaching online chess lessons to my students. But I haven't found any software plaftorm for this purpose. Are there any one? I don't mind if it's commercial or open-source.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are several ways to teach online chess for free.

*1. Skype + Chessbase*. An old version of Chessbase Reader can be downloaded for free (just google "free download Chessbase"). This program will have everything you need to play, analyze, and save games, along with many other options. With this program, you can use the "share screens" option on skype, where you have the chessbase program open, and your student can see the board on his screen. You can then proceed with the lesson via voice call. This is all 100% free.

*2. Skype + Online Analysis Board*. Some websites, particularly chess.com and ICC, have ways for two users to share a board, meaning that both can use the board. For example, on ICC (requires membership), you two can share a board, and make a call, and have the lesson.

These are just two ways, and the first should suffice completely.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Is 1.e4 the best first move for White from a theoretical point of view?
Assuming that the principles of classical chess in the opening are still valid (which thing I very much believe), may we say that "from a theoretical point of view" 1.e4 is the best first move for White? (Occupying the center, freeing two pieces). No other first move can do that.

# Answer
According to some GMs, d4 is the best first move. Alekhine, commenting on a Slav in his greatest games book, claims it gives White more chances of gaining an advantage. After taking the c pawn, Alekhine further comments that White now obtains an appreciable advantage. (Quoted by Hans Berliner.) Hans Berliner, in his book *The System--A World Champion's Approach to Chess*, claims, and Fischer agrees, that the advantage of the first move is the ability to attack the opponent's pawn center first. Since both agree that the King's Gambit is dubious, that leaves the Queen's Gambit as the only sound opening.

Many GMs have said d4 is better: although they claim it is due to needing a deeper understanding of chess. Anna Zatonskih states it better that you can make some minor inaccuracies and still have a good game. In e4 games, one mistake could cost you the game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
From the standpoint of first principles, 1. e4 and 1. d4 are equally valid.

First, 1. e4 establishes central control and leads to fast castling. However, 1. d4 has its own unique advantage: it leads to an even stronger position in the center because the pawn on d4 is supported by the queen.

If that seems less significant than castling quickly, consider that the Berlin Defense, perhaps the line that has most frustrated 1. e4 players over the last 16 years, is only viable because of the weakness of the e4 pawn.
> 3 votes

# Answer
1.e4 and 1.d4, from a "theoretical point of view", are most likely completely equal. When you say "theory", I'm assuming you mean variations. That is, given *best play*, both will draw.

To clarify what I'm saying: suppose you have the following position:

White: Kf5, f6; Black: Kf7. White to move.

This position is "solved", which means that we can investigate every single possible variation that can result from this position. If we were to consider the moves that white has, we can say that all of them are equal: all of them lead to draws, given black's best responses.

If we somehow solved all of chess, and somehow managed to investigate all the variations, I'm guessing we would see that every single first move leads to a draw with best play. Hence, 1.d4 and 1.e4 are equal in this sense.

However, when you mention "classical principles", this is a little different from theory. General principles are resultant from many observations of positions. For example, "develop pieces" in the opening follows from the fact that development allows you more activity, and hence more ability to restrict the opponent's activity. However, a theoretical opening line (like the poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf) may include good moves that blantantly violate these classical principles, yet still work. There are always exceptions to general principles.

However, both 1.d4 and 1.e4 are great in following the classical view of chess: occupy the center with a pawn, and open lines for quick development. A move that would follow classical chess, but would be still viable, would be 1.g3, which is more of hypermodern chess.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Trying to locate a historical game in which the win involves sacrificing two rooks
I can't remember whether White won or Black won, but I've been wondering for years where I saw this game. I remember toward the end, only heavy pieces and pawns were left, and the winner sacrificed two rooks so that only his queen faced his opponent's queen and rooks. I think resignation occurred before the checkmate, but the checkmate that was imminent was delivered by the queen supported by pawns.

Does anyone know this game or at least one like it? For a while I thought it was a Capablanca game, but I perused my book of his games and couldn't find it.

# Answer
Could it be this game?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Living Chess Exhibition"]
[Site "Los Angeles, CA USA"]
[Date "1933"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Herman Steiner"]

1. e4 {From "Viaje al Reino del Ajedrez " de Y. Averbach et
al} e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6
7. Bg5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Ne7 9. Nh4 c6 10. Bc4 Be6 11. Bxf6 gxf6
12. Bxe6 fxe6 13. Qg4+ Kf7 14. f4 Rg8 15. Qh5 Kg7 16. fxe5
dxe5 17. Rxf6 Kxf6 18. Rf1+ Nf5 19. Nxf5 exf5 20. Rxf5+ Ke7
21. Qf7+ Kd6 22. Rf6+ Kc5 23. Qb7 Qb6 24. Rxc6+ Qxc6 25. Qb4#
1-0

```

According to the comments on chessgames.com, this might have been a prearranged game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is a book on such sacrifices of two rooks by Minev and Seirawan http://www.amazon.com/Take-My-Rooks-Nikolay-Minev/dp/187947901X
> 2 votes

# Answer
*Famous and old* suggest the Mate of Dilaram as an answer to me, see, e.g., this German Wikipedia page. Note that this problem is about Chatranj, an older chess variant with different movements of the pieces (making the two rook sacrifice even more spectacular because the rooks were the strongest pieces in Shatranj).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rooks, sacrifice, master-games
---


title: Dealing with flexible opening positions

text:
# Question
Title: Dealing with flexible opening positions
For some reason I feel uncomfortable in positions where the opponent has not committed any of his pawns in the center and was wondering why is that? I guess it feels like I'm not sure how to carry on in positions such as those. Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq -"]
1.g3 e5 Bg2 d5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 c5 Nb3

```

I also tend to be very concerned about pawn breaks and my opponent using flank pawns or something else to attacking my center. Is this fear a valid one? Such as if lets say as a continuation from the previous example

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq -"]
1.g3 e5 Bg2 d5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 c5 Nb3 Nf6 d3

```

Something like d3 in those situations really bother me for some strange reason. Like I want to keep my pawns intact and so on. I have a feeling that paranoia such as that may have an impact on my thought process and then game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As a general principle, when my opponent is breaking (in a loose sense) the opening principles by not occupying the center, **I try to combat this by following the principles even more**. As a result, I would try to avoid making multiple pawn moves and instead try to get my pieces out once establishing e5 and d5.

For example, in your line I would play something like `1. g3 e5 2. Bg2 d5 3. Nf3 Nc6`, defending the pawn and getting started on your own development. It's worth noting that while `3...e4` looks good because it seems to gain a tempo on the knight it also cost you a move to make, allows your opponent's bishop to be opened up (the pawns probably won't last long as they are) and you're committed to d5/e4 instead of retaining the flexibility of being able to make either pawn move in response to what your opponent is doing.

I guess you could argue that `3...Bd6` is also an option as it allows c5 soon, but it also removes a defender of d5 and goes against the advice of developing knights before bishops. Nc6 looks good to me and I'd just keep moving pieces to useful squares and see what kind of setup white ends up going with before making too many more pawn moves.

# Answer
> 1 votes
My guess is to learn how to play those positions from the side with the big pawn center. Examine games in such openings and see the ideas that both sides try to follow. A great book might be Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis. Develop an understanding of what the typical plans are against such a pawn center and understand how to react to those plans and what plan(s) you should be considering yourself.

---
Tags: pawns, psychology, center
---


# Question
Title: What is the status of correspondence chess?
Considering the rise of the Internet for playing games online and the increasing strength of computers / engines for evaluation of positions and finding best moves, what is the status of traditional correspondence chess?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Correspondence chess is still alive and well. Just as in the pre-engine days it is the branch of chess which comes closest to chess "truth".

Before the internet and strong chess engines correspondence players had days rather than minutes and seconds to consider their moves. They could use books with openings and analysis by the best players in the world. This extra help allowed the best correspondence players to play chess at a higher level than even the top over the board players who had to play all their moves in 5 or 6 hours.

Nowadays strong engines substitute for the earlier forms of help but the result is pretty much the same. The best correspondence players play the best chess, better even than the engines unaided.

Note that top chess players, like Boris Gelfand for instance, are quite scathing about the capabilities of engines in many positions.

This is also something I've seen at first hand in some of my games. A couple of times recently I've reached an endgame I thought was going to be winning only to find that there was no way to do it. Later, looking at the game with an engine it gave me +1 or +2 but couldn't give me a winning line.

Engines are useful for avoiding blunders and checking lines but when an engine gives a position a good plus score you should always check it with "the human eye" before you use it in your preparation.

Of course now with email it is possible to play correspondence chess much cheaper and easier than in the old days. There is also much less chance of moves getting lost in the post.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I play Correspondence chess, via email. It's cheaper, a bit faster, and Chessbase makes it easier by doing ALL the bookeeping.

FYI: evals by comps in endgames are horrendously inaccurate and usually overblown, and, this:

> Before the internet and strong chess engines correspondence players had days \>rather than minutes and seconds to consider their moves. They could use books \>with openings and analysis by the best players in the world. This extra help \>allowed the best correspondence players to play chess at a higher level than \>even the top over the board players who had to play all their moves in 5 or 6 \>hours.
>
> "Nowadays strong engines substitute for the earlier forms of help..."

**This is patently cheating.** You should NEVER use an engine to eval any position while still playing your Corr. game. Use it for post-mortem only. Correspondence chess is "research" chess, where you can research your move over several days via home self-analysis, books, documents, etc. But using a computer engine for eval is illegal.

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


# Question
Title: What to do with no stronger players around?
I hear that a good way to improve is by playing against much stronger opponents. The problem here is that there are hardly any stronger opponents where I live and that makes it not only not as challenging but with no one to really personal help me improve. I thought of playing chess on the internet to resolve this problem but something about it just doesn't sit well with me, in other words I really dislike online chess. Maybe its the fact it doesn't feel like you are playing a real person or you're just staring at a screen instead of playing with a real board.

# Answer
If there are no stronger players convenient to you, and you don't want to use the technology available to play with stronger players further away, then you must go to where the stronger players are.

Organizations exist to do just this. For instance the US Chess Federation has tournaments around the US throughout the year that allow players to meet and play together.

Check out the organizations that serve you and see what opportunities they offer. Some will require extensive travel, but with time and patience you will find chess clubs and tournaments that are within driving distance.

Once you establish a relationship with such a club or organization, and specific players within it, you may find playing online more comfortable once you know the people you are playing against. Sometimes the issue isn't the mechanism, but the distance and relative anonymity.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Have you considered correspondence chess? You might have to use the internet for it but its fairly different from online chess if you ask me.
> 6 votes

# Answer
What type of online chess do you play? Blitz is not a good option, if you want to improve. If you want to play and improve using the internet, you should play standard time controls (at least more than 20 min/game). There are many good players on for example ICC and FICS playing slow time control chess. Try to chat with your opponents after the games, to make it more than just staring at a computer screen. Otherwise it is unfortunately hard to find strong players to play against if you live in a place without many chess players.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you want to play with stronger players, you need to be where those players are. I see two major ways to do this:

1. Travel to where they are. You might only be able to do this every so often, but if a major tournament comes to your city or one within a few hours, maybe make a weekend of it and go to that tournament. You're likely to hit a bigger player pool at a bigger tournament, and usually they have brackets specifically for higher level players.
2. Bring them to you. Other high level players in the area may be in the same boat you are: they don't go to local clubs because there aren't enough (or any) strong players to challenge them. Try making a Craigslist ad that advertises your club and make sure to put a note in there that there's players of rating X that are seeking challengers. It might even be that a slightly lower ranked player that you're not used to playing will be a refreshing change, even if not as challenging.

There are other things you can do to keep your skills sharp. You can design puzzles for your club, and even post them online. Indeed you can become a titled Grandmaster just for making chess puzzles. You can also coach a chess team. This has the advantage of passing on your skills to a new generation of players while at the same time giving you a chance to meet potential challengers (the other coaches and enthusiasts at the event).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Online chess is probably the best answer, particularly if you don't have enough tournaments nearby (or can't afford to go to many). It can be made better than just sitting in front of a screen, though, for sure.

You can play it like I played correspondence chess back in the day (chess by mail): with a real board on your side. Every move you make, make on the real board, then enter on the computer. Every move your opponent makes on the computer, make on the real board. That way it still has that feel.

As far as not having a real person sitting across: once you find some good players and play several games against them, you may find one or more are willing to do Skype/etc. games (where you play in a video call in real time, with a real board in front of you, and chat on the video call).
> 0 votes

# Answer
Teach them to become strong. This is what I did with my brother. And now he had became a tough competetant for me.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online
---


# Question
Title: What is a good plan for white against the Rubinstein variation in the French defense?
I always play the Tarrasch variation against the French defense and I have quite some good results with it.

Nevertheless, when black exchanges on e4 and the game transposes into the Rubinstein variation, I have no good plan for white and don't know how to proceed. I also don't like the fast exchange on f6, which happens very often.

Can anyone give me a good plan for white?

Thanks in advance.

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6
2.d4 d5
3.Nd2 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Nd7
5.Nf3 Ngf6

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
## INTRODUCTION:

You did not have to award a bounty, all you had to do is ask me to expand on my comment. I would have posted this answer.

To be honest, I thought that you found the line and solved your problem...

## CONCRETE LINES:

Pay attention to the comments that go along with moves. You will see comments inside the textbox. Textbox is placed just below the PGN viewer (below the chess diagram ).

```
[Title "Kasparov's c3"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.c3 {White has aggressive ideas in mind, in view of Qa4, and if Black plays …c7-c5, White can try to pose some concrete problems with moves like Ne5, Bb5, Qa4 as well as 0-0-0} c5 {If Black wants to fully equalize, he has to play this move} (7...Be7 {White can press here for an advantage} 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Qe2 b6 10.Bf4! Bb7 11.O-O-O) 8.Ne5 a6 {Black must play this} 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Bb5 {Most critical continuation} (11.O-O-O {Black is fine here} cxd4 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Qxd4 Bc6! {Black’s bishop is actively placed on c6 and he is ready to follow up with …Rd8}) cxd4 12.Bxd7+ Bxd7 13.Qxd4 {Now the idea to attack d7 one more time with 0-0-0 is a little awkward, so Black has to do something about this.} f6 (13...Bb5 14.a4 Bd6 15.Nxf7 Kxf7 16.axb5 axb5 {Black has to play precisely and still suffers in the resulting endgame positions. Rubinstein expert Georg Meier prefers this line, but I have more faith in f6, that is why I chose it as a main move for Black}) 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.O-O-O Kc7! {Black has difficult position but has also great chances to equalize}

```

## SUMMARY:

The move `7.c3 after 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6` was popularized by Gary Kasparov, and is in fact one of the most critical tests of the Rubinstein Defense!

White clears the way to `a4` for his queen, possibly followed by queenside castling and other aggressive moves such as `Ne5` or `Bb5`.

In the critical line `7…c5! 8.Ne5 a6 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Bb5 cxd4 12.Bxd7+ Bxd7 13.Qxd4`, Black has a difficult choice to make.

Georg Meier has favored the structurally compromising `13…Bb5 14.a4 Bd6 15.Nxf7 Kxf7 16.axb5 axb5` and *kind of* worked it out to a draw.

Black is still suffering a bit here in practice, and that is why I prefer `13…f6 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.Qxd7 Kxd7`, keeping the pawn-structure intact.

In both lines it is only White who can win, and Black has to play very precise in order to draw. From practical point of view, I believe this line is your best chance for playing for a win against Rubinstein French.

## BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS:

I would get the **French Defense The Solid Rubinstein Variation** by Hannes Langrock, he did an excellent work in covering this line. It will help you grasp the ideas.

You might need additional resource to cover all the lines though... I think **ECO C** could be useful here...

# Answer
> 4 votes
## A line without 6. Nxf6+

```
[FEN ""]

  1. e4             e6
  2. d4             d5
  3. Nd2            dxe4
  4. Nxe4           Nd7
  5. Nf3            Ngf6
  6. Bd3 {This keeps pieces on the board as requested, but Black can always gain a tempo with 6... Nxe4 7. Bxe4 Nf6}           Be7

```

My evaluation of this position is *dynamic equality*.

White's plan is to:

* Castle kingside
* Solidify with c3. The space gainer c4 is often not as useful in the variation, as ...Nb6 can put some pressure on the pawn
* Utilise the queenside pawn majority to create a passed pawn

Black's plan is to:

* Castle kingside
* Engineer the liberating ...c5 break
* Gain a tempo with ...Nxe4

Source of variation: Ubisoft's Chessmaster opening book

## A line with 6. Nxf6+

```
[FEN ""]

  1. e4             e6
  2. d4             d5
  3. Nd2            dxe4
  4. Nxe4           Nd7
  5. Nf3            Ngf6
  6. Nxf6+          Nxf6
  7. Bd3            c5
  8. dxc5 {It seems a little odd to help Black develop, but there is no good waiting move}           Bxc5

```

Again the evaluation of this position is *dynamic equality*.

White's plan is to:

* Castle kingside
* Utilise the queenside pawn majority to create a passed pawn

Black's plan is to:

* Castle kingside
* Fianchetto the light square bishop and seek piece play

Source: Dereque Kelly's YouTube video

# Answer
> 2 votes
```
[fen "r1bqkbnr/pppn1ppp/4p3/8/3PN3/6P1/PPP2P1P/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 5"]

1... Ngf6 (1... Be7 2.Bg2 Ngf6 3. Nxf6 Bxf6 4. Ne2 O-O 5. O-O Rb8 6. Nc3 b5 7. Qd3)2. Nxf6+ (2...Nxf6 3. Bg2 c5 Nf3 Qb6 O-O Be7 dxc5 Bxc5 Ne5 O-O Qe2 Rd8 c3 h6 b4)Qxf6 3. Nf3 Bd6 4. Bg5 Qf5 5. Bd3 Qa5+ 6. Bd2 Qb6 7. Qe2 c5 8. Bc3 cxd4 9. Bxd4 Qa5+ 10. c3 e5 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Be3 Nf6 13. Bb1 Be7

```

As you can see, white has a solid plus in each line. If you are playing someone lower rated and/or want to avoid theory, this is a solid option. Although White does not have as big of an advantage, it's easy to play and the position is very comfortable (the variations are all top level games).

# Answer
> 0 votes
1) http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/frenchrubinsteinexcerpt.pdf \- a book on the Rubinstein French from Black's perspective and therefore it aims to list all the possible lines for White, which you can use for inspiration.

2) http://www.amazon.com/Grandmaster-Repertoire-French-Caro-Kann-Philidor/dp/1906552061 \- a new repertoire book for White, which includes advice against the French Rubinstein.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there published advice on giving simuls?
I unexpectedly found myself giving a tiny simul recently. I won all the games, but it left me wondering if there is any published advice on how to handle simuls as the single player. (There is plenty of advice on how to try to beat the single player, but that's a different story!)

# Answer
There are several techniques that a lot of masters commonly use in simuls.

(1) Know the players. Lower rated players can be confused easily with unsound play/attacks, leading to quick wins. You will also know which players to watch out for and spend more time on. Kasparov was very ardent on this point, and was very upset that a 2200 player posed as a 1600 once to get into his simul.

(2) Avoid heavy tactical complications against the stronger players. Simul players use intuition heavily to find good moves quickly. This is not possible in complicated positions, where a lot of time needs to be taken to calculate many lines. This is where the simul master has the most trouble. Generally, steer the game to quieter play, or make sure to only enter complications that clearly favor you. As a corollary of (1) and (2), you should try to defeat the weaker players quickly.

(3) Offer a few early draws. In games where you might not want to play on (games that are more tactical, against stronger players, worse position, etc.) you can offer a draw to reduce the games you play, and focus on doing better on the other games.

These are a few standard tactics that many simul masters use.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: How can I get informed if a titled chess player will be holding a simul?
I would like to go to more simuls, but I'm unsure when they're held and at what location. How can I get informed of such information?

# Answer
Generally, you should belong to a club if you wish to play titled players in simuls. The more active your club is the more likely the club is able to do, which includes paying titled players to host simuls.

Other than that, you could consider hosting the event. Simply contact titled players on sites like chess.com and the ICC to see if they're interested. They'll usually charge a fee, and off you go.

Sometimes titled players host simuls at tournaments as well, so it would do you well to find out what tournaments are near you or that you can attend. If you're in the US, then both USCF and FIDE are good for finding upcoming tournaments. Outside the US and you'll want to stick to FIDE as well as other national federations to find chartered/sponsored tournaments.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: Query for games where the difference of player ratings was big
I want to run a query on a chess games collection which would give me games played by strong players vs weak players, let's say games from the first round of Open tournaments (Swiss system) where grandmasters face amateurs, so basically a query for games where rating difference is bigger than x.

What tools would you suggest? what method?

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you have access to a Chess Query Language tool you can use that, albeit I'm not familiar with it. SCID is free and more easily available : http://scid.sourceforge.net/

1)Open your pgn file

2)Search header rating differences white - black = 200 - 40000

---
Tags: software, database, programming
---


# Question
Title: Was there ever a time when the goal in chess was to capture the king?
The modern rules of chess, except for the stalemating being a draw, are basically equivalent to a game in which the goal is just to capture the king, not checkmate him. It's plausible that in the oldest versions of chess, this was indeed the goal, but since a rational player would then always move their king when in check, and never leave themselves in check, and would only have their king captured when there was no escaping from it, players may have decided that responding to check may as well just be made a rule.

I haven't been able to find any reliable source either confirming or refuting this hypothesis. Is there any?

# Answer
Wikipedia claims that

> In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700) the king could be captured and this ended the game. The Persians (c. 700–800) introduced the idea of warning that the king was under attack (announcing check in modern terminology). This was done to avoid the early and accidental end of a game. Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured,\[13\] and checkmate was the only decisive way of ending a game.\[14\]

References \[13\] and \[14\] are to Davidson, Henry (1949), *A Short History of Chess*, which can be consulted on Google Books. I couldn't tell immediately what sources Davidson used.
> 24 votes

# Answer
I think you may be right, but I can't find anything to support it. However, if the goal was originally to actually capture the opponent's king, this raises another interesting question: What happens if the goal is to capture the king, moving into check is allowed, and you **still** have no legal move? For example:

```
   [fen "3k4/8/8/8/1p1p4/pPpPp3/PRP1P3/NKN5 w - - 0 1"]

```

If it is White to move, this position is stalemate under modern rules, but if there's no stalemate, and Black **has** to capture the white king to end the game, does White just skip a move, and then 1…axb2 2.Kxb2, cxb2#, or would they just look at material, position, whatever, and work out who should win, agree to a draw, or just end the game with no result and replay it or something?
> 6 votes

---
Tags: history, kings, captures
---


# Question
Title: Prove that White is not allowed to castle here
A friend recently gave me the following weird chess problem to solve. I'm afraid that I'm struggling to see the key idea that would ultimately count as proof. From the position, intuitively speaking, it looks like White should be allowed to castle, but I'm sure to be missing something here.

**Prove why white is not allowed to castle in this position.**

```
[FEN "1n2k3/p1pqppp1/1p1p1n2/3N2p1/1PB3bP/2P1PN2/1P1P1PP1/2BQK2R w K - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 21 votes
This is actually a rather typical retrograde problem, just start with the most basic observations:

* We see that black is missing both rooks and the `f8` bishop. Given black's pawn structure it's easy to see that neither the `f8` bishop nor the `a8` rook could have escaped the structure, thus they must have been captured on the 8th row (by a white knight for example). This leaves us with the `h8` rook, for which there's only one plausible choice left, namely having been captured on the `b4` square by the `a3` pawn.
* As for white, the only missing piece is the rook, which must evidently have been captured on the `g5` square by the `h6` pawn.
* Now we arrive at the **real** question: which rook could have logically been captured first, the one on `g5` or the one on `b4`? Surely if the black `h8` rook is to be captured on `b4`, it must first have been freed by the white rook being in turn captured on `g5`, but that's impossible, as the `h8` rook being taken off on `b4` is the *very thing* that must have freed white's `a1` rook in the first place! Which leaves us with one remaining logical possibility: White's `h1` rook must have been **the one** coming out and subsequently captured on `g5`, which then in turn frees black's `h8` rook, to come out and be taken off on `b4` by white, which finally freed the `a1` rook.
* Thus the rook you see currently on `h1` is actually the rook coming all the way from `a1` (once freed), with the original `h1` rook having been lost on `g5`. Given this sequence as the only possible logical sequence leading up to the current position, white cannot castle, as for castling to be allowed, neither the king nor the rook must have moved.

These kinds of puzzles usually go under the category of retrograde analysis, where unlike usual chess puzzles where the intent is to find the best moves/tactics or mates, in retrograde problems it's rather often just a logical question that can be answered by considering the basic rules of the game, and trying to find the only logical sequences (not move by move though, just the necessary ideas) that could have led to the position given in the puzzle. So if you're not familiar with these kinds of problems you may indeed find it difficult to attack them at first. Retrograde problems in chess are really fun to solve, specially as soon as you get the handle of them and start solving the real difficult ones. The solving process is really similar to that of a detective solving a crime, since if you think about it, you're given some clues and trying to figure out what could and could not have happened ;)

---

**Addendum after some comments:**

(*This is regarding which of the black rooks may have been taken off on `b4`, although this fact leaves the proof unperturbed.*) The `a8` rook is trapped on the 8th row, as the only possible way for it to escape the 8th row would be via the h-file, which once opened (i.e white losing the `h1` rook on `g5`) would first let the original `h8` rook out. Of course you can always assume the `h8` rook and `f8` bishop were for example first taken off by a knight, then the `a8` rook was the one coming out to get captured on `b4` (e.g. `Nc6`, `Qe6`, `Kd7` to open the 8th row), but for the purpose of the puzzle it won't matter, as in either scenario white wouldn't be able to castle as the same arguments hold.

# Answer
> 9 votes
This problem is by Raymond Smullyan, and is from his *The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes* (p.54 of the Hutchinson edition).

Phonon's analysis is mostly sound, except that we don't know which black rook White's a-pawn captured. But that doesn't matter, because, before Black's h-pawn captured a White rook, neither of Black's rooks could have reached b4.

---
Tags: problems, castling, retrograde-analysis
---


title: Source of this chess problem?

text:
# Question
Title: Source of this chess problem?
```
[FEN "8/8/8/6pp/6pk/R7/6KP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh3+ gxh3+ 2. Kf3 g4+ 3. Kf4 g3 4. hxg3# 1-0

```

What is the source of this simple chess problem (White to mate in four) which somebody showed me at a chess club 50 or 60 years ago?

I suspect it's from the very early days of chess because it's so simple (no variations), and because of the unfashionable checking key, and because it involves only moves which have never changed in the history of chess (no queens or bishops or double-step pawn moves).

I tried searching the Meson Chess Problem Database and Yet Another Chess Problem Database without success, not sure I did it right.

# Answer
> 5 votes
PDB attributes it to Francisco Javier Marquez de Burgos, and cites it as El Museo Universal, 17 Mar 1867, p.88, no. 74.

In his blog Open chess Diary, Tim Krabbé quoted this problem in his entry "The Ponziani Mate", which may be found on this web page. (Unfortunately, the individual blog entries do not have individual URLs.) He quotes a problem by Ponziani, published in 1769, which shows a similar idea, though in a heavier setting, and without the initial rook-sacrifice.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I happened to find the position in an old book: on page 87 of "The Basis of Combination in Chess" by J. du Mont. The diagram is shown with the names "Rubinstein vs N.", without date and place. Probably a game in a simultaneous exhibition. The book was first published in 1938 and Dover reprinted it in 1978.

---
Tags: history, problems
---


# Question
Title: Chess endgame database+50-move rule=potential error?
Are there any examples of positions where usage of the endgame tablebase gives an incorrect evaluation, due to the ignoring of the 50-move rule? At the moment I am not sure if endgame tablebases return the information specifically regarding the 50-move rule.

# Answer
You are right that tablebases do not automatically contain information pertaining the fifty move rule.

To use tablebases accurately currently engines use the DTZ50 metric (distance to zeroing with fifty move rule) which tells you the number of winning moves until the 50-move count is reset. If this number is too big, the position is evaluated as a draw. Apparently this metric can give results that are one ply off.

To get perfectly accurate results these guys recompute tablebases with the fifty-move rule in mind. The resulting metric would be called DTM50 (distance to mate with fifty move rule). One of the differences between DTM50 and normal tablebases is that the winning line depends on the ply count and not only on the position on the board. Generally the higher the ply count, the longer the winning line, because a zeroing move has to be found within the next few moves, which restricts the possibilities. Here, you'll find an article about DTM50.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I've definitely heard of this, where an engine evaluated a position as winning right up until 49½ moves without a pawn move or capture, where the very next ply *had* to draw the game, and only then, evaluating the position as drawn. I don't remember the actual example that was given though.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, endgame, software, tablebases, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: Suggest a line for a player who does not want to be dragged into the Sicilian
I am a very bad Sicilian player and I am easily played out of book in the Sicilian defense. I need a line that would prevent my opponents fom going into the Sicilian defense. I have tried c4, but sometimes it transposes into a Sicilian with the Maroczy bind. I know d4 is good, but are there any other suggestions I could play?

# Answer
> 3 votes
You could transpose to the **Botvinnik English System**:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. c4

```

Because it is a system opening, you usually put your pieces on the same squares regardless of what Black does. For example:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O d6 8. d3

```

The usual piece placements are:

1. Fianchettoed kingside castle
2. Knights on c3 and e2
3. Queen on d2 and bishop on e3
4. A rook off the a1-h8 diagonal, e.g. on b1

Evaluating this opening we see that:

1. It's a system opening, so it is easy to learn. But it doesn't give the best chances to win
2. The *Botvinnik Triangle*, pawns on c4, d3 and e4, allow White to play on any sector of the board. For example: breaking with d4, attacking with f4 or gaining space with b4
3. White has a hole on d4, which might be quite tender

See also the YouTube video Chess Opening for White: Botvinnik-English System against the Sicilian Defence.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The main problem (at least on amateur level) of White in the Open Sicilian (i.e. 2. Nf3 and 3. d4) is indeed that you need to know a lot of systems/lines that Black can throw at you (see also this answer which recommends the Grand Prix attack with 2. Nc3 and 3. f4 (or the other way around)).

On my former club, 2. c3, the Alapin variation was quite popular. Black has a few options, but they all lead to positions which do not resemble the Sicilian main lines they are familiar with. The main options are:

2... d5 will usually lead into position where White has an IQP, with the corresponding development and space advantage. Black can of course hold on but it is rather hard for him/her to play for a win.

2... Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 is the other main line, where White builds a pawn center. It reminds a bit of the Alekhine Defense. This line sometimes transposes into the Morra-Smith gambit after a later d4 by White.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would be tempted to say : don't enter the sicilian, don't play e4, but as you mentioned yourself sicilian positions can occur in other openings. So, there is no way out: you will have to master several positions transposing into sicilian territory (partially or totally), would it be only for your own sake and progress in chess. What you can do is playing different style positions. The sicilian has a wide scope of possibilities (closed, b3 and so on). Anyway, avoiding open sicilian will impede your progress (tactically, positionally and strategically). What you should do is, if you still want to avoid open sicilians, learn to pay less studied and theoretically analysed positions, possibly avoiding potential (but not sure) immediate defeats. Bad Bishop's proposal is interesting but entails you do not play e4 at the first move. Furthermore, with black you could anyway have to face a reversed sicilian. Sicilian structures are fairly universal in normal or reversed order. You cannot avoid them all, you can just choose less studied options and as a consequence avoid learning certain types of positions and so impede yourself getting a view of chess as a whole, whether tactically, positionally and strategically. You must understand that not practising certain types of major positional complexes will handicap your understanding of other types of position you like. Have a nice day!

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


# Question
Title: What is wrong with taking the e4 pawn in the Najdorf Sicilian after 6.Bc4?
```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "18"]
[Title "What is wrong with taking the pawn here?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O b4 9.Na4 Nxe4

```

I have known this position for 25 years, having played it in blitz from both sides. I have looked into some books but the answers are too shallow. Looks to me like a gaping hole in opening theory. Is there an authoritative resource dealing with this line?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is not a gaping hole in opening theory. Looking through my reference database, White has an excellent score after 10.Re1. Black needs to reply with 10...d5 not to be clearly worse, because of the weakness on e6(White can just crash through if Black is careless). After this there aren't many games, but White's score after 11.c4 is 73.3% in 15 games. The computer evaluates the position as approximately +0.20 for White, which indicates that White has full compensation for the pawn.

This isn't hard to imagine. White has a development lead, has a weakness on e6 to work on, open lines for bishops and rooks etc. It is essentially a very sound gambit. The only reason why the computer gives White just +0.20 eval is because computers do not tend to make mistakes that humans make. They can handle scary looking positions in another way than humans can, and they don't make tactical errors. If you look through the games played after 11.c4, you will notice that virtually every black player has played a game-losing move at move 13 in this line (after 11... bxc3 12.Nxc3, Nxc3 13.bxc3, Be7?? and now White obtains a winning advantage after 14.Nf5!).

This means that the position is too expensive for Black to enter just for a pawn. It's totally not worth the risk, in my opinion.

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


# Question
Title: How to offer a draw when the opponent is not present
Imagine that your opponent is away from the board and you want to make a move and then offer a draw and leave for the toilet with some urgency. What is the solution to this inconvenience? Can a player rely on the arbiter to go to the trouble of hunting for the opponent and passing the draw offer?

# Answer
The correct way of offering a draw is, as you probably know:

1. Make a move
2. Make an offer
3. Press the clock

When your opponent is not present:

1. Make a move
2. Stop the clock (or you can leave your time running)
3. Call an arbiter and say that you want to offer a draw, and your opponent isn't here
4. Start the opponent's time
5. You are free to go now - if you run into your opponent on the way, you can mention the offer
6. When you're back at the board, make your offer.

Note that the draw-offer is perfectly valid at any given time. The reason why you call an arbiter to explain the situation is to avoid being accused of distracting your opponent when you offer it in "incorrect" way.

Edit: Adding information from official FIDE rules:

> **9.1.b.1:** A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

And

> **11.5:** It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: draw, etiquette
---


title: Advice on how to draw with White

text:
# Question
Title: Advice on how to draw with White
I read opening books a lot and they are always focused on finding a way to draw for Black and finding a way for White to play for a win. This makes me wonder why people are not writing opening books on how to draw with White. Is there no market value for a White repertoire book focused on the most efficient way of making a draw?

From the scientific point of view it is would be highly advisable to first devise a drawing method for white and only then look for a draw for Black. Why is this not done this way? Is it about the buying tastes, or about the emotions related to winning? I sometimes read comments to the effect that playing for a draw should be below one's dignity. But from the scientific point of view and also from the practical point of view it is fascinating to investagte the art of making a draw. Any ideas?

# Answer
Most opening books claim to maintain the advantage for White and equalize for Black. This is slightly different than winning and drawing.

Most of the incentive to write this way is the psychology of selling. Nobody wants to buy a book on how to draw against a lower rated player. You higher rating should make this act trivial. Winning is your objective, so that is a key word they try to put into titles.

Since White starts with the initiative, White can choose a line which end in a lot of draws. These line normally have "exchange" in them: QGD Exchange variation, Slav Exchange Variation, and French Exchange Variation.

"The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." Bobby Fischer. This lesson should have encouraged editors to have put winning in both repertoire book titles.

There is some risk aversion psychology that could be used in selling books. *The Safest Sicilian* by Delchev and Semkov is aimed at players who don't want to get into the hair-raising tactics of a normal Sicilian. The Closed Sicilian has the same objective from White's point-of-view. Petrosian and Giri have mastered this safety first approach. (Capablanca may belong in this group.)

The general consensus is that below a rating of 2000, you should not study openings more than to reach a playable middlegame without falling into an opening trap. My personal feeling is that these opening books forget to include the line which puts up the most resistance. It would be better to get someone who knows the line to explain them to you or to play against a computer just to find all of the inferior moves.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Isn't a win better than a draw with either color? Yes, there are tournament situations where White only needs a draw, but in general, White begins the game with a slight advantage - the initiative - and should be looking to use that.

The question is specifically about opening books. You can't *force* a draw during the opening, **especially** against a higher rated player. The best way to get a draw is to gain equality or better in a position in which you are more comfortable than your opponent. That's all that an opening can aim for, and it's already covered by the existing books.
> 0 votes

# Answer
White has the advantage of the first move, and would normally be playing for a win, not a draw.

The people that would want to read the kind of book you are describing are people who think, "How can I draw against a superior player if I have the first move as partial compensation?" Relatively few people are in that position (or at least are willing to admit to that position).

The answer is to keep Black on the defensive and keep the initiative, and then only at the "last minute" (toward the endgame), release the tension and simplify the position into a draw.
> 0 votes

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


title: How can Elo be unofficially estimated?

text:
# Question
Title: How can Elo be unofficially estimated?
@user1657 has given an interesting answer to a question of @ArghyaChakraborty. He says that the Android app called "Analyze your games" can estimate the user's Elo strength.

How would it do that?

You're probably not going to offer me a master's thesis on the mathematics of Elo-rating estimation here, but I'd be interested in a vague outline of the mathematics, or of the technique, if you happen to know it.

Or maybe you'll close this question as off-topic. It's kind of on the borderline, I'll admit. But, still, a computer estimating your chess strength, so that you know whether you're ready to take Karjakin's seat against Carlsen? That's pretty cool.

# Answer
Generally the approach to estimate an Elo rating directly from the games, is to calculate the accuracy of the moves compared to the best move given by an engine.

There is a correlation between accuracy and playing strength, which can be used to calculate an Elo estimate from the accuracy. This idea is laid out in this paper by Ken Regan.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, elo
---


# Question
Title: Position with the most (or many) distinct refutations?
I'm looking for a chess position, hopefully not too contrived, in which it's Black's turn, he has several moves, but each one is refuted by a mate by White.

I know I could take any mate-in-two problem, make White's first move and I'd be left with what I just described, but there's one more criterion: I'd like White's second (mating) move to be different for each of Black's possible moves. Or as many distinct mating moves as possible.

Believe it or not, this is for teaching calculus.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**EDIT:** Here is another mate-in-two problem with five legal black moves leading to five different checkmates.

```
   [Event "Apprenti Sorcier, 1992"]
   [White "ACHBAR Selim"]
   [Black "mate in two"]
   [Result "1-0"]
   [SetUp "1"]
   [FEN "8/8/1R6/2p5/8/2Bk1NRN/3P4/K6B w - - 0 1"]

   1.Rb1! (1...Ke2 2.Nfg1#)(1...Ke4 2.Nh4#)(1...Kc2 2.Ne1#)(1...Kc4 2.Ne5#)(1...c4 2.Nd4#)

```

All five different mating moves are done with the same piece, which is very nice.

---

Just to get this started; here is a mate-in-two problem with three possible black moves and three different checkmates.

```
  [Event "Grand Rapids Herald 1932 (643)"]
  [White "WURZBURG Otto B."]
  [Black "mate in two"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [FEN "8/Q7/2kp4/8/8/1K6/3R4/5B2 w - - 0 1"]

  1.Re2! (1...Kb5 2.Rc2#) (1...d5 2.Re6#)(1...Kd5 2.Bg2#)

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
I make a separate answer for my own constructions. I'm not a problem composer and don't claim any artistic value.

In the following position black has 18 legal moves, and white has a unique mating move after each black move. The 18 mating moves are all different.

```
   [Title "Black to move"]
   [SetUp "1"]
   [FEN "kr5R/rb6/8/8/8/4p3/2K3B1/R6Q w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
So I looked this up in C. Jeremy Morse's *Chess Problems: Tasks and Records*, as I should have done before entering this fray. The specific task posed by *I.J. Kennedy* is not addressed, but there are several problems that come close while pursuing some other goal. In particular, a problem by Morse himself (#34, originally in *The Problemist* 1992), using the same three-lines scheme that **Dag Oskar Marsden** found independently, is easily modified to attain **21** Black moves each answered by a different mate:

```
  [Title "Mate in 2 (C. Jeremy Morse 1992, adapted NDE 2016)"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [FEN "5Q1R/P2p2K1/2bPP1p1/7r/3B1NN1/4p3/8/R5rk w - - 0 1"]

```

Again two White Queens, one provided by the key move 1 a8Q! One mate appears on each of the 21 squares on the same rank, file, or diagonal as the bKh1.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This is answered in Sir Jeremy Morse's Chess Problems: Tasks and Records, already cited by Professor Elkies. In paragraph 2.4, Morse says "The record for the total number of different White mates (and hence of variations also) in the two-mover is 24, shown in **1**, with multiple threats but only a few minor duals." (The problem Morse refers to is the same one in the 1st edition, published 1995, and the 3rd, published in 2016; I show it below.)

If the duals are removed, 24 dual-free lines remain, ending in 24 different mates.

```
[Title "Nenad Petrovic, The Problemist, 1946. #2"]
[FEN "Q7/7P/3p2p1/2P1R3/1KN2pqp/1P4p1/r3P3/kr5R w - - 0 1"]

1. h8=Q! Ra7 2. Qxa7#
(1... Ra6 2. Qxa6#)
(1... Ra5 2. Qxa5#)
(1... Ra4+ 2. Qxa4#)
(1... Ra3 2. Qxa3#)
(1... Rxh1 2. Qxh1#)
(1... Rxa8 2. Qxa8#)
(1... dxe5 2. Qxe5#)
(1... Qf5 2. Rxf5#)
(1... Qg5 2. Rxg5#)
(1... Qh5 2. Rxh5#)
(1... Qe6 2. Rxe6#)
(1... Qd7 2. Re7#)
(1... Qc8 2. Re8#)
(1... d5 2. Rxd5#)
(1... dxc5+ 2. Rxc5#)
(1... f3 2. Re4#)
(1... Qf3 2. Re3#)
(1... Qxe2 2. Rxe2#)
(1... Rg1 2. Rxg1#)
(1... Rf1 2. Rxf1#)
(1... Re1 2. Rxe1#)
(1... Rd1 2. Rxd1#)
(1... Rc1 2. Rxc1#)

```

So here we have the idea "line-pinned black line-piece moves away from black king; white pinner captures it" on a rank and on a file, as in Dag Oskar Madsen's and Prof. Elkies's problems, but not also on a diagonal. Instead, in 11 variations, White's other rook is used to discover a diagonal check, and must choose its destination accurately, either to interfere on the line a Black unit threatens to interpose on, or to capture that unit. Black uses a variety of means to make only one square work. wPe2 prevents 1. ... Qd1 and avoids a dual after 1. ... Re1.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Squeezing yet another mate from **Dag Oskar Madsen**'s construction, for a total of 19:

```
  [Title "Black to move"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [FEN "R6Q/6B1/2p3K1/8/8/3pN3/rb6/kq5R w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
How about this mate in two:

1.Nd4!!

1...Bxd4 2.Qb1#

1...Qxd4 2.Qxh7#

1...Kxd4 2.Qb4#

1...exd4 2.Qxd5#

Everything else is answered by: 2.Rg4#

# Answer
> 2 votes
... and yet another mate, for a total of 20, at the cost of a few more White units including a second Queen:

```
  [Title "Black to move (after Dag Oskar Madsen)"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [FEN "Q3Q2B/8/4P1K1/1P4p1/2N5/3pN3/rb6/kq5R w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, records
---