# Question
Title: What are the openings that are popular among club players, but are (more or less) rejected by modern professional players?
For example, I see club players playing King's Gambit as well as the Four Knights Game a lot but almost never see these openings in the games of modern professional players.

Are there other openings that are popular among club players but more or less rejected by professional players?

# Answer
Here is one approach that I did. Collect opening and variation names take the fen and search the stats of this opening. The opening is taken from eco.pgn from pgn-extract. Then use the opening explorer of lichess api to get the white wins, draws and black wins and finally the total games.

In this example the total games determines the popularity of the opening. The most number of games is ranked number 1. I used two databases, the lichess database and the masters database. If the move is not found in the database then its rank is set 100. Also for a given fen the number of moves requested from api is 20. So if fen is from start position + e4 move, the stats of reply moves requested is 20, can be e5, e6, c5 ... until 20 only.

The following are the results after checking the first 500 out of 2000 plus openings in the eco.pgn. The game coverage is from 2012-01 to 2021-11 applied to both lichess and masters databases.

`rank_lcp` is the ranking by number of games of the move based from lichess database rating groups of 1600, 1800 and 2000 with classical rating, move with most games is ranked #1

`rank_mast` is the ranking by number of games based from the masters database, move with most games is ranked #1.

`lcp_pop` is the difference between rank\_mast and rank\_lcp move, if this is positive that means it is popular to lichess players compared to masters, the value 100 as rank means it is not found in the given database,

`fen` is the position before the last move in the eco.pgn.

`move` is the last move in the eco.pgn

`opening and variation` are the names after making the move and are also available from the eco.pgn.

Example, in index 36 is bird opening with variation name `From gambit, Lipke variation` the fen is `rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/3b3n/8/8/5N2/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 5` and the move is d4. Based on lichess classical database with 1600, 1800, 2000 lichess ratings, the move d4 is ranked #1 whereas that move is not found in masters database with rank 100, resulting in 100-1 or 99 lcp\_pop value.

Be noted that there are moves from lichess masters database with rank 100 meaning not found because the masters database moves included are only from 2012 to 2021-11. It is possible that if I change it to 1952 to 2021 range, that move can be in the master database. See second pastebin link for comparison from the full masters database.

The results below are only those openings having positive lcp\_pop.

### 1. Lichess classical rating group 1600, 1800, 2000 database against lichess masters database, year range: {lichess: 2012 to 2021-11, masters: 2012 to 2021-11}

```
                                         opening                                                     variaton                                                                      fen   move  rank_lcp  rank_mast  lcp_pop
0                                         Vienna                               Hamppe-Muzio, Dubois variation            r1bqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4n3/2B1PQ2/2N5/PPPP2PP/R1B2RK1 b kq - 0 8    Qf6         1        100       99
1                                            KGD                                Falkbeer, Charousek variation            rnb1kb1r/ppp3pp/8/3q1p2/4nP2/8/PPPNQ1PP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - 0 8     g4         1        100       99
2                                            KGA                             bishop's gambit, Greco variation              rnb1kbnr/pppp1ppp/8/8/2B1Pp1q/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1KNR b kq - 3 4    Bc5         1        100       99
3                                            KGA                           bishop's gambit, classical defence           rnb1k1nr/pppp1pbp/8/6p1/2BPPp1q/2N5/PPP3PP/R1BQ1KNR b kq - 0 6    Ne7         1        100       99
4                                            KGA                            bishop's gambit, McDonnell attack            rnb1k2r/ppppnpbp/8/6p1/2BPPp1q/2N5/PPP3PP/R1BQ1KNR w kq - 1 7     g3         1        100       99
5                                      Ruy Lopez                                Berlin defence, Mortimer trap         r1bqkb1r/ppppnppp/5n2/1B2N3/4P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5     c6         1        100       99
6                                            KGA                               Cunningham, three pawns gambit              rnbqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/8/2B1P2b/5N2/PPPP3p/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7    Kh1         1        100       99
7                                   Queen's pawn                                               Englund gambit         r1b1kbnr/ppppq1pp/2n2P2/3Q4/8/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 5   Nxf6         1        100       99
8                                         Petrov                          modern attack, Bardeleben variation           rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/2n1P3/3N4/8/PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6    Nc6         1        100       99
9                                            KGA                                      Allgaier, Horny defence              rnbq1b1r/pppp1k2/5n1p/8/4PQ1P/8/PPPP2P1/RNB1KB1R b KQ - 0 8    Bd6         1        100       99
10                                           KGA                                     Allgaier, Cook variation                rnbq1bnr/ppp3k1/7p/8/2BPpBpP/8/PPP3P1/RN1QK2R w KQ - 2 10   Be5+         1        100       99
11                                  Evans gambit                                           Steinitz variation       r1bqk1nr/ppp3pp/1b1p1p2/n5B1/2BPP3/2N2N2/P4PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 11    Be3         1        100       99
12                                           KGA                                      Allgaier, Urusov attack                rnbq1bnr/ppp3k1/7p/3B4/4PppP/8/PPPP2P1/RNBQK2R w KQ - 1 9     d4         1        100       99
13                    Blackburne shilling gambit                                                          NaN                r1b1kbnr/pppp1Npp/8/8/3nq3/8/PPPPBP1P/RNBQKR2 b Qkq - 1 7   Nf3#         1        100       99
14                                           KGA           Kieseritsky, long whip defence, Jaenisch variation           rnbqk1n1/pppp1p1r/7b/4N2p/2BPPppP/8/PPP3P1/RNBQK2R w KQq - 1 8    Nc3         1        100       99
15                                  Four knights                  Rubinstein counter-gambit Maroczy variation       r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/3p1n2/2b1p3/N3P3/3P1B2/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 1 9    Bb6         1        100       99
16                                           KGA                                Kieseritsky, Brentano defence          rnbqkb1r/ppp2p1p/5n2/3pN3/3PPppP/8/PPP3P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 1 7   Bxf4         1        100       99
17                                           KGA                 Kieseritsky, Salvio defence, Cozio variation            rnb1kbnr/ppppq2p/8/4Np2/3PPppP/8/PPP3P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7    Bc4         1        100       99
18                                       Latvian                                            Polerio variation             rnbqkbnr/pppp2pp/8/4N3/2B1p3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4     d5         1        100       99
19                                            KP                            Nimzovich defence, Wheeler gambit            r1bqkbnr/pppppppp/2n5/8/4P3/2P5/P2P1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 4     d4         1        100       99
20                                  Scandinavian                     Anderssen counter-attack orthodox attack          r1b1k1nr/ppp2ppp/2n5/q3P3/1b6/2N5/PPPB1PPP/R2QKBNR w KQkq - 3 7    Nf3         1        100       99
21                                        Scotch                                               Sea-cadet mate              r2q1bnr/ppp1kBpp/3p4/4N3/4P3/2N5/PP3PPP/R1Bb1RK1 w - - 1 10   Nd5#         1        100       99
22       Ponziani counter-gambit, Schmidt attack                                                          NaN        r1bqkbnr/ppp3pp/2np4/4pp2/3PP3/2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5     d5         1        100       99
23                            Alekhine's defence                                              Kmoch variation         rnbqkb1r/pp1ppppp/1n6/2p1P3/8/1B6/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 5     d3         1        100       99
24                                      Philidor                                               Paulsen attack              rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3p4/3NP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5   exd5         1        100       99
25                                        Petrov                              classical attack, Marshall trap        rn1q1rk1/ppp3pp/3b4/3P1p2/3Pn1b1/3B1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 b - - 1 10  Bxh2+         1        100       99
26                            Alekhine's defence                       four pawns attack, Ilyin-Genevsky var.         r2qkb1r/ppp1p1pp/1nn1p3/8/2PP2b1/5N2/PP4PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 9     c5         1        100       99
27                                     Ruy Lopez                                         Rabinovich variation        r1bqk2r/2p2ppp/p4n2/1pbPR1N1/3n4/1B6/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ2K1 b kq - 0 10    Kf8         1        100       99
28                        Irish (Chicago) gambit                                                          NaN             r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4n3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4     d4         1        100       99
29                                           KGD                                   Falkbeer, Alapin variation              rnb1k2r/ppp2ppp/8/3q4/4nP2/5N2/PPP1QbPP/RNBK1B1R w kq - 0 9   Nfd2         1        100       99
30                                     Gruenfeld                                     Russian, Keres variation        r2q1rk1/ppp1ppbp/1nn3p1/8/3PP1b1/2NQBN2/PP2BPPP/R3K2R w KQ - 7 11  O-O-O         1        100       99
31                              Bishop's opening                                              Pratt variation           rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/5P2/2b4Q/2pp4/2P5/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - 1 7    O-O         1        100       99
32                                           QGD                            Albin counter-gambit, Lasker trap          rnbqk1nr/ppp2ppp/8/4P3/1bPp4/4P3/PP1B1PPP/RN1QKBNR b KQkq - 2 5   dxe3         1        100       99
33                                     Ruy Lopez                                  closed, Leonhardt variation   rnb1k2r/2q1bppp/p2p1n2/1ppPp3/4P3/2P2N1P/PPBN1PP1/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 2 13     g5         1        100       99
34                Vienna gambit, Wurzburger trap                                                          NaN           rnb1kb1r/ppp2ppp/8/3pP2q/8/2NP1Nn1/PPP4P/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 2 8   Nxd5         1        100       99
35                              Amsterdam attack                                                          NaN       r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2np4/4p3/2P5/1PN1P3/P2P1PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 4    Nf6         1        100       99
36                                          Bird                                 From gambit, Lipke variation              rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/3b3n/8/8/5N2/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 5     d4         1        100       99
37                                     Ruy Lopez                                              Noah's ark trap         r1bqk2r/2p1bppp/p2p1n2/1p6/3QP3/1B6/PPP2PPP/RNB1R1K1 b kq - 0 10     c5         1        100       99
38                                       Catalan                                   closed, Sokolsky variation       r1bq1rk1/3nbppp/1pp1pn2/p2p4/2PP4/1P3NP1/PBQNPPBP/R4RK1 b - - 1 10    Ba6         1        100       99
39                                   Amar gambit                                                          NaN             rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/5P2/6PB/PPPPP2P/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4   exf4         1        100       99
40                                    Old Indian                                    Dus-Khotimirsky variation      r1bqkb1r/pppn1ppp/3p1n2/4p3/2PP4/2N1P3/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 1 5    Bd3         2        100       98
41                                      Budapest                            Alekhine variation, Balogh gambit           rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/2P1P1n1/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 4     d6         2        100       98
42                                  Evans gambit                                               Goering attack         r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/1b1p4/n7/2BPP3/2N2N2/P4PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 3 10    Bg5         2        100       98
43                                           KGA                                      Allgaier, Walker attack                rnbq1bnr/pppp1k2/7p/8/4PppP/8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQ - 0 7   Bc4+         2        100       98
44                             Giuoco Pianissimo                                             Dubois variation      r1bqk1nr/pppp2pp/2n5/2b1ppN1/2B1P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 1 5     f4         2        100       98
45                                           KGD                                   Falkbeer, Charousek gambit               rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/8/3P4/4nP2/8/PPP3PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6    Qe2         2        100       98
46                             Fried fox defence                                                          NaN             rnbqkbnr/ppppp1pp/5p2/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2    Kf7         2        100       98
47                                           KGA                Kieseritsky, Brentano defence, Caro variation            rnbqkb1r/ppp2p1p/8/3pN3/3PnBpP/8/PPP3P1/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 8    Nd2         2        100       98
48                                  Four knights                                          Spielmann variation            r3kb1r/1pp2ppp/p1p1b3/4q3/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 10    Qd5         2        100       98
49                                           KGA                                     Kieseritsky, Rice gambit         rnbqk2r/ppp2p1p/3b1n2/3PN3/2B2ppP/8/PPPP2P1/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 1 8    O-O         2        100       98
50                                  Giuoco Piano                                             Krause variation              r1bq3r/ppp3pp/5k2/3pN3/1n1Pn3/1Q6/PP3PPP/RN2K2R w KQ - 2 12     f3         2        100       98
51                                            KP                           Nimzovich defence, Marshall gambit            r1b1kbnr/ppp1pppp/2n5/3q4/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4    Nc3         2        100       98
52                                      Philidor                      Philidor counter-gambit, del Rio attack             rnbqkbnr/ppp3pp/8/3pP1N1/4p3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6     e6         2        100       98
53                                 Scotch gambit                                           Hanneken variation           r1bq1rk1/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4P1N1/1bB5/8/PB3PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 9   Nxe5         2        100       98
54                                  Nimzo-Indian                                Spielmann, San Remo variation    r1bqk2r/pp1p1ppp/2n1p3/2P5/1bP1n3/1QN2N2/PP1BPPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 4 7   Nxc5         2        100       98
55                                        Vienna                           Steinitz gambit, Zukertort defence          r1b1kbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/3PPp1q/2N5/PPP1K1PP/R1BQ1BNR b kq - 2 5     d5         2        100       98
56                                           KGA                                              Allgaier gambit            rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/4PppP/5N2/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5    Ng5         2        100       98
57                                           QGD                                            Rochlin variation   r1b1kb1r/pp1n1ppp/2p1pn2/q2p2B1/2PP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/2RQKB1R w Kkq - 2 7    Bd2         2        100       98
58                                  Giuoco Piano                                          Bernstein variation             r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/2BP4/1Qb2N2/P4PPP/R1B2RK1 b kq - 1 10     d5         2        100       98
59                                     Ruy Lopez               Steinitz defence deferred, Lipnitsky variation         r1bqkb1r/2p2ppp/p1pp1n2/4p3/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7    Bg4         2        100       98
60                                           KGA                                    Cunningham, Bertin gambit           rnbqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/8/2B1Pp1b/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 4 5     g3         2        100       98
61                                           KGA                                         Silberschmidt gambit            rnb1kb1r/pppp1p1p/7n/4N3/2BPPppq/8/PPP3PP/RNBQ1K1R b kq - 0 7     f3         2        100       98
62                                     Ruy Lopez                         Berlin defence, Trifunovic variation          r1bqk2r/ppppbppp/2n5/1B2p3/3Pn3/5N2/PPP1QPPP/RNB2RK1 b kq - 2 6     d5         2        100       98
63                           two knights defence                                            Maroczy variation        r1bqkb1r/ppp2pp1/5n1p/3P4/2P1p3/5N2/PPP1QPPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 9    Be7         2        100       98
64                                        French                                           Steinitz variation         rnbqkb1r/pp1n1ppp/4p3/2PpP3/5P2/2N5/PPP3PP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 6    Nc6         2        100       98
65                                           QGD  Tarrasch, Schlechter-Rubinstein system, Rey Ardid variation        r1bqkbnr/pp3ppp/2n5/3p4/2pP4/2N2NP1/PP2PP1P/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7     e4         2        100       98
66        Two knights defence, Keidanz variation                                                          NaN             r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/2N5/1B1pP3/4n3/8/PPP2bPP/RNBQ1K1R b kq - 1 9    Qh4         2        100       98
67                                     Ruy Lopez                                      open, Richter variation        r1bqkb1r/2pp1ppp/p1n5/1p2p3/B2Pn3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7     d5         2        100       98
68                                  Giuoco Piano                                             Aitken variation             r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/2BP4/2b2N2/P4PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 10    Ba3         2        100       98
69                                      Philidor                 Philidor counter-gambit, Zukertort variation          rnbqkbnr/ppp3pp/3p4/4pp2/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4    Nc3         3        100       97
70                                           KGD                                     Falkbeer, Reti variation           rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/5n2/3P4/4pP2/3P4/PPP3PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 5    Qe2         3        100       97
71                              Bishop's opening                                           Lisitsyn variation                  r2qkbnr/pp3ppp/8/3pn3/8/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 8    Ne2         3        100       97
72                                 King's Indian                         Four pawns attack, Florentine gambit      rnbq1rk1/pp3pbp/3p1np1/2pp4/2P1PP2/2N2N2/PP2B1PP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 9     e5         3        100       97
73                                     Ruy Lopez                          Berlin defence, Pillsbury variation               r1bqk2r/pnppbppp/2p5/4P3/8/5N2/PPP1QPPP/RNB2RK1 w kq - 1 9     b3         3        100       97
74                                           QGD                       Orthodox defence, Capablanca variation        r1bq1rk1/p1pnbppp/1p3n2/3p2B1/3P4/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/2RQKB1R w K - 0 9    Bb5         3        100       97
75                                       Latvian                                     corkscrew counter-gambit             rnbqkbnr/pppp2pp/8/4N3/2B1p3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4    Nf6         3        100       97
76                                           KGD                             classical, Soldatenkov variation        rnbqk1nr/ppp2ppp/3p4/2b1p3/4PP2/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4   fxe5         3        100       97
77                                           KGA                         bishop's gambit, Anderssen variation              rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3B4/4Pp2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 4     c6         3        100       97
78                                  Giuoco Piano                                      Ghulam Kassim variation              r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/2bBP3/8/2p2N2/PP3KPP/RNBQ3R w kq - 0 9    Kg3         3        100       97
79                                 Scotch gambit                                               Vitzhum attack         r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n4n/2b3N1/2BpP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 4 6    Qh5         3        100       97
80                                        Scotch                                         Gottschall variation              1rb2rk1/pp3ppp/2n2q2/3P4/8/2P1Q3/PP3PPP/RN2KB1R b KQ - 0 12    Nb4         3        100       97
81                                           KGA                             Lolli gambit (wild Muzio gambit)           rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5  Bxf7+         3        100       97
82                                           KGD                               classical, Svenonius variation   r2qk2r/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/2b1p3/2B1PP2/2NP1Q1P/PPP3P1/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 8   exf4         3        100       97
83                                           QGD                              Semi-Tarrasch, Krause variation       rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/p4n2/1N1pp1B1/2P5/2N5/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 8    Qa4         3        100       97
84                                           KGA                                  Allgaier, Thorold variation                rnbq1bnr/pppp1k2/7p/8/4PppP/8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQ - 0 7     d4         3        100       97
85                                   two knights                           Max Lange attack, Berger variation          r3k2r/ppp2ppp/1bn1bPq1/6N1/2ppNPP1/8/PPP4P/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 13  O-O-O         3        100       97
86                                      Sicilian                          dragon, classical, Stockholm attack            r4rk1/pp2ppbp/3p1np1/q4P2/4P3/2N1B3/PPP1Q1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 14     g4         3        100       97
87                                  Four knights                                           Marshall variation       r1bq1rk1/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/1Bb1N3/4P3/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 6    Nd4         3        100       97
88                                           KGA                                              Herzfeld gambit            rnb1kbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4N3/2B1Pppq/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1K1R b kq - 3 6    Nc6         3        100       97
89                                 Vienna gambit                                              Heyde variation         rnbqkb1r/ppp3pp/8/3pPp2/4n3/2N2Q2/PPPP2PP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq f6 0 6     d4         3        100       97
90                                           QGD                                exchange, chameleon variation         r1bqrnk1/ppp1bppp/5n2/3p2B1/3P4/2NBP3/PPQ1NPPP/R3K2R w KQ - 7 10  O-O-O         3        100       97
91    Hammerschlag (Fried fox/Pork chop opening)                                                          NaN             rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/8/5P2/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2    Kf2         3        100       97
92                                  Four knights                                          Svenonius variation      r1bq1rk1/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/1B2p3/4P3/2PP1N2/P1P2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 7     d5         3        100       97
93                                           KGD                             Falkbeer, Milner-Barry variation             rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3    Nc3         4        100       96
94                                           KGA                                  Allgaier, Blackburne gambit                rnbq1bnr/pppp1k2/7p/8/4PppP/8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQ - 0 7    Nc3         4        100       96
95                                   Centre game                                         Kupreichik variation         r1bqr1k1/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/8/1bB1P3/2N1Q3/PPPB1PPP/2KR2NR w - - 0 9    Nh3         4        100       96
96                              Bishop's opening                                     MacDonnell double gambit          rnbqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/1bB1P3/8/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 4     f4         4        100       96
97                                     Caro-Kann                             Panov-Botvinnik, Gunderam attack             rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/3p4/2PP4/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 5     c5         4        100       96
98                                           KGA                                         Ghulam Kassim gambit           rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5     d4         4        100       96
99                                        Vienna                                      Zhuravlev countergambit       rnbqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/1b2P1Q1/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1B1KBNR b KQkq - 3 3    Nf6         4        100       96
100                                          KGD                                    Falkbeer, Keres variation           rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/5n2/3P4/4pP2/3P4/PPP3PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 5    Nd2         4        100       96
101                                      Latvian                                          Nimzovich variation            rnb1kbnr/ppp3pp/3p1q2/8/2NPp3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6    Ne3         4        100       96
102                                       Petrov                            modern attack, Steinitz variation           rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/3pn3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 1 5    Qe2         4        100       96
103                                Greco defence                                                          NaN           rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 1 2    Qf6         4        100       96
104                                          KGA                                                 Greco gambit           rnbqk1nb/pp3p2/2pp4/6p1/2BPPp2/2N2N2/PPP3P1/R1BQK3 w Qq - 0 10    Ne5         4        100       96
105                           Alekhine's defence                         two pawns' attack, Mikenas variation       rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4p3/2PnP3/2B5/2N5/PP1P1PPP/R1BQK1NR b KQkq - 1 6     d6         4        100       96
106                                 Evans gambit                        compromised defence, Potter variation         r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n3q1/b3P3/2B5/1QN2N2/P4PPP/R1B2RK1 w kq - 1 11    Rd1         4        100       96
107                                 Crab opening                                                          NaN              rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/P7/8/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2     h4         4        100       96
108                               Tayler opening                                                          NaN        r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPPBPPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 4 4     d4         4        100       96
109                                          QGD                          Lasker defence, Bernstein variation             rnb2rk1/ppp1qpp1/7p/3p4/3P4/1QP1PN2/P4PPP/R3KB1R b KQ - 1 11    Qd6         4        100       96

```

All 2014 openings in the eco.pgn are checked and there are only 502 openings where a move is more popular in lichess classical rating group 1600, 1800, 2000 database compared to lichess masters database.

All results cannot be shown because of message box character limit. The full 502 results can be found at pastebin.

### 2. Lichess classical rating group 1600, 1800, 2000 database against lichess masters database, year range: {lichess: 2012 to 2021-11, masters: 1952 to 2021-11}

Full result is in pastebin.

### 3. Lichess rapid rating group 1600, 1800, 2000 database against lichess masters database, year range: {lichess: all available as of 2022-05-17, masters: 1952 to 2021-11}

It includes eco and main line moves.

Full result is in pastebin.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It would be easier to answer the question the other way around. There are thousands of trappy lines an amateur might play but the number of lines a professional might play is very small.

For example, with white, you only really have the Ruy Lopez, Queens gambit and English. Maybe the Catalan. White might play 1nf3 or 1g3 but those are only attempts to transpose into favorable lines either in the above mentioned openings or to some pet line.

Some openings like the Scotch or London are viable but probably equal and are actually usually more popular at amateur level.

With black vs e4 there are 10 reasonable responses but only 4 (e5,c5,e6,c6,) are played often by professionals.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Most different mate-in-N depending on black's move
The puzzle (this may have a known answer) is to construct a position such that:

* If Black makes move A, it's mate in 1 for white.
* If Black makes move B, it's mate in 2 for white.
* ...
* If Black makes move X, it's mate in N for white.

For instance, in this position

```
6k1/7p/5K1P/8/8/4Q3/8/8 b - - 0 1

```
* If 1..Kh8 2. Qe8#
* If 1..Kf8 2. Kh8 Qe8#

So this position has N=2.

What's the highest possible N? (All of the 1-N moves must exist)

## Extra details:

* It doesn't count as having mate-in-X if white also has a shorter forced mate.
* It is acceptable for white to have several different mate-in-X for a given black response.
* It is acceptable for black to have additional moves available that don't lead to any particular mate-in-X.
* It is acceptable for black to have two different moves that both forced mate in the same number of moves.

(It might be considered "nicer" to have solutions that don't rely on the last three points though).

# Answer
A N=4 demo (board from Black view), not necessarily the stuff that you wanted, depending on your demands.

```
[FEN "8/6B1/8/8/B2Rp3/8/3p1n1n/K1k5 b - - 0 1"]

```

If Black plays...

~: 1.Rc4#

d1B: 1.Bh6+ e3 2.Bxe3#

d1Q: 1.Bh6+ e3 2.Bxe3+ Qd2 3.Bxd2#

d1N: 1.Bf8 (threat Ba3) Nd3 2.Bh6+ e3 3.Rxd3 Nd1~/~ 4.Bxe3/Rxd1#

Observe this isn't perfect from my view: ~ is not exact, since Black could play Nd1 with a #2. (I'd prefer ~ is a single move with a #1.) In the #3 line Black might shorten it with Qd2. Also, even worse, Black can play d1R, leading to a dual Bxd2/Rc4 in the mating move. In the #4 variant, the line splits again. It shouldn't since it obscures the theme. But at least all White moves are unique.

Thus, again, please clarify the exact demands. My own maximum demands on the task would be

X%: 1.A#!

Y%: 1.B! Y2! 2.B2#!

Z%: 1.C! Z2! 2.C2! Z3! 3.C3#!

and so on, where "%" means "all of the moves, but choice possible" and "!" only black move/only White move that mates in the required number of moves. In contrast, my minimum demand would be:

X: 1.A#!

Y: 1.B! Y2 2.B2#!

Z: 1.C! Z2 2.C2! Z3 3.C3#!

i.e., only that some forced unique lines with n=1,2,...,N exist.

EDIT:

```
[FEN "8/k1K5/p1R5/8/8/P7/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

"Superexact" N=2 example. All moves are forced (Black's as they are the only legal ones, White's as they are the only fulfilling the stipulation, also no #2 exists in the #1 line!): 0...Ka8 1.Rxa6#, 0...a5 1.a4 Ka8 2.Ra6#.
> 2 votes

# Answer
(delete - whereas it's a mate in 1 to N, it is a *consecutive* one, not a *split on Black's 1st move*! Sorry!)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Sicilian endgames - favourable for which side and why?
I often come across statements like this:

> Generally speaking, Sicilian endgames tend to favour Black for structural reasons. The extra center pawn and the half-open c-file are both advantageous for the second the player.

This is surprising to me, as I've also read that queenside pawn majorities are good in the endgame (e.g. in papers about the Grünfeld defence). I thought that the central pawn majority would rather give Black an advantage in the middle game, because there are still more pieces that need to be actively placed near the center. The queenside pawn majority however entails the potential to create a passed pawn that is more remote than the passed pawn that Black would be able to create using his majority. Why would the endgames be good for Black in the Grünfeld, but not for White in the Sicilian? If Black's central pawn majority in the center is advantageous during the middle game **and** the endgame, why isn't the Sicilian not just better for Black (after White's initial initiative has been fended off)?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> The extra center pawn

The first basic endgame principle that beginners are taught is that when there are pawns on both sides of the board their first general priority is to centralize the king. If you control the center then that is much easier for you to do than for your opponent. In the endgame, with most of the pieces gone, it is easier for black to move the normally backward central pawns forward and establish control of the center.

> the half-open c-file

If rooks are on the board, which they are in the majority of endgames, then a half-open c-file gives you a natural target for your rook(s). A common theme here is to combine this pressure with a minority attack - advancing the a and b pawns to undermine white's pawn support for the c pawn after it is advanced.

> If Black's central pawn majority in the center is advantageous during the middle game and the endgame, why isn't the Sicilian not just better for Black

You control the center with pawns by having pawns on the key central squares - c4/5, d4/5, e4/5, f4/5. If white has pawns on e4 and possibly f4 and black's central pawns are no further forward than the 3rd rank then it is white who has more control of the center and an advantage, not black.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Between the Sicilian opening and the Sicilian ending the gods have placed the Sicilian middlegame.

During that period, Black is opening lines and activating pieces on the Queens side, conducting a sort of minority attack. If Black were to play passively your conclusion would be correct. Therefore, he must not play passively.

---
Tags: endgame, sicilian-defense, pawn-structure, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Opening suggestion where my side castles king side and has king side majority
I'm looking for a set of openings that are more likely to lead into positional play where my side castles king side and have king side majority. Theoretical advantage is not required.

The plan is to not worry about king safety too much (unless opponent significantly weakens his structure to attack, e.g. IQP), swap pieces in equal positions and save myself time in middle game calculations. I can try and win in endgames.

Please suggest openings for white and for black against e4/d4/c4. Suggestions accompanied by book/video would be best. To start with, Caro-Kann against e4 seems a good choice.

# Answer
The Sicilian would be the obvious choice for black. I'm not an expert in every Sicilian line but I play several and encounter the same kingside majority theme in all of them nearly all of the time. One idea that occurs frequently in a lot of Sicilians is the Boleslavsky position. Black accepts a backward d pawn on a semi-open file but typically gets compensation in terms of activity. Positionally though, black will push d5 at some point and that will leave black with a kingside majority and a very good endgame.

So, I would think you could come up with something similar with the English/queen's gambit as white. What's going to give a kingside majority is trading your c pawn for the opponent's d pawn. That will happen often in those openings. You can pick and choose the transpositions that fit what you're trying to do.

I don't think you could do it playing e4 because the e4 pawn will frequently get pushed and/or traded for the d pawn leaving you with 3 kingside pawns. You want an opening that holds the e pawn back because if you trade the e pawn you will have a hard time getting a kingside majority.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, positional-play
---


title: How do you evaluate this position?

text:
# Question
Title: How do you evaluate this position?
```
    rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1
    [Date "2021.08.14"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [UTCDate "2021.08.14"]
    [UTCTime "22:01:55"]
    [ECO "C42"]
    [Opening "Russian Game: Nimzowitsch Attack"]
[StartPly "22"]

    1... e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 { C42 Russian Game: Nimzowitsch Attack } Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Be3 c6 9. Qd2 d5 10. O-O-O a5 11. h4 a4

```

I played the Petroff as black and my opponent answered with the Nimzowitsch attack. We continued with a pawn run on the a- and h-file. The situation is quite complex and I did not know how to evaluate it. The engine was about +0.9. Are there good ways to think about comparable attacking situations? It is clear to see that the white's bishops are better placed than the black ones. What else is important to consider?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would say White has the initiative and easier play.

Let's try something like this

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Be3 c6 9. Qd2 d5 10. O-O-O a5 11. h4 a4 12.Ng5 h6 13.g4

```

It looks dangerous for Black.

Rd1-g1 is coming. Ng5-h7 is an idea. If hxg5 hxg5, h-file opens, White can transfer the Queen with f2-f3 and Qd2-h2.

In general, when castling opposite sides, the player who attacks first will have the initiative and thereby advantage.

White's g-pawn is more dangerous than Black's a-pawn. White's c3-pawn controls d4 and b4 squares and the a1-h8 diagonal, which delays Black's attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The position is roughly equal.

White has a lead in development but black has a better center and slightly safer king. I don't see any immediate threats from white and at some point white will play c4 and equalize in the center leaving both sides with roughly the same position.

I do think Black's position would be easier to play though because it's just simple development. Black will play Bg4, Bf6, Nd7, and maybe Qb6 ( in varying orders) If white plays h5 answer with h6 and I'm not really worried about the sac on h6. The Ng5 ideas are garbage. I'll eventually take the knight and white will be down a piece with no compensation.

---
Tags: middlegame, evaluation, petroff-defense
---


# Question
Title: Move order in Samisch King's Indian, Panno Variation
This is the traditional move order given for the Panno Variation of the Samisch King's Indian:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8

```

My question is, why `6...Nc6` and `7...a6` instead of playing `6...a6` first? This seems more flexible to me for a couple of reasons:

* We don't reveal whether we're going to play the Panno (with a6/Nc6) or the Byrne Variation (with a6/c6).
* If White plays `7.Nge2` after `6...a6`, we can develop the knight to d7 instead of c6, since White no longer has the option of playing Nh3-f4.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Essentially, the reason boils down to the fact that `Nc6` develops a piece, while `a6` does not. First, we'll play through variations in the main line showing how black should and should not fight for the center. Then, let's look at a few concrete lines showing why `a6` first is inaccurate.

**0. Main lines and fight for the `d4` square.**

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 {Black wants to push `e5` to control the center.} 7.Nge2 {This prevents `e5`, so instead black looks for counterplay on the queenside by the means of `b5`.} (7... e5?! 8.d5 {Forcing black back, since otherwise it loses a pawn.} Ncd4 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.Bxd4 ) a6 8.Qd2 (8... e5?! {Is still not playable.} 9.d5 {Forcing black back, since otherwise it loses a pawn.} Ncd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.Bxd4 ) Rb8 {Playing for counterplay on the queenside.} 9. Nc1 {Now that black has committed two moves to the queenside, white regroups, allowing `e5`.} e5 10.d5 Nd4 {The key idea, white can't take the pawn now.} 11.Nb3 (11.Bxd4 exd4 12.Qxd4 Nxe4 {Where black has a deadly attack.}) Nxb3

```

**1. Attack on the black king.**

If black is not careful, sometimes a direct attack can work. With `6... Nc6` white does not obtain much by playing `7.h4`, but against `6... a6` then `7.h4` hurts since the queenside knight is not able to fight for the `d4` square.

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 (6...a6?! 7.h4! {Immediately attacking the castled black king. Now the thematic `Nh5` does not work.} Nc6 (7... Nbd7 8.Qd2 c5 {Is a whole other can of worms, but I also do not think that black does better since it completely concedes the `d4` square.}) (7... Nh5 8.Nge2 f5 9.exf5 gxf5 10.Qd2 Nc6 11.O-O-O e5 12.Bg5 Qe8 13.Rg1 {Where the black king is definitely weaker.}) 8.Nge2 {Stopping `d5`.} b5 {Looking for counterplay on the queenside} (8... Rb8 {This is extremely dangerous because of `h5`, and white is faster.} 9.h5! Nxh5 10.g4 Nf6 11.Qd2 {Where it is hard to argue that black has a better version of a Sicilian Dragon.}) 9.cxb5 axb5 10.Nxb5 {Where black does not have as much counterplay while white has a passed `a` pawn.}) 7.h4 Nh5 {Thematic, preparing the break `f5` while still keeping `e5` available.} (7... e5 {This is also an option.} 8.d5 Nd4 9.Nge2 c5 10.dxc6 bxc6 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Bxd4 c5 {With typical compensation for black; the white king is weak, `f5` is an option, and there is long term pressure on the queenside.}) 8.Nge2 f5! 9.Qd2 e5! 10.d5 Nd4 {Although the position is incredibly complicated, black has definitely made progress.}

```

**2. Fight for the `d4` square.**

The move `6... a6` does not threaten `e5`, giving white just enough time to get its light colored bishop into the action.

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 (6...a6?! 7.Bd3! Nc6 (7...c5 {Continuing the play on the queenside.} 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.e5 {Followed by `f4`, and white is more developed, has more space, and should be better.} (8...Nc6 9.cxd6 Qxd6 {Simply loses a pawn.})) (7...Nfd7 {Although I cannot assess this position objectively, white is soon to be fully developed while black's queenside is completely stuck, and I do not think that black has accomplished anything.}) 8.Nge2 {Is a much better version of the main line.} ) 7.Bd3 e5! 8.d5 Nd4 9.Nge2 Nh5 {Threatening `f5` and `Qh4`.} 10.Qd2 c5 11.dxc6 bxc6 {Where black is threatening `d5`, crashing through.}

```

**3. Transpositions favorable for white.**

If white is not extremely accurate, it is very likely that they will stumble into the main line anyways. The pitfalls of the move order are only working against black, rarely against white.

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 (6...a6?! 7.Nge2 (7.Qd2 {Is even more flexible for white.} Nc6 8.Rd1 (8.Nge2 {Is the main line.}) e5 9.d5 Ne7 (9...Nd4 10.Nge2  Nxe2 11.Bxe2 {Where white is faster on the queenside and black has no control of the center because of the battery on the `d` file.}) 10.g4 {Where black is incredibly cramped, and white has all the attacking chances.} ) Nc6 {Is still the best move, transposing into the main line.} (7... Nbd7 {Surrenders the `d4` square and abandons the queenside, allowing white to continue its expansion.} 8.a4 {Where white has everything they desire; initiative on the queenside, control of the center (with `d5` if necessary), attacking chances on the kingside with `h4` or `g4`, tons of space...} (8.h4 {Is also an interesting move since the knight on `f6`, but it will very likely transpose.} h5 9.a4)  ) (7... c6 {Surrenders the `d4` square.}) (7... b5 {Continuing the play on the queenside.} 8.cxb5 axb5 9.Nxb5 {Loses a pawn.}) 8.Qd2 ) 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 {Is the main line.}

```

**Summary.**

The opening principles are there for a reason, even in highly theoretical openings. The developing move `6...Nc6` plays a key role in the main ideas of the King's Indian, namely it fights for the `d4` square. The move `6...a6` is a slow attempt to play on the queenside, and offers nothing towards the control of the center nor the defense of black's king.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The main reason for Panno players to prefer 6...Nc6 is that it gives Black more influence in the centre, allowing him to swiftly react on the next move if needed. E.g.:

* In the case of 6...Nc6 7.Bd3, Black can continue with the active 7...e5 8.d5 Nd4 9.Nge2 Nh5. Meanwhile against 6...a6, 7.Bd3 is the second most popular move, and there 7...e5?! 8.d5 just gives White a pleasant edge. Black can of course meet 7.Bd3 with a different move (such as 7...c5!), but then he's not getting any sort of Panno.
* Against 6...a6, there's also 7.h4. It is a very rare move, but it's one of SF 15's top choices. White may not have much of an edge here, but the point is he can get away with this move since Black isn't being as challenging in the centre. Whereas after 6...Nc6 7.h4, Black gets a good game with either 7...e5 or 7...Nh5.

6...a6 is not at all a worse move than 6...Nc6 though, mainly because after 6...a6, 7.Qd2 and 7.Bd3 are both well met with 7...c5. But this isn't what a Panno player is aiming for. Your point about how 6...a6 7.Nge2 would allow 7...Nbd7 is also true (although it's because the option of Nh3-Nf2 is gone, not Nh3-Nf4), but again such a position isn't what a Panno player typically wants.

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: FIDE 2022 Presidential Elections - Runners and Riders?
There is a 4 year FIDE election cycle and with Dvorkovich elected in 2018 everybody knew there would be an election this year. With both the 2022 Olympiad and FIDE Congress due to be held in Russia this was originally thought to be a shoe-in for a 2nd term for Dvorkovich, not least because he appears to be the most competent and least corrupt president that FIDE has had for several decades.

However Russia's war against Ukraine meant that the Olympiad and Congress have both moved to Chennai in India and Dvorkovich, as a former deputy prime minister of Russia, is viewed by many as too close to Putin's regime to be allowed to continue his role in FIDE and this has opened up the position for serious opposition candidates to run.

Who are the people running against Dvorkovich for the post of FIDE President?

# Answer
**Arkady Dvorkovich**

Perhaps worth starting with Dvorkovich's announcement here on Friday 13th May two days after FIDE made their official call for candidates. Dvorkovich is certainly not taking this lightly. His heavyweight team includes former World Champion, Vishy Anand, as his Deputy President and GM Zhu Chen as Treasurer.

However, first out of the blocks on 30th April, almost two weeks before FIDE's call for candidates was:

**Enyonam Sewa Fumey**

More of a politician than a chess player (despite being a Candidate Master his all-time highest rating is 1870), he became President of the Togo Chess Federation in 2017 and shortly after was part of Dvorkovich's successful campaign becoming FIDE General Secretary. So he is actually running against his boss. His candidacy is reported on the FIDE website here.

Update: According to this ChesscomLive tweet:

> Enyonam Sewa Fumey from Togo won't be among the FIDE presidential candidates as he could not get the necessary support from at least one federation in Europe.

**Inal Sheripov**

With a 2290 rapid rating (no standard or blitz) from a one-off tournament (the 2018 Belgium rapid championships) he is more of a film maker and politician than chess player. Although he was a strong Chechen player in his youth. There are more details about him and his candidacy here. Not very encouraging is this:

> The first vice-president on Sheripov's team is Lewis Ncube (Zambia), a well-known FIDE official best known from the Ilyumzhinov era
> ...
> Ncube was the only one who voted against Ilyumzhinov's resignation at the FIDE Council meeting in spring 2018

**Andrei Barishpolets**

A young (31) Ukrainian GM with no political experience, he looks very much like an outsider. FIDE is not Eurovision. His manifesto is here. Summary - "definitely not related to Dvorkovich, nor Ilyumzhinov, nor the Kremlin".

Update: With the inclusion of Peter Heine Nielson, one of Magnus Carlsen's seconds, in his team he becomes less of an outsider. Getting the backing of the World Champion also counts for something:

> Chess federations of the Americas! Can one of you please pledge your support to the Baryshpolets/Nielsen ticket so @PHChess can focus on prep instead?
> 4 votes

---
Tags: fide
---


# Question
Title: Rossolimo 3.Bb5 vs open Sicilian against c5-Nc6 sicilian
Many chess players nowadays recommend the Rossolimo against c5-Nc6 Sicilian:

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

```

However, I find the open sicilian to be easier to play:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c4 b4 12. Nc2 a5 13. g3 O-O 14. Bg2

```

One of the reasons of my preference is that I have control over the d5 square and black has a backward pawn on d6. Moreover, I can play moves like Qd3,a3, and play on the queenside with my rooks too.

My issue with the Rossolimo is that it gives up the bishop pair for no obvious outpost for the knight like the second position in the open sicilian that I shared above.

I would really appreciate it if you can tell me why the Rossolimo might offer better winning chances with White, and why top players are attracted to it, and why Black players try to avoid it in their repertoire. Also, if you can refer me to good thematic games with Rossolimo.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have been exploring these nowadays. I will give two reasons for why Bb5 is recommended for white and is beginning to overtake d4 as the main line.

**First, unlike 2...d6 Sicilians, with 2...Nc6 Sicilians, Black can dictate variations if White enters an open Sicilian.** To see this, we must start at Black's second move. After e4 c5; Nf3 d6; d4 cxd4; Nxd4 Nf6; Nf3, Black's a6 (the Najdorff) is not forcing anything on White who now has a million decent options to choose from: h3, g4, f3, a4, Rg1, Bg5, Be3, Bc4, etc. With Black playing 2...Nc6 though, there are far fewer options. Because this is a more active and developing move, unlike 2...d6, after random moves by White balck easily equalizes. After e4 c5; Nf3 Nc6, if White enters an open Sicilian (i.e. d4) then Black can force a Sveshnikov or White deviates early on from theory, which is a concession then and Black is fine in most sidelines. So, white should be prepared to enter a long sequence of theory lines as soon as he/she puts a pawn on d4 on move three. In mainline Sveshnikov, although Black's position looks scary it is proven time and again to be playable with a good fighting chance for a win.

As an e4 player you already spend half your life on all types of responses to e4 (take Najdorff itself for example). So, you begin to wonder why to enter such forced line against an opponent who is probably better equipped with theory and experience.

Once you decide to ditch a third move d4, then there are basically two objectively good moves for white: Bb5 and c3, with former being much stronger.

So, my second reason is **Bb5 is indeed positionally a very logical and strong move.** It is easy to see why. 1) Black's Nc6 is a great piece putting pressure on center, specially e5 and d4. So, it is good to make it uncomfortable. 2) Bishop develops to an active square and we are ready to castle, while Black has not touched their kingside, so we will be ahead in development. 3) The threat to double Black's pawns is serious and often Qc7 or Qb6 are too slow to avoid this.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Please note that the ...e5 push Black does on your line is not forced and there are plenty of other variations Black can opt for (like 4...e6, or 4...g6, or 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 d6, or even 4...e5)

Each of this alternatives requires White to be prepared as Black will probably know a lot of theory about those (and have a good understanding of the resulting middlegame positions, for instance, no d5 weak square in many of those) With the Rossolimo, White can opt for a quieter game where knowledge of precise lines is less relevant

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Rossolimo scores really, really well. According to the chess 365 database, white scores 56.8% with the Rossolimo and only 51% with the open. Also, stockfish gives a very slight edge to the Rossolimo.

Normally, I would say play the lines you like but I would never want to go into heavily theoretical lines against people better than me in their pet lines. The Rossolimo gives you an alternative that is probably as good but with less theory.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Obviously the Rossolimo is a less ambitious option than the Open Sicilian. It is, however, easier to learn for white, less risky and less sharp and so likely to be less the cup of tea of ardent Sicilian players. Those are probably the main reasons for its popularity.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, sicilian-defense, bishop-pair
---


# Question
Title: Game in James Bond film "From Russia with love"
The beginning of the James Bond film *From Russia with love* (1963) portrays the end of a game between the fictional characters Kronsteen (Czechoslovakia) and Macadams (Canada) in the last and decisive round of the Venice International Grandmasters Championship. The moves go like this:

```
[White "Kronsteen"]
[Black "Macadams"]
[FEN "r3rnk1/ppp1qNp1/7p/4b3/5Q2/1B6/PP4PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nxe5+ Kh7 2.Qe4+ 1-0

```

Is this game based on a real game or famous problem?

# Answer
This game is based on a 1960 game between Boris Spassky and David Bronstein, on the 16th round of the USSR Championship:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "URS-ch27 Final"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1960.02.20"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Spassky, Boris Vasilievich"]
[Black "Bronstein, David Ionovich"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C36"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[EventDate "1960.01.26"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "19"]
[EventCountry "URS"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Bd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. d4 O-O 7. Bd3 Nd7 8. O-O
h6 9. Ne4 Nxd5 10. c4 Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. c5 Be7 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Qd3 e2 15.
Nd6 Nf8 16. Nxf7 exf1=Q+ 17. Rxf1 Bf5 18. Qxf5 Qd7 19. Qf4 Bf6 20. N3e5 Qe7 21.
Bb3 Bxe5 22. Nxe5+ Kh7 23. Qe4+ 1-0

```

As you can see, the game on the film shows the same position as after black's move 21, but without the pawns on c5 and d4.
> 26 votes

# Answer
In addition to the other answer, that position was the subject of Tim Krabbé’s Open Chess Diary #250. He argues that the move played, 22...Kh7, is a blunder in the modified position.

> \[In the real game\] 22...Kh7 was not a blunder; the other possibility 22...Ne6 is met by 23.Ng6 or Qe4 and the Ne6 soon falls. In Kronsteen - MacAdams however, for some reason, the White pawns d4 and c5 were missing, allowing Black a vital check on c5, which enables him to put up a tenacious and possibly successful defence with 22...Ne6.

However, he wrote this in 2004, presumably without checking with an engine. In 2022, I have the luxury of being able to run Stockfish depth 20 via lichess, and apparently 22...Ne6 is still +2.8 (winning for White) after 23.Ng6 (the only move that keeps an edge). Now:

* 23...Qc5+ 24.Kh1. The threat is Bxe6 and Qf7+ (in either order) to win the knight. The only way to avoid it is 24...Kh7, which runs into 25.Qe4, with the simple threat of 26.Nf8 Kh8 27.Qh7# (crucially, Nf8 is a double check, so the black knight has no useful discovery)
* 23...Qd6 24.Qe4 and Black cannot prevent the loss of the knight. Black can exchange the queens via 24...Rad8 25.Nf4 Qd4+ 26.Qxd4 Rxd4 but after 27.Nxe6! (27.Bxe6 might be a technically winning endgame, but Black has much more hope of holding) Black will lose another exchange. Stockfish gives 27...Rb4 28.Nxc7+ Rxb3 29.axb3 followed by ...Re2 or ...Re3 as Black’s best, but White is able to keep at least one pawn alive on the queenside, so the piece-up endgame is a fairly easy win.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-games, film
---


title: Number of checkmate positions

text:
# Question
Title: Number of checkmate positions
How many different checkmate positions are there? A Super-Computer problem. Not with any conditions or hypothetical situations, just simply the number of checkmates that can be arrived at in a properly played game.

# Answer
Since there are 10^umpty possible chess positions (an obvious upper bound is 13^64, and estimates are 10^45+-5), even a supercomputer is useless.

The following "Monte Carlo" attempt is a feasible looking way to give an approximate answer, though:

* Randomly generate a position (already nontrivial: how to generate truely random material in the sense that it's the correct proportion of legal positions?)
* Make a flimsy legality test (material, impossible checks - a total one is very hard!)
* Test whether it's a mate.
* Rinse and repeat.

Assume that you test p positions, m are mate and there is a total t of legal chess positions, your answer is approximately t\*m/p. I only fear that m/p is very low (for very full boards, in light positions things are different) and you again need a far too high p to get meaningful stats.

I strongly advise to make first tests on smaller board. For example, 3x4 chess is tablebase-solved and the analog of your value could readily be extracted.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It depends a bit on what you mean by 'checkmate position'. One meaning could be that such positions are defined by active pieces only: in this case a back-row mate with two rooks would count only the rooks, and ignore all pieces that does not contribute (say, by guarding a field twice). Or, it could mean all possible such positions with or without participating own king, and might even make distinctions of mates on the first row, the last row, or either of the edge files, although the fundamental mate would be the same.

In Iuri Akobia's World Anthology of Chess Studies, vol. II: 4492 Studies With Mate (1994), the reference section contains the mate positions that are found in the same volume. They're intended for finding studies in the same volume, not to answer your question. But they may help getting into what the question really is. (Although it is not relevant, there are slightly more than 2000 of them in this volume.)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: How well is a variant in which Black moves first?
Would it be good a chess variant if Black makes the first move instead of White? Notations will change, of course.

For example, since Black makes the first move with a king's pawn push of two steps, and White responding with a king's pawn push of two steps, it will become "1. e5 e4".

# Answer
It would be identical to current chess, except Black would obviously be playing White openings. The only difference is that the board would be inverted across the x axis.

Magnus did this once in a #MoveForEquality.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Is there a way to figure out what the average number of moves would be if all games were played to completion?
Is there a way to figure out the average number of moves of a game? Looking at games on record, it is 40 or so. OK, but what about in pure chess sense? For instance, I was looking at game in which one player won Queen for Rook in the middle game. After a few moves the weaker side resigned. Fair enough. But playing the game out to the final result took seventy or so more moves! The number of moves on record does not reflect the actual logical number of moves of which a game should consist.

# Answer
> Is there a way to figure out the average number of moves of a game?

The best way is to run a program which goes through a large database of games and calculates the average number of moves per game.

> The number of moves on record does not reflect the actual logical number of moves of which a game should consist.

Games of chess are played between players of many different strengths. The "logical number of moves" a game should last after a particular position, even one where one player has lost queen for rook, will depend on the strengths of the two players and what mistakes they make on the way to finishing the game. That means that there is no "logical number of moves of which a game should consist". There is only the actual number of moves of the game.
> 17 votes

# Answer
Since actual games are almost always imperfect play, there is no **logical** number of moves from a given position, since the actual players would generally not play perfectly if forced to continue the game to the end. However, you can probably estimate the number of moves it would take a given pair of human players P1,P2 to finish a game past a resignation, by calibrating computer players C1,C2 to play similarly to each of them, and then using C1,C2 to finish the game! From this you can then obtain an estimate of the **average** number of moves that P1,P2 would take per chess game that they played but stopped upon resignation.

The question then is, how can we calibrate computer players? A crude first-order approximation is as follows: Measure the centipawn loss distribution f of the human player over the opening and the middle-game and the end-game, according to an engine like StockFish. Then construct a smoothed version F of the cumulative function for f. Now make the computer player choose each move such that the smoothed cumulative function for the centipawn loss distribution for the chosen move is as close as possible to F!

Better approximations are of course not hard to achieve. Just like Lichess can tailor puzzles to your weaknesses, which are all automatically computed, so also you can have different loss distributions for different types of moves (treating each position as a puzzle). It doesn't matter if the categories are humanly crafted (e.g. forks, pins, skewers, ...), because the goal is just to get a better result and not necessarily converge to a perfect simulation.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Here are the results based from the games at TC 10minutes + 6s inc. The games are not adjudicated. You can download the games at http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html.

These games have PlyCount tag, we can use this to get the approximate average number of moves on the games. You can use python chess modules to do this.

pgn file: Top10-10min.pgn

```
average ply: 198
approximate average number of moves: 99

```

Python code

```
import chess
import chess.pgn
import statistics

fn = 'Top10-10min.pgn'

data = []

with open(fn, 'r') as f:
    while True:
        game = chess.pgn.read_game(f)
        if game is None:
            break

        plycnt = int(game.headers['PlyCount'])
        data.append(plycnt)

print(f'average ply: {statistics.mean(data)}, approximate average number of moves: {statistics.mean(data)//2}')

```

## Other stats on ply numbers.

```
file: Top10-10min.pgn
src: http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

Game Ply Stats
Average: 198.0
Minimum: 25
Maximum: 909
Stdev: 96.0

```

##### Average plies by ECO

```
eco                                       opening  ave_plies
D80                                     Gruenfeld      225.0
E45                                  Nimzo-Indian      222.0
A17                                       English      221.0
E20                                  Nimzo-Indian      218.0
E11      Bogo-Indian defense, Gruenfeld Variation      216.0
E22                                  Nimzo-Indian      215.0
C07                                        French      214.0
D30                       Queen's gambit declined      214.0
B17                                     Caro-Kann      213.0
C70                                     Ruy Lopez      213.0
A11                                       English      211.0
A13                               English Opening      211.0
B32                              Sicilian defense      211.0
D51                                           QGD      211.0
E15                                Queen's Indian      211.0
A49                                 King's Indian      209.0
C05                                        French      208.0
D90                                     Gruenfeld      208.0
B50                                      Sicilian      207.0
E60                         King's Indian defense      207.0
A25                                       English      205.0
C55 Two knights defense (Modern Bishop's Opening)      205.0
D82                                     Gruenfeld      205.0
B10                                     Caro-Kann      204.0
B20                                      Sicilian      204.0
C08                                        French      204.0
C60                                     Ruy Lopez      204.0
E14                                Queen's Indian      204.0
A16                               English Opening      203.0
A20                               English Opening      203.0
C43                                        Petrov      203.0
E10                             Queen's pawn game      203.0
A57                                  Benko gambit      202.0
D10          QGD Slav defense, Alekhine Variation      202.0
A30                                       English      200.0
A15                               English Opening      199.0
C57                           Two knights defense      199.0
D03          Torre attack (Tartakower Variation )      199.0
E30                                  Nimzo-Indian      199.0
B30                                      Sicilian      198.0
A46                             Queen's pawn game      197.0
A48                                 King's Indian      197.0
B22                                      Sicilian      197.0
C53                                  Giuoco Piano      197.0
E24                                  Nimzo-Indian      197.0
C00                                        French      196.0
D21                                           QGA      196.0
C15                                        French      195.0
A34                                       English      194.0
C24                              Bishop's Opening      194.0
E61                  King's Indian defense, 3.Nc3      194.0
A45  Trompovsky attack (Ruth, Opovcensky Opening)      193.0
B90                                      Sicilian      193.0
D31                                           QGD      193.0
D85                                     Gruenfeld      192.0
C42                     Petrov Three knights game      191.0
C64                                     Ruy Lopez      190.0
C65                                     Ruy Lopez      190.0
B23                                      Sicilian      189.0
E70                                 King's Indian      189.0
A56                                Benoni defense      188.0
A21         English, Kramnik-Shirov counterattack      187.0
D02                           Queen's Bishop game      187.0
B27                                      Sicilian      185.0
B40                              Sicilian defense      184.0
E00                               Catalan Opening      184.0
E32                                  Nimzo-Indian      183.0
A27                                       English      180.0
C10                                        French      179.0
A18                                       English      178.0
C11                                        French      178.0
C50                                  Giuoco Piano      178.0
D70                         Neo-Gruenfeld defense      176.0
D20                                           QGA      174.0
A19                                       English      173.0
C03                                        French      168.0
C16                                        French      168.0
E12                                Queen's Indian      165.0
C69                                     Ruy Lopez      163.0

```

##### python source

```
"""
game src: http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

Dependencies:
   pip install chess
   pip install pandas
"""

import chess.pgn
import pandas as pd

fn = 'Top10-10min.pgn'

data = []

with open(fn, 'r') as f:
    while True:
        game = chess.pgn.read_game(f)
        if game is None:
            break

        plycnt = int(game.headers['PlyCount'])
        eco = game.headers['ECO']
        opening = game.headers['Opening']
        data.append([eco, opening, plycnt])

df = pd.DataFrame(data)
df.columns = ['eco', 'opening', 'plies']
df.to_csv('plies.csv', index=False)

print(f'file: {fn}')
print('src: http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html')
print('Game Ply Stats')

print(f'Average: {df["plies"].mean().round()}')
print(f'Minimum: {df["plies"].min()}')
print(f'Maximum: {df["plies"].max()}')
print(f'Stdev: {df["plies"].std().round()}')

df1 = df.groupby('eco', as_index=False, sort=False).agg({'plies': 'mean', 'eco': 'first', 'opening': 'first'})
df1.plies = df1.plies.round()
df1 = df1.rename(columns={'plies': 'ave_plies'})
df1 = df1[['eco', 'opening', 'ave_plies']]

print(f'Average plies by ECO')
df1 = df1.sort_values(by=['ave_plies', 'eco'], ascending=[False, True])
print(df1.to_string(index=False))

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
In a pure sense, you would have to play out (virtually simulate) all possible games and then take the average number of moves across all of them.

You could start with the Shannon Number as an idea of roughly how much computing power you would need (hint: it's more than is available in our universe) but since it's based on estimating the average game length it wouldn't work for determining that length itself without enumerating all of possible games.

What is more interesting is to look at the number of possible moves after each number of plies as well as the number of checkmates (or more generally, any end of the game). For the first 9 plies one in 6095 games has ended in checkmate, but comparing to 1 in 8628 for the first 8 plies, 1 in 8334 for the first 7 plies, and 1 in 10996 for the first 6 plies (as well as a little common sense) it's obvious that the percentage of checkmates after a given ply, while not always increasing, is tending in that direction. If you plotted this curve of percentage of games ended by the nth ply you *might* (assuming the path isn't too chaotic) start to estimate how the curve might continue past the limits of your computations and get a rough guess as to the average length.

Best case with some smoothing you might find some kind of bell-like curve where most games end in the middle, with a few obvious truncation artifacts from things like the 50 move rule preventing a long tail.

You could also try a Monte Carlo simulation of games randomly chosen from legal moves. While most paths on the game tree consist of lots of moves that make no strategic or tactical sense, this might give you a "truer" picture of the actual average length of the whole game tree. Or if you are only interested in certain types of games you could create games played between computers of various strengths.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: statistics
---


# Question
Title: Sorting players by FIDE blitz/rapid ratings
In the FIDE advanced search it seems to only allow search by *standard* rating. Is there a way, for example, to search the list of players with descending blitz rating or rapid rating? My final goal is to find out strong blitz players with somewhat low standard ratings.

Is this possible with the FIDE website or is there another website which can do this?

# Answer
The FIDE site only allows you to sort by what you see, so no rapid or blitz option. However you can download the raw data from the FIDE download site. Then it is a straightforward programming task to extract the data and load into a relational database database (I use SQL Server). From there you can write your own SQL queries to get the results you want.

> My final goal is to find out strong blitz players with somewhat low standard ratings.

You do not say what you mean by "strong blitz players" but, assuming that means over 2000, here is a list of the top 20 players with blitz \>= 2000 sorted by (blitz - standard)

```
**Full Name                FIDEID     Blitz Standard    Difference**
Karimi, Ahmad               1662996     2056    1334    722
Brecevic, Liam              14617510    2331    1672    659
Buachidze, Nikolai          13631624    2265    1645    620
Herrera, Figueroa Amado Ama 5137470     2108    1496    612
Khantadze, Teimuraz         13612840    2136    1573    563
Sharypov, Sergey            34423346    2016    1489    527
Pjesivac, Milan             16501195    2027    1540    487
Giordani, Daniel            2046261     2132    1646    486
Nikitenkov, Vladimir        24120944    2150    1680    470
Kala, Piotr                 21844321    2031    1562    469
Perovic, Radivoje           962066      2004    1546    458
Jallow, Jalamang            21100128    2026    1572    454
Koteski Aleksandar          15004821    2053    1606    447
Kembay, T                   13712942    2127    1682    445
Malkhasyan, Andrey          30931762    2105    1661    444
Rafael Ramirez Leon         3531147     2031    1592    439
Skrobic, Dragan             1032178     2450    2012    438
Sistoza, Jester             5231019     2142    1711    431
Soria, Angel                114219      2012    1583    429
Nawrocki, Karol             1189921     2041    1616    425

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
You can visit https://2700chess.com/. It lets you sort the rating. But it seems the display is limited.

I took the April 2022 FIDE rating file and created a list sorted on blitz in descending order. I also added blitz\_rating - std\_rating to see which player has a higher blitz than standard rating. If it is positive, the player's blitz rating is higher than standard. See the BR-SR column, showing only the top 200 blitz players. The "i" under the Flag column is "inactive". SRtng is the standard rating.

```
     ID Number                              Name  Fed Sex Tit   SRtng   RRtng   BRtng  B-day Flag  BR-SR  Age
0      2016192                  Nakamura, Hikaru  USA   M  GM  2750.0  2837.0  2850.0   1987  NaN  100.0   34
1      1503014                   Carlsen, Magnus  NOR   M  GM  2864.0  2847.0  2832.0   1990  NaN  -32.0   31
2      5202213                        So, Wesley  USA   M  GM  2778.0  2769.0  2814.0   1993  NaN   36.0   28
3       623539           Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime  FRA   M  GM  2758.0  2743.0  2813.0   1990  NaN   55.0   31
4     24101605               Artemiev, Vladislav  RUS   M  GM  2700.0  2695.0  2811.0   1998  NaN  111.0   23
5      8603820                        Yu, Yangyi  CHN   M  GM  2710.0  2738.0  2808.0   1994  NaN   98.0   27
6     12573981                 Firouzja, Alireza  FRA   M  GM  2804.0  2670.0  2791.0   2003  NaN  -13.0   18
7     24126055                     Dubov, Daniil  RUS   M  GM  2711.0  2712.0  2791.0   1996  NaN   80.0   25
8      8603677                       Ding, Liren  CHN   M  GM  2799.0  2836.0  2788.0   1992  NaN  -11.0   29
9     13300474                    Aronian, Levon  USA   M  GM  2785.0  2705.0  2773.0   1982  NaN  -12.0   39
10    13401319            Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar  AZE   M  GM  2771.0  2722.0  2769.0   1985  NaN   -2.0   36
11    24116068                       Giri, Anish  NED   M  GM  2773.0  2730.0  2766.0   1994  NaN   -7.0   27
12     4126025               Grischuk, Alexander  RUS   M  GM  2742.0  2759.0  2762.0   1983  NaN   20.0   38
13     8601445                      Bu, Xiangzhi  CHN   M  GM  2708.0  2642.0  2760.0   1985  NaN   52.0   36
14     1170546               Duda, Jan-Krzysztof  POL   M  GM  2750.0  2806.0  2760.0   1998  NaN   10.0   23
15     5000017                Anand, Viswanathan  IND   M  GM  2751.0  2675.0  2758.0   1969  NaN    7.0   52
16    35009192                    Erigaisi Arjun  IND   M  GM  2675.0  2450.0  2745.0   2003  NaN   70.0   18
17     2020009                  Caruana, Fabiano  USA   M  GM  2781.0  2784.0  2744.0   1992  NaN  -37.0   29
18      400041                    Adams, Michael  ENG   M  GM  2698.0  2651.0  2742.0   1971  NaN   44.0   50
19     4168119               Nepomniachtchi, Ian  RUS   M  GM  2773.0  2821.0  2740.0   1990  NaN  -33.0   31
20      703303                       Leko, Peter  HUN   M  GM  2663.0  2710.0  2738.0   1979    i   75.0   42
21      700070                     Polgar, Judit  HUN   F  GM  2675.0  2646.0  2736.0   1976   wi   61.0   45
22     4158814                 Andreikin, Dmitry  FID   M  GM  2729.0  2675.0  2736.0   1990  NaN    7.0   31
23    13306553              Martirosyan, Haik M.  ARM   M  GM  2633.0  2478.0  2735.0   2000  NaN  102.0   21
24     4167392                  Chadaev, Nikolai  RUS   M  GM  2591.0  2629.0  2733.0   1988    i  142.0   33
25     3503240          Dominguez Perez, Leinier  USA   M  GM  2756.0  2735.0  2728.0   1983  NaN  -28.0   38
26      603767                  Bauer, Christian  FRA   M  GM  2597.0  2604.0  2727.0   1977  NaN  130.0   44
27     2047640                    Xiong, Jeffery  USA   M  GM  2685.0  2729.0  2727.0   2000  NaN   42.0   21
28    24130737                Fedoseev, Vladimir  FID   M  GM  2701.0  2739.0  2726.0   1995  NaN   25.0   26
29     4102142                    Svidler, Peter  RUS   M  GM  2683.0  2752.0  2725.0   1976  NaN   42.0   45
30    14120828                 Bortnyk, Olexandr  UKR   M  GM  2604.0  2643.0  2723.0   1996  NaN  119.0   25
31     8602883                         Wang, Hao  CHN   M  GM  2744.0  2750.0  2712.0   1989  NaN  -32.0   32
32     4101588                 Kramnik, Vladimir  RUS   M  GM  2753.0  2756.0  2712.0   1975    i  -41.0   46
33    14100010                   Ivanchuk, Vasyl  UKR   M  GM  2678.0  2686.0  2710.0   1969    i   32.0   52
34     3503739            Bruzon Batista, Lazaro  USA   M  GM  2618.0  2619.0  2709.0   1982  NaN   91.0   39
35    14113007                 Kononenko, Dmitry  UKR   M  GM  2613.0  2546.0  2706.0   1988    i   93.0   33
36    25092340                       Nihal Sarin  IND   M  GM  2648.0  2604.0  2705.0   2004  NaN   57.0   17
37    13400924                 Radjabov, Teimour  AZE   M  GM  2753.0  2747.0  2705.0   1987  NaN  -48.0   34
38    10601457                      Amin, Bassem  EGY   M  GM  2685.0  2538.0  2699.0   1988  NaN   14.0   33
39     2040506                    Sevian, Samuel  USA   M  GM  2693.0  2586.0  2698.0   2000  NaN    5.0   21
40     4147235               Tomashevsky, Evgeny  RUS   M  GM  2708.0  2631.0  2695.0   1987  NaN  -13.0   34
41     6500617                Ramirez, Alejandro  USA   M  GM  2561.0  2579.0  2694.0   1988  NaN  133.0   33
42    14113147                  Kravtsiv, Martyn  UKR   M  GM  2598.0  2675.0  2694.0   1990  NaN   96.0   31
43    14118084                    Nyzhnyk, Illya  UKR   M  GM  2685.0  2658.0  2694.0   1996  NaN    9.0   25
44     8604436                        Li, Chao b  CHN   M  GM  2679.0  2645.0  2693.0   1989  NaN   14.0   32
45     3805662  Martinez Alcantara, Jose Eduardo  PER   M  GM  2598.0  2645.0  2690.0   1999  NaN   92.0   22
46     8603405                           Wei, Yi  CHN   M  GM  2729.0  2752.0  2686.0   1999  NaN  -43.0   22
47    12401137                    Le, Quang Liem  VIE   M  GM  2709.0  2660.0  2686.0   1991    i  -23.0   30
48      309095                     Navara, David  CZE   M  GM  2693.0  2701.0  2686.0   1985  NaN   -7.0   36
49    14109409                  Zubov, Alexander  UKR   M  GM  2598.0  2688.0  2685.0   1983  NaN   87.0   38
50     2023970                       Robson, Ray  USA   M  GM  2681.0  2605.0  2683.0   1994  NaN    2.0   27
51     4135539                Alekseenko, Kirill  FID   M  GM  2698.0  2639.0  2682.0   1997  NaN  -16.0   24
52    14200244              Kasimdzhanov, Rustam  UZB   M  GM  2656.0  2698.0  2681.0   1979  NaN   25.0   42
53     2209390                    Shirov, Alexei  ESP   M  GM  2693.0  2628.0  2678.0   1972  NaN  -15.0   49
54     4100140                    Bareev, Evgeny  CAN   M  GM  2631.0  2659.0  2678.0   1966  NaN   47.0   55
55      608742                Fressinet, Laurent  FRA   M  GM  2630.0  2676.0  2677.0   1981  NaN   47.0   40
56     1007998                      L'Ami, Erwin  NED   M  GM  2622.0  2647.0  2676.0   1985  NaN   54.0   36
57      718572                    Berkes, Ferenc  HUN   M  GM  2660.0  2637.0  2676.0   1985  NaN   16.0   36
58     4152956                  Vitiugov, Nikita  FID   M  GM  2724.0  2580.0  2673.0   1987  NaN  -51.0   34
59      605506                   Bacrot, Etienne  FRA   M  GM  2638.0  2720.0  2673.0   1983  NaN   35.0   38
60      117927             Perez Ponsa, Federico  ARG   M  GM  2553.0  2604.0  2672.0   1993  NaN  119.0   28
61     4168003                   Matlakov, Maxim  RUS   M  GM  2674.0  2671.0  2669.0   1991  NaN   -5.0   30
62     4119150                  Kobalia, Mikhail  RUS   M  GM  2596.0  2507.0  2667.0   1978  NaN   71.0   43
63     2900084                  Topalov, Veselin  BUL   M  GM  2730.0  2627.0  2667.0   1975  NaN  -63.0   46
64     4201345              Papaioannou, Ioannis  GRE   M  GM  2634.0  2614.0  2666.0   1976  NaN   32.0   45
65     8601429                         Wang, Yue  CHN   M  GM  2669.0  2710.0  2666.0   1987    i   -3.0   34
66    24133795                    Sarana, Alexey  FID   M  GM  2675.0  2654.0  2666.0   2000  NaN   -9.0   21
67    13401653                     Mamedov, Rauf  AZE   M  GM  2656.0  2584.0  2666.0   1988  NaN   10.0   33
68    24125890                  Oparin, Grigoriy  FID   M  GM  2674.0  2650.0  2665.0   1997  NaN   -9.0   24
69     1008013                  Tiviakov, Sergei  NED   M  GM  2567.0  2602.0  2665.0   1973  NaN   98.0   48
70    14204118            Abdusattorov, Nodirbek  UZB   M  GM  2661.0  2670.0  2663.0   2004  NaN    2.0   17
71    13502956                  Zhigalko, Sergei  BLR   M  GM  2572.0  2660.0  2662.0   1989    i   90.0   32
72    13301527                 Gharamian, Tigran  FRA   M  GM  2602.0  2650.0  2660.0   1984    i   58.0   37
73    14107180                 Drozdovskij, Yuri  UKR   M  GM  2616.0     NaN  2660.0   1984    i   44.0   37
74    14603853                       Lenic, Luka  SLO   M  GM  2634.0  2666.0  2659.0   1988  NaN   25.0   33
75     1017063                     Bok, Benjamin  NED   M  GM  2624.0  2608.0  2658.0   1995  NaN   34.0   26
76    14403803                     Kadric, Denis  BIH   M  GM  2576.0  2504.0  2657.0   1995  NaN   81.0   26
77      409561                 Jones, Gawain C B  ENG   M  GM  2666.0  2630.0  2657.0   1987  NaN   -9.0   34
78     9301348                 Salem, A.R. Saleh  UAE   M  GM  2690.0  2621.0  2657.0   1993  NaN  -33.0   28
79     4151348                 Khairullin, Ildar  RUS   M  GM  2615.0  2671.0  2657.0   1990  NaN   42.0   31
80     4120787                Malakhov, Vladimir  RUS   M  GM  2652.0  2670.0  2654.0   1980  NaN    2.0   41
81     5029465           Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi  IND   M  GM  2723.0  2617.0  2654.0   1994  NaN  -69.0   27
82      718939                     Balogh, Csaba  HUN   M  GM  2584.0  2618.0  2654.0   1987  NaN   70.0   34
83     2021285              Lenderman, Aleksandr  USA   M  GM  2591.0  2646.0  2651.0   1989  NaN   60.0   32
84    10601619                       Adly, Ahmed  EGY   M  GM  2596.0  2546.0  2650.0   1987  NaN   54.0   34
85    14105730                    Korobov, Anton  UKR   M  GM  2695.0  2677.0  2650.0   1985  NaN  -45.0   36
86    14101025               Onischuk, Alexander  USA   M  GM  2640.0  2693.0  2650.0   1975  NaN   10.0   46
87     1226380               Deac, Bogdan-Daniel  ROU   M  GM  2679.0  2553.0  2648.0   2001  NaN  -31.0   20
88     5018471                       Adhiban, B.  IND   M  GM  2633.0  2548.0  2648.0   1992  NaN   15.0   29
89     3208923                    Smirnov, Anton  AUS   M  GM  2600.0  2367.0  2647.0   2001  NaN   47.0   20
90      400173                 Sadler, Matthew D  ENG   M  GM  2694.0  2673.0  2646.0   1974    i  -48.0   47
91    13302000                 Andriasian, Zaven  ARM   M  GM  2584.0  2624.0  2646.0   1989  NaN   62.0   32
92     1107038                    Socko, Bartosz  POL   M  GM  2636.0  2571.0  2646.0   1978  NaN   10.0   43
93     3901211       Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo  ESP   M  GM  2594.0  2638.0  2646.0   1989  NaN   52.0   32
94     8603332                      Lu, Shanglei  CHN   M  GM  2616.0  2613.0  2646.0   1995  NaN   30.0   26
95      738590                  Rapport, Richard  HUN   M  GM  2776.0  2785.0  2646.0   1996  NaN -130.0   25
96     4657101                     Svane, Rasmus  GER   M  GM  2648.0  2651.0  2645.0   1997  NaN   -3.0   24
97     2000024                      Kamsky, Gata  USA   M  GM  2661.0  2717.0  2645.0   1974  NaN  -16.0   47
98    13400819                   Mamedov, Nidjat  AZE   M  GM  2589.0  2624.0  2645.0   1985  NaN   56.0   36
99     4100018                   Kasparov, Garry  RUS   M  GM  2812.0  2783.0  2644.0   1963    i -168.0   58
100    2205530           Vallejo Pons, Francisco  ESP   M  GM  2704.0  2682.0  2644.0   1982  NaN  -60.0   39
101    7101384                Megaranto, Susanto  INA   M  GM  2529.0  2530.0  2644.0   1987  NaN  115.0   34
102    4203380                 Miladinovic, Igor  SRB   M  GM  2509.0  2582.0  2643.0   1974  NaN  134.0   47
103   14505320                  Jovanovic, Zoran  CRO   M  GM  2524.0  2564.0  2643.0   1979  NaN  119.0   42
104   14114038              Onyshchuk, Volodymyr  UKR   M  GM  2612.0  2661.0  2642.0   1991  NaN   30.0   30
105     813613                  Brunello, Sabino  ITA   M  GM  2502.0  2722.0  2641.0   1989  NaN  139.0   32
106   13300032                 Akopian, Vladimir  USA   M  GM  2622.0  2668.0  2641.0   1971  NaN   19.0   50
107    4162722                 Inarkiev, Ernesto  RUS   M  GM  2659.0  2678.0  2639.0   1985  NaN  -20.0   36
108     916366               Stojanovic, Mihajlo  SRB   M  GM  2502.0  2571.0  2638.0   1977  NaN  136.0   44
109    1202758           Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter  GER   M  GM  2640.0  2636.0  2637.0   1976  NaN   -3.0   45
110    4198603               Shimanov, Aleksandr  RUS   M  GM  2581.0  2616.0  2636.0   1992  NaN   55.0   29
111    4116992             Morozevich, Alexander  RUS   M  GM  2659.0  2651.0  2636.0   1977    i  -23.0   44
112   13405764                     Asadli, Vugar  AZE   M  GM  2579.0  2396.0  2635.0   2001  NaN   56.0   20
113   13300580                 Akobian, Varuzhan  USA   M  GM  2600.0  2639.0  2634.0   1983  NaN   34.0   38
114   13402129                    Safarli, Eltaj  AZE   M  GM  2589.0  2650.0  2634.0   1992  NaN   45.0   29
115     921637                    Markus, Robert  SRB   M  GM  2608.0  2625.0  2632.0   1983  NaN   24.0   38
116    4104226                Sakaev, Konstantin  RUS   M  GM  2603.0  2510.0  2632.0   1974  NaN   29.0   47
117     930849                 Predojevic, Borki  BIH   M  GM  2585.0  2587.0  2632.0   1987  NaN   47.0   34
118    2093596                Niemann, Hans Moke  USA   M  GM  2637.0  2529.0  2632.0   2003  NaN   -5.0   18
119   14205483                Sindarov, Javokhir  UZB   M  GM  2609.0  2425.0  2630.0   2005  NaN   21.0   16
120   12539929               Maghsoodloo, Parham  IRI   M  GM  2699.0  2631.0  2630.0   2000  NaN  -69.0   21
121   12500739              Ghaem Maghami, Ehsan  IRI   M  GM  2519.0  2550.0  2627.0   1982  NaN  108.0   39
122    1126881                  Swiercz, Dariusz  USA   M  GM  2664.0  2649.0  2627.0   1994  NaN  -37.0   27
123    4100026                   Karpov, Anatoly  RUS   M  GM  2617.0  2583.0  2627.0   1951    i   10.0   70
124    2809052                     Nabaty, Tamir  ISR   M  GM  2638.0  2646.0  2627.0   1991  NaN  -11.0   30
125   13600702                 Gelashvili, Tamaz  GEO   M  GM  2549.0     NaN  2627.0   1978    i   78.0   43
126    3503631           Delgado Ramirez, Neuris  PAR   M  GM  2613.0  2658.0  2627.0   1981  NaN   14.0   40
127   14109530            Areshchenko, Alexander  UKR   M  GM  2670.0  2588.0  2627.0   1986  NaN  -43.0   35
128    2226332         Ibarra Jerez, Jose Carlos  ESP   M  GM  2570.0  2570.0  2626.0   1985  NaN   56.0   36
129   13301616              Petrosian, Tigran L.  ARM   M  GM  2553.0  2623.0  2626.0   1984  NaN   73.0   37
130   13601733                     Izoria, Zviad  USA   M  GM  2602.0  2579.0  2626.0   1984    i   24.0   37
131     726265                  Prohaszka, Peter  HUN   M  GM  2570.0  2514.0  2626.0   1992  NaN   56.0   29
132    2803895                     Avrukh, Boris  ISR   M  GM  2567.0  2552.0  2625.0   1978    i   58.0   43
133    4122356                 Jakovenko, Dmitry  RUS   M  GM  2682.0  2684.0  2625.0   1983  NaN  -57.0   38
134    4100107                    Dreev, Aleksey  RUS   M  GM  2623.0  2596.0  2625.0   1969  NaN    2.0   52
135   13301004               Grigoryan, Karen H.  ARM   M  GM  2630.0  2660.0  2625.0   1995  NaN   -5.0   26
136    3800024            Granda Zuniga, Julio E  PER   M  GM  2630.0  2609.0  2624.0   1967    i   -6.0   54
137   14129574                Shevchenko, Kirill  UKR   M  GM  2652.0  2573.0  2624.0   2002  NaN  -28.0   19
138    4157770                Afromeev, Vladimir  RUS   M  FM  2633.0     NaN  2623.0   1954    i  -10.0   67
139     662399                   Lagarde, Maxime  FRA   M  GM  2626.0  2672.0  2622.0   1994  NaN   -4.0   27
140    3504409           Quesada Perez, Yuniesky  USA   M  GM  2589.0  2622.0  2622.0   1984  NaN   33.0   37
141    2905540                  Cheparinov, Ivan  BUL   M  GM  2672.0  2652.0  2622.0   1986  NaN  -50.0   35
142    4659600                     Khenkin, Igor  GER   M  GM  2506.0  2518.0  2621.0   1968  NaN  115.0   53
143    4180887                    Bocharov, Ivan  RUS   M  GM  2571.0  2570.0  2620.0   1990  NaN   49.0   31
144    4651340                   Buhmann, Rainer  GER   M  GM  2564.0  2616.0  2620.0   1981  NaN   56.0   40
145     400025                    Short, Nigel D  ENG   M  GM  2620.0  2537.0  2619.0   1965  NaN   -1.0   56
146    2805677                    Gelfand, Boris  ISR   M  GM  2670.0  2635.0  2619.0   1968  NaN  -51.0   53
147    2004887                    Shankland, Sam  USA   M  GM  2709.0  2625.0  2618.0   1991  NaN  -91.0   30
148   13601520                    Jobava, Baadur  GEO   M  GM  2588.0  2664.0  2617.0   1983  NaN   29.0   38
149    2293307              Santos Latasa, Jaime  ESP   M  GM  2656.0  2593.0  2617.0   1996  NaN  -39.0   25
150   24175439                  Esipenko, Andrey  FID   M  GM  2723.0  2679.0  2617.0   2002  NaN -106.0   19
151    1710400                  Grandelius, Nils  SWE   M  GM  2656.0  2652.0  2617.0   1993  NaN  -39.0   28
152   35093487                  Sadhwani, Raunak  IND   M  GM  2628.0  2533.0  2616.0   2005  NaN  -12.0   16
153     911925                Indjic, Aleksandar  SRB   M  GM  2613.0  2516.0  2616.0   1995  NaN    3.0   26
154    4108566               Tsydypov, Zhamsaran  RUS   M  GM  2533.0  2574.0  2614.0   1996  NaN   81.0   25
155   24107581                  Predke, Alexandr  FID   M  GM  2688.0  2601.0  2614.0   1994  NaN  -74.0   27
156    4212312                Pavlidis, Antonios  GRE   M  GM  2546.0  2614.0  2613.0   1993  NaN   67.0   28
157    1122401                 Moranda, Wojciech  POL   M  GM  2630.0  2575.0  2613.0   1988  NaN  -17.0   33
158    5016690                  Negi, Parimarjan  IND   M  GM  2639.0  2613.0  2613.0   1993    i  -26.0   28
159    4117301              Cherniaev, Alexander  FID   M  GM  2397.0  2323.0  2612.0   1969  NaN  215.0   52
160    3404650     Castellanos Rodriguez, Renier  ESP   M  IM  2476.0  2488.0  2612.0   1982  NaN  136.0   39
161   13409301                 Muradli, Mahammad  AZE   M  IM  2537.0  2396.0  2611.0   2003  NaN   74.0   18
162   14109603                  Karjakin, Sergey  RUS   M  GM  2747.0  2736.0  2611.0   1990  NaN -136.0   31
163   14204223              Vokhidov, Shamsiddin  UZB   M  GM  2536.0  2504.0  2611.0   2002  NaN   75.0   19
164    4150120                       Lysyj, Igor  RUS   M  GM  2603.0  2556.0  2611.0   1987  NaN    8.0   34
165    1118358               Wojtaszek, Radoslaw  POL   M  GM  2696.0  2647.0  2610.0   1987  NaN  -86.0   34
166   14102196                  Baklan, Vladimir  UKR   M  GM  2591.0  2640.0  2610.0   1978  NaN   19.0   43
167     950122                     Ivic, Velimir  SRB   M  GM  2625.0  2437.0  2610.0   2002  NaN  -15.0   19
168     200930                 Gurevich, Mikhail  BEL   M  GM  2575.0  2562.0  2610.0   1959  NaN   35.0   62
169   12510130                      Idani, Pouya  IRI   M  GM  2638.0  2509.0  2610.0   1995  NaN  -28.0   26
170    1039784               Van Foreest, Jorden  NED   M  GM  2714.0  2645.0  2609.0   1999  NaN -105.0   22
171     616915                  Gozzoli, Yannick  FRA   M  GM  2595.0  2621.0  2609.0   1983  NaN   14.0   38
172    2101246                    Leitao, Rafael  BRA   M  GM  2592.0  2628.0  2609.0   1979    i   17.0   42
173    2026961                Naroditsky, Daniel  USA   M  GM  2616.0  2639.0  2608.0   1995  NaN   -8.0   26
174    1105663                 Kempinski, Robert  POL   M  GM  2559.0  2498.0  2608.0   1977  NaN   49.0   44
175   13601326            Azmaiparashvili, Zurab  GEO   M  GM  2637.0  2619.0  2608.0   1960    i  -29.0   61
176   14907526                   Michalik, Peter  CZE   M  GM  2581.0  2526.0  2607.0   1990  NaN   26.0   31
177    1503707                Hammer, Jon Ludvig  NOR   M  GM  2621.0  2647.0  2607.0   1990  NaN  -14.0   31
178    3801497                   Cordova, Emilio  PER   M  GM  2544.0  2610.0  2607.0   1991  NaN   63.0   30
179    4119142                 Korotylev, Alexey  RUS   M  GM  2573.0     NaN  2606.0   1977    i   33.0   44
180   14120844                Danilenko, Dmitriy  UKR   M  FM  2401.0  2434.0  2606.0   1994    i  205.0   27
181   24604747               Huschenbeth, Niclas  GER   M  GM  2611.0  2572.0  2605.0   1992  NaN   -6.0   29
182    2257327               Salgado Lopez, Ivan  ESP   M  GM  2612.0  2550.0  2605.0   1991  NaN   -7.0   30
183   14103320                Ponomariov, Ruslan  UKR   M  GM  2636.0  2673.0  2605.0   1983  NaN  -31.0   38
184   13302485                  Melkumyan, Hrant  ARM   M  GM  2649.0  2686.0  2604.0   1989  NaN  -45.0   32
185    6300545                      Sanal, Vahap  TUR   M  GM  2593.0  2539.0  2603.0   1998  NaN   10.0   23
186     722413                     Banusz, Tamas  HUN   M  GM  2608.0  2554.0  2602.0   1989  NaN   -6.0   32
187    8603154                           Ma, Qun  CHN   M  GM  2645.0  2570.0  2602.0   1991  NaN  -43.0   30
188    1111914                      Miton, Kamil  POL   M  GM  2568.0  2544.0  2602.0   1984  NaN   34.0   37
189   14506688                       Brkic, Ante  CRO   M  GM  2611.0  2597.0  2602.0   1988  NaN   -9.0   33
190    4189302                   Sjugirov, Sanan  RUS   M  GM  2696.0  2578.0  2602.0   1993  NaN  -94.0   28
191    2000075                      Dlugy, Maxim  USA   M  GM  2513.0  2577.0  2602.0   1966    i   89.0   55
192    8602980                        Hou, Yifan  CHN   F  GM  2650.0  2621.0  2601.0   1994    w  -49.0   27
193    4113403                 Zvjaginsev, Vadim  RUS   M  GM  2599.0  2488.0  2601.0   1976  NaN    2.0   45
194   14102951                    Eljanov, Pavel  UKR   M  GM  2681.0  2653.0  2601.0   1983  NaN  -80.0   38
195    4202031                  Banikas, Hristos  GRE   M  GM  2588.0  2615.0  2601.0   1978  NaN   13.0   43
196   13306766                   Sargsyan, Shant  ARM   M  GM  2639.0  2477.0  2600.0   2002  NaN  -39.0   19
197    4159659                     Yudin, Sergei  RUS   M  GM  2469.0  2460.0  2600.0   1986  NaN  131.0   35
198   14502879                     Kozul, Zdenko  CRO   M  GM  2617.0  2526.0  2600.0   1966  NaN  -17.0   55
199   25059530                  Praggnanandhaa R  IND   M  GM  2624.0  1927.0  2599.0   2005  NaN  -25.0   16

```

### Code (Python/Pandas)

```
import pandas as pd

fn = r'F:\Downloads\players_list\players_list_foa.txt'
df = pd.read_fwf(fn)

dfbr = df[(df['BRtng'] >= 2500)]
dfbr = dfbr.sort_values(by='BRtng', ascending=False)
dfbr = dfbr.reset_index(drop=True)

dfbr = dfbr.drop(['WTit', 'OTit', 'FOA', 'SGm', 'SK', 'RGm', 'Rk', 'BGm', 'BK'], axis=1)
dfbr['BR-SR'] = dfbr['BRtng'] - dfbr['SRtng']
dfbr['Age'] = 2021 - dfbr['B-day']
print(dfbr.head(200).to_string())

```

### File source

Download the highlighted file (txt format) from http://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml
> 6 votes

# Answer
1. Access https://ratings.fide.com/
2. Click on Advanced Search
3. Select the desired rating in the "Select Rating" dropbox (top left)
4. In "Sort by", check "Rating (FIDE rated only)", and optionally check "Ascending" or "Descending" below that.
5. Even outside of your specific scenario, you'll probably want to restrict the results in some way, either by restricting the rating range or age range or by selecting a country, etc.
6. Click on "Search".

This isn't such a new feature, so I'm a bit confused by the previous answers.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, rating, blitz, websites
---