# Question
Title: Why sacrificing a pawn was more preferable over more materialistic moves in Nakamura vs Ding in Altibox Norway Chess 2018?
Why sacrificing a pawn in this situation, `19... h5` is slightly more preferable by engine over more materialistic `g6` or `Kh8`? This is in fact what Ding chose to play actually. Obviously, this is to protect from `20. Bh6`, but I myself try not to give away pawns when I have reasonable alternatives.

Why protecting dark squares was so important for Blacks even in the presence of the dark-squared bishop?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "6th Norway Chess 2018"]
[Site "Stavanger NOR"]
[Date "2018.05.28"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Black "Ding, Liren"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A18"]
[WhiteElo "2769"]
[BlackElo "2791"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[StartPly "38"]
[EventDate "2018.05.28"]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Bf5 7.d3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.d4 Qa5 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.Be2 Be7 12.O-O O-O 13.a4 Rac8 14.Ra2 a6 15.Rb2 c4 16.Ne1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Bg4 Bxg4 19.Qxg4 h5 20.Qxh5 b4 21.Qg4 Rfe8 22.Nf3 Qa3 23.Rc2 b3 24.Rcc1 Qa2 25.Qf5 Ra8 26.Bg5 Qe2 27.Qd7 Bxg5 28.Nxg5 Ne7 29.e6 f6 30.Nf7 Ng6 31.Nh6+ gxh6 32.Qf7+ Kh8 33.Qxf6+ Kh7 34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.Qf6+ Kh7 36.Qf7+ Kh8 37.Qf6+

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
It comes down to what's worth more in the moment. By playing ...h5 Black gained one tempo (since White had to waste a tempo moving the queen back to g4). The question is: in that position is one tempo worth more than the h-pawn?

The answer is yes, because both sides are in a race. White is trying to checkmate Black's king before Black can make serious progress on the queenside. By giving up the lone h-pawn (which Black wasn't going to use in the near future anyway), Black gains one more tempo in this race. Later on when the game heats up and becomes sharper, it's clear that every tempo is important.

In normal positions it's not worth giving up a pawn for a tempo, but the position in the game was a "do or die" case. Either your attack is faster, or you lose on the spot.

Also, Black's dark-squared bishop is able to defend, but only for so long. So gaining a tempo still helps quite a bit.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Blacks counter play is based on ...b4 If he plays a slow move White can thwart b4 with Nc2 (which also stops Blacks Queen from entering on the a-file) and then attack on the kingside. Some ideas are f2-f4-f5-f6, Rf1-f3-h3. After Nc2 White can also take his time and just play Rf-b1 and Black is passive.

---
Tags: analysis, sacrifice, norway-chess, nakamura, ding
---


# Question
Title: Doubt about best move in lichess.org training puzzle
In this puzzle, https://lichess.org/training/61639, in this position:

```
1k2n1rr/1b4q1/1p1p1p2/1PpPpQ2/2P1PnN1/2N4P/R5PK/R2B4 b - - 10 33

```

the engine says that the best move for black is Rh5, I think it should be Bc8.

# Answer
> 8 votes
No. After ...Bc8??, Ra8+ checks win for white.

---
Tags: puzzles, lichess
---


title: Must chess studies be composed?

text:
# Question
Title: Must chess studies be composed?
My question is on the definition of the term "study." If there is an interesting endgame position that occurs in a real game between two real players, and the position is later posed to somebody who has not seen the game, would it be technically incorrect to call this a "study"?

The Wikipedia page seems to suggest this terminology as technically incorrect, but to me it makes the most sense to differentiate "composed studies" from "studies." I'm happy for any input.

# Answer
According to the FIDE Directory the associate member organisation responsible for governing chess compositions is the World Federation for Chess Composition (WFCC) Their website is here. Their handbook is published here.

Page 19 of the handbook has what they call the "Codex". The introduction gives the meaning of this -

> This codex deals with general principles of chess composition activities such as composition, solving and publication. The codex is intended to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and it is also intended to offer constructive guidance in areas where there has been no central guidance before. It is not intended to be a body of established law which problemists must observe on pain of being condemned of heresy or worse; problemists are independent spirits, and it would be pointless for the PCCC to attempt to legislate in that way.

Part One starts like this, which makes it clear that problems are composed and do not come from real games -

> **Part One: The Chess Composition**
>
> **Chapter I - General Principles**
>
> **Article 1 - Independence**
>
> Compositional Chess is an independent form of chess activity which consists of using features found in, or derived from, the game of chess as the material for the creation of artistic effects or constructional feats, in the form of chess compositions.
>
> **Article 2 - Chess Composition**
>
> A chess composition consists usually of a position on the chess board, a stipulation in the form of words, and the solution. A chess composition is the result of an individual creative act of one or more authors.

This is qualified by this footnote (and others) -

> The use of a computer does not result in an authorship of the computer. Nor does the compilation or publication of a computer generated database constitute the publication of one or more chess compositions

Further useful information can be found on the website of the British Chess Problem Society.

One particularly useful section is How to Solve Chess Problems written by Ian Watson the 2017 British champion (beating the former multiple World Champion, John Nunn!) On the page What is that piece for? he says this -

> One of the most useful things that help you solve problems is that all the pieces are relevant – they all have to have a role. If they don’t, then the composer doesn’t include them – there are no superfluous pieces in a composed problem. That isn’t always useful, but very often is: suppose there’s a pawn a long way from the action – ask yourself how it could possibly be needed.
> 4 votes

# Answer
First, let's look at the origin of the term "study". In *art*, a study is

> a drawing, sketch or painting done in preparation for a finished piece, or as visual notes. Studies are often used to understand the problems involved in rendering subjects and to plan the elements to be used in finished works, such as light, color, form, perspective and composition.

(Wikipedia)

Endgame studies in chess got that name because they try to render a given theme or idea as clearly as possible, without distractions or irrelevant parts.

A part of an existing drawing may be interesting, but it wouldn't be called a study.

Here's what Wikipedia says about endgame studies, emphasis mine:

> Composed studies predate the modern form of chess. Shatranj studies exist in manuscripts from the 9th century, and the earliest treatises on modern chess by the likes of Luis Ramirez Lucena and Pedro Damiano (late 15th and early 16th century) also include studies. However, these studies often include superfluous pieces, added to make the position look more "game-like", but which take no part in the actual solution *(something that is never done in the modern study)*. Various names were given to these positions (Damiano, for example, called them "subtleties"); the first book which called them "studies" appears to be Chess Studies, an 1851 publication by Josef Kling and Bernhard Horwitz, which is sometimes also regarded as the starting point for the modern endgame study.

So in modern times they are as streamlined as possible and that is also when they started to be called studies.

As for the link with computers, that is very interesting. Here is a link to a Powerpoint presentation "Composing chess studies with the computer", unfortunately in Dutch only, by the precise people you'd want to have talking about that: computer chess expert and AI professor Van den Herik and GM Jan Timman, also famous for his endgame studies.

They explain that theoretically it is possible to have a computer program that can decide whether a study is correct (single solution) and judge its quality, based on a list of desired qualities:

* Successfully breaking heuristics
* Use of the weakest piece
* Using *all* of the power of a piece
* Giving more esthetic value to critical pieces \[I don't know what they mean\]
* Using a single "heavy" piece instead of several "light" pieces
* Use of themes
* Avoidance of obvious stereotypes
* Strangeness and difficulty do not lead automatically to "beauty"

A computer could then assist a composer, or go through databases of games or endgame tablebases to find potential beautiful studies.

But, that program hasn't been invented yet.

There are tablebase positions that have single solutions (at least for a large part of the main line). They could qualify, but most people think they don't demonstrate a clear theme, for a human the moves look incomprehensible. Thus they fail as works of art.
> 7 votes

# Answer
There are a number of rules for what constitutes a proper problem / study which are extremely unlikely to be satisfied by a position arising in a real game -

* there must be only one solution
* there must be no superfluous pieces - i.e. if any piece is removed then the solution no longer works or is no longer unique

Sometimes positions arise in a game which come close, usually when there is only one solution which is also rather difficult. Then the position is called "study like" but usually not all pieces on the board are essential.

The WFCC (World Federation for Chess Composition) publishes their Handbook of Chess Composition which includes a Codex section detaining what constitutes a proper composition.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: problems, terminology, studies
---


title: good responses to 1. Nf3

text:
# Question
Title: good responses to 1. Nf3
So I am a decent player, rated by my estimate at around 1000, even though my actual rating is 5 years and thousands of games out of date. In playing the chess engine in chess free on android, I quickly stopped playing 1. e4 because the center counter/scandinavian became very annoying. I switched to d4, and later to nf3 so that people playing against me wouldn't know how to react (most are sub 1000). I, however, don't know myself what the best response is. The two main lines are 1. Nf3 d5 and 1. Nf3 Nf6. I think that I prefer Nf6 for black, but how should I continue from there? Of course, it depends on what my opponent does, but what should be a position I aim for with black?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Until you reach 14-1500 strength, opening theory is not very important. One of the best coaches in the world for beginners, National Master Dan Heisman, said:

> It does not matter who gets the advantage out of the opening if one of the players is likely to lose a piece to a simple tactic in the middlegame. Losing a piece from an advantageous position will almost always result in a lost position. **So study tactics, not openings, until you almost never lose pieces to simple tactical motifs.**

However it is good to know the *ideas* behind opening moves, such as controlling the center, developing, etc.

So 1...Nf6 and 1...d5 are both good moves. They both control the `d5` and `e4` squares and aid development.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Try to answer 1. Nf3 with the King's Indian Defense setup. This involves a move order such as 1... Nf6, 2... g6, 3... Bg7, 4... 0-0, 5... d6, etc., aiming for the pawn thrust e5.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When White plays 1. Nf3, this is an invitation to Black to occupy the center. In most cases White hopes that he will be able to counter-attack on Black's central pawns. Against this move, you have two choices:

* accepting the challenge with Black: you play moves like 1... d5. If White is consistent with his plan, he could play 2. c4, to which you can (but are not forced to) answer with 2... d4 to grab some space and the fight begins

* Or, completely different idea, considering that White is not taking the responsibility to claim for an advantage and that you don't want to do so either, you choose to play a quiet symmetrical line. The game could go on with 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 etc.

If you are interested to know a bit more about this opening, I encourage you to have a look to my introduction video to 1. Nf3: https://youtu.be/kfyB1W0ObyY

# Answer
> 0 votes
1.Nf3 Nc6 is also playable depending if you like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 which it can transpose into and 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 which it can also transpose into.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Monte Carlo Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Monte Carlo Chess
I am trying to develop a Monte Carlo Chess game, to get rid of draw death in higher ranked matches, and give humans a chance against engines. I want it to still be a strategic game, just with determinism removed.

My Current idea: The objective of the game remains the same: Capture the opponent's King.

Each piece has an initial Power Ranking

Queen(Q) = 9
Rook(R) = 5
King(K) = 4
kNight(N) = 3
Bishop(B) = 3
Pawn(P) = 1

Rules:
(1) When a piece A moves to attack another Piece B, the probability of the attack succeeding is given by: P = A/(A + B/W) *

(2)If the attack fails, the attacking piece is removed and vice versa. The piece which wins the confrontation, has its power rankings updated as such. (Supposing A Wins) A += B/X

(3) Kings are special. A King's power ranking is 4 when attacking, but when the King is being attacked, it's power ranking is reduced to 4/Y Opponents do not have to respond to checks, but will lose the game if their King is captured. \**

(4) If a pawn C gets promoted to a piece D, then C's power ranking changes as such; C += D/Z

(5) You are ***allowed*** to put your king in danger

I don't think a draw will occur, unless we have 50 repetitive moves, or both players agree to draw. Because a player lacking any valid move, will not occur since players are allowed to risk their kings, and may be forced to.

What values do you propose for W, X, Y, Z?
What rules do you think should be changed?

(\*) This is to favour the attacking piece, and hence propel the game forward.
(\**) This is to keep in line with modern chess, since the objective remains capturing the King and not eliminating the oponent's king.

# Answer
> 5 votes
This type of thing is frequently suggested by people who don't understand chess and don't understand what makes chess appealing to serious players. Adding any element of probability to chess is a serious no-no. The determinism is the whole point.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The idea seems interesting but at the same time it differs quite a lot from what chess is; it is not entirely clear to me what the basic rules should be for this to be somehow a *strategic* game. In particular my concerns are mainly the following: let W and B the two players and f\_i(A,B) the evaluation of the i^th move, namely the sum of all possible pieces confrontations (and all combinations thereof) between the two players, at moment i^th of the game. Moreover, since you said

> The piece which wins the confrontation, has its power rankings updated as such. (Supposing A Wins) A += B/X

it follows that if f\_i(A,B) \> 0 then one can already calculate exactly what f\_k(A,B) is for k\>i (given the weight given to each piece) and I suspect that in most cases one has f\_k(A,B) \> f\_i(A,B) for k\>i. In other words if winning a piece increases the attacking weight of a figure then this may cause a chain reaction, that is you just win the first piece and then automatically win them all (since the attacking weight of your side increased spontaneously after winning the first piece).

* are the players *forced* to move? If so, since the probability of attacking success is known a priori (as a function of A and B) why would a player choose to play at all, if the attack is inferior by definition?
* since the attacking success is known a priori I would see this favouring too much the player who starts first: this is because they can choose to start attacking maximising f(A,B) in a given position.
* positional games will have no meaning because of the above: it is not the position that counts, rather the weight assigned to each figure,no matter what the evolution of the game can be (since the evolution is frowned upon by the fact that pieces "gain" weight after winning attacks).
* the whole idea behind chess is that figure do **not** have a predefined value, rather their scope and attacking power depends ultimately on their position, which is what makes chess a strategic game.
* sacrifices do not make any sense, since everything is "forced" to happen (it is because you already know what the value of a piece is after winning the attack).

Other than that it is definitely worth it looking at some sort of game like you mentioned, only I fear it will differ very much from actual chess (plus it might be completely solvable after 2-3 moves).

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


# Question
Title: In the upcoming Caruana, Carlsen final, who will play with the white pieces?
In the upcoming Caruana, Carlsen final, who will play with the white pieces?

Does anyone know?

# Answer
Do you mean in the World Chess Championship 2018?

That will be a 12-game match, and not just a single game. The players will alternate colors, so they both will play 6 games with White.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: fide, world-championship, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: How can I improve my evaluation of exchange positions?
I am a casual chess player and I have recently identified a weakness in my play when it comes to positions where there is some "tension" on the board. By tension I mean that a series of capture and recapture can arise from the given position.

I have gone through a fair bit of tactical training and it made my mid-game play decent enough to sometimes gain a significant advantage but too often, I tend to lose this advantage when exchanging material.

See the example below where (please refrain from laughing) I played an impulsive Nxd5...

```
[FEN "r4rk1/ppqb1p1p/5Pp1/1Bpp4/1n1P4/2N1P3/PP4QP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 15"]

```

I feel like I am missing some method to analyse this kind of "tensed" position and that it leaves to much space for my irrational-self to make decisions!

Is there any method/book/training that would teach me how to approach positions where a lot of captures/recaptures can occur?

# Answer
A very good and old book is *Think Like a Grandmaster* by the Grandmaster Alexander Kotov. He was first to put forth the idea of **candidate moves**. Kotov recommended looking for several moves that seemed feasible – the so-called candidate moves – and then analyzing those moves one at a time.

Once you have found a good number of candidate moves, you may then begin to systematically analyze these moves. The idea behind candidate moves is to help structure one's analysis and prevent it from becoming jumbled.

Finding the correct candidate moves is obviously one of the most difficult aspects of becoming a better chess player. You may start first by screening all possible checks and exchanges (including Nxd5). Then, you will gain experience and will recognize important patterns.

One of such "patterns" is the **safety of the enemy king**. In the given position, with the pawn in f6, the king in g8 is very unsafe and a nice pattern would be to mat the black King wth Qg7! So, I would have selected 1.Qg5 as my first candidate move!

The only answer is then 1.Qg5 Kh8, to counter 2.Qh6 with 2...Rg8. However, in this position, I recognize a new pattern Qxh7 and mate in the h-file with a rook in h4 for instance. So, I analyse 1.Qg5 Kh8 2.0-0!! to bring the rook h1 into action and nothing serious can prevent the plan Rf4, Qh6, Qxh7 and Rh4.

---

Another very good book is *The Critical Moment* by the Grandmaster Iossif Dorfman. Chapter 2 is about *The exchange of material* answering a crucial question: For which exchange should I aim?
> 6 votes

# Answer
Pretend it's your opponent's move.

The above advice will show you what tension can be ignored and what tension needs to be adhered to.

For example in your given FEN -- if it were your opponent to move, `1...Bxb5` would mean white loses castling rights (i.e. `2...Nd3+` would be now be possible). Thus the tension surrounding the light-squared bishops needs to be adhered to, assuming no stronger threats exists.

If the White King were castled in the FEN, however, the tension surrounding the light-squared bishops can be ignored (i.e. `2...Nd3` is now harmless).

Notice how `1. Nxd5` would never comes up as a candidate move since pretending your opponent was to move forced White to recognize the tension surrounding the light-squared bishops. Thus White would not play `1. Nxd5` since it did not deal with the tension surrounding the light-squared bishops (i.e. `1. Nxd5 Nxd5 2. Qxd5 (2. Bxd7 Qxd7 defends the knight) Bxb5` loses a piece.).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: training, captures
---


# Question
Title: Which opening is most defensive as black?
I am relatively a new chess player and been improving my strength in the opening for a while and would like to know which opening is the most defensive. 1.e5 seems a little too aggressive.

# Answer
This is a subjective question, so I'll give a subjective answer. In my opinion, the Hippopotamus Defense is the most defensive opening. Here's a typical Hippopotamus structure -

```
   [FEN "r2qk2r/pbpnnpbp/1p1pp1p1/8/2PPP3/2N1BN2/PP2BPPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]

```

Black doesn't even move a pawn to the 4th rank! All of Black's minor pieces are developed on the second rank and Black keeps his pawns on the third rank. Essentially, Black plays a waiting game for a while, and tries to provoke White into doing something concrete and then Black reacts accordingly.

P.S. *Since you're a beginner, **I would advise NOT to use this opening**. Yes, it is the most defensive opening, but if you're afraid of playing 1...e5 then you ought to first correct that instead of trying to play something else! Even with 1...e5, Black can reach defensive setups.*
> 4 votes

# Answer
One chess opening you can use is the Hedgehog formation, it is very defensive if you are playing black. Black exchanges a pawn on c5 for a white pawn on d4 and then places his pawns on a6, b6 and e6. The bishops are placed on b7 and e7, then the knights are placed on d7 and f6, the queen is on c7 and the rooks on c8 and e8. This position is cramped, however it has great defensive capabilities.

```
[FEN "2r1r1k1/1bqnbppp/pp1ppn2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
You could try Caro-Kann Defense and French Defense. Both are famous for being very solid and less risky.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you are looking defensive openings for black I would recommend Caro Kann Against 1.e4

```

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5

```

and

Slav defense against 1.d4

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6

```

Be careful though, Because Caro Kann isn't exactly an opening for beginners and Some variations of Slav can lead to position requiring precise Tactical play.
> 0 votes

# Answer
In a standard French exchange defense the goal is to reach the endgame as soon as possible. It typically leaves the king's rook file open with pawns on b2, b3, and c2 for white and vice versa for black and a castled king-side. Only the rooks and queens are left in play. Besides all the exchanges it leads to a long and tedious (very passive)endgame. In my studies I find the Sicilian dragon in response to the English fianchetto (copy cat essentially) leads to a waiting game until the first decides to make an advancing move.

Ultimately however it all relies on the player. Garry Kasparov for example loves to attack and with devastating effect. However one can choose to play passive and slowly take their opponent down. The best advice would be to experiment with all the defenses mentioned and see which you prefer or find some of your own. Best of luck with your search!
> 0 votes

# Answer
Looking back to my earlier days I would recommend Petrov's Defence. 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nf6 which, with a bit of luck, will turn into the safe, boring 4 Knights.

I know you think e5 is too aggressive. It isn't. Other moves are too passive and according to Chessbase you will lose more games with other replies. You will find defence much easier if you haven't already given away the center.

You will need to have an answer to the King's Gambit. Either an early d4 or Fischer's Defense were what I used in my early days.

Nowadays I play either the French or the Lion (a variation of Philidor's which delays e5 until move 3 or later) but both of these require more book learning and can have some very aggressive variations indeed.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


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

text:
# Question
Title: What's the name of this pieces' design?
Please can anyone help me to find the name of this chess pieces' design?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The shape of the pieces is a standard Staunton chess set. However, the marbled material makes it look rather unusual. I am not up on the rules about color use, but I have my doubts that it would be permitted in tournament use if one of the players objected.

---
Tags: chess-set
---


# Question
Title: What is the theory behind Bishop's Opening, Philidor Counter-Attack?
What is the theory for this opening for black?

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 c6

```

I've started playing the Bishop's Opening because it is something different, but I had not seen this counter play before.

It seems weak, because--although it has the advantages of an opening like Caro-Kann by grabbing control over the center--black immediately loses defense of his king pawn (Nc6 is unplayable). Despite this, it seems a solid opening for black.

# Answer
Usually 2...Nf6 is played and only then 3...c6; this makes a difference. 2...c6 is rarely played and in response 3.Qe2 is strong.

With 2...Nf6 White is encouraged to defend his e-pawn. If 3.Qe2 Black can switch from 3...c6 to 3...Nc6/3...d6 lines and the Queen on e2 doesn't help ideas of playing for d2-d4. Now with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 c6 3.Qe2 Nf6, White can play c3 and d4 without loss of time.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Black cannot play Nc6 at the moment, that is true. However, it doesn't look like White can exploit this immediately, either.

Black will answer **3 Nf3** by **...d5**, gaining tempo on the Bc4 that he can then use to either defend e5 (d7 is open for the knight, at the very least) or counter-pressure e4 (which is equally weak as e5). The whole motive is similar to the classical center attack in the Italian (c3 + d4).

Trading the pawns (**4 exd5 cxd5**) opens c6 for the knight again and doesn't look very attractive as it yields the center to Black. **5 Bb5+** is toothless, Black will reply **...Bd7** and then take back on d7 with his knight (or simply play Nc6 if the white bishop retreats now). Immediately retreating (by **4 Bb3**) doesn't look very good either, Black will gain the initiative.

Of course, White has other options for his third move. **3 d4** is a similar attempt to attack e5. Black can reply **3...d5** again, which leads to a very complicated position. But again, e4 is just as weak as e5 and swapping away e4 opens c6 for the knight. No clear advantage for any side.

Against **3 Nc3** (prevents **3...d5**, but doesn't attack e5), Black has time to play **3...Bc5** , followed by **4...d6** (e5 is safe) and he will achieve something similar to a Giuoco Pianissimo Reversed - which is not too bad, really.

So, yeah: Totally playable in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I'm not an actual expert in this opening.
> 4 votes

# Answer
2...c6 is one of Black's best replies to 2.Bc4, as it aims to play ...d5 and take advantage of White's bishop being developed so early. If White let's this happen, Black gains a big centre with tempo, and White loses any chances for an opening advantage.

As you noted though, the weakness of ...c6 is that Black cannot play 2...Nc6. Thus, the best way to play is to attack Black's e5-pawn (since Black cannot defend it with ...Nc6).

The theory isn't too developed, but here is how the main line runs (according to the MEGA database):

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Nxe5 Bxb5 8.Nxb5 Qb6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.d4!

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Nxe5 Bxb5 8.Nxb5 Qb6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.d4!

```

A few notes on the line:

* By playing 4.Nf3, White forces Black's hand. Either Black must passively defend the e5-pawn with 4...d6, and then White may continue with 5.d4! Or, Black plays 4...d5, and White succeeds in provoking Black to take action.
* White allows Black to get a big centre, but because Black is ill-prepared to defend his pawns, White wins the e5-pawn.
* The ending position is slightly better for White. He's up a pawn, but it isn't much... White's bishop is bad and the knight on b5 is misplaced.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, bishops-opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest proven forced win (including 50 & 75 move rules)?
What is the longest (currently discovered) number of moves for a forced mate position where players will use both the 50-move draw rule and the 3-fold repetition rule if it will help them avoid losing?

By this, I mean an a game where the losing player attempts to make the game last as long as possible (or if possible, draw) and the winning player attempts to checkmate as fast as possible. Both players playing perfectly.

For those interested this question covers "What is the longest forced win with 3 to 6 pieces (ignoring 50 & 75 move rules)?"

# Answer
> 14 votes
Otto Blathy is famous for his long mate problems. There are different records depending on whether you allow an illegal starting position, or promoted pieces, or minor duals in the solution, so your answer might be anywhere between 257 and 292 moves.

This answer on Puzzling.SE shows a construction in 271 moves that is not Blathy, but by Nenad Petrovic.

```
[Title "Nenad Petrovic, Zagreb 1969, Mate In 271"]
[FEN "8/Bk3p1p/1P3p2/KP2n2p/1P1p4/1Pp2p2/B1P5/7B w - - 0 1"]

1. Bb1 h4 2. Ka4 Ka8 3. Ka3 Kb7 4. Ka2 Ka8 5. Ka1 Kb7 6. Ba2 Ka8 7. Kb1 Kb7 8. Kc1 Ka8 9. Kd1 Kb710. Ke1 Ka8 11. Bb1 Kb7 12. Kf1 Ka8 13. Kf2 Kb7 14. Ke1 Ka8 15. Kd1 Kb7 16. Kc1 Ka8 17. Ba2 Kb7 18. Kb1 Ka8 19. Ka1 Kb7 20. Bb1 Ka8 21. Ka2 Kb7 22. Ka3 Ka8 23. Ka4 Kb7 24. Ka5 f5 25. Ka4 Ka8 26. Ka3 Kb7 27. Ka2 Ka8 28. Ka1 Kb7 29. Ba2 Ka8 30. Kb1 Kb7 31. Kc1 Ka8 32. Kd1 Kb7 33. Ke1 Ka8 34. Bb1 Kb7 35. Kf1 Ka8 36. Kf2 Kb7 37. Ke1 Ka8 38. Kd1 Kb7 39. Kc1 Ka8 40. Ba2 Kb7 41. Kb1 Ka8 42. Ka1 Kb7 43. Bb1 Ka8 44. Ka2 Kb7 45. Ka3 Ka8 46. Ka4 Kb7 47. Ka5 f4 48. Ka4 Ka8 49. Ka3 Kb7 50. Ka2 Ka8 51. Ka1 Kb7 52. Ba2 Ka8 53. Kb1 Kb7 54. Kc1 Ka8 55. Kd1 Kb7 56. Bb1 Ka8 57. Ke1 Kb7 58. Kf1 Ka8 59. Kf2 Kb7 60. Ke1 Ka8 61. Kd1 Kb7 62. Kc1 Ka8 63. Ba2 Kb7 64. Kb1 Ka8 65. Ka1 Kb7 66. Bb1 Ka8 67. Ka2 Kb7 68. Ka3 Ka8 69. Ka4 Kb7 70. Ka5 f6 71. Ka4 Ka8 72. Ka3 Kb7 73. Ka2 Ka8 74. Ka1 Kb7 75. Ba2 Ka8 76. Kb1 Kb7 77. Kc1 Ka8 78. Kd1 Kb7 79. Ke1 Ka8 80. Bb1 Kb7 81. Kf1 Ka8 82. Kf2 Kb7 83. Ke1 Ka8 84. Kd1 Kb7 85. Kc1 Ka8 86. Ba2 Kb7 87. Kb1 Ka8 88. Ka1 Kb7 89. Bb1 Ka8 90. Ka2 Kb7 91. Ka3 Ka8 92. Ka4 Kb7 93. Ka5 f5 94. Ka4 Ka8 95. Ka3 Kb7 96. Ka2 Ka8 97. Ka1 Kb7 98. Ba2 Ka8 99. Kb1 Kb7 100. Kc1 Ka8 101. Kd1 Kb7 102. Ke1 Ka8 103. Bb1 Kb7 104. Kf1 Ka8 105. Kf2 Kb7 106. Ke1 Ka8 107. Kd1 Kb7 108. Kc1 Ka8 109. Ba2 Kb7 110. Kb1 Ka8 111. Ka1 Kb7 112. Bb1 Ka8 113. Ka2 Kb7 114. Ka3 Ka8 115. Ka4 Kb7. 116. Ka5 h3 117. Ka4 Ka8 118. Ka3 Kb7 119. Ka2 Ka8 120. Ka1 Kb7 121. Ba2 Ka8 122. Kb1 Kb7 123. Kc1 Ka8 124. Kd1 Kb7 125. Ke1 Ka8 126. Bb1 Kb7 127. Kf1 Ka8 128. Kf2 Kb7 129. Ke1 Ka8 130. Kd1 Kb7 131. Kc1 Ka8 132. Ba2 Kb7 133. Kb1 Ka8 134. Ka1 Kb7 135. Bb1 Ka8 136. Ka2 Kb7 137. Ka3 Ka8 138. Ka4 Kb7 139. Ka5 h2 140. Ka4 Ka8 141. Ka3 Kb7 142. Ka2 Ka8 143. Ka1 Kb7 144. Ba2 Ka8 145. Kb1 Kb7 146. Kc1 Ka8 147. Kd1 Kb7 148. Ke1 Ka8 149. Bb1 Kb7 150. Kf1 Ka8 151. Kf2 Kb7 152. Ke1 Ka8 153. Kd1 Kb7 154. Kc1 Ka8 155. Ba2 Kb7 156. Kb1 Ka8 157. Ka1 Kb7 158. Bb1 Ka8 159. Ka2 Kb7 160. Ka3 Ka8 161. Ka4 Kb7 162. Ka5 h6 163. Ka4 Ka8 164. Ka3 Kb7 165. Ka2 Ka8 166. Ka1 Kb7 167. Ba2 Ka8 168. Kb1 Kb7 169. Kc1 Ka8 170. Kd1 Kb7 171. Ke1 Ka8 172. Bb1 Kb7 173. Kf1 Ka8 174. Kf2 Kb7 175. Ke1 Ka8 176. Kd1 Kb7 177. Kc1 Ka8 178. Ba2 Kb7 179. Kb1 Ka8 180. Ka1 Kb7 181. Bb1 Ka8 182. Ka2 Kb7 183. Ka3 Ka8 184. Ka4 Kb7 185. Ka5 h5 186. Ka4 Ka8 187. Ka3 Kb7 188. Ka2 Ka8 189. Ka1 Kb7 190. Ba2 Ka8 191. Kb1 Kb7 192. Kc1 Ka8 193. Kd1 Kb7 194. Ke1 Ka8 195. Bb1 Kb7 196. Kf1 Ka8 197. Kf2 Kb7 198. Ke1 Ka8 199. Kd1 Kb7 200. Kc1 Ka8 201. Ba2 Kb7 202. Kb1 Ka8 203. Ka1 Kb7 204. Bb1 Ka8 205. Ka2 Kb7 206. Ka3 Ka8 207. Ka4 Kb7 208. Ka5 h4 209. Ka4 Ka8 210. Ka3 Kb7 211. Ka2 Ka8 212. Ka1 Kb7 213. Ba2 Ka8 214. Kb1 Kb7 215. Kc1 Ka8 216. Kd1 Kb7 217. Ke1 Ka8 218. Bb1 Kb7 219. Kf1 Ka8 220. Kf2 Kb7 221. Ke1 Ka8 222. Kd1 Kb7 223. Kc1 Ka8 224. Ba2 Kb7 225. Kb1 Ka8 226. Ka1 Kb7 227. Bb1 Ka8 228. Ka2 Kb7 229. Ka3 Ka8 230. Ka4 Kb7 231. Ka5 h3 232. Ka4 Ka8 233. Ka3 Kb7 234. Ka2 Ka8 235. Ka1 Kb7 236. Ba2 Ka8 237. Kb1 Kb7 238. Kc1 Ka8 239. Kd1 Kb7 240. Ke1 Ka8 241. Bb1 Kb7 242. Kf1 Ka8 243. Kf2 Kb7 244. Ke1 Ka8 245. Kd1 Kb7 246. Kc1 Ka8 247. Ba2 Kb7 248. Kb1 Ka8 249. Ka1 Kb7 250. Bb1 Ka8 251. Ka2 Kb7 252. Ka3 Ka8 253. Ka4 Kb7 254. Ka5 Kc8 255. Ka6 Kd8 256. b7 Nd7 257. Bxf3 h1=Q 258. Bxh1 d3 259. cxd3 f3 260. Bxf3 Ke7 261. b8=Q Nxb8+ 262. Bxb8 c2 263. Bxc2 Ke6 264. b6 Kf6 265. b7 Ke6 266. d4 h2 267. Bxh2 f4 268. b8=Q Kf7 269. Bxf4  Kg7 270. Bh5 Kf6 271. Qe5#

```

(*legal position, with promoted piece, with minor duals in the solution*)

Those problems involve regular pawn moves, so the fifty-moves rule doesn't change their validity. On the other hand, all long (500+ moves) tablebase mates (as the first diagram in the answer linked above) show series of more than 50 moves without capture nor pawn moves.

Finally a beautiful problem exploiting the 50-moves rule was composed by Noam Elkies, who comes sometimes on Chess.SE. I will refrain from giving the solution here for people who want to search (but I have already given away the main indication and lazy people can just follow the link).

```
     [Title "Noam Elkies, 1991 - White to play and draw"]
 [FEN "8/1p6/1p6/kPp2P1K/2P5/N1Pp4/q2P4/1N6 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: theory, problems, checkmate, records, forced-move
---


title: Xiangqi symbols in Unicode

text:
# Question
Title: Xiangqi symbols in Unicode
Since **Chess** symbols are part of Unicode, I would like to know if **Xiangqi** symbols would be too.

If they are, where can we find them?
If they are not, is there a way to find some... in Unicode for instance?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Since XiangQi symbols are Chinese characters and Chinese characters are part of Unicode, you can certainly identify and use these characters to specify XiangQi symbols.

For example by copying the characters from the XiangQi wiki page into this translation tool.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Xiangqi symbols are now in Unicode 11.0, in the block Chess Symbols: U+1FA00–U+1FA6F.

---
Tags: xiangqi
---


title: Pinned Vs. Checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: Pinned Vs. Checkmate
So say my queen is pinned in front of my king by the opponents rook. However if I move my queen to check their king it is certain checkmate, is that legal? I'm not sure because I'm intentionally endangering my king to be taken on the next move, but technically there won't be a next move since I checkmate my opponent.

# Answer
Think of it this way:

Check mate is where nothing the opponent can do will save them from having you take their king on the next turn, so even if by putting their king in checkmate, you expose your own king, they can take your king before you can take theirs.

There is NO circumstance in which your actions put your own king into check without an opponent making a move.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The rules are clear. A move that puts your king in check is an illegal move (I'll leave it to you to find the reference; you might find the other rules helpful to review once you get there).

You cannot checkmate your opponent's king (or accomplish anything else) with an illegal move. Once you make an illegal move on the board, the following things happen:

1. The position is restored to the position in effect before the illegal move is made.
2. You get penalized for an illegal move. For the 1st and 2nd offenses, this results in your opponent's being awarded an extra 2 minutes on his clock. For the 3rd offense, the normal penalty is forfeit of the game.

Nice try, though.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Basically if you are confused about pin/checkmate rule, just play the game out until one king is captured.

You move you Q to threat taking his king in your NEXT move. Unfortunately it's now his move and he takes your K first.

On the other hand, if you use your other piece to attack so that his K has to move into your pinned Q's firing range, you can capture (not threat to capture) his K with your Q before he can capture your K. Or in standard chess rule, he is checkmated.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Official chess rules by FIDE
Rule 3.9 is as follows:

> 3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. *No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.*
> 3 votes

# Answer
In standard chess, no, you cannot move into, nor make a move that puts your king in, check.

I noticed this is tagged chess-variants, so I will add that the rules for speed/blitz chess may be slightly different, in terms of penalties. In addition, in casual blitz games, that may be acceptable.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, pins
---


# Question
Title: Is there a good or a proper age to play chess?
When I first played chess I was terrible at it. I was like 5 or 6 years old back then. Now I understand the rules and stuff, but is there a specific or good age to play chess? An age when it's easy to understand?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Like learning to speak the appropiate age will vary from child to child.

I think 3 and older (My 10 year old brother taught me when I was 3). Children are naturally curious about any activity their parents/siblings do. Just play chess in front of them and if they show interest show them how each of the pieces move. At very young ages you will need to be extremely patient as some rules such as the knight movement and castling are quite difficult for young children to understand.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I can only answer according to my own experience.

The typical child can learn how each chessman moves at about 6.5 years old. However, at this age, the typical child cannot firmly grasp simple chess concepts like

* guarding a piece so that, if the piece is captured, the guard can recapture; and
* why the first move of a mate in two might not be a check.

Confusingly, the typical 6.5-year-old child is able to develop pieces if taught to do so, which can lead adults to believe that the child understands chess better than the child actually does. This is perplexing, because you can watch the child move knights toward the center and post bishops on plausible squares during the opening, but then you see the child do something that makes no sense like advancing the king to the third rank so that a pawn can "guard" the king (as though the king were a bishop or a knight).

To play chess with even minimal understanding, the typical child needs to reach about age 7.5 in my experience. Moreover, if the child does not find chess interesting, then the age is about 8.5.

Before age 7.5, many children enjoy playing chess even if they really have no idea what's going on. They just like moving bishops diagonally, and so on, not because of bishop strategy and bishop tactics but merely because *diagonality* is an interesting concept. They get a little frustrated, though, when time to deliver a checkmate comes, because they usually just cannot complete even a simple checkmate except by luck.

There are of course exceptions. A few prodigies are able to learn chess at much younger ages, but such children are rare.

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: I need help Identifying where exactly this set came from
I need help Identifying this. My grandfather was in ww2 and at one point in the navy he went to Russia and met a Russian Naval Officer to whom he traded for this set, and the officer said he got it from his grandfather, but I'd like some true speculation on it please.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here's the same set on ebay. More pictures of yours would be helpful.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-Ceramic-Duncan-Medieval-Style-32Pc-Chess-Set-Hand-Painted-Faces-Detailed-74/263416351119?hash=item3d54d6898f:g:GaoAAOSw4A5Y0WX2

Perhaps the seller can help you learn more.

If you Google for "ceramic duncan medieval chess", you'll get a lot of hits.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Other than colors, that looks identical to a set my mother made for me back in the 1970's or early 80's at a local ceramic studio. She made it from molded greenware (unfired clay) and hand painted it. She made a few of these for other chess playing family members & friends, using different color combinations.

While the story you state is nice, I'm sorry to say it seems likely to me that the set in your picture was made in a similar fashion to mine, instead of being acquired in a trade from an officer in the Russian Navy.

Update: A similar set is now on display at the World Chess Hall of Fame. The first molds for sets like this were probably created in 1960's or 1970's by a company then known as Duncan Ceramics Products. As long as the link is good, you can see the set on display and read more at:
https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/featured-chess-sets-2022

---
Tags: chess-set, identify-this
---


# Question
Title: What would be the elo of a computer program that plays at random?
What would be the Elo of a computer program that plays random moves?

For the sake of simplicity, assume that he never asks for a draw or resigns and never accepts a draw offer.

# Answer
Right at the bottom of the Computer Chess Rating List for the 40/4 time control is Brutus RND, an engine that simply selects random legal moves.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/cgi/engine\_details.cgi?print=Details&each\_game=1&eng=Brutus%20RND#Brutus\_RND

It has a rating of 205 (as of 6/6/2018). This is not a FIDE rating of course, but it is using the Elo system.

It has 0 wins, 242 losses and 64 draws. The draws are due to faulty programs that accidentally cause draws by repetition or occasionally stalemate, though they generally have a substantial material advantage when this occurs.

FIDE has a rating floor of 1000. Brutus RND would simply fail to establish a rating that high and would be unrated.

If we ignore the FIDE rating floor, it is possible to have a negative rating under the Elo system.

One point to mention is that FIDE uses a table to calculate rating changes and if the rating difference is greater than 735, no change occurs when the stronger player wins. This means Brutus could never have a rating of -5000 or anything like that because it would need to lose points to spectacularly incompetent players that would not be capable of delivering checkmate.

https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&id=197

We are left guessing here. 1000 Elo rated players would be able to get Brutus's rating down to 265, but since there are no players with worse ratings, we cannot say exactly how much further they could push Brutus's rating down if they did exist.

I would guess that players that are 500 Elo or worse would have trouble delivering mate consistently, much like the faulty programs. Draws by 3-fold repetition or the 50 move rule are not automatic under FIDE rules and would only occur if Brutus claimed them. But a human could lose by running out of time, as well as drawing by accidental stalemate.

So I'm guessing somewhere in the -200 to 200 range if FIDE allowed ratings below 1000 and allowed Brutus to compete.
> 15 votes

# Answer
The problem with random play is that on an average chess position there are many many moves (from 20 in the opening to easily 50 or more in complicated endgames), but only a handful of those are acceptable. Random moves will result in total discoordination from the very beginning of the game. Moreover, capturing less valuable pieces would be very common, specially in the middlegame. This said, even against extremely weak opposition, the computer will, in the long run, blunder: tons of material will be traded and possibly not many good for the computer, the computer will be undoubtedly undeveloped, his king won't be safe and possibly not even castled...

So many bad things piling up, and extremely quickly, will result in a sure defeat for the machine. His Elo will probably be 0 FIDE.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Truly random play is much worse than you would probably think. The USCF absolute floor is 100 and this program would never rise above that.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure how Go ratings compare to chess, but random play is about -3500 there. Since the branching factor for chess is lower I'd expect the random player elo to be higher, maybe somewhere between -2000 and -500.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Worse than an absolute beginner who barely knows the rules of the game, because at least the beginner puts *some* thought into choosing a move. Their moves may still be mostly random, but at least there's some evaluation of positions going on.

So this engine's rating would be at the lowest possible floor of whatever rating system you choose. It might eventually win or draw a game against an equally bad opponent, and then increase by a few points. However, you can expect the engine's rating to rapidly sink back to the minimum floor afterwards.

In Shannon's "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess", he notes that the probability of random play beating Botvinnik is of the order of 10^-75. Thus, if this random computer were to play Botvinnik (or even a regular master) non-stop for a human lifetime, we can reasonably expect it to never win.

However, Shannon goes on to say that random play isn't the worst strategy; the worst strategy is deliberately playing moves that aid the opponent. While it's possible a complete beginner could do this, the chances are they'll try to play moves that improve their own position.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A very good answer would be to do this:

Use numpy, a very weak game engine, 1500 ELO or so, and attach a python script to it. There are many libraries that provide you with the possible moves in a position, so we can pick one at random. I will post the results later.

http://creative-co.de/random\_chess/

You should also check this out.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, elo
---


# Question
Title: Are there rules for categorising all pawn-only endgames into won/drawn/lost?
If a situation containing only pawns and kings is displayed is there a simple set of rules for determining if the position is won/drawn/lost?

I know for single pawn and double pawn endgames this is true with rules like the opposition, rule of square, rook pawns etc. My question is, does this extend into multipawn games or are they simply too complex and varied?

Another way of putting the question might be: if you show two grandmasters a pawn only endgame; do they both immediately know the outcome, or are there some that they would need to play out?

# Answer
Generally speaking, the side with the most pawns will win. The tempo provided by the extra pawn is usually enough to gain opposition and access to the key squares. Doubled pawns don't matter for this, unless they're blocked. The extra pawn can also limit the movement of the opponent's king, resulting in the possibility of a triangulation maneuver.

Another recurring theme/rule is the breakthrough. Grandmasters know the patterns for which a breakthrough is possible by heart.

But generally, multi-pawn endgames are just as complicated as other endgames. There is a Russian endgame study composer, Nikolai Grigoriev, who is famous for his pawn endgame studies. They truly show the rich possibilities of chess with just kings and pawns. With so many beautiful studies available, you know that there can be no general rule to determine the outcome.
> 18 votes

# Answer
While there are general rules, these rules have many exceptions and nuances.

In the following position with White to move, both sides have a passed pawn, but the fact that Black's passed pawn is so much better means White is dead lost:

```
[FEN "6k1/8/6p1/2p5/1pPpP3/pP6/2P3P1/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

```

But it's precarious. Remove Black's A-pawn from the starting position, and Black doesn't have a passed pawn, and doesn't win. Remove his B-pawn, and the passed pawn isn't connected, and Black doesn't win. Remove his C-pawn, and White has a second passed pawn, and Black doesn't win. Remove his G-pawn, and White again has a second passed pawn, and Black doesn't win. Remove his D-pawn, and Black *does* win - but not if White's king started at b1 instead of c1. There's no "rule" that can cover all these situations; you have to calculate them to at least some extent.
> 16 votes

# Answer
There is no general rule for multi-pawn endgames as they are much too complex.

However I believe that most of the pawn only endgames that appear in regular games are readily assessed correctly by grandmasters (or even just masters). Sure there are pawn endgame studies that might be tricky, but on average assessing a pawn endgame is much easier than an endgame with say rooks on the board.

In order to win a pawn endgame you have to promote a pawn (apart from rare situations where you mate with pawns only). So obviously one of the first thing to look for is the availability of **passed pawns** or the options for **creating passed pawns**. If there are, you would further assess the strength of those passed pawns: Can the king catch them? Are they protected? (This usually means that the king is bound to a certain part of the board and could be used for operations in another part of the board.) Do you perhaps have more than one passed pawn? If both players have passed pawns; whose pawn is quicker?, etc.

If there are no passed pawns, it means that (in order to win) you have to capture an enemy pawn with your king. Target pawns to be captured are often fairly clearly defined. Your opponent may defend passively, e.g. preventing you from getting close to the target pawn or he may actively try to capture one of your pawns and promote a pawn.

In situations like this, it is often essential to count correctly, make proper use of **opposition** and **triangulation**. Fortunately the number of possible moves is limited in pawn endgames, simplifying the calculation of long lines.

When assessing multi-pawn endgames, of course it helps if you know the rules of single pawn endgames (rule of square, rook-pawn,opposition, active king etc) since the multi-pawn endgame might turn into a single pawn endgame or effective single pawn endgames if pawn chains are blocked.
> 6 votes

# Answer
There are a bunch of helpful rules on pawn endgames, but even a grandmaster wouldn't be able to call every pawn endgame won/drawn/lost.

Some pawn endgames involve immense amounts of calculation, involving concepts such as pawn races, corresponding squares, and long-distance triangulation. Other pawn endgames are too complex, and are beyond the calculation abilities and evaluation skills of a grandmaster to objectively evaluate (for example, six pawns each arranged in weird structures).

That being said, grandmasters can probably evaluate 99% of pawn endgames that come up, since they're the simplest endgame and have many helpful rules. But in the remaining 1% of endgames, these rules are often broken and the situation becomes very counter-intuitive, even to a grandmaster.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, theory, study, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What are the goals for white and black in the Caro Kann exchange variation?
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Nf6 6. Bf4 Bg4 7. Qb3
Qd7 8. Nd2 e6

```

From this position what is black/white in broad terms attempting to do. What are some clear goals?

# Answer
> 4 votes
From that position, both sides will finish development and most likely castle kingside. Then...

White's goals/plans:

Put pressure on the e-file in the interest of forming a kingside attack. This is often done by playing Rfe1 (or Rae1), followed by Ne5. White could then move the d2-knight to f3, bringing it closer to the kingside. After that White will try to continue building up the pressure around the kingside, perhaps even with a Rook lift (i.e., Re3).

Another possible plan of White's is to play c4, accepting an isolated d-pawn in order to open up the game. This plan isn't so common, but it could work if Black's unprepared in the centre.

Black's goals/plans:

Begin a minority attack on the queenside by playing ...Rb8, ...a6, ...b5, and eventually ...b4. By doing this, Black plans to exchange on c3, leaving White with a backwards pawn after White captures back.

Black may also play ...e5, which is the converse of the aforementioned plan for White of playing c4. Black rarely plays the ...e5 plan though, mainly because White just has too much control over that square.

Finally, an important defensive motif for Black often involves maneuvering his light-squared bishop to the g6 square. From here, it blocks the b1-h7 diagonal, neutralizing White's d3-bishop and safeguarding the Black king from attacks.

# Answer
> 3 votes
White normally tries for a king-side attack with the support of a knight on the e5-outpost.

Black has a long-term strategy of the minority attack. Weakening the c3-pawn by advancing his own queen-side pawns.

This position is the reverse of the Carlbad structure in the QGD - Exchange Variation. Many good videos about the minority attack on youtube.

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


# Question
Title: Strange pawn double move in McDonnell attack
I was going through a Chessable opening line, and it recommends black to play `6...d5`, moving the d pawn immediately after it was *just moved* in `5...d6 6.Nc3`.

What is the reason behind moving the same pawn twice?

```
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp2bppp/2npp3/2p5/4PP2/2NP1N2/PPP1B1PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 1 6"]

6... d5 7. O-O Nf6 8. e5 Nd7 9. d4 cxd4 10. Nb5 O-O 11. Nbxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Nc5

```

Full line here:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. d3 Be7
5. Be2 d6 6. Nc3 d5?? 7. O-O Nf6 8. e5 Nd7
9. d4 cxd4 10. Nb5 O-O 11. Nbxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Nc5

```

# Answer
I think it's probably a mistake.

I checked a database, and the position that arises after 5.Be2 only appeared in it twice - once in a game from way back in 1883, and once in a game between two players rated 2600+ in a 2011 rapid event. 5...d5 (rather than 5...d6) was played in both games, and Black won both.

If the double pawn move isn't a mistake, then we can assume that White's intervening move, 6.Nc3, somehow changed the position to make d5 more favorable. So how did Nc3 change the position?

* The knight prevents White from playing c4 to challenge a pawn on d5.
* The knight could be a target on c3 if Black later advances the pawn to d4.
* White cannot now move the knight to a3 or d2.

I'm not convinced. Black never played d4 in the line you showed, and c4 doesn't look like it's something to be feared. And I don't see any reason why White playing Na3 or Nbd2 would make d5 less favorable.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I checked the position on Stockfish and its 1st or 2nd recommendation is to play 6...d5 after 6.Nc3, so your Chessable opening line is sound.

The reason for playing 6...d5 is that White's c3-knight is misplaced. If you were to attack it by pushing ...d4, it doesn't have a good square to move to (normally, it would like to move to e2 but a bishop is sitting there).

The reason for not playing 5...d5 on the fifth move is that White doesn't have to bring his knight to c3. Instead, he can move it to d2, where it won't be attacked by your pawn.

In the line you posted, I think White went for the stuff with 8.e5 and 9.d4 in order to prevent Black from playing ...d4 at an opportune moment. The pawn structure that arose after 9.d4 is favorable for Black, since White's missing his centre pawn.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Definitely not a good chessable line.
If the idea is to play d5 then 5...d5 saves a tempo. It's not like White has altered his position in a way that makes 6...d5 more desirable. The line you gave is slightly to clearly better for White as Black has a bad Bc8 and less space.
> 0 votes

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


title: Opening with knight

text:
# Question
Title: Opening with knight
I recently came across a game purportedly played by Napoleon (white) where he opened with `1. Nc3`, and went on to win. I've never seen another game that did not open with a pawn. Does a knight opening have any inherent weaknesses? Was it ever popular?

# Answer
> 17 votes
While not `1. Nc3`, the Reti Opening (`1. Nf3`) is still today one of the most popular openings for white. It has frequent play at amateur and master levels and scores well for both.

The opening `1. Nc3` is called the Dunst Opening and is seen much less often. There's a good breakdown of thoughts on the Reti and the Dunst openings over at Wikipedia.

# Answer
> 12 votes
The opening starting with `1. Nb1-c3` (long algebraic notation) or `1. Nc3` (short algebraic notation) is called "Van Geet Opening". It is in fact very rare to see this opening being played by either professional players or by amateurs who study the game seriously. White's c pawn gets blocked by the knight with this move, and this might be the reason why pros don't use it very often.

On the other hand, Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908), a strong Russian player from the 1800's played a similar move with the black pieces: `1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6` and the opening got his name (Chigorin's Defense).

Some opening manuals feature a few paragraphs on these openings (Van Geet Opening and Chigorin Defense) like, for example, FCO (*Fundamental Chess Openings* by Paul Van der Sterren), *Chess Opening Essentials* Vol. 2 and Vol. 4, among many others.

# Answer
> 11 votes
`1. Nc3` is not often seen because it blocks the c pawn. In many openings, white wants to push the c pawn to either c3 or c4 in order to help control the center. With the knight already on c3, this will take an extra two tempi.

`1. Nf3`, the Reti, is more common because pushing the f pawn weakens the king's position. Therefore, `f3` and `f4` are fairly rare, and it is a safe bet that the f pawn won't be moved until later in the game when the knight may well have moved from f3. Furthermore, with `1. Nf3` white keeps his or her options open - white may play either `d4`, `e4`, or `c4` at the appropriate moment.

# Answer
> 8 votes
`1. Nc3` is not a bad move. It is not a "favorite" move because it doesn't open up lines for a queen and bishop like `1. d4` or `1. e4`. But you haven't ruled out these possibilities or otherwise wasted a moved.

`1. Nf3` is preferred to `1. Nc3`. One, because you've moved your knight for early king side castling, and 2) because it deters Black `...e5` (`...d5` would be protected by the queen). But `1. Nc3` does support a later e4.

The advantage of `1. Nc3` is that it is a "quiet" move that allows you to "transpose" into other openings, such as the King's Indian Attack or the Vienna Game. But you retain the option, for a move or two, of WHICH of these other openings. It looks "harmless" but isn't. If Black disregards it, he could be in for a nasty surprise.

# Answer
> 8 votes
At the highest level of play, grandmasters such as Kramnik essay `1. Nf3` on a frequent basis, and there are complete systems built around it. It also takes care of nuances such as allowing them to sidestep undesirable or unfavourable lines/openings that arise out of normal d4 systems, like the Nimzo-Indian or specific lines in the QGD/KID, or even the English opening.

Note that although it is technically known as the Reti Opening, it is seldom played for the purpose of getting into one, but for the transposition possibilities as mentioned above.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The King's Indian Attack can also be played starting with `1. Nf3` and is widely played among amateurs and pros.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Just to add to what James and Soufiane have already added, and to specifically hit on your question about knight openings having weaknesses: this particular knight opening has the weakness of allowing Black control of the center. Nf3 does not have that same weakness.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Knight openings are common for my opponents. I've found that knight openings can result in quite strong formations later in the game. So among more casual games, knight openings are semi-common and have some advantages.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As some have already said, the move 1. Nc3 has the drawback ot blocking the c-pawn, which is often pushed in closed games. Also, Black has the very concrete move 1... d5 that threatens 2... d4 and asks a serious question to White:

* should I prevent ...d4 by playing 2. d4 myself ? This is possible, but in this case why not playing 1. d4 2. Nc3 that is probably more flexible
* Or do I accept or even provoke 2... d4, trying to counter-attack on Black's big pawn center later on ? The game can typically continue with 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 etc

In this opening Black has the upper hand in the center:

And usually White tries to attack on the Kingside with plans like Nh4 followed by f4.

I discuss this opening and other ones as well in the following video, if you are interested to know more: https://youtu.be/A-0EiR8b0Gk

---
Tags: opening, knights
---


# Question
Title: How different would chess be if a stalemate was a win?
Historically stalemate has been handled in different ways. I wonder how different chess would be if it was a *win* for the stalemating player.

Has enough thought been put into this so that it's possible to give a clear answer? Would there be significantly less draws and more wins for white? More aggressive play? Would changes be seen already in the opening?

A related question that already has been asked is *why* the actual rule is as it is. The accepted answer to that question talks mostly about history and the logic that has been given for the rule, but another answer goes into how endgame would be different with this variant instead. There it is a side issue for explaining something else, which has made someone suggest this is a duplicate question. I hope that the actual what-if question can get more thorough answers for itself than when it is a side issue of a related question. For example my issue about if changes would be seen already in the opening have not been brought up.

The ideal answer for me would be if something like AlphaZero (without preconceived notions) had spent some time playing this variant, but I guess I'm out of luck on that?

# Answer
Building on SmallChess' answer, KP vs K endgames that are normally drawn would be lost. This has very big ramifications, as there are many rook endgames where the side up a pawn can easily transpose into a (formerly drawn) KP vs K endgame. For example:

* The Philidor Endgame
* A normal K+R+3P vs K+R+2P on the same side of the board.
* A K+R+4P vs K+R+3P where the extra pawn is a passed a-pawn. If the defending rook is behind the pawn, the endgame is considered barely drawn. However, the attacking rook might be able to exchange the extra a-pawn for a pawn on the kingside, reaching the aforementioend K+R+3P vs K+R+2P endgame.

This logic can also be applied to other endgames, such as K+Q+P vs K+Q. However, Rook endgames are the most common, and by making stalement = a win, many of these fundamental endgames are ruined.

Once that has happened, it's often not difficult for the better side to transpose down into one of them (especially the Philidor).

So making Stalement a win would drastically lower the number of draws that happen when one side is *defending* an endgame. However, there are many cases where no one was ever winning in an endgame (i.e., even material throughout), and most of these would probably result in draws still. The reason is that many draws in equal endgames arise from an "impasse" both sides create, where neither can make progress.
> 4 votes

# Answer
This would definitely give less draws, and more wins for both colours. The following very common draw themes no longer possible:

* Bishop of wrong colour
* KP+K, the losing K is in corner, pawn is on the same file
* KP+K, the losing K controls the queening square (very common in tournament play)
* KQ+KP, where the pawn is a promoting bishop pawn or rook pawn

Less margin for the losing side to come back for a draw.

I'm very convinced Google won't waste money on a variant like this.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, stalemate
---


title: Disappointing Drawn Game Analysis

text:
# Question
Title: Disappointing Drawn Game Analysis
I recently played a not-so-good tournament, my US rating is a little under 1900, and this is a game where I had a draw against a 1600 player that reminds me of how I played when I was 1700. My opponent showed up 45 minutes late and unfortunately I let that get to me psychologically, and started having a bit of an impatient attitude while playing. This caused me to make some positional mistakes that I shouldn't have been making. So I have a few questions in the game PGN, if you guys could answer those and point out anything else that's important, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

```
 [fen ""]
 [Event "Michigan Amateur"]
 [Date "6/2/2018"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Brandon O'Neil"]
 [Black "Raymond Burwell"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [WhiteElo "1896"]
 [BlackElo "1600"]
 [ECO "A13"]
 [Opening "English Opening: Agincourt Defense"]

 1. c4 e6 2. g3 f5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 d6 6. d4 O-O 7. O-O c6 8. d5!? { I thought I could take advantage of black's slow development, but I ended up shutting in my bishop eventually. Should I be more patient and play something like 8.Qc2? I think 8.d5 could work if I follow up well. } (8. Qc2) 8... e5 9. Qb3? { Played quickly and impatiently. This move allows black to close the center, allowing me to shut in my bishop. Would 9.c5 be the best try? } (9. c5) 9... c5 10. e4 (10. Bh3 { Maybe if I followed this move with e4, I could try to trade my bad bishop, but is that really worth it with the weakening of my light squares? }) 10... Nxe4 11. Nxe4 fxe4 12. Nd2 e3 13. Qxe3 Bg5 14. Qc3 Bxd2 15. Bxd2 Qf6 16. b4 { Doesn't seem like this really accomplished anything. Maybe 16.f4 straight away? } (16. f4) 16... b6 17. a4 Na6 18. bxc5?! { It seems to me that this really helped black with his central influence. 18.b5 seems more limiting, and then I could follow with a5. } (18. b5 Nc7 19. a5) 18... Nxc5 19. a5 Bf5 20. f4 exf4 21. Qxf6 Rxf6 22. Bc3 Rff8 23. Rxf4 Bd3 { The after-effects of not playing 9.c5 start to show more. } 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. axb6 axb6 26. Ra7 Rf7 27. Ra8+ Rf8 28. Rxf8+ { In hindsight, I should have realized how bad this ending is for me and repeated rook moves. } (28. Ra7) 28... Kxf8 29. Bf1 Be4 30. Kf2 Bxd5 31. Bxg7+ Kxg7 32. cxd5 Kf6 33. Bc4 { Bishop in front of the pawn (on c6) is probably a more solid setup. } 33... Ke5 34. Ke3 Nd7 { Already having trouble defending my central pawn. } 35. g4 Nf6 36. g5 Ng4+ 37. Kf3 Kf5 38. Bd3+ Kxg5 39. Bxh7 Nxh2+ 40. Ke4 Ng4 41. Kd4 Kf4 42. Bd3 Ne5 43. Bb5 Nf3+ 44. Kc4 Ke5 45. Bc6 { Seems like I'm safe now. } 45... Nd4 46. Kb4 Ke4 47. Bb7 Nc2+ 48. Kb5 Ne3 49. Kc6 Nc4 50. Kb5 Kd4 51. Bc6 Ne3 52. Kxb6 Nxd5+ 53. Kb5 Nc3+ 54. Kb6 Kc4 { My opponent wants to stubbornly play out this drawn ending, so the rest of these moves aren't too important. } 55. Bh1 Kd4 56. Bg2 Ne4 57. Bf1 d5 58. Ba6 Ke5 59. Ka5 d4 60. Kb4 Nd2 61. Bd3 Kf4 62. Ba6 Ke3 63. Bb5 Nf3 64. Ba6 Kd2 65. Bb5 Ne1 66. Kb3 Nc2 67. Ba6 Ne3 68. Bb5 Ke1 69. Ba6 Kf2 70. Bb5 Kg3 71. Kb4 Kf4 72. Ba6 Ke5 73. Bd3 Kd5 74. Ba6 Nf5 75. Bb7+ Ke5 76. Ba6 Nd6 77. Bd3 Kd5 78. Ba6 Ke4 79. Kb3 Ke3 80. Kb4 Ne4 81. Bb5 Nd2 82. Ba6 Ne4 83. Bb5 d3 84. Bxd3 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
If your rating is 1900, this game must have been quite disappointing. But it also seems to me that Black played well above 1600-level.

* 7...c6 is a rare move, but not so bad that you should look for an immediate refutation. 8.Qc2, intending to open the center with e2-e4 (either fast or after b3-Bb2) is indeed very logical. If Black goes for d6-d5, he is one whole tempo down compared to the Stonewall with Be7 (which is already considered a bit passive for Black); then your plan could be Rb1,b4-b5, Bf4, Rfc1 with initiative on the Q-side. If Black refrains from d6-d5, you open the e-file with e2-e4, build pressure on e6 and fianchetto your dark squared bishop. Black only plan to finish development seems to be Na6-c7 and Bd7, but then he still have problems to solve: his queen has no great square and d6 is unprotected (can be targeted by Ba3, for instance).
* I don't think 9.c5 would have acheved much more than what you got in the game. After 9...e4 the most plausible scenario is a complete swap of c- and d-pawns, after which your space advantage has vanished. 9.Qc2, 9.b3 or 9.e4 would be my main candidate moves here: you still have to complete development.
* I don't believe in 10.Bh3. Sure, exchanging light-squared bishops is formally good, but it wastes time (Bg2 moves again and Bc8 has not used any tempo), weakens your king (because you've played g3, Black's eventual kingside attack with f5-f4 can be very dangerous even without a ...Bc8xh3 idea) and Black doesn't even have to allow it (he can also defend f5 with g6 and develop slowly, either with Na6-c7, Bd7 or Nh5-g7, Nd7-f6).
* If I was Black, I would have given some thoughts to the pawn sac 10...f4 11.gf4 Nh5 12.fe5 Bg4, but White is clearly on top after 12.f5!
* After 15 moves the position is almost equal, the bishop pair doesn't mean much with a closed center and you lack a knight to post on e4. 16.b4?! and 16.f4?! are both hurrying too much, you should slowly build some pressure with a3-b4-Rb1-Be3 with a slow, manoeuvering game.
* Black should absolutely take 16...cb4 17.Qb4 Na6 and 18...Nc5, catching up in development and with the same excellent knight he got later. Similarly, after his erroneous 16..b6?, 17.bc5 is very tempting when he has to take back with a pawn. 17...dc5 would be good if the knight could reach d6, but it is just bad because you will target Pe5 and Pb6 (with a4-a5) long before. After the correct 17...bc5 18.Rb1, you have good chances of exploiting your lead in development, either with Qa5-c7 or f2-f4.
* 17...cb4 18.Qb4 Na6 19.Qb2 Nc5 20.a5! is less clear than one move before, but it's still better for Black than what he did.
* After 17...Na6? you should absolutely go for it with 18.b5! Nc7 (18...Nb4 is a not-totally-convincing pawn sac after 19.Qb3) 19.a5! Bd7 (or Rb8 20.ab6 ab6 21.Ra7) 20.Ra2, etc... Note how bad Black's Nc7 and Bd7 are compared to his Nc5 and Bf5 in the game. 18.bc5? is maybe your worst move in this game.
* 20.f4 is the typical pseudo-active move we all play when we feel something has gone wrong. But here I've nothing much better to suggest, maybe doubling on the a-file was more stubborn ?
* I feel like after 20...Bd3!? Black will end up picking Pc4, say after 21.fe5 Qe5 22.Rf8 Rf8 23.Qe5 de5 24.ab6 ab6. Then you will possibly save a draw thanks to his own weak pawns (much like in the game). But compared to the game, you each have gained a passed pawn in the process, which makes the game sharper. Moreover, 20...ef4 is probably very imprecise because...
* ...Was 22.ab6! possible ? Looks like your passed pawn on the Q-side will turn the table.
* The draw on move 28 would have been a fair result.
* 30.Bd4 avoids Black's small combination and preserve your bishop pair. After 30.Kf2? you're in serious danger.
* Was 36...Nxd5! possible ? With the extra pawn it looks like Black is winning.
* The Bishop vs knight endgame with 2 vs 1 looks indeed drawn. You are a bit lucky at the end: in case of 41...Nf6 42.Bd3 Ne8 43.Bb5 Nc7 (attacking d5 and blocking b5 for the wK), you have just two squares to wait with the bishop, so that there is no zugzwang and your king can stay on d4: 44.Bc6 Kf4 45.Bb7 Kf5 46.Bc6, you never allow ...Ke5, draw.

*(Comments without engine, since I believe that's what you are looking for. But there may be some tactical flaws in the lines above...)*
> 3 votes

# Answer
Any Dutch player (and any white player who is prepared to face the Dutch) will tell you that the position after white castles is the standard one and that the immediate aims for the two sides which define the course of the game over the next few moves are -

* White: force through e4 (and prevent black from playing e5 or f4 advantageously)
* Black: force through either e5 or f4 and prevent white's e4

If either side achieves their aims they have "won" the opening. They will have the initiative with good prospects for an attack. Of course, with good play on both sides this doesn't happen and the struggle for the upper hand goes on into the middlegame.

.7. ...c6 is very unusual / bad because it does nothing to prepare e5 for black and nothing to fight against white's e4. It also blocks Black Nc6 which can be played later in some variations, perhaps after 7... a5, creating an escape square on b4 for the knight.

.8. d5 shows a complete lack of understanding since it gives black e5 for free. After this the position is at best equal for white. Dutch aficionados will tell you that black is better. He has achieved his dream position out of the opening.

.8. Qd3 would have punished black because now the only way black can prevent 9. e4 is by 8. ...d5 which transposes to a bad Stonewall Dutch a move down and with the bishop misplaced on e7. All the dynamism has gone out of black's position. He has given up all hope of pushing e5, given away the e5 square to white's knight and has a dour prospectless middlegame ahead.

PS I hate the fact that I had to put some random character before 7, 8 and 8 in the last 3 paragraphs to stop the formatter turning them into an enumerated list. Bad enough in itself but it "corrected" the last "8" into a "9"! Let me choose when it is an enumerated list and when it is a list of moves.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Where to find links to live PGNs from major tournaments?
This is follow up to my previous question about live broadcast format.

I was looking at TWICs Live Games, but there is usually only **Live** redirecting me to some higher level solution like Chess24 or to organiser's web. There is only occassionally **PGN** link and it often holds games from previous rounds etc.

1. Can I get access to these low level live PGNs during round easily or is it more about contacting organisers to get such a link?
2. Is there some provider for such low level data, offering raw PGN content from live broadcast instead of some higher level solution?

# Answer
Suppose you are running a big/important tournament. You want your games broadcast live on the internet. What do you do?

First, you need the equipment - DGT boards and sets, cables, a laptop with an internet connection plus the associated software which will collect the information from the sets, put into pgn files and send to an IP address or email address at suitable intervals.

Second, you need either your own website set up to accept and display these games on the internet or you need an agreement with somebody like chess24.com that they will host your games on their site so people can follow them.

Once you understand that you also understand the answer to your questions. As you say in your intro TWIC tells you the answer. The pgn data is being sent to the organizer's website and/or an independent host like chess24.com. It is in not broadcast universally.

There are only two ways to get the information.

1. Contact the organizers to get them to send you the files also (but why should they?)
2. Write a screenscrape program to extract the data from the hosting site.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online
---


# Question
Title: Did Spassky stand up and applaude at Fischer after the famous Tartakower game?
Is it true that Boris Spassky stood up and openly applauded at Fischer after the sensational round 6 win by Fischer in the 1972 World Championship match? (The QGD Tartakower), as portrayed in the 2014 "Pawn Sacrifice" movie?

# Answer
> 15 votes
Yes.

> The game itself was majestic, by far the best to date. Harry Golombek described it as "a masterpiece through and through." Fischer was able to create and then remorselessly exploit vulnerable spots in Spassky's barricade, prizing his defenses apart before battering him with the rooks and queen, and without once leaving his own position at risk. Spassky was virtually in *zugzwang* -- a term referring to an unusual position where a player would prefer not to have to move, since all possible moves will only make his position worse. Black's resignation position was quite pitiful, the king humiliatingly exposed to the world, like a naked man caught in the shower after the rest of his house has collapsed about him. **The packed auditorium rose as one; a bemused, crushed Spassky joined in the applause, clapping for his opponent in recognition of the artistic creation to which he had fallen victim.**

Edmonds and Eidinow, *Bobby Fischer Goes to War* (2003)

# Answer
> 9 votes
Svetozar Gligoric, who was there, wrote in his book on the match:

> With thousands of spectators applauding Fischer's classical style win in the sixth game, Spassky did the same, while offering his hand to the challenger. In order not to be touched by his opponent's gracious behaviour, 'I had to go away' said Fischer to friends afterwards.

---
Tags: fischer, boris-spassky, 1972-world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Is there any more purpose to various openings than to get a positional advantage?
I have a grasp on tactics at this point, but when it comes to openings, I am lost. I follow the principles of developing my pieces toward the center with an eye towards castling. Beyond this, I don't understand what I am trying to accomplish if I pick a specific opening.

For instance, I have been watching some YouTube lectures on various openings like the Ruy Lopez. Usually these lectures videos enumerate a bunch of variations without giving me a lot of insight into why I would choose these moves, in the moment or in the long run.

Going back to the principles that I play in my own openings, it seems to me that the goal is to gain a positional advantage. That is, increase my options while decreasing my opponents. I am assuming no big blunders occur. But what does this mean beyond just trying to take control of the center? How do I connect my opening to a long-term checkmate goal? Is that even possible?

# Answer
> 5 votes
This answer may seem long, but to understand openings one has to understand some important positional concepts first.

**Space**

Space in chess can be loosely described as the number of squares controlled by friendly pieces. Having more space is often a good thing for two reasons. Firstly, it gives you a freer position and you will have more options than your opponent based on the fact that you have more space on the board to work with. Secondly, if you have more space it means that your opponent will have less space, which will make their position cramped and difficult to play since many of the opponent's pieces will need to occupy the same squares.

**Piece activity**

Piece activity in chess can be summed up in the following question: *What good are the resources you don't utilize?* An active piece is one that influences the board in a significant way, such as a centralized knight or a rook on the seventh rank. Active pieces are mobile, and can often perform many important aggressive and defensive tasks by themselves. They are often a great nuisance to the opponent, whose pieces are threatened and restricted by active pieces.

**Piece coordination**

Piece coordination is used to describe how well your pieces work together. For instance, two rooks on an open file are considered very powerful because they typically coordinate very well with each other; together they possess double the power of a single rook while at the same time they can defend each other from attack. Pieces who coordinate well are in general stronger than their sum parts, while pieces who coordinate badly are the exact opposite. Piece coordination is an important positional factor which will make or break your position.

**King safety**

This one almost goes without saying; a safe king is less likely to get mated while an unsafe king is more likely to get mated. As simple as this concept is, it very important to pay attention to; many players have fallen for the trap of leaving their king slightly too unsafe at one moment, and have gotten destroyed as a result.

**Material count**

The material count is the most simple and intuitive positional factor in chess, and it is easy to assess at any given moment of the game. Since it is so simple to use, many players tend to overestimate its importance, myself included. The thing to remember about the material count is that it is actually "just" a positional factor among others, and thus it can be trumped by other positional factors. While important (especially in the endgame, when few pieces are left, the one with the advantage in material count tends to have a great advantage), it is not necessarily the most important one; for instance, if you get checkmated due to poor king safety it doesn't really matter much that you have an extra queen compared to your opponent.

---

Beginners are often advised to follow the basic opening principles, since they are quite simple and will help them coordinate their pieces reasonably well and fight for space, while also getting the king to relative safety early on. The long-term goal of this strategy is simply to get a playable position out of the opening, and for beginners this is a perfectly acceptable outcome of the opening.

Past the beginner stage, chessplayers will often start playing some theoretical opening lines to get an edge over their opponent. Different opening lines are designed to try and get an edge by emphasizing different positional concepts; for instance many gambits tend to ignore material count to some degree in favour of piece activity and coordination (and often also reduced safety for the opponent's king), while other openings may place emphasis on getting a space advantage and letting the opponent suffer in a cramped position for the long haul.

To answer your question: I'd say that in order to connect your opening to a long-term goal, you first need to understand which positional concepts your opening is designed to emphasize. This can be easy or difficult depending on the opening you look at. As a novice player you could try to study your opening in terms of how well it adheres to the basic opening principles you know. The principles are sound and shouldn't be broken willy-nilly, so if they are broken there will be a good reason for it (if the opening line is sound, that is). This concrete reason will often have to do with one or more of the above-mentioned positional concepts in this post, but sometimes it is of a more concrete nature.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This will be a short answer but give you your answer.

Basically in the opening you get your prices ready for the war in the middle game. So it's best they are well placed on active squares so they control key squares and can help in any attack .

As for playing different openings one reason might be playing something that matches your defensive/offensive or open position/closed positions style. Otherwise it's just maybe to get a jump on your opponent by playing something different. Can't think of much else as to why different openings are played. Hope this was helpful :-)

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no point to obtaining a positional advantage of any kind by any means unless it brings you closer to the ultimate goal of checkmate. But often the road is long and tortuous, such as

1. Deny important squares to your opponent
2. Win a pawn
3. Force exchanges by developing threats against his King
4. Bring your King into the center
5. Make them give up material to prevent your Pawn from promoting.
6. Use your extra material to force through another Pawn.
7. Use that new Queen to force mate.

Somewhere in that sequence your opponent might resign. But yes you are quite right. The road from opening advantage to checkmate can take a long time to travel, and you may well not be able to see the end of it when you set out.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Many openings have long-term positional ideas in mind, while others seek the initiative sometimes at a cost (gambits for example). There are books like "The ideas behind the chess openings" by Ruben Fine, which might help you. Philidor said "Pawns are the soul of chess" and indeed the pawn structure that comes out of the opening greatly determines what each side should be playing towards.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I had similar questions when I was younger. The answer your looking for involves something called pawn structure plans. The way the pawns are set up dictates what squares pieces will be strongest at. As the pawn set up changes so to does the value of various pieces. Understanding this gives you long term plans, and gets you into the game beyond just developing and controlling the center. Having pieces at better squares, and holding a long term positional advantage eventually leads to winning tactics.

It's a bit of an advanced book, but pawn structure chess by Andy Soltis talks about this topic. Now chess is a very complicated game with lots of exceptions and special cases, so these are just general strategies that need to be adapted to what you face in a game, but at least they give a sense of direction and a way to evaluate things.

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Simul in which the GM has to make identical moves
Consider two simultaneous matches in which a GM plays against Players A and B, constrained by the rule that the GM must make identical board moves in both games. Players A and B can play as usual.

Thus, for example, if Player A takes one of the GM's pawns, but Player B does not, then the GM forever loses the ability to move that pawn on Player B's board as well.

The GM only wins by winning against both Players. We can also stipulate two versions, in one of which Players A and B can cooperate, and in the other of which they cannot.

Question: Could two average Players A and B always win against the GM in this setup? Would it matter if they are allowed to cooperate or not?

(I'm not necessarily looking for a mathematical demonstration of the answer, though if there is a simple winning strategy, that would be nice. I would be glad to hear from good players about what they think would happen.)

# Answer
If I understand your proposal, I think that the constraint that you are imposing would make it too easy to defeat the poor GM. Let's imagine the following pair of games with the GM playing Black:

```
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Nf6
3. Qxf7#

1. e4 e5
2. Qf3 Nf6
3. a3

```

Qxf7 on the first game is "checkmate" because even though Black would simply capture the queen in a normal game, they can't do it here because they can't make the same move on the second board.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It would be extremely rare for a single move to be good in 2 separate and random situations, or even possible. That being the case if the players were at least 1200 strength the gm would be crushed.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, simultaneous
---


title: What chess openings require less study?

text:
# Question
Title: What chess openings require less study?
I am new to chess and I am very confused by all the opening choices. What openings can I adopt for tournament play that require minimal study time?

# Answer
If you are new to chess, you should **not** be concerned with openings at all.

Several reasons for this:

* As a beginner player you are much more likely to lose a game because you blunder a piece or because of some other simple tactics than because of lack of opening knowledge.
* It is essential to have a decent understanding of chess before you start studying openings. This will allow you to learn an opening together with its typical plans (and not just learning moves by heart.) If you do this, you will know how to punish an incorrect move of your opponent and also how to continue the game in the middle game (when you are on your own). Contrary, if you just learn moves by heart you will not know what to do if your opponent plays a move that is not in your memory.
* You have not developed a style yet, so would not be sure which opening suites you best.

---

What should you be doing now?

Focus on tactics, i.e. solve tactics puzzles. First and foremost avoid blundering pieces in one move. When solving tactics puzzles make sure that you always recognize the pattern(s) that are used in the puzzle.

Get a feel for how the pieces move. I am sure you know how they move, but you need to be able to quickly assess a position, seeing what is attacked, where pieces can move, etc, without having to consciously think about each and every move. This is also sometimes called "board vision" and it will improve as you play or train chess.

Learn some basic general principles like "piece activity, king safety, central squares control, ...". Reading/watching annotated/commented games and recognizing these principles in the games of master players will help you a lot.

Studying basic endgames can be instructive as well.
> 7 votes

# Answer
"The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings", by Reuben Fine might help you. If you understand the ideas you don't need to memorize a bunch of variations.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I suggest the Stonewall. The first 10 moves are the same in almost every opening. The general middle game plans are easy to learn. Since it is such a closed opening, the chance of you leaving a piece en prise is very low.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Short answer: the Ruy Lopez, shown in the last of this answer's five diagrams, suits your requirements.

A longer answer follows.

Study helps all openings as far as I know, so I can only tell you which openings might want comparatively more or less study.

The London System, which seldom occurs in my games (so I do not personally know a lot about it), has the reputation of wanting comparatively little study.

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "5"]
[title "London System"]

1.d4 Nf6 (1...d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4) 2.Nf3 e6. 3.Bf4

```

The King's Gambit would not be my first recommendation to you (the Ruy Lopez, discussed later, is better), but attempting the King's Gambit, at least occasionally, is surprisingly instructive. I mention it here for this reason. The King's Gambit cannot be competently played without any study at all, but with moderate study becomes dangerous and double-edged without being overly formulaic. (Not a few masters have regrettably concluded that the King's Gambit is probably slightly unsound, but this does not necessarily make the King's Gambit a poor opening in submaster play. Anyway, even masters sometimes play it.)

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "3"]
[title "King's Gambit"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4

```

If you try for the King's Gambit or for a more sober king's-pawn opening, but 1.e4 c5 happens, then you can steer into the Closed Sicilian with 2.Nc6, which is a quite different kind of game than the King's Gambit but is playable without excessive study.

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "3"]
[title "Closed Sicilian"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3

```

(Like many players, I usually prefer to play the other knight, 2.Nf3, in Sicilian games, but playing the other knight leads to just the sort of game you wish to avoid.)

If you try for the King's Gambit or for a more sober king's-pawn opening, but 1.e4 e6 happens, then you may be in some trouble. That is called the French Defense and, as far as I know, most lines that follow from it reward study. However, the Exchange Variation, diagrammed below, might be reasonable for you to attempt.

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "5"]
[title "Exchange French"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 (3.Nc3)

```

Probably a little better than the 3.exd5 of the above diagram, yet still not extremely theoretical, is 3.Nc3, which leads to a different kind of game.

The King's Gambit is interesting as far as it goes, but even given 1.e4 e5 most players I know come to prefer less speculative openings. Arguably the most basic, principled such opening is the Ruy Lopez. At the master level, the Ruy Lopez greatly rewards study, but at submaster levels the Ruy Lopez is an inherently sound opening in which straightforward play usually leads to interesting games.

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "5"]
[title "Ruy Lopez"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

```

Much better chess players than I am prefer openings I have not even mentioned; so, to be clear, I make no recommendation for or against any of the above openings to the general player. The above openings are recommended to *you* because you state that you prefer to minimize study time.

I will say this, though. Unfortunately for you, the nature of chess is that, even for a nonmaster, a moderate quantity of opening study goes a long way. Opening study isn't everything, but a moderate quantity of opening study complements almost everything else a chess player tries to do, from midgame tactics to endgame targets. (Other answers recommend that you focus on tactics now and worry about openings a little later in your chess career. Those other answers are not wrong, but you seem to feel that you cannot even reach the tactical stage of a game of chess until you have chosen an opening! You are not wrong, either, so your question is a reasonable one in my view.) If someday you decide that you have more time and you decide to study openings a little more, why, many nonmasters find such study interesting. You might try it someday, at your discretion.

Meanwhile, if you want a single anti-studying recommendation, then, in light of your stated requirements, go for the Ruy Lopez. If Lopez does not suit, and if you feel certain that you will never change your mind regarding study, then give the London a try. Good luck.
> 0 votes

# Answer
As a beginner, you shouldn't be studying specific openings, and you absolutely should not be trying to memorize opening moves. Until you reach 1600 or so, you only need to follow basic opening principles.

* Move your king or queen's pawn to let your bishops out.
* Develop your knights and bishops (i.e. move them off their starting squares) - the general rule of thumb is knights before bishops, and kingside pieces first so you can castle quickly.
* Don't move a piece twice unless to make a capture, and don't send your pieces off on an adventure while others are still on their starting squares.
* Castle your king to safety within the first 10 moves.
* Don't waste time moving side pawns.
* Don't bring the queen or rooks out too early.
* Pay attention to what your opponent does - you may need to break the above rules in order to respond to a threat. Players of all levels get into trouble playing the opening on auto-pilot.

Lists of opening guidelines usually also say "Control the centre", but this is actually a fairly complex subject for someone new to chess to understand. All you need to know is that moving at least one of your centre pawns 2 squares is usually good, both is great if you can get away with it, and your knights and bishops can easily be moved onto squares where they "attack" the centre.

Obviously, at higher levels, opening play is more complex than this, but you need to realise that, at low levels of chess, how you play the opening is not massively important. Games will be decided by tactics and blunders, usually very simple ones. If you play against other novices, they will not know openings either.

What you should really be studying is (in order of importance) tactics, endgames, and positional principles. If you focus on this, and don't worry about the opening beyond the general guidelines above, you will see much more improvement than if you waste your time studying openings. It really does not matter how you start a game if it ends on move 15 when you drop a piece or overlook a simple checkmate. New players blame this on the opening, when in fact it has nothing to do with the opening and everything to do with tactics and elementary blunder checking.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Where to find chess coaches?

text:
# Question
Title: Where to find chess coaches?
I tried my local chess club but they don't have any good recommendations. Could someone recommend a good website to find coaches?

It would be even better if it has sections to match local coaches as well.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Chess.com has a list of chess coaches, searchable by location, rating and other stuff.

In the ICC store you can also hire chess coaches.

# Answer
> 8 votes
https://lichess.org/coach also has a long list of coaches. I found my coach there and I'm happy with the result. We use Skype for audio and the Lichess study feature to share positions in real time, which is very convenient.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Here is a list of sites with available chess coaches:

http://www.chess.com/coaches

http://www.chesstrainer.com (I actually trained with the coach here)

https://store.chessclub.com/teachers/

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/10002/131/

# Answer
> 1 votes
there is another very interesting in https://www.albertochueca.com and in addition he offers a very good chess guide...

# Answer
> 1 votes
Depending which country you're in, your national chess federation or regional association may be able to give you contact details for coaches in your area.

If your local club doesn't, it might also be worth contacting other nearby clubs (if your club plays in a league, they should be able to give you contact details for the other clubs), as they may provide coaching or have members who give private tuition.

---
Tags: coach
---