# Question
Title: How do I learn to understand the middlegame?
I am trying to train tactics as well as my general understanding of the beginning/middlegame. I spent a good bit of time understanding endgames, per chessmaster recommendations and those I can understand.

As far as tactics, I have been able to "train" them through chesstempo.com and "see" lots of variations through chesstactics.org.

But how do I learn to understand what I am training? I feel like I can execute tactics now without thinking, but I am not really sure what I just did. It just "feels right" because I trained it.

So what I am really asking:

> Is there a good place to get a real understanding of the middle game, or is it just raw calculation? Maybe I am missing a positional understanding?

I am thinking about getting a chess.com membership and going through the chess mentor courses.

I feel like by just doing raw training I am missing out on the real soul of the game.

# Answer
*In principle*, the middlegame is indeed just raw calculation. In principle, the entire game of chess boils down to only that. But since the space of possible move sequences is so vast, chess is of course too complex from the standpoint of pure calculation for that to be all that we do when we play. And after all, even our computational superiors (chess engines) need to be guided with built-in positional understanding in order to play a good game of chess.

So yes, if you're feeling fairly comfortable with your grasp of calculation and the execution of tactical operations, but often find yourself "not really sure what \[you\] just did," then it does sound like positional understanding is what you need to accrue. A good way to look at things is this: tactics are a means to an end - and at bottom they are *the means to all ends* in chess - but it's not terribly useful to see tactics as the ends themselves, and that is where heuristic positional knowledge is most useful, as a guide telling you what purposes various tactics should be put toward.

For instance, former champion Vladimir Kramnik described the play of two of his predecessors thus:

> To a certain extent, Smyslov was the pioneer of this style, which was later brilliantly developed by Karpov, i.e. the gradual mounting of positional pressure based on the most accurate calculation of short lines.

Now, regardless of whether you want to play like a Smyslov or Karpov, or more like an Alekhine or Tal, I point to Kramnik's words here just because they bring out this idea of letting positional considerations guide your hand, while your tactical acumen gives you the wherewithal to achieve your aims. OK, so how to acquire positional understanding?

Here there are many many options. You mention chess.com's chess mentor course; I have no knowledge of that, and so have no opinion. I can point you to a couple of books that are designed to begin to steer amateurs toward an expert/master understanding of positional play:

* *How to Reassess Your Chess* by Jeremy Silman. This is perhaps the most widely-known book on the subject these days, and with good reason I think. Silman does a fine job of getting the reader to (1) look at positions through the lens of various types of *imbalances* \- e.g. who has more space, is one side's bishop better than the other's, is one king safer than the other's, etc. - and (2) begin to use those imbalances as guiding factors in determining what your plan/goals should be - e.g. I have two bishops against two knights, so I'd like to open up the position to make use of the bishops' long-range power.
* *The Giants of Strategy* by Neil McDonald. This book is less systematically instructional than Silman's, but it is still instructive. McDonald looks at examples of play from Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian, Capablanca and Nimzowitsch in chapters grouped around positional themes (e.g. the seventh rank, outposts, pawn breaks, planning). This isn't an overly advanced book, and is probably well-suited to the same audience as Silman's. I wouldn't recommend this book alone for gaining positional understanding, but I think it can act very nicely as a supplement to Silman, say.
> 32 votes

# Answer
I think you partially answered your question. The main fact that you can "...execute tactics now without thinking..." is definitely a good start. Also that fact that you said, it "feels right" is also a good start although you don't really want to play a tactic just because it "feels right".

Information on tactics can be found from `Louis Holtzhausen` site at http://www.chess-strategies-tactics.com/chess-tactics. Here is some information from that site:

Understanding why you would do a particular tactic can be made simple by the definition:

> A Chess tactic is a move or a combination of moves whereby you force an advantage. The advantage is usually to win material but it could also be to achieve a positional advantage.

I think the fact that you said you can make tactical moves without thinking much means that you have improved your chess tactical awareness.

You can solve 1000's of tactical puzzles, but with no overall view of the specific skills you are trying to improve, solving them is not as effective. The 3 main focus areas of training chess tactics skill are:

```
1. Tactical patterns(how is the tactic executed)
2. Tactical themes(which elements of the position made the tactics possible)
3. Tactical awareness(knowing when to search for a tactical combination)

```

I think for each tactics puzzle that you do, before you do the next puzzle you must have a deep understanding of `1) themes` and `2) patterns` that made the tactics possible in the puzzle.

See if you can figure out which aspects of the position actually made the combination possible. This style of tactics training will hone your "tactical awareness".

Here are tactical themes and patterns that you should be familiar with. You can find many of these themes on chess tempos website here

```
Fork or double attack
Pins and skewers
Sacrifice
Discovered attack
Deflection (or distraction)
Double check
Counter-attack
Hanging (undefended) piece
Exposed king
In-between move
Trapped piece
Clearance – Opening a critical square, file or diagonal
Blocking – blocking a critical file or diagonal
Advanced pawn
Attraction
Zugzwang
X-ray attack
Weak back rank
Removing the defender
Overloading a defender
Simplification into a winning endgame
Indirect defense
Domination in chess

```

Here are checkmate patterns you should be familiar with. Checkmate pattern details can be found here.

```
Back Rank checkmate
Lolli’s checkmate
Epaulettes checkmate
Shepherd’s checkmate
Fool’s checkmate (fool’s mate or 2-move checkmate)
Scholar’s checkmate ( or 4-move checkmate)
Two Rooks checkmate
Mayet’s checkmate
Smothered checkmate
Anderssen’s checkmate
Pillsbury’s checkmate
The Arabian checkmate
Legal’s checkmate
Anastacia’s checkmate
Greco’s checkmate
Gueridon’s checkmate
Blackburne’s checkmate
Boden’s checkmate
Damiano’s checkmate

```

Understanding the tactical themes is useful… but training your mind to recognize the theme instantly and apply it in your game is only possible once you have turned your understanding into a skill. So how do you turn your understanding into a skill? Practice, practice, practice. Practice till you can apply your understanding almost without thinking.

Even if you find the content on these chess tactics themes and patterns obvious – it won’t do any harm to go over it again. It is vital to make this knowledge your second nature. It is better to understand a few patterns deeply than to understand many patterns superficially. Patterns you understand deeply will be much easier to apply!

Here are some tactical articles that will help you with tactics in the middle game: http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/links/middlegame.html
> 21 votes

# Answer
Excellent question and you made a good assumption.

> I feel like I can execute tactics now without thinking, but I am not really sure what I just did.
>
> Maybe I am missing a positional understanding?

That's exactly what you are missing, because tactics are the consequence of good positional understanding (this is a startling claim, feel free to disagree!).

I'd like to recommend you some books to study for improving the middlegame.

"Think like a grandmaster" by Alexander Kotov concentrates on middlegame aspects. This book "feels" lightweight since it's very easy to read, yet I'd like to conventionally call it "middlegame strategy lessons for dummies", because Kotov often quotes Steinitz (who pioneered the positional approach) yet explains his postulates in a way that's understandable by the average chess player, not only by grandmasters.

"My System" and "My System In Practice" by Aron Nimzowitsch. These two books are widely acknowledged by many strong chess players as being the greatest chess manual ever. There's a shorter work of Nimzowitsch that literally translates from Russian as "How I became a grandmaster". It's a short chess centric biography which describes the early Nimzowitsch as a strong tactical player who totally lacked positional understanding. Just like you, he would "see" combinations, but couldn't explain why they are possible. He tried to play in some tournaments against masters and failed, so he took a break trying to understand what's going on. And his deep understanding of strategy came from "scratching the positional itch".
> 12 votes

# Answer
By definition, the middle game is the point in the game where the pieces are pretty much developed and the opening ends.

The middle game is **not** raw calculation. Calculation is just a skill we have to develop. The middle game is **not** just tactics, though tactical opportunities begin to present themselves in the middle game.

At the beginning of the middle game, you start to **formulate a plan** and **execute it**. Without a plan, you won't know where to point your pieces and what you're trying to accomplish. When you see a 'tactics trainer' puzzle, what you're seeing is the fruit of planning. Those piece sacs and amazing moves didn't happen randomly; someone made the situation possible. That's what you're doing in the middle game.

An inability to plan is one of my greatest faults - I'm so unimaginative that I can't formulate a plan. Therefore I am always end up playing defensively. Now, I calculate pretty well for my category, so when someone attacks me (that is, they formulate a plan and execute it, lol) I frequently gain an advantage and get the win.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I recently read an unrelated book (I think it's *Thinking, fast and slow*, which is an excellent book), but one part of the book cited some studies done on chess players.

For example: to detect supposed superior intellect, there was only a slightly elevated level of intelligence associated with the players in general and the single most important factor in determining the success of a player was *experience* rather than *innate cognitive abilities*.

Essentially, because the player accumulates a largely subconscious appreciation of common openings, positions and mistakes etc., this reduces the amount of time they need to spend looking at the "common" moves in any situation and allow them to start calculating at a deeper level.

On average, the raw ability to calculate moves is not particularly lacking or abundant in poor or good players, so in a way this is good as you might be able to make it to grandmaster but the bad news is you may need to set aside 23 hours a day to practice.

On a side note, the main thrust of the story was about determining the sex of chickens; it takes 3 years to learn how to determine the sex of a chick which once qualified they do in a fraction of a second but are unable to say how they can do it other than that it "feels right".
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are 3 basic themes in middlegame planning:

1. Pawn breaks to
* Create open files
* Seize control of the center
* Eliminate pawns that control key squares

4. Short plans to create a positional imbalance, e.g.:
* Set up an outpost
* Create doubled, backward or isolated pawns in your opponent's pawn structure
* Weaken the king's position
* Sideline or block-in an opponent's piece
* Redeploy one of your pieces to a better square
* Seize control of a key file or diagonal
* Exchange off a poor minor piece of your own for a better piece of your opponent's

7. Preparing for transition to the endgame, involving:
* Trading or preserving either one pair or both pairs of rooks
* Selecting which minor piece(s) of your own to *keep* and which of your opponent's to *eliminate* to maximize the imbalance of material based on the deployment of the remaining pawns
* Deploying your remaining pieces and king so they're in position and ready for the transition
* Adjusting your pawns for optimal placement for the type of endgame you're seeking

As you can tell, the pawn structure is the focus of many of these elements. For more on how to plan regarding the pawn structures that arise from common openings, take a look at my response to another question, *Middlegame Plans*.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Major edit (no intro, just straight to the point):

> Is there a good place to get a real understanding of the middle game, or is it just raw calculation? Maybe I am missing a positional understanding?

Raw calculation does not exist. Every calculation of a position will lead to a final position that needs to be evaluated. A position can be evaluated from many different points of view. The two major views are "positional" and "dynamic". The positional view focuses on the static aspects of the position, like a snap shot of the position. The dynamic view focuses on the dynamic possibilities in the position.

Dividing a game into the opening, middlegame and endgame does not always help to understand chess better. After all, any position can be evaluated using one or more evaluation strategies that exist today. Thus, understanding the middlegame means understanding positions where most of the pieces are still on the board.

Based on my own subjective view, positional understanding is harder to master than dynamic understanding. Perhaps because combinations are so tempting and beautiful. Still, some players find positional thinking easier than dynamic thinking. Those players have huge issues with messy positions where several pieces are hanging. Thus, to handle positions where most pieces are still on the board, a player needs to master both positional and dynamic reasoning.

The short answer would actually be: good books, good trainers and many over the board games against slightly stronger opponents!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Training with different opening and middle game position will slowly teach you to understand. It like learning to play a guitar, etc. It takes time to learn. By using different positions you will learn how to find weak spots and so on. But of course there are books that will give you a better understanding. Here are some:

* John Nunn: Understand the middle game
* John Nunn: Learn chess tactics
* Artur Yusupov: there are 9 books here. GET THEM!!!

Also, find a friend that is just a bit better than you, and if you don't have a friend that play's chess, sign yourself up in a chess club, and find a player that is a bit better than you. Use this person to play around in different opening positions, and learn from them. It is important to write down your game so you can analyze the positions and where you go wrong. By doing this you will improve.

In a chess club you will possibly find players that you can beat with no problem, but also probably find players that you can't beat. Let's say that you move yourself up to 1450 in rating, now you should find a player around 1550 - 1600. Learn from this person, and slowly you start to get draws and eventually start to win, and at the end beat the player. Use a bit of time in that rating group, and when you feel ready, find a new player at 1650-1700, learn from this player and so on. If you do this seriously you can move yourself up to a rating around 1900-2100 within 1-2 years. Good luck!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Both Silman's books and Nimzo's My System are must reads once you've reached about 1900 and are looking to take your game to the next level.

If you're below 1900 trying to understand positional play is like doing calculus without understanding basic addition and subtraction. Tactics are the fundamentals of chess. Nothing else will make sense without a strong understanding of tactics.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I may be a heretic, but I think planning is over-rated. Textbooks like to give examples where one player exploits control over a weak square to force an endgame that wins after 90 moves. Play through the games from any current GM tournament and count the number of games that go anything like that. My impression is about one in ten at most. The few nice examples get picked out for annotation because they are so "instructive". Often they are between players with significantly different ratings.

The annotated games and the textbooks tend to show you what to do **after your opponent has already made a positional mistake**. A more common situation is "You execute your plan-I execute my plan" and ultimately the decision usually comes because one player overlooks a tactic. Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics, but he is often misunderstood. Sometimes, between strong players, the strategy can almost be taken for granted. It is "obvious" what each player wants to do. The question is can they do it? This is where the "little tactics" typical of Smyslov, Karpov, Kramnik are so important, and their genius consists of integrating the planning with the little tactics. That is what Teichmann was talking about. One without the other does not work very well.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, learning, tactics, training, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Are chess engines detrimental for lower-rated players?
To give some context, I just started playing OTB and am only 1225 USCF. My online chess rating isn't much stronger though, it's about 1650 with standard time controls.

Chess engines are a great tool, but can they be detrimental to the growth of lower-rated players? Sure, it's true that lower-rated players can use engines to spot an overlooked tactic, or to find a not-so-obvious blunder, but what about the subtle moves that chess engines suggest in positional games?

After using Stockfish to analyze a few of my games, I noticed that from time-to-time the engine would suggest moves that didn't make much sense to me. It's hard to give a concrete example from off the top of my head, but I think a lot of lower-rated players can relate. Engines are obviously very strong and it's easy for any player to follow along with an engine's analysis, observe it's suggestions, and think, "oh yeah, I can implement that in my own games." But then when it comes down to crunch time, the player didn't really learn anything at all, and just deceived themselves into thinking they learned something from the engine.

What do you think? Are engines great learning tools for lower-rated players, or does it require a higher level of chess knowledge to truly take advantage of an engine's power?

# Answer
I don't think they are detrimental if they are used properly.

1. There is nothing you're going to learn from Stockfish that's going to make an immediate difference. By studying the analysis you'll start to learn, however.
2. Stockfish plays at GM strength. It's going to suggest moves you'll never find until you're a 2200+ player. Unfortunately I am unaware of a chess engine that plays like a sensible USCF 1650, which is what you need.
3. Stockfish will show you where you could have made better moves. Something that is important to note is that winning moves are there, if you are clever enough to find them. Until the game is hopeless, Stockfish can beat a USCF 1250 regardless of which side of the board it is playing. The moves are there.

Now, while I am a fan of engines, if you want to improve, get an instructor. You don't need a GM - an "A" or "B" player will do. Also, after playing with "A" and "B" players, ask them to help you analyze the game. This gives you reasons, not just answers. And further it will help you learn how to analyze. This is what you'll miss if you rely upon the engine too much - it will give you the answers without helping you understand the answers.
> 7 votes

# Answer
As a mid-1500's rated player, I find tactics trainers (chess problems) more rewarding that playing against engines. I've played at a variety of time controls -- usually with a time bonus for the human -- but every game seems to be a war of attrition: tight positional play fighting for tiny advantages. Then I play other humans who overlook a tactic, or try something risky that doesn't pan out, or any number of "human errors". It's a different kind of game, and one that I find a lot more fun.

I try to play slow games (G/30 or longer) against people, then use engines to analyze them. When a better move is uncovered, it becomes a game of introspection: "Why didn't I choose THAT move? Did I see it? Did I calculate it properly? Was I so set on another plan that I wasn't willing to change?"

A major hurdle I faced was a natural aversion to playing on-line: there are thousands of players on-line at any given time, and the mainstream servers (ICCS, FICS, PlayChess, etc.) are very good at matching skill levels. It may not be as personal as OTB, but (hopefully) you're still playing another human. I still don't play rated games on-line, but for practice purposes its hard to beat.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I disagree with anyone saying engines can't help. Not only can they give you the right answer in any situation but they can show you why your answer was wrong. It's like having the world's strongest player sitting right next to you.

I learned chess by playing against Chessmaster. Because of the way it plays I feel I'm better in the endgame than virtually anyone I play and I feel I'm pretty accurate tactically because engines hold you to that standard. Playing against people makes a person sloppy and prone to play for traps. Playing against both people and engines helps you to improve at the fastest rate.
> 2 votes

# Answer
One use that hasn't been mentioned yet and which I happen to find very helpful is to use the engine for endgame drills. You can set up whatever endgame position strikes your fancy and play it out to see if you can really win those theoretical wins and draw those theoretical draws. If you make a mistake, you can be pretty sure that the engine will notice!

One caveat though is that when the engine can't win, it sometimes makes weird and "inhuman" moves. For example, when I defend a theoretical draw, I've seen the engine blithely give up its pawn or piece leading to an immediate draw by insufficient material. A human might want to keep trying, hoping for an error (depending on the complexity of the ending and the opponent's level), whereas the engine seems to think "all moves evaluate as zero; fuggedaboutit!". Or, in a lost position, the engine might take its king for a run without even trying to defend. Maybe it calculates that it then faces a mate in 12 instead of a mate in 10...
> 1 votes

# Answer
I don't think computer programs are detrimental as long as you realize they are relying mainly on tactics. I don't think the on-line computer programs are skilled at subtle moves. But they can be helpful specifically for tactics training for lower rated players, helping you to become adept at seeing tactical moves. I don't think that playing them at the higher levels is of as much benefit as using lower levels though since they don't make any mistakes in the former whereas in the latter you can get a more human-like game with the possibility of outplaying the program on occasion. At least that's been my experience.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Being a 1500 player myself, I use chess engines to point out tactical shots I missed in my games, so I know what tactics I should be concentrating on. I also like to work on openings with them, in which case I may restart the game in 5 or 10 moves. They have often helped me see holes in my (rather limited) opening knowledge. I don't worry about moves where the evaluation changes only a little bit. I do find it useful for helping me develop a sense of danger, but I don't play many games out because I get depressed losing all the time.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think chess engines are great from learning from at all levels. I know that I have learnt much from them. It is the case that positional games from the top grandmasters can be baffling and for that a chess engine may not be much use and an explanation from a stronger player may be a quicker way to understand. Nevertheless chess engines are great for learning in general.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I don't think a beginner player gets much out of using chess engines. As you note, while a chess engine will give you the best move (or at least something very good), it will not tell you why this is the best move. So unless you have the exact same position on the board (which rarely happens), you will not have learned anything.

Even if you analyze your own games with an engine and it shows you blunders or missed tactics, it is still the task of a human to understand and categorize the tactics (was it a double attack, zwischenzug, just a hanging piece, or...?). In the end you need to store these patterns in your mind. For this I find training tactics puzzles much more efficient. And on some sites, such as chesstempo it would also show you the tactical motifs.

In quiet positions the engine suggestions are often not easy to understand even for GM and also engines by design are not really good at slow maneuvering. Don't worry if you don't understand what they suggest in this case.

For a beginner you should focus on not blundering pieces in one move, avoiding simple tactics (study tactics puzzles) and learn simple strategy. The best way for the latter is to have a stronger player analyze your games and tell you where you went wrong. In addition you can make use of books or watch/read annotations of games.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chess engines are, in my opinion, not suitable for novice players to use for the purpose of learning chess. And the reason for my opinion is very simple: chess engines are not designed to teach chess! If that doesn't suffice as an answer, I will try to explain my views in a more detailed manner below.

Chess engines are designed to be able to evaluate any given position as accurately as possible, and using these evaluations to try and come up with an optimal sequence of moves for both sides should the game progress.

In order to evaluate positions, chess engines assign positions with a numerical value based on things such as material, king safety, etc. But the engine will never explain what positional factors were the most important ones leading to a given score of a position. This is the key as to why any chess player should use engines with caution, and treat the engine with some level of scepticism.

The chess engines are very good at what they are supposed to do; in fact, they are so good at evaluating most positions nowadays that the leading chess engines cannot be beaten by humans. This makes it very difficult to reject the computer's evaluation even if one is not sure why the computer engine evaluates a position in a seemingly strange way, or why it favours a strange-looking high-risk continuation when there are much simpler ways of bringing a game to its logical conclusion.

Here is a typical mistake people tend to make in the type of scenario described above: they just trust the computer, no questions asked, and move on. This way these players will not only learn nothing of substance, but there is an added risk of the players thinking that they actually gained some insight even though they didn't understand a thing!

That last part, about people thinking that they learned something when in fact they didn't, is not an exaggeration. This happens to people all the time in many different setting, and it has to do with how people learn in general.

In academia, the terms "Deep learning" and "Surface learning" are used to describe two very different learning approaches used by students to pass courses:

* Surface learning has to do with trying to pass a course by learning the presented information with minimal effort. This often means that the student will try to memorize facts without a hint of reflection.
* Deep learning has to do with considering the course contents important in some way, which drives the student to make a real effort to learn and understand the contents of a course.

For a more detailed (and in my opinion better) description of these terms, see the first few paragraphs of the following article: Facilitation of Critical Thinking and Deep Cognitive Processing by Structured Discussion Board Activities.

Since surface learning emphasizes on learning facts and definition, but not on actually understanding why something is true or not, it can often leave students with a severely limited ability to apply the facts learned.

In the context of learning chess, surface learning would be regarded as memorizing specific opening variations by heart, or learning positional guidelines such as "a knight on the rim is dim" without concerning oneself with the reasons behind the variations and guidelines. I think that most people would agree that this approach to learning chess would not be very successful in the long run.

Chess is a game heavily dependent on the player's ability to calculate and evaluate positions on-the-fly. There are simply too many positions to memorize, and if your opponent sidesteps any variations you may have memorized you are on your own for the rest of the game. You need to be able to judge when to side with common guidelines and when to deviate from them. And learning to play chess well is connected with cultivating these abilities by trying to understand the moves in certain variations, and why certain guidelines are formulated as they are. This is clearly more in line with the deep learning approach than the surface learning approach.

Tying this back to chess engines: using chess engines to learn chess is dangerous, since it can very easily turn into the player using surface learning approaches to learn chess. The computer only gives a numerical evaluation and optimal variations, which can easily trap the player into thinking something along the lines of "Huh! The computer says that I was winning here, if I just played the given computer line. Instead, after my move, I was losing, if my opponent just had played the given computer line. I'll remember that for next time!" without reflecting much further. The player may have learned something, but will this new knowledge help the player improve their game in any meaningful way?

With all this being said, I still think that chess engines can be used to learn chess. But it requires that the player is careful, and ready to put in a lot of effort. The player should strive to go for a mindset along the lines of "Oh I see Stockfish, you think this position is \_______ huh? You silly goose, I'm going to show you just how wrong you are!" as soon as you're uncertain why the computer evaluates a position the way it does. This way you can try to force the engine to explain itself in some sense, instead of just listening to it blindly. But this is very difficult and time-consuming for a novice player to do, and I believe learning about tactics, making plans etc. is more effective for players relatively new to the game wishing to improve.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Which one is more important between endgame studies and tactics?
One strong player once told me that you can improve quickly if you focus more on endgame studies than on tactics training. His reasoning was that endgame studies use a few pieces to cover most of the chess rudiments including strategy, tactics, imagination, concrete calculation, awareness, visualization, etc. While tactics on the other hand can lead to speculation over calculation.

My question is, can a player improve quickly by focusing more on solving endgame studies and giving tactics less time?

# Answer
Endgame studies are a particular form of tactical problem. I think variety is always good here, but, most importantly, since consistency is critical for improvement at chess, I would suggest you to focus on the type of exercise you enjoy most! (You won't train for too long if it's a sacrifice rather than a pleasure.)

I disagree with the "tactics can lead to speculation" part. Quite the opposite, training tactics is what we do to find concrete realizations of our intuitions/speculations. Of course, this means trying to calculate the entire continuation from the starting position, with all the possible consequences of the moves you are thinking about being considered. But this also applies to solving endgame studies, though!

Finally, I'd say that endgame studies seldom cover relevant strategy, and when they do, it's in a very artificial form. Anyway, if we wanted to improve our chess strategy, why not study chess strategy itself?

In conclusion, I think endgame studies can help you improve your tactical skills, but I'd use them as an additional resource rather than the main focus of your training. Tactical puzzles often have the advantage of being closer to positions you can reach in a real game (you are forced to "remove the noise" and find what's the relevant factor that can lead you to a win.) This does not mean that you should disregard the Master's advice, but rather stick to what's useful from it, so: beware of speculation during your tactical training!
> 7 votes

# Answer
Your question is fairly opinion-based, but I will try to answer in reference to common chess thought:

> "Learn chess backwards"

I don't know who first said it, but I think it is well regarded that one should learn chess starting with the endgame and working back toward the opening.

Simple looking endgames can be incredibly complex and full of nuance; studying them will improve your tactical vision. Once you know a particular endgame situation, you have gained permanent wisdom.

So, endgame study is extremely important! But:

> "Tactics are everything"

If you can calculate like a maniac, you can figure out how to proceed in any phase of the game.

Now, if you get rusty and don't play as sharp, what good was all that tactics training?

Tactics training is like working out your body. The more you do it, the better your baseline fitness. Endgame study is still a workout, just more long-distance running than cross-fit, and it can be easier for adding permanent pattern recognition.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Both are important but I believe tactics are more fundamental. That is, tactics can help to understand certain endgames but endgames aren't really going to help you understand tactics. Sure, there are isolated endgame positions where you might learn a tactical trick but how much of that is applicable to the rest of your game?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, learning, tactics, training, studies
---


# Question
Title: Am I improving my tactical knowledge by explaining solutons to my wife?
I recently started to teach the game to my wife, yay for me :) So now she's somewhat comfortable with how the pieces move and the basic opening principles but as soon as she gets to the middle game she never knows what to do next so I started showing her tactical puzzles, we are doing the book by Fred Reinfeld "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations".

Since she is not experienced once I've set up the position I see the solution and explain to her the tactical weaknesses in order to point her in the direction of the solution. She still needs some time to find it but eventually she gets it.

My question is, since I am not finding the solution by myself it would seem that I am not benefitting from these exercises but since I explain to her in detail that in a particular position there is a weak pawn, or an overload piece or a way to force a pin could this be helping me as well or the only way to improve tactical knowledge is by solving the puzzles, period?

# Answer
Since you are teaching your wife, who's new at chess, these tactics are perhaps a bit too easy for you. They probably won't do much for your standard game.

That said, by explaining the patterns to her and doing a lot of 'easier' tactics, you are definitely helping your blitz/bullet games.

Basically you'll be able to see tactics faster in your games, but your ability to see more complicated tactics is remaining more or less unchanged. To really hone your tactics, you're going to need to improve your ability to calculate deep, and consider several different lines when perhaps the solution isn't as obvious.

Teaching is great for reminding yourself of the basics, but if you want to improve, you're going to need to do more than teach. Find some more difficult tactics for yourself, play some challenging games, study more opening lines, and analyze your shortcomings.

Hope this answers your question.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In my experience, attempting to teach things is a very effective way of learning. There's a difference between understanding things on a high, abstract level and having a deep intuitive sense of what things mean. A lot of people claim to understand things but can't demonstrate it when asked to.

Einstein once said something similar:

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
> 2 votes

# Answer
In general. speaking aloud about tactics indeed improves your tactical knowledge. This phenomenon is also known from other areas of learning, it helps with memorisation.

As Kabir Peshawarla already noted, you will not learn anything new by this method. For that purpose you will have to read books, do excercises or take chess lessons with a teacher.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Novice - Capitalizing on players not knowing their openings?
I am a 1400-rated player currently working on my theory and understanding of openings.

I am good at learning lines, much more so than others at my rating. But I'm less sure on where/how to learn the theory behind my preferred openings (I prefer the London System as White, and the Taimanov Sicilian as Black). Therefore, I don't know how to capitalize when my opponent doesn't know the lines themselves.

For example, I know the main line of the Taimanov Sicilian to the 18th move, as well as how to transpose into several variations along the way depending on White's move. However, what I struggle with is knowing what to do when my opponent plays a move that is not part of any studied line.

To display this, in the Taimanov Sicilian, the standard line is 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 Bb7; if white played a move other than 15. Bc5 (that wasn't an obvious blunder or mistake), I would struggle to know how to continue.

I guess what I'm essentially asking is how and/or where I can learn the theory behind the openings. Every video I've found simply walks through the main lines and standard variations, and Wikipedia articles generally only give one-sentence summaries of the theory behind certain openings (for example, their section on the Taimanov Sicilian reads simply "Black develops the knight to a natural square and keeps his options open regarding the placement of his other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop the king's bishop to b4 or c5."

# Answer
I think your problem comes from the difference between memorizing the opening theory, and understanding it. I suggest you focus more on understanding, why this move is played (both yours and theirs). This way, you can think during the game, why this move could be not optimal and play accordingly. Even if you do not know, how to take advantage of it, you can it least follow the theme of your opening.

To understand the theme of an opening, you can (most of the times) read books about it. The introduction will contain the goals of the opening most of the times. You can also just take a chess board and look for yourself, what the lines of the openings are about.

To understand the reasons behind the moves, just play out different moves, which look natural to you. I recommand not to use an engine at first, and only check afterwards, if you missed something. Do not memorize every line, but rather look for common motives, which appear, e.g. they do not defend a field, so now you can put your knight there which puts pressure on a crucial field. Or they trade DSB, so now they have a weakness on dark squares (if pawns are on light squares), so you can try to capitalize on that.

My personal experience however is, that at your level (and some levels above) gaining minimal advantages through the opening is not so important. A lot of games will be decided by tactics, so remember to constantly look out for them!
> 7 votes

# Answer
Ahh, this is the difference between studying openings, and really learning to play chess. Openings are really fundamentally different pawn structures, so what you are asking to learn are opening pawn structures. Here are the books I recommend to players seeking my advice.

a. “Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. To this day, I still credit THIS SERIES with making me a master.) b. “Pawn Structure Chess” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.) c. “Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “Complete Chess Strategy”.)

P.S. I peaked at 2298 USCF, and I never studied any openings, just how to play structures.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's a simple answer. You've done all you can to avoid understanding how to play in the opening and now you're stuck. With white you play a system opening and with black you memorize lines.

The solution is to get back to basics and understand your opening principles of center, development and king safety. Stop trying to avoid theory and actually learn why you're making these moves.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, strategy, theory, tactics
---


title: Is learning opening theory necessary?

text:
# Question
Title: Is learning opening theory necessary?
I have never studied opening theory. The closest I've gotten was briefly reading about several openings in books, but never memorizing or using any. While I haven't ever played in tournaments I have played strangers at conferences (where they had tables and chess sets out) several times and never done too badly.

All the questions on this site about opening theory have lead me to wonder:

How important is knowing opening theory and what major advantages would I gain my studying opening theory?

# Answer
**How important is knowing opening theory**

Opening theory is basically the idea that there is a certain way a game should start. This assumption is based upon the crazy idea that you do not want to start the game at a positional disadvantage. In order to accomplish doing that, some players will figure out what move set they struggle against, and then look up the "book line" for it. Where would you go to look those up? Well, you could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_chess\_openings , but another good place to look is google or a chess engine if you have access to one. As for google, just search 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 and google will show you the name of the opening, and contain a link to wikipedia for that opening's basic nuances.

To me, knowing opening theory is more than just memorization. I do not know all the names, but I do try to keep track of the relevant sets of moves that are considered to be advantageous for the lines that I play.

**What major advantages would I gain my studying opening theory**

Don't just study opening theory in general. Pick something you like, and study the ins and outs of just that one specific opening. You can move on to another one later if you wish, but do one at a time.

The benefits are numerous. Mostly revolving around the fact that the more of these famous openings you know and are aware of, the more that you will be comfortable transpositioning into them, finding traps, building sturdy pawn structures, and recognizing solid development plans.

Don't wear yourself out trying to learn all of them at first. Pick one that you like, and then go with that. Or pick a player you like, and go with theirs. A couple famous players: Fischer, Kasparov, Tal, etc.
> 8 votes

# Answer
First, let's make a difference between knowing how to play in the opening and opening theory.

You need to know how to play the opening. At first this means you need to know what your goal is in the opening (development, king safety, center control, preventing your opponent from reaching the same) and what that translates to in actual positions. Then you need to have some plan of which openings you want to play, and you must know what the strategic goals of each are, how to play them. Otherwise it's going to be hard to find good moves. After any serious game you should analyze it and figure out what went right and what to do differently next time, and that is true for the opening just as much as for the rest of the game.

On the other hand, *opening theory* is the almost scientific search for a White advantage. It is about specific lines and once it has been demonstrated that black can equalize in a certain line, opening theory stops being interested. Until the day that someone tries a move that hadn't been considered before and that does lead to a White advantage, until Black's answer to it is found... There are mountains of theory and it's impossible to know it all. If you know a lot of it, *and* you get it on the board, *and* it happens to be a line that Black hasn't equalized in yet, you might get an advantage. Which will be useless unless you are strong enough to convert that advantage into a win.

It can be fun to follow opening theory, and if you learn it you can play the first moves like the top GMs do and that is fun, but I don't think knowing a lot of it helps your chess results at all.

For instance, take this position:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.cxd5 exd5

```

Theory is not interested in this position, as it is a version of the QGD Exchange in which Black has it relatively easy, as he will soon be able to play ...Bf5 and equalize. Books on opening theory will tell you that if White wants to play the Exchange Variation, he should play 4.cxd5 and hold back the king's knight for now.

Sadler in his book on the QGD however notes that it is extremely important to understand positions like this really well, because he used to be beaten in these equal positions as Black again and again "as a young IM". Understanding normal positions is the key to understanding an opening. But they're not interesting to theory.

Let's follow Magnus Carlsen. He played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 a few days ago, the Ponziani. It is generally ignored by theory since Black has many ways to equalize. Then he just played chess, and eventually beat the #5 in the world. That's a lot of hours of studying theory saved.

Work to understand the normal positions in your chosen openings, by playing through instructive games, playing them and analyzing them a lot. Don't memorize theory.
> 20 votes

# Answer
<sub>As stated in the “how to learn them” question : </sub>

> I don't hold a very high opinion of opening theory, and tend to advise¹ most people to **care a lot less about it**, and rather improve their actual thinking and play. If you get a decent enough position out of your opening, *then* the fun begins (and that's where it incredibly helps to understand what theory got you into, what you're playing for, and what you should keep an eye on, etc.)

**It is not very important**, at least before you reach *very* decent a level (I'd say around 2100 Elo, ymmv.)

Playing through your favorite openings, you'll learn them on the way. Once in a while, your no-knowledge will make you fall into a trap you won't fall in twice, or give you not so good a position because of a particular line or move order you weren't aware of, but altogether, development ideas and patterns, piece activity, and strategic principles as a whole will go a long way.

Supposedly, while you're not studying opening theory², you can still learn something else improving your game ? (**I strongly suggest reviewing your games and learning from your mistakes.**) That will do a lot better.

---

¹ Of course, this is only meant to hold for people my advice is worth something for. I'm sure it doesn't apply anymore past some level, but then, people tend to ask these questions less, unsurprisingly.

² In fact, I strongly suspect opening theory is so much studied because it's so *easy* to study³. Strategic principles you're forgetting or misunderstanding, *judgement*, and tactics are a lot harder to “study”. But a lot more important nevertheless.

³ Just learn lines and lines by heart, “*they're* theory, *that can't possibly be wrong !*” Only if you don't know what to do with the supposedly better position your book leads you into, the whole process is quite pointless don't you think ?
> 10 votes

# Answer
Once you get beyond a certain point, you'll suffer from the time lost considering opening moves that people otherwise at your level have memorized, along with the implications for the future positions. Before you get to that point, it doesn't really matter--practicing tactics is far more important (if you want something to practice). Just my opinion.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Learning opening theory as practiced by leading grandmasters is *not* necessary. What is necessary however is developing your own opening repertoire, whether those openings are in vogue or not. You don't need to read books to do this: just play the same openings consistently. Soon you will learn which openings lead to positions you like, and which don't, and based on this you can hone your repertoire.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In my opinion, learning opening theory becomes important if you want to get a high Elo rating (2100+). Indeed, when you play against a strong opponent who knows opening theory, you risk falling into the traps you don't know or memorize (and just lose the game).

I think that even Magnus Carlsen (who is a genius) needs to learn opening theory because he plays chess against players who know opening theory.

But I don't think you need to learn theory in all openings; you can concentrate efforts on two openings (one for white and one for black) you prefer to become a strong player with.
> 4 votes

# Answer
worth learning theory - by that, I mean general principles in the opening. Understanding what you are doing and why. Not theory as in memorising book, in my view, for most players.

Instead - learn tactics and endings, first and foremost. And middlegame positional ideas. And pawn structure / pawn power.

The problem with learning book is this:

* you think you are stealing a march on games, but really you're not.
* it is a *Very* inefficient way to get better, as it takes ages, and
subject to change and fashion. (People might not ever play these
lines in future!)
* tactics and endings knowledge can also be much more decisive than
some opening where you get a 0.2 eval advantage. Which is pointless
if you then do not know how to play the position. Which you won't -
as you don't know why you played into it.

General principles will inform how to play the opening, and ward off needless breaking of these principles. But still break them sometimes, it is more fun and adds to the artistic experience. Also useful for psychological expediency, of course.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You can get to about 2000 with no knowledge of theory at all and probably about 2300 with very limited knowledge as long as you have a firm grasp of opening principles and are strong in the other areas of your game. .

Above 2300 the game is much different. Your opponents aren't going to make many mistakes very often so the advantage out of the opening (or lack thereof) will determine the game to a large extent.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, study
---


# Question
Title: Why do masters open 1.d4 more often than 1.c4?
Why do masters open 1.d4 more often than they open with the English 1.c4?

**STATISTICS**

According to 365chess.com, 1.d4 is five times as common. Moreover, even if one admits Réti's 1.Nf3 as an English variant (or *vice versa*), counting Réti and the English together as a single opening family, 1.d4 remains twice as common.

According to the aforementioned source, in master play, White scores slightly better (though indeed almost exactly the same) with 1.c4 as with 1.d4. Réti's 1.Nf3 fares slightly worse.

**MOTIVE**

I ask because, in my own games, the English opening wins for White more than 1.d4 does. That is, I win more with 1.c4 as White and, as Black, probably lose more when 1.c4 is played against me. My strength being a little below FIDE 1300, my games would hardly interest you, so I will refrain from burdening the question with patzer's samples of my own play. However, if the statistics are credited, masters perceive comparative virtues in 1.d4 I do not yet see; whereas, from my limited perspective, 1.c4 just *looks* like the better move insofar as it leaves Black with three main options that all seem slightly weak:

* Black can let White play a reversed Sicilian, granting an extra tempo to the reversed Sicilian queenside attack;
* Black can transpose to a Queen's Gambit Declined or a Slav, only with fewer options for Black; or
* Black can symmetrically play 1...c5, allowing White the advantages symmetrical openings generally bring.

A fourth option occurs:

* Black can respond to 1.c4 by playing one of the Indian systems. This seems no weaker than playing Indian against 1.d4 but, as far as I can see, seems no stronger, either.

I can see that 1.d4 is not a bad move, but isn't 1.c4 just a better one?

**A GRANDMASTER'S OPINION**

Paul van der Sterren, a grandmaster, writes that 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 "betray a rather more moderate attitude \[than does 1.d4\]. While not as yet physically occupying any central squares, White does start taking control over them. White prepares for a fight in the center but does not want to be the one to take the first step."

Van der Sterren writes as though the factors he mentions might be disadvantages. Are they disadvantages, though? And how moderate is 1.c4, really? In my limited experience, 1.c4 *seems* fairly aggressive in actual play—more aggressive than the Ruy Lopez, for example, at least in games I play.

Of course, the grandmaster will be right and the patzer (me) must be wrong, but for what reason?

Indeed, why *do* masters open 1.d4 more often than 1.c4?

# Answer
This has nothing to do with 1.d4 being an objectively better move than 1.c4. The moves are just about as good as one another, and sometimes even transpose as you've noted.

But 1.d4 was historically considered to be one of the two best opening moves (together with 1.e4) for a very long time, and it is more in line with the basic opening principles that beginners are typically taught.

So I'd reckon that it comes down to more players being introduced to 1.d4 early on in their chess career than 1.c4, coupled with the fact that old habits die hard (even for chessplayers).

However, one point that speaks in favour for 1.d4 over 1.c4 is that 1.d4 hinders black from playing 1...e5. You've noted that 1.c4, e5 is a reverse Sicilian, but I think that it is important to remember that the Sicilian is an opening that Black chooses to enter. In the opening Black is fighting for equality, and this is the case for the Sicilian as well, so saying that 1.c4, e5 is an improved version of it for White is basically just another way of saying that White is fighting for an advantage when playing it. But this is just what you'd expect from any good opening for White.

I'd go so far as to say that this way of arguing for a move is a fallacy in some sense, since it could be used to try and justify almost any first move for White as the best one (for instance, 1.Nf3 must be very strong since 1.Nf3, d5 is a reverse Nimzo/King's/Queen's/Bogo/whatever Indian defence and thus comes with an extra tempo as compared with the normal Indian defences, which are considered to be good for black). I'm almost tempted to name this way of reasoning "The Reverse Sicilian Fallacy" for future use, since I've seen it more than once when commentators try to describe the virtues of 1.c4.
> 13 votes

# Answer
One reason that the English openings (either starting with 1. c4 or 1. Nf3) work well at the lower levels is that players are unfamiliar with how to play against it. Most people are taught how to play against 1.e4 and 1.d4, but less attention is focused on teaching people to play against 1.c4.

At the grandmaster level, all GMs knows how to play against the English. Thus, it loses almost all the surprise value that it had at the amateur level.

Also, even though 1.c4 may score slightly better in master games, remember that you noted there are 5 times as many games in 1.d4. Thus, the statistics of 1.c4 are less reliable. If 1.c4 had as many games as 1.d4, I would guess 1.d4 scores slightly better.

The English is not at all a bad opening, and for some players it suits their style much more. On principle though, 1.c4 doesn't control the center as much, while 1.d4 and 1.e4 do. This allows Black to play 1...e5! and theory says Black is fine. While this is a reversed sicilian, remember that the player playing the sicilian must fight for equality! A tempo up is great, but does it turn "fighting for equality" into an advantage? The answer to this depends on the type of player you are.

Stick to playing the English if it works better for you. The average global statistics of a move don't matter much... what matters is what are *you* most comfortable playing?
> 10 votes

# Answer
Not an answer, but I thought I could share my experience.

I am no expert but do play 1.d4 almost exclusively. The reason I avoid 1.c4 is 1.... e5.

Ok, it is reverse Sicilian with White a tempo up. But, that tempo up will be decisive factor only if Black, naively, enters sharp variations of the (reverse) Sicilian. For example, imagine game proceeding to a reverse dragon, then White being a tempo will mate first!!

However, remember that there are positional variations of the Sicilian that the 1.e4 side can opt for. Thus, Black aiming for such a set-up is just fine.

Another reason I won't play 1.c4 is that after 1.... c5 I will have to give up my (beloved) d4 pawn if I am going to push it two moves, to a flank pawn of Black's.
> 4 votes

# Answer
At face value, D4 just looks like the better move.

Compare all the move options after 1) c4 vs 1) d4.

1) d4 allows the Queen extra movement (2 spaces) and the c4 pawn is protected (the queen can attack back on c4 if black takes it) for an additional space. The bishop also gains 5 additional move possibilities.

1) c4, in contrast, adds many fewer move possibilities. The bishop has no additional range and the queen has equal additional range.

Furthermore, the added quality is greater for the d4 move. Squares closer to the center are more important than squares to the sides and d4 attacks squares closer to the center than c4 does (d5/c5 vs d4/b4).

1) c4 looks, on paper, like you are giving up win percentage for no compensation, really (assuming that more move possibilities and better center control result in an increased win %).

Traditionally, 1) e4 and 1) d4 are the most common moves because they are on paper the best possible options. They are close to the same in power level as each other, with the advantage of e4 being more movement and the advantage of d4 being a more protected position.

The other moves on the board typically are played less often because they are just strictly worse in terms of move possibilities added and safety.

One of the few advantages to be had from playing something other than d4 and e4 is that you might somehow surprise the opponent by maneuvering them into some opening you know better than they do.

I would assume that everyone who plays 1) c4 probably does it for one of these reasons:

1) They believe they are a better enough player that they can win even while doing strictly worse moves

OR

2) They believe they can trick the opponent into playing something they aren't prepared to play

OR

3) They believe that they are a worse enough player that they have no chance to win while doing the best possible moves and they are just trying to increase general randomness, a thing that generally helps the underdog.
> 0 votes

# Answer
1.d4 grabs control of the center while 1.c4, e5 leaves black at least equal and maybe slightly better. From a purely objective standpoint it is all about control of the center. If we played a game between two perfect engines d4 would be the better move.

However 1.c4 does have a lot of practical advantages. There are lots of transpositional possibilities and white may be able to force the game into lines where he is more familiar.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Is the English opening the most suitable for beginners?
Here are my understandings of the English opening:

1. The English opening is as good as 1.d4.
2. Since it is less common than 1.e4 and 1.d4; it is more likely that an average amateur player is less familar with it and thus it is easier for white to play against an amateur player using the English opening.
3. There are less lines than say 1. e4. When white plays 1. e4, he needs to be familiar with 1. ... e5, the Sicilian Defense, the Scandinavian Defense, the Caro-Kann Defense, the French Defense etc. On the other hand, when white plays the English, he almost always knows where each piece goes to, regardless of how black replies (except for some rare and dubious lines, such as 1. ... d5). For example, after the 8th move, the following two formations for white are natural and common:

4. It is lessly that white will fall into a surprising trap.

Do these factors make the English opening ideal for beginners?

**Edit**

According to GM Simon Willams, he played English exclusively from the age of 6 to 18 and it got him from a child to an international master.

# Answer
> Do these factors make the English opening ideal for beginners?

No. As a beginner it is OK to study the English along with other openings but what you seem to be suggesting, that it be the only white opening a beginner learns, is very bad.

By definition a beginner doesn't know very much about chess and to progress needs to learn much. In openings the standard approach, therefore, is to learn the classics: Ruy Lopez, Italian, Kings Gambit, 4 Knights, Scotch, Sicilian, French, Caro Kann.

You notice these are all e4 openings and the list starts with the reply e5 by black before moving on to other replies. A beginner needs to start by learning about control of the centre in the most direct way. He needs to learn about the importance of development and then tactics.

Some chess teachers would start by teaching the Kings Gambit for this reason. Chess needs to be fun and tactics are fun and most games end because of some missed tactic by the opponent. If you only ever learn how to play calm positions then you will lose all your games where your opponent manages to make the game tactical.

You also seem to suggest a formulaic way of playing the opening. Play more or less the same moves in the English and you will end up in one of two tabiyas which you give. This is also very wrong. One of the key skills a beginner needs to develop is to always consider the ideas and aims of his opponent's moves. Just playing automatic moves will lead to many quick defeats.

There are many ways for black to respond and they give rise to different problems for white which can't be addressed by just playing more or less the same moves. The opening theorist IM John Watson actually wrote 4 separate books on the English because of this. He wrote one book each for black's responses: 1 ... e5, 1 ... c5, 1 ... Nf6 and a catch-all "other replies".

So, no, the English is close to being the least suitable opening for beginners. Better than the Grob, obviously, also better than Bird's, but a long way behind 1. d4 and even further behind 1. e4 openings.
> 14 votes

# Answer
In the competitive sense of surprising your opponent it does have its advantages for beginners. However, a few things:

1) A surprise in the English isn't as valuable as a surprise in one of the 1.e4 openings. The reason is that the English is quieter and it's harder for White to tactically profit off of small mistakes on Black's part.

2) The English structure may be non-intuitive for a beginner at first, so could require more work to learn.

Also, it's important to consider how playing the English will affect the beginner's chess progress in the long-term. If the beginning instead played 1.e4 he would become acquainted with a wealth of common openings integral of chess. This would benefit his foundation, as well as be helpful when playing as *Black* against 1.e4 (which is more common than the English).
> 7 votes

# Answer
The English opening is pretty bad as a choice for beginners.

For one, the things beginners need to learn (center, development, king safety) are less important in a positional opening like this and it will lead to lagging weaknesses that you don't understand.

For another the English is extremely complex both because of transpositions and positional understanding. I think all of that time could be spent on getting better.

Lastly, you need to learn to play actively to improve. Beginners tend towards defensive openings but that's the exact opposite of what you should be doing.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, beginner, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Usefullness of analysing ones own games with an engine
There are different opinions on analysing your games with an engine. Some say you shouldn't use an engine at all, and others say you can use it, but you should do your own analysis first. Most say that you shouldn't use the engine without a manual analysis first.

But what can you learn from an engine analysis? They can point out tactical mistakes, but if the mistakes imply you must correctly play a long variation, and you don't manage this, the whole variation fails. But of course, often the mistakes are easy to see. But I have started to ask myself, how valuable is this at pointing out tactical mistakes? Often I can find the easy mistakes by myself, and the hard ones are probably above my understanding.

Maybe the engine is more useful for endgame? But even so, it can be hard to understand the engine moves.

For the opening I think an opening-db or opening books are much better then the engine.

The best option is to probably analyse games with a stronger player/coach, but I do not have that option. You can also try to get help from players on sites, asking for help with analysis. I have tried this on chess.com several times, but I have gotten very few answers. I am trying Chess Stack Exchange to see if I get more responses.

I found this article that has lots of good advice.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I guess a lot of it depends on how strong you are. I understand what I am trying for in my games, but that does not always mean that I am efficient in achieving the aim. Sometimes, the computer shows me a good line quickly. In addition, I am human, and short of being Carlsen, and even he misses things, the computers is great for pointing out what you miss, but not really great teachers. If you are rated 1000, and have little positional understanding, then it is really not going to teach you much beyond any forcing lines you missed, so I would not spend a great deal of time with it.

Personally, I do not spend a lot of time analyzing with a computer, and in fact, just a few minutes per game, more as a blunder-check to show me obvious things that I missed.

I do not think that they are great for positional lines as what looks good to a human is often not what the computer suggests. In concrete, forcing lines, they are the best. Again, you can look at Carlsen since he often does not play the optimum move per the computer (although he does more than any other human still), but he clearly has a concrete plan in mind in most cases.

The days of computers playing endgames poorly is long gone, even if you can find exceptions here or there...especially with tablebases, which play endgames with less than 6 or 7 pieces perfectly. That said, sometimes, their hidden resources are very deep and are very specific to the position, so they do not help you gain any long-term knowledge. I cannot find the game again, but just the other day, a GM could have saved a draw in a rook endgame with Rd3 instead of the natural Ra3 (maybe b3). There was a peculiarity way down the road that no human would be expected to see, so he missed it. The odds of that coming up again are minimal, and certainly even less if you are an average player. Sure, it is interesting to look at, and to get the "truth", but how helpful that is in the long run is debatable.

The best way that computers can help in the endgame is if you have previously studied some aspect of the endgame, and you feed the computer a similar position, and play against it.

# Answer
> 5 votes
First of all it kind of depends on your playing strength, but every player can benefit at least a bit from an engine.

Personally I use the engine for the following analysis:

* Opening preperation: I play out different variations of my opening with the engine running. I do this so I dont miss any critical good moves of my opponents. For myself I dont necessarily chose the best engine move, but the move I think fits my style the best. At the end I check if I like the position and what the engine says of it. I dont care about +- 0.2, as long as I feel the position is good for me.
* Open issue control: If I play 10+0 or 15+15 online, I dont analyze every game by hand afterwards. But I will go for a quick engine run and check, what kind of mistakes I made (if there are any). This way, I get a overview about my typical mistakes and know where I can improve. I also check, if I followed my prepared opening ideas (if present) and how the position developed.
* For club games, I will always first analyze them by hand. The time spent depends a lot about the position and how many ideas I find which are worth analyzing (or ideas I had in the game but could not calculate due to time). Of course I will analyze my mistakes I spot myself. Afterwards I will run the engine and check if I missed any mistakes. In addition I will play out some lines of the engine which I find intresting. Afterwards I think about, wheither I could have spotted it during the game and if it was something I could play myself, regarding the resulting position.

In general, I think an engine gives you intresting insights, but you should always remember, that you dont have to be able to play like the engine. So the engine will find some lines, which you should dismiss, because they are too hard for you.

For additional benefit, you can use a book to improve. I will sit down with a chess book go over some content and later on use the engine to double check the ideas I learned in the book.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've done it both ways (computer first, and human first) and I think you can learn either way. The important step is "human last," meaning the human needs to go over the computer's analysis to be sure they understand it, because that's where a lot of the learning occurs.

If I'm going to start with myself analysing, then I will play through it, trying to get a feel for when the game turned on me (assuming it was a loss, I find most of my problems with losing games comes from not recognizing those potential "turning points" in the game until the chance has passed). If I missed a tactical shot, I'll ask myself why I didn't see it; maybe that answer will point to a flaw in my approach to analysing a position.

Then, when that's done (or when I start with the computer) I'll let the computer loose on the position, probably overnight. At every point where the computer and player disagreed, I'll try to understand what the point of dispute is. Possibly it's something, possibly it's just a matter of taste. (IOW, maybe the player's choice differs from the computer's only in the path, not the result; the simplest example is a difference between a forced 8-move checkmate and the forced 5-move checkmate the computer saw. Same result, different path to it.) The important part of this phase is I arrive at some understanding of the computer's point.

Maybe it *is* that the computer sees this long variation; if it's the kind of variation only a computer can play well, I take that as a sign I don't want to go down that path, and I should look for a clearer course.

It's always possible I don't end up understanding every point the computer has. Or, even more probable, I misunderstand it, drawing the wrong conclusion. I know that happens, and I'm sure I carry in my head many examples of that of which I'm currently not aware. That's called "being human" -- all I can expect is those misunderstandings will be cleared up at some future point in my study.

But the point is in trying to understand them. From that effort comes the fertilizer that enables your chess understanding to grow and prosper.

I prefer to start doing the analysis on my own, these days, and only start with the computer when I don't have time. But you can make your own choice which way to start, I think either works well.

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


title: Why is h4 a good move here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is h4 a good move here?
```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5 3. e3 Qb6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. exd4 Qxb2 6. Nb5 Na6 7. a3 Nd5                  8. Bc4 { I'm aware this was a blunder because of Nc3, but fortunately they didn't see it} 8... Nxf4 9. Rb1 Qxb1 10. Qxb1 Nxg2+ 11. Kf1 Nf4 12. Qc1 Ng6 13. Qe3 e6 14. Nf3 b6 15. Qe4 { This was the big mistake.} 15... Rb8 16. Nxa7 Bb7 17. Qe3 Bd6 18. Nb5 Bf4 19. Qc3 { This was another blunder, I had some hopes of creating discoveries against g7, but it ended up walking into a pin next move and the tactics worked against me because of it} 19... Rc8 20. Ne5 O-O 21. Nxd7 Bxh1 22. Nxf8 Nxf8 23. f3 { I had calculated this as trapping his bishop a few moves prior, not realising they had Bxh2... doh} 23... Bxh2 24. Qd3 Ng6 25.Nc3 Nf4 26. Qe4 Bg2+ 27. Kf2 Nc7 28. Bd3 f5 29. Qb7 Rd8 30. Qxb6 Bh3 31. Nb5 Nfd5 32. Qc6 Bf4 33. Nxc7 Nxc7 34. Bc4 Kf7 35. a4 Rxd4 36. Bb3 Rd2+ 37. Ke1 Rh2 38. Qd7+ Kg6 39. Bxe6 Rh1+ 40. Ke2 Rh2+ 41. Ke1 Bg3+ 42. Kd1 Rh1+ 43. Ke2 Bf1+ 44. Ke3 f4+ 45. Ke4 Nxe6 46. Qxe6+ Kh5 47. Qf5+ Kh6 48. Qe6+ g6 49. Qf6 Bh3 50.Qf8+ Kh5 51. Qg7 Bf5+ 52. Ke5 Re1+ 53. Kf6 Bh4+ 54. Kf7 Re7+ 55. Kg8 Be6+ 56.Kxh7 Rxg7+ 57. Kxg7 g5 58. a5 Bd5 59. a6 Bxf3 60. a7 Ba8 61. c4 f3 62. c5 f2 63. c6 Bxc6 64. Kf6 f1=Q+ 65. Ke5 Ba8 0-1

```

I've been trying to break 1700 on rapid for a while now. I just played this game where I was winning, but threw my advantage away on move 15. 15. Qe4 was the big mistake. I was winning up until then. I played it quickly as it just felt natural, stopping his bishop from fianchettoing. I knew that he had very little moves. He can't move the knight on a6, the knight on g6 can only go to e2, he can only move the dark-squared bishop to e2 and can't move the light-squared bishop. I assumed I could just take the a7 pawn when he moved his rook (I couldn't obviously), but after looking at it I understand why, as it develops his dark-squared. The thing is that the computer gives h4 as the best move here, and I don't really know why. I'm assuming it's to try and creates weaknesses on the kingside, but how are you supposed to know when to do that, and why is it better?

# Answer
> 6 votes
First, I assume that you mean 15.h4 (not h5).

If so, the main reason is that a lot of master-level chess is restricting your opponent's pieces, or in this case, even driving them back. The Ng6 has no good squares, and h5 driving to to a worse square is threatened. If 15...Be7; 16.h5 Nf8, and not only has the Ng6 been driven back, and still has no good squares, but now the Rh8 is doing nothing, and white may get a direct attack against the Ke8, which is stuck in the middle. A specific line is 15.h4 Be7; 16.h5 Nf8; 17.Rg1 g6; 18.Ng5 with the threat of Qf3 hitting f7 and the Ra8. If Bg5 then the dark squares are critically weak.

That leaves only 15.h4 h5, but then 16.Rg1 Bb7; 17.Bd3 already has critical threats since black's king is not going to have anywhere safe to hide, and if the N retreats, we are back to similar ideas as above (Nf7 and the Rh8 problems).

As far as how you know when to do this, there is no hard-and-fast rule, but in this case, you have to realize that the pieces can be restricted, which is pure analytical work.

P.S. Let me also reference chapter 7 from the book "Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov" (beware of this book in that the title in Russian is "Plan and Evaluation", and the book really is not really much about planning). The title of chapter 7 is: "The most important law of chess". That "law" is: "**Restricting the mobility of your opponent’s pieces (and in association with this: domination by your own) – is the most important law of chess.**"

That is the primary thing that is going on with 15.h4. In conjunction with that is the weak K, and the fact that the Ke8, in essence, divides the board k-side and q-side, and prevents pieces from helping out the other side.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: How can you castle legally in Chess960 when the castling rook is on the king's destination square?
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 4.4 If a player having the move:
> 4.4.1 touches his king and a rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so
> 4.4.2 **deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move** and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3.1

Yesterday in the semi-finals of the Chess960 World Championships in the following position Nepomniatchi tried to castle kingside by first picking up his rook to move it off the king's destination square (g1) to f1, the rook's destination square and then moving the king to g1.

The arbiter ruled in accordance with 4.4.2 that he was not allowed to castle kingside and the king must stay on e1 and he got a bad position. Later, after an appeal, this was overruled and they replayed the game.

```
 [title "Neponiatchi - So, 2019 Chess960 1/2 final"]
 [fen "2nr1r1k/pb1n1pqp/1p2p1p1/1N1pN3/5P2/1P4P1/P2PPQ1P/2R1K1RB w - - 0 1"]

```

Jonathan Tisdall, on Twitter, reported that:

> According to organizer Jøran Aulin-Jansson, the rook being on g1, the king destination, caused enough confusion to overturn the strict ruling

This raises the question: **In such situations how can the player legally castle on the side where the rook starts on the king's destination square?**

One humorous, though impractical at short time limits, solution was suggested here.

Even more impractical was MrDodgy's suggestion:

> A true pro would pick up the rook from g1, toss it up in the air, slide the king to g1 and the rook would land dead centre of f1. Press the clock, lean back in chair. Flex.

Still illegal.

# Answer
> 19 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess actually cover this with a recommendation without mentioning the problem.

> II.3.2.5.1 When castling on a physical board with a human player, it is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next to his final position, the rook then be moved from its starting position to its final position, and then the king be placed on his final square

The first time I read this I though "What a daft thing to suggest? Who is going to do that?" but now I see the point.

The FIDE Laws of Chess go on to state:

> II.3.2.7 Notes
> II.3.2.7.1 To avoid any misunderstanding, it may be useful to state "I am about to castle" before castling.

Suppose Nepomniatchi had read that before and said those words before castling, would the arbiter have allowed him to castle the way he did?

So, it looks like this was thought of when the rules were written and they were written accordingly.

For practical play there is a simpler solution. According to 4.4.1 touching the king then the rook must be followed by castling. In cases where either the rook is on the king's square or the king is on the king's square just touch king then rook and then make the move. This solves all the associated problems.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Touch your king, then your rook. By rule 4.4.1, you are now required to castle. You can now move the king and rook to their proper squares however you like, since you are already forced into a specific move and any subsequent piece touches can't change that.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I saw this in the chess news on a couple of sites, and it seems pretty simple to me. Pick up the K, and move it to g1, simultaneously pushing the rook off the g1 square. Then move the rook to its proper square.

In any case, you should pick up the K first, and then if you also want to pick up the rook, grab it second, and move them simultaneously. Either way, you are in compliance.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are two problematic cases in Chess960 castling:

```
(1) rook starts on king’s destination square.
(2) king starts on king’s destination square.

```

It is not beyond the wit of man for the FIDE Laws to handle those cases explicitly. Maybe a future version of the rules will do so.

However the most important FIDE rule here is:

> Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

It must be difficult to rule in the excitement of such a situation. But had not GM So generously agreed to draw the game, the ruling could have effectively terminated the semi-final. The moral for players is to remain calm, and exercise opportunities for appeal.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Stian Yttervik made a comment that I think deserves to be expanded into a full answer. (I have changed the wording somewhat. That is not Stians fault)

Just pretend that the King is capturing the Rook.

In other words: Move the King first. Use the King to gently push the Rook off-center and firmly place the King where it should be. Then move the Rook where it should be. Hit the clock.

---
Tags: rules, castling, chess960
---


title: Knight promotion percentages

text:
# Question
Title: Knight promotion percentages
Knight promotion is the second most common promotion. Most of the time it is to give an otherwise undeliverable check. But it doesn’t always come with check. Statistically speaking, what percentage of knight promotions come with check and percentage doesn’t come with check?

# Answer
ChessBase allows you to search for positions with promotions to each piece, with or without check. In the Mega 2019 database, there are 8,266,473 games.

In those games, there are 486,622 promotions to queen; 7,223 promotions to knight; 1,486 promotions to bishop; and 9,606 promotions to rook. Of the 7,223 promotions to knight, 5,733 came with check, or 79.3%. Bonus: Of the 5,733 knight promotions with check, 106 were mate on the move.

Of course, Mega does not have every game, but this can give you a pretty close idea.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: statistics, knights, pawn-promotion, check
---


# Question
Title: How do they determine the starting position for Fisher Random / Chess 960?
I am watching the Fischer Random World Championship with Magnus Carlsen and Wesley So, and I am wondering how they determine the starting position?

Is it software that picks, or do they start left to right, and pull pieces out of a bag? Or is it some other way?

# Answer
> 5 votes
8.4.3. Drawing of positions

● Set up of the pieces will be decided by a drawing made by Fischer Random Generator software with all players present 15 minutes before the start of the first game of each time control. This setup then will be used for both games. The players will attend this drawing, and will then be given time before the start of play to confer with a second.

Found in the download here: https://www.frchess.com/regulations

Interestingly, if the classical position is picked then they pick again.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Many professional-grade chess clocks are capable of randomly choosing a valid Chess960 starting position and describing it to the players. I suspect that in many tournaments, this is how it's done.

It is also possible to choose the position using other sources of randomness, such as rolling dice. Standard gaming dice sets include not only 6-sided cube dice (known as d6), but 8-sided, 10-sided, 12-sided, 20-sided, and 4-sided types as well.

A Chess960 position can be fairly chosen using 2d4 of contrasting colours (to choose the positions of the bishops), a d6 (to place the Queen on the remaining squares), and a d10 (to place the knights). The rooks and king are placed on the three remaining squares, with the king in the middle. This procedure also corresponds to the method of deriving a position from a position ID outlined here.

---
Tags: chess960
---


# Question
Title: Playing against the 2...c5 systems in the Kings Indian Attack against the French
```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 { Shockingly, I did not play 1.a3} 1... e6 2. d3 c5

```

This can still transpose into the main line with 3...d5. But I played a game with this yesterday, and my opponent played Nc6, d6, g6, Bg7, Nge7, e5, h6, O-O and eventually built up towards playing f5 (not in that order though). I'm assuming that that was theory, since he blitzed it out pretty quickly and got a slight advantage. I’m wondering if anyone knows how to play against it. Does anyone know how play against it?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I will try to give a few ideas based on the limited information, and trying to follow some common sense regarding development and the moves your opponent played.

```
    [FEN ""]
 1. e4 e6 2. d3 c5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 (4. Be2 g6 {4...d5!} 5. O-O Bg7 6. c3 Nge7 7. Be3 d6 8. d4) 4... g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7. c3 d6 8. Re1 e5 9. a3 O-O 10. b4 a6 11. Be3 b6 12. Nbd2 h6 13. Rb1 Be6 14. Qc2 *

```

I am not a big fan of the King's Indian Attack. Frankly, your opponent's response, which I like a lot, with an early g6 tends to really blunt the main k-side attacking premise that makes this opening fun for white sometimes, and thus, the main reason to play it. The other thing is that in this c5 variation, black always can go for the normal Sicilian "equalizing" move, d5 with little trouble.

The fact is that your second move cedes space to black from a very early stage, so it is hard to believe that you will be able to gain an advantage out of the opening. You might want to hide your intentions a little more too with 2.Nf3, 3.g3, and only then, play d3 before showing your hand. He might not play a line with g6.

As to what to do, because g6 really makes it hard to attack his king as in the main lines, the line I gave sets you up to play the re1 to d1 and the ra1 to b1 and eventually to play bc. If he opens the b-file, you will try to play on it, and you are probably better placed to use it, or if he opens the d-file, you can play for d4. If you really do not have play on the k-side, you have to look at the center and q-side.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to combine CPU and GPU engines to use the other's principal variation?
This is a speculative question since I don't know if such an engine is even plausible.

The idea: we'll start Stockfish and Leela at the same time using both my CPU and GPU. Within a fraction of a second, both engines will output principal variations. Then we use the other engine's principal variations to influence our search. For example, suppose Stockfish wants to play 1. e4 and Leela wants to play 1. d4. Using this, we move 1. e4 up Leela's move ordering, and do the same for 1. d4 and Stockfish.

In other words, both engines use the other engines' principal variation to influence their search, such that both engines is preferentially searching the other engine's principal variation. Then, combine the results from both engines, e.g. if the engines agree then play the move, and apply other heuristics if they don't. The idea seems straightforward to extend if the principal variations are the same up to 5 moves ahead, etc, and it also sounds obvious that it should produce a stronger engine.

This kind of engine would still be reliant on Leela and Stockfish individually, but be able to take advantage of both CPU and GPU resources. As far as I know there's no engine that does this (GPU engines already use some CPU power, but it's small; CPU engines don't use the GPU at all). So: does this idea work? If so, has anyone tried it? If not, why not?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This seems to be somehow LeelaFish's approach:

https://github.com/killerducky/lc0/wiki/LeelaFish

More about it here (and probably on more posts in the same forum):

http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=70803&start=10

# Answer
> 2 votes
Part of this can be accomplished with Chessbase GUI. There is an option called cloud analysis. It is thougt to use engines in the cloud additional to your own engine. It ever could be used with two local engines, one determining the 1-n main variants, the other to evaluate the variants. A third engine could make proposals for answers to the main moves and so on.

With brute force engines like Stockfish, each engine needs CPU threads and RAM for caching. Loading more than one engine would reduce the rating of each of them. I haven’t tried, but it might be that you can run Leela and p.e. Stockfish in this scenario without reducing performance.

One of the engine would use the proposals of the other, but not the other way. So it is only a partial answer to your question.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, leela
---


# Question
Title: Scid vs PC: how to visualize engine line on the board?
I've installed scid yesterday and was wondering how to visualize an engine line on the board.

My approach is the following: setting up a position on the board by clickng "**Game**" -\> "**New Game**", then starting the engine and stoping it after some time.

At "**Analysis**" window you can see variations that the engine came up with. How can I visualize some of these variations? I've tired clicking on "**Add variation**" as well as "**Add variations**" but nothing happened. If I click on "**Add move**" only one move is added (which is logical, haha, bud doesn't give me any clue on how to use this feature).

# Answer
> 1 votes
You need to bring up the separate "Analysis board" by clicking on the icon in the strip

---
Tags: scid
---


title: Import and export of PGN

text:
# Question
Title: Import and export of PGN
How do I perform the following related things?

* Export/import PGN of games from Droidfish.
* Import my games to Chess.com

I found an option to export my games from Chess.com (**Share PGN**) but I couldn't find any options for the rest of them.

# Answer
This is the link for chess.com import pgn (as text)

You should do the following:

Copy the content of the PGN file into clipboard

1. Open your PGN file in your favorite editor (e.g. notepad)
2. Mark the content of the PGN
3. Copy the PGN content into the clipboard (e.g. using `CTRL + C`)
4. Open chess.com import pgn

5. Choose Load PGN
6. Paste the PGN content from clipboard (e.g. using `CTRL + V`)
7. Choose Load
> 4 votes

# Answer
## Importing and exporting games to and from Droidfish

Hold down on the board, and a set of options appear:

* Click on **Share Game** or **Clipboard** to share (export) PGN.
* Click on **Retrieve Position** to import PGN from your device. Alternatively, if you have the game on Clipboard, you can click **Clipboard** and then choose to paste the game from Clipboard.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Another method for exporting games from DroidFish is:

* Enter the game on a new board
* Long press the "M", then choose "File", then "Save game to PGN file". Create a new file if you don't have one already
* This file can be found on your device's storage under `/DroidFish/pgn`. I accessed it with AirDroid but you could use any file manager app or even USB connection.

This will work for multiple games in one file.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, pgn
---


title: Sicilian Dragon

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian Dragon
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 Qa5 13. h5 Nxh5 14. g4 Nf6 15. Bh6 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Rxc3 17. bxc3 Qxc3 18. Nf5 Bxf5 19. gxf5 Nc4 20. Bxc4 Qxc4 21. fxg6 fxg6 22. Rdg1 Kf7 23. Rh4 Rc8 24. Rh2 Qc3 25. Rgh1 Rc4 26. Qf4 h5 27. Rg2 Qa1+ 28. Kd2 Qxh1

```
1. I had seen the 16. ... Rxc3 sacrifice before but I thought that somehow I could manage.
2. The idea of 18. Nf5 was to threaten mate and create weaknesses. If 18... gxf5, then the idea is to bring the rook to g1 and slowly create problems for Black.
3. 27. Rg2 is my mistake where I lost the rook on h1.
4. Other than these mistakes. what went wrong theoretically? I like the Yugoslav attack against the Dragon.

# Answer
> 4 votes
For starters, 13.Kb1 is considered the main line and scores at 73% to only 51% for 13.h5.

In general, I do not think it is very good to ever allow the Rc3 exchange sac there. In the main line, 13.Kb1 Nc3 14.Bc4 Rc4 15.g4 Rfc8, Karpov already would play 16.Nde2 there (or a very similar position), and he won some great games.

19.gf was already a big mistake since now you never have g5 moving the N off f6. It is clear that after 18...Bf5, you were not going to win down the g-file, so you have to look at the position anew.

Lastly, I think there is a very great possibility you were playing a computer. Every move was the Stockfish's first choice, even the positionally odd 26...h5. While I can see its point now, I doubt any human would play that.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, sicilian-dragon
---


title: ChessBase Tactics Database

text:
# Question
Title: ChessBase Tactics Database
I was sent a database of over 3000 mate-in-2 puzzles; however, most of them (almost 2200 of them) only have the first move provided as a solution. I am hoping that I will not have to go back and add the variations for the second move manually. Is there a way to have ChessBase add the rest of the analysis? I was hoping the Tactical Analysis would do this, but it just checks the first move and says "yep, it is the best one" without providing the variations.

# Answer
The Deep Analysis option does this, however, it takes forever, and you have to do each game/problem one at a time. Sorry to say, that it probably is not worth it, but it does add in most, if not all, the subvariations. Sorry, I do not have better news, but I do not think there is an easy way for you.

This is just for reference on how to use ChessBase Tactical Analysis on a large number of games, but here is that.

First, open the database. I am not sure how well this will work with 3000 games, so you may have to break them up by 100's, but you can test that yourself.

Now, once the database is open, click on the first game you want, and hold the Shift key down while selecting the last game you want. That should highlight many games.

Right click on them, and select "Tactical Analysis". Once the box comes up, set the following: Time for 1 second, Coarse, Store Evaluations, and deselect "Erase old annotations" and training. "Replace" should be selected. Replace saves the new analysis.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, tactics, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Are banter blitz players who draw arrows on the board during the game breaking the FIDE Laws of Chess?
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

Streamers and banter blitz players often draw lines and arrows on the board while discussing what moves they are thinking about. Here is Eric Rosen doing exactly that.

Surely this is every bit against the rules as using an engine?

If Wesley So can be defaulted for basically writing notes saying things like "Must try harder" why is this allowed?

# Answer
> 31 votes
I agree that it would break the FIDE rules against note taking, but this is not a FIDE tournament; it is online blitz on Lichess, so FIDE rules need not apply. You'd have to look at the Lichess terms of service instead. They say

> 1. **Cheating**. We define this as using any external assistance to strengthen your knowledge and, or, calculation ability to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent. Some examples would include computer engine assistance, opening books (except for correspondence games), endgame tablebases, and asking another player for help, although these aren’t the only things we would consider cheating.

The definition is open-ended so it's really up to the Lichess administrators to interpret. Does drawing an arrow on the board during a blitz game "strengthen your calculation ability?". Perhaps, but one could also argue that it makes you waste precious time, so it is probably more of a handicap than anything else. More importantly, just the fact that the Lichess user interface supports drawing arrows during a game (something which I had never noticed, despite being a frequent user!) may reasonably be interpreted as implying that the administrators approve of that use.

I don't think the "banterers" who stream their games draw arrows as a calculation aid, but rather to communicate their ideas to their audience. I'd love to hear from anyone who uses this feature and finds it helpful while playing blitz for non-streaming purposes. (Arrows might be more useful for correspondence chess, but there you are definitely allowed to use analysis boards, opening books, notes, etc., so arrows shouldn't be a problem.)

---
Tags: rules, fide, online-chess, wesley-so, streaming
---