title: Should I learn openings as a beginner?

text:
# Question
Title: Should I learn openings as a beginner?
I'm very new to regularly playing chess while actively trying to improve (only ever played here and there casually before).

I'm ~600 rated on chess.com and many times I feel like I'm making mistakes/un-ideal moves in the openings that leads to my opponent having more opportunities for attacks, more mobility for their pieces, and more center control.

It's hard to see where I'm making mistakes in the opening, since to a beginner like me, many (erroneous) opening moves seem natural, and analyzing doesn't seem to help because the engine moves and lines are too complicated for me to really learn from. The issue with memorizing openings and their variations is that at this level, there is a lot of variance in the responses from opponents that I haven't prepared for.

Should I spend time memorizing some openings anyway?

If yes, what is the ideal way to learn an opening? Is it a good idea to only play games as white when trying to learn a white-pieces opening?

# Answer
> 23 votes
My suggestion for new or lower rated players follows from advice from GM Benjamin Finegold: "*Stop giving away your pieces*."

Learning openings is fine, but at lower levels games are usually decided by who made the last serious blunder or who made more of them. So, learn openings if you're excited by them. Reviewing opening principles such as quick development, central control, castling, etc., are probably more much important than specific lines at this point.

**Concept:** To improve, make fewer mistakes. Don't hang your pieces. Make sure you always take free pieces when your opponent gives a piece away. Don't blunder and allow simple tactics. Always spot and capitalize on tactics your opponent allows.

**Practical Tips:** I suggest drilling basic tactics to oblivion to increase your board vision, along with analyzing your own games without an engine (w/ stronger player, or use engine after you've made your own attempt first). Play lots of games. Find one mistake in each game to consider where you went wrong and fix that.

The general consensus from my research into this question is that it is better for lower rated players to drill easier tactics to perfection than spending to much time on tactics/puzzles that take you more than ~5 minutes to figure out. Beyond that is still valuable, and will improve your calculation, but it isn't as efficient for improvement.

Consider working through

The Perpetual Chess Podcast has some additional recommendations for those under 1000 rating.

# Answer
> 11 votes
> I'm ~600 rated on chess.com and many times I feel like I'm making mistakes/un-ideal moves in the openings that leads to my opponent having more opportunities for attacks, more mobility for their pieces, and more center control.

The thing is, you're probably doing this *during the whole game*, not just in the opening.

Yes, you can prevent it in the opening by memorizing moves, but that only works as long as the opponent has memorized them too, and inevitably a few moves in you'll be on your own again.

It's better to work on this in a way that works in the whole game.

You already know what to do -- control the center, use all your pieces, make them as mobile as possible, prevent the opponent doing the same. So do that, and after each game, see how it went and how you could have done better.

I like the osmosis method -- play through *lots* of games to get a feel for the game. There are lots of ways, not everyone likes the same -- get game collection books and play through all the games, or just download the latest TWIC PGN file and quickly click through lots of games in it, or watch Youtube videos or whatever. Whenever you notice something interesting, slow down and try to work out what's happening.

# Answer
> 6 votes
As a beginner, you certainly **do not** need to **learn opening theory**. On one hand, you will not be able to profit from subtle strategical nuances in the position. On the other hand, your opponents are extremely unlikely to know any theory at all at this level and will play moves that you haven't studied, thus rendering all your efforts useless. The time you would spend on learning opening theory would take away precious study time from learning the fundamental concepts and tactics that you need to get better quickly.

At the beginner level, the opening is not what decides the outcome of a game. What you **must know** are the **opening principles**, i.e. that you should strive to **control the center**, **quickly develop your pieces** and **castle your king** and what these concepts imply. For example, you should not make too many pawn moves or move already developed pieces twice, as this delays the development of your undeveloped pieces. Good opening moves (i.e. those that do as much w.r.t. these principles as possible) are usually theory moves.

Every beginner's first opening should be 1. e4 e5:

* The open games are the most logical openings of all, and this is the reason for them also being the oldest. Both sides get central control and open diagonals for their bishops so that they can develop and make way for the king to castle quickly.
* Play is often tactical. Tactics are crucial for beginners to learn and easier to grasp than subtle strategical play (e.g. that often emerges in d4 openings).
* There are almost no move-order and transposition issues. The way you choose to play against e5 does not influence what you can play against the Sicilian (1. ..c5). This is very different from d4/c4/Nf3/g3 openings.

In the very beginning, you don't need to learn the theory. Put a pawn in the center (e4/e5), get the minor pieces out, and castle. If you're Black and and White opens with anything but 1. e4 or 1. c4 (when you play e5), put your d-pawn in the center (1. ..d5).

If you follow the opening principles, it will be easier for you to play. You will make less mistakes, as you'll have a strategically sound position and can react to the opponents ideas. Be aware that already in the opening you have to perform the blunder check in order to avoid mistakes, i.e. checking you did not hang any pieces or pawns and that your opponent has no meaningful threats after you make your move. The blunder check alone will easily get you from 600 to over 1000 Elo.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You should have a plan of development. This should be specific but flexible. It may be a pattern that you have seen in books (this is a Queens Gambit Declined-my QB usually goes to g5) but, especially if your opponent does not play by the book, you may need to make it up. In well-planned development each piece stands on a good square and has at least one other good square to go to. It does not stand on a square where a different piece would be more useful. You have no weak Pawns, but you will need to gain an understanding of why Pawns are weak. Has the Pawn position become stabilised? If not, what changes would you like to see? Does this move commit you to some future play and if so do you feel comfortable with that? Can you see areas of the board where you might be aggressive? Which pieces would you like to trade?

You write of experiencing confusion because "many erroneous moves feel natural" and this is because you still have to develop an accurate sense of what is "natural". The questions above are ones that will help. Mathematically, the number of possible moves may be twenty or so, but the number of natural moves may be very small. Your opponent will try to prevent them, but there may be a tactical reason why they can still be played.

At your level, your opponents will often play unnatural moves. Sometimes this is just leaving a piece to be captured. Sometimes they are not following any good plan, and sometimes they are following a bad plan. When this happens, beginner books often show the unnatural move being "punished" by some decisive refutation. You should always look for such a move, at least briefly, but it may well not be there. Ignoring it and keeping to your own good plans is often the best response.

Just overlooking a threat is a very common cause of loss, as others have noted. Care and attention will fix this, but then you may still fall to a double threat. Your opponent plays a move that attacks two pieces at the same time. Although you see both threats, you cannot prevent both. We speak of undefended pieces as "loose" because they are vulnerable to being one half of a double threat. At all stages of the game you need to be cautious about leaving pieces loose.

I think that you are going through a very typical stage of normal chess develoment. If you can, play against live opponents and discuss your games with them. If you posted one or two, it might help us to zero in on your problems

# Answer
> 0 votes
Most improvement at amateur/beginner level comes from playing long games (1-2 hours per game) and doing tactics. So, it seems that no time should be wasted on openings. However, that's not exactly accurate, as you shouldn't do much thinking on the first 4-5 moves. Besides, no knowledge at all about openings may lead to bad positions too early, e.g., in the Danish Gambit, King's Gambit, Petroff Defense, and some others. It's okay at beginner level to think on the first 4-5 moves but having no idea about the plans behind specific opening moves and trying to rediscover them is wasting time. Therefore learning some basics won't hurt, and there are good textbooks on openings for casual and beginner players, e.g. *Openings* by Seirawan, *Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps* by Pandolfini. You don't need most of the openings there - just some basic ideas and moves you run into or that appeal to you. You shouldn't study more than 10-20% in said books. You definitely don't need long move sequences at beginner level and these books won't provide them teaching you mainly ideas and plans. However, 80-90% of your time should be spent on doing tactics and playing long games - you should prioritize that if you want to improve fast. Only the remainder 10-20% you can spend on openings and some fun with blitz but the latter is a very bad idea to improve. Nobody became a grandmaster by playing bullet/blitz games - they did it by playing long classical time controls.

There are a lot of good books on tactics for beginners , e.g., *Chess Tactics for Champions* by Susan Polgar, *Tactics* by Seirawan, etc. (said books are for beginner but not for total beginners!) These should be your priority, not fast games. And you should be able to solve at least 2/3 of problems, otherwise you are just guessing and not calculating lines properly. Spend 40-50% of your time on tactics. Do them carefully and calculate lines properly. In the beginning, it should be just 2-3 move tactics and several minutes of thinking but you still have to mentally picture possible counterplay to your solutions. Make sure to check your solutions at the back of your textbook. Then take another book on tactics. Later on you can re-solve the textbook you solved, say, a year ago. It will help too. Eventually, you should increase the depth of calculations to 3-4 moves ahead and beyond and start doing more difficult puzzles. They will take longer to solve, say, 10 minutes per puzzle and that's when real progress kicks in. However don't try to leapfrog simple 2-3 moves puzzles. Make sure you meticulously solved (not guessed through) at least a thousand of them (not online puzzles!).

You should also play a lot of classical games (1-2 hours per game) in parallel with solving tactics if you want to improve fast. Doing puzzles alone is not enough. Invest at least 40-50% of time into long games. You can play them vs a computer, e.g. inexpensive phone/tablet app: Shredder. Just set the level (your Elo) and off you go. Play without time controls so that Shredder replies instantly. Do not rush. It's dozens of long classical games before you improve significantly. Don't spend less than 1-2 hours per game, otherwise you are not playing classical control games and not improving much. It must be mentioned that chess programs, especially at low levels calculate Elo too roughly. They tend to show higher Elo (by 100-300 points at low levels). What's more, chess programs usually don't adjust Elo for fast time controls. Whereas human quality of blitz is 600-700 below that of a classical game, most programs play even a bullet game with the same precision and with the same simulated errors as if it were a two hour game! There's also a free beginner's program called Chess Titans for PC/laptop with no openings which won't trick you even on the very first 4-5 moves. At its highest level, Chess Titans is still weak at around Elo 1500 FIDE and you might reach that level of strength in a few months of proper training.

If you don't play long games and don't do serious tactics from textbooks and (and instead you play fast and do quick puzzles online), your improvement will be perhaps ten times slower versus practicing chess seriously. When and if you reach the strength of FIDE 1600-1700 Elo (that's not difficult to reach), openings become slightly more important. Advice: if you are a casual player, don't waste more than 10% of time on openings but it doesn't mean you have to think on your first moves or you don't need specific ideas and plans behind them. Far more important is not to waste a lot of time on blitz, i.e., openings are the lesser evil to fast improvement. Many amateurs play dozens of thousands of blitz and bullet games online, sometimes it's more games than professionals ever played. The upshot is such amateurs invested too much time; yet the level for the time invested is ridiculously low. All right, they are having fun but they learned almost zilch despite a gargantuan amount of games played and quick online puzzles solved (often guessed through, and not really properly solved as online puzzles don't ask for variations - you just need to make move after move). Many such players might be tempted to resort to cheating to achieve some improvement perhaps out of desperation or lack of progress. You don't want such temptations to happen to you in the long run. Also note that most online rapid time controls are actually blitz games. The standard FIDE rapid time control is 15 mins + 10 second increment (that's around 25 minutes per 60 moves, and actually in the past before the digital clocks, it was just 25 minutes). Once again, you should play much longer controls if you want to see improvement.

# Answer
> 0 votes
After many in depth recommandations, I want to recommand to you to not look at openings, but at miniatures.

The youtube channel by Mato Jelic has a nice series about these type of games. The older videos are very short. About 3 minutes, and always have a general theme.

So you can follow many games in a short time, get an idea of how openings play out and how to attack or spot tactics. Also you learn what might go wrong.

I think I benefited a big deal of these types of videos. Also I can recommand chess lectures by Ben Finegold. He is funny, and also uploads videos which are suitable for beginners.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As a beginner, you need to learn and study openings. At higher levels like advanced player, opening has no value cause all initial moves are basic book moves and no opening is bad enough to lose (of course except Fool's mate) because chess is most likely a draw (which would be proved in future). Best is to use YouTube to learn few openings and then keep playing them and and you will get the rhythm and then improvement will be only further requirement. All the best!

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: How many points is each chess piece worth?
I am a beginner at chess; please answer this question for me.

> How many points is each chess piece worth?

# Answer
**Individual pieces:**

**Pawn** \- 1 point

**Knight** \- 3 points

**Bishop** \- 3 points

**Rook** \- 5 points

**Queen** \- 9 points

**Piece combinations:**

**Rook and Knight** \- 7.5 points

**Rook and Bishop** \- 8 points

**Pair of Rooks** \- 10 points

**Three minor pieces** \- 10 points

**Rook and two minor pieces** \- 11 points

N.B. The values may vary because of circumstances, but these are the basic values.
> 23 votes

# Answer
The answer by MikroDel gives the commonly-used "Reinfeld values" of pawn=1, bishop=knight=3, rook=5, and queen=9 (kings are essentially worth an infinite number of points, because the game ends if it is lost). While this is a good guide, chess is rarely that simple. Many books will give the value of bishops as 3.5 instead of 3, simply because they are often much stronger than knights in endgames and open middle-games.

There are other things to take into account as well. For example, bishops are much stronger if you own both of yours, but you opponent has already lost/traded one or both of theirs. The nature of the position can also affect the worth of individual pieces, as a position that is completely blocked up might leave a bishop with no useful squares to go to while a knight may be able to jump straight over the obstruction.

Another example of how the Reinfeld values can be misleading is that 3 minor pieces (bishops and knights) are often more powerful than a single queen, provided that they are used properly.

For some further reading, you might also want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_piece\_relative\_value which has a much more detailed explanation.
> 39 votes

# Answer
**Pawn** \- 1 point

**Bishop**, **Knight** \- 3 Pawns

**Rook** \- 5 Pawns

**Queen** \- 9 Pawns

The evaluation depends on the position.

In some situation you will find it equal or good to give you Rook and Pawn (6 Pawns) for Bishop and Knight (6 Pawns). But it is also possible that two light pieces are more valuable than Rook and Pawn.

The value of pieces given to you will be a good **start point** to evaluate your position.
> 19 votes

# Answer
There's a great analysis/article about this by GM Larry Kaufman available here.

To summarize:

* Pawn = 1
* Knight = Bishop = 3.25
* Bishop Pair = 7(+0.25 for each bishop.)
* Rook = 5
* Queen = 9.75

There's also a lot more detail in the article about what situations favor which groups of pieces. For example, when B+N is better than R+P, or when Q+P is better than R+R, etc.
> 16 votes

# Answer
The standard is usually to compare pieces to each other (i.e how many pawns is a knight worth, a bishop, a queen etc.?

Another way is to determine piece value dynamically using the idea of **"absolute/potential activity"** and **"nominal activity"**. This idea is based on the number of squares any given piece controls (and I believe is partly how computer engines determine piece values). I believe it is also called **mobility** by some chess players. Let me explain:

First a few definitions (these are my own, created for the sake of the explanation):

1. **Activity** = The number of squares any piece controls
2. **Control** = (referring to squares) when a square(s) cannot be occupied by an opponent piece or pawn due the danger of it being captured
3. **Center** = The squares e4, d4, e5 and d5

Each piece (lets ignore pawns for the moment) has an **absolute activity** value and a **nominal activity** value. The Reinfeld system given above is essentially the former, and it describes the value of the piece in its best condition (i.e where it controls the greatest number of squares). For the sake of convenience we can say that this condition is when the piece is in the center, as all pieces control the maximal number of squares when placed there (try it out with a few pieces and see).

We can quickly formulate some absolute activity values for the pieces by counting the number of squares each piece controls when placed in the center (of an empty board):

* **Queen**: Controls **27** squares
* **Rook**: Controls **14** squares
* **Bishop**: Controls **13** squares
* **Knight**: Controls **8** squares

\*Note that I've omitted the pawn and the king, this is because they are special, and I will deal with them a bit later.

Now looking at the above we see that the Reinfeld scores were more or less based on this derivation, with the apparent exception of the bishop which seems to be closer to a rook than a knight (the thing which is omitted here, is the fact that a bishop can only control squares of one color; hence its low Reinfeld value).

Other common ideas also become clear with this formulation, e.g the idea of the "two bishops" advantage, which, according to this, would be close to a queen in strength! (13\*2 = 26). However, this formulation is only half-complete, because in a real game things are rarely so perfect and ideal as an empty board with your pieces huddled in the center.

Thus we introduce the idea of "nominal activity", which is simply the activity of a piece in a given position. Remember that activity = the number of squares a piece controls. Nominal activity can be constantly in flux (since the position is inevitability bound to change) but is a useful concept when compared against the "absolute activity", for three reasons:

* It helps you determine whether to trade pieces (and also *which* pieces to trade)
* It helps you decide what kinds of positions to create (this is where common chess principles like "knights favor closed positions, bishops favor open ones" come from)
* It helps you figure out which piece's position you need to improve first ("Knights before bishops" comes from this)

Many, many common ideas can be elucidated from this formulation (mostly because it is so fundamental to the game). Consider the idea of a positional sacrifice, it is simply a move which gives up material in exchange for one's piece(s) to get closer to its(their) absolute activity.

This brings me to the pawns. The pawns don't really have activity in the same way pieces do, instead they are used to determine **terrain**, i.e the "positional factors" on the board which determine nominal activity. In that sense, they are used to limit or increase the nominal activity of *other* pieces (this why you move the pieces first, then the pawns, because its usually faster to move a piece to a better square than to improve a piece by making a pawn move). Pawns serve other purposes as well, of course, but in the context of this question I think this will suffice.

So to summarize:

1. **Absolute activity: the greatest number of squares a piece can potentially control**
2. **Nominal activity: the number of squares a piece controls in a given position**
3. **Piece Value: a dynamic measurement based upon how close a piece's nominal activity is to its absolute activity**

EDIT:

Notice how easy (and accurate, and logical) piece combination values become when using this system.

* 2 Rooks (28) \> 1 Queen (27)
* 2 Knights + 1 Bishop (29) \> 1 Queen
* 2 Bishops + 1 Knight (34) \>\> 1 Queen
* 2 Bishops (26) \>\> 2 Knights (16)
* Bishop + Knight (21) \>\> Rook + pawn (~16)
* etc.

Also notice how nominal activity can help determine which pieces are better in the endgame (the pieces whose nominal activity is greatly affected by pawns will improve in the endgame)

* Bishop (eg ~13) \> Knight (eg ~8)
* Rook (eg ~14) \< Bishop + pawn(eg ~15)
* etc.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Computer Chess programs provide an evaluation of pieces relative to the strength of a pawn, which compliment's Dave's answer nicely. To summarize:

## Piece: Range of Values

1. Pawn: 100
2. Knight: 300-400
3. Bishop: 300-400
4. Rook: 500-600
5. Queen: 880-1200
6. King: 10000\*

\*Kings are given a large actual value to simplify the search behavior, but essentially have infinite value, as the game ends if they are 'killed'.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Though one cannot trade one's king for other considerations -- and in this sense the king cannot be evaluated -- the king still has a practical strength as an attacking and defending piece in the many concrete positions in which no immediate mate is in view -- especially during the endgame. This strength can indeed be evaluated. World Champion Emanuel Lasker regarded the king to be one point stronger than a minor piece.

Thus, in this sense, if a knight or bishop has a strength of three, and if we accept Lasker's advice, then *the king's strength will be four.*
> 9 votes

# Answer
Don't use the system, it hurts chess players into thinking that one bishop is **always** better than a knight or a rook is **always** better than a bishop.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Unfortunately many answers and numerous systems given in Wikipedia can confuse amateurs because depending on the position type some pieces are stronger or weaker (open, closed positions, pawn structures, bad piece, good piece, etc.) So, we can talk only about values statistically and when other things being equal, otherwise the system becomes complicated. It can be remedied by giving pieces more precise fractional values.

Here goes **a possible approximation based on quarters** (also see below the old dedicated chess computer system based on halves - also put in boldface):

* **Knight/Bishop = 3.25 pawn** (at pro level bishops are often 0.25 higher; the reverse might hold for amateurs!)
* **Rook = 4.75 pawns**
* **Queen = 9.25 pawns**
* **Two Bishops = 7 pawns** (they usually boost each other covering both dark and light squares)
* **Two Doubled Pawns = 1.5 pawns** (it is usually a weakness)

However, even the general evaluation with fractions may backfire, and the player should account for general chess principles (you can find them in Silman's textbooks for example) and make proper calculations in each specific position. Thus, sometimes a pawn needs to be promoted to a knight which means a knight (3.25 pawns) can be better than a Queen (9.25 pawns), albeit extremely rarely. Everything depends on a specific position. Players should invest efforts in learning position types, bad pieces, good pieces, etc.

Examples of mistakes that might arise out of rough non-fractional values:

* Three minor pieces (3+3+3) are equal to the Queen (9). No. They are usually slightly stronger, say, by 0.5 pawns (3.25 + 3.25 + 3.25 = 9.75)
* Two minor pieces (3+3) are equal to a Rook and Pawn (5+1). No. Two minor pieces are usually stronger by around 0.75 pawns (3.25 + 3.25 = 6.5)
* Treating a rook like 5 or even 5.5 pawns before endgame. That's also a bad idea. Rooks become very strong only towards endgame or sometimes during kingside attacks.
* Perhaps the worst mistake of amateurs is that bishops are stronger than knights. No! They are only statistically better in high quality games but for amateurs it's probably the other way round as they are prone to missing tactics.
* Rook and Knight = 7.5 pawns = Rook + 2.5 pawns. No. It might hold for some endgames but outside the context it's an unnecessary complication.

To prevent such basic mistakes the average fractional values above can be used. However, there's no quick fix or short cut, and chess principles are important as well as specific positions where general values will no longer apply. That said, using more precise values with fractions should be less detrimental than teaching amateurs this: 1, 3, 3, 5, 9. Carefree rounding to get nice numbers leads to the mistakes outlined above. Still people prefer nice round numbers while even **the old dedicated chess computer system based on halves** is superior:

* **Knight/Bishop = 3 pawns**
* **Rook = 4.5 panws**
* **Queen = 8.5 pawns**
* **Bishop Pair = 6.5 pawns**
* **Doubled Pawns = 1.5 pawns**

If fractions are not used, precision is lost. It should be noted that the modern systems of chess engines are complicated with many variables. Hence, using them to explain piece values to amateurs might confuse and lead to errors. As to using nice round numbers, let me emphasize it one more time: It often leads to mistakes and creates necessity of weird, complicated and even wrong calculations and memorization of values of piece combinations rather than focusing on chess principles, on types of positions, on when the knight is better than the bishop and vice versa, etc.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is a very sensible question for a beginner to ask, but as you progress beyond being a beginner, as I hope you do, you will come to realize that it has no answer.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Dider gives an answer based on the maximum activity of the pieces when they are placed at the center of an empty board. One could continue this analysis evaluating the activity at other locations of the board, building an 8x8 matrix for each piece. And comparing two extreme cases: empty board vs fully crowded board.

The resulting matrices are:

```
    Empty board (free piece)                Crowded board (blocked piece)
    ------------------------                -----------------------------
Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x
mean = 7/4 squares                      mean=7/4 squares

kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2
        3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3
        4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4
        4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4
        4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4
        4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4
        3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3
kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2
mean = 21/4 squares, N~3P               mean=21/4 squares, N~3P

Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
        7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
        7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
        7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
        7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
        7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
        7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2
Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1
mean=35/4 squares, B~5P                 mean=49/16 squares, B~1.75P

King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
        5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5
King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3
mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P            mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P

Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
        14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3
Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2
mean=14 squares, R~7P                   mean=7/2 squares, R~2P

```

The board starts in a "half-crowded" state, and becomes less crowded as the game advances. The numerical values found on books and publications lie between these extreme cases. Looking at the high fluctuations, one can understand why so many people say that it all depends (heavily!) on the position.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I'd say in general bishops get 3.5 knights 3, queen 9, rooks 5 and the king doesn't get evaluated because, as everyone said he doesn't have a definite value, but you could say he's quite important in the endgame(around practical value 4).

Now the values **change.** So in a closed position knights are stronger than bishops, often stronger than rooks even. In half open-open positions bishops are stronger than knights but **2 bishops** basically increase each others strength.

Another example, in positions with a small number of pawns and light pieces, 2 rooks are often better than a queen, whereas in positions with a lot of other pieces a queen is (most often) better.

So it all really depends on the position. And my words are true only if you can actually use your pieces as good as possible, or something close to that. :)
> 3 votes

# Answer
Initial values are Pawn - 1 point, Bishop, Knight - 3 Pawns, Rook - 5 Pawns, Queen - 9 Pawns.

These values change in relation to the position and the configuration of pieces on either side. Pieces on good squares are worth more than pieces on bad squares. Point count is merely a rough, basic guide to the strength of each side; more important is the placement and activity of the pieces - this is where judgement of material imbalances becomes important. You can't simply say that a Queen is equal to 3 minor pieces or 2 rooks; the position will dictate the relative values.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Chess pieces and their points:

```
queen - 9
rook - 5
bishop - 3.5
knight - 3
pawn - 1

```

If you need any more help, search on Google for Chess pieces and their points.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Queen 10 Rook 5 Bishop 3.5 Knight 3 (debatable) Pawn 1
> 2 votes

# Answer
Pawn = 1
Knight = 3+-1/3
Bishop = 3+-1/2
Rook = 5
Queen = 9
King = Infinite
Back when my brother and I played chess in the early-middle 70's (when Fischer & Spasky were all the rage), this is the point system I remember reading about in a book on chess (I can't remember the book).
> 2 votes

# Answer
Value of pieces varies from position to position. It's just a random number assigned to them which ideally has no value. And if you use so called values then there would be number of shortcomings on combination of pieces. For a very basic way, do this: Put any piece on one of centre squares on a empty board and count number of squares it controls. Pawn: 1 Knight: 8 Bishop: 13 Rook: 14 Queen: 27 That's just for very rough idea not in any sense real value.
> -3 votes

---
Tags: evaluation, pieces, point-value
---


# Question
Title: How do people end up with their opening repertoire?
I noticed that majority of my openings came from early childhood and were picked up essentially by chance (once I played something I kept playing it).

I wonder whether this is standard or whether majority of people go through exploration phase (playing multiple openings and then settle on a subset).

# Answer
Coaches and personal preferences affect such choices. Some are positional players (Karpov). Others who have attacking styles go for sharp openings and sharp lines (Kasparov, Polgar). Some players have very diverse repertoires, others play fewer openings but know them inside out. It's a matter of personal preferences and tournament experiences. The influence of a coach might be significant as is his/her own preferences. At pro level players now prefer very reliable and solid openings. So, the King's gambit or Albin Countergambit is almost never played with some rare exceptions where they were used more like a surprise value and boosted with modern engine analysis.

At amateur/club level, especially in blitz games, gambits are still popular including some gambits from semi-open games which also became popular (like the Morra Gambit) at this level. Amateurs might have haphazard opening repertoires. At more serious level, coaches help establish the repertoire and show ideas and plans that can be used. It's still going to be tied to some preferences of a given coach and his/her own experiences, ideas and styles of play.

Mark Dvoretsky (author of chess textbooks) described a situation when a player was influenced too much by his coach and played the sharp King's Indian Defense and Sicilian. Dvoretsky advised changing the style to the player's less aggressive personal preferences of play which is said to have helped a lot. Dvoretsky argues that players have to have their opening repertoire tweaked to their style of play and personal preferences.

At amateur level, open games are often recommended as the opening repertoire. Pandolfini advised that, for example, and published an opening textbook for amateurs (or young aspiring talents who just start out) that focuses only on e4. Some may recommend d4 from the get go. For example, the London System might be good for a beginner. Nakamura's video where he teaches it to a beginner (blogger Pokimane) went viral on YouTube.

Undoubtedly sometimes players do explore various openings and try out stuff they usually don't play. A player may introduce changes to his/her opening repertoire. It's all tied to the player's level. If an early coach had too much influence or the player has too narrow a repertoire, I guess, the player's repertoire might come from his/her childhood but such reasoning is somewhat speculative. It's a whole different story to explore as to how opening repertoires might change over time depending on various players and how much stuff is there from childhood.

Overall, it's a mix of various factors: personal preferences, experiences, recommendations and influences of coaches. The proportion of such factors varies from player to player.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's not necessarily standard. But it happens a lot to people, where muscle memory, brain memory etc. helps you unconsciously memorise openings and play them later. There are usually 2 types of chess players:

1. Play multiple openings to find a good one and learn on it/find online
2. Play any opening you like and not learn anything

Most people explore before learning more.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference between a brilliant move and the best move?
As far as I know, nowadays the chess engines can judge that a move is the best or that it is brilliant (usually denoted by ! or !!). I was wondering what is the precise criterion for this classification.

I was reading some forums and stepped on this discussion. There, some people claim that a brilliant move is one that the engine does not find and, a posteriori, finds it to be brilliant. Some other people claim that a move is marked as brilliant only if the player continues the game responding with the absolute best moves, for some number of moves ahead. Finally, there is also the opinion that a brilliant move simply cannot be reached by the engine up to a certain depth, which is what I would instinctively think too. Thus, this would imply that if the engine performed a sufficiently large-depth analysis then there would not any be brilliant move markers. Is this correct?

Finally, my question: What is (if it even exists) the specific criterion, based on which a chess engine marks ones move as brilliant, rather than simply the best.

# Answer
> 8 votes
At least for chess.com: (https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc)

> Brilliant (!!) moves and Great Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but are also special in some way. We replaced the old Brilliant algorithm with a simpler definition: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice. There are some other conditions, like you should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move and you should not be completely winning even if you had not found the move. Also, we are more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players, compared with those who are higher rated.

I'm of the opinion that only human players think like humans, so only human annotated brilliant moves actually are meaningful. Brilliant to me means unexpected and strong, so unlike chess.com's definition, even a quiet preparatory move can be brilliant if it sets up a non-obvious idea.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> As far as I know, nowadays the chess engines can judge that a move is the best or that it is brilliant (usually denoted by ! or !!). I was wondering what is the precise criterion for this classification.

Chess engines do not / cannot annotate moves. They evaluate positions. The annotations in game reviews from chess.com / lichess are generated in the following way: The engine evaluation of the position resulting from the move played is compared to the engine eval of the best move (according to the engine). Depending on the evaluation change, inaccuracies,mistakes and blunders are marked, with different eval change thresholds for each category. Note, that these thresholds are relative to the current evaluation, i.e. a move that turns a position from +0.3 to -2 will be marked as a blunder, but a change from +10.3 to +8 will not be marked as a blunder, even though there is the same absolute difference in evaluation. Therefore, these annotations are **objective** (w.r.t the used engine) and are straight-forward to generate. The relativity of evaluation change is usually implemented using *expected points* instead of the raw engine evaluation, so that winning moves will not be marked as blunders. Each engine (centipawn) evaluation can be translated to expected points using the following formula:

```
winning chances = 50 + 50 * (2 / (1 + exp(-0.004 * centipawns)) - 1).

```

For example, an advantage of +1 (100 centipawns) translates to a 60% winning chance (or more precisely 0.6 expected points). The thresholds used at chess.com can be found here. Lichess also uses this model to annotate moves.

Strong and brilliant moves are much harder to define, and there are almost no chess sites except chess.com that implement this annotation. On lichess, it is a much-requested feature, and thibault (the founder and main programmer of the site) tiredly asks: "What is a brilliant move?" And he has a good point, as the ! and !! annotations denote human concepts of strong or unexpected moves. Engines do not know what type of moves are difficult to find for humans, and it is very difficult to conceptualize. These annotations are much more **subjective** choices of an annotator. It is very unlikely that automatic brilliant move annotations will ever come to lichess for that reason. Such automated annotations will miss many brilliant moves (e.g. unexpected silent moves). The **criterion at chess.com has changed multiple** times due to ambiguity. Currently, they use the following classification of moves:

> Move descriptors: Each of your moves fall into one of these categories
>
> * Brilliant - This was a difficult to find sacrifice which put you in a great position!
> * Great Move - This an important move that swings the course of the game, or is the only good move where any other move would have been trouble. Great find!
> * Best Move - The best move, according to the engine!
> * Excellent - A great move, but not quite the best!
> * Good - This move is okay, but could be better!
> * Book - An established opening move
> * Inaccuracy - This is a weak move that could be much better
> * Mistake - A bad move that immediately worsens your position
> * Blunder - A very bad move that could lose material or lose the game
> * Missed win - A move was missed that would have won material, or won the game

So, chess.com chose to **define** a brilliant move (!!) as a (non-obvious) piece sacrifice that maintains the current evaluation of the position.

> Brilliant (!!) moves and Great Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position \[...\] **A Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice**. There are some other conditions, like you should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move and you should not be completely winning even if you had not found the move.

Also, Chess.com **defines** a Great move (!) as a non-trivial move (i.e. not a simple recapture) that is the only move to maintain the current engine evaluation (i.e. is the best and the only good move). Many of these moves would not be marked with ! or !! by human annotators. Only one specific question remains: What exactly are "difficult" moves? This is a proprietary assessment by chess.com and very unlikely to be disclosed for the reasons I have already outlined in this answer, as the notion of "difficult move" is likely used by their proprietary anti-cheat system. Previously, chess.com had a more sophisticated algorithm for determining brilliant moves, but switched to this more comprehensible definition. The rumors regarding engine depth are not accurate.

Therefore, to finally answer the question:

> What is the difference between a brilliant move and the best move?

A brilliant move is a special type of best move, that is a "good" piece sacrifice. (See above for conditions of "good")

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just my opinion.

The best move is the one with the best evaluation, with the exception of the "computer moves" which only delay the real threat for a move.

A brilliant move is not only good but has a surprise value. A correct sacrifice easily qualifies, but a move with an unusual (and correct) plan do tend to be brilliant. There are two examples: a computer played Re1 in its match against Kramnik with the plan to get the rook to g3, and a game (I think) by Fischer where he played a4 followed by Ra1-a3-b3 just to make black slightly more passive by having to defend the b6 pawn. (Normally every contributor would try to find these examples, but right now, I don't have the energy.)

BTW, this question is really a matter of opinion and shouldn't be asked. When/If this question gets closed, try to learn from the experience.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Chess Engines have two settings: Depth & Variation. A Brilliant move is something which is counter-intuitive to humans as well as hard to find for a chess engine in terms of depth & variation. I again categorize brilliant moves into tactical brilliancy & Long Term positional Brilliancy. Tactical Brilliancy is when you are sacrificing or doing some odd move which is counter-intuitive yet we can see its positive outcomes within a few moves. For Example, If the queen is guarding the checkmating square then deflecting the queen by sacrificing a piece or other tactical motifs. Positional Brilliancy on the other hand is when you play a move(sacrificing or some other odd move) which is counter-intuitive and we see its positive outcome very late in the game. For Example, Based on your position-Exchange your queen for your opponents Rook & Bishop. Now if we see here there is no clear positive outcome instantly but it builds up towards the end.

Best Moves on the other hand are relatively easier to find for humans(GMs) as well as for engines because these moves are most of the time intuitive and for engines(less depth & a low number of variations).

**Brilliant Moves are the Aha Moments whereas Best Moves are the daily routine.**

# Answer
> -1 votes
A 'best' move means that the move played was better than any normal move that could have been played. A 'brilliant' move means that the move played was unexpected but leads to more advantage in form of greater evaluation of position than what a 'best' move can lead to.

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


# Question
Title: As a Closed Sicilian player, is it impossible to avoid the Taimanov Variation without accepting an inferior position?
I'm a Closed Sicilian player and I like the setup with Nc3/g3/Bg2/d3 a lot for White, since it cuts out having to learn tons of theory I'd have to know otherwise against the Open Sicilian. However, I noticed that it's kind of hard to avoid playing into the Taimanov Sicilian without accepting a worse position. Consider:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6

```

In this position, if I go for my usual setup with `3.g3`, then Black can already play `3...d5`. After `4.dxe5 dxe5` White can choose between `5.d4` and `5.Bg2`, but neither of these lines look appealing to me:

* Even though `5.d4` results in an IQP position, Black gets a lot of activity and White's queen gets chased around.
* After `5.Bg2`, Black gets to grab a lot of space sooner or later by pushing `d4`.

So instead of `3.g3`, I tried looking into `3.Nge2`, which is the highest-scoring move in this position. Now if Black tries `3...d5`, after `4.exd5 exd5 5.d4` it looks like a very comfortable IQP position for White. So you'd think we'd be able to go for `4.g3` on the next move without having to worry about `4...d5`, right? However, after

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 Nc6

```

I found out that `4.g3` can lead to a nasty-looking position for White if we try the aforementioned plan in response to `d5`. Here's the line given by Stockfish:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.d4 Bg4! 7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.h3 Bf3 9.Kf1

```

Somehow the engine says this is +0.2 for White, even though I'm down a pawn and deprived of castling rights...?

So should I be playing `4.g3` and potentially get into the above wacky line, or play `4.d4` and learn a bunch of Taimanov Sicilian theory?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I managed to find a line that seems playable for White, although Black is definitely somewhat better here:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 Nc6 4.g3!? d5! 5.exd5 exd5 6.d4 Bg4! 7.Be3 Bf3 8.Rg1 c4 9.a3

```

Black plays `8...c4` because we are in fact threatening to capture on `c5` (note that `9.dxc5 d4?` would not win a piece), and we play `9.a3` to prevent Black's bishop from coming to `b4` where it would be super annoying. After this we can slowly start to unravel with moves like `Qd2`, `Bg2` etc. (However, note that we do *not* want to castle queenside since Black can come at us super fast with his pawns, so unfortunately our king will have to stay in the center.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
This variation is fine for White (It is not the Taimanov Variation!) The position may look scary at first glance but after the brilliant 9.Kf1 it's actually better for White. Black naturally wants to pressure with Qf6 but White has a surprise in store: Qd3! The idea for White is to castle in manual mode by eventually moving King to g2, whereas Black has one flank underdeveloped and the other one opened up for future invasions. Even 0-0-0 is no longer that attractive for Black, nor are other options:

```
[Fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.d4 Bg4!? 7.Bg2! Nxd4 8.h3 Bf3 9.Kf1!! Qf6 10.Qd3! Bxg2+ 11.Kxg2 Nxe2 12.Qxe2+ Ne7 13.Nb5⩲

```

Black can of course play 10... Bxe2+ but after 11.Nxe2 O-O-O 12.Nxd4 (the best play for Black is to simplify: 12... Qxd4 13. Qxd4 cxd4 14. Bf3 Ne7 15. Kg2=) 12...cxd4 13.Bf3 Bd6 14.Kg2. White has again castled manually, and again Black's king is less safe with his position open for future attacks. Plus, Black's other flank again lags in development. We are back to square one.

So, perhaps, Black can pressure even more with c4 and it looks at first glance very scary for White but after 10... c4 11.Qxd4 Bxe2+ 12.Nxe2 and Black is losing due to a simple three move tactic!

Maybe Black can wait with 10...0-0-0 and see what White is going to do about it? Then White achieves advantage by simple 11.Nxd4 Bxg2+ 12.Kxg2 cxd4 13.Nb5 a6 14.Nxd4. White is obviously better here, and His king is again manually castled.

Therefore, Black must be very careful. The position for Him is a minefield fraught with danger despite only a slight advantage for White that the engine shows. That's because Black lags in development and White can castle manually, obtaining a position that is easier to play from the human perspective. So, White should be happy with the position. It's not an inferior position as it may look on the surface.

As to the OP's own answer to his question with 7.Be3 Bf3 8.Rg1, this is a very bad play for White which achieves a terrible position from the human perspective. It's a step towards tanking the game!

---
Tags: theory, sicilian-defense, sicilian-taimanov
---


# Question
Title: Why do Engines show a fraction for the "Depth" and "Current Node" values?
Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere, but I've both Googled and searched here at CSE and cannot find an answer.

When I'm using an Engine for analysis (in this case, Stockfish 15), I've noticed that both the "Depth" and "Current Node" values are often expressed as a fraction.

What do these fractions represent?

Below is an image showing an example of what I mean. Depth is highlighted in red, current node in green.

# Answer
> 11 votes
The first window shows depth of the calculation. Here 35 is the depth in plies (half-moves) which the engine has calculated pretty thoroughly, and 75 plies is the depth of selective search (some variations have been calculated to the depth of 75 plies! Some variations are considered important by the engine. It calculates them much further than the standard depth.

The second window shows the current move the engine computes. It's move number 6 out of 39 possible moves in the current position. Specifically, it's King to g8 and possible variations after that.

The third window shows the overall number of positions the engine has calculated in millions: 1,746 millions or around 1.7 billion. When dealing with engines the number of positions is usually referred to as the number of nodes. One node is one position. One KN (kilonode) is one thousand positions. One MN (Meganode) is one millions positions.

It's Fritz/ChessBase program, right?

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, evaluation, depth
---


# Question
Title: Why does anybody allow the Queen's Indian Defense?
People often play:

> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3

And allow both the Queen's Indian Defense:

> 4... Ba6 OR 4... Bb7

And the Catalan:

> 4... d5 5. Bg2

Why not play:

> 3. g3

and transpose into Catalan, instead of learning theory of **both** the Catalan and Queen's Indian Defense?

# Answer
White can't force black to go for a setup with ...d5, so it's not a given that 3.g3 will end up in the Catalan.

In particular there is 3...c5, trying to transpose to a Benoni where the g3 variations aren't the ones with the most dangerous reputation.
> 13 votes

# Answer
The issue is in committing to 3.g3 a move earlier. Then if Black plays 3...d5, White must play the Catalan (with 3.Nf3, he still had the option to play a different line in the Queen's Gambit). Or take 3...c5 - against 3.Nf3, White has some edge in a few different lines. But against 3.g3 Black should be pretty close to equal, since as @RemcoGerlich mentioned, the Fianchetto variation isn't White's best try against the Benoni.

Of course, some people still play 3.g3 anyway, since they're fine playing with a fianchetto in all these lines. I think it's what Avrukh recommends in his books. It's just not everyone's cup of tea.
> 4 votes

# Answer
**Shortly:**

I am an experienced Catalan player and **choose 3.g3 order exactly to disallow Queen's Indian**. Considering my knowledge and practice I can say that most of White players move 3. g3 for the same reasons.

**Little more deeper:**

Main issue here is that at the point after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 White doesn't really know if Black selects some classic structures (like Queen's Indian or Nimzo) or more sharp (Benoni, Benko). **By сhoosing early 3. g3 order White limits Black from Queen's Indian, but by this price allows Black to switch for more preferable options** in, for example, Benoni: 3. ... c5 4. d5 ed 5. cd d6 (or 5. ... b5!?), where g3, Bg2 system is relatively harmless for Black.

Thus, one shouldn't treat 3. g3 as the move that just narrows down Black's options. It has own drawbacks. I can speculate that if you are preparing as White to more positional-styled opponent or Queen's Indian player it is better to consider 3. g3. If your main weapon against Benoni is the system other than Fianchetto (g3, Bg2) you probably need to check some QI lines and go 3. Nf3, it will be more sound in this case.
> 2 votes

# Answer
1. The QID isnt really anything to worry about. Most white players are more worried about the NID or the KID and are probably happy to see a QID. White scores 54% and SF gives .37 to white so white is able to maintain an advantage
2. The Catalan doesn't really score better and is only .11 according to SF. I don't really see the point of learning an entire new opening if it doesn't give better results.
3. Transpositions- I don't play these openings but I'm sure there are some tricky transpositions.

So, you're saying you should learn the queens gambit AND the Catalan and then learn all the transpositions and sidelines etc. What are you gaining by doing that? It just seems like a lot of extra work for no reason to me.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-indian, catalan
---


# Question
Title: Recommended mobile app or website to memorize openings
I'm looking to improve my game's opening. Could any of you could recommend an app or website dedicated to this?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess PGN Master and pgnmentor.com are how I study openings. Download one of the large PGN files on the opening you want to learn, open it up with the viewer and autoplay through games during your downtime. I tend to stick to the games of only the players I recognize so that I am not learning from 1300s (there are a ton of high-level games in each file). This is great for learning the common themes of an opening. You don't have to understand every move but sometimes I will pause it and try to work out a particular tactic.

To memorize specific lines, I make openings files in Chessbase built from the games of today's top players (I consider anything that a 2600+ FIDE has played and my computer doesn't immediately hate to be playable for me). I then play through them, forcing myself to remember the options available for each side in the position before I make the next move.

As others have mentioned, focusing on openings is not going to help you improve very much below maybe 2000 FIDE. However, the first method I described can be used to improve at any level-you can retrieve all of the games of a great player (I started with Capablanca) and watch their moves zip past. This in my opinion is the best way to learn pawn structures. Jeremy Silman has recommended this method (though not this specific configuration) many times in his chess.com articles.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In my experience, merely memorizing openings isn't going to help you unless you're playing strictly against lower rated players. What will help you with stronger rated players is to analyze and understand your opening and all the possible moves your opponent can make. If you play 1. e4, your opponent has at least three moves he'll consider (e5, Nc6, Nf6), and that's if he isn't playing something complicated like the Sicilian (c5). Supposedly ChessTempo is working on a mobile app, something to look for and keep in mind for the future. The desktop tactics is highly recommended, I don't expect anything less from the mobile app. However in the meantime, most apps searched under "chess openings" have about four stars. You should look and see which you like best to hold you over until ChessTempo's app comes out.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As others have advised, it is not a good idea to simply "memorize" chess openings and variations, without understanding the nuances of those lines and why each move is made. Assuming, you have already done that, memorizing Chess openings is required, since that is how you remember it AT THE BOARD! Even the top GMs memorize their lines!

I introduced "iChess" to Vishy Anand and thought he might like it to practice Chess puzzles and tactics. To my surprise, the next email from him was asking me how he could practice his Chess repertoire (Openings) using the App. He just wanted to load his Opening PGN in the App, and practice his lines, so that he does not forget them when he is at the board. He wanted to make moves for HIS color, while the App should play out the moves for the other color (all moves are the ones stored in the PGN file).

Long story short, iChess (Android) allows you to practice Chess openings, exactly as mentioned above, with YOUR own PGN file. I have also written a blog post about it: http://mychessapps.blogspot.in/2013/02/how-to-practice-chess-openings-with.html

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Asim http://mychessapps.com

# Answer
> 1 votes
I suggest you focus on learning a few common openings rather than attempt to study a large number up front. In most cases, you can transpose to one of the openings you have studied with a little thought and your play will improve in this way. You should pick one or two openings for each major opening style, e.g. queen pawn and king pawn. The list I started with was Queens Gambit and the most common responses to it, Queens Gambit Accepted, Queens Gambit Declined as well as the Slav defense (exchange variation). These openings are classic openings with a lot of depth in theory but are solid foundations. I also learned the Reti because it was a hypermodern opening and the play style is more interesting and it can transpose easily into the other openings I knew well at the time. From the point of view of black, I studied the common queen gambit responses as well as the Grunfeld defense. The king's indian defense is also very interesting to explore. For king pawn openings, I studied the Giuoco Piano and the Ruy Lopez.

I found youtube to be a very good reference, particularly the videos by the St. Louis chess club. As an example, most of the openings I mentioned for white are covered by GM Varuzhan Akobian in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh4sO1ICS\_Q. I found his explanations of not just memorizing the move order but explaining the why of each move to be most helpful. The opening explorer at http://www.365chess.com/opening.php was useful for browsing openings, but once again the why matters much more than the how. There is an adroid app called Chess Openings that reproduces some of the information from the opening explorer but in a tabular format. I also own a copy of FCO but I would suggest you watch the youtube videos I mentioned and focus your studies on a handful of openings. When you are beat by someone using an opening you don't understand, use the opening explorer to figure out what opening they played, and then give it some study. You'll expand your skill set in no time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you need only memorization you might take a look at https://flashchess.org. You can create your own opening (for instance, by pasting PGN from lichess.org) and then the tool will ensure that you memorize it properly by playing and reinforcing it over and over again.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Give Chess Repertoire Manager a try. You'll be surprised on how big a help it can do to your quest of improving your opening game play. By the way, it is an Android app from Google Play Store. With this app, you can create and manage your opening repertoire and train with it. It has built in chess engine for analysis or playing chess games with it using your opening repertoire as opening book of the game.

---
Tags: opening, websites, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: How to implement programming with board states (turn, en passant squares, castling rights)
From Gigantua, the fastest chess move generator, it says that

> The same holds true for the castling squares and most importantly the current moving color becomes a compiletime template and not an if statement. No single if statement should be wasted on non existing moves or which colors move it currently is.
>
> ...
>
> We have 6 independent boolean board state flags - and none of these will ever need a single if during runtime. The cost of having if (Color == White) or Attack\[Color\] compiles away into nothingness. We only need a single switch statement as an entry point

Here is the struct used for the current game state:

```
class BoardStatus {

public:
    const bool WhiteMove;  const bool HasEPPawn;
    const bool WCastleL; const bool WCastleR;
    const bool BCastleL; const bool BCastleR;

    constexpr BoardStatus(bool white, bool ep, bool wcast_left,
    bool wcast_right, bool bcast_left, bool bcast_right) :
        WhiteMove(white), HasEPPawn(ep), WCastleL(wcast_left),
        WCastleR(wcast_right), BCastleL(bcast_left), BCastleR(bcast_right)
    {

    }
}

```

Because of the constructor, this implies that a new `BoardStatus` structure will be created for every turn. How can that be efficient?

For example, how does this reduce the number of `if` statements, because you still have to check the value of the `WhiteMove` boolean?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Notice, that the constructor for `BoardStatus` is `constexpr` (btw, this question on SO is an interesting extra read on the topic). So, you should think of `BoardStatus` as a **Literal Type**, which allows many interesting things to be done with it during the compilation by the compiler (as opposed to runtime calculations), including the elimination of many `if` statements.

The particular details would depend a lot on how this class is used, but, I would say, that `constexpr` is the key to the understanding of the quoted explanations.

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: When did the term "tabiya" start being used by players?
I was surprised to learn that the word "Tabiya" comes from the Arabic language. I know of no other Arabic terms in chess and know that most of its terminology is Russian or Yiddish: E.G. Patzer, Rezshenie, Priyome.

Does anyone know when and where the term Tabiya started being used by chess players?

# Answer
The earliest use of the word "tabiya" that I can find in western literature is from *A Dictionary, Hindūstānī and English* by John Shakespear published in 1820 where it says on page 250:

> tabiya 1. Arrangement, disposition 2. Drawing up of an army 3. Inlaying

Not clear that that is a chess reference.

The earliest chess reference I could find in English was from The Chess-monthly - Volume 2 - Page 200 published in 1880

The earliest chess reference I could find in any language was 1868 - ABC des Échecs, ou introduction à l'étude de la stratégie raisonnée des echecs
> 8 votes

# Answer
As Oxford Companion to Chess (new ed., 1992) derives the term from Shatranj, it seems reasonable to assume that its first use by chess players would be by players who played Shatranj or closely related chess variants. That is Arabian or Persian players ... in the Middle Ages, or thereabouts. (It may be used in non-chess related contexts, but I ignore those.)

Later, it is used mainly by game or chess historians (von der Lasa, Forbes, Weber, van der Linde and others) in Europe, but presumably still in use where Islamic chess is played.

I first wrote: "I see no reason to believe it is used any any significant way by chess players who follow modern chess rules, i.e. from 1850 or so." but searches for the term in modern chess books shows that it is being used by writers such as Soltis and Alburt, but apparently in a slightly different sense of a 'common opening position' or 'standard position in a particular opening'.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: history, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Building up a dataset for image recognition of hand-written scoresheets
I am trying to build up a training dataset to train a convolutional neural network (well, the pipeline will probably be a little more complex, but probably a CNN will be at its core) to convert handwritten scoresheets into PGN.

Does anybody have a (larger) body of scoresheet images + respective PGNs or knows which persons/entities could potentially provide those? Since score sheet formats vary widely between countries and federations I'd be interested in a great variety of them.

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Does anybody have a (larger) body of scoresheet images + respective PGNs or knows which persons/entities could potentially provide those?

All FIDE rated tournaments where norms are available (so must have a minimum number of GMs, IMs and federations playing in the tournament) are required to submit PGNs of games played to FIDE to ensure the integrity of titles. This means that all such tournaments will have a stack of scoresheets which have to be entered into the computer and submitted to FIDE. This means that arbiters at such tournaments who have responsibility for inputting are likely to have large numbers of such scoresheets.

Aside: As somebody who has been the chief arbiter in a norm tournament I can tell you that such a program, if successful, would be very, very welcome.

Additionally some federations, leagues and tournaments have policies of trying to submit PGNs for FIDE rated tournaments where norms are not available. The English Chess Federation is one such and in it the 4NCL (4 nations chess league) are very good at publishing PGNs.

Entering scoresheets into the computer is often difficult and can be boring. Some people (me, for instance) are not that good at processing a stack of, say, 100 scoresheets. Other people are very good indeed. In England there is one star who is quite brilliant. That is International Arbiter and IM Jack Rudd. I don't know what he does with scoresheets after he is finished but if he doesn't throw them away he will likely have a very large pile. You will see him on the list of arbiters officiating at mega tournaments like Gibraltar and Isle of Man because he is so good at this.

To be useful your program will need to handle languages other than English, including languages which are written from right-to-left like Arabic, Hebrew and Thai.

I should add that arbiters are not particularly strict when it comes to enforcing rules around scoresheet legibility and entering the moves correctly. For instance, although the abbreviations for the pieces may be in your native language, the files must be written in English ("a" through "h") however many players use their own alphabets for these and I don't think I have ever come across an arbiter who enforces this.

Finally, here are a couple of scoresheets from a tournament where I was chief arbiter a few years ago.

Surprisingly this is one of the more legible scoresheets from this player. He did, though, use descriptive rather than algebraic notation.

Here is a more legal one (algebraic)

I wish you a lot of luck with your project but I don't think you really understand the problem. Playing chess can generate very high levels of stress in the players and this often leads to problems with how they write the moves.

PS You can download the pgn file for the tournament these games came from from the FIDE website here.

# Answer
> 5 votes
In case you haven't seen this, there was a dataset released in 2021:

Owen Eicher *et al.*, Handwritten Chess Scoresheet Dataset (HCS), 1, ID:HCS\_1, URL:https://tc11.cvc.uab.es/datasets/HCS\_1:

> The Handwritten Chess Scoresheet or HCS dataset is an annotated collection of chess scoresheet images from live chess events. It was created to aid handwriting recognition research of chess moves to automate scoresheet digitization process. This dataset contains 158 games comprised of 215 pages of scoresheets digitized using a standard cellphone camera in natural lighting conditions. These images are tightly cropped, and a standard corner detection-based transformation is applied to eliminate perspective distortion. The headers and footers were also cropped out from each image in order to maintain player anonymity. Each scoresheet possesses a total of 120 move boxes, though in most cases a given scoresheet contains some blank boxes.

> Also attached (please check the "Ground Truth" section) are two text files which contain ground truth data for the scoresheets. A folder named "empty scoresheets" contains a few scoresheets with no handwriting on them. This is included in the dataset intentionally to provide a format for the chess scoresheets used, and to help with extracting individual text boxes from scoresheet images.

---
Tags: pgn, notation, scoresheet
---


# Question
Title: Has Carlsen been given a deadline to announce his WC intentions?
In the current World Championship cycle Magnus Carlsen has a psychological edge on Nepo. While Carlsen already knows who he is going to face in the WC match, Nepo has to wait for him to announce his intention to defend his title before knowing who his opponent is.

The longer Magnus delays the announcement, the more serious this asymmetrical situation becomes in terms of preparation and planning.

Has Magnus been given a deadline by which time he must announce his intentions?

# Answer
**UPDATE: Magnus Carlsen announced on July 20th that he wouldn't defend his title in the 2023 championship.**

He said he didn't feel enough motivation and wouldn't gain much from it. He said, verbatim, "I simply won't play the match." He didn't rule out the possibility to participate in such matches in the future but added you should not particularly count on it. However, he is going to continue playing FIDE events and doesn't plan to end his career any time soon. He still thinks of reaching 2900 Elo. You can watch his interview on YouTube to get more details: kunal chess (channel), video: *It’s official! Magnus Carlsen will NOT defend his title*, time stamp: 51:03. Before that moment they mainly discuss poker and Magnus's experience in Las Vegas.

**OLD ANSWER (July, 9)** I don't think there's a very strict deadline set for Magnus but the director general of FIDE said that there should be some information in about a couple of weeks, around July 20th or so. That's what they expect of him. FIDE can't wait ad infinitum. They have to plan a lot of things ahead. It's probably preliminary information. The director general talked to Magnus and they seemed to have a more or less constructive conversation about Magnus's wishes, which was private, I guess. However, you can find the director general on YouTube. He discusses this issue during chesscom broadcast of the 2022 FIDE Candidates with Robert Hess.

I don't see many uploads with FIDE Director General (Emil Sutosvky) discussing it with Robert Hess. However, chesscom original broadcast of 2022 FIDE Candidates is still available as of now (July 2022). It's round 14, time stamp 1:32 on YouTube.

Note. I've decided to make this answer Community Wiki. I think it's in line with questions and answers of that sort.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Well, he has been 'asked': https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/08/magnus-carlsen-given-world-chess-title-deadline-ian-nepomniachtchi-ding-liren-await

But, in my opinion, if he doesn't play, then it will be against the spirit of game. He's reigning champion but choosing whether to play or not against particular player is purely nonsense. 'A player cannot run away from their duties' 'A winner never leaves, and a leaver never wins' And if he gets away, FIDE should take some action against him.
> 3 votes

# Answer
## We'll probably have to wait much longer (sigh)

According to chess24,

> It's still unclear when the chess world will get closer to an answer as to who will play the next World Championship match. Sutovsky said during the Candidates that Carlsen was given an "informal deadline" of around July 20, hinting a decision could come around that time.
>
> Speaking to Aftenposten today, FIDE's General Director walked back his statements, calling it a misunderstanding and saying that a deadline or ultimatum was never given. "It's definitely not like Magnus has to make a decision before July 20", he added.
>
> "FIDE is not pushing for Magnus to make a decision. We would rather continue to discuss and wait if necessary, as long as it leads to him playing. There is no date set for Magnus to make a decision."
>
> "When the contract has been made and sent, the normal procedure is that a deadline is indicated there. There is no contract at the moment, that has to come first," Sutovsky says.

Of relevance is also this tweet by Tarjei J. Svensen, the author of the above-cited article. It reads

> FIDE supposedly asked Carlsen to make a decision before July 20. It would be extraordinary if he makes it 9-10 months before it's scheduled to take place, and before receiving contracts. In the past the final decision was made only when signed, a few months before.

## Update

Magnus Carlsen Will Not Defend World Championship Title
> 2 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen, nepomniachtchi
---


title: E-Ink/Digital Paper for Display

text:
# Question
Title: E-Ink/Digital Paper for Display
I like to play with my favourite android chess app on a tablet.

On the other hand I like the sun in my room.

I the sun is too strong, then up to now I go to a dark area in my room.

Is there a way to solve this?

Is there a way to show the chess board on E-Ink (digital paper)?

# Answer
> 5 votes
As of 2016 There are a few Android based e-ink readers, most notably by Onyx and a whole bunch of rebrands ranging in size from 6 inches to 9.7 inches.

I highly recommend checking out mobileread.com for all e-ink reader related information.

Usually they do not run the latest Android (i think 4.4.2 is about as good as it gets).

Another minus is that they do not run the most powerful CPUs(to both save on costs and also to preserve power). Still for running Stockfish they should be good enough.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is actually a chess app for the Kindle - http://www.amazon.com/Chess/dp/B004KACWZW . I don't think it is very strong. It will probably give you a good game if your are 1800 or lower. Probably a waste of time if you are much over 2000.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can always use online websites on your E-readers like lichess.

you can play against engine, other players, analysis board, edit board, import pgn, etc.

# Answer
> 1 votes
pbchess is available for Android and e-ink readers (Kobo, PocketBook, Kindle). I installed it on my Kobo after Kobo decided to remove the chess app (why?) and now even have the opportunity to review my opening pgn files, solve tactics and play games (much more than the preinstalled app was capable of).

---
Tags: android, hardware
---


# Question
Title: Maximum number of ways to get out of check
What is the maximum number of legal moves in a legal position, **given that the player is in check?**

It's easy to see that 43 is an upper bound. Let's suppose the white K is in check along a diagonal by a Q or B (other cases are similar or easier). Then White has at most 7 legal K moves; a white Q has at most 3 moves (interposition or capture); a white B of the right color has at most one move; and a white R, N, or P has at most 2 moves. Even if White has lost no pieces and has promoted all his pawns to queens, he has no more than 1\*7 + 9\*3 + 1\*1 + 4\*2 = 43 legal moves.

In fact it's easy to see that 43 cannot be attained. If White has 7 legal K moves, then one of them must be to capture the checking piece. But in that case no interposition is possible, the only legal non-K moves are captures, so White has at most 21 moves total.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Of course we can do better. We can always do better. 42 legal responses with a little trick.

```
[FEN "3rB2k/2P1P3/1NQ1QN2/2Q1QN2/2Q1Q3/1R3R2/3K1B2/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

My previous attempt, 40 legal responses:

```
[FEN "8/4N2R/3QQQQ1/1K5r/3QQQQ1/BB1NN2R/8/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

```

And 39 legal responses with a bishop check (and the position is legal, black's last move was ...h2-h1=B+):

```
[FEN "7k/1K6/4RN2/5QN1/B1R3QN/3Q3Q/3NQ3/4NQ1b w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Since several lower bounds have already been posted, I would like to elaborate a bit more on the possible upper bounds, since the estimate in the question is a bit oversimplified in my opinion (although the conclusion is still correct).

First, let us have a look at naive upper bounds, not considering interference between piece types, for each possible checking piece. The number of moves per piece type in the respective scenario (with the optimal number of pieces given in brackets) are given below:

```
    R       B       N       P
---------------------------------
K   7 (1)   7 (1)   8 (1)   8 (1)
Q   3 (7)   3 (8)   1 (1)   1 (3)
R   1 (2)   2 (2)   1 (2)   1 (2)
B   2 (2)   1 (1)   1 (1)   1 (1)
N   2 (2)   2 (2)   1 (8)   1 (8)
P   4 (2)   4 (1)   4 (2)   1 (0)
---------------------------------
    46      44      28      22

```

It is quite obvious that checks of non-sliding piece (N/P) do not need to be considered, since they can not be blocked. The case of a bishop is only slightly worse than a rook, but it is relatively obvious that it can not be better (because of opposite colored bishops, and pawns can not be effectively used against bishops), so we can focus on the scenario of a rook check.

The naive/conservative upper bound is 46 as given above. However, there are several interferences that make it impossible to achieve this:

* The slider blocking moves only work if the king is not next to the piece giving check, therefore, the king effectively can only have 6 moves, i.e., one less than the maximum.
* The 8x8 board is too small to fit all possible interposing pieces into their optimal positions:
    + When the king **is not** at the edge of the board, we only have 8 squares available for the 2 pawns, 7 queens, and 2 bishops. Therefore, 3 of these pieces need to be put on suboptimal squares or need to be replaced by a different piece, which will lose at least 3x1 move.
    + When the king **is** at the edge of the board, we still have only 10 squares for the 11 P/Q/B, so we lose one move. Furthermore, the king of course has two moves less compared to when it is not at the edge of the board.

For those reasons, the theoretical maximum needs to be lowered by 4, arriving at 42. Since we already know the lower bound 42 from Remellion's answer, we can conclude that 42 is both the lower and the upper bound, so it has to be the optimum.

The number of 42 can be achieved with different scenarios, just using different ways to concede the 4 moves that we have to lose compared to the naive upper bound, but all of them are similar to the position from Remellion's answer:

* King at the edge, one queen replaced by a knight

```
3r3k/2P1P3/1NQ1QN2/2Q1QN2/2Q1B3/2Q1B3/1R3R2/3K4 w - - 0 1

```
* King at the edge, one bishop at a suboptimal square

```
3rB2k/2P1P3/1NQ1QN2/2Q1Q3/2Q1Q3/2Q1B3/1R3R2/3K4 w - - 0 1

```
* Three queens replaced by knights.

```
3r3k/2P1P3/1NQ1QN2/1NQ1BN2/2Q1BN2/1R3R2/3K4/8 w - - 0 1

```
* etc.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Building on @Remellion's matrix for 42 in a legal position, here is **68** in an illegal position.

```
[Title "mec chess.stackexchange.com 9/22/2019, 68 Check Blocks"]
[FEN "1NQrQN2/1NP1PN2/1NQ1QN2/1NQ1QN2/1NQ1QN2/1NQ1QN2/1NQ1QN2/1N1K1N2 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Needed this for a test case. (engine check extension heuristics)

42, like already proven in other answers, but with no underpromoted pieces and *no block resulting in a stalemate or lost position*

```
[Title "chess.stackexchange.com 2022-07-19, 42 Check Blocks"]
[FEN "R3q2R/2NP1PN1/3Q1Q2/3Q1Q2/pn1Q1Q2/1p1B1Q2/k7/4K1B1 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, check, records
---


title: Border pieces in Magic Bitboards

text:
# Question
Title: Border pieces in Magic Bitboards
I've been trying to understand magic bitboards, but everywhere I've read failed to explain how edge pieces are handled.

The pieces at the borders are ignored to save space.

So for a bishop at `D3`, the move mask would be:

```
00000000
00000000
00000010
01000100
00101000
00000000
00101000
00000000

```

instead of:

```
00000000
00000001
10000010
01000100
00101000
00000000
00101000
01000100

```

checking if a piece at `C4` can be attacked by the bishop can be easily done by anding the move mask and a bitboard representing `C4`.

But, you wouldn't be able to do that for a piece at the border?

for example, you wouldn't be able to determine if a piece at `A6` can be attacked by anding since it wasn't included in the move mask in the first place.

How would you determine attacks at borders that have been ignored?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The method of magic bitboards basically applies a hash function to the important occupancy, or in other words, all the pieces that could potentially block the currently moving piece.

For example, let's suppose that we have a rook on e4.

```
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

```

and that our occupancy looks like this:

```
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . R . . 1
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

```

After hashing, we get an index into our table, and by accessing that index we should obtain the move-mask.

Our move mask, i.e. the squares that the rook can move to (without considering squares our pieces currently occupy), should look like this:

```
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . 1 . . .
1 1 1 1 R 1 1 1
. . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

```

The closest occupancies to the rook are registered as legal squares. They have to be AND'd with NOT our pieces. This way, we register captures as legal squares.

Note that the occupancy on h4 *does not affect the movemask at all*. Regardless of whether the h4 piece is there, we are still generating the same attackmask. So, the h4 piece isn't really a blocker.

The reason why removing the edges reduces memory is because to store the bitboards, we have to check through every possible permutation of relevant blockers for a rook or bishop on a given square, generate the attack mask, and apply the *magic hashing* to it generate an index into our hash table, which contains all of the corresponding attack masks. By removing redundant bits that don't affect the generated move-mask we can significantly reduce the size of our table.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The move mask is only used to obtain the pieces that will block the Bishop. Edge pieces will never block any diagonal moves.

Given the blockers and the Bishop's location the algorithm then looks up the set of unblocked moves. Under the assumption that all blockers are foes. So to get actual pseudo-legal moves you would still have to ANDNOT with the friendly pieces. But usually you want to generate captures and non-captures separately, so for the captures you would AND with enemy pieces, and for non-ceptures ANDNOT with the 'occupied' (all pieces) bitboard.

---
Tags: engines, bitboard
---


title: Non-Tactical Puzzles

text:
# Question
Title: Non-Tactical Puzzles
Its surprisingly hard to find chess puzzles where the solution is not necessarily tactic resulting in checkmate or a heavy win of material. The problem with these tactical puzzles is that they do not simulate a real game where the best move may be something less exciting. Does anyone know of any good books or online resources for puzzles with solutions representing a wider variety of types of moves?

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is a good book by Ray Cheng that has 600 puzzles with a good variety of solutions - not just tactical.

There are also some youtube videos with similar types of puzzles -- for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94hiFJrtQWA

---
Tags: tactics, training, puzzles, recommendations, solving
---


# Question
Title: Is there some resource of non-tactical positions to practice analysing?
In point 3 of this answer RemcoGerlich implies that a good way to improve, for a class player, would be to develop the skill of “\[taking\] any position and \[figuring\] out what’s going on”.

It seems to me this is the kind of observation that has been made quite often before. Is there any kind of resource that provides a collection of positions for this purpose? Preferably ordered by difficulty and with some annotations to check your own analysis against.

Clearly, there are books about the middlegame but the ones that I know talk about various topics in isolation (providing positions which revolve solely around the topic of that chapter) and not about general analysis. (Not that I would like such a collection of positions to only include middlegame positions but this example comes the closest to what I have in mind.)

I am also not looking for tactical puzzles. There are plenty of books and apps that provide them. In case of a tactical puzzle it’s very clear what’s going on in the position: there’s an immediately winning tactic. (Or sometimes a single drawing move. But mostly it’s clearly one or the other.)

Annotated games could possibly be used for this, but it’s not trivial to select the positions that would be of interest for this without reading the annotations. Also, the strategical themes wouldn’t change so often during a single game so the amount of practice positions derived from an annotated game is quite low relative to the effort required to find them – clearly a selection by a renowned chess teacher would be far superior.

Ideally, I’m looking for a collection of positions that are decidedly not tactical and that have various strategical themes in them so the reader may analyse and evaluate the position, afterwards checking with the provided annotations. They don’t need to have a clear best move, it would be enough to just try and find all important themes and get a good sense of which side is better.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I looked at my library, and opened up a number of books. The old Dvoretsky books really do not do this much, but the "School of Future Champions" and "School of Chess Excellence" series do have many sections that just say "white (or black) to play", and nothing more.

Other Dvoretsky books that do that significantly are "Recognizing Your Opponent's Resources", which has 154 such examples. Also, "Chess Lessons" and "Maneuvering: The Art of Piece Play". That said, all of Dvoretsky's books are quite advanced, and you need to be above 2000 OTB, preferably 2200, to really benefit. His last book, "Chess Tests", was nothing but positions.

A couple of other tough books, but not as tough as Dvoretsky, are the classic "The Best Move" by Hort and Jansa, and "Test Your Chess Skills" by Sarhan Guliev and Logman Guliev. Again, both are a bit advanced, but still OK for a wider range of players.

My recommendation for most players are two outstanding series of books. The Yusupov series "Build up/Boost/Chess Evolution". There are 10 books in the series, and in each one, there is a lesson, and then a series of 12 test exercises for each lesson with just who is to move. The first four books are not simple, but they are accessible to players of a very wide range of OTB ratings. They get harder after that. This series is like having your own former top-10 GM as your teacher.

The other is the Jacob Aagaard series "Grandmaster preparation". There are 6 in this series, and there are many problems within each book. One of these books is even called "Grandmaster Preparation - Calculation".

Start with the first four Yusupov books, and go from there, is my recommendation.

P.S. The Yusupov books cover everything, from opening to tactics, to endgames, to positional play, as you specifically asked about.

P.P.S. NoseKnowsAll mentioned Silman below, and Silman posts a lot of articles he writes on chess.com. While not all are position-related, he does a lot about pawn structures, and other positions. You can find them here (click "More" at the bottom to see more of his articles to find the ones you want).

# Answer
> 4 votes
I am currently working through `Karpov Move by Move` One nice thing about this books is that it stops to ask a question sometimes. Often the question is "how do you access this position" and then goes on to discuss that answer. And of course reviewing Karpovs games is helpful for anyone thinking about positional play.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have found Silman's Lessons in Strategy 1 and 2, available at chess.com quite good. They do contain some "tactics" as well, but similar to as in a real game, you wouldn't know which positions have a tactical or a strategical solution. Besides, you might also be required to analyze whether the position resulting from the tactic will result in a strategic advantage.

The other lessons on chess.com are probably also quite good, but I prefer Silman's, as they provide thorough analysis both of the wrong and the correct moves, contrary to many of the other lessons.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are some youtube videos that have problems to solve which are not purely tactical -- This channel is good : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpUUMhWg5GPD5ynP\_vhnMJg

---
Tags: analysis, learning, evaluation, study
---


# Question
Title: What are good YouTube channels for improving chess?
What are good YouTube channels that help to improve our chess?

Channels which are analyzing their own games (Blitz, standard, OTB) or discussing tactics, strategies, etc.

I list some of these channels in the following.

Please share your favorites. Note that here we are interested in channels with learning material not channels with plenty amount of advertisements or fun.

Channels here are ordered arbitrarily with no preferences:

1. IM Andrew Martin Chess Videos
2. John Bartholomew
3. Chess Network
4. Simon Williams
5. Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis
6. kingscrusher
7. GJ\_Chess

There are some other channels such as OnlineChessLessons, which are good but they are more introduction to openings. If one wants to go deep into something then have to pay for their videos but a simple blitz game analysis by IM or GM or even a normal good player can give more insight than an introduction to an opening X.

<sub> P.S0: Notice that I'm not looking for good online resources like this question: Free learning material, also not only for the beginner rather for advanced players. I want to be strict only on YouTube channels, as the other question does not cover even the channels that I've already subscribed.</sub>

# Answer
ChessExplained is the channel of IM Cristof Sielecki. Most of the videos are him thinking aloud while playing blitz, and they provide excellent insight into the mind of an IM.

IM Greg Shahade has a similar channel as well. He is a bit more entertaining and less instructional than ChessExplained.
> 14 votes

# Answer
**Chess24** also seems to provide high-quality "Banter Blitz" videos (in English, German, and Spanish) which are quite useful for seeing the thought process of GM level play at 3 to 5-minute time controls.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I like these 3:

* Dereque Kelley's channel on the openings goes through the key strategic ideas, for both sides, of many of the most popular mainlines
* Claus Jensen's channel. I particularly liked his series on the exchange sacrifice
* Chess.com's channel, covering a wide range of chess topics from learning the rules to taking the initiative
> 7 votes

# Answer
From one of my previous answers:

(1) Majnu. Especially check out the "Chess middlegame training" and "Practical chess endgames" playlists. I like Majnu's videos because, not only is he a good player, but he also manages to explain ideas and plans in chess in a very simple manner. The concepts really stick in your mind, and you get to actually use them in your games. And from the way he explains things, you can see that he loves the game, which is also inspiring. I recommend Majnu highly (especially to beginners).

(2) SeanGGodley. Excellent analysis of famous games and players. The book "My system" by A. Nimzowitsch is considered to be one of the most important books in chess history, and Sean has a playlist dedicated to this book. Excellent and (pretty) detailed analysis make him one of my favourite YouTube channels for improving my game. Also, Sean is a great narrator in my opinion, and that makes it easier to follow his thoughts. However, Sean's videos are maybe too much for beginners.

(3) thechesswebsite. Many instructional videos on openings and traps, as well as other topics (like tournaments, players etc.). All in all, a very good channel to improve your game.
> 7 votes

# Answer
IM Eric Rosen has a YouTube channel in which he frequently posts stream supercuts and game analyses. His content is less focussed than other "learning resource" style channels, but his videos contain lots of information on different aspects of the game (particularly for lower level players).

His videos also happen to be very entertaining.
> 5 votes

# Answer
For an analysis of master games, check out agadmator's Chess Channel.

He shows why the "obvious" move shouldn't be played, and then explains the more subtle, but better move.

He keeps it interesting by sometimes adding jokes in, and sometimes asks the viewer what the best move is.

This channel is mainly for expanding knowledge, not learning how to play.
> 4 votes

# Answer
In addition to John Bartholomew and ChessNetwork, there are a ton of other interesting and entertaining channels. I have about 30+ YouTube chess channels listed on a page on my blog if you're interested in a brief explanation of each.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I agree with several posters above that John Bartholomew's channel is perhaps the best for somewhat experienced amateurs. His jovial personality, his communication skills and his teaching abilities have great appeal. Also, his natural style of positional play is something I think many maturing chess players can relate to.

Here are some others (not mentioned above) that deserve honorable mention for both entertainment value as well as learning:
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you want to learn specific openings, traps, and strategies, I suggest TheChessWebsite's youtube channel.

Also, Kevin does a lot of analysis of games between Grand Masters both historical and modern, and even covers some games involving chess computers. I find that these are great for learning the subtle tactics of higher level play, and understanding how my own play is different. Also, it lets you see what the masters are actually looking at and the way in which they plan movements.

I would like to point out this is not a good channel for "learning" chess, however it is great for furthering and expanding your own knowledge.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There's also a relatively unknown channel of GM Tal Baron.

Like the channels mentioned in dfan's answer, **GM Tal Baron** also commentates while playing Blitz.
> 2 votes

# Answer
FedaMaster brings you guys one of the most entertaining and educative chess channel.

Chess stream videos regarding combinations, tactics, interesting blitz games against established GMs and also commentary on chess games are also available on this youtube channel.

Strongly Recommended to subscribe https://youtu.be/y38OFhyCKsA :)
> 1 votes

# Answer
I like chessgeek (I might be biased, as I am its owner). I made videos about many different topics (openings, strategy, analysis, ect), and make more every day! Here is the link if you are interested.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This new channel features quizes with a variety of types of moves as solutions, not only tactical - making it a great resource for on the go training if you don't have time to play an entire game -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpUUMhWg5GPD5ynP\_vhnMJg
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---