title: Why is the queen considered lost?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is the queen considered lost?
In this game, white just moved the queen from b7 to c6, and the computer marks this as a "critical blunder" (and suggests that the bishop should take the knight). In this position it considers the queen lost, but it doesn't say much how. It says black should move their rook to c8, but then it seems to me the queen can go to b5, and from there on it's hard to take it.

The black rook can then move to b8 and the queen can go back to c6. If the rook doesn't move, it seems to me the queen can escape: if the white queen moves then it becomes a queen trade, and if the black knight moves then the queen can play a4 and then escape to c2 (for instance).

How can the black take the white queen in this configuration? (black to move)

# Answer
```
r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rb8 3. Qc6 Rb6!

```

Now white's queen is trapped.

As @Joffan has pointed out in the comments and as many have probably seen, immediately trapping the queen is not the end to this game:

```
r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rb8 3. Qc6 Rb6 4. Qxc5 Bxc5 5. Bxc5 Rxb2 6. Bxf8 Qxf8

```

A more convincing alternative seems to be sacrificing the rook for the knight.

```
 r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rxf3 3. gxf3 Rb8 4. Qc6 Rb6 5. Qxc5 Bxc5 6. Bxc5 Rxb2

```
> 29 votes

# Answer
You can also go with:

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 a6 3. Qb4 Nd3!

```

Which, while allowing the queen to escape, does still result in a significant material gain (one pawn plus one knight/rook swap).
> 2 votes

# Answer
A more dangerous way to handle this is for black to move Qd7, instead of Rc8, which also prevents white from escaping. Of course, this poses an opportunity to trade queens, but any move by white allows the queen to be taken.

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rc8 (1... Qd7 Qe6 Nxe6 (2... Qxe6)) (1... Qd7 Qd6 Bxd6 (2... Qxd6)) (1... Qd7 Qb6 axb6) (1... Qd7 Qa6 Nxa6) (1... Qd7 Qd5 exd5 (2... Qxd5)) (1... Qd7 Qc5 Bxc5) (1... Qd7 Qb5 Qxb5) (1... Qd7 Qa4 Qxa4 (2... Nxa4)) (1... Qd7 Qd7 Nxd7) (1... Qd7 Qc7 Qxc7) (1... Qd7 Qb7 Qxb7 (2... Nxb7)) (1... Qd7 Qc8 Qxc8 (2... Rxc8)) (1... Qd7 Qa8 Rxa8) (1... Qd7 Bxc5 {And last, but not least, white makes literally any other move} Qxc6) (1... Qd7 Nxe5 {White can try to force a trade, but the queen can still be captured} Qxc6)

```
> -1 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Why have more than one time control per game?
Why is it so common to have time controls like 2 hours for 40 moves plus 30 minutes for the rest of the game, as opposed to something simpler like 2.5 hours for the game? Is this just to "force" players to ration their time? Can't players be trusted to manage their own time? :-)

Disclaimer: I've never played under such time controls.

# Answer
I think these partitioned time controls evolved naturally during the history of tournament chess for two reasons.

1. **To limit psychological warfare.** Some chess players are.. let's say difficult. I can vividly imagine the first time when a participant of an important match refused to make his next move (or even look at the board) because he was so angered that he blundered away a piece in the 10th move but also refused to forfeit and although it was very obvious that he would just let his time run out, there was no rule yet to stop the game right there and everyone had to wait for hours. Or people started to try and abuse the lack of such rule by simply waiting for an entire hour before making the first move simply to unnerve their opponents (who were pondering over which opening they would see etc.)
2. **To make matches more exciting for the spectators.** Remember, in private everyone can set their own time control however they like. But for tournament hosts it makes sense to split it into smaller pieces to create more tension. Also, especially casual or even first time spectators might be more at ease with this because it stresses that not every game lasts *this* long.. you don't have to wait for full 5 hours *every* time. The time after move 40 looks more like the overtime from other sports rather than "regular" time.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The reason, fundamentally, is that the average chess game lasts about 40 moves. therefore, in most cases, the game is over in 4 hours at most. If it goes beyond 40 moves, then it is over in 5 hours at most. It has nothing to do with adjournments, everything to do with game scheduling.

There hasn't been adjournment chess at the professional level in decades.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Time controls have historically been specified as some duration, plus some *whole number of hours* \[often one\] to be added after certain numbers of moves, because chess clocks were traditionally constructed by taking ordinary clock movements and adding mechanisms to selectively stop them, along with a flag that would fall when the minute hand reaches "12". If a time control is 2h40 plus one hour to be added after move 40, and a second hour after move 80, but no extra time beyond that, then both clocks would be set for 3:20 at the start of the game, and a player would run out of time if either:

1. The flag falls when a player's clock reads 6:00 and fewer than 40 moves have been made.
2. The flag falls when a player's clock reads 7:00 and 40-79 moves have been made.
3. The flag falls when a player's clock reads 8:00.

Note that at no point in the game would the player's clock be adjusted to add the extra time. Instead, the players would simply observe what clock reading would represent the end of the game given the number of moves played thus far.

If clock makers had wanted to support adding 30 minutes at a time instead of 60, that would not have been difficult. All that would be needed would be to replace the minute hand with a double-ended version which would simultaneously point at e.g. 12:00 and 6:00 but still rotated once per hour. If enough moves have been played to extend a game by 30 minutes, the game would end when a player's flag falls and the hour hand is between the 6 and the 7. For a tournament to impose such a time control, however, it would be necessary to have all players' clocks support it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Time controls were beginning to be used in the mid 1800's, with clocks becoming a regular appearance starting in 1861.

> The very first tournament where the double-sided chess clock was used was London 1883, which set a minimum limit of 15 moves per hour, failure to do so resulting in forfeit of the game by the player who has exceeded the limit. The games started at noon and the playing session would continue to 5pm, after which–should the game not yet be concluded–there was a two hour interval for supper followed by the adjournment (until 11pm, if necessary).

Source: Kevin Spraggett

Additionally, he mentions how there was no standard time control until later, when 40 in 2.5 hours, followed by 16 or 20 in an hour became commonplace.

While preventing players from thinking too long over individual moves was one of the reasons for the introduction of time controls, adjournments were also a consideration.

As @Saibot mentioned in a comment, deciding on a new time control isn't easy. Also mentioned in Spraggett's blog, players are reluctant to change the current time controls.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: time-control, time-management
---


# Question
Title: Does FIDE have rules governing online chess?
FIDE has its Laws of Chess which have governed over-the-board chess for almost 100 years. During the Covid pandemic OTB chess has almost stopped in many countries and more and more chess is being played at a serious level online.

Some federations, which have had to cancel their regular national championships, have replaced them with an online version. Example - the English Chess Federation. Their online national championships have just finished with Micky Adams winning the first place playoff.

Does FIDE have regulations for online chess which can be used as a standard by the member federations?

# Answer
> 11 votes
According to an announcement on the FIDE website today, 4th January 2021,

> The FIDE Council has approved a new set of rules to be applied to official online chess competitions. The document, which will be incorporated into the laws of chess, is the result of a joint effort by a dedicated task force, in which several FIDE Commissions were involved

According to Article 1 of the new FIDE Online Chess Regulations they build on the existing FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **Article 1: Application of the FIDE Laws of Chess**
>
> 1.1 Articles 1 – 3 of the Basic rules of play from the FIDE Laws of Chess are fully applied, except Article 2.1.
>
> 1.2 Article 2.1 of the Basic rules of play from the FIDE Laws of Chess is superseded by Article 3.1 of these Regulations.
>
> 1.3 Articles 4 and 5 of the Basic rules of play from the FIDE Laws of Chess are superseded by Articles 3 and 5 of these Regulations respectively

The new Article 3 deals with the mechanics of moving the pieces in online chess and so covers things like pre-moves and auto promotion.

The new Article 5 on completing the game is particularly interesting as it changes the repetition and 50/75 move rule to reflect the way online platforms currently operate. Here is what it says:

> **Article 5: Completing the Game**
> 5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated **his/her** opponent’s king.
> 5.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares **he/she** resigns by pressing button “resign” or by another method available on the playing zone.
> 5.3 The player can offer a draw in accordance with any method provided by the playing zone. The offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it by playing a move or the game is concluded in some other way.
> 5.4 **The game is automatically drawn when**:
> 5.4.1 **the same position appeared for the third time** (as described in Article 9.2.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess);
> 5.4.2 the player to move has no legal move and his/her king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’;
> 5.4.3 a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves;
> 5.4.4 **the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.**

There is much more,including rules covering disconnection, and it is worth examining in detail. I have to admit that, although I'm a non-smoker myself, I find article 9.9 over-authoritarian -

> 9.9 Smoking, including e-cigarettes, is not permitted when visible on camera.

There is, quite rightly, nothing about eating or drinking on camera. FIDE should not be legislating on other non-disturbing behaviour in players' own homes.

Finally it is noteworthy that FIDE has adopted the more inclusive he/she, his/her

---
Tags: rules, fide, online-chess
---


title: What is the origin of chess clubs?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the origin of chess clubs?
In the first pages of Philidor's 1777 edition of *Analyse du jeu des échecs* (Analysis of chess games) there is a list of subscribers, some of whom are "Members of the Chess Club". They include several Lords and Dukes, etc. and also some Messrs.

Now, I wasn't aware there were chess clubs in the 18th century, and I was wondering when the first chess clubs were created and which were their characteristics.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Very interesting indeed. Although French, Philidor was in London for some time and virtually all the listed subscribers are clearly English, and book first edition is 1749 when he was there. It appears he played regularly at the St James Chess Club. The English were fond of clubs for a long time.

Here's a Wikipedia article with useful information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-Andr%C3%A9\_Danican\_Philidor

And here's a page directly to the point:

https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/clubs/jt\_chessclubs.html

As to when the first club started, I have no idea. It's a topic worth researching.

---
Tags: history, clubs
---


# Question
Title: Can all UCI engines output a FEN for the current position or is it just StockFish?
I know in StockFish if you type "d" you get an ascii view of the board and a FEN string for the current state. Is there any command in other UCI engines such as Rybka 4 that will output a FEN string?

# Answer
> 3 votes
From reading various chess source codes, mostly before 2005, I can state that most don't a FEN output. Any that would allow for a non-starting position should accept FEN, as it's just a special form of PGN. Crafty and san\_kit both have a "fen" command.

---
Tags: engines, uci, fen
---


title: Chess training to get to 2000 rating

text:
# Question
Title: Chess training to get to 2000 rating
I have been playing chess (sometimes a lot, sometimes none) for a very long time. I want to become an international master in 4 years, or have a rating of 2000. I am 15 right now and have a rating of 1300. What is the best way to spend 30 minutes a day doing "chess stuff" to maximize improvement? Thanks

# Answer
> 5 votes
In theory, you need 10,000 hours of (good) study to master any subject. A four year goal would require about seven hours per day. GM Donaldson, quoted some time ago, studies five hours a day before a tournament just to stay at his level.

The most effective improvement is in tactics. Tactics is said to be 99% of chess (various authors) and most games are decided by tactics.

Capablanca is often quoted as saying that you should study the endgame first, but a basic knowledge (pawn endgames, simple rook endgames, and mates) should provide you with enough skill to achieve you goal.

The opening should only be deep enough for you to get to a playable middlegame. You should understand the moves behind three openings (one as white, and one against both common white openings) along with common middlegame strategies.

Positional chess is the most difficult element to master. Although Nimosvitch provides the basics definitions in My System, it's still hard for most people to understand. However, without this knowledge, at the higher level, you'll lose game after game without understanding why.

---
Tags: learning, software, chess-variants, online-chess, psychology
---


# Question
Title: How to add variation to a game on Arena Chess?
Suppose I load a game from PGN on arena. Check screenshot.

If I want to add a variation to a main move, how can I do it? Is there any option to add a variation?

# Answer
Go to the move where you want to insert a variation and make an alternative. Then, a popup will open:

* New variation will create a new variation (what you actually want).
* Overwrite will overwrite the main move and all the next moves.

If you want to make a variation mainline, then right-click one of its moves → Upgrade variation.

Note: This works as long as your "Default action for adding moves" is set to "Always ask". If Arena isn't working this way for you, then right-click on the move list. This will bring up a menu where you can set this option.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: arena
---


# Question
Title: Am I allowed to call the arbiter on my opponent's turn?
My opponent, in their turn, was distracting me making annoying sounds. However, the arbiter said that I should wait until it's my turn when I called them. Is this correct?

# Answer
You are absolutely allowed to call the arbiter when it is your opponent's turn. There are any number of reasons why this would be necessary.

* To start with the most prosaic, you have filled your scoresheet and need another one.
* You are feeling unwell and need medical assistance
* Your opponent has picked up a piece but isn't sure where to move it to. They are holding the piece above the board, obscuring your view of the board and distracting you.
> 26 votes

# Answer
FIDE 12.6 says:

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

There is no mention of this applying only on one's opponent's turn. "introduction of a source of noise into the playing area" on one's own turn is a violation of the plain text of 12.6. Of course, you should be as non-distracting yourself when calling for an arbiter.
> 10 votes

# Answer
There is no rule saying that you can call the arbiter only on your turn, or that the opponent is allowed to distract you during their own turn.

If you want a more specific answer, you may need to give more details of the situation, for example what the nature of the distraction was. It seems a bit unlikely, but one can imagine some behaviour by the opponent which would be deemed reasonable during their own turn but not during yours. For example, adjusting pieces on their squares, or repeatedly reaching an arm towards the board as if to move and then withdrawing it. If a player were, say, muttering under their breath in a borderline distracting way, one could imagine an arbiter taking a somewhat more permissive view if the behaviour occurred only during the player's own turns.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, fide, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Is it technically a checkmate if the king is not in check, but all moves will result in check?
In other words, after white's move, black king is not in check. It is now black's move, but any move that black could make results in check. Is this a checkmate? Is there a chess term for this situation?

# Answer
* Putting your king in check is not a legal move as you've realized.
* Of course, if Black has any OTHER legal moves he can and should play one of them!
* If a side **TO MOVE** does not have ANY legal moves, that would be a **stalemate**, not a **checkmate** (which is delivered only by the side making the check)
> 22 votes

# Answer
It's called a stalemate, which is a draw.
> 5 votes

# Answer
No, if there are no more moves available to black then it is a stalemate.

If black has other pieces which have moves available to them they must move those pieces.
> 3 votes

# Answer
What you are describing is what is known as a "stalemate", a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. Moving the king into check is not a legal move. This is one of the ways a chess game is drawn.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, terminology, kings, stalemate
---


title: Who is this person in this image?

text:
# Question
Title: Who is this person in this image?
I think many chess players saw this image when playing older versions of Fritz as the option "coach is watching." But out of curiosity, who is the person in the image? Is he a grandmaster?

# Answer
Looks like its a stock image: the oldest source of the image I could find from 2008: http://www.grafamania.net/clipart/6201-digital-vision-dv297surreal-business.html
> 5 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, fritz, identify-this
---


title: Increase in pawn value towards endgames

text:
# Question
Title: Increase in pawn value towards endgames
I’m writing my own chess engine where I’ll be implementing something called a tapered eval which is one that evaluates the position with an endgame specific evaluation function and a middle game specific evaluation function. Then it will interpolate between these two depending on the amount of material on the board.

I don’t know if this is the right forum, but I thought since it is not related to programming itself and more related to actually playing the game, I would ask chess players themselves.

My question is then: If the value of a pawn is set to ~100 (centi-pawns, or hundredths of a pawn) in the middle game and opening, what should it be in the endgame? I would think that it needs to be higher because they are more important in the endgame, and thus being one pawn up should create a bigger imbalance. I know that this value changes dynamically depending on promotion ability, but what would you think a general value should be?

Any input is much appreciated!

# Answer
> 3 votes
I've tried programming with the relative values of pieces changing with relation to material. I've found that a maximum value of 110 centipawns\*, without bonuses, was a fair value. (FYI, the knight's value decreases as material is reduced, so this dynamic adjustment of value decreases for the knight.)

A square value, where the pawn gets a bonus the farther advanced pawn is worth more, is useful for both promotion and attacking values. (The promotion square has a value of 800, so there's huge gain to get to the eighth rank.) The gives the engine an incentive to aim for a promotion and encourages aggressive pawn moves in front of the opponent's king. However, another function is written to prevent a general weakening in front of our king.

Good luck in programming your engine.

-To fine tune the program, I set the normal value of a pawn to 2000. The highest value was a little over 2200, so I adjusted to the normal 100 value used in most programs.

---
Tags: engines, endgame, pawns, middlegame, material
---


# Question
Title: Is there really a checkmate after 1... Bxf5?
This puzzle on chesstempo caught my eye. We play as Black:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.Rgxg5

```

---

**Note:** *the solution is not quite important here, so no large spoilers from me :).*

---

The main blunder here is playing 1... Bxf5. One of the comments runs:

> ...Black is a step away from certain death after 1...Bxf5 2.Qxf5...

They show this board:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 1 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2.Qxf5 Qd1+ 3.Rg1 Qd2 4.f7 Qf4 5.Qe6 h5 6.Rg8+ Rxg8 7.fxg8=Q+ Rxg8 8.Qxg8#

```

Is mate threat really a thing here? I believe the mate threat actually begins at 3... Qd2 4. f7. Here's how I would've answered:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 1 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2.Qxf5 Qd1+ 3.Rg1 Rxd5

```

I reckon 3... Rxd5 to force White into some exchange, as merely playing 4. xd5 would end up in a mate threat from Black:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 1 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2.Qxf5 Qd1+ 3.Rg1 Rxd5 4. cxd5 Qxd5+ 5. Rg2 Rg8

```

The exchange would be:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 1 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2.Qxf5 Qd1+ 3.Rg1 Rxd5 4. Rxd1 Rxd1+

```

So, who is wrong here? Am I failing to choose the best moves for White, or is the board in the comments actually faulty?

# Answer
I Suspect that after 3... Rxd5 4. f7 is strong enough:

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2. Qxf5 Qd1+ 3. Rg1 Rxd5 4. f7

```

The obvious threat is Qf6 mate. Starting with the variations in which black tries to cover f6 we have:

* If 4...Rb6 then 5. f8=R#
* If 4...Rd6 then 5. Qxe5 Rf6 6. Qxf6#

Since all variations leads to checkmate there is no way to cover f6 and black must resort to giving up the queen.

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2. Qxf5 Qd1+ 3. Rg1 Rxd5 4. f7 Qxg1 5. Kxg1

```

Yet again Qf6 is mate and obviously black cannot move the rook from the 8:th rank because f8 mate. If 5... Rd6 then 6. Qxe5 Rf6 7. Qxf6#. This leaves us with the one last try of Rd1+ (if Kg7 immediately then cxd5):

```
[FEN "1r1r3k/7p/5Pb1/p2BpRpq/1pP5/1P1Q4/P5RP/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.Rgxg5 Bxf5 2. Qxf5 Qd1+ 3. Rg1 Rxd5 4. f7 Qxg1 5. Kxg1 Rd1+ 6. Kg2 Kg7 7. Qxe5+ Kxf7 8. Qxb8

```

It is not a mate but undoubtedly white is winning
> 6 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, puzzles, defense, exchange
---


# Question
Title: How can I improve after 10+ years of chess?
I've played chess for almost 13 years now (I'm 23), and I don't know how to improve my game level. I'm rated ~1400 FIDE, and have never been higher. I'm also ~1300 on chess.com after 700 games, and between 1700 and 1900 on their tactics problems. But even with this, I'm still losing games against 1200 ratings.

However, I don't think that I have a bad level. I win regularly against 1600-1700 in official tournaments in South France, and I finished 38th out of 200 in the ~1500 French Championship in 2018.

I think that my biggest problem is that I don't recognize when a good move is playable or if I'm winning on the board.

I never worked on tactics, openings and stuff in my youth. Maybe it's the cause of my problem, but today, I don't improve my level much. I can sometimes win against 1600 but still losing against 1200, and more than that. I saw new players that have begun because of The Queen's Gambit and are already almost better than me. I also saw someone on this forum become 1900 in only 2 years!

So I'm really questioning my chess level at the moment, but also questioning my learning. I would like to be given some very nice tips or advice.

# Answer
Some suggestions, in addition to doing some tactics regularly (that's number one).

1. Play at a time-control that is comfortable and not too fast, especially if you are playing blitz.(eg: switch to 5 min if you normally play 3 min); improvement is difficult anyway by playing only blitz games. Slow chess is needed at some point.
2. Analyze your games and see what kind of mistakes that you are making. You might even be repeating a tactical mistake in an opening and these are things that can be noticed and avoided.
3. Pick some opening/strategy of your choice and play that every game; over time, you'll be familiar with it and get some confidence.
4. Learn some basic endgames; knowing at least simple ones like King+pawn vs King will give some confidence; you can build on that and learn Bishop vs 1 pawn ending, R vs pawn.
5. Play stronger opponents whenever you get a chance (there are settings you can adjust to seek only players above a rating). This will force you to raise your level.
> 13 votes

# Answer
> I've never worked on tactics, openings and stuff in my youth, maybe it's cause of my problem

This almost certainly the source of your problem. I am actually the guy you're referring to who got from 600 to 1900 in 2 years (in reality 1.25 years since I quit during school) ; my relatively fast improvement is ,and I'm convinced with a very small margin of uncertainty, due to my obsession with tactics. There were many days where I would solve puzzles on chess.com for 3+ hours a day. As of today, I'm currently standing at 16 000 tactics attempts on chess.com.

Don't get me wrong, I did not enjoy doing that many puzzles, I would've very much rather do like most people do, play bullet/blitz get the adrenaline and have "fun". *But there's almost no ambiguity amongst the chess community that tactics are the fastest and most efficient way in improving*. So with that in mind, I did tactics !

Further, you mention you're 1700-1900 rated in tactics, don't pay attention to your tactics rating. Your goal should be to spam them as much as possible to further **strengthen your pattern recognition**. All in all, if you want to improve, spam a lot of tactics, your improvement will be striking and you shall never regret it.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I see that you are good at chess puzzles, so you must be good at tactics by now. The major question here is that what is the time frame for your games? Are you playing 3, 5, or 10-minute games?

You see I suck at blitz because I am just a hobbyist, but I am very good at slow play. My rating is around 1400 in 10 minutes and around 1800 for daily play because, in my daily games, I get to think before I move and I have 7 days to move. In rapid games, it boils down to who is the fastest, and that usually comes with memorizing lines and playing way too many games in a concentrated time frame.

Since you are good at tournaments, I strongly suggest you use the same time restrictions on your online games.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Given your description, here are several likely problems:

1. Tunnel vision, leading to blunders. You need to learn to see the whole board.
2. Lazy moves. Instead of looking for the best move, you're playing the "good enough" move in order to avoid having to think.
3. You lack a coherent game plan, but are paradoxically always playing a strategic opening (d4 or c4).

Long-term stagnation at that level is a behavioral problem associated with mental laziness. You can only fix it by getting out of your comfort zone, and thus changing your expectations. That usually means changing your opening to something you're not used to playing, preferably something sharp.

So basically... learn a new opening which is completely different from what you do now.

Also, never resign because players at approximately your level will blunder often enough that a game isn't lost until it's completely over, and in your settings for internet chess, set your opponent rating selection to no lower than 50 points below yours so you don't have your rating completely trashed by a single idiotic moment against a 3-year-old with an 800 rating. You are entirely capable of beating yourself against terrible players and likely prove it regularly.

Finally, if you think you've found a good move, look for a better one... preferably something entirely unrelated to the idea in the first. The first idea might indeed be the best move, but this is a way to force yourself to see the entire board. It can also help you get out of defensive mode when you should be counter-attacking.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The standard advice is to play a lot and analyze your games. Playing others at about or above your level is good for improving. Playing over annotated games by strong players is also recommended, such as game collections by noted players. But you seem to be playing a lot already. This along with doing tactical puzzles should improve your tactics. Since tactical skill is rated highly, this is recommended. Even at higher levels than yours, most games are decided tactically. With experience, you should be able to recognize a good tactical move, i.e. one that wins material, when you see it. As well as finding your own tactical ploys in a game, you must also avoid your opponent's. So you must be careful to avoid mistakes, i.e. by analyzing their tactical possibilities on each move. If you're playing white, the first move gives you the initiative, which you should try to maintain, but if you're Black, you have to equalize before trying to take the initiative, barring mistakes by your opponent. As far as openings are concerned, it is advisable to try to learn as much as possible about one given opening that you will use regularly rather than a little bit about a lot of openings. To simplify this process, concentrate on an opening that lets you establish the same formation in most games, minimizing having to learn a lot of lines. An opening like the King's Indian Attack as White for example is one such opening. And basic endgame skill is also a requirement, since you have to know how to capitalize on an advantage if and when you get one and reach that stage. Learn about the king and pawn vs. lone king endings from a manual (or online) as well as the minor piece endings, K and R vs K, K and Q vs K, K and 2 B's vs K, etc. I'm sure that playing regularly and carefully, trying to gain an advantage and avoid mistakes, should inevitably raise your rating. And I would also avoid playing a lot of quick chess as too superficial and the source of bad habits.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, psychology
---


# Question
Title: If not in check, can a king capture an opposing chess piece?
If a king is not in check, can it capture an opposing chess piece?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Yes, it can, as long as the opposing piece is not protected. It's even possible when the king is in check; all that matters is the position *after* the piece is captured. If there is an opposing piece attacking the king, the move is illegal; if not, it's legal.

```
[FEN "kR6/2B5/8/8/8/8/6r1/6nK b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ka7 {This is Black's only legal move.} 2. Kxg2 {However, this is a legal White move.}

```

Black to move can't capture the rook, since it's protected by the bishop. White to move (disregarding the situation in the upper left corner) can capture the rook, since it's not protected, but not the knight, since the rook protects it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If the king is not in check, or even if it is in check, it can capture an opposing piece as long as so doing would not put or leave it in check, which would be illegal. The king can be a strong attacking piece, particularly in the diminished force endgame when it would be less likely to be putting itself in jeopardy.

---
Tags: rules, check, kings
---


# Question
Title: Why is this "slow move" with the king a good move?
```
rn1qkb1r/1p3pnp/p1p1p1p1/3pP3/3P2P1/2NBBQ1P/PPP2P2/2KR3R w kq - 0 13

```

Stockfish (depth 30) says the best move is `Kb1` with +1.5 evaluation. I'm having trouble to understand why. The `a2` pawn is not getting threatened soon, and that the `c1-h6` diagonal is well guarded against checks.

Furthermore, it is early game and white has an advantage, building pressure on black's kingside. `Kb1` looks like a tempo wasting move that just doesn't accomplish much.

The engine also likes `Qg3`, `Ne2` and `Bh6`, which I deem more active ones. But can you help me understanding reasons why `Kb1` is a good move?

# Answer
Just because Stockfish thinks a move is best doesn't mean it is best. But let's see why Stockfish might like it.

When I look at Stockfish's static evaluation of that position, and move the king from c1 to b1, I see four sub-evaluations change. In order of the size of the change, those sub-evaluations are:

* Psqt bonus. This gives a bonus to each piece based on what square it's on. The king gets a bigger bonus simply by being on b1 instead of c1.
* Shelter weakness. The king gets a penalty on c1 because the adjacent d-pawn has moved, and gets no penalty on b1 because none of its adjacent pawns have moved.
* Mobility bonus. On b1, the White pieces are slightly more mobile (the rooks can now move to c1 - yes, it counts the square for *both* rooks) and that gives a bonus.
* Shelter storm. Black gets a bonus for the d5 pawn beginning to "storm" the White king if the king is on c1. With the king on b1, the d-pawn does not count as "storming" since it's no longer on an adjacent file to the king, and Black doesn't get this bonus.

All told, it adds up to about 0.5 evaluation points.

It seems that Stockfish is simply having a hard time coming up with a good plan here. At depth 27 it gives Rhf1 as the second-best move, but the line it gives starts with this.

```
rn1qkb1r/1p3pnp/p1p1p1p1/3pP3/3P2P1/2NBBQ1P/PPP2P2/2KR3R w kq - 0 13

1. Rhf1 Nd7 2. Kb1 a5 3. Rg1

```

But it doesn't exactly seem like the best sequence for making progress.
> 11 votes

# Answer
It's difficult to know exactly why the engine makes Kb1 in particular its top move here, and I wouldn't get too hung up on it since it's such a close tie in evaluations between the engine's top moves. But it's really not a bad move at all, so I'm not surprised that the engine recommends it.

The dreadful knight on g7 is a clear indication that something has gone terribly wrong for black, and this together with the fact that white is seriously ahead in development indicates that white should be the one to push in this position. But here black doesn't really have any good way to create any active counterplay at the moment, so white has some time to prepare before going for the kill. When there is time to prepare it is often a good idea to prepare one's position for the attack by placing all the pieces optimally in order to facilitate a concrete winning plan.

So, what does a concrete winning plan look like in this position? I think a sound idea is to go for a pawn break, say f2-f4-f5 since the pawns on e6 and g6 create a nice hook for white to use in order to break black's position. But white could also go for another potential break with c2-c4 if black's king decides to run to the queenside, and for this particular break the white king would be better on b1 than on c1. More generally, the king is going to be safer and less in the way on b1 than on c1, so investing a move in improving its position is not a bad idea when there is no rush.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Typieclly Kb1 (or Kb8) is played after queenside castling to add protection to the "a" pawn. The likely necessity of doing this at some point at the expense of time is one of the reasons queenside castling is not as popular as kingside castling. Whether the pawn is attacked immediaely or not is irrelevant. It's best to do this when not under duress. In a later critical position, it may be a compromising, time-losing move even though necessary.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: How do I find bitboard attack maps non-manually?
I am writing a C++ chess engine based on the magic bitboard, where ordering for bitboards is from LSB to MSB in Little-Endian Rank-File mapping. I'd like to have a 6x64 dimension 2D array for all possible attack sets for each piece on every square to save time during program execution.

Is there a resource that has these bitboards already defined so that I don't have to spend several hours constructing them manually, or is there a way to generate the attack sets with a program?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Stockfish (https://stockfishchess.org/download/) is open source and uses magic bitboards.
Crafty (https://craftychess.com/) uses bitboards and is heavily commented. There are other using bitboards, but these two are the best.

Hopefully this helps.

---
Tags: engines, software, bitboard
---


title: Cyclic attack puzzle

text:
# Question
Title: Cyclic attack puzzle
I saw this puzzle and a solution sometime in the previous century, I don't remember where, and I don't remember the solution.

Place the 16 white men on an otherwise empty chessboard so that the following conditions are satisfied.

1. Each man attacks one and only one other man.
2. Each man is attacked by one and only one other man.
3. The bishops are on opposite colors.
4. One pawn on each file, no pawns on the first or last rank.
5. There is one continuous cycle of attack, meaning that the men can be numbered from 1 to 16 so that #1 attacks #2, which attacks #3, which attacks #4, . . ., which attacks #15, which attacks #16, which attacks #1.

What's the solution?

Partial solutions (satisfying the first three conditions, but with doubled pawns or with two or more cycles of attack), will be appreciated and upvoted, but I'm hoping to accept an answer satisfying all five conditions.

# Answer
# Best solution

**If** there is nothing wrong with my rather spaghettoid script (admittedly, a big if) then there is no complete solution. The best my computer finds is two cycles. It finds essentially three such solutions plus a few minor variations. Interestingly, the split is always 3-13.

```
[FEN "1Q6/3R4/NB2P3/1P3P2/2P3P1/1N1P3P/P4KB1/R7 w - - 0 1"]

```

.

```
[FEN "R7/BP6/2PK4/6R1/2N3BP/1N1P2P1/P3PP2/Q7 w - - 0 1"]

```

.

```
[FEN "6R1/6BP/1N4P1/P4P2/BP2P1NK/2PP4/7Q/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Strategy / computer implementation

From the assumptions follow a handful of constraints that enable an exhaustive search.

1. There are no more than 4 chains of Ps. That is because Ps can only attack other Ps or Rs or Ns and each separate chain has a P at the base that is not available to be attacked by another P. Each chain is capped by a R or N.
2. The major pieces each have a rank to themselves. That is because there is at least a P on their file, so they must spend their attack on that file. The Q, in particular, must also have her diagonals to herself.
3. The Q must be attacked by a N.
4. At least 1 chain of Ps must be capped off by a N. There are at least two Ps on the same rank and their respective chains cannot be both capped by Rs because then 1 chain would have to cross the private rank of the other chains R.

Using these constraints makes the code rather verbose and ugly but keeps the number of candidates below a million or so.

# Relaxing the rules

If we lift the one pawn per file rule it becomes untractable for my computer program, but we can solve manually

```
[FEN "6R1/1R6/1BP3BN/3P2P1/2P2P2/1P4P1/P1N2K/Q7 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Last word: The i files

We can actually achieve a full solution with no doubled pawns by ever so slightly bending the rules. All we need to do is rip out the f file but relax we are putting it right back: as the new i file. Job done:
> 5 votes

# Answer
This has several issues. It's missing a pawn on `c` and a bishop on the black diagonal, and the pawn on `d` doesn't attack anything, as well as nothing attacks the rook on `a3`, but this is as close as I can apparently get. Maybe someone can work off this and do better.

However, there's a single cycle from `Ra3` to `d6`. Anything else I try ends up with at least one piece attacking multiple other pieces, and I still can't get all the pieces on the board without several of these multiple attacks.

I put ~~baby~~ the queen in the corner to attempt to reduce the directions of her influence. Then I tried to put things in around her. I've been doing this manually, so I obviously haven't managed to try all combinations, but this methodology seems to have some merit, until it hits a wall.

```
[FEN "5R2/N5P1/1P1P3P/PB2P3/5P2/R7/4KN2/7Q w - - 0 1"]

```

There are so very many issues with this puzzle:

1. The queen can only be attacked by a knight.
2. The queen and both rooks require a whole rank to themselves, leaving only 5 ranks for the other 13 pieces.
3. The queen needs the equivalent of at least one full diagonal.
4. Pawns can't attack bishops or the king.
5. Knights, bishops, and rooks can't attack like pieces.
6. Because there's so many pawns, most major pieces are likely going to have to attack one.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: A tool to search for certain moves played
Is there a tool to display how many times a certain move has been played? Note that I do not mean openings, I mean specific moves. Moves that I am looking for would be castling with checkmate or underpromotion to a knight with checkmate, and similar things. Is there a tool available to search for something like that?

# Answer
Chess Query Language operates on PGN files of games and does what you want as well as much more powerful stuff. It is a free download. There are lots of examples to get you started here.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: How to delete all annotations excluding variations in Fritz
Suppose I load a game.

Now I want to delete all annotations only (excluding variations). What is the way to do it?

If I select, 'Delete All Commentary'

It removes both annotations and variations. Check screenshot.

How to remove annotations only or vice-versa?

# Answer
> I want to delete all annotations only (excluding variations). What is the way to do it?

The simple and obvious way to do this which works in all chess engine GUIs which support PGN is to save the game as PGN. PGN files are just text so you can then edit the file with a text editor and manually remove whatever you like, save it and then open again with Fritz or the GUI of your choice.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you can save the game as PGN then pgn-extract has options to remove commentary, variations and NAGs, either separately or in combination. It's a free tool. Disclosure: I am the author of pgn-extract.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: fritz
---


# Question
Title: Can playing an opening that violates many opening principles be bad for positional understanding?
As the title says, and I have a concrete example in mind, g5 attack against the Italian:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6
5. O-O d6 6. c3 g5

```

Which can go like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6
5. O-O d6 6. c3 g5 7. Re1 g4 8. Nfd2 h5
9. Nf1 h4

```

It is a really interesting opening and probably results in some beautiful attacks; however, it violates so many opening principles:

1. Black does not develop pieces
2. Black does not get their King to safety
3. Black makes a lot pawn moves in the opening

The reason we learn about opening principles is that they work in most situations, could playing this opening mess with a players judgement in an unknown position? Would the answer differ depending on a player's level?

# Answer
> 13 votes
I'd say the opposite is true. "Principles" are great as general rules, but if chess were about following a set of fixed rules, you could simply buy a book that contains those rules and become a Grandmaster after you've finished it.

But that's definitely not the case. Chess is a game of exceptions. Learning about this opening will help you find moves like these (which are actually good moves) in positions where you should play them instead of the "principle-like" moves a beginner would do.

Finally, as the other answer has pointed out, whether or not these moves break the "principles" depends on what you consider the principles to be.

# Answer
> 16 votes
Generally speaking, violating positional elements, at any time, is bad for positional understanding. When you win a lot of games with bad positional play, this provides positive reinforcement for playing badly.

This opening, often called the Black Bear of the Philidor, isn't really breaking the opening principles. Black has gained space on the kingside, has equal control of the center, is just as developed as white (especially considering that there's no good places to put the bishops), and the king is safe as long as the center remains mostly closed.

Great players know when to break the rules. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1282302

# Answer
> 2 votes
Probably I did not fully understood the question but if you just violate principles, either:

* you are on your way on learning them so you should follow them, use and understand them to know when its OK to break those
* or you already know them but you have your reasons (like confusing
lower rated opponent, or surprise someone in a blitz game, etc.) to
violate those in the specific situation

From this I can conclude that playing opening that violates principles by itself will not hurt your level of positional understanding but obviously it will not serve as big improvement either as best improvement of skills can be achieved by using them.

First - learn skill then apply it or make exception as necessary - rule applicable not only here.

---
Tags: opening, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Why is an early e5 against a Yugoslav setup evaluated at +2.6 according to Stockfish?
I was looking at analysis on one of my games and found this variation against a Yugoslav attempt against the Sicilian Dragon which Stockfish 12 instantly says is +2.6 for white:

```
[FEN ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B50"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense"]
[Termination "Normal"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 e5 1-0

```

Once black plays e5 on move 7, Stockfish changes its +0.8 evaluation to +2.6, but if I play the game out with best moves from both sides using Stockfish I kind of don't see why it is so good. White wins by a lot, but I don't really understand why. Could somebody please help me understand why this move is so bad for black considering it doesn't seem to lose material if black plays correctly? And moreover, is this something I can punish if I see it again or is it just some weird super deep engine idea that a (non-GM) human couldn't really use?

# Answer
This move creates several weaknesses, at f6, d5, and d6, and restricts the movement of the Bg7.

The outpost weakness is usually shown by the game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257953.

The d6 weakness is basically using all you pieces to attack the pawn and, once all of black's pieces on defending it, to shift the attack to another point and, hopefully, the black pieces can't respond quickly enough.

The f6 weakness is harder, but basically pushing a pawn to f5 forces black to capture and expose f7 to attack.

The restricted movement of the bishop is exploited in the endgame when the bishop can't react quickly enough to both protect d6 and the dark square weaknesses.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Besides Mike Jones' correct positional explanation, Black is also losing material at once after the simple 8.Ndb5.

White attacks the d6 pawn, whose capture would also deprive Black of castling rights. 9.Nd5 followed by a fork on c7 is an even bigger threat ensuring that there is no defense:

8...Bf8 9.Nd5 Rb8 (what else ?) 10.Nbc7 Kd7 is awful, when the cleanest finish is probably 11.g3 Nge7 12.Bh3 f5 13.Bg5 h6 14.ef5 hg5 15.fg6 Nf5 16.Bf5#

8...Ke7 9.Nd5

8...Nd4 9.Nd4 ed4 10.Bd4 wins a healthy central pawn and keeps White's positional pluses.

8...Nge7 9.Nd6 Kf8 might be the lesser evil for Black, but your engine's evaluation is totally justified here.

8...Qa5 9.Bd2 doesn't solve anything.

Black is dead lost.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, sicilian-defense, sicilian-dragon
---


# Question
Title: How was the Candidate chosen for 1927, and why not sooner?
Wikipedia has a tiny article for the 1927 World Chess Championship. For the World Chess Championship article in general, it has very little to say about the 1927 one:

> Following the controversies surrounding his 1921 match against Lasker, in 1922 world champion Capablanca proposed the "London Rules": the first player to win six games would win the match; playing sessions would be limited to 5 hours; the time limit would be 40 moves in 2½ hours; **the champion must defend his title within one year of receiving a challenge from a recognized master**; the champion would decide the date of the match; **the champion was not obliged to accept a challenge for a purse of less than US$10,000 (about $140,000 in current terms)**; 20% of the purse was to be paid to the title holder, and the remainder being divided, 60% going to the winner of the match, and 40% to the loser; the highest purse bid must be accepted. **Alekhine, Bogoljubov, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar promptly signed them.**

> The only match played under those rules was Capablanca vs Alekhine in 1927, although there has been speculation that the actual contract might have included a "two-game lead" clause. Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch had all challenged Capablanca in the early 1920s but only Alekhine could raise the US$10,000 Capablanca demanded and only in 1927.

I bolded the main relevant points, but I still don't understand how the 1927 WCC worked.

First of all, it lists Alekhine, Bogoljubov, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar, but it doesn't say how the candidates tourney was organized or how it went. **How was the candidate chosen? And when? Was it some round robin format?**

Second of all, I still don't understand why this was delayed until 1927. Capablanca became champ in 1921. It says only Alekhine could raise the money but that leaves out some information, to say the least. Weren't the other candidates involved somehow for the candidates tourney and surely must have been able to raise something?

I realize ofc this is the Pre-FIDE era, but surely there are better records than this for the WCC?

I did find a little more info on a chessentials article.

> During the London Tournament, Capablanca and Rubinstein agreed their potential match would take place only in 1923. However, it was precisely due to the „Golden Wall“ rule that their match never took place; Rubinstein was simply unable to collect this enormous sum of money.

> Neither were Capablanca’s next challengers – Marshall in 1923 and Nimzowitsch in 1926 able to do so. Alekhine was also unable to find financial backers until 1926 when Argentine Chess Federation offered to sponsor the match. Capablanca agreed to the match, but only if Nimzowitsch, whose challenge was pending at a time, would be unable to raise the funds until January 1, 1927. Nimzowitsch was unable to do so, and Alekhine – Capablanca 1927 match was finally agreed.

So apparently Rubenstein was the first candidate, then Marshall, then Nimzowitsch. However, it's still not explaining how those were chosen, or how the Candidates Tourney was played out.

...Was there no Candidates Tourney at all back then?

# Answer
> 11 votes
> How was the candidate chosen?

Very simple. Money. The first to raise the $10,000 stake.

> And when?

As soon as possible.

> Was it some round robin format?

No. First to put $10,000 on the table gets to play the match.

> Was there no Candidates Tourney at all back then?

Correct

This is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia article you reference:

> From 1886 to 1946, the champion set the terms, **requiring any challenger to raise a sizable stake** and defeat the champion in a match in order to become the new world champion

# Answer
> 8 votes
The New York 1924 tournament was effectively the Candidates Tournament, Alekhine came third, that put him at the top of the list of challengers. But before he could challenge Capablanca, he needed to raise $10,000 as per Capablanca's London Rules. That took some time. Once he had raised the amount, he then issued Capablanca a formal challenge, which was accepted.

Before 1948, the World Championship title belonged to the World Champion, he could determine who he would play and when, or not play at all. It was only in 1946, on the death of Alekhine that FIDE took over the World Championship title and organised qualifying tournaments (zonals, interzonals and candidates tournaments) to determine the next challenger, and to keep it running so every 3 years there would be a World Championship match.

The $10,000 London Rules sum had a twist, it was $10,000 in gold. This annoyed Alekhine, that when the leading grandmasters met to determine the next challenger after the 1938 AVRO tournament, Botvinnik notes, they agreed that the challenger would need to raise the sum of $10,000, but if the challenger was Capablanca, he needed to raise $18,000 (the current value of $10,000 gold from 1927).

---
Tags: history, world-championship
---


title: Openings with Black

text:
# Question
Title: Openings with Black
Can you play openings like Evan’s Gambit or London with black or does that only apply to white? Or is it better to just react to whites opening? Would love to hear your thoughts!

# Answer
The London reversed seems possible, although White has to cooperate. It seems difficult to pull off after, for example, 1.d5 d5 2.c4, which is very common.

The Evan's gambit reversed seems quite rare. White doesn't often play the moves that would make it possible. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, Black needs to do something about the hanging pawn, but I think Nc6 or d6 make the gambit a bad idea (Nc6 makes c6 impossible, and d6 means you're wasting a tempo if you want to play d5 - you *really* don't want to waste a tempo when you're sacrificing a pawn for tempo *and* playing a tempo down already due to playing Black.) But I did manage to find one game where Black tried something like an Evans reversed, and won.

```
[Site "London (England)"]
[Date "1846.??.??"]
[White "John W Schulten"]
[Black "Bernhard Horwitz"]
[Result "0-1"]
[StartPly "6"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nc3 b5 4. Bxb5 Bc5 5. d3 c6 6. Bc4 Qb6 7. Qe2 d5 8. exd5 O-O 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. dxe4 Bxf2+ 11. Qxf2 Qb4+ 12. Bd2 Qxc4 13. Qf3 f5 14. exf5 Bxf5 15. Qb3 Qf1+ 16. Kxf1 Bd3+ 17. Ke1 Rf1# 0-1

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: King's Indian defense follows to strange pawn wall
I found myself in this position as a Black, and it is Black's move. I was thinking to somehow engage on the king's side in the end due to a stopped attack on the queenside. However, I checked few scenarios with the pawn exchange on f4/e5, or moving knight to h5 (?) to open f7 pawn, or pushing my g6 pawn to attack, so the light-squared bishop can escape. After that, I was thinking of what would happen if White would attack or push with his pawn on f4. All the scenarios I found were bad.

Also, after my plan of pushing on the queenside ended with this pawn wall, I thought about some attack on the kingside with Bgh3 followed by the queen, but this attack can end with White just moving to f5.

Does this position seem stable? How can I recreate a strong attack?

```
[FEN "r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Having the kings indian as my main opening in response for 1.d4 I see nothing immediately loosing (I might be wrong) and would personally be happy to play this position. The variations I have considered are hopefully inline with my argument that black is doing fine and If I have missed something obvious or have misrepresented white please let me know.

Variation 1.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 Qe7 5.hxg4 Qh4+

```

From here you will at least get a rook for two minor pieces after white blocks and knight g3+. More importantly we can note that white has not done anything in the last 4 moves that could be considered active, so I would think the tempo gained for the bishop is worth it.

Well, white took black's bishop with the h-pawn... perhaps another move is possible, say going after the monster bishop on d4. (note in the following that giving up the rook on a1 i.e moving the knight on c3 to attack d4 is horrible for white);

Variation 2.

```
    r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 Qe7 5.Nb3 Qh4 6. Nxd4 cxd4

```

Here black is looking to be an exchange up with Ng3+ which is made possible by the knight on c3 being under attack. I would say white was better in variation 1 then here.

A major flaw in the above variations have been kh1 as it has set up the main Ng3+ ending for black which have reduced material inequality. So what about kh2:

Variation 3.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh2 Nxf4 5. Rxf4 Be5 6. hxg4 Bxf4+ 7. Kg1 Qxg4

```

Here black is up a rook and two pawns and some tempo for two minor pieces. A drawback is of course having only two active pieces, so f5 must probably be played soon if black is to win/draw.

Now the question arises if 2. gxf4 is any good for white... perhaps instead 2. Rxf4:

Variation 4.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. Rxf4 Nh5 3. Rf1 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 f5 5.exf5? Bxf5

```
5. exf5 seems way to dubious for white as it just improves the bishop for black and the two open files are easier occupied by black's rooks.

Variation 5.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. Rxf4 Nh5 3. Rf1 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 f5 5.h3 f4 6. hxg4 Nxg3+

```

As @John Coleman points out in the comments I have been partial to h3. Therefore I am adding some more variations in which Nf3 is played to which I believe the key response is Bxf3;

Variation 6.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Bxf3 Qh3 5. Be3 f5

```

Variation 7.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Qxf3 Nxc4

```

Variation 8.

```
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Rxf3 f5

```

Each of these variations need analysis in themselves. Variation 7 does not look appetizing at all for white and can probably be disregarded. In variation 6 it looks like black has trapped their own queen after say 1... Bg2 however 1.. Qxe3 2. Qxe3 Bd4! pins the queen to the king and all is good. Variation 6 and 8 looks decent for black with the clear goal of bringing the rook from a8 to e8. While white also has a decent position in those variations, there are some concerns with defending c4 with some piece other than the queen and getting the a1 rook into the game.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: kings-indian, defense
---


title: Engines tuned to masters’s styles

text:
# Question
Title: Engines tuned to masters’s styles
I saw a stream by IM Eric Rosen where he showed a stronger version of stockfish than the one on lichess.org. He said that it is a version that is given to masters with the evaluation function specifically tuned to their playing style.

Does anyone have an idea how this personal tuning is accomplished? I know that stockfish regularly gets tuned, but I believe that is for strength optimization not playing style “fitting”.

# Answer
There are many elements that a computer looks at to determine how the computer plays. A more defensive computer would place more value on the pawns around the king. A more attacking computer would place more value on retaining pieces, to maintain the attacking possibilities. The choice of opening and the central pawn structure affects the overall playing style.

Galahad chess and Chessmaster had to option to change around two dozen of these evaluation values. Beowulf read these values from a config file, but they weren't easily modified.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, strategy, stockfish, grandmaster, international-master
---


title: How is this position a checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: How is this position a checkmate?
In the photo below, it does not appear that I have the black king under attack. The next move that I made was my white queen to d8 and instantaneously I was told I had won by checkmate.

How is this possible in this situation as I don't believe I had the king in check prior to that move?

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, the Black king is not checkmated in the photo, but it will be on the next move if you move your queen to either of the squares indicated by the arrows (i.e. to c8 or f7). Qd8# would also work. This is because all of the black king's potential escape squares are covered by your men in the case of Qc8# or Qd8#, and of course there are no potential escape squares after Qf7#. The opposing king doesn't have to be in check before you make your move for it to be a potential checkmate.

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: How would you play this position as White?
```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/2p1ppbp/p5p1/1p1n4/3PNB2/1P2PN2/n4PPP/2RQKB1R w K - 0 1"]

```

I'm not sure what move makes the most sense in this scenario. I would love to learn from others.

# Answer
The elements which I notice are The strong knight on d5, the attacks on c1 and f4, the backward pawn on c7, and that white is down a pawn.

Since I can't do anything about the Nxf4 threat, which would ruin the pawn structure and create a weakness on d4, but also eliminates the powerful knight, my first candidate move would be Ra1 to try and regain the pawn due to the pin. I'd have to consider the reply Nac3 followed by b4, which would sheild the c7 weakness, save the pawn, and the knight may prove to be strong on d3.

The second candidate is Rc5, Rc6 is bad due to Bb7, just to keep pressure on c7. After Nxf4 and rerouting the other knight to d5, black just has a better game.

The third option is to sacrifice the rook and save the bishop by Bg3. Being down 3 pawns worth of material and black protecting all of his weaknesses, white has no compensation.

With all considerations, I would choose Ra1 and, if black entrenches on c3, to go for an all out attack on the kingside while black's pieces are distracted on the queenside. Due to white's lack of development and black's solid kingside, there is little chance of saving the game, but I believe that this is the best attempt.
> 4 votes

# Answer
White is essentially lost -- If GMs or even IMs were playing.

For amateurs, Ra1 is the best chance for white but he will still be in a poor position. No matter what white will be at least a pawn down with a poor position.

But with amateurs things can always change later.

How I would play it as white is not get into that mess in the first place.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: What are good openings for White during a blitz game?
It seems as though White can easily dominate the tempo in a blitz game through a strong, aggressive opening. Is this the case? What openings are strong for White when there is a short time limit (e.g., in blitz)?

# Answer
I think this depends very much on how strong you are.

That said, I had some success with the Ponziani. It is not the "best" opening, but solid, and many players don't know it and lose some time thinking about the next moves. The theory is easy, and there are several traps black can fall into (my favorite is when black takes the "unprotected" e4 pawn with the knight and you can fork it with `Qa4+`).

Generally it might be a good idea to play aggressive (e.g. Steinitz' `Qh4` in the Scotch game) and to try to throw the opponent out of the book as soon as possible. Of course the opening must be still playable, and you need to know some theory.
> 11 votes

# Answer
I personally don't think there is a best opening for blitz. I think you just have to get your pieces out as fast as possible and control the center. Blitz is more of a time issue rather than a material issue.
> 11 votes

# Answer
There are plenty of openings you could use in blitz, but I think the slow solid and positional openings need more thinking, thus you could lose. I would suggest playing like Mikhail Tal. That is, make sacrifices without calculating the move too much, and try to complicate the position for your opponent.

I have used this in many of my games. Complicating the position by making a complex, unsound sacrifice may confuse the opponent and make them lose on time or make a wrong move. Remember, clock is also a thing you will need to think about in blitz.

I'd suggest playing the king's pawn opening as White. Maybe the king's gambit, the open Sicilian, which is my favourite, Scandinavian, and such. French is a solid opening from black and either play advance and lose time for your opponent or play the exchange variation.

With the black pieces, against 1.c4 Nf6 is the best way to respond. After that try to enter the Indian system, Nimzo, or King's Indian Defense.

For d4, I would say Nf6 isn't bad but it involves more thinking, so I like to play the Dutch defence, the Leningrad variation (which is not a very popular a chess opening).

I would definitely suggest the Najdorf variation in Sicilian, though it seems very impractical because of the sharp lines and tactical, calculative play, as mentioned before you can confuse your opponent into time pressure. Of course, I recommend making unsound sacrifices wisely, when absolutely necessary. Remember, even if your playing online you are psychologically twisting your opponent into a very uneasy place.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You should analyze your results at blitz versus bullet before reaching any conclusions.

Here's a notebook you can use for that purpose if you are on chess.com

https://github.com/microprediction/microblog/blob/main/HalloweenGambit.ipynb

Example:

* There is no way I'm better than 2100, but when I play the Halloween Gambit as white, my performance rating is closer to 2300, at least recently. We'll see how long it lasts!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, blitz, online, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Defensive strategy relying on a wall of pawns
I have been playing chess again for two or three months, after a period of about twenty years of interruption. In a game against a human adversary, I noticed that my opponent was taking the time to build a large wall of pawns similar to the following picture, while I was on my side playing with stronger pieces.

```
8/8/8/8/P1P1P1P1/1P1P1P1P/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1

```

I found quite difficult to play aggressively against such a wall. Recently I tried the same and found this strategy rather efficient (of course the wall is never perfect but the picture gives the idea).

I would like to know a little more about this style of playing. Does it have a name? Is it known to be efficient?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I would say that type of formation leaves a lot of weak squares, as enemy pieces can occupy pretty much any dark square they want (mainly b4, d4, f4, h4) and start an attack from there with help from the pawns. These pieces will never ever be kicked away. White's light squared-bishop will also suffer because he has nowhere to go, so, for that strategy to be effective:

* White needs to have traded his light-squared bishop beforehand, or else pretty much any bishop vs knight endgame will be lost.
* White must keep his dark-squared bishop at all cost, or else Black's bishop could be very harmful
* White needs to know what to do about enemy knights on f4 and d4.
* Pawn breakthroughs near White's king must somehow be prevented (for example, if Black castles in the kingside, ...h7-h5 must be somehow prevented)

In short, I don't like that kind of "wall" at all. And we haven't even talked about the at least eight moves it requires to build it, in which you can develop pretty much all of your pieces. Sometimes a c3-d4-e3-f4 formation is built (Stonewall Dutch), but this is only four moves and only leaves one weak square (e4) rather than four. So, occupy the dark squares, open a file and checkmate your opponent! If you want, post an example game where you've struggled against the "wall", and we can see what else could have being played

# Answer
> 6 votes
After searching my game base, I located 190 out of 6,168,985 games, with the pawns at: wPa4, b3, c4, d3, e4, f3, g4, h3.

I discarded those games that one or both of the opponents lacked a rating, leaving 113 games. I found by tabulating the results (1-0, 1/2 or 0-1) against the rating of the players (between 1900 to 2200), that **the score was 27%** in 77 games (5+ 31= 41-).

The most frequent openings were:

```
English: symmetrical variation  20
Nimzovich-Larsen attack         30
Sicilian                        13
Others                          50
Total                          113

```

With the statistics we can conclude that White's pawn configuration does not favor them.

Here is a sample game. After move 82, it reached the following position.

```
[Title "Petrosian, Tigran L Petrosian-Danilo Milanovic, Dos Hermanas Internet f 6th, ICC INT, 3/26/2005"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "164"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. Bxc6 bxc6 5. d3 Qc7 6. O-O e5 7. Nc3 Be7 8. Nd2 Nf6 9. Nc4 d5 10. Nd2 Bg4 11. f3 Be6 12. Kh1 O-O 13. b3 Rad8 14. Qe2 Bd6 15. Na4 Nd7 16. c4 d4 17. Ba3 a5 18. Rae1 g6 19. Qf2 Rde8 20. Re2 Qd8 21. Qg3 Qe7 22. Rfe1 Nf6 23. Qh4 Nd7 24. Qxe7 Rxe7 25. g3 f6 26. Kg2 Kg7 27. Rf2 g5 28. h3 h5 29. g4 h4 30. Rb1 Rb8 31. Rff1 Ree8 32. Kf2 Rb7 33. Ke2 Reb8 34. Kd1 Kf7 35. Kc2 Ke7 36. Rb2 Kd8 37. Rbb1 Kc7 38. Ra1 Ra8 39. Rfb1 Rab8 40. Rh1 Ra8 41. Kc1 Rab8 42. Nb1 Ra8 43. Bb2 Nb6 44. Nxb6 Rxb6 45. Kc2 Rb7 46. Nd2 Rb6 47. Rhb1 Rab8 48. Bc1 Ra8 49. Nf1 Bd7 50. Bd2 Rba6 51. a3 Kc8 52. Rb2 Kc7 53. Rab1 R8a7 54. Be1 Be8 55. Nd2 Bd7 56. Ra1 Be8 57. Rba2 Bd7 58. Nb1 Be8 59. Kb2 Bd7 60. Nd2 Be8 61. Kc2 Bd7 62. Rb2 Be8 63. Kd1 Bd7 64. Rc1 Rb7 65. Nb1 Be7 66. Kc2 Be8 67. Nd2 Bd7 68. Rcb1 Be8 69. Nf1 Rba7 70. Kc1 Bd7 71. Kd1 Be8 72. Ke2 Bd7 73. Nd2 Be8 74. Kd1 Bd7 75. Ra2 Be8 76. Kc2 Bd7 77. Kb2 Be8 78. Ka1 Bd7 79. Rbb2 Be8 80. Nb1 Bd7 81. Bd2 Be8 82. a4 Bd7 83. Na3 Rb6 84. Rb1 Rb8 85. Rc2 Kb6 86. Ka2 Rba8 87. Rcc1 Rb8 88. Nc2 Rba8 89. Ne1 Rh8 90. Rc2 Rha8 91. Ng2 Rh8 92. Bc1 Kc7 93. Ba3 Bd6 94. Rf2 Be6 95. Ne1 Bd7 96. Nc2 Be6 97. Rg1 Bd7 98. Rff1 Be6 99. Rg2 Bd7 100. Ne1 Be6 101. Kb2 Bd7 102. Ka2 Be6 103. Rff2 Bd7 104. Re2 Be6 105. f4 gxf4 106. Nf3 Raa8 107. Re1 Rag8 108. Reg1 Be7 109. Kb2 Kb6 110. Kc2 Bd6 111. Rh1 Rg6 112. Bb2 Kc7 113. Rhg1 Kb6 114. Bc1 Kc7 115. Bd2 Kb6 116. Be1 Rgh6 117. g5 fxg5 118. Rxg5 Bxh3 119. Rh1 Bc8 120. Rxh4 Rxh4 121. Bxh4 Re8 122. Rg6 Bc7 123. Bf6 Bh3 124. Kd2 Bf1 125. Rg5 Rf8 126. Bxe5 Bxe5 127. Nxe5 Rh8 128. Ke1 Rh1 129. Kf2 Bh3 130. Rh5 Kc7 131. Rh6 Rf1+ 132. Ke2 Rh1 133. Kf2 Kb7 134. Rh7+ Kb8 135. Nxc6+ Kc8 136. Ne5 Rf1+ 137. Ke2 Rh1 138. Kf2 Rf1+ 139. Ke2 Rh1 140. Rh8+ Kc7 141. Kd2 Rh2+ 142. Ke1 Rh1+ 143. Kd2 Rh2+ 144. Kc1 Rh1+ 145. Kb2 Bg2 146. Rxh1 Bxh1 147. Kc2 Kd6 148. Ng4 Bf3 149. Nf2 Ke5 150. Kd2 Kf6 151. Ke1 Kg5 152. Kf1 Kh4 153. e5 Kg5 154. Nh3+ Kf5 155. e6 Bc6 156. e7 f3 157. Kf2 Kg4 158. Ng1 Kf5 159. Nxf3 Ke6 160. Kg3 Kxe7 161. Ne5 Be8 162. Kf4 Ke6 163. Nf3 Bh5 164. Ng5+ Kd6 165. Ne4+ Kc6 166. Nd2 Bd1 167. Ke4 Bc2 168. Ke5 Bxd3 169. Kf4 Bc2 170. Kf3 Bd3 171. Kf4 Kd6 172. Kf3 Ke5 173. Kg3 Be2 174. Kf2 Bh5 175. Nf1 Ke4 176. Ng3+ Kd3 177. Nxh5 Kc3 178. Ke2 Kxb3 179. Kd3 Kxa4 180. Ng3 Kb3 181. Ne4 Kb4 182. Nd2 a4 183. Kc2 a3 184. Kc1 Kc3 185. Nb1+ Kb3 186. Nd2+ Kb4 187. Kc2 Ka4 188. Kb1 Kb4 189. Kc2 d3+ 190. Kb1 Kc3 191. Ne4+ Kxc4 192. Ka2 Kd4 193. Nd2 Kc3 194. Ne4+ Kb4 195. Kb1 c4 196. Nf2 Kb3 197. Kc1 a2 198. Kd2 a1=Q 199. Ke3 Qe1+

```

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, defense
---


# Question
Title: How can I convert a possible pieces' moves to an actual move in a bitboard?
If I have a bitboard (e.g. for knight squares he can move to) like this:

```
00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
01000000
00100000
N0000000

```

How can I "convert" it into a move or "apply" that move?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are actually two questions in your post

* **How to convert Attacks in Bitboards to a list of moves?**
* **How to represent those moves?**

---

> * **How to represent those moves?**

This question has been discussed here and here thoroughly. But to provide some context to the readers of this post, a very simple way to do this can be to use a class / struct to represent a move

* **From** ( where the moving piece was )
* **To** ( where the moving piece will be )
* **Special Move Flag** ( whether the move was a special move, i.e enpassant, casting, promotion)
* **Promoted Piece** ( if the move was a promotion move, what piece did it promote to )

You can also have extra attributes such as captured piece, type of castle etc. But that information can also be deduced using the `From` and `To` squares.

So considering the above, we can represent the move as follows

```
struct Move {
    char from;
    char to;
    char spMoveFlag;
    char promotedPiece;
};

```

However, a lot of chess engines, including mine use another method that can compress the move into just `16` bits. Read more about that here.

Once we know what a move is, we can answer the next question

---

> * **How to convert Attacks in Bitboards to a list of moves?**

Let's consider that we have a **knight** on the square **d4**. We also have a function that returns the attacks of a knight given the square.

```
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . 1 . 1 . . .
. 1 . . . 1 . .
. . . n . . . .   =  knightattacks(SQ_D4)
. 1 . . . 1 . .
. . 1 . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . .

```

So let's store this inside a variable `knightAttacks`

```
uint64_t knightAttacks = getKnightAttacksBB(SQ_D4);

```

If you notice carefully we already have 1 of the 4 attributes we need to represent the move, which is the `From` square - `D4`. Now all we need to do is somehow get the `To` square to complete this since a knight cannot perform any kind of special moves.

A very common method is to pop the least significant bit until your `knightAttacks` is left with nothing i.e `0`.

```
0000011100001000
            ^
            Least significant bit (lsb)

```

You can follow the link I provided to know how you can perform this, or there is a chance that your compiler might already provide you with it.

You simply need to create a function that clears the lsb of a bitboard and returns its index. Let's call it `poplsb()`.

Altogether, your code can look like this

```
int from = SQ_D4;
uint16_t knightAttacks = getknightAttacks(from);

while (knightAttacks)  {
     int to = poplsb(knightAttacks);
     MyMoveList.Add( NewMove(from, to, 0, 0) ); // The last two 0's denote that there is no special move
}

```

This works because each time you pop the lsb, a bit gets cleared until the number is == 0. That's when the loop stops and you have a perfectly good list of moves. The same idea applies to any kind of moves you have created using Bitboards.

---
Tags: engines, programming, bitboard
---


title: Is this opening a joke or serious?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this opening a joke or serious?
I was watching Daniel Naroditsky's speedrun on YouTube and in his 1870 video (https://youtu.be/3UqPa5eV2e0?t=987) his opponent (rated 1889, playing black) played a very bizarre opening by pushing almost all his pawns before developing any of his pieces. It appears to be someone trolling, but they seemed (to me) to play a really good middlegame/endgame. Is this considered a serious opening, or does it seem like more of a joke opening? Or was it a trap that throws lots of players off?

```
[White "SenseiDanya"]
[Black "ions26"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 a6 5. Bd3 h6 6. O-O b6 7. Be3 Bb7

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Stockfish 10+ (depth 20) disagrees with the other answer, because it thinks that White's opening here is **sound** and evaluates the final position as **+1.4**. I would be very interested to see anyone play as Black starting from that position and beat Stockfish 10+. If nobody can, how can one consider White to have played badly?

# Answer
> -1 votes
Not a joke.

White often is careless and lets black break the center to win a pawn and have an advantage.

White did not play well at all in the given diagram.

When someone plays an opening like that I invariably win because I will have better development, more space, and only need to be sure that I can break without getting the pawns locked up too much.

Sometimes that takes a sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece but with the space and development and better mobility I come out ahead

---
Tags: opening, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: What is the earliest queen move in any strong, modern opening?
I have noticed a tendency of weaker players to move their queen out very early (e.g. move 2-5), and conversely, a tendency for strong players to move their queen much later (usually later than move 5, but often not until move 7/8/9 or even later).

What is the earliest the queen is moved in any strong, modern opening? By strong modern opening I mean only those used by grandmasters in competition under classical time controls (i.e. meaningful competition games, and no blitz/bullet games).

# Answer
> 18 votes
The definition is still a bit ambiguous, but here's what I found.

The absolute soonest to move the queen is probably the French Defense: Chigorin Variation which begins with 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2.

The Scandinavian with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 looks like the most common way to move the queen on move 2. I found a game by GM Aleksandr Rakhmanov in 2019 at standard time controls, which ended in a draw.

# Answer
> 8 votes
If you're looking for something more common than the Scandanavian, then I think the Classical Variation of the Nimzo-Indian is the most common opening with a queen move on move 4 or earlier:

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Qc2

# Answer
> 2 votes
At the beginning the tendency to bring my queen out early was an urge I failed to control for my first few games. Nevertheless a pretty common opening where the queen is out in the first moves played is in the Scandinavian and the Scholar's Mate, these are two among a couple more openings.

Scholar's Mate (Checkmate Sequence):

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6?? 4. Qxf7#

```

In the Scandinavian Defense, Black meets 1.e4 by immediately putting the question to the e4 pawn, and bringing the queen out with Qxd5, on move two, the Mieses-Kotrč Variation.

---
Tags: opening, theory, queens
---


# Question
Title: Is an arbiter allowed to leave the playing hall while some games haven't finished yet?
I've observed the arbiter responsible for the category I'm playing often leaves the playing lobby to smoke or drink/buy coffee/water in a nearby shop. Those "breaks" are quite long. What happens if both players run out of time/need another scoresheet, etc.?

Is this behaviour acceptable? What should I do?

# Answer
The first thing to note is that for low level tournaments there is not even a requirement for a qualified arbiter to be on site. The arbiter must be a licensed arbiter (International Arbiter, FIDE Arbiter or National Arbiter) but is not required to actually be there. They can be at home watching TV. If there is a problem they can be consulted on the phone.

For reference here is what the FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 have to say about arbiters for FIDE rated events:

> 0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated.
>
> 0.4 Tournament reports for all official FIDE and Continental events must be submitted and shall be rated. The Chief Arbiter is responsible for the results submitted.
>
> 9.1 The Chief Arbiter of a FIDE registered tournament has to provide the tournament report (TRF file) within 7 days after the end of the tournament to the Rating Officer of the federation where the tournament took place. The Rating Officer shall be responsible for uploading the TRF file to the FIDE Rating Server not later than 30 days after the end of the tournament.

No mention of the arbiter actually having to be there and some federations run FIDE rated leagues where there are two or three licensed arbiters for the league but dozens of clubs where the matches are played with no arbiter present.

For Norm events (tournaments where there are enough highly rated and titled players from enough different federations for it to be possible to get a title norm) the rules are a lot stricter.

This is what International Title Regulations (Qualification Commission) / FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 has to say:

> 1.16 The Chief Arbiter of a title tournament shall be an International Arbiter (IA) or FIDE Arbiter (FA). He may appoint a temporary deputy. **An IA or FA must always be in the *playing venue***.

Let's just remind ourselves of how the FIDE Laws of Chess define "playing venue" and "playing area".

> 11.2.1 The ‘**playing venue**’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
>
> 11.2.2 The **playing area** is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played.

So, even in a high level norm tournament the arbiter is allowed to leave the playing area and go to the toilet, go and have a smoke, go and get a coffee.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, fide, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Are Bronstein delay and simple (US) delay really equivalent?
I have a question regarding delay in time controls. I've seen this thread and it doesn't address my doubt.

---

Let's consider an example from the beginning of a game, to show how simple and Bronstein delay seem different to me. Regular/base time is 10 seconds and delay is 5 seconds.

Now Player X's clock starts. They will take 8 seconds to move. Using simple delay, the delay time runs out plus 3 seconds of regular time, and the clock reads 7 seconds left at the end of the move. Player Y then moves and it's back to X. He takes another 8 seconds to move. The delay time runs out plus 3 seconds of regular time, and the clock reads 4 seconds left at the end of the move. Game goes on.

What if Bronstein delay were added after the move? They start with 10 seconds. After 8 seconds, this drops to 2 seconds but after the first move, Player X gets the 'refunded time' of the delay and thus their clock reads 7 seconds left at the end of the move. (Same as with simple delay). But when it's next his turn, he will again take another 8 seconds to move. If clocks could go negative, his time would drop to -1 seconds, then be 'refunded' by the delay (5) to read 4 seconds. But clocks and time in chess, as far as I've seen, don't work that way. Instead, he has only 7 seconds to make his move; after this time, the clock hits 0. And if he wanted to take 8 seconds to move, then here he would flag and the game would end.

---

Wikipedia claims that "Bronstein delay and Simple delay are mathematically equivalent." Now, by Wikipedia's definition, Bronstein delay is added after the move (and consists of the lower value between the time allotted for the delay and the time the player took to move). Simple delay consists of running down the delay timer before the regular clock timer starts. These are not mathematically equivalent, as simple delay adds time *before* the move. You would flag with Bronstein delay added after, on your final turn, where you would have had an extra few seconds with simple delay.

That's not the only issue. The more pressing problem is that I cannot think of a way Bronstein delay could be added before the move (thereby making them equivalent): it seems you cannot know, before the move, whether the player will use more or less time than the delay, and if less, then how much exactly they will use; hence it is intrinsic to the concept of Bronstein delay to add the time after.

How is this reconciled? Or is it to be admitted that there are really two, slightly different, delay systems (i.e. Bronstein and simple US delay are not, and cannot, be identical) and there cannot be otherwise?

---

**Another Example:**

Player X has 3 seconds (regular time) left. The delay is 5 seconds. Player Y's turn ends and now X is going to have to play. With simple delay, they will have 5 seconds delay time, plus 3 more seconds--that is, 8 seconds to make a move before they flag. With Bronstein delay, they will have 3 seconds before they flag. I assume that when the clock hits 0, the player flags (it cannot go negative). Now, were they to take 4 seconds to play, they would not get the benefit of the delay at all.

# Answer
> 2 votes
They are equivalent.

With Bronstein, the time is added after the move - it has to be, because before the move you don't know whether or not you'll take the full amount of the delay time. However, perhaps what you're missing is that the *first* move has the delay time added. So if you start a game with 10 seconds on the clock and a 5 second delay, the Bronstein clock would actually read 15 seconds at the start (and start counting down right away) while the normal delay timer would read 10 seconds (and not start counting until 5 seconds had passed.)

---
Tags: time-control, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: How would you play this opening as black?
I keep fumbling through my openings and would love to improve and learn from others. How would you play this position as black?

```
r1bqkbnr/p1pp2pp/1p3p2/n3P3/2B1P3/1P3N2/P1P2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

```

# Answer
Well, Black has some weaknesses, is a little behind in development, and is down a pawn. The position isn't great, but things aren't hopeless.

The first thing I'd do is play Nxc4. I assume the knight was placed on a5 to do just that. White gets some doubled isolated pawns and loses a potential attacker in the bishop. It seems like a no-brainer.

Next, I'd develop the bishops with Bb7 and probably Bc5.

We probably need to deal with the pawn on e5 before very long. It's hard to develop the g8 knight with that pawn there. While playing fxe5 is possible, I don't like inviting the White knight to e5. It may be better to play d6 instead to attack the pawn from the other side, depending on how the game goes.

Black also needs to decide where to castle - the middle is too open to leave the king there for long. Both sides have their pros and cons. The movement of the f-pawn has weakened the kingside and White will likely put their remaining bishop on b2 to attack the kingside, but the queenside has a half-open b-file and it wouldn't take much for the c4 pawn to go to c5 to try and crack Black's queenside. Overall, I'd probably pick the kingside. An opened f-file might even be good for the rook after castling.

Obviously, any plan may need to be adjusted based on how White plays.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I would play it by never getting into such a rotten position so soon.

I see at least 4 bad moves by black else white took an extra move if black did not waste a move moving a pawn twice to e5 or d5

From the diagram I play nxb and double his pawns next I play B-n2 (Bb7), or B-R3 (Ba6)

after that it depends what white does

my king is weak and I am down a pawn. In a terrible position too. I can try to gain time threatening to get the pawn back but I also have to do that while getting the king to safety.

An early Q-e7 lets me 0-0-0 sooner which might be the least worst way to get the king into safety fast while avoiding problems on the long diagonal when he plays Bb2.

But that really depends what white does as I might get to pin his horsie on c3 and still castle Kside, if I can get my horsie out after taking his pawn on f6 if he captures, or I might gain a tempo if he takes first by attacking the rook while his B is still on C1

There is no obvious plan for black except NxB on c4 and then see what white does and defend accordingly.

White is likely to 0-0 and then B-b2 putting pressure on f6.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Without learning specific openings, general opening principles dictate that you should develop your minor pieces (B's and N's) quickly and toward the center, as well as preparing to castle within the first say 12 moves or so, this being a defensive measure as well as connecting your R's. As Black you should equalize before beginnng offensive manuevers. This means counteracting any White attempt to take over the center. The center is important since it gives your pieces a greater radius of action. You should try to keep your pawn front intact where you will castle. In your game, you have moved your knight away from the center to the rim, where its scope is limited. Also, you have moved the "f" pawn, which will be a weakness if you castle king-side. White's bishop is already in a strong position aiming at the weakness. I would eliminate that and then try to get your kingside pieces quickly developed so could castle there. Also White's king pawn is a menace and should be eliminated. Unfortunately you're already in a posiiton where your opening weaknesses must be repaired, more difficult to do as Black since you don't have the initiative. And White already has a big lead in development and is ready to castle. In the future, you must try to not let those weaknesses occur by following the general opening principles mentioned.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How many possible chess moves are there?
Starting from the standard initial position, how many possible legal chess moves are there in this and all possible following positions?

Say, ignoring the starting position, a bishop can move to 32 squares (but the other covers the other 32), a rook to 64, if both sides are taken into account, pawns can also reach all 64 squares, a knight, king and queen can also reach all 64 positions.

So in sum, that should be 384 total move target-square+piece combinations. Is this correct?

But what is the number of moves if the starting position is not ignored?

Then, 16 pawn double-step advances have to be added, plus 4 castling moves (2, queen and kingside for each player). And en passant , which should be 7 left and 7 right, times 2 for both players. And all possible source-target square combinations of all other pieces!

# Answer
The white king can move to 8 fields from the inner 36 fields, to 4 fields from the 4 corner fields and to 5 fields from the remaining 24 boundary fields. That's 420 moves for the white king, add 2 for castlings to arrive at 422. If you distinguish captures, this almost doubles (castling can't capture) to 842. Now allow for the black king to double this (1684)? Or identify moves they could both make (i.e., all but castling - 844)?

A rook can always (given free line of sight) move to 14 squares. That's 896 moves. Double to 1792 if you distinguish captures. Double again (3584) if you want to distinguish colour.

On a diagonal (NW to SE, say) of length *n*, a bishop can make *n*(*n*-1) moves (pick a start field and a distinct end field). Sum over *n*=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 (i.e., ignoring the colour of the bishop) to arrive at 280 moves, double to 560 to count both diagonal directions. Double (1120) if you want to distinguish captures, double once more (2240) if you want to distinguish by colour.

For the queen simply add rook and bishop, thus counting 1456, 2912, or 5824 moves.

The knight can typically make 8 moves, but as with the king we have to account for nearby boundary. It is easier to count by direction: There are 42 (6 by 7) fields from where we can go two to the right and one up, say. We have the same number 42 (though with different fields) for all eight directions, hence a total of 336 knight moves. Double (672) if you distinguish captures. Double again (1344) if you distinguish by colour.

A white pawn can move two fields ahead from its initial position (8 moves). It can move one ahead from rows 2 to 6 (40 moves). It can move ahead from row 7 and promote to queen, rook, bishop, or knight (32 moves). For pawns, we *must* distinguish captures: In only seven of the eight columns, we can capture to the right, and in seven of eight columns we can capture to the left. This gives us 70 capture moves from rows 2 to 6, plus 56 capture with promotion. So far 206. If you want to distinguish capture en passant from a normal capture by the same movement (start and end field) of the pawn, add 14 to arrive at 220. Again, at least for pawns it seems useful to distinguish by player and arrive at 440.

In summary, the most generous way of counting possible moves might lead to 1684 + 3584 + 2240 + 5824 + 1344 + 440 = **15116** distinct moves. One could raise the number even higher by distinguishing moves that give check or even checkmate, or by distinguishing captures according to the piece captured.
> 4 votes

# Answer
If the board is given and only the source and target square, as well the promotion choice are considered (as in the UCI format), then it appears there will be 1968 possible moves.

```
# Python
# pip install python-chess
import chess

moves = 0

# Queen, covers all lines and diagonals
for x in range(8):
    for y in range(8):
        board = chess.Board("8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8")
        board.set_piece_at(chess.square(x,y), chess.Piece(chess.QUEEN, chess.WHITE))
        moves += len(list(board.generate_legal_moves()))

# Knight jumps
for x in range(8):
    for y in range(8):
        board = chess.Board("8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8")
        board.set_piece_at(chess.square(x,y), chess.Piece(chess.KNIGHT, chess.WHITE))
        moves += len(list(board.generate_legal_moves()))

# Straight pawn promotions, 2 players, 8 ranks each, 4 choices (queen, rook, bishop, knight)
moves += 2*8*4

# Diagonal pawn promotions, when capturing a piece
# 2 players, 14 diagonals (12 in the center and 1 each in the first and last ranks), 4 choices
moves += 2*14*4

print(moves)

```

Castling is assumed to be indicated by moving the king two steps.

Here are all possible UCI strings and here is the code to generate them.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, mathematics, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Is there a difference between +W -L =D and +W =D -L?
Is there a difference between a player's tournament or match result being reported in the format +W -L =D and in the format +W =D -L? (where W is number of wins, D is number of draws, L is number of losses)

Obviously they're functionally equivalent and I feel like I have encountered both, but I'm not entirely sure if one is more standard/common or more technically correct/official than the other (or was originally considered to be so). Is there any difference in the circumstances where you use one or the other, or are they always mutually equivalent?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The only difference is the sequence they are written down.

Some like WLD so you can easily see the difference in scores. Some like WDL as that goes from best to worst in sequence, but makes it harder to compute the difference at a glance.

Compare to TV channels showing football scores. some have score1 team1 score2 team 2 others have team 1 score1 score2 team 2 some might even have score1 team1 team2 score2

clearly the middle one is easiest to see at a glance how the game score is without having to search and ensure you matched the right score to each team. You know who is playing and all you need is the two scores and which one belongs to one team. The middle one does that best.

It is just preference. And PHBs are not good at considering things like ease of use or other significant factors.

---
Tags: tournament, match
---