# Question
Title: Is there a single best move in every position?
If it were possible to analyse every possible outcome of a position, would there ever be a single move that could be considered "best"?

I know that this is how computers evaluate positions, but they can only calculate the decision tree down to a set number of moves. If it were possible to analyse every possible outcome in a reasonable amount of time (possibly with quantum computing), could the ultimate chess move be made?

What I guess I'm saying is that is a chess move *objective* in that only one move is really the best one, or should it be *subjective* in that it makes certain assumptions about the opponent? For example a move may be made that 90% of players are not "good enough" to counter, and therefore that move was a good move (what I mean by subjective). However, there may be another move that is more strategic which increases the chances of victory against 100% of players, but this would not be known to anyone unless it was possible to make an exhaustive analysis of every single outcome (objective).

# Answer
> 25 votes
No, there are positions in which a lot of moves have the same effect or are the same but you can play them in a different order.

# Answer
> 24 votes
> If it were possible to analyse every possible outcome of a position, would there ever be a single move that could be considered "best"?

No. Just to give an example:

```
[FEN "k7/6Q1/1K7/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

There are five moves that are equally "good".

> I know that this is how computers evaluate positions, but they can only calculate the decision tree down to a set number of moves.

Not to a "set" number, but yes, computation time grows exponentially (even with minimax algorithms) so there is a practical limit on the search depth.

> If it were possible to analyse into infinity in a reasonable amount of time (possibly with quantum computing), could the ultimate chess move be made?

Quantum computers cannot "analyse into infinity in a reasonable amount of time", but you don't need to. (By the way, quantum computers do not change anything in regard to the solubility of the problem - they may be able to perform the search faster (even reducing the complexity class of the problem).)

If you had a large enough amount of storage and computation time or computation speed, you could always solve chess (so you would always know the moves that will win the game in the lowest number of moves). But that's far away since even 7-men endgame tables are estimated to take up around 100 terabytes of harddrive space (compressed).

# Answer
> 17 votes
There are plenty of situations where there is more than one move which leads to a forced mate. So in those situations any of those moves is objectively best, and there's no one best move.

# Answer
> 5 votes
My guess would be that every position has a single objectively best move or two moves that are equally strong. Three equally strong moves is already less likely, unless of course the best move is for instance a discovered check with a bishop and it does not matter which square it chooses to open up the check.

The best move in the position is the move that follows the correct sequence of moves in order to reach the next correct goal. For example, you want to attack the opponents castled King. First, you should launch a pawn storm to open up one or two files against the enemy King. Next, you should place one or more heavy pieces on this open file. Third, you should smash the pawns and pieces protecting the enemy King and deliver a checkmate. The best move at every point of this path is the move that reaches the target goal as efficiently as possible. I would say that the answer is "Yes" because my guess would be that in the majority of cases, a single move is slightly better than the second best move!

Yes, it is possible to adjust your moves to your opponent. Perhaps even better, to adjust your moves to your own style of play. For example, if you prefer to play long middlegames, then you will try to keep the queens on the board. Thus, you might decline a queen exchange, even if that was the objectively strongest response. When the difference between the two best moves is tiny, the choice can be guided by your style of play. Evaluating this difference correctly is perhaps one of the hardest decisions at every move. Additionally, finding the best move and making it on the board is already more difficult than it sounds!

# Answer
> 4 votes
No, you cannot say that there can be *a single best move in **every** position*. In most positions there are a number of equally good moves with different effects. Chess is a finite game, alright, but the branches are so many that even computers (still) need a substantial amount of time to calculate a full branch starting from a single move. This is why there is the *strategic evaluation* of a position. This allows you to play moves without the need to calculate the full branches for each one.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess moves may be divided into five categories:

1. Those which will guarantee victory no matter what the opponent does, as long as the player continues making category-1 moves (the opponent will have nothing but category-3 moves unless the first player makes a category-4 or category-5 move).
2. Those which are made in a situation where no moves of the first category were possible, and would result in a draw if both players play exclusively moves from category 2 (both players will have category-2 moves unless someone makes a move in category 5, whereupon that player's opponent will have a category-1 move available).
3. Those which are made in a situation where no moves of either of the first two categories is possible.
4. Those which are made when a category-1 move existed, and will result in a draw if both players play exclusively from category 2 (a category-4 move will give the opponent a category-2 move, and categories 1 and 3 will no longer be possible unless someone makes a move in category 6).
5. Those which are made when a category-1 or category-2 moves exist, but result in a loss by giving the opponent a category-1 move.

Any player who is on move will always have one or more moves available in exactly one of the first three categories available; all much moves are essentially equally good (note that if a player has a category-1 move, no move by his opponent will be better or worse than any other). All moves in category 4 are equally bad, as are all moves in category 5. When moves exist in categories 4 and 5, those in category 5 are worse.

It is often convenient to rank category-1 moves by the number of additional moves that will be required to secure checkmate (the fewer the better), and category-3 moves by the number of additional moves the opponent will require to secure checkmate (the more the better). From a qualitative standpoint, it doesn't matter whether a mate requires 2 moves or 174, provided it doesn't run afoul of any rules which would prematurely call a draw (50-move rule, 175-move rule, etc.), but lines which rank better by those measures tend to be more interesting than those which would rank worse.

Playing against an opponent who is known to be imperfect introduces another factor, which is while a perfect opponent would never make a category-4 or category-5 move, a category-2 or category-3 move which induces the opponent to make a category-4 or category-5 move is likely to achieve a better result than one which doesn't, and may be a better move from the perspective of the game of "chess against Alex Smith", but that "game" is nowhere near as well defined as chess.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Sure, but you need the caveat of "within the data considered."

Personalities matter, skill levels matter, moods matter, time matters, tournament situation matters.

An ordinary engine considers none of these things.

Plenty of examples of top players choosing the more complicated move over the "best" move.

Engine evaluation assumes a win is twice as good as a draw. But what if you only need a draw to clinch first place? Suddenly a win and a draw are identical--ambitious moves are worth less, forcing a queen trade worth more.

Conversely, what if you need a win? If drawing and losing give the same result wild speculative sacrifices look better.

Engine evaluation also assumes subsequent moves are all the "best" moves. Accurate valuation would require calculating the likelihood of each player finding said best move. Trading into a "lost" P vs. 2N ending may be -99 vs. a GM, but a dead draw vs. a 1500.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If we assume chess is drawn (and all evidence points to that) then the answer is no. The "best" move would be the one that gives the best practical chance of winning and there is no way to objectively determine the best practical move.

That would be like asking if rock is objectively a better move than paper or scissors.

If chess is solved, computers will be able to say one move is better than another (because it leads to a decreased probability of losing) but how can you say a move is the "best" when other moves lead to the same result?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Like Rauan said, if it were possible to analyze every possible move then there will most certainly be at least one move that leads to checkmate (or draw) in the shortest amount of moves, but there won't be ONLY one best move for each possible position. Fortunately, I haven't found a way to analyze every position perfectly, which still makes the game enjoyable to play.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Not mentioned is that programs like Stockfish do NOT give consistent results. You can run SF on the exact same position to the exact same depth and get two different scores. Which one is best? No one knows. Worse is that SF will sometimes change the rankings of scores so that the best move in one test is not the best move in the next test. SF does NOT give a single score for a given position. That shocked me. So databases are pretty much useless at determining the best move and now SF turns out to be less than clear, too. What to do?

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is a really interesting question. Because if it was possible to have an objective best move for every position, chess would cease to be played. For this reason, I will say that there are definitely some positions were there are objective best moves, but also others where there are not. Now onto my "proof"

```
Lets assume that an infinity tree were possible by a chess engine.
On the very first move by white, the tree would have to be fully calculated.
Hence, after the first move, the chess engine wouldn't do anything except
refer to the next step in the tree at that point.
In fact, once this tree is created ONCE, it no longer ever needs to be created.
All chess programs would just be pre-loaded with this tree.

```

Now, once this tree IS created, all chess masters would simply study the tree. They are no longer analysing chess, but memorizing a computers computation of chess. People would stop playing chess, as it would become predictable.

By analysing the "first move" I am very confident to say there is no objective best move for every position. Even the best Chess masters all like to start with different first moves based on their opponent.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The best move sometimes takes decades or even centuries to be discovered. For an example, take a look at a moment from the famous game “The Battle Of Hastings”.

```
[Title "Wilhelm Steinitz-Curt von Bardeleben, Hastings London, 8/17/1895"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "28"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 d5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxd5 Bxd5 12. Nxd5 Qxd5 13. Bxe7 Nxe7 14. Re1 f6 15. Qe2 Qd7 16. Rac1 c6 17. d5 cxd5 18. Nd4 Kf7 19. Ne6 Rhc8 20. Qg4 g6 21. Ng5+ Ke8 22. Rxe7+ Kf8 23. Rf7+ Kg8 24. Rg7+ Kh8 25. Rxh7+

```

It is White to move and at the time the best move considered to be Qe2. After 78 years, it was discovered that the best move in this position was actually Qa4!

Thus it is impossible to find always the best move on the board. There can be a lot of good moves that could win the game for you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Aside from obvious mistakes, most chess moves lead to a draw. So, the question is how can move A (which leads to a draw) be better than move B (which also leads to a draw)?

Objectively, they lead to the same result so how can one be better than the other? That's where the practical aspect of chess comes in.

And this is what strategy is. That's literally how game theory defines the word. There's no way an engine could ever quantify it. It would be like claiming you solved RPS by declaring Rock beats scissors and then find out you forgot about paper. It's an endless cycle.

An engine can tell you you have a better position but in the end the winner will be the person who makes the fewest mistakes or it will be a draw.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, theory, calculation
---


# Question
Title: How to deal with Black's dark-squared bishop on d6 in the London system
I have problems when black places his bishop on d6 in the London. Take for instance the following game:

```
r1bq1rk1/p2n1ppp/2n1p3/1p1pP3/2p5/2P1P1B1/PPBN1PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 1 12
1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 { D00 Queen's Pawn Game: Mason Variation } e6 3. e3 Bd6 4. Bg3 Nf6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Nd2 c5 7. c3 c4 8. Bc2 Nc6 9. Ngf3 b5 10. Ne5 Bxe5 11. dxe5 Nd7

```

The question of what to do with ...Bd6 comes already in movement 4. Theory advises White to avoid taking it, as that will bring Black's Queen into play. Instead, White should retreat his bishop to g3, or even leave it on f4. First problem is, with the bishop in g3, White can't castle kingside while the d6-g3 diagonal is open.

The second problem is that placing a piece on e5 should be White's main plan with the London, but with Black's bishop on d6, that's not possible, as Black can exchange any piece post there by White. Even worse, if White ends up with a pawn there, as in this game, this pawn will end up being very hard to defend for White. Or it will have to be defended with f2-f4, weakening White's kingside and blocking White's bishop if it's still on g3.

So my question is how to deal with Black's bishop on d6 addressing these two problems?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I play London all the time (even before it was called this way, and I don't even intend to play the Lamer London variant, consisting of kingside overrunning the poor sap who hasn't learnt opening theory :-) and you make a few implicite assumptions I have object to.

*"bring Black's Queen into play..."*. True, but that's hardly the point. The point is the following break e5, and Black has solved all his problems, especially the Bc8. Thus indeed noone ever exchanges, OR only exchanges if the break e5 can be blocked forever (maybe with f4).

*"White should retreat his bishop to g3..."* Possible. *"White can't castle kingside while the d6-g3 diagonal is open."* Strong objection. Nothing wrong with that, even the nonstandard fxg3 following the exchange Bxg3 should always be considered. An attack along the standard scheme Ng4, Qh5 against this structure is very far into the future.

*"or even leave it on f4..."*" Possible. Many, many opponents had to suffer against me after Bxf4 (now e5 is completely out of question, have fun countering N-f3-e5, R-e1-e3-h3 and other lovelies). And none of them ever played Qd6 followed by Qb4 with a double attack on d4 and b2 when I was an idiot and it was possible. :-)

*"Or it will have to be defended with f2-f4, weakening White's kingside and blocking White's bishop if it's still on g3."* Objection, no problems with that either. Play Bf2 followed by e4, for example. Black has a real problem on the black squares now that the bishop is gone. A weakened king side is only relevant if the opponent can attack it. How? And his usual London problem, lack of space, still remains.

Coda: Neither of your two problems seem to be a problem to me.

Addendum: The early 7...c4 seems a severe strategic error to me.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't play the London but,from what I understand, white is okay with that trade and just moves to g3.

For one, white is trading off his bad bishop. Positionally, that's a small plus.

But, maybe more importantly, if black play Bxg3, that opens the h-file for white which can lead to some vicious tactics aimed at the h7 square. Even if black can defend the tactics you're still at least dictating the game which gives you at least some hope for an advantage.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The d white pawn that is currently there can be quite strong, so the line you played is perfectly fine, especially since the bg3 move counters the black d6 bishop very well from attacking the kingside. Plus, the knight blockade you implemented on move 10 - Ne5, is quite strategically placed, black *doesn't have to* trade it away, but doing so would result in black having some serious threats, especially with the black c6 knight still undefended at the moment.

So to put it simply, you want to deal with the d6 black bishop? Place a blockade (knight e.g.) there, problem solved

Tip: You might want to push f4 sometime to protect the d5 pawn and to advance a little

---
Tags: opening, bishops, london-system
---


# Question
Title: London System: how to defeat copying moves?
I played the London system for the first time today and encountered a problem in my second game (I won my first).

```
[fen "rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/5n2/3p1b2/3P1B2/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 4 4"]

```

What is the best response to black copying your moves in the London?

# Answer
If you play the London then you have to be aware and ready for favourable transpositions to other openings like the Queen's Gambit, Slav, Barry Attack (John Nunn famously lost twice to Hebden against this and then complained bitterly that the derogatory name, "Barry Attack", just rubbed salt into the wound ;-), 150, etc.

This is such a case. Here, or even on the previous move, White should be looking to play c4 for a QGD variation where the black bishop is misplaced on f5.

Check out chapter 7 Symmetrical: 2...Bf5 and 3...Bf5 of "Win with the London System" by Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic for more ideas.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Here

http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-london-system-an-opening-for-you

This is the best I can offer at the moment. The second game that is portrayed in this article shows a "copying" move, just like the one you have. And there are annotations that will explain to you why and what is going on with every move.

I do advise you to read the stuff at the start of the article. Openings in chess also define your style of playing. Queen's Gambit or most Queen pawn opening players are usually more tactical, while King pawn opening players are more aggressive. Of course there are many exceptions, however this is common knowledge about the 2 basic styles.

So think about that on the way too, hope I helped :)
> 0 votes

# Answer
The London can be that way and you chose to play it. The London is solid but at the same time very passive.

Objectively, c4 will unbalance the position but most London players won't play it because they're scared of the transpositions.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, london-system
---


# Question
Title: Why does f3 weaken white's position here?
Take this game:

```
[fen ""]
[Startply "13"]

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bf5 4. e3 Nb4 5. Nh4?? Bxc2 6. Qd2 e5 7. Bg3 Be4 (7... Bxb1 8. Rxb1) 8. f3 Bxb1 9. Rxb1

```

I'm specifically curious about the difference between

1. 7... Bxb1 8. Rxb1 and
2. 7... Be4 8. f3 Bxb1 9. Rxb1.

Using Stockfish 14+ at depth 22/22, the engine thinks that the first option is -0.9 and that the second option is -2.6. The only difference between these two positions is the f pawn. So basically stockfish thinks 7...Be4 can "trick" white into pushing the f pawn to f3 which drastically weakens the position.

But I don't really see why the f3 pawn weakens white here.

# Answer
> 1 votes
f3 is actually sort of forced due to black's annoying and powerful bishop on e4.

After that was taken care of, white now had a knight that **cannot** go anywhere! The f3 and g2 squares are covered! Plus the bishop on g3 prevents any push or advance of the g2 pawn to make space for the knight. Sure you can play f4 to attack while creating space for your knight, but in doing so black can just trade his pawn to cause white to have 2 backward pawns!

# Answer
> 1 votes
White's troubles started with 5. Nh4, which is an insufficient answer to 4... Nb4. The evaluation that you quote, -2, stems from this.

7... Bxb1 is likewise bad, allowing white to consolidate to a certain degree. Among the alternatives, 7... Be4 is good for the reason stated above, hindering whites developement and asking white to chose a lesser evil.

The inclusion of f3 also crucially takes away the flight square for the misplaced knight, and black should continue with 9... Nh6, further reducing the h4-knights options and keep threatening g5. After the dust around black's own weakness, the uncastled king, has been settled, black has a dominating position.

So, black's dubious 7... Bxb1 allows white to at least bring the knight back into the game with Nf3, or Nf5 even, as the e5-pawn is hanging. There, black has other priorities that give some breathing room for white.

Also, note that after 8. f3, black's best move is still 8... Nc2+!

# Answer
> 0 votes
f3 is not weakening, it just takes away a square from the h4-knight (which in turn forces the g3-bishop to remain in place to defend it).

Still, it was kind of forced - Black currently threatens ...Nc2+ and although White can defend against that threat without playing f3, the bishop on e4 is also stopping White from developing the f1-bishop / castling, and White's pieces on the kingside are very vulnerable to Black's pawns (e.g. 8.Na3 h5 9. Nf3? h4 leads to a bishop trap).

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why not e3 instead of e4 in Grunfeld Russian system?
In the position below White continues with e4 after, say, Black castles. :

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4

```

**Question: How about e3 instead? Is there an outright refutation, or is it just stylistic choice?**

I know a couple of QGD lines where after years of practice, people have started to try apparently less aggressive strategies, say by playing e3 and planning for a future e4 rather than an immediate e4 (which makes the game more dynamic and allows quick counterplay). The results have been better with the "slow" moves.

**A follow-up: Does the inclusion of Bf4 and then e3 change the evaluation?**

# Answer
After your position, the most played move (at least by two orders of magnitude) is 6... O-O so I will focus on it only.

The main takeaway is that 7. e4 forbids 7... b6 (controlling the a8-h1 diagonal), but 7. e3 doesn't and black takes advantage of it by playing 7... b6.

If you want some engine statistics, Stockfish 22050407 evaluates

7. e4 b6 as at least up 200 centipawns (+2) for white with best move e5, so most likely winning for white (WDL ratio ~950 white wins, ~50 draws, =0 black wins).
8. e3 b6 as 0 centipawns, but black has better play overall.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, grunfeld-defense
---


title: "Highest" level of illegal move

text:
# Question
Title: "Highest" level of illegal move
For example, was a GM ever caught on an illegal move? Of course, only standard time control (everybody still remembers Carlsen-Inarkiev, but that was a blitz game) and after FIDE codification of chess rules ("in my home town, we castle this way" :-)

# Answer
Another illegal move was made by in a game Zagrebelny Sergey vs Kayumov Dmitry

```
[Title "Zagrebelny Sergey vs Kayumov Dmitry (1992)"]
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f4
Ng4 9. Bd2 exf4 10. Bxf4 Nc6 11. Qd2 Be7 12. O-O-O O-O 13. Kb1 Rc8 14. Nd5 Bxd5
15. exd5 Nce5 16. h3 Nf6 17. g4 Re8 18. g5 Nh5 19. h4 Nxf4 20. Qxf4 g6 21. Nd2
f5 22. gxf6 Bxf6 23. Bh3 Rc7 24. Ne4 Rf8 25. h5 g5 26. Qf5 Kh8 27. Rdf1 Rcf7 28.
Qe6 Nc4 29. Nxg5 Re7 30. Qxf6+ Rxf6 31. Rxf6 Re1+ 32. Rxe1 Qxf6 0-1

```

This is what was on the scoresheet, but what actually happened was the below. No one noticed due to both players being low on time.

```
[Title "Zagrebelny Sergey vs Kayumov Dmitry (1992)"]
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f4
Ng4 9. Bd2 exf4 10. Bxf4 Nc6 11. Qd2 Be7 12. O-O-O O-O 13. Kb1 Rc8 14. Nd5 Bxd5
15. exd5 Nce5 16. h3 Nf6 17. g4 Re8 18. g5 Nh5 19. h4 Nxf4 20. Qxf4 g6 21. Nd2
f5 22. gxf6 Bxf6 23. Bh3 Rc7 24. Ne4 Rf8 25. h5 g5 26. Qf5 Kh8 27. Rdf1 Rcf7 28.
Qe6 Nc4 29. Nxg5 Re7 30. Rxf6 Rxf6 31. Qxf6+ 0-1

```

Website article
> 1 votes

# Answer
Garry Kasparov (who else?) pushed a pawn to the 8th rank in time trouble against Karpov and pressed the clock without replacing the pawn with a queen. Karpov eventually lost on time in a losing position despite getting an additional 2 minutes for the illegal move.

```
[Title "Anatoly Karpov vs Garry Kasparov Linares (1993)"]

[fen ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. Nge2 c6 8. Qd2 Nbd7 9. Rd1 a6 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. b3 b5 12. cxb5 axb5 13. Qxd6 Nfd7 14. f4 b4 15. Nb1 Ng4 16. Bd4 Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Rxa2 18. h3 c5 19. Qg1 Ngf6 20. e5 Ne4 21. h4 c4 22. Nc1 c3 23. Nxa2 c2 24. Qd4 cxd1=Q+ 25. Kxd1 Ndc5 26. Qxd8 Rxd8+ 27. Kc2 Nf2 0-1

```

See the match on YouTube.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Examples of illegal castling are fairly common. See for example:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/do-grandmasters-know-the-rules-of-chess
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, illegal-move, super-grandmaster
---


title: Hard anxiety playing chess

text:
# Question
Title: Hard anxiety playing chess
There are many similar questions to this, like Problems with chess anxiety, or How to relax when playing chess, but though they seem to be tackling the same question, I feel like my situation is still a bit different.

To start off, playing chess in general, *during games*, gives me a lot of anxiety. It isn't just stress or feeling overwhelmed, but a really *overwhelming anxiety* I can't figure out how to get rid of. During any game of chess, my heart rate starts going really up and I can feel it pounding fast and loud in my chest the whole game, my stomach knots really uncomfortably, and I tremble a little bit. But the thing is, it's not like I'm so nervous because I'm worried about losing—not at all. I can't pinpoint why I feel so nervous. (When I lose, I have less a reaction than when I win.)

During all these games, I try to suppress the anxiety because it's affecting my gameplay, and I know that the game isn't really important, I tell myself it's a game, I'm moving pieces on a chessboard. And heck, I'm just as nervous when I play unrated games or unlimited time control. It's like the anxiety is just default.

Well yeah, that's my question. I really love chess even though I'm not very good at it; when I watch people play it on Youtube or I go through some puzzles, it's really fun, and I always wished I could play chess more freely because I do really want to, but the anxiety's holding me back and I don't know how to unblock it or what's causing it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would say figuring out under which conditions the anxiety kicks in can be an interesting challenge for you, which should help you figure a plan to deal with it. So:

1. clock vs. no clock - really no difference?
2. vs. friend and vs. stranger - any difference?
3. OTB vs. online
4. you say puzzles/tactics are not really a problem; how about competitive puzzle-solving such as puzzle battle on chess.com?
5. how about other games against another human being? sports? conflict in general with other people, be it trivial or serious (potentially physical)?
6. how about playing against a child?
7. against a girl or woman?
8. against a chess engine that you yourself operate?

My understanding of anxiety (and I most certainly suffer from it as well) is that it's a fear response. My guess would be that the chess anxiety is either a fear of conflict or an association with a deeper fear (of some kind of failure, with some terrible imagined punishment/consequence).

# Answer
> 3 votes
Stress management in a chess tournament was addressed in this forum by Ritesh Singh Feb 1, 2018. The following is nearly verbatim from his comment.

It can be captured in one word: **Equanimity**. Or, in other words, detachment with results. You should try to make yourself as unconcerned as possible with the result of your game / match / tournament.

This is by far the most effective way of dealing with stress in any situation, whether related to chess or otherwise. Furthermore, if this is not done, that is, if there is a lot of attachment with, and concern about the results, no amount of breathing or walking will reduce the stress with any degree of significance.

The following three verses from the *Bhagvad Gita* perfectly summarize the attitude that you need to have. They frequently help me in dealing with stress / anxiety / concern in my own life.

English Translation: You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but do not consider yourself entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.

English Translation: One whose mind remains undisturbed amidst misery, who does not crave for pleasure, and who is free from attachment, fear, and anger, has a steady intellect.

English Translation: One who remains unattached under all conditions, and is neither delighted by good fortune nor dejected by misfortune, he is a sage with perfect knowledge.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can try playing bullet, 1+0. To play full games in under two minutes changes your feelings about chess. It is hard to like at all in the beginning, but I'd say you give it a try, because so many inhibitions just fall. The anxiety is there, too, but you get many answers you just can't help but go for. There is some 'in a nutshell' experience of drama that let's you feel utterly relaxed and in for joy when you return to normal play.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I do suffer from anxiety and I play a lot of chess but ironically, I play chess to relax. To me, chess gives me a sense of control because all I have to do is concentrate on these 64 squares and I can ignore everything else in the world at least for a short time.

You should really take a long look at why you play chess and what you hope to accomplish. Why are you putting so much pressure on yourself? What is missing in your life that you feel you need to fill that void with chess? If you aren't a professional there isn't any reason to be stressed. It's just a game. If you lose rating points that's okay. You can get them back by playing more games. The way the rating system is devised, the more games you play, the closer you'll be to where you're supposed to be. If you aren't happy with where you're at then focus on getting better. Every game is a learning opportunity. Play games, learn from your mistakes, get better, rinse, repeat.

I would recommend taking some time off from playing rated games. Just play unrated and play ridiculous openings that are typically aggressive. Have fun with it and get back to why you started to play chess in the first place. I liked Hikaru's Botez gambit series on Youtube. Although, winning a queen down is hard, sometimes I do basically the same idea with a knight ie I play Nf3/6 followed by Ng5/4 and Nf7/2 regqrdless of what the opponent plays and then just play chess. You're obviously losing but it's fun to play and you get more compensation for the knight than you would probably think. I also like the englund gambit, 1.f3/1..f6 and 1...Nf6 followed by 2...Ng8. These are just fun openings to play and take you out of theory very quickly.

In terms of the anxiety itself. Focus on your breathing. There's lots of resources online about reducing anxiety through breathing but basically a long exhale will slow your heart rate and thus make you feel more relaxed.

Also look at your physiology and muscle tension. Tense and relax your muscles. Get up and move around. Anything that keeps your muscles loose. OTB if I'm feeling anxious I'll get up and got to the bathroom or something. Don't even worry about the time. Online, maybe play some relaxing music while you're playing.

Also, and this seems counter-intuitive but play a lot of blitz and bullet. This does several things. 1) it teaches you not to stress on specific moves ie even if you make mistakes you can still win. 2 ) Most of the stress in chess comes from time. If you had 6 months to determine a move it probably wouldn't stress you out even if you had a horrible position. By learning to play fast it will build your confidence that you can find good moves quickly. And confidence is the antithesis of anxiety. 3) Along those same lines, in fast time controls your opponents will make a lot of mistakes and it will build your confidence to find those mistakes. 4) The way to overcome a fear is to confront it and by playing fast games you are confronting your fears.

Lastly, choose a good opening rep and learn it really well. Something solid that gives you a lot of activity. The Tarrasch defense vs 1.d4 is a good example. It's a very active opening but simple to learn and you can just bust out the first 8 moves or so without thinking too much. That gives you confidence in the position and likely a time advantage.

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Is anything known about the chess game at the Vostok station that resulted in murder?
Multiple sources on the Internet describe a murder at the Soviet *Vostok* station in Antarctica over a game of chess. Supposedly, the losing player was upset enough to attack their opponent with an axe. Perhaps the most reputable source I could find is the article "The Need for a Private International Law Regime in Antarctica" by Beverly May Carl (1988) that reads:

> Isolation and boredom exact a severe toll on some individuals stationed in Antarctica. After losing a chess game, a Russian at a Soviet scientific base murdered a colleague with an ax; as a result, the Soviet Union now forbids its cosmonauts from playing chess in space.

Unfortunately, I found it incredibly hard to find anything about the chess game itself even at the level of rumors. Is it at all known whether the losing player had White or Black and what opening was played?

Given that, presumably, the surviving player lived for some time after the game, I find it hard to believe that they or anybody who knew them was never interviewed by the chess community. I would give a lot to know what kind of game one has to play to end up with an axe in their back.

# Answer
Seems the story is just a legend.

The first attempted murder on the continent occurred in 2018, according to a NY Post article from October 30, 2018:

> Antarctica scientist stabbed colleague for spoiling book endings
> By Natalie O'Neill October 30, 2018 2:30pm
>
> In the first attempted murder ever on the frozen continent of Antarctica, a Russian scientist reportedly snapped and allegedly tried to stab a colleague to death because the victim kept giving away the endings of books.

The earliest mention of the chess game "murder" seems to be a 1985 piece in the Wall Street Journal, which that Carl source from 1988 you linked cites as its source for the story.

That piece, "Polar Privation: Antarctic Life Proves Hard Even for Those Who Love Their Work" by WSJ staffer Bryan Burrough (WSJ December 10, 1985, p1) offers nameless "NASA psychologists" as the source:

> The Soviets, who maintain seven scientific stations here, have already applied one lesson: According to NASA psychologists, cosmonauts have been forbidden to play chess in space ever since a Russian in the Antarctic murdered a colleague with an ax after losing a game of chess.

(That paragraph is everything the WSJ article has to say of the incident)

Tellingly, an earlier story from the New York Times about the stress of staying over a winter in Antartica identifies as a "milestone in the history of the South Pole" a drunken brawl that occurred in 1979, painting it as the worst psychological breakdown there to that time, as if no earlier murder had happened.

> Strife and Despair at South Pole Illuminate Psychology of Isolation
> By Robert Reinhold
> Jan. 12, 1982
>
> SOUTH POLE STATION, Antarctica
> The events of Aug. 17, 1979, will not get into the official history books, but they were something of psychological milestone in the history of the South Pole. Outside, temperatures dipped to 71 degrees below zero in a blinding blizzard, but inside, emotional temperatures among the crew of 16 men and one woman, after nearly half a year of total darkness, were reaching the flash point.
>
> Foaming at the mouth and roaring drunk, a member of the crew who had recently learned of his father's death, piles into the galley in rage. He yells and begins to smash cups wildly. Blood and glass everywhere. Soon he spies his rival for the affections of the station's lone woman and charges with a two-by-four, then runs out into the blizzard. It is hours before the mayhem ends, with gashes, bruises and frostbite.

Certainly some the "believable details" given to help prop up the murder tale are spurious, namely that the murder (or attempted murder) was a factor in establishing an international law regime there and that chess has been banned either there or in space.

The first conference to establish a law regime in Antartica was organized in 1958 (invitations officially sent to the various countries on May 3, 1958). The impetus for this activity was not a chess game or an attempted murder or a murder, but rather the simple presence of the Vostok base and the Mirnyy base in the Australian Sector.

From The Soviet Union and the Antarctic Regime, Boleslaw A. Boczek , The American Journal of International Law , Oct., 1984, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 1984), pp. 838,839:

> The presence of the Soviets in the Antarctic nevertheless produced mixed feelings in the Western capitals. The Australians, in particular, in whose sector the first Soviet stations were established, were concerned about the military potential of these stations if the Soviets had any hostile designs.
>
> It was in this atmosphere of hope and anxiety that the United States convened a conference to negotiate a legal regime for Antarctica. The following bases were proposed for the regime: that there be free access by all to carry out scientific investigations; that Antarctica be used for peaceful purposes only; that Antarctica be a nonmilitarized area for which a right of inspection would obtain; that the legal status of the claims be frozen; and that an administrative arrangement be set up to manage the projected regime. Notes containing the invitations were delivered on May 3, 1958 to the governments of the 11 other countries participating in the IGY Antarctic projects, including the Soviet Union.25 In accepting the invitation, the latter expressed general agreement with the principles of the U.S. proposal but reiterated the reservations concerning the territorial claims that it had stated in its Memorandum of 1950.26 Despite some obstruction at the 60 preparatory meetings,27 the conference opened on October 15, 1959, and the Antarctic Treaty was signed six weeks later on December 1, 1959.

The 1959 bit matches the year of the supposed chess game and murder, but there's no mention of any murder or any other person-to-person crime there.

There's also no mention of anything so nefarious in Antarctica Ahoy!: The Ice Book, which journals the Third SAE (which operated from the base from 1957-1959). But the author's clear bias may make the omission somewhat less of a compelling argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd\_Soviet\_Antarctic\_Expedition

Also, the assertion that chess was banned in the Antarctic seems false, as evidenced by the tournament held there in 1978:

> Back in 1978, Soviet polar explorers, exploring the ice continent, held their first team chess championship. As a result of a five-month "battle on the ice", the team of the station "Novolazarevskaya", headed by a candidate for master Yury Evdotiev, won. The following places were taken by "Bellingshausen", "Molodezhnaya", "Mirny", "Vostok", "Leningradskaya".

Nor did the Soviets ban chess in space. For instance:

> In June 1970 the Soviet astronauts Andrian Nikolayev (Mission Commander) and Vitaly Sevastyanov (Flight Engineer), who were aboard the Soyuz 9 spacecraft, played a consultation game against the earthbound Viktor Gorbatko (also an astronaut) and Nikolai Kamanin (Soviet general, and head of the astronaut training program).

In any event, more directly to your inquiry: none of the retellings of this tale ever even mention the victim or the attacker's name, much less the details of the chess game, so no, there are no details about the chess game itself (other than "it wasn't a draw").
> 4 votes

# Answer
So the actual motive for the murder is unknown and the chess is only one of the theories. There are other theories about the motive for the murder, including for spoiling the plots of books, losing a game of chess, and emotional breakdown.

For more info check out these articles from Smithsonian Magazine and Quartz.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: How should I play against the Philidor defense?
As white, I often encounter the Philidor Defense by black:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6

```

I usually play `Nc3` or `d4` on the next move, but is this the best move? What are some lines (advantages or disadvantages) against the Philidor?

# Answer
`3. d4` is the usual move after `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6`. *Chess Opening Theory* states that it is probably the best move, and also concedes `3. Bc4`:

> The best move is probably `3. d4`. White threatens a queen exchange with `dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8` and Black can forget about castling. It puts pressure on the center and the Black fortress may collapse at any time.
>
> Another possibility is `3. Bc4` leading to a more positional game, playable for both camps.

Fred Reinfeld suggests the following line (exclamation marks are his) as in this game. White maintains a sharp edge:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4. Qxd4! Nc6 5. Bb5! Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. O-O-O

```

A good resource to study would be shredderchess.com's opening database.
> 9 votes

# Answer
To complement Daniel's answer: Black often aims for the solid Hanham setup with `Nf6`, `Nbd7`and `Be7` without surrendering the center. The problem is to find a suitable move order from the position

```
   [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4

```

If black plays `3...Nf6`, then white gets pressure and a solid plus after `4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Qd5!`

```
   [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Qd5!

```

Black can try `3...Nd7` first, but then the problem is to find a good move after `4.Bc4`.

```
   [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bc4 (4...c6 5.O-O Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Ng5! Bxg5 8.Qh5) (4...Be7 5.dxe5! Nxe5 (5...dxe5 6.Qd5) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5) (4...Ngf6 5.Ng5) 4...

```

`4... Ngf6` loses because of `5.Ng5`.

`4...Be7` is bad due to the less obvious `5.dxe5! Nxe5 (5...dxe5 6.Qd5) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5`

`4...c6` is probably best, but loses the bishop pair after `5.O-O Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Ng5! Bxg5 8.Qh5`

The best way to reach the Hanham is probably with the radically different move order `1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7`, although white then has the option of exchanging into a slightly better endgame with `4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8 Kxd8`.

```
     [FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 (4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8 Kxd8) Nbd7

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
Against the Philidor you might experiment with a line I developed myself (don't know how good it is), but if they surrender the center (i.e. exd4), then I develop a setup where I fianchetto the dark-squared bishop on b2, play f3 at some early point (with perhaps a later f4). I usually stick the other bishop on d3 then if they chop it with a knight I take back with the c-pawn, getting a better center than Black at the cost of bishop vs. knight. I usually can start up some sort of middlegame kingside pawn majority attack as a result of all this and create mate threats by Qe1-g3 along with the bishop at b2. It seems to work fairly well but I'm sure some IM/GM could refute the whole thing. Not like we regularly play against those guys though. :)
> 2 votes

# Answer
I've always played Morphy's lines. Yes, Nxd4 is probably a little better positionally but Qxd4 leads to a maze of tactics and traps that black probably isn't prepared for.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, philidor-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there a horizontally mirrored London System, and what is it called?
London System is an opening for white, that goes d4, Bf4, e3, Nf3, Nd2, c3. The move order generally doesn't matter too much and there are lots of ways to transpose into this.

However, what I want to know now, **is the horizontally mirrored way also a valid system?** White will play e4, Bc4, d3, Nc3, Ne2, f3.

(Note this is not the same as the Italian Game because there, the g Knight goes to f3 instead of e2.)

So is this a real system, and if so, what is its name? I'd like to read more about it and its theory. Is it sound? Are there way more traps white has to watch out for?

# Answer
> 10 votes
The answer is no since f3 would never be played there by any strong player as it is weakening, but has no compensating advantages.

That is very close to some virtually-impossible-to-get-to lines in the Bishop's Opening/Vienna game since unlike the queen-pawn London, black has many more ways to throw a wrench into the attempt to play moves without thinking. In an idea world where black cooperates, in the Bishops's, white can try to play for that setup, but would play f4, which has the advantage of attacking the black center, and opening the f-file.

You can see from this contrived variation that black has many better options, and is not likely to just submit to white's desire to play a London on the kingside. In no case would f3 be good.

```
  [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Be7 (4... Na5 $1 {Blows up the whole idea. }) (4... Bc5 $1 5. Nge2 d6 6. O-O a6 7. Kh1 $2 Ng4 {So it is impossible to get in f4 here.}) 5. Nge2 d6 6. O-O (6. a3 $1) 6... O-O 7. f4 (7. a3 $1)

```

.

```
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2B1P3/2NP1P2/PPP1N1PP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1"]

```

.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Unaware of any special name given to that full sequence of moves, especially as a 'system' as opposed to an opening variation name.

f3 is a major mistake and would not be played except by beginners. there is a difference between qp and kp setups so that they cannot be mirrored well like you asked.

Some of the previous move sequences do have a name. It would roughly fit in the bishops opening or some others depending on what black did.

I found some games of 2500+ players using those moves up to f3 which is terrible bad and white won 3 of the ones I tracked in detail based on most likely moves according to one tablebase.

Which I suspect is that winning is more because of the unusualness than the soundness. The position at that point is dead even and any winning came much later from other moves.

The opening is unusual but playable although apparently not at the GM level for black which further reinforces my belief that the value comes from what happens later and depends how both sides play.

# Answer
> -2 votes
A reverse London would be either a slav or a caro-kann. It's a perfectly viable idea to play although most GMs might not like it because there are some drawish lines. If that's an idea that appeals to you, you can build a very simple opening rep. There's a lot of books, most of them will refer to it as a triangle system (based on the pawn structure with e6, d5, c6- which forms a triangle)

I don't understand the other answers. They seem to be focusing on specific lines rather than what the question is actually asking.

---
Tags: opening, london-system
---


title: Best way to play against Glek system?

text:
# Question
Title: Best way to play against Glek system?
I just wanted to ask which is the best way to play against the Glek system. It's quite a rare opening.

So there are two lines. One line is with Bc5 and the other is with d5. Which line according to you is better for Black, or is there any other system that will bring a better position for Black?

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. g3

and the other one is

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nc6
3. g3

and in this position one of my opponent developed his knight on e2 instead of f3, cannot call it a Glek system though! But can any one tell the plans to fight this line too?

# Answer
> 6 votes
At one point, I considered picking up the Glek variation, but I found the variation of **4... d5** to be far too problematic. Keep in mind, that the principle idea of the variation is to retain a knowledge advantage, but most importantly, retain plenty of opportunity for out-playing the opponent.

On this line, the d5 line puts direct challenge to the idea. Further, **5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Bg2 Nxc3 7. bxc3** From here, you should find a nice niche line. I recommend starting with **7...** **Bc5** or **Bd6**.

If you put any length of study into this line, you will face no issue what so ever in this variation. Most important though, especially for this line, is to master the principles of the strategy here instead of long series of lines.

**Sample Game**

Here is a nice execution by the French GM Laurent Fressinet where he managed to win against this opening (played against the eponym himself, the German GM Igor Glek)

```
[FEN ""]
[Site "Katernberg GER"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Glek, Igor"]
[Black "Fressinet, Laurent"]
[WhiteElo "2537"]
[BlackElo "2658"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C47"]
[Opening "Four Knights"]
[PlyCount "111"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Bg2 Nxc3 7. bxc3
Bc5 8. O-O O-O 9. d3 Bg4 10. h3 Bh5 11. g4 Bg6 12. Ng5 h6 13. Ne4 Bb6 14.
Ba3 Re8 15. Kh2 Qd7 16. Rb1 Nd8 17. f4 exf4 18. Rxf4 Ne6 19. Rf1 c6 20. Kh1
Bxe4 21. Bxe4 Ng5 22. Bg2 Re6 23. Rf5 g6 24. Rf4 Rae8 25. Qf1 Bc7 26. Rf6
Bb8 27. Bc5 Re2 28. Bg1 Rxc2 29. Rf2 Rxc3 30. Re2 Rxe2 31. Qxe2 Rxd3 32. h4
Ne6 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qxd3 Qc7 35. Qb3 c5 36. Bd5 Qf4 37. a4 Be5 38. Qf3
Qxf3+ 39. Bxf3 Bd4 40. Bh2 c4 41. Kg2 c3 42. Bd1 Bf6 43. Bg1 Nd4 44. Bxd4
Bxd4 45. Kf3 Kg7 46. Kf4 Bf2 47. h5 Kf6 48. Kf3 Bb6 49. Ke4 Kg5 50. Kd3 Ba5
51. Be2 gxh5 52. gxh5 f5 53. Bd1 Kf4 54. Ke2 Kg3 55. Kf1 f4 56. Bc2 0-1

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
First, you should read my series on overcoming hangovers. Long story short, gatorade and alka-seltzer.

If you don't immediately see the weaknesses in white's position, then you're asking me to teach you the entire game of chess. I can't do that in one post.

I'll give you a head start though. g3 slows white's development and creates weak squares. Black should be able to equalize easily with d5. After that, it's just playing chess. If you can't do okay from an equal position as black, then your problem isn't in the opening...especially a mediocre opening like this.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Since White is going to fianchetto, I suggest castling queenside and attacking. First play a7-a6, Bf8-c5-a7, d7-d6. Then set up the bishop trade with ...Be6 and Qd7, and then 0-0-0. Now you can trade off the bishop and go for a pawn storm.

Another method is to play an inverted form of the Halloween Gambit - 4...Nxe4!? Push your pawns up the board and have fun kicking the knights about! This is most effective in blitz games, but you can play this in any time control.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Imagine your (stronger) opponent plays this Botez Gambit. How to strategise?
My experiment is inspired by Hikaru Nakamura's "Botez Gambit Speedrun". The term "Botez Gambit" refers jocularly to the act of blundering your queen.

Let's say you had the black pieces, and you're going to play against either Magnus Carlsen or an engine. You agree that your opponent, who has the white pieces, will give up his queen without getting too much in return.

Let's say the game goes:

```
[FEN ""]
 1. e4 c5 2. Qg4 d5 3. Qxc8 dxe4 4. Qxb8 Qxb8

```

---

From the resulting position, I've tried numerous times to play with the black pieces and to defeat Stockfish under blitz conditions.

The engine evaluation happens to be that Black is ahead by 4 points, so I should be able to do it. But I just couldn't.

It seemed to me that there was so much counterplay available for white to use, with the light-squared bishop going to b5, the knight going to e5 or g5 in order to threaten f7, the rooks coming to the central files to go after a king that can't manually castle so easily... scary stuff, at least on the surface.

Therefore, the position raises my curiosity.

---

Here's my question. I'm not an expert, but I suppose many on this forum are.

**If you have 10 minutes to calculate and strategize on your own, before playing a blitz game from that position, what would your plans and thoughts be?**

# Answer
Yes you should be able to get a good position against Magnus/engine.

Obviously, Magnus/engine is going to start with Bb5+ Kd8 to misplace our king, and I'm going to assume d3 to break open the position further. From here, we can finally start to think.

We are behind in development, and our king is sort of stranded in the center, but we need to accurately assess that our king is not in any danger. Any bishop check can be blocked with Nf6 (a healthy developing move we want to make anyway), and any potential rook check can be blocked by Bd6 (a healthy developing move we want to make anyway) or potentially even Ke7 if we've already gotten our bishop out.

Focusing on development above all else immediately has got to be the name of the game, but we can definitely afford to take on d3 if white offers us the tempo, since both cxd3 and Bxd3 (retreating) don't bring out more pieces with time.

We possibly also want to be able to harass the light squared bishop which is just hanging out on our side of the board with a6 because it cannot keep its strong diagonal towards our king with Ba4 because b5 Bb3 c4 traps the bishop (if d3 has not been played). This would be a serious weakening of the queenside pawns if we choose to do this, so ultimately I'm thinking our king is better placed on the kingside. That is, e7, or later f8/g8.

Therefore, I think the game should go:

```
[FEN ""]
 1. e4 c5 2. Qg4 d5 3. Qxc8 dxe4 4. Qxb8 Qxb8 5. Bb5+ Kd8 6. d3 exd3 7. Bxd3 e6 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. O-O Nf6 10. Re1 Ke7

```

From here I think we can all agree that white has no more initiative, our pieces are almost fully developed, and therefore black is just up a queen. While you can't predict the entirety of the game, you should be trying to break open the position (especially if you can attack your opponent's king) so that your queen is much more of a queen instead of a bishop like it currently is. If there are checks in the position, then loose pieces are going to drop off everywhere. The only hope for white is to maintain a fortress where every single piece/pawn is defended. Ultimately though, we can always sacrifice an exchange or something similar in order to make a decisive breakthrough towards the king (or even on the queenside), so a fortress shouldn't ever really be a concern.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I'm confident a GM will beat Stockfish from that position. The key is to simplify the position ASAP. You can even give up material to do so as long as you retain enough material/advantage to win.

Here's an example of GM David Smerdon doing it against Komodo. Komodo gave knight odds, i.e. GM Smerdon plays Black every game and White starts without the g1- or b1-knight. They played six rapid games.

Game 1 was important, because it shows you can blunder and if you do the computer will punish you, and once the evaluation is ~0.00 in a complicated position then it is really hard to avoid losing. But game 2 shows what you can do as the human player. Smerdon gave up a pawn to get the queens off the board, and then another pawn to simplify the position and stop Komodo's counterplay. The computer eval of his position undoubtedly worsened (i.e. became closer to 0.00), but the position was still winning, and more importantly it was easier to play. GM Smerdon repeated this in game 3, giving up a beautiful bishop to force the queens off, and got to another technically winning endgame. Something similar happened in games 4-6, and GM Smerdon came out the comfortable winner.

So that is the general plan: develop your pieces, stop your opponent's counterplay, don't blunder, simplify simplify simplify, and reach a technically winning endgame. Easier said than done of course, but it's something a GM should be able to manage.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, evaluation, counterplay, odds
---


# Question
Title: Does this tactic (Bxf7+ KxB, Ng5+...QxB) have a name?
I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a trap, but I sometimes do this tactic. My opponent pins my knight on f3 against my queen, but by sacrificing my bishop to f7, I can move the knight with check then use the queen to take the bishop.

For instance:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 { C33 King's Gambit Accepted: Bishop's Gambit, Maurian Defense } 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. d4 Bb6 6. O-O d6 7. Bxf4 Bg4 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Ng5+ Ke8 10.Qxg4

```

Is there a name for this?

(Side note: Stockfish rates this move as a blunder, decreasing evaluation from 1.7 to 0.3, even though I gain a pawn, prevent black castling, and leave their position more exposed. I'm curious why.).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Bxf7+ is an attraction of the king to the f7 square, after which Ng5+ is a discovered attack of the undefended bishop on g4. Technically, one could call Ng5+ a double attack/fork as well since you're simultaneously attacking the king and the bishop.

The official name would be an attraction followed by a discovered attack.

As always, loose pieces drop off! Gotta calculate all checks, captures, and threats!

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


title: Unique tactic motif? Surely not

text:
# Question
Title: Unique tactic motif? Surely not
Played by me yesterday in the Hamburg team championship.

```
[FEN ""]
 1. d4 f5 2. h3 Nf6 3. g4 fxg4 4. hxg4 Nxg4 5. Qd3 g6 6. Nf3 d6 7. Bh3 Nc6 8. Bxg4 Bxg4 9. Rxh7 Bf5 10. Rxh8 Bxd3 11. Bh6 Kd7 12. Rxf8 Qxf8 13. Bxf8 Bf5 14. Bh6 Rh8 15. Bc1 e5 16. dxe5 dxe5 17. c3 Ke6 18. Na3 a6 19. b3 b5 20. Bb2 Rd8 21. Rd1 Rh8 22. Kd2 Rb8 23. Rg1 a5 24. e4 Bxe4 25. Ng5+ Kf5 26. Nxe4 Kxe4 27. Rxg6 Ne7 28. Re6 Nf5 29. c4 bxc4 30. Rxe5+ Kf4 31. Nxc4 a4 32. Kc2 axb3+ 33. axb3 Rc8 34. Bc1+ Kg4 35. f3+ 1-0

```

Let's gloss over the details (`9.Rxh7` is a bluff, `13...Be4` is a bit stronger, any analysis would be OT here but feel free to put it into comments) and just look at the motif: `Bc1-h6-f8-h6-c1` (the latter mandatory to block the 1st rank against `Nb4 Na3 Rh1+`. I know a study where White returns six (?!) pieces to homebase, but here the bishop even starts from it. Also I recall some game moves (Alekhine?) `Q-c1-g5-c1` or the like, but that's not homebase (and it was a "positional combination" anyway). Thus:

Can you show me a combination where the player gets advantage from developing a piece and later returning it to the homebase square? (Patterned search should be possible. `Ra1-b1-a1` for an attack on the queenside counts, for example, even if it isn't that spectacular.) Bonus for longer running around and no inbetweens (like my `12.Rxf8`).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Game dug up by my problemist buddy Siegfried, to whom the credit shall go. Even two!! retreats.

Roman Dzindzichashvili vs Yuri Sakharov, Soviet Jr-ch (1957), URS

```
[FEN " "]
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be2 Bf5 8.O-O dxe5 9.dxe5 e6 10.Bd2 Ndb4 11.Nc3 Nd3 12.Bg5 Nxb2 13.Qxd8+ Nxd8 14.Bb5+ Nc6 15.Nd4 Bd3 16.Nxc6 Bxf1 17.Bxf1 bxc6 18.Bc1 Ba3 19.Nb1 1-0

```

---
Tags: tactics, patterns
---


# Question
Title: If you play an engine in Arena, how do you send it setoption commands?
I really want to play two engines against each other, one with a tablebase path and one without, but I assume this is just a special case of the question in the title.

# Answer
1. Install engine with tb path
1.1. Load that engine
1.2. Configure the engine and set the tb path
2. Install another engine without tb path

Now you can use those engines to play games.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: What is the best garden chess set?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the best garden chess set?
We plan to buy a garden chess set for outside at our work facility. It should be mobile which means we don’t plan to build a chess board with stones on the ground.

What is a good garden chess set (and board)

* which is durable and robust, and
* which is not too lightweight (when there is some wind)?

# Answer
> 1 votes
This could be an option, the board itself is foldable, but its larger than your standard chess board

Link

This is also fine, although it is **massive** and extremely expensive

Link

You can look for more boards online by searching "giant chess" or "garden chess set"

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Where was Stockfish's fatal mistake in this game against Leela?
This is a game from the TCEC Season 18 superfinal, which Leela won with a beautiful positional bind.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "TCEC Season 18 - Superfinal"]
[Site "https://tcec-chess.com"]
[Date "2020.06.27"]
[Round "65.1"]
[White "LCZero v0.25.1-svjio-t60-3972-mlh"]
[Black "Stockfish 202006170741"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "archive"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Nbd2 O-O 5. a3 Be7 6. e4 d5 7. e5 Nfd7 8. Bd3 c5 9. h4 g6 10. O-O Nc6 11. Nb3 Bxh4 12. Bh6 Re8 13. Re1 cxd4 14. Qc2 dxc4 15. Bxc4 Nb6 16. Rad1 Bd7 17. Nc5 Rc8 18. b4 Nxc4 19. Qxc4 Be7 20. Ne4 Nxb4 21. Qxb4 Bxb4 22. axb4 f5 23. Nf6+ Kh8 24. Rxd4 Rc7 25. Red1 Re7 26. b5 b6 27. Kh2 Rb7 28. Ng5 Qc8 29. R1d2 Rc7 30. Rd6 Rb7 31. R2d4 Rc7 32. Rd1 Rb7 33. R6d4 Rc7 34. f4 Rb7 35. Nxe6 Rxe6 36. Nxd7 Kg8 37. Nf6+ Kf7 38. Rd8 Qc5 39. Nxh7 Re8 40. e6+ Rxe6 41. Ng5+ Kf6 42. Rf8+ Qxf8 43. Bxf8 Rc7 44. Rd4 Rb7 45. Kg3 Rc7 46. Rd3 Rb7 47. Kh4 Rc7 48. Kg3 Rc4 49. Rd7 Re3+ 50. Kf2 Rxf4+ 51. Kxe3 Ra4 52. Be7+ Ke5 53. Kf3

```

Link to the game from the TCEC archives if one wants to see the engine evals and PVs.

Where did Stockfish go wrong? Stockfish knew it was lost after 22. axb4, so the critical error must have happened before this. Leela didn't like 20...Nxb4, but the analysis by GM Matthew Sadler is that White has a pleasant advantage anyway after that line. Meanwhile newer versions of Stockfish with NNUE enabled don't seem to think 20...Nxb4 is a mistake either. In the position after 20. Ne4, the version of Stockfish on Lichess (Stockfish 13+ NNUE) at depth 33 thinks 20...Nxb4 is the best move with +0.1 eval; the next-best move is 20...a5 with +1.3 eval.

Playing through the game with Stockfish 13+ NNUE, it's clear that somewhere around move 20, it is missing some critical game-winning line, but it's not clear how to avoid that line and the losing move is. Can anyone tell?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The hardware allocated to you by Lichess for running SF is really under-powered when compared to a modern high-end desktop - let alone the TCEC hardware.

SF 14.1 NNUE on my hardware (32 logical cores) thinks 20...a5 (+1.47) is best for Black. Its next best try is 20...a6 (+2.31). This is at depth 52/73.

After analysing 20...Nxb4? 21 Qxb4! to a depth of 46/70, my SF evaluates the position at +3.91! So it seems that 20...Nxb4 is indeed a mistake.

As to "Where did \[TCEC\] Stockfish go wrong", SF on my hardware sees a gradual decline between 3...Bb4+ (+0.58 at depth 45) and 9...g6 (+1.03 at depth 47). Then 18...Nxc4 seems to have been a mistake (+1.56 at depth 52) - as noted by Sadler, 18...Be7 would have been better.

The real way to find the mistakes would be to play a set of engine matches from various positions in this line. This would give you the main positional and tactical themes.

# Answer
> 4 votes
**UPDATE:** After viewing graffe's comment, I analyzed the alternative option that Stockfish could play, 18...Be7 instead of 18...Nxc4. It turns out that 18...Be7 is also losing for black, meaning that **Stockfish was lost after it played 17...Rc8**. Black's best chance to draw would be to play 17...Be7. Here is the best resistance black can offer, but it's still losing after 17...Rc8:

```
[FEN "2rqr1k1/pp1b1p1p/1nn1p1pB/2N1P3/2Bp3b/P4N2/1PQ2PP1/3RR1K1 w - - 1 1"]
[Event "TCEC Season 18 - Superfinal"]
[Site "https://tcec-chess.com"]
[Date "2020.06.27"]
[Round "65.1"]
[White "Leela"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "archive"]

 1. b4 Be7 2. Ba2 Nd5 3. Qd2 Bxc5 4. bxc5 Nc3 5. Ng5 Ne7 6. Qf4 Nf5 7. Nxh7 Kxh7 8. Bg5 Qxg5 9. Qxg5 Nxd1 10. g4 Nh6 11. Rxd1 Rxc5 12. Rxd4 Bc6 13. Rd3 f6 14. Qd2 Rxe5 15. f4 Rc5 16. Rh3 Kg7 17. g5 Ng8 18. Bb1

```

Stockfish 15 is out and stronger than ever. It takes little to no time to analyze this position (in fact, only 500 million nodes) and identifies the critical error with 18...Nxc4, booming to +2 within little time.

Black's seemingly only hope to defend is with 20...a5, after which white responds with 21.b5 Nb4 22.Qxd4 Nc2. According to Stockfish 15, there is only one winning move here, and it **isn't** 23.Qxd7 (Stockfish only evaluates this as +0.9). The winning resource here is another brilliant idea, **23.Qd2!** The line is: 23...Nxe1 24.Qxe1 Qc7 25.b6 Qc6 26.Qe3 Qa4 **27.Rd4**!

The idea here is stunning - it's a very deep sacrifice involving a king hunt that Stockfish finds in mere seconds. Here's the full line:

```
[FEN "2rqr1k1/pp1bbp1p/2n1p1pB/2N1P3/1PQp4/P4N2/5PP1/3RR1K1 w - - 0 1"]
[Event "TCEC Season 18 - Superfinal"]
[Site "https://tcec-chess.com"]
[Date "2020.06.27"]
[Round "65.1"]
[White "Leela"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "archive"]

1. Ne4 a5 2. b5 Nb4 3. Qxd4 Nc2 4. Qd2 Nxe1 5. Qxe1 Qc7 6. b6 Qc6 7. Qe3 Qa4 8. Rd4 Rc4 9. Rxc4 Qxc4 10. Qf4 Rc8 11. Nh2 Bf8 12. Ng4 Bxh6 13. Nxh6+ Kg7 14. Kh2 Qc1 15. Qxf7+ Kxh6 16. g4

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is no one particular mistake. It is white building the attack around black king 7.e5 ... 12 Bh6 and finally deadly 23 Nf6

They are playing somewhat imprecise in some segments around 20. so it is more of a "who made a worse choice" than about one particular error. Not that they are playing wrong, it is in the sense of position being complicated enough to exactly name all details in it.

However, the basic error that allows the attack build-up is 9. ... g6? (h6 is better). This move is just calling for an attack.

Before that, you can take as an imprecision: black castled too early and then played 6 ... d5 forcing the only figure that is defending the king side, a knight, out of the game.

The rest is just an execution. Notice as well how useless black rooks are after 24. Covering nothing, defending a poor locked bishop. It is a disaster in making.

Sometimes people think that chess is about one mistake you make. No. Many times it is a small connected chain of poor decisions that just created a momentum, a combination, and when that starts, like here, if you know what you are doing, there is really no defense.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It would be impossible for an average player like the ones on here to answer this. There are types of positions where engines are weak but even so I would rely on an engine to analyze it and who's to say one engine is better than another?

Engines are so strong it would take weeks of analysis to say one was wrong without some long term strategic error. I doubt the people on here giving SF lines are doing much more than repeating what SF says.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, leela
---


# Question
Title: Is Beth Harmon behaviour in her game vs Georgi Girev acceptable (then and now)?
In S01E04 of the TV series *The Queen's Gambit*, the main protagonist (Beth Harmon) is competing against a young Russian player (Georgi Girev). This happens in 1966.

Beth Harmon is not spending any time at all at the table. Whenever she made her move, she would wander around the hotel, looking at the game from far away. She would also sit on the side, fixing Georgi and even tapping her feet.

To me (I do not play chess, except occasionally with my children) this looks like an attempt to distract the other player, which seems to be forbidden (from the various questions I gathered in SE Chess).

Unfortunately, I could not find a publicly available fragment of that episode, but this behaviour was never seen neither before, nor after that specific game.

I understand that there is a lot of subjective elements in the interpretation of "distraction", so would Beth's behaviour be acceptable in 1966 and today?

# Answer
> Following an adjournment, Beth Harmon is not spending any time at all at the table, whenever she made her move, she would wander around the hotel, looking at the game from far away. She would also sit on the side, fixing Georgi and even tapping her feet.

I'm an arbiter, and I probably would...

* Do nothing about her running around. It is allowed if it's the opponent's move and you don't leave the game area. Maybe I have an eye on her, so that she doesn't sneak to the 20 t truck with the 10 t chess computer (it's '66 :-) I'm a "runner" myself and try to be quiet when I leave the board.
* Have a word with her if her sideway looks seem to intimidate the opponent, and definitely if the opponent claims so. This seems a borderline case to me, if someone tried that on me, no sell.
* Definitely give her a rap about feet tapping, this might not only annoy the opponent, but the whole tournament area.

There are reported incidents of similar behavior even in GM chess, e.g. '77, Petrosjan playing (table) jerk against Kortchnoi (and what angered Kortchnoi most was he couldn't tit for tat as then Petrosjan simply unplugged his hearing aid...)
> 17 votes

# Answer
I think the idea was that Beth felt uncomfortable because for the first time she was no longer the young prodigy. Here was someone else younger than her competing at the same level. How would she respond?

This scene was, I understand, to some extent improvised. It seemed to show also Girev’s relative mental balance compared to Beth, at that point in her psychological trajectory. Her arrogance here foreshadows her later fall, after which she did some growing up.

Even today there are mean players, for example the one described in this chess.com post. This kind of thing is clearly against the Laws of Chess but there will be those who continue to behave like this if they find they can get away with it, particularly when facing young and relatively inexperienced opponents. Personally, the individual described seems to be horrid, and I would hate to be taught by them.

The role of the arbiter is essential in policing behaviour, particularly where young players are concerned.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Yes, this behaviour is forbidden. If you consider that you opponent do something to distract you in official tournament, you can call the arbitrer and explain the problem.

In Queen's gambit, I don't get the reason of why Beth is tapping her foot, (to be honest, I don't understand certains moods that she has) but the little russian was maybe intimidated and shy to call the arbiter (I say that in relation of facial expression he has during the game, and Beth seemed to play with it).
> 4 votes

# Answer
> would Beth's behaviour be acceptable in 1966?

I didn't start playing competitive chess until 1970 but then I often played club opponents who smoked and blew smoke in my direction. Beth's behaviour would be perfectly acceptable in 1966. Of course today smoking is not allowed in the playing area full stop. It is not only disturbing for non-smokers it is injurious to their health. What Beth was doing was insignificant by comparison

> and today?

There are two issues you raise.

1. "Whenever she made her move, she would wander around the hotel, looking at the game from far away"

This is what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say:

> 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.
>
> 11.2.3 Only with the permission of the arbiter can:
>
> 11.2.3.1 a player leave the playing venue,
>
> 11.2.3.2 the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area.

If she can see the game then not only is she in the playing venue, as required by the Laws, she is actually in the playing area. Not only is her behaviour here within the rules but would also be within the rules if it was her turn to move. There is absolutely no requirement to stay glued to the seat.

2. She would also sit on the side, fixing Georgi and even tapping her feet.

Staring at your opponent is perfectly acceptable. Tapping your feet or other nervous habits are more subjective but in general as an arbiter I give the benefit of the doubt to the nervous player and only act if the behaviour seems both deliberate and disturbing. Doing what she was doing from a distance doesn't qualify.

Some years ago I arbited a tournament where one of the young players appeared to have a nervous affliction which meant that his body, arms and head, were continually twitching in a way which was distracting to me as the arbiter, let alone the other players. However it seemed completely involuntary and none of the other players complained so I did my best to ignore it.

Every now and then I play somebody with a "nervous leg". It bounces up and down underneath the table. I try not to allow it to distract me and concentrate on my game as long as the movement doesn't disturb the table and the board. As an arbiter I know that I could complain to the arbiter but that would probably disturb *my* concentration more than the behaviour so I don't waste my time on mind games.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, history
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish miss mate in 5 with only two legal moves?
I'm interested to understand what is going on for Stockfish on Lichess here. There are only two legal moves for Black, and it gives the position mate-in-14 for white.

When asked to play its recommended move (using Lichess "practice with computer"), it chooses Kb8 and gives the position mate-in-4 for white.

I'm very surprised that it couldn't see the mate in 4 from one half move further away, given only two moves for black to consider. And especially given that the move it chose as the best for black was on the path to the mate in 4.

Are there any insights that would help understand its miscalculation?

(Hmm, actually maybe what is going on is it's actually mate in 14, but the "practice with computer" mode is not choosing the best possible move, and e1=Q would have been stronger. In which case I wonder how to get a stronger practice mode...).

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is no mate in 4. Black's best move is 1...e1=Q, after which White goes 2. Bg2+ Kb8 3. a7+ Kc8 4. a8=Q+ with a decisive advantage, but no immediate checkmate. M14 is correct, White takes several moves after the promotion to mate.

You might be seeing some issue with tablebases, since if Black's goal is to prevent the zeroing move as long as possible then 1...Kb8 is the best move.

---
Tags: engines, checkmate, stockfish
---


title: How do I get a FIDE ID?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I get a FIDE ID?
I’m going to play in my first tournament which have said the following: “Those who don’t have a FIDE ID have to enroll FIDE ID registration under your own federation” and I don’t understand what they meant exactly.

How do I get a FIDE ID?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Every national member federation has an IRO - International Rating Officer. It is their responsibility to register members of their federation with FIDE.

In the first instance you could find the email address and send them an email requesting that they register you with FIDE. The place to start is the FIDE list of member federations. If you go to this alphabetic list you see that by default it gives you, along with the list, the details of the first country in the list, Algeria. Scrolling down you see that the Rating Officer is Adnane Nesla and it gives his email address.

To find the IRO for England, where I live now, I click on "Europe" and then scroll down and click on "England". There I see that the IRO is Dave Clayton and his official email address is IRO@EnglishChess.org.uk.

In England the process for getting a FIDE ID for a tournament usually doesn't involve you personally emailing the IRO. Instead what you do is give your date of birth to the tournament director or arbiter and they pass your details on to the IRO on your behalf for registration.

Most federations will charge a higher membership fee if you also want to play in FIDE registered tournaments, particularly standard time control tournaments. This is because FIDE charges the member federations for rating standard rate games. FIDE do not charge for rating rapid and blitz so in those cases your federation may register you with FIDE for free. That is the case for ENG for blitz tournaments.

I should add one warning. You can also get an *unlicensed* FIDE ID by registering with FIDE's Online Arena. That allows you to play only in FIDE's online arena. It does not license you to play in FIDE rated over-the-board tournaments and if an arbiter or tournament organizer allows you to do that then the member federation will be fined by FIDE.

---
Tags: fide, rating
---


title: Losing against lower rated opponents

text:
# Question
Title: Losing against lower rated opponents
I play many blitz games on Lichess per day, 5 + 5 and up. When I play my A game, I can beat any 2000+ player with ease, like today. Sometimes 2200, but I don't play them much.

Anyway sometimes like what happened last week, I lost many back to back matches against various 1500, 1400 and even 1200! My rating dropped just like that to 1600, perhaps less, now I'm at 1850 looking to be back at 1900 maybe 2000 soon as I'm on a winning streak.

That's the only reason I'm not 2200 player, coz one day I might win against 2200, next day I might lose against 1200. I mostly play Queen's gambit or Sicilian, no crazy openings.

Does that happen to all of you or is it just me? I play too many games per day, is that why this is happening to me?

I noticed that if I play one game or two, every few days I can win higher rated players with ease. I noticed that if I play many games per day I start feeling numb and anxious and stop seeing the board. Is it just me or does anyone play totally rubbish after many games?

I think I have chess addiction, if there's such thing, where I continue to play until I start losing and then play and lose more and it's so annoying.

# Answer
Chess can honestly be a very tiring game since it takes a considerable amount of brain power to play. You simply play worse when you play a lot of games in a row compared to several over the course of a few days because you're just tired, it happens to everyone to a certain degree. The last thing you mentioned is called going on tilt, its a common occurrence in gaming where a lose can be demoralizing and cause you to play worse which may cause you to lose again and continue the cycle. The best way to deal with tilt is just take a break. Also if I understand you correctly you were talking about blitz chess, in my opinion blitz chess is more inconsistent compared to normal timed chess as in the time factor will give you a greater chance to beat a higher rated player compared to if you were playing normal time control chess but also a higher chance for you to lose against a lower rated opponent. I think fatigue and all those other factors I mentioned could play a part of you losing to "weaker" opponents.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I think the tendency is to overplay positions vs lower rated opponents. They make a bad move and you want to show them how bad it was so you play aggressively and sac material

Just play solid moves And beat them in the endgame if you have to.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you want to win against lower rated opponents, see the tips in the answers you can find here and here.

I would especially like to highlight Philip Roe's advice: "**Avoid exchanges and keep the Pawns unbalanced.**" Don't play unnecessarily risky. If they are lower rated, they'll eventually make a mistake that you can exploit.

Upsets will happen to almost any player. I still remember a painfull loss against an opponent rated 800 points below my rating in the King's Gambit. There are multiple accounts of major upsets even at GM level.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: psychology, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Human assisted handicapped engine against engine, adjustable parameters
I am looking for software preferably local interface on windows, to play human+engine against engine with access to search parameters such as depth and "greed" or dismissal factor (controlling pruning).

One side would have an engine proposing moves to a human player against another usually stronger engine. This could be the same engine with better parameters choices.

Open source preferred, engine could be Stockfish, but I am more looking for the interface that would allow such games, human interaction at each move, and compilation of data from those games. GUI preferred but CLI is okay if it is the only solution.

Also, if existing software that can handle engine on one side could be modded to be bi-directional that way, with pause at each turn, that would be something I could work with (some SDK allowing that).

# Answer
PyChess is a graphical interface for chess that has the features you describe (or at least PyChess Philidor, its predecessor, used to have them). It allows you to load multiple engines, to choose between their suggestions, it supports human vs computer games as well as depth and pruning, it is open source, etcetera. Just to be clear, PyChess does not come with a default engine, you have to install the engine separately and then load it when you open PyChess.

Unfortunately it was not the most intuitive software, at least not for me, so I stopped using it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, software
---