# Question
Title: Is it better to reply to 1.Nf3 with ...d5 or ...b5?
After `1.Nf3` I can gain space with either of `1...d5` or `1...b5`. Which of these two is better?

I presume it's `1...d5`, but I just want to make sure.

# Answer
> 6 votes
After 1.Nf3 the most popular answer is 1…Nf6, which is a hundred times more common than 1…b5. 1…d5 is the second most popular choice, still fifty times more likely to appear on the board than 1…b5.

Now the difference between 1…Nf6 and 1…d5 is mostly one of compatibility with the rest of your opening repertoire. 1…Nf6 is more common because the indian defences are more popular than the 1…d5 against 1.d4.

But 1…b5 is decidedly **offbeat**. The reason is that it doesn't immediately fight for control of the central squares. The importance of the central squares is explained in the answers to this question: Why is the centre of the board considered important in chess?

Still, 1…b5 isn't a mistake. It has the ideas of developing the bishop to b7, making c4 impossible and maybe annoy a Nc3 in the future. If black can consolidate, the additional space on the queenside might make a difference.

The main problem from a theoretical standpoint is probably that it is rather slow: 1.Nf3 b5 2.e4 Bb7 3.Bxb5 Bxe4 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.O-O and white has quite a significant development lead.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is hopefully the answer you're looking for, Nf3 is part of 2 Openings (as far as I know).

First is the "Zukertort Opening" 1.Nf3 d5 (so d5 is the response) however there is also a c5 response for black attempting to make it a Sicilian (I do not know much about this opening except for this you'll have to do some research on it)

Now there is the more famous Reti Opening, where it's actually 1.Nf3 d5 (just like the last one) and now 2.c4... You'll most likely find a lot more information on this opening than the Zukertort.

So the overall conclusion 1. Nf3 d5 is the answer for your question, however as you can see there is the c5 answer as well. So it depends on your play style afterwards. You might want to play the c5 from the Zukort to transcend into the Sicilian (which might be up your alley depending on how you play as black)

Hope I helped. If you have any further questions feel free to comment and I will answer to the best of my abilities.

Also just to make sure, those are the only 2 openings I know of that start with Nf3 there might be others :) I will research around and see if I can find any with other answers then post a comment on this post :)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Objectively 1...d5 is better because it grabs control of the center.

Practically, most people will respond to 1. Nf3 with an opening they have worked out and are familiar with even if it is not objectively best.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Does white really have a win in this pawn ending, as claimed by Tim Krabbé?
**Update:     I emailed Tim Krabbé, and he agrees that  41. b4 bxa4  draws. <br>He has posted a PS about this just under his old analysis.**
With respect to "Skawinski - Tomczak, European ch rapid, Warsaw 2011",
Tim Krabbé says that "White could have won with 41.b4!".
After  41. b4 bxa4 ,  they would have reached the position

```
[Title "The Position I'm Actually Interested In"]
[fen "8/8/2p5/p2k1ppp/pP1P5/3K1PPP/8/8 w - - 0 42"]

```

with white to move.  Stockfish believes that from the above position,
everything other than bxa5 loses outright for white, and that after bxa5, a3 probably
holds for black due to the counter-breakthrough on the kingside.    Tim Krabbé does
address that counter-breakthrough, but only for  41. ... axb4 ,  rather than  41. ... bxa4 .

Here's what I currently believe to be optimal play from the above diagram:

```
[Title "What I Currently Believe is Optimal Play From That Position"]
[fen "8/8/2p5/p2k1ppp/pP1P5/3K1PPP/8/8 w - - 0 42"]

1.bxa5 a3 2.Kc2 a2 3.Kb2 a1=Q+ 4.Kxa1 g4 5.hxg4 f4 6.gxf4 h4 7.a6 h3 8.a7 h2 9.a8=Q

```

Proof that white does not have a forced win after that line:
The main line continues `9. ... h1=Q+ 10.Kb2 Qg2+ 11.Kb3 Qxf3+ 12.Kb4 Qxf4 13.Qd8+ Ke4`.  Playing Ka2 instead of Kb2 doesn't change anything.
If white's king goes back to rank 1 instead of to rank 3 or back to rank 2 instead of to
rank 4, then black checks horizontally from the f-file until white's king goes to rank 4.
Otherwise, black doesn't care *how* white's king goes from a1 to rank 4.

Let "6ptbd" be short for "6-piece tablebase draw-or-win-for-black".

If white's king goes to a4 instead of b4 then:
Black plays Qd1+.  If white plays Ka3 then black plays Qa1+.
If white doesn't play that or doesn't follow it up with Kb3 then Qxd4 followed by Qxf4
yields a 6ptbd, so for the next sentence, assume `12.Ka4 Qa1+ 13.Kb3 Qxa8`.
If Kc3 then Qa1+ followed by Qxd4 yields a 6ptbd, else Kxd4 yields a 6ptbd.

Stephen comments that after Qxf4, the position is a finalgen table base draw.  Since I already
had a majority of the relevant analysis together before I read that, I'll give analysis which, without relying on finalgen (but still relying on 5&6-piece tablebases being correct about certain positions
*not* being forced wins for white), shows that white doesn't have a forced win after Qxf4.
After Qxf4, Qd8+ is the only move which doesn't let black immediately
capture on d4 for a 6ptbw.    After Ke4, the only moves for white which
don't let black immediately capture for a 6ptbd are  Kc3,Qd7,g5 .

After Ke4, if Kc3 then black gets at least a draw as follows:
Black starts with Qc1+, and then black's queen moves as far up as doesn't let white capture
it immediately while still checking from below unless white's king goes to c5 or rank 6.
If Kc5 then Qa3+.  Since b5 and and d3 and d5 are covered by black's pawn and king,
the only way out of those checks is going to rank 6, and the only ways for
white's king to get there are a5 and c5, which mean black's queen will be on a3.
In that case, Kxc6 is a 6ptbd, and if Kb6 then Qb4+ followed by Qxd4 is a tablebase draw.

After Ke4, if Qd7 then black gets at least a draw as follows:
Black starts with Qd2+.  If Kc4 or Kc5 then black mostly follows the procedure described in the previous paragraph, but if Qb4+ Ka6 then Qa4+ followed by Qxd4 rather than an immediate Qxd4, and if Qb4+ Kxc6 then it's already a 6ptbd which Qxd4 would lose.
Otherwise, Qxd4 gives a 6ptbd.

After Ke4, if g5 then black gets at least a draw as follows:
Until black can check from below in a way that's not Qb1 checking Kb4, black moves so that \[white\_king's\_square,black\_queen's\_square\] is an element of {\[a1,d1\],\[b1,d1\],\[a2,d2\],\[b2,d2\],\[a3,c1\],\[b3,d1\],\[b4,d2\]}. Once black can check from below in a way that's not Qb1 checking Kb4, black then does so as close to white's king as doesn't let white capture it immediately, and continues that until white's king reaches rank 6.  If Kd6 then Qxd4+ is a 6ptbd.  The only other way out of the part of this paragraph that came before this sentence is Kb6.  Once white has played that, until white captures c6 or blocks a check or the rest of this sentence calls for Qxg5, black moves so that \[white\_king's\_square,black\_queen's\_square\] is an element of
{\[a6,a4\],\[a7,a4\],\[a8,a4\],\[b6,b4\],\[b7,b5\],\[b8,b5\],\[c7,a5\],\[c8,f5\],\[d6,d5\],\[d7,d5\],\[e7,g5\],\[e8,g8\]}.
White capturing c6 is a 6ptbd, and if white blocks a check then queen-takes-pawn is a 6ptbd.
The sentence two ago only calls for Qxg5 after Ke7, and in that case it's a 6ptbd.

Therefore, none of Kc3,Qd7,g5 keep a forced win for white.  QED

Thus, any forced win for white must deviate from that line before h1=Q+.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I've looked at this question a lot since I first saw it. I spent the last day of 2016 looking at its variations. I wasn't able to find a variation with white winning.

**SETUP**:

* GUI: **Athena-3.5.1 build 2861**
* ENGINE: **stockfish\_16123114\_x64\_modern** (*daily build - none more recent*)
* ENGINE: **komodo-10.1-64bit**
* ENGINE: **andscacs-0.89**
* ENGINE: **Fire\_5\_x64-popcnt**

I always assigned white the strongest chess engine to give it advantage to win, and I used more resources (more memory and CPUs) to allowed for deeper analysis.

**MAIN LINE**:

The so-called 'main line' simply deteriorates into move repetition; so a draw.

This position ultimately appears unwinnable for white because black's act of advancing a pawn with **1 .. a4** draws white's King away from the centre with **2. Kc2 ..** ultimately placing the King on **a1** with **6. Kxa1 ..**. Black exploits this positioning in a very clever way with another foot race white falsely appears to win.

Looking forward to having whites King capture the promoted **a** column black pawn, Black chooses to moves **2. .. g4** to sacrifice material and to open the **h** column. This material sacrifice **2. .. g4** ultimately allows the pawn on **h** file to race to promotion and gains black tempo by putting whites **a1** King in check. The sacrifice doesn't look it provides advantage yet because black has to wait for whites King to be put in check. However black's material sacrifice on **2. .. g4** indeed gains tempo because of the positioning of white's King.

Recall, white's king has been drawn to **a1**. The foot race between white's **a5** pawn and black's soon-to-be **h4** pawn seems to advantage white (who promotes first) except that black Pawn's promotion putting white's **a1** King in check is where black realizes the tempo. As long as black continues to check, white position is unwinnable. White's promoted Queen never gets a chance.

```

[Event "Ricky Demer's Position: Main Line"]
[Site "GHOST"]
[Date "2016.12.31"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Stockfish 16123114 x64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Stockfish 16123114 x64 POPCNT"]
[Result "*"]
[BlackElo "3397"]
[Time "13:29:29"]
[WhiteElo "3397"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/2p5/p2k1ppp/pP1P4/3K1PPP/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "human"]
[FEN "8/8/2p5/p2k1ppp/pP1P4/3K1PPP/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. bxa5 a3 2. Kc2 g4 3. hxg4 f4 4. gxf4 a2 5. Kb2 a1=Q+ 6. Kxa1 h4 7. a6 h3 8. a7 h2 9. a8=Q h1=Q+ 10. Ka2 Qg2+ 11. Ka1 Qh1+ 12. Ka2 Qg2+ 13. Ka1 Qf1+ 14. Ka2 Qe2+ 15. Ka1 Qe1+ 16. Ka2 Qf2+ 17. Ka1 Qf1+ 18. Ka2 Qf2+ 19. Ka1 Qxd4+ 20. Kb1 Qd1+ 21. Ka2 Qc2+ 22. Ka1 Qd1+ 23. Ka2 Qd2+ 24. Ka1 Qc1+  25. Ka2  Qc2+ 26. Ka1 Qc3+ 27. Kb1 {(Ka1-b1 Qc3-e1+ Kb1-c2 Qe1-f2+ Kc2-b1 Qf2-e1+) 0.00/42 4} Qe1+  28. Ka2  Qf2+  29. Ka1 Qe1+ 30. Ka2 Qf2+ 31. Ka1 Qg1+ 32. Ka2 Qg2+ 33. Ka1 Qf1+ 34. Ka2 Qe2+ 35. Ka1 Qe1+ 36. Ka2 (36. Ka2 {(Ka1-a2)
0.00/47 3-fold repetition}) *

```

**FALSE HOPE**:

The variation you suggest has white's King taking the pawn on **a2** with **6. Kxa2** rather than allow it to promote and take it on **a1**.

The apparent advantage to white is illusory. Because black appears to win the second race to pawn promotion **8. .. h1=Q**, and because white's King is still on **a2** white King's moves are nuanced, ultimately allowing black to take all white's Pawns (as white is taking black's pawns) leading to a stalemate (again) due to insufficient material.

The variation supposedly advantaging white, in fact allows black to take all of white's other pieces. Here are some examples using Stockfish against Stockfish.

```

[Event "Ricky Demer's Position: White hope?"]
[Site "GHOST"]
[Date "2016.12.31"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stockfish 16123114 x64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Stockfish 16123114 x64 POPCNT"]
[Result "*"]
[BlackElo "3210"]
[Time "13:05:02"]
[WhiteElo "3210"]
[TimeControl "40/2400:40/2400:40/2400"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Termination "insufficient material"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]
[FEN "8/8/2p5/p2k1ppp/pP1P4/3K1PPP/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. bxa5 {(b4xa5 a4-a3 Kd3-c3 g5-g4 f3xg4 a3-a2 Kc3-b2 a2-a1B+ Kb2xa1 h5-h4
g3xh4 f5-f4 Ka1-a2 f4-f3 a5-a6 f3-f2 a6-a7 f2-f1Q a7-a8Q Qf1-f2+ Ka2-b3
Qf2-e3+ Kb3-c2 Qe3-e2+ Kc2-c3 Qe2-e3+ Kc3-b4 Qe3xd4+ Kb4-b3 Qd4-d3+ Kb3-b2
Qd3-d2+ Kb2-b1 Qd2-d3+ Kb1-c1 Qd3-e3+ Kc1-b2 Qe3-e2+ Kb2-b1 Qe2-f1+ Kb1-b2
Qf1-e2+) 0.00/30 11} a3 {(a4-a3 Kd3-c3 g5-g4 f3xg4 h5-h4 g3xh4 a3-a2 Kc3-b2
a2-a1Q+ Kb2xa1 f5-f4 a5-a6 f4-f3 a6-a7 f3-f2 a7-a8Q f2-f1Q+ Ka1-a2 Qf1-f2+
Ka2-b3 Qf2-e3+ Kb3-c2 Qe3-e2+ Kc2-c3 Qe2-e3+ Kc3-b4 Qe3xd4+ Kb4-b3 Qd4-d3+
Kb3-b2 Qd3-d2+ Kb2-b1 Qd2-d3+ Kb1-c1 Qd3-e3+ Kc1-b2 Qe3-e2+ Kb2-b1 Qe2-f1+
Kb1-b2 Qf1-e2+) 0.00/32 6} 2. Kc2 {(Kd3-c2 g5-g4 h3xg4 a3-a2 Kc2-b2 f5-f4
g3xf4 h5-h4 a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7 a2-a1R Kb2xa1 h3-h2 Ka1-a2 h2-h1Q a7-a8Q
Qh1-g2+ Ka2-a3 Qg2xf3+ Ka3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 g4-g5 Qf4-d2+ Kb4-c5
Qd2-c3+ Kc5-b6 Qc3-b4+ Kb6xc6 Qb4-c4+ Kc6-b7 Qc4-b5+ Qd8-b6 Qb5xg5 Qb6-b1+
Ke4xd4 Qb1-b4+ Kd4-e3 Qb4-c3+ Ke3-e2) 0.00/29 9} g4 {(g5-g4 f3xg4 h5-h4
g3xh4 f5-f4 a5-a6 a3-a2 Kc2-b2 f4-f3 a6-a7 a2-a1R Kb2xa1 f3-f2 a7-a8Q
f2-f1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qf1-e2+ Kb2-c1 Qe2-f1+ Kc1-d2 Qf1-f2+ Kd2-d3 Qf2-f3+ Kd3-c2
Qf3-e2+ Kc2-b3 Qe2-c4+ Kb3-b2 Qc4-e2+) 0.00/31 5} 3. hxg4 {(h3xg4 a3-a2
Kc2-b2 f5-f4 g3xf4 h5-h4 a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7 a2-a1Q+ Kb2xa1 h3-h2 a7-a8Q
h2-h1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qh1-g2+ Kb2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5
Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-d7
Ke4xd5 Qd8-a5+ Kd5-e4 Qa5-b5 Ke4-f3 Qb5-d5+ Kf3-f4 Qd5-f7+ Kf4-e3 Qf7-e7+
Ke3-f4) 0.00/27 10} a2 {(a3-a2 Kc2-b2 f5-f4 g3xf4 h5-h4 a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7
a2-a1Q+ Kb2xa1 h3-h2 a7-a8Q h2-h1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qh1-g2+ Kb2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4
Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5
Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-d6 Qc2-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5
Qb3-c3+ Kc5-d6 Qc3-e5+ Kd6-c6 Qe5-c3+ Kc6-d7 Qc3-h3+ Kd7-c7 Qh3-c3+ Kc7-d7)
0.00/31 6} 4. Kb2 {(Kc2-b2 f5-f4 g3xf4 h5-h4 a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7 a2-a1Q+
Kb2xa1 h3-h2 a7-a8Q h2-h1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qh1-g2+ Kb2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4
Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+
Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-d6 Qc3-e5+ Kd6-c6 Qe5-c3+
Kc6-d7 Qc3-h3+ Kd7-c7 Qh3-c3+ Kc7-d7) 0.00/33 9} f4 {(f5-f4 g3xf4 h5-h4
a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7 a2-a1Q+ Kb2xa1 h3-h2 a7-a8Q h2-h1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qh1-g2+ Kb2-b3
Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5
Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5
Qc3-d3+ Kb5-c6 Qd3-c4+ Kc6-b7 Qc4-b5+ Kb7-a7 Qb5-c5+ Ka7-b7 Qc5-b5+)
0.00/33 4} 5. gxf4 {(g3xf4 h5-h4 a5-a6 h4-h3 a6-a7 a2-a1Q+ Kb2xa1 h3-h2
a7-a8Q h2-h1Q+ Ka1-b2 Qh1-g2+ Kb2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4
Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+
Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-d3+ Kb5-b4 Qd3-d4+ Kb4-a3 Qd4-c5+
Ka3-a4 Qc5-d4+ Ka4-a3) 0.00/34 10} h4 {(h5-h4 Kb2xa2 h4-h3 a5-a6 h3-h2
a6-a7 h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4
Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+
Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-d3+ Kb5-c6 Qd3-c4+ Kc6-b6 Qc4-b4+
Kb6-c6 Qb4-c4+) 0.00/31 5} 6. Kxa2 {(Kb2xa2 h4-h3 a5-a6 h3-h2 a6-a7 h2-h1Q
a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4
Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+
Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-d3+ Kb5-b4 Qd3-d4+ Kb4-a3 Qd4-c5+ Ka3-a4 Qc5-d4+
Ka4-a3) 0.00/31 6} h3 {(h4-h3 a5-a6 h3-h2 a6-a7 h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+
Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+
Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5 Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+
Kc5-b5 Qc3-d3+ Kb5-b4 Qd3-d4+ Kb4-a3 Qd4-c3+ Ka3-a4 Qc3-d4+ Ka4-a3) 0.00/32
6} 7. a6 {(a5-a6 h3-h2 a6-a7 h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4
Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ d4-d5
Qf5-f2+ Kc5-c6 Qf2-c2+ Kc6-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-d6 Qc3-e5+ Kd6-c6
Qe5-c3+ Kc6-d7 Ke4xd5 Kd7-e8+ Kd5-e4 Qd8-h4+ Ke4-d5 Qh4-d8+) 0.00/33 10} h2
{(h3-h2 a6-a7 h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+
Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+ d4-d5
Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5 Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6
Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-d3+ Kb5-b4
Qd3-d4+ Kb4-b5 Qd4-b2+ Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5) 0.00/34 7} 8. a7 {(a6-a7
h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5
Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+ d4-d5 Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5
Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6 Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5
Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-b2+ Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5)
0.00/35 20} h1=Q {(h2-h1Q a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4
Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+
d4-d5 Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5 Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+
Ke6-d6 Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-b2+
Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5) 0.00/35 4} 9. a8=Q {(a7-a8Q Qh1-g2+ Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+
Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+
Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+ d4-d5 Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5 Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+
Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6 Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+
Kc5-b5 Qc3-b2+ Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5) 0.00/35 3} Qg2+ {(Qh1-g2+ Ka2-a1
Qg2-g1+ Ka1-b2 Qg1-f2+ Kb2-b3 Qf2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5
Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+ d4-d5 Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5
Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6 Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5
Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-b2+ Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5)
0.00/35 12} 10. Ka1 {(Ka2-a1 Qg2-f1+ Ka1-b2 Qf1-f2+ Kb2-b3 Qf2xf3+ Kb3-b4
Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4
Qf5-e6+ d4-d5 Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5 Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6
Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6 Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5
Qc3-b2+ Kb5-c6 Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5) 0.00/36 8} Qf1+ {(Qg2-f1+ Ka1-a2 Qf1-e2+
Ka2-a1 Qe2-d1+ Ka1-b2 Qd1-d2+ Kb2-a1 Qd2-d1+) 0.00/37 19} 11. Ka2 {(Ka1-a2
Qf1-e2+ Ka2-a1 Qe2-d1+ Ka1-b2 Qd1-d2+ Kb2-a1 Qd2-d1+) 0.00/38 8} Qg2+
{(Qf1-g2+) 0.00/42 26} 12. Kb3 {(Ka2-b3 Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4 Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+
Kd5-e4 Kb4-c5 Qf4xg4 Kc5xc6 Qg4-e6+ Kc6-c5 Qe6-f5+ Kc5-c4 Qf5-e6+ d4-d5
Qe6-a6+ Kc4-c5 Qa6-a3+ Kc5-c6 Qa3-a4+ Kc6-d6 Qa4-a3+ Kd6-e6 Qa3-h3+ Ke6-d6
Qh3-h2+ Kd6-c5 Qh2-c2+ Kc5-b6 Qc2-b3+ Kb6-c5 Qb3-c3+ Kc5-b5 Qc3-b2+ Kb5-c6
Qb2-c3+ Kc6-b5) 0.00/35 26 Black forfeits on time} Qxf3+ {(Qg2xf3+ Kb3-b4
Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-e4 g4-g5 Qf4-d2+ Kb4-c5 Qd2-c3+ Kc5-b6 Qc3-b4+ Kb6-a7
Qb4-a4+ Ka7-b8 Qa4-b5+ Kb8-c8 Qb5-f5+ Kc8-b7 Qf5-b5+ Kb7-c7 Qb5-a5+ Kc7-c8
Qa5-f5+) 0.00/35 123} 13. Ka2 {(Kb3-a2 Qf3xf4 Qa8-a5+ Kd5-e4 Qa5-c5 Qf4-d2+
Ka2-b3 Qd2-d3+ Kb3-a2 Qd3xd4 Qc5xc6+ Qd4-d5+ Qc6xd5+ Ke4xd5 g4-g5 Kd5-e5
Ka2-b3 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5-f6 g6-g7 Kf6xg7 Kb3-c4 Kg7-f6 Kc4-d4 Kf6-g5 Kd4-e4
Kg5-g4 Ke4-d3 Kg4-h3 Kd3-d4 Kh3-g2 Kd4-c3 Kg2-f1 Kc3-b2 Kf1-e2 Kb2-c2
Ke2-e3 Kc2-c3 Ke3-f4 Kc3-c2 Kf4-g5 Kc2-d3 Kg5-g6 Kd3-c3 Kg6-g5) 0.00/39
234} Qxf4 {(Qf3xf4 Qa8-d8+ Kd5-c4 Qd8-b6 Qf4-d2+ Ka2-a3 Qd2-c1+ Ka3-a2
Qc1-c2+ Ka2-a3 Qc2-c3+ Ka3-a2 Qc3-d2+) 0.00/42 278} 14. Qa5+ {(Qa8-a5+
Kd5-e4 Qa5-c5 Qf4-d2+ Ka2-b3 Qd2-d3+ Kb3-a2 Qd3xd4 Qc5xc6+ Qd4-d5+ Qc6xd5+
Ke4xd5 g4-g5 Kd5-e5 g5-g6 Ke5-f6 Ka2-b3 Kf6-g7 Kb3-c4 Kg7-f8 Kc4-d5 Kf8-g7
Kd5-c5 Kg7-f6 Kc5-d5 Kf6-g7) 0.00/41 247} Kxd4 {(Kd5xd4 Qa5-b4+ Kd4-e5
Qb4-c5+ Ke5-f6 g4-g5+ Kf6-g6 Qc5xc6+ Kg6-f7 Ka2-b1 Qf4xg5 Qc6-c4+ Kf7-f6
Qc4-a6+ Kf6-g7 Qa6-b7+ Kg7-f6 Qb7-a6+) 0.00/43 354} 15. Kb2 {(Ka2-b2 Qf4-e3
Qa5-a4+ Kd4-d5 Kb2-c2 Kd5-d6 Qa4-b4+ Kd6-d5 g4-g5 Qe3-e2+ Kc2-c3 Qe2-d1
Qb4-f4 Qd1-e1+ Kc3-d3 Qe1-d1+ Kd3-c3) 0.00/36 67} Ke4 {(Kd4-e4 Qa5-a4+
Ke4-e3 Qa4xc6 Qf4-d4+ Kb2-b3 Qd4-d1+ Kb3-a3 Qd1-d3+ Ka3-a4 Qd3-d4+ Ka4-b5
Ke3-f4 Kb5-a5 Qd4-e5+ Ka5-b4 Qe5-e4+ Qc6xe4+ Kf4xe4 Kb4-b5 Ke4-f4 Kb5-c5
Kf4xg4 Kc5-d4 Kg4-g5 Kd4-c4 Kg5-h4 Kc4-c3 Kh4-g5 Kc3-c4) 0.00/35 52} 16.
Qc3 {(Qa5-c3 Ke4-d5 Qc3-a5+ Kd5-e6 g4-g5 Qf4-d4+ Kb2-b3 c6-c5 Qa5-c3 Qd4-e4
Qc3xc5 Qe4-e5 Qc5-b6+ Ke6-f7 Qb6-f2+ Kf7-g6 Qf2-f3 Qe5-e6+ Kb3-b4 Kg6xg5
Kb4-c3 Kg5-g6 Qf3-g3+ Kg6-f7 Qg3-f4+ Kf7-g6 Kc3-d2 Qe6-d5+ Kd2-c3 Qd5-c5+
Kc3-b2 Qc5-d5 Qf4-g3+ Kg6-f7 Qg3-f4+ Kf7-g6) 0.00/36 43} Kd5 {(Ke4-d5
Qc3-d3+ Qf4-d4+ Kb2-c2 Qd4xd3+ Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6
Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3
Kd5-c5 Kc3-c2 Kc5-d4 Kc2-d2 c4-c3+ Kd2-c2 Kd4-e5 Kc2-d1 Ke5-f6 Kd1-c2
Kf6-g6 Kc2-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kg6-f6 Kc1xc2 Kf6-g7 Kc2-c3 Kg7-g6 Kc3-c4
Kg6-g5 Kc4-c3 Kg5-h4 Kc3-d4 Kh4-g5 Kd4-c3) 0.00/46 64} 17. Qd3+ {(Qc3-d3+
Qf4-d4+ Kb2-c2 Qd4xd3+ Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4
Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5
Kc3-c2 Kc5-d4 Kc2-d2 c4-c3+ Kd2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-e3
Kc1xc2 Ke3-e4 Kc2-c3 Ke4-e3 Kc3-c2) 0.00/48 56} Qd4+ {(Qf4-d4+ Kb2-c2
Qd4xd3+ Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4
Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c2 Kd5-d4 Kc2-d2 c4-c3+ Kd2-c2
Kd4-e4 Kc2xc3 Ke4-e3 Kc3-c2 Ke3-f4 Kc2-d2 Kf4-f3 Kd2-d3 Kf3-f2 Kd3-d2
Kf2-f3) 0.00/51 72} 18. Kc2 {(Kb2-c2 Qd4xd3+ Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5
g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3
c5-c4+ Kd3-c2 Kd5-d4 Kc2-d2 c4-c3+ Kd2-c2 Kd4-e4 Kc2xc3 Ke4-e3 Kc3-c2
Ke3-e4 Kc2-c3) 0.00/55 55} Qxd3+ {(Qd4xd3+ Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6
Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+
Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1
Kd3-e3 Kc1xc2 Ke3-e2 Kc2-c1 Ke2-f2 Kc1-d2 Kf2-g3 Kd2-c3 Kg3-h2 Kc3-d2
Kh2-g3) 0.00/57 47} 19. Kxd3 {(Kc2xd3 Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6
Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3
Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1
Kd3-c3) 0.00/56 54} Ke5 {(Kd5-e5 g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5
Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2
Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/56 52}
20. g5 {(g4-g5 Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5
Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1
Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/55 56} Kf5 {(Ke5-f5 g5-g6 Kf5xg6
Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4 Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3
Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1
Kd3-c3) 0.00/53 48} 21. g6 {(g5-g6 Kf5xg6 Kd3-d4 Kg6-f5 Kd4-c5 Kf5-e4
Kc5-c4 c6-c5 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2
c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/54 70} Kxg6 {(Kf5xg6
Kd3-c2 Kg6-f6 Kc2-d3 Kf6-e5 Kd3-e3 c6-c5 Ke3-d3 Ke5-d5 Kd3-c3 Kd5-e4 Kc3-c4
Ke4-e3 Kc4xc5 Ke3-f2 Kc5-c4 Kf2-g1 Kc4-c3 Kg1-f2 Kc3-c4) 0.00/50 49} 22.
Kc2 {(Kd3-c2 c6-c5 Kc2-d3 Kg6-f5 Kd3-c4 Kf5-e4 Kc4-c3 Ke4-d5 Kc3-d3 c5-c4+
Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1
Kd3-c3) 0.00/82 54} c5 {(c6-c5 Kc2-b1 Kg6-f5 Kb1-c2 Kf5-e4 Kc2-c3 Ke4-d5
Kc3-d3 c5-c4+ Kd3-c3 Kd5-c5 Kc3-b2 Kc5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1 Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1
c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/108 48} 23. Kb1 {(Kc2-b1 c5-c4 Kb1-c2 Kg6-f7
Kc2-c3 Kf7-e6 Kc3-b2 Ke6-e5 Kb2-c3 Ke5-d5 Kc3-b2 Kd5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1
Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/125 59} c4 {(c5-c4 Kb1-c2 Kg6-f7
Kc2-c3 Kf7-e6 Kc3-b2 Ke6-e5 Kb2-c3 Ke5-d5 Kc3-b2 Kd5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1
Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/127 7} 24. Kb2 {(Kb1-b2 Kg6-f7
Kb2-c3 Kf7-e6 Kc3-b2 Ke6-e5 Kb2-c3 Ke5-d5 Kc3-b2 Kd5-d4 Kb2-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-c1
Kd4-d3 Kc1-d1 c3-c2+ Kd1-c1 Kd3-c3) 0.00/127 26} Kh5 {(Kg6-h5 Kb2-c3 Kh5-g5
Kc3-c2 c4-c3 Kc2-b1 Kg5-g6 Kb1-c2 Kg6-g7 Kc2xc3 Kg7-g6 Kc3-b2 Kg6-g7
Kb2-c3) 0.00/127 3} 25. Ka1 {(Kb2-a1 c4-c3 Ka1-b1 Kh5-g6 Kb1-c2 Kg6-g7
Kc2xc3 Kg7-g6 Kc3-b2 Kg6-g7 Kb2-c3) 0.00/127 6} c3 {(c4-c3 Ka1-b1 Kh5-g6
Kb1-c2 Kg6-g7 Kc2xc3 Kg7-g6 Kc3-c4 Kg6-g5 Kc4-d3 Kg5-f6 Kd3-c4 Kf6-g5)
0.00/127} 26. Kb1 {(Ka1-b1 c3-c2+ Kb1xc2 Kh5-g6 Kc2-b3 Kg6-f6 Kb3-c4 Kf6-e6
Kc4-c5 Ke6-f6 Kc5-b6 Kf6-g7 Kb6-c5 Kg7-f6) 0.00/127} c2+ {(c3-c2+ Kb1xc2
Kh5-g6 Kc2-b3 Kg6-f6 Kb3-c4 Kf6-e6 Kc4-c5 Ke6-f6 Kc5-b6 Kf6-g7 Kb6-c5
Kg7-f6) 0.00/127} 27. Kxc2 {(Kb1xc2 Kh5-g6 Kc2-b3 Kg6-f6 Kb3-c4 Kf6-e6
Kc4-c5 Ke6-f6 Kc5-c4) 0.00/127 1 Insufficient material} *

```

**QUESTION**: Does white really have a win in this pawn ending, as claimed by Tim Krabbé?

> ANSWER: With respect to Tim Krabbé, if the strongest chess engines in the world cannot find a winning line for White, **it's reasonable to infer there isn't one**.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This position is won for black. A king can't stop stop two connected passed pawns.

I don't know who Tim Krabbé is but any beginner should be able to see this a won position for black in about 30 seconds. Even if white creates a passed pawn on the kingside, he can't stop black's connected passed pawns and black has tempo moves.

At the very least white might be able to draw but anyone who claims this is winning for white has no idea what they're talking about. If I'm wrong show me the analysis.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, pawn-endgame
---


title: FIDE rating in blitz

text:
# Question
Title: FIDE rating in blitz
I played in a blitz tournament. It was an official FIDE tournament, so ratings should be calculated. I wasn't rated before that tournament. It was played over 11 rounds with a rematch so you could earn 22 points. I had 11 points, but after the event I am still not rated in blitz. Everyone else in tournament has changed their ratings. Why didn't I get a FIDE rating? What do. I need to do to get FIDE blitz rating?

---

If someone can check, this is my result from this tournament

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Why didn't I get a FIDE rating?

Probably because you didn't meet the requirements to get a rating.

According to *FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017* (sorry no link currently because FIDE have munged their site and you have to search withing the site):

> 7. **Official FIDE Rating List**
>
> 7.1 On the first day of each month, the QC shall prepare a list which incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list. This shall be done using the rating system formula.
>
> 7.11 The rating period (for new players, see 7.14) is the period where a certain rating list is valid.
>
> 7.12 The following data will be kept concerning each player whose rating is at least 1000 as of the current list:
> FIDE title, Federation, Current Rating, ID Number, Number of games rated in the rating period, Date of Birth, Gender and the current value of K for the player.
>
> 7.13 The closing date for tournaments for a list is 3 days before the date of the list; tournaments ending before or on that day may be rated on the list. Official FIDE events may be rated on the list even if they end on the last day before the list date.
>
> 7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
>
> 7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games.
>
> 7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
>
> 7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods of not more than 26 months are pooled to obtain the initial rating.
>
> 7.14d **The rating is at least 1000**.
>
> 7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

Without more information it is not possible to say exactly why you didn't get a rating. If you can give a link to the tournament and your real name it would be possible to have a look and see why.

**EDIT**: Thank you for giving details of the tournament that you played in.

It was played on 12th October 2019. This will be rated in the list that comes out on 1st November. In the meantime FIDE have recorded that they expect your blitz rating to be 1503. You can see here. They don't know yet for sure because maybe you played in another tournament and they didn't get the tournament report file yet.

> What do I need to do to get FIDE blitz rating?

Basically you need to score at least 0.5 points against at least 5 players who are already FIDE rated at blitz in one or more FIDE rated blitz tournaments over a period of 26 months or less and get a rating of at least 1000.

If you want to calculate your initial rating then FIDE provide an initial rating calculator in a part of their site which has not yet been munged.

If you think you satisfied these requirements and still didn't get a blitz rating you can email the chairman of the Qualification Commission, Nick Faulks (armadillo@northrock.bm) or the secretary, Alex Holoczak (alexholowczak@gmail.com).

---
Tags: rating, fide
---


# Question
Title: How should I read chess books that show games or parts of games?
When reading books like *Sorcerer's Apprentice* or *Life & Games of Mikhail Tal*, often a position is shown followed by a list of moves, then another key position, then more moves, and another position, and some reasoning.

How should I read this part?

Should I set up the position on a board or on my PC or just try to imagine it in my mind? After reading through the moves I often feel like I haven't gained any knowledge.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It depends on what you want to get out of the book.

If you're reading for enjoyment, read the text, try to see the point behind the nice sacrifices, and relax.

But for study, you need to do something else: set up the position on a board, put the book away, then *try to understand the position on your own*. What are important features of the position? What is each side trying to achieve? Are there any tactics or threats? What's the best move?

*Then* play through the moves in the book. Try to understand them, how do they related to what you thought each side was trying to achieve? What was it you missed? Why are these moves best?

Basically, for study, treat every diagram you ever see as an exercise. **The improvement in your chess skill will be directly proportional to the amount of work you put in**.

Of course one doesn't always feel like doing that, and that is fine too (I love just browsing chess books). Just don't expect much real improvement then.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Should I set up the position on a board or on my PC or just try to imagine it in my mind?

Yes, depending on what you have available, this is the best option. Imagining it in your mind ('blindfold chess') will help with your calculation skills; in a real game of chess, you do see a board but you are not allowed to move the pieces to analyse the position.

Using a real board for playing along with the book is easier and recommended for non-advanced players. A chess program will have the benefit that it can tell you other moves to look for, or if you want to analyze a sideline which is not covered in the book.

> After reading through the moves I often feel like I haven't gained any knowledge.

Exactly. It's then just like reading a dictionary; you understand the words but you'll never *learn* them.

# Answer
> 2 votes
What I always used to do (this was back before the PC was invented, when dinosaurs walked the earth) was set up my magnetic travel set with the position of the game, and make the actual game moves on it, then set up a regular chessboard on the table and play through all the analysis of the game on it.

That way I always had a reference of what the game position was, so it was never lost and I could return to it easily if my analysis went too far afield. And that also meant I could use the "analysis set" to chase down any other variations that I was curious about that the author didn't mention, as well as follow the author's analysis better.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Has the 75 move draw rule ever been invoked in a FIDE rated standard game involving a GM?
In the latest FIDE Laws of Chess the arbiter is supposed to step in and declare the game drawn if 75 moves are played by both sides with no captures and no pawn moves.

It would be understandable if this happened in blitz or rapid where the players are not recording the moves. It would also be understandable in games played by weaker player who may not know the rules.

Has it ever happened in a game of standard chess with a 30 second increment where the players have to record the moves and where at least one of the players is a GM?

# Answer
> 22 votes
Yes.

```
[Event "Northumbria Masters"]
[Site "Newcastle"]
[Date "2018.02.18"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Britton, Richard L"]
[Black "Hebden GM, Mark L"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "2255"]
[BlackElo "2454"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Bc2 Re8 13. Nf1 Bf8 14. Ng3 g6 15. a4 c5 16. d5 c4 17. Bg5 Nc5 18. Qd2 Be7 19. Be3 Qc7 20. Rf1 bxa4 21. Bxc5 Qxc5 22. Rxa4 a5 23. Rfa1 Nd7 24. h4 Qc7 25. h5 Nc5 26. R4a3 Reb8 27. Qc1 Bc8 28. Nf1 Bg4 29. N1h2 Bd7 30. Nf1 a4 31. Ne3 Bb5 32. g3 Qd8 33. Kg2 Rb7 34. Qd2 Rab8 35. Rh1 Qc8 36. Raa1 Bd7 37. hxg6 fxg6 38. Nxc4 Bg4 39. Ne1 Nxe4 40. Bxe4 Qxc4 41. Qd3 Qxd3 42. Nxd3 Bd7 43. Nb4 Rxb4 44. cxb4 Rxb4 45. Bc2 Rxb2 46. Bxa4 Bf5 47. Rhe1 Bg5 48. Bd1 Bd2 49. Ra8+ Kg7 50. Ra7+ Kf6 51. Re2 Bd3 52. Rxh7 Bxe2 53. Bxe2 e4 54. Rh4 Ke5 55. f3 exf3+ 56. Kxf3 Kxd5 57. Bc4+ Kc5 58. Bd3 Be1 59. Rc4+ Kd5 60. Rc2 Rb3 61. Ke2 Ke5 62. Bxg6 Bxg3 63. Rd2 Bf4 64. Rd5+ Ke6 65. Rd3 Rb8 66. Be4 Rf8 67. Bd5+ Ke5 68. Kd1 Rc8 69. Ke2 Rc2+ 70. Kd1 Rh2 71. Bc6 Kf5 72. Bd5 Rb2 73. Bf3 Be5 74. Bd5 Rb4 75. Rf3+ Kg4 76. Rd3 Bd4 77. Rf3 Bc5 78. Kc2 Ra4 79. Rf1 Ra3 80. Bb3 Be3 81. Bd5 Bf4 82. Rd1 Kf5 83. Rd3 Ra5 84. Bf3 Ra1 85. Kb2 Re1 86. Kb3 Rc1 87. Kb2 Rc5 88. Kb3 Be5 89. Bd5 Bf6 90. Bg2 Ke5 91. Bh1 Rc1 92. Bg2 Bd8 93. Bf3 Bb6 94. Rd1 Rc5 95. Bg2 Ra5 96. Kb4 Ra2 97. Bh1 Re2 98. Rd5+ Ke6 99. Rd1 Be3 100. Kc4 Bf2 101. Bf3 Ra2 102. Bh1 Ra4+ 103. Kb5 Rh4 104. Bd5+ Ke5 105. Bg2 Rh8 106. Rd5+ Ke6 107. Rd2 Bg3 108. Rd3 Bf4 109. Bf3 Rb8+ 110. Kc4 Rc8+ 111. Kb3 Rc5 112. Bg2 Ke5 113. Bf3 Bh2 114. Bg2 Bg1 115. Rd1 Bd4 116. Re1+ Kf6 117. Rd1 Be5 118. Rd3 Rc1 119. Bd5 Rg1 120. Rf3+ Kg5 121. Rd3 Rg4 122. Bf3 Rh4 123. Bd5 Bd4 124. Rf3 Bc5 125. Rd3 Kf5 126. Bg2 Bd4 127. Rd1 Ke6 128. Re1+ Kd7 129. Rh1 Rf4 130. Rh7+ Ke6 131. Rh6+ Bf6 132. Rh5 Rd4 133. Bh3+ Kf7 134. Rh7+ Kf8 135. Be6 Be5 136. Kc2 Bg7 137. Rh3 Ke7 138. Bb3 Rg4 139. Bd5 Kd7 140. Rb3 Rg5 141. Rb7+ Kc8 142. Rb5 Rg3 143. Rb3 1/2-1/2

```

The last capture was 62...Bxg3. The game ended on move 143. Rb3 after the Chief Arbiter asked one of the Deputy Chief arbiters, who knew both players well, to step in and stop the game. A few moves late but they were blitzing out the moves. Fortunately nothing untoward happened in the extra 5 moves, like mate or a resignation, and the arbiter wasn't called upon to make a tricky decision ;-)

---
Tags: rules, fide, draw, 75-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: As Black, against 1. d4, what opening would you recommend me which is solid, positional, slow, strategic, quiet, closed, and similar to the Caro-Kann?
I'm a 1750 Elo player. I have a very positional, quiet and strategic style of play.

As White I play 1. d4, but I plan to also learn 1. Nf3 soon. As Black against 1. e4 I play the Caro-Kann.

I would like an opening for Black against 1. d4 which meets these two conditions:

* It needs to be as much similar to the Caro-Kann as possible (since I already play the Caro-Kann against 1. e4).
* On average it must tend to lead to positions which are as much solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet as possible (I want nothing sharp and tactical).

# Answer
> It needs to be as much similar to the Caro-Kann as possible (since I already play the Caro-Kann against 1. e4).

Impossible. The problem with this approach is that you have already stopped `e4` with `...d5` so White simply can not transpose even if he wished to do so. Your best bet is the Slav defense, as it is very similar to Caro-Kann ( same pawn structure for Black, with the `Bf5` bishop ), but even then there are ways for White to deviate into sharp and very different lines.

> On average it must tend to lead to positions which are as much solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet as possible (I want nothing sharp and tactical).

The best candidate fitting into this description is *Queen's Gambit Declined.*

Only Black can sharpen the game by transposing into *Semi-Slav with Botvinnik system* or with some sharp lines in the Slav with `...b5`, but if you wish you can always steer the game into solid, positional lines. Then White will have no way to sharpen the game ( neither do you ), and you both will have to battle with dull, positional maneuvers and plans.

Be warned, it is very hard to play these positions as Black and tactical skill here is practically irrelevant! Most of the time you will have a hard time defending, and you will have to learn how to properly engineer a freeing break. That is not an easy task, just so you know ( I am speaking this from experience )!

In order to play this opening well with either color you also must know how to play *typical positions* very very well ( not to mention you need strong endgame knowledge! ), but this might suit your style ( based on your description in second criteria ).

## SUMMARY:

Chess would be too simple if you could play one opening against every opponent's reply. This especially applies for Black! I once too wanted to play the Caro-Kann against everything, but after very thorough study I was forced to realize that it isn't possible.

As for positional opening against `1.d4`, your best bet are the dull lines of the Queen's gambit declined. In every other opening White *always* have a chance to sharpen the game ( always! ), but if you choose this path be ready for a long defense which will usually give you no more than a draw. Still, you will get the solidity and quietness you seek...

If you need further help or clarifications leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The semi-slav is the perfect compliment to the CK however it might be more tactical than what you want. The slav is good but drawish.

I would recommend playing 1...c6 against everything and working out the transpositions. The Slav is probably fine for what you want but if that opening is too passive the semi-slav gives you a more aggressive game.

If you don't like that, you have your choice of the QGD (1...d5), various Indian defenses (1...Nf6) or the flexible (1...e6)

On a side note, the colle for white fits very well with the CK/Slav ideas as black. A rep of colle/slav/ck is pretty simple to learn and reaches similar positions from both sides. It's all built around the same pawn structures.
> 2 votes

# Answer
To try to minimize tactical complications early in your games against 1. d4 I would recommend you the Classical Slav, (but not the Semi-Slav), although very sharp and tactical positions may arise in every chess game!
> 1 votes

# Answer
I agree with a previous answer that it's hard, and maybe pointless, to seek a similar defense to the Caro Kann when facing 1.d4.

But for your other requirements of positional solidity what about The Old Indian defense? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old\_Indian\_Defense The Old Indian is solid and respectable; it was played by Grandmasters such as Lothar Schmidt. In fact looking at his games now he played it a lot and described it as his "old friend." It's objectively fine; it's just lacks the hair raising tactics of the King's Indian.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Some good ideas in the rest of the answers, but I'd like to add that if you like positions in the Panov attack, you should probably try the Queen's Gambit Declind, perhaps the Tarrasch variation. You'll get to plenty of isolated 'd' pawns from there, playing both with and against it.

The Slav Defence appears to look like a Caro-Kann, but more often that not it looks nothing like it unless you allow your opponent to play **e4**, which is often not a good idea, as you'll probably have a worsened version of the classical Caro-Kann
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, positional-play, 1.d4, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Explaining middle game computer analysis
I was looking at the computer analysis for a game I played and I need some help to understand a line found by the computer.

After a balanced game (started with a Torre Attack) we arrived at the following position:

You see at the bottom the line suggested by the computer instead of my 23..h6 (that didn't lead anywhere in the end).

This interesting line starts with 23..f3 24. Nxf3. I understand why eventually we arrive at the position below with 27..Be6. But the computer suggests 28.a4 instead of moving the rook. Can you please explain the engine analysis here?

Why doesn't White, for example, exchange their rook with Black’s rook and then play 29. Qe2?

# Answer
After:

```
23 ..f3 24 Nxf3 Bg4

```

You are threatening Bxf3 to win a piece, since the g2 pawn is pinned. So sacrificing the f3 pawn gives you great initiative and attacking options, and keeps white pinned down.

Even if white moves the king to avoid the pin, with say Kf1, you can take in f3 with the rook and if white captures back with the pawn Bh3 is mate:

```
[FEN "2br1rk1/p5pp/1p1p2q1/1PnRp1N1/2P1Pp1P/P7/2B1QPP1/4R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1. f3 Nf3 2. Bg4 Kf1 3. Rf3 gxf3 4. Bh3#

```

Running the king to the other way, h1, is also equally bad, because Rf4 becomes undefendable:

```
[FEN "2br1rk1/p5pp/1p1p2q1/1PnRp1N1/2P1Pp1P/P7/2B1QPP1/4R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1. f3 Nf3 2. Bg4 Kh1 3. Bxf3 gxf3 4. Rf4 Qf1 5. Rxh4 Qh3 6. Rxh3#

```

So as you can see, the attack becomes quite strong, so the engine suggests white to sacrifice the knight to gain counter attacking options, and not lose on the spot. Even though the position is still lost regardless.

> I understand why eventually we arrive at the position below with 27..Be6. But the computer suggests 28.a4 instead of moving the rook
>
> Why doesn't White, for example, exchange their rook with Black’s rook and then play 29. Qe2?

Well the exchange sacrifice on d5 isn't particularly bad considering the position, and how the d file becomes closed, but you get even further down material. Also other than Rxd8 you only have Rd6 to not sacrifice the exchange but that loses instantly to Rxd6 followed by Qxf2+ leading to mate.

The answer to "Why not Rxd8?" is: The engine didn't have enough time to think. The suggested move by Stockfish 10 in this position is in fact Rxd8 followed by either Qe3 or Qe2, as you can see in the following picture:
> 3 votes

# Answer
In the first position, f3 is good because it will open the white K after Nxf3 Bg4 then Bxf3 or maybe Rf3 in some cases as the light squares will be very weak (the analysis gave up the Nf3 with Ne5 immediately since the position was so bad that giving up a piece was "best"...if that is best, then it is dead lost). What is left is a HUGE Nc5 compared to a pathetic Bc2.

In the second diagram, you still have that Nc5 vs. the Bc2, but white is already down a piece. That is just lost, and a matter of time.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame
---


title: Puzzling phrases

text:
# Question
Title: Puzzling phrases
While reading about Paul Morphy's games I have come across several instances of phrases like "playing his fellow townsmen at odds of Knight or Rook" or "he extended his offer of Pawn and move to any member of the club" or "Morphy extended the challenge at Pawn and move to him also". It sounds like some sort of handicap arrangement. Can you tell me what these phrases mean and if anything like this is done these days?

# Answer
What is being talked about are called **Odds Games**, which are indeed handicaps. It is not a common practice these days.

Here’s a quote from chessvariants.com that gives the right idea.

> “During the 18th & 19th centuries, it was common to give odds in chess games, which means the practice of giving some advantage to the player with lesser skill. Odds giving can also be an interesting way to play with a computer program whose skill level differs from your own. You can also play the games in pairs, with the winner being the player who checkmates in fewer moves.”

The phrase "playing his fellow townsmen at odds of Knight or Rook" meant that Morphy gave up a rook or a knight in the starting position. As an example, here is a well known game.

```
[Title "Paul Morphy-Alonzo Morphy, New Orleans, 1850"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBNR w Kkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Nd4 9. Bxd5+ Kd6 10.  Qf7 Be6 11. Bxe6 Nxe6 12. Ne4+ Kd5 13. c4+ Kxe4 14.Qxe6 Qd4 15. Qg4+ Kd3 16. Qe2+ Kc2 17. d3+ Kxc1 18. O-O#

```

The other phrase “or Morphy extended the challenge at Pawn and move to him also" means that the stronger player was Black and had no f7 pawn.

Here’s an example game from this collection of odds game with “a pawn and a move” in addition to rook odds.

```
[Title "Charles Maurian-Paul Morphy, New Orleans, 1854"]
[FEN "1nbqkbnr/ppppp1pp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQk - 0 1"]

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nc6 3.d5 Ne5 4.f4 Ng6 5.Be3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 e5 7.Qh5 Nf6 8.Qg5 Be7 9.f5 Nxd5 10.Qh5 Nxe3 11.Kf2 O-O 12.Kxe3 Bg5+ 13.Kf3 Nf4 14.Qg4 h5 15.Qg3 Bh4

```
> 12 votes

---
Tags: history, morphy, handicap
---


# Question
Title: What are good strategies or principles to prolonging the first stage of a game?
Is there a particular strategy or principle you can use to drag out the first stage of a game, namely, to preserve all your pieces as long as possible.

One way I can imagine this being useful, if early on you exchange your bishop for an opponent's knight, having a crowded board would thus become in your best interest, as knights are generally more valuable on crowded boards. (Or so I am told)

So once again, the goal is to lose as few pieces as possible for the longest stretch of time.

Some questions were posed to me for clarification:

**Why do you want to avoid exchanges?**

To see if it is possible to avoid exchanges without hurting your positioning, or by only hurting it in an insignificantly marginal manner.

**What is your goal?**

To prolong the game. Perhaps if it were a game of speed-chess, and you wished to run down the clock to play for a draw; this could be a good strategy. Perhaps if you knew your opponent to be impatient, this could be effective against him.

**Do you aim for a mating attack?**

No.

**Do you need a middlegame position that gives lots of maneuvering and has a high chance of dodging the endgame ( maybe you do not like to play endgame )?**

Great Question; This would be ancillary.

# Answer
> Is there a particular strategy or principle you can use to drag out the first stage of a game?
>
> One way I can imagine this being useful, if early on you exchange your bishop for an opponent's knight, having a crowded board would thus become in your best interest, as knights are generally more valuable on crowded boards. (Or so I am told)

This entire question is unclear, but I will give it a try to answer. Let us start one by one:

> Is there a particular strategy or principle you can use to drag out the first stage of a game?

Now why would you want to do that?

> One way I can imagine this being useful, if early on you exchange your bishop for an opponent's knight, having a crowded board would thus become in your best interest, as knights are generally more valuable on crowded boards. (Or so I am told)

Aha! So you wish to keep the board crowded in order to exploit the "advantage" knight has over a bishop!

Well, it is time to answer:

You can not keep the board crowded unless both you and your opponent "agree" to do so.

He can always try to exchange pieces and reduce the tension if he chooses, and the best thing you can do is to try and stop him **by making the exchanges unfavorable for him.**

Unfortunately, the opening theory has advanced a lot, and there are ways for both sides to obtain a good game, so the above plan will be very hard, if not impossible, to execute.

Another thing: simply exchanging the bishop for a knight, and trying to keep the pieces on board will **not** give you an advantage. **It will all boil down to the placement of your pieces.** By the way, exchanging the bishop for a knight early leaves your opponent with the bishop pair, which may give **him** the advantage.

I would strongly suggest you to find a resource ( book/online tutorial ) for playing the opening.

## EDIT IN RESPONSE TO THE OP's EDIT:

> Why do you want to avoid exchanges?
>
> To see if it is possible to avoid exchanges without hurting your positioning, or by only hurting it in an insignificantly marginal manner.

This is not possible, I am afraid. You will have to exchange at some point and here is why:

When amateur wants to exchange pieces, he uses his own to "chase" the opposing one until the exchange has been made.

Master, on the other hand, puts the piece he wants to exchange on the strong squares, thus forcing the exchange. That way the piece becomes annoying and strong and opponent is forced to exchange it or else he will stand worse.

In a strong game, versus strong opponent you will not be able to dodge the exchange.

> What is your goal?
>
> To prolong the game. Perhaps if it were a game of speed-chess, and you wished to run down the clock to play for a draw; this could be a good strategy. Perhaps if you knew your opponent to be impatient, this could be effective against him.

This is very much possible, but you will need to play *typical middlegame positions* in order to achieve this. Furthermore, you will need to be the one who dictates the game. This is very important requirement.

You can play positions with an isolated pawn. My answer provides comprehensive coverage of the plans for both sides. Still, let me remind you-side with the isolated pawn exchanges pieces only when it can get a definite, visible-with-the-naked-eye benefit. As long as the board is packed with pieces the advantage is on its side. Side without isolated pawn strives to exchange minor pieces and enter endgame. Again, in the endgame you can prolong the game as much as you want as you will have the advantage. Usually you will be the only one who can play for a win and your opponent usually will have no counterplay but will be forced to passively defend.

Another typical position that has a lot of maneuvering and is slow is *Carlsbad pawn structure* and it arises from Queen's Gambit Declined after White exchanges on `d5` with the move `cxd5`. White again has lots of plans here, but you would be interested in *minority attack*. Minority attack creates a weak pawn for Black on `c6` and allows White to perform long maneuvers in order to take it ( just don't underestimate Black's mating attack on the kingside! ). This would be ideal choice for you.

You could try *French defense* with both colors. With White you can try *Advance variation*, and with Black *Winaver* sounds good. Again, both positions require long maneuvers.

## END OF EDIT:

Best regards.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Closed positions (no open files and 0-2 semi-open files) give a better chance to keep the majority or even all pieces on the board. Check out the Spanish system, Sicilian Hedgehog and Stone Wall for example.

Have a strong control over the center and place your pieces well. You can try to be exclusively prophylactic. Check out Petrosians games. Yet to master such positions, you need to develop your understanding of pieces and pawn structures.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure if I (or anyone that has answered) understands your question correctly. But I would assume you want to know how to avoid middle-game positions early in a game.

To answer the question:

Playing aggressively and creating threats while developing your own pieces leaves your opponent behind in development and still struggling to complete the opening goals.

Preventing the opponent from castling.
> 1 votes

# Answer
From my experience (I am Fide Master) the main rules for the openings are:
1. Protect the King - Castle Kingside or Queenside.
2. Fight for the central squares (e4, d4, e5, d5).
3. Develop your pieces.
4. Don't move your piece twice in the opening.
5. Play standard opening moves.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, knights, bishops, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: How to use Arena GUI outputs in a python program
I'm currently developing a self-playing chessboard on which I'd like to implement an Artificial Intelligence (AI) (currently it's Stockfish. I would like to know how I could, if I can, export Arena GUI's (other ideas are welcome) to somehow position my stepper motors correctly. Does anyone know of a way?

I'm writing the code in python.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think using the Arena GUI may be an overly complex way of attempting this.

Instead, go for the Arena engines. Many (all?) implement the UCI protocol, which would allow your application to basically send move information to the engine, and get its responses (under the chosen set of parameters) back.

Some chess engines use other protocols, and not all may be open or freely available. UCI (see https://www.chessprogramming.org/UCI for more info) is reasonably well known, so you should be able to get answers to any problems you might have.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you're working with python, you'll have far better luck with python-chess

It includes a fully featured core API for the rules of chess, and is also able to handle engine communication via both UCI and XBoard (along with support for opening books, endgame tablebases, chess variants, rendering, PGN files, etc.)

This would be significantly easier than implementing the UCI protocol yourself or trying to hook into Arena.

# Answer
> 0 votes
See http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/Raspberry\_PI\_Chessboard\_Camera for some background information and links on a related project.

See http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/PlayChessWithAWebCam for a project that currently migrates an older solution that has an Arena interface. See e.g.

https://github.com/WolfgangFahl/play-chess-with-a-webcam/blob/master/src/uci.py

which would be the link that is most close to an answer to your question.

I am a committer of the new fork and intend to go more general. You are invited to get in touch and file an issue for your needs. I also think it might be worthwile to integrate your efforts and the above project.

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, uci, python
---


# Question
Title: What's the difference between movetime and the Slow Mover option?
When I tell the engine to find the best move with

```
go movetime 1 depth 1

```

I expect it allows itself to take up to about 1 ms to make it's move. But what's the difference between that and the **Slow Mover** option:

```
option name Slow Mover type spin default 84 min 10 max 1000

```

Looking at this post from 2008 it seems like perhaps **Slow Mover** was implemented before the **movetime** option?

# Answer
> 2 votes
When you pass `movetime` to an engine via UCI, you're telling it to override any time management algorithms it might have, and to instead spend exactly `x` milliseconds analysing the position.

When playing games, the UCI `movetime` parameter typically isn't specified. Instead, the engine is told how much time each player has left on their clock (and the increment, if any). This allows the engine to decide how much time to use with its own time management.

The `Slow Mover` option is used to tell the engine how you would like it to manage time. It only means something in a game situation (i.e. when `movetime` isn't specified). Higher values will tell the engine, broadly, to use "more time", but it does not control the exact amount of time that is used.

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Should Black avoid the Two Knights Defense because of the Fried Liver Attack?
It seems like the `Fried Liver Attack` is too much for black to handle, so it seems it is best to avoid the `Two Knights Defense` as Black. An example of the `Fried Liver Attack` is below and Black just seems lost. Is there something Black can do?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nxf7 Kxf7
7. Qf3+ Ke6
8. Nc3  Ncb4
9. a3   Nc2+
10. Kd1  Nxa1
11. Nxd5 Kd7
12. Re1  c6
13. Qf5+ Kd6
14. Qxe5+ Kc5
15. Nc7 Kb6
16. Nxa8#

```

# Answer
In Two Knights defense black doesn't have to play 5...Nxd5?! The main line is 5...Na5, where black sacrifices a pawn, but gets active play for compensation. The game could continue like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Na5
6. Bb5+ c6
7. dxc6 bxc6
8. Be2 h6
9. Nf3 e4
10. Ne5 Bd6
11. d4 exd3
12. Nxd3

```

Besides 5...Na5, Black also has `5...Nd4` and `5...b5`.

A very interesting continuation is the Traxler attack (4...Bc5!?):

```
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/2b1p1N1/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 6 5"]

```

Black does not defend the f7-square, and it first might look like a blunder, since `5.Nxf7` leads to a fork. However black has plenty of attacking resources after `5...Bxf2`. Therefore, white usually plays `5.Bxf7`, black is down a pawn, and loses castling ability, but has some compensation due to semi-opened file and piece activity.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I recently showed an interesting variation for black to a few friends at a tournament. There were the good old times when me and my chess club buddies spent hours on end analyzing these sorts of positions. Well, it goes like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5

```

Yes, it looks totally crazy! And it is, too! As far as I remember, the evaluation is that black is equal or slightly better. The variations are ultra sharp. In several paths, the white (!) king will be in trouble! That is opposed to the accepted variation (Nxd5) where the black king has to take a walk. The variation above can continue like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8

```

You should definitely check this out with the latest games and with an engine! It should be equal or unclear! An unprepared white player will quickly collapse at your feet! Happy hunting!
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is a very interesting counter to the fried liver attack that i came across.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaoeq9nXIEQ

```
[FEN ""]
    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2

```

There are lots of variations covered by matoJelic, please have a look.
> 2 votes

# Answer
1. There are better lines for black than the Fried Liver.
2. Even if you do choose it, black is probably equal albeit after a long theoretical battle.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, two-knights, fried-liver-attack
---


title: Italian Game Response As Black

text:
# Question
Title: Italian Game Response As Black
How do I respond to the Italian Game here?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d6 (I kind of got lost here)
5. Nxf7 1-0

```

What should I have done against this as Black? For reference me and my opponent are rated about 1000-1200.

I blundered bad, but without taking my queen out early I can't see another line.

I've seen some stuff that suggests giving a pawn for other stuff, but I really would like to maintain material equality in the opening without extremely losing initiative / space / development.

# Answer
4.Ng5 is a provocative move, threatening to take on f7.

The main line is 4...d5, and after 5.exd5 the best move might be 5...Na5. After 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 Black has sacrificed a pawn but has gained a slight lead in development. If instead you play 5...Nxd5, White will often play 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6, known as the Fried Liver. White has a very good attack despite being down material. At your level, White is probably wanting and expecting the Fried Liver when he plays Ng5, so I wouldn't give it to him.

The other common response is 4...Bc5, known as the Traxler Counterattack. Black is allowing White to take on f7 but is trying to get his own attack on f2. These games can get wild.

None of these really fit your criteria; they involve sacrifices by one side or the other. If you prefer material equality, I suggest you avoid this line altogether by playing 3...Bc5, going into the Giuoco Piano instead of the Two Knights as your response to the Italian. White cannot then play 4.Ng5 because you could take the knight with your queen.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (3... Bc5 {Giuoco Piano}) 4. Ng5 d5 (4... Bc5 {Traxler}) 5. exd5 Na5 (5... Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 {Fried Liver}) 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 *

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
As others have correctly said, once you have played 3..Nf6 there is no going back. A very reasonable alternative is the Hungarian Defence 3..Be7, against which White cannot launch a wild attack. If he plays too quietly (c3, h3..), you can often take the initiative by playing ..d5.

Books will you that ..Be7 is a bit passive, but at your present level your opponents may not be capable of exploiting that.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Responding 3...Nf6 to the Italian Game initiates the Two Knights Defense. This isn't an opening to play if you're looking for a calm positional game with material equality; in fact, it's been suggested that the name "defense" is inappropriate and the opening should've been called a "counterattack" or even "gambit" instead. White playing 4.Ng5 practically wins a pawn by force, and it's up to Black to demonstrate compensation.

After 4. Ng5 there are two lines: the Traxler variation with 4...Bc5 invites White to take on f7 with either piece. Black gains superior development as compensation. The resulting positions are very tactical (even by the Two Knight's standards) and complicated. Entering this line without preparation is asking for trouble, but at amateur level, you can outprepare your opponent especially if they naively go for 5. Nxf7.

The other line goes 4...d5 5. exd5 Na5 (5...Nxd5? is a "well-known bad move"; White can just play 6. d4 intending O-O and a straightforward attack) 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6. This is the same line given by D M in the other answer. White is up a pawn and has a much superior pawn structure, but Black is way ahead in development and has many moves that develop with tempo available. To illustrate Black's initiative, if White plays to grab more pawns with 8. Qf3, then after 8...Rb8 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Bd7, the lead in development widens even further. Against the more conservative 8. Be2, Black still has 8...h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5, followed by 10...Bd6, Qd4 or Qc7 to drum up an initiative. Note however that after these moves, Black is *still a pawn down with inferior pawn structure*! If Black doesn't make use of his development advantage and attack, he will go down in flames.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 (8. Qf3 Rab8 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Bd7) h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5

```

The upshot of all this is **do not play the Two Knights if you're looking for a calm positional game with material equality**. Play 4...Bc5 instead. The Giucco Piano can also become sharp and tactical if White goes for the Evans gambit (5. b4), but at least then you're the one with the material advantage.
> 1 votes

# Answer
4...d5 5. exd5, Na5 is not only fine for black but probably equal. Black's active piece play is enough compensation for the pawn.

In chess, you need to learn how to play actively. I've never seen anyone get past the 1400-1500 level without understanding that.

Me personally, I don't feel like I play my best unless I'm down a pawn. I would choose the black side in this line and so would likely every GM alive. There's a reason this isn't played at GM level. If you want to prove the entire chess wrong play the white side of this against sf until you get the point.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: italian-game, two-knights, fried-liver-attack
---


title: How can the Danish Gambit be exploited?

text:
# Question
Title: How can the Danish Gambit be exploited?
When dealing with gambits, especially ones where your opponent could have a lot more active pieces to pressure you. Is declining the best approach?

A friend of mine usually always wrecks me with the Danish Gambit, especially whenever I accept and before I know it, she's literally attacking with way more pieces than I can handle and to be honest it does seem like a solid sacrifice (3 pawns for 2 very active pieces (the bishop pair) while I literally have nothing to show for the first 3 moves).

Is there a solid way to exploit the fact that white is down 3 pawns? Or even better, what is the best approach to fighting back when the pressure is too much and I'm so behind in development?

# Answer
> 16 votes
The Danish gambit isn't very popular these days because of the **Schlechter Defense**. The idea is to take the gambit pawns but return them quickly.

> 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 d5

5...d5 initiates the Schlechter Defense. The mainline continues 6.Bxd5 (6.exd5 Nf6 closes the position and lets Black develop, still a pawn up) Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 c5. Black regains the Queen and steers the game to an equal endgame. White has no attack and the position is not even remotely close to tactical, which is psychologically depressing for gambit players.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 d5 6. Bxd5 (6. exd5? Nf6) Nf6 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9. Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2 c5

```

The only downside of this defense is, if you keep using it, your friend might not want to play with you anymore.

# Answer
> 13 votes
If you are feeling more ambitious then the bizarre looking 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7!? is recommended by Viktor Bologan (former 2700 player). Having looked into it a bit, I believe him when he says it's better for black.

That said Allure's answer is a simpler line to learn in some ways and is very reliable - quite an interesting endgame too.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The line given by Allure is the standard refutation of the Danish however the line given by Hamish might be even better. That line was played by Capablanca and I don't realistically see white having any winning chances.

# Answer
> 1 votes
After **1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2** the main line continuation is **5...d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6** as already pointed out. However, your opponent may or may not dislike the endgame. It is still a very dynamic one with passed pawns and winning chances for both sides, and if your opponents knows this position (he probably played it a million times before), you could be in big trouble.

There are however a few lines that give Black the edge, like **5...d5 6.Bxd5 Bb4+!?** I suggest you to look at a database and check a few of the games by the strongest polayers

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


title: Losing on time constantly

text:
# Question
Title: Losing on time constantly
I'm playing lots of online chess. I find one thing in particular really hard: time. I lose on time a lot. Yesterday and today I lost 3 times pure on time - games where I would've destroyed the other if it wasn't for the time - but since I keep on thinking too long about certain situations it takes a lot of time.

I play mostly 10+0 matches. I know I can play longer games; I just want to know how I can improve my time 'problem' so I can also play shorter games.

# Answer
> I know I can play longer games; I just want to know how I can improve my time 'problem' so I can also play shorter games

My advice is *not* going to address how you can speed up your thinking or improve your clock handling skills. My advice is to **play longer games**.

I personally cannot think quick enough for bullet or blitz chess. My 'home' is rapid play or slower. The slower time controls also suit my more positional style and a preference for the endgame.

When it comes to time controls, **choose the time controls that suit you and your style**, otherwise you are going to go against your grain and become frustrated.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure if this will work, but have you considered playing much shorter time controls, and then going back to 10+0? I have noticed that if I play 1+0 "bullet" on lichess, and then play 5+0 "blitz", it seems easier...
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you want to play a 10 min format and you are unable to cope up with time I would suggest first check out in which phase you are taking more time . Are you thinking long in the middle game, trying to do deep calculation and finding the most perfect move? Then do not think in that fashion! Try finding an easier move instead, which is safe. It is important that looking at the position you can make some moves using your instinct and not calculating every move.

You should also keep track of your Opponent's time & try flagging your opponents. Also practice games where you always have a time advantage. What I mean here is you would always have more time on clock compared to your opponent. You play chess not only to checkmate your opponent but to have a time plus on clock.

One more suggestion would be always practice at shorter time controls before you play in the original format. For instance play 5 min, 3 min or even 1 min games so that when you return to 10 min it feels easy.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You have to become good at slow play before you can graduate to blitz. You learn very little in the fast games, and if that's all you do, you'll never really progress. The great players like Fischer were strong at blitz, but only after they were nurtured on classical play and really understood chess.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I know this is an old question, but online chess and over the board chess for blitz, lightning and sometimes quick games are not the same type of game. I shall explain why.

Premoving a skilled player in lightning and blitz as the clock runs down will bite the honest skilled player much more than a less skilled time player with low rating. It will never reflect their weaker over the board play.

The first big reason is that we get to *see them pick up their piece* and make a bad sac. The idea of “bishop takes pawn for zero compensation followed by premoved castling" will never happen in over the board. It only happens in online lightning time scrambles.

This alternate playing style allows a less skilled player to play in a nonsensical fashion and refute your premoved skill play. Over the board play, on the other hand, makes a decent player unable to premove without fearing premoves and quick rating loss.

I am master level chess player, and yet I’m a 1900 rated online lightning player. Over the board lightning players I crush are people I know, and they beat me online doing the same thing.

If both players do not use premove, the contrast between not seeing a piece touched and moved to a square and the time delay to place it on the a square makes a large difference.

The next big reason is the mouse move. The speed of the Internet connection, such as lag like on chess.com (where I’m rated 1900 in lightning and 2240 in blitz), the piece I move delays as it hesitates every singe move.

In conclusion, do not view quick online chess as anything comparative to quick over the board games, as they truly are NOT the same thing. The longer the game, the more comparative to over the board it becomes. End rant here. :)
> 1 votes

# Answer
Analysis: You will have to change your analysis of a position to require fewer calculations. You can look around stackexchange for questions dealing with board analysis.

Time Management: You will also have to force yourself to make a move quickly when you are not at a critical point of the game (recognized through your analysis). You will need to look at your clock regularly so your time does not slip away.

Preparation: Studying openings to a deeper level and knowing endgames thoroughly will also help you make quicker moves - giving you more time to acquiring an edge (tempo/material/position) during the mid game.

Forced Moves: If you can put your opponent in a position that requires a forced move, you can start thinking further ahead while your opponent is playing. At slower time controls this isn't as obviously valuable as a deeper calculation of the current move can derive a greater benefit.

Retro: Review your games after they are played. Determine why you require so much more time than your opponent.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There is a Method that is described in Chess Master at any age that tells you how much time you should have after each move. The book describes breaking each move down into periods and marking how long you have for each move.

Considering that most games are over in about 40 moves you break it down into time per move and at 10 minute that should be 15 seconds per move. So you mark down your time and any time that you take fall behind the 15 seconds per move you punish yourself. Say 10 push-ups for every move made not in the allotted time.

As long as you stick to this immediately after your games you'll find that time control problems become less frequent.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: time-management
---


# Question
Title: Giving moves as odds, what's the least number of moves by White which forces checkmate by the time it's Black's turn?
If one player (Black) gives another player (White) odds of x moves, stipulating that White must not move any man beyond his fourth rank until Black has made one move, what's the smallest value for "x" that would force checkmate by the time it is Black's turn to move? And what would those x moves be?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Interesting puzzle.

I came up with this.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 null 2. Qd2 null 3. Qf4 null 4. a4 null 5. Ra3 null 6. Re3 null 7. Nf3 null 8. h4 null 9. Nh2 null 10. Ng4 null 11. Rhh3 null 12. Rhf3 null 13. Nc3 null 14. Ne4 null 15. g3

```

After Black makes any move, it is a forced checkmate according Houdini. The best move is ’15... f6.’ It allows for mate in 10 moves.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I think something like this is the easiest solution. The set-up takes **16 moves,** but then it's only two more moves to checkmate and you don't need a computer to verify it. This is almost the same as Akavall's set-up, except that a knight is posted on c4 instead of g4.

```
[FEN ""]

1. a4 null 2. d4 null 3. h4 null 4. Nf3 null 5. Na3 null 6. Nd2 null 7. Ne4 null 8. Nc4 null 9. Qd2 null 10. Qf4 null 11. Ra3 null 12. Re3 null 13. Rhh3 null 14. Rhf3 null 15. g3 null 16. Bh3

```

But you can stop after **only 14 moves,** and Stockfish announces a forced mate in 7. (Note that after 14. Rhf3 White is threatening both 15. Qxf7# and 15. Nd6+ followed by 16. Nxd6#; only by moving the d pawn can Black parry both threats.)

```
[FEN ""]

1. a4 null 2. d4 null 3. h4 null 4. Nf3 null 5. Na3 null 6. Nd2 null 7. Ne4 null 8. Nc4 null 9. Qd2 null 10. Qf4 null 11. Ra3 null 12. Re3 null 13. Rhh3 null 14. Rhf3 d6 (14... d5 15. Qxf7+ Kd7 16. Ne5#) 15. Qxf7+ Kd7 16. Nc5+ dxc5 (16... Kc6 17. Na5+ Kb6 18. Qb3+ Kxa5 19. Qb5#) 17. Ne5+ Kd6 18. dxc5+ Kxc5 19. Qc4+ Kd6 (19... Kb6 20. Qb5#) 20. Qd4+ Ke6 21. Nd3#

```

---
Tags: analysis, problems, handicapping
---


# Question
Title: Against Alekhine's defense, can White avoid 2. e5?
An opponent I have heretofore easily beaten has started playing Alekhine's defense against me. I am no longer easily beating my opponent, and indeed would be repeatedly losing to him, if only he had more skill and blundered less.

```
[Title "Alekhine's defense"]
[StartPly "2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 Nf6

```

Like any chess player who enjoys sharp competition, I am most pleased that my opponent is somehow fighting better than he used! Apparently however, I do not understand Alekhine's defense. Alekhine's defense is perplexing me.

One reads that the usual continuation is 2. e5; but, admittedly, the idea of overextending the king's pawn *as soon as White's second move* does not appeal to me. On the other hand, alternatives like 2. Nc3 or 2. d3 seem too passive, whereas 2. Nf3 Nxe4 does not look promising. Maybe the weird-looking 2. f3 is the answer? But then Black just replies 2... e5, transposing to a kingside open game while sidestepping the Ruy Lopez, the Italian game, Evans' gambit, the king's gambit, etc.; so, no, 2. f3 looks even worse than the other options as far as I can see.

Wikipedia's entry on the topic is pretty good, but does not persuade me. What does persuade me is that Alekhine's defense is repeatedly giving an otherwise weak Black opponent good chances to beat me. Of course, I could cravenly avoid the whole problem by opening 1. d4; but still, eventually, one would like to confront the problem rather than avoid it, if one could.

What am I misunderstanding, please? Is the distasteful 2. e5 really White's only good, active response to Alekhine's defense?

# Answer
Yet another 2nd move option for White is 2.Bc4 if you don't mind swapping a bishop for a knight, because if Black plays 2...Nxe4 you have to go 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+ etc. In the unlikely event that Black plays 2...e5 you won't play 3.Nc3 (since you don't like the Vienna Game) but instead 3.d4 or 3.Nf3 or 3.d3. (Yes, 2.Bc4 is a silly move, but it makes more sense than 2.f3.)

On 2.Nc3 the Alekhine's Defense players I know will play 2...d5. Then 3.d4!? leads to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (3...dxe4 4.f3) or the Hübsch Gambit (3...Nxe4 4.Nxe4) or just possibly the French Defense (3...e6). In the event of 2.Nc3 e5 you you can still avoid the dreaded Vienna Game by playing 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5! (the Belgrade Gambit).
> 3 votes

# Answer
A very correct answer to the Alekhine Defense is 2.d3. Strange looking, but after the Nf3,g3,Bg2,Nbd2,O-O, you get a full KIA setup, a favourite of Bobby Fischer, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's\_Indian\_Attack

Not only is this setup easy to learn, but a great answer to almost everything you don't fully know. The transpositions from other openings aren't rare, so it is a good thing to learn. Also, you don't have to learn lines by heart, but rather middlegame plans.

Also one last thing. Since your opponent already has a knight on f6, this makes him go on a mainline in the KIA, so you will find even more examples of games.

Hope this helps.
> 8 votes

# Answer
2.e5 is easily the best move in the position. Sorry. (In my database it is the only move that scores better than 50%.) Yes, you have to worry about overextending, but overall the pros outweigh the cons. In chess there is no way to always get the sort of opening position that you're most comfortable with; you have to deal with the fact that sometimes your opponent will get you into his territory. That's life.

If you must play something else, I recommend 2.Nc3. 2...e5 is a transposition to the Vienna, and 2...d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 is okay and certainly isn't overextended. But you are better off calling Black's bluff and learning to play actual Alekhine positions. For you, I recommend the Modern variation (2...Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3), which keeps a space advantage but avoids (or at least delays) lots of committal pawn moves.
> 6 votes

# Answer
2.Nc3 is a move and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.

If Black plays 2...e5 the game transposes into a Vienna game, if Black plays 2...d5 play can go

```
[Title "Alekhine's defense"]
[StartPly "2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nxc3 5. Qf3

```

or

```
[Title "Alekhine's defense"]
[StartPly "2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Bb3.

```

Either way White doesn't overextend as in after 2.e5.
> 2 votes

# Answer
First off, the exchange is fine. There's quite a bit online claiming there's a refutation of the entire defense in that line. Regardless a well-timed d5 push can create a lot of problems for black.

Secondly, I used to play the Alekhine's and the line I hated to see was the 4 pawns. White can really force black to show he knows what he's doing in that line.

Lastly, there's nothing wrong with 2. Nc3. Aim for a Vienna gambit if 2,,,e5 which is solid but tricky for black but otherwise white can still play for an advantage.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, alekhines-defense
---


title: Learning to visualize the board

text:
# Question
Title: Learning to visualize the board
I have read in several sources, it's a important to be able instantly say what colour a square has or for example, if two pieces are on the same diagonal/rank/file, if their squares are given. And this skill can be learned by specific exercise for visualisation.

Is this true?

Is it important to learn this skill isolated from other chess improvement learning?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I suspect that the advise to do exercises visualization in this way is tied to the development of computers/internet as it is easy to program/check your "progress" and it makes for a neat feature on a website.

Still, I don't see what point there is in learning the color of squares independent of any other chess knowledge. No doubt having this knowledge helps, but as with tactics you want to know this subconsciously and in connection with actual game play/analyzing variations, etc.

In my experience knowing what color each square is comes naturally as you play and analyze more games. When replaying games try to visualize variations in your mind without actually moving the pieces on the board. You will pick up the names of squares but what's much more important will for instance learn what squares lie on a diagonal (and are therefore attacked by a queen/bishop on that diagonal).

Learning by just playing/analyzing could for instance go as follows:

You notice that a black light-squared bishop in many games goes from c8 to g4 to pin a white knight on f3 to the white queen on d1. The bishop is often kicked away by h3 and occasionally the game continues with Bh5, g4, Bg6.

From this very common maneuvre you learned that all the squares: c8, g4, f3, d1, h3, g4, h5, g6 are light color.

You will notice many other similar patterns in openings. For instance in the Kings Indian Defense black puts the central pawns on dark squares (d6, e5) that are blocked by white pawns on light squares (c4, d5, e4), etc.

My advise would be: unless you have unlimited time, you will likely get more by spending your chess time doing tactics puzzles or by watching/reading commented/annotated master games than by learning what color the square c6 is....

# Answer
> 7 votes
This is not specifically for diagonals, but this is how I learned to visualize the board. I am not sure that I agree that you should be able to know what color a particular square is. I have been playing tournaments for 40 years this year, more than 30 at the master level, and I still do not think about the color of squares at all with regards to calculation (sure when it comes to making my bishop bad, and other positional elements). I just know where my pieces are, and with experience, where they can go. If I can visualize the former, then the latter is easy.

This is related to tactics, but specifically meant to be different. You can use a different book, but I started with Chernev's "Combinations, the Heart of Chess". The reason I used this book is that many of the examples are longer than normal, but not full game length, and they are interesting and fun. Some get to be 20 moves, or more.

Except maybe on short ones, you are not trying at all to solve them. ALL you are trying to do is keep the position in your head accurately, including sub-variations that are given. When you have visualized it well enough that you think you have it right, put it on a board, and see how well you really did visualize the position, especially, the final position. As you get better at this, you can use full-length games. Again, unlike tactics training, you are just trying to visualize where the pieces are.

Another fun book to do this with is Chernev's "1000 Best Short Games of Chess" since it starts with 4 moves and gradually goes up to 25 max. The only problem is both books I mentioned used descriptive notation, and if that is a problem, you will need to find other interesting shortish games to do this with.

Again, I suggest trying to visualize the whole board. If you do that, you will also see diagonals more clearly.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is my opinion that knowing off the top of your head whether f4 is a light or dark square is not all that important. During a game, the board is right there in front of you. You can simply look to see its color. And you don't have to know whether the square is named g1 to see that it's on the same file as g8.

However, being able to instantly see that two pieces are (or will be) on the same diagonal/rank/file is important. For example, if two enemy pieces are on the same diagonal, a bishop may be able to fork them, pin them, or skewer them, depending on the position. If your rook is on the same file as the enemy king or queen with another piece in between, you may be able to move that piece for a discovered attack, or, if it's an opposing piece in between, attack it again because it is pinned.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I believe that figuring out colors of squares is a good exercise, and it is not so important to know what color a square is per se, but how it is tied to a concept in chess.

For example, what color is `g7`? It is dark right, this is where black dark-squared bishop resides after fianchetto.

What about `b4`? When I think of `b4` I think of the Evan's Gambit, white is sacrificing a pawn to control the center and develop quickly by attacking Black's **dark-squared** bishop, and therefore, `b4` must be dark as well.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Welcome to stackexchange and thanks for your question. I would love to be able to visualise the board, especially those pesky diagonals, but I don’t seem any closer to that than when I was younger.

I can manage general strategic thinking without a board but the geometrical stuff doesn’t stick. Rows and files are ok, but e.g. sequences of knight moves are tricky. When I have the board in front of me, I can visualize the geometry pretty well, but it’s still hard to see the position several moves ahead.

If I think of a square like f5, I know it’s light because the letter is even while the number is odd. But I had to think about it and got it wrong. I am using numbers rather than visualisation here.

I taught myself in bridge to count the cards. But even after several years it’s not intuitive. I use my auditive memory, but it still requires concentration that perhaps would be better spent analysing the play.

So I would say that visualising the board can be helpful, but not if it requires significant conscious attention. I heard recently that GM John Nunn has a photographic memory which brings effortless visual recall -not just of an empty board but of the game in play.

What exactly are the techniques recommended to you please?

---
Tags: learning, visualization
---


# Question
Title: Are there any (free) games databases out there?
I am searching for a broad and extensive games database (i.e. games played between real players.)

I can hardly seem to find any (even paid ones.) - However all sorts of chess software has these built in.

Where can I get my hands on one?

I will use it for a lot of analyses on different players, openings etc.

Hope someone can help me out!

# Answer
There is a pretty big one if you are willing to spend some 40 euro.

This (Million Base 2.2) is the biggest free database I know of.
> 9 votes

# Answer
These databases could be interesting for you:

* The Week In Chess (=TWIC) (free): updated every week, PGN format
* Mega Database of ChessBase (commercial): requires the ChessBase gui
* Huge Database of ChessOK (commercial): requires the ChessAssistant gui
> 7 votes

# Answer
In addition to very good suggestions in the previous answers, you might also be interested in Pgnmentor's site (free).

There you already have free databases sorted according to players and openings, as well as events (tournament, matches etc.). Of course, you can easily produce such thematic games collections from big databases mentioned in other answers, but still, I find separated databases pretty convenient (e.g. for themed research).
> 5 votes

# Answer
There is a combination of PGN Mentor and TWIC files: http://gorgonian.weebly.com/pgn.html
> 2 votes

# Answer
ChessTempo.com has recently added a new functionality - a database. All the options are described in the user guide at http://chesstempo.com/user-guide/en/chessDatabase.html
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are loads of PGN file database download sites, the best and most comprehensive one is probably PGN Mentor at

https://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html

BUT...very few have annotated game collections, so I have put about 950 annotated games, which are in 9 separate ".pgn" files, here

Annotated PGN file download page

for people to download
> 2 votes

# Answer

> 2 votes

# Answer
I have some special prepared PGN files for my chess apps. You can download those files:

World Chess Championship

Magnus Carlsen

J.R Capablanca

The download site is here, please note the purpose of the site is to provide easy-to-download games for my iOS app users.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are tons of databases out there. http://chessgames.com, http://pgnmentor.com, etc. Check http://www.chessfiles.com/chess-database.html for other databases
> 1 votes

---
Tags: database
---


# Question
Title: Board editor using customized pieces and board
I'm looking for a program or website which offers to create chess diagrams using custom piece sets.

I know many sites and programs that offer this but with a preset types of pieces. This is the case for example for jinchess board editor. So what I'm looking for is a board editor like this one but which gives me the option to edit the pieces set with some png image files I have for a personalized chess set.

I would love as well the possibility to change the board image.

My final aim would be to be able to create a chess position like the one bellow using a chess board editor and not having to copy and paste the image files with an image editor.

## To sum up

To sum up I look for a program or website which lets:

1. Create a chess board position.
2. Use custom piece set using personalized image files.
3. Use as board a personalized board image file.

**Note**: If not a website, the software I'm looking for can be for Mac, Windows, and/or Linux.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Not exactly "custom" images but it has over 50 piece designs and 6 board sizes. You can make a "remix" version, as Scratch calls it and replace the piece designs with whatever you like, same goes with the board. The project is here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/339815697/

Edit: I've made a new HD Version of this project, it only supports an 8x8 board size but there are now over 160 piece designs and all of them are fully HD! You can use it here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/343444076/

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think you can check Lichess. It has advanced board editor feature (along with study feature also). It uses stockfish 11 server analysis for analyzing the game, has massive database with millions of games and above all, it is completely FREE. Go and check that out.

---
Tags: software, chess-set
---


# Question
Title: List of openings for poor openings player
I'm a poor opening player, I enjoy more tactical positions.

I would like to know a list of openings that :

* Leads to tactical positions
* Don't require too much work on learning (typically not a sicilian opening)
* Allow a quick "out of the theory" position, that would advantage a thinking player over a monster of opening theory.

As you can guess, it doesn't need to be openings that have bests ratio. It just has to meet previous requirements.

If I asked the question to myself, I would go with : \- Evans Gambit \- Morra gambit \- East indian defence

Do you agree with me ? Do you know any other opening that would meet this requirements?

# Answer
The openings I teach the kids at my club are typically the Kali and the London System, depending on what they answer when I ask whether they favor more the knight or the bishop, respectively. Both are structurally sound, from my experience, and typically do not require much book work.

If you're going for unsound openings that lead to tactical shots, hoping to get out of your opponent's opening knowledge, you might consider the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (the opening I play most often - 1.d4 d5 2.e4?! dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 often leads to a half-open f-file after O-O and a Ne5 post) or the Trompowsky Attack (the opening preferred by the leader of our chess club - 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 and 3.Bxf6 with the idea being to double the f-pawns).

Take suggestions with a grain of salt. It's best to come to your own conclusions about which openings you prefer based on how comfortable you are in the middle-game of those openings. Take a look at each opening you find, try it out, and if it makes you smile unconsciously when you play it, you probably have the answer you're looking for.
> 9 votes

# Answer
King pawn openings with early pawn exchanges will rapidly open the center and lead to quick tactical play.

As Black, you may accept any gambit and prepare for immediate sharp play. WARNING--Don't try to hang on to the extra material gain. Give it back and seek equality or White's gambit will pay off. Look to exploit the time gained when White recaptures to sieze the initiative.

Avoid Queen pawn openings as they tend to more positional games and fewer tactical battles.

The Kings Gambit is probably the fastest line to achieve major battles. Evans' Gambit is safer for White and also leads to fast play. More unorthodox choices would be the Goring Gambit for White or the Center Counter Game for Black.

Of these, only the Evans' Gambit is truly theoretically sound though still dangerous for White.

You can always try for Scholars Mate but it's boring against a strong opponent.
> 4 votes

# Answer
With white play 1. e4

If black plays 1...e5 play 2. Bc4. From here you've cut out a lot of theory (ie petrovs, philidors, latvian etc) If you want something simple just play a basic formation with f4, d3 etc. Otherwise you can transpose to a wide variety of openings like the Italian (incl evans), King's gambit, Vienna, Scotch gambit etc. There is a lot of variety here. The modern bishop's opening is considered the the second best theoretical 1.e4,e5 opening behind the Ruy. There's a lot of flexibility here plus you're aiming your strongest attacking piece at black's weakest square on move 2.

vs the Sicilian the Alapin gives the most "bang for the buck" meaning the best winning chances for the least amount of study time. This opening (the Alapin) can give you winning chances against the best players in the world yet also gives you a very active position against lesser players.

vs. the French either the exchange or advance is fine and both fit well with the Alapin Sicilian.

vs. the ck play the panov-botvinnik. Similar in structure to the Alapin and is the best chance for an open game.

vs g6 and d6- I would play either the Austrian or the 150 attack.

vs. Alekhine's the exchange variation.

vs everything else- generally play d4 and the main lines. I'll mention the BMD vs the Scandinavian is a strong attacking choice and fits well with the other openings I've mentioned.

As black- vs e4- the best starter opening is 1.e4, d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3, Qa5 (or Qd8). You can get a playable game against almost anybody and the positions are open and tactical with very little to learn. After you feel you want something else play 1...e5 and aim for a Ruy variation other than 3...a6. I would play the classical with Bc5 but there are plenty of other choices. Against everything else look for lines that play d5 quickly.

vs. d4 and everything else play either the Tarrasch or Dutch. Both are complete systems (ie playable against everything), simple to learn and lead to active, tactical positions. The Tarrasch fits well with the IQP positions I mentioned earlier like the Alapin, French exchange and pan-bot. The Dutch fits well with f4 openings like the king's gambit or vienna gambit. Both openings have been played at high levels and are probably good enough to reach GM level with.

Anything I haven't mentioned stick to your basic opening principles of center, development and king safety and you'll be fine.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---