# Question
Title: Historical origin of the queen as a chess piece
As far as I know, chess was introduced at Europe from Arabia by a Spanish king: Alfonso X.

I recently read an article in Spanish press saying the queen was also introduced as a piece in Spain. The article says historians Govert Westerveld and Marilyn Yalom confirm it is a tribute to Queen Isabella of Castille.

I wonder if this article is biased (the title of the article affirms "The chess queen is Spanish"), as it is from my country, and there are other theories about the origin of the queen in chess than being a tribute to our known medieval queen Isabella.

# Answer
> 2 votes
A basic problem is to define terms and criteria. What is needed to 'have introduced chess' in Europe? Is it enough to find chess men mentioned in donations or bequests? Or do we need proof that the rules of the game were known? Or perhaps even that they were used to play according to those rules? Is an introduction that we find one mention? Or do we need to have a significant number of people with chess pieces, or playing chess or whatever?

Murray's A History of Chess mentions wills from the family of Counts of Barcelona, at least one of is dated to early 11th century, thus before Alphonso X. So Alphonso appears to be out as point of origin. He also notes multiple mentions of the game during the 12th century (i.e. in the 1100's), adding to the problem of having Alfonso introducing the the game, except in very limited sense. (The nordic game 'skak-tafl', which is usually taken to be chess, was played in 11th and 12th century -- which may be an added problem in connecting Alphonso X with the game.)

There are also indications that the games was known to Europeans even earlier, outside Europe. If that is correct, it certainly opens for other vectors of transmission into Europe than through Spain. Even though the game is more likely to be found mentioned in writing in relation to royalty, high nobility or priesthood, (as they were mainly those who left written documents) there seems to be no clear reason why tradesmen and sailors anywhere necessarily must have been ignorant of the game.

As to the name of the queen itself ... I'll leave that for others. Murray suggests that the name of the piece we call Queen was part of the Europeanization of the game: in Europe, a queen was perhaps the only generally recognized piece to have a natural place beside the king. Besides 'Queen', version of 'ferz' were also used -- there seem to be Spanish sources using the term 'alfferza' as well as connecting it to the idea of a standard-bearer. If Spain could be shown to be the sole or main point of entry of chess into Europe, then the naming of the queen would probably originate in Spain as well. But until that has been shown definitely, origin of terminology is probably best treated carefully.

But again, perhaps, the question of what the question really is may need to be asked. Yalom connected the *modern* queen, with its added powers of movement, with Isabella, not the old queen piece.

---
Tags: history, queens
---


title: How to stop Stockfish analysis?

text:
# Question
Title: How to stop Stockfish analysis?
I am using Chessbase 13. I would like Stockfish to stop analyzing until I make it start again. What happens now is that I make it stop, and as soon as I go on to the next move, it starts analyzing again. Mounting and unmounting the engine is slow. Is there a way to do that?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Actually, nevermind about my question, because I have just found an answer myself. Just click on stop, and then click the lock button. To start again, just click on the lock button to unlock it.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, chessbase
---


title: Compiling asmFish on macOS

text:
# Question
Title: Compiling asmFish on macOS
I have been able to make a custom build of asmFish on Linux. However, I have been unable to do so on macOS. I've seen a Mac version of the FASM compiler on the Internet. But when I tried using it for building it, it didn't generate a binary that could be run.

I am running the latest macOS at time of writing. Any help appreciated.

# Answer
> 1 votes
asmFish is NOT the same engine as Stockfish, so the answer by Dave is wrong. The difference is that asmFish is written in x86 Assembly (~20% faster), while Stockfish in C++.

Here is an issue I opened to test basically the time fasmg did to compile asmFish. It was closed, however, because the latest fasmg version fails to compile asmFish. The latest working version is this one.

You can download the version you want, but this is not necessary. You just need to open a command line and clone the repository:

```
git clone -b master https://github.com/lantonov/asmFish.git

```

Then, run `cd asmFish` to enter the directory and `make.bat` to compile.

For what it's worth:

* There are already MacOS binaries in the main repository. They are in the `MacOS_binaries` folder.
* There is also an archive of the executables in the executables branch, which is rarely updated.
* You can directly compile asmFish from MacOS from the command line just having the whole `x86` folder and the `fasmg` file:

```
 fasmg "x86\fish.asm" "asmFishX_type" -e 1000 -i "VERSION_OS='X'" -i "PEDANTIC = 1" -i "VERSION_POST = 'version'"

```

Replace `type` and `version` with the version post you want (`base`, `popcnt`, `bmi1` and `bmi2`)

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can download Stockfish for OS X already built. https://stockfishchess.org/

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, linux, macos
---


# Question
Title: In Swiss tournaments, is it common to play weaker players when playing White?
I was looking at the statistics for my tournament games in SCID, and found something surprising. When I played opponents rated under 1000, 13 out of 15 times I've had White. Conversely, when I played opponents rated 2000 or higher, 10 out of 15 times I've had Black.

I'd accept 10 out of 15 as being coincidence. But 13 out of 15 seems unlikely to happen purely by chance; the odds are less than 1%.

Is there a reason why a person would tend to play stronger players as Black and weaker players as White? Or is it just a coincidence?

# Answer
Your 1% chance calculation is wrong, because "observations" are not independent from each other within a single tournament. When you play one round as White, you are very likely to play the following one as Black. Also, after a win, you are very likely to face a stronger player in the next round. So your tournament could go something like this.

WHITE, weak opponent. WIN

BLACK, strong opponent. LOSE

WHITE, weak opponent. WIN

... (you get the idea)

This means that if, in 3 consecutive tournaments, you get to play a weak opponent as White (let's say that, by ranking, you are about 100th in a pool of 200 players), you can easily get pairings such as those you are showing (with a 1 in 8 chance, and also a 1 in 8 chance of getting the exact opposite)
> 3 votes

# Answer
> Is there a reason why a person would tend to play stronger players as Black and weaker players as White?

No

> Or is it just a coincidence?

Yes.

To understand this you only have to look at the way the first round of a Swiss tournament is drawn. Following rounds follow similar principles within score groups (groups of players with the same score) and allowing for colour preference (aiming for WBWBWB etc and avoiding BBB and WWW except possibly in the last round).

Suppose you have 16 players who we'll call for simplicity's sake "1", "2", ... "15", "16" where "1" is the strongest, "2" next strongest and so on. Colour for the first round is determined randomly, that is half the time player "1" gets black and half gets white.

The first round draw should look like this when "1" is assigned white:

"1" v "9"
"10" v "2"
"3" v "11"
"12" v "4"
"5" v "13"
"14" v "6"
"7" v "15"
"16" v "8"

As you can see half the time the weaker player is white and half the time black.

When you see deviations in this pattern it tells you one of two things:

1) There was a forbidden pairing which changed the order
2) One or more players who entered the tournament pulled out or missed the first round without telling the arbiter and some pairings were redone to try and ensure that every player had a game.

Note that 2) requires either the agreement of the players involved in the redraw or that the tournament conditions specify that this will happen automatically. The chess world's leading barrack room lawyer, now a FIDE vice president, famously pulled out of a tournament when this happened to him in the first round without his permission and without being part of the tournament conditions.

Occasionally you will see a (high level) tournament where the tournament appears to have been split in two with the top half paired according to the above algorithm and the bottom also paired accordingly. In this case something called "acceleration" has been applied to keep the strongest and weakest players apart for the first round or two. This is done in norm tournaments where the chances of norm seekers in the top half of the field would be ruined if they had to play 2 or more very weak (relatively) players in the early rounds.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Are there any known examples of spurious strong chess openings, which have been determined to be dubious with the introduction of the first engines?
I'm curious about the history of chess openings. Nowadays there is a lot of theory about what opening moves are considered mainstream and (near) optimal, such that either side can keep up with their opponent and maintain equality (or an advantage if anyone errs).

This sometimes goes for up to 25-30 moves without either player thinking much at all, simply because they know the best moves and have studies it extensively, and undoubtedly validated it with chess engines.

Now I'm wondering about before engines were a thing. Are there any known examples of openings, previously considered to be strong or played regularly by *strong players*, but later -- with the help of engines -- determined to be dubious/easily counterable?

# Answer
Pretty much any opening that is no longer played was "refuted" by an engine. You can check for example the 9. 0-0-0 Nxd4 line in the Sicilian Dragon.

Computer analysis has also found interesting ways for White to keep the advantage in the From's gambit, although this opening was never that popular (because of 1.f4 being a rarity)

About 25 years ago, Kasparov reintroduced the Evans gambit into elite chess. Despite initial success computer-assisted analysis forced it to step away again.

The list goes on and on, but sometimes it's just about a variation in a particular line being changed by another, rather than something like the Sicilian or the French being abandonned altogether
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, history
---


title: Tips on how to beat a computer?

text:
# Question
Title: Tips on how to beat a computer?
What strategy should I use to win a chess game against a chess computer?

The engine is able to make decisions on an about 3 moves deep search graph.

Please do not say check every move in the next 4 moves...

# Answer
There are several important points to know when playing a computer:

1. They will certainly outplay you in sharp positions, and they make nonsense moves in closed positions that involve positional play.
2. They have an horizon, that is, a moment where they cannot see any further.
3. They are very, very greedy. A pawn is a pawn they say, and the computer certainly likes material.

Knowing these, a human can try to capitalize by closing the position, simplifying and drying it until the computer has almost no tactical base, and simply makes useless moves. If the human manages to make the computer blunder (because of its horizon it cannot calculate further, but the human clearly sees that his positional advantage will grant him the win) or develops a (*positional*) plan that simply destroys the computer's position strategically, he most certainly will own the game.

Some famous examples are provided by the top GM Hikaru Nakamura. Here against Rybka you can see how he benefits from the fact that Rybka's programming does not allow it to give a draw when it's up in material (it was two exchanges up and about to arrive to the 50 move rule), and thus blunders several pawns trying to push the game and loses. Here you may look for more information on the match Nakamura (2770 ish) - Stockfish (3300 ish), where the GM had many great closed positions that seemed to end inevitably in a draw, but pushed too hard for the win and ended up losing.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Computers' main strength are tactical positions. So steer into quite positions.

Another good thing to do is to learn your openings well. Why? Computers usually will play the same thing in depth 3 over and over. So you will be able to learn what the computer plays, like studying an opponent's previous games.

Another tip is go to the endgame. The weak calculation power helps you a lot. Try to transpose into King and Pawn endgames, and learn them well.

The last thing to keep in mins is that computers do not blunder. They will play what they think is the best, while humans might not even notice an hanging piece. Try to be attentive, and check ahead.

Remember to practice!
> 2 votes

# Answer
play closed positions. Play positionally.

3 moves deep will be a weak computer, thus, just play well.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If your computer is so weak to calculate `only 3 moves` then you can easily got for trades and play endgame. It will be easier to you to overcalculate him.

Just do not blunder, and hey, you were right, calculate 4 or even more! Practise, practise and practise again!

Would you mind sharing few games of yours? We'd be able to see what kind of mistakes you do and give you a better advice :)
> 0 votes

# Answer
The above answers pretty much cover it. Most moderate chess engines don't really make plans and can't read yours: they are only good at tactical calculations. So avoid double-edged positions, make a solid plan and build up slowly, make sure not to allow any counterplay, and the computer will never know what hit it. Also, for the most part computers are terrible at endings. Such ideas as 'that pawn will queen in 5 moves' - never mind 'outside passed pawn wins' - are all Greek to it.

Also, a program's apparent level will vary a lot between games. If you lose one game, don't assume the computer is invincible - the next time you play, it may be practically be playing suicide chess.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I've read the rest of the answers and I think there is something completely wrong with them:

These answers represent good advice against an ordinary chess computer. Of course the more modern ones will beat you anyway no matter how much you manage to apply those tips, but let's say we are talking about an older/somehow underpowered chess engine. Most of the ideas circle around getting into quiet positions, with not much tactics involve

However, the OP is talking about a very particular type of computer, who "is able to make decisions on an about 3 moves deep search graph." This means this computer is actually very bad at tactics! It won't be able to see what most of the tactical complications of a chess game will return, other than the simplest "I win a piece in two moves" kind of "combination". You could even use sacrifices traps, since the computer will give a high importance to the immediate gain in material, not seeing attacking chances for the opponent that can happen after a few moves.

In short, against this type of "engine", you should definitely go for the tactical complications! This does not mean that positional styles should be disregarded, though. I am pretty sure that, in an endgame, the computer won't be able to see why things like "activating your king" are recomended
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, strategy
---


# Question
Title: What are some chess tournaments around the world that have both Grandmasters and non-professionals players in the same section?
I want to enter chess tournaments were there are titled players from more than one country and where non-titled players can compete in the same section. Where can I find such open tournaments and what are the details?

# Answer
I usually find my tournament in this online chess tournament calendar.

If you visit the homepage of a tournament you can often check who already registered and who is eligible to participate.

Another easy way to make sure your conditions are met is just checking the prizes. In Europe a thousand euro first prize usually means there are going to be GMs participating. If there are several thousand euro first prize you can be sure that there will be many GMs and other strong players from all over the world.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would say only very big tournaments divide their players in sections. With a \<100 player-pool, you will see everyone together. But if you want to make sure you will definitely have strong players alongside you, follow the prize money!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Can the king capture his attacker?

text:
# Question
Title: Can the king capture his attacker?
Can the king get out of check by capturing his attacker? For example, if the queen comes right in front of the king, can the king capture the queen, or must another piece capture the queen?

# Answer
> 29 votes
There are three ways to get out of check.

* Simply move the king away.
* Block the check, or place a piece in between the king and the opponent's attacking piece.
* Capture the piece that's checking the king.

All of these cases are dependent on the fact that immediately after you make your move, the king is not in check. Therefore, you may capture the queen so long as the king is no longer in check after you make your move.

# Answer
> 12 votes
The king can capture the enemy queen, as long that does not place it in check from another piece.

# Answer
> 7 votes
As long as the queen is not protected by another piece, the king can capture it. The king can in fact be a strong attacking piece, particularly in the ending, when it doesn't have to worry as much about strong attacks against it since the enemy force has been diminished.

# Answer
> 5 votes
there is only one move that cannot be performed in check (aside for making a move that keeps you in check, or creates another one ) and that is castling.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There *is* a case, under FIDE Laws, where a king cannot capture an unprotected adjacent queen:

```
[Title "Queen is safe"]
[fen "4k3/4Q3/8/8/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

The point is of course that the game is dead: there is no possible checkmate, so the game ends immediately in a dead draw. But hang on: isn't this checkmate then? Black is in check but can't escape.

The answer to the apparent paradox is that checkmate is defined to be when a player is in check, and has no legal moves. KxQ is perfectly legal, but it's just not "playable" (there is no official word for this) as the game is over.

In exactly the same way, a dead position where *no-one* is in check (e.g. the diagram above without the wQ) is not a stalemate.

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


title: Why can't I put Stockfish in SCID?

text:
# Question
Title: Why can't I put Stockfish in SCID?
I'm installing stockfish to be used on SCID. I followed these two tutorials, using Stockfish from the Stockfish website rather than from git.

```
https://www.chess.com/article/view/scid--stockfish
http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/compiling-stockfish-on-linux

```

I downloaded the engine binaries for Stockfish7 for Linux from

```
https://stockfishchess.org/download/

```

I read that you need to compile it first so I compiled the Stockfish engine with sudo apt-get install git g++. Tested it with make profile-build ARCH=x86-32 then I went to add the engine in SCID, with these settings:

```
name: stockfish
command: stockfish
directory: /home/user/Desktop/stockfish-7-linux/Linux/src/.stockfish
UCI on

```

But then it tells me that it is unable to start the program: stockfish.

That error is the default response for any error. If I typed in folders that don't exist and a file that doesn't exist, it gives that error too. What am I doing wrong?

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the line:

name:stockfish command: stockfish directory: /home/user/Desktop/stockfish-7-linux/Linux/src/.stockfish UCI on

Are you sure your exe file is called ".stockfish" and not only just "stockfish". Seems odd that you have a hidden exe file (even that it is possible)

# Answer
> 3 votes
1. Make sure you are pointing to the binary distribution of Stockfish and not the source. The binary distribution should be a variation of stockfish\_10\_x64.
2. Make sure this binary has execute permissions:

```
chmod u+x stockfish_10_x64

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
The solution is:

This command right here, as linked: /home/yourusername/.scid4.7/Linux/stockfish\_10\_x64

It worked for me.

I went into a search and found "Stockfish." Then I went onto "copy link location," and pasted it into command (I copied the Stockfish files in the SCID folder).

I hope that someone finds this helpful.

---
Tags: engines, scid, linux
---


title: King move to other side

text:
# Question
Title: King move to other side
During a game of chess, after several moves. Is it an automatic win as soon as you get your king all the way across the board?

I was told this is a tournament rule.

# Answer
No, this is not a rule in chess. There are plenty of games where one king reaches its 8th rank, and the game continues, with all three results still possible. Here are the Fide rules
> 5 votes

# Answer
As @Evargalo noted in their answer, that is not part of the official rules of chess. However, lichess.org hosts a chess variant called "Racing Kings" in which your mentioned rule holds true.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rules
---


# Question
Title: Attempting to create a retraction problem
I am trying to create a retraction problem, but I am unsure if it is sound, and I do not know where to find resources on them. I have two questions.

1. Is my problem correct? I am not giving a solution as to leave it to you to decipher.
2. Where can I find resources on how to make retraction problems?

I wish for feedback so I may better my creations of retraction problems.

**White retracts a move and instead delivers stalemate.**

```
[FEN "8/3R2Kp/4kP1P/3R3P/3B2BP/6NP/P1P4P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Could white have just played Bg4 from somewhere without capture? Black’s prior move was Ke5-e6. This can be fixed by a shifting wNg3 to e3 and wBd4 to g3 in its place. This stops other cooks where White has just given a discovered check. Adding a further wN on c6 also prevents any retractions with the White rook, and the Black king moving to e5.

```
[FEN "8/3R2Kp/4kP1P/3R3P/6BP/4N1BP/P1P4P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

A key point is that retracting 1. e5xf6e.p. f7-f5 2. B~g4+ Kf5-e6 3. N~e3+ works, as wPe5 blocks wRd5 from attacking f5, and so bK on f5 only endures a single check (from wNe3).

General chess problem solving engines e.g. Popeye don’t currently offer retraction capabilities. It might be possible to solve Edith Baird style retractors though, but not ones with retro logic.

The database pdb.dieschwalbe.de contains lots of retractor problems. Type k='help retractor' in the search box, and hit Overview to begin your journey in this amazing resource.

**Addendum #1 11/30/2020:** Here is a sound version by Rewan, a correction of my above "correction"! It is certified correct by Mario Richter's Rawbats program. The above version is incorrect due to 1. Rf5-d5 being a possible last move for White as well, and, furthermore, multiple stalemating moves afterward.

```
[FEN "8/3R2Kp/2N1kP1P/3R3P/3B2BP/6NP/P1P4P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

**Addendum #2 11/30/2020:** I found a bug with my earlier proposed version, and also a way to make this much more economical. The new solution is proved correct (aka "C+") by Mario Richter's legendary Rawbats program.

```
[FEN "8/3R2K1/4kP1P/3R3P/3P2BP/4N1BP/7P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White has made 15 pawn captures, so if the last move (which must have delivered check) was by an officer, then it was not a capture, so Black has no prior move, and the position is illegal. The only possible last move is en passant, R: 1. e5xf6ep# so we conclude that this definitely was the case.

(For retractors, one does not need to prove that the prior move was definitely a double hop in order to allow the en passant retraction. In this case, the logic goes the other way round: the en passant proves the double hop.)

Now the retraction goes R: 1. ... f7-f5 2. B~-g4+ Kf5-e6/Ke7-f6 3. S~e3+/R~-d7+ etc.

Instead of the first retraction, White can play 1. Se3-f5= for stalemate.

(It could be possible to generate this effect in a position in which White is not delivering check, or in which one can retract uniquely further.)
> 3 votes

# Answer
First attempt.

If the White bishop is removed then it is stalemate which suggests that Black had a piece on g4 and White's last move was Bxg4++. He could retract this and play hxg4 stalemate instead.

But White has made 14 pawn captures and Black has 2 pieces left. Hence there are no Black pieces left for the Bishop to take. Any White capture must have been made by a pawn.

Second attempt

This suggests that there was a Black pawn on f5 which had just made the move f7-f5 blocking the bishop check and White responded ef++. There is no White piece that can block the pawn on f5 and stop it moving hence to deliver stalemate White must take the pawn without check. Hence White replaces ef++ by Nxf5 stalemate.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis, composing
---


# Question
Title: Is there a good program to play chess online in ubuntu?
I really missed playing chess with someone who know how to play, I am looking for a good program to play chess online from ubuntu computer. Any Ideas?

# Answer
> 30 votes
On ubuntu, you can download Firefox, Chrome, or any other browser of your choice. From within that browser, go to lichess.org, chess.com, or chess24.com, create a free account, and play against others online.

# Answer
> 1 votes
With Winboard or Arena, you could play also in chess servers, like FICS --free-- or ICC or several others that are listed in this article on chess servers on Wikipedia.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you'd like a lightweight CLI experience, and you have telnet enabled, try 'telnet freechess.org' on the command line.

---
Tags: software
---


title: Leela Chess PUCT Mechanism

text:
# Question
Title: Leela Chess PUCT Mechanism
How do we know *w\_i* which is not possible to calculate using the tree search only?

From the lc0 slide, *w\_i* is equal to summation of subtree of *V* ? How is this equivalent to winning ?

# Answer
> 4 votes
As you noted, `w_i` is not calculated by the search tree. It is simply the number of wins out of the total simulations performed at that node (if this is the method used to score the node). This scoring mechanism is also known as playout.

---
Tags: programming, mathematics, leela
---


# Question
Title: What are "full piece" and "half piece" in chess?
I'm reading Kasparov's Deep Thinking and I came across this sentence:

> In one computer championship, a machine blundered a full piece early in the game but its opponent declined to capture it.

When I googled it I also saw the term "half piece" but couldn't find any definition on any of them.

I'm not a native speaker and I'm not familiar with chess terms in English. I'm guessing full piece is an important piece such as queen or rook and half piece is a minor piece like bishop or knight but I want to be sure. Can you explain what they mean?

# Answer
> 32 votes
> blundering a **full** piece

or

> being a **full** piece down

are typical expressions in English chess literature.

With the little word "**full**", the author wants to make clear that the player has not only lost the piece, but that they also received no consolation material in return, i.e. one or two pawns. An alternative expression is "blundering a **clean** piece" / "being a **clean** piece down".

The typical scale is:

> The opponent blundered/sacrificed a piece for two pawns.
>
> The opponent blundered/sacrificed a piece for a pawn.
>
> The opponent blundered/sacrificed a full/clean piece.

("Sacrifice" or "blunder" generally depend on the positional compensation for the loss of the piece.)

The "piece" in question may theoretically be a any of the "pieces" knight, bishop, rook or queen (pawns are not "pieces" and the king cannot be captured), but typically you would expect it to be either a knight or a bishop (in the other cases it would rather be e.g. "being a full rook down" or "being a full queen down").

The term "**half** piece" does not exist, at least to my knowledge.

# Answer
> 14 votes
I don't think "full piece" means anything beyond "piece" but "full" was added for emphasis. This is to highlight the magnitude of the blunder, since many blunders are smaller than a piece; for example, one can blunder a pawn or the Exchange (rook for knight or bishop), or trade a piece for a pawn or two.

The commonly used terms to distinguish queen/rook vs bishop/knight are **major piece** and **minor piece**. You may also see "heavy piece" used as a synonym for major piece.

The term "half-piece" doesn't make a lot of sense and I had never heard it. Using Google I found a couple of examples but they are in the context of chess variants such as "inchworm chess", where a piece can be in two squares at once (half a piece on each square), or "symmetric unirexal chess", where two "half pieces" can occupy the same square.

Let's elaborate on the statement above that many blunders are "less than a piece". In the best-known piece value scheme, minor pieces are worth three pawns, rooks are worth five pawns, and queens are worth nine pawns. The quote about blundering a "full piece" probably referred to a minor piece, because otherwise it would say "blundered a rook" or "blundered the queen". Therefore blundering a pawn would be like blundering one-third of a piece, and the Exchange would be two-thirds (a piece for a pawn would be two-thirds, too). Note that there is no way to blunder "half a piece" under this value scheme. (Note however that these values are just a rough guideline!)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do not know. In my circles, the bishop and knight are not always "equal" to exactly 3 pawns when they are being exchanged.

For us, we might say a player is "a half-piece down" after a bishop for knight exchange (if material was otherwise equal), or vice versa (depending on when the exchange happens), or even "three and a half down" if the player blunders their higher valued minor piece.

In this scheme, at the start of a game, a knight may be considered worth *more* than a bishop (3.5 while the bishop is 3); while later on, the values switch and the bishop becomes worth more (3.5 while knight becomes 3). Thus, in total evaluation, you get a "half piece" difference.

Of course, this is generally only considered when a bishop for knight or knight for bishop is exchanged, or a minor piece is sacrificed or blundered; or perhaps when evaluating the strength of positions at the end game (as some folks may consider the bishops more useful in the end. But I'd say, the positioning determines which would be better in any situation.

It is worth reading this Atlantic article for the general idea.

Addtionally, the the Wiki page notes many material valuation considerations and alternatives that include fractional pieces.

---
Tags: terminology, pieces
---


title: Marshall vs. Queen Endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Marshall vs. Queen Endgame
In a game of "Sort of Almost Chess", the variant from Mr. Betza that replaces one of the queens with a Marshall (the Rook+Knight compound, also known as the Chancellor, or the Empress in Fairy Chess circles), this surfaced as a possible endgame that was narrowly avoided by a slightly controversial promotion by Black. The Marshall and Queen are represented in the diagram as Knight and Bishop, respectively (given that they can both move as rooks).

```
    [Date "2018.06.26"]
[Round "-"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "James"]
[Result "?"]
 [FEN "7B/8/6K1/8/8/1k6/6P1/n7 w - - 0 1"]

```

Given that Black's to move, I'm wondering if it's possible for either side to get a win from this position. A Black Queen (the promotion that actually took place instead of this position) is a forced win for Black with careful play, and Marshall vs. Marshall is almost certainly a draw, but the similar yet different power of the pieces here makes it a complex problem.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Since my Stockfish fork for fairy chess variants already supports Almost Chess, I added Sort of Almost Chess with both sides having all promotion options (which is what you seem to imply in your question).

I ran a search on the given position up to depth 50 with the commands below:

```
setoption name hash value 1024
setoption name multipv value 30
setoption name UCI_Variant value sortofalmost
position fen 7Q/8/6K1/8/8/1k6/6P1/c7 b - - 0 1
go depth 50

```

The results below state that white is winning (latest in 23 moves) irrespective of black's next move. Going through some of the variations in the output it seems relatively clear that the chancellor has no way to give a perpetual, so white is able to advance the pawn and finally either promote or force the exchange of queen and chancellor.

```
info depth 50 seldepth 47 multipv 1 score mate -23 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a4 h8f6 b3a2 f6e6 a2b2 e6e2 b2c1 e2e3 c1c2 g6f7 a4a5 e3e2 c2b3 e2d3 b3a4 d3d4 a4b3 d4b6 b3a4 b6a5 a4a5 g2g4 a5a6 f7f6 a6b7 g4g5 b7a7 g5g6 a7a6 f6e5 a6b5 g6g7 b5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 47 multipv 2 score mate -23 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1e1 h8b8 b3a2 b8a7 a2b3 a7b6 b3c4 b6a6 c4b4 a6d6 b4c4 g2g4 e1a1 d6c6 c4b4 c6e4 b4b3 e4d3 b3b2 d3d4 b2a2 d4a1 a2a1 g6f5 a1b2 f5e5 b2b1 g4g5 b1c1 g5g6 c1d1 g6g7 d1e2 g7g8q e2f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2f1 f4f3 f1e1 c2c1
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 3 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1g1 h8b8 b3c2 b8c7 c2d3 c7d6 d3e4 d6b4 e4d3 g2g4 g1h1 b4d6 d3e3 d6e5 e3f2 e5f4 f2g1 f4c1 g1h2 c1h1 h2h1 g6f5 h1g2 g4g5 g2f2 g5g6 f2f3 g6g7 f3e3 f5e5 e3d3 g7g8q d3e3 g8b3 e3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2f1 f4f3 f1e1 c2c1
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 4 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1f1 h8f6 f1g3 g6f7 g3h1 g2g4 h1h7 f7g6 h7h3 g4g5 b3a3 g6f7 a3b4 g5g6 h3h6 f7e6 h6g4 g6g7 b4c4 e6f7 g4g1 f6c6 c4d3 c6g6 g1g6 f7g6 d3e4 g6f6 e4f4 g7g8q f4e4 g8c4 e4f3 c4d3 f3g2 d3e2 g2h3 e2f2 h3g4 f2e3 g4h4 f6f5 h4h5 e3h3
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 5 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1d1 h8f6 b3a4 f6c6 a4b4 c6b6 b4c4 g2g4 d1e1 b6d6 e1a1 d6c6 c4b4 c6e4 b4b3 e4d3 b3b2 d3d4 b2b1 d4a1 b1a1 g6f5 a1b2 f5e5 b2b1 g4g5 b1c1 g5g6 c1d1 g6g7 d1e2 g7g8q e2f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 43 multipv 6 score mate -21 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1c1 h8f6 b3a3 f6d6 a3b3 d6d7 c1c5 d7d1 b3a2 d1d2 a2b3 d2e3 b3b4 e3c5 b4c5 g2g4 c5d6 g6f7 d6c6 g4g5 c6d7 g5g6 d7d6 f7f6 d6d5 g6g7 d5e4 g7g8q e4e3 f6e5 e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 43 multipv 7 score mate -20 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a6 h8f6 a6a4 g6f5 b3a2 f6e6 a2a1 e6e1 a1a2 e1d2 a2a3 d2d3 a3b4 d3e4 b4b5 e4a4 b5a4 g2g4 a4a3 f5e5 a3b2 g4g5 b2b1 g5g6 b1c1 g6g7 c1d2 e5e4 d2c2 e4d4 c2b3 g7g8q b3b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 41 multipv 8 score mate -20 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1c2 h8b8 b3a2 b8a8 a2b3 a8d5 b3b2 d5e4 c2c1 e4b4 b2c2 b4c5 c2b1 c5c1 b1c1 g2g4 c1d2 g6f5 d2d1 g4g5 d1e2 g5g6 e2e3 g6g7 e3e2 f5e5 e2e3 g7g8q e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 39 multipv 9 score mate -19 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a5 h8b8 b3a2 b8d6 a5a4 d6d5 a2a3 d5d3 a3b2 d3b5 b2a3 b5a4 a3a4 g6f6 a4b5 g2g4 b5b6 g4g5 b6a7 g5g6 a7a6 f6e5 a6b5 g6g7 b5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 10 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a3 h8h3 b3b4 h3a3 b4a3 g2g4 a3b4 g4g5 b4c5 g6f6 c5c6 g5g6 c6d6 g6g7 d6c5 f6e5 c5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 11 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a2 h8g8 b3b2 g8a2 b2a2 g2g4 a2b3 g4g5 b3b4 g6f5 b4b5 f5e5 b5b6 g5g6 b6c5 g6g7 c5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 12 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1b1 h8b8 b3c2 b8b1 c2b1 g2g4 b1c2 g4g5 c2d3 g6f5 d3e2 g5g6 e2e3 g6g7 e3e2 f5e5 e2e3 g7g8q e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 29 multipv 13 score mate -14 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a2 h8a1 a2a1 g2g4 a1b2 g4g5 b2a1 g6f6 a1b1 g5g6 b1a2 g6g7 a2b2 g7g8q b2c2 g8g3 c2b2 f6e5 b2a2 e5d4 a2b2 g3c3 b2a2 c3b4 a2a1 d4c3 a1a2 b4b2
info depth 50 seldepth 21 multipv 14 score mate -10 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a7 h8b8 a7b7 b8b7 b3c4 g6f5 c4c5 f5e5 c5c4 b7f3 c4b5 f3c3 b5a6 e5d6 a6a7 c3b2 a7a8 d6c6 a8a7 b2b7
info depth 50 seldepth 19 multipv 15 score mate -9 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1h1 h8h1 b3c3 h1h4 c3b3 h4d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 19 multipv 16 score mate -9 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a8 h8a8 b3b4 a8c6 b4b3 c6b5 b3c2 g6f5 c2d2 f5e4 d2c3 e4e3 c3c2 b5b4 c2c1 e3d3 c1d1 b4b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 17 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3b4 h8a1 b4c4 g6f5 c4d3 a1a4 d3e2 a4d4 e2f1 f5g4 f1e2 g4g3 e2e1 g3f3 e1f1 d4a1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 18 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a3 h8a1 a3b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 19 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3c2 h8a1 c2d3 g6f5 d3c4 a1a4 c4d3 f5f4 d3c3 f4e3 c3b2 e3d3 b2b1 d3c3 b1c1 a4a1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 20 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a4 h8a1 a4b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 21 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3c4 h8a1 c4b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1

```

---
Tags: endgame, chess-variants, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: Would a professional level player put their queen in danger of capture from the opposing queen with protection?
Every now and then I will move my queen into a position that puts it in position to be captured by the opposing queen. Sometimes my opponents takes it and I capture their queen immediately. Also, sometimes they don't take it and neither of use loses a queen.

Is it ever smart, except for obvious occasions, to lose your queen just to take the opposing sides queen?

# Answer
You're referring to a queen trade, and yes, there're plenty of situations in which you want to trade queens. In general, trading queens simplifies the position, which is good if:

1. You're up material. The fewer pieces there are on the board, the harder it is for the opponent to cook up counterplay.
2. You're on the defensive. The fewer pieces there are on the board, the harder it is to launch a successful attack on the enemy king.
3. You have some kind of advantage that makes you win the endgame, e.g. fewer pawn islands (this is a technical chess concept that measures on how many separated pawns you have), an outside passed pawn, and so on.
4. Various other reasons (there are a ton of them).

Here's an example from the recent game Topalov-Maxime Vachier Lagrave.

```
1kr5/1r3p2/2np3p/p5p1/2P3P1/PPNq4/K1R3QP/7B w - - 0 39

```

Black has just played Qe3-d3, and it's White's turn. It should be clear that Black's queen is much stronger than White's right now: it's much more aggressively positioned and it's generating a lot of threats. So Topalov played 39. Qd2, offering the trade. MVL promptly played 39...Qxd2, because if he didn't, White would play Qxd6+, eating a pawn for free.

This kind of exchange happens all the time at top level.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The only possible answer is: it depends. It is a good idea if, by placing your queen in that particular position, you get some kind of advantage.

For example, if you have a lot of material advantage, you may want to simplify the position by trading queens. Of course your opponent can just run away, but this could imply running away from an active attacking position.

You can also move your protected queen into a very good square (like the seventh rank) so that in case it's captured by the enemy queen, the piece with which you recapture places itself in that very good square.

In other cases, for example if you are down on material, this can tend to be a very bad decision.

So, in short, it depends on context
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy, queens
---


# Question
Title: Why are there few or no black super GMs?
In the history of FIDE chess competitions or rankings, why hasn't there been a black super GM (2750+ elo)? What could be the hindrance or what is it that the black players are not doing right that other players from other races are doing right in chess?

# Answer
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.

There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:

1. Talent
2. Education

And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.

A very simplistic formula might be:

> **Expected number of top players** = *Population size* * *likelihood to play* * *likelihood to have enough chess talent* * *likelihood to have enough chess education*

Now, let's look into each of the factors:

# Likelihood to have enough chess education

This is both cultural and economical.

**Beginner level**: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play

**Intermediate level**: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.

**Advanced level**: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.

# Likelihood to play

Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.

# Likelihood to have enough chess talent

There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.

# Population size

More people leads to more potential players.

---

# Conclusion

The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.

That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
> 35 votes

# Answer
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.

I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
> 32 votes

---
Tags: super-grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: Why do players in the past play much longer tournaments than today's top players?
Looking through the history of chess we find tournaments that are significantly longer than today's, e.g.

Today we get tournaments such as:

For comparison, the players in the London 1899 tournament played a full four times as many games as those in the Dortmund 2018 tournament.

Why such a large difference? Why can't today's players play tournaments as long as those in the past? Alternatively, if they can, why aren't today's tournaments organized to be as long as those in the past?

# Answer
> 31 votes
There is nothing in principle preventing players from long tournaments. Or maybe yes if they are way too long, like the first Karpov - Kasparov match (had to be postponed for health reasons), but these cases are far from the norm.

If we stick to the elite games, I would say that the main reasons why tournaments have become shorter is that there are many more tournaments to choose from! Every organizer wants the best players to play at them, making the event longer would result in the players occupying a larger fraction of their calendar, so they will either request more prize money or go play somewhere else.

In short, top level chess has professionalized and players will try to maximize their "paycheck"

# Answer
> 21 votes
Perhaps another factor is that transport and communications were so much more limited in the 19th century, that a short tournament would not have justified lengthy travel, particularly for transatlantic professionals visiting Europe. At an amateur level in Britain, the burgeoning train network allowed evening visits from one provincial town to a neighbouring one, so county leagues operated at much the same cadence that they do today.

# Answer
> 16 votes
> Today we get tournaments such as:

Chess World Cup 2005 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2007 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2009 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2011 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2013 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2015 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2017 \- 128 players
Chess World Cup 2019 \- 128 players

Of course these tournaments only last about half the length of time that the one-off 1899 tournament lasted but they occur much more frequently and feature a lot more players, the strongest of which are undoubtedly stronger than the 1899 players.

There are simply far too many very strong players to play double round robins today. Furthermore the players are no longer the leisured rich of bygone days. They have to earn a living either by playing chess, coaching or get a proper job. No organisation or person is going to pay them enough money for 6 or 7 weeks playing in one tournament. We no longer live the Victorian era with its slower pace of life.

# Answer
> 5 votes
One word answer: Money.

1) Tournaments cost a lot of money to organize. At the top end, with, say, less than a dozen players, the organizers are expected to pay for the player's expenses. That's a lot of money. And then a good half of the games being played in the event will be lifeless draws that no one wants to see. The complete score of every interesting game will be available to everyone in the world within hours of the game's end, or earlier. In the 19th century, they could publish a book and gain a little from the sales. Today every magazine in the world will publish their own annotated games from the event as fast as the organizers could, so there's no opportunity to recover any of the money spent on it there.

2) Players want to win efficiently. For example, if they're responsible for their own expenses, they will prefer to play multiple short (weekend) events to a single month-long event, even if the prize money is less, because the net gain is better, and the likelihood of profit more secure.

3) There are far more opportunities to play today than in the 19th century.

Put those three together and it's clear players aren't going to accept invitations to play in 30-round events. They can do better for themselves by playing multiple short events during that time, interspersed with coaching sessions or other money-making activities (Walter Browne used to play backgammon for money, for example) than they will in a month-long event.

Put yourself in their place. Would you want to tie yourself to playing a long event where the chance of a bad start will condemn you to little gain for the entire month, or play short events where you can compensate for a bad game or two in one event with the prize money from the next event?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Former world champion Vladimir Kramnik gave an interview with chess.com recently that briefly touches on something related to this question:

> **How do you feel about the state of chess now? Next year, Magnus Carlsen will defend his title again. There’s been criticism that there are too many draws in world championship matches. Do you think anything needs to be changed? Should the match be even longer—18, 20 games?**
>
> Nowadays it’s not so easy to have a longer match because the amount of preparation involved is really, really intense. It is totally different to previous generations. Back then, there were no computers, not much theory. During my first Linares tournament, engines had yet to be developed, and my game preparation would be one or two hours. Now during world championship matches, you work 12-14 hours a day. So if we had a 20-game match, I think both players would end up in the hospital.

If this is correct, then back in the Victorian era players presumably prepared much less (I remember reading that the first player to do serious preparation, connecting openings to the endgames that can arise from them, was Alexander Alekhine). Therefore they are less fatigued by long tournaments, while today that's no longer the case.

---
Tags: tournament, history
---


# Question
Title: Why are the corner pieces referred to as "rooks" in English?
Various sources like those quoted in Wikipedia say that it's a mistake, or old-fashioned, to refer to rooks as "castles". Why is this, though? Other languages generally refer to these pieces as "towers" and when the king exchanges places with them, we call it "castling" rather than "rooking". The pieces look like castles. The term "rook", on the other hand, seems to come from Persian/Arabic and have a very obscure etymology. So why is this word preferred?

# Answer
> 12 votes
**Some say:**

There will probably other theories about the origin of the name "rook" for this chess piece; however here is the one I believe is best.

IN the origins of the game itself, the game was called Chaturanga and it was not exactly the same as modern chess. The piece we call a rook was considered to be a chariot rather than a castle, probably because of the speed with which it moves. The Sanskrit word for chariot was "ratha". In Arabic it is still referred to as a chariot with the name "rukhkh." When the game spread to Europe, the word "rukhkh" sounded like the Italian word "rocco", which meant "tower." Since the two words sounded alike, the Italian word was used but the meaning changed from chariot to tower.

The piece is still thought of as a tower in European translations. Various European countries use their language's word for "tower" rather than their words for "chariot". In Middle English the concept of tower eventually turned into castle since most castles had towers.

Contributors are welcome to add to this answer any other theories about the name; however they should honor the rule against deleting other answers unless they are obviously wrong. Contributors are also reminded of the rules regarding minor edits.

**Other explanations (the ones i believe to be true):**

The rook was already known in "Chaturanga", but there, this figure was a carriage and was called "rukh". The war carriages have been a part of the old Indian army until the 5th century. At the time the game came to Arabia the name did not change but the portrayal was simplified. In Europe the English name "rook" remind us to the descent.

But how has the figure changed from a war carriage to a rook?

By the year 1527 Vida, bishop of Albay, published a poem about a chess game between "Apollo" and "Mercury". The rooks were fortifications on the back of an elephant. The European chess players took over the description. Finally they left out the elephant for the normal use.

---

**Notes, I told you what others have said, what you're going to read now is my theory**

I am from an Arabic country, Lebanon, and we don't call the bishop "Al Fil", like some website say, at least in my country we don't, maybe some other arabic country did, not us, and we still play Chaturanga (but i don't). We call it Chatarange, it's a French name, since France was the mandate for Lebanon long time ago.

Anyway lets talk about the pieces which is interesting

* king = king
* queen = queen
* knight = horse
* rook = castle, yes we call it castle, and it makes sense to castle for us, we don't rook :)
* Bishop = minister, and also makes sense, the Arabs who played Chess were Muslims you know :) Why European call it Bishop? I can think of 3 reasons:

Because the bishops were so powerful and involved in political life. Because Christian armies relied on them during the wars, they were the one who blessed a war (Remember the crusaders and the Pop?). And lastly, because they contributed so much to the game (Ruy Lopez, was created by a Spanish priest who later became a bishop!)

* Oh so you think I forgot about Pawns? Wrong! Pawns = Some call them soldiers, and some call them stones or rocks!

**Now my theory:**

It is possible that by translating, a castle, became a rook, after all a castle, is built using rocks. Why didn't the European remove the term "pawn"?

By definition a Pawn is the condition of being held as a pledge against the payment of a loan. All the poor and the farmers were "Pawns".

Remember that Chess was introduced to Europe in mid centuries and only the wealthy played it, so the term pawn has a very significant meaning, the weakest on the board in a Feudal society, that would fight for the king in the hope of being promoted! So they left the name as is for that piece.

**Small Edit To My Initial Answer**

You might be wondering: Why the hell would Arabs call "Pawns" as "Rocks" in the first place?

That's because, Arabs play a board game called Tables, the game as we play it today, was created in Turkey, (I don't give a damn about what Wikipedia has to say about the history of the game) and the Turks have invaded the Arabic world for a long time, so that's how we got it.

The game is played by stones or rocks, rounded pieces, now they are made from plastic, but not back then. The Tables game is far more popular than Chess or whatever you call it in the Arabic world today.

The way you play the game is by pushing the pieces to the other end of the board, and you win (I'm not going to go over the rules, but that's the idea)

There's also Checkers, which originated in Iraq some believe, and is still more popular than Chess nowadays in the Arabic world. And the pieces move very similar to Pawns and again were made from rocks. So why creating a "Pawn" shaped piece, when you can use rocks and start playing?

**Sources**

# Answer
> -2 votes
First of all, the origin of this game was India. chess should have WAR TROOPS in the battle field. what makes the logic of using a chariot as troop? It could be an Elephant that elephants were used for wars.

when this game spread to the world, people uaed their own terminologies to represent these troops according to thier custom of battle environents and imaginations.

the chess federation developed and fixed some rules and common names for the troops.

mostly animals and soldiers were involved in war. not the chariot (i dont think that people accept the chariot as troop?). it was like a leg of an elephant, for a better shape of a troop to stand on a board (look at the toes of an elephant. this upside down looked like a Tower /casle in some countries. and they named as such.

rook is not a war troop. elehant is a troop to kill enemies.

can you imagine when the chess special moves were introduced? and what could be the time of this game invented?

the base name of rook was an elephant, not a tower or castle.

i m not against the arguements here. just to remind the logic of the art of cereberal war.

rook is elephant king is king queen is queen (in ancient days, queens too warred in india)

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: Bad symmetrical variations

text:
# Question
Title: Bad symmetrical variations
I know that symmetrical variations of some openings are good up to a certain point, after which White gets a significant advantage (like gaining a piece or even mating the opponent's king). One such example is the match below, following the Italian variation of the Four Knights Game (C50):

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Eventdate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Plycount "27"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nd5 Nd4 9.Qd2 Qd7 10.Bxf6 Bxf3 11.Ne7+ Kh8 12.Bxg7+ Kxg7 13.Qg5+ Kh8 14.Qf6#
1-0

```

After the move `9. ..Qd7`, White gains a significant advantage in which Black will have to sacrifice some pieces (even the queen in one line) or he is getting checkmated.

My question is: do you know any other example of situations like this, where White gets a significant advantage after a few moves performed in a symmetrical fashion?

# Answer
> 2 votes
From the OP and the discussion in comments I guess you're looking for more nuanced variations. Here's one that comes to mind from the Queen's pawn game (symmetric-pseudo-Catalan), where if black doesn't break the symmetry at some point, white will either be up a pawn or have tangible positional advantage.

```
 [title "Queen's pawn game example"]
 [fen ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3 b6 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. Nbd2 Nbd7 9. c4 c5 10. e3 e6 11. Ne5 Ne4 12. Nxe4 {Here black can no longer keep playing symmetrically, as exemplified in the shown mainline. Instead black has to simply recapture on e4 and it's a normal game.} Nxe5 (12...dxe4 {optimal continuation for black here, breaking the symmetry.} 13. Nxd7 Qxd7 14. Qc2) 13. dxe5 dxe4 14. Qc2 Rb8 (14...Qc7 15. Bxe4 {and white is up a clear pawn}) 15. Rad1 Qc7 16. Bxe4 Bxe5 17. Bxe5 Qxe5 18. Bxb7 Rxb7 {despite the symmetric pawn structure and equal material, white has a clear positional advantage as they control the only open file and black's disconnected rooks are far from being in time to challenge the file.}

```

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


title: Does chess improve our intelligence?

text:
# Question
Title: Does chess improve our intelligence?
This is my first question in Chess, so I hope my question is simple.

I know about chess but I am not a regular player. But my friend told me that everyday play chess is good for your mind and also for improving memory power. Is this correct?

And also I don't know some of the move rules. So, please give me some suggestion to improve my chess knowledge.

# Answer
> 4 votes
So far, studies I‘ve seen mentioned in newspapers making a claim either for or against a correlation between chess and intelligence strike me as highly dubious in their methodology. That‘s not surprising, since the concept of a “general intelligence” is itself dubious. (And it’s not even entirely clear in every context what “intelligence” actually means.)

Chess is basically a duel that two people fight with their minds. One would expect that as a pastime it’s more attractive to people who enjoy exercising their minds in various areas in general. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that among good chess players there would also be more people than average that are good at mathematics, spatial visualisation, music and arts, programming etc.

(Speaking metaphorically: A rooster makes cock-a-doodle-doo, because the sun goes up. It's not the other way around: The sun doesn't rise because of the rooster.)

Developing, for instance, a good memory for chess games and long variations doesn’t automatically grant a good memory for reciting poetry or repeating the dance steps in a choreography or the memory necessary to keep one’s focus through deciphering a particularly difficult classical Greek text. Nor does it make you good at drawing portraits (which is for a very substantial part about having a good short term visual memory).

There *might* be some soft form of synenergy in that playing chess increases brain activity, brain metabolism etc. which conceivably *might* have a positive effect on other mental activities. That, though, would also go the other way around.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The folks at Lumosity.com got into trouble by claiming that expertise in their brain games would translate to expertise in other related brain experiences. That said, I feel that my experience with chess has helped me understand some core life principles that may or may not be related to general intelligence.

```
Life lesson 1: arrogance gives birth to mistakes
Life lesson 2: impulsiveness is your enemy
Life lesson 3: the more you work at chess (or anything) the better you'll become at that same thing
Life lesson 4: chess can help with your relationship with your son or daughter
Life lesson 5: streaks of success and failure are certain and often turn without warning
Life lesson 6: sleep is directly related to intellectual performance (chess or otherwise)
Life lesson 7: mood, distractions, and overall health are factors to be considered
Life lesson 8: you must take risks in order to make significant gains
Life lesson 9: good sportsmanship is more important than victory
Life lesson 10: nearly everyone is beatable and nearly everyone could beat you on a given day

```

So, again, I am not sure that chess intelligence translates to overall intelligence, but some intelligent lessons can be gained from the pursuit of getting better at chess. Try chess.com, chessgames.com and chessclub.com to learn these life lessons and more all the while improving your game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Indeed Chess promotes several skills in you:

1. Memory, and especially photographical memory. Getting used to calculate and move the pieces several moves ahead can really give your head a boost!
2. Creativity, yes the Tactical thinking in chess, finding combinations and showing your art on the board will make you more creative.
3. Strategical thinking, Chess is a lot relying on strategy and this one helps you to take decisions accurately in your life and organize your daily tasks, and eventually being a really successful person.

And let's not forget that being good at chess will give a quiet great impression to people towards you, you will be that intelligent logical great minded person in their eyes ;)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess is game between two Intellectuals, two Wills & two Egos. ~~ Garry Kasparov.

Now when you ask that Chess improves your intelligence ??

This answers is just the two sides of the Coin.

A direct answer is Chess does not increase your IQ . If you are hoping that Chess would increase your Intelligence Quotient then please note that there is no such Theory or evidence.

but

Chess helps you to think objectively , make quick decisions and helps you in strategic thinking . As Chess is Gymnasium of the mind it constantly allows the exercise of your Brain Cells and does not make your Brain grow old with time . As Intelligence is not directly proportional to just the IQ level but with other factors associated with it like knowledge, awareness , experience so with that said Chess improves your intelligence .

# Answer
> 0 votes
I doubt chess is better for your brain than other intellectual exercises. The brain is like a muscle, the more exercise it gets, the stronger it gets.

So if the comparison is between chess and watching TV, yes, chess is better for your brain. But if the comparison is between chess and solving crosswords or logic puzzles, I think you're doing well, either way.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Chess does not have that much of a direct correlation to IQ. There should be no formula.

Expert Chess Players Are Smart?

# Answer
> -2 votes
There has been some research. However, the quality of that research is considered exploratory and descriptive so no firm conclusions can be made. It does seem to help with academic achievement

---
Tags: beginner, iq
---


title: How quickly must a move be completed?

text:
# Question
Title: How quickly must a move be completed?
I was playing in a tournament once, during a sequence of captures, my opponent could recapture my Knight about 4 different ways. He just removed it and carried on thinking.

What should I have done?

# Answer
The mere act of touching one of your pieces obligates your opponent to capture it (if legally permitted) on his current move (at least according to USCF standards), unless he explicitly declares his intent to adjust the piece beforehand. Assuming the clock continued running on your opponent's time and he did eventually choose how to capture the knight, I suspect that what he did would be considered legal (though somewhat unorthodox). However, if he didn't end up properly capturing the piece after touching it and before punching his clock, you would've unquestionably been justified in complaining to the official arbiter.
> 24 votes

# Answer
If you are playing with clocks and he sticks to the rules then it is fine. So if he takes the knight off the board and can capture it then the rules oblige him to do it. The move is finished when the capturing piece is placed on the square and the clock is pressed.

It is a bad habit though. Normally, you shouldn't touch any piece on the board until you have decided which move you want to make. If he removes the knight first, he is obliged to take it. Thinking about it afterwards could lead to the conclusion that taking the knight is not the best move after all, but it is already too late.

Another bad habit is the "eagle claw". The players is about to move, but continues thinking while his hand hovers over the board, sometimes for minutes.

Best thing is, think about your move, make a decision, write it on your score sheet and make the move without interruption.
> 10 votes

# Answer
According to the rules it is allowed to first remove the opponent's piece and then move your own piece to that square and then press the clock. Ideally, placing your own piece should be done directly after removing the opponent's piece. It is a bit strange to first remove the opponent piece and then sink down in deep thought. This is not considered as good manners. Yet the rules do not seem to prohibit this method of capturing.

If this happens to you again, you can consider calling the arbiter and say that this type of capturing is disturbing. It is not allowed to do things that disturb your opponent during play (talk, each chips and spill some of them on the board, make funny faces, click a million times with your pen, etc.). The other option is to ignore this and focus on your own game.
> 5 votes

# Answer
There is no time limit (except for the over all limit) on any *one* move. If you have two hours to make X moves, you can take one hour and fifty nine minutes to make one move, and use the last minute to make X-1 moves.

If you touch one of your pieces, you must move it. If you touch one of your opponent's pieces, you must capture it. (In both cases, it must be legal for you to do so). If you have multiple possible moves or captures, you can take as much time as you want to think about it, subject to the time constraints above.

But it is "unprofessional" to start a move and take a long time to finish it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Depends upon how big a fuss you want to make over it. I’m less sure than some others here that it’s legal; there’s enough grey area around it to have grounds for a complaint, though not enough to be sure you’ll win the ruling.

It flows from the fact the rules specifically state captures are made by moving a piece unto a square occupied by another, and then immediately removing the captured piece from play (7C USCF, Section 4, I think, FIDE).

Your opponent clearly is not simply touching the piece, he is removing it from the board. As such, he is performing the actions out of order. That can be the first part of your complaint.

Under USCF rule 20G, players are prohibited from conduct that annoys their opponent. TDs/Arbiters have discretion as to what can be considered annoying, but pairing the out-of-order factor above with the fact you find it quite disconcerting to be staring at an empty hole where your piece was could carry it through.

For added weight, you might add the claim that your opponent’s early removal of your piece constitutes an illegal aid to his analysis, since he is, in effect, using a physical view of the chessboard that does not reflect the current position while thinking about his move.

I’m not going to claim those three points taken together will guarantee the Director/Arbiter will side with you, some will and some won’t, but if you find the behavior annoying enough, it might be worth a try next time.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, etiquette, best-practice, captures, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Who is best attacking player all the time?
Who is the best-attacking player all the time? Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen or Mikhail Tal?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There's nothing like the *"best attacking player of all time"*, as there has never been a competition to prove that fact or find the winner. What is best to you might not be best to another person. It is more of a personal taste than anything else. For example Albin Planinc played some very aggressive games that portrayed some kind of artistry and beauty but it is hard to say that his games were among the *"best"* or he is the *"best attacking player"*.

---
Tags: attack
---


# Question
Title: Chess development strategy for U16 players with the aim of producing future masters on a national scale
I have a vision of producing future chess stars in a country and I am looking for tips and advice on how to go about it. What would be the *best* approach or programme to adopt in achieving this dream by working with under 16 players (4 - 16 year olds). I would be interested in areas of study, approach strategies, and any other information that might be vital to chess development on a national scale.

# Answer
I'm not sure there's one best way. The best way depends on the country: current chess level, number of chess players, the country's economy, etc.

That said, assuming we're talking your country specifically i.e. Botswana, or more generally a developing country where chess isn't very widespread, the first thing I'd look into is the funding provided by FIDE's Planning and Development Comission (PDC). As of 2019 they offer up to 20,000 USD that can be used for purchasing chess equipment, organizing tournaments, etc.

In fact, as you can see on PDC's website, Botswana's funding request for 2019 has been approved. So you should check with your national federation and see how they plan to use the money.

Now if we're talking about a hypothetical situation where you can decide how the money would be used (e.g. for 2020), I'd suggest:

1. allocate a small part (say 20%) of the funding to improve the situation for existing players (including adults): purchase chess sets, organize free or cheap tournaments, organizer an arbiter seminar, organize classes for intermediate/advanced players, or even provide coaching to players likely to play in the Olympiad. Note I'm not suggesting you do *all* of these, as $4000 isn't that much, just what you need the most.
2. allocate the bulk of it (say 80%) to the long term vision: for example, train chess instructors -- think Developmental Instructors in FIDE parlance, that is, people who can teach the rules and the basic of chess to beginners, not FIDE Senior Trainers -- and then provide cheap or free classes to children on weekends or after school.

Ideally you would institute chess classes in schools across the country (like in Armenia), but of course that's very hard to pull off. Still, you can use the Armenian case as an example. You want to convince parents and school teachers that spending time on chess is beneficial for kids, that it's associated with good outcomes. Example article.

You want to focus on elementary school children. It may sound harsh, but if your goal is to produce masters, starting at high school is a bit late.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, training
---


# Question
Title: What are these chess.com figures from my English Opening game?
I am asking something that chess.com shows about the English Opening, based on a game that I recently played on chess.com

Chess.com showed the following figures:

`1.c4 e5` .. `2.g4 e4 9.6 5.8`

-`White: 9.6` -`Black: 5.8`

What are these figures? It comes with `Gantt Chart`

As previously mentioned, these numbers are from the chess.com website, specifically from the "15|10" gamemode that I played in.

These figures seem to be common for all chess games. I think that it pertains to Chess Mega Base and Chess Analytics, which was already done, and clearly counted to some number. What is this rational number about.?

# Answer
I believe you mean this (correct me if wrong):

This refers to time in seconds that it took to complete a move. So in this case (my game), it took White 2.5 seconds to make a move, and 0.9 seconds for Black to respond. Then it took 19.7 seconds for White to make a move, and 1 second for Black to respond.

In your case, it took White 9.6 seconds to make a move, and Black 5.8 seconds to respond.
> 7 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why is Russia no longer dominating the world chess championships?
USSR (Russia) used to dominate world chess but that dominance seems to have faded away; with the Russians losing both the World Chess Championships and the Olympiad. What is it that the Russians are not doing right that the USSR used to do, and/or what is it that the other countries did to catch up and surpass?

# Answer
Russia never dominated the world chess championships. The USSR did. Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are two very different things.

The USSR consisted of -

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussia
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kirghizia
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldavia
Russia
Tajikistan
Turkmenia
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

Today these are 15 separate federations.

It is also instructive to look at where world champions have been born after 1948 and what their nationalities would be based on birth in today's world.

Mikhail Botvinnik (1948-57, 1958-60, 1961-63) born Kuokkala, Finland
Vasily Smyslov (1957-58) born Moscow, Russia
Mikhail Tal (1960-61) born Riga, Latvia
Tigran Petrosian (1963-69) born Tbilisi, Georgia
Boris Spassky (1969-72) born Leningrad, Russia
Bobby Fischer (1972-75) born Chicago, USA
Anatoly Karpov (1975-85) born Zlatoust, Russia
Garry Kasparov (1985-2000) born Baku, Azerbaijan
Vladimir Kramnik (2000-2007) born Tuapse, Krasnodar Krai, Russia
Anand Vishwanathan (2007-13) born Mayiladuthurai, India
Magnus Carlsen (2013-) born Tønsberg, Norway

So during the post war Soviet period the title was held by 3 Russian born players for a total of 14 years and by players from Finland (14 years), Georgia (6 years), Azerbaijan (4 years), USA 3 years and Latvia (1 year).

In the post Soviet period Russian born players have held the world championship for 7 years compared to Azerbaijan (11 years), India (6years) and Norway (6 years).

> What is it that the Russians are not doing right that the USSR used to do?

Nothing. What the USSR did was to keep 15 nations trapped in a large communist prison, not allowing them to leave. This was not "right" it was evil. When the USSR collapsed and the prison walls pulled down (literally in the case of the Berlin Wall) the people who had been trapped were free to go to other countries to enjoy the benefits of living in democratic countries which respect human rights.

Top Soviet players ended up in countries like the USA, Israel, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. The list goes on. This obviously strengthened the chess in these countries and weakened the countries which were formerly part of the USSR.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The Soviet Union used to dominate chess because it had state-sponsored schools that provided high-quality trainers. After the Soviet Union broke up, funding dried up, and many of these trainers emigrated. Naturally the competitors caught up.

Vladimir Kramnik discusses some of this in an interview he gave with chess.com.

> **Chess.com: Much has been written about the legendary Soviet chess schools. You attended the Botvinnik school in the 1980s. What was it like?**
>
> **Vladimir Kramnik**: People always have a bit of an exaggerated picture of the Soviet chess schools, this idea that there were these concentration camps for kids, working 25 hours a day on chess. No, it was just a two-week session, held twice a year, and even during these two weeks, it was not so terribly intense.
>
> The main asset of the Soviet chess school was actually the high standard of trainers throughout the country. In a world without internet and little exchange of information, this knowledge was hidden away behind the iron curtain. The reason the balance of power started to change after the iron curtain came down was because many of these Russian trainers emigrated, allowing western players and Chinese players to learn from them and get closer to the Russians.
>
> **You were 14 when the cold war ended and the Soviet Union began to collapse. How did that affect you?**
>
> Of course there were some issues, but I was just a kid at the time, so it didn’t make that big an impact on me. I think it was a much more difficult time for the older generations. For me, there were plusses and minuses. The plusses were that I could finally start going abroad to play tournaments, of my own will. The minuses were that all the state support for chess started to disappear.
>
> The years 1990-1992 were a very difficult time financially in Russia, and many talented players of my generation didn’t manage to improve quickly enough. They ran out of money for trainers, and they ended up stuck at the same level. I was quite lucky in that I benefited from the state support of young talents when I was small, and then I reached the top of the game very quickly. But initially, money was not always easy.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: learning, tournament, training
---


title: Is high IQ necessary to become a GM?

text:
# Question
Title: Is high IQ necessary to become a GM?
There is an option in the Swiss Manager pairing program which allows you to download into the program the current list of FIDE registered players (for many individual federations also). Once it is done it gives you a count of the number of players. I just did this and it told me 897,324 players had been found.

The FIDE rating website has an advanced search function. I just used this to search for all GMs. It also gave me the count - 1680.

This means that 100 x 1680 / 897,324 = 0.187% of FIDE registered players are GMs.

Are these GMs also intelligent in the same proportion? So, are they in the top 0.2% of the population for intelligence also? Or are there some GMs who, as we say in England, are "as thick as mince"? (Failed to graduate high school might be one indicator) Have there been any World Champions who have been "as thick as mince"? (Bobby Fischer, I'm looking at you!)

Is there any research which has examined IQ and chess playing ability?

# Answer
The most comprehensive and recent publication I've found related to this question is The relationship between cognitive ability and chess skill: A comprehensive meta-analysis. It's behind a paywall, but you may be able to find copies of the PDF by googling the title. Also here's a less technical overview of the article from ScienceDaily.

The bottom line is that according to a meta-analysis of numerous studies, there is clearly a correlation between chess skill and cognitive ability, but cognitive ability explains only about 6% of the variance in chess skill (12% if you only consider numerical ability only). There must be other factors as well (e.g., training), some of which could be more important than cognitive ability.

An interesting observation was that intelligence plays a bigger role among lower-level players; here's a relevant quote from the ScienceDaily article.

> The study found that intelligence was linked to chess skill for the overall sample, but particularly among young chess players and those at lower levels of skill. This may be because the upper-level players represent a winnowed distribution of cognitive ability -- in other words, they all tend to be fairly bright. (By way of comparison, Burgoyne said, consider the world's best basketball players. Although there is essentially no correlation between height and points scored at that level, that doesn't mean height isn't important in basketball.)

I don't have an answer specifically regarding the IQ of GMs or world champions, but this page has an interesting, if unsourced, factoid:

> International team of psychologists have attempted to measure IQ score of Garry Kasparov and after many tedious tests has concluded Kasparov’s IQ to be 135, making him fall into ‘moderately gifted’ category.

(I later found the same claim in other websites, some of which say that the testing was organized by Der Spiegel in the 1980s.)

If this is true, it would mean Kasparov is perhaps in the top 1% in terms of IQ, which is certainly not bad, but seems almost nothing compared to the percentile he occupies in terms of chess skill (top 0.0001% or whatever, depending on how you define "chess player").
> 8 votes

# Answer
The closest I've come to finding an answer is this research paper - Does chess need intelligence? - A study with young chess players from 2006.

Unfortunately you need a login to see the full paper, but the abstract is provocative:

> The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC 111), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. **When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill.** This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample.

which is a bit of a blow to those of us who think that our chess playing ability is a reflection of our high IQ :-). Perhaps the low numbers mean the results aren't significant?
> 3 votes

# Answer
Some IQ is needed to understand the rules, it is necessary but not sufficient. Chess benefits from specific skills like memory and pattern recognition, but the bar for intelligence is lower than what people may think. Also, voted to close.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, iq
---


# Question
Title: What does Kasparov mean by "I was behind in three and even in one after six games"?
This not a question about chess exactly but I'm reading *Deep Thought* by Kasparov and I didn't understand what he meant by "I was behind in three and even in one after six games" when he was describing his matches with Karpov.

> In my five world championship matches against Karpov, I was ahead after six games in only one, our last match in 1990. In the other four **I was behind in three and even in one after six games**, but didn’t lose any of them in the end, winning two and drawing one. (Our first match was terminated after I came back from 0–5 to 3–5.)

Does this mean that he was three games behind in the first six in one match and one game behind in the other?

# Answer
He is talking about the score after the sixth game of each of his matches with Karpov. To be precise, these were the scores after game six (shown as Kasparov-Karpov, not counting draws, to follow the same convention as the quote from the book):

```
1984: 0-2
1985: 1-2
1986: 1-1
1987: 1-2
1990: 1-0

```

As you can see, Kasparov was behind after the sixth game in three matches: 1984, 1985, and 1987. The score was even in one: 1986. Put both facts together and you have "behind in three and even in one". And indeed in only one match, 1990, Kasparov was ahead after the sixth game.
> 18 votes

# Answer
I believe he means that in one of his matches, he was ahead after the first six games had been played. In one of them, after six games were played the score was tied. In the remaining three, he was behind after the first six games.
> 7 votes

# Answer
He just means he was behind in four of the matches, and after just 6 games for one of them. He is not trying to compare the result after 6 games for all matches.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: kasparov
---


# Question
Title: Can a player capture en passant two times in a row?
Suppose that there are only two pawns that White can use to put the Black king in check that are on the board. But in both cases, the pawns need to move past Black pawns, risking en passant capture to both pawns.

So, my question is this: Can an opponent capture en passant twice in a row, when two different sets of pawns are in play?

# Answer
> 21 votes
Yes, given that the opponent helps the capturing side, it is possible to capture en passant two times or more in a row

Here is a famous example from a real game. The score came from chessgames.com You can find more such games here on Chess Stack Exchange.

```
[Title "Sergey Gennadyevich Kudrin-Rudy C Douven, GMA Baleares op, Palma de Mallorca Spain, 1989"]
[startply "59"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5  Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qc7 13. O-O-O Ngf6 14. Ne4  O-O-O 15. g3 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 Nf6 17. Qe2 Bd6 18. Ne5 c5 19. Rh4 Bxe5 20. dxe5 Nd7  21. Rg4 Rhg8 22. Re1 Qc6 23. Qe4 Nb8 24. Rf4 Rd7 25. Qh7 Rgd8 26. Ba5 b6 27. Bc3  Qd5 28. b3 b5 29. Kb1 b4 30. Bb2 f5 31. exf6 g5 32. hxg6 Rxh7 33. gxh7 e5 34. Rxe5 Qf7 35. Re7 Qf8 36. f7 Qxe7 37. f8=Q Rxf8 38. Rxf8+ Qxf8 39. h8=Q Qxh8 40. Bxh8 h5 41. Kc1 Kd7 42. Kd2 Ke6 43. Ke3 Kf5 44. f3 Nd7 45. Kd3 Nb6 46. Bg7 a5 47. Bf8 Nd7 48. Bd6 Ke6 49. Bc7 Kd5 50. c4+ bxc3 51. Kxc3

```

For an extreme showcase, here is a chess problem that features **7 en passant captures in a row**! My source for it is Yet Another Chess Problem Database.

```
[Title "Milan Velimirovic, Novi Temi 1979, 1st Prize, Mate In 10"]
[FEN "r7/pppppppN/8/1PPPPPPP/1n5k/R5N1/3n2K1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Ra4! a5 2. bxa6 b5 3. cxb6 c5 4. dxc6 d5 5. exd6 e5 6. fxe6 f5 7. gxf6 g5 8. hxg6 Ne4 9. Rxb4 Kg4 10. Rxe4#

```

---
Tags: rules, en-passant, captures
---


# Question
Title: Which online chess websites allow you to download their games?
I am looking for a list chess websites which allow you to download large numbers of previously played chess games. Currently I have found that lichess allows you to do so.

Are there any other sites?

I do not care whether the game were played by humans or bots, professional or amateurs, time control or anything else.

# Answer
Chess-db allows you to search their database for a player and download all their games. For instance, if you search for Magnus Carlsen you get to his Chess-db profile page where there is a link which allows you to download all his games in their database. This is very useful for finding and studying the games of famous players or just for finding the games of an opponent so you can try and prepare against them.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, database, websites
---


# Question
Title: Which openings give a winning pawn-structure in the endgame?
For example in the Exchange Variation of the Spanish `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6`, White gives Black the Bishop pair, but gains a potentially winning pawns-only endgame. Are there other situations where a player may ruin an opponent's pawn-structure thus gaining a (potentially) decisive endgame advantage?

On the other hand, are there openings in which a player may decide to sacrifice his pawn structure in order to get other kind of advantages?

I'm not looking for 'bad' pawn-structures, I'm looking for those which are winning/losing according to theory, if we remove all pieces from the board except the Kings.

# Answer
Here's a somewhat cheap answer: the Nimzowitsch Variation of the Caro-Kann Defense, given by `1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ exf6`. In the resulting position,

if we were to remove all the pieces and leave a pure king-and-pawns endgame, then White would have a winning advantage, because he has a healthy pawn majority on the queenside which can create a passer, while the doubled pawns of Black's kingside majority make it so that White can prevent her from creating a passer. So this is an accurate answer to your question. The only reason I call it "cheap" is because the pawn structure here is just a mirror-image of the Ruy Lopez Exchange structure your question already mentions, but I guess that doesn't make it any less of an example.

I think one reason your question hasn't gotten any answers until now, though, is that for the resulting pawn endgame to really be a winning one structurally, it seems you need this feature that one side can forcibly make a passer while the other side can't, and that means having a workable majority for one side and a "broken" one for the other. That basically requires there to be (1) some doubled pawns for one player, and (2) two distinct sides of the board, in terms of the pawn islands remaining. (E.g. if the white e-pawn and black d-pawn hadn't been exchanged in my example, then the pawn endgame wouldn't yet be a winning one.) And there's actually not so many (truly distinct) ways for that to happen, at least not in realistic ways.

Another common sort of opening that would at least feature a very favorable pawn endgame for one side is those in which one side has an isolated queen pawn. The side that has the isolani could find his king being so tied down to its defense that the other side can force a win. But this won't always be the case, so I wouldn't give that as an answer in and of itself. If you want to find some further openings that at least get part of the way toward what you're after, ones with an isolated queen pawn would be a promising place to look.

All in all, for the reasons I've spelled out, I'm not too optimistic that you'll find all that many (essentially different) examples of what you're after, but I hope this helps.

---

That said, there is an entire class of openings that provide truly cheap answers to your question: gambit openings. Since these would feature pawn endgames with a pawn deficit (at least), these will generally be lost for the gambiteer's side. I sure wouldn't want the pawn endgame from the Danish Gambit line `1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2`, for instance :)
> 7 votes

# Answer
Although not exactly the Exchange Variation, the Berlin Wall (also arising from the Spanish and sharing many features with the Exchange Variation) is a very common opening nowadays on top GM games:

```
[Title "The Berlin Wall"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8 Kxd8.

```

Despite being technically an endgame and the white pawn majority on the kingside being more or less mobile (thus awarding him a theoretically tangible advantage), this is a modern tabiya of chess.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Generally, openings that result in compact connected pawn structures are known to result in good positions when pieces are traded but can be cramped and too defensive if pieces are not traded.

For e4, Classical Caro-Kann and French, Black gets the better ending if he survives the Middlegame.

For d4, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Maroczy bind structures usually favor Black in the endgame.

Some Colle and Slav positions give you the queenside pawn majority which can be winning in K + P endgames.
> 2 votes

# Answer
One more to think about is the Colle System. It’s not as obvious, but during the transition to the Middlegame it often transpires that Black trades the c&d pawns for White’s d&e pawns. That leaves White with a Q-side majority. While having a majority on the side away from the kings is not, in itself a winning advantage, not completely winning, if White can follow with centralizing the king and using the f-pawn to restrain Black’s e-pawn, it’s enough to win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There have already been good answers and examples, so I will just a few more without too much expalantion (see Pablo S. Ocal's response for it) I would like to add, though, that pawn endgames are mainly about the king, so we can't just say that a given pawn structure always loses if we remove all pieces from the board

Both the Caro-Kann defence and the Queen's Gambit often reach central isolated pawn structures. The player with the isolated pawn is often accepting a slightly worse pawn structure (and the d5-square) in exchange for space (mainly the e5-square) and piece activity. Most endgames favour the opponent, although not all endgames are necesarelly lost.

Similarly, lines like the Semi-Tarrasch (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 c5, followed by an evetual ...cxd4) leave Black with a queenside majority, that can decide a pawn endgame by creating a distant past pawn. A similar example appears in the Grünfeld after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5

Finally, in many lines in the King's indian defence, Black is left with a weakness on d6 that does not lose most pawn endgames due to the closed character of the position, but can the a target in other types of endgmaes.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, endgame, pawn-structure
---