# Question
Title: How to minimise your opponent's fun in a game?
I play numerous online chess games and in this question I am self-centred: I play for two purposes:

1. to win the game, or when winning is unlikely, to draw the game.
2. to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games.

I do not care about my opponents' fun. I do not care if they feel frustrated or bored. However, I will remain polite and I am against bad sportsmanship.

Here is my logic: when my opponent finds a game non-interesting, they will more likely make inferior or aimless moves, or even blunders, and thus increase my chance of winning.

A few thoughts:

1. When the opponent invites me into a sharp line, decline it. Make moves to solidify my position instead. Decline most gambits.
2. Choose boring openings whenever possible.
3. Choose openings that my opponent does not like, if I know their preferences.

Is the idea of destroying your opponent's fun good? Are there any other strategies to bore my opponent so that hopefully they will lose their patience and start making inferior/aimless moves?

# Answer
> I play for two purposes:
>
> 1. to win the game, or when winning is unlikely, to draw the game.
> 2. to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games.

These are good goals, although you might want to add "to have fun" because if you don't have fun you are quickly going to lose motivation.

> I do not care about my opponents' fun.

Also good, because if you care too much about your opponents' fun you will end up losing focus and not follow your two stated primary goals.

> Is the idea of destroying your opponent's fun good?

No, it is counterproductive. If you start focusing on how much fun your opponent may or may not be having then this can only distract you and detract from your game. If, for the purposes of this question you are going to be truly self-centered then you cannot let your opponents' feelings, good or bad, enter into your considerations. It can only lead to bad play on your behalf. Concentrate on making the best moves.
> 25 votes

# Answer
Chess is a zero sum game, so your opponent's disadvantage is your advantage. Therefore, if you are serious and can find any (sportsmanlike) way to make them dislike the game, you should clearly take it.

Your first two points (declining sharp lines and choosing boring openings) are fine, as long as you won't be more bored than your opponent is. If you prefer positional systems then this will work well, but keep in mind that your opponent has a similar mindset. They will try to get you into sharp lines that you dislike. The struggle here is to see who gets their way, and often the choice of opening and be helpful in dictating the play.

The third point should absolutely be followed, if you're capable of playing different openings. In preparation for world championship matches, the contenders spend months going through their opponent's games, looking for weaknesses. If they find that one opening is particularly difficult, they will choose it.

To be clear though, you should mainly be focused on making objectively sound moves. If there is an opportunity to minimize your opponent's fun, with little to no cost for you, then take it. But don't go into a bad system just because you know your opponent won't like the arising positions.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Most definitely (as in any sport) it is a good idea to play to your strenghts and to your opponent's weaknesses.

This requires:

* that you have the time, data and ability to analyze your opponent's games
* the ability to be able to play all kinds of styles.

Both of these are just about impossible for beginners though. But as you advance you should consider this as an additional option. Mastering this is reserved to some of the best players and even among those, many players do have a certain style.

I would not go so far as to chose *boring openings* consistently. What if your opponent likes boring games as well? Being flexible is a good idea in chess.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I recommend reading Jonathan Rowson's excellent *Chess for Zebras*, which analyses chess psychology in quite some detail.

One core observation is that humans do inevitably think in stories to make sense of the world around them, and chess is no exception to that. It's actually not easy for the human brain to take a fresh look at each new position (after each move) while completely discarding everything that happened before.

To some extent, the chess community shares common stories ("folk stories") that will shape the expectations about the ongoing game. For example, the Sicilian defense is linked with the idea of counterattacking and a bloody battle, and many players precisely pick it up because of that reputation. Many of these then don't like to play against the "Anti-Sicilians" not because they would be more threatening than the Open variations, but simply because they lead the story in a completely different ("boring") direction that is less fun to them. By picking such a variation, you may not play the objectively best line, but you can certainly irritate your opponent. Conversely, defenses like the Caro-Kann or Scandinavian are typically picked by players who want a quieter game and won't like if you play more aggressive lines, the French is associated with locked pawn chains, and so on. Of course, it's not wise to go as far as to knowingly play completely unsound lines though. Some less fun for your opponent usually won't make up for hard material (then again, many gambits bank on that in addition to their "objective" compensation).

The book also discusses the question of whether Black "equalizing" should actually be considered as "=" or "=+". The reasoning for the latter is that while the position will still be a draw with perfect play, it's now more "fun" for Black (who "succeeded" in the first-move advantage story that tells him that he has to fight for equality) than for White (who "failed" in the story that he has to push for the win) and this alone will slightly increase Black's winning chances by the same logic as asked in the question (White will be a bit more likely to "overdraw" and thus make mistakes).
> 8 votes

# Answer
I'll leave the technical details to people who have played more chess more recently than I have, but I respectfully submit that your intent is counterproductive to your stated goal of

> to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games.

With chess, as with *any* competitive game, sport or skill, at the higher levels the best way to improve is to challenge yourself against as many different opponents as possible.

If word gets around -- as it will -- that playing against you is slightly less interesting and engaging than watching paint dry while listening to Mr. Roboto read Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged, people will start declining to play against you.

Worst case, you might wind up winning a tournament only to be politely but firmly disinvited from coming back next year.

On the other hand, if they find that playing with you is an interesting challenge, then win or lose they'll gladly do it again next year, and you'll be able to find out what they learned in the meantime. I personally would think that benefit is worth the low, low price of not being a tedious jerk just to win by default.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Something tangible - all things equal, if a piece is pinned or trapped, delaying the capture as long as possible can be a very small psychological advantage.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are a lot of issues raised here and I'm going to take them in a different order than presented:

> Is the idea of destroying your opponent's fun good?

Not in my opinion. From the perspective of winning the game, you seem to believe that denying them fun will lead your opponent to blunder. It may against some players. However, "battle-hardened veterans" will have seen players who use strategies like this and are likely to just play on with no ill effect. For some folks it is the winning that is fun. So if they beat you it doesn't matter what you did during the game; the only way to deny them their fun is to defeat them. Other people have fun just playing, so there may not be an approach you can take that will deny their fun. Thus I don't think this is a dependable method for winning.

Additionally, I will relate a story from my childhood. While I learned the game from friends at school, after a while I could no longer play there. As my family lived "out in the middle of nowhere", I had no one else to play (this was long before ubiquitous internet access) except two step siblings. They were the sort who couldn't enjoy a competition if they didn't win, but I quickly advanced past their skill level and defeated them every time we played. Thus I quickly found myself with no opponents. Unfortunately, this lasted for several years. So, making the game a miserable experience for your opponents could lead to having no one else to play. Of course, if you are better than they are and they are the sort who only enjoys winning, there may not be much you can do, except to teach them to be a better player if they are amenable to that.

> I play for two purposes:
>
> 1.to win the game, or when winning is unlikely, to draw the game.
> 2. to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games.

Others have already pointed out that the second point is at odds with your proposed strategy of boring your opponents into blunders - you aren't improving your chess skills by taking advantage of opponents' blunders. Also, relying on mistakes by your opponents won't lead you to wins all the time, as you will encounter games in which the other player doesn't make (game changing) mistakes.

As for the actual title question about minimizing your opponent's fun ...

I realize you are primarily discussing on line play. I think that boring your opponent or making them unhappy in the game is harder when you don't even see your opponent, especially if it is someone with whom you are unfamiliar. If it's someone you have familiarity with, then you may be able to play openings they don't like or that are boring and avoid sharp lines. Furthermore, none of these are inherently wrong or necessarily going to induce boredom or displeasure. If you need a draw to win a prize, they are even quite understandable. What I really want to address under this topic is over the board play, where methods of denying can fun include:

* Sighing, cursing under your breath, and making other noises when you discover a mistake
* Similarly, saying "A-ha!", "Eureka!", "Gotcha!", etc. when something goes your way.
* "Smashing" the clock, especially if it is your opponent's and you do it particularly forcefully, making them think you might break it.
* Making your move and hitting the clock so fast that your opponent hasn't even had a chance to hit the clock themselves.
* Asking to see your opponent's notation sheet because you messed yours up. Double the annoyance if you do it on their turn/time on clock.
* Making all your physical movements as if you only have seconds on the clock, even if it is very early in the game or after thinking for quite a while.

As noted in comments, these actions could cause your opponent to register a complaint for distracting behavior that would lead to penalties.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You say your second goal is

> to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games.

Define "chess skills." Chess is a game which is not just played on a 64-square board. It's also played inside the opponent's head. To that end, getting good at identifying situations your opponent doesn't want to be in is indeed a "chess skill."

However, if the goal is to make them blunder because they're not having fun, you may find yourself in a quandry if you are in a game where your opponent doesn't feel obliged to have fun (such as a major championship). In such situations, if all you learned is how to make things un-fun for your opponent, you will find that your chess skills fail you in such a setting.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You shouldn’t focus that much in your opponent’s fun or boredom and rather focus on what's the best line depending on the position and other factors such as time. If you turn down a good but complicated line for a bored and worse line you will find it really hard to improve at chess. Enjoy the game, and get into trouble when needed. Don't be like Giri.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you are not suitably dressed, over-the-board opponents might be very distracted by your not thought out taste and poor grooming.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, psychology, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Are there any current studies on the physical effects of playing chess?
In the 50s Eliot Hearst printed the results of a study in "Chess Life and Review" (A private publication by I A Horowitz editor later merged into the USCF's monthly magazine, and later renamed "Chess Life") that showed the impact playing chess had on things like BP and heart rate.

Are there any more current studies that elaborate on those and extend the study to other ways chess affects humans?

Especially interested in more long term items as well as game time impacts that one could prepare for in advance.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I found a study from 2015 that seems to go into a lot of various aspects of chess and how it affects us physically.

"Biochemistry and Psychology of Chess and Classical Physical Exercise:Concurring or Conflicting Evidence?"

I am going to block-quote their "Abstract", which gives an overview, but you might want to read the full paper, which is only 10 pages long. It is fairly interesting.

> **Abstract**
>
> Chess is a competitive sport in the classical meaning of the word. One of the most important factors for chess and sport competence is the accumulated time of training. In order to obtain a high level of competence, chess layers and athletes alike must spend up 10 years of specific training.
>
> In chess and classical sport energy needed for brain activity is first derived from glycogen stores in brain, muscles and liver and later from adipose tissue. Both, chess and classical sport rely on shared energy from glycogen and fat.When the brain needs additional energy, muscles and liver share energy with the brain. When muscles need additional energy, brain complies with the request of muscles. Energy expenditure, O2 uptake and CO2 production during chess games are similar to those obtained during a marathon. Mental and physical fatigue begin with similar metabolic states: deprivation of glycogen. During competitive chess, athletes must be in good physical condition.
>
> Mental profiles of chess players and other athletes correlate with processes such as attention, conflict control,memory, motivation and recognition.
>
> In chess there exists no gender-specific excellence; glycogen availability, however, is less developed in female chess players.
>
> In chess and in classical sports, the brain, spinal cord, nerves and muscles cooperate in complete harmony. The brain commands everything: in chess the figures, in sport the cellular receptors (baro-, lactate-, gluco-, metabo-,chemo-, thermo-, respiratory-) “send” signals via eyes or metabolic changes to the brain. The brain then decides,what to do: in chess, the player moves a figure; in sports, muscles react according to demand.
>
> Physical exercise or chess must be defined by a motor activity completely controlled by the central nervous system (CNS) in combination with a specific competence. In chess as well as in physical exercise, physical stress prepares brain to cognitive stimulation.
>
> With respect to biochemical, physiological, neuronal and psychological aspects, chess is equals classical physical exercise and must be recognized as sport.

Here is another article, "7 Surprising Health Benefits of Playing Chess", that lists various benefits that can are certainly physically related, and cites the sources.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"Does chess improve our intelligence?" is about most commonly studied long term effect.

"Are certain foods or drinks better to consume than others when playing chess?" has suggestions for preparation.

Studies measuring physiology of people playing chess found the following. Effect usual depends on engagement. Theta power increases with time pressure Santos Villafaina 2019 and with concentration Fuentes-García Dec 2019. Theta power adapts to difficulty in successful players. Alpha increases with difficulty. Fuentes-García Jan 2019 HRV lowers with concentration Fuentes-García Dec 2019 / internal load J. P. Fuentes 2018, difficulty J. Fuentes-García Feb 2019 and hopelessness Schwarz, Alfons M. MD 2003.

"In addition, pre-activation was detected in pre-game measure, suggesting that the prefrontal cortex might be preparatory activated." J. P. Fuentes 2018

Heart rate fluctuates based on exciting events María J. Leone 2012 and increases during game. "These results suggest a stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system with no changes in the parasympathetic system." "The respiratory exchange ratio was rather elevated (over 0.89) at the start and significantly decreased during the game (0.75 at the end), indicating that energy expenditure progressively switched from carbohydrate to lipid oxidation." Troubat (2009)

---
Tags: studies-published-report
---


# Question
Title: From the start of the game what is the longest possible series of consecutive white moves where white can do those moves no matter what black does?
From the start of the game what is the longest possible series of consecutive white moves where white can do those moves no matter what black does?

So I want the longest list of moves white can do after starting the game no matter what moves black does. So what is the maximum number of moves he can plan ahead and be sure he will be able to do it?

# Answer
Three moves.

On move 3, Black can crash through with his queen on f2 or d2 via several different squares, forcing White to respond. There is no series of White moves that can prevent all such checks.

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 (1. e3 e5 2. c3 Qf6 3. g3 Qxf2+) 1... c6 (1... e5 2. c3 Qh4 3. e3 Qxf2+) 2. g3 Qa5 (2... Qb6 3. c3 Qxf2+) 3. e3 Qxd2+ *

```
> 19 votes

# Answer
The accepted answer gives the correct number, but is incomplete. It's true that Black can always force either 3. ... Q(x)d2+ or 3. ... Q(x)f2+. However, what if White could choose a fourth move that is valid even if such a check is made? The only possible options are 4. Kd1, 4. Kf1, 4. Kd2 or 4. Kf2. It turns out that Black can still prevent such sequences, but for various different reasons that don't necessarily involve one of these checks.

First, White needs three moves to prevent all the routes to Qf2+, and none of these can be bishop moves so 4. Kf1 is out. If White moves the f pawn and makes two other moves to block Qf2+ Black can always play Qxf3 or Qxf4, so 4. Kf2 is also out (White doesn't have time to play Nf3 here without allowing Qf2+). Note that, even if you consider 4. Kxf2 and 4. Kf2 to be the same move, White must block Qf2+ here because otherwise Black can just leave the queen attacking f2 to prevent Kf2.

So does White have a sequence ending 4. Kd1 or 4. Kd2? To do this, White must use two moves to prevent Qd2+. This means there is no time to get anything on c5, and so White can't avoid 1. ... e3, 2. ... Bb4, 3. ... Bc3, (where the bishop moves might be captures) which prevents 4. Kd2.

The only option remaining is 4. Kd1 and that requires two moves to prevent both routes to Qd2+, and one queen move to vacate d1. The non-queen moves need to be (b4 or c3 or Nc3) and (e3 or f4). However, f4 is not possible: Black can play 2. Qh4, which is either a check preventing White's intended third move or prevents 3. f4.

If White plays e3, Black's plan is to avoid 4. Kd1 by getting a bishop to the d1-h5 diagonal. If the White queen is on this diagonal after White's third move, Black can always capture with the bishop on move 3. If not, Bg4 is sufficient to prevent 4. Kd1, and White can't stop this while also stopping Qd2+ and moving the queen.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: problems, records
---


# Question
Title: The best move in this Crazyhouse position according to Stockfish
I just played my first few games of Crazyhouse, and I really don't understand it. At one point I had this position.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pbb2pp1/n1p1p2p/1p1nP3/2pPN3/P1P3P1/2BN1P1P/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 1 16"]

```

Black has no extra pieces, while I (White) have an extra pawn.

Stockfish 10+ on Lichess (depth 18), says I have an immense advantage of +11.2, it and recommends Nxc4, but I have no idea what general strategy is behind this move. I had instead chosen Qh5, which it does not even place in the top 3 moves but thinks is fine too after I make the move, and I know what I am doing with this move.

Upon playing out a few lines extending from Nxc4, I get the feeling that the chess engine may have been mistaken about its value. Is it unreliable for Crazyhouse, or is there some underlying strategy behind that move that I am not seeing?

# Answer
I can not exactly reproduce it on the lichess analysis board, but the move Nxc4 still seems to be among the top 3-4 moves with a similar evaluation as the top moves. The main idea in this position should be to undermine the dark squares f6, g7, h6 on the king side. Nxc4 aligns well with this idea, since it opens up the bishop's attack to h6 and gives an additional pawn in hand, so after a subsequent P@f6 white still has another pawn for the attack.

The Stockfish fork used on lichess is far above human level in crazyhouse, so usually its analysis should be quite reliable, although it of course also is not infallible and might miss moves/ideas or misevaluate resulting positions.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, evaluation, crazyhouse
---


# Question
Title: Tablebases say this position is drawn, but Stockfish disagrees-What does that mean?
Today I found myself in the below position as black (me to play). My gut told me it should be a draw, but as my opponent and I are both fairly weak there was a significant chance one of us would blunder, so I decided to play on just to see what would happen, and sure enough we ended up exchanging rooks and that was that

After the game, I checked this on tablebase and it's very clear that this is a drawn position. However, Lichess shows this position as -0.6 and chess.com shows it as -0.88 (I assume they use different versions of Stockfish). I'm having trouble understanding what Stockfish feels my advantage here is or what those numbers really mean. If it's a definite draw then I'd expect it to show +0.0.

Is it saying there are more ways for white to blunder than black, so that is more likely to happen? Is there some tactic or 'style' I could employ here that might increase my chances of inducing a mistake by my opponent? Am I overthinking this and should just offer a draw in this position?

```
[FEN "8/8/2r2k2/R4P2/4n3/1K6/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
If the tablebase says that it's a draw with optimal play from both sides, then you can always ignore whatever Stockfish or any other engine says. The tablebase knows the objective evaluation for any position with 7 pieces or less.

What Stockfish 11 (or any earlier version) does is calculate as far as it can ahead, evaluate the positions it reaches in its search, and then use those numbers to give an evaluation for the starting position (obviously a lot more is involved, but that's the basic idea). If Stockfish reaches a position where Black's still up a knight, it will usually give some evaluation in Black's favour due to how its evaluation function works. It has no way of knowing that it's certain K+R will draw against K+R+N, unless this knowledge was explicitly programmed into it. Stockfish will only say it is a draw once: it's calculated a forced repetition will happen, it sees that a K+R vs K+R is forced, or the game has reached the 50 move rule (or will imminently do so). Although if you were to hook up Stockfish with a tablebase (some people do this, such as serious correspondence players), Stockfish should always give the tablebase evaluation in positions with 7 pieces or less.

However, it's worthwhile noting that Stockfish NNUE (as well as Stockfish 12 I'd assume) gives an evaluation of equality, with the number somewhere around -0.13 for a K+R vs K+R+N endgame I set up, after not thinking for too long. In the position you have with the pawn, NNUE started giving a 0.00 evaluation once it reached around depth 20. This is probably because "it" had experience playing this K+R vs K+R+N endgame, and in all normal circumstances the result is a draw. So, NNUE's neural net evaluates this endgame appropriately as equal. Note that this is all without the use of a tablebase.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Tablebases will tell you the evaluation of a position with perfect play from both sides.

Stockfish will use rules it was programmed with to analyze a position and give you a numeric value (See https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-algorithm-behind-Stockfish-the-chess-engine for some of these rules or heuristics). But unless it can see a forced draw it will not give you a 0.0 evaluation.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Apart from the excellent technical answers given above: It depends on your interpretation whether stockfish disagrees with the tablebases. An evaluation of -0.88 is far from meaning that black is winning. It also doesn't imply that the position is a dead draw. It just means that black is for choice here. With playing on, you agreed to that while your "objective" evaluation of the position being drawn was also confirmed. So everything is fine, no contradiction.

Something similar regularly happens during professional commentary: A world class player simplifies a bad position into an endgame where he is material down, but he knows how to defend it. The engines claims he made a mistake since he lost material. But a closer look reveals that he found an efficient way to draw a difficult position.

For my part: I am often surprised how extreme engine evaluations have become nowadays. I played many games in which stockfish says I am up ~2.7. During the games I realized I was better, but it didn't felt like I am up a piece - which is what the evaluation suggests. So being up 0.88 in an unknown position might not be a big issue after all. It certainly doesn't mean your opponent ran out of chances. Older engines might give a mere 0.2 which most of us would interpret as "equal" or "unclear".
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, draw, tablebases
---


title: When is a fianchetto strategic to play?

text:
# Question
Title: When is a fianchetto strategic to play?
I know that some openings include fianchettoing the bishop. But sometimes, this isn't part of the opening, but I still need to decide whether to bring my bishop one rank forward (like Bg7) or to the other side of the board (like Bc4).

Someone told me that usually the fianchetto is useless if you push the center pawn closer to the fianchetto's bishop.

What should I look for to decide whether I should fianchetto or bring my bishop further up the board?

**Edit**

As an example, in the Sicilian as Black, I usually do `1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6`. At this point, I've already moved two pawns, so I am not going to do `e5`.

# Answer
> 9 votes
In a lot of cases you just rely on your intuition. With enough experience you can tell whether a fianchetto makes sense in setups like the Sicilian. But here are some tips for when to do it:

* If the long diagonal is open, since the bishop will not be blocked along it.
* If your opponent doesn't have a bishop on the same colour as the soon to be fianchettoed bishop. This will make it more difficult for your opponent to trade off your bishop. Note that if the bishop does get traded off, it's not a huge deal, but now there's a hole in front of your king.
* If the bishop has no responsibilities on its normal diagonal of development. E.g., in the Sicilian, if you've pushed ...d6 and then either ...e6 or ...e5, your bishop is often important in defending the d6-pawn. So fianchettoing it here usually isn't recommended. But if the e-pawn is left on e7 (like in the Dragon), there are no issues with the d6-pawn when you fianchetto.
* If it would take two moves to develop the bishop anyway along the normal development diagonal. I.e., if your e-pawn hasn't moved yet, you'll have to spend a tempo pushing it and then bringing out the bishop. This means that if you go for the fianchetto, at least it won't waste any extra time.

All of these guidelines can absolutely be broken though. They are just some things to factor into your decision -- each position should be treated on a case by case basis.

# Answer
> 3 votes
One additional point: While a fianchetto structure in front of your own king might seem quite massive at first glance, it's usually more vulnerable to a pawn storm. When your opponent's pawns reach h5 or f5 it is hard to avoid that lines are opened towards your king. That's why white is so often going for opposite side castling in the Dragon or the Pirc.

# Answer
> -2 votes
There is no general rule to follow.

It all depends on the exact position and how the game is going and what your strategy is for the middle game.

---
Tags: opening, learning, fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: Why didn't the Black rook capture the White bishop?
I am a total newbie in chess. I was playing with an *~intermidiate computer~* as White and made a pretty stupid mistake by playing Bf4. I waved the bishop goodbye, yet Black's rook did not capture it. Was there any good reason for the Black not to? The white pawns are moving downwards here. As far as I know, the pawn cannot move back to capture, so I reckon the bishop to have been 100% unprotected.

```
[FEN "8/4R3/8/4P1B1/6k1/PBP5/1P3r2/1KN5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bf4 Rf3

```

# Answer
When a "total newbie" achieves such an overwhelming position against a computer, it most probably means that the computer was forced to make a "sub-optimal" move from time to time - to give the player a chance to win the game. The problem is that the computer has no clue what is a "reasonable" mistake from a human point of view.

"Rxf4" might have been the best choice (not avoiding defeat eventually). But the computer decided not to make the best move, since the programmers told him to do so. In this particular case, this resulted in choosing the second(?) best move, which from our human perspective is absolutely incomprehensible.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Because the bishop is protected by the pawn -

```
[fen "5NK/2r3P/5PBP/8/1B1P/1k/3R/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. Bc5 Rxc5 2. dxc5

```

Not that it makes any difference. Black's position is hopeless.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: learning, endgame, online-chess, computer-chess, captures
---


# Question
Title: Why the initial rating of FIDE is calculated that strangely?
Let suppose an unrated player plays a FIDE rated swiss tournament where its opponent's ratings are e.g. 1300,2000,2100,2200,2300 and wins all of them, then his initial rating will be 2100 according to FIDE rating calculator and FIDE documentation confirms this:

```
If he scores more than 50%, then Ru = Ra + 20 for each half point scored over 50%

```

Here Ru is the (new) rating of the unrated player and Ra is the average rating of the rated opponents.

Clearly, this player performed much better than the calculated rating (any performance calculator admits that). And I believe many before me have seen such an issue and such a performance (or maybe slightly weaker than that) from an unrated player is not impossible since many just don't play rated games. I'm wondering what is the rationale behind this? Does it mean that FIDE wants players to play enough many games before they win any title? Or is there any other reason to not use performance for calculating the rating? Were there already some discussions about the initial rating calculation?

# Answer
I think FIDE doesn't want people to have excessively high initial ratings, as this may result in a player getting discouraged as they lose hundreds of rating points.

Performance ratings are *particularly* inaccurate when dealing someone wins all or most of their games, as compared to situations where someone is close to 50%. A performance calculator would take your scenario and give the guy a performance rating of maybe 2900-3100. But I don't think it's reasonable to look at those results and say that they're likely a world-champion level player.

I'll agree that in the scenario you proposed, a 2100 rating is far below what is deserved. If you drop the win against the 1300 player from that scenario and replace it with a *loss* to a 2400 player, the initial rating changes from 2100 to 2260 despite that performance being objectively worse. FIDE chose simplicity over accuracy in some ways; they use average opponent's rating without looking at the individual opponents when calculating initial ratings.

Also note that scoring 0/5 or getting an initial rating under 1000 will result in you simply not being rated. This has something of an inflationary effect on ratings, as a particularly *bad* first tournament may not be rated at all, while a particularly *good* first tournament will. Perhaps the limiting of how many points you can get from a good first tournament counteracts this.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> I'm wondering what is the rationale behind this?

The rationale is very simple. 5 games is far too few to get a realistic and accurate assessment of a player's strength. That is why a new player's K factor remains at 40 until either they have completed 30 rated games. Additionally it remains at 40 for all players under the age of 18 with ratings under 2300.

Here is the relevant section from the FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017:

> 8.56 K is the development coefficient.
> K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with at least 30 games.
> K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
> K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
> K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
> If the number of games (n) for a player on any list for a rating period multiplied by K (as defined above) exceeds 700, then K shall be the largest whole number such that K x n does not exceed 700.

A K factor of 40 allows for very rapid changes in rating. Hence the last clause above which seeks to limit the rating change in any one month to prevent see-sawing rating.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rating, history, fide
---


# Question
Title: Could a top ranked GM draw against Stockfish using drawish opening lines in classical chess?
We know that are many lines which White can choose which are very drawish at 2700+ level. Drawing is easy to a very good chess player such as Carlsen, who knows dozens of forced draw lines. When I say “drawish,” it means a very drawish opening like the Catalan or the Exchange Slav. I'm not even sure you can win as Black if your opponent just goes into the Catalan and try to trade all the dangerous pieces. The idea behind it is simply to pick a line where best play from the computer results in a position where the position is a simplified endgame OR a repetition.

Just over half of GM games end in draws. Why do chess players assume that Stockfish can easily beat Magnus Carlsen?

Do rating differences even matter in certain opening lines when the statistics tells us that openings (or positions) have very high draw rates?

# Answer
They can't. Engines are absurdly strong relative to humans these days, and Stockfish should be fully expected to beat top human GMs 10-0 without much trouble. In fact, they already have \- and that's in spite of Komodo being a few tens of elo weaker than Stockfish. Book lines with high draw rates don't matter: either the engine avoids it, or they play it and win anyway because when the human inevitably makes a mistake, the computer capitalizes.

Caveats:

* The engine needs to be properly configured. Stockfish comes with a "contempt" setting that needs to be turned up. This makes the program avoid quick draws.
* The other top engine right now, Leela, does not have a contempt setting. This means humans can indeed score draws against it (this was against AlphaZero, which is similar to Leela and probably weaker than the latest versions). However: humans still cannot beat Leela/AlphaZero.
* The engine needs to run on reasonably strong hardware. These days engines will beat humans even on modest hardware, but if you try very very modest hardware such that the engine only manages to search a few thousand positions per second, humans might still win.

**Edit**: for the strategy you suggested, this was what happened when GM Michael Adams tried it against Hydra in 2005. Link to game if you want to see the moves.

> Game four was another bitter pill for the human player. Adams, who had the white pieces, did everything he could to draw: exchange pieces to reduce material, simplifying in every way he could. By move 19 he had traded down to rooks and a bishop on either side; by move 27 each side had two rooks and five pawns; and at move 33 it was rook plus three pawns each. This one had to be a draw, but unfortunately the giant machine would have none of it and ground him down for a third victory in this match.

Hydra is, of course, very very inferior to the latest versions of Stockfish, and will probably lose a 100-game match by something approaching 0-100.
> 24 votes

---
Tags: engines, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Empirical question: Is a drawish opening line really a concern for an ambitious player?
While similar questions have been asked before and many comments were given, I couldn't find a thread dealing with my particular experiences. So:

Whenever I discuss openings with professional and even with semi-professional players the issue inevitably reaches the point where somebody says that he doesn't like a particular line because he would have no prospects of winning this position at all - meaning that it is equal and dull, too drawish etc.

This fear is not foreign to me but after all those years I concluded that it is hypothetical in nature. I played several thousand classical games but I cannot remember a single one that resulted in a draw exclusively due to both sides knowing a long main line. Very seldom did I reach a position after about twenty moves that a book's author evaluates to "=". And even in these rare cases, the rest of the game saw complications that granted winning chances to one side. Without checking it, I guess I had more decided games then draws in the Exchange French and the Exchange King's Indian.

Even on low GM-level I don't have the feeling that this is a common scenario. In the few cases I witnessed a GM game where both players were blitzing out their prep and agreed to a draw quickly, I never had the feeling that one of them was disappointed and doubted his opening choice, although this is different on world class level.

For some years now, I bring up this point again and again - this "empirical" objection to a concern understandable form an "analytical" perspective. But it never catches on. (Most surprisingly, a lot of people expressing this concern also show a tendency to make quick draws.) Recently I heard of a talented 9-year-old. His caregiver was concerned that he exclusively plays the Petroff against 1. e4. His supposedly weaker opponents learnt about this and prepared drawish lines against him. As it turned out, during that tournament he didn't draw a single game in the Petroff.

So to my eyes, this is an unjustified concern for players below, say 2500. Sure, you can loose half a point due to being out-prepared. But not in lines of which you know the details. But nonetheless every opening adviser seems to be proud to state that a certain position is full of life, although there is no objective advantage. I wonder whether I am misled by my subjective experiences. Is the scenario of a fully bloodless game more common than I am willing to grant? Is there anyone who is experiencing this regularly? And anyone who got so bored by this that he quit chess? And if not: Why is this concern so pervasive anyway? Might it be that weaker players mimic super-GMs, pretending we all share the same problems?

And if someone shares my feelings: What is the threshold above which this becomes a problem?

# Answer
You're right that drawing lines don't really affect people who are lower rated. However, your bar for 2500 isn't practical. Most people who are close to master rated (say 2100+, and even some lower rated) will have memorized some of the main drawing lines in their main weapons. That being said, there's a huge difference between playing openings that give you level positions but with a lot of play left in the position (such as the Petrov or the London), and playing openings that give you drawing lines (such as the forcing variations of the English attack Najdorf or Bg4 Panov-Botvinnik attack).

If it's easy and practical to memorize one or two main branches in a "drawing line" you can be sure: the higher-rated your opponent, the more likely they are to know these lines. If your opening simply gets you a roughly equal position, but there are enough pieces still on the board that you have something to actually play for, then that should be totally fine for most people up even to the highest levels of chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I don't see a "drawish" opening line as a concern. Every decisive game comes from a close to equal position, the starting position. Outplaying your opponent from an equal position to win is seen at all levels. My goal in opening is to get the kind of position I prefer to play. Some so called equal positions are easier to play for one side. The King's Indian Exchange is equal but easier to play as White. This we may call "objectively equal" but White has the better "practical chances"
> 3 votes

# Answer
I am currently a 2100 rated FIDE player, so my experience is limited, I've only played about 50 classical games and truthfully it's hard for me to find a variation in my repertoire which would fit your conundrum. But it's not impossible, I have analyzed and actually performed full theory games in the main lines of the King's Indian (Bayonet, and Panno specifically) and the Taimanov Sicilian where after you and your opponent play the 20-30 moves of theory you end up in a completely lifeless position with usually opposite coloured bishops and or pawns only one side of the board. Obviously I have been able to win some games in these positions, but the amount of technique and luck required was insane, and yes, sometimes I wish I had a coach who warned me in advance of the staleness of some line and suggested an objectively worse but more dynamic line instead.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Should be almost certainly fine at practically any level. As others have said, unless there's a repetition or perpetual check, there's still stuff to play for up to a fairly high level. Even then, the opponent very well may not know it
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, draw, preparation, coach
---


# Question
Title: Does playing chess with a real board help improvement more than play online?
I read somewhere that playing and making moves otb is better than online for improvement. Is this true?

# Answer
I play most (\>95%) of my games online, and when I play with a real board, I find a bit difficult to translate positions I already played and the visual pattern matching of tactical situations takes longer. Not to look at the board then, helps a bit.

So, I think, when you prepare for a board tournament, or something like this, preparing on a real board will help. When you only play online all the time, it doesn't matter.
> 2 votes

# Answer
They're pretty much the same thing once you get used to both, specially for long games. In Blitz, you'll be able to move a bit faster or slower depending on how much you've practiced and the difference could be critical.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, online, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is the theory if black goes 4 Nxc4 in evan's gambit?
Ive been learning the theory for this opening but cant find anything if black chooses this line.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You probably mean 4...Nxb4.

White will play 5.c3, and there is probably nothing better than 5...Nc6; so it boils down to being the same as 4...Bxb4 5.c3 **Bc5**.

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Nxb4 5.c3 Nc6

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, evans-gambit
---


title: Mate with both hands: Result?

text:
# Question
Title: Mate with both hands: Result?
Constructed case: In a tournament (LoC Tournament Rules apply, no rapid, no blitz) White plays d7-d8Q by placing the new Queen on d8 with the right hand and removing the pawn d7 with the left. White did not press the clock but claimed a checkmate.

Relevant rules:

* 4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.
* 5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
* 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
    + 6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or
    + 6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed.
* 7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

I discussed the case with some IA and FA. In our opinion, the checkmate and the result 1-0 stands. White did not press the clock, so 7.5.4 does not apply. To complete the move, it is not necessary to press the clock because the move ends the game (6.2.1.1). 5.1.1 allows a violation of 4.1 by not mentioning it.

We further think that that is not what was intended. We think that what was intended is

> 7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and **completes the move**, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

Are we wrong with our decision? Is there a case illustrating that the formulation of 7.5.4 is according to it’s intention? Any other opinions?

# Answer
> 7 votes
My opinion is that the rules are clear and correct.

Checkmate is not allowed when the move involves moving a piece in a way that the piece may not move (e.g. moving a bishop like a knight) and not allowed when touch-move rules are broken.

However checkmate IS allowed when a procedural rule which is intended to stop clock cheating is broken. This is because pressing the clock in the case of checkmate is not required. The two-handed rule is intended to tidy up the requirement that the clock is pressed with the same hand that makes the move. In cases where pressing the clock is irrelevant then so too is the use of two hands. Hence why 4.1 is deliberately and carefully excluded from 5.1.1

The rules commission obviously thought of this and, collectively, they are cleverer than both you and me :-)

Note, too, that the same logic applies to stalemate and "dead positions". This careful thought by the rules commission is reflected in the relevant articles:

> 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was **in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7**.

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was **in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7**.

There is one further area that this clarifies. Suppose that the player delivering checkmate with two hands has previously made an illegal move and *does* press the clock after delivering checkmate. They still win the game because the game ended with the checkmate, before the completion of the move with the clock press. Hence the second illegal move was made but not completed and only *completed* illegal moves are punished.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, fide
---


title: End of game edge cases

text:
# Question
Title: End of game edge cases
Hello I have a few "edge" cases which I am quite interested what do you think about.

Note that all of those are on my understanding of FIDE chess rules and might be wrong - thank you for the correction in that case.

The game shall end in a draw if there is no legal sequence of moves leading to win (for either side)

> how would you decide this as an arbiter? I believe it can be sometimes difficult to see if it's possible within the 75 move rule ...

I believe there are more such edge cases - such as that a position forcing move (or sequence of them) that leads to 5 times repeated position etc. Also note that this might be important to know is someone's time is down in an OTB tournament in such a situation.

# Answer
For clarity here are the two positions:

```
[fen "8/1k6/8/8/6qK/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

and where there have been 145 half moves since the last capture or pawn move:

```
[fen "7b/8/8/3k4/8/3K4/8/5B2 w - - 145 1"]

```

This question really only gains importance if white's flag falls in the first position or if either flag falls in the second position. Then the losing player would want to quite strongly claim a draw here under article 5.2.2 -

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king **with any series of legal moves**. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

I think in the first position the decision is very clear cut. There is no series of legal moves leading to checkmate and the position is a draw.

The second position is slightly more problematic because it is not immediately clear to the passing observer that the 75 move rule is 5 plies away. Strictly speaking a good arbiter should not be a typical "passing observer" and should be aware of the situation. However not all arbiters are equally vigilant. Nevertheless once the arbiter's attention has been drawn to the score sheet and the 75 move rule explained the arbiter should again rule that despite the flag fall the game is drawn.

Absent a flag fall most arbiters will just say "play on" and declare the games drawn on the next ply, in the first case, and 5 plies later in the second case. It is the easiest and least controversial path and avoiding controversy is high on most people's list of priorities, arbiters included.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: How can I find games from grandmasters that end in threefold repetition?
When I go to http://www.chessgames.com/, I can search for matches that end in draws. However, I can not figure out how to filter those draws to specifically threefold repetition. How can I find these types of draws while filtering out the rest?

# Answer
> 6 votes
If you have a collection of games in PGN format, you could probably search for threefold repetitions using the Chess Query Language. In particular, you might look in the "Matching positions: the position list" portion of the manual at the provided link; the `:sequence` keyword would likely be instrumental to a CQL solution.

For an example of using CQL to do this sort of thing, see my answer to an earlier question about seeking out exchange sacrifices in games. The method given there uses CQL to scan games for short sequences of successive positions that have a material difference of an exchange. I imagine you'd be able to do something similar to seek out sequences of positions repeating three times.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is a really famous one between Petrosian and Fischer. Fischer had a really tough position and was delighted with Tigran's last move and claimed a threefold repetition.

```
[Event "Fischer - Petrosian Candidates Final"]
[Site "Buenos Aires ARG"]
[Date "1971.10.07"]
[EventDate "1971.09.30"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6
gxf6 7. g3 f5 8. Nc3 Bf6 9. Nge2 Nc6 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Bxb2
12. Bg2 O-O 13. O-O Bh8 14. Nef4 Ne5 15. Qh5 Ng6 16. Rad1 c6
17. Ne3 Qf6 18. Kh1 Bg7 19. Bh3 Ne7 20. Rd3 Be6 21. Rfd1 Bh6
22. Rd4 Bxf4 23. Rxf4 Rad8 24. Rxd8 Rxd8 25. Bxf5 Nxf5
26. Nxf5 Rd5 27. g4 Bxf5 28. gxf5 h6 29. h3 Kh7 30. Qe2 Qe5
31. Qh5 Qf6 32. Qe2 Re5 33.Qd3 Rd5 34.Qe2 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is an option in pgn-extract (--repetition) that will identify PGN games in which three-fold repetition occurs, regardless of whether the game is ended by it or not. Combined with the --markmatches option a comment can be added at the point(s) where this occurred for ease of identification.

---
Tags: draw, threefold-repetition
---


title: Positionally Rich Opening Suggestions?

text:
# Question
Title: Positionally Rich Opening Suggestions?
I really want to play some positionally rich openings. Openings which require strategic planning and understanding, and not much direct attack and defence. I want the battle to be a "who can improve their position the fastest" sort of battle and not a "who can attack the quickest" sort of battle.

What openings would you suggest? (FYI, I'm 1700 rapid, 1700 blitz, rapid being what I take the most seriously)

# Answer
d4 would be the best choice as white, for sure - generally leads to more positional situations.

Against the slav- Exchange Slav is an option if you aren't annoyed by the drawish nature.

Against the QGD- Exchange QGD (with a Nf3 0-0 setup like Karpov) is a good option.

You should probably avoid the Nimzo and Benoni (so, after d4 Nf6 c4 e6, play Nf3, and after d4 Nf6 c4 c5, play Nf3).

Thus, you'll have to learn the Queen's Indian, Bogo-Indian, and the line d4 Nf6 c4 c5 Nf3 (which transposes to a line of the Symmetrical English)- none will be too difficult to find something against that you like (main lines should suffice).

Against the Dutch, you can pretty much do the main line and it'll suit your wishes.

Now, as black- my recommendation would be the Caro-Kann, with a couple notes: 1) play 3...c5 against the Advance variation, as there are m any sharp lines if you play the main line Bf5. This appears to lose a pawn, but black has few issues getting it back. 2) It might be worthwile to play a sideline in the 3. Nc3 line such as 4...Nf6 or 4...Nd7 instead of 4...Bf5.

Versus d4, I would choose the Chebanenko slav (d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6) - a good video on it can be found here

This has the nice bonus of having a built-in rep vs c4, since you can just reply c6.

There are good courses on chessable for both of these defenses.

Personally, I've played almost all of this repertoire and have found it to be both good and positional.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Probability of given position/piece configuration
I'm currently working on an image based FEN generator. I found a paper doing the same and they have used Stockfish to calculate the most probable piece configurations.

Now I wonder if Stockfish has this functionality or if they implemented it on their own. Does anybody know more about this, as it would be extremely helpful for my project?

On pages 7-8, the paper gives information on what they did.

> Utilizing a chess engine: We utilized the open-source Stockfish engine, which allows us to calculate the most probable piece configurations. By calculating the prob-abilities of all possible configurations, we could choose the most probable candidate (see Figure 7). Additionally, we strengthened this method by utilizing large-scale chess game statistics in the manner proposed by Acher and Es-nault Acher and Esnault (2016).

# Answer
> Utilizing a chess engine: We utilized the open-source Stockfish engine, which allows us to calculate the most probable piece configurations. By calculating the prob-abilities of all possible configurations, we could choose the most probable candidate (see Figure 7). Additionally, we strengthened this method by utilizing large-scale chess game statistics in the manner proposed by Acher and Es-nault Acher and Esnault (2016).

This makes literally no sense to me- SF is just an engine, and can't exactly give stats on most probable piece configs, and even if the researchers wrote some code to do such, it would be different than the most probable ones in human play.

My suggestion would be to use CQL on some database and search for each configuration.

Alternatively, SCIDvsPC (free) and ChessBase (paid, and quite expensive) can search for these sort of configurations as well, so you might want to use those.

As for what database to use, my recommendation would be Caissabase (free)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, fen
---


# Question
Title: Must a player play tactical openings to learn tactics?
As has been said, Chess in 99% tactics/calculation.

So, if a player is aiming to increase his tactical abilities should he play tactical openings like the King's Gambit, or can he play something like the English if desired, knowing that tactics will show up in the middle game?

Another way to put this is as follows: should a developing player master the tactical openings before the positional ones, given that tactics are much more important in the short term?

# Answer
My chess instructor told me:

1. Tactics
2. Tactics
3. Tactics

I think you can win a lot of games at the sub-2000 level with raw tactical skill. Thereafter, positional considerations start becoming important.

Regarding the opening, I don't think it much matters. Play the type of opening that makes you happy.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In almost any opening, there will be plenty to calculate. Unfortunately, most games don't give the potential for daring sacrifices and blazing kingside attacks, but every single opening requires intense calculation if you want to play the best moves.

So more important than playing and learning *tactical* openings, I would recommend playing and studying *classical* openings, at least when you're starting out.

Classical openings are `1. e4 e5` and `1. d4 d5`. Play these openings for both colors. `1. e4 e5` is called the Open Game because the positions generally become open and require play according to general chess principles. For example, develop, control the center, castle, etc. So playing the English probably isn't the best bet if you are just starting out, but for a totally different reason. The English violates some principles, namely occupying the center, and instead gives white other advantages (usually a good queenside bishop among other things).

The single fastest way to improve tactics is to pick up a good puzzle book and just work through it. If you play super sharp openings like the King's Gambit, that will more help you learn specific opening variations than tactics in general. If you love the King's Gambit, one way to learn tactics might be to look at a dozen grandmaster games featuring the King's Gambit. There will be enough tactics either on the board or hidden in the variations to help you improve your calculation as well as showing you some themes from the opening.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In order to learn tactics, you want to get into tactical **situations.** These can occur in the opening, middle, or end game.

But if you play tactical openings, you get a head start on these situations (and guarantee that you'll get some).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Even despite previous claims it is true that chess before 2200-2400 is about 90% tactics. However the understanding is never below tactics as understanding is in tactics so understanding completley outranks tactics. This includes positional play, knowledge of positions and there structures as well as middle game and endgame play as you absolutley need positional knowledge for that. However when talking about most positions and insights before master levels tactics is absolutley neccessary as it speeds up the process and allows much more wins to be avaliabe. There are a lot of games that are lossed because of missed tactics and it is true that calculation can take you a long way. However I don't think it is the best way in my opinion it is just the fact of the game. Most Grandmasters prefer and rely on positional play as strong move after strong move is not made by just knowing tactics alone. Grandmasters are very strong because the lack of weaknesses and the continous way they make strong moves, but if you think that is by tactics alone you are mistaken. Depending on the position depends on the game, however positions will always be reliant on the understanding than the calculation as since humans are not computers we can't rely on calculation to heavily, especially in old age.(Just think about what happened to Tal, there is a reason why he changed to a positional master toward the end of his life. Calculation isn't something a human should be doing forever at least in chess.) So it is very important to understand and master the basis of the game, and then only improve heavily on tactics, understanding is key, no matter what level you are on. There is a reason why the positional masters were always long reinging world champions however the tacticians and the calculated masters were world champions for 1 or 2. The truth is the type of play of tacticians is to wow people and to make people say, wow that guy is brilliant he spotted that amazing 5,6,7 move combination. Or wow this guy is amazing he literally does all these sacrificing disregarding rules and theory and it is surpasses all the sayings of previous respected grandmasters. And although it is cool to see that, no great attacker would stay that way forever, until you meet players like Botivinik or Smyslov, or Petrosian, or Karpov, or some positional and defensive tank that would win the game in seemingly a quiet yet deadly fashion and would either get that win or draw that they wanted and would be absolutley fine with it. Moreover again later in their life they cannot calculate and they would have to switch over to understanding, and positional play as calculating takes energy and a clear mind, something so simply an older person would lack due to old age. Due to this it proves my point that chess is 90% tactics between 2200-2400, however when we are talking about levels of masters, IM's, GM's, Super GM's and more, the understanding surpasses a lot of tactics, as Grandmasters seemingly make little to no blunders on a good day. And even on a bad day a master couldn't just simply win a game due to a tactic, a GM is prepared, a GM most of all is tough, and they would always be looking to equalize a game if they were losing, and a lot of the time would capatalize on their opponents mistake to win or get a draw out of a position they had a disadvantage in. However it does depend on the position, but mainly the only thing that matters is understanding the fact that your knowledge and understanding will lead you higher if you want to become a master(NM,FM,IM,GM or Super GM). If you are an amatuer(like me) then the you want to have a solid foundation in positions and the knowledge of them and positional play such as: These Positional Ideas can include: Outposts for Knights, and Weak Squares. A Strong Diagnol for the Bishop( Such as a Fianchetto, or active squares such as C4 or C5). Advantages Such as Passed pawns and the principle that Guides them that says passed pawns must be pushed. The Initiative and knowing when to sieze it and start and attack, gain an advantage or use the initiative to improve your position. To allow your rooks to dominate an open or semi-open file. To not overpush your pawns and to know when to push a pawn and what squares it would be the most useful guarding. Know when to open or close a position(You open a position if you have a better position, and you can also close the position if you have a long-term advantage.) To always have a plan to improve your position, attack, gain an advantage, or to use a tactic. To attack Isolated pawns, and also know how to defend the isolated pawn. To make strong pawn chains. Knowing when to make an exchange sacrifice. Know what is a good bishop or a bad bishop in a given postion, and know how to use your bishops effectively. Double up on a file. Knowing when to simplify to a winning Endgame. Rooks placed on the seventh rank. Attacking weak pawns and avoid making weak pawns. Know how to Evalute positions and see who is better or worse and develop a plan based on the positon Evaluated. Attack double pawns and avoid making doubled pawns. These Ideas are the basis of positional understanding and make up the game of chess. As the Game of chess is about control and the only way to have control of the game is to improve your position and make little to no mistakes, if this happens the game is sure to be a win or a draw. Tactics will come through a good position through coordination and remember all bad postions will fall eventually, there is no need to rush your opponents demise if he makes foolish moves, and if your opponent improves their positon as much as you do then your game could be equal.

Postitional Understanding takes much patience and in order to be good at evalutating positons you must take in account, piece value, develpoment, king saftey, possible advantages and disadvantages, overall piece activity, or potential piece activity, attacking chances and better or worse Endgame chances. If you evaluate a postion precisley it can help you develop a plan that can help you based on the position. Another part of positonal understanding is understanding the position well enough that you don't make any Blunder's, Mistakes, or innacurracies to the point in which you lose as positonal players make sure that they take their time and grind out every advantage they can get, and in most positons this is the way to go. Sometimes it is not worth it to rush a tactic or be hasty because it is not uncommon for such moves to end in a blunder or a mistake that can ruin you position and give all the winning chances to the opponent. If you make sure you can improve the postition and attack without your opponent having any counterplay or any advantages, than you will have all the time in the world to win that game and your opponent can do very little to stop it. Some examples of this could be: When you have a space advantage and all your pieces look to attack the enemy king. When the opponent is in a situation when he is in a positional zugswang and can't make any good move. When your opponent is behind in development and you sieze the initiative to start an attack against the enmy king with more pieces on the board therefore making more threats due to the lack of protection due to poor develpment of pieces and pawns. When you have a passed pawn and use that advantage to win material, misplace a piece or the king, or to allow lesser moves to be made by the opponent due to the reaction of the passed pawn and overall improve your position due to the lack of a better position by your opponent. ETC...

This proves why knowledge of positions and positional understanding is needed, and have in mind these are just the building blocks, at higher levels I think your understanding has to be multiplied by whatever level you are on each time you are +200 points higher. However if you are also an Amatuer a good idea would be to get very good at tactics, along with getting good at tactics improve your calculation as well as improve your tactical vision and although this is random even memorize the coordinates(algebra notation) on the board. This is as straightforward as it gets, and this is the guide to getting on a decent level.(now I am not saying it is going to make you improve +1000 elo, but perhaps +100, +200 or maybe even+300 if you are taking all of this into account and are grinding seriously.)

That's all I have to say, hopefully this was helpful for someone.
> 1 votes

# Answer
NO.

You should learn tactics before playing tactical openings as they are far more subtle and somewhat mixed with positional play.

You should study tactics separately and methodically not just solving random tactical problems.

You need to do at least ten similar tactics problems after seeing an example of how it works. This will implant the pattern into your memory for use in a real game.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, tactics, training
---


# Question
Title: What are your thoughts on a chess study plan?
I'm thinking of some serious chess study and wondering if anyone has tailored a study plan for themselves and what the key aspects are to consider. This is what I'm currently doing on a daily basis:

* Playing three games of chess (15 min) real time.
* Solving a chess problem with a 20 minute time limit.
* Playing three blitz games with crafty (2 min)
* Reading a chapter of a chess book at night (currently My System - Nimzowitsch)

Anyone else have a study plan and keen to share?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playing is counterproductive until you have some basic skill, but a little playing will keep you motivated and may show you things to be aware of unless the other player is also a beginner.

Do NOT do chess problems. They will not help at all and waste time.

Do not play blitz at all. Play 10-15 minute games but pace yourself to move in exactly ten seconds.

Reading books is good. You wont get much out of My System but it wont hurt you. You need to find and do tactical problems that are graded from easy to hard and are grouped around the same theme. See an example then solve ten more of the same type solution.

You need to learn ONE opening really well for white and black. But make sure it is ONLY ONE opening. Do not try to do more than that. Obviously there will be variations depending how the opponent plays that will already stretch your ability to master yet.

Eventually you will need to understand positional play and some other things but start with the list above.

---
Tags: learning
---


title: The Ryder Gambit

text:
# Question
Title: The Ryder Gambit
I am learning the Ryder Gambit with a book by FM Eric Schiller called The Ryder Gambit Accepted updated in 2011: A Chess Works Publication so I can play it in tournaments. Is it worse than the Danish Gambit? What do chess engines conclude about this opening?

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4

```

# Answer
It seems to be quite a lot worse than the Danish. Stockfish Nnue gives around -0.57 at depth 33 for the Danish (after 4.Bc4), while the Ryder has around -2.36 at depth 32 (in the position after 5...Qxd4 6.Be3).

It's true these are just surface level engine evaluations. However, considering the book you're referencing on the Ryder came out in 2011, I highly doubt Stockfish is missing any crucial analysis that book has which would change its mind in any significant way.

Of course, if you're fairly low rated and believe you can trap a lot of the opponents you face, then the opening may be played as a surprise weapon. But objectively it could be considered losing.
> 6 votes

# Answer
If you play in tournaments that are not class limited to very low players you should expect to lose a lot more than you draw or win if you try those openings.

You can beat beginners with stuff like that but you wont advance far as the good players will clean your clock.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, tournament, gambits
---


# Question
Title: How can chess be applied to other fields like politics or football tactics?
I just think that a strategy game such as chess can be applied to the real world and in that chess can make you a better strategical person, but how so?

# Answer
Here are some example areas I think can of (definitely not limited to just these):

* Attacking your opponent at different parts of the board simultaneously. This can be translated to pressuring your real world opponent in different ways at the same time.
* Identifying weaknesses.
* A sense of danger. I don't know how well this would translate into the real world, but in chess you develop an intuition for what's really a danger and what's not.
* Calculation skills, both for thinking far ahead (depth) and considering a number of options your opponent could go for (breadth). This has obvious applications when trying to figure out what your opponent will do in politics, football, etc.
* Distributing and maximizing resources. In chess you need to figure out where to put your pieces, based on where they are most needed/can be most effective.

However, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Getting good at chess might have given someone these real world skills; or, they could already have these skills and that's why they're good in both chess and certain real world activities. A likely possibility is that someone is already fairly strategical, and then playing chess amplifies their abilities.
> 1 votes

# Answer
With great difficulty. There is no real connection between chess and the real world.

What you need to apply is game theory to both chess and the other situation.

Trying to infer game theory by using chess to help your socratic method would fall way short and be much harder than doing it with math.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, strategy, theory
---


# Question
Title: To what extent should you prevent your opponent from castling?
I normally try to prevent my opponent from castling if possible, by forcing their king to move or keeping an attacking piece on a diagonal or file.

I tend to make this a priority, giving up the opportunity to capture a pawn or pursue a different strategy early on.

Does this make sense? Would I be better off capturing a pawn if I can? Is preventing castling something that should be given priority, or is it more of an afterthought?

# Answer
> 14 votes
Can you try answering **why** are you trying to prevent your opponent from castling?

When you think about this more - you realize that castling prevention is just a tactical weapon, nothing more. Of course you can win a game if you are good at tactics, if your opponent makes mistakes, but, to quote Alekhine:

> "It took me many years to get rid of the bias that I can win in any position, even in a bad one, using some amazing combination".

The need for playing to prevent your opponent from castling is dictated by the position on the board. Of course it makes sense to follow this plan if you achieved some development advantage in the beginning of the game, your pieces are more active and you have good chances to start a massive attack against the enemy king that's trapped in the middle. Of course, sacrificing a pawn (or even more pieces) in this case is justified, since your positional advantage will compensate that.

What if you can't prevent your opponent from doing multiple exchanges after you sacrificed a pawn? Losing many active pieces (due to exchanges) will reduce your attacking potential. And you will have to play an endgame without a pawn. If your opponent is better than you at endgame - he will force those exchanges with the endgame in mind - entering it in a better (or even won) position. Since he will have at least two advantages over you:

1. +1 pawn
2. king in the middle (assuming you castled), which is considered an advantage in endgame

This is very important to consider, since often even a single exchange (of queens) serves as green light to endgame.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Capturing an extra pawn represents a *clear* advantage. If I had the opportunity to do this, I'd do it before almost anything else.

Preventing someone from castling is an advantage, but only all other things being equal. If you can do this in the natural course of play, fine.

But if you go out of your way to do this, you may incur a disadvantage greater than the other player's lost castling right. For instance, in the French Defense, White may play `Qg4`, forcing `...Kf8`. But this exposes the Q on g4 to attack by `Nh6` (or `Nf6`), and may represent the greater disadvantage. Against a `Qg4`, the Black K is actually better placed on f8 than on g8 (where the pawn in front of it would be pinned).

# Answer
> 0 votes
I suggest in the opening if you want to keep your opponent from castling, try bishops because they are easily brought out in the opening and don't need to get to close to the wall of pawns unlike knights, but if you want to deal with it quick, a sacrifice won't hurt or you could try the Evan's Gambit, which involves stopping your opponent from castling while stopping the king from capturing any pieces.

---
Tags: strategy, castling, attack
---


# Question
Title: What counts has "having enough material to mate"?
I'm aware that if one's flag falls then the game is declared a win for the opposing side if something like "they have enough material to mate" or "it is possible to mate". I'm curious about an edge case which actually differentiates between the above two scenarios, i.e. the opposing side has enough material to mate but it's impossible to mate from that position (for whatever reason).

I think an example would illustrate best the situation I had in mind. Suppose White has a King on a1 and a Queen on a2, while Black only has a King on h1. If White then plays Qh2+ (perhaps in an online bullet game) and Black's flag falls, does White win? Note that from this position it is impossible for White to mate, since Black's only legal move here is to play Kxh2, which would be an immediate draw.

There are other scenarios which would be impossible to mate, e.g. if White has a King on a1, pawns on a4, c4, e4, g4, and Black has a King on h8, pawns on a5, c5, e5, g5 -- clearly neither side can mate from this position. (This sort of situation is slightly less interesting to me as this is position that is less likely to arise than the one described above, but I'm still curious.)

# Answer
> 14 votes
From FIDE Laws of Chess, article 5.2b:

> The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6).

In your first example, as soon as White plays Qh2+, the statement "a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves" becomes true. As the rule says, this **immediately ends the game** with a draw. This happened on White's move and it immediately ends the game, so there is no time for Black's flag to fall.

The same happens in your second example. As soon as a dead position arises, it is a draw.

The position does not need to be dead for a fallen flag to result in a draw. Article 6.9 says:

> Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

So if Black's flag falls and there is no legal sequence of moves that results in Black's king being checkmated, it is a draw. For example, if Black has an extra queen in your first example, and Black's flag falls after this move

```
[FEN "8/8/8/5q2/8/8/Q7/K6k w - - 0 1"]

1. Qh2+

```

then it is still a draw, because there is no legal sequence of moves can result in Black's king being checkmated.

---
Tags: rules, draw
---


# Question
Title: Why is there no rule allowing a player to claim a draw in lonely king endgames?
I was wondering, why is there no way for a player, who has sufficient mating material, to claim a draw against a lonely king?

According to Wikipedia:

> The rules allow for several types of draws: stalemate, threefold or fivefold repetition of a position (with the same player to move), if there has been no capture or a pawn being moved in the last fifty or seventy-five moves, if checkmate is impossible, or if the players agree to a draw.

For example, KQvK is very obviously an endgame with only two results possible: White wins or draws. But according to the rules of chess, White cannot force his opponent to accept a draw on the spot. Offering a draw could be refused, and also giving a check on a square where Black could capture it could also be refused by Black by moving somewhere else.

Ok, let's be realistic for a second, 99.99% of the time this won't happen.

But somehow I find it counterintuitive not being able to end the game in this particular position without having to resign and entirely lose the game in a position where it's impossible for Black to win by checkmate. Especially since you've already proven that you're at least capable of making a draw against your opponent.

Of course, I'll admit such a ruling would be more of an edge case. But still, there's somehow a gaping hole in the rules of chess.

# Answer
> 26 votes
> Why is there no rule allowing a player to claim a draw in lonely king endgames?

For the simple reason that there is no need. If you are the player with the extra material you can offer a draw and be almost guaranteed that your opponent will accept the offer. If you have an opponent who is ignorant of the rules you can walk away and let your clock time expire and the game will be a draw.

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

> 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, **the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.**

A player with only a king cannot checkmate the opponent and so the game is a draw.

EDIT: Remellion makes an excellent point in the comments which is worth repeating -

> Technically you don't need a new rule - under 7.5.5, you can just make two illegal moves in front of the arbiter, ending the game immediately (as a draw, similar to when your time runs out but cannot possibly be checkmated). No need to bloat the rules more

You don't even need to wait until the arbiter is watching your game. You can deliberately complete (by making the move and then pressing the clock) an illegal move, stop the clocks, explain to your opponent that you have made and illegal move and then call the arbiter to report yourself. While the arbiter is there explain to them that you are going to make a second illegal move to effectively claim a draw. That way you don't annoy the arbiter by calling them back twice.

# Answer
> 4 votes
That excerpt from Wikipedia doesn't necessarily cover all cases where one can claim a draw. I haven't checked how this applies to FIDE specifically, but in many tournaments with no increment/delay, you can claim a draw if it's clear you can stop your opponent from winning. For example, in a king and rook vs king and rook, most good TDs would accept your claim of a draw if you're low on time.

Although, the Wikipedia excerpt does include the scenario "if checkmate is impossible". So for the particular claim you're referring to, this is covered there (since your opponent can't checkmate you with a lone king).

# Answer
> 3 votes
As with any matter on the laws of chess, the application of the laws is to some degree at the discretion of the arbiter. Therefore, the result may be different whether the arbiter is sympathetic or unsympathetic towards your position.

If the arbiter is sympathetic one course of action may be to use 7.4b:

> ... for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

If you as the player with additional material had the move, you could make and complete an illegal move and then reinstate the position 3 times.

Note that the arbiter should need to be sympathetic to your position else you may fall foul of 12.8:

> Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.

Although if you were to complete all 3 illegal moves before notifying the arbiter, I don't think this would be persistent refusal.

---

Another option with a sympathetic arbiter is to claim that the player failing to accept the draw and intentionally not moving is doing so in order to annoy the opponent. Which I would take as a reasonable claim, since, unless the player has a genuine belief he can win, I do not see any other motive for rejecting the draw offer.

This would mean the player rejecting the draw has contravened 12.6:

> It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. ...

For which a penalty under 13.4c of reducing the remaining time of the offending player to end the game would result in the draw.

---

Of course if the arbiter is unsympathetic you as a player have little option to end the game as a draw early. The fastest way (if you suspect the opponent is intentionally refusing to move to prolong the game) may be to allow your own time to reach 2 minutes and claim that it is not possible for the opponent to win by normal means under 10.2a

> If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See

> a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Actually, if one has particular material that can checkmate a lone king (for example: anything except a single knight or bishop), one CAN force one's opponent to take the material or allow stalemate.

A queen is obvious: chase the king down to one end or side of the board, then place the queen on the square "in front of" the king. For a rook or bishop, chase the king into a corner with one's king present as well, and check him, a bishop for example, picture lone king on a1, one's own king on b3, and the bishop checks the king which must move to b1 whereupon moving the bishop to b2 forces stalemate. A rook is similar, but one might as well mate with the move. Finally, a pawn: eventually one will have one's own king on, say b4, pawn on b3, enemy (he's not your opponent if you were stupid enough to buy a flight that leaves during the tournament) king on b1. Moving the pawn to b2 forces either a capture or the allowance of promotion to a queen and then loss of the queen as before.

Any larger amount of material would reduce using the same techniques or easier since one could promote an extra pawn to a queen, then force the taking of all other pieces using the queen's total domination, then lose the queen as above. No pawns? Multiple pieces make the above forcings even easier.

One is not looking for a win, just the draw so it's easier as the forcings don't have to cover all moves of the other king, just vis-a-vis the piece one is losing. Lone king means no funny obstacles to hide behind (one may tuck any extra knight into a far corner if one can't keep it out of the way and handy pushing the king into a corner).

The sole impediment then is the time an opponent might have on the clock which he might try to pretend he is using to keep you from checkmating him. That would be clear unsportsmanlike conduct to anyone except a Soviet arbiter and there aren't any more of those. Combine that with a clear verbal offer of an immediate draw and there would be no question about needing the time to defend and with the opponent neatly on record as only being concerned about losing, and so needing the time, even a Soviet arbiter might not risk never being hired again.

Tedious, yes. Need the rule, yes. After all, they changed the rules specifically to not allow castling with an unmoved king and an "unmoved" promoted rook although the pawn it used to be was obviously moved so it wasn't really more than a chess problem "gotcha" so why not something useful like this? But... there's no actual impediment to pretty quickly losing the material so as a practical matter, probably not a real world difficulty. (And the airplane ticket? If you really have a flight to miss 'cause you were dumb enough to schedule a flight leaving before the tournament ended, I for one do not feel sorry for you having to resign or miss the flight. Sorry, that's not in the question itself, but it seems likely to be considered relevant by many as standing in for the class of unspecified but somehow reasonable things life might throw at us.)

# Answer
> 0 votes
Why would you want to claim a draw when you can win? Would someone turn down a draw when they are obviously going to lose based on the material? To answer the question: to protect people from their own bad ideas.

---
Tags: rules, endgame, fide, draw, claim-draw
---