# Question
Title: Why should black not capture the knight here?
I played a game on lichess. (Link: http://en.lichess.org/n2hfBGYy#18) After the game I did a stockfish analysis of the game. This is the position:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Rated game"]
[Site "http://lichess.org/n2hfBGYy"]
[Date "2015.03.09"]
[White "Kartikay"]
[Black "superca"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1044"]
[BlackElo "1698"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+6"]
[ECO "A42"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense, Hyperaccelerated Fianchetto"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 { Sicilian Defense, Hyperaccelerated Fianchetto } cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bg7 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bc4 e6 8. O-O d5?! { (0.44 → 0.96) Inaccuracy. The best move was Qc7. } (8... Qc7 9. Bg5 Ne7 10. Re1 Rb8 11. Bb3 d6 12. Qd2 O-O 13. a3 Rd8 14. Rad1 Ba6 15. Bf4 Be5 16. Bxe5 dxe5) 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Bb5+? { (0.99 → -0.29) Mistake. The best move was Nxd5. } (10. Nxd5 Bb7 11. Bb5+ Kf8 12. Nf4 a6 13. Qxd8+ Rxd8 14. Be2 Bf6 15. Nd3 Kg7 16. Nc5 Bc6 17. Nxa6 Ne7 18. c3 Nd5 19. Bd2 Nc7) * {The rest of the game is not shown here}

```

I played `10. Bb5+` an stockfish labeled it as a mistake. Stockfish said that the best move was `Nxd5`. I was surprised by this, why should black not capture the knight in this position?

```
[fen "r1bqk1nr/p4pbp/4p1p1/3N4/2B5/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]

```

(Stockfish gives the evaluation +1.48 if black captures the knight.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
What comes to my mind (maybe someone can check with a computer):

After 10.Nxd5 ed 11.Bxd5 the rook is attacked and you have the motif of playing Bxf7+. The bishop cannot be taken because the king has to keep defending the queen. So after 11…Rb8 12.Bxf7 Ke7 you already have three pawns for the piece, i.e. material is equal and the black king has lost the right to castle and will come under attack. Possibly giving the exchange with 11…Be6 is better, but even then the intermediate check 12.Bb5 looks very nasty (After Bd7 there is always Re1+ as well and the maybe Bg5 ...).

# Answer
> 2 votes
If Black captures the knight, and you recapture with the B on d5, you "fork" the rook on a8 and the pawn on f7. Taking the latter leads to a strong attack (more on this in the next paragraph), so Black's best move is probably 11. ... Be6, protecting the f pawn and indirectly the rook, but allowing you to capture the rook. After Black recaptures with the Q, you have a rook and two pawns (one of them passed on the c file) for a Bishop and Knight. You also have superior development, and moves like 12. R e1 or 12. Qd6 or 12. c3 give Black a hard time. With your advantage in development, you should be able to transition into a favorable endgame with a dominant queenside, where the passed c pawn will win for you.

If Black rescues the rook with b8, you play B xf7+. Black can't capture without losing the queen so he plays Ke7. You play Re1+, Black is forced to play Be6. You play BxBe6+, with three extra pawns and a strong attack against an exposed king.

---
Tags: learning, beginner, captures
---


title: Is pawn promotion obligatory?

text:
# Question
Title: Is pawn promotion obligatory?
According to Wikipedia, when a pawn advances to the eighth rank, the pawn is promoted as a part of the move.

However, this doesn't make it clear whether I am obliged to promote the pawn if it gets to the eighth rank.

# Answer
Yes, it is obligatory.

From FIDE's Laws of Chess §3.7e (Link):

> e. When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawns, pawn-promotion
---


title: Question on promoting pawns to queens

text:
# Question
Title: Question on promoting pawns to queens
If you have two queens (original and one promoted) on board and the original queen is captured....can you promote your next pawn at the eight rank to queen again?

# Answer
Yes, you can.

Fide rules of chess 3.7.e):

When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’. **The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.** This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

(bold by me)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Which is the most CPU efficient chess engine?
I am learning artificial intelligence and chess programming. I want to analyze the architecture and read the code of existing chess engines. But I am confused between multiple choices. There are several free chess engines available, for example:

* Crafty
* GNU Chess
* Stockfish
* IPPOLIT
* Fruit 2.1
* (Add your chess engine here)

I am wondering which chess engine is most efficient in terms of CPU cycles used. For example, if Crafty achieves 3300 ELO by thinking for 30 seconds on each move, and GNU chess achieves 2500 ELO by thinking 1 second on each move, I would consider GNU Chess to be more efficient.

So which engine is most efficient? What would lead me to choose one over another?

# Answer
If I were going to do this, I'd choose Stockfish, Fruit 2.1, and Crafty for no reason other than their high quality is proven. Then I'd compare and contrast the techniques, algorithms, and choices made by each.

These aren't easy programs; it would be a lot of work to gain a true understanding.
> 6 votes

# Answer
This is not a direct answer to your question — but because you're interested in Java, check out this link, which has a UCI compatible engine written in Java. Browsing through the code it looked quite readable. It loses to Crafty and Stockfish regularly, but that is to be expected — they usually looked ~4 ply deeper because of the speed difference.

I think it will suit your needs as a fairly strong engine that runs on Java, if only to review the code.
> 6 votes

# Answer
For many years, nearly all professional chess programmers have tested code changes by running many blitz games to see whether their changes have improved engine performance. Here's a paper describing a genetic programming technique across many blitz games. Stockfish programmers follow this same method in conjunction with Fishtest.

Stockfish programmers typically test proposed changes by running many fast games with tight time controls. If the proposed changes show a benefit, then the change is submitted for testing at tournament time controls.

Stockfish is not unique in this regard. Nearly all professional or semi-professional engines were tuned at blitz time controls first, and then at tournament controls.

So, in short, because of the way that most chess engines are tuned, I personally feel your supposition is incorrect -- I feel it is more likely that the "most efficient" chess engine will be the best performing engine at any time control.

tl:dr; use Stockfish

EDIT: Not sure why my answer is getting downvoted here. As further evidence that what I'm saying is correct, please check out the CCRL 40/4 and the CCRL 40/40 automated ratings lists. If you compare the two lists you will see that the strongest performers in the 40/40 list are almost exactly the same strongest performers in the 40/4 list. And there is no engine that has an incredible performance jump at tournament vs. blitz controls -- they all typically remain within about 50 ELO of their blitz ratings at long time controls. To me, that is clear evidence of a critical connection between blitz engine "efficiency" and tournament engine "efficiency".

If you want a toy engine to hack on, here is my Superpawn engine.
> 4 votes

# Answer
First, the definition in the question doesn't make much sense. @johnwbyrd is correct, the 'most efficient' chess engine chess engine should be the best performing engine at any time control.

In general, the stronger the engine is the more efficient the computing resources are utilised. This is expected because a chess engine is really a fast calculator of chess moves. The more (and accurate) moves it can think, the better it becomes.

A strong chess engine such as Stockfish is a brilliant example of applying computer optimisation. For example, let's take a look at how the hash table is implemented in Stockfish:

```
class TranspositionTable

  static const int CacheLineSize = 64;
  static const int ClusterSize = 3;

```

This definition is telling us the size of a cluster in the hash table should be evenly divided by the size of a cache line. It is a very clever optimization because it ensures no extra CPU cycle would be needed as each data transfer can only be done for each line block.

There're many other optimisation examples, such as lazy evaluation in a loop, making sure the threads have work to do etc etc.

So, you see, a popular engine like Stockfish is highly optimised. The source code has been studied thoughtfully. I have every reason to believe Stockfish is the most optimised and efficient chess engine.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, programming
---


# Question
Title: White to force the end of the game in two moves
I found this hilarious problem and hope people will have fun solving it:

Niels Hoeg, Skakbladet 1907

```
[FEN "8/8/6p1/5pP1/5P1K/5PpP/4p2p/2Q2Bkr w - - 0 1"]

```

White to end the game in two moves.

In this case, that means that white plays moves so that, no matter what black moves, the game is finished after *black's* second move at the latest.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Very nice puzzle! Looks like the solution is as follows:

```
[FEN "8/8/6p1/5pP1/5P1K/5PpP/4p2p/2Q2Bkr w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe1 g2 (1... exf1=Q 2. Kxg3 Qxe1#) (1... exf1=R 2. Qxg3#) (1... exf1=N 2. Qf2+ Kxf2 (2... gxf2)) (1... exf1=B 2. Kxg3) 2. Bxe2# 1-0

```

Interestingly, in the different lines, following results are achieved:

* White gives a checkmate
* Black gives a checkmate
* White is stalemated
* Black is stalemated

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Is prophylaxis a feature of the hypermodern school?
Wikipedia mentions prophylaxis in the article of hypermodernism in chess. But is it really a feature of the hypermodern school? I have not seen prophylaxis in any other book or article about hypermodernism in chess. One exeption is the chapter about prophylaxis in the book My Shstem, which is also describing hypermodern chess.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's because Nimzowitch was the foremost figure amongst the hypermoderns, you can't mention hypermodern school without Nimzowitch. And the prophylaxis idea first introduced by him, in his famous book Mein System. If we would call him the father of modern chess, it wouldn't be wrong.

His ideas was challenging the dogmatic rules set by Tarrasch, which widely considered as the *best* strategy at the time.

There is an excellent book named Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitch, which covers prophylaxis and lot more. I recommend you to read it.

---
Tags: history, books, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Statistically, what is the best opening?
Statistically, what opening has white won with the most?

Such as, 1.e4 e5 2?

What is the move that white makes that has won the most games?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here is a tongue-in-cheek answer. The **4 move checkmate** (1. e4 e5 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5?? 4.Qxf7#) is an opening where White has won 100% of the time.

The reason why I post this answer is to highlight a few flaws in the question you asked:

1. Maybe if you find an opening with a high win ratio, you will build your reportaire around it? This is flawed logic as Black can sidestep your preparation, which may lead you into a bad line. Instead, play the openings that feel right for your playing style
2. What is an opening? Ultimately the opening are just the first few moves in the game. Crucially for a statistical question, you didn't say how many moves you are looking at. The first? The first 10? Assuming best play with Black? In most chess games, there are many moves other than those in the opening stage that determine the outcome of the game. I'd suggest you concentrate more on the middle and endgame than the opening

# Answer
> 3 votes
This article says there are 5,362 possible positions after White's second move, so are you asking which of those positions ends in the highest percentage of won games for White? Choosing that move seems a little arbitrary as the cut-off point for the "opening".

On the other hand if you were to look just at the first move, you should be able to find that out quite easily for any given database of games, but you quickly run into problems with sample size. For example, in the Chessgames.com database (over 750,000 games) you can see that the most successful first move by this definition is 1.Na3, with which White wins 78.3% of the time! Unfortunately this is from a sample of 23 games...

# Answer
> -1 votes
Due to the fact that opponents are not all consistent in the moves, it is impossible for there to be a 'best' move, but there can be the most appropriate move for a set circumstance.

Although simple, I generally like to open my getting my knights and bishops out first, and then going on to force the game in order to bring about victory.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Hard to say, as opening trees are biased as number of games played and player strengths are different. And the score difference between best scoring openings is very little, we can say *statistically insignificant*. So it's really hard to say.

Therefore, if you ask this for building an opening repertoire, don't do it. But if ask this just for curiosity, then you have the answer.

---
Tags: opening, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Play chess online and get an offical Elo rank
I played chess 30 years ago an now I am back in the arena. I have some spare time to train and play online. Could you please recommend me a good place to do so. A web interface without the need of any special clients would be great. Even greater would be the possibility to earn an official FIDE Elo ranking to see my progress.

# Answer
There is one (and so far only one) place where you can get the official FIDE rating - the FIDE Online Arena. It however needs a client. A quick introduction is here and the arena is at http://arena.fide.com

I have not tried it so I cannot comment on how good the interface is but I assume it is good. The killer feature is that it calculates official FIDE rating, which is calculated the same way as the official rating for over the board play thus they are directly comparable. Even better they are linked - every time a new FIDE rating list for over the board play is published this rating is incorporated in the online rating (in other words games played over the boards count to the online rating too). It does not work the other way around.

A very little known fact so far is that FIDE has introduced new players titles, so called *FIDE Titles for the Lower Rating Band*. Official info here and some basic info here. You earn these titles for online play but the cool thing is that they are valid for life and you can use them in over the board play as well. As an example if you consistently keep your online rating above 2000 you will become an Arena Grand Master (AGM).

It is very likely, and I would bet on it, that in future all most popular online servers will offer calculating the official rating too. This may take some time though.
> 9 votes

# Answer
To have an official FIDE rating you need to play in a FIDE rated tournament. National events or some of the larger local tournaments run by your country's chess federation are likely to have FIDE rated tournament sections.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I recommend lichess.org you to play. But it's not possible to get official FIDE rating from any internet servers. Only way is to play in FIDE. And for training, I recommend Daniel King's Power Play DVD series, excellent quality training and easy to study with a DVD, better than books. lichess.org also has tactical training feature, where you can solve tactical problems.

I'm really surprised to see FIDE launching an online server, it's something very new. But again any rating you get on their internet servers won't be the same official rating with OTB. It will be *official online FIDE rating* actually.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you need a rating that is sactioned by FIDE, then FIDE Arena is the only way. But you need to install special software and pay to register under your real name. Your rating will be publicly displayed on your FIDE ID page available through: http://ratings.fide.com/

Otherwise, I recommend http://chesstempo.com and as a second choice http://chess.com.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: elo, online-chess, fide
---


title: Hypermodernism definition

text:
# Question
Title: Hypermodernism definition
What are the features of hypermodernism? I know that one feature is controlling the center indirectly (f.ex. fianchetto), and letting the opponent control it with pawns. But I am not sure if there are other features. Nimzowitsch, who was the inventer of the hypermodernism style, wrote several new ideas in his book , such as overprotection, prophylaxis, rook on the seventh rank, knight outposts an so on. Are these ideas also considered as a part of the hypermodern style or is there a clear definition on this?

# Answer
> 1 votes
It seems to me you have the idea spot on already. Traditionally, chess theory was that the best way to control the center was to occupy it. Some players (like Nimzowitsch and others) showed that this was not necessarily true and that there is merit in letting your opponent occupy it while you undermine it from a distance.

I'm not sure if the idea was really novel at the time, but it became popular and as we do whenever we see a pattern we have to name it.

Beyond that I doubt there is much to learn from "hypermodernism" (which is not to say that there is not much to learn from the various rich and deep ideas behind each of the so labelled openings themselves).

# Answer
> 1 votes
From Wikipedia:

> Hypermodernism is a school of chess that emerged after World War I. It featured challenges on the chess ideologies presented by central European masters, such as on Wilhelm Steinitz's approach to the centre. It also challenged in particular the dogmatic rules set down by Siegbert Tarrasch. The Hypermoderns challenged the guidelines of the previous generation and demonstrated with concrete games and victories that these challenges could be done successfully. Aron Nimzowitsch for example showed how games could be won through indirect control of the center, challenging Tarrasch's dogmatic view that the center must be occupied by pawns. Nimzowitsch advocated controlling the center of the board with distant pieces rather than with pawns, thus inviting the opponent to occupy the center with pawns, which can then become targets of attack. However, this was only part of the hypermodern framework, which Nimzowitsch encapsulated in the seminal chess book My System, which greatly influenced many chess players. It introduced and formalized concepts of the pawn chain, overprotection, undermining, prophylaxis, restraint, rook on the seventh rank, knight outposts, the dynamics of the isolated queen's pawn, and other areas of chess.
>
> ...
>
> Hypermodern openings include the Réti Opening, King's Indian Defence, Queen's Indian Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, Grünfeld Defence, Bogo-Indian Defence, Old Indian Defence, Catalan Opening, King's Indian Attack, Alekhine's Defence, Modern Defence, Pirc Defence, Larsen's opening, Sokolsky Opening, and to a lesser degree the English Opening. Openings such as 1.a3 do not constitute hypermodern openings since, although they delay the occupation of the centre with pawns, they also delay piece development.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Consult John Watson's books on strategy. He writes about this subject from a historical perspective. (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, and there is also a newer one.)

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: King's Indian c5 against Samisch

text:
# Question
Title: King's Indian c5 against Samisch
I'm a 2000 Fide player and I played an interesting opening game last sunday.

It was a King's Indian Samisch (I was playing white) and my opponent played the c5 gambit. That was the first time I saw this move.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "11"]

      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 c5

```

I accepted the gambit and was not happy with my position. Both sides played not so accurate moves and I ended up winning a piece.

But analyzing the game, either Stockfish and I seems to not like the position.

Here is what happened

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "11"]

      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 c5 7. dxc5 dxc5 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Bxc5 Nc6 10.Be2 Nd7 11.Be3 Nde5 (11... Bxc3!? 12. bxc3 Nb6 13. c5 Na4) 12.Rd1?! (12. Nd5! e6 13.Nc7 Rb8 14.Rd1) Rxd1 13. Kxd1 Na5 14.Nd5 e6?? (14... Nexc4) 15.Nc7

```

Does white have better lines when accepting the gambit? How do you play against c5 (d5 for Benoni like positions or let the status quo hoping for sort of maroczy bind, or something else?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I remember reading somewhere in an opening book that the c5 line against the Saemisch is the primary reason why the Saemisch has stopped being popular among the elite. Moreover, it is recommended for black in two repertoire books on the King's Indian Defense: one by Bologan and one by Dejan Bojkov.

---
Tags: opening, theory, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Running down the opponent's clock on purpose
Running out of time is a loss. Two players are both very low on time and quite far from a checkmate. What if one player makes some 'pointless' defensive moves to keep his clock running so that the other player, still trying to win, runs out of time.

I am new and I am asking because I have had opponents moving their king back around while I was there trying to do something and had no time left.

Is there some sort of rule that prevents my opponent from making useless moves while I try to win and run out of time?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is an official Fide rule to prevent this kind of behavior ("flagging"). This rule however only holds in quickplay finishes of normal tournament games. In blitz managing the time better than your opponent is an integral part of the game. In online games (which mostly are blitz anyway) I have never seen this rule implemented (it's kind of tough without an arbiter).

Also note that this rule only allows you to claim a draw, to win you'll have to checkmate with the time still left to you.

Article 10: Quickplay Finish

10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time. 10.2 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 Article 6.12.b)

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.

(bold by me)

# Answer
> 3 votes
That's how it goes. Time management is an important part of tournament chess play.

# Answer
> -3 votes
There is a rule called *draw by insufficient material* in FIDE, which prevents the situations you described.

It's draw automatically if any following situation happens:

1. King vs king
2. King vs king + knight
3. King + zero or more bishops vs king + zero or more bishops, where all bishops stands on same colored squares
4. Any combination of pieces in a position where stalemate is unavoidable.
5. Any combination of pieces in a position where checkmate is impossible.
6. Any combination of pieces in a position where it's inevitable to transpose to a position described above.

So you can't lose on time, in these kinds of positions.

---
Tags: beginner, time-control
---


title: Fide Rating result

text:
# Question
Title: Fide Rating result
In JUly, 2015 I got 1.5 points against rated player and faced 6 players and again in January, 2016 I faced three more fide rated players . Totally, I faced 9 fide rated players, Shall I eligible for fide rating?

# Answer
FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2014

> 7.1
>
> On the first day of each month, the QC shall prepare a list which incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list. This shall be done using the rating system formula.
>
> 7.11
>
> The rating period (for new players, see 7.14) is the period where a certain rating list is valid.
>
> 7.12
>
> The following data will be kept concerning each player whose rating is at least 1000 as of the current list: FIDE title, Federation, Current Rating, FIDE ID Number, Number of Games rated in the rating period, Date of Birth, Gender and the current value of K for the player.
>
> 7.13
>
> The closing date for tournaments for a list is 3 days before the date of the list; tournaments ending before or on that day may be rated on the list. Official FIDE events may be rated on the list even if they end on the last day before the list date.
>
> 7.14
>
> A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
>
> 7.14a
>
> If based on results obtained under 6.2, a minimum of 5 games.
>
> 7.14b
>
> If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
>
> 7.14c
>
> The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods totalling not more than 26 months, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.
>
> 7.14d
>
> The rating is at least 1000.
>
> 7.14e
>
> The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

Yes you are eligible.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, fide
---


# Question
Title: What is the result of this pawn-endgame with perfect play by both sides?
W : Kg2 , Pa2, b2, c2

S : Kb7 , Pf7, g7, h7

White to move

```
[fen "8/1k3ppp/8/8/8/8/PPP3K1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Houdini's shootout ended in a black win with depth 23 Ply and a white win with depth 25 Ply.

# Answer
Analysis of this general endgame appears in Staunton's *Handbook*, in the section "King and Three Passed Pawns against King and Three Passed Pawns."

In the preceding section of the book, "King against Three Passed Pawns," Staunton provides analysis indicating that a lone king battling the three connected passers in isolation (without assistance from their own king) can stop a promotion by getting to the so-called *master square*, which are here g3 for White, b6 for Black.

When considering these KPPP vs. KPPP endgames, he asserts a general rule about the kings' starting points for those positions in which one or both kings are within 3 squares of their respective master squares:

> Victory will be in the hands of the party who can first play his King into its master square.

Staunton goes into some detail explaining the general logic behind play, and gives some examples. I won't try to elaborate here, but instead refer the reader to Staunton's text if interested. According to the rule, the OP's position would indeed be a win for White.

Among the examples Staunton considers, one is "Greco's position," which is identical to the OP's but with kings on e1 and e8. According to Staunton, that position was long considered drawn, but analysis given by Szén revealed it to be a win (in accordance with the rule above). Staunton further considers the position with kings on d1 and e8, calling it "Szén's position," and presenting analysis he credits to Evans (consistent with bof's comment to the OP) showing this also to be a win for White (again in accordance with the master square rule).

---

For those interested in more beyond Staunton: there is a paper by Noam Elkies applying combinatorial game theory to chess endings, and which in particular considers cases where pawn endgames essentially reduce to distinct subgames wherein mutual Zugzwang might arise. It deals with some of these KPPP vs. KPPP endings near the end, including Szén's position and a nice study by Behting:

```
[fen "1k6/1P6/2P5/P7/5ppp/8/6K1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[White "White"]
[Black "to Win"]

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
It would be astonishing if White were in zugzwang in the initial position and it were a win for Black. It would be mildly surprising if it were a draw, because pawn endgames are so volatile.

Stockfish 5 at depth 40 evaluates it as +19 for White, which is convincing enough for me.
> 0 votes

# Answer
It seems all symmetric positions like this, where both sides have 3 connected passed pawns are winning for first moving side, because, it's not possible to blockade(it is possible for a moment, but then zugzwang happens) and racing favors first moving side.
> 0 votes

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


title: Endgame FEN generator

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame FEN generator
is it possible to generate FEN strings for endgames based on specific criteria: n-pieces, w/d/l, and side to move?

So say I wanted all FEN strings for King plus Rook vs King plus Pawn (KPKR) endgames, where it is white to move, and white draws with perfect play.

I know there would be an extremly large number of results, and the next step would be to then categorize those results further by other criteria, like say white king is in front of the pawn, or the black pawn has passed the 6th rank.

I assume an endgame tablebase (egtb) has this information stored in it already, but how to get this information out of them? Or is there some other way of generating this?

Thanks!!

# Answer
Firstly, FEN notation is used to describe a board state or permutation, not a family of board states or permutations.

What you are talking about, is a way to index board positions based on your criteria. i.e. Rook vs Knight end games or such

This can be done by most database software (Fritz, Chessbase). This is done by searching games in the database, and pulling them out based on the board positions.

For example, if I want to get a bunch of rook vs knight end games, I can search for all FEN strings that contain only K,k,p,P,r,R,n,N. Basically, positions that contain pawns, knights, rooks and kings.

As for egtb, the format are stored using bit bases and the positions are assigned to a unique index. I would assume this is how Chess Position Trainer stores its FEN strings in order to determine transpositions.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The most straightforward way would be to start with a chess program with tablebase capability and add a routine which would generate every possible position of a given endgame class and output those which had tablebase scores matching the selection criteria.

Trivia: An example from KRKP:

```
Longest mate score (BTM): MateIn43
Sample BTM longest mating position: 8/8/8/8/5R2/2pk4/5K2/8 b - - 0 1

Optimal move sequence from the above BTM longest mating position:

1... c2 2. Rf3+ Kd4 3. Rf4+ Kd5 4. Rf5+ Kc6 {Kd6} 5. Rf8 Kb7 {Kc7} 6. Rf7+ Kb6
7. Rf6+ Kb5 8. Rf5+ Kb4 9. Rf4+ Kb3 10. Rf3+ Kb2 11. Ke3 {Rf8} c1=Q+ 12. Kd4
Qc6 {Qc7 Qc8 Qd2+ Qe1 Qg1+ Qg5 Qh6} 13. Re3 Kc2 {Qb6+ Qd6+ Qf6+} 14. Re2+ Kb3
15. Re3+ Kb4 16. Ke5 Kc4 17. Re4+ Kd3 18. Rd4+ Ke3 19. Rd6 Qe4+ 20. Kf6 Kf4 21.
Re6 Qb4 {Qc2} 22. Kf7 Qb7+ {Qc3 Qc4} 23. Ke8 Kf5 {Qc7} 24. Rd6 Ke5 {Qc8+} 25.
Rd7 {Rh6} Qa8+ {Qb3 Qb5 Qc8+} 26. Kf7 Qc6 27. Re7+ Kf5 28. Kf8 {Kg8} Qd5 29.
Ke8 {Kg7} Qg8+ 30. Kd7 Kf6 31. Re8 Qf7+ 32. Kd8 Qb7 33. Re1 Qb4 34. Re2 {Re8}
Kf7 {Qa5+ Qb6+ Qb8+ Qd4+ Qd6+} 35. Kc7 {Kd7 Ra2 Rc2 Rf2+ Rg2} Qc4+ 36. Kd6 Qxe2
37. Kd5 Ke7 {Qd1+ Qd2+ Qd3+ Qe3 Qg4} 38. Kc5 Kd7 {Ke6 Qd2 Qd3 Qe3+ Qe4} 39. Kb4
{Kd4 Kd5} Qd3 {Qe3} 40. Ka4 {Kc5} Kc6 {Kc7 Kd6 Qb1} 41. Kb4 Kb6 42. Ka4 Kc5 43.
Ka5 Qa3# {Qb5#}

```
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, fen
---


# Question
Title: Does FIDE give titles to chess composers?
Does FIDE give titles to chess composers?

If so, do share more insight about the how-tos and other links to read.

# Answer
> 8 votes
They used to, but now the titling process is handled by the World Federation for Chess Composition.

Here's a link to some of the titles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_grandmasters\_for\_chess\_composition

# Answer
> 6 votes
The answer used to be Yes, via the Permanent Commission for Chess Compositions; in 2010 the Commission became the independent World Federation for Chess Composition, but "both organisations are cooperating". As was the case before 2010, there are three titles: Master, International Master, and Grandmaster, all based on the counts of problems and studies published in the FIDE Albums.

There are also titles and ratings for chess problem solving, and a title of International Judge of Chess Compositions.

---
Tags: problems, fide, titles, composing
---


title: Discovered check when winning

text:
# Question
Title: Discovered check when winning
Is it ok to put your own king in discovered check as you take the other king? (Does the taking of the other king even count as a move, or is the checkmate the last move?)

**Edit:** When thinking about it, this isn't possible, at least not involving a checkmate, because if taking the king would result in a discovered check, the piece that is suddenly checking your king could also be used to take the original checker.

Take the following example. Is the last move (pawn) legal?

```
[fen "8/5P2/6q1/8/8/Q7/8/5k1K w - - 0 1"]

1.Qh3 Qg2 f8

```

I know white is not checkmate here, because the white queen can capture the black queen. The question is: Can white be considered to be in check at all, since taking the white king would expose the black king to the white queen? So, can white choose to move their pawn instead of taking the black queen?

**Edit 2:** My question is a duplicate of this question: Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The game ends with checkmate but the last move must be a legal move. You cannot checkmate your opponent when you are checked at the same time.

# Answer
> -3 votes
Checkmate is the position, where you can capture opponent king in next turn and opponent can't do anything about it.

So, if you would play one more move after checkmate, you could capture enemy king while putting your king in discovered check.

Example:

```
8/8/7r/8/8/R6Q/6q1/5k1K w - - 0 1

```

Here White is checkmated. But let's assume that White can play one more move and plays Ra1, Black Queen can capture White King leaving Black King in discovered check, and Black would be victorious.

Or White Queen could capture Black Queen, to save White King, but then Black Rook would capture White King. That's why White Queen is pinned and can't move, if it moves, then in next move White King can be captured by Black Rook.

In chess, actually, you can capture kings. However, game ends 1 move before capturing the king as the fate is sealed, no need to play one more move. Checkmate means capturing the king is inevitable, actually.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, check, winning
---


# Question
Title: Joining a FIDE tournament abroad without a rating
I am an unrated USCF member, ~1800 @ lichess.org. I've been travelling from place to place for years, and was thinking about joining FIDE rated tournaments to adjust to OTB and become rated. But, if I look at the tournament's requirements, I notice that tournaments consistently need players from abroad to have a FIDE ID before entering. i.e. for the Dubrovnik Open; "Svi zainteresirani šahisti iz zemlje i inozemstva s FIDE ID brojem."

Is there any way around this(such as getting an ID without a rating), or is someone in this situation barred from tournaments until they settle down?

# Answer
Often tournaments have a B- (or C-) open in which even unrated players can take part.

But I have also encountered the regulation that unrated players need to provide an estimate of their playing strength, given by their federation, to take part in an open. Maybe that would be an option for you.

Apart from reading tournament regulations carefully you can always just write to the organisers explaining your situation. They should usually be quite accommodating, and if they aren't maybe this shouldn't be the tournament of your choice anyway.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In France, people who are unknown to chess federations (such as yourself) can subscribe to most OTB tournaments, but they have to subscribe for membership in the club organizing the tournament. This implies an additional expense.

On the other side, membership in a club is valid for a year (from September to August).

Almost all tournaments with long enough time control are FIDE rated. Good luck!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide
---


# Question
Title: Against the Slow Slav, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3, is the 4... a6 Chebanenko still good for Black?
Someone told me that:

* Against the move order 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 or 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3, the move 4...a6 is averagely effective.
* Against the move order 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3, the move 4...a6 is extremely effective, since White has already committed to playing e3, so White has lost many of his options (White now only has two options: 5. Nf3 or 5. Qc2).
* Against the move order 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3, the move 4...a6 is not very effective (it's still 'playable' but it doesn't make as much sense as in the usual Chebanenko), because White has not committed his b1 Knight to c3, so the ...b5 push is not as strong since White can manoeuvre his Knight to the c5 square more easily and ...b4 wouldn't gain a tempo on a White Knight.

Is this really true?

I've looked into many games databases (openings explorers), but they don't seem to help in answering this question. Against 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 the move 4...a6 is still played very often, though Black scores very slightly worse than average against 5. Bd3, 5. b3, 5. Nbd2 and 5. Qc2.
But the fact that it is played often doesn't necessarily reflect if it's good or not, it might simply be due to the fact that many Chebanenko players play 4...a6 against this move order anyways, hoping that White kindly transposes into a usual Chebanenko with 5. Nc3.
And the fact that it scores slightly worse than usual for Black might simply be a statistical fluctuation, or it might just be caused by the fact that Chebanenko players are maybe less prepared against these White options (5. Bd3, 5. b3, 5. Nbd2 and 5. Qc2) because they are rarer than the usual Chebanenko lines.

I would like to know if 4... a6 against the Slow Slav is objectively good or not.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I am by no means an openings expert, but I have played the Slow Slav as White for a long time so I will just make some comments.

In general, lines with an early b7-b5 in Chebanenko positions tend to work better with a Nc3 than a Nd2. As you have already noted, a Nd2 makes it much more likely that White will be able to find some way to exploit the holes on Black's queenside (particularly c5, a5, and c6, often exploited by a well-timed a2-a4) created by an early b7-b5. Positions with b7-b5 and Nb1-d2 are not necessarily very good for White, but they do seem to give a better chance of White gaining a small advantage than the main lines, and a small advantage is usually the best that White can hope for against the Chebanenko these days. Positions with a Nc3 make it much more difficult for White to exploit the holes Black makes on the queenside with b7-b5, and give Black more dynamic compensation for such holes due to the possibility in many lines of a well-timed b5-b4, forcing the Nc3 to an awkward square.

Since an eventual b7-b5 is the general idea behind a7-a6, I always respond to 4...a6 by playing Nb1-d2 (either right away, or more commonly a little later after Bf1-d3). This is probably White's best try for an advantage in these lines. If Black goes ahead and plays b7-b5 anyways, I generally get the kind of position I want, which I would describe as lightly +=.

However, if Black refrains from playing a quick b7-b5 and plays something like an immediate Bc8-g4 (say, after 4...a6 5.Bd3), he still has a very solid Slav position in which the "wasted" move a7-a6 is compensated for by the fact that d2 is not an ideal square for the White N in lines where Black does not play b7-b5 (that is, because it removes some of the pressure from d5 and because in some variations the Nd2 can also get in the way of the Nf3). Typically, in positions with a strong center like this (pawns at c4/d4/e3), White would prefer his Ns on the most active squares, c3 and f3, where they simultaneously pressure Black's center and support possible pawn advances by White. So the move Nbd2 after a7-a6 may also be viewed as a kind concession.

I like to look at the exchange as a kind of exercise in prophylaxis: Black plays a7-a6 as prophylaxis against White's ideal set-up in the center with Nc3; White then plays Nb1-d2 (or just refrains for committing the N to c3 for a while) as prophylaxis against Black's idea of b7-b5. Black, having now discouraged White from playing his ideal set-up with the N on c3 (I use the word "discouraged" very loosely here because positions with Nc3 and b7-b5 are fully playable for White), then plays Bc8-g4 with the idea that this set-up is even better after the exchange of a7-a6 and Nb1-d2, because a7-a6 does not hurt Black and the Nd2 is slightly misplaced. White is not entirely convinced of this last point, because Nd2 is at least a developing move, while a7-a6 is not. And so the discussion continues, with White trying to find lines in which his Nbd2 is actually useful.

As far as I know, there is no clear way to an advantage for White in lines with the Nbd2/Bd3 set-up against a7-a6, but the play is different and less forcing that the positions with a Nc3. Having played many games with this set-up and a number of games with the main line Slow Slav positions (that is, with an immediate Bc8-f5 or Bc8-g4 instead of a7-a6), I would evaluate both set-ups as roughly the same: +=/=. They are very slightly easier to play for White, but White has no significant advantage if Black knows what he/she is doing.

The upshot of all this is that 4...a7-a6 appears to be fine against the Slow Slav set-up as long as Black refrains from an early b7-b5 before White commits his N to c3. In such positions, the move a7-a6 once again proves to be a high-class waiting move, with a dollop of added prophylaxis.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you want to play the Chebanenko Slav against the Slow Slav, you should play 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5. Then after 5. Nc3 you play 5...a6. This is because after 4...a6 White can develop his knight to d2 instead of c3, which is advantageous because of the reasons in the other answer.

---
Tags: opening, theory, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: What chess games have violated commonly accepted principles?
There are certain chess principles that generally should be accepted and followed. I was wondering If anyone knew of any game or games that have gone against these principles and still resulted in a win from the player who violated the principles?

# Answer
Here are some principles we teach beginners but grandmasters regularly break.

---

## Don't bring your queen out too early.

This principle was successfully broken by Korchnoi in an important match.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Candidates Semifinal"]
[Site "Évian-les-Bains FRA"]
[Date "1977.07.16"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Lev Polugaevsky"]
[Black "Viktor Korchnoi"]
[StartPly "8"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Qc2 Qh4 5. Nd2 Bb4 6. Bd3 f5
7. Nf3 Bxd2+ 8. Kf1 Qh5 9. Bxd2 Nf6 10. exf5 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Nc6
12. Bc3 O-O 13. Re1 Qh3+ 14. Ke2 Rae8 15. Kd1 e5 16. dxe5 Nxe5
17. Be2 Nxf3 18. Qd3 Rxe2 19. Rxe2 Qg2 20. Rhe1 Nxe1 21. Kxe1
Qxh2 22. Re7 Qg1+ 23. Ke2 Qg4+ 24. Ke1 h5 25. Qg3 Qxg3
26. fxg3 Rf7 27. Bxf6 gxf6 28. Re8+ Kg7 29. Kf2 Kh6 30. b4 Kg5
31. Ra8 Kxf5 32. Rxa7 d6 33. a4 Ke6 34. a5 bxa5 35. Rxa5 f5
36. c5 Rh7 37. cxd6 cxd6 38. b5 h4 39. gxh4 Rxh4 40. Ra8 Rb4
41. Rb8 Kd5 42. Kf3 Rb3+ 43. Kf4 Kc5 44. Rc8+ Kxb5 45. Kxf5
Re3 46. Kf4 Re1 47. Rd8 Kc5 48. Rc8+ Kd4 49. Kf3 d5 50. Kf2
Re5 51. Ra8 Kc3 52. Ra3+ Kb4 53. Ra1 d4 54. Rc1 d3 55. Rc8 d2
56. Rb8+ Kc3 57. Rc8+ Kd3 58. Rd8+ Kc2 59. Rc8+ Kd1 0-1

```

---

## Develop your pieces!

Here we see Polugaevsky successfully play his own variation where he uses the queen to grab a pawn, and then start to think about developing the minor pieces around move 15.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "USSR"]
[Site "USSR"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vladimir Zagorovsky"]
[Black "Lev Polugaevsky"]
[StartPly "22"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. f4 b5 8. e5 dxe5 9. fxe5 Qc7 10. exf6 Qe5+ 11. Be2 Qxg5
12. O-O Ra7 13. Qd3 Rd7 14. Ne4 Qe5 15. c3 Bb7 16. Bf3 Bxe4
17. Bxe4 Bd6 18. g3 gxf6 19. Kh1 Bc5 20. Rad1 Kf8 21. Rfe1 Qg5
22. a4 Kg7 23. axb5 Bxd4 24. cxd4 Qxb5 25. Qe3 Rhd8 26. d5 Nc6
27. Rf1 exd5 28. Bd3 Qxb2 29. Rf5 Qd4 30. Qc1 Ne5 31. Rh5 Nxd3
32. Qh6+ Kg8 33. Qxh7+ Kf8 34. Rxd3 Qe4+ 35. Kg1 Qxh7 36. Rxh7
a5 37. Rh4 d4 38. Kf2 f5 39. Ke2 Ke7 40. Kd2 Ke6 41. Ra3 Rd5
42. Kd3 Ke5 43. Ra2 Ra8 44. Rh6 Rb5 45. Re2+ Kd5 46. Rf2 Rb3+
47. Kc2 Rab8 48. Rd2 a4 49. Ra6 a3 50. Ra7 R8b7 51. Ra8 Rb2+
52. Kd3 R2b3+ 53. Ke2 Re3+ 54. Kd1 Rb1+ 55. Kc2 Rb2+ 56. Kd1
d3 57. Rd8+ Ke4 0-1

```

---

## Don't move the same piece twice in the opening.

Although Kasparov didn't win this game, he should get an award for moving the same knight 5 times in the 9 first moves.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "21st Linares"]
[Site "Linares ESP"]
[Date "2004.02.20"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Bc4 Be7 5. d3 Nf6 6. Nd2 d6
7. Nf1 Nd7 8. Ne3 Nb6 9. Ned5 O-O 10. O-O Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Rb8
12. a4 Be6 13. f4 exf4 14. Bxf4 Bg5 15. b3 Bxd5 16. Bxg5 Qxg5
17. Bxd5 Nb4 18. Bc4 d5 19. exd5 Nxd5 20. Qf3 Qe3+ 21. Rf2
Qxf3 22. Rxf3 Nb6 23. Bb5 a6 24. a5 axb5 25. axb6 Rfc8 26. Ra5
c4 27. Rxb5 cxd3 28. c4 Rd8 29. Rd5 Rxd5 30. cxd5 Rd8 31. Rxd3
Rd6 32. Kf2 Kf8 33. Ke3 Rxb6 34. Kd4 Ke7 35. Kc5 Rh6 36. h3
Rg6 37. g4 Rg5 38. b4 h5 39. Rd4 hxg4 40. hxg4 f5 41. gxf5
Rxf5 42. b5 Rf6 1/2-1/2

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
GM Miles's 1...a6 2...b5 against the World Chess Champion, Karpov.

**Karpovs vs Miles, 0-1, St George Defense**

Full Game
> 5 votes

# Answer
Anand beat Ivanchuk in a famous game at Linares in 1992 by:

* Voluntarily doubling his pawns with 17... gxf6!.
* Exchanging off his "good" bishop and proving his "bad" bishop was better than his opponent's "good" one.

---

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Linares"]
[Site "Linares ESP"]
[Date "1992"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B62"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2
a6 8.O-O-O h6 9.Be3 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 b5 11.f3 Qa5 12.a3 e5 13.Be3
Be6 14.Kb1 Be7 15.g4 Rb8 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Rxd2 h5
19.Rg1 hxg4 20.fxg4 Bc4 21.b3 Bxf1 22.Rxf1 Rh3 23.Re2 Kd7
24.g5 Ke6 25.gxf6 Bxf6 26.Bd2 Be7 27.Be1 f6 28.Bg3 d5 29.exd5
Kxd5 30.Rf5 Kc6 31.Ref2 Rh6 32.Kb2 Kd7 33.Re2 Bd6 34.Rf3 Rc8
35.Be1 Ke6 36.Rd3 Rh7 37.Rg3 Bc5 38.Ka2 Rd7 39.Rc3 Rcc7 40.h4
Rd1 41.Bf2 Bd6 42.Rg3 e4 43.Rxe4+ Be5 44.Rxe5+ fxe5 45.Kb2 Rd2
0-1

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
For every "rule" there must be a standard opening variation that violates it. For example, the "Bishop's gambit" invites Black to force White to move the King as early as move 4:

```
[Title "Bishop's Gambit"]
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+!? 4.Kf1

```

To be sure Black has violated the rule against moving the Queen early, which White expects to exploit soon with Nf3 and claim an initiative despite the lost pawn and Castling rights.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Are you talking about Tarrasch's old school as commonly accepted principles? Then every game with flank openings and fianchetto setup violates this. Check hypermodern school and Nimzowitch.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Look up John Watson's books on chess strategy. He writes about the concept of general rules from a historical perspective. Each rule is discussed and examples are shown to violate it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: best-practice
---


title: Fritz 12 in Win 8.1

text:
# Question
Title: Fritz 12 in Win 8.1
I am new here, I am trying to find out if anyone knows if Fritz 12 can be installed in Win 8.1 OS,

Thank your for your help'

# Answer
Well, these guys say it does.

New in Chess gives the following system requirements.

System requirements: Minimum: Minimum: Pentium III 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, Windows Vista, XP (Service Pack 3), DirectX9 graphics card with 256 MB RAM, DVD-ROM drive, Windows-Media Player 9, internet access (playchess.com, updates and activation).

Recommended: PC Intel Core 2 Quad, 2.4 GHz, 3 GB RAM, Windows Vista or Windows 7, DirectX10 graphics card (or compatible) with 512 MB RAM or more, 100% DirectX10 compatible, sound card, Windows Media Player11, DVD ROM drive and internet access (playchess.com, updates and activation).

Now I also have a question for you: Doesn't google work on Windows 8.1?
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: Getting better at chess

text:
# Question
Title: Getting better at chess
Can anyone recommend some type of training schedule that I can use to get better? I'm rated around 1445 and it just seems like I should be much better. If you have a schedule that worked for you maybe I can modify it to work for me.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A couple of suggestions:

1. Solve chess puzzles daily. Use 'mate in two' puzzles (also called combinations) only. 'Mate in three' is usually more complicated and requires more time/energy and is less emotionally satisfactory (you may lose interest). Note: in classical (which you should use) 'mate in two' puzzles a. first move is never a check b. rarely a capture
2. Analyze openings as well. I think that ending is a good thing to study. But what is the use of it if you cannot get to ending without proper knowledge of openings? I would suggest to especially focus on opening tricks, because at your level many people may try to apply them (use simple logic: it's easier to 'catch' a beginner than an advanced player) I would suggest study 1.e4 openings for white (open) For black you may choose 1. ... e5 (the 'classic' response) however 1. ... c5 (Sicilian) 1. ... e6 (French) and other 'main-stream' responses are good as well.
3. Every time analyze games that you played. Try to find either a club with a coach, find a coach on the internet, ask your friend or... simply do it yourself (if no other options available). All leading chess players advanced mainly by analysis of their mistakes.
4. Analyze games of leading chess players: Kasparov, Karpov, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik and etc. etc. This you can do on your own or with a coach. In fact, I would suggest to analyze them on your own by reading comments to the moves (usually comments are made by other leading players)
5. Play regularly. If you can't play in tournaments, play online. ICC (Internet Chess Club) is a great choice (I play there a lot for many years)

I hope it helps!

# Answer
> 2 votes
I recommend you to study endgame, over opening. It contributes more into your progress. It will teach you how to use every piece in best possible way, so it will increase your performance in middlegame and opening too.

There is a training set by GM Daniel King, which covers almost everything to turn a Class B player into a Class A player, called Power Play. I recommend you to buy it and use it for training.

And I recommend you to solve tactics puzzles regularly.

Also read these questions, which are related to your question:

And more, please search the site properly, you will find answers to your questions.

---
Tags: learning, training
---


# Question
Title: Theoretically, shouldn't analysis of any chess move have exactly nine possibilities?
Since chess is finite and deterministic, it is theoretically possible to objectively label any position as winning, losing, or drawn. For example, it seems very likely that the starting position is drawn.

Therefore, the current system of "score" that engines use to analyze a position is actually nonsense from an objective point of view. With enough depth, the "score" would always be +100 (or whatever the engine uses for forced checkmate for white), 0 (drawn), or -100 (forced checkmate for black). Are these not the *only* possible evaluations of a position?

If so, it follows that moves can be characterized in exactly 9 ways. If W, L, D represent won, lost, and drawn positions, the nine possibilities can simply be written as ordered pairs of game states before and after the move.

For example, a move that makes a won position into a drawn won could be (W,D).

Our intuition of a range of severity for mistakes is something that a theoretical supercomputer would not share. Is it then meaningless to speak of how bad a mistake is? It seems to me that the only relevant point is whether it changes if the game is objectively won/lost/drawn.

# Answer
You are somewhat correct. In theory, each position can be correctly categorized in one of three ways -- win for the side to move, loss for the side to move, draw, **all presuming "best play" by both sides from that position**. That last caveat is required to make the ideas of "will win", "will lose", and "will draw" well-defined. But that caveat **also** means that the side to move can never **improve** on the position categorization, because that categorization already presumes (prices-in) that the side to move will make its **best** move. So the only possibilities for **move** categorizations are: `(W,W), (W,D), (W,L), (D,D), (D,L), (L,L)`. I.e. six instead of nine. The side to move can only hold or worsen (blunder) its theoretical value, in other words.

As for severity of error, presumably `(W,L)` is worse than `(W,D)`, but other than that, blunder is blunder, yes (`(W,D), (D,L)`). And any move that maintains value is a theoretical non-blunder, yes (`(W,W), (D,D), (L,L)`).

As to engine scores, they are in most cases theoretically "meaningless" I suppose, as above, but not objectively so. They could be considered to be trying to estimate the probability that the theoretical value is closer to W, D, or L, on some scale, given the data they have been able to glean so far in their forward position search. And sometimes they do produce theoretical values (forced-mate detections). But I've also got to think that the error-bars on non-theoretical engine values are also pretty large, meaning that we're talking about estimates of estimates of probabilities, which is pretty, well, non-definitive...

Also, see Saibot's answer regarding so-called Tablebases. Chess has been solved theoretically for all positions with 7 or fewer pieces on the board (two kings plus up to any five pieces). Here is an online resource for most of the 6-piece tablebases: http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb&lang=en

Another wrinkle on theoretical categorizations is "distance to mate" for W and L positions. Presumably a win in fewer moves is theoretically "better", so a `(W,W)` move that doesn't reduce "distance to mate" could be considered a "blunder" as well, as could a `(L,L)` move that shortens "distance to mate".
> 7 votes

# Answer
It is true that there is only three real assessment of a position, win, draw or loss. What you describe here is endgame tablebases. However it is not possible for today to compute these tablebases for 32 pieces(starting position).

Engine evaluation scores are not nonsense, what they do is using some rules(which also used by humans too) to evaluate positions. And these evaluations guide us to find good moves.

But it is nonsense to interpret engine scores as they are absolute assessments of positions. Or interpret their lines or scores as the *best possible*, no they are not.

Only way to find truest assessments is to do full enumeration of all possible continuations from a given position. Tablebases do this, engines do not(they generally can't, because of computational limitations)

Engines are just our silicon friends which use our rules(metrics) and lots of memory to evaluate positions with a statistical approach.

Maybe you can check this question, which is quite related: How not to use a chess engine?
> 4 votes

# Answer
If you only know about W,L,D you usually don't have a clue about what the best move is. Or to put it differently: Against a competent player you will never get a move with (D,W) because in all positions you will only randomly choose among (D,D) and that's no way to exert any pressure. Your "theoretical supercomputer" will have trouble beating a 1500.

Knowing the fastest way to mate also only allows you to choose the best move when you are already winning, you need some kind of additional heuristic to get there. You could try to minimise the number of drawing moves that your opponent will have, but that already entails a tree search and is not much different from what engines do today. (And possibly less effective.)

You are basically saying that the concept of strong or weak play is meaningless. But that is not true. It can be measured objectively in different ways like Elo or intrinsic performance rating. There is an objective difference in quality between two moves, even if they lead to the same outcome after optimal further play.

Your observation that moves can in theory be classified in such a way is correct of course, but also completely useless. Such a rough way to assess positions is not enough to take good decisions. You can use the same empty reasoning on other problems as well, and the result will generally be just as useless.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


title: Automatic draw rules

text:
# Question
Title: Automatic draw rules
In developing a computer chess program, would it be reasonable to automatically declare a draw match for these two scenarios:

A. Player 1 has a king and a knight, player 2 has only a king left.

B. Player 1 has a king and a bishop, player 2 has only a king left.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It would be absolutely reasonable, because there is only one way to end such positions, draw.

There are other positions like these as well. And for this, there is a rule called *dead position rule* in FIDE. It's a superset of the older concept of *draw by insufficient material*.

It's draw automatically if any following situation happens:

1. King vs king
2. King vs king + knight
3. King + zero or more bishops vs king + zero or more bishops, where all bishops stands on same colored squares
4. Any combination of pieces in a position where stalemate is unavoidable.
5. Any combination of pieces in a blocked position where checkmate is impossible.
6. Any combination of pieces in a position where it's inevitable to end up in a position described above.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Yes, since it is not possible to produce a checkmate in these circumstances.

See also the FIDE rules:

> 1.3 If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2 b).
>
> 5.2 b 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.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, in these two cases there is insufficient mating material and the game will always end in a draw.

---
Tags: rules, draw, dead-position
---


# Question
Title: Can a King and a Knight force stalemate against a lone King?
I believe that a King and two Knights are able to force stalemate against a lone King (though obviously not checkmate)... but what about a King and one Knight against a lone King?

I first thought that forcing stalemate would be impossible. So I set up a random position with King+Knight vs King where the lone King was at the edge of the board, and I tried to analyze it.

The result: White can force a stalemate! The trick is the move 3. Kd2!!

```
[fen ""]
[White "Stalemate in 9"]
[Black "-"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/k1KN4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "17"]

1. Nb2 Ka2 2. Nc4 Ka1 (2... Kb1 3. Kd2 Ka1 (3... Ka2 4. Kc2 Ka1 5. Na3 Ka2 6. Nb1 Ka1 7. Nc3) 4. Kc1 Ka2 5. Kc2 Ka1 6. Na3 Ka2 7. Nb1 Ka1 8. Nc3) 3. Kd2 Kb1 (3... Ka2 4. Kc2 Ka1 5. Na3 Ka2 6. Nb1 Ka1 7. Nc3) 4. Kd1 Ka1 (4... Ka2 5. Kc2 Ka1 6. Na3 Ka2 7. Nb1 Ka1 8. Nc3) 5. Kc1 Ka2 6. Kc2 Ka1 7. Na3 Ka2 8. Nb1 Ka1 9. Nc3

```

This doesn't prove that a King and a Knight can always force stalemate against a lone King, but it at least shows that it's not completely inconceivable that King+Knight could force the stalemate.

I obviously don't want a "yes/no" answer without any evidence to back it up. I would like either an irrefutable proof or at least some very strong evidence.

One idea is to build an endgame tablebase which takes into account stalemate as a win, which is equivalent to say that White wins when he captures Black's King. There would only need to be 64x63x62 = 249984 positions.

A second idea would be to get a basic engine and modify its code so that it takes into account stalemate as a win, and you can probably also throw away most of the code of the engine to make it calculate faster. Then make it calculate King+Knight vs King in a few positions where the lone King begins at an edge of the board (but not too close to a corner). But this idea would be less convincing than the tablebase.

# Answer
> 16 votes
An exhaustive computer search shows that as expected K+N cannot in general force stalemate against a lone K.

In fact, the defending King can avoid stalemate as long as it's not on one of the six-square triangular neighborhoods of the corners shown in the following diagram

```
[Title "Danger Zone"]
[fen "kkK2Kkk/kK4Kk/K6K/8/8/K6K/kK4Kk/kkK2Kkk w - - 0 0"]

```

even on the long edge of each triangle (the twelve White Kings in the diagram) stalemate can only be forced in a few special positions. Namely, Kb2 to move can be stalemated by force only from this position

```
[Title "Mutual Zugzwang"]
[fen "8/8/8/2N5/8/8/1k1K4/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

and its reflection about the a1-h8 diagonal; and Ka3 to move is stalemated only if facing a Kc3 and a Knight on one of the squares b2, c5, b6 that control a4 (the first of these arises at the start of the stalemate-in-9 shown by **Petrosian**).

It follows too that each of these four positions is mutual Zugzwang: the defender get stalemated by force only if on the move. There are few enough other Zugzwangs (up to board symmetries) to list them all. One is the unique losing position of maximal length:

```
[Title "Mutual Zugzwang"]
[fen "8/8/8/2N5/8/8/8/1k1K4 w - - 0 0"]

```

Two more are obtained from it by moving the Kings from b1/d1 to a1/c1 or a2/c2. Finally, Ka2 against Kc2 and Nb1(b5) are the shortest mutual Zugwangs.

As **Glorfindel** suggested, some of these positions are relevant to the Troitzky ending KNN/KP. For example, this is a mutual Zugzwang (in the usual sense of a win BTM and draw WTM), as are each of the three BTM positions in the main line 1...Kg7 2 Kg5 Kg8 3 Kg6 Kf8 4 Kf6:

```
[Title "Mutual Zugzwang"]
[fen "8/7k/3N4/1p5K/1N6/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]
[Title "Mutual Zugzwang"]
[fen "8/7k/3N4/1p5K/1N6/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
The question if king and knight against king alone can force stalemate is rather theoretic. In practice it is always a draw since the king and knight are unable to mate the king alone.

Stalemate cannot be forced. It can only be achieved when the king alone is in one of the corners so the king alone must help:

```
[FEN "6k1/8/7K/8/4N3/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1. Kh8 Nf6

```

---
Tags: endgame, knights, stalemate, knight-endgame
---


title: Chess position for a cake

text:
# Question
Title: Chess position for a cake
As weird as this question may seem, I am looking for a famous chess position to put in a birthday cake. Ideally the position should involve at least one knight and about 6 pieces.

Any idea of a good position matching this constraints?

# Answer
> 6 votes
How about Philidor's mate?

http://ashbyivanhoechessclub.org.uk/juniors/checkmates/philidors-mate/

```
[Title "Philidor's Mate"]
    [FEN "1r4k1/3Q2pp/8/6N1/6K1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

    1. Qe6+ Kh8 2. Nf7+ Kg8 3. Nh6+ Kh8 4. Qg8+ Rxg8 5. Nf7#

```

A well known pattern that involves a (sham) Queen sacrifice, a double-check, and a smothered mate delivered by the lowly Knight.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Maybe this very famous puzzle suits your cake :) White mates with knight extremely elegantly.

This puzzle was also in Chessbase Christmas puzzles in 2001.

```
[Title "Genrikh Kasparian, Shakhmaty v SSSR 1935"]
[FEN "2B3K1/8/3N1p1p/6pk/5P1P/6P1/7r/5r2 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne8 Kg6 ( 1... f5 2. Bxf5 ) ( 1... Rxf4 2. Ng7+ Kg6 3. Bf5+ Rxf5 4. h5+ Rxh5
5. g4 ) 2. h5+ Rxh5 3. f5+ Rxf5 4. g4 Rf4 5. Bf5+ Rxf5 6. Ng7 Rf1 7. gxh5#

```

---
Tags: problems, knights
---


title: iOS app that calculates multiple lines

text:
# Question
Title: iOS app that calculates multiple lines
Does anyone know of a chess engine for iOS that calculates and gives multiples lines when analyzing positions? I currently use Stockfish, but it only gives one variation.

# Answer
My strong SmallChess iOS app. Multi-lines is supported:

You can also try each variation on a variation board:
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software
---


title: Let's beat the Benko Gambit!

text:
# Question
Title: Let's beat the Benko Gambit!
I play 1. d4 as White and I have success against almost all Black defences, except the Benko Gambit, where I score about 30%.

My style is that I like solid, closed, positional games if I can, but I can handle myself tactically too. However I find that I lag behind in development, and to make matters worse, even if I reach an endgame, the Benko structure is quite solid, so even here Black has good chances.

Can you suggest a variation for White that leads to a solid, positional game against the Benko Gambit?

My elo is 2050.

# Answer
> 12 votes
I play Benko as black and am a FM. The most trouble I have in quick games is with declined cxb5 a6 b6 line. Without the a line open I just do not have the play that Benko player craves.

Also, I noticed that stronger(IM+) players tend to go for the b6 line, while weaker players either take the pawn on a6 or decline the gambit with something else. For example allowing black to push to b4 has been good for me as black.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I didn't exactly take into account your style, but in your own interest you should be ready to play different position types. This isn't going to be so closed, but it will definitely be solid, positional, and you will need to be tactically astute in the moves that follow.

One of the best lines is the following.

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5
4. cxb5 a6
5. bxa6 Bxa6
6. Nc3 d6
7. Nf3 g6
8. e4 Bxf1
9. Kxf1 Bg7
10. g3 0-0
11. Kg2 Nbd7
12. a4!

there are some move order wrinkles possible during this but you will manage to reach this tabiya 95% of the time. From here you just have a plan to regroup and neutralise the pressure black has on your queenside. knights on b5 and c4 for example are really nice and Qe2 or Qc2 are useful to protect b2, you can also regroup the darksquared bishop to c3. Sometimes you'll move the rook to a2 and then play b3 thought care should be taken. Also developing the hrook somewhere at some point. Subsequent to consolidating you then have good chances to slowly try to make the pawn count. This is vague but you should analyse from here yourself as it's already quite deep. Hope this helps.

EDIT:

Another option which I frequently use is to simply play 3. Nf3 when you can get some closed English/Maroczy bind position type... or if black insists on playing b5 then a6 you can take all of the pawns (including c5) and black is temporarily down two pawns and will be unlikely to recover them or get sufficient compensation.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: Outcome of a game in case of an illegal checkmate
Suppose that, in an amateur rapid play tournament (where supervision is inappropriate), the following position appears:

---

```
[fen "5K2/8/1q6/1N1k4/8/8/8/2R1R3 w - - 1 1"]

1. Re5+? Qc5+? {illegal} 2. Rxc5#

```

The players do not agree on the result of the game. White claims he won in virtue of the rule:

> 5.1.a.
>
> 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.

Black claims the game is a draw in virtue of the rule:

> Appendix A.4.d.
>
> If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Remark that the position after 2.Rxc5# is indeed illegal in virtue of the rule:

> 3.10.c.
>
> A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

The referee remarks that there is a discussion about a game, moves to this table and listens to both claims. What is the correct decision?

A related question: suppose that the referee remarks the illegal position after 1.... Qc5+, and stays near this table, and assists to the move 2.Rxc5# What is the correct decision in this case?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The mate stands and white wins. Although the position both before and after the mating move is illegal the mating move itself is legal therefore article 5.1.a is satisfied.

If an arbiter observes black playing 1...Qc5 then they declare the game lost for black for playing an illegal move. If they do not see the move but they observe the position after 1...Qc5 they will wait for white's move. Since white played 2.Rxc5 both kings are no longer in check hence article A.4.d does not trigger. In fact the purpose of the arbiter having to wait one move is to give the player a chance to correct the position. As it happens in this example the final position is still illegal but for a reason not covered by article A.4.d.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Laws of Chess: For competitions starting on or after 1 July 2014

> Article 7: Irregularities 7.1
>
> If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times. He shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move-counter. 7.2
>
> If during agame it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall be played. If during a game it is found that the chessboard has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game shall continue but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed chessboard.
>
> 7.3
>
> If a game has begun with colours reversed then it shall continue, unless the arbiter rules otherwise. 7.4
>
> If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces. 7.5
>
> **If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.** Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn. After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed 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.
>
> 7.6
>
> If, during a game, it is found that any piece has been displaced from its correct square the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

So I think, game returns to last position where no illegal move committed. 5.1.a is not applicable here, because 3.10.c violated, and satisfying Article 3 is a prerequisite for 5.1.a.

3.10.c

> A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
IA Petr Harasimovic's opinion notwithstanding the game is drawn. Winning the game in an illegal position is a nonsense (barring serious misconduct or a ringing mobile phone). The problem is that the English (authoratative) version of the rules is ambiguously worded -

> Then, if *the* illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Thank you, @AlexandreAksenov, for the link to the authorized French translation of the rules. They remove the ambiguity with a slight mistranslation, which I suspect may be deliberate -

> si la position sur l’échiquier est *toujours* illégale, il déclarera la partie nulle

which translates back into English as "If the position on the board *remains* illegal, he shall declare the game drawn."

The British Chess Arbiters' Association has produced a version of the rules consisting of the FIDE rules verbatim with their own added comments to clarify points like these. Here is the relevant part of their clarification for A4.d:

> Consider the following situations: ... (b) The arbiter arrives at the board. One king is already in check. The player completes a move checking the other king. The arbiter must wait until the next move is completed. If the position is *still* illegal he will declare the game drawn.

(My italics) This is eerily similar to the French. Perhaps no coincidence that the CAA has a French version (along with German and Russian) which looks like it was taken from the French Chess association website.

For completeness sake it is probably worth noting that the FIDE Arbiters' Association also has *its* own handbook! It has no clarifying comments for A4.d.

It also worth stressing that the FAA, CAA handbooks and the various translations by the different federations remain subservient to the original FIDE Laws of Chess as published on the FIDE website. The same applies to my opinions on A4.d expressed here and to the conflicting opinions of IA Petr Harasimovic. Nevertheless I suspect that the vast majority of FIDE arbiters would declare the game in question drawn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In my personal opinion, the answers which follow from rules seem to be: White wins in the first case (by checkmate), draw in the second case (the situation of Appendix A.4.d happened before checkmate). Although, this seems a bit illogical since the only difference between the two situations is the time when the referee was present near the table.

---
Tags: rules, illegal-move, rapid
---


# Question
Title: What are Black's plans in this position from the Breyer defence?
I'm considering taking up the Breyer defence to the Ruy Lopez as Black and played an internet game which went

```
  [StartPly "29"]
  [White "White"]
  [Black "Black"]
  [FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. h3 O-O 9. c3 Nb8 10. d3 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Nbd7 12. Nf1 Re8 13. Ng3 Nc5 14. Bc2 Bf8 15. Bg5

```

This move 15.Bg5 is not in my book on the Ruy Lopez. The computer suggests 15...h6 16.Be3 d5 which doesn't seem right unless Black gets clear compensation for the pawn. All Black's minor pieces seem well placed except the Bishop on f8. What are Black's plans in this position?

# Answer
After 17 Bxc5 Bxc5 18 ed Qxd5 no pawn is lost due to the mate threat at g2. Black has two active bishops and threatens Rad8 with pressure on the d pawn. If white does not exchange pawns then black can play Qd7 and Rad8.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, planning
---


# Question
Title: Do professional level chess players mainly stay consistent in their opening play?
I know that professional chess players obviously have to have a wide repertoire and try to know as much as they can, but I was curious if they mainly stay consistent. The reason for asking this was because I was watching the following video on `Bobby Fischer` and in game 6 of the world championship against `Spassky`, everyone was shocked when `Fischer` played the `English Opening`. It even shocked `Spassky` as he was not prepared to handle the `English` and according to the video gave `Fischer` a standing ovation for outstanding play, so do players of professional level normally stay consistent? Has this changed from the past until now?

# Answer
No two people are alike, and no two chess players are alike either.

To begin with, world class grandmasters study chess all the time, and they can play just about every opening under the sun and score incredibly well.

However, in order to get the very best results possible, most grandmasters will study and memorize moves and plans for a handful of openings for each color and each `1. e4` and `1. d4`. By doing this, they gain a slight advantage over their opponent in terms of a better position, using less time, or sometimes just a psychological edge.

Since the top players spend so much time learning these openings, they tend to not switch openings all that frequently. Changing one's repertoire would require redoing all the studying and memorization that had already been done. Frequently though, as other players discover and show new ideas, the repertoires evolve. A player might substitute one line for another or find an improvement in some opening line. The advent of super-strong computers has definitely increased the speed with which opening lines change. Nowadays players must constantly be looking for improvements and tweaking their lines in order to stay on top of things. Another factor is the internet - minutes after completion, the game is available for anyone in the world to see. Surprises can generally only be used once.

To discuss Fischer specifically, his entire career he mostly played `1. e4` and the King's Indian Defense and the Najdorf Sicilian as black. His openings did evolve and change over time, but he was fairly consistent, especially with `1. e4`. For this reason, when he played `1. c4` against Spassky in the '72 World Championship, it was a huge surprise. Spassky had spent his time figuring out how to meet `1. e4` and had to readjust to play the Queen's Gambit Declined.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I can tell you as an strong player looking to improve (1900), playing a diverse set of openings opens your mind to different themes of the game. If you always play the same lines, it is easy to get into a fixed way of thinking which limits your play.

I enjoy experimenting with different openings and having fun with them. Sure I might lose a few rating points, but I learn much more in the long run.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, fischer, spassky
---


# Question
Title: Adventures from the ODCL - How To Play The Endgame?
Well the league restarted after the Christmas break this week and here's much of my latest effort with a couple of questions afterwards - I haven't shown the whole game for reasons that I hope will become clear. For background I'm rated 139 ECF (~1750 ELO) and my opponent is 156 (~1870 ELO) and the time control is 90 minutes each for all moves, though time was not a factor in this game.

```
[Event "League"]
[Site "UK"]
[Date "2016.01.20"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "A.N.Other"]
[WhiteElo "1750"]
[BlackElo "1870"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nc6 4.Nf3 d3 5.Bxd3 d6 6.h3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Qd2 Qc7
9.O-O h5 10.c4 Be6 11.Nc3 a6 12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.cxd5 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.f4
Bg7 16.Rac1 Qd7 17.Qc2 Nf6 18.f5 gxf5 19.Rxf5 h4 20.Qf2 Rc8 21.Rf1 Bh6 22.
Bxh6 Rxh6 23.e5 dxe5 24.Rxe5 Qd6 25.Qf4 Qb6+ 26.Kh1 Qxb2 27.d6 e6 28.Rxe6+
fxe6 29.Qxh6 Kd7 30.Qxf6 Qxf6 31.Rxf6 Kxd6 *

```

So

1) What do you think of my play so far? I'm relatively pleased, my only major disappointment is due mainly to blood lust (Rooks don't go backwards!!) I didn't see 28 Re2 which wins, but comments are appreciated

2) End games are my weakness and I ended up drawing this one. How should white go about things from the final position? What principles should I be applying?

# Answer
> End games are my weakness and I ended up drawing this one. How should white go about things from the final position? What principles should I be applying?

The key features in the final position are:

1) You are a bishop for a pawn up

2) He has more weaknesses than you - 3 pawn islands to your 2

3) His king is much more active. It is ideally placed for action in the centre of the board while yours is stuck in the corner. This plus his passed e pawn are big pluses for him.

4) There aren't many pawns left. If they all come off it will be a draw.

Your aims should be, going from general to specific:

1) Play actively with your pieces to attack his pawns rather than passively defend if you can

2) Activate your king. His pawn on h4 is a big problem. If he can keep it and get his rook to the second rank then your king, your second most powerful piece, will be a spectator.

3) Avoid pawn exchanges.

4) Win the h4 pawn (I don't think he can stop you)

5) Blockade or win the e pawn

6) Queen either your g or h pawn

Without putting it through an engine I would suggest something like:

32 ... Rh6 - he isn't going to be able to save the h pawn

33. Rd8 (he wants to push his passed pawn) Rxh4
34. e5 Bd5 (blockading the e pawn and eyeing up the b pawn)
35. b6 (b5 would lose the a pawn after Rh6+) Rg4 (releasing the h pawn to run)

Push the h pawn, put your rook behind it on h4, move your king to where it is needed most. Not necessarily all in that order.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1) Good game, a few mistakes but nothing very significant given your elo. I like using lichess to review games, so here is the link.

2) You're up a minor piece, and the pawn islands are in the same position. You can queen before he does. Ask the question "how can I queen a pawn before he does," and to that I reply "pushh... when you can." Click the menu button below the movelist on lichess and "play with the machine" to follow along and make the moves yourself, it'll make you less nervous over the board. Plus, no one is going to play better than Stockfish.

So you obviously have to queen either the g or h pawn, and your a pawn is simply bait to waste his rook's time. We need to knock out his h pawn, and preferably his e pawn as well so it doesn't cause trouble. We can start by playing Rh6 to scoop one of the two pawns, his Rd3 is met with our Bf5. You can play out some more continuations, but he'll lose a pawn once you kick out his annoying rook that is overloaded. Easiest way to kick out the rook is with our king on f2 and moving our bishop around. If he moves his king anywhere but e5 instead of being annoying with his rook, you can play Re6 and get his e pawn.

Assuming he doesn't make a mistake, most of this endgame is moving the bishop around to good squares that limit his rook. Our rook should always be attacking one of his pawns or defending the bishop. It's pretty simple to play out, try it a few different ways!

You are definitely winning, I hope to see you playing out these positions instead of drawing. You can read up on endgames many different places if you have lots of trouble. Good luck out there!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


title: Is it always better to accept gambits?

text:
# Question
Title: Is it always better to accept gambits?
Among chess players circulate the idea that any gambit should be accepted. It's an old and popular idea; if you don't want trouble, accept the gambit. Should this be consider a valid principle?

# Answer
Gambit's are sacrifices which are played hoping to get development advantage and/or initiative in opening.

So if you accept the gambit, and if the opponent can't consolidate development advantage and/or initiative, you will end up better. But if you decline, opponent will get advantage generally (This is where that principle comes from). Gambits are generally advantageous for sacrificer when they are declined.

However, some gambits really loses advantage when declined. For example:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Smith-Morra Declined"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 (3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 {White has development advantage, and is happy }) d3 4. Bxd3 { c3 is not available for White Knight, if
White plays c4, then whats that Bishop on d3 doing?}  ( 4. Qxd3 { White Bishop
is blocked and c3 is not available for White Knight.})

```

Black simply expels White's fast development plan by declining the gambit. Now, White has opening problems to solve, not Black.

I play myself Smith-Morra with Whites, and hate it when declined. It's much more harder to play in declined variation.

So that principle is not valid. You should really think about the outcomes of accepting and declining before deciding.
> 4 votes

# Answer
This is really dependent on

1. which gambit
2. the style of play you prefer.

For 1, consider the King's Gambit. The theoretically preferred line for Black is 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5! which immediately returns the pawn. On the other hand, in the main lines of the Benkö gambit, White holds a pawn advantage well into the late middlegame.

As for 2, I'm usually fine with having a material advantage, defending against an attack, simplifying and winning in the endgame. Other people like having the initiative and will usually try to return the gambited pawn in exchange for a (counter)attack.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In addition to Glorfindel really good answer (+1) I would like to add that you can also use gambits to fill position with traps. The person who is not familiar with the gambit may get lost in the suddenly created 'minefield' position where a 'single step' from the right line of moves leads to a disaster.

It's also important to note that in many of the gambits you need to know how to decline it properly as well! Also there are some gambits that you SHOULD accept (to get a better position). For example Latvian, where after 1. e5 e5 2. Nf3 f5 the main line is 3. Ne5!? Even though you may know that it's the main line for white you really gotta be careful with your subsequent moves, because the position gets incredibly sharp, complicated.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think the way you put it this is pretty much just wrong.

There are a lot of pawn sacrifices in the opening that should not be accepted, something that is obscured by the fact that sacrifices that shouldn't be accepted are often not even called gambits (Though they still are gambits of course.)! The logic is along the lines "I play this move and now my opponent could win a pawn, but I know that he knows that that's no good, so I didn't actually sacrifice anything.".

Mostly sacrifices that are regularly accepted in tournament play are called gambits in the official nomenclature, but even among those, the best way to counter them is often to not take the pawn, or to return it as quickly as possible.

Certainly taking the pawn isn't usually the way to "avoid trouble".

The saying as I know it rather goes: "The best way to refute a gambit is to take the pawn." And I would interpret as meaning that if there is a refutation it is likely to be in the variations where you take the pawn. It does not mean whenever you take the pawn, there is going to be a refutation.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not sure who may be these chessplayers who think gambits should be accepted. Certainly not the many (including most world top players) who do **not** reply with 2. ..., dc4 after 1. d4, d5 2. c4.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: Average ELO of Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival 2016?
I am wondering what the average ELO of the Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival 2016 is? And if it falls to any rating category that elite tournaments usually have?

# Answer
If I didn't mess up my script the average Elo of the Gibraltar Masters 2016 is 2321.64.

That is category III and nowhere near a super tournament.

But of course if you only look at the top seeds the average is very comparable to super tournaments. (The top nine would be category XXI)

Basically after the first 4-5 rounds you have a full fledged super tournament going on at first 5 boards.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What was the last open tournament Anand participated in before this Gibraltar 2016 event?
When and what was the last open tournament that Vishy Anand participated in before this 2016 Gibraltar Open?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The 1993 Biel Interzonal according to The Hindu.

---
Tags: tournament, famous-players, anand
---


# Question
Title: Could Karpov defend against Kasparov in 1990 championship?
I have watched this video, where Kasparov explains the variations after his knight sacrifice. However, the position he analyses starting from 3:08, I think I am missing something.

**Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990 World Finals**

```
[FEN "r3qb1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N1N1/6RP/1B3PP1/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nxh6 Rxh6 2. Nxd6 Qxe1+ 3. Qxe1 Rxd6 4. Qe4 Nd3

```

What if black plays

```
[FEN "r4b1k/1b4p1/p2r4/3n4/Pnp1Q3/6RP/1B3PP1/1B4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nf6

```

instead of Nd3? Can't he both attack queen and defend h7 square? His chances of survival is so low, obviously, but I think Nf6 is better than Nd3, and worth analyzing.

# Answer
Nf6 is followed by e.g.:

```
[FEN "r4b1k/1b4p1/p2r1n2/8/Pnp1Q3/6RP/1B3PP1/1B4K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qh4+ Kg8 2. Bxf6 Rxf6 3. Qxf6

```

with not only huge material advantage for white, but also some very nasty threats that are ultimately not defendable. So in short, there is not much to gain with Nf6.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Well, for one thing, Nf6 leaves the bishop on b7 hanging, and upon taking it, the queen will be attacking both the rook on a8 and the knight on b4.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: What are the best opening moves and plan for a "pawn plus 2 moves" handicap game?
Our club runs a handicap tournament where handicaps are based on rating difference. I recently had to play a player rated about 300 lower than me and give him pawn plus two moves. That means I was black, had my f7 pawn removed and he got to make two moves before my first move.

He started with the obvious e4 and d4 and I replied with what looks to me to be the forced e6. The question is is e4 + d4 the best start? Or would something like e4 + Bc4 or e4 + Nf3 be better? How close does white come to having a forced win?

For the record I won, on time, a very sweaty-palmed game where only in the last few moves did I manage to reach a winning endgame where I had something like N+4P v 6P. With careful handicapping this kind of format can produce very tight games as long as the handicapped player fights and doesn't just give up.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can go for the King's Indian kind of lines, such as:

1. e4 ...
2. d4 g6

g6 stops Queens from sneaking in the Qh5+ check, and also prepares for fianchetto-ing bishops.

The general positions will end up a bit cramp for Black, but Black will have a Modern-esque plan of d6-c5 or d6-e5, whichever you prefer. Play can continue with

3. Nf6 d6
4. Nc6 Bg7
5. Bc4 Nf6

If you manage to get in e5 quickly, then you can smoothly transpose into KIA lines

Good luck!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I do feel that in case of this 'game format' the best is probably playing 1.e4, d4 as first two moves. This way white open both diagonals for bishops and form a formidable stronghold in the center (yet unanswered threats due to the fact that you can make a move only later with black). White can 'pack a punch' much faster in this case, also they will need to play either d3 or d4 later to develop the other bishop. So, why wait!?

If you consider 2 ... e6 (after: 1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6)

Then if 3. Qh5+ g6 4. Qe5 Nf6 5. Nc3 (if 5. Bg5?! then 5. ... Be7 or Bg7 with complications where black may regain initiative due to weak white queen and a quick possibility to use file 'f' in potential counter-attack) leads to complications where two extra tempos for white can be a really good handicap, however white's queen is a bit exposed and can become a positional weakness.

Other than that you got what you got - one pawn down and two tempos behind! Well, try to:

1. counter center offensive first by blocking white's pawns advances
2. protect the king by castling
3. use file 'f' to counterattack (if you give away f-pawn of course)

---
Tags: chess-variants, handicap
---


# Question
Title: Could I have some analysis by a player >2000 FIDE on this game?
I recently played in a chess tournament and the only game I lost was an extremely tricky battle between myself (USCF 1770ish) and this other guy (USCF 2000ish):

```
[Event "Bernardo Smith Amateur"]
[Site "Mechanics Institute Chess Club"]
[Date "2015.08.15"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Aaron T (1765)"]
[Black "Other Guy (2031)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO ""]
[PlyCount "106"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bf4 g6 4. Nbd2 Bg7 5. e3 a6 6. c4 O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O Nh5 10. cxd5 Nxf4 exf4 Qxd5 Be4 Qd6 Bxc6 bxc6 Nb3 Be6 Nc5 Bd5 Ne5 f6 Ned3 Reb8 b3 a5 a4 Rb6 Re1 Rab8 Rb1 Bf7 Qf3 Bxb3 Qe3 Bd5 Rbc1 Kf7 Qd2 Ra8 Re2 Rbb8 Rce1 Re8 Rb1 Bh6 Rbe1 e6 g3 Bg7 Qc3 h5 Re3 h4 R1e2 Bh6 Qe1 hxg3 fxg3 Bc4 Qc3 Bd5 Qe1 Ra7 Rf2 Bg7 Ne5+ Kg8 Nxg6 Raa8 Nh4 Kf7 Qe2 Rh8 Nf3 Rab8 Ne5+ Kg8 Ned3 Rb1+ Rf1 Rxf1 Qxf1 Bc4 Qa1 Rh5 Qc3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Rd5 Rxe6 Qxc5 0-1

```

A few things to note about the game:

1. All pawn sacrifices I believed had compensation with different positional moves. I won't state the exact positional counterplay because I want to see what type of moves you come up with.
2. I missed Bxc7 early on
3. Around move 40 I was down to 6 minutes, explaining my blunder on move 51.

So my question is this:

I have been wanting a strong player to analyze my game for quite some time now, but all do not have the time to look over it with me. So I would like a SE member \>2000 FIDE to analyze it for me.

# Answer
I'm FIDE rated 2125.

So for your game, yes 10.Bxc7 would have been good for white.

As far as the opening goes, usually Nd2 happens with pawn c3 instead pawn c4. If you want to do pawn c4 then the knight goes to c3 to put more pressure on d5.

Also, I would not play pawn to a4 like you did in the game. It only causes b3 to be weak in my opinion.

But even though you eventually lose the pawn on b3, the position is tough to crack for black since there are no good pawn breaks to open the position for the bishops and the white knights have good outpost squares.

Overall, good effort!
> 5 votes

# Answer
As a FM 2300 a few quick notes.

As noted Bxc7 was very strong.

Otherwise I really do not like 19. a4?

There was no need to weaken both b3 and b4 as your knight on c5 was doing a splendid job of keeping a4 under control.

Without a4 pawn, you have 4 potential black targets , a5, c6, c7 and e7 (plus potential penetriation via e6) vs your only weak d4 pawn. With a4 you are giving your OP b3 to attack which he does.

Otherwise, you did a reasonable job of playing your 2 knights vs his two bishops.

Even at the end it was not so terrible if not for your blunder.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---