# Question
Title: Why exchange the knight for the bad light-squared bishop?
Here is a recent game in the King's Indian I had as Black:

```
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/za0zcaTi"]
[Date "2021.08.23"]
[White "tomx2"]
[Black "fian-ketto"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2021.08.23"]
[UTCTime "15:47:45"]
[WhiteElo "1945"]
[BlackElo "1967"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+8"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-7"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[ECO "E71"]
[Opening "King's Indian Defense: Makogonov Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[fen ""]

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. c4 d6 4. h3 Nf6 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. d5 Nh5 8. Bg5 Qe8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Be3 Nf4 11. O-O Na6 12. Bc2 f5 13. a3 Nc5 14. exf5 gxf5 15. b4 Nd7 16. Bxf4 exf4 17. Re1 Qh5 18. Qd2 c6 19. dxc6 bxc6 20. Re7 Nb6 21. c5 Nc4 22. Bb3 d5 23. Bxc4 dxc4 24. Rae1 Rf6 25. Re8+ Kh7 26. R8e7 1-0

```

After move 10, I had the option of taking the light-squared bishop with my knight. However, considering it was one of my only developed pieces and I had just moved it 3x out of the opening, I decided to keep the tension and develop another piece instead. However, according to Stockfish my 11th move is a terrible blunder; the evaluation swung from slightly negative to +1.1, and stayed positive for the rest of the game.

Why is it desirable to trade my very active knight for his bad bishop that's blocked in by all of his pawns?

# Answer
This is an interesting question. You were basing your play on some useful truisms without considering if they really applied. "I need to free my position with f5." "I should make Pawn captures toward the center". "He will not want to give up his good Bishop", "I should not waste tempi" All true, individually, but almost nothing is true every time, which is why chess rewards creativity. Before basing your play on general principles, it is wise to ask why do those principles usually apply? and do they apply in this position? GMs giving simuls rely on general principles because they must, but they do not do so thoughtlessly.

The key here is the resulting pawn structure. Botwinnik famously asserted that "every Russian schoolboy" knows to recapture on f5 with the Pawn, but that was in a position where Black ends up with Pawns on e5,f5, that are mobile and control the center. In this game White was able to play Bxf4, when the doubled pawns on f5,f4 are static, vulnerable, obstructive and impotent.

At move 10 note that Bxf4 is not yet a threat because it gives up the good Bishop, creates a strong square for you on e5 and sets you up with a K-side Pawn-roller. It also fundamentally changes the position so that your plan may no longer revolve around ..f5, but around ..g5 instead. Why would you free up the Bd3?. Always remember that plans can change depending on your opponents play. In the game, White delayed Bxf4 until after you had played ..f5 and had recaptured with the Pawn, creating that awful self-inflicted Pawn structure.

So at move 10 it was OK for you leave the K-side alone and look for play elsewhere, which you did. Unfortunately ..Na6 does not fit with any long-term plan because you can be pushed from c5 by b4 and end up taking three moves to get to d7. The plan of N-a6-c5 is workable, if you play ,..a5 first.

But also it would have been good to exchange on d3 despite the loss of tempo. This is a closed position and will remain so for some time. Tempi only matter if they can be used to create threats. As Black after 10 moves you have as nice a position as you can expect. Whites play has been sound but unambitious and you can take your time. There is nothing complex here that needs deep analysis. Objectively the game is equal, but psychologically it favors Black because has attack is on the King-side and "mate ends the game"

Which is not a reason to hurry anything. Rather than trying to use tactics to improve the position it is often better to improve the position as much as you can before embarking on tactics. The question is then, are there still ways for me to improve the position slowly? or do I grab at the tactics whilw they are there? A slow approach to the position at move 10 is to play ..a5, Na6, Nc5 and only then ..f5 when Blacks forces are focussing on e4 and forcing some kind of resolution in the center. After this Black will continue preparing his attack with moves like Q-h5 or g6, and Rae8. Attempts at "analysis" are meaningless at this stage. All you need to know now is that there will be plenty to do later on.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Done a little bit of analysis on the position using a stronger engine (Stockfish 14) and honestly I wouldn't put much weight in it. I wouldn't be stressing this at all. Unless you really stress about the engine analysis at a depth of 27 with a difference of -0.17, basically 1/5th of a pawn.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnb1qrk1/ppp2pb1/3p2pp/3Pp1Bn/2P1P3/2NB1N1P/PP3PP1/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "6"]

1. Be3 Nf4 2. O-O Nxd3 3. Qxd3 f5 *

```

At the f5 position this is how I review the board.

1. Queen is Overloaded defending e4 and c4.
2. f5 threatens fxe4 , if exf5 bxf5 threatening the queen. White should respond by pinning its own knight to the queen or retreating. Either way , you develop with tempo and white is forced to repeatedly move the same pieces around.

I agree with the Nxd3 recommendation but i dont think your move was "blunder" by any means.

Engines are a bit of a catch 22. They can greatly assist analysis but also just confuse things. We aren't computers we can't analyse things at 4k+ kN/s and see that board at a 30+ move depth. When they are reviewing that position they are looking at 20 to 30 moves down the road to say yep...black is winning by 1/5th of a pawn.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm not a highly rated player but I believe that after whites pawn push (around the 20th move) the diagonal to the king opens up and there isn't even a pawn to cover it up so I guess that is a weakness for blacks and they need a piece to control the diagonal along with the queen because in diagonal attack it would be a key component. Stockfish was just analyzing future moves and it understood that the bishop on the diagonal would be powerful in the attack because the bishop may seem like a bad one but it can become a powerful one as seen later in the game
> 0 votes

# Answer
Thanks to @Philip Roe for the wonderful and detailed answer. I took a look at the 9...Nh5 variation of the Bayonet Attack, which contains some lines similar to this that I found insightful and basically confirms what you say.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Nh5 10. Re1 Nf4? 11. Bf1 f5 12. Bxf4 exf4 13. e5

```

The main line is 10...f5, with a high winrate for Black after White chooses 10...Nf4. As far as I can tell, this is because 10...Nf4 is a waste of time; with 10.Re1 White has indicated that they're simply going to meet it with 11.Bf1. Also, it actually gets in the way of our plan of f5-f4 for multiple reasons: (1) as soon as we commit to f5, White can play Bxf4 to inflict doubled f-pawns on us, which basically renders our previous move useless since the f5-pawn isn't going anywhere, and (2) even if White chooses not to capture, we can't actually play f4 because our knight is in the way!

Another illustrative line:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Nh5 10. c5 Nf4 11. Bxf4 exf4 12. Rc1 h6 13. Nd4 g5

```

This seems to confirm your claim that if White decides to snap off the knight with Bxf4, then due to the change in pawn structure the correct plan switches from one centered around f5 to one centered around g5.

Here are my key takeaways:

* In the main line Bayonet Attack, the reason you play 9...Nh5 is to (make way for your f-pawn, obviously, and) *threaten* 10...Nf4 to win the bishop pair. If White wants to save their two bishops, then they have to waste a move with 10.Re1 or 10.g3, giving us time to carry out our plan with 10...f5.
* We don't actually want to *play* 10...Nf4 unless we know that it will force White to give up his bishop pair (ie. in the 10.c5 line), because otherwise the knight just gets in the way of our usual f5-f4-g5 plan.
* When White decides to play Bxf4, the correct plan switches from one centered around the f5 thrust to one centered around the g5 thrust.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: How can I keep my chess club interesting and bring more people to it?
I had started a chess club in my school along with my friend who plays with me regularly, it has been 2 months now and only **3 more people have joined** (and 2 more people who have no idea how to play and have no interest in learning *I don't know why they joined*). The others have improved but the chess club is mostly boring even for me since we have varying ratings so tournaments and puzzles are not possible. We have pieces and mats but we don't have clocks and the school is reluctant to buy any so basically, we have nothing to do and my friend is just suggesting to shut it down but I really don't want that to happen can anyone suggest anything to do in the club to keep it alive?

# Answer
Actually, I've been in a pretty similar position as you and there were a couple of things I found helped the popularity of my school's chess club.

1. The most important thing is promotion because clubs tend to have a network effect. You have to get the word of your club out there as much as possible, as there may be people who are interested but just don't know about it. Does your school allow PA announcements for clubs, allow students to put up posters or have club fair events periodically. Even promotion by word of mouth is helpful, like mentioning it to all your friends. I would also emphasize to people that you don't necessarily have to know how to play, because there are likely people who are interested but are just too intimidated to join (especially with the Queen's Gambit boom).
2. Adding incentives to joining, which goes hand in hand with promotion. For example, we mentioned that there was going to be an in-school tournament and that the winner would receive a small cash prize. As well, if you just participated in the tournament you would be entered in a small raffle cash prize, which appealed to beginners who knew they couldn't win the tournament. Of course, having these incentives does nothing if nobody knows about it, so this would be mentioned on your school announcements/posters.
3. Add a competitive aspect to it. This may be more so geared towards how to keep people interested once you have them, but we created a tier system in our club, where you would climb tiers by winning against people in your tier. This also ensured that people of a similar skill level ended up playing. Additionally, we reached out to neighbouring schools and set up an exhibition game, which spiced things up.

I will say that people tend to join clubs at the very start of school years, so you may find more success starting it up next year with some of these ideas. Also, we just downloaded free chess clock apps instead of buying physical ones, which honestly worked better. The first year my friends and I tried to start the club it failed, but we decided to try again the following year with some of these ideas and got a good number of people (40ish), so don't be discouraged by the situation right now. Hope it works out in the future and best of luck!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: clubs
---


# Question
Title: What defines a forcing move with major/minor pieces?
I have been taking various training tests and the answer almost always involves some sort of forcing move. Clearly attacking a king will always force a response but when another piece is involved (whether it be major or minor) an attack does not need to be forcing. Are there rules of thumb to help identify forces in these cases? I tend to look for mates, royal forks followed by forks and then winning exchanges. Where I stumble is if a test involves a forcing attack that leads to mate. I always just assume I would sacrifice the piece to stay alive.

# Answer
Forcing move is a term for a move that leaves an opponent with a few options, only one of which does not lead to an immediate loss. This could refer to a variety of circumstances. For example, you might see a mate in 3 puzzle in which the first move is a forcing move because the opponent's only other legal move falls to a mate in 1. The term can also be used in opening theory, like in Ruy Lopez situations where black's b5 forces Bb3, or the loss of the bishop. The term may also be used for situations like 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6, after which white is left with one good option, 4. Bxc6, and several bad options, such as 4. Ba4, which just loses the bishop, 4. Bc4, which allows black queenside expansion while losing another move, 4. Bd3, which blocks the d-pawn, 4. Be2 which is probably the best alternative but yields the b5 square without a fight, and 4. Bf1, which severely hampers development. While white has other options, they are strategically weak, and it could be said that black's a6 is a forcing move. So there is a wide spectrum between checkmate situations and less dramatic situations in which there is only one reasonable move.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In the context of your training tests, some positions may require identifying some weakness, and then exchanging or driving off the most important defender by coming up with a "forcing move". You are often advised to begin your thinking by looking for forcing moves, but not every forcing move is good. When you find one, ask yourself what it positively achieves. Another plan is to begin by seeking the weakness, and then looking for forcing moves that relate to it.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Many things in life are a matter of degree. An attack on your king is absolutely forcing. Attacking your queen requires attention, but you may have a better plan than defending her. Such is also true for a pin. A piece pinned on your king is absolute. Pin on the queen or rook is relative.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: terminology, forced-move
---


title: Reasons for losing

text:
# Question
Title: Reasons for losing
Wouldn't be surprise if this is a duplicate (related even more related), but:

Obviously there are two main ways to lose a game: Blundering it away in a single move or be slowly crushed by a better player without knowing what's happening.

We now have a giant database of games *and* engines that can tell us who is on top at any time in a game, and they could answer my question: which way is more frequent?

Very evidently, the answer might depend on ELO or ELO difference, so you can take that in account too.

# Answer
At the GM level, players mostly resign after the second "slow crushing" method. In amateur chess usually a blunder of a queen or checkmate or major piece wins. Before 1000 it is the first around 99% of the time (talking chess.com elo) because they cannot calculate well enough to find tactics.

Even at the IM and GM level players will still blunder, but they are usually positional errors and not major piece blunders (of course, they do occur such as Giri vs Carlsen in the Chessable Masters).

Most victories in classical and longer time formats at the GM level are resignations, but in bullet it is usually timeout or a blunder.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Not sure if the question is accurately stated in English as was intended.

You lose either by getting mated, losing on time when clock runs out, or you give up for some reason. Or the director forfeits the game for other reasons like your cell phone ringing, or you are caught using the internet for help.

Within the reason to give up it is usually for losing material, or by being outplayed so you eventually are behind material when they promote a pawn and are able to mate soon.

Are you asking for the ways you can get outplayed or something else?
> -2 votes

---
Tags: statistics, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to measure play strength by analysing games of a player?
I am thinking on a way, most ideally on a software tool, what could get one of more games of a player, analise them, and gives an estimate on his play strength (as Elo/Glicko rating).

Is it possible? Does such a tool exist?

# Answer
Yes it's possible. Sort of. It's one way people have compared the top players throughout history. The basic idea is that you feed the engine the position and the moves played by the players, and see how probable it is for them to play the computer's best move.

I don't know any ready-to-use program for this kind of analysis, however.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, theory, training, elo, glicko
---


title: Computer repeating moves?

text:
# Question
Title: Computer repeating moves?
Where I observed it

```
[FEN "3k3r/pp1n2R1/2p1bp1p/6p1/2PP1p2/1PBB3P/P4KP1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.d5 cxd5 2.cxd5 Bxd5 3.Bf5 Nb6 4.Bxf6+ Ke8 5.Bg6+ Kf8 6.Re7 Bc6 7.Rf7+ Kg8

```

I was using Stockfish/Lichess to analyze 1.d5 cxd5 2.cxd5 Bxd5 3.Bf5 Nb6 (a very silly try to avoid immediate material loss) 4.Bxf6+ Ke8 5.Bg6+ Kf8 6.Re7 Bc6 7.Rf7+ Kg8. I always played out the preferred computer move after a second or two, which lead to the computer repeating moves a few times, trying e.g. Rg7+ followed by Rf7+ or Rc7 first (where I simply would have gobbled the exchange).

This behavior is straight impossible (by game theory) for a "god" computer. My only half-baked explanation is that the computer acts exactly like a human: hey, there must be some mate, let's repeat moves to gain time for analyzing a bit deeper. (But the analysis mode of Lichess doesn't involve time anyway?!)

Can a computer expert tell me why a computer repeats moves in a won position?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think this is due, at least in part, to the horizon effect.

I first used Stockfish 14 with depth 20 (in Lucas Chess).

After 1. d5 cxd6 2. cxd5 Bxd5 3. Bf5 Nb6 4. Bxf6+ Ke8 5. Bg6+ Kf8 6. Rf7+ Kg8 7. Rg7+ Kf8, Stockfish 14, using depth 20, rates Rc7 best, at +7.45, with the line

8. Rc7 Kg8 9. Rg7+ Kf8 10. Re7 Bc6 11. Rc7 Kg8 12. Bf5 Bd5 13. Bd4 h5 14. Bxh8 Kxh8 15. Rh7+ Kg8 16. Rxh5 Kf7 17. Rxg5 a5 18. Bb1 a4 19. b4 Bxa2

The position after 9. Rg7+ Kf8 there is the same. So why not 8 Re7 immediately? Stockfish rates 8 Re7 +6.85, with the line

8. Re7 Bc6 9. Rc7 Kg8 10. Bf5 Bd5 11. Bd4 h5 12. Bxh8 Kxh8 13. Rh7+ Kg8 14. Rxh5 Kf7 15. Rxg5 Bc6 {different}

and eventually 21. h7 Nxh7. That is, Stockfish now sees Black's capture of White's h-pawn, which it missed before.

If Stockfish's maximum depth is increased from 20 to 24, Stockfish still see Rc7 as best, but now its line is

8. Rc7 Kg8 9. Bd4 Bc6 10. Bf7+ Kf8 11. Be6 Nd7 12. Bxd7 Bxd7 13. Rxd7 Rg8 14. Bc5+ Ke8 15. Re7+ Kd8 16. Rxb7 Kc8 17. Rxa7 Kb8 18. Rh7 Rd8 19. Ke2 Re8+ 20. Kd2 Rd8+ 21. Kc3 g4 22. hxg4 Rg8 23. Bd6+ Kc8 24. Bxf4 Rxg4

avoiding repetition, bringing White's king closer to the scene of action and with more captures before the horizon, which suggests that still deeper analysis is needed. With depth 27, it sees the above line, but deviating with

16. Rxb7 Rg6 17. Rxa7 h5 18. a4 g4 19. h4 Kc8 20. Rf7 f3 21. gxf3 gxf3 22. a5 Rg2+ 23. Kxf3 Rh2 24. Kg3

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: FIDE database used for calculating current ELO
Is there somewhere the database FIDE use for calculating ELO rating of players? No need for PGN of games just game result, date, and players. Reason: recalculate players rating by using Gliko, with the same games.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> Is there somewhere the database FIDE use for calculating ELO rating of players?

Yes and No.

FIDE have such a database and they let us see some of the data but not in an easily downloadable form. For instance, if I go to my statistics page on the FIDE ratings website I can see a summary of all my results.There is a drop down box on the page which allows me to select an opponent and see my results against that opponent. So, if I select FM Yichen Han I can see on the page that I have one draw as white and one win as black. Of course I took the precaution of playing him when he was only half my height and much weaker :-).

The data that FIDE make easily downloadable on their download page is the rating data but although it includes the number of games each player played in the rating period it does not include results.

> Reason: recalculate players rating by using Gliko, with the same games.

This data is available on the FIDE website but not in an easily downloadable format. You will have to do a lot of screen scraping to get it. To see how let's track down my white win against Yichen Han.

That game was played on 8th January 2017 in the 12th 4NCL Congress Open in England.The original tournament report for that tournament is available on the FIDE website. To find it you will need to find the tournament on the FIDE webpage for Tournaments Received for February 2017 England.

You will find the tournament listed 4 from the bottom. If you click on the blue icon to the left you will get the Original Tournament Report listing all the results.

So, what you would need to do is go back to the Tournaments Received page where you will find at the top a drop down box for all the federations and at the bottom another drop down box for all the periods. You would need to cycle through all the federations and then for each federation cycle through all the periods and then cycle through all the blue-iconed tournaments and extract the results data.

---
Tags: fide, database, elo
---


# Question
Title: I do not see how to set the required number of moves in the first time control in the "delay" options with DGT-NA
In the "Increment" manual setup, it seems there is a way to set the required # moves for the first time control, when there is more than one time control.

I do not see the same functionality in the "delay" manual setup. What if the tournament (note: the manual cites many different games, e.g., go, scrabble, draughts) has a different format, e.g., 30 moves in 60 minutes / d5 for the first time control?

Is it true that DGT assumes that the first time control is ALWAYS for 40 moves in the delay mode?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've had that clock for years. Except for mode 16 ("Up to 4 Time Controls with Bonus time per move, manual set with/without move counter", as described by the manual), there is no way to tie the move counter to the time controls; the way it works in other modes is that whenever a player reaches zero, the time for the next time control is added (to both players) and the flag falls. It is then up to the players to check whether the requisite number of moves took place, and decide whether to continue (the flag will disappear) or claim a win on time.

While it may seem like a missing feature, I would argue that the "letting the flag fall and have a human check the number of moves" approach fits better with the rules for tournament play, because the only authoritative source of move count is the scoresheets, or in some cases, a tournament director or their deputy witnessing the game (for an exception see footnote below). For example the USCF rules say "move counters, on clocks equipped with them, may not be used as the only evidence in claiming that the prescribed number of moves were not completed in the allotted time". A good rule in my opinion because players don't always use the clock reliably.

My advice: ignore the clock's move counter altogether.

Footnote: there is one situation in which the move counter is actually authoritative according to the USCF rules. When there are less than 5 minutes left, a player who is planning to claim a draw under the 50-move rule can ask the TD, who "may insert a clock with a move counter that shows the remaining time of both players, set the move counter to zero, and order play to resume. When the clock indicates that both sides have completed 50 further moves, either player may claim a draw. If this method is used, the director should inform the players that if a move is erroneously not counted or double counted, the players should stop the clock and notify the director."

# Answer
> 1 votes
Probably worth starting by giving a link to the online manual for this clock.

It is worth at least browsing all the instructions not just reading the sections you think you are interested in because sometimes relevant information for a later section appears in an earlier section for which it is also relevant. It is then **NOT** repeated in later sections to which it also applies.

For instance, the answer to the last part of your question:

> Is it true that DGT assumes that the first time control is ALWAYS for 40 moves in the delay mode?

appears very early in the description of options 3 and 4:

> **2. One Time Control then Sudden Death (Options 3 and 4)**
>
> *Notice that the sudden death time is added for both players when one player has used all the time in the first time control* **(not after the completion of, e.g., 40 moves)**.

This statement of yours doesn't correspond to the manual:

> In the "Increment" manual setup, it seems there is a way to set the required # moves for the first time control, when there is more than one time controls.

You need to consult section **10. Parameters that need to be programmed for manual settings** starting at the bottom of page 8. There you will see what settings are and are not available in the different options.

In particular you will see that the only option which allows setting of the move counter to anything other than zero is option **16. Up to 4 Time Controls, with Bonus time per move ("Fischer")**. Setting of the move counter is *not* available for any option with 2 or 3 time periods.

---
Tags: chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Why is Jovanka Houska introduced as a WGM when she holds the more prestigious IM title?
I've been watching the Champions Chess Tour and find it strange that Jovanka Houska is always (at least whenever I am watching) introduced as a woman grandmaster. Now I have absolutely no problem with her holding that title, but she also holds the more prestigious international master (IM) title (in addition to being the highest-rated active British womans player and even 9-time and current British women's chess champion).

Why do they not introduce her by instead or also mentioning her higher title?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The current and 9-time British women's champion hself (or perhaps I should really say 'herself' to emphasise the women's championship) says on twitter:

> The short answer is I’m proud of both titles and I don’t mind which one is used. I always refer to myself as an IM..but there are situations where saying (or writing) WGM just fits better (because it sounds grander!) and I am happy with that.

---

Personally, I of course find it weird that Houska doesn't mind because one title is necessarily higher than another, but I think it's just either-(humility)-or-(not minding the less-informed in chess terms) on h part.

Then again

1. it's not really like IM 'succeeds' WGM (for females of course) the way GM 'succeeds' IM (afaik: GM de facto 'succeeds' IM, but one de jure needn't be IM before GM).
2. WGM does sound grander than IM. Kinda wish they were about the same instead in rating requirement like say 2350+ each just for the sake of being able to call a dual WGM-IM as just WGM or even that it would make sense to mention both titles. (I notice people will usually refer to dual WGM-IMs as 'both WGM and IM'. But then again, we don't call Hou Yifan like 'WGM and GM'.)

But who knows? Maybe someday WGM will be increased to 2400+ (same as IM) from 2300+ if the men-women rating gap decreases from 170 to 149 (if you round to nearest hundred like in this answer, then 149 rounds to 100)

* 2.1. I blundered in missing such an obvious thing. WGM is *grander* because it has the word 'grand' in it. I really suck.

3. The gap between IM and WGM can be seen in a WGM is about equivalent to a blindfolded IM eg this and this
4. Or we refer to people with both IM and WGM as really IM-WGM eg IM-WGM Houska, IM-WGM Sachdev, IM-WGM Rudolf, etc

---

Bonus: Fun fact/s/Trivium/Trivia/TIL re Champions Chess Tour, see Wiki: British Chess Championship:

1. SGM David Howell and IM-WGM Jovanka Houska were the british chess and women's chess champions in 2009
2. For the only 3 times Houska wasn't british women's chess champion since 2009 (or 2008), 2 of those 3 times were the only other times that Howell has won british chess championship.
3. firtydank actually said something like 'can't argue with a direct quote from twitter. good job sir/madame.' but then the comment was deleted...

# Answer
> 30 votes
I think an important aspect to consider is the audience of the show. For the Champions Chess Tour, chess24 has two English language shows; one with Houska and David Howell targeted to a more casual audience, the other with Tania Sachdev and Peter Leko that is aimed towards an audience that is more familiar with chess terminology and concepts.

I think a decision was made that the title of "international master" is too unfamiliar to a casual audience. Everybody knows a grandmaster is "someone who is great at chess", but only people who know chess lingo know what an IM is. I think either the producers of the show or Houska herself decided to go with the easier to understand "Woman Grandmaster" title because the viewers would better understand it to mean "a lady who is great at chess".

It is interesting to note that Tania Sachdev, herself also both an IM and WGM, is introduced as an IM on the show targeted to the more technical audience.

# Answer
> 8 votes
> according to Wikipedia she also holds the more prestigious international master title

It's perhaps worth starting by identifying the difference between an IM and WGM title. According to the latest FIDE regulations - FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 July 2017:

> 1.48 Performance Rating (Rp)
>
> In order to achieve a norm, a player must perform at a level at least of that shown below:
>
> Title - Minimum level prior to rounding - Minimum level after rounding
> GM - 2599.5 - 2600
> IM - 2449.5 - 2450
> WGM - 2399.5 - 2400
> WIM - 2249.5 - 2250

and

> 1.53 To have achieved at some time or other a rating as follows:
> GM ≥ 2500
> IM ≥ 2400
> WGM ≥ 2300
> WIM ≥ 2200

So, an IM title requires 3 norms of a 2450 performance plus a live rating at some time of 2400 while a WGM title requires 3 norms of a 2400 performance plus a live rating at some time of 2300. That means the rating difference between the two titles is just 50(norm)/100(rating) points. That isn't such a large gap.

> Why do they not introduce her by also mentioning her higher achievements?

There is no rule requiring them to introduce her in any particular way. Generally speaking on these shows the presenters are introduced the way they want to be introduced provided it is truthful.

Famously, Judit Polgar refused to take any women's titles and only ever applied for open titles. That was her way of fighting for women's recognition in the chess world. I suspect that Houska is taking a different route by asking to be identified by her women's title. That is also a subtle way of making the point. She is a top class international player *and* a woman.

---
Tags: titles, women, international-master, jovanka-houska
---


# Question
Title: Why do some players consider it rude not to accept a rematch in online blitz?
I play a lot of online blitz, and frequently my opponent would offer a rematch after a game. Although I sometimes accept, I usually am more interested in analyzing the game to see if I can learn from my mistakes, so I usually decline.

Reading some of the comments posted on chess.com, it seems that some players take offence at this, even going so far as to block opponents who don't accept their rematch request.

Why do players think they are entitled to a rematch? Am I breaking some unwritten etiquette? If I keep declining these requests, will I find myself out of opponents?

# Answer
**They may have made a fatal mistake and think that in another game they can win.**

It happens sometimes. You could make a mistake, or miss a mating pattern, and suddenly you've lost the game although you thought you were in the lead. In this case, many people may ask for a rematch because they think that they *should* have won and want to redeem themselves. If you decline this request, they may see it as claiming a "cheap win".

They may also get offended by you declining their request because they might see it as "running away" from them, a more able player. This is almost insulting because they may see it as acknowledging that they "should have won", but running away with the victory regardless.

**They could be Rating Farming.**

If your opponent beat you by a large margin, they may ask for a rematch in order to secure a couple of easy wins against you, especially if you have a higher rating than them. Declining this rematch is denying that possible rating boost and could be taken the wrong way.

---

Both of the above reasons depict your opponents in a rather negative way, however I think that anyone who blocks another user on the basis that they won't accept a rematch request may not be the best sportsman. The thing is, if they are asking for a rematch because they like your playing style, or want to learn from you, they aren't going to block you if you decline, are they?

Perhaps it's me, perhaps not, but I think that anyone who blocks others for not accepting a rematch is either trying to get easy wins for rating or annoyed / in a bad mood about their own play.

Being frustrated about making mistakes, if allowed to affect your play, will lead to more mistakes and more frustration. Frustrated players make rash decisions and are more likely to take out their anger on their opponent.

I don't think you are breaking any unspoken code of online chess, I just think that some of the chess players out there lack a certain amount of maturity. Take them to a real tournament where you are face to face with your opponent and perhaps they'll learn some tips.
> 19 votes

# Answer
Concerning the last question, **no**, you will not run out of opponents.

I've been playing on chess.com for about seven years, and when I play blitz I'm almost exclusively interested in having a bit of fun. If you have ever had a small match of a few games against someone online, you quickly realize that many of the games resemble a lot since it is common to play the pet lines that you each enjoy. These repetitive games can quickly reach positions that you know the assessment of, taking away the fun and unpredictability of the game. Because of this, I rarely play the same opponent twice, never ask for a rematch and systematically decline all rematch offers. I don't know if I have been blocked by any players, but there is always someone on the other end of the board to play when I try to.

However, I must say that I may not be your typical online chess player. I rarely take the games as a depiction of my actual strength as a chess player, although I am extremely competitive and do not wish to lose any games. Because of this, most of the time any time scramble, flagging or piece hanging occurs, either on my side or my opponent's side, I take it as being a part of the game mode that I'm playing. It is not a personal offense or unsportsmanlike to use these "techniques" (although "tricks" is probably a more accurate description of what they are) to win a game, it's part of the fun being able to spot unorthodox winning combinations that rely on the position on the board as well as the amount of time there's left on the clock. Not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, and some may be offended if you beat them in an unorthodox way.
> 7 votes

# Answer
To add something else to the other answers: I almost always offer a rematch and almost always accept a rematch but I sometimes need to run away to the toilet or to talk to someone at home or whatever else that needs attention. It is absurd to expect the readiness to accept any rematch.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Several mistakes here: 1: Chess.com - you are probably being trolled by 10-year old brats. Lots of children on that site. 2: Entitled to a rematch? No. If you don't want to play the opponent again, then simply decline. However, it is in a sense 'fair' to do a rematch to even out the color selections. In your mind, play games in "pairs" and be prepared to play 2 vs each opponent.

Besides, if your challenges are within 200 rating points of yourself, then the games should be competitive.

I'd examine why you want to stop and analyze a blitz game mid-stream of playing games. that is non-productive in my estimation. Since your games are recorded automatically, simply play a handful of games then revisit them. You will have a different perspective on the game when you get around to analyzing it post-mortem.
> 0 votes

# Answer
my own experience:

someone seemingly considered it rude that e granted me 2 rematch requests after i lost but i didn't grant a rematch request after i won. LOL.

my own opinion:

1. i was supposed to make a post on stackexchange of reddit about this, but anyway here goes:

i notice you mentioned blitz. i recently figured it may benefit some people to have an option to seek/challenge for a match of blitz games rather than for a single blitz game because people usually do rematches anyway. i think that, at least subconsciously, some people want to play a series of blitz games rather than just 1 blitz game because of the short duration nature of such a game people don't find just a single game satisfying.

2. if you don't rematch, then they have queue again.

regardless it's not your fault.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, etiquette, online-blitz, sportsmanship
---


title: Is this king in checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this king in checkmate?
Consider this chess board set up:

Is the black king allowed to move to B4 or D4? The knight on C6 would put their white king in check if it moves.

I haven't really read any rules about this so thought I'd ask.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, a piece can check even if it can't move because of a pin. This is explicitly written in the FIDE Laws of Chess (emphasis added):

> 3.9.1 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, **even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check**.

Therefore, if the black king tried to escape to b4 or d4 it would be moving into check, which is not allowed.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You are in checkmate if you are in check and have no legal move by which to escape it.

In this case you cannot escape check by moving your king. B4 or D4 would leave you in check from the knight, C4 would leave you in check from the bishop and anything on rows 2 or 3 would leave you in check from a rook.

However moving your king is not the only way to escape a check. It is also sometimes possible to escape a check by blocking the capture route or by capturing the attackers piece. In the original version of the question it was possible to block the capture route by moving your queen to D3. So the position was not checkmate. In the revised version of the question it is not possible to block the attack path or capture the attacker so the revised position is checkmate.

---
Tags: checkmate, kings
---


# Question
Title: List of records for youngest female grandmasters since 1950?
On Wiki, we have a list for List of youngest grandmasters since 1950.

1. What about female GMs (really female GMs and not WGMs) instead of GMs?

I guess the list ends with Judit Polgar, Koneru Humpy and Hou Yifan.

> In 2002, she became the youngest woman ever to achieve the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years, 1 month, 27 days, beating Judit Polgár's previous record by three months (this record was subsequently broken by Hou Yifan in 2008).

2. Btw, if I ask for the list of youngest females to reach 2500+ then is it the same thing as this? I was thinking maybe not because I guess you could reach 2500+ without having the GM norm. List of records for youngest superWGMs since 1950?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Oh wait it's on wiki because 'age' is 'age obtained' (duh!). Ok so the list just goes

1. Nona Gaprindashvili - 37
2. Maia Chiburdanidze - 23
3. Susan Polgár - 22 (Note: Susan Polgár became GM in Jan1991 while Judit Polgár became GM in Dec1991.)
4. Judit Polgár - 15 (15 years and 4 months)
5. Humpy Koneru - 15 (15 years, 1 month, 27 days)
6. Hou Yifan - 14

Bonus: If we exclude Judit Polgár and Humpy Koneru:

1. Nona Gaprindashvili - 37
2. Maia Chiburdanidze - 23
3. Susan Polgár - 22
4. Alexandra Kosteniuk - 20
5. Kateryna Lahno - 17
6. Hou Yifan - 14

---
Tags: history, statistics, records, titles, women
---


# Question
Title: Are there moves in chess that are considered unsporting?
In many sports, you often find legal tactics that are considered unsporting by fans, spectators and/or opponents. For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?

Some examples that I can think of: perhaps it is considered unsporting, or perhaps indicative of lack of skill, to promote 5 pawns and crush your opponent instead of looking for a more elegant mate in a winning position. Also, in my school days, we used to think of scholar's mate as a bit ... unsatisfying. There even used to be a meme going around that scholar's mate is not allowed (probably started by the coach to get the kids to play "proper" chess).

**To be clear, I'm not so much looking for unsporting *behaviour* as unsporting *moves*.** I can imagine it being very unsporting to, for example, let your clock run out when you still have 40 minutes left rather than resigning in a lost position, forcing your opponent to hang around just in case you actually make a move.

Are there any other examples you can think of? Or is chess a case of - if it's legal, then it's good?

**Update:** Just as I was starting to think that unsporting moves are few and far between, Kamsky and Gareev played to a controversial draw by three-fold repetition in round 1 of the US champs. According to the GM's doing the analysis, Kamsky was pretty much forced into the draw, but Gareev had the opportunity to play an alternative move to continue with the game.

So let's say you have the following situation: player A plays against a much stronger opponent B. By luck or miracle, player A finds himself ahead in the game, and see the opportunity to force a draw (or maybe he is so far ahead that he knows player B would accept a draw if offered). Is it unsporting for him to draw the game then?

# Answer
> 20 votes
What is "unsporting"? To my mind (backed up by the two or three definitions I quickly browsed), it's mostly about *behaviour*. To act sportingly is to be fair and respectful, to play for the (mutual) enjoyment of the sport, and—here's the tricky part—to not abuse the rules for an unfair advantage.

Unsporting behaviour in general, and the last kind in particular, often leads to new rules being introduced. ("No underarm bowling in one-day cricket" is the first example that comes to mind.)

I can't think of anything **on the board** (as opposed to players' behaviour, or abusing the *clock*) that would strike me as unsporting. And the lack of new rules to counter anything **on the board** would seem to support that view.

So essentially, no: in standard chess, "if it's legal, then it's good". People might complain about how some style of play (whatever's new and trendy and effective) is changing the spirit of the game or whatever, but so far everything still seems to be fair play.

# Answer
> 17 votes
Possible unsporting situations I'm thinking about:

* When playing bullet games online (1 to 3 minutes per side), you move a single piece many times like `1. Nf3 ... 2. Ng1 ... 3. Nf3 ... 4. Ng1` etc. (to gain some time against your opponent)
* When you wait to lose by time instead of resigning (to avoid your opponent to play another game and to force him to keep thinking for nothing)
* When you wait the last minute you have on clock to force mate and win (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)
* When playing bullet games online, you promote all your pawns to queens to force mate with a big advantage (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)
* When playing games online, you try to distract your opponent by being chatty for example (to force him to make a bad move)
* When you ask for draw many times during a game whereas you are most probably going to lose (to distract your opponent and thus try to force him to make a bad move)

All these situations are legal in chess but can be considered as unsporting approaches.

# Answer
> 16 votes
Two situations I have seen in FIDE-rated tournaments:

* Both players making nonsense moves (mostly king moves) throughout the game. At around move 20, the arbiter stepped in and gave it a 0:0 score. \[I guess they were going to agree to a draw at some point.\] In this case, the arbiter didn't agree to the idea "if it's legal, then it's good".
* Two juniors continued playing after reaching a K+R vs. K+R endgame, neither agreeing to a draw, nor claiming a draw by 50 move repetition \[when it became possible\]. They played on for hours in this situation delaying the next round of the tournament. (NB. In their defense, both had been instructed by their coaches not to offer nor accept draws under any circumstances.)

(Actually, a similar situation happened to me online once: my opponent kept playing a K+R vs. K+R endgame, and I was so disinterested my rook got skewered and they won the game. I felt that was rather unsporting, but I have to recognize that it actually worked.)

# Answer
> 11 votes
I do think that the **intention** (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the ***intention*** behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very ***conspicuous***, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is ***intended for wasting time*** (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the **intent** behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

```
    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

```

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is **deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent**, essentially saying with these moves - **"You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves"**. Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As a strong club player myself, when my opponent makes a brilliant combination, I sometimes give him/her (and the audience) the chance to observe checkmate for the beauty of the game. So, making useless moves isn't always unsportsmanlike.

# Answer
> 4 votes
1. "Torturing" your opponent by promoting all your pawns to rooks/bishops/knights and mate your opponent with that.
2. Keep offering him a draw when you're in a losing position to annoy your opponent.
3. Scramble the chess piece when he/she goes to the toilet.

# Answer
> 4 votes
All moves are fair, there's nothing unsporting that has been discovered so far.

There are only two situations that really fit well:

* Taking a long time to move, when only 1 move is possible.
* Not resigning once the game is lost. (E.g. forcing your opponent to go through the mechanics of a forced mate e.g. King+Queen vs King, is pretty disrespectful).

Perhaps one might consider playing for a draw from the outset to be unsporting, e.g. if you're ahead in a tournament, but being predictable is a weakness, so if you think somebody is playing for a draw, you need to find a way of possibly using this to your advantage.

# Answer
> 4 votes
It is unsporting to make moves with the intention of losing.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?

I think similar situation to passing the ball around in your half is very passive play with white, I think KIA (King's Indian Attack) is one example. It is, of course, debatable whether this is bad sportsmanship, but there are plenty of people who will call this style "lame".

```
[fen ""]

 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 c6 4.Bg2 Bf5 5.O-O

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Imho unsporting, but legal, behaviour on the board is mostly done by not resigning:

* If you play until mate in a position where mate is not immediately imminent, but you are completely lost.
* If you let your time run out instead of resigning, effectively forcing your opponent to wait unnecessarily.

This is from the point of view of a tournament player. Casual players might have a different approach, especially to point one. The mentioned "torturing your opponent by promoting all your pawns before checkmating" is really only possible if your opponent should have resigned already. (And might be an adequate way to show him that he cannot touch you with his unsporting behaviour, that in fact you enjoy playing on in a completely winning position.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
Let me mention timed online games where the opponent seems to disappear, then makes a move with a few seconds left in the hope you are no longer watching the board and will, yourself, forfeit.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The touch-move rule depends on the intention of the player. It is unsporting to misrepresent one's intention after changing one's mind and changing their move.

This type of situation is nearly never provable because the opponent would very rarely let it pass if they would suspect this, but it is at least suspected at Linares 1994 between Polgár and Kasparov, or at Sousse Interzonal in 1967 between Matulović and Bilek.

In this case, what would make such a move unsporting, would be that the player has already made a different move.

Other possibilities include cheating using electronics, bribery, collusion to a fake draw, excessively protracting a game whose outcome is, given the level of players, already very unambiguous, and many more. Tournament chess has rules against a player "making no effort to win by normal means", so all these cases are strictly speaking rather illegal than unsporting; but the move ultimately made on the board itself might well still be legal.

# Answer
> 0 votes
From what I've read, in the romantic era it was considered unsporting to decline a gambit or a sacrifice. That would certainly fit the defintion of an unsporting *move* (under the culture of the time). However, once people came to their senses and realized that playing good moves is more important than trying to prove one's "manhood", all that went away. I can't think of a modern equivalent. Playing the best move is always right. If someone plays a suboptimal move to be "unsporting" (whatever that means), their opponent should refute it by winning, not by whining!

# Answer
> -4 votes
As far as I know playing for time when the game is obviously lost (i.e. trying to make it longer with generally useless moves) is considered unsporting

# Answer
> -4 votes
> * Intentionally playing a suboptimal move is always unsuporting, e.g. In a positionally equal game if you have a choice to take opponent's rook or a bishop+pawn and if you do not take the rook rather take bishop+pawn then its unsuporting because you are trying to prove that you know chess better(i.e. trying to prove that (bishop+pawn)\>rook)
> * Intentionally giving up the opening advantage is considered as unsporting e.g. declining King's Gambit etcs - this is the carlsen's style.
> * Playing wrong opening at the outset e.g. `h3,e3,d3` or `h4,a4` etcs are unsporting.
> * Giving up a tempo.
> * Not taking up the gambit when the opponent propose a tactical challenge by sacrificing material.
> * Playing a positionally weak move is unsporting e.g. blocking your own bishop with your pawn.
> * Underestimating opponents strategy e.g. allowing the opponent to open up his file for the rook.

Basically playing wrong intentionally is considered as unsuporting e.g. In the previous world Championship Anand allowed Carlsen to promote his pawn to create a new Queen because there was a long tactic behind it. The tactics was that in a few moves Carlsen had to sacrifice his new Queen to avoid the forced mate. But what Anand did was a blunder. He played 28.Nf1 which opened Carlsen's Queen way to kill the rook. I recall once there was a game of Kramnic vs computer and Kramnik could not see mate in 1. Such type of blunders from the super GM's are very much unsporting.

In short you can say playing a blunder or try to do something different from usual(mainly playing wrong strategy) is considered as unsporting. Sometimes trying to do something unusual is sporting. It is only when there is some deep analysis behind that e.g. in this game Anand played 12.Ng5 a deeply analysed move which to a casual(say under 2500) player at the first glance would appear unusual but it is very much a suporting move. How Aronian played after 12.Ng5 can be called unsporting ;-)

---
Tags: sportsmanship
---


# Question
Title: At what age do master level players (2200+) reach their peak?
We are surprised that players like Boris Gelfand and Vishy Anand can/could still play with the best in the world in their 40's and 50's. Are we right to be surprised? On average at what age do strong players reach their peak according to their FIDE ratings?

# Answer
I wrote some queries against the database I constructed from the FIDE downloadable data, for post 2001, and Olimpbase for pre 2001. I looked at all players with a date of birth year who reached a standard rating of 2200 or above and asked SQL Server to calculate the age at which they achieved their maximum rating and then asked for mean and standard deviation.

This gave me:

Mean age = 33.32 or about 33 years and 4 months
Standard deviation = 12.35 years or about 12 years and 4 months

This kind of makes sense. You don't expect many players to peak in their 60's, although John Pigott reached a peak (so far) in February 2018 when he was 61!. You also see strong juniors give up in their teens and, of course, current strong teenagers will have their maximum rating also in their teens. At least until they reach their twenties :-).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: statistics, elo
---


# Question
Title: What is the probability that a position has been played before?
When reading annotated games from GMs, I sometimes find annotations such as "This was tried by XXX in 1975 vs YYY". Such annotations are sometimes found very deeply in the game, sometimes past move 20.

Depending on the move number, what is the probability that my position has been previously played by someone, somewhere?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think you cannot accurately calculate the probability a given position has been previously played by someone, somewhere. But you can make a rough estimation with a big game database.

To calculate this probability you need a really big database -I'd say it should contain some million games-. And you should have a good representation of games played by players of different levels and historical periods. Then using a database manager (like Scid), and search how many games in your database contain that position. Dividing the number of games containing the position by the total number of games, you have a rough estimation of the probability it has been previously played.

This is a rough estimation because low-level players are not very well represented in the databases, because there is less information of games played in the past and because non-annotated games (blitz, friendly games) do not appear in the database.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can't calculate a percentage. But there are some interesting points to make on that topic.

1) The possibility of a position being played before goes down the more moves you make (obviously)

2) However, positions in openings with more book moves (ex. Ruy Lopez and Sicilian) come up more.

3) If an opening was played long ago but with a terrible loss, you might be surprised how few games there are with that opening.

# Answer
> 1 votes
How much of the legal position space has been explored by humans or machines would be the question to ask first, or one would need to specify in which probability space you are asking your question.

With opening theory repertoires aficionados, there is the question of how well distributed have past games been in terms of positions explored.

So I you are asking about some non temporal context and forgetting about historical biases, would be different than using the current distribution over position space of all databases.

Not an answer. Maybe it should be a comment.

---
Tags: statistics, game-complexity
---


title: How do I overcome chess anxiety?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I overcome chess anxiety?
I love this game! It's beautiful! I love watching it on twitch, youtube, etc. I love reading about openings, learning tactics, and solving puzzles.

However, I get so tense and anxious when I play. It prevents me from playing at my best and makes me overthink. Hence, I'm constantly afraid to play games cause I have the fear of losing Elo and rating points. I am better than a beginner but not yet an Intermediate (500ish blitz, 900ish Rapid).

How do I overcome this and get out of my own head? Do I play at a different game length or completely change playlists. How do you overcome anxiety and play multiple games in a row? I want to get better and I know playing more is the best way to do that.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Understand that playing is for practice, so you shouldn't be afraid of losing elo points. One trick you could try is making a separate account and calling it a practice account, which I suppose psychologically would help you from the fear of losing elo points.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I find that postal / daily games work best for me. If I feel anxious then I just set the game aside and come back to it later.

---
Tags: learning, time-management
---


# Question
Title: What are the objective criteria which suggest the position needs immediate tactical attention?
In even the most quiet-looking position there might be a tactical bolt of the blue, but consider a game might last 50+ moves, and your time and your concentration are limited resources. Thus it is not feasible to do like a computer and calculate each and any position many moves forward to be safe. So, to use your resources effectively,

*What are the objective criteria which suggest the position needs immediate tactical attention?*

# Answer
> 2 votes
Every position after the first few moves of the opening requires a certain minimum level of tactical attention. Even in a quiet position the first questions you should ask your self after your opponent has moved are:

* "What is my opponent now threatening?" and
* "What is my opponent trying to achieve with that last move?"

These questions can have both tactical and positional answers and they can have more than one answer. Asking these questions is what Nimzowitsch called "prophylaxis" and it is what separates bad players from good players.

Positions where there is tension, where captures on both sides are possible always require some calculation if only to decide whether it is a good idea to resolve the tension. It is particularly important to keep an eye out for tricky little zwischenzugs and by both sides. Again, both material and positional factors need to be considered in evaluating the position after the dust of exchanges has settled.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I suggest "Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna" - know when (and where!) to look for winning combination. It aims to precisely improve knowing when to take more time for specific tactics. Also covers thought process generally.

The chapters get a good sense of what to look for

* King Position
* Unprotected Pieces
* Alignment
* Knight fork distance
* Trapped pieces
* Crucial Defender / Overloaded Defender
* Impotent Defense / defense Too far away

# Answer
> 0 votes
It is said that good players (not me! :-) have an intuitive sense of when a position is brewing with tactical possibilities. But if you want some heuristics to guide you, some factors that are often mentioned are:

* weak or exposed king;
* loose pieces: pieces that are not protected, even if they are not attacked, or even pieces where the attackers and defenders balance out;
* pieces with limited mobility (which might be trapped).

There's a video that goes into these three factors, by IM Anna Rudolf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUd\_wBqapHY

There's also an article by Dan Heisman called The seeds of tactical destruction which lists more specific factors such as overworked pieces, weak back rank, pawns near promotion, etc.

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Where to put rooks when many pawns breaks are possible ( example position )
I think the white plan is to move the king to d3, knight to d2 (to protect f1/f3 from black bishop) put the bishop an a3 and open position c4-c5. I think the white position is much better. Is it the correct plan?

**But how to decide where to put rooks, there are so many possible breaks in this position on the queenside.**

# Answer
This KID totally went south for Black. Stockfish gives a solid +1 to 1.5 advantage, and suggests Black should play a5 better sooner or later, after which the White rooks already stand good where they are. Black's lack in space will give him a no-fun defense. c5 will be played anyway. I tried to play the Black side, and quickly let it plummet to +3. A total nightmare. (Overprotecting c5 with Bf8 doesn't help as this costs e5 if you intend dxe5.)

Thus the answer: Let the rooks stand and immediately break with c5. a5 isn't really bad either but c5 is the standard KID plan anyway.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Is it true that Grand Master Julio Granda has only read one chess book?
Wikipedia spanish entry for GM Julio Granda says (Google translates):

> Julio Granda does not study opening theory. He has stated that he has only read one chess book, the third volume of Roberto Grau's General Chess Treaty.

Is it true?

# Answer
> 6 votes
After several searches I can only find one source in which Granda is quoted about Grau's books. It's this part:

> "Yo tenía muchas limitaciones técnicas, así que me ganó con bastante facilidad, pero fue muy generoso porque le dijo a mi padre ‘Che, al pibe le falta Grau’. Mi padre, que no tenía mucho conocimiento de ajedrez en ese entonces, preguntó qué tenía que ver el almirante Grau con el ajedrez, pero en realidad Jorge Szmetan se refería a Roberto Grau, un maestro que dejó una obra muy importante que se llama ‘Tratado General del Ajedrez’. Tuvo el detalle de enviarme los cuatro tomos desde Argentina. Lo anecdótico es que en el correo se perdieron el segundo y el tercero, que son los más importantes, pero mi padre hizo un esfuerzo y pudo conseguirlos"

There he explains that a stronger player (Jorge Szmetan) suggested his father to study Grau's books. Then Granda explains that Jorge himself sent the books by mail, that the second and third ones got lost during the sending, but nevertheless Granda's father eventually got all of them. Then in the same link (and in other similar ones I've found) it explains that his father had him working during weekends on the Grau's books.

All the mentions I've found about "he only read the third tome of Grau" were not quoted and were almost identical to each other.

EDIT: here's another mention to Szmetan and Grau. He explains that his father made him study several books, including the ones by Grau. While he was studying chess his brothers were playing soccer, so he just developed sort of a hate for studying chess. He even mentions it was like a "torture" to him.

EDIT 2: Ok, this is it! At the very beginning of this interview Granda is specifically asked about the Graus and the books he's read.

First things first; he doesn't make any specific mention to the 3rd volume of the Graus (it's a 4 volumes collection).

Secondly, after getting the Graus via Szmeta, it was his father who, during weekends, read the Graus to Granda. So it seems like, literally, Granda didn't read (but listened to) any of the Graus. In any case he states in this interview that the Graus was his only theoretical training.

Also, in this part of the interview he explains that during a one month waiting for his next tournament, he bought a book (El mosaico ajedrecístico, probably this one written by Karpov and Gik) and fully read it without a board ("I was so bored"). Then he states that he's currently (the video is from 2017) studying seriously the game.

So after watching this video it seems like the only book training Granda received were the four volumes by Grau, read to him during weekends by his father when he was about 10 (the game vs Szmetan was in 1977, Granda was born in 1967). After that he only read "El mosaico ajedrecístico". So it seems fair to claim that the legend about "the third volume of the the Graus" seems to be just a legend, but on the other hand it seems like the four volumes by Grau were his only "book training" during all his career (at least until his temporal retirement in the 90s), what looks really like quite and achievement.

# Answer
> 5 votes
"Needs citation!" (xkcd)

That Wiki entry should be either disputed or given a reliable source. I googled a bit: Chicago Tribune article Sounds like from an interview, but I'm still not 100% satisfied. Another link, the danger is everyone is copypasting from everyone else. E.g. here would be the place I expect that it would be mentioned, but it isn't.

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, study
---


# Question
Title: Analog chess clock with second hand - when is time up?
I recently purchased an analog chess clock. That is, although battery powered, it has two normal clock faces, including the red flags, but also including red second hands.

The second hands can be set to the zero (12 o'clock) position by letting the clock run until they each arrive there, and then setting the minute hand to the desired position. In other words, the clock can start with the second hands pointing vertically.

Two problems arise:

* The minute hands, used to signify the end of the match when they arrive at the 12 o'clock position, are difficult to set precisely. For one thing, there is a bit of "slop" in the setting knob, and for another thing parallax errors can make the hand seem to move slightly if you rotate the clock as you look at it.

Now, at the end of a (say) 5-minute match you could conclude the match ends when the flag falls, or the second hand reaches the 12 o'clock position. In practice these do not occur simultaneously, with around +/- 10 or 15 seconds being observed. In this case, when is "time up"? When the flag falls, or when the second hand reaches the vertical?

If the answer is "when the flag falls" — regardless of where the second hand is — isn't that a bit unfair? What if you clearly see that there are 15 seconds to go, based on the position of the second hand?
* In a similar vein, having observed that setting the minute hand precisely is difficult, is there not some unfairness in using analog clocks at all? If (deliberately or inadvertently) one player get an extra 15 seconds, and the other player gets 15 seconds less, then that could make quite a big difference in a 5 minute game.

---

Also, is there some convention about who sets the clock? Does one player set it and the other check it? Does each player set their own side? Does a third party set the clock?

---

(Edit)

In response to a comment requesting more information:

* I got the clock from eBay
* This is what it looks like:
* It appears to be a PQ9905 model
* Here is the "user manual" with links to the manufacturer's web page:

# Answer
I have no comment regarding the question of the seconds hand, but yes, analog clocks are likely to be less accurate compared with digital clocks, which may be one reason why they are not preferred anymore. If you look at official FIDE or USCF rules, they say digital clocks are "preferred", while analog clocks are only (usually) "allowed". The other reason of course is that many events use time controls with increments or delays.

Now the question of who sets the clock: I've never found anything written in the rules, but anecdotally my experience is that the clock is usually set by its owner in "bring your own clock" events; in events where the organizers supply the clock, sometimes the clock is set by the organizers although sometimes they leave it to the player. I've never seen a dispute where both players wanted to set the clock themselves, but I suppose in such a case calling the tournament director would be in order.

However, if you are setting your clock you should let your opponent see and explain any particular quirks of your clock that they need to know about.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: time-management, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Stretching the tournament rules, re: capturing pieces
Building on this question about tournament etiquette: What is the etiquette (or tournament rule) for the act of capturing a piece?

Suppose I want to capture a piece but am not sure which of my pieces I'd like to capture with. Is it legal to remove the opponent's piece from the board, then think for 15 minutes before completing the move (i.e., placing my chosen piece on the square previously occupied by the enemy) and pressing the clock?

I know it's probably disconcerting to my opponent (and not good etiquette). I wouldn't do this intentionally. At this point I'm just asking about legality.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your opponent has the right to view the board also when it is your turn. If you did this and your opponent complained to the arbiter after a minute or two you would face sanctions. Probably just a warning for a first offence, then a time penalty and if you continue repeating the tactic eventually you would forfeit the game. This loss would be graded as such.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think it is regulated how much time you can spend performing a move. In this sense it is legal, but might still violate some general fair play rules.

In any case you'd lose 15 minutes on the clock. Is it worth it?

# Answer
> 0 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess do not specifically cover this situation. But as Brian Towers explained in a comment:

> FIDE Laws of Chess - "Article 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

The comment continues with a harsh opinion:

> Your suggested action sounds as if it is specifically aimed at disobeying this law.

While I think the comment above is too harsh, you seem to agree that this law would apply here:

> I know it's probably disconcerting to my opponent

Also see Is it legal to take a piece to the bathroom during a tournament?, which has attracted answers and comments about distraction (among other things).

---
Tags: rules, tournament, captures
---


# Question
Title: How is Buchholz score calculated in a Swiss tournament?
I would like to know how the Buchholz tiebreak system works, and how it is calculated, taking into consideration other factors such as bye, no show (default win), etc.

# Answer
The information is hidden away in Standards of Chess Equipment and tournament venue for FIDE Tournaments section 13.4.

> **13.4. Buchholz System**
> **13.4.1.** The Buchholz System is the sum of the scores of each of the opponents of a player.
> **13.4.2.** The Median Buchholz is the Buchholz reduced by the highest and the lowest scores of the opponents.
> **13.4.3.** The Median Buchholz 2 is the Buchholz score reduced by the two highest and the two lowest scores of the opponents.
> **13.4.4.** The Buchholz Cut 1 is the Buchholz score reduced by the lowest score of the opponents.
> **13.4.5.** The Buchholz Cut 2 is the Buchholz score reduced by the two lowest scores of the opponents.

Now it gets complicated.

> how it is calculated, taking into consideration other factors such as bye, no show (default win)

Since these pose a problem for all tie breaks which take into account the performance of opponents, in 2012 FIDE introduced the concept of a "virtual opponent" to be used in these cases. The details are spelt out in section 13.14.2

> **13.14. Tie-Break Systems using Ratings in Individual Tournaments (where all the players are rated)** ...
> **13.14.2.** For tie-break purposes a player who has no opponent will be considered as having played against a virtual opponent who has the same number of points at the beginning of the round and who draws in all the following rounds. For the round itself the result by forfeit will be considered as a normal result.
>
> This gives the formula:
>
> **Svon = SPR + (1 – SfPR) + 0.5 * (n – R)**
>
> where for player P who did not play in round R:
> **n** = number of completed rounds
> **Svon** = score of virtual opponent after round n
> **SPR** = score of P before round R
> **SfPR** = forfeit score of P in round R

Since I, like a lot of arbiters, use the Swiss Manager pairing program I though I'd see what the Swiss Manager help has to say about this.

> **4 Buchholz-Tie-Break Calculation** On account of many requests about the Buchholz-Tie-Break I publish the following Excel file with suitable examples.

Some quite complicated examples are given there but with minimal explanation.

One last final twist which helped me understand the examples is this one regarding the score of a player which is going to be used in the Buchholtz calculations for other players.

**If a player has received a pairing bye for which he has received one point (as opposed to an elective bye for which the player receives only half a point) then this is treated as an elective bye for Buchholtz calculations, so only counts as a half point bye.**

So, if I play player A who has a total score of 3 and he had a one point bye (meaning he scored 2 points from playing games and 1 point from the bye) then when calculating my Buchholtz score I don't add 3 points for this opponewnt, I only add 2.5 points because his one point bye only counts as a half point bye.
> 13 votes

# Answer
The calculations are rather tricky and not at all obvious. Here is a recent videotutorial regarding the calculations of a real tournament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdVSJLz95GE

Please consider that:

* the score system used is 0-1-3 so you have no half point in the standings;
* the language is Italian with subtitles in English (a sort of).
* in the crosstable are shown the BYE and the forfeited games (the yellow box) and one no show (player 16) that needs to be treated for: a) modify the game score to calculate the real standing score to be used for the buchholz; b) to set the score of the so called "virtual opponent".

Moreover the video even refer to a powerpoint presentation that perhaps can help too.

DISCLAIMER: I am the author of that video
> 0 votes

---
Tags: swiss-pairing, tie-breaks
---


title: King's Indian Attack position analysis

text:
# Question
Title: King's Indian Attack position analysis
So, after some 20 moves, we have reached this position.

1. Who is better ?
2. What should be the ideal plan/threat for both white and black ?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Note that Q1 can nowadays safely be answered by simply using an engine. My gut feeling that White stands bad (bad bishop, off Nh4, rest also stands around the botany and doesn't do anything, open king, no attack whatsover to compensate) was vindicated by Stockfish, but I didn't guess it was already that abysmal (-2.5, almost a piece in a materially equal position!). If it is Black to move (you didn't say), immediately N-b6-d7-c5 follows, even -3.3. It is very indicative in the first case that the computer playing White (in the first variant after stabilizing at depth 22) does not even attempt to defend Pb2 after advancing c5 (to get some breathing space), Black answering again Nbd7, then Bc6, then Reb8.

Summing up:

* You must pay me for playing this lavatory for White.
* OTB human play: White's best plan might be a desperate pawn roller on the king side (KIA/KID standard plan) and praying to the preferred god that some swindle is possible. Black simply gangs up everything on the queen side weaknesses (KIA/KID standard plan), maybe throwing in some prophylaxis like Nh7 if White goes desperate.

---
Tags: analysis, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal to take a piece to the bathroom during a tournament?
If a player grabs a piece to move it, and before placing it in its new position, the player gets second thoughts about the best position for the piece, and so they decide to think a little bit more. While they are thinking and holding the piece, they get an urge to visit the bathroom. In that case, is it legal for the player to take the piece to the bathroom until they are back to resume the game? This assumes that the player will never let go of the piece throughout the entire process until it's placed in its new position.

# Answer
> 27 votes
There are a number of serious things wrong with what you describe:

> While they are thinking and holding the piece

You may hold a captured piece while you think but you may not hold a piece that is part of the current position. Your opponent has a right to a full view of the current position on the board at all times except the second or two it takes you to move. Do this in a tournament and be prepared to be punished. At a minimum expect a warning and likely a time penalty.

> In that case, is it legal for the player to take the piece to the bathroom until they are back to resume the game?

No! Do this and you risk forfeiting the game.

From the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 11.2.1 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
>
> 11.2.2 **The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played**.
>
> 11.2.3 **Only with the permission of the arbiter can**:
>
> 11.2.3.1 a player leave the playing venue,
>
> 11.2.3.2 **the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area**.

In general the toilets are part of the playing venue but not part of the playing area. If you get up from the board while it is your turn you may move about the playing area (and, for instance, look at other boards) but you may not leave the playing area (go to the toilet, go for a smoke or vape, get a drink, food, etc.) without getting the arbiter's permission. If you do so you will likely forfeit the game for possible cheating.

# Answer
> 8 votes
From FIDE's arbiter manual: "11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

I think picking up a piece and keeping it out of the board for a long time is quite disturbing. As far as I know there's no problem on picking up a piece and placing it back on its original square as long as it's the piece you finally move. Probably some sort of gesture or verbal comment would be advisable, but that would be it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
A tangential point related to what I think is a misconception behind the question:

> This assumes that the player will never let go of the piece throughout the entire process until it's placed in its new position.

It looks like the motivation for the question is the idea that once you grab a piece you can't let go of it until you make your move. What the FIDE rules actually say is (emphasis added):

> 4.7 When, **as a legal move or part of a legal move**, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move.\[...\]

One might think that releasing the piece back in its original square might constitute an illegal move. But note this other rule:

> 7.5.1 An illegal move is completed **once the player has pressed his clock**.\[...\]

So in principle you could release the piece in as many illegal places as you like as long as you don't press the clock before releasing the piece in a legal square. But since there's also the issue of annoying the opponent, which has been brought up in other answers, I would say that least annoying option if you want to let go of the piece before completing your move is to put it back in its original square.

# Answer
> 0 votes
converting my comment to answer:

> why not just put the piece aside or put the piece back in the original position? Giri did the latter against Anand but personally i do find it a little weird even if it is technically within the rules. i think i'd go with putting the piece on the side of the board to indicate to both players 'yeah i touched this piece but i have to go. BRB' w/c is your intention anyway right?

---
Tags: rules, tournament, fide, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Challenges of becoming a good chess player
Chess is a deterministic game. Hence in principle we can have a perfect strategy for chess, a strategy that prevents a player losing a single game (given that no mistake has been made). All chess heuristics thus results from the single fact that the search space of possible moves of a chess game is incredibly large, finite but unimaginably large. Beyond any scope of human brain’s computational ability to follow through to the end. Even machines don’t possess such humungous processing abilities as of now. How do you proceed from this point? How do we get around our limited computational abilities? What aims do we start with? It seems looking ahead in the search space even to a little extent is something we can’t do away with. Every chess strategy ever is basically a smart way to replace a brute force search with something else. My question is how do you replace searching without actually searching? Do we have to rely a lot on previously tried and tested variations and their results? Then becoming a good chess player becomes a problem of gathering plus memorizing data and doing near perfect five-six moves long calculation, am I right?

I guess what I’m asking here is that can we algorithmize the problem of becoming a good human chess player to some extent? What are an aspiring chess player’s challenges? What fundamental actions do those challenges finally boil down to?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't think the fact that chess is deterministic means anything in practice for training (it does for playing of course). Compare for instance with poker, a non-deterministic game where it's still possible to develop a long-term winning strategy. Poker training is not that different from chess training. We must understand however that the word "strategy" is used in chess differently than in game theory. Learning chess strategy means learning about planning and positional concepts, not learning a "procedure" to make moves.

In fact, the irony here is that high-level poker players rely on memorizing "game theory optimal" strategies much more than high-level chess players (who only do so for theoretical endgames)

> Even machines don’t possess such humungous processing abilities as of now. How do you proceed from this point? How do we get around our limited computational abilities?

For the most part, we don't care. We understand that this limitation exists in our opponent as well as in ourselves, so we try to play the best chess we can within our possibilities.

> I guess what I’m asking here is that can we algorithmize the problem of becoming a good human chess player to some extent?

There have been attempts but mostly unsuccessful ones. We can't rely on the "memory+6-move-search" strategy because humans are quite bad at those two things. No substitute has been found for "tacit" knowledge or human intuition.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Warning: My answer will be very subjective.

Methinks that your maybe a bit long-winded paragraph essentially boils down to the question: positional or tactical play? And here I daresay that 99% of the 3500 ELO of nowadays computer are due to brute calculating force. Only 1% is due to improved heuristics of assessing positional factors that don't need calculating. It would be an interesting experiment to program an engine which calculates to depth 100, with just a minimal evaluating function (say, material and king).

Also note that this is completely irrelevant for a *human* chess player - we simply *can't* calculate to a depth where pure calculation saves us. We can only play positionally. Case in point: I had FM strength - and I calculated almost nothing in my whole chess life. At least not conscious.

Thus: No, a human player can't play chess by algorithm, if we interpret "algorithm" as "something you directly can code into a program". (Obviously a human uses an algorithm too, we just can't grasp it in high-level if-then terms, as in the case of Alpha Zero.)

Community, feel free to protest.

---
Tags: strategy, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Did Karpov really only wash his hair when he lost?
At the recent Isle of Mann coverage, the topic of conversation was grandmaster superstitions, during which GM Simon Williams conveyed that Karpov would only wash his hair when he lost a game. Apparently he went over 40 games without a loss during a streak, leaving it up to our imagination on the consequences.

Now I know GM Simon Williams is quite the joker, so I'm inclined to believe that this is just one of his jibes, but is there perhaps any truth to this? I found some references to this with Google, but I'm not sure about how authoritative they are.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This story has a very long pedigree going back much further than the GingerGM.

The earliest reference I can find on the internet is from a November 1985 report on the Karpov v Kasparov match in People.com's archive - http://people.com/archive/anatoly-karpov-is-straining-in-vain-to-keep-his-world-chess-title-from-gary-kasparov-vol-24-no-20/

> Unlike his extroverted rival, Karpov — who has all the appeal of a cold fish —ignores the crowd. When he intends to play aggressively, he emerges onstage clad in a black suit. In keeping with a chess superstition, he hasn’t cut his hair during the current match. Indeed he seldom seems to wash it, and he has been losing weight to boot.

Paul Hoffman (https://paulhoffman.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/superstition-in-chess/) says he mentions it in his book "King's Gambit"

> In King’s Gambit, I write about superstitions at the board. Players who insist in wearing their lucky T-shirt or underwear or keeping score with the same special pen. World champion Anatoly Karpov was famous for not washing his hair when he was on a winning streak. Grandmaster Nigel Short said of Karpov: “Unfortunately, he had long tournaments where he never lost a game—the guy got greasy.”

The English Chess forum brought this up in a thread on "Poor Taste" - http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2045&start=30#p36136 \- back in 2010.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is just a joke. Since Karpov almost never lost, the joke is that he never washed his hair.

I met Karpov in person during his heydey and he did have very greasy hair. He also used to wear this one black and white checked sports jacket like it was the only clothing he owned. His personal grooming was somewhat indifferent.

---
Tags: history, karpov
---


# Question
Title: How to move knights so that black moves first?
From move 0, what shortest-possible sequence of moves could be played so that the pieces are arranged exactly as standard board setup (with allowed swapping of same-color knights), but it is black's turn to move? Is it even possible?

I thought about it and conjectured white would have to make an odd number of knight moves, and black would have to make an even number of knight moves. I think this is impossible when the knights need to end up where they started, or even swap with each other (because even though this is an odd number of moves for one knight, the other knight would also have to make an odd number of moves). Am I correct? How can it be proven?

I also guess that this is a famous or at least previously explored problem. Maybe it's trivial.

# Answer
It's impossible. Knights require an even number of moves to reach a square of the same color as where they started, or correspondingly an odd number of moves to reach the opposite color. Both sides need to make an even number of moves to reach the starting position.
> 31 votes

# Answer
This is impossible because.

* In the initial position, the 4 knights cover 2 white and 2 black squares.
* each white move will lead to the knights being on 3 white squares and 1 black square or 1 white and 3 black.
* each other black move would lead to 2 & 2 or 4 & 0.

In order for "black to go first" the knights will need to be on the initial position (2 white, 2 black).
This is not possible after a white's move as shown above.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You are basically trying to make a knight lose a tempo, which is known to be impossible.
> 5 votes

# Answer
converting to comment to answer, but just a cw answer to emphasise postoronnim's answer:

> I was about to say this! I wish this could be the accepted answer. @theonlygusti it's a **rule of endgames that knights can't lose a tempo**. Do you know like triangulation or losing a move or reaching the same position but with the opposite player move? (eg it's currently your move but you can maneuver pieces to make it the same position but your opponent's move) You can do triangulation with kings and bishops (and i guess rooks and queens), but you can't with knights!

> **Remark**: Your question about the opening phase is answered by a principle of the endgame phase.

Re triangulation, try checking out: ,
> 0 votes

---
Tags: knights
---


# Question
Title: Winning percentage (white win/draw/black win) in chess960/9LX in 2021?
> How does the winning percentage (white win/draw/black win) in chess 960 (Fischer random) compare to that of regular chess?

The above was asked here: Winning percentage in chess 960. I would like to re-ask this question with the ff changes:

1. but now in 2021 (the previous question was in 2017. in the past 4 years, there has been a fide world fischer random championship. there's also this.)
2. perhaps 1 answer for computers (no need to answer again for computers, if it's about the same as the answer before, I guess) and 1 for humans (the previous question had a computer only answer and so far no human answers)? Or maybe just 1 for humans if this question is otherwise too broad
3. I don't care about sample size. (the answer in previous question didn't answer about humans because of low sample size. even if the sample size is low, I don't mind)

---

follow-up question to brian towers' answer in case it gets deleted (I notice that on this stackexchange site, follow up questions or reasons for downvoting can be removed without warning or explanation!):

> what about the equivalent standard chess percentages please? i figure so we can at least have an understanding of 'not many' just like in the other post. i don't think it has to be dug up from chess-results similarly. i'm expecting there are some kind of statistics already done for this. but anyway i'll award the bounty for now

# Answer
> 2 votes
Searching on chess-results for "960" tournaments played in 2021 gives the following:

68th PCA Chess 960 Tournament 24th Jan 2021 W23 D0 B21
Первенство Владимирской области по шахматам-960 (rapid) W25 D3 B25
Турнир по шахматам 960, посвящённый 78-летию со дня рождения 11-го чемпиона мира по шахматам Роберта Фишера (rapid) W20 D7 B22
Відкрита Першість СК Нафтохімік- Шахи 960(шахи Фішера) м.Кременчук 27.03.2021р (blitz) W35 D5 B23
8° Choriblitz Atawallpa Chess 960 (blitz) W15 D4 B11
TORNEO ABIERTO "FISCHER 960" JAQUE PERPETUO AJEDREZ (blitz) W4 D0 B2
ACCENTUS Chess960 Biel International Chess Festival 2021 (rapid) W12 D6 B10
Majstrovstvá v sachu 960 (Fischerov sach) - 4.8.2021; 18:30 (blitz) W23 D1 B18
Петергофское лето - 2021. Шахматы Фишера (шахматы 960) (rapid) W12 D0 B13
Torneo Blitz "Camino a la Maestría" Chess 960 (rapid) W4 D3 B8
Chess 960 šachmatų turnyras, skirtas UAB „Art Glacio" taurei laimėti (rapid) W18 D1 B6

Totals = W191 D30 B158
Percentages = W=50.4% D=7.9% B=41.7%
Note that these are all rapid or blitz, hence not many draws.

---
Tags: chess-variants, draw, database, statistics, chess960
---


title: Position Similarity Metrics

text:
# Question
Title: Position Similarity Metrics
I'm looking for metrics that quantify how similar/different two positions are.

I have found a paper that used pawn structures to search for similar games in a database. This one tries to use reachable squares, as well as attack and defense structures do achieve this.

Metrics can be arbitrary, but I wonder if other approaches exist.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Ultimately, what is considered 'similar' depends on what one is trying to achieve by measuring similarity. I suspect, a common chess engine use-case would be to try predicting if the two positions are going to return same evaluation result.

Here are a few brainstorm-style ideas:

* Compare lists of legal moves and measure the degree to which they overlap.
* Base the measure on the number of pieces whose positions are mismatched
* Base the measure on the minimum number of moves needed to get from position A to position B.

Some food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit\_distance

---
Tags: software, programming
---


# Question
Title: Why Aimchess rapid 2021 match results do not contribute to rapid ratings?
I used to check player ratings updates on https://2700chess.com/rapid which is usually promptly updated, often within few minutes from the match end (at least during the last FIDE world cup this was the case).

I noticed though that during and after the last Aimchess Rapid 2021 tournament no elo changes of sort have been recorded. Is it just because the maintainers did not update it or is it something with the tournament? Or what?

# Answer
FIDE operated tournaments are more likely to process the data and results more promptly as it doesn't require a significant amount of correspondence. I have played FIDE tournaments and had updates reflected within hours, I have played FIDE tournaments and the results weren't updated till about 24 hours after the last game. National tournaments that have take weeks to reflect. Its all about how promptly they are processing the data , getting it into the FIDE system.

More likely though the AimChess tournament is an online tournament. Refering to the FIDE handbook, the rules only cover traditional chess and exclude Correspondence and Online chess(https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018). So there probably are no rating changes as a result of that.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, rating, elo, rapid
---


title: Can black win this pawn ending?

text:
# Question
Title: Can black win this pawn ending?
Black to move. My computer gives the evaluation -2.5 but I can't find the winning sequence for black.

```
[FEN "6k1/6pp/4p3/3pP3/2pP1PP1/1p6/1K5P/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

(Black goes up the board)

# Answer
> 15 votes
If we look at the position we see a number of things:

1. Black's connected passed pawns mean that the white king must remain at all times in the rectangle a1-a3-d3-d1.
2. The fact that the white king can stop the pawns from queening on their own by just cycling between b2 and a3 means that the pawns will never queen without the help of the black king. In particular the black king needs to get to b4 without losing otherwise the game is going to be a draw.
3. White has a healthy kingside majority which can a generate a passed pawn.
4. White's immediate threat is f5 which would immediately create a supported passed e5 pawn.
5. Therefore unless black can permanently stop that threat then the black king must always stay within the rectangle h8-h5-b5-b8.
6. If black plays Kb4 then the result will depend on whether one player can queen first and then stop the opponent from queening.

That said let's look at some sample lines starting with what happens if black allows an immediate f5 by white:

```
[FEN "6k1/6pp/4p3/3pP3/2pP1PP1/1p6/1K5P/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf7 2. f5 Ke7 3. fxe6 Kxe6 {and both side have their king's tethered to the opponent's passed pawn(s).

```

So, to have any chance of winning black's first move is forced: g6 to stop the immediate f5. Black then also needs to restrain white's kingside majority enough so that black has enough time to get the king to b4 and be able to force one of the pawns through before white can queen a pawn.

After g6 the other key move for black is h5. The idea is fix the white pawns into a slower structure (white pawn on g5) or a losing structure where the black king can enter on f5 because the g pawn has been lured away by taking the h5 pawn.

```
[FEN "6k1/6pp/4p3/3pP3/2pP1PP1/1p6/1K5P/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...g6 2. Ka3 Kf7 3. Kb2 h5 4. g5 (4. h3 hxg4 5. hxg4 g5 {key move breaking up and taking the pawns or creating a new black passer} 6. f5 (6. fxg5 Kg6 7. Ka3 Kxg5 8. Kb2 Kxg4) exf5 7. gxf5 g4 {and the new passer runs home}) Ke7 5. Ka3 Kd7 6. Kb2 Kc6 7. Ka3 Kb5 8. Kb2 Kb4 9. f5 c3+ 10. Kb1 Ka3 11. fxg6 b2 12. Kc2 (12. g7 Kb3 13. g8=Q c2#) Ka2 13. g7 b1=Q+ 14. Kxc3 Qb8

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
Stockfish gives -8 on Lichess, analysis.

And the reason is very simple actually. b and c pawns are protected passed pawns which means the white king cannot leave there. If it leaves, you will promote. So their king is stuck there and you are pretty much free with your king to collect all pawns. There are multiple winning lines but I will leave here a little bit complicated one:

```
    [FEN "6k1/6pp/4p3/3pP3/2pP1PP1/1p6/1K5P/8 b - - 0 1"]

    1... g6 2. h4 h5 3. g5 Kf7 4. Kc3 Ke7 5. Kb2 Kd7 6. Kc3 Kc6 7. Kb2 Kb6 8. Kc3 Kb5 9. Kb2 Kb4 10. f5 c3+ 11. Kb1 Ka3 12. fxg6 b2 13. g7 Kb3 14. g8=Q c2#

```

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