# Question
Title: What is the green/red line in this analysis
I ran a game of mine on:

http://analysis.cpuchess.com/

And I see that the analysis line changes from green to red and vice versa. What does it mean? Do the green lines mark the move was the engine's choice and red not? Does it make sense in the attached picture for 1400 and 1600 players?

# Answer
It seems obvious to me that a red line indicates a bad move and a green line a good move. Graphically this shows in the fact that steep lines are red and horizontal lines are green. This might be slightly confusing because the graph shows the moves of both, black and white.

Because an engine always assumes best play when evaluating a position you can never improve your position by playing a move, best case scenario is you play the best move and the eval stays the same -\> horizontal line. A mistake on the other hand changes the evaluation -\> the line goes up if black moved, or down if white moved.

There is probably a cutoff for what constitutes a bad move, something like a 1.0 pawns evaluation drop seems likely.
> 2 votes

# Answer
"Green" means advantage, and "red" means disadvantage for you.

Basically, you had a slight advantage for most of the game, then made a terrible move or two at the end that lost you the game.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why does a touched piece not have to move in online play?
There is a rule of playing the game of chess that a touched piece of one's own should be the one to move. I have always been taught by professional trainers from early childhood that this is the official rule to be followed in tournaments, but not necessarily in friendly games.

However, I find that online interfaces for playing rated games do not enforce this rule. I often find myself starting to make a move in blitz and then opting for another, possibly with a different piece. The interface always allows that in all the sites I have played.

Is this an omission on the part of the designers or rather an indication that chess players really do not care about this rule (mindlessly repeated from generation to generation)?

# Answer
I think the reason becomes more apparent when you consider why the rule is in place for OTB games - an opponent constantly moving their hands around the board and moving the pieces around can be very distracting while the other player is likely still trying to concentrate on the position.

By contrast, in online chess both players are using their own screens and the fact that one player starts moving one piece, decides against it and then moves another is *not even conveyed to the other player* \- they see a static board until the final move is made.

Another factor (but not the main motivation IMO) might be that, as you hinted at in your question, most online games are seen as 'friendly' games - it has only been very recently that the idea of officially rated online games has been accepted by FIDE, for example.
> 38 votes

# Answer
There are three issues here: regulation, time control and technology.

The FIDE Laws of Chess cover over the board play. They do not cover correspondence, simultaneous displays, handicaps, variants (other than chess960), computer chess and anything else which is not strictly OTB, although you are free to use a suitable subset for these other forms.

Even if you are playing OTB there is no obligation unless you are playing in a formal competition which is governed by FIDE or an association of FIDE like your national chess federation. When I taught my kids to play, the touch-move rule came very late in my priorities.

The first time I played in a formal blitz tournament I had been playing competitions with standard rates of play for about 30 years. I was very familiar with touch-move. However the informal rule I was used to for blitz was that touch-move did not apply. Your move didn't become "fixed" until you pressed the clock even if you moved a piece, let go of it, moved it back and moved another one.

It is interesting that in the recent St Louis event in the Nakamura - Kasparov game where Kasparov violated touch-move quite blatantly, the commentators were unsure, Kasparov claims he was unsure and says (which you can actually see on the video) that he looked around at the arbiter for guidance to see if what he was doing was wrong.

In OTB chess played at standard time controls (each player having at least an hour for all their moves, more for stronger players) touch-move makes a lot of sense. Calculate your move in your head without touching or moving pieces around on the board and then make it.

In chess played online via a computer interface the vast majority of games are played at blitz rates (each player having 10 minutes or less for all their moves). Time controls go all the way down to bullet - just one minute for all the moves. That it is even possible to play a sensible game at these rates is down to the technology: there is no clock to press (the technology handles that), you can make moves (with practice and the right mouse) much quicker and you can pre-move.

The last one of these is key. There is a lot of skill (and even character) in pre-moving and in a format where speed is vital pre-moving can make a big difference.

FIDE laws regarding which hand you press the clock with, touch-move, how you capture a piece or castle (use one hand only, please!), how you promote a pawn just don't make sense in correspondence chess or in online chess.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I believe that it is forbidden because you can touch a piece and see the other players reaction. Was that a hint of a smile? Maybe I better not move that piece.

This is not an issue in online chess, because as others stated only the final move is seen by the opponent.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The rule doesn't make any sense in an online game. The rule is that you cannot touch your own piece on the shared board. In other places accessible only to you, such as in your head, you are free to touch and manipulate pieces as you wish. In an online game, there is no shared board to make rules about. So there's no coherent way the rule could apply.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In OTB chess, the touch move rule prevents moves from being retracted, while in online chess, the software prevents this.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, online-chess, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Touch a piece and then claim opponent's previous move was illegal
In a last round tie between 2 players fighting for top seed in a competition, here is what happened.

White had 18 seconds on his clock and black had 26 seconds. Black was winning. At move 56, black made a pawn push which exposed his king to a check by a dark square bishop, thus making the pawn push an illegal move. White did not take note so he raised the bishop and was about to play then he saw that the king was in check, so before he could call 'illegal' black quickly called the 'touch move rule'. Thus implying that white had to move the bishop. According to FIDE rules which call should supersede: Black's 'touch move' or white's 'illegal move'?

# Answer
> 14 votes
In standard play (each player has at least 60 minutes for all the moves) it makes no difference when the illegal moves is spotted the position must be restored to the one before the illegal move even if that was several moves ago.

In rapid or blitz Appendix A4 part 2b applies:

> b. An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter observes this he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move.

Provided white has not released the bishop on a different square the claim for an illegal move stands and white wins the game.

EDIT: As of 1st January 2018 the rules for rapid and blitz have been brought into line with standard rate. In all 3 cases there is a time penalty for the first illegal move (1 minute for blitz and rapid, 2 minutes for standard) and only the second illegal move loses you the game.

# Answer
> 6 votes
From FIDE's Laws of Chess 7.5

> a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.
>
> b. After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Since the illegal move reverts the position back to before the "touch move" would be activated, White never touched the Bishop.

---
Tags: rules, fide, illegal-move
---


title: Was this considered a stalemate?

text:
# Question
Title: Was this considered a stalemate?
I'm new at chess and still learning the rules. The other day I was playing a friend of mine, and it got to the point where I had only my king and queen and he had only his king and bishop. I forgot the exactly how we got to this point, but when we did, he said it would be stalemate and result in a draw. I argued that we keep playing and I wound up putting him in checkmate. He didn't make any fatal or illegal moves; I just beat him. My question is, why would this be a draw if I could win? Everything I find says that when either side has only a king and bishop/knight it results in a draw. Of course I may have misunderstood, but it seems like one side can get punished for simply taking out the other sides pieces.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If I understand well you had a king and a queen, and your opponent a king and a bishop.

It is not a stalemate nor a draw, unless you reach a position like this one, for example:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/6K1/8/5Qbk b - - 0 1"]

```

A stalemate occurs whenever the player having the turn has no legal moves and he's not under check.

A draw happens when there's no sequence of legal moves (even if they are absurd ones) than can lead to a checkmate, when the same position is repeated at least three times, or when at least 50 moves have been done without a pawn move or a capture.

---
Tags: rules, stalemate
---


title: Full games archive in FIDE Arena

text:
# Question
Title: Full games archive in FIDE Arena
On the screenshot below it says that a paying member of the FIDE Arena has unlimited access to a full games archive. Unfortunately, for almost a year I have been unable to locate the place where my games are stored in the interface. I wrote to support but received no answer. Can anyone help me navigate the interface to find those games or confirm that they are lying about their service?

# Answer
Log in to your account. Stay on the Home tab(top left), on the right side there a section called Tournament/Challenges section. This has an adjustable date selection option. Select the start date and end date; or leave the default dates in place and hit Ok. There will be a need screen that loads that will list your game history based on the dates. Double click on each game and there you can download each game as .pgn files or just play over it again,

Hope this helps.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, online-blitz
---


title: Endgame books or web-sources

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame books or web-sources
What books or web-sources have people worked with to improve their endgame?

I have gone over Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master and Understanding Chess Endgames.

I feel good about major piece endings but I am still tripping over BN vs NN or BB endings.

Any thoughts, pointers?

# Answer
> 2 votes
A very interesting source is 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesús de la Villa. Jesús focuses in most common endgames, with a very practical approach and only 100 pages (Spanish version) long. I miss the K+Q vs K+R ending here, but it's a very recommendable book.

More comprehensive books, and also longer and more dense, are Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and Lampretch and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual by Dvoretsky. I've actually used the first one to check missing endgames in de la Villa book, as the K+Q vs K+R.

These books are about theoretical endgames. Also both Dvoretsky's School of Excellence and Jacob Aagaard Grand Master Preparation series have a book each about practical endgames play. I have read none of them, so I cannot give you my impressions about them.

Another interesting book is Practical Rook Endings by Mednis, focused in rook endings that, as you know, are the most common ones.

My personal advice is to start with de la Villa Book, to have Muller or Dvoretsky's manual as a reference (at least I cannot afford to study them), and study a book about practical endings.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In the chessgym you can train the standard endgames against the computer (An account is not necessary).

Generally playing endgames out against an engine multiplies the effect of just reading about it. Ideally you'll try to win a won endgame against an engine and only then you use the book to find out what you could have done better.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would recommend *Endgame Tactics* by Van Perlo, which won the ECF Book of the Year Award 2006.

This is IM Silman's review of the book:

> It’s important to mention that VAN PERLO’S ENDGAME TACTICS won the biggest award in the world for chess books: The ECF Book of the Year Award (it used to be called the British Chess Federation Book of the Year Award/BCF, but apparently they just changed it). In 2006 Van Perlo beat out both Kasparov (MY GREAT PREDECESSORS V) and Rowson (CHESS FOR ZEBRAS). That’s stiff competition, and is all the more surprising since endgame books usually don’t get the nod. Clearly, VAN PERLO’S ENDGAME TACTICS is something special!
>
> Aside from its entertainment value, VAN PERLO’S ENDGAME TACTICS also gives you an interesting kind of instructive bang for your buck. Though you might know of all the basic tactical themes from your middlegame studies, the endgame offers up some odd tactical ideas that only apply in this final phase of the game (pawn promotions, strange King jigs, etc.). Thus, going over the examples from this book will prove to be quite instructive, while also being lots of fun.
>
> Ger Van Perlo died in 2010. However, an odd thing happened. I’ll quote the NIC website: “By chance, in 2013 publisher New In Chess discovered a previously unnoticed and unpublished extra batch of endgame tactics collected by the legendary Dutch correspondence grandmaster” \[Van Perlo\]. As a result, the book has gone from 480 pages to 608, and is even better than the original 2006 award winner.
>
> Highly recommended for players from 1200 to grandmaster.

Source: JeremySilman.com

# Answer
> 1 votes
The chess training website http://chesstempo.com has an environment for training endgames against computer. The positions can be selected according to many criteria to design custom problem sets. There are only winning positions, with no exercises on fighting for a draw.

---
Tags: endgame, books, bishop-endgame, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Bronstein's lines of attack on the chessboard
I remember reading as a child in a book by David Bronstein about an interesting piece of advice that he gave. He recommended to imagine the lines of movement for each piece all across the board as if not restrained by any intervening pieces. This is supposed to help to see all the tactical possibilities.

My question is to help me locate this quotation. I am also interested in any kind of remarks concerning this piece of advice.

# Answer
This is actually a common piece of advice given to students of chess. Often chess blindness begins with not projecting your piece movement abilities beyond the first encountered piece in it's way. this helps to clear that deficiency away and begin to cultivate imagination and fantasy position ideas in your mind.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: famous-players
---


# Question
Title: What is the most controversial opening or variation?
I often read that the Sicilian Sveshnikov is "the most controversial of all chess openings", then I read the same for the Sicilian Poisoned Pawn... and then same for the Botvinnik Variation of Semi-Slav. What is the most controversial opening or variation?

# Answer
There's no quantifiable answer to this. In my subjective experience, the most controversial openings would be the Dutch Defense and the King's Indian Defense.

I have heard strong players (Sam Shankland, multiple times, including in some of his chess.com videos) heavily disparage the Dutch, but it is still defended occasionally at the top level, most prominently by Nakamura.

The KID is a more frequent guest in super-GM play, and Vladimir Kramnik has a low opinion of it.

At a meta-controversial level, the Berlin Defense causes some debate due to its drawish tendencies and popularity in top-level round robin events.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, poisoned-pawn, sveshnikov
---


# Question
Title: Studies that have been cooked by computers
A study is unlike a regular chess problem. Instead of "mate in 3" (for instance), a study's instructions are something like "White to draw" (for instance). What this means is to find a line of play after which White reaches a position that is known to be a draw. But there is a problem with this notion because computers have shown us that many situations that were "known to be a draw" aren't really (same for theoretical wins).

> Are there any **famous** studies that have been cooked (solution is not valid) due to a computer showing that the final position did not satisfy the conditions of the study?

(By famous I mean either a classic that appears in many books or a study that won prizes in problem tournaments.)

# Answer
> 11 votes
I don't know how famous it is, but here is a study shown to be incorrect by computers:

```
 [Title "J. van Reek, 1987. White to play and draw."]
 [FEN "8/5n2/5N2/3K4/8/3p4/Rn6/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Ra3 d2 2. Rd3 Nxd3 3. Ne4 d1=N! 4. Ke6 Nd8+ (4... Nh6!) 5. Kd7 Nb7 6. Kc6 Na5+ 7. Kb5 Nb3 8. Nc3+ Nxc3+ 9. Kc4 Kc2 1/2-1/2

```

The intended solution is given in the diagram. It has a very nice stalemate finish.

Unfortunately black can play `4... Nh6!`, and according to the tablebases there is a win for black in 39 moves.

So three knights can win against one. Having to play this ending would give me nightmares!

# Answer
> 6 votes
If a study contains only a small number of pieces it is always possible to check for accuracy. (Right now the number is six, with seven in the works.) See for example: http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb&lang=en

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is a study that has been busted. Perhaps it is not a famous one (it seems not to be in PDB or YACPDB). Tim Krabbé featured it in entry 376 of Open Chess Diary. Tim reported that Olli Heimo busted it. The annotations are Tim's.

```
[Title "B. Badai, Shakhmaty v SSSR, 1965. Draw"]
[fen "5k2/8/7P/6pP/8/8/8/4K1n1 w - - 0 0"]

1.Kf2 Nh3+ 2.Kf3! (2.Kg3? Nf4 3.Kg4 Ne6 4.Kf5 Kf7 {and White is in zugzwang and must allow...} 5.Ke5 g4 6.Ke4 Kg8) 2...Nf4
3.Ke4! Ne6! {bust found by Olli Heimo} (3... Kf7? {the intended mainline} 4.Ke5! {Again, not 4.Kf5 Ne6 and White is in Zugzwang.} 4...Ne6 (4...Kg8 5.Kf5 {is the same}) 5.Kf5 {And now Black is in zugzwang.} 5...Kg8 6.Kxe6 g4 7.Kf5 (7.Kf6?? Kh7) g3 8.Kg6 g2 9.h7+ Kh8 10.Kh6 g1=Q =)
4.Ke5 Nd8! {and after 5... Nf7 Black wins the struggle to keep his last pawn.}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Two corrections are involved in the following very famous study. Its complete history, including how it was adapted from the conclusion of a game, are beyond the scope of this answer, but may be read on web pages from Wikipedia and the archive of Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary. When first published in study form, it was a draw-study as follows:

```
[Title "G.E. Barbier. Glasgow Weekly Citizen, 4 May 1895. Black to play and draw."]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/2P5/1K6/3r4/8/8/8/k7 b - - 0 0"]

1... Rd6+ 2. Kb5 Rd5+ 3. Kb4 Rd4+ 4. Kb3 Rd3+ 5. Kc2 Rd4! 6. c8=Q Rc4+ 7. Qxc4 =

```

Rev. Saavedra read the above solution, given by Barbier the following week. He then cooked Barbier's draw-study, showing how White could force a win:

```
[Title "G.E. Barbier, corr. Rev. Saavedra. Glasgow Weekly Citizen, 18 May 1895. Black to play and White to win."]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/2P5/1K6/3r4/8/8/8/k7 b - - 0 0"]

1... Rd6+ 2. Kb5 Rd5+ 3. Kb4 Rd4+ 4. Kb3 Rd3+ 5. Kc2 Rd4! 6. c8=R Ra4 7. Kb3 {and wins}

```

(The study is usually given in the version by Lasker; White's pawn is moved to c6, the stipulation is changed to "White to play and win", and there is an extra move 1. c7.)

Saavedra's move is beautiful in being a rook-promotion which, in a position with only four units, is the only winning move. And he transformed a draw-study into a win-study which is beautiful in that it puts White in that position and forces that promotion.

Except ... it doesn't. Tablebases have shown that White can indeed force a win, but Black avoids the Saavedra position, and White can win only by promoting to queen. At move 3, Black's best defence is not `3. ... Rd4+` but `3. ... Kb2` (deferring mate for 3 more moves) giving White only one winning move: `4. c8=Q!`. If Black does play `3. ... Rd4+` then White's best attack, supposing that Black always plays the best defence, is either `4. Kb3 Rd3 5. Kc2! Rf3 6. c8=Q!` or `4. Kc3 Rd1 5. Kc2 Rf1 6. c8=Q!`.

---
Tags: engines, problems, studies
---


# Question
Title: Why using the queen is not a good idea in this case?
I am a new \[and a late\] comer to chess. I started practicing on chessacademy.com where I got this exercise:

```
r1bqk1nr/ppp2pp1/4p2p/8/1bPnN3/5N2/PP1B1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 1 13

```

According to the site, the best move is ♗b4 and then it asks the following:

> \[Why not accomplish the same thing by Qa4+...Qxb4?\]

I can't see why not? Any hints?

# Answer
You are missing the knight fork on `c2`. After `1.Qa4+ Bd7 2.Qxb4 Nc2+ 3.Kd1 Nxb4` you would lose the queen...
> 2 votes

# Answer
This kind of question can be answered by using an online engine connected with a chessboard editor. Since you need to get the FEN to enter this position here you might as well use that editor and play it against computer: http://www.apronus.com/chess/playcomputer/?fen=0r1bqk1nrXppp2pp1X4p2pX8X1bPnN3X5N2XPP1B1PPPXR2QKB1R\_w\_KQkq\_-\_0\_1

The game will go 1.Qa4+ Bd7 2.Qxb4 Nc2+

Hope this helps next time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Is there a proper way to indicate "stalemate" on your scoresheet?
Yesterday, after squandering a win, I played on until stalemate (actually, I offered a draw, but my opponent isn't a native English speaker, so I don't think she understood; in a few more plies we hit stalemate).

I realized I didn't know how to indicate this on my scoresheet and I just wrote "stalemate" in English.

**Question**: Is there a proper way to indicate "stalemate" on your scoresheet?

For checkmate, I believe it's usual to write #, but I'm not sure for stalemate.

# Answer
> 3 votes
On your scoresheet you are required to record the result which 99.99% of the time will be one of 1-0, 0-1, ½-½. In the very rare cases when it is not one of those somebody will almost certainly be appealing the arbiter's / organizer's decision ;-).

You are not required to put how that result was achieved, e.g. flag dropped, resigned, defaulted, draw by 3-fold repetition, draw by 5-fold repetition, draw by 50 move rule, draw by 75 move rule (I actually got to rule that in a junior competition a few weeks ago - a real pain in the backside having to count up to 75 ;-) ), successful draw claim under appendix G in a quickplay finish that my opponent wasn't trying to win, successful draw claim under appendix G in a quickplay finish that my opponent couldn't win by normal means, checkmate, stalemate, etc. Note that I believe some national federations still allow adjudication but FIDE does not.

You get the picture! It would get a bit silly. Of course you are free to record that if you want. Just that not being a requirement there is no "approved" way for doing this.

# Answer
> 2 votes
2c:

Seems logical to use the symbol for zugzwang (no good move) and checkmate next to each other: ‡# (zugzwang is usually a circle with a dot at the centre.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Stalemate is so rare that it doesn't seem to have it's own notation symbol. It is not listed in the FIDE Handbook, section C.13, which is the official source on these kind of rules. Even the symbol for mate (`#`) is optional. I would just go for the word 'stalemate' like you did.

---
Tags: notation, stalemate, scoresheet
---


title: Reasoning for Rook sacrifice

text:
# Question
Title: Reasoning for Rook sacrifice
```
[fen "rn1qk1nr/pp4p1/2p2p2/4P2p/1bp5/2NbPPP1/PP2N1BP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 1 11"]

```

Komodo 8 and Stockfish agree on Nf4 here for white ( sacrificing the rook for development). It does not however show Bxf1 next for black but instead fxe5 and then Nxd3. Why shouldn't black just take the rook instead of fxe5. I get that after white swaps queens black will not be able to castle but wouldn't this still be worth it materially?

# Answer
Also keep in mind that the rook isn't necessarily being sacrificed free and clear, because taking back on f1 is a possibility (if not playing Ne6+ right away), meaning white is only sacrificing the exchange, while trading queens and leaving the black king exposed and vulnerable and unable to castle, so it's not as costly.
> 4 votes

# Answer
i'm No pro but I think that after:

Nf4 Bxf1
Qxd8 Kxd8 \[Queen Trade\]
Ne6+

wherever the king goes black is in a poor position
Ke7/Ke8 is followed by Nc7
Kd7 is perhaps black's best bet. But even in this case the kin is vulnerable to a discovered check by the white squared bishop.
Kc8 leaves black in a poor position.The black king is blocking his own rook
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Is a Caro-Kann game still advisable after 1. e4 c6 2. g4?
For the record, I have already made my move. I am black and I moved 2. ... d5. But I am wondering if that was a mistake. I am a total newb and am trying to learn the Caro-Kann. As I understand it, after 1. e4 c6, black should play d5 regardless of white's response. However, I have not found any analysis on 2. g4. Was my decision to go 2. ... d5 a mistake? Is this still a Caro-Kann game or is it something else now?

Thanks!

# Answer
The g4 line is called the Spike Variation of the Caro-Kannn(B10). Commonly played line is 2...d5 with e5 there after. White gives up development of pieces for more spatial control.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Can black win in this KR vs. KN endgame?
If white has the next move, can black still win the game? The players accepted the draw here, but I am not sure if it is still a draw.

```
[fen "8/8/3k4/4NK2/8/8/8/6r1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
No, this is a draw. These kind of positions can be checked with an online database, e.g. this one.

In general, King+Rook vs. King+Knight is only a win for the side with the Rook if the other King is cornered or separated from its Knight, as also described in this answer. Just play around a bit with the endgame database to get a feeling which positions are drawn and which ones are won. Black to move wins in this particular position only because of some short term tactics (Rf1+ and Re1+ wins the Knight).

# Answer
> 4 votes
This is a tablebase draw.

But speaking from experience it can be pretty difficult to defend for white, especially if you are playing on increment.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The black king and the rock are too far away from each other for the knight to have a fork. and no more pieces to have a tactic or coordinate an attack or promote a pawn. Black will always have the advantage of long range attack (that's why the rock valued for more points as it can attack larger number of squares) So the knight movements will always be restricted.

So in nutshell no hope for white player to achieve anything more than a draw.

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: syzygy tablebase generation program

text:
# Question
Title: syzygy tablebase generation program
I am a linux user and have been able to write not-too-complex C programs. I have also used makefiles. I have tried to download tablebase generator programs from GitHub but do not understand how to do this. The site seems to be primarily for programmers rather than users. I'm also not sure whether downloading source code costs money there.

# Answer
First of all, everything on Github can be downloaded freely. Normally, there should be a download button somewhere. Do you have a specific project in mind sou want to download? There seem to be several tablebase generators available. One is available from https://github.com/syzygy1/tb it seems to have decent documentation. There is a green button on the top right labeled "Clone or download", which allows you to download the whole thing as a zip file. From there you will have to follow the provided instructions to compile it. For questions on this another, more programming-related SE, may be more appropriate.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Please review my game in the King's Gambit Accepted
In the following game I played as White where I was mated. Can you comment on my game and how to improve?

I'm particularly interested in understanding the my opponent's mating attack.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2016.05.26"]
[White "anandsadasivam"]
[Black "PMajstor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "878"]
[BlackElo "886"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "PMajstor won by checkmate"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qg4 Bd6 4.d4 f6 5.c4 Nh6 6.Qf3 b6 7.a4 a5 8.h4 O-O 9.Bxf4 Bxf4 10.Qxf4 d6
 11.g4 Nxg4 12.Ne2 h6 13.Bh3 f5 14.Rf1 Qxh4+ 15.Ng3 Qxh3 16.Nxf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Ne3 18.b3 Nc2+ 19.Kd1 Nxa1 20.Kc1 Rxf5
 21.Qxf5 Nxb3+ 22.Kd1 Qxf5 23.Rxf5 Nxd4 24.Rf4 Nbc6 25.Nc3 Rf8 26.Re4 Nf3 27.Nd5 Ng5 28.Rg4 Rf1+ 29.Ke2 Rf8 30.Nxc7 Ne5
 31.Rd4 Rd8 32.Nd5 Nc6 33.Rf4 Re8+ 34.Kd3 Ne5+ 35.Kc3 Ng6 36.Rf1 Ne4+ 37.Kd4 Nd2 38.Rd1 Nf3+ 39.Kc3 Nge5 40.Nxb6 Rb8
 41.Rxd6 Ng5 42.Nd7 Ne4+ 43.Kd4 Nxd6 44.Nxb8 Nexc4 45.Nc6 g5 46.Kd3 g4 47.Ke2 g3 48.Kf1 h5 49.Kg2 h4 50.Kh3 Nf5
 51.Nd8 Nb2 52.Nc6 Nc4 53.Nd8 Kf8 54.Ne6+ Ke7 55.Ng7 Nxg7 56.Kxh4 g2 57.Kh3 g1=Q 58.Kh4 Ne6 59.Kh5 Kf6 60.Kh6 Qh1#
 0-1

```

# Answer
I think your first step toward improvement has to be: don't just lose material. 11.g4 is the first example I see. There seems no rhyme nor reason for just letting the opponent have that pawn. Next is 14.Rf1. There seem to be reasonable ways to not lose the h4 pawn. And finally 15.Ng3 dropping a whole piece on h3, when 15.Bg2 would have saved it. Why keep material? 1) More material for you means you have more material to launch attacks, and 2) More material also gives you more defenses for your king if your opponent goes on a premature king attack.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The main sense of playing a gambit is to sacrifice material in order to have some kind of compensation. In the KGA, you give black a pawn for quick development and central control. For this reason 3. Qg4 don't make a lot of sense. Your queen can easily be harassed by black pieces (for example 3... Nf6 or 3... d5 black will give you back the pawn and have a better development).

After 2... exf4 you have three reasonable choices 3. Nf3 3.Bc4 or 3. Nc3 (I have no experience in this one but it is know as Keres gambit and to me it looks more risky than the other two options). You can look to some Morphy, Bronstein or Spassky games to have an idea of the main themes of this opening. Of course it is better to improve the rest of your gameplay first...
> 2 votes

# Answer
Dev Anand Sadasivam

In my analysis will start after 6..Nh6 How I would proceed after that move, I would play: `6. Qxg7` smash black's kingside and get his pieces tangled up. And a continuation could be this `6.... Nf7 7. Nc3 c6 8. Qg4 c5 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Nd5 Nc6 11. Qxf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qd8 13. Nxf6+ Kf8` White is up two pawns and needs to castle queen side.
As well I agree with Jeff Y with not dropping pieces.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction
@JoshuaBakker has made an interesting comment:

> Why would you want \[weaker competition\]? For learning it's better to play against decent players....

But is it?

I believe that such advice used to be conventional during the precomputer era. If Capablanca had time to play chess against me, then I should have seized the opportunity, even if I must certainly have lost.

But is this not chiefly because Capablanca rarely had time to play chess against me?

Today, Stockfish always has time.

One could reasonably infer from the comment, taken in context, that an Elo 1300 player *wasted his time* by playing any Elo 1000 to 1600 opponents, if he could instead have been playing against nothing but the masters. Yet, is this really true?

Would one really learn chess best by fighting only hopeless odds? Does one truly gain nothing by the occasional victory, having taking advantage of an opponent's blunder? Must steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction be the sole mode of chess play which has any lessons to teach?

(Here are a related question and answers from last year.)

# Answer
> 4 votes
As this question highlights, it can become problematic if you don't even feel like you have a hope of winning a single game. Where's the fun in that? In my opinion, chess should be played first and foremost because it is fun. It isn't very fun never to feel the satisfaction of playing a nice winning combination against an opponent.

I think it's important for chess improvement to have fun while dealing with chess, and thus some success is needed. Otherwise it all becomes a chore, which will impede development in the long run. Therefore, I don't think it's advisable to play against stockfish for practice, unless it's training of some particular technique. Furthermore, stockfish training (i.e playing games against stockfish) will never really be applicable in regular games, as humans cannot, and will not even try to, play like the top computers.

However, facing strong opponents is a crucial component to improving. The ideal opponent is in my view somebody with a strength about 200-400 rating points above oneself. Then they will most likely beat you, and highlight the mistakes you make which makes them easier for you to discover and correct for future games. But you still have a realistic chance of scoring. You will have to struggle though, and really push yourself not to get blown off the board.

If you don't play stronger opponents, you will never improve very much. Why? Because there simply is no need for improvement then!

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Continuous-motion animated chess diagrams
Looking for a tool to create animated diagrams from a PGN file. The usual way that animated diagrams are created is through the animated GIF file which shows separate positions with a fixed time delay between the still frames. The better tools indicate the last move with an arrow (like here for example http://www.apronus.com/chess/diagram/animated/), but what I really need is a video file animation showing the actual continuous motion of the pieces across the board.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There seems to be php code for the apronus example you gave.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This program suggests a way to easily generate GIFs from PGNs.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I dont know any way to do this.
One workaround you can try is:

i) open the PGN in an analyzer. You can also use the chess.com game editor
ii) open a screen recorder
iii) most probably the analyzer shows animations when you click right/left. Record them.
iv) convert the video to a gif.(XD)

This method is not automatic(and is very slow), but it allows you to adjust the time shown per move.

If you could be a bit more specific as to where and how you wish to use it i may be able to give a better solution. The reason I am suggesting this method is that making a gif for a whole game is very impractical.

**EDIT:** You can use some programming knowledge to make it easier:

1) Open the page with the analyzer

2) Select the right arrow button. Inspect Element. Get its ID.

3) The Inspect editor allows you to change the code (just for yourself). Add a js command to autoclick the button after intervals.

4)Turn on a screen recorder and start recording.

5) Sit back, relax, and do other stuff while the game is being recorded automatically.

WARNING: Do The js thing at your own risk. It may violate some protocols.

---
Tags: software, diagram
---


title: Simple mate in 2?

text:
# Question
Title: Simple mate in 2?
I used to be a problem composer and the thing I loved most about creating and solving chess problems is that you can't just rely on simple patterns. You need to think outside the box. This is one of my earlier chess problems. Can you solve it?

### White to move and mate in 2

```
[fen "3BB1N1/QKp3pb/7p/5R1R/3br1k1/7N/4P2P/6n1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Good luck!

# Answer
> 5 votes
Adnan

```
1) Rf8 Ba7 2)Rh4#

```

or

```
1) Rf8 g5 2) Nh6#

```

Fun puzzle.

---
Tags: problems
---


title: A problem rebus-reproduce the game

text:
# Question
Title: A problem rebus-reproduce the game
Here is a chess "rebus" problem. In this position, white and black circles correspond to White and Black pieces respectively. Each letter corresponds to exactly one piece type (king, queen, rook, knight, bishop or pawn). The task is to find letter-piece correspondence.

>

I know that the answer is:

> A = rook; B = king; C = bishop; D = queen; E = knight.

Can you a list of moves which leads to such a position?

# Answer
Highly non-optimal, but here's one line that reproduces the position. The basic idea is to not capture the existing pieces, but capture pawns. A single pawn capture can free 3 pawns to promote. Here's a sample game.

```
   [FEN ""]

   1.h4 a6 2.h5 g5 3.hxg6 Nf6 4.g7 h5 5.g8=R h4 6.g4 h3 7.g5 h2 8.Nf3 Nd5 9.
   g6 Nb6 10.g7 Rh4 11.Rg1 h1=R 12.Rh8 Nd5 13.g8=R Rh5 14.R1g5 R1h4 15.Rh6
   Nb6 16.Rg8g6 f5 17.e4 fxe4 18.Nd4 e3 19.Bh3 e5 20.Ke2 e4 21.Qh1 Nd5 22.Kf1
   e2+ 23.Kg2 e1=R 24.f4 e3 25.f5 Bb4 26.f6 e2 27.f7+ Ke7 28.f8=R Rf1 29.Nb3
   e1=R 30.Rf4 Re6 31.Rf3 Rf6 32.Rgg3 Re1 33.R6g4 Ree6 34.Nd4 Kf7 35.Ne2 Bf8
   36.a4 Bg7 37.a5 b5 38.axb6 Nc6 39.b7 a5 40.b8=R a4 41.Raa3 Ra6 42.Rae3 a3
   43.b4 a2 44.b5 a1=R 45.Ra8 R6a5 46.b6 Nce7 47.b7 Nc6 48.b8=R Nb6 49.Kf2 d5
   50.Bb2 d4 51.c4 dxc3 52.d4 c2 53.d5 Qe7 54.d6 c1=R 55.d7 Nb4 56.d8=R c5
   57.Rg2 c4 58.R4g3 c3 59.Na3 c2 60.Nb5 Rd1 61.Ned4 c1=R 62.Nc2 Nd3+ 63.Ke2
   Ne1 64.Nc7 Ra6 65.Ne8 Na4 66.Rhg6 Bb7 67.R6g4 Rff5 68.Rb4 Rh7 69.Ree4
   Rh4h6 70.Qg1 Rhf6 71.Qd4 Ra3 72.Qc4 Rad3 73.Qa2 Rdd6 74.Qa1 Qc7 75.Rff2
   Qc3 76.Ree3 Qa3 77.Rbc8 Qa2 78.Rab8 Qb1 79.Reb3 Rd1d5 80.Ra3 Rb5 81.Qa2
   Rdc6 82.Rdd3 Rg6 83.Qa1 Bc3 84.Qa2 Rgf6 85.Qa1 Rfd5 86.Qa2 Red6 87.Qa1
   Rff5 88.Re4 Rdf6 89.Rb4 Rcc5 90.Rbb3 Rdd6 91.Qa2 Be4 92.Qa1 Rf4 93.Qa2 Bg6
   94.Qa1 Rf4f5 95.Qa2 Rcc6 96.Qa1 Nc5 97.Qa2 Nb7 98.Rd8 Rbb6 99.Qa1 Rc7 100.
   Rde3 Rde6 101.Rd2 Rec6 102.Rbd8 Re7 103.R8d3 Rd7 104.Ref3 Rdd6 105.Nb4 Bd4
   106.Qa2 Rc1c5 107.Qa1 Rcd5 108.Nc2 Bc3 109.Qa2 Ke7 110.Qa1 Ke6

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
> Each side has 14 units and has thus made two captures. Thus A is not pawn: if so, White's pawn structure entails cxd3, exf3, hxg3. As Wes & Daniel pointed out, the way to let as many pawns as possible promote with as few captures as possible is for some pawns to capture pawns and then promote. For example White axPb lets White's a- & b-pawns and Black's a-pawn promote. Two such captures by White and two by Black let each side promote 6 pawns. But with each side making only two captures, no more promotions are possible. So each side has 2 original & 6 promoted A's, so A is not queen, but rook, bishop or knight. Moreover, every pawn either promoted or was captured, so no letter represents pawn.
> Which letter means king? Not A, C or E: White has 2 or more of each. Nor D, for then the Ds check each other. Therefore B.
> E is neither queen nor rook: if so, both kings would be in check. Nor is E pawn. Therefore bishop or knight. If E is bishop, White has promoted a pawn to bishop on a white square. But it has already been proved that there were 6 White promotions (to A) & that only 6 are possible. So E is knight.
> Queen is C or D. But there have been no promotions except to A, so queen is not C but D.
> A is not knight and so is rook or bishop. Suppose that A is bishop. Then there are 7 promoted bishops on white squares (3 white and 4 black) and 5 on black squares (3 white and 2 black). Each PxP allows 3 promotions all on the same colour square. So the total number of promotions on each colour square is a multiple of 3. So the supposition is false. So A is not bishop but rook.
> So C is bishop.
> 3 votes

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


title: Mac/iOS chess app with rates option

text:
# Question
Title: Mac/iOS chess app with rates option
I am looking for a chess app that you can set an exact rate to play against the computer (same as you have in chess.com where you set it to play against others).

Is there any Mac (specifically) and iOS app where you can:

1. play computer and choose the exact rate of the computer
2. have some kind of analysis of your game

It must be an offline app.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'd like to recommend my own iOS app, SmallChess and SmallFish. They have time controls and playing strength.

In addition, there are many many other similar apps on the market. A simple "chess" keyword search in the app store will give you many results.

For MacOS, the Stockfish MacOSX program is good.

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: Why does 6.Bg5 prevent 6...e5 in the Sicilian Najdorf?
In Gufeld's book, after `1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5!`,

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5!

```

he writes: "In this way White solves three problems: he prevents `...e5`, " but he shows nothing to support the statement. Why is `...e5` so bad for black? Gerard

# Answer
> 8 votes
The lines presented below are from the `Chess Informant ECO 1984`, but I doubt the assessments have changed since:

```
[fen ""]
[White "Sicilian defense"]
[Black "Najdorf variation"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e5?! 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 ( 7...gxf6 8.Nf5! Bxf5 9.exf5+/- ) 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.Nf5 Bxf5 ( 9...Be6 10.Bc4 Nd7 11.O-O Rc8 12.Bb3 Nc5 13.Qf3 Nxb3 14.Qxb3 Rc5 15.Rad1 Rb5 16.Qg3!+/- ) 10.exf5 Be7 11.c4+/-

```

Although my edition of the `ECO` is old, I doubt anything has changed here.

In the main line Black has no counter-play-his only plan of attack-`b5` is useless as White will take with the bishop thus eliminating every Black's counter-play.

White has strong grip on the light squares, and presence of the bishops of the **opposite color** increases his advantage-remember this rule:

Presence of the opposite colored bishops favors the side **with the initiative**. Although they may end up as a draw in the endgame, in the middle-game **side that has an attack usually wins**.

In the first sideline, Black tried to generate some counter-play with `f5` but White's `Qh5` keeps advantage. If Black continues with passive play then White keeps advantage due to the initiative and presence of the opposite colored bishops.

Black's last sideline features `Be6` trying to ignore Whites plan, but we see that White develops strong pressure again.

I am not an `1.e4` player, so I was unable to find more concrete lines but these illustrate well enough why `e5` is dubious move for Black. If you need better coverage then try to find some repertoire books-at this point I can not recommend any.

Best regards.

### EDIT IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS:

In comments, it was suggested that `7...gxf6` is playable, by applying the ideas from the Sveshnikov sicilian.

I am not an `e4` player but let me try to explain why the above is not true.

First, let us see what the actual plans behind the Sveshnikov are. In order to preserve space and provide minimal yet sufficient info, I will quote Wikipedia article:

> 8...b5! was Sveshnikov's innovation, controlling c4 and threatening ...b4 forking White's knights. Previously, Black played 8...Be6 (the Bird Variation), which allowed the a3-knight to return to life with 9.Nc4.

These are the compensations Black gets, which are important to mention here, that eventually help him equalize:

> White's powerful knight on d5 and Black's shattered kingside pawn structure are compensated by Black's bishop pair and White's offside knight on a3. Also, Black has the plan of playing 10...f5, followed by ...fxe4 and ...f5 with the second f-pawn, which would give them good control of the centre. An alternative plan is to play 10...Bg7 followed by ...Ne7 to immediately trade off White's powerful knight;

OK, this is enough for us to see why the line in the OP is bad for Black. Before we continue let us do a quick summary for the Sveshnikov:

* White has horrible knight on a3 that Black harrasses with ...b5. This move prevents Nc4 and Bc4, indirectly fighting for the light squares and giving Black time to finish development/organize counterplay, since White is forced to reposition Na3 to a better square (not to mention Black threatens to win a piece by forking the knights with ...b4).
* Black has bishop pair, which is good asset for the endgame
* Black can **destroy** White center and establish himself there, with moves ...f5 + fxe4 + f5

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn1qkb1r/1p3p1p/p2p1p2/4pP2/8/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 1"]

```

In the above position the only thing identical to the Sveshnikov is the **Black pawn structure** with everything else different, and that matters as we shall see!

* White has no Na3 which means that thematic ...b5 simply wastes a tempo and has no real strength as in Sveshnikov.
* Without Na3 and ...b5, White really has no coordination problems (no fork threats, all of white pieces are idealy placed) as in Sveshnikov, which makes his development and slight space advantage more dangerous.
* **Black has no way to establish central dominance** as in Sveshnikov, because ...f5 + fxe4 + f5 plan is stopped by White pawn on f5
* Black has no bishop pair, as in Sveshnikov
* Black can not play d5, because he is late with ...Nc6 + Ne7, which leaves Bf8 passive since d6 + e5 chain is hindering him
* Black will have problems finding safe place for the king
* Black queenside play with ...b5 + Rc8 is weak, it lacks the effect it has in other lines of the Sicilian
* White has no weaknesses, apart from f5 pawn, which can be sacrificed in some lines but also easily defended as well

White can find an effective plan here, simple computer analysis will do. I have no access to an engine here, but I believe that g3 + Bg2 plan is very strong here. White can attack everywhere. Any minor piece duel is advantageous for White ( Nc3 vs Bf8, Bf1 vs Bf8 if heavy pieces stay on the board which is very likely, Bf1 vs Nb8, even Nc3 vs Nb8). White also has advantage in heavy pieces only middlegames. White has better pawn structure and faster development.

Meanwhile, Black's only good piece could be Nb8, because it can swiftly go to d4. Still, White can consider exchange sacrifice and still end up better! Black really has **nothing** to attack, nor we can envision any plan that achieves any meaningful, long-term counterplay.

To conclude, after `...gxf6` Black gets **worse** version of the Sveshnikov, painful "fight-for-a-draw" position without any counterplay.

# Answer
> 3 votes
After Bg5 in the najdorf variation playing e5 would leave black with huge problems in the d5 square, white is ready to take on f6 with his bishop and ocuppy the d5 outpost with a knight or even take advantage of f7 weak spot by playing Bc4

# Answer
> 3 votes
Let's look at the position after

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e5

```

The downside of e7-e5 is that black loses control over the d5 square (e7-e6 is no longer possible). The upside is that black gets a strong control over the e5 and d4-squares. There are lines where black plays e7-e5 and follows up with h7-h6 to stop the white bishop from going to g5. The reason is because the Bg5 pins the Nf6 to the Qd8 and therefore weakens blacks control over the d5-square (the Nf6 is a vital piece for black in order to control the d5-square).

From the position above, whites plan is to build up a strong control over the d5-square, most probably play Nc3-d5, perhaps followed by c2-c4 and build up the rooks on the c-file. For example

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Nd5 Nbd7 9.f3 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bf2 Nxd5 12.exd5 Bf5 13.c4

```

Where white should get a nice control over the light squares after exchanging off blacks light squared bishop with Bf1-d3. Also, white has the thematic pawn break h2-h4xg5 to open the h-file. As well as the Nb3-d2-e4 maneuver.

# Answer
> 0 votes
That author sounds like an idiot (unless it was a very old book, of course), because e5 is not a 'problem' in the sicilian najdorf. e6 is equally good to e5 in all positional najdorf systems whether white plays Be2 or Be3 or whatever.

In fact, I believe e6 is better against the English attack. It was kasparov's favorite, and my Komodo 10 fell in love with it too, scoring +0.09 and stuff for white.

The reason it prevents e5 has been answered very well already; it allows the knights to jump into d5 and f5, and black can never push for d5, which is a critical resource against Nf5 in the classical variation of the Najdorf.

The only time black wants to play e5 instead of e6 is in the classical Be2 variation (though black can play e5 with a good position in all systems except Bg5 and Bc4).

For the author to give Bg5 an exclam is outdated and/or absurd. Be3 or even just Be2 is clearly a better system for white against the Najdorf. In fact, I factually believe that Bg5 equalizes for black.

Theres the poisoned pawn variation which is very sharp and is proven to draw with perfect play for both sides.

Then there's the 7...Be7 variation which plays for a win but some very very deep lines get to a double edged, sound, and equal endgame where black has a queen and a rook and a bishop or something, while white has 2 rooks, 2 minors, and an extra pawn. It's considered equal.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Why does 6.Bc4 prevent 6...e5 in the Sicilian Najdorf?
```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "12"]
[Title "What is wrong with 6..e5?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e5

```

Please do not reply that it weakens the d5 square and allows the white bishop to attack f7. I am an expert player with lots of experience with the Open Sicilian from both sides in many variations. In view of the systems where Black plays e7-e5 even allowing the doubling of pawns after bishop takes knight on f6 it is not at all evident that this move is bad.

There is a related question about 6..e5 after 6.Bg5 without satisfactory answer for two years: Why does 6.Bg5 prevent 6...e5 in the Sicilian Najdorf?

The 2013 book on the Najdorf Sicilian by Zaven Andiasyan is a Black repertoire book which replies e7-e5 to anything except 6.Bg5 and Bc4 without a single line of explanation why not.

# Answer
e5 is bad against the Fischer-sozin variation, because of 7. Nf5, which puts pressure on the d6 weakness.

Now granted, you could play Nf5 whenever black plays e5, whether you're playing Be2 (the classical system), or Be3 (the english attack).

So the real question is, what's the difference between: e5 in the Sozin variation, and e5 in the classical variation, f4 variation, english attack, etc. anything but Bc4 and Bg5.

The difference is, after white plays Nf5 in the classical variation, black has this amazing resource which is 7...d5.

If black plays e5 against the Sozin variation, 7. Nf5, d5 doesn't work because the pawn is capturable.

If black plays e5 against the Bg5 variation, 7. Nf5, d5 doesn't work because the knight on f6 is pinned, therefore the pawn on d5 is safe to capture.

The remaining question is: Why is d5 a necessary resource?

Well, d6 is going to fall and black will no longer play for a win because of the attack on the d file. He/she will have to worry and protect the d6 pawn while white goes for some kingside attack or whatever. After d5, black has no problems. Literally no weaknesses, none, and finally black can play for a win.

Also, in the classical system, after d5, 8. Bg5 is the best move in which black gets in d4. Doesn't that just look crushing for black? And, which side would you rather pick? Black!
> 8 votes

# Answer
Black *can* play 6...e5, it's just not very good. After 7.Nf5 White has a comfortable position with an edge in development and mobility.

For example, how is Black going to develop the f8-Bishop? 7...Be7 gives up the 2 bishops for no compensation; and 7...g6 8.Nh6 gives White an initiative or the 2 bishops.

Perhaps 7...Bxf5 is the best move. Black has a plan in targeting f5, but White has a long term advantage in control of d5, and after Bg5xf6, his light-squared bishop has better mobility than the Black dark-squared bishop.

Further, White gets easy control of the very important d5 square. In other variations of the Sicilian where Black plays ...e5, he either gets ...d5 in later , or has other positional compensation for giving up d5. (The Sveshnikov is a perfect example of the latter principle).

Your question sounds like you're asking for a specific line that refutes 6...e5, but there is no such refutation.

A similar situation is the Budapest Gambit. There's no refutation but White comes away with an edge. It sees regular play at sub-master level where the Black player will count on his ability to get White out of book and outplay White despite having a slightly inferior start.

The 6...e5 does have some surprise value: in Mega Database, an alarmingly high number of games continued 7. Nde2 or 7. Nf3; after which 7...Be6 equalizes comfortably IMHO. (The central pawn mass compensates for doubled pawns, if Bxe6).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


title: Valid claims for a draw in a blitz game

text:
# Question
Title: Valid claims for a draw in a blitz game
The following situation occurred in my last tournament.

It was a 5 min blitz game without time increment. My opponent didn't have any material left. I touched my rook and wanted to place it on the back rank to deliver checkmate on this move. While I am moved my rook, my opponent claimed a draw because my flag on the chess clock has fallen Nevertheless, I moved my rook and announced a checkmate. Then I saw both flags have fallen. Then the arbiter arrived at the board and gave me the point because he said he sees a checkmate.

Is it valid for my opponent to claim a draw, even if it's not his move? What would be the correct way for my opponent to claim a draw?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Well, let's look at the FIDE rules:

Yes, your opponent may claim a draw even if it's not his move. He should then stop the clock (rule 6.12b):

> A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance

but, of course, it will be his word against yours that he did that *before* you released your rook, because checkmate immediately ends the game (rule 5.1).

I think it is up to the arbiter to decide which happened first, but as your opponent didn't stop the clock to claim the draw, I'd be inclined to the same decision: to award you the full point.

---
Tags: rules, blitz, claim-draw
---


title: How to pronounce "eval"?

text:
# Question
Title: How to pronounce "eval"?
I know this is short for evaluation, as given by an engine, but I don't know how to pronounce it. My guess is simply like the first two syllables of evaluation but I would like to be reassured.

# Answer
> 3 votes
To pronounce "eval" it would be: \[EE-vahl\]

Accent the first syllable

# Answer
> 0 votes
You pronounce it like the first part of the word "evaluation".

There's actually an internationally standardized way of writing words phonetically which is employed in most modern dictionaries. Meriam-Webster's dictionary also provides links to audible pronunciations of most words, including this one.

---
Tags: pronunciation
---


# Question
Title: h6 as a prophylactic move in the opening
As a low rated player myself, I often see people play h6 as black before playing Nf6, presumably to stop pins on g5 and things like the Fried Liver. Example:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6?!

```

I keep hearing that such moves are an unnecessary waste of time, which would be better spent developing pieces.

Is h6 to allow the Knight to move to f6 justified? Should I be developing it to f6 at all?

# Answer
In addition to the useful points in Scounge's answer, I'd add that often the move ...h6 is a waste of time because it's being played at the wrong moment. To use an example from an opening I am familiar with, I play the Scotch Gambit and often find my opponents play this:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 h6

```

Now, if your main aim is to avoid a knight pin after `...Nf6` or you want to stop `Ng5` then this seems logical, but the move is simply bad for several reasons:

* White has played a (temporary) gambit for a lead in development by not immediately recapturing on d4. By not playing an active developing move you're exacerbating this.
* White is also not really planning to play `Ng5` or `Bf5` in this position. Without going into too much irrelevant theory, White isn't playing with a pawn down in order to start an attack but instead to speed up development and hopefully then make something of it.

These points should lead you to conclude that allowing a move to f5 is less of a worry at this stage, and you should instead play something that develops naturally (FWIW `4...Nf6` is the book move in the above position). **You can apply to the same reasoning to other openings**, even though the specific things to consider are almost certainly going to be different (e.g. in the position in the question white isn't playing down a pawn, but instead has different ideas in mind).

Indeed, you'll find if you look at a lot of opening theory that the moves `h3` and `h6` do appear quite a lot, but they appear at very specific points where that player has nothing more useful they could be doing or there is a specific impending attack that they want to defuse.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The thing with h6 is that, in the opening, the move has one purpose for Black: prevent White from placing a piece on g5.

The drawbacks of the move are that:

1. It's a tempo investment. Tempos are important not to waste in, for example, open positions, where it is good to get your pieces out to active squares as early as possible.
2. It potentially weakens your kingside if you decide to castle short. A pawn on h6 can become a target for a piece sacrifice if White decides to launch a kingside attack.

So basically, you shouldn't make the move h6 out of habit. It should be played after carefully considering the consequences of letting an enemy piece reach g5. Does White even want to play a light piece to g5? If not, then why waste the tempo?

This of course applies to the pawn push h3 in the opening for White, and also in some sense the pawn pushes a3 and a6, although the latter two can often have other purposes as well, as in the Sicilian, for example.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The way you've described h6, preventing the annoying Bg5 pin, is called a prophylactic move. They definitely have their uses, and you often see both sides going h3 and h6 after castling later in the game to prevent a later back-rank checkmate, BUT every stage of the game has its own priorities. In the opening, the focus is on establishing a center, developing your pieces, and castling. h6 this early on doesn't help accomplish any of these three objectives and as such should be considered a weak move. Look at it in this light, White generally has a small advantage in the opening by virtue of having the first move. h6 is, in the opening, essentially a do-nothing move, which can only put white further in the drivers seat.

Also as a rule of thumb, Bg5 pins are only worth preventing if you've already developed your dark-square bishop with Bc5 or Bb4 (so that you don't want to play Be7) and you cannot break the pin with a queen move e.g., Qd6.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.Re1 O-O 6.d3 h6 {You might want to consider playing h6 here, now black is mostly developed, and has his bishop on c5, so Bg5 could potentially be annoying}

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
Actually each level of play has its own valid rules which become invalid on a higher level. I recommend sticking with "inferior" moves as long as they bring success against your usual opponents, no matter what the stronger players have to say. After you progress, you will outgrow the rule and will no longer ask.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Play a3/a6 type of prophylactic move only if it's in your opening preparation, or after you have fully developed (ie rooks connected).

If not, find ways to live with Bb5/Nb5 and develop first. As in your case, Nf6 is playable -- it doesn't always lead to Fried Liver. And even if you allow Nxf7, you are not lost and it'll be a good defense exercise
> 0 votes

# Answer
Sometimes it has a bigger idea behind it, maybe preventing a certain dangerous knight from coming to g5 and possibly preparing a retreat square for a bishop. I actually used to play this myself when I was at my first month to chess because I didn't know how to otherwise defend against Ng5 with threat to the f7 pawn (I did not know about the possible temporary pawn sacrifice with d5, exd5, followed by, say, Na5.

But generally it is not a good move if it doesn't prevent a threat that CAN'T be prevented otherwise (Ng5 can easily be neutralized if played).
> 0 votes

# Answer
To a aggressive player(like me), or to any other players, it is just wasting a move, it is better to develop to f6, if you are afraid of the fried liver attack/lolli, try this line, it is a messy line, but black gets more development at the end:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Bd7 11. Qf3 O-O

```

However, if you dislike these kinds of positions, it is your choice to play h6 to prevent it, and it is totally fine, it is still playable as black.

The only time when h6/h3 is normally played is when there a backrank mate threat or you want to start a kingside pawn storm(a3/a6 for queenside), sometimes when you play sicilian, you world play a6 because of the amount of pressure on b5 and a white bishop there would just make black's life harder, I can't currently think of reasons to play a3/h3/a6/h6(related moves) other than these, if I come across any, I'll edit this.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Unclear endgame / late middlegame position: looks like advantage white to me, but engine analysis suggests draw
Came across this position as part of some variation analysis of one of my previous games. To me it looks like a noticeable (though probably not *decisive*) advantage for white -- based on pawn structure and bishop over knight. Engine analysis however (Stockfish) seems to suggest a draw.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could resolve my confusion here to a degree, by commenting either why the game isn't likely to be drawn (ie the engine is wrong), or why I'm wrong in seeing an advantage for white when there is none.

```
8/1pk2p2/p2p1n2/2pPbP2/P1P5/1P2K3/4B3/4B3 w - - 87 88

```

# Answer
It is true that White has a slight material advantage (the bishop pair vs bishop and a knight), but White's light-squares' bishop is confined to your side of the board and cannot attack any of Black's pieces. White's dark-squares' bishop cannot enter Black's territory or attack any of Black's pieces either, and your king has a long way to go to attack Black's isolated pawn on f7. Black's king can easily defend their isolated pawn and Black can further close the position with b7 (so White's dark-squares' bishop cannot attack Black's pawn on d6 from c7 or b8 and overload Black's king while it is defending Black's pawn on f7). It seems similarly difficult for Black to make any real progress towards a win, so in my inexpert assessment a draw is likely.
> 4 votes

# Answer
My rating peaked in the low 1800's and I'm probably a good deal weaker now. I suggest, and there are probably many problems with this, that White begin with a5, follow with b4 and Ba4, then Bh4 threatening Bxf6. This is great as long as Black doesn't do anything in the meantime :)
> 1 votes

# Answer
Try to breakthrough on the queenside and you will notice that the knight is able to penetrate the white territory through Nd7-Nb6-Na4. The White King marching to his kingside can not reach the f7 pawn that is easily defended by Bishop on e5. Therefore, your try to breach on black position is easily contrarrested by Black with his Knight and White can not advance on the kingside. Using an engine as opponent you can try moves that can reach the 50-move rule with no pawn taken by either side. But from my essay with an engine I feel that white moves are difficult to chose to contrarrest black possibilities. I can conclude that this game is a draw for engines, but on an OTB the draw is difficult to hold for the player with the white pieces.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Light chess literature for beginning kids and their parents
I'm looking for book recommendations for kids learning chess and their parents, or for the broad general public intrigued by chess. The idea is to read stories true, or faked, that fire the imagination to promote chess enthusiasm, to educate on chess history and chess culture. Preferably with nice illustrations.

# Answer
> 2 votes
These two books are a good starting point, IMO.

Chess for Kids from Micheal Basman
How to Beat Your Dad at Chess (Gambit Chess)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Check the USCF Sales site. They are very pro-kids and parents when it comes to beginning chess literature. You might find something there:

https://www.uscfsales.com/catalogsearch/result/?cat=0&q=chess+for+kids

# Answer
> 2 votes
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is another good one. It's a book of problems that are to be solved in sequence, with the principles learned earlier used in later problems. $3.50 (used) from Amazon.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There's a really nice publication for both parents and kids, Capakhine, but it is a Spanish one. As there are many Spanish-speaking users, here it is.

# Answer
> 0 votes
"The Immortal Game: A History of Chess or How 32 Carved Pieces on a Board, Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science, and the Human Brain" by David Shenk is definitely not for kids, but it is a competent history of chess with special emphasis on its interaction with culture in the broadest sense.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Do people still play chess at Washington Square Park?
Back in the past I know that it used to a pretty popular chess location. Fischer played there when he was young. I think Magnus went their once (a few years ago). I have seen videos with Maurice Ashley and some other famous chess players playing their as well.

I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are still a considerable amount of people that play there in 2016. If I went there could I find a game or would I be waiting for a while?

# Answer
Less and less people are playing at Washington Square. Most people are moving to the Union Square (for business and money).

Check this article: http://thevillager.com/2013/08/08/chess-moves-most-players-are-now-at-union-square/

And also have a look at this great video. A favorite of mine where GM Maurice Ashley beats a trash talking Washington Square player http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/washington-square-park-chess-hustler-beaten-grandmaster-article-1.2534837
> 11 votes

---
Tags: otb-chess
---


title: Drawn R+2P vs R endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Drawn R+2P vs R endgame
I remember a recent(1-2 years) drawn (super)grandmaster game in which white had 2 connected pawns and a rook, while black had a rook. I later learned that it was a theoretical draw, which quite surprised me, since I had always though that two connected pawns should win. Does anyone remember this game? Are their similar positions?

# Answer
I don't know the game you have in mind, but the following is one example of such a drawn position in this ending (as can be verified with a tablebase query):

```
[fen "8/8/1r4kP/6P1/2R2K2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White has no winning way to break the blockade and make progress. If the blockade is one rank further up the board, though, it can be broken straightforwardly:

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/1r4kP/6P1/2R2K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kg5 Ra7 2.Rf5 Rb7 3.Rf7+ Rxf7 4.gxf7 *

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
Two connected pawns usually win, but with a+b pawns, there are some positions which are drawn. I do not know which game you're referring to, but here are some examples:

```
[fen "8/8/8/3k4/pr6/4R3/1p6/1K6 b - - 0 0"]

```

(Black to move, from Black's point of view - I forgot how to flip the board.) The black king is cut off on the third row, while the black rook is tied to the defense of the b-pawn.

---

```
[fen "8/8/p7/rp6/6R1/3k4/1K6/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

(White to move) This one is even easier; white just keeps his king on b2 and his rook on the fourth row.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, draw, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: If I analyze a move in a position to depth 25, then why am i only up to depth 15 immediately after playing the move?
I'm using SCID with the latest Stockfish 7 on my Ubuntu PC. When I'm analyzing a position, I can see the depth counter on the left. After seeing that the move, Nf3 say, get to depth 25, I go to play the move. I would expect that when the engine is analyzing this new position, it would start at depth 25, but this is not the case. The engine needs to work up to there from the first observed depth considering the exponential increase in time-computing depth, around 14 or so.

Am I misinterpreting the depth counts or is there some technical reason as to why this is happening? One reason I thought, might be because if I hadn't chosen Nf3, and chose one of the worst moves, then there would be many missing branches due to pruning between candidate moves. This would mean evaluating the move using previous information would save little time since few variations have been examined.

# Answer
I think the answer is that, although the engine has indeed calculated to depth 25, it has certainly not been able to store anywhere near the amount of the tree it examined during that search, no matter the memory allocated to the transposition table (hashtable). A *lot* of that tree (even of the pruned tree) is discarded as the depth-25 calculation continues, and so it pretty much has to be recreated after each move.

You may object that, almost certainly there must be a depth-24 value for the position after Nf3 stored in the hashtable left over from the previous depth-25 calculation. But that kind of proves the point -- the hashtable only stores a single value and a single "principle variation" leading to that value, not the whole depth-24 tree from which that principle variation was determined, by any means.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, scid
---


title: How to continue in this game?

text:
# Question
Title: How to continue in this game?
I saw the following position and was wondering how white should continue:

1. Should white exchange bishops?
2. Should white play a4 to protect the bishop?
3. Should white play c4 to protect the bishop and undefended pawn on d5?
4. Should white do something else

Which of the options above, would be the best way to continue and what should be the thought process behind each suggestion.

# Answer
As white is a pawn down without compensation, piece exchanges should be avoided. White's only practical chance is a king side attack. Maybe Bc4, with the plan of Bc4-a2, c2-c4, Ba2-b1. Along with Qh5 and/or Qc2 plus g2-g4. Its slow and black can defend, but what else can white try?
> 4 votes

# Answer
I am a pawn down with bad pawn structure on my Queen side, so rather than exchange or play a4, I would like to keep the thin advantage of having the pair of bishops, so my bishop is to save.

Where to move it now ? I don't really like Be2, it doesn't give me anything and it dims my bishop's radiance, instead I would probably play **Bc4**, then **Ba2**, maybe pushing my pawn on c4 and playing **Bb1** (and **Bc2** after that), best position I think and the good (b1-h7) diagonale.

Then with the Queen and Nf3 I could have some possibilities
> 2 votes

# Answer
See how black's bishop on d7 doesn't have good squares where it does something useful, so avoid the trade. Because the bishop could be a useful attacking piece, avoid `1. Bd3 Nxd3` since White doesn't want to trade it off. The only available squares are `c4` and `e2`. `1. Bc4` seems a bit more active and flexible, so I would go with `Bc4` and similar plans to CWallach's answer above.
> 1 votes

# Answer
2. Protect (a4) so the black queen will stay in bad position and Nc5 won't attack. Nf3 to g5 and it will open up some options and clear a path for queen and bishop plays assuming the black queen still stays at the same position.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, beginner
---


title: How do you pronounce Caissa?

text:
# Question
Title: How do you pronounce Caissa?
I imagine that it might be pronounced:

1. kye EE suh
2. kah EE suh
3. KAY suh
4. KYE suh.

Which is it? Or perhaps there is no established way and one shouldn't care too much.

# Answer
**Short version:**

I think that your best bet is probably option 2: "kah EE suh" (similar to the pronunciation of "naïve"). The phonemes match the spelling correctly (particularly the umlauted ï in "Caïssa" \[ref. 1\]), and it fits with the tonal stressing of multiple Thracian-related \[ref. 2\] languages.

---

**Long version:**

Historically, both Greek and and Turkish (largely Hittite and Assyrian influences, in Thracian times \[ref.s 3 & 4\]) would appear to have likely had the strongest early influences.

Satemization of the Thracian language \[ref. 5\] would indicate the initial “C” to *typically* be an “s” sound, though it seems that in the case of “Caïssa” it was more likely a “k” sound.

Given the remnants of the Thracian language available to us \[ref. 6\], there seem to be insufficient data to ensure “correct” pronunciation. Thracian words seem \[to me\] to be equally likely to be most closely related to Latin, Greek, and several Balto-Slavic languages.

If Gottfried Schramm's derivation \[ref. 7\] is correct, then his Bessian-Albanian link would indicate that the “i” is indeed a “long e” (ï) sound \[ref. 8\].

---

**References:**

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8F
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca%C3%AFssa
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Prehistory\_of\_Anatolia\_and\_Eastern\_Thrace
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum\_and\_satem\_languages
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian\_language#Remnants\_of\_the\_Thracian\_language
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian\_language#cite\_note-3
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian\_language#Vowels
> 4 votes

# Answer
How To Pronounce Caissa Please listen to all the options to get a sense on how to pronounce casissa.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: terminology, pronunciation
---


title: How to master the openings?

text:
# Question
Title: How to master the openings?
I am a beginner in chess. I am finding it difficult to learn the openings. There seems to be tons of opening games in chess. Is there a way to learn them easily? Is there any website that has a collection of all the openings in chess?

# Answer
First you should make sure you master the fundamental concepts of opening play. Once you understand those concepts most openings can be universally understood just based on those concepts alone. It's unnecessary (and impractical) to try to classify every opening as having "x - y - z" specific ideas related to it, especially if you're a beginner.

But I believe it's a counterproductive approach to try to "learn openings". You're better off just learning Chess, and the openings will simply come naturally. Yes, there are repeating themes in certain openings, but if you want to truly master the openings those themes should always be readily explainable by general understanding.

Only then do you research the specific lines of an opening and commit them to memory. As for a roundup of all the available openings, you can always just look at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_opening
> 4 votes

# Answer
Best way to learn openings as a beginning player: Don't.

You are a beginner. You should be just playing. As in go, lose your first 100 games before you begin studying. Studying openings now will give you a very "easy" sense of how to play the openings, assuming you are playing the lines you study and you opponent agrees by playing the moves too. But, that is NEVER the case at that level. NEVER. It's never the case up to Category A.

Play everything and see what you like, see what feels good.

Don't get bogged down by openings. It is the fastest way to getting stuck.

Just play.

Best advice I heard here was not to study openings, but study BASIC opening principles, and play by those guidelines in a very Steinitzian manner.

Follow this guideline and you'll be ok. Basic Chess Opening Principles
> 2 votes

# Answer
One option is to learn one opening at the time. If you are a beginner in chess, you should also consider to learn endgames, because you need a solid endgame to bring home the victory points. That being said, openings are indeed a big world, with many interesting jewels to be found. My advice would be to learn one opening at a time. Learn and apply in practice in your games, that is the method. One place that tries to list and discuss all chess openings is this one (http://www.chess.com/openings/). Another tip is to find an instructive chess book on openings and start there. The general idea of openings is to develop your pieces and follow the ideas in the positions that arise. Learn those ideas from games played by grandmasters, from books and apply them in your own games. The more you invest in an opening system (e.g. French, Spanish, Sicilian) the more ideas you will know, the better results you will get.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think you need a balance between what other people are trying to say here. Half of the answers are telling you to go ahead and memorize openings, and to use them when you play. Others are telling you to just play, and learn that way.

I feel like you need a balance. You should definitely memorize some 3/4 move openings, such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. Some openings are very common, such as this one, and you should know the ones that begin with e4, d4, or the knights (at least).

But you have to take these openings and study them. Understand the weaknesses of such openings for both sides, understand the strengths of each opening for both sides. Each opening leads to a different style of play (e4/e5, or the King's Pawn opening, which usually leads to a king-side game, will often lead to quick attacks and a quick game, whereas d4/d5, or the Queen's Pawn opening, usually leads to a queen-side game that is built upon developing pieces and optimizing the best structure before launching attacks and tactics). It is up to you as the player to find whichever style fits you the best, and you can often play those.

Note that better players are good with both king-side and queen-side openings, whether they are white or black. This is optimal if you want to succeed with playing tournament matches, as you'll have to adapt to other player's tactics well.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think one of the best way of learning an opening is to buy a book about it and read this book. In general, opening books are written by great chess players. Therefore, you could save general ideas and some good hints of the opening by means of good comments of the writer on various positions.
> 0 votes

# Answer
When I was beginning I studied every book on the openings I intended to play. I had limited playing opportunities then, but today I would recommend playing those openings and using either human help or a computer analysis program to tell you where you went wrong.

Study, Play, Get Feedback. Wash, Rinse, Repeat!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Statistical Right Handedness Bias in Move Selection?
It seems clear to me that there must be a statistical bias in the move selection of master level games in relation to the natural "hand" of the move, right or left.

Let me explain. For the sake of argument let's select the population of master level chess players who are right handed, and consider blitz games played by these players. In each position, the vector of each legal move has a more-or-less clockwise or counterclockwise orientation with respect to the center of the board. Yet for purely anatomical and biological reasons, clockwise moves may be easier to execute on the physical board as it is placed before the players. Given a players hand literally hovering over a board searching for a move, there must be a bias in which more easily executed moves are preferred over less anatomically natural ones.

Is there any evidence of this sort of geometrical bias in move selection, beyond that expected from the actual theoretical value of the moves themselves?

There might be many statistical imbalances: towards advancing or retreating moves, towards kingside or queenside directed moves, and possibly towards clockwise or counter-clockwise flowing moves, as I mentioned above.

Edit: The key phrase here is 'actual theoretical value'. I wish to compare human play against perfect play and suggest that the discrepancies which arise might indicate more than a deficit of mental chess ability but also because of the way the brain-body system and handedness might favor moves that are quicker to find with the hand.

# Answer
I found no scientific literature on hand bias in Chess on Google Scholar.

From the comments there doesn't seem to be any database analysis supporting a theory of hand bias, e.g.

> Statistically, White is more likely to castle queenside than Black. Since 90-93% of people are right-handed, this is contrary to your theory.

Accredited to @Mike Jones.

Additionally, I haven't found any anecdotal evidence of hand biased in my own chess books. E.g. there is no mention of it in the 'Psychology' or 'Tournament Tactics' sections of *The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess*.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: statistics, blitz, human-versus-machine
---


# Question
Title: What strategies should I be thinking about at the beginning of the game?
In the middle and the end of a chess game, there are visible consequences to almost every move you can make, there are more constraints limiting what is logical to move, and it is fairly straightforward to see what you did wrong when you analyze the game.

At the beginning of the game, it seems like there is a tremendous number of possible ways a game could progress--and not very many of the moves have any immediately tangible consequences. Because of this, I usually have no idea what I should do in the beginning of a game.

Are there any things I should be thinking about at the beginning? Up to date, I've just been moving pieces haphazardly until what I need to do becomes obvious.

# Answer
There are a few regular things you should fight for out of the opening

* Control of the center
* Development of pieces
* Early castle
* Space

So basically you want to get as many pieces out as quickly as possible, while attempting to control the center (the four middle squares and to a lesser extent the next ring of 12 squares). While not all opening strategies revolve strictly around these principles, it is found in the majority of games and especially good rules to play by when starting out.

EDIT: Keep in mind these are not all rigid rules. I would also like to respectfully disagree with Tony. When starting out, memorizing openings is the very last thing you want to do. Feel free to look through an openings book (The first, and very amazing, book on openings that I read) or database. However do not seek just to memorize and spit out moves until you reach a position you haven't actually thought about.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Agree with @JaredDef's answer which covers the big ideas. Some more specific opening strategies for beginners can be found here:

1. make your first move with the pawn in front of either your King or Queen
2. make good developing moves, and generally develop your Knights before your Bishops
3. try not to move the same piece twice in the opening
4. your King's safety is crucial; castle early if you can
5. don't advance more than one or two pawns in the chess opening, and definitely not a pawns in front of your castled King
6. when you develop your pieces, try to make moves which threaten something
7. don't bring your Queen out early
> 6 votes

# Answer
Memorize three openings to several moves. I recommend, as white, one opening, probably king-pawn opening. Then memorize two openings as black so you can react your opponent's K- or Q- pawn openings.

For example, I prefer a King's Indian Defense to `1. d4`, and the Caro-Kann Defence to `1. e4`.

When playing white, I play a Queen's Gambit.

Memorize the most popular lines to 5 or 6 moves. Then study them to find out why those moves are popular.

And to answer your question directly, you should be looking to take material or kill the guy's king, starting on move 1 (paraphrased from Bobby Fischer.) Good piece development is a great start.
> 4 votes

# Answer
According to world champion Capablanca, in "Chess Fundamentals," your first priority is to get your pieces out as fast as you can. If White, you might take a detour to try to hinder black's development, in order to maintain your *relative* advantage; if Black, you need to find tactical ways to parry White's threats.

Otherwise, you should be looking to *concentrate* your pieces, particularly in areas left weak by your opponent. Did s/he leave parts of the board undeveloped or undefended to favor a few pieces? Then try to find a way to take advantage of that fact. Perhaps the opposing king is inadequately protected, and can be attacked. If not, your opponent may have started an a attack prematurely and left the so-called "center" (of the board) insufficiently guarded. If so, a successful center counterattack will stop most attacks.
> 2 votes

# Answer
* Develop your pieces, not Pawns
* Try not to move the same piece more than once in an opening unless
* you really need to. Gain control of the center Castle your king
* Develop/Connect your rooks Don't move too fast or you will blunder.
* Take your time and view the whole board.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Say "no" to memorizing openings. Say "yes" to playing based on opening principles. Say "yes" to trial-by-fire - you learn more. Every game is an opportunity to learn something. If you get rolled in the opening, find out how you can improve your play in that line and learn it - don't memorize variations just for the sake of it. Waste of time at levels of chess below Cat A, IMHO.

You can find a list of basic opening principles freely on the net. Or, go to Chess.com and take some of the free beginner courses. Right up your alley.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


title: Improving your position?

text:
# Question
Title: Improving your position?
A recommendation from `IM Andrew Martin` was to improve the position of your worst piece if you are not sure what move to make. Are there any other ways one could improve their position besides the above recommendation? I often find myself making useless moves, that mostly turn into blunders because I am not sure what to do in the position. Sometimes this is a result of just thinking too hard and over-complicating things.

Here is a real-life sample that `IM Andrew Martin` used to express his point. In the `2007 British Championship` between between `Nicholas Pert` (White) and `Stewart Haslinger` (Black), which can be found here, after `9. Re1`, White showed what his plan was going to be and that was to play `e4`, which he did on move 10. After `9...Be7 10. Re1`, `IM Andrew Martin` says we reached a critical point in the game which `Haslinger` got wrong and that was to improve the position of his worst posted piece, which is his `Knight` on `b8`. Why? Because it is blocking his Rook on `a8` and without the participation of the `Rooks`, black is not going to be in very good shape. White is going to dominate the center with `e4` to `e5`. Instead of improving the position of the `b8 Knight`, `Haslinger` played `10...O-O`. `IM Andrew Martin` instead suggests Black should have taken some pieces of `e4` via: `10...Nxe4 11. Nxe4 dxe4 12. Bxe4 Bxe4 13. Rxe4 Nd7`. His reasoning was that, Black has now improved the position of his `Knight`, he is not as cramped as before, he can castle in peace, and White has no pawn breaks to upset the position. Here is the complete game:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nbd2 Bf5 6. Qb3 Qc7 7. Bd3 Bg6 8. O-O e6 9. Re1 Be7 10. e4 O-O 11. e5 Nfd7 12. Bxg6 hxg6 13. Nf1 Re8 14. Bg5 Bf8 15. Rac1 Qb6 16. Qc2 dxc4 17. Ne3 c5 18. d5 exd5 19. Nxd5 Qc6 20. Nf4 a5 21. e6 fxe6 22. Qxg6 Na6 23. Bd8 e5 24. Qxe8 Nc7 25. Qh5 exf4 26. Ng5

```

# Answer
Improving your worst piece is indeed generally a great thing to do if it's not a bad idea for tactical reasons. Some other standard general ways to improve your position:

* Develop all of your pieces.
* Occupy an open file with a rook (or queen). Bonus: double or triple your pieces on this file.
* If you already have occupied an open file with a rook, move it to your seventh rank if possible.
* Put your rook opposite the enemy queen.
* Connect your rooks (get the other pieces out of the way so they're defending each other).
* Castle.
* Make sure you can't get mated on the back rank.
* Make sure you don't have any undefended pieces (even if they're not attacked).
* Defend an important pawn or square more than once (known as overprotection).
* In the endgame, centralize your king.

Of course, tactical opportunities (for you or your opponent) trump these considerations, but all of these are general principles for improving your position in such a way that tactical opportunities are likely to turn out in your favor in the future. For example, putting your rook opposite the opponent's queen means that he has to worry about some situations in which the pieces in between move.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The reason why strong players try to improve the position of their pieces is to have them placed in an optimum square when tactics start. Games are not just build up. Eventually they will break into tactics. Pieces that are near the king or wherever the action is will pose a danger for your opponents. But optimizing the piece position for the sake of it is not a good idea. There must be a purpose and it usually is to checkmate your opponent.

Study the game Kasparov Vs Karpov From the 1990 World Championship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrk5\_QjgUw
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you "often find yourself making useless moves" then the problem is your lack of planning and playing without a plan in mind. Get to the root of the real issue.

I suggest you work on that aspect of your game. You'll find you will be making less and less "useless moves", and by default, less needing to default a move to improving your worst piece. Eventually you will get positions that you don't really have any poorly placed pieces and you'll need a good plan to execute. Now what? Shuffling wood is a very uninspiring way to play chess.

Planning generally follows the pawn formations so start there.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I came up with a list of 8 "one-move tactics" which I published on my blog and which could be considered 8 "ways to improve a position". They're not hard-and-fast rules -- they could be overridden by multi-move considerations -- but I think if you consider them on any move where you feel otherwise "stuck", you might find one for yourself, or find a move which defeats a one-move tactic that your opponent would otherwise have. Here's the blog post: http://youngjeff2.blogspot.com/2014/08/building-better-chess-thought-process.html
> 0 votes

# Answer
JG Estiot and Mark Goodwin provide correct answers, but the easiest way find plans is to study master games and use similar ideas.

The suggestion provided by Martin, from Tarrasch's "If one piece is bad, the whole position is bad." This suggestion is a rule-of-thumb to try and help people learning the game. I could provide many examples of where the winning attack was spoiled by one tempo used to "improve" a piece. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044117 is a famous game where Fischer move a Rook, using general rules, and he moved it back to its correct square three moves later.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: About 12...Bg5 and move orders in the 9.Nd5 Sveshnikov
After the moves

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 O-O 12.Nc2

```

12...Bg5 is considered the main move, to preserve the Bishop pair and to activate Black's dark-squared Bishop.

But White could easily take the same Bishop with the Knight at moves 11 and 12. Why is Black allowed to preserve and activate the Bishop? What are the refutations, at least as long as plans and ideas are concerned, of 11.Nxf6 and 12.Nxf6? I don't see ...d5 as an immediate threat from Black after Knight takes f6, so White could take the Bishop and perhaps follow-up with c3-Nc2-Ne3.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Black would be thrilled if White exchanged his perfectly-placed knight on d5 for Black's bad bishop on f6. 12...Bg5 brings it to a diagonal where it's actually doing something and also makes it possible to eventually play ...f5, undermining the pawn supporting White's knight.

White doesn't play Nxf6 earlier because he'd be exchanging a well-placed piece for a badly-placed one. Note that if Black plays alternative moves on move 12 like 12...Bb7 or 12...Rb8, White still doesn't play 13.Nxf6.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In the Sveshnikov variation, Black concedes positional advantages (weak pawn in d6, and outpost in d5) for dynamical play based on: active pieces, pawn break (...f5) and dark-square play. Indeed, White gives up their black square bishop early in the game meaning that they may lack of pieces controlling black squares.

It seems not appealing to exchange the strong d5 knight against the bad bishop in f6, therefore White usually develops a classical strategy in this case: put all your pawns on the colour of the missing bishop, i.e. White will try to put pawns on black square to control some black squares and then compensate their missing bishop.

In the position you point out Black has played two other alternative moves in practice: 12...Rb8 and 12...Bb7 and against both the strongest for White is 13.h4! (scoring very well in practice).

Why White does not play 12.h4 ? Well, White need to take care of two goals: firm control of the d5 square (otherwise they have no advantage) and fight for the dark square. In case of 12.h4, Black has time to fight for the d5 square : 12.h4 Be6! 13.Nc2 Bxd5 14.Qxd5 Ne7 15.Qd3 d5! (and the d5 square and the d6 pawn are no longer a weakness).

Something similar may happen in case of 12.Nxf6, then for instance this could follow: 12.Nxf6 Qxf6 13.Nc2 Bb7 14.Ne3 Ne7 and 15...Rd8, 16...d5 cannot be prevented.

---
Tags: opening, bishop-pair, sveshnikov
---


# Question
Title: Are there any Linux GUIs that can be controlled via command line?
I'm looking for a GUI that I can control via the terminal. Something where I can input a series of moves into the terminal, such as:

```
>  e4
>  e5
>  Nf3

```

...and have the GUI update the board accordingly.

Does anyone know of any program(s) like this?

I can't find anything either on Google or by searching previously asked questions.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Given your stated goal,

> "*...a GUI that I can control via the terminal. Something where I can input a series of moves into the terminal,...*"

and Student T's comment of

> "*I'm not aware for any GUI that also offers command line.*"

I've tried to find paired items of engines that take command line moves and GUIs that will interact well with these.

*Your best bet might be **Crafty**:*
It seems that one can use command lines through “Crafty” \[ref. 1\] in order to play or analyze a chess game within the GUI of XBoard \[ref. 2\] (which can run multiple chess variants, in addition to orthochess) – as in one enters one's moves directly via command line at terminal.

*Though a very close second best bet would probably be **Sjeng**:*
Sjeng takes command line moves (very definitely) \[ref. 4\], plays somewhere in the region of ELO 2500(±) \[ref. 5, 6\], can interface with XBoard \[ref. 5\], and supports multiple chess variants.

Arena (GUI) seems to be borderline sometimes. Some indicate it to be unstable within Wine \[ref. 7\], some have no problem \[ref. 8\].

“Command-line-chess” uses a TUI, rather than a GUI, but is at least definitely command line based \[ref. 9\]. Perhaps one might utilize UTF-8's chess characters as a workaround? \[ref. 10\]

---

**References:**

1. https://www.cis.uab.edu/hyatt/craftydoc.html
2. http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/xboard/FAQ.html
3. http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Games/Board\_and\_Card\_Games/Chess/index.shtml
4. http://www.macworld.com/article/1139946/termchess.html
5. http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Sjeng
6. https://www.linux.com/news/chess-engines-linux
7. http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6550
8. http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-377613.html
9. https://github.com/marcusbuffett/command-line-chess
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_symbols\_in\_Unicode

---
Tags: learning, software, linux
---