# Question
Title: USCF Ruling - Resignation confusion after reaching results sheet
At a tournament I was participating in last weekend, there was an interesting situation that happened and the TD did not know how to handle the situation.

White said something along the lines of "I think you should resign," but thought White had said "I think I'll resign". Black put his hand out and White shook Black's hand. Neither player said anything after this, but packed away the set and only when they went to write their result did they realize that they misunderstood each other.

What should happen here? Is the game drawn because they shook hands?

# Answer
The correct decision here is to send the players back to finish their game. There's a very good rule of thumb that TD's use in situations like this - if the two players don't agree on the result of the game (there's no "meeting of the minds" between the players), they should go back to the board and continue the game.

It's up to the TD to set the clock times as reasonably as possible. For example, if it's an hour into the round of a G/60 tournament and a spectator saw that white was up 10 minutes on the clock, it might be appropriate to set the clocks to 25 minutes for black and 35 minutes for white. Nothing is going to be perfect, but so long as both players have at least a few minutes, allowing the players to determine the outcome on the board is going to be far better than the TD adjudicating the game.

As a rule, the absolute last resort for TD's should be to adjudicate the result of a game. Everything possible should be done to allow the result to be determined by the players via play.

Finally, the TD does have some discretion in cases like this. If the next round is about to start, and there's no time to allow the players to finish the game, the TD can have the players adjourn their game and pair the next round using his or her best guess as to the result. One trick with adjournments is that the TD can pair the players as if one of them has won the game and the other has drawn the game. This has the benefit of making sure that neither player gets unduly easy pairings in the next round before the result of the game is actually determined.
> 8 votes

# Answer
If I were a TD at this tournament, here is how I would rule in this situation after speaking with both opponents separately and getting their account of what happened (assuming what both said lines up with what's given in the question), and why I would rule that way:

Telling an opponent during a rated game that they should resign is at best rude, and at worst could be construed as a violation of rule 20G - "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever". I would give the benefit of the doubt to White that they were not intentionally trying to violate that rule.

With that in mind, even if the communication was not completely understood, I would rule that anything that White said to Black, in which both players agree that they said/heard the word "resign", stopped the clock and put away the set, would be reasonably interpreted by Black as a resignation by White, and would adjudicate the game in favor of Black. 0-1.

Disclaimer - I am a certified USCF TD, but only Club level, so I could easily be wrong here. This wasn't on the exam! :-)

*\[EDIT: After the later follow-on discussion, I understand now that this isn't the correct ruling, and that a better ruling would involve having the players resume the game. I appreciate the patience of those with more experience than me in explaining what they'd do, and why.\]*
> 3 votes

---
Tags: draw, uscf, resigning
---


title: Lichess vs chess.com blitz ratings

text:
# Question
Title: Lichess vs chess.com blitz ratings
On chess.com I have a blitz rating that hovers around 1000, but on lichess my tournament blitz rating is around 1500 and I can go toe-to-toe with 1600 players. Are they using the same rating systems? Which rating system coheres more to standard chess ELO?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The average blitz rating on chess.com is 1090
The average blitz rating on lichess is around 1600
So that looks just about right. chess.com is closer to Fide.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: What is a good chess engine to play against on an android phone?
I have an android phone, and I have the Chess Free app. It is nice in that you can set the computer difficulty level and record games, and even play against another human, but it severely lacks analysis features. I've been having problems finding a good chess analysis program with analysis features on android. Does anyone have any good suggestions?

# Answer
Droidfish app on Android is what you need. It has professional level GUI(with sophisticated analysis functions) with Stockfish engine pre-installed.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Do try 'Analyze This' App, especially for analyzing games with multiple Chess engines. Can even automatically Analyze games with English commentary! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pereira.analysis

(Disclaimer: I am the developer! Happy to help!)
> -1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines
---


title: Chess Opening Puzzle App

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Opening Puzzle App
I like chess puzzle apps. But they all focus on the end or middle game.

The reason is clear: In the opening there is no single truth.

But there is some common sense what's good and what's not.

Is there an android app which help me train the best opening moves?

I found some apps for openings, but they work like this: First you need to choose the name of the opening, then you train.

I don't care for the names.

I want to see a chess board and then it is my turn to do the next move.

I don't want to choose a particular opening first.

# Answer
> 1 votes
GM Nigel Davies has a training DVD on opening tricks&traps, I'm sure you will like it.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/nigel-davies-tricks-traps-vol-1

Also, in lichess.org, there are quizzes for finding good development moves in openings, I recommend you to take a look.

By the way, lichess.org can be used by it's Android application, if you don't want to use it from website.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I found an other way to solve my question:

The android app DroidFish can show the recommended opening moves.

You can add a custom button to the GUI to show/hide the recommended opening moves from the book.

It is not like a real puzzle, but similar.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't know about an app for this, but I think you'll love this book: **Modern Chess Self Instructor Book 1** by *Victor Pozharsky* It's a puzzle book which is based on opening moves.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Lichess.com has an excellent application just for finding the best moves on a given opening.

It is kind of like Tactics Training, but with openings. You don't even have to register or pay anything either!

Although a lot of the openings it gives you are pretty obscure, it helps develop a good 'opening intuition'.

Good luck!

# Answer
> 0 votes
One of the main reasons people learn openings and their names/variations is to build a personal "book" or repertoire. Also as you said, there is no single truth/good move in the opening; the choices are many. So you can either settle down on some popular openings and then use opening Apps to learn more or you can just play against the mobile using any popular app and are every turn ask the App for a hint. That way you would make the best possible move and even have fun playing a complete game.

Asim Developer of some Android Chess apps

---
Tags: opening, puzzles, android
---


# Question
Title: Standalone chess problem solver for Android
Which android app can:

* Solve chess problems *without internet connection as well*.
* Support manually edit board according to the problem.
* Ideally this app should allow a person to step back on any move and also provide hints on the next move.

This app is for a person who is a novice in chess, so he could try to solve the problems from the book he reads.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Did you try Droidfish ?

It runs stock Fish engine + you can edit positions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are several good options:

* `iChess` \- which is a Chess puzzles app and works without internet.
* `Analyze This` \- which can be used to set up a board position from the book and move back and forth, save and make a collection.

Disclaimer: I am the developer of the aforementioned Apps.

* `Chess OCR` \- is the best app which can make task easier of automatically scanning Chess board diagram from a book and transferring to above Chess Apps,

---
Tags: problems, android
---


# Question
Title: What is the name of this pawn structure for black, with doubled c and f pawns?
Is there any name for this pawn structure?

# Answer
> 2 votes
In "Chess Fundamentals," former World Champion J.R. Capablanca would refer to Black's knight pawns as being "doubled toward the center."

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is no special name for the structure you show where black has doubled c and f pawns.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's a pretty terrible pawn structure so I doubt it has a specific name. Actually, most pawn structures don't have a name.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is no specific name for this pawn structure, there are just certain "elements" that it has. You have the doubled c and f pawns (arguably weak, but it depends on if they become blockaded or not), as well as the strong pawn center. Black's a and h pawns will become weaker as the game goes on and it is doubtful that they can utilize the half open g and b files to create any real kind of pressure.

---
Tags: pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to achieve this goal? Asking strong chess players
I am 14 years old. Several months ago, I was introduced to chess. I loved the game, and it quickly became all I think about. I only learned the rules of chess at 11/12 and only played it from 8 months ago, but I taught myself so many things and I am now a 2300 rated player. In only 8 months, I changed from a complete beginner who only played 3 or 4 games in his life, to a relatively okay player(2300). I did this on my own. Is this the beginning of a meteoric rise of my chess strength? Am I destined to be at the top of the world? Or am I living in a dream that will never materialize? I am aware that today's top players learned chess at 6/7, and that as we go into the future, this standard will be inevitably rendered too old, but is it possible that I can do it? I am learning new things everyday, and if I were to look at my games a week ago, I would laugh at how weak I am. Am I going to be a great exception? I know Rubinstein learned chess when he was 16. Please answer me fast.

I have no intentions of bragging about myself, but know that:

I did many IQ tests and scored the highest possible score on almost all of them.

I did many memory test that all my family members couldn't finish which I did easily.

I also believe I have a big talent for chess and thinking.

I played many beautiful games.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I feel that this is a troll post due to the language.

I can say this immediately. The rating system that you are using is not a USCF or FIDE rated system with over the board play and/or you have a provisional rating and have not played a proper amount of game to accurately gauge your strength.

It is possible to obtain almost a Class A strength in that time span if you have both a natural talent AND near obsessive study with guidance. However, reaching master strength during that time span is impossible even for the most gifted of students. Carlsen is a perfect example as many other people have noted. It took him 2 years simply to go from Candidate Master to Fide Master strength.

Note: I am a professional chess instructor and I've been teaching chess as my primary profession and sole source of income for 10 years.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are a lot of information that you refuse to give here.

For example, you explain that you have 'played beautiful games', but do not show any examples of such games.

You claim that you have '2300' rating, and yet you again refuse to show what standard of rating it is. It's not hard to type 'FIDE' or 'USCF' and yet you hide that information for some reason. On the same grounds, I could tell you that I am 2800, 'higher' than Magnus Calsen.

This clandestine manner in which you present your so called merits, coupled with the unrealistic circumstances makes you a very suspicious character.

If you truly had been able to achieve what you claim, the newspapers would most likely have posted about you.

So, all in all, change the manner in which you show your specifications, or stop dreaming and realize that reality has boundaries.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you made 2300 FIDE (or even USCF) in 8 months then I'd say you have an excellent chance of becoming a Grand Master. The top 50 players in the world are pretty strong (and motivated) so who can say if you can ever be at the top. You'll have to decide you want it, and go for it.

But 2300 with under a year of experience is really *really* unusual. Fischer 'got good' at about your age, but he'd been playing seriously for a few years by then, against good players. And he had an instructor.

To continue improving, you'll need an instructor and IM-level competition. Find a local chess club of that strength and play there.

---
Tags: study
---


title: Where to keep the scoresheet

text:
# Question
Title: Where to keep the scoresheet
Does anybody know if there is a standard "place" to keep the scoresheets of past games? I am currently using a photo album since the size of developed photos is more or less the size of my scoresheet when I fold it once, but I would like something more "professional" (that is, less homespun).

I know that there are scorebooks, but that would mean that I have to write up again all my games. I would like to keep the scoresheets, and if possible for fast review (for preparation purposes).

# Answer
A cigar box is one way that I've heard of in the past.

Those scorebooks are totally 100% absolutely worth it btw. It's vastly more organized than having hundreds of loose sheets.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I used to keep scoresheets in the past, but it's tedious to keep them. Firstly, you may not recognise the writing that you recorded in hurry during the game. Besides, it is hard to be systematic with them: a single shuffle will make your games jumble up, and it will waste a lot of time.

Therefore, instead of doing it manually, I do it electronically. The main recommendation of mine is chess apps. For me, it's just Droidfish. You can get them on apps stores and it is free. Now comes the fun part. You can input your game by manual, which is playing out moves on your phone in double player mode and save it. You can also play the moves out in programs and get its pgn, then input into your phone using a cable. Either way its good.

Alternatively, chess5.com is a good website to keep your games. And do remember, if you use droidfish, keep a copy of the pgn file of your game in your computer in case your phone breaks.

Have fun
> 5 votes

# Answer
I've built some software that makes it possible to 'scan' your paper scoresheet into electronic .pgn format just by taking a picture of it with your phone after the game (you have to use a particular format for it to understand).

The website, then keeps an electronic copy of the game on your behalf. Let me know if you are interested in trying it out-\> www.chesschecker.com
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tournament, scoresheet
---


title: B+N worth R + how many pawns?

text:
# Question
Title: B+N worth R + how many pawns?
Purely by piece counting, B+N is worth R + 1P. But I've seen lots of time when the exchange favours the side who holds B+N. In one variation of Scotch, white exchanges R+2P for B+N and is still slight in favour.

What are the ideas surrounding this type of exchange?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Only a general answer can be given for this:

Generally the exchange of R+P (sometimes an extra pawn) for a Bishop and Knight favors the player who has the Bishop and Knight afterwards due to the simple fact that the Minor Pieces are much stronger during the middlegame than the Rook. You have two attacking pieces vs. one attacking piece. The side with the Bishop and Knight will have better attacking chances as they will have more open lines (diagonals are much more open than files in the middlegame) and good squares for the Knight. The Rooks will be blocked by the pawns and unable to contribute much to the game.

Of course, it is very position dependent. In various variations of the Sicilian Defense, Black will exchange a Rook for a Knight on c3, sacrificing the exchange. This is extremely important for Black to do as it creates weaknesses and increases the strength of their dark squared Bishop.

In addition to this, there are many attacks that use the Rooks in the middlegame by opening up the h-file. It's very position dependent as to which group of pieces is more important or not.

As a general rule of thumb though, a Bishop + Knight is considered more important and stronger than a Rook + Pawn.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As a general rule of thumb I would say

Knight + Bishop = Rook + 2 pawns

Following factors influence evaluation of this material imbalance

* Static position of King
* Whether Queens are present
* Number of open files
* Strong positions for light pieces thanks to pawn structure
* Rook + passed pawns or non-passed pawns
* Rook + blocked pawns or non-blocked pawns
* Position of Kings in endgame

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think, in a middle game scenario when there are more number of pieces and pawns on the board, giving up a single Rook for two pieces (Knight and Bishop) is a good trade. This might be because the Rook does not enjoy free movement when there are no open files and too many pieces/pawns on the board in the middle game. As always the statement of cliche in chess "Depends on the context".

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess is a dynamic game and so the pieces get their values according to the position on the board at the time and what they are doing. This is fluid and subject to change.

That said, as a general rule the rook side of the equation is worth more in the endgame and vice versa in the late opening or early middlegame.

I have seen expert players on several occasions win wonderful endgames with RPP v BB or RPP v BN. At the other extreme I have seen games in the middlegame stage where files are pretty much blocked but there one or two great diagonals and one player has sacrificed his rook for just the one bishop leaving him with a comfortable won game because his bishop is now a power piece and his opponent's rook is just a spectator. Similarly you will find many games online where one player sacrifices his rook for his opponent's knight on c3 or f3, doubling the pawns, smashing open the position in front of the castled king and leading to a quick win.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It totally depends on position. But if we say there is no tactical opportunity immediately, going into `B+N vs R+p` strategically would be about even.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Using Kaufman piece values, the value of B+N (assuming that you are also sacrificing the bishop pair and lose the pair bonus) is 2\*3.25+0.5=7.0. The value of Rook and pawn is 5.0+1.0=6.0.

Thus, on purely material grounds, the exchange is bad for the side who gives in Bishop and Knight. Positional factors can make the exchange even worse or somewhat better.

---
Tags: material-balance, exchange
---


title: Endgame Fortresses

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame Fortresses
```
[fen "6r1/1p3k2/2rb1p1p/3NpP1P/PpPp2pR/1P1K2P1/4RP2/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

If Black holds his bishop on c5, rook on a8/a5 (if a5 is a threat), rook on g8 (protect g4) or the 8th rank, is there any way for White to break through?

If so, what would be the best defense for Black?

Black to move. He will play Rg5.

# Answer
I believe if white breaks through, then black has some counter play chances on the queen side. For instance:

```
[FEN "6r1/1p3k2/2rb1p1p/3NpP1P/PpPp2pR/1P1K2P1/4RP2/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rg5 2. Re4 Rxf5 3. Rhxg4 Rf3+ 4. Ke2 Rxb3 5. Rg6 Bf8 6. f4 Bg7 7. fxe5 fxe5 8. Reg4 Bf8

```

and white's queen side pawns are gone and black has serious threats.

Otherwise if white try to holds on his pawns, there is no way to make any progress and the game will be draw.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Online Chess Communities

text:
# Question
Title: Online Chess Communities
What are some of the thriving chess community websites online. Let me start with a few examples:

Chess community on Reddit

Chess.com has a huge community

Chess India Community

What are the other chess related forums and community websites on the internet where Chess related discussions happen everyday?

# Answer
Updating this list with all the suggestions, and my own findings.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: websites
---


# Question
Title: How to measure my elo with using deep fritz 14?
I think I’ve heard deep fritz estimates elo and shows to user, but I don’t know how.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm not sure I would recommend trying to gauge your ELO from a computer software alone. There may be a way to get some estimation, but I'm not confident about that. Besides, the best way to get an accurate idea of how well you play is by playing people! Go out there and play some chess!

---
Tags: elo, fritz
---


# Question
Title: slav defense, black's bishop early development punishment
After:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bf5

```

I want to put a lot of pressure in black's position, I used to follow the game with:

5.cxd5

And here black has two major options:

i) 5... cxd5

```
rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3P1b2/3P4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5

5... cxd5 6.Qb3 Qb6 7.Nxd5 Qxb3 8.Nxf6+ exf6 9.axb3

```

I think it's very good for white

ii) 5... Nxd5, and here I found searching in a database a move that looks like strong, Nd2!

```
rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3P1b2/3P4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5

5... Nxd5 6. Nd2 e6 7.e4 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Bg6

```

And in this position white has a solid center and looks for me a little better

I want more, how should I continue after 4...Bf5?

# Answer
As far as I know it is consensus that the two variations you gave starting with 5.cxd5 are indeed the best possible way to play as White.

Now 4. ...Bf5 is a bad move, as Black is either forced to give up a pawn( in the first variation) or give up the center(as in the second variation), but despite these tactical flaws it is still a sensible developing move, so you really should not expect to gain more than you do in the given variations.

That being said, White does have different options available, but none of them is actually objectively stronger. In fact, if White is careless this variation can easily result in an equal or even slightly favorable position for Black. There is a famous game Yanovsky - Capablanca, that beautifully illustrates this danger.
> 3 votes

# Answer
6.Qb3 Nc6! 7.Qxb7 Bd7 is apparently playable for black, lots of theory. The obvious move 8.Bf4, preventing Rb8, requires further investigation.

Perhaps something aggresive such as 8..e5 is the idea.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You could play either:

* d\*5 (better defense).
* Ne4 (good defense and offense).
* Qd6 (to let queen out so could attack later)\************personally think this is best.
* e6 (better positioning).
> -4 votes

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


# Question
Title: What features can I add to this FIDE chess application? (edits made 2/25)
**EDIT: Most of the app is completed. Now all I have to complete is implementation of FIDE arbiters, a dynamic 3d plot (right now it only has 3 variables being plotted, no inputs affect it), adding more FIDE data (based on months) and perhaps including USCF chess data (I have the latest data set for all of the states).**

**I have made 3 adjustments to this post.**

**1.Include a dynamic time series chart that lets you see more than one player at a time: This was very time consuming to produce!.**

**2.Include an overlayed histogram/density curve.**

**3.Include 3d scatterplot**

**4.Improve the layout of the app**

---

### FIDE CHESS APPLICATION

Other than an interactive chess board itself (which would be a different animal in itself), what can I add to this application to improve upon visualizing and summarizing aggregated FIDE chess statistics? I am planning also to add a time series plot and a motion chart for aggregated historical data.

After I have completed it, I will put up the source code onto github/mediafire for those who are interested in the programming aspect of this. I will also eventually find a place to host this application so that you may use at your leisure.

---

Here is a picture of the application itself. The left side has filters that effect the output on the right side.

---

Here are a few images of features I have put in it.

### Key for graphs below:

1. The first graph is an interactive map that outputs the number of FIDE rated players for each country and plots it onto a map.
2. The second graph is a normalized histogram, or density curve describing the FIDE ratings distribution.
3. Similiar to the map, this is a barplot of the number players in each country
4. The globe is the map, but a more appealing version of the map.
5. Ideally, I will be able to include a 2D/3D time series plot, unsure if it will be possible given how the datasets are structured. I would plot aggregated chess statistics of the FIDE chess population or of individual players here.
6. A google motion chart, similar to a time series plot, but more interactive and visually appealing. As with the time series plot, I would plot aggregated chess statistics of the FIDE chess population or of individual players here.
7. Scatterplot of 3 variables

---

**Is there anything else I can add to further visual FIDE chess data? Also, making suggestions to further improve upon what I have would be good too.**

# Answer
> 4 votes
First of all, good luck! It looks like a really interesting project.

As to suggestions:

1) What are you thinking of calling the app? From what you have shown here, maybe "FIDE Player Statistics"?

2) What is the situation regarding ownership and copyright of the data? Maybe you should ask FIDE? There again, as far as I know they don't make the underlying data publicly available so you have to "mine" the data via appropriately constructed web requests. In this case I don't think you would need permission.

3) You could add displays for player titles like GM, IM, FM, CM, WGM, WIM, etc.

4) You could include arbiter information - IA, FA

5) Also trainers and international organizers.

6) For all of your statistics to break out the data in federation terms. This is almost country level but some countries have a privileged situation. For instance the UK actually has separate English, Scottish, Welsh federations, etc. So, allow comparison of titled players per federation, titled players per thousand players per federation. Could be fascinating to see how Russia performs here. Is it still number 1 chess country / federation?

7) Same for arbiters.

8) Same for organizers.

9) Same for trainers.

I will be very interested in the results of this project. It looks fascinating. Please keep us informed!

---
Tags: analysis, statistics, fide, programming
---


# Question
Title: Following the moves from the black’s point of view
I am an intermediate level chess enthusiast. I have noticed that one of the main hindrances that slows down my progress is that I have never been able to internalize the algebraic notation and lack a good “board sense”. I know that Algebraic Notation is a pretty simple and straightforward system and I have actually no problem reading the moves and playing them over the board. The problem is that, when I am playing black, I am not able to look at the board and without first reading the grids name the exact square right away.

It is relatively easy to do this when you are playing white and I don't have much trouble doing that, but when it comes to the black side all of a sudden everything is reversed and I have to sit back and think what square is what and that sometimes becomes annoying to the point where it prevents me from concentrating on the moves.

In all chess books diagrams are shown from the point of view of white and because of that I never tried to follow games from the opposite side. When I look at the videos where grandmasters are quickly analyzing their games, I see that they have absolutely no problem following the games and talking about moves from the black’s point of view. So I guess that’s something I should also be able to do, in case I want to improve my chess.

Incidentally, I noticed that I don't have that problem with descriptive notation. I can play black's moves very quickly on the board when I am reading or analyzing moves written using that system of notation. The reason is that descriptive notation is “relative” but algebraic notation is “absolute” and only one name is assigned to the squares no matter which side is talking. Alas, descriptive notation is obsolete and I have to find a way to deal with the standard system.

Has anyone else experienced the same problem, and if yes, how have they been able to solve this? Any tips on visualizing the board and following the moves rapidly from the black side is also appreciated.

# Answer
I would recommend using chess eye, here's a video about it, it will help you memorize the board, difficult but fun!

**EDIT**

I don't think this is the answer you're looking for, but I'm answering anyway since there's no other answer and since my initial answer didn't help much, i feel that i must improve my answer even if it won't help you. Here's how i visualize, I don't follow from black perspective nor white. I see them as a list, such as this.

I memorized only the **A** rank, especially **a1** and **a8** and worked my way through the board using maths, not memorization, i think maths helps more, if you calculate it, it makes sense to you. For example if you tell me to memorize how to derive an equation, I'll never understand it and I will find it hard to remember, if you tell me the idea behind it and tell me why i am doing it, i will understand and do it fast.

I'm not a fan of memorization and i know that modern chess is all about memorization, criticize me all you want.

I just remember that **a1** is black, therefore a4 has to be white, a8 has to be white as well, count them on your fingers.

b1 is directly above a1 so it's the opposite color, b1 is white, b4 has to be black, b8 has to be black.

A pattern is visible here

* x1 color is different than x8
* x4 = x8
* x8 = y1

Not only that a1 and c1 are black, because there's always x black followed by y white, you can say that all the odd rank numbers starts with black ends with white, and vise versa for the even rank numbers

a is an odd rank since it's the first letter and the first rank, a1 is black b is even b1 is white.

So a1 is black, what about h1? well a8 is white, and h is the 8th ranks, its number 8, got to be white. Want to count from h to a? lets do it,

h1 is white, and so is is g8, g1 is black and h8 is black of course, i want you to imagine it, not just to read it, forget about the letters, just imagine that you're counting from 1 to 8, each number has a color, and when you get to 8, you start again, 1 has the same color as 8.

one last rank is the d rank, it's number 4, a1 is black, a4 is white, d is rank number 4, which is white! that's what i do, a list, white, black doesn't matter, might help you with blindfolded chess or if you're playing against an engine, no GUI.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The meanings of the squares don't change depending on whether you are looking at the board from White's or Black's point of view. So try to think about the squares' function rather than just identifying them by coordinates.

I will give some examples.

* When I think 'c4', I think "White's second move in the Queen's Gambit Declined, and the square he moves his Bishop to in the Italian game to attack f7", not "three squares over and four squares up".
* When I think 'g7', I think "the square Black fianchettos his bishop on in the Sicilian Dragon and King's Indian", not "seven squares over and seven squares up".
* When I think 'g8', I think "the square Black's king is on after castling kingside", not "seven squares over and eight squares up".

These functions of the squares don't change when you switch your orientation, so they are easier to work with.

Of course it takes a lot of time to internalize the functions of the squares in this way, but you will understand the chessboard a lot better when you've done so. For one thing, you will know, for example, what having a queen on c2 and bishop on d3 is good for, without having to look at a board to follow the diagonal out to its destination.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Two quick things which I think might help (though I realise your question is old):

1) lichess.org has a training tool specifically aimed at improving your knowledge of algebraic notation; coordinates flash on the screen (eg "E7") and you have to click on the correct square, answering as many as possible in a set period of time. It varies between showing the board in white and black orientations.

2) I worked out a similar shortcut to quickly give the colour of any given square, also based on "odd" and "even" files. First mentally translate the letters for files into numbers so that the letters a-c-e-g (1-3-5-7) are "odd" and b-d-f-h (2-4-6-8) are "even". Then the rule is:

* if rank and file are both odd or both even, the square is black (a1, b4, c7)
* if one is odd and the other even, the square is white (h7, e8, d1)

In short, black squares match; white squares don't.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: notation, board-vision
---


# Question
Title: Is it illegal to write clock time in the score sheet during tournaments?
I have the habit of noting the clock time near my moves in tournament. I've been doing this for years now, but today a friend told me it is illegal according to FIDE. I wonderwhat the regulation related to it is.

# Answer
According to the FIDE rules, it is not forbidden; clock times are actually explicitly stated as one of the items that a scoresheet may contain. See the following excerpt (emphasis mine):

> Article 8: The recording of the moves
>
> 8.1
>
> a. In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponentin the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to Appendix E.1 a.
>
> b. The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, **the times of the clocks**, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
>
> c. A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.
>
> d. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=).
>
> e. If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.

Note that the rules above pertain to competitions starting on or after July 1st, 2014. The older version has the same rule placed in article 12.4. **(thanks to @chaosflaws)**
> 21 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, scoresheet
---


title: Online program for FEN recalculation

text:
# Question
Title: Online program for FEN recalculation
I am looking for any online tools that can recalculate the the FEN values based on the current FEN and a given step. Are there any such tools or should I write one on my own.

# Answer
I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but it's at least a start.

The Analysis Board at chess.com allows you to paste in a FEN, make a move, then go to the Position Setup tab and copy the FEN.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online, fen
---


title: New to SCID, Where should I begin?

text:
# Question
Title: New to SCID, Where should I begin?
I read "SCID database" mentioned many times in different chess forums. As a regular chessbase/pgn user, I wonder what difference it makes and where I should begin. Thanks!

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Start here section of the SCID official webpage provides a lot of different links explaining the functionalities of the program, what can you do with it and what can you do to help back, among many others.

SCID provides a free alternative to commercial software, compatible with the standard .png format but with an own format .si4 said to be one of the key points when it comes to the speed of SCID analizing and mantaining a huge database.

It is compatible with very powerful engines like Rybka or the famous Stockfish used for everyone from an amateur to top GMs.

This is just an intro to all the info that you can find in the official page. The FAQ section is also very useful if you're approaching SCID for the first time.

---
Tags: database
---


title: What is the best way to beat a French?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the best way to beat a French?
I have a tournament game tomorrow, and I'm white against a Pirc/French guy. What is the easiest way, learnable in 10 mins or so, to play against it.

In addition to the Pirc question, I play the Tarrasch usually, but I am looking for something more active.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Mate, please... What do you want to learn in 10 minutes? Be serious... People spend years on learning openings. The French is complicated.

But well, to the question: if you have no idea about french and your opponent is familiar with it, you have 2 choices:

a) Play the exchange variation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 Bd6 5. Qf3 Nf6 6. h3 O-O 7. Ne2 Be6 8. O-O c6 9. Bf4

```

The point is to exchange the dark-squared bishops because white's one is a bit worse than black's one. It's a tiny tiny tiny tiny plus. If you manage to get an ending with a Knight vs light-squared bishop you have chances to win.

b) The other choice is... to play something crazy. Go for `1. b4` or `1. f4` or `1. g4`. There are many "unusual" variations around. You know, he *knows* the French, you don't. It's better to get an unusual position that you both don't know or even you know a little bit about.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't think you can learn anything properly in 10 minutes, but if you want a tactical line that leads to slightly offbeat positions, the I've got one for you.

The line in question is the so called Milner-Barry gambit. It goes as:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 Bd7 7. O-O cxd4 8. cxd4 Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Nc3

```

The idea is to keep the black king in the center and harass him way before he has time of developing the pieces to any active square. In case of an early castling or even castling in not the best conditions, white already has his whole army looking at the kingside and the attack is very powerful.

Keep in mind that this is a gambit, so one cannot in general stick to standard development, but usual moves in this positions are `Qg4`, `Re1` and benefit from the pin of the `e6` pawn, as at some point black will take on `e5`, `Kh1` and `f4` with ideas of `f5` and blasting open the position. If `Qg4` is not played, then `Qe2` is another useful post for the queen.

This is a gambit that has an all right reputation, but is not seen at top level since it doesn't offer anything special with correct play by black. Against unprepared opponents, they usually think that the pawn sacrifice is actually a blunder (so many pawns are lost everyday against the French with the Advance variation), and do not defend correctly against the following attack, which allows for a quick sweep in case of black playing `Bc5`, `Ne7` and `0-0` as white's attack is deadly.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I am having a similar problem planning my strategies against various defenses.

I know for sure that I wont play a main line and never allow the Winawer.

Depending on the player, I might go for a King's Indian attack set up with 2)p-q3 and a fianchettoed king bishop.

On the alternative, I might switch to something else than 1)p-k4

Again, this depends on what I know about the other player and it would depend on your preferred style/comfort with various set ups.

I might even start with the English or something else.

But I am still thinking about exchange variation, or 2)p-qb4 and maybe even 2)q-k2.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, preparation
---


# Question
Title: What's the name of this opening for white?
What's the name of this structure after white castling ?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is generally known as the Glek System. It looks like Nc3 and Nf6 were omitted.

One of White's general plans is to play d3 and Be3 hoping for the trade to open the f-file, and also to play Nf3-h4-f5. .

# Answer
> -2 votes
i played black with this against an expert

he started with p-kn3 shredder says it is the benko opening 1)p-kn3

so whatever that move is called would be it although it may have transposed to something else which would also be a proper name for it

that was one of my best wins i sacked a rook for knight an a pawn in a semi-closed position and got an advantage in the center while his rooks were not doing much while my extra bishop guarded key squares

p-kn3 p-k4 b-n2 b-b4 p-k4 p-q3 0-0

not sure which order i played the knights but that was essentially our opening position

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Probability of making a game-losing move as a function of Elo?
BlindKungFuMaster and I are having a debate (http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/34484/discussion-between-blindkungfumaster-and-jeff-y) and it got me wondering: Given any position that can be agreed as "about equal", what is the probability that a given player would make a game-losing move on any single move, as a function of his or her rating? I am asking **independent of the opponent's strength**, i.e. whether or not the opponent actually exploits the mistake to win the game.

Clearly, games are lost, even by Grandmasters, even by the very best. So (presuming Chess is a theoretical draw from the start position) even **they** make game-losing moves on occasion. So the probability in question is clearly not zero even at Elo 2800. How high would that probability be at, say, 2000, 1800, 1500, 1200 ratings, approximately? At what rating would said probability be approximately 50%? Is this something that can be definitively calculated in some fashion based on the definition of Elo and the average number of moves per game? Or would any answer be pure guesswork?

Update:

I've extracted all games from ChessBase's BIG99 database of 1,114,429 games where one player's Elo is 2500 or more and the other player's Elo is 2100 or less. There are 945 such games. After filtering out the upsets (surprisingly there are 79 win upsets and 102 draw upsets), below is the chart of ply-count vs. Elo. The darker series is where the loser played black, the lighter series is where the loser played white. Seems to be a horn-of-plenty type of shape.

# Answer
> 13 votes
Coincidentally I already answered exactly this question in response to a similar question.

Edit: This similar question was about frequencies of blunders in games, which made the analysis somewhat misleading when directly applied to this question. Originally I looked for blunders from equal positions per **game move**, which made the results a bit confusing because there was the unknown variable of how many equal positions you actually get per game move. So I redid the analysis for blunders per equal position which is a lot more appropriate in this context.

I happen to have a dataset with 25000 games with stockfish evaluations after every move. This allows to actually look for blunders in equal positions, which is what I did.

Blunders from an equal position (-1.00 \< eval \< 1.00) are relatively rare, even among weaker players. That is not particularly surprising, because we tend to leave the equality region in little steps during the opening and the blunders come when we are under real pressure and low on time.

I ran the analysis dependent on the strength of the opponent as well, to show that stronger opponents actually lead to more blunders even in equal positions. The stronger opponents in the analysis are more than 100 Elo points higher rated, the weaker 100 points lower rated. Players of all strength blunder more often against stronger opponents from equal positions than against weaker opponents.

```
Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 26.4655172414 equal positions.
Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 26.1266149871 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 33.3684210526 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 28.8888888889 equal positions.
Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 28.3083832335 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 37.12 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 34.7788649706 equal positions.
Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 34.0448933782 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 39.7709923664 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 34.9866156788 equal positions.
Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 33.1406015038 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 45.3865546218 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 40.1570101725 equal positions.
Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 38.315761729 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 49.9418282548 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 44.4308207705 equal positions.
Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 41.5676238036 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 56.3524305556 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 52.5946657886 equal positions.
Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 49.5823737821 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 61.1668806162 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 61.3163636364 equal positions.
Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 56.0916284881 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 75.2474916388 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 69.6490486258 equal positions.
Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 60.9148185484 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 90.0941176471 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 78.8800318852 equal positions.
Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 67.7366828087 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 100.431924883 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 97.320568252 equal positions.
Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 84.8542336549 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 114.45814978 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 110.2421875 equal positions.
Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 97.9315068493 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 127.470948012 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 95.7817109145 equal positions.
Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 78.6981818182 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 167.296875 equal positions against weaker players.

```

So for a table of estimated probability of blunder on any given single move:

```
Elo 1500-1599:  0.0378
Elo 1600-1699:  0.0346
Elo 1700-1799:  0.0288
Elo 1800-1899:  0.0286
Elo 1900-1999:  0.0249
Elo 2000-2099:  0.0225
Elo 2100-2199:  0.0190
Elo 2200-2299:  0.0163
Elo 2300-2399:  0.0144
Elo 2400-2499:  0.0127
Elo 2500-2599:  0.0103
Elo 2600-2699:  0.0091
Elo 2700-2799:  0.0104

```

An approximation formula: `p = (0.323 - 0.0850 * Elo / 1000) ^ 2`

# Answer
> 1 votes
If we're talking about a pure game-losing move then the percentage is quite high.

Bear in mind one could make 20 sub-optimal moves that individually would not be fatal. But together, it's just too much.

The only way I know to figure this out is to analyze players' games using a strong engine at tournament controls. If the played move exceeds some threshold (say, 1 point) then the move is counted as a loser.

# Answer
> 0 votes
if they dont punish your bad move then was it really bad at all ?

i would say the normal statistics apply

what is the chance a player with rating x can beat a player of rating y

unless you are grandmasters the winner is the one who made the next to last mistake

so on a given move the chance of making the fatal mistake would seem to be exactly what the ratings would indicate and nothing else

---
Tags: analysis, theory, rating, blunder
---


title: What does "bxa1=Q" mean?

text:
# Question
Title: What does "bxa1=Q" mean?
I have a PGN file with the following move in it:

> 11. fxe5 bxa1=Q

I understand the equals sign represents a draw offer, but what does "=Q" mean?

# Answer
I would read it as "Pawn takes something on `a1` and promotes to a Queen".

Strictly according to the Laws of Chess the `=` sign should not be there (see article C.11).

> C.11
> In the case of the promotion of a pawn, the actual pawn move is indicated, followed immediately by the abbreviation of the new piece. Examples: d8Q, exf8N, b1B, g1R.

However this is a PGN file, which has its own rules for game notation and it uses the `=` sign for pawn promotion (see paragraph 3 of article 8.2.3.3 in the PGN standard specification also available here, which should probably be the official reference).

> \[...\]. Pawn promotions are denoted by the equal sign "=" immediately following the destination square with a promoted piece letter (indicating one of knight, bishop, rook, or queen) immediately following the equal sign. As above, the piece letter is in uppercase.

Draw data is handled in so-called *EPD records* for describing chess positions, using verbose opcodes like `draw_offer`. Although it isn't included in PGN proper, specifics are included in articles 16.2.5.8 - 16.2.5.11 of the standard.
> 26 votes

# Answer
it meant a pawn on b captured something on a1 and promoted to a queen

this is normal notation

why they want = to be on the end of a score sheet for a tie is ridiculous

1/2 - 1/2 always worked well to denote a tie

and =x has been used for promoting to piece x for the 67 years i have played chess
> 0 votes

---
Tags: notation
---


title: How can I know my rating in chess

text:
# Question
Title: How can I know my rating in chess
I play chess **sometimes**. I don't know any chess strategy. I just know the direction of each piece. How can I know my rating?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There isn't **one** rating. Each site or chess federation would rate you differently. Even if two different organizations use the exact same rating system, the separate pools of players make the numbers incomparable. You can find your rating *for a certain organization* by playing enough games for the statistics to become meaningful.

What's this about statistics? Ratings are approximations of our playing strength. Rating systems are based upon opponents' ratings and use statistics to predict the outcome of games. The results of games are used to adjust ratings. The more we play, the more accurate the ratings become.

I don't know where you're located, but in the USA, you'd likely be rated about 800. An average club player is about 1500. The 700 point difference would mean you'd have virtually no chance of defeating someone who had a poor chance of defeating that average player.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you do not play in tournaments, then you do not have a rating. You are **unrated**.

If you play online, then you will have a rating. However, this is **unofficial** and cannot be used anywhere else.

# Answer
> 1 votes
So long as you understand the tules of the game, playing on a chess based website such as Chess.com will give you an approximation of your rating. That would be a good starting point, although in general a beginner would start at around 1200 elo. (In chess, we measure one's rating in elo)

# Answer
> -1 votes
your rating is 100 but only because they dont go lower

start reading some books to improve

play over grandmaster games to get a feel for what good moves look like in an opening

work through tactical problem collections to learn to recognise patterns of winning moves

to get a provisional rating play in rated events

to get an established rating play in lots of events

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Is any chess software specifically for forced mates?
Is any chess software specifically for forced mates?

In particular, such software can only prune the search tree when it can *prove*
that the the move doesn't affect the existence of length of a forced mate.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Chest UCI, which is Franz Huber's UCI-adapter for Heiner Marxen's problem solver Chest, is the obvious bet.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Joseph Ellis on talkchess has a modified Stockfish for mate solving.

```
Updates:

1) Sync with latest SF.
2) Move to full hash key.
3) Increase max depth to 250.
4) Improve mate detection.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1145468/MateFinder.7z

The archive includes the source and two very basic windows compiles.

```

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58597&highlight=mate+solver

The Github URL: https://github.com/jhellis3/Stockfish/tree/mate\_finder

I never downloaded the archive and have no idea how good it is. I think it might worth a try as Joseph seemed to know what he was doing.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are some specialised programs for solving all kinds of chess problems (like Chloe or Alybadix). They can also treat a Chess position as a problem and look for mates in there.

For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_for\_handling\_chess\_problems

---
Tags: software, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Are there any vegetarian or vegan Masters apart from Anand?
Are there any other vegetarian or vegan chess GM players, apart from Vishy Anand?

# Answer
A quick Google search turns up the following two:

Jonathan Speelman. Three time British champion and at one point #4 on ELO rating list.

Peter Leko. *Almost* World Champion at one point.

**Sources:**

http://www.unleashed.org.au/who\_cares/vegetarian\_athletes.php?athlete=jonathan-speelman

http://www.veganwolf.com/famous\_vegetarians.htm

http://www.veggieboards.com/forum/11-vegetarian-support-forum/72707-chess-world-champion-vegetarian.html

http://chess.jliptrap.us/grandmasterdiet.htm
> 2 votes

---
Tags: famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Is this a legitimate defence to Ruy Lopez openings?
When I play the Ruy Lopez opening, I usually get my bishop chased all the way down to the second rank by two pawns. I don't know if this is common at higher levels of play but it seems like a pointless pursuit.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 { Spanish Game, Morphy Defence, Caro Variation } 5. Bb3 a5 6. a3 a4 7. Ba2 *

```

Does doing this give either player an advantage at any point during the game?

# Answer
> 8 votes
It is extremely uncommon for Black to play like this at the higher levels, and that is because, as you stated, it's pointless. Black achieves nothing in particular by this chase, and White ends up with a standard opening advantage. Worth noting, however, is that after 5...a5 by Black, White is in no way forced to play a3. A standard developing move will do, as the bishop can go to d5 if nothing else.

# Answer
> 5 votes
After 5...a5 two better moves for white are 6.a4, stopping the black a pawn in its tracks and gaining some space and 6.c3 which prepares d4 and creates space for the bishop on c2 from where it can protect e4.

Consequently 5...a5 isn't that great for black. Better would be 5...Nf6.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Why not play 6)p-b3 (`6. c3`) instead of p-qr3 (`6. a3`)?

That is where the bishop ends up in most main lines, and then black has wasted time and weakened his pawns with that chasing.

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


# Question
Title: Meaning of move stats in opening databases
I naively thought that if I picked the biggest winning move (for example using white) in the database and kept picking moves that white would always win, but at some point the advantage for white suddenly will often turn negative or even to 100% losing.

It seems that the move before that must have some bad data if it had a winning edge but one move later loses.

If the tree bears down to a total loss then how could the move before have had a winning edge?

Is this whole concept of winning % by move erroneous?

Am I missing something?

What other explanation can you provide?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You have to keep in mind that a tree of variations isn't actually a tree. You can reach the same position in many different ways, i.e. the branches can grow back together. So when you go through a variations the number of games doesn't necessarily dwindle until there is just one game left, occasionally games from another move order will join the fray and possibly change the statistics a lot.

So if you are following ten games with 90% for white, but reach a position that was also reached by a different move order, suddenly you might be looking at 50 games. And if for some reason white did much worse in the additional 40 games, the statistics will flip.

This is not as unlikely as it seems, because employing a different move order can indicate different overall knowledge of an opening. For example the 40-games move order may have been all the rage in a time when a very good later continuation for white wasn't known.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Opening trees are based on large databases with games played by high-level players. If a move has a 100% winning statistic for White, that means that in all games where that move was played, White won in the end. You should also look for a number which indicates how many times that move was actually played. If it is a small number, it is very unreliable. There might be only one game in the database, where Black blundered a piece later on even if the '100% winning move' was giving Black a good position. Or there might be a large rating difference between the players which explains the result.

---
Tags: opening, statistics, database
---


title: Why is ...e5 dubious here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is ...e5 dubious here?
```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5?!

```

Why is ...e5 considered dubious for Black here, although it is considered sort of a refutation after the move 5.f3?! e5!

What's the big difference? If it is strong after 5.f3, it shouldn't be so bad after 5.Nc3, the pawn structure is the same.

# Answer
The problem with e5 is that after 6.Bb5+ white will be able to play the manoeuvre Nf5-Ne3 which will result in an iron control of the d5-square. (Without Bb5 the knight on f5 could be taken by the Bc8).

The difference to the 5.f3 line is, that f3 doesn't control d5, so when the knight lands on f5 the counterstrike d5 will be possible.

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5?! 6. Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxd7 Qxd7 8. Nf5

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
After Nf5 the d6 pawn will be weak.
> -2 votes

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


title: Kasparov trying to poison Kamsky

text:
# Question
Title: Kasparov trying to poison Kamsky
Did the mature Gata Kamsky ever try to explain the accusations against Kasparov in the early 1990s about Kasparov trying to poison him? I remember at least a couple interviews in New in Chess magazine where the accusations were made.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do not know for sure, but my guess is that those accusations largely came from Kamsky's father, who was quite belligerent at the time. In later intereviews, Kamsky tended to avoid discussing his father and that period in his career, so I doubt it has been revisited.

---
Tags: kasparov
---


# Question
Title: How come this king and knight + rook pawn vs king endgame not drawn?
Here is a picture of the starting position. White to move.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/3nk1pp/8/3K2PP/5P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. f3 h4 2. f4+ gxf4 3.gxf4+ Kxf4 4. Ke2 Kg3 5. Kf1 Kxh3 6. Kg1 Kg3

```

**1. f3 h4**

**2. f4+ gxf4** (to make it into king and knight + rook pawn endgame which is drawn)

**3.gxf4+ Kxf4**

**4. Ke2** (to reach the g1 and h1 squares to draw)

**4... Kg3**

**5. Kf1 Kxh3**

**6. Kg1 Kg3**

I forgot the rest of the moves, but somehow it's losing for white. I thought a king and knight + rook pawn is always drawn if the opponent's king can reach the g1 h1 squares. Why didn't it work this time and when are these endgames drawn?

# Answer
You're confusing this theoretical endgame with K+B+P vs K.

If the bishop doesn't match the promotion square of a or h file that the pawn is on, then the pawn can not promote in your scenario.

On the other hand, the knight can go to any square on the board potentially so the h1 square can be covered by it.

I suggest going to the link below to understand how to force the king out of the corner. Ideally you should get this position with white to play, and check to force Kg8 and push the pawn.

http://www.chesskit.com/training/endgame/KNPk/1/index.php
> 14 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: Why almost nobody plays ...6...b5 in the Lipnitsky Najdorf?
```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4

```

After `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4` everybody plays `6... e6` and then `...b5`. Is `6...b5` right now a mistake? I don't see `7.Bxf7` as a threat. Is the move order just blindly following "theory" or else?

# Answer
> 10 votes
This is a good question, and I'd like to provide you an in-depth analysis but I don't have time right now, so here's a short answer, more to be added later:

**Short answer**: An immediate `b5`, before preparing it with `e6`, allows maneuvers such as `Bd5` to be played, and you noticed correctly that here `Bxf7+` is not really a threat.

Black should preferably avoid allowing `Bd5`, when his bishop's still on `c8`, for the sole reason that the consequent lines seem relatively (bit exaggerating here) forced for black, and the resulting positions are usually about equal but with white being up a few tempi. (and black very much delayed with his castling). I showcase one such line:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bd5 Ra7 8.Nc6 Nxc6 9.Bxc6+ Bd7 10.Qd4 Rc7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.a4 Rc4 13.Qd3

```

I'll try to compile more concrete variations on this, but it should give you an idea as to why one tends to avoid all such undesirable lines.

**Moral**: with `e6` first, one avoids all possible shenanigans that can result from either `Bxf7+` in some lines, or `Bd5` type of forcing lines.

---

**Addition after comments, in reply to why `7...Nxd5` is not really objectively playable for black:**

user2569 has already given you the gist of it, so I'm not going to repeat the same ideas again. Instead I simply decided to play this line as black, vs Stockfish 6, and tryout few seemingly ok-looking variations against it in 5-minute games (so bear with me, these won't comprise the best of the best moves, but they are illustrative). In neither of the lines I could end up with anything close to playable... take the time to go through them yourself, specially since this line seems to be of importance to your repertoire, and make sure to train yourself similarly against the engine, in order to acquaint yourself with the underlying difficulties of black's position after 7...Nxd5.

```
[Title "8...g6"]
[fen "rnbqkb1r/4pppp/p2p4/1p1P4/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

8...g6 9.O-O Bg7 10.Bg5 O-O 11.Re1 Re8 12.a4 b4 13.Ne4 Bb7 14.c4 h6 15.Bf4 Nd7 16.Qd2 Kh7 17.Re3 Qb6 18.Nb3 Nf6 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Rf3 h5 21.Bg5 Kg7 22.Bxf6+ exf6 23.a5 Qc7

```

Another attempt, trying to make use of a quick b4 to gain some activity (instead of the slow g6 play):

```
[Title "8...Nd7"]
[fen "rnbqkb1r/4pppp/p2p4/1p1P4/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

8...Nd7 9.a4 b4 10.Nc6 Qc7 11.Nxb4 Qc4 12.Nc6 Ne5 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Qh5 Qc7 15.O-O g6 16.Qf3 Bb7 17.Ra3 Bg7 18.Rb3 Rb8 19.Be3 O-O 20.Rd1

```

A slight variation of the previous line (without Nd7):

```
[Title "8...b4"]
[fen "rnbqkb1r/4pppp/p2p4/1p1P4/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

8...b4 9.Ne4 Bb7 10.c4 bxc3 11.Nxc3 g6 12.O-O Bg7 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Rc1 O-O 15.Nc6 Qe8 16.Qb3 Bxc6 17.dxc6 Nc5 18.Qc4 Rc8 19.b4 Ne6 20.Nd5 Kh8 21.Rfd1

```

Another just for the sake of illustration, I tried a quick e6 out of plain ignorance:

```
[Title "8...e6"]
[fen "rnbqkb1r/4pppp/p2p4/1p1P4/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

8...e6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.O-O Be7 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qg4 O-O 13.Qxe6+ Kh8 14.Nd5 Nc6 15.a4

```

No words are required for this last line...

I strongly encourage you to pick up these lines and train yourself in them, just like I victimized myself playing out these lines as black vs. Stockfish. Let me know if I can further assist you in your analysis.

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


# Question
Title: Beginners question: Controlling the center
As a beginner I've been studying openings for center control. I am having a hard time finding the next lessons and steps when I actually have the upper hand in the center. Now I realise I don't actually know what to do when you have the center. How do I learn the next steps and what should I learn to improve in this area?

# Answer
Once you control the center attack the enemy king and give checkmate!

However it's much easier said than done.

Normally there are two ways you can win control of the center and how you go about trying to win in each case is different.

1) You both fought for the center by moving pawns there but you managed to swap off or divert his pawn or pawns and now you control the center. Classically this could be via a gambit like King's Gambit (you played f4 on your second move to divert his e5 pawn to f4), Scotch Gambit or Goring Gambit (d4 on the second move followed by c3) or Morra Gambit in the Sicilian.

Because the center is open for your pieces you can move your pieces quickly towards the enemy king and go for checkmate. A good place to start studying here would be the romantic players of the 19th century like Anderson and Morphy.

2) Your opponent didn't really try and fight for the center with pawns instead he only moved some pawns to the 3rd rank, developed his pieces behind this pawn shell and aimed one or two of his pieces at the center by, for instance, fianchettoing his bishops. These would be openings like the Reti for white and the Pirc, Hedgehog and Hippopotamus for black.

The problem here is that because your opponent didn't weaken his position by fighting for the center with pawns he probably has a very strong defensive position which you need to try and break down. You will need to build up slowly with your pieces before trying to open his position with pushing one or more pawns into his position to break it open. Your opponent is hoping that you will create weaknesses in your own position when you do this and he can launch a counterstrike against your over-extended position. He could be right!

A good place to start here would be the games of the hypermoderns from the early part of the 20th century, players like Reti and Tartakower.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, beginner, center
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Accepted, how to continue after 3. e3 c6
I was playing Queen's Gambit Accepted. How should I continue after 3. e3 c6? I had no idea what to do after that.

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 c6

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
The simplest reply for white is Bxc4 which gives white exactly what he wants, a central pawn majority with tempo because he got his d4 pawn in the center plus his bishop on C4 while black basically doesn't have any pieces or pawns off their starting squares.

That said, a4 is probably also a good move as it makes b5 difficult for black.

Note that c6 isn't a great move for black because quite often in other lines he wants to move his c pawn straight to c5. If he ends up later playing c6-c5 then he has taken two moves instead of one to get there. Better for black would be e5, aggressively challenging white in the center or Nf6 fighting for the d5 and e4 squares.

# Answer
> 0 votes
A lot of players new to the QGA like to try to hang on to the pawn at c4 or build up a quick and big Queenside pawn storm, but it is an unstable and fairly neglectful strategy. Here, it looks like Black will follow 4. Bxc4 with ...b5 to kick away the bishop and start moving pawns forward; however, as @overtheboard suggests, if White keeps to solid chess principles (develop, don't overextend right away, castle, etc.), he or she will enjoy the better position. The QGA is classically played by Black by developing and attempting to undermine the center, not storm across the Queenside without developing pieces.

You can play an immediate 3. e4, and this might be a matter of taste, but that leaves you a bit vulnerable after 3...e5. I play the Classical QGA (1. d4 d5 2.c4 dxc5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.e3), which uses e3 because it is the safest and more direct route to recapturing the pawn and completing development.

# Answer
> -1 votes
c6 is one of the most benign looking moves in that position.

black usually plays a6 or some Nf6, e6, a6, c5 setup in the QGA

# Answer
> -1 votes
Why not play the move 3. e4 instead of 3. e3? that move helps you start staking a claim for the center and you get to recapture on c4, Win-Win. Unless black decides to protect the c4 pawn which is usually not advised

http://www.chessfiles.com/chess-openings---queens-gambit-accepted.html

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit-accepted
---


# Question
Title: Sicilian, Smith Morra gambit pawn structure
I am an aspiring chess player and I just discovered this famous opening a few months back. Currently I am using Stockfish as my go-to reference to find the best move, but unfortunately it does not explain why a move is considered good. The question is why the move c5xd4 is vital for black, and how does it benefit white?

# Answer
2...cxd4 is the best move because it challenges White for coming up with something. If White just takes the pawn back with 3.Qxd4, Black can easily gain a tempo with 3...Nc6.

The gambit starts with 3.c3. White is sacrificing a pawn for rapid development (4.Nxc3 recaptures the pawn with a developing piece), open bishop diagonals (b3-f7 diagonal) and slightly better central control. Black is unable to move the central pawns two squares immediately (...d5 loses a pawn, ...e5 weaken the d5 square).

White has some compensation for the pawn but probably not enough against a skilled player. Black is still very solid, if Black can stop White's swift attacks, the extra pawn will pay off.
> 4 votes

# Answer
2...cxd4 isn't vital for black in the sense that all other moves lose, but more in the sense that there is not really a good reason to avoid taking the d4 pawn. It's hard to think of another move that fights for the center control as well as ...cxd4.

As for how it benefits white: the point of the Smith-Morra gambit is that it is a gambit; white will sacrifice a pawn after 2...cxd4 with 3.c3, in exchange for a tempo in the opening, which is intended to give a head start for white to attack the black setup.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, smith-morra-gambit
---


title: Facebook Messenger Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Facebook Messenger Chess
Have anyone here experimented the Chess of Facebook Messenger? I've heard about this and would like to get the comands/ codes to play.

# Answer
GM Smerdon has written a blogpost about this.

Some of the commands:

```
@fbchess play  (or @fbchess play white)
@fbchess help  (will give you a list of commands)

```

Case sensitive algebraic notation:

```
@fbchess Bg7
@fbchess e4

@fbchess undo
@fbchess resign

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is this move valid in the rollerball chess variant?
Can the white King move a space to the right, into the original location of the black king? This would be disallowed in standard chess, as one cannot intentionally put themselves into check. However, in rollerball chess, moving the king into this square is supposed to end the game, giving white the win. Thanks in advance!

# Answer
No it is not legal. Just like in normal chess the king cannot move into check, even if it would 'win' the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerball\_%28chess\_variant%29
> 1 votes

# Answer
The rules on the official (according to Wikipedia) website on rollerball chess contain this text:

> King: moves and captures exactly as in Orthochess to any adjacent square but never to a square where it can be captured. It is the only piece to have a symmetric move.

But the French rules only say:

> Roi: avance et capture exactement comme le Roi orthodoxe.

The French version can be interpreted to mean the same thing as the English version, but can also be interpreted to allow the case of moving to the winning square even when that square is threatened.

Interestingly I found another inconsistency between the English and French rules:

> End of the Game: There are 2 ways to win the game:
>
> * Checkmate the opposite King, or,
> * When the King reaches the starting square of the opposite King, but only if it has turned clockwise.

The second case of which differs from the French version:

> La victoire s’obtient de l’une ou l’autre manière :
>
> * par échec et mat du Roi adverse
> * en étant le premier à accomplir un tour complet avec son Roi, en le ramenant sur sa case de départ

So in the French version you have to complete an entire circuit with your King and it is not explicitly stated that it be clockwise. An anticlockwise (semi-)circuit is certainly very difficult anyway, since your opponent's pieces are much stronger in that direction than your own, so there does not seem to be a pressing need to forbid it.

In conclusion I find that the French rules, but not the English, leave open the option of winning by moving to the finishing square even when that square is threatened. I do not see any pressing need within the game to decide one way or the other, so best discuss which house-rule you use at the start of the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: How is the 2016 Zurich Chess Challenge "new classical" format different from rapid chess?
For the upcoming (2016) Zurich Chess Challenge, a new time control will be put in place. According to chess24,

> Six players including former World Champions Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand compete in a "new classical" and blitz round-robin event with a novel format and time control.

which is later clarified as

> A five round-robin tournament in which players receive 40 minutes plus 10 seconds per move for the entire game.

How is this different from a standard rapid time control? And will this section of the tournament affect the players' classical ELO rating?

# Answer
This is not different from rapid chess and will be rated only for the rapid Elo.

The name "new classical" is part of a push to shorten the classical time controls. Originally the idea was to have a time control with around 60 min per game, but in the end they decided to shorten it a little to make the games eligible for the rapid rating at least.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It is a bit different from standard rapid chess because it is longer than the usual time controls used.

In the last World Rapid Championship, held in Berlin, the time control was of 15 minutes plus 10 second per move and it is also usual to held tournaments with 25'+5" time controls (like the rapid in the GCT tiebreaks).

The ratings calculations will be done using the rapid rating list.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, time-control, rapid
---


# Question
Title: What was the biggest blunder made by Boris Spassky in Game 6?
I just wanted to inquire about the biggest mistake or blunder by Boris Spassky In game no. 6 against Bobby Fischer.

# Answer
I am tempted to say "agreeing to continue the match after Fischer's protests!" which some argue was a key psychological defeat. If you're looking for specific moves that were mistakes, there are a few candidates. I haven't looked at all annotations, but have Kasparov's *My Great Predecessors, vol 4* handy and looking over his notes, it would be either (notations and comments are his):

20. ...d4? "This move, conceding the important c4-square, was rightly condemned by the commentators. 20. ...Nf6 really was better...but the most accurate solution was the continuation 20. ...c4"

and

22. ...Rb8?! "The last critical moment."
> 1 votes

# Answer
The biggest was 36...Qe8. Other than that, 20...d4 and maybe 18...Qf8 could be called "weak" if not outright "blunder".
> 0 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, famous-players, blunder, famous-moves
---


# Question
Title: Is it important to have chess as part of the education in schools?
Some countries like Russia have chess as school matter. I was wondering if it could be as important as the other topics of a normal curriculum, considering that the importance of disciplines is the generation of constructive minds of our children.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The Telegraph ran a story supporting the benefits of learning chess. Here is the summary for the 'for' camp:

> Pupils as young as seven should be given compulsory lessons in chess amid claims it boosts concentration levels, numeracy and reading comprehension, according to a teachers’ leader.

From the limited research I've done, articles like this do not highlight the 'against' camp, so I will construct my own argument for why chess may not be included on the syllabus:

1. **Limited class time**. Class time could be spent on existing subjects (reading, writing, arithmetic), or spent on many other worthy 'new' subjects (computing, citizenship, financial awareness etc.). It becomes a trade off between what we want to teach the next generation with the limited time they have in school
2. **Uncertainty of transferable skills**. In the quote above it's claimed that chess improves numeracy skills. But surely studying mathematics would be a more direct way to do this?
3. **Level of popularity**. In the UK, football/soccer is arguably the national sport. There just wouldn't be many pupils that would want to study chess, nor many teachers of a suitable callibre

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Would the Elo rating system remain useful if different tournament formats were used?
More or less what is asked in the title. I am familiar with how the system itself works, but I am wondering if there would be any issues if most chess tournaments didn't follow the Swiss format and to a lesser extent, round-robin and match formats which all have each player play a similar number of games. However, consider a single-or double-elimination tournament bracket, which would mean that when a system was **first implemented**, stronger players would be playing more games in those tournaments than the weaker players who would be eliminated sooner.

Also the question is not limited to issues in relation to the accuracy of the ratings in a statistical sense, though that would of course be the main consideration.

# Answer
Theoretically there's no problem. But, for example, if 'parking the bus' approach (a player gets a high level in ranking, then he stops playing) is one of the most known practical issues of Elo ranking, the problem should be with weaker players that play just brackets, with one or few games every tournament.

Many post-Elo ranking systems, as **Glicko** (for chess), or **TrueSkill** (for X-box games), or **rankade** (our multipurpose ranking system) have some 'activity dynamics feature' to avoid this.

Rankade adds the option for different weights for match, due to different tournament format and/or match duration, and more.

While playing one-on-one (as in a chess group) or in symmetrical factions (as in basketball group), the total number of rating points is conserved. as per Dag Oskar Madsen comment.
> 1 votes

# Answer
i had stats in grad school and my feeling is that the ratings would vary a little by tournament but not enough to be a problem and not as much as other factors that can influence them eg being sick on a given day or having jet lag or whatevr

if they can win a tournament with a draw or several that is more likely to happen and tend to compress the ratings a little

if they have to win as in a knockout format they would be forced to win if they could

i dont know how the current ratings work but they could account for the format differences to eliminate that little bit of noise
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Books dealing with the g3 Queen's Indian
What are the best repertoire or opening books, if any, advocating the g3 variation vs the Queen's Indian for White, in terms of analysis and verbal explanations of the main plans / ideas?

# Answer
I will have to explore through some of the new (and older) literature on the Queen's Indian to give you better recommendations, but off the top of my head I recall at least 3:

Finally, to browse through the known variations and played games, there are many websites that you can look through, but these two should get you started:
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, queens-indian
---


title: USCF player question

text:
# Question
Title: USCF player question
I was looking at the list of uscf players (as anyone can through WinTD) and two columns in a dataset, downloadable through the program, are titled RSUPP\_NUM, R\_PLR\_TYP.

Does anyone have any idea what these columns mean? I see that these are short for Rating Supplement Number and Rating Player Type, but am unsure of why this is there.

Here's a screenshot of what the data looks like.

Here is all of the possible values in both of the columns.

For RSUPP\_NUM:

For R\_PLR\_TYPE:

Does "E" mean experienced, and "P" mean provisional?

Does the 1-12 value mean it correspond to months? Does it mean the rating a person has corresponding to that month's value?

# Answer
> 3 votes
As can be verified by looking at player information on http://uschess.org, RSUPP\_YR and RSUPP\_NUM are the year and month of the latest supplement with a rating for that player (which is in the R\_LPB\_RAT columns). If you looked up a sample player who has a P in R\_PLR\_TYP, it wouldn't be hard to confirm whether that means that the rating is provisional.

---
Tags: analysis, database, uscf
---


# Question
Title: No writing down moves in advance of making, or in advance of completing
Per FIDE rules, I must not write down moves "in advance". Does this mean: **in advance of making, or in advance of completing?**

Today I have seen a strange ruling as a spectator. A young player made a move, wrote it down and pressed the clock. The other player called an arbiter and objected to the order of actions. The arbiter seemed to be agreeing with the complaint, stating that the mandatory order is making the move, pressing the clock, and only then writing it down. (It wasn't obvious whether this was meant as advisory or warning.) This was in Europe.

I prefer answers based on non-US experience if available, because the USCF used to be more lenient toward writing down 1 move even immediately before making it, and that is hopefully irrelevant to my question.

# Answer
Once a move has been made (hand has left the piece) the move cannot be changed unless it is an illegal move.

The rule against writing the move down in advance is in relation to "taking notes". If this were allowed you could write down what you thought was the best move and then stop and think for another 10 minutes considering other possibilities. If you reject the other possibilities you don't have to worry about forgetting your original choice because you wrote it down. If half way through you see a better move than your original you can erase the original move and write the new move and continue thinking. It is this behaviour that the rule is aimed at stopping.

In the case you saw the question does not arise because having made the move the player can't change the move. Writing the move down now whether it is before or after pressing the clock is not taking notes and is not against the rule. If the arbiter really thought his behaviour was against the rule and gave a warning then he was wrong.

I am a FIDE arbiter for an Asian country, currently living in Europe.
> 16 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: If on my turn I adjust a piece on its square without saying "J'adoube" or equivalent do I have to move it?
Suppose I nudge a piece back on to the center of its square using a light tap with the back of my little finger. Will this constitute touching the piece within the meaning of the FIDE touch-move rule?

# Answer
Article 4.3 of the FIDE rules states:

> Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, **with the intention of moving or capturing**:

So, if it is clear that my intention is merely to adjust the position of one of the pieces then touch-move does not apply. Of course it must be done on my turn otherwise I am liable to be penalized for disturbing the opponent.

EDIT (2018): The latest 2018 edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess contradict this -

> 4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
> 4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

So, if I clumsily brush a piece with my army or knock one or more pieces over this does not count as intention. However if I adjust a piece without saying "j'adoube" or the equivalent then I must move the piece.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Small kids playing with tournament sized sets on school sized tables topple their kings all the time, because they can hardly reach the middle of the board without touching the tops of the nearest pieces by their elbows. When repositioning the fallen pieces they do so silently because the situation and their intention is already clear enough. A silent correction minimizes the disruption to the opponent.

You should say *J'adoube* when it's not entirely clear whether the piece has to be repositioned, because being explicit about not making a move minimizes the disruption to the opponent.

Minimizing disruption is not only sportsmanlike behavior, but also a good habit to adopt to prevent disputes.

(With the post-2018 rules, I wouldn't risk skipping on saying *J'adoube*, not even with my king lying on the floor. But I would also not claim opponent's intent if I'm sure there was none. Have fun.)
> 5 votes

# Answer
As far as I know - yes. If you do not say *J'adoube* or *adjusting* before you touch the piece, you have to move it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: In the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann, what is the most positional, strategic, quiet, slow, closed, boring, dry and solid variation for Black?
I am not sure what to play as Black in the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann, after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3

```
  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3

```

What I would like is the most positional, strategic, quiet, slow, closed, boring, dry and solid variation (the variation which is the least sharp and tactical).
And I would like to castle on the same side as White.

So what exactly should I play? And what are the differences between starting first with 10...e6 or 10...Qc7 or 10...Ngf6 ?

# Answer
> 9 votes
You are the author of a series of questions of the type "What is the most boring way to play" and whereas I am fond of positional play as well, I must say that the way the question is formulated is completely wrong. I played the Caro-Kann for years and there is simply no way to avoid an heated battle in some variations, unless you are ready to make a lot of concessions and compromise your game by getting a very passive and unpromising position. To excel at chess, you must master various types of positions. Avoiding these will stop your progress. You cannot beat regularly stronger players by using positional means only - they will master these positions as well as you do, but are also able to play dynamically. Look at Petrosian's games, he was able to attack fiercely.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you are not sure what to play in this position, you had probably better not play a variation leading to it. However, if you happen to reach it, the first thing to decide is which way you would prefer to castle. If you strive for the Queenside (e.g. you believe that Black's `O-O` gives White an attack you cannot parry), an immediate `Qc7` is to be considered. Otherwise just develop your pieces; `e6` is most flexible IMHO, but again it is a matter of taste.

P.S. the list of adjectives you've presented is quite contradictory.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A suggestion i would give is a standard procedure for any game with knights, Look for a strong square, i.e. Nd5. Like i commented on your question, if white chooses to castle queen-side he would weaken his position to chase with c4.

You can bet on white aggresivly attacking your under developed king-side. It might be beneficial to castle queen-side because white lacks his light-squared bishop. I could look up options for you later but that might take time. Let me know if you want me too! :D

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sigh... Niels is absolutely right. You cannot lock yourself away from sharp positions.

Let's take a look just at 1. e4 c5.

You have 2. Nf3, but then Black can go into a Najdorf, Dragon, or Scheveningen.

The Closed Sicilian relies on the same thing: whether White can get a kingside attack going before Black proves central and queenside dominance.

Even after 2. c3 Black can have a little bit of fun. Both 2... d5 and 2... Nf6 create an unbalanced game.

I've used the Caro-Kann as a side weapon before, and what turned me off is that some of the the positions are too quiet, slow, and closed.

At my rating, I simply cannot push the superior pawn structure all the way to the endgame and then win the endgame with it.

But I keep playing it, precisely for that reason.

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy, positional-play, caro-kann
---


title: How to calculate initial Elo rating?

text:
# Question
Title: How to calculate initial Elo rating?
I completed my first FIDE rated tournament with 0.5/3 points against Elo rated players. This weekend I'm going to another tournament, where I'll probably meet other 2 Elo rated opponents, completing the necessary condition for the first official Elo rating calculation. Using the FIDE simulator (https://ratings.fide.com/calculator\_rp.phtml) it seems that even if I lose I'll get the initial Elo rating of 1440. Is that correct?

On the other hand my national rating will be certainly less than that so what happens at that point: the national rating will be lifted up to the FIDE rating or the other way around?

P.S. I play in Italy.

# Answer
I cannot answer your question about Italian rating, but I'm nearly sure that your national rating won't go up. They (FIDE and national) are separate rating systems and they shouldn't affect each other.

About the FIDE rating, it is regulated at http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=172&view=article `FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2014`. At article 8.2 you can check the exact formula.

```
8.2 Determining the Rating 'Ru' in a given event of a previously unrated player.
    8.21 If an unrated player scores zero in his first rated event, his score is disregarded.
    First determine the average rating of his competition 'Rc'.
    (a) In a Swiss or Team tournament: this is simply the average rating of his rated opponents.
    (b) The results of both rated and unrated players in a round-robin tournament are taken into account. For unrated players, the average rating of the competition 'Rc' is also the tournament average 'Ra' determined as follows:
        (i) Determine the average rating of the rated players 'Rar'.
        (ii) Determine p for each of the rated players against all their opponents.
        Then determine dp for each of these players.
        Then determine the average of these dp = 'dpa'.
        (iii) 'n' is the number of opponents.
        Ra = Rar - dpa x n/(n+1)
    8.22 If he scores 50%, then Ru = Ra
    8.23 If he scores more than 50%, then Ru = Ra + 20 for each half point scored over 50%
    8.24 If he scores less than 50% in a Swiss or team tournament:  Ru = Rc + dp
    8.25 If he scores less than 50% in a round-robin: Ru = Ra + dp x n/(n+1).

```

So, more or less, your initial rating will be your performance in your first tournament(s).
> 2 votes

# Answer
As you can see from the calculator you linked, the initial rating (and in fact every rating change later) depends on the Elo of your opponents. So if you already know the Elo of your opponents this weekend and you calculated the average rating of all your rated opponents correctly and for 0.5/5 the calculator returns 1440, then that's what you'll get.

The national rating is completely independent of the Elo rating.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I play in Italy too. After you gain a FIDE rating you will **always** play using it. Italian Elo will disappear. Your new Elo will be the FIDE Elo, no adjustments. When playing against Italian Elo your FIDE Elo will not change, while when playing against FIDE rated opponents, of course the Elo will change.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


title: Program to solve positions

text:
# Question
Title: Program to solve positions
Are there any programs out there that take a completely won position and compute the minimum checkmate depth (say if it is around 50 moves)?

# Answer
You need to use *mate search* function of a chess engine.

Some engines have this function, for example, Houdini 4: http://www.cruxis.com/chess/manual/index.html?game\_play.htm

You can activate it using UCI parameters, or more easily, using a Fritz GUI on Windows as it has a mate search button, which makes life easier.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Look up Endgame Tablebases for this kind of thing. These are programs that have SOLVED all chess positions of 7 or less pieces.

Regular chess engines will give you definite evals and mates, but cant calculate 50 moves deep.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: It is possible to mate enemy king if this would put your king in check?
When thinking about if you can do some move, you look if your king will be attacked. This would lead to a recursion, but actually dont, since you it doenst matter if this enemy piece would be able to check/mate your king or if it would not be allowed to do the move because of check and mate rules.

The question is, its possible to on my turn put the enemy king into mate if this will put my king into check

# Answer
No. Putting your king in check is not a legal move.

From this World Chess Federation handbook, section 3.9:

> The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

Note that last sentence: no piece - which includes the king - can be moved that will expose your king to check.
> 4 votes

# Answer
No. You can't give check, nor mate, if your King is then under check. It's an illegal move.
> 1 votes

# Answer
No.

You can think about "white mating black" as a position that would inescapably capture black's king on the next move, therefore black has to surrender.

If white is putting their king into check in order to mate black, that means white will lose its king *before* it can capture black's king, so white would lose and that's why it's illegal.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, beginner
---


title: How to become a rated player?

text:
# Question
Title: How to become a rated player?
Can someone explain to me what are the procedures involvd in getting a chess rating? If different countries have different procedures then how one can get an international chess rating in India?

# Answer
> 3 votes
You need to play against players who already have a FIDE rating in competitions which are themselves FIDE rated. The numbers keep changing but I think you need at least one draw out of 5 games against FIDE rated opposition. This doesn't have to be achieved in one competition but there is a time limit before your games expire, something like 2 years, but I don't know exactly.

I should add that FIDE have standard, rapid and blitz ratings and these don't mix. So, if you play 3 FIDE rated opponents in a standard time control competition and 2 in rapid or blitz that does not count as 5.

EDIT: I've checked out what the FIDE site says:

> 6.1 If an unrated player scores zero in his first tournament, his score and that of his opponents against him are disregarded. Otherwise, if an unrated player has played rated games, then this result is included in computing his overall rating.
>
> 6.31 For an unrated player’s first performance to count, he must score at least 1/2 point.
>
> 7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
>
> 7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.2 \[round robin with min 4 rated players\], a minimum of 5 games.
>
> 7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.3 \[swiss\], a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
>
> 7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods totalling not more than 26 months, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.

7.14d The rating is at least 1000.

7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

---
Tags: rating, fide
---