# Question
Title: Should a player be forced to move a piece that he has picked up after a spectator knocked it off the board?
While anyone can answer this, I do have official FIDE arbiters in mind.

I am following a discussion on chess.com about the worst way you have lost a game. Someone related this story:

> This didn't happen to me, but it's the worst way to lose a chess game that I ever witnessed:
>
> I was playing in a tournament in Saint John, NB. It was raining outside, and there were a few spectators circulating around the playing hall... very likely, they just came in to get out of the rain.
>
> A player (let's call him "White pieces") at the table next to mine had just played his King from g1 to h1, to get out of an awkward pin on the c5-g1 diagonal. His opponent made his reply, and it was White's move again.
>
> A spectator wearing a heavy raincoat turned away from the game, and the corner of his coat clipped the White King (sitting on h1) and knocked it off the table. White pieces reached down to pick the King up and set it back on the board.
>
> His opponent said "Touch move".
>
> The tournament director upheld his claim. White pieces was forced to move his King, and the only available square was right back to g1... back into the pin on the diagonal.
>
> White lost the game a few moves later; as much because the "touch move" incident had left him completely demoralized as because of the two wasted moves K(from g1)-h1 and then back to g1.

I replied that I could not believe any reasonable TD/Arbiter would enforce that, but someone replied that that is what the rule says. I believe that intent to move it matters, so I am still skeptical. What would the rules say that apply and how would you rule?

As a note, another similar post regarded someone accidentally knocking over his king, and the opponent saying that it amounted to resignation.

I also would not mind a USCF interpretation if anyone has one.

Thank you.

# Answer
> 34 votes
I am not an arbiter, but here's what the rules say:

Rule 4.3 (emphasis added)

> if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, **with the intention of moving or capturing**

I think it should be clear to any reasonable person that picking up a piece that was knocked down by a spectator does not imply intent to move.

Perhaps the arbiter went with an overly narrow interpretation of "accident", though, from 4.2.2:

> Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

I would still argue that picking up a piece that was knocked down is an accident according to the spirit of the rules. Obviously the piece *must* be "adjusted" since it's not just a matter of centering it a little bit on its square, but of picking it up from the floor. Therefore the intent to "adjust" is implied.

The USCF rules are similar in that they refer to intent to move, but additionally, there is a rule that might have helped in this case: 10H says "there is no penalty for touching a piece that is off the board". The main idea given the rest of the paragraph concerns promotion, but I think it would also apply here. (And I just noticed that the FIDE wording on the rule also says "on the chessboard". I don't know how I missed that the first time!)

# Answer
> 15 votes
When did this happen? Because there is no reasonable interpretation of the current rules by which a TD should have upheld the touch-move claim.

I went back and looked at the 3rd Edition rulebook, and it doesn't say that a piece has to be "on the chessboard" to count for touch-move. So in 1987, a TD who was being a "strict constructionist" about the rules might have upheld a touch-move claim in this situation, though I do not think it would have been reasonable to do so. Even then, it was understood that the rule book can't cover all possible situations, and the TD had leeway to make reasonable interpretations of the rules. I definitely would not have upheld a touch-move claim in this situation.

If this was recent, the TD's ruling was clearly incorrect, and the player should have appealed the ruling. Even in 1987, they probably should have appealed.

\[EDIT: I'm not a FIDE Arbiter, but I am a USCF TD, so my response is from a USCF-centric viewpoint and refers to the USCF rulebook...\]

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am not an arbiter, but I find existing answers lacking in detail.

This particular rule became stricter on July 1, 2017. Until then, the relevant rules read:

> 4.2
> Provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”), only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.
>
> 4.3
> Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: \[...\]

In those times, player's intention was theoretically the sole basis of making the arbiter's decision about a touch-move claim. The rule even guaranteed the right to adjusting the pieces, conditioned on expressing the intention to adjust the pieces somehow prior to touching them. That didn't mean that a player's claim about their intention would have been automatically accepted by the arbiter; the player would have to explain how they expressed their intention, and even if they actually said "j'adoube", there could have been a dispute over whether this was said *first*, i.e., before actually touching the piece or right after.

In case of a piece lying on the floor, under those rules, the intention to adjust would be considered unambiguously expressed by diving under the table and picking the piece up there; note also that the rule doesn't extend to pieces lying off the chessboard.

Arbiters tended to enforce touch-move, but some players got away with high profile situations widely believed to be violations of touch-move because it is difficult to rule about "intention" with certainty.

On July 1, 2017, the following stricter wording was adopted.

> 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."
>
> 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:
>
> 4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
>
> \[...\]

It may appear to us laymen that little changed. However, this *update* of rules was commonly understood by arbiters at that time as a directive to decide any gray cases toward assuming intention to move on the part of the player who has touched a movable piece on the chessboard. If the prior rules generated some false negatives (getting away with very fast violations of touch-move), then the new rules might be expected to generate some false positives (punishing someone for failing to say the equivalent of "j'adoube" in a situation where they should ideally have been trained to say it automatically). I believe that extremely strict enforcement is more likely to happen in top tournaments and less likely in fun events or young players' tournaments, but in the end it is still up to the arbiter who doesn't always have a video recording of the situation available.

From my perspective, this particular question most likely does not concern a case of *touching* a piece on the chessboard. Most likely, the piece was just *held* while it was being repositioned; it might also have been dropped from a height to the chessboard, or dropped and then touched again, or held, let loose and then touched again. So the touch-move rule might or might have be available for consideration, and the arbiter may not have seen the exact minute movements of the hand which could have made the dispute just another gray area case in their mind, so perhaps they automatically went with assuming the intention to move as dictated by rule 4.2.2.

BTW, it would be a mistake to claim "clearly accidental contact" if challenged like this. That phrase is never referring to any accidental contact between pieces and spectators; "clearly accidental contact" refers to cases like the *player* toppling down one piece by their elbow while clearly reaching for another one with their hand. Claims of "intention to adjust" and "clearly accidental contact" are logically incompatible with each other.

An active player playing by the new rules should ideally say "j'adoube" or the equivalent between picking up the piece from the floor and repositioning it onto the chessboard. This should become an automatic instinct these days, a more important one (rating wise) than being able to mate with a bishop and a knight under time pressure. Another important instinct is staying calm and factual and trying to claim one's own transparency of intention in case of any dispute about the intention. Of course, it would be poor sportsmanship on the part of the opponent to claim lack of expression of intention to adjust if there was no doubt whatsoever about the intention to adjust itself; and an arbiter still has some freedom about what to consider "expression of intention to adjust" in a given situation. They will normally have to rely on claims and counterclaims as to the facts of the case as made by the players themselves.

---
Tags: rules, fide, pieces, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Anand - Gelfand 12th game in World Chess championship 2012
I have been following 12th game in World Chess championship 2012, and I just could not understand why a draw was offered.

Is it that they can see 10 or more moves ahead and think of the ending or is it that they want to play it safe and fight another day?

# Answer
There are two levels at which this can be answered, I suppose: what were the personal motivations for offering/agreeing a draw, and what were the objective features of the position that grounded the decision? I think you're asking mostly after the second, but I've read many comments lately voicing frustration with agreed draws in this match, so I hope you don't mind me giving an answer that speaks to the first level as well.

First off, the position after 21 moves was as follows:

```
[fen "r2r4/4bkpp/5p2/p1Bbp3/7P/1P1P1N2/P4PP1/R1R3K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxe7 1/2-1/2

```

Here Anand played `22. Bxe7` and offered a draw, despite being a pawn up in material and having a significant time advantage (with still 18 moves left to the time control after what would have been Gelfand's obligatory recapture `22... Kxe7`).

In the post-game press conference, Anand was asked if he considered trying to play on his time advantage at the end, using it to hopefully induce errors on Gelfand's part. His reply:

> "After `Bxe7 Kxe7`, black's play is very easy. I didn't see any point in dragging it on from there."

In reply to a later question, Anand elaborated further on this and other agreed draws from the match:

> "We only draw when it's obvious, at least to us, that the game is going nowhere."

One journalist spoke up for the amateur spectators, in the spirit of your question, asking why the contestants couldn't play out some more moves for the benefit of those who don't see why this position is a draw. Gelfand fielded that question, answering:

> "First and foremost, here, we are competing in the match for the crown. We are not here purely to entertain spectators. Second thing, there are about a dozen professional, highly-qualified commentators, and with a little bit of effort they could explain to the thousands of spectators elsewhere the nuances of the game."

I think this is a fair point; his and Anand's job right now is to make chess decisions based on personal competitive interests, and not to explain the games either verbally afterward or by playing on in a position each recognizes as clearly equal, and offering no realistic prospects of an advantage for his side.

Which brings me to the second level of your question. I am not a highly-qualified professional, of course, but I think the concrete factors leading to Anand's draw offer are that, though he is a pawn up, it is a weak isolated pawn on d3, one which is hard to make use of, or to be rid of by advancing to d4. And his 2-to-1 pawn majority on the queenside is very immobile, with Gelfand's bishop and rooks having plenty of space and open lines to operate with and restrict Anand's pawns. Furthermore, Gelfand has not a single structural weakness in his position. In a nutshell, this is why Anand's extra pawn doesn't mean very much, and why Gelfand's play is easy enough in this position that Anand didn't consider the time factor to be terribly important.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Both players played a solid game and were unable to gain an advantage. Trying to force an advantage where there is none to be found is asking for a loss at that level of play.
> 2 votes

# Answer
This is a very old question, but the reason is that this is an easy draw at that level, despite the pawn minus for black. The main reason is that black is quite active, and has a monster B on d5. The eventual pa4 move by black will most likely lead to the liquidation of the queen-side, or the Ra1 will need to remain passive to defend a pawn.

In addition, the Pd3 and Ph4 are very weak, as is g2 should the N move, and white wishes to bring his king to the center. Lastly, black may even consider Bxf3 leaving white with so many weak pawns, that one is sure to drop, and that would actually leave white fighting for the draw. Lastly, even black's king is better placed for the endgame.

in other words, there is plenty of compensation for the missing pawn, and both preferred to go to tiebreaks.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, anand, gelfand
---


# Question
Title: Dr. John Nunn vs Irving Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move"
I have the book "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernev and personally I find it to be a great book especially for beginners, but I heard that GM John Nunn has really criticized the book. This makes me read the book with caution and slight paranoia. Does Nunn have valid points?

Here is a link from one of Dan Heisman's Novice Nook articles discussing Nunn's criticisms of Chernev's book.

# Answer
It seems that Nunn (who is undoubtedly a stronger player than Chernev was) is correct in his criticisms of certain instances of analysis in Chernev's book, and also correct in pointing out that Chernev is sometimes too quick to dogmatically conclude an overarching general principle that doesn't properly allow for exceptions. But I don't believe this should cause you to read Chernev's book with caution (at least no more caution or skepticism than one should have when reading *anything*), and certainly not with paranoia.

The criticisms Nunn directs Chernev's way in *Grandmaster Chess Move by Move* are worthwhile things to hear **for a player who is at an appropriate level to be reading Nunn's book**, but the intended audience for that book is quite a bit more advanced than is Chernev's. The fact that Chernev makes certain oversimplifications (and yes, out-and-out mistakes in some places) is a good thing to be discovered at some point in a player's chess development, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Chernev's book, warts and all, cannot be (very!) useful to a beginner. \[Consider: an absolute beginner reading Nunn's criticisms of Chernev that you cited wouldn't be able to appreciate the points being made at all: they would sail right over his or her head.\]

The saying "One has to know the rules to break them" is applicable here. If you were to try and take every word in Chernev's book as gospel for the rest of your chess career, you would indeed be leading yourself astray. The same would be true if you tried to dogmatically follow, say, "knights should be developed before bishops" or similar overly general advice which is routinely thrown at novices. That doesn't mean that that kind of advice doesn't serve a useful purpose by giving newcomers to the game some first, rough guidelines to start learning from. I think the same can be said for Chernev's work; after all, it's not for nothing that this instructional book from 1957 is still topical today.
> 32 votes

# Answer
Chernev is one of the best chess writers out there. I started learning chess very late in life in my 30's. If am even still trying to learn and play this game, it is because of Chernev's writings. I own about 200 chess books. Some of the grandmaster writings soon become esoteric for a beginner trying to get enough of the basics to continue developing and learning. Anyone who has read Chernev's work can't fail to see the joyful enthusiasm with which he brings out his ideas. While they may not be for all those who end up being grandmasters like Nunn, I think they are worthwhile to thousands like me who have continued learning this game because of their influence. Besides, I will not take Nunn's ideas at face value because he has a similar book published and I have never heard a competitor review the competitive product amicably. His ideas may be right but I think they should be delivered with respect for a man who is a very great writer and teacher of chess.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Chill out about Chernev? Not at all. Dad beat me every game we played from 6 years old to the ninth grade. I read Chernev, discovered the queenside openings - he never beat me again. When I ended up on the Czech border with the Cav in the early 70's, the king's pawn was the universal opening. When I left 2 years later, Queen's pawn was all anybody played. Blame it on Chernev, Dad, and I was no slouch. But I've read games between grandmasters like Fischer - I had no idea what was going on. And I had no desire to spend thousands of hours learning to play at that level. Chess can be a pleasant diversion, a powerful device for education, or an impressive display of mental ability. I have bought copies of Chernev's book for friends and family, but I'm certain Nunn is correct. Learn arithmetic before you tackle algebra.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I learned how to play chess by reading Chernev's books; some of his books were meant for beginner-casual players anyway. I think people like Nunn take things too seriously at times, he should chill out! Chernev's books have great instruction, and are very easy to read, while Nunn's books can be too difficult for the average player.
> 4 votes

# Answer
At the time Chernev wrote his book there was no powerful chess engines and computer analysis, unlike Nunn which likely uses a lot of these tools to support the accuracy of his analysis. It's generally easy now to find mistakes in old books, but they still have valuable lessons and insights.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I went from being a 1400 player to 2100 using Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev! Great book, it is simply not in the same league as Nunn's book, it's like comparing the books "Old Yeller" and "A tale of Two Cities" The prose of the first is considered inferior to that in the latter, but few who have read both books would disagree that they both have something to offer the reader. You would benefit from reading them both, simply start with Chernev then finish with Nunn in that way any corrections that are required to the way you reason about chess theory can be correct by the modern theory in Nunn's book. Why not just read Nunn, because Chernev is a good read and easy to understand and implement it's a good place to start as either a chess student, or as a primer used by a chess teacher.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I cannot find Nunn's criticism, but if it were about calculation errors, then fine; but I suspect it was not.

I think that Nunn has been a GM so long, and was probably weak enough to enjoy that book for about one day when he was 6 years old he went by that level so quickly, that he could not appreciate it.

I think it was a great book. Sure, it is light and fluffy, but it was not meant for anyone at the serious-student level yet. It is a nice first introduction into positional play: WHY we play certain moves. I feel that any harsh criticism of this classic work in unwarranted based on what it is trying to accomplish.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My experience with Chernev's “Logical Chess Move by Move” was kind of mixed. It is good but before starting it one would really benefit from knowing the style it is written in.

Initiated to chess in early childhood I have been playing it now and then for 20 years but remained somewhere between beginner and intermediate level. So, I found this book to finally start playing normally.

As for the content, the book is indeed well-detailed and very analytical. Chernev follows every move with **super clear descriptions** and in general it is simply a pleasant read because of its succinct and sometimes passionate language. This nice part accounts for two thirds of the book.

The rest of the book, however, is made of author's enumerations of all forced moved possible in those games. These are places where **Chernev** just **re-writes** in advance 7-10 or more hypothetical forced **moves without giving context** or something else for your brain to catch onto. Often for one real move there are multiple these 'think far in advance' things. At moments, it really blows your mind and honestly may become boring.

So, this smaller part of the book is clearly not for beginners and, in my opinion, at all is not well done. I spent half of reading time on it and did not get much use from it.

Conclusion: Beginners could easily use this great book but would better drop the parts with forced moves
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, books
---


# Question
Title: Did Bobby Fischer actually write "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess"?
Did Bobby Fischer actually write his bestseller primer “Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess” (1966, 978-0553130539), or was it written by a ghost writer?

I often ask myself this question because it seems very unlikely (to me, at least) that Bobby could keep interest in writing a book in which half of the book is about one or two-move mates, in other words, very simple tactics, and the other half doesn't go much deeper than that.

# Answer
Basically, no.

It was co-authored by Stuart Margulies and Don Mosenfelder, and while Fischer may have contributed a little, it is generally accepted that he just lent his name to the project.

Soltis, Andrew (2003). Bobby Fischer Rediscovered. B.T. Batsford Ltd. p. 10. ISBN 0-7134-8846-8.
> 30 votes

# Answer
There isn't any way to give a definitive answer but I do believe he contributed to it. The thoroughness that covers such a basic concept lets you know that the author is very strong player. If you were that thorough in every aspect of your game you would probably be challenging for the world championship. That, in and of itself, is a lesson.

People say the book is simple but I guarantee most sub 2000 players will miss those tactics in 99% of their games.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes and no. I knew Fischer. I doubt that he was cabable of writing a book like that. What likely happened is that Two good , not great, players, who could write well, worked with Bobby and his ideas to create the book.

Now the real question is why. Was it because Bobby was hurting for money? Or did some friends impose on him to use his name to help them make some money? Otherwise I see no reason for it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: books, beginner, fischer
---


# Question
Title: What is the advantage in knowing the fastest winning sequence if I can win with few more moves than fastest sequence?
I am studying from Lazlo Polgar's "Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games", there are positions with heavy material imbalance for example like a lone King against Queen, 2 Knights and King under the category to find mate in 2 or 3 moves.

Some of them are not easy for me even after few minutes to find mate with the given 2 or 3 moves but I can easily do in 4 or 5 moves.

In cases like this with large material imbalance why should I spend my energy and time in finding the fastest sequence if I can do the same with slightly more number of moves? What do I gain by knowing the fastest sequence?

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no advantage if your goal is to improve your OTB rating. The time wasted solving a problem in fewer moves would be better spent learning things that you could use in your games.

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, study
---


# Question
Title: File format/interface for home-brew engines (and implementation in lichess)
I'm a hobbyist chess programmer. I've built a few engines from scratch, had lots of fun, and am generally pretty proud of what I've made (I estimate ~1400-1500 though it's hard to tell).

I was very excited when I found out you can make a bot account on lichess. After a few hours of messing around, I successfully played a game against Stockfish running on my computer through the lichess interface, so I think I (sort of) know how to connect an engine to my bot account.

However, for all the engines I've made in the past, I have made my own board representation and move in/output. Obviously I'll need to make some modifications to them in order to connect them to lichess. When connecting Stockfish to my account, I used the Stockfish .exe file you can download online. The lichess interface accepted it, so I'm guessing there's some semi-standard way to make interface with engines. I would like to make one of these interfaces.

Questions: am I correct that there is a standard way to interface with an engine? If so, how would you go about making one? Are there any good guides to doing so?

Or perhaps more generally: how would you adapt a "from scratch" engine to play on lichess?

---

I'm almost entirely self taught programming wise, and am very conscious of the gaping holes in my understanding of computers/programming. Pointing me to any resources would be very helpful.

# Answer
There are plenty resources available. First of all, you may be interested in the Universal Chess Interface protocol. This is a text protocol that many engines use. A compiled list is available here.

The protocol specification is available for download here (last link on the page). There is also a python implementation of the protocol.

Last but not least, there exists a lichess API implementation in Python, so you could talk to lichess directly.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The standard way to connect a chess engine to anything is the UCI - the universal chess interface.

It specifies how the output (and input) of an engine should be structured to be understood by an UI or any other interface.
> 4 votes

# Answer
https://lichess.org/team/lichess-bots has the documentation you are looking for. If you just want the gui you can embed it like in the project used by http://lichess.bitplan.com. If you want to do moves it depends on the programming language you are using. For python e.g. there are ready to use libraries:

As a committer of Play Chess With a WebCam i'll also point you to the implementation within this project see: lichess.py and the tests for it test\_lichess.py
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Can a player be forced to adjust a piece?
If one of my pieces is knocked off the board unintentionally, do I need to place it back on the board?

Can I continue to play with one or more pieces not on the board (but still have it in effect - for example a rook that was on `A1` but has been knocked off the board still "watches" the vertical and horizontal)?

Can I place it back on the board only when I intend to move it?

# Answer
When FIDE tournament rules apply: If you displace one or more pieces – knocking off the board, intentionally or unintentionally, is a displacement – you have to re-establish the correct position on your own time (Art. 7.4.1). While it is not specifically mentioned, I would say that you have to do this at once; if you wait, that could be regarded as an attempt to "distract or annoy the opponent" (Art. 11.5).

In a regular game, if you proceed while the incorrect position is on the board, any move will be regarded as irregular, the correct position before the knocking off will be reinstated, the game will continue from that position, the arbiter will set the clock and give penalties. In rapid and blitz games, after the opponent made a move, the game will continue without the "vanished" piece.

USCF might have additional rules.
> 18 votes

# Answer
According to the Laws of Chess:

> 7.4.1 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time.

Of course, in this situation, it is not the *player* who displaced one or more pieces. I believe that another rule would therefore be in effect:

> 7.6 If, during a game it is found that any piece has been displaced from its correct square, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

Note the use of passive voice. If 7.4.1 doesn't apply, then it doesn't matter how it got displaced and it doesn't matter how it gets put back, but the position shall be reinstated, and the game shall continue from the reinstated position. This implies that you can't move until it is reinstated (otherwise you wouldn't be continuing from that position.)

And, of course, you're allowed to stop the clock and call the arbiter if such a thing happens.

> 7.4.2 If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance.
> 17 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, pieces, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Would you look for mate, if tactics to win materials are easier to spot?
I'm black, I defeated a 1830 very easily in a 11 + 10 game and I had plenty of time, but I played fast and didn't see mate, he was low on time. Analyzing with lichess engine

```
[fen "2k2r2/ppp5/7p/3Pp1p1/3n4/2PPK1B1/Pq4PP/R3R3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nc2 (1...Rf4!)

```

The engine suggested Rf4 and mate in 3, I played Nc2. And here

```
[fen "2k2r2/ppp5/7p/3Pp1p1/4K3/2PP2B1/Pqn3PP/R3R3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxa1 (1...Qb6!)

```

I missed Qb6, mate in 4 and played Nxa1. Again I had plenty of time on the clock, around 10 minutes, the opponent was so easy to beat, but that's not the point, the point is I missed mate twice, I just wasn't looking for it.

Now that I look at it, I think I would never play Rf4, Yes the king is trapped but there's so much material on the board to take, I don't think I would have analyzed the Rf4 line, not in this life, nor the next one.

When faced with such winning positions, in a blitz match, do you go for materials or do you stop and analyze possible mating lines? I just want to know if I'm being a humain or am I not seeing those lines because I'm weak or careless.

if I'm in losing position or equal position, I analyze many lines trying to win, but games like these I try to simplify and reach a simple endgame.

# Answer
> 7 votes
It makes no difference whether you deliver mate in 3, mate in 33 or your opponent resigns. On the score sheet and the tournament results you get the same score: 1-0. If you see a clear win then play it. Don't waste time looking for a "better" win. There is no such thing unless you are in a hurry to catch the last bus home.

Fixating about what the computer says in such positions is just silly. This is not just my opinion it is also shared by top players. I am currently reading Boris Gelfand's "Positional Decision Making in Chess" and he expresses this view in the book in positions where he is pursuing a positional winning plan and the computer analysis points out a quicker tactical win.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In a fast time control I look to win. Mate is one way to win, but if it uses up time then I would take the easier faster way to win.

OTB I would spend some time looking for a mate but would not obsess about it if there were an obvious sure winning line.

Better to spend time training tactics and mates and combinations off the clock so next time mate will be easier to spot.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> “When you see a good move, look for a better one”.
> **Emanuel Lasker.**

Of course blitz is different, but you were playing with a 10 second increment and with no time hurries. Any excuse why you didn't take some time to calculate the checkmates.

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Can a player be forced to neatly center their pieces on the board?
Following up on a question regarding piece adjustment after an accident, I was wondering if there is **a rule which forces someone to neatly place their pieces on the board**?

I am asking in the context of a psychological (nasty) war: if you place your pieces away from the center of the square (but still obviously within the square), the general mess can be unsettling to someone (it would certainly be for me) and give you unfair advantage.

# Answer
> 4 votes
OK, welcome to chess.stackexchange. First off with such FIDE questions need to bear in mind their "golden rule":

> The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

We also have:

> 7.4.1 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time.
>
> 7.4.3 The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

So the words "displaces" and "correct" are not defined, but they are kind of obvious for an arbiter to interpret, and the arbiter also has access to:

> 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
>
> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

Bearing all this in mind, I think the player who tries this trick on is heading for a quick penalty. Hope this helps.

# Answer
> 5 votes
No. That is subjective and personal. You may adjust anything during your move. You cannot make the other player adjust them to your liking.

It would be interesting to see an adjustment battle going on when each player took his clock time to RE-adjust all the pieces to their liking every move. Might not work too well at speed chess:)

I wonder if an arbiter could find another rule about doing something to annoy their opponent if it did happen. And which one would be punished. I hope both of them for being twits.

---
Tags: rules, psychology, pieces
---


# Question
Title: OSX implementation of WinBoard / XBoard?
Is there a Mac OSX implementation (or equivalent) of WinBoard / XBoard?

# Answer
Jin seems like a good option.

Works well on OSX 10.8, and compatible with other platforms as well.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You can technically still use XBoard, but you will need to install X11 from MacPorts, since IIRC Apple no longer ships it.

Julien Marcel has a collection of well-compiled OS X chess engines (which do *not* require emulation).

As for not having a ChessBase client, HIARCS Chess Explorer does fine.

(FWIW, there *is* a port of XBoard to Cocoa - currently named OSXBoard - but it seems to have stalled.)
> 6 votes

# Answer
Jin is the best, also on older macs there was another client "Fixation". I would recommend using a virtualization application such as VMWare Fusion or VirtualBox with a Windows guest to run your preferred Windows chess software - as macs also suffer from not having a satisfactory ChessBase client to review games. Performance is not an issue as chess apps do not need be too powerful for these things.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There is now a native quartz xboard.app through GTK2. http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=52964
> 1 votes

# Answer
xboard can be installed via macports

```
sudo port install xboard

```

if you run into trouble with your fonts see XBoard page on wiki.bitplan.com
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Is it OK to adjust your opponent's pieces, and what if he objects?
With all the questions lately about pieces being knocked off the board, being forced to adjust a fallen piece, etc., it made me think of this common scenario.

Players often adjust more than their own pieces if one is particularly off-center. Is it OK per the rules to adjust your opponent's pieces, and what if he objects?

Can you do it anyway, and then when it is his move, he can readjust them to be off-center?

In practice, I doubt many people would have a real problem unless one player is constantly doing this, but it made me wonder.

# Answer
> Is it OK per the rules to adjust your opponent's pieces?

**YES**

The rules are clear:

> 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.

When it is your turn, you may adjust the pieces. There is no distinction between your pieces and your opponent's pieces.

The next article makes it clear by implication that both your and your opponent's pieces are covered by this:

> 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:
>
> 4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
>
> 4.3.2 one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
>
> 4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

If you touch one of your opponent's pieces without saying "I adjust", or the equivalent in your language, then you must capture it. By implication, if you did say "I adjust" or "j'adoube", then you may adjust it.

> What if he objects?

Call the arbiter. Make sure you ask for extra time (2 minutes) for the disturbance your opponent caused you. A good arbiter should give you this automatically unless there were extenuating circumstances.

> When it is his move, he can readjust them to be off-center?

As long as he first says "I adjust" or "j'adoube".

Once, in a mischievous mood, when helping the arbiter set up the room before playing in a competition I deliberately positioned the knights, on all the boards I set up, either one facing forward and one backward or the left knight facing left and the right knight facing right (i.e. both knights facing away from the action). Most of the players, being at least mildly OCD, would have adjusted the pieces before the game, regardless, even if the pieces were perfectly placed :-).
> 6 votes

# Answer
You are permitted to adjust any piece when it is your move.

If one opponent was careless and never centered a piece after a move there should be no problem if you adjust it.

If the piece was reasonably placed and you did it anyway, or if you adjusted it for some quirk like wanting the horsies to face forward or sideways then the arbiter might consider that as an attempt to annoy or upset the opponent.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, pieces, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Why is the light-squared bishop considered White's best bishop?
The same question applies to Black where the dark-squared bishop is considered Black's best bishop.

This was from the book "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernev where he quotes Siegbert Tarrasch as saying the King's Bishop is the greatest attacking piece, so I guess it does pertain to mainly one player with one school of thought. I found it interesting how Tarrasch at times would not even move his King's Bishop during a whole game.

# Answer
> 13 votes
The black king, will occupy e8 and g8 (before and after castling, respectively), both of which are white squares. Also, the weakest point on the black kingside is f7, again a white square. Because of this, if you are trying to attack the king, the white bishop can often be more valuable.

Perhaps someone else can add some more deeper reasons, but this has been my experience.

**Added:** Also worth noting, attacks on h7 can often threaten mate, another white square. Furthermore, just having the bishop on the diagonal attacking f7 would pin the pawn to a castled king.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Neither bishop is inherently better than the other. Depending on your choice of opening, white's dark-squared bishop can be far more valuable to him.

# Answer
> 6 votes
White's light (king's) squared bishop stands on squares of the color occupied by the enemy king. This is true of his initial position, e8, and his likely castled positions, mostly g8, occasionally c8.

Also, the light squared bishop attacks important squares *around* the enemy king. This includes f7 and d7 for both the original and castled positions (on the king and queen side respectively) plus h7 (king's side castling), or b7 (queen's side castling).

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would say the values of the light-squared bishop vs the dark-squared bishop is negligible, but in any given opening, one is likely to end up more valuable. It may be that if you average over -all- openings, the bishop that can attack f7 and h7 would be more valuable, but such averages are next to meaningless and counterproductive if you end in on of the 'exceptions' that happens 40% of the time.

For example, when black plays the French opening one of his bishops usually ends up being quite terrible, at least for a while.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would not call it "white's better bishop", but it is considered crucial to a king-side attack in most cases. Without it, black can defend his king-side a lot more easily.

You have to consider that "Logical Chess Move by Move" is a very beginning-level book and is meant to show clear games, often between players of significantly different strengths, and many of the games are very old, from a time when king-side attacks were more commonly allowed. We simply do not think the same way today as defense is a lot better, but it is hard to get an attack on the black king without it...in general.

I only answered to post that rule of thumb about the light-squared bishop usually being crucial to an attack on the black king-side.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In the mainline King's Indian Defense, where the center locks and white and black attack on opposite wings, black's dark square bishop is very bad, and the light square bishop is nearly essential for a successful attack.

This generalization seems to be useless at best.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Which bishop will be stronger very much depends on which opening is played and the position of pawns in the center and around your king. For instance, if you play the French Defense, the light-squared bishop is generally your weakest piece, and it's often a good idea to exchange it off with something like b6, Ba6, BxBd3, etc. This is because there are black pawns on e6 and d5. On the other hand, if you're playing the Ruy Lopez, then you will have the pawns on e5 and d6. Now your light squares are open, that bishop is a fantastic piece and I'd want to avoid exchanging it. I hope that helps!

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are not such stats. Komodo did some tests, showing better relative performance when the c1(dark-square) bishop is off the board, rather than removing the f1(light-square) bishop. But the difference was rather insignificant. So it depends very much on the type of chess positions played. I am not certain about attacking(never checked that, but in many positions the dark-square bishop is definitely stronger), but what concerns general chess play, kingside fianchetto(g3 and Bg2) is almost always the best possible opening setup, in a very wide range of openings, so keeping this bishop should be good. The reason is of course such a bishop strengthens the king shelter, while at the same time x-ray-attacking a number of opponent pieces along the long diagonal(Nc6, Ra8, etc.) In comparison, a bishop fianchettoed on the queen side(Bb2) does attack opponent pieces on the long diagonal, but does not provide shelter to the friendly king, so it performs less convincingly.

# Answer
> -1 votes
The White bishop is whites best piece after the queen as it’s the active bishop, and can also fianchetto the king side. In which case can be worth up to 4.5points. Also, Fischer has elected to capture a bishop rather than a rook, such is its strength esp at defending the king. Likewise with the black side, the white bishop is often referred to as the problem bishop often getting blocked in or not being developed to a good square. A lot depends a lot of a lot of things, I'm a very open player, and I protect my white bishop, its worth more than a knight, bishops are like my children and the white one my favourite. ;-) watch some of Fischer's games, he is the main exponent of the white bishop and has even traded his queen for the opponents bishop!

---
Tags: bishops, theory
---


# Question
Title: In terms of rating points, how much stronger should a coach be than their student?
I'm considering getting a chess coach with the general goal of reaching the WIM title (2200 rating, plus norms; or get lucky in an Oceania Zonal). I'm not sure how realistic this is. However, almost everyone with a title nowadays considers themselves a chess coach, so I should be a bit selective. I have a few questions, but my first is...

**Question**: In terms of rating points, how much stronger should a coach be than their student?

My current rating is 1792 and in a recent tournament in China (after two years without tournament play) my performance was 1889, including a draw with an FM and a win against a 2247-rated player.

So I have concerns that a coach around the 2300 level might not be able to help me achieve my goal. But I could be completely wrong about this.

# Answer
> 30 votes
So, you are about 1800 and you are worried that a coach with a rating 500 points higher than you will not be able to give you the help you require?

I think you are too fixated on rating. What do you think a player rated about 2400 looks for in a coach? Do they also "need" somebody rated 500 points higher? While he was alive IM Mark Dvoretsky coached grandmasters. How was that even possible?

A coach who can help you improve by several hundred rating points is not going to do it by magically transferring his extra rating points. He will do it by teaching you how to study and work better, by directing the work that you do and to some extent by motivating you to do the work.

When you sit down at the chess board the moves that come out will reflect the work that you have done, how much, what type, not the rating of your coach. The most important factor your coach has is how good a teacher, trainer and guide he is not how strong a player. Look for these qualities first.

# Answer
> 8 votes
This is a quote from Wikipedia:

> Nielsen coached World Champion Vishy Anand from 2002 until 2012. Anand won the World Championship title in Mexico 2007, and defended it in Bonn 2008, Sofia 2010 and Moscow 2012. Nielsen has been coaching world number one, Magnus Carlsen, since 2013. Carlsen won the Candidates Tournament 2013, which gave him the right to challenge Anand for the world championship. He defeated Anand, and has since defended the title three times.

I am not sure in terms of rating points, how much stronger is Peter Heine Nielsen than Vishy Anand and Magnus Carlsen.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Unless you are looking for an idol rather than a coach, you should focus on their ability to coach rather than their ability to play competitively. Check the ratings of their pupils, not their own ratings.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I suspect you'll work need to quite hard for your goal. Rising from 1792 to 2200 is not so simple for your age (no offence).

Chess coaches in Australia like kids, only few people in the country seriously deal with people around your level and age. There is simply no profit margin for coaching an adult.

My recommendation is to get an IM+, someone who has time and dedication to look after you. www.chesschat.org is a better place for your question.

# Answer
> 3 votes
What you need to be looking for is two things:

1. Someone, who is a professional coach, and who has many lessons that he has developed over the years. This is the most important thing.
2. Someone, who has a very good understanding of your style as you see it. If you are a positional player, there is A LOT to still learn at your rating, so you would want to find a player, who is very strong positionally. It still would not hurt to take different lessons with an attacking player so you also develop that aspect of the game.

At your level, most any player above 2200 FIDE would probably do well, again, as long as they are not just dabbling in coaching. In most cases, you really are looking at FM and above.

With the advent of the Internet, there are coaches all over the world now competing for your money, and some live in places where your money goes a long way, so you can get more hours for less than ever.

One last thing, and that is that coaches can point you in the right direction, and explain things, but still, most learning is done on your own, so your progress will really depend on how much time you put in when you are home alone working on your game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've seen cases of coaches who are weaker than the players they train with and yet do an excellent work. Don't believe me? Well, who's Carlsen's coach then?

Players with 2300 rating can make great coaches for you if they are good coaches in the first place! The same for 2000-rated coaches! Below that level, I start to see the point...

# Answer
> 0 votes
The rating is not as important as their teaching ability and also their experience. Do they have a full curriculum that was developed and tested for teaching?

They should probably be only about 200 points above your rating which would make them more understandable to you than some super GM who talks way over your head and charges way too much. With computers to guide you both you do not need a highly rated coach as well as a person who can teach and coach you effectively.

If you are under 1800, even with some good results against higher players recently, getting to WIM would still be a hard thing to do. It could be done depending on your ability and willingness to work hard at achieving it. But you will have to beat those players consistently not just occasionally to gain the title.

---
Tags: coach
---


# Question
Title: A piece was knocked down during a blitz game
I was playing a blitz game which was not part of a tournament or something but there was some bets, which were not significant at all, just to add some more spice to the game. However at some point I promote a second queen and since we didn't have spare pieces I took a rook which was already out of the game, turned it upside down so it differs from a real rook and me and my opponent agreed to use it as a queen.

However when the time pressure came and due to the fact that when the rook is turned upside down it's not so stable in my attempt to play fast moves I accidentally knocked the rook down. When this happened I lift the rook and put it correctly on the board but this time instead of turning it upside down I put it as an ordinary rook. I think it worth to mention that I didn't press the clock until I thought everything was fixed. However my opponent claimed that because of the fact that I knocked down a piece and also that I put it incorrectly afterwards the game should not count (he was losing at this point) and refused to accept defeat.

From my perspective the things that I would like to know are - is there such a rule that said :

* If you knock down a piece the opponent has the right to invalidate the game
* If you put a piece incorrectly (as mentioned above the rook was used upside down, but after I knocked it down I pick it up and put it as an ordinary rook) the opponent has the right to invalidate the game
* Based on the facts that I described is there something that can justify invalidating the game?

# Answer
> 3 votes
When you placed an upside down rook on the board instead of a queen you made an illegal move. In blitz the first illegal move losses the game. You lost. What happened afterwards is irrelevant.

There are differences between blitz and standard chess (longer time control). In standard chess you are allowed one illegal move but the punishment is your opponent gets an extra 2 minutes on the clock. The second illegal move loses.

Actually the position in blitz is more complicated than I said above. If an arbiter sees your illegal move he will stop the game and forfeit you. If the arbiter doesn't see then it depends what your opponent does. If he claims the game then you lost. If he plays on then he accepts the illegal move and the game continues.

The problem is that your upside down rook is not a queen, it is an upside down rook. Every time you move it like a bishop (which the queen is allowed to do) you make an illegal move. If an arbiter sees you move an upside down rook like a bishop he will forfeit you the game. Your opponent can also claim the game for an illegal move every time you do this.

Your opponent cannot claim the game because you knocked pieces over. If you correct the position on your own time that is OK. If you already pressed the clock your opponent would be entitled to start your clock while you pick up and replace the pieces. If you continually do this the arbiter can give you a time penalty by giving your opponent an extra minute on the clock and then if you do it again after that he may forfeit you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
At blitz you need to agree to whatever rules you are playing unless it is in an official tournament with stated rules.

There is no rule until you all have established one.
So none of those 'rules' you mention are real rules unless you both agree to them after the fact.

You should have had a spare queen to put on ASAP not use a rook upside down.

Better to avoid problems than to try to fix them after they happen.

---
Tags: rules, blitz, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Why have engines not increased top rated chess players' Elo?
The arrival of strong chess engines as Stockfish, Houdini or Rybka allow top players to deeply prepare lines in openings or to study better endgames.

I would expect a rating increase of top players. However, Kasparov's top score from 1999 is still the second best rating score of all time and Karpov and Fischer are still in the top twenty historical rated players.

Source: Wikipedia

If those engines have a 3600 Elo, shouldn't top players have profited from it to leave Kasparov's 2851 score in 1999 far away?

And shouldn't more than 18 players surpass Fischer's 2785 in 1972?

# Answer
I think they certainly have increased their ELO, but more importantly, their overall chess strength. ELO is only a rating relative to others in the pool so it may tend to go up more slowly if everyone in the pool gets better, which they have collectively.

First, you need to take an average of the top players, rather than look at just two incredibly special players, Kasparov, and Carlsen, and their peak ratings. Fischer was a total anomaly for his time, and again, you cannot base a lot on one person. Humans probably have a limit mentally much the way runners will eventually hit a speed wall that they cannot break. It is the Bell Curve in action: Easy to make progress in the middle, but harder on the end.

ChessBase, and the first strong engine, KnightStalker (aka Fritz 1.0, renamed at version 2.0) came out in 1990, and the Internet was still in its infancy. In January of 1990, there were only two players over 2700, Karpov at 2730, and Kasparov at 2800. Today, there are 37 players over 2700, and of those, three are over 2800.

I have been playing for a long time, and anyone, who knows my handle, has seen me watching relays of the top tournaments on ICC for more than 20 years, and I can say that it is not just inflation from having actually watched the level of play improve over the years. Players at the Master-level, including even normal Masters, are MUCH better now due to the tools available today than the tools available when I first became a Master.

When I first started playing, all we had was books, and a local club. Today, I can logon virtually any day, and play a GM. I was also a ranked tennis player as a teenager, and I can tell you from that experience, playing better competition makes you better, so being able to logon and play stronger players than ever has increased the overall level of play. In addition, we now have ChessBase, and a database of about 8.3M games that can be sorted efficiently and studied. We also have engines, as noted in the question, and they certainly have also added to our chess knowledge, and fundamentally changed how the top players prepare. Lastly, I mentioned books, and as an avid collector (I had 1800 at my peak), I can tell you that even the quality of the material in books is on another level since when I started.

I cannot tell you what proportion of all these advances have played toward X-number of rating points increase, but I can tell you that without a doubt, they all have lead to players at the top levels, and even down some, being much better overall.
> 28 votes

# Answer
The question is apparently based on a misunderstanding of how ELO ratings work. There is **absolutely no mechanism** by which the overall increase in players' strength would lead to increase in their ELO. The actual value of the ELO rating bears no meaning; nor does the comparison of ELO at distant times. The only thing that has direct relevance is the *difference in simultaneous* rating between players.

If tomorrow FIDE decided to add a constant, say, 500 points, to every player's rating, essentially nothing would change - the outcomes of games would lead to the same increments in ratings, so the rating dynamics would be the same, just at +500 points level. And the computers will provide no basepoint - their ELO is relative to human players, so they will play at 3600 rather than 3100.

The same applies if such a constant were somehow added or subtracted gradually due to natural processes - e. g., expansion of rated players' base, players becoming inactive with higher rating than they started with, etc. And this, apparently, did happen as we witnessed rating inflation until recently.

Similarly, if all the players suddenly, or gradually, start playing stronger, *without a change of their relative strength*, there is no reason to expect a change in rating dynamics.
> 16 votes

# Answer
> If those engines have a 3600 Elo, shouldn't top players have profited from it to leave Kasparov's 2851 score in 1999 far away?

No. The main effect of engines and also the internet has been to democratise chess. The top players have always had access to top level evaluation and knowledge. For lower level players that kind of knowledge, analysis, position evaluation, endgame knowledge was very difficult to acquire.

This is important because higher level players gain rating points by beating lower level players. If those lower level players are harder to beat because of increased access to the analysis and knowledge that engines and the internet provide then it actually becomes harder to reach higher levels as measured by rating.
> 10 votes

# Answer
A few things:

1) Ratings overall tend to rise due to inflation of more players entering the pool, rather than the average playing strength of players increasing. If everyone becomes better by some factor due to engines, why would top players' ratings increase? They're now playing opponents who have also gotten stronger by roughly the same amount.

2) Kasparov, Karpov, and Fischer are anomalies of a sort (Kasparov especially), considering they are all world champions. And still, they only occupy 3/20 spots on the list - all other ratings were achieved in the modern era.

3) Engines are making people stronger, but not to a huge extent. People aren't able to extract all the strength out of an engine, we just see the moves it recommends.

In summary, engines make people somewhat stronger, but in any case this wouldn't be reflected in the ratings. The pool of players is a closed system: everyone getting stronger doesn't benefit one player/group of players in particular. The way the ratings rise (at all levels) is from more people joining the system.

EDIT: one way you would see some increase purely due to engines is in a hypothetical scenario where we played against another group of people who didn't have access to our engines.

EDIT 2: Point 1 may not be entirely correct (see the discussion in the comments).
> 4 votes

# Answer
People are not computers. They learn and memorize as much as possible but they can not do as much as a computer can nor as fast. The top players are doing everything they can but they can not do it all like the computer does.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, rating, history, elo, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Why are ratings calculated by tournament instead of by game?
When you go to a chess tournament, why is your rating calculated by your tournament performance instead of how most internet chess servers do it? Why don't they adjust the rating by game? What is the advantage.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The way that rating systems work, your most recent results have a greater influence on your rating than your earlier results. So if your rating was adjusted after each game in a tournament, then the games in later rounds would affect your final rating more than the games in the earlier rounds. Most of the time this wouldn't make much sense, as a tournament usually takes place over a fairly short period of time. It makes more sense to adjust the rating just once, after the tournament has finished, with all games counting equally.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Several reasons. First of all, it's necessary to assign some sort of rating to any unrated players in the event, so that their opponent's rating can be calculated properly. So a quick "pre-calculation" of the performance rating of the unrateds gives us an approximation we can use to calculate their effect on their opponents' ratings. That can't be done well without a tournament's worth of games. So if the chess servers aren't making modifications to everyone's rating in every previous round as well as the current one, they're doing it wrong, and are getting bad results (GIGO). And, once you start doing that, you upset the pairings that were made based on those ratings.

Also, not every tournament can spare the time to calculate ratings and re-order the entire tournament table every round. (You do realize that the rating order of players affects every round's pairing, right?) Quite often there's already a scramble between rounds to get everything ready to go for the next without doubling the work. (Yes, I've organized and run tournaments, how could you tell?)

And no tournament software exists to do that outside of the chess servers. None of the packages TDs normally used can do that. (And the chess server software isn't approved for use in an OTB tournament, AFAIK.)

The only reasonable way around those are round-robin pairings, but they are not an option for large events.

There's lots of new and interesting ways to apply technology to events, but remember, once you require a certain level of technology, you lock out everyone who doesn't have it (or doesn't have the money or inclination to get it). There's still some players who refuse to play in events with a delay clock -- "30 minutes should MEAN 30 minutes, not some unknowable/incalculable time between 30 and 40 minutes!"

I've worked with folks who could set up the last round of a 100-player swiss using index cards in mere (as in 5 or less) minutes. Forcing folks like that to buy a computer and software just to run an event would *never* fly.

And that, in the final analysis is why it's not done that way. We can have time controls with and without delay, and let the people select the events they participate in. But every player participates in the rating system, so we can't have some events rated one way while others, played under identical conditions, get rated a different way. I guarantee hard feelings will result.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think the major reason is historical - it was easier to calculate in the pre-computer era. All you need to do is, for each player, compute rating average of the opponents and look up one value from a table. Also, making a miscalculation, you only need to re-compute the rating of one player, while in the other model one mistake could affect the whole thing.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Beyond the other good reasons given, if ratings were indeed to be adjusted during the course of a tournament, it's tougher for players to estimate the impact of tie-breakers, which depend upon ratings, and to plan strategically. Tournaments might be be perceived as more of a "lottery".

---
Tags: rules, elo
---


title: How can I "see the board"?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I "see the board"?
I often get into stupid blunders, get myself into pins and threats that I don't see on time etc. How can I avoid that ?

# Answer
1. Learn chess geometries and patterns. For example, if two of your pieces stand on squares of opposite colors (or along a diagonal with one square between), then the pieces cannot be forked by a knight; and if the pieces will remain there for several turns, then they will remain mostly immune to that threat.
2. Learn more chess geometries and patterns. For example, a bishop is often an eventual threat to attack any foe that stands on its diagonal, even if, say, two pawns standing on the diagonal currently block the attack. If the bishop remains on the diagonal for several turns, then a player can *see* the potential, eventual threat, all along the diagonal.
3. Learn further chess geometries and patterns. For example, if your opponent has only one bishop, if you have chosen a square of the opposite color on which to place your rook, then the problem that the bishop might eventually capture the rook is less worrisome.
4. Observe that items 1, 2 and 3 are all *positional* in nature. An opponent of intermediate ability—say, ELO 1500—may *see* less of the board than you think; but if he or she has positioned his or her men on squares on which it is hard for you to develop threats against them, it can seem as though the player sees the board in a way you do not.
5. Know where your hanging (unguarded) pieces are—knights, bishops, rooks and queen. Pay special attention. Whenever you have an unguarded piece, the opponent might develop a tactic against it. That's okay. No chess player can guard all pieces at all times, but if you cannot hold the entire position in mind at once (I cannot, either), then you can at least hold certain features of it in mind. Hanging pieces are often an important feature.
6. Avoid wasting tempos. When you make a pointless move, this usually affords your opponent valuable time to exploit weaknesses in your position. When all your moves are purposeful, by contrast, your position might still suffer weaknesses—even weaknesses of which you are unaware—but your purposeful moves may deny the opponent the opportunity to exploit the weaknesses insofar as that your moves have forced the opponent to defend rather than attack.

Much of my answer is indirect, but you can *see* the board better when you have arranged the board such that there are fewer things on the board that are necessary for you to see. This is what positional play is about.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Practice. This may include other exercises outside chess to help your brain with visualization.

Start with simple end games like KBN vs K and do a checkmate. You will be forced to visualize the squares covered to succeed.

Solve tactical problems. You will need to see squares that pieces cover in that exercise too.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Playing the man, not the board

text:
# Question
Title: Playing the man, not the board
A recent thread used this term. Which notable GMs are known to have 'played the man'?

This is interesting because hindsight and computers are wonderful things. They should allow us to pick out "blunders" that didn't lead to losses.

Is chess a game against a person? If so, why do we look down our noses when we hear "playing the man"?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Being the one who said that, it's probably fitting I answer.

It all depends on your definition of 'playing the man and not the board.' If by that you mean ignoring your opponent's moves and the demands of the position, gambling on an unsound attack, no good player does that, certainly no Grandmaster.

OTOH, every player has preferences for typical positions, and in preparing for a game against a known opponent, most top players will 'slant' their work a little, aiming to get positions they're comfortable playing that might be uncomfortable for their opponents.

The classic case of this has got to be Kramnik's revival of the Berlin Defense against Kasparov in their world title match. Kramnik knew Kasparov well, knew he didn't like queenless middlegames with lots of maneuvering. So he added the Berlin to his arsenal for that match, and he won.

Note the subtlety, though. Kramnik didn't play bad moves; the Berlin is a perfectly playable defense that only fell out of favor because it tended to draw far more than other lines.

In my coaching I've run into too many youths who use 'playing the player, not the board' as an excuse to play "hope chess," making bad moves to generate a silly attack that in reality has no hope of succeeding against anyone with more than two synapses firing.

My advice to them has always been: "Learn how to play the board, first. Then, when you're good enough to understand what positions you're comfortable in and how to tell when someone else isn't, and only then, start to consider playing the player. Because only then will you be able to do so with any real hope of success."

# Answer
> 1 votes
Not sure who looks down their noses.

I lost to an IM who played me not the board. He had helped me improve and he said players will always avoid a discovered check. In our game I knew the drawing move was to allow the discovered check but I avoided it and lost.

It is useful in complex positions to cause stress. And if you know an opponent usually tends to do a certain type of move and you see that move would fail then playing the man may work better than making the theoretical best move in a given position.

You can not play the man all the time.

And as to kids who always attack. That is just what immature kids do. They are not playing the man at all. They are just playing that way because they dont know how to play better, yet.

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: How can a Stonewall Attack player respond to 1. ... f5?
In *Chess Psycholoyg: The Will to Win*, William Stewart recommends playing the Stonewall Attack as white. This recommendation is one of a set of openings that are very similar and are therefore suitable for player's who don't want to memorise a lot of opening theory. (The other openings are the French Defence against 1. e4, and the Schallopp Variation of the Slav Defence against 1. d4.)

For the Stonewall Attack, Stewart describes the classical structure (1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 c6 4. f4 Nbd7 5. Nbd2 e6 6. Ngf3 Bd6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Ne5 ...), how to play against 2. ... c5 (e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. e3 c5 3. c3 Nc6 4. dxc5 e5 5. b4 a5 5. Bb5), how to play against an early 2. ... Bf5 or 3. ... Bf5 (e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Bf5 3. c4 ...), and he recommends adapting to the King's Indian Defence with a Zukertort set-up (e.g. 1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. b3 d6 5. Bb2 0-0 6. Be2 Nbd7 ...).

What is missing, since the book is not intended as an opening handbook, is what to play after 1. d4 f5. Is it best to continue the normal Stonewall set-up or is it better to deviate, like in the case of the King's Indian Defence? (The best response may even be a totally different anti-Dutch approach, but that's a different question.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
The game 1/2‒1/2(40) Dietze, Sebastian (2129) – Lorenz, Mark (2250) / Regionalliga NW 0506 (7.1), Bayern 2006, gave me a hint on how to proceed:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 f5
2. f4 Nf6 3. e3 b6 4. Nf3 Bb7 5. c3 e6
6. Bd3 Be7 7. O-O O-O  8. Nbd2 d5 9. b3 Ne4

```

After ... f5 I believe its necessary to stop that pawn with 2 f4; ... Nf6 was the best continuation according with an opening report, and following the same kind of white moves e3 / c3 / Bd3 to form a wall of pawns and positon the bishop to attack on diagonal b1–h7.

Dietze played 6 Bc4 which I saw as a move different of what you have shown us, therefore I preferred Bd3 and worked out the continuation with the help of a chess engine.

I see a balanced position, similar as the positions you have shown us and with a potential advance in the queen side.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As a former Stonewall/Bird/Dutch player, I would suggest the anti-Dutch Bg5. This is annoying for black, and you solve the problem of your worst piece.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1029579

Transposing into a Colle is not good as the king side attack is blunted by the f5 pawn. The suggested method is to break with f3/e4 and saddle black with a weak e pawn.

EDIT: diagram to help with 2. Bg5

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. Bg3 f4?  5. e3

```

Black really weakens the kingside and many attacks are available. The best move is 2. ... Nf6 where you can exchange your bad bishop and ruin black's pawn structure.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Honestly, I'd put to use the study you've already done, and play the other side of the Stonewall with a move in hand. Have a look through your preparation to play the Stonewall Attack, and see what ideas from Black seem to be the soundest, seem to give you the move trouble, and play for those sorts of positions with the White pieces. If Your opponent continues with the Stonewall Dutch, then you're in territory you're already familiar with, and you have an extra move.

Always look to re-use the work you've already done as often as possible when starting out. You really don't truly understand a position well until you've played it from both sides. I went a few years playing the Pirc/King's Indian as Black and opening Nf3 as white, heading for KIA positions.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I had people play this against me but instead of 4...f4? I play Nf6 and have done well. Maybe my opponents were not that good. Or maybe white really gained nothing with his bishop foray to KN5 so early.

---
Tags: opening, dutch-defense, stonewall-attack
---


title: I can't figure out how to find tactics

text:
# Question
Title: I can't figure out how to find tactics
Why is it hard for me to find tactics?

For example, I want to take their queen, but I don't know how can I get to specific back steps, unless I play normally (it would take time).

# Answer
> 4 votes
Do you mean the the retrograde analysis as a part of problem chess? In this case, I think the main thing in retrograde analysis is to ask the right questions. What kind of pieces should arise in the past? Where should the pawns come from? Also, experience with chess itself is very helpful..

Here is simple classic.

```
[FEN "4k3/8/8/7K/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Stipulation: White and Black retract a move and then helpmate in 1 move

It is obvious White needs material to mate (what piece and where) and it is remarkable to see the black king on its initial position e8, so castling could have been possible in the last position. (experience). But where is the black rook?! It seems helpful for the kings to come nearer (experience).

All this together gives the solution. Retract these moves: 1. Kg6xRh5 Rh8xQh5, and the helpmate happens: 1...0-0 2. Qh5-h7#.

```
[Title "Retrograde Analysis"]
[FEN "4k2r/8/6K1/7Q/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... O-O Qh7

```

I hope this helps.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think this is not about Retrograde Analysis in the sense of the Sherlock Holmes style puzzle of tracing the history of the game. Instead it’s about figuring out how to reach some tactical objective which may occur in the future position.

I don’t think there is any magic answer to this. If one plays well positionally, then tactical opportunities will emerge, like flowers in a meadow. But how can one realise them? Partly I think that the questioner’s starting point is exactly right: to set goals. If one doesn’t have goals then maybe one will not see the opportunities. But got to be open to everything. Maybe winning queen is impossible but winning a minor piece is enough. One win is enough in any position.

Then seeing the path is a combination of logic and imagination. In a recent position, I was sure there was no way forward for me. But then suddenly I realised that if I used a lone knight pawn in an unfamiliar way - as a blocker for bishop escaping from the corner - then everything became possible. What a beautiful game this is!

Enjoy your games, and the process of learning

# Answer
> 0 votes
Wrong objective.

Lack of practice on good problems should trapping the queen ever be possible at all.
There is no way to just plan moves to win their queen from the beginning of the game.

Anyway your objective is to mate the king. You should figure out how to do that not try to capture their queen.

And that is rarely achievable until you have obtained advantages in material or position to allow that final assault. Going all out for mate from the gitgo will normally result in a loss against good players although it might work on beginners who cannot defend well.

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, retrograde-analysis
---


# Question
Title: Does it make sense for White to play as "Black" when he's lost the initiative?
In this game, White appears to have lost the initiative against the Nimzo Indian defense as early as the fourth move, and certainly by the eighth move.

If White's next four moves were 1) e3, 2) Nf3, 3) Bishop moves and 4) O-O, White would get a solid defensive position that is characteristic of Black's play. Under the circumstances, does it make sense for White to "play Black" in this way if he wants to minimize his chances of losing?

(In the actual game, White adopted a more aggressive policy and succumbed to Black's superior development.)

One other feature of note. White was rated about 50 points weaker than Black, even though they were both Masters (2400 vs. 2450). Would it make sense for White to "play Black" if he were 50 points weaker, and play more aggressively if he were 50 points stronger?

# Answer
This is actually quite common behaviour in the Nimzo-Indian defense. Black trades the bishop pair for either an advantageous pawn structure (e.g. in the Hübner variation) or a lead in development (like this game).

In the latter case, a successful strategy for White might be to neutralize Black's lead in development (which corresponds to your "play Black"), exchange some pieces and take advantage of his bishop pair in the late middlegame or the endgame. However, this style of play might not suit everybody.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You may have answered your own question with the phrase White "succumbed to Black's superior development."

First, one should never be concerned about "playing as white" or "playing as black." One should play according to the needs of the position; if your opponent is better developed (whether white or black) you should seek to neutralize the affect of that by keeping the position closed, and exchanging their developed pieces.

In my earlier years, I was brought up short by the question being asked by the master helping me analyse my recent loss, "*He* sacrificed. Why are *you* attacking?" Up until that point I thought that was just the way chess was played; bring out my pieces and start throwing them at my opponent's king.

You should only be on the attack if there's a reason in the position. From your description, it seems like you recognize White lacked a reason to attack, so White should have reined in his aggression until such a reason arrived at the board.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Makes no sense as stated.

Either you have the initiative and use it to improve your position or you do not have the initiative and you are responding to the other players moves rather than forcing them to respond like would happen if you did have the initiative.

White starts with the initiative but it can swing back and forth depending how well each side plays; and except for the first early moves it has nothing to do with white/black it has only to do with having/not\_having the initiative.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Ideas for giving chess lessons at school for differing levels of playing strength?
I have been running the chess club at the local high school, which I graduated from 40 years ago. As part of it, I have been giving free lessons.

I have had several problems, and I am looking for suggestions on how to overcome them.

1. There are very different levels of strength. We had a core group, but recently, an entire sports team started showing up. They decided to stay, and play, while they wait for their practice to start. They are much weaker than the rest, but they still enjoy it. Interest in the lessons within this group is mixed.
2. Some kids miss meetings, so when they come back, they have missed a lesson. If this were an actual academic class, I could have them make it up, but that does not work so well when you are trying to keep it fun. That said, they get behind, and I don't want to move on without them.
3. New kids show up, and have missed everything.
4. Lastly, the time is limited to about 1:45 each Friday.

I have some ideas, but I thought I would get some from you before I mention them. The core group really has some interest, and have been enjoying learning more about the game. We might like to eventually form a team.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You could record your lessons for class consumption. This would be useful for students who miss lessons. Please make sure if it's legal to record group lessons in your school though.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Relate the moves for chess to the strategy of the sport they play as I am sure a really good analogy can be found like setting picks for basketball or football has endless comparisons for forks skewers and pins It also may help them in there sport to visualize better from chess tactics so win win. If they are weaker players than these concepts will represent the largest progression to there game anyway. good luck

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess website at school summarizing lessons along with other school related chess info.

Point to chess websites for more that they can use especially if they missed.

Advanced kids play while you help newer ones catch up. What do you do with that much time anyway? They want to play not hear lectures. Go to each game and give pointers as appropriate to specific players.

Rotate openings, tactics, mates, end games, other topics.

Chess is not so much like math where everything builds so neatly on the other stiff so you do not really get behind except in the sense that you have already done more and so have moved forward.

Have a range of problems from easy to hard each time, so that everybody can do some and learn some each session.

End the semester or year with a tournament. Swiss style. Analyze the games and see what they need to learn most next semester/year.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I decided that I would break the class into two groups.

I will teach the real beginners during the first half of the club's time, and the slightly more advanced players during the second half of the club's time.

In addition, I will be printing out materials that I deem relevant, so if kids miss a lesson, they can take it home with them.

I simply do not really have the time to do more, but if I did, then I would probably like the idea of recording the sessions YouTube-style, and posting them.

---
Tags: learning, teaching, team
---


# Question
Title: How many legal but unreachable positions exist?
Consider this legal chess position which can never be reached from the normal starting position.

```
    [FEN "6kb/6p1/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

The Black bishop is placed on h8, but with the Black pawn on g7, there is no way the bishop could have actually reached h8. How many such positions exist in chess which are legal but unreachable? Is there any research on reachable/non-reachable positions?

I found that endgame tablebases don't necessarily take this into consideration, but if the number of non-reachable positions is significantly large, it might possibly help minimize the size of endgame tablebases.

Here's a screenshot from the online Nalimov tablebases.

Now, in this unreachable position, I can add another piece like a knight on almost every square.

I can add an additional piece, like a rook.

This can go on and on and I can keep adding more pieces, but all those positions would be unreachable. We thus end up storing unnecessary positions in the tablebase and increasing its size.

Of course, it's a good thing for tablebases to have these positions if we want to use them for chess variants like Chess960, but they are not necessary for the standard version of chess. It would be quite interesting to know how many such unreachable positions exist.

(Addition of more relevant tags suggested)

# Answer
> 7 votes
The fraction of all six-man positions that are unreachable from the starting position is very, very small. Removing them would have a tiny effect on the size of a six-man database.

Here is an example of how rare these positions are. First of all, we can't get into one of these unreachable positions without a bishop and a pawn, so we already have a small subset of the number of total six-man positions. But okay, say that one side is lucky enough to have one pawn, one bishop, and a king. The bishop will have to be in one of its own corners (not the far corners!) and the pawn will have to be diagonally adjacent to it. So only 2 out of the 64 bishop positions could lead to a trapped bishop, and out of those, the pawn has to be in the one spot of its possible 48 positions that would trap the bishop. So *even if you have one pawn and one bishop*, which is pretty unlikely, the chances of randomly getting an unreachable position are only (2/64) * (1/48) = 1 in 1536.

Let's do one bishop, two pawns, and a king just for fun. If the bishop is in its own corner (2/64 chance), the chance of getting one of the two pawns in the diagonally adjacent square is 2/48 (2 of the 48 squares in ranks 2 through 7 have pawns in them). If the bishop is one of the other spots on the first rank (4/64 chance - c1 and f1 are definitely OK!), both pawns have to be in exactly the right spot (1/48 * 1/47) chance. When I do the math I get a chance of around 1.33% for getting an unreachable position even if you start with this very unlikely great combination of material for generating unreachable positions.

My conclusion, as first predicted in my comment above and now backed up by some math, is that these unreachable positions are an extremely small subset of the set of all six-man positions.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I agree that the number is very low. Namely 0.

A legal position is defined as a position reachable by regular moves. Your diagrams do not show legal positions.

# Answer
> 3 votes
also consider the number of pawns stacked in a file vs the number of captured enemy pieces. For example, if two pawns are on the c-file, one enemy piece must have been captured; and if 6 pawns are on the a- or h-file, 15 enemy pieces (i.e. all but the king) must have been captured: the nearest knight's pawn must have made one capture, the bishop's pawn must have made two captures and so on.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As others have said, the number of those unreachable positions is rather small. There are other important things to consider, though: it seems rather difficult to determine which positions are unreachable and which are not for all but the trivial cases. And then, even if you know which positions are unreachable, that information can hardly be used to minimise the database size, as you cannot just remove some "random" positions. The positions are not stored as such, but just the values. Hence, you would need to construct an indexing function that skips just those positions, which seems impossible. (If not removed, it might bring tiny tiny gains during compression if you treat those positions as "don't cares", but this is probably negligible, and dangerous when looking at the position and not knowing it's unreachable).

As a side note, the Nalimov databases don't include illegal positions with unblockable checks, i.e. wKe1 bQe2 BTM, but they do include illegal positions with the slider away more than one square. These positions take up a significant part of the database, but it's rather difficult to exclude them in the indexing.

As far as "legal but unreachable" goes, keep in mind that even if unreachable, the position might become legal in a real game (after a non-disputed illegal move).

# Answer
> 2 votes
The question remains a bit vague, but the suggestion in a couple of answers was that the most arrangements of pieces would be "reachable" (by which they mean in FIDE laws terms "legal" i.e. that can be arrived at by a sequence of legal moves). The supporting argument was the behaviour with 6 pieces. There just isn't much opportunity for illegality with 6 pieces, but the number of arrangements increases exponentially as the number of pieces on the board increases, so the 6-piece behaviour is not statistically relevant.

More importantly, 6-piece behaviour is also highly untypical. The mathoverflow.net version of the question, which @GloriaVictis sensibly pointed us to in a comment, has a much more rigorous question and answers, and shows by detailed analysis that almost all arrangements of chess pieces are illegal.

What they do seem to miss even in mathoverflow is that the notion of position includes who has the move and also castling and en passant capability, and that increases both the number of positions and the proportion which are illegal.

---
Tags: rules, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: In the Dutch Defense, why does white play b3 and Ba3?
In the Stonewall Dutch Defense, why does white play b3 and Ba3? Should I try to avoid it, or does it not matter?

```
[fen ""]

1. Nf3 e6 2. d4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5 5. O-O Bd6 6. b3 O-O 7. c4 c6 8. Ba3

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
The main reason is to exchange black's good bishop, and what would probably end up being white's bad bishop after a later e3. Another common way of doing this is Bg5xNf6. This also highlights black's dark-square weakness problem that he will have to watch out for for quite a while.

This exchange on a3 leaves black's other bad bishop on c8 more markedly bad, and the e5 square more weakened. After the exchange on a3, black can, and usually should, gain a tempo with Qe7, and the white Na3 will redirect to Nc2-e1-d4 (or sometimes via Nc2-b4-d3) to further control e5.

This scores well in my database at 67% for white, but many of the games are between players of disparate ratings. At the higher levels, it seems that black can hold equality, so I would say that if you are stronger, there is no need to avoid it, but if you are weaker against a good positional player, you might want to try to get in Qe7 earlier to make Ba3 harder, but white still has a4 then. I am not sure you can really, and totally avoid it if that is the plan white chooses.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the pawn structure of the Stonewall Dutch the light squared bishop is the sick piece in black's position and the dark squared bishop is the star. If white can exchange the dark squared bishops then white already stands much better because of all the resulting weak dark squares in black's position, particularly e5.

Consequently it is a mistake for black to reply to 6. b3 with O-O allowing Ba3. Essential is Qe7 to prevent Ba3 and the subsequent trade of black's best piece. An early b6 is probably also important for black to allow the plan of a4 followed by Ba3 anyway by white to be answered by c5 blocking the exchange, possibly with Nbd7 to reinforce c5.

# Answer
> 2 votes
When you look at the position, you see a horrible light Bishop for Black, and you see a dark Bishop for White that doesn't have a whole lot to do, effectively. It's biting on the d-pawn, its 'natural prey' (the Black Knight on f6) cannot be effectively pinned, as the queen will be wanting to slide to e8 in this position anyway, so what's it going to do?

The idea of trying to force the exchange of Black's dark Bishop by effectively pinning it against the Rook is very attractive. It's more effective against the old stonewall lines, when the Bishop is on e7, because in this line Black can, effectively, get a free Queen move in by moving it to e7, forcing White into spending another tempo to achieve the aim.

It's a worthy aim, simply because of how mind-achingly bad Black's other Bishop is. But it's not a winning aim. Black can get some free development playing off the misplaced Knight on a3, and where's it going to go? It can't meaningfully get to b5, or really even c4. Back home to b1 or c2 aren't really attractive, and the only other choices are something like Qc1 or letting go of the tension in the center with c5. (It should be noted that the central tension is one of White's weapons against Black's buildup for a wing attack, so dropping it is kind of a big thing; I've been known to try and tease White into doing that with ...Qd6 simply because of how much stronger that makes an eventual ...e5. Depends on how you feel about double-edged positions whether you'll like that idea. White can get an interesting steamroller going on the Queenside if Black isn't paying attention.)

The best thing I can say for it is it can be effective against a lot of Dutch players who haven't spent time thinking the unthinkable: How do they attack without their chief weapon, the Kingside Bishop? Having to answer that question can throw a lot of Stonewall players off their game.

On the other hand, it does relieve one of the major issues with the Dutch, which is that Black has one more minor piece than they have room for, and that extra space can be handy as the pieces roll out. If Black has learned to be flexible, their game still has a lot of play in it (one reason why this isn't seen more often in high-end play).

If you're looking for a good anti-Dutch line, I've always felt the lines based around Nh3/Bf4 offer more than the b3/Ba3 ones. YMMV.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, dutch-defense
---