# Question
Title: Is there any good app for learning openings?
My great fail is that **I cannot learn opening** or initial play.

Normally I only play when I can connect to my mobile app (*Chess Free* on *iOS*), and play at a very low level (adjusted as a single bar), and repeat that level until I have some domain of it. Unlike a human player or a friend, that sort of games cannot teach me which are the errors I am repeating consistently (some adaptive app?).

I've tried puzzles, but they are so artificial, I can't learn how to start with them.

I normally can defeat some people in apps such as *chess.com*, but very fast I reach a level superior than my real one, when I do not defeat anybody, and I don't get how to improve. After that the app download me again into trivial opponents, and the same repeats over and over.

So I don't increase my level, and I've been stuck in that from years, without any advance when facing real players.

Which I would like is to freeze the difficult level, and play let's say 100 times with players at my very exact, and me being the person to decide when it is time to move onto better players, let's say by raising 50 points only?.

Or equivalently, is there some app playing with strong focus on a specific selectable opening, let's say for example, the Dutch defense, and the game could go in turn of such opening? Making me able to play 100 times an specific opening, before increasing the level of such opening and/or before changing such opening?

# Answer
In terms of apps, other than the good suggestions made so far, I definitely recommend most of "Chess King" apps, and specifically for openings:

These apps have a theory section, where various types of openings are discussed (closed, open, etc) and a practice section where you get to solve small problems specific to each opening (which you will be able to choose from).

On another note, from your description I gather your difficulties may not be necessarily opening related, but a tad more fundamental. So what you can always consider, specially at a beginner's level, is to learn basic principles about opening up the game, and not necessarily memorizing specific known opening lines. What this entails usually can be roughly summarized with the following points:

* Deciding on your own style of play: open positions (e.g., 1.e4), closed position (such as 1.d4, more positional style) or the various other semi-open/closed ones.
* Piece development: whatever strategy you have in mind, you first need units to execute it with, so prioritize piece development at the beginning, get out the minor pieces, occupy the centre, ...
* King safety: the cliche is that you should always castle as early as possible, which is not a bad advice, but in general what matters is that you *consider* your king safety, and not naively undermine its importance.
* Create useful space: Big part of development phase is to occupy parts of the board (often the centre) that are most accessible to your pieces (specially the minor pieces). For example, if you ignore occupying the centre of the board with your central pawns, you will have a lot of difficulties to establish centralized knights. This is often a very difficult aspect of the opening phase, as it is non-trivial and different for each opening. But think simple, you want to have active knights and bishops, so always ask yourself during your play: what structure do I need in order to post my knight here or there, or in order to have this or that diagonal open for my bishop.
* Improve piece coordination: Your pieces (specially minor ones at the start) need to speak to each other, and opening theories in short provide optimized recipes to this end while refuting/limiting your opponent's play (but this is another discussion). Meaning, you have to think in terms of your collective pieces if you want to execute some plan or strategy. Amateur players tend to just opt for small tactical plans that they execute with 1 or 2 pieces: e.g., a queen and a bishop, a knight and a bishop (e.g., a bishop of f4 and a knight on b5, a typical attack on c7). Such small size attacks are often easy to parry once spotted, so try to involve as many pieces as you can for your attacks, this will make it harder and harder for your opponent to hold off. You may ask: but so when are the aforementioned "small" types of attacks useful: well, think about them in this way: on the one hand, these are small maneuvers that allow you to potentially perturb your opponent's desired setup and on the other hand, they can be seen as forceful means of rerouting your pieces to better posts. Forceful here suggests that the rerouting is without loss of tempo.
* On the more practical side of things, and more related to the first point on style, you have to give different structures sufficient trials until you fully understand an opening to its nitty gritty details, details that may only at a higher level become relevant, but the good thing is the better you understand a line, the easier it will be for you to adapt if your opponent tries to refute something or deviate abruptly. So pick up a theme of a opening you like, and play it as much as you can until you master it, then try something else, and the same routine again. This way, very soon you will have a rough idea of what to play vs many different openings, e.g. you will have a basic system vs e4, d4, and ... Again there's no recipe for what I referred to as "your basic system", because what it really means is that you will know in what terms to assess different openings and on your own out of the principles you pick up along the way, you will naturally come up with good responses. Let me give two basic examples: Catalan (c4, d4, g3) players really like their bishops, hence the double fianchetto that often results from this line (idea being to preserve the bishops and reduce opponent choices of exchanging them), but to actually know how to leverage the two bishops takes a lot of experience and positional understanding in order to know e.g., how and when to break the centre, do I play Rc1 before c4, do I take back with knight or pawn on d4 if they take ..., and a great deal of tact, as otherwise a good opponent will easily find ways to force trade of bishops. Another opening like the Dutch: primary emphasis of the Dutch is to control the light squares on d5, e4 and the latter without having to play d5, so you preserve the possibility of playing d6 if you so desire, or if the position demands for it. With this in mind, white wants to counter these very reasons, and regain better grip over central d5,e4 squares, so first thing white annoyingly and smartly does is to give up the dark square bishop for the strong knight on f6 (which is a good re-enforcer of d5,e4 squares), e.g., 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6...
* Pawn structure: its importance cannot be emphasized enough: pawn moves are the most committal moves in chess, mainly because pawns move irreversibly. This means that you need to make sure to what pawn structure you want to commit and not naively reduce your choices of expansion or defense. That's why the English opening is so powerful: it's one way of being conservative about your pawn structure, in order to have more options in reaction to what your opponent goes for. Other example, in sharp Sicilian positions, an experienced player on the black side knows not to impulsively move either the h,g and f pawns impulsively to fend off white's push, instead you have to wait until you really have to play h6,h5, g6 and so on (these are very tempting defensive moves when white is coming at you with all they have, which is the case in sharp Sicilian lines). The sooner you commit, say to g6, the earlier you've created an unamenable target weakness for your opponent to aim for. To showcase, here's a beautiful game by Kasparov (black) vs Adams:

---

```
[Title "Michael Adams vs Garry Kasparov - 2005"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2 Qc7 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3 Bb7 10.f3 Nc6 11.O-O-O b4 12.axb4 Nxb4 13.g4 Be7 14.g5 Nd7 15.h4 Nc5 16.Kb1 Rb8 17.h5 O-O 18.g6 Bf6 19.Rdg1 Ba8 20.Bg5 Be5 21.gxh7+ Kxh7 22.Nb3 Nxc2 23.Nxc5 Na3+ 24.Ka2 Qxc5 25.Na4 Nc2 26.Kb1 Qa3 0-1

```

Notice Kasparov's king-side pawns until the end ;)

Anyways, the list goes on of course and by no means should you take the above points as complete, but hopefully they do give you some pointers and I have to stop at some point :) But what is important for you to take away, is the ways you can think about the opening phase without ever having to sit down and memorise lines, instead, from now on whenever you see a new opening being played, try to look at it with the above points in mind.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I would suggest chessable. I don't know if they have an app - but I use their site from my phone daily, and find it very well laid out. (You can sign up for free.)

Chessable uses spaced repetition to teach you an opening, which makes it a lot easier.

There are quite a few books already on the site, and more coming every month.

Difficulty level varies by book: some are designed for newcomers to the game; some are designed for a MUCH more advanced level.
> 4 votes

# Answer
If you have an Android device, I think "Chess Openings Trainer" might be what you're looking for (unfortunately, it's only available on Android at the moment). You can download it safely from the Google Play Store. This app helps you create openings, build a repertoire, and train against it. Moreover, the graphical interface is very intuitive and easy to use. You can even import PGN files from third party software. And the best of all, it also integrates the latest Stockfish engine to help you find the best moves for your openings!
> 3 votes

# Answer
i like lichess because of it study feature. Lichess has the strongest free chess computer online and has a large master opening database for free. You can make your own or look at other people's studies. https://lichess.org/study
> 3 votes

# Answer
You might want to try my chess opening apps. They are written for improving your openings. The app teaches you opening theories for each ECO opening.

(I'm the author).

> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/encyclopaedia-chess-openings/id1165950660 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mega-database-encyclopedia/id1180482163

The Chessable website offers useful opening training. They don't have an app, but you should be able to run it directly on your browser.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Is it preferable to pass a FEN notation or list of moves to a chess engine?
I am actually programming a chess UI and I'd like to communicate with a chess engine using UCI protocol. After reading the protocol specifications, I am not sure how to use the position command. For each move, is it better to pass to the chess engine a FEN notation of the actual state of the board or pass it the list of all moves that have been played since the beginning of the game?

# Answer
If possible, it is better to send the whole game. The engine can use this to see that a move it is considering would lead to a draw by threefold repetition or the 50 move rule.

But sometimes you only have a position, and then sending a FEN is possible.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It is preferable to pass a PGN because FEN is just a position with no move, but a PGN is the whole game with moves.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, uci, fen
---


title: What defines the name of a gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: What defines the name of a gambit?
What defines the name of a gambit? To be obvious, if someone were to use a gambit often (of their own theory), you would name that gambit after them or so, right (like the Ruy Lopez opening)? How then do we get the names of the gambits?

# Answer
> 15 votes
There is no general rule in naming openings or opening lines in general or gambits. Sometimes it’s the inventor, sometimes the place they lived, they were born, they played the line the first time, and so on. To make it more complicated, openings can have different names in different languages. In German, the Petroff defence is named Russian defence, and Benko Gambit is called Wolga-Gambit. The Sokolski is also called Orang-Utan. So there really is no general rule but in some cases some amusing histories.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Depends- there's no real rule outside of "convention" and when a name's settled on by the community at large, it tends to stay that way (as openings in general). Often, it'll be named after a person who played it a lot, developed the theory, a country related to it by the nationality of one or more people that played/developed it (or otherwise related), or the opening name was just made up by someone. Also, a lot of the time opening names have just been.. forgotten why.

Also note that some openings including gambits are known by multiple names- the first gambit example to come to mind is the Benko Gambit, which is sometimes called the Volga Gambit in Eastern Europe. So tldr: depends on the gambit, could be a bunch of reasons.

# Answer
> 7 votes
As the other answers indicate, gambits - and openings in general - can receive their names from different factors. A few examples:

* The King's Gambit gets its name from opening with the king's pawn and gambiting the immediately adjacent flank pawn. The Queen's Gambit is similarly named, except the gambit is on the queen's side of the board.
* Although the Budapest Gambit had been played previously, it seems to have taken its name from the location of the first time the gambit was used in a game of significance between high level players.
* The Evans' Gambit gets its name from the man credited with inventing it (notably not GM Larry Evans nor IM Larry D. Evans).

The book Chess Opening Names explores the naming of several popular openings, including some gambits. The book has three sections, one each for openings named for: people, places, and "stories". (As I type this, I'm about half way through the audio version of the book - mostly listening while I'm driving. The chess theory is light, but I find the history interesting.)

---
Tags: history, terminology, gambits
---


# Question
Title: Is chess.com's tactics trainer any good for actual tactical improvement?
Daniel Naroditsky recommended using this to improve at tactics but I was wondering if it was in any way worse than using a book with tactics for example.

# Answer
Its a fairly subjective question but their "learning" area is solid, the tactics tool is good for learning pattern recognition quickly. Most sites (lichess etc) have similar functionality.

Regarding how effective it is. Its dependent on you. If you learn better by doing. Probably better, if you like theory than book.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Only if you pay the memberships the tactics on chess.com will be good. if you use the free membership you will only get 5 tactics a day. Either use lichess tactics or chesstempo. both are completely free and have many tactics.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


title: Downloading Games From Lichess

text:
# Question
Title: Downloading Games From Lichess
I'd like to be able to automate downloading specific games that have been played on Lichess. Is there any software available that, if given useful information such as the Lichess usernames, colours, time control and (approximate) time of the game will download the game in pgn format? Command line please - ideally it will also flag an error if it fails to find exactly one match.

I'm running Linux, but as I expect anything that might exist will be in something like python I don't think that is a big issue.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Lichess has an API which can also be used to download games. For example:

```
https://lichess.org/api/games/user/{username}?max=3&color=white

```

This will download 3 most recent games played by `{username}` with the white pieces.

You can find the docs for this operation (and others) here:

https://lichess.org/api#operation/apiGamesUser

The introduction page lists some clients including one for Python:

https://lichess.org/api#section/Introduction

---
Tags: software, lichess
---


title: Piece And Pawn Only Massacre Games

text:
# Question
Title: Piece And Pawn Only Massacre Games
What are the fastest possible games in which only all pieces and all pawns are captured? I did some searching myself.

**Pieces Only**

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 3/2/2019, Non-Unique Proof Game In 13.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d3 d5 3. Qg4 Qg5 4. Qxc8+ Ke7 5. Qxb8 Qxc1+ 6. Ke2 Qxb1 7. Qxa8 Qxa1 8. Qxf8+ Kd7 9. Qxg8 Qxf1+ 10. Kd2 Qxg1 11. Qxh8 Qxh1 12. Qe8+ Kxe8 13. d4 Qe1+ 14. Kxe1

```

**Pawns Only**

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 3/2/2019, Non-Unique Proof Game In 16.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 f5 3. g4 g5 4. h4 h5 5. d4 d5 6. c4 c5 7. b4 b5 8. a4 a5 9. bxa5  bxa4 10. cxd5 cxd4 11. exf5 exf4 12. gxh5 gxh4 13. Rxh4 Rxh5 14. Rxa4 Rxa5 15.  Rxd4 Rxd5 16. Rhxf4 Rhxf5

```

# Answer
Here is one for pieces only (12½ moves):

```
[FEN ""]

1. e3 e6 2. Na3 Na6 3. Bxa6 Bxa3 4. bxa3 bxa6 5. Qf3 Qf6 6. Qxa8 Qxa1 7. Qxc8+ Ke7 8. Qxg8 Qxc1+ 9. Ke2 Qxg1 10. Qxh8 Qxh1 11. h4 Qh3 12. Qf8+ Kxf8 13. gxh3

```

Also see ħere
> 2 votes

# Answer
In the pawns only, you don't need to move so many pawns. Getting the major pieces involved early seems to be fastest:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 Qa5 3.Qxh7 Qxa2 4.Qxg7 Qxb2 5.Rxa7 Rxh2 6.Rxb7 Rxg2 7.Rxd7 Rxf2 8.Rxe7+ Kd8 9.Qxf7 Rxd2 10.Qf5 Qxc2 11.Qxc5 Qxe4+  *

```

I was unable to find a faster version of the piece only.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Thanks to @DM, I managed to beat off another move by opening with a pawn capture and having one less check. Sorry mate!

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 3/3/2019, Non-Unique Proof Game In 10.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Qh5 Qxa2 Qxh7 Qxb2 Qxg7 Rxh2 Rxa7 Rxg2 Rxb7 Rxf2 Rxc7 Rxd2 Rxe7+ Kd8 Qxf7 Qxc2

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: problems, pawns, pieces, captures
---


# Question
Title: Are gambits a good way to improve tactical awareness (for strong amateurs)?
As gambits are all about activity, initiative, and attack, should I start playing gambits to increase my awareness and all these things?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Sure! Playing a highly tactical position that you aren't used to can help you train your tactics, but there are plenty of non-gambit alternatives that are also rich in tactics (think for instance of most lines in the Sicilian defense)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes. A direct open tactical style of play is the fastest route to chess mastery. Look at the games of Morphy. It allows to commit faster mistakes, therefore faster learning. Play dangerously

---
Tags: opening, learning, gambits, attack
---


title: Batch Solve Tactical Positions

text:
# Question
Title: Batch Solve Tactical Positions
What is the best software to take a pgn file of positions and solve them in a one-step operation? I am not referring to chess compositions or "mate in n" problems but tactical positions. Is it possible to just highlight positions from a database of positions and have the software compute the best series of follow-up moves and save them to a file? I can perform the function individually on any number of software but I cannot do a batch on any of them.

# Answer
I use chessbase personally. I can bulk perform tactical analysis. Alternatively you can download an engine and learn to program with it to perform bulk analysis / positional analysis calculations.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: Why is g4 the best move in this Queens Gambit accepted line?
Doesn't the extra tempo not make up for the lack of king safety?

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1pp1ppbp/p1n2np1/5b2/P1BP4/2N1PN1P/1P3PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
I suppose you have some source that claims `1.g4` is the best move from the diagram position, but which doesn't give any reason for it. I won't try to weigh in on whether it is in fact the best move here, but I will try to articulate a reason or two to play it. First I'll say that I don't think it's the tempo against the bishop that offsets the decreased king safety, but rather other tangible results instead.

To my eye, the primary point in its favor is that White gets one of two potentially desirable outcomes immediately: either (1) Black moves her bishop away from controlling e4, so White gets in the move `2.e4` next, building a nice central pawn duo, or (2) Black responds with `1...Be4`, and allows a forcing line that lets White obtain two minor pieces for rook and pawn. (I'll note that my first thought in responding to `1...Be4` was simply to win the bishop pair for White, but that ultimately doesn't look that great, and it was some nudging from Stockfish that revealed this other idea to me.)

The annotations that follow look at these two resulting possibilities in a little bit of detail, offering my scant takes on matters. But I'll note that there are a lot of concrete, tactical ideas in the air here, and the overall situation is more chaotic than I initially thought when first looking at the position.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1pp1ppbp/p1n2np1/5b2/P1BP4/2N1PN1P/1P3PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.g4
    {Lessening Black's control of the e4 square by putting the question to
    the bishop.}
1...Bd7
    ( 1...Be4 {Trying to stop White's central expansion, but it allows
    White to force the obtaining of two pieces for a rook and pawn if he
    so chooses.} 2.Nd2 $1 Bd5 {Forced.} 3.g5 $1 Bxc4 {Forced,} 4.gxf6 Bxf1
    {Forced.} 5.fxg7 Kxg7 6.Kxf1 {White's larger piece army offers the
    better prospects, and the airy castle around his king isn't an
    immediate concern, and with proper play shouldn't be an issue.} )
2.e4
    {Establishing an ideal pawn center, though yes at the expense of
    having created a good deal of space around the white king. In fact,
    Black can (and perhaps should) now sacrifice a piece for pawns and
    greater exposure of the white king.}
2...Nxg4
    ( 2...h5 {Another attempt to further expose the white king.} 3.e5 {
    This basically forces Black to go in for the same sort of piece
    sacrifice as in the 2.e4 Nxg4 line given here.}
        ( 3.Nh4 $5 {Another interesting possibility, exploiting the fact
        that the only non-pinned pawn defending g6 has now advanced.} 3...
        hxg4 $2 4.Nxg6 )
    3...hxg4
        ( 3...Nh7 $2 4.gxh5 gxh5 5.Kh2 {Now the white king is no more
        exposed than the black king, and White will be the one with the
        better attack.} )
    4.exf6 Bxf6 5.hxg4 Bxg4 6.Qd3 {Threatening Qxg6. Again I'd wager that
    White's extra piece outweighs the deficit in pawns and the exposed
    king.} )
3.hxg4 Bxg4 4.Be2 Bxf3 5.Bxf3 Nxd4 6.Bg2
    {Black has three pawns for the piece, and has removed much of the
    white king's pawn cover. Nevertheless, Black does not have an
    attacking force at the ready immediately, and I think the long term
    chances should favor White's extra piece.}
*

```
> 8 votes

# Answer
Without computer analysis it is a move that I would not make.

I do not value a tempo to be equivalent compensation for king safety.

Computers may do better, but what would you do in a ten minute game if black played nxp then bxp pinning your horsie and having two pawns, plus your exposed king?
> -1 votes

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


# Question
Title: Playing rating is higher than tactics rating
I noticed for a while that in many chess websites that my tactics rating is between 1700-2000, but my playing rating in rapid is between 2000-2250, in blitz between 1900-2100, and in classical between 2200-2400. I know that there are differences between each website concerning rating. But in all websites my playing rating is higher than my tactics rating by at least 200-300 points in rapid and classical. I have a strong opening preparation that I believe might compensate. During the game, I believe that my opening preparation gives me the advantage because I know the plans, and I know where the weaknesses are in the opponents camp. I also know if I should attack the king, or press a weakness, or play on misplaced piece based on the opening. That's why I think my playing rating is higher. Moreover, I believe that finding tactics in an exercise might be difficult for me because I'm not familiar with some openings/pawn structures. But in pawn structures and openings that I play, I can find the tactic more easily. Now my questions are:

1. Do you have the same disparity in ratings? And if yes, is there an explanation? (I know that some people have their tactics rating higher than their playing rating, but I'm not talking about this class of players)
2. Should I practice more tactics? I'm using many websites/apps such as chesstempo, chess24, tactics frenzy, chesscom, and lichess.
3. I believe that one should practice tactics in the openings that he/she plays because these are the tactics that come often in games. What do you think?

# Answer
Most sites are way overgenerous with their ratings.

And they are all inconsistent between them too.

One factor that matters is the strength of the group who are competing. Your tactics cohort may differ a lot from your online opponents.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Tips for converting my advantage in the middlegame and the endgame
I'm fairly new to chess. I'm practicing against 1500~ rated opponents/engines on chess.com. My openings and middlegame seem to go well. After every game, the engine analysis says I'm always up +1 ~ +3 for the majority of the game. But at the end, I always seem to lose by a blunder. Every game is a "giveaway" according to the analysis engine.

It seems my trouble is actually converting positional advantages. Do you have any tips or areas I should study to avoid this? Is this a stamina issue, as in I start to lose concentration as the game goes on?

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Is this a stamina issue? (as in I start to lose concentration as the game goes on?)

No. If you are consistently reaching the endgame then it is a "lack of endgame knowledge" problem.

Do you know when KP v K is a win and when it is a draw? Do you know how to win the Capablanca pawn endgame as white? Do you know what you have to do as black to draw (if white goes wrong)?

```
[title "Capablanca Pawn Endgame"]
[fen "6k1/7p/8/8/8/8/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

In short, do you actually know how to win a won endgame when it isn't just trivial?

If you are not consistently reaching the endgame then you need to work on tactics.

Actually, you probably need to work on both endgames and tactics.

---
Tags: learning, strategy, endgame, tactics, training
---


title: When is it considered a win vs a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: When is it considered a win vs a draw?
I am playing with black and have just called check on the white king. It is now the white players turn, no matter what move the white king makes it will lead to check. Does this mean black has won or is it considered a draw?

```
[fen "r5nR/p2b4/npp1pk2/3p3Q/P2P1p2/R1P1qP1N/1P2PKB1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
This position leads to a threefold repetition (which is a DRAW), as White can move the King to e1/f1 and ...Qc1+ forces the King back to f2, where ...Qe3+ forces the King back again.

As Black is material down and has no compensation, Black should force the draw by repetition.

```
 [FEN "r5nR/p2b4/npp1pk2/3p3Q/P2P1p2/R1P1qP1N/1P2PKB1/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Ke1 Qc1+ Kf2 Qe3+ Kf1 Qc1+ Kf2 Qe3+

```

---
Tags: rules, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: Is Rover opening sound in crazyhouse opening theory?
The rover opening 1. a4 is played a lot on the lichess server and there have been some high level games in it. The opening is not gaining any initiative or tempo, it is just rook lifting prematurely, which is a terrible idea in normal chess, but works a bit in crazyhouse.

Does anyone have a lichess study or a good explanation on how to get good lines out of the Rover opening.

# Answer
I don't think it's a good idea to rook lift this early in crazy house. Lichess's carzy house computer actually says that 1.e4 gives white a +2.3 advantage and 1.a4 gives white -1.0. In crazy house, you have to get your pieces out as fast as possible.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, crazyhouse
---


# Question
Title: Is there a good book on the 1927 Capablanca-Alekhine world championship match?
To disambiguate what I mean by the shorthand "good" in the question's title:

> Is there an English-language book that tells the story of the 1927 world championship match between Capablanca and Alekhine, and which includes substantial annotations of all the games?

If there's no single book that contains all of that, I'd be happy to cobble such together from multiple sources. Here are a few items I'm aware of that don't have all of what I'm after:

* Volume I of Kasparov's *My Great Predecessors* series includes a good deal of background and context on the match, and also includes annotations for 10 of the match's 34 games (Games 7, 11, 12, 20-22, 27, 29, 31, 34). What appears here is simply great, but I'd like annotations for the rest of the games as well.
* *Alexander Alekhine's Best Games*, which is an algebraic edition of Alekhine annotations from his two-volume *My Best Games of Chess* and from *Alekhine's Best Games of Chess 1938-1945*, includes the following games from the 1927 match: Games 1, 11, 21, 32, 34. (So between this and Kasparov, there are 12/34 games covered.)
* Capablanca's own book *World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927* has the unfortunate feature that while the 1921 match is annotated by Capablanca himself, the 1927 match is annotated by Yates and Winter. All 34 games are annotated, but the notes are quite sparse, and decidedly light on explanatory prose.

So my secondary question:

> Barring a complete, top-quality book of the 1927 match, can you point me to sources with good, substantial annotations of any of the following parts of the match: Games 2-6, 8-10, 13-19, 23-26, 28, 30, or 33?

# Answer
> 10 votes
I am aware of **ISBN 5278004010**

Cons:

* the book is in Russian, I don't know if there's an English translation

Pros:

* contains all match games, most of them annotated (some games aren't annotated, contain just some short comments about particular moves at the end)
* annotations by Alekhine himself
* contains other games played by Alekhine in tournaments before the match

Also, Alexander Kotov wrote "Alekhine's Chess Legacy" (2 volumes), you may try looking for games from that match in those books. Kotov was a fan of Alekhine, a strong tactical style player and he was good at explaining chess to players below grandmaster level, so I think annotations authored by him would suit you.

# Answer
> 5 votes
"Substantial' is a subjective term, but if you like Informant-style annotations the Chess Stars' book (Volume 2 of the three volume set of Alekhine's games, ISBN 9548782235) has some detailed analyses. It's possibly repeated in ISBN 9548782065, Vol 2 of their 2-vol set on Capablanca. I haven't done a detailed comparison of the two.

Game 2 is fairly short, about 1 column, but Game 3 is almost three pages of dense variations.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just recently was published my book "José Raúl Capablanca, A Chess Biography", McFarland, 2015. One of the chapter, number 13, is dedicated to the match Capablanca-Alekhine, 1927. Games 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20, 22, 27, 29, 31 and 34 are fully annotated. The chapter includes several interviews and daily information from the Buenos Aires newspapers. One of the pieces, while Capablanca is writing his resignation letter, was until now an unknown part of the chess history.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, the book is in spanish, published by "Editorial Sopena Argentina S.A."., 1978. The title is "Match por el Título Mundial Capablanca - Alekhine, Buenos Aires, 1927. Has 174 pages. Is a gem.

---
Tags: history, world-championship, books, capablanca, alekhine
---


# Question
Title: Controversy over the Xiangqi cannon piece?
When reviewing the nature of the pieces of various chess variants, namely the xiangqi cannon, I asked about its history. I was surprised that the dates of its mentions did not match 8th century Xiangqi and the invention of the cannon in the 12th century. What piece is that the one mentioned in the writings from before the 12th century about the Xiangqi, which is supposedly the cannon?

# Answer
> 9 votes
The character 砲 (pào) gives a significant clue: compared to 炮, which is homophonous, the radicals of these characters are different. 砲 uses the 石 radical, which means *stone*, and 炮 uses the 火 radical, which means *fire*.

Although cannons were not yet invented until, as you say, the 12th century, **trebuchets** -- weapons of super long range that used **stone** -- predates the cannon by hundreds of years.

---
Tags: chess-variants, history, unorthodox-pieces, xiangqi
---


# Question
Title: Rules: en passant and draw by triple repetition
A question of rulebook pedantry:

1. One can claim a draw when the same position occurs the third time, the same player having the move.
2. Two positions are not the same if the earlier allows a capture *en passant* and the later does not, though men of the same kind stand on the same squares in both positions.

So much I understand. However, what if the pawn that could otherwise have captured *en passant* happens to be pinned against its own king? In this case, one might say that the pawn had the right to capture *en passant* but could not exercise it. Alternately, one might insist that a right that cannot be exercised is in fact no right.

I suppose that it comes to how one defines the word *right.*

The reason this is a question of rulebook pedantry is because it might, conceivably, legally affect whether one could claim a draw if the position recurred. For the purpose of the draw rule, are two positions indeed the same if, in the earlier position, a pawn had the right to capture *en passant but could not exercise it* because of a pin?

To be clear: My question does not regard how fantastically unlikely such a situation would be ever to arise in actual play, nor if it has ever occurred. My question regards only what the rule would be if it did.

Your answer merits extra appreciation if you can support it with any reasonably authoritative reference!

**THIRD UPDATE**

I know no reason that anyone should be following these updates any longer -- and I rather suspect that no one is reading (if *you* are not reading, you are probably wise) -- but, for the permanent record and in response to a reader's reasonable request, I have deleted parts of the second and first updates. If the deletions still don't suit, further edits by interested others naturally remain welcome.

**SECOND UPDATE**

@CraigYoung characterizes the first update \[as originally written\] as a "diatribe." I think that he has a point. A Stackexchange question is not the right forum for the asker (me) to extemporize on the philosophy of rulebook writing. As originally written, above, the question was indeed just a question -- and was not originally meant as anything other than a request for information. What the answers seem to me to have revealed however is that no authoritative answer is possible at the present time. The answers occasioned a discussion, and the discussion seemed worth preserving, whence the first update.

I called the original question "pedantic" to poke a bit of deserved fun at myself, of course. My inner David Hilbert, as it were, wants the rules of chess to be logically complete; but the real, original David Hilbert was a wise man, a deep mathematician but also a shrewd judge of his audience. He could approach such questions with a sense of humor and a light touch, understanding that the matter of logical completeness would not fascinate everyone as much as it did him. Dr. Hilbert saved his earnestness for audiences prepared to appreciate it.

If you will let me don the cloak of earnestness for a moment: Each chess player can judge for himself how much or how little chess loses by failing logically to complete its rules, but surely chess *gains* nothing by this failure. Chess has a body, the FIDE, whose reasonable, permanent decisions in such matters would command broad respect, except that the FIDE seems mired in endless scandal and has never clearly rendered the decisions in question. So, if you're a Hilbert type like me, you're stuck, aren't you?

There is no rule. There could be. There should be. But there isn't. I admit that I don't like that.

**FIRST UPDATE**

@JamesTomasino's fine answer below is recommended to all interested readers. His logic looks pretty good, his angle is attractive, his judgment seems sound, and he may be right. I do not disagree with him, but I am not yet convinced.

The reason is this. There exists a school of rulebook construction with which I admittedly do not hold (and to which I do not suggest that @JamesTomasino belongs). In that school, a rule is to be enforced even if the rule's writer never considered the point to which the rule is applied. More precisely, the rule's *language* is to be enforced.

Actually, this might be a tolerable way to construe a rulebook, except that we have ample experience to suggest that, in cases such as this, two, different, reasonable people will infer two, different rules from the same, flawed language. Each reasonably believes that he stands upon "the rock of the law." The rules of chess however are to be a logical construct, not a linguistic one. If we are arguing over what the words mean, and if no consensus exists, then it is the words that are at fault. Such words shirk their duty.

Anderssen v. Kieseritzky may be poetic. The rulebook by which they play however is supposed to be precise. If it is not, then this is a real lack in the rulebook.

Here again is the useful reference @JamesTomasino has kindly provided to the FIDE handbook, section 9.2. After reading it thrice, I can only conclude that the rule is \[hard for me to understand.\] What are "the possible moves of all the pieces of both players"? Taken literally, "all the pieces" (what ever happened to the traditional phrase "all the men"? but let that pass) of one player have no moves at all, since it is his opponent's turn. Now, of course, obviously, that is not what the rule means, but what it *does* mean is far from clear.

To muddy the waters further, see the interesting discussion between USCF TDs @Andrew has discovered and brought to our attention.

It seems to me that the answer we are reaching here is that there exists no generally agreed-upon interpretation of the rules in these corner cases. That's too bad. I know what I think the rule should be, but what I think is irrelevant to this discussion, because I am no Staunton or Steinitz and no one cares (or should care) what I think. My chief concern is not whether *this* rule or *that* rule might be the better, but only that there in fact be a rule.

Actually, it seems to me that there is a deeper problem. The FIDE Handbook differs from the equivalent publication of the American Contract Bridge League in that the latter draws a clear distinction between the mechanics of the game and guidelines of player conduct. In the FIDE Handbook, the two are sort of all mixed up together.

# Answer
The basis of your question comes down to whether a piece is truly in position to execute an en passant if it is otherwised pinned. The answer can be found in the FIDE rules stated just before the explicit mention of the en passant:

> "Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same."

The key point is "the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same". The en passant passage is mentioned following this to give an explicit example one might overlook.

If in the first occurrence of the position the en passant was not an available move due to another limiting factor, then the list of all available moves would be identical when it appears again.

Thus, draw!

You can find the details in the FIDE handbook, section 9.2.
> 38 votes

# Answer
The question hinges on whether an "*illegal*" move is a "*possible*" move. Strictly speaking, the move is *not possible*, any more than Bc1-c3 is possible. Both are "*illegal*" moves.

In the first position, there is no en passant capture that is possible, hence

> "... the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same."

Until FIDE draws a distinction between these two terms, then, the first position is identical to the later positions, and the draw claim would be valid.

I should add, however, that I am not a FIDE-certified Arbiter. An Arbiter would be the definitive source for an answer to your question.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Following the thread you linked and doing some digging from there, I found a PDF of a 2011 Arbiter's Notebook column which addresses this issue.

> Although the player of the white pieces will lose the right to castle in both diagrams on the next move, the rule states that in the actual position the player has not yet lost the right to castle. This means that if same positions appear again on the board, these positions will be considered as different.

His first example position appears to have been butchered at some point in its hosting history, but the second one seems to be intact and makes his point clear; the "right" to castle contributes to the position's identity even though castling is an illegal move. I see no reason to suppose this does not extend to en passant, contrary to the other answers here.

Whether this "illegal right to castle" also covers positions where there is a piece between the rook and the King is unclear to me. I suspect Gijissen would say it does not, but I find it hard to accept that illegal movement through check is fundamentally different from illegal movement through pieces.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You never know when such rules will become relevant. In the past you could seal an illegal move (back when adjournments occurred), but that gave the player a chance to seal such an illegal move and then spend his adjournment time thinking of options. There was a puzzle I saw once which emphasized castling is definitely on a rank by showing how to castle up the board Ke1-e3 and Re8-e1 to give checkmate (notation: O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O).

More real was the problem Viktor Korchnoi had in one of his world championship matches with Anatoly Karpov. He wanted to castle queen-side as Black, but Karpov had a bishop on the h2-b8 diagonal, controlling b8. Could he castle? He couldn't recall the rule and had to ask the arbiter.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Thanks for the question, and for the very competent answers. It's not pedantry: it's a genuine corner-case for chess-engine programmers and retrograde analysis enthusiasts. A couple of years ago I asked international arbiter Stewart Reuben (FIDE rulebook committee chairman) who confirmed that the rule works as James Tomasino surmised: i.e. if, because of some pin or check, an en passant capture was never possible, then that position is considered to be the same as later copies.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A pawn that is captured "en passant," starts on the second rank and ends on the fourth rank, having gotten there via the *third* rank.

The "en passant" rule allows the opponent to *stop* the pawn on the third rank, where he can be captured. (In war, if one army starts to march, it might provoke a "fire" from the opposing army.)

In a three move repetition rule, the pawn on the fourth rank *started* there, because it had *not* been captured en passant. If you have three repetitions that lead to a draw, it's because *all* pieces started on the same square.

The three move rule specifically applies when *no* pawn had been moved and no pawn or piece captured. An "en passant" situation is a violation of both these conditions.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: How to create PGN notation with wrong moves in it?
I was as chess trainer with some young guys on a tournament, and wrote down some of their games. In nearly every game, there were wrong moves in it: king is in check, but does not move or react; making a move with a pawn more than one square, etc.

The strange thing now is, that I have not found any program (chessbase or other) that allows to write down the notation with wrong moves in it. Is there any program that supports that? I know, they should play only legal moves, but in a rapid chess game (of 7 year old boys), non-legal moves are common.

# Answer
> 10 votes
PGN files are normal text files. You can generate it to somepoint using the software and then save the file, open it in a text editor (notepad, notepad++, ...) and continue editing there.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Go to http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php and switch to "position setup". On the chessboard act out the full game including illegal moves, it doesn't matter to this interface, and click "animated diagram" and then save the gif file as a record of the complete game. It can be converted later to a video file that can be viewed more conveniently than an animated gif.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm very late to this question, but I think I have something to add:

PGN was not designed for games that are played according to FIDE rules, which do allow illegal moves in game scores under certain conditions. PGN was designed for games that are worth recording.

(Read that again. It may sound insulting -- but it's actually in the specification of PGN)

The PGN specification, section 8.2 (which describes movetext section: the section of the PGN files where moves are placed) says:

> Because illegal moves are not real chess moves, they are not permitted in PGN movetext. They may appear in commentary, however. One would hope that illegal moves are relatively rare in games worthy of recording.

While you are able to add illegal moves to a PGN file, you can't be certain that any PGN-reading tool will accept the resulting files, and display it any more.

There used to be a chess database program (on Windows) that allowed illegal move entry. It was called CDB, and written by Peter Klausler. I used it more then a dozen years ago, but I've lost track of it -- so I don't know if Google-hits I get now are for the same program, or if it even works on modern Windows releases.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am very late to this question, but I have used Chess Score Pad (for iOS only) to record my sons games for the past 7 years. Arbiters have been happy for me to stand behind my son and record the game with this software because it has no engine (and if you try and change to something else the PGN is closed - no more entry possible). The best part is it allows illegal moves to be entered. It's perfect for recording young peoples games!

---
Tags: pgn, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Will FIDE extend time limits on certain qualifications given the suspension of chess during Covid-19?
We already know that there has been very little FIDE rated chess played in April. There are a number of areas where FIDE has time limits. For example:

1. Unrated players have 26 months to get results which qualify them for a FIDE rating
2. Players are classed as "inactive" if they don't play any FIDE rated chess for 1 year
3. Arbiters are classed as "inactive" if they don't arbit any FIDE rated competitions for 2 years.

Will FIDE look at extending these time limits in view of the current Covid-19 suspension?

# Answer
We have a partial answer from FIDE:

> WHEREAS, since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, it has been possible for only a reduced number of FIDE rated tournaments to take place. As a result, it is likely that many players who would under normal conditions be playing rated games will find that they are unable to do so and will therefore be marked as inactive.

> The FIDE Council has considered this problem and has decided on the advice of the Qualification Commission (QC) that, from the November 2020 list UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, **the period specified in the definition of inactivity will be increased from 12 months to 24 months.**
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide
---


# Question
Title: Can I hover my finger over a chess piece without touching it in a major chess tournament?
Noob question: I am aware of the no-touch rule, but can I point or hover my finger over a chess piece in a major tournament? To clarify, let's say it's my turn and I am thinking about which piece to move, and part of my thinking process is to move my finger from one piece to another without actually touching any of them, thus not violating the no-touch rule. To me, it appears that in spirit, it is very much like touching the piece except there is no touching; so is it legal to do that? Spirit aside, is there any law in the book or in any of the major chess tournaments addressing this concept?

# Answer
> 30 votes
Hovering your hand over the pieces does not violate the touch-move rule, but it is bad etiquette and arguably violates the rule against annoying your opponent ("It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.", say the FIDE Laws of Chess, §11.5 in the 2018 edition.)

Here's the explanation given in *Chess for Dummies*:

> Furthering the touch-move rule, a frequent cause of complaints is the hand hover. The hand hover occurs when a player positions his hand over a piece and leaves it there. The hand hover is a distraction, and you shouldn’t do it — so goes the warning by José Capablanca. You should never obscure your opponent’s sight of the board unless you’re in the act of moving, so don’t reach for a piece until you’ve decided to move it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This has pretty much been covered by the other questions: there is no rule specifically forbidding this practice, but it might be considered distracting or annoying.

One thing the other answers didn’t cover: hovering your hand over the pieces when it’s your opponents turn. I saw, in a club tournament, a player did this when they were low on time and the arbiter warned them to keep their hand away from the board until it was their turn.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are tournaments that have a "touch" rule that indicates that if you touch the piece you must move the piece. There are tournaments where if you touch a piece as long as you don't let go of the piece (unless moved back to its original position), does not constitute a move, eg; I could hold my hand on my queen, pick it up, then put it back down in the same square, and then move a rook.

Tournament rules are largely up to the tournament to decide but most refer to the FIDE rulings.

Pointing to pieces etc does not indicate a touch or more importantly intent to move. The biggest issue I can see arising from this is that you could be indicating ideas to someone watching who could validate a if a move is good or bad.

I would suggest referring to the FIDE handbook. However please refer below to the relevant section

**From the FIDE handbook** (https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018)

> Article 4: The act of moving the pieces
>
> 4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.
>
> 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 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. 4.4 If a player having the move:
>
> 4.4.1 touches his king and a rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so 4.4.2 deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3.1 4.4.3 intending to castle, touches the king and then a rook, but castling with this rook is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move. 4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion. 4.5 If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move.
>
> 4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
>
> 4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival, 4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order. 4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured. 4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:
>
> 4.7.1 a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand, 4.7.2 castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move. 4.7.3 promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board. 4.8 A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.
>
> 4.9 If a player is unable to move the pieces, an assistant, who shall be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Is pointing at pieces during your turn okay? Regardless of whether or not such gestures are permitted I try to avoid them during play. A chess player should avoid providing any insight into their thought process or mood during the game. Sharing such information may give the opponent an edge. As others have said, attempting to distract or confuse the opponent by presenting false information by gesturing towards pieces could cross the line of proper chess etiquette during tournament play. However, I have seen this done in casual games.

Now touching pieces is an entirely different matter. I thought that touch a piece, move **that** piece, was standard practice.

> ...There are tournaments where if you touch a piece as long as you don't let go of the piece (unless moved back to its original position), does not constitute a move, eg; **I could hold my hand on my queen, pick it up, then put it back down in the same square, and then move a rook.**

---
Tags: rules, tournament, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Why is the "Queens Gambit" referred to as a gambit?
If White will just get a pawn back at no cost, why is the `Queens Gambit` a `Gambit`? Is it for historical reasons or something else?

# Answer
I think that it's just because it looks like a mirror version of the King's Gambit, nothing more.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The fact that a gambit involves a sacrifice in no way means that the sacrifice is permanent. Very few mainline gambit openings for White leave the gambit player with no means of retaking his material.

While Wikipedia does not necessarily make the distinction between a gambit and a sacrifice, I would contend that there is a difference:

* A sacrifice is intended as a permanent loss in material in exchange for a superior position.
* A gambit is a temporary loss to hasten development or secure a position.

Based on this understanding, there is no reason NOT to consider the Queen's Gambit as a true gambit, unless you wish to state arbitrarily that there must be more than X number of plies between the loss and the subsequent regaining.
> 10 votes

# Answer
> A Gambit is a chess opening where *a pawn is sacrificed in order to grab the initiative*.

The Queen's Gambit is called a Gambit because White sacrifices the `c-pawn` in order to get a better control over the center.

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

```

After Black has accepted the pawn with `dxc4`, the consequence is pretty clear i.e., without a pawn on `d5` Black has less control over the center squares `e4` and `d5`. White can use this fact and soon play `e2-e4`, `Nb1-c3` and `Bf1-c4` to control these squares.

Practice has shown that *accepting the gambit is not the best option for Black*. Therefore, many opening systems have been developed where the gambit could be declined, mainly using `2. ..e6` or `2. ..c6`.
> 8 votes

# Answer
A gambit by any other name is still a gambit. Using your pawn as a sacrifice in order to control the action/ space on the board is the choice of the player. I concur w/ the notion that it’s not necessarily a sacrifice if the means justify the ends. Basically, it’s just a term that has been assigned to a particular strategy... is all!!!
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: How can I punish the "bad" knight on c3?
I play the Caro–Kann Defence against 1.e4 as black, and for whatever reason it feels like I get the following line way too frequently:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Nc3?!

```

This line is a "non-critical" line, so much so that I just got an opening book on the Caro-Kann and there are a whopping 0 lines that discuss how to play against this setup. It's very rarely played in the masters databases, but on lichess.org it's the 4th most common move in this position, and you can also reach the same position by playing `1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5?! cxd5 4.d4` which isn't too uncommon.

Similar to the c3 knight in the Richter–Veresov Attack or the "Jobava" London, mostly I just see people dismissing this knight, claiming off-hand that it's bad, that it "doesn't belong there". But for whatever reason, when I look at my results in the different lines in the Exchange Variation, this is my worst line! I'm probably running into problems with a small sample size, but I'm wondering if anyone has any general tips for how to make white feel this "bad knight".

# Answer
> 11 votes
> I'm wondering if anyone has any general tips for how to make white feel this "bad knight"

The fact that you manage to put "bad" and "bad knight" in scare quotes shows that there is some hope for you. White does not have a bad position. I suspect that this line isn't played much at master level because it isn't the best way to squeeze every last scintilla of advantage out of white's starting advantage of having the first move.

But there is no universe in which you can look at white's position and seriously think that white has a bad position which black must punish. If you think like that as black then you are on the way to losing.

Four moves into the game and white has already -

* Staked a claim to the center with a pawn on d4 (black matches this with a pawn on d5)
* Developed a piece to a good central square, the knight on c3 (black is behind but it is black's turn so can remedy this on the next move)
* Has free development for both bishops (black has free development for only one bishop)

White is not worse. Black is not better. Has black completely equalized? It doesn't look like it.

So, your best approach is to accept that white's first move advantage may have decreased slightly but your job remains the same during the opening - try and equalize via good development. How you develop your pieces will depend to a certain extent on how white develops. Pay attention to all the things you normally do during the opening and aim to reach an even middlegame where you can try and outplay your opponent.

At all costs avoid trying to punish your opponent. This will only lead to bad moves and an early loss.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The knight is badly misplaced on c3 here. If you protect your d5-pawn with ...e6, what is the knight supposed to do? It doesn't put any pressure on the d5-pawn since there are no White pawns helping to attack it. If White's c-pawn were on c4 then the knight would be completely fine on c3. But now, even if all of White's pieces were attacking the d5-pawn, it wouldn't really matter since there's no White pawn involved in the attack. Capturing on d5 would entail sacrificing a piece for two pawns.

On c3 the knight also can't move to e4, which is firmly controlled by the d5-pawn. The best plan for it is to maneuver somewhere else, such as to the g3-square via e2. But now White will have spent 3 tempi in total just to put the knight on a mediocre square. Also, as NoseKnowsAll mentioned, with the c-pawn being unable to move to c3, Bd3 is in danger of running into ...Nb4; and, due to the c2-pawn, Qb3 ideas aren't possible (making it safer for you to develop your light-squared bishop).

There's no quick way to punish White's play, so just develop for now. E.g., ...Nf6, ...Bf5/...Bg4, ...e6, ...Be7/...Bd6, ...0-0, ...Nc6. Then, you could consider starting a queenside attack with ...a6 + ...b5. Maybe later on White will move the c3-knight away and push the c-pawn to c3, so then you'd be in a position to launch a minority attack with ...b4.

Another plan is to instead develop your king's knight to e7 (after having played ...Bd6), and aim to play ...f6 + ...e5 later in the game. Because White's c-pawn isn't helping to pressure the d5-pawn, this plan has a higher chance of succeeding than it normally would.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just what is so bad about the White knight and its position? 4. Nf6 for Black is the best option, with a slight theoretical edge in scoring probability in the endgames, although getting there would take accurate play. Additionally, there are many moves that look plausible that would fail to do well. Overall, the position is very drawish.

# Answer
> 3 votes
My answer is to just play chess- playing on the queenside as normal is a good idea in this structure even without the pawn on c3, since here you get to knock away the knight. Pressure versus d4 is also easier without a c3 pawn, which is nice. Black is better than normal, but it's not really anything you can get a instant win from- this just doesn't even come close to proving an advantage.

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


# Question
Title: The chess.com vs computer games celebrity category
I came upon chess.com playing against computer mode. I found a resemblance of two professional chess players over there. Do they really resemble their gameplay, though? Does the AI mimic their past plays?

# Answer
I have spent some time playing the lower-rated bots, and can confirm they tend to have different "personalities". I'm not a strong enough player to explain exactly how they are different. However I have observed that some are more aggressive, and tend to gravitate towards particular openings depending on the color.

I know that Hikaru recently did a series of videos on youtube where he played against bots. When I saw the new bots, I had a feeling that it was for the purpose you describe.
> 1 votes

# Answer
We don't know for sure. Chess.com is closed source so we will never know for sure. One thing I can tell you for sure, you're **NOT** playing the real Nakamura. It's nothing more than a tuned chess engine wrapped by smart marketing.

Why don't we take a look of PlayMagnus https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/a5ws9t/question\_about\_playmagnus/?

> The higher levels of the app actually makes some attempts to play like Magnus did at the various ages. It isn't nearly as good as I would like it to be (I was handicapped by an extreme shortage of development time and not having anything better than my MacBook available for tuning and testing), and I hope to find the time to do a better job some day, but at least it is true that analysis of Magnus' style, strength and opening choices through the years played some role in the development of these levels.
>
> The lower levels, however, are pure fiction. We didn't even have any games played by Magnus at these ages. We made these levels with the aim that every chess player - even someone who has just learned the rules - should be able to find some beatable level. Magnus 5, the lowest level of all, plays completely random legal moves. It has nothing to do with any research of how Magnus or any other 5 year old plays chess.

So think of like paying chess.com for a new careful strong tuned chess AI. Sorry, no Nakamura here.

I don't know what exactly was tuned. My guess:

* Playing strength
* Thinking time
* Static evaluation
* Search algorithms
* Piece square tables
* Search depth etc
> 1 votes

# Answer
They said about individual bot (strengths and weaknesses) but haven't disclosed about the bots, representing professional players.
> 1 votes

# Answer
no, i think its just the strength of the computer is matched with the computers image like the hikaru nakamura computer. It will play at his strength level.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Where does the expression "checkmate" come from?
While watching *The Queen's Gambit* my partner asked me: why do they say "checkmate"? But she wanted to know what is the origin of this expression, not its meaning. And I realized I didn't actually know. So, what is the origin of the expression "checkmate" and its etymology?

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, *checkmate* comes from the Middle English *chekmaten*, which is derived from the Anglo-French *eschec mat*. And this came from the Persian *shāh māt* through the Arabic language.

The Persian word *shāh* means king. (With a definite article, it becomes *as-shāh*, the king.)

But I found two different interpretations for *māt*:

So, *as-shāh māt* -\> checkmate = the king is dead!

---
Tags: checkmate, history, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn’t Stockfish evaluate this fortress as 0.0?
I'm going through the *100 endgames you must know* book on Chessable and stumbled upon something I don't understand. This position with white to move is described as a draw starting with 1. Kh1. I figured well why wouldn't 1. Kf1 be a draw and I put the exercise into Lichess analyses, which evaluates the position as -2,5, no matter which move white plays.

Why isn't Stockfish able to evaluate this position as 0.0? It says 'depth 64'. Wouldn't it only need to calculate 50 moves to establish that this is a fortress and thereby a draw?

```
[FEN "8/8/1n6/8/8/5k1p/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Depth 64 means 64 *half moves*, it includes moves both by white and black. It isn't close to being able detect draws by means of the 50 move rule (100 plies). Especially since that is only the depth of the deepest line in the search, and to conclude it was certainly a draw, Stockfish would have to look at a huge number of lines that all eventually draw by the 50 move rule.

Endgame draws like this are notoriously difficult for engines, they have no good way to judge "progress" in their calculations. There are some attempts being tried out but they aren't at the level of Stockfish yet.

This is why *tablebases* were invented -- huge databases of all positions with up to some number of pieces (7 at the moment I think). They give an immediate answer. This is a five-piece position and a Stockfish configured to use tablebases would immediately know it is a draw.
> 16 votes

# Answer
This is an easy position for Stockfish with tablebase, but very hard without it. The only way Stockfish can work out it's a draw is search all the way through 50-move draw. Otherwise, it'd think the position is winning for Black because Black has a knight up.

Your browser may not have the capability to search such high depth. That's exactly the reason why we need tablebase in high quality analysis.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, stockfish, fortress
---


title: Why does White play g5?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does White play g5?
As a total newbie, I've been solving some medium-level problems on chesstempo. This one caught my eye. We play as Black after White's first move.

```
[FEN "6k1/5p1p/5bp1/p7/P1r3PP/2n2N2/4NP2/1R4K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rb8+ Kg7 2. g5

```

What I can't understand is why White plays g5.

It is a quite poor attack on the bishop as Black then plays Ne2, capturing the White knight and checking the king. Therefore White loses the knight and does not get to capture the bishop. Instead, White could have at least exchanged the knights:

```
[FEN "1K/2PN/2N2n/PP3r1P/7p/1pb/pkp/6R w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf6 Rf6

```

I this reckon to be a fine attack on h4 pawn as the White knight (which is protecting it) should be moved not to be captured by the rook. Yet, from White's viewpoint, I believe having the knights exchanged and the pawn captured is better than having the knight captured and leaving Black with all the pieces.

What is the point of such a move? What am I not seeing? Why are the moves I made (Nf6, Rf6) not right?

# Answer
Black doesn't actually win a piece.

After 1.Rb8 Kg7 2.g5!? Nxe2, White will parry the check by playing 3.Kf1, when both the Bf6 and the Ne2 are under attack. You cannot save both pieces with 3...Nd4 attacking f3 and hoping for 4.Nxd4? Bxd4 because 4.gf6 is check.

As a consequence, Black wins a pawn and retains a winning position, but they don't pocket a piece. Alternatives on the second move to 2.g5 are hardly better for White because their Pg4 is hanging with check, e.g. 2.Nxc3 Rxg4! (and not 2...Rxc3) 3.Kf1 Bxc3 with, once again, an extra pawn and a winning position.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, check, puzzles, exchange
---


# Question
Title: Why does this puzzle offer f8=R as better than f8=Q?
Here's a chess puzzle that gave a confusing response. https://chesspuzzle.net/Puzzle/52112

```
[FEN "5R2/1p6/p4Ppk/3r4/7p/1P6/P7/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh8+ Kg5 2. f7 Rf5 3. f8=R

```

If you play `f8=Q` in this final position, you will not fail the puzzle, but be told "There is a better move..." (`f8=R`).

It seems inevitable that the black captures the promoted piece, and the result is the same after white recaptures.

Incidentally, `f8=Q` was played in the game. https://www.chess.com/games/view/15563079

What is more curious, is that I have played other puzzles on this site that allow multiple moves in a position for continuation, and my assumption therefore was that it only suggests a "better move" when your move doesn't change the theoretical outcome of the game, but gives significantly lower advantage (i.e. still decisively winning, but slower). This would suggest that chesspuzzle.net has evaluated `f8=Q` to be an inaccuracy of some sort.

Is there any reasoning to be found for this? Or is it just a strange computer evaluation?

I have tried inputting the position on the analysis board on lichess.org, and it flip flops between the two moves as the depth builds, but eventually starts showing `f8=Q` with a consistent advantage. (The opposite of chesspuzzle.net)

This seems strange also, as in my perhaps naïve reasoning explained initially, both moves should be identical.

# Answer
If anything, promoting to a queen is the better choice, as it forces Black to exchange their rook. For promoting to a rook, Stockfish NNUE actually slightly prefers moving the f5-rook away instead of playing ...Rxf8 (although any continuation gives White a large winning advantage). So at the very least Black is given a choice.

But even if we were certain it's best for Black to play ...Rxf8 if White promotes to a rook, there would still be no reason to say that promoting to a rook is better than promoting to a queen - both lead to the same outcome. What possibly happened is that the site's computer calculated one line further/differently, and arrived at an evaluation that was higher in the line for promoting to a rook. Although since you said the site allows multiple solutions to sometimes be accepted, this seems like a bug in their software.
> 9 votes

# Answer
It seems as if the puzzle is based on an actual game played between Jorden van Foreest and Martin Petrov in April 2019.

If you click on the button to show the solution, it shows the full game, of which the puzzle is but a fragment. It looks to me as they want you to solve the puzzle by following the game as played, not by coming up with another solution.

The curious thing is that *365Chess.com* has the promotion as a Queen, while *ChessPuzzle.net* has it as a Rook. Analysis on *Chess.com* puts promotion to a Queen at 0.94, while promotion to a Rook is 0.96, even though Black's next move is Rxf8 in both cases.
> 4 votes

# Answer
For an engine, it makes no difference if you promote to a rook or a queen. In both cases, your advantage is huge. There is no real resistance for black, but his best chances, if any, are to give his rook for the promoted piece. 3.f8R Rxf8 and 3.f8Q Rxf8 result in the same position. No difference.

But chess puzzles have their own etiquette. And one of the unwritten rules: the less the value of the promoted piece, the more beauty. Underpromotion to a knight or a bishop would not add more beauty but are a blunder, because the black passed pawns are strong now. So a rook or queen it has to be. Both are winning, and the underpromotion is in puzzle terms the „better“ move.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It is a quirk/bug of the software used by that site to pick moves expected in puzzles.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, pawn-promotion, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: How many windmills types exist in chess?
I'm interested in chess patterns similar to the windmill. If you think there are none more than the ones that I'm listing I'm interested in a proof that satisfies me to stop looking for more of them. Wikipedia gives this definition for a windmill:

> In chess, a windmill is a tactic in which a combination of discovered checks and regular checks, usually by a rook and a bishop, can win massive amounts of material. This tactic is also sometimes referred to as a see-saw.

I know two windmills. First the one in the "game of the century" between Fisher and Byrne (moves between 18 and 23 black does a windmill), it involves a bishop and a knight (also a rook, but it's not essential. For example see this game for a windmill knight-bishop without white rook.

```
[FEN "K7/8/8/2B5/4N3/7q/6pp/3r1b1k w - - 0 9"]

9.Nf2+ Kg1 10.Nxh3+ Kh1 11.Nf2+ Kg1 12.Nxd1+ Kh1 13.Nf2+ Kg1 14.Ne4+ Kh1 15.Nf2+ Kg1 16.Ng4+ Kh1 *

```

This can also be seen as a royal fork constantly attacking the black king, but windmill contains and "mechanic" that allows the knight to do whatever it wants but black is still restricted to move his king back and forth.

A second example is this article.

The other type of windmill is of this game. Starts at move 26, white does a windmill this time with rook and a bishop.

I want to know if you can share more types of windmills with me. I realized you can substitute the bishop that remains still in both tecniques (B+R & B+N) with a queen carrying out the same function. So I have 4 types. Do you know similar positions?

PD: I realized also that if I change the bishop for a queen that allows sometimes checkmate, for example smothered checkmate can be seen as a windmill with the queen.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Yet more possibilities . . .

: Two-way windmill, with either Rook or Bishop as the front piece; e.g. with a Rook:

```
5n2/3bb2k/6pp/4B1pr/8/8/8/5RK1 w - - 0 0

1. Rf7+ Kg8
2. Rg7+ Kh8
3. Rxe7+ Kg8
4. Rg7+ Kh8
5. Rxd7+ Kg8
6. Rg7+ Kh8
7. Rxg6+ Kh7
8. Rg7+ Kh8
9. Rxg5+ Kh7
10. Rxh5

```

(it's important to capture g5 last, else Black has Rh5xe5)

: Windmill against a piece other than a King:

```
5kr1/6pp/8/4N1p1/6p1/6P1/6BP/6K1 w - - 0 0

1. Bd5! Rh8
2. Nf7! Rg8
3. Nxg5 Rh8
4. Nf7 Rg8
5. Ne5 Rh8
6. Nxg4

```

(with better winning chances than the immediate 1 Nxg4)

: That means that even the King can be the front piece of a windmill of sorts against a Knight:

```
8/8/1n1p1p2/3K1k2/8/1P6/6B1/8 w - - 0 0

1. Kc6! Na8
2. Kxd6 Nb6
3. Kc7

```

(or first 3. Bb7 and then 4. Kc7(c6); if 1...Nc8 then 2 Bh3+ wins.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
An example where the Bishop is the windmill piece.

```

[fen "7R/kr4P1/5P2/4P3/3P4/b1P5/P1PP4/K2R4 b - - 0 0"]

1...Bb2+ 2. Kb1 Bxc3+ 3. Kc1 Bb2+ 4. Kb1 Bxd4+ 5. Kc1 Bb2+ 6. Kb1 Bxe5+ 7. Kc1 Bb2+ 8. Kb1 Bxf6+ 9. Kc1 Bb2+ 10. Kb1 Bxg7+ 11. Kc1 Bb2+ 12. Kb1 Bxh8+

```

Since the requirement is that the windmill and the discovered piece move differently that is two with Bishop, four with Knight, and two with Rook as the windmill piece, for a total of 8 types of windmill attacks.

EDIT: Inserting windmill position with Rook and Knight.

```

[FEN "5rk1/R7/6N1/4p3/5p1p/8/8/K5R1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nxh4+ Kh8 2. Ng6+ Kg8 3. Nxf4+ Kh8 4. Ng6+ Kg8 5. Nxe5+ Kh8 6. Ng6+ Kg8 7.
Nxf8+ *

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is a game (Alekhine vs Fletcher, London simultaneous 1928) where knight and bishop win (with queen sacrifice).

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simul, 6b"]
[Site "Gambit Chess Rooms, London ENG"]
[Date "1928.06.08"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Alan Linnell Fletcher"]
[ECO "A31"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[StartPly "50"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d4 Nc6 4. d5 Nb8 5. Nc3 d6 6. g3 g6
7. Bg2 Bg7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bf4 h6 10. Qd2 Kh7 11. e4 Nh5 12. Be3
Nd7 13. Rae1 Rb8 14. Nh4 Ndf6 15. h3 Ng8 16. g4 Nhf6 17. f4 e6
18. Nf3 exd5 19. cxd5 b5 20. e5 b4 21. Nd1 Ne4 22. Qd3 f5
23. e6 Qa5 24. gxf5 gxf5 25. Nh4 Ba6 26. Qxe4 fxe4 27. Bxe4+
Kh8 28. Ng6+ Kh7 29. Nxf8+ Kh8 30. Ng6+ Kh7 31. Ne5+ Kh8
32. Nf7# 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do not have to time to create a diagram of every type, but it seems intuitive to me that it would be possible to contrive a windmill from any pair of (non-pawn) pieces where:

* The stationary piece is a slider
* The moving piece is any other type of piece not capable of attacking along the axis at which the stationary piece will give check

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have compiled a complete list of all types of windmills. A windmill, known as a "zwickmühle" in Germany, is a sequence of attacks and discovered attacks performed by two pieces, one stationary and the other moving, on an opponent's piece, most often the King, used to gain material.

Two principles define the structure of a windmill.

1. The stationary piece is one with infinite range, meaning it will be either a bishop, a rook, or a queen.
2. Excluding kings, it is not possible for the moving piece to attack in the same direction as the stationary piece. The moving piece moves opposite the attacking direction of the stationary piece.

I am utilizing chess problems to demonstrate each and every type. There are two categories based on the stationary piece's attacking line, which are vertical/horizontal and diagonal. The moving piece is listed first followed by the stationary piece.

**Vertical/horizontal Stationery Pieces**

Bishop+Rook

```
[Title "Alfred O. Karlström, Die Schwalbe 02/1940, Mate In 13"]
[FEN "k2K2n1/Bp6/1p6/1pp5/R2p4/4p3/5p2/6b1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ra2 Bh2 2. Bxb6+ Kb8 3. Ba7+ Ka8 4. Bxc5+ Kb8 5. Ba7+ Ka8 6. Bxd4+ Kb8 7.  Ba7+ Ka8 8. Bxe3+ Kb8 9. Ba7+ Ka8 10. Bxf2+ Kb8 11. Ba7+ Ka8 12. Bg1+ Kb8 13.  Bxh2#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

Bishop+Queen

```
[Title "Ārons Ņimcovičs, Unknown Publication 1925, Mate In 13"]
[FEN "4r1k1/5p2/R5BQ/5p2/4p3/3n4/b1n4K/br6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh7+ Kh8 2. Bxf5+ Kg8 3. Bh7+ Kh8 4. Bxe4+ Kg8 5. Bh7+ Kh8 6. Bxd3+ Kg8 7.  Bh7+ Kh8 8. Bxc2+ Kg8 9. Bh7+ Kh8 10. Bxb1+ Kg8 11. Rg6+ fxg6 12. Bxa2+ Re6 13. Bxe6#

```

Source: Yet Another Chess Problem Database

Knight+Rook/Queen

See Mike Jone’s answer.

**Diagonal Stationery Pieces**

Rook+Bishop/Queen

```
[Title "Josef Krejcik, Wiener Schachzeitung 2/1925 On Pages 41-42, White Wins"]
[FEN "5nk1/nbnbnbrR/6bn/6n1/6b1/2B3n1/1K4b1/r5n1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Rxg7+ Kh8 2. Rxf7+ Kg8 3. Rg7+ Kh8 4. Rxe7+ Kg8 5. Rg7+ Kh8 6. Rxd7+ Kg8 7.  Rg7+ Kh8 8. Rxc7+ Kg8 9. Rg7+ Kh8 10. Rxb7+ Kg8 11. Rg7+ Kh8 12. Rxa7+ Kg8 13.  Rg7+ Kh8 14. Rxg6+ Kh7 15. Rg7+ Kh8 16. Rxg5+ Kh7 17. Rg7+ Kh8 18. Rxg4+ Kh7 19.  Rg7+ Kh8 20. Rxg3+ Kh7 21. Rg7+ Kh8 22. Rxg2+ Kh7 23. Rg7+ Kh8 24. Rxg1+ Kh7 25. Rg7+ Kh8 26. Kxa1 Nh7 27. Rg6+ Nf6 28. Rxh6+ Kg7 29. Rxf6

```

Source: Edward Winter’s Chess Notes article entitled "The Chess Seesaw"

Knight+Bishop/Queen

```
[Title "M. Kwiatkowski, The Problemist 1992, Mate In 29"]
[FEN "3n4/rBp1p3/2P5/2PK4/k2N4/pp2R3/bppB2Rp/q1n1r1b1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rg4 h1=Q+ 2. Nf3+ Kb5 3. Rb4+ Ka5 4. Rbe4+ Kb5 5. Nd4+ Ka4 6. Ne2+ Kb5 7. Nc3+ Ka5 8. Nxa2+ Kb5 9. Nc3+ Ka5 10. Ne2+ Kb5 11. Nd4+ Ka4 12. Nf3+ Kb5 13. Rb4+ Ka5 14. Rbxb3+ Ka4 15. Rb4+ Ka5 16. Rbe4+ Kb5 17. Nd4+ Ka4 18. Ne2+ Kb5 19. Nc3+ Ka5 20. Na2+ Kb5 21. Ba6+ Rxa6 22. Nc3+ Ka5 23. Ne2+ Kb5 24. Nd4+ Ka4 25. Nf3+ Kb5 26. Rb4+ Ka5 27. Rb6+ Ka4 28. Rxa6+ Kb5 29. Ra5#

```

Source: Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #270

King+Bishop/Queen

See Noam D. Elkies's answer.

---
Tags: tactics, windmill
---


# Question
Title: A position with a choice between checkmate and perpetual check
For some odd reason I'm searching for a game, or rather a position, where one player can force a win via checkmate (can be check in n, where n is any number), but they can also force a draw via perpetual check (again, maybe the perpetual check comes about a few steps later, but the player has an assured path to it).

A real, historical game would be a bonus, and a game between two skilled players will be even better. But constructed positions, even weak ones, will be appreciated, too.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is one game which should match your request (Swiderski, Rudolf vs. Nimzowitsch, Aaron):

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Qc2 O-O 8.Rd1 Re8 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.O-O b5 13.Bxd5 cxd5 14.Nxb5 Ba6 15. Qa4 Bxb5 16.Qxb5 Reb8 17.Qe2 a5 18.Rc1 Qd8 19.Rc3 a4 20.Rfc1 Qa5 21.Rc7 Nb6 22.R1c5 Qb4 23.a3 Qb3 24.Ng5 Qa2 25.h3 Rf8 26.Kh2 h6 27.Nxe6 Rfc8 28. Qf3 Rf8 29.Qg3 g6 30.Qxg6+ fxg6 31.Rg7+ Kh8 32.Rcc7

```

In the ending position white has a forced mate, e.g.:

```
[FEN "r4r1k/2R3R1/1n2N1pp/3p4/p2P4/P3P2P/qP3PPK/8 b - - 3 1"]

1... Nd7 2. Rcxd7 Rf7 3. Rdxf7 Qxb2 4. Rh7+ Kg8 5. Rfg7#

```

Alternatively, he can force a draw, e.g:

```
[FEN "r4r1k/2R3R1/1n2N1pp/3p4/p2P4/P3P2P/qP3PPK/8 b - - 3 1"]

1... Nd7 2. Rcxd7 Rf7 3. Rdxf7 Qxb2 4. Rh7+ Kg8 5. Rhg7 Kh8 6. Rh7+ Kg8 7. Rhg7 Kh8

```

Probably any game ending in a Blind Swine Mate would work.

# Answer
> 1 votes
very typical example, this position happened millions of times in chess history:

```
k7/3Q4/1K6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```
1. Qb7#, 1. Qc7 Stalemate, 1.Qc6 can start perpetual - just be careful - don't checkmate your opponent by accident :)

Just wondering - if this is really worth studying, but you get what you ask for ...

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, master-games, perpetual
---


# Question
Title: Did predecessors of modern chess use dice to determine which piece to move?
According to the Wikipedia article of *Magic: The Gathering*, creator Dr. Richard Garfield has compared the evolution of the game from luck to skill as being similar to that of chess.

> According to Dr. Garfield, Magic has and would likely continue decreasing its degree of luck as the game matured. The "Mulligan rule", as well as card design, past vs. present, are good examples of this trend. He feels that this is a universal trend for maturing games. Dr. Garfield explained using chess as an example, that unlike modern chess, in predecessors, players would use dice to determine which chess piece to move.

However, the article on Chess doesn't mention dice in its history. Did predecessors to modern chess indeed use dice? And if so, was it removed as part of a maturation of design to emphasize skill over luck, as Dr. Garfield suggests?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Richard Eales addresses this question in *Chess: The History of a Game* (p.30):

> On one last matter, whether or not the early Indian chess was played with dice, there is simply no evidence on which to base a general conclusion. Al-Biruni saw dice being used in the four-handed game (throw two to move the chariot, three for the horse, and so on), but this is a practice which continually crops up in the history of pre-modern chess, particularly when gambling was involved. The *Chatrang-namak* described *chatrang* as a game of pure skill but the dice were not unknown in Islam, and certainly reappeared more frequently in medieval Europe. There is no clue preserved in the structure of the game to betray whether the 'original' chess was played with dice or not.

So it seems that this question is one on which we should remain agnostic.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The strongest circumstantial evidence I know of is from Alfonso X's *Libro de los Juegos ("Game Book")* from the year 1283. It has a description of a chess variant played on a 12x12 board with 8 different types of pieces, and describes how to make 8-sided dice as an optional part of the game.

It also mentions a 10x10 variant with 7 different pieces, and how to make/use 7-sided dice.

So playing chess with dice wasn't unthinkable. Since they went to the trouble of describing new dice for the new variants, it makes me suspect that using 6-sided dice for 'normal' chess had to be at least moderately common.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Dice came first, then backgammon and chess followed. Chess was banned in Islam and Christendom for over a century because of gambling. Every 100 years a Mullah's convention was held and chess scholars petitioned for chess to be allowed without the dice. They were refused and 100 years later another plea was made and this time it was allowed. As a result the use of the dice has disappeared from chess histories and folk memory. Gambling still occurs with backgammon but not with chess. The first recorded dice with the modern configuration (opposite sides add up to 7) is in China 3,000 years ago. Previous dice use symbols rather than numbers. After crooked dice were outlawed on the Silk Road there was demand games involving 6, hence backgammon and chess.

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: How old was Judit Polgár when she learned to play chess?
I found a few publicly accessible biographies of Judit Polgár, including details of her early life. According to the biography on her website, she was 9 when she first won an international chess tournament. According to this SuccessStory article, she began participating in tournaments at the age of 6. According to this article from “All That’s Interesting”, she was able to beat her father by the age of 5.

But how old was she when she learned how to play?

# Answer
In her TED talk *Giving checkmate is always fun*, Judit Polgar says (t=0:59):

> My mother taught me the first moves when I was about five years old...
> 7 votes

---
Tags: learning, history, famous-players, women, children
---


# Question
Title: What are the chess time limits used by FIDE?
I was wondering, what time limits does FIDE use for its professional matches?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Interestingly there are two FIDE documents specifying these. Fortunately they don't contradict each other.

First, FIDE Handbook - General Rules and Technical Recommendations for Tournaments / 07. Time Control / says:

> There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

> The list of FIDE events where this single time control will be used:
>
> Chess Olympiads
> World Team Championships
> Continental Team Championships
> World Cup
> Continental Championships
> Zonal Tournaments
> World Youth & Junior Championships
> Continental Youth & Junior Championships
> World School Championships
> Continental Club Championships

There are some obvious omissions here. What about the World Championships? The Women's World Championships? The Candidates? What about rapid and blitz championships?

Well, section 12 of FIDE Handbook C. General Rules and Technical Recommendations for Tournaments 02. Standards of Chess Equipment, venue for FIDE Tournaments, rate of play and tie-break regulations Approved by the 2018 FIDE General Assembly taking effect from 1 July 2019 has a full list.

> The following time controls are approved for FIDE World Events:
>
> **No EVENT TIME CONTROL**
> 1 World Championship Match 100’/40+50’/20+15’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 2 Candidates Tournament 100’/40+50’/20+15’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 3 World Cup 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 4 Grand Prix 100’/40+50’/20+15’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 5 Women’s World Championship Match 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 6 Chess Olympiad 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 7 World Team Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 8 Women’s World Team Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 9 Women’s Grand Prix 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 10 World Senior Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 11 World Senior Team Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 12 World Juniors and Girls U-20 Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 13 Continental Individual Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 14 Continental Team Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 15 World Youth 14-16-18 Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 16 World Cadets 08-10-12 Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 17 World Schools Individual Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 18 World Schools Team Championships 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 19 World Amateur Championship 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 20 World Olympiad U-16 90’/40+30’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1
> 21 World Rapid Championships 15’ with incr. 10” per move, starting from move 1
> 22 World Blitz Championships 3’ with incr. 2” per move, starting from move 1

Just to decipher what that means. Take -

> 1 World Championship Match 100’/40+50’/20+15’/end with incr. 30”/move, starting from move 1

This means that

There is a 30 second increment starting from move 1
The first 40 moves have to be played in 100 minutes
The next 20 moves have to be played in an additional 50 minutes
After this (so 60 moves already played) the players get an additional 15 minutes to complete the game

---
Tags: rules, fide, time-control
---


# Question
Title: How does b4 fix pawns in this rook endgame?
Here, it is said that **after 1.Re7 Rb8 2.Kd3 a6**, white plays b4 to fix the enemy pawns. But I don't understand: how does it fix pawns? How is b3 any different? What does it mean to fix enemy pawns?

# Answer
It definitely prevents Black from playing ...c5, at least temporarely. I wouldn't say Black pawns are "fixed" though. Anyway, isn't Re7 a much stronger move?
> 6 votes

# Answer
1. b4 is just weak here.

Instead 1. Re7 (get your rooks on the 7th rank!) almost wins on spot. One can then try 2. b4 according to what black plays.
> 3 votes

# Answer
3. b4 fixes the black pawns a to c, because they cannot advance without support.

In the original position, 1. b4 would not fix the pawns. Black could play ...b6 followed by ...c5 at the right moment. After 2. ...a6, ...b6 is not possible anymore without support. And without ...b6, ...c5 is not possible. So the black pawns need support by their King or Rook to advance. They are fixed.

I know the term „fixed pawn“ only in situations where the pawn cannot advance even with support. P.e. w a5, b4, c5, b a6, b7, c6 the pawns are fixed. It is obvious for the a and c pawns. If the b-pawn advances, it will be captured, and any recapture by a rook (a recapture by the king is obviously illegal) will result in serious material loss.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It does not fix the pawns directly. As black pawns can still move without being captured. But it ensures that black cannot force a passed pawn even if they sacrificed one pawn to do it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, terminology, pawn-structure, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Continuation for white in the Bishops opening variation: 1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qxd4 Nf6
I am currently reading Chess Openings: Theory and Practice - I.A Horowitz. The first opening displayed in the book is a variation of the bishops opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3. Seemingly the best continuation for black, if they can defend properly, is to continue 4 ... Nxe4 and to 5. Qxd4 respond with 5 ... Nf6.

From this point Horowitz goes on to consider the variation 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Nc3 c6:

```
rnbqk2r/pp1pbppp/2p2n2/6B1/2BQ4/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 8

```

This seems fine for white (to me) by basic chess principles (good development, castling around the corner). However I have two questions:

> What if black had responded with 6 ... Qe7+? It seems like white either trade queens and is worse or moves the king allowing Nc6 and is just worse?

> What can white do after 5 ... Nf6? My thinking is that 6. Bg5 is the mistake so perhaps 6. Nc3.

# Answer
Using Caissabase or the lichess masters database we can see that instead of Nxe4, Nc6 is more popular to avoid this gambit idea (the Urusov gambit) which is.... dubious but not so simple and seemingly scores fine enough. White has additionally scored p decently.

Qe7+ has only been played in one game, but seems good (black won that game, and SF12 gives -0.89 at depth 37, which is quite good). Nc6 and Be7 are both fine, but Nc6 is probably slightly better, judging from the fact that the lichess database shows it as most common with quite a hefty advantage for black, as opposed to the noticeably higher win rate for white (seemingly due to this very variation, as it turns out!). SF also likes Nc6 best, with an evaluation of -0.86 at depth 40.

After Nf6, Nc3 is seemingly more popular nowadays (as the lichess masters database), but has worse results.

My recommendation would be to consider not playing this gambit in the first place, since the Urusov Gambit is somewhat iffy, although it's probably still playable at a sub-master level, or to get a more recent book on this. This book is from the 1960s, as @Scounged very nicely pointed out, and as such is almost entirely useless- the only cases where it's useful are for general plans and opening names, and even here it will be severely lacking. If you want a starting opening book, Fundamental Chess Openings by Paul van der Sterren is great, although again note that many of the lines will be incorrect (esp in theoretical openings e.g. e4 e5 or the Sicilian)- focus instead on plans and names, and supplement with other sources (books, videos, courses).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


title: What rules are known for Chaturanga?

text:
# Question
Title: What rules are known for Chaturanga?
In the ancient Indian game Chaturanga, what rules are known, and how does it vary from modern chess? Also, is it a solved game?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The exact rules aren't known, but what *is* known or commonly believed to be true is listed on Wikipedia. Especially the elephant/gaja's movement rules are uncertain.

It varies from modern chess because it has some pieces which move differently: the elephant mentioned above and the mantri/minister. Modern chess has the bishop and queen in their places. Still, the complexity of the game is comparable to chess, so it's a long way from being solved.

---
Tags: rules, history, chess-variants
---