# Question
Title: Would an erroneous claim of mate be considered as annoying the opponent, cheating, an illegal move, or something else?
Especially in kiddie games, mates are often missed or supposed mates are not really mates. What would the TD declare such misguided claims of mate? What should a TD do if adults did the same thing?

# Answer
First, kids and adults, the rules are the same, so there is no difference there.

What you are asking about goes beyond just the rules: It comes down to intent.

Whether an adult, or kid, there could be an erroneous claim; and if it is really just that, then the TD should just fix it assuming it is caught in time. It is just a mistake. Other types of mistakes would be similar.

This might be hard to prove, but it an opponent did it just to cheat or annoy, then yes, that would be a breach of the rules, and should be penalized. The real question is how do you prove that? Short of the person having done it before, or bragging about it, I cannot see how a TD would impose sanctions upon someone for what otherwise looks like a human mistake. I think the TD has to assume it is a mistake unless otherwise proven, which again, may be next to impossible. Even without that proof, if the TD suspects, a warning may be in order that future incorrect claims may be sanctioned.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, tournament-directors
---


# Question
Title: How to resign when my opponent is not at the board?
This happened to me yesterday. It was unreasonable for me to play on, so I was going to resign but my opponent was not at the board. They probably left the board to watch another game, waiting for my next move.

*Question*: What is the correct way to resign if my opponent is not at the board?

I stopped the clock, wrote 1-0 on my scoresheet (I was black), and started resetting the pieces. But this doesn't strike me as an officially correct thing to do.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I agree with Cleveland that what you did is probably sufficient. One other thing you can always do if you can't find the opponent and are concerned that you might be seen as doing something suspicious is to call the arbiter and announce your resignation to them.

# Answer
> 3 votes
That's an acceptable way to do it. If you want a more official record, sign your scoresheet after writing 1-0. I usually motion for them to come back to the board and then offer a handshake.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When my opponent is at the board, I signal my resignation by handing him/her/it my King. When my opponent is not at the board, I signal my resignation by placing both King on the center squares. The dark squares if I played White, and the light squares if I played Black. I do stop and try to shut off the clock. I consider it bad etiquette to pick up his/her/its personal property, the chess case. Normally, I have plenty of time and can wait for my opponent to return and help put away the set.

It is good practice to have both players mark the score on the wall chart and to analyse the game, whatever the outcome of the game. "People who want to improve should take their defeats as lessons, and endeavor to learn what to avoid in the future." Capablanca.

# Answer
> 1 votes
find the TD and give them your scoresheet and say your opponent is MIA.

---
Tags: etiquette, resigning
---


title: Inaccurate checkmates?

text:
# Question
Title: Inaccurate checkmates?
So, in a tournament, my daughter recently had a case where her opponent made a move and declared checkmate. She acquiesced, shook his hand, and then realized it wasn't actually a checkmate. They continued the game until she actually checkmated him, at which point he said, "Well, you shook hands.." and claimed the victory in the tournament.

I can see both sides of this, but I am really not sure what the official ruling in a case like this would be. Anyone have any thoughts?

# Answer
Checkmate ends the game - there is no agreement/concession involved. If it’s not checkmate the game has not ended. And a handshake is not a move which needs to be “retracted”.

If the error was only realised significantly later, then maybe it’s a different case. I can see that an arbiter might deem the handshake to be a resignation. But that’s not the case here: they just played on and did not mark the scoresheets.

Your daughter does not need to be an expert in the rules (which cannot not be exhaustive in any case) but does need the reflex to call the arbiter or tournament director in any kind of dodgy situation.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It all depends.

What tournament where when? Who ran it? What rules were being used.

FIDE would require signing the score sheet.

Shaking hands means nothing except you like spreading germs around.

If he kept playing on after she did that would pretty much prove it was not mate and overrule any claims that she resigned.

Your kid should refer to ""\<\< 21F3. Facts are not agreed upon. If the facts are not agreed upon, the director should proceed as follows:a. A director who is satisfied that the facts have been ascertained should rule accordingly. b. A director who is unable to satisfactorily determine the facts must make a ruling that will permit play to continue. See also 1C2, Director discretion; ""\>\>""

say the facts are not agreed on. Use the position on the board as proof. and ask also for a ruling on the facts and also if needed IC2 Director discretion.

Especially since this is a kiddie tournament the TD should not award the win even if there was a meaningless handshake to the person who made an erroneous claim.

Depending on other factors they might caution the claimant against making claims so as to win improperly and to let the other person realize that it is actually or else move as in this case when it was not mate.

Situations like this emphasize the need to know ALL the rules if one is going to play in a tournament. Some groups may modify the rules or elaborate on them.

Start here:https://new.uschess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/US-Chess-Rule-Book-Online-Only-Edition-Chapters-1-2-11-1-1-20-1.pdf
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What chess *scoring* alternatives exist?
Chess (often being classified as a sport) stands almost alone among sports in that its results are of a strictly ternary nature that is not quantified any further: The only possible outcomes are a win, a draw or a loss.

While the same is of course true for most team or combat sports, virtually all of them go a lot further by basing the result on some sort of **point score**, which says a lot more about the match than merely who won: A `6-0` win in association football is not the same as a `2-1` (the first being a "crush" and the second being a rather narrow win), and a `3-3` draw is not the same as a `0-0` one (the first one indicating a wild game, the second a tenacious one). Further in-game metrics such as "ball control" and "shots on goal" are often employed to paint a high-level picture for spectators.

Given that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of variants to chess *rules* exist, I should be surprised if no one has ever proposed an improvement to how chess is *scored*, but alas, I have not found any material on that subject. I'm looking for a new angle to see top-level matches from, where, when analyzing games, one often cannot help but feel that some are won by a larger margin than others, and similar insights.

**Do any alternatives to ternary (win, draw, loss) chess scoring exist?**

# Answer
> 6 votes
I think the only alternative would be in match play or comparing a player's score across multiple games against another player or players.

For example, in a 12 game match between two players:

(+3 =8 -1) would be worse than (+5 =6 -1)

even though the first player won both matches.

Scoring by material count or number of moves played would not be beneficial. If the number of moves mattered, with shorter games being considered crushing defeats, players would just refuse to resign and drag the game out. On the other hand, I can lose in two moves without losing any pieces.

The only thing that seems to make sense is to compare score across multiple games against an opponent or field of opponents. You may have a better comparison considering a GM's total score in a tournament with many rounds. In a 9 round tournament, a 9.0 score would be crushing the competition. Winning the tournament with 6.5 would be less of an accomplishment.

# Answer
> 4 votes
1. Sometimes the media would report the *number of moves* the game lasted as some kind of indication of how badly an opponent was "crushed". If Magnus was to lose in less than 20 moves, that could be considered "badly beaten" by whomever he was playing, and I'm sure anybody reporting on it would mention that fact. To make it more sophisticated, you could count the number of moves until one side had a substantial advantage (i.e. Nakamura was losing by move 17, even if he managed to draw it out until move 63).
2. Another method I can think of is to use the computer evaluation during and at the end of the game. For example, recently Nakamura was +10 against Carlsen in a game (which Carlsen subsequently won) - that obviously gives an indication of what type of lead Nakamura threw away. By looking at the computer evaluation over the length of the game, you can get some idea of who was winning by when (although how you would coalesce that into a single number is something the statisticians may want to have a go at).

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with chess having only a simple ternary outcome. I am always skeptical of using alternative scoring methods. Does 4-0 *really* mean Liverpool crushed Arsenal? What if the score was 1-0 with 5 minutes left, and Liverpool's forward scored a hat trick while Arsenal was pushing aggressively? Maybe Arsenal even missed 5 good shots on goal during that last 5 minutes. Is it fair that Arsenal is now eliminated due to a worse goal difference?

# Answer
> 2 votes
People have proposed adding a new fourth result for stalemate, where (for example) the stalemated player would get 1/4 point and the stalemating player would get 3/4 points. Unfortunately I don't have a reference at hand.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I know of two.

1. The ELO rating. Players are awarded points based upon the result of the game versus the expectation. The rating is used to rank players in terms of skill. Higher rating denote higher skill. Higher rating carry more prestige. A higher rating also gives one an advantage in USCF Swiss-style tournaments and higher rated players are paired against lower rated players, giving the former a better chance at a win/loss result that nets prize money.
2. In some tournaments, draws are awarded .4 points. This makes two draws markedly less valuable than a win and a loss. This has been done to encourage players to play decisive games.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Bilbao 2008 tournament used the FIFA scoring system:

* 3 for a win
* 1 for a draw
* 0 for a loss

It has been used at other tournaments such as the London Chess Classic.

The aim is to encourage 'fighting chess' and discourage early draws as the tournament result favours those who have won most games.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You're confusing score with score.

Except for the game score (notation) and commentary, there's no real to show the action on the board. Even a material balance could be misleading, as we'd need to differentiate between a sacrificial attack and a lucky mate when losing badly. We do have an external indicator, ratings\*, which, by the difference, can suggest the difficulty of play.

There have been suggestions to alter the score (game result), but these were to reduce the number of (GM) draws. The only accepted suggestion was to give a win more points for a win that two draws, mainly the 3-1-0 scoring system. A favorite was to split the point 0.4-0.6 as black has a harder time earning that draw. Another, misunderstood, system was to split the point based upon the rating difference. A lower rated player would receive more of the point as his effort in drawing the game could be considered greater. (Or the opposite is the the higher rated player has the "duty" to make a more decisive result.) An infeasible system of having a third party judge the game and decide who deserved more points. This could result in the losing player earning more points.

\*Rating effects what we assume. In a professional game, a 0-0 score makes us infer that the goalie was exceptional or the players were good at defense. If the game was played by beginners, we might assume that they bumbled every play.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Some have tried it.

But it distorts the game and is illogical for game results although useful to help tournaments create more interest for sponsors.

A win and a loss against a player once with white and once with black has to be equal to two draws against the player again with equal colors for each.

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


title: How to be a better tournament player?

text:
# Question
Title: How to be a better tournament player?
I have an upcoming tournament and I already started to prepare, but I have some questions about tournament play:

* How to do better in tournament games
* Should I adjust to my opponents' play
* Do I need to study every player or just work on things ( opening repertoire, tactics,... )

# Answer
> 19 votes
If you are this Janjic, Slobodan P, I would say that you need to do tactics, tactics, and more tactics. Try to do 50 per day, spending no more than 2 minutes per tactic. At the lower mid-levels, it really comes down to who loses a piece first most of the time.

I want to suggest that as you do the tactics, REALLY try to concentrate as you do them, and do not just play a move that looks good, and hope that you are right....REALLY see it through to the end, and try to visualize what it going on...don't play "hope chess" (I HOPE this works).

I covered this in depth for all rating levels here.

# Answer
> 9 votes
As a beginner, you should focus on the basics of chess to help improve your overall chess. I'm amazed at the number of hanging queens at the lower level. As you improve, the tactics become harder and the strategy deeper.

It's often suggested that the purpose of an opening is to get you to a playable middlegame. Once you become 2000+ (USCF), you can study openings to try for an early advantage.

Of course, you have to react to you opponents' play OTB, but studying their games for some weakness is normally useless below the GM level.

# Answer
> 8 votes
An oft neglected aspect of tournament play is time management. Have a plan for time management and practice it. You should be using most of your time available most of your games. There are many other things to consider like honing your thought process but I find that time management is often forgotten.

Here is an article on time management

# Answer
> 5 votes
First learn the rules, ALL the rules, for the tournament, organization, and local sponsors holding the event. Use them to protect yourself and avoid being taken advantage of off the board.

Never play blitz. Do play faster chess but with minimum time for each move and also a cap on the move TIME that forces you to think first but not dawdle. The old exactly ten seconds per move like the Washington Chess Divan and other clubs used is perfect to be confident if you should get into time trouble.

Clock management. You can NOT afford to just sit and think excessively on A few moves so you get into time trouble. Use the time you need but do not overdo it so that you do not have time you need for other moves. Learn to make a decision. The faster play with fixed max/min per move, not blitz, is a good way to make this second nature.

Think on your opponent's time. You should not need a lot of your time if you do that and then the opponent will be having time trouble and more likely to blunder. If you can get 15 minutes left to 5 in an even position, it is like adding 200 points to your rating.

Learn one opening well. Learn end games well. Learn tactics. The other stuff will come with experience.

For most tournaments you will just play some stranger. You can't prepare for them. If it is a club tournament you should already know the players and there is no need to do more preparation.

Play your game. You have to adjust to whatever type position you have but you have a say in the way the opening goes and the type position that will result in the middle game. Knowing your one opening well will allow you to ensure you get the type position you want in the majority of cases. If you do not like wide open slash and burn tactics you may have to accept that style or else have some prepared defenses that would blunt that approach and give you a game you like. Knowing the typical crap that beginners like shows you the openings you need to also know enough so they don't win early because you made a mistake. E.g. Evans Gambit, Scotch Game, Max Lange, and the like you also need to know cold for black. You will not play those as white.

Your first tournament, when you are ready, should be the biggest and strongest one you can play in. That will maximize your initial rating from which all you later ratings stem from. Play for wins do not give draws willy-nilly because you are afraid of losing. Of course, if you can't win, then a draw is better than a loss.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As far as tournament-specific stuff goes (that is: things that are not equivalent to "just playing chess better"), I see a lot of people getting flustered and trying to change how they're playing during the tournament (say, they'll lose to a particular opening, then try to play that same opening in their next game, and lose due to lack of familiarity with said opening). The solution here is to resist that urge, and just play the chess that you can play well, and try to ignore the pressure from factors external to the game you're currently playing.

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Capturing (almost) free piece by King

text:
# Question
Title: Capturing (almost) free piece by King
Here's a position in a chess puzzle:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "5rk1/p7/Q1n3pp/3q1p1n/2B2P2/4P2P/P5rK/R4R2 w - - 0 1"]

```

The rook had captured a pawn, resulting in a check. The rook is supported by the Queen, but the Queen itself is pinned by the bishop and hence will not be able to protect the rook if the King takes it.

Shouldn't King-captures-Rook be a valid move in this case?

# Answer
> 6 votes
No, absolutely not. You are putting your king in check first from the Qd5.

If you think about this way: Who could take the other king first since that really is what checkmate is? In this case, Kxg2 Qxg2 captured the white king first, and only after would Bxg8 take the black king...White lost the king first.

Your thought also does not hold up to logic: White makes an illegal move, so black cannot?

---
Tags: rules, pins, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: What should I do when I have no ideas and no strategies?
I'm really a beginner in chess, and I just know the rules. So many times in the game I have no idea what should I do. None of my pieces are in danger and I don't have any strategies.

What should I do at this point? Make a worthless move, like moving a pawn? Try to make some space for my knights and bishops?

# Answer
This is very hard to answer since the question is very broad, but in the opening, always ask yourself "what piece haven't I moved out yet?" If you move pieces twice or three times in the opening, and I am developing each one after only one move, soon you will be fighting with only two or three pieces against me with 5 or 6. You will not win that way.

Other than that, ask yourself what pieces of yours are not defended, and make sure they are safe; and conversely, look at what your opponent has that is undefended, and see if you can take advantage of that. Not losing pieces is the biggest problem for weak players.
> 38 votes

# Answer
Some typical things to look out for in the middle game in order to develop a plan... This assumes that it is a relatively quiet position without any imminent tactics that need to be taken care of first.

* Are all my pieces developed and on active squares (if not, how can piece activity be improved?)
* Does my oppenent have any weak pawns (typically isolated pawns) that I could aim for?
* If the center is blocked, are there any pawn breaks I should go for?
* If you play some sort of opening, learn not only the concrete moves but (rather) the general idea. For instance if (like many beginners) you often end up playing e4, e5, Nf3, Nc6, most of the time white wants to play d4 later on, perhaps first supported by c3.
* Look at the board from your opponent's point of view. Are there any plans that you need to prevent?
\-
> 16 votes

# Answer
Advice I give to complete beginners is to `place your pieces so that they point at your opponents king`. Ignore any pieces and pawns between your pieces and the King. When playing against another beginner who has no plan this is a good strategy. This strategy has the benefit of helping learn about the power pieces exert across the board even when seemingly blocked.

When you understand the other advice given in the other answers than throw this advice away and use the better advice.

In my experience this is advice that beginners can understand. Unlike ideas such as `the center is important` which many find confusing at first. It is great to improve your worst piece, but how to you know which one that is? A beginner can understand `get all of you're pieces out early`, but much more experienced beginners have a difficult time doing that.
> 12 votes

# Answer
The general rule of thumb is **improve the worst placed piece**. I would be reluctant to move pawns without any purpose because you are likely to create a weakness. I would rather make a do nothing move, it is often could be a rook move on a back rank, as long as it really doesn't do anything; this move you can always "undo" (unlike the pawn moves!).

Wrong plan is often better than no plan, try to come up at least with something.

And after the game, make sure to go back and study the position.
> 11 votes

# Answer
*Note: everything I'm saying is assuming you're playing white. Everything is also true for black, you just have to reverse the rank numbers. I'm also using algebraic notation; if you're unfamiliar there are a lot of resources.*

In the opening, your goal should be to control the center with pawns (if your opponent lets you, play `d4` and `e4` as your first moves), get your bishops and knights developed, castle, and finally develop your queen. After you do all of this, your rooks will be "connected", meaning they're both on your back rank and protect each other, and are ready to slide over to good files.

If you're in an opening and don't know what to do, refer to this checklist. If you have an undeveloped bishop or knight, develop it, even if you don't have a specific plan for it. Getting knights to `c3` and `f3` is common, especially `Nf3` (in many lines, a knight on `c3` blocks the c-pawn, so either you play `c4` first, or you develop that knight to `d2` instead).

The game transitions to the middle game when both of you have done at least most of this. During the middle game, you may be fighting for control over the center, and trying to engineer advantageous trades, either by tactics that win material, or by trading a bad piece of yours for a good piece of theirs.

If you're in a middle game and don't know what to do, here's a checklist of ideas:

1. Take inventory of the pieces trying to control the middle and see if you can improve there. Maybe your opponent has a center pawn that he's defending twice, and you're attacking twice. Can you attack it again? This is one of the most basic tactics to keep track of: number of attackers vs. number of defenders. If you have more attackers, then you can trade everything down and end up on top (maybe--if one of those attackers is your queen, then you don't want to lose that in the melee). A LOT of middle game tactics at the high level just boil down to this, with more advanced ideas like *overworked pieces* or *removing the defender*.
2. Look for tactics. Can you employ a *fork*, *pin*, *skewer*, etc? Even if you don't have one of those maneuvers cleanly, can you at least move towards threatening something like that, forcing your opponent to use moves to defend?
3. Simply improve pieces. Rooks on your back rank love to be on files where you don't have a pawn (*open* or *half-open* files). Knights love to be on *outposts*, which are squares that are forward in the position (4th rank or further), defended by a pawn, and unattackable by an opposing pawn. Bishops love to be on long diagonals, meaning that they're somewhere safe on your side but pointing across the board at important things (if Black has castled kingside, a bishop on `b2` can be deadly). If you don't have a plan, simply putting a piece on a good square is a good thing to do.
4. Trade off your bad pieces for their good pieces. Does your opponent have a killer bishop like I described above? Do you have a knight that you don't know what to do with? Trade them!
5. Do you have major pieces (rooks, queen, king) that are aligned with your opponent's pieces? Maybe your queen is still on its starting square `d1`, your opponent has moved a rook to `d8`, and there are a bunch of pieces in the middle. If there's a big melee and all of those pieces in the middle get cleared out, your opponent might end up with a clear shot at your queen. So maybe a good move is to move the queen somewhere else.

And of course, you have to think of all of these things from your opponent's perspective too.

The game transitions to the endgame once a lot of material has been traded down. Endgames vary wildly and I'm not sure how much general advice I can give briefly. If the endgame has equal (or nearly equal) material, it's common that the strategy is to try to promote a pawn (while keeping your opponent from doing so). You have to try to get a *passed pawn*, a pawn that can't be attacked by opposing pawns any more, and then escort it to glory.

If you have more pieces left than your opponent, it's often advantageous to trade down. For example, if you have a rook and a bishop and your opponent has only a bishop, trading the bishops may make winning easier. With more pieces on the board, you might be vulnerable to tactics, but your opponent won't have any tactics if he doesn't have any pieces!

If you have fewer pieces than your opponent, then you probably have to try to fight for a draw. In general, one way to do this is to try to take all of their pawns so they can't promote. For example, if your opponent has a bishop and some pawns, and you only have pawns, he will probably be able to use that bishop to help promote a pawn. But if you can manage to trade off all of the pawns, then a king-bishop vs. king endgame is a draw.

> Make a worthless move, like moving a pawn?

Careful! Pawn moves can have extreme consequences. Every time you move a pawn, you're undefending squares. For example, consider the common structure where White has castled kingside and still has the pawns on `f2`, `g2`, and `h2`. Sometimes we have to play `g3` for defense, but after that, Black can put a piece on `f3` or `h3` and it can't be attacked.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The tip I learned from Jeremy Silman's "Reassess your chess" series was that, if you can't find a weakness in the opponent's position, **you should actively be trying to create a weakness.**

For example, in closed positions it happens pretty often that all your pieces are developed and in "good" positions, but you still have no attack. When this happens, you should look at the position and ask yourself what sorts of weaknesses you could create. Can you push some pawns to reduce your opponent's space? Does their pawn structure have any potential weak points you could put pressure on? Can you lock their minor pieces in? How quickly can you open up the center or the flanks for an attack? The answers to these questions will determine what you should do next.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The strategy is a very deep concept which requires creativity and understanding. It is important to understand the mechanics of certain types of positions and this can be achieved by looking at different varieties of top grandmaster games especially ones where the players have a different type of style. Sometimes even then you have to look at the tiny details in the position and come up with ways in which to play to take advantage of them. Savielly Tartakower once said "Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do".
> 6 votes

# Answer
Study more and play less.

Learn about pawn structure. Play over GM games to see what they do. Some common ideas may occur to you to try.

Look for weaknesses you can attack.
Look for your weaknesses you could defend better.

Can you attack the king? Can you expand for space? Can you put pieces on squares with more mobility closer to the enemy? Can you set up a tactical position to win material?

Do not move pawns without a reason. Do not make worthless moves unless you are in zugzwang.

Study positional play for more ideas on what to do in quiet positions like you describe.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This answer is a little indirect but it helped my wife get a better grasp of chess and now no longer sees any board state as just a bunch of useless moves.

If you have someone you play with regularly ask them to give you a handicap by verbalizing what they are thinking on their move.

-ex: "I can move my pawn up two getting control of the center, putting pressure on your knight and rook... But then your knight could fork my queen and rook... I have two pieces putting pressure on your center pawn and if I get another in position I could make a beneficial exchange... That bishop on the left hand side is not defended and could be taken advantage of..."

During your turn, the opponent doesn't speak, allowing you to form your own strategy and build your skills.

Essentially their strategy becomes an open book for you to look through which also makes for a more competitive game between the two of you. I find (as the more experienced player) playing passively (not to your fullest) teaches little to nothing to the new player while playing with your true skill makes for a one sided game that no one has fun with.

Seeing what goes through a better chess players mind will help you figure out what you should be looking for or thinking about on your turn.

In the beginning you can ask questions to understand the opponents statements but once you start understanding them, just sit back and absorb.

I'm by far not a good chess player (compared to most regular players) but being the open book opponent it also helped me with my game.

The general key points/pointers found in other answers here, should with time be revealed to you as you play more games in this format. I think you'll have a better grasp of them when you see them in action / being used by your opponent and what position it then puts you in.

(Note: only works with an honest player who will blurt out every single thought that goes through their mind. No pre-processing / filtering. Every move considered and eventually discarded is useful information to a new player)
> 3 votes

# Answer
Start reading some books for beginners such as those by Seirawan. The idea is simply that the author will often explain the rationale behind a move in the book, and just by reading those you will be exposed to tactical and strategic motifs that you will see occurring in your own games.

Also, reserve a little time during your study hours for solving puzzles. Websites such as chess.com has a good variety of puzzles for beginners, and the puzzles will gradually become more difficult as you become more adept at solving those. The idea here is that you will start to see patterns in your own games similar to what you saw in the puzzles, and this will give you more ideas on the board.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you look at a position and find yourself saying, "None of my pieces are in danger and there is nothing to do", you should consider you are probably missing something. Most chess positions are not so safe there is nothing that can be improved. A lot of the time there is something urgent that needs fixing, or an opportunity to take something from your opponent. But it is hard to learn to see these things.

My suggestion is to get practice evaluating positions by studying the puzzles on Lichess. They are drawn from real-world games so they look like positions you will see in real life. A lot of these may look perfectly quiet but there is a tactic that wins an exchange, picks up a piece, or just mates. Working through some of these should give you a new awareness of things to look out for.

Since you say "I just know the rules", try going through the Chess basics section on Lichess as well to see if you are missing anything, it is a very thorough introduction that covers basic tactics.
> 2 votes

# Answer
## Learn Basic Tactics

When playing against other beginners, basic chess tactics are very effective — and a lot of fun.

If you don’t know about discovered attacks, pins, skewers, and forks, learn about them.

*Winning Chess Tactics* by Seirawan is a great resource.

## Attack the King

Focus on attacking the king when you can. Beginners’ defenses are weak enough that is usually the quickest route to victory.

More advanced players may attack the weakest piece, but save that concept for later in your chess development.

## Study chess openings

For the first few moves, learning and following well-established openings is the best plan.

There are lots of online resources for this. Just google: chess openings
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Which format should i choose to improve my chess skills (Blitz chess or Standard time control chess)?
I always play both blitz and standard time control chess games. But in blitz I make a lot of mistakes and I'm not able to find a lot of good and tactical moves whereas in standard time chess format I can play better.

I think **blitz** is only for **Applying our chess skills** and only **standard time control** chess will help more to **improve our chess skills**.(I'm not against blitz :D)

* Will blitz help more than standard time control to improve my chess skills?
* If yes how? If No when and for what purpose should i play blitz ?

Thanks in Advance.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Will blitz help more than standard time control to improve my chess skills?

No. **Standard time control chess always helps more to improve your game than blitz chess** because in standard chess you spend more time analyzing the game.

Chess is a game of intelligence but even more so of **knowledge**. The more (structures, endgames, openings, etc.) you know, the better you are.

> To make a rather primitive classification, the average grandmaster knows about 1,500 - 2,000 typical positions, including the opening, possible middlegame plans, and some outlines of endgame. Super GMs, like Kramnik or Anand, have a wider and deeper knowledge. As for **Kasparov**, his knowledge is truly head-spinning, I guess, his number of positions might exceed **10,000**. Garry's memory is phenomenal! I think it even impedes him during the game. - Valeri Tsaturian

Knowledge is hardly acquired in 3-5 minutes (blitz) and even if it is, it is quickly forgotten. To gain chess knowledge, you need to spend more **time** studying the game.

The more **time** you spend studying a position, the more you **understand** it, the better you **remember** it, and the more **insights** you gain into it. It also helps you correct your faulty decisions in the post-game analysis, because, if you're wrong, it can show you to what extent you're wrong in your **judgment** of certain positions.

For example, I played a game recently in standard time control and in one position, my opponent was really surprised that I didn't capture his bishop with my knight. During the game, I thought that the trade of bishop for knight wouldn't help me in that position, but in the post-game analysis, my opponent proved me wrong and demonstrated how it was good for me. I went home and analyzed with a computer and found that my opponent was right. If this had been just a blitz game, I could have just excused myself saying "well, I didn't have enough time to consider the consequences of that" and thereby prevented myself from recognizing this flaw in my own knowledge.

> If No when and for what purpose should i play blitz?

You can play blitz to

1) Enjoy yourself.

2) Check your opening preparation.

3) Develop a rough understanding of certain types of positions **with the intention of analyzing them in depth later**. This third point is crucial, because it is the best way to use a blitz game. You may not learn much during and immediately after the game, but if you analyze your blitz games, you will still learn a lot.

# Answer
> 4 votes
standard time controls will help more than blitz, however, the inability for blitz to improve play has been exaggerated. Blitz can help you practice your openings. Blitz can help you spot simple tactics. Blitz can help you avoid hanging pieces. Blitz can help players familiarize with how pieces move. Blitz can help you cope under time pressure situations. Of course, standard time controls have their advantages that outweigh the benefits of blitz, but for beginners, it is not too bad play blitz. I almost exclusively played bullet and blitz chess and became 1800 uscf ( I also studied from youtube). I got stagnated however, and it was standard time controls that got me out of 1800 and improve.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Will blitz help more than standard time control to improve my chess skills?

No.

> If No when and for what purpose should i play blitz?

1) To learn openings. After every blitz game you play (especially if it is online and automatically recorded) look up the opening and see if you made a mistake, and what you should have done instead. Ideally you will have some way to store and remember this information as well.

2) To have fun because it will keep you motivated to improve at chess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Blitz will never help you to progress in chess nearly as much as standard. This is the general consensus of the chess training world.

This is because in blitz, like you explained, you make a lot of mistakes and cannot perform to the level which you do in standard. Of course this is because there is so little time to think. With such little time, it becomes harder to formulate plans, and absorb patterns. Chess, is really all about the absorption of thousands of patterns overtime, be it tactical, positional or endgame believe it or not. In blitz, with such a small amount of time to think, you do not benefit from your games nearly as much as standard.

Although, this is unless you can compartmentalize your skills. If you can not let your blitz mind set affect your slow game mind set, then blitz can help you to practice your skills but not to improve to the extent of standard.

This is a good article I found online about this subject: http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2011/05/28/confession%E2%80%99s-of-a-blitzaholic-%E2%80%93-will%E2%80%99s-opinion-on-chess/#.U7dfb\_mSx8E

# Answer
> 0 votes
Neither.

The best way to advance is to play at a fixed time per move where you must wait the time before moving and when time is up you must move.

In ancient times of the 50s (1950s) they played tournaments at ten seconds per move. Playing in those every week got my first OTB rating starting several hundred points higher than those who did not play and then tried OTB.

Ten seconds is a stretch for most people at first. Most adapt quite well when they learn to make decisions not dawdle. But if you must then even 20 seconds would work.

It makes you learn to wait before moving not do whatever comes to mind instantly. It also trains you to move quickly so time trouble wont bother you. More likely you will think on their time and move relatively quickly so never get near time trouble although they will.

---
Tags: learning, blitz, time-control
---


title: How to improve time control/management?

text:
# Question
Title: How to improve time control/management?
Personally, I find my biggest weakness to be time control/management. I usually end up moving very fast with a lot of time left on the board or move to slow with a little time left on the board. I am a little impatient so this probably has some connection with the speed in which I move, but I was curious as to how someone can improve their time control/management?

# Answer
I'd nominate all of NM Dan Heisman's famous Novice Nook articles on Time Management (go to the link and search by subject). The **Two Move triggers** article is pretty insightful and most applicable to your posted question.

In addition, the best way to learn how to manage time is to make "time taken" a part of your **post-mortem review.** In other words, don't just write down your moves, also write down how much clock you've burned per move and when reviewing the game later, figure out if the time taken was indeed sufficient or not as you're probably going to start noticing things about that position that you didn't before. If you play online, turn on move-timestamps to track the time used for you.

When you get a game reviewed/critiqued by a stronger player, it is always worth asking "How much time would you take (for a slow game) in a position like this?". You'll find very interesting answers and notice *telling* deltas between your sense of time management and theirs! (they would really use their time in critical positions way more than you did but but spend very little on things that you probably worried a lot about).

One more problem that is kryptonite for my own time management is my current state of mind : lethargy, hungry, tired, over-caffeinated, distracted with other windows on my screen etc. ... I've signed up for G/120 games when I really only had it in me for a G/5 and vice-versa ... a lot of people tend to be confused about playing a time-control that's readily available (*Hey, I can start a game right away!*) vs. playing a time-control that's right for them but they need more patience (wait longer online) or have to put in some work (travel to a local club) in order to play it!!! A unbalanced diet of too much blitz (or too little of it) can often impair your brain's ability to gear-shift suddenly to games with different time controls.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I agree with the above answer, but from my personal experience, I handle time management pretty well because I am very conscientious about the time I spend on anything I do. If you are a person who is regularly late, I think writing the time taken on your score sheet will make you more conscientious of the time. Look at your time control for the game. Is it G90 or G30? That is 90 or 30 minutes for the entire game. Consider what is your average number of moves per game. 40 moves is reasonable to start. Do the math to see how many moves you need to make on average in 10 minutes. The point of all this is to just be more conscientious of the time you spend. For me, I factor in 1 long think of 20-30 minutes in a 40/2 G60 time control, and average the rest. See different time controls.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Practice by playing at a fixed time per move. Ten seconds is good, you could use 20 if ten is too fast.

Time up means you must move but also you must wait for time to be up to make your move.

this will train you to think some and avoid problems with fast moves that are bad. It also helps you move quickly in time trouble which wont happen often if you train this way. Usually you will be thinking on their time then moving soon so they are the ones who will have time trouble unless they also train like you did.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Has SALC-armageddon been seriously discussed?
People have been lamenting the draw-death of chess for ages, with various suggestions on how to get past that. SALC-armageddon comes from this website by a computer chess fan who's been playing several NN engines against other NN engines. Note the special rule:

> SALC Armageddon means: White is allowed to castle short, only and Black is allowed to castle long, only (=SALC (Short And Long Castling)). And all draws are counted as a win for Black (=Armageddon), because these castling-rights are a advantage for White. So, there are no draws anymore. And no draw-death of computerchess. Read more and download more Armageddon stuff in the "Armageddon openings"- section of my website.

Amazingly, this seems to lead to 50-50 games where neither side has an advantage:

```
Games        : 3000 (finished)

White Wins   : 1492 (49.7 %)
Black Wins   : 1508 (50.3 %)
Draws        : 0 (0.0 %)
Unfinished   : 0

White Score  : 49.7 %
Black Score  : 50.3 %

```

Has this tiebreak rule been seriously discussed and/or tried in human play? If it really is 50-50 for both sides, it could even take over as the main format in classical tournaments.

# Answer
I think it is clear that it has not been seriously discussed, and it is not likely to.

First, at the highest level, the elite have spent their entire lives getting that good, and draws are just a part of it. There can also be beauty in draws as far as I am concerned. Overall, I doubt that they want to learn to play a different game just because it uses some of the same rules.

Second, Kramnik recently proposed a variant with no castling at all, and the kids they were coaching even played an informal tournament. It has not been heard from since. If Kramnik, and his idea was mostly panned in the comments to the various articles I read, cannot get a variant to be widely accepted, it probably is not going to happen on some very unknown website by someone no one has ever heard of.

Lastly, chess, while not a big industry in the grand scheme of things, still is an industry; and the people with money, who back it, are generally adverse to change for risk of losing any money they may have invested.

At best, and it would take a long time to gain the necessary popularity, if one of the main servers like chess.com were to pick it up as a variant, and it were to gain HUGE popularity there, something might happen...I would not count on it though. I have been around for a long time, and variants are still looked upon with disdain by most.

People do not like change, in general, and they love chess. It is not a problem at the lower levels, so it is not likely to catch on en mass, and work its way up.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Is there a web version of a chess clock for mobile phones without (distracting) advertisements?
I am looking for a very simple Chess Clock (simple design - see picture) to use from the phone browser WITHOUT having to download an app. I already know apps who have this I am looking for a **web version**! This is an example for a good *app*:

And here is an example of a bad web version with bad design and too many distractions, looks especially bad on mobile:

# Answer
**Best Solution:**

* chessclock.org \- add the website to the home screen on your phone and tilt the phone to the side

Added in the comments: chessclock.iphonemarks.com

---

*Original suggestions:*
> 5 votes

---
Tags: chess-clocks, websites
---


# Question
Title: What are the specific setups to avoid perpetual checks(Queen)?
I was wondering if there certain setups with pieces, pawns, or both which avoid perpetual checks. I know an important setup is the one below where it's essentially a fortress type of a position for white. Are there any other ways to avoid perpetual checks. The reason I am asking for this is that in endgames I often blunder perpetual.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It would be very helpful if you would post a couple of those games you mentioned that you gave up perpetual check.

I would say, "no", there are no stock positions that are meant to avoid perpetual check (at least I cannot think of any now that I would call "common"). You just have to be careful, and be aware of king safety. Sometimes, you just cannot avoid it either as it is a valid component of defense.

I will say that one common setup in queen endings is the following type of position. White has managed to post the queen very centrally, and it can go either from the h1-a8 diagonal, as it is now, to prevent checks; or as it helps the a-pawn move forward, it can move to the g1-a7 diagonal to defend e3, and help advance the pawn from there. It is critical to note that with rooks on the board, the white king's lack of safety would probably prevent this, keeping a white rook passive on the first, and allow black to setup counterplay against the passer.

```
 [FEN "8/5pk1/q5p1/P2Q3p/7P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 0"]

 1. Qd4+ Kh7 2. Qb6 {And the passer moves on}

```

---
Tags: endgame, queen-endgame, perpetual
---


# Question
Title: How to improve blitz chess rating?(Time management)
I have a blitz rating of 1900 on Lichess and I can't seem to improve from there. My road to 1900 was fairly quick, but I have been stuck in 1900. My Classical rating is higher than this, so I know that it is a problem with shorter time controls. I have noticed that I spend too much time throughout the game and that is the reason. Can someone please explain how do I manage my time well throughout the game.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Blitz is a bit of a different chess "animal". In order to play blitz well, you need a few things, and that is great tactical vision, good time management, and some positional skill so you can make decent moves quickly in quieter positions. It also helps to be young because you think faster when you are young.

The first part to getting better is obvious, and that is work diligently on your tactics. Do a lot of them in a short period of time for the best results. I also recommend reading games, especially fun tactical ones, without a board. This will also help your vision.

As far as time goes, personally, I hate falling behind on the clock at any time control, but it is more crucial in blitz. If you do fall behind, it cannot be by too much...ever. You simply have to play fast, and keep an eye on the clocks at all times to stay ahead on time, or at least, close. Only every now an then, can you afford a longer think.

The positional skill comes with time, and reading a lot of books about pawn structures, and other positional elements will help with this. I strongly recommend the Yusupov series of books as they cover all areas of the game. This may not be good for your regular play and long-term chess development, but also if you play openings that have very standard places for the pieces, like the Stonewall, or London System, you can save time in the opening.

Lastly, you just need to play a lot, although this may not be conducive to your classical rating as you can become shallow. Personally, while it is fun, for a serious player, blitz is not the best think for your game (Botvinnik agreed), but it can be especially useful for testing out your openings.

P.S. I know that 3-0 is a common control, but you can also play 3-2, or 5-3, which is still fast, but gives you a little more time to think. Conversely, you could also play some bullet, and when you go back to regular blitz, it will feel like you have a lot of time.

There is actually a whole book on the subject here. For the record, although I have a lot of books, I do not have this one, so it may, or may not, be any good.

Again, be aware that this may not be good for your tournament chess, if you play tournaments.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I am not an expert, but I would say blitz is 'art' part of chess. It requires a few skills to be good.

* **Time management** is obviously very important as there is not much time in a blitz game. I have few tips about time management, and you should know that most important ones are **not to waste so much time in opening**, **not to waste too much time in forced moves ( exchanges, threats and checks )**, **play ONLY lines you are sure about, that are familiar to you**
* **Knowing basic patterns** Well, there is not so much to talk about this, better you recognise patterns, faster will you find a move.
* **Doing a lot of tactics** Tactics have a lot of impact in a blitz game. Most of the blitz players are just good tacticians, and that is giving them a head start.
* **Knowing basic endgames** This is important too, even if blitz games are fast and many of them ends in the middlegame, but if you come to the endgame, the deciding thing is resourcefulness, knowing of endgame principles and a bit of skill of fast-moving, especially if there is bonification ( like 3+2 or 5+5 ).

That would be just a short guide, more you play, better you are. I hope this would help you, maybe we can play, on lichess.org or on chess.com In both sites my username is Slobodan007.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are multiple factors involved.

To improve blitz you must first improve your regular chess.

Clock management. You must make every move at the rate necessary to finish the game without flagging and never take more time for any move that that average. Learn to move at your time quota and not faster nor slower.

Your brain. It has a maximum speed it can work well. If yours is slow due to old age then you will need to use longer time controls. Playing faster then it can recognize things will cause mistakes and you will lose thus not improve your rating. When I was young I could play 5SD very well. When I was older I could still play 7.5SD, but when I was really old I had trouble at 10SD although did fairly well anyway but not as good as I had in the past.

Tactical skill. You must immediately recognize any and all tactics without having to think. That should be as easy as reading your name and knowing what the words said. Do more tactics practice until you are at the GM level or higher.

Openings. You must know them cold and avoid getting caught in early traps with 'obvious' moves that were bad. Or know enough oddball openings that are not too bad to use for blitz to avoid their traps.

End games. You must master end games so you can finish them off quickly before your time runs out in a long game. Know all the mates cold so you don't need to think about them.

If you also want to improve your OTB tournament play then do NOT play blitz. Play speedy chess but with at least ten seconds per move on average for the whole game. And use those ten seconds up, not make hasty moves. Learn to pace yourself. See Clock Management above.

Your classical rating and your blitz rating online will not correlate meaningfully.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I used to be pretty high up on chess.com bullet (1 min), what seemed to help me the most was:

1. Tactics, ChessTempo is a fantastic site to use but there are many. Counter-intuitively, I would recommend not focusing on being fast, just go for correct solutions however long it takes you to be sure. Massively improves vision and pattern recognition.
2. Go back over your games with an engine, there are a bunch of free ones you can download. go through move by move to see your mistakes and follow lines of play you didn't consider
3. Opening lines, I'm terrible at actually learning these, so my focus was always taking my opponent off book with weird openings. Being more familiar with an opening immediately puts you in the lead time wise.
4. Turn on premove if you haven't already

---
Tags: blitz, time-management, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of a middlegame out of the Queen's Pawn Game: Zukertort Variation
* What positional considerations must be made in order to come up with a plan for White in this position?
* What are the ideas behind the central squares and weaknesses that must be analyzed for both sides?

Position:

```
 r2q1rk1/1b1nbppp/pp2pn2/2p5/2PP4/2NBBN1P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 3 12

```

# Answer
The position is basically still quite equal, although black has a tiny bit less space to maneuver, so the first order of the day is to develop the Qd1, and bring the rooks to the center. The position is still VERY fluid in the center, so it is impossible to say about one plan that "this is THE plan". Also, a fluid center makes it very hard to develop a kingside attack, even though you have some pieces that are aimed that way.

After developing the queen and rooks, you should either look to double rooks on the d-file, or you may try to expand on the queenside with a3, and b4...if possible. This is hard right now because it may leave c4 very weak, which is why in the main line below, I played b3 instead. You need to watch out for b5 in any similar opening because the Nc3 now hangs.

Another idea is to try to occupy the outpost on e5 with a piece. That is impossible now, but depending on how black plays, it might be possible. That plan is not going to be 100% effective because black can always play c5xd4, reducing white's influence on e5.

Other than development, **your main plan is mostly prophylaxis**. Black is trying to trade down some to gain breathing room, so you want to play moves that make that tougher to trade pieces, or at least trade fewer pieces. With the potential for open files on the d-file, and e-file (if you played d5, which is another move both sides need to consider on every move for now), it is likely that at least one set of rooks will come off the board. You do not want to trade because you have more good squares for your pieces, and thus, more room to maneuver.

Here is a sample line that white was successful in finishing development, and limiting trades...for now. Now that d5 is no longer possible, black will reposition the Re8 and try to trade material down the d-file. It is still equal per the computer. There are many more lines, and possibilities at this early stage, but hopefully, I have given you enough ideas on how to adapt to any other changes black's play throws at you.

In the end, I suspect that if you have any advantage, it may be a slight endgame advantage where you get one rook on the open d-file, and maybe a minor piece each left...the file being the major plus, along with b6/a6 being targets.

```
 [FEN "r2q1rk1/1b1nbppp/pp2pn2/2p5/2PP4/2NBBN1P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qe2 Qc7 2. Rad1 Rac8 (2... Rfd8 {Getting ready to immediately liquidate the center is also possible.} 3. d5 $6 exd5 4. cxd5 b5 $15) 3. Rfe1 Rfe8 {This anticipates d5 prophylactically.} (3... Rfd8 4. d5 exd5 5. Nxd5 Bxd5 $1 6. cxd5 b5 $11) 4. b3 (4. dxc5 $6 Nxc5 5. Bc2 Ncd7 $1 6. Nd2 (6. b3 b5 $1 $17) 6... Ne5 7. Na4 b5 8. Nb6) 4... cxd4 (4... b5 $6 5. cxb5 cxd4 6. Bxd4 $16) 5. Bxd4 h6 {But with some play for both sides}

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Some observations:

* Trading a wing pawn for a center pawn is usually desirable as it can lead to a central pawn majority (which can lead to central occupation).
* More space is usually considered an advantage.

From the above it appears White should see if d4-d5 can work. Black can't immediately win the pawn because of Bxh7 trick, but maybe he can win it more slowly. Anyway that is analysis required based on the positional considerations.

If the analysis shows that White cannot play d5 then he has to allow the trade of his d-pawn for the c-pawn in which case he needs to consider ways of stopping Black from playing a future e6-e5 (after the trade of blacks c-pawn for whites d-pawn the e5 square can be of high importance).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: How can I send a UCI command to a chess engine in Python?
I have a followup question to my previous thread: Python script to let stockfish selfplay 10 games from a given position

There are some engines that allow you to set a command that imposes that the hash memory is never cleared among games. For instance the Sugar program by Marco Zerbinati has this UCI command that can be done from the command line:

```
setoption name NeverClearHash value true

```

I tried to do this command in python-chess library but apparently it doesn't work:

```
engine.options["NeverClearHash"]

```

How can I set the option "NeverClearHash" to "true" in Python?

# Answer
First, engine.options\["NeverClearHash"\] is wrong on two counts.
It is *engine.option*, not *engine.options* and that command queries the value rather than sets it.

To set the value you have to do something like:

engine.configure({"NeverClearHash": 1})
or perhaps:
engine.configure({"NeverClearHash": true})

Good programmers are never too proud to read the manual. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, uci, python
---


# Question
Title: How long does it take to use opening preparation at top level?
A ChessBase report for the ongoing Cairns Cup gives this paragraph:

> The first game to finish was Humpy Koneru versus Ju Wenjun. Out of an English Opening, Humpy quickly found herself out of book with the white pieces. The Indian was on the back foot but managed to keep things under control until a repetition took place starting on move 19. Later on, she explained that it is difficult to face someone who comes from preparing for a world championship match, as their level of preparation is particularly impressive after such an important contest.

The implication is that Ju Wenjun is likely to be very "booked up" for a while after the world championship match, but only for a while, and she'll be easier to face some time in the future.

1. How long does it take until Ju Wenjun is no longer very "booked up"?
2. Why doesn't Ju Wenjun stay very booked up for as long as she's playing professionally?

# Answer
> 6 votes
As Brian noted, theory can move on quickly, but that does not remotely mean that everything that was prepared is lost in a short period of time. I think that the biggest issue was just that prepping for the world championship was much more intense, and rigorous, so Ju is going to be that much more prepared, and thus, a much more dangerous opponent than usual for while, but not just because of opening preparation.

On the other hand, I disagree that just because they have outstanding memories, that they do not forget much...virtually all memories do fade, and it can take a long time to use some prep. There is also the enormous volume that they have to memorize compared to a club player. They certainly do not forget the basics, but it is easy to transpose a couple of moves when you are already deep into the opening. I have read about this happening many times, and in the first round of Tata Steel 2020 just last month, it happened to Vladislav Kovalev in the first round versus Alireza Firouzja, and Kovalev went down without a fight (he played 16...c4? when he needed 16...Nd7 17.Ra3, and only then 17...c4). It can happen to the very best: Here is a tweet from Caruana talking about Magnus forgetting his prep. They memorize SO much that it is still human to forget things that they have not looked at for a while.

It can also take years sometimes to be able to use an opening surprise. I remember reading on at least one occasion, it took Kasparov years to use some prep, and I have heard numerous such stories about top players in my 40 years of tournament chess. Here is a link to a story about Kaspy waiting years, and using some prep against Michael Adams. That game can be found here, and 14.Qh4 was the novelty.

I also think that there is another huge factor that Humpy did not touch upon, and that is that when you play a major round robin (relative to your rating), or in this case, a world championship match, it is so intense, and the level of play is so high, that you usually come out much sharper than normal. I played a couple of round robins against all strong masters, and I felt like I was better than ever when I was done each of them.

Of course, professional players at this level continue to work on their openings, maybe daily, but it is doubtful that it is quite as intense as when she was preparing for the match. In essence, she still stays fairly booked up at all times.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> How long does it take until Ju Wenjun is no longer very "booked up"?

Top players have outstanding memories so it takes a very long time for the actual memories of the booking up to fade.

However, theory moves on quite fast. When you "book up" you are essentially bringing yourself up to date with the latest theory and ideally coming up with some new (computer tested) ideas that will give you an edge. Once your novelty is played it is no longer a novelty and the value of the "booking up" diminishes. Even worse, an earlier move may be superseded by an improvement by another player. When that happens that "booked up" knowledge is essentially worthless at the top level because players will be diverging from your booked up knowledge.

> Why doesn't Ju Wenjun stay very booked up for as long as she's playing professionally?

At the top level players try and stayed "booked up" but as pointed out that knowledge goes stale quite quickly and so the booking up process has to be continuous. There is an enormous amount of work involved and so that work tends to be targeted for maximum benefit.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Since I play the same openings, I'm always booked up, although I still need to refresh some of the side lines. Just like I will always know addition, but need to refresh the higher math functions.

At higher levels, the GMs have to changes openings to surprise their opponent and hope for some advantage. Once this line is played and the surprise is spent, the player, especially against that opponent, is considered to no longer be booked up.

As one of the classic exceptions is the 2000 Championship. Kasparov was known to be booked up on six to nine main line openings. Kramnik was booked up on only versed in three, but his knowledge was deeper (more moves) and more familiar. Many commentators that Kasparov's arrogance prevented him from switch to a system he knew better \[between the two of them\] instead of trying to defeat the "Berlin Wall", and that lost him the championship. HOW do GMs play a man not the board? gives a better explanation of this match.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Depends what you mean by booked up. Normally top GMs prepare for the openings they will play and also those that the opponent will likely play.

The normal lines in those openings the will always know.

The problem is the special surprises and prepared lines they 'booked up' on. Once they have been used the opponent will also be prepared and often come up with counter surprises.

So they will always be booked up on their openings. They will never catch up with new theory and moves in their openings. And especially surprises/prepared\_variations will be old news after they are used.

How long depends on how long it is until they actually use the new surprise or someone else finds it and uses it.

There are many opening surprises in book lines. I know of two that I use often. One is known but apparently not widely enough. The other seems to be a total bug in the analysis as it always works and nobody else seems to be playing it. But it does depend somewhat on the level you play at. Not many magazines printing my games for others to find out. When a top GM has a surprise the word should get out fast and many others will be analyzing it so the surprise value is gone. And they may have new surprises in the follow ups.

---
Tags: preparation
---


# Question
Title: Why is there a 50-move rule and a 75-move rule?
Logically, if 75 moves have been played, 50 moves would've also been played. This sounds ridiculous. It is like saying "I would buy this book if it cost under $60 and it costs under $40". So, what is the logic behind that?

# Answer
From the FIDE Laws of Chess:

50-move rule:

> 9.3 The game is drawn, **upon a correct claim by a player having the move**, if: (...) the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

75-move rule:

> 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn: (...) any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

(emphasis mine)

As you can see, the decisive difference is that the 50-move rule only applies if a player correctly claims it, while the 75-move rule applies independently of any claims. So, in the 50 to 75 move window, the players **can** claim for a draw, but don't **have** to (and play on). Only when the 75th move without pawn moves or captures has been reached, the arbiter may interfere and declare the game drawn.
> 69 votes

# Answer
Although the responses all were intended to answer the question, they all fell slightly short. The 75-move rule was implemented so that an arbiter could adjudicate a game as drawn in a clearly drawn position when both players were electing to play on, hoping that their opponent would falter. Usually in cases where a draw was as good as a lost for both players, i.e. a win would secure prize money, a draw would win no prize money. Arbiters have a life too. ;\>)
> 12 votes

---
Tags: history, 50-move-rule, 75-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: How do GMs “play the man, not the board”?
How do GMs "play the man, not the board" as some books say? Would that work for club level players or could they use other methods? Prepared variations? Trash talk?

What are the ways one can play the man but not the board that are they legal under FIDE rules and would not be called annoying the opponent or the like?

# Answer
As you mentioned, playing the man can mean several different things, but before I answer I want to say that no one can become a better player by only playing the man - objectivity is the number 1 priority.

Many top-level GMs do play the man and the most notable example I can give is the Kasparov-Kramnik match in 2000. Kramnik knew that Kasparov disliked queenless middlegames, so he put the Berlin into his opening arsenal. Kramnik also played d4 in his match because Kasparov was known to be a deadly Najdorf player (it should be noted that Kramnik did play e4 at that time). Another example that I can think of is a younger player taking advantage of an older player's fatigue and grinding the position down for hours. These are the main ways that GMs play the man as far as I know.
> 26 votes

# Answer
It's all Sun Tzu; If the player is a tactician, play positional. If the player is positional, play tactical. If the guy is booked up in a line -- don't play into it unless you have a surprise...

It is not about off the board antics. Is the guy out of form or a little sick? Then make the game long and complicated...

Then as SubhanKhan mentioned: at the supreme level they look for any little detail. GM Gufeld loved his dark-square bishop so much, if you traded it off he would take a draw...
> 21 votes

# Answer
While the other answers are great at addressing what playing the man means, this one will be more about your initial question about helping at the club level.

I do not think playing the man is as viable of a strategy for a club level player. The reason it works at a higher level is that GMs already have the appropriate skill level to compete with each other normally and there is more readily available information about opponents/they play against each other often enough to get a read on their play style.

There are a few issues with this at a club level that make it a non-viable strategy:

1. There are many more people who play at a club level than at a GM level. Odds are, outside of your own club's members, you will not be playing the same person on a regular enough basis to ascertain their style. This makes playing the man a more research oriented ordeal that would take up far too much time for you as an individual to do and could be spent on your fundamentals or strategy. I would not recommend it unless you are going to a tournament and are the underdog in a match up against a player that has a lot of publicly accessible match information available.
2. If you are part of a club, you probably love the game and want to actually improve. You are already dedicating more time than most on the game and thinking about it strategically. Playing the man would be considered a cheesy strategy by most people and is not something that makes you improve. Also, to echo what I stated above, you'd realistically only play your own club members enough to get an idea of another players play style. It's never worth cheesing a practice opponent since that is the time to work on your own game and actually improve.

I do not think there is anything wrong with a cheesy strategy for a single person or playing the man in general. It is actually great for higher level players to think this way because it shows their passion for the game and their observational prowess. For lower ranked players, it is relatively useless and even those who are very attached to their ELO or ranking should stay away from playing the man except for in select situations detailed in the first point. A stable ELO with slow but steady improvement is far better than being a swingy player who wins underdog matchups and loses to lower ranked players.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Disclaimer: I am mainly answering the 2nd question (Would that work for club level players or could they use other methods?).

Yes, it is possible for a club level player to play the man. First, I would like to clarify that playing the man is not the exact opposite of objective play. There is even a certain intersection between them in human vs human games! Playing the opponent refers to bringing in the psychology factor which makes sense because you are playing against a human after all. And it is widely used in all levels of play.

Thorough analysis may point out that a sacrifice/gambit is not sound, but playing that posiiton in the defensive against an aggressive player is another thing. Think about Tal's games ("There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones and mine." -Tal). In an interview Kramnik attributed his good record agaist Kasparov to his mindset.

Quote from Vladimir Kramnik Interview: 'I'm Not Afraid To Lose' (emphasize mine).

> I don’t care about losing. I enjoy the process, and it doesn’t make any difference if I win or lose. ...............................................
> *Qn: Do you think this mindset helped you during your career?*
> I think so, because with my approach to chess, I was never intimidated or felt afraid of anyone. I think this particularly helped against Garry, whenever we played. **I could clearly see that whenever other players faced him, there was a fear, up to the point of panic**. For me this was always quite strange. Of course Garry was a special player, and I’ve always had deep respect for his chess, but when you play any opponent, you’re just playing a game. You can lose, but so what?

Some top-level players have used surprise as a weapon against strong players. I hesitate to give example games for this and similar tricks employed.

One way club-level players play the man is to stop opponent's plans in the track (one needs to have an ability to measure opponents and see their plan to do so; not so easy). Some players do this even when opponent's plan doesn't seem so good. This aims to bring down their confidence instead of annoying them (which by the way shows a clear lack of sportsmanship).

And now to justify that there is an intersection between playing your opponent and objective play, ...
Many players would prefer to steer the game to a position which the opponent doesn't like though objectively they may be perfectly fine. This 'objective part' of this decision is that you want to control where the game goes (in terms of style, or personal preferences). Also, when you are not in a position to control the game, the 'objectively' best strategy is not to let your opponent achieve their goals either. An example is to make sure that your opponent cannot make use of the (semi)open file he/she possess. A distant example is neutralizing your lack of space by exchanging minor pieces (this would be considered an objective decision usually; but this strategy is not objective in all crammed-like positions).
> 4 votes

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


# Question
Title: King's Indian Attack - Middle game ideas
I've searched everywhere, however, I couldn't find what are ***ideas*** in KIA. I know about Neil McDonal *"The King's Indian Attack: Move by Move"* book. This book covers KIA against different openings. However, I'm struggling when my opponent stops playing opening moves, I find myself in situation where I don't know how to continue.

What is general idea in KIA? Launch kingside attack, queenside attack? Or something else?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The best way to learn the KIA is to study master games. White attacks on the kingside, and black attack on he queenside. Study Fischer's KIA games as well as the KIA games of others.

# Answer
> 4 votes
From the books *The Ultimate King's Indian Attack* by Dunnington and *Modern King's Indian Attack* by Hall, there can be attacks on either side or a center conflict. Since I play the Sicilian Dragon, I usually play on the queenside. If the opponent plays an early d5, I transpose the game into a Catalan and pressure the d5 pawn. If my opponent does not fianchetto either Bishop, I overprotect e5 and play for a kingside attack.

Where you attack depends upon the opponent's pawn structure. As suggested by Jimmy360, most common Ideas can be learnt by playing over games featuring the KIA and the KID. See ideas for KIA.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Dynamism is at the heart of King's Indian attack (like many other openings). You cannot be fixed on always going for the kingside or alway going for the queenside. You have to be flexible with respect to all options including kingside, queenside, both sides or center conflict. Also bear in mind that it is a modern opening after all. So, regarding center and general plans, it shares traits of many other modern openings (see chapter 6 of Fine's book "The ideas behind chess openings" for instance). But, beware: the theory of modern openings have changed from its inception (esp. with respect to importance of center).

In some variations, you can strike back at the center in better circumstances than the opening (timing is important for this). Sometimes, you can even push the e4 pawn to e5 (this opportunity doesn't come often. This push will simply loss the pawn (and center dreams) more often). When the center is kind-of fixed, the typical pawn-structure advises white to go for a kingside attack, and black to go for a queenside attack.

See section C of exeterchessclub's openings page for a short overview. For more detailed one, read chapter 7 of "Winning chess openings" (extra read: 1st para. of chapter 5 of the same book).

---
Tags: theory, middlegame, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: How would I know why a move is good or not?
When I play chess on say lichess.org, I can see whether my move is good or not according to Stockfish. I can see why some moves are obvious blunders or mistakes, but for some other moves I don't really know why said move is bad/good. Is there a heuristic or engine or some rules I can use to see why a move is good or bad?

# Answer
As far as I know, there is no engine that does what you are looking for. An engine is a program that does nothing more than take certain positional and material elements into account, and gives it an evaluation. It does not break down the elements and show you how it evaluated each of them. Sometimes, it can be obvious because the analysis is a clear win of material, but most of chess is more deeply hidden than that....sometimes VERY deeply hidden.

I found a site that does what you are asking. It takes those evaluations, and tries to put words and understanding to the numbers.

You it on one of the problems with chess-analysis software for weaker players, and that is that it just shows the strongest move per the computer, without any explanation why. There are some programs, like the ChessBase programs that, using their "Tactical Analysis" feature, attempt to give some explanation to the moves, but they are all wanting.

That said, decodechess.com seems to do better than most for newbies. As a USCF Master, the explanations are pretty good from what I can see, and the underlying "engine" is the same Stockfish that you use. Although a premium account is $99/year (right now, 50% off with the promo code "getserious". for the record, I have no affiliation with the site, nor am I a member), you can create an account, and "decode", or analyze three games per day for free. If you like it, I would jump on the promo.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Heuristics can only get you so far, at the end of the day chess is a highly contextual game which means, in order to understand why a given move is *good* or *bad,* you can never do without the concrete assessment of lines of play that can arise from that move. Obviously, one cannot go to arbitrary depths in the calculations, so at some point you need to make a judgement, based on your experience and positional understanding, and stop your calculations and evaluate the reached positions.

On the one hand, learning more about chess principles will render your calculations more efficient, as you'll get better at dismissing the irrelevant move candidates. It will also allow you to evaluate more accurately the intermediate and end positions that you reach at the end of your calculations. On the other hand, experience and practice will improve your tactical awareness, calculation speed and the depth you can see without moving the pieces.

When it comes to understanding why an engine evaluates a move as *good* or *bad*, if at first according to your calculations and your knowledge of chess principles it is not clear to you, then you should simply rely on the concrete lines of play and explore them with/without the engine. In other words, in a live analysis session, simply play out the main lines that ensue **with** and **without** the move you're trying to understand, then compare them. The comparison will better highlight the impact of the move on the consequent positions. This does not mean you can expect to understand any move in any positions, because chess is a highly complex game, and with time, as you get better at it, you'll discover deeper concepts and layers of reasoning behind a move or plan.

These discussions basically mean that in order to evaluate a move, concrete play and principle-based assessment of positions will always and unavoidably go hand in hand. Think of for instance how we find positional combinations (other combinations would be mating ones, or ones that win material) in chess: First we **spot an idea** (e.g. doubling our opponent's pawns), then we **calculate the relevant variations** (such as the repercussion of intermezzo check moves), and last, we **evaluate the final positions** (e.g. in terms of king safety, material balance, pawn structure etc). Therefore to find a combination, the concrete and positional assessment are both required.

---

Let's end with an example:

A typical Dragon position, and say we played the move `8.Qd2` in the diagram below, and afterwards learned that the engine did not like it at all. Then we see the engine suggests immediately `8...Ng4!!` attacking the bishop on `e3` first chance given!

<sup> *A strategic blunder by white to allow the trade of the dark-squared B for a N.* </sup>

Strategically, if the trade of the `g4` knight with the `e3` bishop happens, then black will stand really well thank to their dark squared bishop dominating the long diagonal. So we realise `8.Qd2` was premature as first we needed to secure the `g4` square with e.g. `8.f3` then `Qd2` can be played having ensured we preserve our dark-squared bishop. This entails the principled approach to understanding `Ng4,` since the dark-squared bishop is vital to black's play in the Dragon variation of the Sicilian.

Next question should be: "but can white really not avoid the trade by some dynamic play?" By their nature, these questions cannot be answered by the mere application of chess principles, instead, one needs to concretely go through some of the possible lines of play for white and see what kinds of positions they are leading too. For instance, starting from `9.Nxc6` with the idea to play `Bd4` trading the bishops in case of `9...bxc6` (left diagram, green marks white moves, red black's). But then we need to step back again, and consider what if black recaptures on `c6` with the `d` pawn (right diagram) and thus preventing `Bd4`? Then we need to assess which side has a better development and minor piece coordination after the trade of queens, and the fun continues...

<sup> *9...bxc6* </sup> <sup> *9...dxc6* </sup>

```
 [title "Sicilian Dragon, example 1: why 8.Qd2 is bad?"]
 [fen ""]
 [startply "15"]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Qd2 Ng4 9. Nxc6 dxc6 (9...bxc6 10. Bd4) 10. Qxd8 Rxd8 11. Bf4

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
Engine will rate a move as bad when it leads to a disadvantage that can be exploited (sometimes only by a very strong player). There's a myriad of ways in which you can weaken your position and there's no heuristic that guarantees you'll be able to avoid them (that's the beauty of the game!). I'd suggest doing an analysis of the game and following the variation with the help of the engine. Often the answer on what the threat was reveals itself quite within couple / several moves!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, learning
---


title: What is the Dorfman method in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the Dorfman method in chess?
On various occasions in commentaries or interviews, e.g. during the World Championship commentary with Peter Svidler and Anish Giri, I've heard the Dorfman method being mentioned. I then learned that this method, devised by the well-established chess player and trainer Iossif Dorfman, is in some sense an algorithmic way of finding good candidate moves. Iossif Dorfman has written two books on the matter, namely, The Method in Chess and The Critical Moment, both of which seem to be out-of-print and highly expensive.

These seem to be inspired by the much older works of W. Steinitz, M. Euwe, and A. Nimzowitsch. His method, although not necessarily being a follow-up (I don't know), is a formal approach to evaluating positions and finding the best moves.

Considering the books are basically inaccessible at the moment, this post is merely an attempt to find out what the method entails at a basic level. So I was wondering if someone could briefly shed some light on what the method is all about.

# Answer
> 20 votes
*This is not a book review, nor is it an opinionated account of the method. I've never really used this method per se, but have read/heard about it, so hopefully my rough summary here doesn't do disservice to the merits of the method.*

The Dorfman method is a two-fold scheme for finding good moves.

## The static elements

The first fold is the static elements of the position. These are 4 elements in decreasing priority:

1. **The king position**: whose king is better positioned and protected.
2. **Material correlation**: material balance, and combination of pieces. For instance, Dorfman considers 2 knights + bishop as being often more effective than 2 bishops + knight since the former can triply coordinate on the colour of the bishop.
3. **Which side will stand better after a potential trade of queens**. This depends on which side has a more active queen, and whose endgame play is favourable.
4. **Pawn structure**. Central outposts, number of pawn islands, pawn weaknesses, pawn majority, doubled-pawns, domination of light/dark squares such as the grip provided with the Moraczy bind, etc.

## Dynamic play

The second fold is short-term play provided by *dynamic play*, which roughly constitutes:

* Being ready to opt for extreme measures, such as piece sacrifices,
* Create threats,
* Preventing a king from getting castled,
* Drastic change of pawn structure, and liquidations,
* Quick pawn advances on either flanks.
* etc.

## Critical moments of a game

The scheme then is basically: At each critical moment of the game, each player has to decide whether to play statically, i.e. to improve their longterm play, or play dynamically for short-term advantages to possibly stir up the static balance of the position.

Critical moments are defined as moments when there can be:

* a possible **exchange of pieces**,
* a **change** in the pawn structure,
* and the existence of **forced** sequences of moves.

## The Method

At each such critical juncture in the game, the method says:

* Study the static balance of the position in order to decide whether to play dynamically or not.
* The balance constitutes comparing the 4 elements one-by-one between the two sides, starting from highest priority.
* One side is deemed *statically better* if it stands better in any of the *higher* priority elements. For instance, if king positions are about the same, but one side has a stronger material correlation, then that side stands statically better even though they might be worse in the 3rd and 4th elements of the static balance.
* The side with a favourable static balance should play slowly and find moves that further improve their longterm *static* advantages.
* Conversely, the side being statically worse, should opt for dynamic play and establish a short-term advantage, in order to ultimately stir up the static balance in their favour.
* Ideally, the dynamic play should aim to establish an advantage in terms of a higher priority static element. For instance, if we are statically worse because our **material correlation** (2nd element) is worse, then by playing dynamically we should try to worsen our opponent's king position relative to ours, i.e., establish an edge in a static element *higher* in priority than the one we're doing worse in. So in this example that higher priority would be the **king position** (1st element).

---

## Related material and further reading:

# Answer
> 11 votes
"The Method in Chess" is a regressive scale of factors that you can use to evaluate a position. Here they are in order:

1. King safety, which is more important than all the others combined.
2. Material, and various material correlations, like Q+N vs. Q+B. He also goes into a new one B+B+N vs. B+N+N, and which pieces you should aim to trade off.
3. Who has the better position after a queen trade.
4. Pawn formation

The books are very rare (I happen to have both, and when I bought them, I gave a set of them to my friend, but now, they are worth a fortune), but Dorfman recently released a series of 9 videos (and an intro) on chess24.com. You can join, even for a month, and watch them as part of your membership, or you have the option to buy them outright.

In the videos, which I happen to be watching right now, he also talks a lot about dynamic vs. static advantages, and when you have a dynamic advantage, you must act fast or it can evaporate. Also, if you are worse, and you do not act dynamically to change your situation, you are destined to lose.

I am on the 4th video now, but I know that he also talks a lot about outposts, which is the next video, and has been mentioned a lot in the previous videos.

In "The Critical Moment", he talks about the following (the names of the chapters):

1. The static position of the king
2. The king may be attacked
3. The concept of a secure shelter
4. The exchange of material (a subject that is neglected in chess writings-PhishMaster)
5. Modification of the pawn structure

He also has discussed some of this in the first four videos in passing.

---
Tags: strategy, theory, books
---


# Question
Title: Why not save the queen by playing Qa5-a4?
Why does Black take the knight on d5 on his 9th move instead of saving the Queen by moving to a4? Is it because then on the next move white plays Nxc7+ followed by NxR?

# Answer
> 18 votes
Because that was the move that the computer saw lost the least material. The BEST you can do there is just get two minor pieces for the queen. It gets worse after Qa4. Even just Nxc7 wins so much material that it is easy, but there is even better.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. d3 Bg4 6. f3 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. Nge2 Nc6 9. Nd5 Qa4 10. Bb5! (10.Nxc7) {And the queen is still trapped, or the Ra8 is lost...at least.} Qh4+ (10... Qxb5 11. Nxc7+ Kd7 12. Nxb5) 11. g3 Qh5 12. Nef4 (12. Nxc7+ Kd7 13. Nf4 Qh6 14. Nxa8) 12... Qh6 13. Nxe6 {And it is just over.}

```

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Advanced Pawn Structure books

text:
# Question
Title: Advanced Pawn Structure books
Hello fellow chess players. I've recently returned to the learning of this game, and as I forgot several ideas on deep mechanics, I read (again) "My System", from Nimzowitsch, and found it very useful, but I want to learn more about pawn structures and positional ideas. Would you recommend me some books? Thanks a lot. :)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think the chess youtuber with the channel that goes by the name of Hanging Pawns has a lot of good explanations about structure/openings. I downloaded a very nice book about it, but I suspect that I'm not yet on the appropriate level to concentrate on it, the book is called: Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide - by Mauricio Flores Rios.

---
Tags: positional-play, pawn-structure
---