# Question
Title: Josh Waitzkin chessmaster mastery quiz - order of check vs trade in bishop and knight endgame
Update: The computer aspect of this can be answered with showing more lines such as in the lichess engine where Bxh3 is strongly preferable to a5+.

---

**Note**: See this meta post. In re the answer of Brian Towers♦, not sure if the following is relevant, but: I'm not a n00b. I'm just a bad player. Haven't played in awhile, so I'm just reviewing/revising the stuff. In fact, I think it's my non-n00bish ness that enables me to question Josh Waitzkin's claims. As it turns out, some of my answers are better or equal to Josh's. See here and here. I'm not saying I deserve praise for the effort of thinking, looking it up and even typing up the results of the engine here. I just really don't think I should've gotten unsolicited advice about using an engine. Again, see this meta post.

---

**Taken from**: Josh Waitzkin Chessmaster Strategy Section 7 - the mastery quiz.

**Position**: Black to move. (See here on chess.com)

```
[Event ""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White " "]
[Black " "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2b5/p5n1/1pBk3p/1P6/1K3p2/5P1N/6P1/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

**Here's what happened**:

1. Josh says trade bishop for knight and then do a5 check.
2. My answer is to do a5 check, but **Josh says it is 'not quite right' to do a5 check 1st.**
3. I checked this on the chess.com engine, which says both my answer and Josh's are 'best' moves (but technically the evaluation is slightly higher for Josh's answer).

**Question 1**: Is there a difference if I do check before the trade?

**Question 2**: Josh says a5 check is wrong ('not quite right' or something). So, **Josh is wrong** to say a5 check is wrong?

# Answer
OK, here the long version by request.

Blacks options are 1...a5+ 2.Kc4 Bxh3 3.gxh3 Ne6 or 1...Bxh3 2.gxh3 a5+ 3.Kc4 Ne6 (both followed by Ke5 to restrict the wK), which is a simple transposion.

Let us assess the position first: Near hopeless for White. He has the bad bishop and nothing to attack. Trading it off is immediately lost since Black has a protected passer, the whole point of a5+. The position is not completely hopeless yet, as Black must demonstrate some technique (see below), but enough that I resign against myself.

Thus maybe it's time for desperate options. And they exist: 1...a5+ 2.bxa6?!? Kxc6 3.Nxf4, followed by the attempt to distract Black with the f and g pawn, give the Knight either against the h or b and win or trade the other, and let Black demonstrate he can mate with B and N. (Even GMs have failed this, a certain one comes to mind who got the much deserved *schadenfreude*.)

Of course this attempt would be hopeless against me either, but it simply is nonexistent if you first play Bxh3. A mathematician would tell you that you should always force - an additional option by the opponent per definition can't improve the result of a variant. (A pragmatist says it's OK if the variant is even more lost than the alternatives.)

But in this case I'd prefer Bxh3 because I have to think less. A convincing plan: Ng5. The wB must go to g4. Or White pushes the Ph3 to h5, in which case Ng7 forces him to g4 or g6 anyway. In both cases Nf5 followed by Nd6+. Poor Pb5. The wK must retract to a4 or d3, in the latter case K-d5-c5, Ng5 again, and now the a-pawn can run.

As you see, White can do zilch to attack the bP even with the king. Contrast it with all the details necessary for the other variant. Thus Bxh3 first saves you much energy, even if *objectively* it makes no difference.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> Josh says trade bishop for knight and then do a5 check. Is there a difference if I do check before the trade?

I think you answer your own question:

> chess.com engine says both check and trade are 'best' moves

And in this case the engine is right. To understand why you need to understand the concept of a forcing move.

A check isn't just a forcing move it is absolutely forcing. If your queen is threatened or captured that is also forcing but you can ignore it if you have a check or a mate elsewhere on the board.

If you have a choice of two forcing moves, as here, then in choosing between them you just have to check whether any possible responses to one also negate the other.

Here, in reply to a5+ white can either take the pawn and lose the bishop or move the king. Moving the king doesn't stop BxN so playing a5+ first still allows playing BxN second.

If black plays BxN first then white has no useful zwischenzug. If white doesn't retake then white is just a piece down.

It's probably worth adding a couple of words on using the engine. If your main goal in playing and studying chess is entertainment then use the engine whenever you want, whenever you feel it will enhance your entertainment and enjoyment.

If, however, your main goal is to improve your chess then switching on the engine should always be the last thing you do, never the first. The point being that you will experience very little improvement unless you exercise your brain and if you rely exclusively on the engine and other people's brains then your brain is not going to get any exercise and your improvement is going to be held back.

You should always engage your brain first and struggle and try and solve the problem on your own. Once you've done that then, particularly with complex variations where you might have missed something, it can be a good idea to switch on the engine and double check. For trivial exercise, though, you should resist the temptation else the engine may become a crutch instead of a useful tool.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, minor-pieces, chessmaster, waitzkin, zwischenzug
---


title: Looking for a defense against 1.d4

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for a defense against 1.d4
I wanted to learn a good opening against 1.d4 that does not involve the second move being 1...d5. I personally don't like symmetric positions very much. To give you an idea of the type of openings I play right now, for white, I play Catalan and I play French against 1. e4. Anyone have any ideas for responses I should look into?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Try the Grunfeld or King's Indian Defense. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 (usually the follow-up, although 2. Nf3 is also common) 2...g6 3. Nc3 is the start of both lines, then either 3...d5 for the Grunfeld or 3...Bg7 for the King's Indian.

Although the Grunfeld involves ...d5, it is by no means symmetric (usually). The main line continues 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3, after which White has a massive pawn center that Black seeks piece play against. The King's Indian is, of course, not symmetric either.

You could also play the Nimzo-Indian, a very respectable opening. This also begins 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4, but now you play 2...e6, intending to meet 3. Nc3 with 3...Bb4. If White plays 3. Nf3, you can try the Queen's Indian Defense 3...b6.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I suggest c5. As commented by @NoseKnowsAll it is called the Old Benoni Defense. If white is a pro they will probably have an edge because of their experience but generally, for your criteria (it is not symmetrical) it has the highest statistics for black winning in some of the databases such as https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=2&n=7&ms=d4&ns=7. Note that it is moderately common (+16k games in the database cited above) which makes the statistics more meaningful than some uncommon moves like a5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
i dont know how strong it is but i always play the budapest gambit 1.d4,Nf6 2.c4,e5!? 3.dxe5,Ng4 4.Nf3,Nc6 5.Bf4,Bb4+ 6.Nbd2,Qe7 for a few different reasons. the best of these reasons is a trap that ends in checkmate. ive won at least 50 games with it. after 7.a3?,Ngxe5 8.Bxe5,Nxe5 9.axb5??,Nd3#.

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: Is there a heuristic for how much time handicap to give players of different skill levels?
I was curious if there was general guidelines for time handicap ala how there is for piece handicaps (e.g. I've read 1 pawn ≈ 300 elo points for GMs). Is there a way to compute a rough estimate of how much time less the better player should have in a game? For example when I play blitz with a friend who is better, we have even odds when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute. Of course this depends on the player and is probably nonlinear but I was curious of a way to get a rough estimate of where to start the handicap before I begin the binary search for the best handicap value.

# Answer
> we have even odds when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute

That's probably not too far out. As I wrote in this answer about some of the winding down at the prize-giving party after the 2019 Isle of Man:

> IM Lawrence Trent (~2400) was playing blitz / bullet with Caruana with 3 minutes to Caruana's 1 minute and losing in a proportion of about 2 to 1. He then took on Nakamura with 5 minutes to Nakamura's 45 seconds with similar results.

Interesting differential there. At those time controls Caruana and Nakamura were playing bullet to Trent's blitz. Caruana is stronger at standard time controls than Nakamura but at bullet Nakamura is just a beast and you have to take that into account and not use standard ratings.

It's worth adding that you can't play with an increment either in these circumstances. A much stronger player can almost play just on increment alone.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: time-control, handicapping, handicap
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't this threefold repetition, forcing a draw?
Here's my scenario, White has pawns on c2 and a2, and a king on c1, while Black has a queen on b4 and a king on d1.

```
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/1q6/8/P1P5/2K5 b - - 0 1 "]

1...Qe1+ 2.Kb2 Qb4+ 3.Ka1 Qe1+ 4.Kb2 Qb4+.

```

Why isn't this threefold repetition? I'm the player with Black, we've been going back and forth for 30 moves. I've offered a draw and the guy won't accept. I have the weaker position on the board, which is why I want a draw. Is this just bad chess ethics on my part?

# Answer
> 9 votes
There is no such thing as "3 move repetition". To claim a draw, the *position* must be repeated three times (although it does not have to be in a row). In your example, the position with a Black queen and b4 and a White king on b2 has only occurred twice so far. You can claim a draw by repetition of position the next time that you can cause that position to appear.

If you make such a valid claim and your opponent refuses to honor it, he or she is not playing by the rules of chess. If you are playing on some computer service that does not recognize a valid claim of threefold repetition, the service does not implement the full rules of chess.

# Answer
> 4 votes
For a draw in chess any one of the following rules should satisfy :

* stalemate
* threefold repetition of a position (with the same player to move)
* if there has been no capture or a pawn being moved in the last fifty moves
* if checkmate is impossible
* or if the players agree to a draw.

The **threefold repetition rule** (also known as repetition of position) states that a player can claim a draw if the **same position** occurs three times, or will occur after their next move, with the same player to move and the same possible moves. The last means that the first time and the third time have both the same castling and en passant moves possible.

**The repeated positions do not need to occur in succession.**

**The rule applies to positions, not moves.**

*Now, analyze the moves on a board once again and see if it really was a draw.*

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can easily win this game, you know. You can take both pawns (as white must make a move) with the queen, then get your king active and checkmate. If white refuses to give up its pawns, you can force the king away by checking constantly with the queen until he must give up the H7 pawn, and eventually the F7 pawn. It will take a while, but it is inevitable as long as you don’t blunder.

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


title: The controversy about Firoujza game

text:
# Question
Title: The controversy about Firoujza game
The tournment director apologied to Firoujza for moving his game on move 60. However, according to Stockfish 12 NNUE d=61the position on the board just before the players moved is evaluated as 0.00, that means a draw. The game indeed terminated with a draw. What the controversy is about?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Computer evaluation is based on perfect play from both sides, which is never the case in human games, and hence is irrelevant here. Given the nature of the position and the time situation, it is crystal clear that Firouzja had the "psychological" advantage, which he could've converted had the game been continued smoothly. Playing with a rook and an unsafe king against the bishop pair under time pressure is a nightmare for every chess player. Maneuvering with the two bishops is much easier. All this, in addition to other factors such as Firouzja's tournament position, makes up the post-game controversy that has arisen.

# Answer
> 1 votes
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tata-steel-chess-apologise-to-firouzja-after-controversy#:~:text=An%20incident%20involving%2017%2Dyear,on%20chess24%20and%20social%20media.

this is the answer to your question

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Disallow opponent from offering draw on lichess
How can I turn off the ability of the opponent to offer a draw? It has happened a couple of times now. I thought opponent was asking for takeback, in a hugely losing position. But it was actually a draw offer, so I ending up drawing a game that should have been easily won.

# Answer
You can't. You can disable takebacks though. If you don't play games long enough with enough time to read what is being asked, perhaps you should accept mouseslips as part of the game.
> 16 votes

# Answer
There is no way you can do this, at least from the options available on Lichess. However, I've put up a Tampermonkey script that hides all draw offers such that you have no way to see or accept them:

```
// ==UserScript==
// @name         Lichess - Hide Draw Offers
// @match        https://lichess.org/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
  'use strict';

  var css = ".negotiation.draw { display:none }";
  var style = document.createElement("style");
  style.innerHTML = css;
  document.head.appendChild(style);

  var chatbox = document.querySelector(".mchat__messages.chat-v-1");
  var options = { childList: true, subtree: true };
  var callback = () => {
    chatbox.querySelectorAll("li.system t").forEach((item) => {
      if(item.innerHTML.indexOf("offers draw") > -1 || item.innerHTML.indexOf("declines draw") > -1) {
        item.parentElement.remove();
      }
    });
  };
  callback();
  var observer = new MutationObserver(callback);
  observer.observe(chatbox, options);
})();

```

Note that this does **not** deprive your opponent from their ability to offer you a draw. It just hides the draw offer from you. Your opponent will see their draw offer getting declined as you play your next move.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You can't. If your opponent offer you a draw, it means that he already know and understand all the moves you can make to win.

If you take it, it means that you accept your inability to force a victory (to surrender) using another strategy
> 2 votes

# Answer
As already mentioned by theonlygusti, the actual issue is that the draw offer and the takeback request look identical and are located right in the same spot. It already happened to me multiple times that my opponent requested a takeback with the intention to trick me to clicking accept right when it turns into a draw offer. The first time i didnt consider something like that at all and straight up fell for it . . .
> 2 votes

---
Tags: lichess
---


# Question
Title: 5D Chess - Why is white king not in check in this position?
Why cannot black rook on c5 in the bottom timeline capture the king on c5 in the top timeline? Why is the king not in check?

# Answer
The rook on the center board in the present is blocking the check. Even if it goes to the past, a copy stays on the board where it moved from. The rook on the center board isn't checking the king because it already moved to the past.
> 3 votes

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


title: Time out question in a drawish endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Time out question in a drawish endgame
With some extremely rare exceptions, KNN vs KR endgame should be a draw. However, I am wondering what if this endgame happens in a game with no increments. I think the following will happen at chess.com:

1. If KNN runs out of time, KR wins.
2. If KR runs out of time, it is a draw.

Isn't this unfair since both sides do not have reasonable winning chances. It seems to me that in this endgame, time out rule favors KR, though KNN is 1 point up in material (if each knight is counted as 3 points and each rook counted as 5 points).

# Answer
> 4 votes
> I think the following will happen at chess.com:
>
> 1. If KNN runs out of time, KR wins.
> 2. If KR runs out of time, it is a draw.

If chess.com abides by the FIDE Laws of Chess then this is false.

If the side with K+R runs out of time then they lose. K+R vs K+N will also lose. This is the relevant article:

> 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Here is the relevant helpmate position for K+N vs K+R. No second knight is needed.

```
[FEn "kr6/2N5/K7/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

> Isn't this unfair?

If what you say is correct regarding chess.com's interpretation of the rules then, of course, it is grossly unfair. They would be much fairer if they abided by the FIDE Laws of Chess.

---
Tags: rules, endgame, draw, time-control
---


# Question
Title: How relevant is historical performance for Elo rating?
How far back are results of matches relevant for Elo purposes? If a player wins a few early matches then they will earn less points for later wins than if they'd lost those early matches. In the end there comes a point at which older results simply don't affect today's rating.

Matches with higher K factor will erase earlier history faster. I think that K factor has a linear effect on change in rating, so for the purpose of this calculation we can just assume constant K.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Let's say a FIDE player is rated 1800, and has k=20. Every month this player plays in one 4-game tournament, in which they play against opponents all rated exactly 2000, and scores exactly 50%. How fast does the rating converge?

After six months, they would be rated 1898. After one year, the player's rating would be 1949. After 18 months,the rating would be 1975, and after two years, it would be 1987. So it seems that the player is getting approximately halfway to their performance rating every six months or so in this scenario.

After 32 months, the player would be rated 1997, and after that the rating no longer moves because a rating difference of 3 has an expected score of 50% according to the table FIDE uses.

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: Do most amateur players play aggressively?
I am an amateur player and I play blitz games with players with ratings around 1500. My impression is, most of these players play very aggressively. I seldom see players who prefer a quiet, solid game, such as Karpov or Petrosian did. (Of course, I am only comparing playing style, not strength).

Is it correct to conclude that most amateur players like to play aggressively? I am not sure if this is only my impression, or it can be supported by statistics. If so, why?

# Answer
> 12 votes
> Do most amateur players play aggressively?

That's a very broad and sweeping generalization because, for a start, the vast majority of chess players are amateurs. Very, very few are professionals. Very, very few can actually make a living from chess by playing, coaching or teaching. Not even all grandmasters can make a living from chess.

Then there is the biblical saying (from Ecclesiastes / Kohelet): "There is a time and place for everything under heaven." as immortalized by Mary Hopkins. On the chessboard too there is a time for aggression, a time for quiet development, a time for prophylaxis, etc., and a good player will be aggressive when the position calls for it.

So, I suspect the answer is "No", although it is probably true that most very weak players are *over*-aggressive. To understand why, it's worth looking at the major factors which separate very weak players from strong players:

1. Strong players understand one of the core principles of opening development: "First develop your pieces (trying not to move any piece twice until all the pieces have been developed) and only then think about attacking." (Nimzowitsch: "*My System*")
2. Probably the biggest difference between strong and weak players is not calculating ability but the ability to correctly evaluate a position. One of the saddest ways weaker players lose to stronger players is by doing some calculations and evaluating the resulting position as equal while the stronger players evaluate the position as materially equal but positionally crushing. That position is duly reached and the weaker player is crushed without ever knowing why (unless they ask the other player during the postmortem). Hint: when you lose to a stronger player in a serious game always ask for a postmortem if there is time.
3. Strong players play prophylactically (again Nimzowitsch: "*My System*"). Once past their opening knowledge they continually ask after every opposition move "Why was that move played? What are the plans? How can I stop them?". The weak player rarely does this unless the opponent makes a very obvious move threatening a capture or mate.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Do you know the German biologist Ernst Haeckel? "Ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis". I think this is as true in chess. History of chess, as well as development of an individual chess player, begins with tactics. Positional play only comes later (and would be rather pointless without some tactical knowledge). Exceptions are rare. (In my own club I have a kiddie who has an unbelievable talent for positional play, but he mostly gets clobbered tactically...)

That said, I think you choose an unprecise wording, as Andrew already suggested. Also judging from my club play (for reasons this and that, I'm hundreds of ELO points better than anyone else) those poor victims do only rarely play aggressive. Rather, they are the proverbial rabbit before the snake. Still, of course the games mostly look tactical. Do *not* confuse tactical and aggressive play, and also not amateurs on the receiving end with those dishing it out.

I'm a scientist for life - if in doubt, moar data. Mind to add a typical sample game of what you see as aggressive play? Also (my club situation naturally is untypical) *I* could suffer from a sample illusion as well.

# Answer
> 7 votes
In my view, most club players don't play aggressively enough. There is a pattern where someone who is good against non-club players joins a chess club, plays their first matches, tries wild attacks, that are easily defended against. New player drops a couple of pawns, the club player exchanges off to an endgame and wins by promoting one of them. Many new club players then adapt, by a safety-first style that is designed to not drop pawns and wait for their chance to grab one, and they never become much stronger than 1500.

Whereas Karpov... He is a grandmaster, one of the best ever. Chess is a game that rewards aggression. If you give him the chance, he will blow you off the board just like Kasparov would.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think the under-looked consideration here is that you play blitz. Blitz (especially when no increment or delay is used) is much more conducive to aggressive playstyles than quiet ones.

If Alice makes an aggressive attack against Bob, one of two things happens. Either Alice's attack is successful and she generally wins on the spot, or the attack fails and Bob is left with a winning position. But even when the attack fails, Bob must convert his winning position. This may be difficult if he spent much of his limited time calculating his defense. Alice still has winning/drawing chances even when her attack fails. **When time is limited, attacking is favorable to defending.**

By their nature, quiet/passive/positional playstyles tend to require more moves for games to end than aggressive ones. If Alice wants to play positionally, will she have enough time on her clock to play through all these moves to victory? Maybe, but the focus on who has more time on the clock is amplified. Even if Alice outplays Bob strategically to get a winning position, she still has to convert with limited time left on the clock.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't know of any statistics to prove either way, but I think this is not true. I've seen just as many new players plod along with a passive pawn march as I've seen be very aggressive. New players may seem aggressive since they often trade immediately rather than leave pieces in threat, and in taking these trades they leave themselves (unknowingly) in perhaps a more exposed position than a more experienced player would be comfortable with.

---
Tags: style
---


# Question
Title: Can you solve this queen + 3 pawns vs bishop + 3 pawns chess problem?
```
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/6p1/4QpPb/5PpP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

I found this interesting and unique chess problem online while surfing on the internet.

Disclaimer: This is not necessarily a position from a game. It's just a beautiful composition wherein your objective as White is to checkmate the black king. White is moving from bottom to top and Black is moving from top to bottom.

This problem was composed by the Hungarian Engineer, Ottó Bláthy.

It's White's turn. Can you find the winning move continuation for White?

# Answer
If White can get the Black king to the first rank, then it will not be fast enough to catch the g-pawn from promoting. White starts by playing 1. Qg5, and after 1...Kh7 2. Qf6 Kg8 3. Qh6, the White queen can simply imitate the Black king's movements until she can start forcing the king down towards the first rank.

```
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/6p1/4QpPb/5PpP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qg5 Kh7 2. Qf6 Kg8 3. Qh6 Kf7 4. Qg5 Kf8 5. Qg6 Ke7 6. Qf5 Ke8 7. Qf6 Kd7 8. Qe5 Kd8 9. Qe6 Kc7 10. Qd5 Kc8 11. Qd6 Kb7 12. Qc5 Kb8 13. Qc6 Ka7 14. Qc8 Kb6 15. Qd7 Ka6 16. Qc7 Kb5 17. Qd6 Ka5 18. Qc6 Kb4 19. Qd5 Ka4 20. Qc5 Kb3 21. Qd4 Ka3 22. Qc4 Kb2 23. Qd3 Ka2 24. Qc3 Kb1 25. Qh8 Kc2 26. Qxh3

```

As to whether this is the fastest win, I'm not sure.
> 25 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure about the fastest checkmate, but this should be the general procedure:

> Use the queen to force the Black king to the first rank, in such a way that when it moves to the corner, the queen is on b2 or d2.

Then

> play Qd2-h6 or Qb2-h8 with the intention to sacrifice the queen for the bishop and promote the g-pawn.

Black

> can't prevent this, because the king is one rank too far behind

After

> the g-pawn promotes to queen, it can easily get rid of the other black pawns, free the White king and mate will follow soon.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: endgame, problems, queen-endgame
---


title: Why are retreating moves unintuitive?

text:
# Question
Title: Why are retreating moves unintuitive?
I've heard IM and GM commentators on chess tournaments, from the Opera Euro Rapid to PogChamps 3, suggest that retreating moves, such as backwards knight and bishop moves, are unintuitive. I've felt this way while doing certain puzzles as it takes me a long time to find the retreating move after a successful first few moves. But I'm curious as to *why* this is the case. Is it human psychology, or does it have something to do with fundamental principles and piece development? Unfortunately, I don't have a specific board state or game scenario to this display, but any answers would be appreciated.

# Answer
> 9 votes
I think it's human psychology; we associate forward moves with attack and backward moves with defense. After all, chess originated as an abstract model for a real war.

That said, retreating moves don't need to be unintuitive, as long as we're on the defense. I don't have a specific situation in mind either, but retreating a queen or rook to help defending your king from a mating attack feels familiar.

> I've felt this way while doing certain puzzles as it takes me a long time to find the retreating move

That's a good observation: in puzzles, you are almost always on the offense. It's always 'White/Black to move and win material', 'White/Black gives mate in *x* moves'. In rare cases, it's 'White/Black to move and draw' but even then it's often finding an offensive combination to equalize or force a draw by repetition or stalemate.

---
Tags: theory, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Would move sealing make sense in chessboxing? Or do the chessboxing people explain why they don't have?
In chessboxing, I think that every switch from a chess round to a boxing round is kind of an adjournment. Yet, I notice chessboxing doesn't have move sealing. Some ways a switch is not quite an adjournment:

1. Obviously, you don't have the night to think over the position.
2. As I understand, the reason regular chess (or chess960) tournaments don't really have adjournments anymore is because of computers. Computers are I guess going to be ruled out here. (I guess it's a rule that the cuthumans don't have computer access. But ok not really relevant maybe.)
3. **Elephant in the room**: Of course chessboxers/chessboxing players don't really necessarily have time or energy to think when they're preparing for a boxing round. All the more if they've just had boxing rounds.

**Question/s**:

1. However, if you don't really consider the boxing, if you're familiar with adjournments and if you take into account your knowledge on adjournments, then should it be proper for players to seal moves here?

* (1.1. Maybe never mind the specifics e.g. moving player has 5 seconds to seal move. I think just focus 1st on whether or not players should seal.)
2. Or (Any of 1 or 2 to be answered is fine): have the chessboxing people (WCBO, LCB, FIDE, FIDE-WBA or whatever) explained why there is no sealing?

* (2.1. Actually I think if this were the original question, then this might post might not have been closed in the 1st place because this would be factual and not argumentative.)

Thoughts:

1. I think the boxing maybe is not really relevant. Just think of any hybrid where you alternate rounds of chess and another sport/game. Whenever you switch from chess to the other thing, I think moves should be sealed or at least I think it's reasonable to consider whether or not moves should be sealed.
2. It's speed chess, so every millisecond counts. If I'm a chessboxer playing a chess round in a chessboxing game, and it's my move, but then the bell rings, then the clock is paused but I still get to think for a few seconds, even milliseconds while the board is being taken away and the ring is being setup for boxing. It seems that if the round ends on my turn, then I get an advantage. But perhaps this advantage goes away in that my clock starts on the next chess round.

* Maybe a not so good example, but I was thinking about 40:53 in St Patrick's Day Bash 2020 | Bout 4: Here, white finishes a move just as the bell rings. White has already touched a knight, but I'm not sure White has any incentive to make a move with a knight for round end, at least in general. In this particular case, I don't think there's any other move to make with the knight.
3. I have pretty much no knowledge about adjournments, sealed moves, etc. I just saw this on The Queen's Gambit. (Not sure if coincidence, but: The Queen's Gambit was dedicated to Iepe Rubingh, the founder/creator/inventor of chessboxing!)

Thank you note:

I cannot believe this got only ONE downvote. Insane. Thanks all for the edits, etc. Thanks especially to Glorfindel♦.

# Answer
> 3 votes
No: I don't think move sealing would make sense in chess-boxing. I think it would disrupt the fluidity of movement between the two kinds of round, and introduce an asymmetry between what the two players have to do after the chess round.

Nor does the current situation give a significant advantage to the player on the move. Neither side has a chance to analyze the chess while engaged in the boxing which demands their full concentration. And can they can’t consult their friends or computers.

What part of one’s consciousness does one need for different activities? Speaking personally, I can drive safely while listening to radio at the same time. However I can’t navigate while doing both of those things. Where do chess and boxing overlap in brain function? My initial guess is that it’s best to focus on one at a time, with the main benefit of the boxing time for the chess is to refresh my mind so I maybe see something different.

The only time in my humble little life that I was called upon to fight for real (the famous night of my grandmother’s 80th birthday, when I was ambushed with my brothers and cousins by a bunch of louts as we came out of a nightclub) time slowed down - I had infinite time to think as I moved without conscious decision between the other apparently frozen fighters. Who knew that I could behave in this way? It was surreal, and fortunately no-one was armed. I say this not to boast but to illustrate that in genuine peril, emergency circuits can be engaged although I wouldn’t have wanted to play chess at the same time.

I can see advantages in being the last to play in a chess round, and also *not* being the last to play. Particularly as the match goes on and both players begin to deteriorate in concentration, forcing the opponent to be the first to play in the next chess round makes it more likely that they will make a slip.

Simillarly, setting up a trap at the end of a chess round could be an excellent trick. Will it be spotted by the opponent when they are just sitting down and getting focused.

Nor, as I mentioned in a comment, do I think that the last punch should be sealed between boxing rounds! The dislocation between rounds of chess and boxing is all part of the sport.

To see this sport at the top levels, here's a clip of Chessboxing World Championships.

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, time-control, chessboxing, adjournment
---


# Question
Title: Why am I losing so much more often with black (newer player)?
I have played about 125 games so far online and am rated 834 in rapid (I did play a lot as a child but not in many years) and I have double the win percentage with white pieces that I do playing as black. Is there any logical reason to this other than some confounding factor I'm not thinking of? I know that white does win slightly more often than black at higher levels and the engine favors white from the outset. However, I think 72% win rate with white and 37% win rate with black is quite drastic. Maybe 125 is too small a sample size and my stats will regress to the mean as I play more, but I actually feel like I'm doing something wrong with black. Almost a feeling of discomfort and constantly responding rather than making plans. Can someone give me some advice on a different way to look at playing with black?

My only theory is that while I don't play with any specifically named openings with either side, I do begin every game along the same lines with white, so maybe I am playing a commonly used opening with white and my opening with black is just not optimal.

# Answer
It's hard to say without analyzing your games but I imagine there are two parts of your problem.

* General lack of opening principals

Investing time in learning concepts like "what is the goal of the opening" can be just as valuable as practicing tactical puzzles. Openings aren't just about memorizing move sequences but there are plenty of general concepts that can improve your game.

* Lack of confidence specifically with black

You might subconsciously discount black's ability to play great games. You could look up some grandmasters game analysis videos where black wins for some inspiration. You can find some incredible presenters online.

You also might want to consider changing up the opening systems you play. I imagine you mostly play a lot of e4 e5 games. Consider learning a little bit about openings like the caro-khan or the French. With a little preparation you'll catch a lot of new players by surprise. Even without prep chances are you'll be taking your opponents out of their comfort zone too, hopefully that can even the playing field.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I find the answer quite obvious: Maybe White has only a 55% advantage in average GM play, but if you are a beginner, it's far much easier to botch up your position with Black. (I'm speaking with personal experience - I managed to lose in 10 moves, and even being a FM, with Black I must fight for my life each time.)

My personal suggestion would *not* be trying to memorize a ton of openings, but rather get a book on opening traps. They will teach you much better what to avoid.

(It would be helpful to know what is the cause of your losses, a) quick mate, b) blundering away figures, c) being slowly crushed due to an unfortunate opening.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Compile StockFish optimized for arm64-v8a
I cloned StockFish from GitHub and did a `make` inside the `src` folder and found that supported archs are:

* x86-64-bmi2 \> x86 64-bit with pext support (also enables SSE4)
* x86-64-modern \> x86 64-bit with popcnt support (also enables SSE3)
* x86-64 \> x86 64-bit generic
* x86-32 \> x86 32-bit (also enables SSE)
* x86-32-old \> x86 32-bit fall back for old hardware
* ppc-64 \> PPC 64-bit
* ppc-32 \> PPC 32-bit
* armv7 \> ARMv7 32-bit
* general-64 \> unspecified 64-bit
* general-32 \> unspecified 32-bit

I want to build as optimized as possible for my samsung galaxy s10+ running having an arm64-v8a exynos9820 processor.

Which archs should I choose? Will they be optimized as they could be when I build for x86-64-bmi2 for my 64bits ubuntu? If not, how could I optimize them?

(The rather simple idea is that I want to build it to have it as optimized as possible for my mobile phone.)

# Answer
We are going to need the source code : `git clone https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish.git` (see the right address at Stockfish's github as this address could change) somewhere on your PC. (You need the command line utilities of Tortois Git for instance.) Let's call `StockFishDIr` the full path to the StockFish folder (that contains `src` as subfolder) on the PC.

We also need a cross-compiler to ... *cross-compile* (!) the source-code on the PC into an executable targeting the Android OS, meaning : being executable on the ANdroid OS, i.e. on the phone. We are going to use Android-NDK, which contains toolchains and cross-compilers. We download the "Latest Stable Version" r22 (as of the moment I am writing these lines) and unzip it to a folder on the PC ; I call "AndroidNdkDir" the full path to this directory (containing `build`, `meta`, `prebuilt`, `toolchains` etc folders) on the PC.

Finally, as in Stockfish's source code there is only a Makefile, we are going to need `make` under windows. Yes. Just get it from GnuWin32 and note `MakeDir` the installation directory on you PC, the one containg the `bin` folder containing `make.exe`. Analyzing the `MakeFile` linearly show that the cross-compilation boils down to only one command line provided some file is downloaded, and to another "optimizing" command line.

Now we look at the `MakeFile` from `StockFishDIr\src` ; we will modify it slightly.

First we change the executable name by changine the line

```
EXE = stockfish

```

into

```
EXE = stockfish_13_armv8_xcomp_win10x64

```

to give it a meaningful name.

Second, we locate the occurence of `armv8` (it is the `ARCH` of the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra ; if you have another Android phone, maybe you should look for 'armv7' and adapt consequently what follows) concerning the compiler : namely, we replace the bit

```
    ifeq ($(arch),armv8)
        CXX=aarch64-linux-android21-clang++
        STRIP=aarch64-linux-android-strip
    endif

```

with

```
    ifeq ($(arch),armv8)
        CXX=AndroidNdkDir\toolchains\llvm\prebuilt\windows-x86_64\bin\aarch64-linux-android30-clang++.cmd
        STRIP=AndroidNdkDir\toolchains\llvm\prebuilt\windows-x86_64\bin\aarch64-linux-android-strip.exe
endif
    endif

```

(Note that there was the initial `android21` in the CXX line that I replaced with `android30`. It is because the Samung Galaxy s21 Ultra runs Android 11 whose real version number is android30. If you have an android phone with another android version, adapt the lines consequently.)

Now, before compiling, we need one last piece : the *net* file (technical, net = networks = neural network = the weights file of the neural network Stockfish operates with). "Normally" (ah ah), under a linux setup (all what I do here works almost *mutatis mutandis* on Linux), we would just do a `"MakeDir\bin\make.exe" profile-build ARCH=x86-64` which would download the net file where needed, and we would not even bother we it. Sadly, running here `"MakeDir\bin\make.exe" profile-build ARCH=x86-64` doesn't work for some reason, and we need to download the net file ourselves manually. Hence we have to look in the Makefile to find how the net file is downloaded. The bit that matters in the Makefile is :

```
# evaluation network (nnue)
net:
    $(eval nnuenet := $(shell grep EvalFileDefaultName evaluate.h | grep define | sed 's/.*\(nn-[a-z0-9]\{12\}.nnue\).*/\1/'))
    @echo "Default net: $(nnuenet)"
    $(eval nnuedownloadurl := https://tests.stockfishchess.org/api/nn/$(nnuenet))
    $(eval curl_or_wget := $(shell if hash curl 2>/dev/null; then echo "curl -skL"; elif hash wget 2>/dev/null; then echo "wget -qO-"; fi))
    @if test -f "$(nnuenet)"; then \
            echo "Already available."; \
        else \
            if [ "x$(curl_or_wget)" = "x" ]; then \
            echo "Automatic download failed: neither curl nor wget is installed. Install one of these tools or download the net manually"; exit 1; \
            else \
            echo "Downloading $(nnuedownloadurl)"; $(curl_or_wget) $(nnuedownloadurl) > $(nnuenet);\
            fi; \
        fi;
    $(eval shasum_command := $(shell if hash shasum 2>/dev/null; then echo "shasum -a 256 "; elif hash sha256sum 2>/dev/null; then echo "sha256sum "; fi))
    @if [ "x$(shasum_command)" != "x" ]; then \
        if [ "$(nnuenet)" != "nn-"`$(shasum_command) $(nnuenet) | cut -c1-12`".nnue" ]; then \
                echo "Failed download or $(nnuenet) corrupted, please delete!"; exit 1; \
            fi \
        else \
            echo "shasum / sha256sum not found, skipping net validation"; \
        fi

```

We see that the address of the file is `https://tests.stockfishchess.org/api/nn/$(nnuenet))` and that the variable `nnuenet` is defined by `grep`ing the string `EvalFileDefaultName` inside the header file `evaluate.h` (which is inside `StockFishDIr\src`), the line of interest being :

```
#define EvalFileDefaultName   "nn-62ef826d1a6d.nnue"

```

Hence the variable `nnuenet` is equal to the string "nn-62ef826d1a6d.nnue" and the address we are going to download the nets from manually is https://tests.stockfishchess.org/api/nn/nn-62ef826d1a6d.nnue.

Of course, this address may change in the future, but you see the idea. Now we place the net file inside `StockFishDIr\src`

Now we are ready to cross-compile, with the following command to execute inside `StockFishDIr\src` :

```
"MakeDir\bin\make.exe" stockfish_13_armv8_xcomp_win10x64 COMP=ndk COMPCC="AndroidNdkDir\toolchains\llvm\prebuilt\windows-x86_64\bin\aarch64-linux-android30-clang --target=aarch64-linux-android30" ARCH=armv8

```

(Adapt here also the `aarch64-linux-android30` bits according to your Android phone.)

When the preceeding command executes properly it produces the `stockfish_13_armv8_xcomp_win10x64` binary inside the `StockFishDIr\src` folder. This binary is already usuable on you phone (by putting it inside the `DroidFish\uci` folder of your DroidFish app, for instance) but is not optimal as the size is big and the execution is a little bit slow. Hence we have to "strip" the binary with the following command line, still inside the `StockFishDIr\src` folder :

"AndroidNdkDir\toolchains\llvm\prebuilt\windows-x86\_64\bin\aarch64-linux-android-strip" stockfish\_13\_armv8\_xcomp\_win10x64

(There's no `android30` anymore but there is still a `aarch64` : adapt here also the `aarch64-linux-android30` bits according to your Android phone.

Now, your binary file `stockfish_13_armv8_xcomp_win10x64` is perfectly usable. You can play chess against StockFish 13 on your phone, and suffer ! ;)
> 2 votes

# Answer
https://forum.armbian.com/topic/9862-info-how-to-compile-the-actual-64bit-version-of-stockfish-chess-engine/

Seems to show that you have to hack it to get it to compile at all.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, android
---


# Question
Title: Why is this move into a simple forced mate annotated dubious and not a blunder?
In a recent game against a weak computer opponent on lichess, I (white) was in the following position:

```
[FEN "Q4k1r/p1Nbbppp/1pn1p3/8/5B2/5N2/P1K1nPPP/R6R b - - 0 1"]

```

The AI played the move Nb8 giving white a forced mate in 3, annotated by the lichess analysis board as a Nb8?! -- it looks like Bd8 is a better move by blocking the check with a supported bishop.

However, at least to my novice understanding, a move into a forced checkmate (let alone a relatively easy-to-see one in three moves) instead of a far better alternative should be a blunder, not a dubious move (which I understand as "questionable but possibly having merits"). Is there something I'm missing about the nature of this checkmate which makes Nb8 dubious but "possibly having merits", or is it a case of wrong automated annotation?

# Answer
> 7 votes
A blunder is a game-changing move. Nb8 does not change the result of the game which is utterly and completely lost regardless of black's move. Earlier in the game black *did* blunder when it gave away its queen.

The reason for the "!" part of the "?!" (dubious move) notation in this case is because moving the knight opens up the line of sight of the d7 bishop.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Computer annotations these days commonly use `?!` to indicate moves which are noticeably worse than the best move, but not bad enough to warrant a `?` or `??`. There's not necessarily any merit to the move, as there would have been in the old meaning to the annotation.

The program I use to auto-annotate my games uses a threshold of 3 for `??`, 1.5 for `?`, and 0.5 for `?!`. Other programs may use other thresholds, but the idea is the same.

The program I use will not use these annotations for the losing side once they're already losing by a sufficient amount. Apparently lichess will still use `?!` but not `?` or `??` annotations, in this situation. I believe this makes some sense, as the "best" move in a hopeless situation is not necessarily the move which postpones the mate for the longest. But the computer isn't that great at finding "merit" in objectively losing moves.

Can there be merit in a move that allows a forced mate? There wasn't in your case, but it can happen. I remember one game from my high school days where I was hopelessly losing (down a piece, and my opponent was about to promote) but I noticed I had a draw possibility if I could get my queen to a certain square. The catch was, it would take two moves to get there, and my opponent had a forced mate in 2 once I made the first queen move. I went for it anyway, he didn't notice the mate *or* my draw threat, and I stole a draw. Playing the "best" moves at that point would have been a certain loss.

I'm not quite sure why I still have the notation sheet for that game, but I do, so here's how that one ended:

```
[FEN "1Q6/1Npqkp1p/2p5/P3p3/2P1p3/1P5P/5PPK/8 w - - 0 36"]

1.a6 Qf5?! 2.Qxc7+?? (2.Qd8+ Ke6 3.Nc5#) Kf8 3.a7?? Qf4+ 1/2-1/2

```

---
Tags: blunder, annotation
---


# Question
Title: How do you analyze master games without annotations?
I am starting to analyze master games more often because I never really do. But I play openings most masters don't and most games with these openings don't have many annotated games. So, how do you analyze master games without annotations?

I play at around 1500 USCF strength. I got good from just playing, but I have been really studying lately, endgames and tactics. I don't play into the mainline openings, but I have been slowly going into the mainlines like the Bird variation in the Ruy Lopez and the Traxler Counterattack. I want to study the master games now because everyone says that's one of the fastest ways to improve. I don't really want to study the games that play into the mainline until move 23 and the last 100 moves with 2,000 years of annotations. I just want either a brief explained game from a master or a non-annotated game since I don't have much time on my hands.

# Answer
> 8 votes
How? Yourself :-)

This should not discourage you from getting the help of an engine - afterwards §. Also, to me it seems critical to what end you are analyzing master games. There are many answers to this question, almost as many as masters. You analyze a Morphy game? Great choice, learn how opening sins (especially underdevelopment) are punished mercylessly. You analyze a Tal game? Great choice, delve into the variant chaos and show this Rigan swashbuckler you can defend better than his lame-o opponent. :-) You analyze a Capablanca game? Great choice, learn to crush an opponent from an almost equal position without him understanding what hit him.

Generally, it's far easier to analyze with regards to tactics. When it comes to positional play, methinks without annotations you are lost as a beginner. I suggest to edit in your learning goals into the post. It never hurts to analyze GM games but it will make the answers more precise.

§ Dangers of meta-playing, especially when engines are present. From Haukes infinite surplus of chess stories. I played a training match with a kid and his trainer. We were post-morteming. The trainer (having an engine): White has a brilliant move here. I, not even thinking for a second: e5. The trainer is baffled (especially because I'm a strong and very original player who nuked many a GM, but never reached even IM strength). "How did you know?" (He knows I can't calculate even remotely.) "Easy, it's *always* e5 in the Sicilian!" (In the Bxf6 gxf6 Najdorf, for the experts.) "And since you gave away the fact that a move exists, it is good and I don't see any peculiar one, it must be e5." Don't let such habits sip into you, you don't have an engine when you are playing a tournament.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You may be confusing the passive (but thoroughly enjoyable) pastime of playing through a game which has already been annotated (whether by a human or an engine) and the active one of doing the hard work of going through a game and trying to work out what is going on, what the best moves are.

There is an excellent YouTube video on the "Hanging Pawns" channel on How to Analyze Chess Games which gives a guide to analyzing games, both your own and GM games. He recommends treating the three different phases of the game slightly differently. Here is the outline he gives which he expands upon in the video:

1. Opening - Understand every move: ideas, plans, tactical implications, common continuations, related moves (patterns). Use reference games
2. Middlegame - Consider: pawn structure, pawn breaks, passed pawns, piece placement, piece exchanges, material imbalances, loose pieces, open files/diagonals, outposts and weak squares, targets, attacking possibilities, defensive resources, anticipate the endgame
3. Endgame - Be exact! Consult endgame books (Dvoretsky), list and remember rules applicable to the position.

He recommends writing your own copious notes, your own annotations if you like, to capture what you think. This is hard work which he says could take a day, could take a week. On the other hand sitting down and playing through somebody else's annotations is more relaxing and could take anything between a few minutes and an hour.

Only once you have captured your analyses does it make sense to switch on the engine to check your working, as it were. This will often give you better feedback than human written analysis, particularly if the analysis was written by an active GM who may have secrets to hide, at least until the next big tournament. Some GMs are a lot more honest than others.

---
Tags: analysis, learning, master-games
---


title: Black to move and mate in 3

text:
# Question
Title: Black to move and mate in 3
I found this interesting problem on Reddit. If this position appears in Britz's game of mine, I also would miss this.

```
[FEN "5r1r/ppk3p1/8/2bB4/3n4/7b/PP4PP/RN1QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
> 1. ..Ne2+ 2. Kh1 Ng3+ 3. hxNg3 Bg4# with the rook h8

Very nice puzzle !

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is a very obvious start with the double check Ne2. After that you just need to spot that the h8 rook is lined up on the king's only square, h1. The only problem is how to clear the white pawn and black bishop off the file to give checkmate:

```
[fen "5r1r/ppk3p1/8/2bB4/3n4/7b/PP4PP/RN1QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1. Ne2+ Kh1 2. Ng3+ hxg3 3. Bg4++

```

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Does a draw on the board need to be declared before the time flag is reached?
I was participating in a FIDE-rated rapid tournament a while back (15+0, if it matters for the rules), and had finished my match, and was watching another board. White had about 10 seconds remaining on the clock when black moved a pawn which put the board into position of a stalemate (blocking the forward progress of white's only free-to-move pawn). The white player failed to realize in the 10 seconds that they didn't have a move (there were still a few pieces on the board, some pinned, others just blocked, so it wasn't immediately apparent).

I saw the position was a stalemate right away, but neither player recognized it, and since white's time ran out, black took the victory and reported it. In this scenario, should I have:

1. Notified the arbiter of the discrepancy
2. Accept the fact that white effectively surrendered by shaking hands and accepted the defeat
3. Notify the players directly (before anything is reported) and let them resolve it themselves?

As well, would the stalemate stand even if the timeout was hit, or *must* the players acknowledge a stalemate for it to count (regardless of white's inability to move).

# Answer
> 16 votes
There are three articles in the FIDE Laws of Chess which are relevant here:

> 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. ***This immediately ends the game***, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7

and

> 6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

and

> 12.7 If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter. Players in other games must not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. Spectators are not allowed to interfere in a game. The arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue

In this case the game was over and ended in a draw the moment the stalemate was on the board (5.2.1) provided the flag hadn't fallen. The flag hadn't fallen until either the arbiter or one of the players noticed (6.8). Black played the stalemating move and pressed the clock while there was time on both clocks hence the stalemate decided the game.

Having said all that once the players didn't notice and handed in the wrong result that wrong result became very difficult to overturn once the draw had been made for the next round. Before that, it would have been straightforward for the arbiter to correct if the error had been pointed out and verified. Without recording of the moves verification would be difficult once the pieces were reset.

> What would have been the best thing for you to do in the circumstances?

Strictly speaking, according to 12.7, you should immediately inform the arbiter and strictly speaking, only the arbiter. However I suspect that you would not have been punished had you told the players although the player who "won" might not have been happy.

# Answer
> 15 votes
This was undoubtedly a draw. FIDE rules, emphasis mine:

> **5.2.1** The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. **This immediately ends the game**, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

So the game was over, and it was a draw. No player needs to claim or acknowledge or anything. That the clock was still ticking and everything else was irrelevant as far as the rules were concerned.

(there is also another rule that would apply, a flag fall is only a win for the opponent if he has a series of legal moves that lead to checkmate, and here he clearly didn't -- but it's moot because if you don't notice the stalemate, you don't notice this either)

Now, the problem is that no player noticed the stalemate, so they didn't realize what the actual result of their game was. So of course they didn't ask an arbiter either.

What you, as a *spectator* can do is always very hard to say. As far as the rules are concerned, you hardly exist, and if you do the rules only want you to stop interfering.

But in this case, the game was over. There was no danger that you would distract the players, nor was there any way for you to influence the result anymore. *In my personal opinion*, it was fine for you to walk up to them and point out the stalemate, to prevent the wrong result from being reported. Or alert an arbiter. But maybe others disagree.

One thing that is *not* the answer is "accept the fact that white effectively surrendered by shaking hands and accepted the defeat". That happened after the game already finished, so shouldn't influence the result.

# Answer
> 7 votes
That's an easy one: stalemate ends the game *automatically*. FIDE 5.2.1. rule. Neither flag, nor handshaking, nor signing the scoresheet change this. What to do: 1. Play safe, inform an official. 3., while no felony, may get you in trouble when someone official is very anal-retentive minded, or even with the player to whose disadvantage it is. I'd do that only conditionally (e.g. a kids tournament I accompany as a trainer).

---
Tags: rules, fide, claim-draw
---


title: What is the most defended structure?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the most defended structure?
Let's say the opponent has no pieces on the board but you have all of your pieces. In what way should you place your pieces on the board so that you have the absolute maximum of support for each piece?

Supporting/defending the king doesn't count and it doesn't matter what color you're playing. There is a +1 point for every protection a piece gets. X-ray protection doesn't count. Doubled pawns are allowed (even tripled and so forth). Bishops have to be on opposite colors.

# Answer
> 8 votes
This puzzle needs more love, so I post my best position (46):

```
[FEN "8/8/2PN4/1PKB4/2PRNB2/2PRQ1P1/3PPP2/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Since just a record attempt is hardly an answer, here some tips for those who want to beat it: R (and less so Q) are no problem, just put them in the mid of the fray. B can easily have at least 3. K should also have a crowded place. Critical is to have many covers by N and especially by P. Do not bother to count how often a piece is protected when moving around stuff, rather count how many pieces it protects!

# Answer
> 4 votes
47 points

Some insights. Pawns only attack forwards, so sticking them in the back and forming a 'tree' seems to work. Bishops and knights can attack backwards so they can be at the top. (There's one pawn that can be switched with a bishop here and the bishop would go from 2-\>4 and the pawn would go from 2-\>0) I feel like there could be some tricks where the distance pieces could be spaced farther away (to be placed in the knight's attacks), but I can't find a way to do that and not disrupt the short range pieces. I tried focusing on the knight positioning because the knights have a-lot of point potential, but have to be very specifically placed.

The piece that's protected the most is the pawn between the king and queen which is defended 6 times

---

```
[FEN "8/8/1BNNB3/PKPQRP2/1PRPP3/2PP4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
My attempt: 43 points

I thought about the max points each piece can get. All the pieces are tricky in their own way. The king is tricky because anything it touches is a point, but nothing that touches it gets a point. So ideally surrounded by things that don't touch it. Knights are tricky too because they can have so many points, but only if the pieces are far away, but things kinda need to be close.

* Max K: 8
* Max Q: 8
* Max N: 8
* Max B: 4
* Max R: 4
* Max p: 2

---

```
[FEN "8/8/3PNNP1/2B1KBQP/3PPRRP/5PP1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems
---


title: Ambiguity in notation resolved by +

text:
# Question
Title: Ambiguity in notation resolved by +
In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.

Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?

By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.

```
8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1

```

# Answer
> 23 votes
> Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?

It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.

However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".

The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.

In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.

Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.

# Answer
> 18 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: **you should write Nce4**, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.

Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.

Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is *optional*, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Thank you, Remellion, for providing a clear answer based upon the FIDE Laws. If the "+" is optional, it stands to reason that a PGN reader may presume this symbol may be discarded entirely, prior to processing moves of the game. Thus, it can not be correct to use the check symbol as a disambiguation, as it definitely results in ambiguity.

I presume checkmate and stalemate symbols are also optional. Thus, in this diagram:

```
[FEN "QQ6/Qp6/2k5/8/8/8/1R3RN1/3N2KB w - - 0 1"]

```
1. Qa8xb7# is correct (the "#" is not a sufficient disambiguation of 1. Qxb7#).
2. Rfd2= is correct (the "=" is not a sufficient disambiguation of 1. Rd2=).
3. Nge3+ is correct (the "+" is not a sufficient disambiguation of 1. Ne3+).

And for those still not convinced... think of it another way... Suppose you give a beginning chess student this diagram as part of a hand-written #1 test (note: if so, first remove all white units except wK and 3 wQs). Now, who would honestly accept "Qxb7#" as a solution? Nobody! This is a clear failure to disambiguate which queen delivered the mate. Zero credit.

---
Tags: rules, fide, notation, uscf
---


title: Board Vision Puzzles

text:
# Question
Title: Board Vision Puzzles
There's a plethora of tactics puzzles out there. However, I'm looking for board vision puzzles.

For example, given a certain position, how many legal moves does X piece have? How many pieces are pinned? Which pieces are hanging? Etc...

Here is a great example of the type of puzzle I'd love to find more of.

Does anyone have any resources for these types of puzzles?

# Answer
```
[FEN "2Q1Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/3k4/Q5Q1/1R6/B1NBQ3/K2R1N2 w - - 0 1"]

```

How many mates? What was black's last move?

hint: this construction (by Anthony Stewart Mackay Dickens, published in The Problemist, Jan 1970) ties the record (set by Nenad Petrovic, Sahovski Vjesnika, 1947), using fewer units.

Happy counting. But, frankly, I doubt this is useful to you... This is certainly a remarkable diagram from a constructionist perspective, but it was never intended to improve a player's vision (in fact, if anything, such a visualization exercise will lead to blindness).

Stronger players may solve this faster (the guy in the video offers no statistical analysis), but solving faster will not put us among them. Personally, I doubt that such unnatural mates in one can be a useful training exercise to improve your "vision." I have no doubt that solving simple combinations and mates (e.g., Polgar's 5334 puzzles book) -- until the common patterns become automatic -- will improve your tactical ability. A diet of endgames is even better! Reading miniature games without a board might be the best ways to benefit your visualization (and your opening repertoire).

Another good way to improve visualization is to attempt "word" problems without a board. For example, consider this problem from Sam Loyd (which I will paraphrase below)...

You took a new job, and just relocated into the wilderness. Your chessboard and computer will not arrive for a week or so. Despite that, you just received a certified letter from your former boss, with whom you reluctantly agreed to keep in contact by way of a correspondence chess game. This arrive early, no doubt, with the intent to put you at some disadvantage. But, no worries -- you have three days to answer the opening move, and who needs a chessboard to answer the opening move? In the letter, your former boss boasts of needing to make it challenging. "I play 1. f3," he double-exclaims... and there's more... he also sends the following list of conditional moves: "if legal, I play 2. Kf2, 3. Kg3, and 4. Kh4."

Technically, you need only answer the first move within three days, but despite having no chessboard, you have a strong incentive to spare your cheap opponent the cost of another postage stamp. Can you find a series of moves which checkmates your opponent on your fourth move?

It is possible, but to find it, you'll need to unlearn everything you know about chess. Just remember: finding the solution is not the point -- the whole point is to search for mating ideas of your own, and visualize the positions (to confirm your ideas without shuffling wood).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, board-vision, visualization
---


# Question
Title: Chessbase 13 for automatic game analysis
How can I use ChessBase 13 for automatic game analysis? I am new to ChessBase 13 and I don't understand its functions completely. I have more than 1 chess engines installed manually

This is related to this question where the answer given is ChessBase but not described how to use it.

# Answer
The company ChessBase sells a series of engine GUIs (Fritz, Houdini, Komodo, Rybka) that blundercheck or do full game annotation. The ChessBase program lets you run an engine while you go through a game, or can add games with a similar opening, but it won't do an automatic full game analysis the way that the engine GUIs do.
> 3 votes

# Answer
When you enter a game into ChessBase and you save the game, right click the game slot (in the database in which you saved it.

Under "Edit" ==\> "More" ==\> Editorial Annotation (RR). This will allow ChessBase to go through its database and give you an annotated game, according to past players, lines, etc.

However, I believe you will need a "Big Games" database for this to work.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I don't have ChessBase 13, but in ChessBase 16 you simply go to the "Analysis" tab at the top and select either "Tactical Analysis" (for blunders) or "Centipawn Analysis" (for best engine moves).
> 1 votes

# Answer
New board, paste your game in, click analysis tab, click "Let's Check Analysis" (third button from left at the top). Choose the options (try each one if you don't know what they do), and start.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Actually there is a way (but imperfect) to analyse full games in ChessBase, using the Let's Check feature.

1. Open your game
2. Click on the analysis tab and enable Let's Check.
3. Click on Let's Check analysis, and choose for example Standard Analysis (in advanced settings, you can set the analysis time per move). If a given move has already been analyzed by other users, ChessBase will just retrieve the analysis and no calculations are made. If not, it will use your own engine.

See https://uscfsales.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/chess-game-analysis-using-fritz13s-%E2%80%9Clets-check%E2%80%9D/ for other details.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Reference request: Books/Video series on prophylaxis
I would like to imitate the prophylactic playing style of Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian and/or Anatoly Karpov. May I know if there are any books/video series that you would recommend?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are YouTube videos covering these specific areas but I'm not convinced I could recommend them. Nevertheless, here are 3 for you to try and make your own mind up. They are at least free.

Mastering the Middlegame with Atul Dahale : Aaron Nimzowitsch : Prophylaxis! (link at about 15 minutes in because before that it is mostly irrelevant drivel)

Tigran Petrosian - World Chess Champion - Master of Prophylaxis - Kingscrusher Radio Show (not one of Kingcrusher's best IMHO)

Karpov's Prophylaxis with Karpov's Prophylaxis with IM Valeri Lilov (IM Valeri Lilov, who he?)

There are far better books if you are prepared to accept some fine games collections of these players.

**Nimzowitsch**:

Everybody is familiar with "*My System*" but "*My Praxis*" is probably better for stronger players. It is a collection of annotated games by Nimzowitsch with the intention of demonstrating "My System" in practice, kind of like the name suggests.

**Petrosian**:

Old school, perhaps, but I like PH Clarke's "*Petrosian's Best Games of Chess 1946-63*"

More modern (and with much deeper annotation) is Kasparov's "*My Great Predecessors Part 3 Petrosian Spassky*" roughly half of which is devoted to Petrosian and which includes a specific chapter on Petrosian's prophylaxis - "*Miracles of Prophylaxis*"

For **Karpov** there is more choice:

For a simple game collection there is PR Markland's "*The Best of Karpov*" but for in-depth quality annotations you can't beat the three books Kasparov wrote of the annotated games he played against Karpov:

*Kasparov vs Karpov 1975 - 1985*
*Kasparov vs Karpov 1986 - 1987*
*Kasparov vs Karpov 1988 - 2009*

---
Tags: books, recommendations, chess-videos, prophylaxis
---


title: Overcoming severe time troubles

text:
# Question
Title: Overcoming severe time troubles
I started playing chess 2 years ago and ever since I started, I have experienced consistent time troubles. Recently, I gathered some data from my 40 most recent rapid 10+0 games, and concluded that I am ~2.08 minutes behind my opponent at around the midpoint of the game.

This is absolutely horrible ! In one game I was 6 minutes behind, compared to my opponent. While the best time advantage I have had is 1.3 minutes. Only in 4 of the 40 games I had a time advantage or equal time, so in conclusion,

> **in ~90% of my games I am behind on clock of about ~2.1 minutes halfway through the game**.

As a result, I can't play blitz (3 minutes) at all, even though I wish I could, since I have to start pre-moving way before my opponent enters that stage of the game. Which further explains my rating discrepancy of 1700 in blitz while 1930 in rapid, on Chess.com...

I think the main reason why I am so consistently behind on time stems from *my anxiety of missing a tactic* or just *blundering something*. I really want to fix this problem, but it is just so hard. Has anyone experienced the same thing as me? How have you overcome this problem, and what are available resources for a player like me ?

# Answer
It doesn't matter if you spend more time than your opponent in a game. What matters is that you're spending the time effectively. The more complex the position the longer it's going to take to find the right move.

Where are your spending time time? And why? What is it you are thinking about? Are you double-checking, or triple checking your analysis? Or are you analysing as many moves as possible? Also look at the types of position you spend more time on: is it opening moves, is it positions right out of the opening, is it tactical positions, quiet strategic positions, unbalances positions, dynamic positions, or maybe positions you feel like you have a substantial advantage and you're trying to find a win?

The key is to bring discipline into your thinking, and train yourself to make a move quicker. First step is to figure out which position/moves the time is being spent. Then to figure out why. That why could lead you to identifying lack of knowledge/experience of a particular type of position -- maybe a weakness in your play. That means you can train yourself to get better at such positions, gain some confidence, and make it easier to find the right move quicker.

However, if you are spending the time double- and triple-checking your calculations, then it's a confidence issue. Something like Kotov's book "How to Think Like a Grandmaster" might help, to start training yourself to analysing a variation once, and only once, and to trust your calculation abilities. Perhaps calculation training is all you need.

If the reason for the time being spent is in the middle game trying to find a plan, then finding annotated games by grandmasters in the same or similar openings might be the solution, to give you more familiarity of the positions. That will help build an instinct as to the right kinds of moves and plans to play.

If you're spending a lot of time in the opening, then maybe spending time studying various opening systems you are playing to get a better understanding of them, e.g. playing through annotated master games.

And a steady diet of calculation, both tactics puzzles and endgame calculations. Chess is very much a pattern-recognition problem at the human level. And discovering patterns in study will help spot them in play. Building that instinct to the correct move, and then using calculation to verify your instinct is correct -- that's the Magnus Carlsen school of chess.
> 6 votes

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


# Question
Title: A way to add an "opening names" column to the SCID game list
I've been googling and looking through SCID's options but just can't seem to find the answer.

The database gamelist in SCID has a few informative columns for all the games in the gamelist, including the first few opening moves and the ECO code. But I was wondering if it's also possible to, in addition to the ECO code, also add the actual opening names. Either as another column or maybe even add them to the ECO column so that it shows them like this: `B96 [Sicilian: Najdorf]`

There's obviously also the ECO browser tool. And that also shows ECO codes in addition to the opening name. So the information is there. Is there a way to also show that in the game list window?

I added a terrible MS paint example for reference.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There doesn't appear to be a way to do this directly. There's a predetermined list of columns available, and this isn't one of the choices. And, while the ECO Code field will allow you to type in a different ECO code than the one it auto-detects, it won't save anything other than a valid ECO code, so you can't just type in something like "Sicilian" or even "B96Najdorf" and have it work; the first will be ignored and the second will be truncated to "B96".

One option is to take a column that displays free text, like "Event" or "Site", and use that for the opening names instead. But this takes a lot of manual work, and you lose the information that used to be in that column.

Otherwise, SCID is open source, so you could modify the code yourself to add an opening name column, if you know programming.

---
Tags: opening, database, scid
---


title: Correct definitions of chess terms

text:
# Question
Title: Correct definitions of chess terms
We have been assigned a project of writing a simple chess evaluation engine. The engine doesn't play chess and doesn't calculate variations - it just performs a basic static evaluation of input position. When preparing a technical documentation of the project we introduced some basic chess terms and definitions used inside the project. But our adviser said that certain terms are inadequate as they are not used by chess experts and we must try to use adequate terms instead. We ain't chess players and we need a help on giving correct terms to the definitions. The terms and definitions used so far are given below:

```
 The ideal range (IR) of a piece P standing on the square S is all the squares that P can go to from S
if we remove all other pieces from the board

The actual range (AR) of a piece P standing on the square S is all the squares that P can go to from S
in the actual current position.

A piece P is considered limited if its actual range is lesser than its ideal range.

A square S is considered fatal for a piece P1 if the following takes place:
1) S belongs to the actual range of P1
2) S is attacked with an opponent's piece P2

A square S is considered obstructed for a piece P1 if the following takes place:
1) S belongs to the ideal range of P1
2) S is occupied with other piece P2

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
Your terms have been defined by GM Bien in his book https://b-ok.cc/book/869069/2e0f8a or https://archive.org/details/chessrecipesfromthegrandmasterskitchen.

However, although mobility is a factor in many engines, it's no calculated by the method you're trying to accomplish.

Common features checked with an evaluation function are pawn structures, isolated, backward, and doubled pawns, king safety, and piece mobility/activity, rooks on the seventh, piece mobility and closeness to the center, and restriction of the opponent's pieces.

Not a comprehensive list, but this should be enough for a school project. If you was a better list, search for chess evaluation function or read the source code of another's program, there's plenty of examples on the internet, especially on Github.com.

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: Looking for the right size for a box in which to store my chess set
So I have this nice chess set that was gifted to me some time ago. The thing is that I don't have a proper box for the pieces (the set came in a card box, good for transportation but not for everyday storage).

~~I just had the idea that someone with a set similar to mine could measure their box and give me the numbers. You know, it's easy finding/building a box in which the pieces have room enough, but I'd like the proper dimensions for using just the precise space.~~

~~The sizes of the main pieces are:<br>```
king 10cm (4 inches)
rook 5.5cm (2 inches)
pawn 4cm (1.5 inches)

```~~

~~What would be the right size for a box in which to store my chess set?~~

Actually I realized that I don't need the measures of a chess set *exactly* like mine. Since the sizes of the pieces and the box are proportional, **I just need the sizes of a couple of pieces (say king, rook and pawn) and the size of the box in which those pieces fit**. The it's just a simple rule of three.

Also, it's a good idea -provided by Laska\- to use cardboard for testing.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Ok, so I think I figured out a way to solve it. Since I realized I don't need a chess set exactly like mine, but just the info of any chess set (pieces and box) and then use a rule of three to scale it to my pieces set, I made a search on Google and found these results:

Probably more can be found, but I'm pretty sure that two will be enough.

Also, I'll use cardboard for testing till I get the optimal size and build the final box in wood, DMF or whatever material I choose.

---
Tags: chess-set, equipment
---


title: Null Move Pruning

text:
# Question
Title: Null Move Pruning
I just downloaded the latest free version of Komodo 12 to try to disable the Null Move Pruning option. So, in my mind, I supposed that for depth 2, it will need 20\*20= 400 nodes However I arrived at depth 3 with nodes 78 and depth 4 with 193.

What is the role of the Null Move Pruning option? I thought that it would search every single position even if the moves were disastrous.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The theory is that if your opponent could make two consecutive moves and not improve his position, you must have an overwhelming advantage. If you advantage is so great, there's no need to examine other lines, and the search can end.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How to measure Leela Chess Zero improvement
I searched Leela website for some statistics about its self-training, the number of games it played with itself in order to assess its progress or to be able to predict whether it is going to win the next Sufi, for example, but I did not find any information.

What is the number of self-games it played before TCEC S19 or TCEC S20, for example? Where can this information be found? Are there any other characteristics to be used to measure its improvement?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The number of games doesn't really effect improvement.

Let's say that in the 500th game that is discovers the common Nf7 fork. This knowledge isn't useful until it plays enough games to discover that the rook is worth mort than a knight. Both pieces of information is needed, plus and ability to associate them, to understand that the fork is a positive play. And we also have to discover when there is an exception to the general rule, ie when castling pins the knight or the wasted moves justify a viscous attack.

The improvement is randomly found, so this play could discover the usefulness and exceptions within 500 games, or it may never stumble across it within 1,000,000. I've seen people make master before they ever saw the Scholar's Mate, which he fell into that trap, so number of games, intelligence, nor strength of the player are any indication of knowledge of any position.

---
Tags: engines, software, computer-chess, leela
---


# Question
Title: Should I study players or specific games?
I'm a relatively new player (1400 on chess.com, best game I won OTB was against a 1800) and I finished going through a tactics book. I still do tactics puzzles almost every day, but I realized I don't really "understand" the openings I play and I usually struggle strategically. I thought I would look at games with the openings that I play (Caro-Kann, London System, Ruy Lopez, Vienna, etc). I was wondering, is it better to look at games with a certain opening from only one player at first? For instance, I know Karpov played a lot of Caro-Kann and I really like his style of playing, so should I just go through games he played and try to understand the moves? Or would it be better to look at *all* Caro-Kann games? I'm a bit confused on what to do I must admit. At least for strategy I can read a book, but not so sure for openings.

EDIT: I'm asking the question because I'm afraid that studying only one player will make me miss some important theory or examples. Is that true or not?

# Answer
At 1400 on chess.com, openings aren't your main issue. Five moves of theory should be fine. Your opponent will throw in a Rb8 when you're attacking his king anyways so you won't be in theory for long. At your level, chess is 99% tactics.

However, the concepts behind said 5 moves are still important to know and understand. Like in the Caro-Kann, Nd7 stops white from playing Ne5, but playing that in the 2 knights trap will get you smother-mated so you need to be careful.

Sticking to improving... The best way to learn is to play while writing down the moves. Play longer games (15-25mins+ and stop writing at 5 mins on clock). Once you've played, try to compare what you played with theory. Then try again and again. Doing that will also help your tactics and board vision so it definitely is an 'all-around' trick for improvement.

Karpov (and most top level) games have a lot to learn from, but not for someone who is new as his concepts apply to middle and endgame. Often they are minor improvements on past positions. They're nice to look at with a stronger player though, but if you want to test yourself, evaluate 2000-2200 rated OTB games and look for improvements in those.

Lectures are also important and Youtube has a lot of lectures on openings. They explain a lot of the basics you might miss at first, but don't be hard on yourself if you forget some points during your games - unlike in person lectures, you can just rewatch it after 2-3 games of yours. One I like a lot is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChxLXqMph7cRG\_MHIIhlZ7A as he offers solid, yet offbeat ideas to counter specific lines.

So to answer the edit question. It's false, practice and playing your own games is what will make you remember ideas. Studying a player will have no effect either way, it should only serve as a complement to your own play.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, study
---


# Question
Title: how do you get notes on chess moves, to save in Fritz?
how do you get notes on chess moves, to save in Fritz?

mine are not saving

https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/crnjeNRSM8

For example

Say I add text here

But even after clicking save, if I reopen the game, it shows that the notes didn't save

How do I make sure it saves?

# Answer
When you do **File \> Save \> Save** it adds the game to the current database at the end. So scroll to the bottom of the database list of games, and you'll see those two games.

Instead, to save the game in place, you do **File \> Save \> Replace**, that "replaces" the current game with the one with your newly added notes.

It is counter-intuitive.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: fritz
---


# Question
Title: What is meant by openings with lot of theory versus those with little or none?
I just started playing chess one week ago. I've done a bit of reading but can't find anything that explains what is meant by openings with a lot of theory versus ones with a little or no theory. Can this be explained in a "chess for dummies " language?

# Answer
In chess, "opening theory" or just "theory" means "established opening lines": usually lines that have been studied and judged to lead to more or less equal positions, and appear in books.

It's unfortunate terminology since it matches neither the day-to-day meaning of the word (something that's contrasted to practice) nor the meaning used in game theory. But we're stuck with it.

While "opening" sometimes refers to a specific line, it's better to think of it as a game tree, that is, a collection of lines with a common origin. Openings with "lots of theory" are those with large game trees. This is usually a combination of two factors: long lines (the tree is deep) and lots of variations (the tree is wide, with a lot of branches).

Openings that are popular among top players will be studied more so will tend to have longer book lines. Openings that lead to positions with a lot of good moves will have lots of variations, while openings with forced moves will naturally have fewer variations.

In short, openings with lots of theory are those with more pages in opening books.
For example, *Mastering the Chess Openings* devotes 75 pages to the Sicilian Opening, and only 10 to the Caro-Kann. So we could say that the Sicilian has more theory than the Caro-Kann. Of course, different books will give you different numbers, but you get the idea.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Openings with a lot of theory are those with extremely long book lines, especially if there are lots of viable moves at each point in the game. Here's an example of such a line. Ten moves into the game, White plays a subtle move order to provoke a non-obvious pawn move by Black, in order to get a slightly stronger initiative. If you didn't know anything about theory you would have little to no chance of spotting this subtlety, but if you do, then you can gain an advantage over those who don't.

The reverse is the case for openings with little theory. For obvious reasons people play moves such as 1.b3 a lot less than 1.e4 or 1.d4. As a result, 1.b3 is much less explored, and there is less theory.
> 3 votes

# Answer
"Opening theory" should be seen as the constant, somewhat-like-scientific search for a way to force an advantage for white in the opening. People interested in theory write opening books and opening articles that don't just repeat what was already published before, but that try to improve on the already known theory -- new tries for an advantage for white, new ways to equalize for black.

All those published works taken together (books, DVDs, articles, published analysis of games, et cetera) form "opening theory".

Some openings, like the Open Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/Nc6/e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4) have have lots of attention in the past, with piles and piles of books on it published. Many times it seemed white was better, always new ways for black to equalize were found. Whereas say the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) has basically always been considered equal and therefore hasn't got much attention.

*Practical players* also use this theory to prepare these games. If the opening is very sharp, with many published lines leading to either checkmate or a draw by perpetual check depending on details you can't find with a few minutes worth of thinking, and your opponents may have memorized them -- then you better memorize them too, or find another opening. Chess players buy lots of opening books and try to memorize them.

But practical players *also* prepare and study openings not with the goal of getting an advantage, but with getting a playable game that they'll understand better. E.g. opening theory says that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6, 5.cxd5 is bad -- black can play 5...exd5 and develop his pieces more easily than when the white is not on f3 yet, say with 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5. So you won't find much about that line in opening books, but strong players do play it! And they will win if they understand the resulting positions better than their opponent. It just isn't opening theory.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Naturally, the heft of opening theory must pay more attention to lines which generate imbalances. Quiet, balanced openings present less immediate concern (and fewer opportunities for opening theoreticians -- who depend upon asymmetric threats to narrow their path of study).

To illustrate with a simple example, consider the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 etc). Why would white spend two of his first four moves to prematurely surrender the light-squared bishop for black's knight? The goal is to weaken black's pawn structure (if white manages to exchange all remaining officers, the pawn endgame is won).

It did not take long for opening theory to judge that black's bishop pair (and superiority on the light squares) provides more than enough resources to hold the balance (and the drawish nature of rook endings tends to mitigate the risk). That's why most white players do not capture on c6.

In fact, black players rarely play 3...a6 anymore, because the counter-attacking 3...Nf6 offers even more imbalances (read: opportunities to profit by opening study -- the ensuing "Berlin Wall Variation" has all but ended favoritism for the Ruy Lopez).

Today, computers can provide a instantaneous answer to most opening questions, and as a result, memorizing piles of computer output yields diminishing returns.

If you want to drive a Ferrari, be prepared to devote considerably more time/money keeping it up. Opening theory is just that -- a gathering of enthusiasts in a car garage, forever talking of ways to increase horsepower of their prized opening.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, theory, terminology
---


title: Is opposite side castling an advantage?

text:
# Question
Title: Is opposite side castling an advantage?
I usually work things out as I go along. I don't know any openings and tend to improvise the opening and the middlegame.

For a player like me, is opposite castling a good or a bad choice? I took a look at the tactics involved in such a game (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/attack-on-opposite-side-castled-king) and it seems that you need a high tempo to perform well. For someone who never follows a strict plan and improvises, is this an advantage or a disadvantage? Should I castle on the same side and aim for a slower game with less pawn involvement?

Say, for example, my queenside is under attack and the opponent has castled kingside. Castling kingside would reduce pressure and allow me to recollect my thoughts. Castling queenside would allow me to put pressure on the opponent's kingside and form a counterattack quickly. For each of these possibilities, the play style must change, but does castling opposite the opponent actually give me any advantage apart from aggression? Possibly, it would allow my bishops to take a long diagonal against the opposing king, w/hile same-side castling would require more knight action.

# Answer
The short answer is that castling long, vs. short or staying in the centre depends on the *concrete nature of the position*. I would advise against 'castling into it \[an attack\]', and give this quote from Pillsbury:

> Castle because you will or because you must, but not because you can

This means that if I gave a general answer of, say, 'always castle kingside, it's good', then that advice may not apply to many positions, and also goes against your player personality of working things out move-by-move.

If you could post some concrete positions into your question, then the community can comment on if/when castling queenside is appropriate.
> 6 votes

# Answer
A simple way to think about this: castling to the opposite side of your opponent means that your opponent is also to the opposite side of you.

In many positions, you try and keep some compact pawn structure wherever your king is, so both castling kingside means that using the pawns on g, f, or h exposes your king more to risk. However, Kingside vs. Queenside for either side means that you have those same pieces available to advance and attack. As for tempo, attacking with tempo is, fundamentally, what an attack is. You are able to enact a plan and attack someone before they can attack you.

Which is to say long against someone's short (or vice-versa) is only useful if you believe that you have the time to use that advantage. Otherwise, there isn't really an offensive advantage.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'll approach it from a more fundamental way. Steinitz said "One Does Not Simply Walk into Mordor". OK, that was Boromir, but it amounts to the same: One does not simply attack the king. In an equal fight, the defense is bound to win. And note the defense even has 1 king more, and that dude, lest we forget it, has the fighting power of a rook.

Opposite castling thus is advantageous for the attacker in at least two ways:

1. He can storm with the pawns without exposing his own king. Even jettison them, giving lines for the rooks.
2. If the defense tries to transfer everything to its king side, I foresee a space problem.

As a consequence, who mates first wins. (Not that this is specific to the situation :-)

As further consequences:

1. Opposite castling favors a strong attacker. (Or tactician, practically the same)
2. But opposite castling also favors a strong defender.
3. Opposite castling disfavors the hesitant and the chicken. (You might have to throw in a lot of unsound looking sacrifices to be first.)
4. If you are the improvising, no plan guy, I see that as an advantage. Your plan consists of one word: Mate! And ideafulness and seize-the-moment can only help.
5. Disclaimer: In chess anything is concrete. Thus e.g. "hooks" (a6,h6) favor the opponent who can easier open lines.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You castle opposite because your king would be safer. Or because you will have an endgame edge due to king position in a game that is not going to be decided by an attack.

Less often you do it to gain a tempo. I have castled long to check the black king on the queens home square after an exchange. That brought the rook to a good file and moved my king to safety and united my rooks.

You might do it to bring another rook to the attack faster without having to move your king out of the way after castling on the side of your attack.

You might do it to facilitate an attack on the other king but that is also not a routine thing to do.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, castling
---