# Question
Title: What am I supposed to learn from this puzzle?
I'm still in the learning stage of playing chess, and was a bit frustrated by this puzzle.

https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/683680

After my initial attempt failed I tried all the moves I could think of to succeed (I usually do this and often get the solution on my second or third try) I used the hint feature to get the solution. None of this would be at all shocking to me, but the puzzle is rated at 715 and my failed attempt cost me 14 rating points.

Looking at the analysis board the line played gives only a fractional advantage to white, but any other move would result in a significant decrease in advantage.

So now I know what the correct answer is, I'm wondering if this puzzle is possibly underrated or if I'm missing something in my chess practice so far...

I seem to do a lot of puzzles on Chess.com where a seemingly simple mate-in-3 is rated 1000+ and then puzzles like this one that make me doubt my training so far.

Any thoughts on what I can takeaway from this puzzle, or what I can do to fill this gap in my knowledge so far?

# Answer
@B.Swan incorrect. Everything is -3 but the line played, +3. The puzzle is meant to help you learn the power of the pin (you trade and then Rc2 is played, so the knight cannot move because of the king behind it and you win a free piece). Even a free pawn can make or break a game; a piece is amazing, and if you can get it, you are likely to win the game. It is hardly a "fractional advantage".
> 5 votes

---
Tags: training, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: What is the reason for 5...Bb4+ in this line of the Bishop's Opening?
After the opening moves

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3

```

one of Black's fashionable answers is

> 5...Bb4+

What is the aim of this seemingly useless check?

# Answer
**5...Bb4+** looks like a weird move because you wouldn't play a move like that often, but it makes perfect sense because the white bishop in on b3.

White would definitely want to develop his knight with Nc3 on the next move and put pressure on Black's pawn center. By playing **5...Bb4+** you prevent **6.Nc3** (it'd lose a piece). If White goes for **6.c3**, then Black can put his bishop on d6 without his position in the center being at jeopardy.

That's why the most successful move here is **6.Bd2!**. Now **6...Bd6** is met with **7.Nc3!**, so Black usually prefers to trade bishops.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I think that this would be a mistake. White easily counters with Bd2 or c3. I don't think you would see this move unless the players were lower-rated (think sub-1000).
> -2 votes

# Answer
To prevent castling later on in the game. It limits White's defensive options
> -3 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, bishops-opening, open-games
---


title: When are games against engines drawn?

text:
# Question
Title: When are games against engines drawn?
> **When two engines play against each other in a game of chess, when is it appropriate to declare a draw when clearly no progress is possible?**

For example:

```
8/6k1/8/R3K2p/2r3p1/6P1/7P/8 w - - 0 2

```

This was a position reached against two engines I am having compete. It has been going on for a while and I doubt a win is possible. Repetition seems like a while away, and I think the fifty-move rule only works if a player requests for it (these engines don't do that). I can't even declare this a draw by endgame tablebases because it has 8 pieces.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Try the TCEC adjudication rules, adapted for your situation. You can use more aggressive (or less aggressive) adjudication rules if you need them, e.g. by changing the threshold eval needed for adjudication.

Win adjudication:

> Game ends in a win if there is a mate, engine resigns, time runs out, there is a crash, illegal move, by 6-men TB adjudication, or by the TCEC winrule: both playing engines have an eval of at least 10.00 pawns (or -10.00 in case of a black win) for 5 consecutive moves, or 10 plies - this 10/10 rule is in effect as soon as the game starts. In the website this rule is shown as "TCEC win rule" with a number indicating how many plies there are left until it kicks in.

Draw adjudication:

> A game can end in a draw by three-fold repetition, 50-move rule, stalemate, 6-men TB adjudication, and the "TCEC draw rule" (ending the game at move 35 or later if the evals from both playing engines are in \[-0.15, +0.15\] for 10 plies without a pawn advance or any capture).

---
Tags: engines, draw, fortress
---


title: Comparison of tactics trainers

text:
# Question
Title: Comparison of tactics trainers
I've noticed that the nature of the tactics differ from one website to another. For instance, on lichess.org/training (the website which I train tactics the most on), I have noticed that tactics always present (at my rating level, at least) with the following features:

1. The opponent has just blundered, and the position we are playing is now winning (but was not before the blunder). There are no puzzles where one must hang on to keep the position equal, or play for a draw;
2. There is always only one correct sequence of moves, i.e. each move is markedly better (according to Stockfish) than all of its alternatives. There are no problems where one must find the most accurate win, with other variations still winning;
3. The computer will always respond the best moves, not the most natural or most challenging ones, or the ones that were actually played in the game. For instance, say the tactic involves a mate threat, and that the opponent can choose between going down a full queen immediately (with no immediate mate), or trying escape with the king, with the latter alternative leading to forced mate in 7 (the line we should actually be calculating). Then the computer will lose its queen and the tactic will be over much sooner than if it had tried to save the position.

It is easy to imagine why these features make the problem of identifying tactics from analysed games more tractable, but from the perspective of learning the game they are not ideal: 1. results in defensive play being neglected and 2., 3. make the puzzles less representative of real play. I found this old blog post on how tactics are generated on lichess, but I believe things have changed a lot since then and I think it's no longer relevant (I was not able to find more recent posts, and have not attempted to look at their code).

I have noticed that on chess.com/puzzles 3. (and possibly 1.) do not occur, but I'm not sure since I train rarely there. I actually prefer the problems on lichess, since they look (at least at the starting position) a little more realistic. I'm also aware of a few other websites, like chesstempo (where I believe multiple moves are allowed).

This is my main question: Can anyone provide a comprehensive comparison of the different tactics trainers available, in terms of the above and other characteristics? How are these differences explained in terms of the algorithms that mine and create tactics? How can I best train various aspects of tactical play, which may not all be accessible on one website?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The tactics trainers cannot be compared to each other. You need to compare them to a specific person as everybody has different needs and preferences.

That said, all the ones I have seen are done poorly from an educational perspective which would most effectively help you improve as fast and as far as you could.

---
Tags: tactics, training, lichess, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: Looking for instructive examples on how to defend against the Giuoco Piano or Giuoco Pianissimo (?) opening from Black's perspective
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (The Two Knights Defence is my choice) 4. d3 and I am obliged to play the Giuoco Piano 4... Bc5. I am afraid of the middlegame positions that arise after this opening, because to me it seems that white is in the driver's seat being able to play anywhere on the board f.ex c3-d4 or Be3-fxe3 and then doubling rooks on the f-file or pushing a4-b4 and against all of these plans I feel lost. I can't get counterplay. I've attempted the usual operations: developing my pieces, striking in the center with the move d5 and aiming to equalize the game but it's complicated and I often end up losing the game if not in the short run then will have to endure until a blunder happens in the endgame after many moves of torture. Of course there are many other plans that white might execute but that's even worse for me.

# Answer
```
[fen ""]
[Event "Ding Liren - Giri"]
[Site "Wenzhou CHN"]
[Date "2017.08.09"]
[EventDate "2017.08.08"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Ding Liren"]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "2777"]
[BlackElo "2772"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. h3 d6
7. c3 a6 8. a4 Ba7 9. Re1 h6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6
12. Nf1 Nh5 13. Be3 a5 14. Bxa7 Rxa7 15. d4 Qf6 16. Re3 Nf4
17. h4 Qg6 18. g3 Raa8 19. dxe5 Nxe5 20. Nxe5 dxe5 21. f3 Rad8
22. Qc2 Nh5 23. Kh2 Rf6 24. Rd1 Rdf8 25. Rdd3 Qf7 26. Qd1 Rg6
27. Qe1 Qe7 28. Kh3 Rxg3+ 29. Nxg3 Nf4+ 30. Kh2 Qxh4+ 31. Kg1
Rf6 32. Rd8+ Kh7 33. Rd2 Rg6 34. Rg2 h5 35. Rh2 Rxg3+ 36. Kh1
Qg5 37. Qf1 h4 38. Re1 h3 39. Rd1 Qh5 40. Rd7 Qxf3+ 41. Qxf3
Rxf3 42. Rhd2 Kh6 43. Rd8 Kh5 44. Rh8+ Kg4 45. Rd1 Ne2 0-1

```

I think that the way Anish Giri plays the Italian as Black is very instructive.

It is also funny that White faced all the problems you mentioned having as Black in this game, and it shows how Black avoided the headaches you named.

Some ideas (I would not call them rules...) in the Italian...

1. I like to go ...a6 and ...Ba7 immediately and only then ...d6. It gets the bishop out of harms way so that we are more flexible in how we react to moves in the center, like d4 (because d4 does not hit the bishop anymore). And we can still retreat it with ...Be7 if that is how we want to parry Bg5 (matter of taste if you want to go for ...h6 and ...g5).
2. If White goes for the pin with Bg5 before Black has castled kingside, we go ...h6, ...g5 kicking the bishop and we may go for a kingside attack (even after we castle kingside outselves!). A useful maneuver to enable a pawnstorm is ...Nf6-h7 supporting the g5 pawn to play ...h6-h5 (once we are ready).
3. If White does not go for Bg5 early and plays slowly, a good plan is ...h6, ...Re8, ...Be6 and then ...Rxe6 after the bishops are swapped. The rook may stay on the 6th rank or reatreat back to the 8th.
4. If White goes for Be3, swapping there is usually okay if we have not played ...h6 yet, as ...h6 weakens squares around our king and we might get crushed after a sacrifice. But you never really have to take and while the rook may look bad on a7, it is not as far from the action as it may seem (see the game I posted).

You will still learn some common mistakes by White, like mistiming d4, leaving f2 vulnerable and others. Another thing to look up is how to deal with unsound sacrifices on f7 or g5 (after ...h6, ...g5 White very often plays Nxg5, but it mostly is not sound).

You also need to look for active play. If White's move seems very slow, or his forces do not look fully coordinated, you might have an opportunity to seize the initiative by striking in the center or on the kingside (mostly). If you look at the game I posted, it is not clear where the initiative of Black came from, but it crushed.
> 2 votes

# Answer
4. ... Bc5 isn't your only option.

Both MCO-13 and ECO C\[55\] (1981) list 4. ... Be7 as the main continuation. In the notes, ECO has h6 as an option, or d5, transposing to a line in the Bishop's opening (C24), after 5. exd5 Nxd5.
> 1 votes

# Answer
https://old.chesstempo.com/game-database.html

Nxe4 has a 100% win score from that position based on players 2200 up to 2400

at 2500 - 2700 BC5 has best results although about 9% worse than whites result

what level is your opponents at ?

Personally I play BC5 and gladly let the Max Lange happen. You might want to memorize that one if you let them play that one as it is complicated.

OTOH The sicilian stops the Giuoco nonsense. So do many other first moves 1... pd3 is good for black too.
> -7 votes

---
Tags: middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Are world-class correspondence games more likely to be drawn than world class OTB games?
A games of chess with perfect play from both sides may be a draw. And while we don't have any perfect chess players it does seem that a match between two equally strong grandmasters is more likely to be drawn that a game between two equally strong amateurs (though I have no statistics on this).

I believe the closest thing we have to perfect play is world-class correspondence play. Are top quality correspondence games yet *more* likely to be drawn that OTB grandmaster games?

EDIT in response to @Rauan's question: I'm not sure whether world-class correspondence play allows for use of computer, but I would be interested in statistics either way.

EDIT: in response to @Spork's point engine vs. engine games, I looked around online. The CCRL list shows the strongest AIs drawing 45%-60% of the time at relatively brisk 40-moves-in-40-minutes time controls. I found a post on chess.org that says that human grandmasters "have a draw rate approaching 60% or more in their games with other GMs," but these would be at longer time controls than the 40/40. So I don't think there's a clear signal.

A site called KCEC has a regression analysis showing that stronger engines to tend to draw more than weaker engines even when correcting for the difference in rating between opponents.

# Answer
> Are top quality correspondence games yet more likely to be drawn that OTB grandmaster games?

Yes, for the same reason that classical games between grandmasters are more likely to be drawn than blitz games. When you have more time to think, you can double check every move and avoid mistakes. In chess, if your opponent doesn't make a mistake, you cannot win. This hasn't been proved, but it is a general observation in chess. You will not find a game where a side has won and there is nothing the opposing side could do to prevent that victory.
> 3 votes

# Answer
**Yes** (actually, **hell yes**).

World class correspondence chess is very close to the infamous "draw death" of chess. If you thought 70-80% draw rate among the world elite at classical chess was bad, check out what it's like at world correspondence chess championship level: 9 decisive games out of 136 played, or about 95% draws.

World class correspondence chess has some pretty crazy statistics as a result:

* Anyone can draw against anyone else (comparatively, a player rated ~2000 has no chance against a player rated 2700+ in OTB classical).
* Because most games ends in draws, it's awfully hard to gain elo. You stay where you are!
* Some openings are considered so drawish that a draw can be predicted right out of the opening, e.g.:

> DN: What is your Centaur opinion over AlphaZero? Would you be able to beat it in a fair match?
>
> WM: That whole spectacle seemed to be a spun tale with a stacked deck. If AlphaZero were to play in an actual engine tournament like the TCEC, I seriously doubt it would even make it to the semifinals. In terms of beating it though, I couldn't say if that would actually happen. **It could play something like the Petroff and easily draw** and that would look like some sort of small victory on its part. However, I will say it will NOT beat me in a Centaur CC game. That's just not going to happen.

* Can you imagine an OTB tournament where there is no winner because every game is drawn? It's happened in correspondence chess.
* I've seen one top correspondence chess player say he'd have some pretty good odds of drawing against a 32-piece tablebase (!) in some lines such as the Ruy Lopez Berlin, even as Black.

As engines keep getting better, this draw rate is going to keep increasing.

**Edit:** here's a graphic by former World Correspondence Chess Champion Leonardo Ljubičić with the draw rates in correspondence chess. Engines are clearly having an impact in the middle range and above.
> 14 votes

# Answer
We can compile some "statistics" from the FICS games database. It doesn't have correspondence games, but it has a range of time controls and a range of ratings, so we can extrapolate a little bit. I'm putting "statistics" in quotes because this is low quality data (nothing against FICS, but online ratings aren't always the most reliable) and very sketchy analysis.

I've taken the rated blitz and standard games from January 2014 (just picked a month at random), restricted to "close" games (meaning that the ratings of the two players differ by less than 100 points), and grouped them into bands with ratings 900-1000, 1000-1100, etc. (Each game belongs to the band for the average rating, e.g. if it's 1480 vs 1510, then the average is 1495 so it goes into the 1400-1500 band.) Below you can see graphs of the drawing percentages for each band.

Overall, the draw rate is slightly higher for standard games (4.9%) than for blitz (4.1%). Generally speaking, higher rated players seem more likely to draw, but there are some odd blips. The very strongest players are mostly computers.

Draw rates for blitz games:

```
   rating band    draw rate         number of games
         650      0.14285714               7
         750      0.06250000             128
         850      0.02761001            1159
         950      0.02683616            6372
        1050      0.02766602           18145
        1150      0.02921338           42994
        1250      0.03549412           68941
        1350      0.03599521           93568
        1450      0.03968357          108080
        1550      0.04040593           96075
        1650      0.04451169           73037
        1750      0.04832920           50425
        1850      0.05731055           32542
        1950      0.06335272           17884
        2050      0.07692308            6058
        2150      0.07191781            1168
        2250      0.04819277              83
        2350      0.22137405             131
        2450      0.32692308             312
        2550      0.30275229             109
        2650      0.42307692              26
        2750      0.52356021             191
        2850      0.63428571             175

```

Draw rates for standard games:

```
   rating band    draw rate         number of games
         950      0.00000000               1
        1050      0.00000000              23
        1150      0.02554745             274
        1250      0.01761364            1760
        1350      0.02784332            6357
        1450      0.03215792           12563
        1550      0.03699803           15190
        1650      0.04336597           16649
        1750      0.05255485           14404
        1850      0.06633868            6301
        1950      0.09838646            2541
        2050      0.11631664            1238
        2150      0.16666667             210
        2250      0.30069930             143
        2350      0.26229508             183
        2450      0.39890710             183
        2550      0.47738693             199
        2650      0.56578947              76
        2750      0.44642857             112
        2850      0.25000000               4

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
The general heuristic is that good play from two sides results in a higher likelyhood of a draw. This, as Wes notes in his answer, is based on the fact that the moves of the losing side could've been retraced to a certain point in time when there was another, superior move to make. As this holds for both sides, in general no side should ever lose.

One other point is that the stronger a player is, the stronger he can calculate for his opponent. A chess player always has to assume his opponent will choose the strongest line he has calculated for his opponent. The strongest possible chess thinker will therefore never make the mistakes described in paragraph 1 for him nor for the moves he expects of his opponent. The deeper / better the moves are calculated, the more likely a draw is.

That is, of course, until chess is fully solved, and we can answer if it's a draw (likely), a win for white (who knows), or a win for black (zugzwang on move 1!)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: statistics, draw, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Do you get rating points if the other player just leaves an online game and loses on time?
Some sites, eg chessbase, seem to have players that won't resign but either just leave for coffee until their clock runs out, or else they wait a minute then start another game so you have to ask the arbiter to declare the game won for you.

Not much we can do about impolite players, but ChessBase does not show any points won in this case. Today I beat a much higher rated player in 9 moves so I can understand their annoyance at playing like a patzer who just learned the moves today and their action was to stall a bit then just disconnect from this game while their clock still ran.

I got the arbiter to decide this time, but sometimes you have to wait until the entire clock runs down in case they come back at the very end to move and hope you left and your clock runs out.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I haven't played on Chessbase for quite some time, but generally loss on time through disconnect is still a loss and loses rating accordingly. Otherwise too many people would just disconnect, obviously.

Lichess punishes people who let the time run out with a ban (after several such incidents), so it might be less of a problem there.

---
Tags: rating, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Tournament Management and Conducting Web App
Does anyone know about a web based app to conduct and manage chess tournament all online? I have a web server to host but we need to conduct it for our locality with around 300 people participating to enhance our lock-down period.

If it is opensource it is very nice, but if it is free it is more than enough i guess? Any suggestions please?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Did you already see lichess.org? This website has great tournament functionality. E.g. you can start a swiss tournament and add the participants by making them part of a team. Hence there will be no outsiders present.

Hope this helps :)

---
Tags: software, tournament, online-chess, tournament-directors
---


# Question
Title: Unable to confirm theoretical evaluation
Theory claims equality for Black in the below diagram.
My engine claims White is better and demolishes the line with convincing moves.
Since I have old laptop, with 2GHz dual core CPU, I was wondering if someone with stronger engine can analyze the below position for me (hopefully they will be able to prove my engine wrong).

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[Title "Black to move"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pnb1/q3N3/2BP2PP/2N5/PPP2P2/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
# A very uncomfortable position

```
[fen "r3k2r/pp1n1ppp/3bp3/q2p3P/3P2P1/3B4/PPP2P2/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 6"]

```

I have analysed this resulting position several times with some great Lc0 and 80+CPU stockfishes. My verdict from that is that white objectively has some advantage, but for humans it is so difficult to understand that they will mess it up.

Also the verdict drops down gradually. Which is a sign that it might actually not be that impressive for white. I really do not know when h6 works or something else. The black pieces are easier to play, and especially at 2000- level that's what counts.

In combination with my student we have decided not to include the variation with 6.Ne5 in our repertoire. There is more to get in the other lines imho.

Hope this helps, I would recommend you to study the above position quite well if you plan on playing this with Black.

# Answer
> 6 votes
## For a Computer, White is Better. For a Human, it's unclear.

White has quite a few advantages here - notably more space and superior development. Black has one major advantage, though. White's king is exposed and shall remain so for quite some time.

Computers excel at positions in which perfect defensive play is required - that is, positions such as White has here. A computer will almost certainly see and defuse the various tactical threats to the White king, and eventually the computer should be able to convert the many advantages White has into something concrete. But a human playing White is quite likely to err and allow Black the chance to make an effective attack. Some humans will prefer to take on the Black pieces, on the premise that if they play aggressively White will eventually slip. Other humans will prefer White. Thus, we say that the position is "unclear".

---
Tags: analysis, theory, scandinavian-defense
---


title: Rook+Knight Endgame-Play For Checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: Rook+Knight Endgame-Play For Checkmate?
I found myself in this position as Black during a recent endgame situation with White to move.

```
[FEN "8/7k/2R4p/2p3p1/2N2p2/P4PnP/1P2r1K1/8 w - - 4 43"]

```

What is a good way to approach checkmate from here? Is it impossible to force this with the rook and knight alone (with this position)? Or is it a better idea to start pawn play along the e to h files?

# Answer
Some general advice about kings cut off on the 7th(or2nd) rank in rook endgames.

### Involve your king or get your N to f3.

```
1.Kg1 Nf5!? {going after the f3 pawn.} 2.Rxc5 Nd4 (2...Kg6 also comes into consideration but
 is not tricky enough. although it is my personal fave) 3.Kf1! (3.Ne5?? Rxe5! -+) Rh2=

```

### Involve a pawn!

```
1.Kg1 h5! {in order to get a pawn to h3 or f3 ASAP. Black will then threaten mate in two ways: ...Rg2# and ...h2#} 2.Rxc5 g4! -+

```

I have only used my head to give instructions. No computer, just to show what the general plans are. I'm IM but compared to a comp I'm nothing. So please forgive me if this is completely wrong. The general ideas are still valid though!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Looks like a win for white after Rxc5. Unless White blunders, Black has no mate. Look for white to queen a pawn before black can do anything.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, checkmate, knights, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Are two knights generally worth less than two bishops?
A bishop and knight are considered to be about equal in value (three points each). There are even some (closed) positions, where a single knight is worth more than a "bad" bishop, although there are more positions where a bishop is worth a bit more.

But unless they're linked and extremely well placed, (e.g. d4 and e6), two knights are seldom worth more than six points. Some masters put the bishop pair at seven points in an open position because the two bishops together can cover squares of both colors, while moving faster. Does this make two bishops worth more than two knights?

I have read that a fairly open position, two knights may be worth no more than one rook (five points instead of six, or two and a half each). I've never heard this about two bishops. Does this strengthen the case that two knights are worth less than two bishops?

# Answer
According to GM Larry Kaufman, who has worked on the chess engines Rybka and Komodo, and has done extensive database analysis of material imbalances,

> The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn (more when the opponent has no minor pieces to exchange for one of the bishops), enough to regard it as part of the material evaluation of the position, and enough to overwhelm most positional considerations. Moreover, this substantial bishop pair value holds up in all situations tested, regardless of what else is on the board.

although he goes on to note some exceptions. The whole article is worth reading.
> 6 votes

# Answer
As with many things in chess, the answer is: It depends on the position. You touched on this by discussing open vs closed positions, but it can go much deeper than that. In high level play, the middle game may be closed, but the bishops may be preferred as part of an anticipated endgame strategy.

Knights are superior to bishops in more aspects than just closed vs. open positions. A knight is generally the better option when it comes to blocking an opponent's passed pawn, for instance.

The biggest differences come in endgame strategy, especially when there is only 1 bishop or knight. There may be two knights vs. two bishops at some point in the middle game, but that can easily change as part of a forced exchange, with the resulting position being that the remaining bishop is poorly suited for the emerging endgame position.

In the case of two knights vs a rook -- it depends on the position. Two well placed knights, or knights that are participating in a plan, are going to be better than an inactive, semi-active, poorly placed rook -- open position or not.

The knights also do not need to be linked in order to be effective. There are certainly situations where it is useful for them to be able to cover each other, but there are disadvantages to this as well -- namely that they will limit each others mobility.

With all other things being equal, the bishop pair is generally superior to a knight pair. However, all things are very rarely equal, and taking maximum advantage of the positional imbalances is a cornerstone of any good chess strategy.

IM Jeremy Silman has some excellent books on learning how to do this.

Here are some articles you might find useful:

Bishop vs. Knight in endgames

http://www.chess.com/article/view/start-of-the-series-bishop-vs-knight

Bishop pairs

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-bishops-the-complete-guide http://www.chess.com/article/view/bishop-pair
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you look at the clean case of having an endgame with two knights against two bishops, then for the majority of cases, two bishops are stronger. Yet, this depends on the pawn structure and the number of pawns still on the board. The strength of two bishops is to quickly switch flanks, the ability to control both flanks at once, as well as to create new weaknesses and open up the opponent's position like a tin can. Two bishops need targets to attack and space to move. If the pawn structure is closed and there are many pawns still on the board, then the two knights rise in strength. The knight can jump and therefore it does not care if the pawn structure is open or closed. It can still jump over any obstacles and cause havoc wherever needed. It should be remembered that the strength of the two bishops is that you can exchange one of them off at a good time point. Keeping the two bishops at all cost is not always wise. In summary, the pawn structure has a decisive impact on comparing two knights to two bishops. Also, the value of a piece always depends on the concrete position on the board.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Show me any instance where a bishop can protect the other bishop. Once an opponent decides that removing one of the opposition bishops is timely, the value of a bishop in my opinion drops one half a point. Where as one knight in the end game is far more an aggressive tool than one bishop. Knights are not bound to one color on the board.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: minor-pieces
---


title: Chess Clock as Birthday Gift Advice

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Clock as Birthday Gift Advice
My boyfriend has an old beige/white Chronos II that needs repair. I've decided that perhaps purchasing a new clock for his birthday would be a better idea than my original idea (a chess coffee table book...really for me to improve the apartment decor!). But now after looking around I see it is very hard to acquire the Touch Chronos II. Can anyone recommend a suitable replacement? Hopefully one that complies with FIDE regulations and has tactile buttons.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Section 5.5 of the FIDE handbook lists the following approved clocks:

> 5.5. **The electronic chess clocks endorsed by the FIDE**
> 5.5.1. DGT XL (year 2007)
> 5.5.2. DGT 2010 (year 2010)
> 5.5.3. Silver Timer (year 2007)
> 5.5.4. Sistemco (year 2009)
> 5.5.5. DGT 3000 (year 2014)
> 5.5.6. CE Clock (year 2017)
> 5.5.7. KK9908 Clock (year 2017)

---
Tags: chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Why can't I find any tactics in this game?
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 {0} c6 {0} 2. d4 {4} d5 {0} 3. Nc3 {3} dxe4 {0} 4. Nxe4 {1} Bf5 {1} 5. Ng3 {3} Bg6 {0} 6. Nf3 {6} e6 {0} 7. c4 {9} Nd7 {0} 8. Be2 {5} Ne7 {0} 9. Bg5 f6 {0} 10. Bf4 {7} e5 {0} 11. dxe5 {2} Qc7 {0} 12. e6 {9} Ne5 {0} 13. h3 Rd8 {0} 14. Qc1 {11} Bf5 {0} 15. O-O {5} Bxe6 {0} 16. Bxe5 {2} fxe5 {0} 17. Qe3 {5} Ng6 {0} 18. b3 {8} Ba3 {0} 19. Ng5 {56} Qd6 {0} 20. Nxe6 {3} Qxe6 21. Ne4 {26} Qf5 {0} 22. Bg4 {11} Qf4 {0} 23. g3 {5} Qxe3 {0} 24. fxe3 {2} Be7 {0} 25. Rad1 {15} Rf8 {0} 26. Rxf8+ {8} Kxf8 {0} 27. Rxd8+ {1} Bxd8 {0} 28. Bf5 {11} Be7 {0} 29. Bxg6 {1} hxg6 {0} 30. g4 {2} a6 {0} 31. a4 {8} Kf7 {0} 32. Kg2 Ke6 {0} 33. Kf3 {1} b5 {0} 34. axb5 {13} cxb5 {0} 35. cxb5 {2} axb5 {0} 36. Ke2 {4} b4 {0} 37. Kd3 {1} Bd8 {0} 38. Kc4 {3} Bb6 {0} 39. Kxb4 {5} Kd7 {0} 40. Kb5 {1} Bxe3 {0} 41. b4 {1} Bg1 {0} 42. Ka6 {3} Kc6 {0} 43. b5+ {1} Kc7 {0} 44. h4 {13} Bb6 {0} 45. h5 {2} gxh5 {0} 46. gxh5 {1} Bd4 {0} 47. Nd2 {32} Kd6 48. b6 {3} Kc6 {0} 49. b7 {4} Kc7 {0} 50. Ne4 {11} Be3 {0} 51. Ng5 {25} Kb8 52. Ne6 {11} Bh6 {0} 53. Nc5 {12} Kc7 {0} 54. Ka7 {3} Kc6 {0} 55. b8=Q {2} Kxc5 56. Qb6+ {6} Kc4 {0} 57. Qc7+ {5} Kd4 {0} 58. Qd7+ {15} Kc4 {0} 59. Kb6 e4 {0} 60. Qe6+ {6} Kd4 {0} 61. Qd6+ {5} Ke3 {0} 62. Kb5 {3} Kf3 {0} 63. Qd1+ Kf2 {0} 64. Kb4 {13} e3 {0} 65. Qd8 {17} (65. Qd4 Kf3 66. Kc3 Kg3 67. Kd3 Kf3) 65... e2 {0} 66. Qf8+ {2} Kg2 {0} 67. Qa8+ {6} Kf2 {0} 68. Qf8+ {4} Kg2 69. Qe8 {20} Bd2+ {0} 70. Kc4 {12} e1=Q {0} 71. Qg6+ {6} Qg3 {0} 72. Qc6+ Kf1 {0} 73. Qg6 {15} Qc7+ {0} 74. Kd3 {3} Qc3+ {0} 75. Ke4 {2} Kf2 {0} 76. Qf5+ {4} Kg3 {0} 77. Qg6+ {5} Kh4 {0} 78. Kf5 {6} Qh3+ {0} 79. Ke5 {5} Qc3+ 80. Kf5 {1} Qd4 {0} 81. Ke6 {7} Qc4+ {0} 82. Kf5 {1} Qd5# {0} 0-1

```

I am White here.

I know every tactical theme-pin, fork, weak backrank, deflection, etc. But upon analyzing this game, I couldn't find any. How can I improve my recognition of tactics?

# Answer
Take the position after 12...Ne5.

```
[FEN "r3kb1r/ppq1n1pp/2p1Ppb1/4n3/2P2B2/5NN1/PP2BPPP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 1 13"]

```

There are plenty of tactics here. The e5 knight is pinned to the queen. You're attacking it twice, with your knight and bishop, and it's defended twice, with a pawn and queen. Qd7 would be checkmate if Black stopped protecting that square, although it's currently protected by both the queen and knight.

But Black has some defensive resources here too, and can bring them quickly. Rd8 (played in the game) would chase your queen off that dangerous d-file. Nxf3 would be check, allowing the knight to move despite the pin. So you don't have time to wait with a nothing move like h3, or to slowly build up pressure on the pinned piece. You need to strike *now* or lose the opportunity.

The black queen, as it turns out, is slightly overloaded. It is protecting the e5 knight. But it's also, along with that same knight, defending the d7 checkmate. So this means you can play 13.Nxe5. After 13...fxe5 14.Bxe5, Black can't play Qxe5 due to the checkmate threat. You win a pawn.

> why was a I not able to find some crazy material winning combinations?

I'm not sure why you didn't see the above. Perhaps you got excited over finding 12.e6 (it threatens two pieces at once, and checkmate if they play it wrong) and were disappointed when they played 12...Ne5 which parries both threats. But, in general, captures are worth considering. You should have at least looked at both 13.Nxe5 and 13.Bxe5. Assuming you saw the mate threat when you played 12.e6, it should have been in your mind on the next move, which would help you to find the tactic that wins a pawn.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> I know every tactical theme pin, fork, weak backrank, deflection, etc. But upon analyzing this game, couldn't find any.

If you can't recognize a pin (e.g. 9. Bg5) then you don't know what a pin is. Here are 4 tactical themes in the first 20 moves:

9. Bg5 - pin
12. e6 - discovered attack
17. Qe3 - pin
20. ... Qxe6 - self-pin

> How can I improve my recognition of tactics?

First you have to learn what they are.

9. Bg5 pins the knight against the queen. There is no immediate threat, there doesn't have to be, but this move means that the knight can't move without exposing the queen to capture.

There are "hard pins", where a piece is pinned against the king and it would be illegal to move the piece, and "soft pins", like here where moving the pinned piece would expose the piece behind it to capture.
> 3 votes

# Answer
practice practice practice. that is the answer to the question.

and there are far more tactics than the few you mentioned. if you really think you know them all then name another 20 of them.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Resources for annotated or commented games by level of audience
Similar questions have been asked before here or here. Still I think it would be more useful to have these resources listed by level. There is not much point for a beginner to listen to a GM explaining long lines and deep positional ideas. Similarly an advanced player does not want to learn about how the knight moves. So the question is:

What are freely available resources for annotated or commented games and in what category of audience would you put them?

I am looking for:

* written and audio and video
* names of players/streamers...
* names of concrete events (e.g. banter blitz with ..., commentary on tournament... by ...)
* can overlap levels but preferrably not cover more than two levels

So just saying chess24 is not enough as that includes a whole range of levels.

For the levels I suggest the chess.com system (but am open to alternatives) In any case that would be just a rough guideline:

* beginner \<1400
* intermediate 1400 - 2000
* expert 2000 - 2200
* Master 2200+

# Answer
> 1 votes
Hanging Pawns has quite a few videos that annotate GM games, and I'd say they're probably intermediate to maybe expert (using your format)

Agadmator has a ton of videos annotating GM games (often released mere hours after the game finishes!) I'd say probably beginner-intermediate on your scale. Note that both of these channels annotate after the game, not during.

---
Tags: learning, online, annotation
---


title: Sicilian Lowenthal-Labourdonnais

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian Lowenthal-Labourdonnais
I am very interested in the Lowenthal Sicilian, specifically the 5. Nb5 a6 line:

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 e5 (signalling the Lowenthal)
5. Nb5 a6 (5 ... d6 is the Kalashnikov variation or what Silman refers to as the Neo-Sveshnikov)
6. Nd6+ Bxd6
7. Qxd6

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 a6 6. Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6

```

So variations begin here with ...Qe7 or ...Qf6

Now here is where my problem starts, I can not find a book on this line of the Sicilian for the life of me. It's a fairly popular line among GM's and strong players at my club. I really want to become well versed in it. I have studied a dozen or so GM games from the Lowenthal PGN file I downloaded from chess mentor but I learn much quicker from books where they explain white and black's long-term goals and strategies.

Can anybody recommend resources that will allow me to study this line?

# Answer
Any book covering the Open Sicilian from White's point of view should have a line against it. From memory White has a queen exchange, Qc7 or Qd1 in one of those variations.

EDIT: For starters try Dismantling the Sicilian by De La Villa. As stated above I recommend any complete repertoire book for White with the open Sicilian.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I've looked at the book 'Dismantling the Sicilian", but it didn't satisfy my need of information. The best I can recommend is not a book. Simply use the analysis board of Chess.com and if you have premium, the opening book. There are also many master games which you can look at to learn about the strategies of this opening.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, books, study
---


# Question
Title: What are the normal black responses to rookside openings?
Does the Rookside opening have a name? It is not very popular, I believe so I'm wondering what the best defense could be.

# Answer
> 4 votes
One of the foremost principles of chess is to control the center squares. Side pawn openings do not do this, which is why they are unpopular. My recommendation would be to simply control the center with your pawns and develop normally.

An old chess saying goes like so: "When your opponent attacks on the side, strike in the center". The logic behind this is when your opponent is occupied on an insignificant region of the side, they will be unprepared for a direct assault in the most important section of the board - the center.

There is no need to treat these kinds of openings differently - just develop your pieces and control the center like you normally would against a normal opening. Then once you reach the middlegame, you will be far better prepared for the inevitable struggle due to having more pieces out and in much better outposts.

If you would like to read a further discussion on this topic, here is a link to a chess.com forum on it, where various chess players throw in their two cents:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-rook-pawn-opening

If you want a cheap book on this, here is a link to Chess Grandmaster Kontronias' book on "Beating the Flank Openings". It only costs about $9:

https://www.amazon.com/Beating-Flank-Openings-Vassilios-Kotronias/dp/0713477814

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would occupy the centre. When I was a beginner, I played a game that started like this:

```
[FEN ""]
[White ""]
[Black "Bad_Bishop"]

1. a4 e5 2. Ra3 {White looks to develop a rook towards the centre, but this just loses material} Bxa3 {Winning the exchange. I forget how the game ended, but white was lost from the start} 3. bxa3 {If I had white in this position, I would play 3. Nxa3, so that I don't have doubled, isolated a pawns} d5 {Black should take the centre, seeing as it is totally untested. Black has an easy game}

```

In terms of naming:

# Answer
> 3 votes
Control the centre. White, or Black, has wasted a tempo, and you should take advantage of that.

Another problem with a/h-pawn openings is that this will leave a weakness on b/g4. Attempt to goad the c/f-pawns forward so that you can place a bishop on g4.

The only exception to the Rookside openings is the Andersson opening, Creepy Crawly Formation(a3 and h3), which is quite playable for White.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there a software that analyses games through voice, telling you about moves and what you should have done, like Power Chess 98?
Almost 20 years ago there was a game called Power Chess 98 from Sierra. After every game you played, this sensual voice would analyze move by move telling you what you should have done, etc. It was the best way to learn chess in my opinion.

So my question is: Is there a software/game that has this feature, in other words, a post-game analysis **through voice not text**?

I don't want to read the analyses, I want to hear it as the pieces are moved in the board, after the game is over of course.

# Answer
> 2 votes
## Ubisoft's Chessmaster: Grandmaster edition does that

Using the Mentor \> Game Analysis... functionality gives the spoken annotation requirement.

For the example below I went to the Academy section and chose a game from the Database. Then this was sent to the Training mode. Lastly, I used the Mentor menu at the top to analyse the game.

The annotations are narrated by Denny Delk in Chessmaster:

> Q: Whose voices are used in Chessmaster?
>
> A: The voice used for Chessmaster (annotation, analysis, and moves) belongs to Denny Delk. The voice for illegal move commentary is Jeanne Reynolds. Their voices have been featured in Chessmaster for several years... since Chessmaster 6000.

Source: Ubi.com

## Would I recommend the functionality?

No, I would not recommend this functionality of the software, because the annotations are not very insightful in my opinion. I've taken sample commentary in the game below:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Hoogovens II"]
[Site "Lone Pine, CA USA"]
[Date "1975.01"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Böhm, H"]
[Black "Timman, Ton"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "c) U"]
[WhiteELO "2300"]
[BlackELO "2385"]
[WhiteCountry "NED"]
[BlackCountry "NED"]

  1. c3 {A00 Saragossa Opening. A rather passive treatment by White, planning a solid strategy of controlling d4.} f5            {A00 Saragossa Opening. There is some game reference in literature to this position, but it is most unconvincing. The players of the Black pieces were universally the better players, and as the positions evolved, the better player won. Objectively you'd have to say that Black was a bit better even here.}
  2. d4  {Out of Opening Book. f4 would have been in the Saragossa Opening opening line.} Nf6
  3. Bg5            g6
  4. Bxf6 {Pins Black's pawn at e7 with a partial pin and attacks Black's rook at h8.} exf6 {Removes the threat on Black's rook at h8. Black wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.}
  5. e3             d5
  6. h4             h5
  7. Nh3            Bd6           {Enables the short castle.}
  8. g3             c6
  9. Nf4 {Attacks Black's pawn at g6 and blocks Black's pawn at f5.} Kf7           {Removes the threat on Black's pawn at g6.}
 10. Nd2            Nd7
 11. Bd3 {Clears the way for a kingside castle.} Nf8
 12. c4             dxc4          {Threatens White's bishop.}
 13. Bxc4+ {Checks Black's king. White wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.} Kg7 {Moves it out of check.}
 14. Qb3 {Clears the way for a queenside castle.} Qe7
 15. a4             a5
 16. d5             Rb8
 17. O-O            b5            {Slightly better is g5.}
 18. axb5 {Removes the threat on White's bishop, threatens Black's pawn at a5, and isolates Black's pawn at c6 and Black's pawn at a5.} cxb5 {Attacks White's bishop. Black wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.}
 19. Bd3 {Slightly better is Bxb5.} a4 {Moves it out of immediate jeopardy and attacks White's queen.}
 20. Qd1 {Moves it to safety.} Bxf4
 21. exf4 {White wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.} Qd6           {Threatens White's pawn at d5 and blocks White's pawn at d5.}
 22. Qf3            {Removes the threat on White's pawn at d5.} Nd7           {Takes the knight away from the edge of the board.}
 23. Rac1           Nc5
 24. Bb1            Bd7           {Slightly better is Bb7.}
 25. Ba2            Rhe8          {Takes control of the open file.}
 26. Rfe1           Rxe1+         {Forks White's king and White's rook at c1. Black wins a rook. Black is ahead by a rook in material. The game ends in a draw.}
 1/2-1/2

```

I've never found comments such as "Slightly better is g5" to help in my training.

This is partly because computers are better at pointing out variations (the answer to "what should I have played?") as opposed to natural language descriptions (the answer to "why should I play that?").

This sentiment is also shared by Boris Spassky

> From computers you need variations. The evaluation you need to forget.

Source: Attributed to Boris Spassky in *The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess*, authored by GM Soltis

# Answer
> 1 votes
I envsion that Amazon Alexa will soon have this capability. It feels very Ex Machina-like. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.. first instinct is that it's a bad thing because it is you that should be doing the analysis, by hand, if you wish to improve your game and/or learn something of value. But if you're stuck, and have spent considerable time on a position, and you're getting nowhere, then I see no harm in this. Yet, in online competitive play, this could become quite the problem.

> "Alexa, run Stockfish analysis on this current position. I want a forced mate in 7 or less."

Alexa:

> "Checkmate in 5 ... Qxf7#."

# Answer
> 0 votes
I suppose you could use software like scid and turn on text to speech in your operating systems accessibility option.

# Answer
> 0 votes
People, the Chess App that @Eduard Roberts is talking about is something completely different. This is undoubtedly the best Chess app ever.

To give you an idea how amazing, entertaining and lovely **Power Chess 98** by Sierra was, I'm going to link a video here, which shows Power Chess 98 in action after a chess game:

Power Chess 98 analysing your game

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: The Bishop's gambit variation of the King's gambit
I've been investigating the theory of the King's gambit, and I found the variation in the accepted 3. Nf3 Be7. I didn't like the looks of that for White.

I've started to play the Bishop's gambit, but the problem is that Black can also play the 3... Be7 line. Is there any way to deal with it?

# Answer
> 5 votes
After **1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nf3 Bh4+** probably **5.g3!? fxg3 6.0-0** does the job.

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nf3 Bh4+ 5.g3!? fxg3 6.O-O

```

In typical King's gambit style, you're down in material and probably a bit worse with perfect play, but you have great compensation and attacking chances. If Black makes a mistake, they will pay the consequences.

# Answer
> 5 votes
```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Nc3! {Provoking Black to displace our king} Bh4+ (4...Nf6 {is actually the most critical try, preparing d5} 5. d4 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Bc4 Be6 (7...Bh4+ 8. g3 fxg3 9. Qe2+ Be6 10. hxg3 Bxg3+ 11. Kd1 {Opening the kingside like this gives White a lot of play as Black will castle there or leave his king in the center... just look at h7}) 8. Bxd5 Bxd5 9. Bxf4) 5. Ke2 {Looks like we are playing with fire, but is sound and also gives Black opportunity to become overzealous and make mistakes} d5 {Opening the center is probably most critical} (5...c6 6. d4 d5 7.Bxf4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qe7 9.Be5 f6 10.Nd6+ Kd8 11.Nxh4 fxe5 12. Ndf5 Bxf5 13. Nxf5 Qe6 14. Ne3 {check complications with engine if something is unclear}) (5...Be7 6. d4 g5 7. Qd3 {Making room for the king who will go to d1} d6 8. Kd1) (5...d6 6. d4 Bg4 7. Bxf4) 6. Nxd5 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. d3 (8. d4!? {Is more active but also risky}) Bg4 9. Qd2 Qb6 10. Kd1 Bg5 11. Be2 {Is dynamically equal. Note that this was almost perfect play by Black}

```
3. Bc4 has bigger problems than ...Be7, namely 3...Nf6 (GM Shaw even goes as far as to call it a soft refutation, i.e. Black is better in all variants). Here is what I like to play in the Nf3 variation after Be7. You might think it looks like White will go down in flames, but actually most Black players overstep heavily very fast and you get very good play.

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Is there a root tree of openings based on response by Black and vice versa?
I'm enjoying my study as a relative noob into chess (1000 rapid in Lichess and on Chess.com in the last month or so) and am getting very interested in openings.

Is there a relative root tree that you can use to approach openings e.g. if x is played, the optimal is to play y? (that obviously assumes you have the knowledge to play them as well). With obvious cut across moves to transpose?

E.g. my thoughts made me think of this clip from Person of Interest https://youtu.be/ttRuzAaAURA & it how it tracks an opening in chess.com e.g. against games on the database and how that adjusts the percentages.

Easiest examples of switching or transposing (I think that is the correct term) I could think of as a noob:

Set out to play the Vienna; black goes 2.Nc6 and then you go 3.f4 and play the Gambit instead of going 3.Bc4 (not sure if that works out better on an engine but I'm thinking as an example).

Other one I could think of - open with e4 trying to play the Vienna again, get c6 back & then play 2.d4 and switch to a Smith Morra (again not sure if that is better than 2.Nc3).

I just wondered if there was some kind of approach or path for transposing or switching?

Thanks in advance for any advice or suggestions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think what you are looking for is something like

https://chesstempo.com/opening-training/

or

https://openings.chessbase.com/

In both cases, you can build opening move trees (either for White or for Black - you train/drill one side per tree) by picking moves for any given position and the site will automatically handle transpositions for you if you reach matching positions (one branch will then point to the other).

If you specifically look for a tree with "optimal y's": Sorry, but that is still up to a lot of debate.

---
Tags: opening, transpositions
---


title: Why did Black resign this game?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Black resign this game?
This is a game between Jose Raul Capablanca and Viacheslav Ragozin, Moscow 1935:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 d6 6.Qc2 O-O 7.e4 e5 8.Bd3 c5 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.d5 Ne7? 11.f3 Nd7 12.h4! Nb6 13.g4 f6? 14.Ng3 Kf7 15.g5! Ng8 16.f4! Ke8 17.f5 Qe7 18.Qg2 Kd8 19.Nh5 Kc7 20.gxf6 gxf6 21.Ng7 Bd7 22.h5 Rac8 23.h6 Kb8 24.Rg1 Rf7 25.Rb1 Qf8 26.Be2! Ka8 27.Bh5 Re7 28.Qa2 Qd8 29.Bd2 Na4 30.Qb3 Nb6 31.a4! Rb8 32.a5 Nc8 33.Qa2 Qf8 34.Be3 b6 35.a6 Qd8 36.Kd2 Qf8 37.Rb2 Qd8 38.Qb1 b5 39.cxb5 Nb6 40.Qa2 c4 41.Qa3 Qc7 42.Kc1 Rf8 43.Rbg2 Qb8 44.Qb4 Rd8 45.Rg3 Rf8 46.Ne6! Bxe6 47.dxe6 Rc7 48.Qxd6 Ne7 49.Rd1  1-0

```

I understand that Black is in a bad spot, being two pawns down and almost the epitome of cramped (not to mention the promotion possibilities for White), but the game doesn't look obviously lost to me yet. My suggestion would be `49... Nbc8` forcing the White queen back and then `50... Rg8` countering the sting of White's g-rook. I've played several variations from this point and all of them end up with White keeping the two-pawn advantage, but not a quick win. Am I missing a certain move by White to refute anything Black could do here? How did Ragozin know that there was no chance of a draw?

Edit: It has been shown that after `49... Nbc8 50. Qd2 Rg8? 51. Rxg8 Nxg8` White wins at least the Black queen with `52. Qd5+`. However, if White plays `50. Qd2`, Black has `50... Qxb5` winning a Pawn and considerably uncramping himself (or so it seems to me):

```
[FEN "k1n2r2/p1r1n2p/P3Pp1P/1q2pP1B/2p1P3/2P1B3/3Q4/2KR2R1 w - - 0 50"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish says Black is crushed after `49. ... Nbc8` even though this is black's best move. White is up by 17 points.

```
[FEN "kq3r2/p1r1n2p/Pn1QPp1P/1P2pP1B/2p1P3/2P1B1R1/8/2KR4 b - - 2 49 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1...Nbc8 2. Qb4 Rh8 3. Rg7 Nc6 4. bxc6 Qxb4 5. cxb4 Rxc6 1-0

```

A variation. After black's 50th move the wheels come off the wagon.

```
[FEN "kq3r2/p1r1n2p/Pn1QPp1P/1P2pP1B/2p1P3/2P1B1R1/8/2KR4 b - - 2 49 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1...Nbc8 2. Qb4 Rg8? 3. Rxg8 Nxg8 4. Rd8 Nge7 5. Bf3 Rb7 6. axb7+ Qxb7 7. Rd7 Kb8 8. Rxb7+

```

Why `5. Rb7`? Black is in zugzwang. Black is down by 100 pts.

Another variation:

```
[FEN "kq3r2/p1r1n2p/Pn1QPp1P/1P2pP1B/2p1P3/2P1B1R1/8/2KR4 b - - 2 49 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1...Nbc8 2. Qb4 Nb6? 3. Rg7 Nbc8 4. Bc5 Rh8 5. Rd7 Nb6 6. Rxc7 Qxc7 7. Bxe7 Na4 8. Bxf6 Qb6 9. Qxa4 Qe3+ 10. Kb2 Qc5 11. e7 Rb8 12. e8=Q Rxe8 13. Bxe8

```

and black is down 30 points.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Black is down 2 pawns, pieces completely passive, the pawn on e6 is impossible to get rid of, pawn on h6 is also important, creating potential outpost on g7 for rook. White also has two bishops and controls both open files. There is no need for White to prove anything by concrete analysis. Unless Black has some immediate way to get material back - he might as well resign and save energy for next round.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I can understand fresh eyes still wanna fight this, but after 50 moves of despair, once the main diagonal and the `d` file are so open, I can't help but support his resignation. Just flip the board, take the black pieces, and search for moves. Almost none are playable, as every piece already defends various threats, white still having 2 pieces with which to pile on more threats.

This looks like a reasonable analysis. Basically, Black has no moves, while White roams around `e6`.

```
[FEN "kqn2r2/p1r1n2p/P2QPp1P/1P2pP1B/2p1P3/2P1B3/8/2KR2R1 w - - 0 50"]

1. Qb4 Rg8 2. Rxg8 (2. Rg7 and Black has no good moves) Nxg8 3. Rd7 (3... Rxd7 4. exd7 Nce7 5. Qxc4  $18) Nge7 4. Bc5 Ng8  $7 5. Bd6 Nxd6 6. Qxd6 Rxd7 7. Qxd7 Qb6 8. Qe8+ Qb8 9. Qc6+ Qb7 10. Qxb7#

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can see that Black is not down materially. The reason why Black resigned is because he was down *positionally*. There was no point in playing on in a dead position.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Lost is relative to the skill levels of the players.

That game is clearly lost for black. Black was good enough to realize it and not a glutton enough for punishment to play it out and hope for a blunder. Especially if white was a world class GM.

---
Tags: master-games, capablanca
---


title: Main idea of Bird's opening

text:
# Question
Title: Main idea of Bird's opening
I want to ask a question about Bird's opening (1. f4). My question is:

1. What's the main idea of this opening?
2. Is `1. ... d5` the best counter to `1. f4`? Why `1. ...d5`?

# Answer
> What's the main idea of this opening?

Main ideas for white:

* surprise weapon as it is rarely played (since it is not all that good)
* playing the Dutch opening with an extra tempo, but this is not a big deal IMO
* avoiding opening theory as you can basically learn a "system" (certain position of pieces that you want to achieve) and follow this almost independent of what black plays
* in some cases the pawn being already on f4 can be handy for kingside attacks

Basically there are three set ups:

1. stonewall with pawns on f4, e3, d4, c3; gives you good control of dark squares but weakens the light squares; Usually you only play this if black plays d5 at some point as otherwise black has the option to play something like d6 and e5 which is often unpleasant for the stonewall setup
2. fianchettoed bishop on b2 often in combinations with pawns on e3 and f4. This gives you good control along the a1-h8 diagonal
3. fianchettoed bishop on g2. This can lead to king's indian like setups if you combine it with d3, e4.

In the end it depends whether you like the resulting positions. Check a few games from the database and look at the positions around move 10.

> Is the best counter of 1.f4 is 1...d5? Why 1...d5?

Yes, d5 is most popular and best. It takes control of the center, opens the way for the light squared bishop and is just a natural move. A reason not to play 1. ...d5 could be if you are worried about losing control of the dark squares in the center. In that case you could think to wait with d5, perhaps develop the bishop to g7 (which would work well against the white setup number "2" above) and leaving the option open to play d6 e5 later which would work well against the stonewall.

As a former 1. f4 player I would discourage you from playing this or any other off-beat opening if you want to be serious about chess. You can learn a lot more (and get better positions) if you play more normal openings.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The two answers have already provided a very good explanations of the Bird's opening. So mine can be viewed as an addition.

`1.f4 e5`

is a known gambit and is reasonably sound. Followed by `2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6`. Black sacrifices a pawn but gets ahead in development.

I like to point it out for two reasons.

1) It is one of the approaches to play against the Bird's opening. Especially if Black prefers open positions.

2) It shows that black has wide choices as to what kind of position they like to play. This limits practicality of the Bird's opening.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> 1. What's the main idea of this opening?

This is basically white playing what is normally a black defence, the Dutch 1) d4 f5, with a move in hand so the idea is the same - white will develop his kingside quickly with the knight on f3 behind the pawn, castle kingside, maybe bring the queen over with Qd1 - e1 - h4 if there isn't already a pawn on g3 and then use his f4 pawn in conjunction with his pieces to launch a rapid attack against black's castled king.

If the opponent isn't careful this can be very effective and lead to quick victories, but ...

> 2. Is the best counter of 1.f4 is 1...d5? Why 1...d5?

If you believe in classical chess then, yes. In classical chess you try and win control of the center first with pawns then with pieces. From black's point of view the problem with 1) f4 is that it doesn't exert the same control and influence as e4 or d4 would and it weakens f2, an already weak square.

Of the two main ideal first moves for black, from a classical pov, e5 is not possible so d5 is the best that's left. It is also good because it releases the f8 bishop to go to g4 undermining white's center when white plays Nf3 which he will almost certainly do on his 2nd move.

If black wants to be a bit unconventional there are also ideas of following up with moves that prepare e5 like Qd6, Nd7 or Nc6, maybe even f6. If black can get in e5 then white is probably in trouble.

Another idea could be to follow up with c6 and Qb6 looking down the open diagonal to g1 making castling difficult.

Alternatively black can just play the white side of the Dutch relying on the fact that in the past some grandmasters have had such a low opinion of the Dutch that they think it is just giving them a free point, Kortchnoi for one.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I must quote some thoughts on bird opening from gufeld's book ,

"1 f4 d5 Avoiding the sharp play of the From Gambit ( l . . .e5 ! ?),

Black is ready to play against the Dutch Defence by the first player.

2 Nf3

The attempt to prevent the fianchetto of Black 's king' s bishop is unsuccessful: 2 b3 Bg4 ! (hindering the development of White's kingside)

3 Bb2 Nc6 4 g3? ! (better is 4 Nf3 Bxf3 5 exf3 with only a minimal advantage for Black) 4 . . . e5 ! ? 5 fxe5 f6 !

with an attack for Black. Kupreichik-Yusupov (Yerevan 1 982) continued 6 Bh3 Bxh3 7 exf6 Nxf6 8 Nxh3 J.c5 9 e3 d4 10. e4 0-0 11. d3 Bb4+ 12. Nd2 Nd5 13. Qh5 Ne3 14. Ke2 g6,

**when it was hard to offer White any good advice.**

2 g6

The most precise move order. After 2 ••• Nf6 3 e3 g6 4 b4! White can count on an opening initiative. The text move prevents this plan and allows Black smoothly to fianchetto his king's bishop - the best counter to the Dutch set-up."
> 2 votes

# Answer
Bird's opening aims for a potential kingside attack, at the cost of weakening the kingside. It is a reversed Dutch defence.

I believe that the best refutation to Bird's opening is not 1...d5, which offers White kingside counterplay. Simply play 1...c5, attempting to transpose into a variation of the sicilian.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Most good players do it to avoid other openings like the sicilian. It is not that bad at all. If White plays well the projected outcome is a score of 49.5% for white. White could do better with Pe4 or other moves but the Bird has a psychological advantage by not playing the usual opening.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, birds-opening, counterplay
---


# Question
Title: How to play against the Grob attack 1.g4
I am looking for resources/ideas (i.e. ECO doesn't seem to have a lot on this opening) to play against the Grob attack. (Both for facing it and to prepare to play it as White).

So far what I have seen is very tactical, but I am looking for strategical ideas or the main branches to study.

For example what's Black best plan/ideas in the sequence below:

```
[FEN ""]
1.g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bb7 Nd7 5. Ba8 Qa8

```

# Answer
I think the Grob attack is unsound and the best way to play as Black is to simply call out White's bluff and occupy the center. After **1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5**, the main line as per a Rybka 4 book seems to be **3. c4**. I saw that in the main line, Black's position is in fact better. **3. h3** seems to be another main line, but I don't see what White has achieved then. Black has good control of the center and can in also play **h5** when White's pawn structure on the kingside is pretty weak.

I also analyzed an interesting alternative in **3. d3!?** but found that there too Black gets an excellent position. Here's how you play as Black -

```
  [Event "Grob Attack. Black occupies the center"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. c4 (3. h3 Nc6 4. d3 h5 5. g5 Nge7 6. Nc3 Be6) (3. d3 Bxg4 4. c4 c6 5. Qb3 Nf6 6. Qxb7 Nbd7 7. Qxc6
  Rc8 8. Qa4 dxc4 9. dxc4 Bc5 10. Nc3 (10. Nf3 e4) 10... O-O 11. Nf3 Nb6 12. Qb3
  Nxc4 13. O-O (13. Qxc4 $4 Bxf2+ 14. Kxf2 Rxc4) 13... Qe7) 3... dxc4 4. Qa4+ c6
  5. Qxc4 Be6 6. Qc3 Nd7 7. Nf3 Ngf6 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Qxe5 Nxg4

```

In the final position after **9...Nxg4**, we can say that Black is better and here's why-

1. Black already has two pieces developed versus White's lone developed bishop on **g2**.
2. The bishop on **g2** is blunted by the pawn on **c6**, so it is not so strong.
3. White's queen is awkwardly placed and will have to move, losing tempo.
4. White has more **pawn islands** than Black, so White's pawn structure is worse.
5. White's kingside is a bit vulnerable because of the absence of the **g-pawn**, thus it will not be a safe haven for the White king when it castles kingside.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I play the grob a lot, and i don't ever mind if people go into those main lines. That is actually what anyone playing the grob wants.

The easiest play for black is going with 1.e5 and a quick Ne7, Ng6, Nh4! This can't be prevented, the knight is hard to remove from h4 due to the weakness from 1.g4 and it hits the white bishop on g2 which white doesn't want to trade but it's either that or the ridiculous Bf1. That simple plan makes white look silly and gives an easy nice position for black from the opening.
> 13 votes

# Answer
My name is Sean Castleton and I am currently rated 2362. I have had a lot of success playing the Grob Attack over the years and developed an opening repertoire with it. I was influenced early on by GM Michael Basman's book "The Killer Grob" and have played it exclusively at both club and tournament levels. What I like about the Grob, is that it is an extremely aggressive opening and quite unique. It takes your opponent out of their game from the get-go and as a result fairs well in blitz.

The last few years I improved on it a lot with the Houdini chess engine, which has greatly helped my game and taught me more techniques in sacrifice. Posted below is a link to my Grob Attack PGN opening database which contains 5000 games/lines. The games/lines ratio is approximately 65% winning or won and 35% equal. I capped off the lines at move 20, because as aforementioned, you are usually left with winning chances.

Download Link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ktvm8zm75ueum4/Grob%20Attack%20Repertoire.rar?dl=0
> 8 votes

# Answer
Actually, this is precisely what a Grob player wants you to think and play. The tactics behind the Grob, as with other wing type openings, such as the Polish Opening, the St. George, ect., are to give the opponent the center, only to undermine it later. The Grob Attack immediately invokes a domineering presense on the center as in the case of the Grob Gambit Accepted, i.e. 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 c6 4. cxd4 cxd4 5. Qb3... This is the main line of the GGA, and as you can see, not only places black in a bit of a quandry with domineering pressure on the center, but also threatens his b7 pawn a Queen Rook.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Honestly, if a player is playing the Grob they are hoping for

1. g4 d5

Instead, just play

1. g4 e5

and now they are in a funny position for no good reason. Why play into tons of tactics that surely they've studied, but you probably haven't?
> 2 votes

# Answer
After 3. c4, perhaps the simplest for Black is to play 3. ... Be6 to protect both the QP and the bishop. His development is a bit constricted, but so is White's.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As a rule, if I see a player starting to play pawn moves on the side of the board such as in the Grob, I immediately begin rapid piece development and central control, to keep my options open to castle.

I doubt this is high level theory, but my thinking is that an attack at the side can usually be successfully countered with an attack in the center to exploit your opponent's king weaknesses... So long as you're not playing against a master:)
> 1 votes

# Answer
You have a solid understanding of basic opening tactics. Yes, developement in the center is indeed the protocol for answering wing attack openings. But the Grob Attack, being a kingside wing attack opening, is somewhat of a different animal, in that the looming g4 pawn inhibits the developement of black's king knight to it's important post at f6, opting him to play the slower, more awkward Ne7. Not only that, but should black castle kingside, g4 is often accompanied by a pawn storm with the f4 and h4 pawns, much akin to the dreaded Stonewall Attack.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Naturally, I recommend my own treatment of the subject opening at: http://www.logicalchess.com/learn/lessons/openings/grob.html
> 0 votes

# Answer
I used to play the Grob some time before because of the tricky 'Grob Gambit' (1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4), but this only successfully works in blitz chess. In classical chess, the opponent has plenty of time to think. Engines think that the better move in the Grob Gambit is to decline the pawn with 1...c6 and to build a large center. That is my advice as well.

Basically, the way to beat the Grob has three key points-

1. Get a large center.
2. Take advantage of the king-side weaknesses caused.
3. Play the 1...d5, 2...c6, structure to render White's g-bishop useless.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Another good idea is to play the Romford countergambit. The line is below.

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 d4! 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Nxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 d3!

The main idea is to expose White's king. I recommend this line as a refutation to the Grob.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: At what Elo level does one benefit from studying master games?
I commented to another player that I got nothing from studying master games. He replied: :Neither do I."

One gains a little if the annotation includes mini-lessons. But terse comments are akin to a mathematician's "its obvious that ...". There are many celebrated moves I could never have found in a local game.

My Elo recently peaked at 1300. What level does one need before studying master games and having it be worth the time? That other player & I are both retired. Perhaps our ages are a factor.

# Answer
> 6 votes
> What level does one need before studying master games is worth the time ?

You need to have got to the stage where you stop playing "hope chess". If you are not currently capable of working out the purpose of your opponent's moves as well as your own then you are not going to get much from trying to work out the purpose of the moves in a master game. Once you do reach that stage then studying master games is a good way of making further progress.

# Answer
> 5 votes
by "studying" you mean studying or just reading/watching? from studying you benefit at any level but from just reading/watching only at high levels - because then you do actual quick study in your head (that's starting from approximately ELO 2300).

at your level studying one master game could take starting from around 8h(simple) till 2 full weeks (very complicated) per game - I doubt you studied any master game even for 1h ever if You are still 1300 ... .

Study means - you go through the game move by move - do it on chess board, no engine! and understand for yourself why each move was made, play out variations you think of on the board yourself - try to find best moves, see what masters played - this way you will definitely improve.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You should not do anything that you do not enjoy. Probably at the level you are at, master games are just mystifying and frustrating. But there may nevertheless be some value in playing them through quickly and superficially. You may notice that masters usually bring their pieces out quickly and somehow manage to organize them in cooperation. You may notice that they do not hurry to make exchanges but leave options open. You may notice that their Kings are usually securely defended. You may notice that they often focus their activity on a particular sector of the board. Sometimes you might realize the beauty of an unexpected move. You might notice after a time that their games "look different" from yours. Then you should study some books of elementary instruction and see if they offer any explanations.

Imagine that you are learning to play the piano and have got as far as basic fingering exercises. You could still enjoy hearing a concert by a great pianist. You would be completely unable to imitate it, but it would remind you why you want to learn.

So play through (NOT study) master games as soon as you can enjoy it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I must say, studying master games is good at every level. It is preferable to look through the game without annotations so that you can work out the main reasons for the moves yourself, apart form the extremely difficult ones.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Being older makes it harder and slower but everybody could learn from playing over tournament book games by GMs.

Fischer did it all the time to stay even with 'theory'. Other players do it all the time and improve. The lower your rating the more you can improve by seeing good moves and learning one opening by playing many games using that opening.

Now what 1300 may make a difference. Online ratings are grossly overstated so you may be having a harder time learning due to lack of experience.

Annotations add little. Just play the main games not variations.

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Looking for an aggressive opening for black vs 1. d4
I like the King's Gambit a lot, and even the Latvian Gambit as black (with dubious results), so my style is very aggressive openings with potentially sharp lines and hack n' slash type of tactical sacrifice lines. However as black when facing the `1.d4` opening from white I'm unsure what to do, and just try to play some kind of King's Indian Defence, which seems solid, but I almost never get my pieces lined up as nicely as Kingscrusher does.

So what are some good offensive lines to play against `1. d4`?

# Answer
You seem to enjoy tactical play, so there are a few options for you against `1. d4`. As it appears you prefer gambits over other openings, consider looking at the relatively offbeat Budapest Gambit which is characterized by the opening moves `1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5` where after `3. dxe5` black can reply with either `3...Ne4` or `3...Ng4` with the latter being more popular. That being said, the Budapest is rooted in strategic themes, and the King's Indian Defense is certainly regarded as the one of the most aggressive replies to `1. d4`.

For a more mainstream approach, I would recommend the Grunfeld as a great hypermodern choice. It's highly regarded from the amateur to world class levels. The general idea is to allow white to build up a center and then target it as a weakness, and the positional themes that arise in the middlegame focus primarily on undermining the pawns on e4 and d4.

For a more comprehensive response, please reference this excellent answer to a generalization of your question.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Additionally to Andrew's answer, I'd suggest to have a look at the Benko Gambit (a.k.a. Volga Gambit):

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5

```

It is a sound and deep opening. If the gambit is accepted, it leads to sharp play and dynamic positions.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I like to play Benoni, because black has many chances to win. Also it is very asymmetrical from the pawn structure, so the chance to play draw isn't really high.

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6

```

You just have to be careful, with the white d pawn. Never ever let it to `d6`.

You will play `g6` with `Bg7`. If everything goes right, you will play `a6` and `b5`.
> 12 votes

# Answer
On top of the exciting Benko gambit, you can consider the Albin counter-gambit. Also, check out the Botvinnik variation. The Grunfeld variation is also an interesting option for sharp play. Here are the starting moves of the Albin counter-gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
An aggressive opening against d4 is the Dutch defense, or f5. Black tries to get a king side attack against White to offset the latter's moves on the queenside, kind of the opposite of the usual sequence. In the 20th century, it was used by aggressive players like Rudolph Spielman.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is going to be kind of general, because there's a lot of territory to explore, and space limitations reduce me to doing not much more than pointing at some of the landmarks.

There might be something for you in either the Cambridge Springs or the Vienna Variation of the QGD. I know, the Queen's Gambit Declined is thought to be so barren, but both of these (as well as the Meran in the Semi-slav) can create some serious tactical threats.

With Cambridge Springs the early Queen sortie to a5 creates some interesting threats not only on the queen-side but against a white Bishop on g5 as well. It's quite easy for White to drop material if they're unaware. (The most famous of those is the simple trap: 1 d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4 Bg5 Nbd7 when attempts to win the pawn result in white losing a piece: 5 cd5 ed5 6 Nxd5 Nxd5 7 Bxd8 Bb4!) But there are plenty more.

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Nxd5 Nxd5 7. Bxd8 Bb4

```

With all the QGD lines, though, you need to have something to stir up trouble against the exchange variations. If you look at that line and can't find anything you like, then I'd recommend staying away from them and trying for something like a Nimzo-indian beginning that transposes into the QGD lines (like the Vienna) later. (Black begins with something like Nf6 and e6 or b6 with a d5 coming later, on the 3rd or fourth move.)

When you start digging in, you might find some lesser-known sidelines (Manhattan variation?) that create enough tension to keep you satisfied. You might even find you like them as much as e-pawn lines. Look at games by Grandmasters like Larry Christensen who create lots of attacking positions from d-pawn openings.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Several people have recommended the Budapest Gambit, which I would second. It's fun, easy to play, and, while there aren't a lot of lines, it is both tactically and positionally rich. If White knows what they are doing, they won't get trapped, but it also won't leave you unbalanced or vulnerable.

I would also recommend that you look at the Chigorin Defense to the Queen's Gambit (1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6). It's quite sharp and good for an attacking player, as it can swiftly unbalance White, or at least dictate the style or tempo of play.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Budapest Gambit is a lot of fun to play and catches people by surprise. It is full of traps for black. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4
> 1 votes

# Answer
Obviously, the Dutch and Tarrasch are your best choices. The Dutch is similar to the openings you named: King's gambit, Latvian and KID.

The KID, Grunfeld, Benoni and Benko all require a lot of theory. The Dutch reaches similar positions with vastly less time spent on learning openings.

Openings like the Budapest are fine but require a very specific move order which means you'll have to learn another opening if white doesn't choose that specific move order.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Grunfeld or KID top level.

Dutch isn't a number 1 choice.

Benoni is hard to play in the middlegame, and I used to play it with poor results.

Slav can be sharp or solid. However, pretty much the only lines that are aggressive and tactical are the semi-Slav botvinnik lines and stuff. Well, what if white plays exchange slav?

Play Grunfeld or KID. Or, play the Budapest gambit until you reach 2200 or higher. That's when you want to play the Grunfeld or KID. Both are aggressive.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There are three main agressive options which I play frequently.

1.Benoni Defence

2.Budapest Gambit

3.King's Indian Defence

These are good choices for Black, as they create imbalances which result in winning chances.
> -1 votes

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


# Question
Title: A Black setup against White's Hippo Attack
If I'm playing as White against the Hippo Defense, I usually go with this setup.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 b6 2. c4 Bb7 3. Nc3 g6 4. e4 Bg7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 d6 7. O-O Ne7 8. Be3 Nd7 9. Qc2 O-O 10. Rad1 h6 11. d5 e5

```

But I don't know what kind of setup I should have if I'm playing as Black against the Hippo. I found that this formation cannot be achieved. Any suggestions? Note that I start with 1...Nf6 against the Catalan opening because I play Nimzo-Indian/Ragozin against 1.d4.

# Answer
The best choice is to aim for quick development. Once White has played 8 moves, you would have pushed the d/e/f- pawns forward, developed three pieces, and castled. White is still in the center. Now aim to absolutely wreck White's position with ...f4
> 2 votes

# Answer
One option would just be to copy their hippo and just copy the setup.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---