# Question
Title: What rule is FIDE's ethics and disciplinary commission investigating Karjakin and Shipov under?
FIDE recently issued a public statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and also announcing an investigation of GMs Karjakin and Shipov by the Ethics and Disciplinary commission.

Source

> FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action and brings the case of chess grandmasters Sergey Karjakin and Sergey Shipov to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission.

If FIDE is doing this, Karjakin and Shipov must be (at least allegedly) in breach of some FIDE rule. Which rule is this? Phrased alternatively, is there a FIDE rule that prohibits players from supporting "unjustified military action"?

# Answer
> 17 votes
The first thing to note is that arguably the FIDE Laws of Chess do not apply.

The introduction spells out their limitations:

> **FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play**. The Laws of Chess have two parts: 1. Basic Rules of Play and 2. Competition Rules.

Arguably they only cover behaviour while playing over the board. Hence article 11.1 does not apply.

> 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

FIDE does have codes of ethics. There are two published documents, one covering the period up to April 2022 and one the period after.

The current code, Code of Ethics effective till 1 April 2022, was originally written in 1989 and amended in 1996 and mainly covers chess play and chess politics.

> 2. Breach of Ethics
>
> The Code of Ethics shall be breached by a person or organization who directly or indirectly
>
> 2.1 offers, or attempts to offer or accepts any consideration or bribe with a view of influencing the result in a game of chess or election into FIDE office.
>
> 2.2 in other respects acts contrary to this Code.

There follows a list of competition related items, but at the very end we have the "ethics" equivalent of 11.1:

> 2.2.10 In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of **occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation**.
>
> 2.2.11 Any conduct likely to injure or discredit the reputation of FIDE, its events, organizers, participants, sponsors or that will enhance the goodwill which attaches to the same.

Regarding Karjakin and Shipov, The Official Statement of FIDE Council states:

> * **In order to safeguard FIDE from reputational, financial, and any other possible risks**, FIDE terminates all existing sponsorship agreements with any Belarusian and Russian sanctioned and/or state-controlled companies and will not enter into new sponsorship agreements with any such companies.
> * FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action and brings the case of chess grandmasters Sergey Karjakin and Sergey Shipov to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission

So, it would seem that the statements of support for Putin and the military action by Karjakin and Shipov are regarded by FIDE as possibly putting FIDE at risk of reputational damage and hence these break the FIDE code of ethics.

**Edit 22/3/22:** FIDE have now published their verdict on Karjakin and Shipov confirming this:

> *Sergey Karjakin is found guilty of breach of article 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics, and is sanctioned to a worldwide ban of six months from participating as a player in any FIDE rated chess competition, taking effect from the date of this decision, 21 March 2022.*
>
> *Sergei Shipov is found not guilty of breach of article 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.*

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Why are unrated players counted as rated players in this FIDE rated event?
I came across this event where unrated players are also counted as rated players. Below you can see that every player has a rating of 1824 but when you view the tournament there are a lot of unrated players and they have been counted as rated opponents for the person in 1st image.

In the below image can clearly see that there are a lot of unrated players (ones with rating performance and no rating changes). This is the list of all players played the tournament. can be accessed from here

An interestingly why all those players have a unique rating. Is this some tournament format that is governed by FIDE rules.

# Answer
The tournament was a round robin tournament with 15 players and 15 rounds with each player get one bye. There are two sets of FIDE rating regulations, one for the period from July 2017 to December 2021 and one from January 2022. So, the first one is relevant here.

According to FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 till 31 December 2021 (with amendments effective from 1 February 2021) the initial rating of an unrated player is calculated differently according to whether the tournament is round robin or Swiss. This is what it says for round robin:

> 8.2 Determining the Rating 'Ru' in a given event of a previously unrated player.
>
> 8.21 If an unrated player scores zero in his first event his score is disregarded.
> First determine the average rating of his competition 'Rc'.
> (a) In a Swiss or Team tournament: this is simply the average rating of his opponents.
> (b) **The results of both rated and unrated players in a round-robin tournament are taken into account**. For unrated players, the average rating of the competition 'Rc' is also the tournament average 'Ra' determined as follows:
>
> (i) Determine the average rating of the rated players 'Rar'.
> (ii) Determine p for each of the rated players against all their opponents.
> Then determine dp for each of these players.
> Then determine the average of these dp = 'dpa'.
> (iii) 'n' is the number of opponents.
> Ra = Rar - dpa x n/(n+1)

What this complicated looking formula is trying to do is estimate how well the unrated players played against the rated players on average and adjust the average for the tournament taking this into account. The unrated player's performance is then calculated as if all the opponents had the same rating and that rating was the "adjusted" average rating taking into account the over all performance of the unrated players against the rated players.

The latest version of the rating document, FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 January 2022, makes no mention of any difference in calculation between round robin and Swiss. Here is what it says;

> 8.2 Determining the initial rating 'Ru' of a player.
>
> 8.2.1 If an unrated player scores zero in their first event this score is disregarded. Otherwise, their rating is calculated using all their results as in 7.1.4.
>
> 8.2.2 Ra is the average rating of the player's rated opponents.
>
> 8.2.3 If the player scores 50%, then Ru = Ra.
>
> If they score more than 50%, then Ru = Ra + 20 for each half point scored over 50%.
>
> If they score less than 50%, then Ru = Ra + dp
>
> Ru is rounded to the nearest whole number.

So, it looks like the separate treatment of round robin and Swiss being scrapped.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, rating, tournament, elo
---


# Question
Title: Lichess stats for average centipawn loss
I am not able to understand the meaning of this stats on Lichess. How can I analyze that and work on my weaker points.

Does it mean I make bad Queen moves?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Average centipawn loss (acl) is the score of engine less the score of your move. As the acl decreases your accuracy increases. If your acl is lower (close to zero) you are a strong player.

**Example**

```
game_number: 1, move_number: 20, move: d4d5, score: 20,
engine_move: g1f3, engine_score: 30
cl: 30-20 or 10 (cl=centipawn loss)

game_number: 2, move_number: 36, move: b1c3, score: 18,
engine_move: f3g5, engine_score: 40
cl: 40-18 or 22

acl = (10+22)/2 = 16

The 2 is from the 2 moves with engine evaluations.

```

You are right your queen moves are less accurate compared to other pieces.

Most players or all players have lower accuracy for queen moves - including me. This is normal because the queen has the greatest mobility of all pieces, it can move like a rook and a bishop, it takes more time to calculate accurately.

**Mine**

To improve upon it just practice analyzing positions with queens still on the board. Another way is without looking on the board imagine the queen is located in E4 square and any other squares, on an empty board except the queen, where the queen can go? F3, D5 ... The speed of locating the squares will help a lot in blitz or bullet games.

**Magnus Carlsen**
I tried to analyze the 100 latest Lichess **blitz** games of Magnus using stockfish 14.1. Analysis start at move 12. Maximum error is set to 1000 cp. The queen also has the highest error.

```
   pieces  cploss  totalmoves
0    pawn      39         618
1  knight      25         488
2  bishop      35         394
3    rook      45         566
4   queen      58         370
5    king      33         531

```

---
Tags: computer-chess, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Why do players resign after accidentally giving their opponent a free queen?
Whenever I verse players in Live Chess (30 minutes) on Chess.com, sometimes I am able to threaten their queen because they brought it out too early in the game. In the opening/beginning to midgame, if I threatened their queen with a simple move, and they forgot to move it away or block the attack, and I take their queen on the next move, they resign. Why?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Material (i.e. basically who has more and better pieces) is a very important factor in the objective evaluation of a chess position. The queen is the strongest piece on the board, roughly equal to two rooks or three minor pieces (knights or bishops).

If you really drop a queen in an otherwise equal position you are going to lose 99.9% of the time. Rarely you have situations where you have compensation for being a full queen down, like for instance you have a very strong mating attack or perhaps the queen is bound to protecting a pawn from queening, etc.

If there is no such compensation it is very reasonable to resign. There is not much point (and not much fun) playing a queen down. In fact most slightly advanced players would resign being a minor piece (knight or bishop) down in otherwise normal position (no attack, etc going on).

# Answer
> 6 votes
After losing the queen for nothing, the game is essentially lost, so many players resign instead of wasting their time playing a lost position till the end. Others choose to play on, either hoping that you will blunder even worse or run out of time. People are free to choose.

Losing the queen is just one example; in general, people resign when they think the situation is hopeless.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When you lose your queen, it's a big loss. A lot of people resign because the queen is the best while other pieces need some strategic thinking. I am not saying the queen doesn't require strategy, it's just very easy to run out of situations if your Queen is in trouble, while with the bishop, for example, it is easy to be trapped if you have no idea what you're doing with it.

My suggestion to people who resign when they lose their queen I would generally keep my queen until mid game-late game when you've done developing, when you bring out your queen early, it can easily be disengaged by pieces like pawns and knights, so I save it.

People also resign because they don't have confidence they could win without it, and I feel the same without it. If your opponent takes your queen without losing a piece of their own, it's really tough to recover from that, because the queen can essentially move anywhere. So my suggestion is save your queen unless you need to bring it out! Because a weak pawn structure or development can be chewed apart the queen if nothing is safe guarding it. For example, it's late game and you have 2 stowaway pawns, your queen will tear them apart and give you a path for a 2nd queen

Overall, they just leave because they don't feel like they can win without their Queen, so they resign. After all, it is the best piece and it isn't restricted to a single move like the bishop, it can go everywhere. Just pay attention to your queen ;)

---
Tags: queens, resigning
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind the touch move rule?
Where did this rule originate? Why does it exist?

I just recently learned about it, and in my casual coffeeshop chess games, it has never been mentioned or enforced.

# Answer
If you're allowed to touch a piece, you can also pick it up and land it on another square, look how the new position would look like, and return it to its original square if you don't like the new position. Repeat this over and over again, and it becomes very annoying for your opponent.

This explains *why* the rule might exist, but not since *when*. I do not know the answer to that question.
> 10 votes

# Answer
If you're allowed to touch a piece, or touch a square with a piece, without having to commit to the move, you could *pretend* to move, look at your opponent's reaction, and then retract the move if you see a reaction indicating you've just made a blunder.

Chess is not Poker, and the game should be decided on skills over the chessboard, not on psychological tricks or how good of a poker face you can make.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Any resource on 1. e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3 exd5 c6?
It's a variation of the Falkbeer countergambit that I'd like to learn to surprise my opponents but I can't find any resource on the internet.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3. exd5 c6

```

The only videos I find on the Falkbeer countergambit talk about 3... e4 or 3... exf4.

Whether it's books or videos I don't really mind, but I have a small preference for videos.

# Answer
I'm very confused by the existing answers. This variation has a name. It's called the Nimzowitsch or Nimzowitsch-Marshall Countergambit. According to Wikipedia it's even the most popular response to white's 3. exd5 and in fact is considered to be the best move.

According to Chess Notes it was first played by Marshall against Teichmann in 1905.

According to this article and BCO2 the main line runs 4. Nc3 exf4 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. d4 Ne7 7. dxc6 Nbxc6 8. Bc4 0-0 9. 0-0.

As for videos, any video on the Falkbeer really should cover this variation, although I found some which don't. But here's an example (from 6:50).
> 6 votes

# Answer
This is the analysis I have done with help of the Lichess database. It is a very sharp variation where Black often sacrifices material for activity.

```
[FEN ""]
[ECO "C30"]
[Opening "King's Gambit"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 c6 3. Nf3 { Played in 2/3 of the games on Lichess. } (3. Nc3! { This is a good move. If you see this move, you can assume that White knows what they are doing. I advise to transpose into KGA, since White has commited to Nc3 and ...c6 is useful to play for ...d5. } 3... exf4 4. Nf3 Be7 { What follows is a sampl line. } 5. Bc4 d5 (5... Bh4+ { Is also possible. It is a variation of the Cunningham Defense. }) 6. exd5 Nf6 7. dxc6 Nxc6 8. d4 O-O 9. Bxf4 Bg4 10. O-O Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qxd4+ 12. Qxd4 Nxd4)  (3. fxe5 Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxe4+ { White is losing. }) 3... d5 4. Nxe5 (4. exd5 e4 5. Ne5 Nf6 { This is my own suggestion, it is tricky to handle for White. } 6. dxc6 Nxc6 7. Bc4 (7. Bb5 Bc5! { Ignoring the threat of Nxc6! Why? If White does not commit to Nxc6, they now cannot castle and the game is easy for Black. } 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. Bxc6+ Bd7 10. Bxa8 Bg4 { And the Queen is gone. })
7... Bc5! { Is the complicated way. } 8. Bxf7+ Kf8 { It is on White to prove that they can untangle this situation. Here is the best try for White. } 9. Qe2 Nxe5 10. fxe5 Bg4 11. Qf1 Qd4 12. exf6 Kxf7 { The White King is not happy. }) 4... dxe4 5. Bc4 { Note that with this move, the knight on e5 has no retreating squares. } (5. d4 Nh6 6. Nc3 f6 7. Bc4 { Transposes to the insane variation no one will ever play after 6. Nc3. }) 5... Nh6 6. O-O { You need to know how to react to this. } (6. Qh5 g6 7. Nxg6 fxg6 8. Qe5+ Qe7 9. Qxh8 Nd7 { Where Black will play to gain tempi on the Queen and ideally trap her. })  (6. Nc3!? f6 7. d4 { White calls the bluff... No one will ever play this. We cannot afford to take the knight now. } 7... Bf5 8. O-O Nd7 9. Kh1 Qe7 10. Nxd7 Qxd7 11. d5 O-O-O) 6... f6 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Nxg6 Bg4! 9. Bf7+ Nxf7 10. Qxg4 hxg6 11. Qxg6 Qd4+ 12. Kh1 Rh6 *

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
Hanging Pawns is a YouTube channel I particularly like because it seems to be aimed at average club players, like me, and run by an average club player who aspires to be stronger.

He has done a video on the Falkbeer Counter Gambit in which he considers three black continuations, 3...exe4 (which he says transposes to the Modern Defence to the King's Gambit Accepted), 3...c6 (the Nimzowitsch Counter Gambit which you are asking about) and 3...e4 (the Staunton variation which he considers visually frightening but harmless if white knows what they are doing).

He spends about a third of the roughly 20 minute video on this line which he considers black's most aggressive and challenging option in the Falkbeer Counter Gambit. It is the best online resource for this variation I have found.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I saw something in a Daniel Naroditsky speedrun video! He basically explained how it's like an ideal version of the caro-kann.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There is a free chess cloud library api where you can input the position and it will return analysis from stockfish. It has an interface where you can explore openings/endings. One of the cool things about it is that if you reach the leaf position, you can request for cloud analysis and then later analysis results will be shown.

**Interface**
https://www.chessdb.cn/queryc\_en/

The score of c6 is 0. Score is from the side to move perspective. Info can be found at https://www.chessdb.cn/cloudbookc\_info\_en.html

**Leaf position is reached**

I created an interface using that library see the following image.

You can explore lines and discover how a bad move is punished. It can show the score some plies ahead from the current position. You can also save the pgn. It has no feature to request position analysis though.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the shortest possible game with 18 queens?
This question demonstrates a game in which all 16 pawns promote for a total of 18 queens on the board. It takes 80 moves...

> What is the shortest sequence of moves that achieves this goal?

# Answer
As it appears, 48.0 moves may indeed be optimal. Here are more 48.0 moves proofs, sourced from rec.games.chess. The PGNs were sourced elsewhere.

```
[Title "Andreas Rein, Die Welt 1989"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "96"]

1. h4 g5 2. h5 g4 3. Rh2 g3 4. h6 gxh2 5. g4 e5 6. g5 Ne7 7. g6 a5 8. g7 a4 9. g8=Q a3 10. Qg2 Bg7 11. f4 c5 12. f5 c4 13. f6 c3 14. fxe7 f5 15. b4 Kf7 16. hxg7 h5 17. b5 h4 18. b6 h3 19. Bb2 f4 20. e4 f3 21. d4 d5 22. Nd2 Bf5 23. Kf2 cxd2 24. Kg3 Kg6 25. c4 Kg5 26. exf5 e4 27. c5 axb2 28. Bc4 dxc4 29. a4 f2 30. Qdf3 Ra7 31. bxa7 b5 32. a5 b4 33. a6 b3 34. c6 c3 35. c7 c2 36. d5 e3 37. d6 e2 38. d7 hxg1=Q 39. gxh8=Q bxa1=Q 40. axb8=Q h2 41. f6 b2 42. f7 h1=Q 43. a7 b1=Q 44. e8=Q Qdf6 45. c8=Q c1=Q 46. d8=Q d1=Q 47. a8=Q e1=Q 48. f8=Q f1=Q+

```

---

```
[TItle "Theodor Burian, Rochade Europa 11/1997"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "96"]

1. b4 a5 2. b5 a4 3. b6 a3 4. Bb2 axb2 5. a4 Ra7 6. bxa7 b5 7. h4 c5 8. h5 g5 9. h6 Bg7 10. hxg7 h5 11. g4 h4 12. a5 Rh5 13. gxh5 b4 14. f4 e5 15. f5 d5 16. f6 Ne7 17. fxe7 f5 18. h6 f4 19. e4 Bf5 20. exf5 Kf7 21. f6 f3 22. h7 g4 23. a6 g3 24. h8=Q g2 25. Kf2 h3 26. Kg3 c4 27. d4 c3 28. Nd2 cxd2 29. c4 b3 30. c5 e4 31. Bc4 dxc4 32. d5 h2 33. d6 f2 34. Qdh5+ Ke6 35. a8=Q gxh1=Q 36. e8=Q+ Qe7 37. a7 e3 38. d7 hxg1=Q+ 39. Qg2 c3 40. a8=Q f1=Q 41. c6 e2 42. c7 bxa1=Q 43. cxb8=Q b2 44. d8=Q c2 45. f7 b1=Q 46. g8=Q c1=Q 47. Qgh7 d1=Q 48. f8=Q e1=Q+

```

In a comment on the answer to the PSE version of this question, linked in the other answer, user @Dennis Jaheruddin came up with a provable lower bound for this challenge.

> "It takes 80 moves to move pawns forward. Obviously, they cannot capture the king and queen so there are only 6 promotion fields left on each side. Basically, this means it takes at least 4 half moves to clear additional promotion fields. Then there are 8 pawn rows that block each other, each conflict will need to be solved by capturing at least 1 piece that is not in its starting position, hence we need another 8 half moves. Now we already have a lower bound of 92 and there are still some issues to solve. As such 96 is probably optimal."

Proving that more four half moves are necessary would be a momumentable and solve this challenge. However, it seems no one knows where to start. Neither do I. As such, we are stuck at 92/96 proven plies. Hopefully, that day comes sooner rather than later.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Here is a solution in 96 plies. Found by Friedrich Burchard & Friedrich Hariu, it was published in the German magazine feenschach issue #33 in 1976 on page 22. It can be viewed and downloaded as a PDF (the challenge was issued in #31.

```
[Title "Friedrich Burchard & Friedrich Hariuc, feenschach #33 1976, Page 22"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "96"]

1. e4 f5 2. e5 Nf6 3. exf6 e5 4. g4 e4 5. Ne2 e3 6. Ng3 e2 7. h4 f4 8. h5 fxg3 9. h6 g5 10. Rh4 gxh4 11. g5 g2 12. g6 Bg7 13. hxg7 g1=Q 14. f4 h3 15. f5 h2 16. b4 a5 17. b5 a4 18. b6 a3 19. Bb2 Ra7 20. bxa7 axb2 21. a4 b5 22. a5 b4 23. a6 b3 24. c4 h1=Q 25. c5 h5 26. c6 Bb7 27. cxb7 c5 28. d4 c4 29. d5 Nc6 30. dxc6 c3 31. c7 c2 32. c8=Q c1=Q 33. b8=Q Qc7 34. a8=Q d5 35. a7 d4 36. Nc3 dxc3 37. Qa6 c2 38. Qa8b7 c1=Q 39. a8=Q Qd5 40. gxh8=Q+ Kd7 41. g7 bxa1=Q 42. g8=Q b2 43. f7 b1=Q 44. f8=Q h4 45. f6 h3 46. f7 h2 47. Qfa3 h1=Q 48. f8=Q exf1=Q+

```

Credit goes to *d'alar'cop* for his PSE answer.
> 18 votes

# Answer
> **Edit:** best known is **96** half-moves by Friedrich Burchard & Friedrich Hariuc (1976). (link to answer)

My best score **104** half-moves:

```
[FEN ""]

1.a4 b5 2.a5 b4 3.a6 Bb7 4.axb7 h5 5.bxa8=Q h4 6.g4 h3 7.Bg2 hxg2 8.Ra3 bxa3 9.b4 gxh1=Q 10.e4 a2 11.b5 a1=Q 12.b6 a5 13.b7 d5 14.c4 Nd7 15.c5 Nb6 16.cxb6 Rh5 17.gxh5 g5 18.h6 g4 19.h7 g3 20.h4 a4 21.h5 a3 22.h8=Q a2 23.h6 axb1=Q 24.h7 g2 25.Bb2 d4 26.Bc3 dxc3 27.d4 c2 28.b8=Q c1=Q 29.b7 e5 30.Ke2 c5 31.Nf3 c4 32.Qba7 Bc5 33.dxc5 c3 34.Nd4 exd4 35.f4 Kd7 36.e5 Ne7 37.f5 Ng6 38.fxg6 f5 39.g7 f4 40.g8=Q Qca3 41.c6+ Ke7 42.e6 Kd6 43.c7 c2 44.Qhg7 c1=Q 45.Qc2 d3+ 46.Kf3 d2+ 47.Ke4 d1=Q 48.c8=Q f3 49.e7 f2 50.e8=Q f1=Q 51.h8=Q Qc7 52.b8=Q g1=Q+

```

**Conclusion:** it is impossible to make it in 80 half moves as it is required to bring the king to safety and in order to make some pawns swap files, you need to sacrifice minor pieces (at least some of them must not remain in their original squares).

I think it can be improved, but not that much.

Also, yes, the type of promotion affects makes the output differ because queens cover much space and you need to protect the king.
> 9 votes

# Answer
How about this strategy:

```
[FEN ""]

1. a4 b5 2. Na3 b4 3. h4 bxa3 4. b4 a5 5. b5 Na6 6. bxa6 Rb8 7. a7 Rb5 8. axb5 c5 9. Rb1 c4 10. Rb3 cxb3 11. Nh3 g5 12. c4 g4 13. c5 gxh3 14. g4 h5 15. g5 Nh6  16. gxh6 Rg8 17. h7 Rg5 18. hxg5 f5 19. Rg1 h2 20. Rg4 fxg4 21. g6 h4 22. c6 Bb7 23. cxb7 g3 24. b6 b2 25. a8=Q a2 26. b8=Q a4 27. b7 a3 28. Qf4 b1=Q 29. b8=Q a1=Q 30. Qbb4 a2 31. Qfc4 e5 32. f4 e4 33. Bg2 h3 34. Bf3 exf3 35. f5 g2 36. d4 Qab2 37. Qdc2 a1=Q 38. Kd2 f2 39. d5 h1=Q 40. d6 f1=Q 41. f6 Be7 42. dxe7 d5 43. g7 Kd7 44. g8=Q d4 45. e4 d3 46. e5 g1=Q 47. f7 Qc6 48. h8=Q h2 49. f8=Q h1=Q 50. e6+ Kc7 51. e8=Q Qbg7 52. Qbb2 Q1g6 53. Qff6 Qhh7 54. Kc3 d2 55. Qgf8 dxc1=Q 56. e7 Q8d7 57. Qef7 Q6h6 58. e8=Q

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: problems, queens, records
---


# Question
Title: How do you solve vague mate in two problems?
I am a big fan of solving mate in N problems and believe they help tremendously with i.e. visualization. The only issue I seem to face in certain problems are when they are very vague. For example this one from the famous Polgar book. How can one proceed to solve it? I know the answer now, but it is very vague. Especially when there is no zugzwang or check to start with.

```
[Title "Bela Schläffer, Magyar Sakkelet, 5/1952, Mate in 2"]
[fen "nK6/4N1p1/pk4r1/p1b5/p6p/2N5/p3RB1Q/1q6 w - - 1 1"]

```

# Answer
With mate in 2 problems you basically have to try and look one move ahead and imagine a position where you are going to mate in 1. This will either involve mating the king on its current square or luring/forcing the king to another square and mating there.

Here there are some clues. The black king is currently in stalemate, i.e. has no moves, and black has no checks. As you would expect there are lots of "nearly" mate-in-1s. So, it looks like it is going to be mate the king where it is now rather than lure to another square.

The key then is to find a way of threatening a mate in 1 which can only be parried by allowing another mate in 1. Then it becomes clearer. If the bishop on c5 could be attacked again then Bxc5 would be mate. If the queen on b1 could be lured away from the b file then Rb2 would be mate. If a major piece (queen or rook) could take the queen on b1 then that would be mate. If the rook on g6 could be lured away from the 6th rank then Re6 would be mate. If the black queen wasn't defending the rook on g6 and white could take that rook with the queen then that would be mate.

Then the answer becomes clear:

```
[fen "nK6/4N1p1/pk4r1/p1b5/p6p/2N5/p3RB1Q/1q6 w - - 1 1"]

1. Qg1 Bxf2 (1...Rxg1 2. Re6#) (1...Qxg1 2. Rb2#) (1...Qb4 2. Qxg6#) 2. Qxf2#

```
> 20 votes

# Answer
First, you have to split into "gamelike 2#" and "artistic 2#". The approach is, at least in principle, completely different.

* In a gamelike 2#, proceed as if you are looking at a normal game. That is, analyze checks, captures, strong threats first.
* In artistic 2# like your example (and it's a major crime to reprint art without attribution :-); but as a problemist, I know how to find the source extremely fast, here it is) things are different. "Strong" moves are rare.

Nevertheless, as Brian's answer shows, the usual laws of tactics are not "out of order" in an artistic 2# (what you call "vague 2#"). I tried to solve it myself (as I am an extremely fast solver of artistic 2#). I began by choosing the key piece: Very obviously the N are tied to c6/b5 until Black blocks these squares, the B can do nothing, the R can't attack anything, leaves the wQ which is out of play anyway and the obvious key piece. I played Qg1 without thinking since that double "sacrifice" would be exactly the key I would have in one of my own compositions. (So, expect spectacular stuff in an artistic 2#...or subtle.) Only then I verified: Yes, Q and R are tied to the pin mates by the wR. I even overlooked Qb4. (The composer might have snookered you! So carefully check all defences.)

* Thus a general approach still works for both 2# types: Analyze the position. Assess the functions the pieces have to fulfil. (White attacking, Black defending.)
* This comes especially handy in the artistic 2# because it must fulfil "economy": For the smothered mate, pawns around the white king are irrelevant for mating the black king. No composer would leave them on the board. Thus, sometimes white pawns are treacherous: maybe they just stand there to block a square of the key piece! (Clearly, useless for this problem...)
* Sometimes, already the name of the composer is a giveaway (artistic 2# has different "schools") but this leads way too far...
> 9 votes

# Answer
First, usually it is not a move which gives check and not a move which takes a piece, because this is considered to be not elegant in modern studies. For example 1.Qd6+, 1.Qc7+, 1.Bxc5+, 1.Re6+, check with a knight on d5, c8 or a4, these are probably not the solutions. Ignore these moves and only come back to them when you did not find the solution using the following method:

**Step 1** (this step can also be left away in mate in 2 studies): Check what would happen if it was black's move. Which moves would lead to a white mate in one? From this you can learn the weak spots of blacks pieces. E.g. here you can learn that a queen move which loses control over b2 may lead to 2.Rb2 mate. A rook move away from the sixth rank may lead to 2.Re6 or 2.Qd6 mate. His bishop is pinned, if he moves it, this leads to 2.Bxb or 2.Qxf2 mate. If he moves his rook to c6 this leads to 2.Ned5 mate, if he moves his queen to b5 it leads to 2.Ncd5 mate.

**Step 2** Act as if you had two moves in a row. Which maneuvers would lead to mate? This would be 1.Kc8 and 2.Qb8 mate, 1.Qh1(g2) and 2.Nc8 mate, 1.Re5 and 2.Bxc5 mate, Qe5(g1) and 2.Bxc5 mate.

**Step 3** Go through the list of maneuvers, found in step 2 and consider all black answers to the first move of the maneuver. The 'bad' black moves from step 1 may give you indicators which maneuver leads to success. Here we would find that the following attempts do not work: 1.Kc8 Rc6+!, 1.Qh1(g2) Qe4! 2.Rb2+ Qb4, 1.Re5 or Qe5 Qb4!.

This leads to the conclusion that 1.Qg1! has to be the move and by checking all possible black answers we can find that each leads to a mate in one, see the lines given in Brian Towers' answer and in RossMillikan's comments. Especially the fact that the Qg1 attacks the Rg6 makes the difference, 1...Qb4 now leads to 2.Qxg6 mate.

ChessBase also has a good article which gives further hints: How to solve chess problems.
> 4 votes

# Answer
"Hmm, the rook is the only piece holding the 6-th rank... So if only I could distract it, the queen or the rook would deliver mate. Oh, and the black queen is doing exactly the same but vertically. Both heavy pieces are completely tied by their defensive duties. Can I somehow bother them, especially with a fancy move? Qg1, of course." Then it's only left to ensure all the lines work.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Ideas behind the 8.Bd3 line in the 4.Ng5 Two Knights Defense
In the Two Knights Defense, after

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6

```

`8. Bd3` has become fashionable recently, and is considered a serious way for White to play for a win.

Yet, is seems an artificial move, going against basic opening principles, in particular blocking the d-Pawn. What are the main points of this line, especially in comparison to the "old" `8. Be2` move, and are there any typical traps or pitfalls to be aware of?

# Answer
> 13 votes
I think the main reason behind Bd3 is to provide a "safe" retreat for the knight and keeps to e-file open. Both Nf3 and Nh3 have liabilities. A retreat to e4 also allow a further lose of time from f5, but this may be offset by black's LSB having less mobility. The other option is Bf1, which while playable, also goes against basic opening principles.

Although this may apply here, paraphrasing Alekhine, to punish unconventional moves (Na5) you may have to play unconventional moves.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The point is that after 8...h6, White can now play 9.Ne4. Comparatively, after 8.Be2 h6, White must go for 9.Nf3 e4, when the knight is hit again.

You're right that 8.Bd3 blocks the d2-pawn from advancing, but this isn't such a huge price to pay. The c1-bishop can get into the game via b3 followed by Bb2.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think this move illustrates the problem with "opening principles". Sometimes they contradict one another!

For example, 8.Be2 may appear more natural because it does not block the "d" pawn. However, it also places the bishop in a passive square as, as indicated by Mike Jones, does not allow for `Ne4` later on.

Finally, `Qf3`-related ideas may still be playable after `8.Bd3`

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think it's helpful to think of bishop hoping to go to f1, after O-O and Re1. Good illustrative game is Lev Aronian v. Vidit Gujrathi Kolkata 2019 (Rapid & Blitz): https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1981131

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, two-knights
---


# Question
Title: How to find the piece to move when reading PGN file
I want to read a PGN file and play those moves on my chess application. For example, the PGN structure that I have to read looks like this:

```
1. e4 {[%clk 0:01:00]} 1... g6 {[%clk 0:01:00]}
2. e5 {[%clk 0:00:59.2]} 2... Bg7 {[%clk 0:00:59.9]}
3. f4 {[%clk 0:00:58.4]} 3... d6 {[%clk 0:00:59.8]}

```

So the first move is `e4` by white. As human I can look at a chess board and tell that the only piece that can go to `e4` is the pawn currently on `e2`.

But how do you know this when reading a PGN file?

I need to feed my chess applications moves like `e2-e4`. As in, what ever piece is on `e2`, move it to `e4`. (By the notation I can at least tell that the piece is a pawn)

So basically I need to know the starting position of the piece `e2`, and on what square it wants to land, `e4`.

Is there a way to get this information from a PGN file? The only way I can think of is brute forcing to identify the only piece that can move to the location.

# Answer
You can use a python chess library to parse the moves of a game in a pgn file.

**Code**

```
"""
pip install chess
"""

import chess.pgn

def parse_pgn(inpgn):
    with open(inpgn, encoding='utf-8') as h:
        while True:
            game = chess.pgn.read_game(h)
            if game is None:
                break

            for node in game.mainline():
                move = node.move
                pnode = node.parent
                board = pnode.board()

                move_from_sq = move.from_square
                move_to_sq = move.to_square

                print(board)
                print(board.fen())
                print(f'move: {move}')
                print(f'move_from: {move_from_sq}')
                print(f'move_from_name: {chess.SQUARE_NAMES[move_from_sq]}')
                print(f'move_to: {move_to_sq}')
                print(f'move_to_name: {chess.SQUARE_NAMES[move_to_sq]}')
                print(f'{chess.SQUARE_NAMES[move_from_sq]}-{chess.SQUARE_NAMES[move_to_sq]}')
                print(f'piece: {board.piece_at(move.from_square).symbol()}')
                print()

def main():
    inpgn = 'sample.pgn'
    parse_pgn(inpgn)

main()

```

**sample.pgn**

```
[Result "*"]

1. e4 {[%clk 0:01:00]} 1... g6 {[%clk 0:01:00]}
2. e5 {[%clk 0:00:59.2]} 2... Bg7 {[%clk 0:00:59.9]}
3. f4 {[%clk 0:00:58.4]} 3... d6 {[%clk 0:00:59.8]}

```

**Sample output**

```
r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
move: e2e4
move_from: 12
move_from_name: e2
move_to: 28
move_to_name: e4
e2-e4
piece: P

r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1
move: g7g6
move_from: 54
move_from_name: g7
move_to: 46
move_to_name: g6
g7-g6
piece: p

r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p . p
. . . . . . p .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqkbnr/pppppp1p/6p1/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2
move: e4e5
move_from: 28
move_from_name: e4
move_to: 36
move_to_name: e5
e4-e5
piece: P

r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p . p
. . . . . . p .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqkbnr/pppppp1p/6p1/4P3/8/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2
move: f8g7
move_from: 61
move_from_name: f8
move_to: 54
move_to_name: g7
f8-g7
piece: b

r n b q k . n r
p p p p p p b p
. . . . . . p .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/4P3/8/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 3
move: f2f4
move_from: 13
move_from_name: f2
move_to: 29
move_to_name: f4
f2-f4
piece: P

r n b q k . n r
p p p p p p b p
. . . . . . p .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . P . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . . P P
R N B Q K B N R
rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/4P3/5P2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3
move: d7d6
move_from: 51
move_from_name: d7
move_to: 43
move_to_name: d6
d7-d6
piece: p

```

Square 0 starts at lower left corner of the board or square a1.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I'm confused by this statement:

> I need to feed my chess applications moves like e2-e4.

Why? Computers that can read pgn files will understand the moves as they are formated.

If you're inputting them manually, the notation works fine too. People play entire games blindfolded on the same notation. As the you go down the list of moves, the next move is played based on the state of the board from the previous move. That is how algebraic lines have always worked.
> 1 votes

# Answer
PGN files are intended to be read and used by computer programs, not humans. So, yes, the only way to do what you're asking is to brute-force search to make sure there's only one piece that can reach the destination square.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: programming, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Why can the bishop just take the knight in this Lichess puzzle?
In this Lichess puzzle, after the initial moves

```
[title "Black to move"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "17"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. c4 b5 2. cxb5 Bb7 3. Nf3 g5 4. Nxg5 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. Nc3 a6 7. d4 axb5 8. Nxb5 Qa5+ 9. Nc3 Bxf3!

```

Why can the bishop just take the knight? Why is it so bad for white to retake on f3?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Here's why:

```
[FEN "rn2k1nr/1b1pppbp/8/q1p5/3P4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 1 1"]

1...Bxf3 2. exf3 cxd4 3. Bd2 (3. Qxd4 Bxd4) dxc3 4. bxc3 Bxc3 5. Rc1 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 Qxd2+ 7. Kxd2 Rxa2+ 8.Ke3 Nc6

```

White is completely lost.

# Answer
> 8 votes
After retaking the bishop, Black will take on d4 with his pawn, attacking the pinned knight. White can do nothing to stop Black from capturing it "for free" on the next move.

# Answer
> 7 votes
After you complete the puzzle, " Stockfish 14+NNUE in local browser" appears in the upper right (just above the list of moves), and a toggle button appears to the right of that. If you click it, it will suggest the continuation 10. Bd2, but you can play around with other lines by making those moves on the board. For instance, after 10. gxf3, the engine recommends 10. ... cxd4. As it has been captured, the knight is not available to capture the pawn, and the queen is deterred by the bishop on g7. As the knight is pinned, it can't be moved away.

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles
---


title: Escaping a double check

text:
# Question
Title: Escaping a double check
Escaping a double check

The answer to Is it possible to block a double check? says

> Moving the king is the only way to escape a double check. There is no possible other move that will block both checks.

But in the following situation, is it allowed for Black to escape by taking the Rook (placing White in check) and forcing a sacrifice of the Queen? If not, why not?

Black to move. Never mind how it got to this position, it's for illustration.

# Answer
**Not** allowed, no.

White gives two checks (hence double), and meeting one isn't enough. After blacks reply Qxe8+, blacks king is still in check which makes Qxe8+ an illegal move.

Black is thus **checkmated** in your position.
> 8 votes

# Answer
For this kind of questions, if you have doubts, just play chess with the goal of capturing the enemy king. The first player to capture the enemy king wins. This isn't the official rule, but it's effectively the same in almost all situations I'm aware of (it doesn't work for stalemate).

So after 1...Qxe8+, White wins with 2. Nxa8. It doesn't matter that Black also threatens to capture White's king with 2...Qxe1, since White has already won.
> 8 votes

# Answer
A legal way to get into the same kind of situation:

But as others have posted: It is illegal to make a move that places or leaves one's king in check.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rules, check, double-check
---


# Question
Title: How much material is needed to force the capture of a lone queen (for example in horde chess)?
In horde chess, the following starting position is used:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/1PP2PP1/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP w - - 0 1"]

```

The goal of White is to checkmate Black; the goal of Black is to capture all White's pieces. The main strategy for White is to try to promote a pawn; the main strategy for Black is to get their queen or rook behind White's pawns, and destroy White's forces from behind.

It naturally comes to mind that, with good play from both sides, a situation may arise in which Black manages to capture all but one of White's pawns, and the remaining pawn promotes to a queen. In this kind of endgame, White cannot win because a lone queen cannot realistically deliver checkmate (except in *very* special cases which are not bound to arise if Black knows what they are doing).

Therefore, Black has to force the capture of White's queen, or accept a draw. This endgame practically becomes a game of "checkmating a queen" before the 50-move rule kicks in.

**So how much material is needed to force capture of a lone queen?**

I guess Black's plan will begin with promoting all their remaining pawns. To start somewhere, let us assume that Black's material after promoting everything is one king plus N queens.

With **a king plus 5 queens**, it seems that Black has an easy win. They just need to set up a domination position, where the 5 queens attack every square on the board:

```
[FEN "6qk/8/4q3/3q4/2q5/6Q1/q7/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

No matter where the White queen moves, it will be captured on the next move. I do not have a proof, but it seems easy for Black to achieve this position while blocking checks by White.

With **a king plus 4 queens**, I have not found a way for Black to force the capture of White's queen. While it seems overkill to have to attack *every single square* of the board in order to trap a queen, maybe the queen's mobility is so large that there is no other way.

So the question is

**What is the smallest N such that a Black king with N Black queens can force the capture of a lone White queen?**

# Answer
This is not quite definitive, but I claim that **three queens plus any other piece is enough**, while it *appears* that **three queens alone is a draw**. To determine this, I let Stockfish run on lichess for a while with various amounts of material for black until either it found a forced win or I ran out of patience. I tried to choose starting positions with all of black's pieces placed as passively as possible, so that black would only win if it's winning by virtue of its material. The lines shown below are what Stockfish eventually claims as examples of perfect play.

With four queens:

```
[Variant "Horde"]
[FEN "kqq5/qq6/8/8/6Q1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe2 Qd6 2. Qh5 Qac5 3. Qh4 Qcd4 4. Qe1 Q6e5 5. Qf1 Qee6 6. Qa1+ Qxa1#

```

This one seems winnable even in practice: once black reaches the configuration after move 4 (with the king on b8 if necessary to get out of check), you can trap white's queen in one move regardless of where she is--unless she's on a2, in which case (for example) 1... Qdf4 2. Qa3 Qfc4 wins.

Three queens and a rook:

```
[Variant "Horde"]
[FEN "kqr5/qq6/8/8/6Q1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qf5 Qa1 2. Qh3 Qbe5 3. Qg4 Rh8 4. Qc4 Qbe4 5. Qb3 Qab1 6. Qf7 Qed3 7. Qf2 Qdd5 8. Qe1 Qexe1#

```

Three queens and a bishop:

```
[Variant "Horde"]
[FEN "kqb5/qq6/8/8/6Q1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qd1 Qf4 2. Qe1 Qa3 3. Qe2 Qbe4 4. Qh5 Qc3 5. Qd1 Kb7 6. Qd8 Qa1 7. Qg8 Kc7 8. Qb3 Qc4 9. Qb1 Qxb1#

```

Three queens and a knight:

```
[Variant "Horde"]
[FEN "kqn5/qq6/8/8/6Q1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe2 Qg3 2. Qe8 Qae3 3. Qf8 Kb8 4. Qf1 Qge5 5. Qd1 Ne7 6. Qa4 Qbb3 7. Qh4 Qf3 8. Qh6 Qa2 9. Qb6+ Kc8 10. Qh6 Kb7 11. Qh4 Qfh5 12. Qb4+ Ka6 13. Qb1 Qxb1#

```

Three queens and a pawn is also a win, since (as you say) black can promote the pawn.

Besides four queens, I can't make sense of black's strategy in the other positions beyond "put your pieces on reasonable squares and poke around until there's a forced win". It seems like Stockfish can't either, based on its evaluations--e.g. for QQQN, it evaluates basically every move as -5.8 for several minutes until it finds the win.

I can't rule out a forced win with only three queens, since there are some plausible positions where white's queen is trapped, like below. But it seems hard to reach such a position by force. I also haven't been able to find a forced win with QQRR.

```
[Variant "Horde"]
[FEN "3q4/8/8/4q3/4q1Q1/8/7k/8 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
Four pieces is the lowest possible amount needed to trap the White queen.

```
[FEN "Q6r/8/8/8/8/8/5k1p/r7 b - - 0 1"]

1... h1=Q

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, problems, chess-variants, captures
---


# Question
Title: The importance of ...c5 in Queen's Pawn Openings
According to Irving Chernev in his summary of Queen's pawn opening on page 100 in *Logical Chess* there is one important step black should do in any Queen's Pawn opening ...c5. How true is this today?

# Answer
*How true is this today?* As true as it was then. Extremely true and important.

The reason is simple: it is a principle of middle-game theory that both sides should strive to achieve a central pawn break. In Queen Pawn games, white has a central pawn in d4, which leaves two pawn breaks for black: e5 or c5.

e5 is generally difficult to achieve because of several reasons. Firstly, white tends to have great control of such square with a knight on f3 or bishop on f4 (or g3 in some lines). On the contrary, white's pieces do not tend to have much control of c5 on this openings.

In simpler words, you really want a pawn break and while e5 is difficult c5 is easy.

As a plus, it is better to trade white's d4 pawn for your c-pawn rather than your e-pawn, the reason being that it is generally preferable to trade a side-pawn for a central-pawn.
> 2 votes

# Answer
(I didn't read the excerpt, so I might repeat his summary.)

The purposes of the c5 break is to destroy white's center, free your pieces, and to ease the game. This can be accomplished by the e5 break, but most lines (back then) had b6 played to develop the bishop, so c5 was easier to force.

There are many top level games where the restricted black queen's bishop is the cause of a lost game. There are some examples of black playing a tough defensive game without any center action, but these are difficult.

The axiom is still true and more useful than many rules-of-thumb. such as passed pawns must be pushed.
> 1 votes

# Answer
To imply that ..c5 is essential in all Queens Pawn openings is certainly an overstatement but it does depend a bit on how you define a Queens Pawn opening. If it is merely that White opens 1.d4 then there are many defences than do not require ..c5, but probably Chernev had in mind the reply 1..d5. It is quite popular these days, and was not popular in Chernevs time, to play the Slav Defence 2.c4 c6 with the intention of later playing ..dxc4 and trying to keep the Pawn with ..b5. At some stage of these lines ..c5 might come into consideration but the situation is far too complex for easy generalizations. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the semi-Slav, which continues 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6. White can prevent Blacks intentions, for example by exchanging cxd or by protecting with e3. Or he may allow the capture and hope for compensation. I have not looked at Chernev in a long time and I forget what he says about the Slav.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: How do super-GMs, with the white pieces, avoid drawish positions?
I'm an amateur, so I don't have too much knowledge of contemporary opening theory, especially now that engine analysis allows frequent innovation.

But I would like to ask the following:

If two super-GMs are playing in a slow game, and the one with the black pieces intends to reach a boring, drawish position as far as possible -- let's say, because a draw is enough for the one with black to advance to the next stage of the tournament -- can white really force black to enter less drawish and less boring openings?

If you can illustrate your answer with one example, I'd be grateful!

I've added the tag "psychology" because I imagine psychology has a lot to do with the question.

# Answer
> 4 votes
To answer this question, it is necessary to touch a few theoretical points. I will try to be brief.

The first distinction that it is important to make is between a *drawish* position and an *equal* position. The first refers to positions in which no side can really strive to win and the result is most probably a draw. The second refers to positions in which both sides have equal chances of winning. So yes, there are *equal* positions that are not drawish, and this already hints an answer to your question.

For a profesional player it is easy to reach both drawish or equal positions right of the opening. Depending on the player's spirit, as well as the tournament strategy he is using, whether he'll go for one or the other.

To go for *equal* positions instead of *drawish* positions, you need positions with *imbalances*. An *imbalance* is some strategical, positional or material factor that alters the equilibrium of the game in one way or another. They do not necessarily mean "disadvantage" or "advantage": an imbalance simply means each player has different things to play with.

For example, this is a balanced, drawish position:

The position is typical of the exchange variation of the French Defense. It is balanced because there is equal material, same pawn structure on both sides, same king safety, same central control, same development, same everything. Boring!

This is an imbalanced position. White claims greater space on the queenside (and therefore prospects of queenside play) and more space in the center, while Black can claim a potential attack on the White king and eventually more space on the kingside.

Both positions are *equal*. However, they aren't both balanced.

To finish, the way a GM can try to avoid drawish positions is to create imbalances. Some openings are more balanced than others. The exchange french is balanced and extremely drawish (and boring), while the Winawer french or the KID are imbalanced positions.

Due to the extreme ability of GMs, they more often than not reach draws even in imbalanced games. This is because both players know how to exploit their different advantages and defend their different weaknesses. However, the fact that they reach draws do not mean the games are *drawish*. If there are imbalances, there are winning chances. It's just that they are, more often than not, too good to lose.

---
Tags: opening, theory, psychology
---


# Question
Title: How can I evaluate a position in 4x6 chess?
For example, here is a 4x6 chess position. Black to move. How can I determine who is winning, and by how much?

Rules:

Chess variant on a small board. Standard rules apply with the following changes:

* Starting position and number of pieces are changed
* Pawns have no double-move option
* There is no castling

# Answer
Fairy-Stockfish is a nice Stockfish fork that can handle a variety of Chess variants. Find and install it following the directions here.

Create a file called variants.ini. Paste the following into there.

```
[4x6chess:gardner]
maxRank = 6
maxFile = d
promotionRank = 6
startFen = rnbk/pppp/4/4/PPPP/RNBK w - - 0 1

```

Alternatively, download and save the linked file somewhere on your computer, which comes with the 4x6 variant along with several others.

You have a variety of choices for which front end to use. I am going to use Xboard. If you happen to be on Windows, you can use Winboard and the procedure should be fairly similar.

If you've chosen to install Xboard/Winboard, you can use the following procedure. Click engine on the menu bar up top and then go to edit engine list. Modify and add the following line

```
"Fairy-SF" /variant=4x6chess -fcp "/path/to/fairy-stockfish-binary load /path/to/variants.ini"

```

Here you should modify your /path/to/fairy-stockfish-binary to wherever that binary/executable exists and modify your /path/to/variants.ini to wherever you earlier created/saved your variants.ini file.

You can now go back to Engine in the menu bar and select Load New First Engine, selecting the engine you just added. You should now see something like the following image.

You can play the engine from this point if you want. Alternatively, you can paste in a position and ask the engine for analysis. To do the latter with your initial position, copy the following fen to your clipboard:

```
rnbk/3p/pp2/1P1P/2P1/RNBK w - - 0 1

```

On the Xboard/Winboard menu bar select Edit and then select Paste Position. The position should now be in Xboard. Finally you can select mode from the menu bar and select analysis mode. This should give you what you want:
> 11 votes

---
Tags: analysis, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Pairing Preference in Swiss Tournament System
Suppose we have 10 players `A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J` (sorted by their ranks).

First-round pairs are `A - F, B - G, C - H, D - I, E - J` and players `A, B, C, D, E` win their matches.

What should be the pairs for the second round?

Suggestion #1: `A - C, B - D, E - F, G - I, H - J`
Suggestion #2: `A - D, B - E, C - F, G - I, H - J`

or something else.

It's not a chess tournament, so coloring is not important.

# Answer
There are various Swiss pairing systems. On the assumption that because you are asking in a chess forum you are asking about the most commonly used Swiss pairing systems in the chess world. After your first round you have two scoregroups, each with an odd number of players. That has to be solved either by downfloating from the higher group or upfloating from the lower group.

The FIDE (Dutch) System document is a basically reverse engineered documentation of how FIDE does its pairing, which is why it is hard to read. Here is the relevant line which covers the case you describe:

> A (pairing) bracket is a group of players to be paired. It is composed of players coming from one same scoregroup (called resident players) and of players who remained unpaired after the pairing of the previous bracket.

So, after the first round A, B, C, D, E will be in the "1" scoregroup and F, G, H, I, J will be in the "0" scoregroup.

Pairing of the "1" scoregroup will give A-C, B-D with E unpaired. E will be moved (downfloated) to the "0" scoregroup and paired with the top player in that group, "F", and the remaining players paired against each other according to rank. That will give E-F, G-I and H-J.

Thus, your suggestion #1 is how it would normally be done in the chess world.

It should be noted that there are variations. In England when the ECF uses its own patent method E would be paired against H (middle of the lower group) rather than F (top of the lower group). I don't think there is a pairing program which does this, so most arbiters in England would just use Swiss Manager with normal FIDE pairings.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: tournament, swiss-pairing
---


# Question
Title: Connectivity comparison between chess websites?
I wonder if there has been a test to compare connectivity to the major chess websites. Or whether it is easy to run such a test myself if needed.

Here is what I mean to test:

I am mainly playing on two websites (lichess.org and chess.com) and one one of these it frequently feels like I 'lose' seconds. Maybe it is only 1-5 seconds per time, and only once or twice per game, but still it adds up.

I notice this only on one of these sites which makes me suspect it could be server side rather than my personal wifi and such. However, maybe it is a matter of perception, hence my interest in a benchmark or test.

In case it is relevant:

* In both cases I mostly use the mobile web version from my android phone
* I am located near Amsterdam
* Outside the games I do not notice any slowness on the sites

---

## What have I tried?

I ran the ping app on my phone, actually the site where I notice the weird behavior has lower ping time (but neither of them comes close to 1000ms), so I suspect it may not be a general connection issue but rather something that happens when playing games.

# Answer
You can check your ping on `lichess.org` by going here. For `chess.com`, you can type `/ping` in the chat when playing a game by going here.

A trick to check ping on the `chess.com` app. (Btw, I think it'll be the same on the app and website) Go to New game -\> tournaments -\> Daily -\> Then in the top left you'll get the menu where you can go to Live chess page -\> Type /ping in chat.

Edit: The Live server of `Chess.com` is in the primary data center in California. Following are the approximate ping for the regions on `chess.com`.

* 12 ms for US connections
* 156 ms for European connections
* 145 ms for Asia-Pacific connections

`Lichess's` server is located in France. So, the ping would be lower in European countries and higher in other continents.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: lichess, websites, chess.com
---


title: Why wouldn't the PC take the bishop?

text:
# Question
Title: Why wouldn't the PC take the bishop?
In this scenario, I do not understand why the computer did not do Bxa6.

There could be an argument that he did not want to exchange the pieces, if white follows with Nxa6, but if he does not take the bishop, then in the next turn, white can make Bxa7, making his lose the Bishop for nothing.

What could be the rationale behind this? Only a REALLY dumb bot??

**UPDATE:** I updated the image, because I uploaded a wrong one.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You're playing an engine "rated" 600. It is programmed to play many awful moves.

Here, technically on Bxa6 we have Qa5 and the bishop is pinned to the rook so you're regaining the piece. Nxa6 is coming next. But of course the tactics there continue: O-O! and on Nxa6 black has Rfa8! and once again it is white who is losing the original piece. All of this is way above a 600 level player.

The point still stands though. This bot will play many seemingly random moves that hang a piece (or don't capture a free piece) just to emulate 600 level play.

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: How is it possible for a player without 2500 ELO to obtain the GM title?
I recently came across a GM who has a peak rating 2495 and has obtained the GM title after completing three norms.

From my understanding, in order to become a GM one must

* Achieve a FIDE rating of 2500, and
* Earn three GM norms.

Is this some kind of exception or has the player completed another special requirement that I'm unaware of?

# Answer
> 13 votes
A couple different ways:

1. Winning a tournament like the World Junior or World Senior, which automatically confers a GM title to the winner
2. Having a rating over 2500 after any game. This is to encourage players to finish tournaments where they achieved 2500 rather than dropping out if it's not the last round yet. Without looking too deeply, I would guess that this is the case here.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The regulations for awarding titles are given in FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 January 2022.

There are two routes to getting the GM title:

1. norms and a minimum rating
2. specific results in specific Championship events plus minimum rating

You correctly identify the minimum rating for a GM title via norms of 2500 however "specific results in specific Championship events" is also another route with a different minimum rating.

Here is what FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 January 2022 has to say:

> 0.6 The Award of Titles
>
> 0.6.1 Titles may be awarded for specific results in specific Championship events, or are awarded on achieving a rating as laid down in these regulations. Such titles are confirmed by the QC Chairman on advice from the FIDE Office. They are then awarded by FIDE.
>
> 0.6.2 **For a direct title to be awarded immediately an applicant has to have achieved at some time a minimum rating as follows**:
>
> **GM 2300**
> WGM 2100
> IM 2200 WIM 2000
> FM 2100 WFM 1900
> CM 2000 WCM 1800
> If an applicant is rated lower the title is awarded conditionally and will be awarded finally on request by the respective federation as soon as the minimum rating is achieved. Any player with a conditional title may take a lower title when they reach the required rating for that lower title.
>
> 0.6.3 Titles are also awarded based on applications with norms with a sufficient number of games. These titles shall be awarded by the FIDE Council on recommendation by the QC.

The titles and titles in which they may be gained via "specific results in specific Championship events" are described in Table for Direct Titles effective from 1 July 2017.

The events and positions which can be used to gain the GM title are as follows:

* World Cup - last 16
* Women's world championship - winning the title
* World over 65 championship - winning the title
* World over 50 championship - winning the title
* Continental championship - winning the title

Other events like World U20 and World U18 can give GM norms but not the title itself.

There is also a minimum rating requirement as noted earlier for these direct title awards. For GM that is 2300.

> I recently came across a GM who has a peak rating 2495 and has obtained the GM title after completing 3 norms. ... Is this some kind of exception or has the player completed another special requirement that I'm unaware of?

According to FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 January 2022:

> 1.5.3 To have achieved **at some time** a rating as follows:
>
> GM ≥ 2500

So, the 2500 minimum rating required is a one-time rating which can be after a game in the middle of a tournament. It does not have to be maintained through to the end of the rating period.

---
Tags: fide, rating, elo, grandmaster, norm
---


title: Explanation of Hard Puzzle #34

text:
# Question
Title: Explanation of Hard Puzzle #34
Wikipedia defines a chess tactic as:

> In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves that limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain.

I'm having a hard time understanding a tactic from the app Chess Tactics Pro, namely Hard Puzzle #34:

```
[FEN "6k1/5pp1/P6p/1N6/1P6/2Pn3P/2q1p1P1/1R3R1K w - - 0 1"]

1. Rg1 Nf2+ 2. Kh2 Qe4 3. a7 Kh7 4. Nd4

```

My questions are:

1. Why is this a "tactic"?
2. Which side is playing the "forced" moves? White, Black, both or none?
3. Why does the tactic end at 4. Nd4?

In essence I would like a plain English explanation of this tactic, so that I can understand it.

# Answer
This is actually a complicated position (no wonder it's a "hard puzzle"?).

First, we note that White has a substantial material advantage and unstoppable queenside passed pawns. Black has an advanced passed pawn of his own, but it won't be easy to force through. For example if at some point Black plays ...e1=Q, White responds with Rxe1 Nxe1 Rxe1 Qxe1 a8=Q, then White has a decisive material advantage. So in the current position, White is winning, and Black's best hope is to find some kind of perpetual check.

1. Rg1

Forced move. Should be pretty obvious, since White has nowhere else to put the rook.

1...Nf2+ 2. Kh2

Only legal move.

2...Qe4

This move threatens a draw. It's not obvious how it does so, but we'll see more of this later.

3. a7 Kh7

These moves seem innocuous, but they actually matter. 3. a7 interferes with Black's threat because 4. a8=Q+ forces 4...Qxa8, which leaves White with a decisive material advantage. Accordingly, Black gets out of the upcoming promotion with check.

Now we examine what Black's threat actually is. To do this let's assume White passes with no play.

4. -- e1=Q! 5. Rbxe1 (Rgxe1 is similar, while 5. a8=Q?? hoping for 5...Qxa8?? loses the game after 5...Q1xb1 6. Rxb1 Qxa8.) Qf4+ 6. g3 Qd2.

Black threatens 7...Ng4+ 8. Kh1 Qh2#. White can stop the mate, but cannot stop the perpetual. Let's check out an attempt to do so. 7. Kg2. Only move. 7. Rg2?? Qxe1 8. a8=Q Qh1#. 7...Nd3+ 8. Kf3?? (8. Kh1 Nf2+ 9. Kg2 Nd3+ is a draw by perpetual) 8...Nxe1+ 9. Rxe1 Qxe1 and Black wins because 10. a8=Q is met by 10...Qh1+ skewering the queen.

```
[FEN "8/P4ppk/7p/1N6/1P2q3/2P4P/4pnPK/1R4R1 b - - 1 4"]

1...e1=Q 2. Rbxe1 Qf4+ 3. g3 Qd2 4. Kg2 Nd3+ 5. Kf3 Nxe1+ 6. Rxe1 Qxe1 7. a8=Q Qh1+

```

Hence the puzzle has White play 4. Nd4. Now if Black goes for 4...e1=Q 5. Rbxe1 Qf4+ 6. g3 Qd2, White has 7. Re2 (Rook is defended by Knight), winning.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Let's sort this mess out:

* This is not necessarily the "clearest" example, especially for beginners.
* Q1: Do the moves limit the opponents options? Well, if running away with the rook from the hungry black pawn doesn't count...
* Q1: Does it result in tangible gain? Well, queening the white pawn gives a gain of +7...
* Thus it is a tactic - maybe you thought "tactics" only refer to mate tactics?
* Q2: "Forced" is a matter of definition. As a mathematician, I must say: Since White is winning, only White 's move are forced. Black can play anything without changing the result. Of course Black will try anything that gives White the chance to err!
* So let's sic Stockfish on em: 1.Rg1 is forced, the next best a7 is drawn. A human might think twice since the white king is in danger, and Rg1 takes a flight. But blatant calculation says: ghosts. Now 1...Nf2+ or 1...Kh7 transpose, let's say the variant is forced for Black, by being superior to alternatives (by 2 pawn units - 1...Qa4 and massacre the N, but the a pawn queens immediately.) 2.Kh2 is forced by the rules of chess, that's a different kind of forcing. 2...Qe4 again is a transposition. 3.a7 (+5.7) now is best, but the immediate Nd4 (+2.8) is (probably) enough for a win, so a7 is not forced. But anyone will play that. 3...Kh7 is not forced at all, in any sense. I'd play Qh4 and pray to all demons of patzing that White overlooks the perpetual. Again, 4.Nd4 is not forced (4.g3 - eh, what?) but 4.Ra1 outright throws the win after 4...e1Q! (5.Raxe1 Qf4+ 6.g3 Qd2, 5.Rgxe1 Qf4+ 6.Kg1 Nxh3)
* Q3: And this is the (rather flimsy) reason why the tactic ends at Nd4. Now in the first Qf4+ variant, White simply interposes at e2, in the second, the perpetual is foiled by f3 being guarded. The danger for the king is over, a7 simply queens, if necessary with some attitude adjustment Ra1. Noone could hinder the puzzle makers to add 4...Qa8 which "forces" 5.Ra1 (of course, Nb5 also wins, if you are low on clock, you can repeat a move after 5...Qe4 :-) Best 5...Nd3 and now almost any non-idiotic move wins and forcing is over.
* Takeaway message: "Forced" can have three meanings: forced by chess law, forced by changing the result otherwise, forced by best resistance.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Both sides are forced to a degree. White's rook on f1 has to stay on the back rank to protect the other rook, and g1 is the only safe space.

Both players have pawns that are close to promoting, so Black needs to keep the White pawn from promoting while protecting their own pawn. But as they have no hope of promoting their own pawn, they need to keep up threats so White can't work on promoting their pawn. ...Nf2 does that, and results in Kh2 being forced. From there, there's not much Black can do. Black's knight is too far away to stop the promotion, with it being a queen versus two rooks, guarding the promotion square just means trading the queen for a pawn and a rook, which is losing.

... Kh7 at least keeps the promotion from being with a check, but Nd4 threaten to capture the pawn on e2. If Black responds by capturing the knight, that leaves a8 open for the pawn to promote. And if Black doesn't respond, then White has three passed pawns, while Black has no pawn threats of their own. As long as Black's pawn is on e2, White's options are limited as they need to keep their forces ready to stop a promotion. As soon as that threat is gone, White's forces are free to force a promotion of their own.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chess tactics and chess puzzles aren't synonyms.

A typical online chess puzzle may only have one unique sequence of moves that keeps you ahead. So for this we only need to explain each of the moves separately.

In a puzzle you make a solution against the moves that the opponent plays. So you don't think if the move black plays here are forced. You can think of the moves that black could play.

**1. Rg1**
Rook is attacked, and there is no other option that keeps it and prevents promotion. There also is no clear benefit for saccing it.

**1.. Nf2+ 2. Kh2**
There is no option.

**2.. Qe4. 3. a7**
Now we need to look at alternatives, like why doesn't 3. g3 and then 4. a7 also win?
Well after `3. g3 Qf4+ 4. g3 Qf5` our knight is hanging. 3. a7 keeps black busy because he can't play Qf5 anymore allowing us to check his king.

**3.. Kh7. 4. Nd4**
Now black has prevented our checks and promotion. If we want to force a promotion, we **need to play** Rh1, but can we? After `4. Rh1 Qf4+ 5. g3 Qf5 6. Kh2 Ne4` white is in trouble, this can't be avoided so white just needs a defensive move and that was 4. Nd4.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, problems, tactics, puzzles
---


title: How do you remember mates with names?

text:
# Question
Title: How do you remember mates with names?
I am working on the Yusupov series. In the first book he introduces Anastasia and Arabian among others. What I am a little uncertain about is the following issues.

* How do you remember them?
* How do you classify them?

I guess I am unsure about what defines a mate, especially when they are more vague than smothered/Philidor. Anastasia for example is quite vague. Are all rook+knight mates Arabian mate?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> How do you remember them?

Generally speaking I make no effort to remember their names because they have very little use. In terms of remembering the patterns they are like any tactical motif like forks, pins, skewers, overloading, etc.

> How do you classify them?

Again, except for obscure things like writing a book this is almost useless. Classifying them doesn't help me play better so I don't waste my time trying to do that.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As @Brian Towers said, remembering their names is nearly obsolete. But categorising them may help in recognising them, especially when an individual is new to chess.

To checkout the named mating patterns, explore this link: https://lichess.org/practice

But I would suggest you to consider them as miscellaneous tactics, as there can be many mating patterns possible other than the named ones.

---
Tags: checkmate, memorization
---


title: Can I promote to a queen twice?

text:
# Question
Title: Can I promote to a queen twice?
I am confused about pawn promotion. If I promote two different pawns, can I promote them both to a queen?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Even all 8 of them, if you manage to get them to the opposite back rank. Let's look at the relevant part in the Laws of Chess:

> 3.7e When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’. **The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.** This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

The bold emphasis is my own and probably the important part for resolving your confusion.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Yes you can. When your pawn reaches the other side of the board then you can have it replaced by any piece that you want except for another pawn or king. There is no limit on the number of pieces of the same kind. So in theory you can have 9 queens or 10 rooks :-)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Simply add a “flag” of coloured painter’s tape to the top of the pawn with a letter of designation- Q for queen, K for knight, B for… you get the idea. That’s what we do in Touhy, Nebraska.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes. There are even at least two tournament games that were drawn after *each* side Queened two pawns while their original Queens were still on the board, for a total of 3+3 Queens on the board simultaneously! See the "most queens" entry in https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/records.htm.

# Answer
> 1 votes
To answer your question directly, yes, you can promote to a queen twice (or more) in the same game. Any pawn that makes it to the opposite side of the board can be promoted to a queen. To bring that point home, here is a game where at one point there were six queens on the board:

https://lichess.org/rES8DhJT

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Controlling the center versus occupying the center - What is the difference?
I would like to know if there are any general guidelines which help determine, at what moment to occupy a center square or to just control it? Are there any books or articles that anyone know of which deal with the differences with example?

Also I am trying to understand what is the difference between controlling the center with pawns versus pieces.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Hypermodern theory , or controlling the center from a distance rather than occupying it immediately, came about in the early part of the 20th century as a new way of addressing the old problem of center control. However, as many knowledgeable people have pointed out, it's easier to try to get something from the start rather than giving it away first and then trying to get it back, and hypermodern openings are not seen that often at higher levels of play now. In other words, they don't feel that it's as good as the classical approach of contesting the center immediately, and I would certainly suggest that you first become proficient with those openings before attempting to specialize in hypermodern openings. But books from the early hypermodern period by Reti or Nimzowitsch for example will go into detail about that type of play. I haven't kept pace with what the more modern books on this subject might be. Distant center control is done by fianchettoing the B's on the "b" and "g" files. Attacking the enemy center pawns is done with the "c" and "f" pawns supported generally by the B's. Or you can control the center before your opponent has occupied it with initial prophylactic "c" pawn (Sicilian Defense) or "f" pawn (Dutch Defense) moves. Attacking the center this way would have to be done fairly early before development has been completed and it has been too solidly defended. The rationale is that by diverting/removing the enemy center pawns, you will then be left with the more important center pawns of your own with which to subsequently occupy that area.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I have played both systems and the following is based on my own experience and not from a publication.

There is subtle fact about central pawn pushes. Let me illustrate this with an example. Let us say we want to control the dark squares in the center. Imagine the two cases:

1. **With central pawn push**. With d4 push your Queen has influence on d4 square. (Similarly, if you have a pawn on e4 and a rook on e1, then that rook's influence reaches e4.) Now, if the N appears on its natural square on f3, then you have two hits at the e5 square and two on the d4 square: Q + N (but not the pawn which does not protect itself!)
2. **Without central pawn push**. Suppose we want to obtain the same control on d4 and e5 with non-central pawn pushes and pieces only. I tried the following set-up for the fun of it in my Blitz games (with good result in fact!): 1.f4, followed by Nf3. This achieves the two hits on the e5 square but the d4 square is hit only once, by the N. To add more without a central push, one fianchetos the Bishop. But this takes two more moves: b3 and Bb2. This gives two hits on d4 and three (B, N and pawn on f4) on e5.

So, **central pawn advances bring FASTER control to the central squares from the pieces** (two moves versus 4 moves in the examples).

I have decided for myself that pushing pawns to the center when allowed with either color is often easier to play.\* Other than the reasoning above here are some more advantages that I can think of for pushing pawns in the center as early as possible:

1. Faster development: Bishops open up immediately,
2. Restricting opponent options, (In the above example of 1.f4 Black even has the sacrifice 1.e5 which is very good for them.)
3. Pawn that are in the center themselves control the two squares that they attack,
4. Fianchetoing bishops weaken the pawn structure on the flanks, specially on the side where you will castle.

* Sicilian is an exception to me, although there again I have recently opted to play the Sveshnikov (this e5 push) which despite giving the hole on d5 gives me good control in the center and I found easier to play than say the Najdorff.

---
Tags: pawns, pieces, center
---


# Question
Title: Why do players leave so little time for the last moves?
In almost any chessgame played at a master level under standard time control, after making a few opening moves fast, players spend most of their time on moves 10-30, leaving very little for the last 10 moves before they receive more time.

> What are the reasons for managing time that way?

Of course, I can understand that after you ruin your position, no amount of time can save you from losing, but you can also blunder on moves 30-40, especially if the game is still complicated. Yet I've never heard of a game where players would have spent 15 mins on, say, move 40.

**Update.** Since the answers this question has received so far are highly speculative, let me ask an objective question.

> Have there been tournaments where the additional time the players receive was not after move 40, but after move 30, or move 50? How did they manage their time?

I am aware that long ago there was no time control and that there are events with no additional time, but the whole time is received at the beginning. I am specifically asking for an example when the *first* additional time is received not at move 40, but another time.

# Answer
What strong players *hope* to achieve, in general, is to acquire control of the position during moves 10-30, or if not control, at least clarification of the objectives. Then those last few moves become easier to play. The hope, of course, may not be realized, and so time-trouble ensues.

So why bother? Well, if you don't bother, your opponent may achieve that control, which means that you must constantly make decisions about how to manage your clock. These decisions will depend on how the game seems to be turning out, and how comfortable you feel about being short of time, so, as usual, no easy answers.
> 31 votes

# Answer
Of the three phases of the game, opening, middlegame and endgame, the middle game is the most difficult to play while the opening and the endgame have the most theory.

Even relatively weak players often know the first 10 or 12 moves of their favourite openings. At master level it can be even more than 20 in some lines. In some of the rapid games played at the top level some players have more time on the clock after 20 moves than they did at the start of the game thanks to the increment. This is one benefit of learning opening theory.

At the other end of the game there is endgame theory. Strong masters will have mastered a large range of types of positions where they know what they have to do to win or draw. If they reach one of these positions then the increment is likely to be ample time to win or draw the position.

Even at lower levels players can garner extra points by studying endgames. A few years ago one of my club mates, rated about 1800 at the time, playing in the national university student blitz championships reached a K+N+B vs K endgame with 30 seconds left on the clock. His coach had made him study this endgame and he duly rattled off the win in the remaining time with no problems.

For master level players, therefore, it makes a lot of sense to allocate the majority of their time to the middlegame where the struggle to reach the best endgame makes the most difference.
> 19 votes

# Answer
I agree with answers provided by Philip Roe and Brian Towers. Wanted to add that I believe you have an incorrect assumption in your question.

> In almost any chessgame played at a master level under standard time control, after making a few opening moves fast, players spend most of their time on moves 10-30, leaving very little for the last 10 moves before they receive more time.

I assert that

> It almost any chessgame played at a master level under standard time control the game is clarified by move 30 which leaves plenty of time for the moves before time control.

There is selection bias at work. Games that become simplified do not make the news. This is a key piece to understanding why they play that way, it is not usually an issue.
> 9 votes

# Answer
One takes the time one **must** in order to survive, with chances at least, till the next move. What profit it a player to be lost by move 18 and still have 67 minutes on the clock?

"Clock management" is not about spreading one's time out so much as not wasting it by dithering (as opposed to investigating promising/interesting lines) or trying to force a good outcome to a line that catches one's eye but seems to have no good outcome.

If, however, one saves a minute on move 15 and makes the second, third, etc. best move, there's no tomorrow as the best players usually see and do the line that breaks one. But do not later get careless and blunder queens giving one a miracle chance to get back into the game.

I hate hearing people whine about losing on time. As if they'd've won if only they had twice the time their opponent did. If instead they'd've moved sooner so as to not lose on time with the same time their opponents had, they'd've lost "on the board." Either way, they lost because they weren't as good as their opponent was that day. Hanging on by your fingernails only to fall in the end anyway might make for a better adventure story, but the other guy hung on and you didn't so... you're not the better chess player just somehow done dirty by fate.

An interesting related fact is that by consuming all your time, you often force the opponent to not use his time fully as, of course, you're allowed to think while he thinks. Even at, say, move 35 with you having 28 seconds, he still can't simply do something very complicating so that your hurried moves include a blunder as he must do the same and risk doing the same. So by consuming your own time fully while he holds back you achieve the taking of time from him perhaps to your advantage. Naturally, he CAN stop and take the half hour to think giving up his "advantage" on time, if he must to avoid catastrophe, but players don't seem to do so.

Since the literal hallmark of "the best" players is that their moves build situations in which, say, ten things are going on as each player tries to finally overtax his opponent's ability to respond... literally building to be the one who moves the "straw that broke the camel's back"... it is not surprising they must spend excess time earlier when there would seem to be more chances for such. But it's not the complexity itself that requires it. It is the fact that stinting on thinking then means no game later. One must reach his 22nd birthday to reach is 73rd birthday.
> 6 votes

# Answer
This has to do with the additional time after a period or specific move number and the evaluation of the position.

In the current grand prix tournament it has a TC of 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

First if position is better then there is no need to spend too much time compared to when the position is not good. If position is bad a player will use almost all its time for the given period (up to move 40) to try to equalize or make it difficult for the opponent to increase its advantage. The player will not worry about lower time left in the period because there is additional time of 30m after move 40. The same is true when position is drawish, a player will use most of its time in the period to try to get an advantage. The more time you spent analyzing the position the probability of making optimal moves will be higher.

I took the games in the FIDE Grand Chess Prix 2 All Pools 2022 from chess.com, the games have clock info which can be converted to time left in seconds. Below are scatter plots for for win, loss and draw results.

**Plot 1, win**
Every dot is a position, here we can see that the max time left is at move 17 and is bigger than the initial time left. This is because of opening preparation (moving fast) and for a fact that the increment per move is 30s. Notice the time left from moves 25 to 40, generally when a player has the advantage, time left is higher compared to plots 2 and 3.

**Plot 2, loss**
A losing position demands a lot of time. Time pressure is felt as early as move 20.

**Plot 3, draw**

**Time per move against move number**
The shaded area is the confidence interval at 95% level. High time per move is around move 10 to 22. The losing side starts to spent more time early. Drawn games generally spent lesser time, presumably because players are familiar of the position or they see how to draw the game.

**All 3 legs**
> 4 votes

# Answer
> you can also blunder on moves 30-40

You can, you can blunder on any move. The thing is, outside of blunders, if you can get your opponent on the proverbial ropes by the end of the midgame then your endgame can be relatively routine and just following the motions.

The allocation of time isn't to account for blunders so much as to allocate "thinking time" to the parts of the game where it can make the most difference.

In the early game, you're mostly just setting your formation up for the midgame; maybe taking a couple of pieces here and there, depending on what your opponent does.

The midgame is where you fight for control of the board, once you have control it's a case of capitalising on it.

In the endgame you're either fighting to survive after a lousy midgame or finishing your opponent off. Fighting to survive does require more thought, but with a successful midgame you won't be fighting to survive.

So, whether it's as clear cut as moves 10-30 or not, concentrating your "thinking time" on the midgame makes sense.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: time-management
---


# Question
Title: Can FIDE rated open tournaments have games played without chess clocks?
So there was this FIDE rated tournament with 750+ participants and the last boards games were played without clocks. This was probably due to shortage of clocks. Anyway the last boards were occupied almost all by kids who are probably very new to chess (know how to move pieces and probably doesn't how to use a chess clock) so it might have no effect that no clocks were used.

The rest of the games were played with 90 minutes+ 30s increment/move. The FIDE tournament report mention says `Time Control Standard: 90 minutes with 30 second increment from move 1`.

My question is if this is allowed by FIDE rules to have games played without clocks for FIDE rated events.

# Answer
> if this is allowed by FIDE rules to have games played without clocks for FIDE rated events

The answer is that, yes, this is allowed. FIDE used to rate tournaments not games but for many years now that has been reversed and FIDE rates games not tournaments. So, individual games that are played by FIDE registered players using clocks in an event which has been registered for FIDE rating will be rated by FIDE and games that do not satisfy all the necessary criteria will not be rated.

Normally it is the responsibility of the chief arbiter and the federation responsible to only supply valid data to FIDE. That is, the games which don't qualify for FIDE rating should not be reported in the TRF16.

The part of FIDE which is responsible for ratings is the Qualification Commission and as you can see from the link the current chairmen is Bermudan Nick Faulks.

Here is Nick commenting on another matter (what happens when the arbiter repairs two players whose opponents didn't turn up but gives them less time than for the competition as a whole) in the English Chess Forum in 2013 making the point that FIDE rates games individually.

> At first I was puzzled by this discussion. **FIDE rates games individually**, so a game is a game. But how do you report it? In a given round, AvB is 1-0 def, CvD is 1-0 def, but then the game AvC takes place. What has happened? If that game, because it starts late, is played under a faster time control, that may also be a problem. I don't know the answers.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Is attacking the kingside with White when Black kind-of plays the King Indian's defense setup a valid gameplan?
So recently I played an online blitz game with White (you can find the game here and the analysis here)

```
[White "LetMeWinPls45"]
[Black "Nord1970"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. c4 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. Be3 Nc6 6. Qd2 Nf6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O-O
e6 9. Bh6 Ne7 10. Bxg7 Kxg7 11. f3 d6 12. g4 c5 13. d5 exd5 14. cxd5 Nc8 15. h4
Ne7 16. h5 gxh5 17. gxh5 Ng6 18. hxg6 fxg6 19. Qh6+ Kf7 20. Nh3 Rg8 21. Ng5+ Ke8
22. Nxh7 Nxh7 23. Qxh7 Rf8 24. e5 dxe5 25. Bxg6+ Rf7 26. Qxf7# 1-0

```

Now, this is what I'm talking about when I say "attacking the kingside". Trade the fianchetto bishop and storm the kingside with pawns. If I can trade the h pawn, my rook and queen can team up on h6, the knight can jump to g5 to put an eye on h7, and the bishop on e3 is always putting an eye on g6-h7

I heard (though do not remember exactly) that Levy Rozman (a.k.a GothamChess) suggests this for White when Black plays this kind-of the King Indian's defense setup.

But I also heard some theory saying that Black is the one who should storm the kingside and White should storm the queenside instead.

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of attacking the kingside? And is it a good game plan?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Generally speaking a kingside pawn storm only makes sense when your opponent castles kingside. In that case your opponent's best course of action, according to classical theory, is a counter attack in the center.

With that in mind the reason your attack succeeded was because your opponent was playing some kind of "formula" chess instead of paying attention to your moves and adapting plans accordingly.

Castling kingside after you advertised your intentions by lining up your queen and bishops against the kingside was dumb as a rock. Castling should have been delayed or planned on the queenside instead.

The second major error your opponent made was to leave themselves with no central breaks to challenge your central control. The knights on c6 and f6 ruled out pawn moves c6 and f6 as preparation for d5 or e5 or even c5 or f5 directly. Also the the d and e pawns stayed home. Fianchettoes like this have to be used in conjunction with central pawn breaks to challenge white's large center.

The KID proper requires an early d6 preparing either c5 or e5. Completely neglecting the center as your opponent did is an invitation to quick defeat. When black plays the KID and launches a kingside attack it is usually in conjunction with an early e5 followed up by moving the Nf6 out of the way and playing f5 supported by the bishop on c8. The double fianchetto played here makes no sense.

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: How to place certain pieces on a 4x4 chess board without any of them attacking each other?
How to place 2 bishops and 7 knights on a 4x4 chessboard without any of them attacking other pieces?

There are no other restrictions.

# Answer
This is not possible.

Proof: Consider all the possible configurations where there are 8 knights and 0 bishops and then see if it is possible to remove one knight and place two bishops on empty, unattacked squares.

In the top left diagram only the knights on b1, b4, c1 and c4 can be replaced with bishops. But although you can replace one of these knights with a bishop you cannot place another bishop on the board because all the empty squares are attacked. Hence if you place 7 knights on the board then you can place at most one bishop. You can replace two knights with bishops but then you have only 6 knights and no more knights can be placed.

Note that only with the top left and the rotated equivalent at the middle bottom can replace a knight with a bishop. In all the other cases replacing a knight with a bishop will leave a knight attacked.

For this I found out possible combinations to have 8 unattacked knights and there were 6 (less than 6 if symmetry considered). Notice how each unoccupied square is attacked by 2 knights. So you are only free to remove 1 knight to occupy a bishop. But then you have no squares left for a 2nd bishop
> 2 votes

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: How to discourage distracting behaviour by a teenager?
I’m showing a 12 year old male how to play chess. While he has amazing abilities, he plays with the captured pieces, jumps around, leans over the board, knock pieces over that are still on the board. Yes, distracting but what can I best say to him that would motivate him to learn the importance of not distracting an opponent?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Anybody who has taught boys of this age will recognize some form of attention deficit disorder in this behaviour. To some extent this is only minimally in the child's control. No explanation or instruction you can give will change this to any extent.

The standard response is to medicate with Ritalin however this is not something I would condone. All of my sons were "diagnosed" with ADD by teachers at their schools. They were right about one of them but in no case would I or my wife agree to medication.

What worked with the son who probably really did have ADD was more exercise, a lot more exercise. He ended up in the town swimming team swimming something like 20 hours a week at his peak. At that level of physical activity the ADD behaviour pretty much disappeared. He just didn't have the energy.

---
Tags: beginner, etiquette
---