# Question
Title: Would an ensemble of chess engines beat the best one?
In many areas such as prediction and classification, ensemble methods tend to outperform individual methods. This made me wonder if it would make sense to pick a few of the top chess engines and work with them together to make a stronger one.

Let us assume the total amount of hardware is fixed to what people use for typical benchmarks, and that the time is fixed as well. In addition, we would not be changing the engines themselves to work together, but just making a wrapper around them that they are practically unaware of.

Hence my refined question:

# How hard would it be to beat the number 1 engine in the world, by an ensemble of engines with fair resources?

# Answer
> 25 votes
The answer is "No".

If you have a defined fixed set of resources - CPUs, memory, cache, etc. - and you allow one engine to have full use of them then that engine is going to be able to analyse to a greater depth than if you take the same set of resources and split them in some way between several different engines. Inevitably the single engine analysing to a greater depth is going to perform better than several engines analysing to a much lesser depth.

# Answer
> 16 votes
No, an ensemble of chess engines won't beat the best one. The reason is simply because of hardware.

Let's take the strongest CPU engines right now to keep things simple. These are Stockfish, Komodo, Leela-CPU, Ethereal, Fire, and rofChade. Stockfish is the strongest. You have a four-core computer, running Stockfish. It's expected to beat all the other engines in a match on the same hardware.

If on the same four-core computer, you also simultaneously run Komodo, Leela-CPU, etc, then you are not just running inferior software, you are running inferior software on inferior hardware (because these engines will compete with each other for the same 4-cores). Therefore the ensemble loses.

It's true that each engine has its own strengths and weaknesses, but to fully exploit this, you need a human to look at the principal variations of each engine and select between them. This is why a human with access to all the engines is expected to outperform Stockfish alone in a correspondence chess match. But doing this requires human intervention; it doesn't work with engines only. You could conceivably write code that distinguishes between which engine is stronger in the current position, and this has been attempted, but it was never able to decisively beat the two original engines.

You are better off letting the best engine only play.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Though I am not able to test it myself, I am confident of the following conclusion:

## An ensemble of engines should be able to beat the strongest individual engine

Here are my key assumptions:

* Given typical time controls used for benchmarks, the time 'lost' by having a thin pre-evaluator before the engines would be negligible. As such we can say that the engines in the ensemble will effectively have the same sum of resources as the top engine.
* Suppose the ensemble would want to run two engines at the same time, it would be able to give each of them half the resources.
* Suppose the ensemble would want to run engines consecutively, it would be able to give each engine the full resources. The ramp-up time is assumed to be small enough if this is only done a few times during a game (but prohibitive if this would be done every move).

Also note that the ensemble would be able to contain a copy of the strongest engine itself. At time of writing the engines following the strongest engine are not far behind so this is not a critical point, but otherwise it would become a question of 'how much rating would an ensemble gain over its strongest member' which is significantly harder.

## Scenario 1: Engines are stronger in different phases of the game

An easy 'win' here would be if one engine had a stronger (interaction with) an opening book, and another with an engame tablebase. However, even assuming all engines can use the best resources in these area with equal efficiency, then it is still commonly said that certain engines are 'strong in the opening' or 'good at endgames'.

Let me make an additional assumption here:

* I assume that engines that are good at a certain phase, do not have a strong dependency on other phases to realize this.

So, the engine that would be good at endgames would not only be good at endgames it reached itself, but also at endgames that were reached by another engine.

### Most straightforward solution: Identify a phase of the game, and let that be played by the engine which is strongest at it

In case we just distinguish between opening and endgame it would be trivial to define a wrapper for this, and there would be about 1 switch per game. Of course this could be extended if you have an engine which is 'great at pawn endgames' or 'very good at positional games' but at that point it would already become harder to identify which engine to choose without using significant resources.

## Scenario 2: Engines can find critical continuations for critical moves

This scenario is what I was originally curious about. However, based on my assumptions the most straightforward way to get the opinion of several engines would be to let them run in parallel. Suppose we just use an ensemble of two engines given half the resources, then they would both be a bit weaker, let us make another assumption based on some references.

* In a typical setting strength scales logarithmic to the available resources, and halving them reduces engine strength by 50-100 elo

Now that is significant, honestly it may be too much. Suppose we just put two engines against eachother with a 70 elo difference, the expected value would be about 60-40. That is a lot to make up for, but though I was unable to find any data on this, it may still be possible. Basically this just needs to result in 1 brilliant move or 1 averted blunder to swing an entire game. It would not be trivial to decide which engine to listen to on each move, but as engines typically can output some basic statistics (like their evaluation of all possible moves, and how deep they checked each one) it would probably not be too hard to make a reasonable and still lightweight decision.

### Possible alternate solution: Run engines in parallel and pick the best move each time.

Again this could be extended, a simple way would be to have 3 engines, and pick the move that 2 of them give, but I am not sure if splitting the resources even thinner would be worth it. Another interesting idea might be to give the strongest member of the ensemble the most resources, and have it being sanity checked by the member which is best at this. In this case the main engine might only lose 10 elo points due to reduced resources so 'making up for it' could be a lot easier. But again, it will remain tricky to select the right move.

A final thought would be if engines use CPU and GPU, then perhaps the strenght of individual engines may not scale down too much in each of these resources, so a mix where engine one gets 80cpu+20gpu and engine2 gets 20cpu+80gpu may leave the individual engines nearly as strong as when they had full resourses.

# Conclusion

Especially when engines can be run one at a time, it should be able to get better performance, though there must also be ways to get better outcomes by running multiple in parallel. However, this is not trivial.

Taking the ensemble concept really to the next level would likely be possible with small changes in the engines, for example not only providing the expected value of a score, but also how confident they feel about their evaluation.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Nope, at some point a legal move is selected as best move. Who ever makes that decision can't be better than the best engine. Otherwise there is a new best engine.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The answer is more complicated than you want to try to make it. Any definitive "yes" or "no" answer begs the questions of the conditions of the match, the hardware used, and the difference in strength of the players involved. Instead of answering your question directly, here I plan to go through the thought processes needed which guide the creation of a particular kind of ensemble engine which would be able to beat the "strongest" engine. The alternative is actually answering your question, which in my experience no one actually *knows* the answer to.

Also, if you're not familiar with the open source Leela Chess Zero (Lc0) Neural Network (NN) engine, that should be your first topic of investigation. It was inspired by the infamous well-marketed, closed source, unavailable to the general public, and was the icebreaker for the Neural Network techniques AlphaZero (A0), which has some papers that you also might want to explore to understand.

Neural networks have introduced new frontiers which previously have only been roughly explored for the past 10-15 years. Only in the past 3 years have they become adequate to be able to "beat" old approaches which involve human programmed chess-specific evaluations, and heuristic driven alpha-beta search, like the open source engine Stockfish. Given that the hardware requirements for pure neural network engines are more Graphics Card-oriented while the requirements for an engine like Stockfish are CPU-oriented, hardware is a huge factor in making your ensemble.

When you finally have settled down on what hardware you've decided to use, then you can think about which engines are strongest by testing them out. After that, you need to code an approach to ensemble which engines you want to use to try to beat it. Keep in mind that many of today's engine's strength rely very heavily on their search, so any diversion of resources from deep search will limit your ensemble's search depth.

A Leela (but technically not Leela Chess "Zero" since it is using non-"Zero human knowledge" games) network named "Antifish" was brought to life, which was trained on several millions of Leela games and Stockfish games. Hypothetically, the network would "know" how to beat Stockfish since it has seen many of the games which involve Stockfish showing weakness. Antifish may be "stronger" against Stockfish, but does not compare the same way strength-wise against engines of a similar kind like Komodo and Ethereal. Also, the network hypothetically performs better relative to Stockfish at less time given since the training set was highly polluted with Stockfish blunders at lower time controls. Antifish may have once performed well against Stockfish, however it is out of date and potentially is weaker. Antifish is what we call an "adversarial" network, specifically trained to exploit weakness in Stockfish at lower time controls, and even though it may be stronger than certain versions of Stockfish, it is not "objectively better" (debatable term) at chess in general.

I bring this up because it is possible that we could use Leela's Antifish NN at the root of search just to help guess what some other Leela network should start searching. To my knowledge, this "network ensemble" has not been done yet, and the resulting engine may actually be able to beat Stockfish better even though Antifish and the other network we might use could be weaker.

Also, there is a fork of Lc0 that allows an "auxengine" to suggest moves to Lc0. "Leelafish" is technically an ensemble of both Stockfish and Lc0, and actually could be stronger than its parts. It is a work in progress currently and communication between the two engines only goes one way.

In essence, ensembling engines could lead to something stronger, or it could not. But what is important to note that any conglomeration of engine suggestions or two-way communication between engines costs computational resources, and that cost could be too high. It might just be better to merge every good idea into a single engine, technically no longer making it an "engine ensemble."

# Answer
> 3 votes
# Yes

If the engines are *learning* engines, rather than stateless deterministic evaluators, then I think it is obvious that an ensemble would be stronger, for the same reason that I think a team of human chess players will, on average, beat all of the individuals in the team in a matchup. The hard part is deciding which move to use when multiple engines produce an answer. For this to work, I think the engines would need to offer a move, a score, and a *confidence value*. You would then choose the move with the highest score * confidence product.

# Rationale

Ensemble methods are common in machine learning circles because it is nearly impossible to produce an optimal algorithm for every possible scenario. It is much better to train likely scenarios and let sub-algorithms (like, a forest of decision trees, for instance) specialize on subsets of the scenarios with good generalization properties.

Clearly, AlphaZero is better than all other engines thus far, but note that it is a kind of jack-of-all-trades. What if someone tried to train "specialist" variants of AlphaZero which focus on particular strategies, even at the expense of not being the strongest general player? Remember that AlphaZero has not and cannot possibly explore the majority of the chess space, because that is infeasible. And its play style is ultimately guided by the luck of the plays it has already encountered. It is possible that a more narrowly focused algorithm could beat it if it could force a game state which AlphaZero rarely played, but it played many times. Now, repeat this for a large number of "specialists", and you then have a team of experts that can activate based on a variety of board states. Individually, they would all be worse than AlphaZero over a large number of games, but collectively, they could beat it because over a narrow set of games, they might consistently beat it (even if they themselves were mere instantiations of AlphaZero, but with a different training regimen).

In this architecture, each specialist would know how much it "likes" the current board state, and would use that to determine its "confidence" in the proposed move. This would cause the specialist with the most experience in the current board state to generally control the game.

From a computational complexity perspective, the ensemble would be smarter because it stores more information than the solo system, so it has more weights to optimize over a broader swath of the game space. This is obviously not a rigorous argument, by any means, but perhaps it is helpful.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Will note that engine strength is not strictly transitive, as in A\<B, B\<C, but "not A\<C" is consistent. Minimax is the strongest "engine" by brute-force, and as such we assume your question does not include minimax. As such it is unclear what is meant by "number 1 engine".

On the other hand, it is relatively trivial to produce an engine ensemble using *strictly weaker* engines, that, as an ensemble, is *strictly stronger*.

Let ***S*** denote a strong engine. Let ***V*** denote an engine that is marginally (but consistently) stronger than ***S***. Let ***O*** denote an engine that makes the same moves as ***V***, but strongly blunders the opening. We can define a similar ***M*** for the middlegame, and a ***E*** for endgame.

Note that an equally weighted ensemble of {***O***, ***M***, ***E***} is equal to ***V***, but ***V*** is stronger than ***S***, so the ensemble is stronger than ***S***. Also note that each of ***O***, ***M***, ***E*** are weaker than ***S***, so the ordering of strength is satisfied.

Note that the strict definition of "opening, middlegame, endgame" does not matter, as long as "regular progression" is maintained, and most critically, is well-defined. Note that the requirement of ***S*** being "marginally better" than ***V*** is such that for each of ***O***, ***M***, ***E*** in isolation, we can still expect the "blundering move" of each engine to be made, since the transition into each stage of the game is to be expected for engines of similar strength.

Obviously, it is problematic to define an engine which is "number one" but includes a clause of "stronger than number one" in its definition, but the point being is that in the space of engines with respect to strength (given some board position), transitivity of strength is not a total order, and thus several arguments in response to the original question above are not strictly correct.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It depends on the parallelizability of the best chess engine. If the engine has not be implemented to efficiently run on many distributed computers and coordinate the results, then an alternative engine could theoretically exploit that.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, elo, leela
---


# Question
Title: Are there any websites that I can gamble (with fiat/real money, or cryptocurrencies) in chess?
Where can I play chess online for fiat/real money?

# Answer
> 2 votes
playchess.com has its own currency called ducats.
1 ducat = 0.1 euro
You will have a hard time finding an opponent willing to play for ducats though.

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: How can I get a collection of chess games with a 'Greek gift' sacrifice?
I would like to make a collection of chess games that feature the 'Greek gift' sacrifice. There are few games on chessgames.com annotated with this sacrifice. I could find blogs with individual examples of games with this type of sacrifice (example: , , , , , and ); however they are not in a readily downloadable format.

Is there a collection of games that feature this sacrifice? If not, is there any way I can search for and get collections of games featuring this sacrifice using a chess database like SCID?

# Answer
Something which might help here is Chess Query Language. Just like SQL does for relational databases, CQL can search in a database of chess games for positions/games which match certain criteria.

I must say I have never used it myself, but it seems to be capable of amazing things, far more complex than what you're looking for. Here is an old article showing a few beautiful studies Tim Krabbé was able to find with the help of CQL.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Thank you @Glorfindel . I didn't know about Chess Querry Language. It is indeed a wonderful tool. Going through basic syntax of CQL from their website, I came up with the following script and method that can pick out "Greek gift sacrifice" by either black or white from any `pgn` database. I provide an example below using a UNIX system.

First, download a pgn database of your interest (`example.pgn`).

Second, using a text editor save the following script as a text file `greek_gift.cql` with the extension `.cql`.

```
cql (input example.pgn)
flipcolor flip
next (Bh7
      kh7)

```

Keep the executable `cql` program (downloaded from the CQL website), the cql file `greek_gift.cql` and the input pgn file `example.pgn` in the same folder.

Open the terminal and navigate to the folder.

Execute the command `./cql greek_gift.cql`.

A new pgn file `greek_gift-out.pgn` will be generated in the same directory. Note that this will contain games with Bh7 sacrifice by white as well as Bh2 sacrifice by black, followed by capture by the opponent king.

I am not a programmer; please edit the script if anybody thinks there is an error.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1. in chesstempo's recent tag update (2021Oct), you can find greek gift in their tags
2. in lichess you can try kingside attack or queenside attack
> 1 votes

---
Tags: database, bishops, sacrifice, cql, greek-gift
---


title: How do I learn Chess Programming?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I learn Chess Programming?
Basically I have seen that people write a lot of chess algorithms, and ask questions in this forum, which I fumble to answer appropriately. I see the code, but unable to make out whether it is correct or not?

I am myself a software professional, but I am unfamiliar with chess algorithms, or coding-related stuff. Could you please help me to suggest where I can learn these things, or I will get the explanations ?

# Answer
How you would approach the problem:

* Check out chessprogramming.wikispaces.com. This'll be your reference site.
* Create an account at talkchess.com. All the best engine developers are there. If there's an engine question that you can't find an answer there, you won't find it anywhere else.
* Check out the TSCP engine source code. TSCP is a simpler but working implementation chess engine. Easier to read than Stockfish.
* Do something. Try to write a chess board generator. Check the reference sites above. Study how TSCP does it.
* Compare your PERF results with https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Perft
* Write a simple position evaluation with materials only. Copy the PST table from TSCP or the chessprogramming site.
* Write a simple nega-max and alpha-beta search.
* Read about UCI protocol
* Add transposition table
* Add simple null-move pruning
> 11 votes

# Answer
If you want to check a very simple chess engine written in C (even simpler than TCSP) and beginners oriented you can take a look at Secondchess:

https://github.com/emdio/secondchess
> 0 votes

# Answer
Here are some of my favorite references:

* Bruce Moreland's Site \- Clear descriptions of basic chess programming ideas. It doesn't get into the nitty-gritty, but it's a great reference for understanding the high-level ideas.
* ICE Chess Blog \- Someone documenting his journey to creating an engine from scratch. It's good for details if you can find the blog post you're looking for.
* Chess Programming Wiki \- Basically an encyclopedia of chess programming. IMO the explanations aren't suitable for beginners, but it covers basically everything under the sun.
* Chess Algorithms \- A book on chess algorithms written for beginners. DISCLAIMER: I am the author. I hope this does not break any rules regarding self-promotion, especially given that 1. this exactly answers the question 2. it is available for free and 3. I have given my other favorite references.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn't greek gift work in Pozsonyi vs Pataki 2005? Or does it?
original game. i'm asking about **move 21**.

```
[Event "Ch Hungary (team) 2005/06"]
[Site "HUN"]
[Date "2005.12.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Istvan Pozsonyi"]
[Black "Gyozo Pataki"]
[Result "0-1"]

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

1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 c6 3. e3 Bf5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. c4 e6 6. Be2 h6 7. O-O Nbd7 8. d3 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Qc2 Bh7 11. Bc3 Bd6 12. Qb2 Qe7 13. b4 e5 14. a4 Rfe8 15. b5 d4 16. exd4 exd4 17. Nxd4 c5 18. Rfe1 cxd4 19. Bxd4 a6 20. Bc3 axb5 21. axb5 Rxa1 22. Qxa1 Bxd3 0-1

```

Below is my modified version starting **move 21**. See for yourself in engine. I think greek gift works. But I didn't let the engine run to 30/99 depth or anything. Of course the original is 4 points better (modified is only 2 points up. Original is 4 points up).

**Question**: Am I wrong in thinking that greek gift works i.e. black still has an advantage?

```
[Event "chess stackex 2021/10"]
[Site "HUN"]
[Date "2021.10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Istvan Pozsonyi (mod)"]
[Black "Gyozo Pataki (mod)"]
[Result "0-1"]

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

1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 c6 3. e3 Bf5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. c4 e6 6. Be2 h6 7. O-O Nbd7 8. d3 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Qc2 Bh7 11. Bc3 Bd6 12. Qb2 Qe7 13. b4 e5 14. a4 Rfe8 15. b5 d4 16. exd4 exd4 17. Nxd4 c5 18. Rfe1 cxd4 19. Bxd4 a6 20. Bc3 axb5 21. axb5 Bxh2+ 22. Kxh2 Rxa1 23. Qxa1 Bxd3 24. Bxd3 Qxe1 25. Qxe1 Rxe1

```

From chesstempo:

> the only problem with the greek gift in this position is that it’s too much gift and not enough greek. that bishop isn’t that pinned.

# Answer
As you've shown in your analysis, the line after ...Bxh2 does indeed give Black a decisive advantage. However, Black also has a completely winning position without going for ...Bxh2, so why bother calculating the complications when there's an easy way to have a good advantage?
> 4 votes

# Answer
What's the point of the Greek Gift? Do you gain anything by decoying the White king to h2? If not (and I don't see any gain; in fact you lose a little since the final ...Rxe1 does not come with check), there's no need to give up the bishop; you might as well play 21...Rxa1.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You ask why it doesn't work. To make things simpler, we move Pd3 to e3 such that all tactics in the e-file become a nonissue. When does Bxh2+ work anyway? The standard conditions (obviously there may be myriads of concrete alterations when it works a different way than standard) requires:

* A: You get your knight to g4.
* B: You get your queen to h4 (or maybe d6 or whatnot).
* C: Either those two mate the king on their own with Qh2 etc., or Black has reserves.

Here A is already violated - the wB can take on g4, thus any Bxh2+ tactics must rely on the pin in the e-line, and *that*, as we already saw, can be exploited much easier. No chance for Bxh2 with Pe3. Thus we can say:

Bxh2 works, but in a non-standard way. But White must try to play Nf3 (why throw the rook into the bin) with the intent to hand back the pin to Black, get the B back with Nd4 and cut the losses to a pawn. Now Bxh2+ nets a second pawn as the Q can unpin the bBe2 with check, and incidentally, White gets into dire mating straits. (The whole line, which I didn't computer-check: 21...Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Bxd3 23.Nf3!? Bxe2 24.Nd4 Bxh2+! 25.Kxh2 Ng4+ followed by Qh4 or Qg5, depending on where the wK goes. *This* line is more or less Greek Gift.) If you play Bxh2+ first and Bxd3 later, then a White Bxd3 cuts the losses in the sense that Black just needlessly gave a B for a P in comparison to the Bxd3 first variant, as already pointed out in the other answers.

I hope I made clear why this is a rather nonstandard Bxh2 issue. For the standard one (including elaborating on my simplified ABC) there exists tons of teaching material giving you a hint when it usually works and when not.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, sacrifice, pins, greek-gift
---


title: Why does Stockfish suggest h4 here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish suggest h4 here?
Analyzing my latest game on chess.com, Stockfish says that h4 is the best move here:

I followed the line, but I failed to understand the reasoning of this move. Is it for some long-term advantage? Also, should the enemy bishop be left to stay there?

# Answer
The main idea is to try to trap the c2-bishop. After h4 White is threatening to play Rc1 and black can't save the bishop. That's why black should play ...h5 giving their bishop a retreat square. Note that if h4 h6, then there is Bxh6 and c2 is hanging.
> 28 votes

# Answer
Trapping the bishop on c2 is a possibility, but it helps you develop your pieces for a general attack, depending on your opponent's moves. It adds threats that tie up enemy pieces defending and moves the attack to the enemy.

```
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1p3/4P3/2BP2P1/5N1P/PPbBQ3/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. h4 h5 2. Ng5 Be7 3. Qf2 Bg6

```

Following the engine line (which you can see in analysis on chess.com), black moves the pawn to h5 to give the bishop on c2 a retreat. That gives an outpost for your knight on g5. It's always nice to have a knight on a protected square in enemy territory. Your queen can slide over to f3. This forces the bishop on c2 back to g6 to protect the pawn on f7 which is being attacked by your queen and knight (or the rook over from h8 to f8 to protect it).

If it didn't get some extra protection, there are two possible attacks which the king couldn't protect. You could move the queen there to deliver check and force the king to d7. Then the queen could take the pawn on g7 and threaten the rook. You'd be up two pawns and have the queen deep in enemy territory. The other attack is even better though. You could take the pawn with your knight which would fork the black queen and rook. Black would have to move the queen and you could take the rook. Then you could bring the queen in if you want.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What is the mean and standard deviation for men's and then women's standard FIDE ratings for those 2000 and above?
From this answer, the unconditional means and standard deviations are

**Female**
Mean = 1505, standard deviation = 339

**Male**
Mean = 1675, standard deviation = 346

What about the case for ratings of 2000+ ?

Let's do...

1. preferably for as of...Apr2021, same month as the above computations, if it's hard to repeat the above for as of Sep2021 and then
2. as of Sep2021 if it's not so hard to repeat above Apr2021 computations for Sep2021?

(Basically E\[X|X=\>2000\] and square root of Var\[X|X=\>2000\])

And actually while we're at it may we please also see these?

1. 1900 up?
2. 1800 up?
3. 1700 up?
4. 1600 up?
5. 1500 up?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Using the April 2021 FIDE data:

Rating Range Female Mean/Standard Deviation Male Mean/Standard Deviation
1500+ F 1817/213, M 1870/230
1600+ F 1879/188, M 1919/207
1700+ F 1940/163, M 1972/184
1800+ F 2004/137, M 2030/162
1900+ F 2062/114, M 2091/141
2000+ F 2116/100, M 2156/122

Note that for females 1500+ basically corresponds to the top half of the normal curve whereas for males it includes a significant chunk (about half a standard deviation) of the lower half

---
Tags: rating, fide, statistics, elo, women
---


# Question
Title: How is c4 the best move in this position?
```
[FEN "rn2r1k1/pp2qpp1/3b1nbp/2pp4/6PP/1B1PBP2/PPPQNK2/RN2R3 b KQkq - 0 14"]

```

14... c4 15. dxc4 Nxg4+

I set up the above position in Stockfish and the initial analysis was that `c4` was the best move. After some time it changed its evaluation and gave `Nc6`

I am trying to understand the idea behind the continuation `C4`, It looks like a pawn loss and a waste of tempo, If the plan is to sacrifice the Knight, why not just sacrifice it at move 14?(move 1 in the above position?) instead of wasting the pawn then "sac" the Knight?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The position is very advantageous for Black anyway, but there are two points in including 14...c4 15.dc4 before sacrificing the knight:

* Deflecting the wPd3 give access to e4 to Black pieces if White plays fg4. Especially the Bg6 will gladly join the mating attack.
* Since Black Pd5 will be undefended after the knight departure, it is worth preventing any Bxd5 by White : the bishop there would be excellently placed in the center, defending h1/g2/f3 on one diagonal and attacking f7 on the other. A White pawn on d5 (after a possible cxd5) will be much less annoying, threatening nothing and blocking the Bb3.
* At any moment, Black can drag the white Bishop to the unprotected square c4, where it might become a target to horizontal attacks by the queen. E.g., if 14...c4 15.dc4 Nxg4 16.fg4 Qh4 17.Kf1 Qh3 \[simply 17...Be4 must already be winning\] 18.Kf2 Qh2 19.Kf1, then 19...dc4 20.Bxc4 Qh3 21.Kf2 Qxg4 is a pattern to take into account even if it also exposes the Bd6 on the d-file.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Why is the immediate ...d5 in the 4. d3 Italian not played?
The line may seem suspicious at first, but after a few precise moves (some may say artificial moves) by Black an interesting middlegame position is reached.

I did some analysis on my own and probably the strongest line for White is the early Bb5 line, but even there an interesting, unbalanced game arises.

From my analysis, Black eventually reaches equality (at least practically). I use "!" to mark moves that make the variation work.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 d5!? 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. O-O Nb6! {Not an excellent move, but a key move for the variation. Now the Queen does not have to defend the knight and is allowed to go to e7} 7. Bb3 {This natural move is the most played} (7. Bb5 {Is the critical continuation. White is pressuring e5} Bd6 8. Bxc6+ {Eliminating the defender first is the most precise way to win the pawn on e5} (8. Nxe5 Bxe5 9. Re1 {This plan does not win a pawn} O-O 10. Bxc6 Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Qd6+ 12. Kg1 Qxc6)(8. Re1 f6 9. d4 O-O 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Nxe5 fxe5 12. Nc3 Bf5 13. Ne4 Bb4 14. c3 Qxd1 15. Rxd1 Be7 16. Re1 Rad8) 8... bxc6 9. Nxe5 Bxe5 10. Re1 {This line requires some artificial solution from Black} Qe7 11. f4 Bd4+ 12. Kh1 Be6 13. f5 O-O 14. fxe6 Nd5) 7... Bg4! {Indirectly defending e5, disallowing Ng5 and paving the road for long castle by Black} 8. h3 Bh5 9. Re1 Qe7! {This move looks rather artificial but it protects e5 and allows the king to leave the center, which is under pressure} 10. a4 (10. Qe2 f6) {Forcing ...a5 is beneficial to White, as it weakens Black's king shelter} (10. c3 {The game takes similar shape without a4 a5 interposed} O-O-O 11. d4 f6 12. Nbd2 g5 13. Nf1 Kb8 14. Ng3 Bg6) 10... a5 11. Nc3 (11. Be3 O-O-O 12. Bxb6 cxb6 13. Nc3 Kb8 14. Nb5 f5) O-O-O 12. Nb5 Kb8 13. Qe2 f6 14. c3 g5 15. d4 {Practically a totally equal position}

```

Is there something I am missing? Is Black hopeless at the end of some of the lines?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are probably several ways of obtaining an advantage but the most convincing one I can come up with is this:

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/ppp2ppp/1nn5/4p3/2B5/3P1N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 2 7"]

7.Bb5 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Re1 Qe7 (10...f6 11.d4 O-O 12.dxe5 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 fxe5) 11.Kh1 O-O 12.f4 f6 13.fxe5 fxe5 14.Be3

```

In the position after 10.Re1, Stockfish 14 NNUE gives +0.8 at depth 41. That's a great opening advantage and the final position seems fairly miserable for black because of the bad pawn structure.

Some comments have focused on the earlier 8.Re1 variation. Maybe that's because there are a couple of games in the database that have continued like that. I'm sure that variation gives an advantage for white as well, but I don't think one should give much value on non-prepared GM moves.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Books that help improve your chess without a chessboard
I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.

EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com

# Answer
One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.

Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I greatly enjoyed Jonathan Rowson's books *Chess for Zebras* and *The Seven Deadly Chess Sins*. And mark, I read them without a board (many times). Rowson's style is entertaining -even funny at times. And I think these books give you a good understanding of the game beyond tactics and strategy.

Given your question "Does black really have a disadvantage?", *Chess for Zebras* might particularly interest you. In it Rowson deals with this question among other things, such as which is the advantage when playing with white, which is the good side of playing with black, etc.
> 4 votes

# Answer
"Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games" is a wonderful book written by Laszlo Polgár. It is a very large book covering 1104 pages, but worth every page..
> 4 votes

# Answer
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is a great book on chess fundamentals for newcomers and skilled players. I have it and read it (play it?) without a board, as it's designed this way. It presents a puzzle on one page, and gives the answer and a breakdown on the next. Very well done overall.
> 4 votes

# Answer
What I consider *the* book that can be read without any need of a chessboard is the classic "Logical chess move by move" by Irving Chernev. I's a book designed for players in the 1400-1800 OTB range, so I think it definitely will suit you. Moreover, this book teaches both conceptual and strategical ideas via move by move analysis of full games, so it is an entertaining and profitable read.

On books about tactics, which can be definitely read without a chessboard in front of you, I recommend "Chess Training Pocket Book" by Lev Alburt. This book presents 300 of the (arguably, but not much) most important positions in chess. They all feature some must-known concept or tactic and are analyzed deeply in a few lines. This book is well suited for players around 1700-2100. The book presents the problems on the left page and the answers to them on the right page, so you don't have to swing back and forth the book, and can be used for training at virtually every place you may open a book. It is extremely useful.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Many tactics books are suitable to read without a board,

Understanding Chess Tactics by Martin Weteschnik is one, where it is specifically designed to be read without a board.

Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan where only a few times you need a board

1000 checkmate combinations by Viktor Henkin

Chess tactics for champions by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong

Far too many other tactics books to mention, :)

Although keep in mind that you will have to visualize sometimes and keep variations in your head, although this is typical of such books.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I recommend "Invisible Chess Moves." It focuses on our tendency to miss certain tactics and helps readers correct these tendencies. It also won ChessCafe book of the year.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Any book of tactical problems would fit the bill. My favorite is the Chess School series (aka Manual of Chess Combinations) by Ivashchenko et al.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Soltis' *The Art of Defense* in Chess is great.

You should strive to never use a chessboard when reading books. Use you mind. This isn't real practical when you're working through an Informant, but for normal books, you should be able to do it. It saves a lot of time.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A nice book for beginners is ***How To Beat Your Dad At Chess***. It lists 50 tactics - mostly checkmating attacks. Each tactic appears on two pages, with a brief explanation and a few diagrams showing examples of the tactic in use. Usually there are no more than two or three moves made between the diagrams, so it is reasonably easy to follow between the diagrams. The book is also available from Amazon.

Addendum: In spite of the title, this book is not just for kids! While I bought it for my chess playing adolescent, I'm enjoying going through it and learning mating attacks that would probably not occur to me otherwise.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Wildhagen's series of books is easy to read without a board, albeit there is no text. The name of the series is Weltgeschichte Des Schachs, and while it is typically biographical game collections (with volumes for Tal, Spassky, Lasker, Capablanca, et al.) there are some volumes centered on multiple players.

If you're wanting to read specific lessons, they're not a good choice, but if you want to play over classic games of chess and do the work of analysis yourself, these are excellent. Every game of the player covered is presented, with a diagram every 5 moves to help you "resync" your mental image of the board with reality.

Aside from the games being worth thinking about, I've found them a great help in improving my own ability to visualize the board.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, books
---


# Question
Title: Where can Botvinnik's analysis of Botvinnik - Gligoric, Tel Aviv 1964 be found?
I have seen an old post in a chess forum referring to Botvinnik's own analysis of the game presented below. I have searched, but did not find it. Where can the analysis be found?

If you can provide a reference to any other annotations to the game, I would be thankful aswell.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Tel Aviv ol (Men) fin-A"]
[Site "Tel Aviv ISR"]
[Date "1964.11.17"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[Black "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[ECO "D83"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "156"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Rc1 c5 7.dxc5
Be6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Ng5 Bg4 10.f3 e5 11.Bg3 d4 12.fxg4 dxc3
13.Qxd8 Rfxd8 14.Rxc3 h6 15.Nf3 Ne4 16.Rc1 Nxc5 17.Be2 e4
18.Nd4 Nxd4 19.exd4 Bxd4 20.b3 Be3 21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8
23.Be2 a5 24.h4 Ne6 25.Rh3 Bc1 26.Be5 Nf4 27.Bxf4 Bxf4 28.c5
Rd2 29.Rc3 Rxa2 30.Kf2 Rb2 31.h5 gxh5 32.gxh5 Kg7 33.g4 Bg5
34.Kf1 Rb1+ 35.Kg2 Bd2 36.Rc4 e3 37.c6 bxc6 38.Rxc6 Rxb3
39.Ra6 Rb8 40.Kf3 Rd8 41.Ke4 Re8+ 42.Kf4 Re6 43.Ra8 Rf6+
44.Ke4 Rf2 45.Kd3 Kf6 46.Rh8 Kg7 47.Ra8 Rf4 48.Rb8 Rf6 49.Ke4
Rc6 50.Ra8 Kf6 51.Ra7 Re6+ 52.Kf4 Bb4 53.Kf3 Re5 54.Kf4 Bd6
55.Kf3 Be7 56.Kf4 Bd6 57.Kf3 Kg7 58.Bc4 Be7 59.Be2 Bd8 60.Bc4
Be7 61.Be2 Kf6 62.Kf4 Bb4 63.Bc4 Re6 64.Kf3 Rc6 65.Rxf7+ Ke5+
66.Bb5 Rc3 67.Rh7 Bf8 68.Rh8 Bg7 69.Re8+ Kd4 70.Re6 Rb3 71.Be2
Be5 72.Re8 Rb6 73.Kg2 Rb2 74.Kf1 Bf6 75.Rc8 Ra2 76.Rc6 Bg5
77.Rc8 Ke4 78.Rf8 a4 0-1

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's game 328 (page 240 in my edition) of Botvinnik's Best Games, volume 3 (1957-1970)

My copy was published by Moravian Chess (translation by Ken Neat) in 2001.

https://www.newinchess.com/botvinnik-s-best-games-volume-3 is one place to get it. Or try https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30928907651&cm\_sp=Searchmod-*-NullResults-*-BDP if you want a used copy.

Always liked the transparency of Botvinnk's notes:

> I simply mixed up the move order, playing 5 e3 instead of Nf3, thereby allowing my opponent to choose a variation, the advantages of which for Black I had demonstrated nearly 30 years earlier in my games with Tolush and Ragozin.

You can almost see Botvinnik facepalming as he realized what he'd just done.

---
Tags: analysis, annotation, grunfeld-defense, botvinnik
---


# Question
Title: What is this line/trap in the Caro-Kann called? After Bf5, White chases Black's bishop and plays e6
What is this line/trap in the Caro-Kann called?

If Black plays Bf5 on move 3, White chases Black's bishop around with several aggressive pawn moves (similar to the Tal variation) with the ultimate goal of playing e6 (a lethal pawn sacrifice). If White accepts, then Qg6+ Kd7 and a king walk to the queenside can follow. It's also dubious how the kingside bishop and rook will ever develop. Black will likely lose if they don't know the key moves c5 (a counter-sacrifice) and Nf6.

I informally call this the ***Double Advance*** variation since the *Advance Variation* is characterized by White-e5 and this one is characterized by a subsequent White-e6.

Here an example game where I was Black. This line gets played against me rarely at my level, but regularly by 1800+ players.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2021.09.11"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Naxmanovich (1600)"]
[Black "xjcl (1588)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[CurrentPosition "k2r2r1/pp6/8/5Q2/7P/6qK/PP6/R7 w - -"]
[Timezone "UTC"]
[ECO "B12"]
[ECOUrl "https://www.chess.com/openings/Caro-Kann-Defense-Advance-Bayonet-Attack"]
[UTCDate "2021.09.11"]
[UTCTime "13:42:05"]
[WhiteElo "1600"]
[BlackElo "1588"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[Termination "xjcl won by checkmate"]
[StartTime "13:42:05"]
[EndDate "2021.09.11"]
[EndTime "14:20:05"]
[Link "https://www.chess.com/game/live/25106523433"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4 Be4 5. f3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. e6 fxe6 8. Bd3 Bxd3
9. Qxd3 Nf6 10. Qg6+ Kd7 11. Bf4 c5 12. Ne2 Nc6 13. c3 Qa5 14. Nd2 cxd4 15. cxd4
Rc8 16. O-O Qb5 17. Rfe1 Qb6 (17... Nb4 18. Nc3 Qd3) 18. Nb3 e5 19. Nc5+ Kc7 20.
Ne6+ Kb8 21. Bg3 Ka8 22. Nxf8 Rcxf8 23. Qxg7 Ne8 24. Qg6 Rxf3 25. Kg2 Rff8
(25... e4) 26. Bxe5 Nf6 (26... Nxe5 27. Qxb6) 27. Bxf6 exf6 28. Qf5 h5 29. Kh3
(29. gxh5) 29... hxg4+ 30. Qxg4 Rhg8 31. Qf5 Nxd4 32. Qxd5 Nc2 33. Qe4 Nxa1 34.
Rxa1 f5 35. Qd3 Rd8 36. Qxf5 Qe3+ 37. Ng3 Qxg3# 0-1

```
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4 Be4 5. f3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. e6 fxe6 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 Nf6 10. Qg6+ Kd7 11. Bf4 c5 12. Ne2 Nc6 13. c3 Qa5 14. Nd2 cxd4 15. cxd4 Rc8 16. O-O Qb5 17. Rfe1 Qb6 (17... Nb4 18. Nc3 Qd3) 18. Nb3 e5 19. Nc5+ Kc7 20. Ne6+ Kb8 21. Bg3 Ka8 22. Nxf8 Rcxf8 23. Qxg7 Ne8 24. Qg6 Rxf3 25. Kg2 Rff8 (25... e4) 26. Bxe5 Nf6 (26... Nxe5 27. Qxb6) 27. Bxf6 exf6 28. Qf5 h5 29. Kh3 (29. gxh5) 29... hxg4+ 30. Qxg4 Rhg8 31. Qf5 Nxd4 32. Qxd5 Nc2 33. Qe4 Nxa1 34. Rxa1 f5 35. Qd3 Rd8 36. Qxf5 Qe3+ 37. Ng3 Qxg3# 0-1

# Answer
In the advanced Caro, 4. g4 is known as the Bayonet attack. However, the main way to play in response to it is to play Bd7 because this h4-h5 + e6 pawn sacrifice is well-known to be good for white.

As black, you should basically transpose directly into a French defense with your bishop on d7 - following up with e6, c5, Nc6, etc. This is strong because in the French, an early g4 can be actively harmful to white (h5 from black can be played as an interesting pawn sacrifice to gain control of f5 again and forever stop white from playing the thematic f5 pawn break!), and if white doesn't gain any tempi on your bishop, it's not clear why white is playing this way at all. White needs to play quite differently to a normal French in order to justify 4. g4, and overall black should be fine in a line like the following:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4 Bd7 5. Be3 e6 (5...h5!?) 6. Nf3 c5 7. dxc5 Qc7=

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's been decades since I played the Caro, so pardon me if theory has advanced since then, but I always met this line with ...h5 instead of ...h6 and then I declined the e6 pawn offer with Qd6. Lead to an interesting game. Taking the e6 pawn seemed not such a Good Idea to me, as it lead to a logjam in the center, making it hard to develop the bishop on f8.

I won't hold that up as a refutation of the Bayonet, but worked well for me.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


title: Are tactics or endgames more important?

text:
# Question
Title: Are tactics or endgames more important?
I’ve seen a lot of strong players say at lower levels all you need to do is get really good at tactics, but, I’ve also seen a lot of people say that you should study the endgame before the opening or middlegame. Which answer is true? I want to know which one to study more.

# Answer
> 20 votes
*Look at your own games*, check what caused you to get in bad positions or maybe even to lose, and work on that. It's not rocket science.

If you never get close to endgames, improving them is going to have marginal effect.

If you regularly get endgames but don't know what to do in them, you need to work on endgames.

If you fail to win because you didn't go to a better endgame when you could, you saw the option but wasn't sure about it -- you need to work on endgames.

If you don't find tactics, you can work on tactics.

If you miss extremely simple tactics that you would always find in puzzles (like keeping pieces hanging), your problem isn't tactics but rather things like focus, blunder checking, underestimating the opponent's chances and you need to work on those.

But it works better to look at your own games and see why you lost them than to listen to some strong player give his opinion on chess players as a whole.

# Answer
> 9 votes
You’ll never get to the endgame if you don’t know your tactics. I’d recommend working your puzzle rating up to 2000 on either site before looking at anything beyond the de la Villa book.

# Answer
> 6 votes
First things first, I think it's critical to distinguish between "theoretical" and "practical" endgames. They are two different stages of the game that require different skills and knowledge to be played correctly.

At a beginner stage, if you're capable of delivering the basic mates, plus know the basics of king+pawn-vs-king and rook+pawn-vs-rook, that's probably more theoretical endgames than you'll need for a long time.

On the other hand, there's practical endgames (say, a bishop+5pawns vs knight+4pawns type of position). These often boil down to tactics and strategy. Depending on your actual level, the time control you play at, the openings you choose and many other factors, you will encounter yourself in this type of situation more or less often. These positions are a great bootcamp for some fundamental strategical concepts (like bad bishops, the seventh rank, weak pawns and so on).

But I still think tactics will be a more important skill in the sense that they come before everything else. In practice, it won't matter how good you are with your "technique" to win an equal-ish knight endgame if you end up missing a fork. Good tactics (and precise calculation) are a tool that allows you to achieve your strategical objectives in a chess game efficiently.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here is a practical answer from a long-practicing youth trainer.

Of course you need all, as others already stated. The interesting question is: which order would I recommend.

For example, I often see that kids in other clubs are funnel-fed with opening theory. Big short time effect, but I clobbered more than one of these robots by my creative openings!

For advanced beginners (rules, elementary mates, minimum opening priciples known), I train tactics, endgame and minigames intermixed. Again tactics will have the highest short time boost. But endgames will train a certain "feeling" for the handling of a single piece. (Without a certain amount of chess intuition, you never get really good, and it must be trained early.) I will *not* specifically train, say, rook bridge or Philidor defense. This will come after training them to survive the middle game, and too many games are decided by lack of specific endgame knowledge.

Addendum: Tactics you can very easily study on you own. Using an engine sparsely you don't really need a trainer (if you know a bit of methodology). You can also do this with endgames but I say a trainer is beneficial here. (The difference is the "why": a tactical move is more or less self-explaining.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
Knowing vancura's defence, concept of corresponding squares ,Steinitz rule, Botvinnik's principle of Knight endgame, Bahr's rule, Two Knight checkmate with pawn on board etc etc and etc are in vain if you overlook a 3-4 move long tactical variation and lose the game.

In practical terms this loses can really hurt your enthusiasm to study chess more and in some cases even to continue playing.

Like some smart guy has once said "blunders are tactics that you didn't see", So I would say you keep on working on tactics until your game analysis graph don't have any sharp spikes.

Once the graphs are smooth (either you beat you opponent slowly and steadily because you knowledge and understanding of the game is better than him or he did the same to you), you can put more effort into studying positional ideas, endgame theory and working on skills like calculation, visualization, evaluation etc.

For Endgame I would also recommend to consider endgame specific tactics (like this in lichess) and Books I would suggest to start with "100 Endgames You Must Know" by Jesús de la Villa and then the legendary one - Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (There is also a very good chessable course on this book by GM Erwin L'Ami)

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's really a bit of both but labeling it "tactics" or "endgames" is what can get confusing as they are a means to an end.

Both of these teach you patterns that you can re-use in your own games but an often neglected aspect of this training is how you deliberately exercise your **visualization muscles** (being able to see moves in your head up to several ply deep where the picture of the board is crystal clear as if it was set up in front of you).

While tactical puzzles train this skill with a very immediate return-on-investment, endgames (with far fewer pieces on the board) are surprisingly effective at putting your mind through a deeper visualization challenge without the luxury of ONLY looking at forcing (checks, captures, unstoppable threats) moves to limit the lines you need to look at.

King and multiple pawn endgames are very exacting in this respect. You are presented a situation where a key pawn move or king move can drastically change the result of the game and concrete calculation (which requires visualization) is absolutely required.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's not either/or. Endgames (being positions with few pieces) tend to make both tactical ideas and strategic concepts easier to see and understand. So a proper study of endgames will of necessity include tactical ideas and motifs. The basic checkmates, for example, are all endgames.

You're building a palace of chess knowledge, brick by brick. By starting with simple positions, you create a foundation you can later build on. For example, Q versus R endgames are replete with double attacks -- forks, pins, and skewers. But they're easier to spot and understand when the Q and the R are the only pieces on the board.

Learning proceeds from simple to complex. It's easier to understand the capabilities of the Knight when it's your only piece, but once you *do* understand, you'll be able to use them in more complex positions.

I've always considered endgames are where you really start to understand chess, as opposed to simply shifting pieces hoping for a chance to do something. Think about it: what good is it to win a pawn or two with a brilliant tactical coup, if you lack the endgame skill to bring the point home?

Understand please, I'm not saying study endgames exclusively until you can play all of them as well as Yuri Averbakh. I'm saying study endgames until you can reliably bring home the point you earn in the Middlegame (or, just as importantly, prevent your opponent from bringing home the point they earned). Eventually you will start using the tactics you've learned in your endgame study to gain advantage (or win) in your middlegames.

---
Tags: endgame, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Trompowsky: why does 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.e3 e6 score so highly for white in master games?
I'm trying to find a suitable response to the Trompowsky using LiChess. I saw the following line, which looks like it might transpose into more familiar QGD territory.

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.e3 e6

```

On LiChess, in master games, white scores 52% wins, 33% draws, and 15% losses. It seems black's moves are faulty for some reason. I'm not sure why though---it looks like white has a sharp line.

For contrast, after `3...c5` white scores 24% wins, 48% draws, and 29% losses. So `3...e6` scores significantly worse.

**Question**: Why does 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.e3 e6 score so highly for white in master games?

# Answer
3..e6 closes the way for your light-squared bishop, but I don't think that's too good of a reason to reach such scores (I checked on ChessTempo and got similar numbers)

Please be careful about possible bias due to player strength differences. A move may score worse simply because it is often used as a "drawish weapon" against a stronger player. This is the case of the French exchange variation, where Black scores better in a symmetrical position! But there could be other reasons why an opening system is more common among weaker players

I would tend towards an explanation of this kind, since there does not seem to be a clear "refutation" in the position you show (4.c4, 4.Nd2, 4.c3 and 4.Nf3 all score similarly.

Please specify your own skill level for further advice on how to build a repertoire around these lines to be possible
> 3 votes

# Answer
Those statistics are surprising but I think it has to do more with player strength than the quality of the opening moves.

Of course Black has closed his Bc8 in behind his pawns, but this bishop is often a problem in queen pawn openings. And in fact the game could transpose into some main line opening. So is 4.e6 bad? No, it is just this line of play is not something strong players do. And if strong players don't do this that means the Black players are weak and thus the statistic.

Why wouldn't a strong player make these moves, they seem reasonable:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 (2...Ne4 is more common but 2.d5 is another main move)

Black says, "go ahead and double my pawns. If 3.Bxf6 exf6 opens my Bf8 with gain of time, and I get the Bishop pair."

3.e3 e6

Now Black is saying, "I am just going to pin my Knight and block my c8 Bishop, but my d-pawn is solid and I can just develop my Bf8 next." \[Weak!\]

Compared to 3.e3 "How can I make that Bg5 move look stupid... 3...c5 opens my queen to possibly attack the weakened b2 pawn or even get a check on a5. Plus I am attacking the center and trading my c-pawn for his d-pawn is desirable."
> 2 votes

# Answer
**White's position is more flexible.**

3...e6 is not an horrible move, of course. But it restricts Black's actve possibilities (Bc8 is locked in, Nf6 is pinned) without putting pressure on White as 3...c5 or 3...Ne4 would.

As a consequence, White has a wide choise how to continue. 4.c4 would reach a QGD without exploiting the move order, while 4.Nf3 or 4.Bd3 leads either to a Torre attack (with c3) or a delayed Queen's Gambit (with c4), and Black has to be careful to prepare for both plans.

But the main trouble is that White is allowed to enter a **Stonewall with the bad bishop out of the pawn structure**, with 4.c3, 5.f4, 6.Bd3, 7.Nf3, 8.0-0. This system cannot be reached usually because of some ...Ne4 or ...Bf5 or ...c5 disturbing White's construction early on, but here they will enjoy good spots for all their minor pieces, a firm grip on e5 and excellent prospects for a kingside attack should Black cancel on this side. This line is already quite playable with White bishop on c1, but having it active on g5 is a huge asset.

If you really aim for a QGD as Black, I would rather suggest 3...Nbd7!? when 4.c4 e6 and 4.f4?! Ne4 are fine for you and 4.Nf3 lets you choose between ...e6, ...Ne4 or ...c5.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Chess Engine Using LazySMP

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Engine Using LazySMP
I was hoping to parallelize the chess engine I was currently working on. I have done some research on some of the various types of algorithms such as YBWC, ABDADA, and LazySMP which is currently used in stockfish. I was hoping to implement LazySMP into my engine and I have since taken a look at some sites such as https://www.chessprogramming.org/Lazy\_SMP as well as https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/53769/1/master.pdf. As of now I am unsure of my understanding which is the following...

> Each iteration, during iterative deepening, you initialize N threads to search from the root to the same depth for that iteration. During their search, they use the same transposition table and it is a race to see which of those threads are the "first to complete". Each thread mantain's its own AB values, PV, heuristics, etc...

**I want to know if this is correct. If it is correct, I am also curious in knowing how/why it improves search speed. It seems like a lot of redundant searching of nodes.**

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, it's true... :)

There can be *a lot* of redundant search, but Lazy SMP works. Currently, it is a mystery why, but it has been verified with *any* engines that the simple, basic implementation works, regardless of how counter-intuitive this seems...

To clarify a little bit, you don't need to setup different initial conditions (like different depth, etc.); what makes threads de-synchronize is a history table used for move ordering.

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't chess played with flat pieces?
I was wondering why Chess isn't played with flat pieces, as Shogi is, or as Chess itself is represented online (where people mostly play with flat 2d pieces, even though most sites also have a 3d theme).

Personally, flat pieces seem more clear to me, albeit less pretty. When the pieces are tall, they start blocking each other and it's not immediately obvious where each piece is.

For example, here's a simple example. This board isn't even close to being cluttered, and yet I still need to glance at White's pawns to make sure they actually are there, because they are close to being blocked by the other pieces. In particular, the f2 pawn is a bit hard to see. Likewise, Black's c7 pawn is blocked by the knight.

I know that this can be fixed by getting closer to the board and looking at it from a top-down perspective, but... first of all, that's annoying: sometimes I just want to lean back in my chair and stare at the board from a distance in a relaxed position, yet I can't, because now all the pawns are blocked by taller pieces. Second: if you are going to be looking at it from a top-down perspective... then why even bother with tall 3d pieces? Your perspective will make them look like 2d anyway.

# Answer
> 13 votes
It's probably for historic reasons. Chess is very old and a metaphor for two armies making war, and people chose to make 'statues' to represent the pieces. Since this has worked well so far, nobody felt the urge to change them to 'tiles', that is, until computer chess came into being. I've never played Shogi on a real board, but I can imagine 2D pieces are harder to grab than 3D pieces. At least, that is my experience with playing draughts; with moves, you can push a piece, but with captures you have to pick up a piece.

But why is Shogi, which also has a rich history, played with tiles? Well, one good reason might be promotions:

1. They are much more common than in chess
2. A piece promotes to a predefined other piece (there is no choice like in chess)
3. In case it's captured, it matters what the original piece was

Flipping a tile is an elegant solution for this problem, unlike replacing it with another piece from outside the game.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I could not decide is this an answer or comment but finally decided to add it as answer.

> Why isn't chess played with flat pieces?

Because it is played with flat pieces as well; Many travel chess sets have flat pieces, but I think for historical reasons, as chess used to be royal game, played by aristocracy and play sets where created mainly for them, as well game characters used to be and in many languages are still used as real army units.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Flat chess pieces do exist on the market, in the form of "pocket chess" sets in which there isn't room to provide 3D pieces. In this example, notice the lack of extra queens for promoting pawns to:

As others note, the provided photo is not the typical viewing angle for a player. Here is a more typical view, in this case of one of the nicer chess *computers*:  These pieces are also magnetic, but in this case to facilitate informing the computer of moves being made, rather than for travel games. In any case, the point here is that every piece is easily visible and distinguishable from above.

It's also considerably easier to pick up a 3D piece when making a move, which can be very important in a fast-paced game. Shogi tiles are designed to be easy to pick up with an accepted technique, but the time controls in Shogi tend to be fairly long, and the tiles are not held down magnetically. I have yet to see a Western chess set using similar tiles.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Flat boards are used online because both players can see the pieces properly oriented. Now imagine playing online chess with half the screen upside-down.

Also, a flat screen is not the best representation of a 3D object, so that's why most players use 2D boards online. Same for chess books by the way.

Finally, thank you for giving me another reason why nobody plays shogi!

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are two reasons that come to mind:

1) There are Pawns, Knights, Bishops, Rooks, Queens, and Kings and a non-flat design makes it easier to tell them apart. 2) There is a touch-move rule where if you touch a piece and it's interpreted as intentionally you must move it: it's easier to move pieces that are smaller at the top than at the base. The Staunton design from the 1800's is the official design accepted in rated chess games internationally in order to avoid someone trying to use abstract- or abnormal-shaped pieces that might confuse an opponent. I don't know how many chess sets I've been given as presents that are in the shapes of soldiers, abstract art, etc. that I never use to play the game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
in my opinion, our minds are spacial and tactile. we live in a 3d world. So having 3d pieces is better for a lot of reasons, such as memory or recall of other games, or the current game etc.

---
Tags: chess-set, board-vision
---


# Question
Title: Marshall Defense transposition to Gruenfeld
Can this move order be considered a good surprise weapon against `1.d4` players since the Marshall Defense is known to be dubious and now black is trying to transpose it to a Gruenfeld. From my experience I have faced this once in OTB many years ago and was happy to see `2.. d5` until `3.. g6` happened

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 g6

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Black can only transpose to the Grunfeld if you play Nc3, so there are other candidate moves you can try to prove Blacks play is unsound. (The idea being that we want to play e4 against Nxd5 and Black can't play Nd5xc3 or if Qxd5 then Nc3 gains time).

a. 4.f3
b. 4.Nf3
c. 4.h4!? etc.

4.f3 seems the most annoying as the thread of e4 requires immediate attention.

I don't see a good response. Either capture on d5 is losing time along with the center. Black can otherwise try a pawn sac like 4...c6 but the compensation looks inadequate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is effectively a pawn-down gambit line for Black. If you're going to play it, be psychologically prepared. White does not have to go for the Grunfeld if they don't want to. The key line is 4. Qa4+, and then:

* 4...c6 5. dxc6 is a pawn down gambit. 5...Nxc6 6. e3 - Black has a slight lead in development and White's queen is somewhat exposed, but White also has strong central control & an extra pawn.
* 4...Bd7 5. Qb3 (threatening Qxb7) with complicated play. 5...c6 is kind of forced now, and White can decide if they want to keep the extra pawn with 6. dxc6 or 6. Nc3 or get greedy and play 6. Qxb7.
* 4...Nbd7 (or 4...Nfd7) 5. Nc3 intending 6. e4 and Black chokes to death. Note White keeps the extra pawn in this line as well.
* 4...Qd7? 5. Qxd7+ of course White exchanges queens since they are up material.

The Lichess database gives +6=14-1 in this line (+5=7-0 after 4. Qa4+), so it's certainly a dangerous choice for Black. On the other hand, many 2500+ players have played this, so it's something you can potentially catch unprepared opponents with.

---
Tags: opening, theory, grunfeld-defense, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to compose a checkmate with king and any three minor pieces against bare king in the center of the board?
I am running a small chess school for beginners. During a class I asked a child to compose a checkmate position using only king, bishop and knight against the opposing king in a corner. Then I made the task tougher by placing the opposing king in the middle edge. And finally I asked him on purpose to try the same in the center of the board, to see if he was able to conclude that the task was impossible. Not only he did, but he also proposed to try the task in the center of the board with a third minor piece. To my surprise, this task seems to be impossible as well. We tried with any combination of three minor pieces plus the king. Is it true that this task is not possible?

# Answer
It is indeed impossible to construct a mating net with king + 3 minor pieces against a lone king in the center of the board.

A mating net would require that all 9 squares in the 3x3 block which contains the opposing king be under attack. The king can only cover 3 of those 9 squares since it can't be next to the opposing king. This would leave a 3x2 rectangle of squares which would need to be covered by the 3 minor pieces. That rectangle has 3 black and 3 white squares. Any minor piece can cover 2 of those 6 squares -- *but those squares would need to be of the same color*. (One might quibble that a bishop which is directly adjacent to the opposing king could cover 3 squares, but that would be capturable by the king unless supported by another piece, the net result being just 3 squares covered by 2 pieces). If 1 of the minor pieces covers 2 of the white squares and 1 covers 2 of the black squares, the remaining piece would have to cover 1 white and 1 black square, but that is impossible.
> 36 votes

---
Tags: teaching, composing
---


title: 1998 USCF Chess Rankings

text:
# Question
Title: 1998 USCF Chess Rankings
Is there a place to look up rankings of USCF players for a previous year? Specifically, I would like to know who was *#3 in the USCF in 1998* (for reasons not relevant to the question) - but figured a broader question would be more useful to others.

I tried USCF's Top 100 Lists, but it doesn't seem to go back nearly that far. My other Google searching turned up even less.

# Answer
> 2 votes
At one time, there was an annual rating list published each year in the January issue of Chess Life. They don't do that anymore, and I'm not sure if they still did it in 1998 (or, I assume what you'd really want would be such a list that would have been published in January 1999, which would have the year end ratings for 1998). If they still did, if you can find a library that has back issues of Chess Life, you could look there. Or, House of Staunton / USCF Sales has the January 1999 back issue available for $1.00.

If you can find someone who has been a USCF TD for that long, and if they're a bit of a packrat, they might still have the 1998 annual rating list, though you'd have to sort it yourself. And it might be on floppy disk... I looked on the USCF web site in the TD/Affiliate area, and they don't have rating supplements online that go back nearly that far.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The 1998 Annual Rating List is in the December 1998 issue of Chess Life, starting on page 79. It includes tournaments which finished before October 28, 1998 and were received by November 1, 1998, and players who had played since October 28, 1997. While they do not sort by ratings, they *do* list the senior masters (2400 and above) first, so you only have a couple of columns to search through instead of a few dozen pages. Old Chess Life issues are currently available online at https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives and you can find this issue there.

After skimming the list (using my physical copy of the magazine, which I still have for some reason) it appears that Ilya Smirin had the highest rating at 2728, followed by Vladmir Akopian and Loek Van Wely, both at 2724. Van Wely, however, has his state listed as "FR" indicating that he's French and not US. If you don't count him, then the next player would be Alexander Goldin with a rating of 2715, assuming I didn't miss anyone.

---
Tags: rating, history, uscf
---


title: Bitboards and sliding piece attacks

text:
# Question
Title: Bitboards and sliding piece attacks
I have been searching about bit boards and piece attacks. The concept of using a bitwise `and` to find the set of attacked pieces (ie: `knightAttackSet & opponentPieces`) is really elegant and straightforward, but I don't understand how it would work for sliding pieces : how do you efficiently detect that some pieces are hidden behind others, and thus not actually attacked? I could of course write a program doing this, but I'd like to know about the most recommended algorithms for doing this, and I can't find it easily on chess programming wiki. What are these methods? Thank you.

# Answer
You would use the same AND-ing of the board map and the attack bitmap to get a set of attacked positions, but you must then also cast a ray from any attacked piece back to the attacker to verify that the attack path is unobstructed. The ray cast check could use a bitmap as well, indexed and fetched by the attacker and attackee positions, but given the heavy time penalty for memory cache misses, it's probably going to be cheaper just to check the squares along the ray path one by one.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: programming, bitboard
---


# Question
Title: Transpose to the Slav as Black after 1. ...Nf6?
What is the best move order to transpose to the Slav after Nf6?

The reason this may be interesting is that Nf6 is much more flexible than d5 and still allows to go for hypermodern setups, depending on what White does.

For some reason, the Marshall defense (e.g. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5) is considered bad for Black. Is it better to start with c6 before playing d5 when trying to transpose to the Slav? I know that White could play the Trompowsky after Nf6, but that is a risk I am willing to take.

# Answer
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 followed by 3...d5 is a reasonnable and legitimate move order to enter the Slav defense. I have used it regularly at Fide master level.

As with every move order transposition, it has pluses and minuses that will guide your choice depending on your taste.

For instance, 1...Nf6 makes it less easy for White to play a London set up : an early 2.Bf4 or 3.Bf4 can be met by d7-d6 instead of d7-d5. Also, you avoid the Bf4-Nge2 variation of the Slav Exchange, because White must commit to e2-e3 or Nf3 before a Black pawn arrives on d5 to get exchanged. The briefly fashionable 3.cd5 cd5 4.Bg5!? is also ruled out.

On the other hand, with ...Nf6 you give White some early information and he knows he won't face a Noteboom, a Stonewall, or the 3...dc4 line, options he would have had to consider after 1...d5 and 2...c6.
> 5 votes

# Answer
**1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 is best**

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 I think 2...c6 is the only reasonable move order to try to get Slav defense. I would consider this not ideal as you allow 3.Bf4 which gives White quite an interesting version of the London System, as a c6-d5 pawn structure isn't ideal vs the London when black is usually trying to exploit Whites slightly weakened dark squares on the queenside with an early ...c5. However if you consider 3.Bf4 to not be a problem then I don't see any way White can exploit this move order, as any other logical third White move can be met by 3...d5.

Other second moves I would consider much worse if the goal is to get a typical Slav defense. 2...e6, besides allowing an exchange QGD after any move such as 3.Nc3/f3 d5 followed by 4.cxd5. Also allows White to go into a Catalan with 3.g3 which could be quite annoying for a Slav player as the early commitment to e6 cuts out a lot of Blacks best options against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.g3.

Finally 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5? allows the simple cxd5, where the top 4 engine moves are not even 3...Nxd5 as that allows 4.Nf3 followed by 5.e4 with large advantage for White. If you want to play for the initiative 3...c6 is an interesting gambit, 3...g6 will simply lead to a version of the Grunfeld which is worse for Black than mainlines.

In summary 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 is a fine way to transpose to the Slav which doesn't allow white many reasonable extra options. If you can work out something you like again 3.Bf4 then the worse that will happen is a transposition back to a Slav mainline after 3.Nc3, e3, Nf3 etc.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, slav-defense, hypermodernism
---


# Question
Title: How long does it take for Elo rating to reflect changes in player's strength?
Suppose a player with ELO rating **X** has improved (for simplicity, without playing in tournaments) and she is now actually playing at the level **X+N**. How many games will it typically take for her rating to reach the level **X+N**, depending on **N**? Is there a quantitative research into that?

# Answer
The way FIDE rating (and rating change) is calculated is described in FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017. For an already rated player the calculations for working out the rating change are given in section 8.5.

From here it can be seen that how fast a rating changes for a given performance depende on the "k factor". This is defined in 8.56:

> 8.56 K is the development coefficient.
> K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with at least 30 games.
> K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
> K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
> K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
> If the number of games (n) for a player on any list for a rating period multiplied by K (as defined above) exceeds 700, then K shall be the largest whole number such that K x n does not exceed 700.

Here are the relevant sections of 8.5 describing the calculations:

> 8.5 Determining the rating change for a rated player
>
> 8.51 For each game played against a rated player, determine the difference in rating between the player and his opponent, D.
>
> ...
>
> 8.54 A difference in rating of more than 400 points shall be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of 400 points.
>
> 8.55 (a) Use table 8.1(b) to determine the player’s score probability PD
> (b) ΔR = score – PD. For each game, the score is 1, 0.5 or 0.
> (c) ΣΔR x K = the Rating Change for a given tournament, or Rating period.

As to your question:

> How many games will it typically take for her rating to reach the level X+N, depending on N?

Table 8.1(b) is non-linear so as well as depending on the k factor the number of games also depends on N in a non linear fashion. So, you will have to perform separate calculations for different values of N.

Here is an example for N=100. How many games would a player require to draw against players on average 100 points higher to raise the rating by 100 points?

In that case, according to table 8.1(b), PD = 0.36. So, ΔR = 0.14 and the number of games required for a 100 point rating gain = 100 / 0.14 / k.

For k = 10 number of games = 72
For k = 20 number of games = 36
For k = 40 number of games = 18
> 8 votes

# Answer
I considered an idealized scenario in this answer:

> Let's say a FIDE player is rated 1800, and has k=20. Every month this player plays in one 4-game tournament, in which they play against opponents all rated exactly 2000, and scores exactly 50%. How fast does the rating converge?
>
> After six months, they would be rated 1898. After one year, the player's rating would be 1949. After 18 months,the rating would be 1975, and after two years, it would be 1987. So it seems that the player is getting approximately halfway to their performance rating every six months or so in this scenario.
>
> After 32 months, the player would be rated 1997, and after that the rating no longer moves because a rating difference of 3 has an expected score of 50% according to the table FIDE uses.

Of course, a "typical" player won't play people with exactly their target rating. They'll play some people above and some people below. This tends to slow down the speed at which the rating converges with the performance. For example, the difference in expected score of an 1800 player and a 2000 player when playing a 2000 player is about 0.26, but the difference in expected score when playing a 2200 player is only about 0.16. A smaller difference in score means that it will take more games for the rating system to realize that the player really did get stronger.

In my own experience in the USCF, after resuming tournament play after a multi-year break (while improving my play during that break by playing online and joining a local club), it took approximately 38 games over 9 tournaments for my rating to reach its new level, about 300 points above my old one. The USCF, however, has "bonus points" which allow ratings to adjust more quickly when they are significantly lower than a person's playing strength, and also typically has a higher K value.

I tried manually rating my USCF games using FIDE rating rules, and it would have taken about 108 games over 25 tournaments for my rating to catch up to my approximate strength.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It depends. Ability changes constantly.
Ratings only reflect performance history not ability per se.

How accurately do you want it to reflect the true ability at this moment?

Are you improving rapidly like many kids do?
Do you play a lot of rated games?

If your strength was not changing and your opponents did not change andor play erratically then ten games would give you a fair approximation, and 100 would give you an answer within the margin of error of all the other factors influencing it.

In your example ten would give you a fair idea and 100 a good one. But it would depend on how big an improvement and what sort of tournaments you played in. Open tournaments against a wide range of opponents is best as in a national swiss open. Playing in small local tournaments only and you might never get a true answer.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: Why does the London System have the reputation it has?
After being out of chess for many years, I became interested again. While I never studied in my earlier playing days, I always played e4 openings when white. That was partly due to that being recommended by the one book I read and partly because that is what Fischer (usually) played and Fischer was the world champion and something of an idol at the time.

Now, I'm trying to take chess a bit more seriously. Much of what I've read recommends the London System as an opening for beginners. That has been backed up by a couple coaches (one a National Master, the other an International Master) from whom I've taken instruction.

It seems the London System has a reputation as a "safe" opening. I've read this in several places online and heard it from the coaches I mentioned above. Furthermore, I've even read things that say you can develop in the London without paying attention to what your opponent is doing.

Of course there is a learning curve with a new opening, thus I don't expect to get win after win after win with the opening. However, my results with the London have not left me feeling that it is "safe". In one tournament game against a beginner I lost two pieces because I really didn't pay attention to what he was doing until too late. In a "friendly" against a master, he destroyed me with a tactic I'd never seen, but which he said is well known as an attack against the London. In other games in which I've tried it, I have felt like I'm being forced out of the system very early.

Thus, why is the London System considered safe? Why do proponents say you can utilize it regardless of what your opponent does?

# Answer
Well, I want to give you a third master's opinion, and most coaches teach the London because they can teach students an opening that the students can, for the most part, be mindless for the first 10 moves (d4,Nf3,Bf4,e3,Bd3,0-0,c3,Nbd2,Qe2,Re1, etc.) or so, against almost any black response. Of course, in chess you can never totally ignore what the opponent is doing, but if you have studied the London System at all, you know what I mean, and to the level I mean you can be "mindless". The coach can then say, "look, you got out of the opening, so I taught you well", when in reality, the problems are just beginning, and the coach has taught you nothing. This seems to be what you are experiencing: You get to the end of those 10 moves, and you are lost.

I do not agree with that approach at all, and it is just a lazy way to teach.

The London, while not a bad opening, is considered "safe" because it is, primarily, a very solid position for white; but it is not particularly ambitious as it does not hit back in the center as successfully as an early c4 does. It can be played against 1...d5 or the King's Indian Defense. Because c4 is not played, it also rules out the Benoni, Benko and Grunfeld. Since black usually wants to play c5, it also, in effect, rules out the Slav, or a tempo is wasted. Limiting black's defensive options is another reason some coaches like to teach this lazy opening, but if you ever get to a certain level, you will find yourself having to learn a whole new set of openings from scratch, and you will have lost years of experience playing against so many mainline defenses. That is not a good thing.

One of the biggest problems with the London for novices is that the resulting positions, where white must get in e4 and try to attack require a lot of positional skill, as well as tactical skill. Against anyone stronger, they are ready for e4, and they are prepared to take c5xd4, and get counterplay. So you get students a solid position after 10 moves, but then what is required from there is often just way over their heads. It does not make sense to teach this way.

Weaker players have trouble with deep strategic play, which is why I constantly talk about studying tactics, tactics, tactics; but these London positions do not bring up the open, or semi-open types of positions that favor that type of tactical play, which is easier to grasp, and thus, easier for novice players to play.

What this means is that this opening either does not really fit in with your ability level or style (you were an e4-player for a long time, after all), or you must learn the plans associated with it, from move 10 on, much better.

I wanted to give you a recommended book, but as I looked at them, there was nothing particularly great at telling you how to play these positions **IN WORDS**, but this was probably the best of the bunch: "Win with the London System".
> 27 votes

# Answer
There is a prerequisite to any aspect of playing chess: NEVER EVER IGNORE YOUR OPPONENT AND THEIR INTENTIONS, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! This is of course not very surprising, but nobody has ever become even a halfway decent player by not paying any attention to their opponent (as you noted yourself, you dropped two pieces by not paying proper attention to your opponent's ideas). It's just not possible, since it will make you walk into simple traps for no good reason.

What the sources mean when they say that the London is safe is that it doesn't require you to learn very many traps and unintuitive sequences of moves to stay out of danger in the opening. Also, you can achieve the main setup (pawns on c3-d4-e3, bishop on f4, etc.) basically no matter what black is up to, and this setup is rather solid and not so simple to attack. As a summary, you are not putting your king in unnecessary danger, and you're not sacrificing material or overextending your position which means that you tend to get a "safe" position out of the opening.

While the London is a safe opening, no opening makes you immune from having to calculate tactics and be aware of positional threats. This is why beginners are recommended to learn about these things before focusing too much on specific opeinings, since this type of general knowledge is what will help you stop bleeding points to your opponents when using (for instance) the London system.
> 18 votes

# Answer
> Thus, why is the London System considered safe?

Every opening where white starts with 1. d4 is considered safe compared to 1. e4 (provided white doesn't do anything silly) because the queen protects d4. d4 openings are inherently safer than e4 openings.

> Why do proponents say you can utilize it regardless of what your opponent does?

No intelligent, knowledgeable chess player would ever say such a thing. You must always pay attention to your opponent's moves and plans. To do otherwise is to court disaster.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I wrote a long thing on Facebook a few days ago about the difference between the London and the Colle. The London is fashionable; the Colle never was, though Koltanowski tried really hard to make it so.

One of the many things that separates good players from not-so-good players is that good players can make so-so moves early, because they know what they have to do later. When the Four Knights was popular during the '80s, good players could get away with such a tame thing because they know how to create life from that tame thing.

The London is a lot like the Four Knights, recommended by bad chess teachers as "something that serves students until they're ready to learn something better". Which is a bunch of nonsense.

Good players can deal with their queen bishop being developed too soon. They can build positions around it. Bad players just have a bishop.

The reason for the "knights before bishops" principle is a subset of the notion that smaller pieces should play before bigger pieces. Knights before bishops, bishops before queens and rooks.

Knights have to head out early because they're slower to get to the other side, whereas the bigger pieces can get there in one or two moves. Also, players don't know where they want their bishops until some feature in the position arises to suggest a bishop development.

The difference between the Colle and the London is *one* move. In the Colle, White reserves the queen bishop until he's finished developed the kingside, and builds some energy behind e3-e4, opening the position for his pieces. By then, there should be some feature in the position to suggest the right square for the queen bishop: g5, to take an f6-knight that guards h7? f4, to harass a queen on c7?

Because the Colle is actually more principled than the London for that reason, I think chess teachers should be recommending *it* instead, but like I said, it's all about fashion. The London is fashionable with good players, and bad coaches follow good players like sheep.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As a beginner, I like playing the London system as a general guide to opening. It is easy to set up and easy to remember. However, it does not absolve me from being completely absent minded to what my opponent is doing. I generally play other beginners that do weird shit like brining their queen out too early or moves like a5 or g5 that open up opportunities for me to take advantage of.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It's a lot easier for a beginner to play the first 10 moves of the London System than it is if they were playing a complicated opening with lots of sidelines. If you open on e5, you might have to learn quite a lot of different openings depending on black's response, e.g. the Sicilian for 1..c5, the French for 1..e6, the Ruy Lopez for 1..e5, the Caro-Khan for 1..c6, the Pirc Defense for 1..d6, Alekhine's Defense for 1..Nf6, and so on. For each of those openings, you wouldn't just memorize a single line of opening theory. For example, if you go into the Sicilian, then it ends-up being an absolute forest of sidelines depending on whether the opponent plays the Najdorf variation, the Open Sicilian, the French variation, etc. When it comes to memorizing opening theory, it is a lot easier for a beginner to get good at the London System than it is for a beginner to memorize a dozen moves deep of 10 different sidelines of 15 different openings. Getting practice with e4 openings is haphazard, because in any given game, black is in more control than you are over which opening you go into. With the London System, you can basically force the London System every game in which you're white, and therefore get practice playing it every game. This means you can master the London System a lot faster and more reliably than from studying most other openings. While you can spend 30-60 minutes learning all of the basic moves of the London System and even a few variations that respond to what the opponent is doing, you can then go on to studying what to do on move 10-15, attacking ideas, how to respond to common threats, study grandmaster games of the London, etc. By comparison, you might need to spend several years learning how to play every variation of every e4 opening. So the London System really is a way for a beginner with little time on their hands to learn to play solid and safe for the first 10 moves of the game. If a student is 6 years old and they plan to study chess for 4 hours a day for the next 20 years, then the London System may not be their choice opening in the long-term.

Bear in mind, the London System is not the strongest opening for white. While a lot of top white openings have a computer evaluation of about +0.4 throughout the early game, a well-played London System will have an evaluation of around +0.1 or +0.2, and a very rote, basically-played London System will have an evaluation of around +0.0 or worse. But if a beginner were to spend a month learning the London System, they would be much better in the short term than if they spent a month learning the Sicilian (and heaven forbid the opponent doesn't respond with exactly 1..e5). You could study the London System for 4 hours and already be focusing on what to do on moves 10-15; or you could study e4 openings, and after 30 hours of studying, you're still blanking on what to do in the first 4 moves when the opponent opens with the Nimzowitsch Defense or the Russian Game.

Other than that, your question seems to suggest that you expected magical results in your first few games playing with the London System. In anything you do, you need to expect to start at the bottom and improve over time. In basketball, if you learn good shooting form from an expert, you should still expect your shooting accuracy to be extremely bad at first, and to improve over time, extremely slowly, assuming that you don't get discouraged and quit. If you played any other opening, your first few games playing that opening, you will probably hang pieces even more often than you would in the London, and undoubtedly you'd lose to masters. But, even in the London, you do have to react somewhat to what your opponent is doing, e.g. if they attack b2 with their Queen, if they attack d4 (which pawn do you recapture with?), if they attack your bishop on f4 (drop it back to g3. Or, a less basic system might suggest playing h3 and then dropping your bishop back to h2). If you're hanging pieces in the early game against beginners, then you need to drink some coffee or something, because there aren't really any loose pieces in the London other than b2. There is a video in which Hikaru instructs streamer Fuslie on the London, and this covers how to react to a lot of common attempts to disrupt your structure or attack your pieces.

I also advise studying great games of the London System, as you will get more ideas of how to play the middlegame or how to handle games where you get pulled out of the standard set-up.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This question is opinion based and subjective.

London is 'safe' because it will take black longer to mate you if you are a beginner. Play a wide open tactical game and you will lose faster.

But for experienced players it is not really safe nor unsafe. Just another opening to play.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: opening, london-system
---