# Question
Title: When should I trade into opposite colored bishops?
This is something that always confuses me. If I have an edge, I may trade and the game becomes drawish. If I am down, I seem to trade and I get ground down.

I'm aware of things like potential weaknesses or space to consider, and I know that putting pawns on the same colored square as your bishop should be avoided.

But how do you evaluate if the advantage is enough? And what does give advantage e.g. what pieces left on the board are better for the attacker? What sort of checklists are there? I know that for R&P endgames, there is an active rook and so forth, but with opposite colored bishops it seems less clear.

This is a separate question from actual technique. I just know I avoid trades to opposite colored bishops on principle, because I'm clueless about them, and that's a big problem. And while it's fun to see GMs capitalize, I still don't have an idea of the thought that goes into when to trade.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Opposite-colored bishop endgames aren't *always* drawn; it depends on the pawns. The drawish aspect comes from the fact that either bishop can halt a passed pawn in its tracks, and the opposite bishop can't help overcome the barricade.

If you have a positional or material advantage, avoid going into such an OCB ending if you can. If you can't, then start action on *both sides of the board*, creating a passed pawn on each. Sac a pawn to accomplish this, if necessary. This will force your opponent to dedicate his bishop to one side and his king to the other.

Leave your bishop to guard one wing, preferably the wing where the opponent's pawns are less of a threat, and/or yours are easier for the bishop to defend. Then, send your king over to help push the passed pawn (or create one). He can chase the opponent's bishop away, or force it to give itself up for the passed pawn your king, but your bishop can't. So, king on offense, bishop on defense.

Also, try to keep your king in front of the pawns, so he can cover their advance squares.

Note: The OCB ending is *an exception to the endgame rule of having your pawns on squares of the opposite color to your bishop*. The exception applies *only to the defender*. If you follow that rule, your opponent's bishop will pick them off, and your bishop won't be able to defend them. So, if you're defending an OCB ending, put your pawns on the *same color squares as your bishop*.

If you're the attacker, put your pawns on squares of the opposite color to your bishop. That way, they cooperate with the bishop to keep the opponent's king away or drive him off.

If you're defending an OCB ending, keep your king on the same wing as, and in front of, the opponent's pawn majority, and defend your (possibly weak) pawns on the other wing with your bishop. Blockade your opponent's passed pawn with your king. Put your king on a square of your bishop's color, so your opponent's bishop can't dislodge it.

If you can, try to leave the base pawns of your pawn chains where your bishop can reach all of them quickly. If you can arrange two chains, one on each wing, with the bases near the center, then your bishop may be able to defend both from just one square. If your opponent's king comes over to try to drive your bishop off Defense Junction, then he can't reach the pawns. No way to make progress.

If you can't arrange this, then try to stagger the chains a bit so that your bishop and king can navigate across the board, and keep an eye on the pawns at the bases of the chains. Leaving a few gap squares is important for the king's mobility, because if you don't stagger the chains and your king has to use the opposite colored squares to cross the board, your opponent's bishop can usually just attack the squares around the pawns when your king tries to get through, and block it.

Move a pawn only when absolutely necessary. If he can't make progress, you'll get your draw.

Almost every endgame book treats this topic; I recommend a couple, such as Howell's Essential Chess Endings, Glenn Flear's Starting Out: Minor Piece Endgames, or Bruce Pandolfini's Endgame Course. Andrew Soltis' GM Secrets: Endings has an especially understandable and thorough discussion of "Bees of Opps".

So, the **short** answer is: Trade into an Opposite-Colored Bishops ending if you're likely to lose otherwise, and use its special characteristics to save the draw. This can sometimes work *even if the opponent has 3 connected passed pawns, and you have none!*

---
Tags: bishops, trading
---


title: Agreeing a draw after checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: Agreeing a draw after checkmate
In a club game this week, checkmate was reached legally on the board, however the players thought it was stalemate, shook hands and signed the scoresheet as a draw.

The "winner" was a young junior, she initially wrote 0-1 on the scoresheet but then the "loser" pointed out that he thought it was stalemate, and so the junior accepted this and changed the score and signed it.

Being a club game the arbiter let the result stand; but if this happened in a FIDE-sanctioned tournament then what should happen?

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess

> 5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
>
> 8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

The "winner" won the game. However, both players signed both scoresheets indicating 0.5 - 0.5, so that would be the result unless the arbiter were involved.

---

In this case, I think the arbiter made a mistake. The young junior should have stuck to her guns and kept the 0-1. She agreed to mark it a draw because she didn't understand that she won regardless of her opponent realizing he was beaten. Were she an experienced chess player, I would absolutely let the 0.5 - 0.5 stand, but I think you need to help young players understand the rules without penalizing them for trying to avoid conflict. I think the gender dynamic and potential age dynamic (you explicitly mentioned she was young, but made no mention of his age) should also be considered in the decision.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In a FIDE rated event the win would stand (checkmate ends the game) and the "scammer" would, at the very least, receive a warning against his unethical behaviour. In the FIDE Laws of Chess Article 11 covers the conduct of the players and 11.1 would be used in this case.

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

In this particular case I would strongly suggest that the offending player be spoken to and it made clear that his behaviour is unacceptable.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It matters when the winner noticed that the game ended in checkmate, and that the opponent's claim was in fact wrong. If the arbiter was the one to point this out, then he could defend his action in ruling the draw as standing by saying that he wanted to clearly communicate to the winner that the accuracy of the score is a solemn duty. It is, after all, why the player signs the scoresheet. By doing so, they are finalizing the result and implicitly waiving their right to contest it, *unless new facts come to light*.

Since new facts came to light, she now has grounds for disagreeing with the arbiter's ruling, and filing an appeal. She should learn her appeal rights, and the normal procedure for doing so. These include a hearing with the senior Tournament Director or Arbiter, and the possibility of an Appeal Committee it still not satisfied with the outcome.

I would certainly advise her to file an appeal, but it must be done within 30 minutes of the game's end (or the time of the TD's decision, if prior to the game's end as when disallowing a draw claim during a game), as I understand the rules.

Given that she doesn't seem to know when her opponent's king is in check, this may all be too much for her at this stage, however.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: What are the things that a 2000 player knows that a 1800 player doesn't know?
I'm stuck at 1600-1800 in chess.com. My rating fluctuates within that range. There must be something that I still don't understand that is already understood by a 1900-2000 player.

So I am asking for tips. How can I reach elo 2000? Should I focus on opening?

**UPDATE**
Thank you so much for the contributors. All answers are great and I really appreciate your efforts for sharing your ideas.

# Answer
> 20 votes
> Should I focus on opening?

Do you regularly fail to get out of the opening? Regularly get beaten whilst still in the opening? If yes then you definitely need to work on your openings.

Do you usually come out of the opening with a playable position? If yes then you are wasting your time spending more time working on openings if your goal is to improve.

Do you get a lot of pleasure working on openings? I know I do and that's why I still waste time on them even though I know my time would be better spent on other things.

Once you get to something like 2300 then openings start to become a lot more important. At that level and above games are much more often won and lost on superior opening preparation, often geared towards a particular opponent and his known opening repertoire.

Twice in the last 15 years I've prepared a specific opening for a specific opponent and they've gone along and played what I wanted / prepared. In both cases the resulting position was what the book told me was a much better position for me. In one game it certainly looked that way because even though I was playing somebody about 100 points stronger than me I went on to win.

In the second case I again reached a position which was supposed to be better for me but I couldn't really see what to do and went on and lost. When I put the second game through the computer it didn't think much of the "much better position for me". So, you can't always trust the opening books. The top players, of course, are writing those books. Are they still playing? Are they really going to give away their best moves? Or save them for the next time they play Kramnik or Carlsen?

Bottom line: the effort v reward equation isn't very good. What I've been doing recently on openings is just making sure I have a repertoire which gets me safely to the middle game where the real fight at my / our level begins.

Here's another question for you. Can you mate with KNB v K? If not then I would strongly recommend that you study this endgame until you can win 100% of the time against the computer.

Now I know what you are going to say. "But I've never, ever had that endgame and I'll probably die without ever seeing it in real life" That's true. But the point of learning that particular endgame is that rounding up, corralling and then mating the opponent's king with just a bishop and knight requires remarkable co-ordination between your three pieces. The important thing you gain from mastering this endgame is not the ability to mate with KBN v K but the ability to co-ordinate king, bishops and knights in the endgame and this *will* come up a lot.

I remember years ago being very pleased to reach what looked like an even endgame where we each had king, knight, bishop and several pawns against a much stronger player. I offered a draw, as you do. He was very polite and didn't burst out laughing. After he'd beaten me he explained. "Look", he said, "No disrespect, but you are a much weaker player. This kind of position is actually quite difficult. Of course it should be a draw but I know how to play it and you probably don't. So, of course I played on."

Now, I could have just given you the standard reply of "Study endgames" but that wouldn't have really helped because it is too general.

Now, go away and learn how to mate with KBN v K. Practice until you can beat the computer 100% of the time and you will get a lot more points. Not only will you start drawing games you would previously have lost and winning games you would have let slip away to a draw but you will also recognize earlier in the game how you can steer the game to the kinds of positions you know how to play well in the ending and avoid ones which are not so good.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I recently progressed from 1800 to 2000 in my USCF tournament rating. I don't know how that compares to chess.com ratings. Here are some differences I think I can perceive between my play now and then (I'm not sure what the relative importances are):

1. I memorized a lot of opening lines using spaced repetition (I know, you're not supposed to do this at such a low rating). As a result I am often ahead on the clock after the opening stage and also am often more familiar with the relevant tactics and strategy of the positions I end up in. Of course sometimes it gets me in trouble too.
2. I also used spaced repetition to memorize solutions to a lot of exercises, particularly Ivashchenko's *Manual of Chess Combinations*, Yusupov's *Build Up Your Chess* et al, and Hellsten's *Mastering Chess Strategy*. The intent was to become much better at pattern recognition in both tactics and strategy. I do feel like I recognize tactical and strategic patterns more than I used to, and am less often at sea in the middlegame.
3. I feel like I am much better about putting my pieces on good squares and not rushing into tempting tactics than I was at 1800. When I look at my games from back then I often see myself lashing out with some tactic instead of taking time to set up all my pieces well. When your pieces are all on good squares and working together, it is much easier to find tactics, it's easier for the tactics to actually work, it's harder for your opponent to find good tactics against you, and when you miscalculate something it's easier to accidentally be lucky and have some saving move. When I play a bad game these days it's often because I didn't remember this!
4. Related to #2, I feel like I am just better at telling what is important in a position and discarding what is unimportant than I used to be. I feel like I am making better decisions faster and wasting less time considering bad moves.

I don't honestly feel like my calculation is much better than it was when I was 1800, though maybe I'm able to prune my tree of variations better.

# Answer
> 11 votes
My feeling when playing players under 2000 is, that they usually lack a certain sense of urgency. They often play decent chess, when there is something to do, like attacking the king, but they don't understand that if they allow a certain setup, they will always be slightly worse.

When they do realise that they shouldn't have allowed a certain move, they often overreact and conclude that they are much worse or even losing.

So the pragmatic skill of realising who is slightly worse and why as early as possible seems to be quite important if you want to cross the 2000 mark. To me it was helpful to just read opening books, without really learning the opening, to know which positions are "normal" and therefore balanced positions.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well I believe that surpassing the 2000 rating would be commitment and dedication, analysing all your games and study your weaknesses.

When the clock ticks, rating will be a distraction, rating will not matter after that.

In my opinion, stretch more time in chess, analyse, play, and read more. The ratings will take care of itself.

# Answer
> 8 votes
> I am always confused whether I should fix/keep or change the current pawn structure

That is a very difficult question, one which much stronger players, grandmasters even, often struggle with. So, it's not possible to give you a concrete answer which you can take away and always make the right decision. The best I can do is give some general guidelines which will get you thinking in the right direction. At the end of the day there is no real substitute for the vastly greater experience and hard work which top players have put in.

The key thing about changing or keeping the pawn structure is that it is a dynamic thing. If you change the pawn structure in some way, either by advancing a pawn or capturing a pawn (needn't be with one of your pawns) how does it change the dynamism of the pawns for each side and, often more important, how does it change the dynamism of the pieces for each side?

I'm going to give some examples but it can't be comprehensive because it is really the subject for a whole book which I am not good enough to write.

1) Passed Pawns

We all know the rule "passed pawns must be pushed". The dynamics of the position for me as white are very different if I have a passed pawn on a7 than on a2. In the first case my opponent will be sweating, in the second case he will be calm. Of course, make sure the opponent can't just take it.

2) Opening the position / giving my pieces more freedom

The two most common opening moves are e4 and d4. These moves release a bishop and allow it to move but this principle occurs many times in different guises throughout the game. If I can open a file which I can control with my rooks, if I can open a diagonal for one of my bishops, particularly if these are pointing towards the enemy king, then this is usually good.

3) Opening the position / giving my opponents pieces more freedom

If I have a pawn on a half open file or diagonal controlled by my opponent then I should try and avoid capturing with this pawn if at all possible. Conversely you may have a position where your opponent has a blocked pawn in the middle of the board which also blocks one of his bishops and so drastically reduces the effectiveness of that bishop. In that case it could be a big mistake for you to take that pawn with a piece even if the pawn is a free pawn.

4) Strengthening squares

I mentioned earlier that e4 and d4 are the most common opening moves. Apart from releasing a bishop these are good moves because they strengthen important squares in the center of the board. e4 strengthens d5 and f5, for instance. Later in the game you may get the chance to move a pawn to strengthen or take control of an important square. For instance your opponent (black) has castled kingside and pushed g6. If you get the chance to play g5 you will be exercising a lot of control over the weak squares f6 and h6.

5) Weakening squares

Say you (white) have castled kingside. Your white squared bishop has been exchanged. You want to move a pawn in front of your king to give it some air. g3 would often be a bad idea because of the way it weakens f3 and h3. h3 would usually be a better option.

6) To block or keep open

You have pawns on g6 and h6 opposite pawns on g7 and h7. Your opponent plays g6. Should you play hg or h6 or do something else and leave the position tense (unresolved)? It all depends on the what other pieces are on the board and where they are. It depends on the dynamism of the position. If you have your rooks already doubled on the h file or can get them there very quickly then you are going to chop off hg very quickly and crash on through. If there aren't many pieces left, queens and rooks are off, just the odd knight and or bishop along with the kings and a few pawns then you will probably favour h6 fixing the position. You then have the possibility of later trying to arrange to play Nxg6 or Bxg6 so that if he retakes with the h pawn then your h pawn is going to queen. If you have your queen and bishop lined up on the a1-h8 diagonal then you will probably want to leave the tension unresolved so that if he takes gh then you can take the h7 pawn. You would try and build up more pressure with your other pieces.

What you should take away from this is a bunch of questions to ask yourself when considering some pawn structure move.

1) Does this get me closer to queening a pawn?

2) How does this affect the mobility and possibilities for my pieces?

3) How does this affect the mobility and possibilities for my opponent's pieces?

4) Does this strengthen some important squares?

5) Does this weaken some important squares?

Quite often only one of these questions will be really important but sometimes several of them can be important and trade-offs are required. For instance, this move reduces the mobility and attacking possibilities for my opponent but it also reduces my mobility and maybe weakens an important square while also strengthening another important square. Balancing all these things up is tricky.

# Answer
> 4 votes
At that level, games are often decided (or could be decided) by tactical means. If you analyze your current games with the computer, there will be quite a few opportunities to win a pawn (which can be almost decisive) or more.

So my suggestion would be to try and solve lots of tactical puzzles. There are numerous books and (free) websites on this topic.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Basically, they know how to finish: they know the kind of endgame positions they require, and they know how to use the middlegame to get there. At least, while playing against 1600s.

2300s are good at exactly the same thing, only more so. :)

*Rinse and repeat*

EDIT: besides, chess is WAY to complex a game for there to ever be a Magic Bullet solution to beating the next guy. There are 64 squares, a bunch of pieces, and an quantity of moves - each one is important.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If anything, the part of the game that is likely to lead to lasting improvement in your game is the **endgame.**

At the very "top" levels, masters are very nearly alike in strength and capability, and what usually distinguishes one from the other is endgame ability. That is, a top master may come into an endgame with a slight positional disadvantage, and "pull out" a draw, or even a win, from another player who is inferior at this part of the game.

More to the point, an understanding of endings will better enable you to "steer" your middle games, and even your openings, because you will know what "end" positions to play for.

Jose Raul Capablanca, a former world champion was not know for his knowledge of the openings, but was the best endgame player of his time. Unless you could beat him in the early middle game, you were unlikely to win an ending, and hence a game, from him.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I wholeheartedly agree that competent endgame play is a hallmark of a master. In fact, chess history is littered with the corpses of games that were lost because a *GM* had no idea how to win or draw a purely theoretically won or drawn endgame. So you can imagine what kind of an edge this skill will give you over a typical club or tournament player.

To back up what I said about some GM's, here's an example:

```
[White "Aronian, Lev"]
[Black "Bacrot, Etienne"]
[FEN "8/b7/P4k1p/5P2/6K1/7B/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

1.Kf4 h5! 2.Ke4 Ke7 3.Kd5 Kd7 4.f6+ Ke8 5.Be6 h4! 6.Kc6 h3! 7.Kb7 h2 8.Bd5 Bd4 9.a7 Bxa7 10.Kxa7 h1=Q 11.Bxh1 Kf7 { All well and good, but Bacrot *resigned* in this drawn position without even trying this variation!} 1/2-1/2

```

Here's another one:

```
[White "Shirov, Alexei"]
[Black "Morozevich, Alexander"]
[FEN "8/8/R6p/2k4P/8/1PK5/7r/8 b - - 0 0"]

1... Rh3+ 2.Kb2? { This allows Black a neat escape by stalemate.} Kb4? (2... Rxh5! 3.Ra5+ Kb4 4.Rxh5 { is stalemate.}) 3.Rb6+ Kc5 4.Rxh6 { White secured a distant passed pawn, and after another 16 moves, Black lost.} 1-0

```

If you get good at endgames, when you reach one you will beat almost any player you will meet at tournaments in your class until you get to be about 2100 or higher.

Don't neglect the other aspects completely, or you'll never get to the endgame, but put in the investment of time, and your results will improve.

As for myself, I get into an endgame in about 40% of my games, and a little theory definitely goes a long way.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In one of his DVD's, GM Nick Pert offers an interesting analysis of common problems in the skills of players in the 1800-2000 range. I'm assuming the implication is that higher-rated players display fewer of these problems. Here's my abbreviated version of the main points (I give a link to the DVD below):

* Not being able to convert an advantage
* Not anticipating the opponent's plans
* Not knowing when (and how) to exchange pieces
* Not knowing your openings
* Not considering the opponent's possible replies, or not analyzing them deeply enough
* Not exploiting your opponent's weak pieces
* Not knowing how to exploit the pawn structure and when to change it
* Not pressing the advantage
* Not escaping pins religiously
* Not keeping your best piece

If these sound like some of the things you suffer from, it may help to focus on them. I can recommend his excellent DVD on the subject, Typical Mistakes by 1800-2000 Players. He offers examples, tips on addressing the problems, and exercises. I found it very helpful in my play.

---
Tags: theory, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Why did Gelfand resign against Anand in the shortest match in WCC?
I saw the notations of the match in chessbase, and I couldn't understand why Boris resigned. Anand was no where close to checkmate. I don't see why he didn't just trade his queen for a bishop and continue and maybe force a draw.

More importantly, resigning gives away the advantage he got by winning the previous match. Can someone explain what Anand should have done to checkmate Gelfand from the final position ? I can't see it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1666558 the shortest game is World Championship history. It's not so much the material difference, after Bd3 Qxb1+ two Rooks is not enough for the Queen and the Bishop, but the weakness around the Black King will cause Gelfand to lose anyway. After h6 and Ne4, d6 will fall and mate is always possible on g7. A thorough annotation is at http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/FIDE\_World-Champ-2012\_game-eight.html

```

[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Ne2 O-O 7.Nec3 Nh5
8.Bg5 Bf6 9.Bxf6 exf6 10.Qd2 f5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.g4 Re8+ 13.Kd1
Bxb1 14.Rxb1 Qf6 15.gxh5 Qxf3+ 16.Kc2 Qxh1 17.Qf2

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here's my take (FWIW):

* Black's remaining queenside pieces are undeveloped,
* He's lost control of the dark squares,
* He can't conquer either White's back or 2nd rank,
* His queen is trapped,
* He's about to get a spike pawn shoved down his throat at h6,
* All of this has happened in 17 moves, meaning
* Anand must have foreseen this variation in his home preparation, so
* Anand knows Black is lost, and
* With so few pieces left, a refutation is just out of the question.

It's a pretty big list.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Gelfand must have been horribly demoralized. He was completely outplayed in a dozen moves and he knew it. Playing on would only have impressed this disaster on his mind in a way he didn't need. Some players, such as Nakamura, seem to not be affected by wins or losses. Some players don't recover well from a loss. A player has to know themselves and how to avoid the worst.

---
Tags: analysis, psychology, world-championship, anand, gelfand
---


# Question
Title: Why did this guy resign, was there a strategic reason?
I have a hobby as an amateur chess player to watch top rated games on lichess.org, my personal favorite online chess platform. Usually after some analysis, I can figure out why players do particular things. However, with this game there really seemed to be no reason for the resignation. Did the player give up for non strategic reasons or am I missing something?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated game"]
[Site "http://lichess.org/cg4yGry4"]
[Date "2016.03.25"]
[White "LadyBaba"]
[Black "BlandPassivity"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2223"]
[BlackElo "2121"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "A02"]
[Opening "Bird Opening"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. f4 { A02 Bird Opening } d6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 Nbd7 4. a3 e5 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Nc3 Be7 7. d4 exd4 8. exd4 O-O 9. Bd3 b6 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qe1 c5 12. Qg3 cxd4 13. Nxd4 Bc5 14. Be3 Re8 15. b4 Bxd4?! { (0.56 → 1.18) Inaccuracy. Best move was Bd6. } (15... Bd6 16. Qxd6 Rxe3 17. Qf4 Re8 18. Rae1 Rxe1 19. Rxe1 Nh5 20. Qe3 g6 21. Ndb5 Ndf6 22. Qe7) 16. Bxd4 Rc8?! { (1.17 → 1.84) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qb8. } (16... Qb8 17. Qh3) 17. Rad1 Qc7 18. Qh4 h6 19. Nb5 Qc6 20. Rf3 { Black resigns } 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
White's threats revolve around Nxa7. What can Black do? This is the line given by Ubisoft's Chessmaster:

```
2r1r1k1/pb1n1pp1/1pq2n1p/1N6/1P1B3Q/P2B1R2/2P3PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1

1... Ra8 {Directly defending a7} 2. Rg3 {Threatening to take on h6} Kf8 {Breaking the pin} 3. Qf4 Nh5 {This forces white into the sacrificial line that follows} 4. Bxg7+ Nxg7 5. Nd6 {Threatens 6. Qxf7#} Ne5 6. Qxh6 {Sure, Black has a piece for 2 pawns, but White's attack is too strong}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
White has a couple of good strategic ideas here, and Black's position makes it hard to combat them:

* After Rd2 (or Rf3), Nxa7 forks the queen and bishop, so Black's attempt to create counterplay with ...Qc6 has just gotten her into more hot water
* Qf4 will support Nd6, which forks the rooks if they stay where they are
* Qf4 also pins the knight to f7
* Black can try driving off the queen with ...g5 and ...Nh5, but she just goes to Qf2 and the f7 square is hit again (while the knight has been lured out of position to the sidelines)
* After the tussle's over between the knight and the queen on the kingside, which Black loses a tempo resolving, White plays N(d6)xe8, winning the Exchange
* White then simplifies to a BvN endgame where his bishop is superior to Black's remaining knight, and exploits his queenside pawn majority to create a passed pawn, diverts the black king to the queenside, mops up the black kingside pawns with his king, promotes and mates. Easy-peasy.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Black has an inferior, and theoretically lost game. On the other hand, it takes a certain level of skill for White to realize his advantage and actually win the game. White's advantage is that his b knight threatens a bunch of forks on the queenside, and that he also has a kingside attack. That's why he is winning.

If the players are both Grandmasters, Black will realize that he took a "wrong turn" earlier, drifted into a clearly inferior position, and understand that White is strong enough to take advantage of this fact. Therefore, s/he will resign.

On the other hand, this position is not *clearly* won for White if both players' ranks are in the low 2000s. At the level, Black will do well to play it out and see what happens. White may build on, and realize his advantage, in which case Black should resign. Or White might make a "slack" move and give Black a chance to catch up, or even take the lead. In this kind of situation, one move could make all the difference, and Black should force White to make "ten out of ten" correct moves in order to win.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Should I play a risky combination when I don't see the refutation?
I've read in a book that one should play a line if (s)he thinks it is decisive and let the opponent proves that (s)he is wrong.

But what about playing a (risky, by risky, I mean that I am not sure) combination when I don't see the refutation?

The trouble I have with sacrificing when I am not sure is that if I am wrong, the opponent will win without effort, just by answering to my moves.

Here is an example of a game that I saw a combination (18. a5), but I didn't play it because I was not sure enough (and it turned out to be good):

```
[FEN "r4rk1/1b3pb1/pq2pn1p/1pn3p1/PQ1N4/2N1P1BP/1P2BPP1/R2R2K1 w - - 3 18"]

1. a5 Qa7 2. Ndxb5 axb5 3. Nxb5 Na6 ( 3... Qa6 4. Rd6 Nfe4 5. Rxa6 Nxa6 )
4. Qe7 Qc5 5. Qxb7

```

By the way, my ELO is around 1900.

# Answer
Often times, a combination is the most direct way to take advantage of superior coordination of your pieces. If you want to get better, you have to have more confidence in your analysis at the board and just go with what it tells you.

If there were multiple ways to win however, it can be simpler (and less error prone) to win by positional means and not have to rely on calculation to win the game.
> 6 votes

# Answer
It depends on how well you like your chances **without** the combination.

If, taking everything into account (material, position, opponent's rating, etc.), you are likely to win the game in the normal course of events, then play it safe.

On the other hand, if you have lost material, or are in a bad position, or your opponent is rated much higher than you, take a chance.
> 8 votes

# Answer
One one hand, a common piece of advice is to assume your opponent will always find the refutation.

However, I also seem to recall reading an story in "The Inner Game of Chess" by Soltis. During a game, a position may come up where a sacrifice is possible with say 10 to 12 possible continuations. Roughly 7 would win, 3 or 4 would lead to an even position and the remaining would lead to a worse, or even lost, position. One GM, having done all that calculation, would feel the time wasted, if he didn't go for the sacrifice, while another, upon seeing the losing lines, would not feel comfortable playing the sacrifice.

Simon Webb also talk about how to defeat a stronger player, in his book "Chess for Tigers", by getting into complicated positions, where they may lose their way just as easily as you could.

Basically, you shouldn't play "hope chess", where you play a move, and hope your opponent doesn't see the obvious refutation, but, depending on your opponent, you shouldn't necessarily be afraid to play a sacrifice or get into tactical positions.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Without regard to the "refutation," you should evaluate the position after the combination.

At one level, you sacrificed a knight for two pawns. That's "bad."

On the other hand, you got two *passed* pawns for the knight. That's a "horse of a different color" (pun intended). A passed pawn is often worth two ordinary pawns. So your compensation for the knight may be 3-4 points rather than 2.

You could get your Queen to the seventh rank. Usually it's a rook, but in this case, the queen is just as good. That by itself is worth a pawn. It would have pinned a bishop, which was soon captured, leaving you two pawns to the good. Even if you can't see the whole sequence, your intuition should tell you that you are doing well.

So you got at least 3, and could have gotten as much as 5 pawns' compensation for the knight.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Whenever I do that, and if I survive, almost always I didn't have a good time, always worrying along the way. I learned that at our level (I'm FIDE 1996) just playing good solid moves consistently and waiting for the opponent to make a mistake or stretch more than the position allows is the easiest way to win games, even when the position seems boring and even. My openings is extremely solid but I win most of the games. I think I beat them through boredom.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I've had the same problem, and I think it affected my chess. I used to be a bit more carefree. About all you can do is check off on things like, is any piece loose? Did I miss an obvious capture? Did I miss any double attacks? Also, does his position have any clear signs of weaknesses, and does my combination capitalize on that?

The problem with cutting down risk is that you may stop asking interesting questions about the game, period. And even at 1900/2000 you (meaning me, too) will still make mistakes well worth learning from.

But on the other hand, as you said, you don't want to just lash out and make a combination that fizzles. I know I needed to track what sorts of combinations I couldn't pull the trigger on, to notice patterns of when and where I needed to look a move deeper. In your game's case it would be interesting to know why you didn't play things. You wind up winning material pretty safely after a few moves. Did you not see the material win, or were you worried Black had a resource?

My guy feeling is that your opponent is as scared as you are about tricky positions and moves. I think we all are. So I think if you are worried about potential simple refutations, have a list of things that you must check straight out so that, if your combination is refuted, the refutation will be interesting.

However, if you're clearly winning anyway, you don't want to do anything fancy.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Fear of losing is no way to play chess. Also, the sequence of moves is forced so it becomes evident that your ability to see the position after a series of forced moves to point A needs some work, but that is almost always the case for sub-master chess players. Since the series of moves is forced, you can safely play the first several moves to point B without any great concessions, reaching an intermediate position where a longer think with a clearer positional vision is possible. So:

\[point A\] After 1. a5, Qa7 is forced or black drops the Nc5. After 2. Nxb5 axb5 is forced. After 3. Nxb5 Na6 looks forced again. At this juncture you have 2 connected, passed pawns for your sacrificed knight. That is marginal and you could have played to this position safely. \[point B\]

At this point, the finish of the combination is trivial.

That is how my thought process goes with positions that have a forced continuation.

Good luck and keep improving!

p.s.: I'm sure masters don't see everything. They do the same thing in the context of a real, OTB game more than you might want to believe.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The question implies that *you can't see a refutation*, but it doesn't presume there is one to see in the first place.

So, the question really becomes: If I can't see a refutation, what are the chances my opponent will find one?

Well, clearly, if there isn't one, he won't find it. But there are several ways he could find one if it's there.

1. He could see it as soon as you play your move.
2. He could find it as the position evolves, and you play out your combination.

Of course, #2 is much easier, since the pieces are moving into position, and if there *is* a refutation, it may become much more obvious as it approaches.

So, #2 represents the real risk. If you can visualize the position after you make what you believe is the last move of the combination (mating, or winning material), then sit still and figure out *all* of the moves he could make that might affect you in any way. For each one, you need to know that you have an adequate reply.

If you can't visualize that position clearly enough to identify those moves, then you can't determine whether the move is safe to play. In that case, I would advise that you *not* play it unless your position is desperate.

By all means try to confound a superior opponent; for one thing, it will burn time on his clock.

If you are a creative and resourceful player, it *may* be worthwhile to play a sacrifice that offers you some positional advantages, even if it may have a hidden refutation. Whether you should do this or not depends on how well you generally convert such advantages into wins.

Mikhail Tal was famous for his tendency to attempt sacrificial combinations that were too complex to calculate fully; he depended on his ability to improvise as the position evolved, and find new resources.

Karpov, on the other hand, while a very competent tactician, would never take such a risk. He would only play the combination if he could visualize the final position and determine that the opponent had no meaningful threats.

So, it's a matter of style, to a large degree. Build your tactical vision by playing through games, 4-5 moves per side at a time, without moving the pieces. Visualize the board, and try to predict the next move. Then, bring the position on the board up to the current move, and check how well you visualized the position. Finally, see if you predicted the next move correctly.

If you can't visualize the board reliably 90% of the time, reduce the number of moves and try again. If you can, try stretching yourself to increase it. If you can handle 6-7 moves per side, you're doing pretty well.
> 1 votes

# Answer
While this is a not a direct answer, when not sacrificing, there's only small risk and a good chance of reward as your opponent might not see the refutation either. When sacrificing, it's often better the play the direct approach of superior force.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: combinations
---


# Question
Title: Which gambits get good results if they're accepted, but lead to poor results for the gambiteer if they're declined?
Some gambits are playable whether the gambit is accepted or not, such as the Queen's Gambit, the King's Gambit, the Evans Gambit and the Budapest Gambit. Some are just dubious (the Elephant and a host of others). Some are playable if they're accepted, but the Declined forms are just worse for the gambiteer. Which gambits fall into this category?

# Answer
> 7 votes
One example is the so-called Calabrian Countergambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5. After 3.exf5 Nf6, black seems to be fine. However, white should ignore the gambit and play a developing move: 3.d4 (Bologan-Bednarek), 3.d3, 3.Nf3 or 3.Nc3.

```

      [StartPly "4"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.exf5 (3.d4)(3.d3)(3.Nf3)(3.Nc3) Nf6

```

Another example is a line in the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5. Accepting the sacrifice with 7.hxg4 is clearly too dangerous as it opens the h-file for the black rook. White is probably slightly better if he declines the sacrifice with 7.d3 (Naiditsch-Mons).

```

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.hxg4 (7.d3) hxg4

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the Blackburne Shilling Gambit `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4`,

```
  [StartPly "6"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4 4. Nxd4 (4. O-O) (4. Nxe5 Qg5!)

```

black gambits the `e5`-pawn, but white gets an advantage if they simply decline the gambit with `4. Nxd4` or `4. 0-0`. Black is behind in development.

If white accepts the sacrifice (`4. Nxe5`), then black gets good play with `4... Qg5!`.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: How long to get a 200 rating point increase from serious chess study alone according to this academic paper?
In the academic journal article **"The Role of Deliberate Practice in Chess Expertise"** from APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19: 151– 165 (2005)

At the top of **page 162**, the authors state that

> "...each log unit of serious study alone yields about 200 rating points compared to 33 rating points for log tournament play. Hence, players ought to devote the majority of their time to that activity."

I have gone over this academic paper several times, but I cannot decipher what **"each log unit"** represents. What time span is a "log unit" in this context where studying chess alone gave the chess players in this academic paper 200 ratings points vs 33 ratings points from playing in tournaments? Is it 6 months, 10 months, a year?

# Answer
The first paragraph of the RESULTS section on p. 155 says

> We applied log-10 transformations to three variables (cumulative study alone, cumulative tournament play, and chess book library size) prior to correlation and regression analyses.

The log-10 (logarithm base 10) of a number is what power you have to raise 10 to in order to produce that number; e.g. log 100 = 2, log 1000 = 3, etc.

So the sentence

> each log unit of serious study alone yields about 200 rating points

means that, all other things being equal, if player A studies ten times as long as player B, his rating will be about 200 points higher. (Another student who studies a hundred times as long as player B will have a rating of about 200 points higher than player A.) So there is no constant time span per 200-point gain; the required time to gain a particular amount of rating improvement gets larger and larger as you improve. (Another way to put this is that chess study produces diminishing returns.)

(In a sense, the Elo rating system is logarithmic as well, so you could claim that the relationship between study time and playing skill is actually linear. But since everybody measures playing skill by Elo rating, that's not so productive.)
> 7 votes

# Answer
The "log unit" term refers to a unit increment change in that variable, converted into the logarithmic equivalent.

The Table 3 on p. 158 shows how the variables that the researchers investigated are *related* to the output variable, which is ELO rating.

The variables included:

v1: Hours of serious study

v2: Hours of tournament play

v3: Years of private instruction

v4: Years of group instruction

v5: Current hours/week serious study

v6: Current hours/week tournament play

Each of these is converted into a logarithm *before* the equation's factors are calculated. (The *factor* of a variable is the multiplier of that variable that produces the closest prediction to actual results, when all factors and variables are included.)

Their regression model shows that (if you use only these variables and the logarithmic approach) the peak ELO of a player will be best predicted by the equation:

PeakELO = 1145 +

```
195 x log(v1) + 32.7 x log(v2) +
9.4 x log(v3) +  4.3 x log(v4) +
6.3 x log(v5) + 20.3 x log(v6)

```

where 1145 is just a constant that helps improve the prediction.

They point out that the variables with the *strongest effect* on the prediction were those with the highest factors; v1 (total hours of serious study), and v2 (total hours of tournament play), but the first was much stronger than the second (195 vs 32.7, which is nearly 6 times as strong a factor), and dominated the other factors in their effect on the prediction.

The short answer to your question is that a log unit *for the variable of total hours of serious study* is an increment of 1, which transforms into different numbers of *actual hours*, depending on what the increment is being added to.

---

To illustrate what this means, if I've studied 1,000 total hours, then the log of 1000 = 3. My predicted PeakELO (for that variable alone) becomes

PeakELO = 1145 + 195 x log(1000) = 1145 + 195 x 3 = 1145 + 585 = 1730 ELO

(I'm ignoring the other variables for simplicity, but the results show that they're not substantial anyway.)

If I work 1 more hour, then

PeakELO = 1145 + 195 x log(1001) = 1145 + 195 x 3.0004 = 1145 + 585.086

which is an indistinguishably small change.

If I work *100* more hours, though:

PeakELO = 1145 + 195 x log(1100) = 1145 + 195 x 3.041 = 1145 + 593 = 1738 ELO

So, while I'm at 1730, 100 hrs more of study will boost my ELO by 8 points.

---

But look at what happens if I've only studied 500 hours in total so far:

PeakELO = 1145 + 195 x log(500) = 1145 + 195 x 2.70 = 1145 + 526 = 1671.

Now, if I study an additional 100 hrs,

PeakELO = 1145 + 195 x log(600) = 1145 + 195 x 2.78 = 1145 + 542 = 1687.

The same 100 hours boosts my ELO by 16 points.

---

What the formula is clearly doing is reflecting the *diminishing returns* of the same number of hours of study time as your ELO increases. It accomplishes this accurate depiction of what actually happens by *using the logarithm of the underlying data*.

However, I would question the simple interpretation that the investigators offer, which is that a log unit increment of 1 results in 200 ELO increase. Well, log of 1,000 is 3. Log of 10,000 hrs is 4.

So, they claim that I would get 200 ELO improvement if I had already studied 1,000 hours, and now committed to studying another 9,000 hours (yes, that's about 4.5 years of full-time study). In their model, I would advance from 1730 ELO to 1930 ELO in no less than that time.

Clearly, this cannot be true for every player. I would suspect the following:

a) some confounding variables are having an effect, such as *effectiveness of study* (as determined by periodic assessment), *ability to implement knowledge in tournament games* (as determined by post-game analysis vs established knowledge base), *age of player* which the investigators acknowledge the model does not take into account, and so on...

b) the model's coefficient of correlation estimate (R^2) is only 0.34. Perfect correlation has 1.0; chaos (no correlation) is 0. So, 0.34 is promising, but not wholly effective by a long shot. Also, the Standard Estimate of the Error is 222, meaning the predicted ELO could be off by over 200 ELO for a particular player, and it wouldn't be remarkable. That's a pretty wide margin. So, in short, the model needs *substantial improvement* to be useful as a predictor of ELO.

What the model does accomplish at the moment is to suggest that **study is 6 times more effective than tournament play, which is in turn more effective than any other training method, *including coaching*, for the average player**.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rating, tournament, study
---


# Question
Title: How and why were the chess pieces given as "odds" predetermined?
For instance, "pawn odds" is really "pawn *and move*" odds. That is, the odds giver plays Black and removes his KBP.

Why not allow an "intermediate" odds where the odds giver plays white? And why not allow the odds give to choose which pawn to remove?

In the case of knight and rook odds, it is the queen knight or rook that's removed, but why not allow the odds giver to substitute the king's pieces instead?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The queenside pieces are less missed than their kingside equivalents, not only in defense but also in attack. Giving the kingside piece amounts to increasing the handicap.

This would be most pronounced if the bishop's pawns were involved, because the square on which they originally stand is the weakest point in the uncastled position, and vacating it offers open lines for an attacker to check the king both *before* and *after* castling, and may result in being unable to castle at all.

So, while it was done to give the kingside piece, the queenside piece was considered fair odds.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would like to challenge the premises in the question:

> Why not allow an "intermediate" odds where the odds giver plays white? ...In the case of knight and rook odds, it is the queen knight or rook that's removed...

Emmanuel Neiman cites the following example in *Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna*:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "Kennedy"]
[Black "NN"]

  1. e4             e5
  2. Bc4            Nf6
  3. d4             Nxe4
  4. dxe5           Nxf2
  5. O-O            Nxd1
  6. Bxf7+          Ke7
  7. Bg5#            1-0

```

Admittedly this game is played in the nineteenth century, but it is a counterexample to the premises in the question.

Seeing as handicaps are not in the FIDE rules, then it is for the players to agree as they see fit, and in this example the players agreed that white would be without his kingside knight.

---
Tags: handicapping
---


# Question
Title: How does "time odds" confer an advantage to the weaker player?
Ok, we set the clocks so that the weaker player gets 15 minutes on the clock, and the stronger player gets only five. In theory, that gives the weaker player three times as much time to think, which should be an advantage.

Except that the stronger player can use the weaker player's time to think. OK, the weaker player has "extra" time to think out a response to the stronger player's last move, but the stronger player can be thinking about the same possible responses (and more). When I am the stronger player (seldom), I can usually anticipate the weaker player's response, plan my countermove, etc., all on the other player's time. If a computer were the stronger player, this advantage might be even more pronounced, because a computer can "think" in nanoseconds.

Apparently, this is not the way things work (yours truly aside)? So how does a time advantage confer a meaningful advantage to the weaker player? Is it necessary to force the stronger (human) player to "look away" from the board during the weaker player's turn so that the stronger player doesn't benefit from the weaker player's time?

# Answer
Indeed, you can think on your opponent's time. However,

* Your opponent may make a move you didn't expect
* Your calculation may be slightly worse because you had to see one ply farther
* Even if he played a move you expected, you may have been looking at four possible moves of his, so you only spent 1/4 of your thinking time on the move he actually made
* If he played his move relatively quickly, you're thinking on your own time basically from the start

As you point out, having less time doesn't give you as big a disadvantage as it might first appear. However, it is still a real disadvantage. If you think the penalty is not great enough for a given match, just increase the time difference.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This question raises a couple of topics:

1. What is the minimum amount of time per move a player needs in order to avoid blunders, displacing the pieces, fingerfehlers, etc.
2. When the time handicap is considerable, how do you prevent the stronger player from profiting from the weaker player's time?
3. Is there a rating (or rating gap) beyond which additional time (or a larger handicap) makes no appreciable difference to the outcome?

Q1. Analyzing the blitz games of GM's, I've found (unsurprisingly) that they're significantly more vulnerable to blundering at 3 minutes a game. This is true for both the eventual winner and the loser, suggesting that neither morale nor satisfaction with one's position is solely responsible for this tendency. It also occurs (typically) multiple times per game.

I have a collection of games played on ICC at different time controls, and I noticed that the same players use both sets of time controls. This might be a valuable testing ground for the effect of time controls on game performance (at least, as reduced to blunder occurrence rates). But, no conclusions yet. I would expect to find the same is true; although it likely varies by player, there is probably some minimum time control at which blunders begin to appear with frequency and/or magnitude that dominate the play of the game.

Q2. I might suggest that the stronger player be distracted. On ICC, on Wednesdays (currently), an International Master with the handle Voja plays a simultaneous display against his opponents. Nominally, their time control is 3 minutes + 3 seconds delay, while his is 1 minute plus 1 minute delay. As in most simuls, he makes a move and goes on the next board/game. So, he is not able to think about Game 20 while selecting moves for Games 21-30 and then Games 1-19. He only gets to think once he returns, and that's when his clock starts again. His opponents, however, have the clock time to make their move, but then they get to try to anticipate his move and think ahead until he returns to the board. Lower rated players (1700 ELO and up) are often able to beat him with this kind of time handicap. (Of course, once the number of opponents has been whittled down to a few and he's returning more quickly to each board, the 3/3 control begins to take hold, and there's no borrowed time anymore).

Q3. I would suspect that below a certain rating, say 1500 ELO or so, certain critical aspects that may develop in a position are not visible to the player. So, no amount of additional time will help them find the right move. Potential discovered attack, decoy, and trapped piece tactics that are one or two moves away seem to fall into this category, in my experience, but that's subjective (so far).

I think the evidence that some 1700 players can beat an IM at blitz on ICC when the time controls are substantially weighted in their favor answers the question about gap; below 1700, they don't seem to be able to do this. (The ELO gap involved is around 600 ELO.) In that situation, it may not make a difference for them to have more time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: handicapping
---


# Question
Title: How do top players use computers to improve their play?
This question is inspired by yesterday's matches between Hikaru Nakamura + Rybka vs Stockfish. Nakamura was allowed to use an older version of Rybka to help him, and Stockfish was allowed to play with its full strength but not use an opening book or an endgame tablebase.

**Question 1:** *How might players such as Nakamura use Rybka to improve their play against a computer opponent?*

I can come up with a few naive guesses: check their own moves for blunders; check the computer's suggestions to see if there are some convoluted move sequences which lead to a huge advantage; and letting the computer play the endgame for them. This does not need to be the full story though. Maybe there are useful features that chess engines have that I am not aware of. I'm also wondering to what degree a human player would rely on his own intuition: would he always play his own moves assuming the computer never suggested a blunder or an amazing winning move which is difficult to see?

---

My second very similar question is inspired by a few comments by Nakamura in a reddit thread, namely

> Fischer would almost certainly lose to \[people such as myself, Carlsen, and Kasparov\], but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.

and

> I think mainly what can be learned from computers is a deeper understanding that almost all positions are ok with accurate play. In the past, many people assumed certain positions were automatically bad, but computers have shown that the rules and thought processes aren't always accurate!

**Question 2:** *How have computers changed the way top players play today (when unassisted by computers)?*

What is meant by the first quote? The second quote indicates that one might not want to give up too early, but does not suggest any change in playstyle.

# Answer
***How might players such as Nakamura use Rybka to improve their play against a computer opponent?***

> ... check their own moves for blunders; check the computer's suggestions to see if there are some convoluted move sequences which lead to a huge advantage ...

I believe you said it yourself here. A computer would be used in order to check if the move that the GM thinks would be a good move is indeed the best move to exploit the existing position. I doubt that it would play the end game fully, I am positive that the GM thinks through every move of the game instead of trusting blindly the computer, but most likely definitely the opening would be played by the machine, at least till about move 5-7, until the position changes known book course.Additionally, the computer would most likely have some kind of a database of the previous games played between other players, so if the position played was already played by someone else a while back, it could be used to not make the same mistake or, vice-versa, to build a long term plan.

***How have computers changed the way top players play today (when unassisted by computers)?***

OK, I do understand that this might get a bit long, but bear with me. Ill bold the important points. Computers have made the modern top players much more tactically aware and ready than the chess players before them. This is what the quote about Fischer is talking about: Fischer did not have the opportunity to analyse his games and study lines to such a far extent as is done by the modern top players using computer technology. About the second quote: with the knowledge that there is a possible accurate move in virtually any position, top players would dedicate more time to thinking and finding that one single accurate move, than just assuming that the position was lost and thats it. This makes the game much more interesting and thrilling, because you know that the accurate move exists, its just the matter of finding it.

About how computers help top players prepare: so basically, theres 4 reasons why computers are used today for chess:

1. Playing against software program
2. **Keeping track of games (Databases)**
3. **Using software to analyse your games**
4. Using software to do chess problems

Out of those 4 points, the one that interest us are the bolded two.

**Keeping track of games (Databases)** is used usually to analyse the openings, and then comparing them to how they were played by other top-players in order to evaluate one's own position and/or learn something from others. You could've never thought that that move would bring any use, but if Kasparov's been whipping it out right and left for the past 5 years with great success, you might as well try giving it a go.

**Using software to analyse your games** is the primary use of computer engine by top-players. After every official game they play, the will analyse their games and see where they did wrong and where they could do better. The programs are usually proficient in tactics and opening theory, so for someone like Magnus Carlsen, whose opening is not as strong compared to other GM's like Kasparov and etc, a computer engine would be the best an fastest way to improve. And of course, if they find that what they did in game is not the strongest move in the position, next time they would be aware of it and follow the move that was suggested by the engine. Usually this would happen once again in the opening, because middle games repeat quite rarely if played against different opponents.
> 5 votes

# Answer
When someone like Nakamura plays Advanced chess, he might try out different lines letting the engine play the other side, and then see whether he likes the resulting positions or not. There are some sacrifices that an engine won't initially see the point of, but he can try these out, and generate a line quickly to see if he can get the engine to change its mind once he shows it the payoff. Also in the Stockfish games, Nakamura was trying to use anti-engine strategies, but he doesn't want to get caught in some cheapo tactic while he is maneuvering for position, so the engine can alert him to things like that.

As engines became stronger, the openings played in over-the-board games have become much more tactical and precise. Players prepare novelties in their opponent's pet lines, generate huge trees of analysis, and then try to memorize all the different lines. Fischer did a lot of analysis too, but it took players a long time to analyze, and they might miss a key refutation that a modern engine spots right away. Some openings today have been analyzed almost to the endgame with the players leaving book move 35 or later. In the old days, this kind of deep analysis was impossible.

Because some lines have been analyzed out, players have to find new ideas, and try to get the opponent out of book. This has become much more important especially when playing against an opponent known for his thorough preparation. Thanks to databases and the Internet, players are much more aware of what lines have already been played. Fischer was good at catching oldtimers in known traps, but it would be hard to catch recent superGMs this way.

The opening is the main area where things have changed, but there have been some changes in the middlegame and endgame as well. Certain sacrifices have become standardized, and even though all the nuances haven't been worked out, GMs are more aware of some of these recurring themes thanks to databases.

When he talks about all positions being okay, this has to do with the fact that engines are willing to take on positional weaknesses if there is some tactical payoff. Some players were willing to take on holes and weak pawns even in the old days, but now more players are willing to play like this since the engine seems to think it's alright.

Endgame tablebases have also enlarged the number of positions known to be theoretically won or drawn.

Top players spend a fair amount of time preparing openings and working on their weak areas, and they use computers in a wide range of ways, eg. to draw up a repertoire, to test their memory of their repertoire, to go through tactical puzzles, or positional exercises, to review and analyze games, to compile statistics on their own performance in various openings say, to research their opponent's openings and weak spots.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Although you asked about players such as Nakamura, you might want to consider how correspondence chess players use computers. They play the most "perfect" games, in terms of reliably picking the best move in each position, and they do it with the assistance of computers.

For an interview with the most recent CC World Champion in which he talks about his approach to using a computer, including databases and engines, see Better Than an Engine: Leonardo Ljubicic, ChessBase.com, 2016.02.21.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How much time should be spent playing versus studying?
I have been learning fairly rapidly lately (will probably go about 400 points in about a year), although I am sure that pace will slow with time.

However, my learning is actually slowed down because I like to play too much. That sounds silly because the whole point is to play and have fun. But what happens is I start playing a few games to try to apply what I have learned and then I just keep playing until I get tired and forget about whatever study I was doing.

As much as I like playing it's not as satisfying as learning. I know some like to win, some like to play, but I like to understand.

So, knowing that my goal is to understand as much as possible, how do I get the right balance between studying and trying to apply my studies with games?

# Answer
I think you are already on the right track. Obviously the more you play the more you learn, so even though you may think you are not learning when playing, you are in fact learning something new with every game. Finding the right balance is subjective, but what I would do is I would learn small things and try to apply them in as many games as possible, basically `lather-rinse-repeat`. For example, if you study checkmating pattern(s), you can try to apply some of the patterns you learned to some games. I would not try to study too much and then apply everything you learned. In a nutshell, learn a little bit, try to understand it, if you have trouble, just ask here for more clarification and play some games and try to apply what you have learned. I did this with the `Scotch Game`, basically applying what I had studied over and over again until I basically became one with the `Scotch` and comfortable with it. I was later able to come back and answer a question on here pertaining to the `Scotch` due to playing, learning, and understanding the opening that I would not have been able to answer before.
> 6 votes

# Answer
There is a difference between playing for fun, training and competing. In general, progress is reached by combining training with competitive games. Playing for fun is gradually removed out of the equation. For example, if you use your blitz games to become better at an opening system, then you are already training. Competitive games are tournament games over the board with classical time controls. There should be at least 9 such games every 3 months. Training should be done with a goal in mind. There are different areas and they should be trained, one at a time. Applying the training in your games is very important. Otherwise the training was pointless. The balance depends on how much time you are investing in chess. If you are playing a lot of blitz games just for fun, it most probably does not contribute to an increased understanding. Training and competing is hard, and hard activities are the most rewarding in terms of progress.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In economics, the idea is to try to equate "marginal utilities," in this case, between playing and studying.

You now seem to feel you are playing too much. So stop playing and start studying. Eventually you may feel that you are playing too little. Then study less and play more.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Okay,

I feel like there have already been many good responses regarding the study:play ratio.

There's no correct answer - as a beginner you can't really 'study chess' because you don't know exactly what to study, how to study and you don't have the foundation yet to make certain judgements about why a certain move is right or wrong. Sometimes a move can be so deep that even grandmasters have to think for a few minutes before finding the correct reason why something is played.

One thing is for sure, you must play and you must study. The play:study ratio should decrease you become stronger at chess. So as a beginner, you should spend 90% of your time playing and 10% of your time studying. Playing will give you the best lessons because you will lose and learn a lesson and then you will never lose the same way again.

Once you're about 1300-1400 the ratio drops to 80:20 play:study and when you're about 2100-2200 it should be about 40:60, because there will be a lot more material you need to cover to increase your strength comparatively to when you were 1300.

However, there's one important thing you should note and that is **analysing your own games is NOT considered study** and the reason is because it's imperative that you find out what you did wrong each game and try to avoid it the second time. Studying is like doing tactics, studying openings, analysing middlegames and grinding out endgames etc. etc. analysing your own games doesn't count.

Many strong chess players have advocated analysing your own games (without an engine preferably, until you're around 1800 elo). If you need an beginner's guide you can check out this article. The author talks about the fatal reason why weaker players don't become stronger and at the same time gives some instructive advice about annotating your own games (+ freebies :D)!

Keep us updated about your chess study!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Please check out my response to another question Does Playing Correspondence Chess Improve Your Game?. It includes a fairly comprehensive proposal for a training program, including tips on allocating time between play and study.
> 0 votes

# Answer
A 50/50 split between studying and playing is recommended. Recording all your games and analyzing your losses is also recommended.

So, if you study for an hour a day, play a couple of G15 games and analyze your losses. Play 'up' in class - i.e., if you are rated on your favorite server as 1600 then play against 1800's so you get punished for your mistakes

Studying for blitz play is contraindicated. If you want chess entertainment, play blitz but don't expect to get much out of it from a serious chess perspective.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you want to become something related to study, study and play at a ratio of 4:1. Study whole day and play for sometime to refresh your mood. If you want to become something like cricketer, footballer or anything related to play, study and play at a ratio of 0:4. Play every time to achieve your goal.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, study
---


# Question
Title: Why not fight off a bishop on row 5 with pawns?
Oftentimes a bishop will move to b5 or g5 early in the game.

I personally never do this because I see a6 coming, and if I move the bishop back to a4, then b5, nearly trapping the bishop, and certainly having made it a waste of time to move it to b5 in the first place.

However, when I watch games by top-level players, bishops get moved to the 5 row all the time, and nobody ever fights them away with pawns like I think they will. Why not?

# Answer
Here are a couple of relevant questions and answers that might help to explain why the bishop move happens:

In summary the main points seem to be that:

* Black loses as much time chasing the bishop as White does retreating it
* White can gain a long-term advantage from Black's weaker Queen side pawn structure

As you might expect in such a popular opening though it's very finely balanced for both sides.

If as you say you are *not* seeing a6 and b5 in the games you're looking at, you might be looking at games where Black plays the Berlin Defence: 3... Nf6. This is quite popular at the moment in very high level games.

If you want to see some games where the pawn move a6 is played, "putting the question to the bishop", here's a link: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C70
> 5 votes

# Answer
The moves Bg5 and Bb5 usually have one the following six purposes:

1. To pin a knight on f6/c6
2. To *provoke* ...h6 or ...a6, weakening the pawns
3. To trade White's bishop for its counterpart (usually because the position later will make Black's bishop a better piece than White's)
4. To take the knight in order to break up the pawns behind it
5. To take the knight because it defends a central square White wants to occupy with a piece, usually his own knight
6. To set up the removal of the knight and prepare a mate at h7 once the knight defender is eliminated

If Black responds with ...h6 (say), White can maintain the pin with Bh4. On the kingside, Black is left with a difficult choice: kick the bishop away with ...g5, weakening the kingside, or leave it there as a loose piece.

White often intends to transfer the bishop to the diagonal h2-b8 anyway, when Black's punting the bishop only wastes a tempo and weakens his kingside.

The same is true about the possible destinations of the bishop on the queenside. On the a2-g8 diagonal, it hits the f7 square, which is usually uncomfortable for Black in the KP openings (and obviously good for White).

In some openings, White wants to exchange the bishop, with or without the knight already on f6/c6. In the Sicilian Defense, Rossolimo Attack, White plays 3.Bg5 in reply to 2...Nc6, but Black hasn't moved the d-pawn, so there's no pin. Black doesn't normally play ...a6, because he's not feeling any pain from the Bishop (yet).

In the Canal-Sokolsky Nimzovitch Variation of the Sicilian (also known as the Moscow, although there is a completely different *Prins Moscow* Variation), the line runs like this:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "B51"]
[White "Sicilian Defence"]
[Black "Canal-Sokolsky Nimzovich"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B51"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ {What?? No knight to pin?} Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O (5. c4) *

```

...there's no knight there; White just wants to get rid of Black's good bishop, and saddle Black with a bad one unless he either fianchettoes it on the kingside, or moves all of those pawns (ain't gonna happen). So he invites it to interpose, and trades it off.

In the French Defense, the Alekhine-Chatard attack (strictly speaking, the *Albin*-Alekhine-Chatard), White leaves the bishop on g5 and props it up with his own h-pawn, daring Black to take it. If Black does, he ends up staring down the barrel of White's king's rook on an open file:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "C13"]
[White "French Defence"]
[Black "Albin-Alekhine-Chatard Attack"]
[ECO "C13"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 *

```

Black doesn't play ...h6 here, since there's no point; White will just take on the bishop e7.

In the Ruy Lopez, in 75% of games Black plays 3...a6 immediately. He has no concerns about weakening his queenside; in fact, the pawn storm it initiates often constitutes his main counterplay.

So, these are some illustrations of what the bishop is doing there, and when it may not make sense to chase it.

*Note: Many of these ideas are also present in variations with colors reversed, i.e. ...Bg4 and ...Bb4. The latter is the primary theme of the Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian Defenses.*
> 5 votes

# Answer
One downside to expanding the pawns too much before developing pieces is that the pawns can become overextended and weak. Below is a sample variation of how Black can become overextended:

```
[Fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bb5 a6 3. Ba4 b5 4. Bb3 c5 {Intending to trap the Bishop in a 'Noah's Ark' with c4.} 5. Bd5 Ra7 6. a4 {Trying to break the queenside pawns up and make the vulnerable.} b4 7. c3 bxc3 8. Nxc3

```

In this sample variation, White leads in development and Black's space advantage disappears.

---

N.B. The sample variation was worked out in my head, and references no games in particular, nor do I examine the best moves. 4... c5 is a mistake to show the perils of overextending, and 5...Ra7 isn't forced.
> 2 votes

# Answer
"Spanish Bishop" can become very useful and strong piece, especially when it arrives on the c2 square sometimes.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Who could win today: modern chess players or computers with old games database?
I know that modern programs are highly use historical plays databases to have openings and ends lists. Also chess algorithms often use AI to learn how to better calculate the move. Anyway I am not still sure if they also use plays database to learn the algorithm.

I know that modern chess programs are way better than the best players but I am wondering what would happen if we used only e.g. minimum 50 years old games to learn computers how play (so learn the algorithm only on the games since 1966). The quality of the human play improved since 1966 so IMO the questions makes sense.

# Answer
This question is based on a number of misconceptions.

One, engines are not self-learning software, they are not "trained" on a set of games. They just go through a huge number of possible variations and evaluate the end positions based on fixed factors set by the human programmers.

Second, engines can be configured to use opening databases, but they hardly need them to beat humans -- they play above world class level without them as well, nowadays. The main reason to include them is to introduce some variety (they'll pick a random well known opening move) because the programs are deterministic and otherwise they would play the same move in the same position every time.

Endgame tablebases are sometimes turned off because the time it takes to look up a position in them may not be worth it and it doesn't help the engine differentiate between a bunch of moves that all lead to a draw against best play; but they are perfect, of course.

Anyway the way it usually goes is that nowadays engines win *whatever* you do to them... for instance this january top GM Nakamura played Komodo in various odds games (twice starting a pawn ahead, once an exchange ahead, and once four moves ahead) and lost 1.5-2.5 ( https://www.chess.com/news/komodo-beats-nakamura-in-final-battle-1331 ). Those advantages are huge.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is wrong with f2-f4 against the French Defense?
```
[fen ""]
[Startply "3"]
[Title "2.f4 against the French Defense"]

1.e4 e6 2.f4

```

What is so obviously wrong with this approach? I ask because it is not even mentioned in the complete Black repertoire book French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation by Hannes Langrock http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/frenchrubinsteinexcerpt.pdf which includes second move alternatives to 2.d4 such as 1.e4 e6 2.b3 or 2.Qe2.

# Answer
Grandmaster Igor Glek wrote a survey about `1. e4 e5 2. f4` in *Secrets of Opening Surprises*, volume 8 (2008).

Some quotes:

> With `2. f4` we return to the nineteenth century, when modern chess understanding made its first steps. The basic idea is clear I suppose - after `2... d5`to play `3. e5!` \- gaining some space in the centre. So in principle we see the same ideas as in the popular Advance Variation (`2. d4 d5 3. e5`), but White doesn't permit Black to create immediate counterplay against pawn `d4`.
>
> ...
>
> My opponents usually played in the same way as they would against `2. d4 d5 3. e5` line - `... c7-c5`, `... Nb8-c6`, `... Ng8-e7(h6)-f5`. My reaction was `Nb1-a3-c2`and then not `d2-d4` immediately, but first `Bf1-d3`. Interestingly, we can already see this manoeuvre in McDonnell's and Labourdonnais' games!

That's exactly the plan Nakamura followed in the game mentioned in the comments.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "US Championship"]
[Site "Saint Louis USA"]
[Date "2012.05.19"]
[Round "11"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Hikaru Nakamura"]
[Black "Yasser Seirawan"]
[PlyCount "59"]

1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3 Nge7 6.Na3 Nf5 7.Nc2 h5
8.Bd3 g6 9.O-O Be7 10.Bxf5 gxf5 11.d4 h4 12.dxc5 Bxc5+ 13.Be3
Be7 14.h3 b6 15.Qe2 Nb8 16.Rfd1 Ba6 17.Qe1 Nd7 18.b4 Nf8 19.a4
Bc4 20.Ncd4 Qd7 21.b5 Ng6 22.Nc6 Kf8 23.Nd2 Bd3 24.c4 Kg7
25.cxd5 exd5 26.Nb1 Bc4 27.Qc3 Qe6 28.Nd2 Rhc8 29.Nd4 Qd7
30.e6 1-0

```

So the answer is: There's nothing wrong with `2. f4` against the French Defense.
> 11 votes

# Answer
There is nothing wrong with the **Labourdonnais variation** (1. e4 e6 2. f4) *per se*.

As mentioned in the comments by @Student T, the continuation is 2...d5. This is the mainline:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3

```

Black has a fine game with a good spatial edge. White hasn't blundered, but also has no theoretical edge here. E.g. the slight lead in development with 4. Nf3 cannot be exploited in any way. My assessment of the variation is an early dynamic equality.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In his *Play the French, 4th Edn*, John Watson recommends:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "French Defense"]
[Black "Labourdonnais Variation"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d4 6. d3 Nh6 $11 {M.Weiss-Maróczy, Budapest 1895. I think that Black's position is easier to play, and White doesn't seem to have a good way of making 2 f4 interesting.} *

```

Black's d-pawn is going to be hard to get rid of, and White's d-pawn is jammed behind it. Black aims for the natural (in the French) moves ...Nf5 and/or ...Qb6, and he's right at home, while White has trouble making progress.

I could only find about 60 games among players rated 2000 ELO or higher involving 2.f4 , so there's not much modern practical experience to go on, but the overall results were 22-25-13. So, it's certainly playable.

Needless to say, Nakamura's played it. He played it in the 2012 Sinquefield Cup, after having first run into it as Black in 2010 at the same tournament. I guess he liked what he saw. Other 2600+ ELO players who've tried it include Bologan, Zviagintsev, Stevic and Yudasin. It's most ardent supporter seems to have been the Moldovan Viktor Komliakov , whose score in games I can find was 4-7-2. But since he's now 56, he seems to be playing a lot less frequently. They might be a good reference, though.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Chess study methods / memorisation techniques from before the computer-based SRS era
Some of the other questions on SE discuss the use of spaced repetition systems such as Anki and Mnemosyne to learn tactics, openings and other aspects of chess (see especially Effectiveness of a spaced repetition system (SRS) for memorizing tactical patterns for long-term skill gain?). (I am also aware that memorisation should never be done at the cost of understanding (see Understanding vs. Memorization).

My question, however, is about older memorisation techniques that don't rely on current SRS software. So far, I have found only one example of spaced repetition that does not rely on a computer. It comes from Hans Bouwmeester's book *Schaken als vak: brug naar het professionele schaak* (1976; English: *Chess as a profession: bridge towards professional chess*). (Bouwmeester coached people like Jan Timman, Gert Ligterink and Paul van der Sterren.)

At the end of a chapter about building up a card index or filing system for opening theory, he briefly describes a method for memorising opening variations (pp. 96-97). Assuming that you can subdivide your opening repertoire into 16 groups, you can review it in the following way (with 1.5 to 2 hours of study per day):

```
Day  1:     1
Day  2:     2   1
Day  3:     3   2
Day  4:     4   3   1
Day  5:     5   4   2
Day  6:     6   5   3
Day  7:     7   6   4
Day  8:     8   7   5   1
Day  9:     9   8   6   2
Day 10:     10  9   7   3
Day 11:     11  10  8   4
Day 12:     12  11  9   5
Day 13:     13  12  10  6
Day 14:     14  13  11  7
Day 15:     15  14  12  8
Day 16:     16  15  13  9   1
Day 17:     1   16  14  10  2
Day 18:     2   1   15  11  3
Day 19:     3   2   16  12  4
Day 20:     4   3   1   13  5
Day 21:     5   4   2   14  6
Day 22:     6   5   3   15  7
Day 23:     7   6   4   16  8

```

So, every day, you take a "new" group, you review the group from the day before, the group from 3 days earlier, the group from 1 week earlier and the group that was new 15 days earlier.

Bouwmeester implies that there are other methods, but he does not mention any. Is anybody aware of other methods (possibly from other chess books)? Have Dvoretsky, Jusupov or Aagaard written anything about this in their books?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I went through a number of chess books where advice on memorisation techniques might be expected, but I did not find anything that resembles Bouwmeester's proposed technique. Below is what I found; the books are listed in chronological order, except for Soltis.

## Maizelis (1960)

Ilya Maizelis: *The Soviet Chess Primer* (English translation, 2014; original Russian edition, 1960)

> Opening variations should not be taken on board by "cramming", and learnt by heart. The mechanical assimilation of a series of moves in some line or other is perhaps not difficult, but to say the least it is useless. (Page 373)
>
> You should play through opening variations on a chessboard, looking carefully into the rationale of the manoeuvres involved. You must not simply accept on trust everything written in the handbooks; you need to form an independent assessment of the positions that arise. You are therefore definitely not advised to play through opening after opening, particularly at a fast pace. (Page 376)

## Suetin (1974)

A. Suetin: *Hoe men de opening speelt* (1974; "How to Play the Opening"; originally in Russian).

In the book's last chapter, which discusses the study of openings, Suetin points out that the study of openings requires a good memory, but one should not blindly memorise as many variations as possible. Players should find games that illustrate the variations that they have chosen to learn. Some players are better at remembering visual features such as positions, while others are better at remembering move sequences. "It is not feasible to provide a recipe that works for everyone." Players should note down their games and analyse them; they can then consult books to check for better continuations.

## Euwe (1977)

Max Euwe: *Praktische schaaklessen 3: Openingsrepertoire* (1977).

Euwe warns against blindly following what is printed in books, but offers no advice on how to memorise openings.

## Mednis (1982)

Edmar Mednis: *How to Play Good Opening Moves*. (1982) Revised by Burt Hochberg (2002).

Mednis points out that it is much more important to understand how to play good opening moves than to have memorised many complicated variations. He cites the match between Capablanca and Kostic as an example. Kostic was noted for his memorisation of openings (and games generally), while Capablanca admitted that he was no expert in opening theory. Nevertheless, Capablanca swept the first five games, after which Kostic resigned the match.

## Awerbach, Kotow & Judowitsch (1983)

J. Awerbach, A. Kotow, M. Judowitsch: *Schachbuch für Meister von Morgen: Ein Lehr- und Trainingswert - nicht nur für den Nachwuchs* (1983; originally in Russian).

The chapter on openings was written by Judowitsch. The last part of the chapter discusses how to learn openings. It contains the usual advice about understanding, healthy opening principles and the analysis of master games, but nothing about memorisation techniques.

## Kostjew (1987)

Alexander Kostjew: *Schach lehren leicht gemacht* (1987; originally in Russian).

Like several other authors, Kostjew points out that is is important to understand the idea(s) behind the main variations in one's repertoire. These can be learnt by studying a few games that use these variations (chapter I, section 18).

## Samarian (2007)

Sergiu Samarian: *Das systematische Schachtraining. Trainigsmethode, Strategien und Kombinationen* (9th ed., 2007). This is the German chess federation's official instruction manual.

The book's last chapter discusses how to choose an opening repertoire and how to collect and analyse opening variations. It does not describe a memorisation technique. However, the book's introduction recommends players to memorise and understand one or two exemplary games for each of the themes discussed in the book.

## Lars Bo Hansen (2009)

Lars Bo Hansen: *Improve Your Chess by Learning from the Champions* (2009)

Lars Bo Hansen says it is important to have a broad opening repertoire in order to adapt to your opponent, but does not give advice on how to study openings.

## Stewart (2013)

William Stewart: *Chess Psychology: The Will to Win* (2013).

Chapter 5, "How to Study Chess", discusses how to organise a regimen for chess study. Stewart recommends a schedule with 30% tactics, 25% positional play, 20% endgames, 15% openings and 10% psychology. He also advises not to learn openings via memorisation.

> Memorization of certain positions is important for any kind of study, but really understanding the core concepts of what is happening on the board is a lot more important than automatically knowing what response to make to your opponent's move.

In spite of admitting that memorisation is important, Stewart does not say anything about efficient memorisation techniques.

## Soltis (2010)

Andrew Soltis: *Studying Chess Made Easy* (2010).

At last a book that is honest about the importance of memorisation.

Chapter 4 discusses "the right was to study an opening". Soltis writes, "Every player memorizes. Grandmasters do it more than anyone else," and that "all good opening play is part memory and part understanding". To start learning a new opening, "a good first step is to look briefly at a large number of games that were played in that line". You should not look exclusively at recent grandmaster games, since the most instructive games are often several decades old.

An alternative approach is to find a book about the opening, especially one with good verbal descriptions. Soltis has much more to say about studying openings, but gives no advice on memorisation techniques.

## Update 1: Dan Heisman

In a tweet on 11 August 2016, chess instructor **Dan Heisman** wrote, "\[I\]n all my chess reading I have never read about a player using a memorization technique & most analysis doesn't require it".

## Update 2: Art of Memory Wiki and Forum

Memorisation in chess was discussed in a few threads on the Art of Memory Forum:

However, the page Memorizing Chess Games on the Art of Memory wiki is still a stub.

(The thread memory techniques on Chess.com from 2011 discusses an alternative to memorising opening lines, i.e. playing lots of games in the chose opening, starting with games that are won or lost in 20 moves or less.)

## Update 3: Mnemonics and Blindfold Chess

Staffan A. Svensson: Mnemonics and Blindfold Chess (2003, PDF): discusses several aspects of mnemonics and mnemonic systems that are relevant to blindfold chess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm afraid I can't contribute to your research on pre-computer, pre-SRS memorization techniques.

I would suggest that, since in your response to your own question you acknowledge multiple sources that advise *against* memorization of openings at all, the question is moot apart from its value to chess history. I can't roust out my copy of *The History of Chess*, by Whyld, et al, to confirm my suspicion, but it may be able to shed light, if you're still interested for that rather arcane reason.

In addition, spaced repetition has been demonstrated through multiple research projects to produce the best *retention* in memorization efforts, so it doesn't seem as if a pre-SRS technique (digital or otherwise) is worth using, if SRS is available for free and has been optimized for retention.

There are also some useful, related questions on this forum that are related to the two assumptions in your question that you challenge in your own response. See:

Other questions have been posed and answered that relate to the specific SRS techniques and tools, if you're interested.

---
Tags: history, training, memorization
---