# Question
Title: Beginner Chess Question: Bringing out my queen early?
Sometimes I bring my queen out early, however GMs say "Queen is vulnerable to attack and hinders development" I agree with that but most of the time I only bring it to f3 or around the 3rd-rank ex. b3/g3 threatening to take b7 pawn and forking rook and the knight.

Question:
Does it hinder my development if I try to bring it out to the 3rd row. I know it's vulnerable to Knight and Bishop attacks.

# Answer
Common wisdom is that bringing your Queen out early invites attack and eventually costs you time. And losing time is like giving your opponent free moves. So for players of a certain level, it is true that bringing out the Queen early is not helpful.

That being said, chess is a game between 2 people. It is not between "olde GM lore" and a person.

If you're having fun bring your Queen out early, or if you're winning games by doing it, then keep doing it. If you're playing tournaments, your rating will rise accordingly. By the last rounds you'll be playing the better players in your bracket.

At some point, your opponents will get stronger. You'll notice that an early Queen sortie is a detriment. At that point you'll need to up your game.

Consider not moving your Queen until you have at least 2 other piece off the back row. Getting those pieces 'out of the box' will go a long way towards giving you some good games.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Yes, it hinders your development to bring your queen out to f3. Not only does the queen occupation of f3 take away the most natural square for your knight, but your queen is vulnerable to attack in the opening and middle game. Your castling is delayed. c2 is no longer defended, look out for your opponents Ng4. The whole shuffle of your queen at various third rank squares not only wastes time which you could use to develop other pieces, but the attack often only helps your opponent develop because when you attack a pawn, for example, your opponent may be able to develop a piece and defend the pawn at the same time.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Never ever do that unless the are tactics or exploiting opponent's inaccuracy in development. F3 is the natural square for your knight. If your opponent follows a normal development and you bring your Queen on the 3rd Rank for no particular reason(see above the only two reasons) that strategically losing. Simple as that.
> 2 votes

# Answer
**Bringing out the queen early is bad only if it can be attacked**. Here're some examples:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe5+? 4. Be2 Nf6 5. Nf3 Qf5? 6. O-O

```

Black's position is a wreck because White has managed to develop with tempo two times (3. Nc3 and 5. Nf3), and is threatening to do it yet again (with an eventual d4-Bd3, gaining time yet again while opening the e-file for the f1-rook). These moves are "free" because while White is developing pieces, Black has to respond to the attack on the queen. This is why the standard move in this opening is 3...Qa5, which places the queen on a square which cannot be easily attacked.

However if the opponent cannot attack the queen, it's perfectly fine to bring out the queen early.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4? 5. Qxd4

```

In this line of the Scotch, okay, now White's queen is in the center, but Black can't attack it. If Black could still play ...Nc6, then yes, the queen is vulnerable, but the knight isn't there anymore. Black could play ...c5, but that permanently weakens the d5-square and after White moves the queen, Bc4 and Nc3 would turn Black's "gain of time" into seppuku.

Another, more sophisticated example:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7

```

Once again Black has developed his queen early, but White has no good way to attack it. Playing Ndb5 or Ncb5 doesn't gain much time because the knights are already developed, and Black will regain the tempo eventually with ...a6. If White could play Bf4, then 5...Qc7 would be bad, but the line 6. Ndb5 Qb8 7. g3 (forcing Bf4) a6 8. Bf4? e5 would lose White a piece.

Conclusion: in the opening, feel free to develop your queen where it's active *as long as it cannot be easily attacked*. If the opponent pieces can leap into battle by attacking the queen, don't do it. If they can't, by all means.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: beginner, queens
---


# Question
Title: There are three checks in this position?
I found this position in the Chess Programming Wiki. It's a perft calculation. In the depth 2 the results informs that there are 3 checks. But I just able to find 2 checks:

* 1. Kf1 hxg2+
* 1. Kf1 Bxe2+

.

```
[FEN "r3k2r/p1ppqpb1/bn2pnp1/3PN3/1p2P3/2N2Q1p/PPPBBPPP/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Where is the third check?

May look stupid, but I really can't find it.

# Answer
> 7 votes
1. Kd1 Bxe2+ looks like it is another depth 2 check

---
Tags: check, perft
---


# Question
Title: Analysis on Alekhine-Lasker 1934, after 18.Qd6
In this position from Alekhine-Lasker, Zurich 1934

```
[fen "r4rk1/pp3ppp/1qpQ1n2/4nN2/8/1B2P3/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rae8 2. Ne7+ (2. Rc5 Nfd7) Kh8 3. Qxe5 Ng8

```

It's Black to play. So if 18...Rae8, then how can White continue to get an advantage?
If 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.Qxe5 Ng8, Black seems to get the piece back with a good position.
Also 19.Rc5 Nfd7 doesn't seem to lead anywhere. I'm I missing anything here?

# Answer
After 20...Ng8 21. Nc6! Re5 22. Ne5 and wins f7 too due to the dual threats of Nd7 and Nf7, both winning the exchange. So, 22...Nf6 is forced, and white is just winning there.

It is going to be Q vs. R, B, and two pawns; but the problem is that white will control both files, and the black K is still not safe.

```
[fen "r4rk1/pp3ppp/1qpQ1n2/4nN2/8/1B2P3/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rae8 2. Ne7+ (2. Rc5 Nfd7) Kh8 3. Qxe5 Ng8 4. Nxc6! Rxe5 5. Nxe5 Nf6 {forced} 6. Nf7 Kg8 7. Rfd1 {is crushing since you cannot take on f7 due to mate with Rc8}

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why is f4 considered as bad in the opening?
I really like to play openings that contain f4 (f5 as black) for a number of reasons.

1. It cannot be challenged with d pawn, which is initially protected by the queen.
2. When the king knight is developed, the f pawn is no longer blocked.
3. Unlike c pawn, it can be easily supported by castling kingside up to the board, and helps the development of the rook if exchanged.
4. After king's pishop fianchetto, the diagonal is open and the bishop is very strong there.
5. Even if exchanged early, after castling kingside, the king rook has a semi-open file, which makes it stronger.
6. Enables Ng5 move, which can be nasty sometimes.

But usually this move is considered bad, or dubious at the best by grandmasters and engines. What is the reason?

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "3"]

      1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. O-O O-O 8.
Kh1

```

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "3"]

      1. e4 e5 2. d4 d6 3. f4 exf4 4. Bxf4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2

```

# Answer
This is not an answer regarding the general merits of f4 or ...f5, but a specific analysis of the first example:

```
  [FEN ""]
  [StartPly "13"]

  1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. O-O O-O (7...Ne3 {Forking Queen and Rook} 8. Bxe3 {Forced} dxe3 9. Be2 {One way to prevent ...e2+}) 8. Kh1 *

```

In the final position of the alternative variation, white is cramped, has lost the bishop pair and is passive due to the threat of ...e2+. I.e. playing f4 exposes the diagonal g1-a7 (and to a lesser extent the e1-h4 diagonal).

Your second example has a similar tactical weakness on the e1-h4 diagonal:

```
  [FEN ""]
  [StartPly "7"]

  1. e4 e5 2. d4 d6 3. f4 exf4 4. Bxf4 Nf6 (4...Qh4+ 5. Bg3 {Forced} Qxe4+ 6. Qe2 Nf6 {Black might as well develop a piece} 7. Nc3 Qxe2+ 8. Bxe2) 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is not really possible to answer this generally as chess is more complicated and it really depends on what black is playing whether an early f4 is good or not.

I guess, what you actually like is the combination of e4 and f4. There are many examples where f4 is perfectly playable, such as in some Sicilians, the French defence and other semi-open games.

In open games (1. e4 e5) playing an early f4 tends to be somewhat dubious at the highest level, but is of course perfectly playable at the club level.

If you want a system opening with f4, why don't you play the King's Indian Attack, where "f4" is often ok whatever black does?
> 6 votes

# Answer
Firstly, #4 is wrong as the bishop is still blocked by the knight and, in your examples, the e pawn. Change this to "adding support in the center."

There are two weaknesses with moving the f pawn early. It weakens the kingside, especially the g1-a7 diagonal, and it wastes time in the opening. These allow for a quick attack on your king.

However, looking over many King's Gambits, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and you should get many good games with your system.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It depends on the position but in the second position you gave sf has white with a clear advantage. In the first position sf has it -.9 but black is up a pawn which means the eval is based on black's material advantage. Positionally, white is a little better. I'm not sure where you're getting that white is worse positionally.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: When are pieces worth more (or less) than their nominal value?
Which are the most common situations in which pieces are worth more/less than their value, in point?

For example, I know that a protected Knight on 6th rank (3rd for Black) of columns d and e may be worth at least as much as a Rook (thus 5 points). The same for a very strong fianchettoed Bishop. Another example: a Rook on 7th rank (2nd for Black) usually is worth a Pawn more than its normal value, while 2 Rooks there may be worth 3 Pawns more than their normal combined value (if opponent's King stays on 8th or 1st row respectively, of course).

Are there other similar situations?

# Answer
> 13 votes
While I don't think it's reasonable to list every noteworthy situation, here are a few more that will probably be good general guidelines. You can use rules-of-thumb like this in order to evaluate material imbalances in your own games:

* the **bishop pair** may be worth a **rook and two pawns**
* the **bishop pair and a pawn** is worth a **knight and a rook**
* a **knight on the 6th rank** is worth a **rook** if it cannot be traded off or chased away (and it is close to the action)
* an **unopposed dark square bishop** is worth a **rook** if the opponent has played g6 *and the queens are on the board*
* a **rook on the 7th** is worth an extra pawn
* **doubled rooks on the 7th** is usually good for at least a draw
* the **queen** may be worth **two rooks** if the side with the queen can start an attack.
* **three minor pieces** may be worth **a queen** \- take this with a large grain of salt, in every position, one side or the other usually has a decisive advantage so each case must be carefully considered
* **a minor piece, a rook, and a pawn** are sometimes worth a queen
* however, the **queen with a pawn** is usually stronger than **two knights and a rook** (for some reason, the knights just don't coordinate well, I've never had this situation in my own games)
* **three pawns** are worth *more* than **a piece in the endgame** but *much less* than **a piece in the middlegame** (unless they are advanced in which case they restrict the opponent)

Those are all of the strange imbalances I can think of off the top of my head. I omitted things like rook and pawn vs two pieces or knight vs bishop because those are fairly common, and those especially depend on the position. Again, every position needs to be considered on its own, this is just to get you in the right frame of mind when you have to make a determination.

# Answer
> 5 votes
For quantifiable evaluations, it may be useful to have a look at the logic used in chess engines. It was revealed some years ago that the evaluation of material imbalances in Rybka, which were at the time astronomically advanced compared to other engines (and probably humans too), were based on this article by Larry Kaufman. Most (maybe all) other strong engines including Houdini and Critter have followed suit.

A few interesting bullet points based on my reading follow, though I left out a lot of detail and strongly recommend the article:

* The "default" value of each piece, according to Kaufman, is: Pawn= 1 Rook = 5 Bishop = 3¼ kNight = 3¼ BB pair = +½ Queen = 9¾
* Most players, even at the grandmaster level, underestimate the value of the bishop pair
* The bishop pair retains its value regardless of other positional considerations (open/closed position, etc)
* Therefore, exchange sacrifices are more attractive in situations where you get the bishop pair
* The queen is relatively stronger in middlegames with lots of pawns and rooks are relatively stronger in endgames with few pawns.
* Unsurprisingly then, the queen is better than two rooks except when there are no other pieces on the board
* Similarly, imbalances involving the queen are undesirable for the player without the queen if that player also does not have any rooks
* That means that three minor pieces are better than a queen if and only if the rooks are on the board. Therefore if your opponent sacrifices his queen for three of your minors, and you can trade the rooks off, you should make it a priority to do so.

If any of this is interesting I strongly encourage you to give the article multiple readings in close study. The validity of these principles is scientifically demonstrated, which is a rare thing indeed in chess.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The "worth" or "value" of any piece is always situational. The concept of sacrifice includes compensation for the side losing material. That compensation may not be a material return, but something else like weakening enemy king safety, for example. Therefore, I prefer to consider a piece's "strength" as its usefulness in a given situation, rather than a number.

Generally, bishops become stronger than knights into the endgame, when the position is more open. Knights can be stronger than bishops in the opening and middle game when positions could be more closed and cramped. These ideas guide my considerations of B/N exchanges.

A pinned piece has a reduced value since its movement options become limited or negated altogether. (If a bishop or undeveloped rook are considered "bad" so too would a pinned pawn be bad and not as strong)

In the endgame, the king's "value" has been approximated to 4 pawns. (I don't recall the source). Usually in the endgame, you try to quickly centralize your king to strengthen him.

A pawn that promotes effectively adds only 8 pawns of value for the side promoting (+9 for the new queen, -1 for the removed pawn).

Any piece near the center is stronger (can move to more squares and/or more directions).

An edge pawn can only capture on/protect one square. It isn't as strong as pawns on files b-g.

# Answer
> 4 votes
To add to the other answer, a protected passed pawn on the seventh rank (sometimes the sixth) is worth at least a minor piece, because that's what the defender will have to give up to prevent its becoming a queen. Hence, a passed pawn on the fifth rank or further is worth two ordinary pawns.

"Bad" bishops trapped behind pawns of the same color may be worth only two or so points instead of three. There might also be a one point deduction for similarly hobbled knights or rooks.

A knight may be worth more than a bishop when its queen is on the board (Capablanca), because it complements the queen better.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Piece values are largely based on the mobility of the pieces. ie a queen is more valuable than a rook because a queen can move to more squares. In fact, you could almost break it down to a mathematical formula (number of moves=piece value)except for certain circumstances like the knight's jumping ability or the fact that bishops are locked onto one color that would throw the formula off a little.

It's inane to try and list all of the possibilities when simply understanding the concept will give you a far better understanding.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, point-value
---


# Question
Title: Effectiveness of a spaced repetition system (SRS) for memorizing tactical patterns for long-term skill gain?
After reading Micheal de Maza's article 400 Points in 400 Days and the paper Training in Chess: A Scientific Approach by Gobet and Jansen, I have come to the conclusion that effective gains in chess skill for players below the A-class rating (\<1900) must come from an equal gain in tactical ability. This is pretty well known in the chess community, and most people, when asked how to improve, will point to tactics.

Once we accept this idea of tactics being the foundation of amateur (\<1900) improvement, it becomes a simple matter of methods, results and efficiency. In this regard, most chess players will look to books and websites which offer "chess puzzles". Some of the more popular websites, CTS (Chess Tactics Server) and ChessTempo, offer random puzzles, ordered by difficulty. Having used these websites for the better part of two years, one of the main problems I've found is the loss of "sharpness" or "board vision" when the regularity of puzzle reviews are interrupted. Often, even a gap of 1 week can severely cripple any progress made in tactical ability, so that constant daily practice is needed to maintain any growth.

Then I read about Micheal de Maza (from an article by Dan Heisman) and his method to increase 400+ rating points in a little more than a year. The crux of his method is what he calls "the seven circles" where he does 7 passes through a chess puzzle book, at which point he can solve the puzzles near instantly. In other words, he has **memorized** the puzzles and their solutions by **sight**.

Now it is my opinion that the book he chose to "memorize" (Chess Manual of Combinations) had a greater contribution than his actual method (the method is very inefficient, as I will discuss later) but I also believe that the memorization component was essential to sustained (i.e permanent) chess growth. Looking through the Chess Manual of Combinations, I can see that it follows many of the principles laid out in the second paper (especially regarding the building up of positions from the simple to the complex to create an internal hierarchy); it is also ordered by theme and difficulty.

But the question remains, what is the most efficient way to memorize this material? Certainly, doing seven passes through the book seems to be the most inefficient way (brute force usually is).

I am a big fan of spaced repetition software such as Anki, and I think that this software can be combined with the memorization method to yield some significant results, but before I begin such an undertaking I wanted to ask if anyone has already tried a similar approach (if not spaced repetition, at least the memorization of puzzles) and what results they obtained (particularly if it was quantitative, i.e changes in ratings).

Also, I have "Anki-ed" the Manual of Chess Combinations (Volume 1a only, 2a is in the works) and am wondering if anyone else is willing to experiment with this method along with me.

# Answer
It is just anecdotal, and correlation is not the same as causation, but a few years ago I started using the Mnemosyne spaced repetition program to memorize

* Opening lines (a few thousand cards here alone)
* Positions from
    + Yusupov, *Build Up Your Chess* et al
    + Hellsten, *Mastering Chess Strategy*
    + Ivashchenko, *Manual of Chess Combinations*
    + Rosen, *Chess Endgame Training*
    + My own games where I had made a bad decision

During this time, my USCF rating, which had never moved much as an adult, went from under 1800 to over 2000.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Some experiences:

* I did some chess training with Anki and it is certainly a viable way to do it. Though I think I prefer to actually play out the solution on a (virtual) board.
* After three passes I am usually able to solve the puzzles instantly, so 7 passes seems to be quite excessive.
* I'm not so sure you really have to memorise concrete positions. After all, the motifs turn up again and again anyway, and solving exactly the same positions again and again might condition you to no search for the exceptions anymore. (I noticed that a lot with youngsters who already have a good tactical eye.) This plays into the difference between tactical vision and calculation: If you do too much of these drills your tactical vision improves, but your calculation gets worse. (Like playing too much blitz.)
* To me personally right now, it seems to be more beneficial to sit down for half an hour and solve some deep and difficult exercise to the end instead of "remembering" 200 easy tactical positions. But you specified \<1900 and in that area of chess strength tactical drills certainly work.
* I read some rather dubious stuff about de Maza, which I won't repeat here. But suffice to say, his book is not to be taken as a scientific study ...

Addendum: With "exceptions" I mean cases, where the obvious tactical motif doesn't work for some deeper reason or maybe just because of a random tactical detail. The "concrete evidence" that memorising position might have some negative side effects, is mostly based on the experience that many players, who do a lot of tactics, get fast but superficial at recognising tactical opportunities.(Many players are afraid of up and coming youngsters and their tactical acumen, but for me, if I myself am in decent tactical shape, those are usually the easy games.) I fear I didn't use Anki long enough to tell you about longterm "sharpness". But this is a very fuzzy thing to address in any case. Some rust always accumulates.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Chess Position Trainer is a software package that uses a spaced repetition method to help you learn moves for both openings and just a selected set of positions. It stores the information to be trained as positions, so move order becomes moot.

This is actually a more useful approach to learning the opening, because move (re)ordering is often used to try to steer the game into a position but avoid disadvantageous variations that can arise if the normal order is chosen. So, the players who are best at both *spotting opportunities for transpositions* and *recognizing when one has occurred* will be best equipped to play the best theoretical move from that position.

Unfortunately, CPT's schedule for repetition is not adjustable. So, if you think there may be some advantage to that, Anki is a good option, as mentioned by Christophe in a comment to another answer.

You will need to load data into both. CPT has the advantage that it will accept a PGN game (or file of games) and produce the required training for the whole suite automatically. For Anki, you would need to setup/import each position that you want to be tested on individually. So, at least in the short- to medium-term, CPT is less labor for about the same benefit.
> 1 votes

# Answer
First, you say it's inefficient but in reality it's the most efficient way for adults to learn anything.

You use the word "memorize" which is not accurate at all. Pattern-recognition is not the same thing as memorization.

It sounds like you have a very flawed understanding of what MDLM was saying.
> 1 votes

# Answer
In this video IM David Pruess explained the way chess player should learn tactic. I can summarize it in one sentence: " The way you learn **basic** patterns is **memorizing** it **not solving** them." And If you can share your deck with me, I will really appreciate that. I don't know how to PM you here
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, puzzles, training
---


title: Multiple premoves

text:
# Question
Title: Multiple premoves
I often enjoy being able to play (online) chess with premoves activated. However, I wondered from the beginning why multiple premoves at once weren't allowed. Example: where my opponent's queen is next to his king and I premove to take his queen (provided he does not move his own queen first) then why can't I additionally guess that he will take back with his king and also premove **his** king to take my queen? As long as my opponent is still thinking, I should be allowed to premove as many moves as I want – at least I think this would be a nice variant.

# Answer
Pre-moving is not a chess variant; it's a *feature* of several online chess sites. You can't pre-move in over-the-board games.

It's up to the owners of those chess sites to decide where their development budget goes to. If you know what your opponent is going to do, they probably know it too and can quickly make their next move, before you have the chance to make multiple pre-moves. Situations where you would actually benefit from being able to make multiple pre-moves are probably rare enough that they do not want to spend time/energy/money on such a feature.
> 8 votes

# Answer
> Example: where my opponent's queen is next to his king and I premove to take his queen (provided he does not move his own queen first) then why can't I additionally guess that he will take back with his king and also premove his king to take my queen?

You can only premove your own moves. You can guess that he will take back with his king but not make the move for him.

One variant of chess where you can do the equivalent of multiple premoves and where it is common is correspondence chess.

It is common to not just send one move as a reply to your opponent but a number of different sequences of several moves from which your opponent can choose or can play something completely different. This has the same effect as premoving in online chess of speeding up the game and gaining time on the clock albeit for both players.
> 3 votes

# Answer
> I should be allowed to premove as many moves as I want

Wherever you play, it is their site, and their rules, so they get to decide what to implement. I agree with Glorfindel that it is relatively rare that most players would want to take the chance on multiple premoves as you do, so why bother programming it?

If this is important to you, then I suggest sending the site a suggestion. They might implement it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Many sites allow you to do multiple premoves. The site is free to allow a single premove, multiple ones, or ban them completely
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


title: What is Berg's counter-attack system?

text:
# Question
Title: What is Berg's counter-attack system?
Chessbase published an article today about the "World Prestigious University Chess Invitational Tournament" which includes this line:

> The tournament will use the Berg's counter-attack system, and will be ranked after eleven rounds in five days. Each team shall comprise three players (two men and one woman), one captain, and one coach. The time control is 25 minutes plus 15 seconds per move.

What is Berg's counter-attack system? I tried searching for it, but didn't find anything.

# Answer
From the article:

> The participants are listed here in the order of registration:
>
> * The united team of Japan Universities
> * Moscow State University
> * University of Missouri
> * University of New South Wales
> * University College London
> * Harvard University
> * Princeton University
> * University of Toronto
> * Saint Louis University (two teams)
> * University of Oxford
> * Nankai University of China (Host team)

So, 11 teams. For an all-play-all that would require 11 rounds where one team has a bye in each round.

The article goes on to say:

> The tournament will use the Berg's counter-attack system, and will be ranked after eleven rounds in five days.

So, yes, 11 rounds. The standard way of pairing such a tournament would be to use the Berger tables. The FIDE Arbiters Commission publishes an Arbiter's Handbook which, amongst a lot of other information, includes a section which lists the Berger pairing tables for various numbers of players. The table for 11 or 12 players is given on page 66:

> 11 or 12 players:
> Rd 1: 1-12, 2-11, 3-10, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7.
> Rd 2: 12-7, 8-6, 9-5, 10-4, 11-3, 1-2.
> Rd 3: 2-12, 3-1, 4-11, 5-10, 6-9, 7-8.
> Rd 4: 12-8, 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, 1-4, 2-3.
> Rd 5: 3-12, 4-2, 5-1, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9.
> Rd 6: 12-9, 10-8, 11-7, 1-6, 2-5, 3-4.
> Rd 7: 4-12, 5-3, 6-2, 7-1, 8-11, 9-10.
> Rd 8: 12-10, 11-9, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5.
> Rd 9: 5-12, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1, 10-11.
> Rd 10: 12-11, 1-10, 2-9, 3-8, 4-7, 5-6.
> Rd 11: 6-12, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3, 10-2, 11-1.

"Berg's counter-attack system" looks like a 3rd rate Google translation. I susupect this article was given to chessbase and they included it without any checking. It is not "Berg's counter-attack system" it should be "Berger pairing table".
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Improving the observation skill & making less blunders
I've noticed that the most common reason for me to lose a game is not lack of knowledge but failure to observe whats happening on the board. This is specially true for rapid games but it happens in slow chess as well. In a recent game i moved a rook to a square where it was captured on the next move for free, although i spent several minutes before making that move! It also happens that i "forget" that a piece is defending something and move it away, or i don't see my opponents threat, even if it is straight forward. When doing tactics puzzles it happens sometimes that i look at it for several minutes and then suddenly realize something like "oh, i have a passed pawn in the top left corner on the board!"

If i could observe more quickly & accurately and reduce the amount of gross blunders i would win a lot more games, specially rapid games. What do you do to improve your observation skill and blunder less?

# Answer
I will go back to what Artur Yusupov, three-time World Championship Candidate, former top-10 player, and one of the greatest living trainers recommends in the first book of his 10-volume series. In volume one, "Boost Your Chess - Build Up Your Chess", chapter 9, which is two-move mates, including composed problems:

> The aim of this lesson is to improve your calculation of short variations. **It is more important to find a lot of options in the first few moves than to calculate moves long variations.** Most mistakes occur in the early moves in variations. What is the use of calculating a long and correct variation if your opponent has a much better reply on move one?
>
> **You must develop your skill at calculating short variations, while at the same time taking into account the possibilities available to your opponent.** This skill should reduce blunders.
>
> Exercises with mate in two moves are very well suited for training in the art of calculating short variations with great accuracy.
> Emphasis as written, not mine.

I will take this one step further with my own suggestion. Try to train yourself that before you make every move, look at EVERY move your opponent has. I am not saying that you are calculating anything. You are simply looking at it so you consider it. It will do two things: If you are hanging a piece, just looking at it will usually "hit you in the face like a brick", and second, I have done many combination problems over the last 40 years, and sometimes, when I cannot figure it out, and look at the answer, I realize immediately that had I just LOOKED at the move, I would have seen the combination.

So, again, you are not trying to calculate, just consider every move. You will be amazed at what you register immediately.
> 21 votes

# Answer
One of the most important things we tell players who are a bit above beginner level is to have a checklist they go through before making each move. It looks like this:

* checks
* captures
* threats
* opponent's threats
...
* blunder check

So, as part of their move selection, they first look to see if they can give a check. If so they calculate the results. Then they look for pieces they can capture and do the same. Then threats they can make. Then threats that the opponent can make, etc. Finally when they have chosen their move they check that it isn't a blunder.

The mere fact that they are looking over the whole board for these possibilities increases general awareness. This helps to combat the "chess blindness" that causes the errors you describe.

Having such a routine is particularly important at slower rates of play because it is easy when trying to execute a plan (or even just playing an opening you know) to play moves on autopilot. Your opponent makes a slightly unusual move and you ignore it, continue with your plan and blunder. In rapid and blitz it obviously becomes much more difficult to follow this routine because of the time constraints but if it has become a habit at longer time controls it will be easier to do a quick version at quicker time controls.

Note that very strong players can also make such blunders. They spend a long time thinking about their move, can't find a move, think of a move at the last minute and play it without checking. Here is an example from the recent St Louis tournament where Leiner Dominguez did just that and resigned next move.

```
[title "Ding Liren v Leiner Dominguez, St Louis 2019"]
[fen "q3rbk1/1Q3Rpp/1R2p3/4B3/3P4/5N1P/5nPK/r7 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxa7?? 2. Qxa7

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
Yep, a very important problem. It essentially boils down to how well you know tactics and your command of chess geometry, but there are few shortcuts you can use, without having to perform a ton of cross-checks every time you make a move. I try to keep a picture in my head, based on the strategic plan that I've used for the game, which lines are controlled by me and which by my opponent. For example, if your black Q is on b6, with the open file in front of it and a7-g1 diagonal open, then it should be safe for your pieces to step onto those squares. Conversely, if your opponent's rook is on the open a file, and you are considering putting a piece on it, performing a quick check against that matrix will raise a warning. Another useful thing is to have a general habit of not leaving pieces unprotected, so that when you blunder a piece you at least get something back. It won't work so well in the endgame with a lot fewer pieces on the board, but it's quite helpful in the opening and middlegame.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, blunder
---


# Question
Title: What is the maximum number of promoted pawns ever achieved in a competitive game?
In theory, a player could advance all eight of their pawns to the end of the board, promoting them all. In my own experience, games with more than two promotions on one side have been vanishingly rare, and getting two promotions has been uncommon.

Has a player ever actually promoted all eight of their pawns? If not, what's the maximum number of pawn promotions that a player has achieved in regular competitive play?

# Answer
> 8 votes
In Tim Krabbe’s chess records, Krabbe gives a game where the Black player promoted four of their pawns, the most one player has ever gotten in a professional game, and only one where it has happened. It is also notable for being one of few games with 6 promotions.

The game can also be viewed here at ChessDB.com.

```
[Title "Alena Kubikova-Vaclav Novy, 9th Open, Czech Republic, 2003"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3  g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2  Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 h5 13. Kb1 a5 14. Bg5 Rc5 15. g4  hxg4 16. f4 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4 18. e5 Bc6 19. Nxc6 Rxc6 20. exf6 exf6 21. Nd5  fxg5 22. hxg5 Rc5 23. Nf6+ Bxf6 24. Qh2 Re8 25. Qh7+ Kf8 26. gxf6 Qxf6 27. Qh8+  Ke7 28. Rde1+ Re5 29. Qxf6+ Kxf6 30. fxe5+ dxe5 31. Kc1 Kg5 32. Rh7 f5 33. Rxb7  g3 34. Kd2 Kg4 35. Rb3 f4 36. c4 e4 37. c5 e3+ 38. Kd3 Rd8+ 39. Ke4 g2 40. c6 e2  41. c7 Rc8 42. Rc3 f3 43. Ke3 Kg3 44. Rc5 Re8+ 45. Kd2 Kf2 46. c8=Q Rxc8 47.  Rxc8 g1=Q 48. Rxg1 Kxg1 49. Rc1+ Kf2 50. b3 g5 51. a3 g4 52. b4 axb4 53. axb4 g3  54. b5 g2 55. b6 g1=Q 56. Rxg1 Kxg1 57. b7 f2 58. b8=Q e1=Q+ 59. Kc2 Qe2+ 60.  Kc3 Qe3+ 61. Kb4 f1=Q

```

Regarding informal OTB games, however, 5 promotions is the most that I currently know of from this game.

```
[Title "Manuel Matto-Anastasia Mossiaguine, Gibraltar Chess Festival, Gibraltar England"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bc4 Bb4 5. d3 O-O 6. a3 Ba5 7. Bd2 d6 8. h3 Bd7 9. b4 Bb6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Be3 Bxe3 12. fxe3 a6 13. O-O Qe7 14. Qe1 Ne8 15. Nd5 Qd8 16. Qg3 Nf6 17. Nxf6 Qxf6 18. Nh4 Qe7 19. Ng6 Qe8 20. Nxf8 Qxf8 21. Rxf7 Qxf7 22. Bxf7+ Kxf7 23. Rf1+ Kg8 24. Qg6 Kh8 25. Rf7 Rg8 26. Rxd7 b5 27. Rxc7 Nb8 28. Qxd6 Kh7 29. Qxe5 Kh8 30. Rxg7 Rxg7 31. Qxb8+ Kh7 32. Qb6 Rg6 33. Qxg6+ Kxg6 34. Kf2 Kf6 35. d4 Ke6 36. Kf3 Kf6 37. Kf4 h5 38. g4 h4 39. c3 Kg6 40. Ke5 Kf7 41. Kd5 Ke7 42. Kc6 Kd8 43. Kb6 Kc8 44. Kxa6 Kc7 45. Kxb5 Kd6 46. c4 Ke6 47. Kc5 Kf6 48. Kd5 Kg6 49. Ke5 Kh6 50. Kf5 Kg7 51. Kg5 Kf7 52. Kxh4 Kg6 53. e5 Kf7 54. d5 Ke7 55. c5 Kd7 56. b5 Kc7 57. a4 Kb7 58. a5 Ka7 59. e4 Kb7 60. a6+ Kc7 61. b6+ Kd7 62. c6+ Ke7 63. d6+ Kf7 64. Kg5 Kg7 65. e6 Kh7 66. Kf6 Kg8 67. g5 Kf8 68. h4 Ke8 69. h5 Kf8 70. g6 Kg8 71. h6 Kh8 72. a7 Kg8 73. b7 Kf8 74. c7 Ke8 75. d7+ Kf8 76. e7+ Kg8 77. e5 Kh8 78. e6 Kg8 79. e8=N Kh8 80. e7 Kg8 81. a8=R Kh8 82. b8=B Kg8 83. c8=R Kh8 84. d8=N Kg8 85. Ng7 Kh8 86. Be5 Kg8 87. h7+ Kh8 88. Nf7+

```

---
Tags: tournament, pawn-promotion, records
---


# Question
Title: Do FIDE rules allow listening to music while playing a tournament game?
I played a FIDE tournament recently and was surprised to see that some players had earphones on and were listening to music (or that's what it seemed like they were doing) while playing their games. One of my own opponents did this.

Is this allowed as per FIDE rules?

# Answer
The closest thing which I could find in the FIDE Laws of Chess is

> 12.3 a. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard
>
> 12.3 b. Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

However, I'm not sure if music from earphones would be considered as "source of information" or an "electronic means of communication". The competition rules may specify that any kind of electronic equipment is disallowed, and the arbiters have the right to arbitrate things like these as long as their decisions are not unfair or contradictory to the laws of chess.

But the arbiter cannot know whether it is music or someone reciting a chess book, so I understand if some people strongly object to arbiters allowing players to have earphones. At least I've never been to a tournament where using earphones was allowed.

Note that if other players can hear the sound from the headphones, it violates this rule:

> 12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
> 13 votes

# Answer
When this question was asked in April 2014 the question to be answered in deciding whether or not to allow this would have been "Can other people also hear the music?" If "Yes" then it is disturbing and not allowed. If "No" then no problem.

However, events, technology and the rules have moved on.

The FIDE Arbiters Commission publishes the FIDE Arbiters' Magazine twice a year. In the August 2016 edition it related the story of a visually handicapped player who used an earphone to relay moves. It reported:

> The cheating method was simply an electronic earpiece that was actually a Bluetooth device. This was not noticed until the player had posted consecutive tournament results that were astronomically better than before. He scored only 50% at novice level, but then within a year, while still unrated he won a rated section 8/9, and then again scored 8/9 with a performance rating near FM-level.
>
> These 18 games were fully analyzed, and he was caught with continuously high correlations to chess engines, especially Rybka. Therefore, he was asked to take chess testing. At first, he accepted, “naked if necessary”, but then he eventually declined, saying that he has stopped studying, and that his abilities have thus dropped off dramatically. All of these games have since been adjudged lost.

Now the FIDE Laws of Chess say this:

> 11.3.2.1 During a game, a player is **forbidden to have any electronic device** not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.
>
> However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter.

As arbiters we are warned to look out for these devices. Smart watches are usually banned. Old fashioned digital watches are still mostly OK. Earpieces are not. Of course all of these things may be permitted in certain lower level competitions with the arbiter's permission. But if you wear an earpiece because you have hearing problems you should first get permission from the arbiter or remove it during the game.

Wearing an earpiece to listen to music is definitely not allowed.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I think it's covered by 12.3b as it does make a sound, even though it may only be audible to the person using it.

12.3 b. Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. **If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game**. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Does the FIDE 75-move rule apply after checkmate or resignation?
75 move rule says

> 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn: (...) any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

This rule can be read to mean that the game ends after 75 moves without capture or pawn move and anything that occurs after that doesn't matter. Let's say I defend a pawnless endgame and over 75 moves pass without capture. I don't realize it and a few moves later I'm about to be checkmated and resign. The scoresheet is signed as a loss. Then I count the moves and see that 75 moves were exceeded. Am I right that I can claim that the game had ended in a draw before I resigned and my resignation has no effect? I think FIDE rules could be clearer on this point, but is this interpretation valid?

Bonus question: if the game is in rapid with no scoresheets, but with video recording, such as at top level tournments, could a player who resigned make the same kind of claim and request counting moves from DGT or video to ascertain that 75 moves have passed?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here is my email conversation with the head of the FIDE Arbiter's Commission, Laurent Freyd.

In essence, for now, until they add a clarification, and arbiter would be correct ruling either way. That said, he says that he teaches new arbiters that once the game has ended, they do not go back and change the result after the fact. In other words, they still lean toward mate ending the game or resignation ending the game is final so if that clarification is ever issued, it is clear what that would be.

"When the game reached a point where it's finished in a way that all actors observed that end and agree - let's not change it back after analysis." (full text quoted in context below)

---

Dear Mr. Freyd,

The other day on Stack Exchange Chess, a question about FIDE rules came up. We got several answers, including two conflicting answers from two FIDE arbiters. Although the circumstances would be very rare, I am hoping that you can resolve this.

The question was “Does the FIDE 75-move rule (9.6) apply after checkmate or resignation?” There is further explanation in the body of the question, but summing it up, a game is proceeding, and although it is not noticed at the time, 75 moves passed, and let’s say, of the 81st move of no pawns moving or captures, one side is checkmated or resigns. Almost immediately, the losing person realizes that 75 moves had passed, and believes that the game immediately ended there, and he files a protest that the game was officially over at move 75 so the result should be changed to a draw.

Which takes precedence? Rule 5.1.1 “The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game”, or 9.6 “If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn” since that had occurred first?

Did the game immediately end on the 75th move of no pawns moving or captures, or since no one noticed, upon the checkmate or resignation?

Thank you for clarifying this.

---

Thanks for your email. Article 9.6.2 states "If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence." In the case when none of the players claimed before (let's remember that they are already allowed to claim a draw from the 50th move without capture or pawn move), nor the arbiter identified that 75 moves or more were played in that same context, I believe it makes sense to keep the result decided by the players. I would make the parallel with a football game where one camp was off-side but scored a goal, while the referees wouldn't see it. The goal remains, even if the video shows after the match that the context of play was not supposed to allow the goal to be validated by the referee. Of course, if the arbiter sees that the limit is passed, he MUST stop the game with a draw.

I agree with you that there are 2 different ways of thinking about such questions: \- either consider that there's one truth, which would impact a result even after a game is finished. e.g. a kid's game where one of the players gets checkmated, none of the opponents understand it, continue the game, then the same player checkmates his opponent: with that philosophy, the result would be changed as the analysis of the game would show a "first checkmate" earlier in the game. \- or consider that a game is a flow of events, and the truth is what the different actors (players, arbiters) understand and see, so it may happen that some events aren't seen. e.g. you played 80 moves without pawn move or piece capture and a checkmate is observed (as a result of a legal move, of course), then checkmate stands: with that philosophy, you don't expect to reconstruct a game to validate its result. My preference goes to the latter option, as it keeps responsibility on the players to understand what's going on in their own game and creates less complications when treating the end of the game with the arbiter (who sometimes can't find out all irregularities or detailed facts of all the games he has to supervise at once).

I hope this helps.

Best regards, Laurent FREYD Chairman - FIDE Arbiters' Commission

---

One last clarification: Are you saying that an arbiter could rule either way and be correct?

Thank you

---

I think yes, until we publish a "philosophical statement" on the fact that we use "available facts" at the moment of the action, rather than post mortem seeking absolute truth, to make a final decision. Although, I'm really uncomfortable with the "post mortem" approach and when I teach arbiters, I always mention such cases as "too bad nobody saw anything, but that's life. I don't expect to transform arbiters into players analysing the game after it is finished. When the game reached a point where it's finished in a way that all actors observed that end and agree - let's not change it back after analysis." (of course, except if a proof of cheating is found or something like that, but then it is not anymore a simple change of result, it is a sanction).

Best regards, Laurent FREYD Chairman - FIDE Arbiters' Commission

# Answer
> 6 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess (I'm giving a link to the version in the Arbiter's Handbook because FIDE have Munged their own site) do give a definitive answer but it takes some searching to find. The key appears in the section on the Chess clock!

> 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent‟s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
> 6.2.1.1 **the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, *9.6.1 and 9.6.2*)**,

We turn to 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 -

> 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
> 9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.
>
> 9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

Checkmate or resignation occurred *after* the 75 moves hence the game had already ended and provided the rules of the competition allow for appeals / claims then your claim of a draw is valid. Note that if you wait too long the decision is not going to be reversed. For instance if the results have already been sent to FIDE for rating then it is way too late. If you notice 10 minutes after the game then you should still be able to appeal and claim the draw.

Note that had you been paying attention then you would have claimed the draw after 50 moves. After 75 moves it is the arbiter who is supposed to be paying attention and you should not have to take any action. It is his responsibility to pay attention and step in to declare the game drawn. The only reason you have to take action and appeal in this case is to correct the mistake of the arbiter.

# Answer
> 5 votes
## Signed scoresheets matter

The other answers go into detail of what would be the correct result of the game. However, that is irrelevant because you say

> The scoresheet is signed as a loss.

And FIDE laws 8.7 state

> 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.

So the FIDE laws are quite clear that if you signed the (potentially incorrect) result there, that's the official result of the game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In short: Art. 5 lists situations that end the game immediately. Checkmate, stalemate, resignation, draw by agreement, dead position. Those end the game even if it is not noticed. All other ends need a valid claim (2nd irregular move) or at least someone who observes it (flag fall). And that is the case here: Art. 9.6 says that the game is drawn in the cases of 9.6.1 and 9.6.2., but it fails to say „This immediately ends the game.“ So if a game is finished by a situation of Art. 5 before 9.6 is stated by a player or arbiter, the result according Art. 5 counts.

Your resignation, if happened before any reclamation of a draw according 9.6, finishes the game immediately, both in a tournament game and (bonus question) in a rapid game. That cannot be changed.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No, checkmate or resignation ends the game.

9.6 says that if you have 75 moves or a 5-fold repetition, that the game is automatically drawn, and that no one needs to claim it. That said, checkmate still ends the game, so if that happens on the 75th move, it is over.

You still need to realize that you have made the appropriate number of moves, and if you have hit 75, you do not need to claim it by going to the arbiter and making the formal claim, but you still need to point it out to your opponent. If he disagrees, he can summon the arbiter.

9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game....

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

Again, the same for your bonus question: If you resign or get mated, it is too late. The game is just over.

P.S. Stalemate also immediately ends the game...not backsies. :) Also, this rule, while a bit strange, is primarily intended to give the arbiter a method of ending a game without having to have a player request it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Apparently this has occurred in real life and the FIDE Arbiters Commission has delivered their verdict in an article in their twice yearly FIDE Arbiters' Magazine. In the September 2018 edition it reports on an occurrence in the "First Saturday tournament in Hungary" in May 2018 in a game between IM Akshat Khamparia (IND) and IM Bo Li (CHN).

This is how it was reported:

> After one of the moves by IM Li, he stopped the clock, and said to the Chief Arbiter “repetition”. The Chief Arbiter immediately rejected this improperly attempted draw claim.
>
> There are basically two ways to properly attempt draw claims. In general terms, these two ways are either BEFORE your move or AFTER your opponent’s move:
>
> **9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.**
>
> The Chief Arbiter attempted to explain the above articles to IM Li, but there seemed to be a language barrier. A few moves later, IM Li did the same thing, and again, the Chief Arbiter rejected this improperly attempted draw claim.
>
> The game continued, and IM Khamparia eventually won by checkmate.
>
> At this point, even if there had indeed been a threefold repetition during the game, as it was never properly claimed, the result would have remained 1-0.
>
> However, after the game, IM Li and the Chief Arbiter were attempting to discuss the situation, but it was challenging due the language barrier. Regardless, IM Li eventually said “FIVE!” to the Chief Arbiter. Of course, that changes everything!
>
> According to the relatively new Article 9.6.1:
>
> **9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:**
>
> **9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times**
>
> **It is critical to note that this case is NOT a question of whether checkmate is more IMPORTANT than fivefold repetition. The question is what happened FIRST. If fivefold repetition had occurred, then that ended the game at that moment!**
>
> **There is no game after this point !**
>
> The Chief Arbiter checked, and there had indeed been fivefold repetition, at moves 60, 62, 68, 73 and 75. It can be challenging to catch fivefold repetitions!
>
> **The result was changed to a draw.**

---
Tags: rules, fide, claim-draw, 75-move-rule
---


title: Longest non-cooperative game of chess

text:
# Question
Title: Longest non-cooperative game of chess
Typical arguments for the longest possible game of chess take a form something like this.

1) Each player moves their knights back of forth 49 times 2) Each player moves one pawn forward one square and repeats the knight shuffling. 3) Once all pawns are on the 4th and 5th ranks, .... and so on.

I,we found estimates around 9000. I'm interested in the longest possible game of chess, with the restriction that the players are actually trying to win, and not cooperating to make the longest possible game allowable by the rules. We might call this the longest realistic game of chess.

Since the above argument totally breaks down, what are some new considerations that might allow us to lower the upper bound on the longest realistic game of chess?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The longest game I've ever found in tournament play is Nikolic - Arsovic, played in Belgrade in 1989. You can watch it here. It ended in a draw after 269 moves in a rook+bishop-vs-rook endgame

# Answer
> 1 votes
If, in some chess position, one side can win against any defence, then we may ask what the least n, where the winning side can guarantee to checkmate in n moves or fewer, against any defence.

Analysis of seven-piece positions has brought to light some positions where n is as large as 549, for example this one in KQPKRBN.

Presumably if the number of units allowed on the board were increased, there'd be positions whose shortest wins are even longer.

But for a game to reach such a position, one side must have already blundered a half-point (supposing that the initial position is a draw with best play). So long as neither player blunders into a position where the other player can force a win, how do you decide which possible moves are co-operative and which are not?

---
Tags: theory, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: Chess software that enables you to set up a position from scratch?
I'm looking for chess software (free or otherwise) that will allow me to completely clear the board and set it up as I wish in order to analyze a specific situation. All of the chess puzzle software I've seen seems to have only pre-loaded positions to solve.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You don't mention what platform you are using, but on Android I use the "Analyze This" app - it lets you set up positions from scratch, and also use an engine to analyze. There is a free version of the app, and a paid "Pro" version. In the free version, the only available engine is Stockfish; in the "Pro" version, you can add other UCI engines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
ChessBase, or even the lesser priced Fritz, allow you to do that. Just open a board, and type in "S", and it will let you put in whatever position you want. (They both allow you to then analyze from there.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Most general-purpose chess software has this feature, usually under "Edit Board" or similar menu entries.

On Linux, usually there are two components to the software which are developed independently - a board program and a playing engine; the latter acts as an opponent or an analyser. The board program, such as Scid or Xboard, is where you would look for the board setup functions.

On Windows, the popular chess engines usually come with their own board front-ends. Crafty is a decent free option.

It's also possible to use an online browser-based platform such as LiChess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Lichess as a website - as mentioned by Chromatix - offers the Board editor online and in the app. Lichess is free software.

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


title: Where should I start?

text:
# Question
Title: Where should I start?
So, I am returning to chess after not playing for about 10 years. I learned the basic rules when I was in elementary school and then didn't play for a while. I am starting to get back into chess and am wondering where I should start.

Just for reference here is what I know:

* How to set up the board
* How the pieces move
* How Castling works
* How Check/Checkmate works
* Other basic rules needed to play at a beginner level

# Answer
> 6 votes
I've been a "life-long beginner" - my USCF rating hovered around 900 for years and years, and just playing OTB chess wasn't helping to improve my ability because I was losing almost every game, for years (though usually against players rated much higher than me, so it didn't affect my rating much). It was a long time before I made even a minimal plan to actually improve - so my situation is/was not totally different from yours. I can't tell you what's best for you. What I can tell you is what worked for me:

* Watching chess classes on YouTube. The Saint Louis Chess Club has some amazing classes on YouTube. There was a series of classes called "Beginner Breakdown" that was incredibly helpful for me. It mainly consists of looking at novice level games - games that have situations that you or I could conceivably get into - and seeing what mistakes were made (and what should have been done instead). GM Ben Finegold also did a series of kids' classes while he was a GM In Residence at the Club, I found those extremely helpful as well, for the same reasons. And both of these series are actually entertaining as well as informative, so they kept me engaged very effectively. Don't feel funny about consuming instructional materials aimed at kids. It's about level of chess ability, not age (and I know many of the kids that were in these classes when they were recorded were probably rated higher I was). I can also tell you that the chess instructional videos on YouTube that are the least effective for me are the ones where the "video" is just a screencast of playing through games using Chessbase or something, with an unseen narrator describing the game.
* Tactics, tactics, tactics... Find novice to intermediate level tactics problems and work them. A lot of them. On a daily basis. I worked through all of the problems in the "Tactics Time" books by Tim Brennan and Anthea Carson. These books were great because they are tactics studies from novice to intermediate level games. They are not studies from grandmaster games where you have to calculate ahead 6 or 8 moves to see the solution, they're problems from games played by people at "our level", and situations like what we might face - and they're solvable by people at our level of ability. Going through these books is even easier and more convenient if you get the Kindle versions, and you can work through a couple of problems at a time while waiting in line at the store, riding on the train, or whatever. Also, the Lichess site / app is a fabulous never-ending source of tactics studies, and I also find that they're easily consumable by novice to intermediate level players, and with the app on a mobile phone you can do a couple of studies at a time, anywhere you happen to be.

This was (and still is) really my whole study plan. Just doing these two things (and playing OTB chess in tournaments when I have the chance), I (finally!) was able to pull my USCF rating up by about 200 points in the space of a year or so, and my "Training" rating on Lichess is now over 1700 (though how that might correspond to actual play - if it even corresponds at all - is difficult to say).

# Answer
> 5 votes
First, you need to get some experience. Go to a chess club if you can and if not, go play some games on the Internet. For your first games, I'd suggest you to play only with what you know right now.

After every game, review it and think about what you could have done better (by yourself, not with engine assistance) Later on, it won't be necessary to review every single game, as you'll be able to identify which ones are the most interesting.

You'll soon realize that you will be losing a lot of games because of tactical blunders (missing a mate combination, hanging a piece...) You can work on that by training tactics. 15 minutes a day solving tactical puzzles will have a big impact a few months down the line. Tthere are plenty of books and sites you can use as a source for those. Tactics will also give you a good grasp on what role piece activity plays in chess (you'll only have favourable tactics in your games if you place your pieces in active squares)

Once you can play a good amount of games without losing/missing a winning chance very time because of a blunder, it will be worth it to start thinking about more "advanced" topics like opening theory, endgames, pawn structures...

And of course if you can afford a professional coach, that always helps!

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Just for reference here is what I know:
>
> * How to set up the board
> * How the pieces move
> * How Castling works
> * How Check/Checkmate works
> * Other basic rules needed to play at a beginner level

That's a good start. The next thing you need to know is how to win a won game. That starts with learning the basic checkmates. So you need to learn how to checkmate with

* King+2 Rooks v King
* King+Rook v King
* King+Queen v King
* King+2 Bishops v King

KQ v K can be tricky because of stalemate possibilities. Make sure you bear this in mind. Practice these until you can do them almost without thinking. It's nice to know that if you reach one of these positions in a blitz game with just 5 seconds on the clock that the point is in the bag.

Next up in learning how to win won games is playing king and pawn endgames. You will need to learn about the opposition and how to force a pawn through to queening. Start with just king+1 pawn v king. Sometimes it is a win, sometimes it is a draw. Find out when it is a draw and learn how to win the positions when it is a win.

The big advantage in learning in this order is that earlier in the game when when it is more complicated you know what you are aiming for and you know that if you can get there then you can win.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You don't mention whether you prefer studying chess with books or at the computer, so I'll toss a couple of ideas at you for both.

**Books** Russia Chess House has some good beginning tactics books (Chess School 1a and 1b) with a thousand or so basic positions, showing some elementary checkmates and basic tactics. They make a pretty good starting out resource, if you can find them. Then there's C.J.S. Purdy's Guide To Good Chess which can help fill in the instruction gaps (the Chess School books have no text, just positions to solve).

**Computer** I haven't seen CT-Art For Beginners, but everything I've seen about CT-Art tells me it's probably good. There's a couple of other basic tactic trainers out there to work with as well, for example Chess Tactics For Beginners. I like that series (Originally from Convekta, most of the time these days I see them coming from Chess King) because they run in several modes (a Learning mode that is typically divided into "Theory" and "Practice" and a "Testing" mode where they give you pretty much nothing except the position and who is to move) so you can work through the app on different levels of detail; as your strength improves, you can move up, or drop back down if you need some extra help in certain areas. On iOS, at least, the app itself is free, and it has 10%-20% of the positions in it unlocked. Once you decide this works for you, you can unlock the entire app for typically $5-10.

Play against other players, and try to play against folks a little better than you. (Most humans don't have the patience to play a lot and never win, so it helps if they're just a little better than you, not grandmaster level.

As your skill progresses you can move up to harder tactical puzzle books or to CT-Art (the main app can find hard enough puzzles to make a master sweat). Keep track of how you're losing games. Do you overlook opponent's tactical chances? Work a little more on tactics. Are you confused about what to do in certain positions? Look in online databases for other games in those positions and see what others have played.

One bit of advice I got a long time ago was to pick two players, one from the past and one playing today, and simply play through a few games of theirs every day. When you start out, don't spend a lot of time analysing them. Just play through them like a watching a movie. Eventually you'll notice you *are* thinking a little about the positions. What you're doing there is essentially loading your brain with chess patterns played by those grandmasters; creating "landmarks" in unfamiliar territory that your brain will start to use to find its way through it.

Revisit those games as you improve, and this time you'll be thinking a little more about the positions, because your brain has already started to connect the patterns together. Each time you revisit them, dig a little deeper into them, as you improve you'll be better able to spot the why's of a move. That approach helps keep you from being discouraged. Back when I was a novice, I didn't know how to begin analysing a GM game; had no idea what was going on. But as I played over more and more games, I started to connect the ideas, and I could start reasoning. First it was "this is a typical move in this position" and then it became "this move keeps white from occupying an outpost" and so on. By not demanding too much at the start, it was easier for me to stay interested.

Certain ideas and positions will catch your fancy; don't be afraid to depart from your planned study and follow them. They're indicators of the kind of chess you like to play, the beginning shape of your own style. Just as no one plays like Nakamura except Nakamura, no one will play like you, except you. Follow and see where it leads you.

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---


# Question
Title: "Chess is 90% tactics" - should a player focus more on tactics in order to improve?
The following quote has been attributed to many chess masters; "Chess is 90% tactics" - from Teichmann to Capablanca. It has also been said that 90% of the games are decided on tactics and tactics are the foundation of positional play. And many other similar statements. My question is should a player commit 90% (or most) of their time on tactics as a recipe for improvement?

# Answer
> 37 votes
Although I agree that chess is 90% tactics when actually playing at the board, it really depends on where you are strenght-wise as to how much time you spend on tactics. By the way, when they use the word "tactics" there, I would say "tactics and calculation".

When you are beginning, I firmly believe that spending 90% of your time on tactics will be the best use of time, and you will get your biggest bang-for-the-buck time-wise. I once guided a 38-year-old from 1000 to 1850 on ICC in just three months by having him do 50 tactics problems per day, spending no more than two minutes per problem. He did nothing but tactics during that time, and play. I firmly believe in that immersion method of learning.

As you get stronger, let's say, 1800, you need to start spending more time learning about position. That will continue forever, but it becomes much more refined as you get stronger. You should still spend a lot of time doing tactics. I have found that even 2100 players are not that strong tactically, and even as a 2200+ for decades, I miss too much.

As you become a strong master, in particular GM, they need to work on openings more than any other group since so much is won at that level based on preparation.

# Answer
> 18 votes
There's another famous quote you need to pair with "Chess is 90% tactics." Spielmann was reported to remark, after hearing one too many people exclaiming about an Alekhine combination, "I could find those combinations myself, just as easily, if I had his positions. But I never get those positions!"

And that's the rub. The game-winning tactics you see in the tactics books don't just magically appear in every game. Those that are not directly caused by blunders are the end result of planning and preparation, the kind of work missing from most tactics books.

How you devote your study time should change as you progress. Since it is the tactical stroke that is the culmination of any strategic plan in chess, you have to be able to recognize them when they arrive at the board, know what seeds they grow from. So as you begin in chess, you should devote 90% or more of your time to tactics.

But as your skill grows, and you more easily recognize the opportunities, the focus of your study should shift, reducing the time devoted to tactics and increasing the time devoted to studying strategic play, until you can as easily recognize the points in the position before you that call for long-term planning and maneuvering to create weaknesses.

It's a sliding scale, and I think the actual time amounts can be individualistic; maybe Player A (USCF 1800) needs more strategic study than Player B (USCF 1600). Use your own games to inform you. When you're missing lots of tactical opportunities over the board, you should probably bias your study time to more tactics. If lost opportunities are the cause of a minority of your losses, then you need to include more strategic planning exercises in your study.

Chess is 90% tactics; I'm sure of that because I've only seen a very few games that have ended without a major tactical flourish. But, especially among good players, those tactical flourishes would never have happened without the strategic planning that brought them about.

By all means study tactics; every player I've ever met could use more of that (Botvinnik once said "I need to be better at two-move combinations"). But remember tactics need to be supported if you want to be more than just another coffehouse player.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I am going to answer yes, you should spend most \[90%\] of your time on tactics. Provided that this is done in the right way. There are different kinds of tactics for different reasons. Tactics in the endgame aim to queen a pawn, unless there are no pawns left which changes the aim to checkmate or forcing a drawn position. Tactics in the middlegame are different again; there is usually a positional aspect involved in attacking only when you are ready; for instance you can attack an exposed king. Tactics in the opening are the least common, at least to be decisive tactics, and are often best left to later because sound, balanced development is better.

IN short the context of a tactic and the purpose of it also matters. That's why I don't like Reinfeld tactics sets that have isolated tactics.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As others have mentioned, I think it depends on where you are at as a player. In the very beginning, I would say you need to know some very basic strategy right after you learn the rules, i.e. before the "tactical stuff". Examples are not mindlessly wasting tempi and controlling the center of the board. As for tactics: when my dad and I played together during my childhood, he won against me as often as I did against him. When I was 24, however, I bought a little book called "Chess Combinations" (pretty much only tactics), read through it, and my dad has never beaten me once since... that was over 20 years ago. So that was probably the single best time investment I ever meade.

That said, I think investigating advanced strategies such as when to recognize pawn formations as weak; how to take advantage of the bishop pair, etc. becomes just as invaluable when progressing to higher levels.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The statement is probably correct, but dangerous if taken the wrong way. Tactics are born out of strategy, and, during the game, you might be spending 90% of your time trying to find those tactics, but it will be fruitless if your strategic plan sucks. It should not mean that you must be spending 90% of your time studying tactics. Strategy comes first, if you master that the tactics will come easy.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you track why you lose, where you missed a win, what stage (opening, middle, ending) etc. it will help you know what you need to spend the most time on. As most have said, that will probably be tactically for a lot of your games at the beginning. But if you keep track of it, then you might find you lose in longer calculation in the ending, as opposed to finding something creative in the middle game. If you do that, the data will tell you what you need to work on and help kill bad habits before they become ingrained.

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


title: How to maintain the initiative?

text:
# Question
Title: How to maintain the initiative?
What are some ways one can keep the initiative? I find in many cases I have the upper hand if I am able to keep my opponent defending instead of creating his own attack. Are there openings or certain moves in the beginning that help keep the initiative?

# Answer
From my own experience the best way to maintain initiative is remain active. Don't make timid moves, you will occasionally overreach doing this but you will learn what is overly bold and what is simply active play. Also I have found that the better a plan I have the more active my play, it is when I am floundering around not sure where to go from here that I have the worst time keeping initiative.

Be familiar with the general opening principals, (open lines, knights before bishops, rooks on open ranks, don't make more than 2 pawn moves in the opening, don't move that same piece twice in the opening, etc) none of these are hard fast rules that should never be broken but they will keep you in the right direction in the first part of the game.

Finally I would be familiar with the basic weapons of chess, (pins, forks, etc) and learn to look for them not only in the current position but in positions that you could reach if you make whatever move you are contemplating. They will tell you both what to watch out for and what tactical opportunities you have to advance your own game, and extend, or update, your plan as the game proceeds.

One final thought, have a reason, tactical or not but a specific reason, for every move. If you move without a specific reason your are floundering and no longer on the initiative.
> 3 votes

# Answer
*Overall*

Keeping the initiative is very important because it allows you to control the game. For the most part, you have the initiative when your move directly forces an opponent's move or greatly narrows your opponent's choices down.

*Trading initiative for material*

Often times initiative is sacrificed in order to gain material. In the case of a piece this is worthy. However, in the case of a pawn (and sometimes with pieces), then there are few guidelines to follow. When you have gained sufficient initiative to gain a pawn, make sure to double check if you will lose too much tempo taking it. Moreover, just the threat of taking the pawn can sometimes be stronger than actually taking the pawn, as it can weaken the opponent's position in other places while they scramble to get a hold on the pawn's defense. During this time, you can be formulating a strong unopposed attack elsewhere which would presumably be planned on gaining more than a pawn.

Don't get me wrong, winning a pawn is the win. But sometimes there are stronger alternatives.

*Retaining initiative*

If you have the initiative, then it is highly likely you just forced your opponent to make a certain move. The first thing to consider is how to have the largest impact on their choices. This means making "annoying" moves to boot or relocate pieces which are vulnerable, checking, building material on a target, basically directly influencing their move. Sometimes it can be very difficult to determine how to keep the initiative in this type of situation when none of those are available. When that is the case, it is important to see what move you can make which will allow for the next move to directly force your opponent to respond. When you realize what move that is, your opponent probably will too and will then be forced to make a move in response to your future move allowing you to retain the initiative (always assume your opponent knows your plan - the moves should be unstoppable even if known in advance, just like a forced mate scenario).
> 3 votes

# Answer
The important point here is knowing what initiative is and recognizing when you have it. To me, initiative is not just making your opponent make forced moves by, e.g., chasing the Q up the board with a couple of minor pieces where in the end the Q settles on a nice square but your pieces are uncoordinated and sit in useless spots. As soon as that happens, your so called initiative is gone and the tables turn. I think of initiative as having obtained tempi that can be used to build a better position, along the lines of the usual strategic considerations: space, coordination, pawn structure. Also, having targets in the opponent's camp is important in ensuring that your plan has teeth. Once you have those long-term advantages, you can use them to do more of the same: advance pawns, improve coordination, increase mobility, add targets or increase pressure on existing ones, or improve king safety.
> 2 votes

# Answer
First, develop your pieces quickly in the opening.

Second, look to gain time. A lot of times people will exchange or move a piece back when that piece is attacked but if you can defend it by developing a piece you are gaining time. For example the line, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Qe2 white is defending the bishop by developing the queen. There are other ways to gain time but that should give an example.

Third, look to create threats even when you are on the defensive. In the above line, notice that the queen is attacking the e-pawn also. Attacking and defending at the same time is critical to maintaining the initiative.

Fourth, learn to ignore the opponents threats if they aren't real threats. Learn to calculate things out accurately. If you can mate in 3 and the opponent will take four moves why do you care about what your opponent is doing?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: How to get to 2000 ELO rating

text:
# Question
Title: How to get to 2000 ELO rating
I'm a 1800 chess player.

I know pretty much all the basics in every fields of the game.

I know the main lines of openings, I know tactics, I know end game. Average in all of it (=1800 player). I would say I'm a little bit more of a tactic player though.

I know that I need to study to get to 2000 which is the dream for me.

**My question is:<br>What would be the best things to train to really get to 2000 ELO without too much work?**

Should I become a tactical beast and just learn easy openings?
Should I dig deeper in all openings (which is a pretty big work)?
Should focus on finals?

I know all of this important, but it's a lot of studying for these 200 points I'm missing. I really wonder if there's a shortcut to reach just 2000, I don't plan to become a master with all the knowledge needed for that.

# Answer
> 16 votes
The best thing to train is (almost) always calculation:

* Get a set of maybe 1000 3-5 move combinations and go through those problems until you basically know them by heart. That's to enable pattern recognition.
* Apart from that set, concentrate on calculating long variations in your training instead of just seeing tactical shots. The Yusupov books are a good source.
* Maybe try to learn to play blindfold. That demands a lot of concentration and improves your visualisation

The next best thing to train is positional understanding:

* Play tournament games against strong players.
* Analyse these games with strong players.
* A big part of positional play is connected to typical opening setups. So if you spend time on the opening, spend it by learning about typical ideas.
* This Aagaard book I liked.

I wouldn't worry too much about the endgame or the opening. Good endgame play builds on strong calculation, good opening play builds on positional understanding. Just learning stuff by heart without having this foundation is not going to benefit you much. And the essentials you'll probably pick up anyway.

# Answer
> 8 votes
One important thing is to identify possible weaknesses in your play. It depends a lot on you. A coach can sometimes identify serious weaknesses, which, if corrected, can result in a bumb up in results.

I would disagree with BlindKungFuMaster about ignoring the opening and endgame. Endgame study has a high time invested-to-wins ratio. Your chance of getting an endgame you have studied over the board is low, but if it happens your chance of winning will be way, way higher. Most endgames cannot be calculated, you have to know ahead of time what to do. Opening study pays off too, especially if you play sharp openings.

In Soviet Russia players studied opening motifs, meaning standard patterns, a lot as part of their training.

Just solving a lot of problems or practicing will not help you improve if you have plateaued. If you can discipline yourself to analyze in a more structured way, it can help, but most people find it mentally exhausting to do this.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I remember the jump from 1900 to 2000. It was over a summer, and I did a lot of things to get better. I'd play blitz chess or hit a tournament over the weekend, and during the week I'd piece together the games that gave me trouble.

I also think studying openings is the least productive of the three ways. It doesn't give you enough back, because you will eventually hit a hole in your opening repertoire and you won't know why. I also ran into a problem of "this has to be right, I have a slight edge, how can I expect to do better?"

Though I think falling on your face in the opening against other players helps: you need to learn to fight from behind, and I found that when I memorized stuff, I wound up saying "But I SHOULD be winning" instead of focusing on taking chances. And you'll know what you need to work at, or against. It's trial by experiment and experience, instead of reading theoretically critical lines you may not understand yet.

One big thing I wished I'd realized was understanding how many errors 2000+ players *can* make. Computers bear this out, and if you understand they make mistakes, you won't feel you have to understand things perfectly. Have your computer analyze your best and worst games. It's hard to face the mistakes you made, but on the other hand, patterns reveal blind spots. You can also just look at an old game if you only have a few minutes. GM games are great, but they can't point to your individual style. This means, of course, notate your longer games ASAP--at least the ones that can be recorded.

I agree that endgames are quite productive to study or learn. I felt guilty being able to scoop out a win in the endgame, but truth is, it's important to focus on--you can learn how a few pieces work together, which helps you learn how even more work together.

One thing I didn't have was a powerful computer to analyze what I did wrong. Even in games against people rated 400 points below me, I learned a lot. I thought I played solidly and cleverly, but I kept making mistakes that weren't obvious. In a way this is painful, but in a way it keeps you grounded. So I think the keys are

* if you play blitz, note openings that trouble you, and when, and why you're lost. Quit playing blitz if it becomes more about woodpushing and waiting for an opponent to hang a pawn than actual ideas.
* after a tourney game, write down stuff that confuses you. If an opponent suggests a longer strategic idea, ask them about it, but try it out against a strong computer when you get home. An example might be letting your opponent place a knight on e4/e5 and seeing why it can't be dislodged, or even ruining your pawn structure. Note moves you didn't have the guts to play and moves you feared. See if your fears were valid. Also pay attention to what your opponent could've done but didn't. It may reveal other weaknesses.
* play imbalanced openings when you can, if there's not a lot of risk. While it's useful to know/learn how to win a pawn up in static positions, I find chess can get stale if you go too technical too fast--and the lessons learned from dynamic positions can often include useful ones for static positions. It happened for me. You always want to question piece value and activity and make sure you are not playing by rote.
* find a chess tactics site and play at it. Especially one with comments. Why didn't move X work? Why can't I shuffle the move order? I know I tended to skate with chess puzzles saying "Oh, I made the right move, yay!" and I forgot to look into side lines, or I guessed that this tactic was right because it was a puzzle.

Cecil De Vere's comment about plateauing is one I can relate to. If you feel like you are, or you're doing everything right, but... you may be better off taking a break and maybe playing a different opening to try new stuff.

Of course, this may be moot and you may've made it by now. If so, congratulations! But if not, I hope this helps someone else.

# Answer
> 5 votes
A number of chess coaches strongly recommend work on endgames. This is for several reasons:

1. When you get a similar endgame, you will save a lot of time figuring out what to do, and this often happens when you don't have much time to spare, nearing a control. This is *very* handy, and potentially winning in a clock race just because your opponent's clock is running down much faster than yours.
2. Endgames depend more heavily on accurate, long calculations than any other part of the game. If you can practice and improve your competence in the endgame, your calculating ability will come along with it.
3. Endgames require knowing how to coordinate your pieces to accomplish a goal. You learn to be much more economical about moves, to find the most efficient way of doing things, and to focus on finding ideas that will win.
4. You also develop better board vision, because there are fewer pieces and the line pieces' range is maximized. You have to *always* notice when a piece is having an influence on the other side of the board. The endgame is a particularly strong influence on learning to see *backward* moves, and *bounce* moves of queens and bishops (2 moves to cross the board using only 2 diagonals, and "bouncing" off the edge on the way). These are almost non-existent moves in the middlegame; you need to play endgames to become good at finding them.
5. You learn how to use your pawns more effectively, especially in combat with other pawns.
6. You learn how to redeploy pieces more efficiently. Finding the shortest routes, using checks in transit to earn tempi, keeping lanes clear, and getting pieces out of the way quickly are all skills you develop more in endgames than in other parts of the game.
7. You learn to appreciate how strong pawns warp the piece value scale, and how the effect is amplified the further up the board they go.
8. You learn to steer towards endgames where your pieces and position will offer the greatest advantage, and avoid those that will benefit your opponent more than you.

Many of the top chessplayers also dedicate a portion of their time to solving endgame *compositions*. They are fully aware that no similar position will ever actually appear on the board. What they benefit from is the *stretching of the imagination* that's required to solve the most challenging puzzles. *That's* readily transferable to an actual game. Kasparov in particular used to swear by this kind of training.

# Answer
> 2 votes
When I reached 1900 I rebuilt my game from the ground up starting with the endgame, then middle-game and then openings.

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


# Question
Title: Should I practice openings of a famous player if I want to play like them?
I have always liked the way Mikhail Tal played and I noticed on chessgames.com, that his most played openings are:

As White:

```
Sicilian (B46, B43, B82, B32, B40)
Ruy Lopez (C92, C95, C93, C96, C84)
Caro-Kann (B14, B17, B18, B12, B10)
French Defense (C07, C18, C09, C05, C16)
English (A15, A14, A13, A17, A16)

```

As Black:

```
Sicilian (B43, B40, B46, B22, B52 )
King's Indian (E94, E92, E98, E69, E62)
Queen's Pawn Game (E10, A46, E00, A40, A41)
English (A15, A14, A13, A10, A17)
Nimzo Indian (E48, E52, E53, E46, E56)
Modern Benoni (A56, A64, A61, A62, A65)

```

Mikhail Tal is regarded as the best attacking chess player of all time, but are the openings above indicative of his style? Are they openings that are indicative of an agressive, attacking player?

I know there is more to learning that openings, but basically my main question is if a certain player had a style, does playing their openings help you play with their style?

# Answer
In general those are aggressive openings. Ruy Lopez and Sicilian especially are rated as some of the more aggressive openings available.

I have not heard the French Defense called aggressive before, but maybe that is just part of the genius of Mikhail, sprinkle in some clogged openings so your opponent never truly knows what is coming.

Black is a little harder to define what an aggressive opening is, since it is somewhat relative to the opening white began the game with.

Personally I think it is a great learning tool to use another GM's openings. The main reason is there is such an available database of the GM's games, so if you are playing electronically or notating your own game, you can always go back and see if historical games resemble your own and where the GM may have differed.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The openings are a good start; they give players like Tal the opportunities for combinatorial wizardry. But it's a lot to ask of oneself, to play like Mikhail Tal.

They say that Tal played a lot of speculative sacrifices. That is, he felt the sacrifice was sound *enough*, but he didn't calculate it out to be sure. Maybe. Be advised, however, that the man didn't get to be World Champion by guessing. He could *calculate*.

Unlike mere mortals, Tal's brain could cash the checks his fingers wrote.

If you want to play like him then develop your tactics specifically where unbalanced positions are concerned, look for opportunities, and don't be afraid to lose. You'll have to be just as fierce, fearless, and skilled, relative to your peers.

NOTE - remember, what matters is that you win (or lose) the game well. It does not matter if someone uses some computer to refute your moves after the fact. The only refutation that matters is the one your opponent finds over the board.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Yes, I cannot say yes enough times that playing a set of openings defines who you are as a chess player.

If you are examining these games by Tal, then I suggest you look not only at commonalities, but more importantly at positions that he attempts to transpose to. Although using different openings, many times a similar attack can be observed. Looking at how that is approached and how tempos and pieces are used as diversions can give good insights into why attacks are successful and which ones are truly meant to be attacks instead of diversions.

Mastering the set of openings Tal played will certainly improve your chess and make you "Tal-esque".
> 3 votes

# Answer
Copying the openings of a famous player will "put you in his shoes," (as of the end of those moves).

From then on, it's up to you. You may try to mold yourself after a particular player, but depending on your talent and aptitude, develop differently.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are players who have an intuitive talent that sets them apart, even from their world class opponents. I think Tal is one of those players, as is Karpov or Carlsen. Often with those players, there is no strong connection between their style and the openings they play. They just try to "get a position", because they are able to outplay their opponents in the middle- or endgame. They don't have much of a scientific vibe, unlike players like Kasparov, Kramnik or Botvinnik.

That's not to say that Tal didn't play aggressive openings, the benoni is certainly aggressive, as is the sicilian. But he also played rather solid mainline stuff and not only in his later years. I think he was basically ok with any line that kept the queen and enough pieces on. If you look through his games, I think you will find that the craziness in them doesn't stem from the opening variations.

So you can certainly copy his openings, but that will not lead to "Tal-like" positions. These are the result of very creative and radical middlegame decisions.

It is bit ironic, but if you chose any of Tal's openings, it will probably make sense to look at the games of a more scientific player, who specialized on this variation, to find out how to play it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Yes, to an extent.

It's best to learn openings chronologically.

If you're just starting out you should look at the era before Morphy. As you get better you can look at more modern openings. Doing it that way way you can see how the ideas build on the previous generation's ideas.

Tal is probably most appropriate for the 1800-2200 range.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It's not a good recipe for learning how to play like a famous player, but it's a good recipe to follow to **find out** if you should try to play like them.

IOW, check out how comfortable you are playing those positions. You may want to play like Tal or Shirov, but you may discover you're more adept at playing like one of their opponents (meaning the moves made by an opponent like Petrosian or Karpov or Kramnik were easier for you to find while playing over the games than your "target"). Everyone has natural tendencies as a chess player, and especially during development it's good to figure out what they are and use them to your advantage. You'll progress quicker and have more fun. When that has taken you as far as it's going to, then will be the time to "branch out" into other positions.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory, famous-players, tal
---


# Question
Title: What is the maximum number of squares 8 queens and 8 nightriders can attack on a 16x16 board?
Including but still obstructed by occupied squares, what is the maximum number of squares on a 16x16 board that 8 queens and 8 nightriders can collectively attack at least once each? Even if attacking all 256 squares isn't possible, the maximum number still interests me.

I'm unsure what tags to use for this, or if maybe I should've went to the mathematics SE for this one; please suggest additional tags and let me know if this question would better fit the mathematics SE.

# Answer
It's possible to attack all squares.

Q - queen

N - nightrider

Yellow background - attacked only by a queen

Red background - attacked only by a nightrider

Orange background - attacked by pieces of both types

Queens are placed such that 5 longest diagonals in each direction are attacked.

This can be done with just 6 queens, so 2 are redundant and result in queens attacking queens by diagonals. So 4 queens are attacked by other queens, 4 are not. I added nightriders on the edge of the board such that the missing squares are also attacked. Placing nightriders on the edge doesn't block any of the queens' attacks.

One can also see that the nightriders attacking queens could be placed in other ways, so there is more than one solution. An interesting question would be-how many?

edit. now correct...
> 4 votes

# Answer
This is my best attempt thus far, which I believe attacks 236 (all but 20) squares. I used the staircase solution for 8 queens on the central 8x8 region in order to consequentially fully cover the 4 adjacent 8x4 side regions while putting many diagonals through the corner 4x4 regions. Then I placed the nightriders so as to not obstruct any of the queens' lines while also having each nightrider attack 1 unique queen each, by placing them towards the center of the long diagonals still within the corner 4x4 regions.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, mathematics, unorthodox-pieces
---