# Question
Title: How many moves out do the static board evaluations use?
These days many online chess websites offer a board evaluation rating, often a bar, sometimes a number, sometimes both, as is the case here (see two red circles):  Black will take a pawn soon, so the evaluation is -0.9 pawns to white. Note that there are two components to the score. First, there's a raw score due to some sort of piece scoring system. Second, there's a positional evaluation scoring element that considers future moves and future pieces that might be taken. Seems clear, right?

Not exactly. Consider, near the end of the game, a pawn can get converted into a queen. Using the most popular piece-ranking systems, a pawn=1 can switch to a queen=~9 via this process. Therefore, if a player is a pawn ahead, and players play well, eventually, on average, one can expect that this might get promoted to a queen. Perhaps if you averaged it would be 3 (wild guess) considering that most other pieces can't get promoted. Anyway, one can see that the second term in the ranking scoring system has a look-ahead variability in that lopsidedness will increase in positive feedback fashion such that a 1 is much higher the further an engine looks ahead. This positive feedback would exist even without promotions.

My question is just how many moves these engine look ahead in ranking static boards.

# Answer
It varies, but in this case it looks to be about 10 full moves.

In your screenshot, to the right of the circled -0.9, you can see some small text that says "Depth: 20". This is the number of half moves that the engine is supposedly looking.

In practice, this number is not exact. The engine will not examine every variation to that depth (for example, it's not likely to seriously examine Bh3 in your position), and if a variation has tactical things going on at the end, it might extend how far it looks at that variation beyond that number.

> lopsidedness will increase in positive feedback fashion such that a 1 is much higher the further an engine looks ahead.

Sometimes, but it's not always correct that a +1 will increase if you look farther ahead. It may decrease. There are many endgames which are theoretical draws despite one side being one, or even two, pawns ahead. Consider this position, from a game where I briefly thought I was going to get my first-ever win against a master:

```
[White "Me"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[FEN "7k/r6P/4K3/5P1R/8/8/8/8 w - - 17 82"]

```

Stockfish (without a tablebase) evaluated this as +2.31 because of the two advanced pawns, but it's a draw - playing f6 results in Ra6+ Kf7 Rxf6+ Kxf6 stalemate, and there's no other good way to progress. (Oh well, drawing against a master isn't bad either.)
> 0 votes

# Answer
> Note that there are two components to the score. First, there's a raw score due to some sort of piece scoring system. Second, there's a positional evaluation scoring element that considers future moves and future pieces that might be taken.

This is wrong. The "piece scoring system" is *part* of the positional evaluation that is considered at the end of possible lines. It doesn't matter what the pieces are now, it matters what they will be in the future. Therefore the -0.9 is equal to the score after the best move black can currently do, 2...dxe4. It's also equal to the score after the best move white can answer to that, moves other than 3.d3 apparently scored worse. This is called the "minimax algorithm".

At the time static evaluation is done, it looks only at that exact position and doesn't look ahead more moves. The looking ahead part is done by then.

Pawns get different scores depending on where they are. I *think* that most engines compute some score that says how "endgameish" a given position is, and if it's more endgameish then a pawn gets a bigger bonus for being far advanced, but that's actually guesswork on my part.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The answer is looking right at you. Below engine name ("Stockfish 9+") it says: Depth 20 -- that is current evaluation depth.

And whatever you wrote about the pawn promotion -- that's very nice thinking, but unless there's a clear promotion within the next 15-20 moves, the engine would not consider it, until it's clear that promotion can be really done, give the both sides play at their best.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, evaluation
---


title: Traps in the Jobava Attack

text:
# Question
Title: Traps in the Jobava Attack
Are there any known early tactical traps in the so-called Jobava Attack (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4) for both sides? Leaving out the Barry Attack (early g6 by Black).

# Answer
Here are some mistakes you should avoid while playing the so-called Jobava Attack.

3...c5 is one good answer, and as you can see 4.Nb5 is not working here.

The video below also shows many tactics in the middlegame, after other continuations like 3...c6 and 3...e6.

After 14...Rfc8?! 15.Nf5 the best response is taking the knight and accepting a shattered pawn structure. Otherwise white is much better (+1.3 in the least: https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/r1r3k1/3bqppp/p3pn2/np1p2B1/3P4/P1NB3P/1PPQ1PP1/3RR1K1\_b\_-\_-\_1\_17)

```

      [StartPly "5"]

      [FEN ""]
      1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 (4. Nb5? Qa5+
5. Nc3 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Qa4 Qxa4 8. Nxa4 Nb4 (8...e5)) cxd4
5. exd4 a6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Nge2 e6 8. Qd2 b5 9. O-O Be7 10. a3 Bd7 11. h3 O-O 12. Rfe1 Na5 13. Rad1 Qb6 14. Ng3 Rfc8?! (14... Rfe8!) 15. Nf5 Qd8? (15...exf5) 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Bg5

```

You can find a more detailed video explanation here:

https://youtu.be/5joSsNpJ9qw

Related games:

https://lichess.org/OfUGrtY6

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1838817

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1857787
> 3 votes

# Answer
I once had someone play 3...Nc6, which is dubious but not immediately disastrous. But after 4.Nb5, any response other than 4...e5 and White has a decisive advantage. This is almost the mirror image of the knight attack against the two knights Italian game.
> 2 votes

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


title: Why h4 is the best move here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why h4 is the best move here?
Is not bishop to e2 better? Why does the kingside has to be weakened like this?

Thanks everyone for your answers. You all argue that the knight must remain on f4 so h4 prevents kicking it out. However, I just found another game in which h4 is played and this time there is no keeping the knight on f4. Could someone tell me what else happens here?

# Answer
> 10 votes
You're trying to analyze the very equal position with no significant tactical potential. Depending on minor tweaks of your engine settings, you may get a few "good" moves, including `Be2`, `Ba3`, `c5` -- all approximately equal.

Computers at lichess have limited resources, hence they spot only obvious stuff, and have a limited precision when evaluating moves.

If you move `h4` -- you're down about 0.1 pawn, I would not lose a sleep about that, `Be2` is good enough and you should not worry what stupid engine says =)

**Disclosure**: I'm actually running one of the lichess analysis boxes, so I took a deep dive into the details. Here's what I found:

1. From your screen shot, you're running analysis on your local iPad, which is slow and may take some time to arrive to the good result. It would be much preferable to run the server side analysis, much faster and more precise.
2. I have found the game in question among your games and analysed it using various engines available. Most of the engines recommend `c5` as the best continuation for White. However, for the lichess analysis we use a very conservative settings of Stockfish ("Analysis Contempt" is turned Off), this changes the focus from the active attacking moves to the "safe" defensive ones. And `h4` is one of those nice safe moves.

As I have said earlier, it all depends on the minor tweaks of the engine parameters, the score difference is negligible and `h4` is no better and no worse than a few other moves -- play what you like and don't worry about what computer says.

---

Answering the second part of your question, here's my analysis:

`Bd3` seems to be "the best", with `h4` and `Be3` sharing the second place. Actually, while analysis was running, 4 or 5 top pretenders constantly swapped their places, sometimes `h4` was on the top. Probably, if I run the analysis deeper, there will be a few moments when any of the top 5 moves will be declared "the best".

All in all, the analysis is not exhaustive, and it does not guarantee to give you the "absolute best move". The main purpose of the analysis was to spot your mistakes (8. h3? was clearly a mistake, losing 0.5 pawn), and propose something better, not necessarily the best.

Here's the analysis @ depth 24, `h4` is way below.

# Answer
> 6 votes
As mentioned, it's all about keeping the Knight on f4. That outpost needs to be maintained and ...g5 is stopped by h4! Yes, g4 is weakened but to quote Bobby: "You have to give up squares to get squares".

Also note that if Black plays ...h6 hoping to play ...g5 you can play h5 and that knight is not going anywhere.

Piece activity can be more important that weak squares or even weakened structures. You can go over the Kasparov - Short world championship match an see how Short took on doubled pawns, etc. but was compensated by good pieces.

# Answer
> 4 votes
With h4 you prevent g5, which would kick your knight.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As a novice, it's hard for me to see why 1. Be2 g5 2. Nd5 is putting White at a major disadvantage, but I do feel it puts White on the defensive. Black has gained space and potentially a kingside attack, but may be overextending. White's knight is centralized, and black may trade it away leading to a centralized pawn structure for White with a potential target pawn aiding the Black's light bishop and weakening White's. White needs to protect their center while anticipating heavy kingside pressure in terms of pawn pushing backed by rooks.

Compare that to 1. g5, where White seems to be restricting Black's expansion. This may allow White to develop into a stronger attack without worrying about the kingside pressure.

I'm unsure about responding to g5 by moving the knight to the h-file. I don't see any benefits to White's position there.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I am writing this answer in order to explain my thoughts about the second position I provided. I have come to the conclusion after playing similar positions that h4 is played in order to weaken my rival’s kingside. That is why they have to play right away h5. Otherwise, my h pawn will have to be exchanged by the g pawn, opening a file for my rook. Although admittedly this does weaken my own kingside, there seems to be no danger and probably, I will eventually castle queenside. The sinequan reason for playing h4 though is that my rival has played g6 in order to fianchetto his bishop and so a weakening can be induced in my opponent pawn structure. In case someone has concluded something different feel free to correct me.

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Simultaneous exhibition rules

text:
# Question
Title: Simultaneous exhibition rules
There are the *FIDE Rules for Chess*. This for different types of chess. Are there also official rules for *Simultaneous exhibition* chess? Where can I find them?

# Answer
I don't think FIDE would be involved in regulating such events because they are not rated. I found this interesting PDF with some notes, although I think they could be improved. For example, it is not clear if the player loses the game after three passes.

1. The exhibitor plays the white pieces on each board.
2. Do not touch any chessman until the exhibitor arrives at your board. When the exhibitor is standing in front of your board, make your move (within 5 seconds) while the exhibitor is observing. The exhibitor will make a move on your board before going on to the next board.
3. Participants, but not the exhibitor, must abide by the touch move rule. The exhibitor’s move is not final until he or she touches a piece on the next board.
4. Each player is allowed three passes when the exhibitor arrives at his or her board. Using a pass means that the exhibitor will skip your board, but you will need to make a move (or use another pass) when the exhibitor comes back after visiting the other boards.
5. Participants may not receive assistance from other players or bystanders during their games. Exception: participants may sign up as a pair and play on one board.
6. Participants must take notation.
7. If the exhibitor has any other rules, those will be announced at the start of the exhibition.

Source:

Simul Rules
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, simultaneous
---


title: Free online analysis engine?

text:
# Question
Title: Free online analysis engine?
Is there an online analysis engine that allows you to enter a PGN and get a game analysis, showing where suboptimal moves were made?

I know there are programs for download/purchase that do this, but I specifically want an online one. The ones I've found (e.g.) can analyze positions, but not entire games.

# Answer
lichess.org has played game analysis and allows you to edit a board before AI game.

Its analysis shows wrong and right moves and percentage statistics of mistakes for both sides.
> 18 votes

# Answer
You can import your game on http://lichess.org/paste, then analyse it.
> 8 votes

# Answer
http://analyse.deep-chess.de/ allows you to analyze your game online with different chess engines.
> 4 votes

# Answer
http://analysis.cpuchess.com/ analyses your game with an option of a variety of engines like houdini and stockfish
> 4 votes

# Answer
I recently found that chess.com also has a free option to analyze an entire game (by pasting a PGN), although paid accounts can analyze in more detail.

https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor (right panel, second tab)

The analysis process will intercalate comments idicating better moves if necessary. In the end, you will see a summary like this:

```
Strength        White   Black
-----------------------------
Excellent          41   38
Good               13   13
Inaccuracy (?!)     1    5
Mistake (?)         2    0
Blunder (??)        0    0
Forced              0    0
Best Move       66.7%    50.9%
Avg. Diff        0.14    0.19

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
Here You can ask even very deep analysis, possibly also for whole games.

https://sites.google.com/site/distributedchess
> 0 votes

# Answer
You may want to download this free Creatica chess game analyzer for Windows for your pgn games http://chessgame-analyzer.creatica.org/ Just right click on your pgn file and choose "Analyze with Stockfish". The result will be opened in your default pgn GUI; for example, in SCID vs PC or Chessbase.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, online
---


title: Time ran out against bare king

text:
# Question
Title: Time ran out against bare king
If player A, who has a bare king, plays against player B who has around 9 pieces left on the board, and player B timer runs out (let's say player A's timer has 3 seconds remaining), who wins the match? Theoretically speaking, player A has no way to win the game but by player B's timer running out.

# Answer
> 9 votes
It's a draw. FIDE rule 6.9 states (emphasis mine):

> Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. **However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.**

Since the player with the bare king cannot checkmate the opponent by any legal sequence of moves, the game is drawn if his opponent runs out of time.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Does anyone know of unusual and fun chess tournaments around the world?
I have heard of this tournament in France, where the winners receive prizes in wine. Now I was wondering if there are any other unusual or funny chess tournaments around the world? If yes, which can you recommend or where could one find a list of them? Thanks in advance!

# Answer
The Chess Train tournament is an 11-round rapid tournament that is held on a moving train. In five days it travels from Prague to Prague, visiting different cities each day. This year it goes to Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow.

Each day the train travel is from 10:00 to 14:00, with the two rounds of rapid during that time; the afternoon and evening are then free for sightseeing.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Please don't miss the Underwater Chess Tournament in London :

https://www.cnews.fr/videos/france/2018-08-26/une-partie-dechecs-sous-leau-792169

Here is a short video of the competition.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This one, held by the Marshall Chess Club in New York City, might fit:

> New Year’s Ridiculousness Insane Person Championship! 15-SS, G/25 d5. $1,432 Gtd: $499-222-77-76-1, U2287: $164, U1974: $144, U1626: $131. Idiocy Prize: $118 to player scoring best in tournament with 1.g4 and/or 1…g5. EF: $45; Non-MCC Mbr: Additional $25 Mbr fee. GMs Free, $39 reduced from prizes. (Re-entry: $29.99.) Reg: 11:15-11:45am. Rds: 12-1:15-2:30-4:15-5:30pm each day. Max 5 byes, request at entry. Proper attire appreciated. Register online: www.marshallchessclub.org/register. 23 W 10th St / NYC / 212-477-3716. When Sun Dec 30, 2018 12pm – Tue Jan 1, 2019 8pm Eastern Time
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Can I move a piece protecting the king if it keeps protecting on its new location?
Situation: there's a piece between the king and an opponent’s piece. If this piece were not there, it would be a check.

If I were to try and move the protecting piece somewhere and leave the king exposed, that move would be not allowed.

Could I move this protecting piece, even though when it's lifted the king is in check, but when the piece lands, the king is protected again?

# Answer
Yes, that's legal. For example:

```
[FEN "6k1/6r1/8/8/8/6R1/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[CurrentPosition "6k1/6r1/8/8/8/8/6R1/6K1 b - - 1 1"]

1.Rg2

```

The rook can move along the g-file. This is known as a "partial pin" - the rook is somewhat limited in its movement (and can't go to a3, for example) but it can still move if it still protects the king.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Yes, you can move as you've described since you haven't broken the pin, which remains in effect. You just can't move the piece so that the king becomes exposed, which would be an illegal move.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, illegal-move
---


title: Must I develop my bishop on next move?

text:
# Question
Title: Must I develop my bishop on next move?
I got to this position, while playing this game: https://lichess.org/dT3d9Dp4

Here I feel the need to develop my bishop. I thought of Bf4 but I feared g5, after which I will lose a tempo. Be3 always make me think of a pawn fork on d4 or e4. I feel Bd2 is too passive. What frustrates me most is that developing the bishop might not even be necessary at this position. How will I know what to do? Is developing the bishop necessary?

```
[FEN ""]
[Startply "12"]

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e6 3.Nf3 h6 4.Bd3 d5 5.O-O Nge7 6.Nc3 a6

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
since you are ahead in development, it will benefit you to open the center, or prepare for that, so Rook to e1 seems to be good altenative, it will benefit you to:

1- have a plan 2- develop based on that plan,

so, here I would play Re1 and wait to see where balck is going to castle, and then go after his knig, or open the center if it remains there,

---

PS: another suggestion would be to play e.d5 immediately, the idea behind it is to try to open up the game ASAP and not let black develop harmoniosuly

# Answer
> 2 votes
You don't *have* to develop your Bishop on the next move. `Bf4` does look ok, however. `Re1` also looks good as it will support the `e` pawn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You *should* develop your bishop at some early point in the game, because your aim is to assign every piece the best responsibility as possible. But you don't have to do it now.

You don't have to be afraid of g5 because it would weaken your enemy's kingside (for example, it wouldn't be safe for him to castle on that side). Besides, you are ahead in development.

Bd2 is also a good development option for the bishop. Developing doesn't imply an active move or attacking.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The old rule about knights before bishops was because it's not always clear where the bishop should go right away. In this position, you've already castled while it will take black two more moves to get to that point. Accordingly, I would get your rook to e1 first before developing the bishop, open up the center with exd5 while the black king still remains there and develop a strong attack against it. Then your queen bishop could play a more active role, perhaps at f4. As someone has mentioned, black's playing ..., g5 would weaken his kingside, so shouldn't be of great concern. Alternately you could play a French Advance type of move with e5 here to gain space in the center and then continue developing, since black has blocked his "c" pawn with the queen knight and can't attack the base of your pawn chain with ..., c5 immediately. Your queen bishop could potentially be of use then on e3 to add support to your d4 pawn if needed.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Don't develop just to develop. You need a plan, and you need to understand the position. First, your d-pawn is under assault and there is a reason for the saying "Knights before Bishops; so why not consider Nf3?

Black has played a lot of pawn moves and the Ne7 blocks his development. Where is he going to go next? I would look to castle and play Re1 -- the Bishop on c1 doesn't know what it wants to do yet.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Just always have a plan and take initiative. Study opening,middlegame and endgame phases. White is doing just fine on the position. Black is playing passive. Rook or bishop development is good.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal for a move to put both sides in check?
My move resulted in us both being in check. Is this legal?

# Answer
No, because of the basic rule that says you can't put or leave yourself in check. From the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **3.9.2** No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

That the other king is also in check isn't relevant.
> 3 votes

# Answer
No. You shouldn't have any position where both kings are in check. Your move was illegal.
> 1 votes

# Answer
No. Proof by contradiction. First we assume the premise that in the current position both White and Black are in check. Then we prove a contradiction (specifically that one player made an illegal move). Because the premise leads to a contradiction, the premise must be false; i.e., it cannot be the case that in a legal position both players are in check.

Assume for definitiveness (but without loss of generality) that Black is the player that made the last move that resulted in both players being in check.

Let P2 be the position that resulted from Black's move (i.e., in which both players are in check).

Let P1 be the position one half-move earlier, i.e., just prior to Black's last move. I.e., in P1 it is Black to move.

One of the two following statements must be true:

1. In P1, Black is in check.
2. In P1, Black is not in check.

For each of these two cases, we show that Black's move in P1 was illegal.

Case 1: Black is in check in both P1 and P2. In this case, Black's move was illegal because he was already in check but his move did not get him out of check. (Either (a) there was at least one legal move that would have allowed him to escape check but he didn't make that move or (b) he was in checkmate and the game should have ended instead of Black making a move.)

Case 2: Black is not in check in P1 but is in check in P2. In that case Black's last move is illegal because it resulted in him being in check (i.e., he "moved into check").

Thus, in every possible position P1 (with Black to move), it cannot be the case that a legal move by Black results in both players being in check simultaneously.

Of course, an analogous argument works if it is White who made the last move.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: Moving king into check

text:
# Question
Title: Moving king into check
Can a player move their king into check if the opponents piece that is able to take king, is putting opponents king in check?

# Answer
> 7 votes
It is never, *ever* legal to move into check. Period. No ifs, no buts. No exceptions whatsoever.

That's the best way to think about it, since it gives the least scope for confusion. If you want to think of it in terms of capturing the king ending the game, look at it this way: if you move into check, your opponent can capture your king, which immediately ends the game. It's irrelevant if your opponent's capture caused him to move into check too: you can't retaliate by capturing his king because the game already ended.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No. Check is check, even if the checking piece cannot legally move. There is extensive discussion of this in the answers to the question illegal (?) move can put a king in check?.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'd rather be more cautious and answer this question taking into account the time control used in the game because, as you will see, there are some concessions that regulations grant when the players have less time to think.

## If each player’s thinking time is at least 60 minutes:

The move in question is indeed illegal, as others have commented. End of story. Even though nobody notices the irregularity for a while, as the rules indicate (emphasis mine):

7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. **If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.** If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

*End of story*?

There might be a rare exception in case the game has ended (by checkmate or resignation) without the mutual check (or any other irregularity) being noticed, and the players have signed their scoresheets. I am not sure what happens if the illegal move is noticed after that because:

5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

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

## Rapid chess

When all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted plus 60 times any increment is of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player.

In my opinion, the problem is more clearly described in other questions (both marked as a duplicate of this one):

Is it legal for a move to put both sides in check?

Simultaneous check

Surprisingly, **the rules specifically mention the situation of a mutual check:**

A.4.4 **If the arbiter observes both kings are in check**, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, **he shall wait until the next move is completed.** Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Otherwise, it is understood that the game can continue. For reference: A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves. (article 3.10.3)

Now, if this actually happens in a real game, the use of the word illegal to describe the move after the game has ended is arguable, because the move was illegal at its time, but now it is part of a legal game supported by the rules!

For other irregularities, the procedure is similar:

A.4.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, **the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.**

To be completely precise, these Rapid rules do not apply if certain conditions are met. According to A.3.1, the Competition Rules shall apply to Rapid chess (i.e. the illegal move cannot stand) if:

A.3.1.1 one arbiter supervises at most three games and

A.3.1.2 each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.

Otherwise, the Rapid chess rules do apply and the illegal move has a chance to stand.

Finally, I have to mention that these Rapid chess rules **also apply to Blitz**, when all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player (or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less).

---
Tags: rules, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: What was Nakamura thinking with 62...g5 against Carlsen in Senquefield Cup 2018 rd. 9?
I (a 2300 player) would never consider 62...g5 in this position giving White a protected passed pawn. Nakamura either thought it was a drawing method, or the toughest defense, but Carlsen showed there is a clear winning plan for White. 62...g5 strikes me as a clear mistake but are other moves easier for White to win against?

I am trying to understand this decision by a 2800 player, thanks.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Let's say that Naka doesn't push g5 and instead waits (with for instance Rb7). Then it is white who can play g5+, taking advantage of the pin on the 6th rank. If black plays Kg6, then Kg4 and h5+ is unstoppable. It is clear that white is making progress. If black instead plays Kh5, then gxf6 hxf6, Rxf6 and black has lost a pawn and his king is completely stuck in a box. Rf5+ might be a possibility (taking on e5), black still cannot move the a pawn (due to an immediate Ra6 getting behind it), and again white has clearly made progress.

I believe Naka was sure that these lines were easy wins for white. Better to make the committal, but potentially holdable, g5 move, and try and hold the position with a static pawn structure, than sit and wait only to lose in a few moves.

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Why is the FIDE name in French?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is the FIDE name in French?
I noticed that FIDE stands for " Fédération Internationale des Échecs". Shouldn't it be in English as 'World Chess Federation'? I noticed, though unrelated, that it is the same for SI Units (System Internationale). Did it start in France? What is the history of the foundings of FIDE?

I noticed that the headquarters is in Athens, Greece. Why? If the International Federation of Chess can't be in English, shouldn't it at least be in Greek? Where did France come in?

# Answer
In the first half of the XXth century, French and English were the main international languages.

During and immediately after the first congress in Paris, 1924, the French acronym for "Fédération Internationale des Echecs" was actually **FIE**, and it was referred in the English-speaking world as "International Chess Federation" or **ICF**. But already the following year, at the Congress in Zurich, French-speaking members (and possibly Italy) made a point that "fide" meant "trust" in Latin, thus the 'D' was added for the name to symbolize the confidence of its members in the institution, and **FIDE** became the official acronym in both languages (and worldwide).

E.Winter's Chess Notes have a very interesting article about the birth of FIDE:

> ‘FIDE was founded in 1924’ say the history books, yet, technically speaking, that could be disputed. Certainly the Fédération Internationale des Echecs was formed that year, but its Statutes systematically referred to it as ‘FIE’, and not ‘FIDE’:

But it doesn't give the reason of the later change:

> But later in the year, for reasons as yet unclarified, ‘FIDE’ became the official acronym. If ‘FIDE’ appeared in print in 1924, we have yet to find it.

I remember reading that the Latin meaning was the motivation for switching to "FIDE" in some chess-history book in French, but I will have to dig further to source it properly.
> 13 votes

# Answer
As noted in the Wikipedia list of linguas franca, French was the international language of diplomacy for over 150 years. As a result, many international organizations, especially those based in, with roots in, or with significant membership in Europe, have used French for their name, official documents, etc. FIDE is one such organization, especially since it was founded during the time that French was the lingua franca.
> 7 votes

# Answer
FIDE was founded in Paris, France, on July 20, 1924. It should be the main reason for its name.

You can read about its foundation and early years here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE#Foundation\_and\_early\_years\_(up\_to\_1939)
> 5 votes

---
Tags: history, fide
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal to hit the clock with piece, captured or otherwise?
I have often seen in blitz games that when a player captures a piece and then hits the clock with the piece. Is that a legal move or is the player required to place it on the table and hit the clock with the hand?

Similarly, in the case of promotion, can a player hit the clock with the pawn after it is removed from the board after a promotion.

I also have seen players hold a piece in their hand during play, typically awaiting a promotion (with queen in hand) or just holding a piece?

Are there any official rules that govern hitting the clock with a piece or even holding a non playing piece during play?

Update: I know it is a bit late, but I the ultimate reason for asking relates to classic chess clocks where the buttons are somewhat small and stiff where pressing the buttons multiple times with your hand, especially in blitz games can get quite painful. More recent clocks have bigger and softer buttons so it is not really an issue if using one of those. This is where hitting the button with a piece is much easier on the hand. Does this have any affect on the final answer?

# Answer
> 12 votes
I feel this is legal. I'm using FIDE rules.

This is the rule that describes what happens with a capture:

> **3.1.1** If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

There's nothing there about what happens to the captured pieces, other than they are removed from the board.

Now, of course somebody will argue that this rule exists:

> **6.2.3** A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it.

And there it says "with the same *hand*". But you also have to remove the captured piece with that hand, and once you've done that you have to press the clock, and there is no requirement to let go of the piece. I argue that this rule is intended to be used against people who move a piece with one hand and press the clock with the other, not against using the piece that you happen to have in your hand.

Of course, there is an opportunity for bad behaviour, by hiding pieces in your hand so that the opponent doesn't notice he is behind in material (IMO that's that opponent's fault, look at the board not at the removed pieces), or worse, hiding the piece that the opponent wants to promote to. Or by simple distracting the opponent by constant fiddling with pieces in your hands.

But there are already rules against distracting the opponent, there is also the umbrella rule against "bringing the game of chess into disrepute", and when you want to promote but don't immediately spot the piece it is always acceptable to stop the clock, call an arbiter and have him fetch the piece for you. That is enough ammo to use against bad behaviour.

---
Tags: rules, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: How bad is the English Opening Wing Gambit?
After 1.c4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 it seems White can continue in typical gambit fashion with a number of moves (3.a3, d4, ...) yet I have never seen a game with this gambit. Did anyone strong ever try this? Is there a clear refutation?

```
[fen ""]

1.c4 c5 2.b4 cxb4

```

# Answer
According to the Database of 365Chess, the English Wing Gambit has not been tried by a grandmaster in a rated game.

Although there might not be a clear refutation, the gambit seems to be somewhat dubious. Compared with most gambits, white does not obtain a quick development. Compared with the Sicilian Wing Gambit, white acquires less control in the center. Compared with the Benko Gambit, black's central pawns are still flexible (which was already pointed out by Brian Towers).

After 1.c4 c5 2.b4, the most principled reply is to accept the gambit by 2....cxb4. Now, white has two logical continuations: 3.a3 (Benko style) and 3.d4 (trying to occupy the center). Regardless of white's third move, black can play 3....e6 and 4....d5, after which white doesn't have enough compensation.

Instead of accepting the gambit, black is also more than fine after 2....Nf6, as he will regain the pawn after 3.bxc5 e5.

```

      [StartPly "3"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.c4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 (2...Nf6 3.bxc5 e5) 3.d4 (3.a3 e6) e6 4.e4 d5

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
With your c pawn on c4 it seems pointless unless you shift the b4 pawn with a3. Otherwise black's pawn just stops you developing your b knight and you've given away a pawn for no compensation and made your position worse.

What makes this completely unlike the Benko Gambit is that Black's d pawn is still at home on d7 from where it can move to d6 to blunt the bishop on a3 if white gambits with a3. Or it can stay on d7 if black doesn't take the pawn on a3 or the a pawn is not offered on a3. If this were a reverse Benko then the d pawn would be on d4 vulnerable to attack, needing to be defended by e5 and/or Nf6.

As it is Black can just defend the b4 pawn with e6 or e5 because Qa4 would not be check.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there a database of endgame positions with known perfect play?
Perfect play as in, it leads to checkmate in the least moves possible. Not just forced mates.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Yes, it is call Lomonosov table : link

It is all the positions with 7 or less pieces and the whole answer is known.

---
Tags: endgame, database
---


# Question
Title: What is the standard way to calculate scores in team tournaments?
I found this PDF document on FIDE rules for the Chess Olympiad, which is a team tournament, but the scoring rules were mentioning too briefly (an annex D was mentioned but I couldn't find that).

So my question is:

* Assuming that there are X teams competing in the tournament
* And that each team has Y players

What is the standard way to organize such a tournament (regarding scoring)?

If there are too many teams, how to define which team goes against which?

How are ties solved?

# Answer
I think the standard way to treat a team tournament is like a normal tournament, only with teams instead of players.

So there is swiss system pairing if there are too many teams for a round robin. A win gives you 1 point, a draw 1/2 and a loss 0. Sometimes that 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, but that's equivalent.

The number of board points, i.e. the sum of points each player of a team has made, is usually used as a tie-breaker.

It used to be the case that the olympiad had board points as scoring system. But that doesn't make much sense for a team event and also leads to pretty boring tournaments, so it was changed in 2008.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If I understand the question correctly, you would have to do a swiss style pairing and play by teams. The way our high school leagues organize the chess meets and tournaments is by high school with teams of 8 people (but this can be changed for your convenience of course). The players are put in an order of rank or their skill which determines their board number. For example if I am the best player from my high school, I will be board one, and so on until board 8. A high school is paired against another high school and board 1 plays their board 1 and so on. I think the way we do it is board 1 is worth 12 points (meaning whichever school's board wins gets the 12 points and the losing board gets 0) and board 2 is 11 points and so on until board 8. A draw will mean a split of points. The points for the school are tallied up once all 8 boards are done with their games and the school with more points wins that round.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, team
---


# Question
Title: Can solving lots of mate in one (or two) problems be beneficial?
I am a ~1500 player on chess.com (so I'm in the online beginner-intermediate range).

There is a book titled "Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games" by Lazlo Polgar, father of Judit, Susan and Sofia. From amazon:

> Chess analyzes more than 5,000 unique instructional situations, many taken from real matches, including **306 problems for checkmate in one move, 3,412 mates in two moves, 744 mates in three moves**, 600 miniature games, 144 simple endgames, and 128 tournament game combinations.

Mate in one and two problems aren't usually too difficult to solve with experience. But my question is, does the difficulty of the problem matter? Isn't pattern recognition a crucial part of studying chess? I feel like I can get a lot more from simple mate in one (or two) problems then just *solving them*, and going to the next problem right away.

For example, these simple situations seem to be really beneficial, if I think about them as positions I want to achieve in real games, and if I try to analyze the position.

Or maybe I am dead wrong about this, and I should concentrate on doing problems, that are *difficult to solve*.

Any opinions?

# Answer
> 7 votes
There's a wide array of opinions as to the debate on whether simple problems done repetitively, or more challenging problems are better for improvement at tactics.

My personal opinion is that both have their place and both improve different essential things. Getting those simple problems down cold is very good for pattern recognition and board vision, but the more challenging problems improve tactical analysis abilities, problem solving skills, and help prepare a player for tournament situations.

As for whether your collection of thousands of mate in 1 or 2's would be very helpful, I'd say that mating patterns are certainly important to practice but I don't know if you really need to train with quite so many. It certainly wouldn't hurt, but you might have faster growth practicing with the mating problems on chesstempo. They have them tagged and you can create your own sets of problems if you're a member.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is one aspect to this that the other answers only touch upon but not really discuss: mate-in-2 problems are constructed to have non-standard solutions.

That's precisely why it's beneficial to solve such problems! Not to build pattern recognition by solving lots of problems quickly, there are indeed better resources you can use for this purpose, but to practice your wide and slow search. In principle it is possible to solve any mate-in-2 problem by mentally constructing the whole search tree 3 ply deep (white moves, black moves, white mates).

For beginning and intermediate players it might be more important to learn common patterns and narrow the search. But the stronger you get, the more you need to practice looking for non-standard moves both in training and during your own games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know this particular book, but IMO, tactics training is much better done with a computer/website, which will tell you immediately where you went wrong, without you having to look up the solution manually. Also, any decent online tactics training tool would automatically adapt the problem to your strength and also, if you fail to solve a problem, will present you the same problem again after a while.

It is certainly useful to practice *mate in x* kind of problems, however I would not obsess about it. Most games are probably won because one player achieved and converted a positional or material advantage rather than by a direct mating attack.

I'd rather solve a mix of all kind of problems, ideally from real life games, rather than from compositions or few material problems. This would also avoid the artificial situation that you know beforehand what to look for. In a real game nobody is going to tell you that it is mate in 3 either.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are a few aspects you need to keep in mind.

1. solving any chess puzzles helps in your development
2. solving puzzles must be challenging, but still make you happy, not bored and sleepy
3. there are puzzles from real games -- these are good ones, and there are composed puzzles, where author intentionally obfuscated the main line with a few "good" looking side lines and created a brain teaser instead of instrument to learn something valuable. avoid the latter ones, it's fun to impress your friends, but generally is just a waste of time.
4. what you want to strive for -- get any "mate-in-2" solved within 5 seconds, and "mate-in-3" within a minute.
5. solve as much as you can -- this will allow you to learn those basic patterns, see the potential positions in your real games and actually make those mates happen in your games.

and yeah

6. solving from the book is the process a magnitude slower than using specially written software or web sites. unless your book is **very** good, use apps and web.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's a famous book - good choice. If you enjoy it, by all means do the whole thing. A good standard to aim for is to be able to very quickly spot the solution to a real-life mate-in-one -- like instantly. (Composed problems or "studies", for longer mates, are another story, but that book doesn't go there.)

Instructors disagree how much time to spend on a particular problem before giving up and/or checking the answer. Personally I think for problems of this sort and for your level, you should try for 10-30 seconds and then look at the answer. Then revisit the same position again after a week or month, and see what happens.

Side story: I analyzed with Susan Polgar for a few minutes once, with some other professional-level players (ie, GMs and strong IMs). Her accuracy and speed were remarkable.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Seirawan's tactics book is much more beneficial and fun to read than this kind of puzzle book.

The book tells an interesting story and shows the key elements of common mate-in-x positions.

Those puzzle books like the one you're talking about don't seem to build pattern recognition (unless you see the exact position in a game), and you're more likely to miss the mate in a similar position in a game and then realize right after or later that the key elements were the same.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This particular book is about training your pattern recognition. Lazlo has designed it specifically so that the earlier patterns repeat in later patterns. This makes it so that the patterns become intuitive and you see mates and tactics without having to calculate them.

The method of building more complicated mates out of simpler one's works really well for most people. I am sure there are some who would get bored by this, but likely going through these problems will prove beneficial for you. The idea is to expose you to more and more patterns and increase your intuitive repertoire.

This sort of tactical training will free up your mental power for other calculation so it can improve other areas of your game as well.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I have this book somewhere, but it's been a long time since I looked at it, and I don't recall having gotten past the mate in three puzzles.

I believe the point of the book was to start off by building the pattern recognition. I do remember that the puzzles would typically be grouped with others having a similar pattern, and that the longer ones built on the shorter puzzles.

It's not a bad idea to do difficult problems, but it does help to have a good foundation in at least some of the patterns, so you have an idea of what to look for in candidate moves.

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Sicilian Classical

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian Classical
```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. Be2 e6
7. Be3 Be7
8. O-O O-O
9. f4 Bd7
10. Nxc6 Bxc6
11. e5 dxe5
12. fxe5 Nd7
13. Bd4 Qa5
14. Bd3 Bc5.

```

Questions.

1) Black played Sicilian Classical on move 5. What is the idea behind Sicilian Classical?

2) White is interested to play Be3 with the idea of protecting Nd4 and keeping an attack on b6 so that Queen can not come there. But Black may play ...Ng4 and attack Bishop on e3. So for this reason White plays Be2 first to avoid ...Ng4. Is this logic okay by White?

3) After 6 ... e6 White plays 7. Be3 keeping his previous logic in mind. Then after development both sides castle and White goes for 9. f4 attack with the idea of opening Rook file and controlling e5 square. Then White plays 10. Nxc6 and then 11. e5 to attack f6 Knight. So Black plays dxe5 and then White plays fxe5. Then Black plays ...Nd7 and attacks e5 pawn for which White plays 13. Bd4 to protect as well as keep an attack on long diagonal and kingside of Black. Then Black plays 13. Qa4 with further attack on e5 pawn. Then White played 14. Bd3 with the idea of 14. ... Nxe5 15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg8 17. Qxe5 regaining the pawn. But Black played 14. Bc5 and further now White's kingside attack is slowly nullified by Black. Is e5 attack by White is logical?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The logic to play Be2 to prevent Ng4 and to then play Be3 is sound. For the first 9 moves it looks very playable for white.

10.Nxc6 however is not a good idea. It activates the passive black bishop on d7 and is connected to the bad idea to play e5.

11.e5 is just a mistake as far as I can see. The pawn on e5 is too weak and you are bound to lose it. You could try to defend it with 13.Bf4, but in that case it seems to be possible to play Qb6+ and take on b2.

Look at this game where 17 year old Magnus Carlsen slowly outplays World Champion Vishy Anand in a very similar setup. He does achieve a very strong attack and a winning position, even if he goes on to lose in the end.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense
---


title: Will quantum computers solve chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Will quantum computers solve chess?
The theory is that there are more that 10^40 positions, and a computer that works with an atomic scale has to be impossibly large(As in galaxy-scale large), and well beyond our current level of knowledge.

But now, quantum computers will soon be available. This computer can have 2^n, instead of n bytes of space, because of quantum states. With this new large place for tablebases, will chess be solved? Of course, this will take more breakthroughs in the future, but will we see 8 piece databases in the following years?

Many questions on the possibility of solving chess revolve on the fact that we don't have enough computer space to fill them. Will quantum computers change the status quo?

# Answer
> 26 votes
I'm not an expert on quantum computation but my understanding is that quantum computers are *not* expected to be useful for chess.

Quantum algorithms are very good at finding needles in haystacks: the three big quantum algorithms are Shor's factorization algorithm, Grover's database lookup algorithm and the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm, which essentially determines whether a long list of numbers is either all zeroes, all ones or half of each. All of these problems can be seen as examples of "I've hidden something: you must find it quickly." In factorization, I've "hidden" the prime factors and you must find them; in database lookup, I've hidden an entry with a given key in a large unsorted table and you must find it; in the problem solved by Deutsch–Jozsa, I might have placed a large number of zeroes in a table of ones but, with a classical algorithm, when you've looked at half the table and seen only ones, you might have just been unlucky and looked at the "wrong" half. Note also that all of these problems could be solved quickly by an unrealistically parallel classical computer: you could try all the factors in parallel, look at all the database entries in parallel and look at all the values in the zero-one table in parallel.

Solving chess isn't even slightly like any of these problems. It's a fundamentally sequential activity. Whether or not my move is any good depends on what you do in response. Whether or not your response is any good depends on what I do in response to that. And so on. You might imagine you can do the first ply of the search by taking a superposition of the possible moves. But then what do you do at the second ply? You can't just take the superposition of all the positions we could be in after two ply because that has forgotten the tree structure. For example, consider this very artificial position, with white to move:

```
[FEN "1k6/ppp5/5Q2/7q/8/8/PPP5/1K6 w - - 0 2"]

```

If we forget the tree structure, Black is very happy. He says, "In two ply, the best position I can be in is that I deliver checkmate!" This is true but, of course, White will never allow that, since White's best move is one that prevents Black from checkmating (or doing anything else). Chess isn't about figuring out the best move you can possibly make in N ply: it's about figuring out the best move that your opponent will allow you to play in N ply. Quantum computers don't seem to be good at this back-and-forth, give-and-take reasoning. We don't even know how to solve chess with an unrealistically parallel classical computer.

# Answer
> -1 votes
It should be verbalized what exactly means 'a solution to chess'.
Then we will understand what exactly we may get out from the hypothetical black-box chess solver (BBCS).
We will feed BBCS with the chess board position.
BBCS will spit out an integer number X. 0 means there is no solution for that position (or the position itself is not legit) Another integer number means the least number of moves to transform the original position into a checkmate position in a non-cooperative chess game. The ultimate solution to chess will be just an integer number which means the exact number of moves from the chess starting position to a checkmate position. Is it a task for quantum computer? IDK. As David Richerby lookup - chess is not for QC. But when we must find a single integer number X to declare "mate in X moves" it seems more like to find a needle in haystack... Am I wrong?

# Answer
> -3 votes
*Fair warning: This answer contains speculative numbers, and may be off by orders of magnitude.*

It's just possible, but unlikely.

The issue isn't necessarily with whether or not quantum computers will be able to "parallelize" to that extent. The problem is one of simple physics, one that even quantum computers can't realistically get around. Put simply, there's a limited number of calculations that can ever be performed. This was answered by Thomas Pornin at Security.SE, and I quote some of his answer here:

> Let's look at a more mundane perspective. It seems fair to assume that, with existing technology, each elementary operation must somehow imply the switching of at least one logic gate. The switching power of a single CMOS gate is about *C\*V2* where *C* is the gate load capacitance, and *V* is the voltage at which the gate operates. As of 2011, a very high-end gate will be able to run with a voltage of 0.5 V and a load capacitance of a few femtofarads ("femto" meaning "10-15"). This leads to a minimal energy consumption per operation of no less than, say, 10-15 J. The current total world energy consumption is around 500 EJ (5\*1020 J) per year (or so says this article). Assuming that the total energy production of the Earth is diverted to a single computation for ten years, we get a limit of 5\*1036, which is close to 2122.
>
> Then you have to take into account technological advances. Given the current trend on ecological concerns and the peak oil, the total energy production should not increase much in the years to come (say no more than a factor of 2 until year 2040 -- already an ecologist's nightmare). On the other hand, there is technological progress in the design of integrated circuits. Moore's law states that you can fit twice as many transistors on a given chip surface every two years. A *very* optimistic view is that this doubling of the number of transistor can be done at constant energy consumption, which would translate to halving the energy cost of an elementary operation every two years. This would lead to a grand total of **2138 in year 2040** -- and this is for a single ten-year-long computation which mobilizes *all* the resources of the entire planet.

That is the absolute maximum number of elementary operations that can *possibly* be done. Now let's look at how many chess positions there are...

> Let's do some quick numbers. Each of the 64 squares can be empty or hold one of 12 different pieces (R, K, B, Q, K, and P in black and white), so the total number of positions that you could set is at most
>
> 1364 = 196053476430761073330659760423566015424403280004115787589590963842248961.
>
> That is about 2 x 1071 different positions. Of course this is a huge overestimate, because most positions are fake (we should eliminate positions with three or more kings, nine or more white pawns, pawns in the eighth rank, quadruple checks, etc). Let's take the square root:
>
> 1332 = 442779263776840698304313192148785281,
>
> or about 5 x 1035. By taking the square root we are pretending that for each legal position there is a chess Universe worth of distinct fake positions. This is probably an underestimate, so the true answer must be somewhere in between these two numbers. Now we can confidently say that computers cannot study every legal position in a reasonable time. Even the "tiny" 1332 is too large...

That smallest number ends up being somewhere around 2120 or so.

Let's assume that we represent our boards with a 64-byte string. (Practically it would be handled a little differently, but let's go with it for now.) If I'm remembering my math correctly, a quantum computer would be able to represent this with an 8-byte string, or 64 bits. This leaves us with a total of 2126 to 2130 elementary operations *just to store each legal and possible position*.

Look at that for a moment. We're not doing anything useful with the information, we're *just* storing it. And to do so we are mobilizing the resources of the entire *planet*. Never mind where the storage is physically located. Ignore the whole issue of cooling. Set aside the issue of data transmission. We are diverting enough power to illuminate the Moon just to store the positions.

**At the most optimistic of expectations, a quantum computer *might* be able to solve chess, at the cost of the entire planet's resources. Realistically, that will not happen.**

---
Tags: engines, tablebases, computer-chess
---


title: Feeling cramped in the Najdorf

text:
# Question
Title: Feeling cramped in the Najdorf
I played this game recently at a tournament, and lost pretty decisively. I thought about it a bit, and I think it's representative of something that happens somewhat often in my games when I play the Najdorf: I get really cramped and white launches a successful Kingside attack.

More concretely:

1. Is my assessment correct - that misplaying the Najdorf and not creating enough space led to my loss?
2. Are there any particular moves that stand out as blunders?
3. How could I have played this differently?

Game as follows:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6
6. Be3 e6 {I don't know any theory past this point.}
7. f3 Be7
8. Qd2 Bd7 {Premonitions of a Kingside attack, but I feel safe at the moment}
9. Bc4 O-O
10. O-O-O Ne8 {I was trying to launch a Kingside attack myself, and get my knight to a better square eventually}
11. g4 Nc7
12. h4 Bxh4 {Maybe I was too greedy here - it ended up allowing him to clear out some clutter and really get his pieces working together}
13. g5 Bg3
14. f4 e5
15. Nf5 Bxf5
16. exf5 exf4
17. Bxf4 Bxf4
18. Qxf4 Re8
19. g6 hxg6
20. fxg6 1-0

```

I resigned here.

# Answer
Let's forget for a moment that it's a Najdorf.

You were cramped because you never gave yourself space. Instead, you spent a lot of time wandering around with your knight and bishop and opening lines against your own king. You didn't develop. You didn't counter-attack.

When White castled on the opposite side to you, they were making a simple declaration: I will checkmate you unless you checkmate me first. This is absolutely typical in the Najdorf and it requires Black to carefully balance counter-attack and defence. Attacking on the queenside usually requires ...b5 (kicking the bishop with tempo), ...b4 (kicking the knight with tempo) and ...Rc8 (aiming at the king).

There's a good lecture by Jonathan Schrantz at the St Louis Chess Club that covers a lot of the Najdorf-specific ideas. ...b5 and ...d5 are the big breaks that you need to try to get in.
> 7 votes

# Answer
One of the main themes in the Najdorf is: **White attacks on the King side** and **Black attacks on the Queen side**. You never started you attack on the Queens side.

Here is an example of Kasparov game with successful Queen side attack.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Linares"]
[Site "Linares ESP"]
[Date "2005.03.08"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Michael Adams"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "52"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2
Qc7 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3 Bb7 10.f3 Nc6 11.O-O-O b4 12.axb4 Nxb4 13.g4
Be7 14.g5 Nd7 15.h4 Nc5 16.Kb1 Rb8 17.h5 O-O 18.g6 Bf6 19.Rdg1
Ba8 20.Bg5 Be5 21.gxh7+ Kxh7 22.Nb3 Nxc2 23.Nxc5 Na3+ 24.Ka2
Qxc5 25.Na4 Nc2 26.Kb1 Qa3 0-1

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
My observations. 12. ...Bxh4. The flood gate of h file is opened in opposite side castling. Knight on b8 is not activated. Unclear plan of ...Ne8 ...e5 looks weak as Bishop on c4 becomes very active. ...Re8 again looks week. ... hxg6 looks weak as the h file becomes open. ... h6 could have closed the file and cramped the position which becomes difficult for White to attack. Even when Rook is on f8, if for g6 Black can play h6 and if gxf7+ Black can play ...Kh8 and the position is still closed.
> 4 votes

# Answer
My first thought is that "10...Ne8: I was trying to launch a Kingside attack myself, and get my knight to a better square eventually," is the key mistake. White has just castled Queenside and is very much in a better position on the Kingside (nevermind that you just had to reduce the activity of one of your pieces before you even began). Encouraging activity there is just asking for white to checkmate you quicker.

Instead, you want to be attacking on the Queenside to try and checkmate white first. The usual plan involves playing ...b5 and ...b4 (possibly getting tempo each time!) gaining space aimed at white's castled position. That space might look less useful because it's away from the centre, but your pieces will still feel freer because they can head towards a useful target and accomplish something. With a sensible development of the Queenside knight, your Queen developing on the Queenside (Qa5, maybe? There are some tactics associated with this that you have to watch out for but it's still a great place to have her) and bringing the Kingside rook to the c-file to assist as well, that'll bring enough force aimed at white's king to make white nervous and give you a good game.

This isn't a surefire win, of course, and it'll take a lot of practice games to get an intuition for how black's attack is supposed to develop. But you won't get that intuition from a game like yours where the Queenside attack never started at all.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I am by no means an expert on the Najdorf (my experience is entirely on the white side, and some time ago), but it looks like you lacked the urgency and dynamism that such a double-edged line requires, and didn't know what your plan should be (no, Black should not be attacking on the kingside after white plays O-O-O) or even how to inconvenience White at all.

A few moves jump out at me as being either inaccurate or outright wrong:

8...Bd7. Maybe theory knows better than me, but this looks like it just gets in the way on d7. That bishop wants to go on b7 if you ask me. I'd want d7 for the knight (which noticeably stays on b8 for the whole game).

10...Ne8. This is an odd move, and the strategic plan behind it is wrong - Black is never attacking on the kingside in this type of position. That knight is covering the d5 break and eyeing e4 (making it harder for white to throw the f-pawn up the board, which he later does with impunity). You shouldn't be moving it away until White's g-pawn gets rolling, and then d7 would be preferable to e8 (another reason not to put the bishop there).

And, as others have mentioned, 12...Bxh4 is a suicidal move that just opens up lines against your own king. The pawn is worthless - this is not a position for pawn-counting. Someone is getting checkmated before move 35.

Really, you needed to get some kind of counterplay on the queenside and centre, for instance, at some point pushing b5-b4 to kick the Nc3 away and playing ...d5. Black's central strike is often the antidote to white's kingside shenanigans in the open sicilian. You never played ...b5 at any point, even though the presence of a bishop on c4 makes it basically a free move.

I'm not sure what to suggest, really. Everything about this game suggests that the Najdorf is really not the opening you should be playing, and I'd recommend you take up 1.e4 e5 instead. At least, get a basic primer on the sicilian, such as "Mastering the Sicilian" by Danny Kopec. This covers the basic ideas in open sicilian positions without getting bogged down in theory.

And study some master games. The problem isn't that you played one or two wrong moves in this particular game, the problem is that you don't appear to understand at all how the Sicilian is played.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Control of the center allows you to conduct your kingside attack easier. (Pick up Nimzowitsch's My System for examples.)

You're worried about a kingside attack but you never fought for the center.

6...e6? allows the knight to stay on d4, a central square. White's position is therefore easier (he threatens Nd4-Nf5.)
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Theoretical new rating system (dissuading GMs from resigning)
Very rarely do grandmasters let themselves get checkmated. And to a certain extent I totally can understand that; grand masters can see the writing on the wall and they know when they are going to lose. If your opponent is also a grand master, he will probably not blunder and secure the checkmate without issue, so what's the point in going through the motions, right? Perhaps a certain degree of pride is involved as well.

## Question

I do not mean to humiliate the grand masters, but I want to see what would happen if we presented an incentive to play until the bitter end; until being checkmated. I would like the community here to comment on my hypothesis: if we added a small rating point boost (or reduce ranking penalty for losing) for playing until the end, would the grandmasters follow the incentive or is it not the case of pride goeth before a fall?

**Further Clarifications:** Perhaps such a system would not prove to be extremely instructive for chess learners world wide. Some may liken it to shooting fish in a barrel or just wasting time, but who knows, something magical might happen if grandmasters are pushed to their breaking point every game.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Since rating is so important (two examples: you can qualify for the World Cup Candidates Tournament via the rating list, and it's necessary to obtain a certain rating level to become International Master or Grandmaster), all grandmasters would certainly play until the end.

My counter-question is: "What do you expect to gain from this system?" I'm pretty sure the interesting part of chess games is *before* professional players resign. So on average, the games will get *less* interesting. Yes, there will be some cases where the player who would have resigned manages to miraculously save the game to a draw (or even a win), but those will only be a handful each decade.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Resigning is usually a rational choice, preserving physical and emotional energy.

Grandmaster games would start to end like some internet games do: With the losing player giving away all his pieces and allowing a quick checkmate.

In my opinion this would mar the beauty of the games. It would also make it difficult for inexperienced players to assess whether the players are still "really playing".

---
Tags: rules, rating
---


# Question
Title: What's so important about the h4 square in this endgame?
I'm reading John Nunn's book *Grandmaster Chess Move by Move*, and it stresses the importance of the h4 square in the following endgame.

```
8/2p2p2/5k1p/2B1p1p1/4P3/1P3P2/2n1K1PP/8 w - - 0 1

1. Kd2? Nd4 2. Bxd4 exd4 3. b4 Ke5 4. Kd3 h5! 5. g3 h4

```

Nunn writes,

> and \[Black\] is just in time to prevent h4 by White. Now White cannot make progress and the game is drawn.

Using computer analysis, I see that the move 6. Kc4 loses in the resulting position, due to 6... hxg3 7. hxg3 g4! So white's best attempt is not Kc4 but rather playing f4 at the right time.

Why is it advantageous for each side to occupy h4? I have some thoughts on the matter but would appreciate a more complete answer.

**Thoughts:**

1. If white occupies h4, he can exchange hxg5 hxg5 at the right time and liquidate the kingside, so that black can't queen with an h-pawn. This is especially important since white's plan is to push f4, capture the d4 pawn and then attack on the queenside. Better not to leave behind a black h-pawn that can queen.
2. If black occupies h4, then he has an advanced h-pawn that can potentially queen, especially if white tries to break through with f4. (In the case of f4, black can counterattack on the kingside.)

Compare the above (drawn) position with the position below which is won for white. The moves are given by Stockfish. I think this illustrates why exchanging h-pawns is advantageous for white, so that he can attack on the queenside more freely.

```
8/2p2p2/7p/4k1p1/1P1pP2P/3K1PP1/8/8 w - - 0 1

1. hxg5 hxg5 2. b5 f6 3. f4+ Ke6 4. Kxd4 Kd6 5. e5+ fxe5+ 6. fxe5+ Ke6 7. Kc5 Kxe5 8. Kc6 Ke4 9. Kxc7 Kf3 10. b6 Kxg3 11. b7 Kf2 12. b8=Q g4 13. Kc6 Kg2 14. Kd5 g3 15. Qf8 Kh2 16. Ke4 g2 17. Qf4+ Kg1

```

What are your thoughts on the endgame? Why do you think the h4 square is important for both sides? Am I leaving something out in my analysis?

# Answer
Your thoughts are correct.

In pawn endgames with play on both wings, it is often decisive for one side to be able to reduce his pawn majority to a 1 vs 0 situation ; reversively, he wants to ensure he keeps a pawn on the side where he has a pawn minority.

The idea is that the opponent king will be diverted by your eventual passer and take it (thus opening space for your breakthrough or counterplay on the other wing). If you have reduced your majority to a 1 vs 0 situation, there is nothing more for the opponent king to do. Otherwise, it would remain active and grab enough of your pawns on this wing to get a passer of his own.

I am familiar with this concept thanks to an excellent book by Glenn Flear. I haven't seen it in print anywhere else.

That's exactly what happens in your example. White gets a 4 vs 3 majority on the kingside. If he can reduce it by exchanging the h-pawns, he will sac his eventual extra f-pawn to distract the Black king and win on the other side (take Pc7, queen b-pawn).

However, if Black can retain the h-pawns (and if they are not too far north), the black king will be able, after taking the f-pawn, to also collect white h-pawn, and threaten to queen his own h-pawn.

That's why White needs to exchange the h-pawns early (or to ensure they stay far enough up the board for Black's counterplay to be too slow) with h2-h4 and hxg5.

See comments in this line:

```
8/2p2p2/7p/4k1p1/1P1pP2P/3K1PP1/8/8 w - - 0 1

1. hxg5 hxg5 2. b5 f6 3. f4+ gxf4 (3...Ke6 {loses trivially}) 4.gxf4 Kf4 5.Kd4 {Thanks to zugzwang, White can also exchange the 4 and f6, even if that's not necessary here} Kf3 6.e5 fxe5 7.Kxe5 {And the White King wins Pc7 and the game, while the Black King has nothing to attack anymore and is just out-of-play. Add wPh2/bPh4 and the evaluation changes !}

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame, study
---


title: Mistake in FIDE elo calculation?

text:
# Question
Title: Mistake in FIDE elo calculation?
One of the properties of an elo rating system is that the sum of all elo changes is zero. When calculating the new FIDE elo ratings, the elo changes are added to the old ratings and the new ratings are rounded. However, doesn't the last step *create* rating points?

Say, player A has 110 ratings points more than player B and both players have a K-factor of 10. When player A wins against player B, he gains 3.5 points, while player B loses 3.5 points (see FIDE elo calculator). But after adding the elo changes and rounding the new ratings, player A will gain 4 points and player B will lose only 3. As a result, the zero-sum property is violated.

An example of such a case can be found here: the elo calculations of player 1 and player 2.

Am I overlooking something? If not, has this been noticed and pointed out before?

Wouldn't it be more correct if the elo changes are rounded *first*, before adding them to the old rating? (In the example, -3.5 would be rounded to -4.)

Or is this effect so small that it can be neglected, compared to other effects like the inflow of new players, different K-factors, etc...?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The effect is small. On average, once out of every 20 rating periods a person plays rated games, a person's rating will be rounded up instead of down. A rating period is one month. Assuming everyone plays every rating period (which of course is not the case), this will create 30 points every 50 years.

There are known deflationary effects from new players - they often enter near the bottom, then gain points, and usually never lose all the points they gain. It's possible the rounding is intentional as one way to insert an inflationary pressure to combat that.

I don't think they will institute decimal points on ratings, regardless. The USCF uses a rating system with a decimal point and a complicated formula. The FIDE rating system, in contrast, was designed so anyone could calculate their own rating change based on their results and the published ratings of their opponents. Adding decimals would make the math slightly more complicated and would make it necessary to publish those decimals for people to calculate their ratings. We've already seen a GM throw a game in protest at perceived unfair pairings; even though pairings are deterministic and were not manipulated in that case, the pairing rules are complicated enough that the GM couldn't easily determine this at the time. Perhaps FIDE doesn't want them questioning their ratings as well.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Thanks for all the comments!

As Slepz noted, rounding away from (or towards) zero would fix the zero-sum property of the elo rating system.

Moreover, as mentioned by itub, by using decimal numbers for both elo change and elo storage, one could solve any rounding issues and make the elo calculations more precise. To me, this seems the most elegant solution, as an elo rating is a continuous variable rather than a discrete one.

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


# Question
Title: What is a move that "is recorded in such a way that its true significance is impossible to establish"?
According to FIDE rule E.8 on temporary adjournment (my emphasis),

> Except in the cases mentioned in Articles 5, 6.9, 9.6 and 9.7, the game is lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move:
>
> a. is ambiguous, or
>
> b. *is recorded in such a way that its true significance is impossible to establish*, or
>
> c. is illegal.

The items a. and c. above are pretty clear. An illegal move is, well, illegal (e.g. moving a pawn backwards, moving one's king into check), and an ambiguous move is one that does not fully indicate the piece to be moved and its destination, such as "I move my bishop back", "castling", or "I'm gonna queen a pawn".

What is the meaning of clause b. above? My instinct says that it refers to a move that is unambiguous on its face, but that is not sufficiently identified *as* the player's sealed move, but it is unclear how that would *also* not qualify under E.8.a as an *ambiguous* move, and I found an older version of the rules which states the following (emphasis mine):

> 10.16
>
> At the resumption, the game is lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move:
>
> (a) is ambiguous; or
>
> (b) *would result in a false move the true significance of which is impossible to establish*; or
>
> (c) would result in an illegal move.

This version seems to emphasize that this rule is intended to prevent "false" moves as opposed to ones that are merely *ambiguous* or *illegal*. E.g. the player's sealed move might be perfectly unambiguous and 100% legal, but it might still be unacceptable because it is somehow "false". It also implies that a move that is "false", but not ambiguous or illegal, may be permitted if its "true significance" can be established, but that seems impossibly unclear.

What kind of specific misconduct or poor play does this rule forbid?

# Answer
> an ambiguous move is one that does not fully indicate the piece to be moved and its destination, such as "I move my bishop back", "castling", or "I'm gonna queen a pawn".

No. You obviously haven't reached "Recording of the Moves" and clarifications given in the glossary. A move, to be a move, has to be written in algebraic notation. None of the expressions you have written qualify as moves let alone ambiguous moves.

If the player had rooks on a7 and c7 and he wrote Rb7 then that would be ambiguous.

> What is the meaning of clause b. above?

If the person trying to read the move can't work out what the move is because part or all of it is illegible then that would qualify. In general this a catch-all clause that basically says you can't work out what the move is for some reason other than ambiguity. Complete absence would also do. i.e. the player seals a blank sheet of paper.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think that this comes from the times were games were recorded in descriptive mode (as opposed to algebraic), and in some cases some moves could be ambiguos.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, sportsmanship
---


# Question
Title: What are the letters and numbers next to an opening's name on online services?
Here, it shows "C22": \[Name of opening\]. This is from an online service, and I was confused what this is. At first, I thought it was for the specific sites database, but I have seen the letters and numbers used with the opening name on chess.stackexchange.com too. What is it?

# Answer
The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (or ECO) is a classification system for the opening moves in chess.

Instead of the traditional names for the openings, ECO has developed a coding system that has also been adopted by other chess publications. There are five main categories, "A" to "E", each of which is divided into 100 subcategories.

Here is more info and related questions in case you are interested:

How are the ECO codes for chess openings assigned?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia\_of\_Chess\_Openings

Does ECO openings classification have an established more detailed specification - by sub indexes?

And this is the exact same code that you mentioned, covered in another source:

https://www.365chess.com/eco/C22\_Centre\_game\_Berger\_variation
> 18 votes

---
Tags: opening, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Should aspiring chess players analyze all of their games?
Or is time better spent analyzing particular games (like a match between two masters)?

In general, is it better to play more, and analyze a few of those games, or to play less, and analyze most of them, or even play a less, and still only analyze a very few selected games? What is the most professional attitude towards learning?

# Answer
> Should aspiring chess players analyze all of their games?

It all depends on the result of the game.

Every single game that you lost was because you made at least one mistake. If you don't correct your mistakes you will continue to lose to the same kind of mistakes. The only way you are going to stop making the same mistakes, same kind of mistakes is by analyzing your games, identifying what you are doing wrong and correcting it.

Analyzing the games you lost is the one constant of the life of a player who wants to improve.

Analyzing the games you won is nice for your ego but in general does little to make you a better player.

Analyzing the games you drew can be very useful for identifying the "one that got away". If you were winning, or thought you were winning, and the game ended in a draw then it is useful to find out where you went wrong. Either your judgement was wrong and it was always more or less even or you really were winning and you made a mistake that let him get away. This is often a problem in endgames.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Every single chess game is considered to have "mistakes", because chess is still within the select group of unsolved games. Now if we redefine the word "mistake" taking into account the level/quality of play (measured by rating, for example), we find out that **we always make mistakes, even when we win**. Take this situation: you play against a much higher rated opponent. There is little chance that you will win the game. Your opponent sees more and he wins. Did you make a "mistake"? With the practical meaning of mistake, I don't think so; you probably didn't have a chance. But according to a theoretical meaning, comparing the game to that (still unknown) perfect game of chess, there surely will be mistakes. Even from your highly rated opponent.

My point is that you may not have made a mistake, but you will anyway benefit from analyzing your games, including the moves of your opponent. Moreover, I think that you **must** analyze all of your games, regardless of the result (I would, however, skip some fast blitz games). The closest best game that we can find is that analyzed by a well-known engine. And luckily nowadays it could be effortless: lichess.org and other sites allow you to analyze a full game, presenting you with alternative better moves:

Free online analysis engine?

One last advice: **also analyze your opening!** You don't need an engine to do that, but an Opening Book. These are opening moves considered best for both sides, catalogued according to statistics, looking at thousands of games over the years. There are many free opening books out there.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning
---


# Question
Title: What does "Precision: White = nn%, Black = nn%" mean in a game broadcast by chessbase.com?
The game "*Salgado L, Iván vs Arroyo R, Jesús, 83rd ESP-ch 1-0*", shows this annotation after the last move:

> Precision: White = 93%, Black = 18%.

What does that phrase mean?

Check https://es.chessbase.com/post/sabrina-vega-y-salvador-del-rio-de-angelis-campeones-de-ajedrez-de-espana-2018 for more information.

# Answer
It surely is a measure of the quality of play, the deviation of the game from a "perfect game", as understood by the engine used in the analysis. A perfect move will lose zero units of measure.

I couldn't find a chessbase source, but here it is a similar question on lichess, in which the unit of measure is called a centipawn:

https://lichess.org/qa/103/what-is-average-centipawn-loss

Centipawn loss could also be expressed as percentage, but as your question is about precision, they should be the opposite amount. In your example for white, a precision of 93% equals 7 centipawn loss (7% of inaccuracy).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chessbase, annotation
---


title: Why is ChessBase calling this a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is ChessBase calling this a draw?
The above image is clearly not a draw. Why is ChessBase giving this errant line?

After I play 10...Kd6!! Now White is winning. Why is ChessBase giving this error?

# Answer
Has the position after 10....Kd6 occurred earlier in this game? If yes, the engine thinks it's a repetition and shows "0.00".

More information on the repetition issue can be found on this thread on TalkChess, a forum dedicated to computer chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is a **bug**. The position should be simple enough for the engine to work out a promotion. You should report the incident to ChessBase.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chessbase
---


# Question
Title: What to study after someone stopped playing for years?
I stopped playing for 2 years and then I had some periods where I played and studied chess, but never for more than a few months in a row. I have an ELO of 1900.

After these 2 years without playing, I noticed that I take way more time to think during my games (did I lose confidence?), sometimes hesitating for a long time between two good moves that should not matter that much (like "should I play Bd3 or Bc4 in the opening?", or "should I take with the c or e pawn?"). I also noticed that I forgot some opening lines (which I think is completely normal) and some endgames too. I almost always end up with time trouble, even though I read guides about time management.

My question is: what should I study to get back to my level before I stopped playing?

I used to do a 15 min tactics on ChessTempo and Lichess, but I stopped because in a game you never know when there's a combination and the puzzles on ChessTempo became so difficult that I often ended up playing the moves I thought was best because I could not find the combination of +10 moves in my allocated time frame. Now, I do the exercises from Practical Chess Exercises which are more similar to what you have to do during an actual game. I also do the very easy exercises in Ct-Art 6 because I think it takes me too much time to find these in a real game. I also started to review my endgames and I do endgames exercises on Chessable.

For the openings, I tried to switch to new openings, but it did not go well, probably because I needed more time to learn them. So, what I do now is I review my old openings. I'm not sure I should review my openings though, because I'm pretty sure I don't lose my games in the opening.

Is there anything else I should do? Should I stop review my openings and focus on other weaknesses?

**Edit:** By the way, I did play a few tournaments (not as much as before I stopped playing, but still) and in a club since I stopped playing.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Having had experience with this exact problem myself a while back, there is only one advice that I can give: play as much as possible! If the time management issues you're describing are a new occurrence they are most likely due to you being rusty, and they should be corrected by regular tournament play. It takes time to reinstate the trust you had in your own in-game judgement after a long period of inactivity, but it will most likely come back if you keep on playing regularly.

As a final note: studying chess theory is never a bad idea if you're looking to improve, but don't expect it to fix your problems with time management.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Having come back from a 2 year break, struggled, then went on to gain 200 points in that year, this is my advice.

10 tactics a day, master games, 1 long game a day, and endgames. You will not remember the openings you forgot, relearning them perfectly is too time consuming. Relearn them by analyzing your long games and master games.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> "should I play Bd3 or Bc4 in the opening?", or "should I take with the c or e pawn?"

It seems like you forgot the common attacks and situations that your opening falls victim to later in the game based on earlier moves.

These types of dilemmas are legitimate, and no amount of studying is really going to bring out the problems you will encounter later in the game because of how deep and complex the nuance is at this point.

As an example, I had an opening once where I would play as Black and fianchetto the queen side. In certain openings, if I encountered c3 or g3, I absolutely had to change the entire development of my opening because 20 moves later I was going to be in serious trouble on my king side. I only learned this through playing dozens if not hundreds of games.

Which, to get to the point, is the solution for you here: to get back to playing games. Play a computer set to ludicrous mode. Set it for a rating of 4000 if possible. This will quickly allow you to discern the problems later on in the game or mid game based on your decision of Bd3 versus Bc4, cx versus ex, and any other broad variety of nuance you used to encounter that will surely come back to you the more you play.

When you stop playing, it is your general knowledge of your goto openings that languishes, not your tactics or overall strategy. Studying tactics will not yield the benefits of just playing full games, or games until there is a clear victor.

---
Tags: training
---


# Question
Title: What happens if I push a pawn to the 8th rank and press the clock before promoting?
What happens if I push a pawn to the 8th rank and press the clock before converting it to another piece?

Does it make a difference if it's Blitz or not?

# Answer
> 4 votes
"If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal." Source: Fide Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2018 at 7.5.2.

If a move is illegal, it's illegal in Blitz, too. What can differ between Blitz and classical is what the penalty for an illegal move is.

Previously, in blitz/rapid a player making an illegal move would instantly lose the game.

However, January 1, 2018 revisions to FIDE Laws of Chess acted "to equalize the rules for classical chess on the one hand, and rapid and blitz on the other, with regard to the penalty for making an illegal move."

> Before, in both rapid or blitz an "illegal move" (which includes moving with two hands, or not making a move and pressing the clock) would instantly lose the game in case the arbiter intervened or the opponent stopped the clock. Now, in the first instance it will lead to a time penalty and only if a player does it again, he or she loses—just like in classical chess.

Source for quotes on 1/1/2018 change: Peter Doggers, New FIDE Laws Of Chess For Blitz, Rapid Still Not Perfect

# Answer
> 2 votes
Building on Jim Ratliff's answer that this would be an illegal move, the regulation says:

7.5

a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.

b. After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's a good question, especially regarding the difference between time controls. The answer is yes, there is an important difference: **in Blitz** (and Rapid chess, which is a frequently overlooked time control also covered in the rules) **the game is a draw if the arbiter observes that the illegal position remains after the failing promotion move**:

A.4.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or **a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position**, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

For reference: A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves. (article 3.10.3)

Of course, the opponent could claim a win before he makes his move. But if he makes a move and the pawn remains on the last rank, the observing arbiter shall declare the game drawn.

This is not possible in standard chess (where each player’s thinking time is at least 60 minutes) because the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated, and the penalty is two minutes extra time to his opponent (or the player loses the game if this is the second illegal move).

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion, illegal-move
---


title: Checking on the legality of a move

text:
# Question
Title: Checking on the legality of a move
I moved my white King to d4, taking black's bishop. This put the king in a checkmate with black's knight on c6. Is this move legal or illegal? Thank you.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Kd4 is not a legal move. You are never allowed to put yourself into a check.

Even though it's possible to argue "black's knight can't take my king as that would put his king in check", it's still not legal. You can imagine that if the game could continue, black would capture the white king before white could capture the black king, and black would therefore win. This is of course just a device for explaining the why, as capturing a king is just as much an illegal move as putting your own king in check.

---
Tags: illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Should a player use the provided carbon copy sheet to record moves in a club/tournament?
I've been told some times that I must record my moves in the carbon copy sheet provided by the organizer instead of using my own chess notebooks. Is there any rule preventing me from using my own record sheets?

# Answer
> 5 votes
According to the rules:

8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), **on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition**.

And also important:

8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organiser of the competition.

---
Tags: rules, fide, notation
---


# Question
Title: Why are three chess sets needed for Kriegspiel and dark chess?
Wikipedia states that three chess sets are needed for Kriegspiel and dark chess. Is that actually true? I can see how having three sets would make things a lot easier, but couldn't the referee simply reconcile the two sets directly, without using a third set? Or am I missing something?

Are three chess sets strictly required in order to play Kriegspeil and dark chess (without having to keep permanent track of the game state in anyone's head)?

# Answer
I've never actually played Kriegspiel, but I've read a bit about it, and after what I understand it would be like this:

At a very minimum, two boards and one set of pieces are required. As the players only have access to the pieces of their own color, both players can share one set of pieces. However, they need a board each.

However, unless the referee is a very good player, he will probably have trouble detecting everything if he has to look back and forth between the two boards. Therefore, it's better he has his own with all the pieces on it. That adds up to three boards and two sets of pieces.

I can't see any reason to introduce a third set of pieces.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---