# Question
Title: What did Bobby Fischer say about how chess960 should be implemented?
**Edit re the 2 close votes for opinion-based**: This is as factual as it gets. I'm asking Bobby's opinion of how tournaments should go. I never asked people's opinions of how tournaments should go or if people agree with Bobby (*for whatever Bobby said, which is the point*). It's much like this other question I asked What has Bobby Fischer said about increment (similar to chess960)? or that other question about Bobby Why did Bobby Fischer make his demands in the 1975 World Chess Championship?.

Bobby wants chess960 to replace chess, but the starting position is not always the same unlike with crazyhouse, Capablanca, etc, so this is something that should be dealt with. I want to know how Bobby intended for this to be dealt with. Completely factual and also completely a priori reasonable to wonder. Even a posteriori you can see how St Louis' Chess 9LX tournaments are different from FIDE's Fischer Random world championships (and even the 2 WFRCC's are inconsistent if they are supposedly the same).

---

Like let's say FIDE or whatever agreed with Bobby at the time 'Like ok we'll get rid of chess completely and play chess960. But how are we gonna do this?'

As much as I love chess960 and hate chess, this seems like a logistical nightmare to implement overnight.

Eg

1. Does everyone in the tournament get the same starting position (SP)?
2. Do they play both colours for each SP
3. How much time do they have to think between seeing the SP and the start of the game?
4. Re-roll for standard position?
5. How does any of the above change depending on the time control?
6. Should chess960 even be played in lower time controls? If not, then are you going to play classical armageddon to tiebreak?

**Question**: What did Bobby Fischer say about how chess960 should be implemented?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The closest thing I've seen so far is

The problem with Chess960 by Frederic Friedel - 2018Feb28

> Kasparov's proposal In 2005 (I believe it was) I discussed Fischer Random and Chess960 with Garry Kasparov. He came up with the following suggestion: we select ten interesting and exciting positions to be used in tournaments and allow players to prepare in advance. Immediately before the start of each round, the audience in the hall (or on the Internet) selects one of these ten positions for all games. This provides spectator participation, which is never a bad thing. Players have some basic preparation for all ten positions — they do not have to start the game with a long think about "can I move the c-pawn?" And commentators can come prepared as well.
>
> At the time I was, as mentioned above, talking to Bobby Fischer about his plans for a comeback with a Fischer Random match, and I discussed the ten-position idea with him. He was quite interested in it and we spoke for maybe half an hour, discussing all kinds of details. But then he said: "It is quite a good idea, Frederic. When did you come up with it?" I confessed it was not me but Kasparov, and the tide immediately turned. "No, there's a trick. He has preparation for special positions or something." And that was the end of discussion of "Kasparov10" chess with Fischer.

# Answer
> 1 votes
From a 1996 interview, here is Fischer's opinion on how Chess960 should be implemented:

1. The starting position should be randomly generated but still symmetrical.
2. The pieces should be placed on the back rank in a random order, with the only restriction being that the two bishops must be placed on opposite-colored squares.
3. Castling should still be allowed, with the king and rook moving to their usual squares, regardless of the starting position.
4. The game should be won by checkmate or resignation, just like in traditional chess.

Fischer believed that Chess960 would make chess more interesting and exciting, as players would need to rely more on their creativity and ingenuity instead of relying on memorized opening theory.

---
Tags: history, chess960
---


title: Percentage of "playable" openings

text:
# Question
Title: Percentage of "playable" openings
Google says 197,742 positions are possible after 4 halfmoves. Let's call a position playable if it is not worse than 0.5 pawn units on the engine of your choice (I use Lichess Stockfish). By this definition, Grob is the worst (-1.7), even before Nh3 (and after f3, the only other unplayable move - if I didn't blunder).

Which percentage of the possible 4 halfmoves "openings" is playable?

# Answer
Running some quick-and-dirty Python code, I find that there are 197,281 positions at 4 ply (which agrees with this).

Of those positions, I find 61,191 can be reached via moves that don't move the evaluation to worse than -0.5 for white or -0.78 for black (roughly symmetric around the initial position). This is ~31% of the positions. The engine runs on each position for 0.1s, so I wouldn't expect this to be especially robust.

---

Edit:

On reflection, the asymmetry in position at the start of the game is irrelevant; white just has slightly more "playable" moves than black for any given threshold of "playable."

Using @Danya02's suggestion from the comment, I am using the Lichess evaluations where they are available and then looking at a threshold of:

* 0.30 - 21,581 valid positions ~10.9%
* 0.50 - 54,186 valid positions ~27.4%
* 0.60 - 75,796 valid positions ~38.4% (\*roughly KID level "playable")
* 0.75 - 106,947 valid positions ~54.2%
* 1.00 - 151,261 valid positions ~76.7%

There's probably something more to "playable" than just compute eval. For example the Kings Indian Defence is roughly ~0.6, but I don't think there's much doubt that it's playable. The playability of a position also depends on the level of the players. I guess one measure might be "positions where both sides score at least 0.3 for a given Elo", but that might be even harder to measure.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: opening, statistics
---


# Question
Title: What is the number of legal positions in a chess game?
There have been several questions regarding the possible number of chess games. for example; Database of every possible move in chess. However,can there be an estimate on the number of "allowable" chess positions?

For another example, White pawns cannot occupy the first row and Black pawns cannot occupy the eighth row. If a given chess piece is occupying a square, then another chess piece cannot occupy that. Using simple elimination rules coded, can we have an estimate on the number of unique positions that chess pieces can have since they would be reducing in number? An upper bound on positions before applying any elimination rules would be the sum of (64 C 32 + 64 C 32 ... + 64 C 2). This is less than 10^20. With elimination rules, they should be significantly lower.

Any ideas on how elimination rules are written for chess pieces?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Upper bounds on the number of allowable positions are discussed on the Shannon number Wikipedia page.

There is an accepted upper bound of 1.8x10^46 by Shirish Chinchalkar, and an accurate estimate of 4.8x10^44 by John Tromp.

By comparison, the number of atoms on earth is about 10^50.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Old question, but for people who just want a quick estimate they can do with basic math this is an easy way to go about it

If we consider all 32 pieces, we can rearrange them P(64,32) or 64 permute 32 ways. If we then consider 31 pieces, we do the same as above with P(64,31) but this time we must factor in the choice of 31 out of the 32 pieces so we multiply P(64,31) by C(32,31) or 32 choose 31. If we continue along this manner we have the sum from n =2 to 32 of P(64,n)C(32,n) which gives **1.24e54** which is only a few orders of magnitude larger than the number given by Vicor Allis.

Note that in the assumptions, we allowed illegal positions, and double or triple counted certain positions by treating each piece as distinct. But the number is reasonable compared to that above and more importantly is easily attainable with pretty basic math.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It is really difficult to find out legal positions but total positions possible is `13^64` , assuming each piece can be positioned in every available square

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here is a Python script that gives an upper bound of **~10^51.431 positions (legal and illegal). Moreover, the script doesn't check for legality of positions or if a position is reachable, so the proportion of legal positions should be a few orders of magnitude lower.** A bootstrap approach can be used to approximate this proportion.

Note the following variables are updated:

```
squaresAvailable = Number of squares available to use
whiteProm = Maximum number in promotions available on the position for white pieces
blackProm = Maximum number in promotions available on the position for black pieces

```

```
import math
sum = 0
tosum = 43
for whitepawn in range(9): #whitepawn is the number of white pawns on the board (0 to 8)
    #wp represents the number of ways to arrange a given number of white pawns
    wp = math.comb(48, whitepawn)
    whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn
    blackProm = 8

    for blackpawn in range(9):
        bp = math.comb(48 - whitepawn, blackpawn)
        whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn
        blackProm = 8 - blackpawn
        squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn

        for whitelsbishop in range(2 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
            squaresAvailable =  62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop
            wbls = math.comb(math.ceil(squaresAvailable/2), whitelsbishop)
            whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1)
            blackProm = 8 - blackpawn

            for blacklsbishop in range(2 + max(blackProm, 0)):
                squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop
                bbls = math.comb(math.ceil(squaresAvailable/2), blackbishop)
                whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1)
                blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1)

                for whitedsbishop in range(2 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
                    squaresAvailable =  62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop
                    wbds = math.comb(math.ceil(squaresAvailable/2), whitedsbishop)
                    whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1)
                    blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1)

                    for blackdsbishop in range(2 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
                        squaresAvailable =  62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop
                        bbds = math.comb(math.ceil(squaresAvailable/2), whitedsbishop)
                        whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1)
                        blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1)

                        for whitenight in range(3 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
                            squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight
                            wn = math.comb(squaresAvailable, whitenight)
                            whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitenight - 2)
                            blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1)

                            for blacknight in range(3 + max(blackProm, 0)):
                                squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight - blacknight
                                bn = math.comb(squaresAvailable, blacknight)
                                whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitenight - 2)
                                blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1) - max(0, blacknight - 2)

                                for whiterook in range(3 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
                                    squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight - blacknight - whiterook
                                    wr = math.comb(squaresAvailable, whiterook)
                                    whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitenight - 2) - max(0, whiterook - 2)
                                    blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1) - max(0, blacknight - 2)

                                    for blackrook in range(3 + max(blackProm, 0)):
                                        squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight - blacknight - whiterook - blackrook
                                        br = math.comb(squaresAvailable, blackrook)
                                        whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitenight - 2) - max(0, whiterook - 2)
                                        blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1) - max(0, blacknight - 2) - max(0, blackrook - 2)

                                        for whitequeen in range(2 + max(whiteProm, 0)):
                                            squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight - blacknight - whiterook - blackrook - whitequeen
                                            wq = math.comb(squaresAvailable, whitequeen)
                                            whiteProm = 8 - whitepawn - max(0, whitelsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitedsbishop - 1) - max(0, whitenight - 2) - max(0, whiterook - 2) - max(0, whitequeen -1)
                                            blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1) - max(0, blacknight - 2) - max(0, blackrook - 2)

                                            for blackqueen in range(2 + max(blackProm, 0)):
                                                squaresAvailable = 62 - whitepawn - blackpawn - whitelsbishop - blacklsbishop - whitedsbishop - blackdsbishop - whitenight - blacknight - whiterook - blackrook - whitequeen - blackqueen
                                                bq = math.comb(squaresAvailable, blackqueen)
                                                blackProm = 8 - blackpawn - max(0, blacklsbishop - 1) - max(0, blackdsbishop - 1) - max(0, blacknight - 2) - max(0, blackrook - 2) - max(0, blackqueen -1 )
                                                sum = sum + wp * bp * wbls * bbls * bbds * wbds * wn * bn * wr * br * wq * bq

#64 squares available for white king and 63 for black king as an upper bound
print(math.log10(sum * 64 * 63))

```

```
OUTPUT: 51.43108306627925

```

---
Tags: mathematics, game-complexity
---


# Question
Title: Where can I get a free engine to play Hexagonal Chess?
This question asks about the rules for Glinski's hexagonal chess. If I want to play a game of Glinski's hexagonal chess against the computer where can I get a free downloadable engine?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This page on the chess-variants website has links to various hexagonal chess playing engines. I particularly like Hexodus which you can download from this link.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can find a well implemented hexagonal chess app for mobile, **Chexx**, quite intriguing, it implements Glinski's hexagonal chess variant just like Hexodus, also has online, friend invite and multiple (16) AI to play with. Give it a try.

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, hexagonal-chess
---


# Question
Title: What do the USCF crosstable result letters mean?
In the crosstable for a tournament I played, I didn't play a round and it was listed as `H`. What does this mean?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The result codes are defined in the USCF website FAQ, under Member Services Area.

> **What do all the result codes in a crosstable mean?**
>
> Here's a list of the result codes currently in use:
>
> ```
> W  A win for this player
> L  A loss for this player
> D  A draw for this player
> U  This player was not paired in this round
> B  A full point bye
> H  A half-point bye
> F  A forfeit loss
> X  A forfeit win
> Z  A forfeit draw
>
> ```
>
> Special Use Codes
>
> ```
> N  A win for this player (but not a loss for the other player)
> S  A loss for this player (but not a win for the other player)
> R  A draw for this player (but not a draw for the other player)
> I  Game In Progess (will be used for correspondence events only)
>
> ```
>
> Note: The N, S and R codes are used by TDs for unusual circumstances, resulting in the players being assigned results for ratings purposes that are not consistent with each other, such as a win for one player and a draw for the other player.

---
Tags: tournament, notation, uscf
---


title: Cheating with team order

text:
# Question
Title: Cheating with team order
To my best knowlegde mere permutation of team order is pointless (at least by German rules here): everyone playing too low loses by default, everyone too high is a weaker opponent than in the "regular" order.

But browsing my old club zines, I just unearthed a titanic scandal that can only be measured in megalewinskys: The opponent (of our youth team) for the climb into the higher league re-registered a dummy for board 1 (which of course defaulted, so to be not shown) and everyone else could play one board lower.

I would be interested how effective this shenanigan is. Assume we have 8 players (also standard here), and the teams are equally strong with the board 1 Elo is 2000 (the actual value shouldn't matter) and the value decreases by e for each lower board (a random but rather reasonable assumption).

If e is zero, clearly it is pointless, they "earn" just a default on board 1 so the outcome would be 4.5:3.5 for us in average. If e is gigantic, all lower boards win resulting in a 1:7. Thus, some e must exists where the 4:4 line is crossed in favor of the cheater.

At the age of the incident, Germany still had Ingo, which would make it even easier to compute since the system is strictly linear - e must be of the order 50/8 in that system (since 50 Ingo points difference=100% win), and since the factor between the two systems is about 8, e should be around 50 Elo points.

Can you compute e mathematically by chaining some probabilities?

(Honk if I should take this to a math board.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
The expected score for a player with a rating advantage of e is (1+10^(e/400))(^-1) The expected score over seven boards is seven times this, and for the trick to work (ie not to lose) this must be at least 4. The break-even point comes when e=400\*ln\_{10}(3/4)=49.95.

Many years back, in the British Chess Federation team competitions, I quizzed my players in advance how strongly they objected to being Black. Those with the least objection were put on the odd boards. If we won the toss, we took Black on those boards. So permutation can be advantageous.

---
Tags: elo, cheating, team
---


# Question
Title: Is armageddon more fair in a Vickrey auction?
I believe armageddon is fair only if they bid, but just because they bid doesn't mean it's fair, i.e. bidding is necessary but not sufficient to be fair. Which side has the advantage in an Armageddon tiebreak game?

So let's still have armageddon auction as one-time bid / single shot, but make it Vickrey auction instead of blind auction.

Paraphrasing what Jim Ratliff says here:

> It would be superior if the rule were, instead of (a) the winning (i.e., lower) bidder gets their own bid on their clock, that (b) the winning bidder receives the *other player's* bid on the winning bidder's clock. This would be a form of a second-price auction, where each player has the incentive to bid their true value. Otherwise, each player *A* has an incentive to try to outguess their opponent *B* and just barely undercut *B*'s bid, even if in fact player *A* would have been willing to accept even less time in exchange for their colour of choice (usually black).

Consider recently in 2023 champions chess tour Airthings Masters magnus vs hikaru, where the bids were Hikaru Nakamura 8:59 and Magnus Carlsen 8:58.

If Magnus is just guessing Hikaru would pick 8:59 whereas Magnus would go as low as, say, 7:00, then Magnus has a 2 minute advantage. Unsurprisingly, Magnus won *and did so specifically by draw odds*.

So I guess on the surface it appears that *Hikaru had a 7 minute time advantage over Magnus* but really *Magnus had a 2 minute advantage over, well, Magnus*.

# Answer
No, it's not more fair, and doesn't prevent trying to guess what the other person bid. Unlike most auctions, in armageddon you care about what price your opponent pays even if you lose the bid. The two methods are more or less just as fair as each other; the incentives are just reversed.

In your scenario, Hikaru wants 8:59 and Magnus wants 7:00. In a normal auction with those bids, Magnus would get the bid for 7:00. So Magnus is better off bidding 8:58 to slightly undercut Hikaru and still win the bid.

In a Vickrey auction, with bids of 8:59 and 7:00, Magnus would get the bid for 8:59, and bidding more than 7:00 will not help him. But now it's *Hikaru* who is incentivized to bid differently. He's better off bidding 7:01, so Magnus gets 7:01 instead of 8:59.

Also, in this scenario Magnus wanted 7:00 and got 8:58. In a Vickrey auction, if everyone bids honestly, he would want 7:00 and get... 8:59. It seems weird to say it's unfair that he gets so much time, and advocate for a method where he would get even *more* time.
> 2 votes

# Answer
jf328

> 'Best strategy in a second price auction is to bid their intended time. I won't say it's more fair, but it certainly takes out more non-chess stuff which is desirable for a chess tourney.' - Feb 10, 2023 at 10:07
> 0 votes

---
Tags: statistics, time-control, mathematics, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: What are examples of tournaments/games 60 minutes to below 120 minutes, and how does FIDE classify them?
What are some examples of tournaments or games where their time controls convert to at least 60 minutes but below 120 minutes, and then how does FIDE classify them (eg rapid or classical)?

Supposedly they are considered classical, but I've already found 1 tournament & 1 game (I'll post in answer).

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **Appendix A. Rapid Chess**
>
> A.1 A ‘Rapid chess’ game is one where either all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but **less than 60 minute**s 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.

So, *every* "tournament whose time controls convert to exactly 60 minutes" is regarded as classical by FIDE. It is just that FIDE will only rate such tournaments for lower rated players. Slower time controls are required for stronger players. For stronger players there is a range of time controls which FIDE will not rate because they are too slow to be rapid and too quick for stronger players.
> 2 votes

# Answer
1. 2019 WFRCC, won by Wesley So. The so-called 'slow rapid' (a term undefined even as of 2024Feb29, over 4 years later) games are 45 minutes for the 1st 40 moves and then 15 minutes bonus afterwards. They are considered rapid.
2. 2010 USCC, won by Gata Kamsky. The armageddon game had a base time of 60 minutes and even had increment. It is considered rapid.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: fide, history, tournament, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Has there ever been a consultation chess match?
Inspired by How much stronger is a team of GMs compared to a single GM?

All the chess matches I'm aware of have been 1v1. There have been team competitions such as the Olympiads, but I am not sure if you are allowed to discuss moves with your teammates in Olympiads. I assume not since news reports don't usually mention the teammates discussing. If so then Olympiads are just a series of 1v1 games.

I am wondering if there has ever been a consultation chess tournament/match of the kind where a group of players play against another group of players, and both sides are able to talk and discuss moves before they are made. If so, I'd like details of the tournament/match.

A few close cases:

1. Hand and brain chess, although the hand and brain are not supposed to talk.
2. Kasparov vs. the world was sort of a consultation game, but it was also a correspondence game since the time control was very long. I am looking only for OTB games.
3. another close case: pair matches eg this or the mixed sex version, although the teams are not supposed to talk.

# Answer
A chessgames.com user has made a compilation of consultation games. For example, it contains Lasker / Pillsbury vs Steinitz / Chigorin. According to a comment by user TheFocus, it was "played in St. Petersburg, Russia on January 29, 1896."
> 20 votes

# Answer
2024 Update:

There's an inaugural chess.com tournament in 2024 called 'Team Chess' won by C-squared podcast: Fabiano Caruana & Cristian Chirila.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, tournament, match
---


title: When was there a classical armageddon?

text:
# Question
Title: When was there a classical armageddon?
Armageddon is usually rapid/blitz/bullet. What tournaments used classical armageddon for tiebreaker?

Btw classical here of course means is 60min+ (for white).

# Answer
> 0 votes
In the ff questions, seemingly no one else knew (including myself) that there was already a classical armageddon game in the 2010 US chess championship won by Gata Kamsky, but I guess it depends on how you define 'classical'.

1. Would a classic full time armageddon tiebreaker be balanced?
2. Classical Time Control Armageddon?

---
Tags: time-control, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't there more classical armageddon with auction?
This has been asked about here but **without** auction:

1. Would a classic full time armageddon tiebreaker be balanced?
2. Classical Time Control Armageddon?

---

# Part0 - History

1. Afaik, there's been only 1 classical armageddon with (or without) auction in history:

* 2010 US Chess Championship, won by Gata Kamsky

2. And since then armageddon's have seemingly just gotten faster. The 2013 USCC armageddon (with auction) was 45 minutes base time + 5 second increment and then come on ... I don't think any armageddon besides those 2 really were even close to that.

But please feel free to let me know if there were.

---

# Part1 - Introduction (all 4 points coincidentally involve Fabiano Caruana)

1. What I understand is classical tests more calculation skill while rapid/blitz tests more intuition skill.

But if the point is to really test players on both skills, then tournaments could have a **mixed time control match** like the 2024 American Cup (games are unweighted) or the 2019 WFRCC (games are weighted) : Keep all your classical games, but add also rapid games. So, to me, when rapid is used only as a classical tiebreaker, they're not necessarily testing players on both skills but just doing something better than roulette. In a mixed time control, **I think I find a rapid armageddon justified** because the main set of games did have rapid.

2. I think that wasn't much of a problem back in, say, Bobby Fischer's time even w/ the ridiculous hübner vs smyslov in the 1983-1984 candidates, settled by roulette, but with the increase in theory, **classical chess has become more drawish, so rapid/blitz tiebreaks are more common.** Afaik, there's been much talk over the last decade over using rapid/blitz tiebreaks for classical matches especially the world chess championship, most recently in the 2016, 2018 & 2023 world chess championships. Eg Susan Polgar said in 2018Nov after Fabi lost to Magnus Carlsen:

> So many people think that the current World Championship format is unfair because Carlsen is too good in Rapid/Blitz. So how would you change it? There has to be a firm start/end date. It's not possible to have an infinite event. So what would be fair? Propose your suggestion!

**Therefore, classical armageddon might be an alternate tiebreaker** (at least in knockouts because this could take forever to break round robin or swiss ties).

3. In c-squared podcast (csqpod) w/ Hikaru Nakamura, around 1:02:18, Hikaru tells Fabi & Cristian Chirila that Hikaru wished they could keep tiebreakers in world chess championships classical somehow. Hikaru wanted, as I understand, classical sudden death, which I guess is a classical version of what happened in the 2023 World Cup. I believe this is extremely unfair because at least in blitz sudden death, white doesn't have that much advantage. But this can now work if they do classical armageddon or some other balance eg pie rule or 'semi-armageddon' where there are still draws, so players bid for white instead of black.
4. In a later csqpod w/ Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, around 2:22 (or 27:53 in full episode), MVL & Fabi say they don't like 'super long armageddon's', and that's about the only **direct discussion involving a superGM that I've ever seen on why armageddon doesn't happen in classical time controls.**

---

# Part2 - Possible compromises

1. White needn't get 120min. White could have just 60min. It might not be rated, but it's still be classical.
2. You may or may not have increment. Actually, I think increment is better. If **you like rapid tiebreaks of 25min + increment 10sec, then you might still like 25min + increment 35sec**. It's the **same base time, just more increment**. I think is an acceptable compromise.

---

# Part3 - 2 possible issues:

1. There isn't necessarily a way for this to be fair (even w/ auction?).
2. It's somehow not fun to watch or something.

---

# Part4 - Response to issues:

1. (to 1st issue) While it's said armageddon is fair only if there's an auction, I think conversely it's fair if there's an auction. But well I could be wrong, hence this post.
2. (to 2nd issue) Ian Nepomniachtchi: 'If you’re measuring everything with fun, you should probably go to the Brazilian carnival, not classical chess.' And if you wanted it to be fun because rapid is more fun than classical, then again, you could've done a mixed time control match from the start.
3. (to both points) Or maybe fair/fun is subject to gradation. So tell me the cut-off. If armageddon w/ auction is fair/fun at anytime below some cut-off say 60 minutes, then I don't see why suddenly it's unfair or not fun at 60 minutes/ I think I read before someone said the cut-off can be determined based on 'draw rate plus black win rate' or something. Like somehow viewers (how would they know what viewers think if this hasn't really been done?) wouldn't like to watch an armageddon where a lot of time is given up. **But I think the aforementioned increment could resolve this issue.**

# Answer
> 2 votes
The current brisk rapid Armageddon has the following advantages:

1. It produces a decisive result in one game. That's the point of Armageddon
2. The auction makes it fair
3. It is quick. At the end of a long tournament the players want to go home not play more games of long chess.
4. The quick time control with added variability due to the auction produces excitement.

A classical time control Armageddon has the major disadvantage of being slow. If white has an hour or more on the clock the game can go on for a long time. That means the players have to hang around that much longer and the games are less exciting to watch. Carlsen has already abdicated from classical time controls and only wants to play rapid and blitz.

Additionally the extra time is going to make the auction a bit of a farce. Currently there seems to be a natural limit for the bidding around the half mark. So, for a 15 minute game bids under about 8 minutes are uncommon. For an hour game the bids are likely to be under 15 minutes for the top players and the 4:1 disparity would make it look more like a circus act than a serious game of chess with one player blitzing out moves while the other takes their time, sometimes a lot of time, maybe even more time for one move than the other player has for the whole game.

---
Tags: tournament, world-championship, time-control, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish 15 is stronger than Stockfish 16?
According to https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-16-on-chesscom :

***Stockfish 16 is currently the most powerful chess engine in the world**. The engine's latest version is significantly stronger, winning 12 more game pairs (where each engine plays both sides of the same opening position) **as it loses against Stockfish 15**.*

Emphasis is mine, as those statements sound mutually exclusive to me i.e. it can't be the world strongest if it loses to its predecessor.

And even then I would have thought it's just a typo or something as it doesn't make too much sense, but then some personal experimentation revealed something peculiar: I have installed both Chess.com, Chessis, and Stockfish 15 engine apps on my Android device. Chess.com is using Stockfish 16 (as per aforementioned article); Chessis was initially defaulted to use Stockfish 14, but I explicitly pointed to use Stockfish 15. What I've noticed over time is that Chessis (Stockfish 15) is in fact stronger than Chess.com (Stockfish 16).

So I am totally confused here: if this is true that the older version is stronger than newer, what's a point of releasing the new version?

# Answer
> 2 votes
As qwr wrote in a comment, Stockfish 16 wins 12 more game pairs than it loses to Stockfish 15. "Game pairs" is used here because in engine chess it's standard to play two games at once, with the opening fixed, and both engines take turns to play White.

In other words, if you get the two engines to play a 1000-match series, you might see something like Stockfish 15 winning 10 games, Stockfish 16 winning 120 games, and the remaining games are drawn.

So no, Stockfish 15 is not stronger than Stockfish 16; it is weaker by a substantial margin.

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What are the commonest checkmating moves in the Lichess (or similar) database?
I'm curious what checkmating move is the most common in the Lichess database? That is, the properly algebraically specified move, for a given color, like "White plays Re8#".

Answers for other databases are also welcome.

(I'm guessing that Re8# for white may well be one of the top, as well as Qf7)

# Answer
I've downloaded the Lichess database from 2013 to the end of 2022, and counted the final move of all the games, including whether it was a check or checkmate. For space reasons, I processed this in a streaming fashion (i.e not keeping any data after it was downloaded and processed), and I had forgotten to include recording whether the final move was by black or white; the only things I know are the number of games where the final move played was X. It's broken down by month, as well as collected into a grand total.

> You can see the raw stats on the GitHub repo next to the counting program, and here's a Google Sheet with the final data and some sample calculations. In total, there are 4,004,175,546 recorded rated games in this period.

Here are a few highlights:

* Only 26.5% of games ended in a checkmate, with the remaining 15.19% ending with a check and 58.31% with neither; thus, 73.5% of games ended in a timeout, draw or resignation.
* The most popular game terminations are `Q(x)g2#` and `Q(x)g7#`: together, these account for a whole 3.03% of games and 11.43% of checkmates.
* Of the checkmates, the most popular one is with the queen: these account for 64.78% of all checkmates. (Note that moving the pawn to the final rank to deliver checkmate counts as a pawn move, not the move of the promoted-to piece.) The other popular option is with the rook, which accounts for another 25.39%. All the other pieces combined account for only 9.83% of checkmates, with a king move only delivering 0.0258% of them (exclusively by means of a discovered attack, because the king itself cannot cause a check).
* 32.43% of checkmates were also captures, and this is fairly consistent across the pieces: from 37.16% for the queen to 18.81% for the knight, it seems to hover somewhere around 20-30%. An exception is the king, which already has a rather small number of checkmates, but only 3.87% of those also capture a piece.
* 1.88% of checkmates were caused by a promotion, most often into a queen `??=Q#` (in 92.25% cases) but occasionally into a rook `??=R#` (7.53%).
* Checkmating by a castling move is very rare: this only happened 39,026 times in the data, or 0.000974%; and among these, `O-O-O#` is 67.01% while `O-O#` is half as frequent with 32.98%.
* There are a lot of extremely rare game endings: there are 2058 different final moves that were each played only once (and 798 of them are checkmates). Most of these seem to be fully-specified: for example, only one game ended in `Qe5xd4#`. These rare moves account for a substantial amount of my data: I've collected 22661 unique game-ending moves, and there's 5322 (23%) moves that concluded less than 10 games, and 9028 (40%) that finished less than 100 games; and among the latter, there was only 51975 checkmates, which is less than 0.0049% of all recorded checkmates.

I haven't looked at the squares involved too much, but I imagine that there would be some more insights to be found there.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, database
---


title: How to play with my child?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play with my child?
I have an online rating of around 1500 and my 8-year-old daughter's playing strength is approximately 900 and she LOVES playing with me, despite losing most of the time. Here I am seeking suggestions on how I should play with her, in order to:

1. keep her interest in chess;
2. help her to improve;
3. boost her confidence in chess.

**Playing strength**: Should I always play with my full strength, which means she will lose almost all the games that I play with her, or should I play while doing other things, such as watching videos (and thus lower my playing strength)? My child sometimes requests me to get distracted so that she has a better chance of winning/drawing. Also, should I purposely blunder occasionally and see if she knows how to take advantage of it?

**Opening Choice**: Should I stick to one or two mainstream openings, or should I play various types of openings? Should I simulate opening move frequency by using a database? For example, if so, in 20 games that I play as white, I would play nine e4 games, seven d4 games, two Nf3 games, one c4 game and one game starts with some other move. Should I play less common and slightly dubious openings, such as the King's Gambit, Danish Gambit, or Scandinavian Defence? Should I play dubious traps (which I do not normally play in a more serious game), such as Elephant Gambit and Stafford Gambit?

**Draw Offer**: Should I accept draw offer when there are still multiple pieces and pawns on the board, while the position is objectively equal, or should I keep playing?

**Analysing Games**: Should I record all the games that we play and analyse them with her? I tried to ask her to record the games, but she does not like it. She does not enjoy analysing games, but she is willing to do so.

**Coach**: Should I hire her a coach, or is myself good enough for her rating at this moment?

# Answer
Children (and people in general) learn in different ways. It seems what you want is that both yourself and your daughter will maintain interest. If you distract yourself in order to maintain interest that seems to me not a good idea, if not a little rude. If she loses nearly all the time she may improve but may eventually become dispirited (who enjoys getting beaten all the time?).

My suggestion is to modify the technique of Dr Siegbert Tarrasch in his 'The Game of Chess' wherein he started his teaching from the Endgame rather than from the Opening.

In your situation I would start by setting up the board with say K+Q+Q (ie white) v k (ie black) where you play black. You try to hold out as long as possible, she to avoid stalemate! Vary the starting positions. After she learns to crush you quickly move to positions like K+Q+R v k then K+R+R v k, K+Q v k, K+Q+N v K and so on.

Then positions where the defender black has a piece or two.

Include K and pawns v k and pawns. The choices are myriad.

Eventually you set up positions where you both have chances to win. And you will need to try harder! And your daughter will learn the capabilities of the pieces and all the elementary ways of checkmating you!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Why don't you just use the old-fashioned device of material odds? At the level she is at, Queen odds should be good. You will have to exert yourself and she will feel great satisfaction in beating you. Reduce the odds when she beats you more than 60% of the time. Something like that.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Another natural handicap that I haven't seen another player mention is time controls. When I have played against Kindergarten students (and I expect that there's a similar gulf in rating between me and these students as there are between you and your daughter), the 5 year old gets essentially infinite time while I have to play 0:15 + 1.

This is my favourite handicap because I don't need to follow artificial or different rules, and I do not need to pick moves that I know are worse. In my experience, the children also enjoy seeing my rushed and panicked moves when they find something even a little tricky.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My feeling is that while exercises that do not involve actually playing games of chess can be fun for kids sometimes, if you want to her to have a good chance of remaining interested you must continue to mostly actually play chess with her. In my experience teaching many kids both younger and older than her it takes a very specific personality type to not be bored to death by endgames, for example.

I suggest you introduce "levels" for yourself as if you were a bot. Tell her there are 5 (or however many) levels. Make some rules for yourself about how you will play at each level and what kind of threats you will "see" or make. If you need some inspiration you could check out the building habits series by GM Aman Hambleton on youtube.

Then whenever she wants to play, ask her to pick what level she would like to play against. If she continues to play regularly she will work her way up to the highest level before too long.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, children
---


title: How did you get over 2000 FIDE?

text:
# Question
Title: How did you get over 2000 FIDE?
A little bit of background: I started playing chess when I was almost 20 years of age, my first FIDE tournament was when I was 25 and my first FIDE rating was in the low 1900's.

At first, I thought, I could reach IM if I dedicate myself, which in hindsight is such a ridiculous belief. In these 6 years I played mostly online or with friends, never studied the game actively, but only passively watching videos and using the analysis board, so my thought was that if I apply myself it would come easily -- this was very wrong to believe.

A couple of years later (also didn't play through the covid era) and I am fluctuating between 1920 - 1980 FIDE and can't seem to get past the 2k mark. I do sometimes work on calculation and openings, but I mostly play a lot of longer games online and maybe a fourth of that is OTB. My highest online ratings (lichess) in bullet, blitz, rapid and classical were 2500, 2350, 2440 and 2400. I do seem to fluctuate between 2300-2400 in all categories. I understand OTB is very different.

I also want to mention my most glaring weaknesses (of which there are many, I probably do not even understand where I am weak at): 1.) Time management, 2.) Opening knowledge 3.) Endgames.

I calculate a lot and I do see a lot, but can't make up my mind on which direction the game should go which leads me into time trouble, this is also connected to a lack of opening knowledge where I need to spend a lot of time calculating in order to be sure to get a playable position and not lose immediately. I can play endgames, but I do not know theoretical endgames. My last three OTB games I play the last 20-30 moves on 1 minute and lost good positions.

I would appreciate tips on how to avoid this. With that being said, lately I am very frustrated and do take losses a bit harsher than other people, especially if it is OTB (recently on a losing spree), so I want to ask the chess community if anyone was in a similar position and/or how did you get over 2k FIDE? Any specific tips?

# Answer
> my most glaring weaknesses ... 1.) Time management

A number of thoughts on this which center on your physical being and consequent state of mind..

1. I used to have time trouble problems. My clock would go under 5 minutes and I would start blundering. Basically I couldn't handle the heightened state of my nervous system. What I did to fix this was start playing rapid tournaments where I wrote down the moves. In a 10+5 this was until my clock went under a minute. In 20+10 until it went under 30 seconds.

The effect of this was break up the tension and excitement of the Zeitnot with a physical action which took attention away from the board and broke the mental tension. It helped generate calmness amid the mental storm. It broke the bad habits.

This wasn't a case of playing one such tournament and done. Building up habits takes time. So does breaking them down.

2. FIDE banned substances are basically central nervous system stimulants (Do FIDE rules ban stimulants? Which ones?). They help you stay awake and alert in you are sleepy. One of them, the study drug Modafinil, is actually prescribed for narcolepsy. If your problem is staying awake and being alert then unless you have a medical condition the solution is lifestyle - get enough quality sleep and eat and drink sensibly - not prescription drugs.

There was some research published a few years which was mentioned here (but I can't find) looking at whether/how these substances could improve performance at chess. The conclusion was that overall it was a wash, nos significant change in performance. Specifically they found that the drugged players made fewer mistakes but lost on time more often. Basically they struggled to make up their mind when faced with several equally good move choices.

If this is you then cut out or reduce the stimulants like coffee. Instead fix your lifestyle - sleep, diet and exercise.

Note also that your brain can get its energy from both glucose and ketones (BHB = BetaHydroxyButyrate) but ketones provide a smoother ride. If you spike blood sugar then you spike insulin and your blood sugar crashes, you have to take more sugar and you slowly destroy your waistline and health. The best solution is a low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (one where your body manufactures ketones from fat - not possible when insulin is spiked) but which you can also get by consuming foods high in MCTs (medium chain triglycerides) particularly coconut oil.

> my most glaring weaknesses ... 2.) Opening knowledge 3.) Endgames.

As I'm sure you know, these are both due to a lack of study and preparation. If you are familiar with a particular type of endgame then your calculation gets a jump start. You are not aiming for checkmate or a (nonexistent) material advantage, you are aiming for a position which you both know is winning but also know from previous study *how* to win.

One excellent book for you is English GM, Jonathan Hawkins' "*Amateur to IM*" which as well as studying a number of important endgames also teaches you *how* to think during the endgame, what approach to take.

On openings, you need to have a repertoire of openings you know well. This doesn't mean just memorising a bunch of moves. It means being familiar with the patterns of pieces and plans for both sides, knowing what you are aiming for. This also feeds into your time management problem. Knowing where you want to get to simplifies and speeds up your calculations.

My last piece of advice would be to stop playing online and play more OTB. You appear to play for the adrenaline rush rather than improvement. Particularly cut out the bullet, blitz and fast rapid. Play more OTB where you write down the moves. Then you can analyse your games at home and identify weaknesses and problems. That doesn't just mean failures in calculation. It means mental problems associated with other pressures at the board.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I'd recommend you check out Mark Dvoretsky and Arthur Yusupov's School of Future Champions, also to improve your endgame knowledge you should take a look at Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual which is the go-to book for anyone above or near 2000 FIDE. Also remember that it's crucial to analyse your games to understand your mistakes, 'if we do not learn from our mistakes they're doomed to repeat themselves' - some wise person. Goodluck with your journey!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, rating, time-management
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a list of tournaments to participate in?
Where should I look for a list of tournaments in which new players can participate? I know that many players want to play real matches, but don't know how and where. Also provide list for online tournaments.

# Answer
> 10 votes
For US tournaments, I recommend checking the U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) website:

http://www.uschess.org/tlas/upcoming.php

For non-US tournaments, I would check the FIDE website:

http://www.fide.com/calendar/tournaments.html

http://www.fide.com/calendar.html

# Answer
> 3 votes
For european events - http://chess-calendar.eu/ Includes non-FIDE tournaments.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For online, redhotpawn.com has tournaments (although you need to pay a yearly subscription (around 50 USD) to be able to participate on them, otherwise you can just play informal games). These are mostly email games.

Also chess.com has tournaments, you also need to be a subscriber there (here you can play both realtime & by email).

chesscube site also conducting various online tournaments with different time limits.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For US tournaments (both rated and unrated ) the most updated site:

http://wheretoplaychess.info

# Answer
> 0 votes
I travel a lot (mainly in Europe and US for work) and I find it difficult to find local tournaments abroad.

I use https://vesus.org/ in Italy to find tournaments.

It's a free web app where organizers can publish their tournaments, collect registrations and share results and standings (using whatever pairing system they prefer just by generiting a file and uploading it).

What is used abroad? Where do you find tournaments? Why not using more of Vesus?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Both for World and European tournaments: https://www.worldchesscalendar.com

Lists many countries, both FIDE and not, nice UI. Data is updated twice a week, new countries are being added actively.

PS. Yeah, I do develop this website for over a year now and I'm sure it's the best tournaments aggregator in terms of data/interface ratio around there right now. So it's a serious answer to the question

---
Tags: tournament, fide
---


# Question
Title: Does anyone know the history of the Moscow variation of the Sicilian defense? It's now referred to as the Canal Attack
The variation starts **1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+**. It is considered an anti-Sicilian, and though I can find the theory behind it, I'm having a hard time tracking down any history. I checked the Oxford Companion to Chess, and it has one line referring to it: "*Two sound attacking lines in the Sicilian defence, unrelated to one another, both developed in the 1930s*." However there is no mention of who developed the lines or when/why it was renamed to the Canal attack.

```
[Title "Sicilian Defense: Canal Attack"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Maybe research Esteban Canal. He was a strong Peruvian player who moved to Italy. He played in many tournaments along with most of the leading players of the 1920's onwards including Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, Rubinstein etc. He was awarded an honorary GM title by FIDE.

---
Tags: history, sicilian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Does the Stockfish engine use past matches, or does it not need such a "database"?
I have a simple question. Does the Stockfish engine use, amongst the steps of its complicated algorithm, a library/database of past matches? For such an algorithm to work, it would to need store many matches that have had a particular scenario. Each scenario has a player who went on to win. Thus, it is provided some kind of rating point to judge each particular scenario with, allowing it to choose the best move. It's either that or the Stockfish engine works just by working through the possible moves to figure out how to win.

**In other words, does the Stockfish engine need to be fed data from past matches or can it work without any such data ?**

# Answer
> 7 votes
Technically, Stockfish does make use of past matches, just not when it's playing. The way it uses its past matches is during training, when a new neural network (NNUE in Stockfish's case) is being trained. Once the NNUE is trained, though, it is "standalone" and does not change anymore.

The Stockfish you can download and play has an already-trained NNUE, so it does not use past matches.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> does the Stockfish engine need to be fed data from past matches

No.

You are confusing Stockfish with AlphaZero. The two engines work in entirely different ways.

Stockfish works by using brute force calculation plus clever evaluation functions to determine what is the best move in any position. During a game it maintains hash tables of positions and evaluations *that have occurred during that game* so that when it calculates a transposition of an earlier calculated position it doesn't redo the calculations but just uses the previous one.

If an opening database is available it *can* use that but it also works perfectly well albeit slower without. Similarly in the endgame it *can* use tablebases if available which can greatly increase speed and accuracy.

AlphaZero, however, *does* rely on millions of training games played against itself in order to update its policy (learn to play chess well). It does not need data from past matches after it has been trained in order to play chess - the experience obtained from the past games is implicitly contained in the weights of the neural network.

# Answer
> 0 votes
To answer your question concisely, SF does not need a 'database' as in raw data pulled from a bag, but its NNUE function concatenates the moves, move order, and outcomes of many games played against itself to make more informed move decisions based on learned strategies and deep thinking.

A database is like a grocery store. An NNUE is like a cookbook from a Top Chef (it's gonna contain precise measurements, ingredients, cooking times, and detailed preparation as well as pictures showing garnished finished products--maybe even some backstory)

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you see "NNUE" on the end of Stockfish's name, it means it's using something called a neural network (i.e. "Stockfish 15.1 NNUE"). A neural network works in a similar fashion to how your brain does. For example, you can look at an easy chess puzzle (say, a simple knight fork), and immediately know the right move. You don't have to check that the knight is attacking your opponent's king and rook, or that it is moving to a safe square. You *know* that it wins the exchange. Or, a better explanation might be the common description of Jose Raul Capablanca's abilities---many said that he could take one glance at a chessboard and know what the position needed.

That's a pretty simple explanation of how a neural network functions. Stockfish trains its neural network by playing millions of games with itself, and with each game the network gets a tiny bit better at evaluating positions. Then in an actual game or evaluation, it uses the network alongside traditional engine calculation to provide more accurate positional play (pawn structures and piece placement are what are really affected by neural network evaluation).

So the answer is yes and no. Stockfish doesn't reference a game database when it plays, but it does use a neural network that essentially makes it learn from its mistakes during self-play.

# Answer
> 0 votes
NNue is not trained through self play. It is using SF evaluations as target output data vector during some form of supervised learning. It does not use game but many positions with SF single root searches of moderate depth, as target output data to fit with generalization power (requires validation data, contrary to fishtest optimization, which tests and "train" on games and their outcome, but not as RL self-play scheduling).

I would love to be contradicted with specific link to support that.

Otherwise, for my claim, I point of SF12 Blog, where it is stipulated as above, in very few economic lines. Later, more recently, the blog mentions using also Leela's data, which I understand still as positions not games.

I currently understand that the master NN (if still called that) is still trained using a single SF search on the input position of the input data vector. It is an approximator of SF with either a simple non-NN evaluation (also looking for pointers), or some iteration of the process, where SF includes previous iteration of NNue approximating SF. A sort of feedback loop of self-approximation. But no self-play, other than in fishtest but self is about the name SF, as none of the versions in SF ever play against own clone (unless pointer). SFx vs SFy. Global optimization scheme based pools of dev. instances (with different parameter values).

There are rumors around that describe this (iteration over NNue SL training) as some sort of reinforcement learning (not at all what I think it means in ML). This might explain many propagated rumors using self-play and games, as if it was using Deep RL as in A0 or LC0. I don't mind being contradicted with new information.

Some old text from nodchip repository is still using such wording. Ai chat bot might still regurgitate the confusion. I think SF should get their explanation reviewed for that important chess interpretation question.

# Answer
> 0 votes
While I understand that Stockfish is working with NNUE instead of having a separate database that contains critical positions with their evaluation, this is not very useful for game analysis, and I would not currently use Stockfish for that purpose. I would rather use the derivative engines SugaR NN 1.1, or SugaR AI 2.5, which are based on the Stockfish code but which CONTAIN data of previous matches, so-called 'experience' files and even tools to view and edit them. Basically, I'm not interested in using the 'strongest' chess engine but the one which allows me to intelligently carry out my analysis, and these experience files are a great part of it, a 'must-have' to make the engine's calculation go in a certain direction.

So my answer is: NO, curently the main Stockfish engine doesn't have a separate 'learning' database, but some important derivative engines do have it. And YES, the main Stockfish engine should have such an accessible learning database, not for defeating other engines (NNUE can do that), but for offering to common chess players a useful tool for training or the analyses of their own games.

For example, I would highly like what every engine could have provided in the last 40 years: A simple possibility to enter manually an evaluation of a certain position that is then considered in future tree calculations. To my knowledge only the older Shredder engine has this feature, and only in its own GUI. With SugaR 2.5 you have a similar feature by editing the experience files, but it's a cumbersome process that could be simplified by providing it in the UCI options.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: would a board for calculating "non-blindfold" help GMs in slow games?
I have often wondered, how would it be if the rules were different and you could calculate on a "non-blindfold" board during slow games.

For example, you could picture each player in the world championship having a chess set in the small lounge they have during the game.

Is it known whether GMs' accuracy would improve, or their confidence too, in that case?

# Answer
> Is it known whether GMs' accuracy would improve?

It depends on the GM. Peter Svidler, for instance, has said that he sometimes shuts his eyes or looks away from the board during long calculations because the board in front of him with the current position is a distraction from the board in his head which has the calculated position.

Most of the rest of the chess world would benefit enourmously from being able to use a separate board where they can move the pieces. That is why 11.3.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess specifically bans doing that:

> 11.3.1 During play the **players are forbidden to** use any notes, sources of information or advice, or **analyse any game on another chessboard**.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Yes, it will. If you're allowed to move the pieces, you can calculate further and make fewer mistakes. There's a reason why playing blindfold is a handicap.

Examples:

* I remember once reading about some position where the key move at the end of a variation 12 moves deep wins White the game. With the board in front of you it's easy to see, but at a 12-move "distance" it isn't, especially since it's a long retreating move.
* Here's a quote by GM Larry Kaufmann about playing against Komodo with something that suggests the same:

> > Q: Author Cyrus Lakdawala suggested I ask: In what respect are the program's move choices human?
>
> A: All the features of the engines' evaluation function have been based on how some human (in the case of Komodo, me) thinks they should be defined. The weights were originally my subjective ones, but gradually got "tuned" by testing and automated methods. So in theory, if the search depth were the same as mine (which of course is variable so this is unrealistic) it should play somewhat like I do, although I don't add up hundreds of numbers in my head when I play, I just estimate everything. The main reason Komodo is a thousand or more Elo stronger than I am is that it searches so much further ahead in nearly every line than I could possibly do. **Perhaps if I spent 24 hours per move on a game (moving pieces around freely, but not consulting any engine) I could play as well as Komodo plays a blitz game, but that's just a guess.** Note that this does not apply to NN engines, which (in pure form) don't have any human knowledge input.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Of course it will, and I think it will for all players, just by different amounts.

I read Brian Towers's answer. I had noticed the same thing in videos by Danya Naroditsky: When calculations get intense, it covers his eyes or looks away. That amazes me. And I've heard super GMs calculate and they hold the position in their head amazingly well (some better than others, of course. Fisher, Anand, and Kasparov are especially renowned for this).

But even for them, I am sure having an analysis board will help. Why am I sure? Because all these players use analysis boards when they are analyzing at home. It's true that good players can read chess books without a board much better then lower rated people, but even they do better when they have a board.

Also, I have heard some commentary about correspondence chess between top players that indicates that they get much farther along in variations then they do OTB.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I don't think scratch boards actually help that much for calculating for superGMs.

Or at least I disagree that that's the reason why they're banned in OTB games. I believe this is just to limit the number things that players bring to the playing area for security measures and to reduce distractions. If it were really helpful just because it's prohibited, then we could argue that Wesley So's 'writing notes' could really be helpful. You can look up the rationale for the 'writing notes' thing. It's not definitely not about being helpful.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, psychology, grandmaster, calculation
---


# Question
Title: How isn't a time management extension cheating / unethical?
An extension was released 3 years ago in 2021Feb: Hikaru and GothamChess Tell You to MOVE (Time Management Extension). After a certain amount of elapsed time, you get notified by a voice of Hikaru Nakamura or Levy Rozman.

**WOW.**

**There isn't even a live elapsed time feature.** You get to see how much time you or your opponent made a move after the move was made, but you don't get real time updates showing 0:00, 0:01, 0:02 like how much time has passed since the *last* move was made (except I guess for the very 1st moves made by each player).

To me, the only reason, this is not cheating is that it's allowed...if it is. This is what chess.com (supposedly) said to the creator:

It says

> As long as this extension doesn't analyze your game or help you with moves, it's completely in line with our policies and doesn't constitute cheating.

Well it doesn't *directly* 'help you with moves'. If someone's in the background suggesting moves then that is directly helping you with moves. But if someone's in the background pointing out a certain amount of time has elapsed, then they help you manage your time and so it helps you be more decisive with your moves - to settle on good moves over better moves (re the quote 'If you see a good move, look for a better one!'). I guess they don't help you make better moves, but they do indirectly 'help you with moves' in that you make ANY move instead of no moves, i.e. being flagged.

You might say you could do this manually because you could run a timer after every time your opponent makes a move, but

1. The manual version is much harder to implement relative to its expected benefit especially in lower time controls.
2. This extension automates this process by getting real time information from the game down to nanosecond accuracy. It's like those extensions that outright suggest moves (or even evaluation bar cheating) - they get real time info from what move was just made by your opponent.
3. I don't believe players are allowed such extension in actual superGM tournaments. And even if they are - guess what, they're not allowed to do the aforementioned manual version because they can't have their phones with them. Lol.

**Question: I can't believe chess.com allows this (and they technically never explicitly did). How isn't a time management extension like this cheating / unethical, i.e. how doesn't this actually 'help you with moves' ?**

Edit to add notes based on some responses:

1. The fact that something is allowed doesn't mean it's ethical / should be allowed. Keyboard extensions were previously allowed by lichess. (And the fact that something is forbidden doesn't mean it's unethical / shouldn't be allowed. Like pre-arranged draws, which were the reason behind the changes for the candidates in both 1962 & 2011 - ironically for opposite formats. But another story.) We can't evaluating what is or isn't ethical based solely on if it actually is or isn't allowed. Imagine if drawing arrows weren't a built-in feature. Don't tell me they're ethical depending only on whether or not they are allowed.
2. Consider if this were allowed in chess.com but not, say, lichess or chesstempo (actual games or timed puzzles). Then suddenly it's cheating there but not here, as if this thing were like the 'castling with both hands' rule. Come on.
3. Most importantly, pretend this was asked before chess.com gave an official ruling. Or just pretend you're making a website and deciding if it should be allowed or not (and afaik 'if it should be allowed' is the the same as 'if it is ethical', a question of what the law should be, independent of what the actual law is).
4. Whataboutism: Scratch boards I think are forbidden, yet time management extensions are worse.

Scratch boards tell you **only what you think**. They just help you see more clearly. With scratch boards, everything is from **your thinking only**. You're just externalising your thinking. The extension tells you what **another player thinks** (namely a machine for evaluation bar cheating and an automated process based on real time information for the time management extensions).

Actually, here are 2 things that distinguish scratch boards & arrows from a time management extension:

5. I think statistics (evaluation, move times, etc) are completely useless to determine if someone 'cheated' by using a scratch board or arrows. But I believe you can detect time management extension cheating like how you can detect evaluation bar cheating & even the regular telling-you-moves cheating.
6. Scratch boards & arrows I believe won't help superGMs. Same as poker: I don't believe poker calculators (but not GTO solvers) would help poker pro's. But time management extensions would!

# Answer
> I can't believe chess.com allows this. How isn't a time management extension, such as the above, cheating / unethical?

Chess.com do not implement the FIDE Laws of Chess on their site. For instance 3-fold repetition is not an automatic draw in FIDE rated chess. Either player may claim but if neither player claims then the game goes on. On chess.com it is an automatic draw.

Chess.com say that on their site using the time management app is permitted hence it is not cheating and is not unethical.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You ask:

> how doesn't this actually 'help you with moves' ?

But you answer this yourself:

> they do indirectly 'help you with moves' in that you make ANY move instead of no moves
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is an edge case for fairness ethics, where chess.com has decided the small advantage given by a move timer is acceptable. Actually, online chess has many small advantages: clicking on a piece will show you legal moves, which is mainly useful for bullet endgames and beginners; the 2D board is arguably easier to read; you can draw arrows and make premoves; etc. None of these are legal in OTB chess (not sure about FIDE rated online events).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, etiquette, cheating, chess.com
---