title: Why is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 b6 so unpopular?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 b6 so unpopular?
Why is the Sicilian line with `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 b6` almost never played at any level, nor considered in books and similar? It seems logical to me, and after the usual `3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bb7`, the Bishop is already well placed on `b7` to control key central squares. So are there any obvious faults in this line that I am missing?

```
 [FEN ""]
 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 b6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bb7

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
It's not that unpopular amongst off-beat lines that can emerge from the Sicilian defense, on top which it has a natural tendency to transpose to Owen defense type of positions.

As to why it's not as popular as Sicilian mainlines, much similar to `1.b3` or `1...b6` openings, `1...c5 2...b6` is not a sound starting setup strategically, for the following summarised reasons:

**From opening theory principles:**

* `2...b6` does not contribute to kingside development. King safety in Sicilian structures is of paramount importance as the opening easily leads to very open play where: white's 4 minor pieces are efficiently and centrally developed, central files become semi-open, etc.
* `2...b6` is not an effective developing move either, that is to say, it does not pose any immediate threats to white. As opposed to e.g. a Dragon Sicilian development (diagram below), where the coordination of knight on `c6` and bishop on `g7` come with tempo as white has a number of targets on that long diagonal and black's quickly finishing development and will be in time to either create space on the queenside or play the `d5` advance. So it being a passive non-effective developing move, it gives free vital play to white.
* It resolves the address of your king, as the early `b6-c5` setup makes it very unlikely for black to castle queenside, and that's useful information for white! And generally, the reason why kingside fianchettos tend to be stronger and more important early on than queenside ones, is because the structure provides a good fortress for the king!

(*Diagram for 2nd point*)

```
 [title "Dragon Sicilian example"]
 [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7

```

**From a Sicilian opening theory point of view**

* `2...b6` is inconsistent with what the Sicilian defense aims to achieve: The Sicilian, unlike the French defense, it is an active type of defense where black aims to claim their own share of central space control, not immediately challenging white's light square control (provided with `1.e4`) but instead, focusing their play more on the dark squares. With this in mind, it is clear that `b6-Bb7` are not assisting black's cause in dark square control.
* `b6-c5` setup tends to be a decent structure when the `c5` pawn cannot easily be challenged, much like the white pawn setup in English or `1.b3` type openings with `b3-c4-e3` or `c4-d3-g3.` But as you yourself pointed out, `d4` advance is happening immediately for white and black's forced to capture at once as to not provide white with the complete control of the sweet centre.
* `1...c5` is already a queenside, non-central-pawn commitment, but its aim is justified as it offers to trade a non-central `c` pawn for white's important central `d2` pawn. But `2...b6` has no such immediate justification, it's a move away from the centre, and by itself does not provide control over any important squares.
* The latter point is really important when dealing with Sicilian: as it stands, even in the mainlines, white always has the lead in both development and central control and black is always playing catch-up at best. So `b6` in that sense is really putting black even further behind in development. Again as explained earlier, the light square control that `Bb7` provides is really of minimal relevance for black at the beginning considering white's natural setup in the Sicilian.
* All the last couple of points translate into: the later your knights can be centrally developed, the later your castling is prepared, the more difficult you are going to find it to create any threats against white to balance the game. And playing a Sicilian defense, you have to be able to create threats, or at least have strong prospects in doing so. These are fundamentally different from an opening like the Caro or French. For inspiration, I highly encourage you to study the following game by Kasparov, which truly epitomises the kind of play the Sicilian opening aims to achieve.

(*note the very early pawn sacrifice to resolve the Moraczy bind, and the active piece development that follows after `d5`, gradually taking more and more options from white, no tempo is wasted on a slow non-developing move*)

```
 [title "Karpov - Kasparov 1985 match game 16"]
 [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.exd5 Nb4 11.Be2 Bc5 12.O-O O-O 13.Bf3 Bf5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Nd3 17.Nab1 h6 18.Bh4 b4 19.Na4 Bd6 20.Bg3 Rc8 21.b3 g5 22.Bxd6 Qxd6 23.g3 Nd7 24.Bg2 Qf6 25.a3 a5 26.axb4 axb4 27.Qa2 Bg6 28.d6 g4 29.Qd2 Kg7 30.f3 Qxd6 31.fxg4 Qd4+ 32.Kh1 Nf6 33.Rf4 Ne4 34.Qxd3 Nf2+ 35.Rxf2 Bxd3 36.Rfd2 Qe3 37.Rxd3 Rc1 38.Nb2 Qf2 39.Nd2 Rxd1+ 40.Nxd1 Re1+ 0-1

```

Last but not least, here's one possible continuation for `c5-b6` which is cherry-picked to emphasise how quickly it can go wrong for black as they are behind in every aspect of development:

```
[title "Concrete example"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 b6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bb7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. Nxd5 Bxd5 8. Nb5 Bb7 9. Bg5 Qc8 (9...h6 10. Nd6+) (9...d6 10. Nxd6+) 10. Qe2 e6 11.O-O-O

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Probably for a few reasons: First, it is too slow in a sharp opening. Second, it does nothing to develop the k-side in an opening that is renowned for many games that the black king gets caught in the center. Third, it does little to control the center, and in particular, d4. Forth, it is too early to determine if the Bc8 will go to b7 or a6, which is somewhat unusual in that opening anyway.

Overall, to me, it just feels like b6 is going to be putting at least one piece on a wrong square.

# Answer
> 2 votes
1. Lack of kingside development.
2. If you want a queenside fianchetto there are better lines.
3. b6 creates a problem in how to develop the queenside knight. Normally after Nc6, black can recapture with the b pawn but in this line black can't.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the problem after ..b6 of developing Black’s Queen. One point of ..c5 is to give her effective development suares at c7, b6 and a5. 2..b6 takes away two of those options and severely limits Black’s possilities for counterattack.

# Answer
> 2 votes
One important point not yet mentioned: If you look at other Sicilian lines, black generally tries to play b5.

B5 is useful for a variety of reasons: It might harass the Nc3, support a knight coming to c4 or be part of a pawn storm against the long castle. It fights the Maroczy-bind and the aggressive development Bc4.

Because b5 is so ubiquitous in Sicilian lines, b6 is very likely to turn out a waste of tempo.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, strategy, theory, sicilian-defense
---


# Question
Title: How can I improve my knowledge of pawn structure theory?
What resources (books, videos, websites) are there to help me improve my understanding of pawn structures?

# Answer
The old classical book by Hans Kmoch, *Pawn Power in Chess* is almost entiely devoted to this subject.

It is often used as a reference because of its numerous useful examples, but also mocked for the author's tendency to over-theorize every principle and forge neologisms that have not made their way, half a century later, into common chess vocabulary.

But as long as you don't mind skipping some sophisticated words like 'leucopenia' or 'melanoarchia', it remains an excellent ressource for studying pawn structures.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Some excellent modern books on the subject are

* Soltis, *Pawn Structure Chess*
* Flores Rios, *Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide*
* Shankland, *Small Steps to Giant Improvement: Master Pawn Play in Chess*

There is still good content in the books of Kmoch and Nimzowitsch, though Kmoch's shortcomings are well enumerated in Evargalo's answer and Nimzowitsch tends to lay down general rules as if they are laws without mentioning how often they have exceptions (and chess theory has come a long way since his day).
> 6 votes

# Answer
Here is a complete list of pawn structure books divided into two categories, opening, and general pawn play.

1. "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by GM Mauricio Flores Rios is the single best book on OPENING pawn structures currently out there, but it misses some.
2. "Pawn Structure Chess" by GM Andy Soltis is VERY weak in the analysis, but the general ideas still hold up.
3. "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, Algebraic Edition" by GM Reuben Fine
4. "Chess Opening Essentials" by New in Chess Four Volumes cover every opening, but each one is done fairly lightly, so this is a true beginner's guide.

Here is a list of books on general pawn play.

1. “Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. This made a light go off in my head, and THIS is what made me a master.)
2. "Winning Pawn Structures" by GM Alexander Baburin
3. "Understanding Pawn Play" in Chess by GM Drazen Marovic
4. "Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess" by GM Drazen Marovic
5. "Winning Chess Middlegames: An Essential Guide to Pawn Structure" by GM Ivan Sokolov
6. "Chess Middlegame Strategies Volume 2" by GM Ivan Sokolov
7. "The Power of Pawns: Chess Structure Fundamentals for Post-beginners" by GM Jörg Hickl
8. "Isolani Strategy: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Isolated Queen's Pawn" by GMs Adrian Mikhalchishin, Alexander Beliavsky, Oleg Stetsko
9. And the original book on the subject, but it uses some weird terms: "Pawn Power" by IM Hans Kmoch
> 5 votes

# Answer
"My System" and "My System In Practice" by Aron Nimzowitsch are classics with strong emphasis on pawn structures.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: learning, books, pawn-structure, chess-videos
---


# Question
Title: Franci de Castellvi - Narcis Vinyoles 18. ... Qg6??, a blunder by black?
```
 [Site "Valencia"]
 [Date "1475"]
 [White "Franci de Castellvi"]
 [Black "Narcis Vinyoles"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [startply "36"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 e6 8. Qxb7 Nbd7 9. Nb5 Rc8 10. Nxa7 Nb6 11. Nxc8 Nxc8 12. d4 Nd6 13. Bb5+ Nxb5 14. Qxb5+ Nd7 15. d5 exd5 16. Be3 Bd6 17. Rd1 Qf6 18. Rxd5 Qg6?? 19. Bf4 Bxf4 20. Qxd7+ Kf8 21. Qd8# 1-0

```

A notable game in chess history is Scachs d'amor, recording a game of chess in the 15th century close to the current rules of the game. It does so in the form of a poem (original text, English translation).

Most of the game shows reasonable play, if not exactly modern. But when it comes to this move, it simply seems pointless. Consider for example the alternative 18. ... c3, which ultimately wins back some lost material for black, possibly giving better chances to secure a draw.

In any case, Castellvi quickly takes advantage of this, mating a handful of moves later.

What motivates 18 ... Qg6??

Some speculation:

* Is it some (misguided) attempt at an offence by black, and in that case, what could Vinyoles have tried to achieve? Or is there some subtle difference from the modern rules, leaving this an acceptable move?
* The game is somewhat artificial, acting as a tutorial for the rules of the game. Is this move necessary to show of an important rule to the reader?
* Maybe it is for some kind of artistic purpose? The poem follows a strict form, and is divided in 64 stanzas. Does this awkward move somehow help achieving this form? Or does a formulation like "Queen’s check mate in the house of the other Queen" add something of value by allegory?

# Answer
> 7 votes
These players are just pretty weak. 5...Bg4 should already have been punished by Bxf7, many more blunders follow.

Qg6 is a double attack against c2 and g2, that's probably motivation enough.

---
Tags: analysis, history, queens, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the most instructive positional games covered in Agadmator's YouTube channel?
I am on a path to improve my chess and as of now I have phased it out to

1. tactics
2. endgames

Tactics I can say with confidence I had good improvement in the last 8 months or so. About endgame, I kind of crammed the "100 endgames you must know" by Jesús de la Villa. but still, a lot to go to understand all the intricacies.

Now I am onto the thought that I should look into improving my positional play as well. Dealing with positions that have no direct threat and at the same time don't have any straightforward target is very difficult for me.

Not considering going through books of annotated games over board, because of time constraints I thought I will watch chess videos and maybe even watch the same video more than once to study them deeply.

So that's why I have this question: what are some of the most instructive positional games covered in Agadmator's YouTube channel that I should be studying?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'm very fond of agadmator, but you must understand that his channel aims at entertainment, not education, and you will hardly learn as much as you would with other type of contents. I **strongly** recommend that you check out the lessons on the Saint Louis Chess Club Youtube channel, it has incredibly lessons and many of them on positional play.

For example, you can check good analysis on some of Karpov's best games by Yasser Seirawan.

This video, for example, is an excellent lesson on positional play. Another excelent choice is this one.

Take a look at all the content on this channel and you will not regret it. Of course, it is not as "fun" and the videos are longer than agadmator's, but on an educational level you will enjoy them a lot.

---
Tags: strategy, learning
---


# Question
Title: Why does 4.dxc5 work well for white in the Advance variation of Caro-Kann?
```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4. dxc5

```

I don't want to play 3...bf5 instead, but this `4.dxc5` line in the Advance Variation gives me so much trouble, whether they go with `5.Be3, 5.a3` or `5.Nf3.`

* What's a good way for black to deal with this `4.dxc5` line?

# Answer
First, I would wonder why you do not want to play 3...Bf5 first? That is the most common move, and the most natural.

3...c5 almost forces you to gambit a pawn, and if you are not comfortable playing very tactical positions down a pawn, you will want to avoid the immediate c5 in the future (it is still the move you will want to play eventually to free your game, but you will want to prepare it so you are not just losing a pawn for play).

After 3...c5 4 dxc5, here is the main line. (There are a fair amount of written prose notes in the comments below, so make sure you read those too.)

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 Nc6 5. Bb5 (5. Nf3 Bg4 6. c3 e6 (6... Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nxe5 8. Bb5+ Nc6 9. O-O $16) (6... Nxe5 $4 7. Nxe5 $1 Bxd1 8. Bb5+ Qd7 9. Bxd7+ $18) 7. Be3 Nge7 8. Nbd2 Nf5 9. Bd4 $14 Nfxd4 $2 10. cxd4 Nxd4 $4 11. Qa4+ $18) 5...e6 6. Be3 Nge7 7. c3 Bd7 8. Bxc6 Nxc6 9. f4 {And there are several moves here, most requiring black to be a pawn down. In exchange for that, black has the bishop pair, the white king has been weakened with f4, and black is slightly ahead in development, so you have to play very actively.  Here, I would recommend either b6, or the main book move, g5. a5 is also possible trying to round up c5 at some point.} g5 (9... b6 10. cxb6 axb6 {And now, you also have an open rook file, and can aim for b5-b4 after getting the Bf8 out. you may also play the Bf8 to c5 with the idea that if white trades, you will have strong pressure for the pawn down the a-file and b-file...a bit like the Benko, but reversed.}) 10. fxg5 Nxe5 (10... h6 $5 {Has been played.}) 11. Nf3 {With a wild game with chances for both sides.}

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
First time I saw this approach was in the Tal-Botvinnik return match in 1961, my thought was "it wastes a move heading for the French Defence," but it has some sting in it.

Black isn't really giving away a pawn, White can't hold the extra pawn without development issues (...Nd7 pretty much ensures the pawn comes back, if not immediately, then soon, if it worries you, though ...Nc6 will exert more pressure on White's split pawns).

What you're opting for, when keeping this line closed, over Bf5 is keeping your light bishop (in the Bf5 lines, White can pretty much force that off the board at will) even though it gets blocked in with the e6-pawn, moving some of your strategic ideas towards the French and away from the C-K.

You're giving up a tempo, yes, but the game becomes sharper. White becomes the first person to release the tension in the center, which frees up Black's game a little, so you're looking to capitalize on the freedom. Like any good French player, you need to be prepared to keep that light-square bishop at home for a long time while you play against the e-pawn.

Meanwhile, if the idea of letting the pawn hang for a while doesn't bother you, ...Nc6 instead of ...e6 can lead into some Queen's Gambit like positions with the colors reversed (keep aware of the tactical shot ...Qh4, you might be able to use it to threaten stragglers on the Q-side, like Keith Arkell did in a recent Senior Championship. Another of Arkell's ideas is to quickly swap the light Bishop for White's Knight before pushing ...e6, if the opportunity permits, at which point Black has a better pawn structure than White, and may even have the better game going forward; it's the French Defence without the bad French Bishop. In the ...Bf5 lines it's usually a Bishop trade, oftentimes trading a bad Bishop for a useful Knight is the better option.

It's really not all that bad (I find it hard to conceive that *anything* Botvinnik came up with is truly bad) but it caters to a different style of play than the more fashionable ...Bf5 lines. Arkell, Anand, Ponomariov, and Tarjan have all essayed it recently. Like pretty much any opening, White gets a slight pull if they play it right, but you're always "playing uphill" as Black, so don't let it worry you.

That's a few ideas for you to look at; go have a look at games from the French Advance and see what ideas you find there that appeal to you. Keith Arkell seems to be a common practitioner of the line today, have a look at some of his games from the Pro Chess League. There's scope for play here, if it's to your taste. But only you can answer for that.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Does not appear to work well to me.

RELATIVE TO OTHER MOVES white e5 is poor pxp is worse

Black should have played Bf5 not pc5 and then whites best is c3 not the moves you gave

What is the problem you encounter with the moves given? How would you handle the panov attack?

To answer your last part after pxp black should play nc6 as the least worst alternative. That yields about a 44% result rate.
> -10 votes

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


title: Why is pawn to d3 the best move here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is pawn to d3 the best move here?
Total beginner at chess. I am analyzing a game I played.

The computer says the blue line here is the best:

```
r1bqr1k1/pp5p/2nb1p2/2p5/Q1Pp2pN/1P4B1/P3BPPP/4RRK1 b - - 0 1

1... d3
(1... Kg7 2. Bxd6 Qxd6 3. Nf5 Bxf5)

```

Why? If I move my pawn there, the bishop takes it without worries, it seems?

I instead moved King to g7, hoping to lure the white knight in a trap. If he went for a fork on f5 attacking my queen and king, I would take the knight with my bishop.

By going King to g7, his bishop would take my bishop on d6, then I would take his bishop with my queen, and then he would make his knight move to f5 for the fork. Then I would take knight with my bishop.

Ignoring the potentially better play, is this a bad move in and of itself?

# Answer
```
r1bqr1k1/pp5p/2nb1p2/2p5/Q1Pp2pN/1P4B1/P3BPPP/4RRK1 b - - 0 1

1... d3
2. Bxd3 (2. Bd1 Bxg3 3. hxg3 d2 4. Rxe8+ Qxe8 5. Qb5 Qe5) Rxe1
3. Rxe1 Bxg3
4. Bxh7+ Kxh7
5. hxg3

```

And Black wins the Bishop for two pawns.

Edit - I ran this position through Stockfish and was surprised to learn that Black is already about 2.5 pawns "up" while material is even.

The initial variation is inferior to the one that follows from Seth's suggestion below. My suggested move makes it much easier for Black. After Seth's "1. Bd1", there are no fireworks but it looks like Black improves his position with a dominating Queen in the center and a pawn on d2. Both players remained jammed up. If Black can activate his Rook and Bishop he's going to have a great game.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> By going King to g7, his bishop would take my bishop on d6, then I would take his bishop with my queen, and then he would make his knight move to f5 for the fork. Then I would take knight with my bishop.

You are playing "hope" chess. This boils down to -

"If I play Kg7 then he will play the bad move BxB (because he is stupid) then I will play QxB and he will play the blunder Nf5 check (because he is really, really stupid) and I will play BxN and will go on to win the game easily.

One of the first steps to moving from being a complete beginner to just being a weak player is to stop playing hope chess. When you calculate variations, instead of counting on your opponent playing really stupid moves in reply to your bad moves assume your opponent will play the best moves. That way you are less likely to play bad moves in the first place.

As Tony Ennis points out d3 was a good move because it wins a piece for two pawns. The flip side of that coin is that your Kg7 was a bad move because it lets your opponent off the hook when he can play something like Bd3 blockading your dangerous passer.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Tony explained why d3 is a good move. Brian explained why "hope chess" is bad in general, so I'll answer the question, "Is 1 ... Kg7 itself a bad move, and why?"

In chess, the your most valuable commodity is moves. Every move must work toward your victory. If you play a chancy move and it doesn't work, your opponent is strengthening his or her position. At a critical time, this can turn a crushing victory into a draw, or a draw into a crushing loss.

The short of it is, Kg7 is as almost bad as giving away a bishop for nothing.

I chose the move 1 ... f5 from your position. Like Kg7, it forgoes ... d3 and allows white to blockade the pawn. Unlike Kg7, it achieves 4 separate goals of strategic value. Afterward, I let Next Chess Move (running stockfish on 1 CPU core) play both sides. After f5, black is an anaconda suffocating its prey. White has no truly good moves for the rest of the game, and only a handful of self-directed moves.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "?"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/pp5p/2nb1p2/2p5/Q1Pp2pN/1P4B1/P3BPPP/4RRK1 b - - 0 1"]

1... f5 {consolidates the pawns, expands the king-side pawn space, and forces:}
2. Bxb6 Qxb6 {the trade favors black due to the strength of white's bishop.  In addition it comes with tempo.  Essentially, black gets a free move of development.}
3. Bd3 Bd7 {In this line, Bd3 comes too late.  Black plays Bd7 and unites the rooks, forcing white to concede the open file.  Further, the x-ray attack on the queen will produce another move with tempo.}
4. Rd1 Nb4 {Knights are strongest on the 5th and 6th ranks with pawn support.  The knight now controls several squares inside of white territory.}
5. Qa3 f4 {f4 was a goal of f5.  Pawns are strongest side-by side, and this pawn-space strangles any thoughts of white activity on the king-side.}
6. Bb1 Re2
7. Qc1 Nxa2 {White's pieces are stuck on defense.  The only piece with immediate offensive prospects is the white bishop.}
8. Bxa2 Rxa2
9. g3 Re8 {Black activates the remaining rook.  All of black's pieces are in dynamic positions and black's pawn space is suffocating.  From here, things just get worse and worse for white.}
10. Ng2 f3
11. Nf4 Bf5 {One of few positive moves for white in the game.}
12. b4 Rc2
13. Qa3 c5xb4
14. Qxa7 b6
15. Nh5 Re7
16. Qa4 Rce2
17. Qa8 Rd7

```

At this point, Next Chess move's evaluation is hovering around -5.0, meaning that black is functionally a rook ahead. It doesn't stop there. White has no prospects, while black has two passed pawns and active, cooperating pieces and plenty of space to work in. Black ultimately queens two of the pawns, one to win material and one permanently.

In comparison, here's how Kg7 plays out:

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "?"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/pp5p/2nb1p2/2p5/Q1Pp2pN/1P4B1/P3BPPP/4RRK1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Kg7  {evaluation goes from -3.6 to -0.77, a full piece in difference.}
2. Bd3 Bxg3 {The trade is forced, or black will lose the bishop and the game after 3 RxR.}
3. h2xg3 Bd7 {This time, black is playing without the tempo gain from f5.}
4. Qa3 Rxe1 {The trade momentarily concedes the open file to white.}
5. Rxe1 Qf8
6. Qc1 Re8
7. Bf5 Qf7 {Black's pieces are stuck on defense.  Black is successfully contesting the open file, but the position is nearly equal.}
8. Qd1 h5
9. Rxe8 Bxe8 {Now black has no more active pieces.  The positions are still nearly equal.}
10. Qc1 Bd7
11. Bb1 Ne5 {One of the few positive moves for black in this game.}
12. Qa3 Qf8
13. Qxa7 Bc6
14. Qa5 d3 {Black finally threatens to advance the pawn, but it's much too late.}
15. Qc7+ Qf7
16. Nf5+ Kg6
17. Nh4+ Kg6

```

Draw by repetition. White can't let up, or ... d2 wins the game. Black can't move anywhere but Kg6 and Kg7, or the queen is lost.

So that is the harm of moving 1... Kg7. It gives white time to stabilize, equalize, and find a draw in a game where black should achieve a crushing victory. You should notice that many of the moves are found in both games. But the slight change in timing changes everything about the outcome.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The idea is to lure White's Bishop to d3, so that it will be vulnerable to a discovered attack on it. The discovered attack happens when Black takes the Bishop on g3 with his own Bishop on d6, opening up the Queen to attack the now-vulnerable d3 Bishop.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Question on chess commentary in written form
I'm new to English chess notation and have never read or heard chess commentary in a broadcast or publication form.

I'm trying to decipher the following commentary

> ICGA's footnote to caption:
>
> ACM CCC, Washington DC, Round 4, Dec. 5th, 1978: ECO C48, Four Knights. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Bc4 Bc5 6. Nxe5 Qe7 7. Bxf7+ Kf8 8. Ng6+ hxg6 9. Bc4 Nxe4 10. O-O Rxh2!! {cf. the photo} 11. Kxh2 {hastening the loss} Qh4+ 12. Kg1 Ng3 13. Qh5 {ineffectual delay} gxh5 14. fxg3+ Nf3# {perhaps uniquely blocking a check, giving a double check and mating simultaneously; "the most beautiful combination created by a computer program to date... computer chess witnessed the start of a new era." (Levy and Newborn, 1991)}.

I think I have figured out the series of moves in paired notation. But what does the parenthesized part (e.g. {hastening the loss}, {ineffectual delay}, etc.) exactly refer to? Are they a part of commentary (spoken during the match) or additional information that has been added afterward?

# Answer
Here is what all of that means:

"ICGA's footnote to caption: "There is a picture above all this, and they are just noting the game that had been played in the picture. The ICGA is the International Computer Games Association.

"ACM CCC", Is the name of the tournament/organizers of the tournament, "Association for Computing Machinery" "Computing Community Consortium"

"Washington DC, Round 4, Dec. 5th, 1978" was the location, the 4th round in the tournament, and the date.

"ECO C48" is the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings classification code for the opening of the game: C48 - Four Knights: 4.Bb5, replies other than 4...Bb4.

"the most beautiful combination created by a computer program to date... computer chess witnessed the start of a new era." (Levy and Newborn, 1991). This was a quote from the book "How Computers Play Chess" by noted early computer chess pioneer International Master David Levy and Monty Newborn.

The rest of it is just commentary, and most likely, it was not during the game. "cf." is the common English abbreviation for "compare" coming from the Latin: confer/conferatur, the plus sign "+" is the common symbol for "check", "!!" is the common symbol for an extraordinary move", and the pound sign "#" is the common symbol for checkmate. You can find a complete list here.

While most people today would use parenthesis "()" instead of braces "{}" first, they were just used to set off the comments, and to embed one within the other.

Summing up, the only thing that you will find common going forward is the general tournament/data information, but especially the ECO codes (not that you need to memorize them, but you will see them often), and especially the chess annotation symbols. Those chess annotation symbols are something that you should learn if you are going to read a lot about chess in the future.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Bc4 Bc5 6. Nxe5 Qe7 7. Bxf7+ Kf8 8. Ng6+ hxg6 9. Bc4 Nxe4 10. O-O Rxh2 {cf. the photo.} 11. Kxh2 {hastening the loss.} Qh4+ 12. Kg1 Ng3 13. Qh5 {ineffectual play.} gxh5 14. fxg3+ Nf3#

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
The comments in braces means that the move before had the effect noted in that set of { }s . It is just annotating the game to explain the moves.

It may have been spoken during the match if it were broadcast, but it was definitely printed in the game summary later at the link you provided to bell labs.

The !! means that the move was excellent, often unexpected, and winning.

In this case the # means mate.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: terminology, notation, match
---


# Question
Title: Is there a method to efficiently generate moves for bishops?
I currently have a function which returns the closed off squares for a piece in a particular position based on pieces blocking it. This function iterates over the rays of a piece and is sufficiently fast, but can use a lot of improvement since it accounts for most of the time taken in the move generation.

I have been recently researching on how I can optimise this function and came across this "trick": https://www.chessprogramming.org/Subtracting\_a\_Rook\_from\_a\_Blocking\_Piece which conveniently uses a formula to instantly get all the moves for a rook. Is there a similar "trick" to generating moves for a bishop while accounting for the blocking pieces?

If you need any clarifications regarding the question, feel free to ask.

# Answer
Move generators in modern engines do this with lookup tables, which are indexed by the square of the slider and a bitboard representing occupied (impassable) squares that might block the movement of the piece.

There are two main ways of compressing the huge set of possible occupancy bitboards into a reasonable size. Magic Bitboards are often used, which involve multiplying the occupancy bitboard by 'magic' numbers, which are chosen because they empirically map the set of possible occupancy bitboards into a dense range.

A more modern way depends on the PEXT instruction which is available in newer x86 processors. PEXT bitboards allow for the lookup table to be mapped to an even denser range, and also improves lookup times on processors which can run PEXT quickly. However, PEXT is very slow to emulate on older processors, and also seems to be particularly slow on Ryzen processors.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, bishops
---


# Question
Title: What programs (preferably open source) offer play against a computer with fine-grained difficulty-related adjustments?
My last serious attempt to get into chess ran into a basic difficulty with the program: with a bit of work, I got to a point where I could beat difficulty 1 or 2 on a scale of 10, but got consistently clobbered when I took on difficulty 3. I have subsequently looked, but not found, chess programs where I can normally find a difficulty that lets me win, say, 40%-60% of the time, and this remains true when I incrementally learn to improve my game.

What, if any, chess engines out there offer finer gradations in the level of difficulty? It would be nice to have engines that offer more than one realistic way of offering an easier opponent. And ideally make mistakes that would make actual sense as an understandable mistake in a game of chess, not arbitrarily weakening the opponent by e.g. having a 1 out of n chance of making a random legal move.

Thanks,

# Answer
> 2 votes
My favorite program for this is Chess Tiger Pro This is a paid app.

You can set difficulty in 50 elo point increments. Some programs, such as shredder, allow you to set exact rating number. I like Chess Tiger Pro because it seems to play poorly better than other programs. I mean more human like mistakes.

# Answer
> 0 votes
None.

There are not that many programs designed to do that and most engines are intended to find the best move and have the highest rating. And it would also depend on how consistent you are and how often you make mistakes.

Fine grain difficulty is hard to do as there are way too many variables in the person playing. And controlling the program is also not trivial to achieve that goal.

Depending on your weaknesses, and the programs shortcomings, any program may or may not be too hard/easy for you. And your inconsistency may make that program change from day to day.

Your best chance is to look for one with some range of difficulty that occasionally makes weak moves on purpose; or else find a program that has a finer range of how far ahead the program will look. That would change the amount of time the program would need to maintain its set level which could become too long for you to accept.

I know of at least one program that does make mistakes on purpose. There may well be some more. But if they are easy enough for you to win 40-60% of the time is a question.

Winning at the rate you would prefer would mean that the 'rating' of both you and the program were about the same. Hopefully you would learn to play better and then be winning so much that you think the program is too easy.

So would that program still have enough control over its difficulty for you? You might need yet another program to find the sweet spot you desire.

Best would be for you to try improving your ability and to play in Quads of players who have similar ratings. Pairings are made based on the people with the closest ratings so you should have good matches like you want. Whether you win too much or too little depends on your variability as well as theirs.

Another good bet is for you to play online and get a rating. Then you could find players or events that fit your skill level and get the type of win/loss ratio that you think is good for your goals.

If you want a program then there is a long list of them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_chess\_software#Chess-playing\_programs\_for\_personal\_computers

Check reviews and see if any of them do what you want to do. Alternatively you could try an engine that gives you control over how it works and customize it yourself.

---
Tags: beginner
---


# Question
Title: What are the downsides of fast tie-breaks after drawn games?
It is well known that a lot of games in the top level round-robin tournaments end in draws, often not very exciting ones. Many consider that detrimental, as it leads to spectators and sponsors losing their interest in the game. The anti-draw measures that have been tried are Sofia rules (ban on draw offers) and/or Bilbao rules (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw).

There also has been a proposal to introduce the following rule: if a game ends in a draw, the players switch colors and play another game with faster time control. If that also ends in a draw, they switch colors again and play one more game with even faster time control. And so on until the first game won by one of the sides, who then gets the full point. The tie-breaks may be played after the round (which shouldn't be too bad with modern time controls), or on separate days like the adjourned games of old times.

This leads to every pair in each round having a winner, and, at its face, this has several immediate advantages. The pre-agreed draws, or just quick draws between players who are not in a mood to fight, would not make sense anymore. A player with white pieces gets an incentive to try and get as much winning chances as possible, or face a rematch with black; playing solidly for a draw with white against a stronger opponent would not make sense.

However, despite all these advantages, and despite the fact that there are many rapid/blitz tournaments, I have never seen this scheme implemented. **Why is that? What are the downsides of this rule? Have any top players ever commented on that?**

# Answer
> 6 votes
For at least some of us, the sort of scheme you propose is an unsatisfactory way to break a tie/settle a draw. If the tournament is being played under classical time controls, but then every draw is turned into a win/loss by having the opponents play a blitz game, the nature of the game is different. While a patzer like me is never going to defeat a grandmaster (or even national master) at any time control, different players excel at different types of events, and it's not fair to someone who's good at classic time control chess to suddenly decide the winner of a game via rapid chess. As an observer, I might want to watch a rapid time control tournament sometimes, but when I'm following a classic time control event, I don't want to see it decided in a short time control tie breaker. (Yes, I know other people will have differing opinions.)

Also, why is a draw so bothersome? Is it necessary for every game to have a winner for you? Personally, I'm accustomed to the nature of chess involving lots of draws at the highest levels. Admittedly, I don't like pre-arranged and quick draws, but there other ways to handle that.

Of course, for a tournament, eliminating draws does not eliminate ties (although it ***may*** make them less frequent) at the end of events. While players' final scores may be more scattered, it will still be possible for two or more players to finish with the same total.

Addressing something you said in the last paragraph: While it was a match, not a tournament game, a famous example of using rapid games to decide a winner was the 2016 World Championship, which was decided by a series of rapid games after being tied at the end of the scheduled 12 games.

As for comments from top players, the Wikipedia article linked to above notes that former World Champion Anatoly Karpov didn't like using rapid games to decide the (classical) World Champion. Former candidate Yasser Seirawan also disliked it. Carlsen himself expressed a desire for a different format, but it wasn't clear whether he dislikes the rapid tie breaker.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The problem with this rule is that it doesn't solve the problem, it might even exacerbate it. If this rule is implemented it suddenly becomes even more sensible for both players to preserve energy and agree to a lifeless draw, and then try their luck in a less exhausting faster game. Even if you are white and will have to play black, expending too much energy will in many situations just be a bad choice.

You could solve that problem by playing the tie-break games before the actual tournament game. That way there is always a player who has to try to win, because a draw would be a loss.

The reason this isn't implemented is probably mostly inertia. Possibly the opinion is prevalent, that there aren't too many draws, less than there used to be anyhow. And also, nobody wants to figure out what this would mean for the rating system.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It is basically meaningless compared to the initial game itself.

You could have them play pingpong or checkers or do something else to see who should "win". Whatever the result it has no bearing to what actually happened at the game of chess AT THE INITIAL TIME CONTROL.

What would be better is to get rid of the delays and increments and just reduce the initial time control to a more reasonable amount like G60SD for world championship, G30SD for most tournaments, G15SD for smaller tournaments and more average players.
THEN PLAY MORE GAMES so that one draw is not that significant to the results. With more games pairings in tournaments become fairer too. Even better have everybody play two games instead of one so each player gets one White and One black.

---
Tags: rules, draw
---


# Question
Title: Whats the difference between these chess tempo databases
Chesstempo seems to have two pages for database display.

This one works at random: https://chesstempo.com/game-database.html

Sometimes it shows the moves in sequence of most usage and then the probability of WDL. Other times it shows nothing.

This one seems to work all the time: https://old.chesstempo.com/game-database.html

**What is the difference between the two databases?**

Does that 'old.' refer to the database or to old code to display the database?

It seems to me that the 'old' UI works right and the new one is full of bugs. Or is there some other features I am missing. Still need an answer to the related question here.

# Answer
Apparently the issue is cookies. You must get a cookie as you go to chesstempo. If cookies get deleted then refreshing the page fails. Still need to check whether that is true if you try to load a brand new page withOUT any cookies.

Verified. Killed cookies and the current page then reloaded it and it worked.

Unclear why cookies only kills showing the moves but the rest of the database and chesstempo features still seem to work.
> 0 votes

# Answer
They are currently exactly the same.

Typically, when a website does the old.sitename.com, it is to allow people to temporarily use the old format of a recently-updated website. Over time, they phase out the old one in most cases. The underlying data, such as a database, does not change at all during this transition, just the aesthetics and layout of the webpage.

In this case, it looks like they already phased out the old version, but simply kept the URL for convenience: They are currently exactly the same. To prove this, I did the following:

I opened each page in Firefox (but you could use any web browser), and right-clicked the page, and selected "View Page Source", which shows you all of the data that is used to render the webpage. I selected all the text for each document, and pasted it into a Word document. It was of note that viewing the page source, each one had 2576 lines...exactly the same. Once in Word, each document had 54 pages, and exactly 6017 words.

I then took both documents, "Old" and "New", and used the site copyleaks.com to compare them. As you can see from the screenshot, as I expected from the previous data I mentioned above, they are exactly the same.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: database, online
---


# Question
Title: Your time is up on an online correspondence game but your oponnent has only his king; is it a draw?
If your time is up on a timed game, but your opponent has only a king, the game is drawn.

Does this rule apply to online correspondence games?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Note: This was answered before the OP edited the question, and specified it was an online competition.

According to ICCF (international) rules, yes, it is still a draw.

6.7 Except where one of the Articles 5.1 or 5.2 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the 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.**

The USCF rules are more convoluted. First, there is a special rule 11 in national events that if someone oversteps the time limit, they are not forfeited, but rather penalized five days reflection time on the succeeding 10 moves/30 day time control. They lose the second time this happens. (Plus there are entire sets of rules for specific national events linked on that page)

Otherwise, they also follow the traditional USCF rules of chess, so yes, it would also be a draw in that case too.

14D. Insufficient material to continue. The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.

14D4. **No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.**

---
Tags: rules, online-chess, draw, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is the source of the house-rule 18-moves?
In my area, most kids including me grew up with a very popular house-rule: After all the pieces of either of the players are removed besides the king, the opposing player has 18 moves to checkmate him. If he can't do that, the game is a draw.

The rule is popularly called 18-moves.

I have spent some time googling and have not found this rule anywhere.

Does anyone know a source for this rule and why it's so popular?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I grew up in Spain and we used a 20 "move rule" instead of 18.

We played exactly as you said, if a player is left with a single king, the other has to mate in 20 moves or less to win the game. However, this "rule" only applied in friendly matches and was never enforced in tournaments. Our coach made us play like this for several reasons:

1. It promotes critical thinking at an early stage, where you have to look for faster ways to checkmate your opponent than just queening your two remaining pawns and checkmate using the "staircase" method.
2. It avoids humiliating the opponent, since now promoting all the remaining pawns to minor pieces and playing around with the king is no longer an option. We were around 6 years old, so once you knew you had won you wanted to enjoy it longer. This kind of demeaning behavior was discouraged.
3. It avoids elongating the game more than necessary. We trained without clocks, which could make us spend unnecessary time in trivial positions.

This practice then naturally extended to our friendly games, but we were well aware that this was not an official rule and that on tournaments the 50 move rule applied.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I had one of like it too but it consisted of 20 moves. The most similar thing officially is the 50 moves rule, where if a pawn hasn't moved and nothing has been captured for the last 50 moves, it's a draw. I think this is the source of many of those house rules in an easier version.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Clearly these house rules are made for kids and beginners to prevent pointless game stalling, with winning camp promoting 8 knights for instead.of checkmating, etc.. Would be annoying to end up in KBN vs K with this rule in serious games, when you do know how to win it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It is a local rule and is not that popular outside a few small areas. In Spain there was a 20 move rule.

THE rule is 50 moves, per the laws of chess, without any captures or pawn moves. In special cases more moves are allowed because of the difficulty of mating. One example is the wKKN vs KP endgame in which one knight blocks the pawn from moving while the remaining KN corner the other king then the other knight starts moving to give mate before the black pawn can queen and start checking.

---
Tags: endgame, rules, chess-variants, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: Flexibility over solidity? Defending against 1. e4
When defending against 1. e4, I'm a French Defense player. I enjoy the French Defense very much, and my win rate with it is fairly good. Lately, though, I've been wanting to explore new defenses, only to spice my game up (I'm getting bored of the typical positions that come out of the french, as wild as some of them may be).

I consider the french to be solid, yet not flexible. By this I mean that the usual French setups are hard to break and resilient, but offer little strategical freedom (this is, there are few logical strategical plans that actually fit the position). It is as if I'm playing all my games with the same two or three long-term plans, not because of lack of imagination, but because this are the plans that usually emerge as logical in the typical positions.

In opposition to this, I'm looking for a new defense that prioritizes flexibility above all, even if not as solid as the french. An opening that offers a wide variety of strategical ideas and creative play. The Sicilian is a candidate, but there are too many variations to learn and I'm not interested on it at the moment. I'm considering also the Pirc Defense, which I believe to be also flexible enough.

Can anyone recommend a flexible defense against 1. e4? Comments on the mere ideas of flexibility/solidity in the defensive setup are welcome too, as of course these relates to the actual question.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It sounds like you are drawn to the pirc so try it out and see. The pirc/modern is very flexible and if you play the king's indian that you can transpose into that if White plays c4 to make a universal system.

I like the fluidity of being able to see how my opponent sets up first and then respond. I like the dynamic potential. Rather than backward black's position feels like a "coiled spring" ready to lash out. I haven't been blown off the board with e2-e4-e5 and h2-h4-h5 in a while so I think I am getting the hang of the direct assault lines.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I recommend e6 Sicilians. You could even use the move order 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5. There are a lot of transpositional possibilities. If you look at some great player who played the French a lot, see what other defense they used; Petrosian for example.

It is important to have some Sicilian understanding and if you are in a must win situation against a White player who wants a draw then the Sicilian is a must.

What you play against d4 openings could also steer your choice. For example, if you play the King's Indian Defense, then Pirc/Modern lines could have some knowledge overlap. If you play the Slav, then the Caro-Khan makes since...

Another important element is what will you enjoy studying. Personally I played the Najdorf Sicilian exclusively for a long time, but I loved Tiger's Modern (a repertoire book by Tiger Hillarp Persson) so much I adopted the Modern (There is a newer edition called The Modern Tiger).

here is a recent book with good reviews for you: The Sicilian Taimanov (Grandmaster Repertoire) by Antonios Pavlidis | Sep 7, 2019

# Answer
> 2 votes
I see your point clearly and I was once in your place as well in deciding the right opening for me. I would hate to choose the character of the position over objectivity. There are only 4 objectively sound replies to 1. e4. Those being 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...c5, and 1...c6. All the others are in theory suboptimal. I would say that the best way to get a flexible position is to not contest the center with the pawns and the most extreme version of this is the Hippo(Not the best choice). If you got good results with the french you should also with the Caro-Kann and it's a little more flexible. Remember to choose objectivity over character.

# Answer
> -2 votes
You want too much.

Either play d6 or the sicilian. Else just play e5 when they play e4.

in spite of erroneous claims e5 is as solid a defense as any other first move and it gives you those different positions you say you prefer over the limited french strategy type positions.

---
Tags: french-defense, 1.e4, defense
---


# Question
Title: Is it too late for me to start professional chess?
I am 25 years old. I play online chess regularly and I am rated about 1900 on chess.com. And I recently won a local tournament. Now I want to start playing professional chess. Here are some of my questions:

1. Is it too late for me to be ambitious? I am aiming for a GM title in 5 years time. I don't doubt my learning abilities or memory, as is usually the case for the older aspirants, since I solve problems for a living (computer science/ mathematics). However I am not sure if I can afford the kind of time needed.
2. So my second question is about time:
    * How many hours do serious players put into preparation and analysis? I estimate to be able to put in about 30-35 hours a week.
    * How many tournaments/ games does it take to be a GM? I need an estimate. Is 5 years too little? I am imagining playing 3-4 tournaments a year.
3. GM is a long way. So here are more basic questions:
    * How does one find the right tournaments? I don't want to travel too far. Also I don't want to pay hefty fees to enter tournaments. And the participants should be all roughly around my level or slightly better.
    * What FIDE rating does a rating of 1900 on chess.com equate to?

# Answer
> 47 votes
I will write from the perspective of my home country, USA. If you are in a different country, you can likely find parallels.

> Is it too late for me to be ambitious?

It is never too late to learn more.

> I am aiming for a GM title in 5 years time. I don't doubt my learning abilities or memory, as is usually the case for the older aspirants, since I solve problems for a living (computer science/ mathematics).

5 years is not much time from going from an amateur skill level to earning a GM title. I am also a CS/Math guy. A good one. It doesn't always translate to chess as my lofty 1650 USCF rating will tell you.

> How many hours do serious players put into preparation and analysis? I estimate to be able to put in about 30-35 hours a week.

That should do it. Expect to be very good in 5.5 years of extremely focused work. (10,000 hours for mastery...)

> How many tournaments/ games does it take to be a GM?

Unanswerable. But expect hundreds and hundreds of serious, focused games. Not blitz. Tournament speed games.

> Is 5 years too less? I am imagining playing 3-4 tournaments a year.

It is hard to image anyone with no over-the-board rating can become a GM in 5 years. A few young adults do it and they get their names in Chess Life for it. You need to be playing serious games every week. Plan on some sort of a local tournament every month, plan on 3 or 4 nights at your local chess club playing opponents as serious as you are. And get an instructor.

> How does one find the right tournaments? I don't want to travel too far. Also I don't want to pay hefty fees to enter tournaments. And the participants should be all roughly around my level or slightly better.

USCF tournaments are generally very affordable as chess is not a profitable venture for 99% of the participants. Check the USCF web site for chess clubs near you.

Becoming a professional at anything worthwhile is not cheap. Expect to pay thousands annually in hotels, food, transportation, instruction, equipment, entry fees, and so forth. If you aren't willing to invest you should temper your expectations.

> How much a rating of 1900 on chess.com translate to in real?

It doesn't. There is no reliable way to compare that rating with any other rating.

---

You've set yourself a lofty goal.

I recommend you play some rated games and earn a rating. This will tell you how hard you'll have to work to become a GM. Let's say your rating is 2000 USCF. That's an very respectable 'expert' rating. To be a GM, you would have to improve to about an 2600 USCF. So you'll need 600 points. Every 400 points of improvement means that your old self would have no appreciable chance of defeating your new self. So you'd have to make a Herculean 400 pt improvement, *and then become dominant over that new self*.

# Answer
> 39 votes
It depends what you mean by 'professional'.

If you want to support yourself solely by playing tournaments, the answer is definitely no. At the very least that would require being in the top 50 in the world which takes a lifetime of work starting at a very young age.

If you want to support yourself by playing and teaching, that is much more feasible. Provided that you are charismatic and can demonstrably improve your students, you could probably make it work with a low master title in the US.

If you want to get to GM and not really care about making money from it, that is possible. At 30-35 hours a week I would say that 5 years is ambitious but doable. Almost nobody has the drive to actually put in that much work though, which is why it is rare.

Tournaments: 3-4 tournaments a year is way, way too low. To get to GM like that you would have to make massive rating gains in every tournament you play, which is not a realistic plan. You should be aiming to play every single weekend at long time controls. Your opponents should be as strong as you can possibly find. This is tough to do in the US unless you live in a few select areas: New York City, San Francisco, Dallas and maybe Saint Louis and Los Angeles would fit the criteria.

You have to study the right things. Read the spine off of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Do hard calculation puzzles on a daily basis. Play through tons of high-level games. Don't look at opening theory until you're \>2300.

I hope you succeed.

# Answer
> 28 votes
I think there is only one reasonable answer: You're too old. Learning chess is like learning a language. And that's not a metaphor. You learn "chunks" of piece constellations, just like you would learn typical turns of phrase. You get a feeling which phrases and expressions go together and which don't. One day you just know where to put your pieces in certain positions. I bring up this comparison, because you probably know people who learnt your language after their teens. Even those that have mastered your language to a very high degree are still recognisable as non native speakers. And of course they garnered much more experience than you could in a 35h week.

Could you still learn Chinese well enough to write a decent novel in it? Could you still learn to play the violin well enough to make a living in a professional orchestra?

Maybe in some exceptional cases these things are actually possible. But you should rate your success probability as \<1%.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from putting in time to improve your chess. But spending five years on chess and chess alone and to expect some financial returns at the end … that's definitely a bad idea.

But fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it. Just put in 10-20h a week for a year and see where it gets you. If you reach 2000 Elo in that time, you clearly have some potential. And anyway, you'll have a much better idea of what you are actually aiming to reach. Wanting to become a chess professional without ever having played a tournament game, is a lot like wanting to become a F1-pilot without ever having driven a car.

I remember a blog by somebody setting out to do exactly what you want to do: roadtograndmaster.com Might give you a better idea of what you are up against.

# Answer
> 21 votes
I think aiming for GM is really unrealistic. Aiming for the GM title is something that players do who are IM, have improved since, and feel they want to push further.

I think that amount of preparation time could work, but it's not the most important thing. Most important is *playing serious tournament games*. Chess is not about knowledge, it's about skill, and you learn by doing.

I am baffled by the idea of not wanting to travel much and not wanting to play a lot of tournaments, while striving to be a chess professional. What do you think chess professionals **do**? Answer: it doesn't involve being at home much. And the only way to become one is to start living that life and becoming really really good at it after many years, before that it only costs money. That's probably the main reason GMs are often so young: they still have parents paying for the first ten years of their hobby.

The vast majority of fanatical tournament players of course never breach 2200 let alone higher levels, so the number is a bit meaningless, but I think most GMs become one after about 500-1000 games.

Yes, five years is too few, but more importantly 3-4 tournaments per year is *by far* too few.

# Answer
> 14 votes
Hate to dash your dreams but 15-20 tournaments (especially in the US, but pretty much anywhere) is not going to cut it, even if it were granted that 1900 on chess.com directly translated to 1900USCF.

1) Ratings involving different pools of players will of necessity diverge. It's the nature of the mathematics involved, so I can say with a great degree of certainty that 1900 chess.com will not translate to 1900 anywhere else on the planet. The rating is an approximate ordering within a given population. If the population differs, the number representing that playing strength will differ.

2) It will, again with near certainty, be impossible to select tournaments in which all players will be near the same rating level, regardless of the rating level you choose.

3) For the most part, it will be impossible to find tournaments with a significant number of players at the higher end of your proposed scale without paying large entry fees. (There will be more exceptions to this than the first two points, but still not very many.)

4) Probabilities are against you. I'm most familiar with USCF ratings so this math will apply to them, but it won't be all that different in other places. If you play someone exactly your rating, you can gain a max of 16 rating points by beating them. In order to gain 600 rating points (assume the 1900 is ELO, 2500 is minimum rating to be awarded the GM title) that means you will have to score +38 against that pool of opponents. That works out to +2 in every single tournament for five years. Haven't checked, but I seriously doubt anyone this side of Kasparov has managed that feat. For example: Magnus Carlsen played 50 games in 2012, and only managed a +17 score for the year, so unless you're farther above everybody than Carlsen is, the odds are pretty heavily stacked against you.

IIRC, only one person went several years without a defeat in history; that was Capablanca. If you're as good as he was, you have a chance, I guess. Otherwise you're going to have to expect to lose games along the way. To be +7 every year for five years will be an impressive achievement. to be +7 any year while playing opposition whose actual strength is 100 points below yours while their rating is equal to yours would require a minimum of 25 games. Make the difference 50 points and the number of games goes over 28.

Finally, it might surprise you to know very few GM's even are making a living off of chess tournaments. Most make their living writing or teaching, not playing.

# Answer
> 12 votes
I am not going to be negative, but realistic. At age 25, it is highly unlikely you will ever be a chess professional. A professional not only has to travel worldwide and play in top tournaments, but also has to teach and do other chess things to make a living in chess.

To achieve a GM title, you will need to play dozens of tournaments each year against IMs and GMs to earn your three norms.

Go to YouTube and follow John Bartholomew. He is an IM working on his GM norms. He posts a short video after each round of the tournaments he plays. He has ups and downs and it has been a tough road for him and he still does not have his GM title yet. Will he ever achieve it? I don't know, but it is a LOT of work.

I don't say this to discourage you, but to be realistic. There is only one way for you to find out. Try it and see what happens. Best of luck!

# Answer
> 11 votes
If you are rated only 1900 at 25 (especially if that's an online rating), it will be a significant achievement to reach FIDE Master level (~2300), not in 5 years, but at any point in the rest of your life. IM and GM are almost certainly out of your reach at this stage, although it is theoretically possible - Scottish GM John Shaw became a grandmaster at 37 after being rated only 1745 at the age of 19. Most grandmasters are already 2200+ by that age. However, Shaw is an extreme example, and his peak rating was 2506, which is still not high enough to earn a living from playing.

# Answer
> 10 votes
It is never too late to start, but you have to weigh your available resources (mainly time, and energy) against your potential achievements (2200 rating? title? norms?). For most people, the cost-benefit analysis does not justify the huge time investment mandated by a "professional" involvement. They can continue to compete in rated events like professional players out of interest, but they do not consider themselves as playing professionally.

# Answer
> 7 votes
You have a lot of pessimistic answers mostly based, as far as I can tell, on the assumption that you live in America. Well, apart from a brief period during Fischer's prime the US has been a bit of a chess desert. If you live somewhere better, have the talent (who can tell?) and are prepared to work hard then, yes, it isn't unreasonable to become a chess GM although 5 years is probably too ambitious. 10 years perhaps more realistic.

As you can see from this list of GMs on Wikipedia many gain the GM title in their 30's and a few even in their 40's. As for opportunity, if I had your youth, talent and dedication I might have a good chance ;-). My local club runs a FIDE rated 9 round Swiss 3 times a year with 3 or 4 GMs at the top level down to my level which is probably not too far off your level. There are 2 GMs and one IM in the club who give training / tuition, so I would have every chance to get the chess I needed.

If I ever became good enough then norm tournaments would come my way mostly via tournaments within a radius of 100 miles. Just playing on one of the top boards for the club first team in the national league (rather than something like the 10th team in the regional A league as at present) would be one norm possibility. Once every 3 or 4 years our club chairman manages to raise enough money to run a 10 player all-play-all where norms are available with one or two places reserved for our club aspirants. 4 or 5 other clubs within a 50 mile radius also manage such tournaments although the one or two untitled places go to their players.

So, if you live in the right area, somewhere on the right side of the Atlantic would be a good start ;-), then you have a chance. If you don't then your chances are bleak.

One piece of advice I would give is that you need to start playing stronger players as much as possible. If you are regularly playing tournament games against players 300 or 400 points higher than you then you may end up getting beaten up regularly but you will quickly get a feeling as to whether or not you have what it takes and you will get a much better feeling for what it takes. In other words it is probably the quickest way for you to find out for yourself if your ambition is realistic or not.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I knew a guy from high school who was an 1800 player at the age of 15 (not 25). He was the best player in my high school chess league, and the best chess player that I got to know on a day to day basis.

When I looked him up over the internet this past decade, he was in his early fifties, and about a 2200 player, that is the lower ranks of master. He spent all of his free (non-professional) time playing chess (I don't know about his personal life).

At 25, you are starting ten years later, and only about 100 points higher than Mark. If you were grandmaster material, it would have been more obvious earlier (e.g. master or close to by your late teens). Based on Mark's experience, 2200 may be a realistic goal for you, but not 2400 or 2500.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Very late to this question (and I would be curious about what you ended up doing with chess) but I can tell you that even very talented players have had trouble making a living at chess. Even those who reached world champ struggled. "Mere" grandmasters have often had to have non-chess jobs. Fischer was perhaps the first player in history who, had he chosen to fully exploit the opportunities available, could have become rich from chess and the fame he achieved.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all, it took Bobby Fischer about 10 years to become a GM. He was one of the greatest geniuses the game has seen. A 1900 on chess.com isn't much. Fischer was probably playing at that level at age 7. So, assuming you're one of the greatest geniuses in human history you're looking at about 8 years to become a GM. But, that's not going to be completely accurate because Fischer was 15 when he became a GM and you would be well past your physical prime. Also, you have to remember that children learn faster than adults. A child will learn their first language within their first few years of life but if they tried to do the same thing as an adult they could spend decades and never reach the same level of proficiency.

The first thing to ask yourself is if you have the talent. Your IQ would need to be in the 180+ range. You should be able to calculate faster than anyone you play and have a very, very good memory. There are players who meet all of that who can't make a living at the game so why should you starting so late be an exception? That's the bare minimum considering your age.

Second, you would need to spend roughly 16 hours a day (7 days a week, 52 weeks a year) for the next decade. If you have a job or a girlfriend (or want to) you should give up now.

Third, you would need to compensate for the fact that you would be past your physical prime and the fact that children learn much faster.

Now, if you've done all of that you should still realize that I've only talked about reaching GM level NOT becoming a professional. Many (most?) Gms don't make a living playing chess. Only elite players like Carlsen can do that. There's still a big difference between reaching GM and being an elite player who can make a living at it.

On a side note, you conceivably could make a living writing books or teaching etc. without reaching GM but there aren't a whole lot of guys who can do that and the money isn't that great. If you could become at least a strong IM and are very good at communicating and marketing yourself you might be able to become a professional that way.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes. Your train has already left the GM station. Next stop 'expert' in USCF terms if you study and play seriously for ten years. You might even make NM. Forget IM and GM.

If you expect to make a living from it you will need to already have a big bank account to use to keep eating until you make GM assuming that you could.

Is it likely? Not really based on statistics. Look at all the chess players and what a small percent are GMs. And these days GMs are a dime a dozen going from one small regional tournament to the next every week trying to eke out a living.

You are starting late. Most prodigies, that make GM easily, start before age 10.

Playing chess regularly will guarantee that you do NOT make GM. You will need to STUDY chess regularly to achieve that. And play serious chess often OTB not speed chess on any web site.

1900 on chess.com does not mean much. Nor does winning a local tournament. And was that a real OTB tournament or one online? And just how strong were the rated players in that tournament??? You need to go to a large national tournament and see how you do there and what your provisional REAL USCF or FIDE Rating is. Then see how far away 2800 looks from there.

1 - Never too late to be ambitious. But as the saying goes we grow too soon old and too late smart. Is trying to be a GM worth throwing your life away?

2 - 5 yrs to GM from where you are is delusional unless you are a true genius and spend all your time on doing it. ALL your time.

3- You may not doubt your learning ability or memory but there is more to it than just memorizing Chess Base. And while chess, music, and computers tend to be easy for the same sort of people that does not mean everyone can do all of those well.

4 - You cannot afford the time unless you are single and hit the lottery. If you are married then you have epsilon approaching zero chance.

5 - Fischer did more like 60-80 hours a week. 40 hours a week prep and also a job would be unlikely.

6 - You need to make the GM norms so you would need a LOT of INTERNATIONAL tournaments to be able to make GM.

7 3-4 tournaments a year at highest level might work if you were ready to try to get the title. Your problem will be getting to the point where you can play other GMs at all.

8 - 5 years is wildly optimistic.

9 - USCF and FIDE list tournaments.

10 - Good luck finding enough GM tournaments without a lot of travel.

11 - You have to pay to play if you want to play at the top level. The other GMs want big prize funds that are paid for by folks like you.

12 - Good luck with that. Until you are so good you get invited to play then you will be playing the others like you who paid the big fee to enter so they too could play GMs.

13 - 1900 on chess.com -- for the speeds you play at on chess.com -- would translate to something like a FIDE rating of 1200 for OTB.

You need to play in a real, strong open, OTB tournament and find out how good you really are.

---
Tags: learning, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest wait before a draw offer is accepted?
If I understand correctly, once player A makes a draw offer, the opponent player B retains the right to accept the draw offer as long as player B does not rejected it verbally, or touch a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it. So technically player B may spend as much time as he has left on the clock, say 60 minutes, before accepting the draw offer and once the draw offer is made, player A is not allowed to withdraw it.

So what is the longest record of waiting time before a draw offer is accepted?

# Answer
There are no records of that. We can possibly tell of some long ones we heard of but the question cannot be answered for THE LONGEST wait.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: draw, records
---


# Question
Title: Why is offering draw not recorded but giving a check recorded?
In recording a game, one typically does not record offering draws (if yes, how and is it required?) while one does indicate that a particular move gives a check by using + (or ++ for double checks).

I am wondering if this is logical. In fact, it is not difficult to tell whether a move gives a check (or a double check) or not but once a draw offer is not recorded, it is virtually impossible to know it by reading the moves.

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **Appendix C. Algebraic notation**
>
> C.12 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=)

As with a number of the laws regarding recording of the moves this is not strictly enforced by arbiters. I did once play in a tournament in which a very junior arbiter delivered a short harangue to us players telling us to record draw offers. I'm not sure anyone paid much attention.

The serious point about recording draw offers is what do you do if an opponent disturbs you by repeatedly offering draws? If you complain to the arbiter then the first thing the arbiter is going to do (if he or she is any good) is ask you to point out on your scoresheet the moves where the draw offers were made. If you haven't recorded any draw offers on your scoresheet then you will be wasting your time.
> 20 votes

# Answer
Both recording checks and draw offers are personal preference, and neither is required in your notation.

I actually do record both checks as "**+**" or "**++**", and draw offers as "**(d)**". I know I am not the only one to note draw offers as I have friends, who do the same. I also record times.

The purpose of the notation is so you, or the arbiter, can play back over the game, and neither notation addition is really relevant for that purpose. I just like to know for my own edification if I go back later.

FIDE rules actually reference draw offers.

> 8.1b The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
> 20 votes

---
Tags: draw, notation, check, double-check
---


# Question
Title: How to indicate that "I need more time to consider your draw offer" in a formal game?
When my opponent makes a draw offer, I will consider whether to accept this draw offer or not and this consideration could take very long, say 20 minutes or more.

What is a good etiquette now to tell my opponent that I am neither declining nor accepting this draw offer; instead, I simply need more time to consider it?

To tell my opponent to "wait"? Or simply remain silent while considering? Or something else?

# Answer
The polite way to react to a legally made (opponent moves, offers draw and then presses the clock) draw offer which you are not going to immediately accept is to say something like "I'll think about it".

In a team competitions it is quite common for the player offered the draw to stand up and go and look at his teammates' games to see the standing in the match before making a decision which affects team success. This is allowed even though it is the player's turn to move. You are not glued to your seat when it is your turn but you must not leave the "playing area" - generally the room where the event is taking place. You may even ask your team captain if you may accept the draw (unless the competition rules specifically forbid this). You may follow or reject your captain's advice.

It is also acceptable, though less polite, to completely ignore your opponent as you may be tempted to do if they are offering a draw in a lost position.
> 18 votes

# Answer
You have until you decide to say yes or you make a move which says no.

You do not need to tell the opponent anything until that time. There is no rush on your part.

He should not be talking to you about it after he makes the offer. If he pressures you then complain to the TD.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: draw, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Export KPvK endings positions (up to black/white symmetry) from ChessBase 15 using python-chess
I have the Mega Database 2020 from ChessBase and ChessBase 15. I am using ChessBase 15 to search the Mega Database 2020, my search criterion being all games ended through a KPvK (king and pawn vs. king) up to white/black symmetry.

For this I open the Mega Database in ChessBase 15 and I do "Filter List --\> Material". The best I can achieve so far is :

(If I click on "No pieces" as I should, it resets the "Total" four cases, and I don't understand why, so that I am not sure that my filter does exactly want I and gives me all games I really want. I checked on https://en.chessbase.com/support-kb/content/details/1053/Material\_searches\_with\_ChessBase but it did not help very much, but that is another question ...)

This gives a list of games, and if I click on the line corresponding to a game, the position appears for instance as follows :

We see that the board is automatically set up to the position of game defined by the ply where the KPvK (up to colour symmetry) begins.

**Is it possible to export all of these positions in a database, retaining the ply move plus players, dates and others usual information?**

This could allow to create a KPvK training database. Of course, it is somewhat trivial regarding the nature of the ending, but the principle would be useful for other types of endings.

# Answer
I used the following python script using `python-chess` library :

```
import chess
import chess.pgn

def KPvK_up_to_symmetry_export_to_FEN_func(pgn_file_path, nb_games, output_pgn_file_name):
    output_pgn = open(output_pgn_file_name,"w+")
    games = 0
    pgn_file = open(pgn_file_path, encoding="utf-8-sig")
    while nb_games == 0 or games < nb_games:
        game = chess.pgn.read_game(pgn_file)
        board = game.board()
        has_wanted_position = False
        wanted_fen = ""
        for move in game.mainline_moves():
            board.push(move)
            fen = board.board_fen()

            nb_p = fen.count("p")
            nb_P = fen.count("P")

            nb_n = fen.count("n")
            nb_N = fen.count("N")

            nb_b = fen.count("b")
            nb_B = fen.count("B")

            nb_r = fen.count("r")
            nb_R = fen.count("R")

            nb_q = fen.count("q")
            nb_Q = fen.count("Q")

            nb_k = fen.count("k")
            nb_K = fen.count("K")

            no_pieces = ((nb_n == 0) and (nb_N == 0) and (nb_b == 0) and (nb_B == 0) and (nb_r == 0) and (nb_R == 0) and (nb_q == 0) and (nb_Q == 0))

            cond = ((nb_k == 1) and (nb_K == 1) and (nb_P == 1) and (nb_p == 0)) #KPvK
            cond_symmetrical = ((nb_k == 1) and (nb_K == 1) and (nb_P == 0) and (nb_p == 1)) #KvKP

            #cond = (nb_B == 2 and nb_b < 2)
            #cond_symmetrical = (nb_b == 2 and nb_B < 2)

            if ((cond or cond_symmetrical) and no_pieces):
                has_wanted_position = True
                wanted_fen = board.fen()
                break
            else:
                continue
        #We are out of the loop on game moves, with a FEN or with nothing (if the game hasn't the ending we want)
        if (has_wanted_position):
            for header_key, header_value in game.headers.items():
                output_pgn.write("[" + header_key + " \"" + header_value + "\"]")
                output_pgn.write("\n")
            output_pgn.write("[FEN \"" + wanted_fen + "\"]")
            output_pgn.write("\n")
            output_pgn.write("\n")
        games += 1
    output_pgn.close()
    return None

nb_games_total = 1523849
KPvK_up_to_symmetry_export_to_FEN_func(r"C:\CHESS\PYTHON\megadatabase2020.pgn", nb_games_total, "megadatabase2020_KPvP.pgn")

```

I did this for the pgn file I got from chessbase by exporting to text PGN my whole megadatabase 2020. Executing this script will produce a pgn file containing positions, that I'll be able to use back in chessbase.
> 3 votes

# Answer
To be honest, I am not 100% sure what you are asking for by "up to white/black symmetry."

I think this solution will help you find what you are looking for. Theme keys are not enabled by default in ChessBase. There are amazingly detailed Theme, Tactics, Strategy, and Endgame keys built into Mega 2020 (and prior versions).

Take a look at the difference in the tabs with the theme keys enables. Once you have them enabled, you can take whatever games you want, and put them in the clipboard, and export the clipboard to a new database.

Next under File\>Options\>Misc, check the "theme keys box".
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, chessbase, python
---


# Question
Title: What is right way to set up King & Queen In the beginning of game?
I know this is very basic question, but I just started playing and want to know. How do you set up king and queen the right way?

## Heading

I generally get confused between the King and Queen and what square they start from. I recently read this about chess setup. I just want to be sure, as I am still confused.

# Answer
It starts with the board being setup correctly, and that means a light square in the right-hand corner. Then, the queens each go on their own color.

```
 [FEN ""]

```
> 18 votes

# Answer
First the board must be correct. Put the white square in the right hand corner nearest to you.

Then put the queens on their color in the center of the board on the row closest to you. White queen on white. Black queen on Black.

Finally put the kings next to the queens in the center of the board.

That link you gave is not that useful.

For the rest of the men: The first row corners near you have a rook on them. Next to the rooks are the horsies aka knights. Next between the knights and the K/Q are the bishops. Finally in front of those there are 8 pawns on the 2nd row.
> 14 votes

# Answer
The queen's dress must match her shoes.

That fashion statement reminds the player that the color of the queen, which is presumably the clothing on the queen's body, needs to match the square she stands on.

I grant to people that this may seem sexist. But I that remember struggling, many years ago, to recall if the king got his way, or the queen got her way. But from the day that I first heard this story that the fashion-sensitive queen is the one who cared more about what she looked like, I never again forgot which piece goes on its own color.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Turn board so that dark square in the bottom left. Put queen on her own color, king on opposite color that he is.

White player sees queen, king, from their left to right.

Black player sees king, queen from their left to right.
> 2 votes

# Answer
King belongs to ***e*** file and Queen belongs to ***d*** file. ***1st*** and ***8th*** rank for the White and Black pieces respectively. As simple as that. Exception is Fischer Random Chess aka Chess960.

**More precisely-**

If the file names are not present or for some reason you are unaware of the notations, look for the opposite colored centered square for the King on the top and bottom. Look for the other centered square for the Queen.

**White King** \- Black center

**White Queen** \- White center.

**Black King** \- White center

**Black Queen** \- Black center.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: rules, learning, pieces
---


# Question
Title: What do DTM, DTZ, DTC, DTR, DTZ50, and DTZR mean?
I need help clarifying the abbreviations and acronyms used in endgame tablebases. Just what do DTM, DTZ, DTC, DTR, DTZ50, DTZR mean?

# Answer
In various endgame tablebases, the terms mean as follows:

**Depth to Mate.** For each position that is represented, '**DTM**' indicates the theoretical value, and the number of winner's moves to 'Mate' if won/lost - assuming that the winner is minimizing and the loser is maximizing DTM.

**DTC<br>Depth to Conversion** 'Conversion' is the changing of the force on the board, by capture and/or Pawn-conversion. For each position that is represented, 'DTC' indicates the theoretical value, and the number of winner's moves to the goal of 'Won Conversion' if won/lost - assuming that the winner is minimizing and the loser is maximizing DTC.

**DTZ**
**Depth to Zeroing** (of the ply count) The ply-count is zeroed if and only if a Pawn is pushed or a capture is made. For each position that is represented, 'DTZ' indicates the theoretical value, and the number of winner's moves to the goal of 'Win and ply-count zeroed' if won/lost - assuming that the winner is minimizing and the loser is maximizing DTZ.

**DTZ50**
**Depth to Zeroing** (of the ply count) in the context of the 50-Move Rule The DTC, DTM and DTZ metrics do not consider the current FIDE 50-move rule whereby a game in which no irreversible moves have been played for 100 plies can be claimed as a draw by the player 'on move'.

**DTR**
**Depth by the (k-move) Rule** 'The Rule' referred to here is a notional set of k-move rules. For each position that is represented, 'DTR' indicates the theoretical value and, for won/lost positions, the least k for which DTZk is not draw - assuming that the winner is minimising and the loser is maximising DTR.

**DTZR**
Depth to Zeroing move, give that DTR is being minimaxed If DTR = draw, then DTZR = draw. Otherwise, Otherwise DTRZR indicates the theoretical value, and the number of winner's moves to the zeroing of the ply count, given that the two sides are minimaxing first DTR and then DTZR.

DTZR would be used in conjunction with DTR to progress a deep win in the context of a k-move rule because DTR can remain unchanged over a sequence of moves.
> 16 votes

---
Tags: terminology, tablebases
---


title: What is an "artificial" move?

text:
# Question
Title: What is an "artificial" move?
Sometimes I see a move or serial of moves described as "artificial" What does this mean? Here is one example, comments by Kasparov on move 10. ..cxd4. Taken from "Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, Part1"

> Later Black sometimes also tried the rather artificial 10...Bg4 11.d5 Rd8 12.Qb2 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Ne5 { (Yusupov-Anand, 6th match game, Wijk aan Zee 1994; I.Sokolov-Topalov, Sarajevo 2001)

```
[Event "Moscow-4teams"]
[Site "Moscow URS"]
[Date "1981.02.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Oleg Romanishin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D85"]
[EventDate "????.??.??"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5   8.Be3 Qa5 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.Rc1 cxd4 ( 10...Bg4 11.d5 Rd8 12.Qb2 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Ne5 ) 11.cxd4 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 O-O 13.d5 Rd8 14.Ke1 Na5 15.Bg5 Bf6 16.Bd2 b6 17.Rc7 Bg4 18.Ba6 e6 19.Ng5 Be5 20.Rxf7 exd5 21.f4 Bg7 22.f5 dxe4 23.Bxa5 bxa5 24.Bc4 Bc3+ 25.Kf2 e3+ 26.Kg3 Be5+ 27.Kxg4 Rd4+ 28.Kh3 Rxc4 29.f6 Bxf6 30.Rxf6 Re8 31.Re1 e2 32.Kg3 Ra4 33.Kf2 Rxa2 34.Ne6 a4 35.Rb1 a3 36.Rb7 e1=Q+ 37.Kxe1 Rxg2 38.Rg7+ Kh8 39.Rgf7 h5 40.Kf1 Rxh2 41.Rxg6 Rxe6 42.Rxe6 Kg8 43.Rxa7 1-0

```

# Answer
An artificial move is one that does not fit in with what would be typical of the plan. It means "unnatural" given the position.

In the game above, Bg4 is unusual, and only played 5.5% of the time in that position. Typically, 10...cxd4 is played there in an overwhelming majority of games, and the Bc8 often ends up on the d7 square as more suitable.
> 4 votes

# Answer
An artificial move would parry the immediate threat (if it didn't it would just be a bad move) but looks strange to an experienced player.

Artificial castling ,aka castling by hand, results in the position that would have been achieved by castling if that move were legally possible. EG the king or rook may have moved already but then end up in the same position as if castling had happened.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: annotation
---


title: What does 6 and 2 going mean?

text:
# Question
Title: What does 6 and 2 going mean?
I am watching an annotated chess game, and the narration goes like this:

> The game I am about to show you was played in the last round of an open tournament in Bad Weise, Germany. My score was 6 and 2 going.

What does the last sentence mean?

# Answer
"6 and 2 going" is not idiomatic English or chess-speak.

My first assumption is that there are words missing and the speaker actually said or meant "My score was 6 and 2 going into this round." This means that s/he earned 6 points out of the possible 8 in the previous 8 rounds (you get 1 point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss) before the game being annotated.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Bad Wiessee hosts a strong chess tournament every year. It generally has nine rounds. So although I'm not familiar with this exact expression, it is pretty clear that the speaker means that he scored 6 points out of 8 rounds before the final (and ninth) round. I have seen this kind of score being written as 6:2, possibly "six and two going" is the correct way to read this.

Edit: To clarify, the "2" is the number of points missing from a perfect score, not the number of games still to be played. In other sports it might be the number of losses. In chess it can also contain draws i.e. half points.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It means that he has won 6 and lost two (or equivalent scores with draws included) going into the last round and the game being shown was the last round game.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tournament, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Are there decided recent games with 1. b4 at top level?
I would like to have a survey of the decided games with 1.b4 since 2010, where both players had at least 2600 Elo.

chessgames.com allows to search games with given moves (with tight limits), but does not allow to search for Elo.

Can anyone help ?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The only games I could find meeting your criteria are

* Ivanchuk - Giri, Leon Masters (rapid) 2013
* Short - Caruana, London Classic (rapid) 2013

# Answer
> 0 votes
I found two games since 2010 by players \> 2600.

One in 2018, and one in 2013.

One reply by black was d5 the other e5.

Black had the overwhelming win ratio for all of the ones with that opening.

---
Tags: opening, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: How to disambiguate checking moves in descriptive notation?
**Question: In general, is noting a check/checkmate sufficient to disambiguate moves in descriptive notation?**

If for example two of the same type of piece could move to the same square, but one giving check and one not giving check while doing so, is it necessary to further distinguish between the moves when recording in descriptive notation?

Take for instance the following position:

```
r2k3r/pbp1bppp/1p3n2/2p3B1/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/2KR3R w - - 0 1

```

In algebraic notation, according to the FIDE Laws of Chess (Appendix C), we would write 1.Ndb5+ (or just 1.Ndb5) and 1.Ncb5. The '+' to mark checks is optional.

However in descriptive notation, what do we need to write? Is writing **1.N-N5ch** for 1.Ndb5+ and **1.N-N5** for 1.Ncb5 sufficiently clear, or do we need to specify **1.N(Q)-N5ch and 1.N(B)-N5**?

Further test cases to justify responses with:

1.Bb5+ and 1.Bg5: **1.B-N5ch and 1.B-N5**, or **1.B-QN5ch and 1.B-KN5**?

```
rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1

```

1.Qa8+ and 1.Qh8#: **1.Q-R8ch and 1.Q-R8 mate**, or **1.Q-QR8ch and 1.Q-KR8 mate**?

```
5k2/8/4K3/8/8/8/8/7Q w - - 0 1

```

1.Bxf7+ and 1.Bxc5: **1.BxPch and 1.BxP**, or **1.BxKBPch and 1.BxQBP**?

```
r1bq1rk1/p1bn1pp1/3p1n1p/1pp3N1/4P3/1BNPBR2/PPP1Q1PP/R5K1 w - - 0 1

```

Citations from sources (style guides for writing descriptive notation/actual books notating such a situation) to support answers would be appreciated.

# Answer
My understanding is that it's OK to use "ch" to disambiguate a move, but it's not OK to use the **absence** of "ch" to disambiguate. For example, in your first diagram, Ndb5 could be written as N-N5ch, but Ncb5 could not be written as simply N-N5.

I don't have a source stating that explicitly as a rule, but there is some support in Kenneth Harkness's *Official Chess Handbook*, "Approved by THE United States Chess Federation", David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 1967. One of the games illustrating descriptive notation goes 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 N-KB3, P-Q3; 3 B-B4, P-KB4; 4 P-Q4, PxKP; 5 NxP, PxN; 6 Q-R5ch, K-Q2; 7 Q-B5ch, K-B3; 8 QxP(5), P-QR3; 9 P-Q5ch, K-B4; 10 B-K3ch, KxB; 11 Q-Q4ch, K-N4; 12 N-B3ch, K-R4; 13 Q-R4 mate. The caption to the third diagram on p. 94 reads (emphasis added) as follows:

> Position after 7 ...K-B3; 8 QxP(5). **It is not advisable to write QxP, relying on the *omission* of check.** QxP(5) shows that the Queen captures the Pawn on *White's* fifth rank.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The general rule back then was to disambiguate first rather than with the result of the move when two or more of the same pieces could have been moved to the square in question.

In your example n/4-n5+ \[or n/3-n5\] would have been used to show that the horsie on Q4 was the one that moved. The person moving the pieces while playing over the game needs to know which one to move as they only later will then look at the entire board to see if there was check or other things that might have otherwise disambiguated the pieces.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: notation
---


# Question
Title: A script that can create a chess tree from an EPD file
Is there any script (any language) that can make a chess tree from an EPD file? Or what algorithm (any example) should be use to create it on my own?

I am looking for one like the Chessbase opening tree window. The EPD evalulation should be such that it is sorted by eval, but how I tell comp what position is first and what position is next one.

EDIT: tree example

# Answer
Not exactly. Both Chess Position Trainer and Chess Openings Wizard (the successor of Bookup) can create a tree manually or importing a PGN, export the positions to EPD, and import the evaluations from EPD, but won't create positions from an EPD, so they can't create trees from EPD.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have seen two softwares that does what you wish. Chess Position Trainer is one of them. The other is bookup.

Those softwares reads games in pgn and files containing epd positions with its evaluations in centipawns. This files contains the leaf nodes positions, generated by Chess Position Trainer for instance. You later analyze the epd file.

I use "GradualTest ver. 2.6" for this purpose. This program feeds the positions to an engine and writes the results to another file. I import the resulting file and the evaluations are added at the leaf positions. Later, the program propagates the valuations to the upstream positions, up to the root, applying the minimax algorithm.

Both programs are the best I have seen.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, programming, fen
---