# Question
Title: What are some physical chess simulators?
My father likes to play chess but doesn't have any friends who would play with him. I suggested him playing it on tablet device but he doesn't like the touchscreen interface. He needs to touch the pieces.

Has anyone built a physical chess simulator (electricity powered, AI included) that will move the pieces on its own? I didn't find on googling.

**EDIT.** on further thinking I think it's hard to have such technology without using robots (one cannot just slide all the pieces - like Knights). May be if the board blinks lights below the piece it wants to move (with green light) and target location with another light (say red), then we can move opponents piece on the physical board.

**Edit 2** Found this!: \[Novag Obsidian\] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAvribpPvA that kinda solves the problem. If you know better alternatives please post in answers.

# Answer
First of all you need to decide whether you want a **standalone/traditional chess computer** which basically allows you to play only against the built-in AI or whether you want a more **flexible solution** which allows you to play against humans over the internet or to play against or analyze with chess engines or database software on a PC.

## standalone/traditional chess computer

This includes the Novag Obsidian you linked or Saitek Kasparov or many others. As far as I am aware these type of computers have been largely deprecated in favour of PC/tablet/internet solutions. Still you should be able to find one new or second hand. With these types of computers the AI moves are usually indicated by LED, either on the side of the board (row/column) or by LEDs for each square. Apparently there is one (Phantom Force Electronic Chess by Excalibur) which even moves the pieces on its own, but does not have great reviews.

If you get one of these types of computers, make sure that the playing strength is sufficient for your purpose. Most of them can be beaten easily by somewhat experienced club players of say 2100 ELO or so.

## flexible solution

The cheapest solution is to get a cheap board and pieces for around USD 20 and use a PC/laptop/tablet to run a chess program or to access an online chess site to play against computer or human players. Of course this would mean that you still have to transfer manually your and your opponent's moves between the physical board and the computer/tablet.

You can get rid of half the work, if you buy an electronic chess board ("eboard") which you can connect to a PC. "DGT" is a major manufacturer of these boards and they ain't cheap. With such a board your moves are automatically transferred to the computer and/or online web site. You still have to manually move your opponent's piecesthough. There are several systems for indicating opponent moves. In any case you could take them from the PC/laptop/tablet screen, but there also exist chess clocks (DGT Pi) which can display moves or chess boards with LED (Revelation II).

Playing strength is not an issue at all with any of these since modern chess engines that you run on a PC/tablet/... are stronger than the strongest humans.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Do you mean?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS5EPbsmCXs

I don't know how you'd get his robot, but it won't be affordable.

Have you seen this page?

> https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Robots
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chessboards
---


# Question
Title: Is there any benefit at all to a rooks' pawn opening?
Many beginners open the game with moving their a or h pawns. Is there any benefit at all with this opening?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Apart from the fact that you can develop your rooks (which **isn't good** so early in the opening, because your rooks might become vulnerable), the only other "benefit" I can think of is that `a4` (more likely than `h4`) can be useful after some transposition to a normal opening, e.g. stopping black from playing `b5`.

That being said, black can comfortably choose (thanks to your gift of a tempo) an opening where `a4` is useless.

The other move `1. h4` is even more problematic because castling kingside is much more frequent than castling queenside and `h4` weakens the pawn shield in front of your king.

---

So I don't think it's worth calling these possibilities benefits at all.

# Answer
> 11 votes
1.a3 is a semi-respectable opening called Anderssen's Opening, and since he beat Paul Morphy(http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019048) with it, it cant be so ridiculous. He used it to enter an English opening or a reversed Sicilian. I think Larsen once did the same.

There is at least one trap. Black plays a reversed Scotch 1.a3 e5,2.e4 Nf6, 3.Nc3 d5, 4eXd Nxd4 5. Qh5. This move is playable, and very lively, on the fourth move of the regular Scotch, but it's not played much because of 5. Ndb5 which is not available here.

Beginners would probably disapprove of 1.a3, on the grounds that it does not give them enough freedom of action to put their Rook en prise.

# Answer
> 6 votes
GM Hector once opened with `1. h4` and (with a bit of luck) won the game:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Dinard open"]
[Date "1986.??.??"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jonny Hector"]
[Black "Paul Boersma"]

1. h4 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. Nf3 c5 4. Bg5 cxd4 5. Bxf6 gxf6 6. Qxd4
Nc6 7. Qa4 Rg8 8. c3 Qb6 9. Qc2 Bf5 10. Qxf5 Qxb2 11. e3 e6
12. Qxh7 Rg4 13. Qd3 Qxa1 14. Qc2 Rc8 15. Nfd2 Nb4 16. Qd1 f5
17. cxb4 Qb2 18. Bb5+ Kd8 19. Ke2 Qxb4 20. Bd3 Rxg2 21. Nf3
Bd6 22. Nbd2 Ke7 23. Qa1 Bg3 24. Rf1 f4 25. e4 Rc3 26. exd5
Qc5 27. d6+ Kd7 28. Qb2 Qe3+ 29. Kd1 Qxd3 30. Ne5+ Kxd6
31. Nxd3 Rxd3 32. Qb4+ 1-0

```

I thought one idea behind the move `1. h4` was to play the Albin Countergambit with the extra attacking move `h4`,

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Reversed Albin"]
[Startply "12"]

1. h4 d5 2. d4 c5 3. e4 dxe4 4. d5

```

but according to my database this has actually never happened in a real game, so I might be mistaken.

The book *Groteske Schacheröffnungen: Wagnis mit Methode* (1991, in German) by Stefan Bücher has a chapter about `1. h4`.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are benefits and drawbacks to each move in chess. The benefits to h4 or a4 is that they grab space, control squares in the enemy territory, and increase the scope of the rook. Some of the drawbacks to opening like this are: 1. They don't fight for the center 2. They impact castling options 3. They don't promote the development of the Bishops

# Answer
> 1 votes
`1. h3` has the potential to transpose into normal openings, as it is quite common to play `h3` to prevent `...Bg4` pinning a knight on `f3`.

For example this move order quickly becomes a four knights Italian game:

```
[FEN ""]

1. h3 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bc4

```

One other transposition possibility is that white can play the Grob, but that opening has a dubious reputation.

```
[FEN ""]

1. h3 e5 2. g4

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Rook pawn openings are not as inherently useful as they are detrimental. The only value I can see for them is if your goal is to get the other player out of book as soon as possible. This goal implies that you are a better positional/tactical player than your opponent and that stranding him without a roadmap is all you would need to win; otherwise, you are stranding yourself as well.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Why do chess coaches encourage their students to play stronger players?
I am a 1400 rated player. We have 4 players in our club rated 2000+. If I sat down and played 100 games against one of them, I would lose 100 games. So, how does losing 100 games against one of these strong players EVER make me a better player? \[sadly, none of them ever gives a post mortem\].

# Answer
It's partially who the opponent is, and partially how much better the opponent is.

I've gone from ~1750 to almost 1900 in the last year (approximate as ECF grades - 142-158 to those who understand ECF). In that time I've played a lot of players who are appreciably better than me. **But not massively better**; most have been 1850-2100. That meant I could still give them a challenge, even if I was stretched to hold them for the whole game. In fact a major moment in that improvement was I when I had to play my first ~2050+ player in that period, I was sort of doing OK but a little worse, and then I suddenly realised he a had let me off the hook. This 2050 player had made a mistake! I can not explain quite how much confidence that gave me, and I went on to draw the game, and in fact missed a win along the way. The whole episode set me up for the season, and the game is below.

So that's the first point, good enough so that you see and understand their plans, and that they stretch you, but also not so good that it's wham, bang, thank you mam. The second point is that a lot of the players I have played in this period have been kind enough to go through the games with me. This helped me understand their expectations, and often showed me ideas that I had not even considered. This was coupled with has the 2100+ player at my (small) club helping me, The later in particular clarified my impressions of my opponents plans, helped me identify some of my tactical weaknesses and showed me what both of us had missed over the board.

So for you I suspect 2000+ is a bit rich. But look for players who are

* Around 100-300 higher than you
* Are kind enough to spend at least a few minutes afterwards going through the games
* And then take the games to your trainer to check your opponent wasn't talking rubbish

Anyway here's the game that I referred to earlier. It's at move 19 I had my epiphany.

```
[Event "A Match in the League"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "Somebody Scary"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "148"]
[BlackElo "178"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Bc5 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.O-O a6 8.Qe2
    ( 8.e5 )
8...b5 9.Bb3 Nge7 10.e5 Ng6 11.Ne4 Be7 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.exd6 O-O 14.Bg5 f6
15.Bd2 Nge5 16.Rac1 Bb7 17.Nxe5 fxe5 18.f4?!
    ( 18.Bc2 )
18...exf4 19.Bxf4 Qh4
    ( 19...Nd4! )
20.g3 Qh3
    ( 20...Nd4! )
21.Rfd1 Qf5 22.Bc2 Qf6 23.Qh5 g6 24.Qc5 Rab8?!
    ( 24...Rac8! )
25.Bb3 Rfc8 26.Qe3 Rf8 27.Rc5 Rbc8 28.h4 Na5 29.Rxc8 Rxc8 30.Bxe6+ dxe6
31.d7 Rf8 32.d8=Q
    ( 32.Bg5! Nc4 33.Bxf6 Nxe3 34.d8=Q Rxd8 35.Rxd8+ )
32...Rxd8 33.Rxd8+ Qxd8 34.Qxe6+ Kg7 35.Be5+ Kh6 36.Bf4+ Kg7 1/2-1/2

```
> 24 votes

# Answer
I don't think any coach would say that you should only play opponents rated 600+ higher than you. Here's for example what Dan Heisman says, which I think makes a lot of sense:

> Play mostly opponents 100-200 points higher than you - you need to be punished for your mistakes so you won't make them again...
>
> ...but don't completely stop playing opponents 100-200 points lower than you - they are the ones whom you have to learn to beat consistently.

http://www.danheisman.com/improvelearn.html

In my opinion, it is also easier to stay motivated if you win at least some of the time. Playing much higher rated opponents from time to time is interesting, but I wouldn't do it exclusively.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Ultimately you have to do the analysis of "why did he do that" in game and under time pressure. Having it explained to you immediately post game is counterproductive. You need the opportunity to go away and analyze the game and then if you still do not understand it come back and talk to your opponent or coach about it. That way you learn to do the analysis yourself.

Consistently playing much stronger players gives you access to much richer learning experiences in this respect. If you remove the artificial objective of rating and aim to become a better player.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You learn from defeats when your mistakes are punished and made plain for you to see. You learn nothing from victories where your mistakes go unpunished and your ego is given an unwarranted boost.

No coach, by the way, advises that you play against opposition which is 600 points higher rated. That said you can still learn a lot from games against them. Try, for instance, to play lines which give you problems when you face them to see how the stronger player handles them. Then you can take that new knowledge back into your games against lower rated opposition.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Although I've never had serious coaching, most advice I have had revolves around making mistakes and attempting to learn from them. (Alongside structured opening and endgame theory etc)

This is best done by playing, and inevitably by playing opponents graded higher than yourself - although 600 points higher is unnecessary and you are unlikely to learn much from players that much higher rated.

For example, if you regularly lose to a player rated higher than yourself - you may find a pattern of ways in which you are losing, for example, creating weak pawn structures for yourself, or slow development. Not only working out what is missing from your game, you may also see aspects of opponents games which you then bring into your own playing style.

I've played for about 12 years now and the year in which I improved the most was when I was playing in a higher division against players averaging around 200-300 points higher than myself.

Edit:

Also regarding opponents not giving post mortems, although useful, going through the game yourself to attempt to work out where you may have gone wrong or could improve can be just as useful than a player explaining how they beat you.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think because by beating lower rated players you run the risk of ingraining bad habits. A higher rated player is apt to punish your play for doing something you shouldn't do.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I believe it all comes down to the learning process. Having the possibility to play against players that are stronger than you is a strong asset that you should use most of the time.

Let me give you an example. You have 1400ELO. If you play against 2k+ you'll get destroyed every game. After that when you play against 1.6k and you are close to their level and learn the small differences of why you get beat. The other thing you do learn is how much of a difference there is between 1.6k and 2k+. It shows you how much you could learn and at what pace.

The important thing in this is seeing the differences and what you have to learn, just like at school/university at the first class you see the whole curriculum for the year. It sets your mind at peace and harmony and prepares it for the task at hand.

Hope this helps.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not sure how one coach's opinion makes it that all chess coaches are like that.

The best advice that I would give you as a coach would be "Play as many Open tournaments as possible" because in the Open category, you are likely to meet equal, weaker, stronger players and at the end of the tournament, you would have a lot of points to improve upon. Play with me on Chess dot com and I will be happy to give you a post-mortem of the game at the end of it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
To expose poor play and mistakes. To punish. To push the player to play better moves and learn new ideas.

All the obvious stuff.

Once you divorce yourself from your love of your rating, it's pretty obvious.

Edit: FYI - 200 point difference is sufficient. You should not play players consistently rated 600+ points above you. 200 is a good threshold. The same goes for reverse - don't play players frequently rated 200+ points below you. If you have the choice, always "play up".
> 0 votes

---
Tags: training
---


title: Improving my ability to scan the board

text:
# Question
Title: Improving my ability to scan the board
This seems like a silly noob question...but I am a silly noob. Sitting at around 600 (and floating there in both tactics and in 30 minute games) I've noticed I give away material or extend the game considerably sometimes because I just don't *see the moves needed*.

I know that the trope I read all the time is "tactics, tactic, tactics", and I have been doing tactics for around an hour or so a day in addition to my daily games. I've noticed significant improvement in my ability to see attacks and play smart - but my problem seems to consistently be missing important moves for pieces. Especially in regards to 2 and 3 move mates.

One thing I do is I look for pieces under attack, and start to evaluate moves from there. If no pieces are under attack, I look around the board at pieces that I can improve their positions on. My issue seems to be target fixation:

```
[FEN "r4rk1/p1p4p/1p6/3pP3/P3nppq/1Q2PP2/4K1PP/R4BNR w KQkq - 0 0"]

```

Here, the actual move is to move the queen in for a *mate in 2*, however my first instinct is to notice the queen is protecting a square I can put my knight on, and guarantee a capture of their rook at h1. I don't think I made a terrible move, however it appears I have trouble spotting these easy mates. Additionally, sometimes I fixate on the check and put pieces in peril unnecess

Is there a way I can scan the board more effectively? Or does it come down to just getting beaten down over and over again in tactics until I learn to see them?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Skill in chess is all about pattern recognition. You are doing the right thing with the extra tactics training, and as you said, you can definitely see improvement, right? Unfortunately, that is a slow process with no easy shortcut.. but don't worry, if you follow the path you are on, you will be able to spot a mate like in your example easily one day.

In fact, you already do see patterns ("Enemy rook trapped by own knight and pawn, I can win it with my knight on f2"), which is good. Your main problem is that your "map" of patterns is still very incomplete. And of course, it is only natural to focus on a pattern you see immediately and which is already favorable for you, instead of one that you don't know by heart yet. As said, the right priorities will come with time as you fill the blank spots on your map.

It is a good idea and might accelerate this process a bit if you try to get into the habit of ALWAYS calculating all possible checks each move. Especially point blank checks with a queen are rarely a bad idea (this is a pattern too, one that you want to have higher in your priority list). In all honesty, your example isn't that obvious a mate to see at first glance as you might think. The king first looks to have a lot of space to flee to on the queenside. My instinct in a real game (where you don't get told that there's a mate in 2 now) would probably be something like: "Let's see.. point blank check! Always good! Let's do that. Now, before I move, let's check his escape. d1 and d3 (pattern: point blank queen checks only offer 2 escape squares in the way a knight moves). Hm. Kd1 is an obvious mate (pattern: king at border, queen can move right next to him and is protected there), but d3 is kinda out in the open, which is bad when I only have 2 pieces to attack him further. But wait! The pawn on d5 covers c4 and e4! These are the escape squares from a queen check on d2, so this actually is mate, too! Cool."

Long story short, when I start calculating Qf2+, I don't see the mate either, it only becomes obvious after a few seconds of calculation. Hopefully you can draw some hope from that - you are only missing some links, not the whole chain ;) So, keep up your work, focus a bit more on calculating forcing moves (checks), and you should be fine. Good luck!

PS: I am assuming the white king should actually stand on e2, otherwise your example makes no sense.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Playing regularly, and playing a lot of games, will normally improve your sight of the board. Constant practice is a method for improvement in chess as in other disciplines. The more positions you see, the more familiar you will become with them and start recognizing familiar patterns. In the position you have shown, you should immediately focus on the weak f2 square, and you should be looking for mate or a check first rather than just winning the rook, since ending the game quickly if possible should be a priority. The move 1..., Qf2+ leads to mate in two no matter where the white king goes, either to d1 or d3, by 2..., Qd2#.

# Answer
> 0 votes
An initial assessment of material is always a good idea, followed by subsequent layers of assessment: possible tactics, pawns structure, piece activity, etc.... I usually look at my side as say to myself: Q-M-M-M-R-R (M being minor pieces - no other distinction at this point); then the opponents side: Q-M-M-R-R...In this case, I'm up a piece so trading down is my major strategy - any move I make should fall within this theme.

And yes, being beaten over and over again initially is a part of the process, sorry to say.

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Can someone explain this endgame puzzleto me with words?
I came across this puzzle today: white to play and win.

For those who don't know this, it's a *drill* from chess.com: you have to play against the computer and win this.

The thing is, I really have no clue of what I should be aiming for. Even when following a computer's recommendations, I don't understand the solution.

Do you think this position can be explained with words or concepts? If so I'd love to hear about it.

```
8/5pk1/6p1/8/2K2PP1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
To solve this you need to ask yourself 2 questions:

1) How could the position change so that Black can draw? White must try and avoid this.

2) How could the position change so that Black can no longer protect his pawn(s)?

1) Suppose White just pushes g5. Then Black can never be forced away from the defence of f7. Either the white king will move between e7 and e8 when the black king can just move between g7 and g8 (opposition doesn't matter) or white king will come to f6 when the black king can just oscillate between g8 and f8 and white can make no progress. White must avoid this.

Also if the f pawns end up on f7 (black) and f6 (white) and black can stop white's king getting to e7 then white will not be able to make progress. For example white king on d6 black king on e8 black to move plays Kd8 taking the opposition preventing white progress. On this side black has the space to always keep the opposition. White must also avoid this.

2) If white can achieve a position with the f pawn ahead of the g pawn with the king advanced to the e file one square ahead of the f pawn then black can be continuously zugzwanged into undefending his back pawn and white will win. This is because the white f pawn takes away a square from the black king and stops it triangulating when the white king triangulates.

The same applies if the g pawns come off, the f pawns are locked and the white king reaches the same position.

Another possibility is if the white king can reach the eighth rank and get behind the black pawns because his pawns will be more advanced.

So, the way to start is with Kd5. The aim is to get the king to e7 and then push the f pawn to try and get it to f6.

If black responds with Kf6 then after Kd6 from white black is in zugzwang and we get in Ke7 next move. Then white just pushes the f pawn up to f6.

If black responds with Kf8 or Kg8 then white plays Kd6 and if black keeps his king on f8 and e8 keeping the white king out of e7 then white pushes the f pawn. If black exchanges then white can push up to f7 when black will be zugzwanged into allowing Ke7 when white will win. If black pushes his pawn to g5 then white must not push f6 immediately or black will gain the opposition and it will be a draw. Instead white should outflank the black king with Kc7 aiming for Kc8. Then white can gain the opposition and play f6 if black defends the eighth rank with Ke8. If black abandons the eighth rank with Kd6 then white moves along the eighth rank and takes the f pawn winning.

A cunning ploy by black would be to reply to Kd5 with Kh6 with the aim of f5 if white continues on with Kd6. Then either white swaps pawns and black gets the opposition or white pushes g5+ and black comes round the back with Kh5 and they take each others' back pawn and it is a draw. White must instead reply to Kh6 with Ke5. Then black must play Kg7 to stop the white king coming in to f6. Now white plays Kd6 and we are back to plan A.

So, the problem relies very heavily on zugzwanging black in positions where the advanced white f pawn takes away a key square from the black king and also the idea that once the white f pawn is advanced if black abandons the eighth rank then white takes it and wins the black f pawn and will queen well before black.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In the starting position, White's King is not helping the advance of his pawns. With any pawn move, the Black King is too close and can force at least a Draw.

The question becomes, which King move, Kd5 seems the most natural to me (and turns out to be the winning move) because you're moving your King closer to everything. You allow your King to start to attack his pawns and prevent black's King from escaping towards the center. (There are some puzzles where moving your King backwards (i.e. Kd3) is the hard to find winning move, but this isn't one)

After Kd5, Black doesn't have a good move. Kf6, allows White to move his King up the board (Kd6), blocking the Black King's advance and forcing a retreat back behind the pawns (Kg7). (The only pawn move instead of a retreat loses to white pushing his newly attacked pawn).

If instead, Black responded with Kf8, White still marches on with Kd6. Black is forced back to g7 (Black continuing along the back rank with Ke8 opens the door for White's invasion of the black pawn structure with Ke5 followed by Kf6).

Eventually, White's King forces his way to the back rank, and behind the pawn at the end of the chain (Kf8), forcing the Black King away from the pawn on f8 and winning the pawn and the game. Meanwhile, White's connected pawns support each other against a King or pawn advance.

---
Tags: learning, endgame, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Engine evaluation in endgame not increasing, what it means?
I have plenty of endgames that engine evaluates like +1, even +2, not changing much for like 50-100 halfmoves, repeating, playing without plan. Defending side seems to be always just in time on right corresponding squares to hold. The evaluations are from 2m+2s engine blitz games, starting from low material endgame position, plenty of time to make good calculations in bishop/rook/knight endgame I think. How certain can I be such positions are really draws? Is it possible that engines would miss winning line with so much time more than exceptionally? Not in study type positions but in normal practical endgames. Is for example sightseeing tour with king from g4 to g8 through a4 in opposite colored bishop 3 vs. 1 still beyond horizon of engines? They often don't use easy plan I would try to win the game and I wonder if they see all the corresponding drawing setups all over the board or if they are still living in a box in technical endgames.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In the endgame engines will give one of three kinds of evaluation according to what they "see".

1) #31 - mate in 31. Material balance is irrelevant.

2) 0.0 - they see a forced draw. Material balance is irrelevant.

3) +2 or -1 or whatever - they don't see mate and they don't see a forced draw. They do see a material imbalance. Any concrete result is outside their move threshold and realistically any one of three results is possible. If the evaluation doesn't change much over a prolonged number of moves it shows that one side has a material advantage but can't use it to win as far as the computer can "see".

Remember computers don't have judgement. They are just calculating machines. They can only tell you what they calculate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess engines are notoriously optimistic in endgame positions. I'm sure Stockfish would give you a healthy margin for many theoretical drawn rook endgames, where the defending side is a pawn down.

You can't just look at the evaluation score. You should try to interpret the engine line, and use your common sense. If you have something like +8, most likely it's a win but +1 isn't always sufficient.

Engines are not perfect, and they may not evaluate a long-term strategic position correctly. Opposite colour bishops are good example.

Do you know you can use Syzygy 6-men tablebase to boost your engine endgame performance. Most serious engine users have tablebase.

---
Tags: engines, endgame, evaluation
---


title: What is 'control?'

text:
# Question
Title: What is 'control?'
One of the important factors to take into account is 'control' of squares, ranks, files and diagonals. But what exactly, does it mean when we say that a player 'controls' space?

The reason I ask is that many, many times, I have seen commentators say 'white plays Re1 to control the open e-file'. I was looking at a game some time ago, and sure enough, this comment was made. But when I looked at the postion, the only other square that the rook could occupy WITHOUT BEING CAPTURED was e2. It couldn't occupy any other square along that file, all of which were covered by black. So, how can you say that the rook was 'controlling' the e-file?

# Answer
Controlling squares or lines means that the other player cannot contest that square or line without taking a loss, such as in material.

Let us consider an endgame:

```
[FEN "4k3/8/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[StartPly "1"]

1. Ke6 {[%draw full,d7,green][%draw full,e7,green][%draw full,f7,green]} Kd8 2. Kf7 {[%draw full,e8,green][%draw full,e7,green][%draw full,e6,green]} Kd7 3. e5 {[%draw full,e8,green][%draw full,e7,green][%draw full,e6,green][%draw full,d6,green]}

```

After 1. Ke6, the king controls the d7, e7 and f7 squares, as black cannot go to those squares, and so on.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The usage of the word "control" in chess actually does fit its lexical definition pretty well:

> **to exercise restraining or directing influence**

If the rook on e1 in your example restrains the opponent's pieces to occupy squares on that file, he does have this influence.

At the same time, since he can't move very far, these pieces do have "control" of (most of) the e-file *at the same time*.

"Control" is *not* binary, and you might have been confused by the assumption that it is. Between full white control and full black control of a square, there are many shades in between. E.g., in your example, both sides have some "control" over the e-file. They can't advance first, but they can punish the other side if it does. There are other cases where the control is more absolute and the controlling side can occupy the controlled squares whenever it wants to.

A piece doesn't even need to be able to occupy a square in its next move to exercise "control" over it! For example, a fianchettoed bishop often has some form of control over its diagonal, even while a friendly knight still sits in his way (because there always is the threat of it moving away). Or, in your example, the rook may still "control" the e-file with a white bishop on e2 (to a lesser degree. It mostly restrains the black queen).

Another form of "control" is by bodyblocking the opponent's pieces from reaching some square(s). This is often meant in sentences like "White's last pawn move allows him to control more space" - the actual number of squares the pawn can control *directly* is fixed(2), but it now might also restrain the opponent from occupying the squares behind it (depends on the context).
> 8 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Why are the symbols 0-0 and 0-0-0 used for castling in algebraic notation?
I'm curious about why the symbols O-O and O-O-O are used for castling in algebraic notation. Why not use the consistent and logical Kg1/Kc1 for White and Kg8/Kc8 for Black? Why adopt the less than obvious O-O and O-O-O from descriptive notation?

# Answer
> 16 votes
The castling notation was invented by Johann Allgaier and used for the first time in his 1811 2nd edition of his *Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel*.

He didn't explain why he came up with it.

Allgaier (and algebraic notation in general) used digit-0. The use of letter-O is an anglo-saxon oddity.

# Answer
> 8 votes
A notation like Kg1 would give the impression that only the king is moved. At the very least, it is not *obvious* that castling moves the rook as well.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The point is to make it obvious it's a castling move. It's important because that's the only time in a game that you can move two pieces.

Note that computers represent the moves as Kc1 and Kg1, so both ways work. O-O and O-O-O are easier for humans to read.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In my opinion, 0-0 and 0-0-0 are used to differentiate castling from ordinary king moves. The castling maneuver then stands out in the game notation, as opposed to say Kc8 which appears - on the surface anyway - to be an ordinary, one square, king move ... until you look closer to see if the king is actually moving more than one square. It also helps to clearly indicate king-side (short) or queen-side (long) castling at a glance.

I think at least as compared to things like ?! or !? it makes a lot of sense.

Oddly, it's the only carry-over from the Descriptive (P-K4) to Algebraic (e4) notation.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Kg1/Kg8 or Kc1/Kc8 are Singular moves where the King only moves during the Game . Since before the Algebraic Notation Descriptive Notation was used which was quite cumbersome & lengthy Algebraic was a short hand . Why 0-0 & 0-0-0 was exactly used is quite inexplicable but this is the only move in International Chess where two pieces are moving simultaneously . In K-side Castling K is moving two squares and in Q-side Castling it is moving three Squares .

So it might have seen an innovative way of recording the Castling move since King is the most important piece in a Chess Game 0-0/0-0-0 was a royal move indicating King is going inside the castle and the Battle Begins .

---
Tags: history, castling, notation
---


title: Was this sacrifice a good one?

text:
# Question
Title: Was this sacrifice a good one?
Upon reviewing a game I played. I started to feel bad about exchanging my attacking bishop for my opponent’s useless one. But I believe that I had no other choices. I want your opinion about what I should have done in this situation.

I am a 1200 rated player on chess.com

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d4 d6 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Nh6 7.O-O a6 8.a4 Nd7 9.Nc3 c6 10.b4 Bxb4 11.Na2 Bf8 12.Bd2 Nf7 13.Bxf7 Nc5 14.Ba5+ Kd7 15.Rfd1+ Ke7 16.Bb3 Nxe4 17.Rd8 b6 18.Bxb6 Rb8 19.Rad1 Rxb6 20.Rxc8

```

In the end I won by checkmate because he blundered. What I want to know is how should I handle positions where my opponent is just attacking my attacking pieces. Additionally, please try to find where my weak points are in the game.

# Answer
Given that you are a piece up with a dominating position, exchanging the bishops isn't a problem at all. Note, that it is just an exchange, not a sacrifice.

You could have played 19.Bc7 instead, in that case black has to react 19…Ra8 or he will lose even more material (for example 19…Rb7 20.Rxc8 Kd7 21. Rxf8 with three pieces for a rook, which is a bit much …).

Concerning your weaknesses:

Only 10.b4 strikes me as truly bad, blundering a pawn and misplacing your knight. And 15.Nc3 would have prevented your second pawn blunder.

So you won this game because your opponent blunders pieces whereas you only blunder pawns. Stop blundering pawns and you'll start beating those players that blunder pawns. And then we'll talk about why 2…f6 is a bad move and how to punish it.
> 8 votes

# Answer
18... Rb8 19.Bc7

He cannot continue with 19... Rb7 (you will simply capture his bishop for free).

Now if you play 20.Rad1 and follow with 21.R1d7+, he will be forced to capture your rook with his light bishop (otherwise you are going to soon capture both his queenside pawns for free), you would reply by taking his rook with your d8 rook and then destroy his two queen-side pawns. Your victory is then guaranteed!
> 0 votes

# Answer
Here are my thoughts - sorry, thought you were playing black. Hopefully still of value to you.....

2...f6 was indeed bad...resulting in Nxe5 followed by Queen incursion.

4...dxe5 is bad, allowing queen trade and subsequent loss of castling privilege. Losing the right to castle while every other piece is still on board is bad. Queens alone being removed does not make it safe enough. Can you see how white's early castling "doubles down" on black's inability to castle - making that disadvantage stand out even more?

6...Nh6 is also bad, inviting doubled pawns. Although the trading of pieces WOULD suit the black uncastled king. Is that bit of safety worth the doubled pawns? Is a question to try and answer.

9...c6 is a lot of pawn moves so far and has weakened the dark squares around the black king - AND white still has his dark squared bishop. It appears as if 7...a6 was preparing for a later ...b5 (which WOULD give the black white-squared bishop the nice long diagonal) except that 8...b5 doesn't work here because of white's earlier 8. a4 It looks like maybe black noticed this a little late and decided on 9...c6 instead. Yet this is the type of calculation to try before committing to moves. Black shouldn't have felt compelled to make another pawn move in the vicinity JUST because he suddenly realized that ...b5 wouldn't work.

12...Nf7 just losses a piece outright. Black is now down a piece, therefore positional considerations like pawn structure or active/inactive piece are really not relevant for him now. Unless the lost piece provided an irresistible initiative that outweighed material, then positional considerations take a back seat to material and should not be considered on par with it. Once material balance is restored, positional factors regain their importance.

As to your question:

1. How should I handle such conditions where my opponent Is just attacking my attacking pieces?...Before putting your pieces into positions of attack, you should try to calculate whether your opponent can easily just chase them. If he can, perhaps a short term plan could involve a way to PREVENT him from easily chasing them?
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame, sacrifice, advantage
---


# Question
Title: Has anyone used the Anki decks to learn tactics?
I'm trying to learn how to build a deck in Anki so that I can improve my play by creating positions that I need to learn and by improving tactics. I'm looking for a guide on that process.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, what exactly do you want to know? The essentials are very simple: Have a "front side" showing a tactical position and a "back side" showing the answer. For the former you can just use images taken from scans. But there's also a note type available for Anki which lets you store positions in FEN notation. Search for "chess" on AnkiWeb to find it. This method is more memory efficient (and in some cases looks better), but might require a little more work than images, unless you also have the puzzles in e.g. PGN format.

I started out as an absolute beginner a little less than a year ago. I'm still a beginner and at the very bottom of food chain in the chess club I joined recently, but compared to from where I started I have improved a lot.

In my informed opinion spaced repetition in learning chess aims at pattern recognition. In other words: It's not about actually memorizing the solutions (so don't bother creating very short repetition circles), but developing an intuition for where possible solutions might be. In effect, though, it trains tactical intuition more than calculation. So I find that I need to compliment my Anki training not only with actual play, but also with solving composed mate-in-2 puzzles that I set up on the board to improve my board vision and calculation ability.

The specifics of what types of puzzles/questions are suitable depend on your level of play. As always with spaced repetition the cards should have clear, unambigous, easy to state answers. Though what exactly constitutes a "clear, unambigous, easy to state answer" probably differs from person to person and today I find solutions clear that were confusing to me a year ago. That being said, at my level basic tactics still work best. I gave up on creating more strategic cards for now, until my abilities have improved.

I guess that, since this is about pattern recognition, it matters what book you are using. I'm using Susan Polgar's tactics book for tactical motifs and the mate-in-two puzzles from L. Polgars 5000-something book for piece-interaction, mating patterns etc. Since solving puzzles on your smart phone is a great way to pass the time in the subway, I also have a deck with beginner puzzles from the 'Manual of chess combinations': unlike with the other two, I don't put any pressure on myself to go through this deck every day, but use it only when I want some 'extra chess'.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Anki help you to review and to keep in your memory tactics and other things, but for learning you need to work, after work anki is the tool.

Best regards.

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: How to balance the game for uneven players
I want to play chess with my wife, but we have different ranks (I am approximately 1900, and she is ~1500 (probably less based on comments)). Normally, our games are boring for me.

I tried to balance the game by playing without the queen, but I still win the game. I am looking for some tactics to balance the game based on ranking difference?

# Answer
**In addition to other suggestions, you could consider a chess variant that may even the playing field.**

**Chess960** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960) \[previously called Fischer Random, but renamed to avoid potential conflict/discussion over Bobby Fischer who invented it\], for example is a variant that randomizes the positioning of the back-rank pieces. Unlike other randomization variants, this one strongly attempts to keep everything else about the game the same. The rules of piece placement are:

-The two sides are mirrored, as in regular chess.

-The king must be between the two rooks \[this allows for castleing, which involves moving the king to the 'traditional' kingside or queenside castleing positions\].

-The two bishops must be on opposite colours.

This leaves 960 possible positions, which can be chosen at random through various means (check the wikepedia page for details).

**The benefit of chess960 in this case, is that it eliminates *some* of the advantage inherent in opening position theory.**

By the midgame, a typical Chess960 game looks like a regular chess game (except perhaps for some oddly placed pieces here or there). Ultimately it opens up like a regular chess game, but you can't memorize any opening lines. For a 1500-1900 match-up, opening theory likely makes a significant edge between the two of you. Of course, there is some small learning curve to starting to play chess960, but as you are both learning it for the first time, you will both have that curve together. Of course, a skill difference would still exist, so even with Chess960 it may be required to still give your wife a rook/ minor piece for the full handicap.

**A particular copyrighted variant that creates an even greater randomization aspect, is "Knightmare Chess" http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/**. This game introduces cards with various impacts on the game ("This turn your pawn can move twice, etc."). The random element decreases the net impact of a skill differential somewhat, as luck plays a fairly large element.
> 9 votes

# Answer
(Disclaimer: this is my first post on this network, and in all honesty both you and your wife could probably beat me at a game. But I do have years of experience of finding handicaps to make chess games more even and enjoyable.)

* **Time advantage**: this probably depends on your situation. Some people are great at untimed and terrible at rapid, but tinkering about with time differences until you find a healthy compromise has the positive of being very flexible as it can be fine-tuned very precisely. I find the pressure is greatest on the stronger player when you use a time per move system rather than a time per game - and the weaker player can play untimed.
* **Further piece advantages**: I've never needed to go much beyond a queen handicap, but I imagine two rooks or a queen and minor piece would be the next step.
* **Blindfold chess**: you could try playing without being able to look at the board (while your wife can), if you've ever done blindfold chess before or feel you have enough experience/memory to try. A somewhat easier version might be to only allow you to look at the board while it's your turn, which only makes sense if you're using time controls.
* **Help her to improve**: it may be that the two of you playing against each other doesn't make sense with such a large difference in skill. How about you play practice matches where you offer her tips and guidance, allow her to undo any blunders and teach her until she is at a similar skill level?
> 23 votes

# Answer
For several years I organized an odds-giving tournament for my club during the summer months with a sliding scale from pawn-and-move to queen based on rating difference. For good measure we added a time handicap as well. I do think that if you can beat your wife at Queen odds then the difference in your ratings must be much more than you say.

Equalizing the chances under those conditions, in a way that is fun for both of you, calls for extreme measures. Have you tried giving her the right to retract her move a certain number of times in each game?
> 9 votes

# Answer
I don't believe chess really lends itself to such handicapping. She could have a time advantage but it probably wouldn't help since beginners lack ability, not time. More time spent analyzing inefficiently will not substantively help.

I would recommend you switch games, frankly. Shogi, a cousin of chess has a tried-and-true handicapping system. It's a great game, too.

Pieces in Shogi are weaker on the whole, somewhat more numerous, and never really leave the game - they switch sides. Thus a handicap of a piece in Shogi is less severe than a similar handicap in chess, and with more pieces, there is more freedom in the handicapping.

As you can see in these links, this isn't ad hoc. They're serious about both players having a challenging game.
> 8 votes

# Answer
A solution I have employed with my girlfriend, who is interested in improving at chess, is to begin with the endgame.

Setting up a winning late-game position such as a rook, bishop and three pawns vs a knight and two pawns provides a learning experience for the weaker player on how to leverage existing advantages and close out the game. More pieces can gradually be introduced to dilute the impact of the advantage.

For the stronger player, the goal is surviving as long as possible or attempting to get to a drawn position.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The way I have always done this is with time.

Start with 5 minutes each on the clocks, no increments. Then the winner gets one minute less and loser one minute more for each subsequent game until equilibrium is reached (players start to alternate wins). If it gets down to 9 v 1 and 9 still wins then the loser gets 9 min 30 seconds and the winner 30 seconds. I've never had it go beyond that.

EDIT: I just got back from the Isle of Man prize giving and after tournament party. IM Lawrence Trent (~2400) was playing blitz / bullet with Caruana with 3 minutes to Caruana's 1 minute and losing in a proportion of about 2 to 1. He then took on Nakamura with 5 minutes to Nakamura's 45 seconds with similar results. So, this is the normal way of handicapping even at the highest levels.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You can try switching sides every 5 moves or so - a good workout for you too: to try and improve a poor position.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Chess doesn't seem to handicap as well as other games. This is why my wife and I don't play chess together (even though we both play chess). We play other games instead, where we are much more even (my greater rating in chess comes from years of being coached, not so much from natural ability).

If your wife is interested in learning, you can give her problems from a book, or play through endings (at her level, not yours), but both of these tend to leave the thinking on her end, while you are waiting patiently. I currently just put a problem up on the demo board in our house for my wife and kids to solve, and field questions about it, and play online if I want a game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Let your wife make two moves for every move you get to make. The big rule is that the weaker player can't move the same piece more than once in one turn. It's extremely frustrating for the higher ranked player, but it is playable and you can still win the game so over all it is a lot more balanced. It also gets the weaker player to plan more, but weaker players do seem to get more sloppy with this rule set. It's an interesting way to even out the playing field, but it's probably not the best way for a new player to improve. Essentially this method is a way for a far weaker player to be able to give a more experienced player a hard game. You can also tweak these rules if you want; I'm not your bossperson do whatever you want. Just make sure that the stronger player isn't having too easy of a time. The stronger person is supposed to have it hard here.

You might want to check out chess 2 as well. it's chess, but with different special rules based on what team/country/base choose, and an easier win condition. The tactics are all different so it's a lot harder for a more experienced player to play.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, handicapping
---


# Question
Title: Plan against QGD Janowski variation (3...a6)
This is the so called Janowski variation of the QGD is the following

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "6"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 a6

```

It's quite rare, even if sometimes played at top level.

White usually plays `cxd5` (right away or after `Nf3`). Then, the bishop usually comes to `f4` (in this case, Black tries to exchange its dark-squared bishop with `Bd6`), sometimes `g5` which may be the most interesting.

What would be the plan for White? This type of position tends to be dull, and I'd like to gain a small edge or a way to spice it up at least, avoiding to trade the whole board after 12 moves.

# Answer
Indeed, the line is relatively rare, but the move 3....a6 seems to become more and more popular the last couple of years. Even Magnus Carlsen has played it twice in blitz recently, against Aronian and Grischuk.

The move 4.cxd5 is the most popular move and arguably the only way to fight for an advantage. After 4.Nf3, black has the choice to transpose to a favorable version of the QGA by 4....dxc4. As the knight is already on c3, black avoided the most critical lines of the QGA.

After 4.cxd5 exd5, in Mamedyarov-Vallejo Pons, white went for the aggressive 5.Nf3 c6 6.e4!? dxe4 7.Ng5 Be7 8.Bc4. Now, 8....Bxg5 would be a mistake as white regains the piece by 9.Qh5, with a strong initiative. Instead, black played 8....Nh6, defended correctly after 9.Ngxe5 Nf5 and made a draw.

Another try to spice up the game is 5.Qb3!?, which was played recently by the Russian top GMs Nepomniachtchi, Matlakov, Vitiugov and Svidler. After the logical 5....c6, white obtains a dangerous initiative after 6.e4 dxe4 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.a4! (to prevent ...b5), which was played by Svidler. In the three other games, after 5.Qb3, black continued with 5....Nc6. After 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.Bf4, white is probably slightly better, as the black knight on c6 is somewhat misplaced.

```

      [StartPly "6"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.cxd5 (4.Nf3 dxc4) exd5 5.Qb3 (5.Nf3 c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Ng5 Be7 8.Bc4 Nh6 (8...Bxg5 9.Qh5) 9.Ngxe4 Nf5) 5...Nc6 (5...c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.a4) 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.Bf4

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
The plan you choose should not be too different than against other QGD positions. If you normally play cxd5 and go for a minority attack, it is still valid. Note, in some of those lines Black likes to play a5, which now loses a tempo.
If you want to spice it up try 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Qb3 c6 6.e4!? -- see Schlechter vs. Janowski 1902 (1-0) for ideas.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, queens-gambit-declined
---


title: How to earn IM/GM titles

text:
# Question
Title: How to earn IM/GM titles
Can someone please provide detail on how IM (International master) and GM (Grand master) norms are attained?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 4 votes
First you should also know that these titles can also be won via "Direct Title". For instance, in the current World Cup competition all the players who reached the last 16 are entitled to the GM title. Of course they were all already GMs, but other competitions also give the opportunity to win GM and IM titles outright.

GM and IM norms can be obtained either by Direct Title or by performance of the required standard in a tournament which qualifies as a norm event.

For instance if there is a tie for world champion in any of over 65, over 50, under 20 or continental championship then players tieing for first each get a GM norm if they are not already GMs.

For norm tournaments and the standard of play required there is a full description here.

GM norms require a "GM performance" and IM norms require an "IM performance" These are:

GM performance is ≥ 2600 performance against opponents with average rating ≥ 2380.

IM performance is ≥ 2450 performance against opponents with average rating ≥ 2230.

There are complicated rules regarding the length and make-up of the tournament and the players played. For full details see the handbook reference.

Here is a simplified (and so inaccurate) summary:

The player must play at least 9 games

At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included

A maximum of 3/5 of the opponents may come from the applicant’s federation and a maximum of 2/3 of the opponents from one federation

At least 50% of the opponents shall be title-holders excluding CM and WCM.

For a GM norm at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents must be GMs.

For an IM norm at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents must be IMs or GMs.

---
Tags: elo, fide
---


# Question
Title: What are the average Elo and USCF ratings?
I'm not sure if there exists an average, but what could be considered an average rating range in these systems?

# Answer
> 18 votes
I took the following data from the September 2013 Golden Database1 and "active" players are players with a USCF membership expiration date later than January 1, 20132. All ratings are regular ratings. Note that players have an established rating after completing 25 games.

### USCF Active Players

Established Ratings
```
46,574 Players
1315.99 Mean Rating
1390 Median Rating

```
Provisional Ratings
```
33,692 Players
537.09 Mean Rating
410 Median Rating

```

### All USCF Rated Players

Established Ratings
```
252,989 Players
1165.77 Mean Rating
1148 Median Rating

```
Provisional Ratings
```
303,153 Players
631.46 Mean Rating
576 Median Rating

```

### Distribution of active, established USCF ratings

Note that unrated players were discarded and that no checks were done on the data (duplicate entries, placeholders, etc.).

### Distribution of ratings by age

This image comes from the uschess forums.

1: The Golden Database is a database provided to USCF affiliates and TD's that includes the names, ratings, and expiration dates. It can be downloaded from the USCF website
2: I picked January 1, 2013 as an arbitrary cutoff date. If there's a better and easy check for whether or not a player is active I'm happy to add additional data or update these stats.

# Answer
> 4 votes
An updated rating distribution graph:

The data is from the Golden Database. It uses data from just current members with established (non provisional) ratings. Note that only "regular" ratings are shown, not Quick ratings or blitz ratings.

The overall shape of the graph, of course, is almost identical to the first one, with data from 2013.

# Answer
> 3 votes
(I assume in the following discussion that by "average" you mean median, not mean.)

It depends on whether you are just looking at active players (who have played a tournament recently) or all players, and on whether you are just looking at just adults or players of all ages.

The latest rating distribution chart for the USCF I could find was from 2004 (here). You can see from it that at that time the 50th percentile was about 1050 for all players, or 1280 when just adults are considered. (USCF ratings have inflated a bit in the last decade so they are probably a bit higher now.) This is for all members, not just active ones; the median rating for active players would be higher, probably by 150 points or so from looking at the graph here.

# Answer
> 2 votes
While the numbers drift and have to be adjusted from time to time, the average USCF rating is supposed to be 1500.

# Answer
> -2 votes
If by average, you mean a number, then there is a number in the middle. If by average, you mean a player who wins half and loses half, it is not in the middle. Chess champions almost always win. To win half the time, you must be one of the best.

# Answer
> -3 votes
The average is the sum of list values divided by the number of list entries. Unfortunately, since list values do not contain equivalent information, averaging them does not reduce error. A 500 rating losing to grandmasters with a single draw denotes much greater proficiency than many wins against players who have only just learned how the pieces move (I refuse to embarrass people by citing names). I have found that when players know each other's rating, the lower rated player lets up while the higher rated fights like a demon (peruse any tournament crosstable). Ratings are manipulated by players who lose unimportant games and by organizations (CCF, dare to deny it!) who pin ratings because of accidental outcomes. Ratings are inappropriately used (by almost all organizers) to assign prize classifications. Average rating does not contain any information for the whole list. However, for a particular event, players tend to perform relatively in accordance with their ratings. This is not because the ratings are accurate, but because the players want them to be so (I want it, and I don't know any player who doesn't).

---
Tags: rating, elo, uscf
---


# Question
Title: What is a good flexible opening for beginner with white?
After I learned the Sicilian, I started to love to play as black, while before it my win rate with white was bigger than black (as expected due to white first move advantage). When I learned Sicilian exists, I started to win a lot as black (also in my low level of play I rarely see Sicilian used against me...)

I don't bother learning all Sicilian variations, I just move the C pawn first, and 'go with the flow' as needed, and with experience learn some of the more unusual moves (like moving pawns or knights in counter-intuitive ways after I notice in analysis why they were good idea, and then I learn later that it is a named opening).

How I do that as white? Right now all I do is spam Wayward queen, that sucks, but seemly other players suck more and lose to it anyway, the problem is that Wayward Queen attack is entirely a gamble, if other player sucks, I win, if other player is good, I lose.

I want some better white opening I can rely on as beginner, like I do with Sicilian for black.

I know there is another question about white openings, but that question talks about lots of openings, I want ONE flexible opening I can rely upon and learn its variants as I play, like it happened to me with Sicilian.

# Answer
From your question it seems to me that you should focus on learning **general opening principles** (control the center, develop pieces, don't move the same piece twice, castle...), study **tactics** and learn how to **develop a plan.** These will be useful in all kind of situations you encounter during a game and if you follow them you will end up playing an "official" opening naturally.

Studying openings is not useful for beginners because:

* your opponents will rarely play the moves you learned
* without knowing some general ideas you will basically only end up memorizing moves without understanding the ideas behind them (which is particularly useful if your opponent makes a worse move)
* generally, opening knowledge only has a very small effect on the level of play and only becomes relevant at higher playing strengths, let's say from Elo 2000 or so

If you are happy with the Sicilian, by all means continue playing it, but be aware that this is among the most complicated chess openings out there and you are far away from understanding it.

As for what to play with white, I suggest to first figure out what kind of player you are, or what kind of positions (e.g. open/tactical, closed/positional...) you like. For instance what do you like particularly about the Sicilian?
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you like the Sicilian, then try the , which can become a Sicilian with colours reversed:

```
[FEN ""]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 e5

```

Now most players don't recommend the English for beginners, as it can transpose into many other openings, such as Queen Pawn Openings.

But you can adopt a system opening, where you play (mostly) the same moves no matter what black does. I would recommend the Botvinnik system.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I prefer **Ruy Lopez** as one of the most popular opening in white because of its flexibility in placing knights and bishops in more squares that makes them powerful. There are lots of variation you can apply into it in case that you are being trapped. You can place your white tiled bishop step back at the center as Bobby and back at right side as Open variation to maintain the strong position of your bishop at the center.
> 1 votes

# Answer
One problem with flexibility is that it gives up some of the very best chances for a quick kill, and if you're comfortable with the tactics in the Sicilian, you may have to sacrifice that as White. In the Sicilian, ...c5 imbalances the game immediately and if White doesn't understand the opening (whether or not d4 is played), bad things happen quickly. I had trouble against it for a long time.

Still a flexible opening makes a lot of sense if you are learning things. If you want a flexible opening as White, there are formation style openings that work well. Black can roughly equalize, but it's not trivial, and there's a good deal of play. @Bad\_Bishop mentions a good one with the Botvinnik system, and I've enjoyed it, but there are others too. Shop around and see which you like best.

The strongest other candidates are the King's Indian Attack (e4, Nf3, g3, Bg2, d3, Nbd2) or the Torre Attack (d4, Nf3, Bg5). Then you drop a knight in on e5. The Torre is a bit more flexible because you can play c4/Nc3 or c3/Nbd2 depending on what Black does. It also has a few traps if Black plays mechanically.

The London System (d4, Nf3, Bf4) is a bit quieter but still can give an opponent trouble.

Other formations similar to the Torre include the Stonewall (f4 instead of Bg5) or the Colle (no Bg5) but I just like getting the bishop outside the pawn chain.

If you want to play the Torre, you need a good response to early ...c5 moves, but I've always
> 0 votes

# Answer
One white opening which you can play against almost any black response is the Kings Indian Attack where you play the moves e4, Nf3, d3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 almost automatically before deciding how to proceed once you have seen black's response.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How to add arbitrary move to analyze by chess engine in Arena
I'm using Arena 3.5.1 with Stockfish\_8\_x64 engine. In engine output window it proposes best moves with different continuation variants and values. Can I add few arbitrary moves there myself and ask engine to calculate it values?

# Answer
> 1 votes
No. By definition an output window is for output from the program. You can only use input methods to input data. To do this just make the move you want on the board and see the computer analysis for that move in the output window. To do this for several different alternative moves create separate variations, one for each of your alternatives.

---
Tags: engines, arena
---


title: How does one become a theoretician?

text:
# Question
Title: How does one become a theoretician?
What does it mean to be an opening theoretician, and how does one achieve this status? Does it imply that one should not be an active tournament player? Apart from opening theoreticians are there middlegame and endgame theoreticians, too? Why are most theoreticians from eastern europe?

# Answer
A theoretician is someone who has created a new opening, middlegame and / or endgame variation. You don't have to be a grandmaster to become one, and not all grandmasters are ones.

It may not apply if your variation is not tactical or is useless.

I don't think it matters where a theoretician comes from, as everyone has different chess experience, and whether you are an active tournament player or not.

People who have written about chess theory in general are chess theoreticians.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Its just like in mathematics when one doesn't need to be a university or college graduate student with a "Batchelor of Science in Mathematics" to be a " mathematician. " All that counts is " New Idea," a workable or applicable " mathematical ideas " Ideas that works, mathematically. Same goes apply to aspiring "chess theoretician."
> 1 votes

# Answer
> What does it mean to be an opening theoretician, and how does one achieve this status?

From wikipedia:

> Those who write about chess theory, who are often also eminent players, are referred to as "theorists" or "theoreticians".

So to be an opening theoretician you have to publish some opening theory. Being a famous player would help sales/credibility, but is no essential.

---

> Apart from opening theoreticians are there middlegame and endgame theoreticians, too?

Absolutely! The same wikipedia article discusses chess theory across the phases of the game.

---

> Why are most theoreticians from eastern Europe?

Based on an analysis of number of grandmasters per capita, more are located in eastern Europe, implying that chess is more popular/better promoted there. Therefore peripheral activities, such as publishing articles about theory, carving pieces for sale, making chess clocks etc. are more likely to thrive there.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, endgame, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Can white king capture defended pawn by pinned piece?
Black can not move his bishop and can not attack the white king even if the white king captured the black pawn. Can the white king capture the pawn ?

# Answer
> 2 votes
## No.

The king must not move to a square under attack by an enemy piece, no matter what, even if said attack is currently not allowed.

If the rule allowed exceptions like this, the logic would chase its own tail: If White is allowed to play Kxf4 - *placing his king in danger of getting captured with the excuse that Black* (supposedly) *can't actually take it next move* -, then by the same logic, Black should be allowed to play Bxf4, too - *placing his king in danger of getting captured with the excuse that White cannot actually take it next move* (because there is no next move as soon as White's king is captured)! But if Black is allowed to play Bxf4, then Kxf4 gets illegal again, because now the danger of recapture is real.

Thus, to avoid these headaches, White is not allowed to play Kxf4 in the first place.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is only one simple rule to remember: **Any move that lets your opponent to capture your king in the next turn is illegal.**

By capturing the pawn you would let your opponent to capture your king in the next turn. Pinned situation of the bishop is not important as your opponent captures your king before you capture your opponents king.

---
Tags: kings, captures
---


# Question
Title: Training tactics - doing more easy puzzles or fewer, but deep, puzzles?
I know daily tactics training is very beneficial. However, what is the best way to do so?

Lets say I have 15 minutes a day. Is it better I do 3/4 puzzles in detail, spend 5 minutes on each analysing each move in and ensuring I get the puzzle correct or is it better to do 20-30 puzzles, each one based off only a few seconds of thought (however at the same time seeing many more positions)?

Also, is it better to see many new tactics, like chess tempo, or to get a book and do the same 100 puzzles until you get them all right?

# Answer
I would say it really depends on your skill level. If, like me, you're a relatively weak player, playing lots of "easy" and "medium" puzzles is probably more beneficial. You want to train yourself to recognize patterns and interactions that are likely to come up in a game. In that case, seeing lots of different tactics is probably best.

As you get stronger, the basic tactics from "easy" and "medium" puzzles will be almost always seen by both players (you still need to recognize them because if you miss your opponents simple fork, you're going to have a bad time). Focusing on harder puzzles will help you find those more complex patterns and tactics in your games. In this case, both lots of tactics and complete understanding of every puzzle is probably the desired outcome.

I've listened to GMs talk about puzzles where they look at it for hours and when they have a "solution" they still don't actually know if it's solved until they consult an engine, the puzzle creator, or their coach. (Compared to a simple forced mate in X puzzle).

---

Additionally, it's all about where your strengths and weaknesses are. If you're really good at a particular type of tactic, de-prioritize continued training of that tactic and focus instead on your weaknesses.

Most people have a bias where they would rather do 5 puzzles they're good at and 1 they're bad at, which is fine if you're doing it purely for entertainment, but if you're trying to improve, reverse the ratio.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are several "methods" on how to study tactics. One has you solve x number of puzzles in a certain amount of time. Once you can do that you reduce the time allowed and repeat solving them. You continue to reduce the time until you can solve that set in some small time allotment. I found that working on very hard problems (typically in Chess Informants) until my head hurt was very beneficial; basically refusing to look at the answer until I really did exhaustive analysis in my head. However, GM friend of mine recommends solve mate in 1 puzzles! I think all of the above is the way to go.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


title: Positional principles in chess openings

text:
# Question
Title: Positional principles in chess openings
I am a d4 player as white and I really don't like to memorize tatical lines in the opening altought I know most commons lines very well in the first 8 - 15 moves depend on the opening based on my practice.

I am looking for positional principles that can guide my play.

Do you have any line that you memorize few principles and you can guess some theory based on this considerations, or guide your play after your theory knowledge ends?

Please point out what positional rules you follow.

(For example someone teached me that queen's indian is a fight for the control of e4 square.

When I am playing with white and my theory knowledge ends or black play an unknown variation, I always check if I can break on e3-e4 and if I could usually is a good move.

When I am playing with black the same line and I reach a point where my theory knowledge ends and I don't know what to play, I always check if it is possible to overcontrol e4.

So the positional principle: control of e4, helps me a lot in queens indian when my theory knowledge ends or my opponent make an unusual move

Another example that come in my mind is when you reach common positions of benoni, black will try to play c5-c4 and put a knight on d3, but if black play this allow white to play knight f3-d4-c6, and this fight guide my play in both sides of this variation, and after I understand that I became stronger in both sides of this variation

A last example that I can give is the almost sure f5 by black in KID and petrosian variation of KID is a line that is not usually good for black force f5... Even fischer lose a beautiful game for tal insisting in playing f5 in this line... So this change in black's way to think the KID can be very annoying even for stronger players... I usually do so well with this variation based that black side of KID usually will force f5 and petrosian variation make it so difficult)

# Answer
> 1 votes
As TMM said, you won't get any edge with White without any memorization or tactical, not only positional understanding of the opening.

I would recommand you though to look at the **Reti opening** `1. Nf3.` As a `d4` player, you won't be out of your territory and would be able to dodge normal Grünfeld type of positions, which is a sharp opening of course, and the Nimzo-Indian as well, which requires also a lot of work. These subtleties are based on move orders though and transpositional "tricks". You have to know them ! The Reti should spare you some precious time but you won't get away from studying opening.

Against the KID, you should look at the Smyslov variation. You won't be crushed within 15 moves (or even less) as in the main lines.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Consider what imbalances you can create with a particular opening and the strategic principals that go with the imbalance. For example, Karpov often traded a bishop for a knight and then steered the pawn formation to favor knights. You might consider the book "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Reuben Fine

---
Tags: opening, positional-play
---


title: unusual line slav defense

text:
# Question
Title: unusual line slav defense
```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3

```

Here we reach slav defense main line and theory goes with 4...e6

As a way to avoid theory as black I used to play in blitz 4...g6, goes with bishop fianchetto and castle.

As white I'm a d4 player and although not many people deviate 4...e6 with 4...g6 this could happen.

Searching in professional games I didn't see many games with 4...g6.

My question is: How white proceed after 4...g6? (there must be a reason why professionals rare play this move)

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to this database:

The next move for white will be:

* `5.e3` with 40% of win, 46% of draw and 14% of lose. (3538 games were played like that)
* `5.cxd5` with 48.5% of win, 41.5% of draw. (344 games were played like that)

Example for a game which start like this:

```
[Event "1st Rottal Open 2017"]
[Site "Pfarrkirchen GER"]
[Round "6.1"]
[Date "2017.4.17"]
[White "Haba, Petr"]
[Black "Riediger, Martin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Bf4 a6 7.h3 Bg7 8.e3 Nc6 9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O Bf5 11.Rc1 Ne4 12.Na4 Bd7 13.Qb3 b5 14.Nc5 Nxc5 15.Rxc5 e6 16.Bd6 Re8 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 f6 19.Bc7 Qe7 20.Bd6 Qd8 21.Bc7 Qe7 22.Bd6 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I play both sides of the and have not come across 4...g6 as the dark square bishop usually belongs on b4 (in the mainline Dutch), d6 (in the exchange) or maybe e7.

Having said that, this is how I would play

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "8"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 g6 5. cxd5 cxd5 (5...Nxd5 {This transposes to the Grunfeld} 6. e4 Nxc3 7. bxc3) 6. Bf4 Bg7 {Aiming to play Qc1, Bh6 and trade dark square bishops} (6...Nh5? 7. Bxb8 Rxb8 8. Qa4+ {This wins a pawn}) 7. Qc1 (7. Qd2 Ne4 8. Nxe4 dxe4 9. Ng1 Qxd4)

```

N.B. This analysis has not been checked by an engine

# Answer
> 2 votes
The main reason 4...g6 is not played is because White can put his dark squared bishop out side the pawn chain (Bf4) followed by e3. Blacks fianchettoed bishop will not have good influence as d4 is firmly held. Whites dark square bishop however will influence the queenside where White will be seeking an advantage. You will see more games with g6 when White has played an early e3 blocking the bishop. Smyslov played some nice games on the Black side of the Schlecter -- see his 125 Selected Games book.

---
Tags: opening, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal to move a piece if your opponent has not hit the clock?
I have played some rapid and blitz games in my city, it was not a tournament, but a friendly match, but there's something that bother me almost always that I've played:

I move my piece and as my hand is still in the air moving towards the clock, and even I have not hit it yet, my opponent has already moved a piece. Is it legal?

# Answer
> 15 votes
**Yes, it is.**

Let's take a closer look: Article 1.1 of the FIDE rules states:

> A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

Article 4 clarifies how a move is supposed to be made. Specifically:

> When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move.

At that point a move has been "made".

Note, however, the provision in article 6.2:

> A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.

Even if your opponent already moved, you still have the right to press your clock.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Engine with emphasis on strategic/positional analysis
Are there engines are especially recommended for strategic/positional analysis? I'm especially looking to use the engine in complex, opening position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess engine is just a tool, your question is like asking which calculator your should use for learning mathematics.

An engine will just give you a score and a computer line, it tells you what you **should** play but it doesn't tell you what you **shouldn't** do.

You'll need to work hard, and use the engine to aid your analysis. Consider to pay for a human chess coach.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Rybka has a "deep analysis" feature but it is still too hard for engines to do this work. You might notice it recommends a move and evaluates the position as +1 or something and then if you play down the line a move or two it changes its mind and it is suddenly +0.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The engine **Komodo** is supposed to be renowned for its positional bent, owing to its emphasis on evaluation over depth. GM Simon Williams mentions this in a YouTube video, and this is also reported on the Wikipedia page of the engine.

Unfortunately the engine is proprietary and currently goes for $99.

---
Tags: engines, strategy, positional-play
---


title: Timer expired suggestions

text:
# Question
Title: Timer expired suggestions
I am developing a computer based game. I am aware some of different official timer expiration rules. But I want to make the following simple rule when the timer expired.

1. After player one has made a move.
2. Player two has 5 minutes (or whatever time agreed upon).
3. If player two has not made a move when time expired, player two lost turn.
4. It is now player one's turn to move, etc.

Does this sound playable?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well that depends, if your talking about a game as in chess then no. If your opponent is in zugzwang he may deliberately allow his time to expire so that his opponent may move and likewise the opponent would let their time expire to put his opponent back in zugzwang. Basically the game would go on and on... With no one making any moves. However if you are talking about another computer based game, you must make sure that zugzwang does not exist, then this system of time control would work.( zugzwang is when any move you make only worsens your position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It sounds fun, especially for lower time control (like 30 seconds), but it will not really be chess, since this way all the Zugzwang positions lose sense, and in the mutual Zugzwang positions actually it's not obvious how the game will end (neither side will move, so after a while the game should force draw or something).

# Answer
> 2 votes
An essential feature of chess is that players are not allowed to "pass". Expiration of a time clock should not affect that.

I would suggest instead that if at any time White notices that Black's clock has fallen and White's clock has not (apply similar rules for the reverse situation), White may punch Black's clock (if White's clock isn't already running) and move for Black, then make his own response, and reset Black's clock to have a some small amount of time left. The ability to compel a Black to make even one a deliberately bad move would usually be a winning advantage, but if Black is otherwise in a vastly better position, Black might prevail even after the penalty is assessed. If at any time both flags are down, the game will be drawn. Further, if Black's flag is down and White wants a draw, White may claim one without having to wait for Black to move and then for his own flag to fall.

The present clock rules would be essentially equivalent to the above but with a zero-second reset (so Black's flag would remain fallen after each take-over move by White). The one difference is that White is awarded a win if there is any sequence of legal moves by which Black could be checkmated, whether or not any sequence of moves checkmating Black could legally be carried out without the game being drawn because of a move limit or (much more rarely) a repeated position.

In case the present board position would not offer White any particular useful opportunities for a take-over move, White might have the further option of setting Black's clock to a small amount of time and asking Black to move immediately. If Black does so, White would retain the ability to make a later move for Black at a time of his choosing; if Black fails to do so, White could force Black's present move and a later one. The only time White could "store up" the ability to make two moves for Black would be on a turn where Black had been told to hurry up and failed to do so. If this rule exists, it would likely rarely need to be carried out (beyond White asking Black to hurry up) but in its absence situations could arise where e.g. Black's flag is down but there are no legal bad moves for Black. In such cases, Black should not be able to force White to spend his take-over move by simply sitting on his hands until White does so.

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


title: Indian game pawn push variation

text:
# Question
Title: Indian game pawn push variation
A recent game of mine went like this (I was Black):

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.d5

```

Looking at the lichess database (amateur games book) I see that the more common responses are:

* `2..d6`
* `2..c6`
* `2..e6`

… in that order.

In the master games book there are only two games in this variation where the responses were `2..d6` and `2..c6`.

I played `2..e5` which seems to be a rather infrequent response. The continuation in my game was:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 e5 3.dxe6 fxe6 4.Bg5 b6 5.e3 Bb7 6.Nc3 Nc6

```

I then proceeded to castle Queen-side and took advantage of the open f column. The game went well but apparently my response to the "pawn push variation" was suboptimal.

Can someone explain the ideas behind the more common responses and why `2..e5` is bad?

# Answer
As you noticed there are very few games in the database with this line. That's why it does not make much sense to speak of "more common"/"infrequent" response here.

The move 2. d5 is not good, but not so bad that you can expect to get a huge advantage as black soon. Basically it gives away the first move advantage and gives black an equal position for free. Generally, if your opponent plays an unusual move like this to which you don't see an immediate refutation, stay calm and make normal moves.

Problems with 2. d5 are:

* it neglects development (don't move a piece twice if you don't have to)
* it weakens the dark squares in the centre
* it does not do much; Typically a pawn push like this is meant to limit the opponents options. Here it prevents the knight going to c6, however the knight rarely wants to go to c6 in these kind of openings. Also black has not fixed the position of its central pawns so is free to attack the pawn at wish with c6, e6 ...

Your opening repertoire or your preference for closed vs open positions might influence your decision on how to respond to it.

If you are a King's Indian or Benoni player you could for instance transfer this to a main line King's Indian or Benoni. Or just go for a fianchetto on g7 first, trying to take advantage of the weakened dark squares and don't fix your central pawns yet.

If you don't mind unknown territory, 2 .. c6 seems like a good choice questioning the pawn immediately and giving you tactics with Qa5+ (and attack on d5) in some lines.

But any other continuation such as 2 ... e6, d6, e5, g6,.... can't be wrong either. I don't understand why you think that e5 was bad. The position you achieved seems quite normal to me.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Playing d4 and then d5 does not seem to be a great idea from White as it is only a pawn push and not develop any Piece . You can take ideas from Modern Benoni/Benko Gambit which have similar Pawn structures . The White Pawn d5 is an ideal move in both the openings . e5 is also an ok move but c5/c6 are somewhat better because they are a bit always from Centre and you should not lose the Centre pawns or allow Opponent to capture the centre with Pawns .
> 1 votes

# Answer
Your 2) ... e5 was bad because it weakens d6 and f6.

So, for instance, Bg5 is now a much better move from white because of this. Also if white can arrange d6 and take control of the d6 square then you are completely lost. This was not even a remote possibility before your e5. Now it is something to worry about, a threat you have created against yourself.

From this you can see that although your e5 move was bad white's 3) de was a shocker! He completely throws away the big advantage you gave him and after your reply he is even behind in development.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: How to play in a Closed Position?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play in a Closed Position?
In lower level chess matches I often find myself in closed positions where black and whites knights are restricted, bishops can't be used for attack, and rooks are locked behind your pawn structure. What tips do you have to play in this position, or is it better to play more aggressive and avoid this position all together.

I interpret Closed Position as being, where major pieces are developed behind the pawn structure, where both players prioritized positional plays.

This is an example using the Pirc defense

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 a6 5. Be2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. h3 b5 8. a3 Bb7 9. e5 Nfd7 10. Bf4 Nc6 11. Bg3 Nb6 12. Bd3 d5

```

Where the next best move would be for to take the e pawn, but black decides to advance the d-pawn.

# Answer
It would help to see a specific example of your games.

Normally *closed positions* refers to positions with a closed center where the central (e and d pawns, sometimes also c and f pawns) pawns are blocking each other. It is unusual that all 8 pawns are blocked. In this case the normal plan is to attack the center by pawns from the side. For instance in the advance French black is attacking the center by a pawn from c5 and later also from the other side with f7-f6.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5

```

The technical term for this is *pawn break* and you can see other examples in the wikipedia article on pawn structure. (Search for "break").
> 6 votes

# Answer
Closed positions are a very different type of game, but if you understand them then there is no reason to avoid entering them. Generally, the best idea in closed positions is the play on the sides of the board (either the Queenside or Kingside) since the center is locked.

The best way to play on the sides is to open lines for your pieces. This is often done through a pawn breakthrough. One important thing to keep in mind is that you want to open the position so that your worst pieces can get out into the game. For example, assume you had a terrible Knight that was stuck in the corner and was completely out of the game. Try to find ways to open the position so that this Knight can escape. For example, if you need a file opened, organize a pawn breakthrough on that file.

In closed positions Knights tend to be better than Bishops since they can hop around the pawns. With this in mind, it is often a good idea to exchange your Bishops for your opponent's Knights (however, if you think the position may open up soon, this is not a very good idea! ). In closed positions, Knights can often find one good outpost that they can just stay on for a long time. Try to identify a number of squares that you would like to have your Knight(s) on, and then map out a route for your Knight to hop to that square.

Here is a good video on how to break through in closed positions. It is by Grandmaster Akobian, who I think is currently in the top 15 list in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT1iy4dLgxE

Also, here is a link to a post where a FIDE Master discusses closed, semi-open, and open positions. I think there are some additional resources he lists as well:

https://www.chess.com/blog/MattyDPerrine/how-to-play-closed-semi-open-and-open-positions
> 5 votes

# Answer
If the centre is closed, then you need to play on the flanks. Which flank should you focus on? The flank where you have more space. In the advanced Caro-Kann, white often plays on the kingside:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 {This is the start of Nunn-Shirov attack. It is not the only way to play the advanced Caro-Kann as white, but shows the idea of 'attacking where you have space' in a neat way} e6 5. g4 Bg6

```

In some openings you have a choice of which flank to play on, for example when there is a *Botvinnik triangle*, e.g. pawns on c4-d3-e4:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "16"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e4 e5 6. Nge2 Nge7 7. O-O O-O 8. d3 d6

```

In the Botvinnik English setup above, white has the options of playing:

* On the queenside, with Rb1 and b4
* On the kingside, with f4
* In the centre, with d4, *assuming it is properly prepared*

In the setup above, I've made black mimic white (not always a good thing to do!) to illustrate that black could have the same options as white.

The final point I want to make is that when you prepare a pawn break, take your time to put all of your pieces onto the best squares.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Just a generic answer to your Question . When you encounter Closed position u then you can do the below .

1. Prefer Knights instead of Bishops as Bishops are long ranged piece and if a Bishop is confined to its own Pawn structure then it acts as a Pawn and not a Piece .
2. You can exchange your Bishops with Opponents Knights before you make the Position closed .
3. Sometimes it is essential to make a Sacrifice to gain activity . Lets assume you have central pawns which is blockaded by Opponents central pawns and you see that a combination is there which gains activity and opens up lines for the attack . Then you must not be afraid to make such sacrifices at all . example of a game with a Blockade position is Blockade Position piece sacrifice
4. Try arranging your pieces and look for a Pawn break . Blocked games are never fast and you can put your pieces into the best squares taking your time .
5. William Steinitz was one of the Players that I had read who loved playing Blocked Closed Positions . Study his games for your advancement .
> 1 votes

# Answer
In such positions each side tries to break open the position to their advantage using "pawn levers". These are pawn moves where one pawn moves forward and attacks an opposition pawn. Before this there is usually a period of each side arranging their pieces in order to:

1) try and make sure that when they play their pawn lever the position opens to their advantage.

2) try and either stop the opponent's pawn levers or arrange pieces so they don't get advantage from this.

In the position you show black has two pawn levers, c7-c5 (expanding and attacking on the queenside) and f7-f6 (attacking the center pawns and on the kingside).

White has one pawn lever f2-f4-f5.

Once you see this you also see that black's pieces are badly misplaced. The knight on c6 is blocking the c7-c5 lever and would be much better on d7. At the same time the bishop on b7 is a complete waste of a bishop blocked as it is by the pawn on d5. It would also prefer to be on d7 protecting the e6 pawn in anticipation of the f7-f6 pawn lever.

Meanwhile white's pieces are also misplaced.

1) The knight on c3 needs to come to d2 to allow c3 to protect d4 in anticipation of black's c5 pawn lever.

2) The knight on f3 is also misplaced because it blocks the f2-f4-f5 pawn lever.

Nevertheless white looks to have the advantage because he has his center pawns pointing at black's castled king, he has more space particularly on the kingside, his pieces are much more ready for a kingside attack, black has several pieces tied up in cramped positions, stepping on each others' toes on the queenside.

If the players had been aware of these considerations they would probably have played completely different moves. For instance, black would never have played the way he did and then follow up with d5 entombing his white squared bishop. Black would have replied to 9) e5 with Nd5 leaving d7 free for his other knight. White would never have played 9) e5 extending the view and power of the black bishop on b7. Instead he would have perhaps preferred 9) d5 trying to block it out and shut it down, etc., etc.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: closed-position
---


title: Which is MCO book by Walter

text:
# Question
Title: Which is MCO book by Walter
My mom is going to chess classes for some years now. Am absolutely noob. She has been asked to buy a book: "Modern Chess Openings" by Walter Korn. While googling, I came to know that the author of this title is changed over edition. Till MCO12, it seems that it was completely written by Walter:

MCO13 says "Revised by Nick De Firman, under the editorship of Walter":

Now MCO14, 15 completely erases Walter's name from the book:

Is the content of the book considerably changed over these editions. Which one should I prefer?

# Answer
The MCO series is styled like an encyclopedia. Just how encyclopedia's tended not to change all that much from one year to the next, the MCO series hasn't changed all that much.

I would balance price with target audience rating. If the target audience rating is high, then spend more on the latest MCO. If the target audience rating is low, save money on a second hand, older MCO.

This advice is based on the fact that at lower levels, opening theory isn't all that important, so paying a lot of money for an opening encyclopedia doesn't make much sense.

One final note is that openings come in-and-out of fashion. You may find that differences in MCO editions over time reflect more the level of popularity of an opening rather than any substantial changes to chess theory.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I bought the 11th edition in the early 1970's. They didn't have PCs then. They didn't have chess programs and computer databases of games then. Modern chess databases are much, much, much better than an old, out of date MCO. All MCOs are very out of date. Don't waste your money. Don't let your mother waste her money.

If she is seriously going to a chess class where they give this kind of advice then ask for your money back and find a better chess class. Any one where they don't recommend buying an old opening book like MCO would be a better one.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: books
---


title: Saving opening tabiyas in scid

text:
# Question
Title: Saving opening tabiyas in scid
When I use scid to study an opening I do the following:

* start new game
* play through the opening up to a position I am interested in
* search database for "current board"

I am sure there must be a more efficient way to do this. Is it possible to save positions and use these saved positions in searches?

# Answer
I'm sorry if I don't understand your question correctly, but if you don't want to enter moves manually every time to reach a certain position you can simply create a database for all the openings\tabiyas you're interested in and add it to your bookmarks. So, whenever you need some position you open that database via the bookmark you created (it's much faster than going through open dialog box and looking for the file on your hard drive) and copy that position from there.

Btw, you can also download eco.pgn file containing all the known openings here: https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/pgn-extract/

Then, if you want to see the names of openings and variations that the file contains in your Game List you need to do the following: open eco.pgn as a text file in a plain text editor of your choice and replace "Opening" with "White" and "Variation" with "Black". While doing so, don't forget to enable "match case" option. That's it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, scid
---