# Question
Title: Skills required for blitz/bullet vs. correspondence chess?
I've started playing blitz/bullet (fast) games and felt like I was getting moderately good at it (1 - 10mn games), but then I switched to correspondence chess (1 - 5 days/move) and it seems to me that it was affecting my fast games skills.

Does correspondence chess really require a different set of skills than fast chess? Do you have any advice that may help getting the best of both type of games?

# Answer
> 10 votes
This skills required for blitz are the *opposite* of those for correspondence. So I suggest that you concentrate on one or the other, but not both. Unless you're an insanely good mental juggler.

"Blitz" places a premium on tactical skills. Also, seeing things *faster* than your opponent.

"Correspondence" places a premium on strategical skills. Looking many moves ahead, and seeing *deeper* than your opponent. Because you can both play through the various permutations from a given position at home.

# Answer
> 12 votes
While the two are vastly different, if you improve at one, you will most likely also improve at the other.

Tactics are far more important to get right in correspondence chess. The slightest misstep will be punished by your opponent simply because they have all the time they need to analyze all of the variations, and they can also use at least a board to assist them, and in some cases, even a chess engine.

In blitz chess, while attacks frequently win the game, unsound moves are not always refuted. This means that if you are able to launch an attack, even at the cost of a piece, your opponent will most likely be forced to burn time in order to avoid mate, and this will give you an advantage on the clock.

In terms of long term planning, in correspondence chess, assuming a high level game where tactical blunders will not determine the result, plans become incredibly important. A correspondence game is frequently a battle between two plans while in blitz chess, tactics and the clock rule the day.

So overall, correspondence chess is a much higher quality game. Blitz chess is fun and quick (so you can play a lot more games), but in terms of getting better at chess, blitz won't really help you. If you want to improve at blitz, practice tactics and play more blitz!

# Answer
> 6 votes
It really depends more on your personal level of strength for how play proceeds during each of these types of chess, however in general the same strengths and ideas are applicable to both. The difference in your blitz strength and correspondence strength can be for a number of different reasons. Perhaps you can assess and analyze quickly, or you don't spend as much time as your opponent analyzing during correspondence.

The time control does not dictate whether it will be a "strategical" or "tactical" battle, but instead the choice of openings and player's styles.

---
Tags: blitz, online, bullet-chess, online-blitz, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Relative value of chess pieces on queenside vs kingside
I've read a few variations on the relative value of chess pieces ( Q=9, R=5, N=3, B=3, P=1 ), but I've yet to encounter a variation in value according to the side of the board the piece is on. With regard to rooks, bishops and knights, might there be a a different inherent value whether on kingside or queenside? For instance, I've always found a greater value to kingside bishops because of their inherent nature of attacking the opposing king's squares before and after castling.

Has anyone seen any documented systems based on this idea? I'm not looking for speculation.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I don't think that there's any value to where the pieces *start*, but the value of the pieces changes drastically depending on where they are on the board at a given time.

For example, a white knight on d6 that can't be exchanged off is usually considered to be worth a rook. Similarly, if black has castled kingside with pawns on f7, g6, and h7, and white has an unopposed dark square bishop, that bishop can be worth a rook (at least) if white can attack the black king.

The only pieces that are inherently different are the bishops (one light, one dark), but they're still equal until the pawn structure has been determined. A bishop is usually strong when the opponent's pawns are on its color (so they can be attacked) and the friendly pawns are on the opposite color (so they don't get in the way).

# Answer
> 7 votes
To the best of my understanding, in modern chess, the real values of pieces (or rather, the playing side as a whole) are largely dependent on the following factors: function (are they optimally poised to carry out particular goal(s)?), coordination between pieces (are they working together to fulfil multiple aims or getting into one another's way?), number of weaknesses inherent in the position (determined largely by pawn structure), tactics (although this can be explained by the earlier factors), and finally, the raw value of the individual pieces.

So the assignment of numeric values to individual pieces is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, at least for players who are past the point of giving away pawns or minor pieces for nothing. Those values only serve as a rough gauge (e.g. bishop and knight are comparable in terms of value, but not identical in that regard), among other factors to be considered for the proper assessment of any given position.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Pieces don't change value based on whether they are on the queen or kingside. They increase in value (based on placement) for other reasons.

For instance, former world champion Capablanca said in "Chess Fundamentals" said that getting a rook on the seventh rank was well worth a sacrificed pawn, and his opponent would do well to draw, even with a pawn ahead. In this case, a rook, normally worth five points, is worth at least six. Capablanca also said that a passed pawn was sufficient to win a game (all other things being equal). So a passed pawn might be worth two points instead of one. Likwise, a knight in a "hole" at e4, e5, e6, or d4, d3, d6 would be worth more than usual, perhaps four points, rather than three. Most masters would say that a "bishop pair" in an open position against a bishop and knight, or two knights is worth least seven points, not six.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't think that there's a system to value pieces based on that. As you get into the middle and endgame, the position dictates the relative value of the pieces and not the side that they started on. Do a search on good knight vs. bad bishop. Also take a look at Silman's books "How to Reassess your Chess" which discusses imbalances as a way of evaluating a position instead of a pure material assessment.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Other than the classical 9,5,3,3,1 valuation of the pieces, there are many more, as in this Wikipedia article. But these still don't vary with the position of these pieces at the start or in later stages of the game. However, most any computer chess engine will vary these values according to the position of the pieces.

Even outside of computer chess, it's not unheard of for some to suggest that and a or h pawn is worth as little as 75% or even 50% of a pawn on the d or e files, and so on. For example, one chess maxim says you should usually recapture with a pawn -towards the center-.

---
Tags: point-value, pieces, kingside
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the best sites to play chess?
What are some of the best sites for online chess?

Free sites with friendly communities are better.

# Answer
> 25 votes
Chess.com has become a hot spot, with live and correspondence chess, along with tactical problems, articles, etc. The live chess is OK, but not the best.

ICC or playchess are the best for live chess, FICS if you want free, but it doesn't have as many titled players or features. Those sites will also have video's, live commentary of top level tournaments, and much more.

# Answer
> 11 votes
If you would like to play a lot of quick games, I would recommend FICS, or the Free Internet Chess Server. Using a good interface like BabasChess or Winboard, it's response time is a lot crisper. It has a long history with a lot of "culture", off-topic chat channels, 'bots', and a lot more master level players that some of the other sites.

Chess.com is also a good option.

# Answer
> 10 votes
# ChessCube

ChessCube has one of the nicest user interfaces, although it cannot be used with iPhone or iPads since it uses flash.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Chess.com is very popular and free. It also has a Facebook app that you can use to play. You can also play with a time limit of days/weeks and this is very useful if you rarely can find the time to sit down and have a serious game straight.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Red Hot Pawn has a great chess community and is available for free, or with a paid subscription.

---
Tags: online-chess, websites
---


title: How to assess chess game composition?

text:
# Question
Title: How to assess chess game composition?
Most chess literature offer sets of moves based on themes, but do not offer a method of accessing your performance in composing sets of moves relative to the flow of the game itself.

What would be the best way to segment sets of moves, and then assess the effectiveness of their composition relative to the board's state?

# Answer
I would try breaking your games down by sub-goals and examine the moves leading up to achieving that sub-goal which gives you an easy metric on how well the set of moves performed. Of course, the harder part is to assess your sub-goals. Did you have the right overall plan? Did your sub-goals improve your position? I'm not sure if breaking your evaluation down to the "set of moves" level will ultimately be useful.

For instance, you can set a sub-goal of controlling the c-file so the set of moves that contribute to doubling the rooks on the c-file evaluate as "good". However, if your opponent is invested in an attack on the king-side, your sub-goal might be faulty.

Take a look at some middlegame books, games collections, and/or tournament books. Try something like IM Jeremy Silman's "How To Reassess Your Chess" and/or GM Bronstein's annotations of the Zurich 1953 tournament.

The former will give you some ways to approach thinking about your position and formulating goals while the latter will delve into the thought process behind the moves of real games of grandmasters.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Engines that predict the outcome of current matches in real-time
I'm looking for an engine that will allow a full game to be loaded in an attempt to visualize the major turning points in the game. Are there engines that predict the outcome of current matches in real-time?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Any chess program (Crafty, for instance) will do that. Use analysis mode. Key in the move, and it will produce a score. The score implies how well one side is doing.

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Why was 50 chosen for the 50-move rule?

text:
# Question
Title: Why was 50 chosen for the 50-move rule?
The reason for the 50-move rule, along with the triple-repetition rule is to make chess definitely finite. How did one arrive at the number 50? What would change if it was 40 or 60? Is the number 50 chosen carefully?

# Answer
> 17 votes
> At one time, it was believed that all winnable endgames could be won within fifty moves. However, in the early twentieth century, some exceptions were found, including A. A. Troitsky's (1866-1942) analysis of the two knights endgame as well as the endgame of a rook and bishop versus a rook. The rules of chess were revised several times to admit exceptions to the fifty-move rule for certain specific situations. Early on, the fifty-move rule applied to tournament games but not to match games (Troitzky 2006:197).

SOURCE: Fifty-move rule

---
Tags: history, 50-move-rule
---


title: I made an illegal move. What happens?

text:
# Question
Title: I made an illegal move. What happens?
Especially in blitz or bullet games, it is possible that a player makes an illegal move, for example castles through check.

* If the opponent does notice the illegal move, then as far as I know the first player is obliged to make a legal move with the same piece, if one exists. What if there are no legal moves?
* What if the opponent, being in time pressure, doesn't notice the illegal move and makes a move. What happens after they realize that? Does the person who made the illegal move forfeit? Or is the whole game cancelled?

Are there any standard rules for these kinds of situations?

# Answer
> 40 votes
This only really applies to over the board games (since online chess servers prevent illegal moves).

In a **standard time control game, under USCF rules**, when the illegal move is noticed by one of the players, a few things happen. First, the illegal move must have been made within the last 10 moves. If not, then the current position stands, and play continues. Assuming that the move is recent, the position is restored to the position immediately before the illegal move.

Then, the player that made the illegal move now must make a legal move with the same piece (if one exists). If there are no legal moves, then the player is free to make any move. This is due to the touch move rule. Finally, if the offending player has pressed the clock, a two minute "bonus" is added to the opponent's clock to compensate them for any time lost and to penalize the offending player.

Here is the relevant passage from the USCF rulebook:

> **11A. Illegal move during last ten moves.** If, during a game, it is found that one of either player's last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move. The game shall then continue by applying Rule 10, The Touched Piece, to the move replacing the illegal move. If the position cannot be reinstated, then the illegal move shall stand. Move counters on clocks that have them may by readjusted.
>
> **11D. Illegal move.** If, a player completes an illegal move by pressing the clock, in addition to the usual obligation to make a legal move with the touched piece if possible, the standard penalty specified in rule 1C2a applies (i.e. two minutes added to the opponent's clock).

In **blitz chess**, the rules are different. According to the WBCA (World Blitz Chess Association) rules, a player who makes an illegal move loses the game instantly. This rule is frequently enforced in casual games too. The most common way that this occurs is that one player doesn't notice that they are in check and makes a move that doesn't get out of check. Then the checking player simply captures the king and claims a victory.

Because blitz is a much faster pace game, the illegal move must be noticed within two moves. If it is not, then the current position stands and play continues.

At no point is the game cancelled due to an illegal move. Pretty much once a game starts and both players make a move, a result of win, loss, or draw will be recorded.

# Answer
> 13 votes
> A player who makes an illegal move must retract that move and make a legal move. That move must be made with the same piece if possible, because the touch-move rule applies. If the illegal move was an attempt to castle, the touch-move rule applies to the king but not to the rook. The arbiter should adjust the time on the clock according to the best evidence. If the mistake is only noticed later on, the game should be restarted from the position in which the error occurred (Schiller 2003:24–25). Some regional organizations have different rules.
>
> If blitz chess is being played (in which both players have a small, limited time, e.g. five minutes) the rule varies. A player may correct an illegal move if the player has not pressed their clock. If a player has pressed their clock, the opponent may claim a win if he or she hasn't moved. If the opponent moves, the illegal move is accepted and without penalty (Schiller 2003:77).

**SOURCE:** Rules of Chess, Illegal move

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


# Question
Title: How can I to hold on to the pawn plus for black in the Queen's Gambit Accepted?
A few years back I used to play with a player who always accepted the queens gambit pawn and used to hold on to it and sometimes win with the pawn plus. Is there any specific variation that can be studied in favour of black in queen's gambit accepted?

# Answer
Black can sometimes hold on to the Pawn if that is the goal. Black has to play an early a6 and b5. One possible variation is:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. e3 b5

```

Although Black will hold on to the extra C-Pawn, White can counterattack with `a4`, `b3`, and `Nc3`. Black has neglected development, and according to MegaBase 2012, White scores **60.6%** from the diagrammed position with the move `5. a4`.
> 8 votes

# Answer
There are ways to hold onto the pawn, but most of them leave Black with a dreadful position where his entire position is built around hanging onto the pawn. Moves like `Be6`, `c6`, `b5`, and `Qa5` are examples of strategies that could be employed.

In the Slav and Semi-Slav defenses, there are in fact a lot of variations in which black is able to comfortably (somewhat) hold onto the pawn. I would check those out if I were you.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawns, queens-gambit, sacrifice, queens-gambit-accepted
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the main ideas in the Grand Prix attack?
I was looking at ways to improve my game by making it more sharp and be able to attack the kingside as quickly as possible, and I found a move that looks interesting called the Grand Prix Attack in Sicilian.

From what I've seen it looks something like this:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. f4

```

But I wanted to get some feedback of people who actually used it, to me it seems the Black can easily get around it by playing `...e6` and `...d5`, right?

Any thoughts?

# Answer
> 8 votes
You are correct in that Black's goal is to play `...e6` and `...d5`, especially if White has played `Bc4`.

Some players will only play into the Grand Prix if Black has committed to an early `...d6`, in that case, Black loses a tempo if he then plays for `...e6` and `...d5`.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The point of the Grand Prix attack is that white either attacks the kingside with `f5` or cramps black in the center with `e5`. There are a lot of dangerous lines, but it is true that it's generally not played very often today. In particular, the Tal Gambit has come to defuse it, leading many white players to start with `2. Nc3` followed by `3. f4`.

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


# Question
Title: Which chess player has been the most financially successful?
Based solely on chess exploits (not including success in other career fields), which player has been the most financially successful?

# Answer
Chess playing has never been a very lucrative occupation. The most money earned in the field of chess probably comes from prizes, and the big prizes are only awarded to the top players. I don't have a definite source, but I would say that Viswanathan Anand is probably the most financially successful, since the prizes have only increased since he began his reign as undisputed world chess champion in 2007. The prize is generally split in half, or 60-40 between winner-loser, or in similar fashion. The prize for this year's tournament will be $2.55 million, split between Anand and Gelfand. For 2010, the prize was 2 million euros, 60% of which went to Anand.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: famous-players
---


# Question
Title: What algorithms and heuristics are popular in computer chess?
Computer chess has exploded in the last twenty years, with a computer world championship being established and many chess computer designers becoming quite profitable from their endeavors. Some of the programs hide their source code, but a great many are open source, most notably Fruit, which served as the basis for a family of chess engines.

What are some examples of heuristics or algorithms used by chess computers, and which have been most successful or are most popular?

# Answer
Algorithms mainly used are based on searching the state space. The problem is that the possible positions a piece can make in the next move is very huge. But it is finite. It is basically a search problem. There is a valid position a piece can take. That is there is a known start state and a know end state. There is no probability involved like the problem of tossing a coin.
A typical algorithm is to use brute force and compute moves for a fixed number of moves. MiniMax can be used in such cases. Alpha-beta pruning is also a well know algorithm used. Mostly the search spaces are represented using a tree based data structure.
Computer program also heavily use databases containing moves, openings, end-game positions etc.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: What openings typify 21st century chess?
What openings are particularly typical of 21st century chess so far? To be more clear, which openings are particularly popular in the 21st century relative to the 20th century? For example, certain hypermodern defenses became a lot more popular in the latter half of the 20th century relative to the first half of the 20th century.

# Answer
> 21 votes
Here are a few openings that seem to be played more often in the last decade than previously. This is just based on my recollection, so please correct any errors or add any other openings.

* **Catalan Opening**
The last few major matches have all featured the Catalan: Anand-Topalov, as well as the candidates matches leading up to the World Championship 2012. The *Grandmaster Repertoire* by Boris Avrukh has also contributed to the recent popularity.
* **Berlin Wall**
Kramnik brought this opening to the forefront when he used it with devastating effect against Kasparov. The queen-less middlegame has been deeply studied since the match in 2000. This line is partially responsible for the rise of `1. d4` and the fall of `1. e4` in the last decade.
* **Grünfeld Defense**
While the Grünfeld was played fairly consistently throughout the 20th century, only recently has it become the main weapon for black when playing for a win against `1. d4`. The Grünfeld doesn't surrender the center like the King's Indian Defense, and it has become more popular the more it is studied, as opposed to the Nimzo-Indian which has fallen by the wayside as the `Qc2` lines have been examined.

Other openings that have been featured in high level games have been the Slav Defense and, as always, the Sicilian. I omitted these openings because, while new lines are always being developed, these openings have been popular consistently for a long time.

Additionally, as I mentioned in my comment, some gambits have also seen a revival. The Morra Gambit, for instance, has come back to high level play and several books about it have been written. The Evan's Gambit is another opening played at all levels.

---
Tags: opening, history, statistics
---


# Question
Title: What is most important for improving chess skills?
There's a lot of advice out there about how to improve your chess skills, some say, study openings, others say practice is more important that theoretical knowledge.

I'm aware that the advice depends on the current skills of the player asking, so feel free to share your knowledge by skill level.

# Answer
Disclaimer: USCF B-player here.

My advice would be to play marginally higher-rated players and ask them for help in determining what one could do better. Most people will fall over themselves to help someone who puts forth an honest effort (hence, web sites like this one.) At tournaments, I've never had an opponent unwilling to go over a game.

I have had some surprises by entering my games into Crafty and letting it analyze every move. You can see pretty quickly where things go sideways. At my level the reason I lose is always tactical. That is, after my move, Crafty shows how I'm losing a piece ;-) It is encouraging that my opponents don't always make the best move, either, so I am not wholly doomed.

Back in the day I had an instructor (USCF Master) who advised A and B players: tactics, tactics, tactics. That is, we could win all our games just by concentrating on the next 4 moves or so. When that quit working, we'd be much better players.

I'd advise:

* get an instructor who can beat you every time (+400 rating points, or so.)
* learn a few openings pretty well. It's hard to stay motivated when every game is a mess by move 7.
* study problems
* focus on having good games, not on winning per se.
* don't be afraid to lose.
* play a lot, record your moves, then run them through the computer.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: What are openings which were once thought good, but are now shown to be inferior?
Are there any openings that were once often played, but are now known to be very bad moves?

# Answer
Openings tend to go in and out of fashion. At example, the Berlin wall was considered to be very dull and unambitious, but then Kramnik played it against Kasparov to become World Champion. Nowadays the Berlin wall is a regular guest at top tournaments. The same can be said about the Scotch Game, which was rarely seen at the highest tournaments until Kasparov picked it up.

So most of the time when openings are not often seen it is because of fashion. One more important reason is that there may be critical lines that lead to unfavourable situations (like that the opponent can force a draw by repetition). Usually it takes a few years, but then someone comes up with a different idea and the lines are playable again. I remember vaguely a game in the poison pawn variation of the Grunfeld Indian between top 10 players (can't remember who, sorry) that turned the evaluation of the whole line upside down. Such games can kill or revive a line all of a sudden.

More generally, in my opinion there are several phases of the way chess is played. In the early days attack was everything and theory was not well developed, so gambits of all kinds were played (Evans Gambit, King's Gambit,...). I'd call it the romantic phase. Then the scientific phase began with lots of general rules discovered and well researched plans. This led to different opening, more balanced systems becoming the mainstay of tournament play. If you followed the rules of thumb your opening were considered sound. Nowadays we have entered the computerized phase, where concrete variations checked by computers rule the tournament halls. This led to the rise of some very sharp, concrete opening systems that otherwise no-one would have dared to play. So, depending on the time in history your question is asked, you will get a different answer about which opening is a bad choice.
> 13 votes

# Answer
The Giuoco Piano was quite popular around the turn of the 20th century (observe, for instance, Chigorin's use of it. Now, however, it is not seen as a good attempt at an advantage for White. Similarly, the Evans Gambit was once given a lot of use by the best in the world; it is no longer taken quite seriously.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'll play.

* King's Gambit
* The Grob (`1. g4`) a.k.a. The Spike
* Bird's Defense to the Ruy Lopez (ECO C61), though this may not qualify as bad, as such. It just has little going for it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In general, "gambits" used to be popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but are usually considered inferior nowadays. This includes not only kings gambit but the Evans gambit, and "wing" gambits such as the Muzio gambit or offshoots such as the Grob ("Spike") opening.

Modern theory, with computerized simulations, show that with accurate Black play, an early pawn sacrifice is usually not worth it. One exception is the Queen's gambit, where the sacrifice is more apparent than real, because White will usually regain the pawn, or Black will have hard time holding it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, history
---


# Question
Title: Should I go for the Traxler Counterattack?
Many of my games as Black feature the Two Knights' Defence.

```
[FEN ""]
1.  e4   e5
2. Nf3  Nc6
3. Bc4  Nf6

```

Sometimes my opponent will play `4. Ng5`, and I usually reply with `4 ... d5`. It is not uncommon for the play to continue `5. exd5 Nxd5` (because neither of us knows any better - I'm still learning to smell fried liver), and if my opponent is particularly bloodthirsty, `6. Bxd5 Qxg5`.

But I've just heard of the Traxler Counterattack, in which I would play `4 ... Bc5!?`. How is that a seriously played course? With `4... Bc5!? 5. Bxf7+` White wins a Pawn without any compensation for Black that I can see.

The merit that I see in it for Black is when White plays `5. Nxf7`. Even that seems unsteady for Black.

My options as I see it are 1) go for the Traxler (and maybe lose a pawn?), 2) lose a pawn (after `4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5`), 3) face a possible fried liver attack (after `5... Nxd5`), and 4) avoid `1. e4 e5
 2. Nf3 Nc6
 3. Bc4 Nf6` altogether, perhaps by playing `3... h6` as I've seen some do. Then again, the "lost" Pawn I've mentioned might be able to be avenged, but how?

# Answer
> 14 votes
The Traxler can be a lot of fun to play if white plays `5.Nxf7?!`. If white plays `5.Bxf7+!` instead, then it's a lot less fun.

Before I go any further, let me recommend the following: instead of the Traxler, play `4...d5 5.exd5` and now either `5...Na5` (Morphy variation) or `5...b5` (Ulvestad variation). Both of these lines feature black sacrificing a pawn in exchange for quick development.

Now, back to the Traxler:

First, the "fun" line, `5.Nxf7?!`. Black should play `5...Bxf2`. Now white can choose between `Kxf2` and `Kf1`. Both of these lines give black good attacking chances, although black will frequently be down two pieces. You can take a look at an article from chesscafe for some more information. Those lines are not really up to date, but it's a good introduction. If you're interested in these specific lines, that's probably worth a separate question for each since the variations get out of hand very quickly.

The more sobering line, `5.Bxf7+` can really put a damper on black's plans. The best line now is `5...Ke7 6.Bb3! Rf8`. Now white scores an impressive 69.3% with `7.d3`.
Granted most of those games were not top level games, but black's difficulties are apparent. White has not committed to castling kingside yet, and can start trades with a plan like Nc3-d5.

So to wrap up, if you want to play the Two Knights defense (`3...Nf6`), you have to be ready for `4.Ng5`, and you should take a look at the Morphy variation and the Ulvestad. Both of these lines give black good chances for a win, even though black sacrifices a pawn. Playing a quiet move like `3...h6` or `3...Be7` is not really good, although both moves stop `4.Ng5`. The problem is that neither h6 nor Be7 really help black develop around the center, and white can react immediately with `4.d4!`.

At the top level, black will usually play into an Italian game with `3...Bc5` instead of the Two Knights. The only real gambit in this case is the Evan's Gambit with `4.b4`. Again, all of these variations probably deserve their own question, but hopefully this is enough to get you started.

---
Tags: opening, two-knights
---


# Question
Title: What are the advantages of the Stonewall attack?
I stumbled upon the Stonewall attack, and it looks pretty strong, and I especially like the fact that it is strong against computer programs.

I would like feedback on this attack, and if this is a move I should consider as a beginner in chess to improve my play?

# Answer
> 12 votes
From the Wikipedia article that you linked to:

> The downsides to the Stonewall are the hole on e4, and the fact that the dark squared bishop on c1 is completely blocked by its own pawns. If Black defends correctly against White's attack, these strategic deficiencies can become quite serious. Because of this, the Stonewall Attack is almost never seen in master-level chess any more, although it is seen occasionally among club players.

The problem is that although the fortress may be solid (at least to begin with), White's attacking options are limited by the bad bishop. In addition, by setting up the fortress the initiative is handed to black, who has various options to break down the fortress (generally a good opening for white would keep the initiative). The article suggests:

> Black has several ways to meet the Stonewall. One choice which must be made is whether to fianchetto one or both bishops; Black can meet the Stonewall with a ...b6 and ...Ba6 aiming to trade off the dangerous white bishop on d3, and a kingside fianchetto with ...g7-g6 takes away White's idea of attacking h7. An early development of Black's light-squared Bishop to f5 also cuts across White's plans.

Other obvious attacking options for black are to hit the base of the chain with b5 and b4, or to castle queenside and attack on the king side with g5. Setting up a fortress like this often seems strong, but in fact the opposite may be true, and in fact is simply providing "hooks" for the opponent to mount an attack. As also stated in the article

> Black playing the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defense is seen occasionally at master level.

and one could also surmise that such defensive formations are, in general, more appealing from black's perspective.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The stonewall attack is a powerful and solid opening that prevents black from controlling the center. Some key points are:

1. White will have control of the dark squares (d4, e3, and f4), so it is important to take control of the light squares with his pieces (`Bd3`, `Nd2`, `Nf3`, etc)
2. He must also prevent black from playing `...e5` with a move like `f4`. If black plays `...e5`, he can gain space advantage and counterplay in the center.
3. Castle your king early.

It is an excellent opening for beginners, just remember to take your time with every move.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Learning just about *any* opening well will improve a beginner's play.

That said, the Stonewall is probably better in this regard than others, because of its strong emphasis on center control.

See What is the theory behind center control?

Another educational advantage of the Stonewall is the "two sided" nature of the opening (robust chances for both sides). The computers don't play it well because of this feature. But that's something that helps a human player improve.

---
Tags: pawn-structure, stonewall-attack
---


# Question
Title: What are the names of the seconds for Anand vs Gelfand WCC 2012?
Who are the seconds for Anand and Gelfand in the WCC 2012?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Anand's seconds are:

```
Peter Heine Nielsen
Rustam Kasimdzhanov
Surya Shekhar Ganguly
Radosław Wojtaszek

```

Gelfand's seconds are:

```
Alexander Huzman
Michael Roiz
Evgeny Tomashevsky
Pavel Eljanov
Maxim Rodshtein
Levon Aronian (to a lesser extent)

```

Gelfand discussed his preparation and seconds in a post-match interview with chessvibes.com.

---
Tags: world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Why is castling kingside more encouraged than queenside?
I often hear that you should castle kingside first, rather than queenside. What are the advantages of castling the king-side as opposed to the queenside? Sometimes I like castling queenside, because when I do, my rook ends up on an open file.

# Answer
It's very difficult to answer without a specific position, but here are a few general thoughts:

### Kingside

* It is almost always faster to castle kingside because only two pieces need to be moved out of the way, and those two pieces have very natural squares (`Nf3`, `Bb5/c4/e2`).
* The kingside pawns are usually left on their starting squares so the king is *usually* safer on the kingside than it would be on the queenside. This is in part because the a file can be weak after long castling.
* In many positions, the move `c3` (`...c6` for black) is useful to support a `d4` (`...d5` for black) push. `c3` is much safer after kingside castling. After queenside castling, `c3` makes the b1-h7 diagonal weaker.
* After short castling, it is possible to push the a and b pawns to try and gain space on the queenside without making weaknesses around the king. For example, the move a4 is frequently useful in the Ruy Lopez and the Slav.

### Queenside

* Usually white is the one to castle queenside because white gets to move first. White can use the initiative to develop faster and start an attack. Almost all opposite castling games feature white playing `O-O-O` and black playing `...O-O`.
* The biggest advantage of queenside castling is that the rook comes immediately to d1 (d8 for black). This means that queenside castling basically saves a move over kingside castling (no need for `Rfe1`).
* Often white will need to play `Kb1` to better protect the king (black can play `...Kb8`). This is another tempo that must be "wasted" after castling long.
* The king is often exposed on the c1-h6 diagonal because the d pawn is usually moved early in the opening. `Kb1` mitigates this danger, but this is still something that must be considered.

### Additional Thoughts

* If you want an attacking game, castling to the opposite side of the board than your opponent is the easiest way to do this. The reason is that then the pawns in front of your opponent's king can be pushed forward to participate in an attack.
* If you want a safe game, for example when your opponent has a lead in development, castle on the same side as your opponent. If your opponent tries to push the pawns on the same side as the kings, you will frequently be able to counter-attack.
* When in doubt, kingside castling is almost never "wrong", but queenside castling is sometimes a grave error. In illustration, I present Boden's Mate:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "28"]
[Event "simultaneous exhibition"]
[Site "Budapest"]
[Date "1934"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Esteban Canal"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B01"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bf4 e6
7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Bb4 9. Be2 Nd7 10. a3 O-O-O?? {Incredibly, castling queenside turns out to be a blunder which at the least loses the queen. In another book, Reinfeld writes, "Black mistakenly thinks that [11.axb4] is out of the question. But White, seeing further ahead and relying on his excellent attacking position, has a stunning surprise continuation." Iakov Neishtadt writes, "Black is convinced that his opponent cannot take the Bishop. This would indeed have been the case if he had played not 10...0-0-0, but 10...Ngf6." Seirawan and Minev advise, "Motto: Think twice before castling on the Queenside!"}
11. axb4!! {If a6, b7, and c6 are unprotected by black pieces, then Boden's Mate would be possible, so White starts to deflect the black queen from guarding these squares by force.}
11... Qxa1+ {If Black plays 11...Qb6 in order to protect a6, b7, and c6, then (besides already being a piece up) White could continue to attack the black queen with 12.Na4 [12...Qxb4+? 13.c3 Qb3 14.Ra3], and the queen will run out of safe squares to protect a6, b7, or c6.}
12. Kd2! {Another deflection. Black is doomed now, for after capturing the white rook at a1, Black loses the last chance to protect c6, and the black queen is unable to stay on the a-file to protect a6.}
12... Qxh1 {Reinfeld writes, "Microscopically preferable was 12...Ne5 13.Bxe5 Qxh1 14.Qxf7 Rd7 (amusing would be 14...Ne7 15.Qxe6+! Rd7 16.Bg4 Rhd8 17.Qd6! forcing mate) 15.Qe8+ Rd8 16.Qxe6+ Rd7 17.Qe8+ Rd8 18.Bg4# !"}
13. Qxc6+ bxc6 14. Ba6# {[%draw arrow,a6,c8, red][%draw arrow,f4,b8, blue]} 1-0

```
> 31 votes

# Answer
There are several reasons.

1) Castling kingside is faster, because there are only two pieces between king and rook, as opposed to three on the queenside.

2) When castling kingside, the king is placed to protect *all* the pawns on that side. Queenside castling leaves the rook pawn unprotected, and the king has to make another additional move (to b1 or b8) to protect it.

3) Castling on the kingside leaves the queenside freer for endgame purposes, like trying to obtain an "outside" passed pawn on the a file.

That said, there is one advantage of castling on the queenside in that it puts the rook on a center (d) file. If you've moved up your queen, you can reinforce it with the rook. If you've moved your queen off the file, and your opponent hasn't, the rook has the opposing queen in its sights. In short, you castle queen side for positional considerations (as opposed to tactical ones like the three above.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: castling
---


# Question
Title: Is this endgame position a theoretical win or draw?
The following tactics problem comes from ChessTempo, and was taken from a game between Anatoly Karpov and Alexey Kuzmin. It's white's move.

The idea of the problem is to find white's best move from the shown position.

But my question is slightly different: If both players play *perfectly* from the position shown in the diagram, can white force a win, or can black force a draw?

```
[FEN "8/3Q2pk/5p1p/5P2/5K1P/p3r3/b2n2P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

I tried using a few chess engines to analyze the position, leaving them running for hours. White gets a very favorable evaluation (about +4 or +5 depending on the engine). I'd normally consider this to be enough for a certain win. But after looking at the computer's best line it seems that after initially winning some material, white's queen just goes round in circles without making any further progress while the black king sits safely behind the wall of pawns.

I guess either the position is a draw, or the computer isn't able to plan far enough ahead to find the winning line. I can't see an easy way for white to win, but I'm no expert and it's possible I've overlooked something.

So what do you think: is it a theoretical win for white or can black escape with a draw?

# Answer
> 12 votes
I think that the position is a **theoretical draw**.

While Freeman's answer is quite good, but I think he has overlooked that `1. Qxd2` leads to a clearly drawn position because of Black's amazing response `1 ...Rb3!!`

```
[FEN "8/3Q2pk/5p1p/5P2/5K1P/p3r3/b2n2P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxd2 Rb3!! 2. Qxa2 Rb2!! 3. Qxa3 Rxg2

```

Now I don't see any way for White to win. Black has created an impenetrable fortress and white's queen can do nothing.

The 2400+ rated player Alexey Kuzmin missed the move `1... Rb3` in the game, playing instead `1... Re5?` which gives a theoretically losing position. All the engines I tried also miss the sequence `1... Rb3` and `2... Rb2` and instead play a losing move.

I suggest that *if* there is a forced win for White then we must start looking at 1.Kxe3. This move doesn't win as much material as `1. Qxd2`, but it leads to a more dynamic position. White can prevent Black from promoting thanks to black's wrong-colored bishop that is unable to protect the a1 square. White can also threaten to advance the g-pawn to attempt to disrupt Black's wall of pawns.

However a computer analysis of `1. Kxd3` seems to show that despite White's material advantage Black can still get a draw.

I'm no expert, so there may be a mistake in my analysis, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Actually, this looks like a win to me.

Once you get the below sequence:

```
[FEN "8/3Q2pk/5p1p/5P2/5K1P/p3r3/b2n2P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxd2 Re5 2. Qxa2 Ra5

```

The computer engines get distracted because of all of the possibilities with the king moving over to assist the queen with that lone pawn, but really, if you mix things up and start trading pawns on the kingside, you're going to end up with a much more favorable position for White.

Look at:

```
[FEN "8/6pk/5p1p/r4P2/5K1P/p7/Q5P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

3. g4

```

Which starts the action on the kingside. In fact, with Stockfish, this move alone wasn't recommended even after looking at the position for quite some time (it wanted me to march the king over to assist the queen in defending the queenside against the pawn and rook), but after I made it, the score immediately jumped up to 7+.

Anyway, a couple moves in from here and I started getting "mate in 35" reports, so I think this is definitely winnable once you start trading off (or winning) some of the kingside pawns, while watching out for the pawn on A.

**Update after a bit more analysis:**

Most paths get to something like the following:

```
[FEN "7k/6p1/8/5PK1/8/8/Q7/7r b - - 0 1"]

1... Rh6 2. Kf4 Rb6 3. Qc4 Rd6 4. Ke5 Rh6 5. Qc8+ Kh7 6. Qe6 Kh8 7. Kd6 Rf6 8. Ke7 Kh7 9. Qxf6 gxf6 10. Kxf6 Kh6 11. Ke6 Kh5 12. f6 Kg5 13. f7 Kf4 14. Kd5 Kf3 15. Kd4 Kg3 16. Ke4 Kh3 17. f8=Q Kg3 18. Qf3+ Kh2 19. Qg4 Kh1 20. Kf3 Kh2 21. Qg2#

```

Where you have one white pawn left on the kingside, and the queenside pawn was taken care of. So, the fortress is gone once you push the pawn a bit more and trade them off. With perfect play, it is a loss in 20 moves according to this 6-man tablebase.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, draw, master-games, winning
---


title: What openings are closed and defensive?

text:
# Question
Title: What openings are closed and defensive?
Which openings would be regarded as leading to a closed position and being defensive? Specifically, openings that would be drawish, even against stronger players, but there is still always a possibility of squeezing out a win if played carefully and the opponent goes wrong.

# Answer
The openings which are considered more drawish are usually openings where you have no central tension and symmetric pawn structure, something like the exchange French/Slav. It's asymmetry and tension that gives room for complications. I can't think of many huddled, solid defensive lines where the goal is just to be closed and impenetrable, though you could argue a tamely played and unambitious Stonewall, Colle, or London could fit the bill. Still, by playing this way, you are creating an imbalance in space and activity which isn't in your favor. Not recommended.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: What counter-measures for cheating exist?
Given how huge an advantage real-time external feedback to a player during championship games would give the player, do any of the major chess championships deploy counter-measures to prevent the same sort of cheats you might expect to find at a casino? If so, are these counter-measures well known?

# Answer
> 3 votes
See, Cheating in Chess, by Frederic Friedel.

**Abstract**

> Nowadays, players at all levels of chess can profit from computer assistance during a game. This is a new development and a serious problem for the game. This contribution lists the main forms of cheating and provides some occurrences from practice. The most prevailing one (Allwermann at the Böblinger Open) is placed in a historical context by describing previously noticed cases of cheating. Finally, the problem of cheating is addressed at the highest level of play. What are the possibilities and how can we prevent cheating at this level? Since there is no clear solution, the issue of cheating remains on the list of issues to be addressed very seriously in the near future.

# Answer
> 5 votes
There have been tournaments that require the players pass through a metal detector, and play in an isolated environment with no spectator contact. Still, there was the whole Toiletgate incident during the 2006 Topalov-Kramnik match, so even these measures might not seem like 'enough.' Besides resorting to strip searching the players, what else can be done except isolate them from the outside world during the games?

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: How can I get Elo ratings?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I get Elo ratings?
How do I get Elo rating done for myself officially?
Do I contact a FIDE area representative?
Many of the users of this site mention their Elo ratings, how did you get these?

# Answer
To get an official FIDE rating, you need to compete in tournaments which are FIDE rated. At least in the US, it's more common for tournaments to be just USCF rated, while larger events will also FIDE rate the top section(s).
> 7 votes

---
Tags: fide, rating
---


# Question
Title: How can I compare top chess players that were not scored using Elo?
Given that Elo ratings appear to only have been around officially since 1970, how do you compare top chess players that were not scored using Elo (e.g. their careers came before ratings existed)?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Jeff Sonas at chessmetrics calculated ratings for players going way back, using the games we have available. Gives a pretty good picture of players relative strength.

Note this is up to around 2005, so you won't see players like Carlsen on there.

---
Tags: rating
---


title: Fischer: 1. e4 "Best by test"

text:
# Question
Title: Fischer: 1. e4 "Best by test"
Fischer famously scribbled "best by test" on one of his score sheets after playing `1. e4`.

Yet when I look at chess.com's database of games, `1. d4` yields a larger win %age for while than does `1. e4`.

Was Fischer wrong? If not, what changed to make this so?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Aside from the fact that the difference is only .3% at master level games on chess.com's db, I think Fischer was referring to his own personal results.

A search on chess tempo for Fischer's games reveals that this is the case: http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/player/239563

* e4 (51.3% win)
* d4 (15.4% win)

**update**: The statistics above are skewed because Fischer never played d4 as white. See comments. Still, my initial point is valid. It was his preferred opening. I don't think .3% makes him wrong.

---
Tags: opening, fischer
---


title: Why does FIDE still use Elo?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does FIDE still use Elo?
I've been impressed with the way the Glicko rating system works. In particular:

* more games played recently cause your rating to stabilize
* fewer games played recently cause your rating to fluctuate until you get several recent games under your belt

USCF modified their system to be similar a few years back (where there is a sliding scale to amplify or dampen the rating change for a given match), and now that Glickman (the inventor of Glicko) is on the rating board for the USCF, I imagine they'll eventually adopt an even more flexible system, like his own.

Is there a reason (other than being resistant to change, or that they just haven't gotten around to it yet) that FIDE doesn't adopt a more accurate rating system?

# Answer
> 11 votes
It is not proven that Glicko is more accurate. Glicko just solves the problem a different way, with a different emphasis. Consider that all these systems abstract a human mind to a 4 digit number.

There's a lot of politics in ratings; it's a touchy subject. If FIDE were to adopt it, they'd produce a new top-100 list, and a lot of GMs would likely be upset.

The ELO system is very easy to understand; transparency is important. More complex systems have immediate disadvantages.

# Answer
> 8 votes
As far as I understand the Glicko rating system adds a reliability score to the rating number, which may provide a higher fairness regarding the rating score adjustment calculations. Obviously this might lead to the wrong assumption that there is a correlation between playing rated games and resulting playing strength (since not playing decreases the reliability score which in turns de-valuates your rating number somehow). I see a lot of problems connected to the reliability score, although I must admit I am no expert about the subtleties of the system. Just to pick three:

* A player playing only the rare rated game might get no invitations anymore. Imagine you are a tournament director inviting attractive players. Now you have to choose between 10 players, all of which have the same rating number, but different reliability numbers. Probably you will pick the ones with the best reliability numbers first. Over time the reliability gap between players with many rated games and less ones might widen.
* Manipulation of rating numbers might become easier. Even the ELO system is not cheat-safe, because some people got ratings or IM/GM norms by playing in rigged tournaments. A good reliability score might make helping players with no reliability score very cheap - the good player gives rating points without losing much himself. As soon as money is involved, being cheat-safe is an important issues. I have the feeling the Glicko rating system is more prone to manipulations.
* The communication and understanding of playing strength might become more difficult to the masses. When you communicate a ranking list, you run into problems. A player with a rating of 2000-50 has a "real playing strength" somewhere between 1900 and 2100. Another player has got 1950-2000, which translates to a number in the range of 1750 and 2150. So the player with 1950-2000 might be in fact the better player, but will probably be ranked below the other one, only because he played less games or against less reliable opponents. You make explaining your ranking system more difficult to people, without really guaranteeing more fairness. A GM which stops playing might gain "potential strength" and boast about his world champion potential, because his reliability number makes increasing room for deviation (mind it: in both directions, not only downwards!).

To sum it up: You might get more than you bargained for, because the whole package does not only come with improvements. And since there are heavy monetary issues involved when you look at the upper end of the ranking lists, I do not see the merits of changing an existing system.

---
Tags: rating, fide, glicko
---


title: Pawn to Queen probabilities chart

text:
# Question
Title: Pawn to Queen probabilities chart
Statistically speaking, which white and black pawns are most likely to be queened?

# Answer
> 28 votes
I have some partial statistics for the question, from the Million Base 1.74 database, a collection of 1742057 games. 77218 of these games (4.4%) feature at least one promotion.

I counted 49970 promotions for white (54% of all promotions) and 42519 for black (46%). Here are the **destination** square statistics (meaning there is no track of the actual initial pawn square, because that statistic is a lot more difficult to gather), for all games and depending on the type of castling:

```
White         a8    b8    c8    d8    e8    f8    g8    h8
all         15.8% 14.2% 13.8% 14.8% 11.5% 11.3%  8.7%  9.8%
with O-O    15.8% 14.3% 13.9% 15.9% 11.8% 11.2%  8.1%  9.1%
with O-O-O  17.1% 14.7% 14.2% 10.7%  9.9% 11.7% 10.8% 11.0%

Black         a1    b1    c1    d1    e1    f1    g1    h1
all         16.0% 14.7% 14.4% 12.6% 11.8% 11.3%  9.0% 10.1%
with O-O    15.9% 14.8% 14.3% 12.9% 11.9% 11.3%  8.7% 10.0%
with O-O-O  13.5% 10.7% 10.9%  9.7% 12.4% 14.0% 14.0% 14.8%

```

A few observations:

* queenside promotions seem significantly more common than kingside promotions
* column statistics are quite consistent between black and white (except maybe when black castles long)
* castling long increases the odds of a promotion happening kingside

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is almost impossible to answer, but I would say the pawns that are on the `a` and `h` file or more likely to promote, especially if protected by another pawn and rook. I would say this increases if the king has already castled on the opposite side of the `a` or `h` file.

---
Tags: pawns, statistics, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Why 8...Na6 was played in the immortal draw?
From the other question: Is there a "perfect" game? , an interesting game came up:

```
[fen ""]
[title "Hamppe-Meitner, Vienna"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4
8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.
Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ 18.Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2

```

My question is, why is `8...Na6` considered the best move? References to GM analysis would be great.

Stockfish says `8...Nc6` is better--in fact, `8...Na6` is not even on the top 10 recommended moves. And I can see even in the short term that the knight on c6 instead of a6 might be nice: consider `...Na5+`.

# Answer
I talked to National Master Dan Heisman about this game and according to him, the answer is really very simple:

At the time, black thought that `8...Na6` was the best move. Black's intention was to control b4 and get to c5. After that both sides played almost perfectly which resulted in a draw.

It is also possible that the game was actually made up, but this is hard to prove 140 years later.

Black probably would have played something else besides `8...Na6`, but with no computer analysis at the time, it was thought to be best.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: analysis, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Is taking the opponent's king an illegal move?
In competition blitz games, making an illegal move and then pressing the clock forfeits the game if the opponent claims the illegal move as long as they do not make a new move, as a new move would void the previous illegal move according to FIDE blitz rules.

I've seen all kind of forfeits because of this reason in blitz games, including one player taking one of his own pawns.

However, the most common case for illegal moves is neglecting that the King is in check or unprotecting the King. In this case where the King is checked, if the opponent takes the exposed king and presses the clock, are they making a new illegal move, hence voiding the previous one?

I've been told that taking the King, even as a kind of "joke" to expose a previous illegal move, is an illegal move by itself, because the King cannot be taken, only mated. Is this true under FIDE rules?

# Answer
> 18 votes
Capturing the King is an illegal move according to FIDE.

Refer to Article 1.2 from the Laws of Chess

> The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

# Answer
> 17 votes
This is actually very common in blitz games. Taking the opponent's king is considered to be a claim of an illegal move. You can see my answer to this question for some more information.

Since taking the opponent's king is a *claim* instead of a move, it immediately ends the game. In blitz games, the player "capturing" the king wins. In slower games, taking the king is in fact illegal, and if a player did this, the position would be reset to the position before the first illegal move, and then any touch move rules would apply. If there were time pressure considerations, one or both players could have two minutes added to their clocks at the arbiter's discretion.

From the FIDE Appendix for Blitz and Rapidplay

Article A.4.c:

> An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless mutually agreed without intervention of an arbiter.

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


title: What are the rules of blindfold chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the rules of blindfold chess?
Forcing players to maintain a mental model of the positions of the pieces by using blindfolds seems interesting, but I've been unable to find any official rules for playing blindfold chess.

What are the rules for playing?

# Answer
The rules from Amber are a good start, but in slightly more casual blindfold games, different rules apply.

Disclaimer:
I'm not aware of any official source for these rules other than common practice in my own blindfold games and observing many other blindfold games.

* The players must call out their moves verbally, and only after they have finished speaking is the clock stopped and the opponent's clock started.
* Each player must make legal moves - if a given move is illegal, then the opponent/arbiter will say "illegal" and the player must make a different, legal move.
* The game is lost by a player making two illegal moves.
* It is permitted to use a relayer to make the moves on a physical board and to operate the clock if only one player is playing blind or if both players agree.

The main thing here is that two illegal moves loses the game. In the Amber tournament, players have a computer in front of them in order to input moves - the rules above apply more to the situation where two players are just playing without any board (i.e. during a car ride).
> 6 votes

# Answer
These were the rules for the 2006 Amber blindfold tournament with many super-GMs participating:

> ## Rules of play
>
> **Rules for the blindfold games**
>
> * Play will be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess, except where they are overridden by the following rules.
> * Players are not allowed to record the moves.
> * At the start of the game each player has twenty-five minutes on his clock. Before a player makes his move twenty seconds will be added to his remaining time.
> * The computer clock marks the end of the time-control period.
> * The monitor will show the players when the same position has appeared on the board three times or that the "50 moves rule" can be applied. In this case either player has the right to claim a draw.
> * If a player makes an illegal move, the monitor will display the message: "Illegal move, make another move". In this case there is no need for additional action by the player.
> * If a player needs the assistance of the arbiter, he may call the arbiter. The arbiter will in this case interrupt the game; interrupting of the game takes about 5 seconds. In this situation the players may not leave the playing area of the playing hall and may not watch the position on the monitors.
> * Players, who leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter, will lose the game immediately.
>
> **Regulations in case of computer breakdown**
>
> * After a computer breakdown, it is forbidden to speak to anybody except the arbiter.
> * The games will be continued on empty boards in the two playing halls and, if three games are in progress, also in a room of the hotel.
> * The time will be controlled using the Fischer clock; the time will be transferred as accurately as possible from the computer system to the Fischer clock. 25 seconds extra will be added for each move (instead of 20 seconds).
> * Two persons will control the game; the arbiter will write the moves down on a scoresheet, which is hidden from the players, and operate the clock. The assistant will play the moves on a pocket set, which is hidden from the players. The arbiter will check the intended move for legality, and if it is legal he will operate the clock and then write the move on the scoresheet. Note: it is possible that it takes a few seconds for the arbiter to check the move and press the clock, but in any case the time taken is not more than for the player to enter the move on the computer.
> * The players shall show their moves on the empty board by pointing to the start and destination square of the move they intend to make; at the same time, they will speak the move aloud. If the move spoken differs from the move indicated on the board, then the arbiter shall say, "What do you mean?"
> * If a player makes an illegal move, then the arbiter will say "Illegal move" and he will not push the clock. For example, if a player says "Rook takes d6" and the move is not a capture, then the arbiter will say "Illegal move", or if the player shows d1-d6 on the board and says "Queen d6", but the piece on d1 is actually a rook, then the arbiter will again say "Illegal move".

**SOURCE:** ChessBase News, 2006
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to find the best websites for playing chess?
What factors are important when selecting a website to play chess on, including but not limited to features and community?

**Note:** Since asking for the best chess websites does not fall within the rules for types of questions that are allow on Stack Exchange, I figured I'd attempt to ask basically the same question in a way that will not result in it being closed.

# Answer
It would depend to a certain extend on what your playing level is and what you want from the experience. Whether you want to play a few games for fun, or if you want to play to improve your game. Also whether you are looking for a free site or are willing to pay a subscription. I play for fun as well as to improve my game, so I look for a site with a larger number of active players with a good range of rating. And if you are willing to pay the subscription there are sites like ICC and Playchess (hope it isn't against the rules to name sites) that offer very good learning materials like video lectures by very strong players.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'd say:

* User interface
* Availability in your mobile device of choice
* Tournaments. I like tournaments.
* Free version is good enough, or at least reasonable pricing
* A good rating system and stats (to track evolution)
* Some kind of analysis tools
> 4 votes

# Answer
Well, my wish list goes something like the following:

1. Intuitive interface with no annoying bugs.
2. Mobile phone access.
3. A generous amount of free content.
4. No cheating.
5. Large player base, so I can get a game fairly promptly at any time of the day against players at my skill level.
6. That the player base be skewed toward highly skilled rather than lower skilled, because I would rather be challenged and improve than stroke my ego, with perhaps incentives for highly skilled players to be visible and get involved.
7. Controls that allow you to manage connections with other players, like placing players that annoyed you into an ignore box and players you enjoyed playing into a friends would-like-to-play-again box, chat facilities, etc.
8. A vibrant forum for discussion and analysis.
9. Learning content.
10. Rating system and awards.
11. Tournaments and events.
12. Choice with regards to time controls.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Factors to consider when finding the best site to play chess on I guess depends on what you would consider best, but some of my factors are:

1. User interface. It must be intuitive. I shouldn't have to guess what to do or guess what it is doing.
2. Strong community. The community can be a mixture of ratings. Another important thing about the community is that they must be nice.
3. Lots of learning content
4. No lag time
5. Mobile phone access (this will be good once I get a smartphone)
6. Various time controls.
7. Tournaments
8. if it is free, then it is even better, but if it cost something like the ICC, I wouldn't mind paying for a membership as long as the pros outweighed the cons.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: Playing Kb1(b8) immediately after O-O-O

text:
# Question
Title: Playing Kb1(b8) immediately after O-O-O
I'm curious about this move duo.

I see this quite a bit, and I'm trying to figure out under which conditions that playing `Kb1(b8)` is normally preferred.

In some openings, such as the Sicilian Dragon, White will castle long followed up by playing `Kb1`. In such cases, there are some rather real threats against the castled position there (`Bg7` pointing at b2, open c-file with `Rc8`, active Black Queen).

However, I'm more curious about some of the more quieter positions where there doesn't appear to be any obvious threats. In some cases, I see players, and even computer programs, play `Kb1(b8)` immediately. I've analyzed some of these lines and never seem to find any reason why `Kb1(b8)` is played.

I've always been of the mind to just leave the King at c1(c8) unless there is some obvious threat.

Why is `Kb1(b8)` played in some of these positions? What types of threats can the other player come up with to require `Kb1(b8)` to be played?

# Answer
There are two main reasons to play `Kb1(b8)`:

1. **Prophylaxis** \- Kb1 does many things, xaisoft's answer touches on some of them. On c1, the king is very exposed to checks on the c1-h6 diagonal. This means that a queen could check on g5 and pick off a loose piece on h4. Or similarly, if black plays `...Bh6`, the white king will be checked, or worse, a piece could be pinned to the king. In most openings where white plays O-O-O, the center and kingside pawns are being thrown forward to try and mate black, so avoiding diagonal checks is almost always useful. Some other reasons that Kb1 is useful are:

* Clearing c1 for a rook to help defend c2
    * Protecting the a2 pawn
    * Preparing to play `c3` or `b3` to blunt an attack along the c or b file (although `c3` is almost always wrong once `O-O-O` has been played)
2. **A Waiting Move** \- Since we have already established that `Kb1` is useful, it is also important to note that there are very few drawbacks to the move. Other moves might not be so good in the position though. For example, in the Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon, in current theory white will play `12. Kb1` instead of `12. h4` because white is *not yet sure* how best to deploy the kingside pawns. Frequently white will just play `g4` and omit `h4` to speed up the attack.
> 7 votes

# Answer
`Kb1` is generally played to

1. Defend the unprotected a2 pawn (from `...Qa5` for example)
2. remove the King from the dangerous c file

If none of the above threats occur, `Kb1` is not necessary.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: castling, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: What are any USCF tournament rule changes since 1990?
I have not played competitive chess since 1990 and I plan to start playing tournaments again. Are there any rule changes I need to know about?

# Answer
The biggest thing that caught me was the new clock "delay" style. I had to buy a new clock to be able to use mine in a tournament, after taking a break from 2000 to 2010. My old, somewhat expensive digital clock only had "Bronstein", where you add time each move. The newer digital clocks all support the "delay" setting, where you can delay starting the timer each move until a certain number of seconds in. In standard USCF tournaments, they now require a 5 second delay. (I'm not sure when it was implemented, but I assume sometime between 2000 and 2010).

Aside from that, there was something about allowing the new electronic pocket devices for taking down moves. This has caused some controversy, because some of the devices can run chess engines, and can be used for cheating, so TDs and players alike should be careful to note how they are being used. I personally prefer paper.

There is also an entirely new method of calculating ratings, so forget what you knew from back then. (This isn't really a rule.)

Sorry if this isn't comprehensive, but hopefully it is useful.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament-directors, uscf
---


# Question
Title: How should I deal with two siblings in the same section?
How can I deal with two family members who are playing in the same section? For example, my brother and I both played in the same local tournament (one section) fairly frequently. Usually, we could avoid being paired (there were enough people, and the other players were willing to cut us some slack).

Occasionally, we would be leading the tournament and there was no way around pairing us. The most drastic case was when we both had perfect scores and were playing for first place (and potentially third for the loser). As a good big brother, I soundly trounced my younger brother.

Now it's not far-fetched to imagine a case where the game between family members impacted prizes/tournament standings at the end of a cash tournament. Is there a fair way to deal with the situation? Obviously any kind of collusion would be grounds for a double forfeit, but it would also be very hard to prove that it was a pre-arranged result.

An interesting side note - I seem to remember seeing that former World Champion Kosteniuk used to play in tournaments with her sister, and she said that they would be paired in round one to avoid any conflicts later. Is this a reasonable solution or is there a more equitable way to deal with things?

# Answer
> 11 votes
The situation is not very different to two training partners or two friends being paired. The dilemma between sportsmanship and friendship is the same. Are you allowed to "misuse" personal information about weaknesses of your opponent? Should you pre-arrange a result to fit the needs of each other?

The keyword is sportsmanship here. You are playing in a chess tournament because you like the thrill of a tournament, the competition and over everything else: the game. You both share this love. Why should you sacrifice the idea of the sport at all? Trying to win against an opponent is not a personal affair, but a trial of strength between the two players. That is why you joined the tournament in the first place! If someone beats me, he might still be my best friend (at least, after my embarrassment of having lost is gone). If you pre-arrange a game, you harm the idea of the tournament and you harm yourself, because you get less excitement and benefits from playing there.

There are several cases of successful siblings competing in the same sport at the highest level. In Formula 1, the Schumacher siblings Ralf and Michael were competing for several years at the same races. In woman chess, the Kosintseva siblings Tatiana and Nadezhda are both ranked among the 20 strongest women. I think they attend the same tournament together very often. I doubt any of them would sacrifice the sport, nor did I ever hear someone voicing that opinion.

Hence I would suggest, the more professional the level of play is, the less you have to worry about siblings being paired against each other. As a tournament director my fear about cheating players would not increase only because there are siblings playing.

# Answer
> 6 votes
When my club attended tournaments, we'd just ask the TD to not pair us if possible. We'd explain we played each other every week and would prefer new opponents. The TDs were always understanding and accommodating.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't really see the problem, and if I had a brother, I'd probably keen to compete. Just try to play your best game, and ask your brother to do the same.

Maybe you should try to play against the position on the board, not against the person. And in the end, chess is still "just a game". It would be sad if one of you couldn't deal with this.

---
Tags: tournament-directors, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Is the World Chess Blitz Championship for Robots going to be broadcast over the Internet?
Does anyone know if the World Chess Blitz Championship for Chess Robots in Moscow is going to be streamed over the web? Sounds really cool and I'd like to see it.

# Answer
Appears unlikely given it does not even appear that there's a website for the event, just press releases that were posted to weblogs like the one you linked too. Here's archival video of "Vladimir Kramnik vs Robot" for anyone interested in viewing the game play; just in case you thought a robot play a person is boring, **watch the robot "attack" Kramnik, he almost loses his hand**.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: blitz, engines
---


# Question
Title: What is the book containing this puzzle with an unexpected answer?
(To best of my recollection) In the book a diagram was given with the side note something like X vs Y, 1920 or 1930 Morocco or some other place with the question "what did black do?"

After some careful examination it seemed like there is a win for black etc., but when looking up the answer at the end of the book:

> A: If you said (insert combination here) black wins, you are wrong, as in actual game (black missed the winning combination) black resigned!

Anyone can suggest the book that contains this puzzle and answer?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well, here's a link that contains the game, probably. I'd guess it's example #1. This may give you more information for your research.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Which is the World's largest chess club?
Most chess clubs in my area struggle to gather more than 30 federated members with only one club past the 100-member count in a territory of 8 million people.

Which is the largest physical chess club in the World and how many members does it have?

# Answer
# Marseille Échecs (831 members)

According to the French Chess Federation, Marseille Échecs is the largest French club, totaling 831 officially registered players.

Two other French clubs have more than 500 members, in the cities of Bois-Colombes (612) and Villepinte (584), both near Paris.
> 5 votes

# Answer
## Hamburger SK von 1830 eV (419 members)

Located in Hamburg, second largest city of Germany with a population of approx. 1.8 Mio people. The number includes younger players, partly without national rating number. In Germany there are about 60 clubs with more than 100 members. Interestingly, to my information no club in Berlin (which is 2 times bigger than Hamburg) comes anywhere near the member count of the Hamburger SK. On the other hand there are 17 clubs in Berlin to choose from.
> 4 votes

# Answer
## Mechanics' Institute (250 members)

(The Mechanics' Institute Chess Club in San Francisco)

This just based on the size of their staff, their membership fees are relatively low, hours of operation, and that it is the oldest chess club in the United States; Zurich has the oldest club.

That said, I was unable to find any chess club that post yearly counts for membership purchased and/or given; that said, games played onsite, and the average rating of those games would likely be a more useful numbers.

**UPDATE:** So, according to John Donaldson, Chess Director of the Mechanics' Institute Chess Club, he guessed 250 players use the club a month; reason for a guess is that it's complicated to know the exact count, since the membership is to the Institute, not just the chess club. Also, he said that the Tuesday Marathon attracts roughly 100 players.
> 3 votes

# Answer
## Marshall Chess Club (500 members)

(Marshall Chess Club, New York, NY)

Roughly 500 "active" members; meaning the player's membership is currently paid in full. It's free to visit one-time, and there's blitz games on Friday for players of any rating for $20.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: clubs
---


# Question
Title: What software is good for deliberate practice in specific areas?
Is there software that tracks unassisted game play and categorizes player's strengthens and weaknesses in a way that allows the player to focus on the most valuable deliberate area practice relative to the player's strengthens and weaknesses?

# Answer
I'm confident in saying that there is no such software; though engines are of course incredibly strong players, and their numerical evaluations can certainly pinpoint poor individual moves that you might make, the kind of helpful feedback you describe is unfortunately out of reach for a computer program at this point in time. On the plus side, though, there is a fantastic (and cheap!) alternative to such nonexistent software: *human players who are stronger than oneself*.

One of the best ways to get better at chess (and this is in common with most competitive endeavors) is just to play against the strongest opponents you can find, whether casually or in tournament play, especially if you can pick their brains in a postmortem afterward. You will come to learn where they saw you going wrong, and in what areas of the game you tend to make mistakes, and in time you will see more and more of these things on your own. And even if you don't talk through the game afterward, just the playing itself will be a boon to your development as a player, as there's no substitute for practice against the best, and steel sharpens steel.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: software, learning
---


# Question
Title: When is it appropriate to use a program during games with a longer timeframe, such as correspondence chess?
Are there rules about when a player may use a chess engine to aid his game? Is it always frowned upon? Do you have to specially ask? Not that you can stop your opponent from using an engine, but is it cheating, or is it ever acceptable? Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the point of two players using engines would be.

# Answer
> 6 votes
If you haven't agreed before the game then you should assume that it's not allowed. It will usually be regarded as cheating. If you wish to use a computer you should ask your opponent before you do so.

Playing with the assistance of a computer is sometimes called Advanced Chess. If you agree before hand that it's allowed, then there's no problem and both can use a computer freely. Some Advanced Chess tournaments are also played with standard time controls.

> Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the point of two players using engines would be.

The point of Advanced Chess is that a computer is strong at fast and accurate calculation but weak at strategy, while the human is stronger at strategy but more prone to errors in complex tactic situations. The human can use their strategic ability to guide the computer into strong strategical positions or won end game positions, while the computer can check that there are no blunders that the human may have missed. If played well, the playing strength of the human-computer team can be higher than each individual playing alone.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Anything agreed upon by the participants is ok. In the case of using a program, without some agreement this would be no more acceptable than having someone else play the game on your behalf.

# Answer
> 5 votes
## Correspondence chess

In earlier times we used to analyze actual positions of correspondence chess games of a club member to help him win his games. Nowadays it is more common to ask the computer instead to check the validity of positions. Therefore in my opinion nothing has changed, except that the computer is more of a tactical genius than the common club player. Although there is some truth in the saying 'chess is all tactics', I think most correspondence chess players use chess engines mostly for checking against tactical loopholes, while using databases to check for common motives or win probabilities. But for the strategy part of the game, it is the human mind that wins the day (as long as chess is not fully calculable from start to end). Except for playing strength levels where cheap tactics always decide a game, the help of a computer is not a replacement for thinking yourself. I know of several very good correspondence chess players which would gladly play any player who restricts himself to using chess engine moves, because they expect to beat such an opponent easily. The moment this won't be true anymore correspondence chess will be dead (or at the very least be reduced to a clumsily slow chess engine testing ground).

## Tournament Chess

Rules will usually try to regulate the allowed use of computers. The earlier practice of adjourned games was abandoned because of computer help becoming available, not the least because tablebases allowed perfect endgame play. In tournament halls the use of a cell phone or chess computer will often lose you the game instantly. In club matches the frequent use of the toilet room with a computer will be considered cheating, too. I remember some experiments with chess players being allowed the use of a computer during the game ("advanced chess"), but it never became popular. As long as you do not register the computer as a player (instead as yourself), the use of a database, cheat slip or chess engine is probably everywhere considered cheating. In the 80s there were some tournaments where chess computers where allowed to enter, and I remember dimly that former world championship candidate Robert Huebner forfeited a game once because he refused to play against a computer in such a tournament.

## Online Chess

Extremely critical is the use of computers during online play, because no one can see what you are doing in person (like setting up a second computer to calculate moves for you, while "you" play a game on the first computer). Most playing sites have special rooms where the help of computer is allowed - everywhere else this is considered cheating. Of course, the use of a computer is a must to play online at all, but only as a human interface device (for inputting and receiving moves). Mind you can often register a chess engine as a separate player, so everyone playing it knows he is playing against a computer. But if you state you are playing yourself although you use a chess engine I'd consider it cheating.

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, two players using engines happens to compare the strength of engines (or the computers they're running on, but usually the first option). This is typically arranged as a computer chess tournament, or a "free for all" type match, where it is explicitly allowed to use engines.

I know that a lot of the chess websites actually have detection algorithms, where they compare your moves to those of popular engines, if people flag you as a potential cheater. Usually, the idea is to not use an engine, so that you're actually competing human to human. Often, in correspondence chess, it is acceptable to refer to books (and sometimes game databases), but not analysis engines.

---
Tags: engines, etiquette, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Chess Tempo #97369 - Theoretical win or draw?
The following tactics problem is problem #97369 from ChessTempo. It is a position from a game between Yuri Yakovich and Pavel Kotsur. It's black's move.

The idea of the tactics problem is to find black's best move from the shown position.

But my question is slightly different: If both players play *perfectly* from the position shown in the diagram, can black force a win, or can white force a draw?

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]

```

I tried using a couple of chess engines to analyze the position. The lines they suggested gave black a positive score, but didn't seem to give a forced win.

So what do you think: is it a theoretical win for black or can white escape with a draw?

# Answer
> 9 votes
I think it's a forced **win for black**.

Black can start with `1...Qxc4` after which the next five white moves are forced to avoid a fast loss.

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Qxc4 2.Qxc4 Rxc4 3.Rb1! Bf8! 4.b7! (4.e5!? d3 5.b7 d2 6.b8=Q Rc1+ 7.Kf2 d1=Q) Bd6! 5.b8=Q+ Bxb8 6. Rxb8+ Kg7

```

Black is a pawn up and has connected passed pawns and should try to exchange pawns to simplify to a won end-game. The game might continue for example as follows:

```
[FEN "1R4k1/5p2/2p3p1/7p/2rpPP2/6PP/8/6K1 b - - 0 6"]

6... Kg7 7.e5 c5 8.Rd8 Rc3 9.Kf2 h4! 10.gxh4 Rxh3 11.Rc8 Rc3

```

The computer still doesn't find a line that leads to an obvious win but it looks like a hopeless situation for white and the computer playing against itself gives a win for black. Here's an example way to continue the game:

```
[FEN "2R5/5pk1/6p1/2p1P3/3p1P1P/7r/5K2/8 b - - 0 11"]

1... Rc3 2. Rc7 Kf8 3. Ke2 c4 4. Kd2 Rf3 5. Rxc4 Rxf4 6. Rc8+ Kg7 7. Rc7 Re4 8. Re7 Rxh4 9. e6 Kf6 10. Rxf7+ Kxe6 0-1

```

The final position is a table base win for Black.

If you think there any errors in this analysis (in particular, weak moves for white that changed the value of the position from drawn to lost) then please let me know.

# Answer
> 2 votes
To answer your question directly, I don't think this is a *theoretical* win or draw. The reason is that the game is still too up-in-the-air. There may be a forced win for one side or the other, but that's not the same thing.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What resources are there for connecting engines to play automatically on remote servers?
What resources are there, e.g. tutorials, for connecting engines to play automatically on remote servers such as ICC? There are certain opening variations that I want to have a strong engine test and refine on a significant basis. Modifying an engines book is another matter, though material on that would be nice.

But the material I find, either on engines and interfaces themselves, or on automating engines to play on ICC, is either piecemeal, or far from comprehensive. This link is the best I can do, and as you can see, it in turn refers you to other material. But I'm concerned about how up to date this is.

# Answer
WinBoard is the way to go, also check out...

http://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/engine-intf.html

http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/

The WinBoard forum is probably the best place to ask this question or the answer can be found there.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Does Boris Gelfand share his surname with a chess piece?
Boris Gelfand was just narrowly edged out by Anand in their match's rapid tiebreaks, and I thought I'd ask an oddball question related to him.

The bishop chess piece is known by several different sorts of names in different languages. For instance, while in Icelandic it is referred to as a "biskup," which is their equivalent of bishop, in German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish the piece is called by those languages' respective equivalents of "runner." In Romanian it is termed a "nebun," or crazy person, and in French it is called a "fou," or fool/jester. (See this Wikipedia entry for more detail.)

Some languages, such as Russian and Turkish, use their terms for "elephant" to refer to the bishop piece, which harkens back to the Indian roots of chess in shatranj and chaturanga. Now as it turns out, "gelfand" is the Yiddish word for an elephant, and this got me wondering how the bishop is named in Yiddish. Despite my best googling, which turned up useful references like this one, I surprisingly found no answer to this question, and I don't know any Yiddish-speaking chess players. And since Yiddish is a fusion of Hebrew, German, Slavic languages and Romance languages, it's tough to guess which sort of bishop name it would end up with.

So, getting to the point, can anyone tell me:

> Is the bishop referred to as a "gelfand" in Yiddish?

# Answer
Well, just when I was writing the question up, I finally found the answer -- **no** -- so I am answering my own question. Way down at the bottom of this web page, it gives the Yiddish name for the bishop (once transcribed from the Hebrew alphabet) as "der Loyfer," which is like the German name "der Läufer." So, assuming this is a reliable source (and it's the only one I could find), the Yiddish bishop is a runner, not an elephant. It's just not Gelfand's day I guess.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: history, bishops, gelfand, terminology
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to free your queen as soon as possible?
We can open games in many ways (any of the pawns or knights) and then go ahead with different strategies. The queen being the most important piece, I would like to get it out in the field without compromising the security of the king and using a minimum number of moves. Which types of opening and/or moves would facilitate this? Also provide any pros and cons to your strategy.

# Answer
> 14 votes
I don't think that getting your queen out early should be your goal in the opening. Fighting for the center, developing your pieces, and king safety should be your priority. That said, e-pawn openings are your best bet to open lines for your queen as soon as possible. Look into the Ruy Lopez:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 ...

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
Bringing out the queen in the opening is in general not the correct decision. The point is that usually the other side will often be able to develop their pieces to attack the queen and gain tempi.

However, if you still feel inclined to bring out the queen early, the only opening with a sound reputation I can recommend is the Scandinavian (`1. e4 d5`) as black, and after the usual `2. exd5 Qxd5` your queen is out. Be prepared for `Nc3` and other moves that attack your queen, gaining your opponent a tempo, and allowing him to develop quickly.

# Answer
> 9 votes
If you play Black, Qxd5 Variation of the Scandinavian Defence is something that comes to mind...

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
One common opening playable against most mere mortals is the Scandanivian:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5

```

This brings the queen out early, but white often plays his bishop to d2 and later attacks the queen here (often by moving a later knight placed on Nc3, giving a discovered attack).

Regardless, this opening is playable in spite of the early queen sortie, not because of it. It's often used as an example of what not to do, but in this case isn't completely illogical.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The best way I can think of "free" my queen is to play an opening in which two or three pairs of minor pieces or pawns were quickly exchanged.

There is a danger of a queen being trapped on a "cluttered" board, and being forced to exchange herself for one or two minor pieces. Once a few of these are gone, the queen has a much freer scope over the board, in combination with rooks (occasionally with one of the remaining bishops).

# Answer
> 5 votes
Generally speaking, the queen likes open lines and lots of manoevering space, because she has long-range attack capabilities and being far away can't be targeted as easily by minor pieces. So if you enjoy playing the queen early despite all the dangers involved you should prefer openings that open lines quickly. Inbalanced positions with play on both sides of the board are preferable. Since the queen is an excellent attacking piece, look for gambits, too, because they usually aim at opening lines and sacrify material for speed of development, which is a must for a happy queen, since she usually needs support from at least another piece to work best. At example, look at the king's gambit or Latvian gambit.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As others pointed out bringing the queen into play early is a double edged sword. That said, there are several main lines doing this.

Scandinavian was already mentioned. Then we have one Ponziani main line (although often the arguably weaker `3... Nf6` is played):

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 (3... Nf6) 4. Qa4

```

If you like to play aggressive, the Steinitz variation in the Scotch might be for you:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4

```

However be aware that you have a hard time if white doesn't cling to the pawn but attacks your weak spot c7 with the knight.

There are plenty of other choices (e.g. the Middle Gambit).

# Answer
> 4 votes
The *right* answer is "don't do it," but the *straight* answer – which might be less helpful – is that

```
1 e4 e5
2 Qh5

```

is the best way for White to get the Queen out early, if White is really determined to do so. It's goofy but at least forcing. Best play continues

```
2 ... Nc6
3 Bc4 g6
4 Qf3 Nf6

```

White has already squandered the initiative by this point, though; Black now threatens `...Nd4` with a big gain of time.

```
5 Ne2 =/=

```

Another suggestion is to play the Evans Gambit, where White's `Qd1-b3` is often available. But unlike `2. Qh5`, that depends on Black's response.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It is usually a good idea to NOT bring your queen out early. If you are not careful, you can lose tempo and development because your Queen will be chased around the board as your opponent continues to develop.

---
Tags: opening, queens, strategy
---


# Question
Title: What are the origins of the words 'zwischenzug' and 'zugzwang'?
I've heard chess analysts use the words Zugzwang (being forced to make a bad move) and Zwischenzug (making an intermediate move which improves the outcome of the next move) in commentary.

Does anyone know how these German words found their way into the chess vernacular?

# Answer
> 15 votes
Chess historian Edward Winter has a page listing the earliest known occurrences of various chess terms in English, relying mostly on citations from the *OED*, though for these two terms he has slight improvements on those. For *Zwischenzug* the earliest known use is in *Chess Strategy and Tactics*, by Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev from 1933. For *Zugzwang* the earliest known use is in the February 1905 issue of *Lasker's Chess Magazine*.

As to why these terms caught on in English, I'd say the main factor, at least for *Zugzwang*, is that German is good at packing a lot of meaning into a single compound word in ways that English isn't. In fact, though *Zugzwang* was used as early as 1905 in English, Winter indicates in another article specifically on *Zugzwang* that usage of that term wasn't common in English chess literature until the appearance of the English translation of Nimzowitsch's *My System*. He notes that the translator, Philip Hereford, wrote in his introduction that *Zugzwang* was the only word he left untranslated

> "mainly, because the single word conveys an idea, or complex of ideas, which can only be expressed in English by a circumlocution."

Sure enough, if you try to think of another way to say "Player A is in *Zugzwang*," you do find yourself needing to be much wordier, like "Player A is compelled to move, to his own disadvantage."

The same reason doesn't seem as important for *Zwischenzug* though, as it's no easier to call something a *Zwischenzug* than to call it an "in-between move," the literal translation of the term. I don't know, sometimes language is funny I guess.

**Speculative update:** Here's an off-the-wall guess. As Winter notes, the first use of *Zwischenzug* in English was in 1933. And he also thinks that the English edition of *My System*, which was shortly before in 1929, is what brought the use of *Zugzwang* into widespread use. So maybe that simply made it "fashionable" at the time to use a similar term like *Zwischenzug* as well. Chess players are already sort of like that, with openings coming into and out of fashion over time.

---
Tags: history, terminology, zugzwang, zwischenzug
---