# Question
Title: What should a beginner focus on to improve his level?
I learned chess only about 1 month ago. Of course, my first game was terrible. After reading some tips I improved a little. Learning basics of few openings (like Spanish, Vienna and Urusov) increased my level and so did learning a bit about tactics (I can do a fork or a pin when possible) but now I don't know what to do.

Should I read books on opening Theory? Or on endgame? I don't know how to make a plan. Sometimes in the mid-game, I don't see a good move. There is no great attack against me and also I did not make an attack but I'm not sure how to launch one so sometimes I tend to do a random move or just proceed to get my peaces more connected and controlling more place but I feel lost. So what would be your advice?

Is it better to focus on tactics and so? (Which resources do you recommend? text? app? etc ) or the ability to make a plan? (resource?)

# Answer
> 4 votes
A bit of everything, really.

---

**Observe**

Subscribe to a few youtube channels, turn up to tournaments, do something where you can analyse players who are better than you and try to understand their moves. This will give you a general idea of how to play, but won't teach you much compared to just *playing*.

**Openings**

Try to learn some basic opening ideas and maybe even a few more lines. Learning specific openings is only useful when you play exactly those openings, so you could either learn every opening in theory, or learn the main ones and a few opening techniques which would work across many openings.

"Opening ideas" Includes things such as piece development and centre control, but also subtle things too:

> Learning the ideas behind openings means, rather than memorizing long theoretical variations it is important to know where to put your pieces and make a pawn formation and build a long term plan accordingly. Every opening is unique and has its own ideas, some openings require fast and aggressive ideas and motifs and some openings it is important to play slow and just maneuver your pieces to a good square.

This post by GM arunabi is a great material that looks into opening ideas.

**Middlegame**

Try to brush up on things like positional play and trading. Learn a little about pawn structure and when to castle. You can set up your board to the end of an opening line and play against someone else or a computer to acheive this. Watching GM games on YouTube helped me a lot, since you begin understand how trading works and how the value of pieces can change. @Bad\_Bishop wrote an amazing answer to my question about trading minor pieces which you should read.

**Endgame**

Practise a few endgames and start to calculate best moves in difficult endgames. Playing an endgame as the losing side and trying to draw may even be more beneficial to your learning. You can easily do this by playing against a computer and starting in a losing position. You can take these positions from famous games, your own games, or random games from a chess database where there was a clear winner, and starting ten or so moves from the end.

**Review**

If you have records of your games, go and find out where your mistakes were. After every new game you play, run back through it and find where the turning points of the game were. Try to pinpoint mvoes which caused the play to shift. Identify the tactics used and go and learn those, so you can spot them next time.

---

The most important part is to keep playing games and reviewing them to find your own weaknesses. Once you find them, stamp them out and repeat.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It sounds as if you are well aware of what you need to do next. There are many ways to set about it and you need to find the ones that work for you.

One excellent move is to find yourself a guru. A strong player (from any era) who games you admire. Get hold of a collection of their games, preferably with their own notations, and play over those games, again and again and again.

Two books that I like. "Rethinking the Chess Pieces" by Andy Soltis, and "Simple Chess" by Michael Steen. These will give you things to think about in the situations where right now you don't know what to think about.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A beginner should focus on simple yet powerful techniques which is a life-long algorithm for chess from novices to Professionals .

1. Focus on the entire board after every move. This sounds easy, but on many occasions, even the best players falter.
2. Should practice puzzles for pattern recognition.
3. Should focus on the opening aspects and the principles. He/She should select easy openings and should avoid Sicilian/KID and other complex openings.
4. Learn from chess videos. Free chess videos from Matojelic, King Crushers, and many others from YouTube encourage deeper insight of the game and they make the top games look so easy. It exuberates confidence and lessen the scariness of GMs.
5. Should play/practice online chess with better players.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Do a mix of everything:

## Tactics

Solving tactics puzzles on websites like chesstempo, lichess,... and many others is the easiest and best way. Make sure to understand the idea behind each puzzle, whether it is a *fork* a *pin*, etc. Chesstempo is good in this respect as it will show you (after you solve or after you fail to solve) the theme(s) of the puzzle.

## Endgames

At this point you should focus on simple topics like mating with king+queen, king+rook, basic pawn endgames. Lots of books written on endgames, but the basic ones you should be able to find online as well.

## Opening

The importance of openings is often overestimated by beginners. I'd recommend not to focus on any specific opening, but instead learn and follow basic principles such as: occupy the center by pawns, develop pieces (bishop, knight) to active squares, don't move pieces twice in the opening, castle. Chances are that if you follow these guidelines you are going to follow (more or less) an "official opening". Don't learn any opening lines by heart so far. It is unlikely that your typical opponent is playing an opening for more than a couple of moves and also at this point in time you are not in a position to punish your opponent for deviating from the accepted best line, because you do not understand the ideas behind the openings yet.

## Middlegame / developing a plan

This is the most difficult part. Once you stop blundering pieces in one move and falling into basic tactical traps, this is one of the most important ways to improve.

Finding a good plan requires lots of experience which you will gain through playing and analyzing your games. Essential to developing a plan is an evaluation of the current and of potential future positions. There are many factors that go into such evaluation, such as:

* material (learn about the value of the pieces); this is usually the most important factor
* activity of pieces (good pieces usually have lots of space to move and can attack enemy pieces; poor pieces are often hindered in movement by other pieces, particular by their own pawns)
* king safety (how many defenders, particularly pawns around your king)
* open lines (it is usually advantageous to occupy these by your rooks/queen)
* weaknesses, particularly isolated and/or doubled/tripled pawns can often be a good target for attack; also think of how you could create such weaknesses

Start by evaluating the position on the board for your and your opponent's side. This should give you ideas for a plan. For instance if you find that one of your pieces does not do much, think of ways to activate it. This could be for instance through moving the piece somewhere else, but also through opening lines using pawn moves. Likewise for the other factors. Did your opponent neglect king safety? Perhaps it is time for an attack.

Learning all this by yourself is very hard. Ideally you'd have a stronger player look through your (or other people's) games and discuss the evaluation of positions (and resulting plans) with you. If you don't have somebody to do that, second best would be to read annotated master games or watch commented games (chess24, youtube...) on the internet.

## Playing / analyzing

Play lots of games at longer time controls (avoid blitz) giving you enough time to think about your moves. If you do this online (e.g. on lichess) you have your game automatically saved. Once you finished a game, run a computer analysis (can be done on lichess among others) on it which will point out major mistakes. Analyze the mistakes look at the recommended best move and try to avoid the same mistake next time you play. Repeat...

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are about a half dozen things you need to improve. See which one is weakest then focus on that area. When that is improved then repeat and improve your next weakest area.

If everything is equal then look at openings picking ONE to use all the time, tactics, end games, positional play, pawn structures, psychology.

---
Tags: opening, tactics, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How are the "Classes" - A, B, or C, players defined?
On this website, the following ratings are given:

> * 1200-1399 = **'D'** player - usually a beginner
> * 1400-1599 = **'C'** player - average club or tournament player, most people can achieve this level if they work at it
> * 1600-1799 = **'B'** player - consistently above average
> * 1800-1999 = **'A'** player - strong club player, takes the game far too seriously!, has lots of opening knowledge
> * 2000-2199 = **'Expert'** \- extremely strong, consistent player with the possibility of achieving Master rating, may have real talent.
> * 2200-2399 = **'Master'** \- strongest amateur rank, hasn't quite got the hang of things yet but maybe on day he/she will wake up.
>
> International professional players have two ranks:
>
> * 2400-2499 = **'International Master'** \- weakest professional rank; strong, experienced international player, eats Masters for breakfast
> * 2500+ = **'Grandmaster'** \- eats IMs for breakfast, lunch *and* dinner, a star in the firmament of Caissa, a chess genius who thinks nothing of playing 20 and 30 board simuls against Experts and Masters *and is disappointed if he/she doesn't win every game*, capable of playing 10-20 blindfold games at the same time, *and winning*, etc. etc, in short, an all around bricks and mortar, brass bound b\*st\*rd of a player, *but* they do lose on occasion, sometimes to players with a much lower rating *and* computers are better than that these days.

Note that these ratings are for "USCF". When I see these kinds of "levels" of player on this site, is this the common and correct definition of what they refer too? If not, what is the correct definition?

# Answer
The definitions you post are more of less correct though some levity has been inserted. The descriptions for the under-2400 ratings are consistent with the USCF.

IM and GM titles are not awarded by the USCF. They are awarded by FIDE and are based not upon rating but on achieving certain results at recognized tournaments. That is, if one scores well enough at a FIDE tournament (based upon the competition), one earns an IM or GM "norm". When one earns three norms, one is awarded the title.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The ratings for the class players are correct for the USCF - 1200-1399 is indeed the definition of class D, master is 2200+, etc. (IM and GM are international titles not based on USCF ratings, so they aren't directly comparable.)

But I'm not so sure about the descriptions, especially at the upper and lower ends. It doesn't match my perceptions.

For example, it says that a class D player is "usually a beginner". Perhaps it seems that way to someone rated very high. But that leaves no gap at all between "beginner" and the class C "most people can achieve this level if they work at it".

Based on a quick search of the USCF website, someone rated 1300 - smack in the middle of class D - is in the 75th percentile of USCF rated tournament players. I suppose you could claim that 3/4 of tournament players are beginners, but I think that would involve a rather strange definition of "beginner". There has to be something for "people who have played the game for years but haven't realized their full potential", and I think that's actually where many class D players fall.

On the high end, it's rather silly to say that an IM would eat a master for breakfast, or that a GM would eat an IM for breakfast lunch and dinner. An IM beating a GM isn't all that notable - it's an upset, but far from shocking. If a 2380 non-IM master played 12 2500 GMs, he'd be expected to score about 4 points. And ratings naturally fluctuate within about 100 points anyway. I would say that at about a ratings difference of about 400 - about two classes - the stronger side would dominate to the point where you could talk about them eating the weaker side for breakfast. 100 or even 200 points isn't really enough for that.
> 9 votes

# Answer
As noted they are in 200 point brackets which is about the amount where the higher player usually beats the lower. They look like USCF except for the nonsense about IMs and GMs but omits the really lower classes that go down much farther. Also the comments appear to be yours as they are not accurate.

I know 800 rated players. I thought I saw that they went as low as 100 for an absolute beginner.

USCF used to have their own titles above master such as SM = senior master and perhaps another but usually that level player has moved on to FIDE tournaments and would have a FIDE title and FIDE rating.

At one time the tournament average for all players was 1500. That changed with rating inflation in the 60s & 70s perhaps later. They have made at least one adjustment to try to keep the average where it had been.

These days with all the learning materials and web sites actual playing strength of a current 1500 player would be closer to 1800 in the 50s. But would still be class C average in tournaments.

Note that most online ratings are way much higher than USCF would say for the same player. And that online ratings would associate more closely to the 1950s values than what current players would achieve.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, rating
---


title: Sales rankings for chess books?

text:
# Question
Title: Sales rankings for chess books?
Are there any estimates sales rankings for chess books? How much do a bestselling chess book generally sell?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Obviously, how much money book selling is a business secret. Nobody will tell you, you will never get the information.

But I do work with book publishers, they can comfortably pay my invoices with good profit margin. Furthermore I sell few database apps on the app store (www.smallchess.com), while I'm not a publisher I make non-trivial returns.

Selling chess books won't be make another Jeff Bezos, however, it's still a profitable business. In fact, selling books give better returns than being a 2700+ grandmaster. Unless you're like in the top 20 of the world, selling a good book (or running a business) makes more money.

Why? While the chess marker is much smaller than say football, the chess market is dominated by high-income earners. Chess books buyers have good purchasing power, because if they don't they would have better things to do than chess.

Well known book writers rely on commissions from their books for living.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Amazon publishes best sellers lists by category, and here is the one for chess.

This is obviously not perfect since it's just for Amazon (although they do have what one might call a significant share of the market), and it doesn't tell you anything about how much does a bestselling book generally sells, but I hope it's better than nothing. Also if you look at the page for a specific book, it tells you its ranking among books in general. For example, for Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess it says "#3,480 in Books" as of this writing.

# Answer
> 0 votes
New or used? Hardcover, softcover, or ebook? Most hardcovers are in the range of 28usd +/- Most , not all, soft and ebooks are priced closer to 15 +/ and 10 +/-

Amazon has popularity rankings which only relate to current sales. You should go by reviews not ratings or price. Be sure the content is what you will find useful.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Is there a description of the files used by USCF ratings reports?
When a USCF rated tournament is submitted for rating, the tournament director submits to the USCF a set of dBase III files (.DBF files) that include the tournament data. I've never seen a description of the structure of those files anywhere - I mean, I know they're dBase files, but as far as the fields and such. Does such a description exist?

A long while back, I was talking to someone at the USCF who worked on the website and online tournament submission, who told me that there was in the planning stages an XML-based format for submitting tournament results, and that it was in limited testing at that time. I've never seen nor heard anything else about this since then. Is anything like this still in progress? Is there a description of that format anywhere?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Years ago I worked with these as just a hobbyist. I downloaded a resource document about an old piece of software called Tournament Administrator. The source site is gone, but the Internet Wayback Machine still had it from 2006 (2008 corrupted):

https://web.archive.org/web/20060622121352/http://www.georgejohn.bcentralhost.com:80/GeorgeJohn/Chess/USCF/Computer/Current/Appendix\_E1\_TA\_files.htm

I can't find any resource for newer USCF file formats. Good luck!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Google turned up many ways to read or convert DBF files as well as detailed descriptions of the contents.

See the gory details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dbf#File\_architecture\_overview

and yet more gory here: http://www.dbase.com/Knowledgebase/INT/db7\_file\_fmt.htm

with more details still at this site http://web.archive.org/web/20150323061445/http://ulisse.elettra.trieste.it/services/doc/dbase/DBFstruct.htm

yet another view of the DBF file https://www.dbf2002.com/dbf-file-format.html

---
Tags: software, uscf
---


title: Getting the most out of chess books

text:
# Question
Title: Getting the most out of chess books
I have a bunch of chess books that have been given to me on my favorite openings. I usually try to do a few games from them after I play my daily games and go over how I could improve with a chess engine.

However I feel like I am not getting the most from the books, and my coach hasn't really helped me yet understand how best to use them. Keep in mind I'm still a beginner, I'm hovering in the 800-900 range.

It comes down to I think a few things I don't get:

* Many books I have just jump straight into games and talk about this or that variation, or another game, or their thoughts on the move. None of them discuss the ideas behind why those moves are good ideas, which I think is key in helping me understand. For example I watched a video of Karpov explaining some stuff on the Queens gambit that fundamentally improved my play because I was told the motivation behind the ideas.
* I only have one program or chessboard available to me at any given time. Most books talk about variations *in the middle of discussing a mainline*. This is hard for me because I follow that line, then have to reset my board to follow the mainline until the next variation.

How do you guys handle these two problems? I feel like it's just like math. Once I learned to read a math text I got so much more out of it and became better. I think I can greatly improve my performance by understanding how to study a chess book effectively.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> None of them discuss the ideas behind why those moves are good ideas, which I think is key in helping me understand

That's correct, the explanations are key. Opening books that don't give the ideas behind the moves along with typical middlegame plans are almost worthless. You might as well throw them away. If they don't give much more than just the moves and evaluations then you would be better off with one of the many databases.

> Most books talk about variations in the middle of discussing a mainline. This is hard for me because I follow that line, then have to reset my board to follow the mainline until the next variation.

That's very conscientious of you. Most of us would follow the variation in our heads partly because we can but mostly because we are lazy. Once you get good you will be able to do this too. If you become very good indeed then you will be able to play the whole game in your head.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Keep in mind I'm still a beginner, I'm hovering in the 800-900 range.

Do not read any opening book. Rather concentrate on tactics. For this I wold recommend for example the book "Learn chess tactics" from John Nunn. Just an example there are many similar books that are good to, but this is the only one I know. Simple tactics do not have many deep variants so this problem would be solved too. For the opening I would recommend just to consider the following: Save your King (do not get mated early), develop pieces, occupy the center. If your level has improved and your opponents do not fail on simple tactics, than you can go and learn deep opening variants. Furthermore I wold recommend long calculation time (at the very least 15 minutes better is much more like 2h or even daily chess), so that you are able to calculate the tactics deep enough.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can use software like Droidfish (on Android) or SCID vs PC to record multiple variations without losing your place. Another upside of this is that you can then store the variations as a PGN for later study and/or practice with a PGN player like iChess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Once you get to the point where you can finish a game without leaving a piece somewhere you opponent can just take it for free, start with a couple of collections of older games. *Logical Chess: Move by Move* by Irving Chernev is a good place to start. The book is a collection of older master games, with an explanation given for every move. Follow that up with Chernev's *The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played*. After you finish those two books, the other books you have should be easier to follow and will make more sense.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The simple correct answer is get better books that match your needs. At your level you need opening PRINCIPLES not openings per se. And a lot more practice with fundamentals.

Also do tactics like https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics.html .

And study simple endgames. First principles and then problems/studies. Include basic mates as well as K+P and K&R endings. Then move to more complex endgames.

---
Tags: opening, learning, books, study
---


title: Ways to quickly beat beginners

text:
# Question
Title: Ways to quickly beat beginners
Are there any common tactics or combinations used to beat complete beginners quickly (or gain large material advantages)?

By "beginner" I mean someone who is good enough not to get caught out by Scholar's mate, and knows basic opening principles, mate with king and rook etc., but not any actual openings.

# Answer
> 16 votes
As T.S. Eliot said, "There is no method but to be very intelligent." If the opponent is smart enough to avoid the known short mates and understands basic opening strategy, you'll just have to outplay them.

That said, in my experience, new players often miss forks, discovered attacks, and moves that theoretically place a piece under attack, but where the capture would result in a check or expose an attack on a more valuable piece. New players are often so focused on protecting the king and/or queen that they blunder away pawns and minor pieces by leaving them vulnerable to such moves.

My advice: play better than the beginner and you will rapidly overwhelm them and find blunders to exploit. :)

# Answer
> 9 votes
Simon Webb's book *Chess for Tigers* may have many flaws, but one thing it does very well is its description of how to deal with substantially weaker players: "\[...\] regard his whole play as one big weakness."

If you are much stronger than the opposition, then they *will* make moves that you recognise as mistakes but they don't. I'm not talking about tactical mistakes, but simple things like putting pieces on squares where they don't do anything or weakening pawn moves or whatnot. Just keep the position fluid and the errors will come.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I agree with lots of the advice given here but feel compelled to recommend you try some gambit openings against a beginner to try for quick wins.

Gambit openings are generally quite confusing for beginners who usually cannot resist taking freely offered material (often pawns) and then find themselves under pressure after rapid piece development with mate threats (often focused on weak squares such as f2/f7/h7).

There are many gambit openings available (and they can be more effective in blitz chess when there is limited thinking time). My favourites are: Smith-Morra gambit/Benko gambit/Budapest gambit/Tennison Gambit/Evans Gambit/Scotch Gambit/Danish Gambit/Cochrane gambit/Hennig-Schara gambit and even more dubious ones (eg Blackburne Shilling/Latvian/Elephant gambits etc etc) and even more subtle ones (Milner-Barry gambit in French defence). There are too many to list! Find one you like in your favourite opening and try it..it is usually a fun way to play.

Beware though your opponent may only fall for the gambit one time..once bitten twice shy! Enjoy your gambit play but go easy on beginners..they need some encouragement and not getting hammered in next to no time! It can be more challenging playing gambits against better rated players!:-)

# Answer
> 5 votes
Any opening that has **typical middle game positions** will do:

Queen's gambit declined-**Exchange variation**, openings that have *Isolated Queen's Pawn* ( QGA, Nimzo Indian defense... ) and so on...

He may know "knights before bishops" rule, he can learn 30 moves of theory **pretty fast**, but to play **these middle games** well, you need **overall experience** and you need to know **typical plans for both sides.** Your superior tactical skill, and greater experience in positional play will inevitably triumph.

You could also play symmetric position and outplay him by **transposing into better endgame.** They do not know how to recognize bad piece from a good one, so if they have an equal number of pawns and pieces they usually exchange. Use this fact to transpose into "good vs bad bishop" endgame for example.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Usually when I play beginners who are beyond falling for scholars and fools mate and can do the basic checkmates; I just play like I always do, making logical moves and just playing them as if they were any other opponent. I never underestimate them.

Usually, after a few moves or so, they will make a tactical or positional blunder. Basically, I just wait for them to commit Hara-Kiri (suicide), nothing more than that.

Launching a kingside/queenside attack is also quite effective as beginners will usually panic in the face of the oncoming pawns and will blunder in such positions, being unaware of the various defensive and counterattacking methods.

Beginners are also usually unaware of endgames any more complex than the basic checkmates so you could just keep simplifying into an endgame where you have an advantage which they are unaware of such as a protected passed pawn, superior Knight vs bad Bishop, Rook on the seventh/second etc.

# Answer
> 4 votes
To beat such a beginner, I would use "tricky" openings such as the Sicilian defense (c5 vs. e4) or Dutch Defense (f5 vs. d4) as Black. And Reti Opening nf3 or English Opening (c4), as White.

Your beginner is probably familiar with center pawn openings (and related piece development) but likely to lose his/her way in openings where your center pawns are held back and your pieces thrust forward.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Play less usual non book lines he would have memorized. Be aggressive. VERY aggressive. Wait for a mistake. Then crush him. And if no 'mistake' you should have a winning attack. Maybe worst case you win an easy end game.

Myself, I would prefer to play to be sure to win rather than risk not winning by trying to achieve that win fast.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Try controlling centre portion of board with maximum pieces rapidly.

---
Tags: opening, tactics, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Is it inadvisable to analyze or play long chess games on a smartphone?
I play a lot of online chess, but I am a federated player whose objective is to play well over-the-board games with 3D pieces.

During my hourly tactics exercises I turn on the computer and do it in the big screen because my results are better than on the smartphone.

For timed games I also play with the PC, as I am quicker with the mouse than with the finger.

But I also play correspondence daily; I use to have 20 games in progress.

I am getting used to analyze and make the moves on my smartphone, when I am not at home, or when I feel too much lazy to turn on the computer.

I know the best is to analyze on a physical chess board, which I sometimes do on correspondence when the position is interesting.

But my question is if I should be less lazy and turn on the computer when analyzing deeply with the analysis board.

I know, in deep, this is a neurology question, but at neurosciences SE they would say it is a question for a chess teacher or highly rated player as there are not specific neurology studies on it.

Just asking, as a 7 years old student could ask: "Teacher, should I always play on the PC or I can use my smartphone playing on the free net?"

# Answer
> 1 votes
Advisable to use smartphone? Not really. Okay occasionally if you must look at a position.

As you noted a PC is more helpful to seeing the board and planning your moves.

I have found no difference between using PC screen adjusted to my preferences and using a real chessboard with physical items on it. For me the difference between chess sets and boards is more than the difference between my preferred set and board and the PC screen with my choice of size and font.

Note that moving the men on your phone or pc will negate any OTB experience for a tournament that you would get by analyzing without moving them to improve your analysis vision for 'real' chess in an OTB tournament.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I know the scope of the question is not health related but there are concerns for the levels of electromagnetic radiation that we are exposed to from our phones. It is a minor carcinogen in some high doses at least in lab rats. But to answer the real question I think anywhere you play is a bonus and will help but recreating as close as possible the actual environment for which you hope to compete is ideal but if the option is less practice then use the phone but adjust the times to allow for your slower plays but you need actual times to get used to the appropriate timing so everyday make sure you get some big screen time at actual or faster speeds than you will face

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

---
Tags: learning, online-chess, board-vision
---


title: Why would a player throw a game?

text:
# Question
Title: Why would a player throw a game?
So I am kind of new to chess and I have been playing online. I have been playing for a year and I consider myself a mediocre player, not too good and not too bad. Recently I got this invitation from someone to play a rated game. This person's rating is around 2100 so I said what the heck. Let's try it. As the game progressed, I saw that he was playing like a child. He made obvious blunders and simply offered me all of his pieces one by one. At first I thought maybe there is some deep strategy that I can't see but no. Now the game is about to end. I have a significant advantage in pieces and he will lose for sure.

My question is, has this ever happened to anyone? Or is this common in the chess community? Is this some weird strategy like how politicians try to throw elections if it is advantageous in that particular voting scheme or how players throw games if money is involved? There is no money involved, no tournament/prestige/title. If anything, he'll lose points and I'll gain them. I don't even know this person. We are just playing anonymously against each other online for the first time. Why would such a highly rated player play against a much inferior player and then lose that game...and it looks like he is deliberately losing.

Quite frankly it is boring and even a little condescending. I was expecting a much more exciting game.

---

So here is the game. My pieces are white.

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 d5
2.exd5 e6
3.dxe6 Bxe6
4.d4 Bb4+
5.c3 Bd6
6.d5 Bf5
7.Bd3 Qe7+
8.Be3 Bg6
9.Nf3 Nf6
10.O-O Nbd7
11.Bxg6 hxg6
12.Re1 O-O-O
13.Bxa7 Ne4
14.Nbd2 f5
15.Nxe4 fxe4
16.Qa4 Nf6
17.Bd4 Qf7
18.Bxf6 gxf6
19.Qxe4 Rh5
20.Qe6+ Rd7
21.c4 Qxe6
22.Rxe6 Rf7
23.Rae1 Bxh2+
24.Nxh2 Rfh7
25.Rxf6 Rxh2
26.f4 Rh1+
27.Kf2 Rxe1
28.Kxe1

```

So what do you guys think of this game? Any and all comments welcome.

# Answer
> 16 votes
There are some possibilities that I can think of:

1. His 8 year old sister, dog, neighbor, etc suggested some of these 'great moves'
2. He was trying to handicap himself to make it more challenging
3. He tried something new or crazy, possibly to end the game quickly (e.g sacrificing his own pieces to expose your king or free his pieces)
4. Maybe he tried a chess gambit, first glance it appears you gain advantage, but this advantage is just an illusion.

My favorite is the Danish Gambit (it is rare that someone accepts it completely outside beginner level though)

```
[fen " w - - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

```

**Update:** now that I have seen the game, I can confirm it was a mix of points **3** (the move *23...Bxh2*) and **4** (but he decided to improvise one instead of using an existing one). Maybe some of point **1** too.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Certainly some of the suggestions listed above are possible, but I believe he played below his best and just lost. I will explain why I think so.

**First**, I believe you played one of those games with 3 days per move (or similar) online. Am I right? I have played in those places and sometimes you just start too many games. So while you played maybe one or two games, he might have played 30 games or more. Playing so many games leads you to use less time on each move and to forget your plans in between. I know, because I have tried this myself.

**Second**, the moves he played in the games are not so bad at all. Here is my analysis:

* 3.-Bxe6 Play through this game between strong players and you will see important similarities with your game (Black castling long for example). Black just gives up a pawn for speedy development.
* 10.-Nbd7 This is a standard move in this kind of position, with the plan to castle long and attack on the King side. However, I think he misjudged how strong the following Re1 would be.
* 12.-0-0-0 At this point Black will lose a pawn no matter what and might as well try to unbalance the position by castling the opposite way.
* After 15.-fxe4 he has achieved what to me looks like a promising position with compensation for at least one pawn. It looks like your Nf3 will have to move soon and that he will break through on h2. In fact, I wonder if he could have followed up with the Bishop sacrifice 16.-Bxh2+. After 17.Nxh2 the move 17.-Qh4 is strong, at least winning back the Knight.
* 16.-Nf6 and 17.-Qf7 are inaccurate moves and whatever compensation he had is gone. When the third pawn falls the game is over although he tries a last trick with Bxh2 check as had you moved Nh2 you would have been check mated.

**Third and last**, do not underestimate your own play. I am myself a FIDE master and I recently lost a game in just above 20 moves to a player 800 points lower than myself. Sometimes I play below my best and when a weaker players finds all the correct moves he wins. It did not help me that I could calculate all his winning lines many times faster and more accurate than him.

You played a good game! Don´t think otherwise!

# Answer
> 9 votes
It looks like your opponent underestimated you.

He began by playing an inferior opening, sacrificing a pawn to get two "free" bishops. You neutralized his advantage by "opposing" bishops on his diagonals, eventually exchanging them with a pawn up. Then he tried to recoup by O-O-O, sacrificing another pawn.

Given an initial advantage, you played steady, commonsense moves that kept that advantage. Your opponent didn't try to make it a long distance race by playing for the end game, but kept playing "double or nothing" and losing, through sheer frustration.

Once, as a 1500 player, I played White and kept the advantage for 20 moves against a 2100 player before making a mistake on the 21st move that lost. Give my opponent credit for "staying in" the game, but he felt that I was a much stronger player than he had been led to believe. Your highly rated opponent fell apart when confronted by unexpectedly "solid" play by a lower-ranked player.

There may be another reason. Your opponent appears to be a relatively weak player tactically. He may be "no better" or even worse than you at this aspect of the game, while often beating you with superior positional play (where he appears sophisticated). For instance, I have tested as an 1800 player positionally, and a 1400 player tactically, with my 1500 rating being a "weighted average" of the two. My 2100 ranked opponent was apparently facing the 1800 positional player, and not the 1400 tactical player, which is why I was "stronger" than he had expected.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Players who enter prize tournaments may purposely try to lower their rating to have a better chance at a prize in a lower section subsequently. This is known as "sandbagging" and is not condoned. Throwing a game in an online game where there are no tangible rewards wouldn't make much sense to me. But I don't agree that in the game in question your opponent was trying to throw the game. As has already been mentioned, he was playing a gambit, where you give up material for time to gain quicker development with the hope of eventually winning thereby. And as also stated, I wouldn't put too much faith in an online rating either.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Black played the Scandinavian Defense, with a stab at the Icelandic Gambit. Normally, before he plays ...e6 in that gambit, he plays ...Nf6, i.e.

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Scandinavian Defence"]
[Black "Icelandic Gambit"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. dxe6 Bxe6 *

```

Black plays ...Nf6 first, to provoke 3.c4. That way, there's a target on c4 he's hitting with the bishop, and he prevents White from meeting ...Bb4 with c3 (which he failed to do in this *novelty/blunder*). The goal (as with most gambits) is to accelerate his development.

So, I'd say Black misplayed his opening choice (badly).

Otherwise, other than slight missteps, I'd say the only other poor move by Black was missing ...Bxh2 on his 16th move (he found it later). He could have equalized with that.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[White "Fixed Point"]
[Black "Some Dude"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6 4. d4 Bb4+ 5. c3 Bd6 6. d5 Bf5 7. Bd3 Qe7+ 8. Be3 Bg6 9. Nf3 Nf6 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Bxg6 hxg6 12. Re1 O-O-O 13. Bxa7 Ne4 14. Nbd2 f5 15. Nxe4 fxe4 16. Qa4 Nf6 (16... Bxh2+ 17. Nxh2 Qh4 18. Kf1 Qxh2 19. Be3 Qh1+ 20. Ke2 Qh5+ 21. Kd2 Qxd5+ 22. Kc2 Qd3+ 23. Kb3 Qd5+ 24. Qc4 Qxc4+ 25. Kxc4 Ne5+ 26. Kb3 Nd3 27. Rh1 Rhf8=) 17. Bd4 Qf7 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19. Qxe4 Rh5 20. Qe6+ Rd7 21. c4 Qxe6 22. Rxe6 Rf7 23. Rae1 Bxh2+ 24. Nxh2 Rfh7 25. Rxf6 Rxh2 26. f4 Rh1+ 27. Kf2 Rxe1 28. Kxe1 1-0

```

So, no, I don't think he threw this game at all.

If you want an example of an *allegedly* thrown game, try this on for size:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "8th ch-Euro"]
[Site "Dresden GER"]
[Date "2007.04.05"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Khairullin, I."]
[Black "Kalvaitis, S."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2586"]
[BlackElo "2216"]
[Annotator "Mutual Blunders, Thrown Game?"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nc6?? {This just drops a piece.}
(4... Nf6 {is correct.}) 5. O-O?? {And this just gives it back. Amazing - White's a GM!} Nb4?? (5... Nf6!) 6. c4?? {The same blunder, twice, for each player.} (6. Bxe4! d5 7. Bd3 Nxd3 8. Qxd3 {White has a piece for a pawn.}) 6... Nc3?? 7. Be2?? (7. Nxc3 Nxd3 8. Qxd3 {leaves White up a piece (again).}) 7... Nc6?? 8. Nbd2?? (8. Nxc3) 8... Nxd1 {Finally, a sensible move. But this won't last.} 9. Rxd1 Nb4 10. Nb3 Nd3?? 11. Be3?? (11. Bxd3) 11... Nxb2 12. Rd2 Nd3?? (12... Na4) 13. Rad1 (13. Bxd3) 13... Nb2?? {Black is up a queen and 2 pawns for a knight. And the players agreed a draw??} (13... Nb4) 1/2-1/2

```

Shocking. Just... shocking.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In your specific case, maybe they felt sorry for you and wanted to increase your rating so you would feel better.

Maybe they were drunk and did NOT throw the game.

Online ratings are not that meaningful. Maybe they were not as good as it appeared.

Maybe their kid hacked their account and played with their parent’s rating, which was much higher than theirs.

And no, this is not common. Cheating is common. But throwing games like this is rare.

---
Tags: strategy, online-chess, psychology, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Books for beginners who have hard time understanding positions of pieces?
I'm new here and I found a book called Logical Chess by Chernev. Is this a great book to start if you are a beginner and you only know how to move pieces but not how to develop them? I'm having a hard time looking at my games and I do not understand where I'm wrong and why I placed the bishop or knight in the D file,E file,etc. I can understand way better in books than in games with the computer analysis or another method. If this is not a good book what else would you recommend me?

# Answer
Frankly, what you are asking is not a short-term goal. It really is about leaning chess, and it takes many years. When you ask why you are putting pieces on certain squares, that is called positional chess, and most people only start to absorb that after they are considerably stronger than beginner. There is no one, or even a few, books that will get you there.

What you really need to do is start with tactics books. Those are books that have problems that are forced series of moves leading to advantage. When you do enough of these, you will start to absorb some "pattern recognition". Much of chess is learning many positions, and then applying them so similar positions that arise in your actual games. In addition, these tactics books will help you to start thinking ahead, and in particular, to lose less pieces. At the begging level, most often, it is who loses the least pieces, rather than who wins the most pieces.

There are many, many, books on tactics, but if you are beginning, you want very basic tactics books. Do not shy away from books that are aimed at kids. That is more marketing since it really does not matter if you are a kid or adult, and what matters more is your level of understanding, which is limited to how the pieces move.

Here are some books that I use for teaching kids, actually high school kids, so they are like young adults:

Chess Tactics for Students

Chess Tactics for Kids

How to Beat Your Dad at Chess

Power Chess for Kids: Learn How to Think Ahead and Become One of the Best Players in Your School

Let me add one recommendation that I use often to novices: In the beginning of the game, always ask yourself: "What piece haven't I moved yet?" You want to get all your pieces out since it is hard to win if you are playing with one or two pieces, and he is playing with 4-5.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I learned a lot about this subject from GM Yasser Seirawan's book, *Winning Chess Strategies*, which has a chapter on exactly this topic of where to put pieces.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You can find very basic beginners books that will give you some information. Usually for one or two specific openings. They won't really tell you why explicitly the way the OP states it, but will tell you in general how they fit with the opening.

My experience was that playing over GM games taught me much more than these beginner books. I played over several hundred in a short period of time and found that I had essentially mastered the nimzo as that was played so much in that tournament the games were from and now I intuitively knew what moves were good and had a general idea of the type of position that would result.

So playing over all the GM games you can find on the ONE opening you like will do more to help you. If you do not feel ready for that then read some not quite as basic books on openings and what you should be doing.

Take a look at an online database that gives many moves along with the outcome statistics. Is your choice one of the most popular? Is your choice compatible with a good winning result?

If there were only one totally correct move the game would be dead now.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, books
---


# Question
Title: What should my plan be in this middlegame?
This is a game I played recently. After **12. Be2**, I really didn't know how to proceed. Eventually, after thinking for a very long time (\>30 minutes, it's a correspondence game by the way), I moved **12... Be7**, a simple move that was one of the first moves I considered.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Him"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 b6 5. Nc3 Bb7 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Ne5 Qd6 8.
Bd2 a6 9. a3 Nd7 10. f4 f6 11. Nxd7 Qxd7 12. Be2 Be7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. Bf3
Na5 15. Qxd7+ Kxd7 16. O-O Nc4 17. Bc1 c6 18. b3 Nd6 19. Bb2 h5 20. Rae1 Rag8
21. e4 dxe4 22. Nxe4 g5 23. d5 gxf4 24. Bxf6 Rh6 25. Bxe7 Kxe7 26. Nc5+ Kd8
27. Nxb7+ Nxb7 28. dxc6 Nc5 29. Rd1+ Kc8 30. b4 Ne6 31. Rd7 Rd8 32. Rfd1 Rhh8
33. Ra7 Rxd1+ 34. Bxd1 Nd4?? 35. Ra8+ 1-0

```

These are my considerations:

0. I don't really like my position, it feels cramped. Where did I go wrong?
1. My plan: Break open with **...e5**. Prepare for this by positioning a rook on e8, and the other one on d8, e7, or f8 (but which of the three?).
2. But I don't really want to move the rook on a8, because after **c4**, my pawn on a7 hangs and the White Queen will be near my King if I O-O-O'ed.
3. **c4** feels very annoying to me anyway, but especially if I plan to O-O-O, because my Pawn structure that is supposed to protect my King will be weak.
4. I guess I should plan on O-O'ing. But how? If I make way with **...Be7**, it will be similar to when I try to maneuver the rooks as in point 1.
5. But **...g6** followed by **...Bg7** feels like I weaken the Pawn structure behind which I want to O-O.
6. I have spent enough time on this, **12... Be7**, YOLO!

So, what do you guys think about my thought process? What should my plan be in this situation? Where did I go wrong before this that led to this position that feels not so good to me? Is this position actually not so good? Et cetera. :)

(By the way, I feel that this is in general my weakness. Usually I tend to make solid moves while sniffing for a weakness. However, if a weakness doesn't 'spontaneously emerge from the noise', I don't really know how to make one, and I end up drawing or winning/losing due to a random emerging tactic. How can I learn this?)

# Answer
> 9 votes
The only opening move I really didn't like is 6…Nc6. Usually you don't want to put something in front of your c-pawn in these d-pawn openings. And incidentally it also seems to lose a piece (because of 8.cxd5 with Bb5 to follow). It also leads to all your positional problems: The pressure on d5, the slightly weakening move f6, the inability to free yourself with c5.

Your thought process is ok, Be7 and castling short is a decent conclusion. But you probably should have looked for a tactical solution as well: 12…dxc4 looks quite interesting for you. 13.Bxc4 is not possible, due to 13…b5 and Qxc4 can be answered by Na5 and Bxg2. Ok, it's not exactly risk free, but it's a pawn. Also, the bishop on b7 is really waiting for the diagonal to be opened sooner or later, so it should always be on your radar.

Generally to improve your strategic understanding you can do the usual stuff: Go through well annotated games, play and analyse tournament games, work through some instructive books. But on the other hand, putting your pieces on nice squares and waiting for something to come up, is an entirely valid strategy. Also, finding some creative tactical ideas can often substitute for a deep strategic plan and without decent calculation you can forget about implementing even the best plan.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your game plan and actual moves don't really align. You place a bishop on b7 but never make any effort to activate that bishop by opening the a8-h1 diagonal.

You also spend a significant amount of time without developing your black square bishop and thus not castling. This means you are exposing yourself to threats to your king which is how you got into this mess in the first place.

Pushing the f pawn is also a no-no. When your king is not safe and the best course of action is working towards a king-side castle you do not want to push one of the most vital pawns that will keep your king safe in that position in the future.

Try playing the next thousand or so games with the basics in mind.

1. Develop pawns early which allow for piece development and contesting the center however avoid making too many because you need to develop pieces.(NEVER TOUCH THE F PAWN)
2. Develop pieces, usually knights before bishops since the best bishop squares aren't always as clear as the ones for the knights
3. Secure the king. There aren't many opening lines that don't involve castling(of which most are king-side castles!). So make sure you castle!
4. Coordinate the queen in a position where it won't get harassed easily to avoid burning moves on constantly repositioning her
5. with the pieces off the back rank coordinate your rooks.

When developing pieces try to justify to yourself why you should put them there. a bishop on b7 is great! But is it really when my own pawns are blocking it and making it a useless piece? What about his bishop? Maybe I should offer or force to trade my bad pieces for his good ones!

1. When you look at this game taking the basics into account you'll see that you made a substantial amount of pawn moves of which a6 didn't really achieve anything besides weaking your pawn structure. Meanwhile your opponent also made a lot of pawn moves but they did a better job at occupying the center. Also you touched the f pawn(naughty!)
2. You failed to properly develop pieces, your white-square bishop is miserable and your black square bishop(a key piece in many black openings) wasn't ever freed to do anything. You also wasted a significant amount of time making knight moves, make up your mind on what you want to do with your pieces! Make your own plan, don't make everything about reacting to the opponent.
3. Your king is as insecure as he can be. He's stuck in the middle of the board and you apparently wanted this. The only time you want your king in the center is in an end game with relatively few pieces on the board!
4. Your queen did get developed but got placed in a rather unfortunate position of defending a knight that shouldn't even be in danger(king safety caused that problem!) in the end you traded her and permanently disabled your ability to castle.
5. on 32. Rfd1 you can see a perfect example of white having good rook coordination and black having poor coordination. You should take a note from how your opponent doubled his rooks on the d file and thus completely took control over it.

Good play comes with practice, but every player has games where following the basics is the best thing to do

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playing d pawn games requires a lot of patience and a certain subtlety because of the advantage of White's first move. You need to learn the first quality and improve the second before you can get stronger.

For starters, you should learn why playing ...4 b6 before c6 was a bad move.

In this game (and many others before yours), it involved serious complications from which you were unable to extricate yourself.

In answer to your question about the sixth move, and how you went wrong, you ought to know that the b knight is "better" (more defensively placed on d7 where it 1) connects to the knight on f6, and 2) can be shield from pins by c6.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Just briefly, 4...b6 looks like the wrong idea to me, it makes the queenside light squares too weak.

6...Nc6 was a blunder that should have lost a piece for a pawn after 7.Ne5 Qd6 8.c5 bxc5 9.Bb5.

After 15...Qxd7, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with White just taking the pawn on d5, which is a pawn-up endgame.

# Answer
> 0 votes
How about 14.... b5 ?

I dont see a problem playing 12........Be7

# Answer
> 0 votes
Did you have a plan?

Later at move 19ff I would not have gone at the King side but would have been active on the Queen side and center.

Earlier as noted above Nc6 was not good. Just play Qd7 and let him trade if he wants.

---
Tags: strategy, learning, positional-play, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Carlsen beat a high ranking GM with 1 Nh3. Conclusions?
In 2018, Magnus Carlsen played a rapid game on chess.com against Grandmaster Aleksey Dreev in which his opening move was 1. Nh3.

```
[Title "Magnus Carlsen-Alexey Dreev, Pro Chess League, chess.com INT, 2/24/2018"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nh3 Nh6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf2 Ng4 4. e3 Nxf2 5. Kxf2 c5 6. b3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Bb2 a6 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. Nc3 e6 11. Qh5 Be7 12. Rhf1 Bf6 13. Kg1 Nb4 14. Rac1 Nxa2 15. Rce1 Nb4 16. f5 e5 17. e4 c4 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bxc4 Nb4 20. c3 Nc6 21. Qxf7+ Kd8 22. Ba3 Be8 23. Qd5+ Qd7 24. Bd6 Be7 25. Bxe7+ Kxe7 26. Qc5+ Qd6 27. Qb6 Bd7 28. d4 Nd8 29. Qa5 Nc6 30. Qa2 Kd8 31. Rd1 Kc7 32. Qf2 Rad8 33. b4 Rhf8 34. b5 axb5 35. Bxb5 g6 36. f6 Kb8 37. Bc4 Bc8 38. Bd5 Be6 39. Bxe6 Qxe6 40. d5 Qd6 41. Ra1 Kc7 42. dxc6 Qxc6 43. Ra5 Kb8 44. Qa7+

```

Does that prove that opening Nh3 is sound, or was it just a psychological play to take a slightly weaker player out of the book? Does it show that Carlsen is that much better because he can get away with such moves?

# Answer
It was one game in online rapid. You cannot deduce from one game that 1.Nh3 is sound or not sound. Carlsen was actually MUCH worse out of the opening, and just outplayed Dreev later. It really means nothing other than Carlsen is currently much stronger.

Most likely 1.Nh3 is not good, and this is unusual for a first move: Stockfish already evals this as -.62 at a depth of 50.
> 41 votes

# Answer
Carlsen is the strongest player in the world. He can get away with playing sub-par openings against average GMs because of the large difference in strength. Granted, Dreev is above your average GM, but still the gap in their playing levels is huge.

1.Nh3 is one of the worst moves White can play, and Carlsen probably chose it for fun. The fact that Dreev answered with 1...Nh6 showed he wasn't taking the game that seriously either.
> 16 votes

# Answer
Let's remember that the late Tony Miles, at the 1980 European Championship, played 1... a6 as Black vs. Karpov's 1. e4, and won.

Single games mean nothing.
> 15 votes

# Answer
It does not prove that the opening is sound, but it does make a case for a successful practical opening. If your question is really "Should I try this myself?", the answer is "yes", because - especially under accelerated time controls - an element of surprise can be a huge factor.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, psychology
---


title: Mental models in chess

text:
# Question
Title: Mental models in chess
In “Chess as a Behavioral Model for Cognitive Skill Research,” Mechner writes the following about mental representation of the game by blindfold chess masters:

> But the bombshell, which prompts the present reexamination of ‘‘visualization,’’ is this: **blindfold chess masters consistently report that what they visualize are not images of pieces or chessboards, but abstractions of these with minimal or no physical features**. A typical report is, ‘‘I do not visualize real pieces but I know where they are.’’
>
> ...
>
> The fourteen or so blindfold champions quoted by Hearst and Knott describe what they do in these terms: ‘‘no mental pictures,’’ ‘‘abstract knowledge,’’ ‘‘I know where the pieces are,’’ ‘‘only an abstract type of representation,’’ ‘‘only relationships,’’ ‘‘no real picture,’’ ‘‘the significance of a piece,’’ ‘‘knowing what combination or plan is in progress,’’ ‘‘lines of force,’’ ‘‘pieces are only friend or foe, carriers of particular actions,’’ ‘‘sort of formless visions of the positions,’’ and so forth. Many of the masters report that they have no mental image at all (p.151).

The masters also confirm that blindfold chess improves their performance in normal chess.

However:

> Some of the strongest masters find the actual sight of a chess position to be more distracting than helpful when thinking ahead during a game.

Now, normal chess encourages a physical representation, when the game vision is more like geometry than algebra. That's compelling because humans get used to visual models since childhood. But extending the analogy with mathematics, the "algebraic" form is more powerful.

So in normal chess, a player has to make a choice: developing a visual representation or adopting the blindfold chess relationship model. That's the foundation to build chess memory and calculations on.

*What approach is more promising in the long run? Which one do top players use?*

# Answer
I used to try to imagine the whole board and it always seemed my mind would focus more narrowly. Then, one time when I was doing an exhibition in public versus just one opponent, I suddenly saw the chessboard a different way: it was floating in darkness and the board was translucent, so I could move around the board and see it (and the pieces) from different perspectives. I can't say it improved my play a lot, but it was an amazing experience. I hadn't been seeking a better way. It just appeared to me.

I haven't tried to play blindfold very much over the years, but I have studied chess quite a lot and earned the national master title. I guess our imagination is working hard in any of these ways we do chess.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I do not agree with the first answer saying that blindfold chess does not involve visualising real pieces. On the contrary, I create a 'real' analogy of a chess board with pieces, etc, and interactively update it and manipulate it during the game. I can, however, do it much better using descriptive rather than algebraic notation. This is probably because the pieces take on a more 'real' aspect compared to the sterile numbers in the algebraic.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: blindfold-chess, board-vision, visualization
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of a position in order to find the best move
I am trying to learn to play chess, but it is not an easy task. I am playing as much as possible and try to watch games an reading in order to learn. I am playng on Chess.com, and a lot of times I find myself in this position:

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2np1n2/2p5/2B1P3/2NP1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b - - 0 1"]

```

I am black, and it is my turn to move. The sequence of moves is the following:

on the left there are the moves white did, and on the right there are my moves, so black's moves.

From this position my move was e5, but I am not sure it is a good move.

What is the best move in this position? And can I correct something in my sequence of moves so far? Thanks.

I am a beginner, so I have a lot to learn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First, your move e5?? was a blunder. 6.Ng5 won a valuable pawn after the forced 6...Be6 7.Nxe6 fxe6 8.Bxe6.

White's opening is not very ambitious when he does not play d4, so you would probably have an easier time getting in the "standard" Sicilian freeing move d5. When black gets that move in, he is usually equal, if not better. So instead of 5...e5??, 5...e6 was better helping to achieve that goal of d5.

In the final position, after 6.Bg5, Be7 looks best, but you already weakened d5 a lot, so in most cases, black will trade on f6, and sink a very powerful knight onto the d5 square.

As you are finding, learning how to play the game does not take long, but learning to play well can take a lifetime (depending on your goals).

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. d3 e5 (5... e6 6. O-O Be7 7. Bf4 (7. Be3 $4 d5 $1 8. exd5 exd5 9. Bb5 d4 {A typical trap}) 7... d5 8. Bb5 O-O {and it is, as we say, "a position"...black has equalized}) 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxf6 Bxf6 8. Nd5

```

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, theory
---


# Question
Title: Online Sites For Earning Money Through Chess
Does anyone know if there are any sites by which I could play chess professionally and earn money similar to gambling sites or online poker sites ??

# Answer
> 13 votes
I highly doubt that there exist one. If it would exist, it would be full of sandbaggers or engine players. There is no way to verify who exactly plays the game. You, or your Stockfish/Houdini/Rybka/.

So even if you are GM, you most probably will lose money.

# Answer
> 9 votes
As others have mentioned, there is no genuine site to make real money because it's so easy to cheat online by using chess engines.

The closest thing to "money" would be "ducats" as allowed on the Playchess server. Playchess has strong algorithms that can detect if you are cheating (i.e. using a program), so it is a pretty legitimate way of making "money". Ducats can be used to

> * play against grandmasters or to pay for private training.
> * buy ChessBase products.

So, if you're really good and win a lot of ducats, you can earn yourself some nice material from the Chessbase Shop, which includes chess DVDs, magazines, programs, etc.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Edit 2014-04-04:

Searched for:

> chess online money

Did not find a single serious site. Too many cheaters, too strong engines!

Edit 2014-04-04:

Earlier, I mentioned finding this site:

https://www.chessmoney.com/cm/main

but after logging in and trying it out...it was empty / filled with bots.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is this site chesscube.com which has their own currency called Crowns which can be redeemed for cash or merch .
Earning Crowns requires you to participate in their online rapid tournaments .
If you use engines then they will be able to catch you.

But its very tough if you are not a professional :/

# Answer
> 0 votes
I am a USCF master and FIDE Master. The most legitimate place to play online chess for money is www.velocitychess.com

VelocityChess is a new professionally run chess website. One of its features allows you to wager "vChips", which you can redeem for cash or cash-equivalent gift cards.

The anti-cheating security against engine-use and sand-bagging there is WORLD CLASS.

Furthermore, you are fully refunded your vChips if your opponent is caught cheating.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Not by playing. And cheating is rampant so you would be a fool to try that.

If you want to make money there are a few sites that help connect teachers to students. Both local students as well as others online. So how good are you and are you willing to work to make money or are you a gambler.

If you must gamble them william hill in UK probably takes bets on chess tournaments but they now block people in usa from even accessing what bets are available. EU access might be okay or you could move to UK.

I used to like to LOOK at the odds they had for some things like US elections.

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


title: Recommendations for kids sites

text:
# Question
Title: Recommendations for kids sites
I am a teacher, and don’t really play much. My students like chess and I want to send them to some safe chess sites for kids. Recommendations?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have a few.

Chess Kid is part of chess.com, which is the largest chess site in the world. There are both free and paid memberships.

Another great site is ChessKids Academy. They have come very basic lessons for newcomers, and the best thing is that it is free.

Kid Chess also has some nice material that is free.

All of these sites have components for both the players, and the adults, who are helping them.

---
Tags: teaching
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of a position-Why is my move so bad?
I am trying to understand this position a bit better and would appreciate some help in doing so. I am black and it's my turn...

I played the move `..c5`. I don't have a deep understanding of this specific position, hence my question (I'm ELO 1700) but my thoughts were along the lines of preventing white to get `Bb4` in and at the same time gaining a tempo by kicking the knight. This then also allows me to bring my knight back into the game without obstructing any of my rooks.

For some reason this move was extremely bad (listed as the 10th best move with a relative score of 2.0 points lower than the best move)

Can someone please explain to me why this move is so bad?

```
[title "Black to play"]
[fen "1n1qr1k1/pr3ppp/2p2b2/8/2PN1Q2/2BP2P1/PP2PP1P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 20"]

1... c5

```

# Answer
The reasons for not playing `20...c5` are mainly tactical. `20...g5 21. Qg4 h5 22. Qxh5 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Qxd4 24. Qxg5+ Qg7` wins a piece for two pawns. Since you are already down three pawns for nothing, it won't do to just sit around and wait.

```
[fen "1n1qr1k1/pr3ppp/2p2b2/8/2PN1Q2/2BP2P1/PP2PP1P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 20"]

1... g5 2. Qg4 h5 3. Qxh5 Bxd4 4. Bxd4 Qxd4 5. Qxg5+ Qg7

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
To add some information to @overtheboard's answer, after c5 you are inducing Nf5, and you end up with three white pieces (Bishop, Knight and Queen) attacking you kingside. Also, since then white is menacing Nd6, forking both your rooks, you're not gaining a tempo, but giving a tempo to white and you do not have the time to activate your own knight.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I like c5 for these positional reasons:

1. You are one step closer to activating your knight, which you cannot at the moment because the pawn would hang.
2. Forcing a bishop trade that will allow you to put the rook on the 7th and attack both e and a pawns, also avoiding the N fork on d6.
3. Reducing the number of attackers on your K (minus the bishop), while not reducing your defences because Q can perform bishop's duties from f6.

20...g5, barring computer tactics is suicidal IMO, because you are undeveloped with a kingside attack on the way, and what do you do, expose your King some more?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: How many matches have there been at the top level which have ended up with a tied score and a winner?
In the current FIDE Grand Prix tournament in Jerusalem the first round match between Pentala Harikrishna and Sergey Karjakin ended in a tied score, 4.5-4.5, but Karjakin won because the last game was an armageddon game with him as black.

In the 1950's Botvinnik "won" two world championship matches as defending champion with a score of 12-12, one in 1951 against Bronstein and again in 1954 against Smyslov. At the time there were no tie-breaks for world championship matches. Instead the defending champion retained the title.

That makes 3 matches. Are there any more?

# Answer
> 3 votes
As @Remellion pointed out, the 1987 Kasparov - Karpov world championship match also finished in a tie, 12-12, with Kasparov retaining the title.

That chessgames.com link leads on to the 1910 Lasker vs Schlechter world championship match that finished 5-5 with Lasker retaining the title. The interesting story of the match is told here. With one game to play Schlechter was leading 5-4 and only needed a draw to become world champion. Instead of playing safe he played for the win but after a game lasting 11 hours spread over 3 days he lost and Lasker retained the title.

Another tied game which had a winner was the 1983 Smyslov - Hübner Candidates Quarterfinal Match which ended 5-5 and then was extended with 4 full length tie-break games (all draws) for a final score of 7-7.

The match was held in Velden, Austria, about 500 meters from the Casino Velden and so to decide the winner they used the roulette wheel. If the ball fell into a black number Hübner would be the winner and if red then Smyslov. The first spin saw the ball end up in zero (no colour) so a second spin was needed which landed in red, so Smyslov won the match.

Robert Byrne, reporting in the New York Times, thought this was very unfair and proposed that more rapid games should be used to break ties when the tie-break games at the regular time control failed to produce a winner. Perhaps this was the first time rapid games had been suggested as a tie-break mechanism?

So, that takes the total up to 6.

---
Tags: records
---


# Question
Title: Why is Leela so good at beating Stockfish in the French/Slav?
I notice Lc0 is especially good against Stockfish in French / Slav pawn structures. However, I don't understand why.

Here're a couple of games where Leela smoothly outplays Stockfish. Can anyone explain what Stockfish is doing wrong?

Link to this game displaying Lc0 & Stockfish PVs / evals for each move.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "CCC11 Finals (30|5)"]
[Date "2019.12.19"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lc0"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C04"]
[GameDuration "01:12:46"]
[GameEndTime "2019-12-19T07:33:45.057 PST"]
[GameStartTime "2019-12-19T06:20:58.414 PST"]
[Opening "French"]
[PlyCount "247"]
[TimeControl "1800+5"]
[Variation "Tarrasch, Guimard Main line"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nc6 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. e5 Nd7 6. Nb3 a5 7. a4 b6 8. h4 Bb7 9. c3 Qc8 10. h5 h6 11. Be3 Ba6 12. Nc1 Nd8 13. Rh3 Qb7 14. Rg3 b5 15. Nd3 Nc6 16. Be2 bxa4 17. Qxa4 Rb8 18. Bc1 Bb5 19. Qd1 Qb6 20. Kf1 Ne7 21. Nh4 c5 22. Nxc5 Nxc5 23. dxc5 Bxe2+ 24. Qxe2 Qxc5 25. Kg1 Qb5 26. Qd1 Nc6 27. Nf3 Qb6 28. Nd4 Bc5 29. Be3 Bxd4 30. cxd4 Kf8 31. Qg4 Rh7 32. Bxh6 Qxd4 33. Bxg7+ Ke8 34. h6 Rxb2 35. Qxd4 Nxd4 36. Rh3 Nb3 37. Ra4 Nd2 38. g4 Nc4 39. g5 Rb7 40. Rc3 Ke7 41.Kg2 Rb8 42. Bf6+ Kd7 43. Kg3 Rb1 44. Kh3 Rg1 45. Kh2 Rb1 46. Kg2 Rb5 47. Kg3 Nd2 48. Kg4 Nc4 49. Ra1 Kc6 50. Kh5 Kc5 51. g6 fxg6+ 52. Kxg6 Rbb7 53. Bg7 Rxh6+ 54. Bxh6 Kd4 55. Rg3 Rb8 56. Bg7 Ke4 57. Re1+ Kd4 58. Kf7 Kc5 59. Kxe6 a4 60. Kf5 Re8 61. e6 Nd6+ 62. Kg6 d4 63. e7 Rg8 64. Kh7 Ra8 65. Rg4 d3 66.Rd1 Re8 67.Rxd3 Nb7 68. f3 Kb5 69. f4 Rxe7 70. f5 Re1 71. f6 Rf1 72. Rdd4 a3 73. Rb4+ Kc6 74. Ra4 Nd6 75. Rxa3 Kb5 76. f7 Nxf7 77. Kg6 Nd8 78. Rb3+ Kc5 79. Rc3+ Kb5 80. Rc8 Nc6 81. Re8 Kc5 82. Rg5+ Kd6 83. Bf6 Rf2 84. Rf5 Ra2 85. Kf7 Ra7+ 86. Kf8 Rd7 87. Rh5 Rb7 88. Rh6 Rb5 89. Kg7 Rb1 90. Kg8 Kc5 91. Rh7 Rb3 92. Rh8 Kd6 93. Kf7 Rb7+ 94. Kg6 Rb3 95. Kf5 Kd7 96. Re4 Rf3+ 97. Kg5 Kd6 98. Rh6 Kd5 99. Re1 Kc4 100. Rh7 Rb3 101. Rc1+ Kd5 102. Rd7+ Ke6 103. Rd2 Rb5+ 104. Kg6 Ne5+ 105. Bxe5 Rxe5 106. Rg1 Ke7 107. Rgg2 Re6+ 108. Kg7 Re5 109. Rde2 Kd6 110. Rxe5 Kxe5 111. Kf7 Kd4 112. Ke6 Ke4 113. Rg4+ Kd3 114. Ke5 Ke3 115. Rd4 Kf3 116. Re4 Kg3 117. Rf4 Kh3 118. Kf5 Kg3 119. Kg5 Kh3 120. Rg4 Kh2 121. Kh4 Kh1 122. Kg3 Kg1 123. Rf4 Kh1 124. Rf1# 1-0

```

Another game where Stockfish *just* manages to hold the draw.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "CCC11 Finals (30|5)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2019.12.18"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lc0"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B12"]
[GameDuration "01:31:03"]
[GameEndTime "2019-12-18T23:02:39.927 PST"]
[GameStartTime "2019-12-18T21:31:35.992 PST"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann"]
[PlyCount "384"]
[TimeControl "1800+5"]
[Variation "Advance Variation"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Ne2 e6 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. h5 Bh7 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 c5 10. c3 Ne7 11. f4 Na6 12. Ne2 Nc6 13. a3 c4 14. Qc2 Qd7 15. Nd2 O-O-O 16. Nf3 Be7 17. g4 Rdf8 18. Be3 Nc7 19. f5 Kb8 20. Ng3 a6 21. O-O Bd8 22. Rf2 Re8 23. Raf1 Rhg8 24. Kg2 Ka8 25. Bc1 Kb8 26. Kh3 Ka8 27. f6 gxf6 28. exf6 Rh8 29. Ne5 Nxe5 30. dxe5 Nb5 31. Bf4 Bb6 32. Qd2 Bxf2 33. Rxf2 Na7 34. Bxh6 Nc6 35. Bf4 Qd8 36. Nf1 Nb8 37. Nh2 Nd7 38. Nf3 Nc5 39. Qe3 Ne4 40. Re2 Reg8 41. Qd4 Qc7 42. Be3 b5 43. Rg2 Rh7 44. Kh4 Rgh8 45. Rg1 Qd7 46. Ra1 Rb8 47. Ng5 Nxg5 48.Kxg5 Qc7 49. Kf4 a5 50. Rh1 Rbh8 51. Kg3 Kb7 52. Rb1 a4 53. Rh1 Ka6 54. Rh4 Kb7 55. Bg1 Kc8 56. Rh3 Rg8 57. Be3 Kd7 58. g5 Rgh8 59. Kg4 Rg8 60. Rh4 Kc8 61. Bf2 Kd7 62. Bg1 Kd8 63. Be3 Kc8 64. Rh2 Kb8 65. Rh1 Kc8 66. Rh4 Kd7 67. Bf2 Kc8 68. Rh1 Kb7 69. Bg1 Ka6 70. Rh2 Rhh8 71. Be3 Rc8 72. Rh4 Rcg8 73. Rh3 Kb7 74. Rf3 Kc8 75. Qc5 Qxc5 76. Bxc5 Kd7 77. g6 Ke8 78. Kg5 Rh7 79. Rf1 Rhh8 80. g7 Kd7 81. Kh4 Rh7 82. Kg5 Kc6 83. Bf8 Kc7 84. Rd1 Kd7 85. Bb4 Ke8 86. Be7 Rhh8 87. Bc5 Rh7 88. Ra1 Kd7 89. Be7 Ke8 90. Bb4 Rhh8 91. Bc5 Kd7 92. Bf8 Rh7 93. Bd6 Kd8 94. Bf8 Kd7 95. Rd1 Rhh8 96. h6 Rh7 97. Kh5 Kc6 98. Rg1 Kd7 99. Rg5 Ke8 100. Bd6 Kd7 101.Bb4 Kc6 102. Ba5 Kc5 103. Bc7 Kc6 104. Bd6 Kb7 105. Rg1 Kc6 106. Rd1 Kd7 107.Bc5 Kc6 108. Bf2 Rc8 109. Rg1 Rg8 110. Bd4 Kc7 111. b4 cxb3 112. Rg4 Kb7 113.Bf2 Kc7 114. Rd4 Rb8 115. Be3 Kd7 116. Bg1 Rd8 117. Rf4 Ra8 118. Rg4 Rc8 119. Rd4 Rb8 120. Bf2 Kc6 121. Rf4 Ra8 122. Bd4 Rb8 123. Rg4 Rg8 124. Rg5 Kc7 125. Rg4 Kc6 126. Rg3 Kb7 127. Rg2 Kc6 128. Rg4 Kc7 129. Rg5 Kc6 130. Rg4 Kb7 131. Rg3 Kc8 132. Rg6 Kd7 133. Rg3 Ke8 134. Rg4 Kd8 135. Rg5 Kc7 136. Rg3 Kd7 137.Rf3 Rc8 138. Rf2 Re8 139. Rf4 Rc8 140. Rf2 Kc6 141. Rf4 Kd7 142. c4 bxc4 143.Bc3 Rg8 144. Ba1 Kc6 145. Rd4 Rc8 146. Bc3 Rb8 147. Bb2 Kd7 148. Rg4 Rg8 149.Rd4 Kc6 150. Bc3 Rc8 151. Rg4 Rg8 152. Bd4 Kc7 153. Bb2 Kc6 154. Rd4 Kc5 155.Ba1 Kc6 156. Rd2 Kc5 157. Rd1 Rb8 158. Bd4+ Kc6 159. Rg1 Rg8 160. Rg5 Kc7 161.Rf5 Rc8 162. Rf1 Kc6 163. Rd1 Kb5 164. Bc3 Kc6 165. Ba1 Kd7 166. Rg1 Rg8 167.Rd1 Kc6 168. Bb2 Rc8 169. Rd2 Kd7 170. Bc3 Rg8 171. Ba1 Kc6 172. Rd1 Rc8 173.Rd2 Rg8 174. Rd1 Re8 175. Bc3 Rg8 176. Rd2 Ra8 177. Rd1 Rg8 178. Bb2 Kc5 179.Rd4 Kc6 180. Rd2 Rc8 181. Rg2 Rg8 182. Bd4 Kb5 183. Rg5 Kc6 184. Rg1 Kc7 185.Rg2 Kd7 186. Rf2 Ke8 187. Rd2 Kd7 188. Rg2 Kc7 189. Rg4 Kc6 190. Rg2 Kb5 191.Rg1 Ka5 192. Rg2 Rb8 1/2-1/2

```

The only common observation I've made is that it seems these games involve Stockfish not castling kingside. If the opening book forces it to do so, it doesn't get into scrapes like this as much. Example game where Stockfish drew a French with kingside castling without too much drama. It seems in the first game that a lot of action happened on the queenside while Stockfish declined to castle kingside (which makes sense, doing that seems foolhardy at best against a Rook on g3), but White's superior kingside space eventually led to a win in material. Game 2, the queenside was less of a battleground, but again White's superior kingside space led to a big advantage.

What plans should Stockfish have used in either game? Where did Stockfish go wrong?

I realize that, of course, Stockfish and Leela are way way better than the best humans, so I'm not looking for concrete lines here - just general plans that Stockfish should have tried. In particular (and especially for correspondence chess players), at which point should one look for improvements in Black's play?

# Answer
> 15 votes
Well, it is a small sample, but assuming that there are a lot more games like these, I think it could be the following things.

First, I am not sure when we first humans first decided that space was an advantage, but for as long as I have been playing, it has been a known factor. Both of these openings cede space compared to double-king-pawn openings and double-queen-pawn openings. It is notable that in both games above, white played e5 taking the space that was offered.

I think what we are seeing at such a high level is confirmation that space is maybe a larger factor than we previously believed, possibly even decisive. If one program can dismantle such a strong opponent with its one major advantage being space, it may just be THE single biggest reason. I have always loved openings that give me a space advantage, and have had very good results, but of course, we are human, and cannot execute like Leela can, so we don't win every time proving the value beyond all doubts like the machines soon may.

I also think that having that space may lead directly to more activity, and the cramped king-sides in both these games were expertly exploited. I think that in both games, black did not castle simply because it was already tactical suicide, and not castling, in and of itself, was not the reason for the loss...the damage was already done. I am not sure that all variations of these openings would see that as decisively as these games since not all allow e5.

Hopefully, that is a start to answering your question.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Because of the enormous skill difference between these computers and humans, any kind of analysis will inevitably be post-hoc. We can tell ourselves stories about how "Stockfish should have \[insert plan\]," (and I'm sure some people here will) but ultimately I think that any story we could come up with would be flawed at the level of Leela/Stockfish. This isn't to say our ideas are worthless, just that they are very likely to not tell the whole story.

I recognize that this is a bit of a "Who are we to judge god?" response to the problem of evil, but I stand by it. In the world of chess, gods are real.

---

That being said, I do think I can provide a (speculative) answer to the question stated in the title: why is leela so good at beating stockfish in the french caro kann? I realize this isn't *exactly* the answer you were going for, but I think it's interesting

Classical engine (eg stockfish) work by (smart) brute force. They leverage their computational power to compute many, many positions and beat you with calculation. In the 80s, early 90s, if you were a decent player, you could abuse this fact by steering the game into positions where calculation is less helpful. This usually meant closed positions with an unclear path to victory--without an obvious way to improve the position within the next x moves, computers don't know what to do, and make silly decisions.

But that was awhile ago. Computers are now much faster, and our algorithms much stronger. We've optimized the hell out of our engines, and it shows in the performance. However, I suspect classical engines still suffer from the same problems as before: in positions with no clear path forward, calculation just isn't as useful.

In particular, look at the position after move 9 in the first game. What do you do as black? Stockfish can certainly play this position very, very well (due to years of optimization), but I doubt to the same standard as it does open ones. Leela, being (partially) a neural net, doesn't rely *as* heavily on calculation, and (if we're anthropomorphizeing) has a better grasp of long-term "thinking."

So this would be my guess: leela does better in french/caro kann positions because they have unclear lines of progress. This plays into leela's strengths and Stockfish's weaknesses.

---

I would be curious to see if there are any examples of stockfish losing to leela in open, tactical games. The previous section would benefit from attempted falsification.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Generally speaking, Leela tends to have a better "intuition" and Stockfish is very good at brute force calculations. So in a structure like the French/Caro-Kann, where calculation becomes less important and strategy becomes more important, Leela will tend to do better.

---
Tags: stockfish, computer-chess, french-defense, slav-defense, leela
---


title: Playing for a stalemate?

text:
# Question
Title: Playing for a stalemate?
How difficult would it be to come into a match trying to get a stalemate? Is it also possible to repeat this? Could one raise their elo with the ability to just stalemate every game?

# Answer
First of all what is a stalemate? This is a specific kind of draw (you can have a lot of them: perpetual check, insufficient material, mutual agreement, threefold repetition, 50 moves rule and a stalemate).

But in comparison to other draws, stalemate is most of the time a blunder made by your opponent. This is because it enables a player with inferior position to draw the game. The blunder of such high quality that it costed him a draw in completely winning position.

So to answer your questions:

> How difficult would it be to come into a match trying to get a stalemate?

Extremely difficult an quite silly. Because to get into stalemate you would need to reach in the beginning much worse position and only after that to hope that your opponent will do a big mistake. Yes, it is possible (some of GM's had it), but it is better to play for a draw in another way (where you do not put yourself in bad position in the first place)

> Is it also possible to repeat this?

Sure, if your opponent do not want to learn and want to do the same queen stalemate every time.

> Could one raise their elo with the ability to just stalemate every game?

Even theoretically it is impossible (even if you will assume that you can stalemate every game, which is ridiculous) because you will play with people above your rating and below your rating so for the draw with people below your rating you will get minus score.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If the goal of the game were stalemate instead, **the game would still be more or less the same as chess**.

In chess, in order to win, one tries to get some kind of superiority (material, space, position) and win from there by forcing the opponent to yield more and more until no resistance is possible.

In most chess variants, a key principle is to be able to force your opponent around by establishing some kind of superiority. (Exactly the same!) After all, once you have a winning position it is easy to do anything thereafter.

Indirect proof 1: Consider the variants antichess and losing chess (captures must be played if available, win condition is to lose all your own units; in antichess additionally kings are not royal.) It is well-known that getting a material advantage is almost always the correct way to play for a win. The resulting extra mobility eventually lets you force your opponent to take all your pieces in a single final burst, or to arrive at a winning material-up endgame.

Indirect proof 2: I cite the club correspondence game Paris - Marseille, 1878. Paris took white and started without a queen. Black's goal was to *force white to deliver checkmate*; white tried to *avoid* mating black. The game looks remarkably normal for a long way, until black's advantage is sufficient to start forcing white around.

I claim, if from an advantageous position one can force the opponent to deliver mate against their will, what more difficult would forcing stalemate be?

```
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "Paris"]
[Black "Marseilles"]
[Event "correspondence 1878; white gives queen odds, black plays for selfmate"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 c6 3.Nf3 g6 4.e4 e6 5.e5 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 b5 8.h4 h5 9.O-O-O a6 10.Ng5 f5 11.g3 Nh6 12.Bd3 Nf7 13.Bxf5 gxf5 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Bd2 Nd7 16.Rhe1 c5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Bg5 Qg8 19.Re3 Bb7 20.Rc3 Rc8 21.Be3 Nd7 22.Bd4 Rxc3 23.bxc3 a5 24.Kd2 a4 25.Rb1 Ba6 26.Rg1 Qg4 27.Rb1 Rc8 28.Rb4 Rc4 29.Rxc4 dxc4 30.a3 f4 31.Kc1 fxg3 32.fxg3 Qxg3 33.Kb2 Qxh4 34.Kc1 Qe1+ 35.Kb2 Qd1 36.Ba7 Nxe5 37.Bc5 h4 38.Bd4 Nc6 39.Be3 e5 40.Bf2 h3 41.Bg3 e4 42.Bf4 Ke6 43.Bg3 e3 44.Bf4 e2 45.Bg3 Kd7 46.Bh2 e1=Q 47.Bf4 Qee2 48.Bg3 Qdxc2+ 49.Ka1 Qf1+ 50.Be1 Qd2 51.Kb1 h2 52.Ka1 h1=Q 53.Kb1 Qf8 54.Ka1 Qxa3+ 55.Kb1 Qad6 56.Ka1 Qf6 57.Kb1 Kc7 58.Ka1 b4 59.Kb1 b3 60.Ka1 Kb6 61.Kb1 Ka5 62.Ka1 Ne7 63.Kb1 Nc8 64.Ka1 Bb5 65.Kb1 Qa6 66.Ka1 Nb6 67.Kb1 Qh7+ 68.Ka1 Qxc3+ 69.Bxc3#
*

```

Getting an advantageous position (exactly the same as normal chess) would be the simplest way to force stalemate.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Is there a reason for MC's second move?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a reason for MC's second move?
In this game, Magnus Carlsen made an unusual poor first move `Nh3`. Presumably, it was to throw off his opponent, especially since the game was under fast time controls, so that is understandable. But I cannot understand why he played another poor move after that. Why `f4`? Why not `d4` or `g3` (with their obvious benefits)? Is `1. Nh3 Nh6` so frequently used that he needs to make two poor moves in a row to make sure his opponent has no preparation? More concretely, is there any potential positional gain by `f4`? As far as I can tell, `f4` only serves to expose the king and delay development of all the pieces...

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nh3 Nh6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf2 Ng4 4. e3 Nxf2 5. Kxf2 c5 6. b3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Bb2 a6 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. Nc3 e6 11. Qh5 Be7 12. Rhf1 Bf6 13. Kg1 Nb4 14. Rac1 Nxa2 15. Rce1 Nb4 16. f5 e5 17. e4 c4 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bxc4 Nb4 20. c3 Nc6 21. Qxf7+ Kd8 22. Ba3 Be8 23. Qd5+ Qd7 24. Bd6 Be7 25. Bxe7+ Kxe7 26. Qc5+ Qd6 27. Qb6 Bd7 28. d4 Nd8 29. Qa5 Nc6 30. Qa2 Kd8 31. Rd1 Kc7 32. Qf2 Rad8 33. b4 Rhf8 34. b5 axb5 35. Bxb5 g6 36. f6 Kb8 37. Bc4 Bc8 38. Bd5 Be6 39. Bxe6 Qxe6 40. d5 Qd6 41. Ra1 Kc7 42. dxc6 Qxc6 43. Ra5 Kb8 44. Qa7+

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
2.f4 is a poor move, just like 1.Nh3 was. 1.Nh3 puts White at roughly -0.50; then, after 1...Nh6 White comes back to around 0.3. If Carlsen had played 2.d4, like you said, he would have maintained this evaluation. Instead, 2.f4 brings things down to -0.4ish.

A reason behind 2.f4 is to bring the knight back to f2, but it's still a bad move. As I mentioned in the previous question on this game, Carlsen was clearly just having fun in an online rapid game. There was no deep strategy involved. If he wanted to play some deceptive variation with the sole intention of winning, you would have seen something far more impressive than this from the world champion.

If you want to analyze Carlsen's games in order to learn from them, please take a look at ones he's played in serious super-GM tournaments. Trying to glean knowledge from an online game in the PRO league isn't worthwhile (especially when 1.Nh3 is the first move).

# Answer
> 3 votes
The Nh3 already, after the first move, does not have a good square, so he created one, f2. If he plays it to g5 after d5, then why did it not just go to f3? You don't want to move it back to g1 either. The worst though is moving it to f4 where it is sure to get knocked around and lose development time.

I think is also was consistent with his desire to take an online rapid game down an untraveled road. I think that if he were in front of you, he would tell you not to play either move.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, carlsen, rapid
---


# Question
Title: Creating program for finding top players with respect to elo and age
I want to create a program for personal use but also maybe for publishing it on the web, in order to detect the top players with respect to elo and age. There will be two cases:

A) In this case, someone will choose one of top players. There will be an output - answer: What was the first elo rating that he passed by being the youngest player ever to reach that rating or maybe a list of all these numbers, because there may be many and on which date and at which age age.

Example: Magnus Carlsen.

Output (not real-true): At the age of 8 years and 3 months old, in February 2002, he was the youngest player ever that passed the elo 2098. At the age of 11 years and 7 months old in June 2005, he was the youngest player ever that passed the elo 2202. Etc... (maybe in that case there will also be a choice to show the dates and elo numbers in which he was the second youngest or third etc.. .).

B) In this case, someone will choose an elo number, for example 2804. There will be an output - answer: Who was the youngest player who passed this number and on which date - age. Or maybe a list with all the players who passed this number sorted from youngest to oldest.

Example: 2804

Output (not real - true):

1) Magnus Carlsen, 21 years and 2 months old, in August 2012. 2) Garry Kasparov, 27 years and 5 months old, in January 1990. etc..

Can you give me some guidelines and advice how to go on? Maybe there is already something like that? Are there some resources I can take some historical databases from? I think it needs (relatively) easy programming or not so much? Also is it possible to use the live numbers from live 2700, including decimal digits and dates (for example, 2758.7 in 9 October 2015), or it should be better to start with the official fide round ratings per month?

In any case, if I create this program do you think it will be good to publish it on a website? Nonprofit or there can be a respectful low income from ads on it?

Tia.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Are there some resources I can take some historical databases from?

You need two sets of data:

* Rating data for the players going back as far as possible in time
* Date of birth data for the players

There are two very good sources which will help a lot with ratings and help a little with dates of birth. The bad news regarding dates of birth is that in the modern age full dates of birth are generally not published because of security risks. If you are going to try and steal somebody's identity with a view to stealing their money then full date of birth is one of the key components.

FIDE published about 19 years of rating data which is available for download. Olimpbase have data available for download going back another 30 years.

The Olimpbase data has both ratings and full date of birth data but is very "dirty". You will need to "clean" it before you can use it to remove duplicate data and resolve players with the same name, the same player with different names (women players who got married, perhaps more than once, and changed their names and also just typos in the data).

The FIDE data is also a bit "dirty" in the early years but gets cleaner in later years. You will have much less data to "clean". It has year of birth only so getting the full date of birth for players will involve a lot more work digging through resources like Wikipedia.

> I think it needs (relatively) easy programming or not so much?

A major task will be extracting the data you need from your data sources. This will be a massive task. I would suggest you design a relational database for your needs and populate it from your data sources after first cleaning the data. Once this is done answering the questions you want is a relatively straightforward matter of writing some simple database queries and running them.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Assuming you can find a database with the data you want, this is a very straightforward programming exercise. In particular, Python is made for this kind of stuff.

If you are successful in making it, then by all means publish it on a website, but there's absolutely no way ad revenue will come anywhere near offsetting the cost of the domain name, not to mention the time/energy you spend on it.

---
Tags: rating, programming, fide, elo, websites
---


title: How bad is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?

text:
# Question
Title: How bad is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?
Is this move clearly losing for white? Chessgames.com shows 1 win and 2 losses for white only, and I could not find any other reference for this move.

# Answer
> 16 votes
```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?

```

No, it is not clearly losing, but I would say that the question mark is appropriate. You have to understand that white, by the nature of going first, can afford to waste a move in many early opening positions without it being a losing move. What it does though is it usually throws away any chance at gaining an advantage, and that is because you cannot be sure that the wasted move, in this case 3.a3?, will be helpful to your position as the position develops. In general, in the opening, you want to play moves that you KNOW will help you and that you know you want to play...you cannot know that about a3. a3 also does nothing to fight for the center. At best, you might play an early b4 trying to get play in the Wing Gambit.

In the Mega Database, there are actually 35 games, but the average rating for white and black is only 1796 to 1768, so that should tell you a lot: Strong players do not think it is good, even if not losing. For the record, white only scores a 37.1% with 3.a3?, but again, anything can happen between 1700s.

# Answer
> 11 votes
It's pretty bad but not close to losing. 3.a3 has been chosen in 34 games in my database, and scores around 38%. Stockfish at depth 28 gives an evaluation of about 0.14. So objectively speaking the game is equal after 3.a3 and White can't seriously hope for an advantage. It's also not one of those openings which you might play to trick your opponent, since pushing the a-pawn isn't threatening.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Other posters have shared database and Stockfish results, but I would prefer just to talk strategy. What, exactly, is your plan with 3. a3 ?

* If you want to play b2-b4, you can already do that on move 3; it's called the Wing Gambit, and though it does not have a sterling reputation, you'll find masters who have won games with it, and can study those games.
* Why do those masters who have played the Wing Gambit not play a3 first? Generally it's because a3 is a do-nothing move. Even if you get to play b4, black doesn't have to trade there, and if he doesn't, then you've given him a free move to execute his strategy.
* What, then, is black's strategy? To fight for the dark squares in the center, specifically d4. The move a3 doesn't do anything to hinder that strategy.

So with those points in mind, I think Black has several good moves here. First, you have all of the normal Sicilian moves, like 3...Nc6, 3...e6, 3...a6, or 3...Qc7. Preparing a fianchetto of either bishop, 3...b6 or 3...g6, seems fine. But also you might be giving Black a chance to fight for d4 more directly with 3...e5!?. If Black has so many viable moves, it doesn't seem like you've gained anything over a normal Sicilian.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It's not a good move because it wastes a tempo and doesn't really accomplish anything.

However, it's not a horrible move because white still has a tiny advantage due to his better center and his lead in development (at least for now). Theoretically white could argue that since d5 is the equalizing move for black in the sicilian and black has "lost" a move playing d6 that white could possibly gain that tempo back. However, a3 doesn't give white anything at all so gaining the tempo back is one giant moot point.

Maybe there's an advantage in playing a waiting move and waiting for Nc6 before Bb5 but there should be several waiting moves that at least accomplish something.

Typically, the Sicilian is a battle between white's dynamic advantages and black's long-term advantages. If white plays slowly, black should be able to equalize fairly easily and take control of the initiative. That's probably the biggest reason something like this isn't played at high levels. Aside from that though there are several moves that accomplish everything a3 does but do other things as well.

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