title: What does chess theory refer to?

text:
# Question
Title: What does chess theory refer to?
I hear some people say certain players only win because they know/memorized a lot of theory? I don't know the "official" term for these types of players but it makes me concerned because hopefully I'm not one of them. It makes it seem these types of players aren't good at chess or don't really use their head to play the game. Can someone clarify what this is all about?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Chess theory in this sense refers to opening variations / opening analysis. Every strong player has a repertoire of opening lines that he likes to play and in which he knows pretty well which moves are the best.

Some players analyse the opening exhaustively and try to find tricky lines before they sit down to play. This is helped by the fact that they can look up games of their next opponent in databases. These players occasionally win games just by following their home preparation.

But this is not something that should overly concern you. It's more of a grandmaster's problem. On the top level in chess opening preparation plays a big role. In amateur games it is usually easy to dodge any kind of special preparation by the opponent.

It is easy to look down on people who spend a lot of time learning opening variations by heart, but in reality spending time on the opening also improves your understanding of typical position, tactics and plans. If somebody wins a lot of games in the opening, this is never just due to reproducing learned lines with no understanding. Chess is too complex and diverse for that.

# Answer
> -2 votes
> certain players only win because they know/memorized a lot of theory

That's just nonsense. Anybody who wins regularly does so because they know rather a lot of theory.

BlindKungFuMaster's claim that

> Chess theory in this sense refers to opening variations / opening analysis

is also nonsense.

Theory is a lot more to chess theory than just opening theory. Endgame theory is the most important part of chess theory. If you don't know any endgame theory then most of your games will be a matter of luck.

Do you know how to mate with king and queen against king? Yes? Then you know some theory. King and rook versus king? King and two bishops versus king?

How about pawn endings? Do you know when king + pawn versus king is a win and when it is a draw? How about king + rook + pawn versus king + rook?

Already we have touched on a lot of important theory. If you know this theory then when you are playing the middlegame you know what kinds of endgame you can aim for and win. If you don't know how to mate with king, knight and bishop against king then don't aim for this endgame because it is going to be a draw.

If you have an extra pawn in an endgame with just kings and several pawns and your opponent lets you swap off into an endgame where you have a king and a rook's pawn against his king and so it ends in a draw is that somehow unfair? Is this "somebody who didn't really use their head to play the game?" No, your opponent earned the draw by virtue of his superior theoretical knowledge. If you had the same knowledge you wouldn't let it happen.

Endgame theory is rather concrete. Middlegame theory is much more fluid. When does sacrificing the exchange give you a winning advantage? When are doubled and / or isolated pawns good? When are bishops better than knights? How about knights better than bishops? When is it OK to leave the king in the center? When is it better to castle? Again somebody who has a better understanding of these theoretical ideas will play better than somebody who doesn't.

As regards opening theory, if you don't know any opening theory you will struggle to get out of the opening against a good player. Opening theory isn't just knowing a set pattern of moves to safely develop your pieces it is also about knowing some of the typical plans that come out of the opening. It is all very well playing the first 10 or 15 moves according to "the book" but if you don't have some good ideas what to do next you will struggle to reach move 30 unless your opponent is in the same situation.

---
Tags: theory, terminology, memorization
---


# Question
Title: Please Critique my game played by my engine
```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "?"]
[fen ""]

1. e3 e5 2. Qg4 Qf6 3. Bb5 e4 4. Qxe4+ Qe7 5. Qd5 Qh4 6. g3 c6 7. Qf5 g6 8. Qd5 Qb4 9. Qe5+ Ne7 10. Be2 Rg8 11. b3 d6 12. Qf6 Nd5 13. a3 Qe4 14. f3 Qxc2 15. Qd4 Qxc1+ 16. Kf2 Bg7 17. Qe4+ Kf8 18. Ra2 Be5 19. f4 Bf5 20. Nh3 Qc5 21. b4 Bxe4 22. bxc5 Bxh1 23. Ng5 f6 24. Nxh7+ Kg7 25. fxe5 Kxh7 26. exd6 Nd7 27. Rc2 Be4 28. Rc1 g5 29. Nc3 Nxc3 30. Rxc3 a5 31. Bc4 Bd5 32. e4 Bxc4 33. Rxc4 Rge8 34. g4 Re5 35. Rc1 Rxe4 36. Kf3 Rd4 37. Kf2 Rxd2+ 38. Ke3 Rxh2 39. Rc4 Kg7 40. Rc1 Rh3+ 41. Kd2 Rxa3 42. Ke2 Rh8 43. Kf2 Rd3 44. Rh1 Rd2+ 45. Ke1 Rxh1+ 46. Kxd2 Nxc5 47. Ke2 Ne4 48. d7 Nc5 49. d8=Q Rh2+ 50. Ke3 a4 51. Qc7+ Kf8 52. Qxh2 Ne6 53. Qc2 a3 54. Qf5 Nf4 55. Qc2 Kg7 56. Qc4 Ng2+ 57. Kf3 Ne1+ 58. Ke2 Ng2 59. Qc5 Nf4+ 60. Ke1 Nd3+ 61. Kd2 Nxc5 62. Kc3 a2 63. Kb2 a1=B+ 64. Kxa1 Nd3 65. Ka2 Nf4 66. Kb2 c5 67. Kc3 Kf7 68. Kc4 b6 69. Kb5 Nd5 70. Kc6 Ke6 71. Kb5 Kd7 72. Kc4 Ne3+ 73. Kb5 Kc7 74. Ka6 Nxg4 75. Kb5 Ne3 76. Ka4 Kd7 77. Kb5 Nd5 78. Kc4 Nf4 79. Kb5 g4 80. Kxb6 c4 81. Kb5 c3 82. Kc4 c2 83. Kb3 c1=Q 84. Kb4 Qc2 85. Ka3 g3 86. Kb4 Qe4+ 87. Ka3 Kc7 88. Kb2 Qd5 89. Ka3 g2 90. Kb4 g1=Q 91. Kc3 Qb1

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Nice efforts, you've made a working chess engine, your journey has started. But you have more works to do:

* (respond to your comment) 3...e4 must be a bug because your engine just gave up a pawn for nothing in the next move. Searching for d=3 should be able to see it. Also see the next comment.
* Your engine seems to like attacking the most valuable piece (queen), your 3...e4 may have been caused by this blindness. I'm guessing (you'll need to check it yourself) you put too much weight in attack threats.
* The engine moves the queen out too early. You will need to check your PST table and make sure your PST evaluation beats the temptation of moving the queen out. A common mistake in early chess engines is that they put too much weight into the number of squares that the queen can control in the opening.
* Please check your PST again why your engine would prefer moving 1.e3. You must instruct the engine to move into the centre.
* Don't use the default position for testing. It's still too early for your engine to handle it. Set yourself some simple positions where there is a direct way to win, for example: back-rank mate in two, pushing the pawn for promotion etc. Your engine blunders too much, even at depth 3 and no understanding of tactical threats. Make sure you can play those easy positions.
* I'm guessing you set yourself at d=3 because it's too slow for you to go further. Consider to implement the easy extensions, such as null move and hashing. In particular, your engine won't go anywhere without hashing.

---
Tags: analysis, engines
---


title: Becoming a pretty good chess player

text:
# Question
Title: Becoming a pretty good chess player
First of all I am sorry if my English is not very good. I started to play chess some time ago. I want to start to play pretty good to have fun in tournaments but I have no idea how to create a plan of study. Can some one explain what the difference is between an occasional player and a tournament player? And how to make a plan to study chess?

# Answer
Play. Read. Solve tactics problems, repeat. Solve endgame problems. Solve middle game problems, repeat. Analyze positions in your head. Learn famous chessgames by heart, and why specific moves was played. One of the best players in Russia had learned by heart 'all' games played by Fischer. Most average players could probably replay 50+ memorized chessgames. Find a friend to do these things together with. Or a trainer. Join a chessclub! Analyze your own games. Take help from people better than you. For tactics I like www.chesstempo.com
> 0 votes

---
Tags: beginner
---


title: What to do in an opening trap

text:
# Question
Title: What to do in an opening trap
In light of the recent game Nakamura vs Anand, the second time, in the recent candidate's tournament, Anand fell into Nakamura's opening preparation trap out of the reversed sicilian.

If he \[Anand\] had realized that he was falling into an opening trap, or opening preparation, is there any possible thing that he could have done to avoid his loss?

I ask this question to better understand how to respond to obvious opening traps out of really obscure lines, and even traps out of reasonable looking lines.

# Answer
As I see it, at that level they have two options, if they suspect their opponent prepared a trap:

* They trust their preparation, and their knowledge, go on as usual, and just make the best moves, and hope for the best. In the Sinquefield cup last year, or the year before, there was a game MVL-Carlsen, when this happened exactly, Carlsen was caught by MVL-s preparation, and after few moves, he found an intresting, very human move, that the engine weren't suggesting, and now MVL was fighting for survival. It was a scotch game I think, it ended in a draw, but worth to watch.
* They decide to not take risk, and just chose a sideline, where maybe the other one has an edge, but they can outplay him. Tal writes in 'The life and games of M.T.' about a lot of situations like that, when he choose a sideline, because he was suspecting for some reason that his opponent prepared a suprise.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, super-grandmaster, losing
---


# Question
Title: Which openings are playable at (pre-)FM level - IM level?
Which defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 should a 2250-2300 FIDE player use to become an International Master, if he is:

* Aggressive-minded
* Tactically proficient
* Keen on dynamics
* Original/imaginative/offbeat but still positionally prudent

I mean, there are so many allegedly "playable" openings but many of them have minus positional sides (Benoni, Benko, Budapest, Tarrasch etc). What does Kasparov mean when he says that all reasonable (sound?) openings are playable?

What does his "reasonable" really mean? All over the internet, you find advice for all players except for players above 2200 FIDE ELO. It is assumed these players all know what they should do, but this is not the case I think.

There are books on opening selection (Giddins, Yermolinsky, Hans Bo Larsen, Dvoretsky, for instance), but they are too general.

So, to summarize, which openings are sound with black against 1.e4 and 1.d4, taking into account my stylistic preferences?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Opening advantages are fine things. Maybe you can even find an opening that lends itself to your 'style' of play. But what value does any of this have? Really?

Firstly, to become a master you must be able to play all sorts of positions well. Playing a limited set of openings directly contradicts the goal of practicing a wide variety of positions. Or does it? Really? You see, we're not masters yet, so our games are likely to be unpredictable and messy.

What this means is that until your middlegame and endgame skill is at the master level your opening choices matter very little. Think of it the other way; if you're playing a master and you've somehow managed an opening advantage the master will just dig in and outplay you in the middlegame or endgame. To become a master, you will also need to acquire these skills - so you'd better find ways to get opening-*dis*advantages as much as possible!

I guest the real point is that even heavily unbalanced positions often have excellent drawing chances for the disadvantaged player. A master will be able to make use of these to greatly reduce the chances of a loss. The difference in opening choices in this sense comes down to the master's goals for a particular game. Would they be happy with a draw? How much do they want to risk pushing for a win if complications might also favour their opponent? Perhaps they check a database and find that their opponent only wins 2% of games that feature a Queen-side attack when the dark-square Bishop is exchanged - interesting, maybe it's worth trying a Trompovsky as White and pushing c4 early?

This line of reasoning is just beyond being useful for non-master players.

So now we see what Kasparov means when he says that all openings are playable. In almost all cases openings are simply *irrelevant*. Masters might try to expose each other's weaknesses with them but even at the highest level, it is middlegame and endgame skills that decide games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have a very simple criterium to decide whether an opening is playable:

Every opening that is currently regularly played by at least one grandmaster against other grandmasters, is playable.

The idea is obviously that if there is a clear cut refutation GMs will find it and they will play it.

Edit: This answer is written from my perspective (Elo 2150) and still applies for players up to FM. Once you are a GM yourself it makes sense to look at what very strong GMs are playing, Elo 2650+. The point is to look at what is still being played regularly by players *significantly stronger than you* against players *significantly stronger than you*. That way you should be on the safe side, while still having quite a lot of choices.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Problems with chess anxiety?

text:
# Question
Title: Problems with chess anxiety?
I've been dealing with this for a while and the game can just sometimes be overwhelming. I really don't know how to calm myself and it might be effecting my play. I've been told maybe its because I don't do enough physical exercise but I'm quite fit so I know its definitely a psychological/mental issue. Maybe its my ego that can't take losing? After all I did put quite a considerable amount of effort and time in this game so it hurts to lose against someone you know who hasn't done the same even if its only once out of lets say a hundred games. Chess I think is probably bad for my health, I honestly start to feel hatred or anger towards my opponent sometimes such as if they play it like blitz chess or something. Maybe Its about time I just quit chess all together, that option has really slowly grown more appealing to be honest. Has anyone experienced something like this?

# Answer
## I really don't know how to calm myself and it might be effecting my play

Many people feel this way, e.g. becoming excited after winning material, or becoming upset when we slip from dynamic equality to a losing position.

To paraphrase IM Josh Waitzkin, who has a tutorial called *The Psychology of Competition* in the Chessmaster program:

1. Change your biochemistry to bring you back to the moment, e.g. take a break from the game, wash your face, or jog up a flight of stairs
2. Don't feel positively or negatively about previous positions. Stay objective and focus on just the position in front of you, rather than the preceding events. This is what a computer does

## Chess I think is probably bad for my health

I'm not a doctor and I can't advise you on your health. If you feel that it is impacting your health, see your doctor. After all, your health is more important than playing chess.

## Maybe its about time I just quit chess all together

Before you consider quitting chess, I would advise that you try a different, slower time control. I dislike blitz because I just don't have the time to play at the level that I would like to do.

Also, you may want to consider what it is that motivates you to play chess. Is it:

1. The competitive element?
2. The feeling of self improvement?
3. The artistry of the game?
4. Social engagement?
5. Something else?

If you don't feel motivated to play, then there is no need to force yourself into it.

## Summary

1. What you feel is very common. Try to train yourself to remain objective when playing chess
2. If you feel the game is impacting your health, see a doctor
3. Reassess what you want from chess. If it isn't providing what you need, consider trying a different hobby
> 3 votes

# Answer
I can certainly feel your pain. I too have "chess anxiety", and performance anxiety ("stage fright") generally. For me, on some self-reflection, I saw that some of it came from an "inflated opinion" of my own ability, and there are possible hints of that in your "considerable amount of effort and time" comment too. In many ways it seems that "chess cannot be that hard", and yet it certainly is. If you can come to terms with these natural psychological-denial- and ego-type issues, it could help. For example, can you envision the next time you drop a piece (and it will happen sometimes right?) just laughing it off as "silly me" and playing on? Your opponent may just as easily drop a piece (later) too -- in a way non-master chess is much like the blind beating the blind with their canes.

One time in frustration I played some don't-matter online games with the *goal* of losing. And was amazed at how many mates my opponents were missing. That was an eye-opener.

Another problem for me with gameplay was the clock vs. my perfectionism. I got much better results, and more satisfaction even when losing, by re-orienting toward faster-but-good/sufficient/reasonable moves over my usual best-move obsession. (One problem with the latter for me was it often blinded me to the fact that I was under an attack and needed a good defensive move rather than an offensive one. I.e. situational blindness.)

Hope some of this helps. Good luck and enjoy the game.

P.S. I agree with the suggestion to investigate "sports psychology", even though I haven't myself. Even if only reading a book on it...
> 2 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: A Consistent Grunfeld Repertoire

text:
# Question
Title: A Consistent Grunfeld Repertoire
I'm starting to play against stronger competition who know how to play their openings, so I'm trying to figure out my repertoire. I have recently decided to stick to playing the Grunfeld against 1.d4, and prepared some responses against those who avoid playing an early c4 and go for the Tromp/London/Barry etc.

However I'm a bit stuck when it comes to playing against openings where White avoids an early d4, and goes for a Nf3/g3/Bg2/0-0 and c4 setup before going d4, maybe even avoiding d4 altogether and going for a b3 hypermodern approach.

Since Grunfeld is all about letting White achieve a broad center and attacking it from afar, it feels awkward when White refuses to take the center immediately.

I can look up some specific responses, such as going 1.c4 e5 and aiming for a Reversed Dragon, but I'd rather have a more consistent repertoire that at least involves a Kingside fianchetto, so that at least there is a chance that the game might transpose back into a Grunfeld.

Of course if this means that I might get move-ordered into a bad position then I'll play something else, but I find it hard to believe a Kingside fianchetto can ever really be bad against the kind of hypermodern White opening I described.

Any experienced Grunfeld players want to chime in on this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Anyway you cannot prevent someone avoiding the Grunfeld by move order. For instance, 1.c4, Nf6; 2. Nc3, g6; 3.e4, and it's done with the Grunfeld. The trick is it is better to play Grunfeld *and* KID (Bologan's KID book has a chapter devoted to this, i think) complementarily, even against the fianchetto variation. Quality chess books by Avrukh on the grunfeld are excellent, so are also The safest grunfeld and in a lesser measure Dembo's (but not bad at all). I think there is no other way out. You could also listen to Svidler's lectures on chess24, they are excellent.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Have you checked out Mikahil Marin's book on the Grunfeld: Grandmaster Repertoire 8: The Grunfeld Defence

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am a d4/c4 player and I do love "disappointing" my opponents who play grunfeld. I go for d4-e3 pawn structure and mess up the order of moves. This should theoretically be inferior to grabbing the centre but it just throws opponents off prep. Anyways, all I can advice you to do is to play the way I find the most annoying and it consists of throwing c5 in some lines.

---
Tags: opening, grunfeld-defense
---


title: Why can't knights lose tempo?

text:
# Question
Title: Why can't knights lose tempo?
From Wikipedia: Kings, queens, bishops, and rooks can lose a tempo; a knight cannot (Müller & Pajeken 2008:40,175,189).

Is there truth to this? Examples please. My context is towards developing an engine eval.

Looking at a fen alone? Can we derive any info about tempo?

Is it only about minimizing distances?

In an engine, should we penalize moves that return to old squares? For opening or middle game?

Is having initiative more important than tempo gains?

If a player sees a possible future where he will be in zug·zwang can the preempt with some tempo tricks like triangulation? Examples please?

I see tempo gains as more of a tool for teaching. Not really having much use in the game.

# Answer
> 7 votes
You seem to get the meaning/importance of tempo a bit wrong - it's not about getting back to the old square, it's about losing one move during the process, thus forcing the opponent to make his turn when it puts him in worse situation (this is called Zugzwang). This is especially important in endgames, and you can see some examples in the same wiki article you are referring to.

Also note that the final square doesn't have to be the same as the starting one (e.g. Re1-e2-e3 instead of Re1-e3), although it often is (mainly in Kings' triangulation). Knight cannot do any of that, as mentioned in answer by @magd. Knight can just jump from and back to the same square, but the opponent can e.g. also do some repetitive move and you end up right where you started. Knight just cannot take the route to its' destination which will lose exactly one tempo (or any other odd number).

But all other pieces (even pawns if they are at their starting square) can take an extra move while going to the destination, which in many situations enables you to force the opponent to make a move when it's a bad time for him. Triangulation is a classic example of this tactic.

Generally speaking, losing tempo or just getting back to the previous square is usually bad in openings or even middlegame, although that depends on the situation. But in the endgame, deliberate loss of tempo is often maneuver which wins you the game (of course, if situation requires so).

An example from wiki:

```
[fen "8/1p1k4/1P6/2PK4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

If black would be on the move in this position, it would be clear victory for white, as after black King moves away, white can proceed either with his King or his Pawn (depending on the move). But white is on the move, so he must think of a way how to make it work. The answer is, lose a tempo with triangulation:

```
[fen "8/1p1k4/1P6/2PK4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke5 Kc6 2. Kd4 Kd7 3. Kd5

```

And now black is on the move, which enables white to break through.

You are right in saying that loss of tempo is used "only" to put opponent in zugzwang, but the importance of this is greater than it might seem at first. For example, every classic mate endgame uses loss of tempo and zugzwang to get the opponent's King to the edge of the board and to mate him. You often use zugzwang without even realising that you used it. Look at the mate with Rook:

```
[fen "1k6/7R/2K5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rg7 Ka8 2. Kb6 Kb8 3. Rg8#

```

You aim to get your King to b6 when black King is on b8, so you can mate with Rook on 8th row. But you can't do that right away, as after 1. Kb6, black would get away with Kc8, and 1. Rh8+ would enable black to get away with Ka7. So in the process of getting to 8th row with your Rook, you deliberately lose a tempo with 1. Rg7 in order to win the game.

In contrast, to address your original question, Knight is not able to do that:

```
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/7p/5K2/5N1k w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng3+ Kh2 2. Nf1+ Kh1

```

If white could just get to the starting position with black on the move, it would be a quick victory (1... h2 2. Ng3#), but Knight can't lose a tempo, so it's impossible, which is why this position with white to move is a draw.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes -

A king can take two moves to go from e1 to d2 - Ke1-d1-d2 and also one move - Ke1-d2. Taking two moves is called triangulation or losing a tempo.

A rook can take two moves to go from e1 to e3 - Re1-e2-e3 or one move - Re1-e3. Taking two moves is called losing a tempo.

A knight cannot take one extra move to go to the same destination square.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Losing a tempo and zugzwang are normally endgame terms. All pieces, except the Knight, can maneuver to obtain the same position, ie lose a tempo(same as playing a NULL move.) In this position, Black would lose if it's his turn to move, so White loses a tempo with the Bishop.

```

[FEN "1n6/5p1p/p1p1pP1k/1pP1P1p1/1P1PB1K1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. Bc2 Nd7 2. Bd3 Nb8 3. Be4

```

There are exceptions to retreating being bad. In certain lines of the Ruy Lopez, the Queen's Knight retreats to allow the c pawn to advance. In many double King Pawn openings, the King's Bishop returns to f8 to allow the Rook to put pressure on the King's Pawn and maneuver the Bishop to g7.

This retreat is to avoid exchanges as Black is cramped and to maintain two Knights to exploit the e5 hole.

```

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp1nb1pp/2p1p3/3pNp2/2PPn3/1PN1P3/PB2BPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 0"]

1. Nb1!

```

The point of these retreats is to position the pieces on a better square. This is hard to translate into program code. Some retreating moves are for better attacking positions, Bc4-d3 to aid in the kingside attack, or for better protection of the piece, Bc4-b3 in most Sicilians.

The other answers have provided examples where the tempo loss is the only way to win the game, so this is really important in the game. Teaching chess is not like school, what you learn is applicable to the game.

---
Tags: strategy, knights, zugzwang
---


title: Moving two pieces together

text:
# Question
Title: Moving two pieces together
Can one open by moving **two** pawns at a time, one square forward for each? (I hope you don't think I'm being funny-I was taught this when playing at school and have always played with this option).

# Answer
Not in a regular chess.

There are some "homemade" rules at least in some parts of the world that allow you to open with two moves (so only at the start of the game), but those are not used on any serious level.

So no, you can't move two pawns in the same move.
> 7 votes

# Answer
No. You can either:

1. Move one pawn forwards 2 squares, provided it is the pawn's first move, or
2. Move one pawn forward one square, unless it is blocked by another piece
3. Make a capture, either normally or *en passant*

If you want to learn more, there is a great wikipedia article on the rules.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawns
---


# Question
Title: Is there a way to get a FIDE ID without playing in FIDE rated events?
Is there a way to obtain FIDE ID, also known as FID, without actually participating in FIDE rated events? I don't mean obtaining a FIDE rating, just the ID.

The reason why I am asking is simple: this summer I am going to Pardubice Czech Open and I would like to invite my father with me. I myself have a FIDE ID, but my father doesn't, and he lives in an area where FIDE rated events don't happen often so it is quite unlikely he can get FIDE id through playing in a tournament before Czech Open.

The issue is that according to the Czech Open rules foreign players must possess a FIDE ID to take part in their rated tournaments, so it might be so that my father won't be able to participate.

He has a national rating around 2150.

Is there a way to just get registered by FIDE and get an ID or something like that? Maybe through FIDE online arena? I have created an account for him on there and entered all the personal information, but it appears that to have his official online rating calculated we need to pay 25 euros fee. Not a big deal, but I am reluctant to do so without having some assurance that this will result into assigning FIDE ID for him.

# Answer
See the licensing regulations from FIDE Handbook, particularly 1.13.3.

> 1.1 Registration is the procedure of entering a player’s personal details into the FIDE players’ database.
>
> 1.2 A player registered to FIDE acquires a FIDE ID number (FIN).
>
> ...
>
> 1.13 Registration can be made in 4 different ways:
>
> * 1.13.1 National Rating Officers can register new players associated with their own National Federation and ‘FIDE flag players’.
> * 1.13.2 The FIDE Rating Administrator may register new players under special circumstances only, in FIDE events. In this case the Chief Arbiter and the Organiser are responsible for providing correct players' data. FIDE events are all competitions under the aegis of a) the World Championship & Olympiad Commission or Events Commission, b) Continental competitions that provide qualifiers to any of the aforesaid competitions, and c) events listed and described in detail in different parts of the FIDE Handbook.
> * 1.13.3 New players may register themselves in FIDE Online Arena playing zone (FOA). These players are not associated to any National Federation, but they are assigned the FIDE flag (FID) until they become members of a National Federation.
> * 1.13.4 When a child registers at sm.fide.com he/she will be allocated a FIDE ID. If such person already had a FIDE ID before that registration, his/her FIDE ID will be retained and a new one will not be given. After upgrading to Premium at psm.fide.com, a child gets a CiS rating.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The resolution of my problem turned out to be pretty simple. I emailed to my national federation and asked if they could create FIDE id for my father. They said they could so I emailed his personal information to them and in a few hours they emailed his newly created FIDE id to me. Happy ending :)
> 10 votes

---
Tags: rating, fide
---


# Question
Title: What are some good books on the Caro-Kann which propose a Black repertoire based on positional, strategic, solid, boring and quiet variations?
I'm a 1750 Elo player, and 6 months ago I bought the book *Grandmaster Repertoire: The Caro-Kann* by Lars Schandorff, and I was disappointed.

In my opinion, the repertoire proposed in the book is too sharp and tactical:

* Against the Classical he wants to castle on opposite sides
* Against the Short Variation of the Advance he wants to play 5...c5
* Against the Panov he wants to play 5...Nc6

What I would like is a book suggesting much more positional, strategic, solid, boring and quiet variations:

* Against the Classical I want to castle on the same side as White
* Against the Short Variation of the Advance I want to play anything but 5...c5
* Against the Panov I want to play 5...e6

Please suggest me some books! (And don't hesitate to suggest me more than one book.)

# Answer
I would suggest The Caro-Kann: Move by Move. The author, Cyrus Lakdawala, is very lucid & seems to play in the style that appeals to you. Specifically:

* He advocates same side castling in the classical variation
* He gives an alternative to the ...c5 break in th advance variations, namely the ...f6 break
* He advocates ...e6 in the Panov

The move by move series goes through top level games with question and answer format. Many of the games covered were played by Karpov, so if you like his style of play, then you'll like the book. Smyslov, the endgame virtuoso, has a significant number of games too, seeing as the first few chapters cover the Smyslov variation of the classical lines.

PS. I have no affiliation with the author - I'm recommending the book because I'm a Caro-Kann player who likes the book.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A quick search turned up this interesting book: "Black Defensive System For The Rest Of Your Chess Career" by Andrew Soltis. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Defensive-System-Chess-Career/sim/0875681662/2

What attracts me to this book:

1. GM Andrew Soltis is an excellent chess writer. His other books that I've read are very accessible to all players.
2. This book is about the Caro-Slav pawn formation. The same structure you play against 1.e4 also works against 1.d4, saving you a lot of study time.
3. Soltis analyzes the Caro-Slav formation in his classic book "Pawn Structure Chess", but here you will find a practical guide to using it in tournament games.

As a bonus tip, you can also reach the Caro-Slav formation through the Scandinavian Defense: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 followed by c6 and e6. It looks aggressive to many players due to the early development of the queen, but usually results in a strategic position when played properly. Few 1.e4 players dedicate much time to preparing for this defense, so it's an excellent surprise weapon. If you decide the Caro Kann is too dense with theory, understanding the pawn structure gives you this less analyzed alternative.

Good luck in your chess!
> 2 votes

# Answer
There is also a book at Chess Stars: Opening for Black according to Karpov (2002) by Alexander Khalifman, quite old but not bad at all, to say the least. And also an "old" but interesting book The Caro-Kann in Black & White Paperback – 1994 (Karpov, Beliavsky). There are most certainly plenty of books. I don't know about the book quality of Houska's recent book on Caro-Kann at everyman's. Starting out the Caro-Kann by Joe Gallagher is quite good also. But all these books, except Khalifman's (and Schandorff's excellent one), do not propose a deep researched repertoire. The only drawback of Khalifman is its "agedness" and the lack of explanations, it gives many variations and you to have to work out the variations given to understand the points of moves, almost no explanation, but professional. You will have to make a mix of all those books to put up by yourself a convenient (for you) repertoire. Furthermore, it is not easy to play against e4 predominantly strategically or positionally. Neither is it on all other first moves, though some are more convenient for that sake. Modern chess has it all very concrete and calculating, there is no escape from concrete tactical chess. No soft positional chess only, sorry to say. Have a nice day!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, strategy, positional-play, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Is CT-Art better for tactic training than chesstempo tactics?
What are some major differences of doing tactics training using chesstempo or CT-Art?

# Answer
> 8 votes
The answer to the title question is "No, they're both excellent for tactics training and are good at different things."

Chess Tempo:

* problems are a random selection of positions taken from actual games (chosen by computer to be good chess problems)
* over 100,000 problems and growing
* problems are served to you based on your rating
* no extra didactic material, but you can read other users' comments and discussions on the problems, and look at computer-evaluated variations
* free for basic usage, costs money for some extra features
* online only (it's a website)

CT-ART:

* a specifically designed course with many composed problems (and some based on real games), so it is explicitly trying to teach you certain subjects
* a fixed number of problems (thousands)
* you just go through the courses in order
* occasional didactic feedback asking you to demonstrate simpler patterns that can be put together to form the desired combinations, but no English discussion
* costs money
* can be used offline (it's an app)

# Answer
> 1 votes
http://www.apronus.com/chess/trainingtactics.htm

This article outlines the various possibilities for training tactics that are offered by the ChessTempo.com website. For all I know, this is unique in the world. The full richness of the features described there requires a paid membership.

---
Tags: training
---


title: Anaylsis of my game

text:
# Question
Title: Anaylsis of my game
Me and one of my colleagues have started playing chess for a while. We are playing one or two matches every weekday, and play tactics over our phones when off work.

Here is one of our latest games. I tried to analyse the game using SCID & Stockfish, but I don't know exactly how to analyse. I think black (my opponent) made 3 major mistakes, and white (me) moved the very first pawn twice (which is bad) and missed an early mate.

Apart from those, what can you tell us novice players about this game?

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "Lunch Break"]
[Site "Istanbul, TUR"]
[Date "2016.04.20"]
[Time "15:45:00"]
[White "Sadullah"]
[Black "Serkan"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.e5 e6 3.f4 Ne7 4.Nc3 Nf5 5.Nf3 d5 6.exd6 Qxd6 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Ne4 Qxf4 9.d3 Ne3 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Qe2 Ne5 12.Bxe3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Qh4+ 14.Bf2 Qe7 15.Bxc5 Qh4+ 16.Bf2 Qh5 17.O-O-O Rc8 18.Kb1 b6 19.Bg3 Bc5 20.Bd6 Rc6 21.Bxc5 bxc5 22.d4 O-O 23.dxc5 Qe5 24.Qd3 Rb8 25.c3 g6 26.Qd4 Qf5 27.Ka1 Qxf3 28.Nf6+ Kf8 29.Nd7+ Ke7 30.Nxb8 Rd6 31.cxd6+ Kd8 32.d7 f6 33.Qd6 Qb7 34.Qf8+ Kc7 35.d8=Q# 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I will only consider the opening in this rather brief analysis, as after White won a piece, there aren't many noteworthy events left to discuss.

```
1.e4, c5 2.e5?

```

This move is a mistake. It does not develop a piece. I does not really fight for center control in an efficient manner. However, it does make the pawn on e5 weak to attacks, as it's further away from White's side of the board than it was on e4. Black should probably continue with 2...Nc6 to see if White really wants to play f4. However, ...e6 is not a bad move. One may argue about the question-mark, as 2.e5 is objectively speaking fully playable, but I feel that it is appropriate, as it makes White struggle for equality if Black plays for an advantage. This should never be the case for White in the opening - it should be the other way around.

```
2...e6 3.f4

```

A logical continuation after 2.e5. It is reasonable to pre-emptively guard the pawn on e5 before Black decides to attack it. However, f4 is not a move that helps White's piece development.

```
3...Ne7?!

```

While it aims to develop a knight to f5, the same could have been accomplished by 3...Nh6. However, on h6 the knight wouldn't block the bishop on f8. This would have given Black more flexibility in what move to play next. Normally, when White has played e5 followed by f4, and Black already has a pawn on e6, the play ...Nh6 should be seriously considered, as White's bishop on c1 cannot attack it in these scenarios.

```
4.Nc3, Nf5 5.Nf3, d5!

```

I like the ...d5 push. It is very logical, as it fights for center control. The exclamation mark may be superfluous, but the move is not bad. Alternatively, Black could have played 4...Nc6! This develops a knight, and it takes control of an important central square (d4). It also forces White to make a decision. What should White play? On 5.Bb5, it's possible to play ...d5! 6.exd6 e.p., Bd7! (the pawn on d6 isn't going anywhere) and Black has a great position, with all the light pieces having something to do.

```
6.exd6 e.p., Qxd6?

```

This is a fundamental error that beginners seem to make all to often. The queen shouldn't be running around too much in the opening, as it can be easily attacked by the enemy, thus wasting too much time in the opening. What was wrong with the simple reply 6...Bxd6? Nothing was wrong with that move. The bishop

* does just as much as a queen would on d6,
* is less vulnerable to attacks by enemy pieces, as it's less valuable
* paves the way for bringing the king to safety on g8 with castling.

Generally speaking, when you choose between throwing out the queen and developing a light piece in the opening, you should develop the light piece. It's often too early to say where the queen will be useful in the earliest stage of a game. Note that again, 6...Qxd6 is playable technically speaking, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

```
7.Bb5+

```

A strong alternative to this move is 7.Nb5! This move immediately punishes Black for playing out the queen too early, as after 7...Qxf4 8.d3!, and Black cannot defend the c7 square in a good way. White will be able to play Nc7+ shortly, picking up the a8 rook. After this reply, the best Black can do is to pull the queen back to either d7 or d8. None of this would have been the case if Black had taken on d6 with the bishop.

```
7...Bd7 8.Ne4? Qxf4 9.d3

```

While it's nice to attack the enemy queen, a whole pawn is not worth it. At least if White really gains very little as compensation for the pawn. Black can calmly reply with 9...Qc7, and White will be a pawn down for very little compensation.

```
9...Ne3??

```

A game-losing blunder. It simply drops a piece for nothing after 10.Bxd7+! After this there isn't much to be done for Black, if White plays reasonably solid chess, which was what happened in the game.

If anybody feels like posting analysis of the entire game, then please do. But I will stop here, as the opening stage was where most of the valuable lessons were to be given in this game, at least from an ~1100 Elo perspective.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Traps and alternate variations in the Spanish Game
Which opening traps do the Spanish Game (ruy lopez) offer - and are there experimental/alternate variations (apart from non 3. ...a6 variations) to the opening that could be forced on either side of the board?

# Answer
I don't play the Lopez, so I can't answer the part relating to experimental variations, but I can list some of the common traps:

## Tarrasch Trap in the Open Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Re1 0-0 11. Nd4 Qd7?, White wins a piece:

```
[FEN "r4rk1/2pqbppp/p1n1b3/1p1pP3/3Nn3/1BP5/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 w - - 0 12"]

```

> 12. Nxe6 Qxe6 (or fxe6) 13. Rxe4

## Tarrasch Trap in the Steinitz Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. 0-0 Be7 7. Re1 O-O, White wins a pawn:

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pppbbppp/2np1n2/1B2p3/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 8"]

```

> 8. Bxc6 Bxc6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8 Raxd8 11. Nxe5

## Mortimer trap

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Ne7 5. Nxe5?, Black wins a piece for 2 pawns:

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppppnppp/5n2/1B2N3/4P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]

```

> 5...c6 6. Nc4 d6 7. Ba4 b5 8. Bxb5 cxb5

## Noah's Ark Trap

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?, Black wins a piece:

```
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/2p2ppp/p2p4/1p6/3QP3/1B6/PPP2PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

```

> 8... c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10. Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4

## Mate in the Exchange Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 7. hxg4?, Black has good mating chances:

```
[FEN "r2qkbnr/1pp2pp1/p1p5/4p2p/4P1P1/5N2/PPPP1PP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]

```

> 7... hxg4 8. Nxe5 Qh4 9. f3 g3 lead to mate

## Mate in the mainline

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. d4 Bb4 8. dxe5 Nxe4 9. Qd4 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Ba5?, White has a mating attack:

```
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1ppp1ppp/p7/b3P3/B2Q4/2P5/P1P2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 11"]

```

> 11. Ba3 b6 12. e6! Qf6 13. Bxd7+ Kd8 14. Bc6+! Qxd4 15. e7#

Suggestion for the community: should we turn this answer into a **community wiki**? I realise I've listed only a handful of traps.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: En Passant - Usage after one or more move(s)
I was playing chess on an app against a computer, and I could make an en passant after a move from me and the computer.

```

   [FEN ""]
   1.e4 h5 2.e5 f5 3.a4 a5 4.exf6 exf5 {Ignore the weird Bishop if you go back in the game. The parser is confused.}

```

Is this possible?

Can the pawn at e5 take the pawn at f5 now after a move each (o more) from the player?

# Answer
> 7 votes
No. You can take a pawn en passant only on the next move.

See 3.7d, here.

> A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponent’s pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square. **This capture is only legal on the move following this advance** and is called an "en passant" capture.

---
Tags: rules, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: What is a good opening software program?
I am trying to find a good program to help me perfect my opening play. It needs to be something simple because I am no computer expert. I don't understand the opening trees and all that high tech stuff. I was wondering if there was any program that lets you make moves and it tells you what opening you are using and shows the most popular responses and right and wrong moves. If you could provide in your answer what it is exactly that the program does and how you use it I will greatly appreciate it. If it matters my rating is 1430.

# Answer
Try 365chess.com Chess Opening Explorer.

Gives number of games win/lose/draw statistics and shows what opening was played. You can also click into a game for the moves when the tree gets down to one game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are excellent iPhone apps for this. A simple to use and personal favorite is "Openings", although when you search for it type in "Chess Openings". It may not be exactly what you're looking for but it's definitely worth a look.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Below 2000, you should not be spending too much time on openings.

I would suggest that you learn how to navigate opening trees and use chessbase light. Even better is to get a higher rated player to go over the openings and explain the concepts. This option gives better feedback.

Chess Opening Wizard (bookup.com) and Chess Position Trainer (chesspositiontrainer.com) are good. There was another provided by sourceforge.net, but I can not find it anymore. COW has a feature which you could load a pgn file and it would make an easy-to-use tree up to the number of moves you entered. This feature, IMO, is not worth the $67 cost. CPT does not have this convenient feature and is not worth $40.

Since pgns are mostly GM games, I suggest you find a chess club to get the opinion of average people.
> 1 votes

# Answer
lichess has a new opening explorer feature when you are using an analysis board that will tell you popular responses to moves and tells you the opening you are using.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, software
---


# Question
Title: In the Ruy Lopez, does White play on the queenside or King side?
I always play on the kingside, but I recently heard from Expert class that White plays on the queenside. I also seen another Expert class play on the queenside. If this is true, then why does White play on the queenside? Also, when does White play on the Kingside?

# Answer
> 1 votes
In most variations of the Ruy Lopez, White, with the Bishop on b3, has better chances playing on the kingside. In the Marshall gambit, White counterattacks on the Queenside. In the Exchange variation, White normally has better chances in the kingside in the endgame.

Fischer-Spassky Ninth Match Game Sveti Stefan 1992

```

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nd4 c5 8. Nb3 Qd1 9. Rd1 Bg4 10. f3 Be6 11. Nc3 Bd6 12. Be3 b6 13. a4 O-O-O 14. a5 Kb7 15. e5 Be7 16. Rd8 Bd8 17. Ne4 Kc6 18. axb6 cxb6 19. Nbc5 Bc8 20. Na6 fxe5 21. Nb4

```

In this famous game, White did attack on the queenside. The reason for the exception is the placement of the King. Opposite side castling throws most chess rules out the window and the only thing that matters is an attack.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can play wherever you want to. The kingisde seems obviously like a better option. Why? Because normally in the main line Black has already gained space with a6 and b5, meaning that it will be easier for him to manouever his pieces on the queenside. As for you, you may want to go h3 g4 and Nf5 if possible, as Fischer did in a game against Wolfgang Unzicker which I think is covered in his book. Also, black can get a passed pawn from his attack, but if you get the king, it is game over.

Note: The latter manouver involving h3 and g4 is only good when the center is closed, if it is open I wouldnt suggest to attempt at your king's life like that.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Black's moves ...a6 and ...b5 can also be quite weakening so White often plays a4, axb5 axb5 and then Black's b5 pawn is weak and can be attacked. Also after these moves the a-file is open so White can invade with heavy pieces on the a-file as well as having the option of playing on the kingside.

---
Tags: opening, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: I'm confused by UCI Pondering and Time Control
I'm trying to talk to a UCI engine (right now Stockfish, but more generally to all UCI engines) to write my own computer-vs-computer program (I could use Fritz, but I really want to learn more about UCI and engines in general, so I'm trying to do it on the nuts and bolts level).

I've gotten to the point where I can do:

```
position fen r1b1kb1r/ppp2ppp/3p1q1n/4p3/3nP3/1PN2N2/PBPPQPPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 7
go wtime 500000 btime 500000

```

And read

```
info nodes 811977 time 4620
bestmove f3d4 ponder e5d4

```

So I know my engine decided, after it's processing time of 4620 milliseconds, to move f3d4, and it expects the other player to play e5d4.

First question: do I immediately send `go ponder` to let the engine think? Or do I need to use other commands first?

The player plays a move and, hot dog, it's what the engine said it was going to ponder.

Second question: do I just send it a `ponderhit` or do I need to `postition fen --new position--` first then send `ponderhit`?

I'd personally expect the engine to update it's internal state on a ponderhit, but it looks like the engine is supposed to rely on the GUI to handle all board state for the game, is this correct?

All the examples I've seen just do a single analysis, or run a single move then end, I don't know how to continue the game!

Third question: When I send a `go` command I send along with it the wtime and btime left on my game's clock. Does the engine actually use this data to decide how long to think on each move, or does it expect the GUI to tell it how to manage it's own time? It looks like the engine handles this thinking on it's own, but as I've never actually gotten to the NEXT move, I'm not sure if it's actually doing time management.

I know these are horribly newbish questions, but all the reading up I've found on the UCI engine seems to just talk about one move, or analyzing a move, and I haven't found any examples of multiple moves in sequence, so I'm not quite sure how to play THROUGH a game on the UCI command line.

# Answer
1. First the GUI sends the position string with the ponder move as the last move in this string. Then the GUI sends "go ponder". This makes little sense to me, but UCI is very much a kludge. Note that the engine can actually ponder whatever move(s) it wants, but UCI tried to make it simple for basic implementations. From the protocol

* ponder

    start searching in pondering mode. Do not exit the search in ponder mode, even if it's mate! This means that the last move sent in in the position string is the ponder move. The engine can do what it wants to do, but after a "ponderhit" command it should execute the suggested move to ponder on. This means that the ponder move sent by the GUI can be interpreted as a recommendation about which move to ponder. However, if the engine decides to ponder on a different move, it should not display any mainlines as they are likely to be misinterpreted by the GUI because the GUI expects the engine to ponder on the suggested move.
2. I think the GUI simply sends "ponderhit" when it is applicable.

The main reason **not** to resend the position string, but to only send "ponderhit" is to ensure that the engine continues its current search in the pondered position, rather than starting a new one.

* ponderhit

```
  the user has played the expected move. This will be sent if the engine was
  told to ponder on the same move the user has played. The engine should
  continue searching but switch from pondering to normal search.

```

In general, UCI tries to be "stateless", which is really it's big error IMO, as it makes everything natty. Pondering is a prime example of when the engine can really do whatever it wants (even the protocol says explicitly). The "ponderhit" command's action is determined by the "position fen ... moves" string that was already sent before the pondering began. So in that sense the GUI still sends the board state (this is completely awkward in my opinion, particularly if you want to ponder more than one move, but that's UCI for you).

3. Engines can/should use their own time management based on "wtime" (and/or btime/winc/binc). Again it's a bit confusing with UCI, as the GUI is supposed to be in somewhat total control (like with opening books), but then has some leeway when allowing the engine to allocate its own time (you can use "go movetime" if you want the GUI to control time management, assuming the engine complies).

You can look at a log of how a GUI communicates with an engine such as Stockfish.

```
GUI -> engine1: position startpos
GUI -> engine1: go wtime 100000 winc 1000 btime 100000 binc 1000
engine1 -> GUI: bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e6
GUI -> engine1: position startpos moves e2e4 e7e6
GUI -> engine1: go ponder wtime 98123 winc 1000 btime 100000 binc 1000
[user or other engine plays the expected e7e6 move]
GUI -> engine1: ponderhit
[engine keeps thinking]
engine1 -> GUI: bestmove d2d4 ponder d7d5

```

Or if the pondered move wasn't made, then a new "position" string is sent instead of "ponderhit".
> 7 votes

# Answer
**Q1:** You shouldn't send ponder back, because you don't know what the other player would make.

**Q2:** You'll need send back a new position (give a FEN or a move list). You're expected to keep the state of the engine yourself. You can also send ponderhit if the expected ponder move is made, but it's not absolutely necessary.

**Q3:** Stockfish has an algorithm to decide when to stop searching based on the time you give to it. Yes, you should give the clock time.

UCI is not a formal and well-documented protocol, it was invented by Shredder for their own GUI and engine. When they released the protocol, there was nothing better, soon after everybody used it.

I understand you don't like keeping state yourself, but this is not how UCI works. You can hack by getting a FEN string from Stockfish, make a move, then get a new FEN. This should work but it's very hacky and definitely not how Stockfish is designed.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, uci
---


# Question
Title: What are the most popular defences White should be prepared to fight against in the Ruy Lopez?
Could you put the move orders as well as briefly explain the idea of the defenses?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The mainlines and key ideas are highlighted in wikipedia. The article covers:

## Morphy Defence: 3...a6

* Exchange Variation: 4.Bxc6
* Norwegian Defence: 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5
* Variations combining 3...a6 and ...Bc5
* Steinitz Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 d6
* Schliemann Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 f5
* Arkhangelsk Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7
* Mackenzie Variation 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.d4
* Russian Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6
* Open Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4

## Closed Defence 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7

* Delayed Exchange Variation Deferred: 6.Bxc6
* Centre Attack: 6.d4
* Worrall Attack: 6.Qe2
* Averbakh Variation: 6.Re1 d6
* Trajković Variation: 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7
* Marshall Attack: 7...0-0 8.c3 d5

## Main line: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0

* Pilnik Variation: 9.d3
* Yates Variation and Bogoljubow Variation: 9.d4
* Chigorin Variation: 9.h3 Na5
* Breyer Variation: 9.h3 Nb8
* Zaitsev Variation: 9.h3 Bb7
* Karpov Variation: 9.h3 Nd7
* Kholmov Variation: 9.h3 Be6
* Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 h6
* Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 Qd7

## Black defences other than 3...a6

* Cozio Defence: 3...Nge7
* Smyslov Defence: 3...g6
* Bird's Defence: 3...Nd4
* Steinitz Defence: 3...d6
* Schliemann Defence: 3...f5
* Classical Defence: 3...Bc5
* Berlin Defence: 3...Nf6

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Is this a fortress?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this a fortress?
I have just played a thoroughly enjoyable game, where in the middlegame I was forced to give up the queen for two minor pieces and defend. After 30 moves and some trades, the situation got simplified to following position:

```
[fen "8/4k3/2p5/3p4/1P1q4/3N4/2P5/2KN4 w - - 0 0"]

 1. Kd2 Kd6 2. N1b2 Qh4 3. Na4 Qh6+ 4. Kc3 Qf6+ 5. Kb3 Qf7 6. Nac5 d4+ 7. Kb2 Qc4 8. Ne4+ Kc7 9. Kc1 Qd5 10. Nec5 Qg5+ 11. Kb2 Kb6 12. Kb3 Kb5 13. Kb2 Qd5 14. Nb3 Qc4 15. Nbc5 Qc3+ 16. Kc1 Kc4 17. Kb1 Qa3 18. Ne4 Qa8 19. Nd2+ Kc3 20. Ne4+ Kc4 21. Nd2+ Kd5 22. Nb3 Qa3 23. Nbc5 Kc4 24. Ne4 Qa8 1/2-1/2

```

As you can see, the game went further on for some 25 moves; I managed to hold the position and the game ended in a threefold repetition.

**As far as I can tell, with correct play by white, black should not be able to make any progress. Is that really so? (EDIT: Just to clarify, I seek some conclusive analysis, not merely a yes/no statement)**

# Answer
White defends, but it is really a pain to hold this position. It took me few minutes to formulate correct plan since Stockfish found some strong ideas for Black.

Below is the image of the fortress we are aiming for:

If Black king tries to penetrate through queenside, he must aim for `c3` square in order to create double attack on `c2` pawn (using king and queen). We stop that plan with timely `Na4+`, which pushes the king back.

If Black tries to penetrate to `b1` with the king ( through queenside ), hoping to win the `c2` pawn ( queen + king create double attack on the pawn) White will be in time to reposition `Nc5` to `e2`, blocking black queen's attack along the second rank, thus defending by simply moving the king to `d2` and `d1`.

The last option for Black is to get to `d1` or `d2` with the king, but White manages to reposition `Nc5` to `d2` which creates impenetrable fortress since both knights control so many important squares (`e5`, `e4`, `f4`, `f3`, `f2`, `f1`), effectively cutting off the black king. White can also move the king to `b1` and push out black king with timely `Nb2+`, in case he is late to reposition the knight to `d2`.

The whole point is that we must reposition `Nd1` to `c5`, after which White defends.

Since analysis is very lengthy, I will post an illustrative game I played against Stockfish. Other important ideas will be shown in sublines.

If you need further questions leave a comment and I will update my analysis.

```
[Title "AlwaysLearningNewStuff vs Stockfish"]
[FEN "8/4k3/2p5/3p4/1P1q4/3N4/2P5/2KN4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd2 Qg1 (1...Ke6 2.Nc3 Kf5 3.Na4 Ke4 4.Nac5+ Kf3 5.Nb3 Qe3+ 6.Kc3! Ke2 7.Kb2 Kd1 8.Kb1! Qe2 9.Nb2+) 2. Nc3! d4 3. Ne2 Qe3+ 4. Kd1 Ke6 5. Nec1 Qg1+ 6. Kd2 Qh2+ (6...Kf5 7.Nb3 Ke4 8.Nbc5+ Kf3 9.Ne5+ Kf2 10.Ned3+ Kf1 11.Kc1! Ke2+ 12.Kb2 Kd2 13.Nb3+ Kd1 14.Kb1! Qg2 15.Nb2+!? Ke2) 7. Kd1 Kd5 8. Nb3! Kc4 (8...Ke4 9.Nd2+ Ke3 ?? 10.Nf1+ Ke4 11.Nxh2+-) 9. Nbc5! $8 Qg1+ 10. Kd2 Qe3+ 11. Kd1 Kc3 12. Na4+ $8 Kc4 13. Nac5 Qg5! 14. Na4 $7 Qg1+ 15. Kd2 Qg5+ 16. Kd1 Kb5 17. Nac5 $8 Qg1+ 18. Kd2 Kc4 19. Na4 $8 Qe3+ 20. Kd1 Kb5 21. Nac5 Kc4 22. Na4 Qg5 23. Nac5 Kb5 24. Nb3 Ka4 25. Nbc5+ Kb5 (25...Ka3 26.Nb3! Qg1+! 27.Ke2! Ka2 28.Nd2! Qe3+ 29.Kd1 Qe6! 30.Kc1! Qh6 31.Kd1 Qh1+ 32.Ke2) 26. Nb3 Qe3 27. Nbc5 Qg1+ 28. Kd2 Qg5+ 29. Kd1 Qh6 30. Nb3 Kc4 31. Nbc5 Qh1+ 32. Kd2 Qf1 33. Na4 Qg1 34. Nac5 Kd5 35. Ke2 Qg2+ 36. Kd1 Qh1+ 37. Kd2 Kc4 38. Na4 Qh6+ 39. Kd1 Kb5 40. Nac5 Kc4 41. Na4 Qg5 42. Nac5 Qh4 43. Kd2 Qh6+ 44. Kd1 Qh1+ 45. Kd2 Qa1 46. Ne4! Qa7 47. Nec5 Qa1 48. Ne4 Qf1 49. Nec5 Kd5 50. Na4 c5 51. bxc5! Qg2+ 52. Kc1! Qg5+ 53. Kb2 Ke4 54. Nb6! Qd2 55. Kb1 Qg5 56. Nc4! Kd5 57. Nd6! Qg1+ 58. Kb2 Qg4 59. Kb1 Qd1+ 60. Kb2 Qg1 61. Ka2 Kc6 62. Kb2 Kd5 63. Ka2 Qh1 64. Kb2 Qd1 65. Nb5 Qg1 66. Nd6 Qd1 67. Nb5 Qf1 68. Nd6 Kc6 69. Nc4 Qd1 70. Nd6 Qd2 71. Kb1 Kd5 72. Kb2 Qh6 73. Kb1 Kc6 74. Kb2 Kd5 75. Kb1 Kc6 76. Kb2 Qh1 77. Ka2 Qg1 78. Kb2 Qg8 79. Kb1 Kd5 80. Kb2 Qh7 81. Kb1 Qh6 82. Kb2 Kc6 83. Kb1 Qg7 84. Kb2 Qh6 85. Kb1 Qh7 86. Kb2 Qh1 87. Ka2 Qh4 88. Kb2 Kd5 89. Ka2 Qh2 90. Kb2 Qh1 91. Ka2 Qd1 92. Kb2 Qf1 93. Ka2 Qf3 94. Kb2 Qh1 95. Ka2 Ke6 96. Kb2 Qd1 97. Nc4 Kd7 98. Nd6 Kc6 99. Nc4 Kc7 100. Nd6 Kb8 101. Nc4 1/2-1/2

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
Pawn on b4 and c6 does not contribute to position significantly.

I suggest, remove these pawns and check the result of 7-men position from Lomonosov tablebase.

Also, you can conduct a Monte Carlo simulation, in which you use same engine with same hardware, playing against each other starting from this position. 30 seconds time control is enough, enable tablebases if you can, let the simulation play 100 games. If all of them draws, the position is almost certainly draw.

Also from my perspective, in order to progress Black King should get close to capture the c2 pawn. Providing this, Black can push and capture the pawn, otherwise Black Queen can't penetrate alone. And as far as I can see, Black King can't get close to pawn because of the White Knights.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, draw, fortress
---


title: How to gain material by trading pieces?

text:
# Question
Title: How to gain material by trading pieces?
So, I am learning the basics on trading pieces, but can someone please give me tips on the "Art of trading pieces with material gain".

I know a concept called overloading, but are there any other tactical concepts?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Substitution would be another. With a trade/capture, you can set up another tactical motive like a skewer or a fork.

In the position below (taken from the ChessTactics link above), Black wins an exchange with the following combination:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/p1p1qp1p/1p2n1pb/8/n7/1PB1PBN1/P2Q1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 33"]

1... Nxc3 2. Qxc3 Bg7

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Not really an answer but as you can't put pgns in comments:

While labelling tactical ideas helps in learning beware of putting them too much in separate boxes, they tend to blend into each other. For instance take the following:

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "2r1k2r/1pq2pp1/pn2p2p/2b1p3/4P2B/2N5/PP1Q1PPP/2RR2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nb5 axb5 2.Rxc5 Qxc5 3.Qd8+ Rxd8 4.Rxd8# *

```

Is Rxc5 a deflection, exploiting the overloading of the queen or a skewer? I would argue it's a bit of all 3

---
Tags: tactics, captures, trading
---


# Question
Title: Why am I getting different behaviour between using stockfish as a child node process and a CLI called process?
*Copied this question from stackoverflow. Not 100% sure it belongs here but we'll see...*

I am building a web interface for the stockfish chess engine using Node, and I noticed that the behaviour of the exact same commands behaves differently.

Here are the UCI commands I use when calling stockfish from the command line:

```
position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
go movetime 15000

```

The engine then responds as expected: Does analysis for 15 seconds while outputting every step on stdout, and ends with a suggestion in the following format:

```
bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e6

```

Here is the code that makes the same call as a node js child process:

```
app.get('/next_move/:fen', (req, res) => {
    const stockfish = spawn('bin/stockfish');
    stockfish.stdin.write(`position fen ${req.params.fen}\ngo movetime 15000`);
    console.info(`Sending UCI command to stockfish: position fen ${req.params.fen}\ngo movetime 15000`);
    stockfish.stdin.end();

    stockfish.stdout.on('error', (error)=>{
        console.error(`${error}`);
        res.status(500).send('Internal server error');
        stockfish.kill();
    });

    stockfish.stdout.on('message', (data)=>{
        console.log(`Message: ${data}`);
    });

    stockfish.stdout.on('data', (data) =>{
        let output = data.toString();
        // Ignore the first line in stdout
        if (output.substring(0, 9) === 'Stockfish') {
            return;
        }
        console.info(`Stockfish output: ${output}`);
        if (output.substring(0, 8) === 'bestmove') {
            res.json({'bestMove': output.substring(8).trim()});
        } else {
            res.status(400).send('Bad FEN string');
        }
        stockfish.kill();
    });
});

```

After I make this code run via web, get a result almost instantly, and also get a different output from stockfish:

```
bestmove a2a3

```

Why is this happening? Is this related to Nodejs or to Stockfish?

# Answer
It was me who suggested you to come here because you'd need to understand what's happening. The guys on Stackoverflow wouldn't have the knolwedge to answer you.

Firstly, this is definitely your fault since Stockfish wouldn't give you `a2a3` unless you have screwed up something. But why a2a3? That's because Stockfish always try to move a pawn before anything else. The way how the bitboard is encoded, it'd start its search from a1 to h1, then a2 to h2, a3 to h3 etc. The a2 white pawn is the first pawn it sees, so it tries to move it.

Now we've established it's your fault, however, it's not possible for us to determine the cause because we don't have your source code. But I can give you some hints, you'll need to experiment yourself.

1. You have killed the standard input too early. I don't quite understand why you would do `stockfish.stdin.end();`. Stockfish assumes the standard input/output works, always works.
2. You have failed to setup the bitboard. I'm confident you'd get the error unless you let Stockfish to setup it's internal data structure. Have you done it? The code for doing it should be in the main() function, did you run it? You can't just run the UCI loop directly, it wouldn't work.
3. How did you host the engine? Did you host it in the same address space as the server? Note that the engine assumes it's in a different address space because this is how a desktop GUI would work.
4. Print out everything you send to Stockfish and everything you receive from the engine. **Don't** assume your commands would work, **print** everything to a text file. Run the commands in a command line. Stockfish could give you nonsense if one of your commands is not right. You'll have to verify it by trying yourself, don't assume anything.
5. If you still can't figure out what's happening. **Put** a breakpoint in the UCI loop and follow it. There has to be something, a condition that makes your search terminate immediately. Don't be afraid, you should be able to debug it yourself if you follow the code step-by-step.
6. Have you done `ucinewgame`?

Most likely it's (2), a common mistake in chess programming. If you don't run the setup code correctly, the engine wouldn't be able to run the nega-max algorithm. No nega-max =\> nothing to search =\> simply return you the first pawn move.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming, uci
---


# Question
Title: How to develop tactical and combinational awareness?
Most of my learning comes from trial-and-error sort of self-teaching. I cannot say I am completely blind to tactics and combinations, but, while solving puzzles (approx. ~1600+) I tend to miss something critical within the time allotted. Though a longer stare would get me solve it eventually.

My goal is to play comfortably at blitz (3m+2s) for 1800-2000 elo bracket without making tactical blunders and without missing not so difficult t&cs.

In this regard I want to delve deeper into tactical and combinational aspect of chess. What resources (books, videos, online material, etc) will you recommend?

# Answer
The recommended way to improve tactics is to practice looking for them. ChessTempo is the best site to practice tactics. chess24 also has tactics training and has good videos. Lichess has tactics and one of the best playing sites. Youtube.com has too many chess videos to list them all.

There are some clues to look for to find tactics. An unprotected back rank, pieces which are on the same line, pieces which are a Knight fork away, and pieces which are unprotected. More advanced themes are overloaded piece, trapped pieces, and zwischenzug et al.

Alburt's 300 most important positions and Reinfeld's 1001 best checkmates are PGNs which you can download. Chess Hero is a program which will test you with these files (includes Reinfeld's pgn.)

Along with tactics, you will find attacking becomes easier.

spy-faith(2113) jonesmh(2052) lichess.org 3 0

Exploiting an overloaded Knight on c3.

```

   [FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 d3 4. c4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Qxd3 Nc6 7. Bf4 d6 8. O-O-O Nf6 9. Bg3 O-O 10. f4 Qa5 11. Kb1 Nb4 12. Qd2 Nxe4 0-1

```

jonesmh(2000) mitchell(2000)

Unusual attack on the king.

```

[fen "r3rbk1/ppq2pp1/2n2n1p/2pp1P2/5P2/2PBB2P/PPQN2P1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 0"]

1...c4 2.Bf1 Rxe3 3. Rxe3 Bc5

```

With every piece protected, the attack broke through. A hard example of a weak square complex.

jonesmh(2080) kavookavala(2133) lichess.org 3 2 Exploiting uncoordinated pieces

```

[fen ""]
1. f4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Qb5+ Bd7 6. Qxb7 Bc6 7. Bb5 Bxb5 8. Nxb5 Qd5 9. Qc8+ 1-0

```

jonesmh(2079) nfc3000(2061) lichess.org 3 2

Overlooked Knight fork by both player.

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nbd2 Nc6 8. a4 Bd7 9. Re1 a6 10. Nc4 Rb8 11. a5 Be6 12. e5 Bxc4 13. exf6 Bxf6 14. dxc4 Nxa5 15. Qd3 Qc7 16. Bd2 Nc6 17. c3 Ra8 18. Bh6 Rfb8 19. Qe2 Na5 20. Bg5 Bxg5 21. Nxg5 Re8 22. Rad1 Rab8 23. Qd3 b5 24. cxb5 axb5 25. b4 Nc4 26. Bd5 Ne5 27. Rxe5 dxe5 28. Bxf7+ Kg7 29. Bxe8 Rxe8 30. Ne6+ 1-0

```

These examples show that 2000 rated players miss simple tactics in blitz. The longer you play and/or solve tactical puzzles, the easier you will find the combinations..

(As I kept going back and forth to input the examples, I lost track of what I was saying many times. Hopefully I did not stray off topic too much and did provide helpful information.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics, combinations
---


# Question
Title: Which approach is better to teach tactics?
I have been teaching my wife tactics, we are doing the book by Fred Reinfeld "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations". We are still in the first chapter which discusses pins and I can tell that she is improving rapidly because she is finding the pinned piece with less effort.

My problems with this book are:

1. You can tell a lot of the positions are composed.
2. There is no difficulty progression, simple and hard puzzles are mixed together.

On the other hand I came upon the book "Tactics Time" by Tim Brennan and Anthea Carson. This book has the advantage that all the puzzles come from games people have played on the internet so no composed ones and are much simpler for a beginner. The problem with this one is that there is no separation by motifs so she might not find the knight fork or the back rank weakness and there will not be constant repetition of a single motif to ensure she assimilates it.

So my question would be, which book approach do you think would be more beneficial for a beginner to follow and why?

Thank you

# Answer
> 5 votes
I would use the second approach, almost entirely just because the problems are much easier, but also because those sorts of simple two-move tactics are more likely to come up in games between beginners and just spotting them at all will give her a big advantage at that level.

I would actually suggest a few other sources of tactics which might be even better:

1. *Chess Tactics for Students* by John Bain has quite simple puzzles and is grouped by theme.
2. *The Manual of Chess Combinations*, vols. 1a and 1b, also starts with very simple puzzles and is grouped as well, although it's by goal (e.g., "win a rook"), not by theme (e.g., "fork").
3. The online site Chess Tempo will feed you tactical problems from real games that are matched to your ability, so there's no worry about getting a book that is too easy or too hard.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I recommend finishing Reinfeld's book first. As Cecil De Vere states, knowing what you are looking for makes the problems too easy, however this is how we are taught math. The repetition of one tactic at a time should teach pattern recognition. Once she is familiar with the tactical motifs, the problems should be mixed up to teach independent thinking.

After the tactics are learned, ChessTempo is an free site to practice tactics based upon you skill level. Lichess offers tactical puzzles, but I don't know if they are level matched. Lichess offers free play so you can test yourself against others around your skill.

I would suggest getting Chess Hero (comes with Reinfeld's PGN) and Alburt's 300 Important Positions. This free program will randomize the positions as playing chess would.

Another suggestion is to read Alekhine's Best Games. He often explains, in simple English, how he sees the position and the tactics he plays. (Some of the games are really complex and he does alter some games to make games more interesting.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would recommend using the second book. When you know what tactical motif you are looking for, it makes the problem artificially simple. Once you understand the basic motifs, it is better to solve problems for which you do not have a partial answer already.

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Is there any method to determine if the weaker side in KQPKQ has a perpetual check?
Is there any possibility to check, without the use of the tablebases, if a position in the endgame queen+pawn vs queen (KQPKQ) allows a perpetual check for the weaker side?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Whether there is a *draw* in hand depends on both the rank and file of the pawn in the following analysis.

The following as an analysis quoted in Wikipedia's article, queen and pawn versus queen endgame. All quotes and diagrams are taken from Wikipedia. Wikipedia cites table base analysis by the chess computer Belle from 1985, alongside John Nunn, Reuben Fine, Pal Benko and others.

## Key For Diagrams

> Black king on white dots: win with White to move, draw with Black to move; on black dots – win with either to move; other squares – draw

## Rook Pawn

> A rook pawn needs to be on at least the sixth rank to have decent winning chances

## Knight Pawn

> A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this:
>
> * The king has squares on the adjacent rook file to try to avoid perpetual check
> * The exchange of queens is less likely to lead to a drawn king and pawn versus king endgame

## Bishop Pawn

> A bishop pawn offers the best winning chances. One reason is that there is no drawing zone in the opposite corner for the black king if the pawn is on at least the fourth rank. If the pawn is on the fifth rank the defender's chances are small unless the king is in front of the pawn. A pawn on the sixth rank wins unless the defending king is in front of the pawn

## Centre Pawn

> A central pawn has better chances to win than a rook pawn or knight pawn, but not as good as a bishop pawn. As with the bishop pawn, there is no drawing zone for the defending king in the opposite corner. It is better for the defending king to be on the "short side" of the pawn rather than the "long side"

---
Tags: learning, endgame, tablebases, queen-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Problem: Find White's second-to-last move
For the following position to occur in legal play, with Black on move, what would White's second-to-last move need to have been? Note that Black is checked by two pieces on the h1-h8 file and two more on the c1-h6 diagonal, and both the d2 bishop nor the h2 must have been at their present locations when check was given.

```
b/7P/6Pk/5P/4P/2PP/3B2KR/2Q1N2R w K - 0 1

```

This is my first effort at a retrograde analysis problem: I think the position shown is reachable via legal moves, but that there's only one possible way the last three half-moves could have transpired. Did I formulate the puzzle "correctly"? Could/should it be improved? Would it be better with fewer pieces?

```
8/8/4Pk/3P/8/8/5QK/B w K - 0 1

```

In the latter formulation, I like the way the White queen is placed so that it could have moved from b2 or d4, unblocking the bishop, but for the fact that it would have been giving check if it had been in either of those places.

EDIT

Here's yet another formulation, perhaps a bit more subtle, but I think the solution is still unique. Note that in this revision, White's last move is not certain, but the second-to-last move is.

```
[FEN "8/8/4Pk/8/8/8/8/B6K w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
White's second to last move must be **f5+**.

So, this is what the position looked like before White's second to last move -

```
   [FEN "b7/6pP/7k/7P/4PP2/2PP4/3B2KR/2Q1N2R w - - 0 1"]

   1. f5+ g5 2. hxg6+

```

**How to arrive at the solution -**

In this position, it is Black to play and the Black king is checked by a **double-battery** of the two rooks and the bishop and queen. What was White's last move?

```
        [FEN "b7/7P/6Pk/5P2/4P3/2PP4/3B2KR/2Q1N2R w - - 0 1"]

```

Since it is a double check, it must be some form of **discovered check**. However, since we have a double-battery, it cannot be possible that the discovered check was caused by a move of one of the pieces involved in the battery, because the other piece in the same battery would have already been checking the Black king if such were the case. Thus, it has to be some other "piece". But no such piece can uncover two attacks. Thus, it must be a very specific case of a pawn capture, an en passant, where two lines are opened at the same time.

```
     [FEN "b7/6pP/7k/5P1P/4P3/2PP4/3B2KR/2Q1N2R b - - 0 1"]

     1... g5 2. hxg6+

```

In the above, position, we see that the Black king is checked by a battery of queen and bishop. The only way that could have occurred in this position is if White played **f4-f5**.

Thus, White's second to last move is **f4-f5**.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The simplest version of the problem is 'cooked' - there are three distinct solutions:

a) *setup - White king on B2, White pawn on F5, Black pawn on E7* --\> ***1)* B2-B1+ E7-E5 *2)* F5xE5ep**

b) *setup - White king on B2, White pawn on D5, Black pawn on E7* --\> ***1)* B2-B1+ E7-E5 *2)* D5xE5ep**

c) *setup - White pawn on D4, Black pawn on E7* --\> ***1)* D4-D5+ E7-E5 *2)* D5xE5ep**

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis, composing
---


# Question
Title: FIDE rating: how games are rated if a new list is published while playing a tournament
Does anybody knows how games are rated (FIDE rating) when a new list is published while playing a tournament?

Let's say I'm playing a tournament starting at April and ending at June. Starting ratings are those listed in April list, but before the tournament ends there will be new lists at May and June, and tournament results will be reported at June.

There are several options:

A) All games are rated as players rating were those in April list (the starting ones).

B) All games are rated as players rating were those in June list (when the tournament is reported to FIDE).

C) April games are rated with April ratings, May ones with May ratings, and June ones with June ratings (it seems strange, but it is how it works for Catalan ratings).

I could find no response to this question at FIDE handbook. The only clue could be article 8.4:

```
8.4
If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular
tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a
rated player with his current rating, but in the rating of his
opponents he is counted as an unrated player.

```

which makes me think that all games are rated with the starting ratings (option A).

# Answer
Option *A* is correct, option *C* applies to some tournaments, see below.

It is not explicitly stated in the FIDE Rating Regulations but the practice has always been that for rating purposes the rating valid at the starting date of the tournament is used. The only exception are tournaments that last longer then 90 days which have to be reported for rating every month

> 4.1 For tournaments, a period not greater than 90 days, except:
>
> ```
> 4.11 Leagues may be rated which last for a period greater than 90 days.
> 4.12 The QC may approve the rating of tournaments lasting more than 90 days.
> 4.13 For tournaments lasting more than 90 days, interim results must be reported on a monthly basis.
>
> ```

This is made more explicit in the International Title Regulations

> 1.46 Rating of Opponents
>
> ```
> 1.46a The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used, see exception 1.15. ...
>
> ```
>
> 1.15 In tournaments which last longer than 90 days, the opponents’ ratings and titles used shall be those applying when the games were played.

Similar wording as in `1.46a` would probably be helpful in the FIDE Rating Regulations.

Here are two examples:

1. Sallskapets Jubileums-KM 2016 lasted for exactly 90 days by a rough calculation and you can see that each player's rating is the same in all rounds (click on any player and you can see all their opponents have them with the same rating, the January rating in fact).
2. 1. Bundesliga rounds 10-11 and 1. Bundesliga rounds 14-15 lasts for six months, it is reported every month and each month the current ratings are used.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rating, fide
---


title: Chess players who committed murder

text:
# Question
Title: Chess players who committed murder
Apart from Raymond Weinstein, are there any other examples of chess players of at least Master strength who committed murder?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Claude Bloodgood, the popularizer of the Grob (1. g4), must be far and away the most famous. At one stage his USCF rating was second only to Gata Kamsky! It doesn't get much worse than murdering your own mother.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I don't think Alexander Pichushkin played at Master level, but wikipedia implies that he was quite a strong player.

---
Tags: famous-players
---


title: Bobby Fischer and the U.S

text:
# Question
Title: Bobby Fischer and the U.S
Why did Bobby Fischer despise the U.S and why did he get exiled? Wasn't he America's hero at one point? I'm a big fan of his games.

# Answer
> 7 votes
It is not so much that Fischer *got exiled* as much as it was that he chose to exile himself (though yes, out of a certain necessity). He was indicted by a U.S. court for ignoring sanctions against Yugoslavia when playing his 1992 rematch against Spassky in that country, and so Fischer chose to avoid returning to the U.S. rather than face prosecution and a potential 10-year prison sentence. As to the various reasons he might have despised his home country, I won't speculate myself, but plenty has been written about Fischer's troubled later years elsewhere.

---
Tags: history, fischer
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to be a good chess player without theory?
I would like to be a very flexible chess player as in never in a uncomfortable position unless I did something to deserve it such as a blunder. I've concluded that the only way to do this is to avoid as much theory as possible? I feel like I might rely too much on theory these days (is there a way to tell if I really do rely on theory too much?) and would like to make a change but I'm not sure how to go about it.

# Answer
Well, depends on your definition of theory and good. If you mean, never really studying specific things then you will be lacking in a few areas. Notably:

1. **Openings**. You will struggle at a high level without theory unless you are Magnus Carlsen. Most top level Grandmasters have memorised thousands of opening lines, and understand them extremely well. If they did not know these, they might be able to work out the correct answers, but they would use a lot more time to do so (which would be a very significant handicap). The computer age was leading towards theory being critical for most games, but Carlsen plays many novelties, showing that opening theory is not completely necessary.
2. **Endgames**. You might be able to work it out for yourself, but again, you'd have to be a super genius to naturally get this at a top level. Endgames have many specific things that would be much easier to learn if you just studied the theory. Without theory, it will take you much longer to learn the same thing.

There are probably more things. However, there are things that you can gain without theory:

1. **Tactical Sense**. Tactics don't technically have much theory behind them, as there isn't a HUGE amount of concepts to learn (pins, skewers, etc). It just requires you to improve efficiency in your brain, and calculating power. This is easier said than done, without a good position, you'll find that you don't have many tactical opportunities available to you.
2. **General game sense**. If you don't use much theory, and alternate your openings, you will probably be more versatile. Also, until a high level (\>2000), you will trip up your opponents because you'll be playing off-book.

If you're looking to avoid theory (which I do), just alternate your openings! Have a cycle between your openings. Each game as black, alternate between c5, d5, e6, c6, etc. Don't choose too many, just pick ones that suit you. If you want to play quiet games against e4, play d5 or c6. If you want more intense games, e6 or c5. It mixes it up, and you learn the different plans for different openings.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I would argue that theory very important for the middle game in the sense of strategic knowledge. Things like open files, opposite side castling and of course an understanding of pawn structures are crucial to get past the beginner levels. Up to about 2000 or so I think you don't need a huge amount of opening theory and would argue that you learn more by varying your openings, as mentioned by mojo1mojo2.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is possible at a certain extent. First of all you at least need to know the characteristic of each warrior. The game is all about this much in the initial stage for beginners.Then being familiar to it you automatically start thinking in a different manner about the functions of each.And thus your game evolves. Any kind of theory isn't required. Experience in playing and proves more helpful. Observing minutely the techniques and tricks while playing with senior players will help proceed yourself.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: theory
---


title: Does ...Nxg4 really work?

text:
# Question
Title: Does ...Nxg4 really work?
```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

White has just played `g4`, after which I have replied `...Bg6`.

I have uploaded the position online for brief computer analysis, and engine suggested `...Nxg4` as best.

The lines were skimpy, and I could not understand/learn how to proceed after the knight sacrifice.

## QUESTION:

Can someone offer **detailed** analysis after `...Nxg4` ?

I need analysis of all relevant lines and branches, because I want to learn why is `...Nxg4` good in the above position.

*Long story short, I have no access to engine, that is why I asked the question.*

# Answer
> 2 votes
`1... Nxg4` works (?) because it allows Black to force a draw.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxg4 2.hxg4 Bxg4 3.Kg2 (3.Re3 Qh5 4.Kg2 e5 5.Bg3 Qh3+ 6.Kg1 b5 7.Bb3 a5 8.a4 Qh5) Qf5 4.Bg3 Bh3+ 5.Kg1 Bg4 6.Kg2

```

Now here's Stockfish's Bg6 variation. I think it's kinda whacked. White sacrifices a few pieces to achieve a perpetual check. It is instructional in that it shows that White can choose this outcome. It never would have occurred to me to even look for it. The `11. Ne5` variation within the diagram below shows that White doesn't have to settle for that draw; instead, the Knight move keeps the game going by ceding a meaningless -.08 advantage.

I think `Bg6` is completely playable if Black is seeking more than a draw.

```

    [FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

    1... Bg6 2.Bb3 Nd5 3.Nxd5 cxd5 4.d4 h6 5.c3 Rac8 6.a4 Be4 7.Nd2 Bh7 8.Nf3 Nb6 9.Bc2 Bxc2 10.Qxc2 Nc4 11.Bxh6 (11. Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qd8 13.a5 Rc4 14.Bg3 Qd7 15.Kg2 b5 16.axb6 axb6 17.f4 b5 18.f5 b4 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Rf1 Bf6 21.Qd3 Rfc8 22.Be1 e5 23.dxe5 Bxe5 24.Ra5 bxc3 25.bxc3 Bxc3 26.Bxc3 Rxc3 27.Qxd5+ Qxd5+ 28.Rxd5) gxh6 12.Rxe6 fxe6 13.Qg6+ Kh8 14.Qxh6+ Kg8 15.Qxe6+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.Qe6+

```

It's 11:40pm here and it's racktime. If you have specific variations you want to see, let me know.

EDIT - ALNS has perhaps found a playable variation for White though it is not for the faint-hearted. White is down a pawn but has a passed center pawn.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxg4 2. hxg4 Bxg4 3. Re3 Qh5 4.Ne4 e5 5.Ng3 Qh3 6.Bxe5 Nxe5 7.Rxe5 Bh4 8.Qf1 Qxf1+ 9.Nxf1 Bxf3 10.Nh2 Bd5 11.Bxd5 Bf6 12.Rf5 cxd5 13.Rxd5 {with Stockfish rating Black slightly better.}

```

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why not 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 Nf6 against the Reti opening?
The reply 2...Nf6 to the Reti opening 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 Nf6 is not even mentioned in my three Reti opening books. What is wrong with that? There must be a well-known answer that is simply part of the professional player's erudition because otherwise this move would get attention from the authors.

# Answer
This is identical to the position that occurs after the move order `1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 d5`. The central push `d5` is common in many openings, for instance the Grunfeld, but here the timing is bad. The position after

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "7"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4

```

is one I often get with white when I play online, and it usually ends up very well for white. White will follow up with `e4` and get an advantage in the center with tempo.

The main difference with the Grunfeld is that there is no white knight on `c3` that black can exchange the knight on `d5` with, and the knight (and black's whole position) will end up slightly passive.

Sample line:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "13"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4 g6 5. e4 Nb6 6. h3 Bg7 7.Nc3

```

with a slight white advantage.

Black can also try `4... Bf5` to stop `e4` temporarily, but then they have to be really careful. For instance

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "15"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4 Bf5 5. Qb3 e6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7.e4 Nxc3 8. exf5!

```

is very good for white.
> 4 votes

# Answer
White gets a strong center after chasing the Knight.

```

[fen ""]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4 e6 5. e4

```

This is a simplistic answer, there is more theory about the placement of pieces which is why 4. ... Bf5 is considered a bad move.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The position after `1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cd5 Nxd5 4. Nc3` is column 62 of MCO-15 in the English Opening. I would look under the English for more on this line.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Are there any (free) programs that utilize Chessmetrics or Glicko-2?
I'm looking for a program that is capable of keeping track of player ratings while taking in the game data and hopefully outputting rankings based upon those ratings in some form.

I've found ELORater, which is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for, but I don't think it is suitable enough. I think the ratings would possibly be skewed due to some "new" players actually being more skilled than the default value, and while I can change that for any given player I'd rather not make that judgement myself if a program can solve that problem. I also want something that takes into account inactivity or something that actually supports participation, which I don't think ELORater does.

While looking into this, I came across Chessmetrics and Glicko-2, both of which seem to solve those problems. Chessmetrics sounds like exactly what I want in terms of how it handles the data, while Glicko-2 seems close enough as well.

The problem is I haven't found any kind of program or place to utilize those systems on my own, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in coding (or the formulas) to come up with a way to do so.

For Glicko-2 I've come across this NPM package as well as this Ruby implementation.

However, I'm not sure how to use those. I've found nothing that utilizes Chessmetrics that's actually usable. Again, I'd like something that hopefully functions like ELORater, even if it is a little rougher around the edges.

# Answer
Sorry for the lag in answering this question; I just stumbled upon this post. If you want a better response time, then you should contact me through the e-mail given in the help file.

Frankly, as the author or EloRater, I take issue with you declaring that EloRater is rough around the edges, especially since according to your post, you are unable to implement your own. Those who have had the courage to contact me directly, have found me amenable and friendly in resolving their issues. Derogatory remarks posted publically demeaning one's work is not an act of kindness, nor do I take it as such. Consequently, I have chosen to respond brusquely and completely.

Now to answer the question, and to clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader:

Elorater's player input screen allows you to properly place advanced players, this is described in the help file under adding players with the following description:

> Set Initial Rating
>
> After entering the name, you must select the option of initial rating. -Default Adult assigns 1300 as the initial rating (as per USCF rules) -Default Child assigns a rating based on the child's age (as per USCF rules) The formula for computing the rating is 300 + age * 50. You may only select the ages listed, which are 4 to 20. Note that 20 or more yields the default adult rating. -Level allows you to specifically set the perceived skill level of the player this is comparable to tournament directors giving a provisional rating to a known chess player of some skill. Keep in mind that you should be familiar with the relative strengths of players in the common chess community. Most apparently advance players, who are not already rated fall between advanced beginner and intermediate players. If you are not sure, use the default adult setting, which is comparable to advanced beginner. -USCF allows you to enter known USCF ratings directly into the system. Use this option if you are entering a USCF rated player.

Furthermore, the USCF rating system, which is available in the program, will move the player more during the first 20 games or so, in an attempt to locate the person accurately. This period is called provisional ratings, and is a feature of the USCF rating system to prevent skewing of the ratings. All the equations for implementing the system, and the logic behind them, including provisional ratings, is described in great detail at the site of Professor Mark E Glickman of Boston University. The help file provides this link as well as additional notes regarding the program. For your information, the provisional rating mechanism is fully supported by the program.

In short, the program, EloRater, does exactly what it claims: it implements rating system for your club using the USCF rules for rating. This rating system is good enough for the USCF. It should be good enough for your club. It works great for my club and the majority of the clubs who have opted to utilize my software, judging by the responses of gratitude that I continually get from the users of EloRater over the last 8 years.

Good luck with your club, and good luck finding software that fully meets your expectations.

Jim Garner (author of EloRater)
> 2 votes

# Answer
It seems that rankade, our ranking system for sports, games, and more, fits your needs.

It's free to use and it's designed to manage **rankings** (and **stats**, including matchup stats, and more) for small or large groups of players.

Rankade doesn't use **Glicko**, but its algorithm (called **ree** algorithm), although more complex (here's a comparison), is similar to Glicko if you play 1-on-1 matches only, and it manages *inactivity* and *late arrivals*.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A bit late on the answer, but I recent built https://sortmatch.ca/ that's effectively Swiss-style tournaments using Glicko2 ratings instead of integer tallies.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, rating, glicko-2
---


title: Where can I find a big chess database?

text:
# Question
Title: Where can I find a big chess database?
I am searching for a big chess games database, in PGN or CBH or SCID format. ICOfY Base is no longer available, I think. I found nothing in torrent sites (I am searching for something that is legal).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I use the games published by The Week In Chess, which are published in a weekly basis. These games make a superb database, although maybe you'll miss some historical games. It takes some effort to build the database with all games published to the date, but from then on it's easy to keep it up to date.

It is also possible to download the Million Database and then to keep it up to date with TWIC games.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I know of at least two sources you could use (one is free, the other costs).

1. lichess added a "opening tree" with many games categorized by the moves you play (you get a list and games that share the same move list). I am not sure if you can get the info easily out of this tool, though.
2. chessclub.com or "ICC" offers their database on their website for download for money. Not sure how costly it is, though.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I think there is no such database with several millions games in PGN file public on the Internet (and free). You can download it from some sources such as this and combine them, or use online database such as chesspack.com

# Answer
> -1 votes
Possibly chess.com. There are millions of games played there, and each one is available for PGN download - for free.

---
Tags: database
---


# Question
Title: What happened to Alexander Alekhine's family?
Alexander Alekhine, the former World Chess Champion, came from a notable family in Russia. His father, Alexander Ivanovich, was apparently Privy Councilor to the Duma and a Marshal of the Nobility. Alekhine himself was imprisoned during the Revolution and narrowly avoided being executed. His brother Alexei, apparently survived as well, going on to be chess player and editor under the Soviets. What about the rest of his family? Did they survive the Revolution?

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to the Italian Wikipedia his father, Aleksandr Ivanovič Alechin, died in 1917, (so *probably* because of the revolution) and his mother, Anes'ja Ivanovna Alechina, died in 1915 in a clinic for mental illness. Alehkine's life during the revolution is not well known. Kotov's Alekhine biography should be a valuable source.

---
Tags: history, famous-players, alekhine
---