title: How to learn an opening

text:
# Question
Title: How to learn an opening
I'm a ~2100 Elo rated player at the moment, and lately I've been wondering about the best general way of learning openings, and eventually mastering them in some sense. Note that this question is not in the same spirit as the question What's a good way to learn opening theory?, already answered earlier.

My question is a general question about methods, in a few parts:

> 1. What are some good methods to pick up an opening you've never played before? Are there any differences in approach if the opening is somewhat familiar, or completely new (think going from the French to the e6 Sicilian as Black vs. going from the French to the Pirc as Black)?
> 2. If you've played an opening for a while, and you're not getting good results with the opening, how can you determine if the poor results depend on you not knowing enough theory/ideas or if it's more fundamental, like the opening not suiting your style?
> 3. How do you determine if an opening book/DVD/\[Whatever thing that costs money\] will help your understanding of an opening before buying it? It's not very fun to buy something that won't be very useful in the long run.
> 4. Is it even necessary to get books on openings to learn them? How much more difficult is it really to learn openings without books, and what are necessary things to consider if you're trying to learn an opening by studying games in a big database? How much does this depend on player level?
> 5. How much time is it reasonable to assume that it takes to master an opening on average? How much does this depend on the type of opening? Take, for example, the London system as White vs. the King's Indian Defence as Black, where the first is a "system opening" that's not very sharp, and the latter is incredibly sharp and complicated.

I don't think that this is the type of question that can have only one good answer, and I would hope to see different people mentioning their methods of choice for learning openings. It's not easy to learn to play an opening well, if you don't know what's necessary to learn. I mean, otherwise every grandmaster would be as good on the Black side of the Najdorf Sicilian as MVL.

# Answer
> 5 votes
1. Try to understand the key idea behind the opening, and try to relate each of the main moves to it. If you can't do this, you don't understand the opening.
2. First test the new opening by playing it against players weaker than you (in your case, \<2000). If you are getting bad results, it means that the opening doesn't suit your style. Then test the new opening against players stronger than you (\>2200). If you are winning more games that usual, the opening is "value added;" otherwise it's "back to the drawing board.
3. If I buy a book or DVD, it's because something I've seen makes a "lightbulb" go off in my head. If I don't have this "aha" moment, I don't buy the item.
4. The greater your strength, the less benefit you will receive from books, and the more benefit from your own study. If you are the "smartest kid in class," you won't benefit much from reading others' papers.
5. Depending on the opening, mastery could take from a few months to years. Some GMs spend a lifetime trying to understand one opening.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I mastered the Nimzo-Indian when I was relatively new to playing chess, by playing every game of the 1953 candidates tournament l, which had the top grandmasters playing to compete for the world championship. It turned out that the bulk of the games were Nimzo-Indians.

I would recommend getting game collections and recent tournament books of GM games and play only those games with the opening that you picked to master.

# Answer
> 2 votes
By part:

1. If you're interested in learning a new opening, I recommend considering the following:

* Know your preferred style of play: positional or tactical
* Know your areas of strength: memorization, calculation, tactical vision, stamina, cool-headedness, etc.
* Decide how much time you want to spend learning (and keeping up with) the opening

These factors will all influence the decision of *which opening* to study; don't do this by feel. For example, successfully using the London System is largely based on strategic concepts; there are very few traps and forcing lines. As a result, the established theory isn't very deep. The King's Indian Defense, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: it's full of traps and forcing lines, and the theory runs to 20 moves and more in some lines. Just look at ***Beating the King's Indian and Benoni***, by Anatoli Vaisser, which is almost completely dedicated to the 4 Pawns Attack variation, and has an average of 7 games per page for 114 pages (that's nearly 800 games) as reference material.

Unfortunately, we can't assume that because a few of the same moves occur in two openings that they are similar in nature, either in the degree of complexity or the strategic / tactical balance. The "...e6 Sicilian" you refer to includes the Taimanov, Szen, Pin, Kan and Closed variations, as well as the Marshall. The French Defence has almost nothing in common with these, largely because in almost every French variation White plays either e5 at some point or exd5, while in the 195 distinct lines of the Sicilian Defense (by ECO code), White plays e5 in only 7 of them, and exd5 in only 1.

This makes the French a cramped, counterattacking defense where White holds d4 and even e5 as long as possible, while Black tries to liquidate the e5 pawn and open the f-file. By contrast, in the Sicilian White loses the d4 pawn immediately in all of the Open-related variations (Closed and Alapin are the main exceptions), and Black fights on the half-open c-file. Not much in common there.

However, there *are* some similarities between Black-and-White mirrors of the same opening, such as the KID and the King's Indian Attack, and the Sicilian Dragon and the English Sicilian Reversed or the English Bremen, Reversed Dragon. Similarly, the Dutch Defense and Bird's Opening have strong similarities.

2. Cause of poor opening results: First, you have to determine that the opening was the problem. An analysis of the games should determine that:

* You played the first out-of-book move, when book moves with good results were available in the position, and
    * An engine determines that the positional evaluation dropped by at least 0.30 pawns as a result of the novelty

If these are true, then you don't know the opening well enough. If, on the other hand, the evaluation didn't change much after you played your last book move, then the opening was fine (and not the problem).

3. On value of books: Read the reviews. I find these extremely valuable. I was once interested in booking up on the Glek Variation of the KID as White, to prepare for an opponent. Several books I was considering claimed to address it, but the reviews revealed that the treatment was cursory, and I was able to eliminate them from consideration. But you need to be able to learn the opening from the book when you find it; read, practice, test, repeat.
4. You can certainly learn an opening by playing master games in it. Pick some where the players are equally rated, and a few where the stronger player was playing your opening vs a weaker player. Start with the imbalanced games first. If you can determine that the positional evaluation shifted during the opening (in the first 12-15 moves), you're looking at a demonstration of how to use the opening to win. Then, play through the games between the equally-matched players. Because they foil each other's intentions, you won't see the themes unfold, but you should be able to spot how a strong player avoided the problems a weaker player ran into.

I don't recommend this approach over using an opening reference, though. If the latter's any good at all, you'll save hours of time distilling the key elements and themes of the opening. For learning a new opening, I can strongly recommend the "**Starting Out**" series by Everyman Publishing; they publish in both paperback and e-book versions. Go from there.

5. This is very much a "your-mileage-may-vary" situation. You can learn to play the London passably in a weekend (say, 4-6 hours), but you won't be decent at the King's Indian for months (i.e. you'll have a decent chance to win if you get to carry out the general ideas, but good opposition will very likely kill you with tactics and traps repeatedly until you're familiar with them and how to avoid them). That said, the KID leads to fewer draws and more decisive games than the London System, and if you're a good tactician and weak on strategy, the KID's a pretty good weapon.

# Answer
> 1 votes
1. After you've learned all the theory, try to understand all the concepts and ideas of each of the moves in the opening, go through many games in that opening between strong players, and play MANY games vs human/computer in that opening and use an engine to find your mistakes.
2. If you fully understand the ideas behind the opening, you should be able to find out what type of style the opening is, and by playing many games, you should be able to find out your own style. To find out what caused your poor results get an engine and see where you went wrong! Also check through the theory of the opening again/go through similar strong games to see if you went wrong in the theory.
3. Before you buy a book/DVD, you normally get to preview the product, (e.g. reading the book, watching the provided first part of the series etc.) If this preview makes you feel, "hmm... This seems like it could potentially increase my knowledge of the opening!" then buy it! Also take in to consideration the author of the product.
4. Books are just one of the many ways for you to Lear openings, (e.g. DVD, books, coach etc.) and I think these are all valid ways for you to learn an opening. However, unless your a gm I don't think just looking through games in a database is sufficient to learning the opening since it doesn't provide you with the ideas behind the opening like the other options, just plain moves. Sure, looking through games is a useful tool to learning openings but you can't solely rely on it.
5. How long it takes depends on how complicated the opening is as you mentioned, your personal situation, and what you define as mastery. I think different openings do take different amounts of time to master, but generally it should take you at least a couple of months to master. Not learn, but master!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've done that kind of training to understand my opponent's openings better and also to switch from one form of my primary defense to another branch of the tree.

The learning is easier when you can relate it to what you already know. Study books, study it yourself alone, play blitz, talk to someone else who plays it or against it.

I found years ago that when I played 1. d4 2. c4 openings I was horrible. I couldn't face hyper-modern defenses well. Then I understood the advantages on the Black side better and I understood both sides well enough to eventually learn to play a passable White side. In that instance I didn't study books because I was playing a variety of White openings: Catalan, English Open variation, QGD, etc.

On a couple of other occasions I doubted my Black defense to 1. e4. I switched by reading a little blue booklet by a Russian I'd never heard of (Nikitin). It turns out he (GM Nikitin) was the personal trainer of child prodigy Garri Kasparov and that he and Kasparov later wrote a regular book on that defense. It was an eye-opener, but I learned a lot from that one little booklet and played that defense for years.

Many years later I switched again. I had studied Tal's great book and saw how he played the defense. I changed to his variation and began reading books about it. I really was terrible at it at first, but I played it whenever I could. Over time I got better and feel at home with it now. I also played it with the aid of Houdini against other computer programs of various strengths. That's an interesting study method.

Current USCF rating 21?? Peak 2212

# Answer
> 1 votes
When I first learn an opening I work out the main lines in a sort of skeleton format. I generally go about 8 moves and then look at the key variations. I then write out the main ideas (actually type out but whatever works for you). Then I play a lot of blitz games adding to my analysis and knowledge as I go. After a certain point you'll realize you know the opening better than almost everyone you play. That's when I go in and fine tune things. Analyze your weaker lines, look at results etc.

To answer your other questions:

1. I would approach everything as new to avoid getting locked into tunnel vision.
2. Analyze your games. Break it down by end of theory, end of opening, middle-game and endgame. Evaluate the positions using engines and databases, books and any other resources you have. Ask yourself where you're struggling the most.
3. The same way as anything else. You can look at reviews or whatever or maybe check them out at a library or read samples online. If I'm going to spend time on an opening I want several books and then I'll check their quality based on the other books, engines and databases. I'm more concerned with the openings themselves than the books.
4. I like having books to explain ideas. You could probably learn everything without the books but it would take longer. Plus, it's nice to have Silman explain that specific position rather than guess at it yourself based on what you learned from his books.
5. It depends entirely on the opening. I once studied Alekhine's defense and within roughly 3-4 hours I was scoring better than I ever had with any e4 defense. On the other hand something like the Dragon or Najdorf probably takes a lifetime commitment.

There's no such thing as a London vs a KID. Every position has one opening. A 2100 rated player should know that. I get what you're saying system vs system but still at your level you should understand each position is unique. Systems are only general ideas. I would be completely shocked if someone could reach your level and not understand how to handle transpositions.

At your level you really should be at the point where you start putting together a cohesive rep and deciding whether or not you want to "specialize" in a specific opening like the Najdorf or Dragon or whether it's a better use of your time to learn other openings. A lot of it depends on your goals.

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


title: Rook and Pawn Endgames

text:
# Question
Title: Rook and Pawn Endgames
I want to learn more about rook and pawn endgames because they are very common. But it’s such a broad subject - where should I even begin?

For example, I do know of the Philidor and Lucena positions, but are there any other fundamental endgames positions I should know? Or should I take a different approach to getting started here?

Thanks so much!

# Answer
Before consulting a book, try reading the Wikipedia article on rook and pawn endgames.

As you mention, it's a very broad topic.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Good books for- Grunfeild and Sicilian defence
Can you please recommend good books for- Grunfeld and Sicilian defense. Would prefer separate books for either. Specially one which contains deeper analysis and has recent games illustrated.

# Answer
There are many types of Sicilians so you should specify which one you intend to play,

But generally a good book is: Starting out: The Sicilian by John Emms

Although there are a whole multitude of excellent books written about specific Sicilians so if you could specify more than I could recommend some excellent books on those specific Sicilians.

For Grunfeld it's a little simpler, an excellent book is Understanding the Grunfeld by Jonathan Rowson, which is a very well regarded book.

There are many more excellent Grunfeld books but far too many to mention in this post.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Winning with the Sicilian by Mark Taimanov.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Sicilian is not in my repertory and I want to include it.

I haven't read it yet, but after reading other books by GM De la Villa and some feedback I have read, I would recommend blindly **"Dismantling the Sicilian: A Complete Modern Repertoire for White"**.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to reach master level without studying theory?
Wikipedia page for GM Granda from Peru says:

> Julio Granda does not study opening theory. He has said that he has only read a chess book, the third volume of the General Chess Treaty of Roberto Grau. Anyway, he admits reading magazines and reviewing the Informant, which together with his excellent memory and assimilation capacity, has allowed him to win important tournaments and titles.
>
> Google translation from spanish wikipedia.

Is this possible? Can one become a master without studying theory at all?

# Answer
Anything is possible. The real question is how likely are you and most people to do it that way.

And it depends on what you call 'theory'.

I read NO theory. But I read a lot of practical books on openings, tactics, end games, pawn structure, positional play, yada yada.

They claim that an AI program learned to play Go by playing itself. I do not know anyone humans that have done that. We might if we lived millions of years but in reality humans can't do it that way. Most humans learn by seeing how others, who win doing it, have done it; and try to improve on that if possible using the basic tools they learned from practical books.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Absolutely, although I do not agree that Julio Granda is a good comparison since it sounds like he has a near-eidetic memory (close to photographic). It sounds like he also absorbs enough that he has, indeed, learned a lot of theory even if not through sitting down and opening books or a computer. I do believe that to get to the IM and GM ranks, you do need to study theory, or you will lose too many games in the opening.

As for becoming a "normal" Master, I am one, who never studied theory. That said, you still need to learn how to play opening pawn structures, and their basic plans. I got to 2298 USCF, and I know incredibly little about theory, but I do understand what I am aiming for in my openings, and what to do should both my opponent and I end up on our own theory-wise.

Lastly, the difference is that there is a huge difference between IM/GM and we mortal "PhishMasters" (fish, aka phish, among masters).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: books, grandmaster, study
---


# Question
Title: Why do FIDE tournaments have rest days on weekends?
I'm one of those sad geeks that, instead of watching football of some sort or another, prefer to watch the super GM's battle it out whenever my schedule allows. This weekend I was looking forward to following the FIDE Grand Prix Series, just to find out to my dismay that they are having a rest day on Saturday.

Now I understand that chess is a demanding game and that GM's need their rest, but why do they schedule rest days over the weekend, when spectator interest is at its highest?

Why not have rest days on Mondays and Thursdays, for example? Or alternatively, have a system where players have various rest days, but there is at least one game going on every day for the duration of the tournament.

Surely it is in the interest of the game to maximise the spectator value, which in turn improves the commercial value of the game?

# Answer
I would say the problem is that the Grand Prix is a Fide organised tournament. If you see how often those tournaments are played in almost completely empty halls, it is obvious that Fide doesn't much care about spectator value.

Some other tournaments conveniently have an uneven number of players, which leads to an extra rest day for each player, "unnoticeable" to the spectator.

Generally non-Fide tournaments try to maximise the income from visitors, which means the weekends have to be played (From the top level tournaments I visited, I would estimate that weekend days draw double to triple the number of visitors compared to workdays.).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Also many of these huge tournaments usually have side excursions/simultaneous exhibits/autograph sessions/kids meeting grandmaters/ etc that are best put over the weekend when spectators, chess enthusiasts and parents can make time to attend/take their kids over as opposed to weekdays that are majorly working days and school time.
> 5 votes

# Answer
(the following is my speculation based on following chess for a few decades, I might be wrong)

Most top level chess tournaments do not make money from spectators or from commercials shown to spectators. They make money from *sponsors*. Sponsors don't usually care all that much about spectators either.

Sponsors care about *prestige*, about showing business relations around and having them meet some of the grandmasters. About speeches in which they can talk about being smart and looking many moves ahead, and then having their name attached to a tournament.

Having a lot of internet spectators probably helps in attracting sponsors, because you can show that a lot of people are interested and it has global appeal; but that's indirect and not usually considered when choosing rest days. Having good facilities for business networking (weekdays?) probably counts more.

The entire tournament has to last some logical period of time (e.g., they rent a venue for two weeks, from weekend to weekend, because venues are available to rent per week) and then if you want to have a rest day, it's logical to have it in the middle. The more rest days you have the more expensive it is, because the venue probably won't be useable for anything else on the rest days.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The physical demands of GM chess for a game day is higher than pro sports.

Chess Life in the late 50s (early 60s?) had an article by a PhD psychologist who actually measured physiological results of playing in tournaments.

The scheduling has to do with other factors of holding a tournament as TV revenues are not a major concern for the organizers.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide
---


# Question
Title: Where to start with a child learning chess?
From here:

What is the best age to learn chess?

it seems that consensus is that that kids can start learning chess at almost any age. From around 5 years old they are big enough to learn the names of the pieces and the rules for how each piece moves.

Here:

https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/6225

it is suggested to not push kids to learn chess, but to lead by example.

Here

Where can I start to learn?

there are tips for how adults can learn chess.

**My question is**: Assuming you have an interested child age 5 - 10, how do you practically suggest teaching chess? Does it make most sense to just start playing with setting up all the pieces, or are there smaller "games" that one can/should start with?

# Answer
> Does it make most sense to just start playing with setting up all the pieces, or are there smaller "games" that one can/should start with?

It doesn't really matter the age of the person learning to play, there is no point in starting with a full set. There is just far too much to take in and make sense of. The first thing to do is to teach them how to win!

So, first teach them how king, queen and rook move and then teach the basic mates -

* KRR v K
* KR v K
* KQ v K

And I would do it in that order because it is the easiest and it is the way to introduce concepts like checkmate, king not allowed to move into check, two rooks working together, opposition, king and one rook working together, stalemate (to be avoided with KQ v K).

Next I would go on to KP v K, when you can win, when it is a draw and how to win.

Then I would go on to a game which many people start with (but there is no checkmate, so less fun IMHO) and that is 8 pawns v 8 pawns. Winner is the first to get a pawn to the other side or to "stalemate" the opponent - i.e. the opponent is the first to run out of moves.

After that I would reintroduce the kings and major pieces before finally going on to the full game.

You can see I'm working backwards here because that way the learner first learns where they should be aiming to get to and what to when they get there in stages starting from the destination.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I tend to disagree with the other answers that suggest starting with just a few pieces.

Kids absorb so much, so quickly. When my daughter was 4, she used to just watch me so she got some familiarity with the shapes of the pieces, but there was no teaching at this time. When she was 5, I taught her the names of the pieces, and then how they all moved. I did this all at one time. This took only a day or two of short sessions, and she had it. Then I taught her the special moves, castling and en passant, so she knew the game already, at least the rules.

We would play regularly, but the only problem is, and this varies from child to child, she really did not have a great interest in the game. If you can solve this, that is something because I am not the only parent, who I have heard say this. In middle school, the chess club at her school had an amazing 40 kids, so she would go to that and play. She would be proud when I would teach them, but even then, she only wants to play very sporadically.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I started playing chess with 4y old - by just observing. My father played with himself and used books to replay Grandmaster games (and he still does it nowadays he's 82y old). - , at first I was not allowed to touch the pieces but he explained me the game slowly, until I understood everything, and started to play against him.

So in my opinion, just play the game and the kid will learn - learning by doing, it's not magic.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You teach them chess the same way chess has always been taught: you give them the board, tell them the rules, and let them figure it out from there. As the saying goes, "10 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master". If they want to go into more detail to become a competitive chess player, provide them with the resources to do so, but there's no need to teach them about strategies or tactics otherwise.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Teach them how the pieces move. Teach them checkmate with two rooks. Let them play some ridiculously easy computer for a while. Gradually introduce more advanced stuff (K+R vs K, K+Q vs K, the idea that you should put your pawns in the middle, the four move checkmate, the two move checkmate) Mini games are also very good for kids - putting a queen in the middle of the board and giving them a knight and asking them to do lots of knight paths, for example putting the knight on a3 and asking them to get it to f1 without going on a square the queen can take. For more advanced ones you can get them to do it mentally but that requires co-ordinates https://chessplus.net/the-bishop-and-pawns-game/ is another good one

Once they've got a bit more experience (can do four move checkmate and the two rooks vs king etc) then making up very simple mate in twos helps their calculation a lot. Then maybe they are ready for Seirawan's Winning Chess Tactics and How to Beat Your Dad at Chess. Both really good books but not for absolute beginners.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I learnt to play chess around that age with Pritchard's Begin Chess, later moving on to "The right way to play chess". Both of these books should be available on amazon, and although they were written in the 1970s they stand the test of time in my opinion. I can highly recommend them.

Begin Chess starts off teaching the ways different pieces move, full of exercises that have solutions at the back (e.g. place 4 queens on a 4x4 corner of the board so that none attacks any other one), and then goes into more detail on openings and endings. My own experience was that I found the openings part a bit confusing (I had a lot of "why" questions that the book didn't answer) but the part on endings was really logical and made sense, at least after spending several afteroons on King + Pawn vs. King.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I learned chess in grade school, with other kids who were learning too. This is the best way because it's a peer-oriented activity -- kids playing with other kids.

There wasn't a chess "club" so much as a pre-allotted chess "time" when any kid could come and sit down at a table and start playing chess with another classmate. The whole thing was supervised by a teacher, who went from pair to pair and gave brief advice and then moved onto the next player pair. Usually there were about ten to twelve students at the tables.

We were all 10 years old. Fifth grade. There's no reason to try to impose chess on a younger child. The child should be old enough to step back and see the activity as a past-time, and not become addicted or obsessed by it. 10 years old is a good age to also decide "I don't like chess."

Do I play chess today? No.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I wouldn't "force feed" them, but if they display any interest, I would just start by naming the pieces and gradually showing them how they move. This is the course I followed with my wife's 5 year old grandson. But he didn't really display a lot of interest, so I abandoned that project. I do however teach the youngsters at our chess club, some in the 5-10 year old range, following that same course. First we learn the pieces and how they move, as well as the initial board set-up. But I don't rush them into play. I always try to keep the training fun and interesting. I explain the goal of the game is to checkmate the king, showing some simple checkmates, and how that goal should be reached by a process of attrition barring the unlikely opportunity for a quick finish. I then show them basic tactics (forks, pins, discovered attacks) as the method to gain a material advantage, explaining the relative value of the pieces. Then I show them basic endings and engage them interactively in these so they know what to ultimately do with an advantage. When I think they're ready to try a game, I give them material odds and critique them as we go along, pointing out major mistakes they are potentially making, such as giving away material for nothing. I also give them some basic general strategy, such as quick development, early castling, play toward the center, etc. Then when I think they are ready, I let them play each other, going over the games later to point out errors and what they could have done instead. I never push them, and let them enjoy themselves. I consider chess first and foremost a game, to be played for fun and intellectual stimulation. If they display enough ability and want to pursue competitive tournament play later on, they can decide that for themselves then.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Kids learn quickly - so I'd start with a full game (perhaps without special moves like castling or en passant until they've got the hang of the basics) and in a few games they'll get the idea. Just point out when the move they're trying to make is invalid, or offer occasional suggestions if they're stuck.

Don't play too seriously. They'll enjoy any game much more if ever win. Not all the time of course, but it's important. Also, you should do it in such a way that it isn't blatantly obvious - you want them to enjoy the excitement of noticing they can capture your queen (that you've left vulnerable for the last 4 turns) or generally getting you into check. That's engaging, and fun. Kids like that stuff.

Dad used to do this and I didn't notice until years later when I was actually good at the game and started to beat him for real. Pondering on previous games at that point clued me onto it, but at that point I already enjoyed chess. So job done!
> 0 votes

# Answer
I learned on the excellent set « No Stress Chess », which introduces Chess concepts in ways I’ve never seen before.

The game comes with a two-sided board (one shows where all the pieces start, and includes an « opening position » to help get things started).

Players have a few « levels » to choose from, each of which involve using cards to move pieces. Players typically draw, and play one of one or more cards in their hand. Each card has a piece (pawn) and their movement options detailed. Levels increase options by increasing hand size.

Because of the structure, one can take interesting risks in the game—check, checkmate, and castling are left for « real chess », so you must actually *capture* the king to win.

I’ve used this with adults too and it works well.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I learnt Draughts/Checkers first. I can't say if it's optimal, but it certainly got me used to playing on square boards and diagonal takes/captures such as with pawns.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, puzzles, teaching, children
---


# Question
Title: Adding time to game played with chess engine
Are there any chess engines out there that will allow me to add arbitrary amounts of time to their clocks as the game progresses? I am interested in experimenting with two engines playing each other with me manually (or programatically) giving each bonus time throughout the game according to an algorithm I've developed.

# Answer
I don't know for sure on this, but if you go on Lichess, there is an option to add 15 seconds to your opponent's clock in live chess, I do not know with computer chess. I usually use Chess.com's live chess VS a bot.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, time-control, time-management
---


title: The move g5 in this position

text:
# Question
Title: The move g5 in this position
I would like to know what is the reason why g5 is a necessary move for Black. I now see that what I played Bd7 is horrible as it hangs a pawn on d6 after Qb4.

I cannot see why I should weaken the f5 pawn just to threaten the Queen which after Qb4 is out of danger.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I agree that f5 is irrelevant. A weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited.

The main reason that g5 works here is that it can force the N away from f3, and then your N can go to d4 with not only a direct threat of Nxc2, which is VERY inconvenient to defend, and the more decisive threat of Nf3!. These threats are so strong that the computer thinks that Qd6 allowing Nf3 is best by two whole pawns.

It all comes down to forcing tactics that are favorable to black.

```
 [FEN "r1b2rk1/pp4qp/2ppn1p1/5p2/7Q/1PNP1N1P/1PP3P1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

 1... g5 2. Qb4 g4 3. hxg4 fxg4 4. Nd2 Nd4 5. Qxd6 Nf3+ $1 6. gxf3 gxf3+ 7. Kf2 Qg2+ 8. Ke3 f2 {Is crushing.}

```

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


title: Is takeback allowed in real chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Is takeback allowed in real chess?
Is takeback allowed in real chess?

All chess engines allow take backs, but that's not important, it's just a computer, we make mistakes and correct them.

My question is about real chess, is it allowed? both online and in real tournaments? What about the one touch rule?

# Answer
The answer for tournament chess is clear - one cannot request or approve a takeback. On certain chess servers, takebacks are allowed if agreed to by both players. The Internet Chess Club supports this feature, but others like Chess.com do not.
> 10 votes

# Answer
In tournament chess, you cannot take back a move.

Once you intentionally touch one of your pieces (unless you clearly state that you are just adjusting its placement, by saying "adjust" or "j'adoube"), you must move it if possible. Once you release the piece on its destination square, you cannot change its destination. If you intentionally touch an opponent's piece, you must capture it if possible.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The short answer is "no". The long answer is as follows. There are different kinds of mistakes that you can make during a game. The simple mistakes that cost you material or checkmate are known as "blunders". When you blunder, generally you would be happy if there is a takeback option. Yet, blunders are a part of the game, and in real tournament games (rated games) you are not allowed to make any takebacks. It is instead your responsibility to double and triple check that you are not committing a blunder, before making a move on the board. This type of double checking is one of the skills you have to develop in order to become skilled in chess.
> 2 votes

# Answer
What is real chess?

In tournaments if you make an illegal move you have to take it back.
In casual club games it is often allowed so the game can continue while being more interesting.

In some online forums it is allowed if both people agree.

When ratings are involved I do not know of any place where take-backs are allowed.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, online-chess
---


title: Why did Spassky play the King's Gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Spassky play the King's Gambit?
If the King's Gambit is unsound, how could a world champion play it often?

# Answer
The King's Gambit has been "refuted" at several points in the past. Most have later been proven incorrect, IIRC only two lines at this point seem suspect. But that's not the point. The point is: how many of your opponents know enough about those lines to play them as accurately as required to win? (John Shaw in his book on the KG noted analyzing one of the resulting positions overtaxed the water-cooling in the computer he was using to help analyze it.) Refuting something in theory does not equate to refuting it in over-the-board play.

Bent Larsen once said "I don't often play a move I know how to refute." Which, of course, means sometimes he **does**.

"Refutations" of white openings often fall into the category described above, which is that white fails to maintain the advantage of the first move. Give that some thought while asking yourself the question: "would I rather play a position that retains a slight advantage if I follow a fixed and complex series of moves, or would I rather play a level position that I understand completely and am comfortable playing?"

It's that last bit that tips the balance. I know a national master that loves to play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. His preference is so well known that everyone he plays has the opportunity to "book up" on that opening, of which by most reports "fails to maintain the white opening advantage" would be a kind description. Yet he won. Consistently. Yes, even against other masters. (I've won more than I've lost with it myself, though I don't make a "steady diet" of it.) He was so familiar with the strategies and tactics of the resulting positions he was comfortable playing them against anyone.

And that's the point. If it's a position you're comfortable playing, it doesn't matter even if a computer says you stand a few centi-pawns worse. (Heck, unless your opponents are routinely over 2200ELO even a theoretical full pawn difference may not matter.) If you understand and are comfortable in the middlegames that arise from it, you'll win more than your "objectively evaluated" share of them.
> 12 votes

# Answer
King's Gambit is not really a horrible opening. Just after all the theory that has been amassed since Spassky has shown that it loses white's advantage. There are other openings that create a good amount of initiative without the possibility of falling into a losing position.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Spassky did not play it "often" and you'll notice he also didn't play it in any of his 3 world championship matches. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=21136

Black can very quickly equalize, for example 2...Bc5 or 2...exf4 3.Nf3 d5. Among many others. Black can also try to maintain his opening advantage with lines like 3.Nf3 d6, among others. In fact black has so many options to be well prepared as white you need to know nearly a dozen different primary variations.

So these are the factors that make it impractical:

1) Black can equalize easily (professionals usually want more with the white pieces).

2) It requires more preparation than other openings (this is troublesome for amateurs who don't have all day to work on their openings).

3) Black is in the driver's seat regarding the type of position that will be played (stale or dynamic).
> 7 votes

# Answer
The King's Gambit has been analyzed to the point, where White fails to retain his advantage with proper play by Black. That's why it is inadvisable to use it against opponents as strong as you.

But it is an aggressive opening that works well against *weaker* opponents. Spassky may have won more games against weaker players using it than players of equal strength playing different openings against the same opponents. Spassky's record was among the "best," until he ran into top-flight competition, notably Fischer.
> 1 votes

# Answer
That is all very silly. It the KG is as fine in most lines for top players as much as for amateurs. The computer gives equal or tiny negative in most lines, plus in others. But does so when white is down a pawn. That means that it considers that White has an attack advantage that is equal to a pawn. Equal from a computer when you have gambited a pawn means it is a good line. If you read the rubbish people write on these forums you would think that if you played it against a gm over 2500 that you just lose by force. That isn't true at all, there are many wins and heaps of draws against super GMs in the last 30 years. Yes if you go into some terrible line in the fischer defence you can get a horrid position where you are fighting for a draw, but there are many options for white that avoid this. And if you look at super GM games in last 30 years with the KG, you will see that almost none of the GMs play the so called critical lines from black, likely because they are only super critical if you are a computer or are playing correspondence chess.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, history, kings-gambit, spassky
---


title: Deep Blue versus Magnus Carlsen?

text:
# Question
Title: Deep Blue versus Magnus Carlsen?
I have seen a lot of debate about who is better between Carlsen and Kasparov.

Could a match between Carlsen and the exact same Deep Blue configuration that beat Kasparov be used to settle this?

# Answer
I'd say no. Playing against a human being is *a lot* different than playing computers. Here is an article (unfortunately, it is in Dutch) about a German player with a rating under 2100 who regularly beat the top chess programs, by playing strange openings and long-term sacrifices. This was a few years after the Kasparov - Deep Blue match.
> 6 votes

# Answer
> Deep blue was dismantled soon after playing Kasparov.

So, I guess, we will never know what would have happened. However, if it does happen, then I would favour Carlsen winning against the computer. At the time that the match against Kasparov was played, computers weren't really stronger than humans.

And to be honest, I think, Kasparov lost because of his usually attacking instincts and the fact that he played openings that he never usually played.(This was because, he feared the computer had access to his games and he wanted to take the computer out of theory known at that time.) Even then, Deep Blue barely managed to win when Kasparov fell into a known trap in the last game.

So, I would say if this hypothetical match did happen and Carlsen plays at his best, Carlsen would easily win against Deep Blue.

However, this does not mean that in the current times, humans would beat computers without odds. Deep Blue was far weaker than modern-day engines, say Stockfish or Komodo. If you want to see the strongest human chess player vs strongest engine and who will win, then, engines would reign supreme.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess engines and hardware since Kasparov played Deep Blue continue to improve.

Recently (Dec 2016) Stockfish achieved a rating of 3478: http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/

Carlsen fares reasonably well against it (on a reasonably normal computer) though its a strong engine.

Carlson playing against Deep Blue also has a couple of advantages Kasparov didn't have. Carlsen himself can use computers to prepare to play a computer **AND** Deep Blue has now has games on record so can have its own play analyzed.

So a Carlsen/Deep Blue game would tell us little. More interesting would be a Carlsen game against a modern chess engine with less time restrictions per move on searches, and on optimized hardware beyond what you can get at home.

Even then advantage goes to machine (likely).

Also check out discussion here
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would say no.

In an interview with GM Illescas, who was on the IBM team, I remember that he said Kasparov complained Deep Blue was not designed to beat a GM, it was designed to specifically beat him.

As the question says with the exact same configuration, I would say no because Deep Blue didn't include Carlsen’s games in its database in 1996 for an obvious reason.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, carlsen, kasparov
---


# Question
Title: Was playing with both hands ever allowed in chess?
I was watching this video on Youtube of an Armageddon game between Vladimir Kramnik and Garry Kasparov which happened in 1995. It can be seen that Kasparov is using both of his hands for some moves. (For example, around the times 9:39, and 9:48)

My understanding is this is illegal. Why is it allowed here?

Was this legal in the past? Or is it legal in any format of chess like Armageddon here?

# Answer
> 23 votes
> Was playing with both hands ever allowed in chess?

Yes, before 1997. Hence in 1995 Kasparov was not breaking the rules.

The key article in the the FIDE Laws of Chess is:

> **Article 4:** The act of moving the pieces
>
> 4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

This first appeared in the 1997 edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess.

The previous edition, in 1993, did not have this rule.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Yes. In the past that was not part of the rules. Forcing use of one hand gives an advantage to the person with the clock on the side of their handedness.

Otherwise the player has to reach across the board to toggle the clock after having moved. This takes longer and blocks their view which is a big handicap in short time games as well as time scrambles in slow tournament games.

One should be able to move with one hand and then hit the clock with the other. The problem was that some people might hit the clock during or even just before the move with the other hand. There is no perfect fix for the problem except computers that do all the time keeping automatically after sensing the completed move on the board or maybe even using AI and video to verify the move was done and legal.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I recently ran a "blitz" chess tournament, where each player had to make all their moves in five minutes, and interpreted the rule to be you must push the clock with the same hand you moved with, but made no effort to say you always had to use the same hand for every move. This just stopped the players from having a hand hovering over the clock while they moved with another to save the time on their clock. Taking a turn with either hand was valid as long as only one hand was involved in the turn (both moving a piece and pressing the clock).

Which matches the top answer here, "4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only."

---
Tags: rules, history, fide, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Can chess players agree to manipulate the results?
Take the following scenario, which may happen in tournaments that's why I'm asking my question:

A famous old GM who's not playing well plays against some teenager who's very strong, The GM will be embarrassed to lose against some teenager, the GM has a lot of money, the teenager needs money for college. So the GM pays the teenager so he could win.

Or maybe could they manipulate results by mutual agreement, like what happened to Algeria in the world cup 1982. Could they agree to eliminate an opponent? What the rules has to say?

I know it's against the rules, i just want to know how they investigate it and what are the rules about it, and yes i'm also asking about draws, since manipulating the results isn't only about winning and losing.

And I'm also interested in knowing if the officials can deny a draw, if they see that the game is still playable or if they see something suspicious about it. And could you draw at any stage of the game: like `d3` `e5` and they agree to draw here, is it possible?

# Answer
> 9 votes
In a nutshell, current rules allow pretty much any sort of "spontaneous" agreement to a draw at the board, even if one side is staring at a forced mate in 6. If money changes hands or the results were agreed to before sitting down to play, it's a violation of the rules, but it's hard to enforce because folks who do that do it without witnesses to the act.

The "Sofia Rules" are an attempt to combat that, we'll see how long they last and whether they get applied to more than a few top tournaments.

If an official has evidence, he can declare a game forfeit, but that is subject to appeals where the evidence must be presented. If an official becomes known for doing it capriciously, no one comes to play; if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play in tournaments where the goal is to get one or more players some title norms. So you can see the field is tilted in favor of the players. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it is.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The most brazen example of this occurred in a tournament in 1975 in Luton, England when Tony Miles (Britain's first native born over the board IGM) and Stewart Reuben (now a respectable member of the FIDE rules commission) agreed a draw without playing any moves. Miles needed a draw to win the competition and for Reuben a draw against a much stronger player guaranteed him a high place in the tournament.

It ended badly, however, when the arbiter decided to award both players 0.

According to Wikipedia the relevant rule used was:

> a player may only offer a draw at the moment he has made a move and must then start the other player's clock

Today this wouldn't quite work. The relevant rule section is:

> An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered.

But this situation would be covered by the general:

> 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes.
But most players are much smarter with how they do it by using other ways than you suggest.

Two GMs could agree to play a tame opening that is known to be drawish then settle for a draw after 20 moves or whatever the current rule limit is.

Personally I think they should have to play at least 40 moves if not the whole game until a draw is the only legal outcome due to lack of material or stalemate.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am not proud about it, but I am gonna confess once at last round of a 3rd category regional tournament I was virtually classified with a draw for playing in 2nd category and my opponent also classified, needing both the 1/2 point, and we agree a draw before the game.

We were from the same club and another player I met on University ask me directly to do it because my opponent had hardly being trying to classify for 2nd league for three years.

In my defense I will say I felt stronger than my opponent and the player who suggested it was a 2200 that had introduced me in the club I didn't want to contradict.

We didn't prepare anything special. Just we played both a closed non attacking opening and at move 30 or so a draw was offered and accepted.

I know an arbiter on my region once gave two zeros for a premature draw, but truly it is difficult to fight against this because you can deeply prepare a draw agreement without being suspicious.

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


# Question
Title: Does using a less common opening make you a stronger player?
I want to ask about whether using and adopting a rarely used opening makes you a stronger player.

I just started playing online chess (Lichess) a year ago, and as a beginner, I used to play the common 1.e4 as the opening in all my games. I found that by doing so I was stuck around 1300-1400 (below average rating at the website). Last month, I read an article about different openings, and suddenly switched to regularly use the 1.a3 Opening (usually starting 1.a3 2.b4 when white, and 1.h6, 2.g5 when black, using the bishop to occupy the diagonal), and my rating suddenly went up to 1700-1800, and stayed there. I found that by using this opening made the middle-game much easier to play, making my opponents make more mistakes than usual compared to the typical 1.e4.

Is this normal? Or does it happen to anyone if they suddenly want to switch to a different, more rarely-used opening?

# Answer
> 19 votes
In general, less common openings tend to give weaker opponents issues, since they have yet to properly grasp many fundamental ideas of opening play and middlegame strategy, and if they don't know the concrete lines they may very well end up completely lost from a nonstandard opening position.

But a nonstandard opening doesn't make you into a stronger player just because you have good results on lower levels. In the end, you will hit a plateau with the nonstandard opening as well, when your opponents get sufficiently strong. Don't forget that these nonstandard openings are nonstandard for a reason: with correct play from your opponent, you're very unlikely to get any advantage, and you may even be running a serious risk of getting in trouble out of the opening.

With that being said, nonstandard openings are not to be written off completely, and at the 1700-1800 lichess rating range they can be quite a potent weapon, catching many players completely off-guard.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Any time you learn how to play a new opening system that is very different to what you are used to playing you become a stronger player. To play the new opening successfully you will have to learn what are the typical pawn structures you get in that opening, which pieces you should develop where and what the plans are for your side and for the opponent.

That kind of stuff is always going to help you improve and get stronger. It doesn't have to be with less common openings either. If you are an e4 player, then learning how to play d4 openings will improve your chess and vice versa. It will also give you more flexibility which also makes you a stronger more difficult opponent for the other players you face.

For instance, if you are comfortable with both e4 and d4 openings and you play a Dutch player who likes to reply to d4 with e6 before playing f5 to avoid the Staunton Gambit you can switch by playing e4 instead of c4 as your second move and black better be comfortable playing the French or he's in trouble.

# Answer
> 5 votes
No. In general, the answer is that less-common openings are less-common for a reason, and that reason is that they either lead only to game with no opportunity for an advantage, or the closely-related plain old equal game, or a worse game...sometimes, much worse.

The problem with them is that if you have any ambition, and get to a certain level, you end up having to start all over again with your openings, and at that point, you lack years of experience that you passed over while playing garbage.

I am not sure how old you are, or what style you tend to play (tactical, positional, or both), but I suspect that what really happened is that what you were playing did not fit your style, and it does more.

For example, maybe you were playing 1.e4, and getting open tactical games, but you are older. Well, older people, and I am one now, cannot compete tactically against kids. Switching to a3, and even h3, leads the game down more positional roads in many cases, even though they are not best. If this is the case, you might be better off just switching from 1.e4 to 1.d4 or 1.c4, which are both positional in nature.

Lastly, you are also discounting one more possibility, and that is that many chess players plateau at times, but later get over that. Maybe, you simply got stronger. Some players get to a certain rating, and then stay there for a while, but later, they gain points. At your level, there is a lot of opportunity to learn a lot, and thus, get over the hump, and gain real strength and rating points.

# Answer
> 4 votes
No. But it tends to negate the book memorization that other players use to do better in the opening. A really good player will gain a bigger advantage if you deviate from usual moves, but many players will do poorly as they do not understand openings and have to use their book moves to do well.

OTOH some book moves are plain wrong. And if you deviate there you can gain an advantage. This is why GMs go over openings and try to use prepared variations to gain an edge. If they get the opponent into making a normal but less good move based on more and deeper analysis then they can gain an edge in that game.

At such a low level as you were on LI chess it is a perfect example of what I noted above in the first paragraph.

Note again that the advantage will fade as you play yet better players. Don't LI ratings go up to 3000 or so which I think I recall seeing once. 1800 LIchess I will guess is closer to USCF 1200 to 1500 max and is still below the average for tournament players.

---
Tags: opening, online-chess
---


title: Joining a league or tournament

text:
# Question
Title: Joining a league or tournament
I've never played in a chess league or tournament before, but I am anxious to try one and find out where my true over-the-board rating stands. I'm too old for the school competitions (over 30) and I'm not sure where to go or what to do to get started.

What would I have to do in order to become involved with the USCF or FIDE, and what steps are involved in actually playing in such a tournament? Is there a standard format or guideline I can read to prepare?

# Answer
USCF has regular chess tournaments listed in different states each month and you can find tournaments such as `Chicago Open`, `Philadelphia Open`, etc, in-which, you can play at any levels (Under 2200, Under 2000, etc). You have to be a USCF member to play these tournaments which is an easy process and you can register and pay it online at the USCF website.

Also tournaments such as `Chicago Open`,`World Open` (which is starting today at Philly) are open to all USCF members and you can play at any level. At first, you will be having a provisional rating and if you play at any levels `Under 2000` and under, and if you win that level you will not be able to win the full top prize due to your provisional rating. But if you play other higher levels - `U2200`, `U2400` and `Open` \- you will also get a `FIDE` rating because these levels are usually FIDE-rated. You should always check with the tournament organizers to see which levels are FIDE rated, how much they pay out for unrated players who win and then can play them.

Note: Not all USCF tournaments are FIDE rated. Only Big tournaments such as those mentioned above have FIDE-ratings. (Most of these Big tournaments are organized by CCA - http://chesstournamentservices.com/cca/ )

So playing in a FIDE-rated tournament in USA is as simple as finding the BIG tournament closer to your area and registering for it with a USCF membership. Usually these big tournaments have an entry fee of around USD 300.

These bigger tournaments have different ways to enter the tournament and play - 3 day. 4-day, 5-day etc. It all depends on your other-schedule and you can pick a type of play suitable for you. Some of these big tournaments all allow you to re-enter the same tourney if you lose the first few games and think that you can play well and want to play from the start again. You can always check with the tournament organizers about the rules.

From my experience of playing these big tournaments, playing 3-day tourneys is a hectic schedule where you would play 3 or 4 games in the 1st and 2nd days and then join with the regular round schedule for all day-games. Picking the 3-day tourney instead of 5-day or 7-day is basically based on your free time for that week and how well you can adapt to play all the games to win. It's more of a gamble paying 300 USD (unless playing unrated-level which has very less entry-fee but no prize money) and I don't play these tournaments anymore. I just moved from chess to poker.

If you think you are a good chess-player and want to get a FIDE-rating, then playing these big tournaments at Under2200 and above would give you a FIDE-rating.
> 9 votes

# Answer
It might be better to start in a smaller tournament group. I've had luck with meetup.com (where you'll find even smaller groups than the club list on USCF, sometimes), finding at least 3-4 clubs in my area that host USCF rated tournaments. The ratings might be inflated/deflated at the small clubs, because you get a lot of people playing the same people over and over, but it will still give you a rating and it's a cheaper/more informal way to get started. Some clubs only charge $1 or $2 for a tournament, hosted at a coffee shop or mall food court.

Signing up for USCF can be done on their website on a yearly basis.

You might read over the rules, but most of them are pretty common sense; when in doubt, ask the TD. You'll probably want to have a clock with a 5-second delay option, and your own set and board. You want to have a notepad/pen so you can record moves.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Check the USCF web site. They'll list chess clubs in your area. Find one that suits you, pay your USCF membership, and play!
> 6 votes

# Answer
Start here: Pennsylvania State Chess Federation. The state organizations almost always have a better list of clubs than the USCF.

You join the USCF simply by paying them money. There's nothing else required. But you can show up at a local club without a USCF membership, just to get a "feel" for how tournaments run and how players behave. You'll have to join before playing in a rated event, but some clubs aren't so dedicated to tournaments that there won't be a player or two there not too busy to help show you around.

I seriously second the recommendation of staying away from the big tournaments; they cost a lot of money to enter, and are just in general a less friendly environment for the player new to tournaments. Play in some local club events first, until you get the hang of things, then move up to bigger events as you get comfortable with tournaments.

There are few chess leagues around the country outside of scholastic circles, but if there are any in your area, your local clubs will probably know about them.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Depends on where you live. In US forget FIDE tournaments until you are very strong and like to travel. There are many USCF tournaments. To maximise your initial rating you should play in a national open not a local tournament. If the local players, which often happens, are low rated compared to their real ability then you will start out with a lower rating too. And that happens in many smaller cities and towns where not enough people have played against those in the large cities where the stronger players tend to all go play at.

If you are in Europe then FIDE tournaments are easier to find.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, uscf
---


# Question
Title: What is a DGT 2010 Limited Edition chess clock worth?
I have a DGT 2010 Limited Edition chess clock (red version from 2013) and I want to know the market value.

I can't find any listings for it on ebay or chess shop websites, other than old pages from 2013, and the item is "unavailable".

So what's it worth?

# Answer
These are still very common, so not worth a lot. Considering that the more recent \["DGT 3000 Limited Edition" clock can be bought for $59.93\]\[1\], at least it held its value, but no more. Don't be fooled by "Limited Edition"...it does not equate to "rare".

P.S. Sorry, I did not pickup on the difference...they both looked red to me, but I see it now. Frankly, I still do not think it is going to make it valuable unless you wait many years, but you can do a couple of things to find out what it is really worth now:

1. Put it up for sale on eBay and start high with the price, but if you do, only use a "Buy It Now". If you put it up for bid, you will definitely get a lot less.
2. Set up an eBay search that sends you an email every time there is a new listing. Eventually, someone is sure to be selling one, and you will get an idea of what it is worth when it sells.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is worth what a willing buyer would pay you. For what it's worth, I would prefer a new clock at the $60 noted above. For me to even consider buying it the price would have to be about $10. And that is assuming it works fine.

You could try listing it on Craigs List for what you are willing to take and see if anyone will buy it. Or you could try that on ebay with a reserve price.

One thing putting me off is the rocker arm. If it was the touch button I would be more interested. But this is just me and a random sample of one.
Other people might value it more.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Use of transposition tables in chess engines
I hope this is the right place to post this question. So I like to implement things myself without using libraries and one of my first projects was a chess engine and I would like to improve this one.

I got multiple questions:

---

1. > How are transposition tables used? Usually the serch algorithm has a fixed depth so we cannot "evaluate" non-leafs with the transposition tables, right? So the only purpose would be to hash the board evaluation of the leafs. Is this correct?
2. > I am using Java without multithreads. Is it worth to look into magic bitboards and switch to C++? They seem to be pretty messy at the first glance.
3. > How many nodes per second are realistic to reach with a "simple" engine. I got up to 1E6. I know that Stockfish reaches 80E6. Is it more worth to improve on nodes per second or on the algorithm itself?

I am very happy for any help.

# Answer
1. Depends on the program and how they implemented it. Many have memorized openings and transpositions later on in the game are usually short enough that the depth of analysis handles it.
2. Not for me. But I am old school when it comes to programming. You may or may not like C++.
3. Nodes/sec depends on the hardware, opsys, language, and your coding. The algorithm is far more important for good results.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Why is white's best play Nxd5 here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is white's best play Nxd5 here?
I'm new to chess. In the position below, lichess analysis says that Nxd5 is the best move for white. But can't black just capture the knight afterwards with his pawn and threaten white's pawn and rook in the top right hand corner after white's knight is dead? What makes Nxd5 the best move here?

```
 [FEN "r3k3/p5R1/p1p4r/2bbp2p/8/P1N3KN/1P5P/R7 w q - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, you have to understand that computers sometimes play non-human moves because they see things that humans most times do not. It probably sees threats to the white king based on the black bishop pair.

In this position, white is just lost, and those bishops on d5 and c5 working together are incredibly strong, so trading off one of them is desirable. What makes it a little strange is that it gives black connected passed pawns, but they are hard to maintain, let alone advance, due to the active white rooks, and unfortunate black Ra8, but it still does not change the outcome.

Also, the Ra8 is not lost to Nd5 cd; Rg8 Bf8; Rf1 Ke7, but it does tie black up some, which is another reason that Nd5 was best. It is hard to finish his development.

```
 [FEN "r3k3/p5R1/p1p4r/2bbp2p/8/P1N3KN/1P5P/R7 w q - 0 1"]

 1. Nxd5 cxd5 2. Rg8+ Bf8 3. Rf1 Ke7 4. Rf5 {with a little counterplay that requires accuracy from black} Rf6! 5. Rxh5 (5. Rxe5? Kf7 6. Rh8 Bd6 7. Rxa8 Bxe5+ 8. Kg2 Bxb2 9. Rxa7 Kg6-+)  Rc8! 6. Rxe5 Kd7!! 7. Rd5 Bd6+ 8. Rxd6+ Rxd6 9. Rg7 Kc6 10. Rxa7 Kb6 {with an easy win from here}

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
After the recapture white moves his rook to f1 and then next move to the seventh rank (f7).

```
 [FEN "r3k3/p5R1/p1p4r/2bbp2p/8/P1N3KN/1P5P/R7 w q - 0 1"]

1. Nxd5 cxd5 2. Rf1 null 3. Rff7

```

Note that by 2.Rf1, white threatens 3.Rg8+. Also, this brings the other rook into play. The game may be still lost, but this probably gives better fighting chances.

# Answer
> 0 votes
(Disclaimer: this is basically a (hopefully) developed form of yobamamama's answer with some opinions of my own thorwn in. The latter is the reason why I decided to write this up an independent answer. Feel free to edit or combine with yobamamama's answer)

First, I think the move is reported as best *not for its merit; but it might be actually forced*. Black is threatening 1.\__ h4+ 2.Kg4 Be6+ 3.Kg5 (3.Kf3 Bxh3) 4.Be3+. To stop this threat, other than 1.Nxd5, white has following options (may not be exhaustive)
a) 1.Ng1 (this retreat looks like a very reasonable move here)
b) 1.Re1 (this look a kicking back move; may not work)
c) 1.Ng5 (risky)
\[The move 1.Rf1 is not good enough. Black can play 1.\__ h4+ 2.Kg4 Be6+ 3.Kg5 Be3+ 4.~f4 Rh8\]
\[I think 1.Ng5 is risky due to 1.\__ Kf8; i am not sure about this\]

**Coming back to the move 1.Nxd5 cxd5**. Now, 2.Rf1 seems to be superior to outright 2.Rg8+ suggested by Phishmaster(at least when you play against a human player). Note that 2.Rf1 threatens 3.Rg8+. This ties up black's options for a practical game (still, options 3.Rh8 and 3.Rd8 look good for black).

```
 [FEN "r3k3/p5R1/p1p4r/2bbp2p/8/P1N3KN/1P5P/R7 w q - 0 1"]

1. Nxd5 cxd5 2. Rf1

```

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


# Question
Title: Do Grandmasters think using algebraic notation?
Is algebraic notation used just to communicate chess moves in written and spoken form, or should players strive to use it during their thinking process as well?

In Dan Heisman's excellent *The Improving Chess Thinker*, which examines the thought process of chess players as originally studied by Adriaan de Groot, Dan asks chess players to verbalise their thought process using algebraic notation. He includes several transcripts from beginners through to masters, including that of Max Euwe translated from descriptive notation, which looks like this:

> \[A short extract from Max Euwe's analysis of the “de Groot A” position\]:
>
> “1. Nxd5 Nxd5 2. Bxd5 Bxg5 – no, nothing then, 3. Rxc6 is a cute move but at the end of it all everything remains hanging. Something else: 2. Bxe7 – he just takes back. 1...exd5 is very favourable (for me); he won't do that; it needn't be investigated...”

Do Grandmasters assess candidate moves by thinking *“I take there, they take back with the knight”* or *“Nxd5 Nxd5”*? Is the notation that appears in the transcripts a direct reflection of the actual thought process, or merely a vocalisation of what they're thinking in order to communicate their ideas to the researcher or coach?

Or, put another way, is it beneficial for chess players to think in algebraic notation (because it's quicker to think in “the language of chess”, perhaps?), or is it purely an aid for communication?

# Answer
I wrote to Dan Heisman to get his take on the question. Here's his reply:

> “Everyone is a little different. The book is algebraic so others can read and understand it. In practice some just think in pictures; no verbalization is accompanying. Others might think more "If I go there..." Sometimes algebraic is helpful to clarify in your own mind what you really mean.”
> 16 votes

# Answer
When it comes to actual thinking I can only speak for myself. I think in descriptive notation. But there was no algebraic notation when I first played in tournaments. Algebraic was done to better communicate moves without error to more players in all languages.

In descriptive notation errors were frequent because people are careless and do not realize that EG a bishop can make the obvious capture but also legally capture something else.

Also in descriptive notation, there are many abbrevs for the pieces in the various languages. Algebraic avoids having to know the language the game was written in.

These days more people probably think in algebraic because that is what they were taught when they learned the game. For me I can think in it for a few moves to discuss a position but for a whole game EG like when I played blindfold against others , it would not be possible.

And I suspect that those on the black side have a harder time doing what is symmetric for those of us using descriptive notation.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, psychology, grandmaster
---


title: Positional thinking by Grandmasters

text:
# Question
Title: Positional thinking by Grandmasters
How do Grandmasters think in an unknown position and make the best move?

# Answer
When a GM, or even lesser strong players reach a position that is totally unfamiliar, they have to break it down into components. They evaluate the following for BOTH sides. In general, a lot of this is done subconsciously by strong players.

1. Material, and what pieces are better. Sometimes a well-placed knight can be better than a rook, for example.
2. Can any of the pieces be shut out of play?
3. King safety.
4. Are there any direct threats?
5. Pawn structure and any corresponding weaknesses. (like doubled pawns, but not all doubled pawns are weak or bad as sometimes they provide great protection...more in the endgame can they really be a big problem, but you have to judge this carefully.)
6. How many pawn islands does each side have? (less is usually better)
7. Where are the pawn majorities? (Usually a q-side pawn majority is easier to mobilize)
8. Passed pawns.
9. Who has more space?
10. Who better controls the center?
11. Are there open lines, and who can control them?
12. Are there half-open files that you can put pressure down?
13. Strong outposts like being able to put a knight on d6, or a bishop on h6. This can disrupt communication between the two sides of the board, and make defense moving from one side to the other very difficult.
14. Any colored square weaknesses, like being weak on the light or dark squares.
15. Any lead in development for either side.
16. Which trades are good for me, and bad for him? (exchanges are one of the least written about subjects in chess, but they are one of the most important factors in chess as you get stronger. Too bad it has not been translated, but there is a book in Russian called "The Encyclopedia of Exchanges".)
17. Related to number 16, and that is who has the better endgame if certain trades happen?

Finally, based on these factors, players weigh them based on experience and importance, and then they come up with a list of candidate moves, and they calculate likely continuations.

I might have missed a point, but that is a pretty complete list.
> 35 votes

# Answer
Depends a lot from player to player and also position to position I think.

The fundamental is that their intuition (built up from studying and playing and solving a lot) will suggest a few moves (or occasionally only one) and they will calculate those moves (candidate moves) and pick whichever they think is best based on calculation and evaluation.

They might find more candidate moves suggest themselves whilst they are calculating the first ones.
> 7 votes

# Answer
GMs think differently. Most players would use pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation of variations for candidate moves.

Some GMs will often think past the board and consider the opponent.

They also do other things that are beyond my pay grade. I read about GM thinking once and it convinced me to give up that goal. I just enjoyed playing as I could not think like they did in what. To me, it was somewhat contradictory and illogical in ways.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, grandmaster, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Pros and cons of playing correspondence chess
I play correspondence daily.

My reason to do it is I am weak in openings and I can survive to the middlegame because I have access to databases; and I want to learn how to survive the opening and to play properly at 90+30 over-the-board games.

Do you think playing correspondence is a good way to improve?

What are the pros and cons of spending time playing correspondence?

# Answer
> 12 votes
According to friends who play correspondence chess they report the following benefits:

1. Variety - you play lots of games all at the same time. Although you might not match Claude Bloodgood, who allegedly had hundreds of games in play at the same time when his postage costs were paid for by the US taxpayer because he was on death row, you will play all your games in a round robin at the same time. So, if you are playing in a 10 player double round robin you play all 18 games at the same time.
2. You have time and motivation to learn, particularly openings. With typically several days per move you can do serious research into the openings you choose to play, learning the ideas and plans for both sides. Unlike over-the-board you do this during the game when it can affect the result not after when you have already lost.
3. You eliminate blunders. All your moves are checked by the engine.
4. You learn how to use engines properly. Again this happens during the game not like OTB after. I often run my finished games through the engine to spot blunders and missed tactics. You will be looking for interesting ideas in games still in progress. You will be checking out the engines 3rd or 4th suggested move because it looks really interesting.

All of these things will help improve your OTB chess by making you think more deeply and intelligently about your moves.

Funnily enough my correspondence playing friends don't think their are any cons! I'm not so sure. From the pleasure perspective they miss out on the adrenaline rush of blitz and even just the excitement of bad moves by either side. If I play a really good move I like to see my opponent sweat. That just doesn't happen in correspondence chess.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Frankly, the biggest con is that today's correspondence game has turned into computer vs. computer contests. So yes, you learn how to use the computer well, but you may as well play your own computer daily since there is very little difference.

# Answer
> 4 votes
My understanding of modern correspondence chess is that it's mostly a computer vs. computer slugfest. Everyone will be using computer assistance - in arenas where computers are "banned", there are many, many cheaters - and the winner is the one who feeds their computer better ideas (although they are very strong, computers still have blind spots where human input improves their play). Playing without computers is suicide. Even with it it's very time intensive if you want to win at the highest level, because chess is probably drawn with best play and humans operating a strong computer are so close to perfect that it's very hard to win.

Because so much of your time is spent working with your computer, and you won't have a computer in OTB play, you probably won't improve a lot by playing correspondence chess. However, you will learn a lot about openings, because opening preparation is where the biggest edge in correspondence chess comes from.

Quoting top US Correspondence Chess player Wolf Morrow:

> DN: Many players of the past were correspondence chess players. I think also today it's quite important, for improving to practice correspondence chess. What's your opinion about this?
>
> WM: It depends on what you want to get out of modern correspondence chess. For me, I found it's a great tool to learn new openings or get a better understanding of main lines. As a result of my CC games, I'm more familiar with the Sicilian Sveshnikov than I would have ever learned as a passing interest in say a chess book or video on the subject. I've also heard and actually seen for myself that top OTB GMs will often use winning approaches taken directly from correspondence games, and then they get all the credit for coming up with this 'brilliant' new novelty to win the game. As I said, I've seen this happen on more than one occasion, and I say to myself "Uhh, no. He didn't invent that move, it was played 3 years ago on ICCF and we CC players are quite familiar with it".

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is traditional correspondence and now a version played over the internet. You appear to be talking about the internet version. For me there is no real advantage. You might find it less stressful to take more time for a move. Con is that you will really not improve by doing that.

If you want to play OTB better then you will need to learn openings. Pick ONE and master it for white. Have a defense for black. Learn both of them and do not try to learn others. There are just too many. Learning principles is better than memorizing moves but you should be familiar with your openings so you do not waste clock time at OTB.

You should also learn basic tactics so you can recognize them OTB and not have to hope you can discover them on your own during a game.

Next you should learn end games. Finally learn middle game and positional strategy.

You learn by studying not by playing any speed chess. You improve by playing people just slightly higher rated while also spending time learning so your rating improves faster.

---
Tags: learning, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: In the Pirc, bringing a dragon pawn structure fails
```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d6 2. e4 g6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. dxc5 Qa5 6. cxd6

```

Above you can see the first moves of a Pirc Defense game. To study this opening, I learn with the book "Pirc Alert!" by Lev Alburt and Alex Chernin.

After 4. Nf3, there is a trick which consists of ...c5, ...Qa5 (two pawns are threatened) and ...Qxc5, winning the pawn, ...c5 and bringing a Sicilian Dragon pawn structure, which is very good. But today I played an Internet game (seen above) and White's move 6. cxd6 seems very good. The authors of my book didn't speak about this move.

I had over viewed the position after 6. dxc6 and neither I nor my chess engine. could find any strong reply.

Is the move 6... exd6 strong? What is Black's best reply to 6. cxd6?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Yeah, seems like black just blundered a pawn with c5. Probably you just mixed up the variation and you really wanted to play:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5

```

That is quite a common variation, I looked at 6.dc Qa5 7.Qd4 for white a while back, if I remember correctly. So maybe you should just check your book again, it's unlikely they made such a mistake.

# Answer
> 4 votes
...c5 followed by ...Qa5 is indeed a very important trick in the Pirc defense in order to reach a dragonlike pawn structure.

However, it can only work *after* you have developed your bishop to g7, adding pressure on the dark squares.

Compare

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Be2 c5 6. dxc5 Qa5 7. cxd6? Ne4!

```

where Black has a huge advantage.

With

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 c5? 5. dxc5 Qa5 6. cxd6 Ne4?! 7.Qd4! Nf6 (7...Nxc3 8. Qxh8!) 8.dxe7 Bxe7 9.Bg5 Nc6 10.Bb5

```

White wins because the fork on h8 and e4 refutes Black premature display of activity, and she will keep at least one extra pawn. 7...Nxc3 can be countered simply by 9.bc3, but more audaciously by 8.Qxh8! when no discovered check brings any relief to Black for her huge material loss.

7...Nf6 saves the piece but not the game after 8.dxe7 Bxe7 9.Bg5 Nc6 10.Bb5, when White has a full extra pawn and some initiative.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I play like this with the white pieces

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4.h3 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Bd3

```

As far as I understand, black already has a "dragon structure" because the dragon pawn chain is h7-g6-f7-e7-d6 and has nothing to do with the c-pawn. It is true that the Dragon variation is found in the Sicilian system. But the dragon pawn structure has nothing to do with the c-pawn to my knowledge. As for the c7-c5 push in this system, usually black prefers c7-c6 instead, preparing b7-b5, opening the c7-square for the queen and taking control over the d5-square.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Black gets his pieces to attacking posts after cxd6. Nxe4 is a good reply and Black threatens to take multiple times on c3. The extra pawn isn't that important compared with the relative quality of Black's pieces. Bg7 Nc6 and Bg4 are coming with good development and chances for the Black player.

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure, pirc-defense
---


title: Winning middlegame?

text:
# Question
Title: Winning middlegame?
The following is a winning middlegame for White from Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals. It's white to play.

```
    [FEN "2nb1rk1/1pqrnppp/p2p4/2pQ1N2/6P1/1P1B1N1P/P3RP2/3R2K1 w - - 0 0"]

    1. Nxe7+ Bxe7 2. Rxe7 Nxe7 3. Bxh7+ etc.

```

I wonder about 2...g6. In this case White only wins material right?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, after 2...g6 black is only a bishop behind and not immediately checkmated.

But that doesn't matter much for the result -- being a full piece behind is also enough to resign. *And*, that he stays a piece behind is immediately obvious -- white takes a bishop, black doesn't take back. So that doesn't really need to be explained.

On the other hand, what happens after 2...Nxe7 (or 2...Rxe7 for that matter) is not as obvious, so it's pointed out.

This is related to the concept of *critical moves*. To decide whether some move is good, there are some things that are important to look at more deeply and some things that aren't (2...g6 doesn't need further calculation, it's obvious that white wins). In a sense the question whether the initial position is winning depends more on whether 2...Nxe7 wins than on whether 2...g6 wins, *even if* the position after 2...g6 isn't quite as immediately lost as after 2...Nxe7.

2...Nxe7 is a *critical move* in a sense 2...g6 is not.

---
Tags: middlegame, winning, capablanca
---


title: Can Black play for a win here?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black play for a win here?
In the position below:

I was Black and I was not sure how to proceed. Finally, I decided to play aggressively with g5. I know it was too risky and weakening, but I did not see what else to do. After checking the computer suggestions, it looks like Black should only shuffle its pieces around Re8 Qf8...

Is that all Black can do? What are your thoughts on this position?

Thanks in advance.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Can black play for a win? Heck yes! This is totally won for black.

I did not even realize you were up a pawn at first, and I was thinking there is a clear plan here.

First, here is the analysis of the position.

1. You are up a pawn.
2. You have the better minor piece.
3. White is weakened on the queen-side since black can put a piece on c4, and b3 is just horrible then leaving c3 super weak, so that cannot be played.
4. f4 has also weakened white's king-side.
5. Black has a clear, and simple plan.

Here is the plan for black:

1. Black's play is on the queen-side. He will gradually push the pawns, carrying out a "minority attack". That is when a smaller number of pawns push and trade down against a larger number, leaving the larger number with one remaining, but weak, pawn.
2. Play Rc4 right now so there is no time for Nd4 hanging f4 to Bxf4.
3. Bring the other rook to c8, and then the Q goes to f8 and over to the queen side too.
4. The Bd6 might even redeploy to g7 to provide additional defense against any white all-out attack on your king, while still hitting the queen-side.
5. Then play a6 (or maybe a5 in one go), b5, a5 and then b4. After trades, white will be left with either a b-pawn or c-pawn, which can be attacked by the black major pieces, and possibly the black bishop. It is possible that the black major pieces will have to be redeployed to help execute b4, for example a Rb8, or the queen helping. It is also possible that one might go to a8 to take control of that file after some trades.
6. Win the extra pawn, and then push your central pawns and win.

This plan is very common, and even if black were not up a pawn here, this would still be much more pleasant for him.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Do’h! Of course black can play for a win. This would be more slow positional play then by tactics, but with the extra pawn it should be a matter of technique as they say.

I would look at doubling rooks bringing the queen to the queenside and attacking with the pawns.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Does playing tournament chess help one in the field of chess-related math?
A question of personal interest. Is "visualization" of various types of boards and graphs helped along by competitive, tournament play? Of course, I'm assuming play beyond simply knowing how the pieces move.

# Answer
> 7 votes
To the extent that "chess-related math" requires any expertise in chess beyond the rules(\*), tournament play is probably not as useful as solving and composing chess problems/studies. Typical positions in tournament play are too complicated to evaluate with mathematical certainty, while problems and studies should and usually do have rigorous proofs of correctness that are comprehensible to human players and problemists.

(\*) Sometimes one needs no expertise beyond (say) how the Knight moves (as for questions involving the Knight's tour, or dominating the 8-by-8 board with a minimal number of Knights).

# Answer
> 5 votes
To paraphrase G. H. Hardy, while chess problems can be beautiful, they are trivial. The best and most difficult mathematics is "significant" mathematics, i.e. mathematics that helps you solve other problems and impacts other fields of math. So being good at chess probably won't help you much with math. Also, at least according to Hardy, chess is a primarily psychological game, as opposed to math which is purely logical (paraphrased from his *Mathematician's Apology*).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Consider this, what if playing tournament chess led to blindfold play? Then, along these lines, better blind play led one to visualize, even multi-task chess/math problems while doing routine tasks, like while driving for example. One would, at the least have more time to come up with new ideas! Did I mention I can do this?!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I was a tournament player who was far better than 90% of those who play competitively. I also did 5 years of graduate school work in math. I found nothing of math value from playing chess. Your mileage may vary.

---
Tags: mathematics, visualization
---


# Question
Title: If both sides move at random, but legally, then how many games will be a win for White or Black, if not a draw?
I would guess that very few games, in terms of percentage, will end with a draw. The winning percentage will be roughly the same for both White and Black.

# Answer
The number of games is huge but finite, and estimates have been made based on a number of assumptions. But that question has been asked before already, so I won't go into the details here. A short answer given on Wikipedia is at least 10123, based on an average branching factor (moves per position) of 35 and an average game length of 80; after only 10 plies (5 full moves) the exact count is 69,352,859,712,417. See Is the number of possible chess games infinite? for more answers.

The probable outcomes of a game with random moves can be estimated "experimentally" by running random simulations. I wrote a program to do just that, had it play 1000 games, and these were my results:

```
Outcome                        Count  Avg. #moves
-----------------------------  -----  -----------
Draw by insufficient material    500          179
Draw by fifty-move               157          208
Draw by threefold repetition     147          164
Black wins by checkmate           75           87
White wins by checkmate           72           78
Draw by stalemate                 49          138

```

I think that the most common result is a draw because random moves are rather incompetent at mating, which requires the interaction of at least three pieces (counting both colors, including kings), in contrast with capturing, which is much easier to do by chance, only requiring the interaction between two pieces. After enough captures occur, you end up with insufficient material, which is the most likely outcome, occurring 50% of the time.

Alternatively, if you don't luck into a capture for long enough, you are also somewhat likely to bump into the fifty-move limit or threefold repetition. (My program assumes that these draws are claimed as soon as possible, even though they are not automatic per the rules, unlike 75-move or fivefold repetition.)

I don't expect a color advantage in random games. My sample had a few more wins with Black than with White, but I think that's within statistical noise.

For anyone who is interested, here's my program, written in Python and using the python-chess module:

```
import chess
import collections
import random

terminations = ['is_stalemate', 'is_insufficient_material', 'is_checkmate',
    'can_claim_fifty_moves', 'can_claim_threefold_repetition']

def get_termination(board):
    for termination in terminations:
        method = getattr(board, termination)
        if method():
            return termination

def game():
    board = chess.Board()
    for i in range(10000):
        moves = list(board.legal_moves)
        move = random.choice(moves)
        board.push(move)
        result = board.result(claim_draw=True)
        if result != '*':
            termination = get_termination(board)
            print(result, board.fullmove_number, termination)
            return result, termination

stats = collections.Counter()
for i in range(1000):
    result, termination = game()
    if termination == 'is_checkmate':
        stats[result] += 1
    else:
        stats[termination] += 1

print(stats)

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
It would seem that the longest games would end up being the most numerous, by far. On any particular move, if you end a game, that's one game, but if you let it continue, it's many games. It would seem, therefore, that the greatest number of games would continue until one side had a single piece left. The remaining piece should not be a knight or bishop, as that would end the game via insufficient material, and a rook would have fewer possible moves than a queen - over the course of the next 50 moves, the number of possible games involving a rook would fade into insignificance compared to the number of possible games involving a queen. If the remaining piece is a pawn, it must eventually promote to something to continue the game, and it may as well promote to a queen. So we're left with the overwhelming number of games ending with king and queen vs king - we can pretty much ignore all other games as insignificant.

Imagine the board after 49 moves looking like this:

```
[FEN "8/6Q1/8/8/8/8/8/5K1k w - - 0 1"]

```

In this position, White to move has 26 possible moves, out of which 5 are checkmates. So that would be a 5/26 chance of a checkmate, which is about 19.2% I think this has the highest checkmate probability of any king and queen vs king position.

However, it's obvious that it's rather unlikely for this position or a similar one to come up at the end of the game. There are 4 corner squares on the board, and 24 non-corner edges, and these are the only places where the king may be checkmated. If the black king is placed randomly, there is a 1/16 chance he will end up in a corner, and if the white king is then randomly placed on a legal square, there is a 1/12 chance he will be on a square where checkmate is possible. There is also a 3/8 chance that the black king would be placed on a non-corner edge, and a 3/58 chance that the white king would then be placed on a square allowing checkmate. If you add those probabilities, that's less than a 2.5% chance that the kings would be on squares even allowing for checkmate. Even if you assume the maximum 19.2% chance that the queen can deliver checkmate (which is unlikely), that results in less than a 0.5% chance of checkmate.

But it gets worse. That assumed the kings were placed randomly. But, of course, kings are not actually placed randomly on a board; they must move to their locations. The branching factor is going to be higher when the kings have more possible moves (especially the weaker side's king), and the kings have more possible moves when they are away from each other and not on the side of the board (and if they're in the corner of the board with the other side's king nearby, they have *very* few possible moves.) So, more games are going to have the kings in no position to allow a checkmate on that last move than you'd expect from random placement.

Although a checkmate could happen earlier than move 50, earlier checkmates are going to become exponentially rare in comparison the farther back you go, and this will have only a small effect. (And even this small effect is partially offset because there's also the possibility of a draw via stalemate, capturing the queen, or repetition before move 50.)

So we've determined that checkmates are rare. But who gets more of them and by how much? That's unclear to me. Nevertheless, we can determine an upper bound on the ratio between the number of White checkmates and the number of Black checkmates.

There are going to be many games that start with the knights and perhaps the rooks moving, before any pawn is moved. Because up to 49.5 moves can be played this way without triggering the 50 move rule, the number of these games will quickly dwarf the number of games that open any other way. After 49.5 moves, Black must make a pawn move or capture, or else the game will end prematurely. The fact that Black must do this first is the relevant difference between White and Black at this point.

But what if, instead, White is the one to move a pawn or capture, one ply early? White and Black essentially switch roles, and we will lose one ply of possible non-capture non-pawn moves. But the branching factor at this stage of the game is relatively low. In positions where no pawn has been moved, there are at most 6 squares each of the knights can reach without capturing anything, and the rooks can also reach one square each. That's 14 possible moves, which would be lost by having White make the first pawn move or capture. So the number of games where one side checkmates cannot exceed the number of games where the other side checkmates by more than a factor of 14.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Nobody knows. It is beyond our ability to count even with computers. The best you can do is statistically over all players to try to estimate the final result. Note that bad play which patzers make will tend to make the numbers move towards a more even black-white split and I suspect fewer draws.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: theory, mathematics, 50-move-rule
---