# Question
Title: How many chess clubs are there in the world?
I'm interested in the total number of active chess clubs in the world. I'd also be keen to see any historical trends in this number over the past couple of decades.

# Answer
I would imagine that the number of chess clubs remain relatively constant. From my small sample size of exposure, I have not witnessed a single chess club die out but have seen a few born. Chess is certainly not decreasing in popularity, so I don't see a reason why there would be a decrease in the number of chess clubs.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chess organization membership rises and falls with the popularity of the game of chess. About 60% of the members in the US are youth, organized in school and college clubs. In the 1990s there was a trend of rising numbers of school clubs in the US, and the membership numbers peaked around 2002. Chess has declined a little since then, but is not 'dying off' at all. THE Google trend graph for 'chess' is down slightly:

The interest is still at a relatively high level, and factors like celebrity players could cause a resumed increase in youth interest.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Depends what you call a club. Some are big some are small. Some are formal some informal. Some are official and affiliated with FIDE or USCF or some NCF.

Your very open ended question would include anything that they themselves call a club. So counting everything that thinks they are a club then the answer is 42087. Can not be disproven. And there is no official list of them anyway so it can not be proven either.

This is very much an opinion question which some mods randomly delete but at other times they ignore.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: clubs
---


title: Should I join a chess club?

text:
# Question
Title: Should I join a chess club?
I started playing chess around 1 year ago, all I have done is watch some videos and play online, so my knowledge is pretty poor. I am coming to a new city and I was thinking about joining a chess club, although given my level I am a bit ashamed of doing so. I wrote them and they told me the club is pretty strong, but I can go and give it a try anyway, which only scared me more.

Since I have never played anyone with a fide rating I really don't know my strength, so I was wondering if pasting a game here would allow someone with a deeper knowledge to make a (very) rough estimation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Bc4  e6 3. Nc3 Ne7 4. f4 d5 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7.    Bxd7+ Qxd7 8. Nf3 Nbc6 9. O-O g6 10. d3 Bg7 11. Re1 O-O 12. Bd2 Nf5 13. Ng5 Ncd4 14. Rc1 Nh4 15. Rf1 Rae8 16. g3 Nhf5 17. Qg4 b5 18. Rfe1 Rxe1+ 19. Bxe1 Re8 20. Bf2 b4 21. Bxd4 Bxd4+

```

That's the game I just played (I'm black), for some reason I don't have an account on a website yet so the rest are not saved. Although I must admit I am very proud of that one, so maybe is not very representative (I can play more games and post them later if necessary). I just want a bunch of opinions so I can get an idea if I am close to the "club level".

P.D. The chess club is called Sk1968, in case someone knows how to check the members, so far I have not managed to do it.

# Answer
You should try it. Over the board chess is a very different experience, the social aspect is a lot of fun and the level of concentration required very different from online. Also there is no better way to improve your chess than discussing a game with your opponent afterwards.

It appears you're talking about "Skakklubben 1968" in Århus, Denmark. It appears to have about 100 members! They probably have quite a few people showing up for their club evenings, which is fun and it means they're likely to have a lot of different skill levels playing.

Danish ratings (not FIDE, but I suppose similar) can be found on www.skak.dk; in particular, for this club at this page. That's a very strong club indeed, with ten 2200+ players! But the bottom are around 1000-1200 or so, so that's OK.

But, in general, when starting at a chess club as an adult you may well have a hard time. Some people lose everything their first year! From playing online, you're not used to the kind of people who don't attack much, don't play opening theory much, don't know much about positional play try to stay solid, but grab their chance when you drop a pawn to a small combination and then just exchange everything and win with it. Stick with it, it's worth it! You'll eventually beat them easily if you just keep improving.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Every chess club I know has players of different strength starting from beginners to (depending on the club) master players. Sk1968 seems to be no exception. The lower rated players might be in the majority kids, but in any case there should be somebody at comparable level to yours. Any level is "club level", so don't be scared. Just hanging around a chess club you should be able to pick up lots of useful tips and improve your level quickly. In my experience chess clubs are rather welcoming to new players.

It is difficult to judge your level from a single game. In the game you posted, white played a bit passively, did not pose any problems to you and also made several small positional mistakes, without blundering anything.

You showed a good sense of where to put the pieces and therefore gradually improved your position until achieving a winning position. You found a good plan with the b5-b4 push removing the knight on c3 from the defense of e2. Out of four possible final moves you also found the correct move (Bxd4+) which wins a piece.

Taking all this into account I would put you well above the beginners (rating 1000) who tend to blunder pieces and put their pieces/pawns on weird squares. Based on this game I'd give you at least a 1600, but could well be a lot more. Need to see many more games for a more reliable estimate of your strength. In the end playing strength/rating is determined by many factors such as how good you are at endgames, at difficult tactics, when defending, in opening knowledge, etc.
> 5 votes

# Answer
You should never be ashamed of playing or losing a chess game - each loss is an opportunity to learn something.

Chess clubs are the bread and butter of the social chess scene. You should prefer a club to any online playing if at all possible. Much can be learned from watching two stronger players review a game they played in-the-flesh or review one of your losses against a stronger player. Those opportunities just don't happen online, as everyone is in such a hurry to find the next game and the next rating points hustle. Not to mention that people online can be really rude and impatient.

Good luck.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Two questions two answers:

Join a club? Not if you want to improve. You need to study a lot more before you start playing for fun.

Estimate of strength? Looking at the sample game I would guess the range of ~1400 USCF but it could be a LOT lower or somewhat higher depending on several full games.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: elo, clubs
---


# Question
Title: Do you sign papers when joining a chess club?
I've been invited by a club to join. I've never played in a club before. He said I should sign papers, and then I can play for fun and free and represent the club in tournaments.

My question is, do you sign a contract or some papers when joining a club? The reason I'm worried is because in my country it's common for football and Volley-ball clubs to seduce the youth into signing life long contracts. (maybe against the law but few go to court to demand justice, and most of the times the clubs win the case)

My uncle was the best volley-ball player in the country, now retired, signed a life long contract and couldn't go to other clubs because his club refused to release his contract. My friend has signed a similar contract with a youth football team and now he can't join a professional team so he quit football (soccer).

I have other concerns as well, for instance the club plays most of the times afternoon, I have university or maybe I don't want to go, maybe I prefer playing Xbox at home.

I mean if joining a club is just for fun, then why signing a contract? Signing a contract is the exact opposite of having fun. And chess is an individual game. Besides, if he wants me to sign, so he can coach me, I don't need coaching, I'm satisfied with my level of chess and all I want is to have fun if my free time by joining a club.

If he wants my signature to make sure I don't join another club, then it's none of his business, I'm leaving my country soon and when I do so, I will join another club. I want no strings attached, otherwise I prefer to play online.

So when you join a club do you sign papers? If so what do you look for when reading the contracts? Is there anything I should be concerned about.

# Answer
Yes, usually you sign papers when you join a club. After all you commit yourself to paying the membership fee (even if in your case there is none) and for a financial commitment there has to be some kind of legal foundation. And there are other issues like whether it is allowed to play for several clubs, whether you get a national rating or an Elo and what happens with your personal data in that case.

But this shouldn't be a big deal. If the contract is a very long and complicated affair, I would get suspicious, too. Best take the contract home and show it to your parents, or somebody who can assess it.

Edit: This is the way it is usually done in Germany. But clubs are taken very seriously in our country. ;-) And our chess league system is really very thoroughly organised, so maybe that plays a role as well. Basically every club has a set of rules, pretty much like a democratic constitution, which you have to accept by signing. And although you can be a member of many clubs, you can only be an "active" member of one club at a time, so that is usually specified in the application form as well. (Except when you are a women, then you can be "active" for the normal league system for one club, and "active" in the women's league for another club …). Then you have to agree that your personal data is used for all kinds of nefarious purposes (like rating), and possibly acknowledge that it will take x month to end the membership (So if you end the membership too late, another payment is due).
> 2 votes

# Answer
In the United States, this would be very uncommon. I've belonged to many clubs, and I have never signed a contract of any sort. They typically collect annual membership fees, and for that you do not need a contract in this country, because there is no commitment to continue paying. This money goes toward renting the club space and hosting tournaments.

In your country, things may be different. A chess club may not be as informal as it is here. It might be more of a team than a club. Or maybe this particular club is trying to be a school, or operate like a business.

If you're concerned about them trying to take away your freedom, read the contract. If it doesn't make sense why they included something, don't sign. Start your own club and make it be just for fun. Also consider joining or starting a chess club at your university. That kind of involvement looks good when you graduate or transfer.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In Finland, chess clubs are registered associations, and there's no reason to sign anything when joining one, only to give your basic information and pay the membership fee - and I've never heard of that happening. I don't know about the culture in other countries.

On the other hand, some top players in a team of a chess club might sign contracts saying that the club agrees to pay their travel to team matches, and probably some extra, and the players agree to play in the matches.

> If he wants my signature to make sure I don't join another club

I've never seen this either: the Finnish Chess Federation only allows a player to represent one club at a time (though he can be a member of multiple chess clubs) so there's no need for a club to have a separate contract for that.

Technically, the club might benefit from being able to prevent people to join other clubs ever, because that would mean they would have more members and perhaps more money. But to me this sounds no different than saying that a person would benefit from having you sign a paper saying you buy his shoes for 10 000 €. People can try to cheat you into signing all kinds of papers, and unfortunately there's no way for strangers on the Internet to know about particular cases. We don't know if that is common in your country.

As others have said, I suggest you ask the contact person what the papers are about, and read them before signing them.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It depends. What kind of chess club and in what country. In USA you do not sign anything for almost every club. Some may be part of another organization that might require signing something but nothing that would stop you from going to another club to play for them.

FIFA clubs are different because they are team sports and may also have to follow FIFA rules.

Dont know cant say but there are some FIDE type clubs.

You should ask your club what is needed and have a lawyer look at anything you sign.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: clubs
---


title: Who is best at promoting chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Who is best at promoting chess?
Should FIDE be the one to promote chess. Or USCF and other national NCFs?

Should it be tournament promoters who profit from more players attending?

Is it the job of local clubs to promote chess?

All of the above??

I have seen local clubs fail because they promote chess instead of promoting the club for the benefit of the players in their town. I see small towns have successful clubs with no dues and many rated events with dozens of players , when some larger cities charge too much, throw the dues money around like they printed it, and rarely have a rated tournament which is usually very poorly attended.

Clearly tournament promoters need to promote chess so they can generate profits.

FIDE needs to promote chess with less urgency as they are the one in charge of chess and the size is less important to them, but still significant.

National federations would tend to be in the middle although IMHO leaning more to needing the members to pay dues so they can survive and thrive.

Now I see that some schools promote chess. WHY?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Simple answer: it is everybody's job to promote chess.

FIDE stands for "Fédération Internationale des Échecs" which stands for "International Chess Federation". It is their job to promote international chess -

World Championships
Candidates tournaments
Continental Championships
Olympiads

It is the job of the national federations to promote chess at the national and regional level -

National Championships
National Leagues
Regional Championships
Regional Leagues

It is the job of clubs and their affiliates (in some countries the national federation is also run completely by the clubs) to promote chess at the local level

Local Leagues
Local congresses

It is the job of internet companies to promote chess online (although FIDE and the federations sometimes like to try as well)

It is the job of rich sponsors to fill in the gaps and provide the icing on the cake. Here I'm thinking of lucrative, major opens like the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the big events run out of St Louis Chess club (and bankrolled by Rex Sinquefield)

No one group of organizers is best overall. It would be ridiculous for FIDE to try and run every minor city league. It would be equally ridiculous for clubs to run the World Championships.

Note that I haven't mentioned entrepreneurs for the simple reason that making money from organizing chess tournaments, while possible, is extremely difficult. Whoever can crack the TV market and turn chess into a sport with the same televisual appeal as soccer deserves to be a billionaire.

---
Tags: clubs
---


title: Does chess need promoting at all?

text:
# Question
Title: Does chess need promoting at all?
Chess has survived for thousands of years. Do we need to make special efforts to promote it?

Should anyone bother to promote chess other than FIDE?

# Answer
> Does chess need promoting at all?

The only way a chess tournament happens is if one or more people organize it. If nobody promotes chess then there will only be sporadic individual games. There will be no organized tournaments.

> Should anyone bother to promote chess other than FIDE?

There are tens of thousands of chess clubs in the world. Suggesting that FIDE should, or even could, organize just the annual club championships of these tens of thousands of clubs is ludicrous. That can only be done by members of those clubs. Similarly local leagues can only be organized by groups of clubs coming together and agreeing league rules, fixtures and structures. It is just not feasible for one international body to do that.

Football has massive amounts of money from television and even FIFA doesn't have the resources to organize local leagues in one country let alone the world. The idea that the impoverished chess world could even attempt to do that just makes no sense.

> Of course some people will promote chess. But they do it for their own benefit not just so that chess will survive

This is completely wrong. There is very little money in chess. The vast majority of people who organise tournaments are older players who know they have taken much out of the game over the decades and want to give something back.

My club is a good example. Our tournament organiser is in his 8th decade. He doesn't get paid anything. He organises 3 competitions during the season, an open club championship, a rating limited club championship (roughly under 1450) and a handicap tournament. There are no entry fees and no prizes. The winner of each competition has their named engraved on a club trophy and gets to keep it on their mantlepiece for a year. These tournaments are for club members only. Annual club membership works out at about $6.50 at current exchange rates.

Out of season during the late spring and summer I organise and run weekly themed blitz tournaments, no entry fee, no prizes, no rating. Two or three times a year I organise and run club 9 round FIDE rated blitzes, again, no entry fee, no prizes, but, yes, rated. These are primarily for club members but non-members are welcome (warning, we may try and poach you!).

Once a year the club organises a 9 round FIDE rated blitz in a large venue with invitations to players throughout the region. Entry fee converts to about $13. Our club chairman runs around trying to raise sponsorship from local businesses to cover the prize fund and I suspect dips into his own pocket to subsidise any shortfall.

Our club pays in two local leagues. The committees which run those leagues are composed of players from those clubs who give up their time for free to make it happen.

I don't think what I have described is extraordinary. I think it is how chess works at a local level in most of this country and, I suspect, in most of the world. To work like this it just needs a few public spirited individuals, usually old, who want to give something back to the game which they have loved for many years.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: fide, clubs
---


# Question
Title: What activities should we set up in a chess club?
I am planning to begin a chess club in the engineering college I study. I am an average player myself, but enthusiastic.

My question is how should we go about it, once its up and running?

One thing I get in mind is to organize games between members.

There's also watching lectures, but who decides what lectures will we watch?

I don't know if there are any existing chess clubs in my city, though it is unlikely. There are some government bodies which hold yearly competitions, and there are some institutes that offer tution, in neighboring cities. Thanks

# Answer
> 5 votes
I run a chess club at my college. We have two meetings a week, 2 hours each, one run by myself and one run by someone else. We have a locker for our chess boards, mats and clocks and a meeting place in a lounge area that's not super busy but with decent foot traffic. We update our meeting times every academic quarter/semester to work around our classes and send out a survey to our email list to see when our members are available.

At our regular meetings, we just play chess, it's very casual. Usually blitz 5+0 or 10+0. We switch players every few games. Sometimes we play bughouse if there are enough willing participants. Sometimes we'll look at a position from a game, an opening, or a puzzle/tactic if people want to or have something interesting to talk about. If someone doesn't know how to play we teach them, we're not popular enough to be exclusive.

We have enough funding from the school to go to USCF tournaments in and around our city. Usually they're within walking distance, otherwise we carpool. We also sometimes host tournaments with $1 buy in.

People often say they would be interested in "workshops" to learn chess, but I don't want to host them.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I also run a chess club, in Durham, NC. We meet once a week on Saturdays in the local library, which lets us use their facilities free. We have a small number of of sets and roll-up boards for those few who don't have their own. The club is 9 years old. We started with 2 players and have been averaging about a dozen players for the past few years. I rarely hold tournaments, since I find that they discourage the weaker players and I'm still trying to grow the club. We just play casual chess, with quite a few players who like speed chess. They bring their own clocks. What I've found most helpful in keeping up interest is writing a monthly newsletter with news, games and problems which I e-mail to them. I've generated a list of over 250 e-mail addresses over the years. They all of course don't always come, but with a rotating cast, we still keep up the average I mentioned. We've had a couple of team tourneys against other clubs and a simul by a visiting master, which brought out a lot of people. It's of course most important to have a dedicated leader to soldier on through thick and thin and always be there, which in our case is me. I hope some of these ideas might be helpful.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> My question is how should we go about it, once its up and running?
>
> One thing I get in mind is to organize games between members.

Members playing each other is the main attraction for most successful clubs which you can do by organizing club competitions. The second attraction is playing games against non members which you can do by entering one or more teams in a local chess league.

My experience is that if you just have people coming and playing who they want they often get stuck in a rut playing the same 2 or 3 openings against the same 2 or 3 opponents every week. Organized club competitions get them playing a wider range of opponents.

Most clubs will have a club championship which runs over the season and which has a standard time control in which one game lasts most of the evening. This can either be a Swiss or, if you have a lot of members, a hybrid where you have group stages followed by a knockout between the winners of the groups.

Something which is a lot of fun is to organize blitz tournaments which take place with all games played in one evening. You don't necessarily want to do this every club evening but once or twice a month is a lot of fun and a 9 round blitz (if you have enough players) will get people playing a wider range of opponents.

A further twist to get players out of their ruts is to have themed blitz tournaments. This is where all the games played in the tournament must be the same opening. For example if the theme for the evening is the Ruy Lopez then all games start after the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 with black to move.

Apart from sets and clocks one other thing is very useful and that is a laptop with pairing software to help with organizing tournaments. Probably the best free program out there is the Vega pairing program. It is completely free to use on Linux and free on Windows for up to 30 players. Importantly it is simple and easy to use. It will also generate html for you to put details of your tournaments on your website if you have one.

> There's also watching lectures, but who decides what lectures will we watch?

Having lectures is a more tricky subject. You obviously want these to be given by the stronger players in the club. If you don't have any strong players then it is going to be difficult to get an interesting lecture. Ideally you get a small number of players to agree to take it in turns to give a lecture, say once a month, on an "interesting" topic. "Interesting" probably means not an opening since whatever opening you pick means it is automatically not interesting to all the players who don't play it and don't want to play it.

I'd suggest two types of topics, one for serious study and one for fun. The "serious study" one would be on endgames and endgame technique. The "fun study" one would be where a strong player analyzes one of their own games or perhaps an interesting game played by one of the club members, say the club championship final.

> I don't know if there are any existing chess clubs in my city, though it is unlikely.

Your best bet is to contact your national chess federation and ask them. They should be able to tell you if there are any other chess clubs in your area and give you contact details.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Having run clubs and tournaments and seen it done I suggest the following:

Focus on fun play. That is what club members want.

Have some optional tournaments but do not force people to play in them or ban them from casual games when they occur.

Keep costs LOW. Cover only expenses you cannot avoid. Prizes for tournaments should come from entry fees not club dues.

We sponsored TEAM tournaments for all local colleges and one for all in the region. They went well. Serious players enjoyed them. Casual players were not hurt by them.

Poll your members and see if they do want something else. Most clubs do not poll and most members are happy playing, but if you did something special on occasion, many folks will generally attend.

Many (most?) players do NOT want to have to pay for USCF or NCF dues. So if you have tournaments for the club they should be unrated unless you do your own local ratings.

Ladders can be useful if done right. Many are done poorly and discourage people from playing. 'Winners' should be those who score the most points. That encourages playing and playing more so as to accumulate more points. Clearly give fewer for beating low rated players and more for beating higher ones but do not subtract anything for losing as that discourages playing. Ladders done by win/loss and forcing people to play when they do not want to are counterproductive.

---
Tags: clubs
---


# Question
Title: Ways to notice opponent's threats during one's own move
I am currently playing in a tournament and my last game was a total disaster. Without going into details, I missed a two-move threat my opponent had in the position (I'd expect a ~1600 Elo rated player to find this threat during a game) straight out of the opening and my position was practically hopeless afterwards.

However, after some time spent on self-pity I started reflecting on the nature of my blunder and I started to realize that this is a type of blunder I've lost countless games to. In this game, the following happened:

* I was having trouble finding a good plan out of the opening, and before making the losing blunder I spent around 30 minutes on the clock.
* The move I played should have been easily recognizable as a blunder for a player of my strength (~2200 Elo at the moment).
* I noticed the threat almost immediately after pressing the clock, long before my opponent actually played the winning move (naturally he was a bit suspicious that someone like me would miss something THAT obvious; I could even see him throwing some suspicious glances, seeming like he wanted to ask me: "Are you for real!?").

After realizing that this was not an isolated event for me, I started to wonder: is this actually common for players rated, say, 2100+ Elo? Also, does anyone have any advice how to counteract this self-destructive psychological issue? Right now I'm at a loss for how to deal with it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Good question, but rest assured, the most important part has already been achieved! Namely, you've taken full notice of a pattern in how you often lose your games. To remedy the problem of avoiding combinatorial/tactical blunders can be a somewhat systematic (thus definitely achievable) process, so it's definitely the easier part.

## Always check for forcing moves:

These typically are, ordered according to priority:

* **Checks:** clearly, the most forcing moves are checks, without exception and almost in a computer like manner you should exhaust the list of checks your opponent can give. Example (1).
* **Captures:** Take note of the possible captures in the position, it shouldn't matter how crazy it might appear at first glance (like giving up a queen for a rook, but a mating threat might be following, example (2))
* **Positional gains:** Relative to the first two, this one's admittedly rather vaguely defined. However, as a shortcut, let's simply treat them as possible combinations in the position, which I will further elaborate below.

## Types of combinations to consider:

* **Checkmating combinations:** This is the easiest combination to understand, as it is purely concrete and when it works, immediately decisive.
* **The combination to win material:** Can be any forced sequence of moves, e.g. starting from a bait (a sac'ed pawn), which ends in winning or trapping more important material.
* The third type, is the toughest, the **strategic combination:** again it might start from a forced sequence, but for a specific type of a goal, such as creating the king's position vulnerable, or in contrast to create a defensive setup, it might be to an exchange sac opening up the position for our pieces or permanently damaging our opponent's light/dark squares, it might also be a sequence that creates a weak pawn or one that ends up with you having an endgame with a bishop pair, and the list goes on.

## How to efficiently check for all these:

* **Keep calculating variations** both on your own and your opponent's time, irrespective of how winning or equal you might find the position.
* **Keep taking mental notes about positional aspects** of the position throughout the game, namely anticipating critical moments where: the pawn formation might change, or potential of changing it thereof (e.g. noticing a minority attack could be achieved, see here for more details), the king safety can be compromised (either by a pawn advance, a sacrifice, or a simple trade of a good defensive piece guarding the king), and last but not least, the combo of pieces (bishop pair, Q+N vs Q+B, etc).
* **Keep asking yourself questions** about your opponent's decisions, no matter how strange they might appear sometimes: e.g. "why did they play `a6`? what are they trying to prevent?" or "why are they not resolving the center?" ... Again this helps keep you sharp during the game and not relax too early (and miss simple ideas).
* Take note of whether one of your defensive pieces are possibly getting **overloaded**.
* **Take note of tactical themes:** hanging/attacked pieces, pinned pieces, discoveries, etc.
* **Step up your tactics training!** Sounds obvious but this really should be part of your daily practice no matter the level of play. This will not only add to you bag of tactical ideas and motifs, but it will also prevent your calculation skills from getting rusty.
* And finally, **don't make assumptions about variations that you'd like to see occur**, instead consider your opponent's alternative options specially when making a committal decision in the game.

Finally, for the promised examples of (1) and (2), here's one where both are combined:

```
 [title "Meier vs Kramnik 2013"]
 [fen "1r3bk1/2R2pp1/p3p3/4q3/Qn2N2p/5BP1/4PPKP/8 w - - 0 1"]
 [startflipped "1"]

 1.Qd7 {Here's the position of interest, white's last move Qd7 both defends the rook on c7 and creates a threat on f7} Qf5 {Kramnik defends f7 with Qf5 while also preparing h3+} 2.g4 {Meier notices that black is playing a potentially dangerous game allowing the battery against f7 and having only their queen as defender. White then try to decoy the queen from defense of f7} Qf4 3.g5 {Setting up a neat combination with Nf6+, which is a tactic of type (1) that Meier is planning for, a move that would blind the queen's access to f7} Nd5 {casually played by Kramnik, almost in a manner suggesting he's missed Nf6+, but it is in fact a bait} 4. Nf6+ {let's first see the candidate lines I reckon white had anticipated, namely gxf and Nxf} Nxf6 (4...gxf6 {other losing line} 5.Qxf7+ Kh8 6.Qh7#) (4...Qxf6 {!!! Here's our case (2), white had simply dismissed the crazy possibiliy of queen taking on f6 instead of pawn or knight. The queen sacrifice comes with a checkmating combination, surprisingly of the backrank type despite white's fiachetto pawn formation!} 5.gxf6 {clearly then seeing the previous line, white cannot take the queen, so game continued as follows} (5.Qxd5 Qg6 6.Qe5 Rb5 {and with g5 falling white resigned soon thereafter.}) Nf4+ 6.Kf1 Rb1+ {and mate is unavoidable.}) 5.Qxf7+ Kh8 6.gxf6 Qxf6 7.Qh5+ Qh6 8.Qxh6+ gxh6 9.Ra7 {likely a draw, despite black's shattered pawn structure.}

```

To finish, I leave you with a problem (though relatively simple so it mimics what you might have experienced in your game), where to recognise the combination in a real game we would:

* take note that white has back rank issues
* rook on `f4` is attacked by the queen
* and our rooks are doubled along the open e-file

These already bring to mind: forcing moves such as captures and checkmating combinations.

```
 [title "black to play and win"]
 [fen "4r1k1/p3rppp/2pqb3/2p4Q/N2p1R2/1P1P4/P1P3PP/5R1K b - - 4 24"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
I am not 2000+ rated, but I experience this myself from time to time (I actually got better). Reasons I found why I do this:

* Being to excited about my plan, e.g. I see a nice tactic, which my opponent might not see, he plays a move which does not prevent it (apart from his threat).
* "I am winning feeling", I get this when I won previous games against someone and am in a winning position again. Sometimes (especially when tired) I start to "just play it down". Then I start missing things like a Zwischenzug.

For countermeassures:

* I focus more on opponents threats during his time, while developing my plans during my time. If he plays an unexpected move, I take my time. This way, I am constantly up to date about my opponents threats and I distribute enough time to think about his plans. If he plays really fast, I have to spend some of my time. Since I am used to spend more time for his plans, I do this quite automatically.
* If I am feeling happy about a position, I tell myself, "Nice position, lets focus and find the closing moves". This helps me to focus (again).

---
Tags: psychology, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Resources on the Ruy Lopez for White - why so few?
The Ruy Lopez is one of the most popular chess openings for both sides after 1.e4, and despite this I feel like there are few good detailed resources for players of the white side wishing to play the main lines in the Ruy.

What makes this seem so strange to me isn't just the relative underrepresentation in comparison to popularity of the opening, but rather that it seems like there are plenty of good resources for white against other major replies to 1.e4 (for instance, GM Negi has personally managed to produce well-received, complete repertoire books against the French, the Caro and the Sicilian (and the somewhat obscure Philidor defense)). Also, I have noticed that there are complete repertoire books in some of the mainlines in the Ruy, but these seem to be from black's point of view as far as I can tell.

My question is therefore: why aren't there more resources on the mainline Ruy from white's point of view? Is it difficult for authors to find good lines for white to recommend, making them hesitant to publish anything (for instance the Berlin giving players on the white side too much of a headache)? Or are there other reasons, like the mainline Ruy being more easy to play from the white side, making authors feel like you're supposed to figure it out by yourself as white?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I personally think the task is too daunting. There are so many defenses for Black to cover. Some sideline like the Worrall or the exchange Ruy Lopez are each full books on their own. Secondly, the subtleties are highly abstract and difficult to explain in a book. I think Karpov could write a book similar to his book on the English opening where he doesn't try to cover variations but instead just annotates a bunch of relevant GM games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Nowadays more and more resources complementary to books are appearing, in particular video series and online lectures. For the (advanced) Ruy Lopez I definitely recommend watching and studying

* The Spanish `6.d3` by Peter Svidler: not only he covers the variation at great depths but his approach and way of explaining teach a great deal about how to tackle Spanish structures in general. Very insightful and fun to watch!
* Next to that, and on a somewhat different tangent of the Spanish, there's Yasser Seirawan's lecture on the Berlin defense (mostly) from white's point of view as he studied the Carlsen vs Anand game 11 of 2014 in which Carlsen clinched the match. The explanations go to great depths and are highly instructive.

---
Tags: books, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: What is the correct placement for the King and Queen on the chessboard?
What are the correct placements for the King and Queen set up on the board? I've heard things like, "white on the right and queen on her own colour" and "kings must not be facing each other." I'm sure its just an exact mirror on both sides; am I correct in placing the white square on the right and Queen on her own colour?

# Answer
> 20 votes
Each player has a white square on their near right corner. The queen goes on the square of her own color; as a result, the kings and queens face each other.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Facing the chessboard, the Queen should be on the fourth square of the first rank (row) and the colour of the Queen should be the same as the colour of that square. (If the colours are different, rotate -90 or +90 degrees the chessboard.)

The King of a given color is on the square immediateley next to the square of the Queen of the same color and that is not taken by a light piece.

---
Tags: rules, learning, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Does the PGN specification mistakenly omit solidus (/) for symbol tokens?
The Portable Game Notation (PGN) specification appears to contradict itself regarding the valid characters that may appear in a symbol token.

From \[1\], section 7, quote:

> A symbol token starts with a letter or digit character and is immediately followed by a sequence of zero or more symbol continuation characters. These continuation characters are letter characters ("A-Za-z"), digit characters ("0-9"), the underscore ("\_"), the plus sign ("+"), the octothorpe sign ("#"), the equal sign ("="), the colon (":"), and the hyphen ("-") ...

Or, to put it more concisely, a symbol token conforms to the regular expression `/^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_+#=:-]*/`.

However, this definition explicitly precludes the game draw termination marker `1/2-1/2`. Quoting again from \[1\], section 8.2.6:

> Each movetext section has exactly one game termination marker; the marker always occurs as the last element in the movetext. The game termination marker is a symbol that is one of the following four values: "1-0" (White wins), "0-1" (Black wins), "1/2-1/2" (drawn game), and "\*" (game in progress, result unknown, or game abandoned).

The string "1/2-1/2" very obviously does not meet the definition of a symbol token, so either:

a) the solidus character ('/', 0x2f) should have been included in the definition of symbol continuation characters, but the author failed to do so, or;

b) game termination markers should not be considered symbol tokens, but rather a distinct type of token which is separate from symbol tokens, and the author failed to indicate this, or;

c) I have completely misunderstood the wording of the specification, and am an idiot.

Somebody has screwed up here, and either it's me, or it's Steven J. Edwards. Hopefully it's me. Personally I think (a) is the most likely of the three but perhaps I've missed something.

\[1\] http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm

# Answer
> 5 votes
You are right, the text as written there isn't exactly correct.

It also says that the marker is a symbol and lists `*` as one of the options, even though `*` is a token on its own and also cannot occur in a symbol.

That said, the meaning is clear enough, 1/2-1/2 is a valid termination marker. How you solve this in your code is up to you. As it's hard to add `1/2-1/2` as a token on its own (would need lookahead to disambiguate it from symbol `1` et cetera), it's probably easiest to add '/' to the possible symbol characters, yes.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I agree the spec is ambiguous. This antlr grammar uses your option b

> game termination markers should not be considered symbol tokens, but rather a distinct type of token which is separate from symbol tokens, and the author failed to indicate this

In the grammar I find

```
SYMBOL
: [a-zA-Z0-9] [a-zA-Z0-9_+#=:-]*
;

```

separate from termination

```
game_termination
 : WHITE_WINS
 | BLACK_WINS
 | DRAWN_GAME
 | ASTERISK
 ;

```

---
Tags: programming, pgn
---


title: Why did Fischer play 17.c4 here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Fischer play 17.c4 here?
Why did Fischer play 17...c4 here?

```
[fen "r4rk1/1q1n1pp1/4b2p/p1pp4/8/Q2NP3/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

```

Doesn’t it make the bishop e6 a lot worse? I would have played rfb8 instead, but I am not Fischer.

# Answer
Every move has pros and cons. Move a pawn, for example, and you gain space, and control squares; but you also weaken squares. The trick is to accurately determine if you will be able to use your pros better than your opponent can use your new-found weaknesses against you. Always remember that a “weakness” is only a weakness if your opponent can get at it, and use it against you.

In this position, 17…Rfb8 is also a very good move, but Stockfish definitely prefers c4. After 17…c4, Fischer decided that the immediate pressure on b2 was more important than making the bishop worse. In addition, when the Nd3 moved to f4, from there, it really could only trade itself off for that bad bishop in most situations. As in the game, because white did not take immediately on e6, the bishop went to f5, and deprived the white rooks of the b1 square, and thus, a method of defending the pawn on b2.

It was almost inevitable that white would lose a pawn. As it was played, after 21…g5, white felt compelled to give up the piece altogether seeing the variation 22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 paralyzing white.

I do not know if you are reading “My 60 Memorable Games”, but this is game 34 in that book, and the game was titled, “Hanging pawns unhung”. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Fischer thought that the best move was 19. Nxe6 getting rid of the “bad” bishop, giving the variation: 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6! 21. b3! cxb3 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 “with good drawing chances”, but 21…Qb4! Stopped the queen from taking up the active position deep in the black camp, and threatens cxb3 with a strong passed pawn, since it exposes an attack on the hanging Bg4. Per Stockfish Qxb4 is forced, and is probably close to lost in my opinion due to the incredibly weak white queenside.

```
 [Event "Interzonal-05"]
 [Site "Stockholm"]
 [Date "1962.03.04"]
 [Round "22"]
 [White "Bertok, Mario"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D59"]
 [PlyCount "62"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12. O-O c5 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7 15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4 18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 (19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6 $1 21. b3 $1 {Fischer's !} cxb3 (21... Qb4 $1 {Not letting the Qa3 get active.} 22. Qxb4 axb4 {And white is in huge trouble.}) 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 $15) 19... Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5 22. Nxd5 (22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 {Winning positionally.}) 22... Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? Nxe3! 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7 28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
Every move has plusses and minuses.

Fischer does not want to be tied down defending the pawn which would tie up his pieces.

c4 attacks the horsie, and blocks whites bishop making it less good now.

it allows for black to attack on b2 by moving his rook. it also opens up c5 for the horsie to use at some point. it attacks b3 so white will have trouble moving the pawn up and defending it after its capture.

overall it is a good positional move improving blacks chances.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, pawn-structure, fischer
---


# Question
Title: Is this considered checkmate if I touch a piece which can't make a legal move?
What if there's a touch move rule, and my knight or bishop is blocking my king, and I touch it. Is that a checkmate? If not, what is it called?

# Answer
> 21 votes
No. The touch-move rule can't force you to make an illegal move, and it is not legal to put yourself in check.

Here's what the FIDE laws of chess say:

> 4.5 If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move

# Answer
> 7 votes
No, that's not a checkmate. The white bishop is currently pinned (in absolute pin because it protects the king from check by Black's rook), so there's no legal move can be made by that bishop.

In short, this situation has no consequences, and you still can touch the king to continue play since touch-move rule doesn't apply for pieces in absolute pin.

Note that the checkmate only occurs if:

1. the king is under threat (in check);
2. the checked king doesn't have any legal move to eliminate the threat (by capturing the attacking piece, moving to other square or interposing with other piece).

Similar issue: What happens if you touch a pinned piece?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I agree with those who responded that this is not a check mate, but rather the piece is absolutely pinned, and since it's not legal to move that piece, another move, if available, must be played.

I'd like to mention that, in tournament play, there are consequences to moving an absolutely pinned piece and then pressing the clock, since this is considered an illegal move:

1. You pause the clock.
2. You raise your hand to call the judge.
3. You explain what your opponent attempted to do.
4. The judge may give you two extra minutes on your clock.
5. The judge may give your opponent a first warning, and inform them that if a second illegal move is attempted, your opponent may automatically lose the game.

See FIDE rules 7.5.1 and 7.5.5 (https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article)

For your specific game, if it's King + Bishop versus King + Rook and nothing else is on the board and no mistakes are made, then this is usually a theoretical draw.

# Answer
> 0 votes
NO.

You can not let you king be checked or mated by your moving.

It would be called error, senior moment, carelessness, fumblefinger, or some other term depending on the commentator as there is no standard word for trying to move a piece pinned against your king.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, pins
---


title: New chess variant (opinion required)

text:
# Question
Title: New chess variant (opinion required)
I have just came up with a new chess variant. The variant works like this. So, the player starts with a match with a computer (not-so-powerful one) If the player wins the match, he gets to use the computer as his advisor. And then, the player, with the new advisor goes up the ladder and challenge a more powerful computer. And so on and so forth.

What do you guys think about this variant? Will this give the human player an advantage? Do you think that the World Chess Champion can win the Best Chess Program (Stockfish) using this system?

I have got this idea from a chess match of GM Daniel Naroditsky+Rybka vs Stockfish match. IMHO, the computer has already won the human-computer chess rivalry. But if human players can subdue weaker chess computer and then use them against stronger computer, it would be another way of saying that human can still beat computer.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Principally I like your idea. I *really* like it. I could even imagine to implement something like that just for fun sake. However, there are some problems:

1. At a certain stage, an average player with a strength of about 1400 will just end up copying his engines moves in an extremely tactical position, which he doesn't understand.
2. If there is an ELO difference between the engines of only about 50 points (what's pretty common, especially in the higher levels), one could easily win by luck (since a higher ELO doesn't necessarily mean a 100% win chance) or even by just playing as white. This issue however can be fixed by giving opponents with about 200 ELO more, so one's not going to win by his engine itself.
3. Humans usually rather play with other humans, since they're more predictable. An average machine sees almost every trap in one or two plies, while humans may overlook it. "Playing for tricks" is essential, especially in quicker time controls.
4. One might struggle to proceed further at a certain level. It's unterstandable, that it becomes boring to play (and lose) to the same engine over and over again.

Sorry for my bad english, I'd appreciate any suggestion. (:

# Answer
> -1 votes
I call it silly. I do not want a computer I beat helping me. It gives the human no advantage at all. I would want the computer I cannot beat helping me against yet another computer.

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants
---


title: Can this knight move level the game?

text:
# Question
Title: Can this knight move level the game?
As clearly black cannot trap the white queen for longer. So, won't Nxd4 be the best move in this scenario? Letting the queen escape and take a piece for his lost rook. Nxd4 will be followed by either Nxc2 or Nxe6. What are the different ways in which white can counter this move?

```
Q1bq3r/p1ppk1bp/1pn1B1pn/4PpN1/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNB1K2R b KQ - 0 1

1... Nxd4

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is a funny looking position, which I assume you probably reached out of a poorly played Dutch defense, something along the lines `1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 g6 3.Ng5 Bg7 4.e4 e6 5.Bc4 Nh6 6.Qf3 b6 7.Bxe6 Ke7 8.e5` and so on... (or `1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 g6 3.Ng5 Bg7 4.e4 e6 5.Bc4 Nh6 6.Qf3 b6 7.e5 Ke7 8.Qxa8 Nc6 9.Bxe6`) which are very weird looking...

With little analysis I think you convince yourself that black is completely lost here and Nxd4 doesn't come to rescue either. Simply put, white is a clear piece up, the queen isn't really trapped, black's king is a mess, and there's just not any piece coordination to create any counter-play whatsoever. As pointed out by TMM in the comments after Nxd4 white just retreats the bishop to b3 and protects everything, this is the simplest and best move. Or even Bc4 to preserve the bishop and even provoke Nxc2+ which leads to some fun tactics either mating the black king or trapping the queen, for example:

```
Q1bq3r/p1ppk1bp/1pn1B1pn/4PpN1/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNB1K2R b KQ - 0 1

1... Nxd4 2.Bc4 Nxc2+ 3.Kd1 Nxa1 4.Nxh7 Ke8 (4...Nf7 5.Bxf7 Kxf7 6.Qd5+ Ke8 7.Bg5 ) 5.Bg5

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think if white really wanted to stop Nxc2 and Nxe6, white could play Bb3 (assuming black to move) to stop both options. Since trading is beneficial to white, this looks like a better position for white. However, I think that black can still keep the black queen locked up at a8:

Why doesn't black play dxe6 first? This regains more material than Nxd4, and keeps the queen locked up. Some possible continuations:

1... dxe6 2.Qxc6 Qxd4 threatening 3... Qxe5+ 4. Be3 Qxb2

1... dxe6 2.Nxe6 Kxe6

1... dxe6 2.Nxe6 Bxe6 3. Qxd8 Rxd8 threatening 4... Nxd4 5. Kd1 Nb6+

and black looks better than before.

# Answer
> 0 votes
No. No move will level the game.

Does not really matter as Black is lost.

It is almost zugzwang for black. White is up a rook and can continue developing

After the horsie takes the pawn black can easily protect then get on with finishing white off easily.

---
Tags: knights
---


# Question
Title: Why is it a good idea to fianchetto above the castled King? If I do that, should I make sure to leave the Bishop there for a while to guard the hole?
I understand why fianchettoing can be helpful, even deadly to an opponent, but should it really be done on the side which the King castles into? I realize that the King's Indian Defense/Attack involves fianchettoing on the kingside as well as castling to the kingside, for Black and White respectively; and that that position is quite strong. But I'd like to know the principle behind opening up the N-pawn above the castled King. Is it a weak point? And if so, should I be careful not to move my Bishop from the fianchetto square?

I suppose more generally my question is: what should I be careful of when advancing a pawn in front of a castled King in the early to middle game?

# Answer
> 19 votes
Fianchettoes are a very common and strong setup. But watch also for the 2 most common attacks against a fianchettoed position, which are:

A. Launching the rook pawn up the board (against Black this would be h4-h5 etc.) and opening up the h-file. I have played this many times against the Pirc where Black "castles into" the attack. White plays h4-h5 followed by trading off the pawn and then plays `Qh6+` with a very strong attack down the open file.

B. The sacrifice of a knight on f5 (where Black accepting the sac would play `...gxf5`). This wrenches open the position and jacks up the pawn structure.

Even if the opponent trades his same-color bishop for your fianchettoed bishop, you can still become weak on that color complex (e.g. the opponent's queen can roost on h6 for example and be a thorn in your side)

# Answer
> 6 votes
What should you be careful of? Losing the fianchettoed bishop while your opponent has that colored bishop and the Q. You'll probably find all sorts of players who'd trade a rook for that bishop.

Keep the bishop on the long diagonal unless there's a *compelling* reason not to.

Defensively, the bishop is pretty good. Offensively, it shoots through the middle of the board, peeks the opponent's rook and knight pawn, and sometimes adds pressure to the enemy K, depending on how the castling goes.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The advantage of a fianchetto (for defense) is that it is a "super pawn" in front of your king. It also has offensive value in controlling two squares of the center.

The danger is that it can be exchanged. If you have a rook on f1 (f8) and a bishop on g2 (g7), the opposing bishop could go to the square on the h file, supported by his queen, pinning your bishop. So you need to be careful to move the rook so that your bishop can retreat to h1 (h8).

The other thing to be aware of is the potential for a knight sacrifice at f4 (f5) that threatens to remove either the bishop, or at least the g-pawn in front of it.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Logical fallacy. Assumes the consequence.

It may be good and it may not.

I have mated many opponents who had a fianchettoed B in front of their king.

---
Tags: kings, bishops, castling, fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: How should I have decided which side to attack on?
I played black and was a pawn up. My plan was to castle on the opposite side from white's king, then use my majority on that side to pawn storm him. So on the turn shown below, I was about to castle long.

After we drew, I analysed the game with an engine, which preferred castling short and pushing the a-pawn, so it seems I should have done the exact opposite of my plan.

My question is, how should I have decided on which side to attack in this position? Why was my choice wrong?

Thanks in advance.

```
[FEN "r3k2r/1bp2ppp/pp2p3/8/8/2qPBP1P/P1P1Q1P1/R4RK1 b kq - 1 16"]

1. e4 e6
2. e5 d5
3. exd6 Bxd6
4. Nf3 Nf6
5. Bd3 b6
6. Bb5+ Nbd7
7. Nc3 Bb7
8. d3 a6
9. Bxd7+ Qxd7
10. O-O Ng4
11. h3 Ne5
12. Nxe5 Bxe5
13. Qe2 Qc6
14. f3 Bxc3
15. bxc3 Qxc3
16. Be3 O-O-O
17. Bd2 Qb4
18. Be3 Qc3
19. Qd2 Qxd2
20. Bxd2 Bc6
21. Bc3 f6
22. Rad1 Ba4
23. Rd2 e5
24. Rc1 g5
25. d4 exd4
26. Rxd4 Rxd4
27. Bxd4 Rf8
28. c3 c5
29. Bf2 Re8
30. Re1 Kc7
31. Bg3+ Kb7
32. Rxe8 Bxe8
33. Bd6 f5
34. g4 fxg4
35. hxg4 h5
36. Be7 hxg4
37. fxg4 Bd7
38. Bxg5 Bxg4
39. Kf2 Kc6
40. Ke1 Be6
41. a3 Kb5
42. Bd8 Ka5
43. Kd2 Ka4
44. Bxb6 c4
45. Bc5

```

# Answer
You should castle "short" (on the king side). because you want to attack on the queen side without exposing your king.

1) White is short a pawn because of his missing b pawn. If you castle "long" and put your king on that side, White's open b file (and the black diagonal to b6) become compensation. If you don't, he's just a pawn down.

2) Your queen is powerfully placed on the queen side. You want to move up your pawns to support your queen, without exposing your king, or allowing your queen to be "pinned" by a rook. White has his queen on the king side and you don't, so it doesn't make sense to attack there.

3) Your best chances of getting an "outside" passed pawn are on the a and b files, so you want to advance those pawns, with your c pawn in support.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The question "on which side to attack?" is already flawed. In many positions, a direct attack isn't appropriate. For an attack to have good chances of success, you need some sort of advantage, such as a lead in development or extra space on one side of the board. You don't really have any advantages that would help you launch an attack on the kingside - arguably your bishop pointing that way, but it's not much. Your real advantage in this position is your extra pawn, which can eventually help you make a passed pawn in an endgame. Castling on opposite sides and going for a pawn storm is an extremely high risk strategy that doesn't have any positional factors supporting it, and doesn't exploit your advantage, the extra pawn. A good starting point in this position is getting your king to safety and getting the rooks in the game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I look at this position and think:

1: you castle short because of the open b-file. 2: you play Rad8 and e5 to limit his bishop. 3: followed by things like f6 and Bd5 to reposition the black light-squared bishop.

Seems like a reasonable plan to me. I would not castle long in this position. Gives white to many attacking options. Not all positions call for direct attacks on the king position. this looks like one of them to me at first glance.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Bad question. You have no attack, especially on the king.

Castle 0-0 and get on with the game positionally. There is not enough material to do any attacking especially the king.

Castle long and White will have the attacking chances such as they are.

You are a pawn up but with bishops of opposite colors. This will be hard to win no matter what you do.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I had a similar (but not the same) question here.

Castling queenside would allow your four pawns and both rooks to push the opposing king, with support from the light square bishop. This would allow you to pose a big threat on the king, protected only by two pawns and a bishop facing four pawns, two rooks, and possibly a bishop. The white rooks and queen would be somewhat blocked from joining the action due to the white pawn structure, reducing white's chances of defending their king.

Castling kingside would allow you to push all of your pieces on the flank. Your queen is already there, and the three pawns, bishop, and rook could quickly launch an attack from the B and C files. The isolated pawn on A2 can possibly be taken, leaving white with 2 pawns against 3 on the queenside. Support from your major pieces and the bishop would create a solid attack, and trading would be an even greater disadvantage for white after A2 is taken.

Either way, it is technically possible to overcome white. It is unlikely that a human would be able to forsee the outcomes which the computer sees, and I cannot give an exact reason for why it would prefer short castling.

My suggestion is that perhaps it would be better to castle kingside, because then you would have all of your pieces coordinated in one attack. Queenside castling would leave the bishop and queen slightly excluded due to white's pawn structure, reducing their effectiveness in a pawn attack on the white king.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawns, castling
---


# Question
Title: draw game on lichess after 2 repetitions?
I was playing this game with white

https://lichess.org/INsUhHEO

I was losing, so I was happy to see the 3-position draw button appearing, which I clicked.

But after, reviewing the game, I couldn't see a reason for that to happen, I see only 2 repetition...

Where am I wrong?

Thanks

# Answer
The same position appeared after 56. Kf8, 58. Kf8 and 60. Kf8 -- 3 repetitions of the position (not moves).
> 6 votes

# Answer
Ok I found it sorry, the third one was the NEXT move, the button appears just before (make sense)

sorry for the stupid question :)

good night
> 2 votes

---
Tags: draw
---


# Question
Title: Is there any software (preferably Linux) that, when managing a database, can inform you about opening transpositions?
To make it simple, let's say that I play a game that opens with 1. e4 d5 2. d4.

I use Scid-vs-PC, and in this position, it just shows a bunch of games. Od course, if black plays now 2 ... e6, we transpose into the French defense, and suddenly thousands of games exist.

I'm looking for a software that after 1. e4 d5 2. d4 will show you the games that transpose to the French Defense.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself properly. So, just in case, this site has this feature that I'm attaching a picture of to show both cases in chesstempo

# Answer
> 2 votes
No. It may implicitly 'know' internally but none of them explicitly tell you there is/are/couldbe transpositions.

---
Tags: software, database
---


# Question
Title: Draw rates in classical chess between elite players?
I'm looking for detailed statistics exhibiting draw rate for elite players. I did find this and this publications, however, they only contain aggregated data for 2600+ players, and arrive at a figure of about 55% for equal 2600+ players.

This strikes me as completely inadequate estimate as far as *elite* players are concerend. I checked randomly some pairs of top players on chessgames.com, and the draw rate is usually more like 70% to 80% (well, for Carlsen-Ding Liren it's currently 100% with the sample of 9 games). This is consistent with the data that I got by checking some random elite tournaments - they have anywhere between 20% and 40% decisive games, most of them usually between players with larger rating difference. This is also consistent with betting odds - they indicate the probabilities of draw between 75% and 83% for the ongoing Altibox Norway chess tournament.

Is there a detailed statistics on how a draw rate varies with (a) rating difference and (b) average rating of the two players involved, similar to one linked above but with a detailed breakdown in the range of 2600-2800? Ideally with color breakdown, so that one can extract data such as "if a 2720 player plays white against an 2770 player, then the probability of draw is such and such"...

# Answer
> 1 votes
For over 2700 rated players, statistically the draw rate is slightly under 50%.

For all over 2200 , the rate is just under 40%, statistically.

---
Tags: draw, statistics
---


title: How to get to 1600

text:
# Question
Title: How to get to 1600
I've often heard people say that, to get to a FIDE rating of 1600, one doesn't need a coach, and that one can do it by oneself.

I'd be glad if you could help me see what one can do to achieve that. Any advice, general or specific, would be welcome, if it helps me get to 1600.

Here is a game in which I came really close to winning, but was let down by my play, especially in the endgame.

(*But I don't insist on you seeing it, if it's cumbersome.* I'm looking for advice on how to get to a FIDE rating of 1600, and general advice could be very useful. I only feel that if you could see one of my games, it might help you give me more specific advice. **But once again, I don't insist.**)

I played Black. (Some of the moves are numbered wrong, please correct them if possible.)

```
 [Event "Let's Play!"]
 [Site " Chess.com"]
 [Date "Sep 21, 2017"]
 [White "PATELAKSHAY"]
 [Black "JoshuaFischer007"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [WhiteElo "1354"]
 [BlackElo "793"]
 [TimeControl "1 in 1 day"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [Termination "PATELAKSHAY won by checkmate"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5
 2. Nf3 Nc6
 3. d4 d6 {General opening moves till here}
 4. dxe5 dxe5
 5. Nc3 Qxd1+ {Wanted to force him to undevelop his knight}
 6. Nxd1 Be6 {Didn't send my Bishop further ahead, as I didn't want it rebuffed}
 7. a3 O-O-O {Comfortable to castle}
 8. Ng5 Rd7 {Quite wrongly, I thought that I was at risk of a fork}
 9. Bb5 a6 {I prefer rebuffing incoming Bishops. Makes my opponents lose momentum}
 10. Nxe6 fxe6 {No choice there}
 11. Bc4 Nd4 {Planning a hopeful fork on his King and Rook}
 12. Ne3 b5 {Pushing his Bishop back further}
 13. Bb3 Nxb3 {I am never sorry to exchange my Knight for a Bishop}
 14. cxb3 Nf6 {Development, and attack, too}
 15. f3 Rd3 {I wanted to bring my Rook deep into his ranks. Plus, it looked like a good attacking move. But I later noticed that it was easily rebuffed.}
 16. b4 c5 {Wanted to start attacking his pawns, supported by my Rook.}
 17. Bd2 cxb4 {Thought I'll keep the attack going.}
 18. axb4 Bxb4 {Felt I had to make a few exchanges, though against my usual idea of exchanging a Knight for a Bishop. Still felt my Rook was  influential.}
 19. Bxb4 Rxe3+ {Took forward my plans.}
 20. Kf2 Rb3 {Thought I had his pawn and Bishop forked.}
 21. Bc3 b4 {Felt I was pushing his Bishop away.}
 22. Bxe5 Rf8 {Wanted to protect my Knight and give my rook an open file (for later).}
 23. Rxa6 Ng4+ {Attack on mind, but not a clear one.}
 24. Kg3 Kb7 {Thought I could scare away the Rook. Bad idea, of course.}
 25. Rxe6 Nxe5 {I felt it weakened his attacking power.}
 26. Rxe5 Rxb2 {Planning for promotion, which looks easy(and turns out not to be so) .}
 27. Re7+ Kb6 {Bringing my King forwards, to help my Pawn(how, I wasn't yet sure) .}
 28. Rxg7 b3 {The quicker I promote it, the better, I thought.}
 29. e5 Re2 {Attacking his pawn}
 30. Rb1 b2 {To restrict his Rook from moving around}
 31. e6 Re8 {Felt that I had the game in the bag now, my Rooks supporting each other.}
 32. e7 Rb8 {This, I believe, was a game-ending blunder. My Rook cleared the way for the promotion of his own pawn, and did no good in its place.}
 33. Rf7 Ka5 {From now on, I'm battling to delay defeat. Nothing much to say.}
34. Rf8 Rb3 35. e8=Q Rxe8 36. Rxe8 Kb4 37. Rb8+ Kc3 38. Rxb3+ Kxb3 39. f4 Kc2 40. Rxb2+ Kxb2 41. f5 Kc3 42. f6 Kd4 43. f7 Ke5 44. f8=Q Ke6 45. Kf4 Kd5 46. Qe8 Kd6 47. Ke4 Kc5 48. Qd8 Kc4 49. Qd4+ Kb5 50. Kd5 Ka5 51. Kc5 Ka6 52. Qb4 Ka7 53. Kc6 Ka8 54. Qb7#  1-0

```

Sent from my Android

## My thoughts

I've thought of playing against computers (not engines) with increasing levels of difficulty. Of course, I'll welcome any other advice.

# Answer
> 4 votes
A couple of things not pointed out in the other answers,

First, 6. ... Be6 wasn't good, as it allows Nf3-g5xf6, doubling your e-pawns and giving him the two bishops. You're effectively playing a pawn down, and defending them for the rest of the game. Bd7 or Bc5, or even Bg4 look better.

Next, 13. ... a5, followed by a4, forces the bishop to a2, allowing the fork on c2.

Finally, 23. ... Kb7 first, then 24. ... Ng4+, winning the bishop.

To reach 1600 elo, you obviously need to be able to beat both higher and lower rated players. It takes hard work and study.

As recommended in many other places, you should be studying tactics, tactics and more tactics. When you reach master strength, you can scale back and just study tactics and more tactics. They will help you in every stage of the game. This should take about 40% of your studying time.

Additionally, you should devote a bit of study to openings. Some authors & players suggest picking an opening system, such as the King's Indian Attack, or Stonewall attack, while others say you should always play e4, until you're expert strength or better. Regardless, I think the openings you play should fit your style, and give you a playable middlegame, more than anything. After every game, you should review your games and see where you deviated from book, so you know what to play next time. This could take about 20% of your study time.

You also need to study endgames. Know the basic mating patterns. Work on pawn and rook & pawn endings, as those are the ones you'll face the most. This should also take about 20% of your study time.

Finally, the middlegame should take up the rest of your study time. That should involve working on making plans and calculating variations.

If you can find a coach, or another player of similar strength to work with, that will be helpful as well, to bounce ideas off each other and point out things you miss.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I really wish that people would talk to each other more after the game. (When I have lived in England or France, this was very common; for some reason in the US it is not. In those countries they make tea/coffee available)

The purpose of a post-mortem is NOT to give the loser a chance for revenge. You need to be clear about what the purpose is. If you got hammered by a much stronger player, just ask their advice, otherwise here are some ways you might choose to go. (Simple one-move blunders are not very interesting, but do signal something to work on.)

Errors in calculation. "I didnt see that would be check. When did you see it?"

Planning. "I was surprised that you let me have the open file. Were you not worried about that? Why not?"

Judgement. "Around here, I felt that I was better, but it didn't happen that way. How did you feel?"

Strategy. "Perhaps I should have let you have that Pawn, and gone for a counterattack with my Rook. Shall we look at it?" Do not get fascinated by some long lines that take you far away from the game. Do not allow spectators to take over.

Planning again. "I wanted to get my Knight to c5, but you wouldn't let me. Did I have a better plan?". "I really wanted to castle on the Queen-side, but I didn't dare"

Psychology. "I coulnd't decide if Rxf6 was a threat. Would you have played it?"

Of course you can go over the game with a machine, but machines dont answer this sort of question.

Besides, if your opponent cooperates, its a nice thing to do.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This advice is based on your game a commentary without analysis with an engine.

## Don't think that you are forced to make a certain capture

In your commentary to 10...fxe6 you said:

> No choice there

But you could have created an interesting material imbalance with `10...axb5 11. Nxf8 Rxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Nf6 13. Nxh7 Rxh7`

## Don't trade material when you have a pawn weakness

When you have those doubled, isolated e-pawns, you shouldn't trade down like you did with 13...Nxb3. I would advise that you learn the 4 principles of trading, which I briefly outline at the start of my answer to When and why should I trade minor pieces?

## You keep hemorrhaging pawns

The best way to improve your game would be to think about the safety of your material. I'm talking about when you lose a pawn starting with `16...c5`. by opening up the position when you have those weak e-pawns, you help white to develop and win one of them.

## Learn to conserve your energy

I don't know whey you played all the way out to mate, but top players don't do that because it's a waste of time and energy. I would prefer to resign and spend the time immediately after the game to study where I went wrong. That way the motivation and the memory is still there to learn something valuable.

In this specific game, it all started going downhill after `6...Be6` and `8...Rd7` when the pieces started to get jammed up.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A 1600 rating is easily to get by doing one thing: Study tactic puzzles! The site chesstempo has tactics training or get books like "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" by Reinfeld ( $2 on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/1001-Winning-Chess-Sacrifices-Combinations/dp/0879801115). If you want to get to 1800 add reading "My System" by Nimzowitsch and some basic endgame book. From your game it looks like you need many basics which you will get from the "My System" book.

# Answer
> 2 votes
My first rating was 1750 and I had no coach. I read the few books I could find. But that did include BCE, and My System. A few, not many, others.

What helped me most was playing at EXACTLY ten seconds a move every week in the Divan's tournament. That forces you to both think before, and decide not just react, which is good training. First for taking some time to think, and also for not taking too much time which helps with clock management and avoiding time problems.

At mandatory wait ten seconds and then mandatory move at ten seconds you see games playing like they were movies. That helps a lot in analysing what works and what problems you have.

Tactics training and end games are crucial. 16oo can be done without positional training. Some openings are useful but principle are better than variations at that level.

---
Tags: analysis, tactics
---


title: Is this K+4P vs KB+P endgame drawn?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this K+4P vs KB+P endgame drawn?
Is that position always a draw? I've tried to play it few times and I always end with lone bishop or a stalemate

```
8/3k3/p7/2Pb4/PP6/2KP4/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1

```

# Answer
You cannot get a definitive answer, but in all likelihood, 99.99% it is a draw no matter who is to move (I am the type of person, who never says I am positive unless there is 100% proof, and that is impossible here, however likely).

The overwhelming factor in this position is that the black bishop does not control the a1 square, so even if white had no pawns, it would be a draw. It is clear that white can also never break the blockade either if black just plants his king on c6. It would remind me of an opposite color bishop blockade, but white has no bishop. Just Kc6, and Bd5-h1 with an easy draw.

The only reasonable exception would be if somehow white played a5, and later was zugzwanged into having to play b5 (like eventual stalemating the king on a1, forcing b5. That said, just avoid a5 (white can actually play b5 right now if on the move to avoid that issue).

It seems like a pretty easy draw either way to this long-time Master.

P.S. My Stockfish at a depth of 48 still reads 0.00
> 9 votes

# Answer
Yes this should be drawn because:

* White has pawns only on one side of the board, and thus cannot overload the bishop (which can sometimes be achieved if you have pawns on both flanks).
* Black king is well positioned to blockade the pawn advance, and in particular preventing the white king to get to `c5` and cover the two connected passers.
* `b5` will always we met with `a5` fixing the weak pawn on `a4` which can be targeted by the bishop as soon as the king start chasing the bishop. And of course blacks keeps the pawn by playing `a5`, i.e., white cannot simply ignore the queenside and roam around the board chasing the bishop.

Concretely, here are a few ways the game can proceed, in all of which black holds comfortably:

```
 [title "Trying some possible continuations"]
 [fen "8/3k3/p7/2Pb4/PP6/2KP4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. b5 a5 2. c6+ (2. Kd4 Bb3 3. Kc3 (3. c6+ Kd6 {again not allowing Kc5}) Bxa4 4. Kc4 Bd1 {and black holds trivially as white king cannot leave the a-pawn running.}) Kc7 3. Kd4 Kd6 (3...Bb3 {cannot allow Kc5 after c6 has been played, else white will be able to advance the connected pair of b-c pawns and win} 4. Kc5 Bxa4 5. b6+ {white wins}) 4. c7 (4. Kc3 Be6 {and black simply sits, white cannot make progress without losing pawns.}) Bb7 {and the c pawn is lost next.}

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: endgame, bishop-endgame
---


title: Is blindfold chess bad for the health?

text:
# Question
Title: Is blindfold chess bad for the health?
From Wikipedia,

> While blindfold chess has been recommended in moderation by many sources as a method of increasing one's playing strength, simultaneous blindfold exhibitions were officially banned in 1930 in the USSR as they were deemed to be a health hazard. Mikhail Botvinnik also warned against it.

Should I actively not play blindfold chess? Are there any health risks?

# Answer
> 37 votes
No.

The main reason behind this train of thought was that they thought that blindfold chess may contribute to going crazy. They looked at Morphy and Pillsbury as their primary examples. Lasker, specifically, thought that blindfold chess made Pillsbury go mad, but we now know it was syphilis. Other than just plain incorrect assumptions like Lasker's, this is an incredibly small sample size no matter how you cut it, and we are talking about judging this on 90+-year-old "science", if you can call it that.

This not only does not make any sense in the modern day, but it has been debunked by at least USCF NM, and noted psychologist, Christopher Chabris from Harvard. The paper can be found here.

Blindfold chess is good for your chess vision, so feel free to practice it in moderation.

P.S. We have in more recent times, from 1992-2011, had the Melody Amber blindfold tournaments for the the top players in the world including Karpov, Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen. If modern science even remotely believed that blindfold was bad for you, these guys would not have played.

# Answer
> -2 votes
No. Not the way the Russians thought anyway. It may raise your BP as you have trouble playing well.

I have played, and won, blindfold games. *They do not increase your strength.* But they are harder and not in a useful way.

The truth is that you have to play well first, to be able to do blindfold chess at all.

---
Tags: blindfold-chess
---


title: What is a "monster knight"?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a "monster knight"?
I was watching an agadmator video explaining a game between two chess engines, and at one point in the video after a knight move, agadmator talks about how that knight then became "basically a monster knight", and therefore must be taken. He then talks more about some other games involving "monster knights", but never really explains what he means by "monster knight".

My common sense is telling me that a "monster knight" is simply a knight that is well positioned, but from the way that agadmator talked about the concept, it seemed to me like there is a more precise definition of what makes a "monster knight". I googled around for a definition and didn't find it anywhere, hence why I am asking it here.

So, what's a "monster knight"?

# Answer
The concept of a knight which is so powerfully placed (generally on e6/e3) that the game wins itself dates, according to Winter, from:

> An observation by Zukertort after 26 Ne6 in the simultaneous game Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873:
>
> *The appearance of the knight at K6 \[e6 for white, e3 for black\] is generally, for the opponent,* *the proper signal to strike his colours.*’ Source: City of London Chess Magazine, May 1874, pages 97-98

Here is the game extract:

```
[title "Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873"]
[fen "3q1rk1/1rb3pp/b2p1p2/n2P1N2/1p1NP3/2p1B3/P4PPP/1Bn1Q1RK w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne6 Qe8 2. Bxc1 Rf7 3. g4 Qa4 4. g5 c2 5. gxf6 cxb1=Q 6. Nh6+ Kh8 7. Nxf7+ Kg8 8. Rxg7++

```

More from Winter:

> When the game Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings, 1895 was shown in a ‘Chess Movies’ article on page 336 of the November 1949 Chess Review, the following comment referred to 19 Ne6:
>
> ‘A knight at K6 is like a bone in the throat, says Steinitz.’
>
> For the same attribution, see I.A. Horowitz’s books How to Win in the Chess Openings (New York, 1951), page 44, and How to Win at Chess (New York, 1968), page 50, but where did Steinitz make the comment?
>
> From page 212 of the first volume of Kasparov’s Predecessors series, before 16 Ne6 in Lasker v Capablanca, St Petersburg, 1914:
>
> ‘... the knight at e6 will be like a bone in his throat!’
> 13 votes

# Answer
Consider black's e4 knight in this following position. If black moves the knight, white will experience a discovered check from the light-squared bishop. Is that scary? It's frightening! For instance, a move like `1.Qh3` can be met with `Nf2+`, double attacking the king and the queen.

```
[title "Variation from lanturegge vs sicariusnoctis (Bullet)"]
[fen "r6r/pp1n1kp1/2pp2b1/7p/2PPn2b/4P3/PPK1B1Q1/R1B5 w - - 1 18"]

1. Qh3 Nf2+! 2. Kc3 Nxh3

```

How many squares is such a knight attacking? Well, there's the 8 squares that a centralized knight can move to in one jump:

But because of the discovered check, the knight effectively attacks all squares that it can move to within two jumps:

That's 35 squares. That's more than half the board. In fact, taking away the knight changes the computer evaluation by 13 points. (After moving the white king out of check.) That's more than a measly 9 point queen!

If the white queen were to rest on *any* of these squares, then black could convert this tactical advantage into a material one and capture that queen!
> 6 votes

# Answer
There is no standard nor official definition. Normal folks would take it to be a VERY well placed and powerful knight.

I have sacked a rook for a knight and gotten huge advantages, but that depends on the specific position. Sometimes that knight can maneuver to where rooks and bishops have problems and can be the balance of power for a mating attack with the queen alone or with another piece.

In the video’s position the you linked, the knight is on a strong square and supported by two pawns. However it can be easily taken, so it is not as strong as if it were there and could remain.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is not technically a pure chess term, but is not an uncommon description for a very powerful knight. It is simply English, and your common sense thoughts were right on the money.

It is just a description for a knight that is beautifully positioned, and that controls a lot of key territory on the board, and is often, but not always, unassailable. Sometimes, you can trade it off, but at a cost.

Lastly, and this is important, it must control enough of the board to make life difficult for the other side. Sometimes, you can have an optically beautiful piece (not just a knight), but it attacks nothing important, so it is not really a strong piece. I have seen knights on d5 in certain positions that while optically great, they did not combine with any other pieces actually threaten black.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Check out this position, from Anatoly Karpov vs. Garry Kasparov (1985) after 20...Rc8. Does that knight on d3 look like a monster to you? It's practically single-handedly paralyzing White's position.

```
[fen "2rqr1k1/5pp1/p2b1n1p/3P1b2/Np6/3n1BB1/PP1Q1PPP/1N1R1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
I don't know if there is any standard definition for 'Monster knight' in chess world, But as someone who has seen tons of Agadmator chess videos I can say with confidence that what he means by a monster knight.

It is:

1. A knight usually on 6th rank (or 3rd) which cant be kicked away by pawns (i.e no pawns in the adjacent files, or if there are pawns they are advanced beyond 6th rank)
2. Opponent don't have a bishop of the same color of the square where knight is sitting.
3. Opponent don't have a knight which can be traded with this 'monster knight', or if he has a knight, its far away or busy doing some other things.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, knights
---


title: Shortest path for a knight

text:
# Question
Title: Shortest path for a knight
Is there a practical way of computing the shortest path from a square to another, for a knight? (for a human chess player, not for a computer)

Usually, when I want to send my knight from a square to another, I try to find a path with a rather empirical way. "OK, to get there, I should go here or here... But this square is attacked, so I can only go here..." and so on. Is there a more straightforward approach?

Thanks in advance.

# Answer
To me the easy human way it is to start from the square that you want to go to (backtracking approach), lets call it 'A' and exclude from the path calculation the direct linked paths from 'A' that you can't go to because they are attack or there is a piece on it.

For example, you want to go to the **square c4**, so the directed linked paths will be from by `a5`, `a3`, `b2`, `d2`, `e3`, `e5`, `d6` and `b6`, but if only the square `a5` and `b6` are available you can reduce your calculation to only to 2 paths now. Furthermore, if you use this "technique" you can check if the target square is reachable at all (if have at least 1 directed linked path not being occupied or attacked).

After doing that, you go to the position where you knight stands and you check which are the squares that you can go to. Using this two phase approach you reduce you tree of calculation immensely.

You should also know beforehand how many moves you need to go from one square to another with your knight, in order to avoid the calculation of larger paths than the ones really need it. I din't check online to find any heuristic for this but I can give you some inside tips about it:

* The Knight on a black square can only go to a white square and vise-versa, in the next move;
* Every square on the diagonal of the actual square of the Knight can be reach in only two moves. Square `(x,y)` to the squares `(x-1,y+1)`, `(x+1,y+1)`, `(x+1,y-1)` and `(x-1,y-1)` takes **2 moves**;
* The squares up, above, right and left of the actual square takes **3 moves**;
* Every square on the diagonal of the actual square with a one square between them (e.g actual square = c4, target square a6), takes **4 moves**.
* Every square on the diagonal of the actual square with a 2 squares between them (e.g actual square = c4, target square f7), takes only **2 moves**.

Finally, if you are in a given color square you will take a **odd number of moves** to reach the **opposite color** square. If the target square have the same color as the square that you are in now it will take a **even number of moves**.
> 9 votes

# Answer
It's well documented.

It's actually a fairly boring metric. The only special cases are the squares next to the knight and the squares on the same diagonal that are two squares away. In all other cases, quite regular.

If you mean with other pieces on the board, you get a shortest path problem which is related to the Travelling Salesman Problem but is soluble in polynomial time.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I know this is a super old question. I made a program that outputs all the positions a knight can be relative to starting position within six moves(which happens to be the maximum number of moves needed to get anywhere)

```
0: (0, 0)
1: (2, 1)
2: (2, 0) (3, 3) (4, 2) (3, 1) (1, 1) (4, 0)
3: (3, 2) (5, 4) (4, 1) (3, 0) (6, 1) (6, 3) (4, 3) (5, 0) (1, 0) (5, 2)
4: (7, 3) (6, 4) (5, 5) (6, 6) (7, 1) (4, 4) (6, 0) (6, 2) (7, 5) (2, 2) (5, 1) (5, 3)
5: (7, 4) (6, 5) (7, 0) (7, 6) (7, 2)
6: (7, 7)

```

Number on the left is turn number, and the list on the right corresponds to all the positions the knight can be in with duplicate positions removed (we don't care that you can go back to your starting position for example, these are the shortest paths to each of these positions). Also, no negative numbers are represented. For example 2,1 -2,1, 2,-1 and -2,-1 are all considered the same position. Also the biggest number is always shown first. For example (4,2) means the night can move 4 spaces in some direction, and then 2 in an orthogonal direction.

One more caveat is that these numbers are the theoretical minimum with no pieces in the way, and a theoretical infinite plane to work with. That is, to achieve this could potentially require moves that exit the game board and come back. I think it only requires exiting in rare cases. For example, if you're in a corner of a board and want to move 1,1 toward the center, the 2 moves that should be able to do this require you going out of bounds first.

Memorizing this is probably not that useful, but there's some interesting takeaways that may be worth noting.

For example, it takes a whole 3 moves to move a knight 1 square forward.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: knights, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Does White have any feasible way to break through this position?
I recently played as Black in a 1+0 blitz game on Lichess in which the below position was reached.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. d4 d5 4. e5g Nfd7 5. f4 Nb6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. O-O g6 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 10. Ne2 Bg7 11. g4 Qe7 12. g5 a6 13. b3 Nd7 14. c4 b5 15. c5 Bb7 16. a4 c6 17. axb5 axb5 18. Rxa8+ Bxa8 19. b4 O-O 20. Be3 Qd8 21. Qc2 Qb8 22. Ra1 Bb7 23. h4 Qc7 24. Ng3 Ra8 25. Rxa8+ Bxa8 26. h5 Kf8 27. h6 Bh8 28. Kg2 Qa7 29. Qd2 Ke7 30. Kh3 Kd8

```

A lockdown position eventually ensued, and I offered a draw to my opponent, even though I theoretically could have won on time but I am a fair player, and they accepted.

The final position is one in which I see no foreseeable advance for either side. Black shouldn’t even think of making one, with a useless dark-squared bishop and an imprisoned light-square one. White has a knight pair, which could jump past Black lines, though it would be hard to do so. A good knight outpost is on a5. Their dark-square bishop is also useless. Therefore, White has an small advantage, but it would hard to due with dancing queens. If exchanged, then there is much less of a chance of an advance.

If the game was continued between two other people who were given infinite time, could White, in theory, ever commence a winning breakthrough into Black’s camp, or can Black hold a draw? Ignore the 50-move rule if you must.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't see any way for White to make progress. There are a few ways but all don't lead to anything:

1) Maneuvering a knight to f6. This just gives Black an opportunity to exchange his bad h8-bishop. After ...Bxf6 gxf6, Black puts his knight on f8 and plays ...Ke8, defending the f7- and h7- pawns.

2) Playing the f5 pawn sac. The purpose of this would be to plant a knight on f4. But here Black just plays ...exf5 and again employs ...Nf8, defending the e6- and g6- squares.

3) Putting a knight on a5. This doesn't really due much and hardly warrants a response from Black.

I also let Stockfish think to depth 68. The evaluation it gave is 1.97, which sounds bad, except it gave this same evaluation before it reached depth 30. This suggests White has no way to make any progress, meaning most likely the result is a draw (though it doesn't prove it).

Btw, in a 1+0 game trying to flag your opponent in a dead drawn position is completely fine. Aiming to win on time in bullet is a huge part of that time control. I'd only considering playing on there an unfair practice maybe in longer time controls (say over 5+0).

# Answer
> 1 votes
White has a possible way to break in. Just one way. But there is a risk that white might lose if he does that.

but the b on h8 is dead so it really does not cost that much to try.

I have not analysed in depth so you run through an engine if you care.

horsies on a3 and c3, bishop on b2 or c1 and Q on d3 or e2 or f1.

and it looks like q on e2 and the b on c1 would be the easiest with the other moves needed.

would have to do this subtly so black does not move his horsie to c7 which will take 3 moves and then guard the b5 pawn with the queen taking one more move. maybe start with q b2 and a horsie to a3 then move the b to look like you are blocking the q from the a file. move white q to its square then maneuver the other horsie into position.

white will have to act dumb and do funny maneuvers to get to the point where he move for the break before black is ready. no guarantees but it could happen.

finally sac a horsie for the pawn on b5 win a second pawn advance pawns on band c files

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, theory, closed-position
---


title: How is endgame theory developed?

text:
# Question
Title: How is endgame theory developed?
First of all, I am explicitly *not* asking for a list of endgame principles, nor am I asking for resources to study endgames from.

My question is: **How does one develop endgame theory?** The main motivation of my question is that I have been trying to study endgame theory for a chess variant (atomic chess, as it were) and there is precious little of it. I am quite literally writing new theory the deeper I study.

I'm looking for answers that could address either or both of the following points, in regular chess or in chess variants:

* How endgames (regular chess or any chess variant) were analysed, organised and codified over the decades until we have our present-day knowledge;
* How to study endgames, but *without* access to any books or professional games (just a chess set, a brain, an engine, tablebases, and lots of patience.)

# Answer
> 4 votes
How do you want to do it?

I know that sounds flippant, but that's pretty much the only good answer to questions along the lines of "How do I create something that no one has created?"

Chess endgame theory developed by people starting from very simple positions and identifying commonalities among them. Typically, endgames get classified by the pieces involved (Rook endings, minor piece endings, etc.) so I'd start with elemental positions that are clearly won/lost, see what leads to them, try and see common maneuvers to create them, etc.

From simple positions you create the building blocks for understanding more complex positions.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

An example is pawn endings. We started with simple concepts like the queening square, moved on to techniques like opposition, and kept building until we ended up with a theory of co-ordinate squares, which covered all pawn endings. Opposition, Triangulation, all of that stuff boiled down to being special cases, subsets within that theory. But it all started with atoms, from which we built molecules, and so on until we eventually arrived at an impressive, comprehensive, edifice.

There's no single uniform best way to approach something that's never been done. You try something, if it seems helpful you keep using it; if not, try another way.

By definition, there is no mapped out course to get you safely through uncharted waters.

# Answer
> 0 votes
What is endgame theory?

Endgames are just special cases and principles that have been worked out over analysis of millions of end game positions and then codified into categories of similarities.

And it is not easy as there are many special cases and exceptions.

You will have to do all that by yourself for your new nuclear version of chess.

---
Tags: endgame, theory, chess-variants, atomic-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to be more aware of smothered mate opportunities?
I've been playing ChessAcademy's android app for a while when I'm bored: thought it could improve my chess to be solving their tactic challenges (not sure if it's working though..).

One pattern I often fail to notice is the smothered mate. Today, I failed again to notice it while focusing on capturing pieces instead and leveling the score.

The challenge (and solution) is that one:

```
[FEN "3r3k/6pp/p3Qn2/P3N3/4q3/2P4P/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf7+ Kg8
2. Nh6+ Kh8
3. Qg8+ Rxg8
4. Nf7#

```

I failed by thinking of a move that would only turn the piece advantage to my side:

```
[FEN "3r3k/6pp/p3Qn2/P3N3/4q3/2P4P/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf7+ Kg8
2. Nxd8 Qxe6
3. Nxe6

```

Obviously the solution strategy is better, but I failed to see it (as I had in other challenges that included a smothered mate). So I was wondering what "signs" could I be looking for that a smothered mate is possible? I know it might sound a little obvious, but maybe if I start by just trying to notice some small patterns I'll fail less on those tactics and later be able to find more complex moves that set up a smothered mate.

# Answer
> 5 votes
There's a variety of mates that could be called smothered mate, but for what I'd call the "standard" one (sometimes called *Philidor's Legacy*), like the one in your example, notable signs are (with white mating black as an example):

1. The black king is in the h8 corner (maybe it just moved there after being checked by the white queen).
2. The white queen and knight control f7.
3. The f7 pawn is typically absent but g7 and h7 are still there (g7 and h7 could also be pieces, as long as they don't cover f7 or g8).
4. The white queen is on the a2-g8 diagonal.
5. There's a black rook on the 8th rank to do the smothering. (It wouldn't work with the black queen!)

This can be generalized to long castling, but it is less frequent.

Some tactical trainers (or books!) let you practice tactics by theme. I don't know anything about Chessacademy, but one example I know is the tactics in chess.com which has this feature and has a "smothered mate" category (but they use the term loosely!). Maybe after seeing many smothered mates in a row your recognition of them will become more automatic.

# Answer
> 0 votes
More tactical training.

After you have been mated that way once and mated the other king with it a couple of times you will always see it immediately.

That mate is so obvious to me now that I see it at a glance. Other mates may take some time to calculate.

Do all the smothered mate type tactics problems from some online site and you should be good to go.

---
Tags: endgame, tactics, checkmate
---