title: Why does black have an advantage here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does black have an advantage here?
I am studying now old Polish book "ABC Szachisty" ("ABC for Chess Player", informal translation) and the following example is given there:

```

[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Nf3 e5
5. d3 Bg4 6. Bd2 Nc6 7. Qe2 Nd4 8. Qxe5+ Qxe5+
9. Nxe5 Nxc2#

```

And this example is aimed to show the significance of the center. So my two questions that I don't understand here are:

1. Why this example satisfy its aim, i.e. shows how important the center is? My guess would be that since black figures are well centralised, they have short distance to white's position, and that is what is making mating attack possible (also white's mistake of taking the pawn). I don't understand however why control over the center is important here.
2. Why, after 6th move black has better control over the center?

```

[FEN "r3kbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/q3p3/6b1/2NP1N2/PPPB1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 3 7"]

```

I see that white knight on f3 is pinned and f1 bishop is blocked. Also, white game is very passive here. However, black has only two minor pieces mobilised here and whole queen's side is not active.

# Answer
Answering the second question first,

"2.Why, after 6th move black has better control over the center?"

Black's pawn on e5 is better than white's pawn on d3. Both sides have traded a central pawn. Black's e-pawn occupies a central square and controls another. White only controls e4. It's about the pawns. Pieces can move around and control various squares. Notice every major opening spends the first 2-3 moves establishing the pawn structure in the center. I know that can seem confusing because hypermodern openings appear not to do that but they actually do. They just do it in a more subtle way. My advice is just to focus on understanding classical centers until you get around 1900 then the hypermodern openings will make a lot more sense. Focus on the pawn structure in the center and think of the pieces as support pieces for the pawns.

"Why this example satisfy its aim" It's not a great example. But, you can see that black is able to more actively develop his pieces. For example, black's light square bishop is able to get out and pin the knight but also has f5, e6 and d7 as options. The white light squared bishop only has one legal move (e2) and it's pretty passive. Black has a free and easy development with lots of choices on where to place his pieces while white has few choices and his pieces are tripping over each other and fighting for the same squares (e2 for example)

"Why does black have an advantage here?" After move 6, black has a better center. Development is equal. Black is one move away from castling while white is two. That's how you evaluate opening positions- center, development, king safety. Black is better in two areas and equal in the third. Therefore, black is better.
> 3 votes

# Answer
First things first, this is an example of a very poorly played game, so Black gained its edge because of White's tactical mistakes, rather than by taking advantage of their extra space. This is a "fault" often made by chess authors when trying to illustrate a concept. They will explain the events in a game in a way that "fits their narrative" rather than provide an objective analysis, which is this case would lead to conclude that the position is pretty much balanced if not slightly advantageous for White until the horrible 7.Qe2.

It is true, though, that by move 6, White's lack of interest in fighting for the center costed them most of its starting advantage despite Black having lost several tempi with their queen. White could have played 7.Be2 (among others) and still have a reasonable position despite Black's lead in the center due to their extra development.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Black has more space. The e5-pawn gives Black four rows to move around in, while the d3=pawn gives White three (and the 4th rank is kind of a no-man's-land). That extra board room confers ease of the development: no problems for black bishops, while White's Be2 isn't so happy.

Later, the space advantage gives Black a chance to grow with ...f7-f5 plus ...e5-e4, while White hasn't the same. White's job will be trying to gain equality in the center with d3-d4 or f2-f4.

This position is a good example of why center control is our main positional goal early in the game.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: beginner, center
---


# Question
Title: How to counter white's attempt to get a massive center in the Giucco Piano?
```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3

```

When white plays 4. c3 and prepares to push d4 to get a massive center, how is it possible to prevent them from doing so, or at least put a lot of pressure on the center with it? I don't have trouble dealing with this in longer time controls because I can find ways attack the center, but how do I deal with this in blitz? When with the black's side I feel like playing against the Evan's gambit without being up a pawn.

# Answer
c3 by white is called the Moller Attack. The reason you do not see it at high levels is that the sting has been taken out of it over the years. Basically, it comes down to breaking up the center with Nxe4, or hitting back in the center with d5, before white can finish developing and fortify the center.

There are a few lines you need to know.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 (6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. O-O Qf6 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Bg5 Qxg7 12. g3 h6 13. Bh4 Qg4 {and black is quite safe, and much better}) Bb4+ 7. Nc3 (7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Qb3 Nce7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rfe1 c6) 7... d5 (7... Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Bf6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 13. Nxg5 h6 14. Qe2 hxg5 15. Re1 Be6 16. dxe6 f6 17. Re3 c6 18. Rh3 Rxh3 19. gxh3 g6 20. Qf3 Qa5 21. Rd1 Qe5) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6

```

And you play a standard isolated queen-pawn position.

The main line I gave with 7...d5 is probably not as good at taking on e4, but that line is much more dangerous and has a number of side roads that white can try.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Even though Black is fine in this line (if you know the relevant theory), you can avoid it by playing the 3...Nf6 move order. Then:

* 4.d3 Bc5 transposes to a quiet Italian where White won't be pushing an early d4.
* 4.Nc3 Bc5 transposes to the Four Knights.

There are some active moves White can play against 3...Nf6 to avoid transposing into standard systems with ...Bc5, but they aren't that impressive:

* 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 is balanced.
* 4.Ng5 is the Fried Liver Attack. After 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5! 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6, Black gets an initiative for the pawn.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There's a huge difference between this and the Evans gambit and that is 3...Nf6 followed by 0-0 at some point. In the Evans gambit, you usually aren't going to have an easy way to Nf6 without giving something else up which means you're going to struggle to castle which means you are vulnerable to a strong attack.

Here, you just throw Nf6 out on move 3 and you're fine. If white plays 5.d4 then 5...Bb5+ is equal because white doesn't really have anything after that.

6. Nc3, Nxe4. Black is fine. There's couple of traps in there though. If white plays Qb3 just play either Bxc3 or 0-0
7. Bd2, Bxd2+ and depending on white's response black should be able to equalize with various combinations of Nxe4, d5 and 0-0.
8. Nbd2, Nxe4 is equal.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You can't. This is what you get for playing so passively at move 2 (2...Nc6 is a master-class move. Masters can play more patiently in waiting for counterattacks, but inexpert players should learn to hit back whenever they can. In this case, 2...d5, 2...Nf6, 2...f5.) and at move 3 (3...Bc5, instead of 3...Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5, of which no other stackexchange user is likely to approve, but that's what you get for seeking free chess advice from millions of people: you get what you pay for).

Chessplayers are never so happy as when they get to play however they please, and 2...Nc6 and 3...Bc5 let them do that.

Once you've committed yourself to this passive play, I think the best you can do is 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nxd2 d5 and play against the isolated d-pawn.

And I think you're lucky your opponents aren't play 4. b4! Bxb4 5. c3, saving time.
> -3 votes

# Answer
In short you counterattack and fight hard not roll up into a fetal position. See the gory details above by Phishmaster. N-KB3 = Nf6 by black is the strongest although d6 actually has a slightly better game-theory type result favoring it.
> -5 votes

---
Tags: opening, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: Is it true that amateur players tend to choose the advance variation after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5?
My database shows that after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5, white has the following main variations:

* 3. Nc3
* 3. exd5
* 3. e5

and they are equally popular among professional players. However, from my experience playing online games, I have observed that among amateur players, 3. e5 is far more popular than the other two moves. Is it true that 3. e5 is statistically more popular than 3. Nc3 and 3. exd5 among amateur players? If so, why?

# Answer
According to Lichess's database for games between ~1600 rated players in the Caro-kann does indeed show that *3. e5* is much more common than other moves. ***e5*** in fact **accounts for 46% of games** played; compare this to the second most common move, exd5, which is only 28%.

Often when amateurs are learning the concept of space in chess, the Advanced French Defense is used as an example. *3. e5* therefore is a common move for amateur white players to play against the French Defense.

Since the Caro-Kann resembles the French Defense, I believe amateur players simply play *3. e5* as it is what they know best. (This is only my best guess, don't take this as a hard fact).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Amateurs are slaves to grandmaster fashion. When a line gets noticed at the 2800 level, the 2500 players adopt it, then the 2200, 1900, and so on.

Also, bad chess coaches recommend 3. e5 because there's less for their students to remember, though it shouldn't be a matter of memorization but understanding.

3. e5 is still a popular choice among strong players and the fashion slaves who follow them, and bad coaches are still bad coaches, so there's a lot of 3. e5 going around.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have played thousand of games with the French over the past 40 years (not all OTB, of course)and my experience is that lower rated amateurs tend to choose ed5. This is too bad from my perspective as there are more chances for B (in my opinion) after e5 c5 or Nc3 Bb4.

--Doug Grant formerly 2330, now down to 2100 (age-related)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: statistics, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: How do I get a well-rounded understanding of chess openings?
So, it was inevitable. I am making progress in the middle-game. I understand positions better and my tactics continue to improve. My end games are still solid/superior for my skill level so I generally get better as the game goes on.

However, now my opening play is suffering. I just get trounced on many openings. Many of the gambit openings just blow me away, particularly the King's Gambit, but others as well.

If I can survive the first 10 moves, I usually win, but there are so many traps in those first 10 moves. I have a good understanding (went through all the chessmaster lessons) of opening principles. I also understand a lot of the basic tactics in the openings.

But it's time to buckle down and study the chess openings and understand them. However, I am not an expert/master by any means (class C/B player), so I just want a more broad understanding.

In addition to my tactics/endgame and positional studies, what should I be studying in the openings to get a good understanding?

Thank you!

To get some ideas of what I currently play:

* As black, against new players I will play Petrov's Defence. This is one I know well. I only like to play this for longer games, as for blitz games the lines get too complicated to play well.
* I enjoy the Ruy Lopez from both sides. Most of the standard lines work out well.
* Against the King's Gambit, I always accept and then struggle mightily to get my king to safety.
* As white, I like to sometimes play the London System and sometimes go for the Ruy Lopez lines myself.
* I am not a big fan of the Indian openings, although they generally don't cause me much trouble, they just aren't as fun. The fianchettoed bishops take too much of the action
* I sometimes will play the Italian game instead of the Ruy Lopez, but it tends to lead to less exciting games.

In general, I like balanced games that can shift between open and closed, as being able to find the right plan is where it gets really exciting. I want to maintain as many options for as long as possible and not be locked down into any particular plan too early in the game.

Most of the time, my problem isn't when things follow normal theory; it's when some trick is played. Or even when the normal line goes wildly against intuition (I've seen some openings books where the standard line is random-looking pawn moves).

# Answer
> 17 votes
One book that I think you might find useful, both at your current playing strength and as you improve, is Mihail Marin's *Beating the Open Games*. It is a repertoire book for Black based on `1. e4 e5`, and it covers all book openings White can use in reply *except for the Ruy Lopez*. (So for a complete repertoire, you would want to pair this with something on the Ruy Lopez. Not coincidentally, Marin has one of these as well.)

One particular from the book that touches on an opening you mention in your question: it recommends, as I did in an earlier comment, declining the King's Gambit with the fairly quiet `2. ... Bc5`, ignoring the free pawn, calmly developing a minor piece, and not insignificantly covering the a7-g1 diagonal that White's first moves have opened up, potentially causing some development headaches for White. Thanks to the fact that Marin's book is based on his own playing repertoire, it offers a pretty consistent and coherent approach to facing the various non-Ruy Lopez openings - e.g. this `2. ... Bc5` response to the King's Gambit fits in well with his recommendation against a "deferred" King's Gambit via the Vienna Game, `1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 Bc5` \- and it is an approach that generally steers clear of the wild and crazy.

One nice feature of the book - and this is mainly why I think it could be of use to you at your current playing strength and as you develop - is that it very cleanly separates a discussion of typical strategic ideas and considerations for each opening from an MCO-style table of theory for each, the latter of which you can choose to use to whatever level of detail you like (or ignore almost entirely) for the nitty gritty study of opening lines. The more idea-centric prose section on each opening alone can give you plenty to chew on.

Bottom line, it's a very well-executed book that, from how you've described your chess self, might be right up your alley in terms of its `1. e4 e5` recommendations. If you search around a bit, you'll find that Marin's chess writings are *quite* highly thought-of, and I think that reputation is well-deserved. Since I know you're familiar with Silman, here's what he had to say about this book:

> *Beating the Open Games*, joined with *A Spanish Repertoire for Black*, is the greatest repertoire book(s) ever written for players 1800 right to grandmaster. Marin's legend as a serious chess writer seems to grow every time he puts his fingers on a keyboard.

Lest the mention of 1800 give you pause, given that you describe yourself as a C/B player, note that others just as easily give a lower floor for it, e.g. Carsten Hansen writes, "This book provides something for every level of player, from around 1500 to even strong grandmasters."

# Answer
> 15 votes
A simple suggestion: learn the lines your opponents play.

When you finish a game, check the "book" moves for the variation that showed up on the board. Figure precisely how you should have played *that game* and remember it. Then, the next time you feel lost in an opening, repeat the process.

Nothing can be more discouraging than spending weeks memorizing book lines, just to have no one play them against you. But by using the choices your opponents make to set the priority for the lines you study, you're preparing yourself for the style of the players you play most often. As you do this, you'll discover, either on the board or in the books, links between the variation you're playing now and the one you played last month, and you'll start putting together variations, even complete openings, to play.

As you do this, look for ways to transpose what you're playing into another position you're more comfortable with. For example, as an e4 player, you can almost force Black into taking the Black side of a Blackmar-Diemer gambit in every circumstance except after e5 or c5, so if you look at some of those lines and feel comfortable with them, go for it. Many Pirc positions easily transpose into Sicilian lines if you'd rather play them that way. Closed Sicilian lines can end up as Nimzo-Indians. Transpositions, when you find them, can be fun for you, while puzzling to your opponent. (Hey! How'd I end up in a Queen's Gambit?)

The success of a trick opening is dependent upon surprise. Don't be surprised, and when faced with one, don't overreach. Remember, the object of the opening is merely to reach a playable middle game. Play reasonable moves and wait for the middlegame to win.

# Answer
> 9 votes
At the amateur level, openings fall into two varieties: standard (book) openings, and "trick" openings used on other amateurs.

My guess is that you are falling for "trick" openings. One way to fight this is to learn the book openings, and when your opponent deviates from the book, figure out why his move is bad, and punish him.

For instance, in the Two Knights Defense, after `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5` White then plays aggressively: `6. Nxf7` (Fried Liver Attack). But the sacrifice `5 ...Na5!` poses White many problems, by driving back his Bishop. Black then gets a considerable lead in development due to White's (doubled) d pawn.

# Answer
> 8 votes
In the title of the question are asking about obtaining understanding of chess openings, but in the main body of your post you are stating that you have a problem of falling into traps. I don't think you are falling into those traps due to lack of understanding of opening principles. Most traps are counter-intuitive, that's why they are traps; hence, they are set up for people who follow the principles.

To reduce the number of times you fall into traps, you can probably find videos about traps on youtube, to get you started. You could learn about specifics of the arising positions (which might be at odds with general principles) studying GM games might be a good way to do this, and of course play a lot, and learn from your mistakes.

Don't try to create a bullet proof opening repertoire, though, it is impossible, even best GMs fall into traps. But the time can be better spent studying middle game or tactics than trying to memorize loads of theory.

You seem to be on the right track, just learn the most common traps, and keep track of your mistakes.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Most of the answers address the specific issue of playing `1.e4 e5` and the usual problems that come with symmetrical king-pawn openings, but a very obvious answer that none has mentioned and will indeed pave the way to a "well-rounded understanding", would be to pick up a copy of the ~~ECO~~ MCO (it doesn't have to be the newest and is relatively inexpensive) and work through it methodically (play through the main lines once so you can roughly know everything that's out there from A00 to E99, but don't bother with memorising the tables, *unless* you are really thinking of tackling the 5-volume mammoth).

Another would be to invest in a repertoire book as Ed Dean has mentioned and gradually build your actual repertoire around it. John Cox's *Dealing with d4 Deviations* would be the d4 equivalent of *Beating the Open Games*. Personally I like the structure in Larry Kaufman's *The Chess Advantage in Black and White*. It is really one of the most complete repertoire book that has been ever published. Usage of chess database software will also assist greatly.

If you really want to know the way around a specific trap and the usual tactical refutations associated with one, then there's nothing better than a direct engine check.

Btw, the Italian Game is highly exciting for your level if you are willing to include the Evans Gambit as part of the repertoire. Also, my personal favorite against the King's Gambit is the Falkbeer Countergambit, as it opens up the position and offers excellent attacking chances for Black as well. `2. ...exf4` is actually favoured by computers, but not so human-friendly. As you will no doubt find out, studying of the King's Gambit can be a whole endeavour by itself if you intend to specialize in `1. ...e5`

# Answer
> 3 votes
A book series to buy is Mastering the Chess Openings Volumes 1-3 by John Watson. Anything written by John Watson is worth reading.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I agree with the last answer above - the trick openings are deviations from the "book" responses, which are the top responses to each move in an opening. A chess engine like Stockfish (open source) will give you the "Book" openings, by percentage, for example after 1. e4 e5 2 f4 (Kings Gambit) the black responses are exf4(47%) d5 (23%) Bc5(6%) Nc6 (5%) Qh4+(5%) and a few others. You can download an app on your smartphone with Stockfish and set it to show the book moves.

Another cool way, using a chess engine is to put it on Analysis mode and just see what the engine would recommend to each move by White. Going over your losses in the KGA (King's Gambit Accepted) you can see what "tricks" your opponent used and what is the Engine response. The Engine response will always see these "tricks" because computers are tactical monsters that can see the combinations being set up several moves down the line.

In any case, it is invaluable to save the history of your games (so easy to do these days with much play being online) and then go over the games. I believe, but it hasn't been proven, that although it is good to play many games, at an early level it may be more worthwhile to play ten games and then spend some time analyzing them afterwards.

Cheers.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I study openings by using a database and looking at the most played moves in the opening I want to learn. Don't look too much at the computer evaluation (as long as it stays below +- 1), look mainly at win percentages, since they show you which side of the board is easier to play. If I come across a position I don't understand (can't find a good plan), I usually look at the highest rated win for the color im playing myself (so often a carlsen game or a game from an other top GM) and look at the way they played the game.

Whenever you play an on the board game, try to analyse the game without an engine afterwards (often with your opponent). After you have done this, check whether your assessment of the game (opening) was good with a database and engine. You can even analyse the first 10 moves of online blitz games to quickly check if you went wrong in the opening, and try to improve next game.

I have opening books at home and some videos, but I mainly learn my opening theory this way.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Based on your description of your problem you need to study tactics a lot more.

Also master ONE opening for white and black and if KG causes you problems then play sicilian or e6 or d6 instead of pe5

---
Tags: opening, learning, training
---


title: Owen's Defence playability

text:
# Question
Title: Owen's Defence playability
The Owen's defence is a chess opening which starts with 1. e4 b6!?. This opening is playable if Black can get a quick c7-c5 break, where he has a pawn on e6, b6, and then he pushes c7-c5.

However, Stockfish on 22ply depth disagrees, giving White a +0.89 advantage. This hardly seems playable, as White has almost the advantage of an extra pawn.

So there must be a reason for this evaluation. I think that White can somehow prevent the break, to get a full pawn center, but I can't find any way to do so without compromising my pawn structure.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Stockfish's @.3484814232843 shouldn't concern Black as much as Morphy's simple plan for White.

1.e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nh3

Stockfish might be complaining because White gets free rein in the center, but Morphy said 'two pawns is enough', then as long as White continues developing, he's guaranteed at least equal development, and because it was the fastest possible kingside development, White has O-O plus f2-f4-f5 in store to open a file.

1...b6 made it too easy for Morphy (and anyone) to follow the general winning plan of better center control, better development, better king safety, then from that superior position, attack the enemy king by opening files for the rook.

See Morphy-Lewis, Philadelphia 1859. Trust Morphy's practical chess wisdom over Stockfish's analysis. stockfish might tell you how much it's bad, but Morphy showed us how and why.

# Answer
> 10 votes
It's completely playable below master level, probably playable to IM level and probably useful occasionally as a surprise weapon at GM level. Combined with the English defense it gives black a very solid opening repertoire with very little theory to learn. The only caveat would be to just be careful castling kingside into a strong attack.

22 ply is 11 moves. How many players below master level analyze 11 moves deep in their opening prep let alone over the board? If you can see two moves ahead you're better than most of the players out there and probably wouldn't be asking this question.

A .89 evaluation is literally nothing below GM level. Analyze your games with an engine. How many times do you see a swing bigger than .89 on a single move? I'm guessing at least once a game. And even if you do play near perfect chess how big a difference is there between that and the alternatives? I'm looking at the 365chess.com database. It has 1...b6 at .66 at a depth of 38. It has other mainstream openings like the French (.53), Pirc (.6) modern (.62), Alekhine's (.55) etc. You're literally talking about tenths and even hundredths of a pawn. It's absurd for players below master level to be talking about differences that small.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You put too much faith in engines and too little respect for how actual people really play.

b6 is more than playable. I would not venture it against a GM but for any tournament I could seriously compete in it would work --*IF* it were compatible with my style which it is not. When they play b6 I generally win. That has more to say about me and my experience, or their weaknesses ,than the opening move.

---
Tags: opening, engines, analysis, theory
---


# Question
Title: Can I place my rooks upside down at the beginning of the game?
Numerous times I’ve read that it’s illegal to use an upside down rook to represent a promoted queen because “it’s still a rook”. Does that imply that I can begin the game with my rooks upside down? They are still rooks; they are still centred on their squares. Sorry for semi-frivolous question but I would enjoy to read the authoritative answer. Thanks so much!

EDIT: Or maybe one could use an upside down rook to indicate the castling right is gone on that side, if the rook has wandered away from its starting square and then returned :D Practical! Almost sensible! :)

# Answer
> 14 votes
The FIDE laws of chess say nothing about upside-down rooks. However, starting with upside-down rooks is silly and if your opponent complains that it is annoying, I would expect the claim to be upheld.

> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.

https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018

The proper way of dealing with a missing queen (or any other piece) needed for promotion is to stop the clock and call the arbiter for assistance. However, the upside-down rook tradition comes from less formal settings, or maybe lower-budget situations where no arbiters with spare pieces in their pockets are close at hand.

It is interesting to note that the USCF rules explicitly allow the use of upside-down rooks for promotion:

> 8F7. **Promoted piece not available.** If the desired piece is not available to replace a promoted pawn, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate that piece and place it on the board. A player who cannot quickly find such a piece may request the assistance of the director. It is common practice, however, to play using an upside-down rook for a second queen. In the absence of the player’s announcement to the contrary, an upside-down rook shall be considered a queen.

Just, Tim. US Chess Federation’s: Official Rules of Chess, 7th Edition.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Can you, yes; may you, absolutely not in a tournament game but you might get away with it in a club against other kiddies.

Try doing your bishops upside down if rooks are too easy for you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Article 2.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess says this:

> 2.3 The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows:

and is followed by a picture which looks like this:

```
[fen ""]

```

Notice that all four rooks are the right way up.

> Can I place my rooks upside down at the beginning of the game?

Of course you *can*. However if one of the arbiters sees this they will automatically "correct" the rooks so that what they see looks the same as shown in article 2.3. So will, I suspect, any opponent. As a one-off your action will be unlikely to attract any penalty. If repeated during the game you are likely to receive a warning at first with penalties escalating if you persist.

---
Tags: rules, rooks
---


# Question
Title: A position with the only legal move resulting in checkmate
Theoretically, is it possible that for some position, the only legal move for a side leads to a checkmate (that is, the opposite king gets checkmated)? If so, has this ever occurred in a real game?

# Answer
> 34 votes
I want to offer a semi-realistic example. I think I have seen something like this in a game by masters in some book, but of course I cannot recall where. But this is something that at least can be realistically missed in calculations from far away.

```
[FEN "6k1/5ppp/6r1/3b4/4r3/8/1Q5P/1R5K w - - 0 1"]

```

White just gives a back rank mate, right? :)

**Update:** actually, I found a real game with a very similar motive, though not quite self-mate in one:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simul"]
[Site "Copenhagen DEN"]
[Date "1924.03.15"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "Paulsen"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Source "Skjoldager and Nielsen pp.399-400"]
[PlyCount "43"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 Be7 8. c5 O-O 9. Bd3 a6 10. O-O Qc7 11. b4 e5 12. dxe5
Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Bb2 Ng4 15. f4 Qd4+ 16. Kh1 Nf2+
17. Rxf2 Qxf2 18. Nxd5 Qxb2 19. Bxh7+ Kh8 20. Qh5 Qxa1+ (20...Bg4!)
21. Bb1+ Kg8 22. Nxe7# 1-0

```

An old Russian book by Judovich also lists the following position in a game between two amateurs "whitnessed by J. Krejcik in a local club":

```
 [Fen "8/4N1p1/7k/4B2P/5KP1/3q4/8/7R b - - 0 1"]

```

The story goes that after 1...g5, both players resigned, because white forgot about the en passant rule, and black only remembered it after they made the move. I think we can safely assume it's made up, though.

# Answer
> 21 votes
Sure it's possible. In fact, it's possible that this kind of "inevitability" happens earlier in the game, with many more moves to go until mate.

Here is an example taken from the Wikipedia on joke chess problems. The composer's full name comes from chess problem databases.

```
[Title "Vilhelm Röpke, Skakbladet 1942, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "K1k5/P1Pp4/1p1P4/8/p7/P2P4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. d4 b5 2. d5 b4 3. axb4 a3 4. b5 a2 5. b6 a1=Q 6. b7#

```

# Answer
> 14 votes
```
[FEN "kq6/8/K7/PQ6/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qb7+ (1... Qa7#) 2. Qxb7#

```

Black could mate with 1...Qa7# or lose with 1...Qb7#, when White's only legal reply is 2. Qxb7#.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Forced mate positions do occur in real games although it is pretty rare: such a mate is only delivered about once in 68,000 games on lichess.org. One example comes from this game with the penultimate position:

```
[FEN "KQ6/2k5/1qP5/N7/5p1p/8/6PP/8 b - - 0 51"]
[Event "Rated Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/1aj0ru8r"]
[Date "2013.01.04"]
[White "captainRobinson"]
[Black "agnefrance"]
[Result "0-1"]

1... Qxb8#

```

The vast majority of these forced-mate positions in real games involve either a king that is in check with the only available move being to capture the checking piece and in doing so deliver mate or a situation in which the mating side has only pawns and the only legal move is a pawn push that mates the opposing king. Both of these situations almost always occur on the side of the board.

A slightly more interesting example from this game where the king is mated by the only legal move in the *middle* of the board is:

```
[FEN "8/1R3p1N/1p1k2p1/1bPP4/2nKP3/r4P2/6PP/8 b - - 0 32"]
[Event "Rated Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/a43impad"]
[Date "2013.01.05"]
[White "dnc"]
[Black "Semmel"]
[Result "0-1"]

1... bxc5#

```

Forced-mate positions occur OTB as well. The most interesting such game I found was played between GM Danilo Milanovic and IM Jasmin Bejtovic at the 41st Bosna Open in Sarajevo 2011. The example is interesting because the last *two* moves of the game are forced and the second is a discovered checkmate. The full game from here is:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "41st IT Bosna 2011"]
[Site "Sarajevo"]
[Date "2011.05.08"]
[Round "5.10"]
[White "Milanovic, Danilo"]
[Black "Bejtovic, Jasmin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E70"]
[WhiteElo "2494"]
[BlackElo "2413"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[EventDate "2011.05.03"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Nge2 Nbd7 7. O-O c5 8. d5
Ne5 9. f4 Nxd3 10. Qxd3 a6 11. a4 Rb8 12. h3 Ne8 13. f5 Nf6 14. Bd2 Nd7 15. Qg3
Ne5 16. b3 Bd7 17. a5 b5 18. axb6 Rxb6 19. Nc1 Qb8 20. Ra3 Qc8 21. Ra2 Qb8 22.
Nd1 Re8 23. Ba5 Rb7 24. Raf2 Bh6 25. Bd2 Bxd2 26. Rxd2 a5 27. Ne3 a4 28. bxa4
Rb2 29. Rdf2 Rxf2 30. Qxf2 Qb4 31. Ne2 Qd2 32. Ng4 Nxg4 33. hxg4 Bxa4 34. e5
Rf8 35. f6 exf6 36. exd6 Re8 37. Ng3 Qd3 38. Kh2 Qxc4 39. Qxf6 Qxg4 40. Qxf7+
Kh8 41. Qf6+ Kg8 42. Qf7+ Kh8 43. Rf4 Qd7 44. Qxd7 Bxd7 45. Rf7 Rd8 46. Ne4 Bf5
47. Nf6 g5 48. d7 Bg6 49. Re7 c4 50. Re8+ Bxe8 51. dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 52. Nxe8 c3 53.
d6 c2 54. d7 c1=Q 55. d8=Q Qf4+ 56. Kg1 Qc1+ 57. Kf2 Qf4+ 58. Ke2 Qe4+ 59. Kd1
Qg4+ 60. Kc1 Qc4+ 61. Kd2 Qb4+ 62. Kd3 Qb3+ 63. Ke4 Qc2+ 64. Ke5 Qc5+ 65. Ke6
Qe3+ 66. Kf7 Qb3+ 67. Kf8 Qb4+ 68. Nd6 Qf4+ 69. Nf7+ Qxf7+ 70. Kxf7# 1-0

```

These games were found using CQL 6 with the query:

```
cql()
mate
parent : move count legal == 1

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I was thinking about position where your king is not checked, and this seems to work (of course white to play):

```

[FEN "b5k1/RN3ppp/P7/8/8/8/8/5qbK w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: checkmate, famous-games, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: Shortest game controlling a single square 16 times?
Does someone know the shortest orthodox chess game such that a single square is directly controlled 16 times? After 1. Nf3 for instance, the square d2 is controlled 5 times. And 2. ... Qa5 pushes the counter to 6. I guess this game (White and Black collaborating) would be around 23-26 moves long?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Addendum #2: It turns out that a move can actually be saved further still! Michel Caillaud wrote on the Retro Mailing List that **19.5 moves** is possible!

```
[Title "Michel Caillaud, Retro Mailing List 9/18/2020, Non-unique Proof Game in 19.5 moves"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "39"]

1. f4 h5 2. f5 h4 3. f6 h3 4. fxe7 hxg2 5. exf8=N Rh6 6. Nh7 a5 7. Nc3 a4 8. e4 a3 9. e5 axb2 10. e6 b1=N 11. e7 Nxd2 12. Nh3 Ne4 13. Nf2 f6 14. Ng4 Kf7 15. Qxd7 Ra6 16. Qd4 Nd7 17. e8=N gxf1=N 18. Nd5 Nfg3 19. Bg5 Nh5 20. Rf1

```

---

Addendum #1 After some back and forth emailing on The Retro Mailing List last night, Eric Angelini has devised a much shorter game than mine in **20.5 moves!** This is surely optimal. Good job Eric!

```
[Title "Eric Angelini, Retro Mailing List 9/18/2020, Non-unique Proof Game in 20.5 moves"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "41"]

1. a4 d5 2. a5 d4 3. a6 d3 4. axb7 dxc2 5. bxc8=N cxd1=N 6. Nb6 Nf6 7. Na4 Ne4 8. h4 f5 9. h5 f4 10. h6 f3 11. hxg7 fxg2 12. Nf3 g1=N 13. g8=N Nxe2 14. Nxe7 Na6 15. Nd5 Nb4 16. Ra3 Na2 17. Rxh7 Qf6 18. Rxc7 Rh3 19. Rc2 Bb4 20. Nd4 Rc8 21. Nb5

```

---

For starters, there are a limited number of squares that can be attacked 16 times. A square can only be attacked eight times horizontally and vertically, or four times from each direction. The other eight attacks are from one knight each. A knight can only have its full reach on the central sixteen squares. Therefore, we are restricted to those squares only.

Furthermore, while we have plenty of horizontal and vertical moving pieces in the initial game array, only four knights are present. This means that four more knights must be promoted. The shortest way to do this, theoretically, is to promote 2 knights for both White and Black to split the workload. Promoting four knights already puts us at least 10+ moves in total in addition to the knights' moves to their attacking squares.

Here is my beginning bid of **25.5 moves** with the **target** square of **d6.**

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "51"]

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 3. a4 b5 4. b4 a5 5. axb5 c5 6. Na3 c4 7. Nxc4 Ra6 8. bxa5 Rc6 9. b6 Nd7 10. b7 Nc5 11. a6 h5 12. a7 h4 13. a8=N h3 14. bxc8=N Nb7 15. Nc7+ Kd7 16. Nb5 Qc7 17. Ba3 hxg2 18. h4 Rh6 19. h5 Re6 20. h6 Nf6 21. h7 Ne8 22. h8=N gxf1=N 23. Nxf7 Nd2 24. Nf3 Ne4 25. Nh4 Be7 26. Nf5

```

---
Tags: problems, records
---


# Question
Title: Why don't people develop a annotation symbol for "best moves"?
In chess, exclamation points ("!") indicate good moves and the double exclamation point ("!!") is used for very strong moves. However, I do not know any symbol for "best moves". There are moves which may not be surprising or involve any particular skill but are objectively the best move or one of the best moves in a particular position. With the help of modern engines, it may not be too difficult to see if a move is "the best" in a certain position.

When analysing games, one knows immediately that there is no room for improvement for such moves if such a symbol is used; isn't it convenient?

# Answer
Moves that are significantly worse than the best option are annotated with **?!**. If the difference between the move in a game and the "best" move is not big enough, then it doesn't matter whether some engine gives one a 0.02 better evaluation than the other.

In some sense, you could argue that **!**, **!!** and no annotation at all already indicate that the move played was the best possible option (or in the latter case, just as good as it)
> 2 votes

# Answer
What is a so called 'best' move ??

Are moves played by deep engines equivalent to real moves by real people with real limitations and genuine concerns really the same?

Who is to say what is 'best' when two people play.

I recently had a game (10min) against a higher rated opponent. He moved his queen and I took it. He resigned. What he did not see was that he could have mated me.

So was nxq best? Or should I have resigned as he would have been a piece up? Was his resigns best?? Or should he have mated me.

From my perspective nxq was the best move as he resigned.
Your view would be that nxq allowing mate in 2 was not best.

So just what is 'best' and who gets to define 'best' ??
> 0 votes

---
Tags: annotation
---


# Question
Title: Is memorizing tactics a sign of improvement?
I am currently re-doing a book of tactical exercises. I have not seen some of the exercises for longer than a year, and when I look at the position at first it seems new and I see nothing, until it clicks and I remember the solution. It is not through calculation, I just stumble upon it and remember it. I of course verify my "guess" by calculation, but once one know it works it is not hard.

I was wondering whether it is even worth going through a book if this is how I solve about 95% of the exercises, it feels a little like cheating and I should do new exercises. But then I think: Is this not how it is supposed to work? If a motif appears in my game, I will get the same feeling that something is there, and that is what the point of my training was, and by going through the book again I will reinforce the patterns.

# Answer
I think it is a sign of greater awareness of certain patterns and positions. So my answer is Yes, I do think it is a sign of improvement.

I doubt that there is anything wrong with going back through an old chess book, even if you remember everything -- rather I think it is good; it is something that I have done quite often as well. It will certainly reinforce what you already know. I would advance and get more exercises to work on, but you will find that all the previous exercises that you have done will help a great deal with your new exercises.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I think that's a best case, not having to think about a combination, but 'knowing' it.

It's not a sign of improvement, but it's a definite plank in the platform.
> 0 votes

# Answer
memorize? no!!

intuitively understand and execute without thinking then yes.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Easy to use, MS Word-like tool to record chess games
Apologies for being a noob in this matter - a senior citizen friend of mine is looking for desktop publishing-like software to record chess games (diagrams along with personal reflection). The goal is personal publishing of chess games from their history. He is familiar with MS Word, but not much with other software.

From what I can see, existing software is aimed at creating Portable Game Notation files, which can be played back online, or is a powerful chess game database like Scid.

Is there some software for recording chess games that's closer to MS Word? I'd imagine it basically like a text editor, with a chess board on the side that can be configured with a certain position, then an image of it would be inserted in the text editor. No playback capabilities are required.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The closest thing I can think of to what you want, though it is still PGN file based, is ChessPad. http://www.wmlsoftware.com/chesspad.html. It's a very basic pgn file editor/viewer which maybe your friend could use standalone, or he could use it to create diagrams which he then pastes into MS Word.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Copy and paste into PGN.(nearly every site will let you do this)

You can then save PGN into a Word document.

You can then copy and paste back into whatever you want. Lichess offers a database and very strong engine but you can pick whatever software you want.

---
Tags: software, scid
---


# Question
Title: What makes a chess puzzle hard to solve?
A couple friends and I built a mobile app (Chess Puzzle Blitz) where we allow people to compete for fun or money solving chess puzzles.

We have a pretty large puzzle database but are always adding to it.

One thing we keep iterating on is the types of puzzles we surface (currently only mates 1 through 5 (usually 1-\>3). For example, ***one feedback we got early on is that black puzzles are harder because of the mental switching between puzzles*** (so we rate black puzzles harder in that context).

For you, what makes a chess puzzle a good puzzle and what elements make them hard/frustrating?

# Answer
The biggest factors is how many possible moves there are. If you have lots of moves available to you, then it can be harder to find the correct one. And if there are many possible responses, it can take a long time to come up with a refutation for each of them. And the more moves it takes to accomplish the objective of the puzzle, the more possible moves accrue; a mate in four will tend to be more difficult than a mate in one.

If there are lots of possible moves, then there are various tactics to prune the moves, and how difficult the puzzle is depends on how amenable it is to those tactics, how familiar the solver is with them, and whether they go after the right pruning first. For instance, things to look for in a puzzle are delivering checks, removing escape options for the king, capturing pieces, activating your own pieces, and reducing your opponent's pieces usefulness. So things like requiring a move that doesn't immediately seem to accomplishing any of these things makes your puzzle harder. The more "unintuitive" the correct move is, the harder the puzzle, but different people will have different intuitions.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Each player has his own form of tactical blindness, so "what makes a problem difficult" varies from solver to solver. If one of the key moves is backward-going, I'll never find it.

Some players forget that when they move a piece within their calculation, it no longer covers the squares it did before. Some players have a hard time counting multiple exchanges on the same square. Different for all.

"Black puzzles are harder" is silly. Chess pieces are only light and dark for convenience. The pieces could all be the same shade of gray, and chess could still be played as long as the players remembered which gray pieces belong to which player.

When it's "Black to play and win", flip the board so Black's on the bottom of the diagram, and you will find them just as simple to solve.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics, puzzles
---


title: Vienna Gambit vs King' Gambit

text:
# Question
Title: Vienna Gambit vs King' Gambit
The Vienna game/gambit goes as 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 .. 3. f4...

Why is this considered much more solid/sound than just the King's gambit. It doesn't seem to me that the extra 2. Nc3 thrown in is doing anything?

Additionally, how is the Vienna gambit different from the Vienna game when 3. g3 is played? 3. g3 followed by fianchetto of the f1 Bishop seems to give more semi-open positions. So it seems to me that 3. f4 and 3. g3 would lead to very very different types of games and should be considered two different openings entirely.

# Answer
The inclusion of 2. Nc3 ahead of f2-f4 is most significant.

Consider 1. e4 e5 2. f4. Does 2. f4 aid White's development? Does 2. f4 make a threat? In both cases, no. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 isn't a threat because if we gave White an additional move for 3. fxe5, then 3...Qh4+ ruins White's day. That's the first reason for 2. Nc3: by guarding e4, it means f2-f4 will make a genuine threat of f4xe5 because following ...Qd8-h4+, ...Qh4xe4 is out of the picture.

The other reason for 2. Nc3 is its influence on d5, given that when White plays f2-f4 as a means of getting the upper hand in the center (by deflecting the e5-pawn, or capturing it), Black's simplest counter in the center is ...d7-d5. However, it does not at dissuade Black from **2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5**, by far the most common continuation.

If White wants to play this flavor of Vienna, he has to like the positions that result from **4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Nf3**. If White really wants to shut off ...d7-d5, he can postpone f2-f4 for still another move with 3. Bf1-c4. *That* invites the craziness of 3...Nxe4, which is a whole 'nother ballgame.

2...Nf6 3. f4 d5 is most common, but say Black lets White carry out his plan. Suppose **1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6** Then **3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3**. Black is willing to go for this because the knight on c3 is sort of misplaced!

Again, consider the immediate 2. f4. **1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3**

(3. Bc4 was the choice of Fischer and Polgar, allowing 3...Qh4+, for whatever that' worth. Keres played 3. Nc3 in his brash youth, after which 3...Qh4+ is more meaningful because White's flight is Ke1-e2 rather than Ke1-f1. Steinitz tried the most thematic 3. d4, but 3...Qh4+ compels 4. Ke2 in that case, also. I wrote an entire book on 3. h4.)

**3...g5 4. Bc4**

(4. h4 is more positionally logical, though 4. Bc4 is equally popular, partly because some players with Black will choose 4...g4 5. O-O gxf3)

**4...Bg7.**

4...Bg7 is a huge move, mostly because it guards the h8-rook,. so 5. h4 doesn't force ...g5-g4, but can be met by 5...h6 6. hxg5 hxg5 7. Rxh8 Bxh8.

And since ...Bf8-g7 is such a useful move for Black in those King's Gambit Accepted positions, White would rather leave c3 open for the pawn to support d4 (but that Vienna knight prohibits that, and is therefore somewhat misplaced — how ironic).

About 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 plus 3. g3. There White is keeping f2-f4 in reserve for a long time, after his kingside development is complete (the Bg2 influences Black's main counterattack square d5 from a distance), and the queenside has d2-d3, after which f2-f4 will have the Bc1 behind it *and* the Pg3. These positions are actually very quiet because the pieces don't come into contact as quickly (obviously g2-g3 plus Bf1-g2 is less combative than Bf1-c4 which invites a fight with ...Ng8-f6 plus ...d7-d5). In many of those games, White kept f2-f4 in reserve until it most safe, and then goes on with f4-f5 to take all the kingside space (presumably while Pe4, Nc3, and Bg2 keep Black under wraps).
> 7 votes

# Answer
To try to avoid the Albin.

If black plays nf6 he can still counter with d5 and avoid a pure KG.
> -3 votes

---
Tags: 1.e4, kings-gambit, kings-indian-attack, vienna-game
---


# Question
Title: What are some good books on the Italian game, including the Evans Gambit and Two Knights Defense family of openings?
It's been about 10 years since I played tournament chess regularly. My last rating was 1586 USCF, but it had been as high as 1717.

I recently decided to get back into playing chess, and am looking for some recommendations for a book or two on those openings as white. I've pretty much always played e4, starting the Giucco in high school and later the Bishop's opening/KGD, based on Soltis' Winning with e4. I'd prefer to be able to buy them on Amazon or the USCF site.

I would also be willing to buy a dvd or software that covers these openings.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When I looked for a similar book, the best I could find is this somewhat dated work by Jan Pinski.

This newer book by Glenn Flear apparently contains 88 pages about the italian, Evan's gambit and two knights.

If you have played the Bishop's opening before maybe this is the book for you: It advocates going into the Italian game by 2.Bc4.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know there's a book that covers all of those openings well. The Pinski book tries to but I don't think they do a good job.

My favorite book on the Evans is Harding's book.

The two knights can go in a lot of different directions so you might look into how you want to play it first.

The Giuoco Piano and modern bishop's opening may look similar but are very different. I don't know of any book that gives good coverage of both.

---
Tags: opening, books, italian-game, two-knights, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Why don't masters prevent the pin after Bg4 in the modern Italian game?
In the Italian game, according to the Lichess masters database, the play usually starts similarly to

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Bb3

```

However, this completely ignores the threat of Bg4, that can be played by black after 5... d6. This pin is somewhat nasty, since it can't be broken by retreating the light-squared bishop to e2 and breaking the pin by h3 followed by g4 weakens the kingside considerably.

I also remember some chess video recommending beginners to play h3 as soon as black plays d6 in the Italian game. Interestingly, Stockfish evaluates this position after playing 7... Bg4 as roughly +0.5, so 7... Bg4 is an inaccuracy. Actually, the engine also claims that after 7... a6 8. Bg5 an analogous pin from white also leads from white's slight advantage to an equality.

Why do masters (and higher-rated players) ignore the threat of Bg4?

# Answer
You're referring to ...Bc8-g4 as a threat. The only threat it makes is ...Bg4xf3, losing time and the bishop pair.

While White has d4 under wraps with a pawn at c3, theere's no ...Nc6-d4 coming to pressure the pinned knight. The f6-knight has to move to a lesser square to prepare ...Qd8-f6, which is nothing because Nb1-d2 is right at hand to prevent a fracture of White's king position.

A bishop at g4 is a target for this maneuver: Nb1-d2-f1-e3 or Nb1-d2-f1-g3 plus h2-h3 when the bishop can't maintain the pin by ...Bg4-h5. White also has the option of h2-h3 plus g2-g4 (if ...Bh5) then one of those knight maneuvers aims for f5 at the end. See, you're talking about h3 plus g4 like it's a bad thing but while the center control and development are equal, it's not so risky to create those holes in the king position, and if there's nothing going on the center, then that expansion (or a4, b4, a5, etc. on the other wing) is one of the only ways to generate heat.

This is not a position for inexpert players to be concerned with. It's very quiet, which is OK for masters, because they know how to fend off an opponent who stirs it up too soon, and because they know how to open the quiet position when it's the right time. Average players and students should be studying games in which the tactics arise early, because it's recognizing those tactics that eventually gets them to where they're genuinely able to play these humdrum Giuoco Pianos.
> 12 votes

# Answer
First, Bg4 isn't threatening anything. If I play 6. 0-0 and you play 6...Bg4 and then I give you a free move-Show me what the threat is. There isn't any.

Second, h3 wastes a move for white that could be used to improve his position.

Third, you shouldn't assume that pins are bad. White can often play gxf3 which opens the g-file for attack and reinforces the e4 pawn. Qb3 is an option with the double attack on f7 and b7. There are countless unpin tactics particularly with sacs on f7.

Lastly, you gain a tempo by waiting for Bg4 before playing h3.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, italian-game, pins
---


# Question
Title: Is the Evans Gambit declined good for black?
According to this answer, Evans gambit is not popular anymore. I looked at it and I don't see anything wrong with it. I can't go over all the variations here, but you could look for an article or a Youtube video, I chose this one.

I can only see black losing, so what's wrong with Evans Gambit declined? Am I missing a variation?

# Answer
> Evans gambit is not popular anymore.

The problem with the *Evans gambit* comes when Black **accepts** the gambit since he can return the gambit pawn **in proper moment** to defuse White's attack.

This is the crucial line:

```
[fen ""]

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.dxe5 Bb6!=

```

Until this day nobody was able to find edge for White-that is why nobody plays it anymore.

> I looked at it and I don't see anything wrong with it. I can't go over all the variations here, but you could look for an article or a Youtube video

**Forget the `YouTube`** and find opinions of the strongest Grandmasters.

Quality of those videos is usually low, as they intend to get subscribers by showing them attractive variations instead objectively the best lines.

**Not a single theoretical main line** was examined properly-only sidelines that give Black poor play.

> I can only see black losing, so what's wrong with Evans Gambit declined?

Declining the gambit is **not the best option** for Black. White has no problems **since he gets the initiative** because his opening idea was fulfilled. He will use his free tempo to further hinder coordination of the Black pieces.

Still, Black has good play in all lines, but **must defend first for a long time, and attack later.**

> Am I missing a variation?

If all your sources provide as "quality" coverage as the video you linked to-then yes, you **do miss a lot.**

I will quote the **Chess Informant ECO 2006** for the lines in Evans gambit declined:

`LEGEND OF SYMBOLS:`

`+/=` Minimal advantage for White

`=/+` Minimal advantage for Black

`+/-` White is better

`-/+` Black is better

`=/∞` Compensation for material

Unclear

`+-` White wins

`-+` Black wins

`->` Attack

Initiative

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb6 (4...d5 5.exd5 Nb4 6.O-O Nf6 7.Nxe5 Nbxd5 8.d4 Bd6 9.Bg5 c6 10.Nd2 O-O 11.Qf3 h6 12.Bh4 Be6 13.Rab1+/=) 5.a4 ( 5.Bb2 d6 6.a4 a6 7.b5 axb5 8.axb5 Rxa1 9.Bxa1 Nd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.c3 Nf6 12.O-O O-O 13.d3 d5= ) ( 5.b5 Na5 6.Nxe5 Nh6 ( 6...Bd4 7.Nxf7 Qf6 8.Qe2 Nxc4 9.Nxh8 Ne5 10.Nc3 Ne7 11.Bb2+/= ) 7.d4 d6 8.Bxh6 dxe5! 9.Bxg7 Rg8 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Bxe5 Qg5 12.Nd2 ( 12.Nc3? Nc4-/+ ) 12...Be6 13.Qf3 Ke7 14.O-O-O! Raf8 15.Qa3+ Kd8 16.f4 Qe7!? 17.Qxe7+ Kxe7 18.g3 Bxa2∞ ) 5...a6 ( 5...a5 6.b5 Nd4 7.Nxd4 ( 7.Nxe5 Qg5 8.O-O ( 8.Bxf7+ Kf8 9.Ng4=/∞ ) 8...Qxe5 9.c3 Ne6 10.Re1 Nf6 ( 10...Bxf2 11.Kxf2 Qc5+ 12.d4 Qxc4 13.Re3 Nf8 14.d5 Qc5 15.Ba3 Qb6 16.d6=/∞↑)  11.d4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qxd4 (12...Bxd4 13.Ra2=/∞ ) 13.Qe2!? (13.Qxd4!? Bxd4 14.Ra2=/∞ ) 13...Qxa1 14.e5=/∞↑ ) 7...Bxd4 8.c3 Bb6 9.d4 Qe7 (9...exd4 10.O-O! Ne7 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.cxd4 Qb4 14.Na3 O-O 15.Qd3 d5! 16.exd5 Bd7 17.Nc2 Qd6 18.Ne3+/= ) 10.O-O ( 10.Qg4 Nf6 11.Qxg7 Rg8 12.Qh6 Rg6∞ ) 10...d6 11.f4 ( 11.Be3!? ) 11...Be6 12.Na3 exd4 13.cxd4 O-O-O 14.Be2 Nf6 15.Bf3 d5 16.e5 Ne4 17.Nc2 h5!= ) 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nd5 ( 7.d4 Bxd4!? ( 7...exd4 8.Nd5 Nxd5 9.exd5 Qe7 10.Kf1! Ne5 11.d6 cxd6 12.Bd5=/∞ ) 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.f4 ( 9.O-O d6 10.f4 Be6! 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Be3 Nc6 13.b5 axb5 14.axb5 Rxa1 15.Qxa1 Ng4!? 16.bxc6 Nxe3 17.Qa2 Nxf1 18.Qxe6 Qe7 19.Qc8+ Qd8 20.cxb7 O-O 21.Nd5! Kf7 22.Qf5+ Kg8 23.Qc8= ) 9...d6 10.O-O O-O 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Nd5 Be6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Bd3 Qe7 ( 14...Nb3? 15.cxb3 Qd4+ 16.Kh1 Qxa1 17.Qf3!+-->) 15.Bh6 Rfd8∞) 7...Nxd5 ( 7...Nxe4 8.O-O d6 9.d3 Nf6 10.Bg5+/= ) 8.exd5 Nd4 ( 8...e4?+/- ) 9.a5 Ba7 10.d6 ( 10.O-O?!=/+ ) 10...cxd6 11.O-O O-O 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.c3 Ba7 14.Qf3=/∞

```

> How could black win against Evans Gambit declined?

How could he not win?

In all the variations above Black has sufficient counter-play and equal chances to win.

He will first try to parry White's initiative, and then he will have won endgame due to his healthier pawn structure and White being overextended-this is a standard plan for Black in most openings.

Summary:

*Evans gambit* is not popular anymore because White does not get the attack he hoped for, and after Black properly returns the pawn he has better **or at least equal** chances in the endgame. Why would anyone play with White just to fight an uphill battle to draw?

As for the declined variation, White will get lasting initiative but Black still holds. In all lines **quoted above** Black has sufficient counter-play and both players need to play accurate in order not to lose.

For a detailed coverage of the *Evans gambit* find repertoire books like *The Great Evans Gambit Debate* series or *Play the Evans gambit-Tim Harding*.

Hopefully this answer sheds some light. If you have further questions leave a comment and I will try to respond as soon as possible.

Best regards.
> 6 votes

# Answer
When played in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Evans gambit was a terrifying opening that put Black on the defensive for a long time.

That's until modern theory discovered that Black can get a fully equal game by returning the pawn at the right time (this is generally true of most king pawn gambits, which is why they aren't played much nowadays).

Today's Black players don't mind Evans gambits because it is an easier way to get an "equal" game that most other openings.
> 1 votes

# Answer
White can maintain a solid positional advantage in the declined and has a pretty fair amount of traps. I don't think it's a good line for black. It's a line where black is trying to navigate a minefield to get to a draw.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, is 2...Nf6 safer and easier to learn than Nc6?
I am an amateur player and do not have much time to study and memorise complicated opening lines. Am wondering after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, if 2...Nf6 is a safer and simpler option for black than 2...Nc6. My database shows that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, the move which gives white the lowest winning percentage is 2...Nf6 instead of 2...Nc6.

# Answer
> 8 votes
As an amateur player, you should know the connotation that 2...Nf6 (The Petrov defense) has a reputation of being more boring and more of a draw than 2...Nc6 (leading to the Ruy Lopez, Italian, and Scotch games). However, this really doesn't apply at the amateur level. In fact, you're much more likely to win or lose than draw, unlikely to the masters' database showing that certain lines have a drawish tendency.

So my suggestion, as unexciting as it is, is play what you like! Try out Nf6, try out Nc6, and see what pawn structures/middlegames you're getting in your games. Do you like them? Do you prefer one or the other? Play that one more often!

# Answer
> 5 votes
Objectively speaking, **2...Nc6** is the strongest reply. That's why it's preferred by most top players. **2...Nf6** is an interesting alternative, but it often leads to more drawish positions after **3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4**, but White can also go for **4.Nxf7!?**, which is an inferior line, but very sharp and it can put you in big trouble if you don't know it well.

So it all boils down to what you feel more comfortable with. Both moves are perfectly playable but you need to figure out what type of position you understand better.

If you want to play **2...Nf6**, you'll have to be ready for the **4.Nxf7** line, and also understand how to play in those positions with the open "e" file. White can also try **3.Nc3**, with a transposition to the four knights opening after **3...Nc6**, which is its own story but still not as hard to learn as **2.Nc6** as White has lost a lot of its flexitiblity (most lines in the Italian or Spanish openings play a **c2-c3** push at some point.

On the other hand **2...Nc6** will need you to be ready for (mainly) **3.Bb5**, **3.Bc4** and \**3.d4, all of them being very complex openings with a lot of theory on them.

Finally, even if your skill level doesn't directly play a role on which one to choose, it will definitely have an impact on the time that is worth dedicating to openings. If you're not a particularly strong player, you may want to play **2..Nf6** just to need less studying and move on to things like tactics and strategy, but in that case you may also want to play a completely different defense.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The Petrov is a sound opening but the problem is that white can basically force a queen trade in a symmetrical position. For example- 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. d3

That's okay for a GM but bad for a developing player for two reasons:

1. You aren't going to get better playing these types of positions. There aren't a lot of tactics and the endgames are going to be boring attempts to draw rather than learning how to win.
2. If the Petrov is your only defense to e4 that means you're going to have a lot of situations where you're playing someone rated 500 points below you and you can't find a way to win because they're just trading pieces.

A good starter opening is the Scandinavian. If you know the line 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 and understand a few general ideas you can get a playable game against anyone.

When you get a little better and want to expand your rep then look at 2...Nc6. The Ruy Lopez is really all you have to worry about. You can equalize against the other lines fairly easily. Against the Ruy you have a lot of choices. If you don't play 3...a6 you cut out 90% of the theory. My favorite is the classical (3...Bc5). Black has an active and solid position but without a lot of theory. There's other options too like 3...d6, 3...Nge7, 3...Nd4 etc. 3...g6 is rarely played but probably fine. There's other options to avoid theory even after 3...a6. Just find a line you like that gives you reasonable chances. You won't see it that often anyway until you start getting pretty good.

After you get around 18-1900 you can look at other openings and start narrowing your rep. Below that point, theory isn't all that important. Most games don't go more than 4 or 5 moves deep into theory and you're just looking to get a playable position against the guy who memorized a single line 30 moves deep or the guy who learned a couple of traps. What you learn from the types of positions you get is the most important thing. The openings that will make you better are the ones that give you sound, active positions while avoiding theory and drawish positions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
For practical reasons, 2...Nf6 is better for you than 2...Nc6, because 2...Nc6 does not make a threat, and your opponent won't have to think about anything. But if you counterattack with 2...Nf6, then your opponent has to think, and that's what you want: your opponents thinking for themselves.

That's in practice. In theory, 2...Nf6 can be safer than 2...Nc6, can also be wilder. Depends on where the players take it, in practice. Your opponent has 50 percent of the say about whether your moves are safe.

Is it easier to learn? What does that even mean?

If you think "learning an opening" will help your results, that's nonsense. The best chess teacher ever, Cecil Purdy, said: "Some players think they could play a good game 'if they only knew the opening'. This is just crazy."

Why do you think you need to *learn* an opening? This is the dumb idea that 99% of chessplayers have. Your only real job in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame, one with rough equality in center control, development, and king safety. You can get there playing whatever you want, as long as you're mindful of the general principles of the opening, and especially of the tactics. Chessplayers are pretty dumb about this: They think they lose *in* the opening because they're bad *at* the opening. They lose in the opening because they're bad at tactics.

Let's say you want to be dumb about it, like your friends and neighbors, and you think you absolutely must know something about 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 to survive your next session of play. Here's what they will tell you here on StackExchange: It's more important to know the ideas behind an opening than memorizing the moves in that opening. That is actually code for: Give me fewer things to remember.

Chessplayers sort of figure out through experience that memorizing strings of moves gets them nowhere. Their opponent will vary from their book knowledge, then they are floundering. Or they reach the end of their book knowledge with a magical +=, but then what? Then they're wandering around lost in the middlegame. So chessplayers say "if you learn the *ideas*, you can find moves based on the *ideas*". And because there are fewer *ideas* to learn than strings of moves, chessplayers think they've got opening learning figured out. This doesn't drill down deep enough. What if — instead of knowing the ideas behind one opening — you knew the ideas behind *all* the openings? This will save you untold hours of study time, understanding that if you're playing to maintain at least one pawn in the center, maintain roughly equal development, and tuck your king as safely as his, you'll be OK.

I already said that people who "learn" openings get lost in the middlegame, rendering their opening knowledge moot. It helps your opening play if you know what your rooks are doing during the middlegame. Purdy said: "The real test of one's opening is the play it gives the rooks." Primarily because of what grandmaster Fine said about favorable middlegames: If you have emerged from the opening with better center control, better development, and better king safety, you clearly have a superior middlegame position. And from a superior middlegame position, attack the enemy king by opening files for your rooks.

But sometimes you can't checkmate them, and it's impossible to avoid an endgame. The endgame is inevitable. You cannot put pieces back on the board to the second move and play 2...Nf6 all over again, you will reach endgames. So it is imperative that you know what a favorable endgame looks like and what an unfavorable endgame looks like. Otherwise you will never know during the middlegame whether you want to swap units to simplify the position or to preserve units on the board to keep things complicated.

In other words, you can get through the opening with pretty much anything. Purdy said it's impossible to play a perfect opening, but it's pretty easy to play a decent one. And no matter what happens in the middlegame, you have to judge whether or not you want to head toward that endgame that's on the horizon. So learn endgames. You have to. A mistake in the opening will not kill you. A mistake in the endgame turns a win into a draw, a draw into a loss. Mistakes at the end are far more costly than whether Stockfish says one move in the opening is .35 better than some other move in the opening.

The beauty of this is that endgame *can* be learned, while the opening *cannot*. You *can* learn how to play perfectly every position with three units on the board. Then you add a unit, and learn how to play all the positions with four units on the board. Perfectly doable. And work your way backward. It took me 50 years; I'm still working on positions with four units on the board. So isn't it logical and common sense that if learning positions with few units on the board is more valuable and more doable, then that's far more important than wondering what to do at move 2 with 32 units on the board?

This might be LOTS more than you wanted to know, but if you want to get good at this, you have to know it, the sooner, the better. And by telling you, I get to tell everyone else reading it.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, petroff-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is the Grand Prix Attack a poor response to the Sicilian?
The Grand Prix Attack begins 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4. It is an anti-Sicilian for white that is popular among club players because playing it requires memorizing significantly less theory than the open Sicilian. However, I wonder if playing it is a good choice.

According to the 365chess database, after playing 3. f4, white wins 36% of the time, while black wins 40% of the time. That is, by playing 3. f4, the white player seems to give black a slight advantage. Compare this to the open Sicilian or the 2. c3 Sicilian, where white maintains a slight advantage in winning percentage. It is tempting to conclude that white should not play the Grand Prix attack, and instead choose another anti-Sicilian. The large sample size (11,000 games) seems to indicate that playing 3. f4 really does put white at a disadvantage, and that the winning percentages aren't just a statistical anomaly.

It's not hard to come up with an explanation. Moving the f4 pawn seems to give white a slight structural disadvantage. If white can't strike the killing blow and black can close up the game, the weakened kingside allows black counterplay.

Certainly, one can easily think of objections to this analysis. For example, the games in the database are not a random sample, and there is probably a large bias towards 2000+ level play. And it's true that at a club level, especially below 1600, tactical blunders in the middlegame are going to make the opening moves irrelevant. But the sample size is huge, and the effect is significant (a 4% advantage in winning percentage for *black*, instead of the usual 3% advantage for white in the open Sicilian). Why not play it safe and choose a different anti-Sicilian? I don't think club players should hamstring themselves unnecessarily.

In light of the above, are there any good reasons for club players to play the Grand Prix Attack instead of a different anti-Sicilian? For example (and I don't have the computational skill to do this, otherwise I would), do the winning percentages look different for sub-2000 players?

# Answer
I don't have any statistics to back this up, but many openings where black has a large plus against white it isn't necessarily because the opening is actually so bad that it gives black a significant advantage, but because the opening is more popular at a lower level (which is normally because it actually is worse than other openings) so the players who play it are on average lower rated than their opponents and would most likely score less than 50% anyway.

Normally the openings with low percentages for white are slightly worse than other openings for white, but not necessarily so bad as to give black the advantage, but then the fact that they're worse than others kicks in and the higher level players play them less often, leading to that opening to score a lot of losses for white, even in a game which is even or with a slight edge for white after the opening.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Every (almost) opening scheme is suitable for some players or situations but not for others. If you like the positions you get from the Grand Prix, play it. Keep in mind defenses for Black have been worked out.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The Grand Prix is a very aggressive opening, and as such, it may be played when someone really needs a win, or they know their opponent may be superior at slower lines, as Qiri alluded above. But that's more about aggressive openings than the GP itself.

The Grand Prix seems suitable for club play if you know the ideas. I think Sunil Weeramantry had a book with a few GPA games that showed how it worked. Pretty much any opening with f4 is good at the club level (Austrian Attack, 4 pawns vs King's Indian) because it's fun to attack, and people aren't as focused on defense.

I remember dabbling in the QGA and not realizing I needed to attack the king, and that was kind of a failure. I think the worst that happens if you play it is, you find you don't like it, but you get an appreciation for Black's game. So if you are looking specifically to avoid very sharp play and big attacks, the GPA is probably not for you. The c3 (Alapin) sicilian may be a better bet.
> 4 votes

# Answer
If Black knows what his doing, he can obtain easy equality. It's not an opening where White is likely to gain an advantage.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The GP 'attack' is very good especially for folks under IM.

You have to be careful about interpreting databases. Look at the ratings included. Try filtering and see how the numbers change. Try another database and see how they change too.

You have to be careful of transpositions. EG chessbase has black doing 4% better if white starts with p-kb4 instead of with n-qb3. And there are other ways to transpose with different winning percentages depending on where you are in the game.
SO THE FOLLOW UP MOVES MATTER A LOT MORE!

Just looking at stats will let you think that you have a great chance of winning a game and one more move suddenly they flip and your chances are fat slim and none.

And no matter the rating level, all stats are sullied with mistakes. Even GMs will toss a queen sometime.

Also there is a big difference between playing a computer and a person. If you are not a computer you should play what you are comfortable with not try to memorize the winning percentages of every line you might play sometime.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In Club level and below 2200 level it is a good weapon but in Top GM Tournaments it is not that frequent . Gawain Jones is a GM who has a video on it . Here is an example of his Play . "Sicilian Grand Prix Attack"
> 1 votes

# Answer
To answer the last part of your question. at the all games level white gets in the low 40s at that position but if white played differently on the next move he could get 70s% \[so why does white play those other moves at all ? !! \]

at the 2700 level white wins 85% but that is based on very small statistical sample. there must be a reason it is played so little.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You make some interesting points. After 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 white clearly has the better center from a classical standpoint. You say there's a "slight structural disadvantage" and while I don't necessarily disagree, I do agree that there are some weaknesses that might not be so obvious. Engines tend to rate these types of positions better for the other side as well. I still think white is objectively a little better despite all of the evidence to the contrary but it is something for me to think about.

That being said, from a practical standpoint, the opening is fine. The Lichess database sorted at \<2200 has white crushing with a 54.5% win percentage. I think it's perfectly playable for most players

For someone who likes f4/f5 openings (ie King's gambit, Dutch, Latvian, Schlieman etc) the GPA is an excellent choice and will lead to a lot of similar types of positions.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Does the design of chess pieces affect professional chess players at all?
There are some unique designs of chess pieces such as the following:

(For the one above, I am not even sure if the setting up of pieces is correct.)

I will not feel comfortable playing with any of these weird chess sets and if I have to play, my understanding of the positions will definitely be negatively affected.

Am wondering if this will affect professional players or other strong club players at all. Do designs of chess pieces affect them at all?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I have played in the past with non-standard pieces, or even improvised ones (so it was just let's pick *something* that can work as this type of piece). I find I had no problem at all, assuming the pieces were not confusingly similar among themselves and to the normal pieces they are not representing. So, if your knights were dragon-shaped that should be no problem, but I bet you would confuse most players if you played chess with bishops that looked like standard knights!

Looking at the above designs:

* First chess I would not consider problematic. The only confusing pieces I see are the King/Queen. The difference seems arbitrary, but since the Queen will probably move on a different board zone than the King, that would probably make the ambiguity not matter.
* Second one is more confusing: King/Queen seem to differ mainly on its height (a good hint, but it would be better if they weren't so similar), and knights/bishops seem arbitrary (why choosing them this way?).
* Third one is unusual, but actually seem quite clear. You can see that knights and bishops actually hint in their design the way they move. Queen and Kind seem clear, too. Note that the Queen will usually have a round crown design.
* The last one seem the most confusing, as they seem a mixture of dragons with no pattern? (surely a dragon breeder would immediately the spot represented races and have no trouble at all!)

I suspect, however, that the ability to differentiate the pieces is probably a separate ability than playing chess. Advanced chess players will probably be less distracted by the weird sets (they *know* there is a knight in that square), and weak players may be further hampered (unless they are using to the weird one); but good and bad chess players could be affected more than other good and bad players. I think those having problems with the set would favor a tactic of exchanging pieces, in order to reduce the number of weird pieces left on the board.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Am wondering if this will affect professional players or other strong club players at all. Do designs of chess pieces affect them at all?

The short answer is "No" for the simple reason that they will never play any tournament chess with anything other than the standard Staunton design. The reason for *that* is given in the FIDE document Standards of Chess Equipment, venue for FIDE Tournaments, rate of play and tie-break regulations

According to the introduction -

> This document defines the general standards for chess equipment and conditions of play, rate of play and tie-break regulations to be used in FIDE competitions.

On the subject of chess equipment it says this:

> **1. Chess Equipment**
>
> **1.1** The chess equipment offered by the organisers (hosts) of a FIDE or Continental Championship, Olympiad and other FIDE registered tournaments shall conform with the standards mentioned below, and shall be approved by the Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter.
>
> **1.1.1.** It is recommended, that the chess pieces, boards and clocks, used in the World or Continental top level competitions be approved by participating players. Their approval shall be obtained for other equipment the table, chairs etc. In case either side disagrees, the equipment to be used shall be decided by the Chief Organiser or the Chief Arbiter of the event, bearing in mind the standards for its size and form as mentioned below.
>
> **1.1.2.** It is highly recommended that the chess equipment used in a competition is the same for all participants and all games.

On the design of the pieces it says:

> **2.3 Form, style of pieces**
>
> Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of Staunton style. The pieces should be shaped so as to be clearly distinguishable from one another. In particular the top of the King should distinctly differ from that of the Queen. The top of the Bishop may bear a notch or be of a special colour clearly distinguishing it from that of the Pawn.

Note that in the US lower level tournaments often require players to bring their own equipment. The USCF has its own regulations regarding equipment detailed in Chapter 4 of their US Chess Rulebook. Chapters 1, 2 and 11 are available free online but the USCF sees fit to charge for the rest of their rulebook. I would be slightly surprised if this allows non-standard designs.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Probably not. Most top chess players can play blindfolded and still beat almost the entire chess community. It may have an impact on Blitz game, but once they've been played with these sets for a while, they'd be used to them and have no bigger issues.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I remember a line from a movie once that was something to the effect of: Chess is a game you play in your head not on a board. In other words, a good player should be able to play the same regardless of what the pieces or board look like.

---
Tags: psychology, pieces, chess-set
---


title: Material value of the Berolina pawn

text:
# Question
Title: Material value of the Berolina pawn
The Berolina pawn is a fairy piece that moves like a normal pawn, but can move two (and one in all other cases) steps diagonally and capture one forward. How much better (or worse) is this piece compared to a normal pawn?

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to Gnu, which has a page dedicated to Berolina chess, the value of the Berolina pawn is the same as in standard chess, = 1. This is unsatisfactory because they give no explanation of how this evaluation was made.

The evaluations for standard chess existed before computer chess programs and were based on hundreds of years of experience playing standard chess. That doesn't exist for Berolina chess which was only invented in 1926 and is little played.

In the absence of similar amounts of over-the-board games of Berolina I think the best approach to getting an accurate evaluation would be an AlphaZero-like simulation of millions of self-learning games which could provide the empirical data upon which a good evaluation could be made.

---
Tags: analysis, chess-variants, point-value, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: how does one check their connection in chessbase.com
I get lots of messages that say to check my connection or I will lose on time. AFAIK I am always connected and see no obvious way to 'check my connection'

Today I was up a piece against a much stronger player when that message showed up. I tried to see of other aps were connected to the internet by checking my email and I was connected. In less than a minute when I had returned I had apparently lost on time even though my connection was clearly active then on chessbase.

The other guy had timed it to call the arbiter and get a win declared. Makes me think he knows how to make my connection appear to be gone because many times I click arbiter over and over and get no response at all although sometimes it is they are connected or they are gone and I do get the win.

Chessbase appears to be full of bugs as that message usually appears after I see that it had switched servers. Why it needs to switch servers is a big mystery too, but my question is: HOW DO YOU CHECK A CONNECTION? When I reload the page I have a connection but that always loses the position I was in and starts me over with a new game. There must be another way to check a connection. And how do you reconnect should you find out you are not connected. This seems to be a chessbase problem not on my PC end.

# Answer
> 1 votes
"Check your connection" means that the application is having problems connecting to the internet, so it asks you to "check your internet connection".

Suppose your computer was connected to the router with a cable:

This cable is faulty, and if it gets moved, you shortly lose the connection. You would need to either avoid it being touched or -longterm- replacing the faulty wire.

If you are on wireless, the same could happen, you might be losing packets although that's less visual. That could be due to other people using the wireless spectrum or even their microwave.

As a way to test your connectivity, you can open a command line prompt, and execute a command like `ping 8.8.8.8` to ping a known server (in this example Google DNS) and see if some packets get lost. If they are, you should then take steps to correct it, but that's outside the scope of this Stack Exchange. You might want to ask your ISP / computer technician fix it.

---
Tags: chessbase
---


title: Computer chess endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Computer chess endgame
Again , this is an interesting position I need help to solve. In a game Stockfish vs Ethereal , Stockfish was ahead , but Ethereal could have found refuge in the following endgame. Is the position winning for White anyway? Could Black steer it into a positional draw?

```
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "Ethereal"]
[FEN "4b3/4N1k1/3R3p/r7/8/P6P/5KP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
I am unsure what version of Stockfish you were using so I ran analysis 12 times; 4 seperate engines for each version of Stockfish.

* Stockfish 10 vs ( Ethereal , Komodo, LC0 , Stockfish 12 )
* Stockfish 11 vs ( Ethereal , Komodo, LC0 , Stockfish 12 )
* Stockfish 12 vs ( Ethereal , Komodo, LC0 , Stockfish 12 )

Results were Stockfish (white) at the end of 20+ moves, was in a stronger position in all 9 instances. Based off this, I would suggest black is in a losing and in a irrecoverable position. There is the potential for a draw but it appears extremely unlikely.

The best variation / playout that I saw, that had the best end position for black, was Stockfish 12 vs Stockfish 12. +-3.03 / 41 so white is decisively better.

Issue with engine games in these sort of positions are the gameplay is boring. That being said, I have attached it for reference though.

```
[White "Stockfish 12"]
[Black "Stockfish 12"]
[FEN "4b3/4N1k1/3R3p/r7/8/P6P/5KP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... h5 2. Rd3 Kh6 3. Kg1 Kg7 4. Rc3 Kf7 5. Nc8 Kf6 6. Nd6 Bg6 7. Kh2 Ra4 8. Rf3+ Kg5 9. Nb5 Kh6 10. Nc7 Ra5 11. Ne6 Bf5 12. Re3 Bg6 13. Rc3 Bf7 14. Nf4 Kg5 15. Ne2 Ra4 16. Rf3 Bg6 17. Rg3+ Kh6 18. Rc3 Be4 19. Nf4 Ba8 20. Ne6 Ra5 21. Nc5 Bd5 22. Nd3 Ra4 23. Nb4 Be4 24. Re3

```

From my experience with engine games this is going to continue on for some time. Eventually the Black h pawn and Whites a pawns will go (will likely also involve trading out the bishops somewhere ) , white with the pawn advantage will promote.
> 1 votes

# Answer
this would be tough to win OTB with many ways to end up drawn

a computer might do it but I doubt it would be quick and easy
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines, endgame
---


title: Transposition into KID

text:
# Question
Title: Transposition into KID
I have looked at many grandmaster games where White starts off with 1.c4, which later mostly transposes into a King's Indian. However, Black could have immediately played 1...e5, which seems slightly better. Why would Black not take this opportunity?

# Answer
**It is a matter of choice**

Many grandmasters (e.g. world champion Viswanathan Anand) have consistently played 1.c4 e5 with Black. Others favour the KID or other defenses : Hedgehog (with b6), symmetrical English (1.c4 c5), Pseudo-Nimzo (with Nf6 and e6), Pseudo-Grünfeld (with Nf6 and d5), Réti (with e6 and d5) or Slav-like (with c6 and d5) defenses...

There is no definitive hierarchy between all those schemes. You may well prefer 1...e5 and you won't be the only one (this is actually my favorite retort nowadays) but there is no objective reason to think that this choice should be "slightly better" than other reasonable defenses. What suits us doesn't suit everybody.

**The case with the KID**

The King's Indian Defense has many pluses and minuses: lack of space, ressources for counterplay, long theoretical lines... But one thing that makes it attractive for many players with Black is that the KID is an holistic opening solution for everything but 1.e4 : if you wanna play the KID, you can go for it whether I start with 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, even 1.g3 or 1.b3, and there is little I can do to stop you.

As a consequence players who are confident in their KID repertoire against 1.d4 have little incentive to switch to different schemes to meet 1.c4, and prefer to transpose with 1...Nf6 and 2...g6 rather than work on the theory of the pure English 1.c4 e5.
> 7 votes

# Answer
A lot of players play a setup similar to their main response to d4 in order to narrow their rep. Maybe the positions are objectively a little inferior but it gets the player a position they know and are comfortable in while at the same reducing the theory they need to know.
> 1 votes

# Answer
c4 e5 is playing the sicilian an extra move behind

most e4 players do not want to play the sicilian so I doubt they would do it as black either.

I would far prefer the KID to behind a move in sicilian. so why do you think c4 e5 is so good for black?
> -5 votes

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian, english-opening, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: What should be the value change if pawns are doubled?
I am creating a chess engine and I am creating a heuristic to change the board evaluation if there are doubled pawns. Now, I have no experience in creating engines, so I figured I would ask this site on how much to change it. The values of my pieces are as such:

King - 10,000

Queen - 100

Rook - 50

Bishop - 30

Knight - 30

Pawn - 10

I am thinking that doubled pawns should be -5 points, tripled -10 points, quadrupled -20 points and so on.

# Answer
> 15 votes
**Start with whatever and tune it.**

That's how chess engine programming works - you start with some number, and then tune it. For example you start with -5, then create another version with -10. You get the two engines to play against each other, and the one that wins more often is the "correct" version that you keep.

Of course as pointed out by other answers, doubled pawns aren't necessarily bad, so the next step is to start incorporating more features that can mitigate the doubled pawn penalty. For example you could say that if you have a pawn on an adjacent file that is defending the more advanced doubled pawn (e.g., a pawn on f3 given doubled pawns on e4 and e3), then remove the doubled pawn penalty. And then the testing process would start again, you take this patch and create a new fork, then get the two versions to play each other and retain the stronger version. And then you could tune, e.g. maybe "remove the doubled pawn penalty" is too strong, perhaps it should be "take only half the doubled pawn penalty", etc.

On another note, there is no "standard answer" to how large the doubled pawn penalty should be. Different engines will prefer different values - it depends on the rest of your evaluation function & search function. See this article which contains a paragraph about adding tripled pawn penalties to Ethereal:

> You might ask- why can't someone just write a better evaluation function? The answer is that people are trying, but it's difficult. Andrew Grant told me that he tried to add a penalty for tripled pawns (because they're obviously terrible!), but for whatever reason the engine became weaker with that penalty. Code for positional subtleties is extremely unlikely to add strength.

# Answer
> 7 votes
There's no real rule for how much do doubled pawns (or any other kind of weakness on the pawn structure) worse your position. There's not even a rule for piece value, specially if you'll add bonuses for things like centralized knights or the bishop pair.

In general, doubled pawns in a minority or balanced side tend to be less important than in a majority (as it'll make it harder to create a passed pawn)

Doubled pawns can also be a strength. Think for instance of **1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3!?** where White gives the possibility for his opponent to double his pawns hoping his king will be safer after castling long thanks to the extra protection it provides (note that White does not have a majority on the queenside)

Another illustrative example would be **1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4** here White gives up the bishop pair to make the "d" pawn move away and get a 4vs3 majority on the kingside that could eventually become a passed pawn. The 4vs3 majority Black has on the queenside is much harder to convert into a passed pawn. If all pieces were removed from the board, White would easily win the pawn endgame.

In short, there's no way to tell without knowing how your engine will evaluate other potentially related factors in the position. The main advantage you have is that you don't need to get it right the first time. You can create different versions of your engine with different values for certain parameters and test them against one another.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Doubled pawns aren't necessarily bad. They typically mean an open file and often can improve control of the center.

There's really no way to answer unless I know how you value the mobility of the pieces. Are the piece values you give fixed or baseline numbers that can be modified based on the position?

# Answer
> 1 votes
it depends

they may be worth more if they open a file for a rook in a somewhat closed position

---
Tags: engines, pawns, point-value, doubled-pawn
---


# Question
Title: What is the idea behind Schuhler Gambit?
The Schuhler Gambit is a line in the Sokolsky Opening.

```
[FEN ""]

1. b4 c6 2.Bb2 a5 3.b5 cxb5 4.e4

```

White gives away their b-pawn here. Stockfish claims this actually gives a small advantage to White, (although I analyzed only to depth 25) while bxa5 gives a small advantage to Black.

Why is it good and what is White's plan?

# Answer
Trades off time and space for a side pawn that loses more time for black if they try to keep it.

c6 was not a good response for black on move 1

in the position shown master results show an 80% win rate (draws =1/2) for white with zero losses

black would do far better with 1 ... d5 e5 or nf6
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: 32 pieces protected once: How many moves?
From the orthodox starting position, how many moves will you need to have the 32 pieces protected exactly once? (The answer is astonishingly low.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
A friend of mine says... 8 moves are enough. He doesn’t want to spoil the solution. I have 10. Back to the blackboard!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think four moves will suffice: 1 b3 ... 2 Bb2 3 g3 ... 4 Bg2. This way, the rooks will also be protected. The need to protect bishops will happen deeper in the game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> « deeper in the game » ... well, good luck! My friend has published (France-Échecs) his 9-move solution (not 8 as I misprinted it in an earlier post) and this solution is a beauty! Here is the end FEN: 8/8/8/1N6/3PP1P1/5Q2/PPPB1P1P/1K1R1BNR

---
Tags: problems, records
---


# Question
Title: How to play against Nimzo-Larsen attack if White starts with 1.Nf3
I usually go for the setup of Nf6, d5, e6, Be7, O-O, c5, Nc6 but I noticed that the White players are so familiar with these positions, and the winning rate for White according to the database is huge against this line! So I would like some recommendations against the Nimzo-Larsen attack when white starts with Nf3, and then plays b3. I would like a position with clear plans and easy to understand if possible.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I play the Nimzo-Indian and Ragozin defenses with Black. So when White plays d4, or Nf3 on move one, I play Nf6.

# Answer
What about `1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Bg4`?

Black development plan is very simple, the main line goes like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 Bg4 4. e3 Nbd7
5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Bd6 7. c4 c6 8. d4 O-O 9. Nbd2

```

In this position, despite white bishop aiming it is own pawn it is still potentially dangerous; therefore, standard `e5` or `c5` breaks are not usual in this position.

The safest approach for black is try to exchange the dark-squared bishops with `9...Qe7 10. Ne5 Ba3`.

Another approach, most intuitive in my opinion, is `9...Ne4 10. Nxe4 dxe4` If white plays `11. Nd2` then after `11. Bxe2 Qxe2. 12...f5` black has play on the king side, the bishop is aiming at h2 and the queen can be brought to `h4` or/and rook to `h6` via `f6`. If white plays `11. Ne5` and then `11... Bxe2 12.Qxe2` black could play `12...f6` forcing `13. Nxd7` and here again black can play on the king's side.

It is also common to bring the queen play `9...Qc7` or `9...Qb8` with the aim of controlling the `e5` square and preventing `Ne5`. But I am not very familiar with this plan.

Also, the position you describe can be reached via `1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3` move order.

```
[FEN ""]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 e6 4. O-O Be7
5. b3 O-O 6. Bb2 c5 7. c4

```

to avoid it you can go for the same black setup, with the bishop on g4.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Dont know what theory says but I play the dutch with 1...f5 after white opens with the horsie to nf3 and have decent results against people I play with now for fun.

Full disclosure I gave up playing in international tournaments decades ago.

c5 or g6 could work for you if you dont play the dutch.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: reti-opening
---