# Question
Title: Does your rating express the quality of your play regardless of time control?
For instance if I analyze a game played in blitz, move by move, between two 2600s, should I expect the moves to be of the same quality as the moves between two 2600s in classical? Or would worse play in blitz be enough to achieve a 2600 rating, given that every player is playing worse moves due to time pressure?

So if someone who's, for instance, 1600 in classical, 1400 in rapid, and 1200 in blitz, does this mean that they are especially reliant in longer time controls and have a pronounced difficulty in performing under time pressure (more so than other people), or is this drop-off in rating expected, because everyone plays worse under time pressure?

# Answer
The way ratings are mathematically defined, they don't express the **absolute strength** of players, but only the strength of players in a pool **relative to each other**. So there is no meaning in trying to compare blitz rating and standard rating, the way you are trying to suggest.

For the same reason you cannot compare computer ratings with human ratings, because they are calculated from different pools: computers playing only against computers vs humans playing only against humans.

Also for the same reason you cannot really compare ratings on different websites or online ratings with FIDE ratings.

---

That being said, most of the good players (above say 2600 in standard) are also decent Blitz players and would have a comparable blitz rating.

Still, speaking of absolute strengths, their blitz games would (on average) be worse quality than their standard games.

Giving a concrete example: Ding Liren and Hikaru Nakamura both have blitz and standard ratings in the 2800. So they are equal in strength in blitz (compared to each other) and in standard, but that is because they are equally worse in blitz....
> 11 votes

# Answer
Generally speaking, the faster the time control, the worse the play will be, but the relative strength of the players will be the same and reflected in the rating. It could be said the the more tactical player will have a lower variance between the different time controls.

My personal example has my quick OTB rating being over 2300, but my classical OTB rating is more than 100 points lower. This exception is due to my exceptional tactical ability and complete lack of positional "understanding". My strengths shine in a quicker game, whereas my weaknesses are easily exploited during a longer game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
> 1600 in classical, 1400 in rapid, and 1200 in blitz

Blitz is a little different to classical. Fast mouse clicking is an important skills in blitz, so people are not used to spamming pre-moves won't do good in blitz. No point up by a piece with only a few seconds left on the clock.

Yes, your rating reflect how well you perform in that particular time control although someone who is good at blitz is expected to perform well in standard too, and vice versa.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> if I analyze a game played in blitz, move by move, between two 2600s, should I expect the moves to be of the same quality as the moves between two 2600s in classical?

Of course, I am sure that you mean relative to the speed at which they are required to think for each time control. Faster moves are certainly going to be weaker.

As others mentioned, your rating is a measure of your strength relative to the other players in the rating pool, but even so, if you only consider a single player, and compare that person's actual strength, irrespective of rating, even then, player's strengths can vary significantly from time control to time control.

Take these two examples:

Fabiano Caruana has a reputation for being a weaker blitz and rapid player. Forgetting about specific ratings, he is number two in the world in classical, but number 12 in the world in rapid, and number 36 in the world in blitz.

There is no doubt that he has great understanding, but he also clearly, does not think as fast to be his equivalent ranking in blitz.

The second example is an older person, and I am going to draw on person experience being 58 now. I used to be a very strong blitz player (2450 on ICC when 2800 a strong GM, and only Kasparov and Shirov were over 3000...only later did ratings inflate to the 3300 range), but now, I just know that when I play blitz, my mind is just so much slower now. I can no longer compete at blitz like I once did.

My point is that your understanding of chess does not change from time control to time control, but your ability to put it into practice as quickly as blitz requires does change with various factors, but the biggest one is age for most people.

Just to be clear: You are not going to be able to play blitz-speed moves in a classical tournament as a 2600, and expect to stay 2600, unless maybe you are the next Anand, who was known for his speed of play when he was younger.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rating, online-chess, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Why is it funny to say Giri played the Evans Gambit?
At 0:55 in this video, Youtuber agadmator claims Anish Giri played the Evans Gambit in the Italian Game:

```
[fen ""]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[White "Kirill Alekseenko"]
[Event "Candidates 2020 (Joke Line)"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4

```

It becomes clear thereafter that agadmator was joking, as he immediately smiles, says "No, he didn't", and continues with the actual line.

However, I don't have the background to understand what makes the humour transparent here.

* Is this joke referencing an amusing history or reputation of this line?
* Is it just such an obviously bad move that no one can take it seriously on face value? If so, why?

I'm discounting the explanation he just made an error in his annotations because of the deliberate way he looks at the camera when he announces this, but I'll accept an argument for any interesting lines that spring from this position.

# Answer
> I'm discounting the explanation he just made an error in his annotations because of the deliberate way he looks at the camera when he announces this

First of all, he *did* make a mistake. He said Giri played the Evans Gambit but Giri was black. The Evans Gambit is an opening played by white.

The opening is sound and is occasionally played at the top level. It has a swashbuckling sounding name and in the romantic era was one way that attacking players tried to play for a quick win. In this respect it was similar to the King's Gambit and both openings still have romantic overtones which promise an exciting game.

This was the extent of the joke. The joke was against Agadmator's viewers. He lead them to believe it was going to be an Evans Gambit, an "exciting" game when actually it was a more boring normal Italian.

The truth nowadays is that computers have taken the romance out of openings like the Evans Gambit and the King's Gambit. Rather than produce sharp unbalanced games they are more likely to lead to early piece exchanges and games which end fairly quickly as tame draws. The Italian Game proper avoids early exchanges and often leads to slow manoeuvring games which build up slowly and come to life much later. So, maybe the joke was on Agadmator?
> 15 votes

# Answer
The joke is based on the perception of Giri as a very solid, "drawish" player. There always seems to be one top player who is the butt of such jokes. It used to be Leko, nowadays it's Giri.

Take a look at this reddit thread for example or this chess24 April's fool.

The swashbuckling Evan's is the last opening Giri would ever choose to play, or so the jokester suggests.
> 16 votes

# Answer
The Evans Gambit is a running gag on Agadmator's channel. I can't remember when it started but at least for the past year whenever there is a game that reaches the Giuoco Piano position he jokes about white going for the Evans Gambit, a very exciting opening which—to Antonio's dismay it would seem—is played extremely rarely in modern high level chess.
> 11 votes

# Answer
I think that he is just kidding because it is so rare at that level, but nevertheless, some great players have whipped it out as a surprise.

Kasparov played it three times against Jeroen Piket, Vishy Anand in classical, and Nigel Short in rapid, beating Piket and Anand, and drawing Short.

Morozevich played it once and lost to Kamsky in 2008, but Nakamura has a 1.5/2 score in classical, and MVL has played it three times in rapid and blitz (2.5/3).

It is always a shock to see this opening at that level, and I think he was just joking around about that.

This is just for your viewing pleasure.

```
 [Event "Riga Tal Memorial"]
 [Site "Riga"]
 [Date "1995.04.16"]
 [Round "4"]
 [White "Kasparov, Garry"]
 [Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C51"]
 [WhiteElo "2805"]
 [BlackElo "2715"]
 [PlyCount "49"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "LAT"]
 [EventCategory "17"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Be7 6. d4 Na5 7. Be2 exd4 8. Qxd4 Nf6 9. e5 Nc6 10. Qh4 Nd5 11. Qg3 g6 12. O-O Nb6 13. c4 d6 14. Rd1 Nd7 15. Bh6 Ncxe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Nc3 f6 18. c5 Nf7 19. cxd6 cxd6 20. Qe3 Nxh6 21. Qxh6 Bf8 22. Qe3+ Kf7 23. Nd5 Be6 24. Nf4 Qe7 25. Re1 1-0

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, italian-game, evans-gambit
---


title: Which endgame manual?

text:
# Question
Title: Which endgame manual?
Which endgame manual do you recommend and why?

• Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual

• Fundamental Chess Endings (Muller & Lamprecht)

• Silman's Complete Endgame Course

• Some other book

I am currently reading Frank Lamprecht and Karsten Muller's fundamental chess endgames.

Thus far I have completed the chapters on Pawn-Endgames, Knight Endgames, Bishop Endgames, Knight & Bishop Endgames. However, I find the material quite dry and I difficult to remember, especially the chapters on bishops and knights.

# Answer
A lot of endgame work is dry, and there is no getting around that.

I learned endgames long before those books were available, and although it was a lot of work, I loved Ruben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings". In it, there would be a base example, but then often, many other similar examples. By going through it, I saw multiple examples that were similar, thus reinforcing the main ideas of each.

If that is not for you, then probably "Silman's Complete Endgame Course" is a good place to start. I also really like Jesús de la Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know", and its accompanying workbook.

"Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual" is really for players, who are close to the master level already, and it assumes a great deal of previous endgame knowledge.

A lot of these books focus on theoretical type positions, but you will also want books that pick more positions that are from practical games, as they transition from middlegame into the endgame. You need both types. For example, Shereshevsky's "Endgame Strategy". He also wrote a two-volume series that covered typical endgames from both open and closed games, called "Mastering the Endgame".

Here is a article on "Endgame Strategy".
> 6 votes

---
Tags: endgame, books, study
---


# Question
Title: I was up a piece but could not win. What went wrong?
I lost this game and I am not looking for a computer analysis, but what approach should I have taken instead? The game continued 1. Rxd4 Rb7 2. Rxc4 dxc4 3. a4 b4 4. Bd4 Rd7 5. Bb6 c3 6. Rb1 Rd5 7. Kf2 c2 8. Rc1 b3 and I lost.

```
 [FEN "6k1/r4pp1/4p3/pp1pP2p/2rn1P2/4B2P/PR4P1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rxd4 Rb7 2. Rxc4 dxc4 3. a4 b4 4. Bd4 Rd7 5. Bb6 c3 6. Rb1 Rd5 7. Kf2 c2 8. Rc1 b3

```

# Answer
> 29 votes
You unblocking your opponent's passed d-pawn with 2. Rxc4 is what went wrong from a pragmatic perspective.

You are up a piece. The only way black wins this position is by promoting pawns so that you're not up a piece anymore (e.g. pushing that 2-to-1 queenside pawn majority).

This can be easily stopped with the following approach:

1. Keep your rook where it is. It's doing a fine job blockading the passed d-pawn. Ideally, you want a knight to blockade the pawn, but the rook can do this as well.
2. Bring your last piece (i.e. the king) over to the queenside to make sure those pawns don't go anywhere. They shouldn't since you have two rooks, a bishop and a pawn there already.

Try following the above advice by playing it out against a comp.

# Answer
> 20 votes
One basic endgame rule of thumb that could help here, is that 2 connected passed pawns on the 6th rank are worth about as much as a rook, and 2 connected passed pawns on the 7th rank beat a rook. By playing 3. a4, you allowed the black b pawn to pass, and connect with the already passed black c pawn. This is disastrous - you've basically given your opponent a rooks' worth of material if you want to look at it that way.

The a-b-c pawn group that black has at the start of this is their main asset - play defensively by moving your king and bishop in position to assist your rook in defending against that push, and you should be in a good place. Black has basically no other opportunities to advance without a lot of work, so you should have time to clean up the black pawns before another threat presents itself.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Since you are not looking for a computer analysis, I would say that just looking at it, I would have taken with the bishop since it would be well-placed on d4 and gained a tempo. Then moved the king closer to d3. This would have rendered all of black's counterplay harmless.

I would have tried to avoid exchanging on c4 if at all possible, but even if not, with the king on d3, dxc4+ Kc3 would really stop b4 for a long time since then you would be pushing would lose the newly-created c4-pawn.

a4 was definitely a huge mistake giving black two passers. If it is not already lost there, it was probably at least equal already...so avoid a4 unless there is a very good reason since you do not want to give your opponent passed pawns that are that well supported.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As others mentioned, a4?? gives away white's advantage. You will likely have to return the piece to stop the passed pawns after this move.

I'm going to suggest a different alternative approach than others have suggested. I think 1. Rxd4 Rb7 2. Rxc4 dxc4 is fine. The key move now is 3. **Rc2**.

Black cannot play 3. ... b4 because of 4. Rxc4. If they attempt to support the pawn with 3. ... Rc7, that runs in to 4. Bb7. White has a clear plan to centralize the king and breaking up black's queenside majority and it's hard to suggest how black can prevent it: with the white rook on c2, a4 is now perfectly reasonable.

---
Tags: strategy, planning
---


# Question
Title: Is there any word on what will happen to the Candidates Tournament 2020 if one of the players tests positive for COVID-19 (coronavirus)?
With FIDE moving forward with the Candidates Tournament 2020, in my opinion against better judgment, they have announced what medical screenings will be done, but have they announced what would happen should one of the players test positive for COVID-19 during the tournament?

There were over 400 people at the opening ceremony yesterday, and I think it would be a public relations nightmare if one of the players contracts it.

# Answer
Yeah, in fact, the tournament has been put on a pause with the current standings, because they are not able to continue: https://www.chess.com/news/view/2020-fide-candidates-tournament-postponed
> 7 votes

---
Tags: tournament, world-championship, candidates
---


title: Guide to using a book

text:
# Question
Title: Guide to using a book
I am currently twenty years old. I learned the rules of chess when I was eight and played on and off for a long time. However, I did not take it seriously. Recently after joining chess.com and trying out the tactics, as well as following grandmaster games and YouTube channels, I am interested in improving my skills.

As of now I am able to figure out tactics as well as calculate decently in situations where a few different permutations of exchanges or forks, 2 or 3 moves ahead, could take place. However, most text I see talk about pattern recognition and studying positions and tactics. Therefore I have obtained a copy of Susan Polgar's "Chess Tactics For Champions". I would like to know how I should go about using this book. I understand that it is quite comprehensive. But somethings I would like to get right the first time around are:

1) Should I make a conscious effort to remember positions presented in the book?

2) Should I make a conscious effort to identify patterns or relate positions other than the obvious differences? Or will I start to hone this skill automatically?

3) Should I try to set up a board and play on a few moves in cases where the objective is to get an advantage?

4) Should I keep in mind any trade-off between tactical advantages which may lead to immediate piece advantage versus positional advantage?

# Answer
How you should use the book is really a matter of opinion, but I very much believe in immersion learning, so rather than do a few every day for a longer period, I believe that doing as many as you can in a shorter period of time is more beneficial. I have seen this play out in practice in both my progress, and in the progress of those, whom I have taught.

Therefore, I always say, that try and do at least 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes per move on each problem.

The whole point of pattern recognition is that you do not have to try to remember the specific positions you see in the book as you will likely never get those exact positions in your lifetime. What you will get in your games is certain elements of those games, the patterns", and by doing enough of these tactics exercises, you will start to remember them.

I just looked at the table of contents of the Polgar book, and it is well-organized. You want to stay within a certain type of tactic when you are studying, like doing pins for a while, and maybe later, forks, etc.

You should, and shouldn't, have to consciously identify the patterns. I think it will come naturally as you read that book, and MANY more tactics books after. Even if you become an "ordinary" Master, even then, your tactics will still always be helped by continued tactical practice.

I am not sure how number three relates, or really what you are asking, but in general, when doing tactics problems, I would not set up a board as it takes too long, and you want to start calculating in your head anyway.

A tactic can lead to either a material advantage, which I think is more common, or a positional advantage. You always need to be mindful of the evaluation at the end of a tactic, and ask if you are really better, and is there any trap at the end that you may have missed. If you have a tactic that can lead to either type of advantage, you have to weigh the pros and cons of each final position. I would say that, in general, material is more likely to be preferred, but there are definitely cases where I would not want the material, and would take the position.

For example, I recently answered a question here where the OP took the exchange. I would not have played the move 35...Ne3+ winning an exchange, and would have preferred to maintain the pressure. The short "tactical exchange" winning the exchange allowed white to use e4 as a blockading square for quite a while, whereas keeping the attacker would have probably led to more. The positional pressure was worth more, in my opinion. So this is an example of having a choice between material and position, and having to make a decision.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tactics, books, study, patterns, advantage
---


title: Q+N in attacking K

text:
# Question
Title: Q+N in attacking K
I've always been told that Q and N are very strong in attacking K. Could someone show me some real GM games where Q+N attack decides the game? (where at the end of the aggression, the attacking side gets decisive advantage)

# Answer
> 3 votes
The best classical game of Q+N vs king is The game of Fischer vs Panno (1970),

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Fischer"]
[Black "Panno"]
[StartPly "71"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7. Re1 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. d4 cxd4 10. cxd4 d5 11. e5 Bd7 12. Nc3 Rc8 13. Bf4 Na5 14. Rc1 b5 15. b3 b4 16. Ne2 Bb5 17. Qd2 Nac6 18. g4 a5 19. Ng3 Qb6 20. h4 Nb8 21. Bh6 Nd7 22. Qg5 Rxc1 23. Rxc1 Bxh6 24. Qxh6 Rc8 25. Rxc8 Nxc8 26. h5 Qd8 27. Ng5 Nf8 28. Be4 Qe7 29. Nxh7 Nxh7 30. hxg6 fxg6 31. Bxg6 Ng5 32. Nh5 Nf3 33. Kg2 Nh4 34. Kg3 Ng6 35. Nf6 Kf7 36. Qh7 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
You see it a lot in the Ruy Lopez with the maneuvering of the white knights from b1-d2-f1-g3-f5 and Nf3-h2-g4, and the queen joining the kingside attack.

Here are some games taken only from games where both players were above 2500, including this positional masterpiece by Karpov. As soon as both Q+N infiltrate, it was immediately time to resign.

```
 [Event "Olympiad-21 Final A"]
 [Site "Nice"]
 [Date "1974.06.17"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Karpov, Anatoly"]
 [Black "Unzicker, Wolfgang"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C98"]
 [PlyCount "87"]
 [EventDate "1974.06.15"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "15"]
 [EventCountry "FRA"]
 [WhiteTeam "Soviet Union"]
 [BlackTeam "Germany"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "URS"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "GER"]
 [FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 Nc6 13. d5 Nd8 14. a4 Rb8 15. axb5 axb5 16. b4 Nb7 17. Nf1 Bd7 18. Be3 Ra8 19. Qd2 Rfc8 20. Bd3 g6 21. Ng3 Bf8 22. Ra2 c4 23. Bb1 Qd8 24. Ba7 Ne8 25. Bc2 Nc7 26. Rea1 Qe7 27. Bb1 Be8 28. Ne2 Nd8 29. Nh2 Bg7 30. f4 f6 31. f5 g5 32. Bc2 Bf7 33. Ng3 Nb7 34. Bd1 h6 35. Bh5 Qe8 36. Qd1 Nd8 37. Ra3 Kf8 38. R1a2 Kg8 39. Ng4 Kf8 40. Ne3 Kg8 41. Bxf7+ Nxf7 42. Qh5 Nd8 43. Qg6 Kf8 44. Nh5 1-0

```

Anand at work. It is amazing that the game lasts only another 7 moves!

```
 [Event "Wch Chess960"]
 [Site "Mainz"]
 [Date "2007.??.??"]
 [Round "5.2"]
 [White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
 [Black "Bacrot, Etienne"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [WhiteElo "2779"]
 [BlackElo "2705"]
 [Variant "chess 960"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "1R4k1/q4ppp/6n1/2b1pN2/4P3/2N2QP1/5P1P/6K1 b - - 0 29"]
 [PlyCount "12"]
 [EventDate "2007.??.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "6"]
 [EventCountry "GER"]
 [EventCategory "20"]

 1... Qxb8 2. Nd5 Qe8 3. h4 Qe6 4. Qg4 Bf8 5. h5 Nh8 6. Nde7+ Qxe7 7. Nh6# 1-0

```

From a blitz game, so there are mistakes, but the Q+N combine nicely.

```
 [Event "Wch Blitz 6th"]
 [Site "Astana"]
 [Date "2012.07.09"]
 [Round "15"]
 [White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
 [Black "Karjakin, Sergey"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C96"]
 [WhiteElo "2769"]
 [BlackElo "2779"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/1b3pk1/6p1/3P4/2Q1P3/1p2N1PP/1q3P2/6K1 w - - 0 45"]
 [PlyCount "29"]
 [EventDate "2012.07.09"]
 [EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
 [EventRounds "30"]
 [EventCountry "KAZ"]
 [EventCategory "19"]

 1. Kg2 Qb1 2. Qc3+ Kg8 3. Ng4 $1 {The exclam is for allowing Karjakin to take a center pawn with check, but there was much stronger.} (3. Qe5 $1 b2 4. Ng4 Qc1 5. Nf6+ Kg7 6. d6 {Taking away e7!} b1=Q 7. Ne8+ Kh6 (7... Kf8 8. Qh8#) 8. Qh8+ Kg5 9. Qh4#) 3...Qxe4+ 4. Kh2 Qc2 5. Qe5 b2 $4 (5... Bxd5 {Was the last chance.}) 6. Nf6+ $2 (6. d6 {Only this move taking away e7 again wins.}) 6... Kf8 (6... Kg7 $11) 7. Nh7+ $2 {The wrong way.} Kg8 8. Nf6+ Kf8 $2 9. Nh7+ Kg8 10. Nf6+ Kf8 11. Nd7+ $1 {Finally, on the right track.} Kg8 12. Qe8+ Kh7 13. Qxf7+ Kh6 14. Qf8+ Kg5 15. Qf4+ 1-0

```

Here is a nice high-level example because the players were both world-class, and black is actually up a piece, but still cannot defend against the attack.

```
 [Event "Linares 09th"]
 [Site "Linares"]
 [Date "1991.??.??"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Jussupow, Artur"]
 [Black "Kamsky, Gata"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "D58"]
 [WhiteElo "2605"]
 [BlackElo "2640"]
 [Annotator "Ftacnik,L"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "5n1k/5p1b/p7/3N4/P2P4/5Q1P/1P3PPK/2q5 b - - 0 41"]
 [PlyCount "16"]
 [EventDate "1991.02.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "ESP"]
 [EventCategory "17"]

 1... Bg6 {Defending the pawn, but also giving the Kh8 the h7 square to avoid Qf6+ Kg8; Ne7#.} 2. Qf6+ Kh7 3. Qe5 $1 {Setting up dangerous knight checks on f6.} Ne6 4. f4 $1 {Keeping the Qc1 from coming back to defend.} Qf1 5. h4 Bd3 6. Qf6 Kg8 {Defending the critical f7-square.} 7. f5 $1 {Blocking the bishop's defense of the critical g6 square.} Be4 (7... Bxf5 8. Ne7+ {Wins the Bf5, and the attack continues...but not for long.}) 8. Ne7+ Kf8 9. Ng6+ {And mate next.} 1-0

```

I found this really nice game, which is only partially about the attack on the king. I had to include it since it beautifully demonstrates a high-level concept that GMs use regularly, and that is the limiting of the opponent's piece scope. The annotations are mine.

```
 [Event "Chigorin Memorial-14"]
 [Site "Sochi"]
 [Date "1980.09.23"]
 [Round "15"]
 [White "Sveshnikov, Evgeny"]
 [Black "Torre, Eugenio"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C50"]
 [WhiteElo "2570"]
 [BlackElo "2520"]
 [PlyCount "79"]
 [EventDate "1980.09.04"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "15"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [EventCategory "11"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. d4 Bg4 5. Bb5 Nge7 6. Bg5 f6 7. Be3 exd4 8. Bxd4 a6 9. Bc4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 b5 11. Be2 c5 12. Qe3 Nc6 13. a4 b4 14. Nbd2 Be7 15. Bc4 Qd7 16. Qd3 Qb7 17. O-O Bd7 18. Bd5 Qc7 19. Nc4 Ra7 20. Nfd2 Nd8 21. Ne3 Nf7 22. Ndc4 O-O 23. Nf5 {This game revolves around that bad Be7, and limiting the scope of the black pieces.} Bxf5 24. exf5 Kh8 25. f4 {Limiting the movement of the Nf7.} Nh6 26. Rfe1 Rd8 27. Re6 Bf8 28. Rae1 Qf7 {Clearly, white has an overwhelming position here, so black looks for counterplay. What I love about this game is how white tries to prevent black's pieces from getting any activity, and the transitions as they trade pieces, leaving black with a sorry bishop, and white with the powerful knight.} 29. h3 {Anticipating Qh5, and getting ready to box in the black queen.} Qh5 30. g4 Qh4 31. Kg2 Ng8 32. Re8 Rad7 33. Nb6 Re7 34. R1xe7 Bxe7 35. Rxg8+ $1 Rxg8 36. Bxg8 Kxg8 37. Qd5+ Kf8 38. Qe6 $1 {Keeping the Qh4 from getting active on e1.} g5 {A desperate attempt at counterplay.} 39. Nd7+ Ke8 40. Nxf6+ {And mate next move.} 1-0

```

And one last game because it is a nice attacking game, but also because white has a classic chess name: Geller, the namesake of Efim Geller, the great Soviet GM.

---
Tags: strategy, knights, queens, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Does the Réti opening continuing to evolve?
"How to win in the chess openings" by I.A. Horowitz states, regarding the Réti opening, that "there is no known way which leads to an advantage for white" which leads to the conclusion that it should not be used. However, the book is quite old (written in 1951), and I am wondering whether or not there are any new ways of playing the opening that result in more opportunities.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 {The Reti.}

```

# Answer
I do not think that white has any advantage in the Reti, especially after 2...d4.

AlphaZero taught us that space is very important, probably even more important than we previously thought, and with 2...d4, black gains space. Stockfish 11 says that black has a -.38 advantage at a depth of 32, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably will dissipate as they get further into the opening, but it probably does indicate that black is absolutely equal.

In addition, in practical play, according to the Mega 2020 database, after 2...d4, white has a miserable winning percentage of only 46.9%.

That last statistic probably indicates that Horowitz was correct in that it is not the best opening (it is also not horrible), but you also need to keep in mind that unless you play very strong masters, you are probably fine to play it, although if you think you might get to that level in the future, then you also do not want to have to rework your openings totally when you get there.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, reti-opening
---


# Question
Title: Advanced Caro Kann: Queenless Middlegame
I started analysing my games as a means to improvement.

I am trying to form my own opinion without looking at the engine that much, as I can't rely on it while analysing a position in game.

I really liked the last game I played, so I want to share my analysis of the game. Please share your thoughts and tell me if I went wrong with my moves or my analysis.

```
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 {[%clk 0:15:08]} 1... c6 {[%clk 0:15:08.4]} 2. d4 {[%clk 0:15:14.5]} 2...d5 {[%clk 0:15:16.3]} 3. e5 { [%clk0:15:22.5]} 3... Bf5 [%clk 0:15:18.3]} 4.Bd3 {[%clk 0:15:27.9] a very common reply at my rating level, trying to dispute the diagonal right away. This move allows me to offer a queenless middlegame} 4... Bxd3 {[%clk 0:15:25.6]} 5. Qxd3 {[%clk 0:15:34.3]} 5... Qa5+ {[%clk 0:15:33.1]} 6. Bd2 {[%clk 0:15:34.2]} 6... Qa6 {[%clk 0:15:41.5]} 7. Qxa6 {[%clk 0:15:37.3]} 7... Nxa6 {[%clk 0:15:51.4] from this point on I try to develop, castle kingside and target his d4 pawn} 8. c3 {[%clk 0:15:44.4]} 8... e6 {[%clk 0:15:55.2] a standard developing move to develop both knight and bishop} 9. Nf3 {[%clk 0:15:50.5]} 9... Ne7 {[%clk 0:15:41.2]} 10. Nh4 {[%clk 0:15:51.4] a move I dislike. His intention is to stop 10. Nf5 however after my c5 pawn break I can develop my knight to c6 leaving his h4 knight misplaced} 10... c5 {[%clk 0:15:28.3]} 11. O-O {[%clk 0:15:46.2]} 11... cxd4 {[%clk 0:15:35.2]} 12. cxd4 {[%clk 0:15:51.6] d4 is now a backwards pawn and a structural weakness. The Advance Variation of the Caro-Kann is characterised by the "war over the d4 pawn"} 12... Nc6 {[%clk 0:15:39.3] attacking d4 right away, and because he has to defend d4 this comes with a tempo} 13. Be3 {[%clk 0:15:55.1] better to defend d4 via Nf3} 13... Be7 {[%clk 0:15:19.8] developing the bishop with tempo} 14. Nf3 {[%clk 0:16:00.1]} 14... Nab4 {[%clk 0:15:05.4] improving the position of the knight, threatening Nc2 forking bishop and rook, winning the rook} 15. a3 {[%clk 0:15:51.2]} 15... Nc2 {[%clk 0:15:13.1]} 16. Ra2 {[%clk 0:15:57.7]} 16... Nxe3 {[%clk 0:15:15.2] leaving him with doubled pawns and three pawn islands} 17. fxe3 {[%clk 0:16:03.3]} 17... O-O {[%clk 0:15:18.7]} 18. Nc3 {[%clk 0:15:59.4]} 18... a6 {[%clk 0:14:28.5] stopping Nb5} 19. b4 {[%clk 0:15:56.4]} 19... Rac8 {[%clk 0:14:00.6] better would've been b5 to make Na4 impossible} 20. Na4 {[%clk 0:16:03.1]} 20... b5 {[%clk 0:12:50.3]} 21. Nc5 {[%clk 0:16:08.1] invading via b6 seems better but I think he feared having his knight trapped} 21... Bxc5 {[%clk 0:12:51] because all his pawns are on dark squares I happily trade my bad bishop for his good knight} 22. dxc5 {[%clk 0:16:12.5] this leaves him with double isolated pawns, I prefer bxc5} 22... a5 {[%clk 0:12:01.4]} 23. Rb1 {[%clk 0:16:16]} 23... axb4 {[%clk 0:12:06.6] Ra8 first would've been better} 24. axb4 {[%clk 0:16:21.8]} 24... Ra8 {[%clk 0:12:11.5] contesting the only open file, planning on doubling rooks if he refuses to trade} 25. Rab2 {[%clk 0:16:24.8] a mistake because it lets me double rooks with a tempo and gives me control over the only open file} 25... Ra3 {[%clk 0:11:47.5] attacking e3} 26. Kf2 {[%clk 0:16:29.7]} 26... Rfa8 {[%clk 0:11:48.5]} 27. Kg3 {[%clk 0:16:31.7] a mistake, leaving e3 unprotected} 27... Rxe3 {[%clk 0:11:35.8]} 28. Kf4 {[%clk 0:16:35.8]} 28... Re4+ {[%clk 0:11:09.7] positioning my pieces to attack the weak backwards b4 pawn} 29. Kg3 {[%clk 0:16:42.1]} 29... Ra4 {[%clk 0:10:58.1] Nxe4 comes to mind but I prefer to leave his passed pawn blockaded} 30. Nd2 {[%clk :16:35.6]} 30... Rexb4 {[%clk 0:10:43.8]} 31. Rxb4 {[%clk 0:16:41.9]} 31... Rxb4 {[%clk 0:10:44.7]} 32. Rxb4 {[%clk 0:16:47]} 32... Nxb4 {[%clk 0:10:54.6] a winning position for me being up 2 pawns, both of them passed pawns} 33. Nb3 {[%clk 0:16:51]} 33... Kf8 {[%clk 0:10:54.1]} 34. Kf3 {[%clk 0:16:56.6]} 34... Ke7 {[%clk 0:11:03.1]} 35. Ke3 {[%clk 0:17:01.8]} 35... Kd7 {[%clk 0:11:12.5]} 36. Kd4 {[%clk 0:17:07.5]} 36... Kc6 {[%clk 0:11:07.1] a waste of time on my part, Nc6 wouldve been better} 37. Na5+ {[%clk :17:12.3]} 37... Kc7 {[%clk 0:10:55.4]} 38. Kc3 {[%clk 0:16:52.6]} 38... Nc6 {[%clk 0:10:52.2] offerig a trade, attacking his e-pawn and even more importantly controlling e4, d4, c4, b4, and a4 holding his king at bay} 39. Nb3 {[%clk 0:16:29.9]} 39... b4+ {[%clk 0:09:37.9] not taking on e5 right away because this allows Kb4, notice how this pawn move further drives the king back and at the same time makes it possible to invade with my king via b7-a6-b5-c4} 40. Kd3 {[%clk 0:16:27.1]} 40... Nxe5+ {[%clk 0:09:34.8]} 41. Kd4 {[%clk 0:16:34.2]} 41... Nc6+ {[%clk 0:09:30.2]} 42. Kd3 {[%clk 0:16:39.9]} 42... Kb7 {[%clk 0:09:23.1] with his king cut off from my position i started improving my own king position} 43. Kc2 {[%clk 0:16:40.3]} 43... Ka6 {[%clk 0:09:25]} 44. Kd2 {[%clk 0:16:40.1]} 44... Kb5 {[%clk 0:09:32.7]} 45. Kd3 {[%clk 0:16:46.3]} 45... e5 {[%clk 0:09:12.4] a useful waiting move and taking more space} 46. h3 {[%clk 0:16:49.6]} 46... e4+ {[%clk 0:09:00.8] forcing the king backwards, allowing my king to invade} 47. Kc2 {[%clk 0:16:55.4]} 47... Kc4 {[%clk 0:09:07.5]} 48. Kb2 {[%clk 0:16:57.3]} 48... d4 {[%clk 0:08:55.2]} 49. Nd2+ {[%clk 0:16:54.7]} 49... Kd5 {[%clk 0:08:45.9] not taking c5 right away to stop Nxe4} 50. Nb3 {[%clk 0:16:59.9]} 50... e3 {[%clk 0:08:44.2] threatening to march the epawn up the board} 51. Kc1 {[%clk 0:16:53.4] trying to stop the pawn, this leaves his knight unprotected} 51... Kc4 {[%clk 0:08:44.9]} 52. Na1 {[%clk 0:16:54.9]} 52... Kxc5 {[%clk 0:08:42.2] just now taking the pawn to free my knight} 53. Kc2 {[%clk 0:17:02.6]} 53... Kc4 {[%clk 0:08:51.2] taking the opposition stopping complications via 54. Kd3} 54. g4 {[%clk 0:17:02.4]} 54... d3+ {[%clk 0:08:46.1]} 55. Kd1 {[%clk 0:17:09.1]} 55... b3 {[%clk 0:08:41.8]} 0-1

```

# Answer
Overall, a very good game. Here are my thoughts on it.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Bd3 (4. Nf3 {And Be2 was a line that Nigel Short popularized.}) 4... Bxd3 5. Qxd3 Qa5+ {I think that Capablanca was the first to play this Qa5-a6 idea.} 6. Bd2 Qa6 7. Qxa6 Nxa6 8. c3 e6 9. Nf3 Ne7 10. Nh4 $2 {This puts the knight offside, and the Ne7 may actually go to c6 anyway after c5 is played.} c5 11. O-O cxd4 $2 {Why release the tension, and give his Nb1 a decent square? In addition, you would normally be playing for a minority attack here. After the Na6 is repositioned, and the Be7 is developed, and the Rh8 is brought to c8, the idea would be b5-b4 (maybe with a5, if necessary). This would weakened the white queenside.} (11... Nc6 12. Nf3 (12. Be3 b5 13. Nd2 c4 14. a4 b4 15. f4 {Trying for f5, and his own minority attack.} Be7 16. Nhf3 Rb8 {And black is ready to open the b-file whenever he is ready.}) 12... Kd7 $1 {With the idea of Be7 and Rhc8.} 13. Ng5 cxd4 14. Nxf7 Rg8 15. cxd4 Nxd4 $17 {With a significant advantage.}) 12. cxd4 Nc6 13. Be3 Be7 14. Nf3 Nab4 $6 {Again, finish developing. This does not threaten anything after the natural Nc3.} 15. a3 $2 (15. Nc3 Nc2 16. Rac1 Nxe3 17. fxe3 {Is close to equal.}) 15... Nc2 16. Ra2 Nxe3 $2 {The Be3 was a horrible piece, so I would not have been in a hurry to trade it off. Also e3 although doubled, it is easier to defend than d4 was. A pawn that is closer to home is easier to defend.} (16... Kd7 {Again develop.}) (16... Na5 $5 17. b4 $2 (17. Nbd2 $1 $15) 17...Nxe3 18. fxe3 Nc4 $17 {With a great square for the knight.} 19. Kf2 Kd7 20. Nbd2 b5 {And if white ever takes, you get a strong passer.} 21. Nxc4 $2 bxc4 {And then Rhb8 and a5 will destroy the white queenside.}) 17. fxe3 O-O 18. Nc3 a6 $2 {Taking the c-file, and playing Na5-c4 should have be a priority. Nb5 was not a threat, thus, a6 is unnecessary.} 19. b4 Rac8 {This move was fine, but it was the next that was not great.} 20. Na4 b5 $2 (20... Na7 $1 {This computer move is very hard-to-find, but is borne out of the necessity to be able to defend a6, and then play b6, driving the strong knight out of c5. Hard-to-find, but very logical with some deep thought.} 21. Nc5 Rc7 22. Rb1 Ra8 $1 23. Ne1 Nb5 24. Rb3 b6 25. Na4 Rb8 {And finally black is free of that monster Nc5, and can break with f6!}) 21. Nc5 {Nb6 was not even a consideration here. Not only might it get trapped, but you want squares that have strong bases (pawn protectors) for knights.} Bxc5 {Your bishop is not bad there, but the Nc5 was too strong to let sit there.} 22. dxc5 $2 {This leaves e5 very weak, and thus, limits the mobility of the Nf3.} (22. bxc5 {Of course, this was better.}) 22... a5 $2 {This gives white an opportunity to improve the Nf3.} (22... Ra8 23. Rb1 Rfb8 {Preparing a5.}) 23. Rb1 (23. Nd4 $1 Nxe5 24. Rb1 Rb8 25. bxa5 {With counterplay as the queenside is too open now.}) 23... axb4 24. axb4 Ra8 25. Rab2 $2 Ra3 (25... Rfb8 {Again, thinking about white's idea of Nd4, improving the position...Now, Nd4 just loses a pawn, and you can play Ra4 next, then bring the king up.}) 26. Kf2 $2 (26. Nd4 $1 {Is much better.} Nxd4 (26... Nxe5 $4 {Of course, not this.} 27. Nxb5 Rxe3 28. Rc2 $18 {And the pawns roll.}) 27. exd4 Rfa8 {And bring the king over to c6 and then use the doubled rooks.}) 26... Rfa8 27. Kg3 $4 {This is the final straw.} (27. Nd4 Nxd4 28. exd4 Rd3 $17) 27... Rxe3 28. Kf4 Re4+ 29. Kg3 Ra4 $1 {Excellent...increase the pressure rather than take on e5...e5 will eventually drop. It is indefensible. You also have all the time in the world, so you can bring the king up too to make sure that c5 never becomes a threat. Plus maybe with h6 thrown in to stop Ng5.} 30. Nd2 {This just hastens the defeat.} Rexb4 31. Rxb4 Rxb4 32. Rxb4 Nxb4 33. Nb3 Kf8 $2 {This is not a mistake in that it throws away the win, but you have a tendency to not look at your opponent's ideas. Nd4-b5 was clearly a threat so prevent it.} (33... Nc6 $1 {Of course. This prevents Nd4, but also ties him to e5 too.} 34. Kf4 Kf8 {Now bring the king in.}) 34. Kf3 $2 (34. Nd4 Na6 35. Nxb5 (35. c6 b4 $19) 35... Nxc5 $19) 34... Ke7 (34... Nc6 {Again.}) 35. Ke3 Kd7 36. Kd4 Kc6 (36... Nc6+ $1 37. Kc3 b4+ 38. Kc2 Nxe5 $19) 37. Na5+ Kc7 38. Kc3 Nc6 39. Nb3 b4+ 40. Kd3 Nxe5+ 41. Kd4 Nc6+ 42. Kd3 Kb7 43. Kc2 Ka6 44. Kd2 Kb5 45. Kd3 e5 46. h3 e4+ 47. Kc2 Kc4 48. Kb2 d4 49. Nd2+ Kd5 50. Nb3 e3 51. Kc1 Kc4 52. Na1 Kxc5 {Push the pawns. It does not matter here, but pushing should be your instinct.} (52... d3 $1) 53. Kc2 Kc4 54. g4 d3+ 55. Kd1 b3 0-1

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame, caro-kann
---


title: Why Are Openings Named After Countries?

text:
# Question
Title: Why Are Openings Named After Countries?
This has been bothering me from when I was little. Why are openings most commonly named after a country? For example: Sicilian, Scotch, Spanish, etc...

# Answer
There's a variety of reasons why openings are commonly named after nations (but *most* commonly would surprise me), maybe due to an individual player of the nation, e.g. Spanish (Ruy Lopez), English (Staunton), maybe due to a group of players in one nation e.g. Italian, maybe due to an event involving the nation e.g. Scotch (named for a correspondence match between Edinburgh and London in the 1800s), and I suspect a number of other reasons, including "we don't really know"

Wikipedia list of chess openings named after places might be a good place to start researching this
> 18 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Polerio Gambit game for review

text:
# Question
Title: Polerio Gambit game for review
Please analyze and comment about this game I played as an anonymous uer. I played the **Polerio Gambit** in the game. I would also like remarks about the Polerio Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4) as well.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Lichess.org"]
[Date "2020.03.27"]
[White "BramStokers"]
[Black "Anonymous User"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "1000"]
[BlackElo "1000"]
[TimeControl "10 minutes Blitz type game"]
[Termination "game_result.won_by_resignation"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 Nf6 4.Qf3 Bb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.Bxf4 O-O  7.Nh3 Re8 8.e5 d6 9.Bb5 c6 10.Bc4 dxe5 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Ng5+ Kg8 13.Bxe5 Nfd7 14.Qf7+ Kh8

```

# Answer
First, this is not really a Polerio, aka Muzio Gambit (this is the only name I have ever heard it called). That is characterized by the move 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0. You left out some of the opening moves, and the way you played it was lost right out of the opening.

My first impression is that I see a lot of tactical mistakes. There is a beautiful tactic that was missed on move 13. Here are my notes to the game.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4 $4 {This is almost losing already.} (3. Nf3 $1 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O {This is the Muzio/Polerio.}) 3... Nf6 $2 (3... Qh4+ {This is close to winning already.} 4. Ke2 {This is forced, and if so, white needs to deviate sooner.} (4. g3 $2 fxg3 5. Nf3 g2+ $1 6. Nxh4 gxh1=Q $19)) 4. Qf3 $6 Bb4+ $2 {This allows white to solidify the center with tempo.} (4... Nc6 $1 5. c3 d5 6. e5 Ne4 $17 {And black is better.}) 5. c3 Ba5 $2 {The bishop is really needed for the defense of the king.} (5... Be7 $1 {But white is still much better after e5.}) 6. Bxf4 $2 (6. e5 {This drives the knight back to its home, and it clearly the best since white will be way ahead in development.} Ng8 7. Bxf4 Ne7 8. Bd3 {With a huge advantage.}) 6... O-O 7. Nh3 $4 (7. e5 $1) 7... Re8 $4 (7... Nxe4 $1 {This just wins a pawn, and black went from much worse to at least equal.}) 8. e5 d6 $1 {The white king is now stuck in the middle, so black will be winning material.} 9. Bb5 (9. Nd2) 9... c6 (9... Bg4 10. Qd3 Nbd7 {Finishing development is even better.}) 10. Bc4 dxe5 11. Bxf7+ {This is nothing more than a check. Black can take this with impunity.} Kxf7 12. Ng5+ Kg8 13. Bxe5 Nfd7 $4 {Black is crushing here, but instead walks into mate in two. Almost any move here wins, but this one. That said, black had a beautiful, and unique tactic here that wins another piece.} (13... Qxd4 $1 {Exploiting two pins, this wins the Be5.}) 14. Qf7+ 1-0

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Variant in which two pieces can occupy a single square
A friend and I tried playing this variant yesterday. My question is:

> Surely someone has looked at this before. Does it have a standard name? Or is there something obviously wrong with it that my friend and I missed?

Sometimes this kind of drastic change to the rules produces a game that is obviously no good. (Consider the variant in which the board is turned into a torus; White has already lost, or perhaps wins immediately with 1. QxK, depending on how you look at it.) This variant didn't seem to have an obvious failure, and we had a good time playing one game and seeing how the tactics differed.

Specifically, the variant we played was:

1. All pieces move and capture the same as in standard chess, except:
2. Up to two pieces may occupy the same square.
3. A piece may move *into* an occupied square, but not *through* it.
4. A piece moving into a square occupied by two pieces of the opposite color may capture either, but not both.
5. Pieces of opposite colors sharing a square do not threaten one another.

So for example, it was legal for White to open with 1. Rh2, and have the rook and pawn sharing h2. Having done this they could then continue on the following move with 2. Rh4. But 1. Rh4 was illegal.

Since every chess variant imaginable has been tried out, I expect this one has also. I'd like to read about it, but I don't know what to search for.

# Answer
Pierre-Françoys Brousseau found a similar variant on Guy T Shafer's blog “Insane Chess”. It says:

> ### Crowded chess
>
> Requires standard chess set & board. Pieces setup, and capture as normal.
>
> Pieces move as normal, except any 2 non-pawn pieces of the same color may share the same square. Men cannot pass through an occupied square: pieces are blocked by men as usual. But you may pass your own piece in 2 turns (one to move onto the occupied square, another to move off that square). Pawns may never share a space with any piece.

This is a little different from our variation, in which pieces of opposite colors may share space, and pawns may share space.

Unfortunately there is no real discussion there.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Ralph Betza has a series of "crowd" games, but they don't quite match what you have in mind. The closest is the note in "Multiple Occupancy Miscellany", section "Crowd Capture":

> What happens when you make a capturing move that ends on a square where there is more than one enemy piece? Many rules are possible.
>
> The simple cases are that you capture
>
> * one enemy piece, chosen by the attacker (in this case multicolored crowds are common),
> * all enemy pieces, as in Troll Chess
> * All pieces, friend or foe,
> * No pieces at all.

https://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/multocc.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/crowded1.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/crowded2.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/boardrules.dir/fifo-chess.html

Other Betza games where multi-occupancy shows up, but isn't perhaps the main attraction:
https://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/pasgl312-chess.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/firefighter-chess.html
> 3 votes

# Answer
This sounds similar to a variant from the Netherlands known as Paco Ŝako ("peace chess"). In Paco Ŝako captured pieces are not removed from the board; instead, they become "merged" and occupy the same square. Merged pieces move as a unit according to the rules for the current player's piece, and cannot capture. However, they can *be* captured, in which case the capturing piece replaces the same-color piece from the merged pair, which then immediately moves to a new location. This allows a player to move multiple pieces in the same turn. Checkmate occurs when any piece merges with the opponent's king. This implies that the king cannot capture other pieces. Otherwise the rules for movement, castling, *en passant*, etc. work as in traditional chess. There is a YouTube video which illustrates the basic concepts.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I did not find any information about this variation you are proposing which is interesting, but i do think it is equivalent to a 3D chess game where the board is **8x8x2** and the third dimension will be the "stacking" of the two pieces together on the same square. Then when a piece moves, say for capturing one piece out of the two on the e5 square, it could choose between capturing on e5,1 or e5,2 .

By the way, just a thought on a thing to consider when playing it: if there is a situation where white has king on a1,1 and queen on b2,1 and black with a king on e5,1 and a knight on e5,2 - if Qxe5,2 then it will be a stalemate.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: What's the best way to learn the French?
Recently, I have been very attracted to the French defense, as I feel as though it is perfect for my style. However, I am aware that the French is highly theoretical, which is why I need a good, detailed, and organized way to study the theory and move orders of all the variations. Any suggestions?

# Answer
The fact is that you will need to pick a good book, which is difficult since there are a million books out there on the French.

When starting out with a new opening, picking a book that is heavy on theory is not so important as is a book that presents ideas well. For this purpose, I suggest the book "Mastering the French" by GM Neil McDonald.

I also suggest the book "Winning With the French" by GM Wolfgang Uhlmann. He was probably THE authority on the French during his peak years, and never played anything but the French in response to 1.e4 during his career (or so they say). The book is exclusively taken from 60 of his games, and the explanations are very good, but watching how a master of this opening handles it will be invaluable.

From there, you need to just start taking in one chapter at a time, but not necessarily in order. You want to take the most common lines first since you are more likely to encounter them early on. Spend at least a week on each chapter, and play some blitz games with a friend, who is willing to give you practice in each variation.

You will pick up the main ideas pretty quickly this way.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, theory, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Heavy piece endgame with 2 extra pawns-how to convert?
```
1r6/5pk1/2q1p1pp/3p4/r2P4/2P4P/PPQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1

```

It's White to move.

White is 2 passed pawns up, but Black is very active. I'm sure objectively White is winning, but how? Black will attack and force me to move my a or b pawn, but the moment I move one pawn, Black will sink a rook next to it (a3 or b3) and paralyze my pieces.

# Answer
> 5 votes
```
1r6/5pk1/2q1p1pp/3p4/r2P4/2P4P/PPQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1

1. b3 Ra7 2. a4 Rab7 3. Reb1 Rc7 4. b4 Qxc3
5. Qxc3 Rxc3 6. b5 Rcc8 7. b6 Rb7 8. a5 Ra8
9. a6 Rbb8 10. b7 Ra7 11. Rb6 Kf6 12. Rab1 Ke7
13. Rc6 Kd7 14. Rbb6 Rxa6 15. Rxa6 Rxb7 16. Rcb6 Rc7
17. Ra8 Ke7 18. Rab8 Kf6 19. R6b7 Rxb7 20. Rxb7

```

You should move your pawns forward first since the a-pawn and b-pawn are passed. Do not allow black to blockade them. If pawns get blockaded, switch your attack to the kingside, and try to mate black king. You should move your queenside pawns forward quickly, and support them...if not, you might lose your chance.

Some very unpolished examples.

```
1r6/5pk1/2q1p1pp/3p4/r2P4/2P4P/PPQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1

1. b3 Ra3 2. c4 Rba8 3. c5 Rb8 4. Rec1 Qb7
5. c6 Qc7 6. Qc5 Ra5 7. Qc3 Ra3 8. Qg3 Qb6
9. Qe5+ Kh7 10. c7 Rc8 11. Rc5 Ra5 12. Rxa5 Qxa5
13. Rc1 Qxa2 14. Qf6 Qxb3 15. Qxf7+ Kh8 16. Qf6+ Kh7
17. Qe7+ Kh8 18. Qd8+ Rxd8 19. cxd8=Q+ Kg7 20. Rc7#

```

If rooks want to blockade, you may have to sacrifice pawns to promote and queen one pawn.

Do not forget your king safety. This variation is forcing, and promotes the pawns.

If you do not gain space on queenside, black can kill your pawns because of better mobility, so you must keep your edge and not fall from it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Strange as it may seem, you want to start a Kingside attack. This puts black in a quandary. He can stop the attack by exchanging pieces, but then he will be without counterplay in the ending. A lot of technique in a winning positions has to do with the "principle of two weaknesses". If you Google this phrase you will find a lot of very useful stuff.

This is essentially what @Phismaster does in his analysis, but you might feel very passive with your pieces bunched up on the Q-side, and you would probably like a line where you can feel confident and in charge. It is worth spending a lot of time figuring out your plan before doing anything committal. An ideal setup would be to put pawns on a5,b4,c3 so you only have to worry about one of them, and double your rooks on the third rank. Really, now, nothing can happen to your pawns, and your Rooks are well placed for an attack against a second weakness. You have all the time in the world to plan your attack. You know you are winning. You know you are safe.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Starting out, it is worth mentioning that Stockfish 11 gives an eval of +3.02 at a depth of 32. I think that this is objectively a win, but in practice, for a human, it could present some practical problems, but they should be something that a strong player should be able to overcome without much difficulty.

The obvious basic plan is to advance the pawns, but that cannot be forced if black attempts to use the pieces to blockade them. That said, then you get a very typical, and instructive, plan of switching the attack to the other side of the board, and combine threats against the weak king with the fact that the black pieces are tied to the blockade.

It is very clear what happens should black allow the advance of the white queenside pawns, so I will focus more on the plans involving the attempted blockades, and some sample lines showing how they typically would play out. There are billions of possibilities here, so these are just examples based on human understanding, and playing the computer's idea of what is the best defense. Once you have an understanding of what the plan should be, playing it in practice is just a matter of being careful, and patient. There is no need to hurry as black cannot do much here.

```
 [FEN "1r6/5pk1/2q1p1pp/3p4/r2P4/2P4P/PPQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 0"]

 1. b3 $1 {To get the a-pawn moving.} Ra3 {Going for the blockade plan.} (1... Rxd4 2. Rec1 Rf4 3. a4 $18 {And it is already clear that the a+b-pawns are going to roll. +3.05.} Ra8 4. a5 Qb5 5. Rd1 $1 (5. Qb2 Kh7 6. Qa2 Ra6 7. Rd1 e5 8. Re1 d4 9. c4 Qb4 10. Rxe5 $18 {Or this.}) 5... Rxa5 6. c4 $1 Qb4 7. Rxa5 Qxa5 8. c5 Re4 9. c6 $18 Re1+ 10. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 11. Kh2 Qe5+ 12. g3 d4 13. b4 h5 14. b5 {Winning.}) 2. c4 Qb6 (2... dxc4 3. d5 $1 Qd6 4. dxe6 cxb3 5. axb3 Rxa1 6. Qc3+ Kh7 7. Qxa1 Rb7 (7... fxe6 8. Qa7+ Kg8 9. Rxe6 $18) 8. exf7 Rxf7 9. Re8 {Up two pawn with attack.} Qf6 10. Qe1 h5 11. b4 Qb2 12. Re2 Qf6 13. b5 Ra7 14. Re5 Kg8 15. Qe3 $18) 3. c5 Qb4 4. Qb2 Rba8 (4... h5 {Passing time, but also potentially threatening the white king later, even if it should not work. It also removes the Ph6 from any potential attack.} 5. c6 Ra7 6. Rec1 Rc7 7. Rc5 Kf8 8. Rac1 Ke7 9. g4 hxg4 10. hxg4 g5 (10... Ra7 11. Rd1 Rba8 12. Qc1 Rxa2 13. Qg5+ Ke8 14. c7 Rc8 15. Kg2 Ra7 16. Qf6 Raxc7 17. Rh1 $18) (10... Kd6 11. Kg2 Rb6 12. a3 $1 Qxb3 13. Qd2 Ke7 14. Qf4 Rc8 15. Ra5 $18) 11. Kg2 Rb6 12. f4 $1 $18 gxf4 13. Qf2 Ra6 14. R1c2 f3+ 15. Kxf3 Rc8 16. Qh4+ Kd6 17. g5 Kc7 18. Qf4+ Kb6 19. Qxf7 Ra7 20. Qxe6 Rf8+ 21. Kg2 Rc7 (21... Qxd4 22. c7+ Kb7 23. Rb5+ Ka8 24. c8=Q+ Rxc8 25. Qxc8#) 22. Qe5 $18) 5. Rec1 Kf8 (5... Kh7 6. c6 Kg7 7. Rc5 Kf6 8. c7 Rc8 9. Rac1 Raa8 (9... Ke7 10. R1c3 g5 {If the computer thinks this is best, it is not a good sign for black.} 11. g3 Ra7 12. Qd2 Kd7 13. a4 Ra5 14. Rc6 Ra7 15. Kg2 Rb7 16. R6c5 Qb6 17. Qd3 Rbxc7 18. Qh7 Kd6 19. a5 Qb4 20. Rxc7 Rxc7 21. Rxc7 Kxc7 22. Qxf7+ Kb8 23. Qxe6 $18) 10. R1c3 Ke7 11. Qd2 Kd7 12. Qf4 $18) 6. c6 Ke7 7. Rc2 Rc8 (7... Kd8 8. Qc1 Qxd4 9. c7+ Kc8 10. Qe1 $1 R3a7 11. Rd1 Qf4 12. g3 Qf3 13. Rc3 Qf6 14. Qe3 Rxa2 15. Qc5 Qh8 16. b4 $18) 8. Rc5 h5 (8... Ra4 9. Rb1 Ra6 10. Rbc1 Ra3 11. Rb5 Qd6 (11... Qxb5 12. Qxa3+ Ke8 13. Qd6 $18) 12. b4 Rd3 13. Rb7+ Ke8 14. b5 $18) 9. Qc1 Kf8 (9...Qxd4 10. Qxa3 Qxa1+ 11. Rc1+ $18) 10. Qf4 Ra7 11. c7 Ke8 12. Rac1 Rxa2 13. R1c3 Ra7 14. Rf3 $18 f5 15. Qd6 {Crushing.}

```

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, planning
---


# Question
Title: In Bughouse can you claim a draw if the position on the board repeated three times but the pieces available to place were different?
In Bughouse chess can you make a triple occurrence draw claim if the position on the board has been repeated three times but the pieces available to the players to place were different each time?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Not having a governing body for bughouse, the rules are a little informal.

Per the Wikipedia article:

> Depending on (local) rules threefold repetition applies, in which case the reserve of pieces is not taken into account.

If you think about it, if the available pieces were taken into account, first, with no scoresheet, it would be really hard to prove, especially at a typically fast time control; and second, the simple mathematical possibilities would probably render any chances of a draw virtually impossible.

So basically, if the house rules allow for a three-fold repetition, it probably has to be just considering what is on the board of just one of the two boards.

So to answer the base question, most people probably play by those rules, and thus, the answer would be "yes, you can claim a draw under those circumstances".

---
Tags: rules, draw, threefold-repetition, bughouse, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 - is this opening worth it?
While doing my spring cleaning, I came across an old book claiming to give a good opening chance for black. It's called the "*Barcza-Larsen opening*" and it is characterized by **2 .. c5**:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5

```

I am very skeptical about this opening. It seems that after **3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6** white is already significantly better, due to the considerably weak black pawn on d6 and limited options for activating the bishops. Moreover, black will struggle to castle and will find himself in major trouble when white puts a rook on e1 and the queen on e2.

However, I found a top GM game from 2019 featuring this opening, in which the white pieces (played by Kirill Alekseenko no less) lost!

```
[fen ""]
[White "Alekseenko, K. (2704)"]
[Black "Salgado Lopez, I. (2605)"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 d6 6. f4 b5 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. Be3 Nd7 9. Qf3 Nc5 10. a3 Nf6 11. O-O Be7 12. Rae1 O-O 13. g4 Nfd7 14. g5 Rc8 15. h4 f5 16. Kh2 e5 17. fxe5 Nxe5 18. Qh3 Ncxd3 19. cxd3 Nxd3 20. exf5 Nxe1 21. Rxe1 Qd7 22. Ne6 Rf7 23. Bd4 Bf8 24. h5 Rc4 25. g6 Re7 26. gxh7+ Kh8 27. Nxf8 Rxe1 28. Qd3 Rh1+ 29. Kg3 Qc6 30. Qe2 Rxd4 31. Ng6+ Kxh7 32. Nf8+ Kg8 33. Ng6 Rg1+ 0-1

```

---

What is today's view on this opening? Is it still playable, or is its only value an effect of "surprise" as white does not usually expect **2. .. c5**?

# Answer
You need to realize that just because someone gave it that name on move two, that it is certainly going to transpose to another opening with a different name. When determining what opening is played, classification takes place from the end of the game, and moves backward so the last known opening position is considered the opening that was played. If you start 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4, it is already no longer an English opening, for example.

So that Alekseenko-Salgado Lopez game is actually ECO B54, a variation of the Sicilian, listed as "unusual lines" only because black refrained from Nf6. Had he chosen that move on move 6, which was the most common move there, it would have just been a mainline Scheveningen.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5, you are going to get a mainline Sicilian, or a Benoni (the position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.d5 ed 4.cd). If black plays Be7 it is a Schmid Benoni, or a regular Benoni if black plays g6 and Bg7, but where white played the less-common exd5, which is probably a minor win for black, but I have always enjoyed those positions with white.

For the record, in both Benonis, the pawn on d6 is not as big a weakness as you seem to think it is since the d-file is not open, and the only pieces that can typically get at it is a B on f4, and a Nc4/e4, but it is still easily defensible.

There is nothing wrong with this move order as long as you are willing to play the Benoni and Sicilian, but that seems odd considering the offer of playing the French on move 1...e6.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I've toyed with this idea in the past but never played it seriously. If you're okay with the transpositions there is nothing wrong with it at all.

After 1.e4, e6 2. d4, c5 white has three main choices (3. dxc5, Bxc5 is obviously really bad for white)

3. Nf3, cxd4 transposes to an e6 Sicilian. There's nothing wrong with that

d5 is a Franco-Benoni. Black can end any transpositions to the modern Benoni with 3...exd5 or play more flexibilty with 3...Nf6. White is better but I don't think the position is particularly bad for black. There is some practical value in the fact that it's not that common.

c3 could go a few different directions but I think black is pretty close to equal here.

One advantage for black is that you can narrow your rep by playing 1...e6 vs. 1.d4 too. Although you still have to figure out 1.d4, e6 2. c4.

I don't think it's objectively worse than most mainstream openings and it does have a lot of practical value. The only question is if you're comfortable in the Franco-Benonis and e6 sicilians.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: Can someone explain this computer suggestion to me?
```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 e5 4. Nxe5 c5 5. d5 f6 6. Nxc4 b5 7. Nca3 c4 8. Nxb5 Qa5+ 9. N1c3 Bb4 10. Nd4 Bxc3+ 11. Bd2 Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2 Qxd5 13. Rc1 Nh6 14. b3 Nf5 15. bxc4 Qxd4 16. Qxd4 Nxd4 17. g3 Bb7 18. Rg1 O-O 19. e3 Nf3+

```

In this game, I tried to play the Catalan opening as white, but black didn't go along with it. Early on I took free pawns (if you think this was mistake, please let me know).

Anyways, the move in question is 11. Bd2. The computer suggests 11. bxc3, but if I do that, can’t black play Qc3+ and then take my rook? Or would Bd2 be the appropriate response to Qc3+? It all went down hill for me after this, so I am thinking that I need to learn about this pivotal point.

# Answer
Well, you were winning handily, and up material, and position. The move Nd4?? blundered a piece, and Bd2 actually makes it clearly worse, which is why the computer liked bxc3. Given two clear choices (that is, not two 0.00 or equivalent), the computer will always pick the one with the higher evaluation, and it did. Here is why it evaluated it as such.

The idea of Qd2, allowing Qxa1 is common because the queen is so out of play. Often, white has a pawn on d4, and there is no pawn on c4 for black, so Nb3 would trap the queen immediately in some similar positions.

The line after Qd2 is a tactical mess, which had it been reached by normal means (one side not losing material early), it probably could fill at least a chapter in a book. I will give a couple of lines, but there were SO many more along the way. There may be improvements for black along the way, but at the very least, despite being up a whole rook, it is actually much more dangerous for black with threats to both the king and queen.

Again, in short, the computer saw a way of keeping the black queen out of the game, and thus, it liked that line better because white may actually be significantly better in all lines, but it is hard to prove. Black is hanging by a thread. The other way was just a really bad game after Bxd2 Qxd2 Qxd2, so the choice to the computer was easy.

It is also worth noting that the black pieces, like the rooks a8 and h8 were also out-of play, and black was behind in development.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 e5 $4 4. Nxe5 $16 c5 5. d5 f6 6. Nxc4 $18 b5 7. Nca3 c4 $4 8. Nxb5 Qa5+ 9. N1c3 Bb4 10. Nd4 $4 {Losing a piece.} (10. a3 {Your chance to force the Bb4 to make a decision.} Qxb5 (10... Bxc3+ 11. Nxc3 $18) (10... Bc5 11. Bf4 $18) 11. axb4 Qxb4 12. Ra4) 10... Bxc3+ 11. Bd2 (11. bxc3 $1 Qxc3+ 12. Qd2 $1 Qxa1 13. g3 {This is just a better way to give back some of the material. It is very deep, but it almost wins the queen, but in saving it, the king comes under a strong attack because it is stuck in the center.} Nd7 {I will play the best computer moves here...others are worse.} (13... c3 14. Qc2 Na6 15. Nb3 $18) 14. Bg2 Rb8 15. O-O Ne7 (15... Qb1 16. Qe3+ $18) 16. d6 Ng6 17. Be4 Nc5 {The only move along with Rb1.} (17... Rb1 18. Ne6 Nb6 19. Nxg7+ Kf7 20. Qh6 f5 21. Bxb1 Qxg7 22. Qxg7+ Kxg7 23. Bb2+ Kf7 24. Bxh8 Nxh8 $16) 18. Bd5 Bd7 19. Qe3+ Kf8 20. Ba3 Rb1 21. Rxb1 Qxb1+ 22. Kg2 Ne5 23. Bxc5 g5 {Only move.} 24. h4 h6 25. Ne6+ Bxe6 26. Bxe6 Kg7 27. Bb4 $3 Qxb4 (27... Ra8 28. a3 a5 29. Bd5 Rf8 30. Qa7+ Nf7 31. Bxa5 $18) 28. Qxa7+ {Mating.}) 11... Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2 Qxd5 (12... Qxd2+ $1 13. Kxd2 f5 $1 {And Nf6 is strong.}) 13. Rc1 (13. e4 $3 {This almost impossible-to-find move was the ONLY move here, but black retains some advantage.} Qd6 (13... Qxe4+ 14. Be2 $1 {And the h1-a8 diagonal is going to win material for white, or compromise the black king position.} Nc6 {Only move.} (14... Qxg2 $4 15. Bf3 $18) 15. Nxc6 Qxc6 16. Bh5+ g6 17. Bf3 Qe6+ 18. Kd1 $16 {With the dual threats of Re1 and Bxa8.}) 14. Bxc4 Ne7 15. Rc1 Bd7 $15)

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
After 11.bxc3, Qxc3 12.Qd2, Qxa1, there is no easy way to get the queen out. Black is going to have to give something back at some point.

If black tries to get the queen out immediately : 13. g3, (the fianchetto is threatening both to trap the queen and indirectly attacking the rook on a8) Qb1 14.Bg2. From here black only has four queen moves that don't lose the queen immediately. (Qg6, Qb6, Qb7, Qa1) Of these 14...Qg6 is just bad according to SF (+8). Qa1 is a pointless waste of two moves. That only leaves Qb6 and Qb7. I'm not going to work all of these lines out but white has a really strong attack here. White has a big lead in development, a better center and potential tactics all over the place. SF also heavily favors white after either Qb6 or Qb7.

If black doesn't try to get the queen out I'm not sure it can be saved. White is only four moves away from trapping the queen. I would need to do a couple hours of analysis to figure it out completely but it looks like the engine is assuming that trading the queen for the h1 rook (after 0-0) is blacks best line. After that you've got Q and pawn for two rooks which is even but white has the better position with the 2 bishops and the better pawn structure.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, catalan
---


# Question
Title: Why can a chess move improve the chance of winning, according to the computer?
When watching the Sinquefield cup on http://grandchesstour.org/, it is possible to try different moves qnd see how the computer evaluates the position after your suggested move.

Most moves will impair your position if it is not considered the best move by the computer. But for some moves (quite often) you instantly get an increased chance of winning, perhaps half a pawns advantage. I don't understand this: If a single move has a potential for significantly improving the players position, should this not already be reflected in the current standing before the move?

In my mind, any move not considered the best move by the computer, should lead to an impaired position, while the best move should just at best keep the standing even, not actually improve the players position. Logically, if the computer knows this move will improve the players position, then shouldn't it already appear at the current position to improve the players position, saying that "with the best play, you are half a pawn up"? Alternatively, is this just a result of how the website is implemented at grandchesstour.org?

# Answer
If the computer was capable of evaluating every line of play right to the end of the game, the evaluation would never change. Indeed, the evaluation of every move would be either "win", "lose" or "draw". This is essentially what happens in endgame tablebases.* If computers could do this for every position, every game against a computer would consist of the computer either resigning without making a move, offering you a draw in the initial position or being annoyed that you hadn't resigned or accepted that draw offer.

However, computers cannot evaluate that far because it would take impossibly long, both because games can be very long (hundreds of moves, in principle) and because there are many possibilities at each move. So, computers have to take a number of shortcuts. This includes trying to figure out quickly what the most important candidate moves are (taking an unprotected piece is probably a great move; hanging your queen is probably an awful move; ...) and also stopping the search after several moves and using some heuristics instead of more searching to try to figure out if the resulting position looks good or not.

The problem is that these shortcuts can go wrong. The computer might decide that hanging a piece is bad when it's actually a genius sacrifice. It might decide that a position has stabilized when really it hasn't. It might just not have enough power to see far enough into the future to see the real point of a particular move.

Here's a simple example, though it's no longer very realistic. Suppose you're about to checkmate me but I have a series of ten checks I can make to delay you. If I only look ten moves in advance, I'll think I'm doing OK: maybe I'm even a pawn up, so my evaluation is "After ten moves, I'm still a pawn up, so I'm good. Score +1" I play my first check, you respond, and now I see that it's mate in ten and resign. This is the so-called "horizon effect" which modern programs try to avoid (e.g., by looking deeper along lines that have a lot of forced moves) but it illustrates the general principle.

If the engine can see, say, ten moves into the future, then it's seeing farther into the game as each move is made. At the initial position, it can see what the board will look like at move 10; after one move, it can see to move 11 and so on. (Again, this is a simplification, since computers don't, these days, look a fixed distance into the future, but it gives you the general idea.)

The example you've given is just a less dramatic version of the examples I've given. As more moves are made, the computer can see deeper into the game, so it can give a more accurate evaluation. Another way to see this is in terms of information: as more moves are played, the computer has more information. It used to be guessing about what your response to 1.e4 would be, but now it knows that you've play the Sicilian, and so on.

---

* There's a slight nuance here in that you actually need to count the number of moves to the win to avoid repeating positions. For example, consider the endgame of KQ vs K. Every move that doesn't stalemate or surrender the queen wins, so you need a mechanism to drive towards checkmate, rather than just randomly moving and saying, "Wow, I'm totally going to win this – almost every move wins!"
> 29 votes

# Answer
There is no inconsistency. When you make a move, the computer no longer has to search the previous position. It can now focuses all processing power into the new position, and thus the evaluation might change. The game tree could be very different.

This is just like how we play chess.
> 6 votes

# Answer
If there are 20 moves in a given position that means the engine is spending 95% of its time evaluating moves that are not the move that will be played. Switching from 5% of its analysis to 100% allows it to see much deeper much more quickly. This is especially true if the line chosen is a forcing line because the engine will be able to eliminate so many early moves.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, software, websites
---


title: Average centipawn loss

text:
# Question
Title: Average centipawn loss
I had no inacurracies, blunders or mistakes then also my centipawn loss was 48, or 50.

What is the problem here or I have misunderstood average centipawn loss.

You can have a look at that game at lichess. Link to the game: https://lichess.org/fhvYi9SS/black

# Answer
Average **centipawn loss** is the difference of your move to the best computer move averaged over all moves.

Inaccuracies/Mistakes/blunders as defined per lichess are moves that are at least 0.5=50 centipawns / 1=100 centipawns / 3=300 centipawns worse than the suggested computer move.

This rule is not strictly enforced in situations where you have a clear winning position and a choice of several good moves.

So if you have a choice between a move that leads to +10 advantage (best computer move) and +9 advantage this will count to your centipawn loss, but will not show up as mistake.

Even without it, it is possible to collect centipawn losses \< 50 that don't show up as inaccuracy.
> 15 votes

# Answer
I think the issue is that, when one side is winning by a large margin, the analysis will not always indicate an inaccuracy for a move which is not best but still clearly winning.

For example, after 20.Qg4, the analysis says that 20...dxe3 would have a score of -18.9, but your played move 20...d3 has a score of -10.9. That's an 800 centipawn difference. The analysis does not show an inaccuracy here, but that's a lot of centipawns.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I have thought (maybe too much, lol) a lot about this.

"Average centipawn loss (cpl) is the difference of your move to the best computer move averaged over all moves." Yes.

Like all averages this is pretty meaningless without some measure of variance. Very long games will tend to have a smaller cpl because of so many moves and there are not a lot of differences in the value of variations with only a few pieces left on the board. Simply put with lots of moves you are dividing by a larger number, there is little variance between move choices, and this yields a small cpl.

Also, there are games where the top 10 moves will vary in value very little e.g. closed positions like a stonewall. These games will show a low cpl.

I tend to play a very positional game where the positions end up with valuations that vary very little across any of the top 6-8 moves. These games show a low cpl. It does not mean I am playing well. It means the games are intrinsically calm, not sharp and tactical.

So if we had a measure of variance to go along with the cpl we would have a context to better understand what a cpl means. A 25 cpl with a high variance would mean you played rather well. A 25 cpl with a low variance would mean you played OK.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, online-chess, chess-algorithms, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Help with the Sicilian Defence - I need to understand those early pawn moves
Why we often see many pawn moves in the Sicilian Defense? I would imagine that this harms the development of the black pieces. For instance, there is this line:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 a6 4. Nc3.

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
Yes, in the Sicilian black often falls behind in development, and that is a problem -- white often gets the chance to mount an attack.

But black has some compensation. After ...cxd4 Nxd4 he has two central pawns while white only has the e-pawn. In order to attack quickly, white often castles queenside and black can use the half-open c-file to start a counter attack. His a- and b-pawns can be used in a minority attack against white's queenside. He has no clear weaknesses.

It *turns out, after a century and a half of trying to refute it*, that that is enough to hold the balance. Indeed, the whole situation is also risky for white and that means it can give black more winning chances than normal (as well as losing chances).

But that was by no means obvious!

It's not an easy defence to understand, and it's debatable whether weaker players should play it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, in chess, being behind in development is not always the end of the world. It certainly can be if your king gets stuck in the center of the board, and comes under attack; but there are many openings where one side can afford to fall behind in development to gain certain static advantages if the position is super solid. Then, you can catch up in development in due time. Of course, you can only do this when your opponent cannot rip the position open, and you are getting permanent, or semi-permanent, positional advantages in exchange for delaying development. It is not an excuse for moving the same pieces around repeatedly for no good reason while your opponent develops. This is an important concept to understand.

Early on in the Sicilian, black is very solid, but you need to know some theory against strong players as there are many sacrifices that can turn that solidity on its head, so I am not saying that you can dilly-dally forever in this opening, but you do have some latitude if you know what you are doing, and and early a6 is often a part of that.

In the Sicilian, a6 is commonly played for a number of reasons: a6 is played because it is a flexible move, and is a move which is almost always useful in the Sicilian. That flexibility lets black put off where to put the rest of the pieces for the time being based on how white develops in the next few moves, but it also stops Nb5, and Bb5+ in various lines (especially if black later plays e5, allowing the "Boleslavsky Hole" on d5). It also often prepares b5, and Bb7, to attack e4, and/or because white and black castle on opposite sides, and need to push the pawns in an all-out attack on the opposing king...a6 also protects b5, which is commonly played. Also, in many variations of the Sicilian, c7 is a very comfortable square for the Qd8 to move to, and this stops most harassment by Nb5 unless white is willing to sacrifice a piece.

We see a6, most famously, in the Najdorf, which is the opening (by transposition) that you gave in the Nakamura-Aronian game in your comment. The Najdorf is one of the sharpest openings in all of chess. It is also seen on move 4 in the Kan variation, among others.

There is a brand new book out by IM David Vigorito on the Najdorf called "Playing the Najdorf: A Practical Repertoire", if you are very interested in learning how to play it. Dave is a highly-regarded recognized expert on the opening.

It is a hard opening to learn, but it can serve you for an entire career. Kasparov was one of the great exponents of the Najdorf, and MVL is today.

There are notes within the following lines, so make sure you read them.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 (3. Nc3 a6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 {Transposing.}) 3... cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 {The starting position of the Najdorf. White has many options here, and I will list four of the main options, and just discuss how they relate to a6.} 6. Be2 (6. Be3 e5 {e6 is also possible.} 7. Nb3 {And the knight cannot go to b5, so it must take up a less favorable square.} (7. Nf5 d5 $1 $17) 7... Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5 {And we see how the flexible a6 helps with the opposite-side attack.}) (6. Bc4 {Fischer's favorite Sozin Attack.} e6 {Of course, here the pawn belongs on e6 blunting the pressure from the Bc4 along the a2-g8 diagonal.} 7. Bb3 b5 {With very dynamic play where black must be careful of sacrifices on e6. b4 and Ne4 may be a threat in the future, but it is probably too dangerous to try and take it now, after 0-0 by white.}) (6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 (7... Qb6 {The Poisoned Pawn variation.} 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3) 8. Qf3 Qc7 {And we see that the queen is nicely placed on c7 without the harassing Nb5 moves.}) 6... e5 7. Nb3

```

---
Tags: opening, strategy, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: Fun variants in teaching chess to children
I'm teaching my 5 year old daughter basic chess. While she's kind of interested, I feel the material, such as how the pieces move, mate in 1 puzzles, basic KQ and KR checkmates, etc, is a bit boring to her.

This answer on another question presented an interesting variant call Rescue Snow White. It combines piece move training with some fun story.

Can someone can suggest other variants similar to Rescue Snow White that motivate children to learn chess? Being fun on the chess board is the main requirement, while the training value is an optional bonus.

# Answer
For kids younger than 6, you could try the following:

## Tag/Chase

You start by a specific number of pieces(no pawns or kings) on the board mixed.

* One piece is "it" and this piece "chases/attacks" the other pieces.
* All the other pieces try to "run away" from this piece.
* If "it" captures a piece, the latter piece is "it"

The players switch when a piece becomes "it", just remember to give a turn to player 2 when switching.

It can be more fun, as the kid has to calculate only 1 piece in relation to the others and it learns to fork and pin pieces. You could add an extra variant later and say the piece has to be undefended.

## Tag/Chase without switching sides

A queen is "it" and tries to capture all other pieces, one after the other.

## Chess without captures

Captures are not allowed, the goal is to learn how the pieces move.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Appart from the games you can find under https://bit.ly/PreChessGames (translated web for https://www.ajedrezparalaconvivencia.edu.uy/preajedrez) I may add these:

## Chess with cards

You may want to try as well chess with cards. You can download the cards and print them.

Each player has a pile of these cards front face down, and they have to get one card, in each turn, which would tell the player what they have to move. If the player has no valid move with the piece the card states then you may set the rule to move what he/she wants.

The objective in this game is to eat the king. It’s the only difference to chess rules. And of course you are obliged to move what the card tells you.

The advantage of this game is that, as there is random involved the kid may win in spite of you playing will all your strenght.

## Obliged to eat

This game is known within some chess platforms as antichess. The added rule is that if any peace can be taken then you are obliged to eat. The king may also be eaten.

You win the game when there are no more of your pieces in the board or you have no move to make.
> 2 votes

# Answer
**Chess fighters**

Idea is taken from the battle chess game.

Play normal chess. When piece A takes piece B, the two players play a street fighter (or whatever fighting game) match. The defender can only move or block for the first 30sec of the match. Whoever loses the match loses the piece. King doesn't fight, automatically wins if taking a piece, but you have to answer checks and it's immediate lose if king is mated.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, chess-variants, training
---


# Question
Title: Game analysis - Understanding the potential of this queenside expansion
From the game Samuel Reshevsky vs Henrique Mecking in the Sousse Interzonal (1967).

```
[fen "r2qnr2/1pnb1pbk/3p2pp/p1pPp3/2P1P2N/PPN1B1PP/3Q1P2/1R2RBK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Na4 Na6 2. Rec1 Rb8 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Qb2 Rg8 5.Qc2 Re8 6. Nb5 Bf8 (6... Bxb5 7.cxb5 Nc7 8.b4 axb4 9. axb4) 7. Bd2 b6

```

According to Reshevsky in his book "Art of Positional Play" black wants white to abandon his calm queenside expansion, so black forces white to play on the kingside. I suppose the queenside expansion was seriously dangerous as black decided to risk so much by playing ... f7-f5.

In the case of white passivity on the kingside, what sequence of moves could best represent the queenside expansion as winning the game for white? Using the computer help I imagined something like this: 21.Na4 Na6 22. Rec1 Rb8 23.Nc3 Nf6 24.Qb2 Rg8 25.Qc2 Re8 26. Nb5 26...Bf8 27. Bd2 b6. And here I believe that white fixed the queenside to his advantage. And if 26...Bxb5 27.cxb5 Nc7 28.b4 axb4 29. axb4 it is easier to see the rooks getting into action.

Are there better lines?

# Answer
I am not trying to be hard on you, but to be blunt, this is one of the dangers of analyzing with a computer, and not having any understanding of the position. That line of analysis you give with 20...Nac7 and then shuffling around the pieces, frankly, did not make any sense at all plan-wise (and even my Stockfish 11 does not agree with your computer's line). I will discuss that in my notes to the game.

I opened my copy of that book, and what Reshevsky, correctly, said was that white has move space on the queenside, and that black needs to look for play on the kingside with f5. White's play, in theory, is generally better, but what Reshevsky also said is that if white blindly pursues his own play on the queenside without any regards to his own king, he can easily lose to a direct attack. That is a common theme in the KID, especially the Classical variation. I have seen many games where white has a Na8, and is up a rook, but is helpless against the mating attack all the way on the other side of the board.

Here are Reshevsky's own words:

Reshevsky chose to play a line that he was well-prepared for f5, and then actually chipped away at f5, weakening e4, which led to the black king. In the vast majority of KID games, that is not the typical line of play, and white does not often get to be that active on the kingside. In most, white owns the queenside, and black owns the kingside, and each side tries to open their dominate side of the board. In most cases, going passive on your better side, and trying to just defend the other side where your opponent is better, is a recipe for a loss.

```
 [Event "Interzonal-07"]
 [Site "Sousse"]
 [Date "1967.11.02"]
 [Round "14"]
 [White "Reshevsky, Samuel Herman"]
 [Black "Mecking, Henrique"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "E96"]
 [PlyCount "141"]
 [EventDate "1967.10.16"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "23"]
 [EventCountry "TUN"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 g6 4. e4 Bg7 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O Nbd7 8. Re1 a5 9. Bf1 c6 10. Rb1 Re8 11. d5 Nc5 12. b3 Na6 13. a3 c5 14. Bd2 Rf8 15. g3 Bg4 16. h3 Bd7 17. Bg5 h6 18. Be3 Ne8 19. Qd2 Kh7 20. Nh4 f5 (20... Nac7 {This gives up on slowing down white's play with b4, and from c7, the knight has no where to go. b5 might be an idea in some positions with the Ra8 on b8, but here b5 just loses a pawn.} 21. Na4 {The knight does nothing here, unless black cooperates and takes it. It also makes it harder to play b4, opening the queenside.} (21. b4 {This is not the best move per the computer, but it is the most natural, and leads to a solid static positional advantage immediately.} axb4 22. axb4 {+.75 depth 30, and the computer wants to pitch a pawn here with Na6.} Na6 23. bxc5 Nxc5 24. Bxc5 dxc5 25. Rxb7 Nd6 26. Rb3 $16) 21... Na6 {And it comes back.} (21... Bxa4 $2 22. bxa4 $16 {Doubled pawns, or not, white has huge pressure down the b-file.}) 22. Rec1 {Not an useless move, but how do you get in b4, opening the position?} Rb8 23. Nc3 Nf6 $2 {Blocking the move f5 cannot be right. Black will need that soon enough, but to be honest, I am not sure how to get it in anymore. If f5 is ruled out, then this knight probably belongs on c7, aiming for b5.} 24. Qb2 $2 {There is no point here since it cannot help with b4, or help stop b5 by black, and putting the queen on the same diagonal as the Bg7 unless there is a super reason, it probably also not a good idea.} Rg8 $2 {Again, no the right square to help any eventual f5 move. This is just a move that the computer things does not upset any balance, but it is not right.} 25. Qc2 {And back for no particular reason.} (25. Kh2 {This excellent waiting move could have been played at any number of moments.}) 25... Re8 {Still not the right square.} 26. Nb5 (26. Kh2 Nc7 27. Nf3 b5 $6 (27... b6) 28. b4 $1 $16) 26... Bf8 (26... Bxb5 $2 27. cxb5 Nc7 28. b4 axb4 29. axb4 $16) 27. Bd2 b6 {White does not want the queenside "fixed"...he wants it opened so the major (heavy) pieces can penetrate, and do damage.}) (20... Rb8 {If black is determined to be totally passive and only play on WHITE'S queenside (white is stronger there), this is the way preparing b5.} 21. Kh2 Nec7 {The Na6 stops b4, while the Rb8, Nc7, and Bd7 prepare b5, an action against b3 eventually. This is not destined to work, in my opinion.}) 21. exf5 gxf5 22. f4 e4 23. Bf2 Nf6 24. Nd1 Ng8 25. Ne3 Qf6 26. Bg2 Rae8 27. Qe2 Ne7 28. g4 Kg8 29. Bg3 fxg4 30. hxg4 Ng6 31. Nhf5 Bh8 32. Nxh6+ Kh7 33. Nhf5 Kg8 34. Nh6+ Kh7 35. Rf1 Qc3 36. Nef5 Bg7 37. Rbc1 Qxb3 38. Rb1 Qxa3 39. Rxb7 Nb8 40. Nxg7 Qxg3 41. Nxe8 Nxf4 42. Rxf4 Qxf4 43. Nxd6 Kxh6 44. Nxe4 Bxg4 45. Rb6+ Kh5 46. Qe1 Nd7 47. Ng3+ Kh4 48. Qe7+ Rf6 49. Qh7+ Kg5 50. Ne4+ Qxe4 51. Qxe4 Rxb6 52. Qe3+ Kg6 53. Bh3 Bxh3 54. Qxh3 Ne5 55. Qe3 Kf5 56. Qxc5 Rb1+ 57. Kg2 Rb2+ 58. Kf1 a4 59. d6 Rd2 60. Ke1 Rd4 61. Ke2 Ke4 62. Qa3 Rd3 63. Qb4 a3 64. c5+ Kf5 65. Qa4 Ke6 66. Qa8 Rb3 67. Qg8+ Nf7 68. Qg6+ Ke5 69. Qxf7 a2 70. Qa7 Rh3 71. d7 1-0

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Pawn Structure Change in the Pirc - dxe5 or Nxe5?
As black I reached this position in a recent game

```
[White "Somebody"]
[Black "Ian Bush"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B07"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "23"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 c6 5.f3 b5 6.a3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.Nge2 Qc7
9.Ng3 Bg7 10.Nce2 e5 11.O-O O-O 12.dxe5 dxe5
    ( 12...Nxe5 )

```

On running it through the Lichess analysis it reported 12 ... dxe5 as a blunder. This, to say the least, somewhat surprised me, but on sticking it through Stockfish on my own machine the semiconducting monster does indeed markedly prefer Nxe5 - taking with the Knight it puts at ~-0.4 and taking with the pawn +0.25, so over half a pawn swing. I preferred taking with the pawn to avoid having a potential weakness on d6, and also thought his pawn on e4 so well defended that the half open e file was little use to me, so I am struggling to understand why 12 ... Nxe5 is so much better. Can somebody enlighten me? Is it simply to get the white squared bishop for the knight, or is there a deeper strategical meaning? I do understand that taking with the pawn is more unbalancing, and so what I would definitely prefer if needing a win, but I just can't see why it is intrinsically so much better.

More generally this kind of decision is not uncommon in the Pirc and some related openings, are there any general pointers as to which should be preferred?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It comes down to the VERY poor placement of the white pieces, in particular, that the Bd3 is vulnerable to being trapped by the advancing black queenside pawns. Taking with the knight also allows you to open the center with d5 in some lines (which also will make the Qd1 uncomfortable since it lacks space), taking advantage of your better-placed pieces, and Nxe5 also stops the desirable move c4 by white immediately.

In one of the lines I give below, which sums it up, I wrote: "Black is better developed, and all of his pieces are nicely placed. By comparison, the Bd3 is horrible, the Ng3 is worse, and the Ne2 is no prize horse. The Qc1 is also worse than the Qc7."

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. f3 $6 {After this, it is really difficult for white to develop the pieces since the Bf1 does not sit well on d3, and the Ng1 and Bf1 fight for e2.} b5 6. a3 $6 (6. Qd2 Nbd7 7. g4 {Is better, postponing the decision about the Bf1 and Ng1.}) 6... Nbd7 (6... Bg7 {Why not this move that you know you must make? You should make moves that you know you have to make first, since circumstances may change for the others.}) 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. Nge2 Qc7 (8... a6 $1 {Idea c5, and you are already better as the misplaced Bd3 is not well-developed.}) 9. Ng3 $2 {Where is this piece going?} (9. Qd2) 9... Bg7 10. Nce2 e5 11. O-O O-O 12. dxe5 dxe5 $2 (12... Nxe5 $1 {This also stops c4!} 13. Qc1 (13. Qd2 c5 $1 14. c3 (14. Bxb5 a6 15. Ba4 Nc4 16. Qc1 Nxe4 $1 17. Nxe4 Bxb2 18. Qb1 Bxe4 $19) 14... d5 $17) 13... Rfe8 14. Bh6 Bh8 15. Kh1 d5 {Ripping the center open. Black is better developed, and all of his pieces are nicely placed. By comparison, the Bd3 is horrible, the Ng3 is worse, and the Ne2 is no prize horse. The Qc1 is also worse than the Qc7.}) 13. c4 {White is better on the queenside here, and this immediately exposes it to the major pieces of white with either Rc1 soon. White could also try to play against the weakened c5 square with Qe1-f2, and Nc1-b3. That Ng3 still is an ugly piece.} a6 14. Qc2 Rfc8 15. Rfc1 $14

```

---
Tags: strategy, pawn-structure, ruy-lopez, pirc-defense, philidor-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is the number of legal chess positions odd or even?
Is the number of legal chess positions odd or even? Two positions are not the same if they differ in castling rights (i.e. whether K or R have actually moved) or en passant capability (i.e. whether the move can actually be made) or who has the move.

The number of times position has been repeated is not part of the definition of position for obvious reasons; nor is the number of moves since last capture or pawn move.

I don’t have the answer myself. This is hard but doable with a bit of programming I think.

EDIT: The answer so far and the comments are clearly heading along the right lines, although not always correct yet: terrific work. I want to give multiple +1s! I will summarize the key points to help focus the work. Pairing mirrored positions is essential i.e. those which allow triangulation. I term positions which have no mirror image “vampires” :-) Any vampire (except for the starting position) must be immediate offspring of a vampire, so it’s maybe easiest to just focus on them.

Someone touched on castling, which is very important. We can partition the vampires into 16 different clans. The head of each clan is an "initial game array" position (i.e. with 32 pieces on apparently original squares) but with specific castling rights disabled (by some initial dance of rooks and knight taking 2n.0 moves).

In a clan, if a castling right remains, then that implies that the rook's pawn can safely capture off the file, the f-pawn can move forward a single square or capture or (on the kingside) the bishop can be captured, without allowing triangulation. If the right is lost then the rook's pawn can only move forward a single square, and the bishops cannot be captured.

En passant is less important but amazingly there are vampire en passant positions. For example:

```
r1bqkb1r/2pppppp/8/1pP5/8/8/PPPPP1PP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq b6 0 12

```

where White retains at least one castling right, Black has at least queenside castling rights and White can capture e.p.

# Answer
**Even**

For each position, we can ***produce 1 "pair" position using the following cases and vice versa***.

Lets break down the game to the following cases:

**Case 1**) Whenever we can use **triangulation** to produce a **pair position** with the **same pieces in the mirrored positions** between the rows 4 and 5 **with the opponent to move**.

For example:

```
1. c3 (1. d3) (1. b3 Nc6 2. Ba3)

1. Nc3 b6 2. Nb1 Bb7 3. Nc3 Ba6

```

**Case 2**) Every position where triangulation cannot be done.

Every position can have a **pair position with or without castling done for white**.

By moving the white knight on g1 and then the white rook to g1 and then back to h1, the castling rights are lost.

eg. Starting with the following set of moves

```
[FEN ""]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Rg1 Ng8 3. Rh1 Nf6 4. Ng1 Ng8

```

we produce the start position without castling rights for white, all positions after that until we can use Case (1) can be with and without castling rights for white.

The initial position falls to Case (2).

References

PS: Updated the answer, so the comments till Jan 7th 2024 are for the old answer
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, mathematics
---


title: Play pawn-only chess vs a friend

text:
# Question
Title: Play pawn-only chess vs a friend
I am teaching a youngster how to play chess, remotely. I've seen suggestions to start with pawn-only chess, where we start with the initial setup for all 16 pawns, but no other pieces on the board. I would play to play an online live game vs my friend. Is it possible to do that on lichess?

I've tried going to the board editor, deleting all pieces other than the pawns, and using the 'From Position' variant, but that doesn't work: I can't create a game.

# Answer
The 'From Position' variant seems to require that both sides have a king. So, keep the kings on the board. In particular, create a new game with a friend, select Variant: From Position, and paste '4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/4K3 w - - 0 1' into the field for the FEN text.

```
4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/4K3 w - - 0 1

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, teaching
---


# Question
Title: Do the rules of chess state that a Bishop+King can be sufficient mating material?
A famous recent example of this ending happened last year between Carlsen and Firouzja.

Here, Firouzja time ran out, so Carlsen won

```
[Title "Alireza Firouzja-Magnus Carlsen, World Blitz Championship, Moscow Russia, 12/30/2019"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "132"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. c3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. h3 Nf6 9. Bc2 O-O 10. Re1 Re8 11. Nbd2 Qe7 12. Nf1 Qf8 13. Ng3 Bh6 14. Ng5 Nd8 15. Bb3 Ne6 16. h4 Rad8 17. Be3 Bg7 18. h5 Bh6 19. Qc1 Ng4 20. Nxe6 fxe6 21. Rf1 Nxe3 22. fxe3 Qe7 23. hxg6 hxg6 24. Qd2 exd4 25. cxd4 Kg7 26. Rf3 Rf8 27. Raf1 Rxf3 28. Rxf3 Rf8 29. Qc3 c6 30. Nf1 e5 31. Rxf8 Kxf8 32. Qc4 Qf6 33. dxe5 dxe5 34. Qb4+ c5 35. Qxb7 Bb5 36. Qc8+ Ke7 37. Qxc5+ Qd6 38. Qxd6+ Kxd6 39. Bf7 Bxf1 40. Kxf1 g5 41. Ke2 Bf8 42. Kf3 Ke7 43. Bc4 a5 44. Ke2 Kd6 45. Bd5 Be7 46. Kf3 Bd8 47. Kg4 Be7 48. Kf5 Bd8 49. g4 Be7 50. a3 Bd8 51. b4 axb4 52. axb4 Be7 53. b5 Bd8 54. Kg6 Kc5 55. Kf5 Kxb5 56. Kxe5 Kc5 57. Ke6 Ba5 58. e5 Bd2 59. e4 Bc3 60. Kf5 Kb6 61. e6 Kc7 62. Kg6 Kd8 63. Kxg5 Ke7 64. Kh5 Bd2 65. g5 Bf4 66. Kg4 Bd2

```

In that tournament, the arbiter ruled that Carlsen wins since the he (technically) had sufficient mating material (a King+Bishop, and Firouzja had \>=1 piece in addition to their King). There is a concise explanation here (from 10m 42s)

### Question

Does this rule stand in majorchess tournaments? Or is there some special rule to cover this situation and override the idea that King + Bishop is sufficient for checkmate if the opponent has at least one piece in addition to their king?

### Note

Some (possibly in/correct) answers here state that the rules of chess deem such a situation to **not** have sufficient mating material. I am not sure how reliable they are.

# Answer
> 12 votes
First, Carlsen, despite having only the Bishop, WON that game. So it is not about mating material, but about ANY possible mating position, and there was one here.

The rule at hand is this:

> Paragraph 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:
>
> The game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

There were positions that white could be mated, even though it required total cooperation, and there is no way that Firouzja would have allowed it. That was irrelevant, so it was a loss.

Also see this related question.

Here are the USCF rules.

14D. Insufficient material to continue.

The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.

14D1. King vs. king.

14D2. King vs. king with bishop or knight.

14D3. King and bishop vs. king and bishop, with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.

14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent

So, even these rules are quite specific as to the material for an automatic draw.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Does this rule stand in major Chess tournaments?

This rule applies in *all* tournaments where FIDE Laws of Chess take precedence. So, yes, it applies in all major tournaments including USCF and all federations which are affiliated to FIDE.

If it appears to not work on a particular website then that is likely a bug on the platform and it is worth reporting to the platform.

> Some (possibly in/correct) answers here state that the rules of chess deem such a situation to not have sufficient mating material. I am not sure how reliable they are.

No, what you say is not correct. The question on the Quora website is not the same. It is asking about *forced* checkmate. If your flag falls then the opponent does not need enough material to be able to *force* checkmate. He only needs enough material to checkmate you with you making the worst possible moves. If that is possible then you lose on time. Only if there is no possible sequence of moves leading to checkmate do you get a draw.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here's an example of a "possible series of moves" from FIDE rules 9.6, so White can technically (despite nearly impossible in reality) be checkmated:

```
[FEN "8/4k3/4P3/3B2P1/4P1K1/8/3b4/8 w - - 3 67"]
[startply "0"]

67. Kh5 Kf8 68. Kh6 Bb4 69. Kh7 Bd6 70. e5 Bxe5 71. Be4 Bd6 72. Kh8 Ba3 73. Bh7 Bb2#

```

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, fide, claim-draw
---