title: Understanding AlphaZero

text:
# Question
Title: Understanding AlphaZero
Very recently, the news came out that Alphabet's DeepMind research team have extended their machine learning engine to play both Shogi and chess. Apparently, after only a few hours of self-learning, meaning by only playing against itself given the rules of the games, its performance in chess has already surpassed that of top current engines such as Stockfish 8. I personally don't know yet how exactly the matches were set up, as in under what condition Stockfish was set to perform, since if the calculation times are limited engines are able to perform very poorly. In any case, this is a very impressive achievement, because even if it turns out that one could have set up Stockfish more optimally, with few additional hours of training, AlphaZero would surpass again the level of play, meaning AlphaZero's fundamentally stronger than any current standard chess engine based on heuristic evaluation functions.

Now in the light of this news, it would be great if someone could elaborate on the main differences in the workings of a machine learned chess engine compared to the standard engines we are all accustomed to using. More concretely:

1. Isn't the evaluation function that AlphaZero uses, trained by machine learning methods, at the end just another heuristic evaluation function? If yes, would it be fair to say that the fundamental difference between evaluation functions of the two engines, is the fact that Stockfish has an optimized evaluation function hand-tuned by humans, meaning the definition of the function to optimize is fixed, whereas for AlphaZero, the target evaluation function is constantly being redefined through additional training (for instance through self-play)? Making the latter a far more dynamic of an approach.
2. Ultimately, vaguely speaking, an engine like Stockfish, applies its evaluation function to the tree of possible moves, deciding which branches to keep and which ones to drop, then through a deeper *concrete* analysis of each branch, again through its evaluation function, it figures out which branch yielded the highest value, and that becomes the principal variation (of course there are many advances techniques around this process to efficiently prune this large tree). Meaning, for each position, this extremely concrete routine has to be repeated for Stockfish to make a decision. In contrast, I imagine AlphaZero does something very different, namely, it does not rely on a concrete analysis of the tree of possible moves at a given position, instead its evaluation function essentially assigns a value to that position (which intuitively is similar to putting the current position in analogy to all the other positions that it has been trained for), without ever having to perform *concrete* analysis in the way that Stockfish, or even a human player does. Is this at all a sound picture of the workings of AlphaZero or similarly trained machine learning engines?
3. We know that the space of chess positions is large enough that any attempt at sampling all the positions in it would be even in principle completely in vain (EXPTIME complexity), that would suggest that no amount of training through self-play would be enough to have explored all positions, so then how can the end result be good despite having potentially explored a small fraction of positions of the space via self-play? What is the key idea here at play?
4. My guess is that, AlphaZero has a very optimal way of comparing any given position, even if new, to a previously visited one in its training set, the closer the comparison, the more valid the evaluation one can draw from the comparison. For instance, when it played the move Bg5 in game 5, it must have explored a similar structure during its training, i.e. it is able to recognize that this position is essentially equivalent to (a possibly completely) different one studied in its training, in analogy to how face recognition is achieved through machine learning, and as a result it concludes Bg5 should be the best move, as was in that (or those) other similar positions. Is this at all a correct guess? I have no idea how this *comparison* is done, as surely it's not possible to store all trained position and parse through them each time.

*This is merely an attempt to get so insights into the workings of AlphaZero and how it comes to a decision given a position.*

# Answer
> 24 votes
* How does AlphaZero select a move in the search?

This is very obvious from the paper.

> Each simulation proceeds by selecting in each state s a move a with low visit count, high move probability and high vale selecting ...

What does that mean? AlphaZero has trained probabilities for each move (end of page 2 in the paper) from a deep neural network. During the search, it picks a move proportional to that probability, and also nodes that have low count (to ensure the sampling space is explored). This is **not** a new concept, Monte Carlo Tree Search has been in the literature before Google existed.

------ (Very) Rough example ------

We have a position, and we have two legal moves.

* Move 1 is good and reasonable
* Move 2 puts your own king in danger for no compensation

According the paper, a trained deep model might estimate the probabilities as (0.90, 0.10). Let's say AlphaZero uses 4 iterations in Monte Carlo. The iterations could look like:

**Iteration 1**: Pick move 1 because it has the highest probability. Do a simulation from move 1. **Iteration 2**: Pick move 1 because it has the highest probability. Do a simulation from move 1. **Iteration 3**: Pick move 1 because it has the highest probability. Do a simulation from move 1.

Now, we're at iteration 4. Although move 1 has the higher estimated probability but move 2 has not been searched ("low visit count" in the paper), now AlphaZero would pick move 2, and do simulation.

Both moves would be considered, but AlphaZero would put more computing resources on move 1 (good thing).

AlphaZero would then pick the move with the best expected outcome.

------------------ Your questions: ------------------

> Isn't the evaluation function that AlphaZero uses, trained by machine learning methods, at the end just another heuristic evaluation function?

The trained evaluation function is a deep neural network, it is **not** a set of heuristic rules, like what you see in Stockfish. Nobody understands fully about (not even the Google team) the trained network, it just works. This is how NN works generally.

> whereas for AlphaZero, the target evaluation function is constantly being redefined through the target evaluation function is constantly being redefined through additional training.

The evaluation function in AlphaZero is a set of trained neurons (bias + weights). The Google team used very powerful machines to train the parameters. Generally, the more resources you can invest in training a deep learning model, the better parameters you get.

> (2).

Stockfish uses alpha-beta, while AlphaZero uses Monte-Carlo. They are two very different algorithms. The alpha-beta algorithm assumes a lower/upper bound, while Monte-Carlo creates simulations from the root to leaf.

> to have explored all positions, so then how can the end result be good despite having potentially explored a small fraction of positions of the space via self-play? What is the key idea here at play?

Google didn't claim they had solved chess, not even their powerful machines could possibly enumerate all chess positions. But they didn't have to ... that's the point for machine learning, the model "learns" from the training set. In this case, the training set come from self-playing. The key idea is to play as many as good quality games against itself as possible and quickly.

> For instance, when it played the move Bg5 in game 5, it must have explored a similar structure during its training,

I don't think AlphaZero encountered the exact same position in the training games. I think a quick read of Monte-Carlo is a good idea:

> https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Monte-Carlo+Tree+Search

AlphaZero was able to play the move by reaching sufficient depth. The algorithm estimates the expected probability of winning for each move, apparently, the move Bg5 gave the highest expected probability.

You can think like, AlphaGo was able to search so well that it saw the probability of winning is highest after Bg5, while Stockfish didn't consider the move seriously (and thus lost).

# Answer
> 6 votes
Shameless self plug: Even though this question is almost four years old, I want to mention my free book on

Neural Network for Chess

It covers

* the underlying neural network concepts
* AlphaZero
* AlphaGo
* AlphaGoZero and
* effectively updateable neural networks (NNUE).

There is also a code example how to implement a miniature version of AlphaZero.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, alphazero
---


title: I can't solve this puzzle

text:
# Question
Title: I can't solve this puzzle
I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to solve this puzzle. White to move.

```
  [FEN "r5k1/6p1/1pp2p1p/p2n1q2/3Q4/P4PB1/2P3PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
c4 is the answer. Threaten the knight and it has no squares to go to. All squares it can go to are either under control by white or blocked by black pieces (f4 is protected by black queen but f4 is double attacked by white bishop and queen). You win the black knight.

---
Tags: puzzles
---


title: Till how many moves we have to think?

text:
# Question
Title: Till how many moves we have to think?
I am rated around 2150 on lichess. Recently I was reading a book which is on middle games "Imagination in chess" by Paata Gaprindashvili.On page number 10 there are some puzzles available. I was trying to solve them but I was not able to understand till which move I should think on that puzzle. It is Black to move.

```
    [FEN "2r3k1/p1r1qp1p/3R2p1/3R2P1/3NPQ1P/2P2p2/P1P1b3/2K5 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
If there was a set-in-stone rule for how deep you need to think a position, chess would be a very uninteresting game.

Quiet or closed position can require little or no calculation at all. Chaotic ones with lots of direct threats may need a level of calculation no human is capable of. In the position of the diagram, if you intended to take on c3, you'd need to be aware of what happens after Rd7 (threatening mate). This could be a complicated line after ...Qa3+.

However, you can play ...Bc4 deflecting the rook. After Ra5, now ...f2! wins material because the queen cannot capture the pawn due to the d6 rook being undefended

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just for fun (I already upvoted David's answer), I'll take the above lines to show in praxis where I cut a calculation which I do for CSE. (In RL, I hardly calculate at all.) For the record, 1...Bc4 is about -5 to -6, 1...Rxc3 2.Kd2 is about equal, 1...Rxc3 2.Rd7 Qa3+ is -2.

a) 1...Bc4. Immediate cut, since it matches the motive I already spotted - double deflection against Rd6. Maybe a glance at 2.Re5 Qxd6 3.Re8+ (White has no other counterattack) but it is obvious White suffers from the same problem, only worse.

b) 1...Rxc3 2.Rd7 Qa3+ 3.Kd2. Now 3...Rxc2+ is the obvious candidate, and even if you must now calculate a handful of consecutive moves, this is easy as White's hand is forced: 4.Nxc2 Qc3+ and immediate mate, or the likewise insufficient 4.Ke1 Rc1+ (if that comes out as not working, I can always switch to Qc1+) 5.Kf2 Rf1+ 6.Kg3 Rg1+ 7.Kh2 Rg2+ 8.Kh3 f2+. Game over, the new Q protects f7 if necessary. wK somewhere on first rank will suffer from Rcc1+. In this line, you should calculate until 8...f2+ and its consequences (9.Nb3 f1Q 10.Qxf7+ Qxf7).

c) 1...Rxc3 2.Rd7+ Qa3 3.Kb1. Ech, Rb8+ is impossible. Nevermind, 3...Rf8, cut. The Pf3 is still alive, especially as White must play Nb3 to survive. I let the position appear on board and ponder on when it occurs, as there are far too many candidates (and the computer wants the modest Rcc8.)

d) 1...Rxc3 2.Kd2. Too much chaos for sensible calculations. The computer suggests an equal endgame after 2...Qc7 3.Rd8+ with a lot of exchanges. Fine, I win all endgames anyway :-)

To sum up: There are variants where you can and should calculate five moves or even longer - that is if the game tree doesn't branch to hell and back. And, as David already stated, there are positions no human can calculate to the end, and positions that don't really need concrete calculation.

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish give an evaluation of +7.42 here?
```
[fen "r3k1nr/pppqn2p/5p2/b5p1/3PP3/1BP2QBP/PP1N2P1/R3K2R w KQkq - 3 14"]

```

This game was played by me on chess.com recently. (I am white). The material balance is +1 (for white). Then why is Stockfish evaluating such huge advantage for white? (White to move)

My complete game (just in case):

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4 Bb4+ 4. c3 Ba5 5. Bxf4 d6 6. Nf3 f6 7. Bc4 g5 8. Bg3 Nc6 9. Nbd2 d5 10. Bxd5 Bg4 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nce7 13. Bb3 Qd7 14. O-O O-O-O 15. Nc4 b6 16. Nxa5 bxa5 17. e5 fxe5 18. Qa8# 1-0

```

The given position is after move 13.

# Answer
> 4 votes
It's hard to explain why Stockfish goes for such a big advantage to White despite the fact of there being no direct winning continuation (according to Stockfish, White has several different moves and plans that keep the advantage). Anyway it doesn't matter much whether the position is +3, +5, +7 or forced mate in 23. A human can figure out that this position must be winning for reasons like:

* White is one pawn up, so even if a potential attack doesn't work there's still good chances to win in the endgame.
* White has more active pieces and, perhaps more importantly, better ways to activate the pieces that are still passive. Compare the knights on d2 and g8 or the rooks on h1 and h8 for instance.
* Black has several weaknesses on the light squares. The defense of the f6 pawn is not an easy problem to solve.
* Black's king has no hope to find a safe square to go. Castling kingside is almost out of the question due to all the weak light squares on that side of the board. Staying on the center means Black has to worry about Qh5+ threats in almost eveyr move. Castling queenside is bad because White can easily start an attack by chasing the enemy bishop. For instance, after **0-0 0-0-0**, White can play **Nc4** followed by a4 and a5 (as you saw in your game, the bishop must retreat because ...b6 leaves the Black king hopeless)

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm a beginner so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Here is what I see. The difference in quality of the pieces does really stand out.

**White**

* wide open bishops on the long diagonals
* dominant center control with solid pawn structure
* good prospects for the knight
* can easily castle and create an attack by pushing the already advanced pawns

**Black**

* bishop is stuck staring at pawns, no obvious way of improving its position
* knights are stuck, pawns control most of the squares they could reposition to
* h8 rook is stuck behind a knight that can barely move (Nh6 is a move, but really ugly, and from there the knight can only go back to g8)
* light squares are weak (pawns on dark squares) and no light squared bishop to control them

I wrote the following two points looking by mistake at the position a ply earlier, with black to move when the queen was on d8:

* queen only has 3 forward squares to move to, 2 of them controlled by white's excellent bishops
* to be able to castle either the knight or the queen have to make the only move they can reasonably make, and neither looks good

It just looks to me like black tied their shoes together, AND is a pawn down.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The main approach seems to be:

```
[FEN "r3k1nr/pppqn2p/5p2/b5p1/3PP3/1BP2QBP/PP1N2P1/R3K2R w KQkq - 3 14"]

1. Nc4 Bb6 2. Ne5 fxe5 (2... Qd6 3. Nf7 Qc6 4. O-O f5 5. Nxh8 O-O-O 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Nxg5 Nf6 8. Rae1 a5 9. exf5 Qxf3 10. Rxf3) 3. Bf7+ Kd8 4. Bxe5 Nh6 5. Bxh8 Nxf7 6. Qxf7 Qe8 7. Qxh7

```

At the end, White has the following major advantages:

1. Up a rook and 3 pawns for a knight. Roughly +5.
2. A candidate passed pawn (e4) in a connected pair.
3. Black king cannot castle and is stuck in the middle (high king-danger).

The second factor can often be used to force the opponent to sacrifice a minor piece, which would result in a material advantage of a rook plus 2 pawns even ignoring all other advantages. In fact, the pawn at g5 is kind of dead, and so after a few more moves Stockfish sees the outcome as more or less like:

```
[FEN "r3k1nr/pppqn2p/5p2/b5p1/3PP3/1BP2QBP/PP1N2P1/R3K2R w KQkq - 3 14"]

1. Nc4 Bb6 2. Ne5 fxe5 3. Bf7+ Kd8 4. Bxe5 Nh6 5. Bxh8 Nxf7 6. Qxf7 Qe8 7. Qxh7 Qg6 8. Qxg6 Nxg6 9. O-O Ke8 10. Bf6 c5 11. d5 c4+ 12. Kh1 Bd8 13. Bxd8 Rxd8 14. Rf5 Rd6 15. Rxg5

```

The other main option for Black also leads to ruin:

```
[FEN "r3k1nr/pppqn2p/5p2/b5p1/3PP3/1BP2QBP/PP1N2P1/R3K2R w KQkq - 3 14"]

1. Nc4 Qb5 2. d5 O-O-O 3. O-O-O Kb8 4. d6 cxd6 5. Rxd6 Ka8 6. Rxd8+ Bxd8 7. Nd6 g4 (7... Qc6 8. Nf7 Bb6 9. Nxh8) 8. hxg4 Qg5+ 9. Kc2 Nh6 10. Bf4 Qxg4 11. Bxh6

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
My first impulse was to gain a tempo on the unprotected bishop on a with Nc5 and start rolling my a pawn down (tempo and space!), and my second thought was to push e5 and threaten to either fully pass a pawn or get a nice juicy check in on f7 -- I like a king that can't castle when the queens are still on the board...

I also considered bxg8 for Qh5+ but realized NexB allows Qf7 and exchanging leaves the black king on f7, in better position to play as a fighting piece now that the queens are off.

Summarizing to your question: this was a position that prompted aggression.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, middlegame, advantage
---


title: Both (at least) WGM and PhD/doctorate

text:
# Question
Title: Both (at least) WGM and PhD/doctorate
Similar to this question Both grandmaster and PhD/doctorate but for at least WGM (WGM, female IM, female GM, etc)

Among woman grandmasters, who have PhDs/doctorates?

**Conditions**:

1. standard WGM only eg no International Correspondence Chess WGM
2. no honourary PhDs/doctorates
3. maybe kind of a cheat but I'll allow JD/MD (and LLB to the extent that LLB=JD) i.e. doesn't have to be Doctor of Juridical Science/Doctor of Medical Sciences. Also the other stuff here eg doctor of education or doctor of engineering, just no honourary.

# Answer
What I got so far:

**Miscellaneous**

1. **Hou Yifan (SRZLY?)** **(UNSURE)**: same with the Robert Byrne thing as to what 'professor' means (i mean come on phd, really? i don't think so)
2. Kateřina Němcová - PhD in progress
3. 5-time and current (as of Oct2021) British women's chess champion Harriet Hunt \- PhD and Research Fellowship at Cambridge, specialising in archaeogenetics
4. Jana Krivec \- psychology (not sure if PhD or PsyD)
5. Alisa Marić \- PhD in economics.

**Law** (either JD/LLB or Doctor of Juridical Science)

1. Xu Yuhua: LLB
2. 9-time and current (as of Sep2021) British women's chess champion Jovanka Houska: LLB
3. Natalia Pogonina: 'In 2008 Pogonina was studying for an MA in law at the Saratov State Academy of Law.'

**Medicine** (either MD or Doctor of Medical Sciences)

1. Jana Bellin \- probably just MD
> 1 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, records, women, trivia
---


# Question
Title: Why do we need to exchange black bishop in A43 Benoni Defense?
```
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/pp1pppbp/6p1/2pP4/2P5/2N5/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

The only reason for developing the black bishop was to snipe the border during middle game and endgame, but in the opening itself, stockfish 14 tells me to exchange the bishop against queens gambit setup.

Why is that?

# Answer
Same as in Nimzo-Indian. Bxc3 has two different effects that must be weighted against each other:

* The white pawn structure is dead meat now, especially the Pc4 will have a nightmare. The attack can be done exactly like in the Nimzo, although some Na5 is far beyond the horizon. Even better, the Nimzo typical Pd4 is already on d5 (so to say), so White has no mobile pawn center.
* White, as in the Nimzo, will pay back with a direct attack on the king. Black misses the fianchetto bishop dearly and White has the bishop pair. But note that even if Black castles short, it is not so easy to find use for it (no place for the Bc1 on the long diagonal).

The latter, for a long time, lead to anyone brushing off Bxc3 as a death wish. It isn't. Black usually even (after the exchange) continues to laugh about opening principles and plays f5, with a fat 32:29:40 score out of 500 games (even though Stockfish still gives White a minimal advantage). But never trust any statistic you didn't fake yourself, just one move later White packs out e4 followed by the gambit f3 (the first thing I would think of myself) and a fantastic score...unless again Black says "Eat my shorts", plays e5 to ignore the gambit and again has the upper hand...

I tell this all just as a warning: isolated data is as bad as isolated pawns. Tournament praxis is a much better indicator whether a variation is sound. Here are some further positional considerations for this variation.
> 7 votes

# Answer
You don't "need" to exchange your dark-squared bishop, but it is definitely a great option to consider. A "standard" Benoni play would consist of some sort of ...d6 and ...e6 play on the center, but White is probably going to be comfortable there and has many options available.

Another option available to Black is to counter White's space advantage by playing an immediate ...e5, but this would make the g7 bishop a horrible piece, that's why trading it on c3 may not be the worst of ideas. In fact, **4...Bxc3 5.bxc3 e5** is a quite successful continuation for Black.

Whether Black opts for an ...e5 push or not, Hauke Redmann's points still apply: another benefit of trading the bishop for the knight is the damage you cause on White's pawn structure. Black can create pressure on the queenside by attacking the weak enemy "c" pawns, but it's not always easy to capitalize on that (there's no clear plan to coordinate Black's minor pieces for an attack on those pawns).

As a final note, when discussing openings, please take into account that "it takes two to tango". White can't play a Queen's Gambit unless Blacks allows him to. The position we're talking about is a Benoni. Not a Benoni by Black against White's Queen's Gambit, just a Benoni. And it wouldn't have been so had White not played their pawn to d5
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How does white stop the three pawns and win this?
I arrived to this position, black, me, to play, in a tournament game, with plenty of time to think on both sides. Stockfish gives initially +55 and finally mate in 27 for white. Fortunately for me, my opponent made a couple of blunders and I won the game.

```
[white "Opponent"]
[black "Me"]
[StartFlipped "2"]
[FEN "7Q/8/8/8/p2pkp2/Pp2p3/1P2K3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...f3+ 2. Kf1 {?} Kd3 3. Qc8 {?} Kd2 4. Qd7 {?, now Stockfish says black wins} e2+ 5. Kf2 e1=Q+ 6. Kxf3 Qe3+ 7. Kg2 Qe2+ 8. Kg1 Qd1+ 9. Kf2 Kc1 10. Qc6+ Qc2+ 0-1

```

Is it so easy to stop the three pawns given the fact the king is protecting one row?

Do you think it is so easy?

# Answer
> 10 votes
The fundamental principle in king-and-pawn endings is that you want to get your king in front of your pawn(s). If your king is behind your pawn then your opponent can block with their king much more easily. Therefore 2.Kf1 is a mistake, because it allows the white king to get in front of the pawns and also attack the black pawns. Whether it is a game losing blunder I'm not so sure, but it does make winning much more difficult. Either 2.Kd1 or 2.Ke1 would be much better with Ke1 being my favourite as it stays in line with the middle pawn.

In general, white's winning plan is to immobilize the black passed pawns and then start winning the pawns when the win becomes easy.

Here's what happens if black still tries to penetrate with 2... Kd3

```
[fen "7Q/8/8/8/p2pkp2/Pp2p3/1P2K3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... f3+ 2. Ke1 Kd3 3. Qh7+ {It is vitally important to keep the white king out} Kc4 4. Qf5 {Still keeping the white king out and threatening the f pawn} f2+ {only move to hang on to the pawn for now} 5. Ke2 {Zugzwang! The black king has no moves} f1=Q 6. Qxf1 Kc5 7. Kd3 {and the two center pawns will soon drop}

```

So the immediate 2... Kd3 is a mistake. Can black still manage it by first driving the white king to f1? Now white can keep maximum pressure by bringing the queen to e4 forcing black to keep defending the e5 pawn, because if black allows Qxe5 with Kc2 going after the b2 pawn then the queen also defends the b2 pawn.

```
[fen "7Q/8/8/8/p2pkp2/Pp2p3/1P2K3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... f3+ 2. Ke1 f2+ 3. Kf1 Kd3 4. Qe5 Kc4 5. Qe4 Kc5 6. Ke2 {forcing white to abandon the c pawn} Kb5 (6... Kc4 7. Qc6#) 7. Qxd4

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
The pawns can indeed be stopped. The problem here is that White has barely tried at all! For instance, after 2.Qh7+ Kd2 3.Qb1, the pawns can go no further: against ...e2+, White can go Kf2 and against ...f2, Kg2 followed by Qf1 should be enough.

2.Qh1 could be an even simpler alternative, preventing the king from marching forward while also preventing ...e2 (because of Kf2) and ...f2.

---
Tags: analysis, queen-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Resources for learning about the Gurgenidze System of the Caro-Kann as Black
I'm ~1900 rapid on Lichess. As Black, I like to play this defense against `1.e4` (picked up from watching Hikaru's streams):

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 (4.f4) (4.Be3)

```

Are there any books or online resources available for learning more about this defense and the strategic ideas behind it?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This video gives some insight into black's ideas
Chess Opening for Black: The Gurgenidze System

a well known idea is to exchange the c8 Bishop with the help of h5 when white goes for f4 and then e5 after black plays d5

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.f4 d5 5.e5 h5 6.Nf3 Bg4 7. Be3 Nh6 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nf5 10. Bf2 h4 11. Bd3 e6

```

The g7 bishop will re-route to e7 giving extra support on h4. You could even delay playing Bg7 early so you can play Be7 straightaway without losing tempi.

---
Tags: opening, books
---


# Question
Title: UCI - what should be the value of movestogo
Playing a bullet game(1 min) against UCI engine, I would send these command from GUI

```
 uci
 setoption name Hash value 256
 isready
 ucinewgame
 position startpos e2e4
 go wtime 60000 btime 60000 movestogo xx

```

what should be the value of xx?

Documentation says

> movestogo – Number of moves to the next time control. If this is not set, but wtime or btime are, then it is sudden death.

But before the game completes how do I know how many moves would be played in the game?

# Answer
> 1 votes
In a bullet game, you don't send movestogo. You only do this in case of a game where there is an increment after let's say move 40 where an additional 15 minutes might be added to the clock. Even then, the engine would still need to know, how much time is added after xx moves have gone by to make proper use of the time at its disposal.

---
Tags: uci
---


title: Article 12.9.4 Laws of Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Article 12.9.4 Laws of Chess
Article 12.9.4 of FIDE Laws of Chess: increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game

Can you give an example of a rule violation penalized under 12.9.4?

# Answer
It is perhaps worth starting by saying that Article 12.9 -

> 12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:

applies to "things which the arbiter wants to apply a penalty for" and so includes other things as well as rule violations.

That said, according to Article 11.6:

> 11.6 Infraction of any part of Articles 11.1 – 11.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 12.9.

It is also worth saying that the penalties outlined in 12.9.1 through 12.9.9 are not exclusive. So that, for instance, a player caught cheating is likely to have penalties 12.9.4 (opponent scores maximum), 12.9.5 (player's score reduced, almost certainly to zero) and 12.9.9 (expulsion from the competition) all applied.

Use of physical violence by a player is also likely to result in multiple penalties.

As to particular FIDE rules which would result in such penalties it is worth noting that there is no specific "no cheating" rule! Although

> 11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

and

> 11.3.2.1 During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.

both describe particular methods of cheating.

Physical violence would be an extreme violation of:

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

and quite possibly:

> 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Ignoring Touch Move results in an Illegal Move?
I just wanted to clarify the following incident:

When touching a piece without expressing the intend to adjust its position (cf. 4.2.1 FIDE Laws of Chess), such that it has to be moved because there is at least one legal move with this piece (cf. 4.3.1), one moves another piece (in an otherwise legal way), presses the clock, and the arbiter observes this; how should the arbiter decide?

Clearly, the move must be taken back and the clocks adjusted, but does this count as if an illegal move also? In my opinion, this is the case, but the (possible) reasonings I came up with had some holes:

* A player must make a move every time it is their turn, and press the clock if their move didn't end the game. Failing to move a piece is as if an illegal move (cf. 7.5.3). The player must move the first touched piece, but failed to do so; the move of the other piece is irrelevant (?).
* A player must move the first touched piece, but moved a second one; two moves consecutively is not allowed (cf. 1.2). Violating this is as if an illegal move (?).

I'm happy for any definitive take on that, preferably with an official source backing it up.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Clearly, the move must be taken back and the clocks adjusted, does this count as if an illegal move also?

No. There was no illegal move.

The FIDE Laws of Chess define illegal moves and positions so:

> 3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
>
> 3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9.
>
> 3.10.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves

What you describe is a touch-move violation as described in 4.3 Also relevant is 4.2

> 4.2 Adjusting the pieces or other physical contact with a piece:
>
> 4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he/she first expresses his/her intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
>
> 4.2.2 **Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.**
>
> 4.3 **Except as provided in Article 4.2.1, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:**
>
> 4.3.1 **one or more of his/her own pieces, he/she must move the first piece touched that can be moved.**
>
> 4.3.2 one or more of his/her opponent’s pieces, he/she must capture the first piece touched that can be captured.
>
> 4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he/she must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his/her first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his/her opponent’s piece was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his/her opponent’s.

What you describe falls under 4.3.1

Regarding your question:

> one moves another piece (in an otherwise legal way), presses the clock, and the arbiter observes this; how should the arbiter decide?

The arbiter should decide that the touch-move rule in 4.3.1 has been violated and as per 4.3.1 "*he/she must move the first piece touched that can be moved*"

The arbiter should then select one of the penalties in 12.9.

For the first such offence the most lenient, a warning along with an explanation of the rule, would normally be appropriate. Even if the offence were repeated repeated warnings might be in order, for instance for young inexperienced players. For more experienced players who would be expected to know the rules a time penalty may be appropriate even for a first offence in light of the disturbance to the opponent.

---
Tags: rules, fide, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Why does the engine dislike white in this position despite the material advantage of a pawn and other positional factors?
After a trade that sacrified a bishop and a knight for two pawns and a rook, the game reached the following position: (White to move.)

```
[FEN "2r2qk1/1b1n1pb1/p4n1p/1p4p1/4P3/1BN2P2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 17"]

```

At this point the engine was evaluating the position as -1.65.

I am confused with this evaluation. After this trade, white can go Qe2 and soon take claim of the open file with a rook and it seems that all white's pieces are with good activity and the pawn structure seems better than black's, so at first glance it seems to me that not only there is material advantage (white's up a pawn) but also a positional one.

I tried looking at the engine's suggested moves to see what I was missing and the moves are obscure to me. For instance, after 1.Qe2, the engine suggests 1...Bc6 and after 2.Rfd1 it suggests 2...Nh5. Both these moves don't seem to accomplish much to me. I can see a threat of jumping the knight to f4 eventually but it does not seem so dangerous. What makes some sense to me is that the bishop in g7 will probably be able to disrupt the pawns on the queenside either by doubling the pawns on the c-file by taking the knight or by taking on b2 if white has to move the knight due to b4 or some other threat. In any case, this should take some commitment and due to white's pieces' activity it seems that this might not be easy to go unpunished or simply stopped. Furthermore, this would justify to me perhaps an evaluation closer to 0, not -1.65.

Maybe worth noticing that the engine suggests 1.Qd2 instead of 1.Qe2, but analyzing this branch wasn't very fruitful either. For instance, one variation is as follows:

```
[FEN "2r2qk1/1b1n1pb1/p4n1p/1p4p1/4P3/1BN2P2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 17"]

1.Qd2 a5 2.a3 a4 3.Ba2 Ne5 4.Rad1

```

At this point, the evaluation is at -0.83 and I don't see a clear problem either.

This is why I'd appreciate if someone can explain why the engine likes black in the first highlighted position so much.

# Answer
Interestingly, even without looking ahead and just evaluating the immediate position, Stockfish thinks Black is ahead by nearly half a pawn despite agreeing that White is ahead in raw material. Looking at the sub-scores, the "Imbalance" category is where most of Black's score is coming from.

"Imbalance" looks at which pieces are on the board and makes assumptions about how well they coordinate together. For example, each rook gets a bonus for each friendly knight and bishop but a penalty for other friendly pieces, and a penalty for enemy bishops and queens but a bonus for enemy knights and pawns.

In this position, Black is getting a bonus for having the bishop pair. White seems to be getting a penalty for having two rooks and a queen (the algorithm apparently thinks rooks don't work well with friendly rooks or queens) while Black's queen gets a bonus because the extra enemy rook and pawns are considered as potential targets just for existing. Overall the synergies between the various pieces actually give Black more of a score boost than the bishop pair itself does, and in total it's enough for Stockfish to think it outweighs the material deficit.
> 9 votes

# Answer
2 pieces for the rook is often better. In this position, black has a better position with more good squares for his pieces, and a clearer long term plan (attack kingside with good knights). The e5 square is a great square for the knight. The other knight can go Nh5-f4. The b2 pawn is weak and in the eye of the black bishop, which makes it harder for white to put his knight on d5. White's bishop is hitting a wall and no clear plan on how to improve it - black will just move his king and push pawns up. Black plans to break the kingside later on with a g4 push. The only plan for white is to double on d file and eventually put a knight on d5, which black is likely to be fine exchanging his bishop for.

In simple terms, a knight on e5 and another on f4 with a bishop x-raying b2 (limiting the white knight) and the rook x-raying c2 (limiting the white bishop) is a pretty clear advantage. Which side would you rather be?

Also, a knight on f4 is extremely dangerous for white - it would instantly become black's best piece. It's setting up for sacrifices, pawn pushes, and the queen swinging over to the kingside.
> 6 votes

# Answer
This might not answer your question as it already has some good ones. But just out of curiosity, I ran your game with two separate Stockfish engines, running at their full capacity. I wanted to see how the game would continue, assuming the players give their optimal moves. (The word *optimal* may not be the best choice in this context. Please take it with a grain of salt).

Here is the result:

```
[Title "StockFish vs. StockFish"]
[FEN "2r2qk1/1b1n1pb1/p4n1p/1p4p1/4P3/1BN2P2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 17"]

1. Qd2 Nc5 2. Ne2 Nh5 3. g4 Rd8 4. Qa5 Nf6
5. Ng3 Rc8 6. Rad1 Ne8 7. c3 Nd6 8. Rfe1 Be5
9. Qb6 Kh7 10. Re2 Rc6 11. Qa5 Qe7 12. Bd5 Rc8
13. Kg2 Bxd5 14. Rxd5 Nc4 15. Qb4 Qa7 16. Nh5 Qb6
17. a4 Nxa4 18. Qe7 Qe6 19. Rd7 Kg6 20. Qxe6+ fxe6
21. Re7 Rc6 22. b3 Nxc3 23. Rf2 Ne3+ 24. Kh3 a5
25. Rd2 Ncd1 26. Rb7 Rd6 27. Rg7+ Bxg7 28. Rxd6 Nf2+
29. Kg3 Be5+ 30. Kxf2 Nxg4+ 31. fxg4 Bxd6 32. Ke3 Bxh2
33. Kd4 Bg1+ 34. Kd3 Kf7 35. e5 Ke7 36. Ke4 Kd7
37. Ng3 a4 38. Ne2 axb3 39. Kd3 Bh2 40. Kc3 Bxe5+
41. Kxb3 Kc6 42. Kb4 Bd6+ 43. Kb3 Kc5 44. Nc3 Be5
45. Ne4+ Kd5 46. Nd2 Bf4 47. Nf3 Ke4 48. Ne1 e5
49. Kc2 Bg3 50. Nd3 Kf3 51. Nc5 e4 52. Nb3 Kxg4
53. Nc5 e3 54. Kd3 Kf3 55. Nb3 Be5 56. Kc2 e2
57. Nd2+ Ke3 58. Kb3 Kxd2 59. Kb4 e1=Q 60. Kxb5 Qc1
61. Kb4 Qc6 62. Kb3 Qb5+ 63. Ka3 g4 64. Ka2 Qb2#

```

As you see, white is basically crippled after losing their bishop. Under different circumstances the result might have been different. But I think your engine's evaluation seem to be spot on.
> 3 votes

# Answer
To add to the other answers, Black's pieces are more active on the board than White's. They control more squares and offer more options. White's rooks are a bit cramped. Although I'm not certain about it, I believe Stockfish takes this into account in its evaluation.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I question whether white is actually ahead on material. The numbers representing the "values" of the pieces are just approximations based on the relative strengths of the pieces, and cannot possibly apply in all cases. For example, winning two minor pieces for a rook and a pawn is usually considered a material advantage, despite both trades ostensibly having a value of 6. The *"penalty for having two rooks and a queen"* mentioned in @DM's answer is almost certainly how Stockfish accounts for this.

In this case, white traded away two minor pieces for a rook and *two* pawns. Despite this being 6 vs. 7, I would consider this trade to be approximately equal - maybe favoring white *a little*, but definitely not enough to claim a definitive material advantage.

In that case, it just comes down to which side has the better position. I think black's more active pieces give him the initiative, which is enough to explain the slightly better engine-score.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Well Stockfish 10+ at depth 20 evaluates it to −0.7. I do not understand the other answer that says "White seems to be getting a penalty for having two rooks and a queen" because the static analysis of that position seems to have largest contribution from **king-danger** and **bishop-pair**. Also note that the static evaluation is slightly misleading because the "king-danger" is not quite real but one needs to look a few moves ahead to check that there is really not much danger.

In fact, following what appears to be one of the best lines leads to:

```
[FEN "2r2qk1/1b1n1pb1/p4n1p/1p4p1/4P3/1BN2P2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 0"]

1. Qd2 Nc5 2. Rad1 Nh5 3. g3 Nf6

```

And at this point there is no more king-danger. There is still the bishop-pair, but the overall static analysis of this position is actually close to zero, due to other factors. So why does SF think it is still ≈−1? Because that is what happens down the road:

```
[FEN "2r2qk1/1b1n1pb1/p4n1p/1p4p1/4P3/1BN2P2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 0"]

1. Qd2 Nc5 2. Rad1 Nh5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Qd6 Qe8 5. Rfe1 Nfd7 6. Nd5 Kh7 7. c3 (7. Qe7 Bxb2 8. Qxe8 Rxe8 9. Rf1 Rc8 10. Ne3) 7... Ne5 8. Kg2 Nxb3 9. axb3 Rc6 10. Qb4

```

The static analysis of the final position in each of the two lines shown above are −0.88 and −1.03 respectively. But humanly you can see that White has either lost a pawn or been forced into a cramped position (and is likely to lose a pawn later anyway).
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Should the arbiter stop players from spectating other players' games?
Suppose a player forgot the correct "book move" in a tournament. He/She looked at another game played by strong players in the same tournament and happened to find the same opening position. So he/she copies the strong players move in their own game.

Is this considered cheating? If so, should the arbiter stop players from spectating other players' games?

# Answer
> 4 votes
When this has happened in high level tournaments being done by top level players the arbiters' decision has always been "No" but it has been a fudge decision where the arbiter decides that the copying wasn't deliberate.

If there is clear evidence the copying was deliberate then the answer would be "Yes" but proving intention is very difficult and arbiters are reluctant to go there.

The precedent set does make it difficult for arbiters in lower level competitions to judge differently unless there was some additional evidence (hard to think what) that made it more obvious than it already was.

The latest well known example is from the 2019 Isle of Man Grand Swiss which had a place in the Candidates as a prize. This was covered in detail in this answer. Afterwards when the Chief Arbiter Alex Holowczak was interviewed by chess.com's Danny King he basically fudged the issue:

> Holowczak: "I saw Yangyi look quite nervous when he looked over to Dreev who had made the move a minute or two before. So, I thought in the interests of everybody feeling comfortable with the game that it was better to move it into the second hall. Then nobody can accuse anybody of anything"
>
> King: "Is it an offence to copy somebody else's moves?"
>
> Holowczak: "N'Ermmm ... I suppose it must be if we think they have copied their moves, but we don't think that. We're not moving them because we think there has been an offence. What we're trying to prevent is any accusation that there might have been an offence"

---
Tags: rules, fide, tournament, cheating, spectating
---


# Question
Title: Has a "resignation blunder" ever been refused?
I was reading the question Has there been any blunders in resignation? and it occurred to me that a particularly good sportsman might refuse to accept an opponent's resignation if they knew the opponent was not in a hopeless position.

Some quick Googling suggests that the rules (or at least some sets of rules) do allow you to refuse a resignation from your opponent, so it is possible that this has happened in a high level match. I would be interested to know if it has ever happened. The conditions would be the same as the previous question i.e. a GM or near GM level match and excluding resignations for reasons not related to the state of the game.

# Answer
> Some quick Googling suggests that the rules (or at least some sets of rules) do allow you to refuse a resignation from your opponent

This does not reflect the FIDE Laws of Chess. According to Article 5.1.2:

> 5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. **This immediately ends the game**.

This means that no player, GM or otherwise, is *permitted* to refuse an opponent's resignation in a FIDE rated event.

Of course in a friendly or skittles match such things are allowed and may have occurred but not in a "serious" FIDE rated game.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Similar things have happened, but it's not because one player misevaluated the position.

Source

> Having beaten down the desperate resistance of the opponent, \[GM David Navara\] achieved the position where either mate or the loss of the rook was inevitable and at that moment he offered a draw. The situation was clarified by both Grandmasters.
>
> David Navara: – On the 35th move I accidentally touched both pieces, the King and the Bishop. I wanted to move my bishop on d6, but clipped the King also, however, Moiseenko claims that I have first touched the King, but I am not sure about that. Any move with the King would lead to the loss of the piece, however, Moiseenko did not insist that I make a move according to the touch rule. I did not want to be referred to as an unethical chess player who managed to win in an unfair way, that is why at the end, having achieved the winning position, I offered a draw.
>
> Alexander Moiseenko: – Navara on the 35th move first touched the King. I told him: the King moves. However, I realized that my opponent accidentally made this mistake, it is not possible that he could so easily blunder the piece. This is the reason I did not insist on his move with the King.

Final position:

```
2K5/8/2k5/8/8/q7/8/3R4 b - - 0 1

```

Black wins after 115. Kb8 Qb3+ forking the rook (115. Kd8 Qf8#). Notably Moiseenko didn't actually resign, but he was obviously about to, since it was mate in a few more moves.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, blunder, famous-games, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Pogchamps: How does Michelle Khare beat Pokimane (rook and knight vs rook pair)?
From pogchamps, specifically semifinals of consolation bracket of pogchamps 3:

```
[FEN "4k3/7p/5p2/8/P2rr3/5N2/6PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Black (Michelle Khare) just blundered a rook, but white (pokimane) failed to capitalise.

White is currently 1 pawn down but is about to be 2 pawns down so it's basically (rook and) knight vs rook (and rook).

---

Questions:

1. How does black win this? I tried running in an engine and even though it gives black an evaluation of around -1, the evaluation slowly went up to -0.4. Or if it's not really a win for black then how does white draw this?
2. The pawns are on 1 wing. What, if anything, does this mean? Eg more/less likely black will win/white will draw as opposed to pawns on both wings.

---

Note 1: If this turns out to be a fortress or something, then please feel free to edit the tags.

Note 2: This might be covered in Karsten Müller's endgame series probably Volumes 9 or 12, but I think it was covered a bit in Volumes 1, 2 or 4. What I do remember in Volumes 1-4 that might be relevant is that all the pawns are (going to be) on 1 wing.

Note 3: In case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about serious higher level play. A 1500+ in pogchamps should of course win this easily. So what I really mean to ask is how black wins the position, if possible and not *literally* how Michelle Khare beats Pokimane like literally explaining to a 600+ how to beat another 600+.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I can only try to give a very generic and partial answer, since details matter extremely. I shamelessly copy stuff from Müller/Lamprecht "Fundamental Chess Endings".

* Q2 can be answered fully: as always, pawns on different wings means the knight usually loses (being a slower unit than a rook or even a bishop), especially against a rook. Here, they are on one wing, and Black even has a rook pawn, meaning that resacrificing the exchange to win with the last pawn is even harder.
* As always, the weaker side should try to exchange pawns.
    + But note that this is not the all-cure, in the game Reddmann-Müller :-) (RPP-NPP same wing, BCE 7.15) White (the R party) had even to sacrifice a P to convert into a clear win.
    + This means the knight should not land on a "bad circuit", but try its best to hold a fortress. E.g. RP-NP, same line, usually can be hold.
* Zugzwang gives N knightmares. (Sorry.) It is thus the best weapon to break pseudo fortresses.
* Without a P stronghold the N might get chased and ultimately caught.
* Black must try to penetrate with the king from below. For example, White's Kf2/Nf1/Pg2/Ph3 can only be busted by running in via d3-e2.
* Black's pawns are split (disconnected), thus annoying counterattacks are possible if Black tries the former.
* I played blitz with engine suggestions and it seems that Black wins with exactly the suggestions outlined above: White plays h3 and then "nothing". Black protects the bad Ps with the R if necessary, plays a P to h4 (White can never play g3, it frees the f pawn - this also means if White sets up g3-h2 instead of h3-g2, it is even easier to attack by h4), penetrates with the K and keeps the wK encased, and as soon as the bK appears on e3, even f3 is no longer a stronghold for the wN, as Rxf3 always wins.
* Overall: A win with precise Black play, at least Carlsen should convert without problems. White always has too much "holes" to construct a fortress.

---
Tags: endgame, rook-and-minor-endgame, fortress, pogchamps
---


# Question
Title: Why do some openings have Indian in their name?
Why are a few chess openings named King's *Indian* Defense, Queen's *Indian* Defense, Nimzo-*Indian* defense, and so on?

What is the significance of *Indian* in all these opening names? What's India's contribution to it?

# Answer
> 15 votes
In many cases, openings are named after a notable first master game (or games). The master or country does not necessarily must have contributed to it. Apparently in the case of Indian openings (1. d4 Nf6), they are named after Moheschunder Bannerjee. See the Wikipedia article on Indian defence.

# Answer
> 20 votes
In Indian Chess, the game that was played in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries in India (not to be confused with its ancestor Chaturanga), the rules allowed no castle, and double-step pawn moves were not allowed but:

> The king can make a knight's move once in a game, known as Indian castling.

As a consequence, g3 followed by Kg2 for White or ...b6 followed by ...Kb7 (the black king stands on d8 at the beginning of the game in Indian chess) were very common moves in the opening, since it was the fastest way to bring the king towards the corner where it will usually find the most safety.

Of course, playing g3, b3 or ...b6, ...g6 could also be followed by a "normal" fianchetto with the camel (our bishop).

When Indian players started playing western chess (during colonization), they quite naturally used a lot of fianchettoes, since they are common in Indian Chess. As explained in user1583209's answer, that was the case for Moheschunder Bannerjee in his games against Cochrane around 1850:

> The Indian Defences by P-KKt3 coupled with P-Q3, or P-QKt3 coupled with P-K3, were largely taught to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. It is notable that many of Bannerjee's openings were based on single pawn moves, the "legacy" mentioned by Sergeant, as in the rules of Indian chess.

The Chess Player's Chronicle used the term "Indian defense" to refer to 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 after him about 30 years later (1884). This is the first documented use of the appelation about that kind of defense with fianchetto - although "Indian Opening" appeared earlier to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.d3.

The term "Indian Defense" as we understand it today (After 1.d4 Nf6, thus excluding Pirc-Ufimsev and other schemes with e4 and not c4 for White) established itself after WWI, its use being popularized by Savielly Tartakower and Hans Kmoch.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess has evolved from the Indian game Shatranj. In early versions of Shatranj, the starting positions included the fianchetto, which is common in all of the modern chess openings you listed. This is why these openings have the word Indian in them.

See also Did Indian systems really have fianchettos?

# Answer
> 1 votes
In "Indian" defenses, Black holds back his center pawns, especially his d-pawn, against a White 1. d4. This "Indian" style is in contrast to the European style of opposing 1. d4 with 1. ... d5, and 1. e4 with 1. ... e5.

Instead, Black opts to contest White's control of the center from the side. In the King's and Queen's Indian defenses, this means moving g6 or b6 respectively, and "fianchettoing" a bishop along the "long" diagonal. In the Nimzo-Indian defense (Nimzo stands for Aron Nimzowich), it means playing B b4 after e6. But the idea is to oppose White's d4 with c5 and not d5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Indian Castling is derived from Shatranjan ( Not Shatranj ). ShadYantra is the actual game from which more advanced form of game called Shatranjan was derived by Kautilya (\*Chanakya) some 2300 yrs ago. Chaturanga and Shatranj are variants.

In Shatranjan, Kings can move like Knights with the help of Royal and Semi Royal Aids. But in modern chess there are no Royal and Semi Royal pieces.

# Answer
> -3 votes
Apart from the name Indian we have French defence, Yugoslav attack of Sicilian, the Russian attack of some defence which I do not remember right now but, the names came from the country where they originated but they are played in their respective way.

Chess has its *origination in India* and it was named Chaturanga.

In the medieval world, *India was the only country who deployed Elephants during warfare so we have Rooks in the Game*. The Indian Name in many Openings does not necessarily mean a Fianchetto of the Bishop as we have Nimzo-Indian Defence where Bishop comes to b4 but *it's the introduction of a Bishop which is also an Indian animal Camel which was used in north India during Warfare*.

So I believe that would be the only idea behind this naming convention. Even I have tried finding the reasoning but there is nothing specific. It is a sad history of chess that we do not have the name of the Person who invented the Game.

---
Tags: opening, history, kings-indian, queens-indian, nimzo-indian
---


# Question
Title: If the back row of white pieces is moved to be in front of the pawns, which side should I play?
I remember this starting position played many times by my grandfathers. But I am too young to recollect the results of their games. If I have to choose, which side should I play? (White moves 1st)

# Answer
First, the human assessment: White has the advantage of his figures being already developed (`Rxh7` is always to consider), but is saddled with a king that is in grave danger already after the natural `e5`. (To underline this: Black to move seems to have a clear win, placing the white king on e1 is a clear win for White)

The position thus is tactically "red-hot", and very concrete. Lichess/Stockfish's first choice (it is probably receiving to let the computer run longer) is `1.Ra4` (WAT!!!) with a permanent 0.0 (maybe because of an optional perpetual `Q-g5-f6` after `e5?!`)

A practical answer thus is: Play black if you are human and have a good tactical eye. With best play, White has a minute advantage. I tried out a few alternative White lines to the one suggested, just to have the assessment drop through the floor in no time (and I'm not a patzer when it comes to tactics...) For example, `1.Rxh7` `e5` is a bad idea for White.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Best move to me, a 9 hundred on chess.com, is bishop E4. This move is designed to free up whites F pawn to move and allow the king to escape. You have such a lead in development it's likely sacrificing the bishop is an acceptable move. Think about it, grand master gambit pieces all the time in order to win development. So consider king safety number 1 over any more material.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Ok so as I said in comments: It looks like white is computer-winning, but the position is very sharp. See for yourself on lichess stockfish. No idea if this is human-winning (ask Hauke Reddmann). But it appears white pretty much has to do as follows to win. It appears white has a few drawish options but even fewer winning options.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8 w kq - 0 1"]

1. Ra4 e5 2. Bxe5 d6 3. Bc3 Bxh3 4. Bxb7 Bd7 5. Re4+ Ne7 6. Bxa8 f5 7. Rf4 c6 8. Nxf5

```

White is now up 3 pawns.

**Justification**: It is too long to explain why white has to do these. Just see for yourself on stockfish. Make sure you let the depth go to like 20+. Maybe the above will even be wrong in 30+.

**Proposal 1**: Play this with castling for white . That's something a computer cannot take into account in analysis XD

**Proposal 2**: Play a chess960/chess870 version of this. I suspect black will always be human-winning in this because white in other setups will be human-losing even if computer-winning.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, chess-variants, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Have there been any blunders in resignation?
We know that despite what is shown in the movies and such, most chess games don't end by a "checkmate" move and oftentimes one side realizes that they are losing and resigns before the end. Now this begs the question: Has there been any serious games in the history of chess that the resignation was itself a blunder? Meaning that, the person who resigned had a chance of winning that they missed to spot at the time.

By serious game I mean a GM-level (or if there is none, a near-GM-level) match. To be more specific, let's exclude the timed games that the possibly-winning side has lost by timeout. Also there was some games that one side deliberately resigned due to some personal reasons. Those are also not the ones that I am looking for.

# Answer
The official source that people link to when this question comes up is Tim Krabbe's excellent blog post from more than 20 years ago now: The ultimate blunder. He collected every single game in the database (pre 1999) where someone resigned in a winning position and explained the possible reasons behind the resignation for each game as well.

Some very famous examples include:

```
[White "Von Popiel"]
[Black "Marco"]
[Title "Von Popiel-Marco, Monte Carlo 1902"]
[FEN "7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 0 1"]

```

"This is the earliest, the most famous, and still the clearest example of this blunder. Black resigned because he saw he was going to lose the Bd4. He could have won on the spot with 36...Bg1"

```
[White "Torre"]
[Black "Parker"]
[Title "Torre-Parker, New York 1924"]
[FEN "2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p3P/3K4 w - - 0 1"]

```

"The Mexican grandmaster did not see what he could do against Rc1+ and promotion, and resigned. With 1.Rd6! he could have saved the day, and even have won: e.g. 1...Rxd6 2.g8Q+ Kd7 (Rd8 3.Qxd8+ and 4.f7) 3.Qf7+ Kc6 4.Qe8+ Kb6 5.Qe3 Kc6 6.Qxc5+"
> 21 votes

# Answer
Sure. See Wiki: Resignation in won positions. Some examples:

1. Ignatz von Popiel vs. Georg Marco 1902
2. Gyorgy Negyesy vs. Karoly Honfi 1955
3. Raul Sanguineti vs. Miguel Najdorf
4. Victor Korchnoi vs. Geert van der Stricht

Even Karsten Müller in h endgame series talks about how GMs (or at least pros) have resigned in drawish(/winning?) positions.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, blunder, famous-games, resigning
---


title: How to recover from a blunder?

text:
# Question
Title: How to recover from a blunder?
I have been in a situation where I have not been paying attention and suddenly I move my queen to an unprotected square and it is taken. My initial thought is:

`Oh $*%!` :)

But if the blunder is mediocre or not devastating, how does one get into the mindset of remaining optimistic and still playing for the win? I have lost my queen before and still went on to win, but this is mainly due to the fact that my opponent does not know how to take advantage of the opportunity.

Many players who make a blunder, obviously depending on how big it is, might just give up in the game when they actually still have a chance to win or at least draw.

# Answer
After you blunder, it's incredibly common to blunder a second time over the next few moves. The most important thing you can do is to avoid this second blunder.

In order to do that, you should take a few deep breaths and even get up and walk around. Although it's nice if your opponent doesn't know that you blundered (i.e. your "blunder" could be part of a deep plan so far as your opponent knows...), it's far more important to remain calm and stay focused on the game.

After this initial "cool down", now it's time to re-evaluate the game. First, are you hopelessly lost at this point, or is the position still unclear? Perhaps you gave away your winning advantage, but you are still equal. If you are not lost, it is crucial that you maintain your focus and play accurately - you still have a chance to win or draw.

On the other hand, if your blunder was so egregious that your game is hopeless now, it's time to start thinking about "tricks". For example, if you hung a pawn or two for nothing, it's time to attack with abandon. If you can checkmate your opponent, it doesn't matter that you're losing an endgame. If you hung an entire piece, keep all other material on the board and maintain tension in the position. The goal here is to try to win tactically (win material back from your opponent or go for an attack). Another common theme is to introduce time pressure into the game. Either play tricky moves and force your opponent to get low on time, or let your own clock tick down to a minute or two and pray that your opponent blunders in *your* time pressure.

As a final note, when you are behind in a chess game, it's almost always good to trade pawns, but not pieces. The rationale is that in an endgame, each pawn is a potential queen for your opponent, while on the other hand, pawnless endgames with an extra piece are notoriously difficult to convert to a win.
> 26 votes

# Answer
"Let the one who hasn't blundered a major piece throw the first rock!" Who among us is impervious to this?

Again, there is no definitive answer to this question, just a list of things we could do to cope.

1. First, **Go Easy On Yourself**. Don't make it worse by mentally kicking yourself incessantly. I often try to apply the Dennis Prager "Flat Tire quota" in life. We are all going to have a certain number of 'flats' at really bad times, but that is life, and especially an amateur chess player's rite of passage.
2. The game is probably lost, but don't let your opponent capitalize on it psychologically, just keep playing at least for a bit. The loss of a piece might actually allow for unexpected moves to throw the opponent off. Try to salvage as best as you can.
3. What can you **take-away**? Can you add something to your mental checklist to minimize (not eliminate) your future blunders?
> 12 votes

# Answer
You just can hope your opponent makes a mistake too or finding an awesome move to re-gain some advantage. If you do, draw is possible at least. Moreover, more concentration will help you in this case.

In other case, your opponent has many chances to win.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I have had a situation similar to this plenty of times when I was learning. Once, during a tournament, I was having a bad day and was almost giving my pieces away, for free! And then, I spotted the golden opportunity.

If I could trick my opponent into taking my queen with his "for free", I could then forcibly mate him in 4 moves. Given how I had been playing, sacrificing another piece "for nothing" wasn't that suspicious. My opponent took the bait and I won the game with about 14 points in pieces down.

Beyond mind games, though, I don't really have an answer for you.
> 7 votes

# Answer
If the blunder has been noticed by the opponent and the opponent captures e.g. the lost pawn, do the following. Make a fresh evaluation of the position on the board. What plan can you have in the new position. What is the opponent's plan and how can you counter this. What are your best options during the next moves. Then, make a plan and execute it on the board.

Many opponents relax after getting a material advantage. They think that the game is in their pocket and they can slide their way to victory. You should put your both feet down and start working hard. Put up a fight. Start looking for what traps you can create. Perhaps "blunder" another pawn and then launch an attack on the king. The more and better you resist, the more frustrated the opponent will become. What is this? The opponent might think. Why doesn't the opponent just roll over and lose? Their fighting spirit has taken a break. You can use it to your advantage.
> 1 votes

# Answer
One of the best strategies I feel is when you blunder and find yourself in a weak or vulnerable position, take a deep breath, salvage anything you can and then launch an all out attack in any way possible. Go for the king, something an opponent on top will not expect and do it with gusto and almost reckless abandon. Dont cower! Heck, if your going to lose, go down fighting and give your opponent as much of a scare as possible!
> 0 votes

# Answer
Positive thinking is important. Learning to take a step back is good. But we can prepare for it too. And not in the "omg what if the worst happens" sort of way.

Even looking through my best games, I see where I made mistakes that could've given my opponent the initiative. It sort of ruins them. Even in good games where I did pretty well and beat a strong opponent, I made mistakes. Perhaps I even blundered before playing a strong attack.

With the advent of computers, we can see factual evidence and data that, yes, we make a lot of mistakes every game, and perhaps our "fatal" blunder was not so fatal and we had chances to win even later, but we just overlooked them, or a crushing-looking move ... wasn't.

I try to sit back and nod my head, maybe even run a tune through my head. Maybe a song about how the past is over. Just the chorus can work. Foreigner's "That Was Yesterday" or Eddie Money's "I Wanna Go Back." Or sometimes if I realize right away my position isn't so bad, Simple Minds's "Alive and Kicking." Nothing super-outright-motivational or run through a brick wall stuff, but one that works for you. And you don't have to worry about what the song really means or if you're bowdlerizing it. Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" is also a good choice.

But the main thing is, instead of using energy to beat myself up, I save it for awareness. We all say we want to, but having that computer data of how frequent blunders are in below-master level play helps, and framing it as what to focus on vs. what to avoid helps a lot.

What did my opponent miss? What might they miss? Did losing material free my position unexpectedly?

You can't expect your opponent to slip up. But give them that chance. They might get frustrated you started playing better. Oh -- and study your games for when opponents came back from a blunder. That hurts, but somehow, those are easier to remember when you need to pull a position out of the fire later.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, psychology, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Strategy to win with a king and queen against a king and pawn about to promote?
I've been doing puzzles on a site and like to continue practicing against the computer. In many of the puzzles I end up with a situation like this where I was able to promote my black pawn to a queen one move ahead of white and keep the king in check so the pawn doesn't promote:

```
[FEN "5K2/4P3/4q3/8/8/4k3/8/8 b - - 20 11"]

```

As Black, is it possible to force a checkmate in this situation? My thought is that I need to either A) fork the king and pawn in such a way that the king is forced to move away so I can take the pawn without being captured or B) force the king in front of the pawn, so that I have a free move to get the black king closer. I can't seem to find a way to reliably do it.

I was able to do it in this game but sometimes I end up just repeating moves until I get a draw by repetition. It seems like the position on move 5 is a key one, the king either has to move to e8 under the pawn which allows me to move the king, or g7 as in this game, which allows me to move to e6 on top of the pawn, forcing kf8 to protect the pawn, allowing qf6+ which forces the king under the pawn allowing me to move the king.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/3K4/4P3/8/8/8/5k2/4q3 w - - 0 1"]

1. e7 Qd2+ 2. Kc7 Qa5+ 3. Kd7 Qd5+ 4. Ke8 Ke3 5. Kf8 Qf5+ 6. Kg7 Qe6 7. Kf8 Qf6+
8. Ke8 Kd4 9. Kd7 Qf5+ 10. Kd8 Qg5 11. Ke8 Qg8+ 12. Kd7 Qf7 13. Kd8 Qd5+ 14. Kc7
Qe6 15. Kd8 Qd6+ 16. Ke8 Ke5 17. Kf7 Qf6+ 18. Ke8 Ke6 19. Kd8 Qxe7+ 20. Kc8 Kd6
21. Kb8 Kc6 22. Kc8 Qc7# 0-1

```

I'm looking for some kind of understandable general strategy. Is it to keep the queen checking on ranks 5 and 6 until one of these positions comes up?

# Answer
> 10 votes
I fully cover this endgame in my advanced endgame study on lichess if you're interested for full details. Start on chapter 9 and progress through chapter 15 if you only care about the queen vs pawn endgames.

Essentially, there are several key positions that you should memorize in order to make progress. One of them is how to keep checking the opponent king until they are forced to block their own pawn (allowing you for one move to bring your king closer to the action). Your technique in the example you show is not the absolute most effective, but definitely good enough to convert! The next key position is how to create stalemate traps if the pawn is on the a or h file. The final key position is how to create stalemate traps if the pawn is on the c or f file. Due to those stalemate traps, the game should be drawn if the pawn is on a bishop or rook file (unless your king is already active enough that you can create mating threats). The game should otherwise be winning for the player with the queen.

# Answer
> 4 votes
**1**) If the king or the queen has arrived to the promotion square it is won.

---

**2**) If both king and pawn have reached 7th rank, so the queen can't move to the promotion square (same in 6th range if it is the weak side to move), the method is to force the king with queen checks to move to the promotion square. Then you can move your king in the pawn direction.

```
[FEN "8/3pk3/8/8/8/8/8/3Q3K w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe2+ Kf8 2. Qf3+ Ke7 3. Qe4+ Kf8 4. Qf5+ Ke7 5. Qe5+ Kf8 6. Qd6+ Ke8 7. Qe6+ Kd8 8. Kg2 Kc8 9. Qc6+ Kd8 10. Kf3 Ke8 11. Qe6+ Kd8 12. Ke4 Kc8 13. Qc6+ Kd8 14. Kd5 Ke8 15. Qe6+ Kd8 16. Kd6 Kc8 17. Qxd7+ 1-0

```

---

**3**) If the pawn in 7th rank is the rook pawn or the bishop pawn, it is draw:

---

**3a**) In the rook pawn case, you just move king from h8 to g8 and from h8 to g8-g7 (or a1 to b1-b2, a8 to b8-b7, h1 to g1-g2) and the queen is checking g8 king in g file, so when the king moves to h8, the king can't approach as it would be stalemate.

```
[FEN "8/6kp/8/8/8/8/8/3Q3K w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg4+ Kh8 {White cannot aproach his king because it would be stalemate} 2. Qh5 Kg8 3. Qg6+ Kh8 {no matter what the queen do, there is no way} 1/2-1/2

```

---

**3b**) If it is the bishop pawn, when the pawn is in f7, the king in g8 and the queen ckechs in g6, you can move to h8, because, if the queen captures, it is stalemate too.

```
[FEN "8/5pk1/8/8/8/8/8/3Q3K w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg4+ Kh8 2. Qh5+ Kg8 3. Qg6+ Kh8 4. Qh6+ Kg8 5. Qg6+ Kh8 6. Qxf7 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
When your opponent does not threaten to promote, use that move to bring your king closer. For instance, on move 11 White is not threatening anything, so you don't need to give another check. The rest was played more or less correctly: you need to force the enemy king in front of his pawn so you can use the next turn to move your own king

# Answer
> 0 votes
The side with the Queen should win in every case except that of bishop pawns (c or f file). (Or, as always, rook pawns.)

The basic theory is you either double-attack the King and pawn or pin the pawn to the King until the King is force to move in front of the pawn, to block its advance, at which point you bring your King one step closer to the action. Eventually the King is close enough to also attack the pawn, winning the pawn and eventually forcing mate.

The reason this fails with c- and f-pawns is stalemate. The King always stays to the short side of the board from the pawn, and when faced with a choice of having to block the pawn's advance or lose it chooses to lose it by stepping to the corner square, when capturing the pawn with the Queen is stalemate.

---
Tags: checkmate, pawn-promotion
---


title: King's Indian Attack - "pet lines"

text:
# Question
Title: King's Indian Attack - "pet lines"
I am reading about the King's Indian Attack (aka Barcza System), and article says that this system is "rarely used at the highest levels except to avoid certain pet lines". I wonder what are those lines, and if there is some important reason why the KIA is "rarely used"?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Those lines can be *any* opening variation; suppose player A has a bad record with White against player B, being defeated in some main lines which are hard to avoid otherwise. Player A may then opt to choose the King's Indian Attack, to avoid said lines.

As for why it's rarely used at top level: it is relatively easy with Black to get a playable position with even chances. White's aim is to get an advantage out of the opening, and the King's Indian Attack is not promising enough.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In his early days, Fischer would use it to avoid the French Defense, for example. It's not uncommon for e4 players to transpose into it in the face of any of the half-open defenses (French, Sicilian, Caro-Kan, etc.) they hadn't yet found a line they wanted to trust. Or for d4 players to steer away from lines they're uncomfortable playing (KIA-to-Catalan transitions come to mind in those cases).

Scenario: The variation I usually play against the French has suddenly developed a leak -- someone recently played a move against me I hadn't seen before and I haven't had the time or the ability to "solve" that move. I might then transpose (after 1. e4 e6) into a KIA, essentially "bailing out" of a situation I wasn't comfortable with to one I'm more comfortable with. This particular scenario doesn't typically happen in top-level chess, as those players are surprised less frequently, and typically have a "fallback" opening prepared in the case of their main weapon having issues.

---
Tags: opening, terminology, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: King's Gambit Quaade Variation forces a piece sac or worse
From this position King's Gambit Quaade Variation,

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/ppp2p1p/3p4/6p1/4Pp2/2N2N2/PPPP2PP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]

```

If white plays 1. d4 then 1... g4 2. Bxf4 gxf3 3. Qxf3 is forced. If white tries to prevent that then 1. g3 g4 2. Nh4 Be7 is bad for white which is sadly the book's only suggestion. What should white do about this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
"What should White do about this?"

In the King's Gambit, the answer to this question is typically, "Attack!"

This is an offshoot of the Quaade, rather than the Quaade proper, coming from the Fischer defense (4. ... d6) move order. The idea behind ...d6 is to prevent Ne5. So White determines to just go ahead and ignore the threats and sacrifice a piece for even more impressive development. For example, after Qf3 above, White seems ready to play 0-0-0 and push e5 to blow open the center with Black's king stuck in it. Every one of White's remaining development moves comes with solid threats.

It's been a while since I've been in this section of the jungle, but as I recall White's threats are strong enough to recover the piece, coming out perhaps still a pawn down. But the game is complicated, and seems harder for Black to play than White, which means time to dust off the old saw, "good practical chances."

I think the main point in learning openings like the King's Gambit is to learn how to convert material into time, and back again. (A King's Gambiteer doesn't care overmuch for pawns or pieces when the King is in their sights.) Sacrificing the f3 Knight for development and open lines is a common theme; it occurs in the Rice and Muzio gambits as well. (True in the Rice the Knight is sacrificed on e5, not f3, but the idea is similar. Muzio has White playing Bc4 instead of Nc3, after which Black usually opts out of ...g4 by playing Bg7, giving you an idea of the nightmarish complications that would need to be solved over the board with a clock ticking.)

The Shaw book was always problematic to me. It's edited down from his Magnum Opus on the KG (IIRC, it was a huge multi-volume set) and walking the line between useful and insufficient while condensing that material down is a difficult task that I'm not sure was always successful. Since you're going through this as a learning exercise, I'm just going to suggest a few ideas for you to check out on your own; exploring all the resources in the position will help you to build your own understanding of what's going on and how it all fits together.

1. The heritage from the Fischer Defense suggests Ng1 as an alternative to Bxf4 above. The difference between that position and the mainline Fischer is White's Nc3 instead of h4, and that might prove to be an improvement for White over the "normal" Fischer lines. The main idea with that is White will take a step back and now try to exploit the weakness of Black's advanced pawns. The loss of a tempo is merely incidental, White still has a development advantage, since Black has wasted so much time moving pawns.
2. If you're feeling a mite more adventurous, you could substitute Bc4 for d4, then if Black would continue with the idea of ... g5, you could examine 0-0 (once again the Muzio can serve for inspiration). Doubling Q and R on a file facing two isolated pawns right next to the Black King (after ...gxf3 and Qxf3) is an idea worth exploring. These positions can get complex, but you need to overcome your reflex to move or protect attacked pieces, and realize your opponent is giving you two free moves (one by attacking the piece, and another by taking it) so look for how you can make the most of it. An axiom is three moves are worth a pawn; in that position White is up more moves than that.
3. Following Shaw's line (which could very well be best) my own first instinct in the position after Qxf3 would be to examine how quickly White could make the pawn break e5 operational. I think at a minimum 0-0-0 is required first, but that might be all. The idea of White blowing open the center while Black's King is still there (and, just for added spice, the Black queen is staring down at a protected White Rook sitting on d1) is captivating. After the break, stir in the light squared Bishop heading for either c4 or b5, and the other rook coming to e1 or f1, and things are getting a little warm on Black's side of the board. (Remember, the B on f4 can move, unveiling an attack from the White queen on f6/7. Paired with a B on c4 or a R on f1, that in itself could be worth a Queen or Rook in some lines.)

I'm not going to promise you a machine won't win in these lines as Black. Stockfish and LeelaZero played a couple of these lines if you get curious about that (Alexander Morozevich did as well). But the point is you're not playing machines; you're playing humans. If you don't end up playing the King's Gambit, the knowledge gained will still be useful. I think every improving player should spend some time learning about gambits; after all, you can't forestall threats if you don't understand how they are created. World Champion Tigran Petrosian, one of the most solid and subtle positional players we've ever seen, was also one of the best tacticians of his day.

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


# Question
Title: Running out of time before playing a forced move that would draw the game
What happens if a player runs out of time **before** playing a forced move that would end in a draw? I suspect it is a loss, but it would be fair to be a draw.

```
7K/6P1/8/8/8/8/1k4p1/8 b - - 0 1

1... g1=Q 2. g8=Q Qxg8+

```

In the example above, White is to play and draw the game. But they run out of time before playing the forced move 3. Kxg8.

I was in this exact same situation, but I was able to play the move in the last second, drawing the game, so I got curious about what would happen if I didn't.

# Answer
> 35 votes
In the final position where white's only legal move is Kxg8 leaving bare kings the position is a draw if white's flag falls before playing the move. The FIDE Laws of Chess are quite explicit:

> 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. **However, 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.**

# Answer
> 22 votes
**Draw by dead position**

Once Black plays 2...Qxg8 the game is a draw. At once, and whatever the clock situation. White doesn't even have to play 3.Kxg8 - it is irrelevant, but actually s/he shouldn't do it because the game is already over.

Indeed, article 5.2.2 of Fide Chess Rules says:

> The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

This is absolutely the case here : no sequence of legal moves can lead to checkmate for either player after 2...Qxg8.

Admittedly, if you play **chess online**, this rule is not implemented on most platforms, so you would have to play 3.Kxg8, or you may even receive an undeserved loss if you get flagged before you manage to play it. Under Fide Rules however, the game is drawn.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This brings into the discussion the philosophical question of whether clock management is a legitimate part of tournament chess. If you think it is, then no, it wouldn't be fair to make it a draw if the flag falls before the move is made, because the player failed to manage their time properly. In essence, the player sacrificed time to achieve the potentially drawn position, and bemoaning the fact time ran out before it could be achieved is exactly the same as saying "It's not fair I should lose simply because I ran out of pawns!"

Alternatively, if time management is not a legitimate concern for tournament chess, then yes, it's unfair.

People who take the first position dislike both the delay and the incremental clock controls. People who take the latter position need to answer the question "Then why are the clocks there in the first place?" I'll let you decide which camp you're in. It's an imperfect world; there's no perfect answer to this problem.

---
Tags: rules, fide, draw, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: Does the opening 1. a4 a5 improve White's position? (a bit silly)
*Thou shalt not play chess in your sleep as it happened to me this night, Corona caused deprival symptoms or not. Already arriving with German Bahn was a nightmare (now that was realistic), but somehow the chess rules were altered against me. I angrily resigned and woke up immediately.*

Obviously no Grandmaster will open with a4 against me, neither me answering a5, but I'm still curious.

How do these two innocent looking moves alter the assessment of the initial position?

* I claim that they are a considerable advantage for White (just for example, almost all Sicilian systems want a6) but I am the opposite of an opening expert.
* Possibly the advantage is merely reducing the sensible systems of Black: the change in Stockfish's position value is not significant.

Thus also please back up your answer with computer help.

# Answer
The inclusion of 1.a4 a5 doesn't alter much the evaluation of the position, but it will affect the choice of openings. Both sides' choices are reduced because the queenside is less flexible.

Probably White will want to play 2.e4 and not 2.d4.

Indeed, most openings after 1.d4 include a rapid c2-c4 to fight for the center, but here that move would come with a huge weakening of b4. If Black plays a classical **Queen's Gambit** or a **Nimzo/Bogo-Indian** system against **2.d4**, the pin with ...Bb4 will be a serious issue; White will lack the ressource a2-a3 and all chances to fight for the initiative.

However, 2.d4 remains possible if instead of c2-c4 White plays systems with c2-c3, a move that correlates much better with a4. The **London** System and the **Torre** attack are totally legitimate choices after 1.a4 a5, and Black should choose carefully how to adapt to the extra queenside pawns moves. A kingside's fianchetto seems logical to me.

For similar reasons, the **English Opening** (2.d4, or 2.Nf3 with a quick c2-c4) shouldn't be played with White's pawn on a4.

**2.e4** exploits the fact that squares c4 and b5 are more secure than usual for the Bf1. Black should adapt his response to the circumstances :

The **Sicilian** 2...c5?! is very unattractive : after White opens the center with 3.Nf3 and 4.d4 (4.Bb5 is reasonnable too but less ambitious), Black will lack his usual queenside play, and White can exploit the b5 hole. **Svechnikovs** and **Najdorfs** are ruled out altogether, the Dragon's queenside counterplay is hampered; **Hedgehogs**, **Scheveningen** and **Paulsens** might be the lesser evil but they are still unattractive with holes on the queenside's light squares.

1...e5 might not be the smartest either, unless you follow up with a Petroff. The inclusion of a4/a5 might slightly help White in the **Italian**, but it certainly does hurt Black in the **Ruy Lopez**. The **Philidor** is even more passive than usual with a closed queenside. In case of a **Petroff**, however, it is not obvious to me who is favored by the inclusion of a4/a5. There will be positional subtelties for sure, but it does seem like a decent choice for Black, and the best after 2.e4 e5.

Against **Pirc/Modern** White can play solid short castle systems and Black is deprived of his active ressource with ...b5. In the **Scandinavian** 4...Qa5 is just impossible and even after 4...Qd6 queenside castling will be riskier than usual. In the **Alekhine** defense, however, the pawn moves on the a-file help Black since kicking Nd5 with c2-c4 would only give it a superb outpost on b4.

Black most thematic choice, however, will be a light-squares strategy, the **Caro-Kann** or the **French**. ...Bb4 without fearing a2-a3 is a huge asset in the fight for the e4-square. After 1.a4 a5 2.e4 e6, I would not be surprised to see White prefer slow systems like the KIA (3.d3, then Nf3, g3 and eventually c3), or the advance variation 3.d4 d5 4.e5, inducing a weakening with ...c5 : 4...c5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5.

The bottom line in every opening seems to be: White must choose variations that include c2-c3 or Bb5/Nb5 rather than lines with c2-c4. Black must prefer fight in the center over openings that count on queenside counterplay with ...c5 and/or ...b5. Quite logical.

**TL;DR :**

I believe that in chess with 1.a4 a5 included, the evaluation of the starting position wouldn't change much but the choice of openings would. The most relevant would become the London System, the French, the Petroff, the Caro-Kann or the Alekhine defense. Others, like Queen's Gambits, and Sicilians would almost disappear.

What if instead of Chess960 we would roll a dice to decide include either a4/a5, or a3/a6, or h4/h5, or h3/h6, or nothing, at the beginning of each game ? With only 5 starting positions, it would not make opening theory disappear, but it would force each player to play a widest variety of openings...
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there a resource for chess puzzles that are altered just enough to discourage easy engine use to solve?
I'm hosting a chess night and would like to post a few wallchart puzzles but would like to discourage folks from secretly whipping out their phone's chess app/engine and scoring points unfairly.

For example, something like this *every-Russian-schoolboy-knows* endgame breakthrough position here with white to move where removing the Kings renders the position **invalid/illegal** by most engines, yet still has enough context to give a person a visualization/calculation challenge if they've not seen it before.

# Answer
> 12 votes
You're not going to be able to do this if your attendees actually want to cheat. If you give me a position without kings, I can simply edit the chessvision analysis board by putting a king somewhere I think is reasonable and get around your system.

However, if instead of preventing them from cheating, you encourage everyone to work together in teams on positions (and make sure the puzzles aren't too hard so that frustrated players will seek to quit the charade and bust out an engine), you're likely to make a better environment for everyone. Hopefully you don't have a big prize to the winner (or winning team) as well. For instance, I would suggest something non-monetary. If the only thing someone is likely to get out of the puzzle night is the satisfaction of a job well done, then nobody is likely to cheat.

---
Tags: engines, puzzles
---