# Question
Title: Standard for current position evaluation via UCIs
I am trying to interact with stockfish via UCI to get a current evaluation of the board. When you do a simple

```
position startpos
go depth 10

```

The board will helpfully return

```
...[previous depths]

info depth 10 seldepth 11 multipv 1 score cp 29 nodes 1463 nps 731500 tbhits 0 time 2 pv e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5c6 d7c6 e1g1 c8g4 d2d3
bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e5

```

From this I can see that the evaluation for the next move is cp29 and this is corroborated by a previous question. However, looking at another question, it seems like the initial question is technically wrong since the evaluation is for the position that will be resulted from the next best move, rather than the score for a current position. The second question also explains a way to get the technically correct evaluation for the current position.

My questions are

* What score is commonly outputted by UIs that interact with stockfish? Do other UIs also go back in history to get a score when given a position?
* Is it correct that the score I get is the score for the next move when I use the standard `go whatever` notation?
* Is there anyway to get the current score without going back in game history and force stockfish to calculate scores for all those other positions as explained in the second SE question? This forces me to fake a move backwards in time if I am using a FEN and don't know the game history for instance which doesn't seem like the right thing to do, nor it should be necessary.

# Answer
Game theoretically the evaluation of the current position is equal to the evaluation of the position after the optimal move is played, since the evaluation of a position is defined as the result with optimal play from both sides. So although the engine technically speaking prints the score of the position after the (supposedly) best move, it at the same time gives the score for the current position, since they are identical.

If you want to get the static evaluation of a position without any search, you can use the `eval` command in stockfish, which returns something like:

```
     Term    |    White    |    Black    |    Total
             |   MG    EG  |   MG    EG  |   MG    EG
 ------------+-------------+-------------+------------
    Material |  ----  ---- |  ----  ---- |  0.00  0.00
   Imbalance |  ----  ---- |  ----  ---- |  0.00  0.00
       Pawns |  0.34 -0.08 |  0.34 -0.08 |  0.00  0.00
     Knights |  0.00 -0.16 |  0.00 -0.16 |  0.00  0.00
     Bishops | -0.04 -0.35 | -0.04 -0.35 |  0.00  0.00
       Rooks | -0.22 -0.02 | -0.22 -0.02 |  0.00  0.00
      Queens |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00
    Mobility | -0.92 -1.08 | -0.92 -1.08 |  0.00  0.00
 King safety |  0.70 -0.08 |  0.70 -0.08 |  0.00  0.00
     Threats |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00
      Passed |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00 |  0.00  0.00
       Space |  0.60  0.00 |  0.60  0.00 |  0.00  0.00
  Initiative |  ----  ---- |  ----  ---- |  0.00  0.00
 ------------+-------------+-------------+------------
       Total |  ----  ---- |  ----  ---- |  0.00  0.00

Total evaluation: 0.13 (white side)

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, uci
---


title: Traxler Counter Attack

text:
# Question
Title: Traxler Counter Attack
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kf1 Qe7

1) Chess.com computer at Level 10 plays 5. Nxf7. Theory recommends 5. Bxf7. Which line to follow in my game in tournaments? Please advice as I am confused now.

2) After analyzing the game with computer of chess.com it suggests 4. ... Bc5 as Blunder. The best move suggested by it is 4. ... d5. Again confused as I know that this theory is Traxler Counter Attack and another is going for main line of Two Knights Defense. Kindly give your valuable suggestion. I played this game just now with play computer option of chess.com without login but as a guest. Waiting for your valuable answers. Thanks in advance

# Answer
Bxf7+ is definitely the way to go in practice in my opinion. I have done quite a lot of analysis with stockfish on Nxf7 and am not at all sure it is better for white despite the computer evaluation early on.

Bxf7+ almost certainly is a lot better for white and is a lot simpler to learn which is important for a repertoire choice against an unusual line (most people won't have the guts to play Traxler!)
> 3 votes

# Answer
As previously suggested by Hamish, Bxf7 instead of Nxf7 is a safe way for white to gain an edge, though Nxf7 is unsound anyways.

In my opinion, if you want a swashbuckling defense against the fried liver,

e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 **Nxe4!?**

This move is much less known than traxler counter gambit and full of tricks. For example, if

Nxf7, black is equal, if not better(Nxf7 wins for white in the traxler (see Saglione vs Moreno carretero or any chess engine)). Nxf7 Qh4 O-O(best move is Qe2, very difficult to find because it invites Nd4) Bc5 (black is already winning) Nxh8 Nxf2 .... and that's just one of the lines.

But both of these lines are UNSOUND to Bxf7, so really you should play d5. e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Na5 Bb5+ c6 and I'll let you investigate yourself, but this line is the reason why strong players seldom play Ng5.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, traxler-counter-attack
---


# Question
Title: Help! I cannot understand this game’s notations!
I was surfing across Tim Krabbe’s website, as I usually do on occasion, and I found his article DE KOEWEITSE ONSTERFELIJKE," a very interesting tidbit. A game of 34 moves is mentioned in the last paragraph and notations for all of the moves are given. However, I do not understand them at all. There are strange letters for the pieces, such as P T, and D. K is understandable as the King. I suspect that P is for pawn.

Can anyone please explain to me what these symbols mean, and tell me what kind of notation variation that this is? A link to a site that explains it, such as its history, would also be helpful to have. I would also like it if you could put the game in the replayer so that I may better understand the notation.

# Answer
> 10 votes
> Can anyone please explain to me what these symbols mean?

These are the abbreviations for the pieces in Dutch. I believe they are almost the same as the German ones (with the exception of the knight = Springer (jumper) in German and = paard (horse) in Dutch (Pferd = horse in German), which are -

T = Turm (= Castle, Rook)
P = Pferd (= Horse, Knight)
L = Laufer (= Runner, Bishop)
K = Koenig (= King, King)
D = Dame (= Queen, Queen)

> I would also like it if you could put the game in the replayer so that I may better understand the notation.

```
[fen ""]

1.g4 e5 2.Nh3 Ba3 3.bxa3 h5 4. Bb2 hxg4 5. Bc3 Rh4 6. Bd4 exd4 7. Nc3 dxc3 8. dxc3 g3 9. Qd3 Rb4 10. Nf4 g5 11. h4 f5 12. h5 d5 13. h6 Bd7 14. h7 g2 15. h8=B g1=R!! 16. Bd4 Ba4 17. Rh4 Rg3 18. Bg2 gxf4 19. Be3 fxe3 20. Be4 fxe4 21. fxe3 exd3 22. exd3 c5 23. Rc4 dxc4 24. dxc4 b5!! 25. cxb4 Qa5 26. cxb5 Na6 27. bxa5 O-O-O!! 28. bxa6 Rd4 29. exd4 Rb3 30. cxb3 Ne7 31. bxa4 Nd5 32. dxc5 Nb6 33. cxb6 Kb8 34. bxa7 Ka8

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
Looks like it's just algebraic notation using Dutch as the language, most likely given the author's nationality and that the rest of the article looks like Dutch - not the whole of the world speaks English! You can translate it yourself using the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic\_notation\_(chess)

---
Tags: learning, notation
---


# Question
Title: Can you identify the design of these chess pieces?
I was wondering if anyone could identify the name of this chess piece design, or possibly the name of its designer? It's obviously not the standard Staunton set.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Although it is not exact match, the style of your set aligns with what is called the St. George style. Compare your set to this image from the Staunton chess set Wikipedia. An article on chess-museum.com provides more information about this style.

In comparison to your image, the kings, bishops, queens and pawns builds are extremely similar. The rooks and knights are not exact nor are the dimensions the same. I suspect that you have either a variation or a modernized design of the St. George style. Perhaps it is a mesh with the Staunton style.

---
Tags: pieces, identify-this
---


# Question
Title: Fastest possible checkmate by en passant
En passant is somewhat of a rare move in chess. Checkmating by en passant, however, is an even rarer occurrence. But suppose both sides had the same goal to help cause a checkmate to their opponent via en passant.

What is the minimum amount of moves needed by both White and Black to give checkmate by en passant?

# Answer
> 15 votes
The same question has also been discussed and answered in the lichess forum, and as mentioned by others already, the answer is **11 half-moves for white** and **12 half-moves for black**. You might find some interesting examples and additional info there. Not knowing that this problem had already been solved before, I did a brute-force proof back then (see my post in the aforementioned thread), since that is feasible for 10-12 ply, i.e., disproving the existence of a solution up to 10 ply by an exhaustive search and finding solutions with 11 and 12 ply, respectively.

Here are displays for said games.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. e5 g5 3. Nc3 Nh6 4. Qh5 Ke7 5. Ne4 f5 6. exf6#

```

---

```
[FEN ""]

1. f3 e5 2. Kf2 Qf6 3. Kg3 h5 4. h3 h4+ 5. Kh2 Qxf3 6. g4 hxg3#

```

# Answer
> 16 votes
According to this page the shortest known mate by *en passant* capture is in 5.5 moves (that is, White mates on move 6), and was published by Benko in *Chess Live & Review* in 1976:

```
[Title "Pal Benko's 5.5 move e.p. helpmate"]
[Fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. g4 d6 4. g5 Kd7 5. Bh3+ f5 6. gxf6#

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
Thanks for the subject! A natural, fun extension of the question is to ask what is the shortest **Unique Proof Game** ending in e.p. checkmate. The idea with one of these is you are given just the end state diagram, and the total number of moves, and you must figure out the unique game leading to that point.

I think the current record holder is the following:

```

[title "Gerd Wilts & Norbert Geissler - RML - 05/1996"]
[fen ""]
[startply "14"]

1. f4 e5 2. Kf2 Qh4+ 3. Kf3 Qf2+ 4. Kg4 h5+ 5. Kh3 h4 6. e4 d5+ 7. g4 hxg3ep# *

```

Position after Black's 7th move.

I honestly don't know if this is the best possible: maybe there is another position with a shorter unique proof game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are four kinds of en passant checkmates.

1. The pawn moves, checking the king itself.
2. The pawn moves, checking the king, while also allowing another piece to check as well. This is a double check.
3. The pawn moves, not checking the king, as to allow another piece to check the king. This is a discovered check.
4. The pawn moves, not checking the king itself, as to allow two other pieces to check the king. This is a double discovered check.

Here are the fastest possible games for each category. Reversing each game, adding on a ply, provides for Black's fastest mates. These are sourced from the same Lichess forum linked in the accepted answer.

```
[Title "Type #1"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 f5 2. exf5 Kf7 3. Qg4 h6 4. b3 Qe8 5. Bb2 g5 6. fxg6#

```

---

```
[Title "Type #2"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. d5 Kd7 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. Bg5 Qe8 6. h3 e5 7. dxe6#

```

---

```
[Title "Type #3"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. g4 Nc6 3. g5 d6 4. Qh5 Kd7 5. Bh3+ f5 6. gxf6#

```

---

```
[Title "Type #4"]
[FEN ""]

1. c3 f5 2. h4 Kf7 3. Qb3+ Kg6 4. Qf7+ Kh6 5. h5 a6 6. d4+ g5 7. hxg6#

```

---
Tags: problems, checkmate, records, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: Is 9...Nxe5 recommended in this line of the Short Variation of the Advance Caro-Kann?
This question relates to the following possible continuation of the Short Variation of the Advance Caro-Kann:

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.O-O Nc6 7.c3 Bg6 8.a3 cxd4 9.Nxd4

```

This arose in an opening video by an Indian GM, and he said `9.Nxd4` was a poor move because white's `f4` and `g4` push lose its venom. I was wondering if it simply drops a pawn.

**Question**: Is `9...Nxe5` recommended here?

Stockfish recommends it, but that's different to being practically playable by humans. Stockfish plays:

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.O-O Nc6 7.c3 Bg6 8.a3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Bd6 (10...Nc6 11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Bb5 Rc8 13.c4 Nf6 14.Nc3 a6) (10...Nd7 11.Nb5 e5 12.Qxd5 exf4 13.Qxb7 Rc8 14.Re1 Bc5 15. b4 Ne7 16.bxc5 Nxc5 17.Qxa7 O-O) 11.Bb5+ Kf8 12.Re1 Nc4 13.Bxd6 Nxd6

```

Some of these lines are sharp, and may not be easily playable by humans. Perhaps there's a reasonable alternative here.

# Answer
I think when Stockfish is saying +1 for black you kind of have to go for it - yes white gets a flurry of initiative but you can't avoid mess in every game. It's hard for humans to play messy positions but it will be hard for your opponent too.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I kind of disagree with the previous answer, as computers often get confused with long-term complications coming from the opening.

In my view, the position is fine, but far from comfortable. However, when playing the Caro-Kann, Black has to accept that this type of positions will arise, and it should master how to defend them accordingly.

In short, analyse it deeper, get ready and go for it!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Making an inferior move to get out of threefold repetition?
Let's say it's the last day of a tournament and white needs to win a game in order to advance to the next stage or something like that. Unfortunately, he reaches a position where there is no way to progress without making things worse somehow, and so he begins repeating the same position.

However, he doesn't want to claim a draw since it would ruin the tournament for him. Black realizes what's going on and also refuses to claim a draw, hoping that eventually white will give in and make an inferior move in an attempt to win.

Would black's behavior be considered unsporting in such a situation? Has something like this happened in a tournament before? Could this theoretically go on forever in a game with time increment?

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Could this theoretically go on forever in a game with time increment?

No, because the arbiter would step in and declare the game drawn after the fifth repetition of the position.

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess -

> 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
> 9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

and -

> 9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
> 9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
> 9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think this is unsporting, unless it lasts so long that it delays the tournament. White has the option of claiming a draw, and he can do so at any time. White also has the option of playing an inferior move and trying to win at all costs. Repeating the position multiple times does nothing but delay this choice.

> Has something like this happened in a tournament before?

Multiple repetition without a draw happened in one of the first strong tournaments! I don't know which round this game was played in, but as you can see, both players repeat the position many times, at multiple points in the game - and then one of them eventually plays another move. Look at what happens around moves 17, 33, and 86.

```
[Event "Baden-Baden"]
[Date "1870.??.??"]
[White "Neumann, G"]
[Black "Steinitz, W"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 f5 2.e4 2...fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.Bxf6 exf6 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 Qb6 8.Qe2+ Kf7 9.O-O-O Na6 10.Qf3 g6 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.Kb1 h5 13.h3 h4 14.N3e2 Nxd3 15.Rxd3 Bf5 16.Rb3 Qc7 17.Nf4 Be4 18.Qg4 Bf5 19.Qf3 Be4 20.Qg4 Bf5 21.Qf3 Be4 22.Qg4 Bf5 23.Qf3 Be4 24.Qg4 Bf5 25.Qf3 Be4 26.Qg4 Bf5 27.Qf3 Be4 28.Qg4 Bf5 29.Qf3 Bd6 30.Nge2 a5 31.Rg1 a4 32.Re3 Rae8 33.g3 Be4 34.Qg4 Bf5 35.Qf3 Be4 36.Qg4 Bf5 37.Qf3 Be4 38.Qg4 Bf5 39.Qf3 Be4 40.Qg4 Bf5 41.Rxe8 Rxe8 42.Qf3 Qa5 43.Kc1 Qa6 44.Nc3 b5 45.g4 Bc8 46.Nd1 b4 47.Ne3 b3 48.a3 bxc2 49.g5 f5 50.Nxc2 Qc4 51.Ng2 Re2 52.Ne1 f4 53.Kd1 Re4 54.Ng2 Qb3 55.Qc3 Qxc3 56.bxc3 Bxh3 57.f3 Re8 58.Nxh4 Rh8 59.Ng2 Rh5 60.Nge1 Bf5 61.Nb4 Bd7 62.Rg2 Ke6 63.Ned3 Kf5 64.Nb2 Rh1+ 65.Kc2 Ra1 66.Nxa4 Rxa3 67.Nc5 Bxc5 68.dxc5 d4 69.cxd4 Rxf3 70.d5 Rg3 71.Rf2 f3 72.dxc6 Be6 73.Kd2 Ke4 74.Rf1 Rg2+ 75.Kc3 Re2 76.c7 Re3+ 77.Kd2 Re2+ 78.Kd1 Bb3+ 79.Kc1 Be6 80.Nc2 Bc8 81.Kd1 Bg4 82.c6 Kf4 83.Nd4 Re8 84.Kd2 Rc8 85.Kd3 Kg3 86.Rg1+ Kf4 87.Rf1 Kg3 88.Rg1+ Kf4 89.Rf1 Kg3 90.Rg1+ Kf4 91.Rf1 Kg3 92.Rg1+ Kf4 93.Rf1 Kg3 94.Rg1+ Kf4 95.Rf1 Kg3 96.Rg1+ Kf4 97.Rf1 Kg3 98.Rg1+ Kf4 99.Rf1 Kg3 100.Rg1+ Kf4 101.Rf1 Re8 102.Kc4 Kg3 103.Nxf3 Bxf3 104.Rxf3+ Kxf3 105.Kd5 Ra8 106.Ke5 Ke3 107.Kf6 Rc8 108.Kxg6 Kf4 109.Kf6 Rxc7 110.g6 Rxc6+ 111.Kf7 Kf5 112.g7 Rc7+ 113.Kf8 Kf6 114.g8=N+ Ke6 115.Nh6 Rh7 116.Ng4 Rh4 117.Ne3 Re4 118.Nd1 Rf4+ 119.Kg7 Rf3 120.Kg6 Ke5 121.Kg5 Kd4 122.Kg4 Rf1 123.Nb2 Rb1 124.Na4 Rb4 0-1

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Though your question is perhaps a minor question in that the circumstance it describes seldom arises, it is nevertheless a significant question in the philosophy of game rules. At least two schools of thought exist:

1. One school holds that the game is for the two players to play. If neither player wants a draw, there would seem to be no reason the game should not continue until the players tire of it.
2. Another school however holds alternately that, besides the two players, third persons too might have a legitimate interest in seeing the game come to an eventual conclusion.

The first school is self-explanatory but the second school admits a follow-up question: insofar as the only person who stands in a position to represent third persons is the arbiter or tournament director, should the arbiter or director act at discretion or according to a nondiscretionary rule?

The USCF empowers—or burdens (depending on your perspective; see USCF rule 14K)—the director to act at discretion. Readers are not required to care what the USCF does, of course, but I mention the USCF in counterexample to the FIDE, which terminates the game, as Brian has explained, according to a nondiscretionary rule.

Your question gives probably the best illustration I have met of the point.

Besides in a tournament, a similar question might also arise when two computer programs play against one another. Suppose that neither computer will claim a draw and the arbiter is third computer program. When should the arbiter terminate the game?

I do not ask here for answers but only observe that the last question is a question the USCF's formulation does not seem to answer. Whether the lack of an answer matters is a practical and/or philosophical point on which I express no opinion. (I seem to recall many years ago a computer tournament that implemented an *ad hoc* rule terminating games after 300 moves. Moreover, I seem to recall that the rule acted during at least one of the tournament's games. However, I no longer have the reference and cannot document the assertion. My memory might be faulty.)

One notes in any event that the last question is a question the FIDE's formulation does indeed answer.

For further illustration or at any rate for amusement, below is diagrammed what I believe was when it took place in 1989 (and perhaps still is) the longest game on record. I suppose that today's FIDE rules would have terminated the game short of the 269 moves it eventually reached. (Source here.)

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Belgrade"]
[Site "Belgrade YUG"]
[Date "1989.02.17"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Ivan Nikolic"]
[Black "Goran Arsovic"]
[ECO "E95"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "538"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 Nbd7 7.O-O e5 8.Re1 Re8 9.Bf1 h6 10.d5 Nh7 11.Rb1 f5 12.Nd2 f4 13.b4 g5 14.Nb3 Bf8 15.Be2 Ndf6 16.c5 g4 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.a3 Ng5 19.Bf1 Re7 20.Qd3 Rg7 21.Kh1 Qe8 22.Nd2 g3 23.fxg3 fxg3 24.Qxg3 Nh3 25.Qf3 Qg6 26.Nc4 Bd7 27.Bd3 Ng5 28.Bxg5 Qxg5 29.Ne3 Re8 30.Ne2 Be7 31.Rbd1 Rf8 32.Nf5 Ng4 33.Neg3 h5 34.Kg1 h4 35.Qxg4 Qxg4 36.Nh6+ Kh7 37.Nxg4 hxg3 38.Ne3 gxh2+ 39.Kxh2 Rh8 40.Rh1 Kg6+ 41.Kg1 Rc8 42.Be2 Rc3 43.Rd3 Rc1+ 44.Nf1 Bd8 45.Rh8 Bb6+ 46.Kh2 Rh7+ 47.Rxh7 Kxh7 48.Nd2 Bg1+ 49.Kh1 Bd4+ 50.Nf1 Bg4 51.Bxg4 Rxf1+ 52.Kh2 Bg1+ 53.Kh3 Re1 54.Bf5+ Kh6 55.Kg4 Re3 56.Rd1 Bh2 57.Rh1 Rg3+ 58.Kh4 Rxg2 59.Kh3 Rg3+ 60.Kxh2 Rxa3 61.Rg1 Ra6 62.Rg6+ Kh5 63.Kg3 Rb6 64.Rg7 Rxb4 65.Bc8 a5 66.Bxb7 a4 67.Bc6 a3 68.Ra7 Rb3+ 69.Kf2 Kg5 70.Ke2 Kf4 71.Ra4 Rh3 72.Kd2 a2 73.Bb5 Rh1 74.Rxa2 Rh2+ 75.Be2 Kxe4 76.Ra5 Kd4 77.Ke1 Rh1+ 78.Kf2 Rc1 79.Bg4 Rc2+ 80.Ke1 e4 81.Be6 Ke5 82.Bg8 Rc8 83.Bf7 Rc7 84.Be6 Rc2 85.Ra8 Rb2 86.Ra6 Rg2 87.Kd1 Rb2 88.Ra5 Rg2 89.Bd7 Rh2 90.Bc6 Kf4 91.Ra8 e3 92.Re8 Kf3 93.Rf8+ Ke4 94.Rf6 Kd3 95.Bb5+ Kd4 96.Rf5 Rh1+ 97.Ke2 Rh2+ 98.Kd1 Rh1+ 99.Kc2 Rh2+ 100.Kc1 Rh1+ 101.Kc2 Rh2+ 102.Kd1 Rh1+ 103.Ke2 Rh2+ 104.Kf1 Rb2 105.Be2 Ke4 106.Rh5 Rb1+ 107.Kg2 Rb2 108.Rh4+ Kxd5 109.Kf3 Kc5 110.Kxe3 Rb3+ 111.Bd3 d5 112.Rh8 Ra3 113.Re8 Kd6 114.Kd4 Ra4+ 115.Kc3 Ra3+ 116.Kd4 Ra4+ 117.Ke3 Ra3 118.Rh8 Ke5 119.Rh5+ Kd6 120.Rg5 Rb3 121.Kd2 Rb8 122.Bf1 Re8 123.Kd3 Re5 124.Rg8 Rh5 125.Bg2 Kc5 126.Rf8 Rh6 127.Bf3 Rd6 128.Re8 Rc6 129.Ra8 Rb6 130.Rd8 Rd6 131.Rf8 Ra6 132.Rf5 Rd6 133.Kc3 Rd8 134.Rg5 Rd6 135.Rh5 Rd8 136.Rf5 Rd6 137.Rf8 Ra6 138.Re8 Rc6 139.Ra8 Rb6 140.Ra5+ Rb5 141.Ra1 Rb8 142.Rd1 Rd8 143.Rd2 Rd7 144.Bg2 Rd8 145.Kd3 Ra8 146.Ke3 Re8+ 147.Kd3 Ra8 148.Kc3 Rd8 149.Bf3 Rd7 150.Kd3 Ra7 151.Bg2 Ra8 152.Rc2+ Kd6 153.Rc3 Ra2 154.Bf3 Ra8 155.Rb3 Ra5 156.Ke3 Ke5 157.Rd3 Rb5 158.Kd2 Rc5 159.Bg2 Ra5 160.Bf3 Rc5 161.Bd1 Rc8 162.Bb3 Rc5 163.Rh3 Kf4 164.Kd3 Ke5 165.Rh5+ Kf4 166.Kd4 Rb5 167.Bxd5 Rb4+ 168.Bc4 Ra4 169.Rh7 Kg5 170.Rf7 Kg6 171.Rf1 Kg5 172.Kc5 Ra5+ 173.Kc6 Ra4 174.Bd5 Rf4 175.Re1 Rf6+ 176.Kc5 Rf5 177.Kd4 Kf6 178.Re6+ Kg5 179.Be4 Rf6 180.Re8 Kf4 181.Rh8 Rd6+ 182.Bd5 Rf6 183.Rh1 Kf5 184.Be4+ Ke6 185.Ra1 Kd6 186.Ra5 Re6 187.Bf5 Re1 188.Ra6+ Ke7 189.Be4 Rc1 190.Ke5 Rc5+ 191.Bd5 Rc7 192.Rg6 Rd7 193.Rh6 Kd8 194.Be6 Rd2 195.Rh7 Ke8 196.Kf6 Kd8 197.Ke5 Rd1 198.Bd5 Ke8 199.Kd6 Kf8 200.Rf7+ Ke8 201.Rg7 Rf1 202.Rg8+ Rf8 203.Rg7 Rf6+ 204.Be6 Rf2 205.Bd5 Rf6+ 206.Ke5 Rf1 207.Kd6 Rf6+ 208.Be6 Rf2 209.Ra7 Kf8 210.Rc7 Rd2+ 211.Ke5 Ke8 212.Kf6 Rf2+ 213.Bf5 Rd2 214.Rc1 Rd6+ 215.Be6 Rd2 216.Rh1 Kd8 217.Rh7 Rd1 218.Rg7 Rd2 219.Rg8+ Kc7 220.Rc8+ Kb6 221.Ke5 Kb7 222.Rc3 Kb6 223.Bd5 Rh2 224.Kd6 Rh6+ 225.Be6 Rh5 226.Ra3 Ra5 227.Rg3 Rh5 228.Rg2 Ka5 229.Rg3 Kb6 230.Rg4 Rb5 231.Bd5 Rc5 232.Rg8 Rc2 233.Rb8+ Ka5 234.Bb3 Rc3 235.Kd5 Rc7 236.Kd4 Rd7+ 237.Bd5 Re7 238.Rb2 Re8 239.Rb7 Ka6 240.Rb1 Ka5 241.Bc4 Rd8+ 242.Kc3 Rh8 243.Rb5+ Ka4 244.Rb6 Rh3+ 245.Bd3 Rh5 246.Re6 Rg5 247.Rh6 Rc5+ 248.Bc4 Rg5 249.Ra6+ Ra5 250.Rh6 Rg5 251.Rh4 Ka5 252.Rh2 Rg3+ 253.Kd4 Rg5 254.Bd5 Ka4 255.Kc5 Rg3 256.Ra2+ Ra3 257.Rb2 Rg3 258.Rh2 Rc3+ 259.Bc4 Rg3 260.Rb2 Rg5+ 261.Bd5 Rg3 262.Rh2 Rc3+ 263.Bc4 Rg3 264.Rh8 Ka3 265.Ra8+ Kb2 266.Ra2+ Kb1 267.Rf2 Kc1 268.Kd4 Kd1 269.Bd3 Rg7 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
It can't be considered unsportmanship if you opponent has the right to stop it any time he wants!

---
Tags: tournament, threefold-repetition, sportsmanship
---


title: Mutual Stalemate

text:
# Question
Title: Mutual Stalemate
You are required to find position such that:

1) Any move made by White or Black leads to stalemate for both sides immediately.

2) The position can be reached from the starting position of a chess game.

# Answer
> 8 votes
We are looking for a diagram which can be part of a legal position with either White to move or Black to move. The further constraint is that any legal move by either side must result in diagram which is stalemate, whoever is on move. I am trying to maximize the number of pieces.

At least 30 pieces is possible:

```
[title "Move by either player would be immediate mutual stalemate"]
[fen "brnbKRRN/qnk1pBN1/rb1pPpPp/p1pP1P1P/PpP5/8/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Black g pawn captured the two missing (White) pieces to promote to dark-squared bishop, and also unblocked the g-file for the White pawn to advance. The only legal moves (whoever has the move) would be b3=, but the positions are dead, as would any which satisfy this challenge.

One tricky point is that if Black is on move, then White has many possible last moves, so by the en passant convention, Black is not permitted to capture bxa3ep or bxc3ep.

EDIT: As few as 8 pieces is possible.

```
[title "Move by either player would be immediate mutual stalemate"]
[fen "5k1K/p3pP1P/4P3/P7/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

If Black moved last it must have been Ke8-f8, Ke8xNf8 or Ke8xBf8. White has many more choices for last move. But in either case the position is legal.

# Answer
> 10 votes
```
7k/6pP/6P1/4p3/8/1p2P3/pP6/K7 w - - 0 1

```

This is a proposed solution, I wonder if we can find more patterns like this with more pieces on the board

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you want a solution that doesn't rely on the en passant convention, here is a solution with **29 men** based on @Laska's answer. The missing White knights ensure that one of the black pawns could have promoted. The mutual stalemate occurs when either sides moves a pawn to f3, the only legal move.

```
[Title "me after @Laska, chess.stackexchange.com 4/2/2019, Mutual Stalemate In 1"]

[FEN "bqnbKRQB/rnk1pBRP/rb1pP1P1/p1pP4/PpP2p2/1P6/5P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

A fun fact is that the White dark-squared bishop can be replaced by a knight and the position would still yield the same.

Here’s an alternative 8-piece solution. This shows how two pieces is the least that one side can have.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 4/2/2019, Mutual Stalemate In 1"]
[FEN "KBk5/P1P1p3/2P5/4P3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: KID Gligoric-Taimanov Variation [E92] Black inaccuracy? Move 7 .... Nc6
Is there a specific reason why Stockfish thinks Black's 7th move is an inaccuracy?

Reference Game Aronian v Carlsen

I'm currently going over The King's Indian in Thirty Classic Games at Chessable and the move suggested is 7... **Nc6** to provoke white's **d5** and stabilize the center pawn structure.

# Answer
Chess engines are currently not able to give you a good analysis of opening moves all by themselves. This is basically due to the huge number of possible variations during the opening phase. Engines are effectively limited to a certain depth and if the potential positions some 10-20 moves later are still roughly equal you cannot decide on a best move.

Particularly the KID is known for being tricky for engines. Usually they give white a large advantage and underestimate any counterplay of black.

Because of this, analyzing openings is usually done with human interaction. For instance a player would pick certain lines that he is interested in and have the engine look more deeply into those directions. Also other factors than just objective computer evaluation do play a huge role in openings, such as:

* how playable is this line for me and for my opponent (does he have to play only moves or is it easy to play)
* am I aiming for a save draw or for a wild game with chances for both sides
* etc

Also, they'd use stronger engines and strong computers than the one on the lichess website.

Anyway, in this particular case you should ignore what the engines says and trust many decades of games played in this line.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Is there a chess AI that can force checkmate on a specified square?
I'm looking for a program that can force a lone king into checkmate on a specific square. Are there any programs out there that can do this?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Thanks for the great question ChessNoob3000, and welcome to chess.stackexchange.com

I don't know of any chess program right now ("AI" or otherwise) which can force checkmate on a particular square. The idea of "conditional problems", e.g. white must mate with a certain piece, was popular in the 19th century, before the arrival of software which can solve much more complex problems, but they are now a bit of a backwater. If you wrote a program specializing in conditional problems, you could be able to apply it to hundreds of unproven problems!

Related work is in Francois' Labelle's "Jacobi" program. This does allow for conditions, but is strictly applicable to help problems and proof games. It would not apply to adversarial stipulations e.g. "mate in 2" or "self-mate in 2".

You might post a feature request for Popeye in github, or if you are a programmer you might want to contribute to the Popeye open source yourself. Chat with Thomas Maeder about this: conditional problems for non-help stipulations is definitely a hole currently.

---
Tags: engines, problems
---


# Question
Title: What is the highest number of forced checkmates in a legal position?
Having been inspired by a similar question, what legal positions have the most forced checkmates for one side and for both sides?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The answer to this has already been given as an answer in a related question. That answer was 55.

```
[Title "Ludwig Zagler, Feenschach 1972"]
[FEN "1rB1Q1Q1/1PRQ3Q/2b2k2/2pQ1N1Q/4KRPp/5N2/1R6/B3nn1b w - - 0 1"]

```

The position is taken from Tim Krabbe's website. According to Krabbe:

> There are 12 mates by Rb2; 1 by g5; 1 by Qd5; 7 by d7; 7 by Qe8, 7 by Qg8; 6 by Qh5; 6 by Qh7; and 8 by Nf5, for a total of 55.

The record with both sides to move is 39 according to this Matplus.net thread.

```
[Title "Ludwig Zagler, Fairy Chess 6/1974"]
[FEN "6B1/2p2R1B/2P1k1NR/2P1q1PP/1pp1Q1p1/brn1K1p1/1b1r2P1/n1b5 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, records, forced-move
---


title: Ways to share game(s) online

text:
# Question
Title: Ways to share game(s) online
In this era of social networking, it is surprising there are no straight forward ways for sharing our games online.

Sharing means a possibility of sending a link to some one, who can just step through the game and the analysis easily or post it to facebook / twitter.

Having an embeddable player to put the game in our blog would be nice. But that's not the main thing I am looking for.

# Answer
> 18 votes
Answering my own question for documenting what I use. I will keep this answer updated as I discover more ways.

* lichess This is the simplest and cleanest way I found. Just copy pgn text and paste. It generates a nice little shareable link. Very nice interface to playback the moves. As a bonus, it also provides automatic (stockfish) engine analysis identifying the inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders for the whole game. (usually within few seconds!)
* Chess Pastebin is okay. It is good for games with minimal or no analysis. But the interface is cumbersome for games with a lot of analysis.
* Chess Microbase is good for storing many games.
* \[NOT WORKING NOW\] ChessPost is nice and simple. Particularly useful for the purpose the question mentions.
* PGN4Web provides a good interface for a broad number of applications.

# Answer
> 5 votes
In these times, sharing the Movetext section from a PGN (and the starting position if needed) is enough to recreate the game. People can view the game using their favorite method (e.g PGN viewer, real board or maybe *visualizing* the moves in their heads if they are prodigy enough).

But if you really want to just share a link that displays the game, my choice would be LT-PGN-Viewer, just fill everything and then click *Make Gamelink*.

**Note:** there might be a limit on the number of moves you can pass, since the game is stored in the URL rather than saving the game somewhere and passing an ID). Also, a good idea is to shorten the link since it will probably be lengthy.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The puzzle here offers a light-weight alternative, Apronus. It's quite simple: paste the PGN, click the 'Absorb' button and then 'Link to share'.

# Answer
> 2 votes
you can use the game explorer on chess.com, there's a database, it compares your game to other games, searches for related openings, and you can get a link to page.

using game explorer to analyse your games is always free, however to see other games, you have to be a premium member.

Also on chess.com, you have the analysis board editor, which is free and you can embed it in webpages. Click on "Game editor" tab -\> "Embed" button.

---
Tags: online
---


# Question
Title: Is a "Strong King" handicap really as powerful as is claimed?
Wikipedia quotes an analysis by GM Harry Golombek (from Golombek’s Encyclopedia of Chess, Crown Publishers, 1977, p. 218. I do not have access to the source) where he lists possible handicaps, in order of increasing severity.

The last item in the list is "Strong king", where the king is given the ability to move up to two squares in any direction. It appears further down (that is, a bigger handicap) than "Queenside odds" where the stronger player gives up a queen, rook, knight and bishop.

I can understand that this is powerful because a strong king is harder to mate (AFAIK, even K+Q can't mate a strong king. Not only does he have more escape routes, the normal king can't get too close to the action) and in general is hard to put pressure against.

But seriously, more powerful than Q+R+B+N? Is this a mistake? If not, where can I find an analysis that supports this claim?

Edit: I've played a few games of this with friends. The jury is still out on the exact strength, but my estimation: This is probably on the same ballpark as queen odds, but nowhere near QRBN.

# Answer
> 1 votes
**It depends on how we measure the effectiveness of a handicap.** Here's what I mean by that:

*If we are trying to increase the likelihood that the weaker player wins, queen-side odds are more effective* than the strong king, because the weaker player has so much offensive potential in queen-side odds (and the stronger player doesn't have much defense).

*If we are trying to decrease the likelihood that the weaker player loses, the strong king is more effective* than queen-side odds, because the weaker player has so much more defensive potential in a strong king. Checkmating that king is one heck of a job.

# Answer
> -1 votes
A strong king has a few less moving possibilities than a queen and a knight combined, so its strengh would be close to that, maybe a little less

---
Tags: chess-variants, handicap
---


# Question
Title: Why is Apronus allowing the White king to castle through an attacked square?
I was using Apronus to make a new chess puzzle for Puzzling Stack Exchange, but then it did something odd.

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nh3 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. d3 exd3 4. Be2 Kf7 5. Qd2 dxe2 6. O-O

```

It's letting the White king castle through a square that is attacked by a Black pawn-that is an illegal move! One should know that our replayer is not built to detect checks and whatnot, so I am able to show it here just fine. However, just shouldn’t be happening in a properly built PGN editor, which Apronus is.

Does anyone have any idea why this is happening?

# Answer
I happen to be the author of the chessboard editor under discussion. Let me clarify the issue.

This editor is supposed to enforce legal moves but it has a bug which prevents it from being able to make a pawn capture onto the final rank. Therefore it cannot notice that a black chessman controls the f1 square. If you place a black bishop on the a6-f1 diagonal then it won't allow White to castle.

There is a newer chessboard editor that is free from this bug: https://www.apronus.com/chess/puzzle/editor.php?editpuzzle=0, which is meant as a powerful puzzle editor but it can serve as a PGN editor, too.

The "position setup" interface can be used to illustrate an arbitrary sequence of chessboards, not necessarily legal or illegal moves. If you tick the checkbox "Animation sequence" you will see that it keeps a record of all board positions like frames in a movie. It allows you to delete certain frames which effectively allows you to set up an arbitrary sequence of board position and generate an animated GIF diagram. I am the author of this tool.
> 13 votes

# Answer
> Do you have any idea why this is happening?

Because it is a chessboard editor, not an engine.

Here is what the Apronus site says:

> **PGN Viewer and Editor *with Chess Puzzle Editor***
>
> * online interactive chessboard with PGN viewer and editor, diagram editor and puzzle editor
> * set up any position to play against computer or analyze with a chess engine
> * make diagrams with arrows and selected squares or animations indicating moves with arrows
> * create links to your chess positions or embed chessboards on your own pages
> * design chess puzzles:

Its main function is to help you design diagrams and puzzles not validate your games.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Well, for a definitive answer you need to ask the authors/maintainers of the website. Especially since it has a "legal moves only" option above the board which is selected by default. Note that this very website's replayer also executes the illegal move in your post.

I can imagine that one wants to analyze/record a complete game *even if an illegal move was made in it*, or show an almost-legal constructed game to reach a certain position. However, the PGN standards forbid this:

> ### 8.2: Movetext section
>
> The movetext section is composed of chess moves, move number indications, optional annotations, and a single concluding game termination marker.
>
> Because illegal moves are not real chess moves, they are not permitted in PGN movetext. They may appear in commentary, however. One would hope that illegal moves are relatively rare in games worthy of recording.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn, castling, websites
---


# Question
Title: How would Chess have been played in England in 1450-1600?
I'm trying to reconstruct how Chess would have been played at various points in history in England, specifically at three points: around 1450, 1530, and 1610.

What rules would have been used at these dates? What kinds of boards and pieces might have been used? Who would have played and in what kinds of settings?

I have read the confused Wikipedia articles and most of the first several pages of hits from Google, but can extract little of use from them and am hoping there's an expert here who can help.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I see that you already have a lot of information in the Wikipedia page and in the answer you got to the similar question in the history forum. Maybe your problem is that this is too much information for you, so I hope to be helpful in telling you just one thing, which is the most important thing.

There is a turning point in the European history of chess. This is something that happened sometime between 1475 and 1500 (the exact year is not known) in the south of Europe (probably in Spain, but there is no consensus). This event is a change in the rules of movement of the Queen and the Bishop.

Until 1475 people everywhere in Europe played a version of chess (let's call it Middle-Age Chess) where the Queen (then called fers or visir) could move only one step diagonally, and the Bishop (then called Elephant) could move two steps diagonally. The other pieces moved as today (except for little details such as castling rules). This game was very slow because the two armies needed many moves to make contact, since the only long range piece was the Rook.

Starting from 1500 people everywhere in Europe started to play a new version of the game where the Queen and the Bishop have their modern movement (let's call this game Modern Chess, because, except for some little detail, it was basically the same game we play today). This new game was much faster, and, for this reason more fun and incredibly successful. The new rules quickly spread everywhere in Europe, and the old game was soon forgotten.

The change happened sometime between 1475 and 1500, more or less the same time when many other important events gave Europe its modern form (invention of the press, the discovery of America, unification of Spain, and more).

From this you can see that in 1450, in England people played Middle-Age Chess, while in 1530 they played Modern Chess, a very different game. In 1530, Modern Chess was a novelty, instead in 1610 the game was very well established, and by this time, many "scientific" books of analysis of the game and its strategy were already written.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am unclear if this is a variety of chess played in England, or if the implication is this game is "England's Chess" but from 1550-1700 a popular game was called The Philosopher's Game. Instructions for the game were published in 1568 according to HJR Murray's History of Chess book. The Publisher's Circular of 1907 talks about a William Fulke who wrote down a list of instructions for The Philosopher's Game in 1563, a transcript of which can be read here: http://jducoeur.com/game-hist/fulke.html

It would seem Shakespeare, at least, called chess by the "The Philosopher's Game" during his lifetime, because in 1611 when Shakespeare staged The Tempest, the philosopher in that play, Prospero, is instructed in Act V by the stage directions to "\[Here PROSPERO discovers FERDINAND and MIRANDA\] playing at chess\]"

Ann Moyer's book, The Philosopher's Game, details what she calls "the Elizabethan Rule book" for how to play The Philosopher's Game, which she says is also known as "Rithmomachia ("The Battle of Numbers"), which combined the pleasures of gaming with mathematical study and moral education" It's expensive but you can find that book here.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think this is a fantastic excuse to contact Irving Finkel at the British Museum. See his wonderful YouTube videos. Yes he specialises in ancient board games but must surely know the British experts in more modern periods.

I am curious why these three specific years interest you. My naive guess would be that not much is known to have changed during this period, but it would be great to have a chess rules timeline up to the present day.

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for fork-protected pieces?
Sometimes the reason a piece should not be captured isn’t the recapture, but rather the threat of a fork because the capturing piece would find itself in just the wrong spot. The 1926 game between Stepanov and Romanovsky is full of this after 20. … R×f3+.

Is there a name for the situation where a piece is protected by the threat of a fork?

# Answer
> 12 votes
I agree with asdf regarding the idea that **there isn't a name specifically attached to indirect protection of a piece stemming from a *fork***.

However, in general, pieces that are protected by *any* tactic, including forking, are said to be "indirectly defended."

As far as a name for the piece being indirectly defended, **one might call it a "bait" piece**, as it baits the opposing player to make a dubious move. In a specific opening line, there is a somewhat famous "poisoned pawn" \- a pawn that looks like it can be taken without fear, but makes things positionally difficult in the long run. Thus, **an indirectly defended piece might also be called a "poisoned" piece.**

Edit: as Cyriac Antony points out, this is also known as an "indirectly defended piece."

# Answer
> 6 votes
I don't know about English. In spanish we use the term "defensa indirecta" or "protección indirecta", but it does not refer specifically to indirect protection/defence by fork, it could be a threat of any kind that prevents the piece in question to be captured.

For example, after the silly moves 1.e4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3. Bc4 g6 4.Ne5 and the queen is indirectly protected by a mate threat.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3, the d4 pawn is indirectly protected by a discovered attack in case it got captured.

And finally, relating back to your specific case: 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 e6 3.Be3 Qa5+ 4.c3 is another case of indirect protection, this time by means of a fork threat in case of 4...Bxc5?

---
Tags: terminology, fork
---


title: Unusual replies to Scandinavian Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Unusual replies to Scandinavian Defense
Are there any tricky, unusual replies by White against the Scandinavian Defense? I mean, avoiding 1. e4 d5 2. exd5, since, especially after 2... Nf6, for what I know, most of the tricks are on Black's side.

How about 1. e4 d5 2. e5!? or other unusual things like this one... a gambit maybe?

I am not asking for theoretical soundness but for surprise effect, especially for blitz or rapid games.

Is there any reasonably detailed analysis of a few of these lines on the Net or in published books, DVDs, etc.

# Answer
> 8 votes
**Spielmann Gambit**

```
[Event "?"]
[ECO "B02"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]

[Setup "1"]

1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 (2...d4 {Probably the best move} 3. Nce2 {And probably the only reasonable retreat. White is losing the advantage of playing as White side here, that's true. That's why this is an 'unusual' reply. Both sides gonna fight for e5 square in this position. White can go for f2f4 and Ng1-f3.}) Nf6 3. e5 Nfd7 ( 3... d4 {Black dodges the gambit, resulting and open, even game with even material} 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2+ ) 4. e6 {Spielmann Gambit! White gives up a pawn to disorganize Blacks pieces, and will try to keep Black disorganized as long as possible. White has also good attacking possibilities on king side.} fxe6
5. d4 g6 (5... e5? { Trying to free up immediately, but... } 6.dxe5 e6 (6... Nxe5? 7. Qxd5 {Black has no material advantage and white has better position}) { Black gave up his extra pawn for reaching this defensive position. Worthy? I don't think so. White has a good play without giving up material.} ) {I think this is the best move for Black here. Fianchettoing bishop would give black a nice control over black squares in the center. Also ...g6 move closes e8-h5 diagonal, which will be used by white queen in some variations}

```

This is my favorite and totally awesome for a white player who wants to get initiative and attack.

After 5.d4, white plays to maintain control of central black squares, avoiding blacks freeing move ...e5, not letting black to develop, and attack from king-side using f7.

# Answer
> 7 votes
1.e4 d5 2.d4 tranposes to the Blackmar-Diemer gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I play 1.e4 d5 2.d3 dxe4 3.dxe4

# Answer
> 1 votes
1.e4 d5 2.Nf3 transposes into the Tenison Ganbit (1.Nf3 d5 2.e4).

---
Tags: opening, gambits, blitz, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Touch-move when move is illegal but opponent's piece can be captured by another piece
This is the scenario: I pick up my Knight to capture my opponent's Bishop (touching the Bishop). I then realise my Knight was pinned to my King in the first place, so moving it would be illegal. However, I have already touched my opponent's Bishop with my Knight. Since I have touched my opponent's Bishop, would I have to capture the Bishop with another piece of mine (in this case my Queen can legally capture the Bishop instead), or am I allowed to just move any other piece entirely? Reference in FIDE Rules is Article 4.3.3 but it still seems it doesn't explain this scenario well enough.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Article 4.3.2 clarifies this -

> 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2 \[j'adoube\], if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:
>
> 4.3.2 one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured

In the scenario you describe you touch your knight and your opponent's bishop with the intention of capturing the bishop with your knight. Moving the knight is illegal hence you may not capture the bishop with the knight. However capturing the bishop with some other piece, your queen, is legal. Therefore you must capture the bishop with that piece.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The relevant sections from https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article:

> 4.2.1
>
> Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces ...
>
> 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, 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 own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
>
> 4.3.2
>
> one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
>
> 4.3.3
>
> one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his 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 opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

Article 4.2.2 establishes that any non-accidental contact shall be considered intent, so touching the opponent's bishop with your knight establishes intent to capture. At that stage, you've touched both your knight and your opponent's bishop - that is, you've touched *"one or more pieces of each colour"* \- so article 4.3.3 dictates what happens next.

Let's break down article 4.3.3, then. It first says you must:

> capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched piece

(nope, you can't do that - it's an illegal move)

> or, if this is illegal

(it is)

> move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured

Since your knight cannot be moved, the "first piece touched that can be moved or captured" is your opponent's bishop. Therefore you must capture it.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: What is the total number of KNN vs K checkmate positions?
What is the total number of KNN vs. K checkmate positions? Assume that White is checkmating.

Firstly the Black king must be mated on a corner. **It is impossible to do it on the edge.** The calculations on one corner can be multiplied by four for the final results.

**Addendum**: It actually can be done as @Glorfindel’s answer shows.

```
[FEN "k6k/8/8/8/8/8/8/k6k w - - 0 1"]

```

Let’s choose this corner for now.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]

```

The white king needs to be on one of these four squares.

```
[FEN "k6k/8/8/8/8/8/8/k6k w - - 0 1"]

```

The checkmating knight needs to be on one of these two squares.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/1N6/2N5/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Finally, the knight used to block off the black king’s escape route has to be on one of these five squares.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1N6/N1N5/3N4/2N5 w - - 0 1"]

```

Can anyone calculate the total number of possiblities?

# Answer
> 3 votes
### TL;DR: 120

You're on the right track, but combinatorics can be hard sometimes.

If the black king must be in the corner, just pick a1. If the white king is on c1, one knight (the white one below) must give check on c2 or b3, and the other one (the black one below) must cover a2, so be on c3 or b4. That's four positions (we'll cover symmetry later).

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1n6/1Nn5/2N5/k1K5 w - - 0 1"]

```

If the white king is on c2, the knight giving (the white one below) check must be on b3 and the other one (the black one below) must cover a2, so be on c1, c3 or b4. That's three positions.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1n6/1Nn5/2K5/k1n5 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now all seven positions can be flipped along the long diagonal; that's 14 (there are no duplicates; the white king isn't on the diagonal). And finally all positions can happen on all four corners, for a total of 14 times 4 = **56** positions ... **in the corner**. @Remellion found another mating pattern:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/1N2N3/K7/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

```

(the white king can be at two places) and this position can be shifted one square to the right four times. (I missed it because I only looked for mates with the black king on b1 and assumed I didn't need to consider the other edge squares. I was wrong ...) We again have an eight-fold rotation symmetry (four edges times two, for the mirrored version), so this pattern yield 4 times 2 times 8 = **64** positions.

### Together, there are 120 mating positions.

---
Tags: checkmate, knights, mathematics, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest known sequence of forced moves leading to a checkmate for one side?
By forced move, it is meant that the player has only one legal move.

```
[fen "7k/q5Q1/p4PPK/6PP/8/5P2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qxg7+ 2. fxg7+ Kg8 3. f4 a5 4. f5 a4 5. f6 a3 6. f7#

```

Above is an example with 10 half-moves. Each half-move is the only legal one and the end is a checkmate.

# Answer
> 20 votes
If you don't mind a bushel of promoted Queens, you can get 14 half-moves . . .

```
[Title "14 forced half-moves to checkmate"]
[Fen "3b3k/qqqqq3/rr4NK/7R/5N1Q/7Q/B6Q/7R b - - 0 0"]

1... Rxg6+ 2. Nxg6+ Rxg6+ 3. Kxg6+ Qh7+ 4. Rxh7+ Qxh7+ 5. Qxh7+ Qxh7+ 6. Qxh7+ Qxh7+ 7. Qxh7+ Qxh7+ 8. Rxh7#

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The longest known sequence, aka the record length, is **16 plies.** I obtained this problem from the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database. It can be also be viewed on page 13 in a PDF of the original source.

```
[Title "Bernd Schwarzkopf After Karl Scherer, Feenschach 1980, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "1KN4r/QRRRRRRr/kq6/p1q1R3/PP1q1b2/4q3/5q2/1r4q1 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Qxa7+ 2. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 3. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 4. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 5. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 6. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 7. Rxa7+ Rxa7 8. b5+ Rxb5+ 9. axb5#

```

If only discovered checks are allowed, here is a sequence of **6 plies**, as the first move doesn't count. I found it on Tim Krabbe's website in Diary Entry #265. The composer's first name comes from the problem's entry in the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database.

```
[Title "Vladmir Korolkov, 1940, White Wins"]
[FEN "6B1/5Nb1/3p4/q2krP1R/Nn2p3/pPKnr3/Q1PB4/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nd8+ Re6+ 2. f6+ Ne5+ 3. Bxe3+ Nd3+ 4. b4#

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
This answer is only the longest forced checkmate, because I missed your condition that each half move be *the only legal move* for both sides. The following is a forced checkmate in 262 moves (if both sides play perfectly).

```
[fen "6k1/5n2/8/8/8/5n2/1RK5/1N6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd3 N3g5 2. Kd4 Ne6+ 3. Kd5 Nc7+ 4. Kc6 Ne6 5. Kd7 Nfg5 6. Kd6 Kg7 7. Ke5 Nc5 8. Kf5 Nge4 9. Ra2 Nd6+ 10. Ke5 Nf7+ 11. Kd5 Nd3 12. Kd4 Nb4 13. Ra4 Nd8 14. Kc4 Nbc6 15. Kd5 Ne7+ 16. Kd6 Ng6 17. Ra8 Nf7+ 18. Ke6 Nf8+ 19. Kd5 Ng6 20. Ra6 Nf4+ 21. Kd4 Nd8 22. Nc3 Nde6+ 23. Ke3 Ng2+ 24. Kf2 Ngf4 25. Kf3 Kf7 26. Ra7+ Kg6 27. Ke4 Kg5 28. Ra5+ Kg4 29. Ke5  Nc5 30. Nd1 (30. Rxc5??... Nd3+ 31. Kf6 Nxc5 32. Ne2 Ne4+ =) Ng6+ 31. Kd5 Nb3 32. Ra2 Nf4+ 33. Ke5 Nc5 34. Ne3+ Kf3 35. Ra3 Ng6+ 36. Kd5 Nd3 (37.Rxd3??... Nf4+ = 38.Kc4 Nxd3 39.Kxd3) 37. Kd4 Nde5 38. Ra6 Nf4 39. Nf1 Nf7 40. Rf6 Ng5 41. Ke5 Ngh3 42. Rf7 Ke2 43. Ng3+ Ke3 44. Nf5+ Kf3 45. Nd6 Ke3 46. Nc4+ Kd3 47. Nb2+ Kc2 48. Na4 Nd3+ 49. Kd4 Ng5 50. Rd7 Ne6+ 51. Kd5 Ng5 52. Rg7 Kb3 53. Nb6 Nb4+ 54. Ke5 Nd3+ 55. Kf5 Nh3 56. Rc7 Nb4 57. Rc8 Nf2 58. Nd7 Nc2 59. Nc5+ Kb4 60. Ke5 Ng4+ 61. Kf4 Nge3 62. Nd3+ Kb3 63. Nc1+ Kb4 64. Ke4 Nc4 65. Rg8 Nb6 66. Rg2 Na3 67. Rb2+ Kc5 68. Nd3+ Kc6 69. Rg2 Na4 70. Rg5 Nc3+ 71. Ke5 Na4 72. Ke6 Nb5 73. Nb4+ Kb6 74. Nd5+ Ka5 75. Rh5 Nc5+ 76. Ke5 Nd3+ 77. Ke4 Nc5+ 78. Ke3 Na6 79. Rh1 Nbc7 80. Nf4 Kb4 81. Kd4 Nb5+ 82. Ke5 Nc5 83. Nd5+ Kb3 84. Rh3+ Kc4 85. Rh4+ Kd3 86. Nf4+ Kd2 87. Rh2+ Kc3 88. Kd5 Kb4 89. Rh4 Na4 90. Nd3+ Kb3 91. Rg4 Kc2 92. Nf4 Kd2 93. Rg7 Ke3 94. Ng2+ Kd2 95. Rh7 Nb2 96. Rd7 Ke2 97. Rb7 Nd1 98. Kc5 Nbc3 99. Kd4 Kd2 100. Rd7 Ke2 101. Nh4 Nb5+ 102. Kc4 Na3+ 103. Kb3 Nb1 104. Nf5 Nf2 105. Kc2 Na3+ 106. Kc3 Nb1+ 107. Kd4 Nd2 108. Re7+ Kf3 109. Rf7 Nh3 110. Nd6+ Ke2 111. Re7+ Kf3 112. Re3+ Kg4 113. Ra3 Nf1 114. Ra4 Ng5 115. Ke5+ Kf3 116. Nf5 Nd2 117. Ra3+ Kf2 118. Ra2 Ke2 119. Kd4 Nge4 120. Ne7 Kf3 121. Nd5 Nb3+ 122. Kc4 Nc1 123. Ra3+ Kf2 124. Ra8 Ne2 125. Rg8 Ng1 126. Kd4 Nd6 127. Ke5 Nc4+ 128. Ke4 Nd6+ 129. Kf4 Ne2+ 130. Ke5 Nb5 131. Rf8+ Ke1 132. Rd8 Nbc3 133. Nb4 Kf2 134. Nc2 Nc1 135. Rc8 Nb5 136. Rb8 Nc3 137. Rd8 Ke2 138. Kd4 Nd1 139. Na1 Kd2 140. Ke4+ Ke2 141. Rc8 Nf2+ 142. Kd4 Ncd3 143. Nb3 Nf4 144. Rg8 Kf3 145. Nd2+ Ke2 146. Nc4 Kf3 147. Ne5+ Ke2 148. Re8 N2h3 149. Nc4+ Kf3 150. Ra8 Ng5 151. Ra3+ Ke2 152. Ke5 Nd3+ 153. Kf5 Nh3 154. Ra2+ Kf3 155. Ra8 Nhf2 156. Re8 Nd1 157. Nd2+ Kf2 158. Ke4 Nc1 159. Nb1 Ke2 160. Kf4+ Kd3 161. Rd8+ Ke2 162. Rd2+ Ke1 163. Rh2 Ne2+ 164. Kf3 Nd4+ 165. Ke4 Nb3 166. Ra2 Nf2+ 167. Kf3 Nd4+ 168. Ke3 Nf5+ 169. Kf4 Nd4 170. Ra4 Nc2 171. Kf3 Nd3 172. Rh4 Kd1 173. Nc3+ Kd2 174. Ne4+ Kc1 175. Ke2 Ne5 176. Nc5 Na3 177. Re4 Nec4 178. Kd3 Nb2+ 179. Kc3 Nb1+ 180. Kd4 Na3 181. Rh4 Nb5+ 182. Ke5 Kc2 183. Rh2+ Kc3 184. Kd5 Nd1 185. Rh3+ Kb2 186. Nb7 Na3 187. Nd6 Nc3+ 188. Kc5 Kc2 189. Nf5 Nab1 190. Kd4 Nb5+ 191. Kc4 N5a3+ 192. Kc5 Kb2 193. Rh2+ Kb3 194. Nd4+ Kc3 195. Ne2+ Kb2 196. Ng3+ Kc3 197. Rh3 Kd3 198. Nf5+ Kc2 199. Rg3 Kb2 200. Ne3 Nd2 201. Rg2 Kc1 202. Kd4 Nf3+ 203. Kc3 Nb1+ 204. Kb4 Nbd2 205. Rg8 Ne4 206. Rd8 Nf2 207. Kc3 Ne4+ 208. Kd3 Nc5+ 209. Kc4 Ne4 210. Rd1+ Kb2 211. Rd5 Ne1 212. Rd8 Nf3 213. Rf8 Ne1 214. Rb8+ Kc1 215. Kd4 Nd2 216. Nd5 Kd1 217. Re8 Ng2 218. Kd3 Nb1 219. Re7 Ne1+ 220. Kc4 Ng2 221. Kb3 Nd2+ 222. Kb2 Nc4+ 223. Kc3 Nd2 224. Nf6 Nf4 225. Rd7 Ne2+ 226. Kd3 Nb1 227. Ke3+ Ke1 228. Re7 Kd1 229. Rh7 Nc1 230. Ne4 Na3 231. Nf2+ Kc2 232. Rc7+ Kb2 233. Nd1+ Kb1 234. Rc8 Nc2+ 235. Kd2 Nb3+ 236. Kd3 Ne1+ 237. Kc3 Kc1 238. Rd8 Nc5 239. Nf2 Na4+ 240. Kb3 Nb2 241. Rc8+ Kd2 242. Kxb2 Ke3 243. Ng4+ Kf4 244. Ne5 Ng2 245. Ng6+ Kg5 246. Rc3 Kg4 247. Rd3 Ne1 248. Rd4+ Kh5 249. Nh4 Nd3+ 250. Rxd3 [*]

```

http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/longest-checkmates/longest-checkmates-sorted-by-length.shtml

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here's a game from 1912 between Edward Lasker and George Alan Thomas. All blacks moves are forced.

```
[fen "rn3rk1/pbppq1pp/1p2pb2/4N2Q/3PN3/3B4/PPP2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 20 11"]

1... Qxh7+ Kxh7 Nxf6+ Kh6 Neg4+ Kg5 h4+ Kf4 g3+ Kf3 Be2+ Kg2 Rh2+ Kg1 Kd2# 1-0

```

In answer to your question, I'm sure there's an even better hypothetical board position, but this was a really game played by competent players all be it in a casual setting.

Sources:

https://youtu.be/QIiaeY76VY8?t=3m45s

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259009

---
Tags: problems, records, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: What is the theoretical limit for the number of consecutive checks?
The known record for the longest sequence of consecutive checks (i.e. white checks, then black checks on the next move, white checks next, and so on) in a legal position without promoted pieces, is 37. See this article on Tim Krabbe's site entitled "Check!"

Is there a theoretical limit for the length of such a sequence, or is a repetition possible, allowing checks forever?

# Answer
37 is the record so far *without promoted pieces.*

```
[Title "Giuseppe Ponzetto, Torre i Cavallo 1993, 37 Consecutive Checks"]
[FEN "4r1Q1/B2nr3/5b2/8/4p3/4KbNq/ppppppp1/RR3Nkn w - - 0 1"]

1. Nh2+ f1=N+ 2. Rxf1+ gxf1=N+ 3. Ngxf1+ Bg5+ 4. Qxg5+ Bg2+ 5. Nf3+ exf3+ 6. Kd3+ Nc5+ 7. Qxc5+ Re3+ 8. Nxe3+ c1=N+ 9. Qxc1+ d1=Q+ 10. Qxd1+ e1=N+ 11. Qxe1+ Bf1+ 12. Nxf1+ f2+ 13. Ne3+ f1=Q+ 14. Qxf1+ Qxf1+ 15. Nxf1+ Re3+ 16. Nxe3+ b1=Q+ 17. Rxb1+ axb1=Q+ 18. Nc2+ Nf2+ 19. Bxf2+

```

A comment says that the record *with promoted pieces* is 53. However, according to Tim Krabbe's Diary Entry #387, the record is actually 54.

```
[Title "Alexey Khanyan Sampsa Lahtonen, Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #387 2013, 54 Consecutive Checks"]
[FEN "5q2/2q1pn1B/R1Q1R3/1B2r1B1/1q1k1Knq/rr5Q/B2NPN1N/3Qb1QQ w - - 0 1"]

1. Qb6+ Rc5+ 2. Qd6+ Nxd6+ 3. Bf6+ Nxf6+ 4. Nfg4+ Qf2+ 5. Nhf3+ Kd5+ 6. e4+ Nfxe4+ 7. Nf6+ Nxf6+ 8. Be4+ Nfxe4+ 9. Qf5+ Nxf5+ 10. Rad6+ Nexd6+ 11. Bc4+ Nxc4+ 12. Re5+ Nxe5+ 13. Nc4+ Qfd2+ 14. Nxd2+ Rf3+ 15. Nxf3+ Qd2+ 16. Ncxd2+ Rc4+ 17. Bxc4+ Qxc4+ 18. Ne4+ Bd2+ 19. Qxd2+ Nd3+ 20. Qxd3+ Nd4+ 21. Nf6+ Qxf6+ 22. Qf5+ e5+ 23. Nxe5+ Rf3+ 24. Nxf3+ Qe5+ 25. Nxe5+ Nf3+ 26. Qd4+ Qxd4+ 27. Qe4+ Qxe4+

```

I think that the theoretical hard limit is limited by which category you choose of promoted pieces allowed and not allowed. Additionally, the current records can be refined until only two kings and one piece giving check are left on the board.

In the aforementioned Diary #387, Tim Krabbe even remarks that **"This is probably not the end to this task. The fact that in Lahtonen's 53 checks only 5 pieces remain in the final position and in the new 54-record there are 6, leads Khanyan to believe that if he could get this down to 5 pieces, too, he could add two checks and make it to 56. "56 checks in a row do not seem to me as being higher than the clouds!"**

---

Additionally, just for fun, there are also records for *discovered checks.* Tim Krabbe's site is also the source.

As Krabbe first shared in Diary Entry #125, and later in #308,, the record without promoted pieces is 11 discovered checks.

```
[Title "Ottavio Stocchi, L'Echiquier 1930, 11 Consecutive Discovered Checks"]
[FEN "2R4B/3r2P1/4P2b/2N5/3k2BR/2N1n3/r1nK2bq/2Q5 w - - 0 1"]

1. g8=B+ Kc4+ 2. Nd3+ Bc6+ 3. Be2+ Nd4+ 4. Nxa2+ Nec2+ 5. Nf4+ Nxe2+ 6. exd7+

```

In Diary Entry #366 the record for with promoted piece is given. The author's full name and source date come from the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database.

```
[Title "Werner Frangen, Feenschach 08/1974, 17 Consecutive Discovered Checks"]
[FEN "B3R2B/1R1q3b/b4R2/RrNkPR2/4N3/1NbK2nr/B1rn3B/1b1r3Q w - - 0 1"]

1. e6+ Nxf5+ 2. Ng3+ Nf3+ 3. Nd2+ Rb3+ 4. Nxa6+ Bxa5+ 5. Rxb3+ Rc6+ 6. Rxb1+ Ke5+ 7. exd7+ Ne7+ 8. Ne4+ Nxh2+ 9. Rf3+

```
> 12 votes

# Answer
Another way to get an infinite series of checks is by using a fairy piece. Consider this position, except that the black piece on e5 is not a knight but a camel (a (3,1)-leaper). Then the given sequence of four crosschecks restores the diagram position with White to move. (Unfortunately the PGN-viewer can't display it because of the fairy piece.)

```
[Title "Infinite series of checks"]
[fen "1k1b4/8/8/KN2n1r1/8/6B1/8/1R6 w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1. Nc7+ Cb6+ 2. Nb5+ Ce5+

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
Edit: This doesn't work because I forgot about discovered checks. However, I think this progress is notable, so I'll leave the answer here.

Repetition is impossible.

First, there obviously cannot be any pawn moves, castling or captures.

Next, I claim that there cannot be any king moves. To prove this, note that a king move can give check only if it is a discovered check. So, in order for a king move to give check, the two kings must be in a line, whether vertical, horizontal, or diagonal. Given the position of one of the kings, the set of squares the other king can be on so that it can give check is the set of squares in the same line with the king and not the same square as the king or the squares next to that square. No two of these squares are adjacent, so the king cannot move from one such square to another in one move. Note that squares A and B are in a line if and only if squares B and A are in a line, so once one of the kings moves, they are no longer in a line, so no further king moves can give check. So, there is at most one king move in the cycle, but if it were a cycle the king would eventually have to move again, so there cannot be any king moves.

Therefore, there cannot be any knight checks, or else the king would have to move or the knight would have to be captured.

Therefore, all moves are moves by pieces, which means they must all block the previous checks.

For any metric on the set of squares of the chessboard, suppose it is true that, for any set of positions for the kings K1 and K2 and any square A which is in some line (vertical, horizontal, or diagonal) with the king, any blocking square B cannot increase the sum of the distances from the square to each of the kings (that is, d(A,K1)+d(A,K2)\>=d(B,K1)+d(B,K2)). Then the sum of the distances to each of the squares of the kings must remain constant throughout the cycle.

It is easy to check that the following metrics satisfy that property: d(A, B)=|row(A)-row(B)| d(A, B)=|column(A)-column(B)| d(A, B)=|slope1diagonal(A)-slope1diagonal(B)| (By this I mean number the diagonals that are parallel to the A1H8 diagonal from 1-15) d(A, B)=|slope-1diagonal(A)-slope-1diagonal(B)| (Same as the previous, but parallel to the other diagonal)

In fact, it is easy to see that, for any of the above metrics, if the blocking square is not within the two parallel lines of those metrics (e.g. for the first metric, within the rectangle with sides made by the rows of each of the kings, and columns the sides of the board), then the sum of the distances will decrease with the next blocking square. Which would be a contradiction, so the blocking squares are restricted to be within each of the bounding parallel lines.

If the two kings are on the same row, column, or diagonal, using the argument from the paragraph above shows that all blocking squares must be in that row, column, or diagonal, clearly impossible.

Therefore, if we view the king positions as two opposite vertices of a rectangle with sides parallel to the sides of the board, by using the first two metrics, all blocking squares must be in or on the bounding rectangle. Using the other two metrics allows us to shrink this to a bounding parallelogram.

Note that the only possible blocking squares are those that are intersections of the rows, columns, and diagonals through each of the squares of the kings because they must give check to the other king and block a check. It is easy to see that there are always 2 possible blocking squares in the bounding parallelogram: the other two vertices of the parallelogram. But then, if we have one checking piece in each (which is necessary), then there are no squares from them to move to to give check, contradiction.
> 3 votes

# Answer
With Nightriders (NN) (a classical fairy piece) and Rooks, there are positions with mutual perpetual check. A position was given by Arthur J. Roycroft in 1976.

(Formerly, I attributed it to this comment on chessvariants.org by H. G. Muller in 2012. The position is Black: Rb1, Rc1, Kb2; White NNa6, NNd6, Kb4; Black to move. Thanks to @RosieF for finding the reference to Roycroft, it was very recently added to the Schwalbe Problem Database.)

It is also possible to construct a mutual perpetual check with Nightriders and Bishops: Black: Ba2 Bb1 Kb3 (two Bishops of the same colour); White NNf8, NNh6, Ke6; Black to move.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, check
---


# Question
Title: Combining AlphaZero methods with Stockfish methods
NOTE: I asked a similar question at the ai stackexchange, but didn't get any satisfying answers, so I will post an updated version of the question here, to see if someone with more of a chess background can answer it.

In short terms: Is it possible to combine the techniques used by AlphaZero with those used by, say, Stockfish? In AI terms that would be combining deep reinforcement learning with alpha-beta pruning. And if so, has it been attempted?

I have only a brief knowledge about how AlphaZero works, but from what I've understood, it basically takes the board state as input to a neural net, possibly combined with monte carlo methods, and outputs a board evaluation or prefered move. To me, this really resembles the heuristic function used by traditional chess engines like stockfish.

So, from this I will conclude (correct me if I'm wrong) that AlphaZero evaluates the current position, but uses a very powerful heuristic. Stockfish on the other hand searches through lots of positions from the current one first, and then uses a less powerful heuristic when a certain depth is reached.

Is it therefore possible to combine these approaches by first using alpha-beta pruning, and then using AlphaZero as some kind of heuristic when the max depth is reached? To me it seems like this would be better than just evaluating the current position like (I think) AlphaZero does. Will it take too much time to evaluate? Or is it something I have misunderstood? If it's possible, has anyone attempted it?

---Reopening motivation---

This closed question may have a good answer in https://www.newinchess.com/komodo-chess-13

# Answer
You are asking the right question but only want to refine your premise slightly. AlphaZero does indeed search "through lots of positions from the current one first," as you have said, only not precisely via alpha-beta pruning. AlphaZero's makers explain it thus:

> Instead of an alpha-beta search with domain-specific enhancements, AlphaZero uses a general-purpose Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm. Each search consists of a series of simulated games of self-play that traverse a tree from root state *s* root until a leaf state is reached. Each simulation proceeds by selecting in each state *s* a move *a* with low visit count (not previously frequently explored), high move probability and high value (averaged over the leaf states of simulations that selected *a* from *s*) according to the current neural network *fθ*. The search returns a vector π representing a probability distribution over moves, π*a* = Pr(*a*|*s*root).

As you know, most opening and middlegame positions make it impractical to search all relevant chessboard futures, so the question is how to prune the search tree. AlphaZero prunes the tree as explained but, *for each relevant chessboard future not pruned,* evaluates the position by neural net.

Thus, contrary to your premise (if I grasp your premise correctly), AlphaZero judges not only the position actually on the board but also potential future positions.

If you have had occasion to review Stockfish's source code you will have noticed how straightforward Stockfish's evaluation function is. It's fairly simple and very quick. The speed of AlphaZero's evaluation function naturally depends in part on the hardware on which AlphaZero is run but in the absence of exotic hardware AlphaZero's evaluation can hardly be as fast as Stockfish's. Therefore, significantly, as far as I know, Stockfish has the advantage of evaluating more chessboard futures than AlphaZero can. Your premise is right to that extent.

Nevertheless, AlphaZero

* searches more chessboard futures than a human master can, and
* apparently evaluates each better than Stockfish can.

This is reportedly how AlphaZero plays better than either.

Insofar as AlphaZero's makers have not released their source, it is hard to say too much more, but meanwhile you may have heard of LCZero, a vigorous open-source attempt to replicate AlphaZero's results. If you have not heard of LCZero, also known as "Leela," then you might investigate when you have some time.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, alphazero
---


title: How does the scid opening trainer work

text:
# Question
Title: How does the scid opening trainer work
I'm trying to use the opening trainer in scid. I've set up a filtered database of master games in a particular opening, as described in the wiki. I was expecting some kind of interactive experience from there but, when I start the opening trainer, it just cycles through the moves in the database then offers me a report. What am I missing?

# Answer
I'll give instructions for Scid 4.6.4. With this setup, I haven't seen any issues where it moves both sides:

1. Create a database of openings you want to study. Scid will select randomly from all variations of all games, so make sure you want to train on everything in that database. Open the database switcher and make sure your desired openings database is selected.
2. Database \> Maintenance \> Maintenance Window (Ctrl + M). You should see your database name at the top. Next to the name of your database, click the image to the right of "Type Icon:" and select either "Openings for White" or "Openings for Black". Note that this option decides your selection in step 4. Let's say you select "Openings for Black"; the only option you can select in step 4 is to play as Black. If you want to play White, you'll need to either reclassify the database in the Maintenance Window or rotate the board (after you've selected to play black) and it will let you play the White pieces. "Openings for either color" allows you to select playing both sides in the Openings Trainer, but from what I've seen it'll just play one side anyway.

3. If desired, add additional flags for White or Black openings here in the Maintenance Window. I don't think this does anything for the Opening Trainer.
4. You may need to restart Scid. Play \> Training \> Openings. Customize your options (such as which side you want to play) and hit Continue. Play a move and Scid should play the other side if you've selected either White or Black. Once it displays "End of variation" in the window that pops up, you can use the arrow keys to move back to move 1 (or select move 1 in the Notation) and it will randomly select another variation. If you're ever stuck on a move, click "Display candidate moves" in the pop-up and below that button it will show your options.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The opening trainer can only be understood and used by the programmers themselves it's how I would describe it, the options are not user friendly. So I suggest that you click the List Window then choose the game you want to train, make the first move, if you want to practice White, then click the replay button, a little on top of board, a forward triangle icon, then just move ahead for the White moves because if not then the program will auto play the White moves for you. You can set the replay move speed on Options... Moves... Autoplay Time Delay...
> 3 votes

---
Tags: training, scid
---


title: Difference in Tactics Ratings

text:
# Question
Title: Difference in Tactics Ratings
I have a Chess.com tactics rating (default blitz setting where time to solve is instrumental in getting points) hovering around 1750 but for some reason I can't get beyond 1550 on the Chess Tempo's Chess-Tactics site on the standard rating scale (no time limit). Any reason why? Is it only because the blitz capability and the no-time-limit capability are different, or because the problem difficulty ratings in these two websites are different?

# Answer
Different sites will have different rating systems, even for games!

So, for tactical puzzles, basically every site works in a completely different manner. Also, I don't know about chess.com, but in chesstempo, different settings will also result in different ratings, as the kind of puzzles will be different, and the balance is not perfectly achieved.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics, rating
---


# Question
Title: Longest sequence of mutually forced moves
In this position, the black move 1. ... Qc3 results in **two consecutive forced moves**, Kxc3 and Ke7:

```
2rkr3/2p5/2q5/8/8/8/3KP3/3R4 b - - 0 1

1... Qc3 2. Kxc3 Ke7

```

What is the longest sequence of mutually forced moves that can be constructed on a standard chessboard?

# Answer
> 17 votes
Inspired by Ed Dean's now deleted answer, here is another "infinite loop.”

```
[FEN "8/6p1/1p3pPk/1P3Pp1/1Pp3p1/KpP3P1/1P6/8 - - - 0 0 "]

```

# Answer
> 33 votes
Assuming you allow promoted material (since you didn't say anything :-), this (on Page 13 of the PDF) is the (unfortunately, extremely unknown) finite record since ages. It shows the record for the longest sequence of only 1 legal move for each side, with use of promoted material.

```
[Title "Karl Scherer, Feenshach 1980, Page 13"]
[FEN "BQ4R1/2Q5/3Q4/4Q1pp/5B1P/6QK/Rrrrrrrq/R4nk1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 2. Bxh2+ Rxh2+ 3. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 4. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 5. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 6. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 7. Rxh2 g4+ 8. Rxg4+ hxg4+ 9. Kxg4 Kxh2

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
A simpler infinite-loop setting:

```
[FEN "1kb5/1p1p4/1P1P4/8/8/4p1p1/4P1P1/5BK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
You mean like this?

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

```

White mates in 6.

I guess that's 9 consecutive forced moves. It would be eleven except for black's choice of promotion piece on his fifth move. I don't know if it's a record, and I don't know who composed this classic chess problem.

**P.S.** Thanks to Rosie F. for sourcing the problem. Quoting Rosie F.'s comment:

> This problem is by Vilhelm Röpke. PDB cites it as *Skakbladet*, 1942.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are two definitions of forced in play here:

1. Forced as in it the only legal move.
2. Forced as in you are bound by the rules of chess to make a move, i.e. your king is in check or it is your turn to move.

While there is some overlap between the two definitions, they are still separate categories in general. Here are records for each one, with and without promoted pieces.

Each record shall be recorded in length by plies, or half-moves, Since a player has a choice of what piece to promote to, promotion is not considered a fully forced move under definition #1.

One Legal Move, No Promoted Pieces-15 Ply

```
[Title "Bernd Schwarzkopf, Feenschach 1980 On Page 13"]
[FEN "8/2p5/2p5/1pP5/nP3p2/PP2B3/1pp1p3/brkbK3 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... fxe3 2. bxa4 bxa4 3. b5 cxb5 4. c6 b4 5. axb4 a3 6. b5 a2 7. b6 cxb6 8. c7 b5

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

Additional Source: A PDF of the original source

One Legal Move, Promoted Pieces-18 Moves

```
[Title "Karl Scherer, Feenshach 1980 On Page 13"]
[FEN "BQ4R1/2Q5/3Q4/4Q1pp/5B1P/6QK/Rrrrrrrq/R4nk1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 2. Bxh2+ Rxh2+ 3. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 4. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 5. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 6. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 7. Rxh2 g4+ 8. Rxg4+ hxg4+ 9. Kxg4

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

Additional Source: A PDF of the original source

Multiple Legal Moves, No Promoted Pieces-12 Ply

```
[Title "Noam D. Elkies, Tim Krabbe’s Website Diary Entry #267 2004 (Version By Me)"]
[FEN "KBk5/P1P1p2p/2PN3P/P6p/2p3rP/2P3pB/6P1/8 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... exd6 2. a6 d5 3. Bxg4+ hxg4 4. h5 d4 5. cxd4 c3 6. d5 c2 7. d6

```

Source: Diary Entry #267

Multiple Legal Moves, Promoted Pieces-22 Ply

```
[Title "Alexey Khanyan, Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #267 2008, Mate In 11"]
[FEN "4Q2Q/4r3/4n1n1/1bbK1krn/RR1RR1RR/2qn1R1n/4n1nN/Q3Q3 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ng2f4+ 2. Rfxf4+ N2xf4+ 3. Rgxf4+ Nh3xf4+ 4. Rhxf4+ Ndxf4+ 5. Rxf4+ Nhxf4+ 6. Rxf4+ Ngxf4+ 7. Rxf4+ Nxf4+ 8. Rxf4+ Kxf4+ 9. Qee5+ Qxe5+ 10. Qaxe5+ Rgxe5+ 11. Qxe5+ Rxe5+ 12. Qxe5#

```

Source: Diary Entry #267

---

Here are records if you want each one to end in checkmate.

One Legal Move, No Promoted Pieces-11 Ply

```
[Title "@Peter, Chess Stack Exchange 3/11/2015, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "7k/q5Q1/p4PPK/6PP/8/5P2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Qxg7+ 2. fxg7+ Kg8 3. f4 a5 4. f5 a4 5. f6 a3 6. f7#

```

Source: This CSE question.

One Legal Move, Promoted Pieces-16 Ply

```
[Title "Bernd Schwarzkopf After Karl Scherer, Feenschach 1980 On Page 13, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "1KN4r/QRRRRRRr/kq6/p1q1R3/PP1q1b2/4q3/5q2/1r4q1 b KQkq - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Qxa7+ 2. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 3. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 4. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 5. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 6. Rxa7+ Qxa7+ 7. Rxa7+ Rxa7 8. b5+ Rxb5+ 9. axb5#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

Additional Source: A PDF of the original source

Multiple Legal Moves, No Promoted Pieces-14 Ply

```
[Title "Noam D. Elkies, Tim Krabbe’s Website Diary Entry #267 2004 (Version By Me)"]
[FEN "KBk5/P1P1p2p/2PN3P/P6p/2p3rP/2P3pB/6P1/8 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... exd6 2. a6 d5 3. Bxg4+ hxg4 4. h5 d4 5. cxd4 c3 6. d5 c2 7. d6 c1=Q 8. d7#

```

Multiple Legal Moves, Promoted Pieces-See the above Alexey Khanyan problem.

---
Tags: problems, records, forced-move
---


title: Kasparov quote on boldness

text:
# Question
Title: Kasparov quote on boldness
I am looking for a Kasparov quote on boldness. I would like to be something along the lines of this: "I do less tactical training as tournament time approaches. Instead, I do more bold, daring things."

# Answer
I found a few in an article on chessworld.com called "31 Great Chess Quotes from Garry Kasparov."

> “When your house is on fire, you can’t be bothered with the neighbors. Or, as we say in chess, if your King is under attack, don’t worry about losing a pawn on the queenside.”

> “If you wish to succeed, you must brave the risk of failure.”

> “The highest art of the chessplayer lies in not allowing your opponent to show you what he can do.”
> 4 votes

---
Tags: kasparov, quotations
---


# Question
Title: What's the most efficient way to get from 2000 to 2300?
I'm a hobby chess player with a rating of about 2050 FIDE. I would like to get to 2300 in the long run, but I don't have too much time on my hands, since I'm a busy university student and I also have other interests. What I'm looking for is some kind of training plan that I can follow and that will eventually pay off. That comes with a few questions, of course. 1. What should I train? 2. How much should I train each week? Each week, I have about 4-5 hours available for chess training. My current idea is that I spend most of that on tactics, and some of it on reading chess books on strategy. What do you think?

# Answer
Once you've reached a skill level like that one you have, it really depends on what you current flaws are!

The first step should be a deep analysis of your games (I mean a real self-made analysis, not checking what Stockfish thinks of each position) Try to find the reasons why you lose the games you lose.

But, in general, for a 200+ rating point increase, you will have to work to some extent on all aspects of your game, with tactics and strategy (static and dynamic) being most important, but I'd also have a look at fundamental endgame theory as wel as build a solid opening repertoire.

Also, is it a possibility to hire a coach?

Good luck!
> 2 votes

# Answer
4-5 hours a week:

Go over GM games nightly as if you are playing. They need to be well annotated -- preferably by one of the players.

Do puzzles when you have a minute here or there.

Book recommendations:

* Symslovs 125 Selected Games
* Karpov's 100 Best Games
* The Test of Time by Kasparov
* Fire on Board by Shirov and my favorite
* Life and Games of Tal by Tal

for puzzles pick up 1001 winning chess combinations by Reinfeld.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Database of chess results

text:
# Question
Title: Database of chess results
I'm looking for a database or a collection of the chess results of all FIDE-rated games (standard time control). The data I'm interested in is: the white player, the black player, the result and the date for each game. I've checked the FIDE-website, however, I could only find the published rating lists.

Is such a collection available? If so, where would I be able to download it? Thanks in advance!

# Answer
> I'm looking for a database or a collection of the chess results of all FIDE-rated games (standard time control).

Such a database exists but only on FIDE's computers and they don't make the data easily available in its entirety.

The data *is* available but you have to select and download one tournament at a time. Here's how:

Go to the FIDE Ratings Archive page. There you have the ability to **Browse Rated tournaments by country**. You select a federation from a drop-down list and a period from another drop-down list and click on the "go" button. For instance if you select "Russia" and "April 2019" then you get this page.

The first two tournaments are rapid tournaments but the third looks like a standard tournament. On the end of the row of that tournament there is a hyperlink "inf" for information. If you click on it then you get the general tournament information including time control and, indeed, it is

> Standard: 90 minutes with 30 second increment from move 1

Scroll down a bit further and there is a crosstable element with a blueish icon next to it. Click on it and you get the results of all the games in the tournament.

If you go back to the page with the list of tournaments for Russia for April 2019 you see similar blueish icons on the left side of the page next to the tournament names. These will take you to the same place more quickly.

If you are determined to get all the results going back to July 2001 then you can do so by building your own web crawler to navigate the site automatically and screen scrape the cross table pages for all the tournaments in all the periods for all of the federations, extract the data you want and build your own database.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rating, fide, database
---


title: What does the FIDE president do?

text:
# Question
Title: What does the FIDE president do?
What is the role of the president of the International Chess Federation? What does he or she do, and what is he or she supposed to do?

I have looked at sources such as Wikepedia

# Answer
> 5 votes
The FIDE President's role is defined in one of the FIDE Handbooks on the FIDE website. The relevant part is Chapter 09 - The President and Deputy President in the FIDE Statutes.

There it says -

> 9.1. The President represents FIDE officially and can solely sign for FIDE. All contracts signed by the President shall be subject to prior approval or subsequent ratification by the Presidential Board. Any contract that commits FIDE to an obligation or exposes FIDE to a potential liability of more than €100,000 must be submitted for ratification by the Executive Board or General Assembly.
> 9.2. The President presides over the meetings of the General Assembly, the Executive Board and the Presidential Board.
> 9.3. The President presents an annual report to the General Assembly.
> 9.4. The President’s decisions may be appealed to the General Assembly, Executive Board or Presidential Board.
> 9.5. If the President is unable to act or if he duly authorises, then he can be represented by the Deputy President who shall exercise the powers of the President. The Deputy President can thus represent FIDE officially and can solely sign for FIDE.
> 9.6. In certain cases the FIDE President can also delegate specific tasks to other persons; this includes authorising in writing other FIDE officials to sign contracts on his behalf.

Details of the General Assembly, the Executive Board and the Presidential Board are given in the FIDE Statutes.

---
Tags: fide
---


# Question
Title: Where can I get a nice set for Capablanca chess?
Because I'm odd, I'm interested in obtaining a nice-looking set (that need not be portable) for Capablanca chess, the third world champion's chess variant which is played on 10 x 8 board and features two new pieces for each side: a chancellor that can move like a rook or a knight, and an archbishop that can move like a bishop or a knight. Is there a place that sells such sets?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'm recording this answer here because it took me quite a bit of searching to find something, primarily because I never found any sets going under the actual name "Capablanca chess." I did find workable sets under the names "Gothic chess" (apparently because of someone's fairly recent spin-off of Capablanca chess) and "Grand chess" (intended for a 10 x 10 board, see below).

I've only managed to find one 10 x 8 board, this one from House of Staunton. In addition, they have a full set of pieces (including pieces designed to be archbishops and chancellors, with a 3.75" king height) designed to fit the board, so that's at least a working answer to the question. Unfortunately, that piece set runs $200, so an alternative would be nice.

MindSports in the Netherlands has a set of pieces, which they intend for a game they call Grand chess that's to be played on a 10 x 10 board, that would work as a Capablanca chess set; the design of the archbishops and chancellors even reflect their movements, as can be seen in this picture (f- and g-files):

That set costs a more reasonable $40, but features a 3" king, and so that set would unfortunately be out of proportion on the only 10 x 8 board I've found (the one above). If you're happy to use a 10 x 10 board (and ignore part of it for Capablanca chess), then this is one way to go.

From what I know now, the best alternative to the $200 set above for use on the 10 x 8 board would be the House of Staunton's plastic piece set for Seirawan chess. This set runs only $40, has a 3.75" king height, and has a Hawk and Elephant piece for each side,

which can be used to represent the chancellors and archbishops of Capablanca chess.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In Ancient Chess site there are Capablanca Chess Set, is a luxury, albeit at a very expensive price. However, everything is wooden and very precious, including the board. The site: http://ancientchess.com/page/Capablanca-Chess.htm

The good thing is that the movements of the new pieces (Chancellor and Archbishop) are easy to interpret because the shape of these pieces are a fusion of Knight and Tower and Knight and Bishop. Nobody will confuse.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Another set you could use is the Omega Chess set. This variation introduces two Wizards and two Champions, but you could use one each on just the 10x10 board, or a smaller 10x8 board. I would use the Wizard piece for the Archbishop and the Champion piece for the Chancellor. I think Omega Chess is still available commercially.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Gothic Chess sets are being sold in the United States in Florida and Pennsylvania.

https://gothicchess.info/set\_01.shtml

The 10x8 board and the full set of pieces. Much cheaper than the House of Staunton which is always overpriced.

---
Tags: chess-variants, recommendations, equipment, capablanca-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is the record for the most pawns, of both sides, on a file in a professional chess game?
Some of us have heard about the famous game Kovacs-Barth, Balatonbereny 1994, which has the longest known surviving quadrupled pawn structure . It is one of many games with quadrupled pawns for one side, since quintupled hasn’t occurred yet. However, when it comes to counting pawns of both sides, has a higher number been reached? Hextupled pawns are the obvious limit, but it is a matter of finding such a game.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I did some searching on Tim Krabbe's site and, in Journal Entry #278, I found that Krabbe gave a unique game in which there are 6 pawns on the c-file, 3 per side, on move 21! This is the obviously the maximum.

```
[Title "Sevcikova-Blichova, ch girls u12, Slovakia, 1999"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. a3 Bxc3 6. dxc3 Nxe4 7. Bxc6 dxc6 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nxe5 Rf8 10. O-O Bf5 11. Be3 Nd6 12. Rac1 Re8 13. Rfe1 f6 14. Nd3 Nc4 15. Rcd1 Ke7 16. Bxa7+ Kf7 17. Bc5 Rxe1+ 18. Rxe1 Re8 19. Rxe8 Kxe8 20. b3 b6 21. bxc4 bxc5 22. a4 Bxd3 23. cxd3 Kd7 24. a5 Kc8 25. f4 Kb7 26. g4 Ka6 27. Kf2 g5 28. fxg5 fxg5 29. Kf3 Kxa5 30. d4 Kb6 31. d5 cxd5 32. cxd5 c6 33. d6 Kb7 34. Ke4 Kc8 35. Kf5 Kd7 36. Kxg5 Kxd6 37. Kh6 Kd5 38. Kxh7 Kc4 39. g5 Kxc3 40. g6 c4 41. g7 Kb2 42. g8=Q c3 43. Qb8+ Kc2 44. Kg6 Kd2 45. Qd6+ Kc2 46. Qxc6 Kd2 47. Qd5+ Kc2 48. h4 Kb2 49. Qb5+ Ka1 50. h5 c2 51. Qc5 Kb1 52. h6 c1=Q 53. Qxc1+ 1-0

```

For one side, the recuring record is four, as shared by many. There is no known case of quintupled pawns yet, for which the stars must align. However, as mentioned, the most notable example is the game in which the structure survived an astonishing 23 moves.

```
[Title "Gabor M Kovacs-Rainer Barth, Balatonbereny Open, 1994"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "43"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 c6 5. d4 g6 6. Nge2 Be6 7. Bb3 Nxc3 8. bxc3 Bxb3 9. axb3 Bg7 10. O-O O-O 11. f4 Na6 12. Ba3 Re8 13. Qd3 Qb6 14. f5 c5 15. fxg6 fxg6 16. Qc4+ e6 17. dxc5 Qc6 18. Rad1 b5 19. Nd4 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 bxc4 21. Nb5 Reb8 22. bxc4 Rc8 23. Nd6 Rc6 24. Ne4 Rac8 25. Rd7 R6c7 26. Rd6 Rc6 27. Rfd1 Bf8 28. Rxc6 Rxc6 29. Rd8 Kf7 30. Rd7+ Be7 31. Rxa7 h6 32. Bc1 g5 33. h4 gxh4 34. Bf4 e5 35. Bxe5 Re6 36. Nd6+ Kg6 37. Bd4 Nb8 38. Ra8 Nc6 39. Rg8+ Kh5  40. Nf5 Rg6+ 41. Rxg6 Kxg6 42. Nxe7+ Nxe7 43. Kh3 Nc6 44. Kxh4

```

Interestingly, the 6 pawns game is an example of 2+1, 2+2, and 2+3 pawn structures. I wondered if 3+1 had ever occurred, and I found such an example. It occurs on move 10, although faster has surely been done.

```
[Title "Jorn Sloth-Grigory Sanakoev, CORR, 1992"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "20"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Qc2 O-O 6. Nd5 Re87. Qf5 d6 8. Nxf6+ gxf6 9. Qh5 e4 10. a3 exf3 11. axb4 Nxb4 12. Ra4 Re5 13. Qh6 fxg2 14. Rg1 Bg4 15. Rxb4 gxf1=Q+ 16. Kxf1 Rg5 17. Rg3 Rg6 18. Qf4 Qd7 19. f3 c5 20. Rb5 Bf5 21. e4 Be6 22. d3 f5 23. b4 b6 24. Bb2 f6 25. Kg1 Rf8 26. Ba1 Kf7 27. Bc3 Kg8 28. Qh6 fxe4 29. Rxg6+ hxg6 30. Qxg6+ Qg7 31. Qxg7+ Kxg7 32. bxc5 dxc5 33. fxe4 Rd8 34. Rb3 Kg6 35. Bb2 f5 36. Kf2 fxe4 37. Ke3 exd3 38. Rxd3 Re8 39. Kf4 Bxc4 40. Rg3+ Kf7 41. Rg7+ Ke6 42. Rxa7 Kd5 43. Rd7+ Kc6 44. Rd2 b5 45. h4 Bf7 46. Be5 b4 47. Rd6+ Kb5 48. Rd7 Bg6 49. Rb7+ Kc4 50. Rb6 Bh5 51. Rh6 Be2 52. h5 Rf8+ 53. Kg5 Bd3

```

I know of this 4+1 game from this blog.

```
[Title "Kevin Davidson-Asa Hoffmann, Marshall Chess Club, 3/2/2013"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "54"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. f4 Qb6 6. e5 Nh6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. Qxb6 axb6 10. gxf3 Nf5 11. Ne2 c5 12. dxc5 bxc5 13. Bh3 dxe5 14. Bxf5 gxf5 15. Rg1 Bf6 16. Nc3 Nc6 17. Nd5 O-O-O 18. Nxf6 exf6 19. Be3 b6 20. Rd1 Rxd1+ 21. Kxd1 Kd7 22. Rg7 Ke6 23. Ke2 h5 24. h4 Ne7 25. Bf2 Ng6 26. Bg3 Ke7 27. a3 exf4 28. Bf2 Kf8 29. Rxg6 fxg6 30. b4 Kf7 31. bxc5 bxc5 32. Kd3 Rc8 33. Kc3 g5 34. a4 Ke6 35. Kb3 Kd6 36. a5 g4 37. Ka4 Kc6 38. a6 Kb6 39. a7 Ra8

```

This leaves a 4+2 pawn structure still yet to be known to me, which I severely doubt the existence of.

Lastly, here is a game in which tripled pawns occur on move 7. However, the actual record may be 6 moves, if not 5.

```
[Title "Gerhard Kiefer-Peter Krauseneck, Bundesliga Germnay, 1982"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "13"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 Qc7 6. Nf3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Qxc5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O Nge7 10. Rb1 Qxc3 11. Rb5 Nd4 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Rxb7 Qxe5 14. Bb2 Qd6 15. Rb3 f6 16. Qh5+ Kf8 17. c4 dxc4 18. Bxc4 Qc6 19. Bb

```

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, master-games, records
---


# Question
Title: What are some ideas for black in the Ruy Lopez when white plays an early d3?
If white plays an early d3 in the Ruy Lopez (presumably after c3 to give the light-squared bishop a retreat square) what are some ideas for black? I'm talking about those lines where white doesn't push d4, at least not immediately, but plays more calmly with d3. Svidler made a video series about the d3 Spanish on Chess24, but it's a little hard to tease out the ideas from the moves. I'm looking for an answer here that articulates in plain words what plans and ideas black has at his/her disposal when playing the Ruy Lopez against an early d3.

I've outlined, below, some plans and ideas with which I am familiar. But some of them may be faulty. This is just my modest knowledge of an opening (d3 Spanish) with which I am not that familiar.

1. Playing d5 and often then d4. This can be followed up by dxc3 bxc3 b4 to undermine the pawn on c3 and free up the d4 square for occupation (perhaps by a knight).
2. Rerouting the f6 knight to d7. This gives black the possibility of f5, which could be viable depending on the situation. It also allows the dark-squared bishop to go to f6, where it pressures d4 and might eventually end up on g7. The knight on d7 can then go to b6.
3. Playing on the kingside, Kings Indian style, by maneuvering the f6 knight to g7, playing f5, perhaps rerouting the c6 knight to f7. Why often responds to this plan with an early g4, discouraging black from playing f5, and playing on the kingside him or herself.
4. Playing on the queenside, starting with the moves Na5 Bc2 c5. A rook can go on c8, and then black can push c4 or b4, and try to open up the queenside. However, it can sometimes be difficult to pry open the queenside without an open c-file, as you often get in other lines.

Plans 3 and 4 are general plans that apply to most Spanish openings, whereas 1 and 2 are more typical in the d3 Spanish. I guess I have a passing knowledge of what to do in this opening, but, I still feel like it's not nearly enough.

Are there any key ideas or characteristics that I am missing, that are specific to the d3 Spanish? How is it strategically different from other Spanish openings? Are any of my above plans faulty? Can any of the above plans be elaborated more?

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. d3

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have found some ideas for you from an online source. I hope that this helps you!

Quote: “All this being said, there is some downside to playing d3 one move earlier -- there always is. Seeing as the idea of playing 6.d3 following 5...Be7 is to have black commit to developing their bishop to that square, playing d3 a move earlier with 5.d3 allows black to play differently and more advantageously. This is done by black playing d6 (protecting the e5 pawn) followed by g6 and Bg7, which is a useful and common maneuver found in many Ruy Lopez lines. Black here is able to develop their bishop to g7 immediately, and white can't punish this with an early break in the center with d4 (a la the Fianchetto/Smyslov Variation of the Ruy Lopez with 3...g6), as it comes with a loss of tempo (time) because the d3 pawn has already moved. Therefore, black is thought to equalize rather easily if they conduct this early Bg7 maneuver against 5.d3 (occurring roughly 20% of the time according to databases), as black essentially reaches a Deferred Steinitz or Russian Defense type of position with an extra tempo. You can think of 5.0-0 as a very useful waiting move in relation to the 6.d3 variation, in that it waits for black to commit their bishop so that white may potentially hang on to an advantage somewhat longer.” -Source: https://hubpages.com/games-hobbies/Chess-Openings-The-Ruy-Lopez-with-6-d3

---
Tags: opening, strategy, ruy-lopez
---