# Question
Title: Are there some rules on when you should resign, vs when you stick with it should fight?
Are there any hard-fast rules for when you should resign a game or when you should fight for it? For instance, in timed games I've realized if they are destroying me, but running out of time to do it (like, less than 30 seconds) I think it's worth it to make them play it out because it is hard (for lower rated players anyway) to play both accurately and fast.

Are there any well known rules for when you should just give up, or is it mostly up to you whether you think you can win or not?

# Answer
> 0 votes
As I was asking this, I came across this question, which is not a duplicate of my question, but had some answers which did answer mine, so I decided to answer my own question.

Per this answer:

> For beginner players, who tend to blunder a piece or mate in one regularly, there is no point to resign early. Any game, even in (objectively) clearly lost position will help them to gain experience.
>
> For more advanced players, the **decision to resign will depend on various factors and cannot be generalized**.

and

> Some factors to take into account before resigning:
>
> * Do I have any chances for active counterplay?
> * Do I have any chances for drawing (building a fortress, stalemate,...)?
> * Is the position easily won for my opponent or is it rather a "theoretical" win, but difficult to do in "practice"? (e.g.
> * How much time does my opponent have left?
> * Over the last couple of moves, did my opponent show that he understands how to play the position for a win?

---
Tags: resigning
---


# Question
Title: Is 6 the limit for the most pawns possible on a single file?
As far as I can calculate, 6 is the limit for the most number of pawns on a single file possible. Is 7 possible at all, ignoring promotion? I only took into account using the edge of the board, not the center, so I may be wrong.

# Answer
Addendum 9/2/2020-It turns out that the shortest possible game is actually **16.5. moves** long. This problem was published in The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database.

```
[Title "Henrik Juel & James Malcom, PDB Website 7/77/2020, Non-Unique Proof Game In 16.5 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. g4 Nc6 2. g5 f6 3. gxf6 Nd4 4. fxe7 Nf6 5. exd8 Nd5 6. a4 b5 7. axb5 c6 8. bxc6 Bd6 9. b4 Ba6 10. e4 Bd3 11. cxd3 O-O 12. cxd7 Rc8 13. exd5 Rc5 14. bxc5 Rf3 15. cxd6 Re3+ 16. fxe3 Kh8 17. exd4

```

---

Using black pawns-my thanks goes to @DM for this idea-I have completed my quest to find the shortest possible septupled pawns proof game in **18.0 moves.**

```
[Title "James Malcom, chess.stackexchange.com 2/25/2019, Proof Game In 18.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 b6 2. d5 a5 3. d6 exd6 4. Qd5 c6 5. e4 cxd5 6. b4 f5 7. Bd3 fxe4 8. c4 exd3 9. c5 bxc5 10. Be3 axb4 11. Nc3 bxc3 12. Bd4 cxd4 13. O-O-O g5 14. f4 gxf4 15. Rd2 cxd2+ 16. Kb1 f3 17. Ne2 fxe2 18. Rd1 exd1

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you only include legal positions then 6 is the limit. The pawns could possibly occupy the 2nd-7th ranks, via diagonal captures towards the desired file.

If you ignore promotion and allow pawns to be on the 8th rank (or 1st rank for Black's POV) then the limit is 7.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: theory, problems, pawns, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Is an Arabian mate possible without the king’s help?
Can an Arabian mate be enforced without the king's help in this position?

```
[FEN "r6k/8/8/8/8/8/8/K6n w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
I don't think it is possible to forcibly mate the king with rook and knight only.

---

Proof: The only mating position is with the white king in a corner, the rook giving check from an adjacent square and the knight protecting the rook and covering the escape square.

For simplicity let's say Ka1, Rb1, Nc3. There are 7 other equivalent positions to this one.

If you retro-analyze the position the last move must have been with the rook along the b file from somewhere between b3 and b8. For the following analysis it does not matter from where it came.

Then what was white's last move? It certainly was a king move from a2, b2 or b1 to the corner (a1). However, since white was not forced to move the king to the corner but could have moved to a3 or c1 (or to b3 if the rook was standing there), the mate cannot be forced.

```
[fen "1r6k/8/8/8/8/K7/4n3/8 w - - 0 1"]
[StartPly "4"]

1. Ka2 Nc3+ 2. Ka1?? (2. Ka3!) Rb1++

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's likely not a win, assuming White plays rationally. While it is possible to set up a checkmate position (e.g., knight on c3, rook on a2, White king on a1), Black shouldn't be able to force White into this position. The knight and rook can't control enough squares in their immediate vicinity to create a box and successfully push the White king back.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The knight would have to go to c3, and then the king's only move is a1. Then Rb1 or Ra2 mate, the Arabian mate.

But on 1.Nc3+, the king can go to a3. It can't go to the b-file, because we've assumed a rook is on b8. A similar argument holds for if the king starts on b1, with a rook on h2.

Had a king been on c4, 1.Nc3+ Ka3 2.Rb3#. Therefore, a king is necessary.

P.S. The Arabian mate is so-called because it exists from the times of Chaturanga (500 A.D.)! The rook, knight and king have always been able to move the same.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, theory, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Why did GM Godena resign in this position?
Being an Italian, I am following my team at the Batumi Olympiad, and I was disappointed in seeing that GM Godena had just lost to a mere Candidate Master rated 500 ELO lower (Italy - Nepal). Then I realized that he resigned in a much better position Why?

This is the final position:

```
[Title "Godena vs. Lama, Batumi - 2018"]
[FEN "r3r3/1q2pp1k/7p/1b1PN1p1/4Pn2/4Q2P/3N1PP1/1R2R1K1 w - - 4 30"]

```

Here is full the Game:

```
[Title "Godena vs. Lama, Batumi - 2018"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 a6 7. Bxc6 dxc6 8. h3 O-O 9. d4 Qa5 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 Re8 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Be6 14. Bg3 Rad8 15. Be5 Nh5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qc1 Qb5 18. Qc3 Kh7 19. a4 Qb6 20. b4 Qc7 21. b5 axb5 22. axb5 Qc8 23. bxc6 bxc6 24. Rac1 Nf4 25. Qe3 g5 26. Ne5 Qb7 27. Nxc6 Ra8 28. d5 Bd7 29. Ne5 Bb5 30. Rb1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Transmissions can be inaccurate in real-time. I once saw 1.e4 a6 in a Follow Chess game, but it was actually 1. e4 c5.

In the real game, GM Godena lost on time.

---
Tags: grandmaster, chess-olympiad
---


# Question
Title: Touching a captured queen -- must I promote to it?
Playing a friendly game against my son (but with Touch-and-Move in force), I was going to promote a pawn to a queen, so I fished out my queen from among the captured pieces, and placed it on the eighth rank. But before removing my pawn to complete the move, I realised that this would lose me the game.

My question is: Am I required to complete the move, and promote to a queen? The law says that if I touch any piece *on the board* I must move or capture it. Does this situation count?

# Answer
Yes, you should promote to a Queen forcibly. FIDE rules say that (emphasis mine):

> 4.4 If a player having the move:
> \[...\]
> 4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, **when the piece has touched the square of promotion**.

You placed the Queen in the promotion square, so you should promote to it.

---

However, I would suggest not to promote this way. Instead, you can move your pawn to the promotion square, then put the piece you want there.
> 18 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


title: Poor gambit for white

text:
# Question
Title: Poor gambit for white
I was white and played this against a 1589 rated player on Lichess.

The gambit happens at move 10 and it is characterized as a blunder by stockfish analysis. However, black does some inaccuracies and after a couple of moves he is trapped. Black does a blunder on move 13, and black cannot avoid being checkmated. It looks obvious from the analysis that black should have used the other pawn.

Are there any more experienced players that could tell me some of the possible moves that black can do to avoid getting into trouble and also what white can do instead of taking the risks that i took after move 10. I am wondering what white should do after realizing the gambit was a blunder.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Hourly Blitz Arena"]
[Date "2019.02.23"]
[Round "-"]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 { B21 Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit } cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd1 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Nf3 a6 8. Ba4?! { (-0.03 → -0.56) Inaccuracy. Best move was Be2. } (8. Be2 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Bf4 Qc7 11. a3 O-O 12. h3 b5) 8... b5 9. Bb3 b4?! { (-0.34 → 0.50) Inaccuracy. Best move was e6. } (9... e6 10. Qd3) 10. Bxf7+?? { (0.50 → -2.95) Blunder. Best move was Nd5. } (10. Nd5 e6 11. Nxf6+ Qxf6 12. O-O Be7 13. a3 bxa3 14. Rxa3 Ne5 15. Nd4 d5 16. exd5 Bxa3) 10... Kxf7 11. Ng5+ Kg8 12. Nd5 h6? { (-3.82 → -1.07) Mistake. Best move was e6. } (12... e6) 13. Nxf6+ exf6?? { (-1.26 → Mate in 2) Checkmate is now unavoidable. Best move was gxf6. } (13... gxf6) 14. Qd5+ { Black resigns. } 1-0

```

# Answer
I'm an FM so I guess I'm experienced. For Black's POV, the 12...e6 variation you gave is the best way to play. It pretty much stops White's attack and Black's just up a piece. If he really wanted to Black could have also gone for 11...Ke8 followed by ...e6. In any case, playing with ...e6 is the way to go since it covers up all Black's weak light squares.

For you, I'd recommend not going for 3.Qxd4 (it's rather dubious). If you want to go for this kind of setup, consider playing 2.Nf3 and after 2...d6, 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4. Of course you couldn't go this after 2...Nc6 though. If you still want to play 3.Qxd4, consider 4.Qe3 followed by 5.c4. It gives you a bind in the centre at least.

After 9...b4 in the game, you should have played 10.Nd5. You're a bit worse, but at least the game is close to equal. After 10.Bxf7, I think you played well to get compensation. I wouldn't recommend playing safe AFTER 10.Bxf7, since you need to attack to make up for being down a piece.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think you know that 12..e6 for Black avoids all trouble and thus he was never in trouble until the successive blunders. So your Bxf7 sac is completely dubious.

Your problem is back at move 3 when you played Qxd4 and lost time to Nc6. At this point Black is already doing well.

Based on your play you might consider 3.c3 offering the Smith-Morra Gambit. At the level you are playing, people are horrible at defending (as seen in your game), so opening gambits make sense.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, blunder, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: What is the fastest vertical checkmate for both castlings?
I wish to know the fastest possible castling checkmate, both queenside and kingside, that is vertical.

See my question about horizontal checkmates.

# Answer
Mate in 6.0 for kingside.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1. e4 e6 2. Bc4 Bd6 3. Ke2 Qg5 4. Kf3 Nh6 5. Bxe6 fxe6 6. Qe2 O-O#

```

And 5.5 for queenside, even faster.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1. d4 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nxd4 3. Qxd4 e5 4. Qc4 Ke7 5. Bg5+ Kd6 6. O-O-O#

```

This should be fastest.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Here is a mate (in 7) for kingside castling:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 f5 2. f3 fxe4 3. fxe4 Kf7 4. Qh5+ Kf6 5. Nh3 a6 6. Bc4 a5 7. O-O#

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
mate in seven for queenside castling:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d5 2. d3 dxe4 3. Nc3 Kd7 4. Bh6 Kd6 5. dxe4+ Ke5 6. Qh5+ Kd4 7. O-O-O#

```

Might be worth checking whether it gets any faster if black is the one to castle.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, castling, records
---


# Question
Title: What should be defined as an en passant checkmate?
Is there a general consensus among composers, players, and/or organizations for what exactly defines an en passant checkmate, and is there any history to it?

As far as I know, there are two possibilities to define it by.

1. The pawn captures, moving to deliver a discovered check that results in checkmate.
2. The pawn captures, and the *pawn itself* checkmates.

# Answer
> 4 votes
After some research I could not find any "official" definition by a chess association/federation. This doesn't really surprise me, as there really is no need for a definition of "e.p. checkmate" to ensure correct play.

However the general internet consensus on the usage of the term seems to agree on the following requirements:

* The game has to end with checkmate.
* The last move has to be played en passant.

An exemplary notated move would be "**29... cxd e.p. #**" (although notating e.p. is optional under the *FIDE laws of chess (C.9)*) - regardless if the pawn capturing delivers check or not. The Wikipedia examples follow this definition.

As there is no opinion by a regulatory instance about this topic, it seems to be up to you to make up your mind on this topic or bringing it to the attention of said regulatory instance. I am taking the "democratic" approach with the above definition.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think it is defined at all. But in your first case, the pawn is delivering the mate. So I think that would be the 'en passant mate'. The 2nd case is 'just' a discovered mate.

---
Tags: checkmate, history, terminology, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: Caruana vs Carlsen game 10 (WCC) why not 18...Nxb6?
In game 10 of the Caruana-Carlsen WCC, why did Carlsen (black) not take the terribly annoying and strong dark squared bishop on `b6` on move 18 when given the chance? Instead, Carlsen moved the queen with `Qe8.`

The position is shown in the following diagram:

```
 [title "Caruana vs Carlsen, game 10, why not 18...Nxb6 instead of 18...Qe8"]
 [fen "r1bq1rk1/1p1nb1pp/1B1p4/P2Pp3/2N2p2/8/2P1BPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 14 votes
From a purely positional point of view, `18...Nxb6` would have been a terrible mistake, as it would have allowed white to then forcefully trade the light squared bishops with the immediate `Bg4` move, leaving *exposed* all the *light square* weaknesses that black has created with the `d6-e5-f4` setup.

These weaknesses (created holes) would then have been permanently exploited by white's knight (and queen), in other words, white's minor piece (`b6` knight) would have dominated the game and been virtually untouchable on light squares for the rest of the game. Notice that next to the knight controlling key light squares from `b6`, it's also for example quite feasible for white to re-route the knight to `e4,` established centrally (permanently) and constantly eying black's weak `d6` pawn.

And as for black, Carlsen would have simply been left with a bad dark squared bishop *hemmed in* by his *own structure*. Therefore, Carlsen chose wisely to play `Qe8` instead of `Nxb6`, thus, preserving his `c8` bishop as `Bg4` no longer forces a trade thanks to the well placed knight on `d7.`

In summary, this is a purely positional decision where black is well aware that having weakened their light squares, any scenario with the **knight vs dark square bishop** would be unfavorable for them, and arguably, at that level even objectively lost! Instead having kept both the `d7` knight and `c8` bishop, black has in fact preserved two pieces that can provide light square control.

The following situations would have ensued had Carlsen played `18...Nxb6`:

`18...Nxb6 19.Nxb6 Ra7 20.Bg4`

which would have led to positions of the following nature, infested with light square holes:

# Answer
> 11 votes
After 18 ... Qe8 the bishop on b6 is attacking thin air and isn't very annoying.
After 18 ... Nxb6 19. Nxb6 the knight on b6 is very annoying indeed. The a8 rook is forced to a7 and black's pieces are becoming uncoordinated.
After 18 ... Nxb6 19. axb6 Rxa1 20. Qxa1 black is in trouble. White's b6 pawn is looking dangerous, black's b7 pawn is going to come under attack and his position is cramped and uncoordinated.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Several reasons I can think of:

* black is obviously playing on the kingside and **Qe8 is a useful move** aiming to transfer the queen to f7, g6 or perhaps h5 later. Also it might be useful to push e4 later.
* the bishop on b6 **is not annoying**. At the moment it attacks the black queen but that's about it. To some extent it is also blocking other white pieces. Also the bishop does not have many squares and could (if necessary) be taken later.
* the position after 18...Nxb6 19 Nxb6 is worse, because now you have a knight on b6 and the pawn on b7 is more prone to become weak. Also the light squares are much weaker then.

---
Tags: strategy, world-championship, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Rated Tournaments in France - For a Poor French Speaker
My wife and I are relocating to France this year. As a very poor French speaker, I was wondering how I would cope with entering rated tournaments in France. Any advice from a native English speaker?

I am planning on joining a club out there, in a bid to improve my French and become more social.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As long as you enter FIDE rated tournaments you should be OK. If the arbiter is a FIDE International Arbiter he is required to know English. English is the main FIDE language and according to FIDE Regulations for the Titles of Arbiters -

> **4. Requirements for the title of International Arbiter**.
> All of the following:
> ...
> 4.3 Obligatory knowledge of English language, minimum at conversation level; and of chess terms in other official FIDE languages.

Arbiters with just the FA title are not obliged to have good knowledge of English but will need it if they have ambitions to become IAs.

That said, the French are notoriously bad at foreign languages. I went to live and work there after having lived and worked in Germany for some time and the contrast was stark.

My experience going to open a bank account in Munich went something like this -

Me to stereotypical gorgeous, blonde teller: "Entschuldigung Sie. Ich moechte ein Konto oeffnen"
Brunhilde: "Certainly sir. Your passport please? You are working at Digital?"

I tried the same thing only in French at the bank near where I worked on the southern edge of Paris and got a reply in French. With my schoolboy French it was a struggle but she was patient and I just about managed.

For chess tournaments you might be OK but for general life I would strongly recommend you have French lessons while you are there.

Also, if you are the Owen Rees with FIN 343113860 then I would recommend you try and get a proper FIDE ID number before you go. If you are in England (might also work in Wales) then the cheapest / easiest way is to enter a FIDE rated blitz tournament. The ECF doesn't grade blitz and FIDE don't charge federations for rating blitz so you will end up getting a FIN free of federation membership fees.

PS. I'm guessing you already know "j'adoube". The other useful word is "remis" for when you want to offer a draw.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I lived in Paris for about a year and played in a few tournaments. I can summarise my experiences.

Opponents. For the most part, more charming and courteous than in the US

Refreshments. Much better than in the US.

Toilet facilities. Much worse

Atmosphere. More relaxed. You can't talk to your opponent, but a casual appropriate comment will not bring the TD down on you.

So all the cliches are true.

You should should have no trouble making yourself understood. Chess players are often educated above the average, and most will manage at least a greeting and a polite remark, but your stay will be more fun if you can manage bit of French. Remember it is not a school classroom with tests, but you are allowed pointing, gestures...

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: What's a good middlegame book like My System for Expert Class?
I just finished reading My System. What's a good book to study afterwards for Expert Class?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would recommend Mark Dvoretsky's book 'Strategic Play' Olms. ISBN 978-3-283-00418-7. It's a part of famous 'School Of Chess Excellence' series. (it's easy to find it online). I personally bought all four of them: Endgame Analysis, Tactical Play, Strategic Play, Opening Developments.

Mark Dvoretsky is considered one of the best chess trainers of all time, he raised a number of leading international grandmasters.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In addition to the other nice suggestions and to studying other player's games, I highly recommend simply solving middlegame-strategy problems (they are about finding the best strategy, not the best moves per se), and for that the book of "Chess Middlegame planning" by Peter Romanovsky makes for a perfect start.

```
 [title "Example from the book: important strategic decision for black"]
 [fen "1rq3k1/5pb1/2p1r1p1/4p1Pp/1pP1P3/pP3Q1P/P1B2P2/2KR3R w - - 0 1"]

```

In the above diagram, white has just played the move `c4,` which is a big strategic mistake! How should black respond here?

* It might be tempting, say in a blitz game, to just push `c5` here to protect the `b` pawn and lock the structure, but that would be a big miss! In this position, black has a very strong strategy at their disposal which requires the `c5` square to be left free so the bishop can re-route. As Romanovsky goes about it, there are 4 stages to black's plan here: 1) Re-route the bishop to `d4` (e.g. `Bf8-Bc5-Bd4`), 2) Consolidate the bishop with `c5,` 3) Open the f-file (which will be semi-open, that is, here only open for black after `f6`) 4) control the f-file with heavy pieces and invade white's structure via that file.

Once spotting this plan, you can tell that it's nearly impossible for white to muster a defense against what black intends to achieve, therefore, one can argue that white is objectively lost here after having played `c4.` The book is filled with this kind of problems in the middlegame.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You will find tons of good attacking books for middlegame.

What I want to recommend to you a defense gem. Defense is often a neglected part of chess study. And comparing attack materials, there are very little defense materials out there to study.

There is an excellent book for improving your defensive skills in middlegame positions, by GM Mihail Marin: http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Secrets\_of\_Chess\_Defence.html

# Answer
> 1 votes
I highly recommend Johan Hellsten's *Mastering Chess Strategy*. It surveys pretty much all middlegame strategical considerations, is written very clearly, and has hundreds of exercises with detailed solutions. I definitely feel that a lot of what currently distinguishes me from a class A player are principles and patterns that I learned in this book. (His *Mastering Endgame Strategy* is also excellent.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
*How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition* by Jeremy Silman is the book that has helped me progress the most. The author explains at length how to break down a position based on its imbalances with multiple examples from all level of plays.

The emphasis is given on general principles for positional play, not on critical lines or particular themes. In that regard, it's similar to the famous *My System* books from Nimzowitch. For example, high level games (but also amateur blitz games!) are analyzed under the light of certain principles, in an easy to understand way.

The book also tackles the subject of competitive mindset, what common pitfalls to avoid in reasoning, and conversely what kind of mindframe a player should build. That's a topic not often discussed in books, and has definitely helped me approach games more efficiently.

There are around 650 pages, with tests at the end of each chapter to confirm what was just studied, assorted with an Elo indication for each test's level, to gauge their difficulty. Silman's writing style is clear, direct, and most importantly enjoyable to read.

I definitely recommend this book if you're looking to strengthen your fundamentals, if you want to improve your mindset, or if you just want to see the game under a new light. It's suited (according to the author, and I'd agree) for players between 1400 Elo and 2200 Elo, so it should fit right into your goal of reaching Expert class (1800-2000).

To conclude, the worst point about this book in my opinion is how long of a read it is for a middlegame book, but every page is worth it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Secrets of Modern Chess-Advances Since Nimzowitsch by John Watson

# Answer
> -1 votes
I've read 60 Memorable Games by Fischer, Art of Attack by Vukovic, Understanding Chess: Move by Move by Nunn, and My System by Nimzowitsch.

These books got me to ~1800, but something was missing.

Before the end of 2018, in December, IM Alejandro Moreno recommended Chess Praxis.

"Another book?" I thought. Weary and withered, I reluctantly read the book. I really felt like a law student at this point (mind you, I was studying chess in a quiet area of the law library - with the rollable board and wooden pieces).

I've read Chess Praxis. Here's where it's gotten me:

(Note the highest rating in October - that was when I finished reading the three books listed at the beginning of this post, minus Nimzowitsch. I was playing sharp, but my positional play was unsound. So once I got bored of the lines, I dropped down to ~1700 (!) in a week).

And in my last USCF Tournament (2/16/19), I scored 2.5/4.0 in the open, beat an expert, drew a National Master, and took a 1900 to the cleaners. My rating exploded from 1815 -\> 1880.

If there's one book you must read, it's Chess Praxis.

Reading those five books only took three months, but those will be the three most critical months of your life.

---
Tags: books, middlegame
---


title: En passant for beginners

text:
# Question
Title: En passant for beginners
When I started playing chess, I learned many of the rules of chess on my own. I was playing chess online, and then I realised that pawns can capture in such a fashion. At first, it was weird to me. Like, wow! How can a pawn capture like this?!

Then I read the theory of en passant. I have come to know that such kinds of rules exist in chess. By the way, it's an interesting rule.

Now here comes the main question: How can we teach this rule to a beginner (in a plain language or simplified way or associating any story to it)?

# Answer
> 18 votes
> How can we teach this rule to a Beginner? (in a plain language or simplified way or associating any story to it)

The history gives the story.

At one time pawns could only move one square at a time even on the first move. But this made the game a bit slow. To speed it up the rule was changed to allow a pawn to move either one square, as before, or two squares on the first move.

But this changed the way one pawn could stop another pawn from moving because of the risk of capture. So, for instance, a black pawn on g4 stops a white pawn on h2 from moving. Before the rule change the only move the white pawn could make was from h2 to h3. Then the black pawn on g4 could capture it. After the rule change the black pawn could move straight from h2 to h4 thereby dodging the attack from the black pawn. This was unfair to the black pawn on g4 and changed the game in an unintended way. So, to even things up again the en passant rule was introduced which said that in that situation the g4 black pawn could take the h4 white pawn as if it had only moved one square.

The rule only applies on the move immediately after the double pawn move because with the old rule (only allowed to move one square on move one) if black didn't take immediately then white could move the pawn on his next move and the chance was gone.

# Answer
> 10 votes
In simple words: if a pawn jumps **two** squares and lands **right next** to an opponent's pawn, then the opponent can capture that pawn in the **following turn** as if it had moved only 1 square. That is, only right after you made your jump, your opponent has the option to take by en passant, past that turn it is no longer allowed.

So keywords to remember: **two square move, right next to, and following turn**.

Visually:

```
 [title "Visualised example"]
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/pppppppp/2n5/4P3/8/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]

 1...d5 2.exd6 (1...d6 2.exd6)

```

Notice the end scenarios are the same after either `d6` and `d5`, as in after the capture one cannot tell if it had been by en passant or a normal capture.

Intuitively, you can imagine the rule is there so that one cannot jump past another pawn and **completely evade** the option of a trade. Exactly similar to when you move your pawn only one square, and your opponent still has the option to capture your pawn if they so desire.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As much as I hate to cite Wikipedia, they have a decent article regarding en passant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En\_passant

*It is a special pawn capture that can only occur immediately after a pawn makes a double-step move from its starting square, and it could have been captured by an enemy pawn had it advanced only one square. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn "as it passes" through the first square. The result is the same as if the pawn had advanced only one square and the enemy pawn had captured it normally.*

I hope that helps a little.

---
Tags: learning, beginner, en-passant
---


title: Explaining knight move to kids

text:
# Question
Title: Explaining knight move to kids
I am currently teaching a kid (~6 years) chess and we started with the pieces. While she had no trouble picking up the rules for the rook, the bishop, the queen and the king, the knight seems more difficult.

I explained that the knight takes two steps horizontal or vertical and then it makes a turn and one more step. While with the other pieces she immediately "sees" which moves are possible, for the knight she is now counting, counting and counting. I think she already got better and sometimes just "sees" where she can move, but often she does not.

Now I have the following questions: Will this problem just vanish with increasing practice? Or is the way I introduced the knight move not suitable?

Should I try and explain the knight move differently, e.g., more visually? In this case I would be thankful for any suggestions. So far I have refrained from giving alternative explanation to avoid confusion.

# Answer
> 9 votes
This problem does vanish with time, but it takes longer depending on the person... Personally when I teach others about the knight movement I explain it with the "L" letter.

If they draw the letter L horizontally and vertically they will get all the squares he can go to. This is in my opinion simpler to understand as they will be using a letter they already know, it's not something they will need to learn in order to use it.

This would obviously not work if she does not know English letters, but hopefully this gives you an idea on how to make it easier.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The rule I teach kids which seems to work is that the knight can go to the closest squares the queen can't go to.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I also use the "L shaped method (facing either frontwards or backwards) to explain the move to my students and show them all 8 squares that it could move to in one step on an open board, emphasizing that it is the only piece that can jump over another. I think this visual method is easier to understand than counting. Any problem with this will vanish with time and experience, even though old timers like myself will still occasionally miss a knight fork in a complicated position. :)

# Answer
> 2 votes
One way I haven't seen mentioned yet but I use:

> The knight moves to the opposite corner of a 2x3 rectangle.

Spatially for me it's easier to visualise and recognise a rectangle instead of counting steps in an L-shape.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Some kids like to visualize boxes. This is especially good when doing a pencil and paper activity x-ing all the spots a knight could jump. Good for kids that don't get that an L can be backwards or any direction or how long the legs of the L are.
Draw a box around the knight through all the squares touching the knight (it can't go there but will jump through there). Now draw a bigger box one step out through all the outer squares touching the ones in the first box (2 steps from the knight). It can go to all the opposite color squares on the big outer box.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I learned it as: "one straight, one diagonal". Perhaps not ideal (you'd have to explain not to go backwards when you make the diagonal step), but could be an alternative to the L-method.

As she plays more and develops board vision I am sure that movement will become natural.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The player looks at an area of the board where an extra bishop would be helpful.

Count three (long) squares from the knight in all four directions. Draw a diamond. The knight's sword is not sharp, so the corners go away.

Now you have your portable bishop creator.

---

The knight is an esoteric object that casts a (circular) shadow of influence.

Knights are a known resource when the center of the board is closed. Their circle of influence can significantly increase the strength of pieces in hard-to-reach corners of the board.

In an open game like the one above, a knight still benefits from being in the middle. (Where does the white knight cast its shadow?)

# Answer
> -1 votes
Most probably "L" Should be simple to remember.But if she fails to remember that method you could try with this **`Rook1 and Bishop1 Method`** .

1. First Consider knight as Rook and move 1 step.
2. Then consider knight as Bishop and move 1 step in same direction(in which rook was moved).
3. And just ask them to remember knight can not reach same color as current knight's square and at most knight have 8 possibilities to move on .

Black lines - Rook moves
Green lines - Bishop moves

---
Tags: knights, teaching
---


# Question
Title: In tournament chess, is the Traxler Counterattack just a dubious opening or a blunder?
In the level of tournament chess, is the Traxler Counterattack just a dubious opening or a blunder? In club or online chess it works just fine, but it is one of those opening rarely seen in professional high level chess.

```
 [FEN ""]
 1.  e4   e5
 2. Nf3  Nc6
 3. Bc4  Nf6
 4. Ng5  Bc5

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would call it dubious for most rating levels.

A computer doesn't like it too much, and you are going to lose a pawn. However, the line requires very accurate play by white to maintain that advantage. You can also get a bit of a psychological advantage here by completely ignoring your opponent's attack and focusing on your own - and if your opponent is playing the line that leads to the Traxler in the first place, they are likely a fan of attacking chess, and used to playing against defensive chess, not counter-attacking chess.

Still, you do gambit a pawn, so it is rather dubious.

At, say, the super-GM level, white is going to be able to play very accurately, and has excellent chances of at least not losing.

Gambits can be fun, and if you are not at the super-GM level (I think it's safe to assume that you aren't in the top 0.01% or whatever of chess), it can be reasonable to play.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In Karpov-Beliavsky, Moscow, 1983, Black held a draw without ever being in serious trouble. Karpov played 5.Bxf7. I have never seen detailed analysis of the game.

If it suits your style, try it. But there is a HUGE volume of analysis on it. If you play it more than once you may face a booked-up opponent.

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


title: Playing Ba4 in this position

text:
# Question
Title: Playing Ba4 in this position
Recently, I played a game and after running the computer analysis, it seems like playing 5. Ba4 was a mistake, being better Bxc6.

However, I cannot find the reason why. By retreating the bishop, White does not lose a pawn after ...Nfxe4. So I cannot see why my move would be a mistake.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The difference is that after Bxc6 you win a pawn with Nxe5. That's why the computer gives a +1 evaluation for it.

After Ba4 you end up with just an equal, normal position.

So it is rather the difference between going from better/won to equal than from equal to worse.

---

In fact 4...a6 is a weak move by black. Most popular and good is 4...Nxe4.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Why is c4 a better move in this position?
The computer analysis on a game I played tells me that in the following position, White should have played `c4` instead of `e5`:

```
[fen "r3qrk1/pppb1ppp/1nn1p3/6B1/3PP3/P1P2N2/4BPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

The engine (Stockfish 10 from Lichess.org) tells me that `c4` would have given White an advantage of +2.2, compared to +0.9 with `e5`, so it's quite a difference.

I don't see any immediate tactical win with `c4`, and while it would give White some extra space, so does `e5`. Furthermore, `e5` results in a pawn structure that points to Black's king (I've heard that you should attack in the direction your pawn structure points to), plus covers `f6` in case Black wants to move his f pawn there. `c4` also results in three pawns being aligned on the 4th rank, which I am not very comfortable with.

# Answer
White intends to play c5, which will gain space on the queenside and severely cramp black's position (The b6 knight has no good square).

On the other hand, e5 weakens white's control over d5 and f5 (e.g. Black can then go ...Ne7-f5). Black could also take advantage of the weak c4 and d5 squares with ...Na5 and ...Bc6. Keeping the pawn on e4 seems better. It also keeps the h2-b8 diagonal open for white's unopposed dark-squared bishop. Preventing black from playing f6 does not seem very important to me.

By advancing c3-c4, the c4 square also becomes less of a weakness because it can now be covered from the rear with Qc2 or Rc1, which is impossible with a pawn on c3.

Slightly weakening d4 is not a big deal, because it's easier for white to defend d4 than it is for black to attack it, since white has a big space advantage and a dark squared bishop, while black is quite cramped.
> 17 votes

# Answer
I agree with all of @hdueru4 's points, but I'd like to briefly add a broader pawn-structure point - having 3 central pawns (especially on files c-e) on the 4th rank can actually be a very good thing.

* Definite control of the center - which greatly increases the power of your pieces.
* These 4th-rank pawns are usually easy to defend in this position with your knights (and possibly bishops, queen, and castled rook)
* Also, having almost all of your advanced pawns on one color (like you propose) *can sometimes produce weaknesses* \- you are weak on opposite color, and the same-colored bishop loses some power as well.

Of course, in this position, c4 is downright terrific because it threatens c5, pushing back the knight to oblivion, as mentioned in the other answer.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, pawns, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: How do opening books in engine chess work?
I thought opening books were just big compilations of opening moves that engines have access to, and they choose at random which move to play from the list of moves that the opening book says is good. However if this is correct, I don't see how videos like this make sense. How can an opening book "beat" another?

Am I understanding opening books wrong? What are they exactly, and how do they make an engine stronger (if they actually make the engine stronger)?

# Answer
Your understanding is more or less correct, an opening book is a large collection of positions and what are the "book moves" in that position. I don't know if engines typically choose at random if there are multiple moves in the book for a given position or if they do something more complicated, but that doesn't matter much for your question.

> How can an opening book "beat" another?

It can contain better moves, and more of them, and they could even be better tailored to the specific opponent!

To figure out which is better, you let *the same engine* play against itself, with one side using one opening book and the other side the other. If you take care to have each book play white as often as black, you can see in the end which book had a higher score against the other book.

For instance, an opening book could contain a line somewhere that actually is not as good as the author thought at the time of putting it together, and the other book chooses to go for that position as the other side and it leads to a win for the engine.

Or one book is "done" after 15 moves after which the engine is on its own, but the other book still has several moves coming up after it on which the engine spent far more time on while creating the book than it could during the actual game.

Or the author of the opening book for engine A knows that engine B is worse at playing certain positions from the French, and he chooses to put moves into the book that causes A to go for those positions whenever it has the chance.

Or an opening book author spends days analyzing a certain position in an opening, and finally figures out that there is a way to force a good position for white there, and he adds it to the opening book. Engines with books that still allow that position to come up will have a bad time there.

And so on, opening books are in the end created by humans (with heavy use of engines) and the same arms race is going on there as between top human players.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A better book gives better lines and moves for an engine. For example, if you were to construct a book based on beginner games (no more than 1200) on lichess, it would not perform well.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines
---


# Question
Title: How come Paul Morphy has lots of weird and wonderful games?
Paul Morphy, from what I’ve seem, seems to have been a master of making weird and wonderful games, such as his famous kingside castling checkmate game. Are there any particular reasons for this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes. The reason is simple. For the most part, his opponents were dramatically weaker than him.

Knowledge of the game was in its infancy in Morphy's time, and any number of opponents were murdered in their beds by Morphy's superior grasp of principles of development and calculating ability. The majority of Morphy games are not even contests but good old one-sided floggings.

His match games against the strongest opposition of the time like Anderssen and Lowenthal, while clearing showing him to be superior, are seldom as colorful.

---
Tags: history, master-games, morphy
---


# Question
Title: Would certain checkmates be possible if the king could move into check?
Similar to a previous question of mine, let's suppose there's a piece that moves like the king, but isn't restricted from moving into check.

While a normal king and two knights can't force checkmate, can this "king" and two knights force it by themselves? What about a "king" and a single knight or bishop?

# Answer
> 5 votes
You could force a checkmate with two knights and a "king". Because the "king" does not fear being taken, it can move directly in front of the opponent's king, if it is protected by a knight. All it has to do is do this when the opponent's king is on the side of the board and thus cannot retreat - and it is known that two knights and a normal king can force the opponent's king to the side of the board.

Based on trying it out, I believe a "king" and single knight could also force checkmate. The knight supports the "king" very well, cutting off squares and proving good places for the "king" to advance. And when the knight retreats, the "king" is usually ready to go into that same square if necessary, cutting off the king and forcing it backwards.

With a bishop and a "king", I think the question is whether the king can be forced into a corner which is the same color as the bishop. The following position, with either side to move, results in a quick checkmate, because Black must go into the corner:

```
[FEN "1k6/8/1K2B3/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

I believe this can't be done from many positions, though. From most positions, the king escapes into the wrong corner. Although it can be driven from that corner, it can then flee to the wrong corner on the opposite side of the board.

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, chess-variants, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: Resource for Chess Problems about particular topics
Most puzzles I find are where payout is relatively high. e.g mate in 2-3 moves, play right and get a piece etc. However, I needed a resource which gives me some puzzles/exercises about particular topics in chess where payout is not that high. For example puzzles focussing solely on whether to exchange a piece in a given situation or not. Or whether to be aggressive or defensive in a given scenario. Chesstemp does have tactics tags in its puzzles but I was not able to work out how to get puzzles solely with a few selected tags. Thank you for your kind help

# Answer
> 1 votes
Dvoretsky's books are full of what you seek. Just search him on amazon.

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: What are good resources for how to play against the french as white?
I have been looking all over the web for a good way to counter the french defense, but nothing really helps. If you have any suggestions please tell me.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The main problem you have playing against the French as white, particularly if you don't play it as black, is that there is just so much theory to learn. If you try and play either the Tarrasch or the Winawer you don't know if you are going to get a wild tactical game or end up in a tame, boring Rubinstein. Your opponent makes the choice. Even if your opponent declines to play 3 ... de there are still many ways for black to play and they are ways where one small error can lead to an instant lost game.

Your best bet then is to either play the Advance variation with 3. e5 or the more boring Exchange variation with 3. ed. The Advance gives more scope for tactical play and the Exchange more scope for positional play, although you can still have sharp games in the Exchange. They just tend to have a longer fuse. Either one will leave you much less to learn than either the Tarrasch or Winawer with much less chance of a quick loss.

Whichever one you choose learn it thoroughly and stick with it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The latest I am aware of is: "Grandmaster Repertoire: 1.e4 vs The French, Caro-Kann and Philidor" by Parimarjan Negi

As with any opening, ultimately you would like to have 3 ways to play: 1. A non-theoretical line; 2. A must win line - might be highly theoretical; 3. A safe "draw or win" line.

And of course it comes down to playing positions you are comfortable with.

Most opening books are from the Black perspective but there are a ton of books on beating the French which suggests you are not the only one who finds it pesky. Personally, I tried everything against the French, including creating a novelty line against it; and all the lines are good! You just have to accept that the French is a solid opening and play chess.

3.Nc3 is thought to be the best line but this book suggests 3.Nd2: How to Beat the French Defence: The essential guide to the Tarrasch by Andreas Dr Tzermiadianos

Kasimdzhanov has 3(!) DVDs on beating the French

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't even bother with the theory as white since if they are playing the french they probably know all the main lines. I even play the French as black.

I play exchange variation with castle queen side. That is most likely to get them out of book if they are not a strong player, and still leads to a sharp position.

---
Tags: french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn't Promotion restrict choices to Queen and Knight only?
Queen, in a sense, is equivalent to Bishop and Rook. What is the logic behind "putting Rook and Bishop" in the promotion move's options? Why doesn't it (Promotion move) provide the choice between Queen and Knight only? Why would one promote his Pawn to Rook or Bishop other than Queen? Promoting to Rook/Bishop instead of Queen may provide smaller advantage than promoting to Queen, and it may even provide a disadvantage to the mover.

# Answer
Sometimes, choosing a bishop or a rook is the best move, because of stalemate possibilities. This happens most often with rooks, and very rarely with bishops.

For instance, in this famous position from the Saavedra problem:

```
[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/3r4/8/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]

```

If white plays **1.c8Q**, then black plays **1...Rc4+**. White needs to take it or lose his queen but after **2.Qxc4** it is stalemate.

If instead white plays **1.c8R**, the stalemate trick doesn't work and 2.Ra8+ with checkmate next move is threatened. So black must play **2...Ra4**, but white plays **3.Kb3** attacking the rook and also threatening 4.Rc1 checkmate; black can't deal with both threats.

On Tim Krabbe's page on practical minor promotions I found this example from Kholmov-Ehlvest 1983:

```
[FEN "2k5/2P5/1K2p3/7r/8/8/7p/R7 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

(black to move)

White threatens to play Ra8+ and c8Q+. If black promotes to a queen with **1...h1Q**, then that isn't enough for black to win: 2.Ra8+ Qxa8 is stalemate. Promoting to a rook or knight clearly doesn't help black.

But after **1...h1B**, the check doesn't work, black is simply a piece up and has a winning position.
> 31 votes

# Answer
There are 3 types of piece moves in chess:

1. Straight
2. Diagonal
3. Knight-move

There are positions, where promoted piece takes away the last square that enemy king can move, and stalemates. This happens because of one of these move types.

To avoid stalemate and win eventually, you have to select a promotion which doesn't have stalemating move, which is called underpromotion.

For example, if diagonal move stalemates, you can't select queen as it has diagonal move ability. But you can select a rook, and go for a win.

Example from famous Saavedra position:

```
[FEN "8/8/1KP5/3r4/8/8/8/k7 w - - 1 1"]
[Title "Saavedra"]

1. c7 Rd6+ 2. Kb5 Rd5+ 3. Kb4 Rd4+ 4. Kb3 Rd3+ 5. Kc2 Rd4 6. c8=Q ( 6. c8=R Rc4+

7. Rxc4 Ka2 8. Ra4# ) (6.Kc3 Rd1 7. Kc2 Rd4) Rc4+ 7. Qxc4=/=

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
There are situations where promotion to a knight leads to draw and promotion to a queen leads to stalemate. In these cases rook or bishop may be necessary to cash in the full point.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Sometimes a rook or bishop is preferable to a queen. I.e., when stalemate is an issue.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Chess program that will play an opening against me?
Is there a chess program that will play a specific opening against me? The reason being is that I want to practice against the Ruy Lopez, for example and I want a computer to play up to Bb5. Is there program that can do this, paid or free?

# Answer
Fritz published by ChessBase can do it for you.

Let's see this tutorial to force Fritz to play specific opening.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You can do this with LucasChess. And you can chose as opponent any engine you like or dozens of preconfigured opponents with various personalities.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, software
---


# Question
Title: Why does white sacrifice their queen in this exercise?
I was doing this exercise on lichess, but I don't see why the best move for white is to sacrifice their queen in exchange for a knight (after `Nh3+`):

```
 [title "lichess puzzle 61517"]
 [fen "4r1k1/p1b2pp1/1pp2r2/3p2np/1P1P2q1/P3P1P1/2R1NPQP/2R2NK1 b - - 1 28"]

```

# Answer
Because white will lose the queen anyway after `Nh3+`, since otherwise `Kh1` is answered with `Rxf2` trapping and winning the queen. Just try to work out the tactics by yourself.

As to why white doesn't give up the queen for the rook instead (after `Rxf2`), it's because in *this position* the knight+queen are more apt at coordinating and creating threats. For example, to see that even after `Qxf2` black can win back the rook if desired, here's a line:

```
 [title "lichess puzzle 61517"]
 [fen "4r1k1/p1b2pp1/1pp2r2/3p2np/1P1P2q1/P3P1P1/2R1NPQP/2R2NK1 b - - 1 28"]

 1...Nh3+ 2.Kh1 Rxf2 3.Qxf2 Nxf2+ 4.Kg2 Nd3 5.Ra1 Qe4+ 6.Kg1 Ne1 7.Rxe1 Qxc2

```

One must bear in mind that these are tactics problems, and in this case we know white is lost anyhow after `Nh3+` but you should solve them with the mindset that you're playing against an engine, that is, assume the best resistance that exists, and sometimes since the position is lost, the best resistance is to *delay* the unavoidable exactly similar to how engines would go about such lost positions. Therefore, `Qxh3` is presumably the move that yields the best resistance (lowest evaluation value for black's advantage from the engine's pov).
> 5 votes

# Answer
1...Nh3+ 2.Kh1 Rxf2 and White's queen is dead anyway. Sure maybe it takes a rook instead of a knight but it's non-trivial which is worth more in this position.

In either case White's king should be bringing out the white flag.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics, queens, sacrifice
---


title: Bullet tips and tricks

text:
# Question
Title: Bullet tips and tricks
Nowadays with speedy Internet and in order to play lots of opponents and to decrease the chance of cheating, people are opting for Bullet or blitz.

Generally I prefer to play Larsen opening or Double fianchetto or sometimes Ruy lopez. The traps in these openings are not in the openings but in the captures ( capturing the pawns or Knight with bishops). If the opponent is careless and pre- moves then these tricks work.

But many of the players are unaware of these things and many other gambits or trick.

If you are a pro player of bullet games what bullet-specific tricks do you use?

# Answer
These tricks work much better in bullet, where flagging is probably 50% of the game, than in blitz.

The obvious one is to reply to the start of a fianchetto by threatening the square the bishop is about to move to in case it was pre-moved. e.g. reply to g3 with Bh3. Of course if your opponent didn't pre-move and your bishop is unprotected then you lose a piece but you should only do this when your opponent is playing some opening with minimal contact and with automatic moves like for instance the Kings Indian Attack with white.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, computer-chess, time-management, bullet-chess
---


title: Acknowledging a check mate

text:
# Question
Title: Acknowledging a check mate
Do you have to tell someone that they set them selves up for a check mate? For example if the queen is guarding the king on both ends and one person moves there queen to the left. Does the opposite person have to tell the opponent that they set them selves up?

# Answer
> 5 votes
If your question is "Do I have to tell my opponent that he just made a move from where checkmate is forced?", the answer is "No", you don't have to tell your opponent he is setting himself up for checkmate. In fact, that is rather the point of the game!

The only times you *have* to tell anything to your opponent is:

* When offering a draw
* When you want to adjust a piece.

If your question is "Do I have to tell my opponent that he is in checkmate?", the answer is still *technically* "No". Even the customary "Check" and "Checkmate" are optional.

Practically, if your opponent does not grasp that he is in checkmate it may be useful to point that out to him one way or another, and the traditional "Checkmate!" should do the trick.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think you are confusing *check* and *checkmate*. Check is the situation where a king is under attack from another piece. Checkmate is where that is the case, the king's side has the move, but there is no move possible that stops the check.

Your opponent *isn't allowed* to play any move that puts himself into check. So if he does, you have to tell him, and he has to *take the move back* and play something else. With the same piece if possible (touch move rule).

In tournament play, there are often penalties involved if you play an illegal move, like some minutes extra time for the opponent, or the loss of the game (common in blitz, or if it's the second or third illegal move you play in the same game).

---
Tags: rules, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What's the point of attack board inversion?
In tri-dimensional chess some rule sets allow for the attack board to be moved from the peg on top of the main board to the peg on the underside (as long as the attack board is unoccupied). What is the point of this inversion? Especially since some rule sets deem it okay to ignore inversion rules.

Inversion seems redundant since the attack board's level under a board is the same as the level if it's on top of the board below. i.e. KL under neutral board is equal as KL over white's board.

# Answer
The *Star Trek* set I'm familiar with has connection points for the attack boards at the corners of the main boards, but not elsewhere. So you can have the attack board above the middle board in 4 spots (the corners), or inverted from the upper board, halfway across the middle board.

If the middle board is labeled a1-d4, then the attack board can be placed 'upright' at the outside corners of a1, a4, d1, and d4. It can also be placed inverted at the outside edge of a3 (near a2) and d3 (near d2) beneath the upper board.

You can also invert a board without moving it along the file. Moving it between boards requires at least a 1 'peg' move along the file.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


title: Rating calculation problem

text:
# Question
Title: Rating calculation problem
Firstly I got 1018 rating last year. Then next tournament deducted 25 and my FIDE rating became zero.

1. Then I faced next tournament opponent 03 players 1352, 1255 and 1174 respectively. All 03 games I lost.
2. Then I faced next tournament opponent 03 players 1288, 1315 and 1153 respectively. I won 1315 rated game and other 02 lost.
3. Then I faced next tournament opponent 02 players 1227 and 1334 respectively. I won 0.5 with draw 1334 rated player and other one lost.

Then I already got 1.5 points, but still my FIDE rating is showing 0. I want to know how many games I need to play and win to again take my FIDE rating.

# Answer
> please check Ekanayake E M Anindu Rehan Fide ID is 29909279

OK, so this is your playing record -

**2017-10**
1754 0
1155 0
1371 0

**2017-11**
1112 0

**2018-04** (1018)
1286 0
1079 0
1018 1
1318 0
1067 1
1090 0

**2018-05** (1018 - 25.2 -\> 0)
1418 0
1332 0
1221 0
1292 0

**2018-10**
1352 0
1255 0
1174 0

**2018-11**
1288 0
1315 1
1153 0

**2019-02**
1227 0
1334 0.5

Let's go back and check the FIDE rating regulations.

> 6.1 If an unrated player scores zero in his first tournament, his score and that of his opponents against him are disregarded. Otherwise if an unrated player has played rated games, then this result is included in computing his overall rating.

In your first two tournaments you scored zero points so these are not used in any rating calculations.

You got your first rating of 1018 in the April 2018 list after a tournament in the previous month. Let's see how the calculation works. First the relevant parts of rating regulations:

> 8.2 Determining the Rating 'Ru' in a given event of a previously unrated player.
> 8.21 If an unrated player scores zero in his first event his score is disregarded. First determine the average rating of his competition 'Rc'.
> (a) In a Swiss or Team tournament: this is simply the average rating of his opponents. ...
> 8.24 If he scores less than 50% in a Swiss or team tournament: Ru = Ra + dp

**2018-04** (1018)
1286 0
1079 0
1018 1
1318 0
1067 1
1090 0
Sum of opponents' ratings = 6858
Average of opponents' ratings = Rc = 6858 / 6 = 1143
You scored 2/6 which is 33%. Hence:
Fractional score = p = .33,
Then I look up in table 8.1a from the rating regulations to find 'dp'
dp = -125 so new rating = 1143 - 125 = 1018

Now if we repeat the calculation for what your current rating would be we again throw away the first two tournaments (2017-10 and 2017-11) and use all the tournaments since then.

We get:
Total sum of opponents' ratings = 6858 + 5263 + 3781 + 3756 + 2561 = 22219
Total games = 18
Rc = 22219 / 18 = 1234.39
p = 3.5/18 x 100 = 19.4%
dp = -251 (looking up in table 8.1a for p=0.19)
So new rating = 1234.39 - 251 = 983.39

This is less than 1000 so you are recorded as unrated.

If your fractional score had been 0.21 (i.e. you scored 4 / 18) then dp according to table 8.1a would be -230.4 and you would have had a rating of 1004.

So, basically you fell short by one draw. If you continue winning one game in three against similar opposition then you should make it.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> Then I already got 1.5 points, but still my fide rating is showing 0. I want to know how many games need to play and win to again take my fide rating.

According to the FIDE Rating Regulations

> 7.2 Players who are not to be included on the list:
> 7.21 Players whose ratings drop below 1000 are listed on the next list as 'delisted'. Thereafter they are treated in the same manner as any other unrated player.

Since your rating went below 1000 you count as a new player for rating purposes and this section applies:

> 7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
>
> 7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games.
>
> 7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
>
> 7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. **Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods of not more than 26 months are pooled to obtain the initial rating**.
>
> 7.14d The rating is at least 1000.
>
> 7.14e **The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament** (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

Bottom line: you need to play well enough to bring your rating back to 1000 or above to have your rating reinstated.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, rating, fide
---


# Question
Title: Is there an engine which can give a breakdown of its evaluations
Engines evaluate a position based on a number of factors - material imbalance, king safety, control of the center, pawn structure etc. My understanding is that they then combine these separate evaluations using a weighting for each (which can be adjusted), to produce a final score for the position.

Is there an engine which can display a breakdown of the separate evaluations?

For example:

Material: 0.00 King safety: -1.21 Center control: +0.87

Which means that material is equal, but black's king is less safe than whites, and white has better control of the center.

# Answer
Yes. Look at Stockfish 6. You can try it yourself.

EDITED

MG -\> Middle Game EG -\> End Game

Most chess engines have a different set of evaluation or algorithm for an endgame. They could use it to model phase transition (e.g.: middle-game to end-game).
> 4 votes

# Answer
Toga Log also gives a breakdown of its evaluations.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Offline move trainer software

text:
# Question
Title: Offline move trainer software
I am looking for an offline move trainer software like the one chessable has. I am currently looking at PGN's with same opening and I would like to practice these games. For instance, I am looking at Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen style and have collected Kasparov's game (roughly around 40 of them). I would like to faithfully repeat the moves made by Kasparov in each of these games, while the White's move is made by the computer. I would greatly appreciate suggestions. It need not necessarily be spaced repetition though it would be great.

# Answer
Check out Chess Position Trainer. Also Chessbase has a training mode where you can create quizzes for certain moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
One piece of software that you might find useful is called Chess Hero. It takes a pgn file you supply and will have you do guess the move training, with it making the move for the other side. It also has an engine running and will tell you if it considers your move better than what was actually played or worse if you chosen something different, and keeps a score of how well you do. Chessbase 15 also has the new replay training feature, which basically does the same thing.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You can do something like this with LucasChess, option "Play like a gradmaster".

Though you can't provide your own pgns, you can select the player and the opening.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, software
---


# Question
Title: Can these chess terms be used interchangeably?
I am confused by the usage of the following chess terms: 'positional advantage', 'initiative', 'attack', 'pressure', 'aggressive/active moves' and 'play/counterplay'. Do they mean the same thing? Can they be used interchangeably?

# Answer
"positional advantage" -- This could refer to a better pawn structure or deployment of forces; a knight outpost or the opponent has doubled pawns etc. In battle it could be having the high-ground.

"initiative" and "attack" are used similarly, but "initiative" is who can make the next threat. For example, in Tennis: you have the serve = initiative. You make a good serve and are able to rush the net (keeping the initiative -- threat after threat) = attack.

"pressure" is making threats against weaknesses. So, you might have a positional advantage, say your opponent has weak pawns, but if you don't attack them where is the pressure?

"play" and "counter play" refer to the ability to make threats. If you are completely on the defensive then you have no play.

"active moves" are moves that seek to attack/counter-attack as opposed to passivity.

So now I hope you can understand this: "I had a positional advantage, which I turned into an attack, but he sacrificed the exchange and got counter-play. I defended and was able to consolidate my material advantage."
> 10 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: Human-like engine for endgame training

text:
# Question
Title: Human-like engine for endgame training
I am doing endgame training with LucasChess (LC), but the problem is not really related to LC, but to chess engines in general.

I have this problem: See picture. When I move Kh6 in this position, the engine in LC moves Ke8. Probably this is the move with which white needs the most moves until mate.

But it is also the move which makes things easy for white. It would be harder for white if black would move Kg8, trying to block the pawn until it is no longer possible and maybe provoking a stalemate. Instead of blocking, black flees in direction to the center.

I assume the engine sees that with fleeing to the center it is maybe a mate in 20 and without fleeing and trying to block it is maybe a mate in 16. So it makes the "optimal" move with which the distance to mate is the longest.

But this is not the best human like move. Because it makes it easier for white to queen its pawn. It clears all possibilities for white to make mistakes and in this way it takes away an important part of the training effect.

I have seen this behaviour in nearly all pawn endings, not only this one; and also in other endings.

All engines I've tried show this behaviour. (Komodo, Stockfish, Gull, Gaviota, Fruit)

So my question is: Do you know a free engine or some settings for an engine which plays endgames human-like, trying to block pawns as long as possible instead of fleeing with the king to the center?

**Update:** konsolas found an engine (Leela or Lc0) which treats the given position well and so at first I accepted his answer as *the* answer. In between I've tested Lc0 more and came to the conclusion that it is absolutely not usable for endgame training, because it plays most endings catastrophically. When accepting the answer, I couldn't even imagine any engine playing endgames so bad.

So I want to clarify my question: Do you know a free engine or some settings for an engine which, with movetime 1s or below, without needing a graphics card, plays endgames human-like, trying to block pawns as long as possible instead of fleeing with the king to the center?

Lc0 with current nets or dkappe's distilled nets do not qualify, because these play most endgames horribly and absolutely non-human-like on a PC without graphics card. And from all what I've read a graphics card even won't help for its endgame play.

**Update 2:** I'd like to clarify that it is not only the position above, but a lot of others, too. Engines play the move which makes distance to mate biggest, assuming perfect play of the opponent. Example 8/8/8/6K1/8/8/3Q2kp/8 b - - 4 9, see second picture. Engines play Kf3, which makes it very easy for W. What B should play is Kg1, and now it's much harder for W to win. W then needs to know or find that he has to allow B to queen.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Alpha-beta engines, in many endgame positions, will quickly find a mate and therefore will pick the move which prolongs the mate for the longest.

Engines which use Monte Carlo Tree Search, however, pick the line with the greatest winning/drawing chances. For example, Lc0, a neural network engine which uses MCTS, suggests Kg8 as you wanted in your position:

```
8/6k1/6P1/7K/6P1/8/8/8 b - - 0 1

1...Kg8 2.Kh6 Kh8 3.Kg5 Kg7 4.Kf5 Kg8 5.Kf6 Kf8

```

Lc0 does not play endgames as well as alpha-beta engines, but it tends to play them in a much more human manner.

I would also suggest taking a look at Komodo 12 MCTS, which may also exhibit this type of behaviour.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Freechess.org has a bot called endgamebot you can play against.

It knows up to 6-man endgames.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It depend which chess engine LC is using, nowadays engines play very similarly to human type moves, download stockfish 9 and attach it LC you will what he is playing. There is also one important point, sometimes training app uses built in moves to play with, so make sure engine is playing and not just replying moves from notation

---
Tags: engines, endgame, training
---


# Question
Title: Does threefold repetition take into account the side to move?
To be more clear, here is a fragment of a game:

```
[FEN "4k3/R7/6r1/3KP3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ra2 Rg5 2. Ra7 Rg6 3. Ra2 Rg5 4. Ra7 Rg6 5. Ra4 Rg5 6. Ra2

```

From the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **5.5.1 d.**
> The game may be drawn if an identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times (see Article 9.2).

The position **of the pieces** occurred three times. However the **board position** only occurred twice. In the first two occurrences, it was white to move. In the final position, it is black's turn. Can I claim a draw by threefold repetition in this situation?

# Answer
You quote an extract from the FIDE Laws of Chess which includes the simple instruction "see Article 9.2" yet you don't bother to "see Article 9.2" where your question is answered -

> 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. **Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player** **has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same** **squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are** **the same.** Thus positions are not the same if:
> 9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
> 9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

Note in particular "Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move"
> 16 votes

# Answer
You cannot claim a draw by repetition because the position hasn't occurred three times. As you noted, only that particular arrangement of pieces has occurred three times, but a position is more than just an arrangement of pieces (it involves whose turn it is).
> 4 votes

# Answer
You can claim draw if the position shows up 3 times, but it must be the same side's turn. It doesn't have to be in a row.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Yes it is considering side to move, also right of moves are also considered, for example if you lose right of castling after 3 moves repetition, you cannot claim draw or if lose right of en-passant
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, threefold-repetition
---


title: Nimzowitsch specific game with Nf6-g8

text:
# Question
Title: Nimzowitsch specific game with Nf6-g8
Is there any way to search for games by a player where the move "x...Ng8" took place?

I'm looking for a specific game.

And no, it's not Saemisch - Nimzowitsch, Berlin 1928.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If you have your database in clear text format such as pgn, and if you are satisfied with any knight move to g8, you could just search for the string "Ng8" (and potentially "Nfg8", "Nhg8" and "Neg8") in the pgn.

This does not help if you want to filter for Nf6g8 *only*, unless there is a way to save the pgn with long algebraic notation. Also you would find both black and white knights moving to g8 (probably a lot more black than white moves though).

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can do it with chess database softwares Paid and open-source like chessbase or scid chess.

You do not need to put complete position, also you can use maneuvers if you know last move. Here is a Link to chessbase with instructions

---
Tags: master-games
---


title: Chess clock android app

text:
# Question
Title: Chess clock android app
I play chess using my board with friends from time to time. I don't have a clock. Since I don't play chess that much with friends, I'd rather not to buy a clock, I mostly play online.

Lucky me I found some android app that does the trick, I install it, put the phone between me and my opponent, I do the move and press a button, he does another button from his part.

All is great, until some dude decided to call me :) the clock reset, I had to set it again. The same dude decides to knock on my door and there was no way to pause the clock!

My requirements are:

* Android chess clock app that you can pause, and that pauses itself when someone calls you.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The chess.com Chess Clock app has a big pause button right smack dab in the middle of the screen *and* pauses itself when someone calls. (Just tested it to verify)

# Answer
> 2 votes
A bit late, but this app has a pause button and will also pause if you answer a call: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kokajin.applications.chessclock

---
Tags: software, android
---


# Question
Title: How do I make the right move after an opening?
I'm slowly getting better at my chess skills.

The one thing that bugs me the most right now is knowing which piece to move after many of my pieces have been developed and the king has been castled.

Any move I make after the opening either seems trivial or will lead to 1-to-1 sacrifices. I'm trying to understand what approach I should follow after both my opponent and I move up our pieces to the point where we can no longer any with sacrificing them in a way that gives me an advantage.

Usually with beginners, they make some silly move so it's easy to know where to move my pieces. But with intermediate people I find it difficult to follow a consistent strategy after the first 10-15 moves.

I tried to use a chess helper to determine the next move, but couldn't quite understand the pattern and the moves it made felt arbitrary.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Usually each opening consists in a middle game plan rather than just a sequence of initial moves. This means that the criteria behind choosing this or that other opening must be driven by the specific middle game positions that one wants to achieve or is confident to play (driven by personal taste, skills or whichever other reason).

There are mainly two ways to develop sense of positions for middle game:

* studying the opening thoroughly: this means taking a book written by experts on the subject analysing positions very deeply until the endgame. Classical openings (Ruy Lopez, Queen's gambit, Sicilian, King's Indian) are easy to play but extremely hard to master, therefore one cannot really play them without extensive knowledge (unless you want to fall back into your previous case, where players end up moving pieces randomly after a while)
* looking at classical games by classical players: this is the evergreen advice but really it *does* help to understand what to do. Good players are such because they have a sense of how to treat specific positions and come up with sensible plans for the initiative. In general looking at GM games helps understanding how to convert small advantages into winning positions (at the end of the day, chess games are not won by throwing all your pieces at the opponent's King, rather by accumulating small advantages throughout the game and converting the resulting endgame position).

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is a perplexing problem. You are not the only beginner it has troubled. Let us suppose that, during the opening, you have probably

* developed at least three of your four minor pieces (knights and bishops) and
* castled.

(Admittedly, depending on the position, these do not happen in every game. Exceptions are interesting and fairly frequent. Castling is occasionally omitted or deferred, for example. Nevertheless, despite exceptions, in a typical game, most competent opening players do indeed develop minor pieces and, when tempo allows, castle.)

Now comes the advice you have heard before, the advice that once frustrated me, too, as a beginner:

**Make and begin to execute a plan.**

So, what is this *plan* chess players are always talking about?

First let me tell you what a plan is usually not. A plan—especially so early in the game—is usually not a script; that is, a plan is usually not a predetermined sequence of many moves. A plan is also usually not a fixation; that is, a plan is usually not a goal from which the player singlemindedly, doggedly refuses to deviate.

Rather, a plan is

* a set of things—sometimes as few as one or two things—the player would like if possible to do to improve the position in his or her favor, along with
* a favorable judgment that the things in question are reasonably feasible to achieve.

At only slightly more advanced levels, a plan also necessarily assimilates

* countermeasures against the opponent's plan,

but it is hard for a beginner to think of too many requirements at once; so, at least for the moment, let us focus on the first two of the three requirements.

Since a plan arises not in a vacuum but in response to a concrete position during a particular game, a plan seldom emerges except by assessment of the features of a particular position. This is best illustrated by example.

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Classical time, 1885 v 1836. French Defense, Exchange Variation."]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[StartPly "18"]
[Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/qdEjEWRU"]
[Date "2018.10.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Mermaqs"]
[Black "cimrman44"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2018.10.18"]
[UTCTime "16:34:25"]
[WhiteElo "1885"]
[BlackElo "1836"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+10"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-9"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+15"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Opening "French Defense: Exchange Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 1... e6 2. d4 2... d5 3. exd5 3... exd5 4. Nf3 4... Nf6 5. Bd3 5... Be7 6. O-O 6... Bg4 7. Bg5 7... O-O 8. Nbd2 8... c6 9. c3 9... Nbd7 10. Qc2?! (10. Bf4 Re8) 10... Bh5?! (10... h6 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. Ne5 Qc7 13. Nxg4 Nxg4 14. g3 Nf6 15. Rae1 Rae8 16. Nf3 Bd6 17. Kg2) 11. Bxf6?! (11. Rae1 Re8) 11... Nxf6 12. Rae1 12... Bg6 13. Ne5 13... Re8 14. Nxg6 14... hxg6 15. Nf3 15... Qc7 16. Qd2 16... Bd6 17. g3 17... Rxe1 18. Rxe1 18... Re8 19. Rxe8+ 19... Nxe8 20. Qe3 20... Nf6 21. a3 21... Qe7 22. Qxe7 22... Bxe7 23. c4 23... Bd6 24. c5 24... Bc7 25. b4 25... Nd7 26. Nd2 26... f5 27. Kf1 27... Kf7 28. f4 28... Kf6 29. Nf3 29... Nf8 30. a4?! (30. Kf2) 30... Ne6 31. h4 31... a6?! (31... a5 32. bxa5 Bxa5 33. Kf2 b6 34. Ne5 bxc5 35. Nxc6 Bc3 36. dxc5 Nxc5 37. Bb5 Nb3 38. Ke2) 32. b5?! (32. a5) 32... axb5 33. axb5 33... Bb8? (33... b6 34. cxb6 Bxb6 35. bxc6 Ke7 36. c7 Nxc7 37. Ke2 Ne8 38. Ke3 Nf6 39. Ne5 Kd6 40. Nxg6) 34. b6 34... Nd8 35. Kf2 35... Nf7? (35... Ne6 36. Ke3 Kf7 37. Be2 Ke7 38. Bd1 Kf6 39. Ba4 Nd8 40. Bc2 Ne6 41. Nd2 Ke7 42. Kd3) 36. Be2? (36. Ne5 Bxe5 37. fxe5+ Ke6 38. Ke3 Ke7 39. Bc2 Nd8 40. g4 f4+ 41. Kxf4 Ne6+ 42. Ke3 g5) 36... Nh6? (36... Ke6 37. Nd2 Nd8 38. Ke3 Kf6 39. Nb3 Ke7 40. Na5 Ke6 41. Bd3 Kf6 42. Kd2 Ke6 43. Kc3) 37. Nd2? (37. Ne5 Ke6 38. Ba6 bxa6 39. Nxc6 Bc7 40. bxc7 Kd7 41. Ne7 Kxc7 42. Nxd5+ Kc6 43. Ne7+ Kd7) 37... Nf7 38. Nb3 38... Nd8 39. Na5 39... Ke6 40. Ke3 40... Kf6 41. g4?! (41. Nb3 Ke7 42. Kd3 Ne6 43. Na5 Nd8 44. Kc3 Kd7 45. Bf3 Ke6 46. Nb3 Kd7 47. Bd1 Ne6) 41... Ke6 42. h5 42... gxh5 43. gxh5 43... Kf6 44. Bf1 44... Ke6 45. Bh3 45... Kf6 46. Kf3?! (46. Bf1 g5 47. fxg5+ Kxg5 48. Bd3 Bh2 49. Kf2 f4 50. Kg2 Bg3 51. Nxb7 Nxb7 52. Ba6 Na5) 46... Ke6 47. Nb3 47... Kf6 48. Nd2?! (48. Nc1 Ne6 49. Ne2 g5 50. hxg6 Kxg6 51. Ke3 Kf6 52. Bg2 Kg6) 48... Ne6 49. Nb3 49... Bxf4 50. Na5 50... Bb8?! (50... Bd2 51. Nxb7) 51. Nxb7 51... Nxd4+ 52. Ke3 52... Nb3 53. Bg2 53... Ke5?? (53... Be5 54. Nd8 Bd4+ 55. Kd3 Bxc5 56. b7 Bd6 57. Nxc6 Nc5+ 58. Kd4 Nxb7 59. Kxd5 Bc5 60. Ne5) 54. Nd8? (54. Bf3) 54... Na5 55. Kd3 55... f4?? (55... Kf6) 56. Kc3 56... Kf6? (56... d4+ 57. Kb4 d3 58. Kxa5 Kd4 59. Ne6+ Ke3 60. Bxc6 d2 61. Ba4 f3 62. c6 f2 63. c7) 57. Kb4 57... Nc4?! (57... Ke7 58. Kxa5 Kxd8 59. Ka6 f3 60. Bxf3 Bf4 61. Kb7 Be3 62. Kxc6 Kc8 63. Bxd5 Bf2 64. Kb5) 58. Nxc6 58... Ne3?? (58... f3 59. Bxf3) 59. Nxb8 1-0

```

Diagrammed is an arbitrarily selected recent game from Lichess (with computer-provided annotation). Like you and me, the game's players are not masters, so not every move they make is the best one. The players are not beginners, either, however. Anyway, let us see how they play.

After 9... Nbd7, White has the move. The game has reached just the kind of position about which you have asked. The opening is over. Bishops and knights are in play. Kings are castled, so now White must decide what to do.

White finds two primary avenues of potential attack:

1. the e-file, which is free of pawns; and
2. the light-squared diagonal b1-h7, which White's light-squared bishop already controls.

White will attend to the e-file soon but for now he judges (perhaps inaccurately, but nevertheless) that Black's king is weak in the corner. White's plan therefore is to try for checkmate on h7.

When we say, "to try for checkmate," we do not necessarily mean that White believes that he *will* checkmate on h7. White might believe instead that, by threatening checkmate on h7, he may force Black to defensive maneuvers that weaken Black's position elsewhere. Even such defensive maneuvers can make White's plan a success. At any rate, over the board, White mounts pressure against h7 by 10. Qc2. Subsequently, White exchanges a piece for Black's Nc6, a defender. Attending also to plan avenue 1 earlier listed—White further places a rook on the e-file.

In the event, no midgame checkmate occurs, heavy pieces are swapped off, and the position after 22... Bxe7 is reached. Material remains equal. Has White's plan failed?

Not necessarily. Though it would exaggerate to call White's plan a great success, White does have a slightly better pawn structure (Black's pawns being doubled) and White has the move. Yet could not White have chosen a different plan that would have been a greater success? Answer: perhaps but remember that Black has been executing a plan, too. At any rate, 22... Bxe7 affords White the chance to develop a new plan.

A midgame checkmate is no longer possible but an endgame pawn promotion might be feasible. Because Black's king is on the kingside White resolves to try on the queenside via 23. c4. (Of course, I do not know what White is *really* thinking any more than you do. One can but infer from the moves.) I am not sure that the move White chooses, 23. c4, is a particularly strong move but, in this position, White is in little danger of losing even if his winning chances are not especially good. The move White chooses at the board is thus probably about as good as any and has the virtue at least that it does not passively surrender the initiative, such as it is, to Black.

I have purposely chosen a game in which nothing brilliant occurs. This is not a spectacular or even a very romantic game. This is an ordinary game between ordinary players with whom you and I are unacquainted; yet the game straightforwardly illustrates the way in which moves that follow the opening need not be aimless. It shows how players can develop and follow a plan.

During your next game, once your knights and bishops are in play and, probably, after you have castled, scan your opponent's position for a weak point. You need not look for checkmate as White in the sample game has done, but maybe your opponent has an ill-defended pawn against which you can mount pressure? Maybe there is an open or semi-open file down which you can start advancing rooks toward a square you control in enemy territory. Maybe, especially in games which do not open 1. e4, you can push a pawn or two to deny your opponent space, cramping his or her maneuvers. If you are playing a much stronger player—well, playing stronger players is good and necessary and you should do it—but a stronger player is likely to develop and execute a good plan before you can even start, throwing you back on the defensive; so, for purpose of practicing the making of plans, also mix a few players who are less strong among your opponents, if only so that you can gradually develop a feeling for the use of the initiative.

After the opening, as a general rule, do not delay. Do not waste moves. Find a target. Start piling multiple attackers against it. Consider maneuvers that may discomfit the target. Identify one or two alternate attacks to which you might suddenly shift. Defend when necessary but maintain at least a moderately aggressive spirit. Suddenly, you may see the point, coming to understand why one move is chosen over another as players enter the middlegame of chess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You need to read some chess books but general advise from a master is, Get center in opening and if you got it in opening in middle game try to keep center and make space using is. If you lost center or gave center by intention to your opponent, your first middle game action plan should be attacking that center that usually start by exchanging and engaging pawns with opponent’s central pawns

# Answer
> 0 votes
You are asking what to do when the opening is over, which implies that you think you know what to do while still in the opening. Im not sure that you do.

Every move in every opening is motivated by trying to prepare for what comes next, and as the opening progresses the preparation becomes more specific. 1.e4 follows very general principles. Gain some space, control the center, mobilize some pieces. Blacks reply is more informative.

1..e5 Follow suit, try to keep up.

1..e6 Encourage White to be ambitious. Hope it backfires.

1..c6 Play for an easy development.

1..d5 Provoke White to try and punish me. Force him to fight.

1..c5 Let White have the center. Counterattack later.

1..d6/g6 Be noncommittal. Wait to see Whites intentions.

These are very vague and simplistic of course, but as the game progresses both players firm up their 'wish list' and try to forward their own plans while frustrating what they guess to be their opponents. Sometimes the focus is quite specific (is that square weak?) Sometimes it remains less specific (Do my pieces move freely?) but by the time the "opening is over" (Pawn structure stabilized, Rooks connected, whatever definition you prefer) you can ask if you have achieved your ambitions. If you have, follow up consistently. If not, reassess the situation. Limit the damage.

Opening books for advanced players tend to assume that you already know this, and often focus on analyzing variations. Beginners books may go no further than "get your pieces out!"

Two old, but still very readable books that stress the links between opening and middle game are The ideas behind the Chess Openings by Reuben Fine, and A Guide to Chess Openings by Leonard Barden (published in several editions with slightly different titles and coauthored with Tim Harding) Both of these are a bit outdated, but if you understand them you will be a stronger player than you are now.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This moment is crucial. It is called the middle game.

A game of chess typically has three phases.

* Opening
* Middle game
* End game

Learning tactics and basic principles of advanced chess play can help all of these phases. What I would recommend you though, is to do this:

Learn good endgame. Endgame theory is limited, as the whole logic focus on fewer pieces and pawns. Learn about pawn structures and conditions that can end you up in a winning endgame position. You can win a game easily, if you have played to reach a winning position, but first you should know what an endgame winning position is.

Second thing you should know, a thing that most people focus on first, is an opening. You shall choose an appropriate opening to end you up to possible positions you can win. Knowing endgame can make you choose which opening to focus as white.

Hardest part is to learn to respond correct on any opening as black. This needs a load of hours to study basic variations. The basic principles are always present to help you out, but knowing the theory makes you a real master.

Finally there is the middle game you are so concerned. If you can do a 1 for 1 trade, for each piece, then you might end up into a position with Kings and pawns. If your pawns and you King position is better, (endgame theory) you are winning.

In the middle game though it isn't always that simple. There might be tactical tricks, like skewers, pinned pieces and other principles that you have to train so you can see they can exist. You can see then the potential of the position.

Many players focus on winning material on a trade. It is good, but you should never forget that you can win more than that.

* Better positioning
* Better control on the center
* A Zugzwang position for the opponent.

Hopefully this helps you out, because this is actually briefly what better chess is all about.

you should also take a look at this topic: How do I learn to understand the middlegame?

And yes, a few books on chess strategies should help you out.

A final suggestion would be a program like Chessmaster (FOR PC). 10th edition and later contained a whole interactive academy on how to learn better chess. Strongly recommend it, because I have seen people who were weak turn into significant stronger in a year or so.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Read a book; see how the masters do it.

You learned how to walk from observing.

Chess Praxis by Nimzowitsch or Art of Attack by Vladimir Vukovic.

Your thoughts are a subset of something

A framework organizes them.

A book is that framework you're missing.

It helps you look for ideas to accomplish.

Without a book, you don't know what to look for. You are sailing without a map.

---
Tags: opening, learning, positional-play
---


title: Chess strategy versus positional chess

text:
# Question
Title: Chess strategy versus positional chess
If one master writes a book on *chess strategy* (example here) and another writes a book on *positional chess* (example here), are they writing more or less on the same subject?

Do other major chess languages (if you happen to read any) like Russian, German, Spanish and/or French likewise circulate distinct terms for *chess strategy* and *positional chess?*

Usually in English, synonyms will bear some gradation in meaning, so a minor distinction to separate the two terms in question is expected. However, are the two synonymous at all? Suppose that the publisher had swapped the titles of the above two linked books. Would the swap have confused anyone?

See also:

# Answer
> 4 votes
These terms overlap but should not be used interchangeably.

"Positional" books tend to take positions from a game and explain a specific aspect, while "Strategy" books usually try to tie positional aspects together (this does not appear to be the case with Watson's book).

An example of strategy would be choosing the "Exchange Ruy Lopez" as White with the idea of having 4 pawns against 3 on the king-side while Black's 4:3 on the Queen-side is crippled and can't force a passed pawn. Then White just needs to trade all the pieces and have a won endgame.

Understanding that Blacks pawns cannot force a passed pawn on their own is a positional aspect of the strategy.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As I have understood it on Spanish yes, there is a difference. Strategy is a top level term for almost everything in chess that is not tactics. Take in consider the definition you provide for strategy also creates a separated field for endgames:

> Chess strategy can be defined as the creation of long term plans that will dictate your next several moves. In order to achieve these plans, you can argue that the chess player will resort to either positional, tactical or endgame devices.
>
> Blog post about Chess Strategy.

Endgames are also strategy, but usually they are not positional. Conversely, positional chess use to take place when pieces are on the board, either at opening either at middlegame.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Strategy contains a lot of principles.

* Tactics, like skewer and pin
* Basic principles, like attack the center
* Better positioning pieces and taking advantage of a position itself.
* and more.

Positional chess is a part of the strategical chess in my opinion, **but** a book on positional chess goes even deeper. A LOT deeper. You can sacrifice a whole piece and on some rare occasions a rook and a queen to set up a winning position. Positional chess books focus on teaching you how to see the full potential on a position. That is the difference. Tactical chess is a set of principles and tricks. Understanding the potential of a position though makes you evaluate a position better and opens your mind for another level of chess play. For instance, imagine you got an opponent king, and a lot of pawns and pieces around that king. You might be able to use opponents pieces as obstacles for their king to escape. It is like judo. Use opponent's strength to weaken them.

---
Tags: strategy, books, positional-play, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Custom icons/designs for online with other people?
Somewhat of a peculiar question/request/search. Basically, I'm looking for any software/website/etc. where I can play chess with friends however the only caveat is that the icons/designs/board pieces/etc. be whatever I want them to be. Say having a strawberry for a king or a pawprint for a pawn for example. And that one side's icons be different from the other's (as in white king is a strawberry and black king is a shoe).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Hi Anon and welcome to chess.stackexchange.

I would begin at Peter Wong's virtual pieces site. Have a look at this, and if necessary contact Peter, who is very friendly and approachable.

All the best.

---
Tags: software, websites
---


# Question
Title: Are AlphaZero's openings objectively better than the others?
Are AlphaZero's openings objectively better than the others? If so, why haven't top grandmasters like Carlsen exclusively adopted them in their own games?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Are AlphaZero's openings objectively better than the others?

Not easy to answer. I try: You can not say the openings are "objectively" better because you can not compare openings really "objectively" since chess is not "solved". But you can compare the situations after the opening. which player has a better position after the opening etc.? (Admitted: This is obviously also not 100% objectively answerable, but you can analyse it anyway.)

If that is not enough for you you can compare the entire game results (but then you lose focus on the openings unfortunately): AlphaZero can play chess very very well. So all in all (opening + middlegame + endgame) you can probably say AlphaZero can play better than many other chess-engines. This is a strong clue that also the openings of AlphaZero are slightly better.

Why haven't top grandmasters like Carlsen exclusively adopted them in their own games?

Because it is not enough to *memorize* an opening from an chess engine. You must really *understand* the openings from AlphaZero if you want to adopt them in your own games.

It worth nothing when you play a "perfect opening" (adopted from AlphaZero) and then your opponent does one unexpected move and then you do not know how to continue playing and you do not know which move AlphaZero would prefer in this new situation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I guess they suit more his style, he plays open position and he's not afraid of sacrificing material for activity because he has better assessment when it comes to sharp open positions. However some openings like This French Defense Classical variation with 6. h4 proved to be very hard for A0 because it's already in defense mode and for black (in the game above) to achieve equality he should defend fiercely and precisely for quite some time.

My take on this is that every player uses openings that suits best his playing style, some goes for open games because they feel more comfortable with piece activity and the variety of options (A0 style), others with closed games that need a strong defense technique (like some games of Stockfish A0 follows his gut but it didn't work out)

---
Tags: opening, alphazero
---