title: Situations of underpromoting the pawn

text:
# Question
Title: Situations of underpromoting the pawn
I recently came across a wonderful article on Chess.com about under promotion of pawns. One of the situations is here:

```
[FEN "8/8/1KP5/3r4/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[White "Saavedra, Fernando"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Setup "1"]
[FEN "8/8/1KP5/3r4/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 1"]
[Plycount "13"]
[Sourcedate "2014.05.08"]

1.c7 Rd6+ 2. Kb5 Rd5+ 3. Kb4 Rd4+ 4. Kb3 Rd3+ 5. Kc2 Rd4

```

In the above game using Rook instead of Queen for promotion seems to win it for white.

*If white is promoted to Queen, then 6.. Rc4+ and Qxc4 is forced which will be a stalemate.*

How many other situations can we consider for the under promotion?

# Answer
Here's my take on this question, since I find the other two answers lacking actual examples.

**Knight promotion**

In the situation below black has been trying to prevent white from promoting the pawn (white has earlier given up his rook for a black pawn). White manages to promote, but only one of the promotions secures a (tablebase) draw.

```
[white "Alexander Evdokimov"]
[black "Evgeni Ellinovich Sveshnikov"]
[event "56th Russian Championships, 2003"]
[fen "8/r3KP2/8/4k3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ke8 Ke6 2. f8=N+! {2. ... Ra8+ otherwise} 1/2-1/2

```

Here, white underpromotes to avoid stalemate.

```
[white "Iroda Khamrakulova"]
[black "Ekaterina Ubiennykh"]
[event "WJun Women, 2001"]
[fen "6r1/k1P5/P7/1K1R4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rd8 {according to tablebases, Rd7 wins faster} Rxd8 {again, there are slower ways for black to lose} 2. cxd8=N! {stalemate if rook or queen is promoted, a draw if a bishop (wrong corner)} 1-0

```

In the situation below, white has just played Qg3. Black underpromotes to gain a tempo, as white threatens checkmate and fork rival king and queen.

```
[white "Zvonimir Mestrovic"]
[black "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[event "Hastings, 1971/72"]
[fen "7k/1p2Npbp/8/2P5/1P1r4/3b2QP/3q1pPK/2RB4 b - - 0 1"]

1. f1=N+! 0-1

```

In the position below, white underpromotes to deliver a checkmate.

```
[white "William Strum"]
[black "John McManus"]
[event "Eastern Open, 1997"]
[fen "8/p3R2P/1p4k1/6p1/2rB2KR/P1r5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. h8=N+ 1-0

```

Last, but not least, a very neat opening trap. Black undepromotes to gain a tempo and subsequently win the white queen.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. e3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 dxe3 6. Bxb4 exf2+ 7. Ke2 fxg1=N+ 8. Rxg1 Bg4+ 0-1

```

**Rook promotion**

Arguably, less spectacular than knight underpromotions. One would promote to a rook in order to avoid a stalemate (otherwise, anything a rook can do, a queen also can). Two examples from endgames below.

```
[fen "6k1/6P1/5K2/8/8/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g4 Kh7 2. Kf7 Kh6 3. g8=R! {stalemate in case of queen promotion. Knight promotion would also win, but would take longer} 1-0

```

.

```
[fen "4r3/5RPk/5K2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf8 Rxf8 2. gxf8=R {stalemate in case of queen promotion, unable to win if promoting to a minor piece} 1-0

```

**Bishop promotion** These are the rarest of the bunch. Usually would be to avoid a stalemate, or some other extraordinary situations, since otherwise, anything a bishop can do, a queen also can. First, a classic.

```
[fen "4Q3/Pq4pk/5p1p/5P1K/6PP/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. a8=B! {promoting to rook or queen runs into Qf7+ and stalemate} 1-0

```

Another endgame.

```
[fen "8/8/5b2/8/K7/4N3/kp6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nd1 b1=B! {Nc3+ if promoting to rook or queen - draw} 0-1

```

Lastly, this amazing position.

```
[fen "1r5K/6PP/8/8/8/1k4q1/6P1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g8=B+! {black must move the king and it is a stalemate} Kb4 (1... Rxg8+ 2. hxg8=Q+ Qxg8+ 3. Kxg8 {and the g2 pawn will inevitably promote - white wins}) 1/2-1/2

```

**Sources for these and many more examples**

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/minor.htm

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1000028
> 6 votes

# Answer
Here are some more **extreme** situations to consider. The first two diagrams are merely for completeness.

```
[Title "Grigory Popov, 1st-5th Prize, Vladislav Tarasiuk-50 JT 2018, Mate In 33"]
[FEN "5B2/PPPPPPPP/q7/3rppp1/2p4p/3p3n/5p2/3N1Kbk w - - 0 1"]

1. a8=Q! Qa5 2. Qxa5 Rxa5 3. b8=Q Ra1 4. Qa8+ Rxa8 5. e8=Q Ra1 6. Qa8+ Rxa8 7. Ba3 Rxa3 8. g8=Q Ra1 9. Qa8+ Rxa8 10. c8=Q Ra1 11. Qc6+ e4 12. Qa4 Rxa4 13. h8=Q Rb4 14. Nc3 Rb2 15. d8=Q Re2 16. Nxe2 dxe2+ 17. Kxe2 Kg2 18. Qa1 Nf4+ 19. Kd2 f1=N+ 20. Kc3 Ne2+ 21. Kxc4 Be3 22. f8=Q Neg3 23. Qfa3 Nd2+ 24. Kb5 Bf4 25. Qd1 Ndf1 26. Qa2+ Nd2 27. Qaxd2+ Bxd2 28. Q8xd2+ Kh3 29. Qf2 e3 30. Qxe3 f4 31. Qf2 Nf1 32. Qdf3+ Ng3 33. Q2g2#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

```
[Title "Karlheinz Bachmann, Die Schwalbe 4/1998, Mate In 9"]
[FEN "8/PPPPPP2/7K/4rP2/8/6Pp/4Nprp/5Qnk w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=R Rxf5 2. f8=R Rc5 3. c8=R Ra5 4. a8=R Rd5 5. d8=R Rb5 6. b8=R Rh5+ 7. Kxh5 Rxg3 8. Nxg3#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

```
[Title "David Zimbeck, Die Schwalbe 2/2003, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "5bbk/PPPPPB1p/4p2N/4p1PN/1q2P1R1/R4K2/3r4/6BQ w - - 0 1"]

1. exf8=B Qxf8 2. d8=B Rxd8 3. cxd8=B Qxd8 4. b8=B Qxb8 5. axb8=B Bxf7 6. Bxe5#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database

```
[Title "Andre Cheron, Journal de Geneve 2/4/1964, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "N7/PPPPPPPP/K1k3rB/b1pnnb1p/8/1r6/pp3p2/7q w - - 0 1"]

1. b8=N+ Rxb8 2. axb8=N+ Kd6 3. c8=N+ Ke6 4. d8=N+ Bxd85. exd8=N+ Kf6 6. g8=N+ Rxg8 7. hxg8=N+ Kg6 8. f8=N#

```

Source: The Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database
> 0 votes

---
Tags: pawn-promotion, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: How likely is it that a non-orthodox promotion is optimal?
Underpromotion is an interesting aspect of chess, but there are other possibilities that aren't allowed under modern rules.

One is the so called "dummy pawn" as this question discusses: When (if ever) was it a rule that pawn promotion was optional? where the goal would be to stalemate oneself.

Another is promoting the pawn to a piece of the opposite color, where the goal could be to smother the enemy king with one of his "own" pieces, as in the Wikipedia example, or perhaps to cause one's own king to be stalemated with the help of the newly created enemy piece.

If both of these were allowed, promoting to a weak enemy piece would often serve the same purpose as a dummy pawn, so in such cases, suppose the dummy pawn is our default, if it works.

Which of these situations would be less likely to occur? Would either of them be more likely to occur than underpromotion to a rook, bishop, or a knight?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Thanks for your great question. Here's what I think about the relative frequency of different joke promotions, in games and compositions. Many such compositions are helpmates or selfmates, but the rationale for promotion choice is already a bit peculiar in those, so in this topic we'll focus on games, direct mates or studies.

**Regular promotions**

First, a quick review of the frequency of legal promotions, as quoted in the Wikipedia page you pointed at:

> **Piece %**
> Queen 96.9
> Knight 1.8
> Rook 1.1
> Bishop 0.2

Couple of points:

(1) A knight promotion is arguably not an under-promotion, in that the promoted piece gets immediate access to squares that the queen does not. The most common use of a knight promotion is in hot positions where a tempo is key.

(2) Rook and bishop are definite under-promotions: they may be used to turn a draw into a win by avoiding stalemating the opponent. But they might also be used (more in compositions than in real life) to turn a loss into a draw by entering a block position.

(3) I doubt that the need for a bishop promotion is as high as 0.2%. There are certainly cases where it is the answer, but I suspect that these are dwarfed by those where B under-promotion was selected for fun. I have certainly seen GM Hikaru Nakamura do this for grins against computers.

**The Dummy Pawn**

The dummy pawn takes the idea of under-promotion to its logical extreme. In principle, it would mainly be used in games to turn a lost position into a draw, since (unlike bishop or rook) it doesn't rely on other pieces to be blocked. But positions have also been constructed where the dummy pawn can turn a draw into a win. Here, the defensive player would have two alternative lines, one drawing against a bishop, the other to draw against a rook. For all the drama, I don't know of any tournament where the dummy pawn rule of 1862 was actually played. There are some good compositions though, but returning to the frequency comparison, dummy pawn would come in at approximately 0.0%!

**Enemy unit**

Moving on to promotions to enemy unit. There are numerous 19th century joke promotion problems relying on promotion to enemy officer. According to chess historian Mario Richter, one influence here was Bilguer's *Handbuch des Schachspiels*, which was for many generations of chess players *the* reference work on chess. Especially it refers to the paragraph defining the rule of promotion:

> Gelangt \[der Bauer\] auf die letzte Reihe des Brettes, auf welcher anfangs die Offiziere des Gegners stehen, so muß der Besitzer ihn augenblicklich umwandeln und zu einem beliebigen Offizier machen. Hierbei kann man eine zweite Dame, einen dritten Springer u.s.w. wählen; nur versteht es sich, daß der Bauer nicht in einen zweiten König verwandelt werden darf.
>
> (If the pawn reaches the last rank, which is occupied in the starting position by the enemy officers, it has to be immediately promoted to an arbitrary officer. In this way you can have a second queen, a third knight etc, but you cannot have a second king.)

So Bilguer forgot to specify that the promoted officer should have the same colour as the pawn!

There are many joke compositions involving promotion to enemy knight, bishop or rook. If one was looking for their movement capabilities, then these might be replaced by a friendly dummy pawn instead, which cannot move at all. However, an enemy unit is that it cannot be captured by another enemy unit, in particular it blocks a flight square for the king. It can also serve to prevent stalemating the opponent, by giving him a new piece to move around.

It is normally assumed that promotion to enemy rook can be followed by castling.

So in summary, I think the enemy officer is less useful than friendly dummy pawn for getting one's self stalemated, and more useful for avoiding stalemating the opponent. The relative frequencies would reflect this, approx 0.0% again.

**Open Cases**

There are two open cases where I know of no existing compositions:
(1) Promotion to enemy queen. How could it be in my interest to promote a pawn to enemy queen rather than enemy rook or bishop?
(2) Promotion to enemy pawn. This would require a new rule: how does a pawn on first row move? And by analogy with the rook, can it double-step?

(Promotions to king, white or black are also found in problems, but let's follow Bilguer to exclude them from scope because the field of discussion here is already broad enough, and they would require an extension to the rules concerning how checkmate works against multiple kings.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Would either of them be more likely to occur than under promotion to a bishop? or a rook? or a knight?

I'm sure your scenarios wouldn't happen more often than promotion to a knight. Knight promotion is not impossible in competitive chess, whereas your scenarios most likely occur in chess composition.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have found examples of the open cases from Laska's answer, with the first one being an old composition and the second one a modern one. To answer the question directly, the occurrence percentages of these cases happening are also 0%.

Case #1

```
[Title "Gyula Breyer, Magyar Sakkvilag, 1918, White To Play And Win"]
[FEN "1N1bknbr/2p1Pn1p/2K1Rp1p/4pP1B/p3p3/p3P1N1/P6P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Addendum 4/20/2020: This problem is actually cooked and promoting to a black queen, as Breyer originally intended, doesn’t work. See the analysis here.

This brilliant composition can be found on the SuperProbblem website,, a Google Books preview of Outrageous Chess Problems, and in the Die Schwalbe Databse.

Case #2

```
[Title "James Malcom, PDB Website 2020, Mate In 2"]
[FEN "1k1K3r/3Q2P1/1N6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Moving the White or blocking the rook's check does not mate in time, nor does any promotion to a White piece, since it is then stalemate. Promotion to a Black piece doesn't mate in time either, so someting must be done. The solution is for White must promote to a Black pawn! This avoids stalemate and Black has no interference with 2. Qc7#. This problem comes from the Die Schwalbe Database.

I also found a fun retrograde analysis problem that relates to Case #2.

Addendum 10/30/2020-While browsing on PDB, I find an improved version of what was previously here, so it has been shown in place along with a revised solution, of course.

```
[Title "Andrew Buchanan & James Malcom, PDB Website 12/10/2020, Mate In 2 Moves"]
[FEN "8/1N1B4/kPpK4/PN6/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Solution: 1. bxc7 en passant! Kxb7 2. c8=Q.

**Explanation**

What was Black's last move? The b5 pawn couldn't have come from anywhere, and the Black king has no prior move being in an illegal double check. Nor could come from a square that a White piece is occupying. Therefore Black's last move must have been c8-c6! This is possible because White formerly promoted into a Black pawn! Black then must have done a double-step for their last move, so therefore the en passant capture is a valid solution!

The 2018 FIDE laws state: "3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied." Hence, Black's newborn 8th rank pawn, which has never been moved before, reserves the right to commence a double-step on its first move, and likewise White receives the right to capture it en passant as they do with a 7th rank pawn.

---
Tags: endgame, chess-variants, pawn-promotion
---


title: Can I win as black here?

text:
# Question
Title: Can I win as black here?
In the below position, I'm playing as Black and it's my turn.

```
[FEN "8/8/1K6/2P5/1P6/8/8/6kq b - - 0 1"]

```

I've recently gotten back into chess, and this one is driving me crazy. I can't seem to figure a way to win, only draw. I don't appear to be able to get my king close enough. Can I win as Black? Any ideas would be great!

# Answer
Yes, it is really an easy win.

The first move is 1...Qe4; 2.Kg4 Kc7, and note that white cannot make any progress without losing one of the pawns, leaving an easy win since your Q can get to g8 after winning the first pawn.

```
[FEN "qk6/8/8/6P1/5P2/6K1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qe4 2. Kg4 Kc7

```

This is with it going the other way. It is harder, no question, but the first thing is to get the queen in front of the pawns.

```
 [FEN "8/8/1K6/2P5/1P6/8/8/6kq b - - 0 0"]

 1... Qa8 2. c6 Qb8+ 3. Kc5 Kf2 4. b5 Ke3 5. b6 Qe5+ 6. Kc4 Qa5 7. c7 Qa6+ 8. Kd5 Qb7+ 9. Kd6 Kd4 10. Kd7 Kc5 11. Kd8 Qxb6

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


# Question
Title: Who are the strongest non-professional GMs?
As title above states, who are currently the strongest non-professional chess players? By this, I mean players who have a full-time job outside of chess. For example, I remember German GM Georg Meier mentioning in an interview in 2018 that he has a full-time job in a bank.

# Answer
Up until recently, that title would have gone to Teimour Radjabov without question in my mind. Since April of 2015 until last month, he has only played 149 games. That is not many for a top-flight GM over four and a half years. That said, he just won the right to play in the Candidate's, so he may becoming more active again.

Quite a number of old GMs were musicians and engineers. GM Mark Taimanov was also famous as top concert pianist in the Soviet Union. Mikhail Botvinnik was famous for being an electrical engineer and computer scientist while also being the world champion at the same time. Dr. Ruben Fine was a Doctor of psychology. GM Helmut Pfleger of Germany is an MD.

GM Lars Bo Hansen is 2560, and is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management and Business Strategy at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida.

As stated by Ian Bush, Luke McShane is considered the strongest with an outside full-time job, but I am not sure I would give him the title "of strongest non-professional GM" based solely on that as he plays a fair amount, and has played 182 games in the same time frame as I listed for Radjabov. Based on that, and the 100-point difference, I still have to go with Radjabov.

Here is a cool list of chess players, who have doctorates.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Luke McShane is one possibility. He is currently (19th Nov 2018) rated 2675, and works in the financial sector.
> 9 votes

# Answer
GM Tal Shaked is a Distinguished Engineer at Google, though he hasn't played organized chess in quite some time (but his rating puts him at #1423 in the world right now...). I was going to mention Luke McShane as well (as mentioned in another answer to this question); I'm not sure what exactly he's doing right now, his LinkedIn profile hasn't been updated since 2014.
> 4 votes

# Answer
GM Michael Adams is often listed as a top non professional GM. His current rating is 2694. I am not sure if he is officially a non professional chess player anymore, but for many years he was competing in top tournaments while being a stock trader. At one point he was even number 4 in the world and has competed in some canditates tournaments. This was often commented on in tournaments he was taking part in.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster
---


title: For white - anything but a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: For white - anything but a draw?
```
[fen "6k1/1pp1b1p1/p6p/8/6P1/P6n/1PB5/2K1B3 w - - 0 1"]

```

I've played this out quite a few times, but no joy. Trying to get my endgame back to a reasonable level, after years not playing!!

# Answer
Assuming it is even white to move there, the real question is can white avoid the loss, and I would say the answer is "no".

White is down two pawns, and black has the means to create passed pawns on both wings. This is just lost.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Two pawns down you are doing well to get a draw. Your best chance is an opposite-coloured bishop endgame. At all costs you must prevent black from exchanging bishops or exchanging knight for light-squared bishop when you will be completely lost.

What you have going for you in the starting position is that black's knight is badly placed on the edge of the board. I would probably start with Bf5 to tickle the white pawns on the queenside and follow up with bringing my king over to the kingside where I want to use my king and bishops to try and force a black bishop for knight exchange when drawing chances are good..
> 4 votes

# Answer
Analysis by an engine shows at least 3 moves valuated around -1.0, so a draw is expectable. The engine went to Depth 36

---

```
[Title "Engine Evaulation: -0.86"]
[fen "6k1/1pp1b1p1/p6p/8/6P1/P6n/1PB5/2K1B3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Be4 b6 2.b4 a5 3.bxa5 Bxa3+ 4.Kc2 bxa5 5.Bxa5 Bd6 6.Bd5+ Kf8 7.Bc3 Nf4 8.Bf3 Kf7 9.Kd2

```

---

```
[Title "Engine Evaulation: -0.91"]
[fen "6k1/1pp1b1p1/p6p/8/6P1/P6n/1PB5/2K1B3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bf5 b6 2.b4 Ng5 3.Kd1 Nf3 4.Bc3 Bf6 5.Bd2 Kf7 6.a4 Nxd2 7.Kxd2 a5 8.b5 Ke7 9.Be4

```

---

```
[Title "Engine Evaulation: -.97"]
[fen "6k1/1pp1b1p1/p6p/8/6P1/P6n/1PB5/2K1B3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd1 Bf6 2.Be4 c6 3.b3 Bc3 4.Bg3 Be5 5.Bg2 Bxg3 6.Bxh3 g6 7.a4 a5 8.Bg2 Kf7 9.Ke2

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What's the meaning of "%evp" in a PGN comment?
Example:

```
{[%evp 0,17,14,14,14,-25,-15,-15,7,7,55,48,48,48,472,228,802,802,804,771]}
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 Bc5 5. d4 Bb6 6. Nf3 Qg4

```

What's the meaning of these numbers when used together with `%evp`?

# Answer
A similar question was asked by GM Tony Kosten on the chesspub forum back in January:

> Looking at the last set of PGN files I received, at the beginning is a new tag followed by lots of numbers, like:
>
> {\[%evp 0,96,30,30,22,1,30,2,2,-9,-3,-44,23,23,21,32,41,37,44,23,22,18,26,11,22, -4,0,-1,8,7,7,14,9,5,16,8,38,16,22,19,25,54,19,19,22,22,22,20,20,20,24,-18,24, -53,-53,-61,-61,-56,-23,-20,41,41,39,39,35,30,44,44,33,50,70,70,75,75,75,75,75, 56,60,59,62,56,68,56,50,48,48,40,46,60,49,30,48,47,47,59,46,56,57\]}
>
> I assume ChessBase 15 generates this when it quickly analyses games when you open them. However, is this a standard PGN code, can other chess programs read it?

The original PGN standard was created and published in 1994 by Stephen J Edwards. Here is a copy of his original standard: Portable Game Notation Specification and Implementation Guide. By 2001 he had dropped out of the project when this supplement was published to the PGN standard. There it defined a new embedded command string which would be marked by a starting "\[%".

> 3.2 A generalised format for embedding commands in comments.
> 3.2.1 Position
> An embedded command may occur at any position in a standard PGN comment, ie between { } . For example: {Optional leading comments \[%clk 1:05:23\] optional trailing comments} where \[%clk 1:05:23\] is the embedded command string.
>
> 3.2.2 Structure The command string is structured as follows.
>
> A leading tag of \[% A command name consisting of one or more alphanumeric characters. A space character. Either a single parameter or a comma delimited list of parameter values. A closing tag of \]

So, "\[%evp" is an embedded command, first seen in Chessbase 15 output. As such it is Chessbase 15-specific until such time as Chessbase publish how they use it, at which time other pgn producers/consumers can start using it too.

My speculation, FWIW, is that it is part of Chessbase's "Chess Position Trainer" and is intended for Chessbase internal use only.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: When should you trade to prevent castling?
The main question I have is about a game I played. What do I need to know about how to take a piece so that my opponent's king can no longer castle?

In the following game, I played Bxd2+ to do so. The Stockfish lines seem nonhuman.

```
[FEN "r1b2rk1/1p3ppp/2pp4/p1q1p1bN/P1P1P3/1PP3Q1/3N1PPP/R3K2R b - - 0 1"]

1... Bxd2+ {I played this to keep the king in the center.} (1... Bh6 2. Nf6+ Kh8 3. Qh4 d5 4. g4 Qe7 5. g5 gxf6 6. gxh6 Rg8 7. cxd5 cxd5 8. exd5 {Why would black want this?}) (1... f6 2. Nxg7 Kh8 3. Nh5 Rg8 4. Qd3 Bxd2+ 5. Qxd2 {Why would black give up the g7 pawn and then take the knight allowing the queen to capture back instead of what I played forcing the king to move?})

```

# Answer
The problem with that move is a number of things.

1. You gave up the bishop pair.
2. His attack on your king is stronger than yours on his king, and you traded off a defender.
3. You have no time to go after his king since yours is threatened with mate on the move.
4. Already with three minors traded, his threats aside, there might not be enough firepower to attack his king with impunity.

Keeping a king in the center is only part of the idea behind keeping a king in the center. You need to be able to open more lines to attack it, and that also requires having other pieces that are already somewhat trained on the opposing king already. Once the king is stuck, you either need to be able to open lines immediately with pawn play, or an additional sacrifice. If you cannot do that, you should question the trade, and ask if you are simply trading your good piece, in this case a B with some good scope, for a worse piece, in this case a barely-developed Nd2.

In your line with 1...Bh6, your line is best play for white per the computer, and in that line, white is barely holding it together. At the end, there is 8...Rg4 9.Qh5 Bd7, and that is advantageous for black, so that is why he would want that. Black's K is quite safe on h8 there, but where does white go with his? The Qh5 is also not comfortable, and in some lines Rf4 and Bg4 are threats. White is walking a very fine line there. From there, if black can find a way to open the position just a little, the white king will come under a strong attack.

```
 [FEN "r1b2rk1/1p3ppp/2pp4/p1q1p1bN/P1P1P3/1PP3Q1/3N1PPP/R3K2R b - - 0 1"]

1... Bh6 2. Nf6+ Kh8 3. Qh4 d5 4. g4 Qe7 5. g5 gxf6 6. gxh6 Rg8 7. cxd5 cxd5 8. exd5 Rg4 9. Qh5 Bd7 {White is walking a very fine line here. From here, if black can find a way to open the position just a little, the white king will come under a strong attack.}

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, castling, exchange, trading
---


# Question
Title: How does the move order 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 "rule out Philidor's Defence 2...d6"?
So I was reading "An Opening Repertoire for the Positional Player", by Gufeld and Kalinich, and found the title's assertion. And I just can't think why after "1. e4 e5 2. Nc3", d6 would be bad for black.

Also, I find it as a playable option in the Lichess Master database, https://lichess.org/analysis"

# Answer
> 5 votes
While d6 is passive, it is probably not the end of the world there at levels below Master. After Nc3, it is not so much that it "rules out Philidor's Defense" as when white played 2.Nc3, it became a Vienna opening proper.

More typically, when white plays the Vienna, he is looking to attack, and often plays an early f4. With f4 played, you can see how you might want your Bf8 on c5, and after d6, you already ruled that out.

---
Tags: opening, books, philidor-defense
---


# Question
Title: What happens if a player suffers a time penalty but doesn't have enough time left?
Wikipedia's article on threefold repetitions gives a story about an incorrect threefold claim by Karpov against Miles:

> The clause about the right to capture en passant and the right to castle is a subtle but important one. In a game between grandmasters Anatoly Karpov and Tony Miles (Tilburg 1986), Karpov had less than five minutes remaining on his clock in which to finish a specified number of moves or forfeit the game. He claimed a draw by repetition after checking his scoresheet carefully, whereupon it was pointed out to him that in the first occurrence of position, Black's king had had the right to castle, whereas in the second and third it had not. Tournament rules stipulated that a player be penalized with three minutes of their time for incorrect claims, which left Karpov's flag on the verge of falling. By then, Miles had taken the draw ...

What if, instead of five minutes left, Karpov only had two minutes? Does he instantly lose on making the incorrect claim?

# Answer
As the game took place in 1986, the 1985 version of the FIDE Laws of Chess is applicable. You have to consider Art. 10.5, 10.11, and 10.12.

Art. 10.12 (b) states: if the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall then add five minutes to the claimant's used time. If this means that the claimant has overstepped the time limit, his game will be declared lost. Karpov was lucky that the Tournament Rules reduced time penalty to 3 min.

Today’s decision would be: The opponent would be rewarded a 2 min time bonus.

There are no automatic time reducing penalties anymore. The arbiter may decide, however, in the case of 12.9 to subtract an amount from a player’s time of reflection (12.9.3). Of course, he would not subtract more than the remaining time, but to declare the game lost (12.9.6). But you never know ... some arbiters might feel otherwise, and they are allowed to, unless you claim a violation of the preface of the LoC (sound judgement) :-)
> 6 votes

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
>
> 12.9.1 warning,
>
> 12.9.2 increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
>
> 12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
>
> 12.9.4 increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
>
> 12.9.5 reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,
>
> 12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),
>
> 12.9.7 a fine announced in advance,
>
> 12.9.8 exclusion from one or more rounds,
>
> 12.9.9 expulsion from the competition.

In such situations, for a first offence, the arbiter would always add time for the opponent. He would never reduce the time for the player. Only if it were a third or later infraction of the same rule and the player had been warned would more serious action be taken like defaulting the player.

There is a general principle in the arbiting world, which is seen in the move away from allowing quickplay finishes, that the actions or decisions of the arbiter should not decide the game. **Reducing the player's time to less than zero would do just that and would never be done.**
> 18 votes

# Answer
I don't know how it was done back then. He'd probably had lost the game.

Nowadays, time penalties are always applied by adding time to the opponent, rather than taking it from the penalized player
> 10 votes

# Answer
I know the game mentioned in the question was played under FIDE rules, but if it had been played under USCF rules, there are a few places in the rule book that specifically call for a penalty of a time deduction for some infractions. They all either state, or imply, that a player's time should never be reduced to zero by means of a time penalty. The most severe is for disturbing noises during play (such as a cell phone ringing), where "First offense standard penalty is to subtract 10 minutes or half the remaining time from a player's clock, whichever is less". There is a time subtraction penalty for making an incorrect draw claim, which the rules state is "up to one minute from the claimant's remaining time" - I don't think a tournament director would subtract a full minute if the player only had one minute or less on the clock, though.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


title: How to “crack” this position?

text:
# Question
Title: How to “crack” this position?
I find this particular final position from a personal game intriguing. Even though there's a material advantage, there's no clear path to the victory. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to crack this nut?

```
[Event "Liga CS Jug"]
[Site "Niska Banja"]
[Date "2016.10.15"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Bojkovic"]
[Black "Djokic"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B41"]
[WhiteElo "2234"]
[BlackElo "2329"]
[Source "Analyze This (Free)"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "130"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Qc7 7. Be2 b6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qd3 Nc6 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. a4 h5 12. h3 Bc5 13. Bg5 Qe5 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Bf3 a5 16. Rfd1 Kf8 17. b3 Rg8 18. Ne2 Rd8 19. Rac1 Ke7 20. Rc2 Bd6 21. Kf1 Bc5 22. Nc3 Rg5 23. Re2 Kf8 24. Ree1 h4 25. Nd5 Kg7 26. Ne3 Qf4 27. Ng4 Kf8 28. Qc3 Bb4 29. Qxf6 Qxf6 30. Nxf6 Ke7 31. Ng4 Bxe1 32. Kxe1 d6 33. Ne3 Bb7 34. Ke2 Re5 35. Rd4 Rg8 36. Ng4 Rc5 37. Ne3 Rd8 38. Rd2 Ba8 39. Rd4 Re5  1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
I have been looking at this with a fairly strong computer for about 15 minutes (and the judgment of having been a Master for 30+ years and forcing in plausible lines), and I am convinced that this is a positional draw.

White is obviously worse per the computer eval, but he can keep the position exactly as it is by either moving his K from e2 to d3 and back (sometimes f1 if there is a threat to take on g2), or his Rd4 back and forth to d1 if black moves the Re5 away so e4 is not hanging. So, that leaves only to look at what can black do.

You have to look at black's pawn breaks. Clearly, b5 is out as cb actually leaves white better. d5 just loses. f5, which would be the standard try, is never any good because after ef and the bishop trade on f3, that will leave a monster N to go to d5, and that will also keep black tied to the weak pawn on b6. That only leaves the attempt to double rooks on the g-file, and sacrifice on g2, but it is already defended twice, and can even be over-protected with Kf1 if it looks like it might work for black.

Lastly, on top of b6 being weak if f5 gets played, h4 also becomes an immediate target along the fourth rank.

My opinion is that if black tries to win, especially with f5, he is probably going to be worse, and it will be he, who is fighting for the draw. Sorry, I just do not think that there is a way to crack that nut. Try too hard, and you might break an egg though. :)
> 9 votes

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play
---


title: Can black play the London system?

text:
# Question
Title: Can black play the London system?
After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3, Black usually plays Nf6 or e6 (which blocks his light-square bishop) and I wonder if it is possible for him to adopt the ideas from the London System and play Bf5 before e6. This is a rare move but I wonder if it is sound. After all, black is one tempo down compared with the London System by white. But is black's position solid enough to compensate this?

# Answer
> 10 votes
That is the Slav, but the problem for black in many of these lines, and specifically immediately, is that if 3...Bf5, then 4.cd cd 5.Qb3 forces you to sacrifice d5 or b7 since 5...b6 just loses.

```
         [FEN ""]

         1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Bf5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3! b6? 6.e4! (6.Nc3) Bxe4 (6...dxe4 7.Ne5+-) 7.Ne5 a6 8.Ba6! Ra6 9.Qb5 Nd7 10.Nd7! Qd7 (10...Ra5?? 11.Nf6++#) 11.Qxa6+-

```

This is just one example, and white can also play it more quietly with 6.Nc3 instead of 6.e4, but no matter how you do it, it is either the loss of a pawn with insufficient compensation, or worse, death on the light squares.

Lastly, you can try to postpone Bf5, but the same basic ideas are still strong later, or you lose a tempo with a6 putting you two tempi down on the same white opening. Basically, the answer is "no", the position cannot withstand the attempt to bring the B out early there.

P.S. I just looked at your picture again, and noticed the computer eval listed, and that +.73 is modest. It will probably grow after just a few moves.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The **London Defensive System** is actually a named line in the **Réti Opening**. And yes, it is very playable. You don't see this very often nowadays, because White will try to stop Black from playing it.

Here is a famous game Réti - Lasker, 1924, in which Lasker went for this line and won convincingly.

Look at the position after `9.Nbd2`.

From my analysis:

> Note how both sides have developed their minor pieces: The bishops are free to move, not blocked by pawns. The knights protect each other and control important central squares.
> Black has made good use of the extra tempo White needed for the double fianchetto and completed their development first.
> However, White can trade off a knight for Black's (bad) light-squared bishop whenever they want. This means Black has to come up with an active move right now.

Important motifs here are the e2-e4 break by White (which Réti didn't play, unfortunately), and a queenside break per `b5` by Black if possible. In this game Lasker played the aggressive (and not very accurate e6-e5). A rare move that can be punished with e2-e4 immediately. The point is that Black has to take with `dxe4`, and after `Nxe4 Nxe4 dxe4` Black's bishop on `d6` is hanging and has to move – losing another tempo. So don't fall for that. :)

```
[Event "New York"]
[Site "it New York USA"]
[Round "16"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[White "Reti, Richard"]
[Black "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[WhiteElo "2550"]
[BlackElo "2720"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.b3 Bf5 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2 Nbd7 6.Bb2 e6 7.O-O Bd6 8.d3 O-O 9.Nbd2 e5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Rc1 Qe7 12.Rc2 a5 13.a4 h6 14.Qa1 Rfe8 15.Rfc1 Bh7 16.Nf1 Nc5 17.Rxc5 Bxc5 18.Nxe5 Rac8 19.Ne3 Qe6 20.h3 Bd6 21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Nf3 Be7 23.Nd4 Qd7 24.Kh2 h5 25.Qh1 h4 26.Nxd5 hxg3+ 27.fxg3 Nxd5 28.Bxd5 Bf6 29.Bxb7 Rc5 30.Ba6 Bg6 31.Qb7 Qd8 32.b4 Rc7 33.Qb6 Rd7 34.Qxd8+ Rxd8 35.e3 axb4 36.Kg2 Bxd4 37.exd4 Bf5 38.Bb7 Be6 39.Kf3 Bb3 40.Bc6 Rd6 41.Bb5 Rf6+ 42.Ke3 Re6+ 43.Kf4 Re2 44.Bc1 Rc2 45.Be3 Bd5  0-1

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I tried this about 15 years ago and after 4. cd cd 5. Qb3 I was soon in a world of pain. I've never tried it since.

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Bf5 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Qb3

```

There is no good way to defend the b pawn and white's minor pieces flow effortlessly into the attack. Nc3, Bf4, maybe Ne5 at some stage, either e3 or even e4, followed by Bb5. Nb5 then c7 may also be on the cards. White can just generate too many threats far too quickly.

I don't remember how the game went after Qb3. Mercifully the healthy mind suppresses deeply painful experiences. Just like touching a hot stove I know not to do it again.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playing ...Bf5 against the Queen's Gambit is quite possible, and is known as the Baltic defense. GM Igors Rausis has had decent results with it decades before getting involved in a cheating scandal.

In its ideal form, you play 2...Bf5 before committing your c-pawn, keeping ...Nc6 as an option, and possibly defending Pd5 with ...e6

Of course, if White has already threatened your d5 pawn with 1.d4 d5 2.c4, you have to consider, after 2...Bf5, the immediate capture 3.cd5, when Black continues with the shocking 3...Bb1 and the play becomes lively, but quite different from your usual London system !

In case there is no pressure against d5 and you have time for both 2...Bf5 and 3...e6, Black is more solid. A quarter of a century ago was played the famous gem Kramnik-Shirov, Linares 1994.

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit, slav-defense, london-system
---


title: How to tell that this is a draw

text:
# Question
Title: How to tell that this is a draw
In an endgame I played as Black, after the rooks were exchanged, the below position was reached. A funky stalemate quickly ensued.

```
[FEN "8/5ppk/5p1p/8/3K1P2/6P1/7P/8 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Kg6 2. Ke4 Kh5 3. h3 g5 4. f5 g4 5. h4

```

It was a simple endgame to me. as Black, I had an extra pawn and was closer to my pawns then White. I would just exchange pawns and promote my extra. I though that I would win until I stumbled into an unexpected stalemate. Not a big deal, mistakes happen.

But when I put the position into Lichess, surprise, surprise, it was actually a draw! It turns out that White will be able to lock in Black, using Black's doubled pawns against them, and forever keep Black king imprisoned for eternity, thereby drawing the game.

What could I do, without computer analysis, to determine that this and similar endgame positions are a draw? What endgame principles are there/exist that would help?

# Answer
To be frank, I was a little surprised that this was a draw per the computer from move one all the way through to your stalemate. You did not make a mistake. My initial thought was to play the black king to g8-f8-e7, but the problem is that white can keep the K out of e7 with his own king, or keep you on the back rank, or force you to make pawn moves that are not good for you.

The biggest problem is that you do have a doubled pawn, and thus, cannot make a passed pawn. His three pawns very efficiently hold up your four pawns. Simply moving the Pf6 to e6, and the computer immediately registers -153!, a clear win.

There are no hard-and-fast rules about pawn endings as they are notorious for being very specific, and requiring exact calculation, but here are some basic pawn endgame principles.

1. Centralize your king as quickly as possible.
2. Try to create a passed pawn, especially an outside passed pawn.
3. Watch out for the opposition (when the other guy has to give way, and move aside).
4. Pawn endgames with an extra pawn and pawns on both sides are usually won. You create a passed pawn on the side with the extra pawn, then assuming you cannot queen it outright, at the right moment, abandon it and run to the other side and take all the opponent's remaining pawns.
5. Watch out for the rook pawn. Assuming that the pawn cannot queen outright, the defender can draw if he gets in front of it, regardless of opposition. If you are in front of it, let's say with a white h-pawn, he can draw if he gets to f8 even.
6. Lastly, a great K+P vs. K almost rule (there are a few exceptions) is that **you need to be in front of the pawn and have opposition to win**. See the second diagram.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/2k5/6KP/8/8/8 b - - 0 0"]

1...Kd6 2.Kg5 Ke7 3.Kg6 Kf8 4.Kh7 (4.h5 Kg8 5.h6 Kh8 6.h7=) Kf7 5.h5 Kf8 6.h6 Kf7 7.Kh8 Kf8 8.h7 Kf7= {Stalemate.}

```

Here is rule 6: Per the rule, white to move draws, but black to move loses.

```
    [FEN "8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

    1...Ke8 2.Ke6! {keeping the opposition} Kd8 3.Kf7 Kd7 4.e5+- {and the pawn cannot be stopped}

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
> I had an extra pawn and was closer to my pawns then White

It seems you simply overestimated these two factors.

An extra pawn alone is not a decisive advantage, it matters a lot where it is located. If the f7 pawn was on a7, you'd win.

The kings are actually positioned to your disadvantage, White's is nicely centralized and yours is stuck in the corner. If the White king was on g2 and yours on e4, you'd win.

**But most of all, chess endgames are concrete**. If you shift the whole position one file to the left, the engine does indeed see black winning!

What makes your position a draw is the unfortunate pawn formation: Your own doubled pawns trap your own king in the corner, while White's are flexible enough to shut the position from the front. And as said, his king is well positioned, it can either block the escape of yours via d8 or assist his own pawns in preventing the frontal breakthrough.
> 11 votes

# Answer
> What endgame principles are there/exist that would help?

You need to learn to recognise which pawn formations allow you to force a passed pawn and which don't.

The pawn formation on the kingside is almost identical to the queenside pawn formation in the Berlin Defence which is known to be unable to force a passed pawn. No passed pawn = no win.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In this situation, as a defender needing a draw, you just need to ask yourself: "Can I keep the pawns doubled?" Or, as an attacker trying to win,: "Can I undouble my pawns?" The "yes" answer will mean you should be able to succeed in the respective task.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, draw
---


title: Idea behind sacrifice pawn

text:
# Question
Title: Idea behind sacrifice pawn
I would like to know what compensation White gets after the pawn sacrifice 6. b4.

To me, giving back the pawn just for a tempo, i.e. Bb5, does not seem to be enough.

# Answer
I simply do not agree with your computer there. It is probably a bit of the "horizon effect", which is when a computer plays a bad move because it puts the refutation beyond its ability to calculate, or "horizon".

White played this opening every passively, and really should be looking to break up black's center so he is not smothered, and b4 does not seem the way to do that. It is very short-sighted by white to try and keep c5, especially when it puts him behind in development. Per my computer, (quad-core 2.9Ghz with 24 GB of RAM), there are a bunch of moves there, and b4 is fourth on the list per Stockfish 10 on my computer. The other candidate moves are c4! (the best in my opinion), h3, and even Nb3 since e4 h3 is good for white.

6.b4?! Nxb4 5.Bb5? {h3, c4, or Rb1 are all still better per my beast) Nc6 6.h3 Bf3 7.Qf3 Bc5 8.c4 Nf6 and while white has some compensation for the pawn, it is not enough. Black is slightly better as white may win the pawn back soon, but black remains slightly better placed.

```
      [FEN ""]

     1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. dxc5 Nc6 4. e3 Bg4 5. Nbd2 e5 6. b4?! (6. c4!) (6. h3) (6. Nb3 e4? 7. h3 Bxf3 8. gxf3 {and white is just a pawn up.}) Nxb4 7. Bb5+?! (7. c4!) (7. h3) (7. Rab1 {are all better}) Nc6 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Bxc5 10. c4 Nf6 11. cxd5 Qxd5 12. Qxd5 Nxd5 {Black's pieces are all very nicely placed here, and the Nd2 is passive.} 13. Bb2 O-O-O 14. Rc1? Bb4 {is the tactical justification.}

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
My very amateur analysis would be that if Nxb4, then c3 Nc6 Qa4 then attacks the Bishop, potentially providing support to the c5 pawn and removing the pin on the f3 Knight, allowing it to attack e5 which is now undefended by Black's Knight due to the newly made pin by the queen.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Carlsen vs. Nepo this morning, why didn't Nepo win the pawn?
On move 19 Carlsen played Nd5. Why didn't Nepo win the pawn with Nxd5? If Bx, then Qxb4, or if px, then Qxb4 attacks the Bc4 still and Bxa6 then Nc5 and move the rook.

```
 [FEN ""]
 [Event "Tata Steel Rapid & Blitz"]
 [Site "Kolkata"]
 [Date "2019.11.22"]
 [Round "2.3"]
 [White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
 [Black "Nepomniachtchi, Ian"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B51"]
 [WhiteElo "2870"]
 [BlackElo "2773"]
 [PlyCount "87"]
 [EventDate "2019.??.??"]
 [EventType "blitz"]
 [WhiteTeam "Norway"]
 [BlackTeam "Russia"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "NOR"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "RUS"]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4 a6 6. Be2 Ngf6 7. O-O e5 8. Qe3 Nc5 9. Nfd2 b5 10. c4 bxc4 11. Nc3 Bb7 12. Bxc4 Be7 13. b4 13... Ne6 14. Nb3 Rc8 15. Na5 Qd7 16. Qd3 O-O 17. Be3 Bd8 18. Nxb7 Qxb7 19. Nd5 Nc7 20. Nxf6+ Bxf6 21. Rab1 Rfd8 22. Rfd1 h6 23. f3 Qc6 24. Qb3 Qe8 25. a4 Rb8 26. b5 axb5 27. axb5 Ne6 28. b6 Bg5 29. Bf2 Nd4 30. Bxd4 exd4 31. Rxd4 Rdc8 32. b7 Rc5 33. Bd5 Qe7 34. Rc4 Qc7 35. Rxc5 dxc5 36. g3 Bf6 37. Kg2 Qe7 38. Qb6 Be5 39. Qc6 Kh7 40. f4 Bd4 41. Qc8 Qd6 42. Qf5+ Kh8 43. Kh3 Qa6 44. e5 1-0

```

# Answer
The solution to that is much easier than it looks, and a fairly common type of position in practical play. After 19.Nd5! taking the nice outpost square, if black responds with 19…Nd5 then white can simply play 20.Bd5 Qb4, then Qxa6 just leaves black positionally lost despite even material. In positions like that where you have a rook behind the a-pawn, and the bishops both pointing at the queenside, the pawn on a2 is going to run fast and hard, and soon cost black heavy material.

```
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4 a6 6. Be2 Ngf6 7. O-O e5 8. Qe3 Nc5 9. Nfd2 b5 10. c4 bxc4 11. Nc3 Bb7 12. Bxc4 Be7 13. b4 13... Ne6 14. Nb3 Rc8 15. Na5 Qd7 16. Qd3 O-O 17. Be3 Bd8 18. Nxb7 Qxb7 19. Nd5 Nxd5? 20. Bxd5 Qxb4 21. Qxa6 {And from here, it is easy to see what kind of troubles black has.}

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
After 1...Nxd5 2.Bxd5 Qxb4 3.Qxa6 White has a clear advantage. He has two very nice bishops and an outside passed pawn on the a-file. Black's d6-pawn is a clear weakness, his bishop on d8 lacks prospects, and the list goes on.

However, Stockfish actually gives 1...Nxd5 as its top choice, with 1...Nc7 coming in as a close second. In either case though, it says White is better by roughly a pawn and a half.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Games with two knight promotions in them
Games with two knight promotions are extremely rare, but a few have existed. In an article of his, Tim Krabbe stated that, about the game Zurakhov - Koblentz, "This is one in only 5 games with two serious Knight-promotions. 57.g8N is the only winning move, and also a rare non-checking Knight-promotion. 79.c8N is not the only winning move, but in human terms: the best move."

He states that there are 5 double knight promotion games, but I have only ever found four on chessgames.com. Here is my list, in order of date.

MacDonnell-Bird, 1874

Zurakhov-Koblent, 1956

Schweber - Wexler, 1964

"This is the only game with two Knight promotions that were the strongest move. Promotions to Queen would have been equally strong, but as the Knight promotions were checks, they were more obvious, and therefore genuine." -Tim Krabbe

Kucuksari-Betanli, 2017

Can anyone find anymore games that feature two knight promotions?

# Answer
Not all the games are by strong players, let alone, players, who are well-known, but here is a complete list in the Mega 2019 database. If you would like to see a particular game, or two, I can post the PGN, and add it to this answer.

This one is interesting since one of players is famous, and both promotions happened so early in the game.

```
 [Event "Greenhills op"]
 [Site "Greenhills"]
 [Date "1989.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Valdez, P."]
 [Black "Xu, Jun"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "A25"]
 [BlackElo "2510"]
 [PlyCount "44"]
 [EventDate "1989.07.??"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "12"]
 [EventCountry "PHI"]
 [SourceTitle "EXT 2010"]
 [Source "ChessBase"]
 [SourceDate "2010.11.25"]
 [SourceVersion "1"]
 [SourceVersionDate "2010.11.25"]
 [SourceQuality "1"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Rb1 f5 7. Bd2 Nf6 8. b4 O-O 9. b5 Ne7 10. Nf3 h6 11. O-O Be6 12. Qc1 Kh7 13. h3 Qc8 14. Kh2 Bf7 15. c5 g5 16. Qa3 g4 17. cxd6 gxf3 18. dxe7 fxg2 19. exf8=N+ Bxf8 20. Qa4 gxf1=N+ 21. Rxf1 Qd8 22. Qh4 Nd5 0-1

```

---

Here is a list of links to all of the games, minus the ones already in the question, from the list in order of date. Most of them are either the 365chess or chess-db databases. N/A is used for games that have not been found.

Kiili-Katajainen,1990

Valdez-Xu, 1989

Natri-Salokangas, 1990

Kosonen-Vuori, 1990

Dobos-Lehtivaar, 1990

Korhonen-Eskola, 1991

Lehto-Ketola, 1991

Carpenter-Scott, 1994

Myc-Walach, 1994

Sintici-Zubavicius, 1995

Norqvist-Kochetkov, 1995

Richards-Fongers, 1997

Rasmussen-Arnkilde, 1997-N/A

Doettling-Euler, 1999

Quintero-Bognar, 1999

Mellem=Borchgrevink, 2000

Reich-Lauer, 2002

Choma-Karstens, 2004

Urbisaglia-Del Cont Bernard, 2004

Vajcner-Vancat, 2006-N.A

Polok, Jagodzinski, 2006-N/A

Moura-Goncalves, 2006

Hager-Specht, 2007

KaunzingerSternheimer, 2008-N/A

Huszar-Gerendas, 2008-N/A

Kast-Becker, 2010-N/A

Khamko-Prosvetov, 2010

Hapke-Uksini, 2010

Bango-Bango, 2011-N/A

Simo-Volna, 2011-N/A

Woehl-Schwab, 2012-N/A

Effenberger-Barak, 2013

Bellahcene-Barbot, 2014

Lokwani-Lee, 2015

Radenic-Fikus, 2015

Fridman-Svane, 2015

Popchev-Dyulgerov, 2015

Davanso-Jenidarchiche, 2018
> 3 votes

---
Tags: knights, pawn-promotion, famous-games
---


title: What is "Chronological Order" in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is "Chronological Order" in chess?
I have heard about "chronological order" in chess. But I don't know what it is exactly.

Can someone tell me what this is?

# Answer
Chronological order is just the order, in time, in which you do things. The "chronological order" in which you move can make a big difference in chess and there are two obvious areas where this applies:

* openings
You want to play a particular opening but avoid some unpleasant (for you) lines. Examples would be replying to 1. d4 with 1... e6 intending 2... f5 to play the Dutch but avoid the Staunton Gambit (2. e4 from White). Or playing the moves 1. d4 2. c4 3. Nf3 instead of 1. d4 2. c4 3. Nc3 which would allow the Nimzowitsch Defence.
* tactics
Consider this position.

Normally you check for - 1) checks 2) captures 3) threats. One obvious move, Rxh6+, is a check and a capture. If black responds with Kg8 then Rg5 is checkmate. But black will play Kg7, not Kg8, and then take the rook on h6, so it doesn't work. Reversing the order, playing Rg5 first, leads to checkmate.

```
 [fen "r4r1k/pbp2p2/3np2p/1p2R3/3P1P2/b1PB3R/P1Pb2PP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rxh6+ (1. Rg5 null 2. Rxh6++) 1... Kg7! 2. Rg5+? Kxh6

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
To be frank, chronological order is not really a chess thing as much as a general thing that is just defined by English.

In 40 years of playing, and reading (at my peak, I had 1800 chess books, and have read 300 cover to cover), that is the first time I have heard the term "chronological order" attempted to be used as a pure chess term.

So to be clear, what I am saying is that it is not a standard chess term, however, it is a common general English term (speaking as a native English speaker) that can be applied to chess or anything else. The person, who wrote that was just using common English lexicon, not common chess lexicon, and it does, indeed, mean "the order in time that you do things".

P.S. To back this up, I also just searched 615 digital chess books, and "chronological order" was found in 20 books, however, after looking at every one of them, and how it was used, it was just used to describe layouts of the material in the book....still not as a pure chess term.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: Caro-Kann advance variation w/ 3. c5 dxc5
I like to play the Caro-Kann as black, and in response to the advance variation play 3... c5!? This works really well for me (~1800 USCF), but as I've gotten better I'm being forced to deal with the response which is common at higher levels, which is 4. dxc5! Nc6 leading to a position which I've found uniquely uncomfortable (and after only 4 moves!):

```
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp2pppp/2n5/2PpP3/8/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 1 5"]

```

Although the computer thinks Black is okay (stockfish depth 29: +0.5) this opening feels very different from other variations of the Caro-Kann and as such I've felt recently that I should study the variation in more detail, but I've really struggled to become more comfortable in this position despite putting more time into this position than almost any other in my repertoire. Here are the reasons that I can see why I'm having trouble:

* Fundamentally, black is cramped and down a pawn. Worse, in many variations persist for a long time even with perfect play. Proving compensation seems very hard.
* There are a bazilion ways white can play which keep this cramping theme - at almost every move there are 5 moves within a half evaluation point of each other, and my opponents tend to break from the "main lines" that I can see in opening explorers very quickly. Memorizing moves & responses feels fairly futile past a couple moves, and these lines usually don't lead to what I'd call a "comfortable" position.
* If I'm not very careful, White's queen-side majority can create passed pawns and with such a cramped position, this can prove deadly. I've lost several games in this fashion.
* I've struggled to find much theory or discussion of this position since 3... c5 is it's a 10-to-1 side-line of the main Caro-Kann (although I'm probably just not looking in the right places). The couple books I've looked at don't cover 3... c5.

So, I'm looking for some advice from more experienced players. How can I study / improve this opening? Am I thinking about something wrong here? Is this just a fundamentally uncomfortable position (and probably the reason 3... c5 isn't the main line) and I should just accept that and play a different opening if it's too much? Should I just bunker down and spend a lot of time memorizing lines to guide myself through the opening stages here? I've struggled to gain much insight by looking at pro games (and this **is** played occasionally at the highest level), but maybe I should try harder at a that?

# Answer
OK, after reading your reply to my question above, I can more accurately answer.

First, contrary to Fuxia's comment, the move you played, 4...Nc6, is actually more popular now at higher levels than Botvinnik's 4...e6. To quote GM John Shaw's 2016 book:

> 4...Nc6 is more popular these days and can be viewed as slightly more ambitious, as well as somewhat riskier. It can lead to exceptionally sharp play....

Thus, based on your answer above, I would not play 4...Nc6 since it simply does not suit your style. If you are going to play 3...c5, then I would play 4...e6 as it leads to more positional lines, that are easier to understand. Also, not that you are old, but if you are having problems with blundering, going into sharp lines with 4...Nc6 may be suicide.

Here is what I would recommend:

```
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Nf3 (5. Be3 Nh6! {This is actually very positional since if white takes, most of the lines favor the black bishops.}) (5. a3!? {Shaw}) Bxc5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Nge7 {with the idea Ng6, Qc7, and maybe f6 after O-O. Also, instead of Qc7, you can also play Bb6-c7 with the same type of pressure on e5.}

```

Now, in any case, that is barely touching the surface. If you want to play that line, you will need to look at more specific material. Here are some study materials.

1. "Opening Repertoire: The Caro-Kann" by IM Jovanka Houska (chapters 9-11)
2. "Playing 1.e4: Caro-Kann, 1...e5 & Minor Lines" by GM John Shaw (chapter 2).
3. "Practical Black Repertoire with d5, c6. Volume 2 The Caro-Kann and Other Defences" by GM Alexei Kornev (chapter 6+7)

All three books have advantages, and all are pretty new, having been published in 2015, 2016, and 2017 respectively.
> 9 votes

# Answer
This line, the **Botvinnik-Carls Defense**, is my pet opening as Black. :)

The critical move after `4.dxc5` is `e6`! If White tries to hold the pawn with `Be3`, you answer that with `Nd7`. In many lines after that you have a way to get the pawn back or get the bishop pair and a much better pawn structure.

See the annotated example below.

```
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/fuxia"]
[UTCDate "2019.11.23"]
[UTCTime "21:48:33"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[ECO "B12"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation, Botvinnik-Carls Defense"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 { The very early c5 is the beginning of the Botvinnik-Carls Defense. Instead of Bf5, Black tries to undermine White's center pawns immediately. White now has to make an important decision: to take or not to take. Looks like a gambit, but Black will very likely get this pawn back. } 4. dxc5 e6 { And not Nc6! } 5. Nf3 { Give the c-pawn back immediately, protect the center pawn on e5 instead. } (5. Be3 { One way to cling to that pawn. The same as in the 4…Nc6 line above. } 5... Nd7 { My recommendation. Attack c4 again. } { [%cal Gf8c5,Gd7c5] } (5... Nh6 { One of the main lines, but I really don't like the situation after Bxh6. GM Chirila played that once against me, and I had to face a very strong kingside attack. } { [%cal Gh6f5,Gf5e3] })  (5... Ne7 { Again, the same motif: Try to attack White's bishop on e3 with the knight. This is slow tough. } { [%csl Gf5][%cal Ge7f5,Gf5e3] } 6. c3 { Now White can dream about an exchange of that bishop on d4. This would restore its center pawns. } { [%cal Re3d4] } 6... Nd7 { Well, the other pawn is tasty too. } { [%cal Gd7e5] } 7. Nf3 { Black is really missing the light-square bishop here. This is the reason why the 4…Nc6 is so attractive for Black. } { [%cal Rf3e5] } 7... Nf5 { A nice move that creates attacks all over the place. } { [%cal Gf5e3,Gf8c5,Gd7c5] }) 6. Bb5 { prevents that for now. a6 doesn't help, because after Ba4 Black cannot play b5. } 6... Ne7 { Develop instead. } { [%csl Gf5][%cal Ge7f5,Gf5e3] } 7. c3 (7. Nf3 Nf5 8. b4 Nxe3 9. fxe3 a5 10. c3 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. a3 Qc7 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. Qd4) 7... a6 8. Bxd7+ Bxd7 9. Nf3 Nf5 { [%cal Gf5e3,Gf8c5] } 10. Qd2 (10. Bd4 Nxd4 11. cxd4 b6! { Now it is a gambit. } 12. cxb6 Qxb6 { [%cal Gb6b2] } 13. Qb3) 10... Nxe3 11. Qxe3)  (5. a3 Bxc5 { Recapture, and have a nice game. }) 5... Bxc5 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. Qe2 { The best move according to Stockfish 8, depth 40. Rarely played. But e5 will be under fire soon. } { [%cal Re2e5,Rf3e5,Re2b5] } (7. O-O Nbc6 8. a3 (8. Bf4 Ng6 9. Bg3 O-O)) 7... Nbc6 { [%cal Gc6e5,Ge7g6,Bg6e5,Gd8c7,Bc7e5] } 8. O-O Bd7 { Prepare for pins from b5. This might be a novelty already. Then engine likes it more than Ng6 or 0-0. } *

```

In general, I think this line is Black's best response to `3.e5`. And if you play it correctly, you get a very solid position and chances to develop a strong center.
> 8 votes

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


# Question
Title: In Damanovic-Fischer, 1970, wasn't 66. Ke3 better?
In Damanovic-Fischer, it seems like the move played, 66. bxa4+, made it easy for Fischer. Wasn't 66. Ke3 better?

```
       [Title "Damanovic- Fischer, 1970,"]
       [FEN ""]
       [startply "130"]

       1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 g6 6. e4 d6 7. Be2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2 Be6 11. f3 Rc8 12. Nd5 Nd7 13. O-O Nc5 14. Rac1 a5 15. b3 Bxd5 16. cxd5 Qb6 17. Rc4 Qa7 18. Rc2 Bh6 19. f4 Rc7 20. g3 b6 21. Rfc1 Bg7 22. Bb5 Qa8 23. Qe2 e5 24. dxe6 fxe6 25. Rd1 Rd8 26. Bd4 Bxd4+ 27. Rxd4 e5 28. fxe5 dxe5 29. Rxd8+ Qxd8 30. Bc4+ Kg7 31. Bd5 Nd7 32. Qf2 Rxc2 33. Qxc2 b5 34. Kg2 b4 35. Qc6 Nf6 36. Kf3 Qd7 37. Qxd7+ Nxd7 38. Ke3 Kf6 39. Kd3 Nb6 40. Bc6 Ke7 41. h4 h6 42. Ke3 Nc8 43. Kd3 Nd6 44. Ke3 Kd8 45. Kd3 Kc7 46. Ba4 Kb6 47. Ke3 Kc5 48. Bd7 Kb6 49. Ba4 Kc7 50. Kd3 Kd8 51. Bc6 Ke7 52. Ke3 Ke6 53. Kf3 Kf6 54. g4 g5 55. h5 Ke7 56. Ke3 Kd8 57. Kd3 Kc7 58. Ba4 Kb6 59. Bd7 Kc5 60. Ba4 Nc8 61. Be8 Ne7 62. Ke3 Ng8 63. Bd7 Nf6 64. Bf5 Kb5 65. Kd3 a4 66. bxa4+ 66... Kxa4 67. Kc4 Ka3 68. Kc5 Kxa2 69. Kxb4 Kb2 70. Kc5 Kc3 71. Kd6 Kd4 72. Ke6 Nxe4 73. Kf7 Nf2 74. Kg6 e4 75. Kxh6 e3 76. Kg7 e2 77. h6 e1=Q 78. h7 Qe7+ 79. Kg8 Ne4 0-1

```

# Answer
This was played almost at Fischer’s height of strength, so he almost surely would have won anyway after 66.Ke3 also. I think that white thought two things by playing 66.ba. First, that it reduced the number of pawns, which is almost always good when you are in a worse, or losing, endgame. Second, that the bishop might be able to defend a2 along the a2-g8 diagonal.

After 66.Ke3, white will fall into zugzwang due to his bad bishop, or at least, he believed he would. If that happens, the black knight can do some pretty fancy high stepping. This is what I found, but it turns out there actually is a miracle draw, but it is doubtful that any human would have put his B on a4 (to stop Nc4; bc b3 queening).

So, I guess, considering that miracle possibility, the answer is a firm "yes, it would have been better".

```
[FEN "8/8/5n1p/1k2pBpP/pp2P1P1/1P1K4/P7/8 w - - 0 66"]

1. Ke3 a3 2. Kd3 Kc5 3. Ke3 Ne8 4. Kd3 (4. Bd7 Nd6 5. Ba4) 4... Nd6 5. Bd7 Nc4 6. Be8 Nb2+-+

```

At the end of the line, the N either gets Nd1-c3-a2 or the Kc5 gets to d4. In either case, winning easily.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You are correct, 66.bxa4+ is an inaccuracy and gives Black a winning advantage. Stockfish gives 66.Ke3 a -0.64 evaluation, which remains constant as it quickly reaches higher depths of searching (+depth 60). This indicates the game was probably objectively a draw if White hadn't captured on a4 (though it wouldn't have been fun).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, fischer, bad-bishop
---


# Question
Title: When is it appropriate for the arbiter to reduce a player's time?
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
>
> 12.9.1 warning,
>
> 12.9.2 increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
>
> **12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,**
>
> 12.9.4 increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
>
> 12.9.5 reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,
>
> 12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),
>
> 12.9.7 a fine announced in advance,
>
> 12.9.8 exclusion from one or more rounds,
>
> 12.9.9 expulsion from the competition.

In a FIDE rated competition (or one in which the FIDE laws apply) when is it appropriate to apply a time reduction as a penalty?

I know of one such, which I will give as a separate answer. I would like to know if there are more.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The matter of Art. 12.9 is delicate. There is no rule of thumb when to choose one penalty over another. So the values taken from the preface prevail: necessary competence, sound judgement, absolute objectivity.

In some cases, the Laws of Chess (LoC) don’t let the arbiter choose from 12.9 but give a fixed penalty (e.g. 7.5.5, 9.5.3, 11.3.2.2). In other cases, there is international custom as you describe in your answer. A penalty of 10 min for a player who does not write with sound reasons but without disability is quite usual. It is recommended for every arbiter to read a lot about such decisions to get a feeling for appropriate penalties.

But in the end, every case is special. You have to consider all circumstances, look at all rules, and make a decision. If you give a time penalty for a player, you consider his offence worse than one where you would give his opponent additional time but not so bad that you will give the opponent additional points. Other arbiters might make other decisions, but this is OK. If of interest, I could give you an example where every possible decision (1-0, drawn, 0-1) is considered correct.

I myself have never given a time penalty, and I cannot imagine a case where I would. So I was taught when I still learned, and I never met a fellow arbiter who said that he did. But that’s only the limited experience of me and some others, and cannot be generalized.

# Answer
> 1 votes
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

In Israel a lot of the leagues play on a Saturday between 10 am 2 or 3 pm. Obviously all of the people who play have religious beliefs which are consistent with this, unlike Samuel Reshevsky who refused to play on the Sabbath. There are, though, a very small number of players who's beliefs allow them to play chess on the Sabbath but not write the moves down because that resembles the work of a scribe, could therefore be construed as work, and is there fore forbidden to them.

In this situation it has been agreed with the the arbiters overseeing the competition that these players may be excused the requirements of article 8.1.1 but must suffer a time penalty of 10 minutes. So, in a 90+30 game (all moves in 90 minutes with a 30 second increment from move 1) they start with 80 minutes on the clock plus increment instead of 90.

This is actually mentioned in article 8.1.6:

> 8.1.6 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. **His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.** This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.

It is worth noting that players with disabilities are not subject to this time penalty.

I've applied this principle in mid-week tournaments where a player has refused from move 1 to write the moves down and also refused to give an explanation. Such a solution is obviously preferable to trying to coerce the player or to exclude the player from the competition, both of which would be highly undesirable.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: When losing in blitz, is it rude to play to win on time?
In blitz, I frequently find myself in a position where I'm hopelessly losing on the board but have a good chance of winning on time (and the other way around). Is it generally considered good sportmanship to resign or offer a draw in such positions, or is it fair play to frustrate your opponent until his clock runs out?

Update: I realize this question is very similar to a previous question, although I believe this scenario to be slightly different, which may elicit different answers.

# Answer
No it's not. Your opponent spent more time to reach a winning position and you spent less time to get time advantage. It's quite fair to use your time advantage over your opponents position advantage.

Time control is a part of chess.
> 41 votes

# Answer
I would never resign a game where the expected outcome is a win on time for me. Of course offering a draw is a gracious thing to do and could be considered good sportmanship, I usually only do this if I have been playing several games with this opponent and maybe chatted a bit.

I would also offer a draw if the position of the game is impossible to ruin, even in blitz, for either side, which is quite different from a "dead draw" in tournament play. I.e. something like KB vs KB, K+a-pawn vs K with the defending king in front of the pawn, etc. It doesn't make much sense to me to find out who can purely physically make irrelevant moves faster.

But in dead drawn positions in which my opponent still has to react to my moves, I would certainly play on. Often you have a situation in which you can instigate a pawn break as soon as your opponent is reduced to making premoves. This pawn break would lose if he were still able to react to it, but, alas, he used up all his time parrying my earlier threats.

That's just what blitz is about, you exchange time for quality moves. If you can't stand to be flagged, play with increment.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Winning a game sometimes gives a bad feeling when you should have lost but won on time. This is true for blitz as well as for a regular game.

Losing on time is part of the blitz game. So playing on is fair in my opinion.

This does not mean that you should not resign in a lost position. But you do not win a tournament this way.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I've always taken the position that it's possible, maybe even likely, that I wouldn't have been in a losing position if I had taken as much time or more than my opponent. You could equally argue that he should resign for getting a great position by using substantially more time than you did. As someone else pointed out already, the clock is part of the game and necessary to put both players on equal footing. Time management is an important component in chess, even if it's an unfortunate one. If this does not appeal to a player, then I would suggest correspondence.

In sum, play for a win by playing within the rules and thereby perhaps you'll both benefit by any lessons gained, whether they be purely chess lessons or lessons about other aspects of the game, like time management.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Your question could be answered either way, which is why the question is so interesting. I have little directly to add to earlier answers. Personally in your place, I would probably resign, but this is because I am too sportsmanlike a loser for my own good. Probably, the best answer is that one need not resign. It's a close call, though.

What earlier answers have not mentioned however is this. The *really* poor sportsman is the opponent, the one who complains when his flag falls.

The one player may bear an obligation of courtesy to grant that his position is objectively lost. However, more important is this: In Western culture, the other player has no moral right whatsoever to insist that his opponent make gracious concessions. His only right is to play to win under the rules. The player who does insist is just a bad loser on time—and if I am TD, I will sternly warn that *each is free to do as he likes with the time on his own clock,* without having his conduct called into question thereby.

You may graciously resign, with my thanks. I must not however so much as hint at demanding your resignation.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is not rude to play to win on time in blitz.

"Time" is one the key variables of blitz. That's somewhat true even in "regular" chess, but time is the *whole point* of blitz.

If you have a winning position and run out of time, you've lost.

So the reverse is true, that "time" is a legitimate way to win with an otherwise losing position.

A "losing position" is one that is lost, all other things being equal. In your case, all other things are *not* equal. Your opponent has a time disadvantage that may outweigh your positional disadvantage, meaning that s/he might not be able to win in the allotted time.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I have heard of a Go tournament where one team was up on time, and so they started making fast moves, planning on running down their opponent's clock. I was horrified to read that the referee interceded and declared a victory for the team that was low on time! The ruling was that the moves had been too fast.

I'm much happier to play a chess game where the time controls are respected. Both players should agree on the clock settings before the game, and they shouldn't cry foul when those rules are enforced. Time control is a real part of chess strategy.
> 3 votes

# Answer
NO

***Everything is fair in love and war***
> 2 votes

# Answer
Suppose you initially had an obviously winning position but your opponent Refused to resign,hoping you'd make an unbelievable blunder(which you eventually do - nature of blitz) and now said opponent has the winning advantage,but you can still win on time...why not go ahead and claim what was yours to begin with.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think it's rude in time controls that include a delay or increment. There you are playing for your opponent to have a heart attack at the board. In a game without added time, I don't think it's unsportsmanlike if your opponent has less than perhaps 45 seconds. (I strongly prefer delay or increment for this very reason.)
> 2 votes

# Answer
As @saibot well said, "Time control is part of chess".

By the way, I'm sure that everyone of you had a game where the enemy played far way better and in this case I'm ok on resigning/offering draw (depend on the game) even if it's won by time because I'm used to think that I really win iff I've played better than my enemy.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think it's in bad taste. If hopelessly outnumbered like queen down then in such situations winning on time leaves a bitter after taste. But then chess is fiercely competitive so not many would be willing to be gracious
> 2 votes

---
Tags: etiquette, blitz, sportsmanship
---


# Question
Title: Is it good to take a fianchettoed Bishop?
I have faced this fairly often in quite a few openings, but there seems to be a theme with players putting their Bishop on a square like h6, supported by a queen and attacking the fianchettoed Bishop next to the castled King. What are the ideas behind this? Is it something I should be bringing into my own gameplan and if so is taking the fianchettoed Bishop a good thing to do? It seems to me to be the only point in putting it there.

# Answer
> 12 votes
There are two reasons for doing this and immediately taking the fianchettoed bishop is not one of them:

* Provoke Black into playing BxB when you hope to follow up with Ng5, drive the f6 knight away and then mate on h7
* Prevent black from playing h5 until you have been able to play h2-4-5 to pry open the black king's position.

It can even be worth sacrificing the exchange with h5, Nxh5 Rxh5 to smash open the black citadel.

# Answer
> 10 votes
There are a few benefits behind exchanging off the fianchettoed bishop. For this example, I'll assume the stage is Black's kingside after ...g6 and ...Bg7 are played.

* Weakening the surrounding squares. Without the fianchettoed bishop, the squares weakened by pushing the pawn (such as h6 and g7 when Black plays ...g6) are less protected.
* Making the enemy king more vulnerable. Without the bishop, Black's castle is slightly compromised due to pushing ...g6 and having no piece on g7 to fill the gap.
* Minimizing the opponent's influence along the long diagonal. A bishop on g7 often exerts strong pressure along the h8-a1 diagonal.

But there are also drawbacks behind doing the exchange for you:

* It takes time. Often you must spend two whole tempi (e.g., Qd2, Bh6) to exchange bishops. In a time sensitive position, this may be a bad idea.
* It's possible your bishop is better than your opponent's, which means exchanging actually favours them. For example, say you have a White bishop on e3 that is unobstructed along the c1-h6 and g1-a7 diagonals. Meanwhile, assume Black's g7-bishop is blocked in by a White pawn on e5. Here your bishop is clearly superior, so the benefits of exchanging off the fianchettoed bishop may not be worth it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As an additional note related to the idea of weakening squares around the king, it is only worth spending the tempi if the pawn adjacent to the "fianchetto triangle" is pushed. So, for example, if black fianchettoed its dark bishop and pushed the e pawn to e6 or e5, it's worth it to trade the bishop because the dark squares around black king are permanently weakened. On the other hand, if his pawns are e7-f7-g6-h7, that e pawn sitting on its original square, will normally compensate for the bishop's absence in dark-square protection duties.

---
Tags: fianchetto
---


title: Longest possible game of Horde Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Longest possible game of Horde Chess
The longest possible normal game of chess has been calculated, but I want to know what the longest possible game of Horde Chess is. What makes this an interesting case is the crazy amount of pawn moves and captures there are that allow the game to be extended for a very long time.

For the sake of the question, as to avoid answers of "infinity," the 75-move will be in effect. Captures and pawn moves will be labeled as "marks" for simplicity.

As for calculating the longest possible game, White needs to promote a pawn to gain waiting moves. This takes 4 moves at the least.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/1PP2PP1/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP w kq - 0 1"]

1. b6 a6 2. b5 Ra7 3. bxa7 Nc6 4. a8=Q

```

The promotion is our first mark. After this, White has 184 marks in pawn moves. All but one piece can be captured for 31 more marks. (184+31+1)\*75 gives us 16200 moves for the White piece alone.

Each Black pawn should be able to get at least two moves given that White captures properly, so that's 16 marks from all Black pawns. Additionally, each Black piece (minus a rook from the opening) is a mark, minus the king. (14+16)\*75=2250. After all of the marks are done, the Black king and the last White piece can duke it out for another 75 moves.

16200+2250+75=**18525 moves**, give or take a ply or two for parity switches, as a **lower bound.** I'm sure that there are ways to give Black more pawn moves.

Can anyone refine my starter pack calculations and find the longest possible Horde Chess Game?

# Answer
> 3 votes
EDIT: Final calculation matches actual proof game exactly.

That’s a nice new chess-math question, which deserves wider circulation.

Begin by promoting a White pawn as quickly as possible, because until that happens, White is just haemorrhaging pawn moves. Now can promote a second pawn more slowly. This promoted piece is captured by Black pawn to open a file, and the first file's promotions can happen.

Scheme: axb to let all wPs from the a-file promote, then bxa+bxa to let all remaining wPs from the b-file promote, then cxb to let all wPs from the c-file promote, and so on.

One player is the active one, moving pawns. This player can also capture spare officers with officers. But pawns can never be captured before they promote (hugely expensive) and there are only 2 captures by wPs and 9 captures by bPs.

There are in principle 188+36+48+15=287 marks (captures & pawn moves). However, we lose 9 for Black pawn captures, 2 for White pawn captures, and 5 for pawn moves leading to the first White promotion. So there are really just 271 marks. So if the count begins after 4. a8=?, we have a total length of 20328.5 moves minus 0.5 for each parity switch.

So how many parity switches must there be? White is the first active player, then need two switches to promote the pawns from any file. So that's 16 switches, and White has promoted all his h-file pawns. A 17th switch is required for Black to capture these.

What impact does dead position have? If it applies literally, then Black cannot win if he has lost all his units, because he can't capture the last White unit. So let's suppose that Black winning "counts" as checkmate for DP purposes. That gives a total of 20320.0 moves.

The final proposed total is hence: **20320.0 moves**.

An actual animated proof game has been constructed which achieves this total: https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1370701

---
Tags: problems, chess-variants, mathematics, 75-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: What happened in this game between Hong Li and Sandor Farago in the FSIM November 2018?
I downloaded a bunch of games from Kingbase which included the below game.

```
[Event "FSIM November 2018"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2018.11.06"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Farago, Sandor"]
[Black "Li, Hong"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2216"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[ECO "B80"]
[EventDate "2018.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.a3 Bb7
9.g4 h6 10.h4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Rg1 Nd7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Be7 15.Qd2
Rh7 16.O-O-O Nf8 17.f4 Qa5 18.f5 e5 19. null Nd7 20.Kb1 Rb8 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.
Rxd2 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rh4 24.Bd3 Rh3 25.Ba7 Rb7 26.Bf2 Rh2 27.Be3 Rh3 28.Re1
Nb8 29.f6 gxf6 30.gxf6 Bxf6 31.Rxd6 Bg7 32.Rd5 Nc6 33.Bd2 f6 34.Rg1 1-0

```

I'm confused about the notation in move 19 . I couldn't find any reference on how to interpret it. According to another source the tournament ended after move 18.

At first I thought maybe the time ran out and they decided to finish the game just for fun, But then why didn't White make the next move, and not black?

Different PGN replayers display this game differently. Gnome-chess refuses to display the game with move 19, while chess.com analysis interprets it as an empty move.

# Answer
**Best guess: the mistake occured before, on move 15**

Entry errors are frequent when games are entered into a software, especially if they are not entered by one of the players.

Here the operator must have made an error *before* move 19, reached an anomaly, and couldn't solve the mystery (or didn't have time to try, there are other games to be saved). In such occurence, entering a null move solves the issue, even if it makes some future users wonder what exactly happened during the game.

Only one of the players, or someone with access to the handwritten gamescore, could answer with 100% certainty, so I cannot be totally affirmative, but I am pretty sure the error occured on move 15. This must be how the game went:

```
[Event "FSIM November 2018"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2018.11.06"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Farago, Sandor"]
[Black "Li, Hong"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2216"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[ECO "B80"]
[EventDate "2018.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.a3 Bb7
9.g4 h6 10.h4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Rg1 Nd7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Be7 15.Qd4
Rh7 16.O-O-O Nf8 17.f4 Qa5 18.f5 e5 19. Qd2 Nd7 20.Kb1 Rb8 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.
Rxd2 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rh4 24.Bd3 Rh3 25.Ba7 Rb7 26.Bf2 Rh2 27.Be3 Rh3 28.Re1
Nb8 29.f6 gxf6 30.gxf6 Bxf6 31.Rxd6 Bg7 32.Rd5 Nc6 33.Bd2 f6 34.Rg1 1-0

```
* **15.Qd4**, instead of 15.Qd2, is a very logical move, centralizing the queen and hitting the Pg7 left unprotected by Black's last move, 14...Bf8-e7. It is also a typical move when a Nd4-Nc6 exchange occurs in the Najdorf with the wQ still on d1.
* It doesn't take a lot of stretch for an handwritten "Qd4" to be mistaken for "Qd2" (another plausible move) by the operator.
* Then the operator won't meet any incoherence before move 19, when he finds 19.Qd2 written on the scoresheet but, puzzlingly, the queen already stands on d2. If the explanation doesn't jump to his eyes, using the *null move* feature of the software (most probably Chessbase) is the simplest way to deal with it. I have done that often myself when entering kids' games whose scoresheets I couldn't decipher.
* By the way, 19.Qd2 is the obvious choice if the queen comes from d4, attacked by Black last move, 18...e6-e5. The whole game looks very coherent in this version (but that Black is positionnally outplayed pretty fast, with 22...Bxd5? a very suspect choice).
* The most important argument in favor of 15.Qd4, in my opinion, is that it gives an explanation for the otherwise mysterious move 15...Rh7 played by Black: he simply protected his pawn. If 15.Qd2 had been played, 15...Rh7 would be a very, very weird decision (instead of any of the logical developing moves 15...Qc7, 15...Nf8, 15...Rc8, 15...Nb6, 15...g6 or 15....Qa5).
> 12 votes

# Answer
I do not think that the game just ended there. It is more likely that the second source simply could not handle the null move.

This is a bit unusual that it would be so through, but looking at the subsequent moves, we can rule out almost every move there, and figure out what had to have been played.

The available moves on move 19 are: Kb1, Qd2 moves, Rd1, Be3 moves, Bf1 moves, Rg1 moves, and the one of the k-side pawns move to the sixth rank. It is doubtful that either the a-pawn, or b-pawn moved as both players are Masters, and those are horrible moves.

1. We know that it was not Kb1 since that moved on move 20.
2. We know that the Qd2 did not move since it was exchanged on d2 on move 21.
3. We know it was not the Rd1 since it recaptured the queen on move 22.
4. It is highly doubtful that the Be3 moved since f2 would have been the only square, and it later moved when attacked on move 24...Rh3.
5. This is my guess that the B went to e2 since it is literally the only move left.
6. It cannot be that the Rg1 moved since it later moved Re1 on move 28.
7. It cannot be the k-side pawns moving since they got traded on move 29.

The last possibility is that there was an error in the scoresheet prior to the null move, and whoever was recording this just moved on from there.

On the First Saturday Chess Tournament web site, where this was played, the game viewer lists this scoresheet after this move as "unreadable".

Update: Based on Evargalo's Qd4 move hypothesis, that probably should be the accepted answer as it makes great sense positionally.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I have an alternative hypothesis. When I looked at the game before move 19, it seemed to me that White has a big advantage by pushing `f6`. Indeed, Stockfish (10+) agrees. It could be that Black resigned after move 18, but one or both of them was curious as to whether Black could save the game if given an extra move, so they continued playing after skipping White's turn.

One way to block `f6` is indeed `Nd7`, after which White's threat of `f6` is completely nullified and White no longer has a big advantage, in agreement with Stockfish, and now is better off playing `Kb1` to preemptively protect against `b4`.

Incidentally, Stockfish (at least at depth 20) thinks Black's best extra move should be not `Nd7` but `b4`.

Although it is hard to believe that illegal moves after a game could make it into a database, it is also a bit hard to believe that White moved `Be2` (a rather poor move) and that Black would just resign after White's move 34, since there is no clear advantage for White at that point (except being 1 pawn up).

I suppose the best way to know for sure is to ask the players themselves.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, pgn, notation
---


title: Intermediate Chess Books

text:
# Question
Title: Intermediate Chess Books
Does anyone have any suggestions for intermediate chess books? Tactics or endgames would be the topic that I'd mainly like to focus on!

# Answer
> 3 votes
You cannot go wrong with the Yusupov and Aagaard series of books. Both are tremendous. Yusupov's books cover everything, and not in any order, so one day, you will get some tactics, endgames, and maybe even some opening stuff. They are very varied.

Yusupov was a top-10 player, multiple-time candidate, and considered one of the greatest trainers living today.

You might also like Quality Chess' "The Woodpecker Method", which is an immersion course in tactics.

You can find them here.

New in Chess also has a lot of books aimed at the intermediate market:

1. Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition
2. Train Your Chess Pattern Recognition
3. Strategic Chess Excercises
4. Complete Manual of Positional Chess volumes 1 and 2.

Some of these are not tactics, but they are still problems that are designed to have you analyze.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Counting attackers and defenders, which pieces count?
I've heard multiple times the idea of counting attackers and defenders in estimating whether an attack/sacrifice will succeed. However, I think authors are quite loose in counting who is the attacker and who is the defender. And their decision is heavily influenced IMO by the outcome, ie they'll include more attackers and discard more defenders if the attack succeeds.

For example, the game Karpov - Georgiev 1994, white to move. I think it's obvious that white's Q, B, Ne4, Re2 are attackers, but do Nf3 and Re1 count? For black, all pieces/pawns around K count, Ba8 doesn't. How about Rd8, Nd7 and Qb8?

```
bq1r1rk1/3n1pb1/1p1P2pp/2p5/P1B1N3/1Q3NP1/4RP1P/4R1K1 w - - 1 29

```

Edit: Source of the theory

Sokolov mentioned the theory in his book "Sacrifice and Initiative in Chess". On page 91

"However one theme that is repeated in almost all of these games is the attackers vs defenders ratio. Please keep this in mind! When you have an attack on a castled king and are planning to sacrifice a piece in order to destroy the opponent's defences, do a quick check on the number of your attacking forces vs your opponents defending forces. When you do this check, remember that as Steinitz already correctly claimed, the enemy king counts as a defender. Of course this theory does not always work, but it gives a very good initial indication of whether an attack may work."

So at least Steinitz and Sokolov had such theory, and I think Kasparov mentioned it as well.

# Answer
> 4 votes
First, I think you are looking for a hard-and-fast rule that does not exist since it really depends on the position. There still can be some guiding factors.

In the Karpov game above, which only lasted another 6 moves, it turns out that literally every white piece was an attacker, and was necessary for the attack to succeed, so the original question about whether Nf3 and Re1 were attackers, the answer was "yes", even if the Re1 was indirectly attacking by defending the other rook going to e8.

I would also say that it is not really related to a pure ratio. Sometimes, it can be a simple majority of one more attacker than there are defenders, and not all defenders are equal in every position. That said, if you have a 5 or 6 pieces bearing down on the opposing king position, and there are only one or two defenders, there is almost always going to be something there. You can safely go by instinct in such a case, even if you do not see your attack clearly all the way to the end.

For each position, when trying to figure this out, determining which pieces are attackers is usually not as hard as figuring out which ones are defenders. That is because, depending on the position, sometimes a pawn may be a defender, but other times it really is not, as in the Karpov game above f7 did nothing to defend. Also, you have to consider that the defending king also counts as a defender of itself: If you sacrifice so much material to the point that it is just your queen left, and there is no mate or win of material, the queen, just as in a pure K vs K+Q ending, cannot win without some support against the king it was attacking. You really have to judge what pieces can really help defend, and which ones only appear to be in the vicinity to help. Be especially aware when the opposing queen is way offside, and cannot get back to help. That alone, is often a deciding factor.

You also need to look at how pieces combine. For example, if you have a queen and knight attacking a castled black king with only the three pawns as cover, they can be very powerful with the knight on f5, and the queen on g5, and they might be able to go it alone. If it were instead a bishop on d3, and that same queen, then g6 might stop you cold without maybe many more attackers.

I also use this principle more when worrying about my own king safety rather than my opponents, but that is more that my positional style does not lend itself to attacking Morphy-style. It may also be because all-out attacks do not occur every game, but we always have to think about king safety.

```
  [Event "Tilburg"]
  [Site "Tilburg"]
  [Date "1994.??.??"]
  [Round "5"]
  [White "Karpov, Anatoly"]
  [Black "Georgiev, Kiril"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [ECO "D58"]
  [WhiteElo "2780"]
  [BlackElo "2615"]
  [EventDate "1994.09.??"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O Qd6 13. Qb3 Nd7 14. Rfe1 Be7 15. Rab1 a5 16. bxa5 Rxa5 17. a4 Re8 18. Bf1 Bf8 19. Qc2 g6 20. e4 dxe4 21. Nxe4 Qf4 22. Bc4 Bg7 23. Re2 c5 24. d5 Raa8 25. Rbe1 Rad8 26. Qb3 Ba8 27. g3 Qb8 28. d6 Rf8 29. Bxf7+ Rxf7 30. Neg5 hxg5 31. Nxg5 Rdf8 32. Re8 Qxd6 33. Qxf7+ Kh8 34. Ne6 1-0

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would like to first say that counting attackers and defenders will not accurately predict the success of your attack. And of course, in chess positions, the likelihood that a piece will participate in an attack as well as how much contribution a piece provides an attack is different for different pieces. So I would really not trust any rules on counting attackers and defenders. Nevertheless, qualitatively looking around the board and seeing that your opponent has few defenders near their king can give you a signal that you may want to calculate ways to attack the opponent's king. But the key thing is that you have to calculate to see if an attack will work. Chess is 99 % calculation(an exaggeration). What do you think grandmasters are doing when they play 4 hour + games? Thus, I think counting attackers and defenders serves to only motivates you to calculate whether or not you should think about a mating attack, or you should be worried about a mating attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm definitely far from the best chess player on Earth, but from my experience and lessons from coaches, pawns are almost always the best defenders, but not always. Watch for defended pieces, and your opponent trying to remove the defender of those pieces / squares to take advantage of the "hole" that's left behind.

If you can piece together the kind of web / job that your pieces are doing, and what "holes" they might make if they're removed then it should help make more sense with adding defenders or calculating trades!

Some tactics practice and looking at some more popular games might help you develop these ideas for your own games as well =)

---
Tags: strategy, sacrifice, attack
---


# Question
Title: Who is the oldest person to become a GM via norms and hitting 2500 in rating?
Who is the oldest person to become a GM via norms and hitting 2500 in rating? In other words, the standard way that most GMs achieve the title.

This would rule out any of the old masters pre-FIDE, and I also want to rule out those, who become a GM directly as a result of winning the World Senior Championship (like GM Larry Kaufman, for example).

# Answer
The oldest player for whom I can find supporting evidence is Nikolai Shalnev who was 57 when he got his third GM norm in the Spring 2001 tournament in Odessa at which point his FIDE rating was 2550.

According to his (German) Wikipedia entry:

> Shalnev trägt seit 2001 den Großmeister-Titel. Die dritte Norm für den Titel des Großmeisters hat er beim Turnier Spring 2001 in Odessa erfüllt, wo er mit 9,5 Punkten aus 12 Partien siegte.

Translated:

> Shalnev has the Grandmaster title since 2001. He obtained the third grandmaster norm in the Spring 2001 tournament in Odessa, which he won with 9.5 points out of 12 games.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: fide, titles
---