# Question
Title: Strategy in "double-isolated" Queen-pawn positions?
What should the plan be for both sides in the Double Isolated Queen Pawn formation, such as the one arising from:

```

    [fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4 Bb4 5.exd5 exd5 6.cxd5 cxd5

```

E.G. - should each side focus on attacking the other's isolated pawn? Defending their own pawn? Ignoring the isolated pawns & playing in the open files? Does it depend on the position?

Thanks in Advance!

# Answer
It will depend on the placement of perhaps mainly the light pieces and the queens. Attacking the enemy d-pawn is definitely an option. Over-protecting your own d-pawn is also an option. Placing a knight on the (for white) e5-forepost is an option.

In general, it is a good idea to have a knight that is ready to grab the enemy d-pawn when given a chance. The reason is because the enemy will try to build pressure on your d-pawn by placing the queen (as black) on b6 or f6. Then, as white, you are ready for e.g. Nc3xd5 hitting the queen.

You can consider placing a bishop (as white) on the h1-a8 diagonal to pressure the enemy d-pawn. Note that when you play Nf3-e5, you lose a defender of your d4-pawn and black can build up on d4.

With the heavy pieces, you should probably invade on the c-file (since the enemy has castled kingside and the c-file is further away from the enemy king than the e-file). You can try to use the c5-forepost to weaken the enemy queenside and invade with a rook on c7 or c6 (also push b2-b4-b5). Then, later, you can place a knight on c6 (given that black has done b7-b6 and made c6 weak).
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you take a look at this beautiful demolition job Carlsen-Smeets,Wijk aan Zee, 2009, you'll notice a few things:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nc6
7.Bb5 e6 8.O-O Be7 9.d4 O-O 10.Re1 Bd7 11.Bd3 Rc8 12.Nxd5 exd5
13.Ne5 Bf6 14.Bf4 g6 15.Qb3 Na5 16.Qb4 Be6 17.Bh6 Bg7 18.Bxg7
Kxg7 19.h4 Re8 20.h5 f6 21.Nf3 b6 22.Bb5 Re7 23.Re2 Rcc7
24.Rae1 Kf7 25.Qd2 Qf8 26.Qf4 Bf5 27.g4 Bc8 28.b4 Nb7 29.Bc6
1-0

```
* Carlsen gets a knight to e5 asap (leaving the d4-pawn only indirectly protected)
* Playing g6 (g3) can be a positional liability, because if you have to play f6 (f3) to kick out the enemy knight, your whole kingside becomes weak.
* Initiative is key: The one who poses threats, will be the one whose d-pawn is strong, the one who has to react, will be the one whose d-pawn will be weak.
* Grabbing an open file with your rooks, might be the last straw that breaks your opponents back.

Of course many games with the double isolated d-pawns are rather different affairs: The heavy pieces bleed out through the open lines. e4/c5 (e5/c5) are protected by the adjacent pawns and in the ending nothing much happens.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawn-structure, center, isolated-pawn
---


# Question
Title: What's the best play when you're losing?
When you're down a few pieces or even in a bad position, which is better, playing offensive or defensive?

# Answer
The first question to ask yourself when you are losing is "Is it time to resign yet?" Sometimes the best play is to resign. There are two good reasons for resigning: 1) Like when a boxer's trainer throws in the towel or the referee stops the fight - to save yourself from further punishment. 2) Out of respect for your opponent in the case where you have absolutely no hope and you are a masochist and so 1) doesn't apply.

Not being a masochist I generally only play on when I can come up with a plan that gives me some hope. Obviously the plan depends on the position on the board. You can't just plan to launch a wild sacrificial attack in all circumstances and expect it to have any chance of working.

Here are some standard situations and plans to go with them.

1) Situation: Opponent is a piece for one or two pawns up and he only has 2 or 3 pawns left himself.

Plan: try and exchange off all his pawns. If the major pieces (rooks and queens) are off the board I may even be able to sacrifice a minor piece for a pawn at the end to secure the draw.

2) Situation: Opponent has a difficult "book" win, say R v N which is separated from the king or B+N.

Plan: know what he needs to do to win and try and foil him. He many not know what to do. e.g. against B+N move my king towards the "wrong" corner for my opponent. in R v distant N try and reconnect my K and N.

3) Situation: Straightforward pawn down in an endgame where I would be confident of winning if colours were reversed.

Plan: Activate my king and attack on the side where he doesn't have a majority. If at all possible don't move pawns on the side of his majority. Don't just wait passively for him to carry out his plan.

4) Situation: Not very many available moves

Plan: Look for stalemate possibilities.

5) Situation: Lots of material down.

Plan: Look for a fortress (position where despite my material deficit I can block him from winning)

6) Situation: a couple of pawns down in an endgame where along with a few pawns we have a rook and opposite coloured bishops.

Plan: Try and get the rooks off. Then get my pawns on the same colour as my bishop so that it can defend them. Opposite coloured bishop endgames are very difficult to win. It is very difficult to move a passed pawn onto the colour of the opposite bishop.

As you can see from these examples there is no general all-purpose plan. What you need to do depends very much on the position. In one kind of position you need to get the pawns off, in another specific pieces off. In one position you need to attack to avoid being ground down, in another try and build a fortress and hunker down.

What you will also see is that the knowledge you need to implement these different plans is mostly endgame knowledge. Not for nothing do the experts advise that the most important part of the game to study for maximum benefit is the endgame.

Here's an example of 5 from one of my games. We are both down to about 2 minutes each on the clock with a 30 second increment. I'm winning and shortly will win the d pawn after which I can go after the g and h pawns. Unfortunately I blunder, take the d pawn too soon and suddenly I'm rook for queen down. I play on and spot a chance to go for a variation of the standard R+P v Q fortress. Fortunately my opponent is ignorant of this and lets me get the fortress. He demonstrates his ignorance of the fortress by playing on for about 20 moves after the game snippet below.

```
[White "Towers "]
[Black "S.E.A 21/10/2013 - drawing with a fortress"]
[FEN "8/5pk1/5n2/2Rp1q2/5Np1/4P1P1/5PK1/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nxd5 Qf3 2.Kh2 Qxd1 3.Nf4 Ne4 4.Nh5+ Kh7 5.Rf5 Qd7 6.Nf6 Nxf6 7.Rxf6 Kg7 8.Rf4 f5

```

I will look for an additional example of 3, again from my own games.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Usually when you are decisively down in material, the best option is to make the position as complicated as possible. If you don't create any threats, your opponent doesn't have a chance to go wrong. And if nothing special happens, you are going to lose. So stir it up, create a mess, chaos on the board and suddenly everything is possible again, especially if you're opponent tries to play it super safe and gets low on time.

If your position is just somewhat worse, however, lashing out with some sacrifices often makes it much easier for your opponent to finish you off. So dogged defence against all tactical possibilities is often a better try in such a situation.

Of course if your position is somewhere between worse and lost, it is often hard to decide which way to go. Miss too many chances to mess it up and suddenly you're dead lost. Mess it up to early and suddenly you get messed up. ;-)

One final tip: Try to be ahead on the clock. It is a very common scenario that you defend very well for a long time, and just when the position is equal again, you blunder the game away, because you're low on time.

An example by the current World Champ: Carlsen-Topalov, 2012: Incredibly Carlsen just overlooked 20…Nb2, as he said after the game, but he immediately sacrificed a lot more material to get an attack going. Objectively this shouldn't have been enough, but he created enough chaos to eventually confuse Topalov and in the end even win the game.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. c3 Ngf6 5. Qe2 a6 6. Ba4 Qc7
7. O-O e5 8. d4 b5 9. Bc2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Be7 11. Nc3 O-O
12. Bg5 h6 13. Bh4 Bb7 14. Rad1 Rac8 15. Bb3 Rfe8 16. dxe5
dxe5 17. Bg3 Bf8 18. h3 Nb6 19. Nh4 Nc4 20. Nf5 Nxb2 21. Bh4
Nxd1 22. Bxf6 Nxc3 23. Qg4 Bxe4 24. Nxh6+ Kh7 25. Bxf7 Qxf7
26. Nxf7 gxf6 27. f4 Bg6 28. Qh4+ Kg7 29. fxe5 Ne4 30. Rxf6
Bc5+ 31. Kh2 Nxf6 32. Qxf6+ Kh7 33. Ng5+ Kh6 34. Ne6 Rxe6
35. Qxe6 Re8 36. Qf6 Be7 37. Qxa6 b4 38. Qc4 Bf8 39. g4 Kh7
40. e6 Bd6+ 41. Kg2 Be7 42. Qc7 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Qf4+ Kg7
45. Qd4+ Kg8 46. h4 Rd8 47. Qc4 Bd3 48. Qc6 Bb1 49. h5 Bxa2
50. Qe4 Kh8 51. h6 Bf6 52. e7 Re8 53. Qf4 Bg7 54. hxg7+ Kxg7
55. g5 Kg8 56. Qf6 1-0

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
It is always best to play offensive if you are losing, if you play defensive then you will just suffer as your opponent keeps expanding his advantage. Do not take on the offensive so quickly though if you are in a bad position. You have to judge the position correctly and just try to find the best moves, however if it is astoundingly poor then you need to complicate it as much as possible.

The same goes for if you are material down, your best bet is to complicate the position. It would be your only chance against a formidable opponent. This has been proven in practice many times, in one of my games I was a pawn in an early middlegame against an FM but gave up another one(!) to complicate the position and eventually it got extremely complicated and petered out to a draw.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Play for a draw. Unless you are obviously beaten. If there are lots of drawing lines do play on! Plus its good practice to play through an endgame where a draw is likely.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, losing
---


# Question
Title: I lost a game without making tactical mistakes; how can I avoid this happening in the future?
Here's a game of mine from last night. It was my first tournament game for many years.

(This game is David Kenney vs. Douglas Stones \[me\] 1-0. Press `F` to flip the board.)

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Bluenose Chess Club Tournament"]
[Site "Halifax"]
[Date "2013"]
[Round "1"]
[White "David Kenney"]
[Black "Douglas Stones"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Bd6 6.Bd3 O-O 7.O-O Nbd7 8.e4 dxe4
9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Qc7 11.Re1 Nf6 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Bg5 Nd7 14.Qd3 Nf8 15.
Rad1 b6 16.a3 Bb7 17.b4 Rac8 18.c5 Be7 19.Re4 bxc5 20.dxc5 Rcd8 21.Qe2
Rxd1+ 22.Qxd1 Rd8 23.Rd4 Rd5 24.Bxe7 Qxe7 25.Be4 Rxd4 26.Qxd4 Nd7 27.Ne5
Nxe5 28.Qxe5 Qd7 29.Qd6 Qc8 30.b5 g6 31.Bxc6 Kg7 32.Qd7 Qf8 33.Qd4+ e5 34.
Qxe5+ f6 35.Qc7+ Kh6 36.Bxb7 Qe8 37.Qf4+ Kg7 38.Qb4 Qd7 39.Bf3 Qe7 40.g3 1-0

```

I didn't (seem to) make any tactical blunders, yet seem to have slowly been ground down to a loss via positional play.

> **Question**: How can I avoid this happening in the future?

It's unclear to me how I could do that; some things spring to mind:

* Aim for more tactical openings.
* Gain familiarity with the usual endgame pawn structures and piece combinations in the chosen opening.
* Study grandmaster games which were decided by positional play.

(*Meta-comment*: This question is motivated by the specific game above, but answers should ideally be of general interest, i.e., in the *some of the themes will hopefully be useful and interesting* category mentioned in this meta thread.)

# Answer
> 17 votes
In this case, the answer is "gain familiarity with the standard strategical themes of the chosen opening".

Black's #1 issue in the Queen's Gambit Declined is what to do with his light-squared bishop, which if ignored can easily get stuck behind the e6 pawn and often a c6 pawn. The two standard ways to free it are

* Play ...e5 to allow the bishop to move along the c8-h3 diagonal
* Play ...b6 and ...c5 and place the bishop on b7

You kind of got halfway through plan #2, but once White got c5 in, your bishop had no future.

Concentrate on freeing your light-squared bishop the next time you play the Queen's Gambit Declined and you'll be much less likely to get ground down like this. This takes priority over moves like 11...Nf6 (which you just moved back two moves later anyway) and 12...Re8.

# Answer
> 12 votes
This answer is something of a kindred spirit to those already given by dfan and jedrus07; both of their answers focus on your light-square bishop, with dfan addressing the big strategic picture that often revolves around that piece and jedrus07 focusing on the concrete pickle it ended up in by the end. I want to share a few thoughts on how its fate and yours might have been improved.

1. *The matter of c5.* `18.c5` definitely cramps Black's position, especially because it fixes that c6 pawn, and incidentally lets the white queen eye a6, keeping your light-square bishop off the a6-f1 diagonal. For that reason, you probably should have put the bishop on a6 to begin with with `16...Ba6`, as a way to get some activity for that piece and restrict White's options on the queenside. Really it's a better home for the bishop than b7 would be even if the c6 pawn didn't get stuck in place.

After `18.c5` you (correctly, I think) retreated instead of capturing, but then you ended up doing so the next move anyway. With `18...Be7 19.Re4 bxc5` you allow White to rid himself of the backward d-pawn which could have become a target and as much of a liability as your own c-pawn; IMO your 19th move was a mistake that makes White's position easier to play. \[Note: Stockfish disagrees with at least part of my reasoning here, as it actually suggests `20.bxc5` instead of `20.dxc5`. As a practical matter of making White's life easier, at least at the amateur level, for the moment I stand by my comment anyway.\]
2. *Trading a piece you shouldn't.* By the time of `26.Qd4` Black already has quite a difficult defense, as protecting c6 will be a permanent chore. Keeping the white knight out of e5 by `26...f6` would be a good beginning to the defense. But `26...Nd7?` makes White's task much easier, and the mistake here falls under the general area of *trading the wrong pieces*. I'm not suggesting you necessarily meant to initiate the trade of knights, but only that the reason this non-blunder move is a serious mistake is that it presents White the opportunity to effect that exchange. The problem is that the trade of knights amplifies how much better White's remaining pieces are than yours, and puts your concrete task of saving c6 out of reach.

I mention this especially because whether (and what pieces) to exchange is a very common dilemma over the course of a game -- Should I aim for an endgame here or not? Do I need to keep a pair of rooks on the board, or trade everything off? etc. -- and such decisions are permanent and often more consequential than many players realize. Again, I doubt you intended to make this trade happen, but on the flip side, White was absolutely correct to force your hand with `27.Ne5!`, and I think it was his consistently taking advantage of such not-purely-tactical opportunities that ultimately led to your defeat.

# Answer
> 11 votes
I didn't like your 14... Nf8. Would have played g6 (as you later did).

IMHO, White won the game by playing, 18. c5 which your N on d7 was posted to prevent.

This is a strategic, not tactical issue.

For a more tactical opening, I would have refrained from 3....d5, playing b6 instead, and aimed for Queen's Indian with 4. ... B b7 or a Nimzo-Indian with 4....Bb4 after White's 4. Nc3. See the 1948 Botvinnik-Reshevsky Nimzo-Indian game, which Black won. (I found it highly instructive.)

# Answer
> 6 votes
Grandmasters (and below) often lose because a tiny strategic advantage has been slowly worked up into an indefensible position.

Like boxing. You can lose in an instant if a quick attack KOs you. Or you can be ground down over twelve rounds by someone who has:

1. slightly better stamina to start with
2. avoids losing to your tactical flurries

Many players crack under pressure and we see a tactical end to a strategic game. But that crack was partially caused by playing on the backfoot for so long as the strategic advantage slowly blossomed.

# Answer
> 4 votes
after 18... Be7, you do have a nice target on d4 to point your rooks at. Instead of resolving the tension, you might have tried that, maybe with a plan of Qc8-Ba6 to free the light squared bishop. There is a lot of pressure on your kingside, and your pieces don't seem well placed to defend.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I like to see everything through lenses of tactics that can be exploited. You allowed your pawn to be permanently pinned to the bishop. This can be argued as a strategic mistake, but it ends with a quite tactical resolution, where the threat of b5 is exploited. I would say, to avoid similar results, you need to make sure (maybe by using tactics!) that you do not end up with bad pieces, forever pinned and blocked. Here your 17... Rac8 allowed the c5- which may be, not a tactical blunder, but lack of tactics! Did you have a look at 17... c5!?. I am not sure if this does not lose a pawn, but sometimes it may be worth giving a pawn, for a superior position. Try to play this against a friend (or a reasonably set up computer) after this move. See how you like it. If this is the problem, then it was not a tactical mistake- it was a lack of a tactical reply, lack of momentum in your play. You allowed your superior position to melt away...

# Answer
> 4 votes
You can also lose a game due to positional mistakes.

**For instance**

1. you have some weak squares, where the opponent can place some pieces, which will just dominate against your pieces (for example a knight on your 3rd/4th rank)
2. some weak pawns, which are easy to attack but hard to defend (the more they are ahead, the easier it is to attack them)

Your white-squared bishop needed 16 moves to develop.

I can't see why you placed your knight on `f8`. It is just useless there. You are just giving space away, which the opponent can and will use (`c4`, `b4`, `c5` and so on).

Your pawn structure on the queen side is disastrous. Especially after `bxc5`. I would have tried to push `c5` with black.

Basically you played without a **real** plan. You tried to defend (maybe hoping for a draw) but it didn't work.

> How can you avoid it?

Take your time in the game and try to figure out a plan. Also try to figure out what your opponent wants to do. It's really hard to find a good plan in certain games, but you will get better and better. If you don't do anything during the game, you will get destroyed (as you can see in your last game).

# Answer
> 3 votes
It seems to me that the theme of this game is strategic play. I am speaking of tactical play as things that you can force, specific moves that have a definite best play and lead to a specific result. Strategic play being moves made of less concrete reasons because there are not tactical considerations to play at the moment. This includes things like space, king safety, active bishops, open or closed positions, controlling open lines, etc.

In general tactical possibilities arrise from good strategic play, in this game the major factors seemed to be control of the center and space. White has control of over half the board most of the time, and maintains control of the center.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It is the typical problem of falling into a cramped position. Think twice before giving up the center (8...dxe4), and plan what kind of breaks you have in order to open the position.

In my opinion, the game is practically lost with 16...Bb7. The only chance for black is to go for the c5 break. And the move maybe was 16...Ba6 (and then c5).

Also notice that you cannot put your knight on d5 (for tactical reasons), so the game after c5 is practically over (the white pieces have more space and they can move towards the black king very easily) and the black bishop is a piece of wood ...).

And it is true that when you are playing in a position like that it is convenient to exchange pieces... but in this case, it is not recommended because you have a very bad bishop. So at the end (like in the game), you are practically playing without a whole piece.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Losing is one of three possible results in a chess game. My point is that you cannot avoid losing in the future. Having said this, I think that I understand your point concern. You worry about losing without having any counterplay. Just being slowly crushed and not being able to do the slightest thing about it. The feeling is not great and we all get these types of games from time to time. Many recommendations spring to mind. Improve your understanding of standard positional motives, for example creating a strong post for your pieces. Consider working with the book My System by Nimzowitsch. If you are serious about getting better at chess, then get some high quality books and start training. A general recommendation is to fight more for the center. Do not become passive, grab active spots for your pieces and fight for the initiative from move one. Keep all the pieces and go for muddy waters if you are looking for a dynamic brawl.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In my point of view it is tough to beat strategic players with only tactics. We should know strategy also.

Here are some positions from your game showing how your opponent beat you by some nice strategic plans.

> **Control over the center: at move 10**

```
[Title "Control over the center: at move 10"]
[fen "r1b2rk1/ppqn1ppp/2pbp3/8/2PPB3/5N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w KQ - 0 1"]

```

> **Pawn power at move 17**

```
[Title "Pawn power : at move 17"]
[fen "2r1rnk1/pbq2ppp/1ppbp3/6B1/1PPP4/P2Q1N2/2B2PPP/3RR1K1 w KQ - 0 1"]

```

> **White's eye on open file**

```
[Title "White's eye on open file : at move 20"]
[fen "2r1rnk1/pbq1bppp/2p1p3/2P3B1/1P2R3/P2Q1N2/2B2PPP/3R2K1 w KQ - 0 1"]

```

> **White captured open file**

```
[Title "White captured open file : at move 29"]
[fen "2q3k1/pb3ppp/2pQp3/2P5/1P2B3/P7/5PPP/6K1 w KQ - 0 1"]

```

> **White's dream position which ended your game**

```
[Title "White's dream position : at move 30"]
[fen "2q3k1/pb3ppp/2pQp3/1PP5/4B3/P7/5PPP/6K1 w KQ - 0 1"]

```

> **Summary**

We should always follow some basic strategic plans such as:

1. Control the center.
2. Occupy open files.
3. Restrict mobility of your opponent pieces.
4. Push your pawns whenever you can't find any other good moves and threats.

I hope this will help you...

# Answer
> 0 votes
Chess is supposed to be a fight! Your play, particularly in the middle section of the game resembled a piece of limp lettuce. You let him have the center and made no effort to compete or undermine it. If he is allowed to move his pieces into the middle of the board with no opposition from you whatsoever then of course he's going to win!

Somewhere round about move 16 or 17 the position was crying out for something like a5 to undermine his c pawn (or give him a weak b pawn if he lets you play ab). Seriously, what were you thinking of playing Rac8? That rook belongs on d8 not c8. What's that? It can't go there because of the bishop on g5? So, do something about it! Kick him away!

Speaking of which, after he recaptures with the d pawn on move 20, abdicating the center, your f and e pawns were screaming out to you to unleash them with f6 followed by e5 after which you miraculously have a firm grip on the center but you blocked your ears and moved your queen's rook pointlessly *again*!

The whole point of the rope-a-dope (just give him the center without a fight) strategy you seemed to adopt is to prepare some counterpunches, some timely pawn breaks that break up his position and show that he has over stretched. That seemed to be the last thing on your mind and you paid the price.

---
Tags: learning, positional-play, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: How can one claim 50 move rule draw under time pressure?
Suppose one player has only 3 minutes of time left in his clock. The position is a draw with opposite colored bishops and neither player can break forward practically. The other player, who has got lots of time left, intentionally plays on to win on time. Since the player under time pressure will not be keeping score, how can he claim if he has completed 50 moves as per the 50 move rule? What is the best solution to this situation in a tournament organized according to FIDE rules?

# Answer
According to clause 8.5a of the FIDE Laws of Chess (the URL keeps changing so I won't link to it, but you can search), if a player has under five minutes left and the increment is less than 30 seconds per move (or nonexistent), an arbiter or assistant should keep score if possible. This is one reason that a 30-second increment is used these days; both players are required to keep score for the whole game so this situation never comes up.

If the game is played by USCF rules, then according to rule 14F4, if a player has under than five minutes left, he can ask the tournament director to keep track of the number of moves in order to verify a claim that the player makes. (The player is still responsible for making the claim.)
> 6 votes

# Answer
The FIDE rules have a solution for you. If you have a 30 second increment then you have to write the moves down in any case. If you don't get the increment then the Quickplay Finishes section of the rules in Appendix G apply and article G.5 fits your problem. Note that this applies only to Standard and Rapid games. In Blitz games you are on your own. Losing on time in such a position is part of the game.

Note that article G.4, which is referenced, just says that with less than 2 minutes left you can request a 5 second increment if possible. You would only do this if you were trying to win and needed more time.

> G.5 If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means

What this means is that you have to continue playing until you have less than 2 minutes left on the clock, then stop the clocks and call the arbiter and make your claim. In your situation the arbiter will defer his decision, ask you to play on and watch what happens. He will then decide if in his opinion your opponent cannot win by normal means or is making no effort.

If he decides in your favour you get a draw. If he decides against he will give your opponent an extra 2 minutes on the clock.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: draw
---


title: The history of the 175-move draw rule

text:
# Question
Title: The history of the 175-move draw rule
The U.S. Chess Federation piloted a 175-move draw rule in the fourth edition of its Official Rules. This interesting rule ended a game automatically after 175 moves, whether or not either player had claimed a draw. (The rule also included some verbiage regarding a particular kind of chess clock, but it is not clocks that I ask about today.)

In the fifth edition of its Official Rules, the U.S. Chess Federation abandoned the 175-move rule.

I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer. I suppose that someone else must have *disliked* the rule or it would not have been abandoned, but at any rate, is there an interesting story behind the abandonment of the rule?

There was this (PDF) at the time, but it did not explain much.

**UPDATE AND APPENDIX**

@AndrewNg has given an interesting, informative answer; but an answer to a slightly different question than the question I had meant to ask. At the risk of so long an update that few may read it, let me clarify.

Insofar as I have correctly inferred its purpose, a hard limit on the number of moves in a game exists to protect the interests less of the players than of the players' host (the tournament organizer, hall owner, etc.), without stranding the host in the unfair, distasteful position of having to interject a subjective, third-party judgment into the game. Examples of potentially relevant games include Nicolic v. Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989.

Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood the rule's purpose. The reason for my understanding however lies in the crucial difference between the 50- and 175-move rules: the 50-move rule takes effect only when one of the players chooses to invoke it (which the aforementioned Nicolic and Arsovic declined to do); whereas the 175-move rule automatically takes effect, without consulting anyone's subjective opinion in the matter.

In short, the 175-move rule prevents the unlikely but nevertheless mechanically *regular* (and possibly indeed sportsmanlike) play of the game of chess from forcing a mechanical *irregularity* when the host's patience runs out.

Another, related purpose of the rule -- a purpose explicitly mentioned in the fourth-edition rulebook -- was to relieve a tournament director of the burden of adjudging "insufficient losing chances" in certain technical circumstances.

I admit that, like @AndrewNg, I too doubt that it was ever the rule's purpose to guarantee that every, theoretically forced mate could be carried to its infinite conclusion. Indeed, like the 50-move rule, a 175-move rule if enforced becomes a new, mechanical constraint on the theory of the game; such that -- per theory under the rule -- 176-move mates simply no longer exist.

Maybe the new mechanical constraint on the theory is precisely what the fifth-edition rules committee did not like, but I cannot substantiate such a guess. Thus the question.

# Answer
> I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer.

You will be pleased to know that FIDE also liked the idea so much that they have implemented a 75-move rule which took effect on July 1 2014
> 2 votes

# Answer
**EDIT:** As I reconsider the question, I believe that adjournments played a role in the abandonment of this rule, as detailed in my comment below. I understand that this still is not an exact answer to the question and I suppose only the USCF committee would have the answer to that :)

Also, there is the problem of neither player invoking the fifty-move rule, as referenced in your appendix. However, I have never encountered such a scenario in my chess-playing career, although I'm sure it has happened. I suppose such an occasion is extremely rare and the organizer probably would step in.

---

I cannot supply the story given by the USCF on the subject as I couldn't find any specific information online. I can, however, supply my reasoning on why such a rule would be taken out.

In modern chess, there no longer exists (practically) the need to claim a draw. As a result of delay clocks, the fifty-move and threefold repetition rules take precedence. Therefore, there are no real "judgement" calls to be made as the TD doesn't have to make any decisions regarding draw claims - he simply has to count the number of moves before the last capture/pawn move or see if the resulting position from the claim occurred at least three times.

Therefore, if a game were to progress past 175 moves, there must have been captures or pawn moves within the last fifty. This implies that there is a fair chance that one player can emerge victorious. Even if the game is a technical draw, it is ensured that the game will not progress fifty moves past the last capture or pawn move.

It is for the aforementioned reasons that FIDE re-established the strict fifty-move rule in 1992 even after many winnable positions were proven to take more than fifty moves (without a capture or pawn move) as referenced by Akavall in the comments. Indeed, before this date FIDE had changed the rule to allow certain exceptions, but the number of these winning positions grew so large that it was easier to leave a strict limit in place. This likely influenced the abolishment of the 175 move rule as there were no more exceptions to be had of the fifty-move rule.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Is there an opening where both knights get behind c4 and f4 pawns?
I like to get my knight behind c4 and I don't mind exchanging that pawn, I just don't like it to get stuck behind my knight, therefore I often play the English opening.

Is there an established opening where both knights get behind c4 and f4 pawns? Even if that means exchanging those pawns with the d or e pawns? I mean, is there an opening where it goes like:

`c4 Nc6, "or something", f4` and then later on Nf3 followed by Nc3

if so, then how well does that opening score?

# Answer
> 11 votes
There is the Four-Pawn-Attack against the King's Indian. I'm not sure how well it scores, but it has fallen out of fashion for some reason.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 O-O 6.Nf3

```

In general it is hard to reach this setup because black usually stakes a claim in the center as well.

Conceivably you would also get this setup in a Stonewall-Attack, if your opponent doesn't play c5, or maybe in a kind of Meran, where you suddenly throw in f4 instead of Nf3. But this is rather un-theoretical and presumably too slow to be good.

And of course after 1.c4 c5 you could go 2.f4. This has been played by a handful of players and there seems to be no immediate refutation.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The set-up with early `c4`, `f4`, `Nc3`, `Nf3` can seldom be played successfully. Most often black's central pawns will stop this plan or chase away one of white's knights. For example `1. f4 d5 2. c4 d4` or `1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 d4`.

The set-up can only be recommended if black refrains from putting pawns in the center, for instance by choosing a Dutch set-up themselves. In this case you can find games with strong players on the white side using this plan.

IM Gorbatov played a game where the white `c`\- and `f`-pawns got exchanged for black's central pawns, like you speculated would happen:

```
  [Event "Montecatini Terme (Italy)"]
  [Date "1999"]
  [Round "5"]
  [White "Gorbatov Alexej (RUS)"]
  [Black "Schwenk Andreas (GER)"]
  [Result "1-0"]

  [FEN " "]
  1.c4 f5 2.f4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e3 c6 6.b3 Bd6 7.Bb2 O-O
  8.Be2 Nbd7 9.O-O Qe7 10.Nd4 Ne4 11.Bf3 Ndf6 12.g3 Nxc3 13.Bxc3
  Kh8 14.Bg2 dxc4 15.bxc4 e5 16.fxe5 Bxe5 17.Qc2 Qc5 18.Qb3 a5
  19.a4 Ne4 20.Bxe4 fxe4 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.Rf1 Qg8 23.Nf5 Bxf5 24.Rxf5
  Bxc3 25.Qxc3 Qe6 26.Rg5 Qf6 27.Rxa5 Rxa5 28.Qxa5 h6 29.Qh5 Qe6
  30.c5 Kh7 31.Kf2 g6 32.Qh4 g5 33.Qh5 Kg7 34.Ke1 Qe7 35.Qg4 Kg6
  36.h4 Qe5 37.Kf2 Qf6+ 38.Kg2 Qe7 39.Kh3 Kf6 40.Qh5 Kg7 41.hxg5
  hxg5 42.Kg4 Qd7+ 43.Kxg5 Qd8+ 44.Kf4 Qxd2 45.Qe5+ Kg8 46.Qb8+
  Kg7 47.Qxb7+ Kg8 48.Qc8+ Kg7 49.Qg4+ Kh8 50.Qh5+ Kg7 51.Qe5+
  Kg8 52.Qe6+ Kg7 53.Qe7+ Kg8 54.Qxe4 Qd7 55.Qg6+ Kh8 56.Qh5+ Kg8
  57.Qg4+ 1-0

```

A more high-profile game is the following, where white had some chances but over-pressed:

```
 [Event "Sarajevo"]
 [Site "Sarajevo"]
 [Date "1960"]
 [Round "6"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [White "Bent Larsen"]
 [Black "Petar Trifunovic"]

 [FEN ""]
 1.f4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.O-O e6 6.c4 Be7 7.Nc3
 O-O 8.d4 Ne4 9.d5 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Na6 11.a4 Nc5 12.a5 Rb8 13.Nd4
 Bf6 14.Ba3 Re8 15.dxe6 dxe6 16.Bxb7 Bxd4+ 17.cxd4 Nxb7 18.axb6
 axb6 19.Qd3 Qd7 20.Rfd1 Nd6 21.d5 e5 22.Rf1 b5 23.c5 Nc4 24.c6
 Qf7 25.fxe5 Rxe5 26.d6 Rd8 27.d7 Qe6 28.Qf3 Nd2 29.Qf4 Nxf1
 30.Rxf1 Rxe2 31.Qxf5 Qe3+ 32.Kh1 Qxa3 33.Qg5 Qe7 0-1

```

Finally a historical game. White was one of the strongest players of the world at the time.

```
 [Event "MacDonnell - Mackenzie 1862/63"]
 [Site "London ENG"]
 [Date "1862"]
 [Round "9"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [White "George Alcock MacDonnell"]
 [Black "George Henry Mackenzie"]

 [FEN ""]
 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Be2 d6 7.b3 b6
 8.Bb2 Bb7 9.O-O Nc6 10.d4 Qd7 11.Qe1 Nd8 12.Rd1 Nf7 13.Qd2 Ne4
 14.Qc2 Bf6 15.Bd3 d5 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Nxc3 18.Qxc3 Be7
 19.cxd5 Bxd5 20.e4 fxe4 21.Bxe4 c6 22.Qd3 Bc5+ 23.Kh1 g6 24.a3
 b5 25.b4 Bb6 26.Bxd5 cxd5 27.Rc1 Rac8 28.Rcd1 Rc4 29.Qg3 Qf7
 30.Bc1 Qf5 31.Rd3 Rfc8 32.Bd2 Rd4 33.Rff3 Rc2 34.Rxd4 Rxd2
 35.Rdd3 Bf2 36.Qh3 Qe4 37.Qxe6+ 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I play the Dutch with some variation:

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2n2n2/2pp4/5P2/1P3N2/PBPPP1PP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 2 5"]

```

This is the typical line I see. It gets very dangerous if you dont know how to defend against blacks counter attack. e4 if a very good move to prevent blacks d4 push.

Now the 4 pawn attack is extremely fun to play it is very hard to pull of if your opponent knows what they are doing. And it only ever works against the Kings Indian.

Back to your question, I don't think there is a common opening where you get BOTH knights behind your pawns but the English or the Dutch are both good opening to get either knight behind f4 or c4.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In addition to the openings that other users have already linked, the Four Pawns Attack in Alekhine's Defence can result in the two knights behind the c4 and f4 pawns.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4

```

The main line after the above position, however, results in black's d-pawn being traded for white's f-pawn, so the knight being behind the f4 pawn doesn't happen in most lines.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: How can one get the best possible result against a player of very different strength?
I (about a 1500 player) once took White against a 2100 player, and played a Queen's Gambit. I lost of course, but the other player complimented my play. He said, "You played well for about 20 moves, and made a small mistake on the 21st, which I took advantage of."

It certainly helped that I was playing White, which is sort of a form of handicap. (See Is there a way to use handicaps in chess to bridge the gap between players of different skill levels?)

I don't remember using a "book" variation, but played moves that seemed to follow common sense. Maybe I kept the game simple. Somehow, I managed to play "neck and neck" until I overlooked a combination that gave Black a pawn advantage.

Is it as simple as that, staving off defeat is a matter of not making mistakes? (I finally made one, although it wasn't obvious to me.) Or does the weaker player (with White, anyway) have to do something to keep the stronger player at bay, like seize and hold the initiative (which I tried, but probably failed to do)?

And to reverse the question, suppose you were playing someone of much less rated strength who was playing "even" with you, perhaps as the result of learning some book variation. Should you steer for complications, perhaps away from the book, into areas that your opponent might be less familiar with? Or should you just play your best game and count on him to make a mistake?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Statistically speaking, a 600 point rating disadvantage means that you have about a 3.07% chance of winning. If you want to improve that, your best bet is to play a position that you are familiar with.

This part of the answer might be more pertinent to a 2000 player playing a 2200 player
One way to do this is to play an opening that you know intimately. If you have a pet line, this is the time to play it. Especially if you've analyzed an unusual opening with a computer, this will shorten the odds. Basically, the 3200+ rated computer will be playing your opponent for you.
Ok, that's it for opening preparation

One common suggestion is to randomize the position if you are the weaker player. This makes a lot of sense. Chances are that the stronger player is also better at endgames. So you don't want to get to the endgame unless you will win easily. I've frequently beaten lower rated players from an equal endgame or even an endgame where I'm a little worse.

In a "randomized" position, usually multiple pieces are hanging, one or both kings are weak, and most of the pieces are still on the board. Now, unfortunately, truly good players thrive in these positions, and they will work out all the complications. But you're probably not playing a 2600+ grandmaster, so this is still not a bad idea. In these random positions, both players will be forced to use most of their time to make their way along the "narrow path".\[1\] Once the players are deep in time pressure, anything can happen.\[2\]

This is *NOT* to say you should make bad moves. If at any point you make inferior moves, well, the stronger opponent will probably take advantage of them. Instead, just keep pieces on the board. One trick you can use to complicate - when a piece is attacked, instead of moving it or defending it, just attack one of your opponent's pieces. This is much easier said than done, but this will quickly complicate even a mundane position.

---

Ok, if you've made it this far, just a few more general thoughts. The easiest way to beat a stronger player is to just get lucky. Everyone has a bad day from time to time, you just have to be playing someone who happens to make a mistake and take advantage of it. The key to this is to not make any terrible mistakes. If you can stay in the game and not lose material, you can always win - even if you have a bad position.

Double check every move before you make it. If you see a move that you think wins, spend *more* time than usual, don't make this move quickly. If you're right, being behind on the clock won't really matter. If you're wrong, you won't make an inferior move. One saying that I've always found helpful is "never play a blunder quickly" (source unknown).

Personally, I'm not convinced that the right plan is to just complicate the position and hope. While this is a good plan of last resort, everyone plays with the same 16 pieces. Make solid moves, calculate everything you need to, and be inspired to play well. Even if you lose, you'll learn far more from a well played game that you just barely lost than a game where one of the players blundered on move 12.

---

Lastly, some rules that have helped me against lower rated players in the past:

* Don't be afraid of endgames, even if it should be drawn with best play
* Similarly, don't be afraid of equal positions
* A small advantage is often enough to win, but even if you are down material, swindles are often possible, so don't give up.
* Finally, as a stronger player, I've had good luck in complicated positions. As likely as it is for a stronger player to blunder, it is even more likely for the lower rated player to also blunder.

---

\[1\]: David Bronstein: "When you play against an experienced opponent who exploits all the defensive resources at his command you sometimes have to walk time and again, along the narrow path of 'the only move'."
\[2\]: Lev Alburt: (paraphrased from http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Rules-Thumb-Lev-Alburt/dp/1889323101) "Having 15 minutes when your opponent has 5 is worth 200 rating points."

# Answer
> 8 votes
The general rule is:

1. Against weaker opponents, try and simplify the position.
2. Against stronger opponents, try and complicate the position.

The reasoning is that a strong player will falter more in a complicated position than he would in a "dry", boring position. Against much higher rated opponents, go for wild tactical melees and crazed positions.

In a "normal" game, the stronger player will simply wait and improve his position until the weaker player gives him something. As just an example, after a equal position after N moves, let's say that the 2100-rated player castles kingside "N+1" moves into the game, and then the next move by the 1500-rated player castles queenside, with the notable difference that no pawns are moved in front of the 2100's king, and the 1500's king has the a6-pawn sticking out. Bam! You just gave him something. The 2100 player would roll the queenside pawns forward and "hook" that a6-pawn. All things being equal you can count on the 2100 player's attack crashing through first.

I will emphasize that no matter who the opponent, that chess is a mix of prophylaxis (e.g. preventing counterplay) and aggression. Take time to study your plans, but don't forget about your opponent. Q: When should you be on the lookout for your opponent's possibilities? A: Every move.

# Answer
> 4 votes
While I agree with Quantum Elf's general rule, there is also an advantage to complicating the position for someone much weaker (perhaps this applies to the weaker opponent being \<1500). If you're able to calculate possibilities quicker than your opponent, moving into a tactical position intentionally will give you more opportunities to capitalize on any tactical mistakes they make.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here's another point worth mentioning: you could try to steer the game into a draw by threefold or a tactic-less position (first two draws are not about what I'm saying here):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008234

If you're the much lower rated player I think in the short term this is the best you can do. In the long term, learn more about chess and turn your weaknesses into strengths.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Against a weaker player, figure out why he is weak. Maybe he is playing "strongly" because he has "booked up." So take him out of book lines. Maybe he is strong in strategy and weak on tactics (or vice versa). So steer the game into areas where he is weaker.

In my case, against stronger players, self-administered tests show that my "1500" strength is a composite of 1800 opening and endgame strength and 1400 middle game strength. Against, say, a 1700 player, I would look for variations such as the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez that exchanges queens early and gets into an early endgame, bypassing the middle game that I'm weak at.

If a decidedly weaker player (more than 200 points difference) wins (or draws) against a stronger player, one of two things may be happening: 1) The weaker player is having a "good" day and the stronger player a "bad" day or 2) The weaker player has recently gotten strong, but this is not yet reflected in his rating.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all, I really like Andrew's answer apart from the part where he talks about trying to randomize the position against a better player. Better players almost always have better evaluation skills than weaker players and so everything else being equal (including pure calculating skill) they will make better judgments faster than you in random positions as well as calm positions.

No, what I would advise against both much stronger and much weaker players is rather banal. With Spock-like detachment and lack of emotion play the position not the man (or woman). Do not try and play an ELO rating! When it is your turn just try and find the objectively best move and play it.

I have seen master level players come unstuck by playing the ELO rating or the man rather than the position. In one case, knowing that they were a much better endgame player they coasted through the opening and middlegame into an endgame the stubborn weaker player managed to draw. I will dig up an example game and post later.

Preparation before the game is a different matter. If your opponent has a particular known weakness or you have a particular strength then by all means try and steer the game in that direction. Having white can be a big advantage here as it lets you cut down the possibilities but sometimes you can also do this with black.

When it comes to preparation the randomizing advise can get a chance. If you've played the player before with the same colours and you see a chance to divert the opening the pair of you played last time into a particularly tactical variation then prepare, study and unleash this variation if you get the chance. If nothing else it is very likely to gain you time on the clock and it may just be your lucky day. But ad hoc randomizing during the game is something I would advise against.

# Answer
> 0 votes
By training and competing on a regular basis. The fact that the opponent has e.g. 2100 in rating means that the opponent has reached this rating by training and competing. To increase your chance of beating them, you have to go the same road. Actually, having the white pieces does not give you an advantage. Against skilled opponents, you will end up with positions where you would rather flip the board. The advice would be to play the opening system you know best and do the moves you think are the best. Also, analyze the game together with the opponent afterwards, to gain insight and improve your skills. If you want to have an advice you can use directly, then go for complications and unbalanced positions. Try to keep all the pieces on the board and create dynamic positions with a high risk for both sides. Then, try to see if you can calculate better and win material in those positions. Be a brawler.

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Is using a 2D magnetic board in tournament play legal?
Is it okay to have a 2d magnetic chess set next to your score sheet? And as you play, you move along with the pieces. I like looking at a 2d board better because it's smaller and I'm used to playing on my computer. I look at the 2d board and then play on the 3d board. After I've made my move on the 3d board. THEN I move the pieces on the 2d board. Is there a rule against playing like this in tournament?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm pretty sure the rules of most serious tournaments prohibit the use of a second board for any reason, but I'm not sure if there are special provisions for people with disabilities and disadvantages.

As a player, I would be quite apprehensive towards playing someone who is using a second board, simply because it means I have to keep an eye out to ensure he is not cheating. I would certainly have a word with the arbiter if that situation were to occur.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I am assuming you're talking USCF rules. Using a 2nd board is against USCF rules.

In fact, during one of the world championships, one of the players used the overheard board being displayed to the audience and eliciting a complaint by the other side. FIDE rules are not exactly like USCF rules, by the way.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think that in most chess tournaments with classical time controls, having a 2D chess board next to you while playing is not allowed. That being said, I would recommend against this sort of practice all together. I can understand your reasoning and the possible motivation to have a 2D chess board. Yet, dealing with the 3D chess pieces is part of competitive chess. The earlier you get used to this, the better you will cope in your future games over the board.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think that in a FIDE tournament you would fall foul of article 11.3a

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

While demonstration boards are allowed in the playing area the problem here is that you have control of the pieces. The fact that you claim you are only moving the pieces on the 2d board after the moves on the main board and then only to match the main board is irrelevant.

The implication of allowing you to even have this board next to you is that an arbiter would have to stand over you full time to ensure you don't start analyzing. In other words, "No way!"

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Why are the golden rules in chess openings true?
I was reading this Dutch article on chess openings, which basically states the following about openings:

* Don't play the edge pawns
* Don't move your knight to an edge
* Don't use one piece too often
* Don't use your queen too soon

And the **3 golden rules**:

* Move pawns to the center
* Develop your knights and bishops early-on
* Castle to keep your king safe

I understand most of these, but not all of them, these are my **questions**:

* Shouldn't you move your knight to an edge because of the opponents bishops?
* Edge pawns shouldn't be played because they don't remove any obstructions?
* Why shouldn't you use your queen early-on?

# Answer
> 8 votes
What these guidelines really point to, is to make the point that you should **develop evenly**, and **move towards the most open space**.

In some ways, a chess opening is like building a ship inside of a bottle.

- Build in layers starting with as large a base as possible so your ship can fill the bottle (*Move pawns to the center*, *Develop your knights and bishops early-on*)

Start from the center and fill out evenly so that there is a strong base for your king to sit in and your pieces to develop outward from. Usually this means setting up a protected e4 or d4 pawn along with the relevant supporting knight and bishop, and then moving the opposite knight and bishop out to provide protected space to grow.
- Make sure not to start building too close to the walls of the bottle because it can limit the development of your ship (*Don't play the edge pawns*, *Don't move your knight to an edge*)

Moving too many pieces or pawns towards the side of the board can lead to a lopsided development where there is a large cluster of pieces and pawns on one half of the board. The negative result of this is that the opponent usually controls the other half of the board, and can pawn wall your cluster which becomes very hard to maneuver around or through.
- Avoid building too much in one place at once or else it will prevent other parts of your ship from being complete (*Don't use 1 piece too often*, *Don't use your queen to soon*)

Often when one piece is moved too many times it is a blunder to correct a misplaced piece or to react to an opponent's superior position. Doing this only makes the situation worse. When one piece takes up too many moves in the opening it allows the opponent to get far to ahead in development. If the reason for the single piece moving so many times is in the end negated the opponent will have gained significant positional advantage.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Indeed, these rules seem to me being golden rules!

> * Shouldn't you move your knight to an edge because of the opponnents bishops?
> * Edge pawns shouldn't be played because they don't remove any obstructions?

In chess opening, the main idea is to **develop your pieces** and **control the center** of the chessboard. In order to control the center, moving your knight to edges is not accurate move. Same reason for edge pawns. For example, moving your knight on f3 permits to control d4 et e5 squares.

> * Why shouldn't you use your queen early-on?

Moreover, moving a queen early-on can be dangerous because this piece must support other pieces at the beginning of the game. And queen is kind of protected if it is behind the other pieces and not attacked by your opponent pieces development.
However, several openings play queen early and work well (Scandinavian Defense for instance).

# Answer
> 5 votes
The opening is a period of time where the position is at its most dynamic. There is a ton of open space to be filled by pawns and pieces, and long term static advantages will be had by the player who best controls the center, because it gives him the space to maneuver from wing to wing later in the game, while restricting his opponents ability to do the same.

Pieces like to operate behind their pawn chains, and flank pawn moves don't contribute to maneuverability. Typically flank pawns are used later in a game to disrupt the opponents pawn chains, to open files for major pieces, and to spear thrust at a king's pawn shield.

Moving the knight to an edge has a double whammy negative, as it fails to support central pawns, and cuts down on the number of squares controlled by the knight. For instance, a knight on f3 projects on four squares of its opponent, and four retreat squares of his own... while a knight on h3 cuts both those numbers in half.

Bringing a queen out too early provides your opponent with a target to develop his pawns and pieces. If your opponent is able to both attack your queen and put pieces and pawns on useful squares at the same time, they have basically been given free extra moves while you are moving your queen to prevent it from being captured.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your "golden rules" are "truisms," good guidelines that TEND to be true in most situations most of the time. But there are exceptions to these rules in most situations.

A game between two world class players (Alekhine and Rubinstein) began 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 a6?

Alekhine replied c5! even though it is (almost) never a good idea for White to release the tension in the Queen's gambit so early in the game. But Alekhine had decided (correctLy) that a6 was 1) a "wasted" move and 2) weakened b6. Then he made several more "unorthodox" moves (moving his dark-squared bishop four times in the next nine moves to provoke weaknesses), and won the game.

Moves and move orders are established over time by experience in play. After awhile, a consensus forms that given move or series of moves is considered "best" for a variation, based on the won-loss records of players using it. That is until someone finds a new move or variation that defeats it. Which happens quite often.

I do not believe that there is such thing as the "absolute" truth in chess, only moves that tend work better or worse.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would take issue with the claim in the question that golden rules like these general principles are true.

For a beginner these general Nimzowitschian *guidelines* are a very useful guide for directing your attention towards the kind of moves you should consider first and away from moves which are likely to be less useful.

However there will likely come a time when regarding these guidelines as strict rules which you shouldn't contemplate breaking will hold you back and leave your game stuck in a rut. John Watson wrote a very good book called "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" where he tries to update Nimzowitsch for the 21st century. In a follow on book called "Chess Strategy in Action" he gives lots of games and game snippets illustrating his ideas and how modern master level chess departs from the strict observance of "golden rules" like these.

Here is one of his examples to show how moving knights to the edge of the board (and moving them lots of times before completing development) can even be good!

```
[White "Serper"]
[Black "Nenashev, Novosibirsk 1989"]

[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Bd3 Bg7 8.Nge2 O-O 9.O-O Ng4 10.h3 Ne5 11.Bc2 Na6 12.f4 Nc4 13.b3 Na5 14.a3 b5 15.Rb1 b4 16.Na2 bxa3 17.Bxa3 Rb8 18.Kh2 Bd7

```

Amazing! Watson's point is that modern masters have moved towards a position of move independence where the dictates of the position on the board overrule any old fashioned dictums that may have provided useful guidance 100 years ago.

So, to answer your last 3 questions:

Sometimes it is good to move your knight or even both knights to the edge, depends on the position. A more prosaic example than the one above would be in the French Winawer where if White plays Bd2 then Nh6 can be a good move for Black even though White can play BxN breaking up Black's pawns in front of his King.

Quite often edge pawns *should* be moved, usually to kick or discourage an opposing bishop. It is standard for Black to play a6 on the 3rd move of the Ruy Lopez, for instance.

Sometimes it is not only OK to use your queen early on but even good. There are a number of black openings (like the French for instance) where Black plays an early Qc7 or Qa5.

---
Tags: opening, rules
---


# Question
Title: Is the 50-move rule ever used in grandmaster games?
The 50-move rule states that if no capture or pawn move occurs for 50 consecutive moves, then either player may claim a draw. It seems like the 50-move rule is never truly necessary to determine that a game between two sufficiently competent human players is drawn. I know that there are forced checkmates that involve sequences of moves much longer than 50 (I was reading about a mate in 545), but none of these could be found and played by a human within any reasonable time control.

Do games between GMs ever actually end because of the 50-move rule, or do they always agree to a draw long before this is necessary?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Yes, sometimes the 50-move rule comes up in grandmaster play. One recent example that comes to mind was the game Ushenina-Girya (Geneva 2013), in which the reigning women's world champion failed to convert a knight-and-bishop checkmate within the required 50 moves, and the game was drawn. So this is a case where it's a theoretical win, but the stronger side couldn't put it away quickly enough. I would imagine there are some similar examples in the rook-and-bishop vs. rook ending.

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Women Grand Prix Geneva"]
[Site "Geneva SUI"]
[Date "2013.05.06"]
[EventDate "2013.05.03"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Anna Ushenina"]
[Black "Olga Girya"]
[ECO "D11"]
[WhiteElo "2491"]
[BlackElo "2463"]
[PlyCount "251"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qb3 dxc4 5. Qxc4 Bf5 6. g3 e6
7. Bg2 Nbd7 8. O-O Be7 9. e3 O-O 10. Rd1 Qc7 11. Nc3 Bg6
12. h3 Rad8 13. Qe2 e5 14. e4 exd4 15. Nxd4 Rfe8 16. Bf4 Qc8
17. Be3 Bb4 18. f3 Qb8 19. Bf2 Bh5 20. Qc2 Bd6 21. Nce2 Bg6
22. a3 h5 23. b4 Ne5 24. Qb3 Nxf3+ 25. Nxf3 Nxe4 26. Nh4 Nxf2
27. Kxf2 Bh7 28. Nf3 Re7 29. Ra2 Rde8 30. Rad2 Bc7 31. Nfd4
Bb6 32. Qf3 Qe5 33. Kg1 a5 34. Kh1 axb4 35. axb4 Qg5 36. h4
Qh6 37. Nf4 Re3 38. Qxh5 Rxg3 39. Qxh6 gxh6 40. Nh5 Rg6
41. Re2 Rxe2 42. Nxe2 Kf8 43. Bh3 Bc7 44. Bf5 Rd6 45. Rxd6
Bxd6 46. Bxh7 Be7 47. Nhf4 Bxh4 48. Bf5 Ke7 49. Nd3 Kd6
50. Nc3 Kc7 51. Kg2 Kb6 52. Kf3 Bf6 53. Ne4 Be7 54. Bc8 Kc7
55. Bg4 Kb6 56. Nec5 Kb5 57. Nxb7 Bxb4 58. Nxb4 Kxb4 59. Nd8
c5 60. Nxf7 c4 61. Ke2 Kc3 62. Kd1 Kb2 63. Nxh6 c3 64. Bf5 Kb3
65. Bc2+ Kb2 66. Nf5 Ka1 67. Ne3 Kb2 68. Nd5 Ka1 69. Ke2 Kb2
70. Kd3 Kc1 71. Ba4 Kb2 72. Nxc3 Ka1 73. Nd1 Ka2 74. Bc2 Ka1
75. Kc3 Ka2 76. Bb3+ Ka1 77. Ne3 Kb1 78. Nc2 Kc1 79. Ba2 Kd1
80. Nd4 Ke1 81. Kd3 Kf2 82. Bd5 Kg3 83. Ke3 Kg4 84. Be4 Kg5
85. Kf3 Kf6 86. Kf4 Kg7 87. Kg5 Kf7 88. Kf5 Kg7 89. Bd5 Kh6
90. Ne6 Kh7 91. Kf6 Kg8 92. Nf4+ Kh8 93. Be4 Kg8 94. Nh3 Kh8
95. Ng5 Kg8 96. Nf7 Kf8 97. Bh7 Ke8 98. Bf5 Kf8 99. Nh6 Ke8
100. Nf7 Kf8 101. Ne5 Kg8 102. Ng6 Kh7 103. Be6 Kh6 104. Bg8
Kh5 105. Ne5 Kh4 106. Kf5 Kg3 107. Bc4 Kf2 108. Kf4 Ke1
109. Ke3 Kd1 110. Bd3 Kc1 111. Nc4 Kd1 112. Nb6 Kc1 113. Na4
Kd1 114. Be4 Kc1 115. Bd3 Kd1 116. Nb2+ Kc1 117. Nc4 Kd1
118. Bg6 Kc1 119. Bf5 Kd1 120. Nb6 Kc1 121. Na4 Kd1 122. Nb2+
Kc1 123. Nc4 Kd1 124. Kd3 Kc1 125. Kc3 Kd1 126. Bd3 1/2-1/2

```

---
Tags: draw, grandmaster, 50-move-rule, claim-draw
---


title: What's up with the doubled pawns?

text:
# Question
Title: What's up with the doubled pawns?
There's another question on this SE, which asks the question in reverse: What are the reasons why I should not try to take a Knight with my Bishop if it'll result in doubled pawns?

The answers do not adequately address, *why* you should try and double up your opponents pawns. To be more precise let me point to this Youtube video explaining the Budapest opening.

```
[fen "r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/4P3/1bP2Bn1/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R b - - 0 1"]

```

The Youtuber recommends ...BxNc3 with the sole aim of creating doubled pawns. So why are doubled pawns so awkward? The only reasonable answer on the Wikipedia page I could understand was that the Rooks can't provide support to the leading pawn in a doubled pawn structure. Can someone shed more light?

# Answer
It's always a matter of tradeoff. You can find plenty of IM & GM games where a player accepts doubled pawns because they feel it's worth it in that position.

In this position, the doubled pawn is lending support to the center, is not making the king weak, and provides an open file for the rook. The black d pawn is restricted, and trading on d5 would undo the doubled pawns for white and give a strong center presence. However, it could turn out to be an endgame weakness.

Here is some commentary by a GM.

And by IM (now GM) Larry Kaufman
> 7 votes

# Answer
Isolated double pawns like in your example are considered to be both a static and a dynamic weakness. It is a static weakness since the pawns can no longer defend each other or be defended by other pawns. It is a dynamic weakness since the front pawn is blocking the advance of the pawn behind. It is strategically important for the opposing player to control the square directly in front of the pawns, `c5` in your example, thereby cramping the movement of both pawns.

However, doubled pawns are often compensated by other dynamical factors, like open files for the rooks and long diagonals for the bishops.

In the Budapest line you are asking about, the move `6.Nbd2` is more popular (than `6.Nc3`), leading to a good position for white by simple means.
> 8 votes

# Answer
One important aspect of doubled pawns is, that pawn majorities, which encompass doubled pawns, usually aren't able to create passed pawns on their own, i.e. without help from another piece:

So in this position, although material is even, white will win by creating a passed f-pawn. Black isn't able to create counterplay with his own majority because it has been crippled by the taking on c6. White will just wait out any advances on the queenside without moving his pawns from a3 or c3 (unless he has to recapture). Note, that a3-b2-c3 is a good defensive setup, a2-b2-c2 would actually allow a breakthrough.

```
8/ppp5/2p1k1pp/8/4KPPP/P1P5/1P15/8 w - - 1 13

```

In this example it looks less obvious that there is no passed pawn for black's majority, but in fact white just has to modify his defensive setup:

```
8/p1p5/2ppk2p/8/P3K1PP/1P6/2P5/8 w - - 1 13

```

So pawn majorities are devalued by doubled pawns and as a result, pure pawn endgames are often lost. Funnily enough pawn **minorities** are often better at stopping the opposing pawns … But in practice this is less relevant, because doubled pawn majorities are usually isolated as well and therefore quite weak if attacked. But in a position like this, white wouldn't be able to create a passer without allowing black a passed pawn as well ...

```
8/8/8/5p2/pk3p1p/8/K3PPPP/8 w - - 1 13

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, doubled-pawn
---


title: What is the best age to learn chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the best age to learn chess?
I am currently writing a capstone position paper about the optimum age for a person to start learning chess. I have come to the conclusion that the optimum age is 5-6. I need help brainstorming reasons though. So far I have:

1. Most grandmasters learn chess at this age.
2. Children's brains are like sponges at this age.

# Answer
Some famous players learned at 4 or so, for Carlsen it was 8, for me it was 11.

My daughter is 6. I'd love to teach her chess. She loves playing games, but she hates the fact that someone has to lose (if a player is behind in a multiplayer game, she'll help that player instead of trying to win). She also hates the concept of a fixed set of rules that daddy knows and that have to be abided by... so she's invented her own "chess" (take a board and two sets of pieces, put all the white ones on white squares, all the black ones on black squares, and that's it). She also likes to take my Yusupov books and put the pieces on the board just like they are in some diagram, but is completely uninterested in the purpose of those diagrams. This is wonderful, she has her own mind.

It's completely impossible to actually teach her chess at this age though. So the answer to the question can only be "it depends entirely on the child". Whenever the kid becomes interested in learning chess is the best age.

(that said, if they taught the rules of chess *at school* right now, she'd probably soak them up. But what would that accomplish?)
> 4 votes

# Answer
As a hobby, it can be learned at any age and enjoyed.

As a career or competitive endeavor, as with other sports, the earlier, the better.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The best answer is - any.

I got my first chess-board when I was 5 years old, and that is the time when I learned chess.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to setup DGT Easy+ Gametimer for a 75' for first 30 moves, and 15' for the rest of the game?
In the local chess club of which I recently became member we typically play games with time control described in the title. DGT's manuals are terrible so I do not know which DGT clock supports this time control. I tried to contact DGT regarding this, but nobody answered.

PS. someone please make a tag.

# Answer
My understanding is that this is sold as a budget / beginner's clock which does not support additional periods and so is not suitable for your needs.

You are probably better off springing for the DGT 2010 or DGT XL which I believe are both approved for FIDE competition. The 960 looks a bit flimsy for robust club use although I have no experience using it so it may be tougher than it looks.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: time-control, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Solving a problem from a Jan Prezewoznik book
The following position is White to move:

```
[fen "1Q5r/1p2kppp/1q2b3/r1p3P1/p2pB3/P2P3P/1PP1P3/1KR2R2 w - - 0 1"]

```

I'm a newbie in chess and I want to know, how to solve this problem in a quick way.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The nature of the problem that this position presents is first this: to correctly assess the situation on the board, and in particular to recognize the immediate and impending problems White is facing. As this answer will show, there is a lot of concrete analyzing one can do from this position, but the point I want to stress is that just answering that first question (and with only simple calculating) goes a very long way toward narrowing down what moves are even reasonable to consider, and can ultimately lead to `1.Rxf7+` as mentioned in Dag's comment above. What follows is one rough path of thought that one might take when facing this position in a game, and some analysis follows below.

Obviously White's queen is attacked, and something must be done about that, so that already cuts down our options considerably. There is a free rook on offer via `1.Qxh8`, so what happens if we just take it? The thing to note there is that after the direct `1...Rb5`, all three of Black's pieces are bearing down on the white king, while the four white pieces are all unable to help defend. It turns out that to stave off mate there, White would need to shed a losing amount of material. Once one sees this `1...Rb5` threat at all, it's pretty clear that any of `1.Qh2/Qg3/Qf4` leave the queen similarly out of play such that White is unable to defend properly against `1...Rb5`.

`1.Qe5` is a different case, as it can potentially serve a defensive purpose (supporting `Bd5` to nullify the black bishop) and has some bite to it by keeping the queen in the vicinity of the black king. In its favor, Black could no longer respond with `1...Rb5?` without the tables turning (see analysis below). Since e5 was the only remaining safe square for the queen, we might feel satisfied with that choice.

But here we should do a little concrete calculating: instead of `1...Rb5?`, the move `1...c4` unveils a new attack on the queen and threatens `1...c3`; because of that, it's almost game over by that point. But `1.Qe5` seemed like the only place we could put the queen, so we might need to bite the bullet and answer `1...c4` best we can. There the options would be truly limited, and the only way to keep the game going *at all* from there would be avoiding `...c3` by stirring things up with the desperado sacrifice `2.Rxf7+`. (As noted in the analysis, Black actually does need to take care in those complications, and so though this whole approach is objectively not the best from the starting position, it might be a decent practical play.)

With all that laid out, though, we could now at least ask ourselves, what if we try the same complicating idea from the start? The play will be similar to after `1.Qe5 c4 2.Rxf7+`, and at this point the only way to decide between that path and `1.Rxf7+` is to bear down and try to calculate the consequences of each (as in the analysis tree below). But note that we're able to get down to these two basic options just by looking a couple of moves deep in combination with a general sense of danger (e.g. our pieces out of play while our opponent's pieces are all attacking). If all goes right in our calculations, we'll find that in fact `1.Rxf7+` gives at least a perpetual (which isn't trivial to work out in full from the start); but again, we're forced into the *idea* from more general considerations before even getting bogged down in variations.

```
[FEN "1Q5r/1p2kppp/1q2b3/r1p3P1/p2pB3/P2P3P/1PP1P3/1KR2R2 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rxf7+
    ( 1.Qe5 c4 2.Rxf7+ Kxf7 3.Rf1+ Ke8
        ( 3...Ke7 $2 4.Qxg7+ Kd6 5.Qxh8 c3 6.Qf8+ Kc7 7.Qe7+ Bd7 8.Qb4 $10
        )
    4.Qb8+ Qd8
        ( 4...Kd7 $2 5.Qxh8 c3 6.Qxg7+ Kd6 7.Qf8+ Kc7 8.Qe7+ Bd7 9.Qb4 $10
        )
    5.Qxb7 Qd6 {White has no perpetual, and ultimately the extra black
    rook will tell against the extra white pawns.} )
1...Bxf7
    ( 1...Kxf7 2.Rf1+ Ke7 3.Qxh8 Rb5 4.Qxg7+ Kd6 5.Qf8+ Kd7 6.Rf7+ Bxf7 7.
    Qxf7+ Kc8 8.Qe8+ Kc7 9.Qe7+ Kb8 10.Qe8+ Ka7 11.Ka1 Rxb2 12.Qxa4+ Kb8
    13.Qe8+ Ka7 $10 )
2.Qe5+ Qe6
    ( 2...Kd7 3.Bf5+ $16 )
    ( 2...Be6 3.Qxg7+ Kd6 4.Qxh8 Rb5 5.Qf8+ Kd7 6.Qg7+ $10 )
3.Qc7+ Ke8 4.Qb8+
    ( 4.Qxa5 Qa2# )
4...Kd7 5.Qxb7+ $10 *

```

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


title: Chess rule clarification

text:
# Question
Title: Chess rule clarification
As my English chess vocabulary is very poor, I might pass near the solution but didn't see it... So here's my question :

> Can the white King go to d5 or f5 since the black Knight can't move ?

# Answer
No, the move is illegal. Even though the knight is pinned, the king can't move to the square under it's control.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: How can I programmatically detect kings side / queen side pawn storm
I read from wikipedia that:

> A pawn storm is a chess strategy in which several pawns are moved in rapid succession toward the opponent's defenses. A pawn storm usually involves adjacent pawns on one side of the board—the queenside (a, b, and c files) or the kingside (f, g, and h files).

But it does give an exact definition. Is there a precise definition of king-side/queen-side pawn storm, that I can use to programmatically detect this theme?

# Answer
I doubt there is any generally accepted definition for a pawn storm. Chess is not a science after all. Anyway, it should be possible to write a program detecting most pawn storms with only few false positives. Because of the lack of any clear definition, other chess players will be more or less satisfied with your results.

So here is my approach. Obviously this is quite subjective – it highly depends on my view of pawn storms.

1. At first you have to rule out endgames. In a King and Pawn endgame I would not call rapid pawn movements a pawn storm. There is also no clear definition when an endgame starts, but the number of pieces (and their value) one the board could give a clue.
2. In my experience the phrase "pawn storm" is mostly used for a pawn storm towards the king. I would not call a minority attack a pawn storm. So if the king is on the f,g or h files, the pawn storm should occur on these files as well (which can be easily checked by your program.) If you want to include minority attacks, just ignore this point.
3. For the actual pawn storm I‘d just use a simple numeric value, eg. "two pawns on adjacent flank files have reached the fifth rank".
4. As "rapid" is in Wikpedia‘s explanation: Again, use some numeric value such as "For a certain amount of moves at least all three moves a pawn on that flank is moved."
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, pawns
---


title: 11. ..Qg5 in Svesnikov possible?

text:
# Question
Title: 11. ..Qg5 in Svesnikov possible?
As a Svesnikvov player (rated ~1800) the following idea was shown to me recently:

```
[Title "11. ..Qg5!?"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Qg5!?

```

It seems quite interesting. At least 12. Nc7+ grabbing the rook leads to a nice game for Black. However White is not forced to do that.

12. g3 is the obvious alternative, when 12. ..Rb8 seems playable. Maybe one can sac the rook even here?

However 12. ef is the computer‘s choice. The tactical point is that 12. ..Qxg2 13. Nf6+ K somewhere Be4 is just horrible for Black – and in many other variations he has problems getting the pawn back. After guarding the fork with Kd8 (or sth. else? Maybe saving the rook ist not necessary here?) White can castle. And whenever Black tries to get his pawn Back, White plays f4 with a great game. The best I found here was some line where Black got an ending with a horrible Bishop and worse pawn structure – also not very satisfying.

---

I‘d like to apply such a move against stronger opponents (rated 2000+, even 2200+ \[in a Swiss tournament I could face such opponents\]), where my "normal" winning or even drawing chances are not that great. So it is not that big of a deal if I get a slightly worse game, but I want to have great fighting chances – and the advantage that I have pre-analysed the position at home. I am also willing to give away "some" material (the f5 pawn, the a8 rook) for a nice attack. I just do not want to play the line the computer recommends after 12. ef – that‘s definitely not a position I can hold against a stronger opponent.

So my question is: Do you have any experience playing this line? Are many players aware of 12. ef or find that move on the board? Is there a more fighting continuation (which may be objectively worse, but where White has to play very precise)? If White does not grab the rook right away with 12. Nc7+, do I really have to protect it next move? For example, after 12. g3, does Black have (crazy?) attacking chances, if he gives up his rook?

I do *not* want to discuss the concept of playing an objectively worse move against a stronger opponent just to get some chances, if he fails to find the best moves. Both "Forget about 11. ..Qg5, just spend your time on analysing 11. ..Be6 and try to beat your opponents there" or "play the board, not the player!" may (or may not) be reasonable suggestions, but they are of no interest here.

# Answer
I looked at that line a few years back, with the same intention of surprising stronger players. But I never played it in a tournament game and my blitz games didn't lead to particularly positive emotions …

I think 12.ef definitely can be found by a decent player and the only reason why people probably won't play it is, that there is an abundance of good other, more solid, moves. If I remember correctly even 12.g4 can be played.

No strong player will just grab the rook against a weaker player, if he has never seen the line before. Actually I think, that this kind of semi-bluff works better if grabbing material is the only decent way to continue.

So my conclusion was that 11…Qg5 means taking a risk without having a realistic hope of getting a reward. You would have to prepare against 12.Nc7, g3, g4, ef, Qf3, 0-0 and none of these moves is even an outright blunder for white!

If you want to lead your opponent on a very narrow path through the jungle, that only one can leave alive, make sure the path is not just narrow for yourself.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense
---


title: Pawn promotion movement

text:
# Question
Title: Pawn promotion movement
If a pawn is promoted, does that count as a move? What if a rook is waiting and could capture the new queen in one move? What exactly happens when a pawn is promoted?

# Answer
The pawn promotion is part of the move of a white pawn to the eighth (or for a black pawn to the first) row. So you move the pawn to eighth row and replace it immediately with a piece of your choice (except kings, pawns or pieces of the opposite color). You don't need to spend an extra move for the promotion.

If a rook can immediately take your new queen, well such is life … ;-) Maybe promoting wasn't such a good move then ...
> 5 votes

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


# Question
Title: How can black exploit this lead in development?
**1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Ng5 O-O 6.Bxf7 Rxf7 7.Nxf7 Kxf7**

I understand that black should aim for d7-d5 to open up the game, but what else? Are piece exchanges good or bad? Can I get a winning endgame? How and where to attack?

I understand the theory for positions like these, but the advantage always just fizzles out into nothing for me.

# Answer
I don't see why you should go for d5. Generally speaking opening lines is beneficial for the side with the rooks. And your pieces will get or already occupy nice active squares without d5. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad, but it strikes me as a plan that can definitely backfire. Just imagine you have an isolated pawn on e5 and white's rooks are lined up on the e-file ...

Right now you are up material and you have better development. I would just get my king back to safety with Kg8 and then proceed to develop my pieces (d6,Be6,Rf8, maybe Qe8-g6). My longterm plan would be to build an attack against the enemy king, because rooks are bad defenders and you will be able to have a more pieces in the attack than he can bring into the defence.

Going for an endgame entails a certain amount of risk, because in position where there aren't many pawns left, the rooks gain power. Right now you are significantly better, but if you would take two pieces and three pawns and maybe the queens away from the board for both sides, the fight would be much more even.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: middlegame, italian-game, minor-pieces
---


title: Tactical variations in the Caro-Kann?

text:
# Question
Title: Tactical variations in the Caro-Kann?
I am currently using the exchange variation of the Caro-Kann, so the:

```
[Title "Caro-Kann refutation"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5

```

I am looking for a more tactical approach. Is the fantasy variation worth it? Or are there more tactical variations?

# Answer
I would also suggest the "caveman" variation. Below is a nice article on this opening:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2013/complete-caveman.htm

I am a FM, and have played this opening successfully at the tournament level.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The exchange variation, provided you continue with the Panov attack, is actually very tactical and aggressive. If you are looking for something quite different, I suggest what I play: the advance variation with an early h4 push.

That would be:

```
[StartPly "7"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4

```

on this website you can find some of the more common approaches to the variation. More than just a tactical sideline, it is extremely tricky, so you should know a few things before going into this mess. There are many lines where black has "only moves", but it is thought to not be very promising because in the end (after like 20 forced moves) black stands ok.

The thing is, most players who face this line have never seen it before, and they play the natural moves, falling into one of the hundred pitfalls available. An example is if black simply ignores h4 and plays 4. ... e6. After 5. g4, his bishop is trapped. This is only the first trap that you set (and on blitz, it's a very common one). Another one occurs after:

```
[StartPly "7"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h6 5. g4 Bh7 6. e6 fxe6 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8. Qxd3 Qd6 9. f4 Nd7 10. Nf3 O-O-O 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12. fxe5 Qd7 13. h5,

```

where black simply played normal moves to advance e5 and get rid of his doubled pawns, but in the end is playing without the three pieces of the kingside. I've played this line myself a couple of weeks ago, with devastating effect (I won on 20 moves, the idea is to simply double/triple on the f file).

This is just a few flavors of this sideline, check it out for yourself and see if the positions arising from it suit you.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The hardest for black to meet is the Advance Variation. You might want to look at the latest games of Fabiano Caruana. He won with the Advance Variation against Maxime Vachier-Lagrave very recently.

Otherwise I would recommend playing 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4. This variation gives white a slight edge where you can go for h2-h4 and O-O-O. White is very solid there.

The Caro-Kann is overall very solid, and as white you need to play very accurately to maintain your first move advantage.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Well a fun tactical line to try against caro-kann (more for blitz) would be a variation in the advanced, it goes like:

```
 [FEN ""]

 1.e4 c6, 2.d4 d5, 3.e5 Bf5 4.g4?! Be4, 5.f3 Bg6, 6.h4 h6, 7.h5 Bh7, 8.e6!? fxe6 9.Bd3

```

So with precise play, black should certainly be fine if not better; but your opponent needs to be quite accurate while you relatively have an easy game/plan.

Note that many time Black doesn't notice `4... Be4` which in fact crucial, You definitely don't want to allow (as black) white to play `Nf3` and then `Ne5` :O (around move 9-10).
> 0 votes

# Answer
One aggressive idea against the Caro-Kann is to basically play the Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit, while ruling out a lot of defences (because black has already played c6).

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3

```

There are some nice immediate tricks, like 4…ef 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Bxf7+

Or 4…ef 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0 Nd7 9.Rxf5!

And if black goes for an immediate queen swap that is fortunately quite bad for black: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 e5 5.Be3 ed 6.Bxd4 c5 7.Be5 Qxd1 8.Rxd1 with a big lead in development and the threat Nb5.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Chess GUI with Time Handicap for Engine vs Engine matches
I want Stockfish to play for 1 hour per move and I want Komodo to play for 2 minutes per move. Is there a GUI that can do this?

Arena has the option to set the seconds per move but both engines will have the same time control. I want a different time control for each engine.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Arena can do this!

Suppose a game has a time control with x minutes for y move(s). In your case you need x=2 for Komodo and x=60 for Stockfish. You achieve this by doing the following:

Go to menu **Engines \> Manage** and in the tab **Details** find each engine in the left panel **Installed Engines**. In the right panel **Selected Engine** go to the tab **Special** and change the value for **Strength(%)**. In your case, when starting a game with 60 minutes for 1 move, the adjusted strengths would be:

* Stockfish 100%; resulting in 1\*60 minutes for 1 move
* Komodo ~3%; resulting in 0.03\*60 minutes for 1 move

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What is the power of team captain in team tournaments?
To what extent is the power of team captain in team tournaments (like Olympiad)?

Can the team captain decide which board he wants to offer draw even though the position is winning without the consent of team players?

Can the captain decide which player is not playing if there is a substitute player?

# Answer
> 5 votes
There are two levels of team captain powers, official powers / rights and powers that his/her national federation confers. Examples of these would be that a team player may ask his team captain if he may accept a draw offer. The captain's advice is non-binding. This is an official power. Normally players are not allowed to discuss their games with anybody and asking advice about a draw offer would count as such.

Note that the captain is not allowed to remind the player to press the clock and strictly speaking he shouldn't even tell the player his opponent has moved if the player has gone to the toilet or for a coffee.

Agreeing a draw on somebody else's board is a power that the national federation confers (or not) on the captain and the player involved acquiesces to this by accepting a place in the team. There have been cases where in the last round a team just needs a draw (2-2) to win or secure a particular position and even though they are playing a weaker team they come out, play a few moves and then everyone agrees a draw.

Deciding who plays and who rests is usually a question for the manager and captain although obviously players can also have input. "Captain, I'm absolutely knackered. I need a day off. Give me a rest, please" or "I just want to play every game. Rest somebody else." Ultimately these are management decisions and the captain and the manager will make the final decision.

FWIW a few years ago my team captain (at a level at least a dozen levels below Olympiad, I hasten to add) used to tell me I had to refuse draw offers if we were losing, regardless of the position on my board. Needless to say I didn't pay much attention!

Here are the official FIDE rules governing the role of the captain:

13. **Team Captain’s Role in Team Tournaments**

(a) The role of a team captain is basically an administrative one during play. Depending on the regulations of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in each round, to communicate to his players their pairing, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of the play, etc.

(b) Whenever the team captain speaks to one of his players, he should do so only through or in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand.

(c) A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game. The captain shall refrain from any intervention during play.

(d) Players are subject to the same prohibitions. Even though in a team competition there is a certain team loyalty, which goes beyond a player’s individual game, a game of chess is basically a contest between two players. Therefore a player must have the final say over the conduct of his own game. Although the advice of the captain should weigh heavily with the player, the player is not absolutely compelled to accept that advice. Likewise, the captain cannot act on behalf of a player and his game without the knowledge and consent of the player.

(e) A team captain should encourage his team always to follow both the letter and the spirit of Article 12 of the FIDE Laws of Chess concerning the conduct of the players. Team championships, in particular, should be conducted in the spirit of the highest sportsmanship.

---
Tags: team
---


title: What is counterplay?

text:
# Question
Title: What is counterplay?
I hear this term in online commentaries.

I have a vague sense of what it means: you earn yourself some good moves by ignoring a portion of the board and focusing on more promising parts of your play. It's as if you are telling your opponent: Sure you are threatening, but I am going to ignore it for I can also threaten you. So the players now try to prove whose threat is stronger.

Consider Anand-Andreikin for example. Andreikin found a draw by evaluating that his queen side was stronger. He chose to ignore Anand's strong king side. Or Anand-Carlsen, where Anand found a draw by finding counterplay with 44. Qh1. I am looking for heuristics/ rules of thumbs in this theme of playing.

I feel my understanding of the term is still loose. So:

1. Could you explain what is counterplay with some instructive example?
2. How to evaluate the potential of counterplay, i.e. - how to decide under practical playing conditions whether to counter attack or respond to the threat?
3. I feel the term is related to the idea of 'complicating a position'. Is it? (I have Nakamura-Carlsen on my mind, but it may not be the best example).
4. I have also heard of players talking of prophylaxis to prevent potential counterplay. Again can you give some heuristics to decide, whether to get prophylactic in a winning position or not? This is the same question as 2, except from the other player's point of view.

Thanks!

# Answer
This is actually quite a sensible question and it isn't about the English word 'counter' as JiK suggests, but about the English word 'play'. ;-)

To have 'play' in a position basically means that you are able to create threats. The possibility to create threats isn't really linked to how complicated a position is. But a position in which only one player can create threats usually isn't very complicated. So there are positions with counter play that aren't very complicated, but going for counter play often complicates a position.

'counter' just means that your opponent had all the play before and only now you start to strike back. You could say that 'counter play' is a defensive technique. You may not be able to parry your opponents threats, but by creating counter threats you can dissuade him from executing his threats.

I'll try to come up with some endgame example later …

No endgame, but very recent and a really nice fight - Adams-Caruana:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 O-O 8. d3 d6 9. c3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. Nbd2 Nc6 12. Nf1
h6 13. Ne3 Re8 14. a4 Be6 15. h3 Bf8 16. Nh2 b4 17. Bb3 Rb8
18. Bc4 bxc3 19. bxc3 d5 20. Bxa6 Qa5 21. c4 Qxa6 22. exd5
Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nb4 24. Ra3 Nfxd5 25. Neg4 f6 26. Nf1 Rbd8
27. Ng3 c4 28. Nxh6+ gxh6 29. Qg4+ Kh8 30. dxc4 Ne7 31. Qh5
Ng8 32. Nf5 Qb7 33. Rg3 Qh7 34. Nh4 Ne7 35. Ba3 Nbc6 36. Kh2
Bg7 37. Bxe7 Nxe7 38. Rd1 Qg8 39. Rb1 Rb8 40. Rd1 Red8 41. c5
Rxd1 42. Qxd1 Rb4 43. Qd7 Rxh4 44. Qxe7 Rd4 45. c6 Qf8 46. Qb7
Rb4 47. Qd7 Rd4 48. Qb7 Rb4 49. Rc3 f5 50. Qd7 Rd4 51. Qe6 Rd6
52. Qxd6 Qxd6 53. c7 e4+ 54. g3 Bxc3 55. c8=Q+ Kh7 56. Qxc3 f4
57. gxf4 Qxf4+ 58. Qg3 Qd2 59. Qc7+ Kg6 60. Qb6+ Kh7 61. Qb7+
Kh8 62. Qa8+ Kg7 63. Qxe4 Kf6 64. Qf3+ Kg6 65. Kg2 Qa2
66. Qe4+ Kf6 67. Qf4+ Kg6 68. Qd6+ Kg7 69. Qe5+ Kh7 70. a5
Qg8+ 71. Kh2 Qf7 72. Qe4+ Kg7 73. a6 1-0

```

If you look at the position after 27.Ng3 it looks pretty depressing for white. Black has all the play, d3 is weak and white is lacking space. But 27…c4 gave Adams the possibility to create counter play against the black king, by sacrificing his knight on h6.

Concerning wisdom: I'm not sure you will have much luck searching for heuristics. Counter play and prophylaxis mostly rely on accurate calculation and maybe some alertness for tactical possibilities. Apart from that it is just an aspect of your positional feel for the game, to know how much play you can allow your opponent and when you have to throw a spanner into his works no matter what the cost.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I could say something about a counter attack from a beginner's point of view:

**What is a counterattack?**

If one of your pieces is threatened by your opponent, then you should threaten the opponent's highest value pieces in your next immediate move (at least that piece should have higher value than your piece which is under threat).

**Example:**

If your rook was rook was surrounded by opposing pieces at that time, if you attack opponent's king instead of saving your rook. This is called a **counterattack**.

**Wait, is this really a counterattack?**

In this attack if your opponent surrender,(such as a back rank mate) then only it would be a successful counterattack. Otherwise, you are the victim.

**What about prophylaxis?**

In the above case if your opponent already took precautionary action(prophylaxis) by moving a rook pawn to avoid back rank mate, then there's no other choice than counterattack their queen.

**Whether to counterattack or respond to the threat**

If your

```
attack > opponent's prophylaxis         --- then counterattack

```

otherwise, respond to the threat.p

**How to evaluate?**

In the above case even if you are able to surround your opponent's queen you should not come to conclusion that you are counterattacking. At this time you should evaluate your prophylaxis, because you are going to take his queen. But he may take your king in counter.

So here is a revised formula for you:

**`your (attack + prophylaxis) > opponent's (prophylaxis + attack)`**

Then you are the perfect counterattacker.

I hope that this helps.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, counterplay
---


# Question
Title: Understanding Bb5 after Nc6 in the opening
In the opening, when the black knight goes to c6 white often responds with bishop to b5. What is the purpose of this move?

For example the Ruy Lopez/Spanish opening:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
This opening is called the Ruy Lopez or the Spanish Game.

It is actually quite logical: 2.Nf3 attacks the e5 pawn and Nc6 defends against this attack. Now Bb5 attacks the defender, which renews the attack on e5. For tactical reasons the threat of taking on c6 and then taking on e5 isn't acute yet, but the idea is nonetheless to exert pressure on the black pawn on e5.

Additionally 3.Bb5 makes it possible for white to castle in one of the next moves. This is another motivation for an early kingside development.

---
Tags: opening, beginner, ruy-lopez
---