title: How to "bore your opponent to death"?

text:
# Question
Title: How to "bore your opponent to death"?
The Caro-Kann has often been maligned for being dry and boring, played by those wishing to bore their opponents to death.” – IM (WGM) Jovanka Houska

Are there other defenses in which black can bore white to death? For example, when white starts with

* 1. d4.
* The English Opening.
* The Reti Opening.

Other than the opening choice, are there are other strategies if black wishes to bore white to death? How about if white wishes to bore black to death?

Other than the opening choice, what are other strategies to bore your opponent?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The London system (for White), the Caro-Kann and the Classical Slav with ...Bf5 (for Black), are extremely similar, we are aiming for the same setup (c3, d4, e3, Bf4, Nf3, Nbd2, 0-0, h3, Bd3 or Be2) in all of them, so they fit well together in a repertoire, and they all have the reputation of being extremely boring, especially the Slav Exchange variation that has an extremely high draw percentage and the London system that is nicknamed "the boring system" and "the old man variation".

Other openings that are considered to be boring are the French Exchange variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5) and the Petrov (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6).

Generally, the openings that are considered boring are either the openings that have a high draw percentage because they are symmetrical (Slav Exchange, French Exchange, Petrov) or the openings that are very positional, slow, quiet, solid, safe, passive, unambitious (London system, Caro-Kann).

# Answer
> 3 votes
The Berlin Wall in response to the Ruy Lopez is the classic "boring" opening.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8 Kxd8

```

It results in a very dry queenless middlegame where Black's advantage of having the two bishops is balanced by White's kingside pawn majority which is far more likely to result in a passed pawn than Black's queenside majority. Breaking down the Berlin Wall is a difficult proposition as even Kasparov found in his world championship match with Kramnik.

# Answer
> 1 votes
People have already suggested the Slav, which is very much true. However, it does depend on the variation of the Slav you are playing, as some of the variations can get quite tactical. If I had to make a specific recommendation, I'd recommend the a6 Slav, which goes like this: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 (or Nc3) Nf6 4. Nc3 (or Nf3) a6 The main line here goes 5. e3 b5 where b3, cxb5, cxd5, and c5 are all perfectly fine variations. 5. c5 is also perfectly fine, as is cxd5 (transposing to a line of the Exchange Slav).

I play this myself, and it certainly answers your question- it's very boring.

Another user suggested the Berlin, which is fair, and it's the textbook example.

Against the English you can go for c6 which often transposes back into a Slav. Same with the Reti and if they continue with g3 you can just go for a reversed London System.

The London System, as suggested, is also pretty boring and slow (I know so, since I've done it myself!)

These mesh together wonderfully in a repertoire.

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


# Question
Title: In Caro-Kann Defense, what are the differences between 3. Nc3 and 3. Nd2?
After 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5, what are the differences between 3. Nc3 and 3. Nd2?

It seems 3. Nc3 is more popular, though after 3. ... dxe4, I failed to see the difference.

# Answer
## `3.Nd2` is more exact as it maintains flexibility over the `c`-pawn!

How that might be relevant becomes clearer when considering specific cases, for instance, as pointed out by fuxia, `3.Nd2` avoids the possibility of `3...g6.`

More precisely, in view of the concrete `3...g6` option:

## `3.Nc3`

* `Nc3` blocks the `c`-pawn and allows black to comfortably aim for the solid kingside fianchetto setup with `3...g6`, providing the `g7` bishop decent scope on the long `a1-h8` diagonal along which multiple white targets stand. Although the immediate `e5` response in an attempt to close the diagonal is possible, black is well able to keep playing on the dark squares and undermine white's `d4,e5` setup with early `f6, c5` and white has to invest extra tempo to reinforce with `c3`. Moreover, white often ends up with a temporarily (until `f4` can be played) weak isolated pawn on `e5` which black should target.
* With the fiachetto'ed bishop on `g7`, black wants to keep the play on the *dark squares* and further enable their bishop. In view of this, the delayed advance of the `c2`-pawn means white is slower in shifting the central tension over to *light squares*, which in turn means black gets comfortable equalising chances, as their fight for the center goes unchallenged.

For a demonstration of the `3.Nc3 g6` line, first game that springs to mind is Smyslov vs Seirawan, where black benefited from a better fight for the center, exploiting the pressure on the long diagonal and white's delayed `c`-pawn advance to trade the `c7` for the `d4` pawn and establish a pawn majority in the center (see the diagrams below, progression from left to right). And black proceeded to draw the game comfortably while having the better endgame (dominating white's pawns on the queenside after `c4-b5` conceding an outpost to the `d7` knight).

Caption:

* **Left:** `d4` is not firmly defended and cannot be reinforced with `c2-c3`, thus remains prone to exchanges with the `c7-c5` pawn followed by the `e5` advance.
* **Middle and right:** White's `Ne2, c4` has been too slow (green), thus, black finds a timely resolution of white's central pawns (red), after which black achieves a clear pawn majority (right diagram) in the center (blue).

## `3.Nd2`

* `3.Nd2` instead of `Nc3`, maintains flexibility over the `c`-pawn, in particular, it prevents `3...g6` as white can readily strike in the center (with `c4`) and immediately challenge black on the light squares (diagram below), specially in reply to black setups typified by the pervious diagrams.

* Alternatively, if instead of an early `f6` black opts for `Bg4` pinning the `f3` knight and undermining `d4`'s defense, then white has the important fortifying option of `c2-c3` readily available. Therefore, after `3.Nd2`, the `g7` bishop stands poorly on the long diagonal which renders the whole `3...g6` option much less attractive for black.

In contrast to the game against V. Smyslov, Karpov never extended the same kindness towards Seirawan and always played the more exact `3.Nd2` (example games: (1), (2), (3)).
> 5 votes

# Answer
`3.Nc3` allows White to play the Two Knights Attack with `2.Nf3`. It does block the c-pawn, though, so Black can play `3...g6`, the Gurgenidze System, because White cannot protect the d-pawn with the c-pawn.

There is also the rarely played Gurgenidze Counter Attack `3...b5`. A very dubious line that can be stopped easily with `a3`.

`3.Nd2` tries to avoid these lines, but it makes the Two Knights Attack impossible, a line that is very popular nowadays. It also blocks the view of White's dark-squared bishop, so Black can develop their kingside knight to `h6` if they want.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Nd2 avoids this line:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 b5!? 4.ed5 b4 followed by recapturing on d5

IM Jeremey Silman was a proponent of this for Black as a surprise weapon.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes, if Black plays 3...dxe4 there is no difference whatsoever.

The difference between 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2 is the sidelines they allow/prevent Black from playing. For example, 3.Nc3 may encourage 3...b5!?, trying to harass the knight.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It doesn't really matter – the only difference is against g6, which is considered not very good by theory and is rare. Nd2 is slightly better against g6, and technically Nd2 might be slightly more precise, but at the end of the day 99% of the time it doesn't matter (and even Nc3 g6 isn't bad at all).
> 0 votes

# Answer
It is subtle and positional. It avoids lines white does not want to see and does it without any drawbacks that are significant.
> -4 votes

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


# Question
Title: What are the rules around talking/ communicating during a chess game?
I heard in a youtube video that you are not allowed to talk to your opponent unless you are saying check or checkmate. Obviously, this rule is loosely enforced in casual play, but is this true?

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess, rule 11.5:

> It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

So you can't just say whatever you like to your opponent while you're playing an official game. It's distracting, both to your opponent and to anyone else trying to play in the room.

Check or checkmate is not the *only* thing you can say, however (and at high levels, almost nobody says check.) Obviously, you're allowed to point out that the game is over because the position is drawn by rule or one player is out of time. A draw offer is ordinarily spoken aloud. You must also say something like “j’adoube” or “I adjust” when adjusting a piece. In USCF matches, I've generally told my opponent if they make an illegal move, so they can correct it, rather than stopping the clock and summoning the tournament director. I've also quietly pointed out some other rules to my opponent when they came up, such as if they touched a piece and then moved a different piece.

---
Tags: rules, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: King's Indian Defense - When to play 6...c5 or 6...e5
I'm a casual player who enjoys playing the King's Indian Defense as Black, but I don't fully understand yet when it is better to play `6...e5` or `6...c5`. These are my main doubts:

* What are the aims and differences about playing one move instead of the other?
* In which conditions (such as position of opponent's pieces) should I play `6...c5` instead of the more characteristic `6...e5`?

I've looked at this very interesting question about the aims of playing `6...e5`, but it does not mention anything about the difference between the two aforementioned moves.

Any extra insight or suggestion is of course more than welcome!

# Answer
> 6 votes
I'm not a KID expert, but Joe Gallagher GM is, so I'll quote him from "Starting out: The King's Indian":

> "If you are going to play the King's Indian with Black you may be a little confused as to whether you should aim for ... c7-c5 or ... e7-e5. I tend to adhere to the following rule:
>
> Play ... e7-e5 except when White develops his queen bishop early. Then it's time to start thinking (just thinking mind you) about ... c7-c5. The move ... c7-c5 is likely to prise open the long diagonal (after ... e7-e5 it usually becomes totally blocked) and the absence of the white bishop from the queenside means the dark squares there (such as b2) may become vulnerable to pressure from the g7 bishop"

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


title: Is there any hope left for Black?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there any hope left for Black?
```
7b/p3R3/k6r/N7/KP6/8/8/8 b - - 3 41

```

I got into this endgame in a Alkehine Defense game against a FM. The engine evaluates it as *+0.6* .

But all I can see is that any inaccuracy on Black’s part leads to a loss. Is there a way to force a draw?

# Answer
The bad news is, there is no way for black to force a draw in this position. However, with a few precise moves, you can enter a number of simpler endgames that are theoretically a draw and not too hard to defend. Let me illustrate that with a few sample variations. 1. ... Rb6 Preventing b5. Now, white has 3 main options, apart from just waiting. 2.Nb3 (2.Rf7 would be a normal waiting move. Now, we can enter an endgame of rook vs bishop by force: 2. ... Bc3 3.Nc6 Rxc6 4.b5+ Kb6 5.bxc6 Kxc6 =; 2.Nc4 Rb8 again, we threaten Bc3 3.Re6+ Kb7 4.Na5+ Ka8 5.Nc6 Rc8 6.Kb5 Kb7 and Black can hold. Checks are always blocked from the side and white cannot make any progress; 2.Nc6 enters the bishop versus rook endgame we saw above: 2. ... Rxc6 3.b5+ Kb6 4.bxc6 Kxc6 5.Rxa7 =) 2. ... Rd6 this forces white to either enter an endgame of rook + knight vs rook or accept that black will achieve a comfortable holding position 3.Re8 the most ambitious (3.Nc5+ Kb6 4.Rb7+ Kc6 5.Rxa7 Bd4 6.Ra6+ Kd5 7.Ra5 Kc6 8.Nb3 Bb6 once black has gotten his bishop to the a7-g1 diagonal, he should be fine. If white ever tries to push the pawn, black can, in the worst case, sacrifice his bishop and liquidate into a theoretically drawn endgame of rook versus rook + knight) 3. ... Bc3 4.Rb8 Bxb4! 5.Rxb4 Rc6 6.Rh4 (6.Rb8 Rc4+ 7.Ka3 Ra4+! the rook is immune because of stalemate 8.Kb2 and black holds) 6. ... Rd6 and black holds as well
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Are blitz or bullet games better for improvement?
If I have ten minutes’ spare time and want to use it to improve my chess, is my time better spent playing one blitz game or five bullets? (I’m taking blitz to be 5min each and bullet to be 1min each) (I’m ~1300 - 1400 rated)

# Answer
> 9 votes
What improves your chess is the time you spend **thinking on chess** and solving chess problems (either during a game or when doing exercices).

As a consequence, if your concern is to make progress, **a 5' blitz is better than five 1' bullets**.

* What you will play will look more like a real chess game; at 1300-1400 I suppose you seldom drop pieces in blitz, but often in bullet. Also, *maybe* this will be the occasion to practice an opening you would use again, actually *thinking* at one or two points in the game on "What do I do next ? What are my plans ? What is my opponent intending ?". At least at two or three times in the middlegame you will slow down and calculate a few lines. Calculating is useful training. *Maybe* you will still have thirty seconds or one minute to invest for an important decision in the rook endgame; in bullet the endgame is never reached, or butchered until a player gets flagged.
* The fast, repetitive, mechanical play, which is almost mandatory in bullet because of time pressure (also in blitz, actually, but less so) is actually rather hampering your progress, because you keep making bad moves and teach yourself to play automatically, not calculating. Also playing for tricks and cheapos (*if he doesn't see this I will fork his queen...*) is the wrong mindset for when you'll play real chess.

**Anyway, don't expect too much progress from a 10' practice**. The blitz might or might not help *a tiny little bit*, but you will need to invest more time and various training (play, analysis, exercices, books/videos on openings/middlegame/endgame, etc.) if you want to achieve significative progress. The bullets, if anything, are counterproductive.

# Answer
> 6 votes
For the 1300-1400 level, none are useful if you want to improve. More often than not, blitz and bullet (especially the latter) just develop bad habits, such as moving too quickly or having little patience for in-depth analysis. If you want to work on improving in 10 minutes, I'd suggest doing a few tactics, solving a study, or playing through a master game.

Blitz is only useful for *some* players after crossing the 2000-2200 barrier. The reason for this is that blitz can help develop more intuitive and quick thinking. Most importantly, an expert/master knows that blitz chess is different from long games, and so they can ideally not let their blitz habits interfere with their long game habits.

Bullet on the other hand isn't useful for any level of player. It's only purpose is for having fun. You can't develop any good habits with only 1 minute to think for an entire game. It's likely most of the calculations you do will be very flawed and inaccurate, and then this can "leak over" on to your long games.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Neither of your alternatives is much use for learning anything except bad habits and sloppy thinking.

Bullet chess is completely useless for improvement. Magnus Carlsen might pay better chess than you or I with only 30 seconds on his clock, but he is one of the strongest players of all time. With 1 minute or less for the whole game most players produce pure rubbish.

Five minute chess is not much better. You have to rely mostly on intuition, but unless you are already a very strong player you won't have very good intuition. Yet there isn't time to think through alternative placements of the pieces, nor to calculate deeply. So once again less than masterly players just play junk.

If your only aim is to have fun then play as fast as you like. If you are serious about improving you have to play slow chess. Not only will speed chess not allow you to develop positive knowledge, calculating skills and good intuition but also it will almost certainly get you into bad habits, such as playing the most obvious moves all the time and not making a blunder check after every move.

I reckon that for anyone under 2050 strength (and that includes me) the absolute minimum clock time for a useful learning game is 15 minutes each. But 30 minutes is better and classical time limits (1 hour 40 minutes or 2 hours for 40 - with or without the Fischer increment) are better still.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The accepted answer is completely fine but adding my two cents.

Play a **3+3** games. I think playing games with increment are better for improvement, you could Blitz out moves but also use some think to think and analyze when needed.

Use the time left to quickly go over your Mistakes.

---
Tags: best-practice, time-management
---


title: Statistics on rejected draw offers

text:
# Question
Title: Statistics on rejected draw offers
I am wondering if there are any statistics on rejected draw offers (say of GM games). Namely, what are the following percentages of the following results when a draw offer is declined:

1. The side that offered the draw offer wins.
2. The side that declined the draw offer wins.
3. The game ended as a draw.

Technically there is a fourth result: the game has not ended yet at this moment. We may ignore this case for simplicity. For game with multiple draw offers, we may only consider the first draw offer.

By the way, this statistics may be useful in determining whether it is wiser to accept most draw offers or not. If the side that offers the draw wins more than the side that declines the draw offer, it might be wiser to accept a draw offer in an even game. (Here I am assuming that almost all GM's will not offer a draw if he/she has a clear disadvantage.)

# Answer
> 12 votes
The simplest answer is "No" because draw offers are not retained. By that I mean that although the players may record draw offers on their scoresheets, that information is thrown away when the games are transcribed and saved.

In all events where norms are possible the organizer has to send the records of the games in electronic (pgn) format to FIDE. When the game inputters input a game they do this by using a program like Chessbase or Scid vs PC which gives the ability to enter a game using the mouse. Many of you will be familiar with doing this with your own games.

Adding extra information like draw offers is very time consuming and not a requirement. Hence no game inputters do this. The information is lost. The only time this information survives is when a game is annotated, perhaps by one of the players, using the original scoresheet, but this applies to only a tiny minority of GM games.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As Brian Towers noted, it'd be impossible for over the board GM chess. However, it might be possible to do this analysis on online games, as draw offers are recorded. I am not aware of any analysis about this currently available, but it's definitely possible.

---
Tags: draw, statistics
---


title: How to play around outposts?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play around outposts?
```
[Title "The knight on f5"]
[FEN "1r1qr1k1/2pb1pp1/2np1n1p/ppb1p3/4P2N/2PP2NP/PPB1QPP1/R1B1K2R b KQ - 5 13"]

```

I recently played a Blitz game that perfectly underlines my biggest weakness: I don't know how to handle outposts I cannot get rid of. In the position above, white will plonk a knight on f5 and black cannot do anything about it. Yet, black is fine. Kicking the knight away with g6 never works because h6 will be hanging. The engine suggests expanding in the center with d5 and at some point play b4 to open things on the queenside. That makes sense, of course, but white could just sit there and do nothing. My feeling is that I cannot make progress in this position. And, to be honest, the psychological effect of not having achieved anything while my opponent will get an outpost is also quite significant. Of course, I know that, objectively speaking, black has fine development and a good position. But the fact that I cannot force the center to open and basically have to wait is quite uncomfortable for me (against moves like d5 or b4, white can just refuse to take the pawn, and taking on e4 or c3 myself doesn't feel like it achieves much). So, I have a number of questions regarding this position (and playing around outposts in general):

* How do you play around outposts?
* Do you know any famous grandmaster games that illustrate the concept of playing around an outpost?
* What is black's best plan in the position above?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think the main idea od `.. d5` here is to undermine the outpost. Hence the followup should *not* be a quick `.. d4`, but rather trying to keep pressure on `e4`. I don't like `.. d4` for more than one reason: it makes `Bc5` bad, and it tempts White to `Bc2-b3` returning to the best diagonal. My plan would be:

* `.. d5` motivated as above
* `.. Bf8` to shore up the kingside and to avoid a hit with tempo on `Bc5`
* `.. b4` starting to open lines on queenside and taking aim at White's center from the side
* if White does nothing, `.. a4` and then `.. a3` will break up her pawn chain, eventually gaining the `d4` square for Black. White can counter this by plaing `a3` herself but that creates more scope for Black counterplay on the queenside like maybe `Nf6-d7-c5-b3`.

Now, of course White also moves, and the best use of that will be to cook something up on the kingside. The side who gets there first will rule the game, and that's how it should be. Human compatible, 20th century chess :-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
The easiest way to deal with an outpost is to avoid it in the first place. (Sorry. I hate answers like this, but half of chess is anticipating what your opponent is going to do.) Of course, an outpost on b6 is easier to play around than a more centralized one.

http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky108.pdf is a little article about the second knight becoming superfluous.

In this position, I wouldn't be looking to prevent the knight moving to the outpost, but to provide enough defenders to ensure that a pawn will be forced to recapture. This would involve Ne7 and Kh7. If needed, I would even go so far as to force g6 (with or without h5 and a Ng8 to protect the h6 square. However, more importantly, I don't really see any danger from a knight on f5, so I would play d5 here to put pressure on white's king. I'm more worried about the destruction the white LSB would do on the a2-g8 diagonal.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Nf5 in front of castled king is no normal outpost that you can play around with. It will kill you before you know it. At the very least, it costs you time to calculate Nxh6, Bxh6, Nxg7 and various Q mate threats every single move.

Luckily the knight isn't stable there yet, I would play Ne7 to trade it off the moment it lands there, and of course don't worry about BxN exchange. In blitz games, knights are at least as strong as rooks.

I don't have good knowledge in open games, but general theory says respond in the centre against side attacks, so d5 is probably right, although I don't have a concrete follow up plan.

---
Tags: strategy, planning, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: Confused about timing of cxd5 and dxc4 in the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD)
Recently I've been playing the Queen's Gambit Declined as my primary response to a d4 opening by white. While analyzing past games with engines, I've realized that as the game progresses, there's a point when suddenly whoever plays cxd5 and dxc4 gets a huge advantage. For example, maybe there's position rated -0.6, then it becomes -1.1 on black's turn recommending the pawn exchange, and if black doesn't play it, it suddenly becomes +0.2 for white to take the pawn.

This advantage is seemingly more valuable than developing pieces and seems to drastically change the position. Though it is is important to note the white fianchettoed their bishop on g2, making the position similar to the Catalan, noted by Alexander Woo in the comments section.

Something else I noticed about the position is that if black loses their d pawn, the engine doesn't really care, but if white loses their c pawn, the engine's rating of the position drops from -0.2 to -0.8.

It seems that somehow, before a point in the game, playing this exchange is highly unfavorable, but at a random moment, it becomes very favorable, such as when I develop my queenside knight in any way, the engine suddenly recommends the pawn exchange, which doesn't seem like it does anything.

Could someone who is experienced with or knows a bit of theory please explain to me when this move should be played, its purpose, and its effect? I've checked a few online guides but they only talk about the early moves in the opening and none really elaborate on the purpose and timing for the pawn exchange here.

\[Here\](https://lichess.org/8PIQ8KUh/black is an example game I played of what I'm talking about.

Please ignore my horrible attempt of a kingside attack but the engine starts fixating on the pawn exchange for either side at move 6 for both white and black.

# Answer
In the various standard variations of QGD, the answers to this question are somewhat different, but you should keep in mind Black's main goals. Black's main problem is that they don't have enough good places for all of their bishops and knights. The worst piece is the light-square bishop, but the other minor pieces are also problematic. Hence Black's main goal in the latter stages of the opening are first to exchange off some minor pieces and second to free up the light-square bishop in some way.

Let me start with the Tartakower (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 b6) In this variation, Black tries to put the light-square bishop on the long diagonal. Naturally, black wants to play dxc4 so that the d5 pawn isn't blocking their own bishop. White doesn't want to allow this, so the standard continuation is 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5. The light-square bishop is now free, and Black has managed to exchange one pair of bishops and one pair of knights, but white has managed to prevent Black from putting their bishop on a dangerous open b7-g2 diagonal. (This argument also applies to the Capablanca variation of the Orthodox.)

Next consider the main line of the Orthodox (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5) In this variation, Black is achieving the exchange of a pair of bishops and a pair of knights by moving their knight to d5. They need to move their pawn out of the way in order to achieve this. However, they delay taking this pawn until White has moved their bishop. The point is that this bishop now has to move a second time to retake the pawn, wasting one move. White delays moving the bishop as long as possible, and Black delays taking the pawn as long as possible, but it turns out White runs out of other useful moves before Black does.

In the Lasker (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7 Qxe7), one plan for white is to retake on c3 with the b pawn and exchange off the pawn on c4. This in effect exchanges the b pawn for the e pawn and gives White more pawns in the center, at the cost of giving Black pieces more space. There are some variations with 9. Rc1 that see the pawns stay around for a while. On the other hand, if White plays Bd3, Black can take the pawn and force White to move their bishop a second time.
> 4 votes

# Answer
In the game you linked, after 7 Bg2, 7... dc is almost a free pawn. (In particular, while white can always take the pawn back in QGA or open Catalan, they can't do so nearly as easily in this position.) It's true that black allows e4, and black also opens up the g2 diagonal for white, both of which are positional disadvantages for black. However, while white is sometimes willing to give up a pawn for these advantages in the open Catalan, the bishop on f4 is rather poorly placed for the open Catalan, so taking the pawn puts you in the Open Catalan, but almost one tempo ahead.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: theory, positional-play, pawn-structure, queens-gambit, queens-gambit-declined
---


title: Weakness in the Stonewall setup?

text:
# Question
Title: Weakness in the Stonewall setup?
In the following setup of Stonewall Attack:

```
[FEN ""]
1. c3 null 2. d4 null 3. e3 null 4. f4 null 5. Bd3

```

Wouldn't that make the king vulnerable to diagonal attacks from a bishop or a queen? If yes, what variation of the opening may be used to counter this problem? If no, how? Thanks!

# Answer
I used to play such as white before I got educated...

Well, it is not that bad and on the plus you don't need to learn much or any theory.

There are two possible responses from black which I found quite unpleasant to play this against.

1. If black does not play an early d5, he has the option for a King's Indian setup where you play d6 and e5. So black is directly fighting you **on the dark squares**. IMO the stonewall is almost unplayable in this case.
2. If black uses a standard setup with d5 and develops the bishop to f5 quickly, you end up with weak **light squares** and a bad dark squared bishop. Exchanging the light square bishop on d3 is not something you really want either. Black would typically put pawns on c5, d5, e6, the bishop to f5 and just develop normally.

Because of this you should stay flexible and consider other options depending on what black does. Two popular plans involve fianchetto of either bishop.

With the kingside fianchetto (g3, Bg2) you could go for a King's Indian Attack with early f4. Here you would want to play d3 and e4 eventually.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, kings, stonewall-attack
---


title: Swiss system pairing algorithm stuck

text:
# Question
Title: Swiss system pairing algorithm stuck
I'm building a Swiss System algorithm and have the following scenario. 10 participants. 8 rounds are to be played. Generating round 8, I have three players that haven't played each other. These three players have all played the same other 7 players in the previous 7 rounds of the tournament. For round 8 I can pair two of the three players together and the third wouldn't have anyone to play with, since everyone can only play everyone else once? Is this situation logically possible?

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Is this situation logically possible?

Certainly.

This is one of the known problems with using Swiss pairing when the number of rounds is close to the number of players. It is called "jamming". There is no simple software solution. For a serious tournament you would not use Swiss pairing when (Number of players) \< (number of rounds + 2). Remember a round-robin tournament has (number of players - 1) rounds for an even number of players.

In real life what the arbiter does is check for potential jamming when close to the limit, particularly if there is a group of players who have only played each other. This is a warning sign that jamming is a possibility. In your case in round 7 the arbiter would check the pairing before publishing as follows:

Set all the results to draws and pair the next round. If this works there will be no jamming in this round and the arbiter would rollback the draws he entered to the correct round and publish the pairings. If jamming does occur then he would rollback and manually change the pairings to break up the jammed group of players and then check by setting all draws as before.

---
Tags: swiss-pairing
---


# Question
Title: In this puzzle, why does white play dxe5?
I came across the following puzzle on lichess (black to play):

```
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "1k5r/1pp2q2/p2p2n1/4pp2/2PPP1p1/1P2B1P1/P2Q1P2/2KR4 b - - 0 1"]

1...f4 2.dxe5
    ( 2.Bxf4 exf4 )
2...fxe3 3.Qxe3 dxe5 *

```

Which apparently proceeds as follows:

1. ... f4
2. dxe5 fxe3

f4 is clearly a good move, since both sides have triple protection on the f4 square so black always ends a piece up. What is confusing me, however, is the following move by white – dxe5. This is odd, since fex3 is a queen threat, and hence a forcing move. Stockfish, on the other hand, agrees with dxe5.

Why can white not play Bxf4, simply taking the pawn and also avoiding the queen threat?

# Answer
> 9 votes
It is quite pointless analyzing moves in lost positions.

Here in either line white will lose a bishop for a pawn.

A queen threat is just that, a threat. Why are you so much afraid of it? The game could continue

1. ... f4
2. dxe5 fxe3
3. Qxe3 Nxe5

In the other line you'd have

1. ... f4
2. Bxf4 exf4

Both are very lost positions.

Why the computer picks the first over the second line, who knows (who cares)? Perhaps it prefers it because the white pieces get slightly more space.

In a practical game, other than resigning, my first choice would also be dxe5 for two reasons:

1. gives black the chance to blunder with dxe5 after which white can mate starting with Qd8+
2. it opens the position which gives more chance for swindles for the lost player.

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Good and in-depth books on Queen's Gambit and French Defense?
After following the studying advises of a Chess Stack Exchange fellow (PhishMaster, if you read this, thank you!) I'm about to break 2200 Lichess elo finally. I think it is time to truly and deeply study the openings and defenses I enjoy playing. That is why I'm looking for in-depth books on the QG (or specifically QGD) and French Defense.

I'm not looking for introductory books, or key-ideas-presentations sort of literature; I'm aiming at studying and memorizing lines and variations in depth, for I feel I have come to the point this is necessary to improve my game.

An excellent example of the type of book I want is Pachamn's *Queen's Gambit Declined*, but the problem is the book is clearly outdated and I know many of the lines it presents as solid have been refuted both by the human mind or by the engines (still excellent book, don't get me wrong).

What books of this sort can you recommend me on this openings?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sadler QGD book is fantastic - I know some pretty strong players who don't even play QGD as black (or 1.d4!) who read that book just for the instructive value. Don't use the lines themselves (very old book) as a repertoire if you are \>2200 FIDE (lichess I don't know how to translate but it is probably lower than FIDE) but QGD is more about understanding - get it!

One of best chess books I ever read and I used the understanding I got from this book to make my own QGD repertoire and draw with GMs in tournaments. I stopped using QGD so much when I got a bit higher rated and face a lot of lower rated players - winning as black can be a bit of a slog in the duller lines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am 2300 USCF and I recommend Boris Avrukh's books. His main focus has been the Catalan for some years now but the QGD is well covered.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, study, queens-gambit
---


title: Checkmate via en passant capture

text:
# Question
Title: Checkmate via en passant capture
I tried to get the smallest sequence of moves that would result in a checkmate\*( or rather Helpmate)\* with the last move being a en passant . This is the shortest I could get :

```
[Title "Shortest En Passant Helpmate?"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 f6 2. Qe2 Kf7 3. e5 Ke6 4. Qe4 Nc6 5. Be2 Nb8 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Nb5 Nb8 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. d3 Kf7 10. Nfd4 Nb8 11. Nb3 Nc6 12. Na5 Nb8 13. Nc4 Nc6 14. Nb6 Ke6 15. Bh5 Nb8 16. O-O d5 17. exd6#

```

Is there a shorter way to achieve it or 13 is the limit ?

# Answer
I found one in 8 moves:

```
[Title "Shortest En Passant Helpmate?"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 f6 2. Bb5 Kf7 3. Qe2 Ke6 4. e5 Qe8 5. Qe4 Qf7 6. d4 a6 7. Bf4 d5 8.exd6#

```
> 4 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why is this position stalemate? I'm new to chess
Why is this position stalemate? I'm new to chess and I played white.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Black is not in check (which would make the position checkmate) but black has no legal move. This results in a type of draw known as stalemate.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Stalemate is a situation where the colour that needs to play has no possible or legal way to do it e.g if black moves in your case, he will check himself which is not legal.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Stalemate is a special type of draw or tie that helps the player that is losing! Specifically, it is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check, and that player has no other legal moves to make.

---
Tags: rules, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: What's the plan against Black's kingside fianchetto when playing Queen's pawn game?
I often play 1. d4. In many of the variations that arise, Black decides to castle kingside with the bishop fianchetto.

I do not know what the general plan is in this case. Normally without the fianchetto I would play f4-f5, some kind of Marshall plan or Stonewall formation with the Knight. But when there is a fianchetto I do not know what to play for.

I know the question is vague. But I am looking for strategies from different players with different styles. What to do with a kingside fianchetto when playing 1.d4 and also castling kingside?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can still play a Stonewall Attack when **Black decides to castle kingside with the bishop fianchetto**.

## Black reacts with d5

Here is an example with "normal" moves from Black.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d5 5.Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O Nc6

```

The stonewall attack is a solid opening with grip in the center:

1. White controls the important central squares (`d4`, and `e5`)
2. White can install a knight in `e5` which will force Black to weaken its position if it wants to remove it.
3. White can play this typical manoeuvre to exchange the bad bishop in c1 against the knight in f6 by playing `Bc1-d2-e1-h4`.
4. With a closed center, White can then expand on the king's side with `g4`...

Here is an example with black normal moves that are a bit cooperative!

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d5 5. Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O Nc6 8. Bd2 b6 9. Be1 Bb7 10. Bh4 e6 11. Nbd2 Ne7 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. g4

```

## Black reacts with d6

The setup with `d6` suggested by @user1583209 is very clever. `d6` is a flexible move that allows Black to counter-attack with e5. Here is an example where Black is okay:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 e5

```

I would suggest reacting with `7.e4` instead of `7.c3` like in this game (obtained by transposition)

```
[Title "Gleizerov, Evgeny (2544) vs Das, Arghyadip (2404), Gurgon Op. 2009"]

[FEN ""]
1. f4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. d4 Nf6 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d6 6. O-O Nc6 7. e4 e5 8. d5 Nb4 9. fxe5 dxe5 10. Be3 b6 11. Nc3 Ng4 12. Bg5 Qd6 13. Qe2 h6 14. Bd2 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Bd7 16. h3 Nf6 17. Ne2 Ne8 18. c4 f5 19. Ng3 f4 20. Nh1 Nf6 21. Bc3 Rae8 22. Nf2 g5 23. a3 c5 24. dxc6 Qxd3 25. Nxd3 Bxc6 26. Ndxe5 Bxe4 27. Bb4 Bxf3 28. Bxf8 Bxg2 29. Bxg7 Kxg7 30. Kxg2 Rxe5 31. Rfe1 Rf5 32. b4 h5 33. Rac1 g4 34. hxg4 hxg4 35. c5 f3+ 36. Kf2 Nh5 37. c6 g3+ 38. Ke3 f2 39. Rf1 Rf8 40. c7 Rc8 41. Kf3 Kg6 42. Kg2 Kg5 43. Rfd1 Nf4+ 44. Kf3 Nh5 45. Rc4 Kg6 46. Kg2 Kg5 47. Rd5+ Kg6 48. Rc6+ 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, castling, fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: Creating a Opening Lines Book in ' tree-like' format
I came across this Opening tree graph question where a very elegant Opening tree as displayed.

1. Is there a way I could make a personal opening book in this format? If yes, then which software should (preferentially free) I use?
2. If yes, how do you handle transposition?
3. If no, is there some there some other efficient way of storing personal opening line ?

**Clarification :** Maybe by question was misleading but I was searching for something as a tool to create a opening lines guide by manually entering the moves rather than from a database.

# Answer
Given various tell-tale signs, that graph was almost certainly generated with GraphViz. GraphViz is free, so you can produce similar diagrams yourself by downloading and installing it, or by using an online editor. If you want to mimic the style in the diagram you posted, start with a template that looks like this:

```
digraph chess_openings {
    {
        node [shape=point];
    }
    {
        node [shape=box];
    }
}

```

which creates two groups of nodes: one for positions, which will be shown as points, and one for moves, which will be shown as boxes.

For each of white's moves, you'll have to write code that looks something like this in the second group:

```
p0 -> p0_1e4 [label="Sicilian"]; p0_1e4 [label="1. e4"]; p0_1e4 -> p1;

```

which says that "from Position #0 (`p0`), white can play the Sicilian by moving "1. e4", which will result in Position #1 (`p1`)". Similarly, for black's moves, you'll have to write code that looks like this:

```
p1 -> p1_1c5 [label="Sicilian"]; p1_1c5 [label="1. … c5", style=filled]; p1_1c5 -> p2;

```

which says that "from Position #1, black can play the Sicilian by moving "1. … c5", which will result in Position #2". If you have a live preview running, the position numbers will be visible in the diagram as you write the moves. When you're ready to hide a position, add it to a list in the first group:

```
p0, p1, p2;

```

Below is a transcription of the graph in your question. You can play with the code here.

```
digraph chess_openings {
    {
        node [shape=point];
        p0, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14, p15, p16, p17, p18, p19, p20, p21, p22, p23, p24, p25, p26, p27, p28, p29, p30, p31, p32, p33, p34, p35, p36, p37, p38, p39, p40, p41, p42;
    }
    {
        node [shape=box];
        p0 -> p0_1e4 [label="Sicilian"]; p0_1e4 [label="1. e4"]; p0_1e4 -> p1;
        p1 -> p1_1c5 [label="Sicilian"]; p1_1c5 [label="1. … c5", style=filled]; p1_1c5 -> p2;
        p2 -> p2_2Nf3 [label="Open Sicilian"]; p2_2Nf3 [label="2. Nf3"]; p2_2Nf3 -> p3;
        p3 -> p3_2d6 [label="Mainline"]; p3_2d6 [label="2. … d6", style=filled]; p3_2d6 -> p4;
        p4 -> p4_3d4 [label="Mainline"]; p4_3d4 [label="3. d4"]; p4_3d4 -> p5;
        p5 -> p5_3cxd4 [label="Mainline"]; p5_3cxd4 [label="3. … cxd4", style=filled]; p5_3cxd4 -> p6;
        p6 -> p6_4Nxd4 [label="Mainline"]; p6_4Nxd4 [label="4. Nxd4"]; p6_4Nxd4 -> p7;
        p7 -> p7_4Nf6 [label="Mainline"]; p7_4Nf6 [label="4. … Nf6", style=filled]; p7_4Nf6 -> p8;
        p8 -> p8_5Nc3 [label="Mainline"]; p8_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p8_5Nc3 -> p9;
        p9 -> p9_5e6 [label="Scheveningen"]; p9_5e6 [label="5. … e6", style=filled]; p9_5e6 -> p10;
        p10 -> p10_6Be2 [label="Scheveningen"]; p10_6Be2 [label="6. Be2"]; p10_6Be2 -> p11;
        p11 -> p11_6a6 [label="Scheveningen"]; p11_6a6 [label="6. … a6", style=filled]; p11_6a6 -> p12;
        p9 -> p9_5a6 [label="Najdorf"]; p9_5a6 [label="5. … a6", style=filled]; p9_5a6 -> p13;
        p13 -> p13_6Be2 [label="Najdorf"]; p13_6Be2 [label="6. Be2"]; p13_6Be2 -> p14;
        p14 -> p14_6e6 [label="Najdorf → Scheveningen"]; p14_6e6 [label="6. … e6", style=filled]; p14_6e6 -> p12;
        p9 -> p9_5g6 [label="Dragon"]; p9_5g6 [label="5. … g6", style=filled]; p9_5g6 -> p15;
        p15 -> p15_6Be3 [label="Yugoslav"]; p15_6Be3 [label="6. Be3"]; p15_6Be3 -> p16;
        p15 -> p15_6Be2 [label="Dragon"]; p15_6Be2 [label="6. Be2"]; p15_6Be2 -> p17;
        p9 -> p9_5Nc6 [label="Classical"]; p9_5Nc6 [label="5. … Nc6", style=filled]; p9_5Nc6 -> p18;
        p18 -> p18_6Be2 [label="Classical"]; p18_6Be2 [label="6. Be2"]; p18_6Be2 -> p19;
        p3 -> p3_2Nc6 [label="Kalashnikov"]; p3_2Nc6 [label="2. … Nc6", style=filled]; p3_2Nc6 -> p20;
        p20 -> p20_3d4 [label="Kalashnikov"]; p20_3d4 [label="3. d4"]; p20_3d4 -> p21;
        p21 -> p21_3cxd4 [label="Kalashnikov"]; p21_3cxd4 [label="3. … cxd4", style=filled]; p21_3cxd4 -> p22;
        p22 -> p22_4Nxd4 [label="Kalashnikov"]; p22_4Nxd4 [label="4. Nxd4"]; p22_4Nxd4 -> p23;
        p23 -> p23_4g6 [label="Sveshnikov → Accelerated Dragon"]; p23_4g6 [label="4. … g6", style=filled]; p23_4g6 -> p24;
        p24 -> p24_5Nc3 [label="Accelerated Dragon"]; p24_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p24_5Nc3 -> p25;
        p25 -> p25_5Bg7 [label="Accelerated Dragon"]; p25_5Bg7 [label="5. … Bg7", style=filled]; p25_5Bg7 -> p26;
        p26 -> p26_6Be3 [label="Accelerated Dragon"]; p26_6Be3 [label="6. Be3"]; p26_6Be3 -> p27;
        p23 -> p23_4e5 [label="Kalashnikov"]; p23_4e5 [label="4. … e5", style=filled]; p23_4e5 -> p28;
        p23 -> p23_4Nf6 [label="Sveshnikov"]; p23_4Nf6 [label="4. … Nf6", style=filled]; p23_4Nf6 -> p29;
        p29 -> p29_5Nc3 [label="Sveshnikov"]; p29_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p29_5Nc3 -> p30;
        p30 -> p30_5d6 [label="Sveshnikov → Classic"]; p30_5d6 [label="5. … d6", style=filled]; p30_5d6 -> p18;
        p30 -> p30_5e6 [label="Sveshnikov → Four Knights"]; p30_5e6 [label="5. … e6", style=filled]; p30_5e6 -> p31;
        p23 -> p23_4e6 [label="Sveshnikov → Taimanov"]; p23_4e6 [label="4. … e6", style=filled]; p23_4e6 -> p32;
        p32 -> p32_5Nc3 [label="Taimanov"]; p32_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p32_5Nc3 -> p33;
        p33 -> p33_5Nf6 [label="Taimanov → Four Knights"]; p33_5Nf6 [label="5. … Nf6", style=filled]; p33_5Nf6 -> p31;
        p33 -> p33_5a6 [label="Taimanov"]; p33_5a6 [label="5. … a6", style=filled]; p33_5a6 -> p34;
        p3 -> p3_2e6 [label="Four Knights"]; p3_2e6 [label="2. … e6", style=filled]; p3_2e6 -> p35;
        p35 -> p35_3d4 [label="Four Knights"]; p35_3d4 [label="3. d4"]; p35_3d4 -> p36;
        p36 -> p36_3cxd4 [label="Four Knights"]; p36_3cxd4 [label="3. … cxd4", style=filled]; p36_3cxd4 -> p37;
        p37 -> p37_4Nxd4 [label="Four Knights"]; p37_4Nxd4 [label="4. Nxd4"]; p37_4Nxd4 -> p38;
        p38 -> p38_4Nf6 [label="Four Knights"]; p38_4Nf6 [label="4. … Nf6", style=filled]; p38_4Nf6 -> p39;
        p39 -> p39_5Nc3 [label="Four Knights"]; p39_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p39_5Nc3 -> p40;
        p40 -> p40_5Nc6 [label="Four Knights"]; p40_5Nc6 [label="5. … Nc6", style=filled]; p40_5Nc6 -> p31;
        p38 -> p38_4Nc6 [label="Taimanov"]; p38_4Nc6 [label="4. … Nc6", style=filled]; p38_4Nc6 -> p32;
        p38 -> p38_4a6 [label="Kan"]; p38_4a6 [label="4. … a6", style=filled]; p38_4a6 -> p41;
        p41 -> p41_5Nc3 [label="Kan"]; p41_5Nc3 [label="5. Nc3"]; p41_5Nc3 -> p42;
        p42 -> p42_5Nc6 [label="Kan → Taimanov"]; p42_5Nc6 [label="5. … Nc6", style=filled]; p42_5Nc6 -> p34;
    }
}

```

This is what the output looks like:
> 6 votes

# Answer
https://tailuge.github.io/chess-o-tron/public/openings/openingtree.html and https://www.openingtree.com/ both create something similar from your games on lichess.org. I do not believe they take into account opening names or transpositions.

You could draw this on paper, or you could use a online drawing software such as Lucidchart or Google Drawings.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, software, pgn, open-source
---


# Question
Title: How do chess engines decide which best line to play when the game outcome is within their horizon?
Inspired by the Hot Network Question "In this puzzle, why does white play dxe5?", when a chess engine is in a position that it can definitively call lost, drawn, or won, what policy is used to decide among lines that lead to the same outcome?

In a won position, the answer seems easy: play the line that leads to checkmate fastest. But in a lost or drawn position, the engine's opponent may not realize the situation, so it should continue fighting, ideally playing a complicated line and setting traps in hopes of swindling a draw or win. But it is not clear to me how the code could identify such a line from a game tree and evaluation scores alone.

(In a game with time controls, the answer may be more complicated; I am okay with an answer that ignores considerations of time pressure.)

# Answer
> 20 votes
If the engine can choose between getting mated in 2 or mated in 3, it'll choose the line where it is mated in 3 (even though the mate in 2 might be 'more difficult' to spot for humans).

It can't really set traps, because it doesn't know what things might be difficult to spot for a human (or other engine) opponent. It just evaluates the position, without really knowing it's playing a game against somebody; a notable exception is the implementation of contempt, basically a slight modification of the evaluation in order to prevent drawing too early.

For example, in Stockfish, scores for won or lost positions are computed with the function `mated_in` (and, more rarely, its negated form `mate_in`). As you can see in the code, a loss is scored as a large negative value plus the number of ply until the loss, so the engine favors winning lines that are fast and losing lines that are slow.

The tie-breaking for draws is usually arbitrary. For instance, in Stockfish, scores for drawn positions are either the constant `VALUE_DRAW` or computed by the function `value_draw` to be `VALUE_DRAW` plus or minus one. The bonus depends on the thread's node counter, which is essentially up to luck, so the variations in scores for drawn positions are not really based on the positions themselves. This small bit of noise in draw scoring is more to keep the search from fixating on certain three-fold repetitions than to help it choose among lines.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The other answer is wrong; we **can in fact** program the chess engine to favour traps! As you already noted, when the engine thinks it is winning it should simply choose the best move. So the question is how to aim for the sharpest lines for the opponent when it is losing. This is of course subjective, and depends on the kind of opponent we are pitting it against, but there are a few obvious ways to achieve this.

Firstly, we could compute the best play assuming the opponent makes exactly one mistake (as seen from our game tree). Best play assumes that both players make zero mistakes, but we are aiming to trick the opponent to make a mistake, hence we need to know what are the best lines if the opponent does make a mistake. We now have two evaluation scores for each move X, one for the best play and one for the best play with one opponent mistake. Denote these by E0(X) and E1(X) respectively. We can then combine these two scores by some heuristic to obtain an overall score. The safest heuristic is to choose the move X with E1(X)≥0 such that E0(X) is maximum. This heuristic in fact agrees with choosing the best move X if E0(X)\>0, since E1(X)≥E0(X). A slightly less safe heuristic is to choose the move with E1(X)\>0 such that E0(X) is maximum, which might occasionally choose an inferior move if the best move X has E0(X)=0, in order to try for a win. You can of course design your own heuristic if you want your engine to play more dangerously.

Another way is to incorporate some probabilistic evaluation, by treating opponent play as a random process that occasionally makes mistakes with the distribution of the chosen move depending on the scores of the available moves. I do not think that this is a good general approach, because although it may do well against humans (humans being careless creatures), it is not going to do well against other computer players, as compared to the other approach I gave above.

I also want to emphasize that for this question ("when the game outcome is within their horizon"), any 'hack' such as 'contempt factor' is simply not applicable, because all the terminal nodes in the game tree have known outcomes. Also, many chess engines use a 'contempt factor' instead of the kind of technique I described because it is computationally cheap ('contempt' can be implemented simply as a slightly negative score for a probable forced draw). But if you can already see all the outcomes from a position onwards, it is trivial and costs almost nothing to implement the technique I gave above. The reason it is expensive if the outcome is beyond the search horizon is that, since alpha-beta pruning may prune branches with mistakes, we would frequently need to search substantially more branches to compute E1 correctly.

---
Tags: engines, programming, evaluation, chess-algorithms
---


title: Is Gilbert Guerrero a 2500 US player?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Gilbert Guerrero a 2500 US player?
According to the FIDE website, Gilbert Guerrero is from the US federation and 2500 Elo. I have never heard of this player, who mates GM Campora in ... 11 moves!

Here is the game from Chessgames.com

```
[Title "Gilbert Guerrero vs Daniel Hugo Campora, Lima 1999"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Bc4 e6 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Bd3 d6 8.Qe2 dxe5 9.Qe4?? (9.dxe5+=) Nf6?? (9...f5!-+ 10.Qe2 e4) 10.Qh4 Nd7?? (10...exd4! 11. Bg5 g6-+) 11.Qxh7#1-0

```
1. Could we assume that Gilberto Guerrero is actually Hernandez Guerrero, Gilberto? Here is his Wikipedia page.
2. Did Hernandez Guerrero, Gilberto ever play for the US?
3. Has the game been played in classical time control? This game looks like a joke!

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Could we assume that Gilberto Guerrero is actually Hernandez Guerrero, Gilberto?

We could but we would very likely be wrong.

First a word on how FIDE allocates FIDE numbers. FIDE doesn't allocate individual numbers to players. Instead it allocates ranges of numbers to individual federations.

Gilbert Guerrero's FIDE number is 2012707 and was allocated by the US federation.
Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero's FIDE number is 5100011 and was allocated by the Mexico federation.

For that to happen the same player would need to have registered with each federation resulting in one player with two FINs. Now that did happen in the early days and so is a possibility but is unlikely.

According to his Olimpbase records Gilbert Guerrero's only FIDE rated games were 12 games played in the second half of 1996 which gave him a rating of 2500.

Checking the Olimpbase data for 1997 for other players called Guerrero we see only one other, a Spanish player called Manuel Gomez Guerrero. He also has FIN 2207893, which is different from Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero, who has FIN 5100011, so not the same player.

The next step is to find, from Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero's FIDE profile what the details are for his earliest recorded result in FIDE's published data. To do that, in his profile, click on "Click to view All previous periods" under "Individual Calculations". There scroll to the bottom to see that there is an entry for July 2001. Clicking on that we see that the entry is for "Hernandez, Gilberto".

There are two possibilities here.

1. He changed his name some time since 2001
2. There are two players with different names but the Mexican federation re-used the FIN when one of the players died. By the way, the English Chess Federation did this with Tony Miles' FIN when he died! So, it can happen even with great players.

OK, back to the Olimpbase files to check on Hernandez, Gilberto. The Olimpbase records for this player go back to 1987 and the FIN is 5100011, the same as Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero.

Are Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero and Gilberto Hernandez the same player? Probably. They are the same federation. Maybe he did change or correct his name just before July 2006. The ratings match up before and after with no big jump. Furthermore it is very unlikely that a GM had a change of FIN like that in 2006.

Regarding the Campora game, here are his olimpbase records. He was 2543 in the July 1999 list and 2534 in the Jan 2000 list. Even playing blitz blindfold and drunk he would not have made those moves.

Apropos the reuse of Tony Miles' FIN. From his Olimpbase records you can see that his FIN was 403385. Today the player with that FIN is Andrew F Footner. Check his rating history and see that apparently he had results in the October 2001 list. Except the player listed is Tony Miles! There are no more results until January 2007 which are for Andrew F Footner.

---
Tags: history, famous-players, master-games
---


title: How do I know what chess books to buy?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I know what chess books to buy?
I have a lot of my own chess games in pgn format, Im wondering if there is a tool that examines my games and suggests what books I should buy to improve?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Full disclosure: I am answering my own question. I recently finished the alpha version of an app that maps chess games to diagrammed positions in chess books (https://www.thechesscite.com/).

The primary goals is to help you to make better choices about what books to buy and to help chess authors cite their colleagues. My other goal is to streamline how you study chess.

See more on the site. I’m still very early in development but have a lot of features planned. Hopefully I’ll see a little interest from the chess community and grow the tool over time. Would be happy to take feedback; however, be aware there are some minor quality of life issues I already know about, and I am a one person team. I'm eager to share this tool even if it's just getting started.

---
Tags: books
---


title: What is this formation called?

text:
# Question
Title: What is this formation called?
I recently came across this formation at random. I vaguely remember reading about it around a decade ago. I want to know if this is a known play.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/2NPPN2/PPPBBPPP/2RQKR2 w - - 0 1"]

```

Even though pieces are White, I'm not claiming that it's a White/Black only formation. It's just to give you an idea.

I had a chat with a friend. It certainly had a slow play, the b and g are, pawns at risk, and there is no clear indication as to how to move forward once this is achieved. However, for the sake of knowing what it is, it'd be great if you could help.

# Answer
In this question the formation is referred to as a "turtle formation", although that's in the context of Bughouse. I've also personally heard it referred to that way in the context of Bughouse when playing over the board (although not with the rooks moved to those squares.)

Bughouse aside, there's a lot wrong with doing things this way. The bishops are blocked in. The queen is blocked in. The rooks are not connected and are stuck behind pawns that can't even move because the knights are there. The king is stuck in the middle; he can't ever castle because both rooks moved. Almost no space has been gained. It takes 8 moves to obtain this position, giving the opponent lots of time to complete their development while putting no pressure at all on them. On the plus side, your opponent might not know how to deal with such an unfamiliar formation.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: terminology, defense, patterns, fortress
---


title: Games where a pawn checkmates the king

text:
# Question
Title: Games where a pawn checkmates the king
Could you please refer some examples of game where, on the last move, a pawn checkmates the king (preferably from grandmaster's games)?

# Answer
One amazing game I know that ends in a pawn mate in one called The Polish Immortal in which Black sacrifices all four minor pieces to win the game! The pawn does a double-step to give the mate.

```
[Title "Glucksberg-Miguel Najdorf, Warsaw Poland, 1929, The Polish Immortal"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O 8.Ne2 Nbd7 9.Ng5 Bxh2+ 10.Kh1 Ng4 11.f4 Qe8 12.g3 Qh5 13.Kg2 Bg1 14.Nxg1 Qh2+ 15.Kf3 e5 16.dxe5 Ndxe5+ 17.fxe5 Nxe5+ 18.Kf4 Ng6+ 19.Kf3 f4 20.exf4 Bg4+ 21.Kxg4 Ne5+ 22.fxe5 h5#

```

Although it was a blitz game, this game ends in a nice discovered checkmate by a pawn.

```
[Title "Ely Sollano-Fedrick Rhine, Chicago USA, 1977"]
 [FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 c5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. dxc5 d4 6. Ne4 Bf5 7. Ng3 Bxc5 8. Nxf5 Qa5+ 9. c3 dxc3 10. b4 Bxb4 11. Qc2 Qxf5 12. Qxf5 c2#

```

Another pawn move that results in checkmate is promotion. While there are many such games that end with it, this game has a unique perk in that the mating move was done by the pawn that made the first move.

```
[Title "Bojan Kurajica-Michael Franklin, Hastings England, 1972"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.g3 a6 7.Bg2 Nf6 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Bf4 d6 11.Qd2 h6 12.Rad1 e5 13.Be3 Bg4 14.Bxc5 dxc5 15.f3 Be6 16.f4 Rd8 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.c4 O-O 20.Rfe1 Rfe8 21.Qc2 Re7 22.Bxe4 Ne8 23.Bd3 Nd6 24.Re5 Rde8 25.Rde1 f6 26.R5e2 Kf8 27.Re6 Rxe6 28.dxe6 Ke7 29.Bf1 Kd8 30.Bg2 Qa5 31.Qf2 Ke7 32.b3 Nf5 33.Bxb7 Nd4 34.Bd5 Rd8 35.Rd1 Qb6 36.Qe3 a5 37.Qe4 a4 38.Qg6 axb3 39.Qf7+ Kd6 40.e7 Rd7 41.e8=N#

```

Another mating move that has actually happened is checkmate by en passant! Here is that earliest known and most beautiful known example of it.

```
[Title "Gunner Gundersen-A. H. Faul, Pietzcker Christmas Tournament, Melbourne Australia, 1928"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Bxh7+ Kxh7 10. Ng5+ Kg6 11. h4 Nxd4 12. Qg4 f5 13. h5+ Kh6 14. Nxe6+ g5 15. hxg6#

```

Lastly, although it is not from a game, here is a very pretty chess problem in which White sacrifices all eight pieces and and two pawns to give mate with a pawn!

```
[Title "Julio César Infantozzi, Mate In 16 Moves"]
[FEN "R1n2N2/4pk1B/2Q1r2B/2K2b2/Rr1n2P1/1q1P1PP1/4N2b/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe8+ Kxe8 2. Rxc8+ Kf7 3. Bg8+ Kxg8 4. Ng6+ Kh7 5. Rh8+ Kxg6 6. Nf4+ Kf6 7. Rf8+ Ke5 8. Bg7+ Rf6 9. Bxf6+ exf6 10. Re8+ Ne6+ 11. Rxe6+ Qxe6 12. Ng6+ Bxg6  13. f4+ Rxf4 14. gxf4+ Bxf4 15. Re4+ Bxe4 16. d4

```
> 32 votes

# Answer
A beautiful, more recent, game between Svilder and Carlsen:

```
[Title "Svidler - Carlsen, GRENKE Chess Classic, 2019"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Bc4 Be7 5.d3 d6 6.Nd2 Nf6 7.Nf1 Nd7 8.Nd5 Nb6 9.Nxb6 axb6 10.c3 O-O 11.Ne3 Bg5 12.O-O Kh8 13.a3 f5 14.Nxf5 Bxc1 15.Rxc1 Bxf5 16.exf5 d5 17.Ba2 Rxf5 18.Qg4 Rf6 19.f4 exf4 20.Qg5 Qf8 21.Qxd5 Rd8 22.Qf3 Ne5 23.Qe4 Ng4 24.Rce1 Ne3 25.Rf2 Re8 26.Qxb7 g5 27.Rfe2 g4 28.Rf2 Qh6 29.Qc7 Ref8 30.h3 gxh3 31.g3 fxg3 32.Rxf6 h2+ 33.Kh1 g2#

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, pawns, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Why is the engine evaluating against bringing more attackers in this position?
```
[FEN "r2qk2r/pQpbbppp/n2p1n2/3Pp3/4P3/2N1BN2/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

This position is evaluated at +6.4l but if I capture with the Bishop *(Bxa6)* it drops down to +0.8.

Why does the evaluation drop when I make that move?

```
[Title "AKP2002-moisturiser, 600+5 Rated Rapid game, lichess.org, 4/21/2020"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 d6 4. d5 Nb8 5. Nc3 Bg4 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Qd3 Be7 8. Qb5+ Bd7 9. Qxb7 Na6 10. Bxa6 Qb8 11. Qxb8+ Rxb8 12. O-O-O c6 13. Ng5 cxd5 14. exd5 Nxd5 15. Nxd5 Bf6 16. Nc7+ Kf8 17. Ne4 Bd8 18. Nd5 Bc6 19. Bxa7 Ra8 20. Bb8 Rxa6 21. Bxd6+ Ke8 22. Nc7+ Bxc7 23. Bxc7 Ke7 24. Bd6+ Ke6 25. Nc5+ Kf5 26. Nxa6 Rc8 27. Rhe1 Re8 28. Nc7 Rd8 1-0

```

Why isn’t capturing with the Bishop good, since it brings more attackers into play, and is hence better move?

# Answer
> Why is the engine evaluating against bringing more attackers in this position?

That's not what it is doing. It is evaluating against blundering a draw. After Rb8 your queen has nowhere to go apart from allowing a repetition. If you play Qxa6 you are just a piece and a pawn up for no compensation.

```
[FEN "r2qk2r/pQpbbppp/n2p1n2/3Pp3/4P3/2N1BN2/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Bxa6 (1. Qxa6) Rb8 2. Qxa7 Ra8 3. Qb7 Rb8=

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: engines, candidate-move
---


# Question
Title: Please help solve this endgame problem posed by a friend
```
[FEN "5K2/k7/4P1p1/8/8/8/4b3/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

A friend of mine is challenging me to find a solution. It’s White to play and DRAW.

# Answer
White is one tempo short of catching the pawn - if White could make two moves immediately it would be a draw as white would just take the black pawn. But they can't, so white has to find a threat which black has to respond to which gains them that move. The only threat they can make is to queen their pawn, and apparently black can stop that with their bishop by moving it to b5. But ... if white can combine moving their king toward the queening square with attacking the bishop, and hence threatening to queen the white pawn, they can gain the tempo. This suggests moving the king towards the queening square via c5, because the king on c5 can attack a bishop on b5 that is stopping the white pawn queen. At that point Black will have to move their bishop or protect it, and white gains the tempo they need. Putting this together leads us to the following - note the move order also means that the black pawn interferes with the Black Bishop's movement, stopping it get to h5 which would be the other square it could use to stop the white pawn queening

```
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "5K2/k7/4P1p1/8/8/8/4b3/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ke7 g5 2.Kd6 g4 3.e7 Bb5 4.Kc5 Ka6 5.Kd4 g3 6.Ke3 g2 7.Kf2 Bc6 8.e8=Q
Bxe8 9.Kxg2 1/2-1/2

```

If you like this kind of thing have a look at The Reti study which is a more famous relation of this problem. It also turns out that this problem was composed by Reti himself.
> 39 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, problems, draw
---


title: How to Become a FIDE Master

text:
# Question
Title: How to Become a FIDE Master
I was wondering what skills, abilities, and knowledge is needed to reach consistent 2300 FIDE elo and therefore become a FIDE Master. Now, I'm not asking about the innate abilities, but those which you can acquire by practice and study:

A pretty simple list:

* Have a decent knowledge on most/or all of the typical openings, and be very good at one (or more) for each side.
* Have a deep positional/technical game, having memorize and understand grand masters games, so you develop an intuition of the position.
* Knowledge of the endgames. Pretty important. How the positions are going to be simplify and the chances in both sides.
* Tactics.

# Answer
> 6 votes
There are 3 key things you need to do.

1. First and most important you must love chess so much that you feel you must play chess every day.
2. Play a lot of serious (preferably competition) over-the-board chess at a slow (standard, not rapid or blitz) time control.
3. Analyse your games in depth without an engine. If you use an engine you are cheating yourself just as much as using an engine in a real game cheats your opponent. Ideally you would have a study partner with whom you could go over your analysis, explaining what you found in your moves and your opponent's moves.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Let me build on @Brian Towers' answer: Love, Play and Analyze! But let me add some points.

1. **Love Chess.** because you'll need it to **train** a lot and go through your list.

> GM Shipov suggests that the main requirement for success at chess is to be 100% dedicated and interested in the game. If you just a little interested, you will not be able to make serious progress.

2. **Play Chess.** Competition is indeed crucial. **Play competitively** over-the-board and online. Blitz and rapid games may help you practice and test openings. But it is true that classic games (90 min/40 moves + 30 min and increment) are the most important, as you will devote on average about four hours playing chess and thinking. In his book Deep Thinking, Gary Kasparov writes that a player is so concentrated during a game that the quality of her/his analysis is even better than in post-mortem. An addition: choose your tournaments to face **stronger opponents**. You will learn from them.

> GM Kazhgaleyev writes that in order to improve at chess you need to play more tournament games, study classics, solve tactics and endgame studies as well as be passionate about chess in general. That's how you can get to that 2200-2300 Elo.

3. **Analyze Chess.** But the most important thing is to **analyze the losses** because they will give you the feedback you need to improve. We loose because we make mistakes, at least the last one! After each game, write down your ideas and your analysis, the ones you had during the game. Then you can use a computer to check your analysis. The computer or a coach will help you identify your mistakes. You will improve by not repeating them.

> GM Shipov believes in importance of deep analysis of your own games and ability to judge yourself fairly. If you lose a game, don’t think that it’s because of that silly move you played, find the real cause and improve!

Quotes are from How to Reach 2200 ELO – According to GM Tkachiev... not too far from the FIDE Master level...

---
Tags: fide
---


# Question
Title: Which steps were blunders and inconsistencies?
This is the pgn of the game. The engine said that white made a blunder and some inconsistencies. But I can't spot them. Can you help me to find them?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 f5 4. Nc3 f4 5. O-O g5 6. d3 g4 7. Ne1 Nc6 8. h3 gxh3 9. Qh5+ Kd7 10. Qf5+ Ke8 11. Bf7+ Ke7 12. Nd5# 1-0

```

# Answer
Generally, black:

* neglected development
* weakened the light squares around the king

White should have opened the position with moves like d4 or even Nxe5 sometimes.

Opening the position is a standard theme in case your opponent neglects development and you can even sacrifice material to do so. This game is a good example of that.

It is worth it learning the common tactics that would have been possible at move 5 starting with Nxe5.

In summary you should take out of this game:

1. the theme with Nxe5, Qh5+ which is possible at several points
2. if a player neglects development, opening the position is almost always good

I annotated your game below. Have a look.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 f5? { too soon. Black should develop some pieces first } 4. Nc3!? { Ok-ish, but white could take advantage of black's underdevelopment by opening the position with d4. } (4. d4 fxe4 { not the best move, but in any case white will open the position and have a clear advantage because of development. } 5. Nxe5! { Making use of a well known tactics which can often be used against opponents playing an early f4 or f5. } 5... dxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qxe5+ { winning the rook }) 4... f4 { Why? Development was asked for! } (4... Nf6)  (4... fxe4 5. Nxe5 dxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 (6... Ke7 7. Qxe5+ Kd7 8. Qe6#)  (6... Kd7 7. Qf5+ Kc6 8. Qxe4+ { and a very strong attack }) 7. Qxe5+ { winning the rook }) 5. O-O { From a positional point of view this is questionable because white is basically castling into the attack / pawn storm of black. Might consider long castle instead. In any case the same tactics as before also works here (basically if somebody plays e5 and f5 and the f pawn is not anymore on f5 this tactics is always an option. Of course also works for reversed colors with e4, f4) } (5. Nxe5 dxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 (6... Ke7 7. Qxe5+ Kd7 8. Qe6#)  (6... Kd7 7. d4 { and a very strong attack }) 7. Qxe5+ { winning the rook }) 5... g5?? { Looks very dangerous because without the knight on f3, Qh5+ looks terrible for black. } 6. d3 { too timid. Yet again white should open the position with d4. The computer says that white can even give a knight in order to take advantage of the open position. } (6. d4 g4 7. dxe5! gxf3 8. Qxf3 { and white is clearly better as black cannot defend against all the checks along the light colored diagonals. }) 6... g4 7. Ne1 Nc6 8. h3? { Playing for tricks (which worked). However objectively this is an awful move to make. Generally defending against a pawn storm is easier if the pawns remain on one line. By playing h3 white is voluntarily opening the position around the castled king (not immediately but soon), which is very dangerous. This is even true if there was no black pawn on g4 yet. } (8. d4! { Not obvious move, but works because of tactics. Notice how much space white suddenly gets: The knight can go to d3, the bishop has potential to f4... For a good player this is a common theme: Open the position if your opponent is not developed. } 8... Nxd4 (8... exd4 9. Nd5 { and white will get the d4 pawn and is better because of better development }) 9. Bxf4 { and white is better }) 8... gxh3?? { Final mistake. It is a forced mate in 3 now. } (8... h5 { And black is clearly better. White's position is very cramped and the king in danger of attack with ideas like Qh4... })  (8... Nf6 { Should also be much better for black, because white cannot free himself and the king will be under attack soon. }) 9. Qh5+ Kd7 10. Qf5+ Ke8 11. Bf7+ { There was a mate in one. } (11. Qf7#) 11... Ke7 12. Nd5# *

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, learning, online-chess, blunder
---


# Question
Title: On what basis were players chosen to compete in the Magnus Carlsen Invitational 2020?
In the Magnus Carlsen Invitational 2020, Magnus Carlsen invited 7 of the world’s best players to compete with him in the first professional online chess tournament. However, I wasn’t able to find an explanation of why Magnus selected these particular players.

My initial thought was that he would more-or-less invite players from the 2020 Candidates Tournment. However, Wang Hao and Alexander Grischuk, who qualified for the Candidates Tournament, did not participate in the Magnus Carlsen Invitational. Alireza Firouzja, who was invited to the Magnus Carlsen Invitational, did not play in the Candidates Tournament.

My second thought was that Magnus would choose the top-rated players. This turned out not to be true, since, in April 2020, Alexander Grischuk, who was not invited, was #6 while Anish Giri, who was invited, was #10.

My final thought was that perhaps Carlsen just invited his friends. But this doesn’t seem to be the case, since, e.g., there seems to have been some friction between Carlsen and Giri.

On what basis did Carlsen invite players to this tournament?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Magnus Carlsen had the major saying in the selection. There was no "objective" qualification of any kind, besides the hope to create an interesting line-up.

Firouzja was included because he beat Carlsen in the Banter Blitz Cup, so a "rematch" would attract many viewers.

Disclosure: I work for chess24. I wasn't involved in the decision process, and I can't publish everything I know about this.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Tania Sachdev asked Carlsen about his exact involvement in his eponymous tournament here around 4:41:40. Carlsen responded that he was involved

* in the format, and especially the 4 games format, and
* in the **choice of the players**. He added with a big smile "otherwise Anish \[Giri\] would have not been part of the tournament"!

Chess24 and PlayMagnus were also in charge.

---
Tags: tournament, online-chess, famous-players, online, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Why is Be6 a better move than Bh5 in this position?
Original position:  After Bh5 (move I think is better because of the threat to the queen if pawn moves):  After Be6 (move recommended by the engine):

# Answer
As the engine is telling you, after

1. .... Bh5
2. g4 Bg6
3. h4 h5 (basically forced to make space for the bishop; h6 is much worse because white will have the option to open your kingside with g5 and mate you (eventually))
4. g5 Ne8 (or Nh7 which is worse)
5. Qb5

is a double attack on b7 and d5, which you cannot defend both.

White will simply win a pawn which explains the ca. +1 evaluation.

With 1... Be6 you avoid this whole line.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Not only do you lose a pawn as previous answers told, but there's a strategic idea behind this too. What characterizes the position you gave is that it has opposite-side castles. On this positions, players try to pawn-storm their opponents and break their opponent's king position. With Bh5 you are giving your opponent the chance to start a pawn storm **with tempo**, which means you are basically allowing him to make his desired moves "for free" and succeeding easily on his plan.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


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

See my question about vertical checkmates..

# Answer
I know this thread is old, but here is my improvement to kingside castling-8.0 moves. Black even has to do one useless waiting move (Ng4).

```
[FEN ""]
1. e3 e5 2. Ke2 c5 3. Kd3 Bd6 4. Ke4 Nh6 5. Kd5 Ng4 6. Kxd6 Qf6+ 7. Kc7 Qb6+ 8. Kxc8 O-O#

```

Queenside castling can be proven to be impossible in 8.0.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Kingside castling, 8.5 moves (fastest; no way for a king to reach the last rank any faster than this.)

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2. b4 Kd7 3. Nh3 Kc6 4. Bb5+ Kxb5 5. Nc3+ Kxb4 6. Ba3+ Kxa3 7. Qh5 Kb2 8. Qb5+ Kxa1 9. O-O#

```

Queenside castling: 8.5 moves (again, fastest.)

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 e6 2. g4 Ke7 3. Na3 Kf6 4. Bg5+ Kxg5 5. Nf3+ Kxg4 6. Bh3+ Kxh3 7. Qd3 Kg2 8. Qg6+ Kxh1 9. O-O-O#

```

There you have it. The theoretical fastest is 8.0 moves if you try to let black deliver mate instead of white, but I couldn't find a way to set up the mating net or to avoid locking the king out. Feel free to try.
> 4 votes

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


title: Opening preparation

text:
# Question
Title: Opening preparation
I have observed that I can beat the Lichess computer at level 5 most of the time if I use the computer hint function for the first 13 moves (basically the opening). If I do not so, I end up losing 6 out of 10 games. That means there’s a problem with the opening.

Should I remember all variations until move 13, or should I prepare in some other way? I have only played around 40 games in my life as I have being doing tactics for 2 months.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Learn what is known as the basic opening principles, and apply them to your game. Since you're a beginner, memorization of long opening lines is a wasted effort at this stage of your chess development, and will not help you in the long run.

In short, the basic opening principles can be described as working towards accomplishing three main goals.

1. Fight for control over the central squares (e4,e5,d4,d5).
2. Get your pieces out from their starting positions.
3. Get your king to safety.

The reason for trying to fight for the center is that this will give you more space to use for your pieces.

The reason for trying to get your pieces out from their starting positions is that pieces that are just sitting on the sidelines of the board tend to be useless spectators.

Finally, the reason for trying to get your king to safety is of course because the king is the one piece that you need to protect at all costs.

So, how do you accomplish these goals successfully? In truth, there is no easy set of rules that is going to bring you success in every possible game, but there are some good and easy to follow guidelines, which I will go over below.

1. Begin by pushing a central pawn forward. If you're white, either 1.e4 or 1.d4 are excellent moves to begin the game. If you're black, I'd recommend that you respond to 1.e4 with 1...e5, and to 1.d4 with 1...d5. Other moves are also fine, but I'd recommend these since they are easier to remember. With this first move, you fight for control of central squares, and you're opening up for one of your bishops to be developed.
2. Bring out your knights to f3 and c3 (as white) or f6 and c6 (as black). This way your knights are developed from their starting positions, and they are also fighting for control over squares in the center.
3. Now it's time to develop your bishops. If you can without losing them, bringing them out to the 4th or 5th ranks may be best, as they are often quite active there, looking down at the opponent's position. Developing the bishops to the 2nd and 3rd ranks are often a bit more solid options.
4. At this stage, if everything has worked out as outlined above, you should be able to put your king to safety by castling. If you are unsure whether you want to play short or long castling, you may move your queen out of the way.
5. Finally, it's time to connect your rooks by moving your queen out of the way, and after this it is often a good idea to place your rooks along open files, or behind a pawn you intend to push forward soon.

After this, you should have a playable middlegame position in most cases, which is what you want as a beginner. Finally, I'd like to try to explain why I've recommended you play the opening in this particular order most of the time.

Hopefully it is clear that the point of beginning by moving a central pawn forward is because we're trying to be efficient when trying to fulfill our opening goals. Note that I'm advocating that you focus on getting your pieces out rather than making a bunch of pawn moves in the opening. This is an important thing to remember: if you waste your time moving pawns in the opening with no clear objective, your opponent will finish their development first and will therefore be able to coordinate their pieces into launching an assault on your position before you can do the same to them. This is not good, trust me on that.

Secondly, the reason I'm advocating that you develop your knights before your bishops is because it can be difficult to know exactly where you most want your bishops at an early stage. In contrast, your knights will stand well on f3 and c3 (or f6 and c6 as black) in most cases. Thus, by waiting a bit before committing, it may become easier to decide where the bishops are best placed if you don't rush it. On the other hand, if you know where the bishops are headed, there is nothing inherently wrong with bringing one of them out before both knights are developed.

A third point I'd like to highlight is that I'm advocating that you wait with developing your queen until after you've developed your knights and bishops. This is because the queen is way more valuable, and therefore more vulnerable, than the minor pieces; if your queen develops early, and your opponent develops one of their minor pieces by attacking your queen, you will have to move the queen again, thus wasting time.

As a last point, I'd like to emphasize that these guidelines I've posted are not a recipe for success in every possible scenario. Remember that you're playing against an opponent that is not going to cooperate and let you execute your plans in peace. Sometimes they might force you to react to threats, so be alert and make sure that you don't drop pieces and/or pawns just so that you can follow the guidelines posted above.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, preparation
---


title: What is the Sicilian Cochrane Attack?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the Sicilian Cochrane Attack?
In my club and local tournaments, opponents playing White often do an early Bc4 when I start a Sicilian. Usually I begin an Old Sicilian, eg 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6. My opponents may play Bc4 on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th move. A recent example is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. Usually my UCI or engines code this as B20, aka the Sicilian Cochrane Attack.

I searched for. detailed ECO listings, but I couldn’t find this under B20, or anywhere else. Web searches revealed that John Cochrane played 5. Bc4 in a Petrov variation and 4. Bc4 in a variation of the King's Gambit. I also couldn’t find anything about Bc4 in the Sicilian.

So, what is Sicilian Cochrane Attack?

# Answer
John Cochrane is known for his dashing and creative playing style – liberally sacrificing pieces and always attacking. He played an early `Bc4` against many openings including the Sicilian. Here are 3 examples against Howard Staunton, regarded as the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851. These games may explain the origin of the name **Sicilian Cochrane Attack**.

## On the 2nd move

```
[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 exf4 5.O-O g5 6.d4 cxd4 7.c3 Bc5 8.cxd4 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qb6 10.Kh1 Bxd4 11.Nc3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ne7 13.g3 d5 14.Bxd5 Bh3 15.Qh5 Bxf1 16.Qxf7+ Kd8 17.Ba3 Re8 18.Rd1 Be2 19.Bc6+ Bxd1 20.Qxe8+ 1-0

```

## On the 3rd move

```
[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Bc4 e5 4.f4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Qe2 Be7 7.O-O d6 8.Ng5 O-O 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.Qf3 h6 11.Nxf7 Rxf7 12.Qg3 Na5 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14.Qxe5 Nc4 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Qe2 Ne5 17.Bf4 d3 18.Qd2 Nxe4 19.Qe1 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Qd4 21.Nc3 Bf5 22.Bxe5 Nf2+ 23.Rxf2 Qxf2 24.Qxf2 Bxf2 25.cxd3 Bxd3 26.Rd1 Re8 27.Rxd3 Rxe5 1/2-1/2

```

## On the 4th move

```
[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 h6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.h3 Qc7 9.hxg4 Qxc4 10.Nxe5 Qxd5 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bf4 O-O 13.Re1 Re8 14.c4 Qa5 15.Bd2 Qc7 16.Nd3 Rxe1+ 17.Bxe1 Qxc4 18.Qf3 Nc6 19.Bd2 Re8 20.g5 hxg5 21.Bxg5 Nb4 22.Bf4 Bxf4 23.Nxf4 Qc1+ 24.Kh2 Qxb2 0-1

```
> 6 votes

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


title: Getting better at OTB chess

text:
# Question
Title: Getting better at OTB chess
I live in a small town where there had been a total of 2 tournaments during last 5 years and 0 chess clubs, hence I have almost nil experience playing OTB chess. But sometimes I set up a board and play with my family. I have noticed that I miss a lot of tactics and obvious mates which I couldn't have missed while playing on Lichess. Also, I can't calculate properly OTB. I am shifting to the national capital this year where hopefully I would get to participate in OTB tournaments.

Is it a normal problem for those who play predominately online chess? How do I go about improving my OTB play?

# Answer
> 9 votes
One suggestion I have seen for how to improve learning when studying openings and tactics is to involve the other senses. This involves not just using sight, looking at the position on a computer, but also setting up the position on the board and playing through it (touch) and (for openings) saying the moves out loud (hearing) as you play them.

I was a bit sceptical when I read this but your experience backs this up. The obvious way to address this problem is to follow the advice and set up tactics problems on a real board so you practice "over the board".

---
Tags: learning, online-chess, psychology, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why is 15.cxd6 better than 15.cxb6 here?
In Radjabov vs. Gelfand (2013):

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qb6 7.Nb3 Ne5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qe2 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Bg2 e5 14.c5 b6 15.cxd6 Qxd6 16.O-O O-O 17.f5 Rd8 18.Rfd1 Qa3 19.Rxd8+ Nxd8 20.Bg5 Ba6 21.Qd2 Qe7 22.Rd1 Nb7 23.Bf3 Rd8 24.Qc1 Rxd1+ 25.Bxd1 Nd6 26.Bxf6 gxf6 27.Qe3 Qc7 28.a4 Qd7 29.a5 Nxe4 30.Bc2 Qb5 31.Qf3 Ng5 32.Qg2 bxa5 0-1

```

On move 15, White plays 15.cxd6 instead of 15.cxb6. Why? I can see two reasons to prefer the latter:

1. It preserves a weak pawn on d6 (and by extension a weak square on d5).
2. It makes a new isolated pawn on b6 that's on a semi-open file too.

It seems to me that the obvious plan is 15.cxb6 intending O-O, Rfd1 and Rab1, etc. However, Radjabov didn't play this, and Stockfish doesn't like it either; at depth 24 it says 15.cxd6 is 0.00, but 15.cxb6 is -0.80. What's wrong with taking on b6?

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are a few ways White is at a disadvantage here that I found:

* Black’s dominance in the center.
* The active black knights.
* White is left with 3 pawn islands, which is never considered good.

Look at White’s pieces here-no really good moves are available. The knight can't move up and come into play. The rooks are undeveloped/have no open files to dominate. The bishops don't have room to move freely, and the same goes for the queen.

```
    [Event "?"]
    [Site "?"]
    [Date "?"]
    [Round "?"]
    [White "?"]
    [Black "?"]
    [Result "?"]

    [FEN ""]
        1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qb6 7.Nb3 Ne5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qe2 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Bg2 e5 14.c5 b6 15. cxb6 axb6 16. O-O O-O

```

If you continue with this all hell breaks loose for White:

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "?"]

[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qb6 7.Nb3 Ne5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qe2 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Bg2 e5 14.c5 b6 15. cxb6 axb6 16. O-O Ba6 17. c4 Nd4

```

Bxc4 is always coming, Ng4 is possible at some point, and Nc2 is a possibility. You can always bring the Queen to c2 to force an exchange of material. White's light squared bishop is still not helping much. Don't forget about the dominating center pawns. If you play on you'll definitely find Black up by material.

I will not say "always take towards center,” but it does help you most of the time.

# Answer
> 3 votes
```
[title "Radjabov- Gelfand, London 2013"]

[FEN ""]

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qb6 7.Nb3 Ne5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qe2 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Bg2 e5 14.c5 b6!N

```

With the novelty `14... b6!` Gelfand shows all his class. According to the official website Gefand said

> "Mostly great preparation, it's my strong quality. Any computer would show you c5"

The move `14...b6` goes with the move `13...e5`. Gelfand likes "**the concept** because it cuts two pieces." The Bishop in g2 becomes very passive and the Knight in b3 is deprived from its natural square in d4.

From now on white has to come up with concrete ideas and find counterplay to maintain the game balance. Otherwise, it could be quickly worse as in the game.

## Taking in b6

At first glance, taking in `b6` looks weird. On general principle, we don't want

* to exchange an active pawn (`c5`) against a passive pawn (`a7`).
* to open the `a` line for free
* to give the square `a6` for the bishop.

On a more concrete note, taking in b6 create two weaknesses `d6` and `b6`. In particular, White can target the `b6` pawn, like in the following variation

```
[title "After taking in b6"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g3 Qb6 7. Nb3 Ne5 8. e4 Bb4 9. Qe2 d6 10. f4 Nc6 11. Be3 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Qc7 13. Bg2 e5 14. c5 b6 15. cxb6 axb6 16. O-O Ba6 17. c4 O-O (17... Nd4?? 18. Bxd4 exd4 19. e5! Bxc4 20. Qc2+-) 18. Rab1

```

White got some counterplay and the position is very sharp.

## Taking in d6

Radjabov reacted slowly and his position collapsed quickly. In the following game, Svane took on d6, and found some counterplay to equalize.

```
[title "Svane, Rasmus (2542) vs. Ragger, Markus (2695) Bundesliga 2015"]

[FEN ""]

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qb6 7.Nb3 Ne5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qe2 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Bg2 e5 14.c5 b6 15.cxd6 Qxd6 16.O-O O-O 17.Rfd1 Qe7 18.f5 Qa3 19.Bc1 Qa4 20.Bg5 Ba6 21.Qe3 Rfd8 22.Bxf6 gxf6 23.Qh6 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 Qxa2 25.Qxf6 Qxb3 26.Qg5+ Kh8 27.Qf6+ Kg8 28.Qg5+ Kh8 29.Qf6+ Kg8 ½-½

```

---

**In summary**, it's really hard to give a definite answer. However, I tend to agree with @Allure that taking in `b6` was a good alternative. At least it's probably not worse than taking in `d6` since after `14.c5`, the move `14..b6!` gave Black a very good position.

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


# Question
Title: Looking for an opening line: a rook vs 5 pawns
I remember seeing somewhere an opening line, where one side gets rook and the other one 5 pawns, it was pretty sharp. I also remember that it's now considered dubious, because one of the sides was proven to be much better. Unfortunately I don't remember which side was which and also the parent opening or the starting moves. Does this line come to mind to someone? It would be greatly appreciated.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Is it this line in the Advance Caro-Kann of which you are thinking?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6
5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 c5 7. h4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 h5
9. f4 hxg4 10. Bb5+ Nd7 11. f5 Rxh4 12. Rf1 exf5
13. e6 fxe6 14. Nxe6 Qe7 15. Qe2 Rh2 16. Nc7+ Kd8
17. Qxe7+ Bxe7 18. Bf4 Rxc2 19. Nxa8 Bh4+ 20. Kd1 Rxb2

```

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Looking for an opening that had been wrongly evaluated for years
I'm looking for an opening I saw in a book (**not a chess book**). The opening was about 10 moves long, and the author stated that the evaluation after the last move shown had been considered for many years in many chess books as "black has a slight advantage", but later it had been shown that white could checkmate in 1 move.

Additional information: the book I read was written by Martin Gardner. It was not a chess book, but possibly a collection of his Scientific American columns, published in the 60s - 80s. This chess opening was (if I remember correctly) an example in a chapter devoted to puzzles and problems, **unrelated to chess**, that had been published with a wrong solution, or with a solution that later had been improved.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Maybe Martin Gardner was writing about this story. I'm quoting from p. 95 of Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld, *The Fireside Book of Chess*, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949. (Of course they gave the moves in descriptive notation.)

> In the eighth edition of a popular manual by Dufresne and Mieses, the following line of play is given:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e5 6.Ndb5 d4 7.Nd5 Na6 8.Qa4 Bd7 9.e3 Ne7

```

> In this situation, the authors' comment is, "Black has the superior position." What the analysts seem to have overlooked is that White can mate on the move!

I'm guessing Kt-B3 was somehow typoed into Kt-K2.

---
Tags: opening, checkmate, history, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Looking for practical rulesets for when king promotion is allowed
One consistent feature of chess over the centuries is that each side has had one king only. The rules of promotion had to be tightened up to prevent promotion to a second king.

However, if promotion to kings was allowed, a ruleset would be needed to deal with checkmating multiple kings. In my view, such rulesets would need to be, relatively speaking, practical for tournament and OTB chess. By practical I mean it would be relatively easy to learn and to play.

While there known fairy chess conditions, like Rex Multiplex in which all kings are mated at the same time, they are impractical for real-world play. These new rules would need to deal with checking two kings at the same time, forks, pins, stalemate, and promotion circumstances, among many possible things.

**What would a practical ruleset for dealing with multiple kings if king promotion was allowed?** All regular chess rules apply, including check and castling.

# Answer
The simplest and the smoothest rule for play is to say that if a player has multiple kings, they are not royal, i.e. they aren't subject to check and can just be captured. When a player is reduced to having only one king to lead his army, the normal rules apply.

The mate-one-to-win rule means it is disadvantageous to promote to a king, while mate-all-to-win can be absurdly difficult to achieve. The rule above seems a practical middle ground.
> 3 votes

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


title: Value of a Thorn Pawn?

text:
# Question
Title: Value of a Thorn Pawn?
When did chess engines first assign a high value to a pawn on the sixth rank, with an opposing pawn in front of it? (This pawn is called a "thorn pawn", "fawn pawn", or "nail pawn".)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I would assume such pawns have always be valued somewhat higher (generally) by chess engines since they were around. Doing so follows from rather basic heuristics, that weak engines long ago could have followed:

1) Controlling important squares. Taking the example of the e6-pawn (for the points below as well), it controls the f7- and d7-squares.

2) Potentially blocking in enemy pieces. If Black's bishop were still on f8 then it would have to come out via ...g6 and ...Bg7. Black's major pieces are also prevented from fighting for the e-file.

3) Conversely, White's major pieces have free reign over the e-file.

Of course, sometimes a pawn on the 6th rank could prove to be a weakness. But if it's protected enough, usually the benefits are clear.

---
Tags: pawn-structure
---