title: Which is the 200 move won position?

text:
# Question
Title: Which is the 200 move won position?
In "How Life Imitates Chess", end of chapter 16, Kasparov says that positions needing 200 moves to win have been discovered with the help of computers. So I am wondering which such position is, which the moves are and who discovered it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Thanks to GloriaVictis's indications I have been able to find the answer to my question. In 1976 Walther Jorgersen, a Danish composer, published a mate in 200 in the magazine "Schwalbe". However, André Chéron extended the problem to 203 moves that same year by adding a small change. But unlike Blathy's mate (see GloriaVictis answer), this one is completely forced.

```
6n1/p1BN3b/p1p3np/p1p2rpq/6kr/K1P4p/2PP4/7Q w - - 0 1

1.Qg1+ Kf3 2.Qf1+ Kg4 3.Qe2+ Rf3 4.Qe6+ Rf5 5.Bh2 Kf3 6.Qe3+ Kg2 7.Qg1+ Kf3 8.Qf1+ Kg4 9.Qe2+ Rf3 10.Qe6+ Rf5 11.Kb2 Kf3 12.Qe3+ Kg2 13.Qg1+ Kf3 14.Qf1+ Kg4 15.Qe2+ Rf3 16.Qe6+ Rf5 17.Kc1 Kf3 18.Qe3+ Kg2 19.Qg1+ Kf3 20.Qf1+ Kg4 21.Qe2+ Rf3 22.Qe6+ Rf5 23.Kd1 a4 24.Kc1 Kf3 25.Qe3+ Kg2 26.Qg1+ Kf3 27.Qf1+ Kg4 28.Qe2+ Rf3 29.Qe6+ Rf5 30.Kd1 a5 31.Kc1 Kf3 32.Qe3+ Kg2 33.Qg1+ Kf3 34.Qf1+ Kg4 35.Qe2+ Rf3 36.Qe6+ Rf5 37.Kd1 a6 38.Kc1 Kf3 39.Qe3+ Kg2 40.Qg1+ Kf3 41.Qf1+ Kg4 42.Qe2+ Rf3 43.Qe6+ Rf5 44.Kd1 a3 45.Kc1 Kf3 46.Qe3+ Kg2 47.Qg1+ Kf3 48.Qf1+ Kg4 49.Qe2+ Rf3 50.Qe6+ Rf5 51.Kb1 Kf3 52.Qe3+ Kg2 53.Qg1+ Kf3 54.Qf1+ Kg4 55.Qe2+ Rf3 56.Qe6+ Rf5 57.Ka2 Kf3 58.Qe3+ Kg2 59.Qg1+ Kf3 60.Qf1+ Kg4 61.Qe2+ Rf3 62.Qe6+ Rf5 63.Kxa3 Kf3 64.Qe3+ Kg2 65.Qg1+ Kf3 66.Qf1+ Kg4 67.Qe2+ Rf3 68.Qe6+ Rf5 69.Kb2 Kf3 70.Qe3+ Kg2 71.Qg1+ Kf3 72.Qf1+ Kg4 73.Qe2+ Rf3 74.Qe6+ Rf5 75.Kc1 Kf3 76.Qe3+ Kg2 77.Qg1+ Kf3 78.Qf1+ Kg4 79.Qe2+ Rf3 80.Qe6+ Rf5 81.Kd1 a4 82.Kc1 Kf3 83.Qe3+ Kg2 84.Qg1+ Kf3 85.Qf1+ Kg4 86.Qe2+ Rf3 87.Qe6+ Rf5 88.Kd1 a5 89.Kc1 Kf3 90.Qe3+ Kg2 91.Qg1+ Kf3 92.Qf1+ Kg4 93.Qe2+ Rf3 94.Qe6+ Rf5 95.Kd1 c4 96.Kc1 Kf3 97.Qe3+ Kg2 98.Qg1+ Kf3 99.Qf1+ Kg4 100.Qe2+ Rf3 101.Qe6+ Rf5 102.Kd1 c5 103.Kc1 Kf3 104.Qe3+ Kg2 105.Qg1+ Kf3 106.Qf1+ Kg4 107.Qe2+ Rf3 108.Qe6+ Rf5 109.Kd1 a3 110.Kc1 Kf3 111.Qe3+ Kg2 112.Qg1+ Kf3 113.Qf1+ Kg4 114.Qe2+ Rf3 115.Qe6+ Rf5 116.Kb1 Kf3 117.Qe3+ Kg2 118.Qg1+ Kf3 119.Qf1+ Ke4 120.Qxc4+ Kf3 121.Qf1+ Kg4 122.Qe2+ Rf3 123.Qe6+ Rf5 124.Ka2 Kf3 125.Qe3+ Kg2 126.Qg1+ Kf3 127.Qf1+ Kg4 128.Qe2+ Rf3 129.Qe6+ Rf5 130.Kxa3 Kf3 131.Qe3+ Kg2 132.Qg1+ Kf3 133.Qf1+ Kg4 134.Qe2+ Rf3 135.Qe6+ Rf5 136.Kb2 Kf3 137.Qe3+ Kg2 138.Qg1+ Kf3 139.Qf1+ Kg4 140.Qe2+ Rf3 141.Qe6+ Rf5 142.Kc1 Kf3 143.Qe3+ Kg2 144.Qg1+ Kf3 145.Qf1+ Kg4 146.Qe2+ Rf3 147.Qe6+ Rf5 148.Kd1 a4 149.Kc1 Kf3 150.Qe3+ Kg2 151.Qg1+ Kf3 152.Qf1+ Kg4 153.Qe2+ Rf3 154.Qe6+ Rf5 155.Kd1 c4 156.Kc1 Kf3 157.Qe3+ Kg2 158.Qg1+ Kf3 159.Qf1+ Kg4 160.Qe2+ Rf3 161.Qe6+ Rf5 162.Kd1 a3 163.Kc1 Kf3 164.Qe3+ Kg2 165.Qg1+ Kf3 166.Qf1+ Kg4 167.Qe2+ Rf3 168.Qe6+ Rf5 169.Kb1 Kf3 170.Qe3+ Kg2 171.Qg1+ Kf3 172.Qf1+ Kg4 173.Qe2+ Rf3 174.Qe6+ Rf5 175.Ka2 Kf3 176.Qe3+ Kg2 177.Qg1+ Kf3 178.Qf1+ Kg4 179.Qe2+ Rf3 180.Qe6+ Rf5 181.Kxa3 Kf3 182.Qe3+ Kg2 183.Qg1+ Kf3 184.Qf1+ Kg4 185.Qe2+ Rf3 186.Qe6+ Rf5 187.Kb2 Kf3 188.Qe3+ Kg2 189.Qg1+ Kf3 190.Qf1+ Ke4 191.Qxc4+ Kf3 192.Qf1+ Kg4 193.Qe2+ Rf3 194.Qe6+ Rf5 195.Kc1 Kf3 196.Qe3+ Kg2 197.Qg1+ Kf3 198.Qf1+ Kg4 199.Qe2+ Rf3 200.Qe6+ Rf5 201.Kd1 N8e7 202.Nf6+ Kf3 203.Qe2# 1-0

```

The solution commented by John Nunn can be found here.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Many such positions were found thanks to endgame databases. Below is the record holder, which is 549 moves long.

```
[FEN "1n1k4/6Q1/5KP1/8/7b/1r6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

However, probably more remarkable is this 19th century (!!) composition by Otto Blathy (he authored several other similar monstrous problems). White to move and mate in 292 moves.

```
q5nn/1p2p3/p1k1P1p1/6Pp/PKp1p1pP/8/2P1P1PP/3Q4 w - - 0 0

1. Qd7+ Kb6 2. a5+ Ka7 3. Qd4+ Kb8 4. Qd8+ Ka7 5. Qb6+ Kb8 6. c3! Kc8 7. Qc5+ Kb8 8. Qe5+ Kc8 9. Qd5 Kc7 10. Qd7+ Kb8 11. Qd8+ Ka7 12. Qb6+ Kb8 13. e3 Kc8 14. Qc5+ Kb8 15. Qe5+ Kc8 16. Qd5 Kc7 17. Qd7+ Kb8 18. Qd8+ Ka7 19. Qb6+ Kb8 20. g3 Kc8 21. Qc5+ Kb8 22. Qe5+ Kc8 23. Qd5 Kc7 24. Qd7+ Kb8 25. Qd8+ Ka7 26. Qb6+ Kb8 27. Ka3 Kc8 28. Qc5+ Kb8 29. Qe5+ Kc8 30. Qd5 Kc7 31. Qd7+ Kb8 32. Qd8+ Ka7 33. Qb6+ Kb8 34. Kb2 Kc8 35. Qc5+ Kb8 36. Qe5+ Kc8 37. Qd5 Kc7 38. Qd7+ Kb8 39. Qd8+ Ka7 40. Qb6+ Kb8 41. Kc2 Kc8 42. Qc5+ Kb8 43. Qe5+ Kc8 44. Qd5 Kc7 45. Qd7+ Kb8 46. Qd8+ Ka7 47. Qb6+ Kb8 48. Kd2 Kc8 49. Qc5+ Kb8 50. Qe5+ Kc8 51. Qd5 Kc7 52. Qd7+ Kb8 53. Qd8+ Ka7 54. Qb6+ Kb8 55. Ke2 Kc8 56. Qc5+ Kb8 57. Qe5+ Kc8 58. Qd5 Kc7 59. Qd7+ Kb8 60. Qd8+ Ka7 61. Qb6+ Kb8 62. Kf2 Kc8 63. Qc5+ Kb8 64. Qe5+ Kc8 65. Qd5 Kc7 66. Qd7+ Kb8 67. Qd8+ Ka7 68. Qb6+ Kb8 69. Kg2 Kc8 70. Qc5+ Kb8 71. Qe5+ Kc8 72. Qd5 Kc7 73. Qd7+ Kb8 74. Qd8+ Ka7 75. Qb6+ Kb8 76. h3 gxh3+ 77. Kxh3 Kc8 78. Qc5+ Kb8 79. Qe5+ Kc8 80. Qd5 Kc7 81. Qd7+ Kb8 82. Qd8+ Ka7 83. Qb6+ Kb8 84. Kg2 Kc8 85. Qc5+ Kb8 86. Qe5+ Kc8 87. Qd5 Kc7 88. Qd7+ Kb8 89. Qd8+ Ka7 90. Qb6+ Kb8 91. Kf2 Kc8 92. Qc5+ Kb8 93. Qe5+ Kc8 94. Qd5 Kc7 95. Qd7+ Kb8 96. Qd8+ Ka7 97. Qb6+ Kb8 98. Ke2 Kc8 99. Qc5+ Kb8 100. Qe5+ Kc8 101. Qd5 Kc7 102. Qd7+ Kb8 103. Qd8+ Ka7 104. Qb6+ Kb8 105. Kd2 Kc8 106. Qc5+ Kb8 107. Qe5+ Kc8 108. Qd5 Kc7 109. Qd7+ Kb8 110. Qd8+ Ka7 111. Qb6+ Kb8 112. Kc2 Kc8 113. Qc5+ Kb8 114. Qe5+ Kc8 115. Qd5 Kc7 116. Qd7+ Kb8 117. Qd8+ Ka7 118. Qb6+ Kb8 119. Kb2 Kc8 120. Qc5+ Kb8 121. Qe5+ Kc8 122. Qd5 Kc7 123. Qd7+ Kb8 124. Qd8+ Ka7 125. Qb6+ Kb8 126. Ka3 Kc8 127. Qc5+ Kb8 128. Qe5+ Kc8 129. Qd5 Kc7 130. Qd7+ Kb8 131. Qd8+ Ka7 132. Qb6+ Kb8 133. Kb4 Kc8 134. Qc5+ Kb8 135. Qe5+ Ka7 136. Qd4+ Kb8 137. Qxh8 Kc7 138. Qe5+ Kc8 139. Qd5 Kb8 140. Qd8+ Ka7 141. Qb6+ Kb8 142. Ka3 Kc8 143. Qc5+ Kb8 144. Qe5+ Kc8 145. Qd5 Kc7 146. Qd7+ Kb8 147. Qd8+ Ka7 148. Qb6+ Kb8 149. Kb2 Kc8 150. Qc5+ Kb8 151. Qe5+ Kc8 152. Qd5 Kc7 153. Qd7+ Kb8 154. Qd8+ Ka7 155. Qb6+ Kb8 156. Kc2 Kc8 157. Qc5+ Kb8 158. Qe5+ Kc8 159. Qd5 Kc7 160. Qd7+ Kb8 161. Qd8+ Ka7 162. Qb6+ Kb8 163. Kd2 Kc8 164. Qc5+ Kb8 165. Qe5+ Kc8 166. Qd5 Kc7 167. Qd7+ Kb8 168. Qd8+ Ka7 169. Qb6+ Kb8 170. Ke2 Kc8 171. Qc5+ Kb8 172. Qe5+ Kc8 173. Qd5 Kc7 174. Qd7+ Kb8 175. Qd8+ Ka7 176. Qb6+ Kb8 177. Kf2 Kc8 178. Qc5+ Kb8 179. Qe5+ Kc8 180. Qd5 Kc7 181. Qd7+ Kb8 182. Qd8+ Ka7 183. Qb6+ Kb8 184. Kg2 Kc8 185. Qc5+ Kb8 186. Qe5+ Kc8 187. Qd5 Kc7 188. Qd7+ Kb8 189. Qd8+ Ka7 190. Qb6+ Kb8 191. Kh3 Kc8 192. Qc5+ Kb8 193. Qe5+ Kc8 194. Qd5 Kc7 195. Qd7+ Kb8 196. Qd8+ Ka7 197. Qb6+ Kb8 198. g4 Kc8 199. Qc5+ Kb8 200. Qe5+ Kc8 201. Qd5 Kc7 202. Qd7+ Kb8 203. Qd8+ Ka7 204. Qb6+ Kb8 205. gxh5 gxh5 206. Kg2 Kc8 207. Qc5+ Kb8 208. Qe5+ Kc8 209. Qd5 Kc7 210. Qd7+ Kb8 211. Qd8+ Ka7 212. Qb6+ Kb8 213. Kf2 Kc8 214. Qc5+ Kb8 215. Qe5+ Kc8 216. Qd5 Kc7 217. Qd7+ Kb8 218. Qd8+ Ka7 219. Qb6+ Kb8 220. Ke2 Kc8 221. Qc5+ Kb8 222. Qe5+ Kc8 223. Qd5 Kc7 224. Qd7+ Kb8 225. Qd8+ Ka7 226. Qb6+ Kb8 227. Kd2 Kc8 228. Qc5+ Kb8 229. Qe5+ Kc8 230. Qd5 Kc7 231. Qd7+ Kb8 232. Qd8+ Ka7 233. Qb6+ Kb8 234. Kc2 Kc8 235. Qc5+ Kb8 236. Qe5+ Kc8 237. Qd5 Kc7 238. Qd7+ Kb8 239. Qd8+ Ka7 240. Qb6+ Kb8 241. Kb2 Kc8 242. Qc5+ Kb8 243. Qe5+ Kc8 244. Qd5 Kc7 245. Qd7+ Kb8 246. Qd8+ Ka7 247. Qb6+ Kb8 248. Ka3 Kc8 249. Qc5+ Kb8 250. Qe5+ Kc8 251. Qd5 Kc7 252. Qd7+ Kb8 253. Qd8+ Ka7 254. Qb6+ Kb8 255. Kb4 Kc8 256. Qc5+ Kb8 257. Kxc4 Qa7 258. Qxa7+ Kxa7 259. Kc5 b6+ 260. axb6+ Kb7 261. c4 a5 262. Kb5 a4 263. Kxa4 Kxb6 264. Kb4 Kc6 265. c5 Kd5 266. Kb5 Kxe6 267. Kc6 Kf7 268. Kd7 e5 269. c6 Ne7 270. c7 Nd5 271. c8=Q Nb6+ 272. Kd8 Nxc8 273. Kxc8 Ke8 274. Kc7 Ke7 275. Kc6 Ke6 276. Kc5 Ke7 277. Kd5 Kf7 278. Kxe5 Kg7 279. Kxe4 Kg6 280. Kf4 Kf7 281. Kf5 Kg7 282. e4 Kf7 283. g6+ Ke7 284. e5 Kf8 285. e6 Ke7 286. g7 Kd6 287. g8=Q Kc5 288. e7 Kd4 289. e8=Q Kc5 290. Qe5+ Kb4 291. Qgb8+ Kc4 292. Qbb5#

```

---
Tags: endgame, problems, game-complexity
---


title: Scid: Play Against Computer

text:
# Question
Title: Scid: Play Against Computer
After I set a board up in Scid, how can I get the computer to play as White? I cannot for the life of me figure it out!

# Answer
Assuming you mean Scid vs Pc what I do is click on the "flip board" icon - second from right - and then choose the engine from the "Play" menu. It automatically starts playing for white.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: scid
---


title: Closed Game effect for White

text:
# Question
Title: Closed Game effect for White
As my friend said a moment ago, the Closed Game type is bad practice for White because it brings White often to draw rather than win.

If I want to get a better chance of winning, I should choose Open Game but be careful about counterattack. However, there seem to be openings which are categorized in the middle \[between Open game and Closed game\].

I am annoyed a bit. But when I checked with Shredder, it seems rather true.

Is it true??

# Answer
> 2 votes
Closed games (1.d4) and open games (1.e4) perform equally well at high levels.

It is usually recommended that less experienced players (say, under 2000 FIDE) play open games to learn, since tactics show up more often in them, and tactics is the most important aspect of the game to become fluent in.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Openings are generally categorized as Open (double K pawn), Semi-Open (1.e4 followed by a Black move other than 1..., e5, such as Sicilian (1..., c5) or Caro-Kann (1..., c6) or French Defenses (1...., e6) or Closed (Double Q pawn). I wouldn't necessarily say that these bring about a draw more often. If you are adept at them, you can strangle you opponent slowly rather than dispatching him quickly. The result is the same.

The double "e" pawn openings are called open since the pieces come into contact with each other sooner and tactics abound. Conversely, in the closed openings early positional maneuvering takes precedence and tactics are delayed. The semi-open games lead to unbalanced positions with both sides having chances. These will be fighting games as a result. As the other respondent has indicated, it's normally suggested that you start out with open games to gain tactical experience. When you say being careful of counterattack, I assume that that's what you're referring to, and it's always a good idea to examine those for both sides. Tactics are not absent from closed games, but the opportunities for same usually take longer to arise. You'll still need to be adept in them regardless of the type of opening though.

I'd suggest that you look at an opening manual to get a better idea of the different types of opening. I don't advocate memorizing long lines of play though. Just try to get a basic understanding of each.

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


# Question
Title: Strategic and tactical ideas for White in this KIA game
What are the good strategic and tactical plans for White in this position?

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. g3 Nc6 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Qc7 9. e5 Nd7 10. Qe2 f5 11. exf6 Nxf6

```

I wonder what should I do with the Black's c, d, and e pawns. How to prevent them from pushing forward and after preventing them from pushing forward, what should be the next plan for White?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I had studied the KIA for a time in the early'90's, although with mixed results, so I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. In this position 12.c3 would constrain the Black "d" pawn, but I think I would initially play 12.Bh3 to restrain the more important "e" pawn, which is currently backward on the open file. Then if 12..., e5; 13.Bxc8 & 14.Nxe5 would win it. Or if Black decided to reinforce it by 12..., Nd8, then 13.Ne5 could occupy the hole and then support this N with subsequent 14. Ndf3 and 15.Bf4 moves. And since the purpose of the KIA is a kingside attack, you would probably subsequently want to mobilize your kingside pawns once you had this center control. I hope these suggestions are of some value.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Is it necessary/good to play 9.e5? The centre gets liquidated quite quickly after that. What about 9.c3 with the typical KIA ideas -

1) e5 (which can now be supported by d4) followed by h4, Nf1-h2-g4

2) a4 preparing Nc4 if c4 ever becomes available eg 9... de 10. de e5 11.a4

3) Qc2

EDIT having checked on 365chess.com 9.c3 is indeed a good alternative but in the diagram position 12.Bh3 is often played as the bishop is better on that diagonal whereas Black is not really threatening ...e5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The e6 pawn is weak, protected by white bishop. Attack and sacrifice your white bishop with check from Bh3. Finally position is Qe6, with 1 pawn advantage. Notice the black bishop is stuck and must be developed.

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


# Question
Title: Is this a chess variant? Chess without taking pieces!
I just noticed a special style of playing chess in some of the top games in chess.com; A chess without taking pieces:

**The whole game here:**

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2015.07.09"]
[White "adypady02"]
[Black "Thunder_Penguin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2240"]
[BlackElo "2019"]
[TimeControl "3|0"]
[Termination "Game drawn by agreement"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nh3 Nc6 3.Nf4 Nh5 4.Ne6 g5 5.Ba6 Nf4 6.Qe2 Ne5 7.f3 Nh3 8.g4 Ng6 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bf4 f5
 11.Qf2 Nh4 12.Nc3 Kf7 13.Nd5 Bf6 14.Rd1 Re8 15.Rd2 Kg8 16.Kd1 Kh8 17.Kc1 b5 18.Kb1 Bb7 19.Ka1 Kg8 20.Bd6 Kf7
 21.c4 Rg8 22.c5 Qf8 23.c6 Qh6 24.a4 Raf8 25.a5 Ke8 26.b4 Rf7 27.Kb2 1/2-1/2

```
1. Is this a chess variant?
2. What is its name?
3. Is it quite well known?
4. What's the objective of the game, still checkmating?
5. Any hints for a winning strategy?

**Another games :**

# Answer
> 9 votes
I followed the profile of `Thunder_Penguin` in chess.com and found a blog post about this: some variation.

> Ady and I made this.
>
> Rules:
>
> To win, get your king to your two corners (a1 and h1 for White, h8 and a8 for Black)
>
> * You can't capture pieces\*
> * You can't put pieces on the last rank (1st or 8th)
> * You can't castle\*
> * You can capture if it's mate in 1
> * You can't control the enemy squares (ie, white can't put a knight on b6)
>
> Let the analysis begin!

So according to this, answers to questions would be:

* **Is this a chess variant? What is its name? Is it quite well known?**

It's a recent attempt to create a variation , made up by the 2 players. not named, not known.

* **What's the objective of the game, still checkmating?**

The objective is not checkmating but escorting the king to one of your side corners following the rules cited.

* **Any hints for a winning strategy?**

I can't answer that.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Looks to me like a game of "When two sandbaggers meet".

The aim, of course, is not to win.

---
Tags: chess-variants, checkmate, winning
---


# Question
Title: Chess games that advanced endgame theory
Single games of chess can routinely have a significant impact on opening theory, of course, but it should be quite uncommon for a single game to significantly advance *endgame* theory, since that's a phase of the game where we can and do have some absolute knowledge that will never change, and since the chance combination of a situation that is ripe for something fundamentally new to be discovered along with a player capable of doing the discovering in the course of a game is a rare thing.

Nevertheless:

> I am looking for pointers to historical instances where the course of a game's play revealed new theoretical endgame knowledge that was unknown before that game was played, e.g. an unknown winning method in a certain type of endgame, or an unexpected drawing resource that had escaped notice until that point.

# Answer
In a game at the 1954 Olympiad in Amsterdam, Botvinnik had the white pieces against Nikolay Minev of Bulgaria, and reached the following position after `57. Qxe6`:

```
[FEN "8/8/4Q3/k6K/8/6P1/8/q7 w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

In *Half a Century of Chess*, Botvinnik writes,

> Ten years prior to this game I had such an ending against G. Ravinsky ... There I did not understand the specific character of the ending and I tried, as in a rook ending, to keep my king on the eighth rank to support the promotion of the pawn at g8 and, this made the win most difficult.

That earlier game against Ravinsky had been analyzed by Keres, but still little had been properly understood about this ending. For instance, in a note after `61. ... Ka4` in the Minev game, Botvinnik points out, "Minev willingly occupies a4 with his king, as this was recommended by Keres in a well-known article where he analysed the ending of my game with Ravinsky." Instead, it turns out that the best place for the black king in this situation would have been the corner a1 square. There was an adjournment at move 73, and Botvinnik notes,

> Although I did not find the correct plan before the adjournment, nevertheless I instinctively avoided moving my king to the eighth rank. After thorough analysis I finally found the right way of playing this ending. ... The winning plan consists in placing the white king on the same rank (or file) as the black king, or on the adjacent one. In this case White has a good chance of sheltering his king from checks. *Once the method is found, of course, it looks simple.*

Finally, after White's 91st move, Botvinnik's plan had reached fruition:

```
[FEN "8/6P1/8/2KQ4/k7/8/7q/8 w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

```

> Black has as many as three checks, but they all lead to the exchange of queens. Here the game ended, Black resigned, but *the first page of genuine theory was opened on the ending "queen and pawn against queen"*.

For yet another source commenting on the ending to this particular game, here is Giddins in his *The Greatest Ever Chess Endgames*:

> Relatively little was known about this type of endgame at the time this game was played, and despite a few inaccuracies in the play, *Botvinnik first demonstrated the winning method for such an ending in this game*. ... *Without the aid of either tablebases or any substantial theoretical practice, apart from his own game against Ravinsky years before, Botvinnik effectively "solved" this ending in his adjournment analysis*, identifying all the key elements of the winning method in such positions.
> 14 votes

# Answer
I do not think it's really a new technique discovery, still, this game has certainly inspired some people to fight harder in seemingly hard to win endgame positions: Martin Ortueta vs Jose Sanz Aguado. After `28 ... dxc4` we enter an endgame where 3 pawns poorly structured manage to dominate a rook and a knight.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Madrid"]
[Site "Madrid"]
[Date "1933.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Martin Ortueta"]
[Black "Jose Sanz Aguado"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Opening "French"]
[Variation "King's Indian attack"]
[EventDate "?"]
[PlyCount "70"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 Bb4 6. Bd2 O-O 7. Nf3 f6 8.
d4 c5 9. Nb5 fxe5 10. dxe5 Rxf4 11. c3 Re4+ 12. Be2 Ba5 13. O-O Nxe5 14.
Nxe5 Rxe5 15. Bf4 Rf5 16. Bd3 Rf6 17. Qc2 h6 18. Be5 Nd7 19. Bxf6 Nxf6 20.
Rxf6 Qxf6 21. Rf1 Qe7 22. Bh7+ Kh8 23. Qg6 Bd7 24. Rf7 Qg5 25. Qxg5 hxg5
26. Rxd7 Kxh7 27. Rxb7 Bb6 28. c4 dxc4 29. Nc3 Rd8 30. h3 Rd2 31. Na4 Rxb2
32. Nxb2 c3 33. Rxb6 c4 34. Rb4 a5 35. Nxc4 c2 0-1

```

Now it might be historical because Petrosian mentioned this endgame as having made a great impression on him.

Related link : http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/rxb2.htm
> 8 votes

# Answer
By Capablanca's own admission, one of the games that advanced *his* understanding of the endgame (and probably that of others) was his game against Richard Teichmann in 1913:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Berlin exh"]
[Site "Berlin"]
[Date "1913.11.20"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Richard Teichmann"]
[ECO "D63"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 Nbd7 6.e3 O-O 7.Rc1
b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bb5 Bb7 10.O-O a6 11.Ba4 Rc8 12.Qe2 c5
13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Rfd1 Nxa4 15.Nxa4 b5 16.Rxc8 Qxc8 17.Nc3 Qc4
18.Nd4 Qxe2 19.Ncxe2 Rc8 20.Nf5 Kf8 21.Nxe7 Kxe7 22.Nd4 g6
23.f3 h6 24.Bxh6 Nd7 25.h4 Nc5 26.Bf4 Ne6 27.Nxe6 Kxe6 28.Rd2
Rh8 29.Rc2 Rc8 30.Rxc8 Bxc8 31.Kf2 d4 32.exd4 Kd5 33.Ke3 Be6
34.Kd3 Kc6 35.a3 Bc4+ 36.Ke3 Be6 37.Bh6 Kd5 38.Bg7 1-0

```

It was a situation where Black's isolated queen pawn, and the resulting "holes" that it left in his position for White's knights, more than cancelled out the advantage of Black's Bishop pair. Later, these same holes (for White's king) enabled him to win with opposite colored Bishops and only one extra pawn.

In another game against Marshall, Capablanca sacrificed a pawn to get a rook on the "seventh" rank (Marshall's second), which was at least enough compensation. Hence Marshall had to "play for a draw" by exchanging all his other pieces, even with a pawn ahead. When he failed to do so and "played to win," Marshall lost:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "New York"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1918.11.01"]
[EventDate "1918.10.23"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Frank James Marshall"]
[Black "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[ECO "D64"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "78"]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 O-O 7.Rc1
c6 8.Qc2 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.O-O Nxc3 12.Qxc3 b6
13.e4 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rfd8 15.d5 Nc5 16.dxe6 Nxe6 17.Bxe6 Qxe6
18.Nd4 Qe5 19.Nxc6 Qxc3 20.Rxc3 Rd2 21.Rb1 Re8 22.e5 g5 23.h4
gxh4 24.Re1 Re6 25.Rec1 Kg7 26.b4 b5 27.a3 Rg6 28.Kf1 Ra2
29.Kg1 h3 30.g3 a6 31.e6 Rxe6 32.g4 Rh6 33.f3 Rd6 34.Ne7 Rdd2
35.Nf5+ Kf6 36.Nh4 Kg5 37.Nf5 Rg2+ 38.Kf1 h2 39.f4+ Kxf4 0-1

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
A famous game is Timman - Velimirovic. According to the endgame theory of that time, the ending was indeed winning, but the shortest win would exceed the 50-moves rule, so it seemed that the game would end in a draw. After the third(!) adjournment of the game, Timman and his seconds found a shorter win than the textbook, within 50 moves, and Timman went on to win the game. There is an interesting article, written by GM Ree, which describes the atmosphere of the time in which this game was played.

However, for the endgame theory of today, this game might be less important, as we have tablebases and no more adjourned games. According to the tablebase, black's move 68....Kf8 was a mistake.

```

[FEN ""]
[Event "Rio de Janeiro Interzonal"]
[Site "Rio de Janeiro BRA"]
[Date "1979.10.02"]
[EventDate "1979.09.23"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jan Timman"]
[Black "Dragoljub Velimirovic"]
[ECO "D30"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "205"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 cxd4
7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Qc2 Qe7 10.O-O Bd7 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Bg5
O-O 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Rac1 Bb6 15.e3 h5 16.h4 Kh8 17.Ne2 Bg4
18.Nf4 Rac8 19.Bh3 Bxh3 20.Nxh3 Qe5 21.Nf4 Rg8 22.Qe2 Rxg3+
23.fxg3 Bxe3+ 24.Kg2 Bxf4 25.Qxe5 Bxe5 26.b3 Kg7 27.Rfd1 Rc7
28.Rc2 Bd6 29.b4 Bxb4 30.Rxd5 Kg6 31.Rd4 a5 32.g4 c5 33.gxh5+
Kxh5 34.Rd5+ Kh6 35.Rc4 a4 36.Kf3 a3 37.Rd6 Re7 38.Rxf6+ Kg7
39.Rf5 Rd7 40.Rg5+ Kf8 41.Rg2 Rd5 42.Ke4 Rh5 43.Kf3 Ke7 44.Kg4
Rh7 45.Rf2 Rg7+ 46.Kf5 Rh7 47.Rf3 Kf8 48.Rh3 Rh5+ 49.Ke4 Ke7
50.Kf4 Kf6 51.Kg4 Kg6 52.Rf4 f5 53.Kf3 Kf7 54.Ke2 Ke6 55.Rc4
Kd5 56.Rf4 Ke5 57.Rc4 Kd5 58.Kd3 Ba5 59.Rh1 Bd8 60.Rf1 Be7
61.Rcf4 Bxh4 62.Rxf5+ Rxf5 63.Rxf5+ Ke6 64.Rxc5 Bf6 65.Rc6+
Ke7 66.Ke4 Bb2 67.Kd5 Kf7 68.Re6 Kf8 69.Ke4 Kf7 70.Kf5 Kf8
71.Kg6 Bc3 72.Ra6 Bb2 73.Ra7 Ke8 74.Kf5 Kf8 75.Ke6 Kg8 76.Rf7
Bc3 77.Rf3 Bb2 78.Ke7 Kh7 79.Rg3 Kh6 80.Kd6 Kh5 81.Kc5 Kh4
82.Rg8 Be5 83.Kd5 Bb2 84.Kc4 Bf6 85.Rg6 Bg5 86.Kd5 Bc1 87.Ke4
Bb2 88.Kf5 Kh5 89.Rd6 Kh4 90.Rd3 Bc1 91.Rc3 Bb2 92.Re3 Bc1
93.Re1 Bd2 94.Rh1+ Kg3 95.Rd1 Bb4 96.Rd3+ Kf2 97.Ke4 Ke2
98.Kd4 Bc5+ 99.Kc4 Be7 100.Rh3 Bd6 101.Kb3 Bf8 102.Rh8 Bd6
103.Ra8 1-0

```

Another game that comes to mind is Fischer - Taimanov, where white exploited the advantage of bishop vs. knight. I'm not sure whether this game is the very first one in this kind of endgame to actually advance the endgame theory, but it definetely is a textbook example.

```

[FEN ""]
[Event "Fischer - Taimanov Candidates Quarterfinal"]
[Site "Vancouver, Canada"]
[Date "1971.05.25"]
[EventDate "1971.05.16"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Mark Taimanov"]
[ECO "B47"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "141"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7 5. Nc3 e6 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. Rfe1 Rxd5 20. Rxe4+ Kd8 21. Qe2
Rxd1+ 22. Qxd1+ Qd7 23. Qxd7+ Kxd7 24. Re5 b6 25. Bf1 a5
26. Bc4 Rf8 27. Kg2 Kd6 28. Kf3 Nd7 29. Re3 Nb8 30. Rd3+ Kc7
31. c3 Nc6 32. Re3 Kd6 33. a4 Ne7 34. h3 Nc6 35. h4 h5
36. Rd3+ Kc7 37. Rd5 f5 38. Rd2 Rf6 39. Re2 Kd7 40. Re3 g6
41. Bb5 Rd6 42. Ke2 Kd8 43. Rd3 Kc7 44. Rxd6 Kxd6 45. Kd3 Ne7
46. Be8 Kd5 47. Bf7+ Kd6 48. Kc4 Kc6 49. Be8+ Kb7 50. Kb5 Nc8
51. Bc6+ Kc7 52. Bd5 Ne7 53. Bf7 Kb7 54. Bb3 Ka7 55. Bd1 Kb7
56. Bf3+ Kc7 57. Ka6 Nc8 58. Bd5 Ne7 59. Bc4 Nc6 60. Bf7 Ne7
61. Be8 Kd8 62. Bxg6 Nxg6 63. Kxb6 Kd7 64. Kxc5 Ne7 65. b4
axb4 66. cxb4 Nc8 67. a5 Nd6 68. b5 Ne4+ 69. Kb6 Kc8 70. Kc6
Kb8 71. b6 1-0

```

Edit: I found a very nice collection of famous endgames, subdivided in categories. It comes as no surprise that this collection also contains some of the examples that were given in several answers.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'll have to look for the reference, it was in one of my chess books, and I gave my library away. But the game involved two GMs or GM-level players from back in the day, where one of them figured out that a K+N+N can mate K+P, if the P can move and prevent stalemate.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history, endgame, theory
---


title: When to transition into an ending

text:
# Question
Title: When to transition into an ending
I know the rule of thumb about trading pieces when you have a lead (and pawns when you're behind), but how does one decide an advantage is sufficient enough to transition into an ending by trading queens? I've found that a small lead of a pawn or even a piece often isn't enough to win in that case.

# Answer
There is no easy answer to that question. You need to be able to accurately assess your winning chances in the possible endgame and to do that you need some knowledge and a lot of experience.

You can acquire the knowledge by looking at the basic theoretical endgames. That will tell you that two knights aren't enough for mate, that bishop and pawn might still be a draw, that rook and bishop vs rook or knight vs rook is tricky but a draw and many other things.

For the experience you'll have to play. Then you will also notice that apart from winning chances, there is another factor to the decision of going into an endgame: Minimising the risk of losing. Often simplification decreases both: The chances of winning and the chances of losing. So if winning is more important to you: When in doubt, keep the queens.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: King facing king on same line or column

text:
# Question
Title: King facing king on same line or column
Just returned to chess after 40 years (yes I know). I have a memory of being taught that the kings could not face each other on the same line or column. Chess Titans computer game doesn't seem to recognise this or have I got it wrong. I understand the rule of Kings not being next to each other but I'm talking about the along a whole column for example

# Answer
> 3 votes
No, this rule does not exist in chess.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There's no such rule in chess, king only attacks fields adjacent to him, so there is no valid reason for that situation to be impossible.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The reason your game doesn't honor this rule is because it is not a rule.

There is some confusion over "facing each other" If you mean two Kings directly facing each other (where one could theoretically attack the other) then yes, it is an illegal move because one cannot move their King to where it can be attacked; however, if you are talking about "facing across the entire board" in a manner where if a King was a Rook it would be able to attack, then perhaps you have confused chess with one of the older games attributed to it's lineage.

Chinese chess has this rule, and it is part of the common strategy within that game to limit the opposing King's position by placement of your King. In Chinese Chess, however, the kings cannot leave the palace and the if the opposition is blocked by a piece the other King has more leeway in movement.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Kings cannot legally be on adjacent squares, but otherwise opposition (being one square away from the other king on a rank or file, or even diagonally) is one of the most important principles in the endgame, since the king taking the opposition can force the other king to give way, gaining space. Being any odd number of squares away from the opposing king with the move in any of these configurations is having the distant opposition, which is just as significant as close opposition.

---
Tags: rules, kings
---


title: Photographic memory in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Photographic memory in chess?
I heard that some of the best players in the world like Alekhine have the best photographic chess memory and they can play blindfolded?

How to develop such memory? What are the ways to learn it?

I am just a beginner, and i struggle to recognise notations like Bxh8, CxD4 and takes me long time.

Finally, if you are born with a photographic memory, does that mean it will help you to WIN in chess?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Photographic memory is closely related to board vision in Chess, where in you instinctively and instantly know something is wrong with the position ( yours or your opponent's) or it clicks to you that you've seen this or a similar position before.

Though memory capacity might seem like an "in-born" talent, I would argue it can be developed to some degree with practice. Play as many professional games as possible. By professional, I mean tournament games with real humans face-to-face. Tournament games build the seriousness that is necessary for forming long term memories. I've seen in my experience that when I am playing a lot of serious chess, I can easily detect board patterns and tricky positions than when I am out of touch with chess.

One more technique to improve board vision and memory is to try NOT to write down the moves while playing but replay the whole game from memory after the game. I've seen that over a period of time, you are better at remembering your own games. Even though you will not be able to remember every game you play, it will improve your memory in general.

Regarding the notations, start speaking in terms of them whenever you describe a game to a friend or whenever you self-analyze a game. It is tricky. Especially the 4th and 5th ranks. I always say `Bg4` from White when its supposed to be `Bg5` and vice versa.

Keep practising and I am sure you will get good at both board vision and notations.

**EDIT** To answer your edited question,

> Finally, if you are born with a photographic memory, does that mean it will help you to WIN in chess?

Winning in chess has to do with many more things than just photographic memory. Tactics, Strategies, Staying calm under time pressure are just a few things that are vital to success but hardly have anything to do with memory. Having a good memory helps in chess but there are still a lot of other aspects to master to become a master!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't think you can develop a photographic memory, but this article might be of interest to you: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/.

As far as algebraic chess notation is concerned, here are a few basics:

* 'N' = kNight, 'B' = Bishop, 'K' = King, 'Q' = Queen, 'R' = Rook. Pawns are represented by the file they are on.
* When a piece moves, the piece abbreviation followed by the destination square is used. For example, 'Qd2'. It doesn't take into account where the piece moved from (there's an exception to this rule that will be explained later).
* The 'x' in notation such as 'cxd4 signifies that the c-pawn is capturing on the d4 square. 'Bxf2' signifies that the bishop is capturing on the f2 square.
* Pawn moves are represented by the square they are going to. For example, on white's first move, 'e4' means that the pawn on e2 moved to the square e4.
* Kingside castling = '0-0', queenside castling = '0-0-0'.
* Checks are represented by a '+'. So, if the bishop moves to f4 and checks the enemy king, then the move would be 'Bf4+'.
* Checkmates are represented by a '#'. If the above move delivered checkmate instead of check, then it would be 'Bf4#'.
* There is a slightly more complex rule for Rooks when either rook can move to the same square. For example, 'Rad1' means that the rook from the a-file moved to the square d1. This is only needed when it was also possible for the other rook (let's say the rook on f1), to move to the same square. The same rule applies to knights.

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: What should you do after blundering during a game?
Let's say you are playing a game. Then suddenly, you make a bad move and e.g. blunder material. How should you react afterwards? What mind-set should you have? Can you even benefit from the blunder?

# Answer
> 7 votes
After a blunder, it helps to ***look objectively at the position*** once again and forget the history. You might have been better or worse; but that doesn't matter now after the blunder. What matters is how you go from here.

There could be many possibilities of salvaging a draw or even snatching a win by making the position very complicated and causing your opponent to blunder (I sometimes jokingly call this a "***counter-blunder***"). The least you want to ensure is to not make it psychologically easy for your opponent to win after your blunder. Make it difficult for the opponent. Play good moves. Do not be gloomy lest you blunder again.

Yes, there are times when you can even benefit from a blunder. A blunder may often give a player a kind of "***license to thrill***"! Now that you've blundered and your game is lost, you've got nothing more to lose! So why not embark on a nice sacrificial attack on the opponent's king (for example) and see if the opponent cracks under pressure? (A friend of mine actually tried this after blundering a piece and he won the game. Too bad I don't have the game).

# Answer
> 3 votes
Excellent points by Wes. I'd just like to add that, like with after any move, it's a good idea to look at the board as if you just came to the position in a puzzle. We often get so caught up in our plan that we miss better strategies that pop-up, or we don't see an opponents win.

If we try to take a fresh look at the board after every move we're likely to spot these things. This is more important after a blunder. Rather than focusing on the loss/mistake we should be looking for the best move on the current board.

It's also worth mentioning that a blunder, even a big one, doesn't always lead to a loss unless at really high level play. I'm currently rated around Elo 1,400 and I can't count the number of games where either me or my opponent have made a blunder but then gone on to win the game (usually through a similar blunder from the opposing player).

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'd say play like the computers do, i.e. just look for the best move in the ensuing positions and continue to play tough. A little aggression wouldn't hurt either, as another respondent has indicated. Put the pressure on and give your opponent the chance to blunder in turn. It's happened. Don't by any means just trade away pieces into a losing ending, which I've also seen happen.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The advice given is pertinent but I prefer to spend time in futile regret, berating myself for the oversight, and wallowing in self-pity. I suppose it's not constructive but explains why I'm not world champ.

---
Tags: psychology, best-practice, blunder
---


title: Very Confusing Openings

text:
# Question
Title: Very Confusing Openings
What are some openings that normally a player with less or no understanding of opening theory would suffer agonizingly? Or perhaps, openings that are extremely confusing to play against?

To me, the Latvian Gambit/French Defense is one of the most confusing openings.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Depends if you have the white pieces or the black pieces;

white: 1. Nf3 - Versatile, deceptive, unassuming. Typically, blacks first move dictates the style and nature of the game. However, with 1. Nf3, white has countless systems at his disposal depending on how black responds.

* 2. b3 (Nimzovich-Larsen attack)
* 2. g3 (King's Indian attack)
* 2. c4 (English opening)

black: against e4: 1... Nf6 - Alekhine's defense. From move number one, black is directly attacking white's center. Many novice players will over-extend themselves and start pushing their pieces hastily. Alekhine's defense is a tricky, formidable response to 1. e4, as Bobby Fischer showed us in 1972 against Boris Spassky.

against d4: 1...f5 - Dutch defense. The Dutch defense, whose famous practitioners include Aleksander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Hikaru Nakamura, is a dangerous response to 1. d4. Black is taking dead aim at white's kingside and, specifically, the e4 square.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I quite like the polish 1.b4 opening. The oddness catches some newer players off guard and it's not unusual for players to leave their rook wide open after going for your exposed b4 pawn.

It's actually quite a fun opening to use generally. You're sacrificing the middle for early development on the flank, I think its weakness is it gives away your intentions early on in the game.

Then there's always the fried liver attack, I think someone mentioned it above; It's straight on the attack and if you've never played against it the pressure is agonizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokolsky\_Opening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two\_Knights\_Defense,\_Fried\_Liver\_Attack

# Answer
> 0 votes
If one has no understanding of opening theory then performance will suffer dramatically no matter what opening is played. There are very sharp openings out there such as Two Knights Defense where one has to know exact sequence of moves for both sides:

```
  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6

```

here white can play 4. Ng5, 4. Nc3, 4. d3 and 4. d4

Also Ruy Lopez, Schliemann Defense is very sharp for black. Black has to know it with the tips of the fingers or lose very quickly

```
  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5

```

Ultra-sharp Polugaevsky variation is yet another example of how important the tempo is in the opening:

```
  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 b5

```

Closed opening are known to be slow but there are also very sharp lines like Botvinnik Variation. It is known (on GM level!) when seeing one move further in this line was enough to secure a win.

```
  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Ng5 hxg5 10. Bg5 Nbd7

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Openings that involve opening up the f-file can turn dangerous very quickly. The King's Gambit may cause the inexperienced player some regret after a check on h4 or after ...g4 drives away a knight on f3, perhaps leaving the d-pawn unprotected. For Black, the Latvian Gambit (or Greco Counter Gambit; in no way to be confused with the French Defense) can similarly lead to dangerous checks on h5, or to forking checks following Qe2 - b5, attacking the King as well as squares on b7 (pawn) and f5 (Bishop?).

# Answer
> 0 votes
From my point of view, hypermodern openings are good to catch the unaware players as most such players tend to overextend themselves and in the process, opening whole lot of weaknesses in their position for you to strike.

Some examples of such openings that I found useful in my practice for the purpose you are asking:

Openings for White: Reti, Larsen
Openings for Black: Pirc, King's Indian, Queen's Indian

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Latvian Gambit (or King's Gambit in reverse) may be confusing, but it's also somewhat unsound on principle since White already has the initiative and you're giving up the pawn from a position of weakness. The French Defense is a lot sounder and can be very strong in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing. As someone else has mentioned, hypermodern openings can be confusing if you are not familiar with chess theory concerning controlling the center, but they are still not as strong as classical openings immediately contesting center control. If you know what you are doing, you can reach favorable positions through transposition with hypermodern openings.

---
Tags: opening, tactics
---


# Question
Title: At what point does the opening end, and middle game begin?
Just curious if there's a set of guidelines to determine when a player can call the opening pretty much done, and move into the middle game. I know some rules of the opening that would apply are

> All pieces developed
>
> King castled
>
> Rooks connected

And by those definitions, it's easy to see that white may begin a middle game strategy while black is still in the opening phase, or vice versa.

I'm pretty sure there is no hard and fast rule such as

> *By move 10 all players should be thinking middle game, regardless of position*

As all games are different (sometimes one side plays aggressive and there may be no time to castle).

I see a related question on the line between middle game and endgame, but not this one.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The opening is for "deploying." The middle game is for "fighting." So the middle game begins when the fighting begins in earnest.

Think of two armies marching to a battlefield. The opening is when they "leave camp." The middle game is when they arrive on the battlefield and get down to fighting.

If there is serious "fighting" a middle game can begin as early as the seventh or eighth move. On the other hand, the middle game can begin as late as the fifteenth move or so if both sides opt for a "slow" development.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't remember the exact wording or even the source but I have seen a definition of where the opening ends and where the middle game begins as the point where the players leave prepared opening lines and start to innovate. This would vary from player to player, new players may leave their understanding of prepared opening lines in one or two moves, while grand masters may understand the opening lines, pre-prepared understanding of positional specifics, into 15 moves or more.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Roughly speaking, when most knights and bishops are off the back row and kings are casted, the middlegame has begun. There's no hard and fast rule, however.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The dividing lines between the various stages of the game are somewhat fluid, but a good rule of thumb is that the opening ends when all your pieces are developed to their best squares and you have castled. Of course you are considering middle games strategies while you are making some of these moves, which accounts for the ambiguity. The same is true of the demarcation between middle and endgames, although that's often classified as when the queens leave the board. I guess the bottom line is to view the entire game as an integrated unit with subtle transitional stages along the way.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, middlegame
---


title: Importance of memory in chess

text:
# Question
Title: Importance of memory in chess
I know that creativity and calculating skill are the paramount characteristics for chess success, with luck basically non-existent, but just how important is memory? I suppose that pattern recognition, an important ability, is just a subliminal form of memory, but I'm talking about opening line and end game principles. Even when I think I know them I find that I'm often compromised by forgetting significant elements of same during a game. Would that necessarily doom one to mediocrity?

# Answer
Even after mugging up infinite opening lines and countless endgame positions, we can still be mediocre chess players, if we don't understand the underlying principles and strategies. Human memory is limited. You are bound to forget opening lines. Trying to play by memory alone beyond move 5-10 can lead to disastrous consequences.

Chess has so many combinations that even if you know 100 variations of a particular opening, the opponent will play the 101st one. Now, the best line of defence is to think something like - "I haven't seen this variation before. But I have seen similar ones. In those, the motivation was to gain a powerful pawn center. Here, my opponent is trying to dismantle my pawn centre. What should I do? He is doing so by compromising his own pawn structure. So should I go for the pawn exchange? By the way, his last pawn move leaves his knight unguarded. Shall I attack it?"
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to checkmate with rook and knight against just king?
I have a pawnless game with a rook, knight, and king against just a king. Can I checkmate from this position?

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/1n6/8/2rk4/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Yes, since K+R is an easy beginner checkmate. In fact, the Knight will get in the way. The only value of the Knight will be to get White into Zugzwang quicker (easier?), which helps Black push the king to an edge.

To answer the specific question, from above, assuming Black to move:

```
1... Kc3
2. Ka1 Rc1#

```

Assuming White to move:

```
1. Ka1 Kc3
2. Kb1 Kb3
3. Ka1 Rc1#

```
> 12 votes

# Answer
As the first responder indicated, K & R vs K is a basic checkmate for the stronger force. All he must do is drive the Rook to the edge using the coordinated K & R and administer the checkmate there. Having additional material, while redundant, can only simplify matters for you.
> 1 votes

# Answer
```
[FEN "7k/7R/5N2/8/8/8/8/4K3 b - - 1 0"]

```

The knight and rook need no help to deliver checkmate.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, knights, rooks
---


# Question
Title: openings for white which don't involve a central pawn push
It appears that black has more choices with regard to openings rather than white. While white would typically start with either e4 or d4, or sometimes c4, black has numerous choices for each of these openings. So a black player has a greater chance to out-prepare his opponent. I would like to know about openings white can play which don't involve a central pawn push, but which are nevertheless solid. This can take the black player out of his preparation. I do play the KIA (King's Indian Attack) sometimes. I don't really like the Reti so much though. Any other suggestions?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Since, you're already familiar with the King's Indian Attack and are looking for a solid line, I recommend playing the **Nimzowitsch Larsen Attack**, by first playing **1. Nf3**.

Normally, the Larsen Attack starts directly with **1. b3**, but after **1...e5**, I wouldn't describe the resulting positions as "**solid**" for White, but rather more "***dynamic***".

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

  1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nf3 (4. Bb5 Bd6 5. Na3 $5 Na5 $5)
 (4. c4 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5) (4. d4 exd4 5. exd4 d5) 4... e4 5. Nd4 Nxd4 6. Bxd4 Be7 *

```

**1. Nf3** avoids the **1...e5** line, while at the same time maintaining the flexibility of **transposing** either into the King's Indian Attack or the Nimzowitsch Larsen Attack.

You can get positions similar to the Colle System (very solid and easy opening for White to play, without needing much preparation). Here, I give some sample lines where you can play the Nimzowitsch Larsen attack (often transposing to Colle), or, if you don't prefer certain types of positions, transposing back to King's Indian Attack (although rare).

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

     1. Nf3 Nf6 (1... g6 2. e4 c5 3. d3 Nc6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 e6 6. O-O) (1... c5 2.
     b3 d5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb2 Bg4 (4... a6 5. d4 Nf6 6. Bd3) 5. Be2 (5. h3 Bxf3 6.
     Qxf3 a6 7. d4 e6 8. Nd2 Nf6 9. Bd3 cxd4 (9... Nb4 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. O-O) 10.
     exd4 Nb4 11. O-O Nxd3 12. Qxd3) 5... Nf6 6. O-O e6 7. c4 (7. d4 cxd4 8. exd4
     Bd6 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. c4) (7. Ne5 Bxe2 8. Qxe2 Nxe5 9. Bxe5 Be7 10. c4 O-O 11. d3
     ) 7... Be7 (7... d4 8. Nxd4) 8. cxd5 Qxd5 9. Nc3 Qd7 10. Na4 b6 (10... O-O 11.
     Bxf6) 11. d4 cxd4 12. Nxd4 Bxe2 13. Qxe2) (1... d6 2. d4 Bg4 3. Nbd2 Nd7 4. h3
     Bh5 5. b3 Ngf6 6. Bb2) (1... d5 2. b3 Nf6 (2... Bg4 3. Bb2 (3. Ne5 $5 Bh5 4. d4
     Nd7 5. Nd3 e6 6. Nf4 Bg4 7. h3 Bf5 8. e3 Ngf6 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Nxd3 Bd6) 3...
     Bxf3 4. exf3 e6 5. g3 Nf6 6. f4 Be7 7. Bg2) 3. Bb2 Bg4 4. e3) 2. b3 d5 (2... d6
     3. d4 g6 4. Bb2 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. c4) (2... g6 3. Bb2 Bg7 4. e3 (4. g3 $5) 4...
     d5 5. d4 O-O 6. Nbd2 Bf5 7. Bd3) 3. Bb2 e6 (3... Bg4 4. e3 e6 5. h3 Bh5 6. c4
     c6 7. Be2 Nbd7 8. O-O Bd6 9. d4) 4. e3 c5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Bd3

```

**EDIT:**

This is a funny yet practical suggestion. If you really want to take the Black players out of their preparation, then why not try **Anderssen's opening**? (lol)

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

     1.a3!?

```

Indeed the great Anderssen himself, in his match with Morphy (the greatest player of that era), tried this opening and scored one win, one loss and one draw, which is not a bad result at all against a player of Morphy's caliber.

Objectively speaking, the opening doesn't offer White any advantage, but it doesn't make White's position worse either. White essentially plays as Black, as though Black had played an extra move **1...a6**. As you know, the move **1...a6** is quite useful in openings like the Ruy Lopez, Najdorf Sicilian, Benoni, Benko Gambit, Slav, etc. White's aim therefore is to play as Black and try to get into these type of positions to make sense of the move **1.a3**. Practically, this move is worth a try if you want to disrupt Black's preparation or like playing certain positions as Black where **1...a6** is useful.

I give some sample lines where White tries to get into the desired positions mentioned above.

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

      1. a3 d5 (1... c5 2. c3 (2. b4 $5 cxb4 3. e4) 2... d5 3. d4 e6 (3... Nc6 4.
      dxc5 $1) 4. Nf3) (1... Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 g6 4. c4) (1... e5 2. c4 Nf6 3. d3
      Nc6 4. Nf3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4) 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c4 d4 5. b4 *

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Openings which don't contest the center directly are called hypermodern and generally attack the center from the flanks with "c" and "f" pawns and fianchettoed bishops. Most black players will respond classically by taking over the center immediately and trying to hold it. They would be as familiar with hypermodern openings as you and would not be at any disadvantage. In fact controlling the center would give them an immediate advantage, since it would have been easier for white to contest the center right away than to give it away and then try to get it back.

---
Tags: opening, theory, pawns, pawn-structure, center
---


title: Why are tablebase files so large?

text:
# Question
Title: Why are tablebase files so large?
What is the reason that table base files are so large?

I can't think of any other way to phrase that question - but the question alone is rejected by stackoverflow's gateway bot, hence this paragraph added to placate it.

# Answer
For a simple numerical example, take the endgame of King + Rook + Pawn vs. King + Rook. The number of possible positions is 64 x 63 x 62 x 61 x 60. Of those, 25% is not valid because the pawn is at the first or last row, and because of the symmetry around the d/e file, we only need to store the positions where the pawn is on the a, b, c or d file. This leaves us with 64 x 63 x 62 x 61 x 60 x 0.75 x 0.5 = 343,103,040 positions\*.

For every position, you need to know how many moves to mate or conversion, both with White to move and Black to move. You need 2 bytes for each position, so we get a total of 686,206,080 bytes which is about 654 MB. With ZIP-like algorithms, we can compress the size of the files by about 80%, which leaves us with around 150 MB. You can download the files here \- note that the tablebases are split between White-to-move and Black-to-move.

For 6- and 7-man endgames, typical sizes are 60 resp. 3600 times as large, so 9 GB resp. 540 GB. Sometimes, symmetry can be exploited further (especially if there are no pawns involved), but this will result in a maximum reduction to 25% of sizes when pawns are involved.

\*: actually, some positions are not valid because e.g. both kings attack each other. This number is rather small and if you would filter these, it would take much more time to lookup a certain position in the database.
> 7 votes

# Answer
A tablebase contains information about every possible position with a certain material balance. The number of possible positions grows exponentially with the number of pieces. So while a tablebase covering King and Pawn vs King will *not* be large, if you add enough pieces the file size will grow out of bound for any storage medium you want to use. The number of *all* possible chess positions is something like the number of atoms of the sun, so storing everything does not seem to be workable with any concievable technology.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In addition to the other fine answers, it is worth pointing out that tablebases contain every conceivable collection of pieces, even ones that don't make any sense. For example, I just asked about a position with king and three knights vs king and bishop, and was told that it was a mate in 30. And there are a lot of conceivable collections of six pieces, even if you know what two of those pieces are. (Not to mention that there are really two kinds of bishop.)
> -1 votes

---
Tags: tablebases
---


title: The beauty of chess

text:
# Question
Title: The beauty of chess
Many times one can read in chess magazines the world "beautiful". Comments like "that move/combination/execution/problem/solution was beautiful" are our daily bread when we read game analysis. What are the characteristics a move, combination, execution, position or other have to have for it to be considered beautiful? How the concept of aesthetically pleasing can be understood in chess?

# Answer
Aesthetics is a philosophical question, and hence the answer you get will depend greatly on the philosophical views of the person. As a scientific realist, I believe that our sense of aesthetic beauty is defined by how our brain processes respond to a sensual stimulus (in this case a chess problem/combination/tactic), which in turn is driven by our evolutionary history.

So in this context, what properties make a chess problem "beautiful", and why those specific properties? Take all this with a massive heap of salt, since I'm not an evolutionary psychologist or philosopher of aesthetics:

* Efficiency: We prefer solutions that do not involve unnecessary moves, or wastage of resources.
* Intention: We prefer a solution that was intentionally planned to one that simply happened out of chance. This may be because we like to be in control of our actions.
* Harmony: We like solutions where pieces work together to achieve a goal - this can be related to a desire to use resources effectively, which in turn is also about efficiency.
* Perfect play: we prefer solutions where the opponent is not required to blunder in order to achieve our goal - this could be due to a desire to be clinical and leave nothing up to chance.
* Simplification: A sequence of moves that transposes a complex scenario into a simple advantage may relate to our need to take control of a situation.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Combinations involving sacrifices have been considered beautiful since they transcend the logical order of things and make one marvel at the human brain's ingenuity. Anderssen's "Immortal Game" is considered beautiful since he sacrificed so many pieces to bring about a forced checkmate. I much prefer to see chess as an art and play a game which has these characteristics and can be so classified rather than a mundane one which merely brings home the point.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think that chess is considered beautiful in the same way that certain theories in physics and maths can be considered "elegant", in that both celebrate the elimination of uncertainty and chance, often by means of an approach that runs counter to what seems like an obvious solution.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, theory
---


title: PGN viewer / replayer for Atomic Chess

text:
# Question
Title: PGN viewer / replayer for Atomic Chess
I'm looking for a PGN viewer that works with the Atomic chess variant, in that captures removes adjacent pieces. However, PGN viewers I've found so far have little to no support for chess variants, less to Atomic chess specifically. It doesn't matter if it works online as a web service or a separate program; what options are there?

# Answer
Winboard/XBoard should do the job.

http://www.tim-mann.org/xboard.html
> 5 votes

---
Tags: pgn, atomic-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is this a good idea for starting the game?
Usually I am a defensive player. Because of this, a few years ago, I created an opening set of moves, where I moved every other pawn forward 1 space, starting with pawn a2. To be more specific, I moved pawns a2, c2, e2, and g2 to a3, c3, e3, and g3, respectively.

There are ways to get through to row 1 using a queen or bishop, but except for one way (going diagonally to h1 with a queen), any piece will be immediately captured at almost any point in rows 1-4. That one way, using a queen to get to h1, does do a lot of damage, because eventually it threatens the king, and is hard to be stopped.

I am an amateur chess player, so I do not know a lot about all of the tactics. To experienced chess players, this may look like a stupid question. I apologize for that.

Is this weakness enough to make the strategy not worth it, or is it still a good idea?

# Answer
> 12 votes
It's definitely not a good idea. If it were one, there would be a real opening for it. One problem with moving all your white-squared pawns 1 space forward, is that you lose so many moves developing your pieces. However, this is the 'small' disadvantage. The big one is, that all of your white squares are very weak.

Look at this position:

```

[fen ""]
1. a3 e5 2. c3 d5 3. e3 e4 4. g3 Nc6

```

Black just needs to put his pieces on nice squares like for example `Ne5 or Nc4`, `Bg4 with Nf6`. Also a disadvantage is that you lose much space. Your knights have nearly no squares, where they can move. `Bc1` is completely useless.

If you lose your white-squared bishop, the black pieces will destroy you, because you can't defend all the white squares.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The issue with your opening strategy is that you neglect the development of your pieces. While you are pushing your pawns, your opponent will bring their pieces into the game. In general, the three most important guidelines of the opening are:

1. **Controlling the center.** The closer a piece is to the center, the more influential it becomes.
2. **Developing your pieces.** Your pieces are not doing much in their original positions. Bringing them forward will allow you to attack and defend effectively.
3. **Keeping your King safe.** If your king is trapped, you lose- Game Over! Therefore, before the opening is finished, it is imperative that your king is in a safe spot. This is usually accomplished by castling.

The problem with your opening move sequence is that it fulfills none of these goals- without any pieces developed, your control of the center is practically nonexistent. Furthermore, by pushing the pawns, you create weaknesses which can be exploited. In this case, you end up with no pawns on light squares, which means that every light square becomes a weakness where your opponent will aim their attack. Your opponent's light-square bishop in particular would have free rein in your position, unopposed by any pawn. In contrast, your dark-square bishop would become hemmed in, unable to move; your other pieces would be similarly hindered and unprotected as they were blocked by the pawns or left undefended by them.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Following on the others answers, you may be interested in Wikipedia's pawn structure article to look for structures which suit your playing style, and their associated openings.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Your opening might fit your style, but it is objectively weak as @Niklas explained, you might want to checkout `Reti opening : 1.Nf3` and `English opening : 1. c4`. Those openings are objectively strong and are common weapons of positional players.

However, I encourage you to play open games, and learn about tactics.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The most important rule in chess is that **every single move should do something for you**, it should have one or more goals. What does a3 (Anderssen's Opening) do for you? Do you control the center? No. Do you gain space? Very little. Do you free your pieces? Also very little (and the wrong one, as the opening is the era of knights and bishops, not of the rooks). Do you support further advances? Maybe b4, but you could play b4 right now (this is called Sokolsky Opening or Orangutan, and is certainly playable, but maybe not the best choice for beginners). So a3 is already dubious. Wikipedia puts it that way:

> This opening move does little for development or control of the center. In some cases, White can transpose the game to an opening where 1.a3 might have been useful, but using a tempo on such a move already on move one seems premature. ... Anderssen's Opening is not a very constructive move for White, more a waiting move. However, some players may enjoy the psychological value of such a move, or believe it will help them against an opponent with a superior knowledge of opening theory.

So if you really want to have that type of closed, passive position, use some hedgehog variation. If you just want to avoid too much "theory", choose one of the not so common white opening moves (b3, b4, f4, g3, maybe c4), but at least look at the common ideas behind them. Don't throw away your advantage because you are to lazy to look at a few variations.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here's what National Master Dan Heisman has to say:

> If you put all your pawns on the same color it makes the squares of the opposite color terribly weak. (A weak square is one that is unoccupied and can no longer be guarded by a pawn. It is not a square where there is a vulnerable pawn or piece.)
>
> The pawns on the third rank are guarded but the light squares are very weak
>
> ```
> 8/8/8/8/8/P1P1P1P1/1P1P1P1P/8 w - - 1 0
>
> ```
>
> When I see this diagram today, instead of seeing “safety” I see “ugly, weak squares” in-between!
>
> It is good to have your pawns connected, but it is often better to have at least a pawn duo (two pawns side by side) at the lead, rather than have a diagonal chain where the pawns just guard each other. In the following diagram White has three pawns in the lead on the same rank, even better:
>
> A smoother pawn structure with more space:
>
> ```
>  8/8/8/8/2PPP3/1P5P/P4PP1/8 w - - 1 0
>
> ```
>
> Notice in the above diagram the only squares that can be thought of as possibly weak are c3 and d3, and these are both behind the pawns, so they are relatively inaccessible and therefore not as weak or vulnerable. For example, these two squares are easily guarded by rooks but not easily attacked by the opponent’s rooks.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is a style known as a "hedgehog" defense, but it is not a good one, because it is "random." Specifically, it allows Black to play moves like c5, d5, e5 and pieces right behind them, without interference. The resulting formation will be stronger in terms of board control than yours. Also, you have put all your pawns on Black squares, meaning that if your light squared bishop is ever lost or exchanged, you'll be very weak on light squares, as one of the other answers pointed out.

There are hedgehog defenses, mostly for Black, such as d6 and e6. As White, you can play d3 and e3, but why do so when you have the extra move. But these moves are part of a whole plan, and need to be followed up correctly. Your system doesn't do this or have much of a plan.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I teach the beginners in my local chess club not to make too many opening pawn moves, since they lose time that you should be using to develop your pieces. Just move enough pawns, preferably in the center, to let out your minor pieces and prepare to castle. If you fall too far behind in development while your opponent is getting his pieces out, he will soon have an overwhelming position where even the prospect of sacrifices may present themselves for him to finish the game quickly. Read any beginner's chess manual, even old ones that you can find online, to get a better understanding of these chess basics. This miniature game will demonstrate what I'm talking about. C.Conero vs. P. Short, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nc3 c6 5.d3 a5 6.Be3 b5 7.Bxf7 Kxf7 8.d4 Be7 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Nxe5+ Ke6 11.Qg4+ Kxe5 12.Qf4+ Ke6 13.Qf5+ Kd6 14.Bf4#

---
Tags: opening, strategy, beginner, pawn-structure, defense
---


# Question
Title: What happens in this multiboard scenario?
You are playing 4 players at the same, you are black, white, black, white.

Player 1 makes his move, you switch to player 2 and make the same move as player 1, and so on, with player 3's first move becoming your move to player 4.

you then go back to player 1 and respond with player 2's response to your move.

if you sense a mistake, you 'go for gold' and 'play your hunch'.

does this have a name?

# Answer
That's a trick once performed by Derren Brown.

This article calls it "mirroring technique" and claims it is more than 25 years old, but I don't think this is a very well known term. If you are interested in more information about this trick you should probably google "Derren Brown Chess".
> 2 votes

---
Tags: simultaneous
---


title: Chess Position Trainer

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Position Trainer
1. Would anyone know how to set up training in a "random position" with Chess Position Trainer (ver 5.04)? I know and use its option to train "the variation", but was hoping there would be sort of - "make a move from a randomly chosen position" type of training.
2. Is there a way to set up a position (middlegame, or an endgame) with Chess Position Trainer without having to go over the whole game?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have not used Chess Position Trainer, but Chesshero has these capabilities you are looking for. You can do the following:

a) Define the pgns from which to pick the random positions

b) Define the start and end move numbers to pick from (this can be useful for generating middle-game or end-game or opening positions specifically)

c) You can define a blunder threshold, which will be used to give you scores when the move you made is evaluated against an engine

d) You can make it timed as well.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What are the dates each of the endgame tablebases were completed?
I'm curious to get a rough sense for when chess could be solved if Moore's law, and algorithm improvements continue, and I thought a good way to get a rough idea would be to extrapolate based on when the endgame tablebases for 2 to 7 pieces was completed.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you don't mind approximate dates, 3-piece computer tablebase was solved in the 70's, 4-piece in the 80's and 5-piece in the late 80's. 6-piece took, I believe, until around 2005. 7-piece has been relatively faster (in terms of positions per year) mainly because it's been discovered people will pay for them, so more and faster computers have been dedicated to the task.

As for 'solving' chess, as some posters have pointed out, it's the storage that will be the issue. With more pieces on the board, it will approach something on the order of 150 bits per position for storage, so a rough guess at legal positions with 32 pieces on the board would come in at around 10^13 or so bits. (1TB or thereabouts, and this doesn't include the bits necessary to indicate which two positions are linked and what the result would be.)

It's funny, but for a short time as you decrease pieces you allow more combinations. Consider: with a the full complement of 32 pieces on the board, you can have no promoted pawns. (A pawn would have to capture in order to pass by the opposing pawn.) Allow one side to make captures, and suddenly you have to allow for positions with 7 queens, or 8 Bishops, etc. If you allow simply one capture (a 31-piece table -- for example a g-pawn capturing an f-pawn) you now can have both the g and f pawns of the majority side promoting, so the resulting 31-piece set must include provisions for as many as 4 minors or rooks or three queens on the 16-piece side.

I suspect at some point the number of atoms in the universe may become a limiting factor. ;{\>}

# Answer
> 2 votes
Endgame tables require enormous amounts of storage. According to this post, the 7-man tables are 140 terabytes. The 8-man tables will be many petabytes.

Each iteration of the tablebases grows exponentially in size. Moore's Law says that transistor density doubles every 18 months. Moore's Law is starting to falter now. But assuming it is not, the question becomes:

```
140 terabytes for 7 man = 20 terabytes per man 'of density units', aka 20 DU
Assume X terabytes for a 32 man.
X/20 -> number of currently available units needed
2^Y = X/20 -> Y is how many times the current density would have to double
Y * 18 = months for the doubling to occur if Moore's Law holds.

```

The trick, obviously, is knowing how large the final table would be.

Soooo... using no math except simple division, I decided each iteration is 100x bigger than the previous. This is conservative according to simple division from the above. This also assumes that the rate of growth is linear. That is, each iteration is 100x, and that this rate doesn't change.

The result is that the 32 man table base would consume 6.6 x 10^53 terabytes of storage. That is, X = 6.6E53 Tb

```
6.6E53/20 = 3.3E52 DU
2^Y = 3.3E52, Y = 179
months = 18 * 179 = 3218 months
years = 153

```

So, my best guess is the 153 years, lol. I can only imagine what the error on that is.

What this really is, however, is the estimate on when the storage density will be possible according to Moore's Law. It says nothing about our ability to actually calculate the tables. But it seems logical that we'd have to be able to store the result first, so 153 years it is. At a minimum.

This is very silly as it turns out. So going back to the X number, 6.6E53... converting it to bytes gives 6.6E65. Converting this to bits gives 8.25E64

So to store this table requires 8E64 bits, give or take (heh)

According to this web site, the solar system is made up of 1.2E57 atoms (assuming it is all hydrogen!)

So if we store each bit as an atom, we'd require about **69 million** of our solar systems, in atoms, to store the 32-man table.

I'm a computer programmer by trade. I'll get right on this.

(I assumed Moore's Law holds. This is optimistic. I assumed each iteration of the table base was 100x larger then the previous. I actually don't know. However, I am confident that the result is actually... **never**. We will never 'solve' chess exhaustively. **Because of a lack of atoms.**)

---
Tags: history, tablebases
---


title: Evans Gambit b4 loss

text:
# Question
Title: Evans Gambit b4 loss
I have already read the section here on the Evans Gambit but I still don't understand the value of sacrificing the b pawn unnecessarily, in the likely case that black's Bishop returns to the c5. White could have simply proceeded with c3, d4, gaining center control and attacking B. Why interpose losing a pawn? If it is to open the c1-a3 axis for B, then b3 should be played. Can someone explain why giving away the pawn, while black can simply take it and resume where it was, is a good move? Unless there is a need at that time that can be filled by giving away a pawn, I fail to see the value of this move.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Compare the position after `3...Bc5` to that after `4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4`.

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4`

```

It's true that the Black bishop has simply returned to c5 and can retreat safely again, but note that that is *all* Black has gotten to do while White got in the central c3/d4 push. In simplest terms, the point of the Evans Gambit is that gain of time, getting in those moves to expand in the center (and open lines for potential development/attack) without Black continuing her development in the meantime. Such things usually aren't free of course, and here it has cost White the b-pawn. White has traded in a bit of material in attempt to have greater dynamic potential and the initiative.

# Answer
> 3 votes
White gains time to gain control of the centre after Bxb4 by c3 which can be followed by d4 at some point. Black's bishop will be kicked back from c5 then White can develop an initiative. Also after c3, Qd1-b3 is a possibility attacking both b7 and f7. This gain of time for development can put Black in an uncomfortable defensive position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The purpose of any gambit is to sacrifice material for time. Since time is an ephemeral advantage, naturally you must capitalize on it quickly or you will most likely lose in the long run due to your material disadvantage. Methods of neutralizing all the gambits have been discovered, generally by returning the pawn at the earliest opportunity, but in the heat of battle it isn't always possible for your opponent to find the correct move, and it's worth trying them for that reason, particularly if you are strong at tactics. If you like to have the initiative and attack, playing a gambit isn't the worst thing you can do. Of all the gambits, the Evans has proven particularly potent, i.e. when you are given the opportunity to play it. Some of the most brilliant games on record are Evan's Gambits, such as Anderssen's "Evergreen Game". The previous answer here addresses your specific question about the Evan's.

---
Tags: opening, beginner, evans-gambit
---


title: Studying beyond the opening?

text:
# Question
Title: Studying beyond the opening?
I was watching the following video on the Ruy Lopez (Spanish Game) - Variations with 3...a6. The video is almost 1.5 hours and it pretty much goes through all variations with 3...a6. As I was going through the video, I got lost and frustrated because it seemed to much to take in and I was trying to plug in all the possibilities into Chess Position Trainer. So this got me thinking, is it necessary to learn all these variations that go beyond the opening and by beyond the opening I mean once you get past `Bb5` in this particular case?

For example, in the video, they went over the deferred Steinitz defense: `1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O d6` which was enough for me, but then they continued with white's most popular replies on move 6 and continued with black and I didn't know where to stop.

# Answer
> is it necessary to learn all these variations that go beyond the opening?

I would say no it is not necessary to focus on the opening that much until you are playing chess at a very high level. If you are a beginner the best advice would be to dedicate most of your study time to middlegame tactics and strategy, as well as some basic endgames. Here is a quote of Capablanca on the matter

> I have very often met players who know the openings by heart; that is to say, they have learned from some book or other and they think they know them very well. And indeed they do know them very well by heart, but nothing more. They do not understand the objectives behind the openings and therefore do not know what advantage has to be taken of them, and it often thus happens that they lose. And they lose because they have studied the openings badly without learning them or because they have not studied them in depth. It is clear that this can happen to anyone, but it is more likely to happen to someone who studies only the openings than to someone who dedicates himself to study of the two other phases.

The quote is from a lecture you can read online

ps. You will probably also benefit by studying the games of the masters... for example, by using a book as Irving Chernev's Logical Chess... Good luck!
> 7 votes

# Answer
> is it necessary to learn all these variations that go beyond the opening and by beyond the opening I mean once you get past Bb5 in this particular case?

Only you decide what is necessary, you learn what you want to learn. But we can give some general advice.

First, don't spend too much time on openings. Knowing a lot about them makes you feel like a grandmaster during the start of the game, but hardly improves your results. As a guideline, spend less than 10% of your studying time on openings.

I assume that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 is one you see regularly, and that you have decided you want to play the Ruy Lopez (3.Bb5) in that position. The first goal of your study should be -- *why?* What's so great about that move? You should be able to put into words what White is trying to achieve, and also have some idea of how Black is trying to react to those ideas with his various replies.

Then, you start playing it. The usual advice applies: play slow, serious games against opponents of your own strength or somewhat stronger. In the opening, keep the goals of the Ruy Lopez as you understand in mind, but definitely also the main principles of any opening: try to get all your pieces into play, to get your king to safety and to prevent him doing the same.

After the game, you look at it and see what happened. Let's say that black decided to strengthen e5 by playing the delayed Steinitz, 3...a6 4.Ba4 d6. You thought hard and played a game of chess. Now is the time to look up what theory says. Does the book/DVD/whatever recommend the same move you played? If not, can you figure out why theirs is better? Again, try to understand the whys behind the moves, tactical points, et cetera. Next time you play this line, you'll understand it a bit better!

If you played something that the book didn't mention, but it still seems good to you, I recommend that you keep playing it. Maybe ask a stronger player about it some time to get his opinion.

And so on, for the rest of your chess playing :-)
> 4 votes

# Answer
An "easy" answer is to study the opening until it starts to "branch." In your Ruy Lopez example, the moves up to 5. O-O are pretty standard. The "branching" begins with Black's fifth move. Some of the main lines for Black include 5... d6 (your Steinitz defenese), 5... Nxe4, an aggressive variation, and 5... Be7, which is more conservative, because the B blocks the e file and allows castling.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'd say that you need to know the basics of the various openings and their general purpose as well as the general opening principles, but in-depth memorization is not a good idea. If your opponent varies at some point, which is most likely, and you don't really know the opening's purpose, you'll be lost. I'm from an older generation when Fine's "Ideas Behind The Chess Openings" would have been the source for this understanding, although I assume this has been updated by other sources now. Even some of the strongest players now, like Carlsen, don't rely on learning variations in depth but just try to reach a playable position out of the opening and then rely on other skills such as tactics and endgame knowledge to succeed.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, ruy-lopez
---


title: Endgames with long king marches

text:
# Question
Title: Endgames with long king marches
I am doing a study that focuses on endgames which involve well-timed king marches, namely endgames in which the winning idea lies mainly in king positioning rather than the coordination of minor pieces for example (although this is a key idea in almost every endgame). As soon as I started stumbling upon this very specific type of endgames, I remembered a famous game from Magnus Carlsen, in which he marches with the king for a consecutive series of move (about 5-7 moves), diagonally to the other side of the board, establishing a key position for his king as soon as possible and winning the endgame. Unfortunately I cannot recall which game it was, nor the time/opposition, if I'm not mistaken there were no rooks left on the board.

* I admit this is very little information given to find the game, but that's all I could remember for now. Although he tends to play a lot of endgames because of his style, I do recall that game getting famous because of its fearless long king march. Here I am asking about it, in the hope that someone else may remember this game, or provide any additional information about it.
* In any case, if you know of similar endgame plays, please do feel free to post about them here, as a comment or answer, as they are relevant to the study at hand anyway.

# Answer
Here are a couple of games I found (although they do not really feature a diagonal king march):

I cannot resist adding following king marches:
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, kings, famous-games, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to draw this endgame where I blundered my queening pawn?
Move 13 (54 in actual game) is when I blundered my last pawn due to pressure of the Blitz game (probably). Even with seemingly equal material, the position is dreaded as the Black's pawns are more than pawns, and the only possible way to prevent defeat is to find a perpetual or keep checking for fifty moves. Is that possible in this position?

(The replayer PGN is only excerpt. If you're interested to see the full action of how I lost in the KQ v KR ending, the game was played here.)

```
[FEN "8/5ppp/4p3/2k1P2P/2pp1nP1/8/3K4/2R5 w - - 0 42"]
[Date "2015.07.23"]
[White "Unihedron"]
[Black "Xyuzhg"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]

1. Rf1 c3+ 2. Kc2 Ng2 3. Rxf7 Ne3+ 4. Kc1 Nxg4 5. Rxg7 Nxe5 6. Rxh7 d3 7. Rc7+ Kd4 8. h6 Ng6 9. Rc6 c2 10. Rxe6 Ne5 11. h7 Kc3 12. Rd6 Nf7 13. h8=Q+ Nxh8 14. Rd8 Ng6 15. Rd6 Nf4 16. Rc6+ Kb3 17. Rc8 Ne6 18. Rc6 Nd4 19. Rc7 Kb4 20. Rd7 Kc3 21. Rc7+ Kb4 22. Rd7 Kc5 23. Rc7+ Kd6 24. Rc8 Ke5 25. Re8+ Kf4 26. Rf8+ Ke3 27. Re8+ Kf2 28. Rf8+ Nf3 29. Rd8 Ne5 30. Rf8+ Ke2 31. Rd8 Nc4 32. Re8+ Ne3 33. Rd8 Nf5 34. Re8+ Kf3 35. Re5 Nd4 36. Rd5 Ke3 37. Re5+ Kf4 38. Rd5 Ke4 39. Rd8 Ke3 40. Re8+ Kf4 41. Rf8+ Ke5 42. Rd8 Nb3+ 43. Kb2 c1=Q+

```

# Answer
There is a third way to draw this endgame - sacrifice your rook for two pawns. With only a knight, Black will not be able to checkmate you.

So from move 14 on, you should keep checking the king, or, if the king doesn't protect c2, attack c2. Black will never be able to escape.

A possible sequences of moves:

```
[FEN "7n/8/3R4/8/8/2kp4/2p5/2K5 w - - 0 42"]

1. Rc6+ Kb3 2. Rb6+ Ka4 3. Rc6 Kb3 4. Rb6+ Kc4 5. Rc6+ Kd5 6. Rxc2 dxc2 7. Kxc2 draw

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
According to the computer analysis, I could had drawn the game already on move 17 by threatening stalemate and fork a pawn, effectively forcing the knight to capture my rook in check, forcing the king to move up and capture the other pawn:

```
[fen "8/8/2R5/8/5n2/1k1p4/2p5/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rc3+ Kb4 2. Rxd3 Nxd3+ 3. Kxc2 {Draw!}

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


title: Resigning (Inevitable Checkmate)

text:
# Question
Title: Resigning (Inevitable Checkmate)
I am a relative beginner to chess but have noticed particularly playing online a lot of players will resign if they lose a strong piece, for example, their queen.

Is this sportsman like? I wouldn't have thought so, but I read a thread on here that stated stronger players will resign if a checkmate is inevitable. I can only assume resigning has less of an impact on rating.

# Answer
Yes, resigning a clearly lost game is indeed considered good behaviour. Sometimes *not* resigning is considered unsportsmanlike!

It makes no difference on the result of the game whether you resign, are checkmated, or lose on time - a loss is a loss. In any rating system I've ever heard of, the method of losing doesn't make a difference.

It's just that people don't like wasting time when they're 100 % sure that their opponent will win the game almost effortlessly with no danger of making a serious blunder.
> 20 votes

# Answer
Resigning is considered polite in an obvious losing position among advanced players i.e. players that won't make an error, with a significant material/positional advantage and will almost positively win the game so there is no real point in playing it out. However, among beginners and less talented players, I would personally advocate never resigning as there is a considerable chance that a less experienced player will make a mistake that you can capitalize on.
> 11 votes

# Answer
It's more sportsman-like to resign than to play on. When you play on in the face of an inevitable loss, in effect you are saying to your opponent "I don't think you're good enough to be able to beat me, even with an extra queen." Think about it for a while, wouldn't you find that sort of arrogance offensive?

By resigning, you signify your respect for the way your opponent has conducted the game, as well as enough respect for your opponent's time that you decline to waste it. In effect you're saying to your opponent, "OK, this time you outplayed me, and I won't waste your time making you prove you know how to finish this."

When to resign is always a tricky, highly individual question. My personal threshold is when my opponent has convinced me by their conduct of the game that they know how to win the position currently on the board. This means I may play on against some opponents in a position where I would resign against someone else. The decision is also affected by my position in the tournament; I'm more reluctant to resign a position when I need a draw or a win to finish in the prize list; I'll still do it, but not quite as early.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Resigning, as mentioned by Arlen, is a respectful act. It states that you believe it is no longer worth your time and their time to play out the game. It is recommended that newcomers not resign as often as the experts appear to do.

I would like to add to that answer with more of an explanation why. Often the reason is "the other person might make a mistake that you can capitalize on." It is true that this is a natural reason why beginners would choose not to resign, while experts resign quicker. However, there is a deeper logic which may help you identify when to resign: Chess is a game.

People play games for many reasons. Some simply play to win, but in the early levels, everybody plays to learn something. Both players enter a game with some reason to play it. If the game is no longer satisfying those reasons, there's no reason to continue it.

At the lower skill levels, it is worth playing every game to its fullest, simply to learn. Chess is a complicated game which takes time to learn completely. For instance, you may know that you are 3 moves away from entering a Queen+King vs King endgame (which is known to be completely lost for the person with just a King), but there's still some value for both of you to play it out. Your opponent gets an opportunity to practice a key mating pattern, and you get to practice trying to capitalize on any mistakes they may make. One of those mistakes may help you in a later game: you may realize that a particular Queen+King vs. King endgame is **not** lost because the particular position happens to cause a forced stalemate. You might never realize this if you hadn't taken the time to play out the earlier game to its fullest.

As you get to the higher ranks, you will become more aware of which positions are interesting to play out and which ones are simply dumb. An expert will understand the difference between a position where they are simply "behind by a Queen" and a position where they sacrificed a Queen to gain some tactical advantage. They will understand where "gains from winning the game" multiplied by "probability of my opponent messing up and letting me win" is less than the psychological stress of playing the game out.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I think the answer to this question is bound to be subjective. You cannot expect someone to resign just because you think it is a sportsman-like act to resign a clearly worse position. Especially in online blitz games, there is no point to resign, because the time on the clock is such a decisive factor. In my opinion, not resigning is your full right and nobody can force you to resign or tell you that it was unsportsman-like of you not to resign.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If playing a blitz game (say 5 min or under), part of the game is that it is against the clock, so if mate looks inevitable, but there are 2 seconds to go, I see no reason to resign. I don't consider this unsportsman-like whatsoever, and apparently, neither do my opponents!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Resignation is totally acceptable, even though people tend to resign games that they shouldn't.

Frankly, there are occasions when I feel that *not* retiring from an obviously hopeless position is unsportsmanlike - we've all got places to go, I've put in the work to beat you, everybody who spends ten seconds looking at the board can see that, would you please stop looking for that "magic move" that *does not exist*, man up, and concede?
> 2 votes

# Answer
Among other things, this strongly depends on the time control. While at slower paces resigning in lost positions is considered a good practice (although it also depends on the proficiency of the players, the time your opponent has left and other factors), it is almost never seen in online blitz chess as the time on the clock is as important as the pieces remaining on the board.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The subject has already been pretty well exhausted, but I'll just add that in my club I tell the novices to play out their games for practice when they are behind and also since a mistake by their opponent is quite possible. When stronger opponents are playing, not resigning in a clearly lost position is insulting to the player with the advantage. Why subject them to that unnecessary aggravation when the result is inevitable? Of course, if your opponent is a sadist like Alekhine was, he might enjoy tormenting you when you're losing.
> 1 votes

# Answer
To all that has been told already I may add that sometimes, especially when playing a much stronger opponent, resigning at the right moment when the position is objectively lost may be the only chance to make your opponent know that you actually understand something of the game.

As a strong International Master told me once when I was a kid learning the game, "Everybody can have a bad game, but the strong player always knows when is the right time to resign".
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, sportsmanship, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Is 22..., Nf6 a good alternative move to accepting the rook sacrifice by 22..., Kxf7 in Yi's recent "Immortal Game"?
In his recent "Immortal Game" against Lazaro Bruzon Batista, Wei Yi initiated his king hunt with the move 22.Rxf7!! from this position

```
[FEN "3qr1k1/1b1rbp2/p2p2p1/1p1np3/4P3/P2BB2Q/1PP3PP/4RR1K w - - 0 22"]

```

The annotation to this move said that the next four moves were forced. My question is why the king recapture of the rook 22..., Kxf7 is considered forced, since 22..., Nf6 seems to be a viable alternative, defending against the threatened mate by the queen at h7, saving the knight and trapping the rook?

# Answer
After 22. ... Nf6, white will reply 23. Qe6!, threatening a nasty discovered check. 23. ... Bf8 won't work because it is mate after 24. Re7+ Kh8 25. Qxf6+ Kg8 26. Qxg6+ Kh8 27. Qxh7#, and 23. ... Kh8 loses to 24. Bg5! and Black's position will collapse.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: defense
---


title: Analyze this game

text:
# Question
Title: Analyze this game
I am improving my chess. What is the best move here and why? (black moves)

```
rnb2rk1/pp2qpp1/3p1b1p/2pBp2Q/4P2P/3P1N2/PPP2PP1/2KR3R b - h3 0 1

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Black is up a piece, so I would just play ...Be6 to force a bishop trade, which is generally a good idea when you're up material (you'd rather be up 1 piece to 0 than 6 pieces to 5).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think an answer to this question should stress the fact that white has a very dangerous and ready made attack in this position. If black does nothing, g4-g5 will rip his kingside apart, extra piece notwithstanding.

Be6 is a good move because it exchanges one attacking piece and regains control of an important square, g6. For example after 1…Be6 2.g4 Bxd5 3.exd5 Qd7 4.g5 g6 5.Qxh6 Bg7, black has managed to defend and trap the queen.

Edit: I want to add that this is one of the positions where a computer will not show you what it's all about. An engine will calculate that g4-g5 doesn't work so it might not even show the idea. With black it might not defend against it directly, because it sees that due to some random tactical details (king on c1 instead of b1, Rh3 impossible, etc.) it can defend against g4-g5 even a move later.

But for a human player g4-g5 is the whole point of the position. This is the problem you have to solve as black, if you do, you will win. This is the plan you have to make work as white, otherwise you might as well resign.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Black has saddled himself with a ghastly pawn chain weakness - the hole on d5. Since the White Bishop that's sitting there is powerful, and its Black counterpart is undeveloped, `1... Be6` seems to be a good move. I'd be intend on capturing it the next move. I don't think White wants to capture the Black Bishop with `2. Bxe6` since this will allow Black to defend d5 with `2... fxe6`.

Once White's Bishop is gone, g5 and h5 start looking entertaining for Black as White has no defenders on that side of the board.

Black needs to connect his rooks (before pushing h5 and g5) and be ready for White to hammer on that backward d pawn with his rooks.

---
Tags: analysis, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How opening moves determine the whole game play?
I started chess some time ago. I was studying opening theory and it seems most opening moves characterize the style of play. I want to ask how can a couple of moves determine the whole game play? For example, the french defense is known to be solid and offers counter-attacking chances. How can two moves i.e. e4 e6 d4 d5 say so much about the game?

With my limited experience, I can only think of the following reason:- 1) Pawn structure: Since pawns cannot be moved backwards, so depending on your first moves, the best moves that you can play usually depend on your opening.

Any more reasons? If possible, please explain in general and also the particular case of french defense. Thanks.

# Answer
Your intuition is right; it's all about the pawns.

1. As you note, they can't move backwards.
2. They can't capture straight ahead, so two opposing pawns facing each other (say on e4 and e5) can't move.
3. They are the least valuable piece, so no one (generally) will capture one with a piece if their piece can be recaptured in turn. So (generally) the only thing that gets exchanged for a pawn is another pawn, which can be hard to make happen because of the way they move.

As a result of all of this, your pawn structure is (generally) the least dynamic part of your position, and all your other piece movement is in relation to it. These pawn structures are often set pretty early in the opening, so they recur a lot and people have studied them very deeply.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Although the responses above seem to address the original question well, there is another angle to the question that I feel should be addressed. Built in to the original question is the question:

"How in the world can anyone look at the first two moves of the game and say so much about how the rest of the game will proceed? Can't anyone play any move they want?"

My response goes like this:

In the broadest sense, NO - nobody can say anything about how the rest of the game will proceed. For all we know, white will respond to the French with 3. a3 ... 4. a4 ... 5. a5 ... followed by 6. Ra2 .. 7. Ra3 and so forth. After which I'm sure black could really open up the position.

Discussions about opening theory don't consider absurdity like this - they assume that if you are even interested in the topic you are already beyond making pointless moves.

When opening theorists state things like "the French defense leads to imbalanced positions, strong pawn structures for black, etc. what they really should be saying is "assuming *competent play* by both sides, the French leads to (insert whatever here). Similar to dfan above, authors grow tired of writing "assuming competent moves on both sides" in front of every sentence they write.

In the case of the French defense, white really only has two or three viable options, after which black only has two or three competent responses, and so on (check any opening table or discussion of the French defense to see what they are). Besides, many of these responses ultimately lead to the same position anyway. The fact that for the first ten or so moves, most opening moves only have two or three legitimate responses, two or three counter-responses, and so forth leads us to make statements like "the French leads to closed positions and strong pawn structures."

Just thought I'd clear this up for the original question and any future readers of this post.

neutron2000
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---