# Question
Title: Can I get by without a book for learning my opening repertoire (aside from the Sicilian Najdorf and KID)?
My opening repertoire is currently consisting of:

White:

1.e4

Open Sicilian (5.Bg5 versus Najdorf, Yugoslav Attack versus Dragon)
Versus 1...e5, Scotch Gambit
Versus 1...e6, Tarrasch Variation: Korchnoi Gambit
Versus 1...c6, Panov-Botvinik Attack (don't know much here)

As Black:

Versus 1.e4, Sicilian Defence
Versus Anything Else, King's Indian Defence Setup

I have "Playing the King's Indian Defence" by Everyman Chess which I am currently studying back-to-back, and am planning to do the same with some book (not sure which one to get) on the Najdorf just because obviously, these openings are just so complex and have so many critical lines.

For the rest of the openings (Scotch Gambit, Korchnoi Gambit, Panov-Botvinik Attack, various Open Sicilian Lines), can I get by without a book and just research and learn thes line I want to play?

I am in the 1400's USCF.

# Answer
> 15 votes
At the USCF 1400-1500 level, the amount of reading you are planning on doing is already far too much. When you play people at your level they'll leave book pretty early; when you play people 400 points higher they'll beat you whether or not you have 12 moves memorized. The theory simply isn't going to matter for the vast majority of your games. Save the detailed reading and memorization until you get closer to 1800 at least. For now just play what you like, and after your game look things up in a database or a nice survey book like *Fundamental Chess Openings* (and if you want to know the ideas behind various openings, FCO is a fine place to start). Take the time you would have spent studying openings and use it to study tactics and endgames.

Of course, if you get lots of enjoyment from reading opening manuals cover to cover, I don't want to stop you. But it's not an efficient way to improve your results (especially at your current level), and you certainly don't need to do it for every opening you think you might encounter.

# Answer
> 2 votes
At your level which is close to mine you should be still be focused on not leaving pieces hanging to prevent opposition from getting easy tactic attacks. Pawn structures and learning the color of the squares your knights are on and looking for two more powerful pieces to be on opposite colors or preventing your pieces from being forked. This seems to be a reoccurring theme for your level. Make a habit to notice the color and look at opposite color pieces every move if the game time permits. Until it is automatic even if you don't get caught often in this fork which is doubtful your competition will at that level. I am amazed how often i miss seeing this opportunity. To much opening line study is a poor use of time. A lot of that understanding and memorization will be done by the time you actually need it to progress further. Pick one for white and just some basic understanding of for black for one like sicillian like you have done and focus on cleaning up your blunders

# Answer
> 1 votes
Another way to learn about openings is to study annotated master games using the opening you're interested in. That will give you an idea of the typical middlegame positions and plans associated with the opening. A good annotation will stop and point out possible tactical pitfalls, and will even cover the endgame. So that approach has multiple benefits.

When the positions in the games start to look familiar to you, you'll be ready to try the opening yourself.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes. You can use online info instead of books.

But you should focus on ONE opening. Master it. You will need to know offshoots but you do not need to know every opening.

At only 1400s uscf I would suggest you focus on playing GM games with the openings you prefer. Play every one you can find. Get used to seeing what moves they make in the opening and what they did in the middle games. Play enough of those and you will just instinctively know what a really good move is in your games.

There are books with games from tournaments but they may not have the openings you want. Do not get distracted playing over games with openings that you do not play.

There are a number of online databases with games and they are indexed. Play everything you can find that is the opening you chose.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Winning as white is a struggle!

text:
# Question
Title: Winning as white is a struggle!
```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "5r2/5q1k/6pp/1p2P3/1P2p2P/6RK/3Q1P2/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

I can’t seem to win here, no matter what I do. Is the position really that bad for me as White?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The position is roughly equal. The problem for both sides, but it is a little worse for white, is king safety. That is the overwhelming positional factor here.

Kg2 and Qd4 is the best plan for white here to counter the threat on f2. It is positionally mutually difficult to do anything since both queens and rooks must keep defending soft spots. Trying to do more, and you likely get mated.

Here is a short sample line with notes.

```
 [FEN "5r2/5q1k/6pp/1p2P3/1P2p2P/6RK/3Q1P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kg2 {to defend f2} Qf5 {activating the queen a little} 2. Qd4 {also activating the queen a little, but keeping an eye on f2 at the same time} Rf7 3. Qb6 {keeping black thinking about the white queen taking on g6 and then mate} Kg7 {pass} 4. Kg1 {pass, and not much progress can be made.}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
move queen to D6 THAT GUARDS F2 DUE TO CM

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes. It should be hard for white to win.

Material is even.
No obvious positional advantages.

Why should you have an easy win?

Black is threatening to win a pawn.

You are going to lose at least one pawn but might be able to get some counterplay to hold the draw.

Why do you think white should win at all?

And yes, white's position is bad.

After Kg2 then black plays Qe7 and forks two pawns which should be hard to counter. After Rg2 black can check on f5 and win a pawn.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


title: What is a winning position in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a winning position in chess?
I am new to chess, so I have some difficulties on understanding some concepts. For example, by watching games usually I hear that a player has a winning position, or a better position respect to the other player.

But how do I understand if my position is good? What are the signs that a overall position of the pieces on the board is a good position?

Thanks in advance

# Answer
Not easy to answer in great detail.

In General checkmate is a winning position as are the positions from the moves leading up to that happening.

Any position the opponent resigns in is a winning position.
That usually agrees with your feeling you have a won position but sometimes opponents see ghosts and resign anyway. A 'good' position that confuses the opponent would seem to be a winning position if it makes them resign or even just blunder away material.

A complex but unclear position with the opponent having little time on his clock may pressure them to either resign or to blunder and then resign. Or they may lose on time anyway when the flag falls \[or these days the red light comes on\]. So a position where the opponent can not make his moves before the flag drops is a winning position even though without any time limit it might be lost.

In general with sufficient material advantage the win should be a matter of technique. So any position that allows for a combination to win material could be a winning position and usually is but not always. Clearly sacrifices are often made to get a winning attack so in such cases material is irrelevant.

Leading up to those types of positions are less clear positions that are merely one with an 'advantage' not yet winning. More space, better piece positions, time advantage both useful moves ahead or on the clock, or 'initiative' are more likely to lead to winning positions and then to won positions and finally a win. These factors are subject to surprise tactics as well as not being followed up properly so as to continue building the advantage until it is overwhelmingly a win. So while good, they are not yet properly called winning.

To summarize, a winning position depends on many factors, but whether it is called winning or not depends on the judgement of the person evaluating the position. And sometimes those persons are wrong. Also each player has a different spot in the gray area where they would call it winning instead of just having an advantage.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is very broad, but what is winning is very related to your strength. I have seen plenty of beginners, who could not win even up a full queen.

For example, a beginner might need a queen, or more, to be able to win a position. I have been a "regular" Master for more than 30 years, so it might just one pawn, but the right pawn. :)

By comparison, I used to read Garry Kasparov's notes to his games in the Informants, and he would use the symbol +- (winning) in positions that looked barely better to me. His sense of winning, of course, was correct, but it was much more refined than mine.

All of this still means only so much in practice because as they say, "the hardest thing to do in chess is win a won position".

Understanding when your position is good or won simply comes with time, study, and practice. It is too open a subject to be more specific.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


title: Switching from 1.e4 to 1.d4?

text:
# Question
Title: Switching from 1.e4 to 1.d4?
I've only played 1.e4 as white so far (in clubs, tournaments, online, everywhere!), in the past 5 years since I learned chess. And it has been very fun, but I want to explore the dark side as well, as I do enjoy watching good positional play in GM games.

I'm sure some of you have attempted this before. I'd like to know what your experience was. Was it radically different? Did you experience withdrawal symptoms from not playing 1.e4? Did you have to learn a lot of theory just to get a playable position against well prepared Nimzos/Slavs, etc?

P.S. I know pretty much no theory in most openings beyond, say 4 or 5 moves.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I don't think 1.d4 itself really makes the game slower; you can use 1.d4 to play aggressive chess. Kasparov and Alekhine did. Likewise, you can play positional chess with 1.e4, e.g. Ruy Lopez, (especially Karpov's handling of it).

So if you want to practice positional chess you don't need to switch to 1.d4, and if you switch to 1.d4 without changing your mindset, you won't necessarily be playing positional chess.

I first tried 1.d4 after playing for about a 1 year. I was really fascinated with the `Qd3` and `Bc2` (or `Bb1`) set up and tried to drive away black knight form `f6` and mate on `h7`, basically my whole plan revolved around that. I didn't find 1.d4 much harder to play or anything like that, but I am sure you are a stronger player than I was back then :).

# Answer
> 7 votes
If you have no real opening knowledge anyway, switching shouldn't be any special problem. Just start playing it, and afterwards you lookup what the pros do in the opening you played.

You could also get a book. I think that until you're rated 1900 or so (and possibly until much higher), all you need is a book that explains the ideas behind all the openings. I also think that Van der Sterren's *Fundamental Chess Openings* (FCO) is fantastic for that purpose. It goes way further than what you already know about 1.e4, and you can use it to learn about all the openings. It's all text, no tables of moves.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Allow me to suggest 1. c4. You can aim for a number of Sicilian Reversed positions that will be familiar already, from the other side of the board, and with a move in hand.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I made the switch to 1. d4 when i started getting on online chess teacher, if you can afford it, i highly recommend 2 hours per week with a GM or IM.

GM Vladimir Kosyrev (Tankist on ICC) taught me all my opening knowledge as black and as white, it was extremely helpful.

Although it is very important to know ideas of early opening moves as well, GM Yasser Seirawan helped with that, read his books, study the games he goes through. Brillancies is one of them

# Answer
> 2 votes
An e4 opening tends to lead to more open, tactical games, featuring attacks on the king. D4 leads to more closed, positional games, featuring endgame advantages on the queenside.

To become a "good" player, you need to learn to play both types of games well. If you're good at one kind, but want to progress, learn to play the other. Even if it is the "dark" side for you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
1 d4 in combination with 2c4 (usually) may require more memorization to actually be fully 'booked' than 1 e4 does, however, it tends to be much more 'forgiving' if you don't memorize loads of variations but instead 'understand' what's going on. I had good success with it. There is a reason it's the 'work horse' of the grandmasters.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I also started with e4, because all of the quick mates started with it and checkmated on f7. I started playing d4 when the chess program (Houdini 3) showed me with move 22 analysis that d4 was slightly stronger. I found from several games that d4 actually put black into trouble by move 12 against Deep Rybka 4 chess engine. e4 games tended to be over by move 40. d4 games tended to be over by move 32. I found that d4 used more of the chess principles of King Safety, Center Control, Time, Space, Pawn Structure, FDR, Piece Activity, and Material because d4 blocked Black's Bishop from c5 and attack on White's f2 (King Safety). d4 allowed for quicker attacks by white because white did not need to castle early (Time). I am convinced that d4 is the better opening for white. Did I have problems adjusting? Yes. My whole opening repertoire as White was based on e4. Therefore, I needed to learn a whole new set of opening responses by Black. I needed to learn about middle game "Critical Positions", and I learned from d4 that in general, you should move into a protected square (Queen protects) instead of moving into a square and trying to protect it later as in e4.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As a beginner, I always play with 1. e4, and have been trying to understand most of its variation, 1...e5, 1...c5, etc.

I am also trying to switch to 1. d4 now. But the variation is very rich compared to 1. e4. So I study it one by one. After 1...Nf6 2. c4 for example, I have been trying to understand Benoni Defence and Benko's Gambit. Or after 1...d5 2. c4, it might become a Queen's Gambit declined with 2...c6 or 2...e6. Try to understand it, get as deep as I can. Once I feel that is enough, move to other variation. And so on. Don't try to memorize everything at once.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Me myself switched from being an 1.e4 player to a 1.d4 player.

Usually with 1.d4 you will get more space and it is very many interesting setups against most black responses. I haven\`t learned much theory yet, but I know some plans, and I have better success with 1.d4 than 1.e4 already.

Actually, today GM Jon Ludvig Hammer said he recommended queen\`s gambit for ANY player. He backed up his comment with claiming it is very logical and follows the traditional principels (Control the center, develop pieces, get you king in safety).

I can recommend you to look at chessexplained\`s videoes about 1.d4. In fact, he has made a almost complete repertoire for you! Search for "chessexplained d4 repertoire" on youtube, and there you go.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I started with P-K4 openings (e4) as they had no algebraic notation back then. That is what our beginner books started teaching in the 50s.

After playing over every game in the 1953 candidates tournament that had 16 GMs in a double round robin for the world championship I started playing d4. I was an 'expert' with the Nimzo after seeing so many GM games with it, but then black started playing many other defenses so I was working harder to find good moves.

Later I switched back to e4. It is just easier and more natural with less burden on my memory. More fun too:)

Surprisingly I am now more positional with my e4 games and much less tactical than when I first started playing.

---
Tags: opening, positional-play, 1.e4, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: Can you recommend a closed opening for black against 1.e4?
What is a good opening system for black that leads to closed play against 1.e4?

E.G. - against 1.d4 I like to play the Slav & am looking into the Czech Benoni. I am looking for something similar against e4. I currently use the Caro-Kann, and briefly used the French, but am wanting to look at some other options.

In particular, an off-beat line that doesn't have a ton of theory would be nice.

Thanks in advance for your replies!

# Answer
> 3 votes
In principle, a "good" system that leads to a closed game is not possible to achieve unless the opponent co-operates in achieving a closed position.

You probably already know how White can achieve an open game with the French or Caro Kann or Alekhine or simple symmetrical king pawn openings.

```
  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  1. e4 e5 (1...e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4) (1...c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4)
  (1... Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 )
  2. Nf3 (2... Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4) Nc6 3. d4
  (2. f4!?)

```

So I think your best bet would be those openings which do not move a pawn in the center very early on. The only "good" openings among those (regularly played by Grandmasters) would be the Pirc or Modern Defense.

The Modern Defense does tend to be an off-beat line (good for you since that's what you're looking for). It can often transpose into the Pirc. The general principles of the Modern and the Pirc are the same - develop the Bishop on the flank and counter in the center at a later stage. If White co-operates in closing the position, which usually happens if Black plays `e5` followed by White's `d5`, then Black can counter with the f5 break.

```
      [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
      1. e4 g6
      2. d4 Bg7

```

This is the basic position of the Modern Defense. As you can see, this position can be reached even after `1. d4`, so it's very flexible.

There are many different ways for White to continue in this position. Black's usual idea is to play `d6` followed by a later `e5`, although there are games where Black has tried to break white's center with `c6` and `d5` or even `c5`.

Here, I give some sample lines which may lead to closed positions, including all three ideas of `c5`, `d5` and `e5`. Note that even in these lines, White has the option to open the position, but it doesn't necessarily give White an advantage in doing so. In fact in many lines, White prefers to close the position to cramp Black for space.

```
   [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
   1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Bb3 Bg4
   8. Nbd2 e5) (3. c4 d6 (3... c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be2 Bg4 8. O-O
   Nbd7 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 a6) 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Be3 e5 6. d5 Nce7) 3... d6 (3... c6
   4. Nf3 d5 5. e5 Bg4 6. Bf4 Qb6) 4. Nf3 (4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Na6 7. O-O
   c5 8. d5) (4. Be3 Nf6 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5 7. g4 h5 8. g5 Nfd7 9. f4 Nb6 10. Nf3
    O-O) 4... c6 5. Be2 Nf6 6. O-O O-O 7. a4 Nbd7 8. h3 Qc7 9. Be3 b6 10. Qd2 Bb7
   11. Bh6 a6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. Qe3 e5 *

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Another positional option is to play the Hanham variation of the Philidor Defense.

```
   [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bc4 Be7 6. O-O O-O

```

Because of move order issues mentioned in my answer to this question, it might be better to reach this position with a move order like

```
   [FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nbd7 4. Nf3 e5 5. Bc4 Be7 6. O-O O-O

```

This position, if you can reach it, can be played without much preparation. A common plan for black is to expand on the queenside with `c6`, `a6`, `b5`. Some experience is needed to pick up the nuances of this variation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Almost any main line black defense can be made open if white does not want a closed game.

The only opening(s) I am aware of that are always closed (at least til the middle game) are those I know as hedgehogs with black moving no pawn past the 3rd rank and developing pieces on the second.

This is a very poor setup unless you are playing beginners as a good player will find a way to break through and win easily thanks to the space and development advantages.

---
Tags: opening, theory, positional-play, 1.e4
---


title: Book on Black openings

text:
# Question
Title: Book on Black openings
I recently finished Neil McDonald's "Starting Out: 1.e4!". Now I would like to learn some Black responses. Could someone recommend a book at similar level to Neil's, but focus on Black?

I'm not sure whether to read several specific books or find one general book (eg with 4 chapters on play against e4, d4, c4, Nf3). One general book to start with would be my preference (so I can pick my favourites), if there is a good one.

By the way, I don't quite like Neil's recommendation on the Scoth game (trade queens, play an endgame where the opponent has a weak pawn). I tried the Scotch gambit a bit. Is there any good resource to go deeper on the Scotch gambit?

# Answer
One very popular beginners book about openings from the black side is this one. The focus isn't on grandmaster level opening theory, but on keeping everything understandable and manageable.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are many responses to 1.e4 for black, in order of popularity according to the Game Database of ChessTempo:

* 1....c5 (Sicilian)
* 1....e5
* 1....e6 (French)
* 1....c6 (Caro-Kann)
* etc...

Each of these openings also have many variations. Futhermore, there are also many books on each of these openings. It is not easy to advise you one, as it depends on many things: your playing strength, your playing style, etc...

A good idea might be to play an opening with black that you don't like to encounter when playing white. This way,

* You have an opening for black (your initial goal)
* You can also find good continuations to play as white

After you made your opening choice, you can search for a book about that specific opening.

Edit: That being said, if you want to broaden your view, here are a couple of books that cover a wide range of openings:
> 1 votes

# Answer
Generally repertoire books from the Black point of view are more detailed than those from White's viewpoint, as the author really should cover all reasonable tries by White against a certain opening. For reasons of space this standard is not always met for White repertoire books.

If I were you I'd wait for Smerdon's Scandivanian which covers the Portugeuse and Icelandic gambits against 1.e4 and comes out in September and will be brilliant if you like attacking chess.

https://www.everymanchess.com/smerdons-scandinavian
> 0 votes

# Answer
It depends on your style and preference for type of game. Do you want open, closed, semi open? Do you want slash and burn tactical or do you want quiet slow positional or something in between. Do you want complex positions or more simpler and quieter ones?

Match the opening to your style and preferences. Then when you know what type of opening is your best style there will be a book for it.

If you do not like e5 then I would suggest you look at d3 or c3 and see how they fit. If not a match then c5 or nf6.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, gambits, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: World Computer Chess Championship: Why don't they run all computers on the same hardware?
I was looking at the results of the 16th World Computer Chess Championship. You can see the hardware that the computer runs on. The reason why i'm asking this is that Mobile Chess engine is running on Nokia 6120c, right? It doesn't make sense.

Rybka runs on Cluster, 40 cores, if they ran Mobile chess engine on a Sumsung galaxy s4, it would probably have beaten Rybka. Am I reading the charts correctly? Because something definitely doesn't make sense, if I was a programmer going into a computer chess championship, Nokia 6120c would not be my weapon of choice.

Do they run all the engines on same hardware? Do they insure a fair game?

# Answer
I think an historical look at that competition helps make the fact that each engine played on its own distinct hardware setup seem more reasonable. Don't think of it as merely an engine (software) competition, because it wasn't. Instead, think of it as a competition to determine the strongest chess-playing machine (hardware and software combined). And really this isn't so strange, especially given that this series of events dates back to an era when engines themselves were significantly weaker, computing power was more limited, and much less was known than today about how best to apply either hardware or software resources to the problem of computer chess.

Part of the challenge was of course just crafting better engines, regardless of hardware, but doing so in ways that took appropriate advantage of whatever particular hardware one could get a hold of was a significant part of the problem as well. Also (and this isn't a trivial point), these competitions in earlier days were as much (if perhaps not more) a way for hardware folks to show off as it was for engine developers. Consider two-time world champion Cray Blitz (1983, 1986). Its success wasn't just a feather in the cap of Bob Hyatt et al. for their ability to design a strong engine, but also a source of advertising for Cray Research's supercomputer and its ability to outstrip others at handling the calculating complexities of chess.

While I'm at it, for a more obvious example of how hardware was long just as prominent and distinguishing a part of the equation in computer chess, we can think back to Kasparov's 1996-7 matches against Deep(er) Blue, which wouldn't have happened at all (think sponsorship and such) if IBM wasn't eager to test and show off its hardware.

All that said, there is currently a well-known competition that offers what you want to see, which is a hardware-neutral comparison that's specifically designed to determine the strongest engine: Martin Thoresen's TCEC, which e.g. ChessBomb broadcasts when it gets played.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Not all software runs on all hardware. Software makes the hardware happen. The tournament should be between hardware/software SYSTEMS as an entity just like it is done.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How has the frequency of FIDE rating lists changed over the years?
Today FIDE publishes a new rating list once a month. When FIDE first started publishing official lists in 1971 they came out once a year. How has the frequency changed over the years? When did the frequency change and by how much?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The period before 2001 is documented on the Olimpbase site. The period from 2001 on is documented on the FIDE rating site.

To find the details for pre-2001 go to the Olimpbase site and about a third of the way down on the right hand side under "PLAYERS & TEAMS" click on "Elo lists 1971-2001".

To find the details for 2001 and after go to the FIDE rating download site and halfway down click on the dropdown box "Download old files from Archive - Please select your period and press GO".

Both these sites give the possibility to download the lists in zip file format.

**Pre-2001**

**Unofficial lists** were published in -
June 1967, April 1968, 1969 (no month given), 1970 (no month given) and January 1971

**Official lists** were published in July of the following years:
1971, 1972, 1973.

This switched as a one-off to May in 1974 before settling down to full lists published in January in 1975 through to 1980 with the addition of three supplementary lists in July of 1978, 1979 and 1980. These supplementary lists included less than 10% of players.

In 1981 FIDE switched to publishing lists twice a year, in January and July, and this continued from 1981 through to 1999.

This period was also significant for the introduction of a number of new features:

* FIDE IDs in 1990, although the first attempt in January 1990 only had 5 digit IDs. This was clearly going to be inadequate and the length was extended in July 1990.
* With the break up of the USSR new federation codes were introduced for ex Soviet, Yugoslav and Czechoslovak republics.
* "Active / Inactive" flags were introduced in July 1992.
* The rating floor for men was lowered to 2005 in January 1993.
* Ratings stopped being rounded to the nearest 0 or 5 in January 1999.

In 2000 three rating lists were published in January, July and October.

In 2001 the frequency changed to 4 times a year. Lists were published in January, April, July and October from January 2001 up to July 2009.

From September 2009 through to July 2012 lists were published every two months in January, March, May, July, September and November.

In January 2013 they changed to being published monthly through to the current day.

Although it should be noted that the actual download files themselves are updated on an almost daily basis. For instance, I am posting this on 9th September 2019 and that is also the date on the download file. Two days ago the date was 7th September. The information in the two files is almost the same. The differences are minor corrections and additions. The data in the September files is still significantly different from the August files in that the August files reflect data reported in July while the September files reflect data reported in August.

# Answer
> 0 votes
According to the FIDE ratings list, which shows info from the period 2001-2019, there was a list in January 2001 followed by another one in July 2001, so maybe it was done twice a year back then, or maybe it's just that the March list was not published in the Internet). From there on, lists were updated quarterly until July 2009, where they started to do it every two months (next list was on September 2009)

In July 2012, the current per-month appeared for the first time (the following list is from August 2012)

I can assure these two last changes are accurate, but cannot be sure about the six-months to three-months shift. I also don't know anything about the once-to-twice per year shift

# Answer
> 0 votes
Can't speak to FIDE as their use of ratings is relatively newer, but I recall that the USCF had once taken a couple of years to publish ratings because it was done by hand and the guy was busy or procrastinated in doing it. Or maybe there had been so many tournaments at once that it just took him that long to catch up.

Once computers came into common use the ratings happened a lot more frequently.

---
Tags: rating, history, fide
---


title: Improving my skills is getting harder

text:
# Question
Title: Improving my skills is getting harder
I am new to chess and I am playng mostly online at sites like chess.com. Now I have a rate around 800, so it is still low, but my problem is that improving my skills is getting hard. The arrival to the rate 800 has been quite quick, but now I feel like I am stucking often to the same moves and the same way of reasonings.

How could I improve my skills? And most of all how can I improve my mental elasticity in playing chess in order to be a better player?

Thanks in advance.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It really depends on whether you are willing to do the work, but I have tried this with people before, and it has worked extremely well. Most weaker players are initially weak because they lose material so often and easily.

First, I believe strongly in an immersion-type training program. If I give you 20 problems, and you get 100%, you only learned 20 problems. If I give you 150, and you only get a 66.6%, you still learned 100 problems, or five times what you did when you got only 20 problems. I firmly believe that the more you see in a short period of time, the more you will learn. In this case, I am advocating quantity over quality.

This is based on my own personal experience, and is based on my learning Russian in the Air Force. The first night, I got 20 words to learn, but by the end of 47 weeks, we got about 300 words every other night. I also had a friend, who was 38 at the time, and he went from 1000 to about 1850 on the Internet Chess Club in three months doing what I am about to recommend.

I am not a fan of the chess.com and other site tactics programs for a couple of reasons. First, they are checked by computers, and often take the computer route in the defense portion of the solution, rather than the human path. Second, they are not well grouped by theme.

I still love the grouping on the two Fred Reinfeld books, "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate, 21st Century Edition" and "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, 21st Century Edition".

You start with the 1001 checkmates book because the first chapter is queen sacrifices, so you have two big hints: Give up the queen, and checkmate. Now, I want you to try to do 50 per day (25 minimum though), spending no more than two minutes on each problem trying to figure it out. If you do not get it, just look at the answer, and play it out on a board, if necessary. You may not have gotten it right, but you have absorbed something. Write in pencil next to the diagram 1-5, with one being that you solved it easily, and five that you had no idea.

Go through the whole book at 50 per day. You can skip the last chapter on composed mates if you want. Do the same with the 1001 sacrifices book.

Now, you have read both, and have rated how easily you got them. Go back ans read the both books again in the same order. They are both grouped so well, that you will start to pick up on themes better than ever.

Funny, in early 2019, a new book, "The Woodpecker Method" came out, and recommends a very similar method to the one that I have been recommending for over 30 years.

I have found over the years that even guys, who are 2000-2100 over-the-board, are still not that great tactically, so keep doing this, and as you get better with your two original books, pick different tactics books for some variety. We never stop practicing that, and calculation, in general.

Of course, as you get better, there is a lot more to learn about opening pawn structures (search my other posts about this), and of course, the endgame.

# Answer
> -2 votes
The best way to improve is stop playing.
You will learn a lot faster playing over GM games than playing patzers on chess.com or any web site.

Start studying books on the basics. Learn ONE opening well. Practice tactics daily. Play over GM games daily, especially ones that use the opening you want to learn.

As you improve some then look at endings, and keep up with your opening and tactics pracice; later on move to pawn structure, positional play; and later on psychology and playing the player not the board.

Won't be as much fun that way but it will make you improve.

You will learn more by stretching just a little bit to solve tactics or in tournament games when you go back to them. Try to play people 100-200 points higher but no more and only less if forced to by being matched against them.

My experience is that perfect practice makes perfect and making many mistakes while playing more positions only reinforces bad habits and hurts improvement.

---
Tags: strategy, theory
---


title: Improving the endgame: Principles

text:
# Question
Title: Improving the endgame: Principles
I find I am weakest in the endgame, which is arguably the most important part of chess. Usually when I reach the endgame I have an advantage, often a pawn or a "winning" pawn formation, but I am not sure how to capitalize and convert this into the win.

I was wondering, what are the key ideas to keep in mind when playing the endgame, and what can I do to improve my endgame play?

I hope this isn't too general, but I believe it is an extremely common problem.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Here are a very few principles which are key:

1. **Centralize/activate/use your king.** In the endgame he is one of your strongest pieces, and needs to be utilized.
2. **When you have the advantage, exchange pieces, and don't exchange pawns.** Every exchange of pawns means one less potential promotion for the side with the advantage.
3. **Passed pawns must be pushed, and outside passers are the best.** An outside passed pawn can be the most distracting to an opponent's king or other pieces, keeping them out of other action.
4. **Principle of 2 Weaknesses.** One of the best way to convert an advantage into a win is to use it to induce another problem in the opponent's position, when he or she will then be forced to fight a war on two fronts. (For instance, this can be why an outside passer is so strong: while the opponent deals with it, a second weakness can be created and exploited on the other side of the board.)
5. **Do not hurry!** Here are some words from Shereshevsky, coming from his chapter with this title in his classic *Endgame Strategy*:
> How many endings have not been won, merely because the stronger side tried to win as quickly as possible, and neglected to make simple strengthening moves before embarking on positive action. Following the principle of "do not hurry", it is possible to battle for a win in positions with a slight but persistent advantage. ... The logic behind the "do not hurry" principle is mainly psychological. It can be especially recommended to act according to this principle when the opponent is deprived of active counterplay.

Plenty more such principles can be formulated of course. These are just a few very general ones that can apply in most any endgame.

---

One book along the lines of your question that I cannot recommend highly enough is *Rate Your Endgame* by Edmar Mednis and Colin Crouch (based on Mednis' earlier *Practical Endgame Lessons*). It's now out of print, but if you can find a used copy, grab it. It offers its own explanation of endgame principles, and illustrates them with many examples, which are presented in a "test your play" format, where you are prompted to play one side of an ending from actual play. I got this book early on when I started "really" playing chess, and remember loving it, and learning a good deal. It is very much a general manual on *how to approach* the endgame, rather than being a discussion of various theoretical positions/endings. I've never read a poor opinion of this book, and when someone like Mark Dvoretsky gives something praise, it's not to be ignored.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I played over the entire book of BCE by Fine.

You need to know K&P and also r&p endgames cold. You should know principles of endgames.

Can you mate with B+N against K? You should play that until you can visualize the squares and drive the king to the side and then to the correct corner and finally mate.

You should learn all the basic mating positions.

If you want then skip the rare ones like K+2N vs K+P which is only mate in certain pawn positions.

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, learning, pawn-structure, theory
---


title: Improving my game

text:
# Question
Title: Improving my game
I am more than a novice in chess ( I got 5 points out of 9 in a local tournament) but I want to play really well. My biggest problem is I don't know what moves to make in the middle game, and can't fathom moves made by my opponents in the same time.
Speaking generally, what can I do to improve my game? I just seem to run out of ideas on a game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you want to improve there's a lot of stuff you can do. In order of importance probably something like this. 5-10 tactics problems a day. One old gm game a day preferably from a book with explanations given for the moves, or watch a few videos each day on youtube where the guy covers a gm game and gives plenty of explanation for each move. Buy Silman's Complete Endgame Course and read a few pages each day. Play long games on lichess (15-60 minute games) online then after the game review it and try to understand what mistakes you made during the game. You can use the game analysis feature, and engine analysis to do this. Then use the opening database there, set it to master games, and use the winning percentages to see some other ways you could have played the opening.

Doing these things will improve your ability to evaluate a position and expose you to new maneuvers and ideas you haven't seen before.

As far as knowing what to do you need to be able to evaluate the position on the board and have some knowledge or pattern recognition for typical ways to improve your position or worsen your opponents.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Don't worry, finding a good middle game plan is not easy for a beginner and takes some experience to develop as there is often more than one option to follow. It is not something you can generalize or something you can train like tactics puzzles.

The best way to improve is to find a stronger player to go through your games and discuss what you should have done (not move by move but in principal).

Essential for developing a plan is a correct evaluation of the current board position. Based on this evaluation you can develop a plan with the aim to improve your weaknesses or to play against your opponent's weaknesses. A few things to look for in a position:

* good pieces and bad pieces (whose position you want to improve or which you want to exchange)
* weaknesses in pawn structure, giving you ideas for "pawn breaks" or for winning pawns
* weak king -\> ideas for attack, or if it is your own king, need for defense
* open files (which you usually want to occupy with heavy pieces)

Wikipedia has a good article on common pawn structures with the typical plan/"theme" associate with it. Also, reading annotated games or watching commentaries of games is a good way to learn how master players think about a position and develop a plan.

# Answer
> 3 votes
To be concise, first you have to get quickly and soundly through the opening. This implies getting your minor pieces out quickly, contesting the center and castling so that you've reached an even middle game. Then you can start looking for tactics while avoiding your opponent's threats. He'll be doing the same, so you'll have to be alert to his tactics as well as his strategical intent. Is he moving his pieces toward your king position? You'll have to try to offset those plans by bringing your pieces to the same area. In a balanced position, when tactics aren't available, you should strive to improve your position - by gaining space on the board, keeping your pawn structure intact, controlling open files, looking for holes in the enemy position to place advanced pieces like your knights, penetrating with your heavy pieces, e.g. rooks, to the 7th rank. If you have controlled the center giving more mobility to your pieces, you can look for ways to direct them toward your opponent's king-side to try to ultimately storm that position tactically. As Silman has proposed, look for imbalances on the board, such as unprotected enemy pieces and pawns, poor coordination among same, isolated, backward and doubled pawns, weak defense around his king, backward development, etc., to try to take advantage of. Hopefully these suggestions don't seem too abstract, but these ideas can ultimately lead to concrete expression on the board. Going over annotated games by strong players should also help elucidate these ideas and bring about the desired improvement in your game along with notating and reviewing your own games. And of course playing regularly is also important to see many positions and absorb beneficial patterns.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It may be time to start learning positional play. Most positions do not favor a tactical attacking approach, at least until you have built up a better position so that it would work.

Put your pieces in better locations. Create weaknesses in your opponents structure. Wait until the position is ripe so that tactics can decide.

Lastly, learn endgames. You won't beat everybody in the middle game. A lot of games go on a long time and the end game is just as important if nobody wins earlier.

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Why couldn't I win this Maroczy Bind (vs 2000)?
```

[FEN ""]
[Date "6/10/2018"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "2000"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bg7 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Be3 O-O 8. Be2 d6 9. O-O Bd7 10. Rc1 a5 11. f4 a4 12. Bf3 a3 13. b3 Qa5 14. h3 Nxd4 15. Bxd4 e5 16. Be3 Bc6 17. Qxd6 exf4 18. b4 Qd8 19. Bxf4 Qb6+ 20. Qc5 Qxc5+ 21. bxc5 Rfd8 22. Nd5 Nd7 23. Bc7 Re8 24. Bd6 Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Ra5 26. Bg4 Nxc5 27. Bc7 Ra4 28. Bb6 Rxe4 29. Bxc5 Rxg4 30. Ne7+ Kg7 31. Nxc6 bxc6 32. hxg4 Bxc5 33. Rb1 Rxc4 34. Rb7 Rxg4 35. Rfxf7+ Kh6 36. Rxh7+ Kg5 37. Rbc7 Rc4 38. Rcd7 Rc1+ 39. Kh2 Bg1+ 40. Kh1 Be3+ 41. Kh2 Bg1+ 42. Kh1 Be3+ 1/2-1/2

```

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2000

I felt that I had a big initiative throughout this game and failed to convert it and ended up in a worse position in the end. Feel free to address the following points or any other analysis that is important.

* I played 11.f4 with the intention of maintaining control over e5 and keeping open the option of eventually breaking with e4-e5 or f4-f5. Perhaps 11.b3 is a better first move to slow down a5-a4? Perhaps black can also consider ideas with ...Ng4.
* 12.Bf3 kind of feels like a wasted move at the moment but I felt it would eventually play a role in supporting a knight on d5, perhaps 12.h3 is more straightforward in this position.
* I felt happy with 14.h3, considering Nd5 next.
* I instantly felt that my opponent made quite an error with 15...e5.
* 17.Qxd6 looked safe, but perhaps I was better off with 18.Qxf4 or 19.Qxf4 rather than 19.Bxf4?!, allowing 19...Qb6+.
* I didn't like 20.Kh1 Rad8 21.Qe7 Rfe8 when I have too much trouble hanging on to the b4 pawn and have to resort to Qc5, so I just played 20.Qc5 right away.
* After 22.Nd5 I felt I still had a nice initiative and I really don't understand where I could've improved between now and 29...Rxg4. Maybe I could slow down and not allow 24...Bd4+? And after 26.Bg4 Nxc5 I really felt that I was losing grip.
* I was a bit low on time and didn't see much better than 29.Bxc5.
* In hindsight, perhaps I should've been a little more patient than 33.Rb1 and try slowly improving my position, perhaps it's still roughly equal though.
* My opponent generously offered a draw after 42...Be3+ but I felt he was the one who could play on.

Also, please no computer analysis unless it's absolutely vital to explaining something. Thanks!

# Answer
You couldn't win mostly due to the mistake on move 19, but you still had chances.

> * I played 11.f4 with the intention of maintaining control over e5 and keeping open the option of eventually breaking with e4-e5 or f4-f5:

That statement is not enough of a plan, and your following moves don't support either idea. That pawn cannot move backwards and you might wish it were on f3.

> * 12.Bf3, perhaps 12.h3

Again you are not playing with any plan, but Bf3 supports e4 and is probably a better square for the Bishop

> * I felt happy with 14.h3

Why? How does 14.h3 help your position? I can't help thinking there is something wrong with your position. Your rooks aren't connected and the long dark-square diagonal is loose, but I don't know that Black can take advantage of that.

> * error with 15...e5.

Yes that is dubious, and I think Black could have improved his rooks before trading knights in the center.

> * 17.Qxd6 looked safe, but perhaps I was better off with 18.Qxf4 or 19.Qxf4 rather than 19.Bxf4?!, allowing 19...Qb6+.

or 19.Qd8, which looks to give you a big advantage! 19...Rfxd8 20.Bxf4 Rd4?! 21.Ne2 +/-

> * After 22.Nd5 I really don't understand where I could've improved

Well, what did 26.Bg4 achieve but to weaken your e-pawn? How about, 26.Rcd1 Bxc5 27.Bc7 Ra4 28.Bg4

> * 33.Rb1

Why help Blacks rook get in the game? Also, every pawn trade makes it harder to win the game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I have not analyzed it in detail, but you played several moves that I consider inferior.

The answer to the OP's question is that you are not yet strong enough to win with that position against a 2000 rated player.

I suspect a computer analysis would show you a number of moves that would differ from what you actually did. It might just be me but I would look at the moves 37. Rb3 or Rh3 to avoid the perpetual check.
> 0 votes

# Answer
27. e5! Bxe5 28. Ne7+! should do it :)

EDIT: I am wrong.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Finding New York City tournaments as a visitor from Moscow
I am visiting New York City from Moscow. How can I find tournaments there?

# Answer
Most tournaments in the U.S. are not FIDE-rated, but there are some. Your best best are the more-common USCF-rated tournaments. You would have to join the USCF as part of that.

They have a list of tournaments here. Just pick the state you want, in this case, New York.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: It's not check but the next move is checkmate
I have 5 pieces left and my opponent only has his king. It is my opponent's turn and his king is not in check but everywhere his king moves is checkmate. Who wins?

# Answer
If it is your opponent's turn to move and none of your opponent's pieces can move other than his king, and the king would be in check on any square it could move to, we would call that stalemate. In case of stalemate, neither player wins – the game is drawn.

Here are a few examples:

1. A simple one with just 3 pieces on the board with Black to move:

Here, the black king has nowhere to go, the squares h8, h7, g7 and f8 are controlled by the white queen and f7 is controlled by the white king.

---

2. Another position of stalemate with a few more pieces on the board, again with Black to move:

Black has 2 pawns and his king. His pawns can’t move forward or capture any pieces and his King can’t move anywhere as its surrounding is controlled by the pieces as shown in the image.

---

3. A little more complicated one with even more pieces on the board (white to move):

Positions like this one occur only very rarely! I believe it is a composition by someone and hasn't occurred in a real game. Here all the pieces are on the board and yet White has no moves to make. All his pawns are fixed, most of his other pieces are blocked by his own pieces and the only 3 pieces which have space to move are the rook on g3, the knight on d2 and the king on e1. None of these three pieces can move since that would leave the king in check! Unfortunately this is a ***draw***, because it is a **stalemate**.
> 13 votes

# Answer
It is a draw by stalemate.....
> 3 votes

# Answer
Excellent explanation of stalemate by Pavan, but I think there was still some confusion in the original post about checkmate too. Here is the logical way I try to think about it.

> A king attacked by an enemy piece is called "in check".
>
> It's illegal to play a move so that your king is in check (either by moving king into check, or by shifting a pinned piece out of the line).
>
> If you have no legal moves, for whatever reason, then the game is certainly OVER. But how?
>
> * If your king is already in check, then it's CHECKMATE and you've lost.
> * If your king is NOT in check, then it's STALEMATE and it's a draw.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, check, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: What are pros and cons around banning castling?
Vladimir Kramnik has proposed on chess.com that castling be banned for the good of the game.

What are the kinds of objective points that might be made for & against this idea? Based on these, do you think that Kramnik's idea can succeed?

I am keen to avoid this becoming merely opinion-based. But it's such an interesting idea that it must be worth discussing. I do have a perspective, but am keen to hear others' ideas first.

# Answer
It would certainly allow for more attacks due to kings being stuck in the center, but fundamentally changing the game, which in a way dumbs it down, is not good. It would be less complex.

I also do not want to think that I spent 40 years of my life studying something only to have it changed. I do not want the rug pulled out from under me like that.
> 26 votes

# Answer
I have no real preference either way, but I'll point out that Kramnik based his argument on AlphaZero playing against itself. Because of AlphaZero's style, it might not be the case that these no-castling games end up in complicated positions more often.

Here're two more games to add using the no-castling rule, played in the TCEC viewer-submitted opening bonus games. Komodo (the second-strongest traditional engine) plays against Scorpio, one of the newer NN engines (objectively, it's likely weaker than Leela, Allie, Fat Fritz, and Stoofvlees). To this patzer's eye, they do look pretty complicated, adding more evidence for Kramnik's position. Caveat: because Scorpio is also an NN engine, it might play more similarly to AlphaZero.

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Scorpio"]
[Black "Komodo"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Rg1 Rg8 4. Rb1 Rb8 5. Rh1 Ra8 6. Ra1 Rh8 7. Ng1 Ng8 8. Nb1 Nb8 9. c4 c5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. d4 cxd4 12. Nxd4 g6 13. e4 e5 14. Nc2 Bc5 15. Nc3 Kf8 16. Rb1 a5 17. h4 d6 18. Bg5 Qe8 19. h5 h6 20. hxg6 fxg6 21. Be3 Be6 22. f3 Kg7 23. Qd2 h5 24. Na3 Nd4 25. Nab5 Nxb5 26. Nxb5 Qe7 27. Bg5 Nf6 28. a3 a4 29. Kd1 Qf7 30. Rc1 Rac8 31. Rc2 Rc6 32. Kc1 h4 33. Be2 h3 34. gxh3 Nh5 35. h4 Ng3 36. Rd1 Kh7 37. Qe1 Nxe2+ 38. Qxe2 Rf8 39. Rc3 Bb4 40. axb4 Bxc4 41. Rxc4 Qxc4+ 42. Qxc4 Rxc4+ 43. Kb1 Rxb4 44. Nxd6 Rxf3 45. Rd2 a3 46. Ka2 b5 47. bxa3 Rbb3 48. Ne8 Rxa3+ 49. Kb1 Rfb3+ 50. Kc1 Rc3+ 51. Rc2 Kg8 52. Nd6 Rxc2+ 53. Kxc2 b4 54. Bf6 Kf8 55. Bxe5 Ke7 56. Nb7 Rh3 57. Bd6+ Kf6 58. Bxb4 Rxh4 59. Bc3+ Ke6 60. Kd3 Rh3+ 61. Kd4 g5 62. Nc5+ Kf7 63. Nd3 Ke6 64. Bd2 Kf6 65. Ne5 Rb3 66. Ba5 Ke6 67. Nd3 Rb1 68. Bc3 Kf6 69. Kd5+ Kg6 70. Bd4 g4 71. e5 Kf7 72. Bf2 Rd1 73. Ke4 Rf1 74. Bh4 Rh1 75. Bg5 Rd1 76. Nf4 Re1+ 77. Kf5 g3 78. Bd8 Rh1 79. Bb6 Rf1 80. Kg4 Rb1 81. Ba5 g2 82. Nxg2 1/2-1/2

```

Reverse game:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Komodo"]
[Black "Scorpio"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Rg1 Rg8 4. Rb1 Rb8 5. Rh1 Ra8 6. Ra1 Rh8 7. Ng1 Ng8 8. Nb1 Nb8 9. d4 d5 10. c4 dxc4 11. e3 e6 12. Nc3 a6 13. a4 b6 14. Bxc4 Nf6 15. e4 Nc6 16. Nge2 Nb4 17. f3 c5 18. Be3 cxd4 19. Nxd4 Bc5 20. Qb3 Qc7 21. Rc1 Ke7 22. a5 Bd7 23. axb6 Qxb6 24. e5 Nfd5 25. Nxd5+ exd5 26. Bb5 Ke8 27. Nf5 Qxb5 28. Nxg7+ Kf8 29. Bxc5+ Kxg7 30. Qxb4 Qxb4+ 31. Bxb4 a5 32. Bc3 Be6 33. Kd2 Kg6 34. Ra1 a4 35. Ra3 Rhc8 36. h3 Kg5 37. Ke3 Rc4 38. g4 h5 39. f4+ Kh6 40. f5 Bd7 41. Bd4 Kg5 42. h4+ Kxg4 43. e6 Be8 44. Rf1 Rb4 45. Rf4+ Kg3 46. Ra1 Rb3+ 47. Bc3 a3 48. Rg1+ Kh2 49. Rgf1 d4+ 50. Rxd4 axb2 51. Rf2+ Kg3 52. Rf3+ Kh2 53. Rd2+ Kg1 54. Rg3+ Kh1 55. Kf2 Kh2 56. Rdd3 b1=Q 57. Rh3# 1-0

```

**Update**: Chessbase reports that a tournament between fairly-strong players (about 2300-2400) resulted in 89% decisive games. Caveat: because the format is new, one would expect more decisive games. If no castling chess became the standard, theory *will* develop, openings will become more refined, and we should expect draws to increase in frequency.
> 15 votes

# Answer
This answer will focus on chess as it is played, rather than subdomains like composition or engine development.

Castling is a move that usually accomplishes at least one of two things:

1. It gets the king to safety.
2. It develops the rook.

Or both, in just one move. As castling stands now, it requires one move to reach a position that would otherwise take three moves. This accelerates the game considerably, where a player can get king safety *and* an attack quickly.

\[As an aside, historically, the current version of castling is not the first. There have been several others during the 16th to 18th century, like swapping the king and rook directly, or "free castling" (put the king and rook somewhere on the squares between them, inclusive.) They all had a slightly different flavour from modern castling and are interesting in their own right, but the effect is the same, returning to the two points above.\]

The effect of banning castling would be to remove this acceleration of the game. However, it does not automatically make the game slow or boring. I draw from my experience of shogi for this part regarding openings.

* In the opening, the choice between king safety and rapid attack would be even more pronounced than before. This would of course radically change opening theory (move sequences), but also opening strategy (what to prioritise).
* Players could consider spending several moves adopting structures that allow the king to walk from the centre into safety in the wings. This multi-move strategy is termed "castling" in shogi (unfortunate name), and is a large and varied part of opening strategy.
* There would be options to forgo this "castling" in favour of immediate attack, leaving the king in the centre. This is clearly double-edged.
* If executing "castling", players would have to be cautious - the king remains fairly vulnerable for a while, and players have to maintain flexibility to avoid being caught off guard during this.

Of course, shogi is its own completely different game (drops make it more akin to crazyhouse chess than regular chess), but the general ideas behind its opening strategy would seem applicable to no-castling regular chess, hence why I refer to it in this answer.

What is certain though is that this change would have the desired effect: opening theory (move sequences) would need to be completely revised as many lines hinge on castling quickly. Opening strategy would also change to an extent, where the balance between king safety and rapid development adds another dimension to the game.

On the other hand, endgame theory would not change (barring a tiny handful of composed studies). Middlegame skill and general "chess skill" would be also largely untouched, perhaps even promoted in importance as the game would for a while rely more heavily on piece coordination and chess sense than on opening lines.

This no-castling change seems interesting and has the advantages of (a) not changing endgame theory, unlike the stalemate = win suggestion often brought up, and (b) not changing pattern recognition, unlike chess960 which yields unfamiliar positions from the get-go.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Pros: Tal will rise from the dead in excitement at castling not being allowed. Cons: Fischer will also rise from the dead in excitement. Undecided: Petrosian will have many of his masterpieces, where he castled late as was his style, left to not be worth as much. How does he feel about this? Who knows?

In all seriousness, this would make the advantage of playing White much bigger. Opening theory would develop a lot more gambits for White. I expect that after a year there would be an irresistible call to modify the rules over checkmate; one way would be to make checkmate only possible after 20 moves and any checkmate before then is a draw.

I agree with previous posts; if people want a chess variant there are many already. Just for laughs, if I had to ask myself "what would be the fairest way of having castling not allowed?" maybe if you give a check then from then on castling is allowed. It could be more interesting still if there was a move limit ; after the check you get 10 moves of allowable castling. Or for a crazy idea, allow castling anywhere for the whole game but the king and rook have to be vertically spaced for squares. That would be weird lol.

Good question for laughs at least.
> 11 votes

# Answer
My 2 cents - it's a very stupid idea, on a par with Nigel Short's suggestion to change stalemate into a win.

There are two very good reasons not to do it:

1. It would completely change opening theory
2. There are already 959 alternatives if you want to have a form of chess which is similar to the standard format but with different start positions which gives a lot more scope for innovation than just banning castling. There is now a world champion in this who is not called Carlsen.

In Short (pardon the pun), it is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist / already has a solution (959 solutions).
> 9 votes

# Answer
Who cares? Let 1,000 flowers bloom.

There are already a bunch of popular variants so arguing from tradition is pointless at best. Does anyone play Chess 960 exclusively? King of the Hill? If they do, then those are valid creations of clearly high interest to them. If not exclusively, then still clearly fun for them. If not quite so, just eventually of passing interest, then they shall pass.

This too. It would either make it or it wouldn't. If some site programs it, and doesn't shoot for exclusivity, exposure might find lots of fans. I'm actually curious at the moment whether average players would be happier the "magic" move isn't there to upset their plans or if they'd be more dismayed that it isn't easy to hide the king and get the rook out.

Personal bet? It would unbalance the game enough to have the practical effect that folks cut the middle game rather short, choosing to trade off the moment anything goes wrong since attacks might be much more "blitzkrieg" than currently (excepting the good Mr. Fisher's legacy (which includes Chess 960, I believe)) and the risk tolerance might be fairly low when it's not just "now I have a sucky game and have to fight hard for a draw" but rather "geez, nowadays an attack like that might be two moves away from slaughtering me where I used to have five, six moves to wish I could trade down."

But who knows? Wonder what was said when letting the pawn move two spaces on its first move or when castling was first introduced?

Baseball used to go four strikes and fouls counted the whole way, not just to one strike short of striking out. Anyone not build a kitty of money for someone who lands on Free Parking? Not truly identical, but tweaks that worked out.

Let it exist, see if it takes over. If so, maybe it should have. If not, what got hurt?
> 6 votes

# Answer
As a chess composer myself, it would be extremely upsetting. Over two centuries, give or take, worth of wonderful art would be slammed into dust, now entirely useless somewhat. What's to do with it all now if castling is banned? Banning castling would be like burning down the Library of Alexandria-hudrends of years of work would be lost for many people.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Thanks to everyone for their replies. As the original questioner, I've deliberately come late to this party.

I think it's instructive (and fun) to look at GM Kramnik's arguments from the perspective of the collectable card game Magic the Gathering. Think what you may about Magic, its developers are the absolute experts in rule changes, since they've been doing it continually since 1993. How might an imaginary Magic Developer respond to Kramnik's (paraphrased) arguments?

Kramnik: (1) There are two related problems: too many draws and opening theory carries on too long into the game.

Imaginary Magic developer: "YES absolutely. We try in Magic to avoid draws and drawish positions, which are anathema to player fun. The too lengthy opening theory in chess shows clearly that the format is too nearly "solved" and needs refreshing. You poor guys!"

Kramnik: (2) Chess960 won't interest spectators, won't interest some players, and is not "aesthetic".

Imaginary Magic developer: "NO WAY. Fischer's genius invention of Chess960 is the nearest that chess has to the concept of "printing new Magic cards". It's a great way to expand the game and make it fresh for players and spectators. The recent World Championships in this format was a resounding success, with commentators on the edge of their seats right from the beginning of the game. It must be very difficult for professional chess players, who have invested their lives and bet their economic future on a particular form, to contemplate their main asset being devalued by Chess960, when there are always newcomers and computers to adapt to the new formats quicker. This is really hard, but I don't think you can use this point anecdotally to argue against Chess960. And I think you confuse "aesthetic" with "familiar".

"We Magic developers are sensitive to the views of the pro player community, because we understand that where they lead the rest of the community can follow. But we can't let a key format decay indefinitely."

Kramnik: (3) Chess would benefit at top levels from banning castling .

Imaginary Magic developer: "This is a very interesting proposal. We are alert to the playability of formats, and will sometimes step in to ban powerful cards if the format is not healthy. We particularly focus on the balance between attack and defence, and here arguably the classic chess format is suffering, due the capability of computers and players to find better defences against (sacrificial) attacks. Castling is a powerful card, a kind of "Black Lotus", offering "three tempi for one". Castling also resembles the pattern of recent conditional Magic cards, in that there are some preconditions that you need to satisfy, but those are the kind of things that you would want to do anyway (develop minor pieces, avoid checks). So the preconditions aren't really a downside. Only a player of Carlsen's calibre has been able to reliably eke wins out of drawish positions: which is what needs to be done if romantic-style attacks cannot be successful. So here we do need to shift the balance from control to aggro."

"Removing castling at the top levels of chess is an elegant proposal, and may help fix draws. But we don't want to separate the game the Pros play from the game that our paying public plays. And banning one kind of move can only refresh chess opening theory as a short-term side effect. Ultimately chess need to "print new cards" with Chess960. This is the real future of chess."

"Castling by the way sits uncomfortably in Chess960 anyway (even top GMs don't know how touch move works with it) and is arguably unnecessary. We Magic developers are alert to fussy rules and would try to get rid of castling in Chess960. Since Chess960 is new, we don't lose any history by so doing. Of course, castling breaks left-right symmetry, so there would be only 480 effectively distinct positions.”
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, rules, fide, castling
---


# Question
Title: Is it permitted to stare at a blank chessboard during a tournament game?
## Long-winded Motivation

I have recently noticed during my own tournament games that I am not infrequently closing my eyes, or at least looking away from the board, when engaged in in-depth calculation (or what counts as in-depth for me). This isn't deliberate on my part; it's just something I've naturally started doing more often. I know that some well-known players do this quite a lot, e.g. Ivanchuk has a reputation of very often staring up at the ceiling when calculating, and I think it actually makes a good deal of sense:

> Having an image of the current position in front of you can be helpful if you're apt to lose track of it. But that's not a problem for someone like Ivanchuk, and so that "plus" is inconsequential. On the other hand, having the full current position right in your visual field might actually *interfere* (for some folks) with the process of fixing projected future positions in your mind's eye, thus sometimes leading one to look away.

With that in mind, it seems not unreasonable to me that a lesser light than Ivanchuk might possibly benefit from the middle ground of staring at a blank chessboard while calculating like this. The current piece positions aren't there to interfere, while one still gets the image of the chessboard to serve as a potentially useful "frame" for the successful mental imaging of positions. I don't think that I'd actually find it very useful, and perhaps nobody would, but that's neither here nor there as far as my question is concerned.

## Question

> While one obviously can't use an analysis board when playing tournament chess, do the rules (e.g. FIDE or USCF) actually preclude having an empty chessboard nearby at which to stare while calculating?

Many scorebooks already have scoresheets that look something like this:

Thus many tournament players already have a small empty board available to use exactly as I've described, if they so desired. So, is it technically permissible for them to place an empty board nearby before the game, and stare at it if they like? (If nothing else, I suppose one could make custom scoresheets featuring quite large empty diagrams ...)

# Answer
> 18 votes
FIDE rules 12.3a and 6.14 are relevant to this situation. The former rule is vague, but the latter strongly suggests it is allowed. Let's take a look.

**Rule 12.3a**

> 12.3a During play the **players are forbidden to** make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or **analyse on another chessboard.**

This rule does not define the word *analyse*, and hence, the verdict would depend on whether "staring at blank chessboard" constitutes analysis.

**Rule 6.14**

> 6.14 Screens, monitors, or **demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard**, the moves and the number of moves made, and clocks which also show the number of moves, **are allowed in the playing hall**. However, the player may not make a claim relying solely on information shown in this manner.

Since a board showing current position *is* allowed, it is strongly implied (though not explicitly stated) that looking at a blank chessboard is allowed.

Used rulebook on the FIDE website here.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Absent a specific rule I would allow it as tournament director. The rules say you can NOT ANALYSE with another set meaning to move pieces on it to aid your visualzation. So looking at a blank board is fine as you are not moving pieces on it.

Note that blind players are allowed a separate board and get to touch the pieces to know where they are as long as they do not move them for analysis.

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: At what playing strength level should one be able to mate with King Bishop and Knight vs King?
As in title above, at what playing strength level should one be able to mate with King, Bishop and Knight vs King without much effort (with reasonable time left for the game)?

# Answer
A member of my club, rated about 1900 FIDE, had this in a championship blitz game about 2 years ago with 30 seconds left on the clock. He delivered mate with time to spare. IMs have failed. Go figure. If you study and learn then you should be able to deliver mate. If you don't study then you won't. Playing strength doesn't have that much to do with it.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I don't think it's that relevant; most chess players are unlikely to *ever* get this endgame on the board. I'd rather spend my time studying other tricky pawnless endgames like Queen vs. Rook, which is far more likely to occur.

I knew how to win this endgame fairly early in my career, but I had always been fascinated with endgames; conversely, Wikipedia shows two grandmasters failing to deliver mate. Had they known the right corner for mate, and the W-manoeuvre, they'd probably figure out the rest themselves.
> 7 votes

# Answer
In 2007, Jeremy Silman published *Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master*. In this book, endgames aren't organised by theme but according to the level at which they would be most useful to learn - at least according to Silman. The book is divided into chapters that progress from the beginner level (below USCF class E) to "master" (rating range 2200 - 2399). In the introduction to the book, Silman states (page xv; emphasis added):

> I've deliberately left out many endgames. Why? Because I don't feel they are important to players below the 2400 level. For example, **I heretically decided not to include Bishop and Knight vs Lone King** because it is far from easy to master, and it occurs very rarely in over-the-board play. In fact, I only got it once in my entire career, while IM John Watson and IM John Donaldson never got it at all!"

So he concludes that this endgame is so rare that it isn't worth spending two to three hours of study on it if your level is below 2400.

The Complete Guide to Chess Endgames on the Chess Simplified website tackles the King, Bishop and Knight vs King at the "master" level (2199-2400).

Not learning this endgame before the 2200 level is an idea that has been criticised by many people below the 2200 level who have faced this endgame on the board. (A long time ago, I was in this situation myself in a rapid game in a school tournament. As luck would have it, I had studied that endgame just the night before, so when my opponent demanded a draw, not knowing it was a losing endgame, I protested and checkmated his king, which he kindly moved to the edge of the board...) For example, this thread on the Chess.com forums has both detractors and defenders of the approach.

Yuri Averbakh's *Erfolg im Endspiel* (translated into German by M. Hermann, Sportverlag 1987) is a book aimed at the elementary to intermediate level (which are not clearly defined in the book's introduction) that treats this endgame in two different chapters: in the second chapter (on elementary checkmates of the lone king), starting from positions where the lone king is just one square away from the last rank or file, and again in the last chapter, starting from positions where the lone king is either in the wrong corner or farther away from the edge (e.g. sixth rank). This same chapter also covers endgames with two knights versus pawn, rook and bishop versus bishop, and rook and knight versus rook. This approach recognises that this is a rather difficult endgame when starting with the lone king near the middle of the board, while at the same time treating it as an endgame that needs to be learnt well below the 2200 rating level.

Max Euwe six-part book series *Praktische schaaklessen* (published in Dutch in the early 1980s) covers the endgame both in the second volume (which covers each phase of the game) and the sixth volume, *Hogeschool van het eindspel* ("Endgame Academy"), which treats endgames in greater depth.

The endgame is not explained in *The Soviet Chess Primer* by Ilya Maizelis (translated into English by John Sugden, 2014). The book's chapter on endgames is obviously not meant to be exhaustive; the endgame type that is treated in most details is rook-and-pawn endgames.

At the bottom line, **there is no consensus when the Bishop-and-Knigh-versus-Lone-King endgame should be learnt.** In *Studying Chess Made Easy*, grandmaster Andrew Soltis said that he had never encountered this endgame in his own games but said that "learning it teaches techniques that can be applied elsewhere" (quoted from Wikipedia).
> 5 votes

# Answer
One should learn chess from the ending first! So if one takes your question as when one should have learned the technique then as a beginner. If one has never looked at this endgame (shame on you) and are facing it for the first time in a real game with the 50 move rule and clock ticking then anything can happen.

The minimum one should know is quite small and is just a couple key concepts. Delétang's Triangle Method is easy to remember. It's just 3 successive nets.

from wikipedia:
> 1 votes

# Answer
I coached a high school team with ratings from 700 to 1500, and demonstrated the B + N Mate and how you move the opponent's king to a corner whose color is the same as the squares on which your bishop travels.

Those around 700-800 had trouble with it, maybe because they were fairly new to competitive chess, but those 900 or better could all do it.

I think you should be able to teach a six year old who doesn't know how all the pieces in chess move to do it, since there's a structure to how you do it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A bright 1000 player could learn to do it, I have seen IMs that could not. Most club players cannot do it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, knights, bishops, kings
---


title: Swiss pairing parameters

text:
# Question
Title: Swiss pairing parameters
I realize that there are various types of Swiss pairing systems. What would be a minimum set of parameters that needs to be specified in order to avoid ambiguity in pairings? I am thinking of parameters like "initial order", "fold/slide/adjacent pairing", ...

Does such deterministic system actually exist or will there always be some pairings that have to be decided by an arbiter or by flipping a coin?

Trying to clarify with an example: As far as I understand for any major tournament there should be rules (either set by FIDE or the organizers) regarding the way the pairings are done. These rules should specify all kinds of things like for instance, how do you pair players with the same number of points? Do you pair the strongest with the second strongest or you split the group in two and pair the first from the first group (i.e. the strongest) with the first from the second group (i.e. the one of medium strength).

**Now if all of these rules/parameters have been set, is there still any ambiguity left? Or conversely, is it possible to satisfy all rules or would some get precedence in case they contradict each other?**

For instance FIDE specifies that no player should play three games in a row with the same color. But if there are only two players (who both have played the last two rounds with the black pieces) with 7 points left who are therefore going to be paired. What is going to happen then? Is the FIDE rule of three same-color games going to be violated or are they going to be paired with other players first?

Basically what I am asking is, whether *in practice* the rules are stated and followed completely (meaning that all kinds of exceptions need to be stated) or whether pairing rules are only laid out roughly and if necessary the organizer is entitled to change some pairings?

# Answer
> 1 votes
> What would be a minimum set of parameters that needs to be specified in order to avoid ambiguity in pairings?

The minimum would be to have just one rule. Do your first round pairings by sorting players according to their ID number... and then, in the second round, do it again. If you don't have any rules about repeating colors, scores, or meeting the same player twice, there's no ambiguity possible. If you don't want to flip a coin to see who gets White, just declare that the highest-rated player gets White.

This would, of course, be ridiculous and unfair. But it would be unambiguous and minimal!

> Now if all of these rules/parameters have been set, is there still any ambiguity left? Or conversely, is it possible to satisfy all rules or would some get precedence in case they contradict each other?

Assuming you have sane rules (not like the one I described above), there are pretty much going to be rules which have precedence over other rules. If White wins more often than Black, there's no way you can have a color preference rule and a same-scores rule without one taking priority. Under FIDE Dutch rules, there is a minimum set of "absolute" rules, and many more "quality" rules with specified precedence.

> For instance FIDE specifies that no player should play three games in a row with the same color. But if there are only two players (who both have played the last two rounds with the black pieces) with 7 points left who are therefore going to be paired. What is going to happen then? Is the FIDE rule of three same-color games going to be violated or are they going to be paired with other players first?

The following is considered an "absolute" rule:

> non-topscorers with the same absolute colour preference shall not meet

Assuming that 7 points is a "topscorer" (has over half the maximum possible points), then pairing the people with the same absolute color preference would not violate the absolute criteria. And then, "minimize the Pairing Score Difference" has a higher priority than "minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get a colour difference higher than +2 or lower than -2" and "minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get the same colour three times in a row." So the answer is usually going to be that the rule of three same-colored games will be violated, so as to comply with the higher-priority rule that the pairing score differences be minimized. (It's *possible* that the various absolute rules would require another resolution, of course. For example, if the two players with 7 points had already played each other, they wouldn't be able to play each other again.)

Under the FIDE Dutch rules, with the exception of the coin flip at the beginning to determine colors, the pairings are *very* deterministic. They have rules like:

> All the possible transpositions are sorted depending on the lexicographic value of their first N1 BSN(s), where N1 is the number of BSN(s) in S1

which means the organizers can't ordinarily decide things like which possible transposition to take. There's not any wiggle room.

The exception is if it's somehow impossible to comply with the absolute rules:

> If it is impossible to complete a round-pairing, the arbiter shall decide what to do.

The only scenarios I could think of where this might happen is an extremely low turnout, or a mass walkout. (If you have 8 rounds and 8 players, you can't avoid playing the same opponent twice. Or, if everyone who played White quit before playing, after the first round everyone would ineligible for the bye because they'd already had a forfeit win, and after two rounds you'd also have non-top scorers that all had the same absolute color preference.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
As actually worded the answer to the OP is two.

As apparently intended, no number is sufficient in some cases.

Generally you only need a very few to do fair pairings. Or as fair as is possible in a particular case.

I used to be a TD before computers and all you need is cards with names/ratings and results so far, and a pencil. With a little bit of planning ahead, and common sense to pair from the extremes to the middle not the middle out or top to bottom. EG round one you alternate w/b given to players in order of round 1 pairings.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Is this question prompted by Hou Yifan's unfortunate experience at Gibchess this year?

The point for her was she was expecting to be paired with less women and 7 out of 9 pairings was rather high.

However the pairing rules made no provision for her gender and have a small but finite probability that this would happen.

How can you make pairings gender agnostic by ignoring gender which they did.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In general your questions are all answered in the FIDE Handbook section for FIDE Swiss Rules and its subsections.

For instance, you ask:

> For instance FIDE specifies that no player should play three games in a row with the same color. But if there are only two players (who both have played the last two rounds with the black pieces) with 7 points left who are therefore going to be paired. What is going to happen then? Is the FIDE rule of three same-color games going to be violated or are they going to be paired with other players first?

This is answered in C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems as follows:

> f For each player the difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
>
> Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
>
> g No player will receive the same colour three times in a row.
>
> Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.

If you take the trouble to read the specifications for the Dutch system, the most commonly implemented system in approved Swiss pairing programs, in C.04.3.1. Dutch System you will find it expands on how this is handled by this system in the last round:

> **B Pairing Criteria**
> *Absolute Criteria*
>
> (These may not be violated. If necessary players will be moved down to a lower score bracket.)
>
> B.1 a Two players shall not meet more than once.
>
> b A player who has received a point or half point without playing, either through a bye or due to an opponent not appearing in time, is a downfloater (see A4) and shall not receive a bye.
>
> B.2 Two players with the same absolute colour preference (see A7.a) shall not meet (therefore no player’s colour difference will become greater than +2 or \< -2 nor a player will receive the same colour three times in row)
>
> **Note: If it is helpful to reduce the number of floaters or the score of a floater when pairing top scorers B2 may be ignored. If a top scorer is paired against a non-top scorer, the latter is considered a top scorer for colour allocation purposes.**

"Top scorer" is defined as follows:

> Top scorers are players who have a score of over 50% of the maximum possible score when pairing the last round.

---
Tags: rules, swiss-pairing
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn't Stockfish (DroidFish) try to flag me?
Imagine the following position:

```
 [FEN "3k4/7p/7K/3B4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White is played by Stockfish in DroidFish and black by human (me). We both have 15 seconds.

After a few moves, white bishop or king gets the black pawn and... "Game over,draw by impossibility of mate!"... It is logical, due to the fact that there isn't mate position with two kings and one bishop.

I repeated the experiment sometimes and the same result happened... So, I wonder, why doesn't Stockfish flag me? Isn't it smarter to wait 50 moves for drawing with the hope to flag me without getting the pawn?

There are many possible mate positions without getting the pawn. I imagined one if pawn is promoted to knight and then: white king g3, white bishop h3, black king h1 and black knight f3. Black to move. Black knight to g1 and white bishop to g2 checkmate.

```
 [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/5nKB/8/7k b - - 0 1"]

 1...Ng1?? 2. Bg2#

```

So, it is not more logical in these cases, engines to try to flag the opponent? Maybe in a game between two engines it is meaningless, but in the case of engine vs human, I think it isn't so illogical.

What is your opinion?

# Answer
> 8 votes
They are programmed to play the best chess, and there is simply no programming added in that attempts to account for the opponent being low on time. The way it played it was the best chess-wise. A human might try to flag you, but not the computer. Personally, I like it that way.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Generally, the computer plays the moves leading to the best objective result. Taking the pawn or doing what you said both lead to a draw objectively, so there's no big reason to prefer one over the other.

There are some adjustments that can be made to the engine, such as getting it to avoid repetitions early on (even if going for the early draw makes sense objectively). However, doing what you said would be hoping for a specific scenario occurring many moves down the road, and it could only really happen if you were trying to lose.

---
Tags: engines, endgame, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Penalty for violating FIDE rule 8.1.2 - writing moves in advance
At one of the chess league fixtures recently, one of the players was writing moves in advance of moving the pieces on the board.

As per the FIDE rule 8.1.2 it's forbidden to do so, but in practice what's the penalty for the player who does it? Should it be a verbal warning and loss of the game on a subsequent attempt or something else?

# Answer
As always: It depends ;-) FIDE tells us that it is not allowed to write moves in advance, so the arbiter HAS to give a penalty. He may choose from those in Art. 12.9 considering the circumstances.

Normally, writing in advance gives no advantage and does not disturb anyone, so I would give a warning. If the player is new to tournament chess, I even would give several warnings, as a warning is not the same as a yellow card in soccer, where the 2nd is automatically a red card.

Against a regular player, 2nd time I would give his opponent 2 minutes additional time. If the arbiter changes the clock, most players take it for a sign that declaration of a loss is near. And that would be the consequence at the third time, especially if one regards Art. 11.7.

If I think that a trainer/parent/stronger player looks at the move and give signs, I will declare the game lost at once.
> 3 votes

# Answer
> Should it be a verbal warning and loss of the game on a subsequent attempt or something else?

It depends entirely on the circumstances, although a player would never be defaulted for the specific reason of writing the move before playing it. (I will return to this point at the end)

A big part of the problem is that years ago young players were taught to write the move down, do a final blunder check and then make the move. If the blunder check revealed a problem or they just had second thoughts they changed what was written and made the new move. This is the nub of "making notes".

First, if as an arbiter, I'm observing a game and the player is consistently writing the move, pausing for reflection then making the move then I will step in and warn him.

If the player is just writing the move and then immediately playing the move then I will not intervene unless the opponent complains but I will speak to player after the game and tell him that what he is doing is against the rules and tell him not to do it again. This is a general principle for very minor infractions when the arbiter intervening would disturb the players unwarrantedly.

Coming back to what I said at the beginning, that a player would never be defaulted for this, we can look at what happened in the Wesley So case which is analagous. He wasn't writing moves down but writing advice to himself about how to play. He was defaulted after 3 warnings but he was not defaulted for writing notes.

He was defaulted for ignoring the instructions of the arbiter which is something different and, in the extreme case that a player continued writing moves down before making them after several warnings from the arbiter, this would also happen. The player would be defaulted for ignoring the instructions of the arbiter. It may look as if it is the same thing but it is not.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, annotation
---


# Question
Title: How to make a time-efficient thinking system?
It is said that given enough time even an average player can play the "best" move in any given position.

Thus the real question in chess is that of **time control**. It has been argued by several chess tutors/authors (e.g Dan Heisman) that differences in a player's "thinking system" is what differentiates a patzer from a master. Because both players have the same amount of time in which to make moves, the one with superior time management (which, in this sense, is used to mean "how long it takes to make a good move/the best move") will win.

If we give the patzer unlimited time, but the master normal time controls, in theory the patzer should win (or at the very least draw).

So, how does one create an algorithm (aka a thinking system) that allows the player to make good moves (but not necessarily the "best" moves, since that would be impossible) while still being time-conscious? How do the masters do it?

**Things to consider:**

How would such a system operate?

Would it be hierarchical or web-like?

Would it consider each position a separate case with its own algorithm or be totally universal?

How much should memory (of openings and games) be involved?

# Answer
> 8 votes
There is some truth in what you say, time management obviously plays a role. I often feel that I can compete with IMs if I have twice the time. (Incidentally in my last game against an IM this theory was put to the test, he spent half of his time smoking and I managed to win the game).

But, if the difference in playing strength between you and your opponent is too big, no amount of thinking time will help you overcome it. Chess is first and foremost a game of understanding and intuition. If you haven't acquired this understanding before the game, no amount of thinking will lead you to conclusions that might just be obvious for a GM.

In that sense playing a game of chess is similar to writing a poem. Say, you and Shakespeare have a sonnet competition going on. He will have ten minutes, you will get ten hours. No amount of thinking will give you his vocabulary and feel for the english language.

There are super GMs who have an atrocious time management (Grischuk comes to mind). So it isn't a factor that totally cripples your chess strength. But, to finally come up with some actual advice:

* Be confident.
* Avoid perfectionism.

Everything else is experience and common sense. There is no mechanical "algorithm" that is applicable for a human being. Recommended reading: The seven deadly chess sins, by Jonathan Rowson.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The three main things that better players have over worse players in terms of thinking process are

1. Conscious memory. You get to a theoretical endgame (or see that you could reach it) and search your memory to remember whether it is won, and how the win is achieved. Or you recall memorized opening moves.
2. Unconscious pattern recognition. Something about the position on the board leads you to look at particular ways of continuing. At the very lowest level this consists of things like noticing hanging pieces; at higher levels it might be things like knowing the most useful plans for a given pawn structure, or realizing that a certain type of sacrifice might be promising.
3. Better calculation. Often aspect 2 comes into play here as well as it lets you automatically "prune your tree of variations", checking out promising moves for you and your opponent and discarding ones that are unlikely to work.

Although the end result of these three aspects is that the master arrives at good moves faster than a novice player, I would say that the differences are qualitative and not merely quantitative. The master is not simply thinking the same things as the novice but faster; he is thinking different things.

What I am trying to get at is that creating a "time-efficient thinking system" by itself is not sufficient to cross that gap. You will have to get better at the three things above, which in turn will make your chess thinking more efficient.

# Answer
> 1 votes
What I've gleaned - for a more efficient thinking process be an MCP.
ie. focus on:
M - Memory
C - Calculation
P - Pattern recognition

Acronyms are highly useful in chess!

# Answer
> 1 votes
It sounds great in theory, but creating a completely algorithmic thinking system is impractical for humans. And why would you want to operate strictly to an algorithm? Our creativity and intuition is what gives us a chance against the machine's super speed and memory (or at least what used to).

A patzer with huge amounts of time usually couldn't beat a master with less time. The master's intuition is too strong. Theoretically with *unlimited / infinite* time a patzer should always win, but what's the point of discussing that?

If you really want an algorithm here's the best I have:

1) Read books / play games / solve puzzles.

2) Gradually build your intuition+calcuation abilities over time from step 1.

3) Repeat step 1 while playing in tournaments.

4) Hopefully gain success.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Learn to make decisions! Budget your time so you use enough but not too much on a given move in normal situations. When a problem arises then you can take longer but still you have to make a decision without using too much time as that would make later moves more rushed and less good for all of them.

Practice. Play at exactly a short time per move so you learn to think enough, but do not dawdle on deciding and moving.

---
Tags: time-management
---