# Question
Title: What is the reason for using gambits on defence?
As I understand it, gambits are used in aggressive play, such as in the King's Gambit and Queen's Gambit ...

But:

> What is the reason behind playing gambits on defence, such as in the French Defence?

# Answer
> 12 votes
The fact that an opening has the word "Defense" in the name usually signifies nothing more than the fact that it is a move by Black that leads into that opening. For instance, if White plays `1.c4` it is simply called the English *Opening*. But if, after `1.e4`, Black plays `1...c5`, then we reach Sicilian *Defense* positions; or if Black plays `1...e6` instead it is a French *Defense*. But the only reason the latter two are called "defenses" is because it is Black who chooses to enter each one, and the first-move advantage for White means that in the early stages of the game, Black is "defending" to some degree. This is the same reason why, for instance, when Black plays a certain setup it is called the King's Indian Defense, but when White does the same it is called the King's Indian Attack. *The word "defense" in the name of an opening generally means no more than that Black has the choice to enter into it.*

But Black's motives when playing one "defense" instead of another vary as widely as chess players do, and many times Black is striving to take the initiative away from White immediately. The Sicilian Defense and the King's Indian Defense, for example, both have rather aggressive reputations. Given the above explanation regarding the word "defense" in the names of openings, your question as stated boils down to, "what reasons does Black have for gambit play?" And to that, I would just say that gambit play has the same pluses and minuses for either color.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It's about imbalances. Some positions are very balanced, not many differences between both positions -- same material, castling on the same side, similar pawn structures. That's one popular strategy as black: keep the number of imbalances low, and slowly equalize the position. Only when it's equal do you try to outplay your opponent.

The other philosophy is to play for \*un\*balanced positions. Emphasize the differences. In the Open Sicilian, especially when White castles long, White gets quick easy development and an attack on the king, but Black has two pawns in the center and long term chances in the counter attack. In the King's Indian with a locked center, often White has an overwhelming attack on the queenside and Black a great attack on the kingside. It's less important who is currently slightly better, because the positions are like apples and oranges. What matters is who wins first.

Gambits are just another imbalance -- one side has an extra pawn, the other has some form of compensation. Maybe development, maybe something else.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A more general answer is that gambits can be used for other purposes than attack, for example to reduce pressure and reach a drawn ending even with less material.

In relation to openings, there are black openings like the Benko Gambit, in which black gets some initiative for the sacrificed pawn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Gambits are used on defense as "counter gambits." One example is the Albin counter gambit, against the queen's gambit:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Maybe black hopes the practical advantages give him a better chance.

Or maybe black just likes the position. I, myself, would much rather be down a pawn and dictating the position than up a pawn and defending.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


title: How do I "Get My Foot in the Door"?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I "Get My Foot in the Door"?
The title may be a little misleading. My question is, how do I become or begin to become a player who is in the FIDE system? Is there a specific process I must go to, specific tournaments, steps I must take etc. to "get my foot in the door" of the FIDE system. I'd like to play in official tournaments and all the like, but I am not sure how to start.

Thanks.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Updated.

You need to play in FIDE-rated events. Even playing one game would get you in the system (meaning they would be aware of your existence), but you would not be officially rated until you played at least 5 games against FIDE-rated players, during the course of 26 months, and be rated over 1000. It no longer appears as if you need and minimum score.

For more of the detailed points, check out the FIDE Handbook here, specifically under section 7.

---
Tags: fide
---


title: Chess evaluation function

text:
# Question
Title: Chess evaluation function
I am trying to write a program to learn how to play chess. I have heard of programs that you can enter in a set of weights for certain parameters such as rook value, queen value and bishop mobility. And then, the program will output what move it thinks you should make given the state of the board, based on these weights.

I will then use a genetic algorithm to find some good weights.

Could anyone explain to me how this evaluation function actually works? How does it go from the weights to actually deciding what move it should make?

Or could someone at least link me to such a program?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Maybe there's a simple program out there for didactic purposes, I don't know. But if not, you could have a look at Stockfish, which is open-source, and is a serious, competitive chess engine. You can find the sourcecode on Github.

Also, I bet you could learn more about evaluation functions and find some other pointers by browsing the Chess Programming Wiki.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think this: https://www.chessprogramming.org/Sunfish is definitely the easiest Engine to learn from ...Written in Python in like 100 lines and plays strong enough to get the concept. I am in the same boat as you and this helped me a ton. Good luck.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The evaluation function of a chess programs returns a score for a given chess position in a static way. By "static" I mean it won't have into account, e. g., whether the queen is attacked, or if a checkmate is about to happen (that part is done within the search function of the program).

Most eval functions are based on the value of a single pawn. If you take a look at Seconchess' source code you'll find stuff like this:

```
#define VALUE_PAWN 100
#define VALUE_KNIGHT 310
#define VALUE_BISHOP 320
#define VALUE_ROOK 500
#define VALUE_QUEEN 900

```

So for a given position, the eval function counts how many pawns, knights, etc. there are on one side (black or white) and it just sums them up. Then it makes the same for the other side and the final score is the difference between white and black scores.

Secondchess is a very simple chess engine, and so is its eval function. It only takes into account the material on the board and adds an extra bonus/malus for the position of each piece on the board. For example, a knight in d4 has a bonus of +15, and a knight in h1 has a "malus" of -40. (This info is stored in the array `pst_knight[64]`).

As you can imagine, serious chess engines have hundreds (thousands?) of these values; for doubled pawns, for rooks on open columns, pieces mobility, king safety... And it also take into account the phase of the game; opening, middle game, endgame. And yes, tuning these values is such an important and difficult task. Some techniques exist for optimising these values, being CLOP one of them.

About the question "How does it go from the weights to actually deciding what move it should make?". Ok, from the weights, you get the score of a single position, and using a search method (usually alpha-beta is the way to go) you find out the best move from a certain position.

# See also

This is another simple chess program for beginners; Tom's Simple Chess Program. But take into account this one is not free software. In GitHub you can find many chess engines in several languages.

Finally, as far as I know, the place to go for chess programming questions is http://talkchess.com.

---
Tags: evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Why is the Exchange French considered drawish?
Why is the Exchange French considered so drawish since it is very early in the game, so it seems like there would be a lot more play left. A lot of lower rated players play it against me, although I am not that strong myself.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Well, first, when you are lower-rated, there really is no opening that can be considered drawish since it takes a fair amount of skill to be able to draw at will. That is often a skill associated more with the Grandmaster ranks, and maybe some solid IMs too.

Assuming that someone has the skill to draw, it really comes down to the ability to exchange pieces to get to an even endgame, mostly the rooks on the e-file, but also the Bc1 might go to f4, when black will want to trade off the well-placed piece rather than keep the B on e7, where it inhibits the rook trades I just mentioned. This trade is advantageous to white since although his B is not super bad, it is still technically a bad B for good B exchange that might be most troublesome for black if they get to certain endgames later.

Another thing that is interesting is that the Exchange French has a quite a number of players, who have overwhelming scores with it. None other than Kasparov played it three times in tournament games against Bareev, Short, and Kortchnoi. He scored 2.5/3. Other undefeated GMs include: GM Najat Abassov was 4/5, Michael Adams 4.5/5, GM Dmitry Andreikin 6.5/9 (and there are plenty more, but it would have been a project to keep going). GM Etienne Bacrot had one loss, but has a record of 13 wins, 1 loss, and 3 draws with it as white. I think that this is because there can be significant danger if your opponent assumes that you are trying to draw, when you are really trying to win.

I played 1.e4 until I was 1935 USCF, and I played a line of the Exchange French with an early Qf3 that I found Kortchnoi had played with success. My OTB record with that was 6 wins, 1 loss (In the very first game with this as a 1700, in a winning position, I let my queen get trapped…oops).

Granted, my opponents were weaker then, but what I found was that black never paid enough attention to the e-file, which was their downfall. The other point is comfort: Many French players do not like this type of position, while white must be reasonably happy since he is playing it. Having “your kind of position” is a major part of winning chess. I would double the pawns on f6, and take the file, and just win; or trade a N for a B on e6, and what was left was bad. Here are examples of each.

```
[title "Kevin Cotreau 1735 - Terry Messa 1830, Cole Younger Open, 1984"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Bd6 6. Qf3 Qe7+ 7. Ne2 Nf6 8. Bg5 Be6 9. O-O h6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Ng3 O-O-O 12. Nf5 Bxf5 13. Bxf5+ Kb8 14. Nd2 Qf8 15. Rae1 Qg7 16. Re3 Ne7 17. Bh3 Ng6 18. g3 c6 19. Rfe1 h5 20. Bg2 h4 21. Nf1 hxg3 22. fxg3 Nf8 23. Re8 Ne6 24. Rxd8+ Rxd8 25. Ne3 Ng5 26. Qg4 Re8 27. Kf2 Ne6 28. Qf3 Qg6 29. Nxd5 Rh8 30. Nxf6 Rxh2 31. Nd7+ Kc8 32. Ne5 Bxe5 33. Rxe5 Qc2+ 34. Re2 Qg6 35. Kg1 Rh6 36. Re1 Qf6 37. Qxf6 Rxf6 38. Bh3 Kd7 39. Rf1 Rxf1+ 40. Kxf1 Ke7 41. Bxe6 Kxe6 42. Kf2 Kf5 43. Kf3 a5 44. g4+ Kg5 45. c4 f5 46. gxf5 Kxf5 47. Ke3 b6 48. a4 Kf6 49. Ke4 Ke6 50. d5+ Kd6 51. Kd4 cxd5 52. cxd5 Ke7 53. Ke5 Kd7 54. d6 Ke8 55. Ke6 Kd8 56. d7 1-0

```

and

```
[title "Kevin Cotreau 1735 - Gary Field 1940, NH Amateur, 1984"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.c3 c6 6.Qf3 Be6 7.Ne2 Qc7 8.Bf4 Ne7 9.O-O Nd7 10.Nd2 Ng6 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Qg3 Qe7 14.Rfe1 O-O-O 15.Nf4 Qf6 16.Re3 Rde8 17.Rae1 Nf8 18.Nf3 {idea Ng5} 18...Nh7 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qd6 Nf8 21.Ne5 Qf4 22.h3 Rd8 23.Qe7 (23.Qc5! Kb8 24.Rf3 Qd2 25.Rf1+– {The ideas of Rf7 followed by Nc6, or Nf7 are unstoppable.} 25...Nd7 (25...Qxb2 26.Nf7 Nd7 27.Qd6+ Kc8 28.Nxh8 Rxh8 29.Qxe6+–) 26.Qd6+ Kc8 27.Rf7) 23...Qh4 24.Qxh4 (24.Qa3! Kb8 25.Nf7+–) 24...Rxh4 25.Rf3 Re8 26.Rxf8 Rxf8 27.Nxg6 Rff4 28.Nxh4 (28.g3?? Re4) 28...Rxh4 29.Rxe6 Kd7 30.Rg6 c5 31.Rxg7+ Kc6 32.dxc5 a5 33.Rg4 Rh5 34.b4 a4 35.Rd4 Re5 36.Kf1 Re6 37.f4 Re3 38.f5 Rxc3 39.f6 Rc1+ 40.Ke2 Kd7 41.Rxd5+ Ke6 42.Rd2 Kxf6 43.Kd3 Kg5 44.Rc2 Ra1 45.Kc4 Rb1 46.Rc3 {To prevent a2 and Rb2.} 46...Rb2 47.Ra3 Rxg2 48.Rxa4 Kh4 49.b5 Kxh3 50.Ra3+ Kh4 51.c6 Rg4+ 52.Kc5 Rg5+ 53.Kb6 bxc6 54.bxc6 Rg6 55.Kb7 1–0

```

Ultimately, if you find this to be a real problem, then you might want to just play something else when facing players, who are much lower-rated since most higher-rated players probably will not play it to begin with.

# Answer
> 4 votes
At lower levels, it's certainly not drawish as there is a chance to use the outpost in the open file (as well as some manoeuvering towards the f5 (f4 for Black) square, which is great for knights), and games with opposite-side castles are possible. A c4 (or ...c5) break is also possible turning the position into an isolated central pawn one, which isn't more drawish than any other position

At top-level play, it tends to be drawish because of the symmetrical pawn structure and the open file (where a lot of trades will happen). Many minor piece endgames with a small advantage for either side will often result in a draw.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The exchange variation of the French defense has symmetrical pawn structures with an open file. Symmetrical pawn structures make it difficult to create imbalances which lead decisive games. Then the rooks and/or queen will get exchanged along the open file. Fewer pieces coupled with a balanced position is drawish.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense
---


title: How do OTB games end up in databases?

text:
# Question
Title: How do OTB games end up in databases?
How do games of players that are not so well known, or not huge events end up in Chessbase and other databases? What are the different ways that games are cataloged?

If they are not playing on an electronic board in a televised event, are carbon copies being deposited in a box and someone is inputting all the moves? I have played in tournaments with many lesser known GMs and IMs but it hasn't appeared to be any obvious mechanism for how games might end up in one of the databases.

# Answer
Here is a link to the FIDE record for a norm tournament where I was the chief arbiter. Two or three lines up from the bottom it says "PGN file" and next to it is a brownish icon. If you click on it you can see a list of all the games with the possibility to play through them in a PGN viewer or to download them.

Here is a link to a low level (Minor) tournament I played in a few weeks ago. Towards the bottom of the header it says "Games: There are 59 games available for download". Clicking on the link gives you options to download games by round or to download all the entered games for the tournament.

These games have been entered and uploaded by arbiters and their assistants (cue for you to say "Thank you, arbiters!"). Some of this work (norm events) is done because it is a FIDE requirement. Some of it (like the low level tournament I played in) is done out of the goodness of the arbiters' hearts.

Generally speaking if you enter a tournament and the scoresheets provided are single copy then your game won't end up in an online database and if it is a two-copy scoresheet then it will. The two-copy scoresheets cost more and a tournament organiser would not waste money on them unless the games were to be recorded and uploaded.

People who run websites that include all the games they can find have written bots which crawl the web (or at least select parts of it) looking for PGNs which they download and add to their collection for their website or database.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: database, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: Who won the FIDE Chess Clock Contract Bidding?
It should have been announced on September 23. But still, nothing on the FIDE website has appeared. Does anyone know who won in all 3 categories?

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to the FIDE website:

> FIDE is pleased to announce that, in compliance with the published Bidding Procedure, it completed the scoring of offers submitted for the chess clock contract tender. **The winners have been determined,** **conditional on the manufacturers' signing binding contracts with FIDE**.

So, FIDE have chosen a winner but the winners have not yet signed a binding contract. Presumably the contract is still being negotiated.

Note this earlier link from August 2019 - https://old.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS\_2019/FIDE\_News/20190805-FIDE-Bidding\_procedure-ChessClocks.pdf \- defining the bidding process giving the following schedule:

> **9. Bidding Timeline**
>
> 9.1 Bidding starts August 05, 2019.
> 9.2 End of inquiry period for bidders August 15, 2019.
> 9.3 FIDE publishes responses August 23, 2019.
> 9.4 Deadline for bidders to submit bids September 10, 2019.
> 9.5 FIDE announces the winner(s) September 23, 2019.
> 9.6 **Deadline for winner(s) to sign a contract September 30, 2019**.
> 9.7 **Contract(s) shall come into force October 01, 2019**.
> 9.8 Contract(s) effective through September 30, 2022.

According to the schedule published in August it was planned that contracts would have been signed and come into effect by now. Perhaps over optimistic on the part of FIDE.

Assuming that contracts have been signed and FIDE are keeping it secret or are too lazy to update their website would be very foolish. For a start the winners would almost certainly publish the fact widely.

---
Tags: fide, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn’t the computer like my odd queen trade?
I played a game as Black some months ago on chess.com in which I made a rather amusing, in my opinion at the least, queen trade. I won the game in the end, but only after being a bastard and promoting to a bishop twice.

```
[Title "kassabian-Rewan Demontay, Friendly June U1200, chess.com, June 10-July 1, 2019"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "33"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd1 d6 5. b3 Be6 6. Bb2 Nf6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8.  h4 Be7 9. Nd2 O-O-O 10. g3 d5 11. Rb1 dxe4 12. f4 exf3 13. Rh2 Bg4 14. Rf2 Bc5  15. Rxf3 Bxf3 16. Ngxf3 Rhe8+ 17. Be2 Qxf3 18. Nxf3 Rxd1+ 19. Kxd1 Nd4 20. Nxd4  Bxd4 21. Bg4+ Kd8 22. Kd2 Bf2 23. Rd1 Bxg3 24. Kc3+ Ke7 25. Rd3 Be5+ 26. Kc4 Kf6  27. b4 Re7 28. Rf3+ Kg6 29. Kd3 h5 30. Bf5+ Kh6 31. Be4 b6 32. a4 f6 33. Rf2 Bg3  34. Rg2 Bxh4 35. Rg6+ Kh7 36. Rxf6+ Kg8 37. Bd5+ Kh8 38. Rf8+ Kh7 39. Be4+ Kh6  40. c4 Bf6 41. Ra8 g5 42. Rxa7 g4 43. b5 g3 44. c5 h4 45. cxb6 cxb6 46. Ra6 Rd7+  47. Ke3 Bg5+ 48. Kf3 Rf7+ 49. Ke2 Rf2+ 50. Ke1 Bd2+ 51. Kd1 Ba5 52. Ra8 Kg5 53.  Rg8+ Kf4 54. Rf8+ Ke3 55. Rxf2 Kxf2 56. Bd5 g2 57. Bxg2 Kxg2 58. Ke2 h3 59. Kd3  h2 60. Ke4 h1=B 61. Ke5 Kf2 62. Kd6 Ke3 63. Kc7 Bd5 64. Kb8 Bb3 65. Ka7 Bxa4 66.  Ka6 Kd4 67. Kb7 Bxb5 68. Ka7 Kc5 69. Kb7 Be8 70. Ka6 Be1 71. Kb7 b5 72. Ka6 b4 73. Ka5 b3+ 74. Ka6 b2 75. Ka7 b1=B 76. Kb7 Bc6+ 77. Ka7 Kd6 78. Kb8 Kd7 79. Ka7 Bf2+ 80. Ka6 Bd3+ 81. Ka5 Be1+ 82. Kb6 Bb4 83. Ka7 Bcb5 84. Kb6 Kc8 85. Ka7 Bc5+ 86. Ka8 Be4#

```

The computer gives a question mark to my move ‘17... Qxf3?’. Why is this so? The only downside to it is that I lose an exchange, but on the other hand the game becomes more simplified and easier to play. Is the loss of an exchange the reason, or are there other factors at play?

Additionally, why doesn’t the engine suggest 36. Rg4+ to pick up Black’s dark sqaure bishop? And why is 36... Rex4 the best move versus Kg8 or Kh8?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Losing an exchange is itself enough to make the move weak. You go from being up R+P for N, which is a winning advantage, to up just one pawn with opposite color Bishops, which could often be drawn.

The move is also weak because you let White off the hook: you were on the attack against White's exposed King, so the trade of Queens made the position "easier to play" -- for White. Instead of giving up material just to trade your active Qf6 for White's passive Qd1 (it has only one move!), try involving the in the attack your Nc6 (your only piece not already aiming at the Ke1), or trading it for one of White's defenders. Either 17...Ne5 or 17...Nd4 should win quickly:

17 ... Ne5 actually threatens the Nf3: after Nxf3+, both defenders (Nd2,Be2) will be pinned. What's more, the Nf3 itself is "pinned" in that if it moves (say 18 Nxe5) then 18 ... Qf2 is mate! White has no real defense; if 18 Kf1 then simply Nxf3 19 Bxf3 Rxd2 20 Qxd2 Qxf3+ and mate.

17 ... Nd4 adds the threat against the Be2; now White can defend for a move with 18 Nxd4, but 18 ... Qxd4 restores the threat Qf2# and White might as well resign (19 Qc1 Qf2+ 20 Kd1 Qxe2#).

---

After 36 Rxf6+? Rxe4 simply wins a piece: if 37 Kxe4 then Black takes on f6, and if the Rf6 moves then Rxb4. The alternatives "Kg8 or Kh8" are not equivalent: 36 ... Kh8?? would have allowed 37 Rf8#!

# Answer
> 2 votes
The computer says you're ahead after the move you played. But you're only up a little, and you ended up with only a rook and opposite-colored bishops along with the pawns. You still have to work for the win; it's not like the extra pawn ices the win for you in the simplified position.

The reason that the computer considers it a mistake is that you had much better moves you could have played. Most of White's pieces are either on the back rank or pinned, and tactics are all over the place.

Look at 17...Bb4, for example. It hit the pinned knight (and pins it again!) and Qxf3 is a real threat now because that knight can't recapture. If White tries Kf1, the d2 knight falls because the f3 knight becomes pinned. Or, did you consider 17...Rxd2? If Nxd2, Qf2#. If Qxd2, Bb4 pins and wins the queen.

> Additionally, why doesn’t the engine suggest 36. Rg4+ to pick up Black’s dark sqaure bishop? And why is 36... Rex4 the best move versus Kg8 or Kh8?

After 36.Rg4+ Rxe4 Rxe4, White wins an exchange rather than a bishop. And Black has three connected passed pawns, which will be hard to stop. It still might be the move I'd play, though.

After 36.Rxf6+ Rxe4 Black wins the bishop outright. (Obviously not 38...Kh8?? Rf8#.) White can either save his rook or capture Black's; he can't do both.

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play, queens, captures, trading
---


# Question
Title: Can engines use the current pawn structure to refine its search/eval?
As I understand it, engines use so-called "bitboards" to generate the current position & possible moves. I'm wondering if any engine uses the pawn bitboard to refine its search and eval.

To illustrate what I mean, suppose this is the current pawn structure:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/2p5/1pPp4/pP1P4/P7/B7 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this pawn structure, impose massive penalties for the Bishop on a1 because it's more or less permanently stuck.

```
[FEN "8/1pp4p/p2p4/3Pp1p1/2P1Pp2/5P2/PP4PP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this pawn structure, as White, prioritize searching variations that include the moves b4-c5, and as Black, prioritize searching variations that include h5-g4.

I don't know how many possible pawn bitboards are there, but presumably not too many arise in serious play (a couple hundred perhaps) and one could have handwritten functions for all of them. Some bitboards could even be duplicated, e.g. in the second bitboard it doesn't matter if Black's pawn is on h7 or h6, general plans for both sides remain the same. If there are no special plans for the current pawn structure, one could also default to the current search/eval algorithms.

Question: Is this idea feasible? If so, are there any engines that use it? If not, why not?

**EDIT**: seems to me that traditional engines could really use something like this, e.g. in this game no less an engine than Stockfish falls into this trap, when in spite of having a firmly entombed bishop, it thought its position was superior.

```
[FEN "2r3k1/p2n1r2/4q3/2Pp2b1/PP4p1/B4pPp/2Q2P1P/R2R2KB w - - 1 30"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Something very similar is doubtless encoded into AlphaZero and Leela's neural network evaluators, which are very positional. Most conventional Minimax engines, by contrast, are stronger at tactics and can therefore search very deeply.

Pawn structure is indeed a factor in most of the top engines' evaluation. This might take the relatively simple form of rewarding connected pawns and penalising isolated and doubled pawns. The pawn bitboards are mainly a means of recognising when the pawn structure changes (which happens relatively infrequently once established) and recalculating that factor of the evaluation, thereby saving some calculation time.

However, the pawn structure does not directly lead to the bishop mobility analysis you note in your first example. This would be deferred to threat and control maps, which would put any of the bishop's legal moves low on the priority list for further analysis, since they leave the bishop on a threatened square with no support.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation, pawn-structure, bitboard
---


# Question
Title: Opening Moves: Pawn Chains and Countering Attacks
What is it called when your opponent opens with their pawns in a zigzag formation, leaving the front line defended by the back? (Pawn Chain) Also what is the best way to counter this move?

# Answer
It is, indeed, called a "pawn chain". It does not have any other special designation. There is no single best way to counter any specific pawn chain, as it is much more complex than that. Here is a bit on that.

Pawn chains, and where you attack them, is the basis for all opening play. Where the pawns on both sides clash is called a pawn break. Knowing where your pawn break is, and which one is feasible, is the difference between having a freer game for your pieces, and being smothered to death.

Part of that is also knowing if you should extend the pawn chain, and thus, change the point of attack for your pawn break.

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nge7 6. Bd3 Nf5 7. O-O Be7 8. Bc2 c4? 9.b3 b5 10.a4

```

Here extending the pawn chain, intending b5-b4, is too slow due to the undefended rook on a8. The q-side is about to open up much to white's favor.

You have to realize that changing the pawn break, and moving it up one file, while usually great in principle, it also is much slower, so especially if your pawn break is on the q-side, and your opponent is breaking on your k-side, his could become much more dangerous much more quickly.

Learning about opening pawn structures, and the pawn breaks associated with them, can be learned in the following books:

1. *Complete Chess Strategy*” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. THIS is what made me a master.)
2. *Pawn Structure Chess*” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.)
3. *Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide*” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “*Complete Chess Strategy*”.)

Here is a good link with some basics.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> What is it called when your opponent opens with their pawns in a zigzag formation, leaving the front line defended by the back? (Pawn Chain)

Erm ... I think you've answered your own question.

> what is the best way to counter this move?

Every pawn chain has a base and a head. The standard way of attacking them is to attack one or the other or both with pawns.

The classic example is the Advance French Variation.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 {attacking the base of the pawn chain} 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. a3 f6 {attacking the front of the pawn chain}

```

Here the black move 3. ... c5 attacks the base of the pawn chain at d4, so white extends the pawn chain with 4. c3. Then a few moves later black attacks the head of the pawn chain with 6. ... f6.

The idea is to try and break up the pawn chain and neutralise it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There's a lot of ways to describe the position (such as closed) but no specific name.

How to play in the position-

1) First of all you want to make favorable minor piece exchanges. Generally knights are going to be better in these types of structures especially if they can find advanced outposts. White's g2 bishop is an example of a "bad" bishop and is practically worthless in the given position. White should either trade it or make it active. If, for example, the bishop were on f5 it would be a much more active piece. But since there isn't any way to to improve its mobility without a significant change in pawn structure, white should be looking to trade the bishop and black to avoid the trade at all costs.

2) Exploit the weak squares- weak squares are those that can't be defended by pawns. In this case white is weak on the dark squares so black should look to trade for white's dark square bishop and place his pieces on the undefended dark squares.

3) Pawn breaks- Both sides should be looking for pawn breaks. Rooks are completely useless without open or semi-open files. The only real pawn break here for both sides is the h-file. (although black might be able to pull something off with c6 followed by d5). Both sides should looking to move their heavy pieces to control the h-file since once the break is made you need to be able to control the open file.

4) Attack the base of the pawn chain- In this case there is no true base but black should be looking to attack the pawns that can't be defended by other pawns (ie backward)

If I were black I'd be looking at a plan like Qf7 followed by Ne7. Then looking at the minor pieces and pawn breaks. From e7 the knight can go to c6 supporting the d4 knight or g6 eyeing both h4 and f4. Black's heavy pieces can also swing to the h-file very quickly.

If I were white I would try to develop and coordinate my pieces, then make some favorable exchanges and try to reach an equal game. a5 looking to pressure the b-pawn looks like it could be feasible at some point but white probably needs to coordinate his pieces better first.
> 1 votes

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


title: Elephant gambit game analysis

text:
# Question
Title: Elephant gambit game analysis
I would like to get some explanations on the mistakes and blunders of my game posted below. My Lichess rating is around 1770, so I do not know if the mistakes of the game are hard to spot for my level or not.

I am more interested in getting an explanation about why the moves are bad, rather than which are the best moves (I can do that with the computer).

```
[Title "bird67-chessAlleyne, Lichess, 11/9/19"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 { C40 Elephant Gambit } 3. exd5 c6?! { (0.74 → 1.78) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qxd5. } (3... Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qc5 5. Bb5+ c6 6. Ba4 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8. h3) 4. dxc6?! { (1.78 → 0.85) Inaccuracy. Best move was Nxe5. } (4. Nxe5 Qxd5 5. d4 Nf6 6. c4 Qd8 7. Nc3 c5 8. Be3 Bd6) 4... Nxc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bb5 e4 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Ne5?? { (0.95 → -0.59) Blunder. Best move was Qe2. } (8. Qe2 Bf5 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. d3 Qe7 11. dxe4 Qxe4 12. Qxe4+ Bxe4) 8... Qd6? { (-0.59 → 0.55) Mistake. Best move was Qd4. } (8... Qd4 9. f4) 9. d4 Ba6 10. Be3 Rb8 11. Rb1?! { (0.10 → -0.54) Inaccuracy. Best move was b3. } (11. b3 Rd8) 11... Be7?! { (-0.54 → 0.00) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qc7. } (11... Qc7 12. Ne2) 12. f3?! { (0.00 → -0.72) Inaccuracy. Best move was Bf4. } (12. Bf4 Nd5) 12... exf3? { (-0.72 → 0.68) Mistake. Best move was Nd5. } (12... Nd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. fxe4 dxe4 15. c4 O-O 16. Qa4 Rfc8 17. O-O f6 18. c5 Qe6 19. d5) 13. Qxf3 c5? { (0.34 → 1.50) Mistake. Best move was O-O. } (13... O-O 14. Qxc6 Rbc8 15. Qxd6 Bxd6 16. Kd2 Bb4 17. Kc1 Bb7 18. Nd3 a5 19. Re1 Bxg2 20. Bg5) 14. Ne2?? { (1.50 → -0.61) Blunder. Best move was Nc6. } (14. Nc6) 14... cxd4 15. Bf4?? { (-0.18 → -1.78) Blunder. Best move was Qc6+. } (15. Qc6+ Kf8 16. Bf4 Qxc6 17. Nxc6 Re8 18. Nxe7 Kxe7 19. Nxd4 Kd7+ 20. Kd2 Ne4+ 21. Kc1 Nf2) 15... Qb4+? { (-1.78 → -0.64) Mistake. Best move was Rc8. } (15... Rc8) 16. Kd1? { (-0.64 → -2.15) Mistake. Best move was c3. } (16. c3 dxc3) 16... O-O 17. Nc6 Bb7?? { (-2.59 → 1.64) Blunder. Best move was Bxe2+. } (17... Bxe2+) 18. Bxb8?? { (1.64 → -1.26) Blunder. Best move was Nxb4. } (18. Nxb4 Bxf3 19. Bxb8 Bxg2 20. Rg1 Rxb8 21. Na6 Rb6 22. Rxg2 Nd5 23. Kd2 Rxa6 24. Rg4 d3) 18... Bxc6 19. Qxc6 Qxb8 20. Nxd4?? { (-0.99 → -5.76) Blunder. Best move was Qf3. } (20. Qf3) 20... Rd8?? { (-5.76 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Qf4. } (20... Qf4) 21. c3 Qf4?? { (0.00 → 1.92) Blunder. Best move was Nd5. } (21... Nd5 22. Kc2 Ne3+ 23. Kd3 Ng4 24. Kc2) 22. Qf3?? { (1.92 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Kc2. } (22. Kc2) 22... Qg5?? { (0.00 → 3.65) Blunder. Best move was Rxd4+. } (22... Rxd4+ 23. cxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Ke2 Qc4+ 25. Qd3 Qg4+ 26. Kf1 Qf4+ 27. Ke1 Qb4+ 28. Kd1 Qg4+ 29. Qe2) 23. Rf1?? { (3.65 → 1.53) Blunder. Best move was Kc2. } (23. Kc2 Qg6+) 23... Bc5 24. Ke1?? { (2.07 → -1.14) Blunder. Best move was Rc1. } (24. Rc1) 24... Ng4?? { (-1.14 → 0.74) Blunder. Best move was Qe5+. } (24... Qe5+ 25. Qe2 Bxd4 26. cxd4 Qxd4 27. Rxf6 Qxf6 28. Rd1 Rb8 29. Rd2 g6 30. Qf2 Qe6+ 31. Kf1) 25. Qxf7+?! { (0.74 → 0.00) Inaccuracy. Best move was Rd1. } (25. Rd1) 25... Kh8 26. Rf5?? { (0.00 → -16.83) Blunder. Best move was Qf4. } (26. Qf4 Qe7+ 27. Kd2 Bxd4 28. Qxg4 Bxc3+ 29. Kxc3 Qe3+ 30. Kb4 Rd4+ 31. Qxd4 Qxd4+ 32. Ka3 Qd6+) 26... Qe3+ 27. Kd1 h6?? { (-13.91 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Qd3+. } (27... Qd3+) 28. Kc2?? { (0.00 → -9.63) Blunder. Best move was Rxc5. } (28. Rxc5 Rxd4+ 29. Kc2 Rd2+ 30. Kb3 Qxc5 31. Qe8+ Kh7 32. Qe4+ Kh8) 28... Bxd4 29. cxd4 Qe4+ 30. Kd2?! { (-10.54 → Mate in 3) Checkmate is now unavoidable. Best move was Kb3. } (30. Kb3 Rb8+ 31. Ka3 Qxb1 32. Rb5 Qd3+ 33. b3 Qxb5 34. Qc4 Qxc4 35. bxc4 Ne3 36. Ka4 Nxc4) 30... Rxd4+ 31. Kc3 { White resigns. } 0-1

```

Thanks in advance.

# Answer
I think there are a few things here.

1. When playing a gambit line that maybe you do not know, the first thing I would recommend is not necessarily taking it. Either 3.Ne5 or even 3.d4 look safer.
2. On move four, you had the choice of taking two pawns, one that developed his N, and the other, which took a center pawn. The center P was easily the right way to go since you could then support it with d4.
3. After that, you totally neglected your king's safety. 5.Bb5 followed by a quick 0-0 was in order.
4. 9.d4 letting him keep your king in the center with Ba6 was close to the fatal mistake practically. Your position according the computer is still OK, and might even have a small plus, but as a human, it is all but impossible to play accurately there. You need to keep that idea in mind: Is a position easy or difficult to play? Tal made a living giving the other guy a position that was tough to play, even if Tal's sacrifices were not always sound.
5. I liked that you played Rb1 instead of b3 weakening the dark squares. That was very good as that additional weakness might have been fatal.
6. When under attack, you should always be looking for ways to trade down, especially trading queens, thus missing the obvious 14.Qc6 hurt. You were virtually winning there.

The rest was really just tactical miss after tactical miss by both sides.

Lastly, after going through that with my computer and Stockfish compared to the lichess engine, I would say that you need to take some of the evals with a grain of salt.

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. dxc6 (4. Nxe5) 4... Nxc6 5. Nc3 (5. Bb5) Nf6 6. Bb5 e4 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Ne5 (8. Qe2) 8... Qd6 (8... Qd4 9. Nxc6 Qc5) 9. d4 (9. Nc4) Ba6 10. Be3 Rb8 11. Rb1 Be7 12. f3 exf3 13. Qxf3 c5 14. Ne2 (14. Qc6+) cxd4 15. Bf4 (15. Qc6+) 15... Qb4+ 16. Kd1 (16. Bd2) 16... O-O Nc6 Bb7 18. Bxb8 (18. Nxb4 Bxf3 19. Bxb8 Bxg2 20. Rg1 Rxb8 21. Na6 Rb6 22. Rxg2 Rxa6 23. Nxd4) 18... Bxc6 19. Qxc6 Qxb8 20. Nxd4 Rd8 (20... Qf4 21. c3 Ne4 22. Nf3 Rd8+ 23. Kc2 Qf5) 21. c3 Qf4 22. Qf3 Qg5 (22... Rxd4+ 23. cxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Kc2 Qc4+) 23. Rf1 Bc5 24. Ke1 Ng4 25. Qxf7+ Kh8 26. Rf5 Qe3+ 27. Kd1 h6 28. Kc2 (28. Rxc5) 28... Bxd4 29. cxd4 Qe4+ 30. Kd2 Rxd4+ 31. Kc3 0-1

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
After 13...c5 white had a pretty big advantage. After that there are wide swings between both sides for the rest of the game with the advantage changing 6 times. That means the opening had zero effect on the outcome of the game.

That being said, 8. Ne5 was a pretty weak move. After 8...Qd4 how are you going to both protect the knight and prevent black playing Bc5 threatening mate? 9. f4 is the only reasonable answer but white is struggling at point. Black has a strong initiative and white is playing for equality. Better is either 7. Qe2 or 8. Qe2. In both cases, white is eliminating the threat of capturing the knight by pinning the pawn and creating his own threat by bringing two pieces (and potentially a third w/Ng5) against black's pawn which is only defended once. Since the f8 bishop is dark squared it can't develop and defend the pawn at the same time. Black is forced to either develop and get his king to safety (losing the pawn) or try and protect the pawn which will likely leave him with an overextended attack and lagging behind in development. Long story short, after Qe2 white has the initiative and an advantage but after 8. Ne5 is handing over the initiative and struggling for equality.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


title: About forcing a checkmate

text:
# Question
Title: About forcing a checkmate
Could a player sacrifice 3 of his pieces , the opponent's King being forced to take each piece in a sequence of moves where the opponent's King lands on a space where it is promptly checkmated? A kind of 3-move forced checkmate. Could this be done with 4 moves?

# Answer
> 10 votes
White to play and mate in 4, while forcing the black king to capture on each move:

```
[fen "1r2qrnk/3R1bRp/pp2nBpp/p3P3/4B3/5PPQ/PPP3N1/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

```

Solution:

> 1.Rxh7 Kxh7
> 2.Bxg6 Kxg6
> 3.Qf5 Kxf5
> 4.Nh4#

# Answer
> 0 votes
On a similar note, here is a pretty problem forces Black to take all eight pieces and two pawns in order to give checkmate with the last pawn!

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

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

```

Additionally, I found another problem in a Dutch article by Tim Krabbe where White gives away four queens, two rooks, and two knights to also give mate with the last pawn. The most heaviest bag of material sacrificed in a chess problem ever!

```
[Title "Mate in 13 Moves, Gerhad Josten, Tim Krabbe “ONSTERFELIJKE WOESTHEID”, 2000"]
[FEN "1q4r1/1bp2pQ1/3Q4/1Kp1pr2/1n1pkp1p/RQ1RN3/nbnP4/QN6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc4 cxd6 2. Nc3+ Nxc3 3. Qh1+ f3 4. Qxh4+ Rf4 5. Qhh7+ f5 6. Qxb7+ Qxb7 7.  Qxb7+ d5+ 8. Qxd5+ Ncxd5 9. Nxd5 Nxd5 10. Re3+ Ncxe3+ 11. Qxe3+ Nxe3+ 12. Rxe3+  dxe3 13. d3#

```

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: What are some advantages/disadvantages of accepting/declining gambits?
Most of the time I see gambits are declined, but what are the advantages or disadvantages of accepting or declining gambits? I know this depends on the type of gambit, but I am looking for a more general answer that might apply to all gambits.

# Answer
Since you are after general considerations:

**Accepting a gambit.** The advantage here of course is that you are gaining a material advantage, which, if you can hold onto it, provides well for your long-term prospects in the game. But what makes something an established gambit, rather than a mistake or a blunder, is that the offer of material is supposed to be offset by some sort of positional compensation, e.g. a lead in development, as in, say, the Danish Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

```

Or better control of the center in, say, the Queen's Gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4

```

Or open lines for pieces (like those bishops surveying two nice, long diagonals in the Danish Gambit).

So the potential disadvantage of accepting a given gambit is that you may be left with positional problems by which your opponent can punish you, perhaps by winning back the sacrificed material and then some, or worse, mating your king directly. Whether the compensation for your opponent outweighs the extra material you'll be getting is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

**Declining a gambit.** Here the main advantage, in my opinion at least, is simply that you're not giving your opponent the kind of position that he or she wants. For example, the Smith-Morra Gambit in the Sicilian Defense is very rarely played at the highest levels of the chess world, because the consensus among strong players is that white just doesn't get enough dynamic positional compensation (development lead, initiative) for the extra central pawn that black gets. But at lower levels, it can be much more dangerous to defend for black. Thus, if you're one to prefer slightly quieter positions rather than potentially needing to sweat under pressure for a while, one possible reaction to the Smith-Morra is to decline it by pushing d3 instead of capturing white's c pawn:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 (3... d3 4.Bxd3) 4.Nxc3

```

Now white is not going to get the sort of development that was envisioned (for instance, the white pawn that now remains on c3 takes away the square which was intended for the knight).

The main disadvantage of this approach is obvious: no free material. And one shouldn't be afraid of ghosts in chess. If material is offered, one should certainly be cautious, but if at the end of your thinking you believe it is worth any trade-offs, then you should take it. Sometimes you will be wrong and get punished for your greed, but mistakes can be made at any juncture in the game, so this isn't a problem particular to gambit play. And besides, some gambits cannot be reasonably refused, e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff Defense:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7

```

This is just like in many middlegames, where an attack will be launched with a sacrifice that cannot be refused, and one has no choice but to grab the material and hang on for dear life. So there is something to be said for not always declining aggressive gambits, because accepting can be good training for defending complicated positions, which aids one's overall development as a player.

**In sum.** As stated above, the decision as to whether the material offered in any given gambit is worth whatever positional trade-offs are involved is one that has to be made case-by-case. But hopefully I've given some useful general food for thought here.
> 14 votes

# Answer
I could give you a meaningless answer with lots of mindless fluff and diagrams that fail to answer what you're actually asking.

Or I could give you a very simple answer quoted from the greatest player of all time that gets right to the point:

"Concentrate on material gains. Whatever your opponent gives you take, unless you see a good reason not to."

RJF

To elaborate on what Fischer said, If you refuse material without understanding why, you will become one of those players who are still stuck at 1200 after tens of thousands of games played because you sit back and do nothing the entire game never improving and never understanding why. However, if you take the material you will either be rewarded for calculating correctly or you will get a lesson from a much stronger player. Either way you will improve.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, gambits
---


# Question
Title: Longest sequence of moves by one player with the same piece?
I suspect the following game in the European Club Champioship between David Howell and Pentala Harikrishna set a number of records.

```
[title "Howell, David W L vs Harikrishna, Pentala"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nc6 4. O-O Bd7 5. Re1 a6 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Nf6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. c4 e6 11. Nc3 Be7 12. b3 Nd7 13. Be3 c5 14. Bf4 Qc7 15. Qd2 Rd8 16. Rad1 Ne5 17. Bxe5 dxe5 18. Qc2 O-O 19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20. Rd1 Rd4 21. Ne2 Rxd1+ 22. Qxd1 Qa5 23. a4 Qb4 24. g3 g6 25. Kg2 Kf8 26. Qd3 Qb7 27. Ng1 f5 28. f3 Ke8 29. Nh3 Qd7 30. Qxd7+ Kxd7 31. Nf2 Bd6 32. Nd3 Kc6 33. Kh3 a5 34. Kg2 Kd7 35. Kf2 Kc6 36. Ke2 Bc7 37. Nf2 Bd8 38. Nd1 Bg5 39. Nc3 Bc1 40. Nd1 Kd6 41. Kf1 Bd2 42. Ke2 Bc1 43. Kf1 Bd2 44. Kg2 Ke7 45. Kh3 Kd6 46. Nf2 Be3 47. Nd3 Bg5 48. Kg2 Be3 49. Kh3 Bg5 50. Kg2 Be3 51. g4 Bg5 52. Kg3 f4+ 53. Kf2 Bd8 54. Kg2 g5 55. Kh1 Bc7 56. Kg1 Kc6 57. Kf1 Bd6 58. Ke1 Bc7 59. Kd1 Bd6 60. Kc1 Bc7 61. Kb1 Bd6 62. Ka1 Bc7 63. Ka2 Bd6 64. Kb2 Bc7 65. Kc2 Bd6 66. Kd2 Bc7 67. Ke2 Bd6 68. Kf2 Bc7 69. Kg2 Bd6 70. Nf2 Be7 71. Nh1 Bd6 72. Kh3 Be7 73. Nf2 Bd6 74. Nd1 Be7 75. Nc3 Bd6 76. Nb5 Be7 77. Na7+ Kb7 78. Nb5 Kc6 79. Kg2 Bf8 80. Na3 Bd6 81. Nc2 Bc7 82. Na1 Bd6 83. Kh1 Bc7 84. Kg2 Bd6 85. Kf1 Bc7 86. Ke2 Bd6 87. Kd1 Bc7 88. Kc2 Bd8 89. Kc1 Bc7 90. Nc2 Bd6 91. Kb2 Be7 92. Ne1 Bd6 93. Ka3 Be7 94. Ka2 Bd6 95. Nd3 Bc7 96. Nf2 Bd6 97. Ka1 Be7 98. Kb2 Bd6 99. Kb1 Be7 100. Kc2 Bd6 101. Kd3 Be7 102. Ke2 Bd6 103. Kf1 Be7 104. h3 Bd6 105. Kg2 Be7 106. Nd3 Bd6 107. Kf2 Bc7 108. Ke2 Bd6 109. Kd2 Bc7 110. Kc2 Bd6 111. Kb2 Bc7 112. Ka2 Bd6 113. Ka1 Bc7 114. Kb1 Bd6 115. Kc1 Bc7 116. Kd1 Bd6 117. Ke1 Bc7 118. Kf1 Bd6 119. Kg1 Bc7 120. Kh1 Bd6 121. Nc1 Bc7 122. Na2 Bd6 123. Nc3 Be7 124. Nb5 Bf8 125. Na7+ Kb7 126. Nb5 Kc6 127. Kg1 Be7 128. Kf1 Bf8 129. Ke1 Be7 130. Kd1 Bf8 131. Kc1 Be7 132. Na3 Bd6 133. Nc2 Be7 134. Kd2 Bd6 135. Ke2 Be7 136. Kf2 Bd6 137. Kg2 Be7 138. Kh2 Bd6 139. Na1 Be7 140. Nc2 Bd6 141. Ne1 Be7 142. Nd3 Bd6 143. Nb2 Be7 144. Kh1 Bd6 145. Kg2 Be7 146. Nd1 Bd6 147. Nf2 Be7 148. Kg1 Bd6 149. Kh1 Be7 150. Kg2 Bd6 151. Kh2 Be7 152. Nd3 Bd6 153. h4 h6 154. Kh3 Bc7 155. Kg2 Bd6 156. Kf1 Bc7 157. Kg2 Bd6 158. Ne1 Be7 159. Kh3 Bd6 160. Kh2 Be7 161. Ng2 Bd8 162. Kh3 Be7 163. Kh2 Bd8 164. Kh3 Be7 165. h5 Bd8 166. Kh2 Be7 167. Kh1 Bd8 168. Kg1 Be7 169. Kf1 Bd8 170. Ke1 Be7 171. Kd1 Bd6 172. Kc1 Be7 173. Kb1 Bd6 174. Ka1 Be7 175. Ne1 Bd6 176. Nd3 Bc7 177. Nf2 Bd6 178. Nh3 Be7 179. Ka2 Kd6 180. Kb2 Kc6 181. Kc2 Kd6 182. Kd2 Kc6 183. Ke2 Kd6 184. Kf2 Kc6 185. Kg2 Kd6 186. Kh2 Kc6 187. Nf2 Bd6 188. Nd3 Bc7 189. Kh3 Bd6 190. Kg2 Bc7 191. Kf1 Bd6 192. Ke2 Bc7 193. Kd1 Bd6 194. Kc2 Bc7 195. Kb1 Bd6 196. Ka2 Bc7 197. Kb2 Bd6 198. Kc1 Bc7 199. Kc2 Bd6 200. b4 cxb4 201. Kb3 Bc7 202. c5 Bb8 203. Kc4 Bc7 204. Nc1 Bd8 205. Nb3 Bc7 206. Kd3 Bd8 207. Ke2 Bc7 208. Kf1 Bd8 209. Kg2 Bc7 210. Kh1 Bd8 211. Kh2 Bc7 212. Kg1 Bd8 213. Kf2 Bc7 214. Ke1 Bd8 215. Kd2 Bc7 216. Kc1 Bd8 217. Kb2 Bc7 218. Ka1 Bd8 219. Ka2 Bc7 220. Kb1 Bd8 221. Kc2 Bc7 222. Kd1 Bd8 223. Ke2 Bc7 224. Kd3 Bd8 225. Kc4 Bc7 226. Nc1 Bd8 227. Nd3 Bc7 228. Kb3 Bb8 229. Ka2 Bc7 230. Ka1 Bb8 231. Ka2 Bc7 232. Kb1 Bb8 233. Kc2 Bc7 234. Kb2 Bb8 235. Kc1 Bc7 236. Kd1 1/2-1/2

```

Starting from move 79 Harikrishna moved his bishop 46 times consecutively. Is this a record for a FIDE rated standard time control game?

As a follow up: By my reckoning (please correct me in the comments if I'm wrong) Harikrishna moved this bishop a total of 192 times. Is this also a record for a FIDE rated standard time control game?

# Answer
The record for most consecutive moves by a piece in a FIDE rated (it's FIDE at the least) event is **80 moves by a rook**, starting on move 67. It happened in the game Yueh Wei Po- Arora during the 37th Chess Olympiad. It was a draw in the end. This record is on Tim Krabbe's page for chess records of course.

```
 [Title "Yueh Wei Po-Arora, 37th Chess Olympiad, Turin Italy, 6/2/2006"]
 [FEN ""]
 [startply "133"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 O-O 7. O-O Bxf3 8. Bxf3 c6 9. Be3 Nbd7 10. Qd2 Qc7 11. a4 a5 12. Be2 e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. f4 Neg4 15. Bxg4 Nxg4 16. Bd4 f5 17. Bxg7 Kxg7 18. Qd4+ Kg8 19. Rad1 Rad8 20. exf5 gxf5 21. h3 Nf6 22. Rfe1 d5 23. cxd5 Nxd5 24. Nxd5 Rxd5 25. Qc4 Qf7 26. Rxd5 cxd5 27. Qd4 Rc8 28. Rd1 Rc4 29. Qxd5 Qxd5 30. Rxd5 Rxf4 31. Rxa5 Rb4 32. Rb5 Rxa4 33. Rxb7 Rd4 34. Kf2 Rd3 35. Ke2 Rg3 36. Kf2 Rd3 37. b4 Rb3 38. b5 Kh8 39. b6 Kg8 40. g3 h6 41. h4 Kh8 42. Rb8+ Kg7 43. b7 Kh7 44. Ke2 Kg7 45. Kd2 Kh7 46. Kc2 Rb4 47. Kc3 Rb1 48. Kc4 Kg7 49. Kd5 Rb3 50. Ke5 Rb5+ 51. Kd6 Rb3 52. Kc7 Rc3+ 53. Kb6 Rb3+ 54. Kc5 Rb1 55. Kc4 Rb2 56. Kc3 Rb1 57. Kc2 Rb4 58. Kc3 Rb1 59. Kd4 Rb2 60. Ke5 Rb5+ 61. Ke6 Kh7 62. Kf6 h5 63. Kg5 Kg7 64. Kxh5 f4+ 65. Kg4 fxg3 66. Kxg3 Kh7 67. Kg4 Rb4+ 68. Kg5 Rb5+ 69. Kf6 Rb6+ 70. Ke7 Rb4 71. Kd7 Rb2 72. Kc7 Rc2+ 73. Kb6 Rb2+ 74. Kc5 Rb1 75. Kc4 Rb2 76. Kc3 Rb1 77. Kc2 Rb4 78. Kc3 Rb1 79. Kd4 Rb2 80. Ke5 Rb1 81. Kf6 Rb6+ 82. Kf7 Rb1 83. Ke7 Re1+ 84. Kd6 Rd1+ 85. Kc5 Rc1+ 86. Kb4 Rb1+ 87. Ka5 Ra1+ 88. Kb4 Rb1+ 89. Ka3 Rb5 90. Ka2 Rb4 91. Ka3 Rb1 92. Ka4 Rb2 93. Ka5 Rb1 94. Ka6 Ra1+ 95. Kb6 Rb1+ 96. Kc7 Rc1+ 97. Kd8 Rd1+ 98. Ke8 Re1+ 99. Kf8 Rf1+ 100. Ke7 Re1+ 101. Kf6 Rf1+ 102. Kg5 Rb1 103. Kf6 Rb6+ 104. Kg5 Rb5+ 105. Kg4 Rb4+ 106. Kf3 Rb3+ 107. Ke4 Rb4+ 108. Ke5 Rb1 109. Kd4 Rb2 110. Kc3 Rb6 111. Kc4 Rb1 112. Kd4 Rb4+ 113. Kc5 Rb2 114. h5 Rb1 115. Kd5 Rb2 116. Ke6 Rb1 117. Kf6 Rb6+ 118. Kg5 Rb5+ 119. Kg4 Rb4+ 120. Kf5 Rb5+ 121. Kf4 Rb4+ 122. Kg3 Rb3+ 123. Kf2 Rb2+ 124. Ke3 Rb3+ 125. Ke2 Rb2+ 126. Kd3 Rb3+ 127. Kd4 Rb4+ 128. Kc3 Rb1 129. Kd4 Rb2 130. Ke3 Rb1 131. Kf2 Rb2+ 132. Kf3 Rb3+ 133. Ke2 Rb2+ 134. Kd3 Rb1 135. Kd4 Rb2 136. Ke5 Rb1 137. Kf6 Rb6+ 138. Kf5 Rb5+ 139. Ke6 Rb4 140. Rf8 Rxb7 141. Rf5 Ra7 142. Kf6 Rb7 143. Kg5 Ra7 144. h6 Rb7 145. Kh5 Ra7 146. Rg5 Rb7 147. Rc6 1/2-1/2

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: fide, famous-games, records
---


# Question
Title: Is there any game where AlphaZero wins against Stockfish thanks to a knight pair?
I have seen some of the games that were published in the match between AlphaZero and Stockfish.

In many games, as when it beats Stockfish as black playing the Berlin Defense, AlphaZero appears to obtain some extra advantage of preserving the pair of bishops.

Is there, conversely, any game where AlphaZero beats Stockfish using the power of the knight pair?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I found a game in which AlphaZero wins the game mostly due to the major activity of the knights in the middlegame.

Jeremy, from ChessNetwork, made a great anaylsis on the game.

```
[Title "AlphaZero-Stockfish, London England, 2017"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 d5 8. O-O O-O 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nc3 Nbd7  11. b4 c6 12. Qb2 a5 13. b5 c5 14. Rac1 Qe7 15. Na4 Rab8 16. Rfd1 c4 17. Ne5 Qe6 18. f4 Rfd8 19. Qd2 Nf8 20. Nc3 Ng6 21. Rf1 Qd6 22. a4 Rbc8 23. e3 Ne7 24. g4 Ne8 25. f5 f6 26. Nf3 Qd7 27. Qf2 Nd6 28. Nd2 Rf8 29. Qg3 Rcd8 30. Rf4 Nf7 31. Rf2 Rfe8 32. h3 Qd6 33. Nf1 Qa3 34. Rcc2 h5 35. Qc7 Qd6 36. Qxd6 Rxd6 37. Ng3 h4 38. Nh5 Ng5 39. Rf1 Kh7 40. Nf4 Rdd8 41. Kh2 Rd7 42. Bh1 Rd6 43. Ng2 g6 44. Nxh4 gxf5 45. gxf5 Rh8 46. Nf3 Kg7 47. Nxg5 fxg5 48. Rg2 Kf6 49. Rg3 Re8 50. Bf3 Rdd8 51. Be2 Rf8 52. Bg4 Nc8 53. Bf3 Rfe8 54. h4 Rh8 55. h5 Rhe8 56. Bg2 Ne7 57. h6 Rh8 58. Rh3 Rh7 59. Kg1 Ba8 60. Nd1 g4 61. Rh5 g3 62. Nc3 Ng8 63. Ne2 Rxh6 64. Nxg3 Rxh5 65. Nxh5+ Kf7 66. Kf2 Nf6 67. Nxf6 Kxf6 68. Rh1 c3 69. Rc1 Rh8 70. Rxc3 Kxf5 71. Rc7 Kf6 72. Bf3 Rg8 73. Rh7 Rg6 74. Bd1 Rg8 75. Rh6+ Ke7 76. Rxb6 Kd7 77. Rf6 Ke7 78. Rh6 Rg7 79. Rh8 Bb7 80. Rh5 Kd6 81. Rh3 Rf7+ 82. Ke1 Bc8 83. Rh6+ Kc7 84. Rc6+ Kb8 85. Rd6 Bb7 86. b6 Ba6 87. Rxd5 Rf6 88. Rxa5 Rxb6 89. Kd2 Bb7 90. Rb5 Rf6 91. Bb3 Kc7 92. Re5 Ba6 93. Kc3 Rf1 94. Bc2 Rh1 95. a5 Kd6 96. e4 Bf1 97. Rf5 Bg2 98. Rf4 Rc1 99. Kb2 Rh1 100. a6

```

---
Tags: stockfish, knights, alphazero, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: What is White's motivation to give up the Queen?
I received the following tactics puzzle on lichess.org. Even though, I ended up solving it correctly, I am still not clear about the move `2. Ng5`, because this loses the Queen. What prevents `2. Qe2`, which would save the White Queen.

```
[Title "lichess puzzle 61506"]
[FEN "rn2k3/1b1p1p1N/4pBrb/qp2P3/3P3P/pP1Q4/P4PP1/R2K1B1R b q - 2 19"]

1... Be4 2. Ng5 Bxd3 (2. Qe2 *)

```

# Answer
> What prevents 2. Qe2, which would save the White Queen?

White's problem is the mating threats from the bishop battery and queen after Qc3. For instance:

```
[Title "lichess puzzle 61506"]
[FEN "rn2k3/1b1p1p1N/4pBrb/qp2P3/3P3P/pP1Q4/P4PP1/R2K1B1R b q - 2 19"]

1... Be4 2. Qe2 Qc3 3. Rb1 Qxd4+ 4. Ke1 Qc3+ 5. Kd1 Bxb1 6. Bg5 Rxg5 7. hxg5 Bxh7

```

and White is lots of material down and still facing mate threats (Qa1)
> 5 votes

# Answer
The other "motivation" is that it is simply the best move per the computer, that is if a computer can have a "motivation", per se.

That is a problem with tactics problems on Lichess, Chess.com, and ChessBase.com...they often do not take into consideration the best human response, which may be harder for the human to see to the end, but the eval is not as good to the computer.

That happens a lot in their tactics problems.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, lichess, forced-move
---


title: Beginner Tactics - Why Isn't This Mate?

text:
# Question
Title: Beginner Tactics - Why Isn't This Mate?
I was playing on chesstempo and came across the following setup:

```
[FEN "k1r4r/p6p/5p2/3Q4/1R5P/PPqn4/3N1P2/1K1R4 b - - 1 1"]

```

With black to move. I was unable to solve this tactic - it seemed to me the best move was to place the queen on b2. In my mind this was mate. The queen is defended by the knight on d3 so the king could not escape.

However, the tactic said this was the wrong move. I ran it through chessbase and it was the same result.

Why is queen to b2 the wrong move here? The correct move was rook to c6, but I have no idea why.

# Answer
`1...Qb2` is not a legal move because black is in check; `1...Rc6` blocks the check. Another alternative to block the check is `1...Qc6`, but that would drop the knight on `d3`.

```
[FEN "k1r4r/p6p/5p2/3Q4/1R5P/PPqn4/3N1P2/1K1R4 b - - 1 1"]

1... Rc6 (1... Qc6 2. Qxd3)

```
> 16 votes

# Answer
Black is in check, so Black is forced to deal with that first.

Black can't move out of check and can't take the checking piece so their only option is to block it. If Black blocks it with the Queen (Qc6) then White can take their knight which ends the immediate checkmate threat and leaves White up on material.

If Black blocks it with the rook (Rc6) then White still has to deal with the checkmate threats by Qb2 and Qc2. It seems to me that all White's options from this point result in a loss of material for White.

If (after Black plays Rc6) White use their rook or queen to check Black on their back rank then Black just captures the attacker with their rook. This leaves Black up on material and does nothing about the checkmate threat.

If White captures Black's rook with their queen (Qxc6+) then Black captures their queen with theirs (Qxc6). White gave up their queen in exchange for Black's rook.

Rc4 by White blocks the threat of mate by Qc2 but does nothing about the threat of mate by Qb2, so that doesn't help.

Nc4 by White mitigates the immediate threat of mate, but Black can capture their rook with their knight (Nxb4) reinstating the threat of a mate by Qc2. To stop that threat White pretty much has to capture Black's knight with their pawn (axb4).
> 6 votes

---
Tags: tactics, beginner
---


# Question
Title: What openings are good for the repertoire of a tactical player?
I'm preparing an opening repertoire for a small "open tournament" that will take place in a few weeks.

I think I'm quite decent at tactical play, and I like situations that give me the initiative - that is, attacking; or counterattacking when my opponent is attacking, since I can't stand rocky but passive defense. I also like games in which I can concentrate my attacks against specific targets (isolated pawn, opponent's blocked center, etc.).

So far, my repertoire is built this way:

**with White**: basically `1.e4`

* against `1...e5`, Italian (all variations) and 2-Knights (all variations), 4-Knights (all variations), and some variations of the Russian. Perhaps I'll add some variations of the Scotch Game;
* for `1...c5` I've studied some of the main lines of the Open Sicilian, the Alapin and the Closed Sicilian;
* for `1...c6` (Caro-Kann) I have prepared the Advance Variation and some of the main lines;
* against `1...e6` (French) I know the lines of the Advance Variation;

Against other defenses, I've simply studied the strategical ideas behind the most famous "lesser" defences (Scandinavian, Pirc, Nimzowitsch, etc.), and I plan to play natural moves without searching for "early confutation".

**with Black**:

* against `1.e4` I think I know kinda well Sicilian Kan, Paulsen and Sveshnikov, and many variations of the French Defense;
* against `1.c4` I usually play the Reverse-Sicilian, and sometimes the Symmetrical English.

But I cannot find a decent opening to play against `1.d4` (just a lesser opening, indeed xD). And this can be a problem also against `1.Nf3`, due to the many transpositions.

I used to play the "Nimzo-Indian + Queen's Indian" pair, but recently I found that those openings do not suit my playing style, especially the Queen's Indian. I've looked something about the Slav Defense, but I'm really scared of the many transposition into Semi-Slav and Queen's Gambit Declined (and the study that lies behind!). And I'm even more scared of theory speaking of King's Indian and Gruenfeld.

So, does anyone know defenses that may suit my playing style with Black against `1.d4`? Do you think that, if I fill this void, my repertoire is complete enough?

# Answer
## TL;DR

Good repertoire for fighting chess for white. As black, you can play `1...c5` against `1.Nf3`, and against `1.d4` I would recommend looking at the following openings and picking your favorite:

* Grunfeld
* King's Indian Defense
* Slav
* Dutch

---

This is going to be a long answer, so bear with me...

Your white opening looks acceptable. I won't really get into the merits of any of your specific choices other than to say be careful with the Advance Caro and Advance French - those don't always let you play a tactical game against strong opposition. You could look into the French Tarrasch (surprising, I know, but even the closed main line gives white kingside attacking chances) and the Panov-Botvinnik Attack against the Caro.

Against `1.d4`, almost all players have difficulty right now. From the very best GM's down to the average club players, the last 5-10 years have shown that white has excellent chances for an advantage with queen pawn openings. There are two openings that are currently "in vogue" at the top level - the Grunfeld and the Slav. These two openings are by no means the only options, but current theory holds that black can maintain equality with best play, and additionally, black has chances to win with both openings. I'll also mention the Dutch, the King's Indian Defense, the Nimzo/QID, and the classical QGD in this answer.

## Grunfeld

The Grunfeld is one of the best openings for black against `1.d4` right now. Black does not occupy the center, but instead attacks it from afar with moves like Bg7, c5, Nc6, and sometimes e5 and Rd8. White has not been able to find a clear advantage against black's best play, and most Grunfeld endgames favor black due to the queenside pawn structure. I would recommend the Grunfeld for players who are not afraid to study theory - sometimes a LOT of theory. Furthermore, Grunfeld players should be willing to take on certain disadvantages in exchange for counterplay. Black will frequently have a large space disadvantage early in the game and it takes experience to push back white to get to an advantageous endgame. That said, the Grunfeld offers EXCELLENT winning chances against lower rated players, especially in endgames that look equal at first.

## Slav

The Slav is another very common opening right now. If you want a crash course on the Slav, you can look at Anand's games in the last few matches that he has played. The Slav is another opening that can require a lot of theory, especially when you get into the Botvinnik System and the Moscow/Anti-Moscow variations. The biggest drawback to the Slav is that white can force a symmetrical game by playing an early cxd5. The Exchange Slav is very boring, but if you are a higher rated player, it is still possible to grind your way to victory in the Exchange Slav.

## Dutch

The Dutch is quite possibly the best opening for a tactical game, but black is really playing with fire. It is very easy to slip into a lost position if you are not playing every move accurately. Within the Dutch, there are a few systems that are all playable - the Stonewall, the Leningrad, and the Classical. The biggest advantage to playing the Dutch is that white players that have memorized 25 moves in the Catalan won't be able to play by memory and will have to figure out what to do at the board. Furthermore, black frequently will get a kingside attack going with the Leningrad Dutch.

## King's Indian Defense

The KID is another opening where black can be positionally lost without many mistakes. For example, if you play the Queen's Gambit Declined as black, you can make 3 or 4 subpar moves without really getting a bad position. The Dutch and the KID are another story - one misstep and black might already be losing. If you are willing to take that chance, or you are confident in your ability to deal with tactics, then the KID is a good choice. It offers black a kingside attack (usually) and chances for the full point.

## Other Openings

Just to touch on alternatives - the **QGD** is always a solid choice, but black can have a very hard time finishing development. The bishop on c8 sometimes cannot be developed until move 20 or even later. If you are not comfortable playing a cramped position, stay away from the QGD.

The **Indian Systems** (Nimzo and QID) are good choices, but per your question, I didn't mention them very much. At the GM level, these defenses are still played, but white has found ways to get a good game against both the Nimzo (look into `4.Qc2`) and the QID. Furthermore, since the Catalan is so popular, you will frequently not get the chance to play a true Indian Defense.

## Final Thoughts

You might notice that I did not recommend any gambits like the Albin Countergambit or the Budapest. With good play, white gets a great position against both of those choices. With quiet play, white still gets an equal position and black's initiative dries up quite quickly (for example g3 against the Budapest). Additionally, the Benoni and the Benko Gambit are not mentioned because black has to solve quite a few problems according to modern theory.

Ultimately, you will have to try out all of these openings and decide which one you like the best. Personally, I play the KID, the Grunfeld, and the Dutch mostly. The main point is that if you want a super sharp game, don't allow symmetrical positions (for example, your choice to play the Sicilian as black against `1.e4`).
> 36 votes

# Answer
Besides what Andrew had mentioned, I would also recommend looking into:

```
Von Henning Schara Gambit
Tarrasch Defense

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
Usually if i'm playing black and and my opponent plays the Queens Gambit I'll attempt to play the Benko Gambit, a very aggressive opening. If that does not work I transpose into the Pirc. It's hard to fall into traps and things like that in the opening, which gives you a good middle game and to play chess.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The opening you should be considering is the **Benoni Defence**. All decent lines by white lead to highly tactical middlegames where both sides are constantly making short-term threats. For this reason it has been a favorite for attacking and tactical players who wanted to play for middlegame wins as black, for example: Mikhail Tal, Bobby Fischer, Veselin Topalov, and Vugar Gashimov.

Another good option to consider is the **Benko Gambit**; although perfect play by white probably wins, below the grandmaster level the active piece play it gives black should allow you take advantage of your preference for active middlegames.

I play the Grunfeld, but based on your description I might caution you against it. Playing the Grunfeld correctly requires extensive book knowledge, which for me has added up to memorization. Also can be difficult to book up on the Grunfeld, because you usually want to play the same moves regardless of what white does, but choosing the correct *move order* is critical. If your opponent is deeply booked as white against the Grunfeld, and most expert level 1. d4 players and up will be, is very easy as black to play moves out of order and wind up with a stable but uncomfortable middlegame position where you are just worse.

However, if lots of book study doesn't sound scary, then the Grunfeld is an excellent choice: you will regularly get equal but dynamic middlegames as black.

You didn't include your ELO so I'll throw this out: against 1. d4 there is an offbeat line that can be effective at the class level, which is the **Budapest gambit** (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5?!). Strictly speaking it is almost definitely unsound, but it is a strict upgrade over the Englund (which is unplayable, frankly).
> 6 votes

# Answer
The Chigorin is a good opening for tactical players. As in the Sveshnikov the pawn structure is half fixed half dynamic if you know what I mean. Play 1...Nc6 by C. Wisneweski is the best book in my opinion. At some stage if you keep improving you will need a line against the Pirc as good players in open tournaments tend to know it quite well.
> 6 votes

# Answer
When choosing a black opening you have to come to grips with the thought that black (usually) has to make some concession *in any chosen opening*.

When looking for my answer to `1. d4`, I had to ask myself things that I liked about certain opening and things I didn't like. For example, when playing against the `London System` I prefer having a pawn on `d5` to fight for the `e4` square. Personally, I would rather play the IQP vs. passive LSB because (especially at low levels) the sort of opponent I'm likely to face is unlikely to be able to make much of the structural deficiencies in my position.

I had to discard a great many openings due lack time to devote to memorization (Grunfeld, KID, Semi-Slav etc.). I settled on the `Tarrasch Defense`. Active pieces (good for tactics) but leaves you with an IQP in many lines. Side note : I am currently making my way through 'Meeting 1. d4' by Aagard. I have only started but I like what I see so far.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Nimzo-Indian Defense hands down. Black scores well, it's aggressive in nature and gives you targets as Black to attack. I would not touch the Dutch, Benoni, King's Indian or the Slav with a 10-foot pole. Slow grinding games is not what you want.

Go All in with the Nimzo!
> 4 votes

# Answer
Because tactical complications often come with very sharp positions, a tactical opening often means a lot of theory. So, it would depend on your skill level and, more importantly, on how many hours you want to spend building your repertoire.

At a lower skill level, `1.e4` looks like a nice choice, but in fact it's not the only one! There is `1.f4`, the King's indian attack, or maybe some `d4, Nc3, Bg5, Qd3/d2, 0-0-0, e4` system that also allow for complicated tactical games and may not need such a deep study.

With Black you can try the Tarrasch Defence against `1.d4` (central isolated pawns will suit you perfectly) and `1...e5` against `1.e4`

If you are a strong player and you can dedicate a long time to studying openings, I would definitely stick to `1.e4`as White, playing the Open Sicilian, the Scotish Opening, the Panov Attack and probably `3.Nd2`against the French (or even `3. exd5 exd5 4.c4`)

When playing Black, the Sicilian Dragon appears to be the best choice to me (Najdorf or Taimanov are good alternatives). I'd choose the Grunfeld Defence against `1.e4`. Knowing the main ideas in the Dutch Defence and the Closed Sicilian is also helpful when playing against `1.c4`and `1.Nf3`.

Finally, I would remark that we should distinguish "tactical player" from "attacking player". For instance, the King's Indian and the Closed Sicilian are great choices for an attacking player, but the attack often comes as a result of a deep comprehension of strategical principles, rather than just "brute force". That's what led me to suggesting the Dragon Sicilan rather than other lines like the Scheveningen.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Grunfeld, Najdorf, and e4 mainlines (Scotch or Ruy against e5; i'm not a fan of the Giuoco Piano).

The Grunfeld has excellent theoretical health and anti Grunfeld lines (like f3) are actually more fashionable than the mainlines whether it's Bf4, or the exchange variation, or the Russian system.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Against d4 both the Tarrasch defense and Dutch are extremely simple to learn and give black active positions. The main benefit to both though is that they are playable against everything except 1.e4.

vs.1.e4 you seem to play a lot of the types of openings you want to avoid. I would play 1...e5 and choose a variation against the Ruy other than 3...a6. The Schliemann is very aggressive and Bird's is unorthodox but perfectly playable.

The bottom line is find positions you like and then find the openings that lead to those positions.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: White openings for counter-attacking players
I would like to get suggestions of openings for white that suits a counter-attacking player. As black I really enjoy playing the alekhine and the modern. As white, lately, I started playing 1.g3, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, especially since I found absolutely no theory on that opening. I'd like to have suggestions of other (decent) openings I could play as white that would suit my counter-attacking style.

Thanks!

# Answer
One might call the Reti a counter attacking opening for white. White allows black to grab some space with a big centre and then tries to tear it down.

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 e5

```

There also should be quite a lot of theoretical information about it. The main problem might be that black isn't easily goaded into overextending. Most players like to play it safe with black, making a counter attacking game with white less likely.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The Word Counter Attacking suits more for Black . If you read ever a Chess Book or Video the Counter Attacking is in a wrong context for White . The Player who plays White should be the Attacking one . Counterattacking goes for Black.

As for g3 opening it is Hungarian Opening . You can convert the opening to d4 Catalan/Reti which is a good repertoire for the White Player .
> 2 votes

# Answer
Larsen's opening b3. aims and counterattacking the center and aiming that bishop at the opponents kingside. Bird's opening 1.f4 is basically a reverse Dutch. You can play a reverse Alekhine's beginning with 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 and in other lines play a reverse Modern/Pirc.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Find lines similar to your black openings. For example, a French player might play 1. e3.

However, I don't see the point in throwing away white's advantage so early in a game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Positional opening for Black

text:
# Question
Title: Positional opening for Black
I have recently (two months ago) become very interested in chess, after playing it for about 10 years at a club, spending time on it only one evening per week. Previously, I did not think about my opening at all, and just played 1. e4 as White and 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 as Black. Currently, I play the English as White, using the wonderful books of Mihail Marin, and the Modern as Black, using a number of different books (Davies, Hillarp Persson and Lakdawala).

I am very much satisfied with the English, as it ensures a solid position, most opponents have to improvise their set-up at my level (~1500), and the books of Marin help me in having a comprehensive repertoire. After a game, I can look up who deviated first from theory, and remember it for later games.

However, it does not seem that there is such a book as Marin's for the Modern opening, and though my results with the Modern are good till now (two draws against 1650 average, and one win against 1200), I wonder if there are other solid openings which I could use as Black. Preferably, an opening for which there is a good book which explains the ideas and themes of the opening. Do you have any suggestions?

# Answer
> Positional opening for Black

If I were you I would stick with the English opening as White.

As for Black, let us start with reply to `1.d4`. I would strongly encourage you to learn Queen's gambit declined, as **it is immune to transpositional tricks**. The resulting positions require both theoretical knowledge and knowledge of typical plans. Your other option is Nimzo-Indian defense, but White can rule it out with a clever move order. Still, you can steer the game back into Queen's Gambit declined, with resulting lines being **beneficial for Black**, or you can learn Queen's-Indian defense. Also, when playing White, after `1.c4 e6 2.e4` is toothless, but `2.d4 d5` transposes into Queen's gambit declined/Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian, so this would save you a lot of learning time by reducing the amount of material you need to cover.

As for reply to `1.e4` there is French defense, Caro-Kann, or Petroff defense ( but be prepared to learn a lot about King's gambit ). Again, when playing White, after `1.c4 c6 2.e4!` you sidestep many popular openings like Grunfeld, Slav/Semi-Slav and so on, and you transpose into Caro-Kann so I would suggest getting a book on it. The beauty of this move order is that you can transpose into Panov-Botvinnik attack, which is positional and requires knowledge from Black, else he may end up in a lost game, while you may play more or less on general principles. Either way, Black must invest more work here, as this line is critical for both sides. French defense may work too, as it is very solid, but you will still need to handle `1.c4 c6` and if you do not want to transpose into Caro-Kann be prepared to play against Slav or Semi-Slav.

> I wonder if there are other solid openings which I could use as Black. Preferably, an opening for which there is a good book which explains the ideas and themes of the opening. Do you have any suggestions?

For French defense I find the book *Nikita Vitiugov-The Complete French A Complete Black Repertoire* quite useful.

For general ideas in Caro-Kann you can use *Joe Gallagher-Starting Out The Caro-Kann* and *Petter Wells-Grandmaster Secrets The Caro-Kann* and *Karpov & Podgaets-Caro-Kann defense Panov Attack* for Panov-Botvinnik Attack. For opening moves you have the *Lars Schandorff-Grandmaster Repertoire 7 The Caro-Kann*. These are more than enough to get you going.

For Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian defense you will have to find books yourself, since I do not play those defenses, and since there are so many books on those I do not wish to recommend bad ones.

As for Queen's Gambit Declined, you can start with *Mathew Sadler-Queen's Gambit Declined* since it covers typical plans for both sides very well. As for opening moves there are many books, seek on Amazon and you will find them. Unfortunately you will need most of them, in order to have your repertoire complete, and still it might not be enough. Take care especially for *Alatortsev variation* as it is very useful for Black **if played right**. Unfortunately I haven't found a good coverage on this line, and I must warn you that some novelties have been introduced from a year or two ago. I was lucky to find them, but God knows how many novelties I have missed.

That is it from me for now, if you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 2 votes

# Answer
vs e4 play the sicilian and you are are essentially playing the same opening reversed that you play with white. Find the variations you are comfortable with and go from there. The Kan is a very safe variation that scores pretty well.

vs. d4 I would play the Tarrasch which is essentially a queen's gambit reversed. If not, you should look at how you develop your king's bishop as white. Fianchetto openings are going to be different from more standard development.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Stalemate situation with all pieces on the board
Suppose all the pieces are on the board. Does there exist a position such that

A) one of the players can't make any move (a stalemate)?

B) neither player can make any move (a double stalemate)?

# Answer
Disclaimer: This solution is not reachable from the starting position, and is not reachable in a game of Chess960 (thanks Rewan!).

```
 [FEN "3bBNRN/2pPpPKQ/2P1P1PR/7P/p7/rp1p1p2/qkpPpP2/nrnbB3 w - - 0 1"]

```

Why does the solution here not work?

This is clearly not reachable from the starting position (because of the bishops stuck on the first rank), but the question does not state the position must be legal.
> 18 votes

# Answer
Here is an example of a 12-move game after which White (to move) is stalemated. All 32 units (pieces and pawns) are still on the board. The original version of this concept game was created by Charles Henry Wheeler, and published in Sunny South in 1887, according to Edward Winter's C.N. 3679. Samuel Loyd is often, and wrongly, given credit.

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

1.d4 e5 2.Qd2 e4 3.Qf4 f5 4.h3 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d6 6.Qh2 Be6 7.a4 Qh4 8.Ra3 c5 9.Rg3 f4 10.f3 Bb3 11.d5 Ba5 12.c4 e3 1/2-1/2

```
> 60 votes

# Answer
@Rosie F has answered the first part and @im\_so\_meta\_even\_this\_acronym's answer proves that it is indeed possible with an **illegal** position. However, I want to focus specifically on legal positions.

The **known** maximum number of pieces that can be **legally** stalemated is **30 pieces.** I have two examples.

I found this one in the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database..

```
[Title "Gustavus Charles Reichhelm, Brentano's Monthly 01/1882, 30 Stalemated Pieces"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "50"]

1. Nf3 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nb5 Ng4 4. h3 a6 5. Na7 Nh2 6. Nxh2 Nxa7 7. g4 b5 8. Bg2 Bb7 9. e4 d5 10. Ke2 Kd7 11. Qg1 Qb8 12. b4 g5 13. Bb2 Bg7 14. Rf1 Rc8 15. Bd4 Be5 16. f3 c6 17. Bf2 Bc7 18. Be1 Bd8 19. Kf2 Kc7 20. a4 h5 21. a5 h4 22. c4 f5 23. c5 f4 24. e5 d4 25. e6 d3

```

@Laska utilized a promoted piece elsewhere on this site.

```
[FEN "brnbKRRN/qnk1pBN1/rb1pPpPp/p1pP1P1P/PpP5/1P6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
To answer the second part of your question:

> Suppose all figures are on the board. Does there exist a transposition of figures such that both of the opponents can't do any move (a stalemate)?

No, this is not possible. Pieces are simply too mobile for this, so for a stalemate you need to hem them in (like the white queen in @RosieF's answer) or pin them on the king. You cannot use pins for a double stalemate, since that would imply the pinning piece can move and it's not stalemate for the other player. (That piece could be pinned itself, but there's no way to make a circular pin.)
> 7 votes

---
Tags: problems, stalemate, mathematics
---


title: A first book for a chess beginner

text:
# Question
Title: A first book for a chess beginner
I am thinking about getting my first chess book. After making a bit of research, people recommend to not worry about opening and endings and start with a primer on general strategy. That description lead me to a book called "Logical chess: Move by move" by Irving Chernev, I was wondering if this is an appropriate book for this matter, or is there a must-own bible for the beginner that I missed.

For more information about my level, I pretty much just played chess online for a couple of months, and I would like to get a bit more serious, and start improving my game by doing more than just playing.

Edit: Following the advice of Mark Goodwin, here comes my best game, according to Stockfish

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 Bb4+ 3. c3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nc6
5. Be2 h6 6. O-O d6 7. Be3 a6 8. c4 Bd7
9. d5 Ne5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Nc3 Nf6 12. Rb1 O-O
13. Qc2 c6 14. Rbd1 cxd5 15. cxd5 exd5 16. Nxd5 Nxd5
17. Rxd5 Rc8 18. Qd2 Bc6 19. Rxd8 Rfxd8 20. Qa5 f6
21. Bb6 Rd7 22. Bg4

```

I didn't meant to 12. Rb1, was a mouse slip, although I wanted to do Rc1 which, according to Stockfish again, isn't much better.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You might want to post your best game here (cut and paste the pgn is sufficient). There are many different stages of 'beginner' in chess.

Anyways, what I suggest you do is to:

1) Keep playing every day. Experience is king.

2) Learn basic opening principles - you do not want to get caught out with your king in the centre, your pieces sitting on the first rank, or your rooks dusting off in the corners.

3) learn all the basic mating patterns - what good is being up two pieces if you cannot finish him off?

4) Do chess tactics daily, without fail - chess24 has a pretty good chess tactics trainer and it adjusts to your level. You will lose games because of tactics more than anything else. You will win all your games because of tactics. I've been playing since 1973, and to this day, I do tactics every day.

5) record and review all your games (if you are playing online you are all set - all servers record the game for you), and maybe once a week or as frequently as you see fit, review your losses and understand where you went wrong. Make some friends online on your chess server with people who are better than you and ask them to review some of the games with you. This is the most single valuable thing you can do to improve your game.

6) Ignore all opening advice and play what you like. If you fail in the opening, understand why and fix it (books, better players, online resources, chess engines, etc.) If you really want to develop your chess openings at such a nubile stage, then Chessable is a good place to start and it's free, but unnecessary.

7) acquire a basic chess strategy book - someone mentioned Ludek Pachman's book but that might be too advanced, I think. You may grow into it, however. Jeremy Silman's Imbalances book(s) are popular. There are many.

8) Lastly mentioned, but not lastly important, learn the basic endgames necessary.

Good Luck and Good Chess!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Consider the following classic: Capablanca, "Chess fundamentals", 1921. Look for the algebraic edition, to not lose time learning two different notation systems. But if you wish, the effort pay, because some times you will find old books in descriptive notation.

The book covers the stages of the game (opening, middle and ending) and gives advice of strategy, using games.

Also, "A Primer of Chess" by the same author (José R. Capablanca) cover the sames games stages, and start in a more simple fashion, explaining the moves of every piece.

# Answer
> 1 votes
A first book should give you a very broad understanding. While some books that cover specific areas (like tactics books) might be excellent 2nd or 3rd books, they don't cover the entire game. Other books (like Chernev's) give great examples but don't explain the fundamentals of getting there. That would be like getting a collection of brilliantly solved math problems but no explanation of how to add and subtract.

My recommendation would be Learn Chess: A Complete Course by C. H. O'D. Alexander. I admit the book may be hard to read because of its tedious British style but it literally takes you from how the pieces move to some fairly advanced middle-game concepts that I rarely see covered outside of books that are aimed from the 2000+ crowd. If you read that book and play through it I have no doubt you will be an above average player and win more games than you lose.

If you don't like that recommendation, at least look at books that cover the entire game at a very basic level. I'll add the Chessmaster software series is very good too.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Although "Logical chess: Move by move" by Irving Chernev is a fantastic book, and that may, indeed, be a great place to start, I am not sure that there is any one book that you can get by with.

If I were to name one book, and only one book, it would be "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, 21st Century Edition" by Fred Reinfeld.

Most chess games between weak players are decided by who drops the last piece, and this book would help you win more material, and thus, win more games.

That said, I actually recommend starting with its companion volume, "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate" instead. I picked the ""1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" over this book only because the positions occur more often in games than cool checkmates. That said, this is an easier book to start learning combinations with.

I recommend doing 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes per move on each problem. In pencil, write down next to the problem how easy you found it on a scale of 1-5 because you will do these books multiple times. That immersion method has worked very well for me. I took a friend, who was about 38 at the time, from 1000 to 1850 on ICC in three months following this method.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are four categories of chess books. Many books fall into several of these categories of course.

1. Tactics
2. Middlegame strategy
3. Annotated games collections
4. Openings

Tactics are the most essential, and give the most bang for the buck. There are plenty to choose from. I like the classic *1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations* by Fred Reinfeld. Victor Henkin's *1000 Checkmate Combinations* is an excellent less well known book by a Russian author.

Middlegame books are extremely useful to understand strategy and positional theory. My two favorites are Jeremy Silman's *Reassess Your Chess*, and Sunil Weeramantry's *Best Lessons of a Chess Coach*. Weeramantry's book is lighter than the Silman book.

I enjoy annotated game collections. For example, Larry Christiansen's *Storming the Barricades* is a wonderful read, and the games are fun to play through. Likewise, Gary Lane's *How to Attack in Chess* is awesome. Some books, such as Garry Kasparov's *My Great Predecessors* series, are too complex for me to follow, with too many variations and too much analysis. You do have to find books at your level.

I find opening books helpful if I find myself stuck playing the same sorts of games. For example, for years I found it much easier to play in the center than from the wings. I decided I needed to learn some fianchetto openings. I remember thinking "What is the point of the Pirc anyway"? "How does it even work"? So I bought Lev Alburt's book *Pirc Alert*. I read some of it, and started 30 or so games as black to practice it. Eventually I realized why the opening "works", and I started winning some games with it. However, the many games I lost taught me more about the opening than the book did. But the Alburt book got me started. It definitely expanded my chess repertoire. I don't really need to work through all of the Pirc book. I do take it off the shelf now and then. When studying openings you can get stuck in a mode of trying to memorize moves. That's no substitute for actual tactics and strategy.

# Answer
> -1 votes
1)Judgment and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe

2)The Chess Player's Battle Manual by Nigel Davies

The above books would be fantastic if you can read chess notation

# Answer
> -1 votes
I can vouch for the Chernev book. It literally has at least some explanation for every move, which I have found quite enlightening.

Along the same lines, I can recommend these books:

*The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions Into Chess Mastery*, by Jeremy Silman. A variation on *Logical Chess,* Silman's book describes how he trains players to tell him what they are thinking as they make their moves. He does so not only for beginners but for players up through the expert level. This may not be something you do for the rest of your chess career, but it would be very helpful for you to study a few of your games by writing down or audio recording what you were thinking. It yields amazing insights.

*The Improving Chess Thinker: Revised and Expanded*, by Dan Heisman. This book is also divided up by player level and also focuses on the thought process behind one's moves. I really like how Dan Heisman emphasizes finding and fixing flaws in chess thinking. For example, it may be that a player gets away with a mistake in a game and rationalizes it as a great move. But if the thinking behind the move was flawed, that error is bound to catch up with him in a future game.

*Play Winning Chess*, by Yasser Seirawan. Rather than explain every move, this book focuses on learning chess principles of space, material, time, and so on.

Welcome to chess - it is a fantastic game!

# Answer
> -1 votes
I'm suprised nobody mentioned "Bobby Fisher teaches CHESS" $7 new. This is a paperback that is a progressive self-paced step-by-step book that won't leave any big holes in the basics. I suggest build pattern recognition with Susan Polgar and Dan Heisman. There is a free download at the Polgar foundation website-helpful training tools. Shredderchess has free tactics--there app is $7 works fine--allows position setup & analysis--you said beginner and book--suggestions from an experienced coach..best to you..When you play SLOW DOWN all novice players move to fast.

---
Tags: strategy, books, beginner
---


# Question
Title: What is the format for USCF's Golden Database?
I was wanting to collect some statistics about players, and also just easily update player ratings for my local club. I tried the web crawls on USCF's Member Services Area (even using the thin pages http://msa.uschess.org/thin.php), but it takes too long just waiting for the server to respond. How can I read the players from the Golden Database into a program I have made?

# Answer
You probably found all of this on your own already, but here is what I've learned:

The "Golden Database" can be downloaded in many formats, one of them as a tab separated text file. If you have made a program already, coding the import of the file should be trivial. Each line consists of:

LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME(S) USCFID EXPIRYDATE STATE RATING OTHERRATING

These files have certain limitations.

* Only room for 2 ratings, so 2 files is provided with either speed or blitz rating as the 2nd.
* Fields have limited lengths, so long names might be cut off.
* Rating numbers can come in many variants, 1234/12 means the rating is
based on 12 games, while I forget what 1122\* means. (Provisional?)
* Ratings can be texts as well, like 'Unrated' or 'Duplicate', etc.

If not you, then I hope this helps someone else...
> 1 votes

---
Tags: programming
---


# Question
Title: How can I deal with defenses I don't like?
I like to play `1. e4`, as I favor open and dynamic positions, and feel comfortable with most black responses, but I there are some openings I don't like, e.g. Sicilian or French. My aversion might be unreasonable, but I would like to know how to deal with this situation psychologically. Should I play e.g. `1. d4` instead in order to avoid these responses at all? Should I study these openings and try to overcome my aversion? Should I voluntarily use "drawish" lines like the exchange variation in French? Should I play unusual lines in order to throw the opponent out of the book (e.g. `f4` in both openings)?

# Answer
> 4 votes
As Black, the Sicilian and French are my favorite defenses to `1. e4`.

Both White and Black want to have the initiative. If Black plays these particular defenses, it is specifically with the intent of taking the initiative away from White.

The best mind set is to take the defensive and play "Black," but with an extra move. In this way, you will learn the advantage of having the first move.

The other way so to play these defenses as Black, and find out what problems he faces. In the French, the light squared bishop can easily become "bad," so if White trades the black squared bishops, and then your light squared bishop for a knight, White may have the advantage. In the Sicilian, Black risks getting overrun on the kingside, if his center-queenside play proves inadequate. These are issues he might not run into with the Ruy, or other defenses to `1. e4`.

# Answer
> 12 votes
No matter what your first move will be, you will always run the risk to encounter some openings you don't like. It's the same with endgames. At example, I do hate mating with bishop and knight, but I had to do it once to win the game. Should I have avoided that endgame or agreed to an early draw instead, just because I don't like it (and because I forget half the time how to win this bloody endgame)? Avoidance is no option, sometimes you just have to endure unpleasantness. Never throw away a game by drawing early only because you don't like the opening.

Secondly, don't play something to "punish" your opponents because they played something you didn't like. Your opponents will *always* try to play something which is unpleasant to you, like attacking your king and mating you ;) If you like the exchange variation of the French, then by all means play it. But if you play it just to annoy your opponent ("hah, that will teach you to play the French ever again..."), think twice. You are playing to win the game, not to eradicate the love for the French opening in the world! Only ever choose a line because it suits your goal (like getting a good position, winning/drawing the game etc.).

My suggestion is to look into the reasons of your aversion. Don't you like the resulting positions? Ask yourself why. Is it because you don't understand them or because your play is not as good in them as in other positions? Then you found a spot worth of improvement! Is it because you don't like the kind of play resulting from such positions (like too many or too few open lines, etc)? Nearly every opening offers lines to steer the game into different kind of waters. Have a look at some games of your unpleasant openings, pick the ones you would have enjoyed most to have played and then look deeper into the lines/systems that the White player employed there. In the long run, you need to hone your skills even in areas you are not interested in. For some people it's those boring closed positions, the next one can't stand pawn endgames, etc., but to become better, you have to master those situations as well. And as soon as you do, you will begin to like those situations. So this is the way to go to avoid unpleasant situations: Make them pleasant to you because you can handle them.

That said, I must say that if you are *really* unhappy with the openings your play produces, changing your opening repertoire might be a terrible good idea, indeed. Just don't expect you can avoid playing unwanted openings that way. Every opening move can lead to openings you don't like.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I agree with Ray. It seems you are facing some problems you can't solve in the positions resulting from the opening. I would suggest that you watch some games played by Grandmasters in the particular openings that you have problems in. And while you watch the game, try to guess the move the player is going to make. It is a good way to improve your overall chess skills as well. And if your aversion persists, it might mean that the variation you have chosen doesn't suit your playing style. If so, see games in other possible variations and choose the variation that results in positions comfortable to you.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Should I study these openings and try to overcome my aversion?

You should do this. Face your fears don't avoid them. But you have to be very careful here to understand what "study" means in this context. It does *not* mean memorization, it means understanding. Set yourself a task of finding out what is going on in the first three moves of these openings, then build your understanding from there.

Another approach is to increase your knowledge of strategy and middlegame, then no matter what openings are thrown your way you can be at ease knowing the game is always going to move into an area you are comfortable with.

If you are a beginner I would hazard a guess that the most efficient approach would be a combination of understanding just the first few moves of these openings then putting most of your effort toward middlegame study.

# Answer
> 2 votes
While you can't control the moves of your opponent, you can always pay him with the same coin by choosing a less common move in a variation started by him. That'll stress him out a bit too :-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Steer the game into positions you like.

The exchange French is not drawish below master level. White can unbalance the position with c4. Plus, French players hate seeing the exchange as much as you hate seeing the French so there's a psychological advantage too.

The Alapin Sicilian leads to similar pawn structures but is extremely sound and very active for white. Engines love the Alapin.

The best advice though is to beat the openings you hate and in that way encourage the opponent to choose new openings.

# Answer
> 0 votes
From my (rated around 2200) experience, which might be useful to you...

I used to spend little time on studying opening theory and almost exclusively played the Kings Indian Attack for which you need to know virtually nothing. Playing the KID as black also helped.

Then at some point I decided to study some proper openings ... 1. e4 was my choice. Since there is an awful lot of opening theory to learn I chose a step by step approach: learning some openings in reasonable depth. Currently this entails: the Sicilian Najdorf, Dragon, Caro Kann, Ruy Lopez/Spanish. Still I haven't gotten around studying the French and all the other Sicilians.

In cases where I face the French or an unknown (to me) Sicilian I chicken out and switch to a KIA-type set up. So for instance a game could go 1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2...

It is not great but works for me for the time being.

So my advise would be: yes, you should certainly study openings. Particularly the Sicilian if you like open tactical positions. For the time being you could consider a KIA setup or alternatively pick some easier to learn lines such as the French exchange variation.

---
Tags: opening, psychology, strategy
---