# Question
Title: ECO A03 Bird's opening Dutch Variation for analysis
Here is fen diagram of end game,

```
[fen "3Qk2r/B1p2pp1/p7/4P2p/P4P2/2P4q/2r4P/R2R2K1 w k - 0 1"]

```

I tried few games with Bird's opening today.

> Chess.com says `Bird's Opening Dutch Variation` in fact for this game.

The other games has much blunders. Here is the good one, but somewhat straight forward however representable, however so, I say,- I mean not much development principles followed. However as start of, here is the one for analysis which bounds `ECO A03`

```
[fen ""]
[ECO "A03"]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.03.13"]
[White "anandsadasivam"]
[Black "skenderaliu"]
[WhiteElo "798"]
[BlackElo "769"]
[TimeControl "600"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "anandsadasivam won by checkmate"]
[CurrentPosition "3Qk2r/B1p2pp1/p7/4P2p/P4P2/2P4q/2r4P/R2R2K1 b k - 0 19"]

1.f4 d5 2.a3 e6 3.d4 Nf6 4.e4 Nxe4 5.Nh3 Na6 6.Bxa6 bxa6 7.O-O h5 8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bd6 10.Qf3 Qh4 11.a4 e5 12.dxe5 Be7 13.Qxd5 Rb8 14.Be3 Bxh3 15.gxh3 Qxh3 16.Bxa7 Rb2 17.Rfd1 Rxc2 18.Qa8+ Bd8 19.Qxd8#  1-0

```

Is early e4 is bound to lost concerning Bird's Theory.

I felt to do, to free up space for King and to start with Gambit \[or\] Attack from my side. And I had opened it up for Attack.

```
[fen "rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/3PPP2/P7/1PP3PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq e3 0 1"]

```

And does this has any name `1.f4 d5 2.a3 e6 3.d4 Nf6 4.e4 Nxe4` by technique wise or is just a spoof.

# Answer
> Is early e4 is bound to lost concerning Bird's Theory.

Yes, 4. e4 is a bad move giving black a pawn for free. In usual gambit lines you gain something (e.g. lead in development, better pawn structure...) for the sacrificed pawn, but here, black's position is very solid with no weaknesses. I don't see how e4 gives you any attack.

> I felt to do, to free up space for King...

You don't free up space for the king, but for the minor pieces...

The bird opening/reversed stonewall that you play here is not really suited for quick development and usually it is wise to keep the position closed at the start of the game. If you want quick development, play something normal, like 1. e4. For instance a somewhat similar position like you got in the game you can have in some French lines (and with equal number of pawns).

A typical set-up for the reversed stonewall that you played would look like:

```
8/8/8/8/3P1P2/2PBPN2/PP1N2PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 1 1

```

The dark squared bishop on c1 is typically weak in this opening and may be devloped via d2-e1-h4 or sometimes to a3. If you are allowed, you can try to play e4 later after preparation and without losing a pawn.

Regarding the rest of the game:

* 2. a3: It is unclear what the idea behind this move is. I mean, you play 1. f4, then 2. a3 and on move 4 you suddenly realize that you need to develop your pieces...
* 12. dxe5: You got lucky that black played 11. ... e5. Here 12. fxe5 seems stronger as you attack the bishop on d6 and at the same time have the threat of Qxf7+
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, birds-opening
---


# Question
Title: Does it ever make sense to stall for time?
The game clock is used to prevent players from overly delaying the game (the keywords being "overly delaying the game"). Are there times in a timed game that stalling one's own development of the board makes sense, and if so, what would be the best example of this taking place?

# Answer
> 10 votes
In the bughouse variant a situation can definitely arise in which it makes sense to stall for time. If I'm facing checkmate next move on my board no matter what I do, then if my partner's opponent has less time on the clock than I do, I should just sit tight and hope that my partner can win on his board before my time runs out. (And if my partner's opponent has more time than I do in that situation, then he should just sit tight as well and force me to either accept mate or flag first.) But I realize you are actually asking about chess proper here, not bughouse.

I can't think of any scenario in which it makes *objective* sense, in terms of the game play, to stall for time, assuming you are talking about a situation in which: I already know what my next move is going to be (and have no intention of reviewing my decision any further), but I let my clock tick down instead of making my move immediately. But a player might have a *psychological* reason to stall at times.

In this interview (with accompanying videos in Russian) of grandmaster and noted commentator Sergey Shipov, conducted just recently during the ongoing world championship match, the topic arises as to the amount of time top players like Gelfand, Kramnik and Kasparov spend when making moves in positions that they've already analyzed during their home preparations. (See section "6. Kasparov puts on a show.") Shipov opines:

> For example, when, in Kazan, Gelfand thought for almost 40 minutes about one continuation in that game against Grischuk it later became clear that he’d looked at it all before. \[17. Rd1 in game 6 of the candidates' final\] ... he was considering some nuances, subtleties. He’d looked at the plan itself, but perhaps he was clarifying some of the concrete details. That depends greatly on the chess player. Kramnik won’t, for example, think for 20 minutes, never mind 40 minutes, about something he’s already looked at. He’ll play quickly. **Kasparov, on the other hand, might do that. With Kasparov a position could be absolutely familiar to him but he’d think for 20 minutes, look at it, make various gestures, and it seemed to everyone that Kasparov was creating and coming up with something at the board. In actual fact, however, it was a one-man performance based around the creative process.** (My emphasis)

Shipov doesn't indicate exactly what he thinks Kasparov's underlying motivation for this was supposed to be, but he is clearly suggesting that Kasparov wanted either his opponents or his spectators not to be sure when he was in his preparation and when he was extemporizing. So that's one possible answer.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Ed Dean has an excellent answer about most cases (and even touches on what I'm discussing), but there is one situation that I can think of where stalling is an excellent idea:

This mostly only applies to stronger players (2300+), but the information is good...

Sometimes it is *very* useful to spend a lot of time on an early opening move to try to confuse the opponent. If the opponent thinks that you don't know the position, they are more likely to play natural looking moves. This is frequently a bad idea, especially in complicated positions where natural looking moves fail to various tactics.

The idea behind waiting a long time before moving is to lure the opponent into making those natural looking moves, or to think that the opponent's position is good when really the position has been analyzed fully and is deemed to be good for the player. Basically, the point is that the opponent won't be fully on the lookout for sharp tactics going forward, especially in double edged positions.

# Answer
> 7 votes
There was a game where Korchnoi was completely lost and deliberately ran himself into time trouble so that the opponent would try to take advantage of it rather than playing the merits of the position. I believe it worked and he turned the game around.

Ref : http://en.chessbase.com/post/clean-tricks-and-creative-attacks

# Answer
> 5 votes
On a personal note, I once found myself facing an 8-year old who was a superior player; I knew he was a superior player before we started, having watched several of his other games at the club downtown.

I intentionally let extra time go off my clock on every move, even when it was something blatantly obvious. Relatively quickly in the game, I found myself down a minor piece... but it became clear by mid-game that he didn't have the mental stamina to keep it up: he started fidgeting, and his attention started wandering. Eventually, he made a blunder I was able to capitalize on, and I managed to win.

I spoke to his father afterward - and he related that delaying the game until his son's mental fortitude wore off was the only way he could win, too. With that said, I'm sure that the young man - whom I have since lost touch with - became a MUCH better player once he matured enough to sustain a longer play style.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Overall, I don't see any reason to do this unless you want to annoy your opponent.

If your opponent is advanced, I think you would just be wasting time, especially if you think your opponent is going to be psychologically tricked into making some sort of blunder.

If your opponent is a beginner, stalling may have some psychological effect as your opponent may think that because you took so long to move, you had to have calculated some long winning combination. Your opponent may then start to panic and look for what you saw.

Regarding the stalling with a beginner, I know this is true, because it works on me. If my opponent takes a while to move, I usually think they have something up there sleeve unless it is some horrible mistake like hanging their queen.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In team matches it can sometimes make some kind of sense. One case I saw was white was miles up on time and in a somewhat better position, but certainly not clearly winning. At that point Black offered a draw, to which white responded by waiting for the other boards to become more clear before he decided whether the team needed a win from him, or if a draw was sufficient. In the end neither was (I was on the side of Black)!

---
Tags: strategy, chess-clocks, time-management
---


title: What's "National Master" in China?

text:
# Question
Title: What's "National Master" in China?
Someone told me he's a national master in the Chinese rating system (not FIDE). His English wasn't very good, so he wasn't able to communicate more. He doesn't have a FIDE rating. He has only played rated games in China.

What does that mean? What's his approximate FIDE rating? My guess is around FIDE 1900, because I was able to defeat him. Correct?

# Answer
**TL;DR:** gaining national master level in China is based on gaining competition norms, likely to be in the amateur league.

---

As you know, national federations can set their own standards for national master titles:

> National chess federations are free to set whatever standards they want for such titles \[e.g. National Master\], which are **not recognized by FIDE**. Standards for "Master" titles in different countries vary, but are usually based on criteria such as achieving a certain rating (typically about 2200 Elo), **achieving the required number of tournament performances ("norms") at a certain level**, or featuring prominently in the country's national championship. In some cases, it may extend to honorary titles awarded to (for example) prominent chess administrators, business patrons or politicians.

Source: wikipedia, emphasis is mine.

---

In China, you can gain the national master title by playing in tournaments and getting NM norms;

> There are really two tracks for chess players. One is run by the **National Chess Association & the National Chess Academy**, as well as the associated provincial- and municipal- level chess academies. They award certificates for amateur players, from level 6 (the lowest) to level 1 (the highest), which are followed by the titles of Candidate Association Master Association Master & **National Master**. Meanwhile, the National Sports Bureau uses a different classification system entirely (recognising instead the ‘Athlete system’), bestowing upon the elite players the titles of Third class (the lowest), Second class and First Class (the highest) Athlete, National Elite and International Elite.
>
> **Chess players gaining the required norms (gaining a certain placing in some designated tournament perhaps, or satisfying the required win rate) can apply for First Class certification**. For example, I gained the titles of Association Master and First Class Athlete through competing in various events.

Source: Chess in China: Unveiling the Chinese System on Chess.com, emphasis is mine
> 4 votes

---
Tags: elo
---


title: Chess fatigueness and recovery?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess fatigueness and recovery?
I have been playing chess for almost two years now and my playing strength revolves around 1000.

Quite often every month or so, i play below par and drop to 900's and never been consistent. I dont play to win, i enjoy playing chess.

What is causing this? Am i playing too much chess?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Having some fluctuations in rating is quite natural and not something I would be overly concerned. At your rating level blunders are very common, so that games are to some extent not decided by apparent playing strength (=rating) but by a random process and this shows in your rating fluctuations.

However, with your approach (for fun) to chess you should not be worrying about ratings at all and just enjoy playing.

If you do want to improve your chess there are many ways and even a little work will have a large impact on your playing strength at this level. For suggestions on how to improve see this question and answers.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In order to play chess, you have to try to win :) Otherwise you are denying your opponent a proper game.

If your strength is bouncing between 900 and 1000 (stagnant), then you are not improving. If you want to improve, then you have to have a plan to move forward, which normally involves study, training, and/or mentoring (in addition to playing).

There are a lot of ways to begin developing as a player. A big one is to learn end-game mating scenarios. Others involve start training tactics, studying openings, recording and re-analyzing your games, joining a club, reading chess articles, etc.

You should create a plan for developing your skills (start with learning end games). Execute your plan and refine it as necessary.

# Answer
> 0 votes
A rating of 1000 means is a beginner . Great that you enjoy the Royal Game but you must focus more on studying the game and play less . When I say study it means focus more on Master Level games with Annotations and you would learn why was this game played . Look at YouTube videos especially Matojelic , King Crusher and you would definitely learn it more .

---
Tags: chess-variants, psychology
---


title: Free learning material

text:
# Question
Title: Free learning material
I'm aware of several excellent youtube channels that are free and provide some great insight into the game, such as:

What are a few other good resources (free only please!) that a new player can find and how can I use them effectively to improve?

# Answer
Here are some sites that I have found to be of great value:

chessopenings.com \- NM Dereque Kelley explains openings very well.

The Chess Website \- Excellent videos.

ChessVideos.tv \- An abundant resource of top notch videos.

Exeter Chess Club coaching section \- Excellent articles

ChessCafe columns (especially Dan Heisman's Novice Nook columns and Mark Dvoretsky's Instructor columns) - I can't recommend Dan Heisman enough, his videos on ICC (not free) are excellent. Note: since the demise of the ChessCafe site these links point to the archive.org saved version.

50 Chess Games for Beginners \- I stumbled upon this. Looks helpful, especially since the games are annotated.

Chess Visualization Training \- Improve your visualization.
> 16 votes

# Answer
A bit of self-promotion, I put together this PDF:

A solid understanding of pawn structures and their corresponding plans will improve your game by leaps and bounds, because books rarely do a good job of explaining this powerful area of chess knowledge so it will probably be mostly new information. Hope you find it useful! :)
> 12 votes

# Answer
I notice (unless I missed it) that no one has mentioned Daniel King's youtube channel Power Play Chess. You can subscribe for free. I enjoy his "what happens next?" series, where he plays through a grandmaster game, stops at a crucial moment, and asks the viewer to pick the correct continuation from two possibilities. The viewer then clicks one of two links to find out if they are correct.
> 10 votes

# Answer
There is an absolutely PHENOMENAL book on tactics, oriented towards beginners, available for free on the web. It's called "Predator at the Chessboard", by Ward Farnsworth, and you can find it at http://www.chesstactics.org/

The depth of coverage is good for even intermediates. But he really takes time to explain the tactics in English, which makes it very understandable to beginners.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I've found Mark Weeks' Chess for All Ages to be an excellent, free resource. There is a lot of advice for beginners and intermediate players alike on topics such as

* Building an opening repertoire
* Tactics and positional ideas for the middlegame
* Explanations of basic endgames

There are also a dozen or so annotated "classic" games, where every move is explained in depth. I found this to be especially useful because I often missed the point of quiet moves.

Some of the material is quite dated and a few of the links are dead, but don't let that put you off - the overall quality of the articles is excellent.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess Strategy Online \- A new site with free tutorials for beginners and novices.
> 1 votes

# Answer
one best game one can download through torrent that is "KASPAROV CHESSMATE" there are such many examples to solve with kit ta have many ideas.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think the best of the Learning material is Chessgames.com . There you have a Tool called Guess the move . This allows you to make a move and then gives a Score to your move . Often it is best to be at par with GM thinking lines .

link below

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/guessthemove
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: White fights for equality in French classical?
Normally, using engines for any given opening I can find ways for White to maintain a slight edge into the middle game. By a "slight edge" I mean an evaluation of around +0.20

The exception to this is the Classical French (and Steinitz), where it seems like every line Black has at least equality and most lines lead to an edge for Black!

For example, in his book on the French, Psakhis says that after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 0-0?! is dubious for Black after 7. Bd3. However, the engine shows that not only is not dubious for Black, but Black has the advantage after 7...c5!

This is just one example. No matter what line I try, Black always seems to get at least equality.

Even more scary is that not only is Black always getting equality, but White seems to have a lot more ways to go wrong than Black in many of the lines.

Is there any line in the Classical where White can retain a pull?

I am using Komodo 10 as my engine.

# Answer
> 4 votes
From my experience it can be dangerous to analyze openings with a single engine only. Adding an extra engine can be very helpful, as it has a different evaluation function. Stockfish is open source and probably at least as strong as Komodo (according to the CCRL). Futhermore, when studying an opening, it is also important to check game databases and opening books.

As far as I know, the current theoretical status of the French defence is that it is a sound opening, with good chances to obtain equality with black, but white can try to fight for a small advantage.

In the line you give, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 0-0 7.Bd3 c5, it seems that white can force a draw: 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qh6 cxd4 10.Nf3 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 dxc3 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.Qxg6+. This is exactly what happened in several games, e.g. Anton Guijarro-Forcen Esteban.

Instead, white can try to obtain an advantage with 7.Qg4, which was played for the first time in Hebden-Gurevich. The immediate threat is Bh6 and after 7....f5, white is probably better after 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Qg5. Therefore, the main line is 7....f6 (Hector-So), where white can choose between the greedy 8.Qxe6+ (Hector-Matthiesen) or the aggressive 8.Bd3. After the latter, white seems to have a very dangerous attack, e.g. 8....Rf7 9.Nf3 c5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.e6 and 9....Nc6 10.Bg6! hxg6 11.h5 gxh5 12.Qxh5 Rf8 13.Nxd5.

```

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 O-O 7.Qg4 (7.Bd3 c5 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qh6 cxd4 10.Nf3 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 dxc3 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.Qxg6+) f6 (7...c5 8.Bh6) (7...Kh8 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3) (7...Re8 8.Bh6 Bf8 9.h5) (7...f5 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Qg5 Qb4 10.O-O-O) 8.Bd3 (8.Qxe6+ Kh8 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qe2) Rf7 (8...fxg5 9.Bxh7+) 9.Nf3 Nc6 (9...c5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.e6) 10.Bg6! hxg6 11.h5 gxh5 12.Qxh5 Rf8 13.Nxd5

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
An evaluation of +0.2 is just noise and nothing like a "slight edge". Another engine might very well give you -0.2 or so. I would not be overly concerned by such evaluation.

When analyzing opening lines, much more important is the character of the position: whether you like it, whether it gives you winning or drawing chances (depending on requirement), whether it is easy to play for you (and difficult for your opponent), etc. All of these are difficult to assess automatically with a computer and require you to look at it. That's why GM spend so much time on openings and don't just have their computers running looking for the line with the highest evaluation.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Very good question! I was looking at Negi's book on e4 and in French in Nc3 Bb4 line the engine evaluated soooo many lines better for black that it could drive me crazy. In Qg4 O-O system (instead of sacrificing g7+h7) it shows advantages only for black even on very high depths. Similarly the immediate Nf6 e5 and your Nf6 Bg5. Was quite frustrated by this, but than I checked correspondence games in some of the lines and white was often one with clearly the better results. But it stood often on insane sacrifices, precise maneuvers no human could ever find. So you must make the best assessment possible how each line fits for human and your play, whether it is more difficult to play for white or for black. Often one side gets the objective advantage while the other side gets desired type of position, which is both valuable. No popular line can be both bad and unpractical. In my particular example the final truth was on white's side, but missing one move can hurt the evaluation to what engine thinks about the position not seeing the precise continuation. I didn't very enjoy what I saw as defence had too obvious moves while attack was too hard to play good. Engine doesn't understand human needs for position so it's use in specific lines is limited. Those comes to my mind.

French g5 b4 racing in Najdorf Poisoned pawn in Sicilian KID

for the main theoretical ones

Many gambit and tricky lines are of course also misunderstood by chess engines as they expect perfect play from both sides which never happen.

# Answer
> -1 votes
You need to first understand what does this +0.20 exactly means . Well true that in majority of cases White stands a slight more advantageous to Black if both play their openings correctly . The reason for this is White always gets to move first . White always has the initiative . In a standard middle game +0.2 for any engine like Fritz/ StockFish /Komodo or any other Engine it means that out of 64 Squares before the game begins White & Black has equal number of Squares on their command . After a few moves White may occupy 2-3 Squares more than Black . It may be that as in case of Ruy Lopez White has 2 pawns in center like e4,d4 and Black has e5 d6 . May be that White castles first or an extra piece developed .Then the evaluation changes to +0.2 or +0.3 . These are some examples to consider . I would advise until & unless the Score shows a tentative \> +0.8 you should not get bothered by such low figures .

With time, knowledge & experience I have seen that even when the Score shifts to +- 1.0 also people with less than 2200 Elo can not find looking at the board as to who has a better position in many respective positions .

People with 2400 IM norms & above are the ones who can pull out the win from these positions. So in opening and especially French you can ignore that slight advantage . Yes in Sicilian/Evans/Semi Slav Meran it may affect you because positions are very razor sharp and openings may turn the middle game into a disaster if not carefully played .

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


title: Purpose of Tarrasch variation in French

text:
# Question
Title: Purpose of Tarrasch variation in French
What's the purpose of `3. Nd2` in the French opening? Does it not block the dark-squared bishop and offer space in center for black? What's the sharpest line for white in this variation?

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2

```

# Answer
Now I haven't played the Tarrasch, but I am considering it, as an alternative to the exchange variation, and this is what I've discovered in my limited research.

The main purpose is to support the pawn chain, if Black continues with `3. ... Nf6`, as the c3 square is available for a pawn to support d4. Additionally, as a bonus, it avoids the Winawer variation of the French, without playing the advanced or exchange variations, which are easier for black at higher levels.

While it does block in the Queen's Bishop, other than the classical lines, `1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5`, it's not uncommon for the Queen Bishop to remain undeveloped for most of the opening.

As for which line is the sharpest, a lot depends on black's responses.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The main purpose of 3. Nd2, as opposed to 3. Nc3, is to avoid the pin after 3...Bb4. For inspiration you might check out Kasparov's games. The Tarrasch was his main weapon against the French for years and he scored many crushing victories. For example...
> 0 votes

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


title: How do I improve my checkmate skills?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I improve my checkmate skills?
I am able to develop my pieces systematically and purposefully. I am also good at defending my pieces. However, when the game gets closer to an end, I need to be able to see different mate variations easily. But alas I am having difficulty seeing them. As a result, I often start losing my positional advantage and win the game in more moves than it should actually take. Thanks in advance for your help!

# Answer
The situation you find yourself in, is actually very common and also an issue for most amateurs. I think you will find out soon that there's no "one" answer that works for everyone. But there are of course suggestions that you may find useful:

* Most promising way to improve your ability in finishing up games or checkmating, is solving **puzzles**. There are so many good puzzle books, websites/apps... you name it! Just start practicing and try to solve them, and in no time you will notice your improvement. *Why it helps you may ask?* think of it this way: Knowing how to finish games (or finding checkmates) means being familiar to the patterns present in your position (each game has its own details), and a pattern needs first to be noticed. To notice pattern/combinations/ideas, you first need to have been **exposed** to them in some way. That's what chess puzzles mainly do for you: they expose you to all sorts of ideas and force you to find them as otherwise you cannot solve the puzzle. Whereas just playing games over and over does not do the same for you, because there, you're not limited to one solution and instead of trying to find the right patterns(shortest finishes/checkmate paths) you just go with your already-made-intuition.
* Second best suggestion I can think of, is reviewing your own games with an engine. Engines are in my opinion very much mis-used these days. They are amazingly productive when used to assist you while reviewing your already-played-games. With an engine, you will simply see where you may have missed out on some of the shorter paths towards finishing the game etc. Specially endgames where you have huge advantages, and you still find yourself playing out 20 moves, with an engine you will be fed the right ideas right off, so try to mull over them and don't just take them lightly. By doing this for most of the games you play, you will gather a very important amount of tactics/ or just useful ideas, that will help more easily concretize your advantages towards victories!

Some known and nice chess websites:

Recommended chess books containing puzzles:

* The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book, very famous, written by John Emms
* Another great one is, Garry Kasparov's Chess Puzzle Book, but of course it's not best if you just want checkmate puzzles.
* A favorite of mine is, John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book, which again is not only about checkmates, but instead contains all sorts of very advanced puzzles.
* Of course the list can be very long, but do bear in mind that when it comes to checkmate puzzles, you don't really need to find the famous books, you just need any decent collection of them, (in any library you will find many relatively unknown puzzle books, that will perfectly do the job), as the idea here is to "gather as many ideas as possible" so in your own games you will notice and re-use the learnt patterns.

In order to conclude, the more puzzles you try to solve, the more games you study, the more you simply watch chess games, the richer your bag of ideas/patterns/combinations will become.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'll try my best to answer this rather ambiguous question however I'd like to note that if you want help in chess your best bet is to familiarize yourself with terms like "tactics", "strategy" and so forth.

A little bit on 3 major terms in chess, or at least how I perceive them to be:

1. Tactics

patterns in chess(calculable) that lead to something factual such as winning a pawn, winning a piece, mating and so forth. Usually a forced sequence of moves.

2. Strategies

Really just the general plan you're following. If you try to pressure a certain square or use a sequence of moves to go on the offense and had that as your plan that's an implementation of a strategy.

3. Positional play

The most ambiguous term, it's generally just logical chess; Knights are strong in the center so you'd play your knight there if you had the opportunity. You don't follow a particular strategy nor did you calculate variations to see if this knight will lead to a definite advantage but because experience and general chess knowledge dictates knights are strong in the center you can conclude there is no downside to having it there, the opposite even.

All these terms can become moot easily, miscalculations, positional play that's not backed up by proper think-work and strategies that become invalid due to the opponent playing out his own game... You get the point.

---

So what we're looking for here is the term tactics, the pure act of seeing forceful moves that lead to a certain advantage. Tactics are something usually gained through practice and lots of experience, it also helps when you are familiar with the basic mates(mentioned before like King+Queen, King+rook, and King+2xbishop or King+bishop+Knight if you're feeling really up to the task) but also mates that simply involve certain patterns. Here's a supersimple one but you get the idea:

```
1K6/PPP5/8/8/8/4r3/3k4/8 b - - 0 1

```

There's a few ways to practice tactics:

* Books

Books that involve endgames will always be great, they involve a great deal of tactics and will surely strengthen your ability to see them throughout the entire game.

Chess puzzle books are another great idea.

* Websites

Let's not forget this great resource called the internet, there's websites out there with tactics trainers designed to take in account your playing strength as you do their puzzles. Two of these I'm aware of are:

www.Chess.com
www.Chesstempo.com

Especially Chesstempo is a great resource.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have greatly improved my checkmate skills by solving puzzles from John Nunn's 1001 deadly Checkmates book.I highly recommend this book.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Solving tactics puzzles that end in mate should help a lot. Even if the puzzles are short (2-3 moves), you will learn all kinds of mate positions which is useful because you will know what to aim for in longer mate sequences.

In practical play, looking for long mate sequences is not necessarily the best choice, particularly if you don't trust your calculation skills. Often this happens when the mate requires you to make quiet (not forcing) moves or if you are under time pressure.

In some cases you might rather want to play a simple forced line that simplifies the position and leads to a clearly won endgame for instance.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I have found that the "Practice" section of Lichess.org has great examples, specifically because they guide you through *standard* Checkmating patterns (e.g. Boden's Mate, Arabian Mate, etc.) They also tell you how many moves you *should* make for each of the problems (e.g. Checkmate in 3 if played perfectly), which I have found to be quite helpful. The site also has other helpful practice problems (tactics and pawn endgames), I highly suggest you check it out!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a list of chess games (or PGN file) for games less than X number of moves (specifically 12 moves)?
I was reading a book on chess where the author suggested that a good way to practice getting good at the opening is look at miniature games (less than 12 moves specifically) played, that have led to checkmate. The implication is that these games must have involved serious blunders to end so early, and so that an amateur can learn about vulnerabilities and how to take advantage of them, by reviewing or playing through these games.

I have looked up books on miniature games, but first they're often longer than 12 moves, and second, usually it's only the famous ones that involve brilliant tactics that are mentioned. I want a much bigger list of these games that I can play through. Appreciate any help.

# Answer
> 1 votes
`pgn-extract` can extract games from a pgn file based on the number of moves. The `-bu12` flag would give you games of 12 moves and less. There are various databases which you can download for free, see this link

12 moves are really short games, you might want to extend that limit a bit and probably you also want to exclude games that end in draw.

Also IMO solving general tactics puzzles is very useful for a beginner.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Go to http://www.chessgames.com/

In the Homepage only you can see advanced search . You can filter out depending on Years/Players/Openings/Number of moves and many others.

Give Number of moves is \<= no more than 12 and also add year filter along with specific openings .

You will get the Games of your choice .You can download the games in PGN format .

---
Tags: pgn, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Algebraic notation avoiding ambiguity rank or file preference
In the following example (and similar situations you can make up), both queens can capture the knight. If for instance the queen on f5 takes the knight, this could be written as: Qfxd3 or as Q5xd3. Is there a preference/guideline/law/... for using one or the other notation in this case? I am specifically interested in notations made by humans in a normal game situation, not in PGN notation.

```
8/8/8/5Q2/8/3n4/4Q3/8 w - - 1 1

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
This would be **Qfxd3**.

From wikipedia (emphasis is mine):

> When two (or more) identical pieces can move to the same square, the moving piece is uniquely identified by specifying the piece's letter, followed by (**in descending order of preference**):
>
> * the **file** of departure (if they differ); or
> * the rank of departure (if the files are the same but the ranks differ); or
> * both the file and rank (if neither alone is sufficient to identify the piece—which occurs only in rare cases where one or more pawns
> have promoted, resulting in a player having three or more identical
> pieces able to reach the same square).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Board is divided into 1-8 ranks and a-h files .

Generally this problem arises with Rooks & Knights .

When two Queens standing on two different Squares and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use for convenience

Q Square number * Square number .

Here it would be either Qf5\*d3 or Qe2\*d3 .

Any of the 64 Squares can be represented with the File + Rank convention . Always use the initial & final square number for better representation & avoiding ambiguity .

---
Tags: rules, notation
---


title: Why Qe1 in the KIA? Why not Re1?

text:
# Question
Title: Why Qe1 in the KIA? Why not Re1?
```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/3P1NP1/PPPNPPBP/R1B1QRK1 w kq - 0 1

```

I see that many players play Qe1, but why not just Re1? What is the difference? Doesn't the queen on e1 also make the potential weakness of a black battery from c8-h3 by exchanging the light squared bishops?

# Answer
> 5 votes
This might depend a bit on the black set-up.

One reason to play Qe1 instead of Rf1 could be that the rook will often be needed on the f file later to support the attack with f4...

Another example where Qe1 can make sense in the KIA is to support a knight on h4 when playing f4 as in positions like the following (which is fairly random) where white can recapture on f4 with the g pawn.

```
r1bq1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2nb4/2p1p3/3pPP1N/3P2P1/PPPN2BP/R1B1QRK1 w - - 1 1

```

One problem with Qe1 besides the one you mention is that the pawn on c2 is unprotected and could be attacked by black with Nb4. Playing a3 to prevent Nb4 is also not something white usually wants as it creates targets for black's queenside pawn storm attack.

# Answer
> 7 votes
One reason the set-up with `Re1` is less popular could be that it loses a pawn in a certain quite common variation:

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "KIA with Re1"]
[Startply "15"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. O-O Bf5 5. d3 h6 6. Nbd2 e6 7. Re1 Be7 8. e4?

```

Do you see black's tactic?

> After 8. ... dxe4 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Nxe4, white has opened the file allowing for Qxd1!, forcing the Rook to abandon the Knight and black ends the exchange sequence up a pawn.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Objective of KIA from White is to attack on the K-side of Black where Queen is an essential piece and without it the attack cannot be carried out . When the Queen moves from d1 to e1 then after White plays e4 and then pawns are exchanged and d file gets open Black can do an exchange of Queens and neutralize completely with White . So it is important to secure the Queen and sometimes along with Rook on f1 and Queen on e1 White is able to prepare a pawn storm .

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


# Question
Title: Defence against black pawn threatening E4
I've got myself into this position a number of times:

I cannot bring the knight up to C3 as he will just drop the pawn down to D4.

Brining my pawn up to d3 could lead to an exchange of pawns followed by an exchange of queens.

What is the best way to defend this poisition?

# Answer
How did you manage to get your pawn to h3?!

I'm assuming the position you're interested in occurs after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5. Now white's best move is considered to be 3. exd5. After 3...e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Nc3, white regains the pawn on e4 leaving black with little to no compensation. Feel free to explore the lines yourself, but that's the gist of it as far as I can tell.

In a more general sense, have a little faith in your position :) You seem to be already worried about defense...but all white has done so far is make the absolute most classical, principled opening moves. Why on earth does black get to make this super-aggressive thrust in the center? White should be looking to go on the offensive and punish this overreach.

For a little inspiration, check out a Tal classic.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: French Defense ECO C00 game for analysis
Here is the game for analysis which had been played between two matured person.

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 e6 2.d3 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.g4 a5 5.h3 a4 6.b3 a3 7.Nxa3 Bxa1 8.Bd2 Rxa3 9.Qxa1 f6 10.Qc1 Rxa2 11.Qb1 Ra3 12. Qc1 Ra6 13.Qb1 Ra3 14.Qb2 Ra6 15.f4 b5 16.f5 c5 17.Be3 Qb6 18.Bc1 b4 19.c3 d6 20.d4 Ra3 21.Qb1 Ra5 --

```

This game had withdrawn due to this wrong move,- `22.h5` observed at the time scribbling. The person who made this move not only a very good artist but very good person in many kind. That person knows many thing which me,- the other person not aware of.

Saying or commenting about the game as part of analysis, make a note abt. what is fascinating overall.

Why did I moved `3.* Bg7 4. g4 a5 ...`

# Answer
Putting all your pawns on one type of square color is usually not a good idea. For instance black could have played 4 .. Qh4+. Also with all the pawns on light squares the bishop on g7 gets incredibly strong.

Generally too many pawn moves in the opening from both sides. Should have developed pieces.

Few bad moves:

* 6. b3?? blunders the rook which black should take already here
* 8. .. Rxa3? I would not exchange this very powerful bishop for the knight on a3. Better to retreat the bishop to g7.
* Not sure why black insists putting the rook on a3 in moves 11 and 13. Not much to attack there and the rook could always easily be attacked.Nothing wrong with retreating to a8 for the time being. The main duty of the rook is to occupy the open a file which it does equally well from a8.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, french-defense
---


title: Online chess lectures for kids

text:
# Question
Title: Online chess lectures for kids
What are sites to learn for kids. Especially, video lectures. The lectures should be simpler to understand.

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to chessyourchild.com, the top 5 sites are:

> 1. chesskid.com
> 2. zoomchess.com
> 3. chesscoachonline.com
> 4. chessclub.com/icckids
> 5. chesscademy.com

There's also a chess.com forum about it: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/safe-chess-sites-for-children

As a child, I used chesskid.com right about when it was established. It was pretty good, but I found nothing worked better than on-the-board learning. It all depends on the psyche of the kid; I recommend that you try these 5 sites and see which fits best.

---
Tags: learning, training, online
---


title: What are the benefits of playing 1. h3?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the benefits of playing 1. h3?
My friend plays this all the time as white. He cites the following two reasons:

1. Gives white a chance to play like black (respond to an opening rather than create one)
2. Defends against bg4

Can this turn into a modified Grob? Are there any other good reasons to play this?

# Answer
The advice I've heard is that if you're going to play one of these 'waiting moves', so that white effectively becomes black, you may as well play a3. This has the same two advantages that your friend refers to (although preventing the mirror image bishop move, of course), without weakening the kingside.

I'm not aware of any other advantages than those two you mention, and of course there are quite a few disadvantages. Obviously this is not perfect opening theory, but at amateur level I imagine it's quite playable.

Also, worth noting that Adolf Anderson opened with a3 in a few games against Paul Morphy. So not sure that I agree with Tony Ennis that there are *no* good reasons to play this way.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There are no good reasons to play 1. h3 (or 1. a3) other than psychology (confusing the opponent, avoiding theory/opponent's preparation/...).

Regarding the two "reasons" you mention:

> Gives white a chance to play like black (respond to an opening rather than create one)

I don't see this as an argument for playing a waiting move like 1. h3/a3. Why would you want to play like black (which has statistically a lower winning percentage)? What is the advantage of "responding to an opening"? That would mean that you have to be prepared for all kind of moves, so if anything you would have more work, studying more lines, etc.

Also I disagree that it is always white who is "creating" the opening. In the end the opening is created by both players. Take for instance 1. d4. Black can respond with 1...d5 playing some kind of Slav or Queen's gambit which more often than not leads to symmetrical equalish positions. Or black can go for something like a King's Indian, Benoni, Grunfeld... which leads to asymmetric wilder play. So here it is black who decides the character of the opening.

> Defends against bb4 \[Bg4!?\]

It is too early to know whether you want or need to defend against this. It is not like Bb4/Bg4 is a major threat (in most openings) that must be prevented. Also in some openings the bishop might not even want to (be able to) go to those squares. Lastly, pushing the pawn to h3/a3 can create weaknesses or targets for pawn storms in some lines.
> 5 votes

# Answer
There are no benefits from playing `1.h3` or `1.a3`. There are merely certain variations where White is not severely punished for it. That's not the same as a benefit.

The only good reason to play it is that it might somehow confuse an inexperienced player or take them "out of their book". I am not sure that actually qualifies as a good reason. Hoping for your opponent to be incompetent is not a strategy!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawns
---


# Question
Title: What if Stockfish had infinite computing power?
If Stockfish had infinite computing power, or perhaps connected to all Google servers, etc. would it be able to solve the perfect chess moves after 10 moves? Or be able to create the perfect game directly? What would happen?

# Answer
No.

* What do you mean by "perfect" chess moves after 10 moves? We don't know they are perfect until the game ends in checkmate! You'll need go mucher deeper than 10 moves. You can't even solve King's Gambit in just 10 moves.
* The Stockfish algorithm **heavily** skips stupid moves off the search tree. It will **not search** everything no matter what CPU power you give it. You're actually talking about a brute-force engine (search all the possible moves). No, Stockfish is much **smarter** than that.
* Nothing really happen. You could publish a new paper, but your results would not change the world. We don't need to know what happens after 10 moves, we want to know what happens after 100 moves.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Engine output: FEN string when blundering
What is the best way to go through a database of my games and have the computer generate a FEN string as well as the next move any time I make an error greater than, say, a minor piece loss?

I've looked at SCID a bit and am not sure if I can do it there. I also doubt I could do it with stockfish on the command line. Pointers?

# Answer
> 1 votes
You may want to do it yourself. Please take a look at a PGN annotation project on Github:

The source code is easy to follow.

* To get the engine evaluation, you have:

> engBestMove, engBestScore, complexityNumber, moveChanges, pvLine = self.GetSearchScoreBeforeMove(gameNode.board().fen(), side)

* To check whether a move you play is a blunder:

> if abs(engBestScore) \> 3.0:

* To print FEN:

> fen = gameNode.board().fen()

* To print FEN and whatever you want to the console, follow the implementation in:

> def WriteNotation(self, side, fmvn, sanMove, bookMove, posScore, isGameOver, engMove, engScore, complexityNumber, moveChanges, pvLine, threatMove):

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can count on crafty. Its annotate or annotateh command, allows you to automatically comment games with variations. You can specify wich side to analyze; how much difference on engine evaluation (after/before) will trigger an annotation an also the time invested analyzing each position.

After that, SCID, Chesspad, Compoches or any other software for visualizing pgn gamescores will allow you to review your game and most important than Anki, to anotate your thoughts.

Here I reproduce the pertinent fragment from a help doc about crafty commands:

```
annotate | annotateh <filename> <colors | name> <moves> <margin> <time>

```

This command is used to annotate (make comments in) a game that has already been played; annotate produces a file with the .can extension added to the original name. This file will contain pure ascii information from the annotation pass.

The annotateh command will produce an htm file.

---
Tags: engines, analysis, stockfish, scid, fen
---


# Question
Title: program to output features in a position
is there a program available that will take a position as input and output the features in that position such as: bad knight on H3, good bishop on g2, knight outpost on E5, passed pawn on c6, etc. It would be ideal if it took FEN string and operated from the command line?

# Answer
It's possible (statically) but you may need to do some works. Let's take a look at Stockfish.

In the terminal, start Stockfish and type `eval`.

Stockfish knows about your passed pawns, king safety, good knights etc. Your job is to pull it out from the source code.

Let's study Stockfish's evaluation. The source file is at: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/evaluate.cpp

Let's try two examples: **bad knight** and **passed pawn**.

1. **Bad knight**

The line:

```
pos.attacks_from<Pt>(s)

```

gives you the attack bitboard for your knight. The PST table for the knight is in **psqt.cpp**.

```
{ S(-144, -98), S(-96,-82), S(-80,-46), S(-73,-14) },
{ S( -83, -69), S(-43,-54), S(-21,-17), S(-10,  9) },
{ S( -71, -50), S(-22,-39), S(  0, -7), S(  9, 28) },
{ S( -25, -41), S( 18,-25), S( 43,  6), S( 47, 38) },
{ S( -26, -46), S( 16,-25), S( 38,  3), S( 50, 40) },
{ S( -11, -54), S( 37,-38), S( 56, -7), S( 65, 27) },
{ S( -62, -65), S(-17,-50), S(  5,-24), S( 14, 13) },
{ S(-194,-109), S(-66,-89), S(-42,-50), S(-29,-13) }

```

Do you see -29 for the h1 square?

2. **Passed pawn**

The line:

```
ei.pe->passed_pawns(Us)

```

gives you passed pawn information for a colour.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, positional-play, computer-chess
---


title: How to play the opening?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play the opening?
I've been working on planning and my positional chess by reading How to reassess your chess by Jeremy Silman. In his book he talked about the opening that the true purpose of every opening was to build imbalances and make moves/plans based on the imbalances. I found this advice very useful as I've always played the opening moves with reasons such as it develops my pieces or gives center control which I always found the reasons to be too vague/aimless to justify the moves and often resulted in me not knowing how to continue. I feel I am guilty far too often of "bad development" as he mentioned in the book, which is worse than no development according to him. How would I implement this new view on playing the opening? I can't seem to understand what imbalances certain openings try to create, for example 1. e4 e5. What imbalance is black trying to create here?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Well, Black doesn't play 1... e5 (after 1. e4) to create an imbalance *directly*. Rather, he *challenges* White's plans to create an imbalance by occupying the center with pawns on e4 and d4. (There are openings like the Pirc Defense, which do allow this to White.)

Following well-played lines, you'll get a chance to create an imbalance eventually, sometimes at move 3, sometimes at move 15. Good opening books will tell you what imbalances these lines create and how you can profit from them (often with example games played by grandmasters). Some examples of imbalances are:

* exchanging a knight for a bishop, or vice versa
* damaging an opponent's pawn structure
* occupation/control of the center
* significant lead in development / the initiative
* material imbalance (gambiting a pawn)

Most lines involve 'exchanging' two or more imbalances (e.g. the Nimzo-Indian where White obtains the bishop pair, at the cost of doubling his c-pawn and being slightly behind in development) and then it's up to the players to make better use of their advantages than their opponents.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Not every opening is about creating an imbalance. After 1.e4 e5 black is trying to neutralize white's first move advantage and equalize the position. A draw for black is usually considered a more than acceptable result.

When black wants to play for a win, then maybe he will introduce an imbalance himself like as in the sicilian defense 1.e4 c5. This creates greater chances to win, but also greater chances to lose due to the asymmetry in the resulting positions.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When Black plays e5 in response to White's e4 it does not mean from the very first move there would be an imbalance . The imbalance starts from further moves which can result in Ruy Lopez / King's Gambit / Giuoco Piano / Evan's Gambit / Petroff Defense / Center game .

The above are mostly the defence which arises from e4,e5 play . As you asked the Question from Black's perspective it would be wise if you play the Marshall Gambit of Ruy Lopez . This is the best Gambit line where till date there has been no proper refute been discovered from White's perspective . Black gets a superb initiative and is down a Pawn and the Play shifts to White's K-side . Here is the link of the Games & Opening from Marshall Gambit . This creates a ferocious imbalance where Black pounces upon White's K-side .You can check out the games from Black's side .

Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit line & Games from Chessgames

I will request you not to play the Petroff Defence as it is very hard from either side to get an advantage . If you want to play a drawish game you can play the Petroff .

King's gambit / Giuoco Piano / Evans gambit creates some imbalance but it is white who has the initiative here . White sacrifices a pawn or two to open lines and a huge attack . So Black should be cautious here and be a good defending player to keep White at bay .

Center Game 1)e4,e5 2)Nf3,d5 also creates some imbalance but please make sure you play it with lower rated opponents.

All the above lines except Petroff creates a lot of imbalances and Pawn & even material sacs for initiatives .

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


title: Can white still win this?

text:
# Question
Title: Can white still win this?
Is it possible for white to turn the tables and win this game or is it "almost" over?

```
[FEN "1r4k1/2p2pp1/5r1p/p1p1p1bq/P1PpP1b1/1P1P1NP1/2N1QPKP/1R1R4 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nce1

```

What would you do if you were white?

# Answer
White can do nothing right now, because he made the last move (Ne1). Black can simply sacrifice the exchange on f3, keeping the pin intact, and aim the other rook at f3. Then, White's position will collapse entirely.

There's no way White can escape the pin, e.g. after h4, Black can just ignore the attacked bishop:

```
[FEN "1r4k1/2p2pp1/5r1p/p1p1p1bq/P1PpP1b1/1P1P1NP1/4QPKP/1R1RN3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxf3 2. Nxf3 Rb6 3. h4 Rf6 4. hxg5 Bxf3+

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
White is in a precarious position holding onto the pin and has no counter play . As a Prisoner sometimes waits for his punishment and he knows no escape here White has got its centre & Queen side even blocked to generate NIL counter play . Looking at the board without any calculation also an amateur can determine that white would be very soon in Zugzwang resulting in huge material loss.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: If you exploit Article 12.9 in FIDE's Laws of Chess, is it possible to benefit yourself by purposely receiving a penalty?
After I received this answer on my previous question, I found the list of penalties which a player can receive, according to FIDE guidelines.

As FIDE states in Article 12.9:

> Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
>
> 1. warning
> 2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent
> 3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player
> 4. increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game
> 5. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person
> 6. declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score)
> 7. a fine announced in advance
> 8. expulsion from the competition.

I'm curious: Is there potentially a way to benefit yourself by being penalized?

As an example, the second penalty listed is:

`2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent`

Even if it won't directly add to my time, I can still ponder my moves during the opponent's turn. This would allow me more time to think than I could have otherwise had.

Additionally, are there other ways to benefit yourself by purposely receiving a penalty?

# Answer
> 19 votes
It is important to realize that chess is a zero-sum game\*. In other words, everything that gives advantage to one player gives an equal disadvantage to the other player. So if adding 2 minutes to your opponent's clock benefits you, then it would be harmful to your opponent. It is not possible for any decision of the arbiter to give an advantage to your opponent and a slight advantage to you too.

(\* Although of course there are things that make both players enjoy the game more etc., but here I'm concerned only about the result of the game.)

Suppose two minutes are added to your opponent's clock. Now (s)he has two choices (or something between them):

1. Pretend his extra two minutes didn't exist and play as if his clock showed 2 minutes less.
2. Make good use of his extra time.

If your opponent chooses option 1, the only effect of the extra time is that he does not run out of time accidentally. This never gives any advantage to you. If your opponent thinks that option 2 is better for him than option 1, then he also believes that him choosing option 2 is worse for you.

It is possible that your opponent does not understand how well you use his time and therefore chooses option 2 but it ends up being beneficial to you. However, I think this is very unlikely.

---

I think a more important loophole is this: When calling the arbiter to settle any dispute over the board, you are allowed to stop the clock even if it is your turn. Sometimes it can take a minute or two before the arbiter arrives, so it can be used as a way to gain extra thinking time. For example, in a difficult position in time trouble, you can claim a draw (even if you know there's no draw) and gain extra time while waiting for the arbiter.

Because the usual penalty for unreasonable claims is adding time to your opponent's clock, you may gain more advantage by the extra thinking time than you lose by the penalty. Needless to say, this is extremely unsportsmanlike, and will result in everyone hating you and possibly even point losses if the arbiter sees through it. Please don't ever do this.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Penalty 2 is applied by adding time to your opponent's clock.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, however, this has less to do with exploiting a penalty and more with exploiting the rules: a loss by forfeit. This includes receiving a phone call during a tournament game (for which, according to FIDE, the offending player is forfeited).

Now loss by forfeit technically doesn't lead to loss of rating points. One only loses rating points when the game has been played out and one loses....so should you ever find yourself in a most unfortunate situation from which you have no hope of extraction, and you're going to lose a bunch of rating points (if you've got a rating), then suddenly it won't seem like a bad idea to get a friend of yours to call your cell phone (be sure to turn up your ringtone so the arbiter can hear it). You only get one shot.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Just speculating.

`Increasing the points scored by opponent`. In a tournament (Swiss rounds) when players with equal points are ordered (all else being equal) by opponent's points, then you might want the game to be 1-1, not 1-0. Would this be a scenario?

# Answer
> 1 votes
> I'm curious: Is there potentially a way to benefit yourself by being penalized?

Definitely, but it is high risk.

If you have a winning but very tricky position with only 20 or 30 seconds left on the clock while your opponent has 10 minutes then the extra 2 minutes is not going to immediately help your opponent and if it takes the arbiter 2 or 3 minutes to respond and change the clock settings then that could be all you need to calculate your way to victory.

But be aware that the arbiter is an intelligent human being with experience, knowledge and power. If the arbiter is watching the game he has a number of options he can follow:

1) He can tell you to play on. You must take back your move, make a legal move and warn you that another illegal move loses you the game. All this with your clock running. He will only stop the clocks to adjust the time when your opponent needs it by which time you may have already lost on time.

2) If he thinks you are deliberately cheating he can default you on the spot. He can even throw you out of the competition.

3) He can reduce your time.

If he is not watching then 2) is much less likely, at least for a first offence, but 1) and 3) are definite possibilities.

---
Tags: rules, fide, time-control, loopholes
---


title: Chess as random process

text:
# Question
Title: Chess as random process
Not sure whether this is more of a physics or a chess question.

Looking at the evaluation graph (computer evaluation vs. move number) of a game of chess, I realized that there are some similarities to the physics model of escape from a local potential minimum. Let me explain:

While none of the players make a mistake the evaluation will stay at values around zero corresponding to a draw. This I would associate with the motion of a particle in a local minimum, whose coordinate (=evaluation) might fluctuate a bit around the minimum value.

If a player makes a mistake, the evaluation will increase to let's say +2, corresponding to a won position. Normally (i.e. with a very high probability) white should win this game. Until mate, the evaluation will further increase to +3, +4, +5....

This process is similar to the escape from a local minimum. A blunder can "activate" the particle so that it can leave the local minimum and it will subsequently accelerate to larger coordinates (evaluation increases).

Have there been any studies on chess using such model?

Does it make sense at all?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I'd argue the process you're talking about can be represented by `Markov Chain`. It solves the continuous problem raised by @Brian.

I don't know where to find a proper state diagram for your question.The following diagram is for a simple board game. Imagine we model the **transition probability** from `win` to `lose` (or `win` to `draw`) as the blunder probability, this is similar to what you are asking.

We can represent "local minimum" described in your question as an `absorbing state`.

More generally, if you want to assume some latent factors for making a blunder (e.g. bad opening, personal issues), you could generalize to `hidden markov model`. It's possible to use the EM algorithm to fit a model from engine PV evaluations.

Given a fitted model, you can query the probability of a blunder given a chess game.

> Have there been any studies on chess using such model?

No studies that I am aware of.

---
Tags: theory, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Could I have improved my position in this pawn up exchange Slav?
This game was my first correspondence game on chess.com.

I played as black. I felt my position was quite good. Then I grabbed a pawn and the game ended in a draw by threefold repetition.

My questions are:

1. How could black improve their game instead of playing 25...Rxe3?
2. Can you provide any other feedback to my game?

---

```
[FEN ""]
[White "mario401"]
[Black "Bad_Bishop"]
[StartPly "50"]

1. c4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bf4 Nc6 6. Nf3 a6 7. e3 Bg4 8. Be2 e6 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 Bd6 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. O-O O-O 13. a3 Rac8 14. Be2 Na5 15. b4 Nc4? (15...Rxc3 {I played an 'auto-pilot' move and saw this tactic immediately afterwards,} 16. bxa5 Rxa3) 16. Bxc4 Rxc4 17. Na4 b6 18. Nb2 Rc3 19. Qd2 Ne4 20. Qe1 Rfc8 21. f3 Ng3 22. Rf2 h5 23. f4 h4 24. Na4 Rb3 {this was a crude attempt to trap the knight. Maybe I should have considered 24...R3c6 to maintain control of the c-file} 25. Qd1 Rxe3? {Only now do I realise that the rook can't go to e4 if attacked with 26. Qd2} 26. Qd2 Rb3 (26...Re4? 27. Nc3 f5 28. Nxe4 fxe4 {Black might look OK, having a protected passed pawn, but it is easily blockaded}) 27. Qd1 Re3 28. Qd2 Rb3 29. Qd1 Re3  1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
Your play was good, and you managed to slowly gain the upper hand from the more or less dead equal opening. At the end Rxe3 is forced, but after Qd2 I would have definitely considered Re4. You actually don't lose the exchange:

25... Rxe3 26. Qd2 Re4 27. Nc3 Rc4!

Now at this point you're threatening to take on d4, so 28. Nxe4. But then you take back on e4 with your g3 Knight and you have White's Queen and Rook in a fork. You are winning back the exchange and are a pawn ahead.

Overall you played a good game.
> 5 votes

# Answer
25...Rxe3 appears to be forced. However, it's not a bad move, and you have several ways to keep an advantage afterwards. The simplest is 26...Nf5, just defending the rook and remaining up a pawn with a good position. After 26...Re4 27. Nc3 you could go for the forcing line 27...Rxc3 28. Qxc3 Ne2+ 29. Rxe2 Rxe2 30. Qc8+ Kh7 31. Qxa6 Rd2 when material is back to equal but black is doing well because of white's weak pawns and exposed king. Even this isn't necessary though, because 27. Nc3 isn't actually threatening anything: black's recapture ...Nxe4 will win back the exchange immediately, so you could also try to improve your position slowly, say with ...g6 and ...Kg7. I don't see much white can do about this. Overall, you thoroughly outplayed your opponent, but seemed to panic when something unexpected happened. You still had a great position!

As for other parts of the game, 24...Rc2 looks natural and good. Rooks on the 7th/2nd are usually great and this is no exception.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, correspondence-chess, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: What are the normal non-symmetric black responses to 1. d4
I'm returning to chess. I used open as 1. d4 when white, but have switched to 1. e4 instead (I find it is more interesting). When I played 1. d4, I constantly found myself transposing into a symmetrical development against my opponent - usually due to playing Queens Gambit, but also from other lines.

I'm looking for a general list of black responses to explore so I can avoid a symmetric position when my opponent plays 1. d4

By reference, when white plays 1. e4 - black can respond with strong moves that force the white player into very non-symmetrical development (Sicilian or Caro-Kann).

I used to play a very positional set of openings, but am currently leaning towards openings that favor tempo and greater tactical possibilities. I play mostly correspondence or slow over the board matches. I don't want to rely on openings that rely on tricks and traps my opponent might miss.

# Answer
There are a number of Black openings you can play in response to White playing 1. d4 (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "Queenside opening").

Here is a good list of Black openings against d4 you can look up that avoid symmetrical positions and promise good tactical play:

* King's Indian Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6)
* Benoni Defense (my opening: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6)
* Albin Counter-Gambit (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5!? 3. dxe5 d4)
* Dutch Defence - Leningrad variation (1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0)

There are many more, but I would recommend looking at one of these, based on what you've told me. If you're looking for something where you're on the offensive immediately and there isn't too much theory to memorize, I would go with the Albin Counter-Gambit.

To look up an opening, I would recommend going to chess.com and finding a forum or article where the opening is discussed. Then, I would recommend looking up some games online of strong Grandmasters playing the opening (just type into Google: Albin Counter-Gambit Grandmaster games).

If you like the opening, the next step would be to buy a book on it - the Everyman books are relatively simple.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, correspondence-chess
---


title: What is the "stonewall formation"?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the "stonewall formation"?
I use PyChess to play. It talks sometimes about how White or Black moved their pawns into "stonewall formation."

How do they do that, and what are the position's advantages/disadvantages?

# Answer
> 14 votes
Black usually reaches the Stonewall formation from the Dutch Defense (though QGD is an option as well, if he/she postpones Nf6) and involves putting pawns on c6, d5, e6 and f5. These pawns guarantee a strong grip on the light squares in the center (especially e4, which is often occupied by a knight later on), but weaken the dark squares. Another problem for Black is the light-squared bishop, which is severely limited by its own pawns. A typical Stonewall position is the following:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 d5 7. Nc3 c6

```

It's hard for White to crack Black's center, but he has many options, of which my favourite is to exchange some pieces and take advantage of Black's bad bishop in the late middlegame and endgame.

As @user1583209 notes, if White tries to reach this formation it's called the Stonewall Attack – see the linked question for more details.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The stonewall setup results in Black putting their pawns on f5, e6, d5, and c6. White could also play the setup by putting his pawns on c3, d4, e3, and f4. In the rest of this post I will assume "Black" is the person playing the stonewall.

The Stonewall's idea is to close the center and gain attacking chances on the Kingside. Due to its closed nature, the side playing the Stonewall has the opportunity to take their time developing and creating a plan.

The main drawback of the Stonewall is the big gap in the middle of the board on e5 created by the f5 and d5 pawns (assuming Black plays it). This nuance usually gives White an advantage, as it is a very good outpost for one of the Knights. This can be especially dangerous if White begins an attack on the Queenside, since the Knight on e5 is in a perfect position to target the c6 pawn. If White pushes his b-pawn to b5 and has a Rook on the c-file, the c6 pawn will be under an unbearable amount of attack. This is why it is vital for Black to begin his Kingside attack quickly, lest he be overwhelmed by White's positional advantages.

It's a dynamic opening that is a bit risky and slightly dubious, but if you play it right it can lead to some very exciting positions.

Here is a link to an article of two chess Grandmasters discussing the Stonewall setup:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-stone-wall

If you would like to look at some games that feature the Stonewall setup in them, here is a good link for that:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1023312

For further information on the Stonewall, I would **highly** recommend looking up some videos of Grandmaster Simon Williams explaining it. He's one of the world's foremost experts on the Stonewall and has written some very good books on it.

Hope that helps.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The one shown above is the more modern approach. The classic stonewall develops as f5/nf6/e6/d5/c6/Bd6 with Qe7/Qe8 ideas. White's Bg2 is biting on granite.

The stonewall is very simple to play strategically for Black. Most white players "scoff" at it when you play, but eventually, after they are tipping their king, learn to respect it.

It's fun.

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


# Question
Title: What do you need in order to organize a chess tournament?
We have a small local chess club group on Facebook and chess.com, and we want to organize a small event where all the members can play against each other. We will ask players who play for the national teams to join. If they do, it's going to be big, and therefore I need to organize it in a decent way.

There are 5 admins for the group. One is me, two living abroad and can't make it, another one who can't make it because of some other reason, and the fifth isn't active. I don't know if he's alive, to be honest. :)

So from the looks of it, it seems as though I will be responsible for organizing it. I might ask some members to help me since I'm disabled. I haven't joined any chess clubs because they are too far from my home, therefore I have basic questions.

These are my questions.

* Do you buy chessboards for the players? Or, are the players responsible for getting them? If so, what happens if a player doesn't bring his board with him? And if it's my responsibility to buy boards, how many should I buy? Half the number of the participants, or a board for each one? What about the quality of the boards? Do they have to be made out of wood or decent plastic or would anything do?
* Do I have to buy the score sheets? Or, are they not important for small friendly events?
* Do I have to divide them into groups? What if I don't know their Elo? Do I let them play each other randomly 2500 vs 1200 Elo? :) or do I ask for age?
* What is the ideal location? An internet cafe? a restaurant? or should I ask a local chess club to open the doors for us for 1 event, maybe that way, the boards, and everything will be ready. But what if they refuse, what's the plan b, outside of a chess club?
* How many trophies are there usually? 3? I want to know so I can buy them.
* Should I play or should I just be an organizer? What if there's a problem? Should members play the roles of arbiters, when they are not playing?
* Is there a question I should have asked and didn't? Did I forget about something? Anything else I need to know?

Edit: I ust want to say that the vice president will take care of some details indicated in the answer below.

# Answer
> 14 votes
A few things should come first, others can come later.

One, **what type of event do you want to run?** Several of the later questions depend on how formal the event is going to be, and people need to know what kind of an event it will be before they know whether they want to come at all. You have zero experience and mention the word casual, so we'll go for very casual, fun, not formal at all.

Two, **how many people can you reasonably expect?** You need to know a minimum number (if fewer than this number of people have registered a week before the tournament, we'll need to cancel), and a maximum (we can't accommodate more than this number of people). This ties in with important question three.

Three, **how long do you want it to take**. Will this be a whole day tournament, only an evening? Are you thinking of blitz, or rapid, or standard? If it's standard, you can only fit one or two games into an evening, but a whole blitz tournament easily goes. The time control that most says "fun and casual" to me is 10 minutes per game.

Four, **the venue**. This differs by type of event (we're casual), and before you start looking for one you need to know roughly what size you want, and after you've arranged it, this decides the min and max people. You'll also need a very different venue if you want it for one day or for the evening. I would *definitely* contact the local chess club, because hey, they're the local chess club! They might even enjoy helping you out with all this stuff for fun (in my country anyway, these are purely amateur organizations doing chess stuff as a hobby). Other than that, when I think casual chess tournament with people I know from the Internet, I think *lots of beer*. Look for tables in local bars, or event rooms at local bars, that sort of thing.

You'll also have a **date** by now.

So now you can tell people, *"We're doing a fun and casual, 10 minute / game rapid tournament, unrated, time X on date Y in venue Z. Please register if you want to come!"* No, wait, you can't -- **you don't know yet how much it's going to cost!**

Let's talk a little bit about systems. Formal competitive chess tournaments often apply the *Swiss System*. It's very fair, you play against people who have the same number of points as you have, you get more or less equal numbers of black and white, and often the best players wins. **It's a nightmare to run correctly**, mainly because you have to get all the results after each round, enter them all correctly into the computer (or do it by hand, let's not) and then print out new pairings and find out something has always gone wrong. And even if it goes perfectly, people have to wait until the last game of the round is finished all the time.

**Let the players do the work**. For groups up to around 10 players or so where everybody plays everybody, there are "Berger tables" with pairings for each round: http://www.tournamentdirector.co.uk/berger\_pairings.html . Show the players the pairings table, and let them fill in the results on a form you have printed out beforehand. No work for you during the tournaments.

If you have too many players (too many rounds for the time you have the venue), there's the **Amsterdam System**: first put players in small groups, of 4 or 6 people. Make one player the leader of that group, and give him a form for it. Let them play a little subtournament. When all subtournaments are done, make a ranking of all the players based on the points they got, then make new groups based on that. A finals group with all the best players, second group with the second best, etc. The key is that during most of the tournaments, the players are doing the administration and it all goes a lot faster.

Oh yes, **your questions**:

Chessboards: You're not going to become a chess club, are you? Try to borrow some from the chess club, and otherwise let people bring their own. Let them bring clocks, too! White player has choice of set.

Buying score sheets: Not necessary in an informal rapid tournament.

Dividing into groups: Not necessary in an informal rapid tournament (and in the Amsterdam System, they end up in the right group soon enough anyway).

Location: mentioned some things already.

Trophies: **More is always better**. Prizes can be silly things, I've won Tupperware stuff at great chess tournaments. Bottles of wine always work well as top prizes, but the golden rule is that more than half the people should go home with at least a tiny something. Besides the obvious best junior, best female, best organizer, prize for the guy who came last, prize for the guy who came second to last and expected he didn't have to come up and collect a prize, player whose performance was least noticeable, etc etc. Prize givings like these are great memories for everyone, and any other kind is instantly forgotten. And don't do money prizes, you're a casual tournament.

Play yourself: You *can*, but you better have everything for pairings and results exactly planned out, and it's going to be hectic. Playing arbiters: formal arbiters aren't necessary in a purely informal tournament without money prizes, but if there are any actual arbiters or very experienced players in your group, that's very helpful to know. Make them the Committee of Appeal and let them handle people who argue.

And now I need to sleep. HTH.

(I still don't know about the cost. It's venue + prizes / number of players, but if the venue cost is fixed and you don't know the number of players, you have to fiddle it to prevent too much risk for yourself)

(Addendum: and **don't do this alone**. Some assistants when it gets all hectic are needed)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I organised a few chess tournaments and the important thing is to have good chess pairing software. It will save you lot of time and nerves. I tried lots of stuff, but almost every software was too difficult for me to use. I ended up using swips sofware,.

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


title: Ways to improve defensive skills

text:
# Question
Title: Ways to improve defensive skills
Last night I played two OTB games with a friend of mine and in both games I reached decent, even winning positions. At some moment though I overlooked my king safety and blundered horribly, which lead to losing both games.

Going back further it occurred to me that I do this almost on a regular basis! I reviewed few games in which I had a great position and then I made a bad move which lead to either the position being equal or even being worse. In these games the problem was not the king safety in particular, but some other positional or tactical error.

I've identified the problem as being too focused on attacking, trying to checkmate my opponent, then I relax a bit too much, thinking I'm winning, and make a bad move. Obviously, I need to work on avoiding blunders and improving my OTB analytical skills, but in this question I would like to focus on improving purely defensive skills, especially when under pressure.

One very important aspect of defense, as defined as Nimzowitsch, is the term of prophylaxis. The thing is that I'm not certain *when* I should make a prophylactic move that doesn't throw my advantage away as well.

One way for improvement in finding prophylactic moves would be studying the games of world class players, famous for their defensive skills and strong positional understanding. The name of Tigran Petrosian immediately comes to mind, but where would I be able to find some of his annotated games so I can really understand and appreciate the strength of his moves?

**What other players would you recommend to study in order to improve in this particular area?**

Maybe the most crucial question would be the following:

**How to deal with the psychological pressure of having a great position and having it collapse over the next few moves?**

**What other ways for improvement would you recommend?**

# Answer
Vas's answer is pretty good, so I will just suggest things that are orthogonal to his. I don't really like to talk about chess in abstract ways without having concrete positions to discuss, but here we go:

From what I see in your description, you tend to blunder away your advantages, now a blunder can occur at many different levels, if it's about material loss, then the sad truth is simply that you have to calculate your plans/moves more accurately and not assume "things will work out" too often.

Instead if you find yourself blundering your positional advantage, like losing control of open files, losing activity of your pieces, getting your pieces pushed back by opponent's pawn advances, or finally finding your king being ambushed without getting the chance to do something about it anymore. In all these cases, there are multiple defensive ways one can rely on, or simply try.

1. Holding: most passive form of a defense, just trying to hold your position after you've blundered away your attack e.g. Now in order to improve in this area, you should definitely look into Carlsen or Anand's games (personal opinion), Carlsen because he is extremely resourceful and Anand because he has a lot of experience in playing solid, of course you should look for the games where these two have been under pressure, and see what ideas they found to hold their positions. Finally the difficulty in passively holding a position, is that it often turns out to require a lot of calculations from your side, as all the tactics planned by your opponent have to be refuted. So for this type of defenses, you should just play a lot of blitz/rapid games online, (5 min up to 15 min games) and analyse your games afterwards. Why blitz? because in quick modes we find ourselves a lot of the time under pressure, so you have to come up with a plan to defend almost in each game.
2. Renew your plans: as soon as you realize you may be losing the initiative, you need to start looking for alternative offensive plans that may help in keeping some of your edge, often such plans can be found and when you do you avoid having to play very defensive positions. For this kind of plays, you need to know about transpositions, i.e. noticing similarities to the other games you've played or rather still have in mind, and remember "ah! I once had this queen-side structure, and pushing my pawns (just an example) did help me win some time". Furthermore think of huge shifts in your position like queen moves from kingside to queenside and vice versa, or abrupt rook activities, like some Benko positions, king side pawn pushes that he/she may not have expected, etc.
3. Tactics: Always keep in mind that despite the computers and chess engines of today, we are still playing vs humans all the time. Point being, you should always keep trying new tactics, the opponent may fall for one of them eventually. So start looking for tricky plans that may lead to forks or checks by discovery, or pins etc. Often they force your opponent to have to deal with it in a forced manner and your pieces get to breath again. In order to improve your tactics, you don't need to watch only top players, as in their games the tactics are way too sophisticated and are often not directly useful to us. So you should rather keep solving puzzles (online preferably), more and more and more... on a daily basis, this will in time give a very rich tactics tool-box.
4. Prophylaxis moves: Since you were confused about this, I explain in a few words: In general you should consider playing them in two cases: First when both sides are absolutely stuck and don't know how to make progress in their positions, this is a good time to find key prophylactic moves that make your position even more robust and less vulnerable to future attacks. Second case, is when the prophylaxis move you have in mind goes hand in hand with your attacking plans, where you want to avoid losing tempo by checks or having to retreat unprotected pieces. That's when it's perfectly fine to take the time and play them. But of course chess is too specific to allow for such generalizations, so never forget calculating to some extent the necessity of a prophylactic move and its implications.
5. Last but not least, if you lack in general defensive plans in middle games and end games, then watching top players is a really good advice, but I wouldn't focus on one single player, rather make the list of players you watch as diverse as possible, because we are watching them to absorb new ideas, from situations where they had to defend their positions, and try to incorporate those ideas in your own games. The more diverse the players you study the more chances you have in discovering new ideas. Most difficult task in watching top games is being able to calculate the real plans or variations those players had in mind, because what we see by replaying their games only shows roughly 1% of what they had really calculated, so you need to take your time, your coffee and keep studying these games for as long as you need until you find their reasons. Looking at annotated games isn't always a good idea as it won't allow you to think and find out things on your own, after all that's the pleasure we take in playing chess.

As for the psychological question, you may find useful elements in my reply to this post.
> 4 votes

# Answer
***"...where would I be able to find some of his annotated games so I can really understand and appreciate the strength of his moves?"***

Although you can find annotated games of Petrosian all over YouTube and some chess-related websites, I would recommend purchasing these books if you are interested in his style.

***What other players would you recommend to study in order to improve in this particular area?***

Karpov, Korchnoi, Ulf Andersson, Kramnik, Carlsen, Fischer.

***How to deal with the psychological pressure of having a great position and having it collapse over the next few moves?***

From personal experience, during the game just train yourself to not get too excited during the attack and before making the next attacking move spend time analysing how much of your defence get's hindered and how critical can that be in the long run. If the position is already collapsing, then either continue attacking if you are fully sure you will be able to checkmate faster than your opponent, or come back to defend and hope for a blunder or draw. After the game, analyse the game, just as you did.

***What other ways for improvement would you recommend?***

I would recommend playing as much games against higher rated opponents as possible. Thats the way I personally improve.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> How to deal with the psychological pressure of having a great position and having it collapse over the next few moves?

I'd recommend reviewing Dan Heisman's articles, books, and/or videos if you can get hold of them.

http://www.danheisman.com/

Heisman's basic instructions provide a framework you can use to be more systematic in evaluating your chess positions while under pressure. Having a way to assess the situation will reduce your stress and reduce the chances that you will blunder.

In essence, Heisman's advice is to review a position for **checks, captures, and threats**. Or as Hesiman posted to Twitter:

> I always say "Checks, captures & threats" cause it's catchy, but the order is really "Checks, mate threats, captures & other threats"

https://twitter.com/danheisman/status/425647419762548737

I have mostly learned from Heisman's videos, wherein he goes into more detail on the method above. In essence, he emphasizes **not rushing**, but rather taking a little time to review choices that might result in blunders. Of course there are many other things to cover in a chess game, but what I found most helpful in Heisman's advice is that he repeatedly underscores how many times players move quickly or think their next move is "obvious," only to realize with dread a second later that it contained a huge mistake because they overlooked the consequences of an opponent's check, capture, or threat.

> What other ways for improvement would you recommend?

1. Study many games with players around your rating, but also some annotated games of higher rated players. Personally I try to set up a real board and review all of the sidelines contained in the annotations. But if reviewing games on a screen works for you, great.
2. Try to keep copies of your own games and review them, including running them through an engine to see what it says. I use the import game feature on lichess.org then request a computer analysis. I always learn something from seeing what the computer says I did wrong.

Good luck!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Your question involves several topics:

1. Attacking successfully, instead of failing and being forced onto the defensive
2. Being resourceful in defense (whether you had an attack going prior to that or not

For a general guide to attacking, I'd recommend Vladimir Vukovic's Art of Attack. It addresses how to combine the pieces effectively, standard attacks on castled positions of different kinds, use of pawns or pieces or both in an attack on the king, and so on. *Get the edition revised by John Nunn in algebraic notation with corrections, of course, not the original in English descriptive notation.*

As for learning defensive concepts, I recommend Andrew Soltis' New Art of Defence in Chess. It covers a lot of aspects of defense, and in particular how defensive technique has changed since Petrosian's time. Today, defenders are a lot more enterprising in how they coordinate their pieces, cover focal squares, overprotect, and generate counterplay. *Note that there's an older edition of this book also, but the newer one is more than an update, it is a rewrite to account for this sea change in technique; it makes the older edition completely obsolete.*

Both are available at Amazon in Kindle editions, which you can read on pretty much any device. This has the advantage of making it easy to bookmark important sections, review, etc. The Art of Attack is also available from Everyman Publishing in a PGN or Chessbase format, making it easy to review the variations, and annotate them, as well as tag them for later reference with whatever scheme you like.

All of that said, you *will* get surprised by your opponent with a counterattack from time to time, and it may well trump whatever you were doing. Or, he may simply refute a sacrifice you made. Just follow Steinitz' dictum: If you have the advantage, you *must* attack. If not, you *must not*. It's that simple. And just get decent at defending and look for counterplay. Most games contain errors by both players; when your opponent makes one in his attack (and he most probably will), be ready to punish it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think it might be worthwhile for you to focus on the subject of exchanging pieces.

One way to reduce checkmating potential against your king is to exchange off your opponent's attacking pieces. However, doing that can often have the disadvantage of allowing your opponent to develop with tempo when recapturing.

So ideally you want your opponent to have to spend time exchanging their attacking pieces for your defensively placed pieces so you recapture with tempo instead.

If your king safety is sound in the initial position, then usually after a series of exchanges the opponent's initiative will peter out leaving a position where endgame factors (superior pawn strucure, outside passed pawn, etc.) often determine the result of the game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It's impossible to say for sure without seeing games, but what you're describing sounds like a problem with blundering, which really isn't the same thing as prophylaxis or defensive play. You talk about defense under pressure, but it sounds like you're encountering problems when you have a comfortable advantage, i.e., when you're *not* under pressure.

As a coach, I've found it's very common for players to misdiagnose their own problems, which makes sense if you think about it: if you really knew what was holding you back you'd likely have solved it already! I would strongly suggest getting some coaching if possible. It sounds like you could really benefit from another pair of eyes.

Having said all that, let me recommend a simple technique that's very helpful for prophylaxis, defensive play, *and* avoiding blunders! Get in the habit of asking yourself, "What is my opponent's next move?" This is one of the best questions to direct your attention to what's important in the position. Keep in mind, you don't need to react to your opponent's ideas defensively. In some cases it's best to ignore them or render them irrelevant with a powerful aggressive move. But awareness of the opponent's ideas is extremely important.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: defense, otb-chess
---


title: Analyzing complete games on iPad?

text:
# Question
Title: Analyzing complete games on iPad?
I have several apps on my iPad that will analyze the current position as I move through a game, but I can't seem to find any that will do an analysis of a complete game, ala the sort of analysis I used to do with Fritz when I still had a working PC. I don't need Grand Master level preparation insights (as in, I'm not trying to replicate the depth that Fritz could look at), just looking for something that will point out blunders and mistakes etc.

# Answer
Smallfish as mentioned is good, the website lichess.org has made an app, you can downnload it and make an account. It needs internet connection for the database but not for the complete game analysis
> 2 votes

# Answer
Analyze this is a chess tool for iPhone/iPad which is a good app and you can include that as well.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: The a2-g8 diagonal in the Dutch Defense

text:
# Question
Title: The a2-g8 diagonal in the Dutch Defense
I've been playing the Dutch defense, mainly the Leningrad, although sometimes I'll delay the fianchetto, starting off in more of a Hort-Antoshin Dutch. My biggest trouble has been when white avoids the main lines and plays an early Bc4 or Qb3, making it impossible to castle without e6, or d5, which completely changes the nature of the opening.

I'm referring to positions like the following:

```
rnbqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/3p1n2/5p2/3P4/1QP2N2/PP2PPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 1 4

```

or

```
rnbqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/3p1n2/5p2/2BP4/4PN2/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 1 4

```

What can I do to counter this?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playing ...e6 should be totally fine to counter these setups from White. I saw you claim in the comments that this would lose tempi for Black compared to the main lines of the Leningrad Dutch. This is not true, since White never plays:

* Bc4 in the mainline Dutch;
* c3 in the mainline Dutch.

So White has made at least one completely useless move in direct conflict with the ideas of the mainline systems for White in these cases. What does this mean in the long run? It basically means that you have more freedom in carrying out your plans, since the plans you mentioned only serve one purpose which is terminated by the move ...e6.

Tempi will most likely have to be wasted trying to rectify White's mistakes in the opening (because c3 seems terrible and will probably have to be corrected by playing c3-c4 at some point anyway, and Bc4 is an easy target for the black pawns now that it isn't safely placed on g2 staring down Black's queenside).

You don't have to be worried about potential tempi for a standard plan in the MAINLINES when White is playing a total SIDELINE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE IDEAS OF THE MAINLINES which will enable you to play according to different ideas.

In general, when your opponent does something strange/non-standard in the opening you should try to think of the possible drawbacks of the deviation played, and when you study the opening you should try to figure out why the mainline is played the way it is by both sides.

# Answer
> 2 votes
My suggestion would be to go for the g6 setup right away, and then if White plays Bc4 or Qb3 you can counter with d5 or e6. In this case you could combine the Stonewall setup with the Leningrad setup, for example. While not perfectly ideal, Nakamura himself has played it a few times (in the main line!), and it's a respectable setup in the Leningrad.

The good thing too is that White usually has to go for a less than ideal setup against the Dutch in order to play Bc4 or Qb3. The positions you showed aren't that great for White, so the small compromise you would have to make with e6 or d5 is completely worth it.

Here is a link to a Chess Publishing article where a Leningrad game with ...e6 is discussed:

http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/11/oct11.htm

# Answer
> 2 votes
...e6 is fine with the option of transitioning to a stonewall setup and gaining a tempo against the Bc4 with d5,c6,Be7/Bd6,Qe7. The bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal is now a bit offsides. that is how I look at it.

Don't fall in love with the "Leningrad" and hang on to dear life to it's precepts if transitioning into another system warrants it. That seems the case here.

Black should be fine.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In both diagrams I see you have played d6 . Already Dutch provides a Weakness on the e6 Square and now d6 again makes it more vulnerable . Instead of d6 play e6,Be7 0-0 and then you can go on .

---
Tags: dutch-defense
---