title: Scandinavian Defense with 3.c4

text:
# Question
Title: Scandinavian Defense with 3.c4
I've recently played some games as Black that opened like this:

```
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B01"]
[FEN ""]
[CurrentPosition "rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/2P5/8/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq c3 0 3"]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.c4  *

```

c4 seems to be a very uncommon move as opposed to Nc3. But it doesn't seem bad at first glance - it allows the knight to go behind the pawn when Nc3 is later played, and grabs some central/queenside space. It also forces the queen to move (although 3.Nc3 would also have done that.)

How do I refute this variation? Or is it perfectly playable?

My opponent and I both have USCF ratings in the 1500s, if that matters.

# Answer
This is what I try to accomplish as white, but I play Nf3 first. Although your can't take advantage this early, there are good moves depending on your temperament.

Qe4+ forces Qe2, else a pawn hangs, and the trade of queens.

Qa5 pins the d-pawn which gives you the opportunity to get in c5 (e5 is more drawish) and get a central majority.

With a normal game continuation, that is Qa5 =\> Nf6..., the d-pawn is slightly weaker as white can't play c3 to support it.

Just the opinion of a 2000 player.
> 7 votes

# Answer
As suggested by @FredKnight, I would play 3...Qe4+

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. c4 Qe4+ 4. Qe2 (4. Be2 Qxg2 5. Bf3 Qg6) Qxe2+ 5. Bxe2 c5

```

In the final position:

* White's b- and d-pawns are restrained
* Although White has developed the bishop, it is not a good piece yet

I think the evaluation is dynamic equality here.
> 6 votes

# Answer
c4 is definitely worth taking a look at, and the best continuation as suggested by all is Qe4+ from black .

If white decides not to exchange queens and plays Ne2, then the c4 pawn is chucked off which may/may not serve as a gambit depending upon the player .

Be2 is already mentioned above and it also withdraws a pawn.

The best move is Qe2 from white and black should exchange the Queens in this line. If Black is playing Q\*d5 in the 2nd move then he must be prepared for an endgame. If you are a good endgame player then you should consider playing it else I would recommend the best playing line is Nf6 as black does not lose tempos against the queen.

I mean this one 1)e4,d5 2)e\*d5,Nf6 . This line is the best attacking for black.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Black is immediately equal with Qe4+ since he can follow up with e5 regardless of what white plays.

So, black has the better center and a slight lead in development. White has structural pawn weaknesses with the weak squares on the d-file and the backward pawn on a semi-open file.

If black is fine with an equal but drawish position then Qe4+ is a simple equalizing move.

If black wants a more active position, there's nothing wrong with Qa5 followed by e5. It's roughly equal too. In both cases black has equality because he can get in e5 before white can play d4.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to play against the inverted Philidor opening with Black
I was playing with the Black pieces online today, and faced a very strange opening:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d3 Nf6 4. Be2

```

I check the database, and it seems that 4...d5 is good for black but I didn't understand the strategy behind it at all. Here are a few moves from the database:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d3 Nf6 4. Be2 d5 5. Nbd2 Bc5 6. O-O O-O 7. c3 a5 8. Qc2 Re8 9. b3

```

I don't understand what Black is playing for here. Like what the plans are. I would really appreciate some feedback or references where I can read more about it. My understanding is that the Black pieces look like a position from an Italian opening. But I felt that the Italian plans don't work here tactically (like maneuvering Nc6-e7-g6).

I'm also open to other suggestions, such as playing 5...g6 (but I also didn't understand the plans behind it in this position).

# Answer
> 2 votes
The basic idea with ...d5, ...Bc5 is just to gain some centre space. I wouldn't really compare this position's plans to the Italian, as they're not that similar. Black's pushed ...d5 early on, and the opponent's (White) knight is on d2 instead of c3.

Analysis for 8.b3: one move for Black in the database is 8...Re8 (or 8...Qe7), supporting the e5-pawn. Now playing ...d4 is an idea, since cxd4 can be answered with ...Nxd4 (as the e5-pawn won't hang). In the case of 9.Bb2, 9...Bb6 10.Re1 Bg4 11.Qc2 Qd6 looks nice for Black. Pushing ...d4 at some point is still in the cards. Black could also consider some ...Qc5 move, pinning the c3-pawn and targeting the f2-pawn. Adding more pressure on the d-file with ...Rad8 looks reasonable.

Analysis for 8.Qc2: 8...Re8 9.b3 could be met with 9...Ba7 (or 9...Bb6), preventing White's queen from x-raying the bishop. This makes ...d4 safer to play. After 10.Bb2 h6 (stopping Ng5 if Black decides to play ...Be6 at some point) 11.Rfe1 Qd6 12.Bf1 Bg4, we have a similar position to what was reached for the line looked at in 8.b3. The plans are similar to what they were there.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In most open games black equalizes if he can get in d5 because it frees the position and will leave him with at least an equal center.

In the position you gave, after the pawns are traded, blacks's e5 pawn is better than white's d3 pawn because of the squares it controls. It occupies the e5 square and controls the d4 square. White's pawn only controls e4.

On top of that, both of black's bishops are free to move whereas white's KS bishop is blocked by its own pawn on d3.

---
Tags: opening, philidor-defense
---


title: Benoni Theory Help

text:
# Question
Title: Benoni Theory Help
I've got an important tournament game coming up, and I will be playing Black. I will play the Scandinavian if White plays 1.e4, but I won't be able to unbalance the game properly after 1.d4, except if I play the Benoni(Old Benoni cuts out all transpositions). I don't like the Czech Benoni, where the break f7-f5 weakens my kingside.

Is there a line for Black in the Benoni that is tactical, sound, and stops White from getting a large center?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The whole point of hypermodern openings like the Benoni is to encourage a big center. If you don't get that you'd probably be better off playing something else.

The Dutch leads to unbalanced positions, avoids transpositions and can be learned very quickly. The Tarrasch also. Those sound like better choices.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you don't feel comfortable playing against large centers you shouldn't play Benoni nor other openings such as KID (which both, by the way, are good choices if you look for imbalanced positions).

I would recommend, based on the proximity of the tournament and your aim for imbalaced positions, to look at Von Hennig-Schara Gambit, which doesn't have a lot of theory and usually leads to sharp play.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, preparation, benoni
---


# Question
Title: Why does a chess engine not get excited about a piece exchange at the end of its analysis depth?
I read about the chess engine algorithms and came up with a question. If, for example roughly all (disregarding alpha-beta pruning) possible 20 moves variations are calculated, why does a chess engine not consider a piece exchange on move 20 winning? It seems to me that to an evaluation function the final position will seem like one player is just up a piece. How do they solve this problem?

# Answer
Chess engines will always try to extend the search by a few moves, so a position is only evaluated if it is considered "quiet". This is called Quiescence Search, and the problem you describe that it is trying to prevent is called the "Horizon effect".

So before evaluating a position, if there are captures, checks and so on in the position, then the search is first extended by those moves.
> 26 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-algorithms
---


title: What sets chess players apart?

text:
# Question
Title: What sets chess players apart?
I want to improve at chess, like everyone does. I am trying to structure my study to get the most out of if. But this plan needed a fundamental question to be answered, what sets masters apart from hobbyists?

I have grinded tactics and read positional books, all in vain. Therefore I decided to analyze how grandmasters think.

Now I was not very successful in my analysis, but it made me wonder, is the only reason that Grandmasters are better is that they can calculate deeper? Due to how neural networks play closer to a human style than traditional engines, I was not satisfied with this answer. Is it that they can spot when a position asks for dynamic play, or when they should solidify their position? I had no answer to this.

So what does a player at a higher Elo do better than another? I am not talking about a level where simple/hard tactical mistakes or openings lose a game. How do the top level players slowly push those beneath them into a worse position?

**Note** my question is not about self improvement but rather contradistinction of levels of chess play.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> So what does a player at a higher Elo do better than another?

The answer I got from "It's Only Me", Geoff Lawton and Mike Fox's biography of England's first OTB GM, Tony Miles, was that the stronger player loves the game more than you do to the extent that it is almost the only thing that matters in that person's life.

Here are a couple of excerpts from "It's Only Me":

> From the age of 11 he played competitive chess several times a week. This was the beginning of a pattern of intense chess activity that was to last his whole career.

and this from one of his school reports:

> Perhaps one day he will realise that there are more things in heaven and earth than chess. At the moment he cannot conceive of such a possibility. Thus his only creditable activity in this subject has been that he has turned up. Otherwise he has said nothing, done nothing and looked pretty bored.

At least Miles completed high school and even the first year of a maths degree at Sheffield University as some form of quality-of-life insurance before getting the GM title and dropping out. Bobby Fischer dropped out of high school at the earliest opportunity at 16.

By the way the question -

> is the only reason that Grandmasters are better is that they can calculate deeper?

already has several answers here.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I found there were at least 3 factors, could be 4 or even more. I realized I did not have the 4th (last?) and gave up trying for GM.

age you start to learn. most top GMs learned very young.
not all, most.

natural ability, plus intense desire to win. not always IQ but certainly IQ factors key to chess.

quality of training. not the 4 styles of learning although it is a help to have the right one, but how the training itelf is done. some training is virtually worthless. some moves you along very fast.

unknown factor x, which I could not identify well enough to get by it. but effectively position understanding and playing positionally as much as tactically or even strategically as at a lower level.

if there are other factors then I cannot say as I did not get to GM to discover whether they exist or not.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If not yet done, you could consider to review some of the numerous research papers addressing the nature of expertise for chess players.

Try to figure out if decades of academic research on this topic of novice versus experts for chess yields solid research results.

In google scholar, enter : chess experts novices. You will have plenty of interesting studies to read adressing memory or visual cognition in chess playing. fMRI Imaging studies may provide also useful hints behind the "differences" of the expert versus novice player.

For sure visual pattern recognition on the chessboard for real chess positions will be more sophiscticated and faster for chess experts. Hence complicating the position for tactical playing in rapid chess or blitz could be a winning solution for an expert player versus a novice or an intermediate one.

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Chess Engine with Python-Based / API?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Engine with Python-Based / API?
I went through the most popular chess engines, e.g. StockFish, Komodo, Rykba and so forth, but I wasn't able to a.) find an API or b.) a python based Engine - does anyone know a suitable project?

I want to implement a chess engine in a python-based gameportal I'm building (offering to analyse the game after the chess round), though it's an assigned project and I need to use purely Python (except graphics) for the project, hence I was either looking for a proper API or Python based Chess Engine - anyone knows an implementation?

# Answer
Yes, there is a chess engine in Python: Sunfish

There is also a python library for chess: python-chess
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, python
---


# Question
Title: What was the role of the second in top level matches?
What was the role, the duties, etc. of the second (e.g. GM Ray Keene was Korchnoi’s second in the 1978 World Championship match vs. Karpov), and is this figure still present in contemporary top level chess?

# Answer
> 18 votes
> What was the role, the duties, etc. of the second (e.g. GM Ray Keene was Korchnoi’s second in the 1978 World Championship match vs. Karpov)

What it most definitely was NOT was writing a book of the match ready to rush into print the moment the match finished as Keene did.

The way it was supposed to work was that after the time control was reached at move 40 one of the players would seal a move. The players would then go back to their respective hotels with their seconds and perhaps discus a few lines. The principal would then have a meal and go to bed. The seconds would then stay up all night analyzing the position and coming up with a list of variations for the principal to look at and learn when he got up the next morning.

On nights when there was a new game starting the next morning it was the job of the seconds to prepare opening lines based on the opponent's repertoire for the principal to look at the next morning.

Sometimes, in the build up before a world championship match, a player would hire a strong player for a secret match to try out ideas in a realistic match atmosphere. Botvinnik famously did this as did Anand.

> is this figure still present in contemporary top level chess?

Very much so.

Today the main job of the second to do the dogsbody work of opening preparation for the principal. Part of this may be preparing the player to play against a particular opponent's repertoire. Jan Gustaffson has famously helped Carlsen with opening prep as this is his main area of expertise as a chess player.

The other more interesting part is to come up with new ideas in opening lines. This requires creativity and computer skills with engines because they play a big role. This doesn't automatically require GM level chess ability. Nakamura has famously employed the same sub-2200 player, Kris Littlejohn, since 2008 simply because Littlejohn comes up with many creative opening ideas, is very good at investigating them with engines and gets along well with Nakamura on a personal level.

There is more on the Nakamura-Littlejohn relationship in this Chessbase India Facebook video and this episode of Ben Johnson's Perpetual Chess Podcast.

There is more interesting information about seconds in this post.

---
Tags: tournament, world-championship, match
---


title: Chess app with king captures

text:
# Question
Title: Chess app with king captures
I am in pretty much the situation of this question: I'm trying to teach my four-year-old son the rules of chess, but the concept of "checkmate" is too abstract for a small child, so I want to tell him that the goal is to capture the king instead.

The problem is that I'm using an iPad app rather than a physical board (for a number of reasons, including the fact that the app will show you each piece's legal moves, so we don't have to explain all of the moving rules before we start playing).

Does anyone know of a chess app that both (1) shows legal moves (which most of them do) and (2) allows king captures (the feature I can't find)?

# Answer
> 2 votes
## Antichess

Maybe `Antichess` is what you are looking for. The aim is to be the one to lose all the pieces first. And it's mandatory to eat. And of course kings are eaten. You can play under lichess.org such chess variant selecting a custom variant. You can see details here. But with children it's always better to play in person of course.

## Legendary chess

I also recommend you `Legendary chess`, an application developed in Uruguay aimed for all ages and designed in a didactic way to learn chess basics step by step in a fun way with a storytelling scenario.

I don't remember exactly if there is a specific type of game where kings are eaten, but I bet you it's worth it to check the game and see.

In the site you can download the Spanish or English version. It's a Windows based application but you can always run it using wine if under Linux or Mac.

---
Tags: teaching, children
---


# Question
Title: Machine Learning parameters for human vs computer detection
I would like to start a machine learning project that should recognize whether a player is a person or a computer.

I have a data set with labeled labels (computer or human).

In your opinion, what would be good input parameters? I would like to also include use the chess position and the move. But which coding would be appropriate?

Other parameters would be some positional and material evaluation values and the centipawn loss

# Answer
Coming from a machine learning background, although this sounds like a supervised learning task, do not expect any decent results.

Most players today use the computer to analyze positions and prepare quite deep with the engines. So the distinction there is lost in most medium to high level game play.

Also, simply knowing whether a game was played by a computer or not is not sufficient. To train any model, you need to have an intuitive understanding of your data. In this case, simply the sequence of moves played is not sufficient.

But if you're still bent on trying your hand at this, you could look into sequence classification using LSTM networks using an encoded matrix as inputs, but I don't see it working very well at all. If a human can't tell the difference, any model you develop won't be able to either.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, human-versus-machine
---


title: Chess variant-Is it strategically good?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess variant-Is it strategically good?
In this chess variant, the number of moves made both chess players are 1 & 2 alternatively. Here is a showing of it.

White Black

1 2

2 1

1 2

2 1

1 2

2 1

Is this a good chess variation, strategically speaking? Could this lead to new ideas and complexity in the game?

# Answer
> Continuous legal moves given by the player as checks could be 1,2 or more. **The checks are not counted as moves.** Once the checks are completed, the player will make a single or two moves depending upon his turn which are not check moves.

If I'm understanding this correctly, this seems very degenerate and an easy win for white after 1. e3. No matter what black does for their two moves, it white should be able to play either 2. Qf3 & Qxf7+ OR 2. Qh5 & Qxf7+ OR 2. Qg4 & Qxd7+. Checks don't count as moves, so it is still white's turn. So, white's queen simply gobbles up black's entire queenside with checks: Qxe7, Qxd8, Qxc8, Qxb8, Qxa8. A further continuation (still on white's move) could be Qd8 Qe7 Qf7 Qxf8 Qxg8 Qxh8, gobbling up the entire kingside. Since queens are so powerful (due to the checks aren't moves rule) and black no longer has one (and is also down massive amounts of material), white should be able to win with minimal effort from here.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you want a complex game that involves strategies similar to ordinary chess and yet is humanly playable, see this post where I explain a couple of meta-heuristics in creating very complex chess variants. But a very simple 2-move variant goes as follows:

1. On a player's turn, he/she can make up to 2 moves without a capture or make a single capture, but check ends the turn.
2. To balance the game, White can only make 1 move on the first turn.
3. The player must not be in check after each move even halfway through the turn.

You can do the same to other chess-like games such as Chinese chess, and the resulting games can be really interesting, much more than ordinary chess is!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, chess-variants
---


title: Lisitsin Gambit Traps

text:
# Question
Title: Lisitsin Gambit Traps
I've started to play the Lisitsin Gambit (1.Nf3 f5 2.e4), and this opening works well for me. However, I have analysed my games and found I have neglected to take advantage of several traps. What are the main traps in this opening?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can try for Zukertort Trap in the Lisitsin Gambit line.

After 1. Nf3 f5 2. e4

the trap-line is Ng5

then if the opponent sticks with his pawn on f5, and pushes d5, then, simply play d3, followed by exd3 and then play Bxd3, and notice that the king has serious weakness on one of its diagonals.

Now, if opponent replies with Nf6, then the best option is Nxh7. If black captures with Nxh7, then Bg6(check), Kd7 and then Qxd5 (mate).

You can also go for, Bxh7 instead of Nxh7, also its winning for you, after Nxh7, you play Qh5, Kd7; Nf7, Qe8, Qxd5 (mate) and if black captures the bishop with rook, then you take it with the Knight, then Nxh7, and Qh5, checking the queen and picking up the Knight.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


title: Borg and Grob comparison

text:
# Question
Title: Borg and Grob comparison
The Grob is a white opening which starts with 1.g4.

The Borg(reversed Grob) is a black opening which goes 1.e4 g5, or 1.d4 g5.

Since White is a tempo up in the Borg, what difference will this make? And what is the significance of the difference?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Well for 1.d4, White's able to win a pawn outright with 2.Bxg5. In 1.e4, the extra tempo gives White better chances to capitalize on Black's dubious move.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, grob, borg
---


# Question
Title: What is the main idea in this winning endgame?
I was playing an online game with the white pieces and won the exchange in the middlegame. So I exchanged some pieces and went for the "winning endgame". I went ahead to draw the game. Afterwards, I analyzed the game and the Lichess analyzer showed that I had +1.8 advantage in this position.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "B7/3R2p1/4pk2/2p2p2/Pb3P1p/4P1P1/2b4P/6K1 w - - 0 41"]

```

I want to know what is the best strategy here to take advantage of my rook over Black's bishop. I figure my bishop should by in the same diagonal my passed pawn, so 42.Bc6 seems like a good continuation, so black responded with 42. ...h3, now my king is somewhat trapped by Blacks bishops, and they are too active, I do not have enough time to make my rook guard the a5 square so that I can push my pawn. So what should I be rooting for in this position? How to activate my king?

# Answer
Interesting position;

Activating your king I don't believe is the answer. I think your first goal is try and force the the c2 bishop off the board. corner the black king and create as many potential promotion threats (a , e and h files particularly)

I played the position out for a while on a few variations and will attach the cleanest variant;

I see the main objectives for white though is to try and lock blacks king on the right hand side and or rear of the board, try and remove potential promotion threats. Black black bishop is relatively harmless and is tied to the c5 pawn. Preventing the c5 pawn from promoting or moving will also keep the b4 bishop from being active in the game. Slowly whittle down the right side of the board which creates to many promotion opportunities that overwhelms blacks defenses.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "B7/3R2p1/4pk2/2p2p2/Pb3P1p/4P1P1/2b4P/6K1 w - - 0 42"]

1. Bc6 h3 2. Kf2 g5 3. Rb7 gxf4 4. gxf4 Kg6 5. Be8+ Kh6 6.Rb6 Kg7 7. Rxe6 Kf8

```

**Key Moves:** gxf4 by capturing towards the center, you keep the b4 bishop not being able to cause any impact to whites pawns on the E through H files. Any attempts will result in a loss of material. *In addition to this the c2 bishop is quite an inactive piece in this position*

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "4Bk2/8/4R3/2p2p2/Pb3P2/4P2p/2b2K1P/8 w - - 0 8"]

8. Bd7 Bb3 9. Ra6 Bd5 10. Be6 Be4 11. Ra7 Ke8 12. a5 Bd3 13. a6 Bxa6 14. Rxa6 Bc3 15. Rc6 Bb4 16. Bxf5 Kf8 17. Bxh3 Kg7

```

**Key Moves** Be6 support by the rook on a6, white has no means of capturing the without trading out its only useful bishop. The bishop is also somewhat "shepherding" the king with the a6 rook. It is also positioned attacking the c8-e3 diagonal poised to take out blacks pawns and threaten promotion.

Ra7 Locks the king to the d8 , e8 , f8 squares.

a6 forces black to capture with the bishop otherwise white can easily promote to queen and then mate.

**To summarize**

* Blacks b4 bishop is tied to the c5 pawn. Blacks only potential promotion threat can be largely ignored.
* Keep up pressure. This is preventing Black from doing any meaningful development. Black is forced to move and lose pieces in this position.
* Prevent Black from activating their king.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


# Question
Title: Are there exercises besides tactics that beginners should know about?
I'm an adult and I've been playing for a bit over 2 years on chess.com. My rating started at around 800. By playing thousands of blitz games and doing a little post-game analysis/opening review, I was able to get to 1400 in Nov. 2019. However, I struggled to push much farther this year. However, this month I started solving puzzles - maybe 20 per day or so - and gained about 200 rating points. It's crazy.

Are there any other levers like this one that a beginner should know about?

# Answer
The easiest way to improve at almost any stage is hiring a good coach (not one that plays well, but one that caoches well, which is often cheaper)

While tactics should be the main focus of your training at this point, there are other types of exercises you can do. "Systematic Chess Training" by Sergiu Samarian is a great book that combines different types of exercises, but it's probably a bit too hard for you right now. "Modern Chess Planning" by Efstratios Grivas could be a more adequate alternative. There's also a couple of books by Jacobo Caselas "Entrena tu juego estratégico", but I'm not sure if there's an English translation available.

Grivas's book contains 75 games where you must choose a plan at a critical stage of each of them. The game continues with a detailed analysis. The other books I mentioned are essentially strategy teaching manuals that contain a lot of exercises.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tactics, training
---


title: Benoni Bc1-g5 move

text:
# Question
Title: Benoni Bc1-g5 move
In the Benoni, I often have opponents play Bc1-g5 as White, after I have fianchettoed my king's bishop. I don't know how to stop it. I know that it isn't the main theory, but I haven't found a way to break the pin. How is it possible to play the position with the white bishop on g5 so that I have as few problems as possible?

The main line that my opponents play is this.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Bg5 *

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
This move order, without e4 and Bg7, was employed by Botvinnik in the Tal-Botvinnik 1960 WCC match. If you're interested, check it out here. In his book on the match, Tal recommends going for a quick h6-g5-Nh5 maneuver to win the bishop pair before the kingside knight can be maneuvered to c4, which (in conjunction with the bishop on g3) puts uncomfortable pressure on your backwards d6 pawn. Tal also mentions that while it looks a little weird to weaken your kingside pawns so much so early on, any attack on your king is merely illusion as your pieces are well coordinated to compensate for the few light square weaknesses.

With your specific move order, however, you're going to want to insert 9...a6 before playing g5 so as to stop the following variation: 8...h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nh5? 11. Bb5+! and you cannot comfortably block the check without losing your d6 pawn. Note that Bd7 "loses" to Bxd7+ Qxd7 Ne5! with a counterattack on your undefended h5 knight.

Therefore, the recommendation according to theory is:

```
[FEN ""]
 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 a6 (9... g5 10. Bg3 Nh5? 11. Bb5+! Kf8 12. e5!) 10. a4 (10. Nd2 b5!) g5 11. Bg3 Nh5 12. Nd2 Nxg3=

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, benoni
---


title: Pirc Defence, Kholmov System literature

text:
# Question
Title: Pirc Defence, Kholmov System literature
I am looking for some references where this variation is analysed. I have found some YouTube videos where engines play out this position, but they do not explain alternative moves which also lead to extremely complex games. It is called Kholmov System and arises from the Pirc Defence, but is also reachable from the Modern and Alekhine Defence (I almost always get it from the Alekhine).

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Qe2 Nc6 6. e5! Nxd4 (6...Nfd7 7. e6!? (7. Nf3)) (6...Ng4 7. Bb5) 7. exf6 Nxe2 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. Ngxe2

```

The engines claim Black is better, but in human practice White wins by a huge margin. Perhaps some book has good analysis of this variation?

# Answer
"The Pirc Defence" by Mihail Marin (see e.g. https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/305/the\_pirc\_defence\_by\_mihail\_marin/), part of the Grandmaster Repertoire series, covers this line from Black's perspective
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, alekhines-defense, pirc-defense, modern-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to exploit the advantage of a bishop over a knight?
Occasionally in a tournament game I will find myself with a material imbalance of BvN or BBvBN in a situation where I know the extra bishop should be superior (center cleared of pawns, pawns on both sides of the board, etc).

However, I don't think that I'm very good at turning this advantage into any other advantage before my opponent manages to swap their knight off for my bishop. What are some guidelines for playing in this situation, or top player games that give a clear demonstration of possible plans?

# Answer
Usually you want to open the center up for the bishops so that you can attack on both sides of the board. Or you can try to exchange bishop for knight in order to obtain a more permanent pawn structure weakness like doubled pawns or isolated pawns to attack later in the game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> What are some guidelines for playing in this situation, or top player games that give a clear demonstration of possible plans?

It is probably worth starting off by recommending two books.

*Understanding Chess Endgames* by John Nunn is generally excellent but he has a couple of short sections on B+pawns v N+pawns and BN+pawns v BB+pawns.

*Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics* by Glenn Flear is also very good and devotes about 60 pages to minor piece endings where both players have 2 minor pieces along with some pawns.

**Bishop v Knight**
In the situation you describe with an open center and pawns on both sides of the board a number of things are key:

* King activity - the king is worth 4 pawns in the endgame but works at close range. If your opponent's king is active but yours isn't then you are effectively a piece down
* Knight outpost - with no pawns in the center this is tricky. If the player with the knight can establish the knight on an outpost near the center on the opposite colour to the bishop life will be much easier.
* Pawns on opposite colour to opponent's bishop - if the player with the knight can put all his pawns on squares of the opposite colour to the bishop then the bishop can't attack them and he can play for two results.

**2 Bishops v Bishop+Knight**

This is very difficult for the side with the knight. Again king activity is very important but the problem for the side with the knight is that the two bishops can combine to harry the king. There are no safe squares. The player with the two bishops, on the other hand, can often waltz his king up the board on the squares of the opposite colour to his opponent's bishop.

Furthermore, no pawn is safe whereas the opponent's pawns can only be attacked by the bishop if they are on the right colour. The side with the knight will likely want to put his pawns on the same colour as his bishop. That way his pawns will be much easier to defend and there will be much less to fear from a trade of one pair of minor pieces. Again, try and establish an outpost for the knight.

In both cases the side with the extra bishop wants to use that advantage to attack the opponent's pawns.

Just as important as, if not even more important than, knowing what plans you want to try and execute is knowing what the plans are for your opponent. Often the route to victory lies in first thwarting your opponent's plans.
> 1 votes

# Answer
1. Open up the position.
2. Don't allow the Black knights to get outposts.
3. Try to provoke the opponent into creating pawn weaknesses which can be exploited with bishops.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: knights, bishops, material-balance
---


# Question
Title: Why are the requirements for becoming a GM so complicated?
Wikipedia's article on chess grandmasters indicates that the requirements to become a GM is complicated, and has always been complicated. For example right now, to become a GM, one needs to have had a rating of at least 2500 at some point in one's career, *and* one needs "two favorable results (called norms) from a total of at least 27 games in tournaments", with the rules for what qualifies as "norm" occupying several more bullet points (quotes from the WIkipedia article).

Why does it need to be so? If the aim is to award the title only to world class players, I can think of some much easier system to select them, e.g. you must have been rated in the top 100 of the world at one point. This would tie the title to a single, easily-understood number. I notice some of the lower titles already use this criterion (e.g. Candidate Master), so it begs the question of why the higher ones have more complicated requirements.

# Answer
> If the aim is to award the title only to world class players, I can think of some much easier system to select them, e.g. you must have been rated in the top 100 of the world at one point. This would tie the title to a single, easily-understood number. I notice some of the lower titles already use this criterion (e.g. Candidate Master)

The comparison with the Candidate Master title is a telling one. The CM title is not highly regarded. This has been covered in two previous questions here - How respectable is the CM title? and Is a candidate master considered a master?

> Why are the requirements for becoming a GM so complicated?

They are indeed complicated. Here is the link for the FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 July 2017. One additional requirement, which I don't see listed here, is that the tournament organizer must send a file with the PGNs of all the games for the tournament.

The reasons they are so complicated is that they have evolved over time to deal with the corrupting influences of money, politics, rating manipulation and cheating.

**Money**

One of the ways of getting the GM title is to be World Champion. Here is what Wikipedia says about the early period of world championships:

> From 1886 to 1946, the champion set the terms, requiring any challenger to raise a sizable stake and defeat the champion in a match in order to become the new world champion.

So, no money - no match. As the article says, this had a profound effect on who got to play for the title:

> This requirement makes arranging world championship matches more difficult, for example: Marshall challenged Lasker in 1904 but could not raise the money until 1907;\[37\] in 1911 Lasker and Rubinstein agreed in principle to a world championship match, but this was never played as Rubinstein could not raise the money.\[38\]\[39\] In the early 1920s, Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine was able to raise the US$10,000 that Capablanca demanded, and not until 1927

OK, you might be thinking, those kinds of considerations belong to a bygone age. Well, try telling that to Shirov who, perhaps, should have been World Champion in 2000 instead of Kramnik:

> Soon after the 1995 championship, the PCA folded, and Kasparov had no organisation to choose his next challenger. In 1998 he formed the World Chess Council, which organised a candidates match between Alexei Shirov and Vladimir Kramnik. Shirov won the match, but negotiations for a Kasparov–Shirov match broke down, and Shirov was subsequently omitted from negotiations, much to his disgust. Plans for a 1999 or 2000 Kasparov–Anand match also broke down, and Kasparov organised a match with Kramnik in late 2000

**Politics**

This is what the Wikipedia article has to say on this:

> Title awards under the original regulations were subject to political concerns. Efim Bogoljubov, who had emigrated from the Soviet Union to Germany, was not entered in the first class of Grandmasters, even though he had played two matches for the World Championship with Alekhine. He received the title in 1951, by a vote of thirteen to eight with five abstentions. Yugoslavia supported his application, but all other Communist countries opposed it. In 1953, FIDE abolished the old regulations, although a provision was maintained that allowed older masters who had been overlooked to be awarded titles

There was more political interference in the 1962 Candidates tournament which selected the challenger for the 1963 World Championships. Here is what the article says:

> What makes this tournament famous and often-discussed is the allegations of Soviet collusion. The three top finishers (Petrosian, Geller and Keres) drew all twelve of their games against each other, in an average of only 19 moves.\[15\]
>
> Soon after the tournament, Fischer publicly alleged that the Soviets had colluded to prevent any non-Soviet – specifically him – from winning. His allegations were twofold: first, that Petrosian, Geller and Keres had pre-arranged to draw all their games; and second, that Korchnoi had been part of the drawing pact in the first half of the tournament, and been instructed to lose some games to them in the second half.\[16\]\[17\]\[18\] (In the first two cycles Korchnoi drew all his games with Petrosian, Geller and Keres; in the third cycle he lost to all of them; and in the final cycle he lost to Petrosian but drew with Keres and Geller).
>
> The first allegation, of the drawing pact, is generally assumed to be correct.\[18\] All of the three players involved have since died, but Yuri Averbakh, who was head of the Soviet team, confirmed it in a 2002 interview.\[10\] He offered the rationale that Keres was the oldest competitor and wanted to conserve energy, and that Petrosian and Geller were good friends with a history of drawing with each other.
>
> The second allegation, of Korchnoi throwing games, is more doubtful.\[18\] Korchnoi defected from the USSR in 1976, and never alleged he was forced to throw games. Dominic Lawson calls the allegation "preposterous", noting that the main beneficiary of Korchnoi's losses was Petrosian, whom Korchnoi detested

**Rating Manipulation and Cheating**

There is an interesting Wikipedia article on this. For those who like their chess dripping with blood there is the story of infamous mother-killer Claude Bloodgood:

> Bloodgood organized chess games within Powhatan Correctional Center in Powhatan, Virginia, which were by necessity with fellow inmates. Many of these inmates were taught the game by Bloodgood, and thus began as unrated and inexperienced players. Bloodgood obtained USCF memberships for them. Some accused Bloodgood, with his intimate knowledge of the rating system, of rigging their ratings. The accusation was that he arranged for new prisoners to play rated games against other prisoners, who would deliberately lose, thus giving the new inmate an inflated USCF rating. Bloodgood, it is further alleged, then played rated games against the new highly rated prisoner, and each time he won, gained a few more rating points. This continued for several years, and by 1997 his rating rose to 2759, making the 59-year-old Bloodgood the second highest rated player in the nation, only behind Gata Kamsky.

OK, but that was USCF rating not FIDE. That could never happen with FIDE ratings, surely? And certianly not for titles? Well, check out this article from TWIC (The Week in Chess) from 8th March 1999. Here is an extract:

> Respected Grandmaster and chess journalist Ian Rogers also felt moved to comment on the event in the Canberra Times Chess Column for March 7th. He too was almost breathtaken by the number of norms scored in the event and the calculated level of planning required for titles and rating fraud on this scale. I quote, with permission, at length below.
>
> "The Grandmaster tournament which took place in Rangoon in the first two weeks of February took months of planning but succeeded in creating six Grandmaster results and eight IM results, an astonishing success rate. (Two or three title 'norms' are needed for a player to be awarded the GM or IM title.) Some of those scoring Grandmaster results had struggled to score 50% in the South-East Asian zonal tournament only a month earlier! Corruption extended not only to the tournament itself - with seven highly rated locals losing all their games to their compatriots - but also to a series of events held in 1998 which provided extremely high world rankings for all those required to be 'victims' in the February tournament. All seven of the no-hopers in February were unrated in January 1998, yet on the January 1999 FIDE list had rankings higher than Australian Grandmaster Darryl Johansen."
>
> "The following game is not atypical of their play, with the heavily 'outrated' Mas winning one of the easiest games of his career: Rangoon 1999 White: H.Mas Black: Thein Dan Oo 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 g6 5.0-0 Bg7 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d3 Rb8?! 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qe1 0-0 10.b3 d5? 11.e5 Nd7 12.Ba3 Re8?! 13.Na4 Rb5 14.e6 Nf6? 15.c4 Ra5? 16.exf7+ Kxf7 17.Ne5+ Kg8 18.Nxc6 1-0 Mas, the honourable Malaysian IM who performed so creditably in Sydney in January, was not one of the favoured many who scored title results. His opponent, rated 2539 - a near-GM ranking, managed only 4 points from 14 games. There is no suggestion that any of the foreign visitors were involved in anything other than pre-arranged draws - they simply took advantage of the extraordinarily overrated opposition. However the local players in Rangoon probably knew the results of many of their games before the event began and if an 'accident' occurred to one of those destined to score a title norm
>
> * e.g. a loss to a foreign player - their compatriots pitched in and provided some extra points or half points. Unusually for a corrupt tournament, the foreign invitees were not needed to help out the locals, since the enormous rankings of the weakest players meant that the scores required for title results were relatively low."
>
> "From the point of view of the organisers, the event was so successful that it is likely to be repeated in a few months time, before the ratings of the tailenders are adjusted on the July FIDE rating list. After one more such tournament, Burma could have 4 Grandmasters and half a dozen IMs; after a few more such tournaments they could have more Grandmasters than any country in Asia! Publicity may encourage the Burmese to become more discreet in future but FIDE is highly unlikely to take any action. Their actions in past cases would indicate that the world body tacitly approves of a 'developing' chess nation acquiring titled players, whatever the ethics involved."
> 12 votes

---
Tags: fide, grandmaster, titles
---


# Question
Title: What's the best way to get the top n engine moves?
I want to use python-chess to get the top 5 Stockfish moves from a given position with a numerical evaluation for each move. Is it more accurate to run the engine for 10 minutes with MultiPV=5, or to quickly rank all the legal moves (with maybe 1-2 seconds engine time each) and then let the engine think about the top 5 or so one at a time for 2 minutes?

# Answer
Both approaches will work.

* In the second approach, you will have **better accuracy** of your evaluations but you may miss an important move. For example, if 20...Rxc3 positional exchange sacrifice is a strong move, you will probably miss it with a 1-2s quick engine search.
* In the first approach, you will lose accuracy but you won't miss a strong hidden resource like in the second approach.

Classical example of sensitivity vs false positives. The second approach is more sensitive but you trade it with higher false positive rate.

In Chessable engine analysis, I adopted the second approach. I gave about 10s for each legal move (there could be many!). Filter out only the top moves, then seek evaluation for each individual move. 1-2s is too little.

**PS:** MultiPV is causing lose in accuracy because the engine has to evaluate the moves before those moves are played on the board.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish, python
---


title: What is so great about Bxa3?

text:
# Question
Title: What is so great about Bxa3?
I only have about 35 games experience , so please excuse blunders.

I am in the following position. My app (dr wolf) wants me to capture on a3. However I fail to see either the extreme threat posed by the enemy Knight, or the extreme utility of the enemy vacating the b column, that would justify sacrifice (corr.: exchange) of my bishop.

```
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/4p3/3p4/N1PP1N2/PP1BPPPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Can anyone explain the strengths of this move?

# Answer
> 24 votes
1. Black wrecks white's pawn structure
2. Black gains in development since he's trading an undeveloped piece for a developed one.
3. Although the center is sill fluid, black's dark square bishop is currently a "bad" bishop. in the short run, white's knight is the more active piece.
4. It removes the support of the c-pawn which opens up some tactical possibilities and also forces white to do something in the center rather than sitting back.

# Answer
> 16 votes
**Strong positives:**

1. Damages white's pawn structure.
2. Paves the way for quick kingside castling.
3. Prevents Nc4, which would centralize the knight and attack e5.

**Mild positives:**

4. Removes a potentially "bad bishop" for a knight that is about to become strong.
5. c3 pawn loses a defender.
6. a3 pawn is attackable.

**Mild negatives:**

7. Opens b-file for your opponent's rook. :(
8. Trades a bishop for a knight (static material disadvantage of 0.5 pawns). :(

# Answer
> 9 votes
While some books give a slightly higher numeric value for the bishop than the knight, an exchange of bishop vs. knight is not regarded as a sacrifice. It depends on the exact position if a bishop or a knight is stronger. So this is simply an exchange.

Bxa3 makes the white pawn structure worse. White gets an isolated double pawn, which is bad news for white. Bxa3 also prevents the knight from Nc4, where it could put some pressure on e5. The negative: black gives away his bishop pair which is advantageous in a lot of positions (but not in all).

My engines (Leela chess zero and Stockfish) agree with Bxa3 but don’t agree with some other white moves. Don’t believe in engine moves, especially from weaker engines (or weaker preferences of strong engines).

# Answer
> 4 votes
The thing about loosening White's pawn structure, specifically, is that Black is enabled to develop ...Qd8-e7 or ...Qd8-d6 as a threat, when White's replies a3-a4 or Qd1-c1 don't help White.

Good chess is a matter of introducing unused force with threats.

---
Tags: analysis, beginner
---


title: Worst grandmaster by rating

text:
# Question
Title: Worst grandmaster by rating
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/worlds-lowest-rated-grandmaster

This is a joke thread about the 'world's worst grandmaster', Panko Smoobachuk. Seeing this post, I wondered, what is the world's lowest rated grandmaster?

# Answer
The new, munged\* FIDE rating website still has the old "Advanced Search" option, but the page doesn't have its own URL. There you can search for GMs from all countries sorted by rating ascending and then you get that the Russian GM, Vasily B Malinin, born in 1956 is the lowest rated GM with a standard rating of 2100.

Looking at his individual calculations shows that his rating has been in steady decline since 2004 which would suggest some life-changing event happened then, perhaps a health problem, which affected his chess playing ability.

*mung = self referential acronym = Mung Until No Good

**Update**: There are still a number of players in the 2100's but the Spanish GM Mihai Suba is the new lowest rated GM on 1949 and still dropping. His latest tournament results (April 2023) show that win, lose or draw and despite his decline he still loves playing chess.

He is a former senior world champion as recently as 2008 and author of *Dynamic Chess Strategy*, which was British Chess Federation Book of the Year in 1991.
> 15 votes

---
Tags: rating, fide, grandmaster
---


title: Grob Opening lines

text:
# Question
Title: Grob Opening lines
I sometimes play the Grob in blitz, where most of my opponents attack my g4-pawn with 1...d5. However, some opponents play 1...e5, leaving me in a weird position. Is there any way to play against 1...e5, while also leaving chances for many tactics along the a8-h1 diagonal?

# Answer
> 5 votes
You played 1. g4 and you're not pleased with a "weird position".

Do you know why 1. g4 has any value other than comic? You're aiming to post a knight on e4, and the g4-pawn is there to knock down ...f5.

I mean, if they're playing ...e5 and not ...d5 to give you the typical c4 counterplay, you ought to be happy with that because they're not contesting the square you want for your middlegame outpost.

---
Tags: opening, grob
---


# Question
Title: What Sicilian Defence variation has the most similarity to the Dutch?
Given that in GM Simon William's book The Killer Dutch, Williams says that the Sicilian and the Dutch are mirror images of each other, as Williams states "If you look at the first move, you can see that the two openings are similar, due to the fact the initial pawn structures of both openings are actually mirror images of each other." (Williams, 32) What Sicilian Defence variation has the most similarity to the Dutch? In the sense of pawn structures, middlegame plans, and strategic ideas? From what I observe it seems to me like the Scheveningen is similar to the classical variation of the Dutch.

Which variation do you think is most similar?

# Answer
> 4 votes
"If you look at the first move, you can see that the two openings are similar, due to the fact the initial pawn structures of both openings are actually mirror images of each other."

That's one of the most patzerish things I've ever read in a book written by a strong player.

Flip the board around, and I don't think anyone (not even Simon Williams) would suggest the English and the Bird are similar, except that all four (Bird, English, Dutch, Sicilian) of them influence the center from the wing instead of through direct occupation, and none of them do as much for one's development as a central pawn move.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The most similar variations probably come in some of the closed lines (Grand Prix, Closed Sicilian...) where each side plays in an opposite side of the board. The Morra Gambit is also "similar" to **1.d4 f5 2.e4** in the sense that White sacrifices a pawn for activity, but that's pretty much it. The fact that in the Sicilian White can freely play d2-d4 due to the queen defending d4 really makes things different.

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


title: What am I missing here?

text:
# Question
Title: What am I missing here?
```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 {0} e5 {8} 2. Nf3 {0} Nc6 {5} 3. Bc4 {0} Bc5 {3} 4. c3 {0} d6 {6} 5. O-O
{0} Nf6 {8} 6. d3 {0} O-O {1} 7. Re1 {0} Re8 {4} 8. b4 {0} Bb6 {19} 9. Qd2 {0}
d5 {12} 10. exd5 {0} Nxd5 {2} 11. d4 {0} e4 {20} 12. Bxd5 {0} exf3 {2} 13. Bxf3
{0} a5 {38} 14. Rxe8+ {0} Qxe8 {2} 15. b5 {0} Na7 {3} 16. a4 {0} c6 {2} 17.
bxc6 {0} bxc6 {0} 18. d5 {0} cxd5 {2} 19. Bxd5 {0} Rb8 {7} 20. h4 {0} Be6 {5} 21. Bxe6 {0} Qxe6 {1} 22. c4 {0} Qxc4 {8} 23. Bb2 {0} Qxh4 {15} 24. Be5 {0} Re8
{9} 25. g3 {0} Qb4 {7} 26. Bc3 {0} Qe4 {7} 27. Qb2 {0} Rd8 {26} 28. Na3 {0} Bc7
{46} 29. Bxg7 {0} Bxg3 {9} 30. fxg3 {0} Qe3+ {3} 31. Kh1 {0} Qf3+ {9} 32. Kh2 {
0} Re8 {4} 33. Ra2 {0} Qh5+ {13} 34. Kg2 {0} Qd5+ {10} 35. Kh2 {0} Qh5+ {1} 36.
Kg2 {0} Qd5+ {1} 37. Kh2 {0} Qh5+ {1} 1/2-1/2

```

In this painful game that I played as Black I know I could've won, but that's how most of my game are nowadays. Earlier I lost mainly due to blunders. but now I get to a winning position and then don't know what to do from there, and that is even more painful. So, from this game, can the error in my game play be pointed out?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A possibility that jumps to mind instantly is 26..Qg4, with two threats:

1. Qxg3+
2. Re2 followed by either Rxf2 or Bxf2+.

The only move that prevents both these threats is 27.Kf1, but then black could e.g. play Qh3+ or Rd8. Both moves lead to an easy win.

In the position you obtained the most important thing is to make sure white can not solve a threat by developing a piece. As long as you keep that in mind and keep finding new threats and ways to use your pieces to their potential, you should be fine.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Instead of Qh5+ Black would win by threatening mate with 32 ... Re1. If 33 Qg2 Qh5+ 34 Qh3 Rh1+! 35 Kxh1 Qxh3+ wins easily because the wBg7 also falls. If 33 Qb8+ Kxg7 34 Qb2+ f6 and White's out of checks (note 34 Qe5+ Rxe5 and 35 Qb7+ Qxb7). Even on the last move 36 ... Re1 would win but there are a few more lines to check (find the mates after 37 g4 or 37 Kh3).

---
Tags: analysis, winning
---


# Question
Title: In the Giuoco Piano, why is 4.0-0 currently so popular at top level?
```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O

```

In recent years, the move 4.O-O has taken over from 4.d3 almost entirely -- in my database of TWIC games, if I look at 2750+ games from the last year, I see 4.0-0 70 times and 4.d3 only 5 times. They mostly seem to transpose into the same positions. This seems to be relatively recent and might be a factor behind the recent popularity of 3.Bc4 (related to the question What happened to the Giuoco Pianissimo? , I turned my comments there into this question).

What's the advantage of 4.O-O over 4.d3?

In case it helps, I seem to recall someone asking this elsewhere (maybe on Reddit?) and a helpful answer linked to some well known commentators explaining it (perhaps Svidler and Gustafsson?). I was at work and didn't watch the video, and I've forgotten where I saw it.

# Answer
According to a New in Chess Yearbook 124 article: "Recently, White has been playing this move order, intended to avoid lines that allow Black the possibility of a quick ...d7-d5(normally, this central break only works when White has played his pawn to c3). 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 is precisely what White is trying to avoid...
> 2 votes

# Answer
I see two reasons why to prefer castling over c3. First reason why I would go for 4.0-0 is that I would like to postpone playing c3 to make lines with d5 riskier. Imagine Marshall Ruy-Lopez, if the pawn was on c2, white would have very easy life, no weakness on d3, Nc3 possibility. And you can always play the c3 later if you like. The second thing may be desire to avoid playing c3 in early phase at all. White players tried to play a4 to create shelter for the bishop on a2, not minding exchange for opponent's bishop, avoiding classical Bb3-c2 plan.
> 3 votes

# Answer
1. The move 0-0 leaves White's options open while developing. The other moves will determine White's plan.
2. Castling will allow White to play a better version of the Giuoco Piano, but without the ..Bb4+.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: What does "+-" mean in algebraic notation?
I'm familiar with chess notation, but this has left me scratching my head. Looking at this answer, I see two games ending with moves marked as "+-" or "-+" (plus-minus or minus-plus). What does this annotation mean? Is it standard? And why are the two games using it with the symbols in different order?

Wikipedia does not mention this symbol, and I find searching for it quite difficult. Looking at the two boards allows me to rule out plenty of things - it's not check, checkmate or stalemate - but doesn't decisively reveal what it is. Is this perhaps some indicator of positional advantage (which I can see on both boards)?

# Answer
> 29 votes
> What does “+-” mean in algebraic notation?

This symbol means "White has decisive advantage", which means that White's advantage is big enough to secure him victory. As for symbol *-+* it means "Black has decisive advantage".

> What does this notation mean?

This notation is introduced to bypass the language barrier so any reader ( Japanese, English, Arabian, Marsian, it doesn't matter! ) can understand the comment behind the move. In the old days before this notation, commentaries were given in words, which required the reader to know commentator's native tongue or to find the translation of those commentaries. This way, when commentator writes *+-* behind the move, everybody ( Japanese, English, Arabian, Marsian, it doesn't matter! ) know what it means. It is shorter and cleaner this way.

> Is it standard?

Yes, it is. The symbols were invented by *Chess Informant* and accepted as a standard. You can find out more about chess notation here.

> And why are the two games using it with the symbols in different order?

Because the positions in those games are different -\> in one White has the decisive advantage while in the other it is Black who should win.

Hopefully this answer helped you. If you need further clarifications leave a comment. Best regards.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The symbol is an evaluation. +- means that White is winning. The first sign will refer to White's indication, so if there is a '-' at the start, White is losing, and vice versa.

# Answer
> -11 votes
It means *checkmate*. For example, if black was to checkmate the king with his Queen, it would be written: *Q\__+* , the *_* indicating which move black played with the queen in order to checkmate the opponent's (in this case white) king.

---
Tags: annotation
---


# Question
Title: In the open Catalan, should Black hold onto their pawn?
In the open Catalan, Black can hold onto the c4-pawn with b7-b5 and a7-a6. If so, then the queenside will have to be severely weakened. I think that this approach is reasonable and playable, but many other chess players state that it isn't good. Where could my reasoning have gone wrong?

# Answer
It's possible to keep the pawn but at the expense of seriously weakening the queenside and fall behind in development. Keeping the pawn is certainly playable but you will need to know how not to be busted in the centre.

Keeping or giving the pawn, both possible in Catalan. Whether you like it or not depend on your personal preference.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, catalan
---


title: Benoni e4-e5 push

text:
# Question
Title: Benoni e4-e5 push
In the Benoni, a common move in the position is e4-e5 and then Ng1-f3. Afterwards, I have worries about my opponent playing e4-e5 and creating a passed pawn, but up to now, I haven't met with this situation yet. How can I defend against e4-e5 properly?

# Answer
This is the crux of the Modern Benoni, right?

Do you know why you're playing the Benoni in the first place? *You're* trying to post a knight on e5. That's why that square is most critical; White is trying to run over your backwardness at d6 (the reason 6. e4, 7. f4, and 8. Bb5+ is White's most successful), and Black is trying to win the square himself because it's such a great outpost.

If Black had a fully adequate remedy for this, the Benoni would be much more popular. This is the price you pay for this splendidly unbalanced position, your open e-file, your queenside pawn majority: White might crush you in the center. The best you can do is point your pieces at it; I mean when Bb5+ comes, interposing with f6-knight stands a better shot because then the g7-bishop is directly on e5.

You might try Dzindzichashvili's peculiar 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 f5, a weird hybrid of Benoni, Dutch, Nimzo-Indian, aimed at gaining enough control over e4 so White can't so easily achieve e2-e4-e5, etc.

Good luck. Study Tal games.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawns, benoni
---


title: Spielmann Nimzo-indian

text:
# Question
Title: Spielmann Nimzo-indian
In the Spielmann Nimzo-indian, the position after this completely reasonable line makes the position seem that Black is winning. However, the engine evaluation gives the position as equal. What sort of compensation does White have that justifies the engine's decision.

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5.dxc5 Nc6 6. Nf3 Ne4 7. Bd2 Nxc5 7. Qc2

```

Where Black has a dynamic advantage in the form of active pieces and more development.

# Answer
Is Black *really* that much (or at all?) ahead in terms of development and piece activity?

Just counting, there are three minor pieces developed on each side, plus the White queen, while Black is to move and can castle. Pretty equal. Black's three minor pieces surely are active at the moment, but are White's much worse? I don't think so.

Most importantly though, if we look a little bit ahead, White has much more straightforward moves to improve his position. A direct a3 will more or less force Bxc3, obtaining the bishop pair for White (with one of them on an open long diagonal to boot). The Nc5 is then in danger of being chased away by b4. Black can answer ...a5 or ...f5 (supporting e4 as a new outpost), but both moves create new slight weaknesses in a pawn structure that is already slightly weakened by trading away the "good" bishop.

Black cannot do much against moves like e3, Be2, 0-0 or Td1, either. Not breathtaking, but all very solid and natural. Meanwhile, Black's main break ...d5 is not without danger (for example, if it's played too soon after the exchange on c3, White may discover an attack on the loose Nc5 by cxd5 and Bxg7, netting a pawn).

I won't claim that White in turn has a real "advantage". If Black plays well, the game will still be about equal. But I'd actually prefer to play White.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, nimzo-indian
---


# Question
Title: Why is chess failing to attract big name sponsors?
Despite all the efforts that chess professionals put to the game the majority of them cannot make a living out of chess. Only 4 or 5 super grandmasters across the world have been able to make a few million dollars from chess. This is mainly because there are no good brands/sponsors associating themselves with chess. At one point, one former president of FIDE had to sponsor world championships from his own "pocket".

Over the years chess has been associated with big industries in business, technology, health, research, etc but it has not been able to attract major sponsors or partners to competitive chess. For example one would have expected a big spin-off from Google's AlphaZero and partnership with FIDE but nothing big has come out so far. Hence the following question;

Why is chess failing to attract major sponsors like other sporting codes?

# Answer
It's frankly quite boring to watch chess, unless you understand what is going on - it's not like football, basketball or hockey, where there is dynamic, action, fast-paced play - for us, chess players, it might appear that chess is dynamic and fast-paced, but this is not so for the common viewer.

Let's be honest, would you really want to watch a chess game lasting three hours on your TV, waiting for the next move which the player takes 30 minutes to think through and calculate? Specifically for this reason you will never see chess featured on TV, and since it is not featured on TV, it does not get the luxurious contracts that other sports do.
> 61 votes

# Answer
Sponsorship is more like an investment. For example in video game competitions, companies like 'Sony' and 'Redbull' may invest money, of course, in the hopes that their audience will be more likely to purchase 'Sony' or 'Redbull' products since the players are using them. In your example, I don't see what AlphaZero has to gain from casual enthusiasts by sponsoring chess tournaments. Is the AI program something consumers can purchase? There's little gain there. And the other big reason as the other poster put it is that chess just isn't much fun to watch so the audience willing to sit through chess matches is very small, which ties in the first point about little gain from sponsorship.
> 33 votes

# Answer
Biggest reason? Indecisive games. Hard to make money for sponsors when 60%+ of the time there’s no winner. In a sporting event, no one likes ties.

Possible avenues are faster time controls, where at least spectators don’t waste half a day watching no one win.

Back in the 19th century Steinitz had match rules that required players to reset the pieces and play again if a draw happened. Maybe create something similar today. Continuous games until one is decisive, perhaps with declining time limits.

I know, draws are a part of chess. But spectators don’t care what’s a part of chess. For the most part, they don’t even care about quality of play. They want to celebrate a winner.

Maybe turn to a tennis model, with 3-5 sets of rapid games, each set won by the first player to win x number of games.

Chess, as we play it today, is not a sponsor’s game. The only game with as many indecisive games as chess is poker, and it kind of controls for that by having a table full of players, so if 3-4 have nothing, the hand is still competitive, so eventually someone wins.
> 19 votes

# Answer
> Despite all the efforts that chess professionals put to the game the majority of them cannot make a living out of chess. Only 4 or 5 super grandmasters across the world have been able to make a few million dollars from chess. This is mainly because there are no good brands/sponsors associating themselves with chess.

How many javelin, discus, or hammer throwers have made millions of dollars from athletics? There's a tonne of sponsorship that goes into athletics, and the best athletes get massive worldwide television coverage at least every four years (with the Olympics), but I suspect that only a handful of sprinters end up as millionaires.

How about tennis? A few people at the top earn tens of millions from prize money and individual sponsorship deals, but the world number 50 barely makes a living.

The sports where a thousand competitors rake in the money are few and far between, and they're team sports where the leagues can provoke bidding wars between TV networks and then distribute the lucrative results among the teams.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Simply put, the primary purpose of sponsorship of competitions (or events in general) is **advertising**. The amount of money an organization would be willing to spend to sponsor an event is directly tied to the audience of that event and the likelihood of increased sales to that audience resulting from the advertisement.

Sports like American football, baseball, soccer, ice hockey, basketball, etc. draw large audiences (often many millions) to which sponsors can advertise their brand and products. Chess games, on the other hand, tend to draw quite small audiences. If chess can find some way to make the games interesting enough that millions of people will watch them on a regular basis, then they, too, will be able to attract large sponsorship contracts.

Of course, the same logic generally applies to all forms of advertising, not just event sponsorship. Advertisement during TV shows, on radio stations, in newspapers, in magazines, on billboards, on signs, on web banner ads, etc. is all based to trying to expose your brand/product to the the largest number of likely potential buyers for the lowest price per conversion. A small audience to an advertisement means few potential conversions and, therefore, little willingness to invest in that advertisement.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's a fair question. I think that most of the companies who would have the cash to be anchor sponsor to, say, an international tournament would need to benefit by this association. This benefit is not going to be financial - it's going to be reputational, like big accounting or law firms sponsoring piano competitions. In the context of events likely to benefit a company's reputation there are many choices. And the more popular, more pleasurable or more socially beneficial events are likely to win out over chess in the company boardroom debate on where to spend the 'sentiment money'.

If you were looking for a sponsor for a chess tournament you'd probably have to find some organization priding itself on its ingenuity - or at least trying to get a name for ingenuity. It's no secret that governments in USSR, China, USA, UK, France and so on have actively promoted chess playing to cultivate strategic thinking among young people so recruits to its national defense establishments have some advance training. In the modern world maybe some of the major IT corporations might see a reputational benefit in this. But sadly those IT companies with a very real connection to chess, e.g. AI or critical software design, are usually rather small and simply not flush enough to blow millions on a single no-gain event. What's more, if an AI company grew to be a major, it would be faced with the same commercial imperatives as Coca-Cola: so its no-gain *largesse* would have to be spread around rather than concentrated on a single small sector.

But chess tournaments of course are not just held in superpower countries. They are often also held in countries where chess is a popular pastime among the ordinary populace, e.g. Argentina, Serbia, Holland, Poland, etc. These countries have numerous chess cafés and interesting local diversions for visitors and media people. Moreover whenever a tournament takes place it gives stimulus to patronage of these cafés by locals as well as visitors. All this makes the expense of hosting big chess tournaments a viable commercial proposition for the local economy. I think that the latter model of sponsorship is the better way forward for national chess federations: try and get small commitments from a large range of organizations - public and private - and try to exploit the tourism angle.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The professional chess is doing pretty well when compared to the past but nowhere close to what it could under different circumstances.

There are all reasons to have chess at the highest or just grandmaster level sponsored generously. There are the computer industry and the wealthy people who would sponsor chess just to feel good. Also, chess players know that the frequent occurrence of draws is not any serious problem -- chess fans are different from soccer fans. Also, chess games are excited to watch on TV or on the Internet, from classical time all the way down to bullets.

However, the last two former FIDE presidents were criminalists. FIDE was corrupt and unethical... such things are repulsive to sponsors.

If chess were totally decentralized, if there were no more FIDE, etc. (here I could provide simple general meta-principles of organizing professional chess life -- the amateur life is doing better it seems), then professional chess would bloom the big way.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Corporate chess sponsorship has increased in the recent years, and in 2019 Fide claimed that 15% of its revenues coming from sponsors.

The biggest partners for Fide are Coca-Cola and Rosatom.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Apart from the lack of action, it is also because chess is no longer a celebration of human excellence and triumph over computers as much as before. This was the time before Deep Blue when humans still had a chance, and computer manufacturers could use chess to promote their products. When people look at two humans playing, they know very well that they are not looking at strongest game possible, or some kind of latest advancement. So what else is there to be celebrated or sponsored? In fact, humans have stagnated at chess as a sporting endeavor for a long time, although they have learned how to train computers to do certain activities (including playing chess) more effectively.

Apart from machine learning applications, AlphaZero had the most impact on Go as humans could still hold their own before its arrival, while chess has lost this battle long ago along with checkers. This question implies that many chess enthusiasts are still oblivious to the outside world and do not have a firm grasp of the reality that surrounds chess.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide
---


title: Polish Opening development

text:
# Question
Title: Polish Opening development
The main idea of this opening is to get a mass of center pawns, for less development. How can White get his pieces out before Black can develop too many pieces?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The line that you refer to is probably 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6.. I recall some early opening books saying that this was a bad defence because it surrendered a center pawn. The more modern view is that Black does get a very fast development in this line which is quite dangerous. I gave up the Polish when this started to become well-known. Until then I had good results. Often I got something like a reversed Sicilian with a very useful move thrown in.

I have not kept up with recent developments but there is an article in New in Chess yearbook 132(2019) which is where I would go to catch up.

---
Tags: opening, development
---


# Question
Title: If there was a perfect play from both sides, but each player was allowed to do 2 moves every time, would white win?
Imagine a game where players are allowed 2 moves instead of one. If there were perfect play from both sides, would White win?

# Answer
> 1 votes
This chess variant you are talking about is Marsellais Chess. I infer that you mean that White has two moves to start with. If this was so, White would have an advantage(a refined version of this variant gives White only 1 move on the first move to null the opening advantage). So White would probably win. However, this is not certain, as we have not written a sufficiently strong engine for this yet.

---
Tags: chess-variants, solving
---


title: Unable to run Stockfish on Python

text:
# Question
Title: Unable to run Stockfish on Python
I know this isn't a programming forum, though it's chess-related, hence the placement on here. Basically, I'm trying to setup stockfish with Python on my PC. I installed it via `pip install stockfish`.

So I went on and tried to setup the Stockfish via:

```
from stockfish import Stockfish

stockfish = Stockfish(r'C:\Users\Acer\Desktop\chess\stockfish-11-win')

```

That throws a WinError 5, access denied:

```
Exception ignored in: <function Stockfish.__del__ at 0x0429AA48>
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Users\Acer\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python38-32\lib\site-packages\stockfish\models.py", line 270, in __del__
    self.stockfish.kill()
AttributeError: 'Stockfish' object has no attribute 'stockfish'
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<pyshell#4>", line 1, in <module>
    emily = Stockfish(r'C:\Users\Acer\Desktop\chess\stockfish-11-win\src')
  File "C:\Users\Acer\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python38-32\lib\site-packages\stockfish\models.py", line 33, in __init__
    self.stockfish = subprocess.Popen(
  File "C:\Users\Acer\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python38-32\lib\subprocess.py", line 854, in __init__
    self._execute_child(args, executable, preexec_fn, close_fds,
  File "C:\Users\Acer\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python38-32\lib\subprocess.py", line 1307, in _execute_child
    hp, ht, pid, tid = _winapi.CreateProcess(executable, args,
PermissionError: [WinError 5] Zugriff verweigert

```

I tried different Stockfish Downloads, running the Idle or CMD as admin, re-installed and used different PCs, but I somehow don't get to work with Stockfish - anyone able to help me out bypassing the access denied? What do I miss when initializing?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The argument needs to point to the Stockfish executable. If you download the v11 zip from the Stockfish website, extract it and find the directories with the executables.

I extracted it to `C:\Users\<username>\Downloads\stockfish-11-win`

The executables are in `C:\Users\<username>\Downloads\stockfish-11-win\Windows`

To use the executable, give the path *to the executable* like so:

```
from stockfish import Stockfish

stockfish = Stockfish(r'C:\Users\<username>\Downloads\stockfish-11-win\Windows\stockfish_20011801_x64.exe')

```

The default value for the path you give is `"stockfish"`, so if you add your directory with the executables to the path, and rename the exe you want to `stockfish`, you should be able to do:

```
from stockfish import Stockfish

stockfish = Stockfish()

```

Re. your comment:

> no other stockfish related "commands" will work: `OSError: [Errno 22] Invalid argument` ... so it seemingly fixed a problem but the next instantly occured.

The ArgumentError is presumably because you're passing a wrong argument. For example, I ran the commands in the readme in the github repository and it works perfectly fine.

---
Tags: stockfish, python
---


title: Is Anderssen's opening playable?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Anderssen's opening playable?
There is a certain opening called the Anderssen's opening that plays like this.

```
[FEN ""]

```
1. a3 e5 2. h3 d5.

Black has developed two pawns, occupied the center, and opened up the lines for pieces, while White has only created weaknesses. Why, then, is this opening is said to be playabe?

# Answer
That specific opening is called the **Anderssen Opening: Creepy Crawly Formation, Classical Defense**

From about 1,000 test engine games it seems that its a remarkably even set up; White : 45.5% Black : 45.5% Draw : 9%

Based off that result I would say its very much playable. This is be cause you white usually plays the left side of the board slowly working towards the center;

One Notabale Game describing that concept **Michael J Basman vs Yuri Yakovich - Hastings (1994)**

```
 rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/7P/PPPPPPP1/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

 1. h3 e5 2. a3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. b4 Bd6 6. Bb2 O-O 7. Nf3 Qe7 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Nc3 a6 11. Na4 d4 12. Rc1 b5 13. Nc5 Bxc5 14. bxc5 Bb7 15. c6 Rac8 16. c7 Nd5 17. Qf5 Rxc7 18. Rxc7 Nxc7 19. Be2 dxe3 20. dxe3 f6 21. O-O Nc5 22. Rd1 Rd8 23. Bc3 Rxd1+ 24. Bxd1 Qd7 25. Qb1 Be4 26. Qc1 N7e6 27. Nd2 Bg6 28. Bg4 h5 29. Be2 Qd5 30. Bb4 Kh7 31. Nf3 Nd3 32. Qc8 Nxb4 33. axb4 Qa2 34. Bf1 Bf7 35. Bd3+ g6 36. Qd7 Kg7 37. Be4 Nf8 38. Qb7 Qc4 39. Bc6 Kg8 40. Qxa6 e4 41. Nd4 Qxb4

```

Src: https://www.chess.com/games/view/657313
> 4 votes

# Answer
Any opening is playable as long as you buy into the idea that your only goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame, one with rough equality in center control, development, and king safety. Heeding the general opening principles while being alert to tactics will get you to a playable middlegame.

This isn't what chess book publishers and authors want you to think, they want you to think that following their advice will help you win chess games, which is a bunch of hooey.

1. a3 won't kill you. Neither will 1. h4 e5 2. h5, from which I won a theme tournament. But if you neglect the center and development for too long, then you get into trouble.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


# Question
Title: Where I can download images of chess pieces for my chess app?
I am developing an Android app and I need chess pieces images for my it. I am concerned about copyright issues as well. I can copy images from other chess apps on GitHub projects, but I am not sure if that is legal. Is there any free source to get images of chess pieces?

# Answer
Check out the licenses of the piece sets that lichess uses: https://github.com/ornicar/lila/blob/master/COPYING.md#exceptions-free

Personally I am using the cburnett piece set for my project.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pieces
---


# Question
Title: How to reduce the number of playouts on LeelaChessZero?
So after checking the wiki it seems the parameter "--playouts" allows to chose the number of playouts.

But when I try it on my laptop it just fails:

```
$ ./lc0 -w meangirl-7.pb.gz --playouts 5

 v0.23.0-dev+git.f600c66 built Nov 10 2019
Unknown command line flag: --playouts.

```

So maybe it's an outdated option and/or there's a different way to change this parameter?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think that you need to add an equals sign(or something) to the parameter, so that it says

--playouts=5.

Anyway, 'Unknown command line' means that you have probably mistyped that command.

I've read the wiki as well, and it didn't specify anything.

---
Tags: engines, leela
---


title: Bishop of same colour for a player

text:
# Question
Title: Bishop of same colour for a player
In chess rules, once the pawn reaches 8th position, the player can take a Bishop even when he/she has the same square colour bishop?

I mean Can a player have same colour bishops on the chess board?

Example : Player has a single white square colour bishop. His/Her pawn reaches the 8th position where he can opt for a Queen,Rook, Knight,Bishop but where the pawn reaches the square is a white colour square, so can he take a Bishop which is occupying white square colour? If Yes, then there will be two bishops of White colour square for the player. Do Chess rules allow this?

If Yes, Why? If No, Why?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes you can promote to any piece but anything other than a queen is rare. I believe promoting to a Bishop is considered the rarest move in chess. 2 bishops of the same colour is legal. There's a good RYBKA vs Hikaru Nakamura game where this happens. That said its a long game 250+ moves. so not something to put in here.

As to why its legal... FIDE rules; not exactly the easiest read though; Source : https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

I found some puzzle examples

**Example 1: Queen Promotion - Result Stalemate**

```
[FEN "8/8/5b2/8/K7/4N3/kp6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nd1 b1=Q 2. Nc3+ Bxc3 *

```

**Example 2: Bishop Promotion - Black Wins (after about 50 moves of end game pain)**

```
[FEN "8/8/5b2/8/K7/4N3/kp6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nd1 b1=B 2. Nc3+ Bxc3

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
NINE! NINE bishops is within the rules.

::cough:: Sorry about this. "Ten bishops of the same color is within the rules. "

If eight pawns promote on the same color square, that makes eight bishops of that color, plus the *one* that starts the game on that color.

---
Tags: bishops
---


# Question
Title: King and Three Knights v/s King in end game
Is it possible to checkmate with Three Knights and King v/s King in end game?

If yes, is this possible within 50 moves?

If no, Why?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Short Answer Yes. 2 Knights cannot mate but 3 knights can. This is a duplicate question however: Please refer to Mate With 3 Knights

---
Tags: knights, odds
---


title: Blindfold chess games

text:
# Question
Title: Blindfold chess games
Are blindfold chess games playable for chess world champions and grandmasters? Does the ability to do so show mastery for a player?

Blindfold chess is, without looking at board, the player will just say the move. Is this possible for a human?

For example, the moves 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d6 and so on. The moves will be recorded and played on a board in the background by a computer or human.

# Answer
Prashant what you describe is called blindfold chess and I've edited your question accordingly.

Humans have been playing blindfold chess for more than a thousand years and there are even blindfold tournaments. From Wikipedia:

> Today there are Blindfold Chess Tournaments held throughout the year, with the highest profile event previously being the Melody Amber Tournament, held in Monte Carlo until 2011. Of the modern day players, Vladimir Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand, Alexei Shirov and Alexander Morozevich have proven themselves to be particularly strong at blindfold chess, being alternating winners of the Amber Tournaments between 1996 and 2007. Levon Aronian won Amber 3 times since then and won the blindfold event at the 2012 SportAccord World Mind Games.

Not only are blindfold games and tournaments commonplace but there is competition to see who can play the most blindfold games at the same time.

In the 20th century the record was held by George Koltanowski who played 34 simultaneous blindfold games on 20 September 1937, in Edinburgh.

The current world record is 48 blindfold games played simultaneously by Timur Gareyev. This was sufficiently big news to make the regular press and was reported in Leonard Barden's chess column ion the Guardian newspaper.

> Do you feel chess masters who can play Blind chess games by winning shows more mastery over chess game than who can look at chess boards and win?

Neither Koltanowski nor Gareyev are anywhere near world champion level although Koltanowski was a GM and Gareyev is currently a GM. Giving a blindfold simultaneous display is a party trick. It is impressive and difficult but nowhere near as difficult as beating the world champion.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Yes! That is what blindfold chess is. If you improve your memory and practice your ability to imagine the board based on the notation, you too can play such games! Here's an article about GM Timur Gareyev setting a world record by playing 48 simultaneous blindfolded chess games. I'm sure you can find many more about others too.

From your response to Brian's answer:

> Do you feel chess masters who can play Blind chess games by winning shows more mastery over chess game than who can look at chess boards and win

No. It shows more mastery over being able to visualize the board than someone who cannot play blindfolded, but I don't think any high-level players fall into that category. One could be the best at visualizing the board from the notation, but if one doesn't know *what moves to make* after visualizing the board, one would be pretty poor at *the game of chess*.

*Note: When I started typing my answer to this question, it asked "Do you feel notation chess games can be played..."*
> 2 votes

# Answer
When I played for my university against teams in London we would sometimes play blindfold on the return train journey. The four players facing forward on the train would take turns to move against the four players facing backward. There was actually very little correlation between having facility at this and regular playing strength. One of our strongest players was quite helpless, whereas some of our weaker players had no difficulty. It seems to depend on whether you are a visual thinker.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, notation, blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to decide whether to exchange (good/active) bishops
I have read about exchanging bishops for knights and inactive bishops for active one. I still don't know how to decide when both sides’ bishops are seemingly equally active. For instance, I have read that in the London system, Black should try to exchanging dark squared bishops because White supports
key target of e5. What about this position?

```
[FEN "rkq1n1rn/ppp1pbb1/3p2pp/5p2/3PP3/2P1NP2/PP4PP/RKQ1BBRN w - - 0 1"]

```

White could try exchanging light squared bishops with Bc4. Black would have to exchange, keep the tension, or do e6 and have his bishop trapped behind this pawn. If Black keeps the tension, it would be up to White to decide whether to also wait or exchange? Whom would benefit the exchange? Both bishops have the same open diagonal, the main difference to me is that Black's point toward White's king and not the other way around, but in the London system Black is advice to exchange his bishop, that targets White's king.

# Answer
This position is from an early stage of a 960 game where the pawn position has not yet stabilized and it has little in common with the London system. Both sides will probably need to move some more pawns to get their pieces out, since particularly the Rooks and Knights are clumsily placed. A plan for either player must be comprehensive, taking account of all the pieces, and could go in many directions, depending in part on what the opponent decides to do. At this stage of the game it would be a mistake to focus too narrowly on the Bishops

In the London system, White aims at establishing a slight advantage in space, giving him more freedom than Black to manoeuvre. Any exchange of pieces will ease that aspect of .Blacks problem, and often this is accomplished by playing ...d5,..e6, and ..Bd6. The downside (There is usually a downside) is that Black will be left with a light-square Bishop that is somewhat restricted by its own Pawns.

A situation often arises in the London system where the Bishops are on d6 and g3. In that situation Black usually should not exchange if he has already castled short and Whites Rook is still on h1. So the decision can depend on much more than the relative merits of the Bishops.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In your diagrammed position Bc4 seeking a trade makes sense since the f1-a6 diagonal is not an active deployment of the Bishop, and Blacks Bishop pointing at a2 near the White king should not be tolerated.

Once the Bishops are on equal standing, the decision to trade or not then would be based on other factors. Basically answering your question of who would benefit. For example, after 1.Bc4 Blacks Knight on h8 would love for White to trade so he can get out of the corner. But let's say Black plays 1...e5? Now White should love 2.Bxf7 Nxf7 3.d5
> 1 votes

# Answer
In general — this applies to every hypothetical exchange, not just that pictured — a materially-equal exchange (pawn for pawn, rook for rook, etc.) favors the side whose units develop or come forward with the recapture.

In the position given, 1. Bc4 Bxc4 2. Nxc4 should be good for White because his knight improved, but where's it going after that?

That bishop probably does better to develop to d3 with a threat.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, bishops
---


title: Is it possible to win this endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: Is it possible to win this endgame?
```
[FEN "7r/1pk2p2/2p5/p5pp/3R2P1/1P3P1P/P5K1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Is it possible to win this endgame with either White or Black ?I know the Lucena and Philidor positions which are the first things that popped when I searched rook endgames. But how will that help me win these type of endgames? Is there a procedure?

# Answer
> Is it possible to win this endgame(either white or black)?

Of course either black or white could win this endgame. All it takes is one blunder by either side.

If what you meant to ask if either side can force a win, then the answer is "No". Black is a pawn up but white has a much more active rook and the black king is cut off on one side of the board by the white rook.

As Tarrasch is supposed to have said "All rook and pawn endgames are drawn". With best play this is also very probably drawn but best play is very rare for humans, particularly in the endgame and particularly when the clock is ticking.

Even if black succeeded in exchanging off pawns until left with king+rook+pawn versus king+rook it would likely still be drawn as long as white managed to keep the rooks on. Even with rooks off as well there are many positions where king+pawn would still be a draw against lone king.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The old joke is "all pawn endings are wins, all rook endings are draws, all queen endings are draws by perpetual check".

Black is better. In the old days, before a possible adjournment, the director would ask both players what they were aiming for. If both players said they were playing for a draw, the director might settle things at once.

In this position, Black would say he's playing to win, White's playing to hold a draw. In practice, anything can happen.

Black's plan is probably: Swap the h-pawns (though the player who is one pawn ahead in an ending is hoping to trade pieces, not pawns), put the rook on the e-file to cut off the white king, and see where the c-pawn takes him.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, rook-endgame, winning
---


# Question
Title: Seeking an explanation for Nezhmetidnov’s queen sacrifice
In this game, Rashid Nezhmetidnov sacrificed his queen for a bishop. I see that White gets an outpost on d5, but I can't find anything else that justifises the sacrifice. Is there any other compensation that exists?

```
[Title "Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov-Oleg L Chernikov, Chigorin Team Cup, Rostov-on-Don USSR, 1962"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "22"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qxf6 Ne2+ 13. Nxe2 exf6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nxf6 Be2 22. Nxh7+ Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28. Bxf7+ Rxf7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Nxf7+ Kh7 31. Nxd8 Rxe4 32. Nc6 Rxf4+ 33. Ke2

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
White doesn't get only one bishop for the queen, but two pieces: a bishop and a knight.

Moreover, Black's weak king, White's domination of the center, great outposts for his pieces and lack of prospects for Black's development (especially his rooks) fully compensate the material imbalance.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Nezhmetdinov was a little crazy in chess terms. That's why so many people enjoy his games.

White gets two pieces for the queen, and chances on the kingside black squares. Black's d=pawn is backward on an open file, which makes d5 an ideal square for a knight.

Not the most speculative sacrifice of Nezhmetdinov's career.

---
Tags: analysis, queens, sacrifice
---


title: Can an engine ever play a novelty?

text:
# Question
Title: Can an engine ever play a novelty?
Is there any instance in which, oe a possibility of, that an engine can play a novelty in a game?

# Answer
Yes, once it is out of its opening book, it will just start looking for good moves. That will usually happen later than a human is out of his/her book, but still, it is not impossible that a human will (unintentionally) follow a certain existing game, where the computer will make the first deviation. And in a computer vs. computer match, they're bound to either replay an entire existing game, or one of them will play a novelty at some point in the game.

However, if you mean 'an opening novelty with any significance for actual play', the answer is probably no. Unless specifically configured that way, it will follow its book and not play a spontaneous novelty on move 12, like a human would be able to do.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Yes, and it's very common. Top players use the strongest engines to fine tune their opening books and new opening ideas. Lot's of ultra-sharp lines that you see played by top-ten players are home preparation, prepared by the engines. Although sharp, those lines are harmless (if you know how to play), the top players are confident because they have checked and played those lines with a computer, they know exactly what to do (eg: learn by being beaten) and how to make transition to the endgame.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Aren't all the moves after the book lines run their course a novelty? I make novelties all the time, though you might call them blunders, or too-unsound-to-be-played-again gambits.

Opening novelties don't mean jack. One night English champion Julian Hodgson showed up at our club in Hayward, Calif. He took on all comers at blitz, and one of the B players uncorked a genuine improvement in an Alapin Sicilian line — never been played before, as far as anyone could find, and it was better than the other moves that went before.

Did it matter one tiny bit? Of course not.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, novelties
---