# Question
Title: If elite players prefer to play short draws in knockout competitions, why not skip them and go straight to tiebreaks?
From the Chessbase article covering the Jerusalem GP:

> After day one of the quarter-finals finished with disappointingly short draws on all boards, FIDE Press Officer Anastasiya Karlovich made a point of asking the players about the controversial decision to choose pragmatism over combativeness. Wesley So responded impassively, pointing out that "one of us has to win" in the end. This is simply a logical consequence of using the knock-out format in events with so much at stake. Or, as Maxime Vachier-Lagrave put it:
>
> "I understand the frustration from the point of view of the spectators, but for me it's about something else, it's about qualifying for the Candidates, so for this one I cannot be entertaining, at least not if it diminishes my chances."

Elite players are unwilling to take risks to give themselves the best chances to qualify for the Candidates, so they play short draws. Okay (I'd even say it's quite logical).

But if they're going to play short draws, why bother with actually playing out the short draw on the board? Just skip the classical games and go straight to Rapid. Or if elite players play short draws in Rapid as well, skip that too and go straight to Blitz.

Conceivably some elite players might want to fight it out in classical games, but it doesn't sound too hard to accommodate them. Ask them before the match if they prefer to draw the classical games, and if either of them say no, let the match go ahead. But if they say yes, just save everyone the disappointment (not to mention the $$$) and play Rapid/Blitz, which sounds like a much more sensible use of time. One could even use the time freed up to, e.g., play more Rapid tiebreakers, get the players to commentate, or even give public simuls.

Why haven't elite tournaments done this?

# Answer
> 5 votes
It is because there are tournament regulations, including the format, which are published before the tournament starts. You cannot really change that after a certain point, like players accepting invitations.. In addition, although certain players are amenable to draw because they believe they are better at faster time controls, by FIDE rules, they cannot technically agree to a draw before the game starts.

Also, they might sit down at the board, and play some moves to see if they actually like how the game has started, and actually press on if they like what the see.

I think that what you are asking, if they tried to do it, it might be more complex in practice, and might also have unforeseen consequences, since everyone should play be the same rules. You cannot really have some players playing it, and others opting out since everyone should play the same tournament. Nevertheless, they could change the pre-tournament regulations and try it to find out if it works.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Ask them before the match if they prefer to draw the classical games, and if either of them say no, let the match go ahead. But if they say yes, just save everyone the disappointment (not to mention the $$$) and play Rapid/Blitz.

If one of those players who said "no" makes it to the final, they'd be at a disadvantage: having played more and longer games, their level of mental exhaustion would be higher, compared to a player who skipped games. It'd be like a tennis match where one of the players endured 20 matches and the other one only played 10.
This would lead to every player opting out of classical games to ensure that they don't play more games than necessary.
Which would lead to tournaments being only Rapid and Blitz.
Which would lead to GMs adapting their play style, strategies etc. to better fit Rapid/Blitz, basically abandoning classical play.

And then some GMs would look for a short draw in the Rapid games to avoid risks, too. Which would lead to somebody asking "Why bother with actually playing out the short draw on the board? Just skip the Rapid games and go straight to Blitz/Bullet."
And then somebody would think "Why bother with Blitz" etc.

And in the end, the goal of tournament chess would shift from "checkmate the enemy King" to "make your opponent's clock run out before yours".

---

If elite tournaments have not done this *yet*, it's probably because there are still enough players that don't want chess to become that kind of game. But who knows, maybe that's the future of elite chess? Super fast games that can be easily scheduled and promoted on social media, and consumed by the public in the form of 2-minute YouTube clips?

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Elite players are unwilling to take risks to give themselves the best chances to qualify for the Candidates, so they play short draws. Okay (I'd even say it's quite logical).

Not quite. As it stands, aiming for short draws with white is a costly strategy: you may then fail to equalize as black if your opponent does not return the favour. Ironically, this is exactly what happened to Vachier-Lagrave in the last World Cup.

Now, some players may still be willing to pay that cost for one reason or another, but its is generally not true that they do it *en masse*. I checked the statistics of last three World Cups from round 3 onwards (to exclude too uneven pairs) and 55% of matches do have decisive games in classical portion, and obviously a sizable fraction of the others have fighting draws. Similarly, the decisive classical game rate at the current Grand Prix is at the moment at 24%, which is a bit lower than last two GPs (28% and 31% respectively), but not dramatically so.

If one could agree to two draws in classical free of cost, then it would be different - it would be usually beneficial to do so in the match of equal players.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It has been said that the result of a game between GM of equal strength is a draw. Therefore, to increase the proportion of decisive games, the group of contestants could be increased to include greater ELO dispersion and allow with a Swiss system earn points by way of decisive games. Occasionally a GM ties with a lower category player. Another measure is to vary the accounting of points, without altering the rules of chess. For example, that those who tie must lose points instead of splitting the full point, because in the end it is a self gift to overcome the round; It could also be allowed in the tournament rules that each player choose one or two breaks, without affecting his score and of his contestant. We will have to analyze and test the most appropriate system. But what is definitive, is that the Armagedon system must be eliminated to define the winner. It's like after playing with strategy, cunning and psychology, to see who have the fastest hands.

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: What does it mean to call a line "sharp"?
I am a chess newbie and I was watching a video on four knights opening and the person was discussing another variation and he said that one is dramatic and quite sharp. From what I saw, it seems "sharp" means immediate mating threats.

Wiki has this:

"Risky, double-edged, highly tactical. Sharp can be used to describe moves, maneuvers, positions, and styles of play."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary\_of\_chess#S

That definition, if correct, is still sort of vague for me. Does it mean Kasparov plays sharp because he was very good at tactics? Or if you go for Scholar's Mate, does that mean you're using a sharp line? Can someone elaborate on the meaning of sharp more, like what makes a line sharp, maybe with examples? Thanks.

# Answer
A sharp position is one where every move is critical and any mistake could be your last; in such positions basic principles take a back seat to calculation. The opposite of a sharp position is a calm position, where you have time to maneuver as you please and arrange your pieces as you want before initiating confrontation.
> 21 votes

# Answer
"Sharp" just means tactically complex.

In a sharp position you may have 2 or 3 moves to choose from and most other moves will lose the game immediately or at least leave you with a significant disadvantage. Generally, the same will be true for your opponent.

In a quiet position (the opposite of sharp) you could throw pretty much any move out there and it's not going to drastically change things.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Usually a complex position that has a lot of tactics. A very open-position with lots of pieces usually, or a crowded-closed position.

It means that players must think extra-hard in every move for potential mistakes and complexities, where each candidate move has a large set of lines that constantly switch positional-advantage.

It could be a position that 6 moves down can lead to White's advantage, but 7 moves down can lead to black's advantage, so it might be worth falling into White's "trap" that is actually a "counter-trap."
> 1 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: Why is Bf5 good in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Bf5 good in this position?
I would like to know why playing Bf5, allowing White to exchange the white-squared bishops, doubling Black's pawns is good for Black.

In such situation, castling on either side seems quite unsafe for Black given its weaknesses of b6, h6 and probably f6 later on.

Plus, I am not sure eliminating the White bishop is a good reason, as it is not particularly dangerous in such a position.

# Answer
> 6 votes
After the exchange of white squared bishops black will play e6 cementing the center, leaving all his pawns on white squares. The white squared bishop is Black's bad piece in these structures and conversely it is white's best piece. The exchange very much favours black.

With black pawns on d5 and f5 white isn't going to be opening the center any time soon so the black king is safe in the center. Black has at least equalised.

# Answer
> 5 votes
First, it is just one way to play it. It is not really better or worse than other plans at this juncture.

Really, the big problem is that I am not a fan of 7...g6 since what is the Bf8 really going to do on g7? It is biting on granite, and is better placed on e7 defending the k-side, and eyeing the white q-side, or even Bd6 eyeing a trade for the active Bf4. Bf4 is technically a bad bishop, but it is already outside the pawn chain, and active, so it is OK to trade it off.

The Bg7 would gain activity if you could ever get in e5, but I do not see that happening. After just a few more normal developing moves (Bg7; Nf3) this already scores at about 70% for white in the Mega 2019 database, so even practically speaking, g6 and Bg7 is not a plan I would want to defend with.

Brian is right, and I have mentioned this before, about trading off a bishop when you can place all the remaining pawns on the opposite color of the traded bishop. If you trade off the light-squared bishop, being able to place all the pawns on the light squares keeps control of them is one favorable aspect of the position. I disagree with him to the extent that this "very much favors black", otherwise we would see this a lot more often.

It is just one plan that, in reality, has pluses and minuses like most plans. This is very common in the slav lines where black plays Bg4xNf3 with the pawns on c6-d5-e6. It unbalances the position, so if you need a win, this is one thing to consider as a plus; but you have to keep in mind that you did cede the bishop pair, so you have to be incredibly careful about allowing the position to open up later. In practice, the side with the bishop pair almost always is able to open the position eventually, often in the endgame, so you have to make thing happen, or keep everything under tight control to prevent that. Often it is ideal to try and trade the other bishop for its equal counterpart, at least destroying the opponent's bishop pair.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The engine has three moves at .8 and a fourth at .9. It isn't saying Bf5 is good. it's saying that it doesn't see that Bf5 is better or worse than the alternatives. The depth is pretty low though so I would give it some time to sort those four moves out.

That being said, while Bf5 does double black's pawns it also trades off black's bad bishop and gives black complete control of e4.

---
Tags: analysis, exchange
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of a position of a low rated player in order to improve
I am a beginner in chess, and I am trying to learn how to play well. I am rated 800 in Chess.com, so I have a really low rating, and I am trying to improve it. I was playing a game and I have been in a position which I considered a good position in my opinion, but since it is the point of view of a beginner I would like to have a comparison with someone who is better than me at playing since the perception of what is a good position changes depending on the player.

I was almost at the beginning of the game and this was my position:

```
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/5n2/7q/4NPb1/3P1N2/PPP1B2P/R1BQK2R w - - 0 1"]

```

I had the white pieces and in this case is black turn to move. It was still the beginning so I am not sure it is possible to evaluate if the position is good or not at this early stage of the game.

Is it a good position? And which in your opinion would be the best move in this case?

I was thinking about moving the pawn in f4 to f5 in order to try to move the bishop to g5, which seems to me another good position.

What do you think? Thanks.

# Answer
The first thing that comes to mind is that your king-side has been weakened quite a bit, but thankfully, it is your move. If it were black to move, you would be all but lost after 1...Nxe4 2. dxe4 Nc6, and Rd8 next since your queen would be forced away from your king, and it would likely perish to an attack.

```
 [FEN "rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/5n2/7q/4NPb1/3P1N2/PPP1B2P/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1"]

 1...Nxe4 2. dxe4 Nc6 3. null Rd8

```

In this position, even with you having the first move, I would still say that the position is more difficult for you. If you let it think for a moment, Stockfish rates it as slightly better for you, but if you do not play the EXACT best moves, it is easy to end up with black better. That is generally a sign that your position is not so great in practice since we are not computers.

Especially in the opening, you should post the moves that led up to this because I would say that you have made mistakes, and it is probably more important to correct those than worry about a position that is already tricky to play.

In this position, you have a few moves that do not lose immediately: Ng3, Be3, and Nf6+. The computer likes Ng3 the best and I will give that as the primary variation. The computer is not 100% sure about this variation, and often changes its evaluation on what is the best move for both sides as you go along, but you can see that many of the moves are not human. In cases like that, you are likely to play moves that are worse because you want to play positions that are easier to find good moves for you, and that make it difficult for your opponent to find them. Tal made a living off this principle.

```
 [FEN "rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/5n2/7q/4NPb1/3P1N2/PPP1B2P/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. Ng3 Qa5+ (1... Qg6 $4 2. f5 Bxf5 3. Nh4) (1... Qh6 2. f5 Qh3 3. Bf1 Bxf3 4. Qxf3 Qh4 5. Qxb7 $18) 2. Bd2 Qb6 3. Ng5 Bd7 4. Bh5 Nxh5 5. Qxh5 g6 6. Qe2+ Be7 7. Bc3 O-O 8. Qe5 f6 9. Qd5+ Kh8 10. O-O-O {And finally, it is clear that white is much better}

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would worry more about looking at GM games to get a feel for what good moves are. Also look at typical bad things beginners do; but do not worry about analysing bad games as that is not really useful.

You want to be making better moves so you are never in a position like those bad games and won't care about those moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It would be interesting to see the game itself. I'm guessing you moved the f pawn and didn't defend against Qh4+ which is a common beginner mistake.

From here I'd probably play Be3 because it stops most of what black might want to do and develops a piece. Nxf6+ is probably reasonable. It's not a bad idea to trade pieces when you're being attacked especially if you can inflict long term weaknesses like doubled pawns. The engine likes Ng3 and it's probably the strongest move.

White isn't bad in this position but his position is a little loose and there are lots of chances for him to go wrong.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, theory
---


title: B pawn sacrifice

text:
# Question
Title: B pawn sacrifice
I have just played a game in which there was a thematic sacrifice of the b pawn. I cannot understand why this is useful. The opening of the file cannot be attacked by White as apart from Black bishop, there is also the a pawn that could defend it if needs be.

Please check the link of the game below as Stockfish suggests this move later in the game too. https://lichess.org/Ak6GNtwL/white#38

# Answer
> 10 votes
Looking at the engine output, it seems that after Black plays cxb4, White can play a3. If Black takes, this opens up the b-file, and if White is allowed to play axb4, that opens the a-file. Either way, lines towards the Black king will open up.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Just a point, but my eye was first attracted to the move h4, keeping the Bh7 entombed for a long time, but there is much better still. If there were not a direct attack, this would be a highly favorable idea since many games have been won at the highest level by excluding just one piece from participating in the game.

b4 is, indeed, much better, since it opens the way for Qa4. There are a lot of choices for black to try to defend, but the computer does not like any of them. I will give a few that try to make a sensible try at defending.

The Kc8 is incredibly weak there, especially combined with that big pawn on h7 that looks like a bishop, and the f7 weakness. Even the Bf8 cannot really do anything. When it goes to d6, it really attacks nothing, or bc gains a tempo for the attack. In short, the black king is defenseless.

```
 [FEN "2kr1b1r/2q2p1b/p1p1p1pp/2p3P1/2PpP1N1/1P1P1N1P/P5P1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. b4 $1 (1. h4 hxg5 2. hxg5 Be7 3. b4 {Still can be played with great force.}) 1... cxb4 (1... hxg5 2. Qa4 Kb7 (2... f5 3. Nge5 a5 4. Nxc6 Rd6 5. Nfe5 cxb4 6. a3 $18) 3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. Rab1+ Ka7 5. Nfe5 Rdf8 (5... Rc8 6. Rxf7 Be7 7. c5 {And Rb6.}) 6. Nxc6+ $18) 2. Qa4 Kb7 (2... a5 3. Nge5 c5 4. a3 Bd6 5. axb4 $1 Bxe5 6. Nxe5 Qxe5 7. Rxf7 Qd6 8. Qxa5 $18) 3. a3 a5 4. Rfb1 h5 5. Nge5 c5 6. axb4 cxb4 7. Nxf7 Qxf7 8. Qxa5 $18

```

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Difference between 7. Qc2 vs 7. Qa4 in the Catalan
This is a position from the main tabia of Catalan Opening:

```
 [FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp1bppp/4pn2/8/2pP4/5NP1/PP2PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 7"]
 [StartPly "12"]
 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O dxc4

```

The main move for white is 7. Qc2 with the intention of grabbing a pawn back on c4; however, the same result can be achieved with 7. Qa4.

Why is 7. Qc2 so much more popular? (~10:1 ratio in BigDatabase from Chessbase, with 10065 vs 1186 as of Dec 21, 2019)

Does Qc2 prevent some lines that Qa4 does not? Isn't the idea behind both of them the same?

Reason for asking: I am playing Catalan with both black and white, and study the theory on the materials from Victor Bologan. In the materials, I have, the 7. Qa4 idea is not mentioned; however, I often face it, and wonder if there is any particular idea (or even concrete line) that I should be aware of.

# Answer
As you mentioned, 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 and 7.Qa4 a6 8.Qxc4 lead to the same position.

However, after 7.Qc2 a6, white has the option to play 8.a4, which is recommended by GM Avrukh in Grandmaster Repertoire 1A: The Catalan. According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, 8.a4 is a bit more popular than 8.Qxc4. Having the choice of 8.a4 and 8.Qxc4 is probably the main reason why 7.Qc2 is played so much more often than 7.Qa4.

On the other hand, 7.Qc2 allows 7....b5, a move that became popular on the highest level only recently. For example, see Ding Liren-Carlsen. So, if white prefers to play 8.Qxc4 after 7....a6, it makes sense to choose 7.Qa4, which occurred in Caruana-Duda.

After 7.Qa4, there are some sidelines you might consider as black: 7....Qd5 (played in Adly-Aronian (blitz)) and 7....b6.

```

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O dxc4 7.Qc2 (7.Qa4 a6 (7...b6)(7...Qd5) 8.Qxc4) a6 (7...b5) 8.a4 (8.Qxc4)

```
> 10 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, catalan
---


# Question
Title: Assessing an early c4 against white's Stonewall structure
I made a horrible decision as black in a game, and I do not understand why it's incorrect.

```
[fen "rn2kb1r/pp2pppp/1q3n2/2pp4/3P1P2/2PQPN2/PP4PP/RNB1K2R b - - 0 1"]

```

I played c4, Stockfish considers the position to be + 0.4 after the move. My reasoning: I forever block white's bad bishop behind his blocked pawns, while keeping my good bishop. Since I gain a tempo on the queen, I can move my queen right away to be able to answer the break b3 with b5.

I am also thinking that my position is much better, as white has a hole on e4 and I don't have such a weakness, so I thought I'd capitalize on my advantage by closing up the position.

Stockfish considers this move to be a really poor move, e6 leading to an evaluation of -0.7.

I've had this several time, and it's unclear to me why my move is bad, even though it gives me an inferior position from a superior one.

Is it always bad to close up the position this way, or is it specific to the position ? Why is it bad, because I forever lose my main pawn break ? Or because my "good bishop" has no target and is therefore not really good ?

# Answer
Good question! The positional priorities in this position do not really lie in whose bishop has more prospects, but rather in the emerging pawn structure, potential pawn breaks, and either side's ability to create targets and holes in opponent's camp.

In short, `c4` here is an extremely committal move which should only be played if it can be backed by very strong concrete ideas, which do not exist in this position. Why does the fact that it's committal makes it into a poor choice? It's simply because it resolves white's strategy into something immediate and concrete, namely: to undermine black's pawn chain and create a weak pawn out of `c4`, and to this end, the almost immediate `e4` pawn break is perfectly playable for white without any drawbacks and black has nearly no means of preventing it. So in hindsight, moves such as `c4` and similar ones in analogous positions, are only good if you are sure you can stop your opponent's relevant pawn breaks. Otherwise you're creating overly advanced pawns that will eventually turn into weaknesses that you cannot easily parry. Remember, a pawn is considered to be weak if (all 3 must be met simultaneously):

* it **cannot** move
* it is **isolated** (not defensible by pawns)
* it **can be** attacked.

To summarise: with the unavoidable `e4` by white and `a4` in reply to `b5`, the `c4` pawn is bound to become a weakness as it meets all 3 said conditions. Gained tempi and temporarily blocked out bishops are secondary in such positions, unless you have an actual threat following your pawn push (such as, an imminent knight jump to `d3`!)

More concretely, let's take a look at a few possible continuations as illustrated in the following diagrams:

**Left:** Early `e4` by white | **mid:** early `b5` attempt | **right:** `e4` blockade attempt

* Left: Immediately undermining `c4`'s defense after `Qe2, Nbd2`, if black takes, `c4` is dropping soon and both knights will be well established centrally. And if black tries to sit still, `e4-e5` is a threat, leaving black's kingside heavily undefended and white's pawn push is quite straightforward, black will lack space and the ability to create a counter-attack.
* Mid: Black prepares for the immediate `b5` (with `Qc7`) in order to reinforce `c4` which leads to: `Qe2, Qc7, Nbd2, e6, e4, b5, f5!` and soon followed by `a4.` Notice how white's perfectly undermining the entire pawn backbone (`e6, d5, b5`) of `c4`.
* Right: Black simply tries to stop `e4` by blockading it with a knight, but since it cannot really be followed up by `f5` (as shown in the diagram), it will easily be challenged with `Nbd2` after which black either has to take on `d2` which revives `e4` again, or lets white take on `e4` leaving a ton of light square weaknesses behind along with a permanent knight post on `e5.` Note that in this structure, black has no prospect for ever landing a knight on `d3`, leaving the light square control that the overly advanced pawns have secured virtually unusable. Finally, notice that in neither of these cases, black's left with any form of initiative or targets in white's structure to allow for any counter-attack.

Lastly, by not playing `c4`, you can still entertain a timely resolution of the central pawns in order to either simplify or create weak points in white's centre. And to connect with our discussions, by holding still with the pawn on `c5` you are actually stopping white's `e4` push as after, say, `e6, Nbd2, Be7, e4` you can simply take both on `e4` and `d4` not allowing white any central control (unlike the case of `c4` where white always had clear spatial advantage), and your structure is devoid of weaknesses. If anything, white will be the only side with potential dark square weaknesses. And if white recaptures on `d4` with the pawn, then it's a comfortable IQP structure with easy play for black.
> 17 votes

# Answer
First of all, your plan of keeping White's queenside blocked doesn't quite work out in any case: After e.g. **1...c4 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. b3 b5** White can simply continue attacking your pawn chain by **4. a4** and you cannot answer **4...a6** because of **5. axb5 axb5? 6. Rxa8**. If you try to protect the rook by **2...Qc6**, White can insert **3. Ne5** to displace the queen.

But even if White does not play a4, there are some things to note:

* The blockade is not complete anyways, as the Bc1 can always escape its own pawn chain via a3.
* The move **1...c4** is very committal, **1...e6** on the other hand keeps all options open and even adds some more by supporting the development of your kingside. Crucially, you can now answer **dxc5** by **Bxc5**, and since e3 would become super weak, White is discouraged to take on c5 anytime soon. The option of playing **...c4** thus won't disappear after **1...e6**!
* But in the meantime, the pawn keeps up pressure on the White centre from c5, pressure that an immediate **...c4** loses.
* In this light, you'd like your queen to stay on b6, too, where she eyes both the g1-a7 diagonal as well as b2.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Some points:

White's "bad" bishop is already locked behind their pawns, your move doesn't change that, it's a feature of the opening white is playing. Long term white could go for `Bc1-d2-e1-h4`, or play `b3` and `Ba3`. In fact in your proposed line of `1...c4 Qc2 2.Qc6 3.b3 b5`, white has `4.Ba3`. Note that if you don't play `...c4, Ba3` sometimes fails to `...cxd4 cxd4 Bxa3 Nxa3 Qa5+` picking up the knight, but if you play `...c4` white doesn't have to think about that possibility.

```
 [title "4.Ba3"]
 [fen "rn2kb1r/pp2pppp/1q3n2/2pp4/3P1P2/2PQPN2/PP4PP/RNB1K2R b - - 0 1"]

 1...c4 2.Qc2 Qc6 3.b3 b5 4.Ba3

```

Similarly, your "good" bishop is already good. But it doesn't gain much from `...c4`.

You have a good square on `e4`, but if you put a knight there then white will exchange it for his and there will be a pawn on that square. If white plays `Ne5` and you exchange it, they can take `fxe5` and get an attack over the f-file.

You removed the tension (white doesn't have to care about the option `...cxd4` anymore) and now have few good pawn breaks (I don't think `...f6` and `...e5` is going to work soon). If one the other hand white manages `e3-e4`, then your pawn on `c4` may become weak. Or white can attack it with `b3` and `a4`. Or go for a kingside attack with `g2-g4`.

So I don't see your points. That said, `0.7` is more of an advantage than I had expected, maybe there is a way for them to force you to waste some more time, or win a pawn?
> 8 votes

# Answer
The other answers were great, but I think you could sum it up like this : the player who has built the stonewall is looking for a locked center so that he can benefit from the time to build up an attack on your king, funneling his pieces over in the vicinity of your king without having to worry about central counter-play.

Doing c4 might superficially look like gaining space, but it really helps the opponent in keeping the center locked, by giving up a possible break which might be needed.
> 7 votes

# Answer
...c4 is generally bad because it releases the tension on White's d4-pawn. This makes it much easier for White to get away with pushing e4, since the e3-pawn doesn't need to support the d4-pawn anymore.

You're correct that White does have a weak hole on e4, but after playing Qc2 and Nbd2, he's ready to push e4 and gain a central initiative.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is slow. At a time you should be developing and getting the rest of your pieces out, you play c4, meaning that eventually to get your standard play with b5-b4, you will need to finish your development, then move your queen again, and only then get in b5-b4. That gives time for white to do a lot of different things, depending on how you develop. You will also have to take the time to play Ne4 almost immediately so you can play f5 since if white gets in e4 first, that is also going to be super advantageous to him.

It is a common mistake to change the base of the pawn structure in the opening, slowing one's play.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, closed-position, bad-bishop
---


# Question
Title: Why is Fritz 16 Grandmaster Playing Weak Endgames?
I am trying to use Fritz 16 to practice endgames. Unfortunately, Grandmaster (Fritz) is playing very poorly. For example, in the diagrammed position, if I play Black, Fritz gives me a quick threefold repetition after 1 Ke4 Nc6 2 Kf5 Na7. But when I play White, Fritz resigns after 1 Ke4 Nc6 2 Kd5 Na5 3 Ke5 Kg7 4 Bd5 Kg6 5 Kd4 Kf6 6 Kc3 Kf5 7 Bh1 Ke5 8 Bg2.

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "7k/8/8/2P1n3/8/4KB2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke4 Nc6 2. Kd5 (2. Kf5 Na7) Na5 3. Ke5 Kg7 4. Bd5 Kg6 5. Kd4 Kf6 6. Kc3 Kf5 7. Bh1 Ke5 8. Bg2

```

Why is Grandmaster (Fritz) playing this ending so poorly? Do I need to change the settings? It doesn't make sense that the engine resigns with Black, but plays a draw by repetition with White.

Any ideas? Are there settings I can change? I have triple checked that I have set the engine to Grandmaster level.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Fritz's 2.Kf5 is a mistake because 2.Kd5 is the only winning move according to the tablebase. Maybe Fritz suffered from the horizon effect (couldn't see far enough ahead) which turned the win into a draw. After that, a draw by repetition doesn't seem unreasonable.

Playing black, Fritz resigns but that's after seven moves, so the "horizon" is now closer, presumably close enough for Fritz to tell it lost (will lose the knight within a couple of moves with no way to stop the pawn).

I don't have Fritz, but from what I can tell "grandmaster" is one of its handicap levels (the strongest, but I'm guessing not as strong as running the engine at full strength). Handicapping an engine is not an exact science so maybe it does play this endgame in a way that's weaker than an actual grandmaster. See if there is any setting to play against the full strength engine. Also I think there is a way of getting Fritz to use a tablebase.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Most engines are weak in certain types of endgame, unless they are provided with an endgame tablebase (EGTB) or sufficient search depth to reliably find the way to the best mate, draw or conversion.

EGTBs tend to be fairly large (eg. about 1GB for the Syzygy 5-man set, and exponentially larger for 6 and 7 man sets) so might not be installed by default.

---
Tags: chessbase, fritz
---


title: ChessBase Nalimov tablebases

text:
# Question
Title: ChessBase Nalimov tablebases
I'm using Nalimov tablebases with Fritz14 and it basically works. Just one strange problems occurs: The engine doesn't mate because the final mating move isn't sorted correctly. It look like this:

```
+- (#2) move1
+- (#2) move2
= (0.00) move3
= (0.00) move4
# (#0) move5  (mating move)

```

I've tried to replace/rename TBAccess.dll several times as mentioned somewhere else, but the programm won't start, just displaying the message "TBAccess.dll seems to be corrupted".

Any ideas? Does it work with older ChessBase products only?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Apparently Fritz 14 is capable of reading the newer Syzygy format tablebases. Certainly the latest Fritz can.

These tend to take up less space than Nalimov format, which used a simpler compression scheme designed for the benefit of older computers. For example, the 5-man tablebases take over 7GB in Nalimov format but under 1GB in Syzygy format.

So I suggest trying Syzygy before giving up.

---
Tags: engines, tablebases
---


title: Castling during the endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Castling during the endgame
Are there any famous games where castling occurred during the endgame?

# Answer
The game Lasker - Thomas, Lasker could have ended with a castling checkmate, but instead he played “18.Kd2#.” Some versions of that game I've seen may have ended with “18.O-O-O#.”

```
[Title "Edward Lasker-George Alan Thomas, London, Casual Game, 10/29/19"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e4 fxe4 7. Nxe4 b6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+ Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+ Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1 18. Kd2#

```

Was this an endgame? White did not have his queen on the board, and it was definitely the end of that game.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Here is a famous game between two famous players that ends with “30...0-0.”

```
[Title "Timman-Kasparov, Eurotel Trophy, 1998"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 b4 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Qc2 b3 9.Qd1 e6 10.Be2 c5 11.O-O Nc6 12.Ne5 Rc8 13.Na3 cxd4 14.Naxc4 Qd5 15.Bf3 Ne4 16.Nxc6 Rxc6 17.Nd2 f5 18.Re1 d3 19.Nxb3 e5 20.Bd2 Rb6 21.Bxe4 fxe4 22.Nc1 Rxb2 23.Bc3 d2 24.Rf1 Bxf1 25.Bxb2 Bc4 26.Ne2 Bb3 27.Nc3 Bxd1 28.Nxd5 Bb3 29.Nc3 Bb4 30.Nd1 O-O

```

The world record of late castling is move 48, achieved in two games, according to the fascinating page by Tim Krabbe.

Game 1: Kingside Castling

```
[Title "Neshewat-Garrison, Detroit, 1994"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qa5+ 5. Bd2 Qb6 6. Nb3 Ne4 7. e3 Qf6 8. Qf3 Qxf3 9. gxf3 Nxd2 10. N1xd2 Nc6 11. a3 d6 12. Be2 g6 13. Rb1 a5 14. O-O a4 15. Nc1 Bf5 16. e4 Be6 17. Rd1 Bh6 18. Kg2 Nd4 19. Bd3 Ra5 20. Nf1 Rg5+ 21. Ng3 Nxf3 22. b4 Bg7 23. Be2 Nh4+ 24. Kh1 Bh3 25. f4 Bg2+ 26. Kg1 Bxe4 27. Nd3 Bd4+ 28. Kf1 Rxg3 29. hxg3 Nf5 30. Rdc1 Nxg3+ 31. Ke1 Be3 32. Rd1 Nf5 33. Rb2 Bd4 34. Ra2 Ne3 35. Rc1 Ng2+ 36. Kf1 Be3 37. Rc3 Bd4 38. Rc1 Be3 39. Rb1 Nxf4 40. Rd1  Ne6 41. Nf2 Bf5 42. Bd3 Nd4 43. Bxf5 Nxf5 44. Ke2 Bh6 45. Ne4 Bg7 46. c5 dxc5 47. Nxc5 Nd4+ 48. Kf2 O-O 49. Nxa4 e5 50. Nc5 Nb5 51. Rd7 b6 52. Rb7 Nc3 53. Rc2 e4 54. Rxb6 e3+ 55. Ke1 Rd8 56. Rc1 h5

```

Game 2: Queenside Castling

```
[Title "Somogyi-Black E., New York, 2002 "]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 b6 4. Nf3 Bb7 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. Bc4 Nc6 7. O-O Nxe4 8. Nxe4 d5 9. Bd3 dxe4 10. Bxe4 e6 11. c3 Qe7 12. Ne5 Bxe5 13. dxe5 Na5 14. Bd3 a6 15. Qg4 h5 16. Qg3 h4 17. Qe3 Qd7 18. f3 Nc6 19. Rad1 Ne7 20. Bg5 h3 21. g4 Nd5 22. Qf2 c5 23. a3 Qc7 24. c4 Ne7 25. Qg3 Nc6 26. Bf6 Rh7 27. Rf2 Nd4 28. Bf1 b5 29. b4 bxc4 30. Bxc4 Qc6 31. Rd3 a5 32. b5 Qd7 33. a4 Bd5 34. Rc3 Bxc4 35. Rxc4 Qd5 36. Rc1 Nb3 37. Re1 c4 38. f4 Nc5 39. Qa3 Qd4 40. Qf3 Qd5 41. Qxd5 exd5 42. Rd1 Ne4 43. Rc2 Nxf6 44. exf6 Rh4 45. g5 Rg4+ 46. Kh1 Rxf4 47. Re2+ Re4 48. Rde1 O-O-O 49. Rxe4 dxe4 50. Kg1 Kb7 51. Rc1 Rd2 52. Rxc4 e3 53. Rc1 Rg2+ 54. Kh1 Rg4 55. Re1 Rxa4

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
I found a game where castling takes place on the **40th move** in a postion that is truly that of an endgame. Tim Krabbe lists as the 103rd most fantastic move in chess history.

```
[Title "Viktors Pupols-Jerald Meyers, Lone Pine California USA, 3/13/1976"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "78"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 g6 4.c4 b5 5.cxb5 a6 6.bxa6 Bxa6 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bd2 O-O 10.h3 e6 11.dxe6 fxe6 12.Qc2 g5 13.g4 Nc6 14.Nd1 Nd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.h4 d3 17.exd3 Rc8 18.Qa4 Bb7 19.Rh3 Bc6 20.Qa5 Qxa5 21.Bxa5 Nxg4 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.Rg3 Nh2 24.Be2 Bf3 25.Bc3 g4 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.Ne3 Kf7 28.Nxg4 Bxg4 29.Bxg4 Rc2 30.Bd1 Rxb2 31.Rh3 Rg8 32.Rg3 Rh8 33.Be2 e5 34.a4 d5 35.a5 e4 36.dxe4 dxe4 37.a6 Nf3+ 38.Bxf3 exf3 39.Rxf3+ Ke7 40.O-O-O Ra2 41.Re1+ Kd7 42.a7 Ra8 43.Rf7+ Kd6 44.Ree7 Rc8+ 45.Kd1 Rc5 46.Rd7+ Ke6 47.Rh7 Rca5 48.Ke1 R5a4 49.Kf1 Ra1+ 50. Kg2 R4a3 51.Rhe7+ Kf6 52.Rb7 R3a2 53.Rh7 Ke6 54.Rb6+ Kd5 55.Rh5+ Kc4 56.Rb7 Rxa7 57.Rxa7 Rxa7 58.Re5 Kd4 59.f4 Rg7+ 60.Kf3 Rg1 61.Re8 Kd5 62.f5 Kd6 63.Kf4 Kd7 64.Re2 Rg8 65.Ra2 Ke7 66.Ke5 Rb8 67.Rh2 Rb5+ 68.Kf4 Kf7 69.Kg5 Rb6 70.Rh7+ Kf8 71.Ra7 Rc6 72.Ra8+ Kf7 73.Rb8 Ra6 74.Rb1 Rc6 75.Rb7+ Kf8 76.f6 Rc1

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, castling, famous-moves, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Nationality of the Azerbaijan Shakhriyar Mamedyarov and Teimour Radjabov
I hope this kind of question is allowed. In any case, I want to clarify that there is no intention for racism or political arguments, etc. It is just a sincere wonder from the anthropological point of view.

What is the nationality of the Azerbaijani players Mamedyarov and Radjabov?

Do they identify as Azerbaijanis, which is a Turkic nationality, or as Russians who happen to live in Azerbaijan? I think they speak Russian as native language.

Are they Russian Jews living in Azerbaijan? I think this is a possible, and at the same time, very complicated issue in anthropology.

Are they Azerbaijani Jews who just learned Russian as a second foreign language?

# Answer
I have read a lot about them over the years, and I have never heard anything that would lead me to believe that they are anything but true Azerbaijanis, and have both played under that flag forever. Both were born in Azerbaijan while it was still part of the Soviet Union.

Speaking Russian is simply explained by the fact that since both born in Azerbaijan while it was still a republic of the Soviet Union, and no matter where you lived, or your ethnicity, Russian was the official language of the Soviet Union. You might have been bilingual, but you spoke Russian with the masses. I would imagine that even after the Soviet Union fell, they did not automatically switch away from that since it was so pervasive, and easy to talk to more people with.

I have never seen anything written about them being Jewish and the country has a demographic of 97.4% Muslim, 1.1% Christian, and 1.0% None, making that all the more unlikely.

I worked as a Russian translator from 1980-1988 while in the military.
> 7 votes

# Answer
This is in addition to PhishMaster's answer elsewhere:

According to https://www.chess.com/players/shakhriyar-mamedyarov, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov was born in Sumgait, Azerbaijan SSR, Soviet Union, on April 12, 1985. He is the Azerbaijan’s top player, and has becaome the only player ever to win the World Junior Championship twice (winning it in 2003 and 2005). He became a Grandmaster in 2002.

According to https://www.chess.com/players/teimour-radjabov, Teimur Radjabov was born in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR, Soviet Union, on March 12, 1987, the same city as former world champion Garry Kasparov. By 2001, he had earned his Grandmaster norms (at young age of 14) and was competing in Group B of the Corus Tournament at Wijk aan Zee.

It is noteworthy that when he was 16 years old, Radjabov was one of seven participants at Linares 2003. In that tournament, in perhaps one of the most famous games of his career, Radjabov has defeated Garry Kasparov (his fellow Baku native) in 39 moves with the black pieces. The game has been voted the best of the tournament.

Along with other fellow Azerbaijani players, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov and Teimur Radjabov have led their nation to gold medals in the 2013 and 2017 European Team Chess Championship. The two represent the nation’s best chance at a world champion among the current crop of top players.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Why 4... Nxb4 is not played in Evans gambit?
4... Nxb4 is never played on chesstempo database for +2200 players games, being Bxb4 the most popular move.

I don't find any significant change after capturing the pawn with the knight unless after 5. c3, black can play Na6 supporting an eventual c5 to block the a3-f8 diagonal.

If 5...Nc6 it looks the same position as 4...Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5

Stockfish evaluates 4... Nxb4 as =:

Why doesn't this move appear on databases is what I am wondering.

# Answer
It comes down to flexibility. In most cases, Nb4 will end up in the same position, as you said, but Bb4 give you at least two more common alternatives, and a couple less common ones.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Nb4 5. c3 Nc6 (5...Na6?) 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4

```

Compare this with this line where black can play Ba5, Be7, Bc5, and even Bd6 have been played a fair amount of times. It is, generally, favorable to make your opponent worry about more options.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
In my database it actually appears in 131 games, or roughly 1.5%.

The move also isn't objectively bad. But it's unpopular partly because it unnecessarily limits Black's options. After 4...Nxb4 5.c3, Black is practically forced to play 5...Nc6, which transposes to 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 (as you mentioned). Meanwhile, after 4...Bxb4 5.c3, Black has many options (5...Ba5, 5...Be7, 5...Bd6, or 5...Bc5).

There's also the issue that 4...Nxb4 looks unnatural. The knight should generally stay on c6 where it guards the key centre squares e5 and d4. Finally, some people might think allowing 5.Nxe5 is much better for White, even though it actually gives Black a winning advantage after 5...Qf6!.
> 4 votes

# Answer
After 4...Nxb4 5.Nxe5 looks like a very strong reply, gaining the important e5 Pawn almost for free and posing an immediate threat to f7.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, gambits, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Is it a good habit for an amateur to always try to play the best move (according to his best calculation and knowledge)?
Is it a good habit for an amateur to always try to play the best move (according to his best calculation), instead of sometimes purporsely play an inferior move hoping that his opponent does not know how to take advantage of it?

For example, this implies avoiding playing slightly inferior but playable lines such as the exchange variation of Ruy Lopez, the king's gambit, or (as black) the queen's gambit accepted, or setting up a trap which objectively is not the best move in a particular position, but when your opponent does not see through it, you gain some advantage.

I personally feel that purposefully playing an inferior move may be helpful with obtaining advantages (and therefore winning chances) in a particular game, but may not be the best strategy, if not harmful, to one's life-long learning process of chess

So, is it a good habit for an amateur to always try to play the best move?

This question is related. But my question is more about improving one's chess strength instead of winning a particular game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is a complicated question since chess is very complicated, and both board, and time, factors may be part of a decision.

Overall, yes, you should always play the best move probably 99% of the time. If there is a second alternative, but it is not much worse, and you think that your opponent might get caught up somehow, you can consider it. If it is genuinely just bad, then no, avoid it.

Recently, in a game, I was playing someone well below me, and I played a move that sacrificed two pawns, but I played it knowing it was incredibly dangerous, and that he did not have enough time to figure it out. Well, my reasoning was sound until the tournament director walked by, and realized that the increment was set wrong, and was going to add time. My opponent, graciously, offered a draw, which was accepted.

There is one more case that I can think of, and that is if you know the style of your opponent. Let's say he is known not to defend well, and you have the choice between a positional move, and an attacking, but maybe not sound, move. If you are a good attacker, then it might be worth it given his known weaknesses.

Those first openings that you listed are not really inferior, but rather, might not give as much opportunity for an opening advantage, especially the King's Gambit. That is mitigated at lower levels, where opening theory is not memorized as deeply. The QGA is a bit more dangerous as it, generally, does cede a definite slight plus to white.

So situational chess is a thing, but do not go overboard playing horrible moves that can bite you. Also, everything is out the window if you are significantly worse: In that case, do whatever you can to complicate the position, and make it tricky for your opponent.

As far as improving one's strength, and game-situation aside, yes, you should always try to find the best move.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is a fairly simple question, really.

Beyond the opening, you should always try to play the best move. Playing for traps will hinder your development. You learn by playing what you think is the best move and then analyzing why it isn't.

Your openings choices, however, should be primarily concerned with what you're learning and how you're improving rather than what the best move is. The Ruy for example is the best objective choice for white after 1.e4 however it is strategically complex and requires a large understanding of theory. It would be a mistake for a beginner to try and tackle it. Non-professionals should always consider the trade-off between theory and objective analysis and choose appropriate openings. Lower rated players should look more at tactical/classical openings because those are the openings that will help you improve.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I recently had a game against a player rated about 200 points higher. With black, after my opponents 14th move 14. Bd2, I had to make a difficult decision, as my king was still on e8, and my opponent had half-open e- and d-files.

One candidate move was 14. ... O-O, which is also the move the computer recommended later. Instead, I played 14. ... h5 !? (with the idea to play Ng4 later, if possible, or maybe g7-g5-g4 and/or h5-h4-h3). I preferred this move because I recently worked at improving my understanding of such positions. Of course this also means that I considered my winning chances higher in that type of position (I actually won that game), but additionally, I could practice what I had learned recently, so I think that this also helped me to improve.

Regarding openings: I believe that by playing certain "inferior" lines, a player can greatly improve. Consider the kings gambit (which is mentioned in the question), the Morra, the danish gambit, the Traxler - all these openings emphasize tactical patterns, for example a weakness on f2/f7 is a recurring pattern. By playing such openings, you will also learn to look out for such patterns, which is always helpful (also in many other lines).

---
Tags: strategy, ruy-lopez, kings-gambit, queens-gambit-accepted, opening-traps
---


# Question
Title: FIDE rules when opponent accidentally promotes to your Queen
This happened to someone else recently in a time scramble during an OTB game. His opponent promoted a pawn and placed a Queen of the wrong color on the board. He was corrected by the player and the game continued for a bit.

I was wondering what the rules say about this situation.

So if your opponent promotes a pawn to a Queen and accidentally places your Queen on the board instead of his own, can you claim a win because of an illegal move? And if you don't claim, but continue to play on without correcting the situation, is that Queen officially yours?

# Answer
> 13 votes
> So if your opponent promotes a pawn to a Queen and accidentally places your Queen on the board instead of his own, can you claim a win because of an illegal move?

No, you can't. There is no illegal move until the player either presses the clock or makes another move (after the opponent has moved).

Here is what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say:

> 3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight **of the same colour** on the intended square of arrival.
>
> 3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
>
> 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). **This “completes” the move.** A move is also completed if:
>
> 6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or
>
> 6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed.
>
> 7.5.1 **An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock**. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
>
> 7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first **completed** illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second **completed** illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

So, first of all, yes, promoting to the wrong piece is an illegal move (3.7.5.1 and 3.10.2)

Secondly, just making an illegal move does not attract any penalty (other than having to make a legal move with the piece touched or captured). The move only attracts punishment when it is completed (7.5.1 and 7.5.5) by pressing the clock or making a subsequent move.

Thirdly, you cannot claim a win for the first completed illegal move, only for the second (7.5.5). This rule now also applies to rapid and blitz.

> And if you don't claim, but continue to play on without correcting the situation, is that Queen officially yours?

At standard time controls, no. According to 7.5.1 the position before the illegal move must be reinstated and a legal move made.

However, rapid and blitz are different.

> **Appendix A. Rapid chess**
>
> ...
>
> A.4.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move. **If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue.** Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.
>
> **Appendix B. Blitz**
>
> ...
>
> B.4 Otherwise, play shall be governed by the Rapid chess Laws as in Article A.2 and A.4.

In rapid and blitz the standard rules for punishment only apply if there are conditions which will only occur in very high level tournaments, if then. These are that the moves are recorded independently and there are enough arbiters (one per 3 games at rapid and one per game at blitz) to properly see what is going on. Otherwise article A.4 applies and you can keep your extra queen.

# Answer
> 1 votes
That would be an illegal move, so rule 7.5.1 should apply - when it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position before that move shall be reinstated. And yes, you can claim a win due to the illegal move (assuming that in the given situation an illegal move loses - usually when the opponent already made another illegal move before), just as it is also an illegal move to move the pawn to the last rank without replacing it.

---
Tags: rules, fide, pawn-promotion, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Have famous grandmasters ever been checkmated?
Whenever I watch chess games played by grandmasters, they usually resign far before reaching checkmate (often even before a forced checkmate occurs). However, I wonder if there are recent examples of famous grandmasters getting checkmated?

Would be interesting to see how the game looks in order for them to get checkmated. Is there any examples of this?

# Answer
The most recent super Grandmaster level checkmate I can think of is the game Wesley So vs Hikaru Nakamura, Sinquefield, Cup August 2015.

```
[White "Wesley So"]
[Black "Hikaru Nakamura"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. f3 f5 11. Be3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. Nd3 Ng6 14. c5 Nf6 15. Rc1
Rf7 16. Kh1 h5 17. cxd6 cxd6 18. Nb5 a6 19. Na3 b5 20. Rc6 g4 21. Qc2 Qf8 22.
Rc1 Bd7 23. Rc7 Bh6 24. Be1 h4 25. fxg4 f3 26. gxf3 Nxe4 27. Rd1 Rxf3 28.
Rxd7 Rf1+ 29. Kg2 Be3 30. Bg3 hxg3 31. Rxf1 Nh4+ 32. Kh3 Qh6 33. g5 Nxg5+ 34.
Kg4 Nhf3 35. Nf2 Qh4+ 36. Kf5 Rf8+ 37. Kg6 Rf6+ 38. Kxf6 Ne4+ 39. Kg6 Qg5#

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
Yes, although over 10 years old, there is this, which I came across in Soltis' *Studying Chess Made Easy*.

```
[Event "Match"]
[Date "2006"]
[White "Deep Thought"]
[Black "Kramnik"]
[Result "1-0"]
[EventDate "2006.??.??"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "5N1k/q5p1/7p/8/pp2Q3/8/1P4PP/2b4K b - - 0 1"]

1...Qe3 2.Qh7# 1-0

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
In 2019 sinquefield cup round 8 game between Sergey Karjakin and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave , MVL allowed Karjakin to checkmate him.

MVL was appreciated for his sportsmanship.
> 4 votes

# Answer
An example from earlier this week, if admittedly blitz

```
[Event "6th Zurich Opening Blitz"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.04.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pelletier, Yannick"]
[Black "Gelfand, Boris"]
[ECO "D15"]
[WhiteElo "2541"]
[BlackElo "2724"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. b3 O-O 8. Be2 b6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Bb2 Qe7 11. Rad1 Rad8 12. Rfe1 Rfe8 13. Bf1 e5 14. cxd5 e4 15. Ne5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Bxe5 17. dxc6 Bxh2+ 18. Kxh2 Ng4+ 19. Kg3 Qe5+ 20. f4 Qh5 21. Rxd8 Qh2+ 22. Kxg4 h5+ 23. Kg5 Qg3+ 24. Kxh5 g6+ 25. Kh6 Qh4#

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: What strategic plan, for the White player, needed to implemented in the middlegame?
I played a game yesterday on chess.com with the Pirc Defence. I am kind of weak in the endgame but I was concerned about the middlegame plan. Was my approach the wrong one? Why, and where, did I lose?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.05.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "ISeth"]
[Black "qwcnm"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "1954"]
[ECO "B07"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[WhiteElo "1869"]
[EndTime "6:21:19 PDT"]
[Termination "qwcnm won by resignation"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 3.g3 h6 4.Bg2 g5 5.c4 Bg7 6.Ne2 Nd7 7.Nbc3 Nf8 8.Be3 Nf6
9.h3 Ne6 10.d5 cxd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nc5 13.Bd4 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 O-O 15.Bxg7
Kxg7 16.O-O Bf5 17.Qd4+ f6 18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.g4 Bg6 20.Ne4 Nd7 21.Ng3 Ne5
22.Be4 Rac8 23.b3 Qc5 24.Qxc5 Rxc5 25.Bxg6 Kxg6 26.Kg2 a6 27.Ne4 Rc7 28.Rec1
Rec8 29.a4 b5 30.axb5 axb5 31.c5 Nd3 32.Rc3 Nxc5 33.Nxc5 Rxc5 34.Rxc5 Rxc5
35.Rd1 Rc3 36.Re1 Kf7 37.Re3 Rxe3 38.fxe3 e6 39.e4 exd5 40.exd5 f5 41.Kf3
f4 42.h4 Kf6 43.hxg5+ hxg5 44.Ke4 b4 45.Kd4 f3 46.Ke3 Ke5 47.Kxf3 Kxd5
48.Ke3 Ke5 49.Kd3 d5 50.Ke3 d4+ 51.Kd3 Kd5 52.Kd2 Ke4 53.Ke2 d3+ 54.Kd2
Kd4 55.Kd1 Kc3 56.Kc1 Kxb3 57.Kd2 Kc4 58.Ke3 Kc3   0-1

```

You can see that black wasted some tempos with his Knight in the opening, so I decided to strike in the centre with d5 or e5. I played d5 and was expecting some fireworks and tactical superiority, but could not achieve anything.

Can anyone suggest something better?

# Answer
If you look at the position round about move 20 you see that you are already strategically worse. Black has a very good bishop and you have a very bad one thanks to your pawns on c4 and d5. Your pawn on c4 is much weaker in the endgame than black's on e7. You have set up the conditions for black to launch a winning minority attack on the queenside which he eventually did.

Your best chance at that stage in the game was to launch your own kingside attack. To that end you needed to keep pieces on the board and not swap them off as you did. On move 19, instead of g4, double rooks on the e file starting with Re3, then push your f pawn to break open his kingside. His pawns on d6 and e7 form a block making it difficult for him to bring his queen and a8 rook over to the defense. That should give you good chances of winning on the kingside before he wins on the queenside.

As it was you swapped off into a losing endgame.

Going back further in the game you can see that your pawn push to d5 set up the conditions for his win. In that kind of position you should be looking for the e5 push instead. If you can make that work then you will be much better.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Black played the opening against principles: did not develop pieces and did not occupy the center. In order to gain an advantage out of this, you need to act quickly. However you played just normal moves giving black enough time to complete his slow development.

* 4. ... g5?! is rather dubious and you could ask black with h4 or f4 (played immediately or a few moves later) what he wants to do with the pawn there. If after h4 he plays gxh4 you gain the open h-file and play against black's h pawn. If he replies with g4 the pawn on g4 will become weak. Similarly f4, gxf4 will give you the open f-file with attacking chances.
* 10 d5?! this gives black the long diagonal for the bishop on g7 and a decent square on c5 for the misplaced knight on e6. Going for the e4-e5 push (not now but soon, perhaps after f4) seems much more natural to me as it would limit the bishop on g7 and not give any good squares for the knights.
* 19 g4?! You have reached a rather good position. Black has a weak pawn on e7, weak light squares on the kingside and white has no apparent weaknesses. After 19 g4 however you weaken the dark squares on the kingside and allow black to place his knight on its ideal square at e5 where it attacks c4, is centrally placed and cannot be easily removed (only through exchange for the knight or an exchange sacrifice. Before playing g4 you had the option of playing f4 gxf4, gxf4 where black does not have the square e5. An alternative plan here could be to play Kh2 with the idea to follow-up with f4, or perhaps try to take advantage of the weakened light squares by exchanging the light squared bishops and transfer your knight to e6, f5 or h5 and the queen on some light squares as well.
* 20 Ne4 This seems potentially risky as you could end up with the light squared bishop against a very strong knight on e5. Need to evaluate if you get enough play on the b1-h7 diagonal.
* 29 ... b5 Around this point black is taking over and it is probably lost already.
> 2 votes

# Answer
On the basis of a quick glace I put the question mark at 11.Nxd5. You felt the urge to punish Black for eccentric development. I think that you were correct and that 10. d5 was well motivated. But why exchange Knights? That is not a consistent followup. If you play 11. exd5 and he then plays Nc5, you now have 12.b4, leaving you with a big advantage in space and mobility. That was not available with his Bishops diagonal opened up by exchanging Knights. At a guess, your courage was high when you played d5, but then you got a bit nervous and exchanged a piece "to reduce the risk". Even against strong opponents, always ask who will benefit from exchanging. And calculate as far as you can. If you cant see the risk, there is a good chance that it isn't there.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Also interesting is 11.cxd5 with ideas like Nd4, Qe2, 0-0-0 and f4 and press black on the kingside. This seems a bit more solid than 11.exd5, which opens the b1-h7 diagonal for the B on c8, which is blacks problem child. Just some thoughts.
> 1 votes

# Answer
After 3. h6? It's clear as day he's going to play 4...g5. There's no other reason he played this; if you say, *it's to prevent some sort of eventual Bg5*, that's great. Now you can take advantage of his fearful thinking.

The move 4. f4 should have been played not just to prevent this (a defensive move) but more importantly, to control e5 - **an attacking move**. Lastly, it gains kingside space and cramps up the enemy; he doesn't have an adequate response. This move improves your position by a considerable amount. Instead you played 4. Bg2? and now he was able to play his beloved move.

P.S. After 4. f4 Nf6, 5. e5? is a mistake. Now you're just weakening the f5, d5 squares...don't push it.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I would say another important "turning point" of the game is 28.Rec1. This self-pin along the c-file is ugly. Much better, in my opinion, is 28.a4 (eventually played a move too late), allowing White to gain an outside passed pawn should black continue with 28...b5 29.cxb5 axb5 30.a5! and might be good enough to hold for the draw. With the rook remaining on the e-file, the pin along the e-file on the black Re8 might come into tactical play with Nxd6 should black attempt a knight sortie by Nd3: Crazy stuff like this is possible, instead of 28.Rec1: 28. a4 b5 29. cxb5 axb5 30. a5 Nd3 31. Nxd6 Nxe1+ 32. Rxe1 Ra8 33. Nxb5 Rb7 34. Nd4 Rxa5 35. Nc6 Rab5 36. Nxe7+ Kf7 37. d6 is unclear but White is certainly not much worse. Chess is great!
> 1 votes

# Answer
Everything leading up to move 20 is fine: you played with a plan, gained piece activity and space. However, with 20. Ne4 you'd started to wander. You should have taken advantage of your advanced post on e6 and the fact that the rook on e file is tied to the defense of e7. 20. Re6! The threat is to double up on e-file, but if exchange sac is accepted, you would get a dominant position after placing the N on d5.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, planning
---


# Question
Title: How important is playing chess games while you are working on to improve your chess?
I am trying to improve my chess and I spend about one hour in morning doing tactics and around one and half hour in evening studying endgames.

I am following this schedule for about 2 months now and during this time I have not played any chess games. Problem is if I play chess i get less time to look into chess studies.

My thought process is as I am losing many games in lichess and all, I will finish this studies (at least to an extend) and will go back to play chess with my new knowledge in couple of months.

Am I doing this wrong?

How can I go about this?

# Answer
Personally, I think that you have a very solid plan. When I was up-and-coming, I would study a lot every day, but I would only play about two tournaments a year. Up to a certain point, I would pick up about 200 rating points per tournament in the beginning, and later about 100. Of course, as I got over 2000, that slowed down some. Back then, we did not have the Internet, so I would also go to the local chess club for about three hours one night per week.

I would point out that former World Champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, was a big proponent of studying a lot, and only then, playing. Unfortunately, you can still have too much of a good thing, and I believe his rust showed itself when he lost to Tal in 1960.

P.S. I also think it is fantastic that you spend so much time studying the endgame. I read Ruben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" cover to cover as an 1100 player, and to this day, it has still influenced my endgame play. The great thing about endgame work is that not much of it ever changes, and thus, it stays with you for a lifetime.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I would say that it is important to play.

Playing regularly keeps me in touch with reality of my abilities and exposes my weaknesses, and learning after a loss sticks better. For example, let's say I tried minority attack and really butchered it, during the game I might not be really sure about what went wrong, but after analyzing the game, I could see that I was pretty much clueless, then studying minority attack from videos or books would stick better. If I was studying a chapter "Minority Attack" without a loss, I could've (I know I would), overestimate my abilities, in the sense of: "Oh, I would've figured it out", and end up with superficial understanding.

Also, it is important to keep over the board tactics ability refreshed. If I don't play and just do puzzles, I would feel rusty and make blunders.

Carlsen emphasizes the importance of playing in his tips:

Top 13 chess tips

5 tips for beginners
> 4 votes

# Answer
I recall an article in the old Chess Life that said the best way to improve was to stop club play for a year and study. For you Lichess is the same as club play.

Until you are near average in rating there is little value to playing anyone. All you do is pick up bad habits from bad players. Or get clobbered and learn nothing.

I think you are overdoing it a bit. 45 minutes on tactics and another 45 on end games would be useful. If you can really do more without getting tired or bored then go for it but that is time you are not doing other things that are useful besides chess.

I would say wait until you score really well on tests for tactics and end games then start playing against people who are about 50-100 points over your rating. And do not play blitz. Play short games with enough time to think without being rushed too much. G15SD is about right for you. G30 would be the highest. For now G10 even with delay would be a bit too fast.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, study
---


title: How to force Stockfish to make mistake

text:
# Question
Title: How to force Stockfish to make mistake
I developed a bot. It had a 100% win rate and my account was banned. I need to get it to make mistakes but can't force Stockfish to do it. How can I modify Stockfish to make mistakes?

# Answer
> 1 votes
```
setoption name Skill Level value 1
go
setoption name Skill Level value 20

```

---
Tags: stockfish, uci
---


# Question
Title: What does it mean to play "positionally", and how do you train that?
I often hear this term thrown around when people are analyzing chess, but I don't really know what it means. I assume it's a generic term that means to play defensively, or to set up for the future. If that's what it means, how do I learn when it's time to do that, and how to do that? If the meaning is more precise than that, what is it?

# Answer
There are three general types of players: Positional, tactical, and universal, which is being adept and comfortable in both positional and tactical games. Tactical means that you love open positions that require a lot of calculation, and often include all-out attacks.

Positional chess is generally slower, and you work to build small advantages by placing your pieces and pawns on good squares. Using your pieces and pawns effectively, you gradually hope to create pressure and threats that force small (or large, if you are lucky) weaknesses in your opponent's position. Once you have one small advantage, you can often accumulate more small advantages, and with the accumulation of these small advantages, you hope to turn that into one big advantage with a final winning tactical maneuver, or "tactical shot".

I gave a very detailed list of positional elements in this post. Be aware that positional sense is one of the last things that a chess player develops, and it takes a lot of time to develop. Most players are pretty experienced by the time they really start to understand this well.
> 23 votes

# Answer
I think of game time decisions as yin-yang of tactics vs strategy (or positional play). In that order, tactics are the move-by-move calculations with the aim of achieving material gains (or preventing material losses if you are defending). Positional considerations are your intellectual efforts that do not involve precise calculations, but rather have the goal of achieving advantages that are **expected** to bring material gains long term. To summarize, the difference between the two is a concrete result vs an expected result.
> 16 votes

# Answer
As the term goes, it's about planning one's play according to the potentials of the position: which means, to name a few, taking note of the weak points, of the potential improvement of our pieces (e.g. establishing a permanent central post for a knight) and of the prospects the pawn skeleton offers. This allows us to compose a strategic plan that aims to achieve a *positional* edge (e.g. induce a weakness or secure a square for a piece).

As an example for a case of playing positionally according to the *pawn structure*, consider the exchange variation of the QGD, where a typical positional consideration would be to play for the minority attack as white in order to trade the minority queenside pawns for black's pawns and in the process induce a weakened pawn on `c6` for black. See the diagram below which can occur after: `1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2`

* Example game: Seirawan vs Tal 1983, white successfully executes the minority attack and maintains pressure on the `c6` weakness until the end of the game (always stopping `c5` which would allow black to get rid their weak point).

As a side-note that even the `Qc2` move here by white is a positional move: it prevents black from establishing a good light square bishop with `Bf5,` that option ruled out, the `c8` bishop really struggles to become useful in this structure.

Another example of playing *positionally,* pertaining to both establishing a strong central piece by considering the induced weakpoints in the established pawn structure, consider the following Sicilian Najdorf position where black has opted for the `d6-e5` setup and therefore weakning their light squares, in particular the `d5`. So, by taking note of that, one of white's main plans in such positions is to exploit that weakness and establish a permanent knight on `d5.` See the diagram below sketching one such plan:

* How do we make it permanent? The idea is to trade all of black's potential defenders of the `d5` square, namely: the knights and the light square bishop. See e.g. this game between MVL and Nepomniachtchi 2017, where MVL successfully accomplishes this very plan.

In short, to play *positionally* is to make stratetigc plans according to the potentials of the position in terms of pawn structure, piece effectiveness, king safety, etc. Though bear in mind positional and tactical play always go hand in hand as the latter is always needed to concretely execute the former.

As for ways to train your positional understanding: study games of professional players and try to understand their decision makings and what they aimed for (like the above examples), ask yourself a lot of questions in the openings you play and study (what are the moves trying to achieve at a basic level), and try to think of your own positions in terms of principles such as *pawn structure*, *effective pieces*, *king safety* and so on. In terms of examples of players whose games you could look into, Vladimir Kramnik, Mikhail Botvinnik, Emanuel Lasker, Alexandra Kosteniuk ,Yasser Seirawan, come to mind, but of course there are many others to consider.

For more examples of positional type of discussions, you might also find these posts helpful:
> 9 votes

# Answer
Positional play means to play for small advantages in the position rather than for material or a direct attack on the king.

There are a lot of books that go in-depth on the subject. I'll try to keep it simple though. A lot of positional play revolves around improving the mobility of one's own pieces while restricting the mobility of the opponent's. By doing that you increase the "power" of your pieces. There are other concepts as well such as pawn structure, weak squares etc. The basic idea though is to slowly build small advantages until your advantage over the opponent leads to a won game.

It doesn't really mean to play defensively. There are positional openings that build towards attacks. At higher levels, the lines between being a positional player and a tactical player become blurred. For example, you might put your knight in a strong outpost and then use that to create an attack. Really good players don't try to put things in boxes like that.

"set up for the future" might be a little more accurate although I would argue that positional play is playing for now as well even if someone is focused on long-term advantages. Also, there are dynamic positional advantages too like development and the initiative. In those cases the positional player is playing for short term advantages.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The three elements of chess were initially cosidered to be space (position), time (development) and force (material. Of these, material is generally considered to be the most important. But if you are about to be checkmated, it doesn't matter how many pieces you may be ahead by. Thus, a positonal or space advantage can be considered as having control of an important part of the board. Controlling the center for example will give you a positional advantage in the sense that you will have more freedom of movement to develop your pieces and manuever them into favorable positions. Such an advantage will facilitate your developing an attack against the enemy king. Controlling more space with a positional advantage will also tend to restrict your opponent's ability to mount a successful defense. And it's almost axiomatic that tactics tend to flow from a better position.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, terminology
---


title: Stockfish ELO vs search depth

text:
# Question
Title: Stockfish ELO vs search depth
Could Stockfish beat Magnus Carlsen if its moves were calculated with the UCI command "go depth 16"? If not, how can I find the depth "d" at which Stockfish's strength surpasses top GMs?

We assume Magnus has standard time controls, and Stockfish limited only by search depth.

I would love to see a graph of Stockfish ELO (against an opponent with standard time controls) vs search depth. Does anything similar exist?

Context: I'm analyzing GM games to see when humans make mistakes, like this. I want to set my search depth "d" so that when the engine and human moves disagree, I can be confident that the human has made a mistake.

# Answer
> 11 votes
There actually is an ambitiously worked out answer out there:

http://web.ist.utl.pt/diogo.ferreira/papers/ferreira13impact.pdf

On page 77 you get the relevant table:

```
depth: elo:

20    2894

19    2828

18    2761

17    2695

16    2629

15    2563

…

```

So my comment was slightly off, depth 20 is already very strong. Still the point remains, that it is hard to compare search depth between different engines, because it is never brute force and selectively they go much deeper than the given depth. (In the paper they used Houdini 1.5, maybe some engine expert can relate Houdini-search depth to Stockfish search depth.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Deep Blue will have a higher rating as it was a supercomputer. Do note that all chess engines have a higher rating of 3000+, which no human has been able to achieve so far.

I give Deep Blue as an example because there is something called as adaptability. Adaptability is what chess programmers use to make a chess engine preform better. In 1996 when Garry Kasparov beat Deep Blue, IBM enhanced Deep Blue to hide the computer’s weaknesses that Kasparov unfolded during his play. They covered their actions up, strengthened Deep Blue, and then it went on to defeat Kasparov in th 1997 rematch.

Chess engines derive their strength based upon the play/ELo from the best players. If you are just seeing a higher number and make your decision, then that would not be the best way to judge. I would say that Magnus Carlsen’s best play will defeat Stockfish’s best play any day.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, Brainfish 221119 Depth 16 can beat Carlsen even if it only runs at 2000 Kn/s in the starting position. Brainfish 221119 depth 16 has an 2820 ELO rating.

This 2820 ELO Rating is Standard Rating, not Rapid or Blitz Rating.

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


# Question
Title: What can I learn from my "80 average centipawn loss" game, which I thought I played well?
In a LiChess game (Vakeesh vs. becky82), during the game I thought I played well, and won as black without and real complications. Here's the game:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Date "2019.01.23"]
[White "Vakeesh"]
[Black "becky82"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2019.01.23"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. b3 cxd4 9. cxd4 Bb4+ 10. Nd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Qxd4 12. Nf3 Bxd2+ 13. Nxd2 Ne7 14. Bb5+ Nc6 15. Rc1 O-O 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Rxc6 Qxf4 18. Qe2 Rfc8 19. g3 Qd4 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Kf1 Bd3 22. Qxd3 0-1

```

However, the post-game computer analysis gives me a "80 average centipawn loss", which implies that for my average move I blundered the equivalent of 4/5-ths of a pawn. (My opponent had "123 average centipawn loss", outblundering me.) I'm not sure what to think of this.

**Question**: What can I learn from my "80 average centipawn loss" game, which I thought I played well?

It seems I repeatedly played "a good move" rather than "the best move" (as there were often multiple winning moves).

---

*Edit*: I'm after humanly understandable "take home" lessons from the game, which I can apply to other games in general (when using an engine is considered cheating). I'm also after an evaluation of the applicability of the engine analysis (available from the linked game) to a human player trying to improve.

I'm not seeking "this move is better because the computer says so", I'm seeking how I can find the best moves as a human in a tournament game.

# Answer
You are asking two very different question: How to interpret the number 80, and how to make that number go down :-) I'll focus on the first one.

80 means that on average, you overlooked many better moves. What this says about your playing strength depends on how hard those better moves were to discover. In complicated tactical positions higher values are normal. You may miss many opportunities that the computer can see because it looks, say, 10 moves ahead. So the bar is high.

In calm positions the centipawn loss is lower because there are no tactics (as by the definition of "calm"), so as long as you don't blunder your move cannot be a lot worse than the computer's optimal move.

I've had games with a centipawn loss below 20 and above 100 even though, I'd argue, my playing strength was the same. (My) Chess960 games tend to get into complicated tactical positions quickly, for example, so my centipawn loss in those is higher.

Finally, it's an arithmetic mean so it is susceptible to outliers. Many good moves and one blunder will give the same result as just mediocre moves.

You are probably aware that Lichess offers a tool to evaluate your games based on centipawn loss ("Chess Insights", on your profile page).
> 8 votes

# Answer
This is too broad to answer meaningfully, moreover, a one game example provides no real ground for investigating what the weaknesses or strengths of a player may be.

That said, here are a couple of general advice that may help you improve in the long run, specially if you manage to make a **routine** out of them (*by no means an exhaustive list, but these are things you should continuously be doing if you intend to improve your game*):

* Keep working on your tactics! Try to reach an **average of 50 tactics per day** (it's no magic number but it's a good start), and **consider diversifying your source**: thematic combinations, endgame combinations, etc. To diversify, keep solving your lichess tactics, to have a mix of easier puzzles in between (which helps your calculation speed) you can try other websites such as chesstempo. But I strongly recommend getting some of the well-known **tactics books** by John Nunn, or the series of **"The Manual of Chess Combinations"** (chess school 1, 2, 3, by Sergey Ivashchenko, Alexander Mazja et al.) The recommended way is to go about solving them completely mentally (and blindfolded when you can) and only try out your solution once you've been convinced.
* **Keep playing a healthy dose of blitz/rapid games online** (10 games per day is quite feasible), in order to prevent from getting rusty, improving your calculation speed (shorter time controls), and they provide for a casual setting to try out some new lines/openings that you may be interested in learning. Most importantly, irrespective of the result of each game, do go through them afterwards by yourself to realise in hindsight how you could have gone better about the game strategically, and then turn on the engine to see what combinations were missed.
* **Improve your strategic understanding of the game**: Tactics are not sufficient to improve your chess understanding, you need to regularly study top players' games, I suggest starting from Kramnik, Botvinnik or Alekhine (you can choose better based on your style and opening interests): go through a select of their games each day, and try to get into their heads, to understand what they intended to achieve in the opening (more on how to do that) and middlegame (trace out their strategies), to learn how they convert and maintain small advantages, to uncover how they exploit even the smallest weakness in their opponent's camp. In addition to studying other player's games, I highly recommend **solving middlegame-strategy problems** (they are about finding the best strategy, not the best moves per se), and for that the book of **"Chess Middlegame planning"** by Peter Romanovsky makes for a perfect start. Another gem at one's disposal nowadays is **Peter Svidler**'s (among others) commentary and post-analysis of top tournament games (absolutely recommended).
> 6 votes

# Answer
If you aren't a very strong player - by which I mean Master level - then Stockfish is regularly going to find significantly better moves than you do, simply because it can look further ahead in the game with more insight (even if given only a few seconds to think per move). So don't be ashamed of losing "only" 80 centipawns per move on average relative to Stockfish.

The important point in this game is that you played better than your opponent, who was also not a very strong player. So while you didn't exploit your position and available tactics to the utmost possible, you did so *well enough*.

Along with the analysis, Lichess should have identified specific moves where Stockfish thought each player made particularly big mistakes. If you select these moves, and look at the *variation* from the actual game that the engine suggested, you might be able to spot a reason why the suggested move was better. Most likely there was a weakness that you opened in your position, but which your opponent failed to exploit, so check *their* mistakes too - as the engine will certainly choose lines which exploit those weaknesses.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The winner is the person who makes the next to last mistake. Centipawns are meaningless although an interesting guide to how you played and also to make you feel good when you get a low score.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Honestly, do a computer analysis and look at what the computer says are mistake and blunders.

*Now* figure out *why* the computer called them that. Look carefully at the position and the analysis. If you have a (specific) position that bugs you, ask here.

Another alternative is to get a chess coach.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Loss to a master, where did I go wrong? Two knights 4.d3 (black)
```

[FEN ""]
[Date "6/15/2018"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2248"]
[BlackElo "1874"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 Bg4 8. h3 Bd7 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. Re1 Qc7 12. Nf1 Rfe8 13. a3 b5 14. Ne3 g6 15. b4 Nb7 16. d4 cxb4 17. cxb4 Bf8 18. Bb2 Bg7 19. Rc1 Qb8 20. Bd3 Nd8 21. Rc2 exd4 22. Nxd4 Ne6 23. Nxe6 Rxe6 24. Qa1 Qd8 25. f4 Nh5 26. Bxg7 Nxg7 27. Nd5 Rc8 28. Rxc8 Bxc8 29. Bxb5 Bb7 30. Bc4 Qh4 31. Rf1 Ne8 32. Qd4 Bxd5 33. Bxd5 Re7 34. b5 Qg3 35. a4 Qa3 36. Rf3 Qc5 37. Qxc5 dxc5 38. Rc3 Nf6 39. Rxc5 Nxe4 40. Rc6 Kg7 41. a5 Nf6 42. Bc4 Rd7 43. Kh2 Nd5 44. Kg3 Ne3 45. Be2 Nf5+ 46. Kf2 Nd4 47. Ra6 Nxe2 48. Kxe2 Rd5 49. b6 axb6 50. axb6 Rb5 51. Kd3 Rb2 52. Kc3 Rb5 53. Kc4 Rb2 54. Kc5 Kf8 55. Kc6 Rc2+ 56. Kd7 Rd2+ 57. Kc7 Ke7 58. b7 Rc2+ 59. Rc6 1-0

```

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2248

I feel like I lost this game as a result of gradual positional mistakes. Feel free to address any of the following points and suggest improvements in my play, or any other important details in the game:

* 7...Bg4 turns out to be a bit of a waste because in playing 8...Bd7 I felt that I didn't want the bishop sitting on h5 or g6. I think the best choice was an immediate 7...Na5 followed by ...c5.
* After 12...Rfe8 I was planning to switch my bishop over to the long diagonal but I still felt a bit hindered by the fact that I played Bc8-g4-d7.
* I question the move 13...b5. Perhaps I should've stuck to my plan of ...Bf8, ...g6, and ...Bg7. Here I was thinking about a b5-b4 break but I'm thinking that is a bit premature.
* 15...Nb7 I felt was wrong. This isn't a good square for my knight and I probably just stick it on c6, and I don't need to worry about keeping space for my light-squared bishop.
* Perhaps 17...Rac8 was worth considering?
* 19...Qb8 feels kind of ugly. If I had played ...Rac8 earlier, ...Qb8 may not have been so bad.
* Perhaps 21...exd4 was wrong. I know in Ruy Lopez structures black is supposed to hold this tension on e5 usually, but I think I saw ghosts and thought I had something with ...Ne6.
* After 24.Qa1 I felt my position was getting close to losing.
* I think I avoided 28...Qxc8 because I didn't want to give my opponent a tempo with Rc1-c7.
* 36...Qc5 felt like all I had because I didn't want to lose the a-pawn. Was keeping queens on the board a better idea with something like ...Qc1-c7?
* My opponent says I was perhaps wrong to trade knight for bishop with 47...Nxe2, although I thought I was losing regardless.
* The rook ending with the b-pawn most certainly seems lost, whereas with an a-pawn it would have been drawn.

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

# Answer
8... Bd7 was a poor move. Bg4 is understandable as white often plays h3 to prevent it, but if you're going to play it at least follow through with Bh5. Bd7 only serves to give white a free tempo to play h3, which he already wanted to do, and to place your bishop on an inferior d7 square.

11... Qc7 was a bit of a lazy move. What does it accomplish? Something like 11.. b5 to gain space seems a lot more worthwhile. Even Nc6 to further clamp down on d4 after having played c5 would be better.

12.. Rfe8 seems good.

13.. b5 seems good, you're doing what you should have done 2 moves ago. Sure it's a bit weaker now that he has played a3 and b4 comes in more strongly but still a good way to contest for space on the queenside.

14.. Bf8 felt more natural to me, but i understand you want to deny f5. I just don't think it's that scary here and if he goes for d5 instead you've wasted a move.

15.. Nb7 definitely feels a lot more awkward than Nc6. Were you planning to play Nxc5 incase he takes?

16.. c4! Keeping the position closed since your pieces are more weakly placed and gaining space on the queenside was your best decision here I think. As things stand you created a powerful diagonal for his bishop if it can get to b2.

19... Qb8 is a bit ugly, but your real problem was you didn't try to free your rook with a5 on move 20. You already shut it off from the rest of the noard, it's your duty to find it a bit of activity where it's stuck and fight back against your opponent a little.

Yes 21... exd4 was wrong. Your pieces are very badly placed, you trapped your rook on a8, you moved your knight to the back rank and your d7 bishop is only active towards the sides of the board, so opening the center even more is a bit of a crazy thing to do. Getting your knight better placed with 21 .. Nc6 and follow it up by looking to free your a8 rook with an opportune a5 would have been a much better choice. Remember, don't open things in the center when your opponent has better piece placement. Not to mention your d6 pawn became very weak after that.

After Qa1 a potential a5 just becomes even stronger. You are just missing this idea, which has been a good move for many of your turns. If you have to you can always play Nh5 or Ne8 to break the pin, Qd8 is unnecessary and loses a tempo.

29... Bb7 it's nice to see you finally got this bishop to a decent square. Giving up a pawn was worth it, but too little to late.

31.. Ne8 this is the kind of move you can play with a closed center, but with an open one it's far too passive and slow. Nh5 was a better try, though you're still lost. Be careful about exchanging central pawns, it really changes the nature of the game.

Yes, trading the Queens really didn't leave you with good chances, though to be fair you were lost either way. At least you got some good endgame experience out of it which is valuable from a training perspective. It was rough because your king was far away from his passed pawn, and with no central pawns, and pawns on both sides of the board his bishop was superior to your knight. Not to mention his pawns were already far advanced.

Well at least you fought hard, good game. Hopefully this game will give you some good opportunities for growth.
> 3 votes

# Answer
**1. Try to have a plan.** That way you won't develop your pieces just to get them off the back rack. Bc8-g4-d7?? This is where you went wrong (also, I'd play 16...c4).
**2. Look at GM games.** I can't think of any slow Two-Knights games where Black put his Bishop on d7. If you looked over GM games in the lines you play you will develop a sense for where the pieces go. I don't think the B@d7 is not much better than the B@c8. You could have considered Be6 which *is* seen in games; or just leave the Bishop on c8 for now and play like you did with Na5 -- maybe the bishop belongs on b7.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Positional play had some inaccuracies. Bf4 was a loss of tempo.

Note that white morphed the position into a more Ruy like formation which is positional. The two knights tends to be more tactical which you did not see in this game.

But you lost material which made the difference. So the key error was tactical.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I only played the first half and saw no obvious really bad moves. I would say you just got slowly outplayed positionally. Considering the rating difference your play was not bad at all. As they say, after you lost the pawn it was just a matter of technique.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: What is Black's best move in this position?
```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1b1kb2/pp1p2pp/2n1qn2/3P4/3p4/2N4P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 b q - 0 1"]

```

What is Black's best move in this position?

Would black's best move be `Qxe1`?

# Answer
```
[FEN "r1b1kb2/pp1p2pp/2n1qn2/3P4/3p4/2N4P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 b KQkq - 1 1"]

1... Qxe1+ 2.Qxe1+ Ne7 (2... Kd8 3.dxc6 dxc3) 3.d6 dxc3 4.dxe7 Bxe7

```

Yes, Black's "best" move is Qxe1+. His queen is pinned against his king, so it will be lost on the next move whatever happens. Black may as well get as much material back for the queen as possible, which means taking the rook. But then Black is down queen for two minor pieces, with his king stuck in the centre and bad development: he should just resign.

The real question is not "What should I do if I get into this position?" but "How should I avoid getting into this position in the first place?"
> 4 votes

# Answer
Your best move is resign and start another game. If you insist on playing on the QxR on e1 is least worst. But after QxRwith check you will still lose the horsie, leaving you a Q and an exchange down.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Where did I go wrong this game?

text:
# Question
Title: Where did I go wrong this game?
So I'm what I would call a half-good to OK player, and I have the app chess free on my phone. I play against that AI all the time, and on level 6, I have a pretty bad win record (18%). I decided to try and teach myself how to perform sound sacrifices, and in the process played this game. Where the heck did I go wrong?

```
[FEN "..."]
1. e3 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. d4 Nf6
6. Qe2 e4 7. Nh3 Bd7 8. Nc3 a6 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 10. a3 Qd7
11. f3 O-O-O 12. b3 Nh5 13. fxe4 dxe4 14. Qxh5 f5 15. Qe2 h6
16. O-O g5 17. a4 g4 18. Nf4 h5 19. Qf2 h4 20. Ng6 g3
21. hxg3 hxg3 22. Qxf5 Qxf5 23. Rxf5 Rh8g8 24. Ne5 Rd8f8 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8
26. Nxc6 bxc6 27. Nxe4 Rg8 28. Bb2 Rg6 29. Rf1 Kb7 30. Nc5+ Kb6
31. Nd7+ Ka5 32. Bc3+ Bb4 33. Rf5+ c5 34. Rxc5#

```

I have the black pieces in the game.

# Answer
12. b3 Nh5 following
13. fxe4 leading to losing your knight (did not see the discovered attack)
14. Qxh5

To save the knight you would have needed to play pawn g6 on 13. instead of playing dxe4

Playing back to Nf6 will get you forked with white moving pawn to e5 on move 14.

It is all down the hill from then on.

Also on 31.

Moving the King out into the wild is also problematic as you saw with the pinned bishop and the checkmate with the rook!
> 4 votes

# Answer
The move 12. Nh5, losing a knight, is what lost the game. The rest, as they say, is a matter of technique. If you thought that was a sound sacrifice then you need to study more openings and tactics.

17. g4 was bad for black.

You missed 19. d5, winning another bishop. Additionally, you should not have let black play to open up the kingside by letting your pawn attack the queen. and pawn together.

Black putting the king on a5 was asking to be mated and end it.

White opened poorly. You should have been more aggressive in punishing that. And made fewer mistakes than white did.

White played poorly. Clearly you played even less good.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: How is this a “draw by three-fold repetition”?
How is this a **draw by three-fold repetition**? Following my last move, the app notified me of a draw by three-fold repetition.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.Nf3 Nc6 2.Nc3 h6 3.d3 Nd4 4.Qd2 a6 5.Qe3 Nf6 6.Qxd4 Rb8 7.Qh4 d5 8.Qd4 a5 9.Qxd5 Rh7 10.Qxa5 Qd6 11.Qd5 e5 12.Qxd6 Rh8 13.Qxe5+ Kd8 14.Qd5+ Bd7 15.Qf5 h5 16.Qxh5 Rh6 17.Qxh6 Ng4 18.Qh4+ Kc8 19.Qxg4 Be7 20.Qxg7 Be6 21.Qxf7 Bb4 22.Qxe6+ Kd8 23.Qc4 Bf8 24.Qf4 Ke7 25.Qxf8+ Kd7 26.Qxb8 Ke7 27.Qxb7 Kf6 28.Qxc7 Kg6 29.Qc4 Kg7 30.Ng1 Kf8 31.Nb1 Kg7 32.Qc3+ Kg6 33.Qd2 Kf6 34.Qd1 Kf5 35.Qd2 Kg4 36.Qe3 Kh5 37.d4 Kg6 38.c4 Kf7 39.b4 Kg8 40.a4 Kf8 41.Qa3 Ke8 42.e4 Kd7 43.Qf3 Kc8 44.Qf5+ Kb7 45.f4 Kc7 46.g4 Kb8 47.h4 Kc7 48.a5 Kc6 49.a6 Kd6 50.a7 Kc7 51.a8=R Kb6 52.R8a4 Kb7 53.b5 Kb8 54.b6 Kb7 55.Qd5+ Kb8 56.b7 Kc7 57.Qe5+ Kd7 58.b8=R Kc6 59.Rbb4 Kd7 60.Qb5+ Kd6 61.c5+ Ke7 62.c6 Kf7 63.c7 Kf8 64.c8=R+ Ke7 65.Rcc4 Kd8 66.d5 Ke7 67.d6+ Kf8 68.d7 Kg7 69.d8=R Kg6 70.Rdd4 Kh6 71.Qd5 Kh7 72.e5 Kg7 73.e6 Kh6 74.e7 Kh7 75.e8=R Kh6 76.Ree4 Kg6 77.f5+ Kg7 78.f6+ Kh8 79.f7 Kg7 80.f8=R Kg6 81.Rff4 Kh7 82.Qh5+ Kg8 83.Rf3 Kg7 84.Rfh3 Kg8 85.Ree3 Kf8 86.Re2 Kg8 87.Reh2 Kg7 88.Rd1 Kf8 89.Bf4 Ke7 90.Rcc3 Kf6 91.Rcf3 Ke6 92.Rbb2 Ke7 93.Rbg2 Ke6 94.Rgg3 Ke7 95.R4a2 Ke6 96.Rag2 Kf6 97.g5+ Kf5 98.g6+ Kf6 99.g7 Ke7 100.g8=R Kf6 101.Rga8 Ke7 102.R8a2 Kf6 103.Raf2 Ke7 104.Qg5+ Kf7 105.h5 Ke6 106.h6 Kf7 107.h7 Ke6 108.h8=R Kf7 109.Be5+ Ke6 110.Qg4+ Kxe5 111.Qh4 Ke6 112.Rb8 Ke5 113.Rbb2 Ke6 114.Rdd2 Ke5 115.Rde2+ Kd6 116.Rbd2+ Kc6 117.Rdd3 Kb7 118.Rde3 Kc8 119.Rf4 Kb8 120.Nf3 Kb7 121.Nd4 Kc8 122.R4f3 Kb8 123.Re4 Kb7 124.R2e3 Kb6 125.Bc4 Kc7 126.Ba6 Kb8 127.Bb7 Kc7 128.Bd5 Kb8 129.O-O Kc7 130.Na3 Kd6 131.Nab5+ Kd7 132.Rae1 Kc8 133.R4e3 Kb8 134.Na3 Kc8 135.Nb1 Kc7 136.Na3 Kd6 137.Nb1 Kc5 138.Nc2 Kxd5 139.Nca3 Kc5 140.Nc4 Kc6 141.Ne5+ Kb6 142.Nd7+ Kb5 143.Nc5 Kxc5 144.Na3 Kb6 145.Nb5 Ka5 146.Na7 Ka6 147.Rd4 Kb7 148.Rde4 Ka8 149.Ref4 Kb7 150.Rfg4 Kb6 151.Nc6 Kc7 152.Na7 Kb7 153.Nb5 Kb8 154.Nd6 Ka7 155.Nb5+ Kb8 156.Nc7 Kc8 157.Na8 Kb7 158.Nc7 Kb6 159.Nd5+ Kb7 160.Nb6 Kc6 161.Nc8 Kb7 162.Ne7 Kb8 163.Nc8 Kxc8 164.Qd8+ Kxd8 165.Kh1 Kd7 166.Ra1 Kd8 167.Ree1 Kc7 168.Reb1 Kc6 169.Ree1 Kd6 170.Rec1 Ke6 171.Rff1 Kd6 172.Rfd1+ Ke7 173.Rff1 Ke6 174.Rfe1+ Kf6 175.Rgg1 Kf5 176.R3g2 Kf6 177.Rga4 Kf5 178.Rha3 Kf6 179.Rga2 Kf7 180.Rhb2 Kf6 181.Kh2 Kf5 182.Kh3 Kf6 183.Kh4 Kf5 184.Kg3 Kf6 185.Kf4 Kf7 186.Ke4 Ke7 187.Kd5+ Kd8 188.Rh2 Kd7 189.Rh1 Kd8 190.Rf2 Kd7 191.Rff1 Kd8 192.Rah3 Kd7 193.Rhe3 Kd8 194.R4a3 Kd7 195.Rad3 Kd8 196.Re4 Kd7 197.Rd4 Kd8 198.Kc5+ Kc8 199.Kd5+ Kd7 200.Ke5+ Ke7 201.Kf5+ Kf8 202.Kg5+ Kg7 203.Kh5+ Kh8 204.Kg5+ Kg7 205.Kf5+ Kf8 206.Ke5+ Ke7 207.Kd5+ Kd8 208.Kc5+ Kc8 209.Kb5+ Kb8 210.Ka5+ Ka8 211.Kb5+ Kb7 212.Kc5+ Kc7 213.Kd5+ Kd8 214.Ke5+

```

# Answer
FIDE rules, 5.1:

> d. The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)

FIDE rules, 9.2:

> The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time ***(not necessarily by a repetition of moves)***: ...

The emphasis is mine, and that's what happened here. The position was repeated 3 times, but the moves weren't. However, that is still a draw.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Your diagram does not work on my computer. Draw by repetition is when a player repeats the SAME *POSITION* 3 times.
They do not have to repeat immediately during only three moves.

Same means same person on move, nothing different like castling or pawn moves or captures. Position can take several moves to come back to the same one and the in between positions do not matter.

I am not going to play over that game on my physical board to find it but if the computer said so then there were three repetitions.

Look at the position after your moves 200 206 and 214 and see if the position is not the same with the same person having moved.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: draw, threefold-repetition, claim-draw
---