title: Losing to low rated players

text:
# Question
Title: Losing to low rated players
I’ve been having this problem for a while and every answer on the Internet I see is "Oh just dont be too confident.” But that’s not the issue I have as I try my hardest in all my chess games. I’m rated 1600 on average. Lately I’ve been swinging to 1660 as I practice every day. I regularly crush 1300-1500 players and find my favorite games are against those in the 1600 range because I feel it’s the most even of a match for me.

However, when I play on chess.com (I have an account there from when I first started playing) I’m playing 800-900 rated players, and I easily have a 30% win rate. I cannot even begin to understand why the play I see from scholastic rated players trumps that of 1600 rated players without a single doubt.

This must have some kind of outside source, as when I play OTB chess with actual players who are most likely around 800-900 I have no problem beating them and enjoy sharing with them the good/bad moves of the game we played.

Pardon the salt, I know losing is part of the game but it feels pretty awful to work really hard and get good at chess just to be consistently beaten by beginners.

# Answer
> 14 votes
A rating of 1600 shows the progress you made since starting that account, but (no offense) it isn't really that high either.

1600-rated players also blunder and make mistakes, even when playing against 900-rated ones. I expect a 1600-rated player to blunder less. A 1600-rated player that drops a queen, or misses a fork, or whatever will still have a difficult time against a 900-rated player.

Comparing your level with the one from your opponents only means that you make less mistakes and less blunders, and are better at capitalizing on the play of your opponent.

It is a bad indicator of who will win the game, at least on these levels. Once you get in the 2100+ rating range, it will say something about the possible outcome.

# Answer
> 14 votes
Well, if your statistics are accurate (and not just based off games you remember), then there are a few possibilities:

1) The 1300-1500 players you play in OTB in your area are overrated. Or

2) The 800-900 players online are underrated.

Also, if you think you're good at chess but are beaten by these players online, are they really beginners? Online ratings especially at a low level aren't always representative of playing strength.

# Answer
> 11 votes
A couple things come to mind: First, you may have a subconscious let down when playing weaker players. Try to concentrate more, and make sure you use your time well against them. Try to stay ahead on the clock.

The other thing is "WHEN do you lose to them"? When I was younger, I was a KILLER blitz player then, and I would often win 10 in a row against even competition that was my level OTB, but I would start to falter after that. Of course, this was not hard-and-fast rule every time, but mental fatigue sets in; and for me, it was around that 10th game. If you are losing to them after having played for quite a while already, that may also explain it.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Since it seems your 1600+ rating is over the board (OTB) and the times you tend to lose to players with ratings much lower than yours is when you play online, I will mention a possibility not raised yet: Playing online is not the same for everyone as playing OTB. I myself suffer from this; I find I'm a stronger player OTB than online. There are other people I've talked to who find this about their play. Not surprisingly, there are also people who say they play better online than OTB.

The following is a bit of speculation about my own issues playing online that might prove helpful - or at least informative - for others. When I'm sitting across from an opponent with a board and pieces between us, the game seems more "real" and I concentrate better. Online play presents a different feel - there's no opponent to see and the board and pieces are just pixels on a screen. Part of my issue may be that I played computer chess for years before I started playing over the Internet; thus I'm accustomed to taking back a move if I miss something in computer chess. Even though I try to remind myself that I can't take back a move, I just don't seem to maintain concentration as well when playing online.

# Answer
> 4 votes
On chess.com, a rating of 1200 is around 70th to 80th percentile of active players in that time control.

So someone 900 or 800 is probably ABOVE AVERAGE in that time control, (50th percentile), drawing from the pool of active players on chess.com, who are probably stronger and more sophisticated than normal people.

Also you might be less used to crazy and aggressive play. You will have to calculate and defend accurately to beat "coffeehouse" style play.

# Answer
> 4 votes
What ratings and at what speed. Ratings are not transferable between different types of chess, organizations doing the ratings, and the speed of the time control.

You might be 1600 somewhere but those 800 people you lose to in their usual arena might be 2000 if they played where you got your 1600.

Compare apples to oranges including time control and where the rating is from.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know why, but 40-50% of the players in this range on chess.com play like 1600-1700 every game of three and then quickly lose one or two in the first few moves for the others. It ruins the entire rating system.

Check their games history, you can easily write a script to detect this or even just eyeball it.

My two competing theories are:

1. They're using assistance, enjoy this sort of "play", and sandbag so as not to get banned / caught. The site mods DGAF about this level of play, and don't screen here, so it continues.
2. There are millions upon millions of unknown very advanced players from every part of the world, who for reasons unknown somehow never advance just on the online sites, and also never show OTB anywhere (and most of these typically don't keep accounts active for too long...) Players anywhere in between "I just learned to move the pieces" and "I play solid positional games and never hang pieces" are extremely rare online (at this rating level).

Statistics could tell the difference between 1) and 2) if the sites really cared. They don't, because $$$.

Meanwhile until 1) or 2) is demonstrated true, if you play in the 800-1400 range, your online elo is 400-1000, and you get a "bimodal" feel - either you beat your opponent easily and it's boring,perhaps hitting a stupid "my opponent is losing this in the first 5 moves, there's no way this is unintentional at the rate it happens" sort of game. Or - they'll play uncannily well, (like, perfect 20 move complex endgames with mere seconds per move, couple of low centipawn loss "mistakes" peppered in the opening for spicy...) and almost nothing in the middle.

The only solution that worked was burning the account and starting over with a default 1200. Instant difference, opponents feel human and are easier on average than at the \< 1000 ratings. Do this and you won't see nearly any of this weirdness.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It's also mathematically perfectly normal to lose sometimes against lower ranked players. I'm not sure what formula you used for your (and your opponents rating) but often it's the case that a 400 rating difference means you with 9 out of 10 games. - That's still quite a few losses, and due to people remembering blunders more than average games, you might see a confirmation bias.

Also at larger elo differences elo becomes less accurate. In Elo rated chess any rating below 1000 is scrapped and you're supposed to reset your rating, otherwise the mathematical underlying principle breaks down.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Two years ago I played a certain player about five times on chess.com. He seemed to rapidly get better. Our last game vanished after a few moves. Looked up his handle and discovered he had been banned for unsportsmanlike conduct. Online ratings are not to be taken seriously.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You are making a very common and fundamental error. Ratings are not absolute measures of chess ability. They are always and only relative measures of the players playing in that particular forum at that time. Even then they may deceive.

It sometimes happens that a very young player plays a few FIDE rated rapids and gets a modest rating. They then don't play their next rapid until already an IM or GM.

For instance, take a look at Gukesh's rating progress chart. He starts playing FIDE rated chess in August 2013 and gets a standard rating of 1291. He plays his first rapid in October 2013 and gets a rating of 1286. He plays no more rapids until April 2018 when his standard rating is 2401 while his rapid rating has remained at 1286. He plays rapids infrequently and it isn't until October 2022 that his rapid rating gets to within 100 points of his standard rating.

His example is extreme but still happens quite often with strong Indian players.

# Answer
> -1 votes
It's ok. I have lost to 200's in chess and I'm getting close to 900. I also beat a 2200 before, so sometimes it might be perfectly normal.

---
Tags: learning, online-chess
---


title: Forced Mate (differently)

text:
# Question
Title: Forced Mate (differently)
I was wondering if there was a move so bad in chess that if you played it the only move your opponent could do was checkmate you back, through blocking your piece or through moving the king. It would definitely require a discovered check of some sorts but I can't think of any position that would work.

# Answer
See item #334 in Krabbé's Chess Diary https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary17txt.htm for candidates for "the worst move possible", in the sense that you have many moves, all of which are mate in 1 (or in one case lead inevitably to mate in 2) except for a single move that forces the opponent to checkmate *you*!

For instance, in this legal position, White has 48 legal moves, of which 47 deliver checkmate, and 1 (Qe6+) gives a forced checkmate in 1 to Black:

```
b2rQQQ1/3P1p1Q/3r1k2/2pP1N1Q/4KRPp/5P2/1R6/B3nn2 w - - 0 1

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
Yes it exists, and there are even many problems created where one side aims at forcing the other one to mate - they are called selfmates problems.

A simple example: White: Kh6,Ph5,Qa7 Black: Kh8,Qg8

1.Qg7?? forces Black to mate with 1...Qxg7#
> 3 votes

# Answer
This reminds me of a game that GothamChess once had in one of his videos:

```
[fen "3r4/6Q1/5p1p/4p2p/3PBP2/P3P1Pk/1q5p/2R3K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bg2 Qxg2# {only move} (1. Bf5# {White had mate-in-1} 1-0) 0-1

```

White to move could have gone Bf5#.

But instead, they went Bg2+, which not only was not mate, but also left black with the only move ..Qxg2#.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: problems, selfmate
---


title: Looking for a basic assessment

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for a basic assessment
I'm looking for an app that after I play a game of chess (or 3) will tell me if I'm a beginner or intermediate. Not looking for an app to teach me or to assess the game move by move. Does anyone know the best chess app (for Android) for this?

# Answer
There is no "best app". However the chess.com app should give you a reasonable guesstimate after 5 games. After 24 your rating will be more refined. 3 chess games is generally not enough to (accurately) determine your skill. If you don't like chess.com there are plently of others, such as lichess and chess clock.
> 2 votes

# Answer
No app will give you a better assessment than what you'd get from asking a random human chess player. There are just too many unknowns:

* First, there's no objective definition of a barrier between beginner and intermediate. If an app like the one you ask for existed, it'd just be taking the developer's personal opinion as fact and giving you an answer from there.
* There's also the problem that chess engines don't really have a concept of difficulty. It's possible to take a game and calculate by how much it deviates from the perfect-ish play of a computer, but it won't know how likely other humans are to make similar mistakes.
* Finally, chess engines are designed to assess individual positions. Any criteria you use to aggregate over an entire game will be arbitrary.

In short, since the answer to your question will always be subjective, you may just as well answer a bunch of us directly for our opinions rather than using a piece of software as an intermediary. Would you mind showing some of your games?
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, online-chess, beginner, android
---


title: Bishop and Rook versus Queen

text:
# Question
Title: Bishop and Rook versus Queen
Is a bishop and rook better than a queen in most endgames with pawns still on the board?

I'm aware that bishop and rook is technically 1 point of material less than a queen, however, would the fact that there are two pieces versus one make up for this?

# Answer
According to GM John Nunn in his book *Understanding Chess Endgames*:

> A queen is usually worth more than a rook and a minor piece, but whether this material imbalance offers winning chances depends very much on the position.

He gives two examples, one where the side with the queen wins and one where it is a draw. The key factor, he says, is the relative stability of the bishop - whether it can find a safe outpost where it can't be dislodged by a pawn. In the first game the bishop never finds a safe outpost and eventually loses.

```
[Title "Kramnik - Shirov, Wijk am Zee 1999"]
[fen "r5k1/p3pp1p/6p1/2b5/4P3/5Q2/P4PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qc3 Rc8 2. Kf1 Rc7 3. a4 Bb6 4. Qe5 Rc2 5. a5 Bc5 (5... Rxf2+ 6. Ke1 Be3 7. Qxe7 Rc2 8. e5 {is also unpleasant for white}) 6. f4 e6 7. g4 Rc4 8. Qc7 h6 9. f5 gxf5 10. gxf5 exf5 11. exf5 f6 12. Qg3+ Kf8 13. Qg6 Bd4 14. Qxh6+ Ke7 15. Qf4 Kd7 16. h4 Ra4 17. Qe4 Kd6 18. h5 Ra1+ 19. Ke2 Be5 20. Qb4+ Kd5 21. Qb7+ Kc4 22. h6 Ra2+ 23. Kf3 1-0

```

In the second game black has a good, safe outpost on c4.

```
[Title "Nunn - Khurtsidze, Lucerne 1999"]
[fen "r5k1/5p1p/4bp2/1p2p3/4P3/8/2P2PPP/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. g4 h6 2. Kg2 Kg7 3. Kg3 Ra4 4. f3 Ra8 5. Qd2 Re8 6. h4 Bc4 7. Qd7 (7. f4 exf4+ 8. Kxf4 Re5 {and black has a fortress}) Re6 8. Kf2 Ra6 9. Qe7 Re6 10. Qd8 Ba2 11. Ke3 Bc4 12. Kd2 Ba2 13. Kc3 Bc4 14. Qd2 Ba2 15. Kb4 Bc4 16. Qf2 Ra6 17. Qg3 Re6 18. Kc5 Kg6 19. Qg2 Kg7 20. Qd2 Kg6 21. Qg2 Kg7 22. g5 fxg5 23. hxg5 hxg5 24. Qxg5+ Kf8 25. Qg2 Rg6 26. Qh2 Re6 27. Qh8+ Ke7 28. Qg8 Rg6 29. Qb8 Re6 30. Qh8 Bf1 31. Qh1 1/2-1/2

```

and white can't break through.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Generally the opposite is true -- in most cases, a queen is preferable to a rook and bishop. You mentioned having two pieces versus one, but splitting up the queen's powers into two pieces is actually a disadvantage (usually). That's why a rook and bishop is considered around 8 while a queen is 9.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As usual, it depends. In addition, here is a situation (had it in praxis myself) where two figures are better: Passers (own as well as enemy). R+N can force through an own passer (R+B less, the old block-on-bishops-blind-color problem) as well as safely block an enemy passer.

Also as usual, all modulo unstable pieces (which tend to become queen snack).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: The case of the mysterious retreating bishop
In the following position from a Caro-Kann fantasy gone wrong, the engine suggests 15.Bf2 with advantage of (+2.5) among other close-by candidates such as Bf4 (+2.2) and Rfe1 (+2.0).

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1n1pp1/1np1p2p/4P3/2PP4/2PQBN2/P5PP/1R3RK1 w - - 2 15"]

1. Bf2

```

But why? On the surface level, I see some immediate disadvantages:

* Primary: Blocks in the f-rook.
* Medium: Disallows Bd2 to defend against Na4. (Though Qc2 can also do that.)
* Lesser: Reduces control over Qg5 and removes possibility of (unlikely) Bxh6.

I do see some smaller advantages:

* Bg3 supports an eventual Nd6.
* Out-of-pawn-chain mobility: Bh4 is possible to control f6 and d8.
* Bishop is "less vulnerable"... though it is unclear what could attack it anyways. f5-f4 looks silly since exf6 creates an isolated e6 pawn.
* If Rfe1 is next, it's advantageous to have already vacated the e-file.

# Answer
I think this has to do with central pawn play, in particular white's e-pawn and black's c-pawn.

White's pawn on e5 is *very* valuable, and must be protected, and c5 is black's only good pawn break to open the position.

When c5 eventually gets played, the e-pawn is suddenly under a lot of pressure. Taking on c5 would break the pawn chain with tripled pawns, black already has a knight on d7, and queen to c7 would add yet another attacker.

White thus has two main goals:

* Add defenders to the e-pawn
* Keep some control over the c5 square.

Here we see the main moves crystallize out: Moving the rook to e1 adds a defender, and Bf4 or the Bf2-Bg3 manoeuvre recruits the bishop as well (both unblocking the future e-file rook). The difference between the two bishop moves is that Bf2 keeps the bishop on the same diagonal as the key c5 square.

A concrete variation to illustrate this difference:

Black can attack the queen, threaten a fork, and thus achieve c5, for some activity and a still somewhat playable position

```
[title "Bf4"]
[fen "r2q1rk1/pp1n1pp1/1np1p2p/4P3/2PP4/2PQBN2/P5PP/1R3RK1 w - - 0 4"]

1.Bf4 Nc5 2.Qe2 Nca4 3.Qc2 c5

```

The same line would go horribly wrong if the bishop moved to f2 instead, ending up in black losing a knight.

```
[title "Bf2"]
[fen "r2q1rk1/pp1n1pp1/1np1p2p/4P3/2PP4/2PQBN2/P5PP/1R3RK1 w - - 0 4"]

1.Bf2 Nc5 2.Qe2 Nca4 3.Qc2 c5 4.dxc5

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: Can a castling checkmate be engineered from this position?
I get the following position pretty often in online bullet as White. It's mate in a few (for instance, 9. Bf4+ Kc5 10. Qd5+ Kb6 11.Qb5#). Needless to say, the setup is dubious.

This looks like a prime candidate for achieving ***castling with checkmate***. Black's king is running, their officers are passive, and many forcing lines exist.

```
[Title "Silly bullet trap"]
[fen ""]
[StartPly "16"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 { C44 Scotch Game } 4. Ng5? h6 5. Nxf7?? Kxf7 6. Bc4+ Ke8?? 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qf7+ Kd6

```

Several ideas come to mind. For instance, it may be possible to open the d-file, mating by queenside casting. Or maybe the king may somehow be shepherded down to the a1 corner, with a kingside castling.

However, I cannot find concrete ways to do either. Can this be engineered? Sequences wherein checkmate by castling is merely one of several ways Black can choose to be mated are also be acceptable.

# Answer
Sadly, it looks like it can at least not be forced. Black can chose to lose in the 9.Bf4+ Ne5 10.Qd5+ Ke7 11.Qxe5# line, and there's nothing white can do about it.

It is however possible to construct a full sound game tree where some of the nodes are castle mates, with all other nodes also leading to (regular) checkmates.

```
9.Bf4+
    Ne5 10.Qd5+ Ke7 11.Qxe5#
    Kc5 10.Qd5+
        Kb6 11.Qb5#
        Kb4 11.Nc3
            dxc3 12.bxc3+
                Kxc3 13.Bd2+
                    Kb2 14.Qd3
                        Kxa1 15.Bc3+ Kb1 16.O-O#
                        Nd4 15.Qc3#
                        Na5 15.Qc3#
                        (all others) 15.Qb3+ Kxa1 16.O-O#
                    Kxc2 14.Qd3+ Kb2 15.Qb3+ Kxa1 16.O-O#
                Ka3 13.Qb5
                    Qg5 14.Qb3#
                    (all others) 14.Bc1#
                Ka4 13.Qb5+ Ka3 Bc1#
            Bc5 12.a3+ Ka5 Qxc5+ b5 Qxb5#
            b5 12.Qxb5#
            (all others) 12.a3#

```

```
[Title "Desired result"]
[fen ""]
[StartPly "16"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 { C44 Scotch Game } 4. Ng5? h6 5. Nxf7?? Kxf7 6. Bc4+ Ke8?? 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qf7+ Kd6 9. Bf4+ Kc5 10.Qd5+ Kb4 11. Nc3 dxc3 12. bxc3+ Kxc3 13. Bd2+ Kxc2 14. Qd3+ Kb2 15. Qb3+ Kxa1 16. O-O#

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, puzzles, castling, preparation, opening-traps
---


title: Pawn exchanges in e4&d4 openings

text:
# Question
Title: Pawn exchanges in e4&d4 openings
I'm just learning. I'm at a loss to deal with the opening razzamatazz where white's pawns are at the centre and under attack by Black's pawns & knights-does one defend the pawns by bringing in the heavy pieces or just cede the center? I think this is a question answered by exchange theory but I cannot find a suitable and comforting answer.

# Answer
One should not cede the center without receiving other valuable advantages. Giving more specific advice is difficult. Center control is a continuum from classical to modern & hypermodern ideas. Action depends on the position, your style & opening, and the opponent's responses. Amateurs, like myself, tend to make too many pawn moves in the opening. Pay attention to development.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Is Elo conserved?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Elo conserved?
Does the average elo of a group that plays only amongst themselves stay constant?

For example, say 100 players start with 2000 rating and they play only amongst themselves many times. Will their total Elo remain at 2000\*100, decay, or increase over time?

I'm asking this because if the top 10-20 players keep playing super tournaments, will their rating be higher or lower or same as their actual strength?

# Answer
After a game, the new rating for a player is updated according to the formula:

```
r' = r + K · (s - E[S])

```

...where r is the elo rating, K is a "constant" factor, s is the score (i.e. 1 for win, 0 for loss, 0.5 for draw), and E\[S\] is the expected score (e.g. Magnus Carlsen has E\[S\] = 0.9999999 against Average Joe).

Player A and player B have a total score of `s_A + s_B = 1`, since either exactly one player wins, or both players draw. By the proof given on Wikipedia, player A's expected score `E[S_A]` and player B's expected score `E[S_B]` also sum to 1, i.e., `E[S_A] + E[S_B] = 1`.

Thus, if `K = K_A = K_B`, the total new rating of the players after the game is:

```
r_A' + r_B' = r_A + r_B + K · ((s_A + s_B) - (E[S_A] + E[S_B]))
            = r_A + r_B + K · ((1) - (1))
            = r_A + r_B

```

That is, **the total rating is conserved** after a game iff `K = K_A = K_B`.

In Elo's original work, `K = K_A = K_B = 10` is symmetric, but more modern rules may sometimes use asymmetric factors for `K_A, K_B` depending on the situation.
> 19 votes

# Answer
It depends.

If they play games at the same rate (i.e nobody plays 2 more games than anyone else) and nobody's rating goes up to 2400 (or 2300 if they are all juniors) and nobody dies or moves away (unless they do so when their rating is exactly 2000) and nobody new joins and all of the players are either juniors (U18) and remain juniors or adults, then yes, total rating will remain constant.

The reason for all these carve outs is the way the ratings are calculated uses a fudge factor "K" which depends on these things and can introduce asymmetry into the calculations whereby when two players play the result can see one player gain/lose more or fewer ratings points than the other player loses/gains.

Here is the relevant section of the rules:

> 8.3.3 **K is the development coefficient**.
>
> K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until they have completed events with at least 30 games.
>
> K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
>
> K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
>
> K = 40 for all players until the end of the year of their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
>
> If the number of games (n) for a player on any list for a rating period multiplied by K (as defined above) exceeds 700, then K shall be the largest whole number such that K x n does not exceed 700.
> 13 votes

# Answer
You don't mention what country is under consideration.

Some jurisdictions may apply "participation points" to encourage play, and "feedback points" to offset accelerations enjoyed by your opponents. These policies are not conservative.

At one time (unsure if this is still the case) the Chess Federation of Canada used participation points. The Elo system used by the North American Scrabble Players Association uses both acceleration and feedback points.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: elo
---


# Question
Title: Who was the last Indian player to beat Vishy, and when?
The question came to mind following today's game between Vishy (Viswanathan Anand) and the young Raunak Sadhwani at the Isle of Man 2018 Tournament. Has Vishy been beaten by an Indian player since, say, the mid-90s?

# Answer
> 12 votes
The answer is: Yes

```
Krishnan Sasikiran vs Viswanathan Anand
FIDE World Cup-C (2002), Hyderabad, rd 2, Oct-05
King's Indian Attack: Yugoslav Variation (A07)
1-0

```

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1357060

# Answer
> 4 votes
Given this question was asked a while ago, the answer has obviously changed. Pentala Harikrishna won a classical game against Anand in the 37th European Chess Club Cup 2022, held on October 2022. Apart from that, Vidit Santosh Gujrathi won a blitz game in 2019 at the Grand Chess Tour Tata Steel Chess Indian Blitz.

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


# Question
Title: What is the fastest loss by a GM in a FIDE classical game?
What is the shortest FIDE classical game a grandmaster lost? It can be either resigning or checkmate. The opponent doesn't necessarily need to be GM. Forfeits don't count. Only serious games count, instead of resigning after one or two moves as a form of protest like this

# Answer
I also did some research and found this game IM Hagen Poetsch vs GM Yair Kraidman in Vienna Open 2013 where black resigned in 4 moves. Black has forgotten that white recaptured with the Queen not the Knight.

But i don't know if there are shorter than this

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Vienna Chess Open 2013"]
[Site "Vienna AUT"]
[Date "2013.08.19"]
[EventDate "2013.08.17"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Hagen Poetsch"]
[Black "Yair Kraidman"]
[ECO "B27"]
[WhiteElo "2446"]
[BlackElo "2254"]
[PlyCount "8"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 1-0

```
> 17 votes

# Answer
From my answer to this question on decisive GM games with only pawn captures, at 6 moves, this is probably still the shortest: Zapata vs. Anand.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. Qe2

```
> 10 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, records, grandmaster, master-games, resigning
---


title: Chess players in tv commercials?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess players in tv commercials?
There are a lot of tv commercials featuring football players, cricket players, etc. How about chess players? Two commercials come to mind.

1. Kasparov vs Machine Pepsi Commercial
2. Korchnoi Milk commercial

Are there more like this? Recent chessable and chess.com commercials don't count, since I doubt they appeared on tv.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I remember this one by Vishy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVjYzB4NCb8 .

# Answer
> 4 votes
Here is a list I have compiled. Feel free to add more examples.

**Vishy Anand**

**Magnus Carlsen**

**Garry Kasparov**

**Victor Korchnoi**

---
Tags: history, famous-players, film, fiction
---


title: Swiss bye only half-point?

text:
# Question
Title: Swiss bye only half-point?
Scanning my old club zines, I tripped over a 1989 article where it says the (then :-) new FIDE rules gave a half point for a Swiss bye. Possibilities:

* a) The dude misunderstood the complicated rules. ("Pass bye" for 1/2 point - when a player can't play a certain round - still exist today, but I can't remember a bye bye - odd player number - for 1/2 and I play since ages.)
* b) This existed way back but was changed (when?).
* c) This is still a FIDE-legit way to run a Swiss tournament.

What is correct?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The FIDE Handbook indicates: *(https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/C0401) "Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, ***unless the rules of the tournament state otherwise."****

This allows the organizer to decide whether to award a point or a half-point for a bye.

There are some exceptions. For example, when the organizer is in charge of a FIDE event like the World Chess Championship Under-20. In that case, the organizer does not have the power to change the rules that were established by the FIDE Congress.

Something interesting is that, in the United States, an organizer of an USCF tournament can give a bye for players who do not want to play or cannot play. It is my understanding that in FIDE events that option does not exist.

As far as I know, when a FIDE rule is changed there is no record of the previous version, only of the new version. For that reason, it is difficult to find a document of 1989. However, I was born in 1966, and I started to play monthly tournaments in 1977 for around 20 years. I clearly remember that at that time in a swiss tournament, under FIDE rules, half-point was the standard for a bye. In spite of that, my personal experience proves nothing. That would be only anecdotal evidence. According to Wikipedia, anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.

---
Tags: fide, history, swiss-pairing, scoring
---


# Question
Title: Are there chess apps that allow users to record moves and do not include a chess engine?
I have seen chess apps that work as a chess clock. Are there chess apps that allow users to record moves and do not include a chess engine? The idea is to use the app during a chess tournament as a experiment. There are no economic prizes, so we consider the chance of cheating very small. Also, we are trying to educate people more than create world chess champions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, the Clono Chess System runs on a tablet and has been approved by FIDE as an electronic scoresheet that can also broadcast the moves in the way that we see on Chess24.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For Android - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess.clock&hl=en\_US&gl=US&pli=1

For Apple - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/chess-clock-by-chess-com/id858039162

One from chess.com - https://www.chess.com/news/view/chess-clock-app-update

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: I blunder too much in over-the-board chess
I have played 99% of my games **online**, I have seen and learn almost everything related to chess with the fonts Alpha or Mérida, either through diagrams or games, etc .

However, when I play with an actual chessboard, I blunder too much, I have trouble with my board vision, I completely miss threats and can't really focus well (I play with around half of my strength even with take-backs).

* Anyone ever heard or read about this issue?
* Are there some tricks I can use to make the process of getting used to them faster, different than the obvious "*just play a lot on them*"?
* Can this issue appear on people who play 99% OTBR chess and then try online chess?

# Answer
> 13 votes
I had the same problem which (to some extent) I've managed to overcome.

I didn't ever get enough chances to practice OTB games so I could never get used to it. My solution was to play online games with a real board in front of me. I made myself play out the moves on the board and used my computer only to get my opponents move and to enter mine. As long as time constraints aren't too much of an issue it's not much hassle. After a while playing with actual boards was just as easy as without.

# Answer
> 7 votes
* I did know someone describing the same phenomenon, i.e. he had a very hard time playing on a 3D real board. He was mostly a bullet player, online, being used to premove, etc., which maybe augmented the discomfort OTB.
* Apart from “get used to it”, I don't know any ways to accelerate that. Make sure you really wanna get used to it, don't stay in the “I can't play on this” mindset that would hold you back, even if it is tempting at first to raise that excuse all the time — maybe.
* Totally. Many club players I knew told me they didn't play online because they couldn't see anything, etc.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The most annoying thing when you switch from online playing to OTB games is that you don't have a full vision of the board.

Getting used to play 2D, you probably have developed your calculating skills with an "above vision". With this kind of vision a player can focus on lines and spots, and pieces do not interfere since they are "flat". But when you play OTB, you have to look at the board only *from you side*, with pieces messing around. Thus, you miss some threats that you probably would notice on a screen. And usually this is due to the fact that "you don't see the lines". In my experience, I noticed that this happens especially with Bishops and Knights.

You can't "flatten" real pieces, of course. And you have to get used to 3D pieces in order to "see lines" on a real board.

In the meantime, you can try to play chess looking the board "from above": standing near the table instead of sitting, for example. This will diminish (a little) the traumatic switch from 2D to OTB.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I prefer to play OTB, even though I have played roughly 30,000 games online. I think it is easier to see the pieces, the board, where things will go.

If you have issues playing OTB, then perhaps you should try to go through some "mate in x" puzzles with a real board. Other than playing with a real board though, there is nothing that is going to help. It should come quickly to you since you obviously know the game from playing online.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Same here, I had trouble playing with actual wooden chess before, especially with real chess clocks. The solution is to engage yourself in chess by playing in actual chess games.

Join to local chess clubs or play with your friends with actual chess boards. Soon playing with an actual chessboard and online games will have no difference.

It took me 3 months to cope with this problem. Now I can play naturally without blundering on an actual chess board just like how I play with online chess games.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Regarding

> Can this issue appear on people who play 99% wooden chess and then try online chess?

Yes, this was my experience transitioning to online chess. My vision was bad for a while. Doing many online tactics puzzles helped. Now I don't experience any different between online and over the board vision.

---
Tags: learning, chessboards, board-vision, blunder
---


# Question
Title: As a novice, how can I improve at defending my pieces other than what I'm already doing?
I’m struggling with chess after about six weeks of proper learning, i.e. strategy other than how the pieces move. I get this is a short time.

I’m working hard to try and learn, and joined a chess club about a month ago. So far I’ve won zero games. The OTB ratings range is 1,300-2,100. These things are often over in about 10-15 minutes, and I don’t feel like I’m learning anything other than being bad. It’s not competitive for the other players either, and they are being patient with me. I’m known as the one who gives up his pieces, and I’m clearly the worst player at the club.

The leader of the club (1,700-1,800) also plays constant daily games with me, where I’m shown stuff about openings, little bits of strategy, etc. This isn’t exactly what I think I need to improve right now, but it’s exposure to chess so I’m grateful for the knowledge.

My main issue is undefended and hanging pieces, and making the wrong move. It’s constant and frustrating – especially when I’m working and taking the time to assess my options. I always seem to miss the exact move that stitches up my entire game – even similar rated players turn into Grandmasters when I blunder or miss something. It feels like I’m getting battered for no benefit. Everything is reinforcing that I’m a bad player, calculating suboptimal moves, then playing the bad ones.

I’ve asked how I can improve hanging and losing pieces, but I’m told you can’t teach it. This sounds like a, “You either have it or you don’t” answer, which doesn't seem correct.

As such, I’m trying to do work on my own to cure this, but it’s not working, and I’m still making the same errors. Here’s what I’m doing to get better:

1. I’ve watched the IM John Bartholomew video on undefended pieces and try to implement the advice.
2. I’ve also enjoyed WFM Anna Cramling’s video on the subject too.
3. I do Aimchess tasks every day, especially the Blunder Preventer.
4. I was doing puzzles, but I do less per day now as I want to focus on not losing pieces before I look for opportunities. I'm more refined with how many puzzles I do, rather than skip them entirely.
5. IM Jeremy Silman’s popular post on chess.com is a good touchpoint for what I should focus on at my level.
6. I study much more than I play, because I find games aren’t helpful for me given that I chuck all my pieces away.
7. I’ve just bought the book, Am I Safe? (I think) by NM Dan Heismann, but decided that I needed more fundamental help before I tackle the book’s content.
8. I use the Loose-Piece-O-Tron to try and drill myself on spotting loose pieces.
9. I’m using the forcing moves method for every turn, but this often shows up my poor decision making rather than provides clarity.
10. I do analyse my rated games, but at this stage, the OTB and Daily games I play involve constant discussion and analysis.
11. Probably some other stuff I’ve forgot about

Here are my questions:

1. Is chess club right: Can you teach this, and if not, does it mean I won’t be able to become a good chess player?
2. Also, what else can I do to improve on this area that I'm not already doing, as it’s a massive bottleneck?

I want to start learning properly about tactics rather than have working knowledge, and I have books to help (such as Chess Tactics for Students). However, the advice I read is to solve the issue of undefended pieces before I move on.

I understand almost all of the other chess concepts I look at, so getting rid of this issue is getting me down and making chess not fun. I’m not enjoying getting blitzed every time without benefit.

Edit: Here’s an example of my play. This is the position with black (me) to play. I’m learning a little about the French Defence:

I feel like a knight move is appropriate here. You have a king-bishop threat, a potential queen pin along the diagonal down the kingside, and an undefended pawn.

Nf6 is wrong to me. Ne7 doesn’t do too much. Nd7 blocks the potential bishop attack but attacks a pawn. Nc6 seems better as it forks two pawns, offers greater development, and blocks the king-bishop diagonal.

From there, 7. Qg4:

I can play Ne7 or g6 here. I chose g6 because otherwise I’m down a Rook and pawn. However, apparently Ne7 is better, and I don’t understand why.

My logic seems okay for both moves, but after white’s Bg5 follow-up, I’m scrabbling to reposition a queen.

I said in the chat that although it’s not the case, I feel hoodwinked in a way.

Also, I don’t want a solution here, or move suggestions as this is an active game – thanks!

# Answer
> 8 votes
It seems like you're having problems with underdeveloped board vision. This is typical for beginners and it takes some time to improve, especially if you're beginning as an adult. But it can definitely be done, even though it requires patience and effort.

If you're up for it, consider implementing the following check-list (or something similar) in your games:

At every move, you make sure to note every single legal move that you can make. Then you imagine that it's your opponent's move, and note every single legal move that they can make. Finally, after all of this, you can start asking some questions that may help in guiding your decision on what to play, such as

* Is there a piece that is currently under attack?
* Can I take that piece, or is it my own piece that is under attack?
* What happens if the piece is taken, can it be recaptured somehow?
* Do I want this capture to happen, or do I not want this capture to happen?
* Are there squares which I should avoid moving my pieces to?
* Are there any squares that my opponent should avoid moving their pieces to?

The above takes a lot of time in-game, and will not help you win games straight away. Moreover, the questions given are very basic and will not always help you find the correct move in any position. At the same time, the above is what every player in your club is doing (to some extent) subconsciously, and it is why they beat you consistently: they are so used to playing chess that they will be able to see these things really fast without even having to think about it; it's become second-nature to them. This also explains why some people in your club seem to think that either you have it or you don't. They've simply forgotten that there was a time in their lives where they couldn't do it as easily as they are now!

One could also think of the above as a first way to practice tactics. Tactics are simply put concrete variations of an arbitrary length, and this would then be asking you to spot all (primitive) one-move tactics in a given position. The hope is of course that eventually you will be able to do this without having to put in very much mental effort, but as I stated before, progress takes time and effort.

I briefly looked at some of the links that you provided, and although some of them seem helpful there were a few that seemed to place an emphasis on the wrong things in my opinion. For instance, the loose-piece-o-tron was definitely more concerned with whether a piece was undefended rather than actually being attacked by something. While it is generally helpful to see undefended pieces, I'd say it is more important to be able to see whether a piece is attacked or not in your current situation. After all, it doesn't really matter whether my queen is "defended or not" if it's being threatened by an enemy pawn!

***EDIT:*** After seeing the comments, I've started looking into good resources for beginners that can help with board vision. In all honesty, "board vision" and "tactics" are concepts that are very closely related, and you will probably find that many tips for improving your tactics will help with your board vision as well.

After a brief search online I found the following that may be interesting to check out.

* Chess Strategy Online - Novice Tutorials Here you will find a bit more in-depth discussion of what I mentioned in this post, especially the tutorial about developing a danger sense. Look through the examples and see whether they are similar to the ways in which you tend to lose pieces in your own games.
* Blog about Chess Tactics Here you will find a discussion on how to improve your tactics, with some interesting examples and advice. Although the tactics in this blog may feel a bit too advanced for you at the moment, I don't think it's harmful to check out what's on the horizon. After all, it's things like this that make chess such a fun game.

You also mentioned in the comments that you feel pressured to play quicker at the club. This is a good observation, and especially in 10-15 minute games you will simply not have time to go through the checklist I suggested in this post anyway, as it will simply make you lose every game on time.

But if you have the opportunity to play more instructive games with someone, don't feel too bad for taking your time, especially if everyone involved is on the same page. Another thing that can be good to try is to play a very casual kind of game against a willing player in your club, where both of you "think out loud". Depending on your "opponent"/"partner" this can be very valuable, as they can give you some feedback on the way you approach a given position, as well as give you some insights into what they're thinking about while playing.

In general, I'd say that the main purpose of a chess club is not necessarily just to play chess, but rather building a small community of like-minded individuals who all enjoy chess in some way. So it can include many different aspects of chess, and really depends on the people there. Of course, a club should not neglect the vast majority of its members just to teach one player how to improve, but I think most players in your club are happy to help new players out every now and then.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> 1. Is chess club right: Can you teach this, and if not, does it mean I won’t be able to become a good chess player?

Everyone can improve. Any aspect of chess can be taught.

> 2. Also, what else can I do to improve on this area that I'm not already doing, as it’s a massive bottleneck?

Do what you enjoy as this is a key to staying motivated for training.

* It is no fun to lose every game, try to find folks more at your level to play with, if they are not at your club then try online. It is often easier to see your opponent dropping pieces than your own.
* I suggest focus on tactics puzzles if you like them.
* Give it time. I find it takes me about 6 months for study to lead to better game results. Sometimes I get worse at first as I try things I do not understand.

# Answer
> 5 votes
You say you can't spot when you hang a piece. I guess the first obvious question is can you spot when your opponent hangs a piece? If not, then you probably should take up a different game.

However if you *do* spot your opponent's blunders then you can go a long way to fixing your problem with hanging pieces by making the first significant breakthrough that beginners experience. That is to realise that your opponent is an intelligent human being who is allowed to make good moves. Furthermore, every time you make a move your opponent gets to make a move too.

With that in mind, every time you decide on your move don't actually make it on the board. Instead make it in your mind and mentally flip the board and pretend to be your opponent. Try and work out what *you* would do in that position. As your opponent, ask yourself did my opponent (i.e. you in real life) just hang a piece? Only when you have made this check should you make the move on the board.

This basic sanity check can save you a lot of mistakes and free you from the first basic mistake beginners make, that of playing "hope chess", which is making a tempting looking move hoping your opponent will blunder. Instead always assume your opponent will find the best move.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Chess courses can only teach you things but they can not learn things for you. There is no magical solution but the old boring "practice practice practice".

If you don't "want to be a burden" to OTB players, I suggest playing against a chess computer with no time limit. You can take all the time you want and even take back your moves to find better alternatives. There is little value in playing a game and getting destroyed. You need to be able to correct your mistakes and find a move when you blundered. Lichess for example, offers you an analysis after the game, with the option to "correct your mistakes", i.e. finding a better move when you made a mistake or blundered (and it's free).

Stockfish around level 3-5 should be a good starting point. Your goal should not be to win, because that's not how you will learn most. Set a different goal, for example:

* this game I will not miss an opponent attacking one of my pieces
* this game I will not oversee that an opponent's piece is covered
* this game I will not miss an opponent's undefended piece
* this game I will not miss I'm hanging mate

...

Focus only on one thing at a time. Devote your whole attention to it and if something else happens, don't get made, because that's okay, you were not working on that aspect and it's okay to lose, because even Stockfish on level 3-5 can be hard. (Don't set it too low, because it will just blunder constantly. It might be a nice experience to win against the computer on level 1 or 2, but little to none real world value).

The hard part about chess is then simply "doing all those things at the same time", but alas, even grandmasters keep blundering, so don't try to be holier than the pope.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you are serious about rapid improvement consider hiring a chess coach.

* A good coach should be able to offer a more personalized approach to learning that would help you past the current flaws in your play.
* A local coach might have more knowledge on places to play more suited to your skill level.

---

A more polarizing resource is the How to Lose at Chess series by GothamChess. Gotham does surprisingly deep analysis of lower rated games and the flaws in the way these players approach the game. I say polarizing because these videos are done in an entertainment oriented style and might not be helpful or enjoyable for everyone.

I recommend these videos because I think you might actually be focusing *too much* on not blundering pieces. For example, even a very basic exploration of beginner openings might help you avoid common traps that you might be misidentifying as a blundered piece. Another example, learning a little about simple tactics like pins and forks might allow you to win back a blundered piece and overcome a mistake.

Playing to win vs. playing not to lose is a common issue. While blundering a piece will certainly hurt your chances of winning, don't forget that you could blunder 14 pieces in a row and still win if you find checkmate with the two you have left.

---
Tags: learning, beginner, blunder
---


title: Counter to ...Be6 in the Italian Game?

text:
# Question
Title: Counter to ...Be6 in the Italian Game?
I have been exploring the Italian Game (especially 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3) for a while, and at several points in the opening, I have seen Black play his bishop to e6 to directly counter the White light squared bishop. The move continues to stump me.

Some sources I've read recommend either retreating Bb3 (depending on when in the opening Be6 is played), tucking the bishop on c2, or taking on e6. I cannot figure out the advantages of either.

Playing Bb3 seems to allow ...Bxb3, in which white can usually take with the a-pawn, a Knight at d2, or the Queen, all of which seem to throw off White's general plans.

Playing Bc2 seem to just concede key squares to Black.

Taking Bxe6 allows fxe6, which seems to give Black a hefty pawn center should Black choose to deploy it.

If anyone has any insight into the relative value of these moves, I'd be really glad to read it!

# Answer
You are quite right to be puzzled, because there is no general answer, but to say that "it all depends on the position" does not help you very much. Let me just comment on some of your remarks.

If the WB retreats to b3, and Black captures, there can be drawbacks to each recapture, but there can be benefits also. axb3 opens the a-file. Black might have to defend their a-pawn with a6, and then b4 - b5 might start a Q-side initiative. Nxb3 might be start of a dark-square bind if c5 is weak. Qxb3 might form part of an attack on b7 or f7.

Playing Bc2 looks a bit passive, but would be correct if Black has many pieces left but not enough space for them. Perhaps, since you have already played c3, you can follow with d4, and the Be6 might get into trouble.

Playing Bxe6 certainly has the drawbacks that you mention, but only if Black has time to take advantage of them. If White is able to play a quick d4, then they threaten dxe5. After ..dxe5, Black would have isolated doubled Pawns. If Black plays ..exd4 to avoid this, then after Nxd4 or Qxd4 White may have a strongly centralised piece.

There is potential here for a very long answer, but I think I can offer some short advice. Make yourself aware of all the possible pros and cons. Play through a lot of master games, perhaps including some old ones, and observe the themes that come up frequently. Pay special attention to games in which something that you thought was a rule gets successfully broken. In your own games, take the route that seems best suited to the position, but also the one that best suits your own style. Do you value sound pawn structures or open lines?

Remember that decisions can be postponed. It is broadly true that strong players are happy to leave unresolved tensions on the board. They say to themselves "Perhaps I will have to keep on spending time on this, but then, so do they!"

Take heart that the question you have raised is genuinely difficult, and the fact that it poses problems for both sides is why the Italian game has returned as a serious opening.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Not the line you mentioned (Be7 instead of Bc5) but in this game Be6 came a bit later and the answer was Nd5.

```
[fen ""]
[Startply "24"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Re1 d6 7. a4 Na5 8. Ba2 c5 9. c3 Nc6 10. Na3 h6 11. Nc2 a6 12. Ne3 Be6 13. Nd5

```

Within a few moves both pieces were traded and white was left with a pawn on d5.
> 0 votes

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


title: Both grandmaster and PhD/doctorate

text:
# Question
Title: Both grandmaster and PhD/doctorate
Who have PhDs/doctorates that are also grandmasters?

**Conditions**:

1. standard GM only eg no WGM (see there for WGM version), no International Correspondence Chess Grandmaster
2. no honourary PhDs/doctorates
3. maybe kind of a cheat but I'll allow JD/MD (and LLB to the extent that LLB=JD) i.e. doesn't have to be Doctor of Juridical Science/Doctor of Medical Sciences. Also the other stuff here eg doctor of education or doctor of engineering, just no honourary.
4. Regarding Emanuel Lasker, I guess I'll allow like either world champion even if not a GM. As for the kinds of world champions allowed...**ah fine just all of them**: world standard, world rapid, world blitz, world fischer random (wesley so doesn't have a PhD. NEXT), world team chess, World Championship of Chess Composition, World Chess Solving Championship, and women's version of the preceding.

---

**Re CW vs new answer**: I personally don't care. But sites have rules/guidelines/discouragements so whatever. See the ff 2 comments re this

> @BCLC A separate answer for each doctor/grandmaster? How many answers will that be, a hundred? Is that how these sites are supposed to work? I think they should all be in one ("community wiki") answer, and I suggested adding it to yours because it's the most extensive list that's been posted. – bof

and

> @bof ok fine now it's community wiki but i don't care personally you can post answers but if it's better for the site then fine edit cw post or post your own answer or whatever – BCLC

---

Adding here in case comment gets deleted AGAIN (also seriously a downvote on the question after all the time I spent adding from the article of SecretAgentMan? WOW):

* Related article from ChessManiac.com (2014): The Education of Grandmasters – SecretAgentMan
* @SecretAgentMan 1st thought - yeah i think i saw that at the time i made this Q&A 2nd thought (after reading more) - hell i sure i missed a lot if i've seen that post before. ok maybe i haven't. thanks! 3rd thought - ah wait...i think it's not that i missed a lot but that some that i read i couldn't find a source eg karpov, Miroslav Filip, etc. anyway adding now thanks!

# Answer
Here is a list of what I have so far.

**Miscellaneous**

1. **Hou Yifan** **(UNSURE)**: same with the Robert Byrne thing as to what 'professor' means (I mean come on, PhD, really? I don't think so).
2. Victor (Viorel) Bologan: PhD thesis was about chess!
3. Benjamin Blumenfeld (as in Blumenfeld Countergambit): 1 of those pre-GM title people, PhD thesis was about chess!
4. Robert Hübner: phd in classical philology
5. Jesse Kraai has a Ph.D. in Philosophy. – patbarron
6. Lars Bo Hansen: PhD in Sports Management
7. Bolat Asanov: PhD in history
8. Jonathan Rowson: PhD in philosophy

**Maths**

1. Karsten Müller: phd in (pure/theoretical, I guess) maths
2. Max Euwe: phd in (pure/theoretical, I guess) maths
3. John Nunn: phd in (pure/theoretical, I guess) maths
4. Thomas Ernst: phd in (looks like both pure and applied) maths
5. Emanuel Lasker: phd in (pure/theoretical, I guess) maths
6. Jan Michael Sprenger: math and philosophy
7. Noam Elkies: world chess solving champion, PhD at the age of 20
8. Gedeon Barcza: 8-time chess champion of Hungary, maths
9. Jon Speelman: a twitch streamer too!

**Law** (either JD/LLB or Doctor of Juridical Science)

1. Paul Morphy: if the LLB equals a JD
2. Michael Rohde: I guess just JD/LLB
3. Alexander Alekhine **(UNSURE)**: JD/LLB, but most sources seem to be unsure
4. Florian Handke: practicing judge
5. Xu Yuhua: if the LLB equals a JD
6. Stanislav Bogdanovich (RIP): I guess just JD/LLB
7. Ding Liren is a graduate of Peking University Law School. I guess just JD/LLB.
8. Not sure if Meliton Borja, 2-time Philippine chess champion (1953,1957) counts. I guess just JD/LLB.
9. Rosendo Balinas Jr., 'considered the strongest Asian player during the 1960s and 1970s, before the emergence of compatriot Eugenio Torre'. I guess just JD/LLB.
10. Ossip Bernstein: actual JSD and not merely JD/LLB: 'He earned a doctorate in law at Heidelberg University in 1906, and became a financial lawyer.'
11. Petar Trifunović (as in Trifunovic Variation): actual JSD and not merely JD/LLB: 'The young Trifunovic was also an excellent scholar, obtaining a law degree in 1933, followed by a doctorate.'
12. Savielly Tartakower (as in Tartakoverisms and Tartakower–Makogonov–Bondarevsky System): 'He graduated from the law faculties of universities in Geneva and Vienna'

**Medicine** (either MD or Doctor of Medical Sciences)

1. Bassem Amin: I guess just MD
2. Alex Scherzer (not sure if same person): I guess just MD
3. Yona Kosashvili, husband of Sofia Polgar: I guess just MD
4. Helmut Pfleger: I guess just MD
5. Siegbert Tarrasch: I guess just MD

**Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Biology, Computer Science**

1. Daniel Stellwagen: PhD in inorganic chemistry (heterogeneous catalysts)
2. Jonathan Mestel: obtained his PhD with the thesis "Magnetic Levitation of Liquid Metals" at University of Cambridge. He teaches Applied Mathematics at Imperial College London.
3. Bart Michiels: PhD in engineering physics \- from Maxwell86 (btw i guess not Bart Michels)
4. Milan Vidmar looks a good call as well - "He was a professor at the University of Ljubljana, a member of the Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the founder of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering. Between 1928 and 1929 he was the 10th Chancellor of the University of Ljubljana. In 1948 he established the Institute of Electrotechnics that now bears his name" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan\_Vidmar – Ian Bush
5. Mikhail Botvinnik: could be PhD in electrical engineering or doctor of engineering
6. Tal Shaked \- PhD student in computer science

**Economics, Finance, Psychology**

1. David Smerdon: earned a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Amsterdam and Tinbergen Institute under Theo Offerman for a thesis: “Everybody’s doing it: Essays on trust, social norms and integration.”
2. Anatoly Karpov **(UNSURE)**: I'm trying to find credible sources that say Karpov got a non-honourary PhD in economics. Some sources say it's honourary.
3. Eliot Hearst: Ph.D. in experimental psychology
4. Reuben Fine: doctorate in psychology (not sure if a PhD or a PsyD).
5. Jonathan Penrose, brother of 2020 Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose: doctorate in psychology.
6. Andrii / Andriy / Andrey Baryshpolets who ran in the 2022 FIDE elections and then lost to re-elected Arkady Dvorkovich
> 12 votes

# Answer
GM Pepe Cuenca likes to act a little bit like a fool, but he has got a PhD in applied maths.

https://youtu.be/jfNR16G34l0
> 6 votes

# Answer
One more: Jonathan Mestel has a PhD in applied mathematics (full details in first paragraph of the article) and works as a university professor.
> 4 votes

# Answer
GM Ken Rogoff has a PhD in economics.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Both Mauricio Rios Flores and Parimarjan Negi are PhD students+ GM, they will get their PhD soon.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Wong Meng Kong, originally from my country (Singapore) is a GM who's also a medical doctor.

I don't know him personally but I know another guy who's a good friend and medical colleague but "only" an IM (mainly because he's simply not motivated to progress further). But you only asked about GMs.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Carl Jaenisch,

> He dedicated his life to mathematics and chess, two subjects which he considered closely related. He tried to show their connections in his work Découvertes sur le cavalier (aux échecs),\[4\] published in Petersburg in 1837.

He was one of one of the strongest players in 1840, and he had published and cited work in Mathematics.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Some addenda, collected from Lauterbach "Faszinierendes unsterbliches Spiel". Please counter-check with Wikipedia first.

Math: Anderssen taught it, Kieseritzky had it as a job. Spielmann, Nimzowitsch, Reti, Keres and Eliskases absolved a studium.

Electro-enginneering: Steinitz, Maroczy and Bogoljubow began a studium. (Vidmar and Botwinnik confirmed by source)

Psychology: Add German GM Pfleger.

Medicine: Zukertort

Jura: Bernstein, Unzicker, Lothar Schmid, Max Lange

I left out names from "lower echelon" (e.g. Rödl, jurist and "only" IM)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, records, trivia
---


# Question
Title: What is the terminology for a move which allows the opponent to attack two pieces without making another move?
In the position below (Short vs Ponomariov 2003), White has just played Re4-f4, which is allowing the g5 pawn to attack both the rook and the bishop.

In general, what do we call a move that allows the opponent to attack two pieces without making another move?

# Answer
> 7 votes
> what do we call a move that allows the opponent to attack two pieces without making another move?

When the opponent makes a move which attacks two pieces at the same time with the same piece it's called a *fork*, so what you describe is called a *self-fork*.

# Answer
> 12 votes
It is called a fork or a double attack in a normal case. A normal case is when before the opponent's turn neither piece is attacked and then by your turn both pieces (or more) are attacked. In this case, since one brought this situation upon themselves (and forks are generally undesirable), it is called a self-fork.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Re4-f4 was played, but both the rook and bishop were hanging before the move. So I wouldn't call it a self-fork - there is not even one extra piece attacked, let alone the two you are getting in a regular fork.

I don't know what I would call it though. Misdirection? Overload? Tempo something? Tal attack? :D It is probably rare enough it doesn't have a name.

Note that there are possible self-fork moves - where a single move adds 2 extra pieces to be attacked. For example: a white pawn was on e4 and moves to e5, with pieces on f4, f3 and d3. Black has a rook on a4, bishop on c6 and queen on g6.

---
Tags: tactics, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Can a chess engine tell you why a move is bad or good?
Can any chess engine tell you why a move is bad or good? For example, say a chess engine says the score against my opponent is currently +2 in my favor. I then make a move and my score drops to say 1.4. Can any engine tell me what I did wrong such that my score dropped from 2 to 1.4 (assuming I didn't hang a piece or pawn etc.)

It seems to me that having chess programmers make their programs even stronger is now pointless and it would be much more beneficial to the average chess player if they could have their programs instruct us why a move is bad (or good), assuming they currently cannot do this.

# Answer
> 12 votes
**Sort of (but not really) - and it's actually getting *harder* for engines to do this for you.** To understand why, you have to understand how the evaluation goes. Engines typically can make snap evaluations on a given position, giving it a raw point value. Then, whatever the position is, they play forward, trying to find the line forward that optimizes that score for both sides.

It's important to understand, that '2.0' or '1.4' score *aren't* the evaluation/score for the current position. Instead, it's the evaluation N moves down the line, with each side playing the best move the engine found. This is why the "Current evaluation score" jumps around while the computer is thinking. It's not that the 'score' for a position changed - it's just that it found a different line moving forward that ended up in a different position (which had a different score.)

In the past, engines sucked. Not just because of sub-optimal algorithms, but because of very slow hardware - if you think compounding interest is powerful, it's nothing compared to Moore's Law. So computers back then were just looking a few moves into the future. Which made it relatively easy for a human to follow the logic - your score went down because you're losing your knight the next turn.

But now? If your score went from '2.0' to '-0.3', it's possible it's because, due to some unavoidable tactics over the next 7 moves, that you'll have to give up the exchange in order to avoid losing your queen or getting checkmated. But it's hard to show the leap from "Here's the position now" and "Well, I evaluated 20 billion positions going forward, and trust me when I say that you sacrificing the rook for their bishop was the best you could hope for."

Occasionally a move from a grandmaster winning game is said to be "invisible" to a chess engine. Only after the move is made, the engine recognizes the high value of the move. This weakness in the engine could easily be remedied by more exhaustive checking of possible moves.

# Answer
> 5 votes
@D\_M mentioned about Chessmaster, but it only reports very simple static features such as:

* Your queen is being attacked
* You lose a pawn in the computer line
* You win an exchange in the computer line

Do you know why Chessmaster did that? That's because the implementation was easy.

> Can any engine tell me what I did wrong such that my score dropped from 2 to 1.4 (assuming I didn't hang a piece or pawn etc.)

**NO**. Chesmaster can't do that. No software can do that. We don't have the technology to do that. Traditional engine programming techniques can't do that.

To do what your describe, we need advanced mathematics/machine learning models. I'm not aware of anything like that.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, I have seen programs that attempt to explain why a move is good or bad in language. Chessmaster 9000 would do this.

Many engines will show you the best line for each move. So it can tell you that if you play g6, it expects the game to go f5 gxf5 Nxf5, whereas if you play b6 it expects the game to go a5 bxa5 Bxa5. Often from there you can see why the move was good or bad. But sometimes it's still very subtle.

There is a tool here where you can input a position and it will tell you exactly why Stockfish evaluates the position the way it does. It only works for a static position (it doesn't look ahead at all), but it's still interesting.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In addition to other answers, engines don't assess positions like humans, so they can't provide a good explanation why *they think* your move is inferior (emphasis on they think, not necessarily).

But you can follow sidelines using engine suggestions and understand why it was inferior. At least this is what I do.

Could there be an engine which can do this? I guess yes, but from business point of view, probably, an infeasibly huge effort is necessary.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think the chess engine can "tell" you, but in an indirect way.

What I would do is to play several different moves from the same position. The chess engine will (presumably) give you a different score for each one.

This will allow you to "rank" the various moves. Perhaps a pattern will emerge. If not, you might want to get a (stronger) human player to explain the chess engine's rankings to you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
No. Although Chessmaster as mentioned by everyone can tell you some basic things like if the following line will result in an exchange sacrifice or you may lose a pawn and so so.

But you can also analyse this yourself by playing down the lines. There are no chess engines nor I see any in the near future that can explain why the move is good/bad unless it will cost you material difference. As a engine may have played a move to improve his position in the future say like after 50 moves. There is no way it can explain to you why this move will result in a better position after 50 moves.

Also major chess engines in the market like Stockfish etc. do not even bother to include such features as the level chess engines play at are completely different and very hard to analyse even if we are provided with explanation of every move.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The engine evaluation ("2"/"1.4") is in fact very similar to how a human would evaluate a position. It is basically a sum of various factors such as *material*, *king safety*, *piece activity*, etc. evaluated not for the current position but for the position some 20 moves ahead or so; assuming perfect play from both sides.

In principle one could try to monitor the change in all those factors separately (instead of only their sum as engines do). For instance if a move leads to a lower value for "king safety" later on compared to the best move, one might be tempted to tell the learner something like: *Your last move made your king more vulnerable*

However I doubt that this would work in actual games, because:

* the learner's move might in fact have other issues: for instance it might neglect development and only because of this the player might have to make concessions later on regarding his king's protection (assuming best play).
* many factors might change at the same time, some going up some going down for instance. Trying to express this in words might be cumbersome, e.g.: *Your last move neglected king safety, but improved your piece's activity and you lost a pawn but occupied an open file* Would this information be helpful to a learner?

Because of this, I doubt that computer's will be able to teach you positional or intuitive play (based on principles) at least with current technology. Better to use classical methods such as other humans, reading/watching/listening annotated games, etc

# Answer
> 0 votes
There've been attempts to make engines explain why moves are good or bad. Here's an example (DecodeChess) I am aware of.

You could try clicking through the example to see how helpful it is.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I’ve always said that current engines need to be controlled by other tools to guide them for better analysis for humans, and the current question describes such a case. Knowing why a move is better is not an easy task all the time, we all know that some positions are extremely complicated even simple ones with underlying invisible complications. If engines (and the said above tools when they appear) will be able to describe why a move is bad or good, or why a move is better than the others. And produce an explanation that is easy to understand, just then the engines will have more benefits for a wider range of chess players. For example, lets imagine a chess engine (or tool) that explains a position or a move in the terms of silman’s and produce something like: 26. Be4 this move will increase your control of x1 and x2 files, and you will control more space but you’ll have a weaker pawn structure but you are now who is calling the shots (you are the one with initiative now), but you must take care not to allow the destruction of you king safety by playing 27.Rd2 or exchanging the knights other than that you’ll be fine for the foreseeable 20 coming moves with the worst case scenario of a closed position or an ending that is unpredictable from this position due to the horizon effect. As you can see we here in need for a tool that will go back and forth studying the analysis in order to produce such a result, and engines don’t do that.

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: Is there a chess engine that does NOT use brute-force search?
Every chess engine I've ever heard of (including all I found listed on Wikipedia) uses brute-force search with an evaluation function (minmax algorithm) to decide on its move.

This is not how most humans approach the game, employing general pattern recognition instead, so in principle, it would be possible for computers to do the same.

Is there any chess engine that does not rely on the brute-force approach to find its moves?

# Answer
> 5 votes
There were attempts back in the 1980s to write chess engines with knowledge bases that would pick candidate moves like humans, but they were unsuccessful. The problem is that human pattern matching is difficult to put into words, so creating the rules for the knowledge base was extremely difficult.

Training a neural network to pick candidate moves seems like a promising line of research. Here and here might be two pertinent papers. (FWIW, It is not my field of Comp Sci)

# Answer
> 4 votes
You might take a look at Giraffe which was recently in the news:

https://thestack.com/iot/2015/09/14/neural-network-chess-computer-abandons-brute-force-for-selective-human-approach/

The hype is that in 3 days it taught itself the game and reached IM level. On the other hand the research is at

http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.01549

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'd like add details to @Ian\_Bush's answer on Giraffe.

In @Ian\_Bush's answer, it's noted that Giraffe doesn't use brute-force computation. This is **not right**, because Giraffe is still an alpha-beta (nega-max) engine. The **only** difference to a standard engine is that the evaluation function is tuned automatically by deep-learning. Therefore, the engine learns how to play by itself.

Traditionally, engine programmer self-tunes parameters in an engine. I've done a lot myself. For example, how much weight should you give to a bishop and a knight? 3.0? 3.1? 3.2? It's hard to tell.

Giraffe approaches the problem in a much smarter way. It starts off with some initial values. The engine uses the gradient ascent algorithm to tune those values. We don't have to explicitly code how much weight a queen should be in the code. This is what we mean "learning". It doesn't mean that the engine can play chess *without* searching.

**EDIT**: Giraffe models the tree nodes as probability that they fall into the principal variatation. Check the paper for details. I personally don't believe this approach, and the paper shows little evidence how useful it would be.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Claude Shannon proposed two types of algorithms for creating chess engines. A "type A" engine examines all possible moves to some finite depth, minimaxes the tree, and then plays the move with the highest evaluation from the minimaxed tree (a.k.a. brute force). Type B engines limit their search to only a subset of possible moves based on some criteria. I believed he favoured Type B as more promising.

The engines that were created in the 1970's (eg. Hitech, Kaissa) tended to be pure brute force with no pruning or just alpha-beta, but people soon saw the value of pruning the tree of moves and lines that were unlikely to prove strong. Almost all recent engines prune the tree of lines that are clearly weaker (alpha-beta), and most engines use various types of forward pruning as well (futility, late move reduction, null move, razoring). In that sense, there aren't many engines that use pure brute force anymore.

In the 1970's, Botvinnik was working on an engine called Pioneer conceived around the notion of attack paths which would have been evaluation guided. It never reached the point where it could play a full game of chess.

In the 1990's, Chris Wittington spoke out in favour of using incorporating more chess knowledge, and created a program called Chess System Tal which was fairly strong for its time.

Kasparov, Anand and Tord Romstad have all noted that Hiarcs seems to have a more detailed evaluation than many of the top engines whose strength comes from a fast search.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Its sort of debatable if you can call a heuristic based search and evaluate approach as brute-force. Most of top-tier chess engines today follow a rules-based approach to evaluate a position and a rules based search function to prune moves.

This is actually not guaranteed to pick the "global optimal" move, however these moves are good enough for purpose. In this sense most chess engines are using an approximation on the global optimum and actually getting by.

To date, we haven't many chess engines succeed at the top level using a different approach, at least not on cheap hardware.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I heard, I think it was GM Matthew Sadler on his Silicon Road channel, of grandmasters running Leela at zero or very low depth to test only how good its neural network board evaluation is. This is in spirit less "brute force" and more "understanding" (although training the neural net took a lot of computation!).

Discussion at Leela mailing list: If restricted to a "human number of nodes" to evaluate, who wins? Leela or GM?

There was a claim that Leela with 1 node or 10 nodes of evaluation (effectively no search at all) played at 2300 Elo or IM level. For comparison, Stockfish on a laptop can search 1M+ nodes/sec.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Basically all of them!

Chess engines really only use brute-force when:

* told to
* are analysing positions (problem solving)
* Looking for a checkmate (problem solving, not when playing against, like "find the mate in N" style problems)

Otherwise they have a "selective search", this will consider all the possible moves for a given board layout, but only explore a handful of them. An engine may switch to brute-force though if it rates two moves very similarly (more than one strong move) or if it cannot find a move it likes (no strong moves).

They also tend to brute-force as a last line of defense, if you've seen a checkmate chances are it can see it coming and it will want to try really hard to draw, and cannot find a way out (the "Horizon effect" is a problem with engines, suppose it is going to loose it's queen, and it's been capped to only go 4 plays deep; if it can trade pawns and postpone that loss of the queen for 4 moves it will think it has saved the queen, in the process it'll loose at least 1 pawn (as the next move brings the horizon from before closer) and the weight it places on saving the queen may mean it sacrifices some defense, for nothing if the death goes over the horizon).

It will also brute-force when the selective search isn't very useful. This is why engines take longer when they have like 3 pieces left. They have to brute-force because the selection algorithm cannot rate a move. The selection algorithm is great during the midgame because it can be like "Oohh, doing this with the pawn blocks his \[whatever\] and backs up my \[whatever\] and \[whatever\] which I have a lesser number defending than attacking" - for instance.

If you have a king in the middle of the board there are 8 moves, the selective search will be like "None of these do anything useful, I can't tell".

You can think of the selective search as having two parts, it is tactical in the sense of it'll try and spot tactical moves, it will ignore the weight of the pieces involved usually because a queen not a part of any strategy is not worth more than a pawn vital to it. It is also strategic in that it'll explore moves that bolster a defense, and open up later to potential attacks.

The engine then does the same from your point of view, and back and forth and back and forth.

Something called a transposition table is a big list of things it has thought about, that way if it ends up considering something it has already done, it knows and doesn't have to re-evaluate it.

UNLESS (selective :)) it gets there a different way, or wants to explore further. Suppose for example it discovers that your ... rook is essential to an impending attack, the engine may re-evaluate a line when it discovers this. The previous weight it put on that rook (eg 5 points, how important it is to you) might be an under-estimate.

The selective search can also backtrack, like say its considering a bishop moving right into enemy territory, to the move selector it is not important that it can be taken easily. Say it discovers that strategically that is a superb move! It may then backtrack to try and find a way to protect that square to get that bishop there. Suppose it involves a pawn to do so.

The brute-force method would consider the line involving that pawn move, and (by brute force) the bishop move too, and the same stuff that rates the board position (the selective search itself) will say "this is good" so the board rates that variation highly, both find it.

It's very hard to rate a position using the brute-force method, this is why the selective search works so well.

The brute-force from the starting position might find that famous mate-in-4 that involves a queen f7 covered by a bishop, and if it were to rate that highly (I'VE FOUND A CHECKMATE! JOB DONE! PLAY!) it'd be wrong because black will obviously counter. The selective search rates a position (for further evaluation) because it is *appears* to be good. This means when it is considering your response it can decide what would be good for you....

So the stuff that the selective search uses to rate things is used by the brute-force one anyway because "found a checkmate involving this move" is not enough to say that move is good.

Hence What are the first moves chosen (White), by brute force chess engines?

---
Tags: engines, chess-algorithms, candidate-move, brute-force
---


# Question
Title: What are some good books for explaining the strategic ideas of the Semi-Tarrasch Defence?
I am looking for some books that explain the strategic ideas of the Semi-Tarrasch Defence from the black perspective. I looked online, but I could only find books on the Tarrasch defence.

# Answer
There are plenty of books on the Semi-Tarrasch defense:

1. "Semi-Tarrasch: A Universal Weapon Against 1.d4" by Dmitry Svetushkin
2. "Play The Semi-Tarrasch! - Part 1" by Tibor Karolyi
3. "Play The Semi-Tarrasch! - Part 2" by Tibor Karolyi
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, books
---


# Question
Title: Recommended books that explain each move
Usually, chess books show moves like this: several-many moves, and then, explanation. Sometimes, however, I don't understand the meaning of some moves. It would be great if there was a book in which every move in the game is explained, or at least something like that.

Not only books are suitable. If you can take courses, studies on Lichess, articles, etc. that would also be great.

# Answer
> it would be great if there was a book where they explain every move in the game

There is such a book. It is called "*Logical Chess Move by Move*" written by Irving Chernev and published in 1957. 33 master level games are fully annotated with every move getting a comment. Every 1. e4, 1. d4, 1...e5, 1...d5, etc. gets an annotation. My copy was printed in 1972 and so uses descriptive notation but I'm sure this classic is still in print and with algebraic notation.
> 8 votes

# Answer
You're looking for *Understanding Chess Move by Move* by John Nunn.

Every move is explained in detail. I cannot recommend Chernev's book for the reason I put in the comment below Brian Towers' answer.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Try *Winning Chess Brilliancies* by GM Yasser Seirawan. There are some sample pages here. It's of course not going to hold up to modern Stockfish analysis, but it still gives a selection of great games with GM-level analysis (including analysis from the players and other GMs).
> 9 votes

# Answer
There are a lot of books that follow that format:

* Chernev-*Logical Chess*.
* Weeramantry-*Best Lessons of a Chess Coach*. Written by Hikaru's trainer/step-dad.
* Mednis-*How To Play Good Opening Moves*. Mostly focused on the first four or so moves but does give a very good and detailed explanation.
* Any annotated games series especially if the author is also the player. Example: Fischer's memorable games.
* I also believe the entire Move By Move series follows the same format although I don't own any of those books.
* There are also several modern books that copy Chernev. I own some but don't recall the names off the top of my head. I'll edit this when I remember.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The other answers cover book resources fairly well, however the OP also mentioned that

> Not only books are suitable. If you can take courses, studies on Lichess, articles, etc. that would also be great.

With this in mind, I immediately thought of decodechess.com. DecodeChess explains the why behind chess moves in rich, intuitive language. Having tried it before, I found it fairly impressive, and definitely useful for reading along with books that leave out some of the strategic explanations that might be more obvious to readers with a more complete understanding.

From the website:

> Performing a chess analysis with DecodeChess promotes the understanding of concepts and ideas that make up any position or move, serving as an on-the-go AI chess tutor for aspiring players in the ELO ranges of up to 2000.

I believe there are options to upload games in PGN/FEN formats, as well as analyze live while playing against a computer.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Lessons with a Grandmaster: Enhance Your Chess Strategy And Psychology With Boris Gulko (Everyman Chess)

Check this out. Maybe it's what you are looking for.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, books, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: Was Julio Kaplan the first to play 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 idea against 7. ... Be6 in classical Najdorf?
In old mainline of Be2 Najdorf black played 7. ... Be6 instead of, today practically automatic, 7. ... Be7. This is because 7. ... Be6 is today considered dubious due to this idea:

```
[fen ""]
[Startply "20"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 exf4 10. g5

```

I tried to find first game with this idea in Caissabase. First game with 9. g4 that I found was played between Julio Kaplan and Walter S. Browne in 1972. Before multiple players played 8. f4 but answered 8. ... Qc7 with less precise 9. O-O, 9. f5 or 9. Nd5. So my question is: did Julio Kaplan discover this 9. g4 plan or was he, at least, the first player to play it in grandmaster chess?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Julio Kaplan appears to be the first grandmaster to play it. The game that you mentioned is the earliest recorded that I can find.

Note that this isnt the classical narjorf. That has 6...e6. This is the 6...e5 English Attack. Another thing to note is why this wasn't played before. It might not be all that good. Stockfish 16.1 NNUE Depth=35 16 CPU Core doesn't even have f4 in its top 5 moves. In fact, chess.com believes the game to tilt from wite's to black's favor by playing 8.f4. So, yes, Julio Kaplan is the first to play it, but it isnt a good move.

---
Tags: opening, history, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: How to tell which engine is going to play white or black in UCI Protocol?
Is there a UCI protocol command that tells the other engine which team white or black to play?

For instance, I wrote a chess engine. I connected my engine to play against Stockfish 15.1 using chess Arena 3.5.1 using a Java runnable jJar file.

However, I always have to unset and reset in the Arena Engine Management interface for my engine to start as white, and I want to know why. Is there a UCI or Arena command that allows to know which engine will start as white or black? That way I can rewrite my UCI code to adapt for running as white or black.

If someone understands my question, please give me some insight.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In uci protocol, there is a command `position <info>` that is sent to the engine. This command has an info which side to play.

Example:

`position startpos`

That tells the engine to play white because the startpos has white to move.

The word startpos is just equal to a position `rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1` which is a FEN notation for chess start position.

It is similar to:

`position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1`

The `w` in FEN means white. So it is white to move.

Another command from position with moves can be different.

Example:

`position startpos moves e2e4`

The startpos is white to move, but there is a move `e2e4`. With that the side to move is now black because from startpos, the move e2e4 is moved on the board. After the move e2e4, the side to move is now black.

You may need to handle position fen \<\> with moves.

Example:

`position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 moves e2e4 c7c5`

That is white to move because there are 2 moves pushed on the board from the FEN `rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1`.

You also need to handle a FEN with black to move.

Example:

`position fen r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 3 3`

That means it is black to move because of `b` before `KQkq`.

And if there is a move on it, the side to move may change.

Example:

`position fen r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 3 3 moves g8f6`

Now it is white to move.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think I found it.

I think I have to use, the "setoption UCI\_Opponent none none computer

That should tell Arena, I will start as white...let me test it!

BRB.

---
Tags: uci
---


title: Chess Engine on Matlab

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Engine on Matlab
I finished a university project working extensively with matlab, so I decided to create a chess engine on matlab too. Has anyone had any experience creating/using a chess engine on matlab. I understand it is significantly less efficient than a lower level language like c or c++. It is currently working but it is slow/bad (maybe like 900 rating)

Are there any other open source Matlab engines I can learn from?

# Answer
DiamondKnife (https://github.com/DiamondJM/DiamondKnife) is claimed to have a 1700 rapid FICS rating, which is of course abysmal by computer chess standards, but might be good enough for your purposes (depends strongly on the quality of the code base, I suppose... which I haven't checked).

If I wanted to create a *strong* engine in MATLAB, I would (apart from thinking about porting standard algorithms to MATLAB, which will always be slow, but should still be able to play well compared to most humans if it is done well) think about whether it is possible to convert one of the LC0 neural networks to a format that MATLAB understands, like ONNX. If that is successfully done, it would allow implementation of a very good, extremely selective search policy on top of a very good evaluation function and would put GM-level play firmly into reach for a MATLAB based program.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Free chess match database

text:
# Question
Title: Free chess match database
I'm working on a rating/ranking algorithm and I'm finally at a point where I can test some hypothesis but in order to do so I need real data. To be honest almost any board game could be used for this but I thought that chess is the board game with the highest possibility of having such a database.

I was thinking of posting it on other stackexchange pages but in the end I thought going to the root would be most efficient.

What the database should fulfill:

* At least 50 players
* At least 1000 matches
* Downloadable (maybe not required if I can parse it from the website chronological)

Since I only play chess on rare occasions I'm not really too familiar with all the websites out there so I hope someone can help me.

# Answer
> 17 votes
Million Base 2.5 (available from a link here) and ICOfY Base are two free options that more than meet your given criteria, each providing millions of games in PGN format to draw from as you please. In particular, ICOfY Base includes well over 4 million games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Lichess has an open database of over 4 billion game PGNs: https://database.lichess.org/

Nicolas Noel also has a Lichess Elite database that only keeps games of 2500+ vs 2300+ players: https://database.nikonoel.fr/

# Answer
> 0 votes
I would also like to suggest Chessbase, which is my personal favorite. It has 8 million games. It does require premium to see the move PGN though. You can replay the moves, similar to our move replayer, for free. It can be downloaded here.

---
Tags: rating, database
---


# Question
Title: King + 2 Knights vs King + Pawn - win rate at master level at standard time controls?
After 80 moves of his game against MVL, Carlsen reached this theoretically winning endgame position, which ended in a draw:

```
[Title "Carlsen - MVL, Superbet Rapid & Blitz Poland, 2023"]
[fen "8/8/4k3/8/3K3p/7N/8/6N1 w - - 0 1"]

```

According analysis by Troitsky in the 1930's the black pawn has to be no further forward than the line below:

It is a very difficult endgame for both players, particularly at rapid/blitz time controls, so no surprise that Carlsen failed to convert.

I know of two standard time control, master games where this endgame arose and both times the two knights won!

```
[Title "Niemann - Panchanatham, Chicago Open, 2015"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "112"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 Na6 7.O-O e5 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.h3 h6 11.Bc1 exd4 12.Nxd4 Nf6 13.Bf3 Qe5 14.Re1 Rd8 15.b3 Nh7 16.Be3 Ng5 17.Ndb5 c6 18.Bd4 Qf4 19.Bxg7 Nxf3+ 20.Qxf3 Qxf3 21.gxf3 Kxg7 22.Nd4 Bxh3 23.Rad1 Nc7 24.Kh2 Bc8 25.Rd2 Kf6 26.f4 Ne6 27.Nde2 a5 28.Red1 Ke7 29.Na4 Rb8 30.Nb6 Nc5 31.e5 Ne4 32.Rd4 Bf5 33.f3 dxe5 34.Rxd8 Rxd8 35.Rxd8 Kxd8 36.fxe4 Bg4 37.Nc1 exf4 38.Nd3 g5 39.c5 Be6 40.Ne5 Kc7 41.Nbc4 a4 42.Nd2 b6 43.cxb6+ Kxb6 44.bxa4 Ka5 45.Nxc6+ Kxa4 46.Nb1 h5 47.Nc3+ Ka3 48.Nd5 f5 49.Nd4 fxe4 50.Nxe6 e3 51.Nxg5 e2 52.Nf3 Kxa2 53.Nc3+ Kb3 54.Nxe2 h4 55.Kh3 Kc4 56.Kxh4 Kd3 57.Ned4 Ke4 58.Kg5 Kd5 59.Kf5 Kc4 60.Ke4 Kc5 61.Ne2 Kc4 62.Kf5 Kd3 63.Ned4 Kc4 64.Ke4 Kc5 65.Kd3 Kd5 66.Nb3 Kd6 67.Kd4 Ke6 68.Ke4 Kd6 69.Kd4 Ke6 70.Nbd2 Kd6 71.Kc4 Ke6 72.Nf1 Kd6 73.N1h2 Ke6 74.Kc5 Kd7 75.Ng4 Ke6 76.Nf2 Kd7 77.Ne4 Ke6 78.Nd6 Kd7 79.Nb5 Ke6 80.Nbd4+ Kd7 81.Kd5 Kc7 82.Ke6 Kb6 83.Kd6 Kb7 84.Nb5 Kb6 85.Nc3 Ka5 86.Kc5 Ka6 87.Nd5 Ka5 88.Nb6 Ka6 89.Nc4 Kb7 90.Kd6 Kc8 91.Na5 Kd8 92.Nb7+ Ke8 93.Ke6 Kf8 94.Nd6 Kg7 95.Kf5 Kh6 96.Ne8 Kh5 97.Ng7+ Kh6 98.Kf6 Kh7 99.Nf5 Kg8 100.Ke7 Kh7 101.Kf7 Kh8 102.Ng5 f3 103.Ne7 f2 104.Ng6# 1-0

```

and Karjakin vs Sevian 2018 Isle of Man.

```
[Title "Karjakin vs Sevian, 2018, Isle of Man"]
[fen ""]
[Startply "116"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a4 b4 9. a5 d6 10. d3 Be6 11. Nbd2 Qc8 12. h3 Rb8 13. Nc4 h6 14. Be3 Rd8 15. Qe2 Bf8 16. Nfd2 g6 17. Ba4 Qb7 18. Qf3 Nh7 19. Qg3 Bg7 20. f4 exf4 21. Bxf4 Nf6 22. Be3 Nd7 23. Qf2 Nc5 24. Bxc6 Qxc6 25. Bd4 Bxd4 26. Qxd4 b3 27. c3 Nd7 28. Qe3 d5 29. exd5 Bxd5 30. Qxh6 Re8 31. Ne3 Ne5 32. c4 Bxg2 33. Nxg2 Nxd3 34. Re3 Qc5 35. Kh1 Nf2+ 36. Kh2 Qd6+ 37. Kg1 Rxe3 38. Qxe3 Nxh3+ 39. Kh1 Kg7 40. Re1 Rh8 41. Qe5+ Qxe5 42. Rxe5 Ng5+ 43. Kg1 Rd8 44. Rd5 Rxd5 45. cxd5 Kf6 46. Nxb3 Ne4 47. Ne3 Ke5 48. Kg2 f5 49. Nc1 f4 50. Nc2 Kxd5 51. Nb4+ Kc4 52. Nxa6 Kb5 53. Nxc7+ Kxa5 54. Nd3 Nd2 55. Ne6 Kb5 56. Nexf4 Nc4 57. Ne6 Nxb2 58. Nxb2 g5 59. Nd4+ Kc5 60. Nf5 g4 61. Ng3 Kd4 62. Kf2 Kc3 63. Nd1+ Kd3 64. Ke1 Kc4 65. Kd2 Kd4 66. Nc3 Kc4 67. Nce2 Kd5 68. Kc3 Kc5 69. Nf4 Kc6 70. Kc4 Kd6 71. Nd3 Kc6 72. Ne5+ Kd6 73. Kd4 Ke6 74. Nc4 Kf6 75. Ne3 Ke6 76. Nef5 Kd7 77. Kd5 Kc7 78. Nd4 Kd7 79. Ne6 Ke7 80. Nc5 Kf7 81. Kd6 Kf6 82. Nce4+ Kf7 83. Kd7 Kf8 84. Nd6 Kg7 85. Ke6 Kg6 86. Nde4 Kg7 87. Ke7 Kg8 88. Kf6 Kh7 89. Nf5 Kg8 (89...g3 90. Kf7 g2 91. Ng5+ Kh8 92. Ne7 g1=Q 93. Ng6#) 90. Ke7 g3 91. Nf6+ Kh8 92. Kf8 1-0

```

Interestingly in both these games the pawn was in front of the line and so the games were both theoretical draws.

In master level FIDE rated games at standard time controls what is the win rate for the two knights? Of the two games I know of, above, it is 2 out of 2 but it must be lower than 100%.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I did a scan of my personal databases , limited the data to standard time controls, and limited the dataset down to players that have held IM or GM ratings throughout their career.

I found in total 311 games that met the criteria.

* Win: 68
* Draw: 243

So that's a win conversion rate of a little over 1 in 5 games (21.8%).

*Notes: Database contains a little over of 15 million games, largely comprised of tournament play.*

---
Tags: endgame, knights, master-games, 2knights-vs-pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Do amphibians usually have more synergy than other compound pieces?
Reading about fairy pieces I can see that an amphibian is a type of compound piece that has a larger range than either of it's components. For instance the 3 leaper is restricted to approximately 1/9 of the board, and the ferz is restricted to 1/2 the board, but the compound piece of a ferz and a 3 leaper is able to travel to any square on the board. I understand that the compound of a bishop and rook is usually thought to have a synergy of 1 point as the queen is thought to be 9 points and the rook+bishop is worth 8 points. A non royal king is usually thought to have a synergy of 1 point as the wazir is worth about 1 point and the ferz is also worth about 1 point, but a non royal king is thought to be worth about 3 points. I'm wondering is an amphibian would tend to have a synergy greater than that of other types of compound pieces given that it can cover more squares than the pieces its a combination of combined.

# Answer
Not *just* amphibians. Other pieces too!

> Note: I'm assuming an 8x8 board. A different board size would have ***VERY*** different values!

Let's take the queen as a standard. Queen consists of Rook + Bishop, but is given 9 points, rather than 8. This is due to its ability to switch colours (unlike the bishop).

Another example is the Princess (B+N). It is supposed to be 6, but is reckoned to be ~8 (+2 synergy!). Whereas the Empress(R+N) is reckoned to be only *slightly* better (5+3 -\> 8.5), with only 0.5 synergetic effects!

So, combine a rook with a knight, the synergy is only +0.5, but with a bishop, it is +1!

I think it's more prudent to use the word "restricted piece", as this includes bishops, as when they get unrestricted, they have *a lot* of synergy. Also, the knight, while being a leaper, doesn't add that much synergy, as it can still traverse every square of the board.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, point-value, unorthodox-pieces
---