# Question
Title: How to convert PGN moves to long algebraic notation (in python)?
I want to read a PGN file and then advance to a certain move number, and feed that to an UCI engine. Turns out engines work using long algebraic notation, and PGNs are in short algebraic. What is an easy way to make the conversion? i.e. from SAN to LAN.

I realize that generating long algebraic notation requires knowledge of the board state & chess rules, so I don't want to write it all again! Surely something like this must already exist - either a command line program or a module (preferably in python).

# Answer
Would this be what you are looking for? **PGN-extract** (A command line utility) http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/pgn-extract/

I can see a flag in the feature doc that might help:

* `-W[cm|epd|halg|lalg|elalg|san|uci]` \- specify the output format to use
`-Whalg` is hyphenated long algebraic.
`-Wlalg` is long algebraic
`-Welalg[PNBRQK]` is enhanced long algebraic. Use the characters PNBRQK for language
> 10 votes

---
Tags: programming, pgn, python
---


title: Brilliancy prizes

text:
# Question
Title: Brilliancy prizes
Many times the annotations to an old game include the information that it won a brilliancy prize (I have even seen "4th place brilliancy prizes"). I know there used to be money attached to these, so perhaps it was a means to make the tournament more attractive when the purses were not so big, and for patrons to play small-time sponsorship (put a small prize with your name instead of the full competition award).

> Are brilliancy prizes still awarded? If not, why?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think that has sadly gone out of fashion over many decades. I've personally not been to any big city tournament that ever offered one but a bit of googling revealed the following venues in a few countries that feature a brilliancy cash prize in the year 2013.

Is it fair to say that this trend correlates with the more nuanced and scientific way of playing this game now than people did way back? You now have Engine analysis (where laymen can now comment/critique (or even *troll*) on the moves of elite players as they play them on live servers!), Instant database look-up and ridiculous levels of home preparation ... wouldn't this have sucked out the **romance** of chess altogether?

There was a time when a swashbuckling combination was probably spectacular to see ... but now, some heckler is going to squint at his smartphone for **just** a few seconds and say "uhh, nope. Computer says that move leads to a dead-lost game!" :)

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: What "double moves" are sometimes considered legal?
As we know, castling is a legal "double move," where two pieces are moved at once.

But in my country, Indonesia, in my childhood, the opening below was an 'assumed legal' double move to counter `1.e4` and similar openings.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/p1pppp1p/1p1111p1/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR - - - 0 0 "]

```

As I understand, this opening is an illegal double move. (Someone can help me with the FIDE rule.)

I would like to know, though, are such double moves played in any other place in the world??

# Answer
From your description, I'm not sure whether in your childhood games the sort of double move you showed above could only happen at that one point in the game, or could continue to happen. So I don't have much to say, but there is at least an established chess variant (dating back to the early 20th century) in which your indicated sequence of moves could occur legally.

The game is (Balanced) Marseillais Chess, in which White begins with a single move, but then each side alternates making two successive moves from that point on. In (essentially) the notation used at that link, your position would arise after

> 1.e4
>
> 1.b6; g6

Other than the fact that each side makes two moves, the rules are essentially the normal rules of chess. There are of course some necessary changes, e.g. if your first move is a check you don't get a second one. Follow the link for full details and some history.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Castling is the only legal chess move in which two pieces are moved. You can verify this by searching for "FIDE Laws of Chess" and reading "Article 3: The moves of the pieces" (I do not provide the URL here because unfortunately it frequently changes).
> 11 votes

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, illegal-move
---


title: I'm confused about the 50-move rule

text:
# Question
Title: I'm confused about the 50-move rule
A player may claim a draw after 50 moves-does this mean 25 moves by each player, which results 50, or 50 moves by each player, which results 100?

# Answer
From the FIDE rules (emphasis added):

> 9.3
>
> The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
>
> a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last **50 moves having been made by each player** without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
>
> b. the last **50 consecutive moves have been made by each player** without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

So it's 100 total plies, or "half-moves."
> 11 votes

# Answer
An interesting detail of the 50 move rule: As only the player to move may claim a draw (either by declaring that the 50 move limit has been reached or by declaring his intention to make a move after which the limit will be reached), if the 100th half-move that is not a capture nor a pawn move is a checkmate, then the game is not drawn. See e.g. Arbiter's notebook 98.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: rules, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: Comparing ELO ratings between different countries
I've noticed (empirically) that American players tend to be weaker than Israeli players with comparable non-international ratings. Is there a tool for converting one country's Elo rating to that of another? Or of otherwise verifying this claim?

# Answer
> 4 votes
When you say 'comparable non-international ratings' do you mean USCF ratings? Or perhaps Israeli ratings? There is no valid way to compare the ratings of players if they don't use the same rating system. Even if they use the same system things can get odd when groups of players are isolated from one another.

While ELO isn't perfect (what is?), players' ELO ratings can be (and are) compared directly. There is still the 'pool' problem especially at the lower levels but at least the system is the same.

Edit - my answer makes the assumption the entire ratings lists of both countries aren't available. If they are available, a mathematical approximation can be made. It will not be very accurate for the ends of the bell curve. For example, I would not use this to compare the strongest GMs in each country.

# Answer
> 3 votes
50 % answer, 50 % comment on Tony's answer: While it is true that the ratings of different rating systems are not directly comparable, there is always a very high correlation between players' ratings in two systems, and someone with access to the data should be able to get an approximative conversion formula. With hard work, you might be able to google some approximations (I didn't find anything more than forum discussions without any sources). For example, many national chess federations use some chosen formula to convert the Fide ratings of foreign players to initial national ratings.

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: What is black's best sixth move in the Sicilian Grand Prix?
`1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.O-O Nxb5` is most common.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.O-O Nxb5 (6...a6)

```

Instead of `6...Nxb5` if black plays `6...a6`, it seems white has some difficulties. Can anyone give the best move after this position with continuation? If possible give some games after the move `6...a6` which gives a easy play for white.

# Answer
Things don't look too difficult for White after the natural `7.Bc4` (in your `6...a6` line); not that I think White has some great position, but I at least don't see why you write "it seems White has some difficulties." Since you didn't elaborate on what you think these difficulties are, I'm going to guess that they revolve around White's light-square bishop getting harassed by expanding black pawns. Assuming that is the concern, I don't think there's really any reason to worry.

For instance, if Black immediately lashes out with `7...b5`, White can keep the bishop active on the a2-f7 diagonal without fear of getting trapped by `...c4` since he can gain time against Black's rook: `8.Bd5 Rb8 9.d3`, when `9...e6` can be safely met with `10.Bb3`. After say `10...Bb7`, Black has a perfectly good position, but the same goes for White. (Note that White should welcome `10...Nxb3 11.axb3` with good central control and play down the a-file. And in any case White shouldn't mind losing the bishop pair in this position, especially since he played into a line in which Black had the earlier option of `6...Nxb5` anyway.)

Similarly, if Black prepares `...b5` with `7...e6`, I think White should simply play `8.d3` with play similar to the above line, e.g. `8...b5 9.Bb3 Bb7`, and again White should be content with something like `9...Nxb3 10.axb3 Bb7` as well.

Perhaps I'm wrong about what difficulties you see for White after `6...a6` (in which case please correct me with more detail in your post), but if that is where you think trouble lies, it seems to me that everything is fine for White (though fine for Black too).

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.O-O a6
    ( 6...Nxb5 )
7.Bc4 b5
    ( 7...e6 8.d3 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7
        ( 9...Nxb3 10.axb3 Bb7 )
    )
8.Bd5 Rb8 9.d3 e6 10.Bb3 Bb7
    ( 10...Nxb3 11.axb3 )
*

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, sicilian-defense
---


title: Multi-threat situation

text:
# Question
Title: Multi-threat situation
```
[fen "7k/8/4n3/2b5/3p4/8/2N1N3/3Q3K w - - 0 1"]

```

This picture above depicts a very simplified situation when white pieces threaten and black pieces defend the black pawn. If the next move is to white, it is a series of captures that is coming.

How does one decide if that is good for black or not? Is there an algorithm for that? How long will this series of exchanges take? Until all black and white pieces are consumed, or is there a point when the exchanges should be stopped?

# Answer
> 4 votes
You appear to be referring ("series of hits") to an instructional concept in chess tactics called **Counting**.

NM Dan Heisman's famous Novice Nook articles includes a multi-part series dedicated to Counting which you can read (preferably in order) at:

Article #2 (Most Important Tactic) even contains positions similar to what you posted above.

**When do you stop counting?** If you were to expand on counting and instead ask "when do you stop calculating forcing lines?" I'd refer you to another one of Dan's articles regarding Quiescence Errors.

---
Tags: analysis, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Is certain opening determine relative pieces value
as I know that certain opening will leads to certain positions, but I do not know if certain opening will determine relative value of chess pieces. Are there some sources to explained it??

as example : if I choose Ruy Lopez, my knights will more worth than my bishops, and etc.

# Answer
> 4 votes
To some extent, yes. General rule: if certain opening/variant of opening will leads to open position, then bishops will be worth more than knights - and usually opposite in closed games.

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Determine winner based on taking king

text:
# Question
Title: Determine winner based on taking king
I've been asked my friend about enable take king to determine the winner..

who's the winner if the condition like this?? (some Fide rule should necessary)

```
[FEN "7k/6r1/7p/8/8/2B1q3/6N1/6K1 - - - 0 0 "]

1. Ng2xQe3 Rg7xKg1 2. Bc3xKh8

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
The knight move is illegal since one may not expose one's king to check. That the rook is pinned is of no relevance.

---
Tags: analysis, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Does deliberately knocking the king over end the game?
When I play with my friend, he will often knock his own king over when he is going to lose.

He ends the game and says, "I lose".

Is this permissible?

# Answer
> 4 votes
here is a link addressing this question exactly i quote:

> It depends on the way you do it, generally it's not rude, though.
>
> Once I was playing a tough game against the late GM Wojo, and got a balanced and complicated position, but also considerable time pressure. After the time pressure was over I realized that I have totally blown up my position, played 41.Kg1-g0 and pressed the clock. Wojo was surprised at first, but later he had a good laugh.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes, players often tip their king over to indicate that they are resigning.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Is this permissible?

This mostly depends on the chess customs in your country. Personally, I have never ever seen somebody in past 13 years who did this in official tournament. But in unofficial games with friends this is totally acceptable.

---
Tags: etiquette, otb-chess
---


title: When is a bishop preferred over a rook

text:
# Question
Title: When is a bishop preferred over a rook
I've seen some moves from my chess engine (Houdini) when a rook was exchanged for a bishop.

Even though I still lose the game, I see a degrading value for chess engine.

Is it just because of bad calculation or something else??

# Answer
These situations are very rare, but they do happen from time to time. An example is the following 1919 game between J.R. Capablanca (the future world champion) and F.D. Yates.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055968

```
[FEN ""]
    [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 Na5 9. Bc2 c5 10. d4 Qc7 11. Nbd2 Bg4 12. d5 g5 13. Nf1 h6 14. Ng3 Rd8 15. a4 b4 16. cxb4 cxb4 17. Bd3 Bc8 18. Be3 Ng4 19. Rc1 Qb8 20. Bd2 Qb6 21. Qe2 Nb3 22. Rc6 Qa5 23. Bxa6 Bd7 24. Bb5 Bxc6 25. Bxc6+ Kf8 26. Qc4 Nxd2 27. Nxd2 Qa7 28. Qe2 h5 29. Nf5 Bf6 30. Nc4 Qc5 31. b3 Nh6 32. Nxh6 Rxh6 33. Qe3 Rc8 34. Rc1 Bd8 35. Qxc5 dxc5 36. Nxe5 Ke7 37. Rxc5 f5 38. Rc4 Ba5 39. Bb5 Rxc4 40. Nxc4 Bc7 41. e5 Bb8 42. Ne3 Rh7 43. Nxf5+ Kf7 44. e6+ Kf6 45. e7 Rxe7 46. Nxe7 Kxe7 47. g3 Bc7 48. Kg2 Kd6 49. Be8 h4 50. Bf7 Ke5 51. Kh3 Bd8 52. Kg4 hxg3 53. fxg3 Kf6 54. Be6 Kg6 55. d6 Kf6 56. Bf5 Bb6 57. d7 Bd8 58. h4 gxh4 59. gxh4 Bc7 60. h5 Kg7 61. Be4 1-0

```

Black had what is called a "weak color complex" on the White squares. When White exchanged his rook for Black's white squared bishop, his white squares became very weak (because all his pawns were on Black squares. White was able to get his other pieces (a rook and knight) on white squares behind these pawns, and pick them off, while Black's pieces were bottled up on Black squares.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: How to improve my blitz skills?

text:
# Question
Title: How to improve my blitz skills?
As far as casual chess goes, I'm a fairly average player. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but I'm generally able to avoid obvious blunders, think a move or a couple forward, etc.

However, since I've taken up chess, I've tried my skills in some local tournaments, and the scenario is always the same - I get put on a 10- or 15-minute clock, and either run out of time, panic, or blunder, and walk out with a straight row of zeroes. I even lose to my friends that I can easily beat when not on the clock.

So - should I look at blitz chess in a different light? Think differently? Or is it just "practice, practice, practice" and "don't be a slow thinker"?

# Answer
Some things that have helped me get better are:

* Counter-intuitively, continue to work hard on your slow game. The best speed game players in the world just happen to be the best slow game players. When playing slow games, you are giving your brain more "soak time" to absorb patterns and really grind into positions, giving your analysis ("I takes, he takes, ... ") skills the necessary deliberate practice.
* Time Management is key. If you are playing blitz **without** a time delay/increment, then it is vital to play the clock first, board second. Playing the board makes sense until you hit your time allowance per move. Then it is a matter of playing what you consider to be best and moving on. Play what makes him burn HIS clock, not yours. You're not painting a masterpiece, you're trying to win by any means necessary! Of course, with very strong opposition, you may need to do both ... but the clock trumps the position quite often, especially as you start getting into a time-crunch! Consider reading NM Heisman's famous Two Triggers Novice Nook ... might offer you a fresh perspective if you're ever hesitating to make a move or feel nervous that you might be wrong if you rush into things.
* Get Good (or at least decent) at tactics. You should have **enough** tactical patterns **burned** into your skull to recall 1-3 ply / single-motif shots in less than 3-5 seconds. Focus on breadth (covering a ton of basic 2-4 ply tactics) and do not waste time trying to solve 12-13 ply puzzles (as most tactics servers and puzzle books tend to lure you into!)
* Practice closing out **won** games against a full-strength computer at insanely tough time-crunch controls (for e.g. start with basics such as KQ vs K in under a minute and work your way up to piece-up/two-pawns up type of won games)
* To deal with nerves or panicking, put yourself way out of your comfort zone (as necessary!) by playing a lot of online-blitz against decent opposition. This also allows you to try out a lot of different opening lines (some of these will want to become your pet lines / repertoire) quickly.
> 21 votes

---
Tags: tournament, blitz, online, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Has the 50 move rule been used in serious games?
There are a lot of questions about the 50-move rule; details on how to claim the draw, why the number 50, etc...

But the most interesting question seems to be whether the rule has ever been applied in an actual game! (N.B. I am referring to serious sanctioned games only). To be more concrete:

> Is there any official game between FIDE masters or above which ended in a draw as a result of one of the players invoking the 50-move rule?

# Answer
> 14 votes
Yes, many times. Ivanchuk- Kamsky 2009 is one example, but there are hundreds if not thousands of others. Ushenina - Girya 2013 made some news recently because Ushenina couldn't mate with knight and bishop in time.

---
Tags: master-games, 50-move-rule
---


title: Is this an example of a backwards pawn?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this an example of a backwards pawn?
1. e4 e5
2. d3

At this point, if d3 advances, say at 3. d4 it does not control d4, it is controlled by a sentry (an enemy pawn controlling d4) and is adjacent and behind a same colored pawn at e4.

Is the d3 pawn backwards? I was told no, because it is supported by c2, but Wikpedia's definition of a backwards pawn doesn't care about a backward's pawn's support, only the support it has moving forward.

Thank you.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The pawn on `d3` is not backwards since (as you say) it is protected by another pawn.

There must be something missing from Wikipedia's definition. Later on the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward\_pawn) contradicts itself.

> Also, the opponent can place a piece, usually a knight, on the hole in front of the pawn without any risk of a pawn driving it away.

In your example, if black puts a knight on `d4`, the pawn move `c3`will drive it away.

---
Tags: pawns
---


title: Strategy on castle (short or long)

text:
# Question
Title: Strategy on castle (short or long)
As we know, we usually doing castle to move king to (assumed) safe place.

But when we play short castle or long castle since my chess engine (Houdini) seems to prefer short castle when I play against a strong player and long castle when I play against a weak player.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The side selected for castling is generally related to the openings chosen by the player. Long castling has the following attributes:

1. lands a rook on a center file where short castling does not.
2. takes more time since an additional piece must be moved (the queen).
3. leaves the pawn on the a-file undefended.

Finally, when the players castle on opposite wings, the game is less likely to be a draw - the opposing pawns can become purely offensive weapons.

Since Houdini is rated probably close to 1800 points higher than I am and because we don't have any specifics, I can't tell you why it's making its castling choice. But it does not move based upon the weakness of its opponent, per se - it is making moves based upon board position.

You'll might see Houdini castling long if it has time to get the queen off the back row. Or perhaps if it can gain a tempo by castling long and hitting an opponent's piece in the center.

---
Tags: analysis, houdini
---


# Question
Title: Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?
Black was in a position to take a white bishop with the king. The white bishop was protected by a white knight. However, if the white knight was moved it would expose the white king to the black queen.

Thus, is the king actually in check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot be moved?
Or, Can the king move into check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot move?

Thank you.

# Answer
Still considered in check. FIDE handbook from the WCF website.

> 3.9
> The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, **even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check.** No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: check
---


# Question
Title: How to write the first move of a PGN that starts with blacks?
Some programs/websites use `1. ... e5 2.f3` (e.g Arena or LT-PGN-Viewer) while others use `1...e5 2.f3` (e.g chess.com). To achieve this, I loaded a FEN that is black-to-move, then made a move.

Which one is best to use? What does the specs say about this?

---

Just to make this clear, my question is *not* about using 3 dots after a white move comment, for this one I got to the conclusion that it is best to use `1.e4 { comment } 1...e5 2.Nf3` over `1.e4 { comment } e5 2.Nf3`, but it is somewhat optional.

# Answer
> 2 votes
`1...e5` is best. I quote from Section 8.2.2.2 of the PGN specification, with the relevant phrases in bold:

> There are two export format move number indication formats, one for use appearing immediately before a white move element and one for use appearing immediately before a black move element. A white move number indication is formed from the integer giving the fullmove number with a single period character appended. **A black move number indication is formed from the integer giving the fullmove number with three period characters appended.**
>
> All white move elements have a preceding move number indication. A black move element has a preceding move number indication only in two cases: first, if there is intervening annotation or commentary between the black move and the previous white move; and second, **if there is no previous white move in the special case where a game starts from a position where Black is the active player.**

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: How to limit the depth of analysis in Arena?
I am using `Arena` with `Stockfish-222-64-ja-intel`. It thinks about 50 moves deep and heats up my laptop processor. All I was interested in, was a depth of about 12-13 moves and for the best line to be shown on the top. I am not able to find the options to configure the gui is such a manner. Let me know if you have an answer.

Update: I know how to limit the level for computer strength. That's plain - it's `Levels>>Adjust>>Fixed Search Depth>>8 half moves`. The problem still persists though. When I click the `Analyze` button, the computer starts thinking really deep (and yes, the heating problem is a bit irritating and drains the battery).

# Answer
> 1 votes
What you want to do is limit the number of cores Stockfish has access to. I'm sure your computer/laptop has more than one core, but if improperly set, a UCI engine can eat up all of your processing power and leave your computer sluggish. There are two ways to fix this.

Arena should have a "Lower than normal process priority" in Engine Management Options. You should check this off.

Also, I know Chessbase lets you allocate a certain amount of cores (or threads) for the engine, and I'm sure Arena does as well. However, I'm not entirely sure how to do it with the specified software.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Variation of Attack besides Center Control and Flanking
Does in official games, had happened when a player didn't concentrate his attack to center or by flanking??

In this case, my possible attack is used side of board when opponent had castling the king to certain side.

I've this method in my childhood, but seldom to see it in chess engine except versus weak opponent.

# Answer
Attacking isn't necessarily generalized to areas of the board. For example, I can attack your queen with my pawn, and this isn't a localized concept. Your question seems to imply that you're asking about attacks on the opposing king as you specify attacking the side of the board where your opponent has castled. There exist far more aggressive strategies than controlling the center or flanking out the opponent. Consider tactics, square and file control, general initiative, and development as alternatives.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Are there any bughouse chess engines?

text:
# Question
Title: Are there any bughouse chess engines?
A friend told me its very hard to implement a **bughouse** chess engine because it requires much more processor power than a regular chess engine.

Are there any bughouse engines out there ? if not, what are the reasons ?

# Answer
> 9 votes
There are certainly several chess engines, but as a result of the additional complexities referenced by @TonyEnnis, these engines are weaker than reasonably strong players. It's extremely difficult to take into account the different scenarios that can arise from two positions as pieces switch from board to board every move. The resulting search tree increases at an exponential rate even greater than that of standard chess.

The engine that I'm most familiar with is Sjeng which claims that it has an ELO of around 2000 on FICS, equivalent to a strong human player.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Sjeng is your best bet but play with an engine is very weird. Typically a human + engine team will have their play revolve around getting up on time (sometimes even by only a few seconds). Then the human player will tell the engine to move fast, and then sit. Note that since the computer can play decent moves instantly, that effectively means it is impossible to sac material against the human player unless also up on time -- even if the sacrifice is very strong and leads to an imminently winning attack or quickly recovering the material. The human player will accept the sacrifice(s) and sit, then let the engine win on time or use the extra material on the board to win. For these reasons none of the strong bughouse players will accept games with engines anymore, really.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't know of any bughouse engines.

Extra complexities:

In addition to playing the standard game...

1. Extra tactical vision. The computer now has to envision good moves that either side could execute *if only* a certain piece were in-hand.
2. Drops make the search tree enormous. There's really no restriction on where pieces may be dropped (pawns? can pawns be dropped?) That makes the search tree enormous.
3. Multi-board sacrifices. If the machine were to find a good move "if only I had a \[piece\] in hand,", it then has to decide if it is wise to sacrifice on the other board (or even this board) to get that piece.
4. Tactical clock management. The bughouse games I played were always on the clock (that is - 5 minute bughouse.) Tactical clock management is another complexity. I've seen games won when one side had a clear win on one board, and stopped playing on the other boards when they held the time advantage, to starve the opponents of extra pieces.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Sunsetter is best seems, but Sjeng (especially 11) is good for many purposes too.

See http://bughousechess.wz.cz/BughouseEngines/

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, bughouse
---


# Question
Title: Humans against computers: is it an advantage to humans to have more time or less
It's clear to me that humans are at a loss when it comes down to playing against computers. (not only due to the answers to my last question (Humans against computers).

But, would humans (maybe a team of us) have a better chance of winning if we have a longer time per move or a shorter time?

# Answer
Longer time lets both sides to calculate the variants deeper.

In blitz games (\< 5 min) computers are terribly strong and we have no chance. Computer's reaction is too fast and it can compute lots of variants in early few seconds. On the other hand humans are potential to make blunders.

In games with 15-60 minutes engines are strong too, but humans have chances to avoid overlooks, obvious mistakes and they can analyze the position better, but yet it's hard to resist against engines.

In long games, engines can discover more variants, the problem is by processing deep variants the state space tree gets huge and finishing depth *N* and getting into depth *N+1* consumes too long time. In other words, if an engine makes its decision after 4 hours thinking on a position, it's rare for it to change its decision to another move by more 1 hour thinking.

On the other hand humans have more time to analyze positions strategically (the only thing that humans are still better than engines. At least it's comparable to engines)

So my answer is long games can give us a better chance to *play better* against computers.
> 6 votes

# Answer
As human beings, we can't calculate as fast as a computer. In fact, there are many things which human beings can't do as fast as a computer, including numerical calculations. Hence, for a match to be considered 'fair', human beings should be given adequate time for thinking. This would assist them in faring better against the computer. Today, machines appear to have surpassed humans and the match where Deep Blue defeated Kasparov created history of a kind. For humans, apart from calculation, intuition, instinct, and experience also matter. However, I don't think we should be dissapointed with the fact that machines can defeat grandmasters. The reason they are able to do so is because apart from calculation, they are also fed with opening book data and various other data and strategies which grandmasters have learnt only by experience. This knowledge which is fed into the engine is knowledge which human beings have acquired over hundreds of years so ultimately, the credit for their success also goes to the human beings who have accumulated this wealth of knowledge over the years.

Mathematically speaking, for eg. if you consider the starting position, there are 20 possible moves. After 1) e4 .. e4, this increases the no. of possible moves to 28. Mathematically speaking, the algorithms used by computers are of exponential complexity - meaning that if you consider a number,for eg., 28 as the average no. of possible moves per person - so if a computer needs to calculate to a depth of n, it would have to consider 28^n possibilities. Such exponential complexity algorithms are amongst the most difficult algorithms for a computer to handle. To get an idea of this, 28^5 = 17 million(eight digits), 28^10 = a 15 digit number. By contrast, 8^5 = 32,000, and 8^10 = 1 billion(10 digits). If there are lesser pieces on the board, the computer has fewer moves to calculate. However, fewer pawns would mean more openness which means more moves to calculate. So if you want to beat the computer, you need to keep as many pieces on the board as possible(avoid exchanges) - go for a slow game with no exchanges near the beginning, where the computer still has a lot of moves to calculate even after it goes out of the opening book.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: How to use Houdini with SCID on Mac OS?

text:
# Question
Title: How to use Houdini with SCID on Mac OS?
I have recently moved to a Mac. Immediately I've installed Scid (looks very nice on the Mac) but I couldn't find a way to use my Houdini as a chess engine.

Supposedly, it should run with Wine, but I don't know how to do it. I understand that you have done so, so could you give me some guidance?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Although I know you're on a Mac and I don't know what you've tried so far in detail, this scid-users mailing list thread might be of interest. It suggests to add the exe file in as the command, but without the wine before it. Again, that is for Ubuntu, but maybe it will help.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Most UCI engines won't work on Windows, but the two major ones that work on Mac or Stockfish and Critter. Both can be easily loaded into SCID.

---
Tags: software, houdini, macos
---


# Question
Title: How to make Stockfish always give the score from white's perspective in Winboard?
I use Stockfish 4 to analyze chess games in both Babaschess and Winboard. From time to time, Stockfish outputs a line with info like time, score, principal variation, etc. In Babaschess, the 'score' behaves as I would expect; it is always from white's perspective. If white is doing well, the score is always positive; if black is doing well, the score is always negative. However, in Winboard, the score is always from the perspective of the current player, meaning that it tends to veer from positive-negative-positive-negative, if one player stays in the lead.

How can I get the score to behave in Winboard as it does in Babaschess, and always be from white's perspective; always negative if black is doing well? Here's the line in my Winboard 'tags' that I use to load the Stockfish engine:

```
"Stockfish" -fcp "stockfish_4_32bit.exe" -fd "C:\Program Files\BabasChess\Engines\stockfish-4-win\Windows" -fUCI

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Use `/firstScoreAbs true` command option (*Tested in version 4.7.2*):

> If this option is set, the score reported by the engine is taken to be that in favor of white, even when the engine plays black.

```
"stockfish_4_32bit.exe" -fd "path\Stockfish" -fUCI  /firstScoreAbs true
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

```

---
Tags: stockfish, babaschess, winboard
---


# Question
Title: Queens Gambit Declined vs Slav: Exchange Variations
I am a keen player of d4 as white. One of the things that I often read is that the exchange variation of the Queens Gambit Declined is generally considered good for white:

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5

```

But the exchange variation of the Slav (or exchanging after Nc3 in the Slav) is considered better for black:

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3.cxd5 (3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 cxd5) 3...cxd5

```

I checked http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer and it seems to support this view, with the following win/draw/lose statistics for white for the above variations:

* QGD All Variations: (41%, 37.7%,21.3%)
* QGD Exchange: (49.8%,35.3%,14.9%)
* Slav All Variations: (37.8%, 41.3%, 20.9%)
* Slav (early exchange): (22.5%,55.2%,22.3%)
* Slav (exchange after Nc3): (30.2%,49.9%,19.9%)

So it seems clear that the exchange of central pawns favours white in the QGD, but favours black in the Slav.

My question is simply - why? The resulting positions are superfluously similar (in the Slav black is missing the c-pawn, while in the QGD the e-pawn), yet positionally these must be very different! Is there a simple explanation of why this is the case? Would a clever newbie (i.e. somebody who plays chess very well, but have never played these variations) be able to make this deduction over the board through pure reasoning, or is this the type of thing you can only deduce by studying the opening theory?

# Answer
White happens to have a couple of nice concrete plans in the particular QGD Exchange variation you mention (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5). One involves e3, f3, Nge2, and a break in the center with e4. The other is a minority attack on Black's a7-b7-c6-d5 pawn structure with b2-b4-b5. You will note that White's stats are much worse in the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5, even though the pawn structures are the same, because he no longer has the f3/e4 plan. So it is not nearly as simple as "the exchange of pawns favors White in the QGD but favors Black in the Slav."
> 5 votes

# Answer
Short answer: In symmetric positions it's difficult to get an advantage if there's nothing concrete. In the Exchange Slav white only has an extra half-move against black's very solid position. Compare with the Exchange French which is even more drawish.

In the Exchange variation of Queen's Gambit Declined on the other hand, there is a structural imbalance that white can try to exploit. The white position is quite flexible, there are many different strategies to choose from that lead to complicated play. White can go for the minority attack (`b4-b5`), play in the center (`f3` followed by `e4`), and there are other options depending on the concrete line. In most lines white has a small, but real, advantage.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The Principle of Two Weaknesses is at work here, one weakness is easier to defend than two.

Asymmetry, especially in pawn structure, benefits the player ahead in development, because there is usually available play on more parts of the board. The situation becomes more of a race, and the faster developed player will have an easier way to obtain an advantage.

Symmetry on the other hand, usually leads to play on one same section of the board. In the case of the Exchange Slav, play will most often revolve around Queenside (or otherwise someone has to break the symmetry by playing e4 or ...e5 leading to isolated queen pawn position, at the cost of weakening their own pawn structure).

Simply put, asymmetry often creates potential for two weaknesses, symmetry often creates only one, which is easier to defend against. As white you have the advantage of the first move, so it is wiser to aim for asymmetrical structure if you want any sort of advantage out of the opening.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The exchange variation in the classical QGD can be viewed as theoretically favouring white because after the fourth move in your game, white has both his central pawns while black has only one. However, black now has a semi-open central file which he can use to control the centre through his rooks. Also, he has a queen side pawn majority and he can start pushing his pawns forward on the queen side and try and gain an advantage. So, if black is clever, he can hold his own.

By contrast, the exchange in slav yields a symmetrical position and also allows black to develop his Q Knight to its natural square,so black can be said to have achieved equality, which is definitely a good thing in a queen's pawn game.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, positional-play, queens-gambit, slav-defense, queens-gambit-declined
---


# Question
Title: Is a bishop less than half the value of a bishop pair?
In valuing a rook, I observe that a rook on the open board commands 15 squares; his own and seven others in each direction. Divide by three and you get a value of 5.

In valuing a knight, I observe that a knight on the open board commands nine squares; his own and eight others in each direction. Divide by three and you get a value of 3.

If I were to value a bishop same way, I would observe that a bishop on the open board commands 13 squares; divide by three, and I would get 4 (plus).

But most valuations have the bishop at 3, rather than 4 despite his range.

Interestingly, some experts value a bishop **pair** on the open board at 7-8, even though the sum of 3+3 is only 6. Some would say that the **pair** is worth more than 7, even valuing single bishops at 3.5. A value of eight for a pair would be in line with my theoretical value of 4, above.

Put another way, a bishop and extra pawn is almost always at a disadvantage against a rook, but two bishops and two extra pawns are not necessarily at a disadvantage against two rooks.

Could a bishop be worth only three because of its single-colored move, even if two bishops are worth eight?

Given the concern that computers beating humans has made the game less interesting, have any experts, human or computer proposed or play tested a variant whereby a bishop can change its color by making a single move in a lateral direction to a square of the opposite color? This, presumably, would increase the value of the bishop, perhaps to four.

More to the point, have the Grandmasters made any more conventional arguments in favor of an eight-valued bishop pair?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A bishop pair is rarely worth more than a pawn. That would mean you're willing to sacrifice a pawn to obtain the bishop pair.

The value of pieces depends on what those pieces can accomplish, not just how many squares they control.

knight/bishop = 3 pawns because at worst, a minor piece can usually sacrifice itself for 2 pawns. So it's worth at least 2 pawns, but minor pieces are more useful than 2 pawns, and can potentially win another pawn, so theoreticians estimate its value at 3 pawns. 4 pawns is pushing it, it's less likely a minor piece can force exchanging itself for a value of 4 pawns.

The same can be said for the rook, a rook can usually exchange itself for a minor piece and pawn at any time, so it's worth at least 4 points. But the minor piece can't force the rook to make this exchange as easily as the rook can. 5 points is a fair estimation. Similar things can be said for the bishop pair and queen. It's the potential for these pieces to win more material than they can be exchanged for that increases its practical value.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Who are these "some experts"? I was not able to find any IMs or GMs that value the pair at 1-2 pawns. Keep in mind that these values are not absolute. It depends entirely on position and how your strategy incorporates the bishop pair. In a closed game, two bishops are not going to be better than 2 knights most of the time.

This topic may be of interest to you:

What is the bishop pair worth?

The value of pieces is not so one-dimensional as you make it out to be. Not only does it depend on position, but there is more to the picture than just how many squares the piece can control. A knight can jump over pieces. A bishop cannot. Thus the advantage shifts to the knight in a closed position. The knight can influence both colors; the bishop cannot. A simple example is in an endgame where the bishop cannot control the queening square, whereas a knight could. Point comparisons are meaningless here.

It would also be simplistic to say that controlling 1 square = x value. Every square is not the same, and it depends on position.

---
Tags: minor-pieces
---


title: How popular is chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How popular is chess?
There's a survey on chess.com, Do your friends play chess?, and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.

Then I read this question: What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV? Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?

How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like Biathlon; could chess be less popular than that? Really?

Is FIDE trying to make it more popular?

# Answer
Chess isn't popular because all major tournaments make it lack emotion. For some reason, all major tournaments are those of *classic* chess, that is, with high quality games that last 5 hours or more. The outcome of these high quality games at the highest play level is most typically a draw. This is totally broken and does not have a chance to make it to the mainstream public.

Now look at soccer, which has a bit of popularity in Europe and South America. At the higher level there are few goals scored but games are more often than not full of emotion. Just like chess, a small mistake (even a referee mistake) can determine the result of a game. Just like chess, it is a game of mistakes, but there is a major difference: things happen fast, sometimes faster than the eye can tell. The center back does not let the forward to think as much time as he wishes so that he can make the shoot of the century. Instead, he tackles him. The difference of level among a division and the division below is the time they have left to make a decision once they have the ball. The higher the division, the shorter the time to think.

To answer your question, FIDE does not try to make chess more popular because it is promoting the classic games, which are of no interest and of a lot less quality than two machines playing against each other with a regular computer. FIDE has been losing time trying to make chess an Olympic sport so that it can get funds by governments that are willing to increase their vanity each 4 years by getting Olympic medals.

If FIDE had any interest in making it more popular, the major tournaments where all money and fame are need to be of fast games, from 5 to 10 minutes by player, with lower quality but a lot more fun, and leave the perfect games for the machines.
> 10 votes

# Answer
according to wikipedia, the USCF has experienced strong membership growth in recent times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Chess\_Federation

However, another angle would be to look at google search trends, and this suggests it is less popular, at least since 2005. For example, "chess", "learn chess" and "chess rules", "chess tutor", "chess books", "chess openings", "chess endgame", and "play chess online" show a downward trend. "how to play chess" shows a slight downward trend.

Overall popularity to other things could be compared by looking at the number of facebook likes that it has, although this estimate could be confounded by many different factors. You could at least get a rough comparison to other hobbies, though.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess made the top 10 most searched for games on Google for over 117 months. I think they've been recording the top searches for about 117 months. It's the most popular board game in the world.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=chess
> 2 votes

# Answer
The USCF and FIDE have scholastic programs designed to get kids - boys and girls - into chess. This is one way they are trying to popularize it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: statistics, fide, world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to download a big txt file containing many openings?
I am creating a small chess engine for a CS class, nothing serious, i need to read the openings from a txt file or any format, i can go to websites like chessgames.com and download individual games, but i was hoping to download big files containing many openings and so much data, especially on the dragon variation, but any data will do. So is there a place where i can get my hands on that kind of data?

---

Thanks for all the guys who answered, I upvoted all of them and accepted the one I think is the best, so grateful for all of you guys, i just want to add a site that i found today by mistake, here

# Answer
What you're looking for is a PGN file that contains several games. You can parse the game data and enter in the opening moves. A great resource is PGN Mentor where you can browse openings and download the appropriate PGNs.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Is Freeware: Chess Opening Book Txt what you are looking for?

There are a lot of opening also with evaluation. Sure you have to take care about the format which is used to store the information.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Free chess opening books in Chessbase Book format (\*.CTG) can be downloaded from http://www.hiarcs.com/chess-opening-book-free.htm

You can use it for a CS class project, but nothing commercial:

> Please note these books are free for you to download and use for your personal use only. Under no circumstances are the books to be hosted on another website without the prior express written permission of Applied Computer Concepts Ltd.

Also useful will be the CTG format unofficial specification.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, programming, open-source, database
---


# Question
Title: What was the question asked to Magnus Carlsen which he refused to translate?
Does any one know what was the question asked to Magnus Carlsen on 7th Nov during inaugural press conference of world championship 2013 which he refused to translate in english? And also, what was the answer he provided?

# Answer
According to Tarjei Svensen, the question was "Kasparov compared you to Harry Potter this week, Stensbøl compared you to Petter Northug, which comparison do you prefer?" to which he replied that he preferred to be compared to real people, therefore Northug. See this Twitter conversation.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen, press-conference
---


title: Why do Chess GMs need coaches?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do Chess GMs need coaches?
Today chess.com did an interview with Carlsen's coach.

Someone like Carlen or Anand, why do they still need coaches? Their Elo is higher than their coaches, they can use engines to analyze the games, and they can beat their coaches in practically every game, obviously they know more openings than anyone in their room.

I understand that someone hires a coach to get better, or in other sports you do that to stay in shape, but this is chess and there are computers if you need help, i guess all the coaches use them, so why hiring them? What is their major role? Do all GM's have coaches? (including the ones who died, Fischer, Capablanca etc).

# Answer
> 15 votes
I don't know which person you are referring to, or if the exact word "coach" was used, but GMs like Carlsen don't really have coaches in the sense you are probably thinking of; they have seconds, who have the following functions:

1. Opening research. This might mean performing general research, or looking for particular weapons that are likely to be useful against the upcoming opponent, in this case Anand. Doing quality opening research takes a lot of time, and the player is better off paying strong GMs to do some of it for him them spending all the time on it himself. Also, they can spend time during the match doing further research based on the games already played, which the player doesn't have time to do.
2. Adjournment analysis. This is not really relevant anymore, but in the old days many games would be adjourned overnight, and the players' seconds would analyze the adjourned position all night and present him with their analysis the next day before the game resumed.
3. Training games. If a player has an opening idea, he can try it out against other players and see what sort of situations result from it before using it in a live game. This is often more relevant than playing games against a computer.
4. Moral support. Don't underestimate how much nicer it is to have a team of compatriots that can cheer you on when you do well or pick you up when you do badly. They probably also do other things together like exercise.

# Answer
> 14 votes
Coaches at that level are analysers rather than teachers.

They

* prepare openings for a specific opponent,
* investigate opponent's weakness,
* help to analyse games during tournament after each round to find mistakes,
* perform official things such as registering, following results,
* mental encouragement
* ...

High chess rating and practical abilities don't mean that GMs don't need teachers and coaches, there are many people with average rating that they know openings, strategies and theories even better than GMs. They can improve skills of their students (Grand masters!).

---
Tags: strategy, training, grandmaster, study, coach
---


title: Good UCI to WinBoard adapter

text:
# Question
Title: Good UCI to WinBoard adapter
I found one before on the internet but it keeps the CPU at 100%, hangs a lot, and doesn't exit when the program (ChessMaster in this case) closes.

# Answer
> 2 votes
UCI2WB which you can find it in Winboard packages.

PolyGlot is another option.

Many modern chess GUIs doesn't need external converter such as ChessX, Fritz, ...

---
Tags: engines, software, uci, winboard
---


title: What is a critical variation?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a critical variation?
Sometimes I hear that a critical variation in a certain opening was avoided and instead a solid variation was chosen. Can someone explain to me what a critical variation is? Maybe also explaing in the process what a solid variation is?

# Answer
> 8 votes
A critical variation is one that the evaluation of the current position depends on.

Take the Morra gambit:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3

```

Is the Morra gambit a correct opening, or has white made a mistake? It does sacrifice a pawn, so the evaluation probably depends on whether white gets enough compensation after 3...dxc3. So that is the critical move. It's also the riskiest, because white does get some open lines and development, so he can probably at least set up some threats in the short term.

3...d3 is another move, declining the gambit. White doesn't get quite as quick development, but he's not a pawn down either. After this it's likely that the position is more or less equal, and it's just a game of chess. This is a move to play if you want to avoid risk, but it's not the place to look for a refutation of the Morra. So it's not critical.

A solid move is the oppositie of a risky move.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The definition is opinion based. A solid line makes me feel a line which is less complicated, the variants are known and more analyzed before. Opening books are certain about them and a transition from opening level to the middle game is played many times before in GMs games. A solid line probably needs less reminding efforts at the game and the main line is clear to discover. Also there're a few traps in solid lines.

On the other hand, a critical line is a line which is not analyzed comprehensively, it has many unknown variants and a simple mistake leads to lose the game (if the opponent also catch the chance). If someone doesn't follow the main line, it's hard to discover the best moves in the game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I doubt that there is any type of official definition for these terms. It seems to me that a "critical variation" simply leads to positions where your opponent has more active play, and where it is easy to make mistakes, whereas a "solid variation" is one where you have more active play, and your opponent has to play carefully to avoid making mistakes.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Using chess engines to find moves sequence to make a position
Is there any way to use chess engines (by commands or GUI tools) to find the sequence of moves need to transform an initial position(*P1*) to a target position(*P2*) while the count of moves is exactly *N*?

For example, after giving it a FEN as *P1* and another FEN as *P2*, it outputs a list of *N* legal moves that transforms *P1* to *P2*.

Assume it's possible to do *N* moves to transform the initial position to target position.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes and No, but be warned, the possible paths to search through grows exponentially as your N increases.

The short answer is NO, unless you find someone who is doing research on chess and is using an engine for the special case like you are describing.

BUT

If someone were to do research on this special case he would setup his experiment probably like this:

First set an engine to calculate at a fixed depth 1 for the current position and make it return all variants it is evaluating. In effect this will return all possible legal moves from the current position.

All you need to do now is write your own breadth-first search algorithm, set to depth N, that can go from one state to another by using the cofigured engine.

---
Tags: engines
---


title: What does a team captain in chess do?

text:
# Question
Title: What does a team captain in chess do?
I was made the "team captain" of the chess club I am a member of for a match with a chess club in a different city.I want to know all the requirements for being a team captain.All I did was choose the team members based on the highest rating.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Let's see what FIDE says, Team Captain’s Role in Team Tournaments:

> **(a)** The role of a team captain is basically an administrative one during play. Depending on the regulations of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in each round, to communicate to his players their pairing, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of the play, etc.
>
> **(b)** Whenever the team captain speaks to one of his players, he should do so only through or in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand.
>
> **(c)** A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game. The captain shall refrain from any intervention during play.
>
> **(d)** Players are subject to the same prohibitions. Even though in a team competition there is a certain team loyalty, which goes beyond a player’s individual game, a game of chess is basically a contest between two players. Therefore a player must have the final say over the conduct of his own game. Although the advice of the captain should weigh heavily with the player, the player is not absolutely compelled to accept that advice. Likewise, the captain cannot act on behalf of a player and his game without the knowledge and consent of the player.
>
> **(e)** A team captain should encourage his team always to follow both the letter and the spirit of Article 12 of the FIDE Laws of Chess concerning the conduct of the players. Team championships, in particular, should be conducted in the spirit of the highest sportsmanship.

A player which has highest rating and better knowledge about rules is the best candidate to be a captain.

---
Tags: preparation
---


title: Learning the hypermodern style

text:
# Question
Title: Learning the hypermodern style
Which openings and middle game tactics are highly used when a player utilizes a hypermodern style of gameplay? What particular tactics are most effective when playing hypermodern?

# Answer
This website does a good job of explaining some principles:

http://www.wikihow.com/Play-Hyper-Modern-Chess

as well as this piece by Eric Schiller:

http://www.ericschiller.com/pdf/HypermodernChessOpeningStrategy.pdf
> 4 votes

# Answer
One of the early pioneers, if not the actual founder of the Hypermodern style was Richard Reti, early in the 20th century. An example of this kind of play is his own Reti Opening.

The theory behind this is that center pawns on the fourth rank (or further) can become weak as well as strong. So the idea is to move out knights first, then pawns to the *third* rank, followed by bishops, etc. Then wait till the opponent commits *his* pawns to (his) fourth rank (your fifth) before deciding when to move *yours* to your fourth rank.

An "extreme" example is Alekhine's defense, when Black plays `1... Nf6` in response to `1. e4`, to provoke further White advances, and (presuambly), weaknesses. The disadvantage to Black of moving the knight around seems to offset whatever disadvantages White may incur by advancing his pawns. Alekhine's Defense variation, understanding white's overextended pawns, black's multiple early knight moves

But if White opens `1. Nf3`, he deters `...e5`, and limits Black to playing `...d5` (or `...d6`, if he wants to enforce `...e5`). Hence, "hypermodern" openings beginning with knight moves seem to work better for White, who has the advantage of the first move. This advantage does give White a number of options, including playing "colors reversed" openings with an extra move that Black doesn't have.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Richard Reti's book 'Modern Ideas in Chess' can be read in full here.

It is an amazing book!

Disclaimer: I am among the authors of the site ;)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: Smartphone app with Wordfeud-like time constraints
In Wordfeud, it's kind of play-and-forget. When your opponent makes a move, you get a notification. Typically I would move once a day while commuting to and from work. A game would typically take a week to finish.

I'm used to playing chess on the eboard FICS client.

However, I haven't found a way to utilise the FICS network to play in this more casual way. It seems that if you disconnect, you defeat. Even if you didn't, you wouldn't get any notifications. I've played on a few websites, where you get an email, but it doesn't really exploit the bells-and-whistles of the smartphone.

**So, could you recommend me a client that would do the above?**

A smartphone friendly (responsive) website with email notifications is also interesting as a second option.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Also worth considering Chesspresso and Chess Time which are quite popular among casual "don't care about my rating" players who might be intimidated by the **higher** average playing strength on chess.com

# Answer
> 2 votes
You're looking for something called Correspondence Chess where you can make moves at your leisure in a time frame you're comfortable with. Chess.com and Chess Time both provide smartphone apps with this capability. Chess.com has many more features and Chess Time only provides correspondence.

iOS and Android for Chess.com
iOS and Android for Chess Time

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: What are the basic principles to play chess960?
I heard about a popular chess variant called Chess960, which uses randomized home ranks for the pieces. Which are the basic principles we can adapt there in Chess960?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The first is to know it completely. Many people even don't know that it's possible to castle in Chess960 or they don't know how to castle. A good starting point is to get familiar to its rules, read this wiki.

The pieces in Chess960 set randomized so the known opening moves and variants aren't valid anymore. BUT, the opening principles and rules are still valid. Occupying center, controlling more open lines and diagonals, developing pieces rapidly, protecting the king, connecting the rooks... you should learn opening strategies and principles.

In Chess960 memorizing the opening moves like a machine doesn't useful anymore. By playing this kind of chess you're stepping in the unknown and wonder land of openings.

A bad practice is trying to make opening positions as same as known positions and wasting moves for simulating normal chess variants.

> “Chess960 is healthy and good for your chess. If you get into it and not just move the pieces to achieve known positions it really improves your chess vision.” -- GM Levon Aronian.

---
Tags: chess960
---


title: How do engines read PGN?

text:
# Question
Title: How do engines read PGN?
I'm writing a small chess engine in LISP. I was trying to read some PGN file, at first it seemed like a piece of cake. But then I realized something.

Most of the PGN files, don't tell which is white and which is black. I mean if white plays e4 an later d5, how does the engine knows if he has to take or not? I could name the black pieces `bN` for example but by doing so i won't be able to import PGN easily.

Should i increment by 2? is that how PGN parsers do it? Say the first three moves in a match are e4 e6 f4, should i create a recursive function to read x + 2? to skip whites move?

# Answer
There is a detailed standard of PGN available, for instance here: PGN standard at the Wayback Machine.

You will never see "e4 e6 f4" in a PGN file, since it is mandatory to mention the move number before white's move: "1.e4 e6 2.f4".
> 7 votes

# Answer
Chess engines normally don't read PGN. When they "start" they read a position that is encoded in a FEN notation. FEN is a powerful way to describe a chess position. From this position a sequence of moves can be given in a string.

The most common way of communicating with a chess engine is via the UCI protocol: http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html

More on FEN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth%E2%80%93Edwards\_Notation

However, if you are really interested in implementing an engine that can read PGN you should read the specs: http://web.archive.org/web/20100528142843/http://www.very-best.de/pgn-spec.htm

Especially the section about the moves is probably interesting for you: http://web.archive.org/web/20100528142843/http://www.very-best.de/pgn-spec.htm#8.2
> 5 votes

# Answer
In a standard PGN you have an initial position, it's the chess starting position or it has a FEN to setup the position. After that you can follow the move sequence one after another.

If it's the starting position then white has to move, otherwise it has a FEN and a standard FEN contains who must move.

Another way is looking at moves, if the first written move is like `N. Kg2` then it's white's turn. If the first written move is line `N. ... Rh5` then it's black's turn.

Also, it's popular (I'm not sure) to write the first move by number `1` such as `1. Kg2` or `1. ... Rh5`. So, the numbers can help to follow the sequences.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pgn, programming
---


# Question
Title: Can Magnus Carlsen force draw (pun-intended) himself to victory?
So far `Carlsen` has a 2 game lead over `Anand` and there are only 4 games left. At the strength of these players, can `Magnus` basically force his opponent into draws by playing certain openings or styles? Can he force `Anand` into drawing the rest of the games to win the world championship?

# Answer
It depends what you mean by "basically". He cannot actually force a draw in any given game (otherwise he would have started doing it already, as soon as he won one game). However he can play drawish lines; the variation he went into in game 8, for example, is almost never lost by White at top levels.

It's going to be difficult for Carlsen to "force" a draw if Anand plays something sharp like the Dutch or Pirc. His optimal strategy is still pretty much to just continue to play good chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Well, Carlsen certainly is going to be pretty comfortable for the rest of the games as white. He can choose lines that have a high drawing percentage.

I would expect Anand to start choosing more tactical lines as white and black. So far we've seen quite a bit of king pawn games, more specifically the Ruy Lopez. I wouldn't be surprised to see Anand break out a Sicilian or two in the coming games.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, draw, carlsen, anand
---


title: Maximum number of queens possible

text:
# Question
Title: Maximum number of queens possible
I was thinking about what the maximum number of queens can be on the board after only legal moves. The theoretical upper bound would be 18, the original 2 queens plus 16 promoted pawns.

However, to have the pawns get past each other they would have to capture the opponent’s pieces. But they could not capture the opponents king or queen, so thats 2 less for each side (although a capture on one side would open for the other-so gets a bit tricker than that I realize). If so that would be 14, but with that many queens it would be easy to put the opponents king in check or checkmate I guess.

Is it possible to get 14 queens on the board in a legal game, and if not what is the maximum?

# Answer
It should be easily possible to get 18 queens. If white captures four enemy pieces, that's enough to get doubled pawns on four files (a, c, e and g, for instance). And black captures four times to get his pawns on the b, d, f and h files. Then they can all advance and promote, and it should be easy to avoid mate by storing them all in some corner.

Here, have the ugliest proof game ever :-)

```
[FEN ""]

1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nb5 Ne5 3.Nd4 Nc4 4.Nf5 Na3 5.bxa3 Nf6 6.Nh6 gxh6 7.Bb2 Ng4 8.
Bf6 exf6 9.Nf3 Ne3 10.fxe3 Bb4 11.Nd4 Bc3 12.dxc3 Rg8 13.Nf5 Rg3 14.hxg3
h5 15.Nd6+ cxd6 16.Rb1 f5 17.Rb6 axb6 18.a4 h4 19.a5 h3 20.a6 h2 21.Rg1
h1=Q 22.a7 Rb8 23.a8=Q Qh6 24.Qa3 Qg7 25.Qb2 h5 26.a4 h4 27.a5 h3 28.a6 h2
29.a7 h1=Q 30.a8=Q Qhh8 31.Qaa1 f4 32.g4 f3 33.g3 f2+ 34.Kd2 f5 35.Bg2
f1=Q 36.c4 Qf4 37.c5 d5 38.c6 d6 39.c7 Bd7 40.c8=Q Qfh6 41.Qcc3 f4 42.Qcb3
f3 43.c4 f2 44.c5 f1=Q 45.c6 Qf5 46.c7 Qfh7 47.c8=Q d4 48.Ke1 d3 49.Kf2 d2
50.Qf1 d1=Q 51.Qcc1 Qd5 52.g5 b5 53.g6 Qge7 54.g7 b4 55.g4 b5 56.Qd3 b3
57.Qbc3 b2 58.Kg3 b1=Q 59.g8=Q+ Qef8 60.g5 b4 61.Qgg7 b3 62.Qgd4 b2 63.g6
Qc2 64.g7 b1=Q 65.g8=Q Qdh5 66.Qda4 d5 67.e4 d4 68.Qda6 d3 69.Qga2 Qdf6
70.e5 Kd8 71.e6 d2 72.Qc3a3 Kc7 73.e7 d1=Q 74.e8=Q Qd8 75.Qef7 Rb7 76.e4
Rb8 77.e5 Rb7 78.e6 Rb8 79.e7 Rb7 80.e8=Q *

```
> 29 votes

---
Tags: theory, problems, queens
---


# Question
Title: Is there any website that generates and hosts board position with PGN as input?
Is there any website out there that takes PGN input and generates and hosts board positions (To show as image in the question or answer), till the time we get something like this done on this website itself, we can at least borrow?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Found one, after *googling* for quite a while!

Here is the diagram I just generated at the URL http://www.chessvideos.tv/bimg/3etzqdenimww8.png

## Anand vs Gelfand Game 1 Grunfeld Defence, WCC 2012

The website to generate the diagram is http://www.chessvideos.tv/genboard.php

**\[Edit\]**
Found another one, this one is far better, it **generates Animated gifs**

## Anand vs Gelfand Game 2 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, WCC 2012

This can be done here http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/pgn-editor.php

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is a very nice web service called Chess Imager that generates a board diagram from a FEN string included in the URL and you can even change the color of the squares using RGB values that you encode as well. I have used this several times in my posts on this forum.

You just build the URL, which is not difficult, and then bast it in the image (from web) dialog box. The only think I do not like about it is that it does not included a method of identifying the side to move nor does it have an indication of which side is to move. But there may be other options for that that I am unaware of.

It would probably be easier to Google FEN to chess board image rather than PGN.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Something I put together myself: Diagram maker You can have source upon request. It's written in Jquery and php. It supports drag-n-drop and generates png and FEN

# Answer
> 0 votes
I believe r/chess on reddit does something like this.

---
Tags: learning, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Fried Liver Attack in the Scotch Gambit - Two Knights Defense?
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. Qf3+ Ke6

```

Now the usual move in the Fried Liver Attack is `9. Nc3` attacking the knight on `d5`, but the `d`-pawn heads this off. Is the Fried Liver Attack still viable in the Scotch Gambit/Two Knights Defense?

# Answer
Given the moves in your post, the position favors White. I think most White players would enjoy the seeing the Black King out there, suffering a pin, sitting on an open file, and flapping in the breeze on move 8 with Queens on the board.

Here's what Stockfish thinks after a reasonably long think:

```

[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qf3+ Ke6
 9.O-O Ne5 10.Re1 c6 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.Qg3 Qf6 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Nf3 Kf7 15.Nxe5+ Kg8 16.Nd3 Rxe1+ 17.Rxe1 Bf8 18.Be5 Qh6 19.Bxd4 Be6 20.Bb3 a5 21.a4 Bf7 22.h3 Rd8 23.Ne5

```

...with a small advantage for White. I see both players having a good game here. However, I suspect Black is walking a tightrope. That is, to maintain parity, Black must play *much* better than White.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It's better to castle on move 7 and sacrifice the knight next move. Black will have a hard time defending against this.

The variation with `5.Ng5` is called the Perreux Variation and is extensively analysed at the following site: The Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense

A critical line begins with `6...Qe7+!`

```
   [fen ""]

   1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Qe7+!

```

White might have to respond `7.Kf1`, see the analyses given in the link.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, scotch-game, fried-liver-attack
---


title: Why has Carlsen's Elo not changed?

text:
# Question
Title: Why has Carlsen's Elo not changed?
Just looking up Carlsen's Elo and it is still 2870.

I know his next goal is to reach 2900. Did the 3 wins in the world chess championship simply not give him any rating points, or does FIDE take a long time to update ratings?

Thanks.

# Answer
It does take awhile for FIDE to update their ratings, which is monthly (see article) compared to the unofficial Live ratings site at Live Ratings. But it is interesting to note that Carlsen is due for a 2 point bump according to the Live rating site.
> 10 votes

# Answer
With ELO (and most other chess rating systems I know of), it is difficult to substantially increase your rating when you play someone with a much lower rating. Also, whenever you draw against someone with a lower rating, that decreases your rating.

In the case of Carlsen's goal of 2900, where even the second highest rated player is 70 points below him, a draw is almost like a loss! And in a game where draws are very common at the top level, that makes Carles'n goal very ambitious. Still, if anyone can do it ...
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rating, world-championship, elo, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: What is the main purpose of the Evans gambit?
When I see the `Evans Gambit`, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player. It seems that after:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4  Bxb4
5. c3  Bc5

```

Since the bishop can go back to `c5`, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn. After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to `b3` which can then backup the bishop on `c4` and eye the `a1-h8` diagonal, and the critical `f7` square. Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)? If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:

* `5... Ba5` would give White the possibility of `Ba3` at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.
* `5... Bc5` allows `6. d4`, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.
* `5... Be7` is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.

The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.

Declining it with `4... Bb6` is not unheard of, but `4... Bxb4` is generally considered more challenging.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say. In almost all lines black has to give back the pawn at one point or suffer a serious disadvantage. Besides, even if the gambit was totally refuted it would be ridiculous for anyone (even a grandmaster) to learn all of the lines that lead to an advantage for black.

The thing you have to remember when you play gambits is that humans are not computers. Even if they are very familiar with the lines they are bound to make tiny mistakes, gambits might not work against computers but chess is a human game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
White gains time to develop his pieces (mainly the dark squared bishop, at the expense of a pawn whose absence won't hurt until the endgame.

The Evans has now been researched, and with correct play, Black can get to the endgame with an advantage. But before the "modern" understanding of theory, White could often get a winning middle game. Hence, the Evans can be used against inexperienced Black players, and in the "old days," opponents who were generally less well schooled than today's players.

---
Tags: opening, evans-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Why Anand and Carlsen insisted on playing the same opening/defense
They played the Berlin defense and Ruy Lopez. Well the question is more like: why Anand insisted to play Ruy Lopez again and again. wouldn't be better if he had tried najdorf and nimzo indian earlier? I felt like Anand is giving Carlen the world championship as a thanksgiving gift! Why would a GM in a world championship be so stubborn. What was he hoping for and what was his plan by insisting to play the same opening?

# Answer
One of Anand's strengths relative to Carlsen is better opening knowledge, and Anand also had the better analysis team. (UPDATE: According to Carlsen in a recent interview, his team of seconds during the Chennai match consisted of Hammer, Fressinet and Eljanov.) To repeat openings was a natural match strategy for him, trying to turn the match into an opening discussion.

By varying openings, especially with white, Carlsen cleverly avoided most of Anand's preparation. The only set-up that was repeated was `d3` against the Berlin (played in two white games by Anand), but Anand couldn't find any weakness there. Anand has played `1.e4` most of his career, and it's understandable that he tried to catch Carlsen there. The one game Anand played `1.d4` he lost, although probably from a strong position.

Yes, Anand should have taken more chances, but even with hindsight it is difficult to devise a match strategy for him leading to success.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I think the simple answer is preparation. *Perhaps* Anand invested significant time before the match in the open games and to suddenly switch to closed games might have been unsettling.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In my view, in terms of opening preparation, the Anand team failed to obtain middle game positions that suited Anand's style. In general, I think that Anand should have aimed for long middlegames with most pieces intact. While Carlsen should have aimed for long endgames with most pieces exchanged off the board. From this point of view, Carlsen got his types of positions, while Anand failed to get his. This can partially be explained by the chosen opening systems. Additionally, I think that Anand should not have willingly exchanged queens in a single game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Before every important match, opponents are very carefully preparing their repertoire of openings/defenses. This not only include deeply training of known lines, but also their own analysis how to invent new continuation, that could suprise the opponent. Because when that happens it often leads to easy win.

So even before the first move of first game they both know how they will play and even to what exactly continuation each one will want to proceed.
> 2 votes

# Answer
He couldn't play Najdorf, as Carlsen would have played 3.Bb5+ (as he did in the last match game). He also couldn't know that Carlsen would go for the Nimzo-Indian against 1.d4, it could as well have been a dry Queen's Gambit Declined.

I think Anand's team had things prepared in various lines of the Berlin Defence, but not against the exact variations that Carlsen had chosen.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, world-championship, carlsen, anand
---


title: ...e5 in response to the Keres Attack?

text:
# Question
Title: ...e5 in response to the Keres Attack?
**TL;DR** Has a quick `...e5` in response to the Keres Attack been well-analyzed somewhere?

---

Kasparov famously ditched the `5...e6` Scheveningen move-order for a `5...a6` Najdorf move-order during his 1984 match with Karpov, primarily so as to avoid problems against the Keres Attack, `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4` (at least that's how I remember the story being told in various accounts). I don't often see the Scheveningen move-order in top tournaments, but I recalled having seen Hou Yifan do so recently, and having faced the Keres Attack. For instance, in the 2012 Unive tournament, there is the interesting game Nakamura-Hou, won by White:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "16th Unive Tournament"]
[Site "Hoogeveen NL"]
[Date "2012.10.23"]
[EventDate "2012.10.21"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Hikaru Nakamura"]
[Black "Yifan Hou"]
[ECO "B81"]
[PlyCount "97"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 h6 7.Rg1
e5 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 9.Nf5 a6 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.g5 Nxe4 12.Nxg7+ Bxg7
13.Nxe4 Qc6 14.Qd3 Ke7 15.gxh6 Bxh6 16.Bxh6 Rxh6 17.Qe3 Rh5
18.Rd1 Bf5 19.Ng3 Bxc2 20.Nxh5 Bxd1 21.Kxd1 Qd5+ 22.Ke2 Qxa2
23.Qg5+ Kd7 24.Qf5+ Ke7 25.Qc2 Qa5 26.Ng3 Qb5+ 27.Kf3 Qc6+
28.Qe4 Rh8 29.Nf5+ Kd7 30.h4 Qb5 31.Rd1 Qxb2 32.Nxd6 Kc7
33.Nc4 Qb5 34.Nxe5 f6 35.Rc1+ Kb8 36.Rb1 f5 37.Qxf5 Qd5+
38.Qe4 Rf8+ 39.Ke3 Qc5+ 40.Qd4 Qxd4+ 41.Kxd4 Rf4+ 42.Ke3 Rxh4
43.f4 Kc7 44.f5 Kd6 45.Ng6 Rh7 46.Rd1+ Kc7 47.Kf4 b5 48.f6 Rf7
49.Ke5 1-0

```

Despite that loss, at Wijk aan Zee 2013, there was the game Harikrishna-Hou, in which Black was the victor:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Tata Steel"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2013.01.23"]
[EventDate "2013.01.12"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Pentala Harikrishna"]
[Black "Yifan Hou"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2698"]
[BlackElo "2603"]
[PlyCount "110"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g4 h6
7. h4 e5 8. Nf5 Nc6 9. Bg2 g6 10. Ne3 Be6 11. Ncd5 Bxd5
12. exd5 Ne7 13. Qe2 Bg7 14. Qb5+ Qd7 15. Qxd7+ Nxd7 16. Bd2
Rc8 17. Bb4 Nc5 18. O-O-O O-O 19. h5 Bf6 20. Kb1 Kg7 21. Nf1
Bg5 22. Ng3 b6 23. Bxc5 bxc5 24. Ne4 Rcd8 25. hxg6 fxg6
26. Rh3 Rf4 27. Ra3 Rxg4 28. Bf3 Rf4 29. Rxa7 Rxf3 30. Nxg5
hxg5 31. Rxe7+ Kf6 32. Re6+ Kf5 33. Rd2 g4 34. c3 Kg5 35. Re2
Rdf8 36. Rxd6 Rxf2 37. Rxe5+ R8f5 38. Re3 R5f3 39. Re5+ Rf5
40. Re3 R2f3 41. Ree6 Rf6 42. Re5+ R3f5 43. Rxf6 Rxe5 44. Rf1
Rxd5 45. Kc2 Rf5 46. Rg1 c4 47. Kd2 Rf2+ 48. Ke3 Rxb2 49. Ra1
g3 50. Kf3 g2 51. Kg3 Rxa2 52. Rb1 Kf5 53. Kh2 Ke4 54. Rd1 Kf3
55. Rd6 Ra5 0-1

```

After both Nakamura's `7.Rg1` and Harikrishna's `7.h4`, Hou immediately makes a second move with the e-pawn, turning her Scheveningen small center into more of a Sveshnikov/Kalashnikov structure. I guess this makes sense, despite the slight loss of time, since Black is responding to White's early kingside action by switching gears and staking more of a claim in the center. And as someone who sometimes plays things like the Kalashnikov, I find this approach intriguing.

So finally, my question:

> Has this ...e5 approach against the Keres Attack been the subject of any GM-level analysis? If so, where? And what are the basic conclusions?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sorry, not precisely a GM analysis of this line, but

I have found chessgames.com to be useful in this regard. Scroll down in the link, there may be some GM analysis in there. :) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=b81

Also http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1309987842/0

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here is another game between GM Tukhaev - GM Nisipeanu (2012). After 7...e5, black loses control over d5 and f5, as well as exposing the a2-g8 diagonal for white's light squared bishop. Yet in a practical game, 7...e5 is fully playable. If you want to use it in your own games, my advice is to go ahead and use it as often as you can. The more you do, the better you will know the middlegames and endgames that arise, the better results you will score.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. g4 h6 7. h4 e5 8. Nf5 Nc6 9. Bc4 Be6 10. Bb3 Qd7 11. Qf3 h5 12. gxh5 Nxh5 13. Bg5 g6 14. Ng3 Nd4 15. Qd3 Nxb3 16. axb3 Be7 17. Nge2 f6 18. Be3 f5 19. f3 f4 20. Bf2 Nf6 21. Rg1 Kf7 22. O-O-O Rac8 23. Rg5 Rh6 24. Kb1 a6 25. Na4 Qc6 26. Nb6 Rd8 27. Nc3 Nd7 28.Nxd7 Qxd7 29. Rg2 Bxh4 30. Bb6 Rc8 31. Qxd6 Qxd6 32. Rxd6 Be7 33. Rd1 g5 34.Ne2 Rh3 35. Rf1 Rch8 36. Nc1 Rh1 37. Rgg1 Rxg1 38. Rxg1 Rh3 39. Nd3 Kf6 40. Rf1 Bd6 41. Kc1 Ke7 42. Kd2 g4 43. fxg4 Bxg4 44. Nf2 Rh2 45. Rg1 Bf3 46. Kd3 Kd7 47. Rg6 Bh5 48. Rf6 Be7 49. Rf5 Ke6 50. Bc7 Bf6 51. Bb6 Bf3 52. Kc3 Be7 53. Nd3 Bd6 54. Nf2 Rg2 55. b4 Rg8 56. Kb3 Rg6  0-1

```

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, scheveningen
---


title: The path of learning chess

text:
# Question
Title: The path of learning chess
I'm looking to become a better chess player. I play online and sometimes with my friends offline as well. I've also started to study openings.

It is very difficult to get the right direction of study. What way should I move to progress in my play? What is the "path" of learning chess?

# Answer
Avoid the trap of studying openings, they don't improve your game. Say, at most 10% of your training time before you start making IM norms. They can be addictive and maybe even improve your results in the short term, but in the long term they just don't improve your chess playing.

The basis of improvement: playing serious, slow games (say at least half an hour on the clock) against decent opponents, afterwards if possible exchange thoughts about the game with your opponent (go through the game again). Then, before you forget them, write down as much as you remember about your thoughts during the game. Why did you play moves, but also why didn't you play others. Which moves of him surprised you. Then, go over the game again and check your thoughts. Was the line you were afraid of when you didn't play that move really so dangerous? That attack looked good, wasn't there a way to win? And so on. *Find your mistakes, and don't make them again.*

Play through well-annotated grandmaster games.

Learn how to win endings where you're material up, or draw them even when you're material down.

Train tactics on Chesstempo.com.

Play real tournaments over the board.

Once you're of sufficient strength (1600-1700ish over the board), start working through Yusupov's orange books. They have hard exercises covering a wide range of subjects you need to get good at. But that's probably for later.
> 52 votes

# Answer
I am a beginner just like you, so I will give advice from my perspective on some of the things that have helped me.

1. Don't get too carried away with learning openings. Focus more on learning opening principles/fundamentals such as controlling the center, developing your pieces, castling early, etc
2. Practice tactics at chesstempo.com. I don't do this as often as I should as I don't have time, but if you do, it will help.
3. Don't get frustrated if you lose. Go back and look at where you made the mistake(s) and try not to repeat them. You most likely will repeat them, but over time, your mistakes will lessen.
4. Take your time with each move. A lot of things I notice beginners do is they move really fast even if they have plenty of time left on their clock. I am guilty of this. I noticed that this is the biggest cause of blunders for me which usually result in me losing. So take your time to look at the whole board and think twice before your decide to make your move.
5. There are many great books out there, I won't go into which ones are the best, I will just mention one that I found very useful even though it goes over some of the basics at first and that book was Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.
6. Subscribe to some great chess channels, especially found on YouTube. I find the user `MatoJelic` especially makes great videos and annotates them very well.
7. Check out the Novice Nook columns by `Dan Heisman`. If you happen to have a subscription to ICC, you can watch his `Improve Your Chess` videos.
8. Last but not least, PLAY PLAY and PLAY. You mentioned in your post and keep playing. Remember to keep have fun doing it, don't get frustrated and try to learn from every game.
> 17 votes

# Answer
There are many aspects to becoming a strong player.

One of the very best books to read is called "Think like a grandmaster" . You can find it at Amazon. It helps you how to think. Chess is about analysis, and this analysis is done in the mind. Hence if you know how to organize this thought process, you'll become more efficient and actually can analyze more positions in the same amount of time.

Another thing to do, is to get good book with good analysis. Like Fischer's my best 60 chess games, or Alekhine my best games, I mean a book that is annotated by the same strong player, and this way, you can see the thought they had when making moves.

And most importantly, play with players who are stronger than you. Losing teaches you a lot. Make sure you go over each game you played afterwords and try to learn why you lost, or even if you won, see if you might have missed better moves.

Getting good at chess is not easy (I mean to go over 2400 level or so), it is just hard work. Need to study a lot, read a lot, and practice a lot, and have some natural talent for the game. But make sure you are having fun doing it, else it is not worth it.

**Update**

Just noticed that an important information is missing in this question. What is the level of the player here?

Advice to someone at 1500 wanting to improve to 1800 will be different from someone 1800 wanting to improve to 2200 level, and that will be different from someone at 2200 wanting to improve to 2400 and so on. For example, someone at 2200 level who wants to get to 2400 level, they have to spend more time on studying openings, more end game positions, play more games in stronger level international tournaments but may be spend less time on tactics since this is something they should have good handle on at this level. While someone still at 1500 level, the situation is different.

So hard to give one generic advice without knowing what level the player is at now.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Go to your local USCF club. Join and play. This will get you a rating and introduce you to other players. Once your strength is known perhaps you can get a instructor. Your instructor will be able to spot your weaknesses and help you overcome them far quicker than you can do this yourself.

edit - As per the comment below, $40 to join the USCF, less if you ask them for options. Beginner's gear is $50 (example, ymmv, no affiliation, etc etc) and will likely be completely adequate for years. Then there are state memberships, etc. It's a racket to be sure but in the scheme of things... chess is a cheap hobby.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Studying should be combined with over the board competitions. Compete over the board on a regular basis, at least one tournament with normal time controls (90 min / 40 moves + 30 min / rest of the game with 30 seconds increment per move) every three months. Compete and evaluate your games after the tournament is completed. Begin by studying endgames (king vs king, king+knight vs king+knight, king+rook vs king+rook, king+queen vs king+queen). Practice combinations, e.g. typical mating combinations like Bxh7 followed by Ng5 and Qh5. Read books on positional play (e.g. My System by Nimzowitsch). When studying openings, try to learn one system at the time, and mimic a grandmaster that you admire. Accumulate ideas in that particular opening system and apply them in your games. Yet, studying has to go hand in hand with regular competitions over the board. Learn and apply, that is the rule of thumb.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, training
---


# Question
Title: In Spassky v Fischer '72 game 11, why is 14. Nb1 considered such a great move?
In game 11 of the 1972 World Championship, Spassky as white moves his Knight back to its `14. Nb1` starting position. Apparently, this moved was received as `14. Nb1!!`. But to me, it seems as a simple attack on the invading black queen to flush her out of the zone.

What about this move makes it so interesting?

Shown below is after move `13. Kh1 Bd7`

```
[FEN "r3kb1r/1p1b1p2/p1nppp1p/8/4PP2/qNN5/P1PQB1PP/R4R1K w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Taking a look at the comments in your link, I came across a post quoting GM Edmar Mednis:

> A move which was invariably given two exclamation marks - 14.Nb1!! after the game. May I respectfully suggest that if Spassky had proceeded to lose this game it would have read 14.Nb1?? If we look at the nature of the position, it should be apparent that neither of these extremes is warranted. White has difficulties in how to continue, so he decides to first kick Black's Queen. However, this is an open position and White's QN is placed well on c3. Retreating it to b1 obviously cannot be a winning maneuver. It is simply an interesting concept, which works because Fischer has an off game. Under the circumstances 14.Nd1!? would also have probably won. As a historical note, it may be stated that those commentators who were loudest in applauding 14.Nb1!? neither played it themselves nor worried about it when their turn came.
> 17 votes

# Answer
White has completed his development, and Black has not, giving White an advantage. The reason this is true is because of Black's queen moves.

Therefore, the way to prevent Black from completing his development is to harass the queen. When the smoke clears, White will have a clear advantage in development, going into the endgame, making him a heavy favorite.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The idea Nc3-b1 has gradually become well known. In general, the idea is to get the knight to a better square, e.g. the c4 square. Another consequence is that the a1-h8 diagonal opens and can be controlled by the white queen at some point. The third is that the c2-pawn can move forward. In this position, white wants to attack, but has to mobilize the forces first. Nc3-b1 can at first seem to help the black queen to return to c7, where it will be safer. At the same time, the knight can continue with Nb1-a3-c4 and attack the d6 and b6 squares. Another option is to place the c2-pawn on c4 and do Qd2-b2 to control the a1-h8 diagonal. What makes Nc3-b1 special is that it allows white to regroup the forces and then follow up with an attack.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, fischer, spassky
---