# Question
Title: Can a KB vs. KB endgame be declared drawn if a checkmate can occur and the 50-moves-rule doesn't apply in a Blitz game?
Bishop and King vs Bishop and King, with opposite-colored bishops, is usually a draw unless a serious blunder happens.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/3b4/8/7k/8/6BK w - - 0 1"]

```

What is the requirement for an arbiter in the below position if one party is seriously on time trouble say 2 mins against 15 seconds in a blitz tournament if this party claims a draw?

If the arbiter happens to notice this position, can they call it a draw before the 50 moves rule is reached?

```
[FEN "8/8/8/1B2k3/3b4/8/3K4/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
> What is the requirement for an arbiter in the below position if one party is seriously on time trouble say 2mins against 15seconds in a blitz tournament If this party claims a draw?
>
> If the arbiter happens to notice this position, can they call it as draw before the 50 moves rule is reached?

No. Helpmate is still possible hence the arbiter cannot intervene.

This applies with any increment and always in blitz.

The relevant article in the latest FIDE Laws of Chess is:

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

---

The relevant section about quickplay finishes is now -
**Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes**

The key parts say this:

> III.2.1 The Guidelines below concerning the final period of the game including Quickplay Finishes, shall only be used at an event if their use has been announced beforehand.
>
> III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment ***and not to blitz games***.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If the 50 or 75-moves-rules do not apply and there's a mating position, then the arbiter can't declare the game drawn. Here's what FIDE Laws of Chess say (emphasis mine):

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which *neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king* with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
>
> 9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
> 9.3.1 he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
> 9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
> \[...\]

---

If quickplay finishes apply, which *should be announced in advance* by the tournament organiser/director, then (emphasis mine):

> ### Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes
>
> III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has **less than two minutes** left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12.2). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:
> III.5.1 If the arbiter **agrees** that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, *he shall declare the game drawn*. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

However, if the game is Blitz, then the above **don't apply** (emphasis mine):

> III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment **and not to blitz games**.

To sum up, the answer to your question is no because you are talking about Blitz games. Generally, in rapid and standard games, if the side with the most time just shuffles pieces around and quickplay finishes apply, then the game can be drawn.

---
Tags: rules, endgame, 50-move-rule, claim-draw, arbiters
---


title: Selfmate problem

text:
# Question
Title: Selfmate problem
```
[FEN "8/7P/8/p2p4/P2p4/pB1p4/3P4/k2K4 w - - 0 1"]

```

Composed by IM Geir Sune Tallaksen. White moves first, and must force Black to deliver checkmate. Give the sequence of moves that force Black to mate White on the 7th move!

# Answer
> 8 votes
Neat:

```
[FEN "8/7P/8/p2p4/P2p4/pB1p4/3P4/k2K4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc1 a2 2. Bc2 dxc2 3. h8=R! d3 4. Rb8 d4 5. Rb4 {And from here on, both sides' moves are legally forced.} axb4 6. a5 b3 7. a6 b2#

```

---
Tags: problems, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: Playing a line in QGA from a QGD for White
I was playing the other day a Queens gambit game, but it seems that my opponent had a very good prep against players like me who play with White like:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 dxc4

```

I usually go for a setup with Nf3, e3 (my bishop is locked and I fianchetto it on b2 later in the game). My line against QGA goes like this

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7.
b3 7... Nc6 8. Bb2 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Nf3 Be7 11. Nbd2 O-O 12. Rc1 Rc8 13. Qe2 Qa5 14. a3
Rfd8 15. b4 Qh5 16. Nb3  *

```

Note that my opponent tricks me into playing a QGA with my knight on c3. It really annoys me a lot. I looked at some lines like this:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 a6 5. a4 (5. Bxc4 b5 6. Be2 Bb7 7. Bf3 ( 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. O-O
Nbd7 9. b3 c5 10. Bb2 Rc8 11. Rc1 Be7 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. a4 b4 14. Nb1 O-O 15. Nbd2 Nd5 16.
Nc4 Be7 ) Bxf3 8. Nxf3 Nf6 9.O-O c5) 5... Bb4 6. Bxc4 Nf6 7. Nf3 b6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qe2 O-O
10. Bd3 c5 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12. e4
Nbd7 13. Bf4 Nh5 14. Be3

```

I noticed that in the 5. a4 line Black is fine and has some initiative on my kingside which I also disliked. And in the 5. Bxc4 line I feel more comfortable playing it. The 5. Bxc4 b5 6. Be2 Bb7 7. Bf3 variation is a bit dry, and the 5. Bxc4 b5 6. Be2 Bb7 7. Nf3 variation I like it more but the engine doesn't like it much!

The other option is to play 4. e4, which has a lot of theory in QGA and I also tried to avoid it by playing the other mainline in the QGA with Nf3 and e3. Playing the positions with 4.e4 are really hard imo. I tried to play e4 variation in QGA for 2 years and felt uncomfortable. I prefer to play the other system with Nf3 and e3. I would really appreciate some feedback on how to play a QGA the way that I like with Nf3 and e3 if black plays 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 dxc4. I just don't wanna go to e4 variations unless you have a very easy reference that I can read about it. Thanks!

# Answer
> 6 votes
After **1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nc3**, **3...e6** is a pretty weak response due to **4.e4!**. In your example, you can reach that exact position, where you basically take as much space in the center as you want for free. Sure it's not the type of position you're probably used to, but that's only because this one is actually a lot better and Black rarely allows you to reach it.

In other words, you'll succesfully achieve all the goals in the Queen's Gambit. You'll retake the c4 pawn and get a massive center with your e4+d4 formation all of this while keeping your king safe and your pieces developped!

Furthermore, an e5 reaction is one of the main resources Black has against our d4+e4 formation, so e6 was pretty much a lost tempo

# Answer
> 1 votes
One of the basic general ideas about openings is that if your opponent lets you, play `d4` and `e4` to get a commanding center. The fundamental idea of the Queen's Gambit is that after `1. d4 d5`, we challenge black's D pawn with a side pawn. So if `2... dxc4`, we get to play `e4`.

I don't see that logic changing just because of `Nf3` and `e6` happening first. After the delayed QGA, grab the center. Black has given up a center pawn to take a side pawn, which we can win back shortly anyway, same as a normal QGA.

---
Tags: queens-gambit-accepted
---


title: Helpmate in four and a half moves

text:
# Question
Title: Helpmate in four and a half moves
Merry Christmas everyone! Try this problem out that I made yesterday for SuperProblem.ru. With White to move, solve this helpmate, meaning White and Black work together to checkmate Black, in 4.5 moves. Enjoy!

```
[Title "me, SuperProblem.ru 12/24/2020, Helpmate In 4.5"]
[FEN "4b3/6p1/2p2pk1/8/K4r2/P7/2Pq1PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "4b3/6p1/2p2pk1/8/K4r2/P7/2Pq1PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. c4 Rh4 2. g4 Rh7 3. h4 Qh6 4. f4 Bf7
5. f5#

```

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: When are both the rank and file required for disambiguation of a move in PGN/SAN?
The PGN "Standard" (if you want to call it that, because it is very flawed and seems out of date), states:

> * First, if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating files, the originating file letter of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.
> * Second (when the first step fails), if the moving pieces can be distinguished by their originating ranks, the originating rank digit of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.
> * Third (when both the first and the second steps fail), the two character square coordinate of the originating square of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the moving piece letter.

What I want to know is this: what situation could give rise to the third case?

As I think this through, I cannot for the life of me think up a scenario that the first or second disambiguation rules wouldn't comprehensively cover.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Yes, it's possible for a piece to need both the rank and file to distinguish it, although it's rare. For example:

```
[FEN "8/1k6/8/8/5Q2/8/3Q1QK1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Qf2e3

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
@DM showed one possibility, which would also work with bishops (and on various other places on the board, with the three pieces at corners of a square). The only other option is with knights:

```
[FEN "8/1k6/8/8/5N2/8/1N3NK1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf2d3

```

---
Tags: pgn, notation
---


# Question
Title: Why shouldn't I play c5 in Queen's Gambit Declined as white?
My favorite opening is the Queen's Gambit Declined, and I will often reach positions like this

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 c6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bd2 O-O 7. c5

```

Where I decide to play c5 after my rook is safe. If black goes after the c5 pawn with their pawns then I defend it with mine, and when I run this with Stockfish the pawn is indeed not captured.

The thing is, this move is generally always classified as an "inaccuracy" or "good move", but never as "excellent" or "best". To me, it feels like this move severely cramps black's dark-squared bishop as well as just gaining me a lot of space and control on the Queen's side.

> In general, why is playing c5 as white in the Queen's Gambit Declined not a good idea? As black, how should I go about defending against this move?

# Answer
In most cases White doesn't want to play c5 in such positions because it takes the pressure of the black center. Yes, it cramps the black queen side a bit but it allows Black to play e5 at some point and break the center instead, freeing their c8 bishop and more. With the white pawn on c4 that is more difficult, sometimes d5 may just be hanging after e5 and even if not White can take on e5 and d5 to give Black an isolated queens pawn with not much compensation. After c5 Black has no such problems and can freely play e5, banking on a well defended d5. If anything it is White then who has to be careful, the d4 might become slightly weak, or after a capture on e5 the c5 might get into trouble later.

Of course as with everything it depends on the position. E.g. if Black already committed to a6 like in a Chebanenko Slav then c5 may be a good move as then b6 really is quite weak.

(also I should give a disclaimer that I'm not a d4 player so take this with a grain of salt)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: queens-gambit, queens-gambit-declined
---


# Question
Title: Being an Anti-Sicilian vs. Sicilian player
So I have been developing my opening repertoire on ChessBase recently and established that, as a `1.e4` player, I have to properly memorize Open Sicilian main line, Dragon, Hyper Dragon, Taimanov, Löwenthal, Kalashnikov ,Sveshnikov , O'kelly, Najdorf , and surely some others ones which I am missing.

Wouldn't it be better for me to just master one anti-Sicilian line like for instance the Grand Prix Attack ? Indeed, from the Lichess 2000-2200 ELO games database, here are the win rates associated with the opening `1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.f4`, i.e., the Grand Prix Attack

```

```

This looks like a pretty good weapon for white if you ask me and avoids having to memorize literally a constellation of lines in the Sicilian.

> **My question is, *are there any benefits for me to carry on playing the normal lines of the Sicilian and undergoing all the required memorization or should I convert to being an anti-Sicilian player ? What are the pros and cons* ?**

---

**Additional information in light of my question**

* I am not a Sicilian player myself as black
* I intend on pursuing a mastery title in chess
* I nevertheless like playing Sicilian lines as white
* I like memorizing lines but I also want to improve my ELO as fast/high as possible

# Answer
> 7 votes
The first question that needs answering is the following: what is your current playing level? The Grand Prix, and other anti-sicilians as well, can be a good way to trip up some sicilian players at lower to intermediate levels, but once your level of play gets higher these anti-sicilians will start getting less and less successful; there is a reason why they aren't the main lines after all.

But there is another aspect to this besides the result-oriented one, and that is your observation that many of these anti-sicilians require less memorization from the white player than the main lines in the open sicilian. At lower to intermediate levels this can be a good thing, since it means you can spend more of your time learning to play the middlegame and endgame properly rather than being tempted into thinking that studying more opening theory will bring you great levels of success. Another positive aspect of trying these anti-sicilians out is that you may encounter some nonstandard structures that you enjoy playing; this can prove very useful when trying to get to know oneself as a player. One final positive point in trying these lines out is that they will give you some indications as to why the main lines are what they are.

I would say that since these lines don't require as much study to pick up as the main lines, there is no real harm in trying them out. But you have to remember that they are a far cry from a silver bullet to the sicilian, and you should keep a flexible attitude about your choice of opening lines. Don't lock yourself to one specific set of lines to use for the rest of your career at this point when you haven't even reached master level yet. If you want to reach master level there is a high chance that you will eventually have to strongly consider adding some of the main lines to your repertoire, but this is something that can be done later. (who knows, maybe you end up adopting 1.d4 in the future?)

Although I don't think there is any harm in trying out slightly less common lines, I don't think it's bad to stick with the main lines either. One thing that you have to be very careful with is of course the risk of over-reliance on concrete lines. Don't just memorize the main lines thinking that you've learned them properly; after all, once you're out of the opening there is still an entire game left to be played, and if you don't know how to play these resulting positions you might as well not learn any theory at all. To understand these complex variations properly you need to play them many times, preferably against strong opponents, so that you can gain an appreciation of why the main lines are the way they are. You will also need to be able to find the optimal ways of playing when your opponent deviates from the main lines, and I will say the following: this is way, way harder to do consistently than it seems, so I will once again urge you not to place the memorization of main lines on a pedestal.

It may seem like the things I stated in the previous paragraph suggest that playing the main lines requires far too much work on your part, but this is not something that I wish to convey. While memorizing some lines is important in the open sicilian, I would say that the amount you need to actually memorize is less than you may think. You can get by surprisingly well with a shallow knowledge of concrete lines if you begin your study by going wide rather than deep; learn the basic gist of the lines (i.e., try to learn the main plans in broad strokes), and start playing as much as possible so that you can see how the plans work in action. Naturally you will have to learn your lines deeper and more concretely at some point, but if you have a solid foundation based on experience this will become a lot easier. Also, if you have experience playing without knowing the exact lines, it will be easier to play once you inevitably end up in a position that you haven't studied before.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I feel that you should not look at win/draw/loss statistics for this sort of thing. There are many problems with them (some openings are employed more often by strong players against weaker players or vice versa, some are skewed because some variation inside is often used as an easy draw, et cetera) but most importantly *you are not the same as all those people*.

I feel you should play the line that seems most logical to you, where the normal positions around move 10 look the best to you. It's purely a matter of taste. Remember, 2.c3 is theoretically innocuous but Tiviakov made a great career out of it; the Grand Prix was used for many quick wins by grandmasters in the 80s and 90s, Spassky had a huge winning percentage with the Closed Sicilian, and *everybody* plays the Rossolimo these days.

One of my favourite chess quotes:

> As a young International Master, I used to devote much of my time analysing the very sharpest variations, hoping all the time that I would get the chance to engage my opponent in sharp variations that I had prepared at home. After a while, I began to notice something: I was losing lots of games in 'unimportant variations'. My opponents rarely seemed to 'take me on' but instead played quiet variations, just aiming for a typical position. I hadn't looked at these typical positions, hadn't thought about them, and didn't understand very much about them. This meant that even good versions of the theoretical line ended badly for me because I didn't understand why they were good, what exactly made the difference, and what I could aim for in this position that I couldn't in others.

(Matthew Sadler, *Queen's Gambit Declined*, about exchange variations with Nf3)

It's fine to reach an equal position out of the opening. You want it to be one of a type that you have analyzed twenty times and where you know exactly what your plan is, while the opponent knows that he is supposed to be perfectly safe but nothing else.

The Grand Prix is out of fashion, so it sounds like a perfect choice to me, if you like it. I once got *destroyed* as black after 1.e4 c5 2.f4 and now I knew "ah, this is the old move order -- I have 2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6 here and that is fine". And then I was playing the *Tal Gambit* without a clue what it was about...

What matters is that you make these openings *yours*. And if you pick the Open, pick a variation inside each main variation that you make *yours*. Form your own opinion, don't play the big main lines but pick the third most played alternative that grandmasters still play now and then but that you like.

And then become *the* expert on your lines, by figuring out what went wrong when it doesn't work out, and doing better next time. You will then always understand more about the resulting positions than someone who just memorized some "equalizing line" from a book.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Which chess player has the most openings named after him?
I always thought it was interesting that chess players had openings named after them. The game of chess has only been popular and organized for about 150 years, yet all the most popular openings and most of their sub-variations have already been named, many after players from the 19th or early 20th centuries. In five hundred years, will all these basic openings still be named after Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, and Lasker? But I digress.

Which player has had the most openings or opening variations named after him? My guesses would be Botvinnik or Aljechin (Alekhine).

# Answer
I'm way late to the party here, but would nevertheless like to mention the contributions of the seventh world champion (and my favorite player) Vasily Smyslov. Here are some of his many eponymous systems and variations in major openings:

* The *Smyslov system* in the Grünfeld Defense: `1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 O-O 7. e4`**`Bg4`**, intending to follow up with `... Nfd7` and `... Nb6`.
* The *Smyslov-Karpov variation* in the Caro-Kann Defense: `1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4`**`Nd7`**.
* The *Smyslov system* against the King's Indian Defense: `1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 d6 5.`**`Bg5`**.
* The *Smyslov system* in the English Two Knights: `1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3`**`Bb4`**.
* The *Smyslov defense* in the mainline closed Ruy Lopez: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3`**`h6`**, intending to continue with `... Re8` and `... Bf8`, where the inclusion of `... h6` prevents a `Bg5` pin.
* Another *Smyslov defense* to the Ruy Lopez, featuring an early fianchetto: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5`**`g6`**.
* The *Smyslov variation* in the Queen's Gambit Accepted: `1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3`**`g6`**.
* The *Smyslov variation* in the Slav Defense: `1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4`**`Na6 6. e4 Bg4`**.
* The *Reti-Smyslov variation* of the King's Indian Attack: `1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3.`**`b4`**.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Nimzovitch.

1. NimzoIndian Defense: `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4`
2. Nimzovitch Defense: `1.e4 Nc6`
3. Nimzovitch Attack: `1.Nf3 d5 2.b3` (1.b3 is the Nimzo-Larsen Attack)

**Nimzovitch Variations:**

4. Sicilian Defense: `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6`
5. Queens Indian Defense: `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6`
6. Falkbeer Counter-Gambit: `1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.de5 c6`
7. Falkbeer Counter-Gambit: `1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.de5 c6 4.e4 Bb5+ *`
8. Nimzovitch QP Defense: `1.d4 Nf6` (most sources attribute it to Bogoljubow)
9. Latvian Counter-Gambit: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3`
10. Philidors Defense: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6`
11. French Defense, Advance Var-Nimzovitch Var: `1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Qg4`
12. French Defense, Nimzovitch (or Winawer) Var: `1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4`
13. Four Kts Opening, Nimzovitch or Paulsen Var: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. Bxc6`
14. English Opening, Nimzovitch Var: `1.c4 e5 2.Nf3`
15. Benoni Defense, Nimzovitch or Kts Tour Var: `1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2`
16. Caro-Kann Defense, Nimzovitch or Tartakower Var: `1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Ne4 Nf6 5.Nf6+ ef6`
17. Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Var - Nimzovitch Attack: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bxc6`
18. English Opening - Four Kts Var - Nimzovitch Var: `1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e4`
19. EO - Nimzo-English Opening: `1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4`

**Notes**: Simon Winawer played the "Winawer Variation" of the French Defense **once** in his entire career; why it's named after him instead of Nimzovitch who really popularized it is a mystery (to me at least). And no, Winawer **does not** deserve the credit for playing it first (if he even did that) many openings are named after the masters who hammered out the theory of them and/or made them popular. Ergo the "Advance Variation" of the French Defense should also be named after Nimzovitch!

SOURCES: "The Oxford Companion To Chess" by David Hooper & Kenneth Whyld, 1984; p 226 http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-opening-database/search/Nimzovich-variation http://www.365chess.com/eco/C62\_Ruy\_Lopez\_old\_Steinitz\_defence\_Nimzovich\_attack
> 15 votes

# Answer
Off the top of my head, there are a few players with multiple openings named after them:

# Tarrasch

* Tarrasch Variation against the French Defense
* Tarrasch Opening against `d4` (with `...d5` and `...c5`)
* the Open Variation in the Ruy Lopez is technically the Tarrasch

# Marshall

* Marshall Gambit in the Slav
* Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez
* Marshall Defense against the Queen's Gambit (`1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?!`)
* Marshall Variation against the Sicilian (`1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 d5`)

# Rubinstein

* Rubinstein Variation against the French (`...dxe4` and `Nxe4`)
* Rubinstein Variation against the Budapest (`1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe4 Ng4 4. Bf4`)
* Rubinstein Variation against the Nimzo-Indian (white plays `e3`, `Nf3`, `Bd3`)
* Rubinstein Variation in the Four Knights
* Rubinstein Variation in the English (`1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nc7`)

# Steinitz

* Steinitz Defense against the Ruy Lopez (early `d6`)
* Steinitz Variation in the Petroff Defense (`3. d4`)
* the closed Sicilian is also called the Steinitz Variation
* Steinitz Gambit is `1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4`
> 10 votes

# Answer
Using Wikipedia as a guide, I can see that Frank Marshall, Carl Schlecter and Akiba Rubinstein have about 5 opening variations named after them.
> 5 votes

# Answer
BUKAYEV, Yury V. (Букаев Ю.В.) is an inventor of many opening systems. Не isn't only a chess innovator, he is also innovator in chemistry and physics.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, world-championship
---


title: Is this an illegal chess move?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this an illegal chess move?
Can the White king move to g2 to checkmate?

```
8/8/8/8/4Q3/7k/5K2/8 w - - 0 1

1. Kg2

```

# Answer
> 16 votes
Playing Kg2 in this position would "put your king in check" in that the black king is attacking that square already. So, no, that would be an illegal move.

The fastest way to checkmate in this position would be Qd4 (forcing the black king to move to h2) followed by Qh4#.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, this is illegal, as the two kings can not be within attacking distance of one another. All though, black is so very screwed in this game. A legal checkmate in 2 moves is, stalling once with the move queen to a4. The only move the king can make is h2, which will result in checkmate with the queen to h4.

https://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/game-gifs/90px/brown/neo/0/cc/0/0/Q3l4cHlG/OC84LzgvOC80UTMvN2svNUsyLzggdyAtIC0gMCAx.gif

# Answer
> 0 votes
Think of it this way. The goal of the game is to capture the king. If you put the king in check, it can instead just take your king and win there! Nobody cares what happens after your king falls. Pedantically though, I think any move that brings about a check to your own king is illegal so yep. Illegal!

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, kings, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Is there a position where it's possible to claim a draw by both the 50 moves and threefold repetition rules?
It doesn't matter which one the player chooses in that situation, but I'm wondering whether someone can come up with a game where this holds true for at least one move.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Sure. You can take basically *any* position where the 50 move rule could be invoked, rewind four moves for both sides, and instead have both players move a piece back and forth twice.

---
Tags: problems, threefold-repetition, 50-move-rule
---


title: Can you castle twice in Chess960?

text:
# Question
Title: Can you castle twice in Chess960?
Consider this Chess960 game. (Warning: moving backwards through this replayer will result in an incorrect board state. See Board playback and Chess 960 for details.)

```
[FEN "rnkqbbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNKQBBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 Na6 2. e4 Nb8 3. Ba5 Na6 4. Bb5 Nb8
5. Qh5 Na6 6. Nh3 Nb8 7. Na3 Na6 8. O-O-O Nb8
9. Rd3 Na6

```

Can White's next move be to castle h-side? I can see an argument both ways: either yes, because the king never left c1, or no, because castling counts as a king move.

# Answer
> 19 votes
Excellent question. The rules state that this is not possible. Castling can only be done once.

This is explicitly mentioned under **Guidelines II. Chess960 Rules**:

> II.3.1 Chess960 allows each player **to castle once per game**, a move by potentially both the king and rook in a single move. \[...\]

Specifically, castling (even if the king doesn't move) should still be done by touching the king before moving the rook. You can do this several ways but the standard recommendation is to move the king off the board, move the rook to the new location, and move the king back to the new position (which can be the original c1 square).

> II.3.2.5.1 When castling on a physical board with a human player, it is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next to his final position, the rook then be moved from its starting position to its final position, and then the king be placed on his final square.
> \[...\]
> II.3.2.7.1 To avoid any misunderstanding, it may be useful to state "I am about to castle" before castling.

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, castling, chess960, loopholes
---


# Question
Title: Did Stockfish have access to an opening book in its games against AlphaZero?
I have seen some commentary that implies that Stockfish did not have access to an opening book in its much-reported match with AlphaZero, but I cannot find a conclusive citation, and my inability to do so has me wondering if maybe Stockfish did have an opening book after all.

For example:

> GM Hikaru Nakamura...called the match "dishonest" and pointed out that Stockfish's methodology requires it to have an openings book for optimal performance. While he doesn't think the ultimate winner would have changed, Nakamura thought the size of the winning score would be mitigated.

or, from a StackExchange answer:

> Stockfish...wasn't allowed to use an opening book which makes it consider many moves in shallow depths.

It's worth noting that even if Stockfish didn't have an opening book for the canonical 100 game match, page 6 of the paper shows that AlphaZero is dominant when you start from a variety of common openings. Nonetheless I wonder why they would handicap Stockfish this way.

# Answer
Both Nakamura and the StackExchange answer were correct - Stockfish didn't use an opening book. I think Google did that to make a fair comparison as AlphaZero wasn't using an opening book as well.

**EDIT**

I didn't see anything about opening book for Stockfish in the paper. I'm not the only one.

> http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65910&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=stockfish+book&topic\_view=flat&start=10
>
> As far as I read the paper, I didn't see a book for Stockfish mentioned, so I guess, match was bookless.

and

> http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65909&highlight=stockfish+book
>
> While this is indeed incredible, show me how it beats SF dev with good book and syzygy on equal hardware in a 1000 game match.
> 9 votes

# Answer
To add to SmallChess's answer, Stockfish as an engine doesn't come with an opening book. Those are separate inputs, and you can give Stockfish whatever opening book you want. Therefore, if the AlphaZero paper doesn't say the authors gave Stockfish an opening book, it didn't have one.

See this thread on Chess.com for more about Stockfish playing with the Cerebellum opening book (aka "Brainfish"). You can see from the rating list that the opening book is worth about 50 elo - a substantial amount. You can also see the difference in the TCEC S14 superfinal, which was played with set openings, and the rapid bonus afterwards, played without books. Leela (an AlphaZero clone) narrowly lost the superfinal, but annihilated Stockfish in the bookless bonus.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Stockfish stopped using opening books a long time ago. That is, it's an engine, and if you want to use an opening book, you have to use it in UI that you use to play the game or in the software you use to interface with the engine, playing book moves without even telling Stockfish about that.

There's no way to tell Stockfish about existing books (the commands were removed completely), and it's not expecting to use any.

OTOH, Stockfish can and would gladly use end game tables (Syzygy).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: Chess tactics software which can read files
Lichess publishes tactics problems which can be downloaded from database.lichess.org.

The file is in csv format. Which software can be used to read and play positions from this csv file?

# Answer
The format of the file is described here. According to this, the name of the columns are: PuzzleId, FEN, Moves, Rating, RatingDeviation, Popularity, NbPlays, Themes, GameUrl.

I do not know of any software to deal directly with this type of file. But (I see you're a software engineer) it's not difficult to write a snippet to convert the csv file (mainly columns FEN and Moves) to a pgn file that could be opened with any chess database manager.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, tactics, lichess
---


# Question
Title: My bottle of water accidentally fell and dropped some pieces. Now what?
While playing a rapid game, I accidentally dropped my water bottle on the chessboard, which made many pieces fall. I don't remember the initial position, and neither does my opponent. Should we play the game again, or is there any other rule about such cases?

# Answer
> 16 votes
There are two articles in the FIDE Laws of Chess which cover this, 7.4 and 7.1.

> 7.4.1 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time.
>
> 7.4.2 If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance.
>
> 7.4.3 The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

So, first of all you should expect some kind of time penalty for what you did. Note that it doesn't make much difference that it wasn't your fault in the sense that you may not have done it deliberately.

Playing in a tournament some years ago I saw something similar happen. One player stood up and his leg caught the tablecloth pulling it, displacing a glass of water and the board which also got soaked. The arbiter came running over and the first thing he did was add two minutes to the opponent's time because of the disturbance caused. This was at standard time controls so the moves were recorded but in any case both players were of a sufficient level to be able to recall the position exactly.

> 7.1 ***If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position***, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times. He shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move-counter.

So, if neither of you can recall the exact position immediately prior to your accident then you should try and agree on a previous position. Unless you are both complete beginners you are likely to at least remember the opening.

# Answer
> 16 votes
**If it was a social game**, the polite thing to do might be to apologise and concede the match, and offer to forfeit to your opponent.

Politely, your opponent did not cause this situation and should not be at a disadvantage. If you can't agree on where the pieces were, allow their memory to prevail.

If time allows, you could start the game from the beginning, and you'll find its relatively easy to play through the same game quickly to catch up. Humans tend to remember sequential moves a lot better in order (eg, finding your keys by stepping forward through the day rather than backward.)

Of course if this was a competition then the above answers are irrelevant.

---

Separately, consider a *coozy* or some other way to add grip to your water bottle, or develop a habit to keep the bottle below the level of the table, and turn away from the board to sip.

---
Tags: rules, rapid
---


# Question
Title: FIDE threefold repetition and possible moves
FIDE rules section 9.2 says:

> Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
>
> 1. at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
> 2. a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

My question is about the correct interpretation of "possible moves" in regards to castling and en-passant rights. **Has FIDE ever officially clarified this rule**, or is there a petition out there somewhere for them to clarify this rule, to decide between these alternatives?

1. It matters only what moves can actually be made from the positions in question. (Literally, the "possible moves" for the positions.)
2. Both the moves that can be made, and the retention of rights to castle and capture en passant, must be considered and must match exactly between the positions in question.

I have two examples to illustrate the question:

---

First, castling rights. In this example, assuming both the king and rook have never been moved at the starting position, there is no possible future where White can castle. So is the final position in this example a threefold repetition or not?

```
[Title "White to Move"]
[FEN "4k1n1/8/8/8/8/8/4p3/2B1K2R w K - 0 1"]

1. Rh2 Nh6 2. Rh1 Ng8 3. Rh2 Nh6 4. Rh1 Ng8

```

**Is this a threefold repetition ?**

Formally, White has lost his castling right. However, even in the starting position, there was no possible legal continuation of the game where White could castle (he cannot get rid of bPe2 without moving king or rook), so even if the formal right to castle has been lost, the possibility of a later castle has not been altered by the moves played.

---

Second, capture en passant rights. In this example, the white pawn can theoretically be captured en passant, but the only black pawn that could do it is pinned. So is the final position in this example a threefold repetition or not?

```
[Title "White to Move"]
[FEN "2k3n1/8/8/8/2p5/8/3P4/2R1K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. d4 Nh6 2. Kd1 Ng8 3. Ke1 Nh6 4. Kd1 Ng8 5. Ke1

```

---

In both examples, it depends how the phrase "possible moves" in the rule is defined. **Has FIDE ever clarified this rule** as it concerns cases like these?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Hi I have clarified this over the years with the senior FIDE International Arbiter at the time, Stewart Reuben, who is busy now writing the definitive book on the History of the Laws of Chess.

You focus on the essential point: treatment of *possible moves*. The TL;DR is that en passant is based on possible moves, castling is based on rights.

At first glance one might think: "Whoa! How inconsistent! Why would they do it different ways?" But actually it makes sense and to my mind is the best way of doing it. Let me see if I can convince you.

In some sense, it might seem "fairest" to look at "possible moves" for both.

However for castling, it might be complex to determine whether a player is going to be able to execute a castling some time in the future. The examples that you give are cool, but relatively simple. The rules would also have to opine whether, in considering the feasibility of actually castling, one can assume that one player is actively trying to prevent this taking place, and how that interacts with the choosing of moves to repeat the position. It's sooo much simpler just to look at the game score and simply observe which kings and rooks have ever moved. The actual executability of castling is irrelevant. The right is lost, as the rule says, after the king or rook moves. A genuine hole in the rule is that the right should also be lost if an unmoved rook is captured on its start square.

On the other hand, en passant is only feasible for one turn. There is no look-ahead required in checking possible moves. If the e.p. can't happen right now because of check or pin, it seems very reasonable that this is indeed a factor in the determination of position. If I try to put a position on the board where the e.p. can't happen due to check or pin, and try to think of it as different from a situation 2.0 moves later, when the e.p. is also too stale to happen, it feels very odd.

After many years of confusion, this is the point of view which FIDE reached under Stewart. The rules could still be clearer, but I think the key step is to understand exactly why "possible moves" should indeed be relevant for one case, but not the other.

# Answer
> 2 votes
**TL;DR**: Based on what's written in the FIDE LoC, the second position is a draw, while the first isn't.

1. About castling (emphasis mine):

> 9.2.2.2 a king had **castling rights** with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost ***only** after the king or rook is moved*.

In your position, the king **had** castling rights but couldn't castle. Consider for example the following position:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "3kb3/8/8/r1n5/4N3/8/8/4KB1R w K - 0 1"]

1. Nxc5 Rxc5 {First time this position appears, White has castling rights} 2. Rg1 Rc8 3. Rh1 Rc5 {Technically, this is the first time this position appears, since White has lost their castling rights.} 4. Rg1 Rc8 5. Rh1 Rc5 {Second time; the game is not drawn}

```

As you can see, White has the right to castle, but can't because of the Bishop in f1.
2. About en passant (emphasis mine):

> 9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn ***could have been captured*** en passant.

In the second position, the pawn on c4 **couldn't** have been captured en passant (that would be an illegal move), so it is indeed a three-fold repetition.

---
Tags: rules, fide, castling, en-passant, threefold-repetition
---


title: Why would you want to trade pieces?

text:
# Question
Title: Why would you want to trade pieces?
To preface this, I am very new to chess. I knew the rules for years but I started actually taking the game more seriously and learning strategies just over 2 weeks ago.

One thing I consistently see in high elo games is that they trade same value pieces constantly. What am I missing? From my point of view, they are getting no value and just wasting a turn...

# Answer
There are a few classic reasons which tend to make exchanging pieces favourable. None of these are absolute; in any given position, short-term tactical considerations may dominate. But you might like to keep the following themes in mind which can favour exchanges:

(1) You have a material advantage.

(2) Your opponent has a space advantage (your position is cramped).

(3) Your opponent has dangerous prospects of an attack on your king.

(4) The structure of a position (most typically, the pawn structure) favours you in the endgame.

In addition there are many familiar patterns whereby an exchange creates an advantage for you. For example, the opponent has to accept doubled pawns by a pawn recapture; or the opponent has to give up the right to castle by recapturing with the king (this often applies to queen exchanges in the opening). Or a particular exchange favours you, because your piece is passive / badly placed, while theirs is active / well placed.

(And just to complete the answer: as several people pointed out already, exchanging doesn't typically "waste a turn" because the opponent also uses a move to recapture. If for some reason forcing an exchange does involve giving away the initiative, then indeed that will often be a factor against it.)
> 14 votes

# Answer
Trading pieces thoughtlessly is bad. As you say, it wastes a move. Good players trade pieces when it gives them an advantage like exchanging a passive piece for an active piece or when a piece is threatening bad things or when the opponent has spent several moves developing the piece.

Pieces can also be exchanged to change the nature of the position, to get a position the player is more comfortable with or that the opponent is less comfortable with. An example could be exchanging queens against a player who likes to attack.

If a good player exchanges pieces and you can't see why that doesn't mean it was a poor exchange. It might just be that you aren't good enough to understand why.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Not all advantages in chess are material. You may want to trade pieces to gain other sorts of advangages. You're often not really wasting a move, since your oppoenent will also waste one of their own moves to recapture.

Also, the "value of pieces" is an abstraction that may not correspond to what pieces are actually worth in a specific position. For example, after **1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5**, Black would probably be happy to trade his light-squared bishop for any of White's minor pieces, but he would definitely not trade the f8 bishop for a knight!

In summary, as other answers have already pointed out, trading pieces for the sake of trading pieces is not a good idea. But trading pieces to get some other kind of advantage is a different story
> 5 votes

# Answer
James Martin has explained possible strategic advantages for one side to trade a piece. But that raises another question: if trading a piece is favorable for one side, then it must be unfavorable for the other. So, why would they allow the trade?

In some cases, avoiding the trade may be bad tactically. Often, this is because a trade of a piece actually *wins* a tempo, not loses!

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2nn4/1B2p3/3P4/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 1 6"]

6. Bxc6 (6. Ba4 exd4) dxc6 (6... bxc6 dxe5) 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8 Kxd8

```

The classical position from Berlin variation of Ruy Lopez. White bishop is attacked; if it moves, Black has time to deal with a threat to their e5 pawn, and ends up a pawn up. But instead the bishop captures the knight, in one move dealing with the threat to itself and forcing Black to answer. The tempo thus gained is well-spent capturing on e5.

On move 8, trading queens in itself benefits Black, as it diminishes White's attacking chances. But it deprives Black from castling, which is good for White. And avoiding it would cost White an important tempo. A combination of these three factors lead to the trade being the best move for white, while *allowing* the trade by 7... dxc6 is considered the best move for black.

In other cases, avoiding a trade is a strategic concession:

```
[FEN "4r2r/pp1k1ppp/2p5/3p4/3P4/2P5/PP3PPP/R3RK2 w Q - 0 1"]

```

There is only one open file for the rooks in the position, hence, removing one's rook from it will concede it to the opponent. Nether side really wants it, so the rooks will likely be traded.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Ultimately, if a player does something, it's because they think all of the alternatives are worse. There are a variety of ways that piece trading can occur, but one situation is where one player's (say, White) piece is presenting a threat, and so Black trades for it. Taking the piece costs Black a turn, but if White wants to recapture, then White has to spend a turn doing so. So Black didn't have a net loss of a turn. Furthermore, otherwise dealing with the threat would also cost at least a turn, and quite possibly material and/or position.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Typically you'll trade pieces when you have a material advantage and want to reach an ending where this advantage will be maximized, simplifying your win. The nonpareil World Champion Jose Capablanca was noted for gaining a pawn advantage and trading into a winning ending. If you don't have a material advantage but are in a cramped position, trading down will help salvage the game, lessening your opponent's attacking possibilities. This would be particularly true if his pieces were around your king position and yours were not in an ideal position to counter them. Conversely, if you are attacking in such a position, trading may be desireable to remove a defender. When my opponent has castled on the king side, I try to remove his king knight on f6 (or f3) to make his h7 (or h2) pawn more vulnerable.
> 0 votes

# Answer
A simple example from 15 minutes ago. I had his king-side knight pinned against his queen. He put his bishop in the way, then moved the knight to h7 to drive off my bishop, or to trade bishops. What I don't think he noticed is that after the bishop trade I took his knight with my other bishop--he has to recapture with his rook and thus can no longer castle king side.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, trading
---


# Question
Title: How does the JaVaFo engine work and how random are the pairings?
In most official FIDE tournaments, the JaVaFo engine is used to pair the players according to some FIDE-defined rules. What are those rules and how random are the pairings (i.e. can I reproduce them locally)?

# Answer
> 2 votes
> What are those rules?

The rules are defined in the FIDE document C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems.

> C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems
>
> The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>
> a The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand.
>
> b Two players shall not play against each other more than once.
>
> c Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the rules of the tournament state otherwise.
>
> d A player who has already received a pairing-allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye.
>
> e In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
>
> f For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
> Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
>
> g No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row. Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
>
> h 1 In general, a player is given the colour with which he played less games.
>
> h 2 If colours are already balanced, then, in general, the player is given the colour that alternates from the last one with which he played.
>
> i The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them.

Rgearding:

> how random are the pairings?

They must be completely non-random. According to C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments

> The Swiss Pairing Systems defined by FIDE and not deprecated (see C.04.4) pair the players in an objective, impartial and **reproducible** way.
> **In any tournament where such systems are used, different arbiters, or different endorsed software programs, must be able to arrive at identical pairings.**

---
Tags: tournament, fide, swiss-pairing
---


title: Do one-on-one simul competitions exist?

text:
# Question
Title: Do one-on-one simul competitions exist?
I have occasionally played one-on-one two-board simuls: that is, two players, playing two games of chess, against each other, simultaneously. (Not to be confused with bughouse - no piece passing takes place).

This concept would seem to scale pretty easily with web technology: play any number (well, probably an even number) of games between two people simultaneously, and the score for the match is how many games you win.

You could then have a tournament in this format: each pairing is not a single game, but X simultaneous games (maybe 4 or 8 is a good number).

Has this been done? What is the name for this style of competition?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes, one-on-one simultaneous competitions exist. For example, you can find them in correspondence chess. One modality is as two game matches, where you play your opponent with white in one game and with black in the other. Similarly for friendly matches between federations of different countries, with two games for each board.

There are also several websites where you can play simultaneous matches. Have a look at the answers to the question Is there any website where I can play simultaneous chess against many opponents?.

---
Tags: tournament, simultaneous
---


# Question
Title: Can playing too much chess make you see everything as chess moves?
According to this answer, some schizophrenics who compulsively play chess a whole lot see everything as chess moves. I looked for an alternate source of that information through a Google search and never found one.

Also, I used to play *The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild* a whole lot, maybe many hours a day. After enough time of continuously playing it so often, I felt like I was seeing the real world as part of the *Breath of the Wild* game. (Of course, playing the game isn't the exact same experience as it would have been if I were out in the *Breath of the Wild* map in real life.) I had been playing breath of the wild so much and so continuously that when I was exploring the real world, it sort of felt like I was exploring an area that looked like that in the game. After I did as much as I felt like doing in that game, I never got around to playing it again for over a year. I no longer see the real world that way anymore.

Could the experience be something like that for people who play chess so many hours a day?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Quite possible- this would be a special case of the Tetris Effect, as would what you described with your experience with Breath of the Wild.

Anecdotally, someone I knew once played a lot of chess online and experienced similar effects. About 9 hours per day were spent on chess, roughly equally divided between play and study. This person experienced such effects as: They sent a one-word message and became anxious that they blundered since it was "hanging" Noticing two socks were on the floor and immediately thinking "good, they're connected"

They also dreamed about chess, which is almost universal among players that play a lot of chess.

I wouldn't expect this happening to you - 9 hours is a lot, and anecdotally, I've spent a lot of time on chess myself and have yet to see any such effects beyond just dreaming about it. They also mentioned that they had tetris effect tendencies.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You're describing the plot of Vladimir Nabokov's *The Defense* (1930), in which the protagonist Luzhin (rhymes with "illusion") descends into a chess-themed monomania. This is the source of the moderately famous quotation

> He sat leaning on his cane and thinking that with a Knight's move of this lime tree standing on a sunlit slope one could take that telegraph pole over there \[...\]

But that benign quotation comes from near the beginning of the descent. Luzhin's obsession with "defense" curdles into paranoia:

> All his thoughts lately had been of a chess nature, but he was still holding on — he had forbidden himself to think again of the interrupted game with Turati and did not open the cherished numbers of the newspaper — and even so, he was able to think only in chess images and his mind worked as if he were sitting at a chessboard.
>
> It was difficult, extremely difficult, to foresee the next repetition in advance, but just a little more and everything would become clear and perhaps a defense could be found. \[...\] Already the day before he had thought of an interesting device, a device with which he could, perhaps, foil the designs of his mysterious opponent. The device consisted in voluntarily committing some absurd, unexpected act that would be outside the systematic order of life, thus confusing the sequence of moves planned by his opponent. It was an experimental defense, a defense, so to say, at random— but Luzhin, crazed with terror before the inevitability of the next move, was able to find nothing better.
>
> \[...\] He turned into the first available store, deciding to outsmart his opponent with a new surprise. The store turned out to be a hairdresser's, and a ladies’ one at that. Luzhin, looking around him, came to a halt, and a smiling woman asked him what he wanted. "To buy . . ." said Luzhin, continuing to look around. At this point he caught sight of a wax bust and pointed to it with his cane (an unexpected move, a magnificent move). "That's not for sale," said the woman. "Twenty marks," said Luzhin and took out his pocketbook. "You want to buy that dummy?" asked the woman unbelievingly \[...\] "Careful," he whispered to himself, "I may be tumbling into a trap!"

Of course (as Nabokov makes clear) this is *unhealthy*, and also *uncommon* (that's why it makes a good subject for fiction), but I'm sure it's relevant to your question that such an affliction suggested itself to an author 90 years ago. No comment as to whether Nabokov made up the idea, but certainly *that guy on the Internet* didn't make it up. It's a thing in the zeitgeist.

# Answer
> 0 votes
My philosophy is that playing slow chess will clearly differentiate your chess mind and your reality mind. Slow chess required principled approach and technique, and there is less importance on the chess moves, and more on the ideas and plans.

Chess moves start clouding your mind when you play a lot of bullet and ultrabullet chess. You are always looking for traps, and your unconscious brain starts building a library of 1-3 move traps.

Classical chess will not have the so called tetris effect on your mind.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm not very good at chess but enjoy playing on my ipad. Frequently I find myself in dreams or in just-awake state where the arrangement of objects and movement I perceive are experienced in chess relation to each other in space. My father played competitive chess when he was younger and my mother said he would talk moves in his sleep. In the nineties he bought the very best chess computer available and played it for hours each day. I don't think this phenomenon ever happened in waking hours for either of us.

---
Tags: psychology, best-practice
---


# Question
Title: Why does stockfish suggest bishop pins on knights early on?
Stockfish suggests the following pin for me (white) against the queen on the night. However, whenever I play this move in real games black just kicks the bishop off with pawn to h6. I end up just wasting moves? Am I supposed to pin and then take? What is the point of that?

# Answer
In this particular position, it's not so much that the pin is anything special; there simply aren't many squares where you can put your bishop that don't let your opponent double your pawns. The only other option would be Bxd6, which gives your opponent the pleasant choice of either developing their queen for free with Qxd6 or opting for controlling some central space with cxd6.

In this case, yes, you would take if they play h6, since retreating would again lead to Black doubling your pawns.

Note that your choice of Nxe5 also allows your opponent to double your pawns after ...Bxe5 Bxe5 Nxe5 dxe5.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I kept misreading the question and thought you asked why black was pinning, but now I understand better.

I, and most high-ranked players, would accept the doubled pawns to get a pawns on e5. This would provide a decent kingside attack, which would be better if you still had your light square bishop (LSB).

I do understand that your dark square bishop (DSB) is a (slightly) bad bishop, being obstructed by its own pawns. The computer may be wanting to rid itself of this perceived weakness.

I little more than you asked, but I think deserve more insight into the position. Enjoy my lichess friend.

My initial candidate moves are Qb5 (to weaken the queenside), h2 (to provide a safe square for the bishop), and c4 (to gain space on the queenside). Secondary moves would be Nxc6 (to weaken the queenside again. but that strengthens the center, and Bg5 is no longer available) and just developing the queen's knight.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, bishops, pins
---


title: Most Gambits Declined in a Single Game

text:
# Question
Title: Most Gambits Declined in a Single Game
Bit of an odd question that has arisen from a game that I played today. In the game it started of with the Queens Gambit (which appear to be the flavour of the month due to Netflix). I usually dont enjoy playing into it and ended up playing the Albin Counter Gambit (e5). In the first time in approximately 60 odd games of it, my counter gambit was declined.

```
[Event "How many Gambits?"]
[White "Random Hero"]
[Black "Yours Truly"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 {Queens Gambit, accepting is taking the c4 pawn} e5 {Queens Gambit: Declined Albin Counter Gambit} 3. Nc3 {Albin Counter Gambit Declined. Accepted Line is usually dxe5} Bb4

```

This got me thinking. **How many gambits can exist in a single game?** I know in this instance 2 but I can't think of any other examples that have a 3rd Counter Gambit. Be curious if anyone knows of any other examples.

Most recent Master Game I can find with this position *Azmaiparashvili vs Kanep (2006)* which probably indicates its not the most sound theory.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I have a sequence of four gambits. Starting with Bird's Opening: **1. f4**:

* **1... e5** offers the From's Gambit
* **2. e4** offers the King's Gambit
* **2... d5** offers the Falkbeer Counter-gambit
* **3. d4** offers the Hinrichsen Gambit

And Black declines the last gambit with **3... Nf6**.

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 e5 2. e4 d5 3. d4 Nf6

```

---
Tags: gambits, queens-gambit-declined
---


title: Can 5D chess be solved?

text:
# Question
Title: Can 5D chess be solved?
An interesting new variant of chess has emerged, showing that chess will always be fresh-5D chess.

I mostly play the 5x5 version, but the positions do not rocket out of control like in the standard 8x8.

Given its uncomplicated nature, with current computing power, could it be possible to solve this variant of chess?

# Answer
This link explores a way that white can force a draw. Perhaps this is game-breaking and makes the solution process much easier.

I am only an casual chess player and I’m mainly transcribing “5D Lexi”’s analysis.

My attempt at transcribing it (there’s no standard notation for 5D chess)

1. e3 Kf6
2. Bb5 c6
3. c3 ...

The idea is for white to go for Qb3 and then Queen to f7 **to move 1**. Black should not play cxb5 because he needs active counter play against this idea.

3. ... Qc7
4. Qb3 d5 (defending this timeline)
5. Qf7 **to turn 1** (check) Kxf7 (the following is all in this new timeline)
6. Kf3 Kf6
7. Ke5 **one move back in the same timeline** (critical move)

Note: the new timeline is an inactive timeline, so Black doesn’t have to play here. This might be the reason that it’s a forced **draw**, not a **win**.

Now, black has difficulties creating another timeline without losing. Because if Black time-travels to a location **after move 2**, then the present is shifted to move 2, but white’s Knight is **checkmating Black’s King on the adjacent timeline**.

Black can conceivably travel further back, to turn 1, to defend.

**Honestly just watch the video :)**
> 3 votes

# Answer
Very doubtful. Even just 5v5 chess without introducing the time travel element was only weakly solved in 2013 The time element adds much more complexity and would make it much harder to deal with.
> 1 votes

# Answer
In theory, someone could create a computer program that could log every possible set of moves up to a certain amount of moves; however, it might take a great while to build and run such a program.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, game-complexity, solving
---


# Question
Title: Could I get in trouble for insulting an arbiter during a tournament round?
Suppose that, during a round of an official FIDE-rated tournament, I insult the arbiter privately (they notice), without distracting any of the other players. Could I get expelled from the tournament or lose that game?

# Answer
> 7 votes
> Suppose that, during a round of an official FIDE-rated tournament, I insult the arbiter privately (they notice), without distracting any of the other players. Could I get expelled from the tournament or lose that game?

You are letting your solipsism get the better of you.

As long as you have paid your entry fee for the tournament the officials don't care about your opinions. They may form the opinion that you are a rude, obnoxious piece of scum but they will wisely keep their opinions to themselves.

My decades as a player and later as an arbiter have lead me to believe that very few chess players are completely sane (I obviously include myself in this).

The behaviour you suggest is far from the extremes that any arbiter or organizer will experience if they run tournaments for any extended period of time. Sensible officials will smile and nod (hopefully not too condescendingly) and carry on. They would be well advised, however, to keep a more vigilant eye on your games to ensure your behaviour doesn't spill over into something more serious.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Incidentally I'm a national arbiter and a passionate player at the same time. Here is the rules side: FIDE rule 11.1 forbids the player to do anything bringing chess in miscredit. We have no yellow card (actually, I *do* have one in my arbiter kit, just in case :-) but insulting the arbiter definitely falls under 11.1 and is punishable by all the 12.9. sanctions (and yes, 12.9.9. allows to throw a player out of a tournament, but the punishment must fit the crime).
Now the big question is: why *should* a player insult me? 90% of all decisions are clearly governed by FIDE laws, I simply tell the player why law isn't on his side, and chess players may be wackos, but they are reasonable wackos. ;-)
A further 9% are lie-vs-lie situations (say piece touche and I didn't see it) where I have to make a decision on good faith. I communicate that too, the players will accept that too even if I factually wronged one. OK, assume that it's one of *these* situations where everything went south and the player calls me a frelling drenhead in the heat of the battle. Guess what, I think "so's your mum", a good arbiter should be able to handle such a situation with dignity. And as Brian suggested, it's very improbable he pulls out the nuke.
That said, in my player career (and I'm 60 and play around 50 tournament games in a normal year), I personally observed the following...
1 act of physical violence (to my best knowledge, the perpetrator got life - chess exclusion, that is),
1 act of justitiable name calling (the two are arch enemies and probably would kill each other if unattended; the called kept an ice cool, making the caller look like a complete idiot, he probably scored this as check mate),
zero incidences of insulting me either as player or arbiter.

---
Tags: rules, tournament, arbiters
---


title: How can I do batch analysis of games?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I do batch analysis of games?
I want to run a batch analysis of games and produce output like Lichess computer analysis. I want to do this offline on my desktop PC. Since Stockfish is free, there must exist some solution. Does anyone have any ideas, please?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Lichess provides its source code, so it should be easy to use this code, with minor modifications, with any number of scripts.
Most engines already come with a computer analysis, so writing a program to feed in every position from a pgn file is easily done.

The problem with both is programming skills. I thought that I could do this, but I gave up even before I found the code related to reading pgn files. There must be a programmer who would do this just for a challenge, but finding him seems impossible today. On the other hand, Python claims to be easy to program and already has chess code provided, maybe with a little effort, you could accomplish this yourself.

Sory, this is no help, but, although most currently have the spare time, all consider this not prestige enough to bother.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The analysis window of Scid vs Pc offers the possibility of analyzing games in batches (same for the older Scid). For this, you need to check the option "Batch annotation" and introduce the number of games to analyze, starting from the present one.

Then, the program will evaluate the position at each move and give you different information depending on how you configured the analysis. Typically it will show you the evaluation for each move and mark blunders. To identify blunders, the program will calculate the change in evaluation score after each move. If the variation is greater than the blunder threshold (that can be defined by the user), it will be marked as a blunder. The program can also mark missed mates, tactical exercises and add variations.

# Answer
> 2 votes
http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewtopic.php?t=52576 https://adamsccpages.blogspot.com/p/computer-chess-utility-programs.html#n https://github.com/fsmosca/EPD-Analyzer

I haven't tested the above programs.

Shredder can include score, but it doesn't suggest the best move and commercial. Lucaschess can analyze a game, but is a weak program and tends to give incorrect analysis. Arena has a good strength, but after some time, the program tends to freeze and becomes useless.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Plenty of programs out there. You can use something like chessbase which is what I do. There are free alternatives like SCID.

Another option is to write your own program that passes games to a engine for analysis.Alternatively you could leverage the apis of chess.com and lichess.com.

I play primarily on lichess and have written a program to auto download games and append to a chessbase database. From there I kick off a bulk analysis job. I'm trying to find a way to auto perform analysis on chessbase from a cli but that's overkill easy enough to select the games in mass and kick off from there

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: I provided water bottle to my opponent, he drank it then lost on time due to the need of using bathroom. Is this unethical?
Many years ago, I was playing in a chess tournament. We had been at the board for at least three hours. My opponent had spent the entire time at the board trying to find good moves. I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock. My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock. I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.

The tournament provided free bottles of water. I got up from the board and got two bottles of water. I started to drink one and placed the other bottle near him. Neither one of us said anything to each other. He opened his bottle and started to drink it. About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did. While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.

Did I do anything unethical?

# Answer
> I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock.
> My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock.
> I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.
> ...
> He opened his bottle and started to drink it.
> About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did.
> While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.

I may misunderstand the chronology - It does not quite seem to tally as if taken at face value he would have drunk the water at or after the end of his available time. **However**, taking that to mean that he was within a few minutes of his time expiring, it sounds like him drinking and then taking a toilet break were within a few minutes of each other and very close indeed to his time expiry.

No rational person would abandon a situation that was critical to them instead of waiting a few more minutes even under extreme duress. It is also very likely that a highly dehydrated person will also have a full bladder.

I above said " ... no rational person ...". It seems likely that the person was either acting irrationally (which is quite possible in such circumstances) or was effectively resigning. You could not reasonably expect such behaviour as a response to your action.

* At "best" you might expect to gain a few seconds from their opening the drink.
* Distraction per se is a possibility but probably a rather extreme gambit.
* It is also likely that the water would improve their ability to play better in the closing moments.
* It seems almost unthinkable that giving them water at that stage would have initiated a 'toilet break'.

Overall you action seems on balance to have been neutral or to have improved their (slim) chances. To we as onlookers your actions seem ethically proper.

It seems worth adding, and only you know this one way or the other, that it MAY be that your intentions were in fact calculated to add to your advantage and that you still remember this long after. Even if this was the case, it seems a ploy more liable to fail than succeed and the actual degree of its success would be very unexpected.

An aside - which may actually help: I'm getting 'oldish'. On occasions I wake in the wee small hours with memories of events from decades or many decades past where I recall & mentally run through past actions and wonder if I did things as well as I could. I am generally seen as "an honest & upright" person - and that is my aim in life. It doesn't seem to stop my brain questioning my past motives and deeds :-)
> 6 votes

# Answer
No, what you did is what is known as a gambit. You offered your opponent material (in this case a water bottle), which he accepted. This would be considered a blunder on his part, since although it gave him a temporary hydration advantage, it ended up costing him time due to the uncomfortable situation it caused for his bladder, which needed to be resolved. If he had instead declined the gambit, he may have won, but such is the way of the game.
> 34 votes

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.

If you placed the water there with the *intent* that it would cause him to use the bathroom (and thus distract him) this would be an issue. If you were just doing it to be nice, there is no problem.

The FIDE Code of Ethics doesn't really have much to say about a situation like this. The closest thing is probably

> Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.

Again, I think this is only violated if there is intent.
> 26 votes

# Answer
I think maybe you're overthinking this a *lot*, especially if this was many years ago.

I'll echo what another respondent said: if there was intent, sure. But even then? You can't control another person's bladder. If your opponent was really invested in the game, I'm sure he would have "held it". Perhaps it was an admittance of defeat.

No, nothing unethical here. Quit dwelling on the past.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: etiquette
---


title: White to play and win

text:
# Question
Title: White to play and win
I don't normally post puzzles but this one is particularly beautiful

```
[title "White to move and win"]
[fen "1rR2b1r/3n1k1p/p4npP/1p1q1p2/1R6/BPp2N2/4QPP1/7K w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Nice!

```
[FEN "1rR2b1r/3n1k1p/p4npP/1p1q1p2/1R6/BPp2N2/4QPP1/7K w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe7+! Kxe7 (1...Kg8 2. Qg7# {The bishop is pinned})
              (1... Bxe7 2. Ng5#)
2. Re4+ {double check} Kf7 3. Re7+! Kg8 (3...Bxe7 4. Ng5#) 4. Rg7#

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: How do you read this opening table presented in Modern Openings?
How do I read this table presented in the book "Modern Openings"? Specifically, what do the rows, columns and the dashed lines represent? Finally, there are also little letters like `(a)` which are probably related to explanations that come up later in the book.

# Answer
The columns represent the main variants which continues the movements at the head of the table. White's moves are followed by Black's in the same column. The numbers to the left of the table are the movement numbers.

The ellipsis are there to group the variants. For example, after 3 Nf3 g5 you can play 4 h4 or 4 Bc4. If White chooses the continuation 4 Bc4 he will find that Black's most sensitive responses are 4 ... Bg7 or 4 ... g4.

The lower case letters in parentheses are notes, which follow the table, which show alternative lines considered less important or that show possible pitfalls. The mark in the last move of each column refers to the model game. The evaluation of the final position is expressed with words instead of symbols such as = (equal) or + / = (the target is slightly better).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Each column corresponds to a line of play.

A row corresponds to a move; the dashed line indicates where columns diverge from previous columns.

For example, column 3 gives the line 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 d6 6. Nxg4 Nf6 ...

The letters are footnotes which should be at the bottom of the page (sometimes they overflow to the next page). They give comments on the move, most frequently showing why an alternative move does not work out.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, books
---


# Question
Title: How can I convert a pgn file into a text, word, or pdf file?
I want to convert a pgn file into a text, word, or pdf file so I can export games in a pgn file format. I either need software or a link to an online tool. Does anyone know of such a tool?

# Answer
A pgn file is simply a text file. If you change the ".txt" extension to ".pgn", you have a pgn file. Once it's in a txt file, it's well-known how to convert into the other two formats.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pgn, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: How many games can be stored in Chess.com with a free account?
I have an account on chess.com, which is a free account. It has been storing all games I played. Is there a limit to this number of saved games? Also, can I delete a game from chess.com? I can't see the option.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I believe the answer is as @double-beep said it. You cannot permanently delete a game from chess.com's archive, and I do not believe there is a way to make it so that you cannot see it. There are, however, a few limited filtering options so you can filter your games, but other than that you cannot delete a game. Also, there are an unlimited amount of games stored on chess, com's database. Anyone can see your games (not the ones played against the computer however), and you can see anyone else's.

---
Tags: chess.com
---


# Question
Title: Equalizing ratings across rapid, blitz and bullet?
I've been noticing that whenever I play rapid games at my current 2050 Lichess Elo my opponents are also between 1900-2100 blitz and sometimes their bullet rating is also sufficiently equal to their rapid/blitz rating. In my case , I'm stuck at 1750 blitz and 1750 bullet; I cannot seem to be able to increase these two ratings to that of my rapid rating.

So a question arises:

> ***are there any benefits from equalizing one's ratings across blitz/rapid/bullet or is it sufficient to focus solely on rapid rating (as that is conventionally known to be the best way to improve at chess seriously) ?***

I want to continue playing rapid and focus on slow tactical/strategic games, but it just feels weird that my blitz/bullet skills are disproportionally low when compared to my rapid rating, and it's weird that my opponents do not seem to have a similar problem.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Bullet and blitz are mostly for fun (especially bullet). You don't *have to* have the same rating in both bullet, blitz and rapid as not all the people can think that fast. Keep playing rapid games if you like them and remember that chess is a fun game.

If you (plan to) play seriously (participate in competitions), then you'll realise that rapid games are by far the most helpful because of the long time controls which allow you to think more and therefore make better moves.

---
Tags: learning, rating, psychology
---


title: A New Year's Math Riddle

text:
# Question
Title: A New Year's Math Riddle
Here's a fun and clean riddle for the New Year! I found the material for it on Krabbe's site. I will provide the link when it is solved.

How many times can this position be repeated, with both sides helping, before either side can claim a draw repetition? No cheating, please!

Addendum 1/7/20201: With the acceptance of the answer, here is the link to Krabbe's AD magazine article "TWEEëNTWINTIG FOTO'S, ", which translates to "Twenty Two Photos."

# Answer
The board layout can be repeated at most 11 times with White having the move, the 12th will be a draw.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/1pp2pp1/4p3/p2pP2p/P6P/8/1PPP1PP1/RNBQKBNR w KQkq d6 0 1"]

1. Be2 {White can no longer capture en passant.} Be7 2. Bf1 Bf8 {2nd time} 3. Be2 Be7 4. Bf1 Bf8 {3rd time}
5. Rh2 {White can no longer 0-0} Be7 6. Rh1 Bf8 {4th time} 7. Rh2 Be7 8. Rh1 Bf8 {5th time}
9. Ra2 {White can no longer 0-0-0} Be7 10. Ra1 Bf8 {6th time} 11. Ra2 Be7 12. Ra1 Bf8 {7th time}
13. Be2 Rh7 {Black can no longer 0-0} 14. Bf1 Rh8 {8th time} 15. Be2 Rh7 16. Bf1 Rh8 {9th time}
17. Be2 Ra7 {Black can no longer 0-0-0} 18. Bf1 Ra8 {10th time} 19. Be2 Ra7 20. Bf1 Ra8 {11th time}

```

However (emphasis mine):

> 9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if **the same player has the move**, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

So:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/1pp2pp1/4p3/p2pP2p/P6P/8/1PPP1PP1/RNBQKBNR w KQkq d6 0 1"]

1. Bd3 Bc5 2. Be2 Bf8 3. Bf1

```

is not a repetition of the original position (it's Black's turn now), although it is the same board layout.

Therefore: the position can be repeated 10 times (excluding the initial position), multiply this by 2 (2 more times the layout can be repeated with Black's turn) and add 1 (the initial position) + the final repetition on which the draw is claimed = **22 times**.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: problems, mathematics, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: Can a player win if their opponent has made 2 illegal moves, but a helpmate isn't possible?
Suppose that in a KQ vs. K endgame (or in an endgame where Black can't possibly mate the other side), White makes two illegal moves. Can Black claim a win?

# Answer
No, the game is drawn, as per article 7.5.5 of FIDE Laws of Chess (emphasis mine):

> 7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, **the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves**.
> 9 votes

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


# Question
Title: Removing engine thinking (variations) PGN comments in Arena Chess
I setup a position in Arena. Then lets engine vs engine plays it after pressing 'Demo' button.

The problem is Arena put engine thinking as well into the moves list. (in green font). Check the screenshot.

How can I remove those marked in green font? I only want main moves (no variations or engine thinking).

# Answer
Go to Options → Appearance → Movelist and under **View** uncheck "Show comments in the movelist". This should hide the engine thinking variations.

Alternatively, you can right-click in a move → Display → Comments.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, arena
---


# Question
Title: How to view Arena Chess analysis in a chess program?
I made an analysis of a chess game in Arena Chess with stockfish engine. The analysis completed successfully. My question is how can I watch this analysis in a chess program.

Arena chess says it made the analysis output to `C:\Program Files (x86)\Arena\Analysis.log file.`

But I am not able to view this file in any chess program (including Arena chess).

The content of the above mentioned file looked like this:

```
8. Ra1-c1
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): Qd1-b3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:31, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:30
8. ..Bc8-d7
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:39, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:34
9. c4xd5
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:48, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:38
9. ..e6xd5
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
    30/38-  00:45        27,081k    593k    -0.19
   21-12-2020 18:42:56, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:42

```

How can I open this file in a chess program?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is a log file and can't be parsed. You can view the results in the GUI after the analysis has finished; then you can save the game as PGN (so that it can be parsed by Arena). You can do this by clicking PGN → Save current game in PGN format.

---
Tags: analysis, arena
---


title: Sites to understand errors

text:
# Question
Title: Sites to understand errors
There are several sites where one can analyse his/her game. I often use lichess at the end of a game to see where I made mistakes. What I miss, though, is some kind of explanation of why a certain move was a mistake and why another one was better. Where can one find this kind of feedback that is not limited to good/bad but includes a reason?

# Answer
> 3 votes
https://decodechess.com/ advertises this kind of service but I doubt if it's really useful.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Computers are great at finding mistakes, but awful at giving reasons. The best they can do is giving you a continuation you can follow through, but it's ultimately you the one who will have to translate it into human language. That's why computers are a tool to assist chess training, not a replacement for actual trainers.

---
Tags: analysis, learning, strategy, software, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: A 50-move-rule claim turned out to be incorrect - can the arbiter punish me?
I claimed a 50-move draw, but my claim turned out to be incorrect. Can the arbiter punish me by increasing the opponent's time or reducing mine?

# Answer
> 19 votes
Yes

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess

> 9.5.3 If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add two minutes to the opponent’s remaining thinking time. Then the game shall continue. If the claim was based on an intended move, this move must be made in accordance with Articles 3 and 4

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


# Question
Title: What are some of the best free puzzle rush apps?
I'm looking for a puzzle rush app that's free and does not require a subscription. I tried using the Chess.com app, but there's a limit on the number of times you can play in a day.

# Answer
Check out https://blitztactics.com/ which is pretty much the same thing. It even has a few other modes.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I can recommend Max Chess: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dim.maxym.mychess

You can choose difficulty of puzzles and time mode.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, software, puzzles, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: What are good Android apps to learn chess from scratch?
Knowing nothing but the rules of chess, I'd like to start learning a bit more. Some kind of tutorial app for my Android smartphone would be perfect as I can use it anywhere. The app should give **theoretical explanations** of basic concepts and thinking patterns (like controlling the center, pawn structure etc.) and preferably mix in a lot of **example positions to solve.** Free would be great, but I also would't have a problem with paying up to 10€ if it's worth it. Any suggestions?

# Answer
I would suggest LiChess. It is free (of charge and ads) and it has a website + android app. You can practice vs other opponents, solve tactic puzzles. They also have a learning section, where you can learn about simple strategic concepts.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Free online course full of interactive puzzles https://szachydzieciom.pl/?lang=en

Especially, the Basic Rules Section.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Why waste your money when you've got free video repository like Youtube.

Watch this video, i think this is perhaps the best video i've ever come across to learn chess.

Some applications on playstore will definitely come handy:

1. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess&hl=en
2. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chessking.android.learn.ctforbeginners&hl=en
3. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.aifactory.chessfree&hl=en

There are many options on playstore but this three were one of the best options.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As for anything, just try YouTube app: I find this series of videos by Chess network particularly good.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQsLDm9Rq9bHKEBnElquF8GuWkI1EJ8Zp
> 2 votes

# Answer
I play at Lichess and I also recommend it, but another good free app I use for tactics exercises is ChessTempo.

It is just my preference. I find the collection of problems better. Lichess exercises are taken from blitz games analyzed by Stockfish. They are fine and free, but sometimes the selection they do with code is not accurate for a human.

The advantage Lichess has is when you do an exercise you can check the engine. This is useful to realize why the line you played fails. At ChessTempo this is not possible, but on messages you can read from other users why the solution and not any other alternative works.

I also use ChessTempo for my correspondence games, where you are allowed to check a database, to chose my moves in the opening.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am chess coach. I can recommend Max Chess: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dim.maxym.mychess

It's very good for beginners. It has very simple interface and few game modes:

1. In section "Rules of chess" you can play chess against very weak opponent and using unlimited hints from your virtual coach.
2. In section "Play vs computer" first levels are very easy.
3. In section "Solve puzzles" you can choose "Easy" puzzles. Most of them is one move puzzles.
4. In section "Practice" there are many chess endgames for beginners: checkmate using two rooks, checkmate using one queen and etc.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, software, beginner, android
---


# Question
Title: What do the engine annotations 0.53/24 mean?
I am anaylizing my games with Fritz to get better, but there is an annotation in the analysis that I do not fully understand. Here is an example:

What do **0.53/21** and **-0.25/24** mean?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The score **0.53/21** means the chess engine evaluates the position after **6... Ng8-f6** at **0.53** pawns (or 53 centipawns) in **White's favour** after completing a search depth of **21** ply (or half-moves). It means White has a slight advantage.

Similarly **-0.25/24** means the engine evaluates the position after **6... e7-e6** as **0.25** pawns (or 25 centipawns) in **Black's favour** after a search depth of 24 half-moves.

---
Tags: engines, fritz
---


# Question
Title: I didn't notice that my opponent forgot to press the clock and made my move. What should I do?
My opponent made a move but didn't press the clock. I didn't notice, so I made my move and then realised that the clock is already pressed. Am I allowed, under FIDE rules, to press the clock two times: first for my opponent and then for me?

# Answer
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.

and

> 7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

Together these mean that you would be wise to press your opponent's clock, press your clock and then tell your opponent that you have done so.

If you don't do so then 6.2.2 means that your opponent is entitled, after you move, to press the clock to complete their previous move. If you are not at the board then your clock can run while your opponent thinks.

7.5.3 means that you should tell your opponent so that they are aware and do not "remember" they forgot to press the clock and press it without making a move.
> 9 votes

# Answer
By my reading of the FIDE rules, I'd say no, you're not allowed to press your opponent's clock.

Article 6.2.1 makes it clear that pressing the clock is an integral part of the move, and the duty of the player who made the move:

> 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock. This “completes” the move.

This is emphasised further in 6.2.2:

> 6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

By a strict reading of 6.2.1, you would not even be allowed to move your piece before the opponent has stopped their clock, so the question would not apply. However, 6.2.2 does allow for the possibility of making a move before the opponent has stopped their clock. A contradiction.

Here, it's useful to consider the most likely case where this conflict could happen: with the players executing a sequence of moves in quick succession, it could happen that one moves, and the other starts their move before the clock has been pressed. Even so, the players must press their clocks after each move.

The legality of this has been discussed in great detail at least around 2008, with varying interpretations, see e.g. these posts on the US Chess Federation website: Response to Irina's Open Letter and Move Theory.

Accepting that you were not initially at fault for moving before the opponent pressed their clock, note that the phrasing of those articles is normative: "a player **shall** stop their clock", and "a player **must be allowed** to stop their clock". By the rules, as they are written, there is no other option, and therefore **by pressing the opponent's clock on their behalf, you would run directly afoul of 6.2.2 as that would disallow the opponent from doing it.**

Apart from that, reaching to their side to push their clock could well be unusual enough to be seen as distracting. (In the worst case, both would awkwardly try to press the clock on the same side at the same time.) Distracting the opponent is forbidden:

> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

Going further than the FIDE rules, the USCF Blitz rules explicitly list what a player is allowed to do with the clock, and pressing the opponent's side is not listed, other than to fix a clock not ticking.

So, the options you are left with, appear to be either

1. to gently remind the opponent to press their clock in an undistracting manner (if you're feeling sportsmanlike); or
2. to let them run out of time (if not).

The consensus at least here on chess.SE appears to be that the former is acceptable (see e.g. Should you let your opponent know if they have forgotten to press their clock?). If it does not appear to be doable without distraction, option 2 is still left.

---

To add to the contradiction mentioned above, 6.2.1 continues with

> ... A move is also completed if:
>
> 6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed.

This could happen when both players move (presumably in quick succession), with neither pressing the clock and the player now in turn makes their next move and finally presses the clock. (Under a time control with per-move increments, or with a clock counting the moves, this could be problematic.)

Other than this and the articles quoted above, I can't see the rules exactly say anything about the case where both players move and the first leaves the clock unpressed for an extended time. Partly the rules seem to be written with the assumption that this shouldn't happen, but also they appear to say that the player must still be allowed to complete their move by pressing the clock (or by making another move and then pressing the clock) — even if this happens after the other player has left for a bathroom break.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: How to exercise an opening variation with a chess engine?
I am reading an opening book in King's Gambit, and been writing down the lines to study later. But I wish there was a chess engine, that goes for those lines so I can play against them. I want to play the book lines against the engine so I don't forget them later. And the engine responds with the book lines back. Do you have any suggestions on how to make such a bot? For example a bot that looks up the favored variations and plays them otherwise plays a Stock-fish's best move.

# Answer
Chess engines use an opening book during the opening. The standard way of doing what you ask is to build your own opening book and point the chess engine to that so it uses your book and not the previously supplied one.

When you are done just switch back.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Just set up the position you're interested in using Forsyth–Edwards Notation and feed it to the engine. For example if you want the engine to play the Muzio Gambit, give it this FEN: `rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 1 5`

Which corresponds to this position with Black to play:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 1 5

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, study
---