# Question
Title: What are all the possible combinations of openings which work well together? (like the Slav+Caro-Kann combo)
One well known very good combo is the Caro-Kann + the Slav:

* The main objective of both of these openings is to develop the light-squared Bishop to f5 before it gets locked inside the Pawn chain.
* They tend to lead to roughly similar Pawn structures.
* On average they both tend to lead to positional, quiet and strategic games.
* And most importantly, if you choose both of these openings, against 1. c4 you can play 1...c6 which can transpose into either a Slav (2. d4) or a Caro-Kann Panov/Pseudo-Panov (2. e4).

I would like to know what are all the other possible combinations of openings which work well together.

Enumerate as many combos as you can. But I am only interested in combos where both openings are sound.

And if possible also explain why exactly the openings work well together.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think there is a single other opening combo that shares as many features as the Caro-Kann and the Slav. All the other defences against e4 lead to unique pawn structures and piece constellations that aren't easily reached from d4/c4-openings.

Just playing the same move against e4 and d4 either leads to completely different openings (Indian Defences/Alekhine, Sicilian/OldBenoni, French/Whatever) or exactly the same defence (The Modern).

That being said, there are some popular opening-combos, but they usually own their popularity to a similar attitude or character of play.

One such combo would be the King's Indian and the Dragon. The obvious similarity is the fianchettoed bishop and the aggressive attitude.

Another might be the French and the Nimzo-Indian. Both are rather strategic setups with counterplay on the queenside.

The Queen's Gambit declined and 1…e5 would be another sensible combination. The attitude is classical: Equalise first, play for a win later.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Pirc, modern, and KID. If you attack the center with ... c5, it could turn into a Dragon Sicilian pawn structure, but it is safer because both players have castled, normally kingside, by the time the break has occurred.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The open games can all lead to very similar strategic ideas. So you play e4 e5 (and d4 or d5 at the first opportunity) along with the QGA you get open games with lots of tactics. I find this can be a very fun way to play if you don't like positional games (so the very opposite of your example).

This repertoire is a great way to learn a lot of tactics very quickly. It's also a great way to practice your calculation skills as you need to calculate many variations in the early moves.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Catalan, Grunfeld, and Sicilian Accelerated Dragon:

* Fianchetto the King Bishop
* Attack the center with your d and c pawns

Also g3 and g6 vs everything is probably the most universal system possible.

I have also used the Nimzo Bogo Queen's Indian and Nimzo Larsen Attack with the French.

The Kings's Indian, Pirc, and King's Indian Attack.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: Which is better, going for checkmate, or forcing immediate resignation?
Let's say you have a position where you can win the opponent's queen in one move and you know he will resign; or you play a combination that is technically stronger since it forces mate, but it takes 8 moves, some of which are hard to see, so you do not think your opponent will resign on the spot.

Which is really better?

# Answer
> you play a combination that is technically stronger since it forces mate, but it takes 8 moves, some of which are hard to see

If they're hard to see, *chances are that you've missed something as well*. Therefore, take the queen. You might miss the opportunity to finish the game in a beautiful way, but you can always save that for the post-mortem analysis.

The only reason not to take it would be if you're low on time and are not sure you can finish off the game, even being a queen ahead. But I wonder how you would see the mate in 8 then :)
> 5 votes

# Answer
It could be risky since you don't know what you have missed, but on the other hand, if you are low on the clock say under 10 minutes you might just have to go for the checkmate if the time control is also distant. Although playing while being a Queen up shouldn't be difficult even if you are a queen up.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, queens, resigning, combinations
---


title: Who has the biggest chess library?

text:
# Question
Title: Who has the biggest chess library?
I once had 1800 chess books before I sold off about 600 of the least-good ones and doubles (I used to buy entire collections from people, so you get some stuff you do not want).

I know an IM friend of mine has thousands of books, and that Karpov is said to have a massive library (although I cannot find confirmation of this, or how many), but who has the largest library of chess books?

Even the top few would be interesting to me.

# Answer
> 7 votes
According to Wikipedia:

**Public**

> The three significant public chess libraries are:
>
> The John G. White Chess and Checkers Collection at Cleveland Public Library has the largest chess and draughts \[chequers for those in the US\] library in the world, with over 32,000 chess books and over 6,000 bound volumes of chess periodicals. It was started with the donation of a quarter of a million dollars and 11,000 books from John G. White's private library upon his death.
>
> The Chess & Draughts collection at the Bibliotheca Van der Linde-Niemeijeriana (part of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, the National Library of the Netherlands). The second largest public chess collection in the world is built on the donations of the private chess libraries of Antonius van der Linde, Meindert Niemeijer and G.L. Gortmans. It contains about 30,000 books.
>
> The M.V. Anderson Chess Collection held at State Library Victoria (Melbourne, Australia) is the largest public chess collection in the Southern hemisphere. This contains in excess of 12,000 books and many journal and newsletter titles. Additional titles are added each year. It is based around M.V. Anderson's personal collection of 6700 volumes donated between 1959 and 1966.

**Private**

> Grandmaster Lothar Schmid of Bamberg, Germany reportedly owned the world's largest private collection of chess books and memorabilia. In 1992, Hooper and Whyld stated that Schmid's chess library "is the largest and finest in private hands, with more than 15,000 items". In 2008, Susan Polgar stated that Schmid "has over 20,000 chess books". Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam states that Schmid "boasts to have amassed 50,000 chess books.
>
> David DeLucia's chess library contains 7,000 to 8,000 chess books, a similar number of autographs (letters, score sheets, manuscripts), and about 1,000 items of "ephemera". DeLucia's library contains such items as "a 15th-century Lucena manuscript, score-sheets ranging from Fischer's Game of the Century against Donald Byrne to all the games of the 1927 New York tournament, eight letters by Morphy, over a hundred Lasker manuscripts, Capablanca's gold pocket watch, \[and\] the contract of the 1886 Steinitz-Zukertort world championship match". Ten Geutzendam opines that DeLucia's collection "is arguably the finest chess collection in the world".
>
> Former World Champion Anatoly Karpov has a large chess stamp collection. He has a private chess library of over 9000 books.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Some good stuff about chess libraries but let's face it, the great libraries are hundreds of kilometres/miles away from where many of us live. I collect and have seen the M.V. Anderson Chess Library in Melbourne Australia 4 times over 30 years and examined the websites of Cleveland and The Hague. Trouble is many books are kept in storage offsite and one needs days notice to get to them. No random browsing works now, though still pleasant. Libraries are good to use but the pressure of time is always there. The SLNSW has a 1 hour time limit on computer research. Bit sad but life. It is good to write articles based on one's library and great when it can be uploaded onto Edward Winter's 'Chess Notes' or Karel Mokry's site. One feels that progress is being made.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Why do some players play bizarre openings?
I saw blitz games on the Internet (http://en.chessbase.com) between very high Elo rated players (above 2700) that played bizarre openings like: `1. a4 x 2. h4 xx 3. Ra3(or Rh3) xxx 4. Rae3 xxxx`. The player who played like this still won. How to interpret these openings? Are these openings useful sometimes?

Here is one game: Player one 3084 - Player two 2983 0-1 3 minute game.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "chessbase.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]

1.a4 h5 2.Ra3 a5 3.h4 Ra6 4.Rhh3 Rhh6 5.Rhe3 Rhf6 6.Rad3 Rf4 7.Nc3 Rxh4 8.Nb5 Re6 9.Rg3 Rh1 10.Nf3 Re4 11.Ng5 Rxa4 12.e4 Ra1 13.e5 d6 14.e6 Bxe6 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Nd4 Qd7 17.Rb3 Qa4 18.Nxe6 Qc4 19.Nxg7+ Bxg7 20.d3 Qh4 21.Ke2 Bh6 22.Rxg8+ Kf7 23.g3 Qf6 24.Bxh6 Rxd1 25.Rf8+ Kg6 26.Rxf6+ exf6 0-1

```

# Answer
> 18 votes
The reason that top players generally avoid nonstandard openings is that they usually allow a sufficiently skilled opponent to equalize (with black) or gain an advantage (with white).

To do this against an opening which you haven't seen before, though, takes time. In a blitz game, the opponent will not be able to figure out the best way to exploit an inaccuracy. A player like Nakamura (who probably played every single legal first move on ICC at some point) has enough middlegame and endgame skill that a slight opening disadvantage really doesn't mean anything.

Also, it's online blitz. They aren't playing for prizes, they aren't jeopardizing tournament invitations. They can basically do whatever they want and if they lose, nobody really cares.

Edit now that you added the game:

Both players are clearly just messing around. Just because you CAN play chess well doesn't mean that you always want to. Don't try to draw conclusions based on this game.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Good players can win even with the most bizarre openings but I never saw a master play 1.a4 2.Ra3 even in bullet games. It's just a bad idea to develop the rook so early where it can be kicked around. (Just like developing a queen early)

I wouldn't be too surprised by 1.a4 or 1.h4 to avoid opening prep in blitz but developing the rook in this manner is a bad idea. Maybe you could share the game so we can give more concrete advice.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It looks like they have arranged the first 4 moves, and they are playing some kind of a thematic opening game. Otherwise, the first 4 moves are nonsense.

# Answer
> 4 votes
1. For fun.
2. To mix things up.
3. To get the opponent out of book early.
4. To hide preparation if they have an upcoming match (highest level players online).
5. To allow a lower-rated player a chance at winning.
6. Disdain for the opponent: "I can play crap, and STILL beat you like a drum!"
7. They are drunk...it happens.

---
Tags: opening, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: What is the technique to win an endgame with B + B vs R?
```
[title "R vs B+B"]
[fen "8/4rpkp/6p1/8/8/4BBP1/5PKP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

The engine says that this endgame is winning for white(+2.5). Is there a technique that could be used to win this for white. I understand that the ideal position for black to draw this game would be to have 0 pawns on the board which would then with the best play be a draw. If there was a passed pawn in this for white the escorting of the pawn to the final rank would be achieved with the bishop maneuvers. However, in this case, the pawns are on the same side of the board. Are the engines missing some sort of fortress position or is there a winning technique?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The key is to create weaknesses in Black's position, while also not exchanging off too much material. For example, if you exchanged down and got a K+B+B+h-pawn vs K+R, Black could sacrifice his rook for your dark-squared bishop, resulting in the wrong bishop drawn endgame.

My strategy would be to fix Black's pawns on a certain colour complex, ideally keeping all the pawns on the board. Then with all the pawns fixed, there will be at least one weak pawn for you to attack. In this situation, the bishop on the colour of the pawn will exert pressure, while the other bishop will control key squares around the pawn. For example, if Black's pawns were fixed on f6-g5-h6, your dark-squared bishop would put pressure on the f6-pawn, and then you could plant your light-squared bishop on g6 (covering f7, h7, and f5).

Then, you'd advance your king to help both bishops in their tasks (i.e., attacking the weak pawn(s) and controlling other important squares). Your king and other bishop (the one not on the colour of the weak pawn) could try to box out Black's rook, preventing it from defending the pawn.

Squeezing your opponent in such endgames requires patience. You want to make progress, but at the same time don't want to compromise by making exchanges. A difficult part in trying to win this endgame is dealing with Black's rook checking your king from the side. You can use one bishop to block, but then the rook could go back to defending the weak pawn.

# Answer
> 8 votes
As a complement to previous answers, notice that although this endgame should be a theoretical win for the bishops, it is not as straightforward a technical task as one might think.

Even at the highest level, in a World Championship Match, Black has been able to save his skin. The stakes were very high, since this rapid game was played during the tiebreak when the players were still tied.

```
 [FEN ""]
 [Event "Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match"]
 [Site "New York, NY USA"]
 [Date "2016.11.30"]
 [EventDate "2016.11.11"]
 [Round "13.2"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [White "Magnus Carlsen"]
 [Black "Sergey Karjakin"]
 [ECO "C50"]
 [WhiteElo "?"]
 [BlackElo "?"]
 [PlyCount "167"]

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 O-O 6.a4 a6 7.c3 d6
 8.Re1 Ba7 9.h3 Ne7 10.d4 Ng6 11.Nbd2 c6 12.Bf1 a5 13.dxe5 dxe5
 14.Qc2 Be6 15.Nc4 Qc7 16.b4 axb4 17.cxb4 b5 18.Ne3 bxa4
 19.Rxa4 Bxe3 20.Bxe3 Rxa4 21.Qxa4 Nxe4 22.Rc1 Bd5 23.b5 cxb5
 24.Qxe4 Qxc1 25.Qxd5 Qc7 26.Qxb5 Rb8 27.Qd5 Rd8 28.Qb3 Rb8
 29.Qa2 h6 30.Qd5 Qe7 31.Qe4 Qf6 32.g3 Rc8 33.Bd3 Qc6 34.Qf5
 Re8 35.Be4 Qe6 36.Qh5 Ne7 37.Qxe5 Qxe5 38.Nxe5 Ng6 39.Bxg6
 Rxe5 40.Bd3 f6 41.Kg2 Kh8 42.Kf3 Rd5 43.Bg6 Ra5 44.Ke4 Rb5
 45.h4 Re5+ 46.Kd4 Ra5 47.Kc4 Re5 48.Bd4 Ra5 49.Bc5 Kg8 50.Kd5
 Rb5 51.Kd6 Ra5 52.Be3 Re5 53.Bf4 Ra5 54.Bd3 Ra7 55.Ke6 Rb7
 56.Kf5 Rd7 57.Bc2 Rb7 58.Kg6 Rb2 59.Bf5 Rxf2 60.Be6+ Kh8
 61.Bd6 Re2 62.Bg4 Re8 63.Bf5 Kg8 64.Bc2 Re3 65.Bb1 Kh8 66.Kf7
 Rb3 67.Be4 Re3 68.Bf5 Rc3 69.g4 Rc6 70.Bf8 Rc7+ 71.Kg6 Kg8
 72.Bb4 Rb7 73.Bd6 Kh8 74.Bf8 Kg8 75.Ba3 Kh8 76.Be6 Rb6 77.Kf7
 Rb7+ 78.Be7 h5 79.gxh5 f5 80.Bxf5 Rxe7+ 81.Kxe7 Kg8 82.Bd3 Kh8
 83.Kf8 g5 84.hxg6 1/2-1/2

```

White pieces were played by a grandmaster who is considered as one of the very best endgame players in History.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Of course, this should be a win.

Here is how future GM Robert Cvek did it as a 2265-rated player starting at move 33. The position is not exactly the same, but it is pretty close.

He struggled for a little bit in the beginning, but then, he managed to bring his king up using the bishops to block the rook checks as Initial Ignorance mentioned, and then it was over.

```
 [FEN ""]
 [Event "CZE-ch U20"]
 [Site "Usti nad Labem"]
 [Date "1996.??.??"]
 [Round "6"]
 [White "Cvek, Robert"]
 [Black "Neuman, Petr"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "E62"]
 [WhiteElo "2265"]
 [BlackElo "2215"]
 [PlyCount "173"]
 [EventDate "1996.??.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "9"]
 [EventCountry "CZE"]
 [EventCategory "3"]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. c4 c6 7. Nc3 Qa5 8. a3 Be6 9. Nd2 Qa6 10. d5 cxd5 11. cxd5 Bd7 12. Nb3 Rc8 13. e4 b5 14. Be3 Qb7 15. Bd4 a5 16. e5 dxe5 17. Bxe5 b4 18. axb4 axb4 19. d6 Rxa1 20. Bxb7 Rxd1 21. Nxd1 Re8 22. dxe7 Bb5 23. Bd6 Bxf1 24. Kxf1 Nfd7 25. Ne3 Bxb2 26. Nd5 Bf6 27. Nc5 Kg7 28. Nxd7 Nxd7 29. Bxb4 Nb6 30. Nxb6 Bxe7 31. Bc6 Rb8 32. Bxe7 Rxb6 33. Bf3 f6 34. Bc5 Rb5 35. Be3 Rb2 36. Bd5 Rb5 37. Bc6 Rb2 38. Kg2 Ra2 39. Bd5 Ra5 40. Bf3 Ra2 41. g4 h6 42. h4 Ra5 43. Kg3 Rb5 44. Be2 Ra5 45. Kf3 Rd5 46. Ke4 Ra5 47. Bd4 g5 48. Kf3 Ra3+ 49. Kg2 Kg6 50. Be3 Kg7 51. Bc4 Rc3 52. Bd5 Rd3 53. Be4 Ra3 54. Bf5 Rb3 55. Bc5 Rc3 56. Bd6 Rc6 57. Bg3 Rc4 58. f3 Ra4 59. Be4 Ra2+ 60. Kh3 Re2 61. Bd6 Rb2 62. Kg3 Rb6 63. Bc7 Rb3 64. Kh3 Ra3 65. Bg3 Rb3 66. Kg2 Rb2+ 67. Kf1 Ra2 68. Bd3 Rb2 69. Be2 Rb4 70. h5 Rb3 71. Kf2 Ra3 72. Bc4 Rc3 73. Bd5 Rd3 74. Be4 Ra3 75. Ke2 Rb3 76. Bd3 Ra3 77. Ke3 Rb3 78. Kd4 Ra3 79. Be4 Ra5 80. Bd6 Rb5 81. Bc5 Ra5 82. Kd5 Rb5 83. Kc6 Ra5 84. Bd6 Ra6+ 85. Kd7 Ra7+ 86. Ke8 Ra5 87. Bf8+ 1-0

```

# Answer
> -4 votes
I would say the engine is just an engine not perfection. White is up one 'point' for material. Maybe two if you count the two bishops versus rook as another one. Not sure why the engine would say 2.5.

And I see no way to force a win.

With zero pawns black sacs the rook for a bishop == 1/2 1/2

No way for white to force a passed pawn.

Black puts the king on N1 or g8. Black can keep the white king from being a threat. The bishops can not do anything by themselves.

I will defer to @Phishmaster if he has a plan but I do not see any and was fairly good at end games back when I played tournaments.

---
Tags: endgame, passed-pawn
---


# Question
Title: What are the benefits and the drawbacks of the Sicilian defense
I am learning to play chess, and I am focusing my attention on the Sicilian defense. Many people says is one of the best openings against e4 when playing with black, and I think also it is a good opening. But sometimes, if I play it, I get weak in the queen side, and so I vulnerable to attacks there.

So I was wondering which are the benefits and the drawbacks of the Siciclian defense.

Can somebody help me?

# Answer
The Sicilian defense is a very strong opening that gives very complicated and rich positions. Before I talk about the drawbacks and the advantages I want to point out that if by attack you mean attack on your king then I must say that you should never castle queenside when playing the Sicilian defense. However, I think that you mean that white exerts pressure on you Queenside. I would recommend that you push b5 early on and fianchetto the bishop on b7 such that it is defending the a6 pawn. With this, it's possible to place the rook on c8 and to put pressure on white's queenside.

Playing the Sicilian defense has a lot of possibilities and advantages, but it can be quite frustrating especially when you first start playing it and don't know much of the ideas and lines. Below I have attempted to divide categorize the advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages: 2 central pawns, Queenside pawn storm, and Strong exchange sacrifices Disadvantages: Rapid development from white, Kingside attack from white, and passive looking setup from black

I would highly recommend getting sharper on your tactics if you are intending to play the Sicilian in your games. There are a variety of websites such as Lichess and Chess.com where you can do this. The Sicilian defense often leads to razor-sharp positions. Learn from people who play the Sicilian defense against you as well. Wish you the best of luck!
> 2 votes

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


title: Best chess player with Down Syndrome

text:
# Question
Title: Best chess player with Down Syndrome
Who is the best chess player with Down Syndrome? Wiki says that the mental ability of a person with Down Syndrome equals to this of a healthy person 8 or 9 years old. So, are there some players with this syndrome, as there are many admirable healthy players at the age of 8-9?

What is the elo ceiling in that case? Is it possible a "Magnus Carlsen with Down Syndrome" to get in 2000 or 2200 elo?

What about other types of intellectual disabilities?

# Answer
There are a lot of titled players with high functioning autism.

One known is GM David Navara, but there are others. It is discussed if Bobby Fischer was Asperger too. There was a buzzing Magnus Carlsen was autistic too, but looks false according to Quora. Another example of GM that looks to be autistic is GM Julio Granda from Peru.

As for Down Syndrome, they have not the abilities an Asperger has, but they can learn how to play chess competitively.

Subramaniam Karaan, from India, has Down Syndrome, and he is rated 1806 when I write on FIDE list. He is also rated 1832 in blitz, and was close to reach 2000 in 2015.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Early line in english opening not in the chessbase powerbook 2019 but seen by stockfish 10 64bits under latest fritz
I am looking at 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 dxc4 4.Nf3 and Chessbase's Powerbook 2019 only proposes 4...c6, 4...g6, 4...a6, 4...Nbd7, 4...Qd6 or 4...Be6 whereas Fritz 17 64bits latest update using Stockfish 10 64bits finds this line :

```
[fen ""]

1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 dxc4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Qa4 Nd7 6.Qxc4 e5 7.O-O Be7 8.b3 Nb6 9.Qc2 O-O 10.Bb2 Nb4 11.Qc3 f6 12.a3 Nc6 13.d3 Be6 14.Nbd2 Qd7 15.Rac1 Rfd8 16.Qc2 a5 17.Rfd1 Bd5 18.Re1 Bf7 19.Ne4 h6 20.Nfd2 Be6 21.Red1 Bd5 22.Nc5 Bxc5 23.Qxc5 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Kh8

```

Either the quality of the Powerbook 2019 is not that high, either Stockfish 10 64bits is cracking, which I doubt. Am I right or do I miss a parameter ?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I also have PowerBook 2019, and Stockfish 10, and I can confirm what you found, but there is an explanation.

The moves suggested in the PowerBook are from actual human games. They are intended, specifically, to give the computer a human opening book, rather than it just playing on its own. You will find these games in the database Powergames2019 that came with the product.

This goes back to the old days, when computers were not as strong as they are today. It was then beneficial to have a human opening book. Today, one could make the argument that it is not so necessary.

P.S. For the record, Masters have a natural proclivity not to block the c-pawn, either as white or black in closed openings since you need to play c5 so often to try and free your game. That is the reason the Chigorin is not so popular.

# Answer
> 0 votes
All engine/computer combinations have different strengths/weaknesses.

That is a relatively minor line and 5 .. Bd7 is better than Nf7 and was played by Bistric vs. Mestrovic ½-½ in 2001. Looks more like a difference in the opening databases as much as anything else.

Or it could be a slight improvement to a weaker variation because the algorithm or evaluation technique changed. Whether it is enough to help a GM win with is another issue. I suspect other factors would determine the outcome of the game more than the engine or computer.

---
Tags: software, stockfish, chessbase, english-opening, fritz
---


title: Is this checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this checkmate?
```
[fen "3Q4/8/k7/5p2/q2p1Pp1/2p3P1/K1P5/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

```

I recently started playing chess and was doing some puzzles online. It says that this move is checkmate but I don't see why white can't move to b1. Can someone please explain?

# Answer
> 3 votes
No, the white king can still move to b1.

That said, Kb1 Qb4+; any Qb2 is mate.

```
 [FEN "3Q4/8/k7/5p2/q2p1Pp1/2p3P1/K1P5/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kb1 Qb4+ 2. Ka2 Qb2#

```

---
Tags: analysis, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Moving into check for a draw as black, why is it illegal? Comparison to Racing Kings
I am confused why you cannot move into a check when it can force your opponent to capture your king and expose theirs. In such a case why is there no extra move to result in a draw?

In the "Racing Kings" variant, if white reaches the end of the board, black has an additional move to force a draw if they also reach the end of the board on that move. However, this does not seem to be the case in standard chess which seems to put black at a disadvantage. That is black must "defend" and white seems to have an advantage since it "attacks" from the very beginning of the game.

Here is an example of what I mean:

```
[fen "8/8/2k5/3R4/2r1PK2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

If it is black to move, why can't they capture the rook (d5)? This would force white to recapture with the pawn and open up the king to a check from black's rook. Since black started second, it should have the chance to capture the king and force a draw.

# Answer
> 25 votes
Imagine a variation of chess without the rules about check and checkmate, where a player wins simply when he captures his opponent's king. In this variation, `Kxd5` loses the game to `exd5`.

Turns out, that's more or less how real chess works. The objective is to capture the opponent's king. If your king is under attack, you must deal with that threat. If there's no way to remove the threat, then you lose.

The explicit rule that you must end your move not in check (both by eliminating the check if you're in check, and by not moving into check) and the rule that ends the game with checkmate simply ensure that the king is never actually captured. Check can almost be seen as a safety measure for weaker players who might not notice that their king is under attack. Notice that announcing check is not actually in the rules, and grandmasters never do it. The rule is effectively unnecessary for experts. And checkmate is sort of like the game forcing a resignation when the result is inevitable, much like how experts will resign when they see that their opponent has forced mate.

If we think of the rules of check this way, then it's clear why `Kxd5` is illegal: your opponent would take your king, and the fact that his own king becomes exposed is irrelevant because the game is over.

# Answer
> 18 votes
Those are just the rules of the game. You could absolutely try to make the case that moving into check in such a situation should be legal, but playing by those rules wouldn't be chess anymore (it would be some variant).

You could also ask why stalemate is a draw and not a win, even though the latter result would make more sense in a real battle. These are simply the rules.

# Answer
> 17 votes
I will answer from a different perspective: why Racing Kings (RK) has a rule to allow black a chance to draw, and why the same logic doesn't apply to chess.

**What is Racing Kings (RK)?**

Background for those unfamiliar with RK: Both sides start with all pieces (no pawns), arranged on the first 2 ranks of the chessboard, white on the right, black on the left. The win condition is to get the kings from their initial squares on h2/a2 to any square on the 8th rank. Checks are forbidden --- no move is allowed to leave *either* king in check.

The rules as stated above, favour white heavily. Having one tempo is critically important when a game can be as short as six moves. In order to negate some of this advantage, if white moves the king to the 8th rank *and* black can do the same immediately, the game is drawn.

**How serious is white's advantage in RK?**

Even with the added draw rule for black, *RK still favours white*. In practical play on lichess, eyeballing the opening explorer tells us white still wins more than black overall, even limiting the games to top players (2000+ site RK rating). The imbalance is around 48% to 41% with about 11% draws. This empirically shows white's advantage, and it would be even more lopsided without the draw rule. (And if there were long time control games, the draw percentage would be much, much higher. Such is internet blitz.)

Aside from game statistics, further evidence of the imbalance is the opening theory. 1. Kg3 lines have been very deeply analysed by the community and by Stockfish, and the outcome is that black can just about hold a draw with precise play (the theory can run 20 moves deep at times). The other best first moves 1. Bd4, 1. Nxc2 and 1. Kh3 are slightly less theoreticised, but deep engine analysis and practical play strongly suggests they are drawn too (again, with precise play).

So even with the draw rule in RK, black is still just holding on.

**Should regular chess have this rule?**

At the top level of regular chess, we have a far higher percentage of draws already. It is also clearly nowhere near as imbalanced as the "raw" form of RK without the draw rule. For balance reasons, the rule proposed here (allowing black to move into check in certain circumstances) should not be introduced to regular chess.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It’s probable that White has some strategic advantage from going first. I never thought of your suggestion to give a losing player a “last-dying blow” might be a solution to this imbalance.

Now that I consider it, I think that it would not be desirable. Chess has too many draws anyway. That’s a much greater perceived issue than the white/black question. Your idea wouldn’t just turn White wins into draws but also Black wins.

Also, White’s advantage is strategic. If it translates into ability to checkmate with risk of last dying blow, then with a little more work it can probably translate into checkmate with no risk of last dying blow. So the issue and suggested solution are too separated

Hope this perspective helps.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The question assumes that White has an inherent advantage and that therefore Black should have an extra chance to draw by "winning" on the same move number.

> white seems to have an advantage since it "attacks" from the very beginning of the game

This is not true generically in games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-player\_and\_second-player\_win) - there are games where the second player can force a draw or even force a win. It is not proven which category chess falls into.

In any case, any advantage for white is not sufficiently large to make such a rule necessary. (Unlike racing kings where the advantage for white is considerable.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Short answer is: In Classical Chess you are forbidden to put (or leave) your king in check (if you can't avoid it, you lose).

That's exactly the reason you can't put your king in check merrily (even in the event you think you can win by leaving your king in check "just for a moment") because you'd need an immediate second move to take it from danger (a second move that you don't have since in classical chess you can make only one move per turn).

Now, in the example you show, the above mentioned rule **applies** *even if the offending piece (in this case a pawn) is pinned.*

The reason is, the king is the only piece that never leaves the checkboard (can't be "captured"), so there's no need for the offending piece to take possession of the square the king is in (as it happens when capturing). In other words, immovility caused by the pin in this case is **not** a limiting issue and the above rule (*"no king in check because"*) prevails.

(TBH long time ago I made myself this identical question ;-) )

---
Tags: checkmate, chess-variants, online-chess, check, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: Myths and conventional WhizDumb of the internet
What is good advice and what were myths and whizdumb of the internet that kept you from improving as much/fast as you could have?

Play more games? NO! Focused training helps more than playing random games. Perfect practice makes perfect not making unpunished mistakes against other weak players.

Studying more openings? NO. You need to focus on one opening for white and black. And MASTER them. Learning lots of openings gives you more openings with less ability in each of them. END GAMES will help more than learning more openings. And tactics are also needed to help play middle games better when using a clock.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I think that the biggest myth about chess is the one that you actually pointed out in your question. I am talking about the one about learning openings before learning endgames. I am a strong believer that endgames contribute much to your play than openings and openings. As the great chess player Capablanca pointed out that Endgames can be studied independently while Openings and the Middlegame must be studied with the knowledge of a possible ending.

---
Tags: opening, learning, training, study
---


# Question
Title: Longest sequence before a certain capture
Inspired by a recent question, what is the longest possible sequence before White can make a certain capture? Basically, White is trying to capture a chosen piece, and Black optimally defends that piece from capture. But White will be able to capture it in a finite number of moves. However, the positon must be legal, i.e. it is possible to reach

The longest sequence I have come up with is **156 moves**. White wants to capture Black’s bishop.

```
[FEN "2Bk4/p2P2pp/2pPp3/8/p7/P1p1p1P1/2P1P1Pb/5K1N w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke1 Bg1 2. Kd1 Bh2 3. Kc1 Bg1 4. Kb1 Bh2 5. Ka2 Bg1 6. Ka1 Bh2 7. Kb1 Bg1 8. Kc1 Bh2 9. Kd1 Bg1 10. Ke1 Bh2 11. Kf1 a6 12. Ke1 Bg1 13. Kd1 Bh2 14. Kc1 Bg1  15. Kb1 Bh2 16. Ka2 Bg1 17. Ka1 Bh2 18. Kb1 Bg1 19. Kc1 Bh2 20. Kd1 Bg1 21. Ke1 Bh2 22. Kf1 a5 23. Ke1 Bg1 24. Kd1 Bh2 25. Kc1 Bg1 26. Kb1 Bh2 27. Ka2 Bg1 28. Ka1 Bh2 29. Kb1 Bg1 30. Kc1 Bh2 31. Kd1 Bg1 32. Ke1 Bh2 33. Kf1 c5 34. Ke1 Bg1  35. Kd1 Bh2 36. Kc1 Bg1 37. Kb1 Bh2 38. Ka2 Bg1 39. Ka1 Bh2 40. Kb1 Bg1 41. Kc1 Bh2 42. Kd1 Bg1 43. Ke1 Bh2 44. Kf1 c4 45. Ke1 Bg1 46. Kd1 Bh2 47. Kc1 Bg1 48. Kb1 Bh2 49. Ka2 Bg1 50. Ka1 Bh2 51. Kb1 Bg1 52. Kc1 Bh2 53. Kd1 Bg1 54. Ke1 Bh2 55. Kf1 e5 56. Ke1 Bg1 57. Kd1 Bh2 58. Kc1 Bg1 59. Kb1 Bh2 60. Ka2 Bg1 61. Ka1 Bh2 62. Kb1 Bg1 63. Kc1 Bh2 64. Kd1 Bg1 65. Ke1 Bh2 66. Kf1 e4 67. Ke1 Bg1 68. Kd1 Bh2 69. Kc1 Bg1 70. Kb1 Bh2 71. Ka2 Bg1 72. Ka1 Bh2 73. Kb1 Bg1 74. Kc1 Bh2 75. Kd1 Bg1 76. Ke1 Bh2 77. Kf1 g6 78. Ke1 Bg1 79. Kd1 Bh2 80. Kc1 Bg1 81. Kb1 Bh2 82. Ka2 Bg1 83. Ka1 Bh2 84. Kb1 Bg1 85. Kc1 Bh2 86. Kd1 Bg1 87. Ke1 Bh2 88. Kf1 g5 89. Ke1 Bg1 90. Kd1 Bh2 91. Kc1 Bg1 92. Kb1 Bh2 93. Ka2 Bg1 94. Ka1 Bh2 95. Kb1 Bg1 96. Kc1 Bh2 97. Kd1 Bg1 98. Ke1 Bh2 99. Kf1 g4 100. Ke1 Bg1 101. Kd1 Bh2 102. Kc1 Bg1 103. Kb1 Bh2 104. Ka2 Bg1 105. Ka1 Bh2 106. Kb1 Bg1 107. Kc1 Bh2 108. Kd1 Bg1 109. Ke1 Bh2 110. Kf1 h6 111. Ke1 Bg1 112. Kd1 Bh2 113. Kc1 Bg1 114. Kb1 Bh2 115. Ka2 Bg1 116. Ka1 Bh2 117. Kb1 Bg1 118. Kc1 Bh2 119. Kd1 Bg1 120. Ke1 Bh2 121. Kf1 h5 122. Ke1 Bg1 123. Kd1 Bh2 124. Kc1 Bg1 125. Kb1 Bh2  126. Ka2 Bg1 127. Ka1 Bh2 128. Kb1 Bg1 129. Kc1 Bh2 130. Kd1 Bg1 131. Ke1 Bh2  132. Kf1 h4 133. Ke1 Bg1 134. Kd1 Bh2 135. Kc1 Bg1 136. Kb1 Bh2 137. Ka2 Bg1 138. Ka1 Bh2 139. Kb1 Bg1 140. Kc1 Bh2 141. Kd1 Bg1 142. Ke1 Bh2 143. Kf1 h3 144. gxh3 gxh3 145. Ke1 Bg1 146. Kd1 Bh2 147. Kc1 Bg1 148. Kb1 Bh2 149. Ka2 Bg1 150. Ka1 Bh2 151. Kb1 Bg1 152. Kc1 Bh2 153. Kd1 Bg1 154. Ke1 Bh2 155. Kf1 Bg1 156. Kxg1

```

Dows anyone know of a longer such sequence, or possibly create a longer one?

# Answer
Fun concept! I think you can at least retract a couple of moves from your extended example: R: 1. a5-a4 a2-a3 2. a6-a5 fxRg3 3. fxNe6 Nf8xRe6+
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, mathematics, captures
---


# Question
Title: What thought process should one use to find candidate moves?
Do you have a thought process for finding candidate moves?

Once you find all possible candidate moves, how do you narrow it down to your final choice?

Regarding the process, do you have a certain order of things you look at or is it in a random order?

# Answer
> 16 votes
Here is a basic checklist you should always consider (in order of priority):

* Examine **all** tactics currently available to **both** players on the board within the next move; these take priority. Usually, each tactic has a purpose, such as check-mate (highest priority), winning material (secondary-priority) and securing a very strong position (tertiary-priority.)
    + In the case of an opponent's tactics, search for "in-between" moves in the execution of the tactic. Many times one non-obvious in-between move can spell the difference between a beautiful defence and losing the game. To give an example of an "in-between" move, suppose your opponent has a discovered attack ready on your queen using a knight and a bishop. His goal is to win a rook for his knight by using the discovered attack and simultaneously attacking your rook and queen. He does not realize that your queen has an "in-between" check move allowing her to move to safety as well as your rook.
    + In the case of tactics available to you, also search for all "in-between" defensive moves available to your opponent. For example, suppose the previous example of the knight, bishop discovered attack on the queen was actually your tactic. After thoroughly investigating your opponent's options, you realize he can check and move his queen to safety with the in-between move. Therefore, you move your king to a square where a check is not possible, forcing the queen to move to a worse position this turn else face the wrath of the tactic the next turn.
* Search all available tactics (as thoroughly as above) within 2,3,4, ... `n` moves where `n` is limited by the amount of time you have on the clock and your gut-feel for how important this position is vs. how sure you are your current best move is.
* Search for guaranteed positional weaknesses in your opponent. In the lack of tactics available in the game, it can be hard to find a reason to play one move vs another. This may be a daunting task for a beginner, but rest assured there is almost always a best move. Almost all positional weaknesses deal with pawn positioning, specifically the colour your pawn chain sits on, or lack of being able to form pawn chains. In order to achieve positional weakness in your opponent, you may have to do it through a tactic so keep that in mind. I'll list some common positional weaknesses:
    + A knight placed where an enemy pawn can not "kick" him off is substantially stronger when placed close to an enemy king. This is called a knight on an outpost. This is mainly because it opens up the possibility of many forking tactics. Often, when your opponent has no other means of kicking your knight, such a knight is worth at least 1 rook, sometimes 1 rook and a pawn.
    + Doubled-pawns create long term weaknesses since they can no longer form pawn chains in one direction. **DO NOT** consider this a considerable weakness in the early or middle game, because it is not, it is only a weakness in the endgame. Doubled pawns near their king, especially if he is castled, **are always a weakness** at every point in the game.
    + The colour your opponent's pawn chain sits on determines their good bishop (the opposite coloured to that colour bishop is the good bishop) seek to trade their good bishop while keeping your good bishop, this is a minor advantage that becomes greater in the latter part of the game.
    + The first one to double rooks on a file usually owns that file for the rest of the game. There are notable exceptions and usually a great many tactics available to both sides when fighting for dominance over a file so be careful with this one!
    + A rook on the same file as an enemy king or queen (even if there are many pawns and minor pieces blocking) is still a valuable position for the rook, as you can usually create interesting tactical variations by removing the pieces in the way 1 by 1.
    + Look for "back-rank" problems in your opponent (as well as yourself!) If your king or your opponent's king can be mated with one rook attack on the back rank this makes for interesting tactical options for both sides!
    + Try to make your rooks "pigs." A pig rook is a rook placed on the second to back rank (either rank 7 or 2 if you are playing white or black.) A pig rook is very strong as he is usually both attacking undefended pawns as well as posing a considerable threat to the enemy king. If you can get doubled pig rooks this usually means a win or a draw for yourself. This is generally hard to accomplish as it takes a minimum of 2 moves (usually 4+), but look for tactics as this is almost always a win especially near end-game!
    + Rooks belong behind passed pawns, and always push your passed pawns, the closer they get to the other side the more they are worth!
    + The three (or four) pawns in front of a castled king are extremely important. Enticing your opponent to move them (to kick a bishop or a knight) creates a permanent weakness in your opponent's defences. Always give your opponent the option of kicking your piece with these pawns, as when he does you know that you can take advantage of the new weakness he has created.
* With that last point, I would like to conclude this with two simple principles: the principle of two threats and the principle of every move leaves something behind. The first principle is easy to understand, create 2+ threats for your opponent and it will be hard or impossible for him to defend both. The second principle is much more subtle but just as important. Chess is a game of a delicate dynamic equilibrium. Every move you or your opponent makes gains some advantage but also creates some weakness, if ever so slight. Search for these weaknesses in yourself and in your opponent at all times.

# Answer
> 11 votes
When I play chess, here's my process of thinking:

1) Check defensive move:

* I check pin, fork... against me
* I check move to support my pieces

2) Check offensive move:

* I check mate
* If I don't find mate, I check possibilities to pin, fork... pieces of opponent
* Otherwise, I develop my pieces

In general, I think defensive move first, then offensive move but this is my way of thinking. Each player thinks differently.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Thought process in a chess game is vastly different among novice, average, expert and grandmasters. It's a gradual learning which comes with time, experience and passion.

The novice players see moves to immediately gain a piece, give check, exchange a piece, etc. They generally don't think one move ahead.

Average players have acquired some tactics, strategic play, knowledge of positional advantage and make their moves according to these combinations. They scan the board hard to find a better move than the move they have decided to be the best.

Expert players develop intuitive knowledge about other players style of play. They are well verse with chess openings and can take advantage of other player's opening blunder. They are good in strategic play and see the board ahead after 3 to 5 moves combination. They normally play for checkmate rather than immediate positional advantage, or short term gains.

Chess grandmasters have excellent memory, and they can recall games similar to the position shown on the board. They don't think much, as their mind automatically thinks only about the best moves as it comes with experience. They are very good in analyzing variations in a chess position. They always tend to make moves that result in deterministic checkmate rather than non-deterministic positional play, although the later can be converted to former.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is something I struggle with, I'm in the bad habit of honing in on one move, analyzing it, assessing it as OK, and then going with it, for better or for worse. I think something that is going to help me instead is to scan *all* of the pieces for each side, and take into consideration their prospects, either individually, or in tandem with other forces. Pawns on the other hand are a different matter.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There is a nice story attached to the 1960 Tal-Botwinnik match. They adjourned after 40 moves and began analysing the game so far. Botwinnik had got his Queen offside and Tal had numerous exciting sacrifices to look at but had not played any of them. In the analysis, Tal was trying to find out if any of them would have worked, but noticed after a while that Botwinnik was not contributing much to this. Eventually he said, Mikhail, you were not looking at this were you? and Botwinnik replied No, I was working out that I wanted to exchange Rooks but not Queens. None of the answers here mentions anything like this. Everyone starts with a move and calculates forward. Botwinnik started with a goal and worked backwards.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is what I do after I get out of preparation:

> 1. Check for threats against me
> 2. If none or I judge them to be insignificant: Look for weaknesses in the opponents position and then look for tactics to attack them
> 3. If none: Move a or h pawn (to create weaknesses and per Aronyan's advice: "If you don't know what to move, move a or h pawn")
> 4. If, for physical, tactical, or positional reasons 3. is not available, improve king safety.

---
Tags: learning, analysis, training, board-vision, candidate-move
---


title: How do top players move so fast?

text:
# Question
Title: How do top players move so fast?
I've seen 3 minute and 1 minute matches on Chess.com where the players move at insane speeds during the last few remaining seconds of the match.

I'm talking in milliseconds, I'd at least take that much of time to only recognize an event happening. So how do they even respond with a correct move?

How do they move so fast? Do they use some kind of special software or what?

# Answer
> 6 votes
You're likely looking at premoves; the players know (or at least have a good guess at) what their opponent's move is going to be, so they can already 'ready' their own move by taking the piece and dropping or just moving it to the destination square. Of course, if the opponent makes another move, they have to cancel their move (if it's still possible; that depends on the client, and whether they're dropping or just moving) or they might make a huge blunder.

Premoving can lead to funny things like the following:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Bg5 e6 3. Bxd8

```

Here, Black expects White to play a Queens Gambit with `2. c4`, which is the normal move. If Black premoves `2... e6` and notices the `2. Bg5` too late, they will lose their queen.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In addition to @Glorfindel -part of the answer is also that top players really are *extremely fast*. They recognizes the position and patterns faster than us mortal can blink. Some of the fastest chess is played with 15 seconds on the clock. That means that the whole match is over in less than half a minute.

A search for *Ultrabullet chess* returns e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLVK7iryHJA

or here both players *berserks* (meaning they only have half the time rounded e.i. 8 seconds) and play blindfolded: https://youtu.be/6ygQMw4rBHg?t=10m54s

Here: https://youtu.be/G2AMN9tHSB0?t=1h1m25s 87 moves was made in 13.5 second. That is more than 6 moves/second.

When the chess is so fast it is difficult to tell if the clock had started counting when the move was made or if it was a premove made when the opponents clock was counting. Often you will hear players complain about lag, as even few ms of internet/server delay affects their play.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When you see moves happening in milliseconds, this is usually do to premoves. Players pre-select the move they want before it's there turn, and the server does their move immediately. I believe it used to take 0.1 seconds before, but now it might be even less time (I'm not too sure).

However, I've often played out an opening in only 2-3 seconds without premoves. If you know the theory, or it's just a middlegame position that doesn't require any calculation, moves can be played very quickly. Basically muscle memory and instinct. It also helps to hover the piece over the square you want to move it before your opponent makes their move, so all you have to do is drop the piece. Of course, if your opponent is also moving at the same speeds you are, this isn't always possible.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Correctly made premoves save a lot of time. In addition, best bullet players just have a better neurological makeup - meaning faster decision-making and reflexes - than us, mere mortals, do. You also need to have a good mouse and fast internet. For some insights of what it takes to win in blitz and bullet at the high level just watch, for example, Nakamura's streams on Youtube.

---
Tags: software, online-chess, computer-chess
---


title: How to calculate pinned chess moves

text:
# Question
Title: How to calculate pinned chess moves
I am writing a legal move generator, and the last piece of the puzzle is preventing pinned pieces from being moved such that the king will be in check.

I have read a lot of posts here and on stackoverflow and the only answers given seem to be vague references to stockfish's code which I can't seem to decipher or an incomplete explanation.

I am writing my generator in Python and would really appreciate a detailed explanation of an approach I can take.

# Answer
There are two approaches:

1) For the piece in question you're considering to move, look at the vector going through it to the king. For example, if they king and the piece are separated horizontally/vertically, look at the line going through it to the king. Is there an enemy rook/queen on this line, such that your piece is currently between it and your king? Or, if the piece is on a diagonal from the king, see if there's an enemy bishop/queen on this diagonal. However, if your piece moves along this vector (and thus continues blocking your king), it's fine. For example, assume your king is on h8, your queen is on e5, and the opponent's bishop is on a1. There's an enemy piece on the a1-h8 vector (which your queen and king are on), so moving the queen off this vector/diagonal is illegal. But moving the queen along the vector (e.g., anywhere from b2 to g7) won't violate the pin.

2) The simpler approach is a general purpose illegal move checker. Make a list of all pseudo-legal moves, and then check each to see if it results in an illegal position where your king is en prise. This encompasses what you're trying to do with not moving a pinned piece out of the way, since it would result in an illegal position.
> 4 votes

# Answer
This answer expounds on Inertial Ignorance’s #2. The idea is that you make pseudo-legal moves (moves according to piece movement, not accounting for legality) then check for legality.

The way we’ll do this is by making the move, then looking at the square of the king. Loop through all squares to the right of the king (starting from the closest square) and stop at the first piece. If it’s an opponent’s rook or queen, the move was illegal. Similarly do this for the other directions, including diagonals and knight moves. If it “passes” all the tests, it’s legal (assuming you’ve also checked the other weird rules regarding castling/en passant)

This will give you your first “general” legality check.

Assuming you’re using this to build an engine, this will be something you want to optimize a LOT (though Python really isn’t he language for this). To give you an idea: run through a bunch of games and find the directions which the king is checked from most often, then loop through those directions first.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: programming
---


# Question
Title: Why is this the solution to this puzzle?
```
[FEN "2r3k1/5pp1/1q1bpn1p/pB1pN3/P2P4/5R2/1P3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxf6 Qc7 2. Rf3

```

This is a puzzle (and its solution) I found on lichess.

But I simply do not see the expected logic of this puzzle. The Qc7 move doesn't do much from my POV, and refraining from following up with gxf6 also doesn't make sense as that move wins a rook, and while it does open the king up to check, that check doesn't force any other captures, nor does it lead to mate. In fact, when I analyse the game with an engine, it even prefers gxf6 over Qc7.

# Answer
There is a lot more to this, and this is really not a great tactics problem as much as it is a continuing the attack problem. The difference is that with a tactic problem, you can see the result all the way to the end. Other positions, you have just a feel for it, and you know that you are probably winning, but you have to play what you can calculate, you get there, and then you calculate more of the attack. Often, you do this while calculating places you could take a forced draw if it is not working out.

A great example of that is the game Dubov-Svane (here with copyrighted annotations), which I will give below. It was one of the best games of the year.

The move Qc7 is an example of why I am not a fan of online puzzles that have been computer checked, but no strong player has evaluated. After Rf6, if you do not take, you simply lose, and thus, Qc7 is not even an option to consider. The only lines that are important are the ones that include gf, but more importantly, the ones that include Bxe5, which comes closer to defending for a human than any other move.

```
 [FEN "2r3k1/5pp1/1q1bpn1p/pB1pN3/P2P4/5R2/1P3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rxf6 Bxe5 {This may be the most testing try in practice.} (1... gxf6 2. Qg4+ Kh7 (2... Kh8 3. Nxf7+ Kh7 4. g3 {The threat is Qe6.} Bb8 5. Qh4 Kg7 6. Qxh6+ Kxf7 7. Qh7+ Kf8 8. Qh8+ Kf7 9. Qxc8 $18) (2... Kf8 $2 3. Nd7+ Ke7 4. Nxb6 Rc1+ 5. Bf1 $18 {This is obviously important to see.}) 3. Bd3+ f5 4. Bxf5+ exf5 5. Qxf5+ Kh8 6. Qf6+ Kh7 7. Qxf7+ Kh8 8. Ng6#) 2. dxe5 gxf6 3. exf6 Kf8 (3... Kh8 4. Qd2 Kh7 5. Bd3+ Kg8 6. Qxh6 $18) (3... Kh7 4. Qd3+ Kh8 5. Qd2 Kh7 6. Bd3+ Kg8 7. Qxh6 $18) 4. Qd2 Rc6 5. Qxh6+ Ke8 6. g3 d4 {It is clear that that is heading to a queend ending, so maybe d4 would give some counter-chances under slightly more favorable circumstances.} 7. Qh7 d3 8. Qg8+ Kd7 9. Qxf7+ Kc8 10. Qg8+ Kb7 (10... Kc7 11. Qg7+ Kb8 (11... Kd6 12. Qe7+ Ke5 13. Bxc6 Qxc6 14. f7 d2 15. Qg5+ Ke4 16. Qe3+ Kd5 17. Qxd2+ $18) 12. Bxc6 Qxc6 13. f7 $18) 11. Bxc6+ Qxc6 12. Qh7+ Kb6 13. Qxd3 {There are other lines in here, but this line represents a moves that try to fight back until it is finally over totally.}

```

Here is that fantastic attack my Danil Dubov, which illustrates my point. Dubov most likely did not see everything from move 22 through to move 39, but rather, he saw chunks at a time, and there were probably places he could have bailed out with a draw. This type of attack, while containing tactics, is not one big tactic. I would describe the problem above in the same way, assuming that black played the best practical defense with 1...Bxe5 trying to keep equal material while trading off the key Ne5 attacker.

```
 [Event "EU-chT 22nd"]
 [Site "Batumi"]
 [Date "2019.10.31"]
 [Round "7.4"]
 [White "Dubov, Daniil"]
 [Black "Svane, Rasmus"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "D37"]
 [WhiteElo "2699"]
 [BlackElo "2592"]
 [PlyCount "77"]
 [EventDate "2019.10.24"]
 [EventType "team-swiss"]
 [EventRounds "9"]
 [EventCountry "GEO"]
 [WhiteTeam "Russia"]
 [BlackTeam "Germany"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "RUS"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "GER"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Qc2 Ba6 8. O-O-O dxc4 9. Ng5 Nc6 10. a3 g6 11. h4 Bd6 12. g3 Qe7 13. h5 e5 14. hxg6 hxg6 15. Bg2 exf4 16. Bxc6 fxg3 17. Kb1 Rad8 18. f4 Bc8 19. Rde1 Kg7 20. Nd5 Nxd5 21. Rh7+ Kg8 22. Rxf7 Rxf7 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qh6+ Rg7 25. Bxd5 Ke8 26. Qh5+ Kd7 27. Qh3+ Ke8 28. Qh5+ Kd7 29. Be6+ Kc6 30. Qf3+ Kb5 31. Bxc4+ Ka5 32. Qd5+ Bc5 33. b4+ Ka4 34. Qg2 Bxb4 35. Qc6+ Kxa3 36. Bb3 Bd7 37. Qc1+ Kxb3 38. Qc2+ Ka3 39. Qa2# 1-0

```

P.S. The only "logic" to it is that someone, who was not that strong fed it to a computer, and posted only the computer's best moves, but not the ones that would challenge a human the most.
> 10 votes

# Answer
I'm going to assume you meant ...Qc7 instead of ...Qc6, since the latter move blunders the queen.

After 1...gxf6 2.Qg4+, Black has three moves:

1) 2...Kf8 loses the queen to 3.Nd7+.

2) 2...Kh7 leads to mate after 3.Bd3+ f5 4.Bxf5+ exf5 5.Qxf5+ Kh8 (5...Kg7 6.Qxf7+ Kh8 7.Ng6#) 6.Qf6+ Kg8 7.Qxf7+ Kh8 8.Ng6#.

3) 2...Kh8 is Black's best move. After 3.Nxf7+ Kh7, White must play 4.g3 to keep his advantage. In this position White has a knight and pawn for a rook, but Stockfish evaluates as over +4. White's immediate threat is to play Qh5-Qxh6+, but there's also some ideas with Bd7-Bxe6 or Qxe6. You can analyse this position further with your engine if you want.

Stockfish thinks 1...Qc7 is very slightly a better move than 1...gxf6, but it basically evaluates them at the same (both are +4 for White). Here such small differences in evaluation aren't that relevant. In a practical game with humans of course 1...gxf6 should be preferred. In the line after 1...Qc7 2.Rf3 Bxe5 3.dxe5 Qxe5, White is up a bishop for a pawn.

By the way, I'm curious about the level of this problem. For line 3 I gave, some calculation after the position I stopped at is still needed.
> 8 votes

# Answer
It wins a piece. If you take the rook black gets mated in two more moves else he wins the queen too if you try to avoid the mate.
> -5 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Is the Reversed Sicilian / King's English 1. c4 e5 more of a positional and quiet opening or a wild and tactical opening?
The only thing that deters me from playing 1. c4 followed by a Kingside Fianchetto is 1...e5 the Reversed Sicilian (also called the King's English).

I like quiet, positional, strategic and maneuvering games (not wild tactical games with direct attacks on the Kings), but I'm not so sure if 1...e5 will lead to that kind of games.

I know that any opening can be tactical or positional: some Sicilian Najdorf are very boring, and some Slav Exchange are extremely wild...

But I would like to know **on average** if 1. c4 e5 tends to lead to positions which are closer to being 'quiet, solid, positional, strategic' or closer to being 'sharp, wild, tactical, chaotic'.

# Answer
I would definitely classify these positions as rather quiet. Black is lacking the tempo to build up an attacking position, like white does in the sicilian:

For example in this line the knight usually goes back to b6, something white (i.e. Nb3) would never play against the dragon. And of course d4 is much easier to achieve for white here, than d5 is for black in the sicilian. That'll lead to some exchanges with white banking on his strong g3-bishop.

```

[FEN ""]
1. c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nb6

```

Of course you still have to pick the right subvariations to avoid sharp lines, but that should be an achievable task. If I knew a variation that forces a sharp tactical fight onto white, I would play it with black. But I don't.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Exeter chess club provides a good overview of all the systems against the English https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ideas-behind-english-opening .. including some positional setups: * Reversed Closed Sicilian * with Semi-Slav pawn structure (as an alternative)
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Is there any software that will analyse games offline?
Usually I use Lichess to analyse games, but sometimes I am offline. Is there any software with the capability of providing offline computer analysis, giving the rate of inaccuracies/mistakes/blunders and the average centipawn loss for a given game?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are a number of options:

Paid:

Free:

For all of the above, you should download the latest Stockfish and install it as an engine and use it for analysis, as it will likely be stronger than anything which comes by default.

I use HIARCS Chess Explorer, mainly due to the nice interface. I've heard Fritz can provide natural language analysis which could be useful for those new to chess engines.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can get a good free offline analysis tool (for Windows 10 only) from here

PGN ChessBook

which comes with the Stockfish analysis engine built in. It has some good tools for finding blunders and automatically annotating games, as described on

Blunder check features

A good free cross platform offline tool, also from SourceForge is

ChessX

Which has been around for years, and personally I find its easier to use than

Scid

which is the most popular because it has so many useful features.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I personally use Fritz you can play agains the computer as well as go to the analysis mode, I think that you can buy it here but you should be able to find a free version. I hope you find this information useful. Good Luck.

---
Tags: analysis, software, windows
---


# Question
Title: Why not take the bishop with the knight (Guseinov vs. Bauer)?
In this game between Guseinov (2622) vs. Bauer (2634):

Crete 2007 · French, Winawer, Alekhine (Maroczy) gambit (C15) · ½-½

```
[FEN ""]

1.    e4    e6
2.    d4    d5
3.    Nc3    Bb4
4.    Nge2    Nc6
5.    a3    Ba5
6.    b4    Bb6
7.    Na4    dxe4

```

After dxe4, Guseinov played 8. Bb2.

Why did he not take the black dark square bishop on the b6 square with his knight on a4?

# Answer
There is no hurry. After 8. Bb2 the bishop on b6 is not going anywhere. NxB continues to be available to white until black does something about it like a6. That means that delaying NxB gains a tempo if black has to make a less useful move to try and "save" the bishop like a6. Since recapturing with the a pawn probably gives black a better game it is worth waiting to see if he will throw away this option by playing a6.

Delaying the capture also retains the possibility of playing Nc5 which may be stronger in some circumstances.

Finally an immediate NxB will be met by axN opening the a file for black and allowing the a8 rook to pressure the now weak, backward a3 pawn.

So, in short, delaying the capture retains flexibility. That way white has more and possibly better options. This "maintaining the tension" is one of the things which separates weak and strong players. Weak players are in too much of a hurry to release the tension in a position. Strong players maintain the tension and with it give their opponents more opportunities to go wrong.
> 25 votes

# Answer
One way of thinking in these situations in the opening is the following: while white gains the bishop pair after taking on b6, it also opens up the a-file for black's rook. Moreover (as Brian Towers pointed out in his answer), depending on the situation, white may actually want to be able to place a knight on c5 in some lines down the road. So white doesn't know whether he wants to take the b6 bishop yet.

Meanwhile, white knows that he will have to develop the c1 bishop sooner or later, and b2 is not a bad square at all for that bishop, where it has great potential for activity later in the game, giving white ideas of making a d5 push.

Therefore it may be a good idea for white to make the obviously good move (which he is very likely to make at some point in the game anyway), and only afterwards consider the move that he's not completely sure about yet. In this particular example it becomes even more rational to do it this way, since the option of playin Nxb6 doesn't go away.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The bishop's more out of play on b6 than White's knight is on a4. Also, White could play c4 (threatening to trap the bishop with c5), after which Black may be forced to give the bishop breathing room with ...a6. *Then* White can play Nxb6 since ...cxb6 will be forced, which is less ideal for Black than recapturing with ...axb6.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Actually, the rest of the game did not go well for White. It seems to me that Na4 was a bit optimistic. White was hoping to play a gambit but does not really have enough initiative to justify playing on a pawn down, so if he does give up a pawn he must try to regain it. Putting the N on a4 gives the pawn but makes it harder to regain. Black then grabs the pawn and White then neither regains it nor develops any initiative. As various people have said, Bb2 does have its merits, but perhaps only as the better prospect in a position already a bit inferior.
> 2 votes

# Answer
After 8. Nxb6 axb6, white is more or less forced to play 9. Bb2 anyway. With the bishop gone, d4 is no longer hanging, but after other moves, 9. ... Nxb4 could be a threat due to the pin of the a-pawn (10. axb4 Rxa1). (Of course 9. c3 would also prevent Nxb4, but that is clearly inferior) After 9. Bb2, Black will make his 9th move, which could be 9. ... Nf6, 9. ... Nce7, 9. ... Nge7 etc. (though the last one looks quite bad now, because the knight on c6 has nowhere to go).

If white plays 8. Bb2 first, black of course cannot reply 8. ... axb6. He can also not prevent 9. Nxb6, so he will make another move. 8. ... Nge7 and 8. ... Nf6 look reasonable, possibly also 8. Nce7 (although d5 might be an idea for white - however as you can see these are the same moves black would have to consider on his 9th move if white took right away). Anyway white can now see how black continues, and then decide whether or not to take the bishop on the next move. In the game, 8. ... Nf6 happened, after which white decided not to take the bishop. This is reasonable, because taking the bishop right away is better after Nge7. He didn't even take after 9. c4 a6, although 10. Nxb6 axb6, as pointed out by Brian, is probably an option. After 10. g3 however he got a very good game due to the useless black bishops, but on his 13th move, white blundered with a strange rook move (13. Ra2??) that doesn't seem to make any sense (13. Nac3 followed by Nxe4 would have been the correct idea, or 13. c5 possibly followed by 14. Nac3), and was worse, but later managed to escape into a drawn ending (it is good to know that rook+rook pawn + bishop pawn (on the same wing) vs. rook is usually a draw!)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, captures
---


# Question
Title: Does anything actually use numeric annotation glyphs (NAGs)?
Numeric Annotation Glyphs, or NAGs for short, are tokens defined by the PGN standard to allow concise annotation of moves. They consist of a dollar sign ($) followed by a number, e.g. $1 means "good move" (like !), $22 means "white is in zugzwang", and $115 means "black has played the middlegame very poorly".

That said, I have never seen them actually being used in practice.

**Question: Are NAGs actually used at all?** Publications, engines, books, software, does anything or anyone out there actually make use of these today?

Clarification: I know certain software *support* NAGs, but that's just it: providing support, and not actually using them in practice.

# Answer
Yes, ChessBase does more than just support them, it definitely uses them.

Since I got here, due to how I write notation, de instead of dxe4, for example, I used to have problems getting the FEN board here to work. Now, I have figured it out, but I still input my answer into a ChessBase board first, including annotations, and then Home\>Copy Game, paste it here, edit the header information as needed, format the header as needed by this site, and remove a few extraneous spaces that the copy process adds.

There is no symbol for "$115 means "black has played the middlegame very poorly" in ChessBase, but those other common symbols are definitely in my pasted PGN.

I created this totally bogus game, but it shows what it looks like when properly formatted, and then the original PGN with NAGs. This was copied from ChessBase, and I just needed to remove spaces that appear when pasting. It is interesting that the last one, $143 did not work as did not the ones at move 4...f5 and 5. Nxf5. Maybe this PGN reader on SEC does not support all of them.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 $1 $14 e5 $4 2. d4 $13 exd4 $22 3. Nf3 $8 Nc6 $3 4. Nxd4 $40 f5 $44 5. Nxf5 $138 d5 $32 6. exd5 $146 Ne5 $132 7. Bb5+ $140 (7. Be2 $142) (7. Bc4 $143)

```
1. e4 $1 $14 e5 $4 2. d4 $13 exd4 $22 3. Nf3 $8 Nc6 $3 4. Nxd4 $40 f5 $44 5. Nxf5 $138 d5 $32 6. exd5 $146 Ne5 $132 7. Bb5+ $140 (7. Be2 $142) (7. Bc4 $143)
> 8 votes

# Answer
Lichess also uses them. When using the Study feature of Lichess, you can manually annotate a game with any of these symbols:

If you then export your study or study chapter as a PGN file, it will include the annotations using NAG notation. Only the six traditional suffix annotations (!, ?, !!, ??, !?, ?!) are represented directly, without dollar signs, since PGN also supports that.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: What level of player is Kasparov's MasterClass suited for?
I am about 1400. I was wondering if I should pay for Kasparov's MasterClass, but I am not sure if it is worth the money.

Has anyone bought this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I have seen the materials in the program, and they are for players well below your level of play. I am not sure that they are even for a 1000 player since they are very basic. While he uses positions, they are more about teaching basic terminology and showing various themes, but on a very basic level.

For example, here is one position that you are to find 5 different skewers (Bf3, Bb3, Qg2, Qh1, and Rh5).

```
 [FEN "6n1/1r6/8/q2k4/8/7R/7Q/3B1K2 w - - 0 1"]

```

The most “difficult” problems are really no more than two- or three-move tactics like this one.

```
 [FEN "5rk1/p3P2p/1p4pb/q7/3N4/1P4Pb/PB3Q1P/6KR b - - 0 1"]

 1... Qe1+ 2. Qxe1 Be3+ 3. Qxe3 Rf1#

```

The vast majority of these problems are very famous, and can be found in other books. He does give book recommendations, but they are ones that have been recommended here many times already, including by myself. He has some practical advice about how to study, but again, it is mostly common sense that may have seen recommended already right here on SEC.

Of course, Kasparov is great, and if you were much weaker, I would have a different opinion, but my verdict is that you probably would be wasting your money.

# Answer
> 0 votes
My experience says those lessons are about right for a true 1400 player. The real question is whether the OP is really 1400 or whether that is some online inflated rating and if so then these lessons might just be a stretch but could still be good for them.

That said, much depends on the OP’s style of learning. And what their budget is. It might be better to buy selected books that are easier to use and research says most people learn better from books than from a course like this.

Some GM name does not mean the lessons are good. Some GMs play well but cannot teach well. It would be good to check reviews of others who bought and used the course before deciding.

---
Tags: learning, teaching, kasparov
---


# Question
Title: Is there a set of general rules of material sacrifice?
I happen to be playing a game where I am up in material, but my position is weak (several pieces are trapped and cannot be developed).

I have some lines of very slow development I can play where I can't see far enough to know the outcome. I see a line where I can make a substantial material sacrifice but still be up in material, and end in a much better position.

I don't recall seeing any general rules of thumb that could help me determine if this type of sacrifice would be worth it.

Are there general rules or a resource that could help me understand scenarios like this?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Development: One pawn == three moves

That's one example, if those are the kind of things you're looking for.

But there's another issue in this as well. What do *you* play well? I've known players who turn down activity for material because they're more comfortable maneuvering in tight positions than attacking, and they do it well enough that many attackers will fall short against them, despite the fact that "objectively" they should have taken the other path.

Merely being told that a pawn is worth three moves doesn't help if you're not comfortable being down a pawn, or if you can't find three moves you think are good enough, so your own capacities have to play into that sort of calculation.

It's why the common answer to this sort of question is that through game experience you develop an "intuition" about those sort of equivalences.

If you're looking for more details like this, Alburt and Lawrence's book "Chess Rules of Thumb" is a possible source. IIRC, Chess.com has a page on them as well. And there's an old book by Horowitz and Mott-Smith called "Point-Count Chess" that tries to turn these sorts of things into numbers. If you're looking for a more recent reference, Gambit has published a couple of books by Erik Kislik that touch in this area, taking advantage of Al Lawrence's new suggested piece values to create a logical structure for reasoning about advantages and disadvantages in chess.

In one sense, your question might boil down to "Rules to Play Winning Chess," and chess, at the moment, doesn't have that sort of quick path to winning consistently. There's too much variety, both in the game and in the players, to make that really possible. But if we're to learn anything from the recent rise of AlphaZero and Leela it's that smallish differences in material don't mean as much as we traditionally thought they did. So learn what it is *you* play well (and badly) and use that to guide these sorts of decisions.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I have to be honest: Your question is very strange for a few reasons.

First, if your development is that retarded, it is not very likely that you would have such a sacrifice in the first place. In addition, in your hypothetical, you calculate that you would end up in material and position, so of course, you would play it, especially if everything else was as bad as it sounds.

It might be more interesting if you were judging it because it was unsound, but just gives you a shot at fighting back.

There are no hard-and-fast rules, but basically, it comes down to pure calculation, especially if you have to sacrifice multiple pieces.

The only rule of thumb I can give you is that, assuming you are attacking the opposing king, you count the pieces that are defending, including the king, and count the attackers, or pieces that can be brought into the attack quickly (like a rook lift). You need more attackers than defenders.

# Answer
> 3 votes
As @PhishMaster says, there are no hard-and-fast rules, and it does all come down to calculation, but everyone, of any strength, encounters situations beyond their ability to calculate. They then fall back on intuition, and rules of thumb. One of those rules says that activity, as opposed to material gain, is often more valuable than you think it is. This simply translates to "dont be greedy" and just as in life you have to figure out for yourself what that means. So make the scrifice or dont, but in either case try to learn from the outcome.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes.

You sacrifice material to gain an edge in position that is worth more than the material.

Mate is often the motivator for much sacrificing of material.

Tactics where you regain the material plus more material andor more positional advantage may occur.

Least often would be for just positional advantage, although it does happen. This might be in a mostly closed position where a rook is sacrificed for a knight. That leads to essentially a material imbalance which could lead to an easier win.

Very rarely but top players *might* give up a little material for more space or advantage in time. But this takes careful analysis to be sure the advantage does not disappear.

They say a pawn is worth 3 tempi. But only if you use them to good effect. More likely to work in open positions where tactics will rule rather than a closed position.

In the example of the OP you seem to be on the other side of that sacrifice to gain positional advantage. If you can't see how to just develop and win then perhaps you are going to be mated and just cannot see it yet. It seems really odd that you are up so much that you can make a 'substantial' sacrifice and still be ahead.

Was it really a sacrifice or just two very low rated players playing badly and your opponent played worse (unless he does have a mate!).

Why did your opponent sacrifice so much material and just how did he bottle up your pieces so you cannot develop them easily? How did you let that happen in the first place?

We need more info.
It would help a lot if you posted the position in question.

---
Tags: sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Useful solving composed mate-in-2 problems?
I'm solving mate-in-2 puzzles from the Polgar 5334 problems book.

Many of these are composed problems, and are hard (for me) to solve. Often I have to spend 10-15 minutes before finding the solution. Many time I don't find the solution in a reasonable time, and give up.

How useful are these problems for improvement, compared with solving more "normal" puzzles? And if they are useful, how much time should you spend on trying to find the solution? Are there some general procedure you should follow in order to find the solution fast?

# Answer
I am going to re-post my exact answer to the question "Improving the observation skill & making less blunders" with this preamble, because if you use them in this manner, you can cut down on mistakes early in calculation. Of course, this can be very helpful. If you learn to do this effectively, and as a matter of course in tournament games, you should see improvement.

In addition, you will see common patterns repeated, even if finding the first "key move" is difficult. I think scanning all possible moves, and not necessarily calculating deeply, depending on your current skill level, can lead to your solving these more quickly.

Here is that answer:

I will go back to what Artur Yusupov, three-time World Championship Candidate, former top-10 player, and one of the greatest living trainers recommends in the first book of his 10-volume series. In volume one, "Boost Your Chess - Build Up Your Chess", chapter 9, which is two-move mates, including composed problems:

> The aim of this lesson is to improve your calculation of short variations. **It is more important to find a lot of options in the first few moves than to calculate moves long variations.** Most mistakes occur in the early moves in variations. What is the use of calculating a long and correct variation if your opponent has a much better reply on move one?
>
> **You must develop your skill at calculating short variations, while at the same time taking into account the possibilities available to your opponent.** This skill should reduce blunders.
>
> Exercises with mate in two moves are very well suited for training in the art of calculating short variations with great accuracy.
> Emphasis as written, not mine.

I will take this one step further with my own suggestion. Try to train yourself that before you make every move, look at EVERY move your opponent has. I am not saying that you are calculating anything. You are simply looking at it so you consider it. It will do two things: If you are hanging a piece, just looking at it will usually "hit you in the face like a brick", and second, I have done many combination problems over the last 40 years, and sometimes, when I cannot figure it out, and look at the answer, I realize immediately that had I just LOOKED at the move, I would have seen the combination.

So, again, you are not trying to calculate, just consider every move. You will be amazed at what you register immediately.
> 4 votes

# Answer
How helpful is high-diving if you want to become a better competitive swimmer? They are separate competitive Olympic sports, which both happen to take place in a swimming pool. In chess, both game-playing and problem-solving are recognized by FM, IM and GM tiers of certification.

See the attached chessbase report of this year's world chess solving championship. All the British team at least are also long-standing over-the-board GMs.

Answering the original questions directly:

(1) Utility?

My own experience is that designing & solving helpmates & retros has probably been detrimental to my over-the-board skills. It's all too easy to leave a piece hanging because the assumption at the back of my mind is that the opponent is co-operating!

Perhaps if I had focused on direct mates and endgame studies, there might have been more improvement in my game-playing. I agree with another reply about the likely value of direct mates in 2 in moderation for developing short-term analysis skills.

(2) Time allocation?

For a mate in 2, I aim for about 10 minutes, but it's quite variable. Definitely having a time in mind helps me focus. Longer problems take longer, of course, but it's not exponential: for mates in 5+, there is usually a single solution path to be found, which is iteratively defended against by the opponent.

(3) Techniques?

There are definitely techniques for solving composed problems faster, but those often have little applicability to over-the-board chess. For example, if there is a long line to be evaluated, which clearly can begin with either of two alternative moves, that the line can be immediately dismissed, because if the problem is sound, there will be just one unique solution.

Another technique is to look for artistic effects which seem to be embedded in the piece arrangement. For example, is there a key square which several pieces (e.g. pawn, rook, bishop) might occupy in separate lines in order to block the other two pieces? This so-called Grimshaw theme could well be main point of the problem.

It would be total madness to analyze a game in this way, so these tricks are not convertible to over-the-board chess.

Final point: the same certifications (FM, IM, GM) are also available for chess problem composition. Not sure this has any direct analogy in the swimming world!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Not useful at all. They never show up in real games and your time is wasted. You should be studying tactics problems from real games if you want to improve.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, problems
---


title: What does black achieve with 1.d4 c6?

text:
# Question
Title: What does black achieve with 1.d4 c6?
I have faced `1...c6` as a reply to my `1.d4` quite a few times recently, and this makes me wonder why people play this as oppose to `1...d5`.

In addition to playing the Slav with `2.c4`, I have an option of playing the Caro-Kann with `2.e4`, so I have an extra option and black has nothing in return that I can see.

`1...c6` happens at top level, but fairly rarely (9th most popular response, behind `1...Nc6` according to lichess database).

Why do some players choose this move order?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Of course you must be ready to play the Caro-Kann if you answer 1. d4 with 1. ... c6. But that is a sound opening - so why not, if you already play it against 1. e4? You will probably be better prepared for the Caro-Kann than your opponent, who after all started with 1. d4. If I was a d4 player, I surely would play 2. c4, hoping to enter the Slav. In that case, blacks most popular choice is 1. d5, but other moves are also possible. Black might play for a setup with d6, g6, Bg7, with or without Nf6.

There is also the interesting Malinoise defence, 1. d4 c6 2. c4 b5!?, which has been played by GM Rogers from Australia and IM Jadoul from Belgium. This should at least be a nice surprise weapon.

Playing 1. ... c6 might also be an idea against London system players, e.g. 1. d4 c6 2. Nf3 Qc7!? has been played a few times - not the best of course, but at least it is a nasty surprise for any white player who planned 3. Bf4. Might be worth a try against certain opponents (especially among London system players, there are some who don't know how to play without their beloved Bf4) The accelerated London system 1. d4 c6 2. Bf4 could be answered with 2. ... Qb6!?, when white has to decide whether or not to sacrifice the pawn on b2.

# Answer
> 7 votes
You're right that players who choose 1...c6 must be fine with the Caro-Kann, which is one reason why it's not that popular. However, there are some people who are fine with the Caro-Kann, and so the move gets played occasionally. In the case of 2.c4, there aren't many benefits I can see for Black. He has the option of playing a la King's Indian with ...Nf6, ...d6, etc, but it wasn't necessary to start with 1...c6 to do this.

There may be some minor benefits to 1...c6, but they're not obvious to me. This is why the move isn't played often.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I would add one little thing to Inertial Ignorance's answer: The reason it is so unpopular is probably that the Caro seems more passive than the Slav, and I say this as a long-time Caro player. E4 openings, being more open games, give white more chance to pressure black is what I mean. Still why let your opponent dictate what line you will play when you can be the one to choose?

# Answer
> 3 votes
## At low/medium level

**Convenience**.

At sub-master level, most people don't have a broad opening repertoire, they will always play one specific defense against 1. e4 and one against 1. d4. Most of them will also try to reduce the amount of theory to learn.

Some will pick both the Caro-Kann and the Slav as these two defenses for some transpositional synergy. Then the idea behind 1...c6 is that if you *always* play that move anyways, either on move 1 or move 2, you might as well always play it at move 1, since you are fine with either 2. c4 or 2. e4. By not occupying d5, you are actually in a way daring White to play one of these moves - instead of some weird Queen's Pawn system that you are not as comfortable with.

## At top level

**To throw off your opponent.**

At GM level, giving away your intentions to play only very specific openings can be seen as close to a mistake - you allow your opponent to freely choose the opening they have prepared better, which on average will probably not help you. But it's a strong psychological message: "I am confident I can beat you anyways", which can work in its own completely different ways. Sometimes, people like Carlsen even open their game with strange things as 1. Na3 and still win - 1...c6 can be seen as something between this and a "normal" opening.

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is this endgame scenario winnable for white?
```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "8/8/4kr1Q/1p2pp2/1P1n4/p3K3/P7/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

I’m looking at this current position, and I think I'm going to lose, as I have limited mobility with both my king and queen. But a friend suggested otherwise, saying that I should put more focus on destabilizing the pawns up front, and therefore I have a high probability of winning otherwise.

Suggestions would be appreciated.

# Answer
Looks rather lost (for white) to me. Black basically has a fortress except for the a3 pawn.

If white wanted to win this (with black not doing anything), you'd have to win the a3 pawn, play a4 and promote a pawn. I don't think white has time for this as black's e,f-pawns will run very fast.

So the only realistic chance is a perpetual.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Black threatens Nc2+ and this allows one or both the white pawns to be captured. You would have to virtually dedicate your Q to preventing this. No matter what you attempt, Black has strong replies.

I agree perpetual check is your best option.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Is it winnable? Maybe. Against a person that could happen. Against a good engine more unclear.

The final result is past the horizon that people and likely machine can compute.

I see white getting at least a draw. And I can see that white might win. I would not resign nor accept a draw with white. Not against a human. I would keep playing and trying to win. Keeping the possibility of perpetual in reserve.

I would first look at what seems to be the possibilities that would arise. It will depend a lot on how black chooses to play. I can see black ensuring the draw if he does not try to win. But it is still hard to tell what will happen with certainty.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


# Question
Title: With a pawn rush, should I take the knight?
I was just playing the computer, and it always starts with the knight on b1, moves out his other knight, and then plays his pawn. At this point, should I take his knight with my pawn, or do something else?

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/3pP3/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
Take the c3 knight. Since white has developed only one piece, he can't punish you. If he takes back with the d pawn, trade queens. Now he can't castle. Then you develop, move your rooks to the center, and push him off the back of the board.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Always take the material unless there is a very clear reason not to. White has nothing that is worth the horsie that he can do to you.

next play bn5 and pk3 and then develop your other pieces. of course if white takes your pawn with the qp then trade queens first.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, captures
---


# Question
Title: To what extent is the openness/closedness of positions determined by white? By black?
Say I am playing as white and I strongly prefer closed positions while my opponent strongly prefers open positions. To what extent do I have control over this? Will the game more likely end with a closed position or an open position? What are my strategies if I want to keep the position closed?

If I am playing black, does this change the answer to the questions above?

# Answer
In general White has more freedom of choice due to going first. He can play a move that is slightly suboptimal and still be around equal. But if Black does the same thing, he could quickly find himself in a bad position.

However, it's obviously not always necessary to play dubious moves in order to get the kind of position you want. In general you should play openings that lead to closed/open positions. In the former case 1.d4 makes more sense, and 1.e4 for the latter. As Black, you could meet 1.d4 with something like the Grunfeld if you like open positions, or with the KID if you prefer closed positions. For 1.e4, the French/Caro lead to more closed positions, while the Sicilian has a higher chance of leading to an open position. Of course, these are just examples.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is a very complex question.

First, by nature of moving first, white can clearly control whether the game is open, or not, more than black can, but black does have a say next. If white plays, 1. d4, 1. c4, 1. Nf3, or even moves like b3 or g3, we know that the game tends to be more closed than after 1.e4. After 1. d4, for example, black can attempt to play openings that are more open, like the Benoni or Benko. I do not know that I consider the King’s Indian more open as much as it is simply more complex, usually requiring operations from white to be on the queenside, while black plays on the kingside. That said, white has lines in response that are more positional than the Classical King’s Indian, which features all out attacks on opposite sides of the board.

I think that if you are white, it is relatively easy to steer the game to more closed, and positional, positions even in openings like the King’s Indian, by playing a variation with g3, for example. If you are black, it is clearly much harder to keep the position closed if white wants to play 1 e4, and open it up. There is a reason they categorize many openings with 1. e4 “open games”.

I think your strategies to keep things closed with black when white plays 1. d4 are relatively straight forward, especially since you can assume that white likes that type of position too, but what do you do against 1. e4? I think that you can play the French or Caro, but even something like the Kan Sicilian with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6 keeps things more quiet, than playing a typical open Sicilian.

What do these openings all have in common? Of course, these are not all exactly the same for every position, but they all tend to have either less pawn breaks. You almost always have to allow one pawn break, or clash of pawns, but if you do not acquiesce to multiple pawn breaks, there is less likelihood that the position will open a lot. Pawn breaks usually lead to pawn trades, which leads to a more open position, so try to avoid pawn clashes if you are trying to keep the position closed. That said, they are not unavoidable, and you have to judge whether you need to fight back for space. If you sit back forever, you will be smothered to death eventually. The goal is like the Hedgehog where you sit back, and develop, and only then, start to fight back with your pawn break.

Although I have never thought about your question directly, I think we all make these choices subconsciously when we are developing our opening repertoire. I certainly play 1. d4, and usually g3 to get the Catalan lately, knowing that the game will be more closed and positional. It is funny that relatively few of my opponents play the open Catalan with cd, and prefer c6 as a rule…that suits me fine.

Again, this is very complex, and there are no hard-and-fast rules, so I may have missed something, but hopefully, I gave you some food for thought.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Both players have some control. Neither one alone can dictate it. If they try they risk getting an inferior position albeit of the type they want.

One example is the hedgehog type openings. They tend to be closed just because it takes longer for white to prepare to open things up. But in the long run they do not do as well, in my experience, when playing other people, as opposed to playing a computer. So was it really closed or just delayed?

The french tends to be closed but white can play a more open position by the exchange variation. Although this might tend to be more drawish.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, closed-position
---


title: FIDE Laws of Chess pre-2017

text:
# Question
Title: FIDE Laws of Chess pre-2017
I have to hold a lesson for B-Trainers about the law of chess, and I have to tell them what has changed in the last years. While I’m quite sure that I can teach the actual LoC (that’s what I regularly do), I cannot remember older versions in every detail. FIDE rules commission has an archive, but my browser shows me only a blank page for the 2014 LoC. Can someone provide a readable link to the archive?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I think this is what you want. The last one, specifically, however, it is worth putting in the others, which are useful.

https://old.fide.com

https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html

https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=32&view=category

# Answer
> 9 votes
The Chess Arbiters Association, which you can join as an associate member, keeps records of the laws going back, in the case of FIDE, to the first set of FIDE laws in French in 1928 and in general the laws back as far as the 1617 version in Italian by Carrera.

# Answer
> 5 votes
This site appears to have old rules of chess, FIDE and otherwise

I do not attest to the accuracy or completeness of this site

# Answer
> 2 votes
The only source I know is The Retro Corner. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been kept up to date, but together with the FIDE site itself, it should give you coverage back to 1977.

The rules are hardly perfect, but there have been continual improvements in writing quality over time. Specific changes have mainly been in various kinds of draws, and filling various funny holes (e.g. Pam-Krabbé castling).

For further back than 1977, I would approach a proper chess historian. Hope this helps.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


title: How to count pieces from PGN notation?

text:
# Question
Title: How to count pieces from PGN notation?
I am trying to figure out an algorithm to extract the number of each piece that both black and white have from a PGN file.

Right now I have all of the moves tokenized(i.e. c("e4", "d6", "Nc3", "f5", "exf5", "Bxf5", "Qh5", "g6"...), but I'm not sure where to proceed next. So far I know that identifying the "x" characters is necessary, but I am not sure what to do as the notation only identifies the capture square, and not what type of piece is captured.

# Answer
You'd have some data structure, such as a 2-D 8x8 array, storing the current piece in each square of the board. Everytime you read a new move, update the array appropriately. Then, when you see a capture like "exf5", check what piece is stored in the "f5" square of the array.

You'll have to be careful with en passant captures. For example, in the case of 1.e4 c5 2.e5 d5 3.exd6, you should be checking the element in the array 1 row above (for d5). In order to detect when an en passant has occurred, see if a pawn captured on to an empty square. For example, 3.exd6 is White's e5-pawn capturing on to the empty d6-square, so it must be en passant.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: programming
---


# Question
Title: What to put in a personal chess database?
I was thinking about creating a personalized chess database for my correspondence chess play. What sorts of contents are useful to put in it and is there any big difference in having your own database versus just using one from online. The main factor that contributed me to do this was to deepen my opening knowledge of certain openings. I am open to any other reasons why I should or shouldn't create one.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For correspondence I keep a database of my personal opening book that I extend whenever I encounter a new move. I include notes on things like why I chose a particular line and both numeric and verbal position assessment. I also include select text from books or other databases that discuss that position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Do you mean a personal database of selected games? If that's the case, you're better off getting one of the databases with millions of games in it, since you can just search that for what you need.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The question is why only one database?

I have a database of my own games, and a second for casual games I find interesting. You could have one for your OTB games, and correspondence games, for example.

Beyond that, you could have a database of both your white and black repertoire. This is very common among higher-rated players.

Lastly, if you are really into openings like an IM friend of mine, who has written about 10 books, you could have a database for every opening you want to study in-depth. This is a good thing to keep separate since it just makes it easier to manage.

I currently have in excess of 10 personal databases that I have created in ChessBase, and MANY more if you include other databases I have that are purchased.

---
Tags: software, database
---


# Question
Title: What is the highest value of pieces on this particular 6x6 board, without any of them attacking each other?
I got a question in school in which I have to get the highest score possible by adding pieces on a 6x6 board like this:

The rules are that they are the same color and may never attack each other, and that pieces on my board must also be on yours in the same position.

Here are the point values:

Queen(D)15 points

Rook(R)15 points

Kings(K)10 points

Bishop(B)=9 points

Knight(H)=5 points

Pawn=0 points

My highest value was 97 by placing 8 bishops.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This was the correct answer with 100 points!

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have found a slightly higher value of **98** by replacing a bishop with a king.

You can create images of various board sizes like this at Apronus.com.

# Answer
> -1 votes
The max is 90 +Q + K = 105 + K as I understand the problem. You can place six rooks at 15 each.

Then if you replace any of the rooks with a Q you lose two rooks by being attacked by that new queen.

I get 115 max as I *can* put six rooks on the board with the K and Q. And no piece is attacking any others.

Final answer: 115

4k3 7r r7 2r5 5r2 6r1 1r6 3q4

---
Tags: problems, point-value
---