title: Can you please help me analyse my game?

text:
# Question
Title: Can you please help me analyse my game?
```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2016.09.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bright"]
[Black "Ogbe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[ECO "C64"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. d3 Ne7 7. Bg5 f6     8. Be3 Bxe3 9. fxe3 O-O 10. Nc3 Ng6 11. h3 Be6 12. Qe2 Qd7 13. d4 b5 14. b3 Rad8 15. Rad1 exd4 16. exd4 Nf4 17. Qe3 Nxg2 18. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 19. Kh2 Bxf1 20. Rxf1 Qg4 21. Rg1 Qh5+ 22. Kg2 f5 23. e5 f4 24. Qe4 Rf5 25. Kf2 Qh3 26. Qxc6 g5 27. Qe6+ Kf8 28. Rxg5 1-0

```

I think after the knight sacrifice I should have doubled up my rooks and attack slowly. Please help me improve the options.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Overall: The game was pretty drawish, leaning towards the black side, it was up to whose endgame was better. However, at the end, you took too much risks and lost due to that.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2016.09.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bright"]
[Black "Ogbe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C64"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.Bxc6 $6 {Minor comment: c3 and O-O are the moves that are studied, this throws away all advantage.} dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.d3 Ne7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Be3 Bxe3 9.fxe3 O-O 10.Nc3 Ng6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 Qd7 13.d4 b5 14.b3 {Notice the weaknesses, save them and exploit them later in game. This is an example when you exploit them immediately[%draw full,c3,red][%draw full,b2,red] [%draw full,a3,red]} 14...Rad8 ( 14...b4 15.Na4 a5 16.c4 bxc3 17.Nxc3 )15.Rad1 exd4 $1 16.exd4 Nf4 17.Qe3 Nxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxh3+ { [%draw arrow,g2,f2,green]} 19.Kh2 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Qg4 $2 {I suggest you start opening the board and exchanging pawns} ( 20...Qe6 {[%draw arrow,e6,a2,red][%draw arrow,a7,a4,red]} 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 Rfe8 23.e5 fxe5 24.Qg5 Qe7 25.dxe5 Qxg5 26.Rxg5 Rd5 ) ( 20...Rfe8 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 a4 ( 22...Qf7 {[%draw arrow,f7,a2,red][%draw arrow,a5,a4,red]} 23.Nf4 a4 24.Rg3 axb3 25.cxb3 Ra8 ) 23.bxa4 Ra8 24.axb5 Rxa2 25.bxc6 Qxc6 26.Qb3+ Qe6 ) 21.Rg1 Qh5+ 22.Kg2 f5 $2 {Defend. Be careful of counter-atacks} 23.e5 f4 24.Qe4 Rf5 $4 {White can easily win this [%draw full,c6,red][%draw full,c7,red][%draw full,a7,red][%draw full,h5,red] [%draw full,d8,red]} ( 24...b4 25.Ne2 Rd5 26.c4 Ra5 $14 ) 25.Kf2 Qh3 $18 {Pieces are too disconnected[%draw full,h3,red] [%draw full,c7,red] [%draw full,c6,red] [%draw full,a7,red] [%draw full,d8,red]} 26.Qxc6 g5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxg5 1-0

```

Edit: SE somehow has errors when flipping it, I suggest not flipping it, or un-flip it at moments where there are arrows/highlighted squares(not much in this analysis)

Clearer PGN for users who can't render the board:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.Bxc6 {?! Minor comment: c3 and O-O are the moves that are studied, this throws away all advantage.} 4...dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.d3 Ne7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Be3 Bxe3 9.fxe3 O-O 10.Nc3 Ng6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 Qd7 13.d4 b5 14.b3 {Notice the weaknesses, save them and exploit them later in game. This is an example when you exploit them immediately} 14...Rad8

* ( 14...b4 15.Na4 a5 16.c4 bxc3 17.Nxc3 )

15.Rad1 exd4{!} 16.exd4 Nf4 17.Qe3 Nxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxh3+ 19.Kh2 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Qg4{? I suggest you start opening the board and exchanging pawns}

* ( 20...Qe6 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 Rfe8 23.e5 fxe5 24.Qg5 Qe7 25.dxe5 Qxg5 26.Rxg5 Rd5 )
* ( 20...Rfe8 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 a4

+ ( 22...Qf7 23.Nf4 a4 24.Rg3 axb3 25.cxb3 Ra8 )

23.bxa4 Ra8 24.axb5 Rxa2 25.bxc6 Qxc6 26.Qb3+ Qe6 )

21.Rg1 Qh5+ 22.Kg2 f5{? Defend. Be careful of counter-atacks} 23.e5 f4 24.Qe4 Rf5 {?? White can easily win this}

* ( 24...b4 25.Ne2 Rd5 26.c4 Ra5{+=} )

25.Kf2 Qh3{+- Pieces are too disconnected} 26.Qxc6 g5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxg5 1-0

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish agrees with your assessment - you were overly aggressive. Your `Ng2` sacrifice seems sound but by opening your King up you allowed White blunt your attack. After 10 minutes, Stockfish said:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. d3 Ne7 7. Bg5 f6     8. Be3 Bxe3 9. fxe3 O-O 10. Nc3 Ng6 11. h3 Be6 12. Qe2 Qd7 13. d4 b5 14. b3 Rad8 15. Rad1 exd4 16. exd4 Nf4 17. Qe3 Nxg2 18. Kxg2 (18.Kxg2 Bxh3+ 19.Kf2 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Rde8 21.Rh1 Rf7 22.Qd3 Qe7 23.Ke2 b4 24.e5 {Be careful, White is tricky} g5 25.Na4 fxe5 26.Nxe5 Rf4 27.Qc4+ Kg7 28.Qd3 Kg8 {with a more-or-less even if crazy game. Can White leverage his extra piece to overpower the opponents rook? With Queens on the board and the Kings exposed, a draw by repetition/perpetual seems likely unless great pains are taken to prevent it.}) Bxh3+ 19. Kh2 Bxf1 20. Rxf1 Qg4 21. Rg1 Qh5+ 22. Kg2 f5 {This is where the wheels start to come off the wagon. Instead `Rde1` preserves equality. White is now almost 2 pawns up.} 23. e5 f4 24. Qe4 Rf5 {Now Black is doomed; The deficit is about 400 centi-apwns. Black continues in dire straits with Qf5 instead.}  25. Kf2 Qh3 {Black is down about 600 centi-pawns after this move. `a6` was recommended.} 26. Qxc6 g5 {and that's that. There's no plausible hope. How much do you think White's magnificent f3 Knight is worth?} 27. Qe6+ Kf8 28. Rxg5 1-0

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
16...Nf4 is the problem, regardless of what any engine tells you. The plan is wrong, there is no clear win for the sacrifice. I would have centralized both rooks (Rfe8), relocated the Be6 to g6 (Nf8/Bf7/Bg6), and attacked on the queenside where White's weaknesses are. White has problems on the e-file too if he is not careful.

2c.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Your losing move was 23...f4. That allowed Qe4, gave White's queen a magnificent central square, from which she dominated the game. I like your chances up to that point, especially if you can exchange queens. A rook and two extra pawns (your h pawn is passed) is usually strong against two knights. Therefore, you should have centralized your queen at d6 and moved the passed h pawn rather than aiming for a direct attack against the king.

Your second worst move (earlier) was 13... b5, which weakened your c5 pawn, which the Q on e4 was able to take. But this would not have been a problem if you had not allowed her to get to e4 in the first place.

# Answer
> 0 votes
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 { Ruy Lopez } 3...Bc5 { (delayed) Classical variation } 4. Bxc6 { Exchange Variation, perhaps premature as Black hasn't given up anything to get the bishop. } (3. c3 { to prevent ...Nd4, a useful move to force a trade } ) 4...dxc6 { I think Black is equal, with the two bishops and no noticeable weaknesses. } 5. O-O Bg4 ( 5...Qd6 { should be good, staying flexible with Bc8, though Nb1-d2-c4 } ) ( 5...Qf6 { aiming for the king-side might be good if it can later move safely to g6 without loss of pawn e5 } ) 6. d3 Ne7 7. Bg5 { a waste of time as ...f6 was good for Black } 7...f6 8. Be3 Bxe3 9. fxe3 O-O ( 9...Qd7 { !? keeping the option of ...O-O-O to stay free for offense on the king-side } ) 10. Nc3 Ng6 ( 10...c5 { not the king-side attack, but intending ...c6 to hold squares d4 and d5, but also to consider ...Ne7-c6 } ) 11. h3 Be6 12. Qe2 Qd7 { Can you imagine how happy Black would be if he could follow-u with ...O-O-O? The king-side could go fully on the offense. } 13. d4 b5 { The position is pretty level. It's hard to generate offense anywhere. Threatening ...Bc4 is fine. Threatening ...b4 to disrupt White is also fine. Simply ...Rad8 or ...b6 may be best. } 14. b3 Rad8 15. Rad1 exd4 16. exd4 Nf4 {?} ( 16...Rfe8 { to put pressure on the weak central pawns makes more sense than to go after the king-side since the Black rooks can't help in that fight } ) 17. Qe3 Nxg2 18. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 19. Kh2 Bxf1 20. Rxf1 Qg4 21. Rg1 Qh5+ 22. Kg2 f5 23. e5 f4 24. Qe4 { +/- The king is safe enough and White's pieces are working together much better than Black's. } 24...Rf5 25. Kf2 Qh3 26. Qxc6 g5 27. Qe6+ Kf8 28. Rxg5 { White wasn't playing very aggressively, but the position didn't offer much after his early Bxc6. Black could have gotten more by aiming for an unbalanced position with ...Qd7, ...O-O-O. Then Black over-reached with the Nxg2 sac and it cost the game. } 1-0

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Database of correspondence games?

text:
# Question
Title: Database of correspondence games?
Where can I find databases of correspondence games? I prefer freely available ones, but commercial products can also be suggested.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Maxwell,

Congrats on your request for finding correspondence games. These are pure gems as today you can expect these games to be examples of almost perfect chess (yes, all correspondence players let the computer do 99% of the work). You can also get databases of computer games at longer time controls to get the same 'perfect games'.

The go to database for correspondence is probably the disk that ChessBase sells and they just updated it. http://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/corr\_2015?Ref=RF70-5OH0EFN840

A while ago, Tim Harding put out a disk as well, and it may not have current games, but you never know until you check. UltraCorr CD-ROM (Chess Mail Ltd., 2006). Followed by Ultracorr2 (2008), UltraCorr3 (2009), and UltraCorr3a (2010). No longer available. I am not sure about the no longer available part, but google Tim Harding and ask him!

You can also download games from the ICCF (the granddaddy of all "correspondence chess") which as you may know runs the REAL World Championship. ( www dot iccf dot com) and have a look around.

Sorry I am only able to post 2 links per answer at this time.

Lastly there are probably tens of thousands of places to download games if you google it. Here is a really good one! http://chessgameslinks.lars-balzer.info/#correspondence-chess\_worldwide Now if you drop off the part after .info i.e. chessgameslinks dot lars-balzer dot info/ you will have enough to keep you busy even in the afterlife!

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Internet Email Chess Group is now hosted by the Lechener SchachServer. They have collected over 400,000 CC games, which you can download for free in ChessBase or PGN format, after registering for a free account.

I bought Correspondence Database 2013 from ChessBase, and it has over 1 MM games. You can often get a slightly-out-of-date CD of CC games on ebay at a steep discount. Mine came as part of a product package containing ChessBase 11, which I got at a discount once ChessBase 12 was released.

---
Tags: database, correspondence-chess, download-games
---


title: Which of these two endgame books?

text:
# Question
Title: Which of these two endgame books?
I am a beginner (approximately 1400) seeking to improve my endgame technique. Which one of these books would you recommend as suitable for my strength and why?

* 100 Endgames you must know by Jesus de la Villa
* Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master by Jeremy Silman

I have to say that in general I don't like Silman's writing style and methods at all (i.e. Reassess your chess), but then again, this is endgames - and hence a different topic.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Jesus de la Villa's book comes highly-recommended by a coach (a Russian IM) whom I approached about this question. It is refreshingly focused on making your study time as productive (in terms of decisive game results) as possible.

My own assessment of Silman's material is that while it has rich instructive content, I find the style of presentation (cynical, demeaning of the players at times) unappealing. It also lacks focus at times.

I agree that the more comprehensive works such as Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Averbakh's Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge should be left until you're at least 2000 ELO. I would also recommend using them sparingly; some of the topics are too arcane to be useful (such as **K+R+f-pawn+h-pawn vs K+R**, or **K+B+N vs K**). But by that time, you could just get Fundamental Chess Endings by Müller and Lamprecht, and you'd be set for life.

If you haven't made a purchase yet, for more depth I'd invite you to consider Starting Out: Pawn Endgames, Starting Out: Minor Piece Endgames and Starting Out: Rook Endgames by Everyman Publishing. All are available in a Kindle edition at Amazon for about $10. Used paperback copies are very reasonably priced as well. I believe the Rook book is still in publication, but Everyman doesn't seem to be selling the other two anymore.

If you want to limit yourself to just one book, then I would also encourage you to check out James Howell's Essential Chess Endings. Howell is a chess coach who was frustrated with the unsuitability of the available endgame manuals for teaching aspiring tournament players. His book is readable, uses actual games, and emphasizes strategic themes for each type of endgame. Enjoyable and effective. It's (sadly) only available at a reasonable price as a Kindle book on Amazon (the used copies are a goldmine, apparently).

# Answer
> 12 votes
Since you are a 1400, Silman's book is the way to go. His book will give you the solid endgame foundation that you need. Only once you read his book up to "Endgames for Class A" should you get the other book.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I prefer `de la Villa's book`. It has a very practical approach, has an affordable extension (100 endings, 200 pages in its Spanish version) and focuses on the most common endings and on understanding them rather than learning lines/positions by heart.

I think it is suitable for a 1400 beginner, although some rook endings may be too difficult for you. I assume you know how to do the very basic checkmates (K+Q vs K or K+R vs K).

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would go with de la Villa's. I have both, and de la Villa's book is more direct and applicable to what you'd see in play.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You should perhaps go for Comprehensive Chess Endings by Yuri Averbakh. I find it better than these two.

---
Tags: learning, endgame, books, beginner
---


title: How does analyzing help me improve?

text:
# Question
Title: How does analyzing help me improve?
This has been really frustrating for me since I don't get it. When I go through my games I spot errors and simply find better moves but then that's it. I just don't understand how this improves your game, all I did was find mistakes and correct them in a game I've already played. People keep telling me this is the best way to improve but I can't seem to get "it". If anything I suppose going through your games can show you where you might be lacking but wouldn't simply just continue learning and training in all areas of chess be a far more efficient way to improve instead of wasting time analyzing? I would appreciate examples of how analysis helped you become a better player.

# Answer
First of all you have to distinguish which kind of error you made.

Opening error:

You should definitely study opening theory to avoid opening traps or get bad positions right out of the opening. On the other side when an opponent plays an unusual/bad move, you need to know how to respond and punish this move to get a better position.

Middlegame error:

Have you overseen some tactical possibilities for you as attacker/defender?

-\> Try to solve tactical puzzles to get familiar with certain positions. This will also help you to spot tactics more easily the next time they occur.

Have you had the wrong plan?

-\> Study positional topics like pawn formations, weak/strong points, etc. in a position and you will find the right plan straightaway.

Endgame error:

When you have no clue how to play certain theoretical endgames you will easily take a wrong step and lose drawish positions or draw winning positions.

-\> Take a good endgame book to study some basics.

Also learning from mistakes you make, means you should not make the same mistake again. Thats especially true for opening errors and endgame errors in easy theoretical endgames.
> 11 votes

# Answer
I will give an example of some of the preliminary analysis in one of my most recent tournament games below, and give a concrete example of what I could take from that analysis.

```
[Date "2016"]
[White "My opponent"]
[Black "Me"]

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. Na3 b5 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 {Here I chose to include some lines illustrating what happens after 11.Bxb5. This information can be found in any reference database, however, and will not be included here} Be6 12. c3 Bg7 13. Qh5 {"A very aggressive move, which really put me on the lookout for possible dangers. I knew that up until this point in the game, we had been following theory, so I was not worried that I had stepped into a trap by mistake."} f4 14. g3 {"I think I did the right thing to challenge the white knight on d5 here. The idea is to let White take on f4, and then use the bishop pair to play the position. Black puts his dark squared bishop on e5 and plays on from there."} Ne7 15. Qf3 Ng6 16. Nc2 Bxd5 {"A decision that had to be made before white can support his d5 knight with another light piece. A light piece on d5 is generally much better for white than a pawn on d5. I did not want to trade away my pair of bishops in the position, but even less did I want to see a white knight safely anchored on d5 for the forseeable future."} 17. exd5 O-O 18. Bf5 Qg5 19. Bd7 e4 20. Qg4 Qxd5 21. Nb4 Qc4 22. O-O-O Ne5 23. Qf5 Nxd7 {"Here I thought I had seen all the way to the end of the sequence that is to come. The move is sound, but black has other ways to win in this position as well."} 24. Qxd7 Bxc3 25. bxc3 Qxc3+  26. Nc2 Rac8 27. Qg4+ Kh8 28. Qe2 f3?? {"A blunder, which came very quickly from me. I thought that the game was completely over after the white queen would be forced away from e2. I completely forgot that a queen on e4 still protects c2. I should have kept my cool throughout the entire combination, so that I wouldn't have moved through the whole line on reflex. With this, black has thrown away the winning edge. Eventually the game ended in a draw."} (28... Qa1+! 29. Kd2 Rxc2+! 30. Kxc2 Rc8+ {"wins on the spot."})

```

This is a preliminary analysis made of the game, without the use of anything else than a reference database in the opening. Note how few variations I have included in my analysis at this stage. What is there is basically just my impressions of the game soon after the game was finished. Instead I have focused on trying to remember my thought process during the game, and write it down in words.

So, when doing my analysis in this fashion, what can I learn from my game and my own mistake?

In this example it becomes very clear: I realized that I played too quickly in a critical stage of the game, when I thought I had seen all the way to the end. I became too excited. Thus, it will be easier for me to recognize this happening in future games, and I will have a chance to make myself slow down a bit.

This particular lesson will not be available for me to read in any book. I will only be able to learn it through experience if I try to remember as accurately as possible what happened during a game where something went wrong.

This is the true reason why analysis of your own games is so good for self-improvement. Well-done analysis will reveal things about your game that you cannot find very easily elsewhere. It is important to analyze your games yourself, without the help of computers in the preliminary stages. This is to ensure that you think back on your experience during the game, without being distracted by the computer lines.

Computers should be used as a final touch, when you feel like you cannot think of anything else that was noteworhty in the game, to check how sound your analysis is. Do not remove your original analysis! Keep it, and note where the computer suggests improvements.

**Edit:** The reference database is used in the opening to quickly reveal opening mistakes. It is not a bad idea to include references to master games where the master played a better move than the move played in the game. It has the primary purpose of finding out how to play the opening properly, if you don't already know that.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In a way your question seems to be about learning skills in a very general sense, not limited to chess.

You have to find a way to generalise at least a bit from the improvements you find and then work on making those improvements become habits. As you say it's no good just working out "oh in this exact position it would be better to take with the pawn".

For example from my own experience (disclaimer: I'm a weak player and don't analyse enough!) I have found that I:

* don't see mating patterns unless they're pretty basic (eg corridor mate)
* lose too often by blundering pieces when otherwise in a winning position

So now I practise mates and try to do an extra "safety check" for hanging pieces in any given position, and I'm improving.

In short you're right, the analysis of a game is just the start of a process that goes something like:

Find error \> Identify most common errors \> Make a plan to address those errors in future.

Hope this isn't too basic!
> 3 votes

# Answer
To be able to improve, you need to isolate:

* The move that was a mistake
* Why the move was a mistake
* Why you made that move in particular
* Why you didn't make (an)other, better move(s)

To get better at analyzing, you want to be able to spot the weak move by yourself. Initially, you may not be able to do this very well. But try it: Go backward through the game from the end, and try to isolate the last position where you felt you were either equal or better. Then, retrace your steps and try to identify the offending bad move that happened after that.

Looking at that move, figure out what your opponent did that exploited that move (this assumes you're working on a move that your opponent punished, and not one that he missed). Then, try to find an alternative move you could have made that foils his idea. It can do this in several ways:

* Avoid the structure / situation he exploited
* Make a more compelling threat, so he doesn't have time to exploit it
* Prepare the move with another move first, so the weakness is addressed before you play it

Now, try to figure out why you played that bad move in particular:

1. Did you play the move reflexively, almost without thinking?
2. Did you expect a different outcome?
3. Did you fail to anticipate his reply?
4. Did you anticipate the reply, but underestimate its impact?

Each of these behaviors has multiple possible explanations, and you need to isolate the ones that were in effect.

1. If you didn't think hard enough:

* You need to re-examine the position after every reply. You may see something you didn't notice before, even if you anticipated his reply. You should follow the discipline of, *at a minimum*, examining *every check, capture or threat* (CCT) that your opponent might make on his next move if you did nothing, and *every check, capture or threat* you can make immediately. This is particularly important if the reply was unexpected.
    * You must also avoid *reacting*. If the opponent's reply was unexpected and poses an immediate threat, there's a natural tendency to react quickly, out of fear. ***You must avoid this.*** If he captured one of your pieces unexpectedly, don't immediately recapture. *Look at all the possibly useful replies*.

If you still make this mistake, try setting a **minimum think time**. For example, in a 30-minute game, make sure you spend at least 30 seconds selecting your move *every time*, unless it's rote opening theory.

* Or, you may need to curb your appetite. Some players make speculative sacrifices that are easily refuted. This is typical of many players under 1600, but some persist even when their ratings somehow get higher. If you notice that you are consistently capturing pieces with negative results, try to understand your motivation, and moderate it. Once you force yourself to recognize that *winning* is more exciting than *sacrificing and then losing*, you'll kick the habit.
* Conversely, you may need to man up. Some players play defensively, even with White, as a matter of preference. It is 4-10 times harder to defend than it is to attack, because the attacker (unless he sacrifices) has multiple options, each of which may offer substantial benefits and incur only minor costs, while the defender frequently has only *one* move that will work, while all others lose. So, the defender has to think harder. He will therefore get tired first. He also is likely to have the poorer morale, and as a result, the weaker fighting spirit.

If you want to avoid these disadvantages, you must follow Steinitz' dictum that you ***must*** (not *may*) launch an initiative ***if and only if*** you have the advantage.

2. If you anticipated his reply, but expected a different outcome, then you either misevaluated the resulting position, or failed to find or anticipate a strong move later in the game that your move made possible.

An example of the first case might be trading your better bishop for his worse knight, leaving yourse;f with a drawn rook endgame you thought was winning. If so, you need to learn more about minor piece endgames, and about rook endgames.

An example of the second might be your not noticing that 3 moves later, a recapture by your opponent puts you in check, halting your combination abruptly. If that's the case, you need to do tactical exercises of at least 3 moves' length, and get them right at least 75% of the time.

3. If you failed to anticipate his reply, you're either not doing the CCT part, or you're not *also* examining seemingly unlikely or purposeless moves like quiet moves that leave a piece hanging, moves that close a mating net around your king without actually giving check, and moves that prepare a tactic, such as masking a queen, rook, or bishop with another piece that can be moved away with tempo, or aligning a rook with your queen or king.

To address this problem, do exercises where you take a position from a game (it doesn't have to be one of yours), and catalog *all of the possible moves* with reasons why they are useful or not. Don't reveal the actual move played until you're finished. Then, figure out whether you selected the best move, and *for the correct reason.* You might find Bruce Pandolfini's "Your Move" column in USCF's Chess Life useful for this kind of training.

4. If you anticipated your opponent's move but underestimated its impact, try to figure out if you made one of the following mistakes:

* Did you find at least one justification for his move? If not, get into the habit of doing this. *Every move has at least one justification*.
    * Did you come up with the wrong reason for his move? If so, why? Was it because you'd never seen the idea before, and didn't recognize it? Or did you just fail to notice it? Or, did you see one justification, when in fact there were *several* justifications for the move? Gaining more experience will address the first two, but to fix the last one, you have to get into the habit of asking yourself "What else?". Make sure you discover *all* of the possible explanations for his move, not just one of them.
    * If you found the right reason for his move, but your response was ineffective, was it because:

    + His idea was something you considered impractical, or easy to refute? If so, you need to improve your calculating ability, including finding all of the reasonable candidates, using CCT and possible surprise moves.
        + By the time he made his move, there was no longer any effective defense? In this case, you needed to notice the idea sooner; maybe while analyzing the preceding positions, you didn't spot the final move, because you didn't recognize the threat. Two causes are common for this:
        + In the earlier position, you stopped analyzing before there were no more threats. This is fixed by working harder during analysis, and cataloging all the reasonable moves when visualizing the final position, along with their threat potential, and only halting your analysis when you have concluded that none are significant.
        + You were unfamiliar with this kind of threat, and so couldn't recognize it. The only remedy for this is experience. Based on the type of threat (tactics, endgame, forcing a strategic weakness, etc), find games or exercises with that kind of element and play through them.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning
---


# Question
Title: What's the best way for someone to use their time with a chess coach?
Let's say you have a 2 hour session. What questions would the serious player studying with a chess coach ask? Could you provide some examples?

# Answer
The main advantage of a coach is the feedback. Neither a book nor software can explain where your weaknesses are. A coach should be able to review your games and explain where your weaknesses are and provide reference material to help your improve. Once you know your weaknesses, you can use books and software to help yourself improve. However, some chess concepts are too subtle to be explained to all but the most motivated.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I definitely agree with Mike: feed-back is the most important thing you can get. Try to identify flaws in your thinking process. For this, you can also go thru some of your games explaining to the coach how *you* were thinking at that moment, not only letting him analyze your games alone. Perhaps if you can select some of your games and put your thinking process "on paper" before meeting the coach would be even more useful. Filling up the gaps should then be your homework.

I'm sure however that a good coach would know how to make best use of your time together :).
> 1 votes

# Answer
Your coach will approach you with a proposal, based on his experience of what works best for your situation.

1. He will complete an assessment of your standard of play by examining your games.
2. He will likely explore your thinking process with you as you describe how you selected some of the key moves in your games.
3. He will diagnose problems with your thinking process and/or your understanding of the game
4. He will prescribe a training regimen that will either correct your weaknesses, or reinforce your strengths, or both.
5. He will offer to meet with you again after a period of training on your part to carry out the regimen
6. If you have a 2nd meeting, he will review your progress, and either prescribe more remedial work for defects in your play that persist, or diagnose the next set of weaknesses to work on, and prescribe training to correct those.

This is a fairly common formula. Some coaches vary from it by:

* Using a programmed training course with only minor customizations
* Emphasizing endgame theory and tactics more than average
* Playing games against you to observe your thinking process in real-time

All of these approaches are valid, and may be more effective at reducing cost, overcoming specific weaknesses, and improving diagnostic accuracy.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, study, coach
---


title: Kasparov quote reference

text:
# Question
Title: Kasparov quote reference
Kasparov apparently said:

> By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery.

Does anyone know what this rule is precisely that Kasparov refers to and/or in what source Botvinnik stated the rule?

# Answer
I think in Yermolinski's "The Road to Chess Improvement" he says that he decided to follow "the most common advice one can find in the works of Alekhine and Botvinnik , which can be put into simple words - study your games". Of course Yermolinski takes it much further saying that "study your games" means to do a thorough analysis of each of your games even going as far as to write full annotations for them.

The closest I find in Botvinnik quotes is:

> I claim that nothing else is so effective in encouraging the growth of chess strength as such independent analysis, both of the games of the great players and your own

This can be found in several quote sites - http://chess-quotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/botvinnik.html is one such example.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The following passage is from Botvinnik's foreword to his *100 Selected Games*. The text here doesn't single out one's *own* games as the specific object of analysis, but it leaves no doubt about Botvinnik's belief that improving at analysis in general is crucial to becoming a strong player.

> I must mention one other possibility of achieving perfection which I myself have always tried to carry out.
>
> What is the essence of a chess master's art? Fundamentally it consists of the ability to analyse chess positions. True, at the board you must be able to analyse very quickly and without touching the men; but in the last resort, whether you are working out the possible variations or estimating the actual position, chess is the art of analysis.
>
> Home analysis has specific features of its own: you are not restricted by time, and you can move the men freely. Despite this difference between home analysis and practical play, there is much in common between them. It is a well known fact that almost all the outstanding chess-players have been first-class analysts.
>
> The deduction is irresistible: anyone who wishes to become an outstanding chess-player must aim at perfection in the realm of analysis.

Botvinnik goes on to suggest that in, order not to let oneself drift away from being objective in one's analysis, one should also publish it, opening it up to the scrutiny of others.
> 5 votes

# Answer
While I bow abjectly before the likes of Botvinnik and Kasparov, I think those who unquestioningly accept Botvinnik's assertion that the goal is "\*perfection in the realm of analysis" and assume that he means *both OTB and at home* should be informed that several of the world's foremost analysts, C.S. Purdy, Jonathan Penrose, and Bent Larsen, were all prone to time-trouble in OTB play. It should be noted that Purdy and Penrose were both Correspondence Chess champions, which surely influenced their style of OTB analysis.

The simple fact is that time-management and analysis are mutual enemies in OTB. The best one can realistically hope for is *speed* and *economy*, which means being able to do a few tricks, including:

* Memorizing a position in the future at which several viable candidate moves must be considered (a so-called "Stepping-Stone" or "Stop Sign", depending on your preferred author), so that you can return to it instantly instead of having to retrace your steps from the position on the board
* Visualizing tactics in future positions as easily as you do on the actual board (this is why GM's close their eyes or stare at the ceiling; they are avoiding the distraction of the actual position on the board)
* Keeping track of which moves you have already considered for each future position, and what you thought of them (I call this "cataloging", but have never seen anyone name the process before)
* As far as possible, visiting each branch of analysis only once (Kotov's advice, in "*Think Like a Grandmaster*").

However, in a tournament game, you simply do not have the time required to analyze all positions this way. So you also need to learn when to use in-depth analysis, and when not to bother. There are multiple good references offering guidance on how to do this. I can recommend both "*How to Choose a Chess Move*", GM Andrew Soltis, Batsford Press, and "*Your Best Move*", Per Ostman, Everyman Publishing.

Finally, you need to be able to do effective and careful "*pruning*" of candidate moves, or figuring out which candidates merit further analysis, and which ones are a waste of time. The aforementioned texts also address this.

So, with all due respect, I put it to you that it is in fact *detrimental* to strive for perfection in OTB analysis. The best player will think fast and efficiently and only when needed, and will use advanced thinking techniques that are *not themselves analysis* to arrive at the best candidate available in the time he can afford to spend selecting it.

For Correspondence Chess, time limits are designed so that, barring external circumstances, it's almost impossible to spend too much time analyzing a move. The ICCF uses 10 moves / 50 days, and no more than 10 days for any move. Who among us would even be thinking straight after 9 days of analysis?? So, this is effectively unconstrained. CC masters almost never default on time (see the CC Olympiad and World Championship cross-tables, if you need proof).

As for home analysis of a completed game, take all the time you want. Is that your wife calling?
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, history, kasparov, botvinnik
---


title: Highly inconsistent playing level

text:
# Question
Title: Highly inconsistent playing level
I have a very inconsistent playing level, which is very strange to me. Sometimes I'd make an almost-brilliant move (usually a tactical sacrifice, which once made an IM stare at me with awe) and other times I'd make a beginner blunder that would shock a 1400 amateur. I'm unrated although my trainer estimated my Elo to be about 1850. I've learnt chess two years ago and studied it seriously several months earlier. I've since been studying chess every free hour I've got. What is the cause of my unusual problem ? Is it inexperience ? A health issue ?

# Answer
A standard piece of advice that used to be given to inexperienced players was to always write your move down before playing it and in the gap between writing it down and playing it to have one last quick check to make sure it was sound. The new (post July 2014) rules no longer allow this but the thinking behind the advice still applies.

Your computer is always consistent, unlike you. The reason is that it is inanimate silicon whereas you are a human being. You are driven by emotion. When you make a bad move you do that because your emotions temporarily take control. You need a routine to reduce the emotional disturbance to your thinking.

The first step is to try and never make an immediate response to your opponent's move. Try and always write his move down first. Try and have a checklist of questions you go through before making a move. Things like:

Why did he make that move?

What is he threatening?

Do my plans have to change to take account of what he just did?

There are probably more questions like this that you or your coach can come up with.

You must also try and not be affected by how strong (or weak) your opponent is or how strong you think he is. Once you have calculated what you think is the best move then play it. Don't change your mind and play a tricky but possibly bad move because your opponent isn't so strong and you hope to trick him. If you've calculated that the best move is a difficult, tricky move but your opponent is much stronger don't chicken out and play a weaker "safe" move.

I know from my own experience how difficult this can be especially when I am playing a much stronger player. The fear can be very strong but always try and play the position on the board not the other player or the other player's rating.

This way you will reduce your bad moves and become a better player.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Your tactical sacrifices and blunders sound like two sides of the same coin.

You're making aggressive, attacking moves. When the move pans out, it's a "tactical sacrifice" when it doesn't it's a "beginner blunder".

With nothing else to go on, I would slow down and play less aggressively. You'll make fewer tactical sacrifices, fewer beginner blunders and better moves on average.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Please check out my response to another question How Does Analyzing Help Me Improve? in which I outlined some of the more common kinds of flaws that often appear during move selection, and what can be done about them.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, study
---


# Question
Title: What are some activities besides chess which help improve chess play?
What activities, be they physical or mental, do you use to improve your chess? Have you recently taken up something and noticed a positive change in your game? One thing I can think of is exercising such as walking or swimming. Are there any others?

# Answer
I don't know of any correlations to physical exercise and chess skill, so I can't speak to walking or swimming.

There's not much that matches chess in regards to tactics but maybe some similarities in games like Go or Amazons.

What will probably give you the best return on your time would be memory enhancement exercises. These come in every style so I would just experiment and see what helps you. Any improvement on how much you can hold in your head will directly improve your chess game.

I also especially enjoy problems where you need to evaluate a board and determine the best move. I try to put time limits on myself to practice how quickly I can analyze a board without missing anything important.
> 8 votes

# Answer
There's probably no better way to improve chess than to study chess. I did seem to make an improvement by getting obsessed with Shogi, however. But this is a close relative of chess.

Actually, I would recommend a more physical hobby (rugby, rodeo clown, being a double-naught spy) to give yourself a break from the game. If you don't get burned out, you'll probably enjoy the game more and improve naturally.
> 9 votes

# Answer
May I suggest meditation? In my experience it improves concentration. One or two daily meditation sessions of 15 - 20 minutes each increases my ability to focus on tasks.

Unfortunately, I have no personal experience to relate to chess playing at this time, as my chess playing is currently suspended, other than an occasional low level game against the computer.
> 8 votes

# Answer
While not directly chess related, the relationship between exercise and cognitive abilities has been pretty intensely studied since the early 1900's. It has been shown through numerous studies that exercise does increase cognitive ability both during and after exercise. Oddly enough, it's also been shown that shorter and more intense physical exertion has a greater effect than endurance type training, at least in short term.

Most of the studies are looking at immediate effect, i.e. the cognitive task is usually done within minutes of finishing the exercise. Long term effects of exercise have gotten mixed results, however there are numerous meta-studies (more anecdotal in orientation than scientific) have reported many mental benefits to exercise.

One thing to note, is that exercise has definitively been proven to both help delay onset and mitigate symptoms of aging, such as cognitive impairment and dementia.

So, while exercise may not have a provable effect directly relating to OTB play, I highly recommend it.

One other thing to think about with this, even outside of physical fitness, is nutrition. Your brain soaks up a vast amount of glycogen to keep functioning even when "idling". If you are concentrating for a few hours on a game, you are going to be using even more, so for extended matches you should be thinking about some sort of food to help replace it, and the better your nutrition, the better prepared you will be in that respect as well.

For those interested in reading some of the research/studies, go to google scholar and use a search term such as "effects exercise cognitive performance" or similar.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The person recommending Go has a good idea, I believe. Go is more in-depth than chess, with a lot more abstract ideologies on how to attack, defend, and control space.

Physical activity keeps your mind healthy and fresh, so I recommend staying fit. I don't know any specific professionals that do this but I have heard before that professional players work out to stay on top of their game. Being physically healthy goes a long way to keeping your mind sharp, also in the mental endurance compartment. Cardio exercises matter more than strength, I suppose.

Also it helps to do EASY problems. These keep you honest and focused, instead of always doing challenging, convoluted problem-solving. Not to mention it helps keep your confidence high.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I would suggest solving basic mathematical/logic puzzles, or doing mathematical proof if that interests you. I've found that theoretical math and chess complement each other quite well, and principles of one discipline can be easily applied to the other.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I play Go (the Japanese board game), which some players I know study to help them improve their chess. Go has a large variety of tactical motifs, including teaching players how to maintain sente (the initiative), while forcing players to keep track of the whole board.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Good sleep and food habits. Fitness training. Meditation and mindfulness.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It may be what you need to cut *out* as much as what you need to add. I got a big jump in my play (and in other mental activities) once I stopped watching TV. There was quite simply less stuff to distract me and have me worry about. It sounds simple, but if your mind is cluttered by silliness and trivia and ads, there's more risk you can't focus on the game. I suppose this can apply to watching the Internet, too, if there are any websites that suck your time and energy away. I've seen studies saying that just spacing out is more restful than going down an Internet clickhole.

And it might be important to specify when as well as what. I like to exercise to take time out when thinking of a tough problem, so I think the study chess/exercise/see what you missed pattern can work very well. Taking breaks is important to learn anything. I'm not sure what sort of break is best for you, but make sure it's a real one. Also, I like to look at an important problem first thing in the morning so it's on my radar, whether it be for chess or programming or writing.

I also found that reading and studying literature really tore me away from chess to the point I found something new. I had all sorts of books I always meant to read. So that is a risk--you may find something even more fun than chess, for you, and it's tough to do two mentally tricky things at a high level.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, training
---


title: Tiebreaks in the Baku Chess Olympiad

text:
# Question
Title: Tiebreaks in the Baku Chess Olympiad
How are tiebreaks calculated in the Baku Chess Olympiad?

For example, the US team took gold over Ukraine having scored 413.5 on tiebreaks vs 404.5. My gut instinct was to guess the Sonneborn-Berger score or team points, but 413.5 is too high for that. Is it some combination of the two?

# Answer
The tie-break rules are listed on the FIDE website, D.II.02 paragraph G.14:

> The position of teams that finish with the same number of match points shall be determined by application of the following tie-breaking procedures in sequence ...
>
> (a) the sum of Sonneborn-Berger points, which are calculated as follows: match points of each opponent, excluding the opponent who scored the lowest number of match points, multiplied by the number of game points achieved against this opponent

So yeah, it's called Sonneborn-Berger, but it's different from the one you see in individual tournaments.

Let's see if this holds for the USA team:

```
GP  OPP MP   GP*MP

4   AND 10 (ignored)
3.5 SCO 12 = 42
3   ARG 14 = 42
2   CZE 14 = 28
3   SRB 13 = 39
2.5 UKR 20 = 50
3.5 IND 16 = 56
2   RUS 18 = 36
3   NOR 16 = 48
2.5 GEO 14 = 35
2.5 CAN 15 = 37.5
TOTAL:      413.5

```

We arrive at the same total.

(scores can be found here).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, team, chess-olympiad
---


# Question
Title: What are the most popular chess community websites?
I am building a chess website (www.uscfstats.com) and would like to get input from the chess community and raise awareness. I've been out of the loop for a few years, ever since I stopped playing seriously, and don't really know what the most popular chess websites are anymore. ChessNinja seems to have fallen off completely, while chess.com has gotten much more serious and chesstempo is more well known than that emrald site that everybody used to use.

What are the most popular chess community websites?

# Answer
In no order of priority:

* http://chess.com is relatively new to the scene, but they have Pogolina on board who will definitely pull in the traffic
* Chessbase News is really a chess product site masquerading as a news site, but they cannot be disregarded. They have relay services on their playing server (similar to ICC and FICS), but here we will limit discussion to the onsite features only
* Chess in Translation is an initiative by mishanp to offer translation of Russian content (particularly juicy commentary by Shipov of chess.ru)
* WhyChess is known for its live relays (probably the most feature-complete at time of writing, and have been used at several official events) but they have expanded into news and blogs as well.
* ChessBomb is a relay and playing site getting constant plugs from Susan Polgar.
* Chess Games Database and Community (and frogbert) probably needs no explanation.
* ChessOK is a product and relay site, probably the first to integrate full Rybka (now Houdini) evaluations into its relays. The interface is not as fanciful as WhyChess but is clean and good.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Obviously Chessbase News is another fairly active chess news site.

Chess Cafe has been around forever, though I haven't really checked it out recently.

The Week in Chess is another good one.
> 5 votes

# Answer
* Lichess.org is building a decent following of users with a very appealing interface, albeit a web one. It has drawn a number of IMs, FMs, NMs and one or two GMs. Oh yeah, it's free too.
* TWIC, of course, as mentioned above, especially for it's live PGN files.
> 5 votes

# Answer
FICS (http://www.freechess.org/) - The best free chess server. Here the highlight is, everytime there is a major (or even minor) event games going on, there is a feature for observers to "kibitz" when the game is in progress. Its really an awesome feature. Also there is a guess the next move bot, which records guesses by observers and makes it all the more interesting. There are at least 10 other features that NONE of the modern chess sites (like chess.com, lichess.org etc.,) have.
> 1 votes

# Answer
ChessBase nailed it.

It offers:

* Playchess \- Everyday, playchess.com welcomes 20,000 chess players from all around the world from beginner to grandmaster. You can even play without registration.
* Live Database \- Updated weekly, their definitive database has all the latest games.
* My Games Cloud \- You can store your games and access them everywhere.
* Video \- Private Masterclasses
* Training \- Solving Tactical positions.
* Fritz Online \- Play, analyze and train against fritz.
* Openings \- Build and maintain your repertoire.
* CB News \- Daily Reports on all top tournaments.

But if you want to watch live top tournaments, I usually go to Chessdom because its not heavy and easy to use.

Chess24 is also good but for me its too heavy to use.

When I play online I use chess.com.

There are also upcoming chess community and looks like they are interesting. I'm watching ChessFam and Chess Family.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: websites
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference playing against human vs chess engine?
I have been playing with chess engines for over a year now at extreme difficulty levels. I never played a single game with a human player. I am worried that when i face humans in a tournament, my chess thinking must be completely different and i might not survive.

Does playing against chess engines improve your ability better than against human players? What do you think?

# Answer
There are two separate problems with your trainingspartner: Strength and style.

* Generally you improve the most if you play against opponents slightly stronger than you. You have to adapt by upping your game, but you are still able to adapt! If you are always crushed you only learn to be solid at all costs. You can see this a lot if teenage prodigies play too early against world class opposition: Their game dries out. They systematically unlearn all creative impulses, because every risk taking is punished.
* If you play against engines that always beat you, their style doesn't really matter. But if you would play against an engine only slightly stronger than you (which would be a better choice), you would experience the problem, that you adapt to their particular style. Which usually means you get very good at sniffing out tactical pitfalls, but your positional understanding will stay underdeveloped. I know this very well because I played for two years almost daily against a Mephisto board computer before I joined a chess club and it took me many years to stop losing against human opponents who were far weaker tactically.
> 11 votes

# Answer
A Strong Chess Engine will make less mistakes than a human. Humans are tempted to play the moves that feel like winning or attacking moves. Engine plays solely on calculation. Intuition is one of the main difference between Engine and Human. A lot of times Humans play moves trusting their instincts and may not calculate to the very end. Engines are bound with depth levels and there are chances that moves that are winning after depth levels are not found by Engine but can be found by human on intuition.

Playing under time pressure is also a major difference. Engine as an opponent would hardly come under time pressure. So putting more pressure on opponent when he/she is in time trouble is one to be experienced. Playing same moves repeating for 2 times to gain time on the clock is what a computer may not do.

In a long game, as the game progresses, chances of Blunders/mistakes increase in case of Human players. On other hand Engine will perform same after any amount of time. So playing with humans can be helpful to increase stamina.

One obvious factor is managing the time along with writing the game on score-sheet.

So yes, for accuracy purpose engine is great opponent. But along with that for some small factors human touch is must!
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think there is some benefit to playing against players (human or machine) who are stronger than you are. You can emulate their openings, pick up tactical tricks, or go back and analyze the games to try to figure out where you went wrong.

One of the keys to improving though is to put yourself into situations where you have to raise your game to a new level in order to win. Clubs or web sites with ratings systems can give you a better idea of whether you are improving or not, and you may make friends with people who can give you tips.

There are anti-computer strategies (blocking the centre, simplifying, steering for the endgame) which may work well against computers, but not against strong human masters. Conversely if you are strong at tactics, it will be a lot easier to play against humans.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The online computer programs I play against are all very aggressive and tactically perfect, which can be disheartening if they are on the higher settings. But they do make you look for tactics, which can't but help against a human opponent. The old saying is that chess is 99% tactics, so I doubt if you will have much trouble against human opponents, who aren't as tactically astute as the computers,
> 0 votes

# Answer
Computer training is invaluable, as long as you set the level of the engine to something fair. You don't want every encounter to be one-sided, or you'll get discouraged, and it's not representative of OTB play.

Computers don't play like humans, but I've learned a lot of ideas by annotating master games using a good engine. Some of these are ideas I can't find in any games played by humans, so they're valuable surprise weapons my opponents will never have seen.

Annotating along with an engine (I go first, then check to see what I overlooked) will also teach you how to spot trouble before it develops, and how to balance offense and defence.

Engines can be set to be very aggressive (you can generally alter the level of by aggressiveness by adjusting engine parameters), but sometimes that's a good model to follow to get you out of the rut of being too defensive and/or too cautious, if that's one of your playing faults.

I don't recommend annotating with the engine at full strength; it will spot variations where the killer blow comes on move 15, and *no one's* likely to see that in a real game unless it's a forcing variation or an endgame, and they're a GM. So, although you'll find lots of interesting lines, you won't be able to emulate it in real play. Stick to learning what you can actually use.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, psychology
---


# Question
Title: Is it allowed to prepare for a game after the round has started?
At the recent US Open I started the tournament well and was paired against a GM in the roped-off area. I had worked out the pairing well in advance and was able to do some fairly heavy openings preparation before the game. The official pairings, though, went up a relatively short time before the round.

My opponent did not show up until about 20 minutes after the round had started. I heard one of the tournament directors remark to another that my opponent was probably preparing for the game. After the game (he had 350 rating points on me and ripped me to shreds even in one of the lines I had prepared) he volunteered the information that this was indeed what he had been doing.

While I do not think that this was unethical, I am left wondering: is this legal under USCF rules? Obviously it does not affect the outcome of the game at this point, several weeks after the fact. The reason that it seems like a potential gray area to me is that a player doing this is looking at a chess database after his clock has started.

I would ask about FIDE rules but it seems like the zero-tolerance forfeit rule would render it a moot discussion.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I would think not since there is no realistic way for the organizers to find out if you are preparing if you are in your hotel room for example, and even if they do you will probably not forfeit your game as long as you are not in the playing hall.

Maybe this was why the zero tolerance rule was put into effect.

In a logical sense though, whilst your opponent could hope to get an advantage out of the opening against you, you are getting a definite time advantage, so you could see it that way.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I have observed in FIDE rated tournaments (low profile ones), there are local rules setup with respect to the time at which the players need to be present at the board. And that typically happens to be around 20 minutes after the round has started. What can be prepared in such short times, well of course for a GM its more than sufficient time.

But coming back to your question, its not just the GM who "prepared" to defeat you, you have mentioned yourself about the advance pairing calculation and heavy preparation that you had done. Its just that his preparation was better. Does it matter "when" this preparation happened?

Probably the best thing to combat such situations is to choose random openings from your repertoire if possible and throw in the surprise element!

# Answer
> 2 votes
The basis of the USCF rules are the FIDE rules of chess, and they clearly state the following:

> 6.6 a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

If the US Open bends the FIDE rule in this case to allow for a player to arrive at the board after the clock has started, it is their rules that should also cover the possibility of preparation within this time. If no such rule is in place, the rule can naturally also not be broken, and it would be allowed for a player to use a computer or any other means as long as it is outside the playing venue, since:

> 13.7 b. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue and any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.

If I were to be cheeky, I would postulate that a player visiting a website for live transmission would be in breach of rule 13.7 b., as it would be 'using' a communication device that is located in the playing venue (i.e. the live transmission board + transmitter/server).

# Answer
> 1 votes
The USCF rules do not require a forfeit for a player who is late. In fact, they provide for the case where Black is late, and therefore loses the right to choose the board and pieces, and the side of the clock. If White completes setting up before Black arrives, White's set is used.

Also, if both players are late, the rules provide that the time elapsed until the first of them arrived should be split and deducted equally from both clocks.

So, clearly, USCF doesn't expect a forfeit at T=0.

Also, the rules only provide for not leaving the tournament hall and consulting materials relevant to the game once the game has started.

I would love to hear an International Arbiter's opinion on whether the prohibition on consulting materials should pertain no matter where the player is, but the fact of the matter is that if one of the players leaves the hall, goes out to the parking lot and leaves the premises, his actions can't be supervised. The best the TD can do is prohibit leaving the playing hall and contiguous, monitored areas, once the player has arrived.

So, FIDE or the USCF would be asking for trouble if they prohibited an act they cannot detect or prevent. If he's late, he's late, and he can do anything he wants except observe the game in progress remotely.

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Developing a New Software Application in Chess
What software application do you think that does not exist? I'm a programmer and I would like to implement it to help the Chess world. Thanks in advance to those who give me good ideas.

# Answer
I don't know if it already exists, but a cell phone app to scan diagrams and chess notation from books and then store the information in a database in a re-playable format would be handy.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I'll give some nice applications, but I'm not sure if you'll have the skills...

* Automatically annotate a chess game with natural language processing, like how a human coach would do. I'm not talking about a blunder check, but a *full* annotated game.
* Port Komodo or Houdini to the iOS platform
* A website that can analyze a chess website (eg: Chessbase), extract the diagrams and give back analysis
* A website that I can analyze a chess position in FEN. There're several that can do that, but they are very limited. I'm looking for a complete package like Chessbase.
* Given a single chess game, estimate the ELO rating
* Extend deep learning and use it to make a new engine that can consistently beat Stockfish
* A chess engine that can speak and coach you for chess
* Train a convolutional deep neutral network that can recognize a board position in a YouTube video (Google can already do that for face detection)
> 0 votes

# Answer
A program that can convert PDF chess book files to PGN or CBH format.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software
---


title: Could White win this rook-endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: Could White win this rook-endgame?
```
[Event "FIDE Women's World Chess Championship"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2015.03.23"]
[Round "3.1"]
[White "Marie Sebag"]
[Black "Natalia Pogonina"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[WhiteElo "2482"]
[BlackElo "2456"]
[PlyCount "177"]
[EventDate "2015.03.17"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O Nd4 6. Nxd4 Bxd4 7. c3 Bb6 8.
Na3 c6 9. Ba4 O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 Bc7 12. Bc2 b5 13. d4 d6 14. Bd3 g5 15.
Bg3 Qe7 16. Re1 Bb6 17. Nc2 Bd7 18. h3 Rfd8 19. Qf3 Ne8 20. Rad1 Ng7 21. Bf1
Bc7 22. c4 a6 23. Ne3 Re8 24. b4 Rad8 25. d5 Rf8 26. dxc6 Bxc6 27. cxb5 axb5
28. Bxb5 Ba8 29. Bc4 Bb6 30. Ng4 Kh7 31. Nf6+ Kg6 32. Nd5 Bxd5 33. Rxd5 Ne6 34.
Qf5+ Kg7 35. h4 Nd4 36. Qg4 Rc8 37. Bd3 Rc3 38. Rd1 Ra8 39. Bb1 Rc4 40. Kh2
Rxb4 41. f4 exf4 42. Bxf4 Qe6 43. Qxe6 fxe6 44. Bxd6 exd5 45. Bxb4 dxe4 46. Bc3
Ra4 47. Bxe4 gxh4 48. Rb1 Bc7+ 49. Kh3 Be5 50. Bd5 Kf6 51. Rb4 Ra3 52. Bb3 Nxb3
53. Bxe5+ Kxe5 54. axb3 Ra2 55. Rxh4 Rb2 56. Rb4 Kf5 57. g4+ Kg6 58. Kg3 Rb1
59. Kf4 Rf1+ 60. Ke5 Rb1 61. Kf4 Rf1+ 62. Kg3 Rg1+ 63. Kf3 Rf1+ 64. Kg2 Rd1 65.
Rb5 Rd3 66. b4 Rb3 67. Kf2 Kf6 68. Rf5+ Kg6 69. b5 Kg7 70. Rc5 Kg6 71. Rd5 Kf6
72. Rc5 Kg6 73. Ke2 Kf6 74. Rf5+ Kg6 75. Kd2 Rb4 76. Kc3 Rxg4 77. Rc5 Rg1 78.
Kb4 Rb1+ 79. Ka5 Ra1+ 80. Kb6 h5 81. Kc7 h4 82. b6 h3 83. b7 h2 84. b8=Q h1=Q
85. Qg8+ Kh6 86. Rc6+ Kh5 87. Qg6+ Kh4 88. Rc4+ Kh3 89. Qg4+ 1-0

```

With 56. Rh6 , white could transfer in a won endgame. And black slips in move 81 (instead of 81... h4? the move 81 ... Ra5 would have drawn). Could white win the rook-endgame before move 77 without the slip 55 ...Rb2 ?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Well, according to 7-man tablebase your analysis is correct:

* 56. Rxh6 would win, reaching a Lucena position.
* 81...h4? was a mistake, ...Ra5 was the only drawing move.
* Neither player made a mistake in between those two points.

Also, Black could have made it more difficult with 86...Qxc6+, reaching QvR which can be hard to win. White didn't have to allow that possibility.

Of course, there's a big difference between checking tablebase, and giving useful advice to use during a game. I guess we could say that White should really have seen the chance to go into Lucena; and Black must have miscalculated something when playing ...h4 -- or possibly overlooked the Ra5 plan (it is unusual).

# Answer
> 0 votes
As you said, 56. Rh6 is winning, and 81. ...Ra5 is drawn. I analyzed the last position without 55. ...Rb2 using stockfish 7. At move 77 white has the full two pawn advantage, but that is playing at computer level.

---
Tags: rook-endgame
---


title: Going from Expert to Master

text:
# Question
Title: Going from Expert to Master
What is the difference in mindset or technique that really makes the difference between an expert and a master? I am trying to decide whether or not to start playing again and try to make that leap.

# Answer
To become a master from expert, I think having a mentor is the most important factor. I know personaly a chess player who got elo rating from 2000 to 2300 with a well-known mentor from Switzerland.

Moreover, I think knowing theory and playing against very good players (2400+) can really help.
> 6 votes

# Answer
My highest USCF rating was 2302. The biggest difference I see between masters and experts is the defensive resistance and resourcefulness that masters show during the game. They don't just let you beat them the first time something goes wrong! You have to beat them over and over again during the game in order to finally win.

Yes, masters have better all around openings, tactical vision, technique etc. But you really have to hate to lose in order to be a master.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I would definitely invest in a chess teacher, it will be worth your while, If you are poor this doesn't work, sorry.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I once wrote a blog post about becoming a master; several themes seemed crucial:

* Playing regularly in tournaments
* Doing it while you are young
* Keeping in mind that the effort required per 100 points of ELO increases the higher you go. That applies "across the board" - endgames, openings, etc.
* Having a "mentor" (not the same as "coach")

If you have not played for while though, you might first want to make sure you are still as good as you were before stopping.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure I'd agree that you need to start young. Larry Kaufman became a GM in 2008, at the age of 61. But you will definitely have to put in the hours and the effort. Some of the distinctives of higher level mastery in chess are:

- *efficient calculation*
- *accurate visualization (to at least 20 ply)*
- *fast and comprehensive pattern recognition*
- *a heightened sense of danger*
- *strategic focus*

Probably the most time-consuming skill to acquire is pattern recognition. It has been estimated in cognitive research that GM's know nearly 100,000 patterns. This requires focus, patient and diligent memorization, and gaining experience with new patterns from playing.

Intuition is the foundation for a sense of danger; you don't want to make moves intuitively, but you need to sense when your opponent might be able to prepare a threat or even a package of multiple threats.

Conversely, you need to be able to sense when there *must* be an opportunity for a combination on the board, even though you can't see it yet. It's as if the deployment of pieces or the pawn structure is whispering to you, but you can't quite hear what they're saying. The highest level of this kind of expert judgment takes 1,000's of hours of experience to acquire, but it starts small and builds.

A master is also able to allocate their thinking effort (and time) much more productively than an ordinary club player. They know when to calculate a tree of variations in depth, and when to make a move on principle without any deep analysis. This helps them conserve their energy, and increases their stamina. Carlsen and others are rightly famous for being able to think as well in the 7th hour of a game as they did in the 1st.

For more guidance on becoming a Chess Master, I recommend Andrew Soltis' What it Takes to Become a Chess Master, from Batsford Publishing.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It's not "technique" that separates an expert from a master; it's "orientation." Unless you plan to make a living e.g. teaching chess, or make it the dominant part of your life, I advise you *not* to aspire to be a master.

An "expert" in chess (or other games) is someone who has a sound overall knowledge of the game, plays well, and makes very few "obvious" mistakes. This kind of person is at the top of "amateur" levels. In Academia, this might be the equivalent of a "Masters" degree.

A "master" is a *professional*-caliber chessplayer. That is, someone whose games (even losses) are of high enough quality to contribute to the "literature." To be a master, you have to be "creative" and able to outthink and out create other masters. It's like being a "PhD" in the field of chess. This is only for the most dedicated and skilled practitioners.

I knew two guys from high school. One was the champion of our chess league. Now in his 50s, he was rated about 2175 (when I looked him up on the internet). The other was a "varsity" football player, drafted by a professional team out of Penn State--and was soon cut from the roster. Both men were on the border between "expert" and "master," and they illustrate what it takes to get there. More to the point, they represent the best people in their respective fields that "average" people (outside their fields) are likely to get to know. "Better" players travel in rarefied circles confined to their field.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: How can I learn combinations without a chess book?
I would like to become better and stronger at spotting combinations. I can't buy any chess books at the moment. What's a good website for learning combinations?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Chesstempo has a tactics trainer with solving against the clock and a tactics rating. I think there are a bunch of other sites out there with similar features.

If you are rather old school WTHarvey has 10,000 chess puzzles, just as a collection of diagrams with mouse over solutions.

Chessgym also has tactics against the clock and some other features like playing endgame positions against tablebases.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You certainly do not need a book in order to learn combinations.

Chess.com has in my opinion the best tactics online. Unfortunately, you only get 5/day if you have a free account, so it's not the best. Personally, I work on other websites with free tactics for a while, and then finish up by trying my best on these 5.

Chesstempo has a lot of good tactics too. And they're all free.

Lichess.org also has a lot of tactics under their Training section. It has good puzzles related to the coordinates of the board and/or opening theory as well. Currently their tactics seem to be more checkmate-focused than other websites, but I've seen this site improve constantly for a year now and every aspect of it (including the tactics section) has truly been getting better and better every week.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I encourage practicing tactics puzzles whenever you have free time. You don't need to go to a website on the Internet; you can also use apps on your Android phone or Tablet. TacticTrainer has a large problem set, and you'll get presented with problems that are generally rated within 200 ELO of your level. You can specify a starting level, but the app keeps track of progress, and as you get better, gives you harder problems to solve.

I also use Chess King apps from ChessOK; Combinations I and II are good, but cost a few dollars.

---
Tags: learning, tactics, middlegame, combinations
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a stable pawn structure after 1. Nf3
Question here regarding black responses to Nf3 - at my level 60% of players open with e4, 30% open with d4. The other 10% of the time, it's Nf3.

My issue with Nf3 is that it has the possibility to transpose into many different openings, most of which I am not prepared for. What is the response that allows white the fewest transpositional possibilities?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I would suggest something like a Sicilian Dragon / Sniper attack with moves like c5, g6, Bg7 etc. White will find it very difficult to stop you playing like this after opening with Nf3 and you don't have to worry about learning a boatload of white transpositional possibilities.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I answer 1.Nf3 with 1...e6 followed by 2...f5 and going for the solid Dutch Stonewall or other Dutch. If 2.e4 I go for 2...d5 and go for a Fort Knox French variation. Super solid systems.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Old FIDE Title Regulations

text:
# Question
Title: Old FIDE Title Regulations
I have seen on the FIDE website https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=10&view=category that only the regulations governing the award of FIDE titles effective from 1st July 2014 are available.

Are the regulations governing the award of FIDE titles prior to these ones available somewhere ?

# Answer
I don't think there is an official listing of previous title regulations. You just have to glean what you can from internet searches.

Here's what I found.

> From the 1st July 2009 the following changes will apply to FIDE titles.
>
> 1) Only one player can having a rating uplift, instead of two.
>
> 2) The rating of the player uplifted has been reduced by 50 points. Hence the uplift for a GM norm is now 2200 (was 2250), IM norm 2050 (was 2100).
>
> 3) Performance requirements and requirements of the opponents’ ratings have been changed to even tens. i.e GM norm used to be 2601 performance, now 2600, minimum average rating of opponents used to be 2381, now 2380.
>
> 4) For any given title norm at least 1/3 of a players opponents must hold that title. i.e. For a GM norm 1/3 must hold GM title. Whilst in comparison to the old regulations this makes no change to a 9 round event, it would effect a 12 round event where 4 GM's would be required (used to be 3).

Going back to the beginning, this chessbase article fills in some of the history - https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-gm-is-a-gm--fide-title-devaluation-270613

Summarizing -

When grandmaster titles were first awarded in 1950, they were given to the world champion Mikhail Botvinnik and all those who had qualified or been seeded in the inaugural Candidates Tournament: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.

The title was also given to older living players who were recognized as having been world class at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldrich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostic, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.

In 1957 the regulations were set to give the GM title automatically to the world champion and to any player qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates.

In 1965 the rules were tightened up so that a player had to score 40% in the Candidates Tournament, or reach the quarter finals of the Candidates Matches to get the title.

In 1970 the modern system was initiated whereby you had to get your rating up to a certain ELO rating - 2450 - and to get 3 "norms" in a 3 year period. A "norm" was a rating performance of 2551 or above in a suitable tournament.

Since 1970 that basic formula has been tweaked with changes to the ratings involved and the type and makeup of qualifying tournaments in terms of how many of the other players must be from different federations, how many have the GM title, what the time controls are, how many players, etc., etc.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The previous version, for "competitions starting before 1 July 2014" are still available on the FIDE website.

If you are looking for older versions, it may be good to know that some of them were published as printed books. For example:

* *The Official Laws of Chess and Other FIDE Regulations*, Macmillan, 1986 (see the entry in WorldCat);
* *The Official Rules of Chess*, by Eric Schiller, Cardoza Publishing, 2001; 2nd edition 2003.

As pointed out by Brian Towers, the Chess Arbiters’ Association, a group of mainly British arbiters, also has historical versions of the laws of chess on its website.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Complete game Ojanen - Ridala , Helsinki 1959
Entry 117 in Tim Krabbe’s Diary shows a case of fatal automatism.

```
[Title "Ojanen - Ridala, Helsinki 1959 "]
[FEN "R7/P4k2/8/8/7K/8/r7/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh8 Rh2+

```

In the game Ojanen-Ridala, Helsinki 1959, White saw a routine win, which was a loss in the concrete case.

Does anyone know of the complete game?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am unable to find the complete game, **therefore must conclude that it is no longer available**. These are the methods I used:

* Searching the *Chessmaster* and *Fritz for Fun* databases yields no results. Referencing the comments by @dfan and @Iodebari, the complete game is not in Chessbase's *Mega Database* or in *MillionBase*
* Google doesn't return it
* I've emailed Tim Krabbe, the author of the site linked to in the question, but have received no response
* The game is not in any books that I have in my (admittedly limited) chess library. E.g. the game does not feature in *Mastering Chess Strategy* by Johan Hellsten

---

**PS. A note about topicality:**

On meta I've asked a question about how to answer questions where I don't believe there is an answer. If you feel that this should have been a comment instead of an answer, please feed back on the meta question What do we do with questions that I don't think there is an answer to?

Additionally, if you have an answer to the question, I would love to see it. My own research methods are limited and I don't mind being proven wrong if someone can find the complete game.

---
Tags: blunder, rook-endgame
---


title: Suggestions for endgame study

text:
# Question
Title: Suggestions for endgame study
I'm an unrated player with some experience playing and studying various aspects of the game. If I had to give a subjective rating to myself, I would say 1000-1100. In all my quest for improvement, I have come across the suggestion, "Study end games first" multiple times, so I decided to start with that.

In the last three days I spent quality time understanding KP vs. K end game study. Was fortunate to stumble upon a very good wiki article, which very logically and completely explained the topic. Now I'm clear with the key squares, opposition, sixth rank, square of the pawn concepts in these studies. I have even effectively worked out several exercises on this topic to my own satisfaction.

That brings me to my current need. I would like to move ahead in logical phases, gradually adding more knowledge and experience to what I have already gathered, and without just jumping all over the place. So then, what would be the next rung of the logical ladder I should step on? What should I study next? And what study material could help me in an organized and phased manner of study?

Many thanks in advance.

# Answer
The book I would recommend is "From Amateur to IM" by the British GM Jonathan Hawkins. Despite the title it is really all about playing the endgame.

It sounds like it fits in really well with what you have been doing because chapter 1 deals with the KP v K stuff you just finished studying. It goes on to cover stuff like:

1) Capablanca's Pawn Endgame (white king on g1, pawns on g2, h2 black king on g8, pawn on h7)

2) Essential Rook Engames

3) Bishop + Pawn(s) v Rook + Pawn(s)

4) Opposite Coloured Bishop endings, how to win with extra pawns, how to draw with fewer pawns

5) Minor piece endgames

6) KRB v KR

7) Minority Attack

8) Extra pawn on the queenside

This is mixed in with lots of stuff about plans in the endgame, steering the game towards endgame positions you have a good chance of winning, etc.

I've only got about half way through and in looking through the book to prepare this answer I've just had the shock of seeing a whole chapter in the second half of the book dedicated to an opposite coloured bishop position (from Aronian v Bacrot 2005) very similar to one in which I quickly accepted my opponent's draw offer a few days ago. Did I blunder?

On the one hand Hawkins' comment "For perhaps the first time in the game White had serious winning chances" was a bit of a blow. I was obviously much too ready to just shake hands. On the other hand this kind of position is so complex that it is worth a whole chapter and in the game itself after a lot more moves Bacrot made the mistake of resigning in a drawn position, so maybe I shouldn't feel so bad after all!
> 4 votes

# Answer
I would recommend Silman's Complete Endgame Course which has a syllabus targeted by USCF rating as well as regular quizzes.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Highly readable book with useful information and how to handle these most common positions. You are asked to work out some of the ideas yourself:

100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, study
---


title: How do I get my FIDE percentile?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I get my FIDE percentile?
How do I get the percentile rating?

This is the rank:

World (all players): 97112
World (active players): 45540

How many players are there in the world that are members of FIDE?

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to this question on quora.com, there are ~486,000 players as of January 2015. (They reference a FIDE rating list here.) Not an exact number, but most likely close enough for percentile purposes.

If you're not sure how to calculate a percentile rating, I found this question, which gives the following formula:

```
R = P / 100 (N + 1)

```

... where R represents the rank order of the score, P represents the percentile rank, and N represents the number of scores.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Is a rook ending where the winning side has a passed g and d pawns drawn?
The passed pawns are g and d pawns. Can the losing side draw such a rook endgame? Can you give some examples to how or why it can't be drawn?

# Answer
> 4 votes
By definition if there's a "winning side" and a "losing side" then the question is already answered :-)

But seriously, if you just want K+R+P(d)+P(g) vs. K+R, that's within database range, so you can explore for yourself here. In general such positions are easy wins (note that the defending King can "always" be cut off from one pawn or the other by a Rook move to e or f), though naturally there are some initial positions where one pawn is lost tactically to leave a draw, and there can even be "accidents" such as this:

```
6r1/8/7k/8/3P1KP1/8/8/4R3 w - - 0 0

1. Kf5?? Rf8+ 0-1

```

---
Tags: endgame, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Between 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, what is the White first move that generally leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions?
I'm a ~1750 Elo player and I've been thinking of switching my opening repertoire for White.

So my question is: between 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, what is the White first move that generally leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions?

.

I am only including 1. d4 and 1. Nf3 in the question, and not 1. e4 and 1. c4.

I think 1. e4 is clearly on average sharper and more tactical than 1. d4 or 1. Nf3 because of the Sicilian (although maybe there is the Rossolimo and the Moscow variations which look pretty slow and solid, I'm not sure...). Also, I hate having a Pawn on e4 not protected by any other of my Pawn during the entire game, I have to constantly watch out for it..

And 1. c4 can also get very sharp and tactical because of 1... e5, the Sicilian Reversed.

.

Of course I know that any of those first moves can lead to any type of positions. But I want to know ON AVERAGE which leads to the least tactical ones. Just like there are a few quiet and positional lines in the Sicilian, but on average the Sicilian is considered to be a highly tactical opening, certainly not a quiet opening.

And I don't want to get into solid, strategic and quiet positions because I suck at tactics (it's not the case, I played the Sicilian for 3 years, and did more than 5000 tactical puzzles). It's just because I love slow manoeuvring, I want to be able to be perfectly relaxed while playing, and not get into insane positions and stress out knowing that one single inaccuracy can be fatal. Maybe you still think that playing wild games full of tactics everywhere will make me improve faster, but I don't care because I don't want to become a Grandmaster, I just want to enjoy the game, and I'll enjoy it more if I can get the positions which I personally like (solid, quiet and strategic positions).

# Answer
> I'm a ~1750 Elo player and I've been thinking of switching my opening repertoire for White. ... And I don't want to get into solid, strategic and quiet positions because I suck at tactics (it's not the case, I played the Sicilian for 3 years, and did more than 5000 tactical puzzles). ... Maybe you still think that playing wild games full of tactics everywhere will make me improve faster ...

First of all, **it is exactly the quiet positions that help improve a player**, not the tactical ones. Everybody learn tactics, anyone can find mate in five when playing **their own game** so the only thing you should do is just keep solving puzzles and that's it. Your tactical skill will always be high, but never at the level of a GM. Why? Because some sacrifices **are positional** and are made with the intent of getting **long-term compensation** instead of mating in five or returning the sacrifices material. In order to master these, you need a strong understanding of middlegame positions that may arise from the openings you play.

Furthermore, with "quiet" play, you actually **play** chess instead of doing mindless checking for tactics, which will greatly help you improve. In quiet positions, you must still calculate and check for tactics, but you also must frequently decide which pieces are good to exchange and which are not ( this is very helpful when **transitioning** into endgame -\> you would be surprised how often "tactical players" of high skill make banal mistakes in this area! ), you must take into account endgames that may arise and above all, you **always** have to evaluate pawn structure that may arise after every move played. To master "quiet" games you will need a lot of work on endgames, pawn structures and middlegame plans, but you will get so much in return -\> you will be able to **effortlessly** grind down lesser players, outplay "tactical players" of equal rating, and offer very strong resistance against stronger players. So I understand exactly where you appeal for closed games comes from and will try to help you as best as I can. **And for the record, playing "quiet" games will make you become GM faster than playing tactical games.** GMs/IMs do not make mistakes in **pure tactical positions**, those are just **well explored** and every master knows them by heart. Tell me when was the last time you saw *Sicilian Najdorf* in World Championship match?? You will always see `1.d4` because of reasons that are too broad to be posted here...

> So my question is: between 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, what is the White first move that generally leads to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions?

These two overlap, technically you can find all the `1.Nf3` openings **transpose into certain opening lines that start with `1.d4`.**

The only sharp opening that is dangerous for your style of play is King's Indian Defense, since it requires a lot of learning, is sharp and some lines are extremely theoretical. Other nonsense, like *BenOni* or *Chigorin defense* are just rubbish and should not phase you ( *BenOni* is nearly refuted with *Taimanov attack* and you can bypass the *Chigorin defense* by simply playing `Nf3` **before** you hit with `c4` ) since most of the time White has an advantage or can simply dodge them altogether.

The problem with `1.Nf3` approach is that you can not battle *Queen's Gambit Declined* with favorable version of the *Exchange variation* and there are other openings where early `Nf3` reduces your chances for obtaining an advantage. Still, this move offers you **big practical chances to outplay your opponent** with transpositional tricks. I haven't played **active** chess for quite some time ( 10+ years to be precise ) but let me show you on a small example what I am talking about:

```
[Title "Black wants to play with full center, but is tricked into passive position"]
[fen ""]

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.d4!

```

and Black has blocked his `c-pawn` thus condemning himself to passive play **if he enters** pawn structures with `d5+e6`, so he should aim for `e5+d6` pawn structure with `2...d6` but White may play `3.Bf4`, keeping `e5` square in his control. The tactical shot `3...Nxd4` fails due to `4.Qxd4! e5 5.Nxe5 dxe5 6.Qxe5+ +-`. He could try to go for `e5` with `2..Bg4` but then simple `e3` will force him to exchange the bishop for a knight in order to enforce `...e5`. Although you allowed `...e5` you got bishop pair in return. This is known as **trading one advantage for another** and is important concept in positional play. With `1.Nf3` most of your games will be of this type, but **you will have to cover a lot of theory** so you can take the maximum transpositional tricks can offer you. Furthermore, you you have a chance to dodge the sharp lines:

```
[Title "White dodges King's Indian Defense"]
[fen ""]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O O-O 5.d3!? d6

```

And now you could play `c4`, `e4` or even `c3` going for `b4` and action on the queenside. The position is **stable for both sides** so the player with **broader knowledge and higher creativity** will prevail. The point of `1.Nf3` is that you must have a vast opening knowledge and strong grasp of *typical middlegame positions* like Isolated or Hanging pawns, various exchange lines ( like in *QGD, Slav, French defense* and so on...) and even main lines, so you can successfully decide in which direction to steer the game.

As for `1.d4`, things are different. This move reduces the amount of work you must invest in learning the pawn structures/middlegame plans and variations, but **offers Black great chances to sharpen the game.** Various gambits, *King's Indian defense* and so on are now a real option. You would have to accept that sometimes you will have to play mind-blowing, wild tactical games, you initially wished to dodge. Your biggest problem will be *Nimzo-Indian defense* since it scores very well against `1.d4`, but you can dodge it by playing `Nf3` instead of `Nc3`. Although the subtle move order can take away best response for Black, you too must pay the price. Black may play *Queen's Indian defense*, which gives White a small advantage **but is considered drawish**, or **he can trick you** and choose to play *Queen's Gambit* since the most dangerous reply -\> the Exchange variation after `cxd5`, is harmless for him since you have `Nf3` instead of `Ne2`.

In my opinion, `1.Nf3` will offer you solid and strategic positions you seek, but you will have to work harder and be ready to make more draws than wins since most of the time the best options for White can be bypassed by Black.

Comparing `1.d4` vs `1.Nf3` further would be too broad, so I will ask you to leave a comment if you need further help. In the end, here are some books I would recommend:

*For `1.d4`:*

1. B.Avrukh-Grandmaster repertoire 1;
2. B.Avrukh-Grandmaster repertoire 2;
3. B.Avrukh-Grandmaster repertoire 8;
4. B.Avrukh-Grandmaster repertoire 9;
5. B.Avrukh-Grandmaster repertoire 10;
6. B.Avruhk-Grandmaster repertoire 11;
7. L.Shandorff-Playing the Queens Gambit ( second edition! );

*For `1.Nf3`:*

1. A.Khalifman-Opening for White according to Kramnik ( all of the books in the series! );

Good luck and best regards.
> 3 votes

# Answer
A very comprehensive answer to this has already been given, but I'll add that in my experience over a number of years (my rating is the same as yours) the White first move 1.d4 has generally lead to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, strategic and quiet positions as opposed to 1.Nf3. The normal lines in the former closed, positional opening have been well explored for some time and are difficult to subvert into an open game save with some type of counter-gambit gambit such as the Albin, Englund or Budapest, while the latter opening move is less definitive and can lead to many different opening structures, not all of which can be kept under strict positional control and can have tactical elements. I know this is somewhat ambiguous without concrete examples, but in general hypermodern openings such as 1.Nf3 give up the center and have not proven as strong as classical beginnings like 1.d4. The 1.Nf3 move can lead to Reti, KIA or Catalan structures as well as transposing back into QP openings and will require a broader opening knowledge than just of the responses to 1.d4. But if you want to experiment and broaden your understanding of chess, it would be a viable option while still not opening up the game like 1.e4.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you are concerned about avoiding a lot of theory, and since 1.Nf3 transposes into more openings than 1.d4 does, I'd pick 1.d4 on that basis alone.

If you really want to play an opening with less theory, the London System is so non-confrontational initially that it has no sharp lines to speak of. Plenty of club players I know use it because they're not interested in learning a lot theory, and like the quiet positions it produces.

The initial lines are presented as a teaser at the Chess Publishing website. You can purchase a subscription to the entire set of "d-pawn Specials" Opening Analysis articles for more details, if you want, or any book on the London.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, statistics, queens-gambit, 1.d4
---