# Question
Title: How should I make a 6 year old think more?
I have been teaching my 6 year old daughter chess for past 2 years. She plays reasonably well. She often defeats level 25 in Chess Lv 100 app and sometimes Level 6 in Chess.com app. So I am guessing her ELO rating might be around 1200.

I am trying to encourage her to think a little more and be more patient before making an instinctive move. I must have told her a 100 times and shown her effects of not thinking when we analyse the game after she is done. But she continues the same way and does too many errors which she can easily avoid if only she had thought for 5 seconds more. What else can I do to make her understand this?

**UPDATE**

I have got a lot of answers and useful pointers. Here is a quick summary of suggestions and some of my thoughts.

General

1. I think some people thought that I train my daughter without her will. May be because of the way I framed the question, English is not my first language. Anyways that is not the case. Whatever is to be done is to be done while understanding a 6 year old's psychology and while ensuring that she continues loving the sport
2. Every 6 year old (or for that matter a 60 year old) is not the same. So there is no perfect solution that a 6 year old will surely do x or will surely not do y. Even blanket solutions for an average 6 year old kid wouldn't work if it is already established that you are not dealing with an average 6 year old. We have to research/identify/adjust solutions which suit us best.
3. Solutions like "just keep letting her make mistakes and she will one day understand" have one risk of bad habits getting formed which are extremely difficult to do away. I have seen it happening with kids in other sports. However it also works out fine in many instances.
4. I think "having fun playing" is not the only motivation. Sure it is the most important one but not the only one. Also various motivations feed into one another. For example, if a kid wins a trophy, he/she will have more fun playing and training which leads to a virtuous cycle. So in the end, it all boils down to striking a right balance between training and having fun. For a 6 year old, probably 90-95% has to be fun.
5. Best solution is probably to nudge a kid in the right direction but in such a way that kid doesn't feel nudged. It is obviously easier said than done. It has to done in a very subtle and patient way. In my opinion, it is not enough for the kid to enjoy the process. Coach/Teacher/Parent has to enjoy it too.

Biggest takeaways for me are

1. I shouldn't just be asking her to think more. I have to break down "thinking" more. Feed her questions which I would ask myself before playing a move
2. I now give more time to analysis of the game after her game with bot is over. We also use a manual chessboard to show where game could have gone if she or the bot had played other move. That engages her better.
3. Trying to understand her point of view better. Sometimes a moves looks very wrong prima-facie. But I am glad to find that there is a rationale behind it. Sure, it is half-baked and not thoroughly thought out. But that will get fixed if we keep at it.
4. We play together with higher bot levels. That is fun for me as well as her and is a good way to feed her questions.
5. Have more variety in play. open ended puzzles, close ended puzzles, blitz, regular, analysis, digital, manual, lower level bot, higher level bot, another human.
6. Videos if available in your language and Chess Clubs which can provide a good sparring partner should help a lot.

# Answer
> 32 votes
*From my 15 years experience as a chess teacher - and then chess dad.*

**Stop telling her to think longer !**

This is the wrong thing to do.

* First, it is useless: as you have noticed, even telling her so 30 times didn't improve her thinking process. Obviously, she is quite smart, so she must have totally understood your point about playing too fast. She got it, she just can't, or doesn't want to, wait more before making her moves yet. *That's good*. On the opposite, I've seen kids who knew what move they would do but just waited one more minute before playing because their teacher told them they need to take more time: *that's wrong*, and that's not what you want for your daughter.
* Although a teenager or an adult merely improves in chess by thinking, a child improves more by playing. It feels stupid and frustrating to us to lose a game after a blunder, like hanging a piece, that we know we would have avoided if we had thought just a little bit more about our move, but for a child, this is less painful: I had fun playing, the result is soon forgotten, let's start a new game. At 6, making mistakes (not only in chess) is part of the learning process, and the kid who plays some great moves and some blunders has much more potential than the one who applies a standard thinking routine, carefully checks possible captures at each move but has no creative idea. If anything, the first one will have more fun, love chess more, and keep enjoying it!

By the way, all the grandmasters I know were big fans of blitz when they were kids (and most of them still enjoy it).

**Tell her more about what to think about!**

* Why did she play Ne5 so fast? Because she saw Ne5 was an interesting move, she has an idea that such a move should be profitable, and because *she didn't stop to check anything else* before grabbing the knight in her hand.
* When you study a position together, or solve an exercise, insist on what *you* are thinking about and helps you find the best move. *Think aloud*: "Why did my opponent play this move? What does he wanna do? Are there possible checks? Possible captures? Is there a piece that is not active?..." Insist on what you think about *after* you have found an idea, or when you have a move in mind that your hand really wants to play: "What will the opponent play after I do this move? Does the piece I am about to move already have a function where it stands? Will it be secure where I want to put it?" When your daughter will consider (some of) these questions in her own games, her playing rhythm will slow down naturally, while *improving* her self-confidence (on the opposite, telling her she plays too fast or she made a bad move because she didn't think might damage this important self-confidence-possibly leading to a much worse evil, the Zeitnot disease so many adults struggle with.)
* Maybe it won't be useful at once. Maybe she doesn't really mind losing a piece once in a while because she has been careless. That's okay. She will grow and at some point, she will want to remove blunders from her play. What matters is that when this moment arrives she will have the right tools to slow down and check more things. But if for the time being she is more interested in learning mating patterns, well, let her be, that's great too and no less helpful for her future chess development!
* However, I would be careful about not giving her a strict "thinking routine" (see the second bullet point above), like *at each move*, first do this, then that, then check this, then count until 10, then do your move. This is too mechanical, and you don't want to feed a machine with an algorithm to follow but to help a brain to develop to address some problems. And that brain will develop thinking methods thanks to all the smart input you feed it with, but they should be its own solutions, probably too complex to be described in chronological order, and not something mechanical. Actually, not every grandmaster thinks exactly in the same way, and no human has a strictly precise algorithm for choosing his move.

In other words, **feed her with questions, not with answers!**

**TL;DR**

Playing too fast is just the symptom, don't fight the symptom. Time management is actually much more difficult than chess at age 6, so by telling her to play more slowly, your facing her with an harder (and much less fun) problem than the real one.

The real problem is what to feed her reflexion with: you have to tell her more about what to look at, what to think about, or try to explain to her how you would think in a given position (as an example for guidelines, but not has a model to copycat).

# Answer
> 67 votes
> What else can I do to make her understand this

Wait a few years. A 6 year-old's mental capacity is very limited. The good news is that at that age and for several years to come her mental capability is increasing rapidly.

Trying to teach a 6 year old the same way you teach a 12 year old is stupid whether it is maths you are teaching or chess. At 6 the emphasis should be on enjoyment if you still want her to be playing chess at 12.

# Answer
> 27 votes
Math educator here. It's very difficult for children at this age to think much ahead in their heads.

According to Piaget's theory, they don't even reach "concrete operational" stage at this age, which roughly means thinking by manipulating objects. According to Piaget, this is stage is between 7-11 years. It seems your daughter already reached this one. But probably it will take a few years until she can think many moves ahead, or think by abstract concepts. This next stage is called "formal operations". More recent research indicates that many kids only reach this at 16 years of age or later, and some may never reach it.

So I suggest taking one chess position at a time, and trying out different ways of play from that point. She will quickly see which move leads to which consequence. Let her manipulate oversized chess pieces, or try a live chess game, she'll most likely enjoy that. I loved Battle Chess as a kid, if you don't mind mild violence. So play at this age is VERY important, as others have noted.

And I must agree with Hamsterrific, be very careful not to push her too much or she'll lose interest.

I suggest reading the books of Laszlo Polgar on this subject.

# Answer
> 13 votes
# Short Answer

Just keep doing exactly what you're doing: practicing with her and reviewing the game later and pointing out the main mistakes. Let time do the rest.

# Long Answer

It is amazing that your 6 years old daughter is already at this level. First of all, congratulations.

Before going into a suggestion on how to make her improve further, I think it is very important to point out that **you must be careful to not press her too much** and the "too much" could be less than you're thinking. If you're trying to push her to 1400 but the process becomes not fun, you risk dropping her to 0 instead, if she gets upset with all the pressure and stops playing altogether.

Now, for the teaching part, recall that there is not an agreement among specialists on what is the best way to teach things (talking generally, not specifically about chess). People dedicate their lives studying how to teach, and there are surely a lot of progress but certainly no definite recipe.

That said, what I'd suggest for a 6 years old is just to keep playing. Keep practicing, and reviewing the games (especially since you already do that with her successfully). I'd say you're just in the right track. Experience itself is a great way to learn.

I don't have a reference immediately, but it's usually considered best to make the student learn by himself instead of just throw the knowledge at him/her. So trying to be too "theoretical" might not work well. You said yourself that "I've said it a lot of times". This is a known problem, teachers say things many times in class but students don't learn. Especially because we don't want to risk her getting upset about it.

So, by continuing playing, in a way that is not stressful, I'm sure she will start realizing by herself her mistakes (especially if pointed out in the game review). Let time do the rest.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Firstly, I would like to say that her performance is really impressive.

Second, I would like to say not to go hard on her, since she might lose the interest and probably feel as if she's being forced to play. The only thing common in most top chess players is that they really enjoy the game and really want to push their abilities despite it being a very limited game. In short, they really love the game.

Regarding her playing fast, I would suggest a little parent-kid exercise. You two should sit together and try playing against some decent level bot. During the game, you should ask her to describe the lines she's thinking of to you. I would suggest doing this in a very casual manner. Your kid is displaying a quite common psychology pattern which other kids show which is avoiding thinking at times, therefore this exercise must be conducted in a way so that she gains an appreciation for detailed thinking. Keep doing this until she has a self-realization about benefits of thinking a bit before taking actions. I've seen that kids have a lot of "realization stages" in those years where they gain maturity about certain things.

You can also do a similar exercise for the analysis stage.

I would also suggest adding blindfold training to her routine. She might not be ready for it yet, but you guys can give it a start. I've seen blindfold players have an amazing mental representation of the board and can easily keep many piece-constraints in their mind with continuity. Visual players usually have to "re-generate" these piece-constraints after some stage. This might help also help her since my guess is that she feels a bit lazy to generate those constraints again and again. I've personally experienced it myself.

Also, don't worry too much, she has good cognitive abilities. Try getting her involved in other areas too math etc. I often have a feeling that doing other "puzzling" activities has complemented my chess but I'm not sure if it is usually the case with everyone.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The simplest and the most effective might be the "count to 5 before making the move" rule. Works like a charm, but doing it all the time will definitely take the fun out of the game. Probably you may advise her to think a bit longer when she's about to make a mistake or allow take back a move when playing together.

It's very empowering to feel that "Aha!" moment, when you get the winning combination or snatch a piece, but you need to be careful to keep games interesting, and if playing fast helps to keep the attention -- well, let her play fast. It's quite difficult for kids to concentrate for the long time, so maybe until she hits the glass ceiling at around 1500ELO, just let her play and enjoy the game as much as she could. Longer attention span will come later.

Also, it might help a bit to throw in occasionally a few simple tactical puzzles to help developing the intuition and let her enjoy the "victory" without going through all the game.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Learning is a combination of logic and memory. All problems can be reduced to search. Thus, problem-solving boils down to exploring some solution space, and optimization problems involve finding some solution which is better than a solution you already have, up to some time budget. Being able to jump directly into a promising region of the solution space is much faster than having to traverse there step by step. This is what happens when you remember the result of a complex calculation, and in computer science, we call it "memoization".

Grandmasters play strong chess because they can compute far more positions than masters. And they can do this not because their brains work faster, but because they have made good trade-offs between time and space. Their brains have saved the results of previous board states and sequences so that they can shortcut to the outcomes of certain lines of attack, thereby allowing them to push deeper into the solution space in the same amount of time.

But memory is a funny thing: you can only remember something if you have seen it already. Thus, the best way to build up a memory of good moves and strategies is to *see* a lot of good moves and strategies. Not only that, but our brains are very good at throwing away data, as they must, so that they don't overflow each day. How does our brain decide what to keep and what to throw out? We don't know for sure, but it's pretty obvious that emotionally charged events get saved, and boring ones get thrown away. So how do you remember the good board states and move sequences in chess? One way is to create an emotional event: either a clever sub-victory, or a painful defeat. And here is the crux of the matter.

You want your daughter to avoid the defeats by thinking harder and only playing good moves. But your daughter is learning optimally on her own. Defeats are actually helping her remember how *not* to play, which helps her build up the rules and memories for quickly pruning bad branches of the search tree! You see it as wasteful, but only because you have never tried to train an artificial neural network on your own.

We know how to teach machines to learn, but our methods are both very crude and very precise. They are crude because they take thousands of times more data points than humans require, but they are more precise because the answers they give are far more consistent and well-defined than humans can generally provide. Each one is a different engineering trade-off. A computer would need to play thousands of times more games than your daughter to achieve the same level of competence from scratch. So stop thinking about those blunders as wasted learning opportunities and start viewing them for what they really are: essential manipulation of her bio-computer learning machine.

At this stage of the game, she is building up an internal mental model of how the chess universe works. And the fastest way to do that is to explore quickly and blindly, so she can set up a rough scaffolding. Yes, she will make mistakes. Yes, she will model some things incorrectly. Yes, she may even form some bad habits that she later needs to break. If there is a more efficient way to learn something complex from scratch, no computer scientist alive has demonstrated it in a working program. But I would argue that the most valuable thing for her at this stage is to play as many games as possible, as quickly as she is comfortable, so she gets to see the "big picture", which you yourself have already built up over many years.

This is frustrating for you, because you are looking at a map of the world and she is looking at a giant blank canvas with a few dots filled in. You can tell her exactly where the mountain ranges and rivers and lakes are, but she must earn this knowledge herself, the hard way, in order to build up that model. If you spoon-feed her precise data points, she will only own those data points. She needs to follow the paths to victory on her own, mapping out the walls and dead-ends, so that she sees the map as fully as you do.

Creating sub-problems is great. That lets her focus on a small room in the chess universe, and explore it in detail. But you need a good mix of barnstorming and 40,000' surveying to build up a good mental model of the problem space. Otherwise, *relax*, and count your lucky stars that your daughter enjoys playing chess as much as she already does. The best thing you can do as a father is to continue to make the game as enjoyable as possible, so that she practices as much as she is able.

When she gets stuck or reaches a plateau, she will probably ask for help. And then you can go over chess books and study the game more formally. But she is SIX! Let her play. Let her be a kid. Her brain is doing a fantastic job already. Give it some credit and watch the miracle of human intelligence in action. If you think she is learning slowly, download any of the open-source ANN projects and teach one to recognize hand-written letters, or identify shapes in pictures, etc. That is more boring than watching paint dry.

# Answer
> 4 votes
After each move, have her write down a list of moves she thinks you'll make. The highest on the list your actual move is, the better.

If she's having trouble visualizing lines in her head, get bases with pictures of the pieces for them to sit on. Have her move just the piece, then look at the board. If need be, have her walk over to the other side and see the board from "your point of view". She can then move the piece she thinks you'll move, etc. When she's done moving the pieces, she can move all the pieces back to their bases, then move the piece and the base of her "final decision".

# Answer
> 4 votes
Have you tried linking playfulness with some video explaining strategies and mental thinking? Just like cartoons, when they teach you lessons, it could be chess strategies in a fun way :)

# Answer
> 4 votes
@Hockeyfan19 wrote a comment that I think deserves to be an answer.

## Chess puzzles

Puzzles naturally encourages a more reflected way of thinking. There is one correct answer, and if you think long enough, you will find it.

Puzzles should be concrete, "Mate in 2", not "Moves and wins". In the later it is hard to know if you have found the right answer or not.

I would also like to repeat what most answers have already said: Don't push too hard.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As pointed out in the other answers already, there is little possibility that a 6 year old understands the concept of thinking about moves of the opponent as we adults do.

> I am trying to encourage her to think a little more and be more patient before making an instinctive move.

Many children lose interest pretty quickly. Forcing them to play more slowly will result in them waiting for the time to finish and then just making random moves (often worse as if they were allowed to play as they want).

The best you can do is try and show her how it is done and she will catch up some day and use it in her own play as well. What I would also suggest is not only talking at the end of the game. You want her to think before the move, so show her how you think before she (or you) makes the move!

> What else can I do to make her understand this

A method that I have seen applied is *animistic thinking*. Instead of talking about the pieces as objects, try to talk about them as *persons*. For example the king is feeling *alone*, when no pieces (his *friends*) are around him. Or pieces could get *bored* if they are just moving back and forth. Many children can relate to these emotions better than to concepts of mate, repetition, or loss of initiative.

However success of this approach is not guaranteed and it greatly depends on the child and how you present the *feelings* of the pieces. Some children are not really empathetic and have troubles relating the *feelings* of the pieces to necessary actions. Others get too strongly attached to their pieces and might make irrational moves because of that.

# Answer
> 4 votes
So, this is not a chess answer per se but an answer in general about how I found it effective to teach multiple steps to children so they will think ahead in the future.

The biggest problem is, you analyze after the game the moves she made and what effects those decisions have. That's way to long to be concrete, it has no reference point to hook onto for a child's brain. You're telling an interesting story, but it's nothing something hooked into a behavior reward/punish system that will improve the learned pathways.

The moment she makes a "mistake move" or "strategic move" pause the game and show a red card with frowny face when it's a mistake move, and show a green card with smiley face when it's a strategic move.

Then ask her at that moment after showing the card, what moves she had planned for that strategy. Don't ask motivation for that move, just ask her what she had planned ahead. Then use her strategy to explain further about weaknesses or positive alternatives she now has.

This way it's actively hooked into the action of making the move, there's a direct connection to the reward/punish centers in the brain and the neuron's will adapt to this behaviour/punishment signal. It takes the brain 2 weeks to learn and mature a concept that it becomes ingrained and the neuron don't die off. So make sure to practice the behavior of thinking, explaining, correcting regularly in those first two weeks, after that you could slowly start expanding with pattern recognition etc..

# Answer
> 4 votes
I gave my kid a couple of colored stones and told her to put a colored stone onto every field she can move to. Then she has to elaborate on every single identified move, before taking the colored stone away. She is always motivated enough to place the colored stones. After that, it is very easy for me to say: "Hey, you are not done thinking, because there are still colored stones on the board".

This technique works very well when there are only a few pieces left on the board. Beware though! She is still a 6 year old kid (mine is too). **I** get bored and eventually frustrated when using this technique. She gets there a lot sooner. Apply with caution. :-)

No seriously, this method is only really suited to ensure you do not forget any alternatives. I use it because it visualizes this fact. I let her use that information however she likes. With many pieces on the board this means she will just ignore it and do whatever she thinks is best. With less than 10 pieces on the board I sort of make her use the stones, so that she learns. She actually defeated me a couple of times, b/c she uses her stones and I played sloppy. Whenever she feels she needs to think in more detail, she uses the stones now, without me saying or doing anything. I suppose one day I'll have to take away the stones and make her do it all in her head...

# Answer
> 3 votes
You are putting the cart before the horse. You want to teach your daughter deduction before allowing her to think. That's like trying to teach someone grammar before letting her acquire her first language. Children learn by patterning and osmosis and they are classes above adults in that facility. You want to sabotage her progress here by making her act like an adult.

Don't. If you think you have to teach her something specific, play against her. Once you don't get to make your point because she beats you before you can do it, get her in a chess club. And be prepared to have to work on finding her friends and an atmosphere where playing is still fun for her. Women in chess are quite more rare than women in engineering schools and there rarely is a dearth of mediocre males perfectly willing to sneer at females in order to establish their not-so-natural superiority. The typical age difference is not going to help with that, either.

Playing computers may be less socially challenging but computer play of comparable strength or somewhat above is much less didactic when done too much than playing humans of comparable strength or somewhat above since the patterns of play just map better to human learning.

Against a computer, expressing a "plan" is very much pointless since a computer will mindlessly jump into the human's first mistake and completely reverse course much more willingly than a human invested in plan and defense. So any preconceived plan is likely to collapse for incomprehensible reasons anyway. Actually working "plans" involve very long-term goals and patterns and shifts of balance that are really not well describable verbally anyway. Most certainly not in the language of a 6-year old. Do you want her to become a good player or a good commentator?

---
Tags: beginner, psychology, children
---


title: Does this opening gambit have a name?

text:
# Question
Title: Does this opening gambit have a name?
I have had some success with this gambit in blitz, does it have a name?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Ng5 h6 5. Nxf7 Kxf7 6. Bc4+ Ke8 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qf7+ Kd6 9. Bf4+ Kc5 10. Qd5+ Kb6 11. Qb5#

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
**I think it is the "Silent-Tiger variation of the Scotch Gambit"!**

From Wikipedia:

> After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4, the most important continuations are:
>
> * > 4.Nxd4 (Main line)
> >
> > + > 4...Bc5 (Classical Variation)
> >     + > 4...Nf6 (Schmidt Variation)
> >     + > 4...Qh4!? (Steinitz Variation)
> >     + > 4...Qf6
> >     + > 4...Nxd4?!
> >     + > 4...Bb4+?!
> * > 4.Bc4 (Scotch Gambit)
> * > 4.c3 (Göring Gambit)
> * > 4.Bb5

# Answer
> 2 votes
"C45 : Scotch Game #3" according to the lichess.org

After `6. Bc4+` Black should have replied `6. ... d5` and win the game.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


title: King of Chess 960

text:
# Question
Title: King of Chess 960
As you know, in Chess960, the first and eighth rows are symmetric and consist of the normal pieces which have be permuted. The only constraints are that the King is between the two Rooks and the Bishops should have different colors.

In King of the Hill, the start from the standard position and we can win by either checkmating the opponent's King or by bringing our own King in the Hill (which consists of d4, e4, d5 and e5) by a legal move in normal chess.

**Question:** what if we combine these two variations?

The rule would be that we start from a position in Chess960 and we keep the winning possibility of King of the Hill. To ask more precise sub-question:

1. Are there some starting positions where the Whites or Black have a huge advantage? Or even worse, a forced win?
2. If yes, could it be more pertinent to shift the "hill"? For example, by letting it to be b4, c4, b5 and c5).

# Answer
Since I wrote a script to analyze atomic chess960 starting positions with multi-variant Stockfish some time ago, I slightly adapted it to be able to also run it for king of the hill (and other variants). A run on all 960 starting positions to depth 18 (taking ~1 hour on a single thread) resulted in a maximum score of +155 centipawns for white for position 657 brnbkrnq/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BRNBKRNQ w KQkq - 0 1. This indicates that white in some positions has a relatively clear edge, but there at least seems to be no easy forced win, although strictly disproving the existence of a forced win is of course infeasible. The analysis could be repeated with deeper/longer searches to get more indications.

Based on my experience and Stockfish's evaluations, I think that king of the hill (and the 960 version of it) is one of the more balanced variants, so I do not necessarily see the need for additional measures to balance it. However, if someone is interested in investigating that, one could modify Stockfish to support the shifted versions and re-run the analysis to get some data.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, chess960, king-of-the-hill
---


# Question
Title: Why do Americans hail Fischer when he was anti-American and idolized Hitler?
Whenever I talk chess legends with some Americans I know, they love to hype up Fischer and call him the greatest ever and what not.

While I appreciate Fischer's talent for chess, and he is certainly one of my top 5 players as well, I do not understand this love that Americans in particular have for Fischer, who, as a person, was as anti-American as it gets, and in general a vile human being.

Didn't he profess his support for Nazi Germany? So why do Americans show this bias for a person that actually hated Americans?

# Answer
Fischer had psychological problems. He was American and hated the US. He was jewish and hated Jews. He was clearly paranoid from a pretty early age, but it got much worse after he stopped playing.

It is hard to see an antisemitic Jew as evil. I think it is more reasonable to feel some empathy for his mental problems. And we can all count ourselves lucky that his mental health held up long enough for him to create a large number of chess masterpieces.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fischer
---


# Question
Title: Identify this chess set with heavy painted metal pieces
Could someone please help me identify this chess set?

I purchased this from a flea market because I love the look of it. It now sits in my game room so the paint won't wear off.

I have looked all over each piece using a magnifying glass and cannot find anything that would resemble a Makers Mark or other identifying marks. The pieces are fairly heavy and feel like they are made of some type of metal yet a magnet does not stick to them. I have pictures of each of the pieces so I could enlarge them to see better but even doing that I cannot find anything to help me identify this set. Each of the pieces has a felt covering on the base. I thought about removing one to see if there is anything to help me but am afraid of causing unnecessary damage.

Please let me know if I can provide any other information - not that I have much more - or any additional photos I can provide in helping with this question.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Some of the colors are a bit different, but that could be age or the nature of being hand painted. Also, you don't say how tall it is. That said, it looks very similar to a Crusaders vs. Saracens set (the link I had here no longer works, but a web search should turn up many similar, if not identical, sets). Based on the information in the now dead link, the set pictured seems to have 5 inch tall kings and is made of "polystone", a material made from crushed stone and polyurethane which is supposed to be durable and provide a heavy feel.

# Answer
> 0 votes
That's a very nice set for display, but if you are interested in playing and maybe even getting better at it as you indicate, you should also investigate obtaining a standard "Staunton" design set since they are the ones normally used in regular play. That provides for uniformity regardless of who and where you play. If you're unfamiliar with that design, just google it. Inexpensive sets are available for this purpose ($10 or less). Good luck with your journey.

---
Tags: chess-set, identify-this
---


title: Pushing central pawns

text:
# Question
Title: Pushing central pawns
I would like to know what factors I need to take into account in a general position before pushing a central pawn, exchanging it if possible or simply moving another piece.

As usual, I will provide an example of one of my games. Please try to give advices for this particular position as well as other suggestions for any other situation (I know it is difficult to generalize but try to tell me what to avoid and what to look for). In cases like the one below, I always feel I have not the foggiest idea of what to move and in this case, I should have moved d4. If my opponent had pushed one of their central pawns I still am at loss. I do not know if the benefits for my opponent of pushing them are better than the disadvantages. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot tell if I should exchange that pawn or push my thereatened pawn. Hopefully, someone can help me out to never be at loss again (or at least, in few cases).

I also attach the link to the game in case someone needs it:

https://lichess.org/DgwDB1ji/white#16

# Answer
## Why are central pawns important?

To answer that, I'll make a quick digression and talk about an underlying fundamental idea : how can pieces be used to their fullest potential? For that, they need to be placed on the square that best fits them. In general, the best squares for pieces are the central squares. There, they reach maximum activity (approximatively number of possible movements), and they target squares in the enemy's side on both wings which stretches out enemy defenses. However, placing pieces in the center too early is dangerous because pawns could chase them away ; a pawn is less useful than a piece, thus the trade would favor the side trading the pawn for the piece. What pawns can chase away pieces on central squares? Central pawns.

This introduces the broader concept of **space** ; controlling more squares, or many key squares, forces enemy pieces to passive positions so they can stay safe. Meanwhile, your own pieces get more squares to maneuver towards the enemy King, whose own pieces will have trouble defending because of their crippled movement. Moving central pawns to control central squares is a basic way of achieving a spatial advantage ; enemy pieces cannot land to the center, but yours can, and may further be supported by these very pawns to deter trades.

Spatial advantage itself is a static advantage, it will remain for a long time, until around when pawns delimiting that space disappear. Thus, you should consider how your own piece will find activity on the long-term. However, pushing pawns bring static weaknesses like weak squares or backward pawns. It's a strategic trade-off : you believe the opponent's pieces won't be able to coordinate around these weaknesses because they lack space to move. Of course, this is just the strategy outline, verifying by calculation is the only way to make sure it's a good idea.

One thing is required to gain space though : **the center must be mobile, pawns must be free to move forward**. It doesn't mean that a good pawn center is a mobile one (White's blocked c4-d5-e4 center in the KID is very strong), nor that pawns should be pushed whenever possible. But as long as the possibility remain, you can disrupt enemy pieces with a timely central pawn advance, to force them into passive positions or cut their communication with one another. A mobile center is thus both a static asset (space advantage) and a dynamic asset (pawn breaks).

Finally, like others have pointed out, a classic pawn center isn't just a strength. It can itself be targeted. For instance, if the opponent manages to make the pawns advance forward on his own terms, he could access uncontrolled central squares, or pile up on a backward pawn, or target the base of the pawn chain, and so on... . That's the idea behind fianchettos : placing the bishops on safe squares where they'll apply constant pressure on the opposing pawn center to make it eventually move. This approach is not without faults : fianchettoing bishops takes time, and failure at breaking the pawn center would doom the bishops to passivity. Remember the pawn center is strong even without advancing. When the opponent uses their own pawn breaks, ask yourself whether your pieces would be more active with your current center or after advancing a pawn. Would a pawn exchange actually help your own pieces? Would space still be efficiently controlled? Understanding these strategic concepts will greatly help you figure out if you should move a central pawn.

Note that this also translates to wing pawns, except pushing them is more situational. The squares they control aren't frequently as crucial as central squares. Think twice before spending a move on pushing them.

## About your game

Your pawn center may control the center efficiently, but it has two weaknesses : **the `d4` pawn and the `d4` square**. The pawn cannot be protected by another pawn without moving. If your pieces don't protect it enough, you'll have to push it, and that will add weak squares on `e5` and `c5` to the already weak `d4` square.

Meanwhile, Black doesn't have 3, but 4 pawn breaks : `c5`, `d5`, `f5` and ... `e5`. As pointed out by Stockfish, Black could play `9... d6` followed by `10 ... e5` to challenge `d4`, an idea that is also seen in the Nimzo-Indian. This is arguably the most threatening pawn break on the short term because it precisely targets `d4`, supported by the `g7` Bishop and the `c6` Knight.

Otherwise, you have a slight space advantage, no pawn or piece has been traded, and both Kings are castled. That means you can spend some tempi moving your pieces to their ideal positions without risking too much (unless tactics - double check your candidate moves). Where they should go however, depends on your preferred strategy. Here are a few to try :

1. **"`d4` is my weak spot, so I'll overprotect it first!".**

Overprotection, a term first coined by Aaron Nimzovitch, is the idea of defending potential weak points in advance / prophylactically. Once the opponent puts them under pressure, you retain some freedom of movement and can adapt at your pace to his setup, instead of reacting. One way to implement it would be `9. Ne2`, but the Knight doesn't have the best prospects here, or on `f4` or `g3` where it could go later. The game could continue `9... Nb4 10. Bb1 f5` where Black now pressures `e4` instead. Moving the Knight created weaknesses where there weren't
2. **"`d4` is hard to protect, but I've developed all my minor pieces and control the center well. I can definitely push forward for EVEN MORE SPACE!".**

Indeed, after `9. d5 exd5 10. exd5` , White transforms his central pawn front into a (`c4-d5`) pawn chain. A key idea with pawn chains is to overprotect the top of the chain, namely `d5`. It's supported by `Nc3`, `c4`, and indirectly `Qd1`. Furthermore, the `Bd3` protects `c4`, a support point of `d5`. On top of that, it takes `c6` away from the `d7` Knight and blocks the `b7` Bishop! It's looking good so far, but can Black exploit `d4`, `c5` and `e5`? Concretely, after `10... Ne5 11. Nxe5 Bxe5 12.f4 Bg7 (Bxc3 13. bxc3 Nf5 14. Bxf5 gxf5 15. Bd4) 13. f5!` , White opens lines on the kingside and activates all his pieces before Black has time to counterattack in the center. In particular, the `b7` Bishop is looking poor.
3. **"I've got a good center, and my minor pieces are out, but not my Rooks. Let's get them into play!".**

Chess is a team game, play with all your pieces. It's hard to see when the `a1` Rook will enter the fray with tempo, so getting it out first to reinforce the center provides it at least some use. Plus it supports the `c3` Knight, and won't be targeted by the `g7` Bishop anymore. It also allows `Bb1` without interfering with Rooks. For example, `9. Rc1 d6 10. Bb1 e5 11. d5` , or `9. Rc1 f5 10. e5 (Qd2!?) d6 11. Ng5 Qd7 12. f4` shows White retaining their spatial advantage while reorganizing their forces. Note that `9. Re1` serves the same goal, but is weaker because it doesn't blend well with the other pieces, plus the `f1` Rook already had better prospects than the `a1` Rook. He could take initiative with `9... Nb4 10. Bb1 d5 11. cxd5 exd5 12. e5 c5` , which would activate his pieces.

Tying this back to the original problem, in this position (9th White move), White isn't forced to push his pawns, they're already plenty strong. For instance, `9. e5 Nf5` or `9. c5 bxc5 10. dxc5 Ne5` aren't coherent ideas with White's positional assets. In the `9. Rc1` lines, White doesn't push a pawn until the opponent has committed in the center. Nevertheless, pushing `d5` first does look good here. Pawn breaks are important moves to always consider, and in particular, are one way to demonstrate an advantage from creating an ideal center, like in the KID 4 Pawns Variation.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The example position would fall in the camp of hyper-modern theory. This is where one side occupies the center with pawns and the other side attacks the center from a distance with pieces only to strike in the center when suitable. In general you want to think of pawns in relation to pieces. Does advancing hinder the enemy pieces and help yours? What squares do you gain or weaken?

With pawns side by side you create a nice front, and in the position given there is nothing weak. The pawns are dynamic and well guarded. It is Black that wants to provoke their advance so they can leave holes or become over-extended and weak. So, unless there is something of forcing benefit to White in pushing a pawn I would continue to develop pieces.

If pushing did not convince me, I would consider prophylactics: Black can consider 3 pawn moves that attack the center - d5, f5, and e5. I would analyse lines trying to thwart these moves. In the present position d5 looks reasonable, but only concrete analysis can tell if it is good enough for a clear advantage. I would probably play Qd2 here.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: pawns
---


# Question
Title: What's the correlation between FIDE rating and online rating?
I'm wondering if there's any way to get an approximation of my FIDE rating by using one of my online ratings, say ICC or chess.com rating? If not, is there, at least, a correlation between how well you rank on those sites and your eventual FIDE rank?

# Answer
> 9 votes
I asked this on ICC once and was directed to the following link:

http://www.chessclub.com/help/ratings

IMHO, I don't think there is a fail-safe way to approximate a FIDE rating based on online ratings.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Online and FIDE ratings can't be directly compared or converted with any real accuracy. They have a different pool of players and different constraints. I'd be surprised if the actual mathematical rating method was exactly the same.

The 'pool of players' issue is one of practical import. It turns out, players' geographical isolation highlights an under-appreciated fact about FIDE's rating system. The FIDE rating system doesn't tell you how good you are; it tells you how good you are *compared to other players*. Thus the ratings of isolated groups of players are effectively unrelated.

# Answer
> 6 votes
NM Matt Jensen has done similar research in 2014, in 2015 and later in 2016 using data from survey with over 370 surveyees. The survey shows the correlation between **Chess.com**, **Lichess.org**, **USCF** and **FIDE** ratings in Bullet, Blitz and Rapid/Classical categories.

The results can be found on **Google Sheets**. Here's the line chart showing the correlation between ratings:

# Answer
> 4 votes
I took the raw data from the source linked to by gdrt and looked at some pairwise correlations, but not all. There are too many pairs to consider and not enough data for most of them, so I focused on chess.com blitz ratings vs classical FIDE/USCF ratings, which were the most abundant. I also looked at chess.com vs lichess blitz. You can find them at this Google sheet.

In general there is clear correlation between the ratings, with r2 0.7-0.8, but the standard deviation of the residuals is about 200. That means that to have a 95% confidence on a prediction obtained from the regression model, the error bar is roughly +/- 400! (Two standard deviations.) The correlation between chess.com and lichess blitz is slightly better.

You can find all the equations in the link above, but since the original question was specifically about predicting FIDE rating from chess.com, I'll also post that one here:

```
fide = 0.7360*chess.com + 458

```

Again, this is classic FIDE vs chess.com blitz, and the error bar is about 400 points so don't expect a very accurate estimate!

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is roughly the conversion for different sites. CC stands for Chess.com, and Li stands for LiChess.

1000 FIDE-\>1200 USCF-\>1100 CCBlitz-\>1250 CCRapid-\>1450 LiBlitz-\>1500 LiClassic

1200 FIDE-\>1350 USCF-\>1300 CCBlitz-\>1450 CCRapid-\>1600 LiBlitz-\>1700 LiClassic

1400 FIDE-\>1500 USCF-\>1450 CCBlitz-\>1600 CCRapid-\>1725 LiBlitz-\>1850 LiClassic

1600 FIDE-\>1700 USCF-\>1600 CCBlitz-\>1725 CCRapid-\>1850 LiBlitz-\>2000 LiClassic

1800 FIDE-\>1900 USCF-\>1850 CCBlitz-\>1825 CCRapid-\>2050 LiBlitz-\>2150 LiClassic

2000 FIDE-\>2075 USCF-\>2050 CCBlitz-\>1900 CCRapid-\>2200 LiBlitz-\>2250 LiClassic

---
Tags: rating, online-chess, fide
---


# Question
Title: What is the right defensive set-up for the King-Bishop_Rook trio in the diagrammed position?
It's Black's move in the diagram.

In a recent correspondence game I managed to win an exchange at a cost of weakening my kingside a little bit. In the diagrammed position the g-pawn is missing and the White queen is lurking around. You also see the dark-squared bishop as a potentially aggressive resource for white. Seeing all of this coming my question was:

**1. What are the right squares for the king?**

**2. Should I push my h-pawn to h6? (I will probably have to play e6 to protect f5, so, Bg5-f6 is a threat.**

**3. Do I put my rook on g-file?** In the actual game I did, but that ended up smothering my king in the corner and for a long time to come gave tactical traps to my opponent.

Is there a general guide for how to defend such weakened structures? Like how to cover up for a missing h-pawn, or g-pawn, or f-pawn?

Thanks for your time.

```

[fen "5rk1/2q1ppbp/p1p5/2N1Pp2/8/2PP2Q1/P1P3PP/1rB2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Qxe5 2. Qxe5 Bxe5 3. Nd7 Bxc3 4. Nxf8 Bd4+ 5. Kh1 Be3

```

FYI: I can't take on e5 due to the exchange followed by knight fork :(

# Answer
Most answers are addressing the tactics in the specific position so lets say White's pawn is already on d4; Now you don't have tactical defensive resources around Qxe5 and we can answer your general questions:

* **Yes, the king should go to h8.** You don't want to sit in the pin and you have to deal with Bh6 threat. white doesn't have enough forces to target the h7 pawn and his knight is going to take a while to assist any kingside activity.
* **Yes, Rg8.** Your rook becomes much more active on the g-file! and can possibly deploy to g6 or g4 etc.
* No, you don't need a pawn on h6 and yes you need to defend f5 with e6 at some point. Bg5-f6 is nothing if your king is on h8 and rook on g8.
> 0 votes

# Answer
You forgot to say who has the move in the given position. This is always important.

For example, here if White has the move, he can attack with 1.Bh6, and he will be up a piece.

So we can assume that Black has the move.

In that case he had better play 1...Kh8 to avoid White's attack with 2.Bh6. This move also frees Black's bishop, so White should probably defend the pawn with 2.d4 and Black will probably need to play 2...Rg8. This already answers a couple of your questions (the king needs to go to h8, and the rook will go to g8).

But I leave the other points to better players...
> 2 votes

# Answer
```

[fen "5rk1/2q1ppbp/p1p5/2N1Pp2/8/2PP2Q1/P1P3PP/1rB2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Qxe5 2. Qxe5 Bxe5 3. Nd7 Bxc3 4. Nxf8 Bd4+ 5. Kh1 Be3

```

Due to the pin on the 1st rank, black wins a piece with a won game. Although the end game is difficult, it's better than passively hiding.

1. Since we're close to an end game, the right place for the king is in the center.
2. If more pieces were on the board, I would go with a plan of Kh8; e6; h6; Kh7. This would limit the white dark square bishop.
3. The rook on the g-file doesn't accomplish anything. No other piece can assist in any attack. The only active place would be on b1 via b8, after you protect against a knight fork on a6.

A general rule-of-thumb is that when under attack to return material to weaken the attacking force. One that I use is to return material to simplify into a won end game. That is, if I have a queen and pawn versus a rook, I exchange the queen for the rook to get a won pawn end game.

Most books are written for the fun part of chess--the attack. However, by assessing the needs of the position, you can find defensive moves. Here the most important element is to stop Bh6 and mate next. Kh8 must be played; f6 looks too artificial and just kills your pawn structure. The next step would be to both protect f5 and fix the weakness on e5 (the weakness is not the pawn but that it blocks the bishop), but white's first move is most likely d4 to protect e5, which makes a new threat on a6--it was protected earlier by a queen fork. (BTW, we'd like to keep the pin on e5 until we can fix it with e6, so protecting the a-pawn would be done by a5, even though Qa5 seems to win an pawn. Finally, h6 and Kh7, if you can manage these move, would restrict white's bishop further.

This seems like a long post, but I barely scratched the surface.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pawn-structure, defense
---


# Question
Title: Adjusting parameters in the engine stockfish 6
I downloaded Stockfish 6 (a binary file for Windows). It works, but I miss two things:

* The depth seems to be rather low. How can I increase the selectivity?
* How can I achieve that the engine uses the tablebases in advance? The program only seems to use them if 5 or less pieces are on the board.

I found the overview of the parameters, but I do not know the meaning of the topics.

Can anyone help?

# Answer
I don't have Shredder so I can't tell you how to use it to adjust parameters for Stockfish. However, it should be similar to ScidvsPC which I have posted here.

1. What do you mean by depth seems rather low? What depth would you consider be normal? We need a position to continue the discussion.
2. I don't think Shredder uses syzygy tablebase at all, that is you aren't using any tablebase. You'll need to set it up yourself.
3. Which parameters you're unsure? There're not many in SF6. The most important is **contempt factor**, which means how likely the engine takes a draw. By default, a draw is zero. If you give the contempt factor like a negative value, the engine will prefer another line that is closer to zero. Thus, the engine will take extra risks than necessary.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I understand that you're using Stockfish directly and not through a GUI. In that case, you should use the command: go depth nnn Where "nnn" stands for your desired depth.

For example: go depth 20

I hope this helps
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


title: Analysis of a chess position?

text:
# Question
Title: Analysis of a chess position?
Is there a site I can go to or a software which I can use which will help me to analyse a chess position?

# Answer
That depends on what you mean by 'analyse'. Any chess engine with a GUI will allow you to input a position and get sample lines from the engine, while letting you try out variations. Online services that allow this include http://lichess.org (you'd have to upload a game's PGN there first) or http://analysis.cpuchess.com/.

If by 'analyse' you mean study and learn from the nuances of a position, then the short answer is no - while a GUI might provide a way of easily resetting the board to certain states, it can't do the hard work for you.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would recommend a few analysis tools. See which works best for you:

1. lichess.org/analysis
2. decodechess.com
3. chess.com/analysis-board-editor
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What's the best approach to adopting 1.d4?
As a long time 1.e4 player and short time 1.c4 player, I'd like to add 1.d4 but there are so many defenses. I am considering the London system against things, while adding mainlines vs. all the various openings one by one. Or is the Catalan a better start?

# Answer
If you want to start playing 1.d4 you should as first thing have a look at some theory about the Queen's gambit declined, as it is the most natural (and historical) way to play 1.d4: even if you will not end up adopting it in your repertoire, it will give you a taste of the major ideas behind the queen's pawn opening (minority attack usually against c5-c6, occupation of c-d files) and a sense of where the pieces belong.

After you do so you should start preparing for precise defences to play against (as in every opening although White has the first move, the order strongly depends on what Black plays next): in this respect you might have a look at any online database to find what is played most - but to spare the time, among all the most often played are:

* Slav defence
* semi-Slav
* Indian defences (at least King's Indian and Grünfeld)

> Or is the Catalan a better start?

I myself do play the Catalan (when given the chance to do so) and therefore by all means I suggest you to look into it: it is however a heavy theoretical opening (from both sides) but it does provide White with a slight edge throughout the whole game (at best play).

> I am considering the London system against things

The London system is somehow more "natural" to play and it is lately gaining a lot of respect at high level (Carlsen and Aronian above all play it very often): you may find quite a few GM games to take examples from.

In general, as any other opening in chess, you cannot have your way around without putting some study into a few specific lines; however, there is a lot of free content online that you may surf, especially the Saint Louis Chess Club channel contains a lot of opening videos suitable for any level (according to me very thorough).
> 2 votes

# Answer
As you are probably aware of, `d4` is a totally different territory. In one word, the amount of possible replies is lower and there are also fewer move-by-move trickery, but `d4` is much more prone to transpositions, which makes it so interesting from my point of view. You'll have to know them. Some lines of the KID, Grünfeld or Benko are also very sharp of course, so be prepared.

You should obviously start with the Queen's gambit and build a repertoire for the main lines. If you have been a `c4` player already, I advise you to play the Reti, which will teach you power of transposition btw. As I've explained in another post, you can dodge sharp positions with it.

There are too much to say, so I'll advise you to see the 15 videos that Christof Sielecki did (aka Chessexplained) on `d4` repertoire for White. These are excellent, and will introduce you to the main d4 openings and ideas. Here is the introduction video to `d4` repertoire for White.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I recently switched from 1 e4 to d4 by following the repertoire book *A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White* by John Watson. It recommends 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 Nc3 against everything, so the first three moves are easy ;-)

After a while, I experienced some pitfalls and I started playing other variations as well. For example, I don't particularly like his line against the Grünfeld (exchange, Bg5, Rc1). In fact, the antidote is mentioned in one of the sidelines as an interesting idea by Svidler.

So I'm not saying all of his choices are ideal, but this book will get you started. Also, it saves a lot of time, since you'll don't want to play the other stuff anymore (1 e4, 1 Nf3, 1 c4) :-)
> 1 votes

# Answer
I've personally been stuck on the same problem when I tried to learn d4 seriously. There are many solid systems for Black, with many reasonable looking moves on both sides, and move order or transposition problems. IMO, playing opening preparation is one of the best way to memorize it, so it's frustrating when the opponent plays a valid but totally different system.

My solution for that has been to learn d4 openings from the earliest, solid enough deviations up to the longest analysed variations. I started a month ago so I haven't progressed much, but up until now I've learned a lot about BDG (Blackmar-Diemer Gambit), and I'm starting to learn about Stonewall Attack, Richter-Veresov Attack and Colle System.

The point is that this way, I can steer the game into an opening I've prepared early on, which gives me more opportunities to gain experience in it while avoiding famous Black systems. In particular, BDG covers 1... d5, and Stonewall Attack covers basically everything else. Once I've gained enough experiences with these openings, I'll move on to others that go a few plys further, and so on, eventually covering the big openings.

The problem with that approach is that it's very slow, and commits me to learn openings that didn't really interest me in the first place, even though the openings themselves are nice to play. If you want to quickly learn a famous opening, the best is probably to buy a book talking about it, study the proposed lines and positions, and then play it online while adapting to other systems Black may choose.

If you'll excuse the self-promoting, I have started a Lichess study following the method I've described, which I update every few days with new variations from books, games (including my own), and mostly computer analysis. It's very empty right now though, with only a lot of material on the BDG, but you could also start a study of your own and fill it with what you've learned through games or exploring variations.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You could also consider the Queen's Gambit ("QGD") in addition to the Catalan.

One major difference with 1. d4 is that the pawn in question is supported by the White queen, whereas with 1. e4 the pawn is not supported. So you need to study how to adjust to that at the start of play.

Also, I have heard it said that 1. d4 tends to lead to more closed positions, although I don't know enough theory to explain why, or even if that is true overall. But it is also something to look into if you are considering adding 1. d4 to your repertoire. I do know from a bit of experience that many players from the black side are lulled into thinking 1. d4 is safer, but there are plenty of examples, including the QGD and the Catalan, where White can launch devastating attacks that come seemingly out of nowhere.

Finally, I would strongly suggest that you study the Dutch Defense and anti-Dutch strategies (to the extent that there are any), because the Dutch can be a really effective counter to 1. d4.

Also, if you haven't already read it, check out *My System* by Aron Nimzowitsch. His advice on chess fundamentals has become standard, but he also relied on a hypermodern chess style that was able to make good use of 1. d4.

Good luck.
> 0 votes

# Answer
d4 is the second best initial move because it frees a Bishop and the Queen while making e5 and c5 harder, but it does not stand on a winning line. Both you and your opponent will have many chances to make losing mistakes. Choice of opening rests with White, but after about 10 moves, both will have to deal with their opponent. You must play well to avoid losing. Your opponent must play poorly before you have any chance of victory. Pick an opening you like, and you may recognize your opponent's mistakes. Several following comments recommend following d-side openings in some order or another. Pick an order that is interesting and works for you. You will achieve your maximum playing strength because of who you are and how hard you work, not because you followed someone else's path. World champions accept worthwhile instruction, but they are not limited by it. Follow your path noting what others have accomplished, but keep remembering that your accomplishment must come from inside you.
> -5 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Modern defense Benoni setup with Ne7

text:
# Question
Title: Modern defense Benoni setup with Ne7
I saw a DVD with GM Roman Dzindzichashvili, where he recommended, when white avoids the Dzindzi-Indian by playing 3. e4, that black adopt a Benoni setup but with the important difference of playing going Ne7 instead of Nf6.

```
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/pp3pbp/3p2p1/2pp4/2P1P3/5N1P/PP3PP1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 d6
5. Nf3 e6 6. h3 exd5

```

White I find this this attractive when indeed black manages to take control of the central dark squares and then play Ne7-f5-d4, I find that white with exact play can make black's position quite uncomfortable. This is especially so when white does the following: 1. When white recaptures cxd5 instead of exd5 (in the exd5 case the white king is more exposed, giving black dynamic possibilities) when the f5 square is not as definitely under white's control, certainly so when the light squared bishop goes do d3. Roman recommends black playing for an f5 break in these positions, but seems to me to be super-risky. 2. Prevent Bg4 and thus Bxf3 by playing h3 3. Going for a quick Bf4 before black gets to play Nd7, pressurizing d6 and intending e4-e5.

My questions is: Is it possible to state in general terms that when plays cxd5 and h3 and a quick Bf4 --\> play Nf6, otherwise play Ne7? Someone who has another take on this question?

# Answer
> 1 votes
After further analyzing these lines and also looking into "regular" (non 1.. g6) Benoni lines, I realize this plan of an early Bf4 is challenging to black no matter what, but I definitely feel there are lines where I would prefer my knight on f6 rather than e7. This is especially so seeing as Ne7 more or less commits black to the plan of pushing f5, and aside from the fact that white can respond with e4-e5 after which black lives on the edge, white can also simply let the black pawn on f5 remain, as below.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. h3 exd5 7. cxd5 a6 8. Nc3 b5 9. Bf4 Ne7 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O f5 12. Re1 fxe4 13. Rxe4

```

I would much rather prefer to try to stabilize the king's side and instead seek counter play on the queen's side, and in such a situation it seems preferable to have the knight on f6 rather than on e7 for two main reasons: 1. to be able to put the rook on e8, unblocked by the knight, countering e4-e5 ideas by white. 2. if white does play e4-e5, after the capture dxe5, the knight on e7 can be hit by d5-d5.

Here we see how black can expand on the queen's side and adequately meet black's central push, by a nice Qd8-c7-c5 maneuver. \[FEN ""\] 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. h3 exd5 7. cxd5 a6 8. Nc3 b5 9. Bf4 Nf6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Re8 12. Re1 c4 13. Bc2 Qc7 14. e5 dxe5 15. Nxe5 Qc5

With the knight on e7, however, this becomes much more awkward. Re8 is not included in this variation as it makes no sense, of course. Here we see how the Qd8-c7-c5 maneuver fails:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. h3 exd5 7. cxd5 a6 8. Nc3 b5 9. Bf4 Ne7 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O c4 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. e5 dxe5 14. Nxe5 Qc5 15. d6

```

To be hones, ALL these lines seem like living on the edge for black, but maybe that's the mindset one must have when playing the Benoni structures. Of course, white is likely not to play the best moves at all times and could also run into trouble.. Still, I think playing black here is much more difficult and dangerous, and certainly so when going for these Ne7 plans. I think GM Roman Dzindzichashvili oversimplified here when recommending Ne7 as simply a better option for black in these 1.. g6 lines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Like all positions in chess, it's incredibly difficult to come up with general terms and common rules for openings. The particulars of each situation must be judged separately.

That being said, the idea that Dzindzichashvili is recommending is a good one - Ne7 stays flexible (and keeps your bishop open) and allows you to quickly strike at white's center with f5 (a crucial pawn break against d5-e5 structures). As you said, this pawn break can be double edged because you are creating a critical hole in your position: e6. So only consider it if there is no chance for white to sink a knight or bishop onto e6.

Now to respond to the line you are suggesting: I would argue that this plan still works in this line as well. Moreover, striking in the center while you are castled and your opponent is not seems principled as well.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. h3 exd5 7. cxd5 Ne7 8. Nc3 (8. Bf4?? Bxb2) O-O 9. Bf4 f5!? 10. e5 dxe5 11. Bxe5 Nd7

```

I agree that you're still in a cramped position, and you obviously have to be careful about the d pawn pushing forward. But let's look at the dynamic positives here as well. The center has blown up and white still needs 2 moves to castle. You have a queenside majority that can instantly start pushing with a6-b5. And you have the ultimate blockader on d7 already setup. So there's no worries there. There are also interesting opportunities for f4 followed by Nf5. These are the types of explosive lines you are signing up for when you allow your center to gain a huge center as early as move 3.

Side note: If you truly want to trade off your light squared bishop, then your best bet is to play 5. Bg4 instead of e6.

---
Tags: opening, theory, modern-benoni, modern-defense
---


title: Custom chess (game) engine

text:
# Question
Title: Custom chess (game) engine
Is there a chess engine which you can use regardless of the game's rules? For example, I want to create my own chess version in which queen will also be able to move as knight, or just a 10x10-square version of chess. I am wondering, is there an engine in which I can put "my rules" in, and then not only it will be able to play, but also it will beat any human in that version?

I know that Stockfish is open source, but how easy would it be to edit it according to "your rules?”

If not, when it is expected to happen? I mean during the next 5 years, or after 20 years.

# Answer
Yes, there is. The FairyMax engine is quite flexible, it changes how it plays chess from a configuration text file. Please take a look at the official version:

Do you see Capablanca chess, where the board is bigger? Do you see all those variants?

Some links:

You'll need to learn how to use the file. Please ask on the Winboard forum for any further assistance (I don't think there is proper documentation, you just need to ask). Pay close attention to H.G.Muller, he is the man who did all of that.

Stockfish doesn't allow easy transition to a variant. It's still possible but you'll need to battle at the source code level. Not simple. Nothing will change unless you rewrite Stockfish from scratch. Use Winboard/Fairymax, **not** Stockfish. Winboard/Fairymax is the best variant engine available.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Just a random pointer. There is a 15-year old commercial Windows program called Zillions of Games that allows one to define arbitrary board games (using a simple scripting language), and includes an AI that plays them (or at least tries to). I have never used it myself, but a friend of mine was a fan and thought that the AI was not bad for what it did. (though surely not Stockfish-level).

The site seems to be still online, and at least the demo can be downloaded.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Fairy-Max, Sjaak II, and Nebiyu Alien all allow configuration of new variants to some extent, and already out-of-the-box support a large variety of chess variants. They can e.g. be used with the XBoard/WinBoard GUI.

Since you explicitly mentioned Stockfish, I would like to add that I recently started to develop the fork Fairy-Stockfish that is quite flexible with regard to the addition of new variants. It is still in an early stage of development, so it is not as flexible as the aforementioned alternatives yet, and the addition of new variants can not yet be done via a configuration file (UPDATE 2019/09: user-defined variants via a configuration file are supported now), but via a configuration-like file in the code. The main limitation is that only board sizes equal to or smaller than 12x10 are supported. Its main advantage is that its playing strength is quite high compared to other chess variant engines, since it is based on Stockfish. You can also play some of the variants online against it on pychess-variants.

The variant you mentioned where the queen can also move as a knight is called amazon chess and is already supported by Fairy-Stockfish. By a 10x10 version of chess, are you referring to something like Grand chess?
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not aware of any such thing existing.

To some extent it is possible to program an engine that can take custom rules. However, naturally, you would have to decide *beforehand* on what kind of customizations you want to allow: e.g. customizing the movement of pieces, the board size....

As for your second request (it will beat any human in that version), this is impossible with traditional chess engines, because they rely heavily on evaluation functions which are specific and finely tuned to the specific variant of chess. For instance (just one example), if you let the queen move like a knight it would change its material value to some unknown number.

The second part could probably be solved in alpha zero type of chess engines, but those are not available yet for the general publice, as far as I am aware.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I'm not sure if there is one already out there, but here are some issues to consider.

An engine has two main tasks: generating positions, and evaluating positions. It shouldn't be too hard in principle to create an engine that allows modifications to the rules and generates the positions; the search algorithm itself is pretty generic. The evaluation of the position is trickier since it tends to based on heuristics such as piece value, space, king safety, etc. which have been developed over the years for standard chess. The existing heuristics would likely be suboptimal for your variant, so you'd need to come up with them yourself if you don't want your engine to be too naive about strategy.

An engine such as Google AlphaZero doesn't need the heuristics because it can "discover" them by training, playing many times against itself. That would be an interesting way of implementing engines for chess variants, but I don't think it's readily available. Maybe some more lightweight machine-learning alternatives exist.

A caveat of traditional engines such as Stockfish is that they have been heavily optimized to save memory and time, and some of these optimizations might make drastic rule changes difficult. But if this is just for fun and research, a simpler, less optimized engine seems feasible and could be developed pretty quickly by a motivated programmer (shouldn't take years).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, rules, stockfish
---


title: Magnetic chess question

text:
# Question
Title: Magnetic chess question
I'm a maker and I'm doing my own chess board.

I want the board to be able to sense where are the pieces located, so my idea is to use magnetic sensors and magnetic pieces.

I would like to just ask a simple question: In the existing magnetic chess sets that one can find everywhere, is the board magnetic and the pieces just contain metal or the opposite (each piece has a magnet and the board is just a metal layer)?

Could somebody who has a magnetic chess set check?

Thanks.

# Answer
Magnetic chess sets have a metallic board and small magnets in each of the pieces.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A magnetic chess set would just be magnets in the pieces and a metal board. If you want to link it to a program to track the pieces, you'd have to track the original positions (initial setup, or later game positions), and from there you could track where pieces were, what moved, and extrapolate what piece moved. That would be a question for Code Review SE, or if there is an EE stack
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chessboards, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Exchange sacrifice to dominate black squares in Najdorf
My question is a bit ambiguous and not that specific (it wouldn't be if I could remember more details):

I'm looking for a Najdorf game played against Lazaro Bruzon (or against Lenier?) probably around 10 years ago. Black sacrificed a rook for the black-squared bishop and then black dominated all the black squares. I think white played the English attack (Be3) and black replied e5. I also remember that the rook went to c4 and then e4 to capture the bishop in e3, if I'm not wrong. Can someone help me find this game?

Thank you!

# Answer
I found it! It was Lazaro Bruzon vs Vassily Ivanchuk, 11/2005. Here's the link to the game (totally recommended!): http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1366555

Thank you for the help!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: master-games, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: In chess engines (A.I) how are the values for Piece-Square Tables for simplified evlaution function determined?
I wanted to know how are the **values for piece square table** are determined for simplified evaluation function in **chess A.I engines**

For example

Source :

https://medium.freecodecamp.org/simple-chess-ai-step-by-step-1d55a9266977

# Answer
They're mostly based on mobility, and have been modified by repeated test cases. Knights have more squares available when on the center 16 squares(8) than in the corner(2), therefore the central square have a higher value. After the computer plays many games, these values are adjusted based upon how well the pieces actually preformed on the various squares. Beginners are taught that the more centralized piece is better placed, and the computer is taught this basic rules via these tables.

**Extra table talk**: King Tropism is a table, usually written dynamically, that indicates king safety. It adds up the score of the squares around the king based upon how many times their attacked and defended.

**Chess based table**: The table being static is a poor valuation tool. The b5 square is normally a good place for the bishop. However, when there's no knight on c6, the bishop is useless on b5. In the French defense, where there's pawns on d5 and e6, the bishop is less than useless as it gives black both a target and the opportunity to exchange his bad bishop.
> 1 votes

# Answer
@Fred\_Knight Well done.

I'm addressing OP's comment to Fred.

> How are the values determined ? What method or algorithm is used to determine the values for Piece square table ? Is it some numbers based on our assumptions for a particular piece

Normally, engine authors determine the values by trial-and-error or/and parameter tuning. But, not here!

Have you notice the values are **an increment of 0.5**? They are just guesses based on simple chess understanding. The blog writer was typing in 0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,-0.5... into the table, for educational purposes.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Can a GM title be given to someone after he dies?
Can a GM title be given to someone after he dies? For example can Rashid Nezhmetdinov receive a GM title for his contribution to Chess?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Yes, it is possible. FIDE can award the title of honorary grandmaster, based on a player's past performances and/or other contributions to chess.

Most of the honorary grandmasters were still alive when they were awarded the title. However, there are two examples where the title was awarded posthumously: GM Rudolf Maric and GM Karoly Honfi.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Grandmaster (or GM) title is awarded to players who fit two criterias :

* Their ELO rating is above 2500.
* They have achieved 3 GM norms. A GM norm is achieved when a performance of 2600 is reached at the end of the tournament. Moreover, all tournaments don't qualify for GM norms : there must be at least 3 GMs in attendance with a minimum rating of 2200, the tournament must allow for at least 120 mins of thinking time per match (including increments), there must be a FIDE referee, etc...

The title of International Master (or IM), Women Grandmaster (WGM) and Women Internation Master (WIM) are also obtained through a similar process, though the level required is lower. For instance, the required ELO rating for an IM title is of 2400.

More details can be found in the FIDE handbook, in particular in sections 1.4 though 1.7.

So, to answer your question, the title cannot be given posthumously if the person hasn't achieved these results during their lifetime, no matter how much they contributed to the game of chess. It's hard to believe a dead person would make a GM norm.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is a small chance that a person did qualify but died before FIDE made it official. Although Umlin gave the standard answer for how to achieve the GM title, there is an exceptions. Winning a championship tournament, such as Senior World or even u18, gives you an automatic GM title. This is to ensure that a GM always wins the tournament. (It would look silly for an untitled player to win such a strong tournament.)

---
Tags: grandmaster, titles
---


title: Kings gambit for white

text:
# Question
Title: Kings gambit for white
I'm just a beginner at chess and am just starting to get into the king's gambit but there seems not to be much information on this line probably because I'm not very good and the same with my opposition. I'm used to this line

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. f4 exf4
3. Nf3 g5

```

and so on but recently I have been running into this

```
 [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. f4 exf4
3. Nf3 Nc6

```

I have run through this on Stockfish but I'm curious if anyone could explain the theory behind the next move.

# Answer
I remember reading about it in an old Chessbase Magazine edition (circa 2010 I believe). They examined a game where White played `Bb5` at the right time, pinning the Knight then later exchanging it for weak queenside pawns, kinda like in the Ruy Lopez. I've used this idea fairly often, at least it's another option to `Bc4`, the normal development move that might later run into `...Be6` in this case, and it's not like exchanging and playing on the queenside is forced then.

If Black also develops their `f8` Bishop, `c3` and `b4` also take space on the queenside, threatens `b5` to kick the `c6` Knight, and restrict both the Bishop and the Knight's activity.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with taking the center with `4.d4`. As the `f1` Bishop might want to go to `b5` later, the first question to answer is how should the queenside be developed? `c3` reinforces `d4` and allows a `Qb3-Bc4` battery, but `Nc3` brings the Knight to a more active position (controls `d5` in particular) than `Nd2` where it would block the `c1` Bishop. Take back the pawn with `Bxf4` at some point (if `...g5`, `h4`), and at this point, it should be clear where your light-squared Bishop can or should go.

At that point, White has completed development and has the center, whereas Black has trouble finding active play for his pieces. White should have a slight, lasting advantage, which should be converted in the long term. The rest is up to what themes you want to play around, but keep in mind the `Bb5` idea.
> 1 votes

# Answer
https://drive.google.com/open?id=12b2b-36pMWDd7fQHSCCEvXf1cGOV7ddK is an excerpt from McDonald's book "King's Gambit". There are two lines which are suggested.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I would strongly suggest that you consider 3.Bc4 instead of 3.Nf3. Do not be afraid of Black's queen check, you will simply move your king to f1. This is how Fischer played the King's Gambit. IM Timothy Taylor recently published a book on the King's Bishop's Gambit, if you can get a copy.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: beginner, kings-gambit
---


title: When should I take on c4?

text:
# Question
Title: When should I take on c4?
I always encounter such a position:

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[StartPly "11"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. h3 Nf6 4. e3 Be7 5. Bd3 O-O 6. c4 Nbd7 7. c5 c6 8. b4 b6 9. Bd2 a5 10. bxa5 bxa5 11. O-O Ne4 12. Bxe4 dxe4 13. Nh2 Nf6 14. Qe1 a4 15. Bb4 Ba6 16. Nc3 Bxf1 17. Nxf1 Rb8 18. a3 Ra8 19. Qd1 Qc7 20. Nxa4 Rfd8 21. Nb6 Ra7 22. Nd2 Nd5 23. Nxe4 Nxb4 24. axb4 Rxa1 25. Qxa1 f5 26. Nc3 Bf6 27. Qa2 Kf7 28. g3 g6 29. Kg2 Qb7 30. Ne2 Qc7 31. Nf4 Rb8 32. Qxe6+ Kg7 33. g4 fxg4 34. hxg4 Bxd4 35. exd4 Qxf4 36. Qd7+ Kh6 37. f3 Qd2+ 38. Kg3 Qxb4 39. Kf4 Rf8+ 40. Kg3 Qe1+ 41. Kg2 Qe2+ 42. Kg1 Rxf3 43. Qxc6 Rf1#

```

Stockfish recommends 6.. dxc4, while I played Nbd7. Why makes dxc4 better?

# Answer
It is really a matter of taste over "better". I like the tempo gain that dxc4 gives. Usually the pawn is on c4 before Bf1-d3, but when Bf1 develops, as in your game, it loses time capturing on c4. Additionally, the Bishop sucks on c4 and will likely move yet again. Black will have time to play c5 with a nice game.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I agree with Ywapom's answer. Will only add that it's better to keep the tension for a while and only take once you think white can favorably go c4-c5 or cxd5. Thus I'd prefer going ...c5 first and only later taking on c4.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you're going to take on c4, wait until White's moved his light-squared bishop. This forces White to waste a tempo taking back since he'll be moving the bishop twice. So in that position, what Stockfish says to do is fine. After taking, you'd aim to follow up with ...c5 soon, with the aim of liquidating the centre.

That being said, you don't have to take on c4 in the first place. Another move in the position you posted is playing 6...b6, stopping any c5 ideas from White and preparing to push ...c5 yourself. A sample line:

6...b6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.b3 c5! with a level position.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Experience of big difference between Elo and national rating?
I was just wondering if others have experienced big differences between players Elo and their national rating?

Currently I am playing a tournament outside of my own country. The tournament is Elo rated and expected scores etc are of course then based on Elo. My own Elo is very close my my national rating, around 2050 both of them.

However, in this tournament, a big swiss, I mostly face players around 1600-1700 Elo and they play incredible strong for such a rating.

After the games I ask what their national rating is, and for all of them it's around 2000-2100, which makes more sense. But then the expected scores that are calculated using Elo is hugely in favour of them. It seems the Elo system, is not really accurate in this situation.

Have other people experienced such a huge difference between national and Elo rating? For one opponent the difference was even around 600!

I guess this situation occurs because very few tournaments in this country are Elo rated leading to the two ratings to be wildly out of sync.

Unfortunately, for me this has the effect of pretty much being mathematical doomed to lose a lot of rating in such a tournament.

# Answer
As you suspect this can easily happen, if only very few tournaments are Elo rated, and the players are still developing in strength. The problem is often exacerbated by the lower k-factor in Elo, which means that Elo changes more slowly.

Despite not really being an up and coming player anymore, my Elo is still catching up to where it should be according to my national rating and, alas, I expect that to continue for quite some time.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It depends on how many FIDE rated tournaments are in one's area. What I've found is most of my opponents (and me myself) have ELO/FIDE ratings roughly 100-150 points below their national ratings. If an area has enough FIDE-rated tournaments, then ELO is generally regarded as the "true level" of a player. For your case, ELO ratings should be taken with a grain of salt due to the lack of FIDE-rated tournaments.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: Bishop's opening - avoiding positional lines as Black after 2...Nf6 3. d3
I'm currently experimenting `1...e5` against `1.e4` aiming at the Petrov but I sometimes encounter Bishop's opening `2. Fc4` to which I reply `2...Nf6`.

If White play `3. Nc3`, I have some ideas, but if they play `3.d3`, it's another story since after `3...Nc6`, White can play `4.Nf3` that leads to a positional Two Knight's. And playing `3...Bc5` leads to a Guoco Pianissimo which I want to avoid at all cost.

Are there some interesting lines here for Black considering the above ? Even if it's slighty inferior. Thanks

```
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/5n2/4p3/2B1P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 3

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
3...c6 is in my opinion by far the best move here. Usually white would continue with something like 4.Nf3 Be7 5.O-O (5.Nxe5 Qa5+) d6. 5...d6 is a more solid choice but 5...d5 is another option if you want to blast open the center quicker. For a nice game with 5...d6 played, take a careful look through Gelfand - Yusupov, Munich 1994.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The typical response is 3...c6, and eventually ... d5. With the nice pawn center and active pieces you can certainly get something sharp/tactical from that.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would play d5 in this position. It attacks white's center and gives you a lead in development. The only problem is that it's the reverse Scotch Opening, which means the more aggressive Max Lange Attack isn't possible.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Your best bet is playing 3...c6. It typically leads to unbalanced positions, and is objectively fine for Black. Your plan is to push ...d5, posing White with problems in the centre. A sample line:

3...c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Nxd7, and Black is completely fine.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Don't be fooled by the 3...c6 answers. 3...c6 4.Bb3 d5 5.Qe2 and Black is not mixing it up. If you want to avoid slow play strike immediately with 3...d5

---
Tags: opening, bishops-opening
---


# Question
Title: How is it possible that the Lomonosov-endgame-tablebase from 2012 still is the most powerful tablebase?
Due to Wikipedia: Endgame tablebase the Lomonosov endgame tablebase is still the biggest tablebase (with a size of 140TB). Now this tablebase was computed in the year 2012 with the Lomonosov 1 (Top500-list November 2012, rank 26). The Lomonosov 1 had 78.660 cores with ~900 TFlop/s (peak: 1.700 TFlop/s). When I have a look on the most recent Top500-List (June 2016) I see that the Lomonosov 2 is ranked 41 in the world with ~2.100 TFlop/s (peak: ~2.900 TFlop/s), the No1-ranked super-computer has 93.000 TFlop/s.

So I wonder why the Lomonosov-tablebase after 4 years still is the biggest tablebase. Shouldn't it be easy with the growing computer-power to calculate an 8-men-tablebase? Or is the step from 7 to 8 just too big? Maybe the size would go up exponentially so that standard-storage-systems just cannot handle this? Would appreciate all information about this theme.

# Answer
I am a developer currently working on software to compute endgame tablebases. The real bottleneck with calculating positions is not memory per se but the working memory and computing cycles needed to calculate a network for an exponentially-growing set of positions.

The number of positions grows exponentially according to the number of men on the board; this means that the working memory needed (whether it be RAM or hard drive reads, which are less expensive and more scalable but significantly slower) increases proportionately to `A^N` where `A` is a scaling constant (somewhat less than 64) and `N` is the number of men in the tablebase. The Lomonosov Supercomputer used 92 TiB of RAM, which is sufficient for a 7-man tablebase; as dfan said in his comment, the jump is too big.

Furthermore, as more nodes are added to the tablebase the number of calculations increases faster than linearly to the number of nodes. For instance, accessing data in a Binary Search Tree (BST) is proportional to `ln(M)` where `M` is the number of nodes in the tree; since `M = A^N`, to access each node of the tree once, `A^N * ln(A^N)` operations are needed. There are several steps in the tablebase retrograde evaluation algorithm that scale similarly.

In short, memory increases exponentially and the number of operations increases *faster than exponentially* as more men are added. Computing has not advanced this far in (at the time of writing) 6 years.

## Edit

Since this answer is getting a lot of traffic and I re-read my answer, I feel the need to add some clarification. Endgame tablebases are created with retrograde analysis, so deterministically calculating the outcome of one position requires knowledge of enough possible successor positions. As we know, this graph mushrooms quickly. While retrograde analysis is definitely parallelizable, one needs an enormous amount of working memory. However, it is common practice to allocate only 10s of GB of RAM to a single processor, so positions must be communicated over a network. This would require a lot of bandwidth, and multiple processors contending to make changes to the same table state would create synchronization problems that add overhead. Positions must be stored in RAM because disk read latency is horrendous (on the order of milliseconds instead of nanoseconds for cache or microseconds for RAM). It's possible some amount of pipelining or caching could amortize poor latency, but this is still a hard problem to solve at the required scale.

Tl;dr even with a big supercomputer, modern computer architecture is not amenable to this type of problem.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I'm unable to comment as I don't have "50 reputation", but I was wondering if one could use the 7 tablebase as part of the answer for an 8 tablebase. Did they do that for the 7 tablebase?

That is, when determining the solution for 8 pieces, stop if you get to 7 pieces and just refer to the 7 tablebase. Granted, even with that it would be huge because there would still be a lot of combinations **before** getting to 7 pieces, but less than it would if you wanted to figure it out without referencing the 7 tablebase?

If the solution used a method of going in the other direction, then maybe it doesn't help?
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, tablebases
---


title: Chess players and compicated positions

text:
# Question
Title: Chess players and compicated positions
Who are the best chess players of the past and present who create complicated positions and emerge as winners?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The most famous is Tal, he had a miniature against grandmasters about twice a year. Nakamura was a great tactical player, but he now plays more conservatively.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


title: How defend against rooks in 7th rank?

text:
# Question
Title: How defend against rooks in 7th rank?
I find it hard to defend against rooks placed in 7th rank.
What are the possible defense options?
Please share your knowledge.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/p1pRR1pp/1p6/8/8/P6P/1P3PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rxg7+ Kh8
2.Rxh7+ Kg8
3.Rdg7#

```

# Answer
In general, prophylaxis can be used to prevent the rooks getting on the 7th. This is the preferred defense; common challenging moves are to contest open columns with your own rooks, or to guard the 7th rank squares with your minor pieces.

In the case that the rooks are already on the 7th, you should secure the most urgent threats (where your king is or where most of your loose material is), and then trade off rooks or go on the offensive.

Hope that helps!
> 7 votes

# Answer
You should prevent enemy "rook(s) on the seventh" at almost all costs before it happens. Once it does, you're usually doomed.

A *single* rook on the seventh is worth a pawn. Put another way, it is worthwhile for a player to sacrifice a pawn to get a rook on the seventh. The defender ought to be willing to sacrifice *back* the pawn to get the rook off the seventh, usually through exchange.

Two rooks on the seventh is even worse. They have almost absolute control of the rank. Here, you are lucky to break it up for "only" a pawn. Here, at least three or four pawns are at White's mercy.

In the diagrammed position, with two white rooks on the seventh and pawns even (for now), Black is dead lost. Black would need almost an (extra) minor piece, say a B on h6, to compensate.
> 2 votes

# Answer
This is a lost position. All black can really do is to move the rook next to his king over and delay the immediate and impending checkmate in two, however in doing this he's going to lose many of the pawns on his 7th rank and as a result the game

Edit I guess it's checkmate in three isn't it
> 1 votes

# Answer
You need to prevent rooks coming into 7th rank by exchanging them with your own rooks. When your opponent's rook is eyeing towards 7th rank you need to restrict its mobility by continuously moving your rook in front of his so that the rooks get exchanged. The old teachers say that rook on the 7th rank acts like a pig which will gobble up the pawns. Here in the picture it is two rooks on 7th Rank which means game over for black.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A king on the 6th rank and pawns that can't be collected too easily are a good countermeasure. With two rooks often it is possible to attack opponent's rook forever to protect you from the situation where there are two deadly rooks on 7th rank. And if you for example need to protect the f7 pawn in a two-rooks endgame, it is better to try to put your rook on f6 than on f8. You can counterattack f2 in such a case. And generally try to avoid scenarios with opponent that active.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The move K-h8 R-f4 could manage a Draw. In time, as the w/b pawn ratio is increased, white’s win is a likelihood.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you move, you move the King to h8 and next, you move your rook to f6.
> -2 votes

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