# Question
Title: Why did white sacrifice knight in this Nimzowitsch's 1905 game?
Saw this image in a WhatsApp group. Initially it looks attractive with a possibility of a "smothered mate", but I am unable to find out if white can really survive for several variations.

```
[FEN "6rk/1p4np/1n2p1RQ/3p2P1/rPpNq1P1/P3B2P/2P2P2/7K w - - 1 2"]

1. Nf3

```

Can someone explain the motive behind giving away the knight for free?

# Answer
White has a mating threat (Qxh7 Kxh7 Rh6#) that he couldn't execute because he was under check. On the next move Black will remove the mating threat with 1...Qxg6 or with a knight move, most probably 1...Ne8.

With his knight on d4 (after 1.f3 or 1.Kg1), White cannot counter either defense satisfactorily, e.g. 1.f3?? Qxg6 and he can resign. However, the beautiful unguarded guard 1.Nf3!! gives him two more resources: the knight can jump to e5 aiming at a smothered mate from f7, and the bishop gains access to the long diagonal from d4.

Concretely:

1.Nf3! Qxf3 2.Kh2 Ne8 (2...Qxg6 is not possible anymore; if 2...Qe4 3.Qxh7 Kxh7 4.Rh6#) 3.Bd4 Rg7 (3...Ng7 4.Qxh7 Kxh7 5.Rh6#) 4.Rxg7+-

1.Nf3! Qxg6 2.Ne5!! Qe8 (2...Qxh6 3.Nf7#) 3.g6 Qxg6 (otherwise 4.Qxh7#) 4.Nxg6#

1.Nf3! Qxg6 2.Ne5!! Qe4 3.f3 Qxe5 (otherwise 4.Nf7#) 4.g6 Qa1 5.Kg2 followed by Qh7#

1.Nf3! Ne8 2.Bd4+-

White wins in all cases. Very nice combination.
> 21 votes

---
Tags: analysis, check, sacrifice, famous-moves, aaron-nimzowitsch
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of Viswanathan Anand vs Vladimir Kramnik in the 2013 Zurich Chess Challenge?
I was taking a look at the game between Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik in the 2013 Zurich Chess Challenge which can be found here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1711735. A few things sparked my interest, one being that I have been practicing the Ruy Lopez, so it was nice to see it played and to put it nicely, Kramnik got spanked, so I was trying to do some analysis on my own, but I am not sure that my analysis is correct and there were some moves that were not immediately clear to me. Here is the complete game with my analysis questions below:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Result "1-0"]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. O-O Re8
 8. Nc4 Nd7 9. Kh1 a5 10. a4 b6 11. Be3 Bb4 12. Nfd2 b5 13. axb5 cxb5 14. c3 bxc4
15. cxb4 cxd3 16. bxa5 Ba6 17. Qb3 Nf6 18. h3 Nh5 19. Rfc1 Nf4 20. Rc6 Ne2 21. Qd5 Qb8
22. Rxa6 Rxa6 23. Qxd3 Qxb2 24. Rb1 Rd6 25. Qxe2 Qa2 26. Qb5 c6 27. Qb2

```
1. Why was `5.Bxc6` played? Was the c6 Knight strong at this point and would this be an even trade? Basically, why did Anand trade his light-squared Bishop?
2. I always hear that you should capture toward the center, so was there a reason why Kramnik played `5..dxc6` instead of `5...bxc6`? I know `5...dxc6` opens up the file for the black Queen, but that is all I see.
3. Is the point of `6. Nbd2` to develop a piece and to add another defender to the e4 square?
4. On move 9, Anand played `9. Kh1`, but I did not see his King in immediate danger. I only saw that his f2 pawn was pinned by the bishop, so is it common practice to move your King away from pins or similar situations even if they are not in immediate danger?
5. I don't see the point of `9...a5`. I see that it prevents `10. b4`. Anand followed up with `10. a4` and I see this prevents `10...b5`, but couldn't have Kramnik just played `9...b5` initially?
6. Apparently Anand sees his dark squared bishop not as strong and wants to trade it with Kramnik's dark-squared bishop with the move `11. Be3`, but Kramnik wants no part of this and rejects the trade with `11...Bb4`. Can someone elaborate on why Anand wants to trade bishops here and if it was good or bad for Kramnik to reject the trade?
7. I don't get the move `12. Nfd2` except that it adds a defender to c4 and e4?
8. `22. Rxa6` surprised me as a beginner. To me it looks like Anand is just giving away his Rook for a Bishop? The only thing I see is that if Kramnik captures which I believe he did with `22...Rxa6`, it removes the guard of the d3 pawn allowing Anand to make a skewer (is that what this is called?) with `23. Qxd3`. Was my analysis correct?
9. `26. Qb5` threatens mate, but Kramnik stops this with `c6`. Anand follows up with `27. Qb2` and Kramnik resigned, but it is not immediately apparent to me why he resigned? It still looks like it could have been a draw if Kramnik decided to fight it out. What is the continuation that I am not seeing?

Disclaimer: I am a beginner and all answers on this are very much appreciated, so my analysis might not be correct, hence my reason for asking. In particular, my last question about why Kramnik resigned is one that may be apparent to some, but to beginner's it is not, so an answer such as "Black knew he was losing" is not sufficient. I only mention this because I have asked a similar question before and that is the response I got. All I am asking for on the last question is a possible continuation.

# Answer
I'm no pro but I can offer my (potentially incorrect) thoughts.

> I always hear that you should capture toward the center, so was there a reason why Kramnik played 5..dxc6 instead of 5...bxc6? I know 5...dxc6 opens up the file for the black Queen, but that is all I see.

Black gains development of both the queen AND the bishop. It's a free tempi which is important in the early game. I personally choose that much more often than taking with the Knight's pawn.

> Is the point of 6. Nbd2 to develop a piece and to add another defender to the e4 square?

Doubt it for e4 nothings bugging that square for a while. I think he wanted to attack e5 or just develop the knight in a fashion where the black bishop couldn't exchange for it?

> Apparently Anand sees his dark squared bishop not as strong and wants to trade it withKramnik's dark-squared bishop with the move 11. Be3, but Kramnik wants no part of this and rejects the trade with 11...Bb4. Can someone elaborate on why Anand wants to trade bishops here and if it was good or bad for Kramnik to reject the trade?

I can provide two reasons. If Kramnik takes then white gets to open the file for the rook and has an extra pawn to cover the center. If Kramnik allows Anand to take he has a triple pawn stack. He doesn't like either scenario so flees.

> I don't get the move 12. Nfd2 except that it adds a defender to c4 and e4?

Blocks the bishop pressure on D1, allows white to pressure king side threatening the development of the King's Bishop pawn (which possibly explains the king move as well if he was intending to do that for a while) and the queen.

> 1. Rxa6 surprised me as a beginner.... Was my analysis correct?

I think so. I'm thinking its the game winning move. It's a fork btw. A skewer is like a pin but the piece of greater value is the first attacked in the line.

The resignation might be to do with his lack of options for dealing with the A pawn. He can't immediately take it due to the potential fork by the knight and white has options to both push and defend it. The only long term solution is to blockade it with one of his pieces and all his pieces are expensive. A blockade would then leave him with a queen and a rook against a queen a rook and either a bishop or a knight on the rest of the board.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I don't know why it doesn't have a well-defined answer yet. There's already another answer but there's some information missing (from my perspective). And the link given in the question's comment is invalid now (maybe you can check out on archive.org). *the analysis might be helpful for intermediate players*

> Why was 5.Bxc6 played? Was the c6 Knight strong at this point and would this be an even trade? Basically, why did Anand trade his light-squared Bishop?

My first impression was, maybe he wanted some imbalances. And Bxc6 makes the e5 pawn vulnerable. Lastly, Bxc6 sort of "destroys" the pawn structure. At grandmaster level most of the time, symmetrical pawn structures is likely to be drawn.

> I always hear that you should capture toward the center, so was there a reason why Kramnik played 5..dxc6 instead of 5...bxc6? I know 5...dxc6 opens up the file for the black Queen, but that is all I see.

Both moves are ok. But bxc6 makes the a7 pawn weak. And dxc6 is better cause it develops the queen and preparing to develop the bishop. What you stated is also good. Central-pawn advantage is good. Maybe, Kramnik didn't want any kind of weakness in his position. (I believe, in that position 99.99% times grandmasters likely to play dxc6)

> Is the point of 6. Nbd2 to develop a piece and to add another defender to the e4 square?

Nah. e4 and c4 has no problem. don't look at the position as one mover. Look at where the knight is heading to. Vishy noticed e4 pawn is vulnerable if he attacks the pawn then Kramnik will have to defend (Nd7 made the knight passive). I think Bd6 was another alternative better option or perhaps Kramnik wanted to to use the bishop as attacker. And both move are good also.

> On move 9, Anand played 9. Kh1, but I did not see his King in immediate danger. I only saw that his f2 pawn was pinned by the bishop, so is it common practice to move your King away from pins or similar situations even if they are not in immediate danger?

You again thought it as one-mover. I do it most of the time. If anyone asked me why did you play Kh1? Simple answer : Preparing f4 some moves later (if I can execute my plan. Or in some cases, you have to change your plan)

> I don't see the point of 9...a5. I see that it prevents 10. b4. Anand followed up with 10. a4 and I see this prevents 10...b5, but couldn't have Kramnik just played 9...b5 initially?

You might see the move most of the time in Ruy-Lopez (A.K.A Spanish opening) or Italian game. Also simple answer : gaining some spaces on the queenside. And a4 wasn't played to prevent b5. You might notice that c6 pawn is protecting the b5 square so pawn b2-b5 was still possible on the next move. But he didn't play it out cause a5 pawn would hang (Knight and rook looking at the pawn)

> Apparently Anand sees his dark squared bishop not as strong and wants to trade it with Kramnik's dark-squared bishop with the move 11. Be3, but Kramnik wants no part of this and rejects the trade with 11...Bb4. Can someone elaborate on why Anand wants to trade bishops here and if it was good or bad for Kramnik to reject the trade?

It has multipurpose. And you have understood one. Anand's bishop is not as strong as Kramnik's bishop. Secondly, he wanted to open up the f file to pressure on the f7 pawn with the rook on f1 he might even triple-stack there. And Kramnik rejected the trade for the second reason. Trading isn't also bad.

> I don't get the move 12. Nfd2 except that it adds a defender to c4 and e4?

Let's say on the black's move, black wasted a move with 12... Kh8. In that position, if you asked me why did my play Nfd2 then I will blindly reply to play f4. That was Vishy's plan. But his plan collapsed later. So he had to make a new one. His plan collapsed when knight and bishop was traded with pawns cause if you play 17. f4 then e4 pawn will be a weakness on the white's position and black might be able to win the whole the game for that only weakness.

> 22. Rxa6 surprised me as a beginner. To me it looks like Anand is just giving away his Rook for a Bishop? The only thing I see is that if Kramnik captures which I believe he did with 22...Rxa6, it removes the guard of the d3 pawn allowing Anand to make a skewer (is that what this is called?) with 23. Qxd3. Was my analysis correct?

There's nothing to be surprised. Indeed, I will indicate the move the move as great move. And it also had multi-purpose (you were looking at the position as one mover). Some moves later he got the knight also. And he calculated in his head. \*Rook takes the bishop, Rook takes the Rook, Queen takes d3 pawn (Ohh, I can see a fork on rook and knight so I can win the knight also). And rook for two minor pieces isn't bad, rather it's good for the person who has two minor pieces for the rook.

> 26. Qb5 threatens mate, but Kramnik stops this with c6. Anand follows up with 27. Qb2 and Kramnik resigned, but it is not immediately apparent to me why he resigned? It still looks like it could have been a draw if Kramnik decided to fight it out. What is the continuation that I am not seeing?

Your last question. What can you see in the position? White has a passed pawn. which is 3 squares away from promoting. Can black stop it? Perhaps, 17... Qxa5 18. Nc4 {ouch, a fork}. After trading the queen black can try to block the pawn but what has 3 pieces? When black tries to stop the pawn with those two pieces then white will use other two pieces to defend the pawn and another piece will do other things (like attacking. targeting pawns.) So, Vladimir Kramnik resigned. But if you are rated below 1500, then there's chance to draw the position even win.

**A question from me**

> Why didn't Kramnik trade the queen on move 21... Qxd5 ?

It really surprised me when I was looking at the moves. I thought if Kramnik traded the Queen than he might have some advantage cause there's no Rxa6 anymore. And black's pawn can be used to guard the d3 pawn. Look at the beautiful lady knight (horse :D) on e2. It's so much powerful than rook And black will also have connected-passed pawn (white will try to break the pawn chain for sure). Though engine thinks, the position is draw despite having the beautiful knight and connected-passed-pawn (not yet) (Perhaps, it could be draw at grandmaster level). I wonder how many people below 2000 can draw the position as white. Apparently, the move Kramnik played turns out to be a blunder.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, anand, kramnik
---


# Question
Title: Any serious material on the Fantasy Variation against Caro-Kann?
I know this opening is not that much played at club+ level but I'm really interested in this somewhat unconventionnal response to the Caro-Kann defense.

Where can I find decent material (no Youtube videos)? There does not seem to be a course on Chessable although one may be in writing from what I know.

# Answer
**Are there serious materials about the Fantasy variation for White?**

There are serious materials in different media formats, e.g.

* The Extreme Caro-Kann: Attacking Black with 3.f3 (book by Alexei Bezgodov)
* video courses by GMs (not random Youtube-Videos), for example this one by GM Ivanchuk
* Alex Banzeas Ambush 1.e4 Chessable course, which does not only cover the Fantasy variation against the Caro-Kann, but a similarly interesting and very tricky sideline against the French: the Schlechter variation.

\[**EDIT**: OP originally asked for opinions about the Fantasy variation, but that part got deleted from the question after a moderation. I decided to keep the following part as it is backed by statistics and engine evaluations.\]

**What is my opinion of the Fantasy variation as a Caro-Kann player?**

* it's generally underrated and absolutely playable for White
* it has surprise value (most opponents will know 8-10 moves or less)
* its practical value is much higher than its objective value. Maybe White can hope for a tiny advantage, but if Black finds good moves it is White who needs to be precise to keep it and not become worse. The practical value lies in the fact that the good moves for Black aren't always easy to find OTB and Black can quickly come under fire after a mistake, especially if they are foolish enough to play 3. ..dxe4 without knowing the theory well.
* takes Black out of his known structures and therefore comfort zone (club level)

**However**, for every play style and type of Caro-Kann player, there is a line that suits him. The **ultra-solid** ones will play 3. ..e6 and not let you have any crazy fun (this is also the most frequently played move on master level). The most **principled** ones will take and follow up with a quick e5, destroying White's center. This is probably the best variation for Black (and recommended by GM Erwin L'Ami) , but not the most practical one, as Black needs to know a little. As soon as you follow theory only for 6 moves (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3 dxe4 4. fxe4 e5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bc4 Nd7), Black already wins 53% of the games vs. White's 41% on club level (lichess DB 2000+) and scores very well on master level. I play the very **practical** and still objectively good 3. ..Qb6 where Black already wins more games than White on all levels (incl. masters). Looking at my own games, I have a score of 65% against the fantasy, so it's hardly a line I need to be afraid of.

**What is better than the Fantasy?**

Let's compare the Fantasy variation with other sharp lines against the Caro-Kann. There is the **Panov attack** ( that objectively does not promise White anything but does offer attacking chances. I think the lines do not differ much both in objective and practical value. However, the Panov with 5. Nc3 is definitely more challenging than the alternative 5. Bg5 and scores well against me.

If you were to choose one of both variations as your main weapon, I would rather choose the Panov than the Fantasy variation. In the Panov, White makes sure the center opens up and develops some initiative. The line is more "solid" than the Fantasy and scores well both on amateur and master levels. Also, you'll gain experience with a very important structure (IQP), deepening your chess understanding.

Then there is the **advance variation** which is one of the objectively best ways to fight the Caro-Kann defense. Contrary to both previously mentioned lines, **White does not need to make any positional concessions** and keeps a healthy advantage. There are two sub-variations that come to mind: the Short variation (main line of the advance!) and the Tal variation with an early h4.

Especially lines where White sacrifices the pawn on b2 can become wild and exciting and very sharp. Black needs to be very careful, keep move orders in mind and is constantly under pressure. Most of the time, Black is advised to refrain from taking on b2, due to the excellent compensation White gets for the pawn and the precision that is needed from Black afterward. However, Black cannot always avoid taking on b2:

```
     [FEN ""]
     1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 Qb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. O-O Qxb2 {Black is more or less forced to accept the pawn, leading to very forcing play.}

```

Play becomes very forcing and if Black doesn't know his theory, he can get into trouble. This is the objectively best way to put Black under serious pressure who can go wrong easily.

If you are very ambitious, you might consider playing the advance variation as your main line and use the Fantasy as a surprise alternative/blitz weapon. If you want to cut down on theory, you can of course also play the other lines. Just try them online and find out what you like best.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


title: Most "heavy" model mate in a game

text:
# Question
Title: Most "heavy" model mate in a game
A model mate, to recall, is a mate where

* a) any flight (including the standing place) of the enemy king is attacked exactly once;
* b) no friendly piece (except king and pawns) idles around.
* c) (Complicated) Exemptions are made for pins.

Just for fun, an own game as example:

```
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c6 4.b3 Bf5 5.Bb2 Nbd7 6.d3 h6 7.O-O e6 8.c4 Bc5 9.Nbd2 O-O 10.Qe1 Bh7 11.e4 dxe4 12.dxe4 e5 13.Qe2 Re8 14.Nh4 Qb6 15.a3 a5 16.Rab1 Bd4 17.Rfd1 Nf8 18.Bxd4 exd4 19.Qd3 c5 20.Nf5 g6 21.Nh4 N8d7 22.f4 g5 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.Nf5 Bxf5 25.exf5 Ne5 26.Qf1 Nfg4 27.Re1 Qh6 28.h3 Ne3 29.Qe2 g4 30.h4 Nxf5 31.Ne4 Ne3 32.Bh1 Ra6 33.Nxc5 Rf6 34.Ne4 Nf3+ 35.Bxf3 Rxf3 36.Qd3 Rxe4 37.Qxe4 Rxg3+ 38.Kf2 Qf4+ 0-1 (39.Qxf4 Rg2# model)

```

I now look for the game with most pieces in the end position. (I'm willing to bet it's the Immortal Game, 23 remaining pieces.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here is a nice game I played in the Austrian attack against the Pirc defense with White. Counting pawns as pieces here, there are **32** remaining pieces!

```
        [FEN ""]
        1. e4 {Best by test} d6 {The Pirc defense} 2. d4 {the best move} Nf6 {theory} 3. Nc3 {theory} g6 {theory} 4. f4 {the Austrian attack is on the board!} Bg7 {theory} 5. Nf3 {theory} Nc6 {The first rare move, but my opponent cannot get me out of book that easily!} 6. Be3 e6 {another rare move} 7. Be2 Ne7 8. h3 b6 {still following Tzermiadianos-Nikolaidis} 9. O-O {the first novelty} Kd7 {does my opponent want to troll me?} 10. Qe1 Kc6 11. Qg3 Neg8 12. f5 Nh6 13. e5 Bb7 14. Rad1 Qd7 15. Bg5 Rad8 16. d5+ Kc5 17. Bd3 Rhe8 18. Nd4 Nhg8 19. Nc6 a5 20. Ne7 Kd4 21. Qh2 a4 22. Nb1 a3 23. Rf3 Ba8 24. b4 Bb7 25. b5 Ba8 26. c4 Bb7 27. c5 Nh6 28. Be3# {a beautiful model mate}

```

You may potentially have noticed, that this game might not have been played in a serious tournament ;) This is because I did not only play White but Black as well, as you didn't specify in your question which game source you accept.

Therefore, I consider this a totally valid answer that cannot be beaten!

It took me some time to compose. In the solution process, I proved that each heaviest model mate needs 8 participating pieces (pawns are excluded), and requires a promotion (which in turn requires a capture, reducing the number of stones on the board). Therefore, there does not exist an even more heavier/beautiful model mate (as measured by participating pieces) in the set of heaviest model mate games (as measured in the total number of pieces + pawns at the end of game).

Edit: In the proofs, I didn't consider any pin exemptions, but only what I got as a definition from Hauke's question.

---
Tags: checkmate, records, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Term to distinguish between two categories of illegal positions
Consider these two categories of illegal positions. First, e.g.:

* Not having exactly one King of each color
* Both Kings being in check
* Pawns on the first or eighth ranks

Second, e.g.:

* Having more than 8 Pawns of the same color
* Having doubled Pawns without the opponent missing any pieces
* Two Knights giving check at the same time

In the first category, the problem with the position is severe enough that it prevents normal gameplay from continuing (e.g., the victory condition is no longer clear, you might try to capture your opponent's King, and the rules don't define how those Pawns could move). In the second category, while an illegal move must have been made to get there in the first place, nothing would go wrong if you tried to continue a game from there. Chess software seems to make this distinction too: https://lichess.org/editor will gray out "Analysis board" and "Study" for the first category but not the second. Is there an accepted terminology to distinguish between these cases, something like "prograde illegal" vs. "retrograde illegal" or "strongly illegal" vs. "weakly illegal"?

# Answer
> 2 votes
As far as the FIDE Laws of Chess are concerned there is only one type of illegal position and that is:

> 3.10.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

There is no distinction between the 6 types you give. In all cases a legal game of chess cannot be played.

That said, the Laws do give two different solutions for when that occurs, one when the moves are recorded and one when they are not.

In the case that the moves are recorded the first illegal move can be found and the position restored to that immediately prior before play continues in accordance with 7.5.1:

> 7.5.1 ... If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.

In the case that the moves are not being recorded, i.e. rapid or blitz, then the principle in the rapid rules, A.5.4, should be applied. That is the arbiter should wait for one more move to be played and then either declare the game drawn, if the position is still illegal, or allow play to continue if the illegality has resolved itself.

The arbiter should probably also refrain from explaining this before implementing it unless specifically asked since explaining could give the player on move an advantage. If the player on move is losing then it is in their interest to make a move which preserves the illegality of the position and get a draw and vice versa if the player stands better. They should strive to play a move which returns the game to a legal position if possible whilst retaining winning chances.

> A.5.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn stands on the rank furthest from its starting position, he/she shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he/she shall declare the game drawn.

---
Tags: terminology, retrograde-analysis, illegal-move
---


title: How effective are theory tables?

text:
# Question
Title: How effective are theory tables?
I'm currently 1700 ELO-rated on Chess.com and I'm interested in looking to learning some advanced opening theory to make my games more interesting.

I've been looking at theory tables, specifically, those in *Modern Chess Openings* by Nick De Firmian, however, from what I've seen and read, theory tables seem like a slow and slightly outdated method to learning openings, at least at the non-professional level.

Is it worth taking the time to learn new openings from theory tables? Should I look for other opening books, or, what other methods could I use to learn new openings?

# Answer
Don't learn openings using theory tables. It's painful and ineffective. Also, it is very helpful to read the analysis and explanations of strong chess players. This will help to understand the positions and therefore to remember the moves. This means, that you should have a book (printed or in a digital pgn format that you get from e.g. Everyman Chess) or a video course (e.g. from ChessMood, but there are many others).

The most modern (and probably best) way of learning chess openings is to use a **combination of instruction** (e.g. book, video or pgn annotation) **and spaced repetition training** (scientific state-of-the-art to learn something by heart). Spaced repetition in a nutshell: you **repeat positions, that you get wrong, more frequently** than positions that you get right. The more often you get something right, the further the next repetition of that position is scheduled into the future. This leads to **more effective use of your time and better memory retention**. The most basic (and likely already sufficient) type is the Leitner system, but with the help of computers much more complex algorithms called SuperMemo are possible, the newest being SM-18.

The leading platform is Chessable, where you can read chess books with explanations from strong players in a digital format (with optional video instruction). After learning the variation, the software lets you train the moves by giving you a position from the book and asking for the correct continuation. The positions will be scheduled according to their implementation of a spaced repetition algorithm. The (only real) disadvantage is, that you cannot get the variations out of Chessable, e.g. to analyze them in your ChessBase, everything will be online. You also cannot modify courses, but you can upload and create your own (with the modified variations). Also, you will need to buy the books again, even if you already have the hard copy. There are many free courses called Short&Sweet where you have a selection of important variations from a paid course, often enabling you to try the opening in your online games before buying the full opening course. I have learnt a lot from Chessable and they have many great courses and authors.

The main alternatives to using ready-made repertoires on Chessable are to

1. analyze openings yourself / create your own opening repertoire in a pgn (helpful tools are an engine (obviously), as well as the ChessBase Mega DataBase or the free lichess opening explorer to see how well certain moves perform at what level)
2. transfer the variations from a book or a video into a digital pgn format

and subsequently putting them into a spaced repetition chess position trainer. As an online solution that works very similarly to Chessable, I recommend (and use) the ChessTempo opening trainer. An alternative is LiStudy. You can also use Chessable for own repertoires, but the number of self-created courses is limited if you do not get the paid Pro-Membership.

As an offline solution, there is the Chess Position Trainer. The drawback is, that their mobile apps are still in development and you can currently only use it on your (Windows) PC.

If you have your opening repertoire in a pgn format, you can also use the opening trainer of ChessBase (or alternatives such as SCID), but to my knowledge, they lack a spaced repetition feature at this moment (even though I'm confident ChessBase plans something in that regard).
> 6 votes

# Answer
Opening theory tables are an outdated, more cumbersome way to find the information you can get on an opening explorer. Don't use them except maybe for historical purposes.

Learning a new opening involves much more than learning a set of lines, so your best option is probably to get a book covering them while also providing illustrative games that can teach you the most common middlegame themes arising from that opening.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Against the advice given up to now, Opening Theory Tables, are a good reference work. But you have to use your criteria.

1. A database tree of moves, does not substitute a Theory Table.
2. A theory table rarely show transpositions that went to the table you are seeing. But, you will find notes of transpositions to lines within same table or to other tables.
3. Usually, the exposed lines reflects the criteria at the epoch in which were written. That's does not mean that are antique theory. The Sicilian had existed since four centuries ago. But it is not unusual to read that some player reused old lines to get a surprise weapon.
4. A curated tree based on first order games, of course that take account of transpositions. It must be consulted if you can, specially if playing postal chess.
5. If you want to learn an opening, a theory table is the last place you should place your eyes. Look for a general monograph.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: Farming: Is it unethical to gain rating by playing against only weaker players?
I like to win games, and I like to gain rating. I want to do this as much as possible without breaking any of the explicit rules. So a fortiori no engines or external assistance and no creating accounts or hiring people to lose to me deliberately.

Afaik, it's not against the rules in chesscom or lichess to keep on deliberately private challenging people lower rated or much lower rated than you. If there's any such rule I may have missed, then please feel free to correct me.

**Question**: Assuming it's not cheating (i.e. against the rules), is it perhaps unethical to do so?

I'm asking because I've been accused of 'rating manipulation' by some people eg when I do farmbitrage. But this seems pretty arbitrary.

1. If you say that I shouldn't challenge people much lower rated than me, then how much lower rated?
2. If you say that doing this 'excessively' is rating manipulation then how many can I do?

But then again maybe it's like aborting games. You can do it once a day but maybe 5x in 30 minutes will get you temporary blocked. The difference between aborting games and playing lower rated players is you get warned for aborting any game. You don't get warned for fairly winning against a lower rated player.

Note: Obviously this won't work in the long run unless you're doing something like this: Farmbitrage: Fixed starting rating for chess960 causes loophole to easily get 2000 rating in lichess? So I'm asking for the short run where you in fact do get a boost.

---

Related:

Could you raise your score arbitarily high by only playing against much weaker opponents?

What stops me from pumping up my rating by playing a 200 game match against a much weaker (\>400 point difference) player?

Why wouldn't Magnus Carlsen just farm rating points by playing weak tournaments to reach 2900 kinda like what Igors Rausis did?

* According to David, it would not be 'proper' if Magnus did this FIDE OTB.

Farming: Prevent reaching a certain rating without having beaten/drawn someone of that rating (up to a point of course)?

---

# Answer
My answer will be divided into 1) a short discussion of rating manipulation because you explicitly mention farming, farmbitrage, rating manipulation, and your liking of rating gains, 2) whether it is wrong to challenge only weaker opponents and 3) a short conclusion. The first point is also relevant, because in deontological ethics the **intention / the characteristic of the action itself** is the relevant factor for judging the morality of an action, whereas in consequentialist ethics, the **outcome** of an action is the basis for the assessment of the morality of an action.

### 1) Rating manipulation

In my view, **it is not right** to manipulate one's rating (no matter why or whether it's rating inflation or sandbagging). The rating aims to have a fair and accurate strength estimation of the players. Players use these ratings to get interesting and fairly matched games.

The main issue is that **you're impacting other players** if successfully inflating your rating. If your rating is not accurate, the rating adjustments of the affected players will also not be accurate. As you stated that you love winning, I think you can relate to people not wanting their ratings to be too high, as they will be matched with stronger opponents and therefore are less likely to win games.

Other people like to play strong opponents in order to have challenging games, and if you are rating-matched in a game, your opponent may not have a game that is as interesting as he'd like it to be.

Similar arguments can be made if the rating gets artificially decreased ("sandbagging", which in my opinion is even worse than rating inflation).

Another issue is **dishonesty**, which is also generally morally wrong (for most people, in deontological ethics). However, from a consequentialist viewpoint, it may not be that bad - provided you enjoy the numbers only for yourself and do not brag about them or use them to pretend false facts to others. If no one gets harmed, then it is OK from a consequentialist point of view.

### 2) Playing weaker opponents only

If you are playing enough games and play normally (without any assistance), then it is absolutely OK to play with weaker opponents (from the consequentialist point of view).

This is due to the rating mechanism: It is hard to inflate one's rating. Sandbagging is easy. But for lasting rating boosts, you would most likely need 1) to stop playing after reaching a high rating (and probably keep a provisional rating), or 2) to cheat in order to maintain it (I do not need to tell you that this would be another immoral thing to do).
That is because your rating will approach your "true" rating the more games are played. For each game result, your rating change will depend on the expected score, and if you for example lose against a much lower-rated opponent who is close to your actual playing strength, the rating loss will be high; but if you win the rating gain will be low. This is why the rating mechanism works and everyone is expected to get an appropriate rating with enough played games. This means, that **the rating you can gain by playing weaker opponents is capped** and therefore it does not matter whether you play strong or weak opponents - your rating adjustments take this into account.

### 3) Conclusion

If applying **deontological** ethics, it could be considered problematic (depending on the concrete moral values, e.g. regarding dishonesty or manipulation). In case your **intention** of "farming" weaker players is to increase your rating above the correct level, then this action can be considered wrong **even if not successful**! The attempt of doing something immoral cannot be moral itself (for example, it would violate Kant's categorical imperative).

If applying a **consequentialist** ethic, it is **not** unethical to (try to) gain rating by playing against only weaker players (farming) because the rating mechanism prevents adverse effects on others (i.e. a successful rating manipulation). However, if you were successfully inflating your rating the arguments from section 1) would also apply in the consequentialist framework. One way to make it more acceptable in that unlikely case would be to play in a "clique" of players who only play each other - and no one outside, so that the ratings, which may be meaningless or inaccurate do not affect other players from the public pool.

If you ask me personally, I share the latter point point of view - if it makes you happy, play weaker opponents.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The rating system is designed to be fair. Beating a lower rated player will give you a small rating increase. Drawing with them will give a small rating loss and losing to them a large rating loss. There is no guarantee that you will win. If you try and play your best game without cheating by using external sources then, of course, it is perfectly ethical for you to play whoever you want, lower rated or otherwise.

There are some obvious flaws in your question. First, lower rated does not guarantee weaker. To identify "weaker" you need to look at a lot more than just rating.

For example, our club runs an annual handicap tournament. Last year we all knew who the winner was going to be as soon as he entered. He is a young player who, like a lot of youngsters, is improving rapidly. That already gave him an advantage but to make matters worse his rating was more than a year out of date because of the lockdowns. He won, of course, and he is likely to win again this year.

Then there are GMs with YouTube channels who like to produce content and might start a new "rating run". That is where they start afresh with a new id on a chess site with a ridiculously low rating with the intention of recording and commentating on the games for their channel. Pick one of them by accident and you will just be road-kill.

Ideally to know whether your opponent is really weaker than you you will also need to know their age and playing history. A young player who hasn't played for a while is likely to be stronger than their rating. Similarly an old player (say 60+) who hasn't played for a while is going to be weaker.

If the player is winning all their games against similar or higher rated players then it is likely that their rating is a long way behind their playing strength.

The main unethical practices are using outside sources (engines, books, stronger friends, etc.) and sandbagging where you deliberately lose to lower rating enough to enter a rating-limited tournament and win prize money.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Retrograde analysis of a position in "The Flanders Panel"
Has anybody tried to verify the retrograde analysis of a game from the book "The Flanders Panel" by Pérez-Reverte? So far, I have found only a board reconstruction in a post on The Bibliographic Night Owl.

I hope to one day find time to analyze the game with Reverte's book in my hands. I wonder if anybody has analyzed it already. If so, what are the findings? Does the description of the game in the book make sense?

```
[title "The position in Van Huys's painting"]
[fen "1nb5/pp1p4/PRP5/pR6/k1K1P3/2P5/2qP1P2/1NrnQB2 w - - 0 1"]

```

Here is the analysis as described in the book.

"IT'S A REAL GAME," said Muñoz. "A bit strange, but perfectly logical. Black was the last to move." ... "The tricky question is: Who took the knight?" "You mean the white knight," said Muñoz. "There's only one left on the board." ... "Now, we've looked at the pieces actually on the board, but in order to analyse the game, it's essential to know which ones are off the board too, the pieces that have already been taken." He looked at the picture. "What's the player on the left called?" "Ferdinand of Ostenburg." "Well, Ferdinand of Ostenburg, who's playing Black, has taken the following white pieces."

"That is: a bishop, a knight and two pawns. For his part, Roger de Arras has taken the following pieces from his rival."

"That's four pawns, one rook and a bishop." Muñoz looked thoughtfully at the sketch. "When you look at the game from that point of view, White would seem to have an advantage over his opponent. But, if I've understood correctly, that's not the problem. The question is who took the white knight. Clearly it must have been one of the black pieces, which may seem to be stating the obvious, but we have to go step by step here, right from the beginning."

"This morning I reconstructed the two previous moves," he said, without a trace of boastfulness. "Then I ran into a problem. Something to do with the unusual position of the pawns." He pointed to the chess pieces in the picture. "We're not dealing with a conventional game here."

"According to the way the pieces are distributed," Muñoz went on, "and bearing in mind that Black has just moved, the first thing to find out is which of the black pieces made that last move."

"The easiest way to do that is to discount the black pieces that could not have been moved because they're blocked or because of the particular position they're in. It's clear that none of the three black pawns, on a7, b7 or d7 could have moved, because they're all in the position they occupied at the start of the game. The fourth and last pawn, on a5, couldn't have moved either, because it's between a white pawn and its own black king. We can also discount the black bishop on c8, still in its initial position, because the bishop moves diagonally and both of his two possible diagonal paths are blocked by the black pawns that have not as yet been moved. As for the black knight on b8, that wasn't moved either, because it could only have got there from a6, c6 or d7 and those three squares are already occupied by other pieces. Do you understand?"

"Perfectly," said Julia, who was leaning over the board following his explanation. "That means that six out of the ten pieces could not have moved." "More than six. The black rook on cl couldn't move, since it only moves in a straight line and its three surrounding squares are all blocked. So none of those seven black pieces could have made the last move. And we can also discount the black knight on dl." "Why?" asked César. "It could have come from squares b2 or e3." "No, it couldn't. On either of those squares, that knight would have had the white king on c4 in check; in retrograde chess that's what we might call an imaginary check. And no knight, or any other chess piece for that matter, with a king in check is going to abandon that position voluntarily; that's simply impossible. Instead of withdrawing, it would capture the enemy king, thus ending the game. Since such a situation is impossible, we can deduce that the knight on dl could not have moved either." "That," said Julia, who had kept her eyes glued to the board, "reduces the possibilities to two pieces then, doesn't it?" She put a finger on each of them. "The king and the queen." "Right. That last move could have been made only by the king or the queen." Muñoz studied the board and gestured in the direction of the black king, without actually touching it. "First, let's analyse the position of the king, which can move one square in any direction. That means he could have arrived at his present position on a4 from b4, b3 or a3 ... in theory." "Even I can see what you mean about b4 and b3," remarked César. "No king can be on a square next to another king. Isn't that right?" "Right. On b4 the black king would have been in check to the white rook, king and pawn. And on b3, he'd have been in check to rook and king. Both of which are impossible positions." "Couldn't he have come from below, from a3?" "No, never. It would then be in check to the white knight on bl, which, given its position, is clearly not a recent arrival, but must have got there several moves ago." Muñoz looked at them both. "So it's another case of imaginary check showing us that it wasn't the king that moved." "Therefore the last move," said Julia, "was made by the black queen."

# Answer
Unfortunately, I can't really speak to making 'chess sense' of the game — the position is sufficiently artificial that it's implausible for it to have arosen out of a sensible game (for instance, whatever White's move before Black's most recent Qb2-c2, they could simply have captured the Black queen instead). Instead, I'll speak to the game from a retrograde analysis perspective, and particularly the question of 'what can we necessarily say about the capture of the White Knight?'. As it turns out, the answer is 'next to nothing without any further information.' To see this, let's try and get from the position we're given to a position that's more amenable to direct analysis. First, let’s get the White pieces towards home and untangle some of the Black pieces in the process: retract Qb2-c2 (the only Black move, as noted), then WKd3-c4, BNe3-d1, WKe2-d3, BNf5-e3, WPc2-c3, BQg7-b2, WNa3-b1, BNe7-f5, WRh5-b5, BRb1-c1, WRh1-h5, BRb5-b1, WQd1-e1, BRh5-b5, WKe1-e2, BRh8-h5, WRb1-b6, BKb4-a4 (note that by Black unmoving ‘into’ check, he’s actually moving out of it!), WRa1-b1 (White is now ‘forced’ to undo the check), BKc5-b4, Wnb1-a3, BKd6-c5, WPe3-e4, BNg8-e7, WPe2-e3, BKe7-d6. This leaves us with this position:

```
[FEN "1nb3nr/pp1pk1q1/P1P5/p7/8/8/2PPPP2/RN1QKB1R w - - 0 1"]

```

From here, there are a few salient features of the position to notice:

1. White is missing two pieces (the knight of mystery and their black-squared bishop) and two pawns; Black is missing two pieces (their black-squared bishop and a rook) and four pawns.
2. Two of White’s missing units were captured by the pawn presently on a5, with the captures happening on b6 and a5. (It would appear that either these were the bishop and knight or that one of the pawns must have promoted, but this isn’t necessarily so: Black could have captured White’s b-pawn on b6, and the White pawn currently on c6 could have been the e-pawn, with the White pawn at e4 in the original position coming from g2 — it would take some effort but I think such a game could be constructed)
3. Black’s queen’s rook couldn’t have gotten out past the bishop on c8; it was captured either on a8 or b8.

Beyond these constraints, though, there’s very little restriction on the game; it’s straightforward to get to the intermediate position shown above with the missing white knight having been captured by the Black pawn on either b6 or a5, or by any of the other Black pieces (except of course the bishop on c8), including even a capture by the missing rook on either a8 or b8 — it’s even possible that *both* of the ‘original’ White Knights were captured and that the knight on the board is a promoted Knight! As an example, here’s a game leading to the intermediate position above with the White Knight having been captured by the missing Black rook:

```
[Title "Proof game"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Nf3 Na6 2.Nd4 h5 3.Nc6 h4 4.Nb8 Rxb8 5.g3 g5 6.gxh4 Bh6 7.hxg5 f6 8.gxf6 Be3 9.fxe7 Bc5 10.b4 Kf7 11.bxc5 Qf8 12.e8=N Qg7 13.Nf6 Ra8 14.Nd5 Rb8 15.Nb6 cxb6 16.Bb2 Nb4 17.Be5 Nd5 18.Bxb8 Ndf6 19.Be5 Ne7 20.Bc3 Nc6 21.a3 Rxh2 22.a4 Rh8 23.a5 Nb8 24.a6 Ng8 25.c6 Nh6 26.Ba5 bxa5 27.Rh5 Ke7 28.Rh3 Ng8 29.Rh1

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
> And we can also discount the black knight on dl." "Why?" asked César. "It could have come from squares b2 or e3." "No, it couldn't. On either of those squares, that knight would have had the white king on c4 in check; in retrograde chess that's what we might call an imaginary check. And no knight, or any other chess piece for that matter, with a king in check is going to abandon that position voluntarily; that's simply impossible. Instead of withdrawing, it would capture the enemy king, thus ending the game. Since such a situation is impossible, we can deduce that the knight on dl could not have moved either."

They neglect to consider the possibility that the knight came from e2, and was a pawn last move! White has 4 pieces off the board (a bishop, a knight, and two pawns.) Two captures were made by the a5 pawn, leaving the possibility of fxe2 (or fxe3) and exd1=N. White's h and g pawns could have promoted to anything and gone to those squares.

If further analysis of the position makes it necessary for Black to not use all his captures on this, there's also the possibility that White's d4 pawn was originally a b-pawn, and the d1 knight was Black's e-pawn instead of the f-pawn. This lets Black use one capture elsewhere.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I found a hole in the exclusion of white's last move been Rxb5: Any of the missing black pawns could have been promoted earlier (most possibly of course at g1 or h1) and reach this square in the last move. Example Qg5-b5+, Rh5xb5. I don't know if underpromotion was legal back in 1480 but if it was, we have totally 10 possible moves of a black piece to b5: 1.Qg5 2.Qf5 3.Qe5 4.Rg5 5.Rf5 6.Re5 7.Rd5 8.Rb3 9.Nc7 10.Nd4 the starting squares, b5 the ending
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis, fiction
---


# Question
Title: Chesscom's new policy allows users to choose starting rating - Benefits?
For simplicity, let's focus on just 1 time control.

In chess.com: I've previously reached a peak rating of 1360 under a starting rating of 1200. Then I stopped playing chess on chess.com for awhile (e.g., I went to lichess or chesscube or chess24 only). During this time, chess.com changed their rating policy to allow people to choose their starting rating between I think 400, 800, 1000, 1200, and 1500.

**Question: What's the benefit / point of this really over just keeping the starting rating at 1200? I see this as pointless and confusing particularly for players who started in the old policy?**

# Answer
> 3 votes
> What's the benefit / point of this really over just keeping the starting rating at 1200?

The benefits are obvious. If you pick your start rating honestly then you will get better games. For instance, my FIDE rating is just over 1700. If I choose 1500 as my start rating on Chess.com then it will match me with players who will give me a much better game than if I started at 1200. Similarly a beginner would get much better games starting with a much lower rating than 1200.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> But that applies to your 1st few games only? After 10 games, it doesn't matter anyway?

Yes, but the first 10 games matter in themselves for one reason: the first impression of the site. If a new casual player loses many games in a row to start out, they may think the site is too difficult and leave, and obviously the site wants to avoid that. Starting too high will also make their "max rating" statistic be higher than anything they could actually obtain.

> And in the long run, if there are still people like you, then why wouldn't they be harmed from choosing 1500 given that '1500' will actually be 400 points stronger than the previous '1500'?

Lowering the initial rating will, over sufficient time, cause the established players' ratings to be lower than if you hadn't lowered the initial rating. That does not, however, *necessarily* mean that the established players' ratings will be any lower than they used to be. There are various inflationary and deflationary factors; initial rating is just one of them.

> I mean in 2023, who has a FIDE rating but not an account in both chesscom and lichess?

This got me to thinking. When you create a chess site you initially get players of all strengths. But if all the strong players already have accounts because you've been a popular site for many years, wouldn't that imply that the average player making a new account now is weaker than the average player making a new account when you started the site? Especially if, say, a pandemic caused people to have a bunch of free time and a miniseries increased the popularity of chess among people who hadn't played much before? It's entirely possible that, because you're attracting a different class of player, the initial rating might have to be adjusted to keep the current players at the same level. (I do not know if this is indeed the case; only that it is possible.)

But one advantage of letting the players select is that variations in strength are somewhat accounted for. If the NYC public schools suddenly put chess in the curriculum and forced every one of their 920,000 students to make an account, the kids could set their rating to 400 or 800 and that would reduce the impact compared to if they all started at 1200.

---
Tags: rating, chess.com
---


title: What are some "quick start" openings?

text:
# Question
Title: What are some "quick start" openings?
First of all, I'm sorry if it looks like I didn't really research before asking the question, but I really did put in some effort and couldn't find a satisfying answer.

My problem is, I don't want to spend a lot of time studying openings. I don't really like the early game that much, I really just prefer to get it over with. I don't want to waste time learning a lot of theory by heart, as I'm relatively new, and I believe the biggest improvment will come from actually playing the game and not memorizing moves. Another problem is, when I'm trying to "just play", react to what the enemy does without going by any theory, I usually end up wasting tons of time against someone who knows what they're doing in their opening.

So, the question is - what are some easy, "quick-start" openings which don't require you to learn 12 different variations, which are relatively safe and prevent some early game cheese tactics that would confuse a begginer? Is there such a thing? I'm interested in both white and black openings.

Currently I am spamming the King's Indian Defense in 99% of my games, and I do enjoy it, however I'd just like to try something different, maybe something that fights for the centre a little bit more in the beggining?

They don't necesarily have to be setup openings (as in, an opening that's almost independent of what the oponent does), maybe a theory based opening that's pretty "universal" or, well, "easy" to learn?

# Answer
You are right that memorizing tons of variations will be neither very helpful nor very entertaining. However, proper "study" of chess openings is much more than just blind memorization!

The key is to learn the general principles and common patterns (strategical as well as tactical). This is what will actually enable you to "just play" in any successful way - if you totally neglect the opening phase, then it will be rather easy for your opponents to gain an advantage early on *without* a lot of memorization just by being more skilled with these patterns.

I would actually advise you to play main line openings like the Ruy Lopez or the Sicilian. Don't worry about their reputation as "theoretical", unless you have reached at least 2000 FIDE Elo. Below that level, the overwhelming majority of players will have as many blind spots in their opening knowledge as you do. Ironically, for everyone who has memorized the Poisoned Pawn Variation to move 25 or something, you will find *dozens* of others who play the London System because they "want to avoid theory" - without noticing that the one with the Black pieces is likely to have a similar mindset and won't have played a Sicilian anyways!

Playing sound and active openings (instead of systems) will be much more helpful in the long run to develop your skills.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The path to mastering the openings isn't memorising moves and variations, it's understanding why certain moves are played in specific positions, why certain moves are favoured over others.

Memorisation is a shortcut to understanding, not a replacement. There are sharp offshoots of most opening systems that mean you have to be aware of certain traps and tactics, whether that be through understanding the position, memorising the move that avoids the trap, or calculating the tactics of each position.

System-based openings are less memory intensive, for example, the King's Indian Attack as White. There are certain theory lines that require some blend of memorisation/understanding/calculation, but most of the times the opening plays itself into a fairly standard set of middle-game positions.

The basics of openings is to occupy the centre, develop pieces towards that end. The next step of openings is to control the centre (not occupy), and develop pieces to either control the centre, or reduce your opponent's control of the centre (e.g. pins, exchanges, forced retreats). The King's Indian Defence is one of the latter sets of openings, of controlling the centre, not of occupying it, it is designed to let White dictate what centre he wants, and then for Black to undermine it. You want something more immediate, so you're looking for openings based on the classical view of the centre.

If you're looking for openings that more directly occupy the centre, then the Queen's Gambit Declined (or it's Slav relatives) is the most classical of openings to occupy the centre.

Basically meeting 1.e4 with 1... e5, and 1. d4 with 1... d5 will give you Black's best approach to occupy the centre directly, and directly contest White's attempt to occupy the centre.

I'd advise sticking to mainlines of major opening systems. They are mainline because they've been tested many times at highest levels and retain their soundness.
> 4 votes

# Answer
## List of openings that you can quickly pick up (TL;DR)

1. **The Russian (Petroff) defense** (much better choice for keeping it simple than 2. ..Nc6 due to tons of theory and especially great because it directly follows the classical opening principles and gives Black a very healthy position. It is far not as boring/drawish as people think on amateur level.)
2. **System openings** (**London system**, Colle system, King's Indian attack, Hippopotamus, ...) \[**Note**: easy to pick up, but I don't recommend them\]
3. The **Caro-Kann defense**
4. The **Chebanenko-Slav**
5. The **Queen's Gambit Declined** (QGD)
6. The **Accelerated Queen's Indian defense** (hypermodern, has some similarities to the QGD and the Nimzo-Indian. **Objectively problematic** in lines where White plays f3!!)
7. Anything that IM Sielecki recommends in his **Keep it Simple series** (Rossolimo / Moscow against the Sicilian, **QGD**,...) \[**Note:** He also recommends some openings that can become theory-heavy, so you should follow his analysis to cut theory, e.g. play the Ruy Lopez with d3\]
8. **Sidelines** (e.g. Grand Prix attack against the Sicilian, Vienna opening/gambit, **(Hyper-)Accelerated Dragon** if you desperately want to play the Sicilian, etc.) There is also a Chessable series on the Sidelines approach for White by IM Banzea \[**Note:** I would always prefer less popular variations within mainlines to sidelines when trying to reduce theory\]
9. The **Scotch Game** (according to Chessmood, but in my personal experience it's a little "computerish" if you really want to squeeze out an opening advantage)

## Detailed answer

First of all, before concerning yourself with concrete opening theory, you should have a very firm understanding of **opening principles** (and follow them). This already brings you very far. Theory moves are often moves that satisfy the most (opening) principles at once. Before memorizing lines of an opening, it is also important to **understand the fundamental ideas of that opening first**. For this, you'll need to find instruction, e.g. from a book or video course, where a strong player explains the purpose of the moves you do. This also helps tremendously in memorizing them.

Now, to keep the workload of learning concrete theory of an opening low, you're looking for openings that satisfy these requirements:

1. not too many choices for the opponent
2. not too many forcing and long sharp variations (i.e. a move-order mistake shouldn't knock you out immediately, cutting the need for heavy **memorization**)
3. **overarching themes** / structures / ideas across different variations (so that you get a feeling for and understanding of the opening and related structures with clear plans, ideas, pawn breaks etc.)
4. Little diffusion, i.e. small changes in the position shouldn't have a large impact on what you need to play.
5. objectively good (e.g. doesn't give Black more than -0.3)

Naturally, **more strategic openings** with fewer forcing options lend themselves to these criteria. That means that mainline Sicilians are out of the question, as well as most hypermodern openings because the opponent has a lot of challenging options and you need to know a lot of concrete lines in order to survive.

I wouldn't sacrifice too much objective value, but you may want to look into sidelines / sidelines within mainlines because they have less theory. For example, instead of playing 1. d4 and following up with the absolute mainline 2. c4, you may play the London system. However, 1. e4 openings have a lot of advantages over 1. d4 openings for beginners (move orders, transpositions, changing of lines against Black replies), so I'd rather recommend this, even though you may need to learn a little more: it will help you to become a better chess player and have more fun.

I would generally **not** recommend Hypermodern openings, such as the King's Indian defense that you play. White has a huge variety of dangerous options (1), Black needs a lot of chess understanding and feeling for how to play closed positions (where even GMs say it's difficult and that you need years of experience to do it well). There is an incredible amount of theory to the King's Indian defense and many GM's stop playing it after some time. The king's Indian was also the first opening that I studied, and while I grasped some fundamental ideas quickly (e.g. e5, f5, c5 pawn breaks and pawn storms, a5 to develop the knight via a6 etc.) and my results weren't even too bad, I soon realized that it isn't a good opening to start out with and started to play something **much better**:

### The Chebanenko Slav

It follows the classical opening principles but is a fairly rare continuation within the Slav defense, which is one of the most frequent replies to 1. d4. GM Colovic explained all the ideas and plans very clearly, and you are aiming for a very simple setup (basically a "reversed London system"). The Chebanenko is the "purest" Slav in the sense that you'll almost always achieve that setup. And you can play that setup **against nearly everything** that White can throw at you except 1. e4.

## Chessable Quickstarter chapters

I can recommend Chessable very much for your situation because you get

1. Grandmaster explanations and therefore a better understanding of the opening
2. A **Quickstarter chapter**, where only the most important lines are selected that you need to know before you can start playing that opening. There are some openings, where you only really need as little as 13 lines to start playing them!
3. a move trainer with spaced repetition technology, so that your time and memory retention are maximized

Especially, I recommend you strongly to look at IM Sielecki's Keep it Simple series (e.g. Keep it simple for Black, Keep it Simple 1.e4 v2, etc.) where he provides you with complete opening **repertoires that satisfy the requirements** I outlined above. Each of these courses comes with a Quickstarter chapter, and his choices for example the **Caro-Kann** defense mean, that you only need to know ~13 variations to play it! This is probably one of the best and quickest openings to pick up! You can also consider IM Andras Toth's Beginner's repertoire series.

Before you buy any course, you can check CHessable's free Short&Sweet version to see whether you like the variations and to try them out in some online games.

\[I am not affiliated with Chessable in any way other than being a customer.\]
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, beginner
---


# Question
Title: I have a 400 elo rating and have lost over 900 games in chess.com. Should I give up
Should I give up chess if I lose 926 games?

I joined chess.com in 2022 and I have won 789 games and lost 926 games and I am at 392 elo.

# Answer
The underlying question, which only you can answer, is do you enjoy playing chess? If you don't actually enjoy playing the game but only get pleasure if your rating goes up then you are wasting your time and should certainly give up.

If you enjoy the game, win, lose or draw, then continue playing. I would add that playing online is sterile and impersonal. You are much more likely to enjoy your chess if you join a chess club and play in person, over-the-board chess against real people. Chess can be an enjoyable social experience as well as an intellectual challenge.
> 14 votes

# Answer
Everyone started like you. No one is born a master. I have lost many thousand games, not just 926. But I have kept playing and improving.

I totally agree with @Brian Towers that the enjoyment of the game is a very important factor to figure out whether chess is for you.

**However:** The better you become and the more you understand chess, the more beautiful and exciting it will become! (Until maybe you reach the master level when it becomes very hard work to make progress).

**It is like learning to play an instrument**. In the beginning, it may look like this (and note: this already needs practice); but after years of practice and mastery, it will look like this! In the beginning, you will not be able to play like Hillary Hahn and all the pieces that you'd like to play. But with steady practice, you will get there!

And the practice (or chess training for that matter) may not always be the most interesting (think of learning opening and endgame theory).

I would contextualize in that way @Brian Towers question ("Do you enjoy chess?") and add before that:

**Do you want to improve? Are you willing to put in a little effort to that end?**

That means: **Do you really WANT to play chess?**

That is the first question I would ask myself, even before I'd ask whether I enjoy chess. Surely, just pushing wood aimlessly without understanding anything cannot be fun in the long run. No wonder you have such thoughts!

See it like this: at a rating of 400, you have a huge potential to improve - if you want. In the beginning, you will see that your training efforts will bear quick fruit, and this will bring fun and motivation!

In the beginning, it will suffice to watch and ingest a video like this. It **does not suffice** to just keep playing and doing what you always did, miraculously hoping for different results. You may also start with tactics training.

In the beginning, just by following basic chess principles (i.e. opening principles) and stop giving away pieces in one move, you'll be **at least** 800, if not 1000!

The first actionable tip is: **Ask yourself, what your opponent could do after your intended move.** Always think ahead. If it's only one move, it's only one move. But do it. This should prevent you from blundering pieces in one move. Make it a habit to calculate in this way. Check candidate moves: Checks captures, attacks.

Try this, and come back to this post when you're 800 ;)

EDIT: I recommend to play longer time controls. You can only learn from a game, if you had the time to think about moves and did not need to guess/play intuitively out of time scarcity. You should also analyse your games after playing them, at least the losing mistake. The intuition and pattern recognition for Blitz will come with playing strength.
> 7 votes

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


# Question
Title: How to get rating back for an account at chess.com closed for fair play reasons?
I played a couple of chess games with my friend for money and he won. Today I noticed his account was closed for fair play reasons. When I ask him he admits that he cheated me on that game. He gave me money he won. We have been playing chess together like 5 years in chess.com, he has good ratings. He swears that he didn't cheat in other games. I believe him because I have played plenty of games with him offline; he is a pretty good player. chess.com had sent him an email that says "your account is closed and create a new account". The question is, if he creates a new account, will he be able to get his rating back? The mail say they'll give the same login details, avatar etc.

# Answer
Cheating on chess.com is viewed as an offence that in the majority of cases is unforgivable. I'd like to refer you to the following guidelines (#4) by a former mod on chess.com:

> That account was closed for Fair Play violations: you need to contact Chess.com Support via Help --\> Ask a Question --\> Contact and you can either choose to appeal your account closure or admit to cheating and ask for a second chance. If the former is successful - and that's very, very unlikely given the certainty level that Chess.com uses for account closures - then your account will be restored. In the latter case, Chess.com will let you create a new account, but you won't get your old account back. They will, however, help with renaming of accounts so your new account can have the same name as your old account.

> > If your account has been closed for Fair Play violations, any new accounts will also be closed as soon as Chess.com identifies them. You have to contact Support before they will let you back on the site

Wherefore, **If your account has been closed for Fair Play violations, any new accounts will also be closed as soon as Chess.com identifies them. You can either appeal your account closure or admit to cheating and ask for a second chance. If the former is successful, then your account will be restored.**
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, chess.com
---


# Question
Title: How does the average standard FIDE rating vary by age and sex?
In my answer to this question regarding requirements for female titles I quoted the mean and standard deviation for male and female ratings for standard chess in the then current FIDE rating list. These were:

**Female**
Mean = 1505, standard deviation = 339

**Male**
Mean = 1675, standard deviation = 346

In the comments David pointed out:

> I don't think the average rating of men and women is a relevant statistic at all. For starters, female players are on average much younger, so we should correct for that.

He makes a very good point.

A fairer comparison would be to look at mean and standard deviation for the two sexes for the U20, 20-50 and over 50 age groups, roughly juniors, adults and seniors

So, what are these figures for male and female for these three age groups?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here are the statistics from the latest (February 2023) FIDE rating data:

**Female all ages**
Mean = 1478, standard deviation = 336

**Male all ages**
Mean = 1644, standard deviation = 346

**Female U20**
Mean = 1282, standard deviation = 237

**Male U20**
Mean = 1356, standard deviation = 279

**Female 20-50**
Mean = 1614, standard deviation = 318

**Male 20-50**
Mean = 1690, standard deviation = 330

**Female over 50**
Mean = 1644, standard deviation = 357

**Male over 50**
Mean = 1761, standard deviation = 300

So, David was right. The difference between the "all ages" means is about 165 but when these statistics are calculated by age range the differences decrease.

For U20 the difference is about 75.

For 20-50 it is also about 75.

For over 50 it opens up to just over 115.

---
Tags: rating, statistics, women
---


# Question
Title: PGN viewer where you can copy and paste lines and subtrees?
Is there any PGN viewer out there that allows you to copy and paste lines and subtrees?

I've looked at Scid and ChessX and a few other PGN viewers, but none seem to allow you to copy and paste parts of the PGN files? Is there any such thing out there?

Maybe something that can present a nice tree view and the ability to click on a node and copy subtree or something.

I am looking to copy whole subtrees in my repertoire where there are transpositions.

I know I can do it by hand, but locating a specific position arrived at through a specific move order is not that easy by hand.

# Answer
I was never able to find one, so I ended up writing my own python scripts to accomplish the same things:

https://github.com/olleeriksson/pgn-tools

These can do the following:

* Merge PGN files including comments (normal and software comments).
* Inject transpositions into PGN files.
* Get subtrees from a PGN file.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: How is Armageddon in chess like fair cake-cutting in game theory?
It says on Wikipedia:

> Some tournaments utilise a bidding system for individual players of each match to decide how little time they would be willing to play with as black. The player with the lowest bid for each match receives the black pieces with draw odds. This system minimises the perceived unfairness of Armageddon time controls that are decided in advance before a tournament with colours randomly allocated. Such an idea is reminiscent of the logical use case of fair cake-cutting.

I haven't heard of fair cake-cutting or more generally fair division before this. How is armageddon in chess like fair cake-cutting? Is bidding for lower time like bidding for a smaller quantity yet high quality slice of cake or something? Eg Smaller piece but has strawberry on it. So in this case:

* smaller piece = lower time + black
* strawberry = draw odds

Quote:

> If a cake with a selection of toppings is simply cut into equal slices, different people will receive different amounts of its toppings, and some may not regard this as a fair division of the cake.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have to admit I found the Wikipedia article on fair cake-cutting pretentious in the extreme. Why Lebesque Measure needs to be dragged into cutting a cake is beyond me despite being a mathematician who knows what Lebesgue measure is.

Going back several decades to my university flat-sharing days, the standard solution to the pizza cutting problem (when we ordered a pizza take out to share between us) was that one person cut and the other person chose. When there were more than two of us the person cutting chose last. That way the person cutting had the motive to cut as evenly as possible.

That's not quite analogous to the Armageddon colour choice problem. In cutting a cake or pizza the person choosing has full information. They can see exactly what the situation is. The chess colour choice is different. The second player doesn't know what the first player has bid. However both players can evaluate what the value is of playing black in relation to the other player and bid accordingly.

What the two ways of choosing *do* have in common is that they both allow the players / eaters to judge their own best interests and choose, either a slice (to make with a knife or to eat) or a time, accordingly. That way none of the players / eaters can claim that the system was unfair to them, which players assigned black or white by chance might think.

---
Tags: tournament, time-control, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: Is there any UCI GUI for arbitrary variants?
I have a UCI-compatible chess engine which I modified to play a chess variant (gravity chess, where all non-pawn pieces fall towards increasing rank). However, there's no easy way to play against the modified engine in a GUI, since it assumes the engine is playing either standard chess or one of a few variants. Is there any UCI GUI which supports arbitrary variants, or one that is easy to modify to support gravity chess?

# Answer
CECP (xboard) goes quite far in allowing using the protocol to play chess variants, though I'm sure you can cook up something that goes beyond its limits.

FairyFishGUI is a minimal GUI that's used to have a simple GUI for new variants added to Fairy Stockfish, a variants chess engine. It should be fairly simple to modify to support your variant. The Fairy Stockfish project in general is a good place to start looking for how to support oddball variants.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, uci
---


# Question
Title: What were all the chess960 armageddon games played in St Louis Chess 9LX and the WFRCC, and which colour won in each?
Well I think I know for

* 2019 WFRCC 3rd qualifying round and onwards
* 2022 WFRCC qualifiers quarter-finals and onwards
* Every Chess 9LX

If anyone knows and has bothered to check the previous rounds, then please share! (I don't think there's armageddon in the other cases though since I think it's swiss not knockout.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
# 2019 WFRCC

1st & 2nd qualifying round:

* None I know of.

3rd qualifying round:

1. Robert Hess vs Tigran L Petrosian (as in the pipi pampers Wesley So "w"esley "s"o person) - Robert won as Black, but not via draw odds. Game. 5min vs 4min.
2. Robert Hess vs Sergey Karjakin - Sergey won as Black, but not via draw odds. Game. 5min vs 4min.
3. Oleg Badmatsyrenov vs Alexander 'Sasha' Grischuk - Sasha won as Black via draw odds. Game. 5min vs 4min.

Quarter-finals:

4. Ian 'Nepo' Nepomniachtchi vs Alireza Firouzja - Nepo won as Black, but not via draw odds. Game. 5min vs 4min.

Semi-finals and finals (including 3rd place) :

* None.

# 2022 WFRCC qualifiers quarter-finals and onwards

Swiss or round robin or whatever stages before the quarter-finals of any of the 4 qualifiers:

* None I know of.

Semi-finals of the 2nd chesscom qualifier:

1. Matthias Blübaum / Bluebaum vs Alexey Sarana - Matthias won as Black, via draw odds. Game. 15min vs 11:10.

Quarter-finals and finals of the 1st chesscom qualifier:

2. Samuel Sevian - Samuel won as White. Game. 15min vs 13min.

Quarter-finals and finals of the 2nd chesscom qualifier:

3. Daniel 'Danya' Naroditsky vs Pranav Venkatesh - Danya won as Black, but not via draw odds. Game. 15min vs 11:25.

Quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the lichess qualifiers:

* None I know of.

Finals

4. Ian 'Nepo' Nepomniachtchi vs Hikaru Nakamura - Hikaru won as White. Game. 15min vs 13min.

# Every Chess 9LX

1. Just Fabiano 'Fabi' Caruana vs Alireza Firouzja in 2022 - Fabi won as white. Game. 5min vs 4min.

---

# Statistics

**Note**: The 4 Armageddon games in the 2022 WFRCC are by bid with 15min vs something. The 5 Armageddon games in the 2019 WFRCC and in Chess 9LX are predetermined 5min vs 4min.

For all 9 games: (White win rate is 1/3.)

Total games: 9

* White wins: 3
* Black wins normally: 4
* Black wins by draw odds: 2

For predetermined 5min vs 4min: (White win rate is 20%.)

Total games: 5

* White wins: 1
* Black wins normally: 3
* Black wins by draw odds: 1

For bid: (White win rate is 50%.)

Total games: 4

* White wins: 2
* Black wins normally: 1
* Black wins by draw odds: 1
* Black bids: 13,13,11:10,11:25. Average is 12min 8.75sec

---
Tags: chess-variants, world-championship, time-control, chess960, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: I lost over 1000 games in chess.com rapid?
Why does this keep happening? Because I win over 800 games. I am making the same mistake?

# Answer
> 2 votes
After reviewing a few of your games, it seems like you are indeed making the same mistake many times. That mistake is losing your queen - and not even to a tactic. You're either not moving it when the opponent attacks it, or putting it somewhere that it can be taken.

Although you should be careful with all your pieces, the queen is an important piece and you should be particularly careful with it. I would suggest changing your opening style so you don't move it so soon. Standard advice is to develop your knights and bishops first. When you do move it, make sure to pay attention and not put it where it can be taken. And when your opponent moves a piece, make sure to pay attention to what that piece can do in its new location. If it's attacking your queen, you should probably do something about that!

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


# Question
Title: Armageddon: Does / Should White have a lower advantage in chess960 compared to chess?
I'm not (necessarily) asking which colour is more favoured in armageddon chess960. I'm asking that given however much or little white has an advantage of armageddon chess, is this advantage lower in armageddon chess960? (But if you can provably show that Black is more favoured in armageddon chess960 and White is more favoured in armageddon chess, then a fortiori White is less favoured in armageddon chess960 compared to armageddon chess.)

I think White has a lower advantage, at least in the no bid 5min vs 4min case. I mean, there's no theory. There's just extra time vs draw odds in chess960 while in chess there's extra time **\+ theory** vs draw odds.

What have players said about this? What are some statistics?

# Answer
> 0 votes
# I. What players have said:

1. Fabi says the white advantage is lower. But Fabi's answer might assume the players don't bid and are under
2. Danya says the white advantage is lower. Robert Hess doesn't seem to disagree but prefers White in chess960 (as in chess?). Their answers are dependent on that the players bid in the 15min vs X min case (where X is the lower bid). Robert's answer also depends on that the armageddon has no increment (as usual?).

---

# II. Statistics:

Black wins more based on the 2019 & 2022 WFRCC and the 2022 St Louis Chess 9LX. White win rate is only 1/3.

Total games: 9

* White wins: 3
* Black wins normally: 4
* Black wins by draw odds: 2

If the analogous win rate for white is 50%, then white definitely has a lower advantage, namely 1/3 lower because -1/3=(1/3-1/2)/(1/2).

But these aren't necessarily meaningful statistics because (besides the low sample size) they aren't quite with the same amount of time because some had bidding.

As pointed out by GeneM here

> Armageddon Chess is a *fair* tie-break system only if the two players *bid* for how much time Black should have.

For predetermined 5min vs 4min, white win rate is only 20%.

Total games: 5

* White wins: 1
* Black wins normally: 3
* Black wins by draw odds: 1

Putting aside the obvious elephant in the room of low sample size, if the analogous win rate for white in chess *for 5min vs 4min* is 50%, then white definitely has a lower advantage, namely 60% lower because -60% = (1/5-1/2)/(1/2).

Also we could look at the bid only games to see if there might be cause to have a Vickrey auction instead of a blind auction.

For bid, white win rate is exactly 50%.

Total games: 4

* White wins: 2
* Black wins normally: 1
* Black wins by draw odds: 1

Of course the sample size is low, but there's no a posteriori evidence here that shows a need for a Vickrey auction or something.

---

# III. Comparing winning bids:

I guess it doesn't matter if it's chess or chess960 if the players bid even if the auction is unfair, but I think one's bid might change depending on chess or chess960. Eg You'd want black (or white) **all the more** in chess compared to chess960 because in chess there's theory (theory helps both white and black I guess) and **more draws if you get black**.

Consider 2 cases where the losing bid gets 15min:

1. Recently in the 2023 champions chess tour Airthings Masters magnus vs hikaru that the bids were Hikaru 8:59 and Magnus 8:58.
2. However in the 2022 (rapid) WFRCC finals between hikaru and nepo, the winning bid by Nepo was 13min.

There's a 4 minute gap. **The players seem to want black 31% more in chess than in chess960** because -31% = (9-13)/13.

# III.1. Actually let's do more

Armageddon: How much more desirable is black in chess than chess960 based on airthings masters 2023 vs 2022 WFRCC?

It's still around 30%. Average is 12.1458333...min = 12min 8.75sec in chess960 (still 2022 WFRCC) vs 9.3875min = 9min 23.25sec in chess (still 2023 Airthings).

---
Tags: tournament, statistics, time-control, chess960, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: Is there a reason to lose 1,000 chess games
I lost over a 1000 games on chess.com
Is it because I make the same mistakes?

Here is one recent game I played as White with 30 min for each side.

```
[Title "tetrahedronx7 (OP)- TheCessCan"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 h5 2. d4 Rh6 3. Nf3 Rd6 4. Nc3 Re6 5. d5 Rh6 6. Bd3 c6 7. O-O cxd5 8. exd5 e6 9. dxe6 dxe6 10. Qe1 g6 11. Be2 b6 12. Bxh6 Ba6 13. Bxa6 Nxh6 14. Rd1 Nxa6 15. Rxd8+ Kxd8 16. Qd1+ Ke8 17. Qe2 Ng4 18. Qxa6 Kd8 19. Rd1+ Kc7 20. Nb5+ Kc6 21. Qa3 Bxa3 22. bxa3 Kxb5 23. Rb1+ Kc6 24. Nd4+ Kd5 25. Rb5+ Kxd4 26. Rb4+ Kc5 27. Rb3 Nxh2 28. Kxh2 Rd8 29. Rc3+ Kd4 30. Rb3 Rd5 31. Rd3+ Kc4 32. Rxd5 exd5 33. Kh1 h4 34. Kh2 Kc3 35. Kh3 g5 36. Kg4 Kxc2 37. Kxg5 Kd2 38. Kxh4 d4 39. f4 d3 40. Kh3 Kc1 41. Kg3 d2 42. Kf2 d1=Q 0-1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
If this is a typical game, you're losing games because you're missing one-move tactics, not because you're using your queen too much. You don't even move your queen until move 10.

Here are some of your obvious errors:

Move 3 - you can win the exchange with Bxh6. And again on moves 6-11.

Move 13 - if you capture the f8 bishop, you're up a whole rook.

Move 14 - rather than threatening his queen, retreat your bishop from a6, and you're up a whole rook.

Move 21 - you dropped your queen. Nfd4+ looks better.

Move 22 - you should have recaptured the bishop with your knight, then your opponent couldn't capture it.

Move 25 - you hang your knight.

Move 30 - you miss a simple x-ray that would win the rook, Rd3+.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You appear to have identified a possible problem: "use my queen a lot". You need to verify if that indeed is your problem. One way would be to analyze your games more carefully. I think it is best to do that over the board, face-to-face with a more experienced player, but many people believe doing it by computer works fine lso. (This is one of the main reasons for saving your scores, at least as a beginner. )

Once you have verified that your queen moves are indeed your weak spot, ... you will probably avoid making them without closer analysis. Play your next 1000 games, and see if you are right.

Good luck!

(Observation: Question has been entirely reedited since I posted this. I let the answer stand though ...)

# Answer
> 1 votes
You say that it was a 30 minute game. However, a few things that you might want to ask yourself:

* How much time did you actually utilise?
* Are you probably moving a little too quickly?
* Are you checking the placement of all your pieces, and all of your opponents pieces before every move? Often times, at this rating level, players are susceptible to ignoring queen - bishop battery (mate in 1), or co-ordinated knight - queen mate.
* Are you focusing on just making the next move, or are you also spending time evaluating what your opponent plans to do next, and what they could do after you respond?
* After examining the above points, and before you make your move, do you conduct a "Blunder check"? For instance, move 21. Qa3 gave away a free queen.
* When the game is lost, do you just move onto the "Next" game in frustration, or are you also spending time reviewing your mistakes?

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but inculcating these habits into your game could help you stabilise your rating and eventually improve upon it. Solving puzzles, learning tactics, etc. is all useful, but I'd opine that nothing else scores better than being disciplined with how you play and review your own games.

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


# Question
Title: Is there a good online opening training software?
There are a lot of websites to train your tactics, but I can't find any for opening repertoire. I am looking for something similar to 'Chess Position Trainer' but online, where I can import a pgn file with my repertoire, indicate that I want to train it as Black and track my progress. Does such a software exist?

UPDATE/NOTE: being able to train against my own reperoire, and rather than the best tree/stats move is vital for me.

# Answer
I think that openings.chessbase.com has what you're looking for. I use it to drill openings and it works really good.

Enter moves on the board or click them in the Live Book.

Mark a move to add it to your White or Black repertoire. All marked moves will be colored in the Live Book.

Load your White or your Black repertoire as game notation. White and Black are stored separately.

From any position, drill your repertoire. It doesn't matter whether you have marked moves or not, you can drill any position. The program will lead you into your openings. If you run out of moves, stop the drill and check the Live Book. Repeat the drill from the position where you last started it.
> 11 votes

# Answer
## **2018 update:**

---

It seems lichess.org offers a lot of the features you're looking for. On lichess, go to `tools` then choose `Analysis board`:

* The editor allows you to import FEN, PGN or edit the board yourself.
* You have access to two proper opening databases, one extracted from the games played on lichess and one from the masters games (top players). It's not only an opening explorer showing the lines, but it also shows you samples of games where a given line is employed.
* You can set up your position and play through the opening branches, while simultaneously verifying the engine assessment on the position. From a given position you can also choose to practice against the computer, for instance for a variation you've come up on your own.
* Last but not least, once your analysis is done, you can save it all as a **study** (which can also be made private). As such, all the variations and side-lines you've explored/tried and plan to keep will be saved together with the engine analysis of them. These will be your personal repertoires, which you can continuously modify whenever you find improvements.

The features are available to everyone. Once you've created a couple of repertoires and started practicing them on lichess, in your profile there is an analytics page where all sorts of statistics will be calculated based on your performance. For example, your rate of win with a certain line, or your frequency of certain moves and so on. That will help you to assess how you are performing with your different openings.

---

**Older suggestions:** In terms of simple online opening explorers, there's always the Shredder Opening Database, can be useful for quickly checking something.

Then there's the database available on chesstempo which is actually really detailed (statistics on each opening etc) and gives exemplary games of any opening played by real players.

But I believe for what you want to do, lichess is the go-to choice here.
> 30 votes

# Answer
www.chessable.com just launched. This should be exactly what you are looking for. You can import pgns and can train the opening using space repetition.
> 15 votes

# Answer
I am not aware of any Online Chess training website which allows you to load your own Chess opening repertoire in pgn format. Therefore, I added this option in my iChess Android app. You can load your Opening PGN file with short repertoire lines, and make moves for "your" side and the App will award points accordingly.

More details on this blog: http://mychessapps.blogspot.in/2013/02/how-to-practice-chess-openings-with.html

Regards, Asim Developer of iChess App
> 8 votes

# Answer
Yeah I’ve wanted something like this for quite some time… SO I made one as a side project located here:

http://www.chessply.com

It’s basically an online repertoire manager that lets you organize and train against your rep. No downloads, just use a modern web browser or mobile device and you should be good to go. It's very much beta'ish so let me know if anything weird happens :)
> 7 votes

# Answer
There is a new offering from ChessTempo.com!

https://beta.chesstempo.com/opening-training

> Welcome to the Chesstempo opening training tool. The opening trainer allows you create and manage your opening repertoire, and then train against your repertoire using spaced repetition to optimise your learning. The opening training also integrates with our play chess online feature, allowing you to get feedback after each game on where you deviated from your opening repertoire, or extend your repertoire to account for an opponent line from your game not already covered in your repertoire.
> 4 votes

# Answer
ChessX might be something you are looking for, it has a training mode that uses a PGN file that you give to it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Actually, I am the author of a website tool that answers the question to some extent. You can load your own PGN file and train yourself against it as a one-time exercise with no progress tracking. You can replay the exercise by revisiting the dynamic link that encodes all the chess data. This sample link shows a demo. The task is to play White against the Hanham concept in the Philidor defense, which is considered refuted by opening theory.

I wrote the tool for myself and never found the time to provide a user guide but it should work for everyone once you learn how to operate it. I can help with any questions.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Chess.com has a puzzle mode in its chess diagram editor. Perhaps you could create puzzles for each line in your repertoire, and save them to a group forum.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I created a web application to help build and memorize chess repertoires.

It is completely free and you can use it from any device.

The app is still in development so everything is far from perfect, but I still wanted to share it because it can be useful to you as the key features (build & train) are functional.

I am interested in having feedback to continue in the right direction.

I am not a company and I am alone in managing this project, I apologize in advance for any problem you may encounter while using it, I will try to do my best.

Feel free to try here https://chess-repertoire-companion.com

Any kind of help around this project would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, software
---


# Question
Title: In armageddon bidding, what happens if the bid is drawn?
Re armageddon, there is sometimes bidding ("how much time they're willing to give up to play with their desired color") instead of pre-determined 5min vs 4min.

What happens if the bid is drawn?

# Answer
Depends on the rules being used. A likely scenario is that an additional tie-break would be used.

For example, in the regulations for the 2016 US Championships:

> If both Players bid exactly the same amount of time, the Chief Arbiter will flip a coin to determine who shall choose their color.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tournament, statistics, time-control, armageddon
---


# Question
Title: Software for opening repertoire practice
I am developing an opening repertoire for white based on d4 and c4. I think this is going all right, but what I am looking for is a chess program that can exercise my repertoire knowledge.

Essentially, I want to be able to enter variations, and let the program test me on responses from black (to put it more clearly, I want the program to "play" black according to the variations that have been entered). When I make a mistake, it must notify me of that fact and show me what the "correct" move at the time was.

Importantly, this program should be accessible on Android or IOS, as I often have this need when commuting. Obviously it would be great if it was free, but I'm willing to pay for it as well.

Do anyone know of a chess program that will allow me to do this? Just to be clear, I'm not looking for chess playing software (I already use Shredder and DroidFish and they are great), but a tool for exercising pre-recorded opening variations. I did have a look around, but except for a promising looking Windows-based commercial tool, I can't find any apps that explicitly do this (it may be possible that some existing chess apps include this functionality but does not advertise it very well).

# Answer
> 7 votes
Chess Position Trainer is really great! I use it very day and love it a lot.

Still, there is no IOS version yet.

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Chess Repertoire Manager** is what you are looking for. In its latest release version 1.3.19 you are able to play chess games with the chess engine adjusted to your playing strength and with your selected particular opening. It is a **free Android app**. Check it out here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ayelmarc.chessorm

Though if you prefer the premium version, you can check it out here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ayelmarc.chessormpro

# Answer
> 1 votes
Give a try to Chess Repertoire app, it works with Android and iOS and allows you to test your openings. Level 1 of each opening is completely free.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Opening Trainer for iOS by Arnel Domingo looks a bit like what you are describing. In the video, he inputs new variations, and points to a train mode which keeps track of your hits, and retests positions you had trouble with. The interface looks a bit like Bookup/Chess Openings Wizard with its openings tree.

https://youtu.be/UsQscB\_P6XM

I've had problems saving games in SCID on the Go for Android. It says "experimental" on the Save menu item, but I wasn't even able to save a few inputted moves. iChess might be useful, but I think you'd have to create separate games for each line in your repertoire. Chess PGN Master Pro (Android) also has a 'guess the move' feature, and allows you to edit and save games on the fly. Both iChess and PGN Master seem to follow the main line, and ignore sidelines when testing. The good thing about Bookup, Chess Openings Wizard and Chess Position Trainer is that they can randomly choose lines to test you on I believe. I'm not sure about Chess Opening Trainer, but it looks promising.

On Windows, I understand the free program Lucas chess now has an opening training mode.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I use Chess Repertoire Trainer for Android. There are free and paid versions, where the free version has ads and limits the number of openings you can add, and the paid version costs about $5 USD.

You create your opening manually or by importing PGN files. Then you train by playing "your" side (where the repertoire can only have one "correct" move for each position), while the app picks a move from the repertoire for the "opponent" (where the repertoire can have multiple moves per position). You can ask it to pick randomly, systematically, or with emphasis on positions that you've gotten wrong before.

A very important feature for me is that the app works offline, because I often use it on a subway train with no internet access.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I created a web application to help build and memorize chess repertoires.

It is completely free and you can use it from any device.

The app is still in development so everything is far from perfect, but I still wanted to share it because it can be useful to you as the key features (build & train) are functional.

Feel free to try here https://chess-repertoire-companion.com

---
Tags: opening, learning, software
---