# Question
Title: What is White's objective from this state?
```
[fen "r4rk1/pp1q1p1p/2p1b1p1/3pPp2/1P1Q1P2/P7/2PB1P1P/2KR2R1 w - - 3 14"]

```

Hey all, I've used SE for other things and I just played a Chess game and I figured this might be a good place to turn for answers.

I am fairly novice at chess and I was playing a timed game and this is the state of the board at the end of the online game. Obviously White wants to force the game on dark squares and black is pushing for light squares, but given the board state I cannot see what either player can hope to accomplish without sacrificing many pieces to break down the pawn structure.

What should white's objective be to try and win this game? Can he even win if Black doesn't make any horrendous mistakes?

# Answer
> 2 votes
White needs to put his bishop on f6 in order to create winning chances, so a good way to start is by playing f3, planning Be1-h4-f6, followed by Qf2, with two ideas: either Qh4, Rg5-h5 (possibly with Rdg1 first if necessary), or Rg3-h3, then Rxh7, with mate in either case.

The first question is whether black can defend against this by moving his king to the queenside, and playing h5 at the right moment. But a more important question (as the former is a best case scenario in which white cannot lose) is whether black's counterattack on the queenside with b6 and a5 or c5 may end with white getting mated (as white's plan is slow, whereas black's counterattack is quick, though mate is not obvious).

But in any case, with the white pieces, you must realise that lines will be opened on the queenside, so black can also play for a win. The only reason why white may claim an advantage in this position is because his bishop may potentially have a future over black's, but this isn't necessarily true if black can find a good square for his bishop if and when he plays c5 and d4.

So f3 and manoeuvring the bishop to f6 is white's only way to win; black has the option of defending or counterattacking. Conversely, white can attempt to establish a grip on the dark squares by playing Be3 and c3, and try to hold the position to a draw, but this seems unlikely as black will be able to crash through.

Long story short: white's plan as described is practically forced, but whether he will win or not is a different story.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Is there such a thing as a unique chess playing signature?
Is there such thing as a chess playing signature? Meaning within x-amount of games the identity of a player is known based on the skill and game play of the player.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Unlikely. The first several moves of any game by notable players are all book. Thereafter, people who play notable games are able to play superb offensive and defensive moves.

Now, if you see some crazy sacrifice, you might think Anderssen or Tal is playing this game. Similarly, if you see some superb positional move, you might think Petrosian or Karpov is playing.

But to see a game played by any of the top 20 players of all time and pick out who was moving the pieces based upon their styles, I can't imagine it. There simply isn't the 'bandwidth' for such an individual signature in chess beyond someone playing more positionally or more tactically; that's pretty broad-brush stuff.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I like to add, that recently Magnus Carlsen visited Bill Gates and Mark Zukerberg and I think it came into the discussion to formalize the interconnect of a heart pulse sensor (they used wristband) during a chess match. Indeed, they had an actual simultaneous match with Magnus and many participants where all the players including Magnus wore a heart pulse sensor wrist band.

I believe that the inclusion of a "time in-between moves" and a heart pulse sensor data can signature a player by by then. The DGT Corporation are the official manufacturers of DGT boards + clock thru USB interconnect and in the best position to integrate all these needed sensory peripherals.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, probably.

Of course a single game isn't going to be enough. But if you have several dozen serious tournament games by a top player (for example top 30) the identification should be relatively straightforward.

The opening repertoire will provide the strongest clue. If you allow players from different eras, specific variations will allow you to place games in time. Not only because fashion changes, but also because variations drop in and out of usage if certain discoveries are made.

Several dozen games might also give you are pretty accurate intrinsic performance rating. Or at least a guideline which strength is most realistic to assume.

Middle- and endgame play will only provide moderate information. Players who play those very differently probably have very different repertoires as well.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Around 00-01 Fide had a great online arena. What happened to that?
I remember this from the days entering high school ;) Fide.com has this very well made online game room, much like yahoo's in terms of functionality, but much cleaner and with some funky rating system (started at 0 and 20-30 was strong!).

I also remember that the best players there, or those who won some online tournament there, would play on the actual Fide finals -- back in the days when it was knock-out 128 or something like that.

I am just wondering when this got cancelled and the website got crapped into what it's now.

Here is what it looked like then. Just wondering if there is an easy way to get to a top tournament today.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Actually FIDE publish a new chess platform named FIDE Online Area (http://arena.myfide.net/) . Furthermore there are several tournaments to encourage chess players to use this arena such as ;

* The 1st FIDE World Online Amateur Blitz Championship 2015
* The 1st FIDE World Online Junior Blitz Championship 2015
* The 1st FIDE World Online Women Blitz Championship 2015.

Instead, ICC(Internet Chess Club) is the most visited online chess area among professional chess players. (http://www.chessclub.com/)

---
Tags: fide, online
---


# Question
Title: What are Complication and Simplification in Chess?
I want to know whether I understood these concepts correctly.

**Complication**: I think, in a given position, usually the side that is slightly inferior tries to make moves that somehow put considerable strain on the better side about which action to choose. Thus it tests one's ability to clearly calculate the labyrinth of all possible variations. Generally the lesser mortal fails and hence passes on the edge to the side that created such complication.

**Simplification**: I presume simplification is the reverse of it. By simplification I mean reducing number of pieces while maintaining the winning edge. I suspect the general idea behind simplification is to prevent any counter-play by the opponent. I guess the side with winning advantage always tries to simplify matters while the other side indulges in complicating.

Is it correct?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't think its easy to answer your question since both of these concepts can have multiple definitions depending on who you ask, but I'll give it a shot.

Generally, in the case where one side is winning, your conceptual understanding is correct.

When the position is equal, creating complications or simplifications are a matter of player preference. For example, if Player A is rated lower than Player B, then Player A may be more apt to trade down (simplification) in order to get a drawish position. In that case it is assumed that Player A would be content with a draw. Thus, reinforcing the statement that complications and simplifications are a matter of player preference.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Your simplification is mostly correct, in a sense... It is almost always better to exchange pieces if you have the advantage, the less pieces your opponent has the less likely he is to successfully plot a counter attack.

As for your complication, it is slightly more complicated than that ( :P ). For starters there are multiple types of players in the world, even though chess player might seem similar they vary greatly! For example, the 8th world champion Mikhail Tal was called the Magician of Riga, he wasn't the calculator-y type, in fact he was instinctive... Which begs the question... Are calculations all there is to a position in chess? Unfortunately on this specific topic opinions vary, one side says no, the other says yes. Personally I think there's more to it than just pure calculation.

When complications arise in a chess match, the players usually think about more than just the moves themselves! In fact they think about their opponent, and not just in terms of what they are planning to do, but what they thinking and feel! In many games players have failed and lost position they were superior in due to their psychological state (anxiety, stress, excitement, the list goes on).

So to answer you question... Your Simplification is mostly correct, but the complication part will make more sense as you play in real tournaments and things expand beyond the board you play your match on. Hope I helped :)

---
Tags: terminology
---


# Question
Title: How to distinct a strategical move from a tactical move?
I am new here, and I am doing research for academic purposes. I am looking for examples of positions where I can distinguish a strategic move from a tactical move.

Can somebody give me examples of positions and next moves where the next move is

a) a strategic move

b) a tactical move

# Answer
The difference between a tactical or a strategic/positional move lies in its justification. Almost all good moves have a positional and a tactical justification, otherwise they may be tactical or positional mistakes. The exception, of course, are moves that lead to mate or a big material advantage, those could probably be called purely tactical moves.

Which justification is more important to you depends on your abilities and your style. If the tactical justification of a move is obvious to you, it might seem like a purely positional move. On the other hand if a move has a deep strategic idea, but requires complicated calculation, you may regard it as a tactical move. I'll give you an example:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnb1kb1r/pp3ppp/2p1q3/4P2n/4Np2/5N2/PPP1Q1PP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 1 10"]

1.g4 Qxg4 2.Rg1 Qe6 3.Rg5 g6 4.Rxh5

```

g4 may strike you as a very tactical move: It is a pawn sacrifice and its justification involves a lot of calculation including an exchange sacrifice. But the final goal is really very strategic: Conquering the dark squares, especially f6 and f4. White is winning.

Incidentally this is the big difference between computer chess and human chess: For a computer every move is a tactical move. Every move is justified by the calculation of variations. For humans this is a gradual thing and if you are looking for purely tactical moves you should focus on combinations with a very clear result.

If you want only a crude distinction I would propose to let an engine calculate a few moves: If a move is only viable after a certain search depth, you can call it tactical. Every move viable even at very low ply would be strategic/positional.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question. I've heard the argument that all moves are ultimately tactical - chess engines, which today play better chess than any human, mainly rely on tactical considerations via hard calculation for evaluating moves. (Yes I know they also have positional characteristics built in but these are typically rather primitive).

Humans play chess differently from modern computers though - we rely more on pattern recognition than raw calculation power. Perhaps one workable definition of a strategic move is one where we apply a move based on a memorized pattern without having a clear material pay-off.

For example, I tend to have good results if I manage to get a knight on protected outpost in my enemy's territory, especially behind the flanking pawns. By no means is this a hard rule, but whenever my opponent advances his pawns aggressively I try to look for these kind of squares. Similarly it always seems like tactical opportunities present themselves whenever I have a rook (or even better, a double rook) on an open file.

I'm sure many would disagree - perhaps getting your knight on a good square is but a tactical consideration after all.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: How to Win King vs Pawn in this Situation
I read from this website (example 2) that you can win the game in the following situation:

```
[Title "Black to move - Black's POV"]
[fen "8/8/8/5PK1/1r1k4/8/8/8 b - - 0 59"]

```

I play as black. I want to keep the rook and king to win the game, and prevent him from queening. I can't let my rook be captured.

But he doesn't finish the game. He just says "And in this position you'll always be able to win the pawn and the game." But I don't see how I can intrude with my king to the queening square.

How can this game play out?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You don't necessarily have to intrude with your king to the queening square. You really need 3 things -

1. Get the king close to the pawn
2. Control the pawn's advancing square with both pieces
3. Capture the pawn

So, in this case, Ke5 followed by Rf4 will achieve steps 1 and 2. Then you can capture the pawn and win.

So, for e.g. 1... Ke5 2. f6 Rf4 3. Kg6 Rxf6+

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


title: Both flags fallen: Draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Both flags fallen: Draw?
Suppose both players have 0 seconds left on the clock, but the clock indicates that the flag of player B has fallen first, which is claimed by Player A. Player A has enough material to mate his opponent (but also no time left, that is the point!) – has he just won the game?

The rules tell us (emphasisis by me):

> (6.11) If both flags have fallen and **it is impossible to establish which flag fell first** then:
>
> * The game shall continue if this occurs in any period of the game except the last period.
> * the game is drawn if this occurs in the period of a game in which all remaining moves must be completed.

Therefore I *think* Player A has won. Sadly enough the rules do not explicitly tell what happens if is possible to establish which flag fell first (or at least I was unable to find that paragraph).

# Answer
If your question is under standard time controls, then player A wins, because it is not the sole responsibility of player A to claim the win; in fact it is the duty of the arbiter to immediately declare the win (so in some sense, it would be unfair not to award player A a win simply because the arbiter was not around when player B's flag fell first), which is the main reason why the clock will indicate which flag fell first.

(If I recall correctly, when Carlsen lost on time against Topalov recently at the Norway 2015 event, it was the arbiter that pointed out the flag fall, without any claim by Topalov.)

On the other hand, in a rapidplay or quicker setting, you need to have at least one second on your own clock to claim a win on time, otherwise either player may claim a draw if both flags have fallen; the arbiter (and certainly any outside observer) will refrain from pointing out a loss on time for either player--even if both flags fall and one player gets mated (or resigns), the win result will stand if neither player notices the other's loss on time.
> 4 votes

# Answer
For USCF, in general Rule 14G applies. "The game is drawn if both flags are down in sudden death time control and either player points this out."
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Starting Elo in FIDE system for new chess game
I'm developing a chess game and for the Elo system I want to know recommendations for the starting Elo level for the users.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Your starting Elo will influence how well your Elo compares to Fide Elo, USCF Elo, or the rating of other sites. The internal functioning as rating isn't affected at all.

If you want to stay close to Fide Elo you could perhaps ask the user to rank himself (and then subtract 100 points … ;-)). Otherwise you'll have to guess what the average Fide Elo of a user might be. So that depends on whether you cater to beginners or to experienced club players and is probably the reason why starting Elo varies between 1200 and 1800 on different sites.

---
Tags: rating, elo, fide
---


title: Taxicab distance for bishops

text:
# Question
Title: Taxicab distance for bishops
I have two questions related to defining distances in chess. On this wiki page, this subject is briefly touched, by saying that the taxicab (also called Manhattan) distance is used for rooks, which as shown here, is given by: |a\_2-\_a\_1|+|b\_2-b\_1| where (a1,b1) is the coordinate of first square, and (a2,b2) that of the second. Now this is easy to see because the chessboard can be mapped to xy coordinate system, with square a1 being (1,1), etc. But for the bishops, it says, that the taxicab distance is again used with the difference of only counting squares of same color and by rotating the chessboard 45 degrees, while using the diagonals as axes now.

1. Is there a simple formula giving the taxicab distance for bishops similar to that of rooks, using coordinates?
2. Lastly, the same article mentions the Chebyshev distance (minimum number of moves for the king to go from one square to another), being used for both the kings and queens on board. But knowing the queen moves both like the bishops and rooks, wouldn't a variant of the taxicab distance be more meaningful here?
3. Any links, or literature suggestions on such ideas (defining distances etc) in chess, would be much appreciated.

# Answer
> 4 votes
1. It would seem to be max( |a\_2-a\_1|, |b\_2-b\_1| ). Whichever of the horizontal or vertical distances is greater, the bishop will always travel over at least that many squares and does not need to travel over any more than that many squares.
2. This article seems to use distance to mean "number of squares passed over while moving the piece from the source to the destination". In that sense the distance from a1 to c3 for a queen is 2 (Chebyshev distance), not 4 (Manhattan distance); it goes to b2 and then c3, not through b1, c1, and c2.

---
Tags: pieces, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: How many steps to mate the only king with all pieces?
Suppose Black has only one king in its initial place and White has all 16 pieces in their initial places. How many steps does it take to ensure a checkmate? And what are all solutions?

Now that White changes his position with Black. White has only one king. Then How many steps does it take to ensure a checkmate? And what are all solutions?

# Answer
Your first question: It takes **6 moves** to mate the black king. The only move is **1.e2-e4**. All other white moves would take more than 6 moves... Also after 1.e2-e4 there are a lot of variations to long to post it right here.

The simplest way is to get the details and answer the second question yourself is using the program **popeye**, see http://sourceforge.net/projects/popeye-chess/

Final remark: There is a well known chess problem with white initial position and black king on h4. How to mate in 3 (white to move...)
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, problems, checkmate
---


title: Chesscademy Tactic

text:
# Question
Title: Chesscademy Tactic
Why would black move their knight (b8) to d7 vs taking the bishop (f5) with the queen? Click the link to see an interactive version, can someone explain this to me, I see no reason for black to lose their queen?

Source

# Answer
> 1 votes
If Black takes the bishop on `f5` then White plays `Qd8` with checkmate.

Black plays `Nd7` in order to prevent checkmate.

---
Tags: tactics, puzzles
---


title: Simple chess variants for beginners

text:
# Question
Title: Simple chess variants for beginners
How suitable would these variants for beginning players?

1. First to check wins
2. Three-Check Chess
3. First to take king wins

All other rules being equal.

# Answer
First of all, I think the question is largely opinion based. However, I'll try to answer from my own experience about the X-check variants, as some matters about the chess variants can be described and judged objectively. If you are asking whether the variants are suitable to be taught to beginners (in terms of rule simplicity), then sure, they are. If you are asking whether or not they would benefit the beginners by improving their normal chess play, then I'd say no - they would only give them wrong ideas and confuse them.

My reasoning for the statement above is, that the "first to X checks" variants employ opening theory and tactics completely different from normal chess; very few ideas from these variants can be taken over to normal chess. For instance, one of normal opening play ideas (dominate the center with pawns) seems to perform very poorly in the X-check games, as it puts the king in danger of checks. There are many situations where a single bad move very early on in the opening leads to a forced loss (see for example the wiki article you linked; this is also akin to losers chess). Thus, in order to survive, one must employ strange pawn structures, completely unsuitable for normal chess. Additionally, one often sacrifices piece(s) just to get that check in - again, not really applicable to normal chess. In normal chess, such sacrifices are useless, unless they lead to a forced win/advantage, whereas in X-check chess, you have to defend against them, as each one brings the rival closer to victory.

The third variant, as BlindKungFuMaster noted, is basically normal chess. I'd recommend to keep it simple in the beginning, just do normal chess. Try chess variants only after learning the basic concepts and good practices of normal chess - then it is interesting to compare how they do or do not work in the variants.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Are there positions which cannot be properly analyzed by any computer?
Are there positions in chess which every engines is unable to analyze properly ?

Maybe calm positions with a positional advantage the engines do not recognize ? Or positions won in the long term but with no concrete winning moves ?

# Answer
> 17 votes
```
8/3k4/2p5/p2p2p1/P2P2P1/2KB4/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

In this position the engine gives advantage of around +2.5, but as you can see, this position is a draw as there is no way for white king to enter into Black's side of the board to penetrate any of the black pawns as the black pawns control all the accessible squares which are b4, c4, e4, f4 and h4. Even though white has an extra bishop it can only attack 2 of black pawns which are on c6 and d5. Taking the d5 pawn is recaptured by c6 pawn or taking the c6 first can be defended by the black king.

This is just an example of a position where an engine can give unfair advantage to a particular side though it isn't such. Here I'm not supposed to say the engine is making a mistake because it is programmed in such a way that it sees an extra bishop and with limited depth which is below 50 it says white has the advantage of extra bishop with no strings attached, hence gives you +2.5, but if you let it think up to the depth of 50 from this particular position (for which engine might take long time), it then shows it's a draw (0.00) because of the 50 move rule which is programmed into the engines.

With many examples as such, a simple concept of long term strategy can differentiate human brains from engines. As said by @jknappan in the first answer- openings are very hard for engines to evaluate, because the engines are purely based on mathematical calculations and it does not have it's own opening repertoire and humans do have because of the long term strategy. A queens gambit or Sicilian is studied for a long time by great chess players and they understand what kind of middlegame it will turn into and how then it can turn into a playable advantage in the endgame ( unlike the above position though by having an advantage of 2.5 and yet not able to achieve a win in the endgame). These kind of long term strategies is not thinkable by chess engines. One more concept of bishop pair can be taken into consideration to explain the difference between human thinking and chess engines. A good chess player would not wanna give up his bishop pair in the opening unless it gives him a very good advantage. But a computer would suggest you to play and give up the bishop pair even when it's calculations gives the slightest of 0.01 worth more of marginal advantage from its second line! These are some of the positional strategies chess engines might miss to analyze but human studies do not.

# Answer
> 12 votes
I just saw this example composed by Jim Plaskett:

```
[FEN "8/3P3k/n2K3p/2p3n1/1b4N1/2p1p1P1/8/3B4 w - - 0 1"]

```

It's a famous endgame problem.

I left Stockfish running for a few minutes and so far the best move it has found is 1.d8Q with an evaluation of -1.5. However this is not the best move.

The best move is 1.Nf6, which after a few minutes has an evaluation of -4.5, but is actually winning for white.

See here for a full analysis.

# Answer
> 7 votes
In the following position, most engines give the move 1... Rxc4? an evaluation of +2 or more. But a human analysis shows that this move results in a **draw**.

**Black to move**

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]

```

The correct move is 1...Qxc4! and it is typically given a lower evaluation by engines.

**Human Analysis**

**What went wrong?**

The problem with 1... Rxc4 is that it gets an immediate material gain, but white can force a draw due to the dangerous passed pawn. The correct solution gains less material but results in a won end-game position. Engines can easily see short term won material, but it is difficult (time-consuming) for them to calculate a long sequence of moves that lead to a won-end game.

**Could engines ever solve this position?**

Sure, engines are improving all the time. But there are trillions of positions that engines get wrong, and this is just one example. Every year computers and chess engines get better. Each year they can solve a few more positions correctly that previously they got wrong. But until chess engines are perfect (i.e. never), it will always be possible to find some positions where the engines get it wrong.

# Answer
> 6 votes
There is a trivial looking answer to your question: **The starting position** cannot be properly analysed by any chess engine. To play decently, all extant chess engines rely on opening books prepared from games among human players.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As a general rule, unbalanced position where common sense tells you that it's a draw, are hard for chess engines:

```
[FEN "3b4/1k6/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/6K1/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Any engine will probably give a huge advantage to black in this position.

---
Tags: software
---


title: Is my decision correct?

text:
# Question
Title: Is my decision correct?
I always gave up when I have exactly a king, one knight, and one bishop, while my opponent had a king, one rook, one/two knights, and two/one bishops (respectively). Is my decision correct, because I felt I cannot do anything with those 3 pieces, while my opponent had those 5 pieces.

# Answer
If you feel that if you could change seats with your opponent and play his side and win then your decision was correct. He was good enough to get such a big advantage. If you could win from his position then, likely, so can he.

If, on the other hand, you don't know how you would win if you could swap positions, then don't resign. It could be that he doesn't know how to win either. Instead try and work out how to make his task as difficult as possible. It may be that you can get a draw.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Imagine the position

```
[fen "5K1k/8/8/3BN3/8/6n1/6nb/5b1r b - - 0 59"]

```

and you (=white) to move. There is a simple win for white in two moves.....

But of course in 99.9% of all such positions you are lost...

So never give up using generic principles but on the result of analysis of the concrete position...
> 2 votes

# Answer
I recommend that you keep playing until you see an inevitable loss. There is always a possibility that your opponent could make a mistake that could win you the game or at least draw.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Don't think like you just have knight and bishop only. You still have knight and bishop. There are many possibilities that you can make a pin using bishop or make a fork using knight. Fork is the best thing to find in this situations. There are many chances to win the match. Also as always there are chances that your opponent make blunder. The key is to be alert for blunders and find pins and fork.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Accepting that you don't have a trick that saves you they should be 'technically' lost, but in my experience even master-level players can (rarely) make mistakes in these kind of positions because as mentioned these positions without pawns don't arise often. Maybe you will lose 95% of 'regular' positions like this, probably even more, but that small percentage of saves seems worth a fight in my opinion.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: material-balance, resigning
---


# Question
Title: Does anyone have the 1996 correspondence game between De Groot-Simmelink?
As far as I know, here are the first 12.5 moves are as below. Does anyone have the rest of the game?

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 Ne7 5. h4 Neg8 6. a3 a6 7. Nf3 Ng4 8.
Ng5 f5 9. Qc2 Bc5 10. e3 Ne7 11. Be2 Nf6 12. b4 Ba7 13. Bb2

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
This question seems to have been answered by TD in ChessPub Forum. I post the answer below:

```
[fen ""]
[Date "1996"]
[Round "?"]
[White "De Groot, Adrianus Dingeman"]
[Black "Simmelink, Joop Theo"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 Ne7 5. h4 Neg8 6. a3 a6 7. Nf3 Ng4 8. Ng5 f5 9. Qc2 Bc5 10. e3 Ne7 11. Be2 Nf6 12. b4 Ba7 13. Bb2 h6 14. Nf3 d6 15. c5 e4 16. cxd6 Qxd6 17. Nd2 O-O 18. Rd1 b5 19. Bxb5 axb5 20. Nxb5 Qd7 21. Nxc7 Rb8 22. d6 Nc6 23. Nc4 f4 24. Bxf6 fxe3 25. fxe3 Qg4 26. Nd5 Be6 27. Ne7+ Nxe7 28. dxe7 Qg3+ 29. Qf2 Qxf2+ 30. Kxf2 Rxf6+ 31. Ke1 Kf7 32. Ne5+ Ke8 33. Nc6 Bd7 34. Nxb8 Bxb8 35. Rd4 Ra6 36. Rf1 Bg3+ 37. Kd2 Bc6 38. Rc1 Bb7 39. Rc5 Kxe7 40. Ra5 Rxa5 41. bxa5 Bc7 42. a6 Bxa6 43. Rxe4+ Kf6 44. Rd4 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Usually when games cannot be found on free databases, Chessbase is the only way forward. I found this game on Megabase 2014.

---
Tags: correspondence-chess, master-games
---


title: Books/Videos for the Caro-Kann

text:
# Question
Title: Books/Videos for the Caro-Kann
I just started playing the Caro-Kann recently and have seen a variety of moves on white's third move. Are there any good "all-in-one" resources to examine the different variations? I consider the opening to be the weakest part of my game and want to strengthen is as much as I can.

# Answer
> 8 votes
*The Caro-Kann: Move by Move* is a good resource for the Caro-Kann. The repertoire covered has winning chances but is very solid. (Just make sure your rating is at least 1500; below that, learning opening is not ideal.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm rated about 2000 USCF and have been a Caro Kann player for 10ish years. I really loved both Peter Wells 'Grandmaster Secrets: The Caro Kann' and Joe Gallagher's 'Starting Out: The Caro Kann'. Both provide really superior explanation along with the moves. I don't think that you want to dive into Schandorff as a first time Caro Kann player.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Here is another high-level book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Play-Caro-Kann-Complete-Repertoire-Everyman/dp/1857444345

# Answer
> 3 votes
Jovanka Houska's new book "Opening Repertoire: the Caro-Kann" is also very good, but like Schandorff's book, Houska's book is mainly aimed at a fairly high level (2000+ elo).

For an introduction to the Caro-Kann, it's hard to beat Lakdawala book recommended above, "The Caro-Kann Move by Move." It's got enough theory to get up and running, and it's in a complete game format which is a very good way to start learning an opening.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you are looking for a high-level book, then the "Grandmaster Repertoire" series can be recommended. There is one about the Caro-Kann, written by GM Schandorff in 2010.

It should added that, for the same series, in 2014 GM Negi wrote a book on a 1.e4 repertoire for white, covering the Caro-Kann.

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


# Question
Title: What is accepted and declined in chess moves?
I'm very beginner in chess. I was just going through some of the opening moves like **King's gambit,Budapest gambit,Queen's gambit**. I encountered things like Queen's gambit Accepted or Declined kind of moves. Can somebody please explain me briefly about the logic? I know this very basic question but i googled and couldn't find appropriate answer. It might be useful for all beginners

# Answer
A gambit is an opening where one player sacrifices a pawn (or more) to gain some other advantage. The opponent 'accepts' by taking the pawn, or 'declines' by not taking the pawn.

For example, in the Queen's gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.c4, black has at least these two options, 2...dxc4 or 2...e6. These variations are then called "Queen's Gambit Accepted" and "Queen's Gambit Declined" based on Black's choice.

Note that another common move, 2...c6, also declines the offer, but because the name "Queen's Gambit Declined" just happens to be the name of the variation 2...e6, this has a different name ("Slav Defense").

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 {White offers the undefended pawn on c4.} e6 {Black declines the offer.} (2...dxc4 {Black accepts the offer.})

```
> 10 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish 6 in Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition
Is their a way to install stockfish 6 in Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition ?

# Answer
> 3 votes
To use stockfish, you need GUI that supports UCI. I can suggest Arena or Scid vs. PC as good free GUIs. Chessmaster isn't capable of that.

---
Tags: engines, software, chessmaster
---


title: Ideas behind each sicilian?

text:
# Question
Title: Ideas behind each sicilian?
What are the key ideas behind each mainline open Sicilian as black? I am normally an e4 player as white, so I am fairly well acquainted with the types of positions that come out of the Sicilian. I am looking to change my black opening repertoire to include the Sicilian but want to better understand black's ideas for each.

I know that as a (very) rough summary, the main ideas are a Queenside counter attack, looking to find the right opportunity to create a d5 pawn break, and to utilise a minority attack on the Queenside. However, I'm struggling to understand more specific ideas.

What are the main ideas after

```
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6

```

Here, I know it often leads into a Najdorf and occasionally a Dragon, but don't fully understand the ideas as Black. I am ignoring 3. Bb5+, as play is fairly straight forward with less tactical ideas.

```
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6

```

For me, 9 times out of 10 it leads to a Sveshnikov. Again, apart from wanting to create a d5 pawn break, I don't see the main goal as Black.

```
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6

```

Unfortunately, there are very few people at my level who play this version of the sicilian (relative to the other more popular ones), so I have very little idea of what do. As white, I generally just go by general principles that are present in 2...d6 and 2...Nc6. However, as Black I have very little idea of the goal in this line. It seems to be similar to a Najdorf, without black having the option of e6, or e5 as their e-pawn move.

LEVEL: I am looking for a scientific/objective answer as to Black's ideas in the sicilian, but if there is a personal/playstyle reason for not learning it, I was about 1800-1900 rated. I stopped playing for a while and am now about 1600-1700. I never really looked at openings in the past, winning most of my games in an endgame battle, but I am bored and looking to try something new and exciting :)

Thanks to any replies.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I suggest you first look at the ideas behind the systems you mentioned (e.g. Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov), because in the Sicilian, black's second moves cannot be judged without looking at the intended setup, i.e. black's 4th, 5th and 6th move. These moves are often interchangeable, since white cannot play any forcing moves (apart from `3.d4`, of course).

A few stray remarks:

* A very common setup is putting pawns on `d6` and `e6`. 30 years ago, this was called the Scheveningen and played by `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 (or e6) 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 (or d6)`. Nowadays it is played by `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6` and `6....e6` in order to avoid `6.g4`, and is called "the Najdorf". This is (in my opinion) unfortunate because the "real" Najdorf is defined by putting your pawn to `e5`, and this is a much greater difference than if `e6` is played on move 5 or 6. The Scheveningen can also be reached via `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 (or Nc6)` and `6....e6`, which is called the "Classical Sicilian". Of course there are Scheveningen variations where you put your knight to `d7` instead of `c6`. You see, if you intend to play a Scheveningen style setup, you can play `2....Nc6`, `2....d6`, `2....e6` and maybe even `2....a6`. The differences are nuances depending on which system white chooses.
* If you want to play a Dragon, you can play `2....d6`, `2....Nc6` or `2....g6`. The move order `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or g6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 (or Nc6)`is called the "accelerated dragon", and is particularly interesting because you retain the possibility to play `d5` in one move, which (for non-obvious reasons) discourages the (very dangerous) systems in which white castles long. The downside is that white can play `5.c4`, which leads to a positional game with little attacking chances for black. (`4....Nf6 5.Nc3 g6` is problematic because of `6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5`.)
* Variations with `2....e6` and without `d6` can have independent value if the bishop is played to `c5` or `b4`. Otherwise it's mostly a move order thing.
* Finally, at almost any moment between move 4 and 6 (except if `e6` or `g6` have been played), it is possible to play `e5`. Examples are the world famous Najdorf, the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov, but also the (older) Boleslavsky variation.

Besides move order aspects in the open sicilian, an important factor for the third move is which Anti-Sicilians you'd rather not play against. For example:

* `2....d6 3.Bb5+` is different from `2....Nc6 3.Bb5`. You can rule out `3.Bb5` on move 3 by playing `2...e6` or `2....g6`, and forever by `2...a6`.
* Whatever you favourite setup against `2.c3` is, if your second move after `2.Nf3` doesn't fit, you might be forced to learn another one, since white can play `3.c3`.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Philidor Defence - White's attack on the center
Does white always have a very strong central attack against black in Philidor defence?

I need some resource suggestions on Philidor defence theory.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The most popular (and arguably the most precise) move order for black to play the Philidor defence is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5. Alternative move orders are, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 or 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 followed by 4....e5.

According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, the most popular continuation is 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0. However, 3.f3, 4.dxe5, 4.Nge2 and 5.g4 are also interesting alternatives for white.

There are a couple of repertoire books on the Philidor, for instance by GM Bauer (2007) and IM Barksy (2010). If you are interested in the Philidor from white's perspective, the book by GM Negi (2014) can be recommended.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "1"]

      1.e4 d6 (1...e5 2.Nf3 d6) 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (3.f3) e5 (3...Nbd7) 4.Nf3 (4.dxe5)(4.Nge2) Nbd7 5.Bc4 (5.g4) Be7 6.O-O O-O

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
A big question :-) There are variations that are better for black or a GM would never play it. There is for example the Hanman Variation (ECO C41t) that has potential for black.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bc4 Be7 6. O-O

```

---
Tags: philidor-defense
---


title: why is the king never captured?

text:
# Question
Title: why is the king never captured?
Why is the king never captured? Please can anyone tell me? I have been asked this by a chess master who will not work with me until I answer correctly.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess is a man-made game, so there is no obligation to adhere to any "natural" reasons. So the answer to your question is: the king cannot be captured because that is the rules of the game. And that rule exists because it makes the game more interesting.

Castling, en passant and stalemate are also chess rules that are often considered "strange" or somehow incontiguous from the basic principles of the game. But these rules all exist to make the game more challenging and fun to play.

---
Tags: kings
---


# Question
Title: How does the "French Defense, Winawer Variation, Fingerslip Variation" get its name?
Why is this particular iteration of the "French Defense, Winawer Variation" called the "Fingerslip Variation"?

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Bd2

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
According to "The Batsford Guide to Chess Openings" by Leonard Barden and Tim Harding:

"This move had its introduction into master play as the result of a fingerslip by Alekhine against Flohr, at Nottingham in 1936. He had intended 4 P-K5 P-QB4 5 B-Q2, but played the moves in the wrong order"

The game is at

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008345

---
Tags: opening, history, terminology, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: How to best respond to an early black Qa5 in the Smith-Morra gambit?
I often play the Smith-Morra gambit. Recently I've been seeing black play an early Qa5, such as

```
[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 Qa5 4. *

```

or

```
[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3 Qa5+ 4. *

```

It seems to throw a spanner in the works as to how I'm used to playing this opening. If met with 4. Bd2 then black can play 4... Qb6 hitting the unprotected b-pawn. It seems like black can bring the queen out early without the possibility of white chasing it around the board.

> **Question**: How to best respond to an early black Qa5 in the Smith-Morra gambit?

*Chess Opening Secrets Revealed* suggests playing a later Bf4 depriving the queen on the c7 square, then play a3 followed by b4. But this seems like an awful lot of non-productive moves to chase the queen around, especially when you can't fianchetto the dark squared bishop.

Crafty suggests 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 Qa5+ 4.c3 Nc6 5.b4 Qc7 but this seems to just weaken the pawn structure, and make the white's thematic Bc4 more difficult to play.

# Answer
I don't see why you can't just ignore the Queen on a5 for now and play Nf3, followed by Bc4 and 0-0. Then, there is no pin on the c3 pawn anymore and he must take on c3, after which you retake with Nxc3 and you're back into a normal Morra gambit position with his queen oddly placed on a5. If he doesn't take on c3, then you just take back on d4 with a large center. You are not forced to stay in Morra gambit territory forever if there's a better line you can play.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Marc Esserman in "Mayhem in the Morra" gives 3 ... Qa5 a ?! and recommends 4 Bd2 followed by 5 Nxc3 giving "An enhanced Morra Accepted". If you play the Morra I can strongly recommend this book. In fact if you don't play the Morra, and don't even play e4 or the Sicilian I can still recommend it, it's one of the most enjoyable chess books out there! If nothing else you'll learn a lot about tactics from Esserman's games.
> 2 votes

# Answer
After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Qa5, 4.Bd2 seems to be a strong reply. There is only one game in the Game Database of ChessTempo (Cotonnec-Dourerassou), however, with 4.Bd2, white immediately tries to take advantage of the (too) early sortie of the black queen.

After both 4....dxc3 5.Nxc3 and 4....d3 5.Bxd3, it is clear that white has a good version of 3....dxc3 and 3....d3 respectively, as the inclusion of Qa5 and Bd2 can only help white.

If black plays 4....Nf6, white continues with 5.cxd4 Qb6 6.Nc3, ignoring the threats Qxb2 and Qxd4. Accepting any of these pawn sacrfices is too dangerous for black, so the opening was a success for white: control over the center and a lead in development.

The game Cotonnec-Dourerassou went 4....Qb6 5.cxd4. Also in this position white shouldn't be afraid of losing a pawn. After 5....Qxb2 6.Nc3 Qb6 7.Nf3 or 5....Qxd4 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.Bc4, white has huge lead in development.

Dourerassou continued with 5....e6 and after 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.e5, and white obtained a nice advantage.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "7"]

      1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Qa5 4.Bd2 Qb6 (4...dxc3 5.Nxc3)(4...d3 5.Bxd3)(4...Nf6 5.cxd4 Qb6 6.Nc3) 5.cxd4 (5...Qxb2 6.Nc3 Qb6 7.Nf3)(5...Qxd4 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.Bc4) e6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.e5

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, sicilian-defense, 1.e4, smith-morra-gambit
---


# Question
Title: In the Berlin Defense(ruy lopez), why has the Ne7 Ng6 plan gone out of fashion?
It seems that after 9. h3 or 9. Nc3, black usually plays Ke8, Bd7, h6, and sometimes Ne7. My question is: why isn't 9... Ne7 played more often, with the plan of putting the Knight on g6?

Situation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8

```

# Answer
One of the reasons could be that the knight on f5 is already developed. Probably it doesn't appeal to many players to spend 2 tempi to reposition the knight, while black is already slightly behind in development.

Futhermore, many alternative setups are possible and perfectly playable: Ke8, Bd7 and Kc8, etc...

However, it seems that an early Ne7 recently regained some of its popularity:
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, 1.e4, berlin
---


# Question
Title: Simplest chess engine to reach 2000 ELO?
From what I have read coding a "vanilla chess engine" (c++ code for alpha-beta search over bitboard representation with simple hand-crafted evaluation function), will get you to 1500~1700 ELO on CCRL 40/4.

Q1: What is the minimal set of ingredients needed to reach 2000 ELO ?

Q2: What is the minimal set of ingredient needed, if no opening or closing book is allowed ?

I have found micro-max and the development log of zurichess as initial hints on how to reach ~2000 ELO. And I found jazz engine as proof that 2000+ ELO can be reach without opening/ending books. However I would like to heard the opinion of others on the matter.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions.

(ps: here "simplest" is in "how long it takes to describe the algorithm", not necessarily in lines of codes)

# Answer
I don't think the CCRL rating list has anything to do with the FIDE rating list, so Micro-Max most likely performs weaker than a FIDE 2000 human-chess player. I have an iOS chess app for MicroMax - Chess Mini, it uses the MicroMax chess engine. That's my description: *"The engine has a rating of Elo 2000 on the Computer Chess Rating Lists."* While this is certainly true, I've received complains that the app is too easy for a human FIDE 2000 player. In fact, I can consistently beat the app myself and I'm a 1900-2000 rated player. I don't recall that the app has ever positionally outplayed me.

Why is that important? It implies that the CCRL rating list most likely **over-estimates** the performance for MicroMax (for a human player). Therefore, I don't think a vanilla chess engine such as MicroMax should be your benchmark on what a 2000 chess engine should do. Evaluation in a plain engine (e.g.: MicroMax) is too simple and too much time spent on evaluating useless branches.

Let's take a look at BikJump, it's available on Android. Despite being rated 2100 on the CCRL list, I was still able to defeat it (more than once) after a complicated struggle. I think (but not 100% sure) the FIDE 2000 line should be drawn around CCRL 2100-2200. While I don't have the source code for BikJump, I'm pretty sure it's not a pure alpha-beta engine.

From memory, I could beat my engine quite convincinly when it was only counting materials and a plain alpha-beta. As soon as I added knowledge for **pawn-structure**, **spacing** and more aggressive cutoff strategy (e.g.: **null-move pruning**, **hashing**), it was equal to me. Next, I added king safety and things like SSE, the machine was starting to beat me.

PS: We don't call "closing book", we call "tablebase". They are not needed to reach 2000.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm the author of zurichess, the engine mentioned in your post. Here are, what I think, the most important things to get your engine to play +2000ELO. If it the terminology is not clear check https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ which is one of the best resources available.

* Write a move generator. Make sure it's correct and passes all perft tests. Don't worry about the speed.
* Start with an alpha beta and a basic eval such as piece counting.
* Add aspiration window.
* Improve move ordering: add killer move heuristic and order moves by mvv/lva. Alpha-beta works best when best moves are searched first.
* Add quiescence search which solves the captures at the end of the search. This stabilizes the evaluation quiet a bit and removes much of the horizon effect issues.
* Add null-move pruning (i.e. if I don't do anything can my opponent improve?). This effectively gives you +100ELO because you now cut huge parts of the tree.
* Begin to add basic evaluation features such as: mobility, pawn position, king position, passed pawns.
* Add transposition tables. Don't generate the moves if you already have a hash move (but the score was not accepted due to low depth of the hash entry). With this, move generation speed becomes a non-issue.
* Extend search on check to avoid cases when the danger is pushed over the horizon. Don't extend everything, test several conditions.

By now your new engine should be over 2000. However, if you look at top engines such as crafty/stockfish/komodo, they all have something in common which most weaker engines do not: cluster testing.

Once your engine passes the 1500 ELO mark chances are that your changes are losing on average more ELO than they are gaining. You need to build a serious testing framework with a good stopping criteria (LOS 99% works until 2000ELO, after that you need SPRT). I invested about 700$ and bought 6 ODROID U3 (each with 4 32bit cores) and build a cluster to test all of my patches that could affect search. If you look into the commit log of zurichess you'll see the gains for each patch. A month ago hardkernel released ODROID XU4, which is slightly more expensive than U3 but has 8 64bit cores.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Well concurrency can give you some 80-100 ELO on 4 cores. Lazy SMP is eazy both for explain and write. Other features are harder to measure, it depends on engine too. Null-move is very simple feature, so add Adaptive Null-move pruning. Add endgame tablebases - that was measured to be about 30 ELO. PVS search is a bit more complicated, but is very important.

Add transposition tables - hash should give a decent speedup.

Tune evaluation: piece-square tables, backward, isolated, passed, doubled pawns, bishop pair, rook on open file.

That are easiest concepts I can recall, not sure what ELO it will give in result.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, elo
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find free training tools like detailed annotated chess openings, middle games and endgames in the PGN format?
I have decided to study chess after playing it leisurely for a while. I looked at some online chess courses like the ones offered by Igor Smirnov at the Remote Chess Academy, but these options seem to be quite expensive ($700+). I looked at one of these courses that my friend purchased and it contained some openings that were annotated and showed variations of an opening:  I was wondering whether there are freely available resources like the one in the picture below that have detailed annotations of openings, middle games, endgames, tactics, etc. If so, where would I be able to download them?

Alternatively, is there is any free/inexpensive software that acts as a trainer of some sort where one can practice openings, middle game strategy, end games, tactics, etc?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can have a look a chess.com forums where people share a lot of PGN games. pgnmentor.com offers PGN sorted with openings, middle game themes and endgame themes. If you are looking for an all in one platform, chessbase is the best so far, a bit expensive but will serve you well.

---
Tags: opening, learning, software, tactics, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Why would a correspondence chess player be accused of using a computer?
I play a good deal of online correspondence chess. On the website I use I sometimes see users being accused of using computers in correspondence chess, but without any evidence being presented.

What is the basis for such accusations? How can one find out whether a correspondence chess player uses a computer?

# Answer
The basis for such accusations is usually hurt pride.

That being said, if a player consistently plays moves proposed by a particular engine, you can be pretty sure that the engine is the source of these moves. But for such an assessment one game usually isn't enough and it is definitely possible to use an engine without leaving these tell-tale signs.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess, correspondence-chess, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Unlearning myths from the mind of an experienced club player
I recently met a club player who had been playing chess for 23 years, but couldn't improve his ELO more that 1800. When I played with him, I found his tactical skills are good, moderate endgame knowledge (excels in rook endgames) and poor opening knowledge. Afterwards we had a chat and I could uncover several myths in his mind such as knights are superior to bishops, two rooks will never beat a queen etc. If I am tutoring a student like him, how would I go about teaching him. My first impression is to make him unlearn the 'myths' in his mind, teach a few opening lines helping him to understand basic principles like developing pieces quickly, controlling the center etc.

# Answer
Teach him by showing example positions that you can play out against each other. There is a big difference between being told that two rooks are often stronger than a queen and really experiencing the power of the two rooks. You could maybe play out a position from the Kramnik-Leko match 2004.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You can try and show him the games played by legendary players like Bobby Fischer, Paul Murphy, Emmanuel Lasker, Jose Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov etc. Moreover, for any chess player , reading the following book is a ***must***. It is the **BIBLE** of Chess. The book is named **MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES** by **Bobby Fischer**. Watching these games and reading the annotations not only increases the chess knowledge but is also great fun. For such a senior player I think this is a good way to teach him.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame, tactics, clubs, teaching
---


# Question
Title: What are the advantage of sicilian defense for black?
I have seen many players with black prefers Sicilian defense, what are the advantage of the opening?

# Answer
The sicilian defence is not just one opening, it is a whole family of variations, that are quite different from each other. So this breadth of possible choices surely contributes to the popularity of the sicilian.

The sicilian variations are also usually quite sharp. This makes it easier for black to create winning chances. In the open sicilian (which is usually the main line) black gets the longterm advantage of two centre pawns against one centre pawn and the open c-line. The other defences against e4 don't have quite such a big disbalance.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are several advantages of playing **sicilian defense** with black:

1. Here, you get to exchange a side c-pawn for a centralised d-pawn of white and get to have an extra pawn in the center which may prove to be important in the middlegame and perhaps very useful in the endgame for getting a passed pawn.
2. Against e4, this is the only defense where black can try to claim the center from the word "go". White may have a centralised Knight at d4 but black has suitable compensation with moves like d5 or Ne5 or a fianchetto at g7 eyeing the a1-g8 diagonal.
3. Black has a lot of options going into the middlegame. He can choose to keep it safe and play for a draw by piece exchanges followed by a normal endgame or he can choose to attack with the Dragon Variation or go for the Andersen's Pin Variation.
4. Another major plus point of this opening is that it provides an advantageous endgame for black even when both have equal pieces and pawns after a barren middlegame.

So white has to keep on his toes all through the game to avoid any losses. I think this is black's best defense against e4 at least for beginners and players for average level.One can opt for Pirc defense, Phillidor and Caro-Kann but a lot of practice is required for successful employment. However Sicilian can be easily mastered.

And I quote: In 1965, in the tenth edition of his book, grandmaster Larry Evans observed that, "The Sicilian is Black's most dynamic, asymmetrical reply to 1.P-K4. It produces the psychological and tension factors which denote the best in modern play and gives notice of a fierce fight on the very first move.

and perhaps this link will also help :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian\_Defence
> 1 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense
---


title: The exsistence of IBM’s Deep Blue

text:
# Question
Title: The exsistence of IBM’s Deep Blue
How would IBM’s Deep Blue fair against modern day champions like Carlsen? Was it decommissioned after Kasparov's game?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The match with Kasparov was very close - 3.5 - 2.5 and it is arguable that Kasparov's loss was due to psychological factors. Until Carlsen's recent disastrous tournament where he went to pieces psychologically after over stepping the time control in round one I would have said that Carlsen is psychologically stronger than Kasparov but now I'm not so sure.

Modern day players like Carlsen have closed the gap that existed between Kasparov and the rest without opening up a big gap. I want to say that Carlsen would beat Deep Blue but I suspect the truth is that it would be a close match again.

Deep Blue was dismantled and parts of it can now be seen in two different US museums - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_Blue\_(chess\_computer).

# Answer
> 0 votes
New generation always break the records of previous generation, It happens in every game, for example if I talk about soccer New generation has better training and strong emphasis on psychology factor. In addition Garry Kasparov doesn't have that kind of concentration Carlson have , as he has to take care Russian Politics and his Professional Chess academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional\_Chess\_Association. 3rd factor I think is age with age function of brain deteriorate at-least I have learn it from my brain. These factor may have played have some role. But I don't want to take away brilliance of Magnus Carlson. He is simply awesome and can beat even faster computers than Deep Blue.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you're going to let chess players improve (substituting Carlsen of today for Kasparov of two decades ago) before this theoretical match, you'll have to let the computer's hardware and software improve, as well. Given the overall rate of improvement in top Grandmaster skill vs that of computer hardware and software over the last twenty years (hardware improvements alone would allow DB a calculation speed gain of roughly 1000 times, for example -- remember in 1996 the typical desktop CPU was a single-core 75Mhz Pentium) I suspect a modern version of Deep Blue could probably give Carlsen pawn odds and still not lose a game.

# Answer
> -3 votes
It will fail miserably against Carlsen since it was designed specially for playing against Kasparov.

It was decommissioned since it was a single purpose machine and had achieved the designated goal.

The hardware was sold to a Sheikh in Middle East.

---
Tags: theory, history, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Program for determining the type of opening / endgame
How can I classify openings or endings of several games?

Is there a program that takes Portable Game Notation (PGN) files as input and outputs that type of opening or type of end game (if any)?

Can a program go further and for example, pin-point who made a mistake where in the openings/endgame?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Scid using stockfish will do this. And on iOS I use the Stockfish app to do this.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Where can I watch live commentary and live matches between Grandmasters?
I want to watch live matches between GMs. In India here are no TV channels that provide me these matches.

# Answer
Chess24 has a lot of live transmissions of tournaments. Often even with live commentary and always with computer evaluations (though those can be turned off).
> 9 votes

# Answer
Sometimes Lichess hosts events. They also usually have links on the homepage to Twitch streamers varying in rating.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Sometimes twitch.tv hosts the live games for some tournaments. Depending on which tourney is streaming, the commentary can be particularly good.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The youtube channel for the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis had some pretty enjoyable, interesting, and informative coverage of the Grand Chess Tour - 2015 Sinquefield Cup last week. They also have some similar coverage posted from a few previous tournaments, but I mostly go there for the lectures.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I sometimes watch on ChessBomb. It is only the games, no video. The games are analysed with stockfish (or other engine) and sometimes by a GM. Also there is commentary by members.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, online
---


title: Emanuel Lasker and Psychology

text:
# Question
Title: Emanuel Lasker and Psychology
I have heard many people saying that Lasker used psychology to win. But I have also read a Wikipedia page mentioning recent researches refuting this belief and justifying Lasker's tactics to be quite ahead of his time and something laden with a hidden master plan. I need to know if there exists any such analysis which is available online so that we can know the truth ?

# Answer
We can't know the truth. Lasker is dead and he's the only one who knows if he really played like that intentionally. We can create an absolutely perfect analysis of his games and still never know if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it.

Good moves will beat psychology every time, but even so there exists ample evidence to support the idea that sometimes moves that are less than perfect will win games because they fit in with the psychological moment.

My own opinion? I think Reti invented that as an excuse to cover the fact Lasker was making moves he (Reti) couldn't fathom. Not that Lasker never played the man instead of the board, but that he didn't do it as often as Reti would like us to think he did.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> I need to know if there exists any such analysis which are available online so that we can know the truth ?

I don't believe any such analysis exists online. The closest you will come is the excellent book by GM John Nunn confusingly called John Nunn's Chess Course

This is actually a book in which Nunn dissects in great detail a number of Lasker's games including a lot of high quality new analysis. Nunn looks particularly critically at previous analyses by other writers which suggest that Lasker made doubtful moves against some opponents which caused his opponents to go astray and lose the game when with best play they should have won from those positions.

Nunn shows that these analyses are wrong and that the so-called "bad" moves were actually very good moves not only in terms of computer analysis, in that they addressed the tactical and strategic needs of the position, but also in terms of making life difficult for the opponent by giving him lots of plausible possible continuations and therefore lots more chances to go wrong.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I know that there has been some analysis done which compares computer moves to historical games. Here is a wikipedia article including that comparison and also some other measurements for comparing players throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_top\_chess\_players\_throughout\_history

Perhaps the Lasker wikipedia page refers to one of these kind of measurements.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: psychology, famous-players, lasker
---


# Question
Title: What do 2600 level grandmasters do to earn a living?
I want to know what a grandmaster does to earn a living, because if he has a 2600 rating then he is not able to win many tournaments.

# Answer
I believe you meant a rating of 2600 not 1600, the most common way is Coaching. Coaching rates can be as high as 100 usd per session(1.5-2hrs) with a grandmaster of that level or as low as about 35-40 usd(each session).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Adding to Rickka's answer: Coaching, books, articles/reviews/analysis for chess magazines/web sites, commentary, participation in smaller tournaments (both for the prize money and appearance fee) and simuls are common avenues of income for GM's.

Acting as a second for a super GM is also quite common. Super GM's can afford to "outsource" some brunt work like studying opponent openings/styles and providing a practice board for novel ideas.

Some 2600+ GM's also have normal non-chess related jobs. Matthew Sadler works in IT, for example, and considers chess as a hobby. I also saw a brief inset on a woman IM (unfortunately I can't remember her name now) who works in marketing for a company that likes the prestige of being associated with chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Usually not playing chess, stock market traders/hedge funds eg McShane, IT eg Sadler, secretary for millionaire eg Jeron Piket, business eg Lautier.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I just want to add that in many countries, chess is considered as a sport and those grandmasters are paid by the government. For example, the top Chinese players receives stable income from the government. The money they receive is definitely not impressive, but it's better than nothing. Not every country does that, at least as know the US doesn't believe a chess player should be paid by the taxpayers' money.
> 4 votes

# Answer
2500- and 2600-rated grandmasters win tournaments every year. They're just not the high-profile events like Wijk wan Zee or the like. For example, The top three at the recent British Championship were all under 2700, 2 under 2600. Also the French championships.

Run through the events listed in theweekinchess.com sometime...you might be surprised at how many tournaments are won by players under 2700.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster
---


title: White's plans from this position

text:
# Question
Title: White's plans from this position
I am not asking for analysis, just want to know what are the plans that white should go for (long term / short term) given that black pawn structure is not so great.

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2r1k2r/p4p2/p1pqbp1p/3p4/3P4/P3P3/1PQ2PPP/2R1K1NR b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Strategically speaking, white stands well for several reasons.

* Black pawn structure is bad( 2 double pawns(isolated), d6 is backward)
* Black has bad bishop(his bishop and pawns stands light squares mostly)
* Black has less control on dark squares.

For that reason white should do these following steps;

1. Change the most active Black piece (Queen)
2. Put the knight a dark square to control light squares(most probably f4 or c5)
3. Put his king a center square,
4. Pressure on c or b file.
5. White also can exchange 1 or 2 rooks, because black has many weaknesses staticly.
6. If white will manage to pass endgame stage, he has strong initiave.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It's not so clear cut. White is behind in development and has weak pawns, which can be attacked immediately, on b2 and g2. I think the game is still finely balanced with everything still to play for.

Given a free hand black is going to play moves like Rg8, attacking the g pawn, Kd7, connecting the rooks and overprotecting c6 and at some stage Rb8 attacking the weak b pawn. If white reacts to the threat to the g pawn with g3 then this simply improves black's bishop leaving many white squared weaknesses in white's position.

I'm not sure an immediate Qc5 is the answer either. Black will look to moves like Qc7 (keeping queens on), Kd7 (protecting the weak c6 pawn and covering the white queen's entrance squares), Qb6 (pressuring the weak b pawn and offering an exchange of queens which improves his pawn structure).

Can white afford to play Qa4 going for the a6 pawn? It can't be defended but white is behind in development and black is going to take advantage with moves like Bf5 (bringing his bishop to life on the much better b1-h7 diagonal), Rc7, connecting the rooks with either O-O or Kd7 and then Rb8. I'm not sure the a6 pawn is worth all that extra coordination that black's pieces get in exchange.

Maybe white needs a more conservative approach with moves like f3, Kf2, Ne2 completing his development, protecting the weak g2 and eyeing up f4 for his knight. Black's long term weaknesses aren't going away.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Putting a knight on f4 seems very strong for white. If he achieves this, black will be unable to create any counterplay.

Next, white can castle and bring his rooks into play. For instance, with Qa4, Rc5 and Rfc1. In the long run, black's weak pawns will fall quite easily.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Finish developing, plonk the Queen on c5 swop queens, control c5 don't get checkmated and play knight against bishop and 1-0.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Thinking schematically:

White wants the Knight on either f4 or c5 (I might prefer c5, but a lot of that will depend on what the board looks like when it gets there. Hence the route the Knight takes should probably go through d3 (after all b4 might end up being useful, too).

Swap the queens and at least one rook. I know it looks tempting because the Black c-pawn is very vulnerable to a vertical attack, but the Rook's mobility could help Black hold the four pawn islands, so my gut feeling would be to swap everything down to a N vs B endgame, with all White's pawns on dark squares, but I'm not so sure I could force all of that, so I might have to keep one set of rooks on the board.

An alternative plan might be to plant the knight on b3 behind a b4-pawn. Plan on using the c5 and f4 squares as 'transit points' to move the knight through.

But my first priority would be to send the heavy pieces packing; their job is done, from White's point of view.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, pawn-structure, planning
---


# Question
Title: How do I check if a move is legal using Stockfish?
Let us say that I input a wrong move in Stockfish. What answer will Stockfish send me back? Or is there a function to check if a move is bad?

People, I found a solution by myself.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Stockfish assumes that all FEN positions you feed it are legal positions. If you feed it an illegal position and ask it to evaluate it, it will likely crash:

```
Stockfish 5 64 by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
position fen 4k3/4p3/8/8/8/8/8/3KP3
go depth 14
Segmentation fault: 11

```

But you could use a Python library such as Chessnut to validate moves. Chessnut returns all legal moves with `get_moves()` and raises an InvalidMove exception if you pass an illegal move to `apply_move()`, as shown in their example:

```
from Chessnut import Game

chessgame = Game()
print chessgame  # 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1'

print chessgame.get_moves()
"""
['a2a3', 'a2a4', 'b2b3', 'b2b4', 'c2c3', 'c2c4', 'd2d3', 'd2d4', 'e2e3',
 'e2e4', 'f2f3', 'f2f4', 'g2g3', 'g2g4', 'h2h3', 'h2h4', 'b1c3', 'b1a3',
 'g1h3', 'g1f3']
"""

chessgame.apply_move('e2e4')  # succeeds!
print chessgame  # 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq e3 0 1'

chessgame.apply_move('e2e4')  # fails! (raises InvalidMove exception)

```

You could update the game each move with Chessnut, and only pass moves to Stockfish for evaluation if Chessnut says they're valid.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Sorry, I had to downvote your question, because you tried something that you weren't supposed to. Stockfish is a chess engine; it always and always assume a move given is legal. If you give it an illegal move, the behavior is undefined - from a crash to jumping king. Anything could happen if you give a move as illegal.

Nobody would use an engine to verify a move's legality. This is done by the GUI. You'll need to incorporate a move generator into your project.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It doesn't seem Stockfish says anything. If it's illegal, it doesn't seem to accept it, and a suggestion is generated on a board without that move.

### Illegal move

Position **startpos moves e2e7**
Go
Info depth 1 seldepth 1 score cp 72 nodes 28 nps 0 time 0 multipv 1 pv g1f3
**bestmove g1f3** ponder (none)

### OK move

Position **startpos moves e2e4**
Go Info depth 1 seldepth 1 score cp 16 nodes 43 nps 43000 time 1 multipv 1 pv b8c6 **bestmove b8c6** ponder (none)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have found through self experimenting what was the best choice.

I send the pgn of the entire game each time. Then I send the pgn minus the last move. If they are the same, that means that the last move wasn't correct at all. If they aren't, the move is correct. This works because I use the same depth for both tries, and therefore the answer must be the same. Hope it helps!

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess engines such as stockfish cannot be used to validates legal chess moves. It will crash or if you get lucky sometimes it won't. But go ahead whatever it is you are doing and good luck

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming, uci
---


title: Problem: reconstruct the game

text:
# Question
Title: Problem: reconstruct the game
In the following position, each side has made exactly 4 moves (8 in total).

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

I need to find what these moves were.

# Answer
Dag Oskar Madsen's (quite generous) hint:

> The last move was king takes e-eight.

And here's the full solution:

> Pawn to e-four, pawn to e-six, bishop to b-five, king to e-seven, bishop takes d-seven, pawn to c-six, bishop to e-eight, king takes e-eight.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 e6 2. Bb5 Ke7 3. Bxd7 c6 4. Be8 Kxe8

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
This puzzle was by Tibor Orban in 1976, and is a great introductory puzzle for those who have never come across a proof game before. In its miniature form, it still shows two elementary technical features: Tempo Loss and Switchback. Tempo is already discussed: there are shorter (non-unique) solutions in 3.0 & 3.5 moves. Switchback is where the Black King leaves his starting square and returns to it. Apart from their artistic effect, these two features also serve to conceal the solution better.

Chess problems are a bit like high diving: you are trying to harmoniously combine a sequence of challenging effects before you hit the water. (See here. One difference is that in chess problems there is not the same rigorous point counting: appreciation is more subjective.)
> 9 votes

# Answer
Interesting puzzle, particularly the requirement that the number of moves be exactly four per side. But for that, a three-move-per-side solution would be easy:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 c6 2. Bc4 e6 3. Bxe6 dxe6

```

The difficulty is that all three of black's moves are pawn moves, and wasting a turn moving anything else would force Black to waste *another* turn moving it back. It becomes apparent therefore that two of black's moves must be with something other than pawns, which in turn implies that White must capture d7 at its original location. That capture cannot occur prior to White's third move, and cannot occur after c6. Thus, Black will have only one move available after c6, and must move something off its original position before C6. That piece must return to its original spot on its last move, and that spot must contain the bishop. The only Black piece whose original spot White's bishop could reach are his king and his light-square bishop; of those, only the former can move before turn 3.
> 7 votes

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


title: How to learn basics of composition?

text:
# Question
Title: How to learn basics of composition?
There are a few resources in the web for problem composers. Problem is the usually assume you are already part of the community. As a result one has to wander around to find out what is a grasshopper, a model mate, etc. I already have access to much of this information, but it would be nice to know of a single source (or few in any case) where one can learn the lingo, history, and the kind of questions that modern composers are interested in.

# Answer
> 11 votes
**Additional links**

# Answer
> 8 votes
(Edited December 27th: Now I can insert more than 2 links in my answer)

# Answer
> 6 votes
Thanks for the great links above. Here are some more:

* Great intro tutorials from a fine composer, Peter Wong.
* Incomplete but still very useful multilingual glossary of the keywords underpinning "Die Schwalbe" online database of 350,000+ problems.
* Thousands of retro problems with full solutions, and many articles. Minor cavil: there is a little disorganization in article structure following the announcement around 2009 of some technical changes around in castling and e.p. conventions.
* A popular forum for fairy chess with very good technical articles by top composers.

---
Tags: problems, composing
---


# Question
Title: How do I become better at counter play when I'm down in material?
How do I practice counter play when I'm down material?

# Answer
Counter play, especially when down material, is often about creating dynamic chances. So you should probably work in that area:
> 1 votes

---
Tags: best-practice, counterplay
---


# Question
Title: Automatically-generated notations in ten varieties... are they correct?
I wrote a program that converts moves in ICCF notation into a total of ten notations:

* SAN
* FAN
* LAN
* MAN
* RAN
* CRAN
* Smith
* Descriptive
* Coordinate
* ICCF

I previously posted a question asking for suggestions of unusual circumstances (like a pawn that captures into a promotion) so that I could make sure my program was assembling the notations correctly, but perhaps "raise your hand if you aren't here" wasn't the best approach.

What I've done now is converted the Byrne-Fischer Game of the Century into ICCF and run it through the program. Since this game is available in SAN on its Wikipedia page, I was at least able to make sure my program's output matched those moves. After cleaning up the code for disambiguation and castling, it is now a correct match.

My current hope is to get some reviews of the full output. I realize this match doesn't have some basic stuff like promotions, but maybe there are errors in the other notations (especially descriptive - I can't make head or tail of that stuff), and maybe seeing this output will help prompt some ideas for other situations I can test.

```
SAN    FAN    LAN      MAN   RAN       CRAN    Smith  Descriptive  Coord  ICCF  Comments
Nf3    ♘f3    Ng1-f3   Nf3   Ng1-f3    Nf3     g1f3   KN1N-KB3     G1-F3  7163
Nf6    ♞f6    Ng8-f6   Nf6   Ng8-f6    Nf6     g8f6   KN1N-KB3     G8-F6  7866
c4     c4     c2-c4    c4    c2-c4     c4      c2c4   QB2P-QB4     C2-C4  3234
g6     g6     g7-g6    g6    g7-g6     g6      g7g6   KN2P-KN3     G7-G6  7776
Nc3    ♘c3    Nb1-c3   Nc3   Nb1-c3    Nc3     b1c3   QN1N-QB3     B1-C3  2133
Bg7    ♝g7    Bf8-g7   Bg7   Bf8-g7    Bg7     f8g7   KB1B-KN2     F8-G7  6877
d4     d4     d2-d4    d4    d2-d4     d4      d2d4   Q2P-Q4       D2-D4  4244
0-0    0-0    0-0      0-0   0-0       0-0     e8g8c  O-O          E8-G8  5878
Bf4    ♗f4    Bc1-f4   Bf4   Bc1-f4    Bf4     c1f4   QB1B-KB4     C1-F4  3164
d5     d5     d7-d5    d5    d7-d5     d5      d7d5   Q2P-Q4       D7-D5  4745
Qb3    ♛b3    Qd1-b3   Qb3   Qd1-b3    Qb3     d1b3   Q1Q-QN3      D1-B3  4123
dxc4   dxc4   d5xc4    dc4   d5xPc4    d:Pc4   d5c4p  Q4PxQB5P     D5-C4  4534
Qxc4   ♛xc4   Qb3xc4   Qc4   Qb3xPc4   Q:Pc4   b3c4p  QN3QxQB4P    B3-C4  2334
c6     c6     c7-c6    c6    c7-c6     c6      c7c6   QB2P-QB3     C7-C6  3736
e4     e4     e2-e4    e4    e2-e4     e4      e2e4   K2P-K4       E2-E4  5254
Nd7    ♞d7    Nb8-d7   Nd7   Nb8-d7    Nd7     b8d7   QN1N-Q2      B8-D7  2847
Rd1    ♖d1    Ra1-d1   Rd1   Ra1-d1    Rd1     a1d1   QR1R-Q1      A1-D1  1141
Nb6    ♞b6    Nd7-b6   Nb6   Nd7-b6    Nb6     d7b6   Q2N-QN3      D7-B6  4726
Qc5    ♛c5    Qc4-c5   Qc5   Qc4-c5    Qc5     c4c5   QB4Q-QB5     C4-C5  3435
Bg4    ♝g4    Bc8-g4   Bg4   Bc8-g4    Bg4     c8g4   QB1B-KN5     C8-G4  3874
Bg5    ♗g5    Bf4-g5   Bg5   Bf4-g5    Bg5     f4g5   KB4B-KN5     F4-G5  6475  ?
Na4    ♞a4    Nb6-a4   Na4   Nb6-a4    Na4     b6a4   QN3N-QR5     B6-A4  2614  !!
Qa3    ♛a3    Qc5-a3   Qa3   Qc5-a3    Qa3     c5a3   QB5Q-QR3     C5-A3  3513
Nxc3   ♞xc3   Na4xc3   Nc3   Na4xNc3   N:Nc3   a4c3n  QR5NxQB6N    A4-C3  1433
bxc3   bxc3   b2xc3    bc3   b2xNc3    b:Nc3   b2c3n  QN2PxQB3N    B2-C3  2233
Nxe4   ♞xe4   Nf6xe4   Ne4   Nf6xPe4   N:Pe4   f6e4p  KB3NxK5P     F6-E4  6654  !
Bxe7   ♗xe7   Bg5xe7   Be7   Bg5xPe7   B:Pe7   g5e7p  KN5BxK7P     G5-E7  7557
Qb6    ♕b6    Qd8-b6   Qb6   Qd8-b6    Qb6     d8b6   Q1Q-QN3      D8-B6  4826
Bc4    ♗c4    Bf1-c4   Bc4   Bf1-c4    Bc4     f1c4   KB1B-QB4     F1-C4  6134
Nxc3   ♞xc3   Ne4xc3   Nc3   Ne4xPc3   N:Pc3   e4c3p  K5NxQB6P     E4-C3  5433  !
Bc5    ♗c5    Be7-c5   Bc5   Be7-c5    Bc5     e7c5   K7B-QB5      E7-C5  5735
Rfe8+  ♜fe8+  Rf8-e8+  Rfe8  Rf8-e8+   Rfe8+   f8e8   KB1R-K1+     F8-E8  6858
Kf1    ♔f1    Ke1-f1   Kf1   Ke1-f1    Kf1     e1f1   K1K-KB1      E1-F1  5161
Be6    ♝e6    Bg4-e6   Be6   Bg4-e6    Be6     g4e6   KN5B-K3      G4-E6  7456  !!
Bxb6   ♗xb6   Bc5xb6   Bb6   Bc5xQb6   B:Qb6   c5b6q  QB5BxQN6Q    C5-B6  3526  ?
Bxc4+  ♝xc4+  Be6xc4+  Bc4   Be6xBc4+  B:Bc4+  e6c4b  K3BxQB5B+    E6-C4  5634
Kg1    ♔g1    Kf1-g1   Kg1   Kf1-g1    Kg1     f1g1   KB1K-KN1     F1-G1  6171
Ne2+   ♞e2+   Nc3-e2+  Ne2   Nc3-e2+   Ne2+    c3e2   QB6N-K7+     C3-E2  3352
Kf1    ♔f1    Kg1-f1   Kf1   Kg1-f1    Kf1     g1f1   KN1K-KB1     G1-F1  7161
Nxd4+  ♞xd4+  Ne2xd4+  Nd4   Ne2xPd4+  N:Pd4+  e2d4p  K7NxQ5P+     E2-D4  5244
Kg1    ♔g1    Kf1-g1   Kg1   Kf1-g1    Kg1     f1g1   KB1K-KN1     F1-G1  6171
Ne2+   ♞e2+   Nd4-e2+  Ne2   Nd4-e2+   Ne2+    d4e2   Q5N-K7+      D4-E2  4452
Kf1    ♔f1    Kg1-f1   Kf1   Kg1-f1    Kf1     g1f1   KN1K-KB1     G1-F1  7161
Nc3+   ♞c3+   Ne2-c3+  Nc3   Ne2-c3+   Nc3+    e2c3   K7N-QB6+     E2-C3  5233
Kg1    ♔g1    Kf1-g1   Kg1   Kf1-g1    Kg1     f1g1   KB1K-KN1     F1-G1  6171
axb6   axb6   a7xb6    ab6   a7xBb6    a:Bb6   a7b6b  QR2PxQN3B    A7-B6  1726
Qb4    ♛b4    Qa3-b4   Qb4   Qa3-b4    Qb4     a3b4   QR3Q-QN4     A3-B4  1324
Ra4    ♜a4    Ra8-a4   Ra4   Ra8-a4    Ra4     a8a4   QR1R-QR5     A8-A4  1814  !
Qxb6   ♛xb6   Qb4xb6   Qb6   Qb4xPb6   Q:Pb6   b4b6p  QN4QxQN6P    B4-B6  2426
Nxd1   ♞xd1   Nc3xd1   Nd1   Nc3xRd1   N:Rd1   c3d1r  QB6NxQ8R     C3-D1  3341
h3     h3     h2-h3    h3    h2-h3     h3      h2h3   KR2P-KR3     H2-H3  8283
Rxa2   ♜xa2   Ra4xa2   Ra2   Ra4xPa2   R:Pa2   a4a2p  QR5RxQR7P    A4-A2  1412
Kh2    ♔h2    Kg1-h2   Kh2   Kg1-h2    Kh2     g1h2   KN1K-KR2     G1-H2  7182
Nxf2   ♞xf2   Nd1xf2   Nf2   Nd1xPf2   N:Pf2   d1f2p  Q8NxKB7P     D1-F2  4162
Re1    ♖e1    Rh1-e1   Re1   Rh1-e1    Re1     h1e1   KR1R-K1      H1-E1  8151
Rxe1   ♜xe1   Re8xe1   Re1   Re8xRe1   R:Re1   e8e1r  K1RxK8R      E8-E1  5851
Qd8+   ♛d8+   Qb6-d8+  Qd8   Qb6-d8+   Qd8+    b6d8   QN6Q-Q8+     B6-D8  2648
Bf8    ♝f8    Bg7-f8   Bf8   Bg7-f8    Bf8     g7f8   KN2B-KB1     G7-F8  7768
Nxe1   ♘xe1   Nf3xe1   Ne1   Nf3xRe1   N:Re1   f3e1r  KB3NxK1R     F3-E1  6351
Bd5    ♝d5    Bc4-d5   Bd5   Bc4-d5    Bd5     c4d5   QB5B-Q4      C4-D5  3445
Nf3    ♘f3    Ne1-f3   Nf3   Ne1-f3    Nf3     e1f3   K1N-KB3      E1-F3  5163
Ne4    ♞e4    Nf2-e4   Ne4   Nf2-e4    Ne4     f2e4   KB7N-K5      F2-E4  6254
Qb8    ♛b8    Qd8-b8   Qb8   Qd8-b8    Qb8     d8b8   Q8Q-QN8      D8-B8  4828
b5     b5     b7-b5    b5    b7-b5     b5      b7b5   QN2P-QN4     B7-B5  2725
h4     h4     h3-h4    h4    h3-h4     h4      h3h4   KR3P-KR4     H3-H4  8384
h5     h5     h7-h5    h5    h7-h5     h5      h7h5   KR2P-KR4     H7-H5  8785
Ne5    ♘e5    Nf3-e5   Ne5   Nf3-e5    Ne5     f3e5   KB3N-K5      F3-E5  6355
Kg7    ♚g7    Kg8-g7   Kg7   Kg8-g7    Kg7     g8g7   KN1K-KN2     G8-G7  7877
Kg1    ♔g1    Kh2-g1   Kg1   Kh2-g1    Kg1     h2g1   KR2K-KN1     H2-G1  8271
Bc5+   ♝c5+   Bf8-c5+  Bc5   Bf8-c5+   Bc5+    f8c5   KB1B-QB4+    F8-C5  6835
Kf1    ♔f1    Kg1-f1   Kf1   Kg1-f1    Kf1     g1f1   KN1K-KB1     G1-F1  7161
Ng3+   ♞g3+   Ne4-g3+  Ng3   Ne4-g3+   Ng3+    e4g3   K5N-KN6+     E4-G3  5473
Ke1    ♔e1    Kf1-e1   Ke1   Kf1-e1    Ke1     f1e1   KB1K-K1      F1-E1  6151
Bb4+   ♝b4+   Bc5-b4+  Bb4   Bc5-b4+   Bb4+    c5b4   QB4B-QN5+    C5-B4  3524
Kd1    ♔d1    Ke1-d1   Kd1   Ke1-d1    Kd1     e1d1   K1K-Q1       E1-D1  5141
Bb3+   ♝b3+   Bd5-b3+  Bb3   Bd5-b3+   Bb3+    d5b3   Q4B-QN6+     D5-B3  4523
Kc1    ♔c1    Kd1-c1   Kc1   Kd1-c1    Kc1     d1c1   Q1K-QB1      D1-C1  4131
Ne2+   ♞e2+   Ng3-e2+  Ne2   Ng3-e2+   Ne2+    g3e2   KN6N-K7+     G3-E2  7352
Kb1    ♔b1    Kc1-b1   Kb1   Kc1-b1    Kb1     c1b1   QB1K-QN1     C1-B1  3121
Nc3+   ♞c3+   Ne2-c3+  Nc3   Ne2-c3+   Nc3+    e2c3   K7N-QB6+     E2-C3  5233
Kc1    ♔c1    Kb1-c1   Kc1   Kb1-c1    Kc1     b1c1   QN1K-QB1     B1-C1  2131
Rc2    ♜c2    Ra2-c2   Rc2   Ra2-c2    Rc2     a2c2   QR7R-QB7     A2-C2  1232  # 0-1

```

I got the ICCF notations by running through this match in my chess program and then converting its internal move notation to ICCF. I added the check indicators, annotation, etc. to the ICCF moves manually. You can see that I currently consider the check indicator to be part of a move, but anything else (e.g. `!`, `#`) is considered a comment. I don't know if that's correct, either.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> You can see that I currently consider the check indicator to be part of a move, but anything else (e.g. !, #) is considered a comment. I don't know if that's correct, either

No, it's not correct. The final move is Rc2#. The "#" means "checkmate" and is part of the move in the same way as "+" for "check".

That obviously only applies if it occurs immediately after the move and not as part of a comment. The same would apply to a symbol like "+=" which means something like "white stands a little bit better"

# Answer
> 1 votes
Your descriptive notation is much more verbose than anyone would write in reality. For example, the first two moves would normally be written `1.N-KB3 N-KB3 2.P-B4 P-KN3`. Note that the prefix denoting which exact piece is moving is not supplied unless it is necessary to disambiguate the move, and that `P-B4` is sufficient to describe White's second move because there's only one bishop pawn he can move.

In general writing idiomatic descriptive notation is a bit of an art, which is one reason that everyone switched to algebraic (I grew up with descriptive and don't miss it). The general rule is to be as terse as possible unless the extra information (which piece is moving, which side of the board is being moved to, where is the piece being captured) is necessary. If only one pawn can capture one other pawn, write `PxP`; if you write `PxQP` or `KPxP` or god forbid `KPxQP`, it should be because you have to.

---
Tags: software, notation
---


title: How to play for a draw

text:
# Question
Title: How to play for a draw
In this video: Levon Aronian vs Magnus Carlsen Round 1 - 2013 Candidates Chess Tournament

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2

```

And now, Kevin said: "You can tell that the game is going for a draw."

My question, how can you play a game knowing that you are going to draw? Do you have to defend? Exchange minor pieces? Mirror your opponent's move?

In theory, white always plays for a win, so how can black say: "I'm going to play this game and I'm going to draw". Carlsen seemed that he decided to go for a draw from the get-go, so what's the game plan for black in order to get a draw?

# Answer
I imagine Kevin's comment was somewhat hyperbolic. My local database has 1464 games with the position after 5.Qxd2, of which only 47% were drawn (although I imagine that percentage goes up as the players' strength increases). That is still enough to give the variation a reputation as drawish, but not enough to reliably predict that the game will end in a draw.

There are certainly variations that are more drawish than others, for concrete reasons. The best current example is the Berlin variation of the Spanish, where Black gets the queens off the board early and White has had trouble making anything of his positional advantages in the ensuing endgame.

In general the way that a game becomes more likely to have a decisive result is due to imbalances between the virtues of the two sides. The obvious example is a gambit, where one player has better development and the other player has an active pawn. In a situation with few imbalances (for example, the Exchange French or Exchange Slav), it is more difficult to play for a win.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Keep in mind that I am no expert, but these players know opening theory so well that they know the exact types of moves to make and positions to get in to achieve a draw. No one goes into the game (White or Black) with the mindset of that they want to draw today. However, they do not want to lose, and maybe for White, there is a slight advantage having the first move, so Black will just settle for a draw rather than a loss.

It seems the most common way the Grandmaster's do it is to trade off material so material is very low and insufficient for a mate or they really close up the game. So it is hard for anyone to make a move without destroying their position.

I do know that after following every game in the candidates match so far, that in this particular game, `Magnus` surely went into it wanting to win. But for him as Black, a draw is like a win. This is because he will face `Aronian` with the White pieces next, and that should be an advantage to him. As a matter of fact, `Magnus` faces `Aronian` today as `White`. So this will be a very important win for either one and I don't think either one wants to settle for a draw.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Carlsen is famous for playing on in quiet mid-games and "dead drawn" endings and actually winning them. He sees very deeply into positions, and as a result plays very accurately but also sets questions for his opponents that they must answer correctly or lose. So his acquiescence to a "drawish" opening, particularly as Black, can be regarded as playing to his own strength.
> 7 votes

# Answer
> My question, how can you play a game knowing that you are going to draw? Do you have to defend? Exchange minor pieces? Mirror your opponent's move?

Generally playing for draw is difficult psychologically. It is tempting to avoid risk by exchanging pieces and simplifying the position; however, it easy to end up making concessions on every simplification and end up in a worse passive position. This is a very good recipe for a loss.

I don't think there is a good method of playing for a draw, but if all you need is a draw try to play normally. For example, if you are normally a sharp tactical player who plays the Sicilian go ahead and play that even if all you need is draw. Trying to play ultra safe chess that is not your strength in, say, Caro-Kann that you don't know will expose your weaker side and you are more likely to lose.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's a bit early to say that the game will be a draw when only one pair of pieces has been exchanged (the dark squared bishops).

What IS true is that both sides "dodged a bullet," the complications that arise in e.g. the Nimzo Indian when Black exchanges his dark-squared bishop for a knight, and the doubling of White's c pawns.

Therefore, it may be said that "if both players continue in the same "peaceful" vein, the game will likely end in a draw."

But one of the players (probably White) may be "setting up" the other player for a "peaceful" game and planning to stir the pot later on. In a crucial game against future world champion JR Capablanca, world champion Emmanuel Lasker did just this by exchanging queens early in the "Exchange variation" of the Ruy Lopez.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The first step in playing for a draw is opening preparation. Ideally you know what your opponent usually plays and can prepare something against that. The key, obviously, is to pick calm openings with little in the way of tactics. If you can get the queens off early so much the better.

Kramnik gave the ultimate example in his match with Kasparov when he used the Berlin Wall variation of the Ruy Lopez. Time and again he quickly reached a queenless middlegame with simple, clear themes and a clear plan to achieve and maintain equality.

In general aim to strengthen your position rather than launch attacks. Pay attention to Nimzowitschian themes like over protecting the center, finding good squares for your pieces, completing your development harmoniously, putting your king safe by castling. Of course you would normally aim to do these things anyway (wouldn't you?) but when aiming for a draw make these your priority before any tactical plans you might be tempted by.

When tactics do arise put the emphasis, where possible, on simplifying via exchanges rather than complicating the position. At the same time don't make the mistake of chasing exchanges. If your opponent is stronger he will not try and avoid exchanges completely but will instead try and make sure that if exchanges do occur then they are on his terms and his position is marginally improved by the exchange.

Be aware that, particularly in the endgame, playing for a draw does not mean playing passively. Unless you achieve a fortress position where your opponent simply can't make progress you will still have to take care in the endgame to play actively. Rooks are better attacking enemy weak pawns than defending yours if possible. Your king should be active aiming to attack enemy pawns if possible and opposing the enemy king when he tries to threaten your pawns rather than just passively defending. If you have a pawn majority on one side and a minority on the other try and push the majority and play on that side rather than move the other pawns except for absolutely necessary for defense.

Playing for a draw is a mindset and you mustn't let yourself be distracted by tactical ploys by your opponent.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is no "playing for the draw" in chess.You always play for win.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, analysis, tactics
---