title: Can White play e4 followed by f3?

text:
# Question
Title: Can White play e4 followed by f3?
We know that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 is a disaster for Black (Damiano Opening).

But White has an extra move. Can he therefore play 1. e4 e5 2. f3 ?

If Black replies 2... Nf6, White has 3. Ne2 (followed eventually by Ng3). That seems to stave off the immediate problem of the Damiano Opening.

So does the extra move give White enough leeway to play like this?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The only thing 2. f3 can possibly achieve (for its many obvious downsides, as pointed above) is that it supports e4 right away. **If** that's the reason why you would consider playing it, then play 2.Nc3 instead. Even 2.d3 is playable and can transpose into many Ruy Lopez systems or the English opening. Here's a somewhat related post, where an early f3 is playable, as it allows white to get a stronghold on the center: Early f3 in d4 openings?

# Answer
> 15 votes
`2.f3` looks like a terrible move. It wastes a tempo by not developing a piece; it takes `f3` square away from the knight, and it weakens `a7-g1` diagonal, while achieving absolutely nothing. I think that after any normal move (`2...d5`, `2...Nc6`, `2...Nf6`, `2...Bc5`) black has the edge.

While I don't see any reason to give up the advantage so early, I don't think white is lost (just slightly worse), so white can play it if they want to.

I also think that `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6` leads to a "disaster" is an overstatement. `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5??` does lead to a disaster; however, black can play `3...Qe7`.

# Answer
> 2 votes
That's ECO C20, the King's Head opening. It does not appear in my masters' database. It appears at the amateur level with Black winning about 80% of the time.

I would say no, it is not a preferred opening.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Why would you want to even play f3? You're white, you don't need to defend at the beginning of the game and E4 doesn't need any help at this point as nothing is attacking it.

The only time I can see f3 being viable so early is if you allow black to take the pawn on e4 thereby offering a sacrifice of a pawn in exchange for development of the knight. However this is more common on d4 and c3.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Any tricks to defeat artificial intelligences?
I've been playing a lot against an old build of Chess Free on Android the other day and noted that the AI almost always chooses the safest course of play, boringly eeking out positional advantages. If you play at its pace and react to it your games are dull. However I've got a feeling that if I play this type of game but avoid exchanges I can fashion opportunities via a series of sacrifices and exchanges that it seemingly hasn't considered. I'm guessing the computational cut-off (60 seconds in this case) prevents the AI from considering these sacrifices once the complexity of all pieces being developed arises.

Are there any other ways of abusing the fact that most chess AI's just brute force and typically go with the "safest" line?

# Answer
Five ideas in my head to win against AI's chess:

* trying to play unusual openings
* better knowing theory than AI for several openings
* trying to play avant-gardist positions (sacrifices and planning move in advance)
* analyzing games of AI to determine the way it plays
* trying to know how AI has been programmed

You have tips here and interesting information there.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The computer is very good with tactics and bad with strategy. There is little change to outsmart a computer in tactics. So try

* closed strategic positions
* exchange queens early
* seek the end game
> 4 votes

# Answer
1. Playing an unusual opening can reduce the depth of the searches made by the computer in the middle and end game in a timed match.
2. If you avoid exchanging off pieces unnecessarily then the computer has to do larger searches which will be to a shorter depth.
3. Think about sacrifices that might benefit you if the computer accepts them and doesn't search that branch far enough to see what your plan really is. Be careful with this though as some computers will continue to search all branches.
4. Against better computers, the computer will be using your move time to think about it's reply so the longer you take to decide on your move then the longer the computer has had to calculate the best reply.
5. Unless your end game is excellent, avoid end games whenever possible as Chess computers can do extremely large searches in the end game.
6. Avoid repetition of moves as this allows computers which use transition tables to save a lot of time as they can move instantly when they already have the position and best moves to play stored in a transition table.

Found here: http://www.becomeawordgameexpert.com/computers.htm
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: The number of levels in chess

text:
# Question
Title: The number of levels in chess
Consider a weak chess player who has just learned how the pieces move and who will lose to a Scholar's Mate. (We can say that he's male and call him "Mr. Newcomer".) Let's define Mr. Newcomer's *level* to be 0. Moreover, let's say that player A is *a level above* player B if A's expected score against B is 0.9 (for example, 9 wins and 1 losses in 10 games). Given these definitions, at which level would you find a player like Magnus Carlsen (who is currently the player with the rightest rating in the world)?

I have a feeling that you can give a quite exact answer to this question if you know Carlsen's rating (which is 2872 at the time of writng) and Mr. Newcomer's rating, and if understand the rating system better than I do...

The choice of 0.9 in the above definition of a "level" is pretty arbitrary; if you think a number like 0.8 or 0.7 makes more sense, just pick that number instead.

# Answer
> 17 votes
The rating system already kind of allows you to calculate this since you can convert any rating difference into an expected score using the formula: expected = 1/(1 + 10^(diff/400)) so a rating difference of 382 points should give you the .9 expected score.

Therefore Magnus Carlsen at 2872 should score 90% (which could be 9 wins and one loss out of 10 games or 8 wins and 2 draws) against a player rated 2490. and that 2490 player should score the same against a player rated 2108 and so on.

So you could keep subtracting 382 from Carlsen's rating until you got to a rating of about 100 which is probably what the worst chess player could be. if you subtract 7 times you get down to 198, so I guess you could say Carlsen is 7 of your levels above the weakes beginner.

Now a rating difference of 200 translates to about a .75 expected score and that happens to be the rating difference that the USCF uses for different classes. For example: Master = 2200 - 2399 / Expert = 2000 - 2199 / Class A = 1800 -1999 / Class B - 1600 - 1799 / Class c - 1400 - 1599 etc..

so you can kind of think of each class as a "level" like you describe where the middle of each class has about a .75 expected score against the middle of the next lower class. So you could say that using that criteria, Carlsen is about 14 "levels" or class above the weakest player.

---
Tags: rating
---


title: Most beautiful checkmates?

text:
# Question
Title: Most beautiful checkmates?
What is the most beautiful checkmate you've ever seen in high-level play? The beauty might be caused by one of the following:

* A brilliant setup (the couple moves preceding the mate were brilliant)
* Totally unexpected/against the odds (for example, the other opponnent was up a lot of material)
* Swiftness (of course no fool's mate or such)
* etc.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Check the list of *Immortal* games listed here :http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1000589

Especially enjoyed Paul Morphy vs Duke Karl : http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404

and Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov (this is simply stunning): http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111459

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't really see too many high level games that end in checkmate, especially beautiful checkmates, but this game is one of my personal favorites, although White resigned:

`Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov`

`Sochi 28th RSFSR ch 1958 · Old Indian Defense: Ukrainian Variation (A54) · 0-1`

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. e4 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd2 g6 7. b3 Bg7 8. Bb2 O-O 9. Bd3 Ng4 10. Nge2 Qh4 11. Ng3 Nge5 12. O-O f5 13. f3 Bh6 14. Qd1 f4 15. Nge2 g5 16. Nd5 g4 17. g3 fxg3 18. hxg3 Qh3 19. f4 Be6 20. Bc2 Rf7 21. Kf2 Qh2 22. Ke3 Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nb4 24. Rh1 Rxf4 25. Rxh2 Rf3 26. Kd4 Bg7 27. a4 c5 28. dxc6 bxc6 29. Bd3 Nexd3 30. Kc4 d5 31. exd5 cxd5 32. Kb5 Rb8 33. Ka5 Nc6

```

---
Tags: checkmate, famous-games, famous-moves
---


title: Category Events

text:
# Question
Title: Category Events
Will the candidates tournament 2013 (average of about **2785**) be the first `Category 22` event? If not can some one share the list of previous category 22 tournaments?

Reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO\_rating\_system#FIDE\_tournament\_categories

# Answer
> 4 votes
`Bilbao Masters in 2008 was a category 22 event`

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: What is a tabiya and what is their importance?
I've heard the term Tabiya used online though I've never really run into it in any chess book I've read. I have an idea of what the term means but I'm not sure I'm correct, so first I'll say what I think it means and someone can clarify or correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe the term tabiya refers to a position that arises in an opening after a sequence of more or less standard moves from which there are multiple continuations. That more or less I've gathered from seeing it defined online, but I believe there is a little more nuance in that the multiple possible continuations should represent distinctly different possible plans rather than just slightly different ways of trying to achieve the same plan. So if anyone can tell me if that's correct, I'd appreciate that.

So then if that's correct, the real question is, if this is an important concept, why don't I see it mentioned much in chess literature? Is it just because it's an obscure term and an author would probably just say something like, "From this point, White has a number of possible plans...?"

# Answer
> 17 votes
A tabiya is a main starting position for a given opening. It is several moves into the game, after the opening has been determined - usually development is more or less complete. Many games will reach the exact position that is labeled a tabiya, but there will be multiple options for a continuation from the tabiya.

If you are striving to understand an opening, all of the various plans from a tabiya must be considered. A tabiya is sometimes important because the concrete factors that will guide both players have already been established, so it is the first chance for the players to put their own spin on a game.

Take the Botvinnik Variation in the Semi-Slav - the first tabiya is 14 moves deep.

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. g3 Bb7 12. Bg2 Qb6 13. exf6 O-O-O 14. O-O *

```

From this position, black can choose a number of plans (the most common starts with `14... c5 15. d5 b4`). If you plan to play this variation for either color, the position at the end of these 14 moves is where the analysis really starts. To be sure, there are move order tricks and alternative moves for both colors on the way to the tabiya, but this is a very common position and the effort to reach this position for a professional player is almost negligible.

The term is not used all that frequently. The most common case would probably be an opening book/published opening analysis that wanted to draw your attention to a few key positions that are instructive and require specific knowledge if they arise in a game situation.

# Answer
> 21 votes
"Tabiya" is a word that came from Sanskrit and passed into Old Persian, and then to our languages. It means "battle array".

The ancestors of chess, shatranj e chaturanga, had pieces with very slow movement (for example, our "Queen", at that time called General or Advisor, could move only one square diagonally). For this reason, the opening phase of a game could be very boring, since each player had to develop pieces without really attacking the opponent. The "real" game started only when both players had pieces "close enough" to begin the battle. This "close enough" situation was called `tabiya`.

During the centuries, some variants of the game evolved in different ways. One lead to the "chess" we know nowadays. Another lead to some variants of Thai Chess, for example, where players use pieces with very slow movement like the original ones, but start playing directly from some well defined tabiyas and not from a standard "starting position".

# Answer
> 5 votes
I believe your understanding is correct. I will paraphrase Dan Heisman in one of his videos on the ICC:

> The word `Tabiya` means standard opening moves. These are moves that are usually made very quickly in an opening before it starts to branch out into side variations. A `Tabiya` varies from opening to opening and how far it goes varies. For example, the `Marshall Attack Tabiya` goes 17 moves and the `Closed Ruy Lopez` goes 8.5 moves (9 for White, 8 for Black) and at this point Black has many different choices for his 9th move.

I don't think you hear it too much because it is general consensus that it is better to learn opening principles rather than specific openings. Opening principles apply to any opening rather than a specific opening. The primary reason is that no matter how much you study openings, you are going to run up against someone who plays rare, bad, or side variations that you didn't study and this will cause you to panic. If you are taken out of your opening knowledge, you have to not panic and play the opening principles.

Speed chess is usually a good way to learn `Tabiya's`. After you play them, go over your moves and see what moves you would play differently in maybe a slow game.

---
Tags: opening, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Why did Magnus Carlsen drop out of World Championship in 2011?
I heard from a friend of mine that Magnus Carlsen did not play the Candidate Matches in 2011. Why did he do that?

# Answer
Magnus Carlsen drops out of World Championship cycle (contemporaneous chessbase.com article)

Largely he didn't like the format (knockout matches rather than round-robin tournament).

Carlsen wrote a letter to FIDE explaining why he skipped the Candidates Matches, quoted in part below:

> After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a lengthy process of preparations and matches and to perform at my best.
>
> Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion.
>
> In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when there are several players at approximately the same level in the world elite.
>
> One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events.
> 19 votes

---
Tags: history, world-championship, carlsen, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: What is the importance of pawns in the endgame?
How important is it to have more pawns in the endgame phase? Does the power of the individual pawns decrease or increase as the game progresses and why?

# Answer
> 14 votes
Having more pawns than one's opponent (assuming non-pawn material is even) is extremely important in the endgame. Many games of chess boil down to endings where one side has just a single pawn more than the other, and all the action centers around the attempt to promote. In fact, one could not unreasonably define endgames, as opposed to middlegames, as those positions in which the main direct objective is to queen a pawn. (There are plenty of alternative definitions as well, none of which can be perfect.)

A one-pawn advantage is certainly not always enough to win, but the mere fact that having one extra pawn is very often a winning advantage shows just how important the pawn count is in the endgame, and in this sense I would say pawn "power" (to use your wording) does increase as the game goes on. It is a pretty reliable rule of thumb that the side with the material advantage should look to trade pieces and *avoid* trading pawns; conversely, the defender usually strives to trade off as many pawns as possible in order to increase the chances of a draw. Again, this is just a rule of thumb, and one of the beauties of chess is that one constantly encounters exceptions to such "rules," but this advice will generally steer you in the right direction.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It is very important to have pawns during the end game, especially if it is a King and Pawn vs. King. This scenario would most likely allow you to promote your pawn up the board and it would remain protected given your king is closest to it. Also remember your pawns won't be as powerful if they lack structure, for example if they are unprotected or doubled up or the enemy king is in close range to eat them up. Also remember that the power of the pawn increases if they are the only ones on the board and the ratio of your pawns to your opponents is greater, for example:

```
2 pawns : 1 pawn > 3 pawns : 2 Pawns.

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
The importance of pawns is that 1) they can become queens by marching down to the opponent's eighth rank and 2) the endgame is the time for them to do so. So the value of the pawns increases the more pieces are traded off, and the closer to the endgame you get to. The fewer the remaining pieces, the greater the value of an individual pawn in *percentage* terms.

In the middle game, other factors such as king safety are more important. It does you no good to "queen" a pawn if your opponent is using the extra "time" (moves) to checkmate your king. But in the endgame, the remaining material is small enough so that you probably won't be checkmated UNLESS someone queens a pawn.

The value having an extra pawn is that you can (theoretically) trade off pawn for pawn so that your opponent runs out of pawns before you do. The exception to the rule is if your opponent has a pawn one square away from queening, and you have four or five pawns that are all several squares away from queening. Then the advantage of having a "closer" pawn is greater than the advantage of having "more" pawns.

---
Tags: endgame, pawns
---


title: Determining trusted chess sources?

text:
# Question
Title: Determining trusted chess sources?
When reading chess articles or watching videos online, my criteria for often determining if it is worth reading or watching is if it is made my someone with a FIDE title (IM, FM, GM, etc), but what other criteria should I use to determine if someone or something is worth reading or watching?

Some that I can think of myself are:

* The author of the article/video has a FIDE title.
* The website where articles or videos are found has a large following.
* The author is relatively widely known even if they don't have a FIDE title.

Also, are there any red flags that should indicate that if I watch or read this, I probably will get incorrect/stale information?

# Answer
Here are some ideas about whether or not a source can be trusted.

-Not all titled players are good in teaching.

-Chess.com is great because its members are excellent chess players and will not allow a poor article or video to be published.

-chess.about.com is good because it hires professional people, but not as good as chess.com

-thechesswebsite.com is great because kevin (the man behind the site) has many subscribers on youtube, kingcrucher is another great youtube channel because it offers in depth analysis, but they focus too much on blitz.

and then you have Roman's lab, Roman is the greatest chess teacher of all time.

What else do you have? When looking at books, you can check the Amazon rating and reviews.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: How to deal with the Cochrane Gambit

text:
# Question
Title: How to deal with the Cochrane Gambit
```
 [fen ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 ?!

```

I'm pretty sure the Cochrane Gambit isn't correct. However, I find it difficult to defend against, as some "natural" moves don't seem to work. Can you give some advice how to deal with it? Further, I guess it might be a surprise weapon in a blitz game, so have some of you tried it out?

# Answer
The `Cochrane Gambit` sacrifies his `Knight` for a few things:

1. He sacrifies the `Knight` for 2 `pawns`
2. After `Kxf7`, `Black` loses castling rights and is dangerously in the center.
3. `Blacks King-side` is basically destroyed with only the `g and h pawns` and it is not easy to find the best square for the `Black King`. Usually `White` will check with the `Bishop` with `Bf4` and if `Black` blocks with `Be3`, then White should just exchange bishops and bring the black king further into the center making it harder to castle manually.
4. `White` wants to build a strong pawn center by pushing his pawns especially on the `king-side`. For example, `White` wants to develop his strong pawn center by pushing `d4`, `f4`, `e5` and further fortify his strength in the center with `Nc3` and `Bd3` or `Bf4`.

With the above said, I think `Black's` goal should be to neutralize `White's` strong pawn center. In the `Kramnik-Topalov` game, I think `Kramnik` made a good move with `5...c5` to challenge the `d4` square. From here White has to chose between playing `6. f4` followed by `7. e5` trying to break `Blacks` position, but in this case `White's` `Bishop` on `c1` is not playing. `Topalov` instead played `6. Bf4+` to not lose any tempo and `6...Be6` is basically forced and after the exchange of `Bishops`, Black's King is more brought deeper into the center.

Some popular replies for `Black` after `5. Nxf7 Kxf7 6. d4` could be:

* c5
* g6
* c6
* Qe8
* Be7

Lets look at the `c5` first:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 c5

```

`White's` most popular reply is `6. dxc5`, followed by `6...Qa5+ 7. Nc3 Qxc5 8. Be3` and `White` maintains his the initiative.

Now onto `c6`:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 Be7 6. Nc3 c6

```

Usually with `5...Be7`, Black wants to try to castle manually and `White` continues development with `6. Nc3`. After `6...Re8`, Black is in trouble after `Bf4+`, so instead `6...c6` with the plan of playing `d5` later. After `7...d5`, it might continue `8. exd5 cxd5 9. Nxd5 Nxd5 10. Qh5+ Kf8 11. Bxd5 Qe8`. I would say White is better here because his `Black's` King is still weak and he has `3 pawns` for the `Knight`

Regarding `g6`:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 g6

```

`g6` might be `Black's` most popular reply. After `6. Nc3 Kg7 7. Be2 d5 8. e5 Ne4 9. Nxe4 dxe4 10. O-O Nc6 11. Be3 h5 12. f3 exf3 13. Rxf3 Be6 14. c4`. Even with this, White still has an advantage.

Last, `Qe8`:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 Qe8

```

Here `Black` threatens `e4`. It usually continues: `6. Nc3 g6 7. Bd3 Kg7 8. O-O Nc6 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. Be3 Nb4`. `White` may panic here because of the attack on the `White-Squared Bishop`, but instead of panicking, `White` should play `11. h3 Nxd3 12. Qxd3 Rg8`. `Black` wants to play `Kh8`, so `White` should go for the attack with `e5`. `Black` is very disorganized and in a positional disadvantage.

In a nutshell, I believe breaking `White's` center as `Kramnik` did is the best possible way to either draw or defeat the `Cochrane Gambit`
> 10 votes

# Answer
There are really no two ways about it. When white moves `Nxf7` black *must* respond by accepting the sac with `Kxf7`. From there, it is basically going to be a rough road where black tries to get into a strong defense without giving up the material gained from exposing the king to attack. A good approach here can be to try to get the rook over to f8, or to fiancetto on the king side.

Things to avoid include allowing White successive checks, allowing White to control f7 for too long, allowing White to develop a strong attack while ignoring it, any sort of development queen side before the king is safe, trading the knight on f6, and waiting to move your king to safety (through the approach mentioned above).
> 6 votes

# Answer
I play queen to `e7` and after he takes my rook, I take his pawn, check the king, and try to dominate the center with it. I dont know if it's the right way to play, but that what I would do.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Qe7 5.Nxh8 Qxe4

```
> -2 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, cochrane-gambit
---


# Question
Title: What are White's advantages against the Greco Defense?
After the first two moves of the Greco Defense

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6

```

what should White's agenda be? I see that the wikibook *Chess Opening Theory* suggests `3. Bc4`, but it doesn't go into detail. I'm not used to this opening as White, and never play it as Black, so I'm not sure 1) what to aim for in order to undermine Black's early Queen advance, and 2) how to guard against a possible kingside attack. For instance, should I castle Queenside, or isn't that necessary?

# Answer
`2... Qf6`, while not strictly unsound, is definitely an inferior move, not only because it develops the queen prematurely, but also (and more importantly) because it deprives the black king's knight of a very natural square on f6. Don't panic about a possible king-side attack -- black cannot mate with no minor pieces developed. There are a number of reasonable continuations for white:

1. `3. Nc3`, a natural and flexible developing move that eyes the d5 square, threatens to chase the queen with gain of time, and doesn't commit to any particular pawn structure.
2. `3. d3`, a perfectly valid move, but somewhat passive and has the distinct flaw of locking in the light-square bishop. Unless you strongly prefer to play slow, positional chess, I would develop with `3. Bc4` prior to playing `d3` (if at all). If you play `d3`, the logical plans are either to prepare a central break with `c3` and a subsequent `d4`, or to castle kingside and prepare `f4` after re-maneuvering the f3 knight. Which of those plans is preferable depends on your opponent's development, of course.
3. `3. Bc4`, versatile and potentially very aggressive, threatening an eventual `Ng5` and pressure on f7 after white's d-pawn moves. This is definitely the move I'd favor in a rapid game, and I don't think it's objectively worse than `3. Nc3`.

Other moves, such as `3. d4` and `3. c3`, are probably sub-optimal. An immediate `3. d4` push is likely to lead to exchanges and a relatively drawish position (and might end up transposing to lines of the Scotch that are not particularly good for white), while `3. c3` is slow and somewhat crude and might allow black to equalize with dynamic piece play.
> 12 votes

# Answer
What about a gambit try?

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3.d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3

```

and I like white's position, though maybe black has better 3rd and 4th moves.

I understand that one might not be willing to take on the risk in a situation where stable advantage is fairly easily obtained as shown by the other posts, but this an option that white has.
> 5 votes

# Answer
As White, I'd concentrate on chasing Black's queen. `3. Nc3` is a normal developing move, and threatens `4.Nd5`.

Another move is `3. d3`, which threatens `4. Bg5`. Black's most threatening countermove is `3.... Bc5`, which can be met by `4. Be3`. If Black exchanges bishops, it opens the `f` file for the (castled) rook to chase the queen.

No need to sweat this one because the Greco Defense is an inferior opening. Just make good developing moves and Black will fall behind in development.
> 4 votes

# Answer
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. d4 d6 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Bg5 Qe6 6. Qd8#

```

The Greco Defence is easily broken in my opinion
> -2 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, attack, defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there a text editor with syntax highlighting for PGN files?
In Notepad++ or similar editors, one can get syntax highlighting for multiple file formats/languages. I'd like to have something usable on Windows that would let me do this with pgn files (see header tags, and annotations in different colors from main line moves).

# Answer
Notepad ++ with option Language-\>Pascal highlights headers, move numbers, actual moves and comments with different colors. Works exactly as I would expect.
> 10 votes

# Answer
There is an extension for Vim (a great editor) that provides syntax highlighting for PGN. You can download Vim here. You can find the extension here.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: Sicilian defense : what's the best answer to 2.Qh5?
I've seen one video on YouTube about the Sicilian defense and wanted to try it on a game. In this game, my opponent played 2. Qh5, trying to capture c5,and if b6 then Qd5 and rook is taken whatever I play.

White had a very powerful and aggressive opening, giving me no rest or tempo to develop my pieces. He however did a blunder on the 12th move and resigned the game after losing his queen.

So, what would you recommend to play after Qh5 ?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2013.03.16"]
[White "CNaveen1403"]
[Black "ychaouche"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1340"]
[BlackElo "1320"]
[TimeControl "30|0"]
[Termination "ychaouche won by resignation"]

1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 d6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Qg3 a6 7.Bg5 Nbd7 8.Bd5 Nxd5 9.exd5 Bf5 10.Qf3 Bg7 11.c3 Ne5 12.Qf4 Nxd3+ 0-1

```

# Answer
I would play 2... Nf6, chasing the queen. If he takes the pawn on c5, you take his pawn on e4, attacking the queen. Then play d5 to support your knight on e4. If White plays d3, you can move your knight back to f6, and have the better of both the piece and the pawn positions.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Nakamura has played it a few times, but it seems the treatment Volokitin gave him cured him of the disease. The point of 2...Nf6 is 3.Qxc5 Nxe4 and black is a bit better.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "6. YM"]
[Site "Lausanne SUI"]
[Date "2005.09.19"]
[Round "3.2"]
[White "Nakamura, H"]
[Black "Volokitin, And"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2671"]
[ECO "B20"]
[EventDate "2005.09.14"]

1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qh4 Nc6 4.Be2 e5 5.d3 Be7 6.Qg3 d5 7.Nd2 O-O 8.c3 b5
9.Nh3 d4 10.c4 Ne8 11.cxb5 Bh4 12.Qf3 Nb4 13.Bd1 f5 14.a3 Nd6 15.axb4 fxe4
16.Qh5 Bxh3 17.g3 Qf6 18.Bb3+ Kh8 19.f3 exf3 20.Kf2 Bg5 21.Nxf3 g6 22.Bxg5
Qf5 23.Qxh3 Qxf3+ 0-1

```

Edit: weird that the viewer doesn't show headers. That's Nakamura-Volokitin, Lausanne 2005.
> 12 votes

# Answer
2.Qh5 is a bad move; the queen will get kicked around as in your game. 2...d6 and 2...e6 are both fine responses. One nice thing about 2...e6 is that it already protects f7 against 3.Bc4.

I would not say that White "gave you no rest or tempo to develop my pieces". You generally had more pieces developed than he did, because he wasted time moving his queen around. The one move of yours I question is 6....a6. You had a perfect opportunity here to develop a piece (for example, 6...Bg7, developing the bishop and preparing to castle), and instead you played a little pawn move on the edge that accomplished nothing but "threatening" to play b5 and kick his bishop back to b3.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: queens, sicilian-defense
---


title: Self-Solving Chess Problems

text:
# Question
Title: Self-Solving Chess Problems
Are there any longer "problems" like this, which is white to move and mate in 6?

(Namely, where one is actually forced to achieve the "goal".)

# Answer
The Wikipedia page on Joke chess problems has a section on self-solving chess problems, and it links to Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary, where a few more examples are in item 267. He calls them "no-brainers".
> 6 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: Is a pawn still backward if other pieces can defend it?
What exactly is a backward pawn? Is it a pawn that can't be defended by its own pawns or if other pieces can defend it, is it still considered backwards.

As an example, in the following is `e5` and `d4` backwards\`.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4. d4

```

Also, if a pawn is backwards if it can't be defended by its neighboring pawns, then doesn't this mean that every pawn starts off as backwards in the initial position of the game.

# Answer
> 13 votes
According to Wikipedia:

> "*...it is a pawn that is behind a pawn of the same colour on an adjacent file and that cannot be advanced without loss of material, usually the backward pawn itself. In the diagram, the black pawn on the c6-square is backward.*"

> "*Pieces can become weak when they are devoted to protecting a backward pawn, since their obligation to defend the pawn keeps them from being deployed for other uses.*"

So it is *still* a backward pawn if it is protected by another piece. Perhaps it is protected, but now it has become a burden on a more valuable piece.

The backward pawn creates an obligation upon (and therefore decreases the value of) whatever piece is defending it. There is a penalty if the piece defending the backward pawn moves elsewhere (loss of the pawn).

# Answer
> 1 votes
I don't remember which of the chess books defined it this way, sorry, but I have seen a backward pawn defined as a pawn where the pawns on either side of it are ahead of it or missing. Although if both are missing it is an isolated pawn not a backward pawn.

Using this definition at the start of the game no pawns are backward. In the example none of the pawns are backward since they all have a neighbor pawn on one side or the other that is not ahead of them. Backward pawns are weak points precisely for the reasons mentioned above, requiring another piece to defend them.

In the example if instead of 4.d4 white played 4.Bxc6+ and back responded by playing 4. .. bxc6 then the pawn on c7 would become a backward pawn, and a doubled pawn since there are two pawns on the same file.

In the example as played if black responds 4. .. g6 then he would create 2 backward pawns on f7 and h7. Either of them could stop being backward by advancing though.

---
Tags: pawns
---


# Question
Title: What are the time rules in Candidate Tournament?
So I'm following the London Candidate Tournament and I'm a bit confused regarding the time and why some games are getting an extensions and some are not and you are eventually losing because of time.

So my question is what are the exact rules on that matter for this tournament?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Per the official rules, section 3.5: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from move 61.

---
Tags: rules, fide, tournament, candidates
---


# Question
Title: Spoiler-free chess replays for the 2013 Candidates tournament
I am looking for replays similar to `chessgames.com's` format but which don't contain any spoilers (winner, list of moves, text or images that could give a hint as to how the game went on...) to enjoy as much as possible the games of the 2013 Candidates Tournament currently being held in London:

**Does anyone know about a website offering such replays?**

*PS: just to clarify, I'm not looking for live coverage, such replays posted once the game has been played.*

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here is some more detail about `RemcoGerlich`'s solution for those who want:

1. Download the `PGN` file for desired round from http://london2013.fide.com/en/component/turnuva/?task=fileview&kid=4

note: the `PGN` file contains the all the matches for that round (i.e. 4)
2. Download and install **Scid** (http://scid.sourceforge.net/download.html)
3. Open **Scid** and hide the right hand side tab (which shows list of moves and winner) by dragging it close.
4. Hide the next moves (*Option-\>Game Information-\>Hide next move*)
5. Open the `PGN` file (*File-\>Open*)
note: **Scid** will automatically load the first game
6. Switch to whatever game you want (*Game-\>Load (previous/next) game*)

Following that method here is the information I see about each game (displayed at the bottom):

# Answer
> 8 votes
If you use Scid, then you can turn on the option "Hide next move". That also hides the result of the game. The option is intended for training purposes (solitaire chess, also known as "guess the next move").

You can download a PGN file of the games, and open it with Scid. Don't open the game list window (because it shows results), but first turn on the hide next move option and then choose "Next game" (ctrl-down).

That's one way.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Also, chessgames.com has an option to hide results:

> **TIP:** Some people don't like to know the result of the game in advance. This can be done by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page, then checking "*Don't show game results*".

# Answer
> 2 votes
I use FICS (Free Internet Chess Server) combined with my favourite Chess GUI (graphic user interface) of all time, BabasChess.

I logon to FICS via BabasChess and type in the console "ex GMCarlsen -1", or "ex GMKramnik - 1" and flick through the moves of their last game using ALT - Left arrow, making sure the moves of the game are not displayed (right click board, turn off moves).

The Candidates tourny is on too late for me to watch live, so this has been my routine every morning for the past week.

Of course, if you want to watch the games live FICS relays them and you can chat and discuss the game in the chat window.

---
Tags: online
---


# Question
Title: How do grandmasters prepare against computer endgames?
This question is a sequel to an earlier one. Just as in the openings, computers dominate endgames. Endgame tablebases provide an exhaustive analysis of endgame positions with a small number of chessmen. The undesirable side-effect is that optimal endgame moves are often extremely difficult for an endgame-expert to understand (see the last post by Bill Dubuque in the link above).

> How has this phenomenon changed grandmasters' preparation against computers?

For example, they may not allow a game to continue till the endgame when playing against a computer, unlike a human opponent. Or they may avoid endgames with complex variations.

Note that the endgame allows exhaustive search, and lacks exploitable phenomena like the horizon effect.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As has been stated in the comments GMs don't compete against computers very often. They more often use the computer to help analyse their own games, especially to help find "computer moves" by which I mean obscure unnatural looking moves that they didn't/wouldn't find in the game but which are tactically sound.

The endgame in particular is the part of the game where gameplay methods are well established and it actually comparatively easy to see who has the advantage and how the game will end. In many GM games they resign before I would have even been able to tell we had reached the endgame.

In studying endgames the advice I have seen included in the commentary from a GM that came with Chessmaster 8, and in some books, was to practice recognizing the weapons (ie pin, double check etc) in actual endgame positions, learn the basic rules to help speed calculations in the endgame. These are such things as can the king get into the square defined by the diagonal from the pawns position to the back rank, if he can - and no other pieces can interfere - he can stop the pawn promotion, if not he can't, opposition, etc.

---
Tags: engines, endgame
---


# Question
Title: How to counter 3. Nf3 f5 in the King's Gambit Declined
I've read about many of the basic variations of the KGD, e.g. these but none of of them mention the following from Black. This suggests to me that this move may be a mistake from black that I could take advantage of, but I see nowhere good for white to go from here.

What should white play next?

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

1. e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3. Nf3 f5

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
3...f5 is not a very good move, but it's not a terrible one; there's no immediate refutation. White's best response (verified with the chess program Houdini) is probably to deal with the pressure on his e-pawn by playing 4.exf5 Bxf5 (4.d3 would be passive; 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 gives Black a nice center), then continue to develop, say with 5.Nc3 (covering e4 so that fxe5 is a real threat; if 5.fxe5 dxe5 6.Nxe5 now then 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe4+ double-attacking the knight and rook). White's position is more pleasant but Black is certainly not lost.

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit
---


title: How to Verbally Describe Chess Moves?

text:
# Question
Title: How to Verbally Describe Chess Moves?
This may sound incredibly naive, but all the time on T.V, movies, books, etc. People can be heard saying things like "Queen to Rook 5" or like "Knight to King 3" and things like this.

What is this? I found some "notation" stuff on Wikipedia but it was all about writing down the moves for like tournaments. Basically, I just ask because a friend and I occasionally play together and we've more than once expressed an interest in learning this verbal chess description bit so we could play on Vent (he lives 8 hours from here).

# Answer
Your examples are using Descriptive notation. For example, "Queen to Rook 5" (Q-R5) means "move the queen to the fifth row of the board (viewed from my perspective), and to the same column that had a rook in the starting position". You may notice that "Rook 5" could refer to two different squares, one on the leftmost column of the board and one on the rightmost. If you needed to distinguish between the two because the queen could move to either square, you'd say something like "Queen to King's Rook 5" (Q-KR5).

Descriptive notation was popular in English-speaking countries for most of the 20th century, and if you buy a chess book written before 1980 the moves will likely be in this format, but it is now basically obsolete.

Everyone has now pretty much moved over to Algebraic notation, which is much simpler. The rows of the chessboard are numbered from 1 to 8 moving away from White, and the columns are lettered from a to h from left to right from White's point of view. So White's move "Queen to King's Rook 5" in descriptive would be "Queen h5" (Qh5) in algebraic, and Black's move "Queen to King's Rook 5" would be "Queen h4" (Qh4).

Algebraic notation is much simpler than descriptive and is also the overwhelmingly more popular method of describing chess moves today, so I recommend that you use it.
> 21 votes

# Answer
I would say to just both learn Algebraic Notation. It is not so hard, and it will definitely benefit you in the long run.

```
Black
  -------------------
8 |                 |
7 |                 |
6 |                 |
5 |                 |
4 |                 |
3 |                 |
2 |                 |
1 |                 |
  -------------------
    A B C D E F G H
White

```

There are 8 rows ( 1 - 8 ) and 8 columns ( A - H ). When moving, you use a prefix of the piece name ( pawn - no prefix, knight - N, bishop - B, queen - Q, rook - R, king - K ), and a suffix of where the piece will end up. Some examples: e4, Bg2, Nf6, 0-0 which means to castle king side, 0-0-0 which means to caste queen side, Qxf7++ which means Queen takes on f7 checkmate, a8=Q pawn promotes to a Queen, Re1.

The point of using notation is to speed up the recording of the game, but can also be used during blindfold chess or over vent, skype, or some other voip technology. As such, saying "my bishop takes your bishop" or "BxB" is perfectly acceptable.

One final note, when it is hard to figure out the exact notation, you can always say "a1 to e1" or "a1e1" ( see here for some explanation on ambiguities How are PGN ambiguities handled? ).

Usually people refer to `1. e4`. If you were to tell most chess players you like to open with `e4` they will know what you meant. The same would go halfway through the game if you said `Nh6`.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, history
---


# Question
Title: Alekhine's Defense variation, understanding white's overextended pawns, black's multiple early knight moves
I'm a casual, semi-serious chess player and have been an active player for over 10 years. In my time playing, one of the most unusual openings I have had the pleasure of playing against is known as Alekhine's Defense:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4

```

In the above line I gave the usual move `3.d4`. This seems like a very good position for white, and an underdeveloped position for black. I am, however, more interested in the less common variation `3. c4`:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6

```

which is my usual line of play. From my perspective, the aggressive `3.c4` seems like a better move, buying a pawn development move with a tempo (the pawn at c4 is defended by the white bishop after the response `4...Nb6`.) In fact, there are over 300 tournament games along this line of play, indicating better chances for white in the final position above.

I have read in chess literature that if an attacking player is not careful with Alekhine's Defense, he may easily overextend his pawn structure, one of the subtleties of this particular openings. I'd like to know if the last variation I described above is already considered an overextended pawn structure, if so why, and if not, what must white be wary of in order to avoid overextending.

Furthermore, what does black hope to accomplish by placing his knight in peril so many times? Does the fact that white must overextend himself slightly in order to chase the knight multiple times outweigh the opportunity cost of moving the same knight 4 times in the first 4 moves?

# Answer
> 11 votes
In short, white may well be **overextending**.

From black's point of view¹, white is offering many targets for black to attack :

* `d4` as `c3` is not possible anymore, and if `e5` is traded for `d6`.
* `e5` if `d6` gets traded for `d4`
* `c4` if white's king bishop moves anywhere useful
* *Behind the pawns* is a lovely place to land knights (`d3` *via* `b4` is not uncommon, `e3` *via* `f5` seldom happens…)

Once white's pawns are fixed, one can wonder about what advancing them actually achieved : white loses as much time pushing pawns as black moving the knight.

¹ which I adopt as an all-time Alekhine Defense player myself.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> Does the fact that white must overextend himself slightly in order to chase the knight multiple times outweigh the opportunity cost of moving the same knight piece 4 times in the first 4 moves?

Consider that white has made four pawn moves, including moving one of them twice. Further, black has a piece off the back row and white does not. Is that really any better?

> Furthermore, what does black hope to accomplish by placing his knight in peril so many times?

As you said, the idea is to encourage white to over-extend. That's the whole point of Alekhine's Defense. Note that that black's knight is doing fine. There's no real peril to the peril!

> there are over 300 tournament games along this line of play, indicating better chances for white in the final position:

Well, that's when grandmasters play. You're probably not a GM and won't be playing GMs. Amateurs waste tempi all the time and make imperfect moves most of the time. The question for me is, "which player has to excel in order to win the game?" And what I mean is, it's possible to have game positions where white can win if he plays like a monster, but black can win if he's average.

For this case, white has more space and has moved no pieces. Black has full flexibility and has a piece out, and not on too bad a spot. It's game on!

# Answer
> 7 votes
Your position is *potentially* overextended. Because you have moved the c pawn all the way to c4, it can no longer be put on c3 to create a pawn chain with `d4` and `e5`. This, your d pawn is "weak" because of the move.

Experience has shown that Black incurs a greater disadvantage (multiple moves with the same knight), than White. If this is the "only" weakness White creates, you're fine.

The problem comes with potential followup moves. For instance, if you are tempted to play the pawn to c5 to chase the knight, you might end up creating a "hole" on d5 for Black.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Go see how Houdini crushed Rybka with Alekhine's Defense. I think it's a solid proof for the weaknesses provoked by black.

---
Tags: opening, pawns, alekhines-defense
---


# Question
Title: Was my knight salvable after the queen exchanges?
After the queen exchanges at move **23.**, I realised my pinned knight was going to die. I had a couple of moves to try to prevent the inevitable, but I couldn't:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  Nc6 3. Bc4  e6 4. O-O  d5 5. exd5  exd5 6. Re1+  Be6 7. Bb5  Nf6 8. d4  a6 9. Bxc6+  bxc6 10. Ng5  Qd7 11. Qe2  Ne4 12. Nxe4  dxe4 13. Qxe4  cxd4 14. c3  Be7 15. Rd1  O-O 16. Rxd4  Qc7 17. h4  Bd5 18. Bf4  Bd6 19. Bxd6  Qxd6 20. c4  Rfe8 21. Qf4  Re1+ 22. Kh2  Qxf4+ 23. Rxf4  Be6 24. b3  Rd8 25. Rf3  Rdd1 26. Na3  Rxa1 27. Nc2  Rh1+  0-1

```

Was I suppossed to see 4 moves ahead after a simple queen exchange? If so I think chess is ridiculous and only geniuses should play it. I am tired of losing because of things like this. I will stop playing chess, BYE.

# Answer
Give credit where it's due; Black made some good moves. What's important here is that you didn't lose because of a queen trade. You lost because your opponent exploited your weak back rank. Your back rank was weak because `h2` was under attack by the black Queen, your King's Rook was off having an adventure on `d4`, and your Queen's Knight was never developed which shut your Queen's Rook out of the game.

In addition to the above, your opponent seized the open `e` file with his Rook.

In any event, the `20. c4` move is what caused the immediate issue. I'd recommend `20. Na3` instead. After this, Black is having a good game but most of the immediate pressure is off your back rank. I don't think you want to put your Knight on `d2` since it may get tangled up with the Rooks; I can see `Rad1` in your future, for example.
> 10 votes

# Answer
It's seems to me you have a low understanding of strategic concepts. You don't need to see far ahead into every variation to play good chess. Computers do this but humans can not, instead human players use strategy to compensate.

On **move 17** you could try Bf4, **developing** a piece and gaining some **initiative** via an attack on the Black queen. You could have then followed up with 18.Nd2 catching up to the developmental status of your opponent.

I could go on about the strategic inadequacies of your game at length but I won't. Instead I will simply point out that when a player is strategically aware they will find their play seems to gain potency as if by magic.

I will recommend a book to you, *How To Reassess Your Chess* by Jeremy Silman, in which he talks about a list of strategic imbalances to look out for:

* **Material**
* **Development**
* **Piece quality**
* **Space**
* **Control of squares**
* **Pawn structures**
* **Initiative**

In this game, in particular, you seem to have no understanding of the need to **develope your pieces**, and this is what ultimately cost you the game.

Chess can be frustrating at times, the way to eliminate this frustration is through understanding. Keep at it.

(And to answer your question: there doesn't seem to be any way to save the knight after move 23. If 24.Rd4 Black replies 24...Bf5. If you try to clear your pawns off the b-file with 24.b4 ... 25.b5 pawns exchanged then Rb4, again, Black replies Bf5.)
> 4 votes

# Answer
Your game went downhill beginning with 10. ng5, moving your kingside pieces a second time before finishing your development of the queenside. That's what led (more than 15 moves later) to your loss.

Your last chance was on 17 h4. You should have moved your dark squared bishop to f4 to chase his queen before Black started chasing yours, then move your knight to d2 at the first opportunity.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: The thin line between winning and losing at the top level?
At lower level, we often blunder many times and do not make the best moves, so there can be multiple ways to win. But at the top level, for example, during the candidate matches going on now, the masters do not blunder often and they do not make very many mistakes, so I have noticed a theme which is not just in these games, but in others, and that is that the difference between winning and losing can come down to a single pawn for them and they will often fight to the death over one square. I have noticed that for example if white attacks e4, black will immediately strive to defend it and they will battle over one square. Is my assessment correct on this? Are there other factors at the top level?

# Answer
***Note***: *I'm an average player, who learnt chess about 2 years ago, maybe I'm not the right guy to answer such question but I will try.*

I wanted to ask a similar question, maybe I will today or tomorrow. As for your question.

Top level players do make mistakes, maybe they underestimate the opponent, maybe under time pressure, maybe they just don't see the moves, or maybe they are focusing on the attack.

To prove my point I'll show you 2 games and I"ll talk about the mistakes, you can click on the links to watch the videos

Levon Aronian vs Boris Gelfand Round 2 Candidates Tournament 2013

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Levon Aronian"]
[Black "Boris Gelfand"]
[Event "2013 Candidates Tournament"]
1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4. e3 Nf6 5. d4 cxd4 6. exd4 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qb3 Nxc3 9. Bc4 Nd5 10. Bxd5 e6 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. O-O Be7 13. Be3 Qd5 14. Rfc1 Qxb3 15. axb3 Bb7 16. Ne5 O-O 17. Ra4 Rfd8 18. Nc4 Bf6 19. Na5 Rd7 20. Rb4 Ba6 21. Nxc6 Rb7 22. h3 Kg7 23. Rxb7 Bxb7 24. Ne5 Bd8 25. b4 Rc8 26. Bh6 Kg8 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28. Nc6 Bf6 29. b5 Bd7 30. g4 g5 31. h4 gxh4 32. g5 Bxc6 33. bxc6 Bd8 34. Kg2 Bc7 35. Kh3

```

If you want a full analysis on that game you can watch the video, I"ll talk about 2 moves that changed the game.

`16. Ne5` getting the knight involved, the more brilliant move is `18. Nc4` and `19. Na5` I didn't see that coming! putting pressure on the pawn, basically that knight destroyed black in my opinion.

Did Boris see it coming? Maybe he did, maybe he just ignored the knight, we all do ignore our opponent's moves, in the end of the middle game, especially if the opponent is attacking, we have to counter-attack, and we don't defend anymore, keep in mind that in this particular tournament, you get 2 hours for the first 40 moves, no time pressure, the game ended in 35 moves.

The next move is `26. Bh6` which finished Boris off. If the king takes, then eventually the knight will fork the black bishop. Didn't he see it? He should see that. The first thing I look at is the major minor pieces of my opponent. If black focused a bit he could've seen it, (Boris is a GM) so white has a knight, a rook and a bishop, it's obvious, has no where to go, if he didn't check the king, so Boris should have thought about what happens if the bishop attacks his king.

Bobby Fischer vs James Sherwin 1957 US Chess Championship

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Bobby Fischer"]
[Black "James Sherwin"]
[Event "1957 US Chess Championship"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O b5 8. Bb3 b4 9. Nb1 Bd7 10. Be3 Nc6 11. f3 Be7 12. c3 bxc3 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Nxc3 O-O 15. Rc1 Qb8 16. Nd5 exd5 17. Rxc6 dxe4 18. fxe4 Qb5 19. Rb6 Qe5 20. Bd4 Qg5 21. Qf3 Nd7 22. Rb7 Ne5 23. Qe2 Bf6 24. Kh1 a5 25. Bd5 Rac8 26. Bc3 a4 27. Ra7 Ng4 28. Rxa4 Bxc3 29. bxc3 Rxc3 30. Rxf7 Rc1 31. Qf1 h5 32. Qxc1 Qh4 33. Rxf8 Kh7 34. h3 Qg3 35. hxg4 h4 36. Be6

```

Let's focus on `30. Rxf7 Rc1 31. Qf1`. Black didn't see `Rxf7` and of course he didn't see `Qf1`. That's how you outsmart your opponent! I had to show a game played by Fischer. It answers your question perfectly. Let's say if

`Rxf1+Rxf1+
Qxd5Rxf8+
Kxf8exd5`

And white has a passed pawn.

All I want to say is that GMs do make mistakes, they do underestimate the opponent, ignore a move, or maybe they just don't see the game so well. But sometimes they are just outsmarted!
> 6 votes

# Answer
Almost by definition, the advantage needed to win gets smaller and smaller, the higher level the players get.

Between two rank beginners, the loss of a pawn or even a piece means very little, because such players will lose pawns and pieces to each other almost at random. One of them wins after the the other has made several mistakes, and gotten several pieces behind.

Among top level players, it takes very little "extra" to win. For instance, a board has 64 squares. I was once told that if a top player got control of five more squares than his "fair share" (e.g. 37 vs. 27), that was practically a winning advantage unless the other player had compensation in the form of an extra pawn or a kingside attack.

A "mistake" consists of giving the other player what he needs to be sure of winning. At the very top levels, these would consist of omissions that no one at say, the intermediate level would care about, because only a top player could exploit them. Conversely, for very bad players, the loss of a SINGLE pawn or even a piece that an "average" player would bemoan, might not make a difference.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Simply, at the top-level, a player has enough technique to exploit every little advantage. That's not always true at lower levels.

Thus, losing a pawn without compensation may be a little blunder in a match between two beginners, since the opponent could make a bigger blunder on the next moves, and lose the advantage.

In a match between 2 pros, a blunder like that will lead to a defeat (or to a tormented draw), because a top-level player will make very few mistakes (if none) and probably won't give away his advantage.

Of course even World Champions blunder spectacularly (Deep Fritz-Kramnik anyone?).
> 2 votes

# Answer
The goal of chess players is, ultimately, to create a threat that cannot be stopped. But chess is a famously balanced game. There is no way to create an unstoppable threat unless one of the players errs. In the simple case, one player moves, the other counters, etc. No one makes any headway.

At the higher levels, players drop material so rarely that it doesn't come into play. And by drop material, I mean they don't just leave pieces hanging for the taking.

So how does a master win? It comes down to **efficiency**. A player must choose moves that provide more benefit than those chosen by the opponent. Eventually, the sum of the efficiency gains build to the point that a dual threat can be created. This generally results in the uncompensated loss of material. Now the game is unbalanced and the player that is down will likely lose.

But this is not easy to do. That's why there are so many draws at the master level. So what's a master to do? Sometimes they *sacrifice* in order to create efficiencies that would not otherwise be possible. Of course, they must jealously hoard the efficiencies gained and turn them into something tangible before their material disadvantage comes into play. That is, a local advantage must be exploited before a global disadvantage asserts itself. Sometimes, they will simply work on building positions imcrementally such that their moves improve their positions more than their opponents' moves improve theirs. Eventually the efficiencies can be converted to tangible gain.

One common way to talk about the accumulation of efficiencies is to use the common chess term "tempo." This word works well when talking about maintaining the advantage after sacrificing a piece. It works less well when talking about positional gains but the underlying efficiency is still there. It's just harder to see.

Examples: 1. A player puts a knight on a great square. The opponent needs to spend three moves to boot it out. Those three moves can be used by the first player to make more mischief.

1. A player allows himself to have a backward pawn. The position does not allow the pawn to be attacked. No efficiencies are lost.
2. A player has a backward pawn on a half-open file. The opponent piles rooks on that file. The first player has to spend time defending a pawn while the opponent is building an attacking force that will not go away once the pawn is lost. Meanwhile, the pieces defending the pawn can't be used elsewhere.
3. White allows Black to play a Posioned Pawn variant of the Sicilian reasoning that the loss of the `b` pawn is worth the resulting efficiencies gained while simultenously threatening the Black Q and developing half a box of pieces.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, grandmaster, super-grandmaster, losing, winning
---


# Question
Title: Can SCID be configured so that engines use Endgame Tablebases?
I set the options in Scid VS. PC 4.8, so that Tablebase information shows up in game information window (when 5 piece endgame is reached. But when I turn on an analysis engine, it still does not recognize the tablebases, and continues to calculate, showing score +3.0, while the position is mate in 31 moves (as shown in game information window). Is there anything else I need to do? I tried several engines, with same results.

# Answer
I just had the same question, and I thought I would post a belated answer for future persons.

I am using SCID vs. PC, but I think the solution may be the same or similar. First download the Gaviota tablebases here (http://www.olympuschess.com/egtb/gaviota/). Then go to SCID --\> Tools --\> Analysis Engines and select your engine (Critter is working best for me here. I have Houdini 1.5 and it is not working properly.) click Edit and then click the Configure button. You will see a GaviotaTbPath textbox; enter your directory, click save and everything should work.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, endgame
---


title: Alternative versions

text:
# Question
Title: Alternative versions
Are alternative chess rules/styles considered favourably by the main chess community? To be more specific I mean games like 3D chess (as seen in Star Trek) or landscape chess, as explained here: http://intrepidis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/landscape-chess.html

Are there tournaments for chess variants?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The only variants I can think of that experienced chess players seem to have any interest in are Chess960 (aka Fischerandom) and Bughouse. Even Seirawan chess, which has the imprimatur of a grandmaster, has not really attracted any real interest.

Other variants are not looked on unfavorably but they are basically ignored.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have not heard of any regular tournaments for any chess variant with the exception of Chess960.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How much time should be spent on learning an opening?
I know this can be a subjective question depending on the opening, but in general, should on spend time on a few openings at once or should one concentrate on one opening for a while and play it every chance they get? In general, how long should one spend on an opening, including the variations?

# Answer
> 7 votes
You're right about this being a very subjective question. I've read a few books (sorry, can't think of good references) that suggest choosing a very limited set of openings to begin with. Use this exhaustively in every situation you play, whether appropriate or not. As you attack and defend in a variety of situations you will begin to learn the merits of the position in greater depth than simply reading about them.

As for how long to stick with it, my best suggestion (and this is indeed subjective) is to stick with the opening until you stop being surprised. Once you feel you've "seen it all", you're ready to branch out.

When you begin to spread to other openings, you may find it easier to use openings that can be transposed to from the openings you already know. The similarities will help you adjust more quickly and give you greater flexibility over the board.

# Answer
> 6 votes
My plan is usually as follows:

1. Read an introductory book on the opening. Usually if I don't actually like it I've figured it out during here, and if I do like it then I have a good idea of the most basic ideas or plans. The "Starting Out" series is good for this.
2. Put all the moves into ChessBase and save it in an opening libraries database.
3. Play the opening on the ICC constantly. I usually spend about a week doing this, I'm trying to get about 100 games with the opening. After every game, analyze with Houdini to see where the opening/middlegame plan went wrong, even if I won.
4. Identify problem areas or variations and patch them.
5. If I'm confident with the opening by this point, then this is usually enough, and I'll keep playing it on the internet to get better and to memorize it. If there's a variation that seems particularly popular or problematic, then I'll look up GM games or analysis on it, look at it with some friends, and use Houdini to come up with creative ideas. I usually pick the ideas that seem most likely to throw people off based on the playing styles I've observed, not the ideas with the best evals. Sometimes I even voluntarily go into negative evaluations when positive evaluations were available.
6. If I'm still not confident, I try to figure out if it's worth hanging onto. I've never had it be worth it.

Eventually, if it stays in my repertoire for longer than six months, I'll buy more books on the opening that are more advanced, along with some monographs and ChessPublishing PDFs (if available), so I can not only supplement it with new ideas (so I can have multiple options if I play the same opponent multiple times) but also have an idea of what people are recommending for the other side. Furthermore, the satisfaction of being an "expert" on the opening, having read a large amount of literature on it, is nice.

That's probably overkill, but that was always my chess studying style.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Practicing the opening until you've won one game using it with a player of greater or equal skill as you would likely mean you've gained meaningful mastery over the opening, though as you say, defining complete mastery would likely be subjective.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You need to work wholeheartedly on 1 or 2 openings for at least half a year until you know both of those openings inside out and then move on to another 2. This is really the most logical way to get good as 'fishing' through an opening book and learning roughly how to play many openings won't do you much justice at all. tactics and endgames in the meantime will also help you improve both your creativity and your spacial awareness alongside a solid opening structure. Good luck!

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: Why was 49...Rb4+ played in this puzzle?
I was looking at the answer of today's puzzle in chessgames and see that the reason I wasn't able to solve it because I missed a *key* move in the solution:

Black played `49...Rb4+`
**note:** this is *not* the puzzle position, this was taken from the middle of the puzzle solution.
**note2:** the board seems to be *correctly* flipped.

```
8/7p/1pBP2pk/pP6/K6P/6P1/1rp5/4R3 b - - 1 49

```

I don't really see the advantage of doing that move, is it something related to winning tempos? If so, how?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Moving the king once like that is a priming move in order for Black to be properly aligned at a crucial point in a few moves.

Without the priming move this happens which allows White to win

```
8/7p/1pBP2pk/pP6/K6P/6P1/1rp5/4R3 b - - 1 49

1... Rb1 2. d7 Rxe1 3. d8=Q c1=Q 4. Qf8 Kh5 5. Bf3++

```

So it is desirable to get a check in when promoting in order to win the game:

```
8/7p/1pBP2pk/pP6/K6P/6P1/1rp5/4R3 b - - 1 49

1... Rb4 2. Ka3 Rb1 3. d7 Rxe1 4. d8=Q c1=Q+ 5. Kb3 Re3+ 6. Qd3 Rxd3+ 7. Ka2 Ra3++

```

I decided to show a simple mate ending. It is possible for white to prolong the inevitable . This would be done with `3. Be4` . Although it is possible for white to slightly delay, Black still wins with Rb1.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Forcing the white king to step forward and allow him to promote with check keeps white from drawing by perpetual check. If 49. .. Rb1 then 50.d7..Rxe5 51.d8=Q..c1=Q 52.Qf8+..Kh5 53.Qf5+..Kh6 and the last two moves would be repeated making a draw. With the white king one step forward and the check with the pawn promotion white can never get the queen over to check the king since blacks rook and queen can keep the white king in check every move as the net is tightened.

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles
---


title: Scandinavian: 2. Nc3 d4

text:
# Question
Title: Scandinavian: 2. Nc3 d4
I started out with a simple opening: `1. e4 d5 2. Nc3` and then the computer played `2... d4`, surprising me, as I had never encountered it before. Since then, I've been trying to analyse the possible ways to see if I can make this turn in my favor or if it simply means my knight is going to go on a less active square; so I wanted to know what was the best way to counter this move. Please note, I am a casual player trying to get into more intermediate/advanced chess and if you have any programs or online suggestions on teaching me openings I would love to hear them. Thanks.

# Answer
> 1 votes
3.Nce2, followed by Ng3, Nf3, Bc4, O-O, etc. is reasonable.

A thematic game to reference is http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1186636

In general, however, 2.Nc3 isn't known as the best theoretical response.

---
Tags: opening, engines, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: French Defense Exchange variation - Qh5?
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 Bd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. Qh5

```

I played this as white, and my last move seem to bother my opponent a lot. So I'd like to know if 5. ... Ne7 is correct and if my early queen trip is justified. If this is the case, which attacking ideas does white have. I later put my bishop on g5 (which is pretty obvious), but after this I had the feeling that I could do more to keep the pressure.

# Answer
6.Qh5 is not so great because Black has 6...Nbc6, both attacking d4 and threatening ...Nb4 trading off White's important light-squared bishop (it can't move to e2 or something because of ...Nxc2+). White seems to be better off preemptively defending the d-pawn with a move like 6.Nf3 or 6.Nge2.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: french-defense, attack
---


# Question
Title: How do I trap the queen once it pins my rook?
I am playing as Black in this game, and after 10. Qg4, I realize that White wanted my rook. I knew I could trap the queen once it went for the rook (11. Qxg7), but I forgot how. I went on to win the game but I would still like a refresher.

```
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2013.04.17"]
[White "ilikefood7"]
[Black "MDMoore313"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1300"]
[BlackElo "1298"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "MDMoore313 won by checkmate"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 b6 4. Bb5 Bb7 5. d3 e5 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qc7 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Nxc6 Qxc6 10. Qg4 Bxf4 11. Qxg7 O-O-O 12. Qxh8 Qg6 13. Nd5 Re8 14. Nxf4 Qh6 15. Nd5 f5 16. O-O Rf8 17. Qe5 d6 18. Qc3 f4 19. d4 f3 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. g3 Qh3 22. Ne3 Nf6 23. Kh1 Ng4 24. Nxg4 Qg2#

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
I don't think you can trap the Queen, but you ought to be able to force the Queens off the board. Once you do that your extra piece becomes very powerful. After `11... Qf6` white can only avoid a queen trade by `12. Qg4` but is followed by `12... h5` and preparing for an eventual Rg8. Black's having a great game though his King is in a drafty place. Razor sharp.

# Answer
> 5 votes
*Overall*

An interesting match. `21. g3` was certainly a gift from your opponent.

---

*Trapping the queen*

As for trapping the queen, in this position, you cannot. Any efforts to actually trade the queen will end up either failing or losing material (such as losing both rooks to the queen after some material exchange).

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 b6 4.Bb5 Bb7 5.d3 e5 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nxe5 Qc7 8.Bf4 Bd6 9.Nxc6 Qxc6 10.Qg4 Bxf4 11.Qxg7 Qg6 12.Qxh8 f6 13.Nd5

```

---

*Taking the lead*

A better approach would be to instantly punish your opponent for being greedy with \`11. .. Qf6

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 b6 4.Bb5 Bb7 5.d3 e5 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nxe5 Qc7 8.Bf4 Bd6 9.Nxc6 Qxc6 10.Qg4 Bxf4 11.Qxg7 Qf6

```

Had White taken on `f4` instead of on `g7` they would have enjoyed a `+1.77` advantage. However, after Black playing `11.Qf6` Black now enjoys a `1.33` advantage (which turns into a `2.14` advantage should White shy away from trading queens).

# Answer
> 2 votes
To me it looks like after 11. Qxg7 Qg6 12. Qxh8 d6, black threatens Be5 picking up the queen. Then if d4, White can play for 0-0-0 and Bh6, which might be the direction you were thinking.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, tactics, middlegame, queens
---


# Question
Title: How is a computer programmed to play chess?
How is a computer programmed to play chess? What are the ways by which they sort out the moves? My question is not about programming but the idea behind programming to play chess. That can really help me in chess.

# Answer
Chess programming is full of "rules of thumb" that can be applied to your own chess. There are many aspects to chess programming... but the most prominent are tree search and a heuristic evaluation. Here are some ideas that you might be able to apply to your games:

* Minimax Search: The basis for adversarial search formalized... I'd hope the principle here was intuitive.
* Evaluation: A computer scores a position by combining metrics about material balance, king safety, activity, and pawn structure. This goes into a strategic understanding of any given position.
* Iterative Deepening: The applicable idea here might be to consider your list of candidates first, prior to expending to a deeper level of analysis.
* Killer Moves: An amazing move discovered in one line of your analysis might be applicable in other lines of analysis... consider it early in the process.
* Null Move Pruning: You can better understand your opponents intentions by considering what moves they would make if you were to skip your own turn.
* Quiescence Search: When you reach the end of some analysis, make sure everything is still ok if you were to resolve the tension in the position.
* MVV-LVA: This one is obvious, but in considering capture patterns, usually a good idea to identify the most valuable victim, and take with the least valuable attacker.
* Alpha Beta Search: You can stop considering a line when you find the first refutation to it, rather than continuing to search for a better refutation.
> 8 votes

# Answer
If you want all the dirty details of Chess programming, this is a good site: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com
> 4 votes

# Answer
A computers method of playing chess is really of very little use to a human player. Computers have no true intelligence. What they do have is the ability to carry out a very large number of instructions in a very short time. The computer uses a brute force method where they look at every possible move and then reduce the number of possibilities by comparing values given to various things like active or inactive pieces, actual piece values, and specific move variations that can be forced (as long as the entire move chain is within their event horizon). A human can never do this. Humans recognize positions and know that in this position this type of move are likely to matter. The human player thus check many fewer moves, by several orders of magnitude, but chooses better candidate moves to check out. See my answer to "How do chess engines think?" How do chess engines "think"? for additional information on the specifics behind the chess engines methods.
> 3 votes

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


# Question
Title: Is this a popular variation/continuation of the Sicilian Defence?
I've grown fond of playing this opening with black against e4. I know it starts with the Sicilian but if it has a name or some background that would be nice to know.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 b6 4.b3 Bb7 5.d3 Qc7 6.Bb2 f6 7.Nf3 e5 8.O-O O-O-O

```

# Answer
No, it is not popular. 2.g3 is already only the tenth-most common move. It is apparently technically called the Steinitz Variation in ECO though it's not common enough for that to be a well-known name. It seems to often transpose to the Closed Sicilian, which starts with 2.Nc3 and usually results in White also fianchettoing (putting on g2) his light-squared bishop, though the knight usually ends up on e2, not f3.

In any case, ...b6 as a response is not seen at all in my database. ...b6 is not very common in Sicilians since Black usually tries to get in the more ambitious ...a6 and ...b5.
> 5 votes

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


# Question
Title: Sacrifices, initial loss and a volte-face?
What is the most famous example where player was losing heavily (down on material) in the beginning with lots of sacrifices but came back strongly to beat or "pwn" their opponent?

I am not asking for weaker player beating strongly rated players. Rather someone who was creatively toying with opponent by sacrificing each and everything or playing like a looney only to reveal a method to madness. Sort of like Laurence Fishburne saying "Your son creates like Fischer." in *Searching for Bobby Fischer*.

Thanks!

# Answer
This question might be a little too much in the discussion, no definitive answer category but I will answer anyway.

My answer would be the game known as the immortal game between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky on 21 June 1851. Anderssen gave up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, checkmating his opponent with his three remaining minor pieces.

Wikipedia's entry on the game is here

As a side note the list of games here has many games that would fall into this category, I haven't looked at them all but there are many interesting games on this list.
> 6 votes

# Answer
When I read the phrase "sacrificing each and everything" in your question, my mind went to the game Serper-Nikolaidis, in which White does, well, that. By the time of `35.c6`, each of White's original pieces has been offered up for sacrifice:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "St Petersburg Open"]
[Site "St Petersburg"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Grigory Serper"]
[Black "Ioannis Nikolaidis"]
[ECO "E70"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "95"]

1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nge2 Nbd7 6.Ng3 c6 7.Be2
a6 8.Be3 h5 9.f3 b5 10.c5 dxc5 11.dxc5 Qc7 12.O-O h4 13.Nh1
Nh5 14.Qd2 e5 15.Nf2 Nf8 16.a4 b4 17.Nd5 cxd5 18.exd5 f5 19.d6
Qc6 20.Bb5 axb5 21.axb5 Qxb5 22.Rxa8 Qc6 23.Rfa1 f4 24.R1a7
Nd7 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.Qd5 fxe3 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxd7 exf2+ 29.Kf1
Qe8 30.Rf7+ Qxf7 31.Qc8+ Qe8 32.d7 Kf7 33.dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 34.Qb7+
Re7 35.c6 e4 36.c7 e3 37.Qd5+ Kf6 38.Qd6+ Kf7 39.Qd5+ Kf6
40.Qd6+ Kf7 41.Qxe7+ Kxe7 42.c8=Q Bh6 43.Qc5+ Ke8 44.Qb5+ Kd8
45.Qb6+ Kd7 46.Qxg6 e2+ 47.Kxf2 Be3+ 48.Ke1 1-0

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, theory
---


# Question
Title: How to deal with an opposing pawn storm?
During some recent games I played, I have lost because my opponent advanced their pawns very far, attacking my pieces and forcing them to retreat. In some cases the pieces became trapped as well. Although these pawns may have been overextended, the few that I picked off because they were so far extended failed to compensate for my massive space disadvantage. The only times I won was when I could exploit holes made in my opponent's structure in this way, or ended up with passed pawns. Nevertheless, these were mostly the result of mistakes made later in the game, and I was under a lot of pressure throughout. How can I counter overextending pawn storms?

For example, I can end up in positions such as this one, in which my pieces have been forced backward by my opponent's pawn advances.

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/2p2p2/2n2n1p/1p2p3/p2pP1p1/P2P2B1/BPPNNPPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
It's a mistake to view the pawns themselves as overextended targets that you might get to "pick off" as you say in your post. After all, Black's main objective with the pawn storm is probably to open up lines to attack your king, and so your snapping up such overextended pawns really only furthers Black's goal.

As already pointed out in comments in this thread, the strong engine Stockfish recommends the move `1.f4` in your diagram position. And when I opened your post and looked at the position, that was my almost immediate reaction as well. Why? Not because I'm even remotely as strong as Stockfish, of course; rather, I was just reflexively applying a classic positional maxim:

> An attack on the wing is best countered by play in the center.

That advice really goes double in this position, where the opponent's king is still in the center, and would need a few moves to get out of there. (Moreover, since Black has overextended on *both* wings, her king ultimately doesn't have anywhere all that safe to go.) In particular, `1.f4` carries a direct threat of capturing on e5, and if the knight on f6 gets forced to move, White is ready to capture on f7 with dire consequences for Black in the form of a vulnerable king open to attack in the middle of the board. Black's best response is probably nipping any ideas of `fxe5` in the bud with the en passant capture `1...gxf3`.

You might object that we've given Black what I claim she wanted out of her pawn storm, providing a half-open g-file to attack our king, but the point is that we can show Black's pawn storm to be premature by continuing to follow the above maxim. After e.g. `2.Nxf3 Bd6`, we just continue to pry at the center with `3.c3!` Note that Black is nowhere near getting an attack off the ground, but we've again given her something concrete that she needs to deal with immediately: `4.cxd4` is a serious threat because of an `e5` pawn fork in the air.

Bottom line: Black's pawn storm *is* an overextension, but not because those pawns are now ripe for the taking. The real flaw in Black's play is that she's been pushing pawns for an attack that she's not yet ready for. That's why the proper response is to fight back in the center, demonstrating that she should have been spending her time developing some pieces first and taking care of her own king's safety. Here are just a few short variations, some featuring very poor Black moves just to illustrate the threats; but even in the lines where Black plays more sensibly, note that in the final positions, White is fully developed and ready to play in the center (and against Black's king), while Black is in no position to harass White at all.

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/2p2p2/2n2n1p/1p2p3/p2pP1p1/P2P2B1/BPPNNPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.f4 gxf3
( 1...Bb7?? 2.fxe5 Nh7 3.Bxf7+ )
( 1...exf4 2.Nxf4 )
( 1...Bd6 2.fxe5 Bxe5 3.Qe1 )
2.Nxf3 Bd6 3.c3! dxc3
( 3...Bg4? 4.cxd4 Nxd4 5.Nexd4 exd4 6.e5 )
4.Nxc3 *

```
> 16 votes

# Answer
It's hard to speak in generalities. However, if the pawns are truly overextended then the attack is probably half-baked. The guideline is that a premature attack on one side is countered by an attack on the opposite side. When the smoke clears the moves spent on the pawns are wasted and the opponent's overall position weakened.

But it sounds like your opponents are kicking your pieces with tempo. Thus it could be that you are over-extended and have placed your pieces such that he's getting free moves (and space) by kicking your misplaced pieces to inefficient squares.

If your pieces are getting trapped then you need to open a space for their escape. Opening up `g2` and `h2` is pretty common.

Post a game and we can give you better information.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I like the above position from White's point of view. The key move here is f3. This will open the f file, and also create escape squares on f2 and e1 for the B on g3. There is a danger of Black's moving this h pawn to h4 and trapping the bishop, but not if you play f3 in good time.

White's "disadvantages" are TEMPORARY. Black has a PERMANENT disadvantage insofar as his advanced pawns rule out castling on either the king or the queen side, meaning the king has to stay in the center. All White has to do is to open a file near the king (the f file is close enough), double rooks on the file, and run along the highway to victory.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy, pawns, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Is it true that a good "flanker" (flanking position) is worth more than a pawn? If so, why?
Perhaps I've used the wrong term, but I'll describe what a "flanker" is.

In the Queen's Gambit, there is often the possibility for White to sacrifice a bishop on h7.

`1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Ng5+ Kg8 3.Qh5 Kf8 (the rook is on e8) 4.Qh8+ Ke7 5.Qxg7` (taking the g pawn.) White has two pawns for a piece, is down a third "pawn" and usually has the advantage. Why is that?

Some observations:

* 1 White has a passed h pawn that is a queening threat in the end game, and possibly even in the middle game.
* 2 White dominates the g and h files, where Black pieces have no safe haven. It is this domination of two "edge" files that make for the "flanker." Black is confined to six files.
* 3 Derivative from b) White controls at least eight squares on Black's side of the board. If Black has nothing beyond the fourth rank on the a-f files, he is limited to 24 out of 64 squares.

This effect is so strong that it even extends to positions that I would classify as "quasi flanker".

For instance, in this "Immortal Zugzwang game, Black sacrificed a knight for two pawns so that his rooks on the f file act as a "flanker" against White's whole queen side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal\_Zugzwang\_Game

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. Ne5 c6 9. cxd5?! cxd5 10. Bf4 a6 11. Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 Nc6 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. h3? Qd7 15. Kh2 Nh5 16. Bd2 f5! 17. Qd1 b4! 18. Nb1 Bb5 19. Rg1 Bd6 20. e4 fxe4! 21. Qxh5 Rxf2 22. Qg5 Raf8 23. Kh1 R8f5 24. Qe3 Bd3 25. Rce1 h6!! 0–1

```

And in this 1919 game between Capablanca and Yates, White sacrifices a rook for the light squared bishop and a pawn between moves 22-24, and comes away with a "quasi flanker" on the queen side (and a winning advantage).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055968

```
[FEN ""]
    [FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 Na5 9. Bc2 c5 10. d4 Qc7 11. Nbd2 Bg4 12. d5 g5 13. Nf1 h6 14. Ng3 Rd8 15. a4 b4 16. cxb4 cxb4 17. Bd3 Bc8 18. Be3 Ng4 19. Rc1 Qb8 20. Bd2 Qb6 21. Qe2 Nb3 22. Rc6 Qa5 23. Bxa6 Bd7 24. Bb5 Bxc6 25. Bxc6+ Kf8 26. Qc4 Nxd2 27. Nxd2 Qa7 28. Qe2 h5 29. Nf5 Bf6 30. Nc4 Qc5 31. b3 Nh6 32. Nxh6 Rxh6 33. Qe3 Rc8 34. Rc1 Bd8 35. Qxc5 dxc5 36. Nxe5 Ke7 37. Rxc5 f5 38. Rc4 Ba5 39. Bb5 Rxc4 40. Nxc4 Bc7 41. e5 Bb8 42. Ne3 Rh7 43. Nxf5+ Kf7 44. e6+ Kf6 45. e7 Rxe7 46. Nxe7 Kxe7 47. g3 Bc7 48. Kg2 Kd6 49. Be8 h4 50. Bf7 Ke5 51. Kh3 Bd8 52. Kg4 hxg3 53. fxg3 Kf6 54. Be6 Kg6 55. d6 Kf6 56. Bf5 Bb6 57. d7 Bd8 58. h4 gxh4 59. gxh4 Bc7 60. h5 Kg7 61. Be4 1-0

```

What compensation did the winners get for their sacrifices?

# Answer
I will give you my view, though I'm only a FIDE 2200 player. Such rules do not apply in all games and you usually should not let them affect the game. That does not mean that all rules you hear are not valid, for example take the first example: a sacrifice of a piece for two pawns and attack on the king is usually good compensation. But it always depends on the position, it is up to the player to determine the strength of the attack. I would go with the known rules using them carefully. All rules have exceptions.

Compensation in the Nimzowitch game is perhaps the hardest to explain, I would guess that he saw the end position before the sacrifice since he was great tactical player.

In the Capablanca game the compensation is more clear, a bishop, a protected passed a-pawn and white square dominance and it is true that black is so badly coordinated that he cannot effectively use his kingside flank.

To the original question, it is always some advantage that compensates for a pawn and yes, it could be control on some part or side of the board. It is always up to you to determine the extent of the advantage. Your observation no.3, though: there are openings where black is confined to little space but gains a flexible position so space advantage alone is usually not compensation in itself.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tactics, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?
I was playing a game with a friend online. A situation came up where he put me in check with his bishop, and I moved my rook to block it. His king was on the g file and my rook was on g2. The website said he was in check.

```
[fen "6k1/8/2b5/8/8/8/6R1/7K b - - 0 1"]

```

*Position after* `Rg2+` *, showing only the pieces important to the question.*

I didn't think it could be a check, since legally, I could not attack his king or move my rook because it would put my king in check. Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?

This is odd, because since he was forced to respond to the check, I was able to make a couple moves and leave him with only a couple of blocked pawns, while I was able to promote a pawn and mate in a couple moves. I won, but it feels like cheating. He had a better position and should have won.

# Answer
Yes. Besides making sense, it's also explicitly stated in the rules of the game:

*3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.*

Source: Laws of Chess on the FIDE site
> 64 votes

# Answer
*Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?*

Yes.

One way to see why this makes sense is to imagine "checkless chess", a game that is just like chess, but you win by capturing the king, not by delivering checkmate, and no one is forced to move out of check. This game is exactly the same as chess except that it ends one move later and stalemate is generally a loss for the side that would have to "move into check".

In checkless chess, he moved Bc6, then you moved Rg2, and if he makes some other random move, you can win with Rg2 x Kg8 before he wins with Bc6 x Kh1. So your check really is more "important" than his pin.
> 50 votes

# Answer
A piece can give check even when it is pinned. This is the main "exception" to the rule that a pinned piece cannot move.

The reason is, your pinned piece giving check "takes" the opposing king first. (In this case, it's your rook at g2 on the g file.) That's BEFORE his bishop would take your king.

So by the laws of the game, your friend had to move his king, you made your moves, and won. All perfectly legal (and tactical). Good work.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: rules, check, illegal-move, pins
---


title: Why is it illegal to move into check?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is it illegal to move into check?
In chess, it is against the rules to move into check, or to not move out of check. But why? Obviously, if you went against this rule, you'd immediately lose. But it seems strange to make it illegal to lose in such a way.

Is there a reason for this rule? Is there a reason that chess ends with checkmate rather than capturing the king?

# Answer
It is basically just a shortcut that cuts the game short by one move once the outcome is obvious. According to Wikipedia, *"In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700) the king could be captured and this ended the game. The Persians (c. 700–800) introduced the idea of warning that the king was under attack (announcing check in modern terminology). This was done to avoid the early and accidental end of a game. Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured."*

The one difference from "real chess" that it does cause is actually rather significant. In a normal game of chess, stalemate is declared a draw, as Black has no legal move. For example:

```
[title "Black to move"]
[FEN "4k3/4P3/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

If moving into check were allowed and capturing the king ended the game, Black could move his king in this situation and White would capture it, winning the game. Opinions vary, even among grandmasters, whether stalemate is a good rule for chess or not, but in any case it is a consequence of the check rules, and a large fraction of draws are the result of it. Once again Wikipedia has a good summary of the consequences for endgame theory of abolishing the stalemate rule and making capturing the king the requirement to win the game.
> 19 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, history, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: Playing chess on a Mac with Stockfish and some GUI
I have a Macbook OS X 10.6 and want to play chess against a challenging program. I'm not very computationally inclined but it seems that I need to download Stockfish and some UCI-compatible GUI. I also want to spend $0 to make this happen. I downloaded Stockfish 231 for Mac and also downloaded pChess 1.9.2 which is reported to have an update that:

Added a wholly new module — pChess.command — copy it into the 'Engines' folder of Sigma Chess or Stockfish, and you can play pChess as a UCI engine!!

I could not find the Engines folder for the Stockfish download that I have. What's more, I'm not even sure what I should do once the pChess.command file is in Stockfish in whatever location is appropriate. When I open the Stockfish-231-mac folder that I have downloaded, the only files are copying.txt (a public licence), logo.bmp, polyglot.ini, readme.txt. The folders are Logos, Mac, and src.

In the readme.txt file:

Stockfish is a free UCI chess engine derived from Glaurung 2.1. It is not a complete chess program and requires some UCI-compatible GUI (e.g. XBoard with PolyGlot, eboard, Arena, Sigma Chess, Shredder, Chess Partner or Fritz) in order to be used comfortably. Read the documentation for your GUI of choice for information about how to use Stockfish with it.

I looked through the suggested GUI's and most seem only PC compatible or cost. Any help would be awesome. Thanks!

# Answer
I wrote a long post on how to do this for latest Macs:

Chess analysis on Mac Os X Lion 10.7 using Stockfish and HiARCs engine
> 7 votes

# Answer
You can use `ScidvsMac` which is a fork of `Scid` (Shane's Chess Information Database) with Stockfish. I'm using stockfish as the engine within scidvsmac for analyzing my own games and it's fairly fine. It also has all the typical features of decent gui like variations, opening and ending databases and etc.

Setting it is also very easy. You just need to add stockfish as engine from `Analyze` menu and provide the address to binaries.

## Links:

Direct link to DMG package

Homepage of the project

Scid for Mac

Original Scid

Useful links!
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: How does one respond to 3.d4 after playing the Sicilian?
I was black in this game, and white went ahead and played 3.d4 even though I clearly had it guarded, however once played, white now has the queen as an additional defender, and the queen was able to rest on d4 with no threat from black. In response I played

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4 Qa5+ 6.Nc3 e5

```

I went on to lose this game, but I feel like this was the deciding factor. I really don't feel like 5...Qa5+ was the best reply, even if white was to reply with 6.Bd2 I could still reply with 6..e5 and propose a queen sac, which after black wouldn't be in as bad a position.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4 Qa5+ 6.Bd2 e5 7.Bxa5 exd4

```

So, my question is: Is black's best response to 3.d4 after playing the Sicilian 3...cxd4? Also, if so, was there a blunder somewhere by black, or could a better move have been played elsewhere?

# Answer
> 13 votes
3...cxd4 is indeed basically forced. Perhaps the single biggest idea of the Sicilian is to exchange your c-pawn for White's d-pawn, leaving you with more pawns in the center. So go ahead and do it!

However, 4...Nxd4 is a mistake, leaving White with much better development after the trade.

Some common 4th moves for Black after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 are 4...Nf6 (attacking the e4 pawn), 4...e6 (preparing to develop the dark-squared bishop and/or play ...d5), and 4...g6 (planning to develop the dark-squared bishop to g7).

# Answer
> 9 votes
As dfan said, 4. ... Nxd4 is definitely an error. I would suggest you abandon this approach entirely.

Move 4 is a key branching point for black in the Sicilian defense. However, almost any line you choose will require extensive book preparation in order to be successful. The Sicilian is perhaps the most deeply explored opening with the most published theory; any serious 1. e4 player will have studied it extensively, and so if your book preparation is not on par you may find yourself falling into more pitfalls down the line.

Personally I enjoy the Taimanov variation, 4. ... e6. But there are several good options.

However, if you are just starting out I would suggest playing something else entirely on move 2. As a new player you do not want an opening that requires you to focus too much on book preparation when you should be learning basics of middlegame and endgame play. Kings pawn openings like the Ruy Lopez tend to be a better way to learn 'foundations' since intuitive moves are less likely to be terrible and book preparation is not so critical.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In addition to the moves that dfan mentioned, 4. ...e5 is also a move that you can play, which can transpose into the mainline Sveshnikovs). It leads to very interesting positions after 5. Nb5 (If 5. NxN, black is generally happy) 5...d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 b5 8.Nd5. Here, black can play Nf6 or Ne7, and white will usually follow up with c3 or Bg5.

Good old Kramnik is an expert in this variation.

Here's a famous win and a famous loss for black in this system.

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