title: What's so bad with this pawn advance?

text:
# Question
Title: What's so bad with this pawn advance?
Engines mark White's pawn advance `16. h4` as a 3-point mistake. While I understand that it's going to cost White their g-pawn, which will make White's pawn attack against the castled king much harder, I still don't see why it's so bad as to be a 3-point mistake. Very often losing a pawn is not penalized so harsh. What's the positional or long term disadvantage? The two isolated pawns on f and h?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Nd4 Qxe2+ 8.
Bxe2 g6 9. Bg5 Bg7 10. c3 O-O 11. Nd2 Bd7 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. Ne4 Bg7 14. O-O-O
Nc6 15. Nxc6 Bxc6 16. h4 f5

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
You played a very quiet and unambitious opening, but you were still dreaming of a King-side attack. You might read Vukovic *The Art of Attack in Chess* and consider his assertion that a successful attack depends on certain "preconditions" being met. You had none of those preconditions, and you should have been focussed merely on maintaining a sound, active position without weaknesses.

I do not understand why you played 12.Bxf6, giving up a Bishop, probably just to play the slightly-aggressive looking 13.Ne4 that achieved nothing. You could have just castled (on either side) put your B on f3 and moved your Rooks to the e-file. The resulting position has very little tension and would be completely equal. By playing 5.Qe2 you gave up on the possibility of building an early initiative.

Even after 12. Bxf6 your position is OK, perhaps a little worse, but 16.h4 is truly a terrible move. After this, you are a Pawn down, you have two weak Pawns, zero compensation and you have opened up the position to your opponents Bishops. You try to shrug this off by saying, in effect, "so what, its just a Pawn", but this is NOT a position where such nonchalance can be justified. 16. Bf3 would have kept the position roughly equal, neutralizing one of those Bishops. The Pawns would be completely balanced (not a passed Pawn in sight) and you have no difficulty mobilizing your Rooks, so it should not be hard to get a draw, but after your previous play a draw should have been the limit of your ambition. You had no right to expect more and the move h4 should never have entered your head.

ADDITION In response to a request from @Mast I quote from an online review from chess.com. You can find this and other reviews via Google.

*A large part of Art Of Attack is devoted to what Vukovic considers to be the preconditions necessary for an attack against the castled king to proceed. Among these are the attacker's control of the center, prevention of counterplay on the side of the board opposite the opponent's castled king, proper posting of the attacker's pieces, and a weakening of the castled King's defenses. It is also important that the would-be attacker not commit to the attack until all the preconditions are met, and Vukovic writes at some length, with examples, about what happens when the attack begins too early or too late. Too early and the attack will fizzle, while if the attack begins to late, the attacker may have missed his window of opportunity.*

# Answer
> 3 votes
As you infer, losing a pawn in opposite-side castling positions can sometimes be a good thing. Indeed one can sacrifice material in exchange for piece activity, especially if it weakens your opponent's King!

```
[FEN "r2r2k1/pp3pp1/4pb1p/8/2q2P1P/2P2N2/PPQ3P1/1K3R1R w - - 0 0"]
[White "Smyslov"]
[Black "Rudnev"]

1. g4

```

Here Smyslov can play `21. g4`, apparently giving up the `f4` pawn, because if Black captures that White can use the exposed Queen to gain sufficient tempos for a dangerous attack:

```
[FEN "r2r2k1/pp3pp1/4pb1p/8/2q2P1P/2P2N2/PPQ3P1/1K3R1R w - - 0 0"]
[White "Smyslov"]
[Black "Example"]

1. g4 Qxf4 2. g5 Be7 3. Nd4 Qe3 4. Rf3 Qe5 5. Rhf1 Rf8 6. gxh6

```

Note that important `gxh6` at the end. If you can't crank open the enemies King position then their King safety is fine - and your pawn sacrifices will be for nothing! What's the follow up to your pawn-advance, though? How is White going to open up the Black's King position?

```
[FEN "r4rk1/ppp3bp/2bp2p1/5p2/4N2P/2PP4/PP2BPP1/2KR3R w - - 0 0"]

1. Ng5 Bxg2 2. Rh2 Rfe8 3. Kd2 Bd5 4. h5

```

Here it is actually Black's pieces that are coordinating, and Black's pieces that are getting the activity. I know this is spurious, but Black's Bishops rule this board:

```
[FEN "r3r1k1/ppp3bp/3p2p1/3b1pN1/7P/2PP4/PP1KBP1R/3R4 w - - 0 0"]

1. h5 Be5

```

White's attack has left their pieces scattered. Black has centralized and looks forward to taking the initiative.

So, what's wrong with your pawn-advance? Well, let's list the problems:

1. It loses the `g2` pawn.
2. It increases Black's piece activity.
3. White loses the potential of a later King-side attack.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Are there any recent books on the Caro-Kann English Exchange line(The Accelerated Panov Attack)?
I couldn't find any recent books, and most references seem to point towards just switching to the normal Panov-Botvinnik line. I'm specifically looking for a book on the White side of this line:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5

```

# Answer
As has been commented, D'Costa's book, *The Panov-Botvinnik Attack: Move by move*, looks at least relevant, and 2014 wasn't so long ago! Here's a link to it on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3rWf1XH

As for the specific line that you've quoted, that's covered in Chapter Five of the book, *White Plays 2. c4*:

> Dubbed "Panov's little brother" by many sources, this variation packs more punch than it might at first appear to. Many Panov players have been put off by 5. ... Nc6 in the main line, as we just saw in Chapter Four, and have searched for new ways to reach their beloved IQP positions. On such way is to delay moving the d2-pawn so it is not a target for an early ... Nc6. The plan is to later play d4 and reach a standard IQP position, thereby sidestepping the potential shenanigans that we saw in the previous chapter.

The chapter starts by examining Black's alternatives to 2. ... d5, as "Black is not obliged to play 2. ... d5 and this is a slight drawback to 2. c4 from White's perspective." But the Chapter soon returns to the line you're looking for. One game it relies on (actually a transposition from `1. c4 c6`) shows a young Carlsen playing like Alpha-Zero (h4 then h5) before it was cool:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Corus Group A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2009.01.31"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "12"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Jan Smeets"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nc6
7.Bb5 e6 8.O-O Be7 9.d4 O-O 10.Re1 Bd7 11.Bd3 Rc8 12.Nxd5 exd5
13.Ne5 Bf6 14.Bf4 g6 15.Qb3 Na5 16.Qb4 Be6 17.Bh6 Bg7 18.Bxg7
Kxg7 19.h4 Re8 20.h5 f6 21.Nf3 b6 22.Bb5 Re7 23.Re2 Rcc7
24.Rae1 Kf7 25.Qd2 Qf8 26.Qf4 Bf5 27.g4 Bc8 28.b4 Nb7 29.Bc6
1-0

```

Of course, you've probably already found this book and, as you're asking here, you've probably disregarded it. Maybe that's because the chapter on the line you're looking for isn't, well, it's just a chapter rather than the whole book? Maybe it's because many of the games it uses to discuss the strategic ideas are already rather old?

Either way, I found this book to be very helpful - unusually engaging amongst opening books, and a valuable asset in my quest to master the IQP. Considering how 2. c4 isn't the main-line in the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, I suspect you'll be hard-pressed to find better.
> 2 votes

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


# Question
Title: Are there any games with 4 pieces (for the same player) pinned on the same rank?
In Caruana–Berg (Dresden, 2008), after **26...Ne6**, White has pins on all three of Black's pieces on the 6th rank and eventually gets a winning endgame.\[1\]

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Caruana—Berg, Italy vs Sweden, Dresden Olympiad 2008 [C10]"]
[StartPly "52"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nxf6+
Nxf6 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Qe2 O-O 10. O-O b6 11. Bg5 Bb7
12. Rad1 Qc7 13. Ne5 Rfd8 14. Kh1 Be7 15. Rde1 h6 16. Bh4 Nd5
17. Bg3 Bd6 18. Qe4 Nf6 19. Qh4 Nd7 20. Nxf7 Kxf7 21. Rxe6 Nc5
22. Rxd6 Rxd6 23. Qf4+ Ke7 24. Re1+ Kd7 25. Bb5+ Bc6 26. Qf5+
Ne6 27. Bxd6 Qxd6 28. Rxe6 (28...Qxe6 29. Bxc6+ Kd6 30. Qxe6+ Kxe6 31. Bxa8 {Winning endgame for White. [1]}) 1-0

```

This seems like a rare event. At the time, Caruana was rated 2640 FIDE with Berg's rating at 2623.

In games between 2600+ players, are there any classical games with 4 pieces (for the same player) pinned on the same rank?

If not, are there other classical games between top players with 3 pieces pinned on the same rank?

As depicted, there are no restrictions on the type of pin.

**Example:** As proof that this is geometrically possible, I offer the following constructed example in the interests of clarity:

```
[Title "Proof This Is Geometrically Possible"]
[FEN "r7/p1qk2p1/1nbnrp1p/BB3Q2/P7/8/1PP2PPP/3RR2K w - - 8 27"]

```

Continuation and endgame evaluation provided by
\[1\] Weeramantry, S., Eusebi, E. 2020. *Best Lessons of a Chess Coach: Extended Edition*. Mongoose Press, Newton Highlands, MA, p. 237.

# Answer
It is not geometrically possible to have four pieces all on the same rank pinned to the King. Nor is it possible for them to be all on the same file, or even the same diagonal. Indeed call that line L. Any piece pinned to the King must be on one of four lines through the King's square, two orthogonal and two diagonal. If the King is on line L then there can be at most two pinned pieces, one on either side of the King. Otherwise L is parallel to one of the four King lines, and each of the other three meets L in at most one point ("at most" rather than exactly one point because the geometric intersection might be between squares, or off the chessboard). So either way four is impossible.

One might imagine four collinear pinned pieces on a line L that's neither orthogonal nor diagonal; this is not possible on an 8x8 board, but could happen on larger boards, e.g. with Kh1 one could have pieces pinned on b1, f3, h4, and n7 (with a 15th file to accommodate a pinning piece on o8). Of course if we imagine unorthodox boards then we could also imagine unorthodox pieces that would allow for four or even more collinear pinned pieces.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: master-games, pins
---


# Question
Title: What is the required Elo to beat a Grandmaster with queen odds?
I heard someone saying today that he would beat Garry Kasparov if Garry played without a queen.

Can a Grandmaster give queen odds and win against a 2000 ranked player? Rook odds?

# Answer
> 11 votes
It's hard to say for sure, but even a grandmaster wouldn't have a very good chance without a queen unless the opposing player made big blunders.

GM Larry Kaufman estimates that Kasparov would "have chances" with giving knight odds to a player rated 2115, and be slightly favored in giving pawn and move odds to a GM rated around 2500.

A knight is about 3 pawns, and a queen is 8.8-9 pawns. So if at levels at 2500 vs 2850, a pawn is roughly a 300 point advantage (according to Kaufman, a pawn would presumably be worth maybe 200 at the 2000-2200 level vs Kasparov), and a knight is around a 700 point advantage at 2115 vs 2850, then a queen, being worth almost 3 times as much as a knight, would be worth much more.

> \[T\]he Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_handicap

# Answer
> 10 votes
I have a hard time believing that there's a player on the planet who could beat me with Queen odds. The strategy would be simple: trade off pieces pieces when possible. I'm a USCF B player.

Here are some 'Queen Odds' games. Play by the weak side is sometimes very dicey. Paul Morphy loses his game. None of the games the GMs won went past 15 moves. After that the Queen asserts too much power to overcome.

Here's a rant, lol.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have played against computer engines with material odds for myself.

At queen odds I win easily.

Minor piece odds gave me a lot of good practice. I was losing them to start off but managed to improve my play and start winning them.

I play a relatively closed game in such circumstances. and ensure my kingside cannot come under a major attack.

Exchange odds would be an interesting one to try out.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm a senior master (2400+), and I've played thousands of odds games with players up to expert level (2000+). In the 90s I was able to give a local 2100 the odds of piece-for-pawn (White removes his queen's knight, black removes his f-pawn), and I would win around 80%. In those days I would give 1800-2000 players anywhere from a knight to a rook, with a positive win-loss ratio. The internet has changed things, though, and I think modern class players are much more savvy and accurate in blitz, so I can't say I can repeat those numbers today. But I would say that Queen odds is more of a chess joke, where there really isn't much to do unless the opponent is a real tyro. The clock can work both ways, because many weaker players won't necessarily come up with a better move given more time, whereas I can usually forestall doom if there's plenty of time to think. Beer helps. On both sides.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I was able to beat Chess.com 3200-rated bot starting it with a rook and a knight down. And I'm rated 850. I guess, all you need to ensure is to trade pieces as much as possible ensuring you don't blunder anything.

---
Tags: handicapping
---


# Question
Title: Where can I download gaviota endgame tables?
I am looking for a link to download all 5 pieces gaviota endgame tables (which can give me DTM values).

A few links from google search (like this) lead me to the site which does not exist.

# Answer
https://chess.cygnitec.com/tablebases/gaviota/

Use wget recursively: https://serverfault.com/questions/25199/using-wget-to-recursively-download-whole-ftp-directories for all the files.
> 4 votes

# Answer
lucas chess has them any many more, download lucaschess for free
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Why is my chess engine that uses minimax with alpha-beta pruning so slow, even at depth 3?
I have little experience with any sort of chess AI and am at a complete loss as to why it still takes a couple of seconds to calculate a decent move even at just depth 3. Here is the code:

```
private void makeAIMove(Piece[,] board)
    {
        Move bestMove;
        int score;

        List<Piece[,]> possiblePositions = getAllPossiblePositions(board, Team.Black);
        List<Move> possibleMoves = getAllPossibleMoves(board, Team.Black);

        bestMove = possibleMoves[0];
        score = evaluatePosition(possiblePositions[0], int.MinValue, int.MaxValue, DEPTH, Team.White);
        if (numTurns > 0)
        {
            for (int i = 1; i < possiblePositions.Count; i++)
            {
                int pos = evaluatePosition(possiblePositions[i], int.MinValue, int.MaxValue, DEPTH, Team.White);
                if (pos >= score)
                {
                    bestMove = possibleMoves[i];
                    score = pos;
                }
            }
        }
        else
        {
            bestMove = possibleMoves[Random.Range(0, possibleMoves.Count)];
        }
        numTurns += 1;
        updateBoard(bestMove);
    }

    private int evaluatePosition(Piece[,] board, int alpha, int beta, int depth, int team)
    {
        if (depth == 0)
        {
            return evaluate(board);
        }
        if (team == Team.White)
        {
            List<Move> moves = getAllPossibleMoves(board, team);
            int newBeta = beta;
            foreach (Move moveName in moves)
            {
                Piece[,] newBoard = (Piece[,])board.Clone();
                newBoard = move(newBoard, newBoard[moveName.start.y, moveName.start.x], moveName.start, moveName.end);
                newBeta = Mathf.Min(newBeta, evaluatePosition(newBoard, alpha, beta, depth - 1, oppositeTeam(team)));
                if (newBeta <= alpha) break;
            }
            return newBeta;
        }
        else
        {
            List<Move> moves = getAllPossibleMoves(board, team);
            int newAlpha = alpha;
            foreach (Move moveName in moves)
            {
                Piece[,] newBoard = (Piece[,])board.Clone();
                newBoard = move(newBoard, newBoard[moveName.start.y, moveName.start.x], moveName.start, moveName.end);
                newAlpha = Mathf.Max(newAlpha, evaluatePosition(newBoard, alpha, beta, depth - 1, oppositeTeam(team)));
                if (beta <= newAlpha) break;
            }
            return newAlpha;
        }
    }

    int[] scoreTable = new int[]
        {
            1, 3, 3, 5, 9, 999 // Value of each piece
        };
    private int evaluate(Piece[,] board)
    {
        int blackScore = 0;
        int whiteScore = 0;
        for (int i = 0; i < 8; ++i)
        {
            for (int j = 0; j < 8; ++j)
            {
                if (board[i, j].team != Team.None)
                {
                    if (board[i, j].team == Team.White)
                    {
                        whiteScore += scoreTable[board[i, j].name];
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        blackScore += scoreTable[board[i, j].name];
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        return blackScore - whiteScore;
    }

```

# Answer
I don't have time to read your code in detail, but the main thing that sticks out to me is the following line:

```
Piece[,] newBoard = (Piece[,])board.Clone();
newBoard = move(newBoard, .... blablabla

```

So for each move, you're creating a new board then making your move on that new board. This is breathtakingly slow. There are two main problems: 1. Dynamic memory allocation (that is, creating new objects on the fly) is usually a no-no if you care about performance (). 2. How exactly is the board being cloned? (do you know?) Looping over ever square? Slow.

Usually this is done by creating *one* board object, then when you loop over each move you 1. make the move 2. do whatever calculation/recursion you want and 3. *undo* the move. This avoids all Dynamic memory allocation and cloning.

These problems can also appear when creating new move objects.

---

If you plan on making further modifications to this engine, you should really use negamax. Eventually your search function will grow to 200+ lines, and you really don't want to make each change twice (once for white and black) and have to think about whether the \> should be a \< or whatever. This may seem superficial, but it's basically required if you want to have manageable code and not spend all your time squashing bugs.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, minimax
---


title: Funny chess starting positions

text:
# Question
Title: Funny chess starting positions
Recently, I found this funny position called Omicron. Are there are any other funny starting positions like this that can be used to have fun with friends?

```
[FEN "2bqkb2/1rppppr1/np4pn/p6p/P6P/NP4PN/1RPPPPR1/2BQKB2 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
There are a number of these on the internet ( , ), though how much fun is to be had is up to those that choose to play them. Such judgements are beyond me.

I've never tried any of these. And I don't plan to.

---

A few selections.

```
[Title "Position #1"]
[FEN "rnbqqbQR/npppppPN/bp4PB/kp4PK/qp4PQ/bp4PB/npPPPPPN/rqBQQBNR w - - 0 1"]

```

Another one.

```
[Title "Position #2"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

One with the Queens in jail.

```
[Title "Position #3"]
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/Pp1ppppp/qP6/Pp6/pP6/Qp6/pP1PPPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

The Kings in jail.

```
[Title "Position #4"]
[FEN "r2q1nnr/Pp1ppppp/kP6/Pp6/pP6/Kp6/pP1PPPPP/R2Q1NNR w - - 0 1"]

```

No Rooks.

```
[Title "Position #5 (~+2.6)"]
[FEN "qk6/bbb5/nnnn4/ppp5/5PPP/4NNNN/5BBB/6KQ w - - 0 1"]

```

A key challenge is finding starting positions that lead to interesting play and have close to equal evaluations. For example...

```
[Title "Position #6"]
[FEN "1k6/ppp2ppq/ppp2ppp/5ppp/PPP5/PPP2PPP/QPP2PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

And simple changes?

```
[Title "Position #7 (+6.9)"]
[FEN "8/8/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

It depends.

```
[Title "Position #8 (+0.5)"]
[FEN "8/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Some aren't too bad.

```
[Title "Position #9 (+0.3)"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/pppppppp/1p1p1p1p/1P1P1P1P/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: What are Silver and Bronze positions for FIDE direct titles?
I refer to https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01DirectTitles2017 for the following question:

Direct titles are awarded based on your performance in certain tournaments.

A gold finish is being 1st after tiebreaks with any other players in your point group. 1st equal means the best 3 players who are tied for highest points, ranked after tiebreaks.

That much is clear, however the definition for Silver and Bronze performances are not written.

Long ago I found information online describing how Silver and Bronze are awarded, and I recall in some scenarios Silver was not awarded at all, maybe if there are two Gold winners for example, or perhaps two people tied for first, then the 3rd place would get a Bronze instead. I also remember it being possible to have multiple Silver and Bronze winners.

I did some search but could not find anything about them now. Could someone in the know shed some light on the exact definition and criteria for obtaining the Silver and Bronze positions?

# Answer
From what I can tell, Gold, Silver, and Bronze are awarded to the top three players on tiebreaks, with no possibility of more than one person in a section getting any particular medal.

This flyer for the 2021 North American Junior U20 Chess Championships says under "Prizes":

> Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals to top 3 players in each section (on tiebreaks if necessary).

And it has the following table:

```
Direct Titles – subject to FIDE Handbook (see Table for Direct Titles)
Place                                Section  FIDE Title/Norm
Gold Medal                           Open     IM title and GM norm
=1st, Silver or Bronze on Tiebreaks  Open     IM title
Silver, Bronze Medal                 Open     FM title and IM norm
Gold                                 Girls    WIM title and WGM norm
=1st, Silver or Bronze on Tiebreaks  Girls    WIM title
Silver, Bronze Medal                 Girls    WFM title and WIM norm

```

As you can see, it contemplates getting Silver or Bronze while *also* getting Equal First. This would be impossible if more than one person could get Silver, or if Equal First didn't count in the medal places.

Of course, if the second place person in the Open section gets Equal First, they win IM from that so the FM title and IM norm they win from Silver won't do much for them, but they still get the medal.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide, titles, performance
---


title: King's Indian Attack (KIA) purpose?

text:
# Question
Title: King's Indian Attack (KIA) purpose?
The King's Indian Attack usually starts with the following below

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3

```

However, I do not fully understand what this opening is trying to do. I understand that White might try to take control of the center later with d3 and then e4, but are there any other variations of this opening that can be played aggressively or defensively?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Let's face it, `1. Nf3` and `2. g2` isn't going to cause a strong player with the Black pieces any problems. Importantly, though, White isn't going to lose the game because of these moves either.

White has to be careful because Black can take the center. Any careless moves by White can leave them without effective pawn-breaks, meaning that they'll be low on space and Black will probably take an advantage. If the White player knows their stuff, though, they can maintain their pawn-breaks and eventually counter-attack the Black center.

If Black chooses not to take the center but instead gain Queen-side space, well, White is already on the way to playing `f4` and `h4`, possibly with a King-side pawn-storm. That's not essential, though, as depending on what Black does, White can often transpose into `e4`, `d4` or `c4` systems.

Whilst not immediately challening Black, this opening therefore gives White a clear middle-game plan to execute whilst bypassing, in most cases, Black's preparation - not a terrible combination... It also invites Black to over-extend, get over-confident, or otherwise take a center that they may not know how to handle. For this reason, I've heard the KIA described as a good opening against a weaker opponent (and a terrible opening against a stronger one!).

# Answer
> 2 votes
The move order 1. Nf3 and 2. g3 is an extremely flexible asset, often used in elite level. Below I break down some ideas.

### Avoiding early variations

White waits for Black’s early moves, and later transposes to a known line. For instance, one of the early main lines of the Catalan is:

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 dxc4

```

Studying the line above requires a huge amount of time and effort. However, if White opts for the following order:

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

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. O-O Be7 5. d4 O-O 6. c4

```

We reach the tabiya of the Catalan, cutting off a huge amount of theory (although Black may for example play 5... b5 to "punish" the late advance of the c-pawn).

### Playing Black's defenses in reversed colors

A different approach, but also heavily played, is to “play as black with a tempo up”, especially for players who enjoy the Benoni, Grunfeld, King's Indian Defense, amongst others, with Black.

White invites Black to take control of the centre with `1. Nf3 2. g3` to transpose to known Defenses in reversed colors:

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

1. Nf3 c5 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. c4 (4. d4) (4. O-O e5 5. d3) 4... d4)

```

### King's Indian Attack (KIA)

The KIA may arise generally if Black plays the typical pawn setups below.

```
[fen "8/pp3ppp/4p3/2pp4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

or

```
[fen "8/pp3ppp/3pp3/2p5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

#### The tematic KIA manouver

White launches a tematic attack to the kingside, following a sequence of moves which can be reproduced almost automatically in several variations. This doesn't necessarily mean that these moves are best. Indeed, the engine's evaluation is often favorable to Black, but neutralising White's attack is not trivial–it requires an accurate defensive setup and counterplay at the queenside. `1. Nf3 2. g3 3. Bg2 4. O-O 5. d3 6. Nbd2 7. e4 8. Re1 9. e5 10. Nf1 (10. Qe2) 11. h4 12. Bf4`

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

1. Nf3 i9 2. g3 i9 3. Bg2  i9 4. O-O i9 5. d3 i9 6. Nbd2 i9 7. e4 i9 8. Re1 i9 9. e5 i9 10. Nf1 (10. Qe2) i9 11. h4 i9 12. Bf4 i9

```

#### Example game

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "Sousse Interzonal"]
[Site "Sousse TUN"]
[Date "1967.10.15"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Lhamsuren Myagmarsuren"]
[ECO "A07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "61"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7
7. O-O O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4
13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5 15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6
18. Ng5 Nd5 19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7 21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3
23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4 g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4 27. h5 cxd3
28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30. Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7+ 1-0

```

This is obviously a very simplistic approach to the KIA, which might be useful to \<1800-rated players. To learn more, I find Sergei Movsesian's games very instructive. He is a KIA expert, and his repertoir is mostly based on this openning.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: What's the average total time for a game of bullet chess?
Bullet chess gives each player 1 minute to make all their moves - if that minute passes and they haven't checkmated their opponent, they lose (or if insufficient material, a draw).

Since chess has 2 players, the longest a bullet chess game can go for is approximately 2 minutes (or slightly under because it's not possible for both clocks to count down to exactly zero at the same time).

But many bullet games are much shorter than 2 minutes, for example in games where a checkmate or resignation happens very early in the game (some last only a few seconds).

So what is the *average* duration of a game of bullet chess?

# Answer
> 13 votes
Per the suggestion by Rewan in the comments, I pulled the January 2022 log of games from lichess and looked at all the 1+0 games that finished with "Normal" or "Time forfeit" results with both players making at least one move each.

The code I used is included below.

Notes:

* Elapsed time is calculated as the sum of the starting clocks for each player minus the sum of the ending clocks for each player. Starting clocks (rather than a constant 120s) are used to handle the case when a player berserks.
* I exclude cases where players gave their opponents more time (since this makes calculating elapsed time impossible from the PGN data given). At least, I try to; there are some cases that will be undetectable, such as giving time and the opponent using up all of that time prior to making their next more.
* I do not use wall clock game creation time and game end time so as to avoid having the calculation artificially inflated with the extra non-game time introduced by the delay between game creation and game start and lag/ping latency.

Number of games: 27,398,824
Average time: 93.51 seconds
Median time: 104 seconds

Using just the games in which neither player berserks:

Number of games: 27,130,482
Average time: 93.77 seconds
Median time: 105 seconds

Histogram of durations in that second set (no berserks):

Note the blip at t=60s. This duration is over-represented due to the games that have exactly two moves with white timing out. These stem, I believe, from challenges in which the challenged player does not immediately respond, and the challenger (playing white) doesn't notice when the challenge is ultimately accepted.

Also note that the duration of the game is at least somewhat dependent on the strengths of the players. Here's a graph of the durations for games in which both players were about the same strength (Elo within 100 of each other) plotted against the players' average rating:

I'm guessing the sudden dip at the end is an artifact stemming from the lower game count there, although perhaps to reach that level, premoves really become much more necessary.

python3 code:

```
import glob
import os
import re
import statistics

def seconds(time_str):
    """convert h:mm:ss to total seconds"""
    h, m, s = time_str.split(':')
    return int(h) * 3600 + int(m) * 60 + int(s)

# function to verify each player's clock is monotone
# decreasing (if a player is given time by their
# opponent, then the calculation of total game time
# is not possible given only the PGN data supplied)
def non_increasing(l):
    return all(x>=y for x, y in zip(l, l[1:]))

clock = re.compile(r'(?:\[%clk )(\d:\d\d:\d\d)')

ignore = 0
bullet = 0
time = 0
gameid = ""
alltimes = []
sanetimes = []

statfile = open('stats.txt','w')
statfile.write("%8s %3s %3s %5s %5s\n"
  % ("GameID", "Dur", "nPly", "Wclk", "Bclk"))

for filename in glob.glob('*.pgn'):
  print(filename)
  with open(os.path.join(os.getcwd(), filename), 'r') as f:
    line = f.readline()

    while(line):

      # "Site" is the second line of the each game, so it
      # is a good place to serve up the reset
      if(line.find('[Site ')>=0):
        ignore = 0
        timeout = 0
        bullet = 0
        s = line.split('"')
        s = s[1].split('/')
        gameid = s[-1]

      if(line.find('[Variant')>=0):
        ignore = 1

      if(line.find('[TimeControl')>=0):
        s = line.split('"')
        if(s[1] == '60+0'):
          bullet = 1

      # ignore "Abandoned", "Unterminated", "Rules infraction"
      # and any other nonstandard endings.
      if(line.find('[Termination')>=0):
        s = line.split('"')
        if(s[1] == "Time forfeit"):
          timeout = 1
        elif(s[1] != "Normal"):
          ignore = 1

      if(line[0] == '1'):
        if((bullet == 1) and (ignore == 0)):
          times = clock.findall(line)
          if(len(times) >= 2):
            secs = [ seconds(item) for item in times ]
            p1 = secs[::2]
            p2 = secs[1::2]

            # record the first clock value for each player.
            # it should be 60, but if the player berserked
            # then it will be 30. Whichever, we use this
            # value to determine the elapsed time for that
            # player's clock at the end.
            s1 = p1[0]
            s2 = p2[0]

            if(s1<=60 and s2<=60 and non_increasing(p1)
                and non_increasing(p2)):
              t0 = secs[-1]
              if(timeout == 0):
                t1 = secs[-2]
                dur = s1+s2 - (t0 + t1)
              else:
                dur = s1+s2 - t0

              if(dur >= 0 and dur <=120):
                statfile.write("%8s %3d %3d %5d %5d\n"
                  % (gameid, dur, len(secs), s1, s2))

                alltimes.append(dur)
                if(s1==60 and s2==60):
                  sanetimes.append(dur)

      line = f.readline()

f.close()
statfile.close()

print("Number of games: ", len(alltimes))
print("Average time: %s seconds"
  % ( statistics.mean(alltimes)))
print("Median time: %s seconds"
  % ( statistics.median(alltimes)))

print("Number of non-berserked games: ", len(sanetimes))
print("Average time: %s seconds"
  % ( statistics.mean(sanetimes)))
print("Median time: %s seconds"
  % ( statistics.median(sanetimes)))

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Collected data from the top 100 bullet players in Lichess using the berserk module from lichess api.

The function `client.games.export_by_player()` can give info about the games played by a player. This includes `createdAt` and `lastMoveAt` timestamps values from which we can calculate the duration of the game.

Be noted that extracting game time duration through game clk info may not be appropriate because most of these players are pre-moving. Even if their clock is at 1s some players can still make some moves with their clock still at 1s.

## I. Bullet games at TC 60+0

#### Some figures

Bullet games from top 100 bullet Lichess players, each player has around 200 games at tc 60+0 less duplicates.

```
num data: 18125
min   (s): 21
max   (s): 200
mean  (s): 103
stdev (s): 32

```

#### Overall distribution

There are games that are more than 120s due to pre-moves.

#### Resigned games

It peaks close to 100s.

#### Checkmates

#### Time forfeit

#### Draws

#### Stalemate

#### Overall result by game termination

## II. Bullet games at TC 30+0

Bullet games from top 100 bullet Lichess players at TC 30+0

```
num data: 6963
min   (s): 21
max   (s): 120
mean  (s): 63
stdev (s): 17

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I tried to get some data from chess.com using their published api. I use the game archive endpoint to get the data, and use the leaderboard endpoint to get the top 16 players in bullet.

Typical game header in the pgn from pgn key of the returned request response.

```
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2020.09.07"]
[Round "-"]
[White "DexyDex"]
[Black "Orange_Ghost"]
[Result "1-0"]
[CurrentPosition "1Q3B2/1R6/5p1k/3q1P1p/1P1N2pP/2P1r3/6PK/8 b - -"]
[Timezone "UTC"]
[ECO "C64"]
[ECOUrl "https://www.chess.com/openings/Ruy-Lopez-Opening-Classical-Defense-4.O-O-d6"]
[UTCDate "2020.09.07"]
[UTCTime "21:54:44"]
[WhiteElo "2839"]
[BlackElo "2849"]
[TimeControl "60"]
[Termination "DexyDex won by checkmate"]
[StartTime "21:54:44"]
[EndDate "2020.09.07"]
[EndTime "21:56:43"]
[Link "https://www.chess.com/game/live/5413100443"]

```

Elapse time can be calculated using the EndTime and StartTime tag values.

#### Top bullet players

```
['Alexander_Zubov', 'AnishGiri', 'Chefshouse',
'DanielNaroditsky', 'GMWSO', 'Hikaru', 'Indianlad',
'nihalsarin', 'NikoTheodorou', 'Oleksandr_Bortnyk',
'Orange_Ghost', 'RaunakSadhwani2005', 'SmurferHe',
'spicycaterpillar', 'wonderfultime', 'Zhigalko_Sergei']

```

#### Sample datasets

```
   elapse_sec  tc                            termi                                         link
0         142  60             chessawp won on time   https://www.chess.com/game/live/3359644035
1         123  60             chessawp won on time   https://www.chess.com/game/live/3359654153
2         105  60  TrimitziosP7 won by resignation  https://www.chess.com/game/live/38857280443
3         157  60         TrimitziosP7 won on time  https://www.chess.com/game/live/38857733457
4         111  60     denizozen won by resignation  https://www.chess.com/game/live/38866804411
       elapse_sec  tc                               termi                                        link
19406         144  60         Zhigalko_Sergei won on time  https://www.chess.com/game/live/2793173203
19407          52  60  Zhigalko_Sergei won by resignation  https://www.chess.com/game/live/2793177225
19408         131  60    Zhigalko_Sergei won by checkmate  https://www.chess.com/game/live/2831119397
19409         109  60          Kanallija won by checkmate  https://www.chess.com/game/live/2831121747
19410         120  60        Kanallija won by resignation  https://www.chess.com/game/live/2831123668

```

#### Figures

```
datasets: 19411
mean: 108
stdev: 35

```

#### Distribution plot

---
Tags: statistics, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: Silman's second negative of isolated pawns
What is Silman actually trying to say here? That it requires tremendous work to take the isolated pawn? That the formula is complex? That it is not possible(unless the opponent does not bother defending it) to take it before all these requirements are met?

```
[FEN "6k1/p2q1p2/1p2p1p1/3r3p/3P3P/P1Q3P1/1P3P2/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
What Silman describes here is a textbook scenario of what you should be aiming for when fighting an isolani. If you reach the diagram position, you will collect the pawn and win the game.

But of course, this is not the only way to win a chess game. It should be considered as guidelines: exchanging minor pieces is good because it reduces the value of the outpost on e5, keeping at least one rook is good because it can attack *and pin* the isolani, and the opponent's rook is clumsy at defending, etc.

Also, it is a warning that the camp with the isolani must do something specific, building an attack or changing the pawn structure, because if the game follows a quiet flow with simple exchanges, they might find themselves trapped in this losing scenario.

# Answer
> 4 votes
What Silman is "trying to say" (actually saying,in fact) is that these are the things that you should be trying to do if your opponent lets you. Tactical struggles take place not just over the gain of material but over the control of squares or to change the Pawn structure. Between strong players much ingenuity will be devoted to such struggles and the ideal situation will seldom be achieved. Although the diagram shows an isolated Queen Pawn (IQP) Silman's general principles apply equally wherever the isolated pawn.

To be more comprehensive, the advice should include recommendations for the player with the isolated Pawn. which the opponent must aim to frustrate. Specifically with the IQP, there is often the opportunity to dissolve it with d5, which sometimes just simplifies and sometimes releases a flood of active pieces. Sometimes players prefer to remain with an IQP for sake of the attacking chances, and that takes us far from the question. Silman is certainly telling us that the matter is complex, but he is still not telling us (here) more than half the story.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think it can be formulated even simpler: Unless the side with the isolani has a bishop that doesn't protect the pawn and the other an attacking bishop or a knight, the pawn can be protected the same number of times it can be attacked, so a direct attack is hopeless unless the pawn gets pinned on the half-open file or a defender can be kicked away. (Which essentially holds for all targets!) Since the isolani side must be very helpful to let this nightmare happen, usually the attacker uses higher mobility and/or creating a second weakness (also a standard motif not constrained to isolanis).

---
Tags: isolated-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Can I get FIDE titles (FM, IM, GM) by getting norms in blitz tournaments only?
Could I play in blitz tournaments only and get FIDE norms, hence I can get FIDÉ titles such as FM, IM, and GM?

# Answer
FIDE describe the rules for titles including in norms in the document FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 January 2022.

The first thing to note is that the FM title only requires reaching a certain rating. No norms are required for the FM and WFM titles:

> 1.3 Titles may be gained by achieving a published or interim rating at some time (see 1.53a). For ratings achieved after 1st July 2017, the player must at that time have played at least 30 rated games:
>
> 1.3.1 **FIDE Master ≥2300**
>
> 1.3.2 Candidate Master ≥2200
>
> 1.3.3 Women FIDE Master ≥2100
>
> 1.3.4 Women Candidate Master ≥2000

Regarding the rates of play for all titles it says:

> 1.1.2 There must be no more than twelve hours play in one day. This is calculated based on games that last 60 moves, although games played using increments may last longer.
>
> 1.1.3 No more than 2 rounds shall be played on any one day.
>
> **Each player must have at least two hours in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves**.
>
> In the application for the GM or WGM title based on norms, at least one norm shall be achieved in a tournament with only one round per day for a minimum of 3 days.

So, no each player must have 2 hours, not 5 minutes, for all the moves assuming the game lasts 60 moves. That is standard time control not blitz.
> 13 votes

# Answer
No you cannot. FIDE titles are only awarded for classical chess.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: fide, tournament, blitz, norm
---


title: d3 lines of Ruy Lopez vs. Italian

text:
# Question
Title: d3 lines of Ruy Lopez vs. Italian
I haven't played the Ruy Lopez at all but I am curious about how it compares to the Italian. I've heard that one reason the Ruy is supposedly better is because White has an easier time playing d4 in one go, eg. in the Two Knights Defense White plays 4.d3 to protect the e-pawn whereas in the Morphy Defense White can simply castle and ignore the threat to his e-pawn. However, what if Black scares you away from playing d2-d4, eg. by threatening to enter the Berlin Defense / Marshall Attack? If White has to play d3 in those lines, doesn't he just end up in a position that's more or less equal to the Italian?

# Answer
The big difference in my opinion between the Italian and the Ruy Lopez is that you're tempting black into weakening their queenside pawn structure with a6-b5. Attacking that extra hook with a4 is a huge source of play on the queenside for white that you do not get in the Italian after both sides for instance have played a4 and a5.

Yes you are correct though that another huge difference is the ability to play d4 in one move. However, since the Marshall and Berlin have entered the field, top players at least are content with just sticking with playing d3. So there's no huge difference between the Italian and Ruy Lopez there.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: theory, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Am I misunderstanding the --materialz option on pgn-extract, or is it not quite working right?
I ran the following pgn extract command

```
pgn-extract --materialz "n3+q*r*b*p* n2+q*r*b*p*" --output knights.pgn db.pgn

```

I expected this to find games where at some point in the game, one side has three or more knights and the other side has two or more knights. However, the linked game was identified as one of the games that matched those criteria. At no point in this game does one side have three knights (or more) while the other has two (or more). One side has four while the other has one, but that's not what I expected. So, am I misunderstanding how the software works, or is there a bug in the software?

**Edit:** Another few examples of games it picked out:

https://lichess.org/G0K63m3l

https://lichess.org/FIylZjUm

# Answer
> 12 votes
This is a bug due to sloppy copy-and-paste of code on my part and failure to test games involving promotions. If you wish to apply the fix yourself to the source of v21-08 (and earlier) then in the file end.c, function look\_for\_material\_match this code:

```
if (next_move->promoted_piece != EMPTY) {
    num_pieces[OPPOSITE_COLOUR(colour)][next_move->promoted_piece]++;
    /* Remove the promoting pawn. */
    num_pieces[OPPOSITE_COLOUR(colour)][PAWN]--;
}

```

should be:

```
if (next_move->promoted_piece != EMPTY) {
    num_pieces[colour][next_move->promoted_piece]++;
    /* Remove the promoting pawn. */
    num_pieces[colour][PAWN]--;
}

```

In other words, remove the two calls to `OPPOSITE_COLOUR`.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I tested the first linked game with pgn-extract v21-08 and replay the game, this is caused by a bug.

---
Tags: software, pgn
---


# Question
Title: Chess against Chuck Norris (starting position with lots of queens)
Just plain silly.

Replace all pieces of Black (except the king — you are not Chuck Norris, you must have one) with queens. The starting position is then a Mate in 3 (#3).

Challenge: Replace only a few Black pieces with queens such that Lichess (or your favorite engine) shows a forced mate in *n*, with *n* as high as possible. Of course, it is always a forced mate in a higher sense, since already replacing a rook is -7. For the record, I managed a #6.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Improved set-up:

Stockfish gives this one #-13:

```
[Title "Mate in 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/qqppppqq/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.d4 Qgxd4 2.e3 Qxd1+ 3.Kxd1 Qc5 4.Nc3 Qd6+ 5.Ke1 Qxc2 6.Nge2 Qbxb2 7.f3 Qcd2+ 8.Bxd2 Qdxd2+ 9.Kf2 Qbxc3 10.h4 Qdxe3+ 11.Kg3 Qg7+ 12.Kh3 Rxh4+ 13.Kxh4 Qeh6#

```

Original Mate in 9 (multiple lines):

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pqppqqqp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nh3 Qbxg2 2. Bxg2 Qxg2 3. Rf1 Qh4 4. d3 Qxf1+ 5. Kxf1 Qxh3+ 6. Ke1 Qxf2+ 7. Kxf2 Qdh4+ 8. Kg1 Qxh2+ 9. Kf1 Qh1#

```

---
Tags: problems, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: The ultimate decision of the eternal bishop vs knight question
The following is...disturbing.

```
[FEN "bbbbkbbb/bbbbbbbb/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Black is about 15\*3-38, say 10 units up (as Black will also grab a pawn and exchange on b2 or g2, to say the least). Stockfish evaluation is even more pessimistic.

```
[FEN "nnnnknnn/nnnnnnnn/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Eh...WHAT?!? (Try yourself. I used Lichess Standard.)

You can answer the WHAT?!? by "horizon", and it is kind of true - the nearer the shortlegs come, the more the evaluation goes down. But depth 20 or so should suffice to find out that White is to be trampled over soon.

So I repeat my question, why does the computer underrate the knights so drastically here? (Even if some knights had to be "traded" against pawns, Black is still up materially!)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I believe the position would be more equal if some of the pawns remained to block the bishops initial reach into white's position. Black has some attacks immediately that cannot all be defended.

1. Bxb2 winning a rook
2. Bxg2 winning a rook
3. Bxf2+ sacrifice, followed by potentially Bh4+ g3 Bxg3+ hxg3+ Bxg3+ and the king is almost mated immediately.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If a knight on the rim is grim, then 9 nights on the rim is very very grim! Conversely I wonder if there's some "bug" where you get a bonus for having the bishop pair too many times?

You can already see a similar phenomenon happening to a less extreme degree by just looking at the starting position but with 4 knights (+1.0) or 4 bishops (-.4). But in that case there doesn't seem to be a threshold phenomenon.

---
Tags: engines, knights, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible for the hopper/locust to jump over unmovable squares?
If a board with unmovable squares, such as Chessence, has a Cannon on a1, and an enemy piece on a3, can the Cannon jump over the unmovable square (a2) and capture the target?

Normally, a "leaper" such as Knight is unhindered by the unmovables squares, but I believe that's the way leapers themselves moves. (Nothing could "block" them)

For lesser leapers such as the Knight in Chinese chess (Horse), an unmovable square immediately adjacent to the Horse might render it unmovable to the two squares diagonally to the unmovable square in the same direction (I believe). eg. A Horse in b2 can not move to a4 or c4.

But I don't specifically know how do "hoppers/locusts" move "behind the scene".

In the rules of hoppers, it didn't mention anything about "if an unmovable square could be counted as a 'hurdle'", so I don't really know what should I do?

Somebody please be so kind and enlighten me.

Thank you very much for your help!

# Answer
Your question:

> If a board with unmovable squares, such as Chessence, has a Cannon on a1, and an enemy piece on a3, can the Cannon jump over the unmovable square (a2) and capture the target?

Relevant background information from Wikipedia on hoppers:

> A hopper is a piece that moves by jumping over another piece (called a hurdle). The hurdle can be any piece of any color. Unless it can jump over a piece, a hopper cannot move.

Relevant background information from Wikipedia on cannons:

> In xiangqi (Chinese chess), the cannon captures as a hopper along rook lines (when not capturing, it is a (1,0)-rider which cannot jump, the same as a rook); in janggi (Korean chess), the cannon is a hopper along rook lines when moving or capturing.

Relevant background information from Wikipedia on Chessence:

> The board is a 6×9 rectangle of squares with eight squares missing. \[...\] A man may not move to, nor through, a non-existent (blackened-out) square; except that a man moving as a knight may jump over a non-existent square.

So the question is really whether a hopper (such as a cannon) can use a square that is not part of the board as if it was a square of the board that is occupied by a hurdle (a piece of any color).

Phrased like that the obvious answer seems that no, a square that is not part of the board is not like a non-empty square. However if we imagine that all unavailable squares are instead occupied by neutral (belonging to neither player) immovable pieces (obstacles) and we also stipulate that these pieces cannot be captured by either player or by any piece, then none of the rules of Chessence require any change. Both a void and an obstacle stop the movement of a rider such as a rook or bishop, so in that respect a non-board void square is very much like a neutrally-occupied square. Prior art for this interpretation exists as the obstacles in the Shuuro chess variant, although knights are granted the power to sit on top of such obstacles. I am not aware of any chess variant that combines hoppers with obstacles, though.

In conclusion, given that voids and obstacles are interchangeable for most rules, there is an argument to be made for either allowing or disallowing using voids as hurdles. However, games that use the language of voids should be expected to default to disallowing, and games that use the language of obstacles do not have a clear default. So be sure to talk to your opponent about the rules that you are going to play by!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, unorthodox-pieces
---


# Question
Title: Looking for the finesse variant rules by GM Walter Browne
I am looking for the rules of chess variant finesse by GM Walter Browne.

Here is my research so far.

1. Two youtube videos : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nysD5lS4lBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybIL1i5J7s
2. This website http://www.finessebybrowne.com/ from this interview http://www.uschess.org/index.php/June-/From-the-Vault-Chess-Life-Interview-with-GM-Browne.html

I' tried to get old version from archive.org, but it's blank.

Here is a website for my search: https://lookingforfinesse.github.io/lookingforfinessevariant

# Answer
> 2 votes
I cannot find any textual descriptions, but it seems that the rules can be reconstructed from the videos you linked to. The rules are like chess, but with fairy pieces. I will describe the pieces and the initial setup.

Fourwinder (pawn): moves one step straight or diagonally but only captures straight, with optional double straight or diagonal move from initial position.

Harpy (superknight): "a harpy jumps two squares in any direction", jumps like a knight but can also jumps two squares horizontally or vertically. Also known in Mideast chess as the Castle.

Dualist (sounds like Duos, but in the short video is written on one of the papers visible to the side): short queen of range 2 (like a queen, but restricted to moves of length 1 and 2)

Trident: short queen of range 3 (like a queen, but restricted to moves of length 3 or shorter)

Knishop: combination of knight and bishop (see princess)

Knook: combination of knight and rook (see empress)

Zeus/Devil (white/black king): "this piece moves diagonally 1 or 2 \[...\] the only other possibility is sideways \[...\] cannot capture sideways", 2-short bishop that can also move but not capture one step sideways (apparently not forwards, as that possibility is not discussed when the king comes into check in the example game played, and backwards also seems to be disallowed)

The initial setup is mirror-symmetric with pawns in the same positions as western chess and goes: A1: harpy, B1: trident, C1: knishop, D1: king, E1: knook, F1: duos, G1: trident, H1: harpy.

It is possible I still missed something, but this is what I could reconstruct mostly from the explanations in the first video and the papers that are visible in the second video.

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants
---


title: Color complexes

text:
# Question
Title: Color complexes
Regarding weak color complexes and attacks on them, the games Szabo-Geller and Geller-Najdorf from the 1953 Candidates Tournament in Zurich come to my mind, as well the more recent Grischuk-Gelfand from the 2010 Linares tournament. Of course, there are many others.

Yet I don't know of a chess strategy or positional book with at least one section dedicated to color complexes (how to make them weak, how to exploit the weakness).

I would be glad to have references, if they exist.

# Answer
**tl;dr**: Here are two books that explicitly have material focused on this concept.

**Seirawan & Silman (2020)** have a subsection dedicated to "Color Control." Games analyzed include

* Damjanovic – Fischer (1970)
* Seirawan – Short (1982)

**Weeramantry & Euseibi (2020)** include an entire section of the book for "Weak Squares." The opening paragraph states

> "The games in this section...illustrate how exploiting weak squares, whether on one or both colors, allows a player to infiltrate the opponent's position and develop a successful attack."

Annotated games include:

* Alekhine – Yates (1922)
* Lamon – Weeramantry (1990)
* Harris – Weeramantry (1972)
* Tarrasch – Reti (1922)
* Alekhine – Yates (1923)
* Short – Timman (1991)
* Dobias – Podgorny (1952)
* Karpov – Shirov (1992)
* Taimanov – Najdorf (1953)
* R. Byrne – Fischer (1963)
* Fischer – Myagmarsuren (1967)
* Gelfand – Andreikin (2014)
* Weeramantry – Kumar (2004)
* Kramnik – Van Wely (2008)
* Graif – Ali Maranda (2019)

---

**References:**

Seirawan, Yasser; Silman, Jeremy. 2020. *Winning Chess Strategies*, Everyman Chess, Blue Ridge Summit, PA. See pp. 101–107.

Weeramantry, Sunil; Eusebi, Edward. 2020. *Best Lessons of a Chess Coach: Extended Edition*, Mongoose Press, Boston, MA. Note: Section B – Weak Squares, pp. 69–164.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Bangiev.

In case that wasn't a sufficient answer: Bangiev has invented his own training method, book e.g. here (no idea of an English version exists - he is a German trainer), which heavily relies on weak color complexes. Be warned that the method is disputed, to say the least (that even stands in the Wiki, which says something). Evidently already Nimzowitsch knew one or the other thing, as shown in this (also German, sorry) Google book search excerpt which has a chapter on the theme. English book which has this as *one* theme.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: colour-complex
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish NNUE vs handcrafted Evaluation
I read up on Stockfish NNUE and as far as I understand it, Stockfish NNUE was (at least in early stages) trained by positions which were evaluated by the hand-crafted eval. function by stockfish. The question I have is, why the NNUE is stronger than the hand-crafted eval? Since the ANN was trained using the hand-crafted function, it only represents it using an ANN? Is that correct, or is my understanding wrong?

From what I've read, the search speed with the hand-crafted eval. was around 100 Million Positions. Search speed using the NNUE was around 60. Million. Therefore, the hand-crafted eval should be stronger.

What am I missing?

# Answer
> 2 votes
NNUE was originally trained on depth 8 to 10 handcrafted eval. This is significantly stronger than a single node evaluation.

Edit March 2024: More modern versions of SF are trained on data from LC0.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> as far as I understand it, Stockfish NNUE was (***at least in early stages***) trained by positions which were evaluated by the hand-crafted eval. function by stockfish

And after the early stages the neural network was built up by continual training.

> The question I have is, why the NNUE is stronger than the hand-crafted eval?

Because it is more than the hand-crafted eval which was only used to speed up the initial training process.

> Since the ANN was trained using the hand-crafted function, it only represents it using an ANN?

No. The finished product is much more than the had crafted evaluation. It incorporates additional evaluations which it "discovered" during training.

---
Tags: stockfish, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: How do you play the King's Indian Attack aggressively?
The King's Indian Attack (KIA) is my choice of opening. I choose this because more often I would prefer games where the actual clash between the sides is delayed (rather than outright in the opening). My friends have recommended me to prepare myself with more aggressive lines in the KIA. He specifically talked about pawn storming ideas (possibly with sacrificing a pawn) starting with h4. But, I guess this is not practical always.

**Is there a way to play King's Indian attack aggressively against most systems adopted by black?** (I don't mean same attacking plan irrespective of opponent's system). **If yes, how?**

I personally prefer double-edged games.

PS: There is a book on KID: King's Indian Warfare by Ilya Smirin. Is there a book of this sort on KIA?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I looked you up on FIDE's website, and as a roughly 1500-player, the KIA naturally fits your question "How to play king's indian attack aggressively?" If you play it correctly, it already IS an aggressive opening. You cannot get any more aggressive than an opening that basically says "I want to mate your king".

The reality is that at higher levels, it is mostly de-fanged, and considered only good for equality, which is why you do not see Carlsen, and other world champions, play it often (at best). At the top levels, it is played mostly as a surprise opening, typically, to avoid home preparation, or when a player just wants a playable game where the opponent is mostly on their own. Generally, black is considered to have adequate defensive systems that should render that attack harmless. However, black cannot underestimate white's kingside attacking chances, and even GMs can make mistakes in that opening, and lose to an attack.

You can play the KIA against the main black 1.e4 defenses: The Sicilian, French, and Caro-Kann. It becomes more difficult to get the type of game you want if black knows what you typically play, and plays and early g6, Bg7, and 0-0. It is just harder to go for mate against that setup.

As far as books go, there are dozens of books on the KIA. For your level, I would focus on books that explain the ideas rather than rely heavily on regurgitating a ton of theory. I have many books, but unfortunately, during a move, I lost most of my opening books, so I literally have no books on this opening, but if I were to recommend two book just based on a search, I would try these two: "King's Indian Attack: Move by Move" by GM Neil McDonald, and "Starting Out: King's Indian Attack" by GM John Emms. They seem to be more of the explaining type (you can look at the first few pages on Amazon).

A word of warning: If you have any real intentions of trying to get to 2200, you may find that you have to develop a new opening repertoire from scratch at some point, as this opening is will limit your chess development in the long run since you will be easy to prepare for.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In most cases, an aggressive KIA middle-game implies that White will play a King-side pawn storm. That means:

* Develop your pieces, castle, minimise Black's Queen-side counterplay.
* Prepare f4, g4 or h4. Black will often counter this by gaining Queen-side space.
* A pawn (or piece) sacrifice is often used to open the Black King position.
* Expect to pivot to central play if Black opens the center.

A comparable opening in this regard is the Grand-Prix attack in the Sicilian. Some lines of the Grand-Prix even involve playing g3 and Bg2, but either way they all involve the King-side pawn-storm. I recommend using the Grand-Prix attack as a source for ideas. Don't worry about Bg2 being different, this is more about the approach/style of attack: https://youtu.be/rnm7yXtx6yw?t=621

# Answer
> 0 votes
Well, playing the KIA, before you can get aggressive, you've got to first consolidate your position, shore up all weak points and place a knight on d2(slows down Black's queenside ambitions), and then only to start playing aggressive by playing ...Ne1, ...f4, ...f5, ...g5, and attempt to overwhelm Black with a kingside attack.

# Answer
> 0 votes
### Pawn structure

The KIA may arise generally if Black plays the two following pawn setups:

```
[fen "8/pp3ppp/4p3/2pp4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

or

```
[fen "8/pp3ppp/3pp3/2p5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

White launches a thematic attack to the kingside, following a sequence of moves which can be reproduced almost automatically in several variations. This doesn't necessarily mean that these moves are best. Indeed, the engine's evaluation is often favorable to Black, but neutralising White's attack is not trivial–it requires an accurate defensive setup and counterplay at the queenside.

#### The thematic KIA manoeuvre

`1. Nf3 2. g3 3. Bg2 4. O-O 5. d3 6. Nbd2 7. e4 8. Re1 9. e5 10. Nf1 (10. Qe2) 11. h4 12. Bf4`

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

1. Nf3 i9 2. g3 i9 3. Bg2  i9 4. O-O i9 5. d3 i9 6. Nbd2 i9 7. e4 i9 8. Re1 i9 9. e5 i9 10. Nf1 (10. Qe2) i9 11. h4 i9 12. Bf4 i9

```

#### Example game

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "Sousse Interzonal"]
[Site "Sousse TUN"]
[Date "1967.10.15"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Lhamsuren Myagmarsuren"]
[ECO "A07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "61"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7
7. O-O O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4
13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5 15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6
18. Ng5 Nd5 19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7 21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3
23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4 g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4 27. h5 cxd3
28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30. Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7+ 1-0

```

This is obviously a very simplistic approach to the KIA, which might be useful to \<1800-rated players. To learn more, I find Sergei Movsesian's games very instructive. He is a KIA expert, and his repertoire is mostly based on this opening.

---
Tags: opening, aggressive-play, kings-indian-attack
---


# Question
Title: Could Boleslavsky have won against Smyslov?
In the game Isaak Boleslavsky versus Vassily Smyslov of the USSR Championship 1961 the following same colour Bishop endgame was reached. On move 46, the position is WHITE King on b3 Bishop on e3 pawns on b5 d5 e4 f2 g2 h3 BLACK King on e7 Bishop on d8 pawns on d6 e5 f6 g7 h7. BLACK to move.

```
[FEN "3b4/4k1pp/3p1p2/1P1Pp3/4P3/1K2B2P/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

Soviet commentators hailed this endgame as a Smyslov defensive masterpiece (the game ended with a draw) and Aveskulov agreed. But Stockfish 14.1 NNUE depth =66 seem to indicate White missed a win. Indeed, after several minutes of analysis Stockfish changed its apparently fixed evaluation of +3.60 and evaluation starts to go up. Black than switched to new system of defense, but the evaluation remained then at +4.14. I tried then to follow some moves in the line indicate by Stockfish and did a second iteration some moves forward. It seemed a White win indeed (evaluation at +6.93 at comparable depth).

What happens with perfect play? And why did no commentator pointed to at least a potentially approach for White? In the end, Soviet grandmasters considered this position a fortress, But Stockfish 14.1 NNUE disagrees. Why?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Partial answer : **There is no contradiction**

The fact that the game was eventually drawn doesn't mean that this position is drawn with perfet play. The fact that Smylov created a "defensive masterpiece" doesn't mean that Boleslavsky hadn't have mistakes on the way.

Even before computers becamae oracles, I think there was little doubt among grandmasters, including Boleslavsky and Smyslov themselves, that this position should win for White: he has a sound extra passed pawn, more space, the better bishope, and possibilities to create a second weakness on the kingside (most probably by pushing the f- and g-pawns under favourable circumstances, but that's not the only plan).

Yet this is not *easy* to win. The point of Smyslov great defensive effort was to make it as hard as possible for Boleslavsky to convert, to have him make some tough decisions on the way, where he could go wrong without making any obvious blunder.

---

A **full answer** would need to be focus on the actual game continuation, commentators' thoughts about it, and the Stockfish lines that the OP talks about but doesn't show. Once this is added in the question, I will try to find time and improve this answer accordingly.

---
Tags: bishop-endgame
---


title: What is the great thing about Bc4 here?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the great thing about Bc4 here?
Please forgive my blindness! I am a beginner and have not played in months.

I was going to go Bd3, where my bishop would have been protected by a pawn and poised to strike one of the next potential locations of the black knight. Instead, the app recommends Bc4, where I am hanging and it seems like the black queen could easily pressure me.

Can anyone enlighten me?

# Answer
On d3 the bishop prevents the d-pawn from moving, thus hindering both the development of the c1-bishop and fighting for the center. Speaking of fighting for the center, on c4 bishop is controlling a central square and is just more active (puts pressure on f7, for example).

There is no need to be afraid of the queen attacking the bishop - you will just move it to b3, for example. After all, black will have to spend a tempo to attack it. On d3 the bishop can also be attacked in the future, say with a knight or by the e-pawn.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Bd3 is an inaccuracy for the following reason:

1. First of all, you are hindering your development by putting in front of your d-pawn. You have to either play your b-pawn or remove the bishop to active your dark squared bishop.
2. Bc4 is much more active than Bd3, the bishop has much more mobility. The black queen cannot pressure you at all, which move do you think could be risky?
3. This is a classic Scandinavian position, there are tons of references on Google about it, the principles, the objectives, etc.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How will the queen be lost just the same in 206 of Winning Chess by Chernev?
How will the queen be lost anyway here?

\[

\[

# Answer
The correct statement that the book should make is that white either loses the queen or gets checkmated. After black's 3rd move, white has five moves (in algebraic notation, no particular order): 4.Kd4, 4.gxf4, 4.Ke2, 4.Kf3 and 4.Kf2

In case of 4.Kd4, black will checkmate the white king after 4...Bg7+, since the king has no flight squares available.

In case of gxf4, black can recapture on f4 with either queen or bishop, both captures will win white's queen on d2 after the white king has to move (although capturing with the queen wins white's queen without giving a bishop for it)

In the other three cases, black is able to move their pawn so that white's king is in check, while white's queen is attacked by the bishop on h6. I leave it to you to determine which pawn move for black wins the queen in each remaining case.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Play/learn Sveshnikov Sicilian as a beginner?
I've read countless times, that beginners should not play the Sicilian. On the other hand, one often reads that the opening does not matter for beginners. There are many courses claiming the included lines are "easy to learn and understand", such as chessable's "Magnus Sicilian" course on the Sveshnikov variation.

Is this merely a marketing claim to sell difficult-to-play and theory-heavy variations to weaker players, or is it possible for a ~1500 player to understand the Sveshnikov Sicilian and its middle games, even against more experienced or stronger players?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Actually, I tend to believe that it is an advisable choice. I have experimented with Najdorff and Scheveningen setups and both are extremely difficult to keep track of. The flexibility in the pawn structure is just too much. At every darn move you must ask: Can I or should I push d5? or e5? Is White going to do so if I don't? If white plays it safe, how long can I wait and patiently maneuver without destroying my position myself? and so many more questions. The opening phase never seems to end!

However, with Sveshnikov Variation, you settle the question of center once and for all! Here are some of my reasoning--taking into account that OP said they are at beginner level:

1. You make a weakness, the d5 square, ok, but at least that is a planned one and part of the opening. You would rather begin with it than end up with it in a much worse position. So, **you do not have to worry constantly about the dynamic and fragile nature of the center** -- it is partially stable, except for black's thematic f-pawn(s) pushes.
2. **You have gained space** in the center and kingside. Compare to Sicilians where all you have for your pieces is your own two ranks, except for knight on f6. See how you quickly develop Be6 and your knights are in their natural squares.
3. **The knight on c6.** If your opponent is weaker and does not play any main line Sicilian then you take the initiative faster because you have not "wasted" tempo by first playin one-square pawn pushes like d6, and a6 as is typical of say Najdorff. Instead you have developed the knight to a natural square with central control. It is faster to take the initiative if White does not ask difficult questions! For example, in some lines when white goes for c3 to prepare a d4, I play d5 (as White's knight does not have the c3 square) and challenge the e4 pawn. This comes with 1 tempo for me because I had not played d6 initially. In response to some other slow setups by white I play g6 and then Bg7 and now I have a grip on d4 and my knight can jump to d4 -- and I have saved a tempo by not playin the now-unnecessary a6. In some of these setups I do not need to play d6 or e6 unless there is real reason for them, e.g. to develop my other knight to e7. So, I find the move 2.Nc6 very useful against non-main line Sicilians.

Maybe a little bit controversial ones:

4. If your opponent does not know the theory, which is not unlikely at OP's level of play, then Black will continue with **obvious and not so hard to find developing moves** and have an easy game.
5. It is an **easy variation to memorize** and recall at board.

I must also talk about the downsides obviously:

1. One must be comfortable to play with doubled pawns on f file which also makes castling on kingside scary.
2. Given the structural damage to Black's (pawn) position, the balance is maintained only through dynamical and active (=bold) play. Black must prove its compensation. This type of play is more difficult than playing solid positions where not making blunders keeps you in the game for a good amount of time. But does any other Sicilian provide this luxury either?! (I must say that if one is trying to improve their middle game then these types of positions are a great way to push yourself.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
First of all: what is the Sveshnikov Sicilian?

The Sveshnikov Sicilian arises after the following moves:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5

```

After `6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5`, now the "real" Sveshnikov Sicilian position begins:

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/5ppp/p1np1n2/1p2p1B1/4P3/N1N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq b6 0 9"]

```

Now, White has two main ideas to play: take the knight: `9. Bxc6`, or jump right in with `9. Nd5`

So, this is actually easy to learn. The first 8 move was all theory, and you just need to learn two game plans with two different moves by Black. If your opponent doesn't know the game plan, I think you'll have an advantage

But, the real problem is: there's no guarantee that your opponent will play right into the Sveshnikov Sicilian. White can play `2. Nc3` instead of `2. Nf3` (close Sicilian), or how about `3.Bg5` instead of `3.d4` (Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo attack). That's only 2 lines of so many more. That's the main problem with the Sicilian defense: there're just so many damn lines, and each line has its own theory.

---

Conclusion: so it is possible for a ~1500 (or even lower-rated) player to understand the Sveshnikov Sicilian and its middle games. The problem here is you don't even have a chance to play it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As indicated in first answer, you cannot be sure your opponent will follow the line of a particular Sicilian. Fundamental question is whether you respond to 1 **e4** with **...c5** . Although I've played in local clubs for several years I'm a low level amateur with Elo ranging between 900 & 1300. I've discovered that when you reply the Sicilian **...c5** to players under about 1600, **75 % of the time they respond with an anti-Sicilian.** There's only four anti-Sicilians : Smith-Mora Gambit, the Alapin, the Grand Prix Attack and the Bb5 systems( Rossolimo & Moscow ). The latter are sort of a hybrid between an open & an anti-Sicilian. I thoroughly learned to handle these four. If my opponent steers toward an open Sicilian I just do the best I can with the Sveshnikov or the Scheveningen with Najdorf move order. After about 600 games I discovered my wins playing Black were greater than as White. Because many local players open 1 e4 and I feel so comfortable against anti-Sicilians. I suspect so many prepare and play an anti-Sicilian because they want to avoid the vast complications of an open Sicilian.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, beginner, sveshnikov
---


title: Why is Black much better here?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Black much better here?
The material is equal in the position below:

I don't see any isolated pawns, or doubled pawns that could be a problem. Both players have their Bishop pair. Playing a few engine moves doesn't really seem to get any material or positional advantage.

This is what happens 3 moves afterwards according to the engine:

I guess this is strategy related, and I'm not quite the super high elo dude yet so I might miss something! Why is Black much better here?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The single most important feature of the position is the protected passed Pawn on e4, but it is not an easy asset to exploit.

One aspect is that most Pawn endgames will be favorable for Black, because the White King dare never stray outside the "queening square" from which it can cover e1. This leaves the Black King free to roam off in search of weak Pawns. Another aspect is that this Pawn aids in a K-side attack by controlling the important defensive square f3. This means that Black can pursue two objectives, and can constantly place White on the horns of a dilemma. Put rather crudely, he can effectively say to White "either allow this exchange and give me my ending, or refuse the exchange and let me build up my attack".

Black therefore has a theme around which to plan his play, which White, as yet, does not. This is sufficient to declare that Black is better, but there is much play left.

EXPANSION

The OP has asked for clarification, and I will try to give some, based on the engine line, but please bear in mind that I am just noticing ideas and not attempting an analysis. I suggest that these were the ideas "in the mind of the engine", and the source of its "candidate moves"

Black has played the three moves ..Qh4, ..g6, and ..Nh6. Black introduces the idea of a direct attack on h2, involving his Queen and placing the N on g4. He has thrown in ..g6, perhaps as overkill to discourage White from the freeing sacrifice f5. White has responded with 0-0 (He is getting attacked anyway so why not?), Rf2 (to defend h2 with g3) and c3 (He cant think of anything else and this does consolidate a bit).

When Black is ready he will play ..Ng4 and this will force either h3 or g3. If h3 he will not necessarily retreat his Knight, but might leave it to be taken and then recaptured by the h-Pawn with enormous pressure down the h-file. If g3 he will retreat the Queen, probably to f6, and continue with ..h4 to prize open the h-file anyway.

I wrote "when Black is ready" because White really has nothing constructive to do. Black has the luxury of strengthening his position with ..Bd6 or .. Bf5 first if he wishes (but please not ..f5, which might be a good move once the endgame has arrived, but for now just gets in the way) There is an old saying "never play a good move too soon" to reflect that if the opponent cannot prevent it, then preparation might make it even stronger. He could even go as far as ..Ke7 and ..Rag8 and ..g5, but I doubt if this would really help a lot. He has however already made one preparatory move with ..g6.

Probably, White would have no option but to trade off that Knight with bxg4, when Black has the option of retaking with the h-pawn (that file again, or with his light-square Bishop. According to some definitions that might be a bad Bishop, but in this position it is very effective, whereas the Be2 was potentially a useful defender. Apart from this, Whites natural defensive moves seem to be N-d2-f1,Be3, Qd2, all of which is slow and passive. At best I think he might manage to exchange off some of the attackers but then that endgame looms on the horizon.

GMs would certainly see all this and more in a glance (that is why they can give simultaneous displays) but in a serious game would look carefully at issues of timing and tactics to implement the ideas in the most efficient way. I hope that some of this helps.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Black's position is crushing because:

* The pawn structure heavily favors Black. We'll see more about this in the upcoming bullet points.
* Black has a protected passed pawn on e4 that White has no way of removing. This means Black is favored in any endgame, and in the middlegame, the e4-pawn also cramps White's position.
* Black has a significant space advantage, especially in the center and on the kingside. It's true that White has more space *right now*, but Black has easy ways to develop that takes more space. Moves such as ...Rb1, ...Qh4, ...Bd6, etc, are all natural moves that bring Black's pieces to better squares. You can see this happening in the second screenshot, where Black's space advantage is apparent.
* Meanwhile, White has difficulty finding squares for his pieces. Nc3 is obvious, but then what? The c1-bishop has an especially bleak future, and by extension the a1-rook will have difficulty getting into the game.
* Because Black is more ready to play on the kingside than White - this means Black can advance pawns there and White cannot stop it - White has trouble finding a safe place to put the King. Queenside castling will take a long time because of the traffic jam there, while castling into an impending kingside pawn storm is dangerous. It's true that Black isn't castling either, but he doesn't need to, because White's pieces are very far from launching an attack on Black's king.

In the second position, you can see how Black's play develops. ...Bf5, ...Bd6, ...O-O-O (or even ...Ke7 because White's in no position to attack Black's king), ...Rdg8, and pawn advances on the kingside to threaten White's king. Meanwhile White cannot do anything on the queenside because Black is simply too fast, and therefore has to scramble to defend. Black hasn't won yet, but is on his way to winning.

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Chess with negotiations

text:
# Question
Title: Chess with negotiations
I'm new to this forum and don't know if the following question is appropriate. It is of a more general "meta-chess" nature.

I wonder if a variant of chess makes sense in which negotiations are mimicked like this: When black is to move he proposes a number of possible next moves and white must give responses to each of the proposals (as "promises"). After this step (the "negotiation step") black definitely chooses one of his moves, and white must respond as promised. Then white makes his proposals and so on.

The (maximal) number *n* of proposals may be specified, but does not have to. *n*=1 is already different from standard chess. I assume that it doesn't make sense to propose fewer than *n* moves when *n* are allowed (because you will get more information from the opponent) – but it will be a matter of time.

This variant would not be a completely different game but obviously a significantly different one. It bears more similarities with actual warfare where negotiations play a role. Was it ever considered to play this variant of chess, maybe in some niches of the chess world?

# Answer
Not really an answer, but a quite similar idea: The variant "Refusal chess" is known. One side makes a move, the other can let it stand (in which case it counts as played) or refuse it (in which case another move must be played, which then stands). Obviously, this could be generalized to higher n, "only legal moves" have to always stand.

(My source: Faschingsschach der WELT, methinks)
> 8 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Simple (not deep in theory or moves) Openings for White and Black?
I am at the point where I want to learn some simple openings for White and Black. By simple, I mean, openings that do not have a deep theory and don't take a lot of moves to get into. Currently, I have been playing the Evans Gambit and Smith-Morra Gambit whenever I get a chance. I have heard that the Colle System and London System are good beginner openings (I am confused by the word "system" here, are these actual openings?), so if anyone can elaborate on this, that would be helpful. If I don't get a chance to play the Evans Gambit or Smith-Morra Gambit, I just play to the opening principles.

# Answer
There aren't really any good openings without theory, but that doesn't matter -- you don't have to know the theory.

As white, I think you should play 1.e4. The Morra and Evans gambits seem fine to me at low levels, although the latter can be avoided. If 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6, you will play against the opening I recommend you to use as black below. The game is likely to be quite equal for a while and the best player will win. Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6, there are a lot of gambits to play along the lines of 4.d4 or 4.0-0, 5.d4 that may be interesting.

Against the French and Caro-Kann you can get experience with isolated queen's pawn positions, more or less the most important of open positions at all levels. Isolated queen's pawn positions are tactical and show up in lots of openings. Play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4, and develop quickly (knights first, castle short, etc).

As black, play classically -- answer 1.e4 with 1...e5, and 1.d4 with 1...d5. Against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 and the like you can usually play 1...e6 and 2...d5 to get something similar to your 1.d4 lines. The idea of the classical openings is to get a good foothold in the center, trying to get an equal game first and worry about getting a better position later.

Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, why not the Petroff 2...Nf6. Black doesn't have many problems in the lines after 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5, and can try to keep his knight actively placed on e4.

Against 1.d4 d5 2.c4, play 2...e6. The goal is to stay strong in the center and develop, e.g. by Nf6, Be7, 0-0, Nbd7, b6, Bb7.

There are of course many many more lines, but I won't put more in a single answer to a really broad question...
> 11 votes

# Answer
The truth is, that all the openings have deep and complicated theory. Even the relatively "older" openings such as the Evans Gambit, Italian Game or Three Knights Game had their theory developed really deep in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. But luckily there are openings that are relatively sound. But they are rare nowadays, so by learning the basics of such openings you can go well against the opponents who didn't learn these openings.

What I use:

**White**

1. Vienna Game
2. Italian Game
3. Three Knights Game 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3

The vast majority of your opponents after 1. e4 e5 would expect the Ruy Lopez, so many are not ready for the good old Italian or Three Knights. Of course, these openings are not as good for White as the Ruy Lopez and Black if they play correctly can have equal chances, but the point is that few people actually know how to play in these openings and I quite often managed to achieve superior positions against much stronger players than I am.

Also when playing 1. e4 you of course should be ready to face the Russian game \[Petrov's Defence, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6\].

Against the Sicilian I play 1. e4 c5 2. c3 \[the Alapin Variation\]. A sound and good variation that is not that complicated as the main lines of the Sicilian. Also it can often end up as the Advance Variation of the French Defense (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5). \[1 e4 c5 2 c3 e6 3 d4 d5 4 e5 transposes to the position after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 in the French Defence, Advance Variation\]

Against the French Defense I play the just mentioned above Advance Variation. This allows me to feel comfortable in both variations as they can be very much alike.

Against the Caro-Kann I play 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4. Panov's Attack. This gives White a strong and active position and it is you and not your opponent who chooses the variation, so you don't have to study anything but this variation.

**Black**

Against 1. e4 I always play the Sicilian Defence, Sveshnikov Variation \[1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5\], though it is far from being "not deep" :)

Against d4 I like using the Volga gambit \[the Benko Gambit, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5\]. You sacrifice a pawn but get 2 open lines for your rooks and your queen. In my memory I cannot recall losing a single game in this variation except when I played against IMs and GMs.

Against c4 I play as was advised above the Hedgehog system. Which is also far from being "not deep" :)

So to make a conclusion, I would suggest you to choose variations that you can enforce (such as Panov's Attack in the Caro-Kann, or the Vienna Game after 1.e4 e5). When doing so you limit the number of variations you should learn and you can concentrate on learning them deeply. This will give you a huge advantage over an unprepared opponent especially when an opening is full of tactical tricks and traps such as the Vienna Game, Sveshnikov variation or Three Knights Game.

Good luck!
> 6 votes

# Answer
1. d4 and 2. Nf3 as White, and 1...c6 then 2...d5 as Black, comprise about the simplest system I can think of
> 4 votes

# Answer
You could learn the hedgehog system for black, and the King's Indian attack as white.

Both systems/setups are quite easy to learn, and are also *generally* easy to reach, regardless of what your opponent does. Although they both have a decent amount of opening theory, it is nowhere close to the volume of opening theory in say, Sicilians or Queen's Gambits. But here's why they're helpful to *you*. The move order to reach these setups is generally very flexible, so you don't have to worry too much about subtleties in their move order, which you may have to in other openings.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Usually, an opening can be considered "difficult" to learn if it has many variations, if its branches are very deep, and if it hides many tactical complications that can lead to unseen "traps".

Colle System and London System are pretty good for beginners since they don't have none of the above.

The drawback is that they don't put pressure on Black, that can easily reach equality (especially against the Colle). Of course if your only objective is to reach a playable position after the opening, these will do the work.

But as Black you will have less options. You'll have to learn at least 2 "simple" responses to `1. e4` and `1. d4` (and eventually also to `1. c4` and `1. Nf3`). And usually "simple" responses are a little bit passive and slightly less effective than popular ones.

Against `1. e4` you can try the Scandinavian or the Philidor. They are probably the most popular Defenses among "simple" ones. You won't have to study plenty of books to master these Defenses.

Against `1. d4` you can try the Old Indian or the Old Benoni (sometimes called also "Czech Benoni"). They are both kinda passive, but they are solid and give perfectly playable positions.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In my opinion, the `Scotch Game` is an opening for beginners who play as White. Indeed, it's an open game that permits the player to have two free bishops. The opening theory (I know it well) is simple. Moreover, there are several traps for Black. It's fun to play.

For Black, there is the `Sicilian Najdorf` that is not hard to learn for beginners. It's strong against 1.e4 in general. Theory of this defense is a little bit harder than the Scotch Game.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A "system" is an opening where you strive to put your pieces on the same squares almost regardless of what your opponent does. Systems aren't as dependent on move order as openings that aren't systems. Systems can also often be played more easily than other openings without learning a lot of theory.

I would recommend that beginning and intermediate players play systems and cut down on the amount of opening theory they have to know. Choose openings that require less branching. I would recommend players with lower ratings spend most of their time learning/practicing tactics, learning theoretical endgames, playing lots of slow games, analyzing their own games, and reading analysis of master-level games in order to learn middlegame concepts. Such players just need enough opening knowledge to get their games started. Follow general opening principles. As you get more experiences, you can learn more openings one at a time.

As White, I'd recommend learning one of: the Colle-Zukertort System, or the London System, or some other system with 1.d4. Or you could learn the King's Indian Attack. Playing 1.e4 is difficult for intermediate players, because you have to be prepared for 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...d5, 1...d6, 1...c5, 1...c6, 1...Nf6, and 1...g6, all of which are very common, and each one of those moves may lead to a lot of branching. Of course, if you don't mind learning as you lose, you could dive in and learn all of those moves by playing.

As Black, you need to steer the game into your territory. If you respond to 1.e4 with 1...e5, then you need to be prepared for the Italian, the Spanish, the Scotch, the King's Gambit, the Bishop's Opening, the Vienna, the Ponziani, among others. So, pick something other than 1...e5.

A good combination of openings to play as Black are: the Pirc and the King's Indian Defense, which often lead to similar play and middlegames. Then you'll be covered against 1.e4 and 1.d4. You might also transpose into one of these openings after 1.Nf3 or 1.c4.

But whatever you choose, steer things into your territory and minimize the amount of time you have to spend on the openings. For example, against 1.d4, you could specialize in the Budapest Defense.

Eventually, a good chess player will have to learn the classical 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 openings, and the Sicilian Defense, etc. but take it one step at a time. Good luck.

Caveat: take everything I say with a grain of salt (I'm not a very strong player).
> 1 votes

# Answer
I would suggest for White sticking with e4 games, and since you're already playing the Evan's Gambit, I would second the recommendation of adding adding the Scotch Game. Given you seem to like gambits already, you might also like the Scotch Gambit and the King's Bishop Gambit. You should play the Ruy Lopez at times as well. Don't be put off by the amount of theory there is for an opening though, unless you're a top rated player you really don't need theory as much as you just need games under your belt. All openings will have theory that you will eventually look into, but for now concentrate on open games that get very tactical to sharpen that aspect of your game. In all of these, you're working on centre control and rapid development of your pieces, which are good habits to develop.

If you want to limit the number of defences to learn, then Petroff's against 1. e4 and the Dutch against 1. d4 are both perfectly playable. But don't be afraid to play the Black Side of the openings you're learning (you'll have learned those lines anyway as you study the White side after all). If you want to side step lots of theory in the Ruy Lopez for a while you could play an offbeat line like Bird's Defence (3. ... Nd4), but eventually you'll want to explore more usual options.

At some point, after playing lots of games, you'll reach a point with an opening where you recognize you're generally reaching a point where things just aren't going your way, and that's the time to start looking at that particular opening more closely. You don't need to study every possible line though, just find the line you're tending to follow already and find the point where you're deviating from it and compare the "book move" to the one you normally make and try to work out why your move isn't the "book move" (what weakness does it create for you). That will build up your repertoire of theory based upon what lines you naturally gravitate to, which will make it easier to remember things.

Anyway, it's most likely that your opponents aren't going to know the openings all that deeply either when you're just starting out, so when you start thinking you want to spend a bunch of time learning a number of lines really deeply, my view is that you probably would find that time better spent concentrating on tactics, pawn end games, and memorizing the basic mating patterns first.

* Jeff
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


# Question
Title: Where Does Lichess Get Its Names for the Openings?
On lichess.org, when you turn the opening book on in an analysis board, you get names for the openings. For example, after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6, lichess says the opening is called "Czech Defense." Many openings have standard, accepted names, but sometimes there is disagreement, especially with deep variations. There is also sometimes disagreement between different playing platforms. For example, sometimes chess.com uses different names than lichess. What sources provide lichess all of the names?

# Answer
> 31 votes
Lichess is open source. That source includes a table of openings compiled by the contributors to lichess.

https://github.com/lichess-org/chess-openings

And if you want to see who exactly made what change/addition to the list, you can click on the `.tsv` file in question and examine the history.

---
Tags: opening, lichess
---


title: Why is this position winning for White?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is this position winning for White?
This position comes from Koivisto-Rubichess, TCEC Season 22 League 1, after 33...Qc2-Qc6.

```
[FEN "6k1/4b1p1/2q2p1p/r2n4/8/5QB1/5PPP/4RBK1 w - - 2 34"]

```
* Material is equal
* White has the bishop pair in an open position, but all the pawns are on the same flank, so the long-range ability of bishops should be less important
* Both kings look reasonably safe
* It's true that Black just moved into a self-pin, but 32...Qc6 was not forced; if the pin is actually an issue Black could simply not have moved the queen there

Yet Koivisto signaled a +2.4 advantage for White in this position, Rubichess was almost as pessimistic (+1.7), and so is Stockfish (Lichess Stockfish is +1.7 at d=31).

Where is White's advantage coming from?

# Answer
> 7 votes
You already said it: white bishop pair, black king can count holes. Nd5 pinned, has to protect Be7. Ra5 stands silly. All rather small stuff, but it adds up. I'd play Bd3 without thinking (the white squares are atrociously weak), with the intent of Qf5/Qe4 or Be4. Have fun keeping your house of cards together...

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---