# Question
Title: Longest Sequence For Any Piece To Reach A Certain Square
What is the longest sequence of moves (by both White and Black) wherein White attempts to move one of their pieces from one square to another? Assume Black makes every move optimal towards the purpose of keeping White’s piece from reaching its intended square, but that it is nevertheless possible, in a finite number of moves, for White to achieve their purpose. If a complete response is impossible or impractical, partial/shorter responses are welcome. Both sides must have a king and pawns on the first rank of each side may do a double step.

For example, say that White’s goal is to get their King from e1 to g1 and can only achieve this through castling due to an unimpeded Black Rook on the second rank, but Black has an unimpeded Bishop on a6 controlling f1. White must remove the Bishop or the Rook from the diagonal in order to castle, which may take many moves.

Sorry if my question is vaguely worded or unclear in any way- I’ve never before written a chess-related problem. Also, feel free to edit the question or tags- all constructive criticism is welcomed.

# Answer
Thanks for the fun question, and welcome to CSE! For this kind of construction problem, the king is obviously the piece to choose.

Addendum 10/12/2020: The position that used to be here proved defective, so here is a new position, Unfortunately over a hundred moves had to be cut. Here is my new offering of **336 moves,** with the White king **going to b7**,

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 10/12/2020, White forces Black to let their king move to b7 in  336 moves"]
[FEN "Kb1n1b1k/b1p1pBp1/1pPpPpPp/pPpppppp/ppp1p1p1/8/8/pppppppp w - - 0 1"]

1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bd7 Kh8 3. Bc8 Kg8 4. Ba6 Kh8 5. Bb7 Kg8 6. Bc8 Kh8 7. Bd7 Kg8 8. Be8 Kh8 9. Bf7 a3 10. Be8 Kg8 11. Bd7 Kh8 12. Bc8 Kg8 13. Ba6 Kh8 14. Bb7 Kg8 15. Bc8 Kh8 16. Bd7 Kg8 17. Be8 Kh8 18. Bf7 a2 19. Be8 Kg8 20. Bd7 Kh8 21. Bc8 Kg8 22. Ba6 Kh8 23. Bb7 Kg8 24. Bc8 Kh8 25. Bd7 Kg8 26. Be8 Kh8 27. Bf7 a4 28. Be8 Kg8 29. Bd7 Kh8 30. Bc8 Kg8 31. Ba6 Kh8 32. Bb7 Kg8 33. Bc8 Kh8 34. Bd7 Kg8 35. Be8 Kh8 36. Bf7 a3 37. Be8 Kg8 38. Bd7 Kh8 39. Bc8 Kg8 40. Ba6 Kh8 41. Bb7 Kg8 42. Bc8 Kh8 43. Bd7 Kg8 44. Be8 Kh8 45. Bf7 b3 46. Be8 Kg8 47. Bd7 Kh8 48. Bc8 Kg8 49. Ba6 Kh8 50. Bb7 Kg8 51. Bc8 Kh8 52. Bd7 Kg8 53. Be8 Kh8 54. Bf7 b2 55. Be8 Kg8 56. Bd7 Kh8 57. Bc8 Kg8 58. Ba6 Kh8 59. Bb7 Kg8 60. Bc8 Kh8 61. Bd7 Kg8 62. Be8 Kh8 63. Bf7 c3 64. Be8 Kg8 65. Bd7 Kh8 66. Bc8 Kg8 67. Ba6 Kh8 68. Bb7 Kg8 69. Bc8 Kh8 70. Bd7 Kg8 71. Be8 Kh8 72. Bf7 c2 73. Be8 Kg8 74. Bd7 Kh8 75. Bc8 Kg8 76. Ba6 Kh8 77. Bb7 Kg8 78. Bc8 Kh8 79. Bd7 Kg8 80. Be8 Kh8 81. Bf7 c4 82. Be8 Kg8 83. Bd7 Kh8 84. Bc8 Kg8 85. Ba6 Kh8 86. Bb7 Kg8 87. Bc8 Kh8 88. Bd7 Kg8 89. Be8 Kh8 90. Bf7 c3 91. Be8 Kg8 92. Bd7 Kh8 93. Bc8 Kg8 94. Ba6 Kh8 95. Bb7 Kg8 96. Bc8 Kh8 97. Bd7 Kg8 98. Be8 Kh8 99. Bf7 d4 100. Be8 Kg8 101. Bd7 Kh8 102. Bc8 Kg8 103. Ba6 Kh8 104. Bb7 Kg8 105. Bc8 Kh8 106. Bd7 Kg8 107. Be8 Kh8 108. Bf7 d3 109. Be8 Kg8 110. Bd7 Kh8 111. Bc8 Kg8 112. Ba6 Kh8 113. Bb7 Kg8 114. Bc8 Kh8 115. Bd7 Kg8 116. Be8 Kh8 117. Bf7 d2 118. Be8 Kg8 119. Bd7 Kh8 120. Bc8 Kg8 121. Ba6 Kh8 122. Bb7 Kg8 123. Bc8 Kh8 124. Bd7 Kg8 125. Be8 Kh8 126. Bf7 d5 127. Be8 Kg8 128. Bd7 Kh8 129. Bc8 Kg8 130. Ba6 Kh8 131. Bb7 Kg8 132. Bc8 Kh8 133. Bd7 Kg8 134. Be8 Kh8 135. Bf7 d4 136. Be8 Kg8 137. Bd7 Kh8 138. Bc8 Kg8 139. Ba6 Kh8 140. Bb7 Kg8 141. Bc8 Kh8 142. Bd7 Kg8 143. Be8 Kh8 144. Bf7 d3 145. Be8 Kg8 146. Bd7 Kh8 147. Bc8 Kg8 148. Ba6 Kh8 149. Bb7 Kg8 150. Bc8 Kh8 151. Bd7 Kg8 152. Be8 Kh8 153. Bf7 e3 154. Be8 Kg8 155. Bd7 Kh8 156. Bc8 Kg8 157. Ba6 Kh8 158. Bb7 Kg8 159. Bc8 Kh8 160. Bd7 Kg8 161. Be8 Kh8 162. Bf7 e2 163. Be8 Kg8 164. Bd7 Kh8 165. Bc8 Kg8 166. Ba6 Kh8 167. Bb7 Kg8 168. Bc8 Kh8 169. Bd7 Kg8 170. Be8 Kh8 171. Bf7 e4 172. Be8 Kg8 173. Bd7 Kh8 174. Bc8 Kg8 175. Ba6 Kh8 176. Bb7 Kg8 177. Bc8 Kh8 178. Bd7 Kg8 179. Be8 Kh8 180. Bf7 e3 181. Be8 Kg8 182. Bd7 Kh8 183. Bc8 Kg8 184. Ba6 Kh8 185. Bb7 Kg8 186. Bc8 Kh8 187. Bd7 Kg8 188. Be8 Kh8 189. Bf7 f4 190. Be8 Kg8 191. Bd7 Kh8 192. Bc8 Kg8 193. Ba6 Kh8 194. Bb7 Kg8 195. Bc8 Kh8 196. Bd7 Kg8 197. Be8 Kh8 198. Bf7 f3 199. Be8 Kg8 200. Bd7 Kh8 201. Bc8 Kg8 202. Ba6 Kh8 203. Bb7 Kg8 204. Bc8 Kh8 205. Bd7 Kg8 206. Be8 Kh8 207. Bf7 f2 208. Be8 Kg8 209. Bd7 Kh8 210. Be8 Kg8 211. Bd7 Kh8 212. Bc8 Kg8 213. Ba6 Kh8 214. Bb7 Kg8 215. Bc8 Kh8 216. Bd7 Kg8 217. Be8 Kh8 218. Bf7 f5 219. Be8 Kg8 220. Bd7 Kh8 221. Bc8 Kg8 222. Ba6 Kh8 223. Bb7 Kg8 224. Bc8 Kh8 225. Bd7 Kg8 226. Be8 Kh8 227. Bf7 f4 228. Be8 Kg8 229. Bd7 Kh8 230. Bc8 Kg8 231. Ba6 Kh8 232. Bb7 Kg8 233. Bc8 Kh8 234. Bd7 Kg8 235. Be8 Kh8 236. Bf7 f3 237. Be8 Kg8 238. Bd7 Kh8 239. Bc8 Kg8 240. Ba6 Kh8 241. Bb7 Kg8 242. Bc8 Kh8 243. Bd7 Kg8 244. Be8 Kh8 245. Bf7 g3 246. Be8 Kg8 247. Bd7 Kh8 248. Bc8 Kg8 249. Ba6 Kh8 250. Bb7 Kg8 251. Bc8 Kh8 252. Bd7 Kg8 253. Be8 Kh8 254. Bf7 g2 255. Be8 Kg8 256. Bd7 Kh8 257. Bc8 Kg8 258. Ba6 Kh8 259. Bb7 Kg8 260. Bc8 Kh8 261. Bd7 Kg8 262. Be8 Kh8 263. Bf7 g4 264. Be8 Kg8 265. Bd7 Kh8 266. Bc8 Kg8 267. Ba6 Kh8 268. Bb7 Kg8 269. Bc8 Kh8 270. Bd7 Kg8 271. Be8 Kh8 272. Bf7 g3 273. Be8 Kg8 274. Bd7 Kh8 275. Bc8 Kg8 276. Ba6 Kh8 277. Bb7 Kg8 278. Bc8 Kh8 279. Bd7 Kg8 280. Be8 Kh8 281. Bf7 h4 282. Be8 Kg8 283. Bd7 Kh8 284. Bc8 Kg8 285. Ba6 Kh8 286. Bb7 Kg8 287. Bc8 Kh8 288. Bd7 Kg8 289. Be8 Kh8 290. Bf7 h3 291. Be8 Kg8 292. Bd7 Kh8 293. Bc8 Kg8 294. Ba6 Kh8 295. Bb7 Kg8 296. Bc8 Kh8 297. Bd7 Kg8 298. Be8 Kh8 299. Bf7 h2 300. Be8 Kg8 301. Bd7 Kh8 302. Bc8 Kg8 303. Ba6 Kh8 304. Bb7 Kg8 305. Bc8 Kh8 306. Bd7 Kg8 307. Be8 Kh8 308. Bf7 h5 309. Be8 Kg8 310. Bd7 Kh8 311. Bc8 Kg8 312. Ba6 Kh8 313. Bb7 Kg8 314. Bc8 Kh8 315. Bd7 Kg8 316. Be8 Kh8 317. Bf7 h4 318. Be8 Kg8 319. Bd7 Kh8 320. Bc8 Kg8 321. Ba6 Kh8 322. Bb7 Kg8 323. Bc8 Kh8 324. Bd7 Kg8 325. Be8 Kh8 326. Bf7 h3 327. Be8 Kg8 328. Bd7 Kh8 329. Bc8 Kg8 330. Ba6 Kh8 331. Bb7 Kg8 332. Bc8 Kh8 333. Bd7 Kg8 334. Be8 Kh8 335. Bf7 Nxc6 336. Kb7

```

As for a **legal** position, **111 moves** is the longest I have come up with so far. White wants to move their king to any square as soon as possible.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 30/12/2019, White forces Black to allow a White king move in 111 moves"]
[FEN "5b1k/2p1pBp1/1pPpPpPp/1P1p4/8/7b/5n1P/3n2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bd7 Kh8 3. Bc8 Kg8 4. Ba6 Kh8 5. Bb7 Kg8 6. Bc8 Kh8 7. Bd7 Kg8 8. Be8 Kh8 9. Bf7 d4 10. Be8 Kg8 11. Bd7 Kh8 12. Bc8 Kg8 13. Ba6 Kh8 14. Bb7 Kg8 15. Bc8 Kh8 16. Bd7 Kg8 17. Be8 Kh8 18. Bf7 d3 19. Be8 Kg8 20. Bd7 Kh8 21. Bc8 Kg8 22. Ba6 Kh8 23. Bb7 Kg8 24. Bc8 Kh8 25. Bd7 Kg8 26. Be8 Kh8 27. Bf7 d2 28. Be8 Kg8 29. Bd7 Kh8 30. Bc8 Kg8 31. Ba6 Kh8 32. Bb7 Kg8 33. Bc8 Kh8 34. Bd7 Kg8 35. Be8 Kh8 36. Bf7 d5 37. Be8 Kg8 38. Bd7 Kh8 39. Bc8 Kg8 40. Ba6 Kh8 41. Bb7 Kg8 42. Bc8 Kh8 43. Bd7 Kg8 44. Be8 Kh8 45. Bf7 d4 46. Be8 Kg8 47. Bd7 Kh8 48. Bc8 Kg8 49. Ba6 Kh8 50. Bb7 Kg8 51. Bc8 Kh8 52. Bd7 Kg8 53. Be8 Kh8 54. Bf7 d3 55. Be8 Kg8 56. Bd7 Kh8 57. Bc8 Kg8 58. Ba6 Kh8 59. Bb7 Kg8 60. Bc8 Kh8 61. Bd7 Kg8 62. Be8 Kh8 63. Bf7 f5 64. Be8 Kg8 65. Bd7 Kh8 66. Bc8 Kg8 67. Ba6 Kh8 68. Bb7 Kg8 69. Bc8 Kh8 70. Bd7 Kg8 71. Be8 Kh8 72. Bf7 f4 73. Be8 Kg8 74. Bd7 Kh8 75. Bc8 Kg8 76. Ba6 Kh877. Bb7 Kg8 78. Bc8 Kh8 79. Bd7 Kg8 80. Be8 Kh8 81. Bf7 f3 82. Be8 Kg8 83. Bd7 Kh8 84. Bc8 Kg8 85. Ba6 Kh8 86. Bb7 Kg8 87. Bc8 Kh8 88. Bd7 Kg8 89. Be8 Kh8 90. Bf7 h5 91. Be8 Kg8 92. Bd7 Kh8 93. Bc8 Kg8 94. Ba6 Kh8 95. Bb7 Kg8 96. Bc8 Kh8 97. Bd7 Kg8 98. Be8 Kh8 99. Bf7 h4 100. Be8 Kg8 101. Bd7 Kh8 102. Bc8 Kg8 103. Ba6 Kh8 104. Bb7 Kg8 105. Bc8 Kh8 106. Bd7 Kg8 107. Be8 Kh8 108. Bf7 Bg2 109. h3 Ng4 110. hxg4 h3 111. Kh2

```

Addendum 12/23/2020: It turns out that for **legal positions**, longer lengths can actually be achieved by instead using a pawn as the designated piece. Here is my the new record of **124 moves.**

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 12/30/2019, White forces Black to allow their h7 pawn to move in 123 moves"]
[FEN "7k/p1pN2pP/2p3p1/8/p5p1/P1p2PP1/2P2P1b/5K1N w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf8 gxf3 2. Ke1 Bg1 3. Kd1 Bh2 4. Kc1 Bg1 5. Kb1 Bh2 6. Ka2 Bg1 7. Ka1 Bh2 8. Kb1 Bg1 9. Kc1 Bh2 10. Kd1 Bg1 11. Ke1 Bh2 12. Kf1 a6 13. Ke1 Bg1 14. Kd1 Bh2 15. Kc1 Bg1 16. Kb1 Bh2 17. Ka2 Bg1 18. Ka1 Bh2 19. Kb1 Bg1 20. Kc1 Bh2 21. Kd1 Bg1 22. Ke1 Bh2 23. Kf1 a5 24. Ke1 Bg1 25. Kd1 Bh2 26. Kc1 Bg1 27. Kb1 Bh2 28. Ka2 Bg1 29. Ka1 Bh2 30. Kb1 Bg1 31. Kc1 Bh2 32. Kd1 Bg1 33. Ke1 Bh2 34. Kf1 c5 35. Ke1 Bg1 36. Kd1 Bh2 37. Kc1 Bg1 38. Kb1 Bh2 39. Ka2 Bg1 40. Ka1 Bh2 41. Kb1 Bg1 42. Kc1 Bh2 43. Kd1 Bg1 44. Ke1 Bh2 45. Kf1 c4 46. Ke1 Bg1 47. Kd1 Bh2 48. Kc1 Bg1 49. Kb1 Bh2 50. Ka2 Bg1 51. Ka1 Bh2 52. Kb1 Bg1 53. Kc1 Bh2 54. Kd1 Bg1 55. Ke1 Bh2 56. Kf1 c6 57. Ke1 Bg1 58. Kd1 Bh2 59. Kc1 Bg1 60. Kb1 Bh2 61. Ka2 Bg1 62. Ka1 Bh2 63. Kb1 Bg1 64. Kc1 Bh2 65. Kd1 Bg1 66. Ke1 Bh2 67. Kf1 c5 68. Ke1 Bg1 69. Kd1 Bh2 70. Kc1 Bg1 71. Kb1 Bh2 72. Ka2 Bg1 73. Ka1 Bh2 74. Kb1 Bg1 75. Kc1 Bh2 76. Kd1 Bg1 77. Ke1 Bh2 78. Kf1 g5 79. Ke1 Bg1 80. Kd1 Bh2 81. Kc1 Bg1 82. Kb1 Bh2 83. Ka2 Bg1 84. Ka1 Bh2 85. Kb1 Bg1 86. Kc1 Bh2 87. Kd1 Bg1 88. Ke1 Bh2 89. Kf1 g4 90. Ke1 Bg1 91. Kd1 Bh2 92. Kc1 Bg1 93. Kb1 Bh2 94. Ka2 Bg1 95. Ka1 Bh2 96. Kb1 Bg1 97. Kc1 Bh2 98. Kd1 Bg1 99. Ke1 Bh2 100. Kf1 g6 101. Ke1 Bg1 102. Kd1 Bh2 103. Kc1 Bg1 104. Kb1 Bh2 105. Ka2 Bg1 106. Ka1 Bh2 107. Kb1 Bg1 108. Kc1 Bh2 109. Kd1 Bg1 110. Ke1 Bh2 111. Kf1 g5 112. Ke1 Bg1 113. Kd1 Bh2 114. Kc1 Bg1 115. Kb1 Bh2 116. Ka2 Bg1 117. Ka1 Bh2 118. Kb1 Bg1 119. Kc1 Bh2 120. Kd1 Bg1 121. Ke1 Bh2 122. Kf1 Bg1 123. Kxg1 Kg7 124. h8=Q+

```
> 12 votes

# Answer
The best example I could find in PDB is this one:

```
[Title "Theodor Steudel: Problemkiste 66, Dec 1989, no. 2339. Za6 in 12"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/1p1p1p2/1P1P1P1P/8/p7/p1p1p1p1/2P1P1P1/k1K w K - 0 1"]

1.h7 a2 2.h8=N a3 3.Ng6 fxg6 4.f7 g5 5.f8=N g4 6.Ne6 dxe6
7.d7 e5 8.d8=N e4 9.Nc6 bxc6 10.b7 c5 11.b8=N c4 12.Na6

```

(Far greater lengths are possible in series-problems.)
> 5 votes

# Answer
It depends on the exact position.

If white only has the king left, and in your position black only their rook, bishop and king, then it would take forever. Or at least untill the 50 move rule kicks in. Give black more pawns and each one of their moves could add another 50 to the duration.

With more pieces and or pawns it might take more or less time.

For example, let’s say it’s White to move the queen’s rook pawn to a8 from the normal starting position.

There is no way black can keep it from getting captured. Thus the pawn never gets to a8. The number of moves is equivalent to infinity.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory, problems, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: How was the FIDE rating system introduced?
I am looking for a historical summary on how the first Elo ratings came about. Apparently in the first official rating list from 1971 there are already ratings in the range of 2200 to 2760. What are these based on? Did they actually run rated tournaments before this date, or did they calculate ratings based on the results in previous tournaments (which tournaments?)?

Also, initially did all players start with the same rating (which)?

# Answer
> 6 votes
In Robert Howard's article "A complete database of international chess players and chess performance ratings for varied longitudinal studies" (Behavior Research Methods 2006, 38 (4), pp. 698-703) he writes:

> The first FIDE rating list is dated December 1970 and was based on games in international tournaments in approximately the previous 2 years.

I guess that Arpad Elo will describe this procedure in more detail in his book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" that, unfortunately, I do not own.

# Answer
> 3 votes
USCF had a similar rating system in the 1950s. But it was all manual and rating lists came out infrequently. After that a number of people have tried to improve on it. USCF has even changed their version a couple of times.

Arpad Elo was a big factor in improving all the systems and I supect that the FIDE version now is closer to his than USCF as USCF also has to handle all ratings down to 100 which beginning grade school kids may have while FIDE has the easier job of just ranking the very top players whose ability is not rapidly changing.

One early change USCF added was to adjust for kids who were improving fast and older people reluctant to play them because they would lose more points than they could gain if the ratings had correctly matched their abilities.

All rating systems have the problem of correctly estimating the first rating they give a player as well as allowing for new players learning and improving fast.

One thing none of them seem to have done explicitly that I recall is to readjust the average rating every year. I think USCF may have done that once or twice possibly while making changes to how their ratings are computed. The USCF tournament average used to be about 1500. Tournaments tend to remove the very weak beginners from distorting ratings so if they included everybody the average setting might not work as well. But for the top players FIDE could do it IF they had a problem but their ratings for top players tends to stay more stable overall.

---
Tags: rating, history, fide
---


title: Blindfold Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Blindfold Chess
I'd like to approach this topic as a way to improve my visualization skills. What are the best ways to improve this skill?

I have a few blindfolded games at the club level that managed to make it into the mid-game, but as for solving positions or tricky tactics I'm lost.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Blindfold chess is really a very good way to help with visualization since it forces you to do just that.

That said, it is difficult in the beginning, and takes practice. Before you jump in with both feet, you might want to start with a smaller exercise that practices the same skills. That is, find interesting games that are relatively short (under 25 moves), and practice reading them without a board, but REALLY keeping the position in your head. Read the entire game in your head, including light notes, and then at the end, set it up on a board, and play it out and see how it compares to what you had in your mind's eye. The goal of this is not to actually analyze...you are just visualizing.

As you get better, then feel free to try and play full games blindfolded.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I played and even won blindfold games. But I did not do a lot of them. What helped me was descriptive notation. That made it so much easier and logical to visualize the board. I would never have been able to play with the algebraic notation.

What you really need is a way to ensure remembering the moves andor the current board position. I suspect that goes more to psychology and other factors than to chess.

---
Tags: blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: Are blindfold players allowed to look at the list of moves?
I just read that Alexander Alekhine simultaneously played 26 blindfold games.

Are blindfold players allowed to look at the list of moves? Can they re-create the position in their mind from the list of moves, or do they have to memorize the position on each table?

# Answer
What I'm going to say is too long for a comment so I guess I have to answer. This is funny because I'm the one who marked your question as favorite, just in case someone answers it, I wanted to know the answer, and here I am the one who's answering it!

**Do you know what were the rules of these competitions ?**

No but I'll keep searching, maybe I can provide a better answer later on. If you only want to read my answer to your question scroll down, it's the last part.

---

But I guess, that Alexander Alekhine did not look at anything when playing. I will tell you why I think he didn't look, I will tell you how I think he was able to do it. Lets look at other things that our mind can do, and we'll talk about chess in the end.

* Did you know that many Muslims are required to memorize each word of the Quran? They actually do competitions sometimes to see who can answer faster, many none Arabic Muslims do that even little kids, imagine how hard it would be for a small kid to memorize the entire Quran, in Arabic, a language that he doesn't even understand.
* How many songs can you memorize? at least 1000 but you don't know it yet. How many songs can singers memorize? How many music compositions can musicians play without looking at the notes?
* What Is the Memory Capacity of the Human Brain?

You can do this, untrained, normal person, what can a professional do?

---

To fully understand what the brain is capable of you should take a look at:

Lets talk about the second example in particular, that guy is autistic and blind, so the brain adapted to the situation and his memory becomes so good that he could play any music he ever heard any time, perfectly.

Those are more exceptional people but still untrained.

---

Lets talk about chess now, all the chess players, at least all the GMs are trained professionally from a very young age to play chess.

What would a trained chess kid be able to do? What would a 13 year old kid do nowadays? play xbox, listen to Justin Bieber, watch cartoon network...

What would a 13 years old chess player do? Well Fischer at the age of 13 did the most amazing checkmate ever against Donald Byrne, I think no supercomputer will be able to do what Fisher did, it was called the game of the century.

I talked about how good the brain could become at certain things like memorization, but I still haven't answer your initial question!

---

You should know that Alexander Alekhine isn't the current record holder.

I quote from the second article:

> George Koltanowski set the world's blindfold record on 1937 by playing 34 chess games simultaneously while blindfolded, winning 24 games and losing 10, over a period of 13 hours. The record was included in the Guinness Book of Records and is generally accepted as the world record to this day.

And most importantly

> Miguel Najdorf increased this record to 45 opponents in 1947, with the result of 39 wins, four draws and two losses.However, he had access to the scoresheets, and there were multiple opponents per board.Koltanowski claimed that he could have managed 100 games under those conditions.

So you can see why i don't think Alekhine had access to the scoresheets, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted his record, which is exactly what happened with Najdorf. Besides the players who challenged Alekhine, would feel it's unfair to challenge a great GM, with access to scoresheets, he would beat them all so easily.

Now how do I personally think he did it?

* He challenged amateurs, 800 - 1400 Elo max
* He played one or two openings against all of them so he doesn't have to remember many openings
* He played aggressive opening that he knows so well so he can finish the games so fast and not having to worry about middle game calculations

And finally from Wikipedia I guess the answer you wanted to know

> Occasionally, grandmasters have given blindfold simultaneous displays. In such displays, the exhibitor does not look at any of the boards, but retains all the moves of the games in his/her head. The opponents utilize boards and pieces in the standard fashion, but their moves are communicated verbally to the exhibitor by an arbiter or intermediary.

**Note**

I don't think that GMs rely on their visual memory so much, but rather they do something like meditation, where they create their own games inside their heads and visualize it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
They memorize the position on each table; In this kind of event, they simply don't have the time to spend to much time on each position. Also trying to re-create the position like this is not practical when you play blindfold chess

If you want to know (almost) everything on blindfold play, check out this great book on http://www.blindfoldchess.net/

Cheers!
> 3 votes

# Answer
Not in the casual games I played, and mostly won. Nor in an exhibition by an IM that I helped by relaying moves to the IM and making his responses on the boards. He played 6 games simultaneously.

Having a list of the moves virtually undoes the blindfold aspect of playing.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: blindfold-chess
---


title: Convert ctg to abk

text:
# Question
Title: Convert ctg to abk
I have several databases (openings) in ctg format that I use with Fritz or with Chessbase. I would like to use them with Arena, which need abk format. Is the ctg to abk conversion possible?

# Answer
I answered this question earlier on this site. Is there some way to search? The best I could say with my research is that there is a program being written to do it but it is not out yet. And google says according to one source to do a double conversion such as with a program like fritz to change it going in and export it different coming back out.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: chessbase, fritz, arena
---


# Question
Title: Unable to understand why N.McDonald - A. Stromer (1991) is a draw and not a win
```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "3k4/3r4/8/8/p7/8/4K3/1N6 w - - 0 1"]

1... 58. Kc7 59. Nc3

```

McDonald notes that if **59...a3**, then "**60 Nb5** wins it." I don't understand why this wins it. Can't the King just deflect the check and continue the game? Or by saying "... wins it", does McDonald mean that after that, the game is practically a win as he can mate easily?

If anything, I'd assume it'd just be another draw. Can someone please clarify?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I suspect he means wins the pawn, as opposed to the game. A lone knight is insufficient material to mate, and black would have to cooperate to be mated with the rook vs. knight.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This looks like a win for black. They should play Kc8, not Kc7, ans then they can bring the king up. White can never take the pawn as it will just move. If the knight moves onto the d-file,then the rook takes it and the pawn runs for a touchdown.

In the? position if black plays Kc7?, then white wins the pawn and the rook vs knight endgame would be tougher to win if at all.

---
Tags: analysis, draw, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Are there any moves that are more popular in databases of GM games but are objectively inferior?
Usually in a particular opening position, if move A is more popular (in GM games) than move B, then either move A is objectively better than move B, or move A is equally good as move B.

Are there any examples of moves that move A is more popular than move B in GM games but move B is objectively better?

# Answer
It really depends on how broadly you want to define the openings.

For example, while not popular at that level, GMs have played the Smith Morra. Of course, a standard open Sicilian is better.

The same goes for those, who have played the King's Gambit when trying for the Ruy Lopez is better.

The Ruy Lopez is probably objectively better than the Italian Game, but we saw the Italian played the last two days at times in the World Rapid and Blitz events.

The same goes for the Benoni, Benko, and Dutch. They are not horrible, but there is a reason the do not dominate high-level opening play.

Anytime a GM needs to win, and plays a sharp opening that is not objectively best, and that happens a lot.

I am sure there are plenty of examples that are deeper into the opening, but this already shows how common it is.

Lastly, many GMs play sidelines, and have pet openings that are not considered best. They play them when they need an imbalance, and to win.
> 4 votes

# Answer
In general, no. The games between players of higher levels (going from beginner --\> amateur --\> master --\> grandmaster --\> correspondence) tend to be better, and they are what usually dictate theoretical trends. If there was some well known line that was dubious, a GM couldn't get away with playing it often because their GM opponent would be prepared.

There could be a dubious line that was more popular at higher levels, but in this case the sample size would most likely be small (meaning the move is a surprise weapon). If many GM games featured this dubious line, it wouldn't be a surprise weapon anymore.

Playing good openings can be thought of as a necessary condition for reaching the highest levels of chess. If you consistently start the game poorly, you most likely won't reach those levels in the first place (or won't be able to maintain your status there). There may be some rare GMs who can get away with this against their contemporaries, but such a style of playing would never work in correspondence (the de facto highest level of play).
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, database, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Is it rude to ask my opponent to resign an online game when they have a lost endgame?
I really don't know if I am correct when I ask my opponent to resign when I am at a 1800-1900 ELO level. I have an Asperger disorder. To me ,endgames are more clear to play than middlegames, and the game loses interest when I think a newbie would win it. I sometimes ask my opponent to resign and play a rematch. Sometimes it has an effect, and they resign. At other times, I feel myself uncouth.

```
[fen "5k2/1p6/p3pP2/P1p1K2p/2P4P/8/5Bp1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Is it unfair to ask for a resignation in these kinds positions in an online chess game?

# Answer
> 55 votes
> Is it rude to ask my opponent to resign an online game when they have a lost endgame?

Yes, it is rude, although you are in good company. In one Olympiad Victor Korchnoi is alleged to have asked his opponent - "Do you speak English?" When they said "Yes" he replied "Then please resign". I may be misquoting. He may not have said "please" :-)

Strictly speaking today what Korchnoi did is not allowed in over the board chess because it is disturbing the opponent. In online chess, however, trash talking is more acceptable because the opponent can always mute by switching off chat.

# Answer
> 37 votes
Brian Towers answered the question, but to help you understand why people don't resign, I recommend you watch this lecture by GM Finegold Blunders, with GM Ben Finegold. The gist of it is:

> Never resign, and look for resources no matter how bad your position is. And when you are winning, don't let your guard down.

# Answer
> 31 votes
It's always rude to ask your opponent to resign. They should resign of their own accord once they're convinced that you're overwhelmingly likely to win the game. In my case, that always meant you'd have to convince me that you knew how to play the endgame in question and that both of us knew how you would win it.

If your opponent hasn't resigned yet, it might mean that they don't know that it's a lost position for them, or that they're not yet convinced you know how to win it. In any case, in the position shown, it shouldn't take more than a few more moves for you to checkmate your opponent, so it's really not something you should be worrying about.

# Answer
> 22 votes
Honestly it's rude to ask your opponent to resign in any position. The one exception may be them deliberately letting their clock run to 0 in a completely lost position, but in this case they're being deliberately malicious and you can't really hope to reason with them.

Even though you're absolutely justified in thinking your opponent should resign, that doesn't mean you should tell them to.

# Answer
> 15 votes
You might know that you are playing a game that is already decided, but your opponent might not.

* Your opponent might not realize that the position you now have is a won endgame.
* Even if your opponent realizes it, she might not be convinced that *you* know that you already won and that *you* know what mistakes you need to avoid in order to win. So they believe that there is still a small chance that you slip up and they can get a draw or even win after all.

Usually it is considered bad etiquette to discuss the game you are playing with your opponent, but if you really want them to be aware that they are wasting your and their time by continuing this match, then you could use this as a teaching opportunity.

Use chat to tell them (politely!) that they can not win. You could also give them a link which explains how to win that endgame to show them you know exactly how to beat them and that they can't do anything about it. Don't write "You lost, resign already!". Write "I think you can no longer win this game because..." and let them come to the conclusion to resign on their own.

But it is possible that your opponent can not be convinced that they lost no matter what you write. In that case the only way to convince them is by playing the game to the end and win.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Why don't you resign instead?

It's a question that looks like it has an obvious answer: because I'm winning! But that begs the question "who cares?"

Let the game end. What happens? Your record goes up by 1 win, and you get some rating points. In the end, other than the sheer enjoyment of the game, that's the only real consequence. A few bits in a computer tracking your record.

Now if you were merely bored with the game, and convinced it is utterly over, nothing stops you from just resigning a winning position and going on with your life. Perhaps you might play another game in the saved time.

Which means, when you really get down to the trade-off, you are pairing the points you might lose by resigning yourself (to solve your interest issues) against any sheer enjoyment of the game the other party may have.

Which leads to the human question: do you have a sense of how much enjoyment they have left in the game? Clearly they're not already at the point of saying the game was no longer worth playing, or they would have resigned already. So you are asking them to truncate that enjoyment for your sake. You are really telling them that they are no longer worth your time *and* they are not worth the points it'd take to break free of the game of your own accord. Whether they agree is really a people problem, and you may get some clues from their move choices and/or their chat.

Maybe they've been looking to try out that difficult endgame to see what they might be able to pull off. They'll never find out if they resign. But now they know that any fun they might have trying out that end game is paining you.

There's a few alternatives I might suggest. One is to do what Allure did in the comments:

> Black is completely busted. 39. Kxe6 Kg8 40. Ke7 and the pawn promotes, or 39...Ke8 40. f7+ Kf8 41. Bxc5+ and 42. f8=Q+

Rather than telling them to resign, because they are no longer worth your time, help them see what you see. Practice teaching people how to analyze the endings. Then *they* can decide whether that means its time to resign or if they want to play out a line you didn't analyze.

Alternatively, realize that those bytes in some computer's memory banks somewhere are not really all that important. **Make your own game**. If a position seems totally won, look for a challenge instead. See what non-optimal play you might be able to bring into the game to make the endgame interesting again. Maybe you need to hang a bishop, or promote a pawn to a funny piece. If you have a text-to-speech engine that can call out moves, consider playing the ending blindfolded, just for the challenge. We teach games to be all about winning and losing, but at the heart of it they're games. Find ways to have fun with them!

# Answer
> 5 votes
The answer I am about to give is not directly related to Chess (a game I'm far from mastering), but any skill based PvP game (opposed to stats-based games).

(Yes, I know that in some cases, the loss is inevitable since you cannot win with one King vs two promoted Queens.)

The other player/team might be losing for now, but the game is not over and the tables may turn.

In my opinion, keep playing a game in the losing position is really important to get better (not only because I feel sympathy for underdogs). As you have no room for mistakes you have to keep a cool head, play on the edge, take the absolute best decisions if you want to keep a chance of reducing the advantage and, finally, overturning the opponent.

In the other hand, in the winning position, you may have more room for mistakes but you need maintain your best level to keep the lead and widen the gap.

Not wanting to play a game until it's conclusion is either :

* a proof of lack of respect for your opponent, as you believe he has no chance (i.e. : is not skilled enough) of getting back.
* a vulgar display of vanity of your part, since you're assuming you cannot be overtaken in any way and that you won't learn from the rest of the game.
* wishing neither of you get better at the game, because not playing said game will not help any of you improving at it.
* showing you are not having fun playing the game anymore, which is... kind of sad.

Yes, asking your opponent to resign is rude, no matter the game/sport if you are playing a competitive ELO (or other system) match-made game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would never ask an opponent to resign *over the board* (live chess), although someone else brought up a good point about an opponent letting the clock run to zero on purpose.

Online, I think it's different.

Online chess, especially at a beginner-intermediate level, is a lot less formal. When sites give you the preset option to request that your opponent resign, I think it's fine to do so once. Chess is different from other sports; resignation is acceptable, obviously, and some argue refusal to resign in a lost position is disrespectful. But regardless, sometimes things come up. I might ask an opponent to resign if I had a dominating position but didn't have the time (in real life, not on the game clock) to finish the game. Or if I had to finish doing the laundry. Or I wanted to go to sleep. I wouldn't actually expect that to work every time, and if you do this you should not take any offense if the opponent refuses to resign and plays out the game. I think it's akin to a draw offer, in that your opponent has every right to continue, but your suggestion might be more convenient.

**Asking for resignation in online chess is an agreement, just like asking for a draw.**

# Answer
> 1 votes
It depends a lot since if you are playing a bullet game then he might expect blunders so he might not be resigning so, in this case, it is a little rude to ask him to resign. On the other hand, if it's a rapid or classical game and your opponent isn't resigning then perhaps it's disrespectful on his part. I would still say that you shouldn't be asking people to resign either way.

---
Tags: endgame, online-chess, resigning
---


# Question
Title: What are the "great injustices of chess"?
Edmar Mednis stated that in KNN vs K endgame, the inability to force checkmate is *one of* 'the great injustices of chess'. This seems to be defined as a drawn/drawish endgame position but where 1 side is up at least 4 points in material.

The phrase 'one of' seems to indicate there are other injustices in his mind. So, what are other 'great injustices of chess'?

# Answer
It is probably not only about position, but how about playing for 7 hours, and you are positionally killing your opponent, and you slip up, throwing away all that work?

Here are a couple positions that still probably qualify:

```
 [FEN "7k/7P/8/6K1/4B3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

You would think that white should be able to win, but no.

Or black here.

```
 [FEN "6K1/5P2/6q1/8/8/8/1k6/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kh8=

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
I can think of some:

* Time trouble causing blunders in general.
* Objectively you can have an advantage, but then having to convert/transform it could require an impractical level of calculation (such that no human could ever realistically win over the board with such an advantage).
* Some argue stalemate in general is wrong. Why should trapping the king be a draw, but trapping the king while simultaneously threatening it be a win? This doesn't match how a real battle would be like.

I think he said that though more of as an expression, not with any serious implications.
> 9 votes

# Answer
One thing I think is an injustice of chess is the rule enabling a player being able to get a 50-move draw even if their position is lost. (A "blessed loss" position; a "cursed win" from the point of the other player, who deserved the chance to try to execute a win.)
> 7 votes

---
Tags: knight-endgame, quotations
---


# Question
Title: Is there an analysis of World Champions' games that shows the statistics of their game?
Is there an analysis of World Champion games, with the help of engines, that shows statistics like percentage of best moves played, blunders made, creative moves which computers can only see at high depths, and etc? There might be some bias in this analysis since solid players, at least to me, will play objectively better moves since the positions that arise are simpler.

# Answer
Yes, there are such studies. You can check this recent paper and references therein for the older ones. Various ideas have indeed been tried in order to quantify the "complexity" of position (e. g., in terms of complexity of search tree or dynamics of the evaluation function as the depth grows), but I think you better read the papers if you are interested in details.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Not that I know of. You could do this yourself for each world champion, taking a sample size of something like 20-30 games for each. That may give you fairly good statistics, since as the sample size goes above that there won't be any dramatic changes.

It's a good point to mention the bias, but in who's favour this works isn't clear. If world champions get in tougher positions, there tend to be fewer acceptable moves (meaning the number of choices to match with the engine's best choice is smaller). But in a solid position, there are often many acceptable moves (and you need to find the one the engine likes best).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, statistics, master-games
---


# Question
Title: Do some chess players actively train moving the pieces on the board quickly?
Having spent the last couple of days watching the Rapid and Blitz World Championships I became, once again curious about the following subject.

In some circumstances, especially in blitz games, it can be a slight but significant advantage to be able to perform the move as quickly as possible in a physical or mechanical sense. Now, playing a lot certainly gives confidence and ease, and there are some simple principles (such as short moves cost less time), but I was wondering if some players actively and in a structured way train this aspect of the game. To make this question answerable let me ask specifically:

Are there any books or other sources that discuss ways to train and to improve carrying out moves quickly (in a physical or mechanical sense)?

However, I would also be interested in slightly more anecdotal answers on this subject. My primary intent was to ask this for over the board games, but I aspects specific to online games are also welcome.

# Answer
I'm a FIDE master and in my experience I've never come across any material on how to physically move pieces faster. There's not a lot you have to do: pick up the piece, move your arm to where you want to move the piece, and let go. As you play more this becomes second nature, to the point where training wouldn't make much sense.

As for short moves costing less time, this usually isn't a factor in blitz/bullet games; the exception is when you're about to flag and just need to make moves quickly. Then moving a piece 1-2 squares can be better than moving it across the board. Also, if you move pieces that are physically closer to the clock, you can save very small (but possibly precious) amounts of time. So for Black it would be moving pieces on the right side of the board, and for White the left side. Again, such strategies would only be implemented when you're down to literally a few seconds.
> 17 votes

# Answer
I don't know the answer to your question on over the board games but in online games, it is good to have a mouse with a fast response time for blitz and bullet. In online chess, the dragging and clicking of the pieces just comes with practice. I don't think that players actually specifically practice moving pieces over the board, but just play a lot of over the board blitz games and that skill just comes with it.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: training, blitz
---


title: Blindfold chess tournaments

text:
# Question
Title: Blindfold chess tournaments
I was always interested to play blindfold chess not with a friend but versus a real opponent but I have heard only about such tournaments for elite players (like "Melody Amber"). Are there any blindfold chess tournaments, where players with Elo around 2000 points (standard) are allowed to participate?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Online:**

Lichess and Internet Chess Club provide an online functionality to play blindfold chess and you can try to make a suggestion on their forums to organize a blindfold tournament.
This will probably be unofficial though and I do not now if that fills your expectations.

**Local:**

As @JossieCalderon said in his comment, you don't lose anything to make a suggestion in your local chess club about organizing a blindfold tournament.
You can even start by making an attempt through social media and see if enough people who want to participate appear.

Good luck :)

---

**PS:** Lichess blindfold team

# Answer
> 0 votes
I don't see why they wouldn't allow you to participate in something just because you aren't an elite.

http://www.americanblindchess.org/

If this is what you're looking for, maybe the membership information can help you? I skimmed through it a little and it looks like you contact this Hadley school to place you in a blindfold chess correspondence (and real-time) club.

Maybe they host tournaments there!!

# Answer
> 0 votes
Never heard of such a tournament. It would be a nightmare for arbiters to figure out when problems arise. It would require someone keeping track of the moves and maybe a board in a separat room. And there is not a lot of demand by players to play blindfold in tournaments.

NOTE that if you record the moves on paper then that is not really blindfold chess anymore as you can play over them in your head should you forget the position.

My casual games always had someone with us to check for illegal moves and more importantly ambiguous moves which were an instant loss. note: we used descriptive notation back then and ambiguous moves were common even with OTB players and their score sheets.

An occasional game was plenty for most of us as we would not want to do a tournament that way.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Blind Chess Olympiad is the most important event for blind chess. there are several youtube videos where you can sneak out a bit.

---
Tags: tournament, blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: Official rules for castling in Chess960? (Is there a loophole?)
Note: this is another rules-lawyering question.

I first ask for an official source I am calling into question the phrasing of the rules. Then I consider a few plausibly official sources, and point out a loophole (unsurprisingly not the first time castling has come under fire) - is my reading correct?

**Preamble: Is there an official source for the rules on Chess960 castling?**

Common knowledge at this point is that castling in Chess960 can be informally described as:

* the king and rook end on the same squares as in regular chess,
* the king and rook should not have moved before,
* the squares the king and rook need to "slide through" must be empty,
* the king should not be in, or pass through, or end in check.
* (And the castling cannot be made with a promoted rook).

How about an official source?

Well, one would start by looking at the FIDE Laws of Chess as usual; the section Guidelines II is on Chess960 Rules. Disappointingly, only articles II.3.2.5.2 (specifying king and rook final squares) and II.3.2.7.4 (specifying passed-through squares must be vacant) seem relevant; no mention is made of the king being in or passing through check. So we assume that regular article 3.8.2 (specifically 3.8.2.2.1) applies to cover those.

Alternate sources would be Wikipedia (which cites for some reason dwheeler.com), and the organisers of the recent World Fischer Random Chess Championships, chess.com. Those read largely the same as the FIDE Laws.

---

**The loophole**

Consider the following position in Chess960. (wKb1, wRb1, bKe8, bRa1).

```
4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/rR2K3 w Q - 0 1

```

Assume also that it's white's turn, and the white king and rook have never moved before. Can white castle left? Applying a little common sense, the answer is no (if we make the move, the white rook goes to d1 and the white king ends in check on c1).

**However, according to every ruleset above (FIDE, Wikipedia, chess.com), all the criteria for castling have been met.** In particular, in the diagram position, the black rook does not attack c1 nor d1, so the king is not moving through check. The relevant clause of the FIDE Laws is 3.8.2.2.1:

> \[Castling is prevented temporarily\] if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.

Which is not the case in the diagram.

One way out of this would be to invoke article 3.9.2 of the FIDE Laws:

> No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

Which by unfortunate phrasing, is ambiguous in the context of castling, which is "A move of the king and either rook of the same colour..." (Article 3.8.2), i.e. a move of *two pieces*. **In the diagram position, moving the king alone, or the rook alone, will not expose the white king to check.**

---

So I call attention to this loophole here. To summarise this question:

1. **Is there an official source for castling in Chess960?**
2. **Is there an error in my reading of the rules that there is a loophole?**

# Answer
Hi thanks for your questions Remellion. I have a better answer for Q2 than Q1, but bottom line there is no loophole in the FIDE Laws.

(1) I don't know of and can't locate any other official source of Chess960 rules other than FIDE rules.

(2) There is a **second** place in the FIDE rules where we are told how naughty it is to leave a king in check:

> FIDE Law 1.4.1 Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed.

This would apply independently of the number of pieces involved in the castling. So there is no loophole.
> 13 votes

# Answer
> One way out of this would be to invoke article 3.9.2 of the FIDE Laws:
>
> > No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

Yep, that seems entirely unambiguous to me. You can't leave your king in check after your move. (Your objection seems to be predicated on the idea that a move that touches *two* pieces can be said in some sense to have touched *no* pieces, and I think that's just wrong. You might with more grounding claim that article 3.9.2 permits you to end your turn in check if you got there by moving a *pawn*, since a pawn is "no piece"! :))

FIDE's Chess960 rules also state explicitly that when you castle, usually it's by moving two pieces one after the other:

> II.3.2.1 double-move castling: by making a move with the king and a move with the rook, or
>
> II.3.2.2 transposition castling: by transposing the position of the king and the rook, or
>
> II.3.2.3 king-move-only castling: by making only a move with the king, or
>
> II.3.2.4 rook-move-only castling: by making only a move with the rook.

So in your particular example, it's the "move with the rook" (II.3.2.1) that exposes its king to check (3.9.2) and is thus disallowed.

However, I admit that if you use that wording as gospel, then you have to point out that "transposing the position of the king and the rook" doesn't literally "move" either of the pieces; it just "transposes" them without using the word "move." So you could still ask your question about

```
4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/r1RK4 w Q - 0 1

```

In that case, we'd just have to fall back on common sense: that you can't move your king into check, period. Notice that David Wheeler states that "the king may not be in check after castling" falls naturally out of the FIDE rules, without feeling the need to justify it any further:

> \[...\] castling may only occur under the following conditions, which are extensions of the standard rules for castling:
>
> * Unmoved: The king and the castling rook must not have moved before in the game, including castling.
> * Unattacked: All of the squares between the king's initial and final squares (including the initial and final squares) must not be under attack by any opposing piece.
> * Vacant: All the squares between the king's initial and final squares (including the final square), and all of the squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook.
>
> These rules have the following consequences: \[...\]
>
> * The king may not be in check before or after castling.

---

For what seem like "better" rules of castling, see John Kipling Lewis's "Castling in Chess960: An appeal for simplicity" (2005).
> 6 votes

# Answer
I can’t see the diagrams on mobile, but having read

> or the square which it is to occupy

and

> the white king ends in check on c1

I would say FIDE covers the scenario: the square which the king is to occupy is attacked if the king would end in check, no?

Or is the issue that the unique 960 arrangement means that the rook previously blocked the check somehow?
> 3 votes

# Answer
You have found out all relevant rules, which are the Laws of Chess, including Guideline II. As expected, the wording of the rules seems not to cover that case. In Guideline II, some special cases of castling are considered, but not this one, so Article 3 applies. Article 3 deals with regular chess, and in regular chess your case simply is not possible. Your last resort is 3.9.2, which describes the move of ONE piece. This all is correct.

Now have a look at 3.8.2: "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, **counting as a single move of the king**.“ This should solve your problem.

Additionally, I refer to the preface. Even if the rules would contain a loophole, it is obvious that it is intended that a player may not exhibit his king to an attack. The preface states: "Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in Laws.“ So no arbiter will allow white to castle in that position.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants, castling, chess960, loopholes
---


title: How to play this bishop & pawn endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: How to play this bishop & pawn endgame?
```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/p4p2/1p2pPp1/7p/3Pb2P/1B2P1P1/P7/2K5 b - - 0 33"]

```

I'm Black. In the game I deliberately allowed White pushing the pawn to f6, I was expecting something like `...g5, ...Kh7, ...Kg6` to pick up the pawn. But then I realised after `...g5`, White has Bc2 which forces the exchange of the bishop. Once the bishop is exchanged, white should win with the passed d-pawn after e4 & d5.

**Question**: What's the best continuation for Black here? Can I take advantage of the weak f6 pawn? I don't have a computer with me, so computer analysis is fine. My human evaluation is very danger for Black (thus I'd misevaluated the endgame by allowing it to happen).

# Answer
> 6 votes
If White tries to hinder your plan by exchanging the bishops he loses the pawn endgame. I have provided brief analysis in the below diagram, see the sublines. Then I have tried to play this endgame with both colors versus computer.

Computer chose `1...Kf8` as strongest but with some "only moves" I managed to save the draw. This is illustrated in the below diagram as the main line.

I played your plan with `...g5 + ...Kh7` but computer found good resource in `Be8!`, which secures a draw. You will find my play as Black in the below diagram as a subline.

To conclude: you can not exploit your advantage because White generates enough counterplay thanks to your kingside pawns being on the color of your bishop.

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[Title "Black to move"]
[fen "6k1/p4p2/1p2pPp1/7p/3Pb2P/1B2P1P1/P7/2K5 b - - 0 33"]

1...Kf8 (1... g5 2. hxg5 Kh7 3. Ba4! (3.Bc2? Bxc2-+ 4.Kxc2 Kg6 5.e4 Kxg5 6.e5 Kf5 7.Kd3 $8 b5 $22 8.a3 a5 9.Ke3 b4 10.axb4 axb4 11.Kd3 b3 $8 12.Kc3 Ke4!-+) 3...Kg6 4. Be8!= $8 Bf3 5. Kd2 Kxg5 6. Bxf7 Kxf6 7. Be8 Kg5 8. Bd7 Bd5 9. a3 Kg4 10. e4! Bxe4 11. Bxe6+ Kxg3 12. d5 h4 13. d6 Bc6 14. d7 Bxd7 15. Bxd7 h3 16. Bxh3 Kxh3=) 2.Ba4! a6 3. Bd7! Kg8 4. Be8! Kf8 5. Bd7 Kg8 6. Be8 Kf8 7. Bd7 Kg8 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> -1 votes
Who is on move? If it is white to move this looks won for white. If it is black you need to get the king on the Qside to hold a draw.

NOTE: human analysis not done by computer. It might be wrong but OTB that is what I expect to happen.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, bishop-endgame
---


title: How is this checkmate? I’m new to chess

text:
# Question
Title: How is this checkmate? I’m new to chess
I’m new to chess. How is this checkmate?

```
[FEN ""]
[Date "Dec 31 2019"]
[White "User 21050 (Lvl 3 500pts)"]
[Black "Computer (Level 20 3000+pts)"]

1.Nf3 a5 2.Ng5 h5 3.Nxf7 g6 4.Nxh8 g5 5.Ng6 Ra6 6.Ne5 Bh6 7.Nf3 c6 8.Nxg5 c5 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.e3 Rg6 11.Bd3 Bg5 12.Bxg6+ Kd8 13.Bxh5 d5 14.Nxg5 Qc6 15.O-O b6 16.d3 Qb7 17.Bd2 Bf5 18.e4 Qd7 19.exf5 e6 20.fxe6 d4 21.Qe2 b5 22.Qe4 a4 23.Qxd4 Qd6 24.Qxc5 Qf8 25.Qxb5 Qe8 26.Qxa4 Qe7 27.Qb4 Qa7 28.Qa4 Na6 29.Qxa6 Ne7 30.Qxa7 Ng6 31.Qg7 Nh8 32.Qxh8+ Ke7 33.Qh6 Kd8 34.e7+ Kc7 35.e8=B Kb8 36.Bb5 Ka8 37.d4 Kb7 38.d5 Kb8 39.d6 Kb7 40.d7 Kc7 41.d8=B+ Kb8 42.Bf6 Kb7 43.Bd4 Kb8 44.Ba4 Kc7 45.c4 Kb7 46.B4e3 Kc7 47.Bb5 Kc8 48.Bc6 Kc7 49.Bd5 Kb8 50.Be4 Kc7 51.Bc2 Kd7 52.Be2 Kc8 53.Ba7 Kd8 54.Bb6+ Kc8 55.Bc7 Kd7 56.Bd6 Kc6 57.Bc5+ Kd7 58.Bd6 Kd8 59.Be7+ Kc8 60.Bd8 Kxd8 61.a4 Ke8 62.c5 Kd7 63.Bf5+ Kd8 64.Bd7 Kxd7 65.c6+ Ke7 66.c7 Ke8 67.c8=B Ke7 68.Bf5 Kd8 69.Bc2 Kc7 70.b4 Kc8 71.a5 Kd7 72.b5 Kc7 73.a6 Kb8 74.a7+ Kc8 75.a8=B Kc7 76.Bc6 Kd8 77.Bd5 Ke7 78.Ba2 Kd8 79.b6 Ke7 80.b7 Kd8 81.b8=B Ke7 82.Be5 Kd8 83.Bb2 Kd7 84.f4 Ke8 85.f5 Kd7 86.f6 Kc6 87.f7+ Kd7 88.f8=B Ke8 89.Bc5 Kd8 90.Bf2 Kc7 91.g4 Kd8 92.h4 Ke8 93.Ne6 Kd7 94.Nf4 Kc8 95.Ne6 Kb8 96.Nc7 Kxc7 97.g5 Kb7 98.g6 Kc7 99.g7 Kd8 100.g8=B Kc8 101.Bgd5 Kb8 102.Bg2 Kc8 103.Qg6 Kb8 104.h5 Kc7 105.h6 Kc8 106.h7 Kd8 107.h8=B Kd7 108.Bhe5 Ke7 109.Bh2 Kd8 110.Bfg3 Kd7 111.Rf7+ Kc8 112.Rf8+ Kd7 113.Rf6 Ke7 114.Re6+ Kd8 115.Qg4 Kc8 116.Re7+ Kd8 117.Re8+ Kxe8 118.Nc3 Kd8 119.Nd5 Ke8 120.Ne7 Kd8 121.Nc8 Ke8 122.Ne7 Kf8 123.Ng6+ Ke8 124.Nf8 Kd8 125.Nd7 Ke7 126.Nf6 Kf8 127.Rf1 Ke7 128.Rf5 Kd8 129.Re5 Kc7 130.Re8+ Kb6 131.Rb8+ Ka7 132.Ra8+ Kb6 133.Rc8 Ka7 134.Bh4 Kb6 135.Bhf4 Ka7 136.Bfg5 Kb6 137.Rc7 Kxc7 138.Nd7 Kd6 139.Nf6 Ke7 140.Ne8+ Kf8 141.Ba1 Kxe8 142.Bcb1 Kf8 143.Bc1 Ke8 144.Bd1 Kf8 145.Bcb2 Ke8 146.Bdc2 Kf8 147.Be1 Ke8 148.Bgc1 Kf8 149.Bed2 Ke7 150.Bf1 Kf8 151.Be2 Ke7 152.Bed1 Ke8 153.Qg8+ Kd7 154.Qd8+ Kxd8 155.Be2 Kd7 156.Bdc3 Ke8 157.Be3 Kd8 158.Bcd2 Kc7 159.Bcb3 Kc8 160.Bbd3 Kd7 161.Bbc2 Kc8 162.Ba3 Kd7 163.Bad4 Kc8 164.Bab2 Kc7 165.Bf2 Kd8 166.Be4 Ke7 167.Bg2 Kd8 168.Bde3 Ke8 169.Bf4 Kf8 170.Bh2 Ke7 171.Kf1 Kd8 172.Ke1 Ke8 173.Kd1 Kd8 174.Bhg3 Kd7 175.Bh3+ Kd8 176.Bf3 Ke8 177.Bfe3 Kd8 178.Bdc3 Ke8 179.Bd3 Kd8 180.Ba3 Ke8 181.Bb3 Kd8 182.Ba7 Ke8 183.Ba6 Kd8 184.Ba5+ Ke8 185.Ba4+ Kf7 186.Ke2 Kg8 187.Kd3 Kg7 188.Bgf2 Kg6 189.Bf1 Kh6 190.B3e2 Kh7 191.Bed1 Kg8 192.Bdb3+ Kh8 193.Bfe1 Kg7 194.Bec3+ Kh6 195.Be2 Kh7 196.Bed1 Kh6 197.Bdc2 Kh5 198.Ba2 Kg4 199.Ba1 Kg3 200.Kd4 Kf3 201.Be4+ Kg4 202.Ba8 Kg3 203.B6b7 Kf4 204.Bac6 Kg3 205.Bad5 Kg4 206.Kd3 Kh5 207.Bf3+ Kg5 208.Be3+ Kh4 209.Bg2 Kh5 210.Bf2 Kg5 211.Bad4 Kh5 212.Bgf3+ Kg6 213.Bce4+ Kf7 214.Bbd5+ Ke8 215.Bac6#

```

# Answer
Actually this looks like a draw by the 50 move rule.

FIDE

## 9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:

> b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
> 7 votes

# Answer
After white's move `215. Bac6#`, the black king is now in check and all of the black's possible moves (`d8`, `f8`, `d7`, `e7`, `f7`) are illegal since they result in check.

The result is checkmate.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Black is in check. The black king has no moves to get out of check as all other squares it can move to are covered. Black has no other pieces to use to stop the check with.

Admittedly I only looked at the end position and did not wade through all the moves to see if a draw could have occurred earlier.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate
---


title: Chess.com insufficient material draw

text:
# Question
Title: Chess.com insufficient material draw
I played a game at chess.com and the endgame was KNN vs KP. When the pawn was captured, the server automatically give a draw due to "insufficient material". I am confused about chess.com's insufficient material standard here:

1. If "insufficient material" means neither player could possibly give checkmate by a series of legal moves, then KNN vs K should not be draw by insufficient material as checkmate is still theoretically possible.
2. If "insufficient material" means checkmate cannot be forced, then with some rare exceptions, the server should give draws to almost all KR vs KR or KQ vs KQ games, which I have never observed. Similarly by the same principle, many KP vs K game will be automatically terminated as a draw once a drawing position is reached.

So what is the standard here?

# Answer
Well, simply put, they chose to follow the USCF "Article 14: The Drawn Game rule 14E: Insufficient material to win on time, 14E3: King and two knights."

While it is not a forced mate, there is a mating position that is possible, thus they could have easily followed the FIDE rule, and allowed the side with the knights to continue playing.

It was probably a judgment call, and one that was made so more players would not be put off by having to play easily drawn positions for 50 moves.

I do not know if it is coincidence that you asked this today, but in the 2019 World Blitz Championship just this morning, there was a big to-do concerning Magnus Carlsen and Alireza Firouzja.

The game was up and down, but then Alireza Firouzja had a winning advantage, but in the final position below, the position was theoretically drawn when Alireza Firouzja knocked a piece over, and while resetting it, he flagged. Should it be a draw since Magnus had no pawns, or a win because there is a possible mating position? Well, after an appeal, and the rules were clear, the game was awarded to Magnus.

Here is the final position, and I will show a sample line, no matter how far fetched, that shows the rule in action. THESE MOVES WERE NOT PLAYED.

```
 [FEN "8/4k3/4P3/3B2P1/4P1K1/8/3b4/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kh5 Bc3 2. Kh6 Bd2 3. Kh7 Bxg5 4. Kh8 Kf8 5. e7+ Bxe7 6. Bg8 Bg5 7. Bh7 Bf6#

```

The fact that this is even possible, no matter how unlikely, is why Alireza Firouzja lost under the rules. Although this is an unfair example of the rules working badly in a given position, they have to be consistent, and there may be other positions that would not be so unfair. it would be hard in practice to say, "this is OK here, but not there". They have existed in the past, but rules for different positions (like extending the 50-move rule to 100 moves for certain positions) have never worked well.
> 16 votes

# Answer
The rules applied on chess.com are explained here. Basically the rule says that if there are no pawns and the material is insufficient *to force a mate on the lone king*, then the game is declared a draw.

This is contrary to FIDE rules and leads to some positions that are actually winning by force being declared draws, as noted here by Nigel Short. Actually, KNN vs KP with the pawn blocked far away from promotion square is one example; it is a win but will be declared a draw if the side with the pawn flags. I guess the reason the online servers adopt these rules is that these positions are very rare, and flagging e. g. with one minor piece each would be quite common if allowed (and very ugly).
> 10 votes

# Answer
Because you cannot mate with KNN vs K but you can mate, in certain positions, with KNN vs K&P, the game was a draw as soon as you took the pawn.

Lesson: If you have KNN let them keep at least one pawn, preferably one close to their 2nd rank and also the edge of the board.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Unless the opponent has at least one pawn (in KNN vs K), you are not able to reach checkmate because stalemate should occur first. This is the reason that the position is a draw.

However, in KNN vs KP or KNN vs KPP, for example, there is some possibility that the pawn can take away moves from its own King. This is why the checkmate can sometimes be forced.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, online-chess, draw, knights, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What is the most effective openings to beat a 2200-2400 rated computer at chess?(With White and Black)
I have had good positions with the Hippopotamus opening with its Kings Indian structure(ranging up to +3 in evaluation) but in the end, the tactical superiority of the computer always gets in the way and I end up losing or drawing the game. The computer I am talking about is Computer Level 9 on Chess.com(Not to be confused with Komodo 8). My playing style is very tactical and aggressive, but I doubt that would work well against stronger Level 10. The openings that I am looking for are openings that are very positional in the beginning, but they also offer counterplay in the middlegame. Please suggest openings for white and black.

# Answer
Wrong question.

If you want to beat a 2200-2400 opponent then you need to be a 2200-2400 level player.

The hippopotamus type openings are doomed to failure according to one old GM. I find them very easy to beat but then I do not usually play 2400 rated people. OTOH they are not tactical type openings at all. Nor are they very aggressive.
If you want to play hardball tactics then play a more open type of opening.

You should master ONE basic opening and play that one. It is not the opening that wins, it is the player making the moves that wins or loses.

You should look at the French defense for black if you want to play that style. For white try a Reti. Or even just the Ruy.

A Sicilian would be better but is much harder to learn.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You're looking at this the wrong way. As you say yourself:

> the tactical superiority of the computer always gets in the way and I end up losing or drawing the game.

Thus, it's really not a matter of opening choice: the computer is better tactically. The best hope you have of beating this computer is getting better tactically. Chess is a game of tactics, so ultimately tactics will serve you better in the long run.

That doesn't mean a good opening strategy won't help. The Sicilian has a reputation of being a better for black than other openings. Consequently, the queen's pawn is considered better by some for white because it stops the Sicilian.

But again, the best strategy is less about opening choice and more about learning to follow through with that opening to the middle-game, and the endgame by extension. And the best way to getting better at this is by getting better at tactics.

Even if you are good at tactics already, then try to get faster, and more accurate. This will ultimately help you in the long run.

---

tl;dr: My recommendation is Sicilian for black, Queen's pawn for white, and just simply drilling tactics.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines
---


# Question
Title: A position in which there is no possible checkmate
I saw the game Firouzja vs Carlsen in world blitz championship in which Carlsen flagged Firouzja. Carlsen won because even though he had only a bishop, there could be a possible mate position.

I am asking if there a chess position in which both players have at least one piece, not including the kings, and there is no possible future mate position?

An obvious one is if both players having only one bishop moving on the same color squares. But is there something else?

I am actually looking for a complicated position, not obvious to humans at all, which needs something like 30-50 moves deep analysis for proving there is no any possible mate position.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think that is limited to just a few positions.

1. A lone king vs. king.
2. king and bishop vs. king.
3. A king and bishop vs. king and same colored bishop as the other side.
4. A king and multiple bishops of the same color vs. king.
5. A king and knight vs. king.
6. Any barrier position, where neither side can cross over to the other side.

Even king and knight vs. king and knight you can get a mating position.

Here is a wonderful position that I "stole" from chess.com that illustrates why that FIDE rule exists. Yes, it was probably not fair for Carlsen to get the full point, but imagine having this position, and not getting the full point.

```
 [FEN "6rk/4NP2/7K/8/8/8/b7/8 w - - 0 1"]

  1. fxg8=Q+ Bxg8 {By USCF, and chess.com rules, this is a draw here.} 2. Ng6#

 [FEN "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, dead-position
---


# Question
Title: Chess Hustlers in the Park/Street: Where do they place in terms of skill?
Assuming the species still exists, has anyone researched this enough to provide insight into their approximate rating class/skill level (exclusively at blitz time controls)?

How do they typically get into the *business* or for that matter, demonstrate an above-average strength level (enough to *make* and not *lose* money!), given their difficult life situation. Is there a top dog / ringer type who trains the rest and personally deals with some of the stronger "ordinary folk" challengers?

I've been lucky enough to play a few dollar-games in San Francisco but not enjoyed their company enough to gauge if they are all A/B players or even Experts.

Curious ... and I am positive that Hollywood paints a fairly distorted picture of the archetype, such as the Disney-like Searching for Bobby Fischer or even the more gritty + over-the-top Fresh.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Movies like to present "chess hustlers" as playing chess for a living.

In reality, most of these people are playing chess for fun. The "hustlers" are often just down on their luck financially and like to make some money while still having fun.

There's certainly no J.J. Peachum-type figure who trains chess players to go into parks and make money from innocent passersby.

As for their strength, it's entirely dependent on the city or area you're looking. They're just a collection of chess players, there's no strength range you have to be in. In New York, master-strength players have been known to hang out on the street playing chess. In New Orleans you could catch a world-class player like Jude Acers sitting around in his red beret taking all comers. Where I am, in Cleveland, it seems like the strength level is in the 1000-1800 range, but hey I'm 2050 and I play around there fairly often, and I've known masters and even an IM to join in at various times. The guys who are into gambling are usually among the stronger players in their setting, which is again entirely dependent on where you look. At any rate, gambling isn't as common as the movies like to make it out to be. Having played all over I've only encountered it a few times and usually not from secret masters but rather guys who had learned enough tricks over the years to be able to beat most clueless people and were pretty confident.

It's not a business operation, it's an informal chess club where gambling is a part of the culture.

# Answer
> 11 votes
About ten years ago I had the occasion to play the guys in the business district in SF. I was rated 1654 at the time. There was only one person there who was clearly a better player than I. After losing a few games to opening tricks and on time, I adjusted to the speed and did quite well. I may have even won a few dollars. As for the top dog, thank goodness I was accompanied by my friend, who, at the time was class A state champion with a rating of about 2120. He too adjusted to the quick pace, and quickly got the upper hand. The top player got frustrated and exclaimed, "If you want a good game, come back at such and such a time..." We left and came back to encounter a new player there. My friend and I proceeded to lose back all of the money we won, learning later that they had rolled out the local GM on us.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It really depends on where you live, and who is there. Some can be very good.

For years, in Boston, well Cambridge really, there was a player, who was a regular at the "Square", Harvard Square to be precise. It is right across from the famed university, and IMs have been known to congregate there at times.

Murray Turnbull was about 2350 USCF when I would play him, so obviously, he would beat most comers. I would stop by when down there, mostly to show off to a girlfriend, or later, my daughter, what it was like for me to play blitz.

Here is a link to a story about him.

Here is an article about the Square.

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: How bad of a chess player was Alan Turing?
It is interesting that Turing worked with some of the best British chess players among them Golombek and Alexander. I am not sure how to characterize it, but he is considered a creative genius at a level and was certainly very important and successful in the code-breaking efforts during WW2.

He would play with Golombek, who I think could allow Turing to change color at a point of his choosing during the game. Although, I am not sure of the constraints; maybe it was up to a certain move. Golombek could then beat Turing from Turing's presumably losing position. I have never played at those odds, but I can't imagine, assuming that Golombek was playing to win, that Turing had much of a position, to begin with. On the other hand, perhaps, Golombek would try to keep a more or less even game so that he had chances. Anyway, I really wonder how weak of a player Turing was and if perhaps some of his games survive.

# Answer
A similar question was asked on another forum a few years ago, and the answer that was given was *"Alan Turing wasn’t a very strong chess player at all. He was probably at the level of a beginner. He certainly knew the rules of the game, but not much more."*

Wikipedia notes, regarding the chess program that Turing and a colleague designed, *"... the algorithm is primarily designed around the decision to take a piece or not; according to Turing, the resulting gameplay produces a low level game of chess, which he considered commensurate with his self-described average skill level at the game."* According to the article, Turing's algorithm (it's really difficult to call it a "program", as it never ran on any actual computer - Turning only ever "ran" it on pencil and paper) only looked two half-moves ahead, applied a static evaluation function to each resulting position, and selected as the next move whichever one led to the highest average evaluation after the following half-move.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-games, odds
---


# Question
Title: Chess Tournaments Without Studying Theory?
I have played chess since a very young age and my tactics are very developed in my opinion. However, I never bothered to read chess related books about opening or related theory. This often leads to interesting games as I don't follow well known openings which throws off my opponents. Would it be a good idea for me to enter a tournament with an entry fee in the hopes of winning prize money? Or would I get completely crushed by my opponents? I am roughly a 1900 ELO rated player - checked online.

# Answer
> 33 votes
There is nothing wrong in entering a tournament if you have the time and if you can afford the entry fee.

However, I think you should really consider your first tournament as a discovery experience and enjoy the pleasure of chess and the atmosphere of the tournament rather than worry at once about winning prize money.

Whether you can win something depends a lot on the specifics of the tournament, the field, and of course your own level. I wouldn't put too much faith in online estimates of your strength: real-life chess is quite different. Playing your first tournament will actually give you a much better evaluation of where you stand vis-à-vis competition chess, and the experience will probably make you pretty stronger for your second one!

In a typical Swiss-system open tournament, you won't get crushed in all your games: whether your 1900-elo online estimation translates to real-chess 1900, or 1700, or 1500, there are many players of every level entering such events, and there will almost certainly be some opponents that you can beat. Probably you will get crushed in a few games, but not throughout the tournament, and you will have your revenge in others.

Some tournaments have prize money for unrated players. This may be a nice plus at the end, or a goal to aim for if your are well-placed before the last couple of games. But don't worry about it at the starting line, concentrate on your chessboard!

Finally, studying chess, reading books or training is up to you. It certainly doesn't hurt to play over some grandmaster's games collection, for instance. In any case, don't overestimate the importance of opening theory: it does help, but you wouldn't be the first tournament player to reach decent results without delving into it.

Welcome in the world of competitive chess and have a nice tournament!

# Answer
> 15 votes
> Would it be a good idea for me to enter a tournament with an entry fee?

Absolutely! Playing over-the-board chess tournaments is a lot of fun. There is social interaction which is almost completely absent in online play and it will be good for you to compare your level of play with other players in "real" chess. You can also learn a lot in post-game discussions with your opponents.

> in the hopes of winning prize money?

"Hope" is good.

"Expectation" could be misplaced. I'm afraid there is a word which comes up in the chess world - "sandbagging". If there are sandbaggers in the tournament you enter then you won't win money. You hope you pick a tournament with none of these players and you might be in with a chance.

An example of something which looks suspiciously like this activity is available here. In one month the player gained 72 rating points by scoring 5.5/7 against players with an average rating of 1947 in a tournament with generous prize money and also managed to lose 91 rating points in another tournament by losing 5 games in a row against players with an average rating below 1385 (3 players had ratings more than 400 points below the player's rating and so their ratings were rounded up to be just 400 points below).

Juniors or very young players are also a (more legitimate) danger to your hopes of winning money. The problem there is that they are often improving very rapidly and their rating lags a long way behind their playing level.

Thirdly, you are unrated yourself. Many tournaments which have rating limits (you must be below a certain level to enter) will allow you to enter but not win a prize.

# Answer
> 9 votes
You should play because you want to play, not for the money.

At 1900, you might win some money here or there, but it will not be a lot, and will likely only offset your costs just a little as you are much more likely to spend more on entry fees, books, online subscriptions, etc. There is a lot of competition at any level, so you may win some money sometimes, and not other times. Also, be aware that 1900 online is not usually close to 1900 in over-the-board play, and may be off by 200 points, or more.

It also takes a while to get used to playing in tournaments, and that experience cannot be discounted. When I first started playing, the stress before each game would get me sick. Over time, I overcame that, but that is one example, and it is something that you need to get over with experience.

As far as not knowing theory, you are talking to someone, who hates theory. I got to 2298 knowing very little except how to play opening pawn structures. Understanding what you should be trying to achieve is more important than knowing exact moves that you do not understand, especially when your opponent is not going to follow book for 30 moves.

Learning about opening pawn structures, and the pawn breaks associated with them, can be learned in the following books:

1. *Complete Chess Strategy*” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. THIS is what made me a master.)
2. *Pawn Structure Chess*” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.)
3. *Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide*” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “*Complete Chess Strategy*”.)

Here is a good link with some basics.

In any case, good luck with your first tournament.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As a partial answer that I started as a comment to the (now-accepted) answer: Prepare yourself mentally that you may lose against somebody much weaker, purely due to the stress of the new. When walking up to a tournament area --- whether game table, dojo, ring, field, or other, --- you find out how you deal with that stress...

Just having to write down your moves on paper may fluster you, throwing off the rest of your composure & then you start thinking about what the spectators and opponent is thinking, you don't lose focus so much as focus on the wrong things. And then maybe the second or third game, all falls in place; you still have almost the same adrenalin shot but you find it clears your head.

Or on the other hand, you may find yourself completely in your element, a natural at competing, beating superior but less stress-resistant opponents!

But this in itself is a value to competing: learning how you deal with such stress, and then learning to better deal with it; the benefits of this clearly extend to other situations (inspections, management at work, courtroom appearances, ... ), and may inform you if you should search or avoid such situations.

Your mileage may vary. But the tournament prize money is (beyond practical considerations like repaying fees and costs) irrelevant, 'peanuts' to the non-financial benefits in the various answers given.

# Answer
> 2 votes
play because chess is fun. You will lose more money than you gain in chess unless you are very strong.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No.

Entering tournaments to make money is a fools errand.

There is much cheating that occurs in them. And plenty of us 1900 players (real 1900 federation rated not the fake online ratings) also deviate from the book to befuddle those who only know the book and think that the book is always right.

And since we do know theory and have good tactics too you will be surprised at your results if you play actual rated 1900 players.

# Answer
> 2 votes
What chess theory? How much theory?

Back when I started playing in tournaments there was very little material to help learn "theory". What passed for theory was very basic information and simple problems. Underpromoting to a horsie was the hardest I recall. Good books on tactics would have helped but I did not have any of those.

Later I found a copy of a book on openings which was interesting but not that useful except in postal chess.

I am not sure how I developed my skills but it may have mostly just been by playing tournaments. Some was reading anything I could find to help learn more principles which might be called theory. I did find a book on endings which I devoured and that definitely helped. Openings were very basic and I used ability with tactics to get my way through them and usually get a better game.

Anyway like @Edwina Oliver noted above, and others had similar sentiments, you will not make money playing in tournaments. It is a zero sum game. You make money by being so good that they pay you to show up and compete for prizes.

I knew one kid who had won money in his first very small club tournament. He then figured he would always be making money so he started playing in more tourneys. The next one I saw he was complaining that he did not make anything at all because the prize for second/third had been split between two players tied for second and he though since he was third in numerical scores he should have gotten the third place money even though he was 4th in people scoring. There were only 3 prizes and about ten people in the event.

Do you need theory to play and do well. No. Will you need some theory to play better. yes. And will you make money playing in tournaments. Not until you are a tippy top GM. GMs are a dime a dozen. I see them playing in every medium sized tournament trying to make a living.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I was 18, and never played in a tournament so was unrated. As a new player I could have played in a low division and won a prize. I played in the open division and got to play against local champions. Seeing how I did against the best was one of my primary goals. I learned a lot.

What I didn't expect was an introduction to chess culture. They way folks reviewed games, the nightly blitz battles, all those chess books was new to me. The gathering around an interesting game. Have fun!

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you've never played OTB tournaments, don't be misguided by your online rating. I had about 1700 online rating when I entered my first tournament: I was crushed losing to 1300 and even to 1100's. Tournament play is a different beast, with more time think expect a lot better quality play from the opposition than what you are used to seeing. Money or not, you should definitely play, it's totally amazing.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all, don't trust the online ratings. I've been rated by various digital arenas as much as 600 points more than my "real" rating. There's an inherent variability in rating systems, such that even two systems based on the exact same equations can come up with divergent ratings for the same player. (Elo, the man the international rating system is named for, described rating chessplayers as trying to measure the depth of a rapidly moving stream with a yardstick suspended from a Willow branch in the wind. There's too many variables to do it accurately.)

That having been said, go ahead and play tournament chess. Opening theory is overrated when your opponents are rated under 2000, maybe even 2200. A good feel for the game will serve you better than a dozen opening books. I can't tell you how many times I've emerged from the opening with the worse game, only to win in the end. Go, play, and enjoy.

Just be prepared for reality to give you a cold, hard, slap in the face. Decades ago, when I started playing in organized events, I discovered a completely new world. I'd won most every game I'd played up until that point; it took 4 tournaments to win my second game. Not saying this will happen to you, just warning you to be prepared to handle it if it does.

But here's a definite advisory: the good tournament players will not be put off by deviations from opening theory; only the ones whose opening preparation consists solely of memorization. Bent Larsen once observed that a player that has memorized the moves will win more than one who hasn't, but the player who understands the position will win more than both of them. In any mid-size or larger, non-scholastic, tournament you will find a good proportion of those.

Tactical strength is the foundation of chess; don't mistake it for the whole edifice.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It could be very interesting, but you can expect your opponents to get a theoretical advantage out of the openings I would say anywhere from +0.8 to +2. However, at your current level, the individuals with whom you are playing against might not be able to keep that advantage all the way to the endgame or even the late middlegame. So I would say that if you have strong middlegame and endgame skills you can stabilize his/her advantage, but you have to of course expect inferior moves from the opponent.

---
Tags: theory, tournament
---


# Question
Title: If both players simultaneously resign, what is the result of the game?
Let's say a tournament decides to have special consolation prizes for players who finish in the 20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th positions. It does this to give incentive to players to keep playing all rounds even if they don't have a chance of finishing in the top 10, who would get the normal prizes.

Now suppose player X playing the last round calculates that if he now resigns, he finishes exactly 20th, so he resigns. However, his opponent Y calculates that if he resigns now, he finishes 30th. Both players have incentive to resign. So as soon as X resigns, Y resigns as well.

So what is the result of the game?

# Answer
In such a hypothetical situation, I wouldn't be surprised if both players lose *and* will be eliminated from the tournament's results, thereby not qualifying for the consolation prize. It's entirely possible to classify their behaviour as unsportsmanlike and discrediting the game of chess, which is against the FIDE Code of Ethics.

> 2.2.10
> In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.
> 6 votes

# Answer
> So as soon as X resigns, Y resigns as well.

If the arbiter can establish this then player X's resignation, coming first, ends the game and player Y wins:

> 5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

But suppose the resignation really is simultaneous?

Such a real world case was considered by *Bozidar Kazic* in his book *The Chess Competitor's Handbook*. Player A moved an unmoved pawn forward two squares, realised that he had allowed a devastating en passant capture, and resigned. Meanwhile player B overlooked the en passant possibility, thought that he was getting mated, and resigned.

The conclusion was that the resignation from player B took precedence because it was his turn to move.
> 8 votes

# Answer
From FIDE Handbook:

Article 5: The completion of the game

5.1 b. The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

So simultaneous resignation is not possible.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, resigning
---


title: What does the chief arbiter do?

text:
# Question
Title: What does the chief arbiter do?
The rules of chess are straightforward so I must ask what does the chief arbiter do? what is the difference between him and a regular arbiter?

For example Anand and Carlsen had to meet him behind closed doors before the world championship started.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The chief arbiter is in practice no different from a standard arbiter - it is more a convenience in tournament organization.

In many tournament there are so many players that it is necessary to have several arbiters, and of those usually the one with the highest title (often IA for professional or large tournaments) is considered the 'chief' arbiter who is responsible as arbiter for all purposes that concern FIDE, etc. and to whom all other arbiters report. This also allows for less experienced arbiters to be used where necessary, as disputes with a less experienced arbiter (unlikely, but possible) can then be taken to the chief arbiter.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> What does the chief arbiter do?

Here is what the FIDE Competition Rules say about the role of the Chief Arbiter:

**3 The Chief Arbiter (CA)**

3.1 The duties of the CA are as specified in particular by the Laws of Chess, General Regulations for Competitions, Anti-cheating Guidelines and so on. During the event he also:
(1) has to keep the record of each round
(2) to oversee the proper course of the competition
(3) to ensure order in the playing venue
(4) to ensure players’ comfort during play

3.2 Prior to the start of the competition:

(1) he may draw up additional rules in consultation with the CO \[Chief Organizer\];
(2) he shall check all the conditions for play, including the playing venue, playing area, lighting, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, noise, security and so on.;
(3) he must acquire through the CO all the necessary equipment, ensure a sufficient number of arbiters, auxiliary technical staff and assistants are engaged and ensure that conditions for the arbiters are satisfactory.

Whether the playing conditions meet the requirements of these FIDE Rules is his final decision.

3.3 In case of different opinion between CA and CO regarding interpretation of the Laws of Chess, it is assumed that opinion of CA takes priority.

3.4 At the conclusion of the event the CA shall report as appropriate.

> what is the difference between him and a regular arbiter?

As somebody who has been both the chief arbiter in a norm event (an event where players can gain IM and GM norms if they play well enough) and been a low level arbiter in a local club event I can tell you that there is an enormous difference.

The chief arbiter has a managerial role because he or she is responsible for the smooth running of the tournament. The low level arbiter is just responsible for doing what the chief arbiter told/asked him to do.

To be sure, the chief arbiter can delegate some of the tasks to subordinate arbiters and in a large tournament will do so, but the responsibility if something goes wrong is with the chief arbiter.

> For example Anand and Carlsen had to meet him behind closed doors before the world championship started.

With only two players in the competition it makes complete sense for the two players to have a private meeting with the chief arbiter beforehand to make sure that the chief arbiter fulfils his obligations regarding 3.1 and 3.2 above and that there is clarity between the three main protagonists.

---
Tags: world-championship, arbiters
---


title: How can I open a .cbh databse

text:
# Question
Title: How can I open a .cbh databse
On my old windows-pc I created a database of my games on fritz 11 which I then uploaded to googledrive. The database is a .cbh file. My old computer broke and I'd like to re-open this database. As I have a mac, I got my roommate to download chessbase reader and sent him the database, but when trying to open it the message appeared

"new-database.cbh is not a database".

Does anyone know why this might have happened? Can anyone suggest something?

# Answer
> 3 votes
A .cbh file is not a complete database. A database in Chessbase format consists of multiple files.

To backup or transfer Chessbase databases between computers, you can either:

1. Backup in Chessbase to a .cbv file
2. Save games in portable PGN

# Answer
> 1 votes
The file might be corrupted or maybe the chess reader your friend got is broken. You could try using a different reader. You could also ask your friend to re-download the file in case there was some downloading error.

I just read this about converting .cbh to another format and apparently scidb can read .cbh. Maybe your friend could try using scidb to see if it opens in that.

Alternatively you might need to do something inside chessbase in which case I would not know what to recommend.

# Answer
> 1 votes
cbh is a FILE created by ChessBase, a program used for replaying chess games; saves header information about played chess games; saved with several other files that together comprise the total database and must be copied with the other files in order for the database to function properly.

If you don't want to copy the CBH file and all corresponding files, you can bundle all of them together in a .CBV file using ChessBase or Fritz.

Looks like you uploaded the wrong file. Should have used a CBV.

NOTE: You can open ChessBase databases using the free ChessBase Reader program.

---
Tags: database, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: What exactly happened in the Open World Blitz Championship in game Carlsen-Alireza?
In the 19th round of the World Chess Blitz Championship in Moscow, Russia, Magnus Carlsen faced Alireza Firouzja with black. Alireza lost on time while he was trying to restore a piece he dropped.

It's said that he made multiple appeals to the CA IA Takis Nikolopoulos. What exactly happened and what was the final outcome of the game?

# Answer
As you said, Alireza Firouzja lost on time while he was trying to restore a piece he dropped. He appealed, but the appeal was denied.

It was denied for several reasons.

First, he appealed about Magnus uttering one frustrating word earlier in the game. That was denied because had he wanted to appeal that, he had to do it right then and there, but he did not.

He questioned whether the clock was in proper operating order, but that was also denied.

He was declared lost because, no matter how unlikely, there was a position that Magnus could mate him in.

> Paragraph 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:
>
> The game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

It is my understanding that the formal appeal was on the Magnus' utterance as Alireza Firouzja had already been shown the rule in the rule book, so I do not believe that he formally appealed that part of the ruling.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, fide, tournament-directors
---


title: How useful is a 40-year-old chess book?

text:
# Question
Title: How useful is a 40-year-old chess book?
I have a chess book which I find great in terms of tone, formatting, etc., but the computer does not agree with some variations I gave it.

How much has chess changed since 1977? I imagine the rise of the computers (and computer chess) the last couple of decades had quite some impact. Is my book (published in 1977) still worth reading?

I'd like to know before I buy the other books of the series.

**Addendum**
The series in question is "praktische schaaklessen" (practical chess lessons) by Euwe. The book I have is on opening theory, but the other parts are on the other aspects and stages of the game (it's a six book series).

# Answer
> 17 votes
This depends on a lot of things, but most importantly: your playing level and the topic.

For example, if it is an opening book, it heavily depends on the opening. Some opening variations which are main stream today, didn't even exist in the seventies, or were rarely used (like the Berlin Wall in Ruy Lopez). Others haven't seen that much development (QGD, and offbeat openings like the King's Gambit).

Middlegame & strategy books usually last longer; Nimzowitsch' Mein System is 90 years old but still a useful read. The same is true for endgame books, with one notable exception (which doesn't appear that often in practice): endgame tablebases have completely changed the view on certain endgames like K+Q vs. K+B+B (thought to be a draw, now known to be a win for the Q) and K+Q vs. K+N+N (the other way around).

If you are a \<2200 player (like me), you shouldn't worry too much about computer evaluations. Though it is a very good practice to analyse the lines given by the books, so kudos for that.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well, Aaron Nimzowitsch wrote a book called "My System" in the late 1920's, and it's still worth reading today, so just because a book is old doesn't mean it's bad.

It's hard to say whether a book has stood the test of time just knowing what year it was published, but one thing is for sure: many lines can be faulty, as computers were not used to verify lines as they are today back in 1977.

If you find the book enjoyable, I would say it's worth reading. The given variations may contain some errors, but ultimately there might be some things to gain from reading it. The only exception is if it's a book on specific opening theory. Opening theory has changed quite a lot, and many main lines played in 1977 are not main lines anymore. In that case it's better to look for more up-to-date sources of information.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Which book? Assuming a Grandmaster wrote it... Well, here are the names of some Grandmasters from the 1970s:

I think those men, and men like those men, still have the ability to impart lessons.

If you can stand descriptive notation, books from the 1970s can still teach. And chances are, there are addenda on the web that call out faulty variations.

So it depends on the price. If these are US$30 each, and you are interested only in chess value (not the look/feel of the old tome) then perhaps a modern book is more cost effective.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The computer finding a better line does NOT mean the given line is bad.

If it was good enough for Euwe it's good enough for you :-)

For a kid whose realistic goal is to be a GM someday this might be bad advice. But I suspect that isn't you.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It depends on the book and your needs/interests. Some are worthless some have value for a new player who can use that content to improve.

The good news is that old chess books are dirt cheap. The bad news is that sorting through all the books available from vaious sites like amazon, ABE, individual sellers, and annual sales at our local club is a real chore.

With all the free/cheap content online it is hard to see how a 40 year old book can compete other than on cheaper prices.

---
Tags: books, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to write an interface to lichess for a millenium board using chesslink?
I am aware of the python chess and chesslink mchess work but would like to attempt to interface it with lichess.org. My purpose would be to play others on lichess using my Millenium board. The API's I've found for lichess seem to be for a chess engine interface rather than external hardware. Any guidelines on where to find other similar work (like how DGT may do it)?

# Answer
> 1 votes
As you've seen, the Lichess API only allows bots to use the API functions that make moves in an ongoing game. As far as I can tell, this is intentional; the API requires that anything that can generate moves in a game by some means other than human interaction on the Lichess site must be flagged as a bot.

Which means (again, as far as I can tell...), the only way to do what you want to do would be to create some kind of intermediary between the e-board and Lichess that actually mimics the actions a human would take during a game (such as simulating mouse clicking and movement on a game's web page).

I personally would not know where to start if I were trying to do this, and I also don't know if doing something like this would trip Lichess's anti-cheating detection in any way. But it appears that this is what you'd have to do in order to play on Lichess using an e-board.

---
Tags: programming, computer-chess, lichess
---