title: Chess Psychology

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Psychology
I have a friend who is an improving chess player. He wants to progress in his game. The problem with him is that he plays really good with much stronger opponents but, often lose many games surprisingly with even much weaker opponent ***which makes him less-confident***. I really want to solve his problem by understanding his psychology but i can't. Would anyone like to help me to solve his problem? Is there any chess course to help him out... ?

# Answer
I think it's really a common problem. Many people facing stronger opponents are playing for a draw, even as white. I think that the key is to wait and let them commit mistakes instead of going Rambo-mode. I did it myself on Sunday. I lost a game to a much weaker opponent just because I went kamikaze instead of pushing the wood slowly. He should try to stay cool. A draw is not a bad result at all.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think it's absolutely natural:

* Playing against strong players is often much easier. You can’t lose anything, you can only win. I personally have often the problem playing against strong players that I think I probably will lose and am too much passive, that my opponent often has too much time to rise his power against my vulnerable kingside.
* Playing against weak players can rise pain of losing. Each player has to be aware, that losing against a weaker player is not a shame, it often depends that the outcome of an unusual opening will be unclear.

I would give him following advice to improve his chess skills playing against weaker player:

1. If he plays against weak player he should play continuous and not try to create complicate mating nets which are often unclear.
2. May be he should play many times in succession against weak player in order to reduce his worry of losing.
3. He should read good books about chess psychology. I personally have profited much studying the book "**Devious Chess - How to bend the rules and win**", a book from Amatzia Avni, a master chess psychologist who has studied psychology in Israel and has written a number of books on chess psychology, published by Batsford.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You could post an example of a game where he lost against a weaker opponent and we could try to pinpoint the mistakes he makes, in a more abstract way. Generally speaking, as pointed out by others, this is not an uncommon problem. People get overambitious when pressing for a win against a weaker player, but play very safely when playing against a stronger player, since a draw would be sufficient. Another reason could be, I suppose, that he is very good at opening theory but lacks skills in other areas. When playing against weaker players, this illusion of the guy who can withstand the strong opponents collapses, because he doesn't know how to punish non-standard, suboptimal moves.

To avoid getting frustrated, I suggest that your friend trains more (if he is looking for the most efficient method: 30 mins to 1h tactics a day + playing lots of tournaments). This enables him to maybe get rid of his issue through accumulation of knowledge, or, if this doesn't happen, compensate for his frustration over the losses against weaker players through a general improvement.

With ascending skill and experience, you can learn which positions to avoid and which to seek against weaker players. For example, if you are playing the Semi-Slav, start with e6 instead of c6 against a weaker player, because he might enter the Exchange Slav, which is known to be very drawish. Hope I could help you a bit with those thoughts.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, software, psychology, programming
---


# Question
Title: How to add additional tags to an existing PGN?
Is there any software that would allow me to add additional PGN tags to existing PGN files?

For example, PGN tags like `WhiteTeam` etc.

# Answer
PGN files are flat text files. You can simply edit them with a text editor. (I use Notepad++).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn
---


title: Question about KIA?

text:
# Question
Title: Question about KIA?
Why is the KIA preferably played when black has already committed to e6? What's the purpose of spending an extra move (g3) to develop the bishop to g2? What are the general plans and strategy that come with this opening?

Also I was thinking of creating an opening repertoire starting with 1.g3 hoping to transpose to the English or KIA hoping to avoid any symmetrical English games Is this a reasonable idea, since g3 doesn't seem to place a pawn in the center on move 1?

# Answer
One of the most common plans in the KIA is to play e5, which gains space, kicks the f6 knight and enables white to start a kingside attack. If black has played e5, you will have to remove the black e pawn before you can advance e5 yourself, making it much harder to start an attack. Other common plans involve breaks with f4 and pawn storms to disrupt the enemy king's position. c3 is a good move if your opponent has a knight in c6 because it restricts the knight from moving agressively, and also prepares b4 (starting a queenside pawn storm) in case black castles long.

The bishop in g2 is inactive for a while, but when its diagonal gets opened, it becomes one of the strongest white pieces, controlling a nice long diagonal. Also, it's an additional defender for your king, and that's important because in the KIA we usually do pawn storms with the pawns that protect our king.

I suggest starting with Nf3 instead of g3, otherwise you allow your opponent to play e5 immediately, and unless you have specific reasons to play 1. g3, 1. Nf3 will do the same thing in the end but prevent a quick e5. If you know that your opponent is a French player, you can also start with e4 because he will play e6 anyway. That said, g3 is a not bad first move, i just don't like it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


title: pgn-extract suppress output

text:
# Question
Title: pgn-extract suppress output
I installed `pgn-extract_17.38` and want to suppress the output of

```
$ FEN=$(echo "1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3. *" | pgn-extract -F)
Processing stdin

1 game matched out of 1.

```

I read about suppressing methods on the website. But till now it does not work for me. Has any one experience in that tool?

# Answer
If you add the --quiet option that should do it:

FEN=$(echo "1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3. \*" | pgn-extract -F --quiet)

kentdjb (author of pgn-extract)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pgn, fen
---


# Question
Title: How to map file and rank to a square number in TSCP?
How can I map file and rank numbers (0-7) to a square number in Tom Kerrigan's Simple Chess Program?

I know how to do the conversion from square number to rank and file, but not the other way around.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The conversions from square to row and column are defined in defs.h as:

```
#define ROW(x) (x >> 3)
#define COL(x) (x & 7)

```

so you can apply the inverse to generate the square number:

```
(row << 3) | col

```

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Online chess leavers

text:
# Question
Title: Online chess leavers
I have encountered a profound number of players that simply leave the game when they realize they are losing/in difficult situation, without pressing "I resign" button. This often leaves me waiting a long time for no reason and, consequently, wasting my time.

Is there a site that prohibits this?

# Answer
Use lichess.org. When your opponent leaves game you can press button 'Claim draw/loss' there
> 4 votes

# Answer
**Chess.com** has an algorithm which senses whether a user/player is active or not during the game.

I am not very sure but they have a time frame of 5 minutes, during which if they find the player is not active then the game gets abandoned and the opponent wins.
> 4 votes

# Answer
chess.com seems to be the better option. If the opponent leaves the game or gets inactive they have a time period to get back in the game based on what game you're playing(blitz, bullet or standard).
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: What is a more efficient thinking process?
I'm a bit of a perfectionist and strive to make the best move every game. As a result I think I expend too much brain power throughout the game and get burned out or overwhelmed by the possibilites, for example in the opening I would try consider all my opponents responses of which there are many in the opening, sometimes I feel habits such as these are unnecessary and are just a waste of energy. What is the most correct way to expend your mental energy in a chess game?

# Answer
When you learn an opening you learn sequences of moves and the ideas behind those moves. If your opponent follows "book" then you don't have too much to think about. Probably just "Which variation am I going to play today? Am I feeling like a quiet strategic game or a wild tactical game?"

If your opponent plays a move you are not familiar with then there are two questions and two situations to cover.

1) You are playing a sharp, tactical opening where there are lots of threats and he didn't counter your threat and isn't counter threatening anything. In that case carry out your threat!

2) You are playing a quieter opening in which you are both just developing your pieces. In that case, after checking for threats, ask yourself if his move stops you developing the way you wanted. If it doesn't then carry on. If it does then work out how you now need to develop the rest of your pieces.

In the middlegame it is a bit different. When it is your turn you do need to calculate what you evaluate are your opponent's best replies.

When it is your opponent's turn it depends how many good looking possibilities he has. If it looks like just one or two forced or "best" replies then stay in your seat and calculate those. If it is a complicated position with lots of equally likely looking possibilities then either take a step back and look at the position from a long term strategical point of view or save your energy, go get a cup of coffee or glass of water or relax looking at other games whilst keeping half an eye on whether your opponent has moved yet.
> 3 votes

# Answer
So, it sounds to me you want a reliable thinking method for chess.

Karpov's 7 Timeless Reference Points:

1. Material relationship between the forces;
2. Presence of opponent's direct threats;
3. Position of the kings, their safety;
4. Possession of open lines;
5. Pawn Structure, weak and strong squares;
6. The centre and space;
7. Development and the position of pieces.

Most of these "assessments" can be done quickly, and point you to the moves (candidates) you should consider. Only then do you begin to look at concrete variations to come up with your "best" move.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The more efficient thinking process is definitely not to take too much time on the chess board during a Tournament Game .

Openings you need to choose by yourself and there are lines till 20th moves where you need to remember and that is absolutely up to you .

* In the middle game you need to find out always Opponent's which piece is crossing half of the board .
* You might need to find out the Opponent's most aggressive reply .
* When you are getting attacked "Always thing that Counterattack is the best defence.
* When you do not have a plan in the middle game always try capturing the centre squares . This will always help you to attack on any part of the board .
* Plus you sometimes need to sac material to gain activity on any part of the board .

Above are some of the examples that you need to follow to have the best of the thinking .
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: What is the current theoretical state for the Chinese Dragon?
I use this line a lot, as it tends to lead to interesting games, and I was wondering whether any advances in theory have been made here.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rb8

```

Wikipedia

# Answer
> 7 votes
When black plays the Dragon, recently, the top players tend to choose 9.0-0-0 and 9.g4, instead of 9.Bc4. For example, Topalov-Lu Shanglei, Wei Yi-Lu Shanglei, Caruana-Nakamura and Karjakin-Nakamura.

According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, after 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0, 10....Rc8 is the most popular choice. A couple of months ago, two books about the Dragon have been published, written by GM Jones. In Volume 1 he recommends 10....Rc8 and a couple of days ago, he used this move to beat GM Yu Yangyi.

However, according to the Game Database of ChessTempo, 10....Rb8 scores close to 50% with a performance of 2410, for players with an average rating of 2407. This indicates that 10....Rb8 is a good alternative for 10....Rc8.

White usually continues with 11.Bb3. After 11....Na5 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 b5 14.g4, white does seem to be slightly better. Recent games of strong players are: Mamedov-Can, Ledger-Jones, Saric-Cvitan, Demchenko-Kanter and Georgiadis-Cvitan. The same position can arise after 12.g4 b5 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6.

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "20"]

      1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 (9.O-O-O)(9.g4) Bd7 10.O-O-O Rb8 (10...Rc8) 11.Bb3 Na5 12.Bh6 (12.g4 b5 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6) Bxh6 13.Qxh6 b5 14.g4

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Going over lines with Stockfish 6, it appears White holds the edge in all lines after the counter-intuitive 11.Kb1. Which is maybe why this "works" for Black -- what player not already prepped is going to move King in line with enemy rook like that?

The main line seems to be 11.Kb1 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 b5 13.Be2 b4 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.exd5.

If Black launches b5 right away, sacking it, there is not enough comp: 11.Kb1 b5 12.Ndxb5 Qc8 13.Bb3 (12...Ne5 13.Be2).

# Answer
> 0 votes
The idea for white with 11. Kb1, a defensive move with a long term plan of playing Ka1 Then Rb1 which is a very safe king for white.

---
Tags: opening, theory, sicilian-defense, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Where to play with friend online with no need to register?
Is there some site where you can play with your friend with no need to either of players having account there? Just searching for way how to make online training sessions with various people, everybody having different favorite chess sites.

# Answer
Lichess is great for that.

When you click the 'play with a friend' button, it allows you to create a custom game to invite someone with a link, the amazing thing is that if the game is unrated, you can invite anonymous players, and it works even if you are not logged in at all, thus you can do anon vs anon games.

I have some online friends that are very timid, and don't want anyone knowing who they are online in any manner, they love lichess because of this possibility of playing completely anonymous.
> 6 votes

# Answer
This **Chess.Cool** website is also good (free and easy to access).

You can enjoy board editor, chess problems are other features as well.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Potential Rating Gain if Only 20 OTB Games Per Year
Context: I'm returning to the game after more than 25 years away! I only got back into it because my 8-year old son joined his elementary school chess club. They all got accounts to chesskid.com. Which in turn is parented by chess.com. I clicked on chess.com to see what that was about, and blam! I was swallowed up into the matrix again!

Anyways, there's not a lot of tournaments where I live, and I went to the Senior Open and talked to the TD. (To show how out of touch I was and still am, I asked him what that electronic device was that some of the players had. He said it was a play counter. I said, "What?" And "how much?"

So I said that I used to play, and do I have to come back as an Unrated since I haven't played since the late 80's? He said no, you always have your rating. He looked me up, and said that I have a 1762 rating!!! I was astonished. All these years I thought I was at best a Class C patzer.

I was astonished, and now I want to make Expert before I die. (I'm in my mid 50's). But as mentioned, there's not a lot of OTB games where I live PLUS I work and have kids and I do a lot of stuff with my 8-year old.

So I anticipate at best 20 tournament games a year. If I finish +4 against all rating classes that I get paired up against (Assuming an effective study plan), how many rating points can I gain, roughly in a year by playing 20 tournament games?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I went to the FIDE rating calculator and inputted:

* Your ELO of 1762
* An estimate of your opponent's ELO of 1750 (assuming you play roughly equal opposition)
* The development coefficient of 20 (representing that you have an established rating)

Per game you get a rounded rating change of:

* +10 for a win
* 0 for a draw
* -10 for a loss

At +4 in 20 games, your rating will change by +40 (4 wins to 16 draws) to -120 (4 wins, 16 losses).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Anticipate early losses to bring yourself back to form, and every loss comes with a rating penalty that you will have to make up over the remaining games.

I think +4 over 20 games is a little ambitious, given you will probably be -2 or -3 after your first half dozen games out of sheer rust. that means +6/+7 over the next 14 to reach your goal of +4.

To win half your games is ambitious, assuming you are playing like competition.

---
Tags: learning, rating, tournament, training
---


# Question
Title: How does one apply the Principle of Two Weaknesses into their own game?
This sounds like a powerful technique. The problem is that I don't know how to give my opponent two weaknesses when they have none. Any advice?

Ideas I've seen are pushing the rook pawns and weakening the opponent's king or queen side. That's about all I've seen and know in giving weaknesses.

# Answer
Pushing the rook pawns can be a powerful idea at the right time. But the reason you really need maturity is for big decisions like whether you should do a pawn storm, attack with pieces, or just choose quiet moves to improve and consolidate your position. The "principle of two weaknesses" is just a term for the concept that you shouldn't be so preoccupied with playing for a certain advantage (and perhaps even playing well for it) that you lose sight of a better strategical idea in the position. I like the example of Vladimir Kramnik vs Ernesto Inarkiev. Kramnik played the opening like Kramnik, starting out by isolating and weakening his opponent's queenside pawns, creating the first weakness. He was able to play a timely 16. b4, which made the problem worse, since the black c4 pawn couldn't watch over the b-pawn anymore. After forcing the knight trade on d4, he recaptured with the rook, and after the 24th move white is clearly better. But what I love about this game was Kramnik's move 26. Rg4! You rarely put your rook there. Kramnik was able to realize in the middle of a good position that the best way to finish Inarkiev would be to launch a tactically correct kingside attack, and he finished it off with a nice flourish. Inarkiev was a strong GM, what what sets Kramnik apart was that he was able to change his vision from the queenside to the kingside at a moment's notice.

```

[FEN ""]
[Event "Petrosian Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.05"]
[EventDate "2014.11.03"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Ernesto Inarkiev"]
[ECO "D53"]
[WhiteElo "2760"]
[BlackElo "2688"]
[PlyCount "79"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Qc2 O-O 6. Bg5 c5
7. dxc5 dxc4 8. e4 Nfd7 9. Bf4 b5 10. cxb6 Nxb6 11. Rd1 Qe8
12. Be2 Na6 13. Ne5 Nb4 14. Qc1 Ba6 15. a3 Nc6 16. b4 Bf6
17. Nf3 Bxc3+ 18. Qxc3 Qc8 19. O-O Bb5 20. Bd6 Rd8 21. e5 h6
22. Nd4 a6 23. Bf3 Nxd4 24. Rxd4 Bc6 25. Be2 Bb5 26. Rg4 Kh8
27. Qg3 Rg8 28. Rh4 Qd8 29. Qf4 Re8 30. Rxh6+ gxh6 31. Qxh6+
Kg8 32. f4 Bc6 33. Bf3 Qc8 34. f5 exf5 35. Qg5+ Kh8 36. Bxc6
Re6 37. Rxf5 Ra7 38. Qh4+ Kg7 39. Rh5 Qg8 40. Be4 1-0

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
When you say you want to apply " the Principle of two Weaknesses into your own game " then I will surely assuming that your rating should be at least 2200 Elo .

Now why I say this because there are rarely Games below this Elo level where you would find this principle being thoroughly applied . It is not that Players below this Level do not apply this but they do it implicitly without knowing that Principle of two Weakness is in consideration .Generally this particular methodology is applied mostly in End games where the battle is on both flanks or on two different positions and the Opponent gets subdued trying to control both and gets a catastrophic failure trying to shift balance on both sides .

You could see some Games from Youtube where you would understand this better .

Principle of Two Weakness

Once you go through this link you will find many others with different examples .
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Openings vs 1. d4

text:
# Question
Title: Openings vs 1. d4
So, I played quite a bit a few years ago, at the 1500-1600 level, and now I'm getting back into things a bit. I figured I'd use the chance to shore up my opening repertoire.

At the moment, I play 1. c4 as white and love it. I'm also pretty happy with the dragon as black vs e4. Vs d4 though, I have issues. I used to play the KID vs d4, but never really liked it. I like the fianchetto, but it was cramped in all the wrong ways, I never felt like I had good pawn breaks, and my minor pieces always were tripping over each other. I like fianchetto positions in general. Before the English, I played a lot of KIA, and before the Dragon, Pirc.

So what should I look into vs d4 if I like the Dragon, and especially the English?

# Answer
Just as Brian Towers I would recommend you to give a look at the Grunfeld. The main difference with the KID is that you react faster in the center with *3...d5* and the resulting positions are often more open and "enjoyable" for your g7-bishop. Other possibilities are the Benoni: play with c5 instead of e5 (in the KID) and with Queenside pawn play. Or the Benko Gambit which can lead to attacking positions with a dominant black square bishop (but depending on white's answer, the fianchetto won't always be the best option). In any case welcome back in the chess world and I wish you the best of luck with your black Dragon (a favorite of mine too)!!
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would try the Gruenfeld in your position. It has the fianchetto without the cramping and has a lot of scope for someone who likes a tactical, non-symmetric counter-punching kind of game.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I second Grunfeld & I can understand when you have an aficionado for the Dragon then you love fianchettoes but my suggestion would be that you can try Slav & Semi Slav as Black . If you see then their Winning percentages as Black is the Best against d4 . Kramnik Anand Kasparov are the best teachers in this Variation .

Technically what I feel that this opening has an Initiative which White cannot parry easily . I never feel that playing Black as Semi Slav & Slav has any disadvantage . lets go for an example now Lets consider the Semi Slav Meran Variation .

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.O-O a6 10.e4 c5

You can see how Black snatches the initiative when he pushes the Bishop to d3 via 7)..b5 . It is Black infact who is dominating .

You can go through some games and you will find that whatever I mentioned would be an interesting option to you as well .
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: (Arena) How do I turn off highlighting of occupied squares under attack?
It seem to follow some scheme showing what is under attach and if it is a good trade. Specifially I don't want the red/green/yellow highlighting in the image below.

This is v1.1 for Linux.

# Answer
Under the "help" tab there is a "show attacked pieces" option which removes the color coding.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: arena
---


# Question
Title: What is a good playstyle for players that are not good with deep calculations?
I have an opponent that knows nothing about formal chess stuff, no glossary, no openings, and so on...

And yet that opponent destroys me every time with some DEEEEEP calculating, sometimes 20 minutes long for a single move in untimed chess...

I am nowhere good enough for that. I have ADHD and lose track of what I was calculating in my head mid-move, and every time this happens, I make some stupid blunder. (Also I tend to lose due to running out of time).

Is there any obvious play style I can start to use to go around that weakness?

# Answer
I have a rating of 2200, and I have similar difficulties with long calculations, but I have a good positional understanding.

My advice is:

1. Reduce your blunder rate by making a simple check to see whether you hang any pieces, walk into mate etc. Check out What is the most effective way of reducing blunders?
2. You don't need to calculate too far ahead. In my answer to How many steps can a grandmaster foresee?, I quote GM Soltis who argues that 2 1/2 moves ahead is fine for most positions
3. Play quiet and solid openings that don't have many forcing moves or tricky tactics. Try , the or the .

This is a correspondence game I played on chess.com recently. My play was quite simple all told. I stuck to looking a few moves ahead and stuck to a plan of targeting white's isolated d-pawn:

```
[FEN ""]
[White ""]
[Black "Bad_Bishop"]

1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ Nbd7 6. Nc3 a6 7. Ba4? {White is out of opening theory now. Now I can focus on recovering my pawn.} b5 8. Bb3 Nb6 9. Qf3 Bb7 10. Nge2 Nbxd5 11. O-O Nxc3 {My plan from now on is to reduce material and target white's isolated d-pawn. This is quite a straightforward plan that doesn't need much calculation.} 12. Qxc3 Rc8 13. Qd4? {White should keep queens on the board, especially when my king is still in the middle. If queens were kept on, then I might have to deal with some tricky long variations.} Qxd4 14. Nxd4 Rd8 {Now I need to double rooks on the d-file to put pressure on the pawn.} 15. Nf5 e6 16. Ne3 Bc5 17. Rd1 Rd7 18. Bc2 Ke7 19. b3 Rhd8 20. d3 Bd4 21. Rb1 Nd5 {I saw an opportunity to trade minor pieces, seeing as the c3 square is weak.[%draw full,c3,red][%draw arrow,d5,c3,green]} 22. Nxd5+ Rxd5 23. Bb2 b4 {I wanted to add one more attacker onto d3, by playing ...b4, ...a5 and ...Ba6.} 24. Bxd4 Rxd4 25. Re1 a5 26. Rbd1 Ba6 27. Re3 R8d5 {I wanted to make sure that white could not start targeting my pawns with Re5.} 28. f3 f5 {If I could scare away the rook, then the d3 pawn is more likely to fall. Also, having my pawns on dark squares means white's light square bishop has no targets.} 29. Kf2 f4 30. Re4 e5 31. Rxd4 Rxd4 32. Ke2 h6 33. Kd2 g5 34. Re1 Ke6 35. Re4 Kd5 36. Ke2? {Because the d3 pawn is now pinned, I can trade rooks and invade with my king.} Rxe4+ 37. fxe4+ Kd4 38. Kd2 g4 39. Bd1? {White now cracks and loses the d3 pawn, and next the e4 pawn.} Bxd3 40. Bxg4 Bxe4  0-1

```
> 12 votes

# Answer
Somewhat related to your question of playing styles, perhaps a good book on thinking process is really what you need. Organized chess thought is not obvious at times and takes practice. There are a bunch of good books out there written by GM's who give advice on how to organize your thinking during a game. Here are a few authors:

1: "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman

2: "Find the Right Plan" with Anatoly Karpov

3: "How to Choose a Chess Move" by Andrew Soltis

Of these three, the first is the easiest, the 2nd is the most practically applicable to play, and the 3rd is a little scattered. But, all three give you a good base for which to base decisions on.

My favorite is Karpov's book because it is reproducible during games easily for me.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: style
---


title: What is a chess database used for?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a chess database used for?
I frequently see advice about how to learn chess that include links to databases, or how to set them up, or a question here about Analysis where the accepted answer says to just add some stuff to your database.

But **what is that database, really?** I never saw an explanation for that.

And **how would a beginner use a database?** Why does everyone talk about databases but never explain what they are in first place?

I assume they are important, since seemingly there are lots of companies that get lots of money solely by selling chess databases...

# Answer
> 7 votes
## what is that database, really?

A chess database is basically a collection of chess games, i.e. a collection of moves with metadata such as player names, date, Elo rating of players, place, opening name ... It can also include comments/annotations for some or all games.

There are various websites such as lichess, chesstempo, 365chess where you can access chess databases for free. Alternatively you can download database files from the internet or buy them from somewhere like ChessBase and access them on your computer. For this you need a program/application such as Scid (free) or ChessBase (not free) which can read the database files and allows you to play through the games and do all kinds of searches/manipulations to the database files.

Also you can of course manually add your (or anybody else's) games to the database.

## how a beginner use a database?

You don't, really. As a beginner you should focus on learning general principles of playing chess and studying tactics. You don't really need a database for either.

## How can a database be used?

1. Databases are immensely useful for studying openings. They allow you to keep all the variations/sidelines nicely **ordered**, you can add **comments** to moves, you can see which line is the most **popular**, which line has the highest **winning percentage** (or which line is more drawish, which more risky...), you can **filter** games (e.g. show only recent, or only games of high rated players or only white wins, or only a certain variation...). Based on this you can build an opening repertoire (which you could save in a separate database) and/or expand your opening knowledge. Also chess database software works well together with chess engines which gives you further possibilities for study. Unlike books, a database can always updated (e.g. from twic), so you always have the latest developments in opening theory at hand.
2. You can also use the database to study middle- or endgame plans. For instance you can search the database for specific positions and/or material distributions and then see how a grandmaster plays these positions.
3. You can prepare for a game against an opponent by studying his/her games beforehand (assuming there are games of your opponent in the database) looking for weaknesses in the opening repertoire or weaknesses in playing certain types of positions.
4. You could use it to follow your favorite chess player's games just for fun.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> what is that database, really?

A chess database is a file or set of files along with a computer program which allows you to store chess games in a way that allows you to easily search through them. The associated computer program should also allow you to easily hook up a chess engine to help you analyse the games.

> how would a beginner use a database?

Every time you play a game where you recorded the moves when you get back home open the database and enter your game in the database. Then you can go through it, first using your own brain trying to work out which were the good moves and bad moves and why and second with a chess engine hooked up to see where the engine thinks good moves and bad moves were played.

Then a few weeks or months or years later when you are drawn to play somebody you played before you can go back to your database, look up the game, work through it again and see what you have to do to get a better result this time.

> I assume they are important, since seemingly there are lots of companies that get lots of money solely by selling chess database

Well, I don't think there are any companies making money *solely* by selling chess databases but it is certainly part of their revenue.

Note that you don't need to pay money to get your hands on a chess database. There are lots of free programs out there which will do the job for you and free sources of games if you want to download other people's games.

For instance, this combination will do the job for you:

1. Scid vs PC for the database management program
2. Stockfish for the chess engine
3. Ordinary pgn files for the database files
4. TWIC for a supply of the latest top games played around the world

A paid for solution like Chessbase will get you a deluxe solution which could be worth it if you are semi pro but if you just want to look at top games then Chessbase make their database available (with cut down functionality) online for free.

If you need help getting started then Watford chess club have put up the following useful web pages:

http://www.watfordchessclub.org/index.php/chess-freeware/54-scid-vs-pc-getting-started

http://www.watfordchessclub.org/index.php/chess-freeware/56-scid-vs-pc-using-databases

http://www.watfordchessclub.org/index.php/chess-freeware/68-scid-vs-pc-using-databases-2

# Answer
> 1 votes
Good question!

Actually, a chess database is profoundly used for different openings and along with corresponding game. It is also used for any particular position whether it has arisen before. It is also used for different player categories.

For example, let's assume you are learning the Fianchetto Variation of the Dutch Defense. So when you learned some lines of this particular openings you need to analyze some games of this variation. What are the middlegame ideas and who are the best practitioners? If you mistakenly see the Leningrad Variation of Dutch then you will get confused. So it is important that you maintain your own Database and sort your own games accordingly.

Another example would be if you belong to a rating class of approx. 2000 Elo then you might be interested in games of 2200-2300 Elo; that is one level up, because you would be focusing on their strengths and weaknesses.

You would also be storing your own games in your database.

# Answer
> 0 votes
To become proficient at chess, one must study other games, not just one's own. This aids in determining the best move or sequence of moves in a given position, by comparing outcomes. This necessitates collecting games to be viewed. Since collecting them in writing on index cards or in books and then trying to organize them is too physically laborious and time consuming, chess game databases are the "perfect" solution, at least until the next innovation. Computerized databases permit detailed and now quite "granular" searches, thus speeding up the learning process.

---
Tags: beginner, database
---


title: Recover lost passion

text:
# Question
Title: Recover lost passion
Last year I played in a chess league in my city (Average of 1800 ELO). But I currently have a sense of boredom with chess in general. I have lost the passion for this game. Winning or losing don't affect me too much. I'm focused mainly on the quality of my games.

Playing chess tournaments takes some preparation: like tactics, endings, openings, ... I don\`t feel bored with preparation or training.

But In the moment when I play with another person, I don´t enjoy it. I enjoy more playing against the computer. but this doesn't make sense. If anybody trains to be better, it is to put this learning into practice.

Could you give me any suggestions to recover the encouragement to play? Any tip to enjoy playing chess tournaments? What tips do you use to maintain your motivation at a high level?

# Answer
> 2 votes
First, there seems to be nothing wrong with wanting quality over quantity in your games. But if you're worried that a creeping perfection is ruining your chances to enjoy a game, maybe you just need a break. I know there were times I thought I was getting bored with chess, so I played in a tournament to prove I wasn't, and I wound up playing what was frankly pretty boring chess just to avoid blunders, and I wound up more and frustrated than when I started.

Discovering knowledge for its own sake can be extremely rewarding. I had a lot of fun running my old games through a chess engine to see what sort of mistakes I commonly made. It was tough, but revealing.

Perhaps you are at a phase where studying things without the pressure of winning and losing is more exciting, or the enjoyment last longer. "Winning isn't everything" is a bit of a cliche, but in this case, maybe you will have more fun just meeting once a week to play several blitz games and to try out new odd openings.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If this only concerns playing in tournaments just play casual non-tournament games.

I am not sure how you would judge the "quality of your games" if the outcome (win/loss) is not important to you.

If you haven't done so already, perhaps joining a chess club and playing in team competitions could motivate you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you are new to Chess subject, then you might be interested in gaining the knowledge of Chess.

This and this site suggests different books to excel in Chess.

If you already aware of subject then you might be interested in Chess variants. Few are:

> 1. Crazyhouse
> 2. Chess960
> 3. King of the Hill
> 4. Three-check
> 5. Antichess
> 6. Atomic
> 7. Horde
> 8. Racing Kings

In Lichess, all the above listed chess variants are available to play.

Trying different *Chess variants* would probably interests you in playing.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think you need to change your Openings . There are a lot of Youtube vidoes from different GMs and Players . Do not repeat the same kind of positions , Websites or materials .

You must change everything to gain back your interests . Even you should change your Chess Heroes .

Change is inevitable and you should be flexible and adaptable to it . Do not follow a rigid course .

# Answer
> 1 votes
To quote IM Jeremy Silman:

> **What to do if a Young Player Gets Stuck After Achieving His/Her Goals**
>
> A young player that achieves his goal (in this case making master) but then stalls for a long period of time has, in most cases, moved on to other interests (school, sports, dating, other intellectual passions, etc.). For him to improve, he’ll need to study hard AND, most importantly, get jazzed by chess again. In other words, if he doesn’t find chess more than a fun pastime, then it’s doubtful that he’ll make another surge until some future time when he decides that’s what he wants to do.
>
> Of course, there’s no doubt that a talented young player could be much stronger if he decided that this was a life priority, but I’ve seen the passion for chess vanish in many promising kids once that master rating was achieved and university beckoned. This might or might not change at some point in the future. If the newly minted young master does decide to go to another chess level, and he understands and embraces the need for hard work to achieve that goal, then his talent will easily take him there.
>
> I should add that those young men who become grandmasters by their early teens are driven to do so. To them, chess is usually life itself – it’s all they can think of. They eat it, breathe it, and live it in their dreams. The young men and women you asked about don’t have that kind of obsession, and I think that’s usually a good thing!

To answer your original question, "How to enjoy the (local) chess tournaments?" Remember if you keep improving you're going to grow and become better. Eventually you'll be playing at a well-known state, or even national tournament.

---
Tags: tournament, psychology
---


title: Psychology in Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Psychology in Chess
Having a correct mindset has been a frustrating endeavor in my chess career. I have some questions regarding how to get into a "correct mindset."

1) I can never seem to play against lower rated players. I am 2350 USCF and I have a higher win rate against 2400s (around 75%) than even 2100-2200s (40-50%). It's hard not to focus on the rating during my games, and it adds a lot of stress because I'm not expected to lose.

2) The last round has always been a struggle for me. A lot of the times I just collapse, especially if I need to win the last round for money or for a title.

3) I've lost against lower rated players so much that tournaments become stressful. This is mainly due to the fact that if I lose to a lower rated player in round 1, I am doomed to pair down the rest of the tournament.

I can probably play 500 points better if I could get rid of all this unnecessary stress. The real question is how to get rid of it. Trying to calm down is a paradox. Some of the best games I've played was when I got so absorbed by the position I forget about everything else.

I appreciate all advice. Thanks for reading this post.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The book "Mind Gym" helped my brother who's a professional gamer (online strategy games). It examines some of the ways that athletes can activate and harness their psychology to do better.

One thing in particular that helped me in competitive fields is to visualize in advance yourself winning: but not just winning, how you win. Visualize in color and detail how you're ready for everything, how you will deal with each challenge how you will persevere and keep focused throughout.

If you've already won once in your head, you won't be surprised that things go well and you won't sabotage yourself.

Everybody has their hangups and this is purely psychological. But the psychological part is very powerful. It is actually a common problem for high performers that they'll do much worse against lower rated players/teams.

Practice more than anything can acclimate you to this. Practice against worse players. Practice against the players you want to be able to beat. Lesser quality players play markedly differently and it's possible that you've only mastered the high level kind of play and although you should have all the chess tools in house to beat them, you may be missing the right mentality and this might need some figuring out and some time.

There's an old saying in martial arts: "The best swordsman of the land shouldn't fear the second best swordsman: He should fear the worst swordsman".

(unpredictability can be a factor)

# Answer
> 3 votes
I have had this problem during the entire time I was playing official games. I don't know if I am entitled to answer your question, because you seem to be stronger than I was (2250 FIDE). Anyway, my way of combating this trouble has been efficient in the measure of what I deemed possible. My "trick" was to focus on the game, avoiding whenever possible to be distracted by the idiosyncrasies of my opponents (and mine), and try to play the "correct" move, being very cautious on verifying. I say the "correct" move, not the best move, because this would lead you into problems on time. Just try to play correct moves, as Smyslov has been said to say, I play 40 correct moves, try to do the same and we shall see.

Of course, this does not mean you cannot take into account specific features or conditions occurring during the games. A bit of psychology is always necessary. But when you get nervous, just say to yourself, "Well no psychological auto-destruction, I just play right moves and that's all." This worked partially for me. Just try. It is purely mental, you have to adopt the right attitude, neutralizing any psychological negative interference. For this, of course, there is a price: you will also have to control and eliminate positive advantages during the game. By this I mean not getting overoptimistic when obtaining an advantage - whether psychological or real. If you can do this, you can become stronger. But that's only my opinion.

Have a nice day!

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Don't think about the result. Don't think about anything. Just play chess.

Attributed to Josh Waitzkin in *The Psychology of Competition* training module in Ubisoft's *Chessmaster* program.

What does this mean to you?

1. **Rating difference**: When playing against lower rated players, a friend of mine said in a post-mortem that he *deserved* to win. But there are tremendous attacking and defensive resources in chess, implying that the result is very much uncertain at the outset. In short, a higher rated player doesn't *deserve* anything
2. **Money/prizes**: Do you *need* the money from the tournament? It is unlikely that you do. In this case, just see the prize as a nice bonus. It isn't yours yet, so don't think about spending it before it is handed over to you
3. **Reaching 2850**: I think this is unrealistic on your part. Carlsen is rated 2850. Dreaming about being World Champion and being the highest rated player of all time is another distracting goal. Don't think about how the game will affect your Elo.

In summary, when playing chess, just think about chess. The result is irrelevant. The rating difference is irrelevant. Try to stay in the moment.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This won't be as comprehensive as some of the other answers, but some relevant points I've noticed from my other endeavors:

> 1) I can never seem to play against lower rated players. I am 2350 USCF and I have a higher win-rate against 2400s (around 75%) than even 2100-2200s (40-50%).

Focusing on ratings aside (only you can say if the true issue lies there), often there is also a technical issue here as well.

People can fall into a situation where they feel comfortable playing against opponents who play "correctly", but can't deal with people who play "incorrectly" or in an unexpected way. For example, high-rated player in chess might defend from an attack in a relatively orthodox manner, while a less experienced player might react by creating even more chaos and throwing pieces at you to throw you off-balance.

The only real suggestion I can offer to counter this is to not just spend all of your study time looking at situation where the opponent defends perfectly but also consider the unorthodox replies that might emerge.

> 2) The last round has always been a struggle for me. A lot of the times I just collapse, especially if I need to win the last round for money or for a title.

This may also be due to exhaustion making it easier for you to lose concentration, and the potential outcomes providing a good distraction to draw your attention. Naturally, the way around this would be to maintain your energy levels as best you can during earlier rounds, eating/sleeping well and ensuring that you use time between rounds effectively to recharge your batteries (assuming, of course, that this is a weekend or similar short-scale tournament rather than a game-a-week affair).

This might have all been familiar to you already, but I hope it helps.

# Answer
> 1 votes
@user3456... I think your answer suits more, although I am not in a position to conclude. Playing to win is actually riskier than playing for a draw. When I play someone with a lower rating, I tend to end up losing than win, but it gets more challenging when I play someone stronger. I go all out, and end up doing well. . To solve it in my own understanding, is to learn to be brutal. Show no mercy, to even a 1300. "Kill them all"

# Answer
> 1 votes
This worked for me when I was 2030 USCF and was attempting to climb my way to USCF master rating in 1 year. Psychologically I had 2 goals/methods:

1) Play every game based on the board, and try to play the best moves no matter how crazy or complicated they seemed (or how quiet and dry in some cases). Whether my opponent was 1600 or 2450 it shouldn't matter and I should play the same move regardless, since my focus wasn't to beat my opponent but to find the best moves to play. Playing guess the move on thousands of gm games, double checked with engine analysis, helped solidify this into a habit. Also telling myself again and again not to care about the result, but instead to try and have an entertaining game I can learn from.

2) I would always avoid looking at my opponents rating on the pairings, and would tell my friends to NEVER tell me the rating of who I'm playing against. Knowing this would only distract my attention away from the board and trying to find the best moves. If my opponent were Magnus I would still want to aggressively take advantage of anything that seemed to be a mistake, aka not give him the benefit of the doubt on complicated positions, and if my opponent was 1200 I'd still avoid playing aggressively if the position called for quiet moves.

Also as far as your endurance problems I would never eat anything unhealthy during a tournament, only proteins and complex carbohydrates religiously (mixed bean salad, and turkey sandwiches without sauces mainly). I would do my best to get 8 hours of sleep each night and have a light workout each morning if the hotel had an exercise room. Even though my normal lifestyle isn't nearly this good, I'd change my habits for the tournaments to be more competitive.

Another thing I'd attempt to do is get through my first 20 or so moves in under an hour. Even if I didn't know the opening super well I didn't want to waste my energy on the opening phases.

I'd also try to completely avoid calculating when it wasn't my turn, to save energy. I'd get up and walk around to get my blood flowing and to avoid staring at a board for hours in the early rounds. Also consider that you have to calculate many irrelevant lines if you are trying to predict your opponents moves on their turn. Better to let them eliminate those irrelevant lines by picking something, and you can just calculate after that.

Based on following these methods and training about 3 hours each day, I broke through to 2200 in exactly one year, playing just 5 tournaments. I didn't lose a single game to anyone under 2200 USCF during that time, and split 5-5 with players at 2200-2300 (was 4-1 in my last 2 tournaments), drew a 2350, and I also beat an IM, lost to an IM, and blundered a won game against a GM (but at least it was an interesting game and he talked with me quite a bit afterwards). In my final 3 tournaments I closed out quite strongly in the last few rounds since I had plenty of energy, winning money in my last 3 tournaments (even winning an entire section). Beyond just training myself to be a good player, following these methods gave me a decent competitive edge over my competition and led to strong results.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm one of those lower-rated players that higher-rated players wish they hadn't met. I've beaten players rated 500 ELO higher than me, and drawn players rated 400 ELO higher. Of course, I get beaten most of the time by them, but it's the attitude I bring that gives me a fighting chance.

I can accomplish this by taking certain approaches:

1. I don't play to get us both into unfamiliar territory, but I won't play all the mainline moves in his preferred opening. He's going to know the lines better, so I throw in a second-choice move fairly early. I've even innovated (actual *novelties*! that was a surprise to me, too) as early as moves 3 and 4 in some well-established openings, and found myself in very playable lines that had the effect of jarring the opponent into long thinks.
2. I keep him off-balance, posing as many challenges as I can. If I can put him on the defensive, he'll have to think harder than if he's attacking.
3. I turn over *every rock* trying to scare up tactics.
4. I mask my plans as much as possible.
5. I set traps, letting him take a pawn here or there so his pieces will get marooned, offside, or trapped. I've trapped and won more pieces from players rated 400+ ELO higher than me than I can count.
6. I try to find ways to make him burn time on his clock. The more complex the position, the better. The sooner the novelty, the better. The more advanced my passed pawn, the better. The more solid my defense, the better.
7. When defending, I always look for chances for serious counterplay first. If I can line up a shot with the same move I'm using for defence, chances are good he'll see only the defensive function, and overlook the threat.

So, your concern about lower-ranked players may be perfectly justified. But they're just an opportunity for you to prove your superior ability; you *can't* play intuitively against a player who keeps pulling out improbable moves. You have to find the *refutation*, and punish him.

You have superior calculation, pattern recognition, endgame and defensive technique, strategic awareness, patience, cool-headedness and stamina on your side. If you apply yourself to the position on the board, you may still lose once in awhile against these guys, but it won't be a regular thing.

Just play chess!

# Answer
> 0 votes
The problem here is that you are just concentrating more on other factors than just Chess .

As our great genius Robert James Bobby Fischer said " Play the Board and not the man " , it is important that you think only about Chess and do not think about Prize money or Lower ratings of opponents .

I am a Player and I do have fever when I meet lower & higher rated Opponents . I have my anxieties too but when you sit down on the board and start playing do not think anything else . Try Playing 40 Best moves as suggested by Vassily Symslov and leave the rest .

Trust me not only with my experience but from other Top Players also say that some games even if you play the best unfortunately the result might not be in your hands always . What you can do is try putting your best effort.

You can read a book from GM Igor Smirnov "Champion Psychology " . This book will work for you .

# Answer
> -1 votes
A GM I used to know, when he was an IM and going professional, told me that he had come to regard low-rated opponents as food, and he did not want to starve. This was one way to change his attitude. Would something analogous work for you?

---
Tags: psychology
---


title: Analyzing this opening I played

text:
# Question
Title: Analyzing this opening I played
I just played what I believe was a set of moves that gave me an *overwhelming* advantage (I exchanged 2 minor pieces for rook + 2 pawns + prevented castling + doubled pawns + exposed enemy king):

(I am playing **Black**, so *flipping* the board is recommended)

```
[FEN ""]
1. d3  e5 2. e3  Nc6 3. Bd2  d6 4. h3  Nf6 5. Nc3  b6 6. Qf3  Bb7 7. d4  Nxd4 8. Qxb7  Nxc2+ 9. Kd1  Nxa1 10. Qc6+  Nd7 11. Kc1  Be7 12. Kb1  Nb3 13. axb3  O-O

```

In the final position, one would think black is winning, but in fact engines say I am around `-0.50`, and I did lose the game. The opponent soon controlled my dark squared bishop after **Nf3**, and also I couldn't kick the queen away.

What do you think of this position? What color do you think will win more often using non-amateur strength?

# Answer
In the immediate future Black has major light-square weaknesses and is susceptible to blockade (Nd5, Ba6). It's going to be difficult for Black to break out. Ideally Black would like to get his pawns onto light squares and free his bad bishop but this will be difficult to achieve.

White has an undeveloped kingside, doubled pawns, but easy development and his king is not particularly weak being on a light square. White's ridiculously advanced queen position is surprisingly secure.

I prefer White.
> 9 votes

# Answer
In terms of material, it's about even. I didn't care for your `3... d6` move. White is surrendering the center, why not take it with `3.. d5`?

Your challenge here is that White has more pieces so he can focus on more weak spots than you can, and he can double up on weak spots where you cannot. White will find it easier to get his 2 pieces into the game than you will in getting your Rook activated. This means that in this position, they are worth more than "1 point" more than the Rook. Further, White's doubled pawns are only weak if you can attack them. Otherwise they just allow White to activate his rook.

While I don't think White has an overwhelming advantage; the game is by no means lost. You just have to keep the pressure on to force a mistake. The weaknesses you mention for White are real, but they only matter if you can exploit them.
> 6 votes

# Answer
> What color do you think will win more often using non-amateur strength?

White will win every single game from this position, "hands down".

> What do you think of this position?

Position is better for White, but with "scientific" defensive moves Black might have equal chances (but that requires detailed analysis to be proven for sure).

Let me clarify my answers a bit by analyzing the game after *7. ...Nxd4*:

You get 7 units for 6 units ( rook + 2 pawns for knight + bishop ) and mathematically speaking, you are better.

White loses castling, but in the end manages to get his king to safety (the point of castling is to **get king into safety**, not to just play it) when we add up pros and cons the result is zero. Although he lost castling right his king is safe.

You have doubled and isolated his pawns, so you have better pawn structure.

Your position is not weakened, and you have finished your development.

These are all good things for Black, but here is the "killer":

You have lost 7 tempos (you played b6 + Bb7 and those are 2 lost tempos since you have lost the bishop, 7. ...Nxd4, 8. ...Nxc2 9. ...Nxa1, 10. ...Nd7) to achieve all this, while he lost 4 (8.Qxb7, 9.Kd1, 10.Qc6+, 11.Kc1).

The result is that you lost your "opening investment" while his position has **transformed** and this **transformation** has only improved his overall position.

Your position at the start aimed to **pressurize White from afar** and perform a **breakout in the center or on the wing** (probably with c5) but now **all** of your developed units **are lost** *resulting* in holes on the light squares which only queen and knight can cover.

In return you have got 2 pawns and a rook, but you need open lines for that rook, and you need to use the extra pawns to gain space, in order for compensation to be real.

White, on the other hand, has "castled" long, his doubled pawns are weak but they **open lines for an attack** (they do not teach you this in "school") and his opening idea-to physically pressure you by pushing his center and by pinning your pieces, **has transformed** into physical pressure on the light squares with the promise of the slight, but probably lasting and growing initiative.

Although Black has more pawns in the center he can't grab space with them so they are useless, they hinder his bishop making him bad, and White's e3 pawn controls d4 so there is no way we can say that Black has an advantage in space, rather it is a nearly equal distribution of strength for both.

You have developed more units in the beginning (**by sacrificing space, hoping to attack from afar**) , but now you have 3 developed pieces (castled rook, bishop and a knight), but White has developed his queen, bishop and a knight so you are both equal in that view. **This means that you have deliberately lost your development advantage**.

Mathematically speaking, you have an "extra pawn", so we need to see the compensation/positional/tactical factors, to properly assess this position:

White's opening strategy was to physically occupy the center (**gaining space advantage**) and to pressurize early (he played early with queen trying to do some sort of a pin), sacrificing his development.

Black's opening strategy was to develop fast and counter when feels comfortable.

The transformation of the position left you with rook + 2 pawns vs 2 minor pieces.

In those positions the side with minor pieces **strives to leave the queens on board, exchange rooks, and go for mating attack**, while the side with the rook strives to **remove the queens and open the position, reaching an early endgame (you have 2 extra pawns)**.

In the above position, white has strong pressure, that can turn into mating attack (he already has h3 so he needs g4 and there we go!), **while there is no way for you to further simplify and open lines**.You can not even grab some space with the extra pawns you have.

The only way I see for you here (and *Houdini* confirmed it) is to **sacrifice a pawn to open position** and try to simplify things but this would mean that mathematically the material would be equal (pawn + rook vs 2 minor pieces).

Furthermore, it would bring you **new** weaknesses, **without you losing the existing ones**, and still **I do not see what/how will you attack/create counterplay**.

Even though your "math" was correct, you have a flaw: you miss-evaluate **the resulting position after the exchange**.You need to find the book on that, because this is a serious flaw that will cost you a lot in the future (I was there, believe me). At the moment I can't remember any book in English, but look it up. Just in case you fail to find books, I will try to give you a piece of advice for future games:
When exchanging pieces, always evaluate **the resulting position** that will arise after it.

If you only had known this earlier, you would have stayed away from 7. ...Nd4, because you would see all the cons and pros I have listed above.

Hopefully this will help you, if you have further questions, feel free to ask.

Good luck in your future games!

Best regards.
> 6 votes

# Answer
To break down the overall outcome of your exchange, you traded a knight and a bishop for a rook and two pawns. So you lost 6 material points while your opponent lost 7.

However, a knight and bishop are generally stronger than a rook and a pawn in a closed position. Unfortunately here, the position does look rather closed.

What really stands out to me is White's ability to launch an attack, and Black's inability to launch an attack. As mentioned, `Nf3` would be a strong controlling move. But even if White wanted to be aggressive they could play `Nd5` and immediately equalize material by winning the c pawn.

At first, it seemed like a neat move. On a deeper level of analysis the constricted structure that Black is left with really weighs you down.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I do not believe that Black is somewhat better. There are two viewpoints. From a very technical perspective, an Engine point of view, Black is surely better.

From a human point or psychological point of view White should be the one who has more attacking prospects and has reasonable play. White has better minor pieces and will rush his King side pawns towards Black's king. The attack from White will come faster than Black can handle.

Though Black's forces look to be well developed, none of them have crossed half of the board to attack White's King. White will play Nf3, Bd3, g5, Nd5 and with these active moves will turn weaknesses into a brutal attack. White's Bishop will point towards the Black K-side and slice him, depriving Black of any counterplay.

Black will defend more in this scenario and has to be very patient throughout the game. So I would prefer White in this position.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis
---


# Question
Title: KN vs. KN: can I force my opponent to take my knight?
Position with KN vs KN aren't automatically drawn because checkmate is possible, even though it can't be forced; however, KN vs K is automatically drawn because checkmate isn't even possible with the lone king's co-operation.

If my opponent won't agree to a draw, can I force them to take my knight to reach the automatically drawn position, rather than having to wait for the 50-move rule?

This question is based on a comment on a question about KN vs KN.

# Answer
> 9 votes
If you can fork your opponent's king and knight with your knight, then your opponent must either take your knight or allow you to take theirs on the next turn. Since that gets you down the KN vs K one way or the other, this forces the draw.

However, the answer to the literal question is no: there is no situation in KN vs KN where the only legal move is to take a knight. Here is a case analysis, assuming White to move.

1. White is checkmated. Then, by definition, White can't take anything.
2. White is in check, but not mated. The check must be from the knight, so White can't take it with their king. If white's king is not in the corner, they can simply move their king out of check (there are at least five adjacent squares; the black king might block three of those, and the white knight one more, but that still leaves an escape square). If the king is in the corner, the black king covers at most two of the three adjacent squares, and the third one can't be occupied by the white knight because that would be checkmate; so there's still an escape square.
3. White is not in check.

1. If the white knight is not in a corner, it can move to at least three squares. The white king could be on one of these squares, the black knight could be on another, but the black king can't be on any of them (it's White's move, so Black can't be in check). Therefore, white has at least one possible knight move that isn't taking the black knight.
    2. If the white knight is in a corner, there are two squares it can potentially move to. If either of these is empty, White has a non-capturing knight move. If they're both occupied, we're in a position such as the one below. Wherever the black king is, White has at least one king move that doesn't capture the knight. But note that this position is another one where the white knight can be captured on the following move.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/6n1/5K2/7N b - - 0 1"]

```

So perhaps the more interesting question is whether we can force the transition to KN vs K, rather than specifically forcing the opponent to take our knight. Again, the answer is no: as long as you keep your knight out of the corners and avoid having your king and knight forked, you can force the game to continue for 50 moves. The only way this could go wrong is if your knight starts in the corner and the opponent can force it off the board before you can get it out, as in the following position

```
[FEN "K7/8/2k6/8/4n3/8/8/7N b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'd like to present an alternate to what David Richerby says, which I agree with, but hopefully it's fun to have another way to look at things. While this isn't a rigorous proof, it seems like your opponent can be rather mean about dragging things out (or even flagging you to lose on time if they're REALLY ornery) if they want to be.

They should be able to

1) keep the king \>4 squares (or \>3 diagonally each way) away from your knight or, failing that,

2) keep the king on an opposite colored square from your knight, in case the two pieces are close by, which prevents a knight fork. The easiest way to do this would seem to be to place a knight on b2/g2/b7/g7, the opposite corner from their king. Even if your pieces corner the king, moving the knight back and forth would work, or you could move the knight 5 squares in 3 moves to one of the other squares to get even further away. 2L1D, 1L2U, 2L1D is one example, but you can mirror or rotate that as need be.

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


# Question
Title: Checkmate with King and Knight vs King and Knight
I just have a quick question. I was playing on chess.com and got into the following position:

```
[FEN "8/4n/6k1/8/K2/3N1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

Now, I assumed that once we traded off the last pawns, the game would automatically draw as it usually does. However, since if didn't, I was wondering if it was possible to checkmate in this position. I know on some occasions it's possible to checkmate with really weird positions (e.g king and bishop vs pawn and king assuming the pawn doesn't move, or something similar to this), but I had always assumed that the position I was in was a draw.. Also, if a checkmate is possible, would it have to be as a result of a blunder or would it be able to be forced?

# Answer
According to USCF rule 14E2, if your opponent has only a king and knight (and no forced mate) and you run out of time, the game is drawn. According to FIDE rules, the game is not drawn if there is any legal sequence of moves leading to mate. Chess.com appears to use something similar to the USCF rules for this situation; it says "... note that in cases where the opponent has insufficient material to mate (lone King, King + Knight, King + Bishop, King + 2 Knights) a draw will be automatically declared where there is a time-out." So even if the game doesn't immediately end and you've only got 5 seconds left, you don't have to panic.

> Also, if a checkmate is possible, would it have to be as a result of a blunder or would it be able to be forced?

In the position you give as an example, even a single "blunder" isn't sufficient to lose. Your opponent can't even force your king to move more than one square from where it's sitting, let alone force it into the corner; and even if you did move it to the corner, there's no way to force your knight to go alongside it when it literally has the entire rest of the board to use. A checkmate would probably be the result only if someone was *trying* to lose, although it could perhaps also happen if there was an extremely ill-advised attempt at inducing a stalemate.

But it is possible in other positions that the knight vs knight situation happens in exactly the right spot for a forced mate in one (which is probably why chess.com does not simply declare a draw when you reach knight vs knight.) Here's an example where Black is forced to take the White queen with his knight, setting up a knight vs knight checkmate.

```
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "6qk/8/5nKN/8/2Q5/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[CurrentPosition "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 1 2"]

1.Qxg8+ Nxg8 2.Nf7#

```

Interestingly, there is no point where Black could abuse the time-out draw rule and intentionally let his clock expire for a draw; before he plays Nxg8, White has sufficient material. So stalling can't save him in this position.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is, of course, objectively a draw. But according to the FIDE rules, the game can be declared a draw (without agreement of both opponents) only if there's **no sequence** of moves that can lead to a mate. Here the sequence leading to mate *exists*, even thought it is really *illogical*. Here is just a random example:

```
4k3/8/7n/4K3/8/6N1/8/8 w - - 0 1

1. Kf6 Kf8 2. Kg6 Kg8 3. Ne4 Kh8 4. Nd6 Ng8 5. Nf7#

```

The problem is similar to king + 2 knights against king. Again, obejctively a draw, but after a **blunder/s** mate is possible.

Websites like chess.com use similar rules as FIDE does. So that was the reason, why your game wasn't declared a draw.

Therefore the only rule you can apply here to draw the game without agreement of your opponent is the "50-moves without capture or pawn move" rule.
> 11 votes

# Answer
> If a checkmate is possible, would it have to be as a result of a blunder or would it be able to be forced?

Mate is possible. This could be the final position:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/1K6/2N5/kn6 b - - 0 1"]

```

However this cannot be forced. According to the tablebases, the game is a draw with correct play.
> 9 votes

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


title: Better opening than Ruy Lopez Exchange?

text:
# Question
Title: Better opening than Ruy Lopez Exchange?
I currently use the Ruy Lopez Exchange (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6). Is there a simpler and/or better opening to use instead?

# Answer
> 3 votes
An opening choice will be always subjective. Nevertheless, I will give you two pieces of advice:

1. If you asked for simpler opening, *Giuoco Piano* (aka Italian opening with d3) comes to my mind. It has some similarities with Ruy Lopez and the moves are easy to learn, **but** strategically it is **not** as easy as it looks.
2. If you asked for better opening (objectively), I would vote for *"classical" Ruy Lopez* (I mean without exchange on c6). But I understand that it is not an easy opening.

If you don't feel like having hours for study of the openings, I would go for **Giuoco Piano**, but I would alternate it with your Ruy Lopez Exchange variation.

# Answer
> 3 votes
"Simpler" is somewhat subjective. You could argue that learning a system like the King's Indian Attack is simpler because you can play it irrespective of what black plays, while playing the Ruy Lopez Exchange requires your opponent to cooperate to some extent as at any move there are perfectly fine alternatives.

The Ruy Lopez Exchange variation is not the most popular line at the highest level, but there is nothing wrong with it. If you are happy with it and like the positions you get out of it, there is no reason to change.

If you are not happy with it, you could analyze yourself, what kind of positions you like. Perhaps compare positions you get out of different openings (e.g. around move 15) and see which you like best.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Scotch Game (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4) gave me a boost when I saw all the Ruy Lopez theory I was up against and didn't want to learn.

Now Black has a very sharp line (...Qh4) where White can get a great initiative for the e4-pawn, and you don't have to study much. The 4. ...Nf6 line is very sharp, but again, you don't have to worry about nearly as many positional concepts as in the Ruy Lopez. The Ruy is a good opening, but the Scotch has the advantage of being open and also of not letting Black play their pet move against the Ruy. There's less theory on the Scotch, but because two pawns are swapped early, there are fewer complex positional principles. In fact, in many lines, Black needs to watch out for an early Nb5.

The main line is ...Bc5 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3. White can play O-o, f4, e5 with a good game. The Scotch felt intuitive to me, and it may to you, too. I always just sort got my pieces out there and had a comfortable game. Your mileage may vary, but the Scotch isn't as heavily analyzed/played as the Ruy, so you may be able to learn more from it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
By reading your article, I think you have a passion to play e5 against, and you want simpler opening, so you can open with e5 and Nf6 (Petrov Defence), it is so solid (I played some exchange variation of Ruy Lopez, with move f6, but it is so theoretical line). And you can also play French Defence (e6) it offers a quiet play and a positional one (and theoretical positional attacks, but some of the human players lose due to some central attacks by f6 and knight attacks). 1.opening in Petrov variation, 2.&3. French Defence This is the opening of the Petrov Defence, it is so solid only can be avoided early by Bishop's opening, which is and Anti-Petrov Defence or Anti-Russian opening

\]

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Difference between Swiss Manager Light and Full version?
I just realized that there are two versions of Swiss Manager. Does anyone know the difference?

# Answer
The difference is in the scale of the tournament / match you need to handle. If you plan a tournament with maximum of 60 participants and 11 rounds (or a team championship up to 6 teams), the light version is enough.

If you plan to grow big, then choose the full version.

---

You can read this on the official site (last paragraph).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: swiss-pairing
---


title: Misplaced King and Queen

text:
# Question
Title: Misplaced King and Queen
Suppose the players misplace the position of King and Queen in a tournament game, what should the arbiter do according to the latest FIDE rules? Does the action depend on the time control/format of the tournament? Thanks!

# Answer
The action taken depends on the time control.

For standard play (each player has 60 minutes or more for all the moves) the game is cancelled and a new game started.

For rapid and blitz (i.e. each player has less than 60 minutes for all the moves) the game is cancelled and a new game started only if fewer than 10 moves have been made. If 10 or more moves have been made then the game continues with the proviso that the side(s) with misplaced king may not castle.

Note that this will remain the case when the news FIDE Laws come in to effect in July 2017.

Some references from the current (2014 - 2017) FIDE Laws of Chess:

> **Glossary of terms in the Laws of Chess: standard play**: G3. A game where each player’s thinking time is at least 60 minutes.
>
> **Article 7.2.a.** If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall be played.
>
> **Appendix A Rapidplay**
>
> A.1 A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted plus 60 times any increment is of more than 10 minutes, but less than 60 minutes for each player.
>
> A.4 Otherwise \[one arbiter supervising more than 3 games or arbiter not recording moves\] the following apply:
>
> a. From the initial position, once ten moves have been completed by each player,
>
> (1) no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected.
>
> (2) no claim can be made regarding incorrect set‐up or orientation of the chessboard. In case of incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook is not allowed.

**Appendix B. Blitz**

B.1 A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.

B.4 Otherwise \[one arbiter supervising more than 1 game or arbiter not recording moves\], play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Article A.4.
> 8 votes

# Answer
According to the FIDE rules in the back of my USCF Official Rules of Chess 5th Edition, FIDE rule 7.1 states:

> If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game played.

This, however, might not be the "latest" FIDE rules. The book was copyright 2003.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide, pieces
---


title: Is 1.d4 2.Nc3 3.Bf4 bad?

text:
# Question
Title: Is 1.d4 2.Nc3 3.Bf4 bad?
My usual way of opening as white is as follows, usually regardless of what my opponent plays (although there are exceptions and I do play some other openings):

1. d4. 2. Nc3 3. Bf4

However, I have been reviewing my games, and almost every game I play I find that the engine considers my 3. Bf4 move to be either an inaccuracy or just a 'good' move. I am quite confused as to why this would not be one of the best moves - much less an inaccuracy. Consider openings I've used in 2 of the games I played: (I am white in both)

1st game: 1. d4 f6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bf4 e6

2nd game: 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 c6 3. Bf4 Nf6

Now, in the first game I can understand that maybe it would have been better to play pawn d5 as the computer recommends, attacking his knight. However, wouldn't this be relatively easily countered by Nb4? Of course, I could go e4, but wouldn't this just make it harder for me to defend all these pawns in the future? I prefer playing safely and if it means giving up some control over the center to ensure a middle game I am in more control of, I will take it. Could anyone explain to me why this is considered an inaccuracy by engines and perhaps offer a continuation?

In the second game, I am also somewhat confused as to why the computer considers this an 'ok' move and put me from a +0.55 score to a +0.33. I'm pretty sure this is a relatively big drop in the opening... I play the move in order to create threats on the bishop's diagonal, which I have found to help quite a lot in the past. I also play the move in order to get as much control over e5 as I can, which I usually find is a key square when playing my opening (I believe it is the Chigorin opening until my bishop move). Could anyone explain to me why the computer doesn't consider this a good tactic and what other, better move I could play that would lead to an endgame that is more in my favor?

I'm interested in improving my opening - thanks to whoever reads this.

# Answer
> 6 votes
First of all: **Don't take engines so seriously!** `0.22` is *not* a big drop, especially if your move suits you.

On the other hand, in order to get better, you should play more aggressive and complex lines (also that is what chess engines do), because it will expose you to some important ideas. Your opening system satisfies neither of these criteria.

Just stop avoiding main lines. Yes, they are full of theory, but you can **learn** from them **a lot**.

You are a `1. d4` player, so I would definitely recommend you not to play `Nc3` before `c4`. I know that `2. Nc3` is a playable system, but it won't do much for your improvement.

---

Now to the games:

In the **first game** you need to understand that black is playing badly (obviously the first move is horrible - doing nothing for development and weakening his own king).

Therefore if you want to punish him, you need to play more forcefully, either the engine move `3. d5` or simply fighting for the center with `3. e4`.

You don't have to worry about these pawns too much, because you're actually ahead in development and it will take black a lot of time to start attacking them. In the meantime black's king might be already mated...

Secondly, these pawns are in the center and only help you to grab more and more space. They *should* be moved in the opening and *occupy the central squares*.

In the **second game**, black played quite normally. So when you play these unambitious moves, you risk *giving up all your opening edge* as white (and you might even end up being *worse*).

But again that drop in engine assessment **isn't** that important.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In your first game, not only is 1..f6 a terrible move, but so is 2..Nc6, to which you SHOULD have replied 3.d5, and if then, as you suggest ..Nb4, the knight is doing nothing and will just have to retreat even if you dont force it to. The fact that you apparently saw nothing very wrong with your opponents moves suggests that your general level of chess awareness is not yet very highly developed. In that case, worrying about playing the perfect opening is not your highest priority. ANY move that develops the pieces, especially if done with a view to their future cooperation, that works toward controlling the center, and does not lose time, is likely to be a good move. From this point of view Nc3 is just fine. But since your moves are not very forcing, your opponents will have many choices in response, and you should not just continue with your favorite sequence, without taking their choices into account.

An old adage is "Knights before Bishops" Although this is NOT something to be followed rigidly, the nugget of truth that it contains is that USUALLY the Knights will go to c3, d2, e2 or f3, and it will USUALLY be apparent early on that one or more of these are suitable. On the other hand, your QB can go to b2,a3, d2, e3, f4, g5 or h6, and you will PROBABLY not know which choice is best until you have had a chance to see what your opponent is doing. For example, suppose the game begins1. d4 d6, 2. Nc3 Nd7 (all perfectly reasonable) then 3.Bf4 is not very good because of 3.. e5 and your Bishop will have to move again. In that case, since Black has not prevented it, many players would choose 3.e4 (and might well have played it on move 2)

The question whether Bf4 is good or not CANNOT be answered without considering what other moves have already been played, particularly by Black. Most of the time it will be at least a decent move, but sometimes you should avoid it because Black has prepared a good answer (as in my example) and sometimes you should avoid it because you have something better (as in your first example). Try to focus on understanding WHEN Bf4 is good or bad.

Good luck

# Answer
> 2 votes
The system you are playing is called **Barry attack**.

This comes with:

> `d4`, Knight to `f3`, Knight to `c3`, Bishop to `f4` and `e3`.

This attack is the most famous attack in *Queen's Pawn Opening*. You can follow games of *GM Mark Hebden* and also see the chessgames site with some famous kingside and many other types of attacks. Some famous games for opening preparation are:

1. Blatny-Fette 1991.

2. Hebden-Birnboim 1992.

3. Hebden-Nunn 1997.

4. Hebden-Williams 1995.

5. Pira-Hebden 1987.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Actually the questionably bad move is `2. Nc3`, as it blocks the c-pawn. It's fine, after `c4`, but not before, as in most queen pawn openings, the c-pawn is either pushed to c3 to support the d4 pawn, or to c4 to challenge the center. Additionally, from the comments, when you don't play `c4`, the knight usually goes to d2, to support the `Nf3`, and an `e4` break.

In your first example, `1. ... f6` is just horrible for black, and you should probably have played `2. e4`

In the second one, `3. e4` would transpose to the main line of the Caro-Kann.

Now, if you play `2. Nf3` instead of `Nc3`, you have the London system, sometimes called the Businessman's Opening, due to its straightforward and simple method of development. Since you appear to be a beginner, it's not a bad system to learn, but your focus should be on general opening principles, more than specific openings.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the time control for FIDE chess tournaments?
According to the FIDE Handbook (Time Control), the time control is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move.

I heard from somebody working at the Annex chess club that there the time control there is 90 minutes base time and 30 second increments for both players.

Can you clearly explain to me what "90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move" means?

Does it mean each player starts at 90 minutes with no increments until both players have made 20 moves, then after black's 20th move, each player gets 30 minutes with 30 second increments; or does it mean that each player gets 90 minutes with no increments and then after their side of the clock goes down to zero, instead of forfeiting the match, they get 30 minutes with 30 second increments?

Also, in what situations is that time control followed and in what situations is the other time control followed? Is that time control for competitions that only people above a certain rating can join?

# Answer
> 8 votes
The clocks would start at 90 minutes, with 30 seconds added per move, starting at move one. When move 40 (not 20 - we're counting full moves, not half moves) is completed, 30 minutes would be added (along with the 30 seconds that's added for every move.)

Events would ordinarily state what time control they are using. If it's not on the list of major events (which is on the page you linked to) they don't have to use the time control specified for major events.

# Answer
> 3 votes
1. From the very **beginning**, you get the 30 second increment after every move you play (for example: white plays 1. e4, press the clock and 30 seconds are added to his time, then black plays 1... e5, press the clock and he gets also his 30 seconds).
2. 40 moves don't mean 40 half-moves. 40 moves mean: **40 white's moves and 40 black's moves**. So usually **after** you have played 40 moves if you run out of time, you will get additional 30 minutes. The increment still works the same way.
3. It mostly depends on the organisers whether they want to use the 30 minutes after 40 moves or not.

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


# Question
Title: For how long can lone bishop stop king, knight and pawn?
Recently I found quite surprising evaluations for me, especially in KNPP vs. KB, where the defending side could hold a draw just with waiting moves, not winning one of the pawns immediately. The h+f pawns with bishop holding promotion square is probably one of those theoretically most important and straightforward draws, but I saw many with pawns being on different files with one file gap and even pawns many files away like c+g.

I just wonder if there was some research on this topic and if there could be some rule said when position is drawn and when it is lost, in both KNP vs. (K)B and KNPP vs. KB. It looks like the bishop can stop some pawns almost forever, giving the king enough time to go sightseeing, grab a very distant pawn and return with very little stress to achieve a draw.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The reason why endgames are difficult, despite there being only a few pieces left on the board, is that many positions can only be evaluated by accurate calculation rather than by appealing to any rule. Rueben Fine in Basic Chess Endings says that KNPP vs KB "*is in general a fairly simple win. The exceptions come only with a blockade*" He then analyses seven examples of marginal cases. One very surprising example is that doubled pawns always win, a rare case of a universal rule. But even then, some accurate moves have to be found.

But some general advice is possible. For the superior side. Make active use of your King. Send him on ahead of the pawns and then escort them through. For the defender, try to keep your bishop on the longer of the two diagonals that control a crucial square. That will give a better chance of having waiting moves available. But always calculate.

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: What are the motivations behind pawn moves on a and h files?
Sometimes when there are no clearly optimal moves, a computer or a human master player would push their pawns on `a` and `h` files (the edges of the board), for no clear reasons. What would be the motivations behind such moves?

# Answer
The question is extremely open, as these pawns may be moved for many reasons depending on the position you are facing. In a general sketch, you may consider five kind of `a` and `h` pawn moves:

1. To create some luft for the king, that is, avoid once and for all the back rank threats.

```
[FEN "r5k1/5ppp/8/8/8/8/5PPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this position, neither rook can leave the back rank, because if they do `Rb8` for white or `Ra1` for black are checkmate (this is called *to have a weak back rank*). For this reason, it is useful to move `h4` for white or `h5` for black, in order to be able to escape via `h2` or `h7` if the rook leaves the back rank.

2. To attack the enemy castled king, as opening the `h` file usually comes with dangerous threats of infiltration with the major pieces near the king.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 {This is a main line in the Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon. The plan is to go full aggression on the kingside: blast open the `h` file, play `Bh6`, exchange bishops and continue `Qh6` with mate threats on `h7`. To parry all the threats that white will make, precision is essential, since many good looking moves are actually horrible blunders.}

```
3. To gain space, either by a further advance of an adjacent `b` or `g` pawn or by avoiding a piece to be pushed away by a pawn.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bg7 5. c4 Nc6 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Be2 d6 9. O-O Bd7 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Bc6 12. f3 a5 {This is a main line in the Maroczy Bind of the HyperAccelerated Dragon. With this move, black makes sure the `b4` advance that white wants to make is delayed at least for some moves. Moreover, as is seen in the following moves, this allows black's knight to get a comfortable home in `c5`, as for the moment he cannot be dislodged.} 13. b3 Nd7 14. Be3 Nc5 {And white will have to prepare his plan of gaining space on the queenside thoroughly.}

```

Another fact (credit to JiK for pointing it out) that encourages the move of an `a` or `h` pawn before moving the corresponding `b` or `g` pawn is that the former often do not leave behind as big holes (or any holes at all) as the latter. This is because the pawns on the edge on the board only protect one square on the 3rd/6th rank, and many times the bishop pawn wasn't moved and already covers it, or in the event of leaving a hole, the queen's knight's file usually is away from the main action, so it may not be very important (one should consider very carefully whether leaving a hole in front of one's king).

4. To defend against pins in order to drive away enemy pieces or to take away a concrete square from them.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. c3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. h3 {This is a main line in the Giuoco Pianissimo. With the last move, white avoids the unpleasant pin of the `c3` knight by `Bg4`. This also creates some breathing space for the king, but that is not the main idea behind the move. The reason it is played now and not a few moves before is mainly because you are prioritizing piece development.}

```
5. To preserve a bishop from getting exchange (credit to Dag Oskar Madsen for pointing it out). Usually bishops are slightly better than knights, and giving your opponent the bishop pair would require to play with extra care in the endgame.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Be2 d6 6. h3 {This is a main line in the London system. With the last move, white gives the `Bf4` a retreat in the event of `Nh5` while keeping it on the `h2-b8` diagonal, helping to tighten the grip on the dark squares. The reason `Nh5` earlier (when white pushes `e3`) does not work so well is because it allows a chronicle weakening of black's kingside, and the reason `Nh5` does work if `h3` is not played is half-positional half-tactical.}

```

This last position is quite complex, if interested you may want to look at this link for some variations.

**Conclusion:**

It's important to bear in mind that every move should be useful, as you must contribute to the global synergy of your pieces in order to achieve a better position. Usually at master or computer level, when they do not find the optimal move (although the computer usually does) or placement for their pieces, they always tend to achieve some kind of positional advantage, and those listed above are mainly of this kind.

**EDIT:** Examples have been added and a fifth case has been added.
> 12 votes

# Answer
@pablo has listed some of the common motivations for moving rook pawns. I will mention some **uncommon** but interesting ones. I have used all of these in real games.

1. Set up a **queen trap** to develop a bishop.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e3 e5 2. Qf3 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 e4 5. Qg3 h6 $1 (5... Bd6 $6 6. Qxg7 Rg8 7.
  Qh6) 6. Nge2 Bd6 7. Qxg7 Rh7!

```
2. Prevent a **pinning Bishop** from being dislodged, as in the Ruy Lopez.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 $5 7. hxg4 $2 (
 7. d3!) 7... hxg4 8. Nxe5?? (8. d3 gxf3 9. Qxf3 Qh4 10. Qh3 Qxh3 11. gxh3 Rxh3)
 8... Qh4 9. f4 g3 10. Nf3 Qh1#

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
And sometimes it can just be a bad move. One example worth remembering. With Black pawns on f7, g7, h6, a White Knight on f5 cannot easily be driven away by ..g6.
> 0 votes

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