# Question
Title: Are USCF regular ratings more accurate than quick or blitz ratings in regards to quick or blitz games?
I recently went to a USCF tournament. Although it was quick/blitz rated, regular ratings were used for the purposes of pairings and prizes.

This led me to wonder: are regular ratings actually better predictors of results in quick/blitz games than the quick/blitz ratings themselves are?

# Answer
Probably not technically if everyone played a lot of rapid games, however, I have seen organizers do this before since the regular ratings usually have a more established basis. In other words, because people have usually played a lot more standard rated games, in that respect, they are more accurate. It helps prevent sandbagging.

In reality, in rapid and blitz, a better predictor is probably age. Kids often perform better than their standard rating the faster the game. I once won an under-1800 blitz tournament when I was an under-rated 1100-player (I went up to 1254 after the main tournament). I was about 18, and the mind was very quick back then (there also were not a lot of kids like there are today).
> 3 votes

# Answer
There's a tradeoff involved here. On the one hand, blitz ratings tend to reflect a player's strength in blitz (by definition). But on the other hand, most players play many more standard rated games, meaning that rating could be considered more accurate.

In general though, standard ratings are a reasonable enough indicator of blitz results. Most players who are good tend to also be good in blitz, although there are of course exceptions (older players, for example).

Of course, if you're referring to online blitz ratings vs USCF standard ratings, the online blitz ratings are clearly a better indicator. People play far more online blitz games than OTB games.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Classical ratings aren't designed to predict blitz play in any way. Yes, they might be predictive but you are backwards inferring by association rather than using any actual proof. I would prefer actual numbers that mean something over guesses regardless of how accurate the guesses might be.
> 1 votes

# Answer
No. They are used because too few people have faster ratings in many tournaments.

They are generally as accurate for pairing as other rating would be although some players do play better at fast speeds so it would not be as good as truly VALID speed ratings for ALL players would be.

They might actually be better as the speed rating bracket covers way too wide a time to be valid. As I recall it varies from, which for me would be virtually postal to way too fast to play well. My sweet spot is in the bracket but at one extreme I would do a little worse and at the other terrible bad.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Speculation is all well and good, but I wanted data. I selected an OTB quick tournament from February and compared final scores with initial quick and regular ratings. After removing any previously unrated players, (surprisingly, everyone who previously had a regular rating also previously had a quick rating) the scatterplots looked like this:

The regular ratings did appear to be slightly better predictors in this case than the quick ratings.

Of course, this is a rather small sample size (27 players in one 4-round tournament) and they aren't independent since the players were playing each other. By using score as a measure I'm ignoring strength of opponents. Also, some players received one half or full point bye, and this of course affected their final scores.

Then I took a blitz tournament at the same day and location. (Mostly chosen so I wouldn't have to re-look up the regular ratings of most of the players; there was a lot of overlap in the player pool between these two events.) After removing players with no previous blitz rating, and also removing a withdrawal and a late entry, I got this:

It's a lot harder to say by looking whether the correlation is better between the blitz and the regular. Again, it's just one small tournament (10 rounds, and only 16 players after removing the ones without a previous blitz rating.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, blitz, uscf
---


# Question
Title: How come it's actually Black with the advantage here?
I was analyzing a recent game of mine, and I noticed something interesting. After I blundered back a bishop on move 16, the evaluation was -3.4, which is still strongly winning for Black.

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1700"]
[BlackElo "1500"]
[startply "31"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 { B21 Sicilian Defense: McDonnell Attack } b6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. O-O d5 7. exd5 exd5 8. Be2 d4 9. Ne4?? { (-1.03 → -4.31) Blunder. Nb1 was best. } Bxe4 10. d3 Bb7 11. Ng5 Be7 12. Bf3 Nc6 13. Re1 Nf6 14. Qe2 O-O? { (-5.42 → -3.17) Mistake. Qd7 was best. } 15. Bxc6 Bxc6 16. Qxe7 Qd5 17. Nf3?! { (-3.25 → -5.04) Inaccuracy. Qe2 was best. } Rae8 18. Qc7 Rxe1+ 19. Kf2? { (-4.63 → -19.29) Mistake. Nxe1 was best. } Ree8 20. Qxb6 Ng4+ 21. Kg3 Ne3 22. Qb3 Nf5+ 23. Kf2 Qd7 24. Bd2 Bxf3 25. gxf3 Nh4 26. c4 Qh3 27. Qd1 Qxh2+ { White resigns. } 0-1

```

How is this so, given that the material had evened out? Obviously, if it's not due to material, it must be due to something positional, but even then I'm not very convinced. After move 16, White owns the e-file and maybe even the 7th rank. They also has a knight on g5 which, to me, is a bit worrisome (should it not be?), and it's supported by a pawn and a bishop. What merits such a strong evaluation for Black?

# Answer
White's actually quite close to busted in that position after 16...Qd5. Of the two points you bring up, note that White doesn't actually control the e-file because Black is ready to play a rook to e8 and drive White's major pieces away. The knight on g5 looks good, but it's also vulnerable to being kicked by ...h6 and it's not threatening anything yet. Otherwise, White's king is dangerously exposed on the long diagonal since Black already has a bishop on the diagonal and since White no longer has f3. Finally, White's queenside is undeveloped. Granted Black's a8-rook isn't developed either, but it can jump into the fray much quicker.

Consider, checkmate is threatened on g2 and White has only a few ways to defend it:

* 17.Re2 is the easiest to refute because 17...Rfe8 wins either a rook or the queen.
* 17.Nf3 is also terrible. Again Black plays 17...Rfe8, and after 18.Qc7 (or where else is White going to put the queen?) Black plays 18...Rxe1 19.Nxe1 (forced) 19...Rae8 (developing with tempo) 20.Nf3 (still forced) Re2. Black's pieces are overwhelming White's king while White's queen, bishop and rook are all spectators. An immediate threat is 21...Rxg2+ 22. Kxg2 Qxf3 and checkmate.
* That leaves 17.Qe2, which is the least evil but still not good enough. Black again plays 17...Rfe8, forcing 18.Ne4 (all other moves either lose material or get mated on g2), and then the Knight is pinned. Black has a variety of promising ideas such as 18...Qf5 intending to take on e4, or 18...Nd7 intending ...f5 to win material.

By the way, it's striking how much of Black's advantage stems from the fact that White's queenside is undeveloped, and by extension the rook on e1 is undefended (once ...Rfe8 kicks the queen away). Move White's c1-bishop to d2, and Black's advantage drops to about -1.0.
> 10 votes

# Answer
It seems that, for tactical reasons, White is going to have to give up material to stop Black's attack with best play from both sides. That seems to be why the evaluation is so in favor of Black.

> After move 16, White owns the e-file and maybe even the 7-rank.

Not really. After 16...Qd5, White must defend the mate threat somehow, and Black can then play a rook to e8 to drive the queen off of it (as was done on the game). White's undeveloped bishop also delays the other rook from helping, and that's critical in some lines - if that bishop were on d2 instead of c1 at move 16, Black's advantage would be very small. As it is, it's really Black who soon owns the e-file.

> He also has a knight on g5 which, to me, is a bit worrisome (should it not be?)

It could be kicked easily with h6, and h7 and f7 are defended, so it's not all that worrisome. (Especially since White *doesn't* get the 7th rank to attack f7 from the side with rooks.) In any case it's going to be moving soon to help deal with Black's attack even if it isn't kicked. There's no way it can stay where it is; for example after 17.Qe2 Rae8 it has to move because 18.Qf2?? Rxe1+ loses immediately.

Beyond that, White's bishop is doing next to nothing and is blocked by the f4 pawn, while Black's is aiming right at White's king on the long diagonal. Black has more queenside space. There's a hole on e3 that Black could put his knight into (if he doesn't mind it being traded for the bishop) or he could just put it on g4 (White can kick it with h3, but that would leave a permanent hole on g3.)
> 6 votes

---
Tags: tactics, positional-play, evaluation, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Why should I expect that black moves Rxd2 after I move Bxe3 in this puzzle?
I've been playing a few puzzles for a couple of days, and I see that often the final move to chessmate is easy to spot, but earlier moves aren't (to me).

In this case, for instance, why should I expect black to defend the king with the rook, rather than, say, eating it with the queen?

```
4rk2/1bq2p1Q/3p1bp1/1p1n2N1/4PB2/2Pp3P/1P1N4/4RK1 w - - 0 2

1. Bxd6 Re7 2. Qxf7

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
The point here is that none of Black's possible responses to 1. Bxd6 prevent 2. Qxf7#. Blocking with the rook or queen leaves it pinned, and blocking with the knight or bishop or capturing with the queen means that the black queen is no longer attacking f7. The puzzle just gives an example second move, with the implication that it doesn't matter which one they pick. (The fact that this example involves a pin makes 2. Qxf7 a little bit less obvious, so that's probably the motivation for that choice.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
I think the more general issue is that a **winning strategy** for you from a position P assigns each possible position where it is your turn some specific move, such that if you start at P and follow that strategy then you will win no matter what moves your opponent makes. A checkmate type of puzzle essentially asks you to find a winning strategy, which means that your strategy has to work against any possible opponent moves. Theoretically, you would have to analyze the entire **tree** of possibilities from the given position, since after each move the other player typically has multiple possible moves. It is nevertheless usually the case that only a few lines of play (i.e. paths down the tree) are **interesting**, because it is hard to find the winning moves along that line, or it is the longest the opponent can hold on before losing, or some combination of those factors. Furthermore, if it is a checkmate-in-k puzzle where k is not too small, there is no hope of being able to list out all the possible lines, so one has to select a few to show.

If you try Lichess puzzles, the website only chooses a single possible opponent response against you, so technically it is not enough if you manage to reach the "you have solved the puzzle" state, because you only showed that you succeeded along one line. To really solve the puzzle, you must convince yourself that you can achieve at least as good an outcome in all possible lines of opponent play.

Similarly, the puzzle solution you quoted here merely showed one line, obviously assuming that you should be able to find the winning strategy in all other lines not shown. Saying that "should I expect black to ..." is simply erroneous, because solving this puzzle requires you to know how to win **no matter** what black does!

# Answer
> 1 votes
You shouldn't, I don't think. Black has other moves available, such as Be7.

You question may be 'Why did N. N. not list all legal moves by black after the key move in the solution of this puzzle?' Often, but not always, it's because one particular move appears (to N. N., in this case) to be extra difficult, or extra neat, and for that reason deserves to be stated. Or perhaps its because Re7 is the move N.N. expects most players to see for themselves, or so the solution after that might help most readers to find the remaining possibilities for themselves.

Without knowing the exact context is, it's difficult to be specific.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no genuine preference for any black response to white's winning move Bxd6. As always when checked there are three classes of move available: moving the king - no such moves; capturing the checking piece - one move Qxd6; and interposing a piece to block the check - four moves, Qe7, Re7, Be7 and Ne7. Tidily, the white response to all five of black's legal moves is Qxf7 mate.

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: How do I understand White's +6 advantage here?
```
[White "White (to move)"]
[Black "Black"]
[FEN "rnq1kb1r/ppp3pp/4pn2/4N3/2QP4/2N2P2/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 13"]

```

In this position, White can still castle, but Black cannot (having moved the king twice). Stockfish 10+ (depth 18) assures me that White has an advantage of +6.1, but I am unable to really see why the advantage is so great. I tried some continuing lines of play but Black can hold on to roughly equal material for a long time, so I do not even know how much of the advantage is due to a future tactical threat or merely a superior position.

I am hoping that there is some simple reasoning that is humanly understandable and does not require looking at all possible lines of play for the next 10 moves. Anyone can help?

# Answer
> 6 votes
It really is about king position, but also about how it affects the evaluation **when it programmatically adds up the and compares the differences in mobility for each side's pieces. This is where you get the huge difference**, and I think this is what you are looking for.

In each of the following lines, deemed best by Stockfish 11, you can see how little the black pieces can move. in particular, it is of note that in each case, the Ra8 and the Qc8 hardly move, and when the Qc8 finally does, it is just to sacrifice itself, or loses material on the move. The same for the Ra8 in the main line that follows. By comparison, look at the mobility of every white piece. The difference is enormous.

For example:

```
 [FEN "rnq1kb1r/ppp3pp/4pn2/4N3/2QP4/2N2P2/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 1"]

 1. Bg5 Be7 2. f4 Nbd7 (2... c6 3. O-O Nbd7 4. Rae1 Rf8 5. Nd3 Nb6 6. Qb3 Nbd5 7. f5 exf5 8. Nxd5 cxd5 9. Nf4 Rf7 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Rf3 Kf8 12. Rg3 Bd6 13. Ne6+ Qxe6 14. Rxe6 Bxg3 15. Qa3+ Kg8 16. Qxg3+ Rg7 17. Qd6) (2... Rf8 3. O-O Nbd7 4. Rae1 Nb6 5. Qd3 c6 6. f5 exf5 7. Rxf5 Kd8 8. Rff1 Qe6 9. Ng6 Qc4 10. Nxf8 Bxf8 (10... Qxd3 11. Ne6+ Kd7 12. cxd3) 11. Rxf6 gxf6 (11... Qxd3 12. Rxf8+ Kc7 13. Bf4+ Kd7 14. Rf7+ Kd8 15. Bg5+ Kc8 16. Re8#) 12. Bxf6+ Kc7 13. Be5+ Kd8 14. Qxh7 Nd7 15. Rf1 Qb4 16. Qh4+ Kc8 17. Qg4 Kd8 18. Qh4+ Be7 19. Qh8+ Nf8 20. a3 Qxb2 21. Rxf8+ Bxf8 22. Qxf8+ Kd7 23. Qf7+ Kd8 24. Bf6+ Kc8 25. Qe8+ Kc7 26. Qe7+ Kb6 27. Na4+) (2... Nc6 3. O-O Nxe5 4. fxe5 Nd5 5. Nxd5 exd5 6. Qxd5 Bxg5 7. Qf7+ Kd8 8. Qxg7 Be3+ 9. Kh1 Re8 10. Qf6+ Re7 11. d5 Bd4 12. Qg5 Ke8 13. Qh5+ Kd7 14. Qg4+ Ke8 15. Qxd4) 3. O-O Nb6 4. Qd3 Nfd7 5. Bxe7 Nxe5 6. dxe5 Kxe7 7. f5 Qd7 8. Qg3 Ke8 9. Rad1 Qf7 10. fxe6 Qe7 11. Ne4 Rd8 12. Nd6+ cxd6 13. exd6

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
So, the simple way to reason out that white is winning is to look at the safety of black's king. White has a very simple plan of developing their bishop to g5, castling and then breaking open the center (either with d5 or with f4-f5, the latter seeming a bit stronger since it forces the a2-g8 diagonal open for white's queen to cause mayhem). After this, white's rooks will be placed on the central files, leaving black's king in mortal danger.

If we try to find moves that hold on for the moment for black, then it's possible to play the bishop out to either e7 or d6, or it's possible to move pawns. Note that no matter what black tries to do, they cannot prevent white from realizing their plan. Black is simply too passive and tied down (due to their obligation to defend e6)

A major problem for black is of course that they cannot castle to put their king to safety, but it's worth noting that even if black still had the option of castling, the kingside wouldn't be a very safe haven due to the f4-f5 break, since the e6 pawn would then be pinned and lost immediately with the black king on g8.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The advantage is positional. It is not material nor tactics that are about to happen.

It is harder for many players to understand positional advantages. But the computer understands is quite well.

Most average players see material advantages but only see positional when it is a looming mate or other drastic advantage.

Looking at every line of play would not make it clearer if you are not able to grok the positional advantage.

What may make it clearer is more experience. Some people never reach that level. Some like Fischer get their quickly.

The big thing here is that black cannot castle and his king is in the middle. Black has an isolated pawn that needs defending. White owns the centre. White is better developed. And white is a pawn up.

Yes, black can defend quite well here, and with club players might even draw. But between GMs or computers it is just a matter of technique and white should win without any problems.

Technique is that magic ingredient GMs use to convert a positional advantage to a win. Although often in the end a positional advantage will result in tactics that win material too and sometimes mate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you look at the *static* evaluation of the position in Stockfish, White gets an advantage of 4.17. The top factors in this position are are:

+1.23: King danger. This measures various things, like whether the king has a pawn shelter, how many checks are available, and how many pieces are threatening the area around the king.

+0.77: Piece value bonus. This is the extra pawn.

+0.76: Piece square table bonus. A bonus (or penalty) is given to each piece based simply on what square it's currently on. The knight on e5 is getting a bonus while the knight on b8 is getting a penalty.

+0.48: Mobility. A measure of how many squares are available for each piece. Squares defended by enemy pawns are not counted, and for the queen squares defended by a weaker enemy piece are not counted.

+0.38: Outpost bonus. The White knight on e5 gets a bonus for being on an outpost, and there's also a bonus for the other knight because it can reach the outpost on e4 in one move.

There are also various smaller factors, like Black's isolated pawn, but these are the main factors in the static evaluation of this position.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I checked the position on Lichess' analysis and looked at the source code on Github. On Lichess' engine, the evaluation is **+5.8** (Stockfish 10+ depth 22).

* If we give castling rights to the black king, the evaluation drops to **+3.4**.
* If we then take out the pawn on f3 (restore material balance), the evaluation drops to **+3.1**.
* If it's black's move (one tempo given to Black and taken away from white), the evaluation drops further to **+1.6**
* If we now put the black Queen back to d1, the evaluation drops to **+0.8**
* If we put the center pawn back on d2, the evaluation is now **+0.3**, which is more or less the starting evaluation for a chess game.

From this we can infer that the main factors in this evaluation are:

1. King safety
2. Development/mobility and initiative
3. Material imbalance (one extra pawn)
4. space (defined by Stockfish as the number of safe squares on your side - the area behind your pawns counts double)

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, stockfish, positional-play, advantage
---


# Question
Title: What is the fastest way to reach a position in which one side is forced to choose between checkmate and stalemate?
I had an interesting idea recently. While there are many proof games ending in checkmate or stalemate, why not both, I thought. So, thus I wondered, what is the fastest way to reach a position in which one side is forced to give either checkmate or stalemate?

So far, my best result is a bulky **26 moves,** or 52 plies. In the end, White must choose between Kb7# and Kc7# or Kc8=.

```
[FEN ""]

1. a4 b5 2. axb5 g5 3. Rxa7 Ba6 4. bxa6 Bh6 5. f4 Nf6 6. fxg5 Nc6 7. h4 O-O 8. Rxa8 Nd4 9. gxh6 Nf3+ 10. Kf2 Ng5 11. hxg5 Qb8 12. Ke3 Qxb2 13. c4 Qxb1 14. Kd4 Qxc1 15. Kc5 c6 16. Kb6 c5 17. a7 Qxd1 18. d3 Qxf1 19. gxf6 Qxg1 20. g4 Qxh1 21. g5 Qb7+ 22. Kxb7 Rb8+ 23. Kxb8 d5 24. g6 d4 25. g7 e6 26. e4 e5

```

# Answer
12 moves (24 plies), adapting Loyd's classic 19-ply help-stalemate:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d3 a5 2. Qd2 Ra6 3. Qxa5 h5 4. Qxc7 Rah6 5. Qxb7 f6 6. Qxb8 d6 7. h4 Bf5 8. Rh3 Kf7 9. Qxd6 Bh7 10. Qe6+ Kg6 11. f4 Qxd3 12. Kf2 Qg3+

```

and White must choose between 13 Kxg3 stalemate and 13 Rxg3 checkmate.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems, records, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: Obtaining the correct move from syzygy tablebases (Python)
I have created a chess engine in Python and now want to start using the endgame tables in syzygy. I have downloaded all the relevant files and is now ready to start.

I have found how to access the files in Python via e.g. the Python Chess module (link). It there explains how I can get the WDL and DTZ information from a FEN position, which could be handy at times. BUT what I really want is to know the move to make to win in that FEN position, and I have not been able to figure out how to obtain this information from the files. The information online is very limited and I hope someone can please guide me on how to do this?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I can't be absolutely certain, as these particular tablebases are unfamiliar to me. However, in all other tablebases that I've used, from the Thompson and forward, you had, basically, to:

1. generate all legal moves from the position,
2. for each move, make the move and look up the score for the resulting position, and then
3. select 'the right move' based on those retrieved scores, compared to the score for the starting position.

---
Tags: engines, endgame, tablebases, python
---


# Question
Title: Is it too late for me to get into competitive chess?
I am 24 years old, and only recently got my interest in chess back. I used to play it on and off as a child, but never took it seriously.

Is it too late for me to start playing competitively? I'm not aiming to be GM or anything, and neither am I planning to make chess my life. I am just wondering if I can still qualify to participate in some tournaments here and there, maybe get a few awards, maybe have a ranking of some sorts, and possibly call myself a competitive chess player.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Sure why not! The important thing is to enjoy the game and learn whatever life lessons you can take from it along the journey. Chess offers tremendous companionship and fun and that is what is more important than focusing on results (which will inevitably follow as you keep improving learn from your mistakes).

Make sure you keep a database of the games --- especially your victories! --- you play on online using softwares like SCID, and then submit it to computer analysis (via Stockfish available on lichess). Learn where you went wrong during the game. I have improved tremendously myself over the past few months by following this process (having returned to chess only 2 months ago).

Focusing on improving a specific precisely defined skill like chess, I feel instills a growth mindset and set of habits that permeate other areas of life automatically.

And speaking of becoming a top player at a "late age" (if by that you mean physical age rather than mental age) then there is precedence! https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-famous-chess-player-or-grandmaster-who-started-late-like-in-their-20s-or-30s

The important thing however I repeat is focusing on making sure that chess offers you enjoyment, a place to practice a growth mindset, companionship and a chance to make friends in both meatspace and cyberspace.

You might come across players online who have some sort of ego issues but these are precisley the players who only want to show off and will never improve past whatever miniscule talent they think they might have. It is one thing to be proud of your accomplishments but another thing to denigrate another person for playing worse chess. Stay away from people like these and build a healthy community of friends that you enjoy playing with and will help you improve.

Hope this helps!

# Answer
> 10 votes
It's not late. Starting early in only important if you aim at the very top. I've had a student who started in his forties and managed to enjoy hundreds of games of competitive chess, with somewhat decent results (he reached 1800 while having a full-time job and a family).

Join a chess club and play your first tournament as soon as you can. Also, what is your budget? If you can't afford sessions with a coach regularly, can you afford at least an occassional season to guide the training you'll do on your own? I'd offer my services but I'm not sure if my answer would be removed for self-promotion in that case. Anyway, the skills a serious chess player needs are, more or less:

* Tactical awareness and accurate calculation: this is put shortly the ability to find the best moves "on the spot", and predict its most direct consequences. You can work on this by solving puzzles on a site like chesstempo.com or from a book. Reviewing your own games first by yourself, maybe later with a chess engine, will also help you find what opportunities you missed in your games. Consistency is key here. 90 minutes a week distributed in 15 minute sessions will be enough for you to feel the difference after 8-10 weeks.
* Theoretical endgames: only a few are required to survive, so this shouldn't take too much time. Once you know the most basic ones you'll be able to handle most practical situations. Can you mate a lonely king with just a rook? If you have the option of entering a king+pawn vs king endgame, can you know if that will be a win or a draw beforehand?
* Technichal endgames: this is often mixed in with the "theoretical" ones but I like to make the distinction clear. If you reach a position like bishop+5 panws vs knight+4 pawns (on either side), how comfortable do you feel? Can you outplay most player near your skill level or do you feel like you are losing a lot of points at this stage?
* Strategy: this is for many the most "beautiful" or "elegant" part of chess. Concepts like piece activity, king safety, weak squares, bad bishops and alike simplify the way we think about chess, guiding our decisions when there isn't a clear "tactical" reason to prefer a move over another.
* Opening theory: since there are a few positions that will appear over and over again in your games, you'd do yourself a favour if you already know what the best moves are on each of them. For now, however, I'd stick to a more "strategic" approach, based on playing around solid concepts like development, king safety and control of the central squares.

Work on this and you'll go far! But remember that this is a long process and results won't be felt fast nor "linearly". In other words, improvement will come gradually until you hit some "jump" at a certain point, then you'll feel like you're going backwards before another "jump", then another stage of gradual improvement.... I think you get the point.

# Answer
> 6 votes
There is no reason you can't get into competitive chess unless you hold yourself back. I played as a child and into my late teens and then stopped. It wasn't until around 8-10 years ago that I picked it back up and playing in competitively in tournaments only recently. I know the chances are really low that I'd become a GM but if I become a local good club player that is perfectly fine.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Definitely not to late. I know people who have taken up chess in retirement to reasonable club level success. There is literally nothing holding you back. Go get em.

# Answer
> 5 votes
How competitive? Your chances of becoming a GM are very low. You might reach IM if you spent enough time on the game, but there is no guarantee. You should be able to reach the expert level if you try, but even NM would be unlikely unless you don't have a life and only do chess.

As to tournaments, you can always play. They have them for all levels of players. As to winning awards - you could win at your level in a section based on ratings and not 'open'.

Everybody who plays gets a rating. You could certainly call yourself a competitive player if you actually played in sponsored tournaments by USCF or your national body.

With proper training, you should certainly be as good as most club players in a few years.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think you ask the wrong question. Better: "What are my ambitions when I return to chess?" I have no idea what your innate talent is, what trainers you have and so on. As long as your ambition is "I want to have fun at chess", it doesn't matter at all how strong you are. I was a FM once (OK, even if I dropped under 2100, I still am, but you know what I mean) and I'm burning for Corona getting the boot so I can return to the board. If that is your attitude, you find joy even with 1000 ELO.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Not unprecedented for even world class players to only become serious after 20 years old; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail\_Chigorin coincidentally became serious also at 24 and only learned the moves at 16. However, incredibly rare and perhaps nowadays with kids getting world class competition from computers from as soon as they are old enough to learn the moves, it is much harder. Here is a suggestion that may not be popular: There is a variant known as "bughouse" which is played with two boards and 4 players, 2 on a team. When you take a piece as white, it is passed to your partner (who is black) and they can (instead of moving a piece) place the piece on the board. This is a completely legitimate form of chess that even top players enjoy. However, I happen to know that even grandmasters at standard chess are not necessarily great at bughouse and there is very little written about the game; what's more, a computer with a human partner would still be beatable. If your goal is to become a top player, bughouse might be a game to consider.

---
Tags: learning, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What's the best time control to play online in order to improve?
I am an amateur, 33 years old, never took chess lessons, never played in a tournament. Last year I rediscovered chess and I am trying to improve as much as possible by reading books, watching videos and playing correspondence chess online. There is a small possibility for me to play over the board or join a club at this moment.

So my question is: what's the best time control to play online in order to improve better? I feel that 15-30min is too fast and there are very few players who want to play bigger times online. I like correspondence but sometimes I forget (over night) a bit the feeling of the game, lose the ideas or other stuff..

I am reading a lot of books but I want to practice more... Thanks a lot!

# Answer
> 10 votes
This question will receive more opinionated answers regarding the time control, I will answer in perspective of an ***advanced beginner*** Chess player. Since you have said you are a beginner and never played in a tournament before, I would suggest you to have **1 hour** or **45mins + 45sec** increment time control. This is because of my previous answer here: Do longer games better your chances of honing chess skills?. Additionally:

1. When you engage yourself in a 1 hour time control chess game, you are not under any pressure to make moves without calculation and thus avoiding *big blunders*, this happens almost for everyone who has not played against opponents much.
2. You are also open to various variations for a move, thus allowing to think at least 3-4 moves ahead of the next move(visualizing).

---

> I like correspondence but sometimes I forget (over night) a bit the feeling of the game, lose the ideas or other stuff.

Yes, Correspondence games will tend you to lose track of your positions, tempo, tactics etc since it may take 1 or more than 1 day to make a move. Almost 20-30% of the time either me or my opponent will lose because of this, even though having an advantageous position. But my guess is Correspondence game is relative to your memory power.

But remember that you also need to concentrate on the skills by reading books, solving puzzles etc. Playing with opponents alone will not improve your game because online games are just application of your skills not development.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Playing is not how you improve. Playing is how you demonstrate your skill. From a training point of view, playing a lot of games is more a less a waste of time compared to other training and study activities. Playing is fun, but if you want to improve you need to train. You need to decide: do I want to play and have fun, or do I want to work and improve?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well, it seems there's a bit of a controversy going on here.

One group of people seem to think that the experience of playing can actually teach you new ideas, and that's how you can best improve. There's certainly pedagogical research that says a sizeable portion of students learn much better by doing than by observing/listening/reading/viewing. But that's not true for all students.

Another group seems to think that training (presumably regimented instruction) is the way to improve, and that playing undermines that. The aforementioned research states that this is true for a *different* segment of students, the ones who prefer that style of learning.

There's a ***Third Way*** (and probably a Fourth...) of considering the question, though.

Almost every coach with whom I've talked, or whose publications I've read, advocates using play to improve because:

1. It is the primary diagnostic tool for figuring out what the player is doing wrong or doesn't know, and
2. It reinforces the concepts already learned in the instruction

You'll notice that they're *not* saying that you should play games and try to take notes afterwards on the good new stuff you found in them.

It's just that, in their experience, you can't improve very well solely from instruction. You need to practice, and to be tested. Your mistakes are the evidence of areas you need to improve. Playing reinforces newly-learned material, and highlights when it hasn't been properly assimilated.

And incidentally, I've learned plenty of new ideas and maneuvers over the board; it'd be amazing if you never saw any in your games, and surprising if you didn't notice at least some of them. In some cases, during a game I struggled to find an idea, and failing to do so, was inspired to look for the theory and examples afterwards, using some games from a database. That's something I wouldn't have done without having the experience of needing something I couldn't come up with while playing the game. So "play as instruction" has certainly applied to me.

# Answer
> 0 votes
longer games will help you improve as long as you practice your tactics, openings and most important when you play online in longer formats - ENDGAMES. Please practice your endgames and don't make the same mistake I did. As for blitz, make sure to play a few games of that too. It helps for pattern recognition Just don't play bullet. But if your playing for fun , just do whatever you want. Forget everything everyone said here. Also, I don't mind arguments because I'm no coach.

---
Tags: learning, training, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Do longer games better your chances of honing chess skills?
What do you say about it?

I find that if you're in a sequence that you're realizing is a trap, and the pressure on you is building. Or you've blundered, or worse, you deservedly are about to get crushed—its a traumatic experience where the ideational nature or principles of the position are more readily gleaned.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Yes, more longer the game you can play, it can test your `concentration`, `visualization` and `memory power`.

When I initially started playing Chess, I was always excited to play blitz Chess. I kept playing and finally I couldn't improve my Chess as I didn't improve what was needed.

Recently I played with a time control of 1 hour in my debut FIDE tournament, I took the most time for my moves against my opponent. All 9 players I met in the field were having Class C rating but then they had the basics right. I could win against 6 and drew with one while losing the remaining two because of minor blunders. Luckily, I could open my FIDE rating in my very first tournament, though the rating is not much to be proud of. It set a platform for me to concentrate more on longer games and less on blitz.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Like sprinting vs. a marathon, both styles of game are valid but build different skills. Blitz chess is all about "board vision": the ability to quickly recognize tactical patterns, identify threats, or just create an innate sense of where the pieces should go. Longer time controls exercise computational skills: the ability to "go deep" on exchanges or set up a tactic.

Playing only one style may help you win sooner, but I would argue that playing both will help you win more often.

# Answer
> 0 votes
short answer, yes. But that does not mean that play no blitz. try playing 7-8 blitz games but play all the other games in longer times. the myth that you improve by playing blitz is there because you can recognize more patterns and learn how to manage time trouble. Also you can cheat because of low time (the reason why gm play blitz. But even they played longer formats first). For everything else longer games are better.

# Answer
> -4 votes
No. It's the opposite. The QUICKER games improve your chess skills. It's somewhat like the principle "if you are going for a 300 meter race, train like you are going for three times 100 meters sprints".

In quick games you will initially make a lot of mistakes. You will get frustrated, commit blunders, miss tactics etc. The quick realization that you made a mistake will be ingrained in your memory and next time you will immediately recall what you did last time in similar position.

I play on chess.com and the titled players the longest games titled players play there are 3 mins matches. It enhances your thinking and decision making potential so that you can assess the situation more deeply when you get longer time controls.

---
Tags: time-control
---


title: lichess puzzle 61124

text:
# Question
Title: lichess puzzle 61124
I am a beginning chess player, and just had a look at lichess puzzle 61124. The following contains spoilers.

The solution to the puzzle is supposedly Rd4, then the follow-up move from white is Nb6, which I do not follow. Would Qb5 not make more sense from white's perspective?

# Answer
> 6 votes
After Qb3 or Qb5, black has the move Rb4 - kicking the queen away from the defense of the knight. In that line, white is losing a full piece. There is slightly more compensation by instead playing Nxb6 Rxc4 Nxc4 because at least there the black king is also exposed.

If you're ever confused on why the engine played the move it did, just turn on the analysis afterwards. Make the move that you expected the engine to play and see why that loses worse than what was actually played - that way you can learn without having to ask an online forum for help :P

---
Tags: analysis, puzzles, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Does 4.Ng5 in Two Knights Defense have a name?
Just like the title says, is there a name for the line starting with 4.Ng5 in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 called?

Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two\_Knights\_Defense, does not give a name.

This Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKoZkrBWDbU refers to 4.Ng5 as *The Knight Attack*, but I searched for it and I don't see other references to *The Knight Attack*.

Also, often people refer to 4.Ng5 as Fried Liver attack, which I believe is incorrect, since Fried Liver attack arises later in the game, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think the name for `4. Ng5 is Knight Attack`. There isn't a specific name, because it leads to more specific openings, like the Fried Liver Attack, Polerio Defense `4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5` (trying to prevent the sacrifice), the Traxler Countergambit `4. Ng5 Bc5`, and more. It's just like how `1. e4 e5` is called the `open game`. There isn't a specific name for it, because it will lead to more specific opening.

---
Tags: opening, two-knights
---


# Question
Title: How is time measured when a player is late?
When watching The Queen's Gambit I noticed that some players were late to their game. **How is time measured in this case?**

It is simple when the player playing black is late, because the one playing white would have done their move and switched the clock.

If the player playing white is late - is their clock switched on at the moment the game starts and is let to run?

# Answer
> 22 votes
Play starts when the arbiter announces the start of play, usually by saying "Start white's clock". A good arbiter will then walk round the tournament room making sure that all clocks have been started. If both players have yet to arrive at a table then the arbiter will start white's clock. If a black player has not started white's clock then the arbiter will do so and make a mental note to check back and make sure the black player doesn't stop them again as this could lead to the round finishing late.

If a player with the white pieces arrives late, therefore, then when they arrive they will have lost the time from the start of the round when the clocks were started. If the black player was on time then this will be when the black player started the clock. Otherwise it will be when the arbiter started the clock.

If a player with the black pieces arrives late then when they arrive they will have lost the amount of time since clocks were started minus the amount of time white used for the first move.

If the default time is, say, 30 minutes, then the arbiter will go round the room looking for empty seats with a clock with 30 minutes gone. This works for absent white players and for most black players. The exception is when David Howell is white and has taken 10 minutes for his first move.

# Answer
> 14 votes
It depends. There are two likely sets of rules: FIDE (which governs international events) and USCF (which governs United States events.) These rules differ slightly.

Under FIDE rules, the default time is 0 minutes unless otherwise indicated. This means that, rather than start the clock of a missing White player, Black could simply claim immediate victory if White was late unless the tournament rules specified otherwise. Under USCF rules, the default time is one hour, meaning Black could only claim victory after waiting an hour (unless the clock runs out before then. of course.)

Under either USCF or FIDE rules, if Black is present and the default time is *not* zero, then Black starts White's clock when the round starts, whether or not White is present.

The USCF also has a different rule than FIDE if both players are late. According to USCF rules:

> If both players arrive late, the first to arrive must split the elapsed time before starting the opponent’s clock. For example, if the first player to arrive is 40 minutes late, the clocks should be set to reflect 20 minutes of elapsed time on each side.

But under FIDE rules:

> ...if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

---
Tags: rules, time-control
---


# Question
Title: How do I respond as Black to 1. e4 e6 2.e5?
What is the best way to respond in the French Defense to 2. e5? It has to be wrong to play this way. I am of the opinion that d5 is a good answer. I can find no reference to this move in MCO.

# Answer
Respond with **2... d5**. If White plays **3. exd6**, then **3.. Bd6**. White has wasted 3 moves on the e-pawn, and after that Black has one piece developed against white's zero.

Normally White just follows **2... d5** with **3. d4** and we're back into the regular French Defence advanced variation.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This is known as the Steinitz Attack, and he won several quite nice games with it. Against ..d6 or..d5 he took and played on the dark squares with d4, f4, Qe2, b3, Bb2, Ne5, Rae1,.. Much more than this I do not know, but it seems that it cant be all that bad.
> 6 votes

# Answer
1. e4 is an opening that controls d5. By playing e6 as black, you are fighting for d5 as well, without playing ...d5 immediately and risking your queen getting hit. With white playing e5, it's just a bad move. I don't understand why someone would play it, as it weakens control of d5 and f5, moves the same piece twice, and weakens the pawn overall. I can only see how e5 shapes kind of a premature `Advanced French C02`, or if you play ...d5, they would take by en passant. The most popular move played here is `...d6` and `...d5`; `...d6` trying to undermine white's e5 pawn, as you can't do that in the advance variation, and continuing with `...d5`, which is the main point of the french. Another move the engine recommends is `...c5`, which I can only see prevents white from playing `d4`, because then `1. e4 e6 2. e5 c5 3. d4 cxd4 4. qxd4 nc6` might lead to some sicilian type game.

tldr: 2. e5 is a weird move in my opinion, and you can either try to get rid of the pawn with `...d6`, continue with the main point of the french `...d5`, or play `...c5`, a more aggressive move that controls the center.
> 5 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why should black trade knights in this position?
After playing the following game, Stockfish advised me to play ...Nxd2 after white played Nd2 (which I did not play during the game).

However, I am not sure why. Certainly, in the worst case, this is just an even exchange of material. But is there any point in that move beyond that? Wouldn't moving the knight back to g5 be better as it controls the center?

```
[fen "r1bqkb1r/ppp1pppp/2n5/8/3Pn3/2P5/PP1N2PP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 2 6"]

```

# Answer
Computers have complex reasons for their move choices, however, in this position there is a simple rationale for exchanging knights.

You need to think of two factors: are pieces moving to better (or worse) squares, and tempo (who is to move).

In this position, if you play Nxd2, White gets to play Bxd2. So, you keep the move and White improves his bishop slightly and opens C1 for the rook. If you move the knight to f6, then nobody improves, but you lose the move. Note that you cannot play Ng5 because of h4.

In this position losing tempo would be less desirable because White can use his move to play Ngf3 which stops you from playing e5! which is the key move in this position. If you keep tempo, then you can play 1...Nxd2 2. Bxd2 e5! This will improve your position by allowing you to challenge the center.

If you play Nf6 and White stops e5 by playing Ngf3, then White definitely has the advantage because of having more places to put his pieces by virtue of controlling the center. You could easily find yourself in a lost position if White continues to dominate the center.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1. You are a Pawn up, so it is generally to your advantage to exchange pieces and head for the endgame.
2. You dont control a great deal of space. If you retreat ..Nf6, your pieces will get in each others way. Exchanging helps to free your game,
3. White hopes for an attack to compensate his lost Pawn. Exchanging gives him less to attack with
4. You dont have much choice. Ng5 does not lose the Knight, but it has no strong stable square to go to. It is just a liability. ..Bf5 might be playable, but you get pushed around after Bd3.
5. You dont have much to worry about. After ,,Nxd2 Bxd2 Bf5 you have no weaknesses and easy development. e6, Bd6, Nf6, 0-0, c5 are all natural and good and you cant really be prevented from playing them.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, beginner
---


# Question
Title: I'm new to chess-what should be done here to win the game?
```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/3k1KB1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

I am new to chess and have no clue as to how to win this game. Which moves can be done with what is on the board in order to win? Could anyone explain?

# Answer
This position is a draw, the game is over. It is not possible for either side to checkmate the other from this position, not even if the side with the bare king would try to help.

The same is true for king and knight vs king. A single knight or bishop without any pawns or other pieces is not enough to win the game.

With king and *two* knights vs king it is in theory possible to checkmate the other side, but it can't be forced. It's very easy to prevent the checkmate as the defending side. So that is essentially a draw too.

Two bishops, or a bishop and a knight, can force checkmate. It's not easy (especially bishop and knight, it has happened that a grandmaster fails to do it), but it can be done.

It's a better idea to always keep a pawn or two on the board so you can promote one.
> 34 votes

# Answer
If you look closely, the bishop only attacks on squares of a specific color (in this case, it's a light square bishop). As long as the opponent king steps on dark squares, it's impossible to 'check'mate the opponent king. During the endgame with very few pawns on the board, it is **most likely** best to sacrifice your piece for an opponent's pawn, as they have very big potential of promoting. As said before by @RemcoGerlich, it's a good idea to keep more pawns on the board so you have more potential.

As an example, if you have **King + Pawn** vs **King + Bishop + Pawn**, there's no point trying to exchange the pawns, as that would lead to a draw. You can instead take away your opponent's pawn with the bishop, leaving a **King** vs **King + Pawn** which hopefully would not lead to a draw.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Generally, when asking how to win a game, you will ask for a particular player. For example, you can ask: How can White win this game? In fact, that seems to be what you are really asking here.

However, this position is a *dead position*: neither player can achieve checkmate through legal moves, no matter how badly the other player plays. Under FIDE (World Chess Federation) rules, this automatically causes the game to end in a draw \[1\]. As soon as a player or an arbiter notices this, they should stop the game.

Of course, casual players are free to ignore the previous paragraph. What happens if we try to achieve checkmate in this position? We might get something like:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/5B2/8/5K1k w - - 0 1"]

```

The Black king is in a corner (h1), with only three adjacent squares. One (g2) is controlled by the bishop and one (g1) is controlled by the White king. It can still escape to the other square (h2). We can't do any better than this, so we can never get checkmate.

There are some variations that *would* allow checkmate. Some have been covered in other answers. One very interesting one that has not been covered is to give Black a pawn. This can actually hurt Black!

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/5B2/7p/5K1k w - - 0 1"]

```

To get this position using legal moves, first move the pawn to h3 and the bishop somewhere off the main diagonal. Then move the kings into position. Finally, move the Black pawn to h2, then move the bishop onto the main diagonal, giving checkmate!

\[1\] Assuming the preceding move was legal and complied with the touch-move rule.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, bishops, kings, bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Do Chess Engines hold their Search Tree in Memory?
Does a typical brute-force chess engine (e.g. Stockfish) hold its search tree in memory as it applies iterative deepening? If so how does it avoid running out of space? And if not, how does it store the results from each depth before it searches the next ply? It is my understanding that the evaluations from each depth are used to order the possible moves for the next depth, but where are these evaluations and their associated positions stored?

Also, do engines save the pseudo-legal moves they generate for each position, or do they re-run the move generation function each iteration of the search?

# Answer
> 3 votes
A traditional engine does not hold its entire tree in memory. E.g. Stockfish on a 6 core machine can search maybe ten million positions per second. Even if you could store a tree node in just 8 Bytes, that would take 80 MB per second searched. So an hour long search would need hundreds of gigabytes. Instead one uses so called transposition table where the evaluations for certain positions can be stored. Then if a research at a higher depth hits that position again one may already have a sufficiently deep evaluation.

Obviously the same problem applies, a transposition table won't be big enough to store all positions. Because of that, a new transposition table entry may overwrite an existing entry if no memory is free anymore. That loses the old information, however that is not avoidable one way or another.

Note that an engine like Leela has a much lower node per second speed. Because of that for it storing the entire tree is possible (and in fact necessary for the PUCT based search that it uses). Even then you can still eventually run out of memory, one way to combat that in practice is the use of a swap file to store a tree larger than your memory. But if that file fills up to then you can't search further.

As for move generation, for engines that don't store the tree, like Stockfish, one indeed has to re-do the move generation at each point. However that's not much of a problem as a good move generator is very fast so it won't take a lot of time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, they do. They also store the evaluation for each position in the tree. It is critical to store the previously examined positions, because otherwise the computer would have to waste time re-calculating positions that it had already evaluated. In fact, not only chess programs, but any search algorithm usually remembers its search tree, a technique called memoization.

The computer copes with limited memory by "pruning" its tree and removing lines that it considers least likely to be important.

When a new position is calculated, it is given an evaluation score and the legal moves in that position are calculated.

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Is there a chess.com Python api?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a chess.com Python api?
I want to program a bot and implement it on chess.com, but are there any types of chess.com Python api which will make the bot use the chess.com interface?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes there is a Python wrapper to the Chess.com API. Here's the package: https://pypi.org/project/chess.com/

---
Tags: online-chess, python, chess.com
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a PDF of the British Chess Magazine, Sep. 1907
I am looking for a PDF copy of British Chess Magazine dated September 1907 which contains an analysis of a game between Neustadtl and Porges.

# Answer
First place to go is the Chess Archaeology web site, in particular the subsection "Library" (URL: http://www.chessarch.com/library/library.shtml)

(You'll find two scans: one from Princeton, another from Stanford.)

Another useful source is the WorldCat library (URL: https://www.worldcat.org/). While it does list printed copies as well as copies on microform or in digital form, you can easily search only for digital copies (usually listed as eBooks, eMagazines or eJournals)

In this particular case, however, there seems to be no e-copies listed.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I think you are very unlikely to find a legal copy online for copyright reasons. However, according to this tweet, Leeds Libraries have hard copy going all the way back to 1892.

> Our collections are full of historic and current chess books and magazines, like the British Chess Magazine going all the way back to 1892! So if you want to become a Master, the library is the place to start.

Perhaps it's worth your while to get in touch with them, particularly if you live in the UK.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: How would FIDE handle a player with ADHD in tournaments?
I recently stumbled upon Why is coffee provided during big chess events when it contains a banned substance? and learned that amphetamines are banned by FIDE.

How would FIDE handle a player with ADHD who is rightfully prescribed amphetamines?

# Answer
> How would FIDE handle a player with ADHD who is rightfully prescribed amphetamines?

FIDE handles this in the same way as all Olympic sports handle such things. Anybody who follows such sports (particularly cycling) will be familiar with "Therapeutic Use Exemptions" or TUEs.

They are covered in the FIDE Anti Doping Rules:

> **4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs”)**
> **4.4.1** The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers, and/or the Use or Attempted Use, Possession or FIDE Anti-Doping Rules 14 Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, shall not be considered an anti-doping rule violation if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

FIDE provides a standard Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) Application Form which can be downloaded from their site, filled in, signed, and submitted.
> 12 votes

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


# Question
Title: How to interpret lines of play computed by Stockfish during annotations
I am learning how to use Stockfish to analyze my games, and I had a question on how to understand Stockfish's output.

Consider the screenshot when I request stockfish 12 to annotate my games inside SCID.

As the number in the square brackets refers approximately to the "advantage" (however that may be defined) I would have if I followed the moves in the suggested lines. This is why lines that have the same initial set of moves, have a different score when they diverge e.g. lines 9 and 10 in the output which have scores of 1.12 and 1.25 respectively.

But what I want to know is in what order does Stockfish suggest the various lines of output. Notice that the various lines list advantages not necessarily in increasing order. Here are my questions.

1. Is the program, brute force checking through **all** possible lines of play (up to a prescribed depth) by both players and then suggesting the best lines of play found till now?
2. Does it suggest what the advantage would be for the strongest lines of play i.e. "perfect" play for both black and white would be N number of moves down the line given a particular move by White?

Basically, the fact I am asking these two questions suggests, that I approximately (but not completely) understand what Stockfish is outputting. Sure, SCID annotates via arrows the best move at each position. But what EXACTLY are assumptions for each line of play that Stockfish is outputting? Clearly, it is not outputting disastrous lines of play, so it is not listing the advantages for ALL possible lines of play up to a certain depth.

Also, the lines are numbered from 1 to 21 in the output above, but why is line 2 missing?! The image has not been edited!

# Answer
The above output from Stockfish is what's called the Primary Variation (PV), what it considers the best line of play for both sides. But the output is the PV at each search depth: 1 ply from the start position, 3 ply, all the way up to 21 plies.

So at a search depth of 21 plies (moves by both sides), it still considers 12. Bxc7 to be the best move in the current position, with an evaluation of the position resulting after those 21 plies to be +1.33 in White's favour.

If you want to see the evaluation of other moves, then hit the +V button in the toolbar. Click it once, and when Stockfish analyses the position again, it should show the two best variations at each search depth.

I tend to have Stockfish show either 4 or 6 variations, so I can see the relative scores between the moves -- to see if one move is significantly stronger than another.

Stockfish -- as with most "brute force" chess engines -- uses a min-max approach, which ensures that it's considering the best move for both sides. There's various algorithms for pruning and reducing the size of the tree as the search-depth grows, which could have the effect of ignoring what in the longer-term proves to be a stronger move.

If you are interested in the algorithms and patterns that make up Stockfish, try Stockfish on Chess Programming Wiki: which gives a breakdown of the board representation, the searching algorithms and the evaluation algorithms that Stockfish, as well as other engines, use.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


title: Question about the computer's valuation

text:
# Question
Title: Question about the computer's valuation
My friend recommended me this good community. However, I'm new to this format so I had no idea about including a chess game in my text. By looking at the previous questions, there should be some way to include my game, but I couldn't find this so instead I brought the picture of the part I was wondering about.

Why the above position almost winning for me? As indicated in the picture, chess.com's depth 18 engine is marking it as -7.4, but I have no clue about it. I couldn't find any tactics nor throughout the computer's suggestions.

Some information about that would help you answer: My chess.com rating is at 1100~1200, and been playing chess for about six months. I have mo experience in learning chess theory, only solving puzzle rush every day.

# Answer
> 5 votes
White can't defend the a3-pawn. The White king is defenceless on the queenside, and you have the knight on a great outpost near the White king, the bishop a mere ...d5-d4 away from joining the attack. The Black queen is entering the fray either via Qb6 or Qa5. both Black rooks can participate in the attack through Rc6-b6 or Rc6-a6, or along the c-file.

Basically a chess engine can't find a way to defend against the oncoming attack along the a- and b-files aimed at the White king.

Black's immediate threat is to play ...Nxa3 threatening ...Rxc2+. White defends that by playing c2-c3. White's best option at this point is to evacuate the king over to the kingside, so White's best moves of Rd1-f1 are there to clear space for the White king to walk from c1-d1-e1-f2. While he's doing that, Black is bringing his pieces quickly into White's half of the queenside attacking the king directly.

# Answer
> 2 votes
True, there are no immediate (forced) piece-winning or mating tactics, but...

* Your position is safe from counterplay. You *do* have holes on the dark squares around your king, but White doesn't have their dark-squared bishop any more and the other pieces are far away from getting to your king effectively. A weakness only matters if it can be exploited.
* On the other hand, *all* of your pieces are ready to aim for the white king: the knight obviously, the queen via a5 or b6 or c7, the rooks via c8 and maybe c6 to b6 or a6, and the bishop as soon as you move your d-pawn, which you can do at any time.
* The white pieces are not only in a bad position to attack your king, they are also (mostly) cut off from their own one and cannot defend it effectively.
* I wrote *piece*-winning tactics...however, the *pawns* on a3 and c2 are already extremely weak and will soon fall (netting you connected outside passed pawns, a very nice asset on its own).
* White basically has no better plan but to run away with their king as fast as possible, disregarding safety of the other pieces, so you might end up taking one or two of them down the line. For example, if you want "real" tactics, I can see a nasty pin happening after ...Nxa3, ...d4 and ...Bc4. It will be even more effective after c2 falls (to the Na3 and your rooks on the c-file). White also always has to watch out for back-rank mates by your queen, and so on. The tactics in the position are as said not forced, but White will have a hard time avoiding all threats you can make (and will eventually fail, as the engine suggests).

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: What is a gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a gambit?
I am a chess beginner, having played over 500 games. However, I never understood gambits, despite the fact that I am very good at openings. I always play the Queen's Opening, King's Opening, or the knight opening Nf3. I haven't cared about gambits. What exactly is a gambit and why should I learn about them?

# Answer
A gambit is the giving up of a pawn in the opening to gain a lead in development and/or open lines and/or a weakening in the opponent's position.

A sacrifice is the giving up of a piece to gain what a gambit does. It also can be used to close lines, setup a blockade, attract a piece to a square, destroy the pawn shelter around the king, and other gains.

Since a sacrifice is more of an investment, it usually involves an attack on the king.

The Queen's Gambit is normally not a true gambit as White can always regain the pawn. The Queen's Gambit starts with 1. d4 d5 2. c4. The pawn is offered to lessen Black's control of the center. This action is considered good according to chess strategy.

Sooner or later you will have to face a gambit. Learning before the game greatly increases you chances of not losing in the first ten moves. Games in which a gambit is accepted are often full of tactics and a slashing king hunt. These games are considered to be more exciting.
> 5 votes

# Answer
According to Wikipedia:

> A gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning "to trip") is a chess opening in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position

As @bof points out in his comment:

> A sacrifice is not necessarily a piece sacrifice; it can be an exchange sacrifice or a pawn sacrifice. A gambit is not necessarily the sacrifice of a pawn; it can involve sacrificing two pawns (Danish Gambit) or three pawns (Cunningham Gambit) or a piece (Halloween Gambit, Muzio Gambit, Allgaier Gambit)
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, terminology
---


# Question
Title: How should an arbiter handle copying moves from another game?
In 2004 the British illusionist, Derren Brown, despite being a very poor chess player scored +4 -3 =2 against 9 strong chess players including scoring 2/4 against 4 grandmasters in a simul. Of course it was a blind simul (the players couldn't see each other) with alternating colours where he just copied moves between pairs of boards.

All good, clean fun when performed as entertainment, but what happens when it happens in real life? In a serious competition? What are the sanctions? What can the arbiter do about it? Is it even illegal?

When this was put to Geurt Gijssen in An Arbiter's Notebook his reply was basically nothing!

> In my opinion, an arbiter has no possibilities to forbid this behaviour.

Stewart Reuben describes a situation which occurred in an U13 match between England and Sweden about 30 years ago where the Swedish players with white copied the moves made by the English players on the boards next to them and similarly the Swedish black players.

Once the English players realized what was going on one of them, Darren Lee, deliberately lost a piece to see what would happen. The blunder was faithfully copied by the young Swedish player. Eventually the English boys solved the problem by just sitting there until they were in acute time trouble and then blitzed their opponents who didn't have time to continue with their cheating and England ran out 3-1 winners.

Stewart Reuben's suggestion is to make use of article 11.3 a.

> During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

However it is a stretch to describe what is going on as "analysis on another chessboard" and it is unclear if you can actually impose a penalty based on this.

The only solution he could suggest was moving same coloured boards affected to another room or another part of the same room to prevent the copying.

In case you think this sort of thing doesn't happen at the highest level here are 3 games from the round 13 of the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal, although I suspect no way were any of the black's copying!

```
[White "Keres "]
[Black "Najdorf, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Kg7 14. O-O Ne5 15. Bg3 Ng6 16. gxh6 Rh6 17. Rf7 Kf7 18. Qh6 axb5 19. Rf1 Ke8 20. Qg6 Kd7 21. Rf7 Nc6 22. Nd5 Ra2 23. h4 Qh8 24. Ne7 Ne7 25. Qg5

```

and

```
[White "Geller "]
[Black "Panno, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Ne5 14. Bg3 Bg5 15. O-O Ke7 16. Be5 Qb6 17. Kh1 dxe5 18. Qf7 Kd6 19. Rad1 Qd4 20. Rd4 exd4 21. e5 Kc5 22. Qc7 Nc6 23. Bc6

```

and

```
[White "Spassky "]
[Black "Pilnik, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Kg7 14. O-O Ne5 15. Bg3 Ng6 16. gxh6 Rh6 17. Rf7 Kf7 18. Qh6 axb5 19. Rf1 Ke8 20. Qg6 Kd7 21. Rf7 Nc6 22. Nd5 Ra2 23. h3 Qh8 24. Ne7 Ne7 25. Qg5 Ra1 26. Kh2 Qd8 27. Qb5 Kc7 28. Qc5 Kb8 29. Bd6 Ka8 30. Be7 Ra5 31. Qb4

```

I once did something similar myself. My opponent, white, outrated me by about 200 points but turned up about 30 minutes late. meanwhile I kibitzed the game of a player about 400 points stronger than me who often played one of my favourite openings as black. He got a powerful attack although eventually his opponent neutralized it and then my opponent turned up and I had to concentrate on my game.

I followed the moves I'd seen played on the higher board and was delighted when my opponent unwittingly did the same and I got the same powerful looking attack. At a key moment we ended up repeating moves when my opponent alternately checked me and then defended with the checking piece while I alternately blocked the check and then moved the blocker back into the attack, but still a good result.

# Answer
> 7 votes
You must realize that no one may figure out a line like that over the board. This variation (up to `8. ... g5 9. Bh4`) was quite popular in fifties, and for such an important tournament was obviously heavily analyzed. The Argentinians came well prepared with `10. Nf7`. It turned out that Soviets were equally well prepared with `13. Bb5`. A teamwork at its best.

The Gothenburg variation was born.

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Stewart Reuben's suggestion is to make use of article 11.3 a.
>
> > During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
>
> However it is a stretch to describe what is going on as "analysis on another chessboard"

You can debate whether it's "analysis on another chessboard". But if the moves are being deliberately copied from another game, that other game is *clearly* being used as a "source of information", which is also prohibited. A penalty can certainly be imposed if the arbiter is sure that this is what's happening. If the arbiter suspects but isn't sure, moving the game would probably be a good solution.

Of course, players can play identical moves due to similar opening preparation, so merely having identical boards is not indicative that this is happening (although you'd expect one board to get ahead of the other because not everyone plays at the same pace, even when they're in their opening preparation.) But if a player has the move and, instead of contemplating their position, is looking at an identical chessboard and waits for that player to play, then immediately plays the same move, and that's repeated several times... that would be good enough for me.

# Answer
> 5 votes
This actually happened at the 2019 Isle of Man Grand Swiss tournament which, apart from lots of money, had a place in the Candidates tournament as the first prize. The players involved were elite players, Alexei Shirov vs Yu Yangyi on board 7, and sitting next to them on board 8, Sergey Karjakin vs Alexey Dreev.

The Chief Arbiter, Alex Holowczak, made the decision to move one of the boards after 18 moves.

```
[title "Shirov vs Yu Yangyi, Karjakin vs Dreev"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qc7 9. f4 Qb6 10. c4 Bb4+ 11. Ke2 f5 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Be3 Qd8 14. Nd6+ Bxd6 15. Qxd6 Bb7 16. g4? c5! 17. Rg1 Ne4! 18. Qe5 Qh4?? (18...O-O!) 19. Bg2 Qxg4+

```

The tournament was sponsored by Chess.com and so extensive live streaming was available on Twitch. This meant that commentators IM Anna Rudloph and GM Danny King were able to grab the Chief Arbiter for an interview and ask for an explanation which is still available.

Alex Holowczak made it clear that nobody was accused of wrongdoing. For most of the game Karjakin and Dreev were several moves ahead (hence not obvious what was happening) but the last two moves before the separation there was embarrassed looking from one board to the other.

Holowczak: "I saw Yangyi look quite nervous when he looked over to Dreev who had made the move a minute or two before. So, I thought in the interests of everybody feeling comfortable with the game that it was better to move it into the second hall. Then nobody can accuse anybody of anything"

King: "Is it an offence to copy somebody else's moves?"

Holowczak: "N'Ermmm ... I suppose it must be if we think they have copied their moves, but we don't think that. We're not moving them because we think there has been an offence. What we're trying to prevent is any accusation that there might have been an offence"

Very diplomatic.

IM Danny Rensch was less diplomatic when he looked at the games on YouTube. Although he followed Hanlon's razor and attributed what happened (following analysis and then copying blunders) to incompetence rather than malice. Rensch does some nice analysis in his video pointing out the blunders that were mindlessly copied after the first 15 moves of theory.

Once the boards were separated the games swiftly diverged with different results as well as different moves.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In your question you are conflating two different things. The first thing described is your first link about Derren Brown in which he plays as white game A, as black game B, and then, copies every move his opponent makes as white in game B, into game A, and vice versa exchanging colors. this effectively makes Derren just a "telephone" transmitting the moves between boards A and B, so, those 2 guys are playing a game between themselves.

There is a catch: While your clock in the game you are *color* sorta emulates the game where your oponent is *color*, in reality it takes you some time, to react to the move played by *color* and trasmit it into the other board. So you have to be quick, or else, you'll loose some seconds each move, wich if time trouble comes could be lethal, but if there is no time trouble for any of the oponents, then it's all good. So time control matters in this scam.

This is, and should be, highly illegal and frowned upon. Because, for example, rating don't mean anything anymore: if you can find 2 oponents stronger than you, you are guaranteed, without even thinking or investing ANY effort, to have a score 1/2 in this match. Then, your rating goes up undeservedly.

The second thing you described is copying a game that has already had happened in the past. That is totally legal and even good. Top players "replay" opening moves others did in literally all the games, begginers copy the scholars mate, etc. To punish this would be to punish knowledge, which goes against chess wisdom/philosophy. Also note at some point is extremely likely your oponent will deviate soon and it won't be anymore possible to copy anymore. Note this is called: "getting out of book".

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well I think copying should not be a matter of "cheating", because there are huge amount of opening variations and even if you copy some moves the opponent isn't likely to play the same move sequence. And even the opening lines are copied, aren't they? Some grandmaster or master plays the opening sequence (be it long time ago), you like it and play it. It is also a kind of copying but definitely far from cheating.

# Answer
> 2 votes
From Chesslife, July 2016, "The Chess Multiverse"

In http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1156906, After the fifth move, "Barden was wondering how to continue at this point when he looked up--and noticed that the same position had appeared on a large demonstration board behind his opponent's back." (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072644) Before his ninth move, Clarke noticed that his game was following the other and started to copy Filip's moves. "Barden added, on the English Chess Forum Website. The reaction from the spectators and the tournament arbiter 'was just amusement.'" The Keres-Filip game was agreed to a draw after white's 16th move, so the other seven moves play were from the mind's of Barden and Clarke.

Since the coping was for such a short number of moves the argument could be made that they were just following opening theory and the similarity was just a coincidence. Although the use of other sources of information, that is another game was referenced, the arbiter isn't able to make any judgement unless one of the players makes a complaint.

The famous 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal incident is true, but it was the Argentinians who found this opening trap, and they just happen to be able to surprise their Russian opponents at the same time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Isn't a player allowed to make **any** legal move on their turn?

If my White position happens by chance to be identical to another board's White position, and that white makes a move and then makes a wincing expression clearly showing it was a mistake, can I **avoid** that move or would I be using another source of information if I eliminate that move?

Don't put a board next to mine and tell me I can't copy. Or put salt in the wound by saying I can't copy now, but I can copy those moves in future games, including the very next game.

---
Tags: rules, fide, cheating, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: 1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 - how should Black respond?
I had White deviate from the French main line in a blitz game by playing:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Nc3

```

Since this line is not discussed in the Wikipedia article on French defence I am thinking that Black may have better options than to simply pursue normal French development with:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "3"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5

```

(which is what I played, it being a blitz game and all)

I was thinking maybe it's worthwhile to respond with: `2...Bb4` with the aim of a Bishop-Knight exchange and forcing White to suffer double pawns on the c-file. Or try the non-committing: `2...Nf6` or `2...Nc6`.

The chess engine XBoard / Fairy-Max 4.8Q with 50 minutes available time for Black (for 40 moves) suggested `2...Be7`.

Any thoughts?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It is very hard to answer this question **without White's next move after you played `d5`.** I bet he tried something like `3.Nf3` or even `3.d3` would not surprise me.

You see, the move `2.Nc3` is not bad-it follows all the opening rules, and is used **only to transpose from one opening into another** or **to dodge certain variations that are unpleasant for White.**

In my opinion, I **assume** that White **did not want to play main lines** of the *French defense* so he tried to trick you to transpose into another opening or another line, the one you do not know.

This is especially useful in blitz games. Your move-`2.d5`-is the best move.

Never fool around with transpositions when you play blitz, always spend **the least amount of time possible** on openings. **Quality blitz games** are won in the middle game or by the expiration of thinking time, not in the opening.

The main point of `2.Nc3` is that **it can not be refuted**, and **it can not give White a bad position.**

White tries to force you to waste **important thinking time** on the opening trying to refute this move. You could play `2.c5` here but why? After `c5` you get *Sicilian defense* which is **not your repertoire against `1.e4` is it?** Therefore, White would achieve his goal-he would transpose into opening **you do not know**-because if you intended to play the *Sicilian defense* at the first place you would respond with `1.c5` not with `1.e6` right?

If `2.Nf6` he can dodge the *French defense* by playing `3.e5!` which might give him a slight opening advantage. If `2.Nc6` with the idea to play `e5` and transpose into favorable version of the *Italian game* then `3.d4` transposes into some sort of *Nimzovich defense* and you are out of your opening in both cases.

On `2.Bb4` White can now go for `3.Nge2!?` with events developing something like this:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nge2 d5 4.a3 Ba5 5.d4 dxe4

```

This position is known in the *Winawer French defense*-it is coded as `C15` in the `ECO` and the above is the sideline. This variation is not played with bishop on `a5`, and being unable to find any theoretical resource that mentions this position in *Winawer line* I must conclude that the move `Ba5` in the regular line is bad-which is precisely the goal of White's **altered** move order. In the normal *Winawer* things would go like this:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2 dxe4 5.a3 Bxc3+ ( 5...Be7!? )

```

We can list other moves or possibilities for Black after White plays `2.Nc3`, but let us keep this post short and answer your question:

> 1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 - how should Black respond?

Again, I consider your `d5` to be the strongest move-both for theoretical **and psychological/practical** reasons explained below:

**Do not experiment with transpositions** or you may end up in a position that will very likely be **unfavorable for you.** You can break this rule only if you are **100% sure** that transposition can benefit you. If not then decline it **by staying in your opening.** Most of the time this is the best choice to make and **the most unpleasant one for the side trying to trick you.**

If you have further questions leave a comment and I will reply.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Well, let's start by looking at the position

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.Nc3

```

Why does white play 2.Nc3? Because white gets two options after the standard (!) 2...d5, namely 3.d4 or 3.Nf3 as shown below

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 (3.Nf3)

```

In case black wants to aim for a French system position, I would say that 2...d5 is the best option. In case black wants to go for other types of positions, then it is possible to go for a Sicilian system with 2...c5 as well as more independent routes like 2...Bb4, 2...e5. It is also possible to go for some sort of hybrid after 2...Be7 3.Nf3 g5 4.h3 h5, as shown below. What is the objectively best move? Well, I would say that 2...c5 and 2...d5 are equally strong. While 2...Bb4 seems like an interesting option that needs a bit more research. Or just try it for fun and see where it goes!

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 (2...c5) (2...Bb4) (2...e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4) (2...Be7 3.Nf3 g5 4.h3 h5)

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
People (like myself) who occasionally play 1.Nc3 regard this as a main line and are not unhappy to see it. The book by Keilhack mentioned by @mleonard is excellent (as a general chess book) and points out all the transpositional possibilities that White might try to confuse you with. As a counter to some of the remarks made above, White does not always intend d4. He often plays Bc4 or Bb5 followed by d3. If he decides to play e5, he can support it with f4. Because d4 has not been played, ..c5 has less point. Since Whites QN has no better square than g3, Black can stir up trouble with ..h5, but White has seen this before.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As Black, I'd play 2 ... c5. White has failed to occupy d4 with his second move, so I would try to head off his occupation of that square.

Of course, White may be headed for a more restrained version of the French defense, that is, no e5, and d3 instead of d4, but that gives Black some chance to capture the initiative.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In Harald Keilhack's book "Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3" he discusses the position after 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 and identifies 2...d5 as the most likely Black response.

A transposition to a Sicilian with 2...c5 is possible. But it seems an odd move order for a 1...e6 player. Why not play 1...c5 instead?

2...Nf6 could lead to a sideline of the Alekhine's Defence after 3.e5 Other options are 2...b6 (Owen's Defence) or 2...Nc6 (when 3.d4 Bb4 is a possibility).

2...Bb4 is a little-studied position and White has a large number of playable moves. These include 3.Nge2, 3.Nf3, 3.g3, 3.d3, 3.a3, 3.Nb5!? and 3.Qg4!?

Here is a sample game: Gmeinwieser-Bromberger, Bavaria 1999

---
Tags: opening, theory, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: What are some of the chess databases in the public domain that can be used for commercial purpose?
What chess databases allow commercial use without having to reveal source code as part of their license? I see a few chess databases online, even the huge databases on lichess. I wonder which of these can be used as part of a commercial project without having to worry about licenses and unfair usage.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I don´t think chess games are copyrightable, as they´re just a collection of facts, so games of chess are not considered by the courts to be anyone´s property. I would say that you are free to comercially reproduce a game, as long it´s just that, the moves played in that game.

To put in perspective, if you took a screenshot of the result of a videogame, for example Civilization, or if you recorded a song in Guitar Hero, then that would be the intellectual property of the creating videogame company. Following that pattern, any PGN would be the legal property of whoever invented chess, but I believe the copyright may have expired by now.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It sounds like what you want is a free database which is not copyrighted and not licensed. The best one I know of that fits that bill is Caissabase. It is a free download with no license and this explicit statement of no copyright:

> **Legal/Copyright** Where I live facts are not copyrightable, Chess moves played in a game are facts.
>
> You'll notice there are no comments on any of the games as comments are copyrightable.

---
Tags: software, database
---


# Question
Title: ICCF rule for analyzing position with another human
I do know for certain that on ICCF engines are allowed, but the question is whether analyzing the position with a human is allowed? I know that on chess.com if you let someone play on your profile you will get banned. The reason is that if it's allowed I am planning to post a question regarding my current position on a game on the ICCF.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, it is legal.

ICCF: Says nothing about it, or assistance of any kind, and you can even use computers legally. Here are their rules.

USCF: "3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players." Here are their rules.

With regards to the ICCF rules, my guess is that they just decided it was too hard to police computer used, so they just allow it. Books have always been permitted. Human assistance also.

# Answer
> 3 votes
NO, it is NOT legal to analize an ICCF game position with another human. The only exception is in team tournaments where it is allowed to consult with the team captain and members. According to article 2.15.5 of the rules valid from Jan. 2020:

> 2.15 Code of conduct
>
> ...
>
> 5. Obtaining advice from another person about an active game: It is expected that players will decide the moves for themselves. It is unacceptable behaviour to have someone else play your games (for instance playing “mirror games” is not acceptable). TEAM: Consultation between/among currently listed players of a team including the team captain about positions in active games in their team event is acceptable behavior.\[Congress decision 2019\]

Previously (2019 rules, article 2.15.5), it was not legal to consult with anyone else, not even team partners.

**EDIT 05.12.2020**

In addition, article 2.2.6 of the 2020 ICCF rules states:

> 2.2 General rules and procedures
>
> 6. In ICCF event games, players must decide their own moves. Players are allowed to consult prior to those decisions with any publicly available source of information including chess engines (computer programs), books, DVDs, game archive databases, endgame tablebases, etc. TEAM: In addition, acceptable behavior includes consultation between/among players of a team including a team captain about positions in active games in their team event. No other consultation with another person concerning analysis of an active position is allowed in either a team or individual event.

# Answer
> -1 votes
When I played in ICCF, the rules were any sort of reference help other than another person was allowed. That was mainly books back then. I had wondered if Berliner had used his IBM access to help win the world championship in the '60s.

Now understand that they specifically allow computers as well as books. There is no way for them to know if someone is using another person. So the only thing stopping it is your ethics and conscience.

Why bother playing postal chess if you are average and then getting someone to help you? And if you are a top player, then good luck finding someone who could help you better than you and your computer can do.

---
Tags: analysis, rules, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Positional chess understanding in the early game
As Black, when given a choice of taking the White's pawn, for what reason should I consider taking d5 pawn with e6 pawn? Wouldn't this open up the king's file and put it at risk of being attacked in the future?

```
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/3P4/3P4/2N1P3/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
The main point of the engine recommending exd5 is because it opens up the diagonal from c8 to h3. By playing an early e6, the bad light squared bishop is really weak and has terrible scope, which is why taking with the e pawn could be followed with developing your bishop onto a square on a more open, free diagonal in the future. As long as you castle and don't open up any kingside files, you should be good. As long as your king is safe, an open e file won't do much damage, as his e-pawn is stuck on e-3 (**notice white's dark squared bishop; it's basically stuck**).

fyi: The whole point of the Slav Defense is to decline the Queen's Gambit **with a pawn without** playing e6 to block your light squared bishop.
> 8 votes

# Answer
The "e" columns being open is not an issue for king safety. Your king is only there temporarely. After ...exd5, Black would probably follow with ...Bd6 and ...0-0, then at some point ...Re8 to exploit the semi-open file.

...cxd5 is a playable alternative, but your c8 bishop would become a much worse piece. It's hard to see how you'll liberate him with an ...e5 breakthrough, so he'll stay "trapped" behind your pawn chain for a long time. White could also have the opportunity to play quickly on the queenside with Bd2 and Rc1.

Finally, after ...Nxd5 we are probably leaving too much space for our oppoennt on the center (we're allowing an e4 push)
> 6 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, pawn-structure, defense, slav-defense
---


title: A question about chess literature

text:
# Question
Title: A question about chess literature
I am looking for a chess book written in a very engaging style and thoroughly professional manner. The book should be more along philosophical and psychological lines rather than notations and arithmetic.

I would appreciate any help, preferably from those who are keen chess literature lovers.

# Answer
You should check out books by GM Jonathan Rowson. As well as being a GM he is a philosopher. After his first degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University he spent a year at Harvard University before doing a PhD in Wisdom at Bristol University. He is currently director of the Social Brain Centre at the RSA (UK Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts). Most of his chess books have a strong philosophical and psychological content and bias.

You should check out:

* The Seven Deadly Chess Sins
* Chess for Zebras
* The Moves That Matter: A Chess Grandmaster on the Game of Life
> 5 votes

# Answer
You will probably find interesting the chess books of David Bronstein, specially The sorcerer´s apprentice. He was an interesting person, and has dissertations about different topics in his books. Even though most of them are chess analysis, he enjoys explaining about psychology, artificial intelligence game style and such.
> 2 votes

# Answer
One book which I liked, when I was a child, is *Chess for Tigers* by *Simon Webb*.

However, this book is pretty old (the first edition was published in 1978), and at least the tip to write moves down before moving isn't allowed today anymore.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: books, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: Which countries have (or had) chess as a compulsory component of their national curricula?
The only country I know of that definitely has chess as a compulsory subject on its national curriculum is Armenia. Are there any others? I think Paraguay may be one.

Please take "national curriculum" to mean *the curriculum that is legally obligatory to be taught in all state schools*. Thus England and Wales have a national curriculum, even though there is no obligation for it to be taught either in private schools (attended by about 7% of children) or by home educators.

Quite a bit of chess is taught in Danish, Swedish, and Hungarian schools, but as far as I am aware (and I may be wrong) it is not actually a compulsory subject in any of those countries. I thought it used to be a compulsory subject in the USSR but couldn't find confirmation.

# Answer
In this article in the Majorca Daily Bulletin (2015), the Spanish parliament is described as having unanimously passed a resolution that year to allow regional governments to introduce chess as a compulsory or optional subject in schools. The resolution is similarly described as "non-binding" in the Financial Times.

The first-mentioned article further states that

> Armenia became the first country to apply the policy nationwide in 2011. Mexico followed in 2014, as well as parts of China, India and Germany.

The word "parts" here implies that chess is not a compulsory part of the *national* curriculum in those countries as defined in the question. I have not yet found a fully reliable source for the case of Mexico. So far the only certain case I have identified is Armenia.

A report on the international conference on chess in schools held in Armenia in 2014 quotes FIDE's then president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as follows:

> Recently I was in Mexico. They showed me their national school curricula \[sic\] and said that they were going to follow Armenia’s example and make chess a compulsory subject in schools. The same is true for Paraguay, Mongolia and Thailand.

Regarding Thailand, I wonder which game is being referred to. International chess is much less played in that country than makruk, also known as Thai chess.
> 3 votes

# Answer
According to this article in the UK Telegraph newspaper - Spain says yes to chess as game is made compulsory in schools \- written in 2015 by IM Malcolm Pein who runs CSC (Chess in Schools and Community) in England.

There are a number of countries where something like CSC exists but, like CSC in England, it is not part of the school curriculum. Spain is the only country I know of which has made it compulsory.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history, teaching, children
---