# Question
Title: Catalan opening - plans for white after exchanging on d5
From theory I've encountered on the Catalan, I've understood that when black goes b7-b6 before first playing c7-c6, a good plan for white is to capture on d5. WI've understood that the rational for this might be that after black signaling that they might fianchetto, there's no longer a reason to keep not allow the exchange of the black e pawn, as their light squared bishop is anyway coming out, and that it's better for white that black recaptures with the e pawn than the c pawn (I'm guessing as after black later pushes the c pawn the hanging d- and c pawns might that become weak). However, I find it difficult to then come up with a follow up plan. What more breaks are there for white? Usually, when I still have my c pawn, I go for the e2-e4 break, but that seems less attractive in a case when there's no c pawn and I'd be landed with a isolated d pawn. Thoughts?

```

    [FEN "rnbq1rk1/p1p2ppp/1p2pn2/3p4/2PP4/5NP1/PP1NPPBP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 8"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. g3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 O-O 7. Bg2 b6 *

```

# Answer
The idea of exchanging on d5 when Black goes for an early ...b6 is usually connected with play on the c-file: Nc3, Bf4, Rc1, maybe Qa4.

In this particular position, after ...Bxd2 Nbxd2, this plan is not available and the pawn exchange is much less promising. Here, you can stand with the main plan of preparing e2-e4 (with 0-0, Qc2, Rd1), or look for an opportunity to exploit the dark squares (Ne5, e3, and someday either f4, Ndf3 or c4-c5).

If memory serves, 6.Qxd2 is a bit more promising than 6.Nbxd2 in this line.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In double queen-pawn structure where x.cxd5 exd5 has occurred (sometimes called the Carlsbad structure) there is always the possibility of a "minority attack". This is more common in the QGD than in the Catalan but it is simply about the pawn islands. As you alluded to Black could end up with "hanging pawns" if he plays for c7-c5. If he doesn't, White will pile up on the c-file and push his 'a' and 'b' pawns hoping to isolate a black pawn and win it.

In your particular position you have traded dark-square bishops, so an eventual e2-e3 puts all your kingside pawns on dark-squares creating a very solid structure while you pressure d5 and the queen-side.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Often in the Catalan rather than fighting for pawn breaks, you fight for piece activity. You want your pieces to be more active and constantly applying pressure to black while they have to passively defend.

cxd5 does a nice job of neutering the potential of the black bishop if it decides to go to b7, since it'll just be staring at d5 all day. Also your bishop will constantly be applying pressure to blacks d5 pawn. The knight on d2 is slightly misplaced, but it can go to f3 or b3 as needed. The knight on f3 has the naturally strong e5 square. The rook heading to c1 applies powerful pressure on blacks c pawn, which became a backwards pawn after b6 cxd5 got played. If black ever gets frustrated from passivity and plays c5 to break free, you have your choice between taking and fighting against hanging pawns, or waiting and continuing to amp up pressure and seeing how black changes the pawn structure (with c4, cxd, or trying to maintain the tension).

If you continued your variation 8. cxd5 exd5 9. o-o Bb7 10. Rc1 , you would reach similar positions to the ones in these example games. https://lichess.org/J7zbIFSu , https://lichess.org/0Vx36nsY

As you can see, these higher rated black players don't sit their passively as white pressures them with superior piece play, and instead try to generate play with c5, going for the hanging pawn structure.

You should not be trying to play e4 here in most cases. Focus on the piece play, and if black goes for it, fight against the hanging pawns.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, planning, catalan
---


title: Is Bg5 a mistake or inaccuracy there?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Bg5 a mistake or inaccuracy there?
```
[FEN ""]
[STARTPLY "8"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nc6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. Bb5 a6 8. Ba4 b5 9. Bb3 a5 10. O-O b4 11. a3 bxc3 12. Nxc3 exd4 13. Nxd4 Ne5 14. Re1 h5 15. h3 d5 16. Nxd5 f5 17. f3 Bc5 18. Ba4+ Bd7 19. Bxd7+ Qxd7 20. Nf6+ Kd8 21. Nxd7 Kxd7 22. Qc1 Bxd4+ 23. Kh2 Bf2 24. Rd1+ Ke7 25. Qxc7+ Ke6 26. Rd6# 1-0

```

I do not clearly understand the suggestion by Lichess computer analysis. What is the problem with the move 5.Bg5 if there is one ? Lichess computer analysis suggests me that 5.Bb5 was better, but my idea behind Bg5 was to defend e4 pawn and if you go for Bb5 you sacrifice the pawn and I do not see what compensation I have for it (I played for white). Thanks in advance.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Both 5.Bb5 and 5.Bg5 are reasonable here. Lichess wasn't running multiple move analysis, but it didn't mean the move 5.Bg5 was bad.

5.Bb5 doesn't lose a pawn as 5...Nxe4 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Nxe5 is better for White.

# Answer
> 3 votes
5.Bg5 isn't that bad of a move, but it's not best because you have to give up your dark-squared bishop after 5...h6. Since some of your dark squares are weak (e.g., f4 and d4), keeping this bishop is necessary to defend the squares.

5.Bb5 is a better move because you're threatening to play 6.d5 and 6.dxe5 (these threats stop Black from taking on e4). If Black answers with 5...Bd7, you can go into this line: 6.d5 Ne7 7.Bxd7 Qxd7 8.Nbd2. Now you've got the e4-pawn protected, and have exchanged off your bad light-squared bishop for Black's good light-squared bishop.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, philidor-defense
---


# Question
Title: What's the best chess tactics trainer on the web?
There are plenty of chess tactics trainers out there on the internet. What trainer works best for you? Why?

# Answer
chesstempo.com. free tactics gets harder as your tactics rating increases can play standard or blitz tactics (rating adjustment dependent on time took or independent)
> 1 votes

# Answer
I'd agree that chesstempo.com seems to be one of the best, but I'd question how much use the basic (free) version is for improving your play. As the previous answer says, the problems get harder as you get them right which means you end up doing problems which are too hard for effective training. Also, you cannot choose themed problems.

The paid version, on the other hand, offers the possibility to build training sets based on quality, difficulty and theme. So, if you want a set of ~100 discovered attack problems which take you 30sec - 1min to solve you can easily request this, with the option of spaced repetition for failed problems.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chessity has been my favorite site for a couple of years now. At first I sort of dabbled with the free materials they offered, mostly theme based problems. About a year ago I read a book called "Peak" which opened my eyes to the realities of effective training, and eventually I became a premium member at Chessity. There are so many ways to train on their site, and they WILL take you out of your comfort zone, which is one of the prerequisites of effective training. I'm glad to say hard work and their well thought out training programs are really paying off, it's feels great to demolish people who used to give me problems. I love the site, though I don't always want to do the work. As Jan Gustaffson said, "Chess is a constant struggle between my desire not to lose and my desire not to think".
> 1 votes

# Answer
I like chess.emrald.net/

because you really need to be fast to score points. this lets you improve blitz awareness a lot.

im 2100 fide. but on chess tactics i barely reach 1800

Have fun.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I use the chess tactics training site Chessity I tried many platforms, and each is good at something, but when it comes to fun, Chessity seems better. Wonder what others think.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Check out Chess Gym I started this to get some end game help but they have a tactic trainer also
> 0 votes

# Answer
Chesscademy is a cool new site. You can solve problems which gets harder as your tactics rating increases. There are also free courses you can take.
> 0 votes

# Answer
Any tactics trainer will be better than none, and honestly I would not worry too much about finding the perfect solution for you. Most tactics trainers out there are pretty decent and should suit most people's needs. That being said I like the one of **lichess**, for the following reasons:

* gives you problems suited to your level (adapts to your tactics rating strength)
* takes the problems from real games, which potentially could be more messy/realistic than a composed/streamlined problem
* uses "spaced repetitions", i.e. if you fail to solve a puzzle, it will present you the same puzzle again after a while
* website works well (design/speed)

Perhaps other websites offer the same features, but since I also play games on lichess, using its tactics trainer makes most sense to me.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


title: What will replace chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What will replace chess?
Chess is dying. That much should be obvious. As predicted by Capablanca and as concluded by Bobby Fischer.... These are not random cranks, these are two of the best players of all time, and here are some of the words they have used to describe the game they devoted their life to: *solved*, *dead*, *terrible*, *boring*.

Of course this destiny of chess is something that a lot of people playing right now are desperate to ignore and pretend isn't true, because if it were (and it is), what would that say about their own pathetic devotion to this game? All those years wasted on a board game about to whither away.

So, recognizing that this bias exists, I hope we can scare some of the butthurt deluded posters away, so that the objective and sensible people remain to answer the following question of mine:

**What is next**? What comes *after* Chess? Capablanca chess, Fischerrandom chess, or maybe something else? What will take over?

And, **when** will it happen? My best bet is that considering the advance of Alpha Zero, that there is going to be an immense surge of chess "players" who win by purely memorizing tactics given to them by Alpha Zero. So, the death of chess will surely be sped up now. Maybe within a decade or two?

# Answer
Nothing will replace chess, it will be played by millions around the globe for the centuries to come. The theory and approaches might evolve a bit, like endgame tables have changed the tournament rules in the past, but otherwise, for 90% of the players nothing has changed and nothing will change, it's still a square board and 32 pieces.

"decade or two?" -- yeah, right. The tic-tac-toe was "solved" by most people even before they learn to read, and it's still here and will be here forever.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How does a GM calculate opening and how many moves in advance?
How does a GM make his opening repertoire and how does he calculate his moves in advance.Can he calculate 20 moves in advance base on his opening?

# Answer
> 2 votes
They don't calculate the common openings, they know them by heart, at least the main lines, and the possible refutations, should the opponent deviate from the main line.

For the less common openings, they might remember things not as deep as the often playable ones. Still, it's like 10-15 plys for something obnoxious and could be as much as 20-30 plys for the most common ones.

# Answer
> 1 votes
GMs have all the common opening memorized, sometimes to a very deep level. In this regard, they are not calculating at all. Once they are out of their book, the depth of calculation is based upon the complexity of the board. When there aren't many pieces on the board, they don't always calculate so much as know that a certain situation is a win if they following certain principles. In the middle game, 8 moves would be common, but the GM knows how to quickly remove from consideration variations that don't look promising. When they calculate deeper it is because they don't waste energy on bad variations.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It depends, strong grandmasters might know tremendous amounts of lines by heart. Weaker GMs who no longer drill openings will forget majority of lines sooner or later but they will still be very good at recognizing strategic patterns and in making practical decisions. They will still know how to lure much weaker opposition into mess they will understand better while they will be able to limit seriously power of younger guys with better theoretical knowledge by sidestepping dangerous lines and limiting possible home preparation dangers. It's not that much about calculating in openings I guess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
When Richard Reti was asked how many moves ahead he calculated, his answer is said to have been "One, sometimes two". This is probably correct, if by "calculate" you mean examine all alternatives and be sure of the result. This is not what grandmasters do. What they actually do, nobody knows, not even them.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Are there known opening gambit lines for black in the French defence?
I play the French defence with both colours (white and black) and generally play any of the orthodox main line openings (there are many eg Advance, Exchange, Classical,Tarrasch etc giving rise to many variations as openings and defence variation eg early ...Qb6 Wade var.).

There are some gambit openings from the White side and as white I often play the Milner-Barry Gambit and have started to reacquaint myself with the Alapin-Diemer (I sometimes face the MBG as black). So far though I have not encountered a gambit line for the black side in the French and so wonder if there are any such playable black French gambit opening lines?

If anyone knows one or more I'd be interested to hear. I look forward to replies and comments, but meanwhile I will keep searching myself to find such a gambit for black in the French defence opening.....

# Answer
There's the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Winawer:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e5 c5
5. a3 Bxc3+
6. bxc3 Ne7
7. Qg4 Qc7
8. Qxg7 Rg8
9. Qxh7 cxd4

```

In general, though, it's hard to find a good pawn for Black to give away in the French.
> 12 votes

# Answer
There is also the gambit from the game Capablanca-Alekhine (St Petersburg, 1914), but it's not very good.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 h6 (4...Be7;4...Bb4) 5. Bxf6 Qxf6 6. exd5 Bb4 7. Bb5+ (7. Bb5+ Bd7! 8. Bxd7+ Nxd7 9. dxe6 Qxe6+ 10. Qe2 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qxe2+ 12. Nxe2 O-O-O)

```

The check is annoying. If black could castle without disturbance, this gambit would perhaps be playable.

**Update 10 years later:** Strong players have found the line `7... Bd7! 8. Bxd7+ Nxd7 9. dxe6 Qxe6+ 10. Qe2 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qxe2+ 12. Nxe2 O-O-O` , which makes this gambit very playable for black!

---

I have thought about using the same idea one move later

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 a6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 h6!?

```

but I'm not sure about it, and besides white has too many options before reaching this position.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Here is one line:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 c5 7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Nb5 O-O 9. Nc7 Nc6 10. Nxa8 cxd4

```

Black has castled, and is pretty well developed, while the white king is still in the center, and white does not have one normally developed piece. You probably won't find many games with professionals playing the line, but here is one interesting draw with Nigel Short handling the black pieces:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Bunratty Masters"]
[Site "Bunratty"]
[Date "2011.02.26"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Hunt, Adam"]
[Black "Short, Nigel D"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2436"]
[BlackElo "2658"]
[ECO "C14"]
[EventDate "2011.02.25"]
[PlyCount "142"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.03"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 c5 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.Nb5
O-O 9.Nc7 Nc6 10.Nxa8 cxd4 11.Nf3 Qb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxb2 13.Rd1 Nc5 14.Bd3 Bd7
15.Nc7 Rc8 16.Nxd5 exd5 17.O-O a6 18.Qf4 h6 19.Rb1 Qc3 20.Rfd1 b5 21.Kh2
Re8 22.g4 Ne4 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qc5 25.Re1 Be6 26.Rbd1 Bd5 27.Qd3 Bxf3
28.Qxf3 Nxe5 29.Qe4 Re6 30.Qa8+ Kh7 31.Qe4+ g6 32.Kg2 Qc3 33.Qf4 Qc6+ 34.
Qe4 Nd3 35.cxd3 Rxe4 36.dxe4 Qe6 37.Rxd4 Qxg4+ 38.Kf1 Qxh4 39.Re3 Kg7 40.
Rd7 Qh1+ 41.Ke2 Qc1 42.e5 Qc2+ 43.Kf1 Qc4+ 44.Ke1 Qe6 45.Rd6 Qxa2 46.e6
Qb1+ 47.Ke2 Qc2+ 48.Kf1 Qc4+ 49.Kg2 fxe6 50.Rexe6 Qg4+ 51.Kf1 h5 52.Rxa6
h4 53.Re7+ Kh6 54.Re3 h3 55.Raa3 Qg2+ 56.Ke2 h2 57.Rh3+ Kg7 58.Ra7+ Kg8
59.Rah7 Qe4+ 60.Kd2 Qd4+ 61.Ke2 g5 62.R7h5 Qe4+ 63.Kd2 Qf4+ 64.Ke2 b4 65.
Rh8+ Kf7 66.Rf3 Kg7 67.Rfh3 Qe4+ 68.Kd2 Qd4+ 69.Kc2 Qxf2+ 70.Kb3 Qd4 71.
R3h7+ Kg6 1/2-1/2

```

Black might be better of by playing `9...cxd4` instead of `9...Nc6`, For example: Bronstein - Stahlberg:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Budapest Candidates"]
[Site "Budapest, HUN"]
[Date "1950.04.24"]
[EventDate "1950.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Gideon Stahlberg"]
[ECO "C13"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "92"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 c5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Nb5 O-O 9. Nc7 cxd4 10. Nxa8 f6 11. Qxd4 Nc6
12. Qd2 fxe5 13. O-O-O Nf6 14. f3 Qd6 15. Ne2 Bd7 16. Nc3 Rxa8
17. Ne4 Qe7 18. Nxf6+ Qxf6 19. Bb5 Nb8 20. Qb4 Bxb5 21. Qxb5
Qf7 22. c4 Nc6 23. cxd5 Nd4 24. Qd3 exd5 25. Rhf1 Qf4+ 26. Kb1
Rd8 27. g3 Qxg3 28. f4 Qxd3+ 29. Rxd3 Nc6 30. fxe5 Nxe5
31. Rd4 Nc6 32. Rdf4 Ne5 33. Rf5 Nc4 34. R1f2 d4 35. b3 d3
36. bxc4 d2 37. Rxd2 Rxd2 38. Rb5 b6 39. Re5 Rd4 40. c5 Rxh4
41. Re8+ Kf7 42. Ra8 Rb4+ 43. Ka1 bxc5 44. Rxa7+ Kf6 45. Ra5
g5 46. Rxc5 g4 0-1

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
I am a 2210 FIDE-rated player and I have played the French defence in tournaments as a primary defence to 1. e4 since I was a child. Although you may find gambit lines on the Black side in some variations (as many good answers here have shown), you will not be able to play such gambits unless White is cooperative and willing to play against them. The fact is just that there exist rather few reputable gambits for Black in the orthodox openings - the Marshall gambit in the Ruy Lupez being one of the exceptions. If you are a tactical player and like to sacrifice material, I recommend that instead of looking for questionable gambits, you aim for dynamic positions where tactical manuevers and sacrifices are likely to be an option in the middle game. The Flexible French by Moskalenko is a good reference.
> 5 votes

# Answer
There is a pawn sacrifice in the shown c5 line of the Tarrasch variation. Normally, it's temporary and black gets the c5 pawn back, but white can try to hang to it with moves like Nb3, Be3, ... although it's unlikely the best way to play the opening.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bb5+ Nc6 6. Qe2+ Be7 7. dxc5

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
When I was younger I used to investigate lines like :

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. dxc5 d4 6. Bb5+ Nc6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Ne4 Ba6

```

My conclusion was that Black have some nice ideas but not full compensation
> 0 votes

# Answer
My opponent played the following gambit against me in a correspondence game:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Ngf6 6.Qe2 c5 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Nf3 O-O 10.Bg5 e5

```

I accepted the gambit 11.Nxe5 and he continued 11...Re8. After 12. O-O-O Qb6 and a lot of analysis I followed the narrow path to an easy game: 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bxf6 Bxc4 15.Qxc4 Qxf6 16.Nxf7 Qxf7 17.Qxc5 Qxa2 18.Qd5+ Qxd5 19.Rxd5. Over the board it would have been easy for me to miss.

Stockfish gives 11...Qa5 as a better try, but then I think black will be playing for a draw.

Of course, like Sid mentioned in general, this is only a gambit if white plays it. Chess engines show castling as a better choice.
> 0 votes

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


title: Database without rapid and blitz games

text:
# Question
Title: Database without rapid and blitz games
Last years Mega Database is full of rapid and blitz games taken from live broadcast boards.

Is it possible to filter them out?

Are there other bases that have games only from long time controls?

I'd prefer to review long games only, so interesting novelty from your favorite player won't turn to be a game played in blitz game...

# Answer
Here's a sample PGN header (player names are skipped to protect the innocent):

```
[WhiteElo "2027"]
[BlackElo "2370"]
[BlackIsComp "Yes"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
[Date "1999.12.31"]
[Time "23:02:00"]
[WhiteClock "0:03:00.000"]
[BlackClock "0:03:00.000"]
[ECO "D00"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[Result "0-1"]

```

There's no consensus, which fields are supposed to be included, but as a safe bet, I'd recommend to look for "WhiteClock/BlackClock" as well as for "TimeControl" -- at least one of them is usually present, if not both at the same time.

"TimeControl" is basically easier to parse, but since it might be not included, you might want to process White/BlackClock as well, just to be safe.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: database, blitz, rapid
---


# Question
Title: Engine evaluating changing after making move suggested by engine
I've noticed that the engine (Stockfish 9) evaluates positions as significantly better for white if the evaluation is performed while white is on the move. The difference is sometimes more than half a point.

Someone else has noticed this phenomenon, and anyone has an idea what the reason is (It's not run time, as I've let the engine evaluate above 26 PLY in both cases).

To clarify: The intention here is NOT the same position, just switching who's on the move. I will examplify by the start position. Imagine evaluating it and the engine gives +0.7 and gives the 1. e4 e5. Then you make the move 1.e4 and let the engine evaluate again, and now it gives only +0.2 and recommends 1.. e5.

# Answer
> 2 votes
So, basically the answer is like this: Let's say the engine analyzes the start position at 30 PLY and recommends 1. e4 with a score of +0.7 for white. Once I made the move 1. e4 and let the engine analyze the new position to the same depth (29 PLY) it would well evaluate the position differently and give it a score of only +0.2. The reason for this is that the engine now examines more of the leafs starting with 1. e4 than it did from the start position (since it now disregards all branches starting with other first moves), and thus performs a deeper analysis (more leaves) of this branch even though it goes no further in number of moves.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Try to set 'contempt' to 0. Had the same problem, this solved it for me.

# Answer
> 5 votes
There's nothing surprising here. Chess engine is not perfect, as you make a move the evaluation will likely change:

* The engine now sees something not seen before
* The engine can now search deeper
* The engine's hash table has relevant entries

This's just how we play chess. Our positional assessment change as we make moves. If that's not the case, there's no need to play the game - we shout out win/loss/draw without making a move.

Hint: If you're using your engine for your game, you'll need to make some moves to get better assessment. Kramnik did that for his win against Aronian:

> The computer doesn’t show it at the beginning, but then once you put it in he starts to like it a lot.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/berlin-candidates-3-a-kramnik-immortal

Sorry, chess is a hard game.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Duplicating the game analysis output on lichess
I'd like to automatically generate move by move analysis (based on my past games) like they have on lichess for imported games. My guess is that I need to run a full stockfish analysis for each move (via UCI) and then glue those outputs together. I was just wondering if I was missing an easier way? Is there a "full" analysis option that let's you get all of the scoring/annotation in one go?

# Answer
If you know a little python or shell programming you could try and use uci for each move and grab stockfish output, I will try and see if I can get this sorted at some point and share the code.

If just being offline is your concern, then try the stockfish app, there is offline analysis.

Again, from a programming angle, there is trying to add such a feature to scid.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Stockfish, like the UCI protocol in general, does not have a single "annotate all" command.

From your question, you seem not to be interested in a GUI option like Chessbase or Scid, but instead in how to create a program of your own.

I've found that the script posted here: https://github.com/rpdelaney/python-chess-annotator provides a good start at a model. It's written in Python, which has a great chess library.

There are few tricks it uses. It makes two passes: the first to identify key moves, and the second to focus on those. It works backwards so that it will already know the evaluation of the move actually played when it is calculating the optimal move. It doesn't spend time evaluating ECO positions.

I can't guarantee that this is the best approach, but it seems to work.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are a few good approaches to your problem:

1. Upload your game to lichess, you'll get your computer analysis for free.
2. The software used to analyse games on lichess is fishnet, you may freely download it and try to figure out which parts can be used for your purpose.
3. CRAFTY -- this is well known chess engine, freely available everywhere, that can analyse your whole game. Once you have `crafty` started in the command line mode, just give it an `annotate my_game.pgn wb 1-999 0.5 2 5` command, the parameters are:

> my\_game.pgn -- your game file, "wb" -- if you want the analysis for White and/or Black, "1-999" -- the move range to analyse, "0.5" -- the score threshold, if the score change below that, the analysis is not printed -- this is used to make the engine to react to every small problem or to big blunders only, "2" is analysis time per move (in seconds), "5" -- the number of variations output.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, uci
---


# Question
Title: Plans for black in Pirc when white responds to e5 with d5
Intuitively I would think that this line should just be a better (for black) version of the usual Mar Del Plata KID, seeing that the white c pawn is less advanced and the knight is somewhat passively placed on d2, and that black therefore should simply go on with the usual f5 push. However, in the few practical games I've had, this has not worked out for me so well, and I see the engine is actually recommending c6 (after many logical next moves from white), which strikes me as a tad odd position ally. Is there somehow something in this position that makes the f5 plan less attractive than in the Mar Del Plata?

```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp1npbp/3p1np1/3Pp3/4P3/2PB1N2/PP1N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 1 9"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Nbd2 O-O 6. Bc4 Nc6 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Ne7

```

# Answer
Engines don't like philosophy behind KID and if they are forced to play KID, they play c6 there all day long too. Here it's quite similar. You can play for both plans but I see nothing wrong with the f5 ideas. It seems to be much better version of main line KID.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: kings-indian, planning, pirc-defense, modern-defense
---


# Question
Title: LICHESS analysis, why did it propose this outrageous move?
I was playing a game on lichess, and afterwards asked for a computer analysis, where instead of my perfectly fine move `XX` the computer insisted on another better move `YY`, why is that, how can I understand why this another move is better and why I should not play the move I have originally chosen?

I don't see the evaluation score, just the message "Best move is `YY`", how can I get evaluations and compare my move with the proposed one?

I have tried other chess programs and some of them have recommended my move `XX` as the best, so it cannot be a total mistake, still lichess analysis does not agree. What should I do and where should I look to understand what's going on?

# Answer
> 7 votes
**TL;DR: Unless your move was marked as "Mistake" or "Blunder" with the significant material loss, you should not worry much about that.**

I don't mean you have to ignore everything that computer says, but there are different ways to play chess, and your way may be not as bad as computer thinks. Here are a few points you might want to keep in mind.

1. The computer analysis is a very time and resource consuming process. What you get on lichess is a bit conservative ("Contempt" parameter is quite low), quick (limited time) assessment of your game, that's supposed to shed the light on the moves where you have lost 0.5 pawn or more. It's deliberately tuned down to avoid risky variants you might be trying to play -- hence the difference in position evaluation.
2. "We need to go deeper...", once you've got a questionable move as better alternative, you may want to analyse this particular position at full depth. Assuming you're already in analysis window, choose the particular position and move slider to start the analysis on the local computer (see the pic.)

Once the computer analysis has started, you'll see the number of PV lines in the upper right corner about the game notation (PV lines are NOT visible when you just scroll through your game, you have to turn the analysis ON).

Two most important pieces of information you get here are position scores and moves beyond the one played/proposed. The score difference in this case is negligible (less than 0.1 pawn), making top 3 moves approximately equally good, with one of them slightly better than others. Let the analysis run, it usually takes a minute or more, see how the top lines are changing their position and scores.

Once analysis reaches depth 22, it stops. This is considered "deep enough for most purposes". If you want to go deeper, click blue `+` sign next to the "Depth 22/22". Going beyond depth 22 takes quite a time, try to used that on a relatively fast PC, not on your tables or phone, unless you want to wait for hours.

Finally, here are some common patterns:

1. Move `XX` might be not better or worse than move `YY`, with the deeper analysis you'll see the scores getting equal.
2. Move `YY` might appear in the variations as the one of the next moves, being an answer to the threat that's not really visible right now.
3. Move `XX` and `YY` have approximately equal evaluation and constantly change places in the `best variation`

---
Tags: engines, analysis, stockfish, lichess
---


title: How did I go wrong?! Embarassing Loss

text:
# Question
Title: How did I go wrong?! Embarassing Loss
this is a recent online game I played. I'm usually about an 1800 USCF player, but I had this very disappointing loss to a 1400 level player. Stronger players might look at this sub-par game and wonder how an 1800 could play so weakly, so no, it's not my best chess achievement! I've added my annotations and thoughts during the game, and would appreciate if some players could offer advice on my gaps in my strategy and positional understanding. Also, please don't just dump out engine analysis! Thanks!!

```

[FEN ""]
[White "Me"]
[Black "?"]
[whiteelo "1800"]
[blackelo "1425"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 {1. e4 e5 is generally one of the holes in my white
repertoire.  I haven't found any good resources on playing the Italian game for
white, so most of my knowledge is based on master games and experience.} 3...
Be7 {I rarely face this move in practice, and I have no special preparation for
it, so I decided to meet it by expanding in the center.} 4. d4 {In retrospect, I
have concerns that this setup leaves my centre too vulnerable, and I'm imaging
that 4. d3 serves me better.} 4... d6 5. O-O (5. dxe5 {I'm wasn't sure wheather
or not is wise to continue in this fashion.  My development seems slightly
beter, but I'm not the tpye of player to allow early queen exchanges.} 5... dxe5
6. Qxd8+ Bxd8 7. O-O) (5. Nc3 {Also seems like a logical move, strengthening my
centre.}) 5... Nf6 {I am already beginning to sense that my e4 and d4 squares
are way too loose, especially with ...Bg4 coming.} 6. Re1 {Sadly, I played this
move to defend my e4 pawn, feeling that I didn't have time in the current
position to develop my c1-bishop and b1-knight.  Perhaps 6. Nc3 was a much more
principled choice.} 6... Bg4 {This move now comes with a lot of force, and it
suddenly feels difficult to break the pin and defend the d4 square.} 7. d5 {This
seems like a very questionable decision to me, but I felt that it was necessary
to avoid losing a pawn.} (7. Be3 {I rejected this move immediately.} 7... Nxe4)
(7. c3 exd4 8. cxd4 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 {This looks too weakening to me, but should I
be considering this to play on the g-file?}) 7... Nd4 8. Nbd2 {My feeling during
the game was that this move is forced.} 8... O-O 9. h3 {Pushing the h-pawn gives
me a permanent kingside weakness that matters later in the game, although it
didn't occur to me at this point in time.} 9... Nxf3+ (9... Bh5 10. g4) (9...
Bxf3 10. Nxf3) 10. Nxf3 Bd7 {This move surprised, but it seems that black is
shifting his focus to breaking up my centre with moves like ...c6.} (10... Bh5
{I expected black to continue with this move, followed by a plan involving
...Ne8 and ...f5.}) 11. Nh2 {I played this move quickly and felt that it was
vital for me to break with f2-f4 at some point.  With the central pawn structure
however, it seems that white should be seeking play on the queenside while black
should be playing on the kingside.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if this
was a strategic turning point in the wrong direction.  Maybe I should be playing
for b2-b4 and c2-c4-c5 instead.} 11... Qc8 12. Bf1 {I played this move in order
to prevent any tricks on h3 and meet ...c6 with c4.  After a second look, I'm
wonder if ...Bxh3 is ever a concern anyways.} 12... c6 13. c4 Ne8 {Expanding
with ...f5 seems like a better idea than breaking up the centre with ...c6, so
I'm surprised black didn't play this already.} 14. f4 {Once again, it's unclear
whether or not playing on this side of the board favours me.  Meanwhile, I've
been neglecting the development of my c1-bishop, and hardly any of my pieces are
off the back rank.} 14... f5 {I was expecting something more along the lines of
14...f6 since 14...f5 allows me to open the e-file for my rook.} 15. exf5 ({I
spent a short time analyzing.} 15. c5 cxd5 {I thought that black's attack on the
c5-square would prove to be a problem.} 16. cxd6 Bxd6 17. fxe5 Bc5+ 18. Be3
Bxe3+ 19. Rxe3 dxe4 20. Rc3 Bc6 21. Bc4+ {This line actually doesn't look too
bad for white, but I feel that there isn't enough compensation for the pawn.
 Again, maybe I'm missing something big in this line.}) 15... Bxf5 {It's hard
for black to deal with the e-file weakness, but at the same time, my queenside
bishop and rook are useless pieces.} 16. fxe5 dxe5 17. Rxe5 Bd6 {Black's
regrouping moves start coming with tempo due to the loss in time that I
incurred by capturing the e5-pawn.} 18. Re1 Qc7 19. Nf3 {I was targeting the d4
square, so I didn't decide to play 19. Ng4.} 19... Nf6 20. Nd4 Bc5 21. Kh1 {Why
didn't I play a simple developing move like Be3?  During the game, I played Kh1
immediately.} (21. Be3 Bd7 (21... Bxd4 22. Qxd4 Rad8 23. Bf4 Qd7 24. d6 {And
white also seems in control.}) 22. Ne6 Bxe3+ 23. Rxe3 Bxe6 24. dxe6 {Looks
dominating for white.}) 21... Ne4 {But I suddenly gave gaping weaknesses on the
dark squares due to my struture and lack of development of the c1-bishop.  This
forces 22. Rxe4 I believe.} 22. Rxe4 Bxe4 23. Ne6 Qd6 24. Nxf8 {I thought for a
long time to make this move, hoping to find some play against g7, but I don't
think there was anything.} ({Looking back, I realize that I never considered
this move.} 24. Nxc5 {probably due to the loss of material.  Since my dark
squares are so weak, it makes more sense that black's dark squared bishop is
more powerful than any other rook or minor piece on the board.}) 24... Rxf8 25.
a3 {This is a ridiculous move to me, but I thought my only play was in
disturbing the bishop with b4. It's a little difficult to suggest an alternative,
but maybe 25. Bd2 so I can meet 25...Qg3 with 26. Qg4.  Although now, at the
time of writing this, I realise that black simple mates white with 26.  Rxf1+
27. Rxf1 Bxg2#} 25... Bb6 26. c5 {Total desperation, but this move makes no
difference in the dark-square domination.} 26... Qxc5 27. Be2 Qf2 28. Bf3 Rxf3 0-1

```

Also, sorry, I'm new to this site. Not sure how to format the PGN for the viewer.

# Answer
Enclose the game with the {} icon pre-formatted text.

```

[FEN ""]
[White "Me"]
[Black "?"]
[whiteelo "1800"]
[blackelo "1425"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 {1. e4 e5 is generally one of the holes in my white
repertoire.  I haven't found any good resources on playing the Italian game for
white, so most of my knowledge is based on master games and experience.} 3...
Be7 {I rarely face this move in practice, and I have no special preparation for
it, so I decided to meet it by expanding in the center.} 4. d4 {In retrospect, I
have concerns that this setup leaves my centre too vulnerable, and I'm imaging
that 4. d3 serves me better.} 4... d6 5. O-O (5. dxe5 {I'm wasn't sure whether
or not is wise to continue in this fashion.  My development seems slightly
better, but I'm not the type of player to allow early queen exchanges.} 5... dxe5
6. Qxd8+ Bxd8 7. O-O) (5. Nc3 {Also seems like a logical move, strengthening my
centre.}) 5... Nf6 {I am already beginning to sense that my e4 and d4 squares
are way too loose, especially with ...Bg4 coming.} 6. Re1 {Sadly, I played this
move to defend my e4 pawn, feeling that I didn't have time in the current
position to develop my c1-bishop and b1-knight.  Perhaps 6. Nc3 was a much more
principled choice.} 6... Bg4 {This move now comes with a lot of force, and it
suddenly feels difficult to break the pin and defend the d4 square.} 7. d5 {This
seems like a very questionable decision to me, but I felt that it was necessary
to avoid losing a pawn.} (7. Be3 {I rejected this move immediately.} 7... Nxe4)
(7. c3 exd4 8. cxd4 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 {This looks too weakening to me, but should I
be considering this to play on the g-file?}) 7... Nd4 8. Nbd2 {My feeling during
the game was that this move is forced.} 8... O-O 9. h3 {Pushing the h-pawn gives
me a permanent kingside weakness that matters later in the game, although it
didn't occur to me at this point in time.} 9... Nxf3+ (9... Bh5 10. g4) (9...
Bxf3 10. Nxf3) 10. Nxf3 Bd7 {This move surprised, but it seems that black is
shifting his focus to breaking up my centre with moves like ...c6.} (10... Bh5
{I expected black to continue with this move, followed by a plan involving
...Ne8 and ...f5.}) 11. Nh2 {I played this move quickly and felt that it was
vital for me to break with f2-f4 at some point.  With the central pawn structure
however, it seems that white should be seeking play on the queenside while black
should be playing on the kingside.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if this
was a strategic turning point in the wrong direction.  Maybe I should be playing
for b2-b4 and c2-c4-c5 instead.} 11... Qc8 12. Bf1 {I played this move in order
to prevent any tricks on h3 and meet ...c6 with c4.  After a second look, I'm
wonder if ...Bxh3 is ever a concern anyways.} 12... c6 13. c4 Ne8 {Expanding
with ...f5 seems like a better idea than breaking up the centre with ...c6, so
I'm surprised black didn't play this already.} 14. f4 {Once again, it's unclear
whether or not playing on this side of the board favours me.  Meanwhile, I've
been neglecting the development of my c1-bishop, and hardly any of my pieces are
off the back rank.} 14... f5 {I was expecting something more along the lines of
14...f6 since 14...f5 allows me to open the e-file for my rook.} 15. exf5 ({I
spent a short time analyzing.} 15. c5 cxd5 {I thought that black's attack on the
c5-square would prove to be a problem.} 16. cxd6 Bxd6 17. fxe5 Bc5+ 18. Be3
Bxe3+ 19. Rxe3 dxe4 20. Rc3 Bc6 21. Bc4+ {This line actually doesn't look too
bad for white, but I feel that there isn't enough compensation for the pawn.
 Again, maybe I'm missing something big in this line.}) 15... Bxf5 {It's hard
for black to deal with the e-file weakness, but at the same time, my queenside
bishop and rook are useless pieces.} 16. fxe5 dxe5 17. Rxe5 Bd6 {Black's
regrouping moves start coming with tempo due to the loss in time that I
incurred by capturing the e5-pawn.} 18. Re1 Qc7 19. Nf3 {I was targeting the d4
square, so I didn't decide to play 19. Ng4.} 19... Nf6 20. Nd4 Bc5 21. Kh1 {Why
didn't I play a simple developing move like Be3?  During the game, I played Kh1
immediately.} (21. Be3 Bd7 (21... Bxd4 22. Qxd4 Rad8 23. Bf4 Qd7 24. d6 {And
white also seems in control.}) 22. Ne6 Bxe3+ 23. Rxe3 Bxe6 24. dxe6 {Looks
dominating for white.}) 21... Ne4 {But I suddenly gave gaping weaknesses on the
dark squares due to my structure and lack of development of the c1-bishop.  This
forces 22. Rxe4 I believe.} 22. Rxe4 Bxe4 23. Ne6 Qd6 24. Nxf8 {I thought for a
long time to make this move, hoping to find some play against g7, but I don't
think there was anything.} ({Looking back, I realize that I never considered
this move.} 24. Nxc5 {probably due to the loss of material.  Since my dark
squares are so weak, it makes more sense that black's dark squared bishop is
more powerful than any other rook or minor piece on the board.}) 24... Rxf8 25.
a3 {This is a ridiculous move to me, but I thought my only play was in
disturbing the bishop with b4. It's a little difficult to suggest an alternative,
but maybe 25. Bd2 so I can meet 25...Qg3 with 26. Qg4.  Although now, at the
time of writing this, I realise that black simple mates white with 26.  Rxf1+
27. Rxf1 Bxg2#} 25... Bb6 26. c5 {Total desperation, but this move makes no
difference in the dark-square domination.} 26... Qxc5 27. Be2 Qf2 28. Bf3 Rxf3 0-1

```
3. The Italian game is easy to play, but difficult to get any advantage. The Max Lange Attack is a better opening.
4. Be7 is the Hungarian. It is best to open the center, or castle first, as black's pieces are passive.
5. dxe5 allows black to equalize. Nc3, d5, and c3 are the best moves. The problem with d5 is that the closed center helps the weaker side, even though this does gain space. I would play Bb5 then d5 becomes a threat.
6. Nc3 is the correct move. Even Qd3 would be better.
7. Opening the g-file doesn't help before black castles. Although it fails in this position, Bb5 and sacing the d4 pawn to open the center is often good.
8. Be2 is better. Due to the Nxd4 threat, e4 is secure. The LSB is a bad bishop, so Nxe2+ isn't all that good.
9. h3 is normally a weakening move, especially if the kings have castled on opposite sides. c3, kicking the knight, is a safer move. If you notice, this isn't the weakening move, f4 is.
10. Bd7 saves black's good bishop. Bh5 may be bad after g4 and clamping down on f5. Black would, in effect, be playing without a bishop when white breaks open the queenside.
11. Yes, white should be playing on the queenside. Even if you have to play f4, you must take care to recapture with a pawn to prevent e5 from becoming a hole.
12. Bxh3 isn't a threat yet, because black doesn't have enough material to conduct an attack. After an f5 break, black will have a rook attacking and may have enough.
13. c4 maintains the "cramping" pawn, but I prefer dxc6 first. The pressure on d6 if better than the space advantage.
14. Absolutely right. g4 clamping down on f5 is an interesting move. Be3 must be played soon, however Bd3 to, not stop f5, but to recapture on e4 with a piece is playable.
15. ...f6 allows 15. f5 and a blockade on the white squares. Does it look like either black bishop will do anything? 15(var). The final position: you're down a pawn, e5 is really weak, and black has a protected passed pawn. The position look lost to me. On move 17, instead of fxe5, Qxd5+ keeps the material even, but black, being better developed, has a better game.
16. I agree. On move 17, you should play dxc6 first. With the d-pawn gone, playing Bd6 is bad due to Rxe8.
17. Although your dark squares are weak, my first thought is the play Rxf5.
18. This is the best move, not for control of d4, but Ng4 loses a protector of the dark squares.

I just answered your questions. If you want deeper notes just ask.
> 5 votes

# Answer
From a theoretical/concrete point of view:

That late Kh1 is definitely your losing move of the game (only counting what your opponent exploited; you had other bad moves earlier in the game as well like Nd4 itself because of Bh2+, which he didn't exploit). I understand the idea; you want to unpin the knight and everything. So instead of Kh1, if you want to unpin the knight then you should play Be3 (the engine recommends b4 by the way but Be3 is almost just as strong at +0.80 for White). This makes more sense because not only you're developing your last piece, but also the c5 bishop is a CRITICAL POINT. We can categorize CRITICAL POINTS by a handful of guidelines:

1. Pieces or pawns with the same number of attackers and defenders on it.
2. Unprotected pieces
3. The king is always a critical point
4. In caters where there are weaknesses and stuff, squares and where pieces are scattered or lack harmony.

The bishop on c5 is a critical point because it is unprotected, and by playing Be3 which x-rays the bishop on c5, it gives Black problems to solve. For example, you are already threatening Nxf5 (the f5 bishop is another example of a critical point). I think the engine recommends b4 because it is the absolute concrete way to exploit this critical point.

My chess coach told me that out of 90 of his students in his life time, only 12 followed the concept of critical points and used them. They all became masters, and most everyone else who didn't follow and use critical points never got a title. Critical points are a very important concept in chess for trying to put pressure in a position.

Another important concept is critical constructions. These are basically files or diagonals or ranks where there are 2 pieces of opposition or like a lot of pieces on that one file. This is good for taking forks in the account as well as pins and interference tactics and stuff.

So yeah, critical points = for positional play, and critical constructions = for tactical play.

What i'm getting at, is that with the king on h1, it becomes more of a critical construction. Ne4 was good by Black, of course, and the threat is Nf2+, forking. Kh1 makes the 1st rank more of a critical critical construction, when instead you could have met the critical construction on the c5-g1 diagonal with simply Be3 (or the engine idea b4).

Yeah then after that, it is very hard to defend. People crack down when they defend... (i.e. Nxf8 which loses because of the strong threat of Qg3 threatening Qxh3#. But with the knight on e6, you attack the c5 bishop so that you can take c5 and meet Qxh3+ with Kg1. The knight on e6 also just covers a lot of squares and can be used as a defensive resource in other means, such as blocking files).

So yeah Kh1 was your main problem because it put you in a position where you had to sacrifice an exchange only to give Black an abnormally strong attacking position, one that is totally defenseless if you're made of carbon and not silicon.

From a practical point of view:

You could have definitely punished Black's early Be7 better. Be7 is really passive and stupid because of d4, which is what you did, and good job for that (Bc5 prevents d4, well OF COURSE :P). But when you castled, instead you could have played d5 instead of castling when he played d6 (because the knight has to retreat to b8 or b4 since there is no e7 square for the knight, since the bishop takes it up). After castling, you're fine but Bg4 makes it kind of tricky and creates you some problems; it screws up certain attractive plans related to attacking the kingside, that you might have wanted to set up.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The big blunder of the game is 14.f4?. There may have been less-ideal moves before that one, as the other answers have suggested, but the f4 push is the move that swung the game in your opponent's favor.

When White has a pawn chain of e4-d5 and Black meets it with d6-e5, as you see in openings like this one or the King's Indian, a lot of middle-ranked players will go for that f4 push, thinking that blowing open the center helps them. They're often wrong. Pushing f4 leaves the e4-pawn without another pawn to support it, which your opponent immediately exploited by playing f5. It also weakens the dark squares around your king and leaves you vulnerable to opposing pieces on the a7-g1 diagonal, which also happened in the game.

Lesson: if your opponent's position is cramped, it might seem tempting to open up the center, but it can also allow his pieces to gain activity.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I don't disagree with others comments but these are the points that scream out to me:

You didn't play a good opening but were let off by your opponent's strange Bd7 decision and are now fine. Your queen-side is completely undeveloped so as a matter of absolute urgency we need to complete our development so you ... move an already developed piece from a good square to a worse one? Not just bad but baffling. Develop!

After some reasonable reactive moves you have a free hand again on move 14. Your queen-side is crying out for development but now you play the move f4. The move's fine on positional grounds but there's a huge problem playing it here. How can you be so insensitive to the fact that all your pieces are undeveloped? Four of them are on their starting squares and the knight on h2 is hardly any better. Any opening of the position must favour Black.

Rxe5 was your last chance to develop something but you grabbed a pawn instead. After 19 .. Nf6 Black's position is very promising with a direct assault imminent. It's probably too late but you have another chance to develop a piece and ... you move the knight again ... away from your king ... and walk into a pin for good measure.

You seem to have no sense of urgency about developing your pieces. The sad final position with your Rook, Bishop and Queen still unmoved illustrates this. Make developing an absolute priority otherwise you're just playing with half your army.
> 1 votes

# Answer
In short I would say that you made more pawn moves than piece moves which is never advisable.

1. Your Q-side fails short of development .
2. The Queen/Bishop on c1/Rook on a1 did not move until the end of the game.
3. The f4 pawn move on move 14th was just a blunder. You must develop pieces instead of being just too ambitious.

I will say this sort of games should be encouraged more in this forums where you would constantly learn more insights from others.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think 5.O-O is already a bit inaccurate - it's premature to castle here. 5.Nc3 is the way to go. It's better to delay castling so that, if necessary, white can chase off a black bishop with h3/g4 and then castle queenside.

After 5.Nc3, if Black wants to play ...Bg4, he has to do it immediately, because otherwise after 5...Nf6 white plays 6.h3 followed by O-O and a4, and has no problems at all.

After 5... Bg4, there is no knight on f6, so white can kick the bishop immediately with 6.h3 - after 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3, black cannot capture on d4 because of the mate threat on f7. 6...Bh5 is met by 7.d5, and if 7...Nd4, 8.g4 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Bg6 10.Bb5+ causes black some problems. So Black probably has to do something like 7...Nb8.

All of these are much better for white than the game continuation.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: What are the best scoring openings in Chess960?
I don't play Chess960, or Fischer Chess as it is also known. I've seen a lecture or two about it, but I was never interested.

Last week I was a bit bored so I decided to participate in a tournament on chess.com. By mistake I joined a Chess960 tournament, but didn't want to resign. It's an online game so I wanted to have some fun.

I'm unrated in Chesss960 because I never play it. I played against players rated 1400+ and they beat me. I tried to apply the normal chess principles but it did ‘t work.

Here is one Chess960 position that I’ve mulled over.

```
[FEN "rnnkbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNNKBQRB w - - 0 1"]

```

For example, I've come to the conclusion that the best opening move, if you're white, is “g3” or “g4,” so the bishop and the queen can move, along with the rook later.

I think the knights are not as important and there's no need to develop them so quickly because the bishops are too strong. You're never gonna be able to control the center of board, especially if the opponent decides to play with the queen after 1... g3.

The knight on b1 is useless and the rook on a1 is in constant danger, and I don't know how to save it. I can't waste time developing the knights in order to bring the rook to a better place. By then the opponent will control the board.

Castling on the king side is a mistake. That's if you have time to castle. This game is very aggressive and maybe the best way is to keep attacking.

All that is what I think about the game. Maybe I’m wrong since I don't like it and I’m not used to it. I don't know any openings. I try to analyze each position, and the next thing know, I'm checkmated. I try to develop into a familiar position, but the bishops and the queen are not letting me take a breath!

The openings I read about are easy on paper but when you play the game it's very different, or maybe my opponents are too aggressive.

Can someone could tell me some of the best practices and openings are in Chess960 for a player who plays regular chess? I don't need to be a pro at it, I just want to play for fun!

# Answer
> 15 votes
I have found the trickiest part about playing 960 is the opening. So many possibilities! But, since the major pieces are random for every game it is unlikely you'll come across the same setup frequently enough to recognize some opening. So I say ditch trying to create one and stick with tried and true chess opening principles: Control the center, try not to move the same piece twice, limit king exposure.

After playing more games you'll come to find the endgame is familiar which shouldn't be too surprising - the board is still 8x8 after all.

# Answer
> 6 votes
First, it is hard to say, what I should play, because the moves are depending to 90% on the moves from the opponent.

I would play `e4` and `d4` with `Nc3` and `Nd3`. From there, the knights are looking over the complete centre, which is very convenient. Maybe also `f4` and `g3` for activating the bishop and afterwards `Bf2` to cover the pawn on `d4`. In the beginning, I would stay in the middle with the king.

`B2` may be a potential weak point.

# Answer
> 5 votes
First, as others have already pointed out, there are 960 different starting positions in chess 960. Normally when you play a 960 tournament on chess.com it will be the same opening in the entire tournament. However, it is important to realize that after this tournament if you choose to play 960 again you might never have this opening position ever again.

That put aside I will put in my thoughts on the exact opening position you have played. Here it makes sense to play g2-g4 to open for the already fianchettoed Bh1. Here, at some point you will have to move the g pawn at some point, otherwise your bishop will never get into the game. Probably an early f2-f4 as well.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I find that in many 960 starting positions there tends to be a weak square (pawn) that may have no protection at all, I look for that first. I play quite a bit of 960 mixed with normal chess and find that controlling the center with central and flank pawns (to release a queen or whatever you need to). This game is quite aggressive, and attacking first will work many times, but you do have to make sure you have enough pieces available to actually pull off a mate or you will just be resigning quickly. I like to control the center and delay castling until your opponent has committed to a side of the board then either leave my king where it is, and just attack, or castle to the opposite side and ruin his plan. It really ends up turning into regular chess after a few moves in the beginning. Once you castle and get your pieces out, it will just look like a complicated regular chess game. I find that there are many opportunities to pull off forking tactics to at least win an exchange. It's really a chance for tactics all over the place, and at any moment, much more than regular chess. You really need to watch what your opponent is trying to get going and to stop what he's up to. Be very aware of the squares that could fork your own pieces.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I use the general principles that I use in normal chess.

1. Find the weak squares and plan around those squares. Here b7 starts off weak and, of course, the squares around the king--if castled or not.
2. Find good squares for your pieces. The bishops are the hardest to develop, so start with them. Here the LSB has only one out, therefore that one's easy to find the good squares. The DSB is harder as it could be useful on h2-b8 or on a1-h8. On the h2-b8, it seems that a pawn would block one of the bishops, therefore the other diagonal is better.
3. Control the center. Placing pawns there and controlling with the pieces is always a good idea. I would think in terms of playing c4 and d3 to complement my LSB.
4. King safety. The king should be tucked away in the corner to protect itself from danger. With the aforementioned pawn moves, the queen side seems a little airy, but it's easier than moving the queen out of the way to castle on the king side.

I'm just curious, but what 960 opening did you study. There are 960 possible starting positions, so there's not likely any fixed opening except for the one that is the standard chess setup.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, chess-variants, chess960
---


# Question
Title: Can someone explain to me how I can develop my tactical ability, and what type of practice I should do?
How do I develop tactical ability and what procedures help to develop it?

How can I improve my chess?

# Answer
Depending of where you are right now, there are a few steps, you may feel free to skip, if you think you've already good at that.

1. Get a good beginners' book, that explains basic stuff, pins, forks, discover checks and everything. Work on this book for a week, until you grasp the few general concepts most combinations are based on. Solve all puzzles and answer all questions from that book, those might be "too easy", but it has to be done.
2. Get some application on your phone, become a member on lichess, maybe some other web sites, that offer chess puzzles for you to solve. Most important are applications, because they are more interactive and have a few crucial features that most web sites don't.
3. Get solving.
4. Track your progress.

---

Things you have to look for in apps/websites that will make your live easier:

1. Adaptive puzzle level, that tracks your score and does not bore you with simple problems, and at the same time does not start from 2200+ level hardcore stuff.
2. Various puzzles, including "mate-in-XX", and more broad "find the best move..." type of things. From where I sit, ALL problems have to be of the second kind, where you don't know if you're looking for a mate or just little material, like in the real game.
3. Preinstalled engine, that allows you to play any puzzle from any move, see what computer response is, learn from it. Sometimes puzzles can be not very obvious and / or have more that one variation you have to think about.
4. The ability to get a hint, and the ability to continue solving the puzzle once you made a mistake. Apps are a bit better in this aspect, than web sites.

---

What would I recommend? From the web sites -- lichess, they don't have pre-canned bunch of stale puzzles, they analyse the fresh games and make new puzzles from every blunder or mistake people make -- it's very refreshing, and with their 3+ million game database they'll never run out of puzzles.

iPhone/iPad apps -- don't know, maybe others will chime in.

Android -- I used "Chess Tactic Puzzles" (totally free) and "Chess Tactics Pro" (contains ads) -- these are two different apps from the different authors. Both include built-in engine for the analysis. "lichess" (free) has an app as well.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I would recommend chesstempo.com . This site had the best tactical puzzles I have seen, and I've seen quite a few as a 2200+ player.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Thoughts on the Robatsch (Modern) Defense?
I heard from `IM Andrew Martin` that if you are unsure what to play as `Black`, you should play the following moves no matter what `White` plays (not sure I agree with him saying no matter what `White` plays though). Those moves are `g6`, `Bg7`, and `c5` with the idea of opening up the `c` file and bringing your Queen out to `a5` or `b6`. Has anyone had any success with this approach? He specifically didn't mention the `Robatsch (Modern) defense`, but that is initially what this appears to be.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
There is a whole book about this system, *The Sniper: Play 1...g6, ...Bg7 and ...c5!* by FM Charlie Storey, published by Everyman. It has gotten mixed reviews on Amazon and on the ChessPublishing forums.

# Answer
> 2 votes
That's pretty much a slightly worse version of the (Hyper) Accelerated Dragon. 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 (but instead of playing cxd4 you play Bg7). The Modern Defense/Pirc is most likely just an inferior version of the Sicilian. Black would ideally like to play c5 and cxd4 in most cases anyway, but could be making it more difficult for himself to do so (white has extra options with dxc5 or d5 now when black pushes c5). But in practice Modern/Pirc is still playable because delaying c5 (or omitting it) could avoid some potentially early sharp lines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As a practioner of the Modern myself, I must say I believe this is a clear over-simplification. The line with 3.. c5 is sometimes not the optimal. For example, when white plays 3. Nf3 then 3.. c5 which invites 4. dxc5 as per the below makes for a game that's not easy to play for black.

```
[FEN "rnb1k1nr/pp1pppbp/6p1/2q5/4P3/N1P2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 1 6"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 c5 4. dxc5 Qa5+
5. c3 Qxc5 6. Na3

```

Here, it's better to stay flexible and play 3.. d6, and then if white plays 4. Nc3, it's possible to play 4.. a6, or of course to transpose to the Pirc with 4. Nf6.

---
Tags: opening, learning, modern-defense
---


title: What is alternative to Zobrist hashing?

text:
# Question
Title: What is alternative to Zobrist hashing?
Zobrist hashing is very good method save position but it is not good to read position - is any good alternative to this algorithm which allow to store and restore position with minimum of bits.

For sure FEN is good to store position but it no the best representation using bits. I found that I can store position with use 202 without move count and half move count which is not need for position analysis (or not very important).

Zorbist use 64 bits as I remember.

# Answer
If you are looking for a way to restore the original position back, you need something totally unlike Zobrist, because the main goals when constructing a hashing algorithm are absolutely opposite to what you want:

1. A hash should fit into the computer representation of an integer (32 bits or 64 bits, or, maybe in the future, 128 bits). Anything beyond that slows down things considerably.
2. Hashes for the similar positions (which tend to arise during the game at the approximately same time) should be as different as possible to avoid hash collisions that, again, impact the performance.

So, basically, you don't have enough bits for the full representation, and even if you had, the use of easy-reversible conversion will harm the quality of the hashing and will slow down the engine.

Not sure, why you need this, but if you need to store positions somewhere, I'd recommend to use a `dictionary` or a `map`, that maps the Zobrist value to the FEN string or something similar. Maps have O(1) access time, so it's going to be quite fast, and you're only limited by the amount of memory.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: programming, chess-algorithms
---


title: Chess Engine Opening book

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Engine Opening book
I'm trying to evaluate the differences between Opening books.

For example: Have Fritz 12 Book and Rybka Aquarium (CTG format). For many of the standard openings. I've tried with at least main lines of a. QGD b. QGAcc c. Nimzo Qc2 d. Caro Capablanca

So far I couldn't find any differences between these 2 and have gone as deep as 17–20 moves in some lines. How do these two contrast?

# Answer
It's very unlikely you'll be able to compare opening books just by playing against them. Main lines will be approximately same in all books, what you really want to see is how "wide" these books are, do they contain only a few main lines, or plenty of variations as well.

The easiest way to do that would be to convert the books back to the readable (PGN?) format and see how many different games are included for a particular opening.

Might be easier to do that using some software than comparing by hand. Even better if the software can read the books directly, this way you don't lose any information while converting books to .PGN format, but you'll have to be able to program for that to happen, because I don't know any ready-to-use software for the books comparison.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, fritz
---


# Question
Title: French (white) loss to a master - where could I have improved?
```

[FEN ""]
[Date "6/16/2018"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "2286"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Be2 f6 10. O-O fxe5 11. Nxe5 cxd4 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bxd4 c5 14. Bf2 Rb8 15. Rab1 Qa5 16. a3 d4 17. Ne4 Qxd2 18. Nxd2 Rxf4 19. Rfe1 Rf6 20. Bg3 Rb6 21. Nc4 Ra6 22. Ne5 Rb6 23. Nc4 Rc6 24. Na5 Rb6 25. Bc7 e5 26. Bc4+ Kf8 27. Bxb6 axb6 28. Nb3 Bb7 29. Bb5 Rg6 30. Bxd7 Rxg2+ 31. Kf1 Rxh2 32. Nc1 Bh4 33. Nd3 Bf3 34. Nf2 Rxf2+ 35. Kg1 Rg2+ 36. Kh1 Bg3 0-1

```

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2286

I felt that I was much better in this game and let some big tactics slip in the end. I have a few questions and few annotations here. Feel free to address the following points or anything else that jumps out as important throughout the game:

* I know that 9.Be2 is a common move, but at some point I felt that 9.dxc5 or 10.dxc5 should have been played to sidestep this pressure that black exerts with 9...f6 and 10...fxe5. I also found a repertoire book for white recommending 9.dxc5.
* 11.fxe5 looked like it was dropping a pawn with the threats of ...d4 forking or ...Bc5 pinning the white queen.
* 12.Nxc6 seems like the only way out, but seems to gradually strengthen black's center. So, this points to 10.O-O as possibly dubious.
* I couldn't find anything better than 16.a3 (can you?). In many scenarios after ...d4 I could either drop the a2 pawn or the f4 pawn after an exchange of queens, and I figured I'd have counterplay on the h2-b8 diagonal if the f4 pawn falls.
* 19.Bg3 seemed not as strong to me due to black's ability to exchange rooks, and I also wanted to exert some pressure on the e-file.
* After 20...Rb6, black's rook seems like it's starting to run out of squares. Perhaps black should consider giving back the pawn with 20...e5 21.Bc4+ Kh8 22.Bxe5 Nxe5 23.Rxe5, simultaneously eliminating white's powerful bishop.
* With 23.Nc4, I couldn't find much better than a repetition, and was wondering if my higher rated opponent would risk the game in order to avoid it.
* I felt that 24.Na5 through 28.Nb3 were more or less forced moves.
* I felt 29.Bb5 was strong to encourage an exchange of bishops with ...Bc6, but my opponent went for 29...Rg6!?.
* I think 30.Bxd7 was a blunder. I think I saw a defense that wasn't there. This is a common thing for me to do in the past, seeing a defense that wasn't there (whether I'm on the attacking or defending side). I'm pretty sure I have the ability to calculate/use intuition to see how dangerous taking this knight is, but I felt in this situation it may have been more of a psychological mistake as well as I had an advantageous position against someone 400 points higher than me. Afterwards, he said he thought I was winning before this.
* With 32.Nc1 I wanted to somehow hold everything together with Nd3 and also purposely block in the b1 rook to avoid some eventual skewer tactics. Everything else I was calculating ran into some other problem. Maybe 32.Kg1 instead?
* And after 32...Bh4 I sadly realized that 33.Rxe5 runs into 33...Rh1+ 34.Ke2 Re1+ winning the rook.
* And after 33...Bf3 I felt completely lost.

Also, please no computer analysis unless it's absolutely necessary to explaining something. Thanks!

# Answer
> 4 votes
11 Nxe5 looks bad to me ... White has a spatial advantage and is strongpointing d4. Nxe5 reduces the spatial advantage by allowing an exchange of knights and weakens d4. Fortunately the opponent did not capitalize correctly and played cd allowing Nxc6! but after an exchange of knights and then cxd4 I think your opening has gone wrong.

I also didn't understand why you played Qd2 and then Be2 and O-O. Why was Qd2 the most important move to play there?

# Answer
> 1 votes
As is often the case in chess, he who makes the last mistake loses. This game is full of mistakes on both sides but over-the-board battles are not easy! Your 30.Bd7 did you in; Black was getting desperate here. 30.g3 and Black has to play 30...Bc6 to keep his e-pawn. Then you swap Bishops and maneuver your knight to e4, and White is clearly better.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Can someone explain why should white lose his queen in the following tactics?
This is my initial position:

I exchanged my pawn to get queen at this position:

Now to complete the tactics, the engine is accepting only this move which results in a stalemate

I would have dominated black with my queen and bishop but the tactics did not allow to do so which implies losing queen is better. But I don't understand why.

I am trying to understand why is Q5f the best move for white.

# Answer
> 6 votes
At this position you pretty much lost already - except if you can save yourself into a stalemate. That is exactly what is happening in your example. Qf5 forces black to make a decision between one of the following choices: He can either move his king or his pawn, or he can take your queen.

If he chooses to move the king out of check or block the check with his pawn, white is free to take the black queen. While it is not an easy victory, playing with a queen against two bishops and a pawn can still be won.

If however black chooses to take white's queen, then white will be trapped in a stalemate, resulting in a draw. Getting half a point is better for white than losing (and getting no points). Given the imbalance of the material, there is also no way that white can win this endgame (against a reasonable well playing black player).

*Explanation for the stalemate:* After the white queen is taken, white only has his king left. But the king can't move anymore. The square d4 and d2 are controlled by black's (black) bishop. d3 and e2 are controlled by the black bishop on b5 and e4, d3 (again), f4, f3, f2 are all under the control of black's queen.

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: Why I can not improve in chess & why I can not see the things?
Why is it that I can not improve in chess? When I lose a game, I feel very angry. I am always trying to improve so I played a lot, but I can not see any improvement. Please suggest me something.

# Answer
Everything is a matter of dedication, but with the correct techniques.

You should not feel angry, but glad! Your opponent just gave you the opportunity to figure out what are your weakness, so you can fix it! :D

Also, you are probably playing a lot of fast games. DON'T DO THAT!

Chess is a game of thinking. You need time for that. That's why chess is naturally a slow-paced game. Everything is so fast nowadays... Slow down a bit. :)

Prefer to play slow games (30min at least - 1h+ ideal). Let your speed build up naturally, at your own pace.

Also, I **strongly** recommend that you study the basics **deeply**. Most players (specially beginners) have a lot of "holes" in their knowledge (and don't know that), but they think they have a "playing style".

Stop trying to "win fast" using traps and studying lots of openings and variations. That's remembering, not playing.

There are a few concepts that you ***MUST*** know by heart to play good chess in every move:

1) Find **all** possible:

* **C**hecks
* **C**aptures
* **T**hreats (Pins, forks, etc.).

And I mean *ALL* of them. Don't consider if it's good or bad yet. That's how the Masters find such great tactics and sacrifices! It's the **CCT** technique.

2) Find the **Least Active Piece** (the one that dominates the least squares), and think about what is the best square to put it, where it will have it's **Maximum Activity** (controls the most squares possible). That's the **LAP=\>MA** technique. ***Piece Activity*** is the most important of all concepts, because all the others come from it.

3) Now you reorder the moves you found from the most forced (aggressive) on the top of the list, going down to the least forced (passive) move. That's the **Candidate Moves List** technique.

4) To be better organized and don't get lost doing that, look at one piece at a time, in descendant order of power/importance: King, Queen, Rooks, Bishops, Knights, Pawns.

5) If you are in the opening, keep in mind it's main goals: **Develop** the pieces, **Control** the Center, **Protect** the King. That's the **DCP** technique.

6) In the endgame, **pawns are everything**. Remember that each of them is a potential Queen! Don't try to chase the opponent's King, because in an open board, with few pieces to help, he can escape easily, and you will waste time.

***Important!*** \- Do all of that to your **opponent first!!** (like if it's his turn again). Only after that, you calculate for your own side. That's a great secret, hard to find anywhere, and is the best way to avoid those embarrassing blunders.

The deeper (more moves ahead) you can calculate, the better. About 3 is good, 5 is great (you will hardly need more than that) and 7 is about Master level.

Plus: When you are going to study a game (the ones you *lost* are the most important), a book, or a video, use all those techniques combined with the "Guess the move":

* In a book, cover the moves list an try to figure out the next move.
* In a video, pause it after every move, and try to find the next move.

Try as hard as you can, on every single move, always for *both* sides.

When you think you found the best move, write it down on a paper and include **WHY** you think it's the best move.

Only then you can see what was the next move made.

Did you guess it right? Great! Go to the next one.

Did you guess it wrong? Don't go further before you find out and completely understand *why* your move wasn't the best.

You will see that all those techniques combined are enough to bring you (at least) close to the Master level!

I spent 15+ years to find that out... Oh if I had someone to teach me just that when I was beginning... Only now I'm getting at 2000's.

You won't need to remember lots of variants of lots of openings. They will just start to *feel* right.

Try all those techniques in every move, since the very first one.

Try them everyday to solve chess tactics problems! You will see how things will suddenly start to make sense! And you will hardly make blunders if you use them correctly.

Of course, there is no "chess pill of success", but you won't get much closer than that... :) You have to take your time to learn how to use all of that properly.

I hope that helps. Forgive my bad english... I'm from Brazil.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You should stop playing a lot of games, but

1. Try to think harder when you play one, start from 15min games or slower, because playing 5min blitz or faster won't help you at all.
2. Once the game is over, use the computer analysis (cheap) or a chess coach (expensive, but feedback quality is much higher) and go over the game and learn from the mistakes you and your partner made.
3. Get some tactical training (plenty of web-sites and applications, google for "chess tactics").

This should get you going up to 1500-1600 and maybe a little beyond.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics
---


# Question
Title: How do I determine whether a game is a draw or not in case of timeout?
So I played many games online where I am winning but then lose on time. Sometimes the game is drawn (when there is no sequence of legal moves that would produce checkmate) and sometimes I lose (when there is such a sequence). The decision the website takes happens instantly. I am wondering, how do they determine whether the game is a draw or not? If they use brute force, then the decision would take longer to arrive at.

# Answer
> 5 votes
As far as I know, every chess website simply looks at the opponents material to determine if they have mating material or not. It doesn't matter even if mate is possible.

The ruleset you are referring to are the FIDE rules, and for simplicity chess websites do not use these rules because the percentage of positions where self-mate is possible is too low.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This comes from python-chess:

```
def is_insufficient_material(self):
    """Checks for a draw due to insufficient mating material."""
    # Enough material to mate.
    if self.pawns or self.rooks or self.queens:
        return False

    # A single knight or a single bishop.
    if popcount(self.occupied) <= 3:
        return True

    # More than a single knight.
    if self.knights:
        return False

    # All bishops on the same color.
    if self.bishops & BB_DARK_SQUARES == 0:
        return True
    elif self.bishops & BB_LIGHT_SQUARES == 0:
        return True
    else:
        return False

```

---
Tags: online-chess
---


title: two or three initial moves = win?

text:
# Question
Title: two or three initial moves = win?
you have to play a game with the following rule : white can initially play two moves, then one move each side as usual, and a draw counts as a victory for black. Which side do you choose ? (say differently, do you think this variant favors white or black ?)

Same question with three initial moves for white. Maybe this is already solved?

# Answer
Since I'm a 1.d4 player, my first two moves as White would be 1.d4 and 2.c4. After that position, Stockfish gives an evaluation of +0.59 if Black plays ...e6. I would definitely enjoy playing this as White since the threat of playing e4 at any time prevents the Nimzo and Dutch. Black best option is to settle for a QGD one tempo down by playing ...d5 on the next move, but this would be very comfortable for me. So I'd probably choose White, but it's not an easy decision.

That being said, it's not close to winning for White. An extra move just guarantees a pleasant edge.

With three initial moves, I would go for 1.e4, 2.d4, 3.Nf3. Stockfish gives a +0.99 evaluation, and it would be very tough for a human to defend as Black in a practical OTB game. This seems on the verge of winning for White, but still not a definite win.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It's a common knowledge that White have about 55% probability of winning the game over Black, for the equal strength opponents. Having one extra move at the beginning will give maybe extra 5%, maybe less. And one more move will probably add another 5%, bringing the probability of winning (given everything else being equal) to about 63-65%.

Since most of my games are not drawn, I would definitely go for an extra move(s) at the beginning, but statistically speaking, for the equal opponents with high draw ratio, this would be not advisable, they lose a lot of half-points for the 10% more wins.

So, here it is, if the opponents have more than 20% draw ratio, this new strategy has no advantage. If the percentage of draws is smaller than 20% -- a few extra moves will definitely help.

**After some deliberation**...

The effect of having a few extra moves will also greatly depend on time control the games are played with. The most impact it will have on the shorter games, with less pronounced effect for 30+ minute games or longer, that tend to end up in draw more often.
> 0 votes

# Answer
2 extra moves for white is not even close enough for white to be winning, I would take black with draw odds any day. Advantage of white is already only around 30 points elo difference. 2 more moves might make it 100 but thats very little chances of a draw is so high.

We have had 3-4 move odds with humans + engines vs engines and it quickly becomes apparently by playing certain openings as black that the advantage quickly disappears, the best the human player can still get is a draw in a worse position.

How many moves white would need to win is an open problem, I think the best lowest proven bound is like 12?
> -1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---