# Question
Title: What is the longest possible sequence of double checks?
The record for the most mutual checks in a legal position is known. But what is the record for double checks? There is one rule-threefold repetition applies. Four criteria exist-promoted pieces allowed and not along with forced, Black defends, and unforced, Black helps. Below is my research.

---

```
[Title "No Promoted Pieces, Unforced-6"]
[FEN "4K3/8/8/3p4/k1p1N3/1p4N1/P5BB/RRQ5 w - - 0 1"]

1. axb3+ Kb5 2. bxc4+ Kc6 3. cxd5+ Kxd5 4. Nc3+ Kd6 5. Nf5+ Kc5 6. Na4#

```

---

```
[Title "No Promoted Pieces, Forced-5"]
[FEN "kb1r4/P1p5/1P2P3/6NB/7B/8/8/RRQ4K w - - 0 1"]

1. axb8=Q+ Kxb8 2. bxc7+ Kc8 3. cxd8=Q+ Kxd8 4. Nf7+ Ke8 5. Nd6+ Kf8

```

---

```
[Title "Promoted Pieces, Unforced-9"]
[FEN "K5b1/5p2/4p3/3pR3/k1p1N1N1/1pQ5/P1B5/RR1R1RRR w - - 0 1"]

1. axb3+ Kb5 2. bxc4+ Kc6 3. cxd5+ Kd7 4. dxe6+ Ke8 5. exf7+ Kf8 6. fxg8=Q+ Kxg8 7. Nh6+ Kh7 8. Nf6+ Kh8 9. Nf7#

```

---

```
[Title "Promoted Pieces, Forced-8"]
[FEN "K4Bb1/5p2/4p3/3p4/k1p3N1/1pR5/P1B5/RQ1RRRRR w - - 0 1"]

1. axb3+ Kb5 2. bxc4+ Kc6 3. cxd5+ Kd7 4. dxe6+ Ke8 5. exf7+ Kxf8 6. fxg8=Q+ Kxg8 7. Nh6+ Kh8 8. Nf7#

```

---

Addendum: @Hauke Reddmann commented a known double checking mechanism, but no origin is given. The likely origin of it is a century old problem as @Evargalo proposed a comment.

```
[Title "Alain Campbell White, Pittsburgh Gazette Times 4/1916, Mate In 12"]
[FEN "2q5/2pp4/3pr3/4pb2/K1p2pn1/2bn1kp1/3pr1R1/6BB w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf2+! Ke3 2. Rf3+ Ke4 3. Re3+ Kd4 4. Re4+ Kd55. Rd4+ Kc5 6. Rd5+ Kc6 7. Rc5+ Kb6 8. Rc6+ Kb7 9. Rb6+ Ka7 10. Rb7+ Ka8 11. Ra7+ Kb8 12. Ra8#

```

The record for the longest sequence in a checkmate problem is 13, but it cannot contend for the record since Black’s king can walk out of the double checking sequence.

```
[Title "Dragan Stojnic & Milomir Babic, The Problemist 2004-05, Mate In 13"]
[FEN "3q1nKB/R1P1kPRB/N3p3/1p1n2p1/2r2p2/1p2b3/P2pb2N/3r4 w - - 0 1"]

1. c8=N+! Kf6 2. Rg6+ Kf5 3. Rf6+ Ke5 4. Rf5+ Ke45. Re5+ Kd4 6. Re4+ Kd3 7. Rd4+ Kc3 8. Rd3+ Kc2 9. Rc3+ Kb2 10. Rc2+ Kb1 11. Rb2+ Ka1 12. Rb1+ Kxa2 13. Nb4#

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
I am pretty sure I could make this last longer, but here is already a sequence with **26 unforced** consecutive double-checks without promoted pieces.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/Rp2p3/3Pk1N1/6pB/1Q2N2B/K3R3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nc3+ Kxd4 2. Ne2+ Ke4 3. Nc3+ Kd4 4. Ne2+ Ke4 5. Nc3+ Kd4 6. Nxb5+ Kd5 7. Nc3+ Kd4 8. Nb5+ Kd5 9. Nc3+ Kd4 10. Ne2+ Ke4 11. Nxg3+ Kf4 12. Ne2+ Ke4 13. Nc3+ Kd4 14. Nb5+ Kd5 15. Nc3+ Kd4 16. Ne2+ Ke4 17. Ng3+ Kf4 18. Ne2+ Kf5 19. Nh6+ Ke4 20. Ng3+ Kf4 21. Ne2+ Ke4 22. Nc3+ Kd4 23. Nb5+ Kd5 24. Nc3+ Kd4 25. Nb5+ Kd5 26.Nc7+

```

**12 forced** double-checks, based on the scheme given by Hauke Reddmann in a comment:

```
[FEN "1RN5/5p2/7p/3P3p/2P3p1/QPk4N/1R1p1K2/BB6 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rc2 Kd3 2. Rc3 Kd4 3. Rd3 Ke4 4. Rd4 Ke5 5. Re4 Kf5 6. Re5 Kf6 7. Rf5 Kg6 8. Rf6 Kg7 9. Rg6 Kh7 10. Rg7 Kh8 11. Rh7 {11. Rg8} Kg8 12.Ne7

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Addendum 12/30/2020: With **promoted pieces allowed**, I found that the below matrix apparently allows for a record of **18 forced** double checks.

```
[FEN "BQN3N1/1RPRPk2/1B6/1p4pp/2pp3n/4p3/4K1p1/1R2N3 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=Q+ Kxe8 2. Nd6+ Kxd7 3. c8=B+ Kc6 4. Rc7+ Kxd6 5. Rc6+ Kd5 6. Rd6+ Ke5 7. Rd5+ Ke4 8. Re5+ Kf4 9. Rf5+ Kg4 10. Rf4+ Kg3 11. Rg4+ Kh3 12. Rg3+ Kh2 13. Rxg2+ Kh1 14. Rg1+ Kxg1 15. Nf3+ Kg2 16. Ne1+ Kg1 17. Nf3+ Kg2 18. Ne1+

```

As such, **without promoted pieces,** we now have a new high of **17 forced** double checks!

```
[FEN "BQN1kb2/1RP1r3/1B3rn1/1p4pp/2pp3n/4p3/4K1p1/1R2N3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nd6+ Kd7 2. c8=B+ Kc6 3. Rc7+ Kxd6 4. Rc6+ Kd5 5. Rd6+ Ke5 6. Rd5+ Ke4 7. Re5+ Kf4 8. Rf5+ Kg4 9. Rf4+ Kg3 10. Rg4+ Kh3 11. Rg3+ Kh2 12. Rxg2+ Kh1 13. Rg1+ Kxg1 14. Nf3+ Kg2 15. Ne1+ Kg1 16. Nf3+ Kg2 17. Ne1+

```

---

In the time since @Evargalo posted their answer, a new record of **14 forced** double checks **without promoted pieces** has appeared in a selfmate problem.

```
[Title "Miodrag Mladenovic, MatPlus.net Forum 14/11/2019, s#15"]
[FEN "BQN3N1/1RPRPk2/1B6/1b4np/2nr3r/4q3/4P1p1/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=Q+ Kxe8 2. Nd6+ Kxd7 3. c8=B+ Kc6 4. Rc7+ Kxd6 5. Rc6+ Kd5 6. Rd6+ Ke5 7. Rd5+ Ke4 8. Re5+ Kf4 9. Rf5+ Kg4 10. Rf4+ Kg3 11. Rg4+ Kh3 12. Rg3+ Kh2 13. Rxg2+ Kh1 14. Rg1+ Kxg1 15. Qg3+ Qxg3#

```

---
Tags: problems, records, threefold-repetition, double-check
---


# Question
Title: As a coach what is the process to create a repertoire for a child?
I started coaching a child (11 yo) part-time.
Has to be said that I am passionate about chess, and I am myself 1992 ELO and am new to coaching, but I like sharing and explaining.

At first I was helping him to prepare before the tournaments and we went through different ideas specially preparation for his opponents. I have noticed this was too much and it's going too broad...
To be also said that his level is good, he understand main strategies, ideas and he's pretty good at tactics as well.

I have proposed him to create an opening repertoire.
I was thinking at something very narrow but solid and expandable. I know what type of positions he enjoys playing, so opening will be easy to select, the only **problem** is I don't know how to start the process of teaching him this.
(Myself I never had a coach so I have learned alone mostly by practicing, and I don't really have a great repertoire, so I cannot use my repertoire creation as experience to help him)

Do I need some tools, some special ways of starting with specific lines, ideas?
How does a professional coach teaches a child a chess repertoire, step by step?

Thanks

# Answer
A repertoire is not built overnight, and for most players, having a deep theoretical knowledge is not required. They simply need to understand opening pawn structures.

That said, if this child is showing a great deal of aptitude, it may be worth adding this to your study regime earlier than I would normally recommend. I have seen two prodigies up close, and I will share what I have seen: I have known GM Josh Friedel since he was 6 or 7, and his first coach, who was the first player that I REALLY wanted to beat, has been a close friend for 40 years, so I know that he taught Josh openings even at a very young age.

My second encounter with a prodigy is the amazing 8-year-old Ryan Sun, who is now already rated above 2000 (and plays stronger than that). I faced him in my first game back after 16 years, and again, just this past weekend. I went 0-2, but in our game this weekend, it was especially clear that he was well-versed in the opening. So, for certain kids, who are gaining strength at an incredible pace, they do need a repertoire early since they will soon be facing players, who are booked up.

Unless you are an expert at opening play, you need to do one of two things at a certain point: Pass him off to a stronger coach. In Josh's case, he "graduated" from my friend to a GM coach, I think at around age 11. The other option is to buy repertoire books, that were written by grandmasters.

For kids, who calculate like little computers, you probably want books that focus on aggressive repertoires, typically 1.e4 as white, the Sicilian Defense as black versus 1.e4, and then a GM-suggested repertoire versus 1.d4. There are a lot of such repertoire books out there.

I hope this helps.

Below, the original poster asks about how to prepare to present the material, and how to prepare to present it, and I added a comment. I will that here too.

Usually, those books are pretty complete repertoires, and you need to go through a good portion of the book to make sure you cover everything. So, take each chapter, and they do not have to be in order (for example, if the first chapter is oddball sidelines, that is not the place to start), and read it yourself, and get a feel for the plans and ideas; and then start presenting them chapter by chapter until you are done with the book. He will not have to memorize everything, but this way, he will be exposed to all of it. Just keep building on that.
> 9 votes

# Answer
*I know what type of positions he enjoys playing, so opening will be easy to select.*

In that case the hardest part is already behind you. Let me suggest the following strategy: **Copy the repertoire of a grandmaster**.

Pick a high-level player would style you think would fit you pupil. The correct pick should be a principled player, who uses regularly the same openings, and who plays quite a lot. For instance, in my practice as a teacher I have copied parts of the repertories of GMs Leko, Gelfand, Kozul, Tomashevsky... Avoid guys like Ivanchuk, Carlsen (at least pre-2015 Carlsen) or Rapport who just try everything !

Then, if you have chosen a Najdorf player (say, MVL) as a model for Black, you can then answer most choices just by looking at MVL games: What to do against 6.Bg5 in the Najdorf ? Well, MVL plays 6...e6, let's study a couple of his games. What do you against the closed Sicilian ? Let's see how MVL copes with it, etc.

You don't have to copy the whole repertory of course, GMs often have several pet variations in every openings. MVL also plays 1...e5, but if you decided to copy his Sicilian repertory it is already well enough, an 11-years old doesn't need as broad a repertory as a top-level player. Nor as deep, of course, don't bother about novelties after move 15.

What are the advantages ?

1. Your repertory is super **reliable**. If a top player trusts it, it will not be refuted at club level. Moreover, if one line is in theoretical trouble after some novelty, you can just see how your model GM copes with it: if he deviates earlier, just follow his lead.
2. Your repertory will be **coherent**. The GMs has thought a lot about transpositions and tricky move orders (which are clearly not what you want to lose time on while teaching). You can trust him for his answer to 1.Nf3 will not lead you by transposition into a 1.d4 opening you know nothing about.
3. While building his repertory, you pupil will have to study high-level games. They are the best examples for him to make **progress** not only in his opening play, but also in the middlegame and in the endgame.
4. If your chosen model is active enough, especially if he plays a lot online, you can expect him to have faced most variations and sub-variations, and you can easily collect his games so that your repertory will be quite **complete**. If really there is a line no-one has ever played against him, you can always switch to another player or to a reference book.
5. If you are not sure whom to pick, give a selection of games from 3 or 4 GMs for your pupil to replay. There will probably be one he likes more than the others...
> 6 votes

# Answer
It is well worth reading Mikhail Shereshevsky's advice for trainers building a chess repertoire for their pupils.

I am afraid this quite a long quote, but this section can be found online free of charge here(pdf), and I encourage readers who want to learn more to purchase Shereshevsky's book or e-book, *The Shereshevsky Method to Improve in Chess*.

> When one begins work with a young first-category player or candidate master, of between 10-14 years of age, one is dealing with someone whose style has not yet been developed. He has a great deal still to learn. As a rule, within a few lessons, one needs to carry out a chess diagnosis. In my day, this was definitely the case. Nowadays, when I get to the Russian junior championship, it seems to me that things have not changed for the better. Since you are often unclear about the youngster’s style or preferences, trying to guess whether he will be comfortable with this or that opening is pointless and just a waste of time.
> The opening repertoire of such a young player needs to fulfil the following conditions:
> 1) It should be solid, with a firm positional basis; active, but not too aggressive.
> 2) It should not include flawed or unsound openings, which, as the player advances and starts meeting stronger opponents, will sooner or later be more or less refuted. They lead to significantly inferior positions and give the opponent odds at the start of the game. I have in mind such openings as, against 1.e4, Alekhine’s Defence, the Scandinavian, Philidor, etc. Although there is a temptation to use such openings to achieve shortterm successes against weaker opponents, sooner or later the player ends up ‘bankrupt’ and has to master a new opening from scratch.
> 3) The opening should not involve avoiding a whole raft of opening ‘tabiyas’. Thus, I would not advise a young player to open 1.♘f3, 2.g3, 3.♗g2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.♘bd2, 7.e4 for his entire life, or 1.♘f3, 2.c4, 3.g3, 4.♗g2, 5.0-0. His strategic thinking will be too limited and will not develop widely enough. His games will lead to an excessively narrow range of positions, in terms of strategic content. If you are going to play closed openings, then it is better to play 1.d4, 2.c4 and preferably 3.♘c3, not 3.♘f3.
> 4) Most important of all: the repertoire should be such that one does not need to pay any great attention to it more than once or twice a year, other than via analysing the games played.
> Once your students have become masters or grandmasters, their chess style and tastes will be fully formed and then they can completely overhaul their opening repertoires, if they so wish. But whether you teach them to play the Spanish, Sicilian, Caro-Kann or French is of no great significance. The important thing is to establish a sound positional basis. First, the player should learn to play the game in all its many aspects, and approach the opening stage rationally, not primitively.

Great principles, which may not be that easy to fully implement, but are worth been used as guidelines at the very least.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Despite there already being some great answers, let me emphasize a few things: Take into consideration that we are not trying to build a repertoire from scratch. Your student probably knows already a few things about certain openings. Use that knowledge and expand on it.

You should find a repertoire that powers his strenghts and is comfortable to play for him, but also one that teaches him "good chess" in the long term. I'd thus prefer lines that emphasize relevant strategical themes by trying to use them into building an advantage (for example, if you chose the French defence, go for dynamic Winaver lines rather than ...dxe4 approaches!)

Since you are not much stronger than your student, make sure you do understand the openings you'll teach him. If necessary, talk to a master deserving of your trust for specific lessons.

As you mentioned preparations: they are often important. So if you are going to spend time building a repertoire, make sure it's not one that becomes an easy victim for those preparations (otherwise it would have been better not to have a repertoire at all)

As for your own preparations, please don't fall victim to the pursuit of a short-term success. Every chess player must develop his skills to thrive in unknown territory! Indeed one of the mistakes I often see in young players is that they have no clue what to do when they are "out of theory" earlier than his opponent
> 1 votes

# Answer
Let him play what he wants to play. If it's a mistake show him why. He will develop his own ideas and have a good understanding of a wide range of openings. That's how you create a strong, young player.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, repertoire, children
---


title: Why do GMs look up during calculations?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do GMs look up during calculations?
I saw some grandmasters looking up or sideways during calculations. Why don't they just look at the board and visualize? Wouldn't that be easier?

# Answer
Expanding on the great comments of @David and @Timothy Chow, GM Nikolai Krogius talks about the role of the **residual image** in his book *Psychology in Chess*. This is an image that stays and blurs the calculations. The residual image is the transfer of judgment from a past position to a new situation. The past then acts on the present.

To combat this residual image and to improve concentration, Krogius recommends practicing **blindfold chess or analyzing without using a chess board**. By not looking at the board, the player must constantly check the position of the pieces, thus erasing the residual image.

---

Here is an example of the residual image. At the beginning of the position the Bishop in b3 controls the square g8, but not ... at the end.

```
[FEN "r3k3/1p5p/p2R4/4p1Q1/4P1bP/PBq5/6P1/5K2 w - - 0 1"]
[title "Ilyin-Genevsky - Nenarokov, Moscow 1922"]

1.Bf7+! Kf8 2.Qh6+?? (2.Rf6!+-) Kxf7 3.Rf6+? (3.Qxh7+ Ke8 4.Qg6+ Ke7 5.Qf6+=) Kg8! {and now Black is better!}

```

---

Check also this article on ChessBase India, which asks your question

> **\*We often see top chess players not looking at the board while calculating**. It seems that their attention is somewhere else, yet after a few minutes they make the move without having even glanced at the position. What do you think they were doing for the last few minutes? Well, they were thinking in their head. They did not need to see the chess board to calculate the variations. They could do it in their head. So how do these super GMs calculate without a chess board? How are they able to make complex decisions in their mind, which normal players cannot fathom.

They welcome GM Vidit Gujrathi on how to calculate better in blindfold.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, calculation, board-vision, visualization
---


title: Gyula Breyer joke composition cooked?

text:
# Question
Title: Gyula Breyer joke composition cooked?
I recently bought the delightful book *Outrageous Chess Problems* by Burt Hochberg, which among other things contains some interesting joke compositions. I have a question about Problem 102 (diagrammed below; it is also mentioned in another page on this site).

```
[Title "Gyula Breyer, Magyar Sakkvilag, 1918, White To Play And Win"]
[FEN "1N1bknbr/2p1Pn1p/2K1Rp1p/4pP1B/p3p3/p3P1N1/P6P/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

The intended solution is exf8=bQ+ (promoting a White pawn to a Black queen; this is the joke). What I am wondering is whether this intended solution actually wins for White. My engine, an old version of Rybka, gives the main line as

1...Qe7 2.Nd7 Qxe6+ 3.fxe6 Be7 4.Nf5 Kd8 5.exf7 Bxf7 6.Bxf7 h5 7.Bc4

and so on, with an evaluation of 0.00. The analysis in Hochberg's book suggests that instead of 4.Nf5, White should play 4.Kxc7 Bd8+ 5.Kc6 "and wins after 6.Nf5 or 6.Nxe4 with a mating net," but my engine replies to 4.Kxc7 with 4...Bd6+ and thinks that Black is even winning. Even after 4...Bd8+ 5.Kc6 it doesn't see a win for White.

Is this composition known to be cooked?

# Answer
Yes, the problem is known to be cooked. The problem is actually a total win for White without a joke promotion.

Therefore, the task of creating a position in which the only way to win is to promote to a Black queen is an open one.

The problem can be found in the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database, or Schwalbe PDB for short. The solution engine there actually supports promotion to enemy units. The German notation means this: K=King, D=Queen, T=Rook, L=Bishop, S=Knight, and B=pawn.

The problem is that the normal promotion move **1. exf8=Q+,** supposedly refuted by the study, **actually wins for White!**

```
[Title "Gyula Breyer, Magyar Sakkvilag, 1918, White To Play And Win"]
[FEN "1N1bknbr/2p1Pn1p/2K1Rp1p/4pP1B/p3p3/p3P1N1/P6P/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. exf8=Q! Kxf8 2. Kd7! {This is the move that Breyer missed!}

```

The problem is for Breyer’s study is that after 1. exf8=Q+ Kxf8, the move **2. Kd7** more or less leaves **Black in a zugwang.**

Furthermore, after the joke promotion to a Black queen, the position is indeed a draw as you noted. Stockfish analysis confirms this.

```
[FEN "1N1bkqbr/2p2n1p/2K1Rp1p/4pP1B/p3p3/p3P1N1/P6P/8 b - - 0 1"]

 1... Qe7 2. Nd7 Qxe6+ 3. fxe6 Be7 4. Nf5 Kd8 5. exf7 Bxf7 6. Bxf7 h5 7. Bc4

```

The **inherent problem** with the promotion to a black queen is that Black **does not have to play,** after 1... Qe7 2. Nd7 Qxe6+ 3. fxe6, **3... Ke7? as Breyer claimed** in his analysis. This ends up in a loss for Black in the form of a mate in 5 moves.

(Note that the move **1... Be7? loses** to a **mate in 5:** 1... Be7? 2. Kxc7 Qg7 3. Nxe4 Qg1 4. Nxf6+ Kf8 5. Nbd7+ Kg7 6. Ne8#)

```
[FEN "3bk1br/2pN1n1p/2K1Pp1p/4p2B/p3p3/p3P1N1/P6P/8 b - - 0 3"]

3... Ke7? {This is an incorrect move, contrary to Breyer’s analysis} 4. Nf5+ Ke8 5. Kb7 Be7 6. Kc8 Bd8 7. e7 Bxe7 8. Ng7# {This is the shortest mate afterward as found by Stockfish}

```

The correct line for Black to play is **3... Be7!** and White has no mating net, thereby drawing the game, as given in your line I showed at the top of this answer.

It is a mystery exactly how the ingenious Breyer missed this possibility in his analysis. The most likely answer, through analysis of Black’s options after 4. Nf5, is that Breyer thought that Black must give up protection of their c7 pawn through a bishop move.

Black has 6 legal moves after 4. Nf5-5 by the bishop and one by the king. The moves Bf8 and Bd8 both lead to a mate in 5: 4... Bf8 Kxc7 Bd6+ 7. Kc8 Bc7 8. Nxf6+ Kf8 9. e7# (among many possible lines) and 4... Bd8 5. h4 Be7 6. Kxc7 Bd6+ 7. Kc8 Bc7 8. Nxf6+ Kf8 9. h4#. Bb4 and Bc5 both lead to shorter mates in 4 with the same basic ideas.

The move **4... Bd6** looks like a **tempting refutation** but **White still wins** even after that move. Here is one such winning line for White.

```
[FEN "4k1br/2pNbn1p/2K1Pp1p/4pN1B/p3p3/p3P3/P6P/8 b - - 0 1"]

4... Bd6 5. h4 Kd8 {Anything else results in a mate in 4} 6. exf7 Bxf7 7. Bxf7 Kc8 8. Nxf6

```

The end result is a **positional win for White**, although any normal person would struggle win of course.

The last, only non-bishop move **4... Kd8**, therefore, is **the ultimate refutation** in this study after the joke promotion that **Breyer somehow miscalculated.**

---

TL;DR: In conclusion, Gyula Breyer’s joke study is cooked on two faults. A normal promotion actually wins after the line 1. exf8=Q+ Kxf8 2. Kd7!, and Black is in zugzwang

Secondly, in the joke promotion lines after the moves 1. exf8=Black queen Qe7 2. Nd7 Qxe6+ 3. fxe6 Be7 4. Nf5, Black can play the only non-bishop move 4... Kd8! and draw the game.

Overall, the study is refuted by a king move from each side. Therefore, it seems like Gyula Breyer could not, to some degree, properly analyze king moves in the endgame!
> 7 votes

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


title: Why do points matter in trading pieces?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do points matter in trading pieces?
I am a beginner in chess and I am following the tutorials on Chess.com and reading *The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess*. In the tutorials about capturing pieces, it is common to count the points in trading pieces.

For example, say I can capture a rook with my knight and the knight will also be captured by my opponent. In that case, because the rook is worth 5 points and my knight is worth 3 points, I will gain 2 points. In most of the tutorials I use, this kind of play is advised.

I am wondering why points matter in trading pieces. Does the fact that the knight is worth 2 less points than the rook make it less valuable?

# Answer
The point system in chess gives a rough indication of how strong each piece is. So the short answer to your question is, yes, a rook is more valuable than a knight, and so in the vast majority of cases, if you can trade a rook for a knight, you should do it.

This does invite the question, however, about why a rook is considered more valuable. At its best, a rook can control long files (columns) and ranks (rows). While the knight's tricky movement can sometimes be an advantage, in general we consider it to be inferior. One way to demonstrate the value of a rook is to try the rook and king vs king endgame. (I would definitely recommend looking it up first.) Note that there is no way of checkmating just with a knight and king. In fact, the game would be *drawn by insufficient material*. This is just a fancy way of saying that neither player has enough firepower to achieve checkmate. As you progress, it will become clearer to you why rooks are more valuable than knights. At some point, you might even be able to notice when a knight is better than a rook! But for now, concentrate on the points system—it's a great way of knowing who is ahead in the game.

Finally, it's worth noting that the points system is not part of the rules of chess. The bottom line is that you are trying to checkmate your opponent's king. But having more material (i.e. points) is a key way of getting closer to this goal.
> 31 votes

# Answer
Just to put a point on this:

> Does the fact that the knight is worth 2 less points than the rook make it less valuable?

This is looking at it upside down.

What matters in an exchange is getting some gain. The points are only a simple tool for estimating that gain.

If an exchange that would be a point-wise loss gives you the opportunity to checkmate the opponent regardless, then it should be obvious that the points have no meaning and the exchange should be made. However, most situations aren't like that, so counting points can be a useful heuristic for the future prospects of the game.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Some other factors can also affect piece values, such as it’s position, and what other pieces it’s paired with. Many people agree that a bishop pair is worth much more than simply the sum of their individual values. You can read more about piece values here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_piece\_relative\_value
> 2 votes

# Answer
Even though it is quite a useful guidline for beginners, the actual value a piece is assigned to inherently depends on the prevailing board constellation.

Similar to "In closed positions knights ought to be stronger than bishops", we could show countless positions where the standard valuation would be refuted. For instance, in some cases two pawns can indeed be far stronger than a queen.

And still, its important to note that most of the time the standard valuation works. It is so, because it comes from endgame-analyses. The more pieces are alone without coordination, the more the standard valuation holds. If you exchanged a bishop for a rook, you might not perceive the advantage immediately in the middle game, when a lot of pieces are still on the board, but you can try to force more trades and you would be left with an endgame with a rook against a bishop, which is more favourable for you!
> 2 votes

# Answer
All other things being equal, a material advantage is normally sufficient to win the game. I should mention that the value of a piece is directly related to its strength, i.e. to how many squares it would control on an open board, which is why the rook is worth more than the knight. If you then traded down equally into an ending, your advantage under most circumstances would be sufficient to win, assuming it was mating material like a rook. You probably would need more than one minor piece to accomplish the same thing if pawns are excluded. Winning even just a pawn would be enough to win in the hands of a skilled player, which is how the great Masters like Capablanca played. This could then ultimately be promoted to a stronger piece, normally the queen, to effect the checkmate. Knowing the value of the pieces lets you keep track of this during the game. This is a greatly simplified explanation of course, but is essentially accurate. From this perspective, the game is like a great scale which is initially in balance but on which you try to create a favorable imbalance. Of course there are other factors that must be taken into consideration to determine this, such as position - how much of and what part of the board you control- but a good player weighs them all together when deciding how he or she stands and how to proceed.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, point-value, trading
---


# Question
Title: Defeating 1600 rated chess computer on chess.com
I just defeated a 1601 rated computer in under 3 minutes. Normally, it is a lot more difficult to defeat players having rating even 1500+.

I want to understand how is that possible. Was it a computer that was wrongly rated at 1600+ or did I really outperform it?

```
[FEN "7k/8/6p1/8/7P/8/3r4/4q2K w - - 0 1"]

```

It never looked like a computer playing at 1600! What really could have happened?

# Answer
A sample of one game should not be enough to make a conclusion. You may have been particularly inspired, or maybe got into a position where that computer player worse than others.
> 2 votes

# Answer
> I want to understand, how is that possible - was it a computer that was wrongly rated at 1600+? or did I just outperform it really?

Neither.

You don't understand rating systems. There is no absolute rating system in which to say the computer was or wasn't playing at 1600 strength. All rating systems are relative. They measure the relative performance of the players results in that system. There is no judgement of the quality of the moves.

If the computer rating system is accurate then if you set the computer program to play against the same computer program (with you feeding in the alternate moves) on another computer and one is set to play like 1600 and the other like 1700 then over a large number of games the 1700 computer should score a certain percentage against the 1600 computer.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Several reasons I can think of:

* A single game is not enough to draw any conclusions. You might have been lucky, inspired,... in that particular case. Ratings tell about the statistical outcome of a **large number of games.**
* Ratings measure the **relative strength** of players. There is no such thing as a player of 1600 strength. Matching ratings from different websites or OTB chess is inherently impossible because it involves different pools of people (or computers). You can assign ratings to different levels of an engine by having it play against itself many times. However matching this computer rating to a human rating is basically guessing with a huge error margin. Some engines just count the levels (1,2,3...) instead of claiming a fake rating.
* Making a computer as strong as possible is a well defined procedure (just optimize the parameters, so that it wins most games). Crippling it, so that it plays at a lower level is not well defined. You could for instance have it ignore king safety or ignore material or make a blunder every now and then (but play at maximum strength otherwise), etc.... One way of crippling might suit you more than another player. Say, if you are an attacking player, a computer playing very passively or that ignores king safety would be easier to beat for you than one that is crippled in another way.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How this game is denoted as French Advanced Variation?
I had started playing this game with Scandinavian Defense opening. How it is been denoted as French Advanced variation as of 3rd move. Please refer to the attached screen-shot.

# Answer
> 8 votes
I apologize for posting a comment as an answer, but this is the only way for me to include diagrams, which I find helpful.

You have entered Advanced French defense *by transposition.*

After **1.e4 d5 2. e5 e6 3.d4** we get the following position:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3pP3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

```

The usual way of reaching the above position is with **1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5**

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3pP3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

```

Lichess was smart enough to figure this out.

# Answer
> 4 votes
As explained in the fine answer by AlwaysLearningNewStuff, you have transposed into the Advanced French.

Such transpositions are common in chess. That's why, if you are assigning an opening to a game you would normally go backwards and base it on the last known theoretical position in that game.

Concerning the moves of that game. 2. e5 is objectively not the best move for white as it allows black a good version of the French defense.

More popular replies than 2....e6 are 2...c5 (with the idea to develop the bishop from c8 before playing e6) or an immediate 2....Bf5. In either case, black gets a French defense pawn structure but has solved the problem of having a weak light squared bishop.

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


# Question
Title: Is it bad etiquette to try to make an opponent lose on time when a position is clearly drawn?
The other day I was playing a rapid game (30 minutes each side) online. I got into time trouble but I managed to convert the position into a drawn endgame. (Not just a theoretical draw—a clear draw for both sides.) In the final moments of the game, I had less than 20 seconds on my clock, and my opponent started checking me repeatedly in an attempt to make me lose on time. While I know this is standard in blitz or bullet games, I considered it to be bad form given that we were playing a slower time control. Am I right in believing this is a breach of etiquette, even if it is strictly legal?

Edit #1: Here is the final position. (I slightly misremembered what my opponent did—they weren't repeatedly checking me. Instead, they were moving their bishop around aimlessly. However, I don't think this has a huge impact on the debate. I was playing White.)

```
2b5/1kP1K3/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 16 86

```

Edit #2: It has been mentioned that there is another similar question that has already been asked before on the chess stack exchange. While I appreciate the similarity between these two questions, I would argue that the fact that I was playing a rapid game could have an impact on the answer. Not everyone agrees, but some people do hold this belief. Therefore, I'd like to keep this question open.

# Answer
In general, yes I would agree with you. In fast time controls this is fine to do, but in longer ones it can be considered unsporting (although not against the rules of online play).

This wouldn't be an issue in an OTB game, since if the position is definitely a draw then one could claim it with an arbiter.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Etiquette doesn't really come into it unless your name is Gata Kamsky (strong language warning for the link). The rule is very simple. If you want flagging to be a part of the game then play with no increment, otherwise always play with an increment.
> 22 votes

# Answer
> Here is the final position. (I slightly misremembered what my opponent did—they weren't repeatedly checking me. Instead, they were moving their bishop around aimlessly. However, I don't think this has a huge impact on the debate. I was playing White.)
>
> ```
> [fen "2b5/1kP1K3/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 16 86"]
>
> ```

Here you kind of deserve to lose if you can't force the draw by:

```
[fen "2b5/1kP1K3/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 16 86"]

1. Kd8 Bh3 2. c8=Q Bxc8

```

In the final position after BxQ it is a dead position, neither player can checkmate by any means and it is a draw. All good online servers will immediately end the game as a draw without the need for a draw offer and acceptance.
> 8 votes

# Answer
30 minutes is still a *rapid* game where time is a significant factor. Blundering time is just as much of a blunder as blundering pieces. You blundered your time away, so why complain?
> 7 votes

# Answer
It is indeed bad etiquette and tournaments are moving towards games with increment because of those situations. In fact, if your opponent is clearly making no effort to win by "conventional means", you caan call the arbiter and claim a draw.

On the Internet everything goes, though
> 3 votes

# Answer
A valid attempt to win a game by a legitimate route.

Dragging a dead game out merely to annoy your opponent is bad, but it's neither illegal nor what happened here.

BTW, This is an easy forced draw.... White to move: Kd8,Bany (all king moves lose the bishop),c8=Q+,Bxc8 draw/material Black to move: Kany, Kd8, Kb7, Kd7, Kany, Kd8, Kb7 repeats.

If black wanted to take it to/beyond 50 moves they needed to get their king in front of the pawn. But they have no way to force that now. All the white king has to do is avoid light squares/checks.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I don't really understand what happened. I gather you were white? In the position shown, black has only a bishop, which is insufficient material to mate. If white runs out of time, the game is a draw.

In general, if the game is not yet in a drawn position, but correct play from each player will inevitably lead to a draw, and one player has significantly more time than the other, I don't think it is bad etiquette for the player with more time to prolong the game in the hopes that the other player makes a mistake or runs out of time. The clock is part of the game. If you don't leave yourself enough time to complete the game, the other player deserves to win.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: draw, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Pawn storm, should I start with h4 or g4?
If Black has castled kingside and White castled queenside or kingside, and White wants to launch an attack by a pawn storm. How do you know that you should start with h4 first or g4 first? I know that it depends on the pawn structure of Black.

1) Black can have a kings-indian or dragon sicilian setup around the king (Bishop on g7, knight on f6, and pawns on f7 g6 h7). In these examples, how should white start the pawn storm

```
[fen "rnbq1r2/pp2ppbk/2pp1npp/8/2PPP3/2N1BP2/PP1Q2PP/R3KBNR w KQ - 2 9"]

```

```
[fen "r1bqr1k1/pp2ppbp/2np1np1/8/3NP3/2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/2KR1B1R w - - 6 10"]

```

```
[fen "r1bq1rk1/p4p1p/2p1p1p1/3n4/3Q4/2N2P2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 14"]

```

2) A QGD pawn setup (knight on f6, pawns on f7 g7 h7).

In this example where black committed g6, how should white start the pawn storm?

```
[fen "r3r1k1/pp2bp1p/4pnpB/q3N3/2Pp1Q2/8/PP3PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 4 20"]

```

If Black plays pawn to h6 to defend, then with which pawn should White start the attack? g4 or h4? And if Black doesn't move the pawns (pawns on f7 g7 h7), then how should white start the pawn storm?

# Answer
Typically you use a pawn storm to exchange pawns around the castled enemy king and thereby to open lines and diagonals for an attack. Most of the time you want a closed (to some extent) center in order to avoid counterplay in the center.

In this sense your example 4 is not a typical use case for a pawn storm. It might make sense to push the pawns here as well, but the reason for that are concrete tactical motifs. E.g. by playing g4-g5 you seem to force black to exchange the bishop for the knight after which there are ideas with Qg7 mate...

Other than that, it depends a lot on the actual position.

A typical defensive strategy is to block the advancing pawns, thereby halting the pawn storm. In your first example you need to consider that if you play g5 black can block with h5, if you play h5, black can block with g5. To break such blockades, you could consider piece sacrifices (for a pawn or two) or what options you have by pushing the f pawn.

In your second example, if you play g5, black can block with Nh5. In your third example, playing first g4 leaves you with lots of weak dark squares that are eyed by the black queen and knight. Playing first h4 here seems like a much better choice (if you had to decide between g4 or h4).

---

Some general guidelines (but as mentioned above, don't follow these blindly) depending on the opponent's pawn structure (of course the same applies to exchanged colors):

**Pawns on f7-g7-h7**

* typically broken by playing g6 supported by a pawn from h5. See English attack in the Najdorf Sicilian.
* You could also attack with h6, but this really only makes sense if you can make use of the dark squares, e.g. if you have a queen, dark squared bishop... that can enter via the a1-h8 diagonal or if you have a knight that could use the outpost that forms on f6.

**Pawns on f7-g6-h7**

* Break with h5. Most of the time you want rooks on the h-file for the attack, when the h-file opens. See Yugoslav attack in the Sicilian Dragon.
* Need to consider whether black can close the position with g5 after you play h5. Therefore in some cases, white wants to play g5 before h5.

**Pawns on f7-g6-h6**

* This is a flexible setup for black, because whether you play h5 or g5, black can always block replying g5 or h5 respectively.
* One idea to break it is with a pawn on f4, so as white you aim for h5 but have a pawn on f4 (ready or can play later) in order to prevent the blocking with g5.
* Another idea to break it is tactically. Often you end up with such positions, like in your first example, with Qd2, Be3 and Kh7. A typical tactical idea then is to play Ng5 with a white pawn on h4 and a rook on h1. If black takes the pawn hxg5, white opens the h-file with hxg5 check which very often is deadly.

**Pawns on f6-g7-h7**

* You'd go for the f6 pawn by playing g5. Need to consider, whehter black can reply with f5 after which there is not much of an attack.
* Sometimes you could follow up with h5-h6 with the idea that the g7 pawn moves and cannot recapture on f6.
* See attacks against the Sämisch in the Kings Indian. (i.e. pawn storm by black)

---

As mentioned these don't work all the time and depend on the concrete position. If you consider the potential for blocking the pawn advance, by closing the structure, which pawn to push often comes naturally.

I'd recommend to look at some of these attacks in actual games. You can use the openings mentioned above as a guideline.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The main purpose of a pawn storm is to exchange pawns and open lines. Therefore, in the ideal case you should push the pawn that can easily be exchanged. With a Black pawn on g6, it makes sense to play h4-h5. The only way White's g-pawn could be directly exchanged would be if Black had a pawn on h6 (as is the case in your first diagram).

However, g4 can be useful if control of the h5-square is needed. For example, in some cases Black may consider meeting h4 with ...h5. So in the second diagram, playing both g4 and h4 makes sense. However, in the third diagram Black's control over h5 is weak, so just pushing h4 is best.

In the final diagram, White should just play h4, although perhaps not with the immediate intention of getting h5 in. The pawn could remain on h4 in order to clamp down on the g5-square; or, maybe White could try g4+h5 later on. I would be a bit more hesitant about pushing g4 here, since White's king is on the kingside.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I'd play h4 in positions 3 and 4, without losing the g4 tmepo. As for 1 and 2, I'd follow the same criteria except if Black's ...h5 reaction is strong enough to give me a reason to play g4
> 4 votes

---
Tags: pawn-structure, queens-gambit, attack, kings-indian, sicilian-dragon
---


# Question
Title: "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch vs "Pawn Structure Chess" by Andrew Soltis
I have `Pawn Power in Chess` by `Hans Kmoch`, but I can hardly understand what he is trying to convey in the book. Maybe this has to do with my level of play or maybe it has to do with the way `Kmoch` writes. I do not have `Soltis'` book, so I was curious to know if anyone has read it and if it is similar to `Kmoch's` book?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I haven't read either but here's an excerpt from Dan Heisman's Novice Nook #17

> A "break" move is a pawn move that “breaks up” an opponent's (fixed) pawn chain by attacking the opponent's pawns with that pawn. In his classic work Pawn Power in Chess, Hans Kmoch calls this move a liberation lever. Don’t be put off by Kmoch’s arcane nomenclature – Pawn Power is a great book for players in the 1300-1900 rating range.

\[edit\] Current world champion Viswanathan Anand also mentioned the book in this interview.

Hope this helps for something... I'm also thinking of buying one of these two books.

# Answer
> 5 votes
“Pawn Structure Chess” by Andrew Soltis is reasonably clearly written and should be not too hard to understand. I enjoyed it when I was rated about 1900-2000.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Very different those two books. Soltis' is a basic book which explains the "plans" on different openings according to their respective pawn structures.

Kmoch's book, however, is a masterpiece. It's a much more difficult and serious book in terms of the knowledge it provides. The terminology is not difficult or convoluted, as many people claim online. If you're an adult you will get it pretty easily.

Also, the concepts are not only clear and helpful, but also didactically perfectly selected. You should read it and find out for yourself what I mean. It's brilliance comes in how methodically Kmoch studies the different types of pawn structures and formations. This is NOT a book centered on opening pawn structures per se. It's a proper study of the PAWN as a central piece in how chess is played properly.

The meat of the boom focuses on how pawn structures and formations studies in the first part interact with the minor pieces and the Rooks. These are the golden chapters of the book which will positively impact your overall understanding of chess. This is definitively not a book for the lazy or the bare-bones beginner simply because those are not ready for the wisdom imparted by Kmoch.

Note of advice: To learn chess properly one has to be patient and stay away from "Winning with..." or "Play this and quickly win..." type of books. Focus on the classics: Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals, or Nimzowitsch's My System, or Euwe's The Middlegame (2 vols.), or Fischer's My Most Memorable 60 Games, or Pachman's Complete Chess Strategy (3 vols.) and his other two on tactics, or Averbakh's Chess Tactics for Advanced Players.

These are the classics which will teach you elements and concepts in the abstract, and by phases (opening, middlegame and endgame), and which will make you jump to a competitive level (ELO 1900+) from where you could later on work more intensively on an opening repertoire, refined endgame technique, etc.

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


# Question
Title: Why is 5. Nc3 preferred over 5. f3 in the Open Sicilian?
The statistics at move 5 seem amazing for White, slightly better than Nc3. I was wondering how White can "get away" with the plan to play c4 before Nc3, achieving even more control of the center. So what exactly is White giving up? Black can try to break through before c4 is played by 5...e5 6. Nb3 d5, but this position does not seem very critical to me, at least less critical than some variations of the Najdorf (I may be wrong).

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 e5 Nb3 d5 Bg5 d4 c3 Nc6 Bb5

```

If Black does not play ...e5 we get a cozy setup with Be3, Be2, 0-0, Qd2 and centralising the rooks incoming and Black cannot do much about it.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 e6 c4 Be7 Nc3

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
The move 5.f3 is an interesting one and worth a try for two reasons:

1. Avoiding heavy theory.
2. Tricking some Najdorf or Dragon players who are not keen to play the Maroczy bind with c4.

However, Black has a few ways to respond. One response seems very tricky by directly exploiting the weakness created by f3 (and avoiding the Maroczy bind).

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 a5!? 7.c4? (7.Bb5 {is better}) Nxe4! 8.fxe4 Qh4+ 9.Kd2 a4 {and Black wins back the piece with some advantage}

```

---

Black seems to be fine by playing e5 and d5, without pushing further to d4 as played recently by Giri, Nakamura, Areshchenko.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6. Nb3 d5 7.Bg5 Be6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.exd5 Qxd5 10.Qxd5 Bxd5 {and the pair of bishops offsets the pawn weaknesses.}

```

---

Update: If following the good arguments of @Scounged, Black is not afraid to enter the Maroczy bind, there is a favorable version. Black plays 5...Nc6 and if White continues by 6.c4 Black replies with 6...Qb6 disrupting White's play, followed by g6. Here is an illustrative game:

```
[fen ""]
[title "D'Amore, Carlo (2456) vs. Sutovsky, Emil (2664), EU-chT, 2001"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 Nc6 6.c4 Qb6 7.Nc2 g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.Qd3 (9.Rb1 {is probably more promising for White but there is a fun variation} 9...Ng4!? 10.Qd2! (10.fxg4 Bxc3) Bxc3 11. Qxc3 Qf2 12.Kd1 O-O) 9...Nd7 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Be2 Nc5 12.Qa3 f5! 13.exf5? (13.O-O) Bxf5 14.Nde3 Qb6 15.Nxf5 gxf5 16.Rb1 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Bxd4 18.Be3 Ne6 19.Bxd4 Nxd4 20.Qa4+ Kf7 21.c5 Qxc5 22.Qc4+ Qxc4 23.Bxc4+ Kf6 24.Kf2 Rac8 25.Bd3 e5 26.g4 fxg4 27.fxg4 d5 28.Rbd1 h5 29.g5+ Kxg5 30.Rhg1+ Kf4 31.Rg7 Rhf8 32.Bg6 Kg5+ 0-1

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis, sicilian-defense
---


title: What did R.H.M. stand for?

text:
# Question
Title: What did R.H.M. stand for?
I have a number of old chess books published by R.H.M. Press. I am curious as to whether "R.H.M." are the initials of something or someone, and if so, what?

As I understand it, R.H.M. Press was the brainchild of Sidney Fried, and Burt Hochberg was the chief editor of many of the books. Unfortunately, neither of them is still alive. I found a short article by Hochberg in the Summer 2000 issue of *Publishing Research Quarterly* entitled "An imperfect visionary," which gives some interesting historical information about R.H.M. Press, but no hint of what R.H.M. might stand for, if anything.

None of the possibilities listed by The Free Dictionary looks plausible to me.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Well, let's take Random House off the table right away, as RHM Press was a division of RHM Associates of Delaware, Inc. which lists Sydney Fried as Publisher. The California Secretary of State system lists an RHM Publishing as a "Doing Business As" name for RHM Associates.

Unfortunately, No list of officers.

There's a blurb in the beginning of San Antonio 1972 (the first book RHM published) that talks a little bit about the venture, but no details. Since the most likely RHM Associates of Delaware I can find is an investment firm, I lean towards the idea the RHM name came from the folks that supplied the money to start it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
```
Edit: This answer is most likely wrong.

```

I think @Mike Jones was really close here: Googling RHM Press brings up the publisher "Random House" (which is fused with Penguin Books).

According to Wikipedia, *Penguin Random House* started a Joint Venture with the italian company *Arnoldo Mondadori Editore* which is called... **Random House Mondadori**.

I'd suspect that this is indeed the R.H.M. press you were looking for. The group was eventually renamed in 2012, which might explain the absence of any further mentions.

---
Tags: history, books
---


title: Looking for openings by pawn structure

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for openings by pawn structure
Sometimes when playing Alekhine defense Scandinavian Variation, I get this kind of pawn structure :

```
8/p6p/6p1/2p1p3/2PpP1P1/Pp1P4/1P6/8 w - - 1 29

```

I am very comfortable playing as black with this structure, but there is it not the most common structure I would get in Alekhine, so are there any openings which may result in this (or similar structure) ?

# Answer
I'm assuming you're mainly referring to the central pawn mass - wanting to get a structure with a Black pawn on b3 seems too specific.

In general, it's much harder to deliberately maneuver the game into a line where you are the person with the pawn on d4 (or if you're playing White, with the pawn on d5). This is because you need to get your opponent to provoke your d-pawn forward with e4 and c4. If you liked playing the White side of that diagram, I would recommend playing the Czech Benoni *as Black* (i.e: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.Nc3 d6).

If you want a higher chance of getting the structure with c4-, d5-, and e4-pawns (so basically being on the flipped side of Black in that diagram), I'd recommend playing 1.d4 and 2.c4 as White. Your opponent could go into the aforementioned Czech Benoni (although it isn't very common), or they could play the King's Indian Defense. In that structure, Black often plays ...e5/...c5, and once in a while pushes both pawns (getting you into a situation you want).

I don't have much advice for how to get that structure as Black. You're at the mercy of your opponent to dictate the play. One of the most common ways I know of getting it is if White plays a reverse King's Indian, allowing you to push all your pawns with ...d5, ...c5, ...e5, but most people don't do this.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Interesting opponent you have there, to let you get to that pawn formation. And yes, I said let, because the two most often played moves in that variation (e5 and exd5) both render that pawn structure pretty much impossible. I used to play the White side of that a lot, myself, but I always responded to Black's ...d5 with d4 (love making Alekhine players play the pawn-up side of a gambit).

Don't blame you for being comfortable playing that position. Everything unseen being equal, Black has all the winning chances there.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Are you sure about the FEN, particularly the black pawn on b3? Also a white pawn is missing. Ignoring the a-b and g-h pawns and focusing on the central pawns....

It is very unusual to get that much space as a black player. So no, unless your opponent plays particularly passively, you are not going to get such structure in any opening.

The structure resembles some Kings Indian structures, but with reversed colors. If you could express what paricular features you like about such structure, apart from the (unrealistic to get) space advantage, perhaps something could be suggested.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: How to get a ChessBase learning product (Video + Cbh) to run on a mac?
example: If I were to purchase a lesson video like this product from ChessBase, how do run and learn from it using a Mac ?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know of a way other than to run ChessBase (or ChessBase Reader) inside a Windows virtual machine. I use Parallels and it works fine, although sometimes the video is slightly out of sync with the audio.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chessbase once tried to make a Mac version. It was buggy and under-featured, so didn't sell, and rather than improve it they gave up on ever doing one. How to play it on a Mac depends on what your computer skills are. Not sure if chessbase reader (the app you'd use to play it) runs under WINE these days, but that would be one option (cheapest but requiring most skills). A second option would be a free virtual machine system (VirtualBox) with windows installed on a VM. The easiest (and also most costly, funny how those two go together) is a system like Parallels or VirtualPC.

---
Tags: chessbase, macos
---


title: Why was the founder of chess killed?

text:
# Question
Title: Why was the founder of chess killed?
I have heard from many a story in which a man who introduced the game of chess was hanged or killed by his king. What was the actual story and the the reason for killing the founder of chess?

# Answer
The exact origins of chess are not known, but there are several stories about it out there. At the top of my head I can think of at least four different ones that I've heard myself, and after reading your question I suspect that you've heard of one such story about the creation of chess.

One of these, which may or may not be the story you seem to have learnt about, is the one that follows:

A long time ago, a bored king asked one of his underlings to bring him some form of fresh entertainment. The underling thought for a while, and came up with the game of chess. After playing one game, the king was so pleased with what the underling had brought him that he said that the underling could ask for anything he desired as a reward for the invention of the brilliant game.

After contemplating for a while, the underling asked for a grain of rice for the first square of the chess board, two grains of rice for the second square, four grains for the third square, and so on for the remaining squares. The king agreed to the request, and when it was realized that the total amount of grains the underling had asked for was impossible for the kingdom to provide, the king got angry and ordered the execution of his underling for making a fool out of him.

It is important to note, however, that this story has no proven historical validity whatsoever.
> 8 votes

# Answer
That story seems to be a Hindu legend of the Ambalappuzha Sri Krishna Temple.

Basically the story goes:

The god Krishna, disguised as a sage, appeared in front of a king and challenged him to a game of chess (chaturanga?). The king accepted and asked him what prize he wanted if he won. He said he was a man of few needs so asked for a few grains of rice, the exact number being determined using a chessboard as following: one grain of rice would be placed on the first square, two on the second, and so on doubling the amount each time. The king was unhappy with his request and offered more riches, but he declined.

The game started, and the sage, being a god, obviously won. As the king started to pay the sage's prize, he realized that there wasn't enough rice in his kingdom to pay the prize. The sage transformed back into his god self and told the king the prize didn't have to be payed immediately. He would serve *paal-payasam* (some sort of food made of rice) to pilgrims every day until the debt was payed off.

In this story, no one dies, and it seems like this is the most correct version, as it's part of Hindu culture.

(There is also more information over at Hinduism SE).
> 8 votes

# Answer
The story you heard might be based on "The Game and Playe of the Chesse" by William Caxton. But there's a difference in that (spoiler)

> this story has a happy ending.

The story might be older than Caxton. Caxton's work is based on "Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum" by Jacobus de Cessolis and it might be a translation. I can't say if the story is even older than that. The full text of Caxton's book is online thanks to the University of Rochester and has great footnotes. It's a tough read if you're from this century or one of the recent ones. I'd recommend reading chapter 8 as an overview of the story, but chapter 1-3 also contain a lot framing story.

I'll summarize here:

Once upon a time, Babylon had an evil king named Evylmerodach son of Nebuchadnezzar. A good philosopher named Philemetor saw how evil the king was and decided he had to teach the king about virture. Philemetor knew that the king usually killed people who tried to correct his cruelty, but the philosopher knew that it was so important that everyone do the right thing, especially kings. He knew that even if the king kills him, it is worthwhile to teach him about virtue.

So, the philosopher made a board game and brought it to the king, who insisted on learning how to play this new game. The philosopher taught him all the pieces one by one, how they each correspond to a station in life, and how everyone has to live up to virtues depending on their station in life.

The king demanded he explain himself, and say why he invented this game, or else be killed. The philosopher, knew that the king had a history of killing people who tried to teach him morals, but decided to tell the truth. "To correct you of your tyranny and vicious living. For all kings ought specially to hear their correctors and to keep their corrections in mind."

The king heard this, and thought it was a good correction. He thanked the philosopher, and changed his ways. And they all lived happily ever after.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history
---


title: Help me choose hardware configuration

text:
# Question
Title: Help me choose hardware configuration
I am preparing to buy a new desktop computer.

I would like to use it for chess analysis with both StockFish and Lc0.

My budget is slightly above 2K euros.

## QUESTIONS:

This is my first time choosing configuration for Lc0, so I do not know where to focus my attention.

Regarding StockFish, it should be simple? Just buff CPU + RAM and you are good to go?

Can you advise me, so I do not make a mistake during purchase (what are the things I should strive for, what to pay attention the most...)?

## MY EFFORT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM:

After Googling a little, I believe that below configuration could suit me:

* CPU = AMD-AM4 Ryzen 9 3950X (16 cores, 3.5 GHz)
* MOBO = AMD-AM4 Asus TUF B450M-PLUS
* RAM = KINGSTON DDR4 32GB 2666MHz HX426C16FB3/32 HyperX Fury Black MEM01669
* GPU = Asus nVidia GeForce RTX 2070 ROG-STRIX-RTX2070-O8G-Gaming 8GB GDDR6
* Hard Drive = SSD 480GB Kingston A400 SA400S37/480G
* Computer Case = MS WINSTON gaming ATX
* Power Supply = LC Power 650W LC6650 V2.3 + Bronze
* OS = Windows 10 Home x64

# Answer
The biggest things that stand out here is the power supply and hard drive. For the first, getting a cheap power supply tends to be a bad idea since if it breaks, it can bring down a lot of other stuff with it. 650W is plenty, but I'd recommend going with a more established brand like corsair or silverstone. For the hard drive, given that you can get a 1TB SSD for about $150, I would do so since it will mean you have plenty of room for a 6 man tablebase (syzygy).

Other than that, this should be a really good system for both leela and SF. If you want any help with optimal settings for lc0 performance, feel free to drop by the lc0 discord!
> 4 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, leela, hardware
---


# Question
Title: Achieving Catalan-like structure against Slav response
Being primarily a 1. d4 player, I often face Slav defense. However, I have much more experience and understanding of Catalan structures and would like to get something similar against the Slav response.

Consider:

```
 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "6"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6

```

In this position, only two moves, in my opinion, lead to Catalan-like structures: 4. g3 and 4. Qc2. The other options, including 4. Qb3, are more going towards typical Slav positions.

```
 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "6"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 (4. Qc2) (4. Qb3)

```

In this question, the discussion was between 4. Qc2 and 4. Qb3, and I am not sure I am too fond of 4. Qb3 (simply based on the positions I like to get).

After 4. g3, the following is possible and quite likely:

```
 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "8"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 e6 (4...dxc4) 5. Bg2

```

and via a very popular 4. .. e6, we are in a typical Catalan structure where dxc4 just has not happened yet, or via 4...dxc4 directly with the same 5. Bg2 reply for white.

Are there strong responses different from 4. .. e6 for black against 4. g3 that avoid the Catalan? Are there better ways to achieve Catalan or Catalan-like structures with white against Slav?

# Answer
> 6 votes
> Are there strong responses different from 4. .. e6 for black against 4. g3 that avoid the Catalan?

## 4...Bf5

One interesting alternative is 4...Bf5, with very original play. Before playing e6, Black wants to develop and exchange its "bad" bishop; a move favored by top GMs such as Nakamura, Karjakin or Inarkiev.

```
[fen ""]
[title "Mamedyarov (2760) vs. Nakamura (2772), Gashimov Mem 2014"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Bf5!? 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 Be4 (6...Bg4 {was played by Karjakin}) (6...dxc4 {see next game}) 7.f3 Bg6 8.Qb3 Qb6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.c5 Qc7 11.e4 Be7 12.Bf4 Qc8 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.O-O-O Nc6 16.Kb1 g5 17.Be3 f5 18.g4 f4 19.Bf2 Kf7 20.Re1 b6 21.Qa4 bxc5 22.Ba6 Qc7 23.Bb5 Rab8 24.Rxe6 Kxe6 25.Bxc6 Rhd8 26.dxc5 Bf6 27.Bd4 Kf7 28.Rd1 Kf8 29.a3 Bxd4 30.Rxd4 Qe5 31.Rd2 Qe1+ 32.Rd1 Qe2 33.b4 Qxf3 34.Kb2 Qxg4 35.Qc2 Qe6 36.Ba4 Kg8 37.Bb3 Kh8 38.c6 Rd6 39.Rc1 f3 40.Qc5 Qf6+ 41.Ka2 f2 42.c7 Rc8 43.Rf1 d4 44.h4 Qf3 45.Bc4 Rc6 46.Qxd4 R6xc7 47.Rxf2 Rxc4 0-1

```

---

```
[fen ""]
[title "Halkias (2552) vs. Inarkiev (2693), Sunway Sitges Op 2018"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.g3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 dxc4 7.Nxf5 exf5 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Qf3 g6 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bb3 Bd6 12.h3 h5 13.Bd2 Qe7 14.Kf1 Ne4 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Qe2 h4 17.g4 O-O-O 18.Rc1 Kb8 19.Ba5 f5 20.Bxb6 axb6 21.Ke1 Rhf8 22.gxf5 Rxf5 23.Qg4 c5 24.dxc5 Bxc5 25.Rc2 Qd6 26.Bc4 Bb4+ 27.Ke2 b5 28.Qxe4 bxc4 29.Qxc4 Rxf2+ 0-1

```

---

## 4...g6

Another response is 4...g6 also played by top GMs including Caruana, Grischuk, or Giri. Caruana and Grischuk play this line with Black and also White! But sometimes after a transposition (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.Nf3 d5)

A recent example:

```
[fen ""]
[title "Caruana (2819) vs. Giri (2779), Croatia 2019"]

1.c4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nbd2 a5 8.b3 Bf5 9.e3 a4 10.Ba3 Nbd7 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Qc1 Nc7 13.Nc4 Nb5 14.Bb2 Be4 15.b4 Nb6 16.Nxb6 Qxb6 17.a3 Qd8 18.Nd2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qd5+ 20.Kg1 Nd6 21.Qc2 e5 22.e4 Qe6 23.dxe5 Bxe5 24.Bxe5 Qxe5 25.Rae1 Nb5 26.Nf3 Qc3 27.Qxc3 Nxc3 28.Re3 Nb5 29.Ne5 Rfd8 30.Nc4 Rd4 31.Rc1 Nd6 32.Nxd6 Rxd6 33.Rc5 Rad8 34.b5 cxb5 35.Rxb5 Rd3 36.Rxd3 Rxd3 37.Rxb7 Rxa3 38.Ra7 g5 39.Kg2 Kg7 40.e5 Kg6 41.Ra6+ Kg7 42.h4 gxh4 43.gxh4 h5 44.f4 f5 45.exf6+ Kf7 46.Ra5 Kxf6 47.Rxh5 Rb3 48.Ra5 a3 49.h5 Kg7 50.Ra6 Kh7 51.Kf2 Rh3 52.Kg2 Rb3 53.Kf2 Rh3 54.Kg2 ½-½

```

---
Tags: 1.d4, slav-defense, catalan
---


title: Unknown Women International Masters

text:
# Question
Title: Unknown Women International Masters
I am interested in the history of chess and, looking at the old FIDE rankings, I am a little puzzled by the lack of information about some strong Women International Masters, with a FIDE rating above 2200.

For instance,

Does anyone know them? How old are they? Are they still alive?

N.B. I couldn't find them and they may have been married and changed their names.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Tatyana Sergeeva (Татьяна Сергеева) and Lyazzat Tazhieva (Ляззат Тажиева) are representatives of Soviet/Kazakhstan school of chess.

According to this article from sports.kz, GM Bolat Asanov says:

> В 1996 году в мировом рейтинге женская сборная Казахстана занимала 8-9-е места. К сожалению, победная цепь разорвалась. Резервы «не поспели» и не смогли заполнить образовавшиеся пустоты: ушли из жизни Татьяна Сергеева, Ляззат Тажиева. ...

My translation:

> In 1996, in the world rating, Kazakhstan women national team was around the 8-9th place. Unfortunately, the winning streak was broken. The young blood was not ready fast enough and they were not able to fill the emerging gaps: Tatiana Sergeeva and Lyazzat Tazhieva passed away. ...

Therefore, sadly, these high-rated FIDE players of the 90s are not alive, unless there is some error in the report of "PROSPORT Kazakhstan" Talap Koybagarov or information given by Bolat Asanov.

Lyazzat Tazhieva:

Tatyana Sergeeva (this is harder, as the last name is so much more common):

* Wiki page in Kazakh lists Tatyana Sergeeva (Zhivaeva) to pass away in 2000. Also, it mentions her participating in the final of World Chess Olympiad in 1996 and 1998.:

> Татьяна Ильиничина Сергеева (Живаева) (1.01.1957 - 15.09.2000 Алм. қ-сы.), ХДСШ-і (1981). Респ-ның 4 дүркін (1977, 1980, 1991, 1996) ч-ны. 2 Рет КСРО ч-тының (1977-т.б., 1981- Алм.) финалында ойнады, Бүкілдүниежүзілік ш-т олимпиадасына (1996 - Ереван, 1998 - Элиста) қатысты.
>
> Қазақстан - спортшылар елі. Энциклопедиялық анықтамалық. - Алматы: "Сөздік-Словарь". ISBN 9965-822-57-3

with an apparent source of "Kazakhstan — Sportsmen Country. Encyclopedia."

# Answer
> 6 votes
According to Olimpbase, Marina Lazic first appeared in the FIDE rating lists as a Yugoslav player in July 1982 with a rating of 1840. She improved to a rating of 2230 in the January and July 1996 lists and her last known rating was 2205 in July 1998. Her FIDE Id was 910562. No date of birth given.

There is a Serbian player with the same FIN called Stojanovic, Marija Z but she was born in 1984 and is clearly not the same person. I suspect that this is yet another case of a player dying and their FIN being reused.

A similar story for T. Kogan. According to Olimpbase, they (I'm not convinced Kogan was a woman) first appeared in the January 1988 list as a USSR player with a rating of 2230 and their last appearance was in January 1993 with a rating of 2245. Their FIN was 4108230 and no date of birth.

Again their FIN was reused in 2007 for male Russian player Rusjaev, Nikolay. I suspect Kogan died. I also suspect that he was a man since if he had really been a woman s/he would have had ratings long before 2230. The rating floor for women was 1800 and for men 2200.

Again a similar story for Tazhieva, Lyazzat. According to Olimpbase, she first appeared in the January 1988 list as a USSR player with a rating of 2185. Her FIN as a USSR player was 4108930. When Kazakhstan was recognised as a FIDE federation she became a Kazakhstan player and her FIN changed to 13700138.

Again her FIN was reused in 2007 for female KAZ player Zhylkaidarova, Sholpan.

Same story for Sergeeva, Tatyana. Here are her Olimbase records. Her FIN changed from 4108361 as a USSR, Russia player to 13700235 with Kazakhstan. Her FIN was reused in 2008 for Ulkhanov, Azamat.

---
Tags: history, fide, women
---


# Question
Title: How to make a chess engine that can identify tactics in the position?
I want to make a program that can identify chess tactics in the position, while searching moves according to given heuristics. but I am not sure exactly how to go about this. Related to this Is there a chess engine that does NOT use brute-force search?.

For example let's analyze this position:

```
[FEN "5rk1/p2Q1ppp/1q2pb2/2rp1b2/5B2/P1N1P3/1P3PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

The best move is Na4 forking rook and queen. But Bd6 also forks two rooks but leads to a bad position. A train of thought could be like:

```
If Bd6 attacks two rooks, Rxc3 captures knight;
    If bxc3 captures rook, Rd8 skewers queen and bishop on d6,
        If Bc7 attacks the queen, Rxd7, Bxb6 axb6
    If Bxf8, Rc7 attacks the queen,
        If Qe8 defends bishop, Qc6 attacks Qe8,
            If Qb8 moves the queen, Rc8 attacks queen and bishop.

```

In this position single move Na4 has the tactical motive of double attack, which should be fairly easy to spot. But it will also spot Bd6 move as a double attack, but needs to be searched further to decide that it's not working, maybe we need to spot all the other moves as uninteresting and not include in the output or the search.

A simple way to get started is to identify about pins, skewers, attacks, pressures, hanging pieces etc. Apart from that, I am not sure what the next step should be, I mean I don't even know what the input and output should be to this program.

Is a single position enough to identify a tactical motif or a line needs to be given as input, in which case I need to come up with the best lines as well.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Yes, you can of course create a chess engine that does that. What you're saying is just a tiny part of engine search tree. You will need to read about more chess programming to get yourself started. Please come back when you have a concrete question.

Stockfish is free, why not start from it?

---
Tags: engines, tactics, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: Why, in this Capablanca game, was this move considered bad?
Regarding this position:

```
[fen "r2qr1k/pbpn1pbp/1p1p1np1/4p3/1PP5/3P1NP1/PBQNPPBP/R2R2K1 w - - 1 1"]

```

I have 2 questions:

1)If the game goes 1..c5 2.b5 the engine shows white slightly better but if 1..a5 2.b5 then the engine shows black slightly better.Why is that??

2)In this game Capa played h6 I think to prevent Ng5 but according to Alekhine this was not a good move. I don't understand why play another move and invite the Knight to g5?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> 2) In this game Capa played h6 I think to prevent Ng5 but according to Alekhine this was not a good move. I don't understand why play another move and invite the Knight to g5?

This position comes from the famous game in which Richard Reti defeated the reigning world champion, Jose Raul Capablanca, in New York in 1924.

```
[fen ""]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.g3 b6 6.Bg2 Bb7 7.O-O d6 8.d3 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 e5 10.Qc2 Re8 11.Rfd1

```

However, in this position, **Capablanca didn't play 11...h6** but 11...a5, followed by 12...h6. Despite this difference, the question deserves to be asked because h6 is still debatable.

```
[fen "r2qr1k1/pbpn1pbp/1p1p1np1/4p3/1PP5/3P1NP1/PBQNPPBP/R2R2K1 b - - 3 11"]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1... a5 2.a3 h6?! (2...Qe7!? {to prepare e4})

```

Alekhine **criticized h6**

> This move, which is difficult to understand, is the best proof that Capablanca was poorly disposed that day.

## Why is h6 inaccurate?

The move h6 is inaccurate because White does not threaten to play Ng5 (He could have done it before, and the exchange of light bishops might weaken the White king). h6 is a move difficult to understand because at this super high level, moves always have a goal. Here we do not clearly understand its purpose. My guess is that

* Black is playing a waiting move because it plans to sacrifice a pawn with c5 but waits for a more favorable moment.
* Black does not want to push e4, which is natural, but tends to favor White.
* Black could have played instead Qe7 to prepare e4.

---

```
[fen "r2qr1k1/1bpn1pb1/1p1p1npp/p3p3/1PP5/P2P1NP1/1BQNPPBP/R2R2K1 w - - 0 13"]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1. Nf1 c5! {was that the plan?} 2.b5! {no thanks!} (2.bxa5 Rxa5 3.Nxe5 Bxg2 4.Nxd7 Bc6 5.Nxf6 Bxf6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Qd2 h5! {and Black has more than sufficient compensation according to Kasparov}) Nf8 e3 Qc7 d4 Be4 Qc3 exd4 exd4 N6d7 Qd2 cxd4 Bxd4 Qxc4 Bxg7 Kxg7 Qb2+ Kg8 Rxd6 Qc5 Rad1 Ra7 Ne3 Qh5 Nd4 Bxg2 Kxg2 Qe5 Nc4 Qc5 Nc6 Rc7 Ne3 Ne5 R1d5 1-0

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
> If the game goes 1..c5 2.b5 the engine shows white slightly better but if 1..a5 2.b5 then the engine shows black slightly better.Why is that??

```
[fen "r2qr1k/pbpn1pbp/1p1p1np1/4p3/1PP5/3P1NP1/PBQNPPBP/R2R2K1 b - - 1 1"]

1... c5 (1... a5 2. b5) 2. b5

```

After 1..c5 2.b5 the a7 pawn is weak and after 1..a5 2.b5 the c7 pawn is weak. The difference between the two positions is that the weak c7 pawn can't easily be attacked by white because access is blocked by the white pawn on c4. Also the pawn push c4-c5 by white to try and pry open the position to get to the weak c7 pawn is out of the question for a long time.

However after 1..c5 2.b5 the weak a7 pawn can be attacked down the a file by bringing rooks to a3 and a4. This could be very unpleasant for black. Also on the cards is to just push the a pawn up the board, again with the white rooks behind it, and white is going to open up the a file to his advantage.

---
Tags: engines, strategy, middlegame, capablanca, reti-opening
---


title: Not able to use rooks properly

text:
# Question
Title: Not able to use rooks properly
While playing a game, I observe that I am not able to use my rooks properly. The reason is that I am not able to bring them out earlier as they occupy the corner position. This gives a lead to the opposite player.

Can someone tell what is the best opening moves for rooks if I want to use them for defending my two middle pawns?

# Answer
> 10 votes
In general, it is not easy to develop rooks during the opening *per se*. Not only it's not easy, it rarely is a goal of the sound opening.

In some references, the opening ends, when minor pieces (bishops and knights) are developed and rooks are connected. Therefore, it is highly likely that you are already talking about the middlegame rather than the opening.

Now, regarding the *general use* of the rooks. Rooks are good at open files (or files that are likely to become open). Instead of having the goal of using rooks to defend the two middle pawns, I suggest looking for good files for the rooks, whether it is in the center, open C-file, or, soon-to-be-open A-file.

To get the best of your opening (again, there are always exceptions, established theory) in general, look at developing your minor pieces at active squares, castle your king, connect the rooks, and place them at strategically promising files.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It is interesting that you identify this as a weakness. It is often not clear initially on which file the Rooks belong. It becomes clearer as the pawn structures take shape, in particular when you can see which pawn breaks will lead to an open file. One question to ask yourself is, if I open this file, will my rooks be able to use it as an avenue for attack? If they will not, then it is not very valuable to open it. But of course perhaps your opponent can open it to their advantage. So then you have to contest it without anticipating any advantage. Rook play and Pawn play are very interlinked, and you need to begin thinking about your Rooks at an early stage. Look back at some games where you did not handle the rooks well, and see if these ideas clarify anything.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Getting the rooks to the middle usually consists of:

* Developing all the knights and bishops
* Castling
* Developing the queen
* Now that the bank rank is clear, the rooks can use it to go to whichever file they like.

If you want the rooks to get to the center slightly faster, castling queenside puts one rook on the D-file without it needing to move again, saving a move.

But can I challenge the premise? You may not want the rooks to defend the central pawns. Sometimes it's necessary, but often that can be left to the bishops, knights, or other pawns, and it's relatively rare that you would need *both* rooks to defend central pawns. Often, a better use for the rooks is to gain control of an open file.

# Answer
> 1 votes
From experience, you possibly make too many pawn moves, or move light pieces (or the queen) twice or even more often.

It is a common error for weaker players to make moves that the opponent can defend and counterattack by developing a piece, and then you need to move the piece again.

Try to verify for each move:

* is the field you are moving to not a good and save long-term position?
* can the moved piece be easily and immediately attacked and forced to move again?
* does this move force the opponent to make a good move (developing one of his pieces)?
* did you move this piece already before?
* is it a unnecessary pawn move?

If any of this is true, it's potentially not a good move, as it loses you valuable time. Try to find another one.

Once the opening is over, these rules become less important; but don't lose tempo during the opening.

An efficient opening moves each light piece only once (4), only a small number of pawn moves (2-4), castles (1), and positions the queen (1), so after 8 to 10 moves, your rooks should be free to roam (not that that is necessarily what you should do next - but you could).

There are of course exceptions to all this. But generally, it will be very useful to keep those in mind.

---
Tags: opening, beginner, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Is there a hash or string that represents a stockfish evaluation of a position to a certain depth?
Is there a hash or string that represents a stockfish evaluation of a position to a certain depth? For example for a given FEN, can you analyze to a depth of say 10 and get a hash to represent that position AND depth of analysis? That would allow you to come back later and, if wanted, continue analysis to a greater depth at a later point.

# Answer
I doubt that can be possible.

An analysis to a certain depth contains the generated position tree and the calculated values, which is quickly becoming a very large amount of data.
For depth 10, you probably need several megabytes of memory to represent the analysis result in a way that it could be used to continue searching deeper. There is simply no way to compress this into a small hash or anything else.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is **definitely** impossible. Stockfish uses a game-tree search with pruning and evaluation heuristics. If it has searched to a certain 'depth', it means that it has built (in memory) a game tree to that depth excluding many pruned branches. To deepen a search, Stockfish would not only have to continue the search to subsequent moves past the end of each originally searched path, but also have to check many heuristically pruned branches (which may include those that were pruned as per alpha-beta pruning, since the evaluations may change). Doing so would require knowing practically the entire game-tree. There is thus absolutely no way to compress this into a short string, short of knowing a simple and optimal strategy for playing chess!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What is the best move for black in this game?
```
[FEN "1k5r/p1p2pq1/2n5/1p1p3n/1P1Pp2Q/P1P1P1P1/1B1K2B1/7R b - - 0 1"]

```

Today I was playing a game with myself only. This is the condition now it is black to move. What can be the best move in this situation?

# Answer
> 12 votes
The knight on h5 is pinned to a rook, and faced with the potential threat of g4. To unpin this knight, Black should play Rh7, so that the knight is free to go to f6 (where it will protect the rook).

```
[FEN "1k5r/p1p2pq1/2n5/1p1p3n/1P1Pp2Q/P1P1P1P1/1B1K2B1/7R b - - 0 1"]

1...Rh7 2.g4 { This move is just for illustration, and probably not best. } Nf6

```

I would argue that Rh7 is the best move in this position. It has been stated in a comment that Stockfish marginally prefers a6 to Rh7 (although it always prefers Rh7 when I try it, at all depths from 3 to 46 - it probably depends on cache state, number of threads, etc.). But from a human point of view, I don’t think a6 makes much sense: all the while the pin exists, White can try to find ways of exploiting it; Black ought to put a stop to this right now. In fact, the main purpose of a6 (from Stockfish’s point of view) seems to be to deal with one possible way of exploiting the pin; but clearly it’s simpler just to remove the pin.

# Answer
> 8 votes
In the present position black cannot move the knight, and it appears white is threatening to attack it with g4 but in fact if white plays g4 he won't be able to capture the knight with the pawn without losing the bishop n g2.

...Rh7 is one way to allow the knight to move away to f6 but it is not necessary to play that right away and you could play a move like ...a6 first.

---
Tags: candidate-move
---


# Question
Title: How do delay and increment work, exactly?
I am trying to program my own chess clock and would like it to be as accurate as possible. Suppose 2 players, player A and player B, are playing a 15 minute game with a 2 second delay. Suppose A is white, and the game begins, and player A spends 2.5 seconds on his first move before hitting the clock. The first 2 seconds are "absorbed" by the delay, but what happens when it is his turn again? He will get the 2 second delay, but will 15:00 change to 14:59 half a second after the delay has finished, essentially giving him a free half-second? Or does the fractional time get rounded up to the nearest second? Similarly with increment.

# Answer
Nothing gets rounded internally. If you are programming a chess clock, then maintain the time according to whatever the machine precision is on your machine without rounding. Some clocks have tenth seconds on their display, but that doesn't mean that they're altering the fundamental increments of time as compared to different clocks.

If A begins and spends 2.5 seconds on his first move, then he will have exactly 14:59.5 left. Just because it displays 15:00 doesn't mean that he still has 15:00. If he spent 2.6 seconds, then he has exactly 14:59.4 left, which may display as 14:59.

Likewise with increment. He will have exactly 14:57.5 + 2 = 14:59.5 seconds on his clock, which may display as 15:00.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In general:

* With increment you have one clock, and that counts down while it is your move. When your move is complete, the increment time is then added back to your clock.
* With delay you have 2 clocks, one for the current move and your main clock. The clock for your current move starts at the delay time, and if you exceed that, your main clock starts counting down instead. You only lose on time if your main clock goes down to 0 (or just below 0, so for example you can play 0 with 15 second delay in which case you must play all your moves in 15 seconds or less).

Delay is similar to the clock that sounds a tone and you move on the tone.

One huge advantage in online chess with a short clock time and a medium delay is you are more immune against "rage quitters". If you play with say 1 minute and 15 second delay, you will never have to wait more than 1 minute and 15 seconds if your opponent rage quits.

It can also be more "entertaining" to watch as players will never go into the "tank" so you'll see progress on the board, and games will be played out to a conclusion and not turn into a mad time-scramble with one player trying to flag the other.

That doesn't work as well with increment as players can blitz out their opening moves to get more time on their clock for the middle game.

(For those who wish to be able to make use of their time that way, I guess that's an advantage of increment).

I'm not interested in what is more cheat-proof. Cheats will cheat regardless of the time control.

For granularity of time, milliseconds is probably good enough, but you could store microseconds. For display to the user tenths of a second may be sufficient.
> 1 votes

# Answer
> Essentially giving him a free second

This is not how a chess clock should work. The accuracy of the chess clock should be more than that you see while using it. If you are programming a chess clock for OTB play, then an accuracy of 100 milliseconds would be enough. However, for an online chess clock (one which gets automatically pressed when a move is made), this accuracy is not enough and could be exploited by the players, especially if premoving is an option.

When programming a chess clock, what I do is store the total time left for each player in milliseconds. Then, I write a function which will calculate the amount of hours, minutes, seconds and milliseconds (as necessary) to display them, and run this function every 10 milliseconds, each time subtracting 1 from the original time (in ms).

This way, while the clock may only show the time as 14:59, it will be able to store it as 14:59.625, for example.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: chess-clocks
---


title: Mate-in-10 that Stockfish missed!

text:
# Question
Title: Mate-in-10 that Stockfish missed!
Stockfish 10+ at depth 19 evaluated this position as a draw:

```
[Title "White to play and mate in 10"]
[FEN "r1b2r2/5pk1/pq2p3/1p5Q/3p1P2/P2Rn1NP/1P4P1/7K w - - 0 28"]

```

However, it is actually checkmate in 10! I understand that Stockfish prunes the search tree heavily, which can (in theory) result in such errors in evaluation. But this is the first time (in practice) that I have seen a non-contrived position (it came from a variant line of an actual game that I was exploring with Stockfish) with a completely wrong evaluation. Can anyone who is very familiar with the Stockfish code provide an explanation of the main factors here? Is it simply that there were too many quiescent moves? I count only 5 moves that are not a check or a forced move (i.e. the only move that does not result in mate-in-3) or a capture, and these 5 are the moves that I as a human player would consider as quiescent (even if I ignore the great king danger). Am I missing some other reason here?

The principal variation is:

```
[Title "White checkmates in 10"]
[FEN "r1b2r2/5pk1/pq2p3/1p5Q/3p1P2/P2Rn1NP/1P4P1/7K w - - 0 0"]

1. Qg5+ Kh7 2. Nh5 Nf5 3. Nf6+ Kh8 4. Kh2 e5
5. Rg3 Qxf6 6. Qxf6+ Kh7 7. Rg5 d3 8. Rh5+ Nh6
9. Qxh6+ Kg8 10. Qh8#

```

Stockfish 10+ at depth 19 evaluates it as draw until `29. Nh5`. After the next move `Nf5`, Stockfish thought it was +7.5. After the next move `Nf6+` Stockfish knew it was game over.

# Answer
Depth 19 refers to 19 plies, not 19 moves (which would be 2 plies each). So it's reasonable that Stockfish would only find the mate shortly after depth 19, since 10.Qh8# is the 19th ply from the starting position you posted.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, stockfish, evaluation, puzzles
---


title: How does white mate in two?

text:
# Question
Title: How does white mate in two?
```
[FEN "7Q/p1p1b1B1/6r1/2p3kp/4Bp1q/7P/PPP2PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

(source)

In this problem, it’s White to move and mate in two. What is the solution?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I would not normally answer this, but the real answer was deleted by its author for some reason, and is hidden. I also think that the original -3 for the question was more due to the original poster not being a native English speaker so I edited that too.

This is from the game Diaz Carias-Cordovil, 1966 Olympiad. Black resigned after 30.Bh6+, which is the first move of the solution. After Black’s forced Rxh6, White will play Qe5#.

```
 [Event "Olympiad-17 Final C"]
 [Site "Havana"]
 [Date "1966.11.13"]
 [Round "9"]
 [White "Diaz Carias, Salvador"]
 [Black "Cordovil, Joao Maria"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "C50"]
 [StartPly "58"]
 [EventDate "1966.11.04"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "CUB"]
 [SourceTitle "MCD"]
 [WhiteTeam "Venezuela"]
 [BlackTeam "Portugal"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "VEN"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "POR"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Be7 4. d4 d6 5. h3 exd4 6. Nxd4 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O Nxe4 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nxe4 d5 11. Bd3 dxe4 12. Bxe4 Rb8 13. Qf3 c5 14. Rd1 Bd6 15. Bd2 Qh4 16. Bc3 f5 17. Bd5+ Kh8 18. Re1 f4 19. Re2 h5 20. Rae1 Bg4 21. Re6 Bxe6 22. Rxe6 Rf6 23. Qe4 Rbf8 24. Rxf6 Rxf6 25. Qe8+ Kh7 26. Qg8+ Kh6 27. Be4 Rg6 28. Qh8+ Kg5 29. Bxg7 Be7 30. Bh6+ (30. Bh6+ Rxh6 31. Qe5#) 1-0

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is a solution in three moves.

```
[FEN "7Q/p1p1b1B1/6r1/2p3kp/4Bp1q/7P/PPP2PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh6+ Rxh6 2. Qg7+ Rg6 3. Qxg6# *

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
Bh6+ Rxh6 forced and Qe5 is then checkmate

---
Tags: tactics, problems
---


# Question
Title: The best chess websites or apps to play on
I am a beginner. Is there any place where I can play online and improve my game? I know of sites like Chess.com but unfortunately you have to pay for them. My parents won't allow me to spend money on it. What are the best free chess websites or apps?

# Answer
The best completely free website I know of is Lichess. Personally, I use Chess.com. It's free to play on, and many of the features it has can be used by anyone. However, to gain full access to the website (e.g. the video library), you do need to pay for a membership. It is relatively inexpensive though—$100 per year, which is equivalent to $8.33 per month. (Other membership options are even cheaper.)

Many people still prefer Lichess, and it does have the advantage that absolutely everything is free. Ultimately, I think the best way to answer your question is to try out everything:

Proprietary (to gain full access, you need to pay):

Open source (completely free, and run by volunteers):

Note that even the chess websites that offer paid subscriptions often come with a money-back guarantee. If you're organised enough to cancel your subscriptions, then you can pretty much trial everything before coming to a decision.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, beginner, online, websites
---


title: Why is Qf5-c2+ a blunder?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is Qf5-c2+ a blunder?
Wikipedia defines a blunder as follows:

> In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness.

Here when I use the engine from chess.com to analyse a game, the engine considers black's move Qf5-c2+ as a blunder and Qf5-h3 is considered as the best move. I failed to see why Qc2+ is a blunder; can anyone help me to explain?

By the way, is this game a draw before Qf5-c2+ (assuming both sides make best moves)?

**Edit**: I am still curious about this position; anyone can help me with a deep engine analysis and see if it is a draw?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I agree with Stephen's points however...

... in normal times, with no previous repetition, `Qç2` is actually a **good try** to win the game!

The plan to win this game is to **bring the Black King to g3** in order to mate the White King. Meanwhile Black should protect the b7-pawn, which will be attacked by the Bg4-c8 maneuver.

First, I didn't see how White defends against Black's plan because in practice it is very hard to defend this position. Here is an illustration:

```
[fen "8/1p2k2p/1Pp5/2PpNq1P/3P4/4PB2/4K3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qc2! 2.Ke1 Kf6! 3.Bg4! {the best idea to draw the game} Qg2! (3...Kg5 4.Bc8 Kxh5 5.Bxb7=) 4.Bc8 Qg7 5.Bg4? (5.Kd2 Kg5 6.Nd3!! {see the following diagram}) Kg5 6.Ke2 Kh4 7.Kf2 Qf8 8.Kg2 Qf6 9.Bf3 (9.Bc8 Kxh5 10.Bxb7 Qg7-+) Qg5 10.Kf2 Qg3 11.Ke2 Qh2 12.Kd3 Qb2 13.Bg4 (13.e4 {is not so effective} Qb3 14.Ke2 Qc3! 15.exd5 Qxd4 16.Nxc6 {sets a nice trap} bxc6 17.dxc6 Kg3! (17...Qxc5 18.c7=)18.c7 Qf2-+) Kg3! 14.Bc8 Kf2 15.Bxb7 Ke1-+ {and the mate follows soon} 16.Nf3 Kd1 17.Bxc6 Qb3#

```

Now, I am not so sure it's winning because White has a **fantastic fortress**, which consists of transferring the Knight to f4, via d3, to prevent the Black King to enter.

```
[fen "2B5/1p4qp/1Pp2k2/2PpN2P/3P4/4P3/8/4K3 w - - 7 5"]

1.Kd2 Kg5 2.Nd3!! Kxh5 3.Nf4 Kh4 4.Ke2 Qe7 (4...Kg3?? 5.Nh5) 5.Kf3 {and the Black king cannot enter into g3!}

```

Black can improve its position by pushing the pawn to h4, bringing the King back to d8 to chase the Bishop and centralizing the Queen. It can also set some traps. It's horrible to defend for White, but I am not sure this is a forced win.

```
[fen "3k4/1p6/1Pp5/2Pp4/3PqN1p/4P2B/5K2/8 b - - 75 49"]

1... Qc2 2.Kf3 Qh2 3.Bg2?? (3.Bf5 {and I don't see a clear win}) Qg3 4.Ke2 Qxg2!! 5.Nxg2 h3-+

```

To capture the h5-pawn is probably not useful because the h7-pawn can go until h4 and then it is stopped. Moreover, the h4-pawn prevents the Black King from entering. However, so far I have not been able to find another winning plan for Black! But, I'm trying...

```
[fen "2B5/1p4qp/1Pp5/2Pp2kP/3P4/3NP3/4K3/8 b - - 10 6"]

1... Kh4!? 2. Nf4 Kg3 3.Nd3! {the Knight is a super defender} Qf7 4.Kd2! Qe7 5.Ke2! {to close the door for the King}

```

# Answer
> 17 votes
The engine considers Qc2+ a blunder because it's a draw by repetition. (I think the position is probably a draw anyway, but Black could at least try for a win.) The problem is that you have already reached this position twice before. If this was the first time you had reached this position, there would be no problem: Qc2+ is actually a good move in itself. But since you have kept repeating the position instead of making progress, you now need to play something different, such as Qh3.

---
Tags: analysis, blunder
---


title: How to correct reversed game notation?

text:
# Question
Title: How to correct reversed game notation?
My son and I are rank chess amateurs, and we wanted to play our first "real" game where we keep track of moves to analyze later. We started the game but then realized that the board was reversed (i.e. the black pieces were on rows 1 and 2). Since we didn't notice until a few moves had been played, we just continued to use this reversed notation for the whole game.

The resulting PGN file doesn't want to import into lichess. Is there any way to take our "reversed" PGN game file and make it compatible? Perhaps some automated way to reverse the notation, or alert the PGN importer that the notation is reversed so it can handle it?

# Answer
If you set the board up correctly, i.e. "white on the right and queen on her own colour", then you need to flip the letters like this:

a ↔ h
b ↔ g
c ↔ f
d ↔ e
and the numbers like this:
1 ↔ 8
2 ↔ 7
3 ↔ 6
4 ↔ 5

So, if white's first move was to push the pawn in front of the king 2 squares you will have written "d5" or "d7-d5". Using the look-up above change this to "e4" or "e2-e4". Do the same for black's first move. If white's second move was to move the knight nearest the king to the square two in front of the bishop and you have written "Nc6" use the look-up to change this to "Nf3". Work through all the moves changing them according to the look-up.

If you are a programmer and the game is long it will probably be easier to write a simple program to do this.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Adding on to Brian Towers' answer, there is a quick way you can script this (assuming you are on Linux or another POSIX system with the `tr` command):

```
cat gamelog.txt | tr 'abcdefgh12345678' 'hgfedcba87654321' > gamelog_reversed.txt

```

Edit: as @wimi said, this will mess up move numbers, so be careful about that. You may want to use `cut` and `paste` to seperate only the columns with the moves.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: notation
---