# Question
Title: Longest *shortest available* fixed sequence of moves leading to checkmate?
What is the longest fixed sequence of consecutive moves you can find in any legal position that

1. guarantees checkmating the opponent regardless of their responses (whether by forcing particular responses or otherwise), AND
2. is the shortest available fixed sequence of consecutive moves that checkmates the opponent in that position?

---

## Example

Have a look at the position below:

```
[White "Checkmater"]
[Black "Checkmatee"]
[FEN "r5r1/1pq1k1Bp/3pb1p1/1p1P1p2/8/5N2/PP2QPPP/R3K2R w - - 1 18"]

1.Qxe6+ Kd8 2. Bf6+ Qe7 3. Qxe7+ Kc8 4. Rc1+ Kb8 5. Qc7+ Ka7 6. Bd4+ Ka6 7. Qb6#

```

In theory White has M5: **1.Qxe6+ Kd8 2.Bf6+ Qe7 3.Bxe7+ Ke8 (3...Kc7 4.Qxd6+ Kc8 5.Rc1#) 4.Bf6+ Kf8 5.Qe7#**. But White's third move has to be *different* to achieve these mates: no one move works in both cases of 2...Ke8 and 2...Kc7. (For example, try 3.Bxd6+: with this, 2...Ke8 3.Bxd6+ comes with M2, and 2...Kc7 3.Bxd6+ comes with M5, yet neither of the two mates can be achieved by a fixed sequence of moves.)

However, White has the fixed sequence of moves shown above which guarantees checkmate (satisfying condition 1): **1.Qxe6+ Kd8 2.Bf6+ Qe7 3.Qxe7+ Kc8 4.Rc1+ Kb8 5.Qc7+ Ka7 6.Bd4+ Ka6 7.Qb6#**. At 7 checkmater moves long this also appears to be the shortest fixed sequence available in the position above which guarantees checkmate (satisfying condition 2) - for example, we can create longer but equally forced sequences that also satisfy condition 1, such as trivially extending the mate above for example with **3.Qxe7+ Kc8 4.Rc1+ Kb8 5.Qc7+ Ka7** and now instead of 5.Bd4+, play e.g., **5.Qa5+ Kb8 6.Qc7+ Ka7**, etc., and thereby add a few moves to lengthen the sequence while keeping it fixed and mate certain at the end.

Note that there is no necessity (in principle at least) for the opponent's moves to be forced. Condition 1 is satisfied as long as - no matter what Black chooses, if they have any choice - the same continuation for White (the checkmater) still results in checkmate.

Above I showed a position where the shortest fixed consecutive series of moves by White that guarantees checkmating Black is 7 moves long. (Not that I claim this as any kind of record.) I would like to see positions where there exists a sequence that satisfies these criteria and where that sequence is as long as possible - I'm guessing 8,9 White moves is small fry for some of the people here.

# Answer
In other words, you wish for the record length for a completely dual-free sequence. Every White move must be absolutely unique to any possible by Black. Shorter, dualed mating sequences do not count.

To that end, I remembered a **mate in 61** from this page on SuperProblem.ru (a Russian based chess problem site). It is also in the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database. This works since Black has only one legal move for the whole sequence, thereby guaranteeing that White's mating plan cannot be interrupted or prolonged.

```
[Title "Bosko Miloseski, SuperProblem.ru 1/24/2020, Dedicated to the participants of TT-235, Mate In 61"]
[FEN "4Q3/1ppr4/br1k4/1p1p4/1PpP1p2/KBp2p2/2P2P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe5+! Kc6 2. Qe6+ Rd6 3. Qe8+ Rd7 4. Ba2 Kd6 5. Qe5+ Kc6 6. Qe6+ Rd6 7. Qe8+ Rd7 8. Bb1 Kd6 9. Qe5+ Kc6 10. Qe6+ Rd6 11. Qe8+ Rd7 12. Ka2 Kd6 13. Qe5+ Kc6 14. Qe6+ Rd6 15. Qe8+ Rd7 16. Ka1 Kd6 17. Qe5+ Kc6 18. Qe6+ Rd6 19. Qe8+ Rd7 20. Ba2 Kd6 21. Qe5+ Kc6 22. Qe6+ Rd6 23. Qe8+ Rd7 24. Kb1 Kd6 25. Qe5+ Kc6 26. Qe6+ Rd6 27. Qe8+ Rd7 28. Kc1 Kd6 29. Qe5+ Kc6 30. Qe6+ Rd6 31. Qe8+ Rd7 32. Kd1 Kd6 33. Qe5+ Kc6 34. Qe6+ Rd6 35. Qe8+ Rd7 36. Ke1 Kd6 37. Qe5+ Kc6 38. Qe6+ Rd6 39. Qe8+ Rd7 40. Kf1 Kd6 41. Qe5+ Kc6 42. Qe6+ Rd6 43. Qe8+ Rd7 44. Kg1 Kd6 45. Qe5+ Kc6 46. Qe6+ Rd6 47. Qe8+ Rd7 48. Kh2 Kd6 49. Qe5+ Kc6 50. Qe6+ Rd6 51. Qe8+ Rd7 52. Kh3 Kd6 53. Qe5+ Kc6 54. Qe6+ Rd6 55. Qe8+ Rd7 56. Kg4 Kd6 57. Qe5+ Kc6 58. Qe6+ Rd6 59. Qe8+ Rd7 60. Kf5 Kd6 61. Qe6#

```
> 14 votes

# Answer
```
[FEN "k4b2/P1p1p3/KpP1Pp2/1P3P2/3pBp2/3P1P2/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

This may be more "in the spirit": White has a forced 12# by 1.Bd5 2.Bb3 3... 12.Bb7# and Black a ton of variants (didn't count...) but White doesn't care about Black's moves.

EDIT: To increase the number of subgames, all black pawns except c7/b6 could be bishops. (If they move too early, White has a shorter mate, but this is hardly relevant, since Black tries to avoid shorter mates in a problem by definition.)
> 8 votes

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


# Question
Title: Live statistics chess960 from chess.com?
Cross-posted stackoverflow, but nothing.

---

Both lichess and chess.com have the feature to play the variant chess960 live. However, only lichess has a graph showing how your live chess960 rating has changed over time. Lichess also shows other statistics like highest, lowest, best wins, worst losses, average opponent rating, etc. (chess.com does have this for correspondence chess960 though.)

I could create my own graph and statistics in Excel/Google Sheets by manually recording each game's date and my rating afterwards indicated beside my username, but...

**Question**: Is there a way to obtain, or what in general is the way to go about obtaining, ratings after each chess960 game using some kind of script that sees a player's public profile and then extracts the data?

I have a feeling this kind of script has been done before even if this was not specifically done for chess.com's live chess960. The script doesn't have to graph (pretty easy to do once you have to the data: just use excel/google sheets). I just need the script to collect all the dates and rating numbers for each line of the user's games.

---

Update 2: Fixed now. see the 'json' vs the 'preformed'. WOW.

Update 1: It appears Mike Steelson has an answer here, where the code is given as

```
=arrayformula( regexextract(split( substitute(substitute(substitute(getDataJSON(A1;"/games";"/pgn");"[";"");"]";"");"""";"") ;char(10));"\s.*") )

```

with an example given here

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MX1o5qdy0K3gTMzbimUV3SmFf-0XPCSJ8Vz4IjI-8Ak/copy

It appears there's a problem when it gets to the case of chess960 only. Consider for example this player: Replacing 'gmwso' with the player's username will yield a weird output. i imagine the output will be messier for mixed chess960 and chess.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, it's possible to obtain the data you want. Chess.com has a REST API which is described in the following news post:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/published-data-api

You can use the following URL to get a list of monthly archives of a players games:

```
https://api.chess.com/pub/player/{username}/games/archives

```

In this list you will find URLs which look like this:

```
https://api.chess.com/pub/player/{username}/games/{YYYY}/{MM}

```

If you append `/pgn` to this URL, you will get get all the games in PGN format, which is probably simpler to parse.

Lets look at an example:

https://api.chess.com/pub/player/magnuscarlsen/games/2018/01/pgn

Here you will find games played by Magnus Carlsen in January 2018. This list contains a couple of Chess960 games, which are identified by the following tag:

```
[Variant "Chess960"]

```

The following tags will give you the UTC date and time of the game as well as the players ratings at the time:

```
[UTCDate "2018.01.03"]
[UTCTime "21:50:55"]
[WhiteElo "2706"]
[BlackElo "2940"]

```

Lichess has also an API to download games, which I already described here.

## Code

Here's some simple Kotlin code to extract the data (you will need to change the file and user name):

```
import java.io.File

fun main() {
    val data = (File("ChessCom_magnuscarlsen_201801.pgn").readText().trim().split("\n\n\n").map {
        it.split('\n').filter { it.startsWith('[') }.map {
            val t = it.replace(Regex("[\\[\\]]"), "").split(' ', limit = 2)
            t[0] to t[1]
        }.toMap()
    })
    data.forEach {
        if (it["Variant"] == "\"Chess960\"") {
            println("${it["UTCDate"]} ${it["UTCTime"]} ${it[if (it["White"] == "\"MagnusCarlsen\"") "WhiteElo" else "BlackElo"]}")
        }
    }
}

```

Result:

```
"2018.01.03" "21:50:55" "2706"
"2018.01.03" "21:09:41" "2727"
"2018.01.03" "19:43:22" "2703"

```

---
Tags: chess-variants, programming, database, statistics, chess960
---


# Question
Title: Why doesn't SimpleEval's eval change in multiples of 1?
SimpleEval is Stockfish with simple eval - it only counts the material in the position and ignores all other evaluation factors like king safety or mobility. It is currently playing at TCEC.

If SimpleEval only counts material, how is it possible that it occasionally shows fractional eval? As I understand chess engines, they search the game tree and return the eval function on the final position of the search tree. Since SimpleEval only counts material, its eval ought to change in steps of 1. Yet on move 42 of this game, it shows an eval of -4.25. There's no material combination that could possibly yield that eval. What's going on?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I took a peek at the code given in a comment. It seems to have a small semi-random factor added to the evaluation, probably so it can more easily just pick a move from all the ties that are going to come up. However, the size of the score difference appears to be greater than what could be explained by just this. Also, at move 65 it evaluates the position as -M3 but there is clearly not a mate in 3 from that position.

The false mate clearly shows that there is a bug somewhere.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are other anomalies too, like around move 14 or so (though these may be rounding errors?). Do you have SimpleEval's code to be sure that it is only counting material.

One possible explanation (though not relevant in this case) is that sometimes a bishop pair is valued at 6.25 rather than perhaps the naive 6 you would suggest).

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Term for checkmate where every participating piece attacks exactly one square around king
I am looking for the term for a checkmate position which is an aesthetic feature for a chess composition. It is closely related to pure mate. I shall say that a piece (incl. pawn) participates in the mate if the piece attacks the king or a square around it.

*Pure mate:*
The checkmating position in which the square occupied by the mated king and all vacant squares around it are attacked exactly once, and squares around the king occupied by friendly pieces are not attacked by any opponent piece.

*What I am looking for:*
The checkmating position in which the square occupied by the mated king and all vacant squares around it are attacked exactly once, and every piece (or pawn) participating in the mate attack exactly one of these squares.

```
 [Title "The Evergreen Game, Anderssen- Dufresne (1852)"]
[FEN "1r3kr1/pbpBBp1p/1b3P2/8/8/2P2q2/P4PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

This is a pure mate, but not the type of mate I am looking for because the f6 pawn attacks both g7 and e7.

```
[FEN "3B1nqr/6kp/3N1P1p/8/8/3B4/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

This is the type of mate I am looking for, but not a pure mate because the h7 pawn is attacked by the bishop on d3.

# Answer
As a problemist, I can assure you that the term as such does not exist in problem language. Bohemian school did only know three concepts: pure mate, economic mate (all pieces - but not necessarily king or pawns - participate) and both at the same time.

Yet, not all hope is lost. At least one Bohemian troll had the following idea: What is the most uneconomic economic mate? Well, obviously one where each white piece idles as much as possible, i.e. guards only one flight, i.e. exactly which you describe. I don't remember the position offhand, but I'm fairly sure "the swarm" could dig it up if I take your request to a specialist forum. I edit it in if I can come up with it and you are interested, but don't expect that its historical solution comments contain the "Oh, look, an XYZ mate!" notion you seek.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, terminology, composing
---


# Question
Title: Is KQB vs KP generally sufficient to force a selfmate?
User **Hauke Reddmann** noted in a previous answer that there should be a straightforward way to secure selfmate against a substantially weaker opponent (i.e., force them to checkmate you):

> win all the material of your opponent, except a safely blocked pawn. Then force your own mate by zugzwang. The minimum material needed is KQB/KP.

I queried a Problem Database for White to selfmate against Black with KQB vs KP, and found 17 such positions. All of these, however, seem to require Black's pawn to be a Knight pawn (on the b or g file). There may also be some other patterns that universally hold (does the White Bishop have to be the same color as the Black pawn's promotion square?).

My question is as follows: is it generally possible to force a selfmate with KQB vs KP (for example, we may take a randomly selected position like the below), or is it a requirement Black's pawn should be a Knight pawn? If it is generally possible to force the selfmate, what procedure should one follow to do so?

```
[Title "KQB vs KP, White to play & selfmate if possible"]
[FEN "1Q1B4/8/6K1/3k4/3p4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Note: 'generally' means 'exceptional circumstances notwithstanding', such as for example if Black's pawn is so far advanced that it threatens promotion, or being so placed as to force White to capture it shortly, etc.

# Answer
> 2 votes
That one is a no-brainer: with a knight pawn the white king can stand in the corner, and be blocked in with just the bishop. This is impossible with another pawn - you must block both e.g. b1 and d1 and need a third White piece. (After all, Black must be forced to play d2#, so Qb1/Bd1 won't suffice!)

EDIT: Considering other material, if I recall correctly, KQR vs KQ is sufficient for forcing selfmate. (Again, check PDB.) A request at MatPlus Forum came up with this gem (Black can promote into all four pieces, always leading to a selfmate in 7 more moves): Look for 1st prize I.e. you, not surprisingly, can force a self mate with Black only having an e-pawn and White a bit more of material.

---
Tags: problems, checkmate, selfmate
---


# Question
Title: How to handle the standard Bb4 (or Bg4 / Bg5 / Bb5) pin?
Here are two extremely common pins, given from white's perspective for clarity:

* A black bishop at g4 pinning a white knight at f3 to the white queen at d1.
* A black bishop at b4 pinning a white knight at c3 to the white king at e1.

White has a few countermeasures:

* Breaking the pin with Be2 or Bd2.
* Breaking the pin by castling or moving the queen.
* Playing a3 or h3.

The first option, while maybe not always the best move available, seems to almost never be a bad move. How should black respond?

The second option is generally good when it does not result in the bishop capturing the knight and doubling pawns. If white has broken the pin in this manner, how should black respond? Generally I capture and double pawns if possible. Otherwise I just leave the bishop there.

The third option is the trickiest. When should white "put the question to the bishop" like this? And black usually has a few replies available: retreat the bishop to a5 or h5, retreat to c5 or f5, and take the knight. How should black decide between them?

I realize that it's hard to give general guidelines here, since every chess position has unique considerations. Still, any rules of thumb would be appreciated. I would rather be right 80% of the time than fly blind and "flip a coin" on these decisions every game.

# Answer
> 8 votes
> I realize that it's hard to give general guidelines here, since every chess position has unique considerations. Still, any rules of thumb would be appreciated. I would rather be right 80% of the time than fly blind and "flip a coin" on these decisions every game.

If he ignores your pin by castling / moving queen / interposing the bishop, you have 2 options : exchange or keep the bishop.

I would prefer to keep the bishop, but then you need to put pressure on pieces / squares **that are connected** with the pinned knight. Pressuring the center ( `e4` / `d4` ) is always good. **This way your bishop remains useful even after White breaks the pin.**

If you decide to exchange, remember that in endgame, bishop is superior to knight ( my answer to this question is instructive regarding *bishop vs knight* debate ).

Still, many openings ( like Nimzo-Indian ) are viable even after the exchange of bishop for a knight. Equality is reached by creating **swift** action by opening the game for the knights. Why? Because knights are **better positioned** in the early game then bishops since they are **centralized** in one move. while bishops need lots of maneuvering to get ideal squares.

Furthermore, by exchanging the bishop for a knight, you remove your piece that made 1 move for his piece that made 1 move, but in order to recapture **he needs to play with the same piece twice** while you get the chance to introduce new piece. This gives you development advantage, so it is logical to open the game.

In short, if you exchange be ready to start swift action. If this is not possible, you **must** get some compensation ( like better pawn structure, development advantage... ) or else White will favorably position the bishops and open the game with devastating effect.

As for "putting the question" to the bishop, again you can exchange or keep the bishop. If you exchange, then proceed as I have described above. Otherwise you can maintain the pin or reposition the bishop, but the principle is the same as above: if you can pressurize points / pieces connected with his pinned units, maintain the pin ( **but always asses the consequences of `g4` push!** ) otherwise just reposition the bishop to a better square. He did lose a tempo and has weakened himself with `h3` so you have time to play twice in the opening with the bishop.

I understand that all this might be abstract, so here are some illustrative diagrams that should help you even further:

```
[Title "Bishop exchange that speeds up implementation of a plan"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Qc2 O-O 7.e3 c6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.Nf3 Re8 10.O-O Nf8 11.h3 Ng6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.b4! a6 14.a4

```

This example illustrates what to do when opponent breaks the pin -\> just stay calm and **play in such a way that bishop move becomes useful.** Again, as I have said before, the pin usually puts pressure on the center ( here on `d5` pawn ), and simply pressuring that point will justify the bishop's position even after the pin is broken. Notice how White got extra move with the exchange to start fast minority attack: without `Bxf6` Black's dark square bishop would prevent this move so White would have t play `a3` first in order to get `b4`.

```
[Title "Putting the question to the bishop"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 ( 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O f6 ( 5...Bg4?! 6.h3! Bh5? 7.g4! Bg6 8.Nxe5 Bxe4 9.Re1 ) 6.d4! exd4 7.Qxd4 ) 4...Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3

```

Again a good example that shows that you don't have to exchange the bishop just because the pin becomes ineffective. This example requires explanation.

First of all, notice that it is possible to exchange the bishop, and notice how White makes swift action in view of rapid development and opening of the game. Furthermore, notice that White got compensation in view of better pawn structure ( he can create a passed pawn on the kingside, Black can't ) so this will diminish the power of bishops in the endgame. This is the application of the same principle as above.

The sideline with `...Bg4` illustrates well my warning that you must always evaluate consequences of `g4` push in such positions. Black had no time to maintain the pin and should have exchanged the bishop.

Now, in the main line White was able to maintain the "pin" because `...b5` push was favorable for him ( `b5` pawn is a weakness and White bishop will retreat to a good diagonal ). If you study theory of this line you will see that `...b5` move is forced because **the pressure on `e5` pawn is strong.** Again, this confirms my principle of just putting squares / pieces that are connected with the pinned knight under pressure.

Here is an example that puts everything pretty much together:

```
[Title "Black applies almost all the above principles to reach a draw"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 e5 4.Be3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 O-O-O! 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.O-O Bxc3! 9.bxc3 Nf6!? 10.c4 Qe4 11.Bd3 Bxf3! 12.gxf3 Qh4 13.d5 Nd4!? 14.c3 Ne6! 15.dxe6 e4! 16.fxe4 Rxd3 17.Qxd3 Qg4+ 18.Kh1 Qf3+ 1/2-1/2

```

This example is one of the main lines in the Scandinavian defense, and is taken from the book *C.Bauer-Play the Scandinavian ( 2010 ).*

First crucial moment is `6.Be2`. This is the moment that troubles you, right? Well, look what strongest GMs do here: they put pressure on the squares / pieces that are connected with the pinned knight ( `...O-O-O!` ). This example clearly illustrates the connection between the pinned knight and the center, and why it is more important to pressure the center then to rely on a pin that will be short-lived anyway.

Now comes the second momment that illustrates second type of position that troubles you: bishop pins the knight against the king ( `7...Bb4` ). What happened here? White castled, and here we must analyze the position thoroughly so we can understand why `8...Bxc3!` was played.

Black could try to move the queen and preserve the bishop, but in this opening **everything revolves around development advantage.** White has already finished development, has strong influence on the center and will probably force Black to relinquish the bishop pair ( these guys are deadly in open positions like the one in the game ). Black on the other hand needs one more move to finish development, and he needs to maintain the pressure on White center. Moving the queen would loosen the pressure and give White time to start regrouping for an attack. That is why Black decides to exchange the bishop -\> he gets **extra move** so knight on `g8` can enter into play, he **weakens** White's control over center and claims `e4` square for himself and gets healthier pawn structure that diminishes power of the bishops in the endgame.

I just wanted to say that you need not fear when opponent ignores your pin by castling / moving the queen or if he breaks it by interposing the bishop -\> just keep playing and put pressure on the squares / pieces connected with the pinned knight, or simply exchange and start a swift action.

The last illustrative moment starts with `11....Bxf3!` and here we again see the concept of exchanging the bishop to get time for a swift action and to ruin opponent's pawn structure.

Another concept is illustrated, and I have mentioned it earlier, and that is **the opening of the game in order to exploit the knight's speed over bishops.** Notice how strong and **well posted** are Black knights, while bishops were not posted on their **best** squares. Notice how Black got slight initiative after `13...Nd4!?`, although it was only good for a draw.

I think that these examples cover all 3 cases that troubled you, in both positions you mentioned so if you have further questions leave a comment.

Hope this helped, best regards!

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm just an amateur so take everything I say with a grain of salt, but here are some of my thoughts on this matter:

* If you haven't castled yet, it's less risky to break the f3-pin by simply moving your queen, provided your knight isn't controlling any important squares in the current position or you're making a greater threat. If your opponent captures the knight, you get the open g-file to work with for your rook.
* If you've castled and ruining your pawn structure would expose your king too much, there are still ways of dealing with the pin. For example, you could go Qd3 or Qe2-Qe3 to break the pin while keeping an eye on the knight. You can also defend the knight with another piece (such as a rook or your other knight) and then move your queen. Finally, a common maneuver I've seen in openings like the Italian / Ruy Lopez is Nd2-Nf1-Ng3, which (when combined with h3) would force a bishop that comes out to g4 to either trade itself for the knight or get off the d1-h5 diagonal.
* Don't play a3/h3 if your sole reasoning is "I want my opponent to take me"-- they don't always have to! You should be able to come up with some other reason for why that move is useful, ie. "I want to prepare some queenside expansion" or "I want to take away b4/g4 from the enemy knight" or "I want to get the bishop off the c8-h3 diagonal so Bb5+ wins Black's queen", etc.

---
Tags: strategy, pins
---


# Question
Title: Two Knights of the Caro-Kann: 2.Nc3 vs 2.Nf3
Is there any difference at all in playing 2.Nc3 or 2.Nf3 in the Two Knights of the Caro-Kann? On Lichess, why is 2.Nc3 the second most common move in the Masters database, and 2.Nf3 played almost one-third as much?

# Answer
One thing I can think of is that after 2. Nc3 you still have a chance to transpose to main lines after 2 ... d5 3. d4, so it's a tad more flexible. I know it's a stretch, but if your opponent is (for whatever reason) afraid of the two knights variation, they might not play 2. .. d5 and opt for 2. ... g6 or other inferior move.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: How did chess change over the 2010s and should I keep anything in mind for buying books from before 2010?
I presume I am being overly paranoid regarding this, and I definitely don't intend to turn away from older books at all, but were there any developments opening-wise, middlegame-wise, or endgame-wise during the decade that books from before would overlook or fail to cover?

# Answer
Given that you are even asking this question, I am going to be a bit presumptuous and guess you are, like me, not a highly rated (elo \> 2000) player.

For chess books that are not about opening theory, I would not worry too much about the age of the book. Sure, the occasional study or evaluation has been adjusted based on computer engines, but these are surprisingly rare and inconsequential for most of us. Endgame theory has changed little in the last 50 years and that which has is mostly relevant only to very highly rated players. If Bobby Fischer were to teleport from 1972 to today, he would still be a very good chess player and he learned from books which are considered ancient today.

Opening theory does change more frequently but even then, this is mostly of concern to highly rated players looking to extract tiny advantages from deeply memorized computer lines. If your intention is to simply get a feel for a specific opening and its common variations, I think anything reputable from the last 20 years will be helpful, although you should probably complement this by looking at up to date chess databases to make sure popular variations are covered. Which you should do anyway even with a new book.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame, theory, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: How do I spend time on chess in boring meetings?
I will be sitting in two boring meetings and each one is several hours long. I do not need to participate in any way, nor is the information from the meeting useful to me. However, my presence is expected and I am not supposed to look at my books, phone, notebook, etc; but a quick glance at a piece of paper may be tolerable. Chess is my hobby and I am seeking advice on spending time mentally on chess during such meetings. By the way, right now I am unable to play blindfold chess.

Any ideas on how can I enjoy chess in my mind in such situations?

# Answer
> 5 votes
One posibility is to concentrate in problems. Write on paper the posicion description, using a notation like the following:

```
This fen:
r1bqk2r/pppp2pp/2n1pn2/5p2/2PP4/5NP1/PP1NPPBP/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 7

Corresponds to:
W-Ke1,Qd1,Ra1,Rh1,Bg2,Nd2,Nf3,Pa2,b2,c4,d4,e2,f2,g3,h2
B-Ke8,Qd8,Ra8,Rh8,Bc8,Nc6,Nf6,Pa7,b7,c7,d7,e6,f5,g7,h7
Black to move.

```

Annotate your answer as a continuous line of moves without the move numbers to simulate note taking.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Uh oh. You are asking for it. I *strongly* recommend a different approach.

Y'know, here in Germany we have an "Unemployment insurance" and, since it is a (state) insurance, it constantly tries to screw their customers over, by simulating that their pathetic efforts will bring them into employment again (and when the customers refuse, they have a legal reason to deny them the money). \[Disclaimer: Attitude may have changed in the constant boom, and may again while Covid. My experiences are ages old.\] In particularly, e.g. they began the day with a list of math problems of the calibre 15-9=?. Given that I'm a supergenius :-), I could have taken offence, thereby giving them what they wanted. I didn't. Challenge accepted. I tried extremely hard (this was a recurring task each day) to bring my solving time under one minute until I succeeded. I became sort of the hero of my fellow victims since I never lost my jolly composure, regardless what they came up with.

Do the same. Your boring meeting is boring because you define it as boring. With the right attitude, you might even find the stuff interesting. And a little brownnosing never hurts anyway...

---
Tags: blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why can white not mate in this position from Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess (frame 73)?
```
[Event ""]
[Site "https://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6rk/p5p1/1q2Q3/3p4/6P1/8/2b2PK1/4R3 w - - 0 1"]

```

I'm fairly new to anything more than the basics of chess and I'm currently working through Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. I came across this on page 96 (frame 73) in which he asks whether white can mate in one move. I was convinced the white rook could move to H1 to mate. However his answer was "white cannot mate". Why is this the case?

# Answer
The bishop on c2 can be moved to h7 to block the check.
> 35 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, books, fischer
---


# Question
Title: Can one theoretically prove that these moves are marginally better?
I heard that for the first move, 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4 and 1. Nf3 are equally good and none of them is better than others, even marginally. However, after 1. e4, both 1... e5 and 1... c5 are marginally better than 1... e6 and 1... c6; but none of 1... e5 and 1... c5 is better than the other. I am wondering if there is a way to theoretically prove this, either using an engine, or using statistics, or using opening theories.

So my question is: Can the following statement be proven?

> After 1. e4, both 1... e5 and 1... c5 are marginally better than 1... e6 and 1... c6; but none of 1... e5 and 1... c5 is better than the other.

# Answer
You can't really "prove" it. But, presumably, players want to play the best move, so which move is more often played may be an indication of which move the *players* think is best.

I looked at two databases with master games, and the most popular moves after 1.e4 in each were c5, e5, e6, and c6, in that order. This supports the first half of your statement (since e6 and c6 are played less often than e5 and c5) but not the second half (since c5 is played more than e5.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: When to play h5 (or h4 with white) in fianchettoed position for black
Imagine that we have this game

```
[FEN " "]
1.e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 bxa3 4. Bxa3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. d4 Bg7 7. h4

```

Do you play with Black in this case h5 or not? In my opinion, I rarely like to play h5 because it gives up the g5 square and white can plant his knight there. On the other hand, I feel like I stopped a barbaric attack temporarily. I would like to get some feedback about in which cases you think playing h5 is good defensively, and when it's bad and a concession. Not necessarily for the opening that I have mentioned above. Just in general.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I generally don't like accepting gambits as black on principle, so the position on your diagram feels already rather uncomfortable to me, but in general, there are a few typical ways to deal with h4-h5 if you have played g6 and your opponent replied with h4.

1. just ignore it; might be ok if you haven't castle yet. There, you're not afraid of hg hg, Rxh8 Bxh8, but you have to consider the consequences of h5-h6 harassing your bishop. You don't usually want to play Bf8, as well as Rg8 vacating the h8 square, so you probably have to prepare Bf6 (if you can). Of more or less recent games, I saw it here: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1926269. There is another line in Gruenfeld where black is doing this, but sorry, can't recall it now. Check Peter Svidler games w/ black if you're interested.
2. Indeed play h5, as you mentioned; I'd say the main danger here is not the g5 square per se (although it is also important) but whether white can play g2-g4 later, opening the files. So it depends on how strong you grip on the g4 square is. Sometimes white has already committed to f2-f4, and then I'd consider h7-h5 more seriously. Black does play this in dragon sometimes, thanks to his control of g4 with N on f6 and B on c8/d7.
3. just put a knight on f6 and take the pawn on h5. Depends whether white can easily chase this knight with e4-e5, so in this particular variation it is probably not so great. Also in Gruenfeld, after smth like 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. h4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. h5 black plays Nxh5, there was a Grischuk-Nepo game also from 2019 I suppose.
4. Another rather robust structure arises after h4 Bg4, h5 gxh5. If white knight is already on f3, it might be not so easy for him to get rid of the g4 bishop. Not an option here obviously. Can't think of an example to this unfortunately. If I remember the game I'll update it.
5. A more conservative way is probably to play h6, and meet h5 with g5. I have seen this in closed sicilian (or english with 1. c4 e5 with colors reversed); can't think of a top-level game, but this should do https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1214057. The danger here lies in the f4 attack or piece sac on g5, yet the latter is probably harmless if you haven't castled yet. In this particular variation I'd consider this to be my main idea as black. The downside of playing h6 might be that if white has a battery on the diagonal, for example, Be3 and Qd2, you could have trouble castling unless you play Ng4, so it is again important to control the g4 square.

In any of those options, if you give white enough time, he will break through whatever you choose, so you probably should aim not at closing the king side and stopping white's attack there forever but rather buying yourself a bit of time to prepare the counterattack in the center.

---
Tags: strategy, defense
---


# Question
Title: What are the biggest events in chess by viewership?
I realise chess viewerships have skyrocketed due to organic growth in popularity, and especially due to more people being stuck indoors in the last year.

Are there statistics on how many viewers each chess tournament receives, and if so, what are the biggest chess tournaments by viewership (including online viewers) in recent years?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Please note, this does not answer the question, but I find this information gives some helpful clues. This is twitch daily viewerships of all chess channels combined for the past 5 years. It shows peak and average daily viewers. But it *doesn't* say what the events were corresponding with the heightened figures.

Source: https://sullygnome.com/game/Chess/1825/summary

---
Tags: statistics, online, spectating
---


# Question
Title: Which countries are easiest to gain rating points and earn FIDE titles in?
I recently played in a tournament in Iran (Fajr Cup, u2000), where 1600-rated players were a serious threat, and 1400-rated players would fight to the last pawn. I don't think a single opponent of mine made significant tactical errors--they know how to calculate. In my opinion, these players are vastly underrated, maybe by 300+ rating points. I also play in China, which is also considered an underrated country (but Iran seems more underrated).

Players suggest countries for relatively easy rating points and FIDE title norms: A WGM suggested France or Spain, and a WFM suggested Turkey to me. I'm tempted to go norm hunting, but I wonder where.

**Question**: Which countries are easiest to gain rating points and earn FIDE titles in?

I'm after something a bit more concrete than some random countries, e.g., the usual places players go to get rating points and norms.

# Answer
Rating is a lagging indicator. That is, it gives an estimate of playing strength in the past. Therefore by definition players who are improving are underrated and players who are declining in strength are overrated.

Therefore as a first step if you can enter late you should look at the age profile of the entries and avoid entering tournaments with lots of very young players (who are likely to be still improving) and try and enter tournaments with old (preferably senile :-)) players (who will likely be on the decline).

Looking at the raw FIDE rating data which FIDE supply from January 2019 (I haven't yet loaded the latest February data in my database) and running a query gives the following results for average Date of Birth year for active players in federations with at least 1000 active players -

P 1. Denmark - 1966.4
2. Netherlands - 1969.5
3. Switzerland - 1970.95
4. Finland - 1972.8
5. Austria - 1974.2
6. Germany - 1974.6
7. Serbia - 1974.8
8. Sweden - 1976.1
9. Ireland - 1976.2
10. Bosnia Herzegovina - 1976.7
...
P 22. Spain - 1984.9
P 23. Australia - 1985.2
...
P 34. France - 1986.9
...
P 56. Iran - 1992.6
...
P 70. India - 1997
P 71. Turkey - 1997.8
...
P 76. China - 1999.2

So, for best results try and enter tournaments in countries at the top of the list and avoid countries at the bottom.

Note that Spain and France are not much different to Australia and Turkey is on a par with India - far too young!
> 9 votes

# Answer
In general, countries with many tournaments but not a super strong "chess culture". I think China and Iran tend to not have so many tournaments (if I recall correctly), which explains why their players tend to be more underrated.

Meanwhile, European countries have lots of FIDE rated events (some clubs have such events every weekend!). Since they have more tournaments they're more susceptible to rating inflation, thus making their players a bit overrated.

Since Eastern Europe has a stronger chess culture, you should prefer western European countries. Great candidates are, as you mentioned, France or Spain.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I am aware it has been 2 years but if you haven't had a chance to go because of pandemic don't go to Turkey it might be the most underrated after India and Azerbaijan.

I am from Turkey. I went to Slovenia for Portoroz open chess tournament in 2019. My national rating was 1600 and fide was 1523. At the tournament I performed 2050 and never lost to u-2100 which was unbelievable for me because till that tournament my highest tournament performance was 1620 fide and my top win was against a 1700.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rating, titles
---


title: Why is it acceptable to resign?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is it acceptable to resign?
In nearly every non-chess field of competition I can think of, it is generally considered poor sportsmanship to quit before the game or match is played to completion. When playing other board games\* (Monopoly or draughts/checkers, for example) participants are expected to continue until one player has won. In athletic competitions\**, it is also considered poor behavior to leave the field of play before the game is complete, regardless of the score. This is the case even if a competitor or team is trailing by a huge difference in score, there is only a little time left, and the risk of injury when continuing to play might be fairly high. Suffering through a complete game/match, even when it is lost beyond hope, seems to be an accepted part of entering into the competition.

On the other hand, chess not only allows a player to resign when they believe they are losing, but it can be considered poor sportsmanship if a player continues to play in such a situation. If you blunder and drop a queen or rook early in the game, you're insulting your opponent if you don't resign. Down a passed pawn in an endgame and your king is not "in the box"? Time to resign or face people saying you were disrespectful toward your opponent .

Thus the question: Why is it considered good sportsmanship in chess to quit before a game is fully played out?

* There are a few board game exceptions, such as Risk, where it can become obvious who is going to win. but playing the game to completion might still take hours. Even in such situations, all remaining players usually need to agree to end the game.

\** In some youth sports there are rules that cause a game to be terminated early when one team has a very large lead in the score. Still, a certain minimum amount of the game must be played.

# Answer
> Why is it acceptable to resign?

Chess has its origins as a war game. It was used to model war and perhaps to play a part in the training of generals. In war it is standard practice to surrender when it is clear that defeat is unavoidable. This is an obvious humane thing to do to minimize loss of life. Crossing over into chess as the model of war this translates into resignation.
> 18 votes

# Answer
To follow up on Brian's answer about war, I think competitive Real Time Strategy games are a very close analogy.

For those unfamiliar: In these games players typically build up bases, then build armies, then those armies fight. If one army has a decisive where the victor has enough troops remaining, they go destroy the other person's base and all their straggling units. Once the opponent is 100% destroyed, the conqueror is declared victor. In competitive play, users typically say 'GG' (Good Game) and resign after they lose the critical battle. In fact, there is a often similar stigma of poor sportsmanship for not resigning, similar to chess.

The endgame here is often very boring. There isn't any hope of comeback, but it can take a while to burn down all the opponents buildings and hunt down all their straggling units. The endgame is qualitatively different than the gameplay to that point. It is merely waiting for buildings to burn down. There is no skill involved. This isn't fun for the loser and usually not fun for the winner either. It just wastes people's time - and this can be a substantial amount of time, depending on the game.

One sided chess endgames are similar. There isn't much skill or thought left. Its just going through the motions, and those motions have little in common with normal chess - even normal chess endgames. If you're up a two queens, it doesn't matter if you have the wrong rook pawn or you don't move your king up in the endgame or hang a queen, even.

This differs from soccer, where the gameplay is still effectively the same at the end of a 10-0 defeat as it is at the start of a 1-1 tie. There may be some strategic and tactical changes to the approaches of both sides, but the core skills and gameplay mechanics are constant. Losing 10-0 sucks, but you're still playing soccer. You are playing soccer (presumably) because you like playing soccer. You still get to do something you enjoy, even in defeat.

In closing, there are two reasons we play games: we care about the result and we care about the gameplay intrinsically. If the result is not in question and the gameplay changes to become bad, why keep playing? Why force someone else to keep playing?
> 17 votes

# Answer
Note that the core game of chess would be almost unchanged if it ended with the actual capture of a king rather than checkmate. In a sense, checkmate itself is a from of resignation, one that is written into the rules of the game. The game ends when the king would be lost on the next move. Resignation is just an extension of the logic of ending the game when the loss of the king becomes inevitable. Sometimes that inevitability becomes apparent more than one move in advance.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Most sports have a numerical end. A game of basketball ends after 4 quarters and the team with the highest score wins and a game of tennis, which does not have a time constraint, is decided when a player wins the best out of three sets. To end a game of chess, however, requires either checkmate or stalemate. Unlike other sports, there is no linear path towards these such as scoring the most amount of points. A game of chess can end as early as move 1 or as late as move 200. Since most sports run on a clock, ending them before the allotted time would be both humiliating to the opposing team and to the fans who paid to watch the game, even if there is no chance that the losing team can come back, because the termination of the event symbolizes that the opposing got beaten so badly that the game had to be ended early. Also, the reason why a soccer team who is losing 10-0 don't just walk off the field is partly to avoid humiliation but also financial. Would anyone like to see team that quits when they are losing? What does that say about the team's morale? However, culture also plays a big role. Since resignation has been in place for so many years and the practice of resignation has never been implemented in traditional sports, it has stayed that way as there is no practical reason to change it.

In chess, this humiliation does not carry on, because when you reach a high enough level, it is assumed that your opponent won't make silly mistakes and that it is therefore understandable to end the game early. Playing on might be seen as unsportsmanlike because you are conveying the message that you believe that your opponent is not good and that he will blunder in a completely winning position. Furthermore, the winning player might feel like his opponent is purposely playing on in order to annoy him and waste his time, even if this is not the case. This is not to say that once you are inferior you should resign, you should always look for chances to complicate the position in hopes that you can gain an advantage. However, when there is no possibility for counterplay, playing on is a waste of time for both players.
> 9 votes

# Answer
One of the main reasons could be that chess has no limit of time or "score" needed to win. The examples we see here where resigning is also good sportanship are often that kind of game (risk, real-time strategy videogames...)

The point is not making the game unnecessarely long when the result is already certain
> 7 votes

# Answer
Some games, you can't just give up. For example, in a **football** match, there are spectators who want to see some sport, there are players who may enjoy the exercise, and there is also a question of the *degree* of victory counting for something. (e.g. goal ratio may act as a tie-breaker in the league.)

In **chess** on the other hand, the value of resignation even in a situation where loss is not certain can be positive. In a casual game it can allow the players to start another game. In a more serious setting it allows the losing player to conserve energy and morale, to show respect for the winning player, and take a break perhaps to focus on the next match.

Chess contains some beautiful draw mechanisms: stalemate, 50 move rule, draw by repetition, which serve to keep interest in the game, and (together with the clock) put pressure on the winning player to actually win. Chess is a subtle game and many resignations are mistaken, in that a draw or even a win is still possible.

## Concessions in other sports...

In multi-game **cricket** matches, a captain may essentially stop scoring points for his side, in order to allow more time to bowl out the opponents. This is quite specialized, but it can result in the fans being sent home earlier than they would have been otherwise.

**Golf** is an interesting one. In "match play" (essentially knock-out 1-1 matches) it is normal and polite players to concede trivial putts (maybe less than 50cm?) to the opponent. However in stroke play, where the folk going round the course together are not competing with one another directly, then no putt concessions are possible.

**Snooker** is again interesting. It's usually a 1-1 knock-out format, and it's common for a player who is far behind in the score to concede at the point when their opponent has just ended his turn. It would be very impolite to concede at any other point, because it potentially stops the player from being able to complete a long break. Indeed it goes so far that if there is just White & Black ball on the table, then a player effectively claims the game, assuming his opponent's resignation.

Finally, in **backgammon**, you can only resign in response to being offered to double the stakes. This is a key strategic issue, which forces the timing of doubles, as one doesn't want to double so late that the possibility of exacting a penalty from the opponent is too obvious to both players.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Many of the other answers haven't sufficiently highlighted the key point here:

## Defeat in chess can be theoretically inevitable

The critical reason it's acceptable to resign in chess and not in athletic competitions is that there is always the *theoretical possibility* of a comeback in an athletic sport and its probability is always, hypothetically, a function of the trailing side's skill. If an U13 youth team losing badly in its soccer game were to suddenly start playing like Real Madrid - we see it in the movies all the time! - they could probably salvage several goals within a few minutes. This isn't the case in chess. No force on earth can save you once the endgame is theoretically winning for your opponent, or in another equally clear-cut scenario where you have blundered heavy material. Swapping in Carlsen won't help. Swapping in Stockfish won't help. Swapping in a God algorithm will not help. At least it *should*n't - if your opponent can close it out.

## Waiting for a blunder is considered unsportsmanlike

Playing on in the sole hope that your opponent will blunder is perceived as unsportsmanlike. In particular, we've established that you've reached a position where saving the game is impossible no matter how well you play. Once you acknowledge that your opponent, playing as they currently do or based on your knowledge of them, *should* be able to win from their current position even against perfect play, then it becomes clear your intention in continuing the game is to hope for a blunder. This attitude is perceived as unsportsmanlike across all competitive events: I believe that aspiration to perform well yourself, not for your opponent to slip up, is considered a cornerstone of sportsmanship.

## Playing on wastes *your* time, energy, and morale

Chess may be a somewhat equal game from the starting position, but once at a heavy material disadvantage - even if your opponent can't prove mate is imminently forceable - the flavour of gameplay is an inherently unequal and 'unfair' one. This affects every action taken in the game, every plan and decision made, in a way that must embrace that inequality (for example, Staunton considered it inadvisable for a player giving Queen odds to exchange their Knight for a Rook, as it would leave too little remaining material for them, although in an even game you'd usually be delighted to be an exchange up).

Since this requires a different type of play from an equal game, and inevitably a less pleasant one, morale tends to take a turn for the worse defending positions that are almost inevitably lost because of an opponent's oppressive material advantage. Athletic competitions generally do not have this factor: how you play for a win if two sets down in tennis is really just the same as how you play to win from the start, but in chess you often must adopt a defensive, tricky, or swindling playstyle if even two *pawns* down against a strong opponent. 'Contempt' was developed for chess engines for this very reason: even the most objective agents underperform in material odds scenarios if they try to play chess when disadvantaged as if that disadvantage didn't exist.

## Board games obey these criteria

Let's consider Monopoly, Risk, etc. In these I would say that gameplay changes, like in chess, if your position is greatly disadvantaged. However, if resignation is indeed unusual - and I'm not sure it is - there are a number of reasons why this may be so that don't apply to chess:

1. When evaluating the position as theoretically winning, you must consider whether with any combination of optimal play by the potential resigner and **extreme luck**, the position is still lost. This is a much more extreme condition than typically resignable positions in chess because luck is a fundamental part of these games, so if for example you own only one property, but by luck your opponents could keep landing on that property and losing all their money to you, a win is far from theoretically impossible for you.
2. Resignation requires a group decision to acknowledge a single player as winner. Otherwise you must decide what to do with the properties or countries of the resigned individuals.
3. There is no need to conserve time, energy, or morale for future games in casual settings, as you do not have further imminent games to play, as you would in a tournament setting (which is much more common for chess).
> 4 votes

# Answer
Here is something interesting in chess, different from any other conventional sports, i.e., here resigning doesn't lead to poor-sportsmanship of the player, rather it's the intellectual advantage of the opponent, that there's nothing can be done for the player. And, also the term Sportsmanship, is, I believe ill-defined in chess. For a game like chess, which is purely the "Battle of intellect", doesn't come along with, regular sport-like attributes, which we find in any other sports. Thus, the "resigning" simply mean, there's nothing can be done here, and the opponent is clearly winning. And, this is totally logical, not to waste any much time. And this very well suits, in chess.
> 3 votes

# Answer
(started out as comments. now an answer.)

i like Ozzy08's analogy with points or rounds, but i take a different path: *View chess as a round of games instead of just 1 game.*

This view is supposed to address 2 things:

1. Many answers here seem to make chess like a sui generis with regards to resignations.
2. 'it is also considered poor behavior to leave the field of play before the game is complete, regardless of the score'.

It's like this:

1. For point 1, I notice similar things to resignation in other games. for example csgo: people don't resign whole games similar to, say, basketball or soccer/football/rugby, but they do 'resign' rounds.

* eg if a team is about to lose the current round, then depending on the money or guns that players have, they might consider to save whatever guns or money they have. in this way it's kind of like a 'resignation' for the round.
    * (I recall something similar for quarters in basketball from Kuroko no Basuke. Apparently when one team is dominating a particular quarter, it's hard to be un-dominated for the quarter. So you just make up in the next quarter. But I'm not familiar enough with basketball to confidently make this analogy.)
2. For point 2, under this view, we should compare 1 game of, say again, basketball, soccer/football/rugby or csgo, not to 1 round of chess but rather to *1 match of several rounds of chess*.

* eg in the FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship 2019, it makes sense for magnus carlsen to resign against wesley so in any 1 particular round, but it doesn't make sense to resign the entire championship match after being behind 10.5-1.5 at the end of the slow rapid rounds.

You might ask 'What if I were completely new and were playing 11 games against Wesley So, and I've already lost 5 games? Now, may I resign the whole match?' but then it's the same thing, or at least similar I believe, as a completely new basketball player playing against a pro: Resign in the wesley so case if and only if you resign in the basketball case.

3. In re Brian Towers♦' war analogy, I view resignation not as *surrendering the war* but as *conceding a battle*.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: resigning, sportsmanship
---


# Question
Title: How many 2200+ FIDE rated players are there?
Are there any sources for the recent numbers of players rated over 2200 byFIDE?

# Answer
> 8 votes
According to FIDE, there are 20,763 players rated 2200 or above (as of May 2021). 9,460 are currently active

---
Tags: fide, statistics, elo
---


# Question
Title: Obtain information about a a position from Stockfish
I want to know from Stockfish:

1. All possible moves in a position, a.k.a. a depth 1 analysis with no score.
2. If the king is in check, is checkmated, or if there is a draw.
3. The current FEN string, after a move.

How can I get all of those? I tried looking in the UCI specs and there is nothing like it. I found some answers as to the first question, but they were all in Python. I am looking for pure UCI commands as I am using C#

# Answer
If you do not want to use a library/API to get this information, then you will need to implement some parsing to get it, but in principle (almost) all the info you need is available via (non-standard) UCI commands:

1. Legal moves

Perft lists all legal moves. E.g., for the starting position `go perft 1` gives you:

```
a2a3: 1
b2b3: 1
c2c3: 1
d2d3: 1
e2e3: 1
f2f3: 1
g2g3: 1
h2h3: 1
a2a4: 1
b2b4: 1
c2c4: 1
d2d4: 1
e2e4: 1
f2f4: 1
g2g4: 1
h2h4: 1
b1a3: 1
b1c3: 1
g1f3: 1
g1h3: 1

Nodes searched: 20

```

2.+3. Game state

`d` is a non-standard UCI command in Stockfish to print debug information. It contains information like the FEN and pieces giving check, e.g.,

```
position startpos moves e2e3 f7f5 d1h5
d

```

```
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | r | n | b | q | k | b | n | r | 8
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | p | p | p | p | p |   | p | p | 7
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 6
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   |   | p |   | Q | 5
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 4
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   | P |   |   |   | 3
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | P | P | P | P |   | P | P | P | 2
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | R | N | B |   | K | B | N | R | 1
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

Fen: rnbqkbnr/ppppp1pp/8/5p1Q/8/4P3/PPPP1PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 1 2
Key: 47C539B3DEE3D29B
Checkers: h5

```

In order to determine whether it is checkmate, you need to check whether perft 1 is zero and checkers from `d` is non-empty.

For draw detection I think there is no straightforward way to do it with plain Stockfish. The only draw that can safely be detected is stalemate, similar to the checkmate detection mentioned above.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, programming, computer-chess, uci
---


# Question
Title: Can there be a position in which a player blocks check with checkmate?
Let's say that the first player gives a check to the second. player. Then the second player blocks and gives a checkmate. Is it possible?

# Answer
Yes, here is an example:

```
[FEN "K4nqk/6q1/8/8/6P1/6Q1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qh3+ Nh7#

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: problems, checkmate, check
---


title: Atomic Chess - Pawns

text:
# Question
Title: Atomic Chess - Pawns
I have been playing atomic chess on lichess for some time but I still can't definitively state what pawns captures will look like. I think they have a kill radius of 1 but it doesn't effect other pawns? If anyone has a clear and decisive answer, I would love to hear it!

# Answer
The captures in atomic chess work as follows:

1. The captured and capturing piece always die.
2. Then, anything around the capture square that's not a pawn dies.

For en passant, the capture square is the "bypassed" square of the double pawn move.

See https://lichess.org/variant/atomic or https://illion-atomic.netlify.app/atomic-rules/
> 3 votes

---
Tags: lichess, atomic-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why does black gain from this "center fork trick"?
In the following position, Bc4 by white is evaluated as a bad move that can be punished by ...Nxe4.

Although I can see why it tactically works, I fail to see how the resulting position favors black. Do you have any insights about why it's better for black, and what are the plans that follow ...Nxe4?

```
[fen "rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/2BPP3/2N2N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQK2R b KQ - 1 0"]

1...Nxe4 2.Nxe4 (2.Bxf7+ Rxf7 3.Nxe4) d5 3.Bd3 dxe4 4.Bxe4

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
Pirc in considered an inferior opening for black mainly because white gets more space and centre control. After Nxe4 Nxe4 d5 Bd3 dxe4 Bxe4, one pair of knights is exchanged, which negates the space advantage a bit (fewer pieces on the board, so space is less important). Moreover, the resulting pawn structure is what can be obtain from the Scandinavian, but white has no development advantage (as he usually gets in the Scandinavian). White centre can later be challenged by c5 or e5. So basically, by allowing this, white loses everything which is responsible for the typical + for him in the Pirc. I would not unequivocally say that black is better in this line (white should be able to equalize), but allowing this is certainly not in white's interests.

And of course, Bxf7+ Zwischenzug is just bad, as black gets two bishops and utter control over light squares eventually.

**Update:** Because my last statement turned out to be controversial, I checked the lichess database (2200+) of this exact position after Nxe4.

Nxe4: played 13 times, 38% 1-0, 31% =, 31% 0-1 (+5=4-4).

Bxf7+: played 6 times, 17% 1-0, 33% =, 50% 0-1 (+1=2-3).

# Answer
> 12 votes
White is enjoying a space advantage in the center, but not anymore after **...Nxe4**. It would be the "equivalent" of playing a ...d5 push, which unfortunately doesn't work in this position.

White can reply to **1...Nxe4** with either **2.Nxe4 d5 3.Bd3 dxe4 Bxe4**, which would leave Black with an at least equal position, or with **2.Bxf7+ Rxf7 3.Nxe4** which would allow Black to start putting pressure on the center (let's think of moves like ...Nc6 and ...e5 for instance)

---
Tags: opening, pirc-defense
---


# Question
Title: Why are English setups with g3 like the Catalan considered solid for White, while the Sicilian Dragon is risky for Black?
I know that the Sicilian Dragon is considered very risky for Black if White knows what they're doing; they can go for the Yugoslav Attack setup, play h4-h5 to break open the h-file, try and exchange the fianchettoed bishop, etc. in an attempt to checkmate Black. English setups with g3 seem to have a similar structure but with colors reversed, so why is e.g. the Catalan considered so solid for White?

# Answer
I think the answer is threefold:

First white usually has a development advantage in the Catalan because he moves first, so any Black attack would not be so dangerous.
Second, white has a space advantage in the Catalan with his pawn on d4, while in the Dragon black's d-pawn is on d6.
Third, and probably very important, is the fact that it is not easy for black to exchange the fianchetto Bishop on g2 on the Catalan, because he generally plays ...e6, making it very hard or impossible to play Be6(f5, g4) Qd7 and Bh3. In the Dragon Be3, Qd2 and Bh6 is generaly much easier to achieve, compromising the castled position of the black King.
> 6 votes

# Answer
All positions in the Sicilian Dragon where Black managed to put a rock-solid central pawn on d5 are considered low-risk!

Domination of the center is critical for an attack on the side to succeed. The Dragon Sicilian would be considered solid if White didn't have the option to go for long castling and a pawn storm on the kingside. An analogous plan for Black in the Catalan would be suicidal.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Chess engine with danger (mate) warnings for beginners?
I am new to the site and would appreciate help in this area.

At my current stage (beginner) I have started to draw or sometimes even beat the computer at low levels (ex. chess.com level1,2,3, lichess.org level1,2). One of these sites has an interesting feature that helps me a lot, it is a set of 3 numbers like a score. Here is an example of a game where I play White and I am behind 2 pawns (-2pts in material):

```
        +2.90
        -1.78
        -2.14
        Stockfish.js 8 | depth=19

```

Which I interpret the following way:

* Positional score shows max=+2.90, which means that there is a tactic opportunity involved (overloading? removal of defender?...etc I must find out!).
* If I see the opportunity and play correctly, I can materialize the advantage and win an important piece (maybe win a rook, or take the queen in exchange of one of my rooks)
* If I miss the opportunity, the next score will be -1.78 (second best move) or -2.14 (third best move). That is, the momentary positional advantage will disappear and the score will revert to the material strength (2 pawns behind).

Well, my problem is that I sometimes blunder and my score goes abruptly down to for instance -M2 \[mate-in-2 for Black\]. I lose the game :( because I did not realize that there was a mate danger (ex: last rank weakness or something like that). The score of the site I am playing only shows the 3 best moves, not the *WORST* moves.

I am formulating this question here in the hope that someone knows other **sites for beginners, with an engine that can be tuned to warn if there is a risk of blundering and being prematurely mated.** If I do not find such feature, well, I will have to be patient and continue with the learning process:). The frequency of blunders should decrease as I gain experience.

Thank you for your help.

# Answer
Showing only the worst moves for a position is not something you'll find. Computer engines are not appropriate for warning against risk of blunders. My suggestions:

* Take back a move against computer if you make a bad move
* Review your game

You're asking the question because you're afraid of losing. There's no shame to lose against a computer. You learn more by going back your game (or takeback) then explicitly being warned.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Not long ago I was looking for very similar thing, the closest I got was program called ChessTricks. The program is using a chess UCI engine to analyse different positions with the sole purpose of looking for traps and tricks.

Let's say for example that you are playing a game against the computer and you find yourself in a position where the computer is giving you a "free" piece, you being a lower rated player have no clue what is going on and proceed on taking the free piece. **BAM!!** all of a sudden you got yourself checkmated :( and you wonder what happened.

What this software does is pointing out to you and giving you a hint of what will happen if you take the "free" piece ( called sacrifice in chess), it analyses the position and looks for not only the best refutation but also the worst possible outcome which in the given example case was you getting checkmated.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Many engines have a "teacher is watching" feature which tell you if you make a bad enough move. Lucas chess will provide a dialog which includes the options to make your move, the suggested computer move or provide a hint why your move is bad.

Most engines which shows lines, also let you adjust the number of line to include all lines available.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you want to be able to see the evaluation for the worst moves, you could download stockfish, run it, and enter: `setoption name MultiPv value 499`. To then evaluate a position, you would use the `go` command, such as `go movetime (ms)`, `go depth (depth)`, or `go infinite`.

The MultiPv option just allows you to view as many principal variations as you want, and for a sufficiently large number this is just all of the pvs.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, beginner
---


title: Why do children move so quickly?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do children move so quickly?
I played a game against a 6 years old child where I launched a strong attack against the poor child:

```
[fen ""]
[white "Me"]
[Black "6 years old child"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Be7 5.c4 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.O-O Nf6 8.f3 Bc5 9.Be3 Qb6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11. Na4 Qa7(11...Bxd4 12.Nxb6 Bxe3+ 13.Kh1 Bxb6)  12. Nxc5 Qxc5 13. Nf5 Qf8 14. Nd6+ Kd8 15. Bb6+ Ke7 16.Bc5 Qg8 17.Nxc8+ Ke8 18.Nd6+ Kd8 19. Bb6+ Ke7 20. Nxb7 Qb8 21.Bc5+ Ke8 22. Nd6+ Ke7 23. f4 Kf8 24. e5 Ne8 25.Nf5+ Kg8 26.Ne7+ Nxe7 27.Bxe7 Qc7 28.Rf3 g6 29.Rd3 Ra7 30.Qa4 Qb6+ 31.c5 Qxb2 32.Re1 Qb7 33.Bf3 Qc7 34.Red1 Kg7 35.Rxd7 Qb8 36.Rd8 Qb5 37.Qxb5 axb5 38.Bf6+ Nxf6 39.exf6+ Kxf6 40.Rxh8 Rc7 41.c6 Ke7 42.Rhd8 Kf6 43.R1d7 Rxc6 44.Bxc6 h5 45.Rf8 Kf5 46.Rdxf7+ Kg4 47. Rg7 Kh4 48.g3+ Kg4 49.Rxg6+ Kh3 50.Bg2++

```

He played strange moves in a few seconds in the opening, e.g. as 5...Qc7 or more concretely 11...Qa7 missing the exchange of 3 pieces for a queen (which Stockfish says is good for black) much better than the position where black finishes after 13. Nf5. He also moved his bishop twice in the opening, his queen twice... all this with his clock over 1 hour and 30 minutes in a standard 90'+30'' game.

Once he lost a piece he spent some minutes to play his king's moves after the checks with only two or three possible moves. It seems that he thought more about it when defending himself, but when I checkmated him his clock was on 1 hour 12 minutes for a 90'+30'' game.

Why do children move so quickly in standard games, specially in the openings?

In the tournament I am playing half of the players are children and after one hour and a half all children have finished their games and there are only adults playing.

I know many children play forced by their parents to attend chess after school and might find boring to play chess, but I am asking about childs that like the game itself. I assume once a child joins a chess tournament it means he or she doesn't find boring to play a chess game. I am asking why children that like the game and play tournament games frequently don't spend minutes in tricky moves as adults do. Why don't they use their time?

# Answer
> 66 votes
The answer is very simple. A 6 year old child does not have an adult brain. It has the very immature, underdeveloped brain of a 6 year old. It has a short attention span and struggles to sit still for 5 minutes let alone spend 5 minutes on just one move.

A few years ago I was chief arbiter for three junior tournaments held at the same time. I got one of the coaches who is also a qualified arbiter to help me. Obviously he wasn't allowed to help his players even in the breaks between rounds.

Instead before every round he stood up and made the same speech basically begging the kids to take more time over their moves. The time control was something like 25+5 and yet most games were over in less than 10 minutes with the players thoughtlessly blitzing out moves.

As he explained to me, kids tend to move too fast in games which are just friendly, relaxed games. But when it is a competition and clocks are involved their brains interpret it as some kind of race and they have even less control of their time management. Adrenaline takes over and calm calculation flies out of the window.

# Answer
> 16 votes
I would propose another plausible explanation:

**Time moves slower for children.**

I don't mean that in a gobbledey-gook spiritual sense but in the sense that the way humans experience temporality is relative to age.

One Year for a 5 year old is 20% of their life. One year for a 20 year old person is a mere 5%. This transmutes down to smaller time periods too. A standard TC rapid game of say, 30 minutes, corresponds to a much larger proportion of a child's life than it does yours, hence they may lose focus and act more impatiently than you. (Of course there are a multitude of factors at play).

Indeed, there is a neurological basis for this phenomena:

> The common explanation is that most external and internal experiences are new for young children but repetitive for adults. Children have to be extremely engaged (i.e. dedicate many neural resources or significant brain power) in the present moment because they must constantly reconfigure their mental models of the world to assimilate it and manage behaviour properly.

> ...Consequently, the subjective perception is often that **time passes by at a faster rate with age.**

Assuming you are an adult, you are probably have a much different sense of time than your more youthful opponents, for whom 30 minutes may seem like an *eternity.*

# Answer
> 12 votes
Incentives and/or tactical ability tend to explain this.

Sloppy chess against similar fast-moving and reckless competition (U600 - U1200 tourneys or sections within larger tournaments) produces flip-coin level results (or better, if you are slightly less sloppy) results and that's enough for a kid to feel they did okay (or worse yet, report back to the parental control units at home that they fared satisfactorily and won 25-50% of their games). The rare exception are the few who are focused enough on winning at all costs (and are willing to self-correct + change their time management behaviors) and they will stand out amongst this pack. Though chances are, that guy or girl is already taking his/her time, even if his/her time management is just marginally better than his/her peers.

Now at the higher rating club levels where grown-ups tend to congregate, you'll still see this pattern with kids because they are tactical beasts who really don't see incentive to play positionally when they are cleaning adults clocks because they consistently visualize + calculate really well thanks to natural or well-trained tactical vision and the 40-year old across the board spent more time on the Najdorf than figuring out how to hold a 3-ply ahead position in their head and look for forcing moves. I mean who cares coming up with long, time consuming dynamic evaluations when I **know** (and this is their incentive!) this grown-up is going to miss a tactical motif within the next 10-15 moves and I've got them?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I have another aspect to offer. Being a life long kids chess trainer ("Think, for gods sake!!") and a still lightning-fast old geezer now, I think it might also be linked to self-esteem. I do not think longer now to calculate, but because I don't trust my intuition anymore, and back it up with as untrustworthy calculation. As a kid, you are still the Godhead. You never even think about that you could be wrong. You'll never overlook a tactics that favors you. Too bad the opponent also has some...

---
Tags: psychology, time-management, children
---


# Question
Title: Can a chess engine play like a particular famous player?
Different players have different personalities and different playing styles. Mikhail Tal's style is different from Tigran Petrosian, just as Kasparov is different from Karpov. I am wondering if there is a chess engine that can play "like" a real famous chess player, both in the sense of playing strength and style. After all, playing against a "resurrected" Capablanca or Botvinnik will be an exciting idea.

# Answer
This idea was very popular back in the days, some programmers used their best to create such engines, and they did achieve that (to a certain extend)

Some engines that you might want to check out are:

**Rebel**

**ProDeo**

**ShashChess**

**Szint**

*Szint has more of 100 personalities classified in 3 forms. Szint Training with personalities from 0 to 2600 of elo. Szint GM with personalities of world champions and grandmasters. Szint Settings with strong personalities done by other users.*
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess.com semi recently added bots that play like different people in real life. There aren’t a ton of people but it does have a few.

A wider range of different players is supported by the engine used in the unfortunately discontinued Chessmaster games by Ubisoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessmaster I’m not the biggest expert in famous players and their playstyle but on a basic level I have found their representation of the few players I have looked into and played against it seems like they did a pretty good job.
> 2 votes

# Answer
This is a very interesting question. Yes I think are people that have tried to implement a "style" of a player, but most engines use a minimax algorithm also know as alpha-beta pruning. However, if you take a look at machine learning models, like Alpha Go, they first emulate/learn for a training set from the masters (called prior) and then train themselves by going against themselves. If we did this with a grandmaster, we could get an engine that is similar to that person, however the longer we train, the better it gets and the less it'll be like the grandmaster. There are other machine learning models that imitate the information feed beforehand, but I'm not an expert at it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I think this type of thing can be achieved using chess engines to certain degree. I am afraid this is not possible with machine learning because of the nature of reinforced learning (Andrew's idea is creative; but I don't think it will work that way).

Some aspects of a player's style can be mimicked by forcing a usual chess engine to choose certain types of moves when there are multiple top moves to choose from (whose score differ only slightly). To give a rough idea, an engine mimicking Tal would go for more sacrifices, and one mimicking Petrosian would choose a move that grab more space. Anyway, there should be a threshold for opting the 'player style move' over the objective best move the engine could find (e.g., for most players, the engine should choose the best move unless the difference is less than 0.5). If the threshold for the difference is high (say, 2) and the engine favour attack, it would be an aggressive (not necessarily sound) chess engine.
Note: Making a solid criteria for 'engine favoring attack' is difficult, but necessary for a project of this type (esp. considering the fact that many nice attacks often involve 'silent' positional moves at some point in the sequence).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, world-championship, style
---


# Question
Title: Are there endgames which could be forced wins if not for the 50-move rule?
Wikipedia's article on the fifty-move rule states:

> All of the basic checkmates can be accomplished in well under 50 moves. However, in the 20th century it was discovered that some positions of certain endgames can only be won in more than fifty moves (without a capture or a pawn move). The rule was changed to include certain exceptions in which one hundred moves were allowed with particular material combinations. However, more and more exceptions were discovered and in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule.

I have never seen an example of this, though I used to think the K, N, B vs. K ending was one. When is it possible to force a win in 50 moves or more, but not less than 50 moves?

# Answer
Yes, there are quite a few endgames that require more than 50 moves with best play from the defender.

Wikipedia has a list of material imbalances where it could take more than 50 moves depending on the specific position. Here are a few examples:

* Rook and bishop vs lone rook (often a draw though)
* Two bishops vs a lone knight
* Two knights vs a lone pawn (the defender *must* have a pawn)
* Four knights vs a lone queen (would never happen over the board…)
* Queen and rook vs queen and rook
* Two queens vs two queens
> 14 votes

# Answer
A more comprehensive list of endgames sorted by the number of moves it could take to mate (based on Nalimov tablebases) is at http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/longest-checkmates/longest-checkmates-sorted-by-length.shtml

These vary in length from 1 move to 262 moves. It does not include the mate in 549 because that endgame has 7 pieces on the board and the tablebases only include positions with up to 6 pieces on the board.

As for KBN vs. K, that can be done in 33 moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The following KNN v KPP endgame position *is* one:

Ply count=0. Black to play. White win without 50 move rule. Draw under 50 move rule.

This is the third position in the "two knights v pawn" section of Averbakh's "Knight Endings" (Batsford edition) where it gives a White win in 17 moves, but Black's defence can be improved.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: draw, endgame, 50-move-rule, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: About the 3D chess they play on Star Trek
They play a type of 3D chess on Star Trek ( the 60's series) not on a 8x8x8 3D board but on some smaller variation. Yet the game as they have it is supposed to be complicated. Are there real rules and a 3D board set-up for this?

# Answer
I have release a free Android version of Star Trek chess. It uses the “The Federation Standard 5.0” rules.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=awfsoft.app.TriDChess
> 5 votes

# Answer
Andrew Bartmess was the first Star Trek fan to reverse-engineer the game of tridimensional chess from the TV series (which never explained the rules). He sells his version of the rules for $9.95: Tri-D Chess Rules.

In the most popular version of Tri-D chess (which Andrew calls the “The Federation Standard 5.0” rules), the game is played on seven boards, three of which are the “main” boards and four of which are “repositionable attack boards”:

Players can reposition one of the four attack boards by repinning them to the static boards at different points, provided that one of their pieces occupies that board (and no other piece occupies it). This is instead of moving a piece in that turn. The boards are, in effect, treated as mobile “attack craft”.

The notation system uses a z-index from 1-7 to indicate which board the piece is moving to:

Unfortunately there’s no free version of Bartmess’ rules available online.

Jens Meder maintains an alternate but free online version of Tournament rules for Three-Dimensional Chess which are inspired by Star Trek and tied more closely to standard FIDE chess rules than Bartmess' version, albeit with the same wonderful board stand and complex notation:
> 15 votes

# Answer
The World Tri Dimensional Chess Federation use a set of rules developed by a fighter pilot to improve three dimensional awareness and tactical maneuvering in modern aerial combat on the same Star Trek style game board. This seems closer to the spirit of the original concept.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Does one need to know all popular openings if they wants to be a top-level player?
Let's say there is a player who knows nothing about Sicilian Defense. If they always start the game with 1. d4 or 1. c4 as white and play the Caro-Kann as black against 1. e4, it seems to me that they can theoretically be a player at the top level without knowing anything about Sicilian. Of course, they will have a problem coaching others, but I do not see why zero knowledge of the Sicilian can prevent them from being a top-level player.

> Wilhelm Steinitz: I have never in my life played the French Defence, which is the dullest of all openings.

# Answer
> 6 votes
It would be difficult.

So you go into your first top-level tournament and get Black in the first round. No problem, you'll just play your Caro-Kann. Play goes `1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. d4`. You've just transposed into a line of the Alapin Variation of the Sicilian.

In the second round you're White and play `1.c4`. Your opponent plays `1...e5` to go into a reversed Sicilian, and suddenly you're really wishing you knew *something* about that opening.

# Answer
> 3 votes
No player knows "all" the popular openings. Players have repetoires that include the range of openings that they want to play. Even with fairly complete repetoires it is possible to have to play ad hoc anyway. For example, moves like 1. b4 and 1. g4 (the "Spike") can throw a player out of book right away. Bent Larsen frequently played 1. b3 to avoid book openings.

Some players have very narrow repetoires. This is most often seen with the English opening. Players will learn the English with a King's Indian attack for White side and then the Dutch Defense (1. d4 f5) and Modern Defense (1. e4 d6/g6) as Black and that will cover 95%+ of the possibilities. If someone plays the English against them, then they play the symmetrical variation (1. c4 c5). Since all four of these systems have similar strategies and themes, the player essentially needs to learn only one pattern of play.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: The engine is recommending Qc1 and I cannot figure why it is the best
I tried a lot of variants to induce checkmate or gain material by moving the recommended move Qc1. I tried it instead of Nc4, which the engine considers a blunder. However, I cannot solve why it is the best move.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "28"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Qf6 4. d3 Nge7 5. Bg5 Qd6 6. Bh4 Ng6 7. Ng5 Qb4+ 8. Nd2 Nxh4 9. Bxf7+ Ke7 10. O-O d6 11. Bb3 Nd4 12. c3 Qb5 13. cxd4 Qxd3 14. dxe5 dxe5 15. Qc1 (15. Nc4)

```

# Answer
> 19 votes
Consider the position before 15. Nc4.

```
[FEN "r1b2b1r/ppp1k1pp/8/4p1N1/4P2n/1B1q4/PP1N1PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 15"]

```

You have developed two knights, a bishop, and castled. Your opponent has developed a queen and a knight, and his king is stuck in the center.

In other words, you have a massive dynamic advantage! You are already in position to leverage your superior development & king safety and steamroll your opponent off the board. There are plenty of ways to do so - Rc1, Qc1, Qh5, they all produce immediate threats against your opponent's king that are hard to fend off. These moves even come with tempo because Black can hardly allow Qxc7+ or Qf7+.

Nc4, on the other hand, allows your opponent to trade queens. When you are on the attack this is one of the things you least want to do, because the queen is the most powerful piece and hence also the most powerful attacker. After 15. Nc4 Qxd1, you still have a comfortable advantage, but you are no longer playing for immediate checkmate.

I haven't looked at the computer's suggestions and it probably sees something more concrete, but still: on general grounds, trading queens in this position is a bad idea. By extension, that makes Nc4 an inferior move.

---
Tags: analysis
---