# Question
Title: Are trap games a good plan versus rated chess players or not?
A lot of times I used to play trap games in chess; most of the times I won the game. But the my question is this: is it good strategy to play a trap game when facing a rated chess player?

# Answer
I will assume that a "trap game" is an opening that contains a devastating trap if your opponent plays the wrong move.

What happens if your opponent does not fall for the trap? As long as you can still have a good game, it's ok to play a trap game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Playing traps is never a good plan if you want to improve yourself. It won't help you to improve your skills. Also experienced players won't buy it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not fond of opening traps. If an opening you like to play happens to have a trap in it, that's fine; by all means exploit the trap. What I don't like is going out of one's way to learn a variation just because it has a trap in it. For example, the Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3.e3 has this well known trap:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3

```

...and now black's only option to save his rook is to give up his knight. It's a lovely little trap, and if you like 3.e3 no matter how black responds, then by all means you should learn the trap. But you shouldn't play 3.e3 just because you hope your opponent falls for the trap; I personally prefer 3.e4 to try to grab the center, but that's just my personal preference.

I don't like winning via an opening trap because there isn't really any skill involved other than memorization. If you start winning a large portion of your games through opening traps, your rating will go up... and then you will face opponents who know your traps and you won't know how to beat them, because you didn't learn any actual skills on the way up.

Trying to draw or even win a lost game with a swindle is a different matter. I occasionally do this, and it's fun when it works (though your opponent will have a different opinion!), but I only do this if I would otherwise resign.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In my experience I feel the only way that I can play a 'ranked'(assuming considerable higher rating) than myself is to play wild, attacking lines in the hopes of trapping them to victory(assuming that is what you mean by 'trap games'). I usually tie this in with the term I've read, ***"hope chess"***. Hoping your opponent doesn't see what you are trying to do for a win without having a plan when it fails.

Using positional strategy the ranked player is simply going to be beat me. There's a reason they are ranked. They have the understanding, knowledge and experience I have not obtained yet. When I start getting around the 100 pt. rating difference and I'm on the low end I've only got about a 30% chance of winning so I'm putting my money on the wild, attacking games in the hopes of trapping them for a win by them blundering.

***While I do believe the best way to get better is to play people who are better than you***, I don't necessarily believe this is a good long term strategy with playing like this. I would always bet a ranked player is going to see the traps more often than not and I would be concerned the position would be lost after the trap fails.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Each and every ranked player knows about most of the traps and defences, while playing to each other (as the both players know the trap) traps are useless, that's why you see in professional matches also, high rated players start by developing pieces. If you want to give a good fight to a ranked player it is better that you not use that trap because it is sure that he might have seen it somewhere and will know how to use it for his profit....
> 0 votes

# Answer
The *occasional* trap game is entertaining and can even be illuminating but, at normal time controls, experience suggests that such traps seldom prosper against opponents stronger than FIDE 1800.

Here is a typical example.

```
[fen ""]
[title "Krystl (1795) v Travnicek (1975), Czechia, 1997"]

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 Nf6 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Qb3 Be6 (5... Nb6? 6. Bxb7) 6. Qxb7 Nb6 7. Nc3 Qd7  8. d3 c6 9. Qxd7+ Bxd7 10. Be3 e6 11. Bd4 c5 12. Be5 Nc6 13. Bc7 Rc8 14. Nb5  Nb4 15. Nd6+ Bxd6 16. Bxd6 Bc6 17. Nf3 Nc2+ 18. Kd2 Nxa1 19. Rxa1 Kd7 20. Bg3  f6 21. Rc1 Rhd8 22. Rxc5 Bxf3 23. Rxc8 Bxg2 24. Rc7+ Ke8 25. Rxg7 Rd7 26. Rg4  Bd5 27. b3 a5 28. Rg8+ Kf7 29. Rb8 Bb7 30. e4 e5 31. f4 f5 32. Bf2 Nc8 33. fxe5  fxe4 34. d4 Ke6 35. Ke3 Kd5 36. Be1 Kc6 37. e6 Rd5 38. Bh4 Kc7 39. e7 Bc6 40.  Bg3+ Nd6 41. Bxd6+ Kxd6 42. e8=Q Bxe8 43. Rxe8 Rh5 44. Kxe4 Rxh2 45. a4 Re2+  0-1

```

Counterexamples exist but good counterexamples are hard to find.

```
[fen ""]
[title "Jovanovic (2330) v Milanovic (2480), online, 2005"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. O-O Qe7 7. a3 a5 8. Nbd2  O-O? 9. e5 Ng4 10. Bxh7+ Kh8 11. Ng5 d6 12. Bd3 dxe5 13. Qe1 exf4 14. Qh4+ Nh6  15. Nde4 Ne5 16. Bxf4 Ng6 17. Qg3 Nxf4 18. Rxf4 Bd6 19. Nxd6 Qxd6 20. Qf2 Qd5  21. Qh4 c5 22. Rf6 Kg8 23. Bh7+ Kh8 24. Rxh6 gxh6 25. Qxh6 Qxg5 26. Qxg5 Kxh7  27. Rf1 f5 28. Rf4 1-0

```

Trap games remain a part of the game of chess and a part of chess lore—a minor part, but a part nevertheless. At the lower ratings, trap games even serve a salutary purpose insofar as they serve to teach their victims to sidestep the traps!

At the lower ratings at which the traps actually work, the occasional trap game can be fun to play for both sides; but at the higher ratings, even games like the diagrammed Jovanovic v Milanovic (in which Black plays not very but only somewhat badly) rarely occur.

At any rating, if trap games are too often tried, trap games tend to warp and stunt a player's understanding of the game of chess. The player who plays a trap game must be prepared to lose if his or her trap is detected, so even at the lower ratings, more than occasional use can hardly be recommended.

And at the higher ratings? Sorry, but over FIDE 1800, experience appears to contradict the trap game. The attempt just doesn't work.

Because opponents rated much higher will seldom lose in any case, the conjecture that a trap game might maximize one's meagre chances does seem reasonable, so your *question* is a good one. However, the *answer* seems to be this: over-the-board experience teaches that one can maximize meagre chances against much-higher-rated opponents by just playing good moves.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: What is the long-term idea of the Ruy-Lopez opening?
I have studied the London opening system on lichess.org. What really clicked with me are the systems two main ideas: (1) develop a defensive structure which (2) allows you to crash black's kingside castle by pushing pawns with rooks behind them (and very often crush your opponent).

What you have is plan A, which is to crash black's king side, and if black doesn't castle you return to plan B, which is to improvise from a very strong defensive posture. The main point is that you have plan A with a very specific way to win in mind.

I am /not/ asking about opening principles. I am asking about the specific ideas of the Ruy Lopez. I understand how it gets your pieces out fast, is aggressive, and allows for a fast castle. But what approach or strategy does the Ruy Lopez aim for?

In my own games, the best idea I have is to position my rook in the center file (because I can castle quickly) and try to open up the center and use a discovered attack on the king or queen by exposing my rook. But is this 'classical'?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The answer to this is way beyond my pay grade, but I may be able to say something that prepares you for a better answer.

You are not only comparing two very different opening systems (London System and Ruy Lopez), but you are comparing two different ideas of what an opening system is. The London system was once described by GM Julian Hodgson as the "businessman's opening", ideal for those with little time for study, because once you have played d4 and Bf4 there is not much choice for the other pieces. It can be said without gross exaggeration that the London system can be learned in five minutes.

The Ruy Lopez is much more vague and much more ambitious. The vagueness is why no short answer is possible. The goal is to increase Whites mobility and control of space and to retain the option of where to strike. There are some standard manoeuvers such as c3 and d4,0-0 and Re1,Nb1-d2-f1-e/g3, a4, and others, but Black can often play a *big* role in deciding the sort of game it will be. He can go for complicated counterattack with the Schliemann, the Open, or the Marshall. He can play more safely, with Steinitz/Steinitz Deferred or more classical approaches like the Chigorin, Keres, Breyer.. In fact one reason NOT to play the Lopez is all of the work required to prepare for everything that might happen. Mastering the Lopez is a lifetimes work.

# Answer
> 4 votes
What you said about how fast White castles and can open center (and give a check) are the tactical resources that white uses to achieve their strategic goals. Of course in modern day every minimally educated player knows the tenets of opening stage and will not allow a mate in 15 by letting White open up the center and bring all minor pieces and take on f7 and mate!

So, what is the longterm strategy? Well, I am not an expert in 1.e4 opening generally, but, can tell from many games I have seen in Ruy Lopez that white is aiming to 1) Restrict Blacks's choices in the opening. Notice how Black can't really dictate anything in the opening, Black's pieces have basically one square to choose from. White later plays h3 to take g4 away from the bishop on c8.

2) Obtain a mobile center (possibility of being able to push pawns (d4) to open the center) -- think pawns on c3 and d3 and e4 -- this is in contrast with 1.d4 openings where later the center locks with white's pawn ending in d5 and the game "slows down".

3) While preventing Black from freeing their position, white exports another knight to the king side, maneuvers the bishop from b5 to b3, or c2, and gets ready to assault an attack on the king side by occupying f5/h5 with a knight, pushing d4 to open the center and activating the bishops, and even maybe bringing rooks to g file or even the third rank. I must admit I was horrified by Ruy Lopez personally, and never could equalize as Black. (Now I exclusively play Sicilian against 1.e4)

Of course this is a particular line I have in my mind, and many variations are out there with maybe drastically different strategies.

Added: See answers to Why is the Ruy Lopez such a common opening? (I am surprised how right I was!)

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


title: How can I find my performance rating?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I find my performance rating?
I’ve noticed that in tournaments grandmasters are given a performance rating for how they played in that tournament. Can this be applied to individual games and how can I see mine when I play a game?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Under FIDE rules, the performance rating is calculated by taking the average of your opponent's ratings, and then adding a factor from a table based on performance. Let's say you played 5 games, against people rated 1380, 1390, 1400, 1430, and 1900, and had 3 wins and 2 losses. You scored 60%, or 0.6. According to the table in section 1.49 of this document, in this case your performance rating would be adjusted upward by 72 points. The average of your opponent's ratings was 1500, so your performance rating would be calculated as 1572.

The downside to this method is that the ratings averaging can be skewed by one opponent with a very high or low rating. If you changed the 1900 opponent in the above example to a 2900 opponent and decreased the wins to 2, the performance rating would increase to 1628, even though you performed worse. If you instead changed the 1900 opponent to a 1000 opponent and increased the wins to 4, the performance rating would go down to 1560, even though you performed better.

The USCF ratings estimator calculates performance rating by calculating how a player at a particular rating would be expected to do against the given opponents, and comparing it to the actual result. In the example above, a player rated 1563 would be expected to score 3 based on those opponents, so that's the performance rating.

The downside to this method is that there's not just a simple formula you can figure out in a few seconds. The upside is that it's less prone to being skewed by one very high or low rated opponent.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Performance rating doesn't make sense for a single game, it only makes sense if you play a bunch of games (at least 4 or 5) in a chess event. For example, in a round robin tournament with 4 players, where every player plays twice against every opponent (with White and Black), every player plays 6 games in total, and the performance rating will give useful information.

To compute your performance rating, for every game of the event you add the opponent's rating + 400 if you win, you add your opponent's rating if you draw, and your opponent's rating - 400 if you lose. Then you divide by the number of games you played.

You can compare the performance rating with your own rating. If the performance rating of the event is higher than your own rating, it usually means you performed better than expected during the event. If it is lower than your rating, you performed worst than expected.

This is only meaningful if the opponents and you have a relatively close rating. If some player's rating differ from your own more than 400 points, the results of the comparison are usually not so meaningful.

---
Tags: training, performance
---


# Question
Title: Do Barry attack and 150 attack really work that well with Colle-Zukertort?
As I was looking for advice on Colle-Zukertort as described here, I found additional info about 2 other attacks that can be used to improve my repertoire pretty efficiently. Here is the information I found:

* Colle-Zukertort and Barry attack combined should provide a working repertoire for about 85% of my games played.
* Colle-Zukertort, Barry attack and 150 attack combined should provide a working repertoire for about 90% of my games played.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm surprised that having only these 3 tricks in hand seems so effective?

# Answer
> 12 votes
There is a book which recommended this repertoire, `A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire` by Summerscale. I used those lines myself when I was in the 1400 to 1800 range, but had to give them up as they were holding back my development as a player.

As a beginner, frankly you shouldn't be worrying about it. Choosing a repertoire should be near the bottom of your list of 'areas to improve.' How many games have you won/lost because of familiarity with the opening? If anything, try to play good, normal, open lines, like `1.e4 e5`, and just focus on the chess. You'll get more out of that than by studying the nuances of the Barry Attack.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I used the Colle-Zukertort for a while. The 150 attack is fairly well known to Pirc players, and the Barry Attack is not good enough to hold you through if it doesn't work. You can get by at the club level with this repertoire, but you're limiting yourself because, aside from the few examples given in books about those openings, few if any players over 2000 ever lose to them, because they can think them through. If you're OK with just throwing away your advantage with the White pieces to players over 2000, go for it, but personally I would advise you to go with something more sophisticated.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I am approximately 1850 USCF (ELO) rated and have played the Colle-Zukertort system pretty religiously when allowed by the opponent. I would tend to agree that that the Colle-Zukertort, Barry, and 150 attack provide a pretty broad set of potential response (but I would also have at least some idea of how to play against 1.d4 f5, and 1.d4 e5. Although 1. ...e5 is known to be inferior it can lead to disaster if played incorrectly by white. I believe at lower club levels below expert rating that a limited repertoire of openings that is well prepared can give your higher rated opponents fits as I have found (at least to low expert level. I do agree in general though that if you really strive to improve at chess for the long term, it is better to expand your opening choices.

# Answer
> 3 votes
To some of you so called experts on opening play...

Thinking that what opening you play hinders your middle and endgame technique is totally false. Blaming getting out played in the middle game and losing on the opening you choose is also false thinking.

Many GMs and IMs use these systems. If you can't get these openings to work for you then your not going to get a main line to work either. Learning main line openings does NOT improve your chess. Chess is really about tactics, the middle and the end game. The opening is only a part of the over all game.

Here is a quote from John Cox who is an IM 2400ish FIDE rating from his book "Dealing with d4 Deviations" *"In the 1930's the top guys didn't know whether these openings or the Queens Gambit were better. These were the 2700s of their day; They understood chess a lot better than I do, and if something wasn't obvious to them, it was arrogant of me to think it would be obvious to me if i just figured it out over the board. I could list easily a hundred 2550+ players who have succumbed to the openings in this book"*

**He admits he's been torched many times by these opening systems too...**

Here is a clue... 99.9% of his book doesn't bust any system... all his book does is get you to a level position as black. Then what are you going to do then... Wing it?

Alekhine, Lasker, Capablanca etc all used these openings.. Currently Kamsky Blatny Kovacevic Hodgson Yusupov Hebden use these system against top tier GMs.

People who think an opening effects their chess technique or skill are the type that chase openings over and over, never really mastering a single one.

# Answer
> 2 votes
1.d4 2.Nf3 is the main line for me. I use to play 150 attack and Barry attack very frequently in my games. They are very good openings and best thing about it is that you attack without any weaknesses. That's great isn't it.
But these two attacks are played by me only when the opponent responds with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6. The g6 move tell us that black is going to develop his bishop fianchetto and play a King's Indian.
For other lines you must go through Graham Burgess' "Cunning chess opening repertoire for White".

---
Tags: opening, colle-zukertort
---


title: Easy mate in three

text:
# Question
Title: Easy mate in three
This time an easy puzzle I made up today. White mates in three.

```
[FEN "7k/4Kp2/P4Np1/6R1/8/R6P/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

```

# Answer
```
[fen "7k/4Kp2/P4Np1/6R1/8/R6P/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Rh5+ gxh5 {if Kg7, Rh7#}
2. Rg3  h4
3. Rg8#

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
Herb's solution works perfectly, but since you indicated in a comment that you were expecting for another one, maybe that's it.

```
[fen "7k/4Kp2/P4Np1/6R1/8/R6P/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Rag3 Kg7
2. Rh5 g5
3. Rgxg5#

```

---

**Edit**:

Here is a simple suggestion to fix the cook and make this solution the only one:

```
[fen "7k/4Kp2/P4Np1/6R1/7P/R7/8/8 w - - 1 0"]

1. Rag3 (1.Rh5? gxh5 2.Rg3? {stalemate}) (1.h5 Kg7) Kg7
2. Rh5 g5
3. Rgxg5#

```
> 7 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: How can black mate white in 4 moves in this game
How can black mate in 4 moves?

```
[FEN "6k1/p5rp/3p1PR1/3Pp2Q/qBK1Pp2/5P2/2P5/r5R1 b - - 0 1"]
[Event "Black to mate in 4 moves"]

```

# Answer
This does not seem too difficult.

> Due to the threats against the black king, black is basically forced to check at each move. Also, obviously you don't want to allow the white king to escape via c3 or d3 towards e2 or d2 where it would be relatively save.

With this in mind, the solution comes almost naturally:

> 1... Qxc2+ 2. Bc3 (2. Kb5 Qe2+ (or Qd3+) 3. Kc6 Ra6++ (or Qa6++)) Qe2+ 3. Kb4 (3. Kb3 Qa2+ 4. Kb4 Qa4++) a5+ 4. Kb3 Qa2++ One thing you need to check is that the more natural 1... Qxc2+ 2. Bc3 Ra4+ does not lead to mate in 4 (but only to mate in 5)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What are the main strategic concepts in the Grunfeld?
I recently picked up on the Grunfeld and I am quite pleased with this opening. To improve my skill at playing this opening;

* What are the most important strategic/thematic concepts that I should learn?
* What other, less important, concepts should I learn after i'm skilled at the most important?
* What kind of endgames can I expect? ( which pieces )

The Grunfeld mainline starts with:

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Very often Black will end up with a poor pawn structure in return for piece activity for example after the pawn moves d5 e6 dxe6 and fxe6 (not necessarily right after another).

As for other concepts, you need to accept that you need to study a *lot* of concrete lines. White has many options against your defence of choice such as:

* The crazy sharp anti-Grünfeld 3.f3.
* The positional 5.Bd2 line.
* The crazy tactical lines with an early h4.
* The system with Nf3 + an early Qb3.
* etc. etc.

Tactics abound in this opening and trying to work it all out over the board against a prepared opponent is suicide.

As for endgames, you can get absolutely any kind of material distribution due to the tactical nature of the opening. In general Black will get a queen side pawn majority, but whether it'll be relevant is an entirely different matter. First of all there's the matter of surviving the middlegame, and then there's the question of how many concessions Black had to make in order to neutralise the white centre in order to get there. For a great example of this going completely wrong for Black, see this game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Grunfeld is a really strategically unique opening, and what I mean by that is that it is hard to find the same ideas in other openings.

As others already mentioned, the idea behind this opening is that you are giving up the center but in exchange you get a very nice activity for your pieces, especially for the Bishop on g7 to start with:

Against the main line, you probably want to play c5, Nc6, Ng4 etc. These moves put a good pressure on White's pawn center (I know this is not a real position from the Grunfeld defense !):

To finish with the endgame, there is a saying "you should not play the Grunfeld if you are afraid of a white passed pawn on d5". Indeed, even if many Grunfeld endgames are playable, they can be slightly uncomfortable. On a more generic standpoint, it seems to me that many Grunfeld endgames at top level end up in theoretically drawn positions where White is one pawn up. thus many ways for White to press a little bit.

This is a video I have made to help intermediate players grasp the ideas of the Grunfeld defense: https://youtu.be/1kY-XJQYA3A

---
Tags: opening, strategy, endgame, grunfeld-defense
---


title: White gives checkmate in two moves

text:
# Question
Title: White gives checkmate in two moves
```
[FEN "5rk1/2Q2ppp/p7/2P5/1p6/1B5P/Pq2nPP1/3R1K2 w - - 0 1"]

```

White, to move, gives checkmate in two moves. Can anyone find the solution?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The solution is

> 1.Qxf7+. If Kh8, then Qxf8#. And if Rxf7, then Rd8# - the rook cannot block because it is pinned by the bishop.

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


title: FEN inverter website/page?

text:
# Question
Title: FEN inverter website/page?
This board shows the black pieces on the bottom, but the white pieces are supposed to be there; I accidentally set up the board so that white's pieces are on the black side. I am looking to flip the board with the following FEN:

```
# R2K1B1R/PPP2QPP/5N1N/1n2q3/8/1p3n2/pbpp3p/1kr4r w KQkq - 0 1

```

Board:

```
R2K1B1R/PPP2QPP/5N1N/1n2q3/8/1p3n2/pbpp3p/1kr4r w KQkq - 0 1

```

How may I accomplish this without re-setting the pieces manually? I tried switching the rows, but I got:

```
# 1kr4r/pbpp3p/1p3n2/8/1n2q3/5N1N/PPP2QPP/R2K1B1R w KQkq - 0 1

```

Board:

```
1kr4r/pbpp3p/1p3n2/8/1n2q3/5N1N/PPP2QPP/R2K1B1R w KQkq - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Although one may try to place the first row as the eighth, the second row as the seventh, etc., the board will appear flipped (as shown above).

This is a horizontal flip (mirror-image over the x-axis) and does not look quite right. Switching the letters from lower-case to capital and vice-versa would switch the colors, but that's not the best solution.

Upon closer examination, a vertical flip (or mirror over the y-axis) of this horizontal flip would solve the problem: Reverse each sub-string delimited by a slash until you hit the second field, then leave it as is.

**The final product is the same FEN, except the first field is a reverse string of itself.**

```
# r4rk1/p3ppbp/2n3p1/8/3q2n1/N1N5/PPQ2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 1

```

Board:

```
r4rk1/p3ppbp/2n3p1/8/3q2n1/N1N5/PPQ2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
The free chess GUI Arena does what you are asking and many other useful things for creating or studying chess problems.

It works with epd files, fen strings and pgn databases.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I disagree with Jossie's solution. If you follow that method, and flip the initial game board, you'd end up with queens on the wrong colors. Doing a vertical flip and switching the colors is the method I use.

Detailed efficient methods of performing these board flips (as well as rotations) can be found here.

UPDATE: As Jossie has since pointed out, his solution is correct for the question asked. My solution is for when you need to transform a board (oriented with white at the bottom and black at the top) in which it's black's turn, to one in the same orientation, but seen as if it was white's turn. An example of when you'd use my solution is converting a database of boards to one where they're all being represented with the same orientation, and same player to move.

---
Tags: programming, fen, mathematics
---


title: What to consider before making a move?

text:
# Question
Title: What to consider before making a move?
What questions do you ask yourself before making a move?

Do you have a mental check-list that you go through before deciding on which move is the best move in the current position?

The move does not have to be a candidate move because most beginners are not thinking in terms of candidate moves.

# Answer
Before playing a move, I like to think I pay attention to the following :

* **Is some piece of mine undefended ?** If a few aren't, then I should bay a particular attention to them not being forkable, with anything (by a queen, mostly). If it is the case, I might decide playing something that safens this matter.
* **Is my *king* safe enough ?** All checks my opponent can administer should be benign.
* **Is my move achieving something ?** Better have a wrong plan than no plan at all.
* **What move am I expecting my opponent to play ?** A handful of possible moves is fine, as long as it's not “well, anything, basically”. Ideally, I see how neither of these moves are a problem to me.
* **Tactics** : Often enough, there is about one square of interest on which both players' pieces concentrate : is this square defended enough times, by the right pieces ? (i.e. defending with a rook and a queen a pawn that my opponent attacks with light pieces is not going to help) Is the checkmate I am defending from still not working ?

Of course, once I thought enough about all of these, I'd expect not to lose any game, but 4. and 5. still leave the door open to surprises if one doesn't read variations into enough depth, “how many is *enough* ?” still being an open question :·)
> 4 votes

# Answer
I usually consider the following things before making a move:

* Which squares is this piece controlling *now* and which squares would it control from its new position?
* Which pieces is it defending *now* and which pieces would it defend from its new position?
* What are the various options for my opponent after I make this move?
* How does this move fit into a longer term plan, or to put it another way, what purpose do I want it to serve?
* How well is the piece protected in its new position? (Of course, this does not apply when I *want* to give up the piece.)
> 2 votes

# Answer
The common trap I used to fall into (and I am actually still falling into it) is to consider mostly **your** attacking possibilities, and not the opponent's one.

It usually happens this way: "How my god, my pieces are beautifully coordinated, I can probably put my Knight to f5, and then with the support of the Queen, g7 will be very weak. This is going to be a good game..." And on the next move, your opponent checkmates you because you completely missed his bishop b7-Queen c6 configuration that was threatening a mate in 1.

So the meta-rule for me is: \- always think about the opponent's possibilities first. What is he threatening ? Do his pieces target some interesting squares ? \- Then think about what could be done to stop these threats. Possibly you have even bigger a threat so it is not actually necessary to deal with it. But at least you know it now

Then, when drilling down to the opponent's possibilities, it includes: is my King safe ? Are my pieces protected ? Is there a weak square he can reach ? Is there a forced series of moves that leaves him with the advantage ? Once you are sure that there is no problem left in your position, you can start thinking about your own attacking possibilities: is **his** King safe ? Are some of **his** pieces undefended etc.

You can find more pieces of advice on my blog: http://chesstrainerapp.blogspot.fr/
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is usually easy to see the positive aspects of a move. It is because of them that you are considering it. What you have to force yourself to look for are its negative aspects. So...

What aspects of my position are weakened by this move? What piece or square is left unprotected? What piece of mine is blocked? What piece of my opponent is opened up? What options have been lost?
> 1 votes

# Answer
My thought process is roughly as follows:

* Decide which move best fits my "plan".
* After the move, is the moved piece vulnerable:
    + Is it hanging?
    + Can it be attacked by a more minor piece?
* After the move, does it leave any other piece vulnerable:
    + Does it leave another piece hanging because it is now discovered?
    + Was my piece directly defending any other piece by guarding the square?
* Can the opponent now check me?
    + If so, can she use it to skewer another piece?
* What is the move the opponent is more likely to do now?
    + Does my move force the opponent?
    + Does my move encourage the opponent to move a piece?
    + Does my move create any obvious opportunities for the opponent?
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: FIDE tourney location

text:
# Question
Title: FIDE tourney location
I have been trying to figure out when a tournament for FIDE will be near but I can't find any in the U.S. Does FIDE not come to the U.S?

# Answer
Of course FIDE have tournaments in the US.

You can find them on the FIDE website here - https://ratings.fide.com/tournament\_list.phtml?moder=ev\_code&country=USA
> 3 votes

# Answer
Most open tournaments in the US are fide rated. Besides the fide site you can check the USCF site: http://www.uschess.org/tlas/upcoming.php
> 3 votes

---
Tags: fide
---


title: What kind of gun is Alekhine's gun?

text:
# Question
Title: What kind of gun is Alekhine's gun?
This question is about chess linguistics. Alekhine's gun is the pattern where the queen is placed behind two rooks.

1. Who came up with the phrase?
2. Is it clear which kind of gun they had in mind?
3. In which language did the phrase originate?

I always imagined "gun" in this context meant a piece of artillery such as a cannon, because surely the three heaviest chess pieces put together must be a heavy weapon! :-)

I see that several of the non-English Wikipedia articles about it use cognates of cannon, for example, *Cannone di Alechin* (Italian) or *Canhão de Alekhine* (Portuguese). But on the Spanish-speaking world, the situation seems more confused: there are more Google hits for *pistola de Alekhine* than for *cañón de Alekhine*, and I can't tell which could be considered more authoritative. Could this have been a mistranslation?
On the other hand, the metaphor of threatening the player across the table with a pistol is also interesting, and I've also seen the queen behind the bishop called *Reti's rifle*, so maybe there's more of a small arms tradition in chess phrases than I originally thought.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Alekhine's gun is a formation in chess named after the former world chess champion Alexander Alekhine. This formation was named after a game he played against Aron Nimzowitsch in Sanremo 1930, ending with Alekhine's decisive victory.

---
Tags: history, terminology, alekhine
---


title: How can white mate black in 4 moves?

text:
# Question
Title: How can white mate black in 4 moves?
In this endgame position, how can black be mated in 4 moves? Being a beginner, I am finding it difficult

```
[FEN "8/8/6R1/8/8/4K2p/7k/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Use the king to keep the black king in the corner and force Black into zugzwang:

```
[FEN "8/8/6R1/8/8/4K2p/7k/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kf2 Kh1 2. Re6 Kh2 (2... h2 3. Re1) 3. Rh6 Kh1 4.Rxh3

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What kind of hand-crafted features do top performing family of engines use to evaluate a position?
AlphaZero paper which introduced the engine which allegidly outperformed stockfish mentioned the following:

> These programs evaluate positions using features handcrafted by human grandmasters and carefully tuned weights, combined with a high-performance alpha-beta search that expands a vast search tree using a large number of clever heuristics and domain-specific adaptations.

In particular I am interested in a claim about **features handcrafted by human grandmasters**. The paper didn't provide any examples, neither it references anything here. To make the question less ambiguous, let's narrow the scope of programs to just a couple of best performing families of engines (stockfish, sugar, komodo, houdini)

So my question is: what kind of hand-crafted features do top performing family of engines use to evaluate a position?

# Answer
The paper is right. Traditional chess engines use a set of tedious hand-crafted features for positional evaluation.

I'd say nothing surprising, to name a fews (I can't name everything):

* Mobility bonus
* Outpost bonus
* Attack bonus
* Rook on the seventh rank
* Material advantage
* Minor pieces behind pawn

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/evaluate.cpp

If you take a look at the source code, it's quite complicated. Difficult programming for something that is understood even by chess beginners.

What about **replacing** the entire file with a deep neural network? Training a network is easier than tweaking those numbers in the file.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, evaluation, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: convert stockfish pv output to show piece names
What are suggested coding snippets to add pieces to pure algebraic notation (this would change g1f3 to Nf3) when using the chess.js and chessboard.js (javascript) interface. Stockfish uses this type of raw notation and I would like to change it.

Answers such as the ones from the link below are not helpful. for example: the computer knows the names of the pieces.

Changing UCI output to include piece names

# Answer
Sorry I don’t know any JavaScript but here is the basic code (in pseudo code) for the problem:

```
SELECT CASE Board(Move(1),Move(2))
CASE “N”
      Move <== “N” + Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “P”
      Move <== Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “K”
      Move <==“K” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “R”
      Move <==“R” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “Q”
      Move <==“Q” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “B”
      Move <==“B” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
END SELECT

```

This is assuming there is a 2D array holding the board named “Board” and a string “Move” holding the move about to be played.

Hope this has helped.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, notation
---


# Question
Title: Is capturing on empty square with a pawn legal?
How is it possible to move c4 to b3?

# Answer
This type of capturing with pawn called **capturing en passant**.

Here's the rule explained on Wikipedia:

> When a pawn advances two squares from its starting position and there is an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file next to its destination square, then the opponent's pawn can capture it en passant (in passing), and move to the square the pawn passed over. This can only be done on the very next move, otherwise the right to do so is forfeit.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, computer-chess, en-passant
---


# Question
Title: How can I find all games between 2 specific players?
How can I find all games played by 2 specific players?

For example: Nigel Short and Magnus Carlsen.

Is there some official FIDE database or something like that?

I'd like an easy way to see things like:

1. Their overall score against each other
2. A list of the games that make up this score, each with a link to the PGN of the game, showing date and tournament location etc
3. Most recent game played

# Answer
> 1 votes
Try http://www.chessgames.com. Just write "Short" and "Carlsen" in the search box.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=&player=short&pid2=&player2=carlsen&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=

**EDIT**

Response to @Ywapom, Chessgames is quite good for top chess players like Carlsen. However, it can be incomplete for non top players. I'd suggest the expensive Mega Chessbase database.

---
Tags: database
---


title: Team championship pairings

text:
# Question
Title: Team championship pairings
Is there some fixed rule how teams for leagues are paired? Is it deterministic once team gets its starting number? If for example two teams must play in early rounds (e.g. A, B from same club), is it always done by giving them appropriate starting numbers or are some leagues where rounds are done manually? Are there more pairing standards? Do some leagues have an odd number of teams and would it change something?

# Answer
> 5 votes
A lot of questions with many different answers depending on the type of competition. Leagues can be either Swiss or round robin. I suspect most leagues are round robins but by no means all are.

Perhaps the most interesting league from the viewpoint of pairings is the the UK's 4NCL (originally 4 Nations Chess League). There 4 main divisions with subdivisions and both Swiss and round robin pairings are used according to numbers. If you are genuinely interested then the examples from this league are worth investigating. The rules are here - http://www.4ncl.co.uk/1718\_rules.htm

> Is there some fixed rule how teams for leagues are paired?

No. There is no one fixed rule. If there are roughly the same number of rounds as teams then a round robin (all-play-all) pairing system would be used which does have fixed rules. If there are many more teams than rounds then some form of Swiss is used. Sometimes the league might be split into two time-wise with several subdivisions paired with one system (rr or Swiss) for the first half and then rejoined depending on results into separate sections which may again be paired in different ways. Again there are rules but some are fixed and some mutable.

More information on Swiss rules are available on the FIDE website here

For round robin tournaments Berger tables are used. The only reference I have for these is the FIDE Arbiters Manual These start on page 66.

> Is it deterministic once team gets its starting number?

For round robin, yes. For Swiss, no.

> If for example two teams must play in early rounds (e.g. A, B from same club), is it always done by giving them appropriate starting numbers or are some leagues where rounds are done manually?

It depends entirely on the circumstances. For a round robin it is easier to do this by assigning start numbers appropriately but it is not essential.

> Do some leagues have an odd number of teams and would it change something?

Of course some leagues have an odd number of teams. For round robins, where the Berger tables are used, one team has a zero-point bye each round. For Swiss systems triangular matches are used.

As I said at the beginning the UK 4NCL is interesting and complex with a full range of pairing and worthy of study if you are really interested in this sort of thing.

You might find Division 3 North of particular interest because it has a relatively large number of teams. The discussion on this (2017-18) season on the English Chess Forum is here . The arbiter's job was complex. This post shows one of the interested parties posting the ingenious pairing rules that were decided on by the arbiter to solve the problems posed.

# Answer
> 3 votes
My answer is based on my experience with the Dutch competition, both for chess and (where relevant) other sports.

> Is it deterministic once team gets its starting number? If for example two teams must play in early rounds (e.g. A, B from same club), is it always done by giving them appropriate starting numbers or are some leagues where rounds are done manually?

Yes, it's deterministic, although some exceptions could be made for teams who participate in other competitions (e.g. for teams in the national competition who also participate in European team competitions; the match for that team could be postponed to a day outside the normal competition schedule).

> Do some leagues have an odd number of teams and would it change something?

This regularly happens at the lowest level of the competition; in this case, one of the pairing numbers corresponds to no team at all and the opponents of that team don't have a match that round. Because every team plays the same number of rounds, a bye (free match points) usually isn't awarded.

---
Tags: rules, team
---


# Question
Title: How can white mate black in 4 moves in this particular game.
How can white mte black in 4 moves in this game. This might be easy but I am a beginner. (https://i.stack.imgur.com/r5n6R.png)

# Answer
The king has no escape squares and, as is often the case in these puzzles, every move must be a check.

```

[FEN "r1br4/1p3qp1/p1kb3p/2NN1p2/1PPQ4/8/P5PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. b5+ axb5 2. cxb5+ Kxb5 3. Rfb1+ Kc6 4. Rb6#

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: How to mate a king already in the corner with a knight and a bishop?
How can white mate black in 4 moves in this position? This might be easy but I am a beginner.

```
7k/7N/6K1/8/7p/7B/8/8 w - - 1 0

```

# Answer
Normally, when mating with bishop and knight, the black king needs to be in a corner of the same color as the bishop. So this is actually the wrong corner, but thanks to the black pawn, it's still possible.

1. Be6 is the first thing I would try, as it confines the king to the corner; with the king on h6 and the knight on g6 it would be mate. However, the pawn will promote too soon (with check) which spoils this plan.

So let's try to move the king first: 1. Kh6 Kg8. Now 2. Be6+ forces the king back in the corner with tempo: 2... Kh8 and now the knight arrives in time: 3. Nf8 h3 4. Ng6 mate.

```
7k/7N/6K1/8/7p/7B/8/8 w - - 1 0

1. Kh6 (1. Be6 h3 2. Kh6 h2 3. Nf8 h1=Q+) Kg8 2. Be6+ Kh8 3. Nf8 h3 4. Ng6

```
> 10 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Can I mate black in 4 moves in this game
Can I mate black in 4 moves in this game

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is your third time requesting this type of answer. I suggest that you either learn to play better or input the position into a computer.

```

[FEN "2r2k2/p4p1p/3pbQnN/3q2Pp/8/2B5/PP5P/K3R3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg7+ Ke8 2. Qxf7+ Kd8 3. Bf6+ Ne7 4. Qxe7#

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
I believe yes.

```
[FEN "2r2k2/p4p1p/3pbQnN/3q2Pp/8/2B4P/PP6/K3R3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qg7+ Ke7 {Ke8 plays out the same}
2. Qxf7+ {the Bishop is pinned} Kd8
3. Bf6+ Ne7
4. Qxe7#

```

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Is a candidate master considered a master?
Is an FIDE candidate master (CM) considered a master? For example, if two opponents are each rated 2250 by the FIDE and each is a CM, is their game considered a master game?

In ordinary English, the title *candidate master* would seem to say, "not yet a master," but I do not know what chess convention thinks of it. This is why I ask.

# Answer
In the strict realm of FIDE, a 2200 *FIDE rated* CM is not a master. This is because FIDE's official master title is the FM (2300 *FIDE rating*).

However, in the US and Canada, a 2200 *national rating* earns the NM (national master) title. So, if a player had a 2200 FIDE rating but a 2100 national rating, in the strict sense they would not be considered a master. To be a master you must meet the requirements of FIDE or your country's federation.

Most chess players aren't aware of these arbitrary rating thresholds though, and it's likely they would consider anyone with a 2200 rating in whatever system a master (even though this may not be officially true).
> 3 votes

# Answer
A FIDE candidate master is considered a master. However, usually when referring to master games, only those with a rating of 2200 or above are taken into account.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: fide, titles
---


# Question
Title: What age is too old for becoming a good international tournament player?
I am around my 30s and my ELO is 1350. I have attended many national tournaments, but I have very few international tournament experiences, one of which did not go very well.

I love my job, but I also enjoy playing chess very much. Specifically, I love the atmosphere of the tournaments. Since I am not a citizen of the country I currently live in, I am not able to attend most of the national tournaments, and that leaves me with some international tournaments to attend with my online FIDE ID.

I am not looking to be a professional chess player, but I just want to be a challenge for mid-level players, whose ELOs are around 1500s.

Given the fact that attending an international tournament costs one time and money, my question is:

> Am I being a stargazer (or simply put, a fool) by attending international tournaments, or can I somehow improve my game to compete with players around the world?

Please note that I am **not** looking for something that is obviously out of my reach, such as having a full-time job and standing at top 5% in an international tournament.

# Answer
I am older than you and my ELO going up every year - sometimes very slow - sometimes very fast - no matter who play chess live longer as scientists as the best runners :)

I am sure you will not learn chess by playing tournaments - you can learn chess by training - you will improve skills faster if you train more self and analyze more games. You will finally play better tournaments.

Playing games is slow method of training better is puzzles, learning ending games, openings, middle games, watching and reading master games analysis, analysis of skill weakness and errors.

Looking games of other players is also good - you can study much more position than playing. You can train little playing long chess games - or fast to learn openings.

To improve skills replace playing with training. Trainers can improve you skill too but if you train self (everyday).

It will improve you skills in five years I think - who knows you can become 2000 ELO player if you have enough passion and self training skills :)

You should think like Magnus Carlsen when was 12 years - check where is your limits - tournaments is only exams of your skills - tournaments should played regular too to see own weakness.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tournament, psychology
---


# Question
Title: How do strong players think during a game?
What is the best chess technique? I mean, how do World Champions think in a game? What happens in their minds?

Do they think of their moves in advance or they just know what to move because they have practiced a lot?

I ask this because I've seen some videos with really fast players and it is hard to imagine that somebody can think so fast.

# Answer
> 18 votes
When chess players play very fast, they think in much the same way that you think when you talk really fast. You don't think about nouns and verbs and grammar and dictionary definitions of words, although language is incredibly complicated; you have that all internalized. Good chess players have internalized the standard patterns of chess the way that you have internalized the standard patterns of speech.

Now, if you're writing a formal essay, with lots of time in which to write it, you'll spend lots of time thinking about how to construct your argument, exact word choice, possible objections of the reader that you want to address in advance, etc. Similarly, chess players think very carefully and deliberately when they have a long time to think.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It is not that strong chess players think faster but rather that they think better. With the arsenal of a variety of patterns, they do not have to think faster because of their knowledge of patterns. Instead of calculating 2-3 moves ahead, patterns allow the person to know the result of combination instantly. It is in this way, an accumulation of patterns, that ultimately creates a strong player. It is important to note that even with their accumulation of chess patterns, chess players still rely heavily on calculation. Their is a reason that professional chess games can last up to 6 hours at times, and of course this implies that they do not know what move to play. Chess players play fast only when low on time or if the game has a fast time control in which the reverse happens and they rely heavily on patterns and "intuition." In regards to how chess player decide what move to play, they go through the lines of various candidate moves and assess the position that arises from them. These actions would be quite impossible for normal humans to do because of our inability to effectively assess positions and the fact that every position has about 40 possible moves and just calculating 1 move ahead would take 160 continuations. That is where the patterns are very effective and allows players to intuitively know what possible continuations are worth considering and what should be disregarded.

# Answer
> 4 votes
An interesting read would be "Move First, Think Later" by Willy Hendriks. It covers this topic from a different (and very interesting) perspective. Here are a few highlights covered in the book:

The De Groot study found that a difference between weak and strong players was not usually depth of analysis but rather that strong players just see the best moves. Weak players may never even analyze the right move(s) at all.

He asserts that there is no magic thinking process that strong players use. His justification is that if there was a thinking process or algorithm that would suddenly make you strong, chess wouldn't be very interesting and there would be many more strong players.

The voice you hear in your head that is suggesting moves is compared to a PR person speaking for a company (they may be well spoken but they didn't invent the things they are describing). In the same way, by the time you become aware of a move (and justify it with positional considerations) it has already been provided to you by a subconscious process that you are basically unaware of.

So how do strong players magically find moves? He suggests that it's less finding and more recall (e.g. memory). In other words they've looked at, played, and analyzed many high quality games, exposing the strong player to thousands of patterns. Which, you know, is what most strong players recommend you do if you want to get better.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Strong chess players are not as fast thinkers as they are efficient. A better chess player is more efficient, he eliminated the bad moves faster allowing him to focus more on coming up with better moves and strategies.

Whether or not they think in advance completely depends on their style of playing. Some players are instinctive, who prefer to go with sacrifices even though unsound still have potential (Ex. Mikhail Tal), other prefer to be 100% sure of their strategy and tend to calculate multiple lines to ensure something is correct. **However** both still do calculations, even Mikhail Tal wouldn't simply just blunder into a bad sacrifice, the only difference is, one relies on calculations to make his next move, the other more about how he feels about the positions. Of course there are other type of players in chess so it truly depends on the person!

When it comes to fast games, otherwise known as bullet games, usually lasting from 1 min to 3 minutes(anymore than that and you enter the 5 minute mode which is considered blitz) strong players tend to have better experience on how to "run the clock" and because of that their moves are mostly focused on confusing their opponent rather than go for a long run win, since there isn't much time to think that far ahead. That is also why you see more blunders in a bullet game, as blunders tend to draw the attention of the opponent and make him lose time.

It goes without saying that you shouldn't watch a bullet game in order to learn something from it, bullet games are a "must experience" type of thing in order to learn from them, they help make you think faster on less time and more efficient.

Hope I helped :)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Maybe the last chapter (Chapter 21) of great book from **Peter Romanovsky**, the soviet middle-game technique have good answers to this question. The name of the chapter is "*How Players think during the gam*e". He very carefully and exactly define the elements of thoughts as *Spirit of the position*, *Variations* and *Post-Variation positions*. After that he exemplified each concept in real games and describe how every player think and how they may have mistake and select bad choices for the next move.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would like to add to other answers that, as well as experience and pattern recognition, there are also some simple enough principles that can help quickly assess the merits of a move/position without having to analyse it in depth. They don't always give the true value but usually will.

For example:

```
- Gain and maintain the initiative
- Principle of two weaknesses and increasing pressure
- Control the centre
- Take towards the centre (partly as a result of the previous principle)
- Control open files
- Good and bad bishops
- Knights good in closed games, bishops good in open
- Revealed attacks, forks, skewers, pins etc.
- Passed pawns strong, doubled and isolated pawns weak
- Push weaknesses
- Protect your king (until it's safe to use it as an attacker)
- etc.

```

These allow an experienced player to assess a move in a crude but quite effective way without having to calculate it or remember that pattern from another game. Given time, the player will want to assess it more thoroughly than that and the masters will be doing more from specific experience of similar positions as they have so much but I think these principles and others are used by grandmasters in their assessments to quickly look at a move and think "that's almost certainly going to be bad" and not waste time thinking about it.

Equally, they can apply the same principles to their opponents positions and moves to spot weaknesses that they can then devise plans to exploit. A good player could spot a likely weakness from these principles and see a piece/move that might be able to exploit it in a second or two's thought.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I highly recommend Kotov's trilogy (Think like a grandmaster, Play like a grandmaster and Train like a grandmaster). The first one answers your question precisely.

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: What is the strategic significance of the English Opening?
I enjoy playing the English opening, pushing my pawn to c4, and trying to out flank my opponent. But I have a hard time, outside of playing normal lines, understanding the advantage it gives, and why it leads to fantastic games. Any insights?

# Answer
> 16 votes
Since I was playing the English myself, I can tell you why I have found it a good opening for me:

1. Transpositional potential of this opening is stunning! You can lead your opponent out of **his/her** opening and **draw them into the variations they do not know.** One small example: `1.c4 c6` Since Black reveals to us that he plans to play *Slav/Semi-Slav/Queen's Gambit* we can steer the game into *Caro-Kann* with `2.e4!?`. Now, this means nothing objectively--we just left one opening to enter into another--but the **psychological effect** can be devastating! It can lead to such consequences like **deflating** their **will to play** the game since the game is "boring", or you can actually transpose into an opening your opponent **does not know** and quickly demolish him.
2. **The center remains fluid for a long time.** This is truly **gold** in the hands of the experienced player and answers this part of your question:

> why it leads to fantastic games?

You see, since White restrains himself in the center, it is usually safe to play on the wings. Black usually responds by playing on the wings too, but inexperienced players **forget about counter attack in the center**. This possibility requires **good calculation** and **accurate** evaluation of the **current** position in order for a player to be able to execute this properly. Action on one wing + counter-attack in the center = crazy game. Launch your counter-attack in the center **at the proper moment** and you will **win the game** most of the time.

These are the beauties of this opening:

1. Its **intolerance** for "robotic play" and opening memorization--it requires of a player **true knowledge**. You must know **how to play chess**--opening, middle game and end game--no opening book can save you if you do not know how to play chess.
2. Its main feature is to give so much space to a "true" player **for creating winning chances**. If you are creative enough you can win in the opening, middle game and even an endgame. By "true" player I mean player who plays every game **with 100%** of his strength. The player who plays with **knowledge** and **does not rely on safe patterns/30+ memorized opening moves** and so on. The player who is willing to fight for victory **to the very end.**

Whether you play "normal" lines, or you play some side-line/transposition, the *English opening* will never be dull and **sterile** for a player who is prepared to invest all of his mental capacity to win the game.

Hopefully this answer will help you.

If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Playing the English opening, you will soon find that there is much more room for creativity in this opening than in many openings starting with d4 or e4. You have many possible ideas:

1. playing a reversed sicilian with the white pieces
2. prepare a specific "anti-something" line against your opponent. For instance, you can avoid the Nimzo-Indian and the Grunfeld defense if you want to
3. there is also the possibility to play very quiet lines, where the center pawn structure remains undecided for a long time:

Here, this position is very quiet for now, but can soon become very explosive. The big questions being:

1. will White push d4 and when ?
2. will Black push d5 and when ? as you have probably guessed, there is not one single good answer to this question and that is also why the English opening leaves more room for creativity.

If you are interested, I have summarized the main strategic ideas of the English opening on the following video: https://youtu.be/wsxYf7fV76c

# Answer
> 1 votes
In his book on *Flank Openings*, Raymond Keene made this point. In a conventional opening where both players initially focus on the center, if they play equally well the position may burn out into a draw. If the initial struggle takes place on the flank, even if it does burn out, there is still the other flank to play on.

To take advantage of this possibility, you must make sure that your forces can readily transfer from one flank to the other. This is usually easier for the player who has gained more space.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, english-opening
---


title: Why does Caruana kick Aronian's bishop?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does Caruana kick Aronian's bishop?
Why does Caruana push 11.h3 against Aronian?

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "20"]
[title "F. Caruana v. L. Aronian, FIDE Candidates 2018"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.d3 d6 9.Bd2 Bg4 10.c3 d5 11.h3 (11.exd5 Nxd5 12.h3) Bh5 12.Qe2 Rb8 13.Bg5 dxe4 14.dxe4 h6 15.Bc1 Bg6 16.Nbd2 Nh5 17.Nf1 Bc5 18.g3 Kh7 19.Kg2 Qe7 20.Bc2 Rfd8 21.b4 Bb6 22.a4 Nf6 23.Nh4 Qe6 24.Bd3 Bh5 25.g4 Bxg4 26.hxg4 Nxg4 27.Nf5 Nxf2 28.Bc2 g6 29.N1e3 gxf5 30.exf5 Qf6 31.Qxf2 e4 32.Rh1 Rd6 33.Bxe4 Rg8+ 34.Kf1 Ne5 35.Qf4 c6 36.axb5 Rg5 37.bxa6 Qd8 38.f6+ Ng6 39.Rxh6+ 1-0

```

Caruana's 11.h3 does nothing I can see but to kick Aronian's bishop back to h5, seemingly a better square.

Yet Caruana wins the game, against *Aronian,* no less. So has Caruana's 11.h3 actually somehow helped?

**LUFT?**

Is Caruana's sole purpose to make *Luft* without loss of tempo?

But this seems doubtful. Why make *Luft* so soon? Aronian still has both bishops, after all; so, if the purpose is *Luft,* then how can Caruana already know that the h-pawn will have been the right pawn to push? (In the event, if *Luft* is what Caruana wants then he soon gets plenty of it. Aronian trades the bishop for all three of Caruana's kingside pawns!)

**PAWN STORM?**

Perhaps Caruana is dreaming of an eventual g4 and a pawn storm against Aronian's black king. But from *this* position? I see no sign of it. Do you?

I'm stumped.

**MOTIVE BEHIND THE QUESTION**

Though Caruana's game against Aronian does indeed interest me, my question has a broader purpose. Opponents sometimes play moves like Caruana's 11.h3 against me. I do not understand h3 (or h6) when they play it any more than when Caruana does.

I understand kicking a *knight* by h3. I also understand kicking a bishop by *a3,* insofar as the king is not near. But kicking a bishop by h3? If one does not mean to follow with g4, then why bother?

I would like to understand.

**COMPUTER ANALYSIS**

If you wish to know, Stockfish slightly prefers 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.h3, which is not wholly dissimilar to Caruana's play, so apparently Stockfish understands Caruana's thought. Unfortunately, I do not understand it. If you can illuminate the push of the rook pawn in a position of this kind, I would appreciate it.

# Answer
You are right, h3 has no immediate purpose. But that's not the point. The idea behind playing h3 is to set up many resources that *may be used in the future*. I'll list these resources below:

A) Luft. Sometime long down the road, the king may need a luft to prevent a back rank mate. Yes, Caruana doesn't know if moving the h-pawn will be the ideal luft in every possible situation, but usually moving the h-pawn works best. You also mentioned that Caruana would soon have plenty of Luft because Aronian trades his bishop for the three kingside pawns. This is also true, but Caruana had no way of knowing this ahead of time.

B) *Possibly* playing g4. Notice how Black's knight on f6 is tied to the defence of the d5-pawn. One day, White may play g4-g5, booting the knight from its post and winning d5. This doesn't work in the current position (why else would Caruana play 12.Qe2 instead of 12.g4?), but again it's about the possible future. In some future position, Caruana *may* find the g4 idea useful. It's likely he will never use it, but *it doesn't hurt to have the option ready should the need arise.*

In summary of points A) and B), h3 is meant to set up resources that Caruana might use in the future. He may never use these resources, but it's good to have them ready just in case. Playing h3 doesn't hurt his position, so why not?

There's also two more reasons behind playing h3:

C) The bishop on h5 is arguably worse than on g4. On h5, the bishop can only go to g6, where it will be blocked in by White's e4-pawn (provided White can protect the pawn). On g4, the bishop would have been able to retreat along the c8-h3 diagonal.

D) As user1583209 pointed out, by playing h3 White has the option to suddenly break the pin with g4 at any moment. This may be a very useful resource, if White's knight needs to be freed up to do something immediately. Without inserting h3, Black would be able to capture on f3 if White played h3 later on.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Why has the Petroff Defence become more popular?
In the last few years, the Petroff defense had almost disappeared from the super-grandmaster scene with Top players preferring to play the Berlin. However, in this year itself, the Petroff has seen some sort of a renaissance with Fabiano Caruana in particular playing it 4 times in the Candidates tournament itself. Top players like Nakamura have also played it a few times recently(particularly the US Championship)

My question is, **Why is the Petroff being played more recently?** Has there been any novelty that has been uncovered and everyone's just analyzing it more and more?

# Answer
Possibly it's the evasion of the evasion of the evasion.

GMs evade the Ruy mainlines by playing the Berlin, then they evade the Berlin by playing the Italian and now they might just start to evade the Italian by playing the Petroff.

My hope is that they'll evade the Petroff by playing the King's Gambit.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Nowadays theory has become so convoluted at the super-GM level that top players want to avoid the main lines more and more. The petroff is a good option, since it hasn't been analyzed and played by super-GMs to such a huge extent. In addition, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Petroff (objectively, it may just be *slightly* worse than 2...Nc6).

By the way, the fact that Caruana played the Petroff 4 times in the Candidates doesn't necessarily signify a resurgence of the opening. He probably just prepared it specifically for that tournament, and the same goes for Nakamura in the US championship.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: opening, petroff-defense
---


# Question
Title: Standard for receiving live chess broadcast
I was making live broadcast recent days and I'm quite surprised how it technically worked. We were downloading whole new PGN file every 5 seconds with format shown it the code below. Is this how things work by default, is this standardized way of accessing tournament games?

Is it typical for major actions that access to games can be licensed/encrypted to avoid traffic from unknown entities?

For actions with many boards and many watchers like Olympiad online traffic downloading whole new PGN every second is just unimaginable for me.

```
[Event "Nomina?ní turnaj"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2018.05.29"]
[Round "5.1"]
[White "Babula, Vlastimil"]
[Black "Plat, Vojtech"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2556"]
[WhiteElo "2556"]
[LiveChessVersion "1.4.6"]
[ECO "D96"]

1. d4 {[%clk 1:30:55]} d5 {[%clk 1:30:54]} 2. Nf3 {[%clk 1:31:03]} Nf6
{[%clk 1:31:00]} 3. c4 {[%clk 1:31:10]} c6 {[%clk 1:29:19]} 4. Nc3
{[%clk 1:30:57]} g6 {[%clk 1:28:47]} 5. e3 {[%clk 1:27:45]} Bg7 {[%clk
1:29:13]}
6. Be2 {[%clk 1:27:05]} O-O {[%clk 1:29:35]} 7. O-O {[%clk 1:27:11]} dxc4
{[%clk 1:25:13]} 8. Bxc4 {[%clk 1:27:06]} Nbd7 {[%clk 1:25:29]} 9. Bb3
{[%clk 1:13:22]} Nb6 {[%clk 1:22:11]} 10. h3 {[%clk 1:08:06]} Bf5
{[%clk 1:21:31]} 11. Nh4 {[%clk 1:02:41]} Be4 {[%clk 1:17:33]} 12. Nxe4
{[%clk 1:02:24]} Nxe4 {[%clk 1:17:59]} 13. Qc2 {[%clk 1:00:24]} Nd6
{[%clk 1:18:23]} 14. Nf3 {[%clk 0:58:11]} Rc8 {[%clk 1:18:48]} 15. Rd1

....

and so on

```

# Answer
This is very common for live broadcast. What's simpler than just sending a PGN file format?

> downloading whole new pgn every second is just unimaginable for me.

Not really. While I don't claim myself a HTTP expert, your browser doesn't really need to do a new download. Good browser implementation should have a cache of your most recent PGN file. Only the HTTP response would need to be sent back. Please take a look:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20978189/how-304-not-modified-works
> 2 votes

---
Tags: programming, pgn, online
---


# Question
Title: Why is exchanging the queens bad in this position?
Stockfish gives +6.6 to the following position.

The recommended move by stockfish is Rc1 which maintains +6.6 advantage but if I exchange the queens right away (Qxd6), stockfish gives me +5. What's the reason behind the difference (in stockfish points) between two positions?

I can understand by Rc1 we put pressure on c7 but black can exchange the queens and later can defend the pawn too. Also, as a rule of thumb, I don't usually exchange queens off the board if I can take advantage of the position. But here it seems the queens are going to be exchanged anyway.

You can find the full game here.

# Answer
I think it is because 21.Rfc1 wins the c7 pawn. If black responds with a queen trade, she can't defend the pawn on c7 because white's bishop can attack a defending rook on c8 or d7.

```
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "3r3r/2p1kppp/B2qp3/2Qp4/6b1/PP2P3/3N1PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rfc1 Qxc5 2. Rxc5 Kd7 3. Rac1 {and the pawn falls}

```

That said, the position is completely winning either way and exchanging off the queens is a practical decision that reduces risks and keeps everything under control. White has an extra piece and a passed pawn.
> 28 votes

# Answer
It is true that Rfc1 wins the c7 pawn, but even if that where not the case, Rfc1 is significantly better technique than initiating the exchange yourself.

The black queen is pinned against the king, so there is no risk of black evading the queen exchange. Stepping out of the pin will just waste a tempo, because then you'll still be able to exchange.

If you exchange, you improve position of the black king, which enables him to play c5 next, improving his pawn structure.

If he exchanges, he improves the position of your rook and the c7 pawn stays backward. That is positionally much preferable.

All this doesn't matter much, because you are a piece up anyway. But without the extra piece it is exactly this type of precision leading to slightly better positions that wins games.
> 24 votes

# Answer
The reason why a computer makes this type of suggestion i a completely winning position, where a human would choose another completely winning continuation, is because the computer is not human, and does not have a general intuitive understanding of the concept of completely winning.

It bases its evaluation of lines on concrete calculations, and then it notes its evaluation of the resulting position in the form of a numerical value which is often related to the material balance at the end of the line. When evaluating a line, the computer makes no practical considerations whatsoever and it doesn't care at all how difficult a position is to play when presenting a continuation as optimal.

However, for humans, the difficulty of playing a position is an important consideration to make. Therefore, in the position you provided, you made a move which no human would ever even think of criticizing you for making while Stockfish noted it as a "mistake".

While you may note that white is completely winning and the conversion to a victory should be a simple task after trading queens and simplifying the position, Stockfish notes that there is a way to win even more material by playing 21.Rfc1 and will therefore criticize your move, even though the win is not made any more difficult by playing your move.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Lots of people are pointing out that Rfc1 wins you c7, but this is proof of more general advice

**Employ Zwischenzug where possible**

Zwischenzug mean "intermediate move"; it's the idea of placing your opponent in more pressure before making an obvious move.

The most clear examples involve being in a position to take an opposing piece, lets say a rook. Instead of taking it right away, you might be able to put your opponent in check first, developing a piece. Then, after your opponent has answered the more pressing concern of check, now you can go ahead and take their rook.

In this example, you've pinned black's queen. Nice work. Now, there's no immediate move black has to get out of it. You *could* go ahead and take black's queen, black captures back, then you play on like usual.

*Instead*, what Stockfish is proposing is that you place black in a more uncomfortable position before making the trade. There are only a few responses to Rfc7; none of them are very good for black. So why not go ahead and force one of those "not very good moves", especially if it lets you develop a rook? The queen exchange isn't going anywhere, and you can use it to leverage an even larger advantage.

**"To take is a mistake"**

Now, that's one of those over-generalized "rules" which only applies in certain cases, but this is one of them!

The idea is that you never want to sacrifice the momentum or positioning gained in an exchange *if you don't have to*, and often, the person initiating an exchange loses both of those.

I'm obviously not saying that taking a piece is always (or even usually) bad; if black's queen weren't pinned, you should obviously capture it. But right now, *you don't have to take it*. It's not going anywhere. Consider these outcomes:

You take the queen and black recaptures with their rook, threatening white's bishop. Now white can move their bishop to d3, which encourages black to play g6, or they can move their bishop elsewhere, encouraging Rhd8. So now black's either developed a rook and strengthened their king-side pawns, or developed a battery on a semi-open file. In exchange, white's lost development on their bishop.

White should still win on material, but they didn't have to give black that positional advantage. If white moves Rfc7, then black captures the queen, white recaptures with their rook. The queens are off the board *and* white developed a rook; advantage white.

Of course, if black doesn't make the trade you've still got the advantage, and if black removes the pin on their queen, you can just grab it then.

Qxd6 says "I'm trading queens because I'm up on material", but Rfc7 says to black **"You can initiate the trade and I'll develop a rook for it, or you can squirm a little first and I'll do it when I'm ready."**
> 7 votes

# Answer
I don't have enough points to comment, but please note that if Stockfish actually thought it was a bad move, you would have an annotation like "?!" and a comment like "Inaccuracy" or "Mistake". The fact that there is no such annotation means that, although the positional evaluation is lower, it is not considered an error.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Playing Rfc1 essentially gives White two extra tempi. Consider the following lines:

A) 21.Qxd6 Kxd6 22.Rfc1

B) 21.Rfc1 Qxc5 22.Rxc5 Kd6 23.Rac1

The only difference between the lines is that, essentially, the a1-Rook in line A) has been transferred to c5 in line B).

These two extra moves allow White to win the c7-pawn. Continuing line B):

23...Rd7 24.Rc6+ Ke7 25.Rxc7

Whereas if we continue line A):

22...c5! and White isn't winning the c-pawn immediately.

As a final note, Black doesn't have to exchange queens in line B), and can protect the c7-pawn by playing 21...Rd7. However, then after 22.Bb5 Rd8 23.Qxc7 White wins the pawn anyway.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Rc1 is preferable over an intimidate queen trade because white's queen is active, and black's queen is passive.

Moving the white queen to a7, a5 or b7 to defend the bishop loses the activity. Therefore, by playing Rfc1, white can activate one more piece. In case black goes for the trade, now queens are off the board, and white has a very active rook on c5, ready to support the passed pawn on a-file.

But as others mentioned, both moves are winning. Only difference is that Rfc1 has a slightly more active game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
It is **NOT** bad. Possibility of a **better** move, doesn't make the **worse** move a **bad** move.

Usually, when you're the attacking one, you don't want to exchange pieces. That's a general rule.

On the other hand, if you have material advantage, you should rather try to exchange as many pieces as you can.

Given position is not worth analyzing, white is a piece up, it's game over already. HOWEVER, if you are less experienced player (I assume from the question) I think that exchanging queens is even **BETTER**. Why? Because it will make it harder for black to come back to the game. Queens are dangerous!

**Pragmatism for the win!** (for example, look at the game of Magnus Carlsen vs Fabiano Caruana: https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-altibox-norway-chess/01-Carlsen\_Magnus-Caruana\_Fabiano \- look how red it is! Did he played that bad? No, he played safe (in most cases)).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, positional-play
---


title: Are computers destroying chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Are computers destroying chess?
These days I have been watching the candidates tournament, and I couldn't avoid noticing that players are reeling/scared of computer home preparation "a little bit too much".

For example:

1) In the game Anand vs Kramnik (round 4), Kramnik at the move 22 just played the "incredible" move Nd4 (home computer preparation), giving the Knight for "free" without any apparent compensation, four moves later we end up understanding that Nd4 just forces a draw:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "FIDE Candidates 2014"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2014.03.17"]
[Round "4.2"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2787"]
[ECO "D37"]
[Opening "QGD"]
[Variation "4.Nf3"]
[WhiteFideId "5000017"]
[BlackFideId "4101588"]
[EventDate "2014.03.13"]
[StartPly "43"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 Bb4 6. Bg5 c5 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qa5 10. Bb5+ Nbd7 11. Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12. Kf1 gxf6 13. h4 a6 14. Rh3 Qb4 15. Be2 Ne5 16. h5 Qd6 17. Qd2 Nc6 18. Rd3 Qh2 19. f4 Rg8 20. Bf3 Bd7 21. Ne2 Qh1+ 22. Ng1 Nd4 23. Rxd4 Bb5+ 24. Kf2 Qh4+ 25. Ke3 e5 26. fxe5 Qg5+ 27. Kf2 Qg3+ 28. Ke3 Qg5+ 29. Kf2 Qg3+ 30. Ke3 Qg5+ 1/2-1/2

```

2) Topalov vs Kramnik (round 6). Kramnik at the end of the game, in the press conference, was "whining" that he lost the game because Topalov had prepared all in home with a computer, almost like suggesting that he lost to a computer:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "FIDE Candidates 2014"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2014.03.19"]
[Round "6.1"]
[White "Topalov, Veselin"]
[Black "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[WhiteElo "2785"]
[BlackElo "2787"]
[ECO "D37"]
[Opening "QGD"]
[Variation "classical variation (5.Bf4)"]
[WhiteFideId "2900084"]
[BlackFideId "4101588"]
[EventDate "2014.03.13"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 Nh5 8. Be5
c6 9. Bd3 g6 10. h4 f5 11. Bh2 b6 12. b4 f4 13. O-O a5 14. b5 bxc5 15. bxc6 Nb8
16. Bb5 Ba6 17. a4 Qc8 18. dxc5 Nxc6 19. Nxd5 exd5 20. Qxd5+ Kh8 21. Qxc6 Qxc6
22. Bxc6 Rac8 23. Bb5 Bxb5 24. axb5 Bxc5 25. Rxa5 fxe3 26. fxe3 Bxe3+ 27. Kh1
Rc2 28. Rb1 Rfc8 29. Raa1 Bb6 30. Be5+ Kg8 31. Ra6 Be3 32. b6 Rc1+ 33. Rxc1
Rxc1+ 34. Kh2 Rb1 35. g4 Bf4+ 36. Kg2 Bxe5 37. Nxe5 Nf4+ 38. Kf3 Ne6 39. b7 Rb3+
40. Kf2 Rb2+ 41. Ke3 1-0

```

So, looks like nowadays high-level chess players have to take in consideration when analyzing variations during the game, that some of that variations may be had been analyzed beforehand by his opponent with the help of the computer.

For a fan o chess as I, this computer home preparation takes all the fun of the game, because when for example Tal sacrificed a piece, was awesome because he had to think about it over the board, or at least it was human home preparation. Nowadays, if a player sacrifices a piece on the opening, people will most likely thing that this sacrifice was home computer preparation, so it is not awesome anymore. Looks like the game is becoming more about memorizing sequences of moves.

My question is:

It is true the engines have level up the game, but can we also conclude that engines at a certain level are destroying the human cognitive process or figuring out moves by them selfs over the board (mainly at opening phase)?

How can someone play the game in a way that he can avoid computer home preparation?

Thanks.

# Answer
> 24 votes
My short answer: **no, computers are not destroying chess.** And now here comes a really long version ...

Your first question:

> It is true the engines have level up the game, but can we also conclude that engines at a certain level are destroying the human cognitive process of figuring out moves by themselves over the board (mainly at opening phase)?

As indicated above, in a word, I'd say *no*. In more words, I don't think there's anything particular to *engines* about the phenomenon you describe, and the "problem" of preparation, to whatever degree it exists, is really just about the single, well-analyzed starting position of chess. Chess960 (as alluded to in Fischer's earlier answer) tries to address that latter concern, as did things like Capablanca Chess well before that. When Capablanca thought that chess theory was all played out already in the 1920s, it certainly wasn't because of the chess engines of his day (and he also happened to be quite premature in his assessment).

Yes, engines raise the quality of players' home preparation these days and can do a lot of heavy lifting, but still the engines are just *tools* which strong players use to aid their creative opening endeavors. Consider this: *even if you were to have as fantastic a chess memory as, say, Kramnik, so that you could efficiently memorize a ton of engine-aided preparation, if you don't also have Kramnik's all-around understanding of the game and **what to aim for** out of the opening, the preparation he has memorized will far outshine yours, **not necessarily in the quality of the individual moves, but certainly as regards the body of lines he has chosen to learn**.* (And of course, there will still basically always come a point in the game where the preparation is left, and Kramnik will certainly start crushing you then.) Some players are stronger than others, and that sort of strength still applies to engine-aided preparation.

Again, there is nothing special about engines here. The same was true of preparation in eras where it was aided only by books and periodicals; then too games were sometimes won simply from superior opening preparation. Here is a game from 1935 in which Botvinnik does just that, and which GM Kavalek references in a recent article on the sixth world champion:

```
[fen ""]
[White "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[Black "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Event "Moscow 1935"]

1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Qb6?! 7.cxd5! Qxb2? 8.Rc1! Nb4 9.Na4 Qxa2 10.Bc4 Bg4 11.Nf3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 1-0

```

As Kavalek notes, Spielmann had played the *white* side of this line up through move 6 the previous year, though in that game he played the weaker response `7.c5?!`:

> \[The aggressive move `6...Qb6?!`\] was recommended by the Czech master Karel Opocensky in his chess column in Narodni politika and it was used for the first time by Josef Rejfir against Spielmann in Maribor 1934. 'Surprising and good,' wrote Rejfir in Ceskoslovensky Sach 8-9/1934 about Opocensky's invention. The Wiener Schachzeitung called it the Prague variation.

So Spielmann was certainly familiar with this line when he chose to go into with the black pieces. But Botvinnik was also familiar with the earlier game, and he managed to analyze a bit deeper than had been done before, which netted him a win out of the opening. That sort of thing happened before engines, and sometimes happens with them today. Still, in the preparation itself, as well as playing the games once out of preparation of course, the skill and creativity that chess has always demanded is squarely on display.

Given what I've written above, my response to your other question is probably pretty predictable.

> How can someone play the game in a way that he can avoid computer home preparation?

Just try and end up in a line that your opponent hasn't analyzed. But again, I would stress that there is nothing particular to *computer* home preparation here; it's the same problem it has always been. If I'm Rudolf Spielmann, and I recently got burned by Botvinnik's home preparation (without engines of course), then if I want to avoid the same fate next time we play I need to try and steer the game to lines where Botvinnik won't have had the chance to out-analyze me ahead of time. Maybe I'll be successful, maybe I won't, but the challenge was the same in the era of books as it still is in the era of engines.

# Answer
> 12 votes
In some ways, computers have been taking the "fun" out of chess, in the sense of creating an arms race of opening preparation in fashionable opening lines.

However, if you look at any current games in top-level play, you will still constantly see fresh new positions, and even opening play that would once have been considered completely bizarre just twenty or thirty years ago (see Richard Rapport's games, for example). What this means is that computers, while "killing" well-known openings, also enable a creative player to explore lesser-known openings that contain strange, and often actually quite deep and subtle middle game ideas.

Therefore, computers have not killed chess, but have transformed it. But chess was changing long before computers came along. Every step in the history of chess has involved deepening the global pool of knowledge and experience. The differences now are that computers make the turnaround of testing and verifying ideas much faster, and also that the Internet means that the transmission of information is almost instantaneous, so that the days of hoarding specific kinds of knowledge are over. But this just means that one must be even more creative than ever in depth of understanding and in the psychological aspect of the game. Kramnik famously lost a game against Leko in 2004 because he analyzed a position with a computer and the computer said the position was winning, but actually, it was winning for Black, but Kramnik had not let the computer analyze the position long enough to see that. That game was truly a victory for the creative human spirit.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Bobby Fischer:

> **Radio Interview, June 27 1999**
>
> I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.
>
> **Radio Interview, October 16 1999**
>
> You know I'm finished with the old chess because it's all just a lot of book and memorization you know.
>
> **Radio Interview, May 15 2005**
>
> In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more.
>
> **Radio Interview, October 16 2006**
>
> Capablanca wanted to change the rules already, back in the twenties, because he said chess was getting played out. He was right. Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative.

Authors@Google: Garry Kasparov: Minute 40 and 49

**How can someone play the game in a way that he can avoid computer home preparation?**

Kasparov talked about it a bit, if you want my opinion, play blitz or Fischer's chess. Or play an opening that isn't too mainstream, that's what Peter tried to do, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov vs Peter Svidler.

# Answer
> 5 votes
A new answer like this to a four-year-old question is probably doomed to lie, unread, at the bottom of the answer column, yet four years late I have something different to add, so here goes.

That computers have not killed the game is one of the great surprises in the history of chess.

Computers have perhaps damaged the game. Not a few masters have concurred on this. The kind of chess Tal once played against Botvinnik, for example, seems to be gone forever, a real loss to the game.

What many of the masters did not however expect was the rise of deliberately suboptimal opening play. Today, a grandmaster like Magnus Carlsen can *make a move both players know is not quite objectively best* and can gain an advantage thereby, insofar as the move invalidates the opponent's preparation.

In Botvinnik's day, grandmasters seldom thought so; but today, even a grandmaster would rather not play against a memorized line a computer has developed. Thus, though one can reasonably argue that chess was—on the whole—a better game in the precomputer age, there is in chess a new tension between

* pursuing a computer-generated line of your own and
* disrupting the computer-generated line your opponent has memorized.

Thus, in grandmaster play, the *well-timed deviation* from memorized lines has become rather an art.

In summary, many have said that chess was better in the precomputer age. Maybe chess was indeed better, but players have adapted in unexpected ways to keep the game alive and, in some ways, arguably, to make the game almost better than ever.

It's funny how that has worked.

Here is a sample of the new style of play.

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "8"]
[title "M. Carlsen v. F. Caruana, São Paolo, 2012"]

1.e4 e6 2.d3 (2.d4) d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.Ngf3 (4.g3) Nc6 5.c3 (5.a3) (5.e5) Bd6 6.Be2 O-O 7.O-O a5 8.Re1 e5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nc4 Re8 11.Bf1 Bg4 12.h3 Bh5 13.g3 Nb6 14.Nxb6 cxb6 15.Bg2 b5 16.a4 b4 17.Be3 Bc7 18.Qb3 h6 19.Qc4 bxc3 20.bxc3 e4 21.dxe4 Bxf3 22.Bxf3 Ne5 23.Qe2 Nxf3+ 24.Qxf3 Qd3 25.Kg2 Qxe4 26.Bd4 Qxf3+ 27.Kxf3 b6 28.Rab1 Rac8 29.Re4 g6 30.g4 Kf8 31.h4 Rxe4 32.Kxe4 Re8+ 33.Kd3 Re6 34.Be3 Kg7 35.Rb5 Bd8 36.h5 Rd6+ 37.Kc4 Rc6+ 38.Kd5 Re6 39.Bd4+ Kf8 40.f4 Bc7 41.f5 Rd6+ 42.Ke4 Rc6 43.Rb1 Ke8 44.hxg6 fxg6 45.Rh1 Kf7 46.Kd5 Rd6+ 47.Kc4 gxf5 48.gxf5 Bd8 49.f6 Bxf6 50.Rxh6 Be7 51.Rxd6 Bxd6 52.Kb5 Ke6 53.Bxb6 Kd7 54.c4 Kc8 55.Bxa5 Kb7 56.Bb4 Bf4 57.c5 Ka7 58.c6 Kb8 59.a5 Ka7 60.a6 Ka8 61.Bc5 Bb8 62.Kc4 Bc7 63.Kd5 Bd8 64.Ke6 Bc7 65.Kd7 Ba5 66.Be7 1-0

```

According to de Firmian's *Modern Chess Openings*, 14th ed., Carlsen as White enters an unusual line as soon as the second move and, on move number four, leaves the book altogether. I do not know what White's standard fifth move should be in so already unusual a position, but apparently, after four moves, Carlsen is still not yet satisfied that he has disrupted Caruana's preparation. According to Stockfish, Carlsen chooses the third-best option for his fifth move, the move being suboptimal by a margin of more than a quarter of a pawn. Yet Carlsen, finally satisfied with his opening disruption, still wins the game, for—though Carlsen's opening is not unprecedented—it is unusual enough that Caruana cannot easily have prepared.

I would add this as a final note. If you are not a master or grandmaster, but are just an ordinary patzer like me, well, human chess coaches are expensive. By quickly spotting missed tactics in a player's recently finished games, a computer can inexpensively help a social, nontournament player to improve his or her play. A human chess coach is still better, I don't doubt, but the computer does fill a certain gap. I personally would have preferred precomputer chess on the whole but the computer has brought some compensating advantages. In the computer age, the game of chess is still okay.

Good question.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Computers (engines) have changed chess on the professional level. There is no doubt about that. In some ways, it was inevitable that chess engines would become unbeatable machines. Personally, I sometimes wish they didn't exist. But change is here and one has to adapt!

When it comes to professional play, everyone has an engine at home, ready to help during opening and middlegame preparation. So in this way, everyone has equal possibilities to prepare for their next game or tournament. The better prepared player will on average get better positions out of the opening.

Yet in my view, there are two major areas where the engine cannot help the human player

1. An engine can say e.g. +0.5, but cannot explain why or where this advantage is located.
2. An engine can show you nice moves or ideas, but cannot explain how to find them yourself.

Thus, while the engine helps to navigate positions, it is a terrible teacher. Using your engine correctly is also a skill. Thus, the player with the better skills at the preparation stage, will on average perform better in tournament play. Which is fair, in my opinion. I should also add that chess is a lot about human passion and emotion. Engines don't really care. So don't lose sleep, chess is still chess and the majority of the games are still decided over the board in practical combat!

# Answer
> 4 votes
From the seventies to the nineties, there was a development in chess, that more and more, a chess professional was someone, who tried to outprepare his opponent or make a draw if this didn't work out. Or in many cases, try to outprepare weaker opponents and make a draw right away with his stronger opponents.

This is one of the reasons, why Karpov and Kasparov were so incredibly dominant: They both had a far superior opening preparation compared to the other players and a team of seconds at home, which worked hard to keep it this way.

Nowadays computers have enabled players from all around the world, to create an opening repertoire that isn't easily crushed by the top players. This, together with anti-draw rules, has shifted the focus back to middlegame and endgame-proficiency.

Personally, I'm very happy that we have a world champion who just tries to "get a position" that his opponent didn't work out to a draw, and then proceeds to outplay even the very top. To my mind this shows, that chess isn't dead and isn't likely to ever die the "draw death".

Incidentally the players you mentioned (Topalov, Kramnik, Anand) are all part of the "old" generation. Their biggest successes are all based on superior opening preparation and they still base their play very much on the "old" model. (I'm not trying to say there is complete paradigm shift, there are young players who concentrate on the opening as well, but still, it is a noticeable and welcome change.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess is the only game where Computers can show the best performance . I mean they play the real moves .

From a learning perspective I believe Computers are not a good tool for strategic perspective . They are good for analysis for the Players who are above the 2000 + Elo level . Computers find the moves mainly based on Calculation abilities and are powerful Tactical opponents . There is a term called " Gambit " in Chess which does not apply to Computers . If a Player plays a gambit which means a temporary sacrifice of a Pawn to get some good activity then for Computers it is honorary to accept the Sacrifice but for Humans it has to be thought twice before accepting ,else I would recommend to have professional chess players where the good moves can be found based on discussions of Strategic & tactical motifs with a Plan.

The good part of Computers is they can make a Beginner's opening to the level of a Grandmaster . One more equation where the Computers can take a advantage to the balance is that Chess can be a Self Study game . It is not easy to find good coaches all across the Globe . People who are isolated and do not have access to Professional Chess persons can take help with Computers to improve their game . Their are a lot of Chess Videos , training materials where Computers can help to conglomerate the Openings/ Middle/ End game and help a Chess maniac to go ahead & become a Chess Master.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Another top grandmaster (Wang Hao) who believes computers are damaging classical chess. "chess is doomed"

---
Tags: opening, engines, preparation, human-versus-machine
---