# Question
Title: Are certain foods or drinks better to consume than others when playing chess?
Whenever I play long tournament games, I find that I drink simply enormous amounts of water, far more than my typical rate in daily life (and maybe even more than when I am unusually physically active). I don't do this deliberately, or with any purpose in mind; it just seems that my body desperately seeks hydration when I play chess. I know that some famous players swear by particular drinks during games, e.g. Boris Gelfand during his recent match with Anand talked about an energy drink that he always has in his thermos, and Magnus Carlsen seems to keep plenty of OJ around:

More generally, what I'd like to get here is this:

> Pointers to any studies concerning the advantages or disadvantages of the consumption of particular foods or drinks during sustained, concentrated mental activities or competitions like chess (but not necessarily chess).

One interesting read I stumbled on is FM Mike Klein's article "The Grandmaster Diet," which references some scholarly studies related to this matter, as well as items such as a survey by Roberto Baglione of the nutritional habits of 72 GMs and WGMs, which includes anecdotes like the following:

> "\[GM John Fedorowicz\] won’t eat a meal if he cannot complete it at least two hours before a game (according to Fedorowicz, GM Walter Browne used to advertise a free steak dinner to his opponent, with the caveat it had to be eaten right before the round). ... Fedorowicz almost always shuns food during games as well, though he did confess to eating a piece of cheese during a seven-hour round at a U.S. Championship several years ago.

I'd appreciate pointers to any other reliable sources that touch on this general topic of food and drink consumption *during* activities like chess.

# Answer
> 9 votes
One of the problems is that in the human body, the thirst and hunger mechanisms are not always clearly defined, so that when you are hungry you can feel thirsty, and vice versa. I would posit that you are likely low on circulating glucose, and mistaking hunger for thirst.

The brain uses up vast amounts of glucose while kicking over, and while there haven't been any physical studies of the amounts used during concentration (at least not that I can find in humans, there are some in rats), it is known that higher concentration uses more glucose.

There have been numerous studies that show meal composition and timing have an effect on both mental and physical performance, with breakfast being an important component. Here are a couple of those studies (one for physical, one for mental):

Cognitive Performance

Physical Performance

I recall seeing a study that suggests sweet taste (such as hard candy, etc.) can also trigger the body to release extra glycogen, but I don't recall where.

I would suggest that eating a balanced, healthy breakfast the day of matches, and mild snacking throughout the day (Other studies have shown that mental performance can be impaired immediately after meals - which is likely where the GM interview from the study you cite comes from) will help keep your body well supplied.

I generally suck on hard candy, or (since I also do endurance athletics) I have something like a GU gel or soft chew, which is basically quickly digestible, 100 calorie foods that help fuel the body during performance. You can find various types (Gels, soft chews, drink mixes) at most cycling/endurance stores (REI, multi sport stores, etc.)

Experiment a bit and find what works best for you, each individual is different. I would suggest that high sugar drinks (such as orange juice, etc.) are ok if you don't gulp it and are done, but rather sip throughout. Otherwise you provoke other responses in the body that result in glucose spikes and dips, which won't help.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Here is an article I came across a while ago.

This is probably the key part:

> Chess players should try to have breakfast daily.
>
> Avoiding “heavy foods” or foods of difficult digestion before games must be adopted as a regular habit for chess players. The last “main” meal before a game has to be had at least three hours in advance. If a player wishes to have something to eat nearer the time of the beginning of a competition (one or two hours before, e.g.) he/she should choose among fruits (whole ones, fruit salad or juices, raisins), cereal bars, pretzels, cookies, low fat yogurt with fruit or cereals, sports drinks.
>
> During the games, it is recommended fluid ingestion, and, if the chess player wants it (or when the game becomes long), solid foods. Mineral water, fruit juices, tea, coffee, sports drinks, cereal bars, fruits, raisins, dry fruits (almonds, e.g.), chocolate, cereal cookies, can be chosen. In all cases, moderate quantities should be taken.
>
> The best strategy to hydration is to drink small quantities at regular intervals, instead of greater quantities at a few intervals, and avoid being thirsty. The same indication should be followed during board training and physical activity. It is also important to begin the activity properly hydrated.

---
Tags: training, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Does this opening have a name? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4
I've stumbled upon this opening a few times, and I'm pretty sure it must be known, but I couldn't find the name of it in my book:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 ...

```

Is someone familiar with that opening? If this is a common opening, I'd appreciate if you could point me to its pros/cons.

I'm not a pro and still learning chess gradually. Is this an opening in which I should consider progressing?

# Answer
> 17 votes
It is a Scotch Game. It was played a lot more in the 19th century than in the 20th or early 21st.

"Nowadays," it is considered to be too "easy" on Black, because it offers the early exchange of a pair of pawns and knights, thereby freeing Black's game. Also, the White queen ends up in the middle of the board, where it might end up being chased by Black's pieces.

White does have a microscopic advantage in ending up with a king pawn in the center. Also, the queen in the middle of the board hampers the development of Black's kingside.

For those who like to develop queens early, this is a good game. The exchange of one pair each of knights and pawns greatly reduces the chances of the white queen's being trapped.

What is the best way to free your queen as soon as possible?

# Answer
> 8 votes
That'd be a Scotch Game; the (linked) Wikipedia article has plenty of information about its strengths and weaknesses.

My personal expertise doesn't extend to this opening, so perhaps a more expert player would like to chip in - until then, at least you know the name of the opening!

# Answer
> 7 votes
This is indeed the Scotch game. It is my favourite White opening. Why? It is really easy to learn as a beginner but has a fantastic pedigree of top level GM games to back it up! So it offers great possibilities and I enjoy it (Kasparov & Blackburne have enjoyed playing it too so it really cannot be bad! Paul Morphy played the closely related Scotch Gambit with success)!I have played it for a few years and I am still learning new ideas in it (today I missed a 4 move mate in the Mieses variation but I still won the game). The mid and end game positions that may arise after this seemingly simple opening can get complicated and I have learnt lots from these. One day I might take up a real heavyweight theory laden opening such as the Ruy Lopez as an alternative because I prefer 1.e4 openings but the thought of tons of opening theory is not a prospect I relish! I thoroughly recommend the Scotch opening but I agree the early release of central tension may not be liked by everyone! Enjoy your Scotch game!

# Answer
> 6 votes
If you are interested in the history of this opening, there is a very interesting article here on the Edinburgh Chess Club's website.

It tells of the series of correspondence games between Edinburgh Chess Club and London Chess club commencing in 1824, when it is believed the Scotch opening was first played.

In the 1820's, the moves had to be relayed by horse and carriage, with moves taking up to a week to travel between London and Edinburgh.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Other users have pointed out that this is called the **Scotch Game**. A simple google search would have provided that, but I just wanted to point out some of my experience playing as white since I have tried to play this opening every chance I get (well mostly every chance)?

I don't believe it used as much on the professional stage, but more at an amateur or club-level. I have noted a few things while playing:

* Since it is not played often, you can definitely catch someone off guard and this is especially good if someone does know the opening and does not know what the correct response should be. Normally, I have seen that if someone knows the correct response (or the best response), it is usually an equal game.
* If the move order continues `3... exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4`, I usually end up winning as white since white has developed the queen to the center and has the pawn on `e4` while back has virtually no development and now has to catch up.
* If black does not do `4... Nxd4`, but instead does something like `4... Bc5 5. Nxc6 Qf6`, black I believe is very good here in that they threaten checkmate on `f2` and they are going to win the knight back on `c6` with usually `bxc6`, `dxc6`, or `Qxc6` although this is not as good of a move as the others. The advice I have been given is usually you want to capture towards the center.
* If black decides to play `3... d6` to support the `e5` pawn, things can go down hill very quickly, for example white can play `4. Bb5` pinning the knight, so `3... d6` is not a good move for black.

In a nutshell, I have noticed that the Scotch leads to very open game and can be semi-aggressive. If you like this type of game, I would say it is definitely an opening to explore and learn as it is a lot of fun to play.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This is one of my favorite openings, but unlike others here, I prefer the gambit lines. After `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4` I (almost) always play `4. c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 ...`, the Goering Gambit. I won't say this is a perfectly sound line, but it's a lot of fun and more threatening than you might think. In fact, I have read (though I can't remember where at the moment) that in this line, it's more dangerous for black to accept the second gambited pawn than to play a developing move like `Nf6`. If `5...cxb2 6. Bxb2` really opens things up. Most of my most spectacular wins (and losses!) have come in this opening.

---
Tags: opening, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Chess Tempo #97369 - Is the problem's solution wrong?
Can black force a win (against perfect play) after the following moves?

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[StartPly "3"]

1... Rxc4 2. b7 (1. {Chess Tempo #97369})

```

A quick summary of this position is:

* Black is initially an entire bishop ahead.
* White has a passed pawn that is dangerously close to promotion.
* Black has connected passed pawns.

### Background

I recently asked "*Chess Tempo #97369 - Theoretical win or draw?*" about Chess Tempo problem #97369 where I asked what the theoretical value of the position is. From my own analysis (please feel free to check it for errors) I believe that black was in a winning position on the previous move, and at least one way to have won was to play `Qxc4`.

The only move that is accepted as correct by the Chess Tempo site is `Rxc4` because it has a very high evaluation according to the site's engine (Toga II). However I'm not even sure that this move works against perfect play by white. If it doesn't work I will request the site's owner to disable the problem.

What do you think? Can black force a win from the position the diagram results in? If so, how? If not, why not? Opinions are welcome but using an engine to check your analysis is also encouraged.

# Answer
I believe black can do no better than a draw from the starting position. First I'll give my own reasoning for it (and everything I'll say I've checked with Houdini, to rule out silly oversights on my part). Further below, I will suggest what I think is a very plausible explanation for why Chess Tempo's engine might have gotten it wrong.

The first move

```
1... Rb4

```

is forced, as it is the only way to keep white's b-pawn from queening without losing the rook. In turn, white's reply

```
2. Rb1

```

is forced, because without the b-pawn white will certainly be losing. Now white is threatening `3. b8=Q`, which would force black to give up the rook. Since `2... Rxb1+ 3. Qxb1` doesn't help, black is thus forced to play

```
2... Qb6

```

Again white cannot let the b-pawn fall for nothing, and so has no choice but to play the sequence

```
3. Rxb4 Qxb4 4. Qa6

```

to stop black's threat of `...Qxb7`. Now it is black to move from the following position:

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[StartPly "9"]

1... Rxc4 2. b7 {Last given ply, white threatens b8=Q+} 2... Rb4 {First original move, prevent pawn promotion without loosing rook} 3. Rb1 {preserve pawn to avoid loosing}
3... Qb6 (3... Rxb1+?? 4. Qxb1 {pawn is just about promoted}) 4. Rxb4 Qxb4 5. Qa6 {black must now give perpetual check to avoid loosing}

```

Black would love to consolidate the position by getting the bishop to a spot where it eyes the b8 square along with black's queen (say by `...Bf8` followed by `...Bd6`); doing so would eliminate any danger of white's pawn promoting, and allow black to regroup and win easily with the extra bishop. Unfortunately, if black tries `4... Bf8`, then `5. Qa8` threatens to promote and simultaneously pins the bishop, preventing `5... Bd6`. In that case, black has no better option than to play `5... Qe1+` and put white into perpetual check, draw. So `4... Bf8` doesn't work, but any other direct try by black to impede the advance of the b-pawn will just be slower. The problem is that, from the diagram position (meaning my diagram), black's forces are just uncoordinated enough that he doesn't have enough time to prevent `Qa8` and promotion of the b-pawn directly, and must instead go in for perpetual check.

From a broad conceptual point of view, black has only one other idea to try and play for a win if he can't stop the b-pawn: to run his own d-pawn to promotion. But it's easy to see that that plan is also too slow. If black tries `4... d3`, then after the white response `5. Qa8+ Kh7(g7) 6. b8=Q`, black's queen is en prise and white is now threatening to mate. So black would again be forced to bail out and go for a perpetual check with `6... Qe1+`.

**What I think went wrong here**

From your initial diagram position, an engine could search to a pretty healthy depth and keep seeing positions in which black retains a sizable material advantage (a full extra bishop). The reason for this is that though black cannot "really" stop the b-pawn from queening, he can give checks to push that event into the future, further down the engine's search. Now, of course, once an engine sees repetitions of the position in its search, it will recognize the draw and no longer see any advantage from the extra material. But ... (and this next part is indeed speculation, but it is not without sense)

A potentially problematic feature of this particular position, though, is that black doesn't just have, say, two checking squares from which the queen can carry out the perpetual. Checks can happen on e1, d2, d1, c2, c1, b2, b1 and in the meantime the white king could have at least 10 squares it could travel on; not to mention, a checking sequence could also get interrupted by, say, the white queen blocking a check, followed by the black queen getting back behind the b-pawn, and then the white queen returning to a6.

The point being, there are very many possible paths here; it's all still just a perpetual check, but the great variety of options here could make it so that, at whatever search depth it's working at in the Chess Tempo evaluation process, the engine couldn't quite see a repetition yet, because it keeps seeing things like, e.g. "Oh, I don't have to repeat with `...Qe1+`, I'll check from d1 this time instead," pushing the recognition of a perpetual check beyond its horizon.

Again, I'm speculating, but it's at least not a nonsensical possibility.
> 16 votes

# Answer
According to Stockfish, not only can black not force a win, but he only escapes by perpetual check.

```
[FEN "6k1/5p2/1Pp3pb/2q4p/1rNpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[StartPly "4"]

1... Rxc4 2. b7 {Last given ply, white threatens b8=Q+} Rb4 {First original move} 3. Rb1 Qb6 4. Rxb4 Qxb4 5. Qa6 Qb1+ 6. Kh2 Qb2+
7. Kg1 Bf8 8. Qa8 Qb1+ 9. Kf2 Qb2+ 10. Kg1 Qb1+ 11. Kf2 Qb2+ 12. Kf1 Qb1+
13. Kf2 Qb2+ 14. Kf1 Qb1+ 15. Kf2 Qb2+ 16. Kf1 Qb1+ *

```

I show black up by 2 pawns if we back up to the original game and play `1. ... Qxc4`
> 5 votes

# Answer
In my opinion the answer to the question is **yes**, black can win from this position against perfect play. The play goes as follows.

```
[FEN "6k1/1P3p2/2p3pb/2q4p/2rpPP2/3Q2PP/8/5RK1 b - - 0 2"]

2... Qb5 3. Rb1 Rc1+ (3. Qb1 Rb4 wins the pawn) 4. Rxc1 Qxd3 5. b8=Q+ Qe3+ winning the rook (4. Kg2 Qxd3 winning the rook on the next move)

```

Please analyze it and sorry if there is a mistake in the analysis.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: My bishop is attacked by a rook-pawn, now what?
I usually get into this position, where I just recently moved the bishop to **g5** (or b5), and his response is moving **h6** (or a6):

Usually here, I only consider two possibilities:

* **Take the knight**
* **Retreat my bishop\***
* Do anything else (rarely profitable)

<sub>* either to **h4** (or a4), or back in the long diagonal where it came from</sub>

I know this position strongly depends on how the other pieces are in the board, but I am sure there are standard responses, with their pros and cons.

I would like to study this position in-depth, possibly read some books that talk about it, anyone can point me in the right direction?

Also, in case of moving it to **h4** (or a4), is it considered a mistake for black to attack again moving the other pawn two squares?

# Answer
Usually the bishop doesn't end up by chance on this square, so why did you move it there in the first place? I can think of three reasons:

* pin the knight in order demobilize it (e.g. an indirect attack on a pawn)
* pin the knight in order to take it (e.g. to give the opponent a doubled pawn)
* provoke a weakness in the opponent's pawn structure

Be clear which of these motives apply in your case *before* you move, then you know what to do afterwards. Obviously "development" isn't a motive, but just an excuse here.

By the way, if your bishop is on b5 and the bishop on c8 isn't developed, sometimes Qa4 is an option (axb5 Qxa8).
> 11 votes

# Answer
I would say that typically black WOULD NOT want to further chase the bishop after h6 Bh4, because typically black has castled kingside. I would also say that typically black WOULD want to further chase the bishop after a6 Ba4 (for the same reason). Getting space on the queenside when you have castled kingside is often desirable; "getting space" on the kingside when you have castled there is much more likely to be "creating weaknesses" and not getting space.

Of course there are tons of exceptions, and it all depends on the position. One example:

In a closed position (such as in the King's Indian Classical), black will often advance his kingside pawns. The rule of thumb in closed positions is to advance pawns on the side where you have the space advantage.
> 7 votes

# Answer
DISCLAIMER: I'm unrated USCF, but lost most of the games at the last tourney I went to.

It depends entirely on the board.

1) If you can make something happen tactically when the knight is swiped, obviously do it.

2) If your opponent has to recapture with the g7 pawn, I'm biased towards doing it. That's a long term weakness, and doubled pawns aren't pretty after the king's castled. But then, I tend to undervalue doubled middle pawns in the opening anyway.

3) If your opponent has a lot of weak squares of the color of your attacking bishop, keep the bishop.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer.
> 6 votes

# Answer
In some cases, the WHOLE POINT of moving the bishop is to provoke h6, which often seriously weakens the king side.

One move worth considering is the sacrifice Bxh6 (after the opponent has castled). If the g-pawn retakes, the king may be exposed to a devastating check by say, Qg4. (Of course, you have to be sure of your followup moves before sacrificing the B.)

In most other situations, retreating the B to h4, or elsewhere, is good enough, since it has done its job.

You need to be more careful about moving the B to b5 on the queen side. A6 often gains time for Black. Even so, it is the key move of the Ruy Lopez opening.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, study
---


title: Why did Viktor Korchnoi leave the USSR?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did Viktor Korchnoi leave the USSR?
Why did Viktor Korchnoi/Kortchnoi leave the USSR?

Maybe the answer could include a little more trivia since he is such an interesting character.

# Answer
The short story is that the Soviet chess authorities at the time were blocking Korchnoi's progress and severely limiting his opportunities to play, as Karpov had been selected as their favorite son. It was the same sort of impediment that Kasparov later faced when he was on his own path toward dethroning Karpov, and it also echoed the scenario from decades before, when it was rumored/suspected that Paul Keres had been forced to take a backseat to Botvinnik.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Korchnoi wrote a book about this, named "Antichess" (ISBN 5899590017).

Unfortunately, it's in Russian and I don't know if there's an English translation.
> 6 votes

# Answer
While the 1974 match with Karpov was the last straw, it had been building for a decade or more. Korchnoi was never one to just blithely do what he was told, and he felt that Petrosian, especially, was working against him consistently.

In 1963 he was USSR champion, but Petrosian was sent to the Piatigorsky Cup, not him. The Americans sent three tickets, for Keres, Petrosian, and him, but only two were allowed to go.

He complained frequently that Petrosian was being allowed to shake the table in their 73 match (game 5) Korchnoi won, but after the game Petrosian complained that Korchnoi had spoken to him and wanted the match annulled. A very large dispute arose, ending with Petrosian refusing to play, resigning on health grounds. The score at the time was +3=1-1 in favor of Korchnoi.

Korchnoi writes about his early career is "Chess Is My Life" ISBN 06680445280 a slim volume that stops with 1976, right after his defection to the west.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Statistics on how a rating or winning percentage corresponds to the (opening, middle, end) game?
Have their been any statistics on how your knowledge on part of the game (opening, middle, end) corresponds to your rating or winning percentage? For example, I have found that if I play opening moves a good number of moves in, my chances of winning go way up. I am not sure how the middle game or end game affect this though. If player A was very strong in the opening, but semi-strong in the middle-game and player B was semi-strong in the opening, but very strong in the middle-game, does one player have an advantage? The same goes for the end-game? I have heard that the end-game is usually where the game is won. Do masters of the past and current have any direct correlation with these statistics?

# Answer
No. There is a rating system based on wins, losses, and draws, not for proficiency in phases of the game. How would you quantify that? Knowing the main line on the MCO for your openings? People are always finding improvements to main and obscure opening lines. This is the TN (theoretical novelty) that people search feverishly for. So what might be sound play in the opening in January may be unsound by August.

Further, I have seen flawless openings and middlegames come to grief because of a tiny blunder in the endgame. As Tartakower once said, the winner is the player who makes the 2nd to last mistake. So there is not really an accepted method of tying knowledge of component phases of the game to winning percentage, because there are too many other factors at hand. If the game 's phases could be defined down to a formula of what is good play in the opening, middle game or ending, computers would always win. We still have imperfections of shortsightedness and obliging opponents, and time controls, and other distractions.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I can contribute a personal study, but it conflicts with your experience. While I was coaching a HS team, we started talking about how important the opening was (my position was "not very;" they weren't convinced).

So we looked at my last half-dozen or so tournaments. I had won 19 games during that stretch, and had been standing noticeably worse coming out of the opening in 14 of them. So, from that data, it would seem that opening knowledge wasn't contributing much at all to my winning percentage.

There's a complexity here in this that is not being accounted for, though. There are two players in a chess game, and the knowledge/ability of your opponent has an effect on this. The basic rule is the better your opponent, the less likely they are to make mistakes, therefore the more important your own opening knowledge becomes. A player with a reasonable tactical ability can recover in the middle game from an opening blunder against someone under 2000USCF, because the chances are they will make mistakes that will produce the opportunities. Against Carlsen? Yeah, good luck with that.

That's why the traditional advice has been to start improving from the back end of the game forward. You can steal back some half-points and full points later in the game that your opening ineptitude gives away.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning, theory, statistics
---


title: How do I obtain statistics on openings?

text:
# Question
Title: How do I obtain statistics on openings?
I'm looking for statistics on the probability of a given opening being used in a game, and by what percent its use is growing or declining over some set timeframe, for example, over the previous year. How do I do this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Chessgames.com is an excellent website to view statistics on opening moves and analyze games overall.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Any chess database (chessbase online, for example) can give you general statistics on how often a move is played in a given position, which you can use to get a feel for how popular an opening is. To see an opening's popularity over time, and other more sophisticated metrics, you could use a commercial product like ChessBase, which has options like 'Opening Report' which gives you graphs of frequency over time, top player games in the position, and the like.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The old surveys in the New In Chess Yearbooks used to have that for the opening being surveyed, but they've dropped that in recent years. Some old books by Elsvier used to continue the tradition of the ancient and long out of print Blue Book of Charts by printing frequency along with won/lost statistics of each move.

If you're willing to settle for recent years, Mark Crowther's fantastic This Week In Chess series would be useful. Every week he publishes for download a package of games played in international chess that week. Download them, load them in to SCID, and you're on your way, for an investment of no extra money.

For games older than that, if you wanted to keep the cost at free, you could try the University of Pittsburgh Archives. They have lots of games, just be aware there has been little or no QA work done on them, so there will be lots of duplicates, as well as fictional games.

Better QA work has been done for both the usual suspect (Chessbase) and for Chess Assistant where you can bring in 5+ million games for under $100US, but you'll have to pay for the editing. Even then, these games collections aren't perfect, just better. With the commercial databases you can walk the opening tree and see popularity of moves.

I'd caution you, though, popularity of moves doesn't yield good moves. If a given position occurs 30 times, then one side discovers a tremendous advantage, the advantageous move will only get played a couple of times, while the weaker moves may have been played a dozen times or more.

---
Tags: opening, statistics
---


title: How bad is this reverse Trompowsky?

text:
# Question
Title: How bad is this reverse Trompowsky?
Chigorin played this opening five times in his match with Steinitz, 1889:

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4

```

It looks like black is playing a Trompowsky attack. I never seen this line except in these games. Chigorin scored 1 win and 4 losses, which is maybe why nobody plays it. But is this worse for black than the Trompowsky is for white?

# Answer
> 8 votes
My database has 1603 games in the line `1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4`, with Black scoring a poor 41.3%. (Contrast this with White scoring 54% over 38,587 games in the Trompowsky.) In particular, White does very well with the two responses that Steinitz used in the Chigorin match: `3.Ne5` leaves Black with a dismal 33.9% score, while `3.c4` leaves Black with a 34.7% score. So the numbers tell the story that this line is considerably worse for Black than the Trompowsky is for White, which explains why it isn't played much. (Nigel Short appears to be the only top player in recent times to play the line even a handful of times; he did score a nice rapid game win against Kasparov with it in 1987 though.)

Why the disparity in results, though? Well, the only difference between what White is getting in the Trompowsky and what Black is getting in your line is that White has gotten in the extra move `d4`; but that's a pretty significant extra tempo. To illustrate with just one concrete line, after e.g. `3.Ne5 BF5` in your line, White can strike Black's center immediately with `4.c4` and have a good game. In the Trompowsky, on the other hand, Black couldn't really do the same with `2...Ne4 3.Bf4 c5?!`, since White could kick the knight and then push ahead in the center with something like

```
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5?! 4.f3 Nf6 5.d5 d6 6.e4

```

when White has grabbed a lot of space and Black will lag behind in development. This is just an illustration, but the point is that White having already gotten in `d4` is a significant plus.

So this line of Chigorin's really isn't good, but if you're interested in playing something like it, a better version can be had via `1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4`, the Wade Defense (which I play myself sometimes). Now `3.Ne5` is no longer an option, and we have something much more playable for Black. Julian Hodgson himself (who greatly popularized the Trompowsky for White) has played this particular line quite a bit, which is good evidence that this is a fine way to play. (Not to mention, it's been played on occasion by folks like Petrosian, Anand, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Svidler ...) Of course, playing `1.d4 d6` means having to be ready for the transposition into `e4` lines via `2.e4`, but if you're OK with that, then this is a perfectly good choice for Black.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Based on Elo rating, what percentile am I in?
How do Elo ratings compare with percentiles, and is there a chart breaking percentiles down by Elo rating ranges?

# Answer
Dated 2004, but probably not far off: USCF Regular Rating Distribution Chart:

The graphics on this blog post were interesting:

>
> 13 votes

# Answer
If you have FIDE Elo, you can calculate your percentile as follows:

1. Locate your FIDE Card at http://ratings.fide.com/
2. Look at your card your position in the word, your continent or your country.
3. Look up the FIDE Card of the player you consider their play deserves your appreciation of percentile 0%.
4. With the positions obtained with both look ups, you can find your percentile in the world, your continent or your country on the basis of FIDE Elo by simply dividing the numbers in their category and multiplying them by 100.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Does ECO openings classification have an established more detailed specification - by sub indexes?
For example an ECO index B33 can be used to describe opening theory that barely fits into a thick book. Is there an established system to classify variations further? I have seen examples of indexes that look like B33/01, or B33/22 but I wonder if those are well documented anywhere?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The official ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) scheme is only A00-E99 (i.e. letter followed by 2 digits). There have been numerous attempts to further clarify various openings, but none have really caught on.

There is the "/01-/99" example that you gave in your post, and SCID has its own version of extensions with letters a-z following the main code. Neither one is widely supported.

New In Chess has a fairly robust classification system, but it is unrelated to the standard ECO codes.

Perhaps the most prevalent and most successful system for specifying openings, however, is simply the full name of the opening. For example, *B33* is the *Sveshnikov Sicilian*, and it can be further described as *Sveshnikov Sicilian with 9. Nd5*, etc.

# Answer
> 4 votes
A particular ECO index might split further into sub-indices like B33a, B33b, B33c, etc. The number of such sub-indices varies (maybe it goes up to *y*, or only to *t*, or ...), and some indices don't have any sub-indices. As for a place where these are well-documented, the free database program Scid does a great job. It automatically tells you what ECO classification you are in as you view/enter a game. More than that, though, you can bring up its ECO Browser that offers a summary of the ECO code you're in if you want to see the sub-indices laid out.

For instance, when I opened Scid and entered the moves `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6`, the info panel below the board indicated that we had entered into ECO index B33a. That text is clickable, and doing so brought up Scid's summary for ECO B33, complete with variation names and clickable lines (which will bring the final position up on the board), as seen in the following image:

# Answer
> 2 votes
Those sub-categories E99/XX are likely from the Chess Informant ECO, I have not seen them in other resources.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Can a chess book (or ebook) have too many diagrams?
It is considered that diagrams make chess books easier to read, but there are obvious space limitations to how many of them can be included - mostly in printed books. An ebook has less of a concern for maximum number of pages, but is it still possible to make readability worse by having diagrams sprinkled too frequently in the notation?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Let's start by saying that that's a subjective question. What is "too many" for one person may be just right for another.

That being said, let's take a ridiculous case: A diagram for every move, whether main line or variation. The diagrams would get in the way of the exposition. It's safe to say that very few chess players would benefit from such a book.

The "most friendly" chess books I have read include diagrams every 6-10 moves of the main line only, whether with or without exposition. There is a reason behind this. Buffering and Human Memory describes this phenomenon, with a full paper called The Magical Number 7. Briefly, humans can remember 7+/-2 discrete items without having to switch knowledge in and out of "storage".

This will also arrange matters such that a reader *can* follow the play without a board, but make it desirable nonetheless that a board be used. In addition, if the reader makes an error in replaying moves, 6-10 move intervals make reasonable "checkpoints" to return to.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The problem is not so much with the diagrams, but the amount of real content and how it is presented and organized (like proper indexes, a lot of books fail this criteria even today). Chess books of this day tend to have more diagrams but less content (as compared to the time of Batsford), so they can appear to be more readable but with little benefit, as they don't even have enough content to fill 200 pages most of the time. (not counting monographs such as ECO and Informators).

Except for beginner books and speciality books like puzzles, number of diagrams doesn't factor much in terms of readability. To properly read (or follow) a typical book, there's no real secret (or should I say shortcut), it's just a matter of having either the board vision to play out variations in your head, or diligence with the computer/a real board.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: How does White justify giving up the bishop in ECO C36 - King's gambit declined
What are the strategic benefits to compensate for the fact that White's giving up the bishop voluntarily and so early in the game in the below variation? What does White hope to get back out of the opening?

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. Bxd5

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I think Jonathan Garber's comment about trying to gain time against the Black queen after `6...Qxd5 7.Nc3` accurately describes what one motivation for `6.Bxd5` can be, though I also think that Black happens to have nothing to worry about in that regard. While she is temporarily behind in development, she shouldn't have any troubles completing her development, while letting the extra pawn on f4 go and simply enjoying her bishop pair on an open board. Being fuzzy about it, I'd say that all in all, everything evens out here, and we have a quite level game on our hands after `6.Bxd5`.

I think another way to look at the reasons for `6.Bxd5` is in "what else?" terms. According to my database, the only more popular move in this position (though it is about 3 times more popular) is the sensible `6.O-O`, but after the most popular response `6...c6`, Black will be happy to camp out with a nice healthy piece on d5, until White sees fit to exchange it somehow. (This could be the same response to other moves as well, e.g. `6.Nc3 c6` and sit tight.) Perusing through some high-level games, it seems that White not infrequently ends up playing a later `Bxd5` anyway (though certainly not all the time).

So, one possible takeaway: the position is already quite level after `5...Nxd5`, and the immediate `6.Bxd5` is as good an option as White really has to try and create a favorable dynamic imbalance (of the sort Jonathan Garber mentions), even though IMHO Black has nothing to fear in this instance. One reason the King's Gambit isn't terribly popular at the highest levels - the occasional Nakamura game notwithstanding - is that Black does have some fairly reliable methods of defusing White's more ambitious prospects if she knows what she's doing, and this line for Black seems like an instance of that.

As an example of how things can go well for White, here's Magnus Carlsen using this line (by transposition) against Wang Yue. Around the time of `11.Qe2`, we have the sort of balance described above, where White has a lead in development and more central space and control, but Black has safely castled and has nice bishops in an open setting. Then Wang Yue somewhat perplexingly engineers a bishop trade himself, and plays rather passively the rest of the way, letting Carlsen do what he does and make maximum use of the remaining White pluses:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Bazna Kings 4th"]
[Site "Medias"]
[Date "2010.06.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Wang Yue"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[ECO "C36"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nxd5 6.O-O Be7 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd8
9.d4 O-O
10.Bxf4 Bf5 11.Qe2 $10 Bd6 $6
12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Nb5 Qd8 14.c4 a6 15.Nc3 Nd7 16.Rad1 Bg6 17.Qf2 Re8 18.h3 Rc8
19.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 c6 21.d5 Nf6 22.Qd4 cxd5 23.Nxd5 Nxd5 24.cxd5 Qd6 25.Ne5 Re8
26.Re3 Rd8 27.Nc4 Qf6 28.Re5 h6 29.d6 Bf5 30.Nb6 Be6
31.d7 Kh8 32.a4 g6 33.Qc3 Kg7 34.a5 h5 35.h4 Rxd7
36.Nxd7 Bxd7 37.Qd4 Bc6 38.b4 Bb5 39.Kh2 Ba4 40.Rd5 Bc6 41.Qxf6+ Kxf6
42. Rc5 Ke6 43.Kg3 f6 44.Kf2 Bd5 45.g3 g5 46.g4 hxg4 47.h5 Be4
48.Rc7 f5 49.h6 f4 50.h7 g3+ 51.Ke1 f3 52.h8=Q f2+ 53.Ke2 Bd3+ 54.Ke3 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, strategy, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: How to get out of "Hope" chess into "Real" chess
I read this article by Dan Heisman on playing 3 different types of chess: "Flip-Coin", "Hope", and "Real". I think I am stuck in "Hope" chess, where I make a move that I think is pretty cool and hope it works instead of playing a move based on sound analysis. How do I get from "Hope" to "Real" chess? I know it is not a simple solution, but are there any techniques/tools that can help?

# Answer
Just to ensure that we get the definitions correct, I will quote Dan Heisman on the definition of these two terms:

> **"HOPE" Chess** \- This is NOT when you make a move and hope your opponent doesn't see your threat. Instead, Hope chess is when you make a move and don't look at what your opponent might threaten on his next move, and whether you can meet that threat on your next move. Instead, you just wait until next move and see what he does, and then hope you can meet any threats. In my first 3 tournaments I played Hope chess and never won more than 1 game in any of the three. The speed at which you can play Hope chess also explains why I usually took only about half an hour for each game in these tournaments, even though the time control was 50 moves in 2 hours. Most high school level players play hope chess, but almost always lose when they run into a serious player who plays "Real Chess."

and...

> **Real Chess:** In a nutshell, it’s making sure that before you make a move, you make sure you can safely meet your opponents checks, captures, and threats that he could play in reply to your move, and you must do that every move. So in terms of threats:
>
> ...
>
> 3) Real Chess - you make sure you can meet next move's threat (actually checks, captures, and threats).

If you still sometimes play Hope Chess you need to train it out of you as a player. The fact is, ***you will play the way you train and thus you should always train the way you want to play***. Regardless of what sort of training you are doing you must always ensure that you are meeting the exceptions of "Real Chess". If you are doing tactics puzzles DO NOT simply push your pieces into the most forcing moves you can find without having come to a real conclusion, instead think about the position. Make sure you have evaluated all of your checks, captures, and threats as well as your opponent's checks, captures, and threats. The same goes for training games or anything else you are doing. If you don't make a rigid habit out of it, you will not do it during an over-the-board game.

In my opinion the best way to train playing *Real Chess* is ensuring that you are meeting the expectations in chess puzzles (those from real games), K+P(s) v. K(+Ps) endgame puzzles, "solitaire chess" and, of course, practice games against either a computer or human player at long time controls. I think *Practical Chess Exercises* is a great collection of problems for this sort of training because it does not include only tactical positions but also has strategic themes and endgames all mixed together so that it really lends itself to this sort of training. Some of the positions even have bad combinations in them that don't work because they allow your opponent to equalize or even pull a combination of their own. Instead you have to find the best move, even if it isn't a forcing move.
> 15 votes

# Answer
One major difference between "hope chess" and "real chess" is the fact that every move in "real chess" improves your position *even if your opponent replies perfectly*. Instead of making a move and hoping that your opponent blunders (or just makes a subpar move), instead ask yourself before you move "How does this move make my position better and what can my opponent do to make my position worse?".

That's not necessarily an easy question to answer, but it should stop you from making a move like `Na4` in order to attack a queen on b6 that can easily move away. Moving the knight away from the center doesn't improve your position at all.

One other major difference between "hope chess" and normal chess is that good players always have a plan. The plan might not be terribly complicated, even something like "I'm going to improve the position of my bishops" is a valid plan, but the simple exercise of coming up with a plan and then seeing how both your moves and your opponent's moves affect it stops some of the "hope chess" moves.
> 15 votes

# Answer
One thing to do would be to start choosing candidate moves. Basically, this is a technique that promotes *systematic* analysis. See Alexander Kotov's Think like a Grandmaster. Be sure you get an algebraic edition - older ones will likely use descriptive notation.

I also recommend you find an instructor. Whatever your USCF rating is, add 400 points, and that should be the minimum rating of said instructor - you want someone who will beat you every time.

EDIT - another thing to do is to solve problems. One place you can do this is the Chess Tactics Server. I can't say I like it very much (I don't like the timed nature of the problems,) but it gets the job done.

Here's one I recall liking more: chesstempo
> 10 votes

# Answer
I agree that "real" chess needs ample time as the player would be required to really think things through and strategize properly before making a "real" move and not only move based on "hope". And 15 minutes definitely isn't enough and that period of time could even be only sufficient for "flip-coin" chess where every move is a gamble as you need to chase time and all you can do is to just expect your opponent to make a silly move to let you win. Try playing a longer game maybe do the 30-minutes sets more often before you attempt the 1-hour matches. And remember to take each game seriously and use it as an opportunity for you to further improve your skills. I believe with much practice and determination, you can achieve to play "real" chess in a 15-minutes game, anytime.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Chess as a De Jure National Sport or Pastime
Capoeira was declared the national sport of Brazil by law in 1972. Sri Lanka legally declared volleyball its national sport in 1992.

I'm interested to know more about which countries have (or have had) chess declared a *de jure* national sport or pastime and the circumstances surrounding the declaration?

I'm not talking about a *de facto* national sport or pastime but rather one which the law has declared as such.

# Answer
> 4 votes
According to the committe behind the Olympics, it *is* considered a sport. However, I don't think any country is actively participating in it.

Per Wikipedia:

> Chess is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee (IOC); since June 1999 FIDE has been the recognized International Sports Federation. As a member of the IOC, FIDE adheres to its rules, including, controversially, a requirement for doping tests. The prospects of chess becoming an Olympic sporting event at some future date remain unclear. The use of the name "Chess Olympiad" for FIDE's team championship is of historical origin and implies no connection with the Olympic Games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Not quite a national sport, but for the past several years, the second Saturday in October has been declared "National Chess Day" by Congress.

The "National Chess Day" idea started in 1976, when President Ford declared October 9, 1976 to be "National Chess Day".

Many clubs have events on National Chess Day in order to take advantage of the additional chess publicity.

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't the active color allowed to be in check in a FEN legal position?
The title says it. Reading up on how to describe the position of a board, all of the requirements make sense (like two kings not being on adjacent squares and so on) except for the active color being in check. Why isn't that allowed? What is the rationale behind this?

# Answer
The active color (i.e. the color which has the next move) *is* allowed to be in check, and as ajax points out, at most twice.

But perhaps you meant the *in*active color not being allowed to be in check. Why is that? The answer is: if the inactive color is in check, it would mean that at least the last move by the inactive color was illegal, allowing its own King to remain in or be exposed to check.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: fen, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: When and why should I move the pawns in front of a castled/non-castled King?
I have always struggled with this and I believe there is some rule that someone defined at some point, but I am not sure who (Maybe it was Steinitz).

When and why should I move my pawns in front of my castled or non-castled King?

First, I would assume it matters if the King is castled or not?

I will state my logic behind this and someone with more knowledge can let me know if it is flawed:

1. I usually move a pawn so my Knight or some other piece does not get pinned.
2. I usually move a pawn to prevent my opponent from bringing his bishop down to pin my knight or some other piece to my king.
3. I usually move a pawn so the bishop or some other piece(maybe queen can't put King in check)
4. I usually don't like to do this because it weakens the king/queen-side depending on where I want to castle.

Let's look at some examples:

In the first scenario, I am thinking black might move `4...Bb4`, which would put my King in check, so to prevent this, I will play `4. a3`. Is this the proper move or is there a better move?

```
    [fen ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. a3 Bb4

```

In my second scenario, let's assume, my Knight was already on `c3`, so to prevent black from `4...Bb4`, I would again play `4. a3`, to prevent the future pin if I wanted to move the `d2` pawn.

```
 [fen ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 Bb4

```

In my third scenario, let's assume I moved by `d2` pawn, so black could check or pin my knight with `...Bb4`, so to prevent black from `4...Bb4`, I would again play `4. a3`, to prevent the future pin if I wanted to move the `d2` pawn.

```
 [fen ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 4. a3 Bb4

```

Let's assume that black does succeed in checking my King or pinning my knight to my King, if my King is in check, is it better to do `c3` or `Bd2`. If my Knight is pinning, is it better to do `a3` to try and force the opponent to either exchange or move his bishop or `Bd2` in the event if he takes my Knight, I will just recapture with my Bishop.

All of the above assume my King is not castled, but what if it was, my assumption is that I would not want to move any pawns in front of the castled king unless necessary, but I am not sure of when these times would apply.

# Answer
> 12 votes
You should only make a move like `a3` or `h3` when the pin is so annoying that the loss of a tempo is a fair tradeoff.

Generally speaking, bishop pins are not that big of a deal. The pin can be broken by moving a bishop (`Be2` or `Bd2`), the knight can be defended by the other knight (`Nbd2` or `Nge2`), or the pinned piece can move away (for white, frequently `Qd3` will both break the pin and still defend the knight on f3).

If this isn't possible, then `a3` or `h3` can enter into consideration, but even still, the doubled pawns might not be such a big deal. Especially for white, the move `a3` is hardly ever played. If black takes on c3, then the extra c pawn helps white far more than it hurts (additional control of the d4 square, half open b file, etc.). `h3` is far more common, especially in the Open game. In this case, `Bg4` is prevented, yes, but moves like `Ng4` are also prevented, and someday white might expand with `g4`.

If the bishop is already on g4 or b4, then sometimes `a3` or `h3` are decent moves because they will win a tempo or force an exchange of bishop for knight. Black will nearly always play `h6` after white plays `Bg5`, for example. The main reason is that the bishop has far less scope on h4 than it does on g5 (cannot return to e3 or d2, no queen battery is possible). `h3` is frequently played with a similar idea for white.

To summarize, `a3` is almost always a weak move for white (`a6` is a different story, it can be useful for black in many cases), and these pawn moves should only be played prophylactically when the pin is so bad that the loss of a tempo is more than offset by avoiding the pin.

---
Tags: learning, theory
---


# Question
Title: Does swapping the colors of the squares affect the gameplay?
If for example, the bottom-left square is light instead of dark **AND** we place the queens in their colors:

By *affect* I mean psychologically, etc., because it is pretty obvious that everything you can do in a normal board will also be possible to do here and non-humans shouldn't care if they are swapped or not.

Also, note the word *gameplay* in the title, if the players are required to write down the moves, that will definitely affect them, but lets suppose someone else will do that for them and they will be 100% focused in the game.

* Is the gameplay affected?
* Are there any studies about this?
* Can this be used as a technique to see things you don't normally see?

Anecdotally, I once played in my school the final match with human pieces in a 10m board with the position of the king and queen swapped. The confusion arose because it was ambiguous which were the light squares as the fills were made with white chalk on a dark-green floor, allegedly the 'light' squares were the ones filled with diagonal stripes because *"they contained more white"*. The stubbornness of the event organizer was big, he didn't want to make this last minute change and we ended up playing in a normal board without really looking to the human pieces because they were wrong.

# Answer
> 12 votes
The only difference would be that the players would be playing a mirror image of a normal game. In fact, if you think about it, the play would be *exactly* like allowing Black to go first on a normal board.

I don't think this would seriously phase any level of player, simply because good players are able to calculate well enough to cope with the slight change, and bad players don't strategize properly even on a normal board, so it wouldn't make a big difference for them to swap the king and queen.

Intermediate players might be put off a bit, since they may have memorized certain openings which are slightly changed on this new board, but I think the biggest thing to watch out for would be outright forgetting that the King and Queen are swapped and playing accordingly (e.g. accidentally exposing your King, thinking you're opening lines for your Queen). As long as that can be avoided, I think any "psychological" effects are quite minor.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Yes, definitely. Try to feel 0 through 10 in the air, like you're doing grocery list calculations. For most people, across all cultures, we have a number line that starts small on the left and gets bigger to the right. Synaesthetes actually see numbers in this way.

I definitely have a kinesthetic sense for chess. I'd like to think I'm not very unique in this. Flipping the board horizontally definitely changes the weight.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes, it should have some impact, especially on players who learn strategic patterns of typical middlegame positions via visualizing themes like "play on dark squares in King's Indian Defense". Even replaying opening variations you are familiar with - would take slightly more effort. Writing those opening moves down on a scoresheet would feel strange too ...

---
Tags: psychology, preparation, memorization
---


# Question
Title: What are the setups/patterns useful in defence?
We have typical checkmating patterns (e.g. smothered mate). Similarly are there any standard setups/patterns useful specifically for defense?

I am not looking for standard tactics like pinning/discovery/etc. I don't even know whether to call these what I look for as patterns. Just simple setups. For example

There is this interesting relationship between bishop and the pawn. They support each other.

```
3r4/4B3/3P4/8/8/8/5K2/7k b - - 0 1

```

Similarly I could think of Knights supporting each other as well.

```
8/8/5n2/1k1nQ3/8/8/7K/8 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
Yes, there are some standard setups/patterns that are useful specifically for defense, and the most "absolute" such defensive setups in chess go under the term *fortress*, which are setups in which the stronger side is provably unable to make any progress toward a win. Valentin's answer, for instance, already gives a nice example of a known fortress, wherein the white king stays in the corner and the bishop and knight coordinate to prevent Black from closing in and delivering mate.

As Valentin points out, though, his is a rather uncommon example in practice. The article I linked to above gives a nice example of a sort of piece-down fortress that arises somewhat more often, and can be worth remembering:

```
[FEN "8/1b6/8/8/8/6p1/3k2P1/5K2 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kg1 Ke2 2.Kh1 Kf2

```

The white king stays in the corner, and Black can't threaten the g-pawn without stalemating. Note too that the color of the bishop doesn't matter either; a dark-square bishop would of course be drawn too. Again, the linked article gives a fantastic instance from a real game, in which Gregory Serper's awareness of this fortress possibility gave him a clear path to a draw against Nakamura in 2004:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/3k2p1/4p3/2b1P1pP/4KNP1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nxe4! Kxe4 2.Kf1!

```

Serper heads to the corner with his king, lets the e-pawn go, and will simply play `hxg4` if Nakamura ever pushes the g-pawn. It's now clear that we have the essential fortress described above.

Being aware of relatively common fortresses such as this one can be useful in the same way as knowing about standard book draws can be - e.g. bishop plus wrong-color rook pawn is a draw, Philidor's position is a draw in R+P versus R, two knights cannot mate a lone king, etc. At heart, these book draws and fortresses are really all just instances of the same thing: some particular board configuration in which (even a lot of) extra material is useless. (So, knowing that two knights can't mate a king is like knowing about a wonderful fortress you can safely retreat to that doesn't even need any walls.)

In terms of more literal fortresses in which a relatively large amount of material is involved, another point from Valentin's answer is well-taken: widely applicable recipes are few and far between, and "more often than not you have to adapt to the current position." For instance, in Game 9 of the most recent world championship match, Anand as Black succeeded in arranging an appropriate fortress setup against which Gelfand's queen could make no progress against his rook and knight:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Anand-Gelfand World Chess Championship"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Boris Gelfand"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.O-O
dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 10.Bg5 Bb7 11.Qe2 Nbd7 12.Rac1 Rc8
13.Bd3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qc7 15.c4 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Rfe8 17.Rfd1 h6
18.Bh4 Qd6 19.c5 bxc5 20.dxc5 Rxc5 21.Bh7+ Kxh7 22.Rxd6 Rxc1+
23.Rd1 Rec8 24.h3 Ne5 25.Qe2 Ng6 26.Bxf6 gxf6 27.Rxc1 Rxc1+
28.Kh2 Rc7 29.Qb2 Kg7 30.a4 Ne7 31.a5 Nd5 32.a6 Kh7 33.Qd4 f5
34.f4 Rd7 35.Kg3 Kg6 36.Qh8 Nf6 37.Qb8 h5 38.Kh4 Kh6 39.Qb2
Kg6 40.Qc3 Ne4 41.Qc8 Nf6 42.Qb8 Re7 43.g4 hxg4 44.hxg4 fxg4
45.Qe5 Ng8 46.Qg5+ Kh7 47.Qxg4 f6 48.Qg2 Kh8 49.Qe4 Kg7
1/2-1/2

```

It's not that this was an exact setup Anand already knew about; rather, he was just able to envision this possibility (among others) as the game played out. In his own words:

> "My position was worse as he had two bishops for my knights," commented Anand after the game. "My chances hinged on the fortress that I was going to choose. In fact, I had many options and I think I chose the right one."
> 6 votes

# Answer
I'm fond¹ of this one, after sacrificing my queen for some pieces and having to deal with all my additional material being forked all over the place :

```
[FEN "8/3P4/P2rP3/2p2Q2/8/3n4/8/5k2 w - - 0 1"]

```

Note that in this setup, the knight is not bound to its square, as it can move and get back to other pawn-defending squares in no time. **It's a very flexible pattern**. I marked these other squares with white pawns.

It seems to be a little harder to reproduce with a bishop, without blocking too many lines, and when not being the bishop+pawn one you already mention (which nicely fits on top on it, though).

¹ Also I love knights.
> 6 votes

# Answer
In my long (20+ years) chess career I haven't actually seen any book/article on 'defence setups'. Probably because there are not many general helpful setups and more often than not you have to adapt to the current position.

But there are some obvious common sense ones. One obvious one is the Pawn+Bishop one you mentioned but many times you just don't want the bishop limited that way.

One useful and well-known setup would be King+Knight, king defending the knight against the queen. It is well known that the knight can protect from eternal checks.

And one nice setup but very rarely encountered is the following King+Knight+Bishop setup vs King+Queen, where the side with the queen can not make any progress:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/4Nk2/4q3/6B1/7K w - - 0 1"]

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: patterns, defense
---


title: Distribution of time per move

text:
# Question
Title: Distribution of time per move
I am interested in the distribution of time (in seconds) that players take per move. To this end, I am looking for game traces that contain timing information.

I have found a number of chess databases on Google, but none of their traces contain this information.

Can somebody point me to a source of traces that contain the time when each move was taken?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The FICS online game database has move times, however those are mostly blitz and rapid time controls, so the time used will not be indicative of tournament play.

Note that you can filter the database to only allow for your desired time controls, as well as rating range.

---
Tags: statistics
---


# Question
Title: How will the World Championship work in 2013?
How will the World Championship challenger be determined, and then how will the actual championship match between Anand and the challenger work?

*I realize that some of the details might not yet be determined (location and specific rules).*

# Answer
> 8 votes
The World Chess Championship 2013 will be a match between the World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand, the winner of the World Chess Championship 2012, and a challenger.

The challenger to the match will be decided using an eight-player double round-robin tournament (the Candidate's Tournament), to be held in London from March 13 to March 31, 2013. The eight players will in order of rules announced by FIDE consist of:

Peter Svidler (Russia), Alexander Grischuk (Russia), Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine), Boris Gelfand (Israel), Magnus Carlsen (Norway), Levon Aronian (Armenia), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), Teimour Radjabov (Azerbaijan).

The championship match is scheduled from November 6 to November 26, 2012. The match conditions (number of games played, time controls and tie breaks) have not been announced.

FIde has not determined location yet, supposedly Chennai, India is being considered, but this has not been confirmed on the FIDE website.

You can find more details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Chess\_Championship\_2013

http://www.fide.com/index.php?option=com\_fidecalendar&view=fidecalendar&ny=2013

---
Tags: world-championship, fide
---


# Question
Title: What is the origin of Tal's expression "They can only take one at a time"?
The expression refers to aggressive attacking style where one side leaves multiple pieces attacked, but the opponent cannot take full advantage of it since "they can only take one at a time". Was this said by Tal in an interview or in a book (assuming he was actually the one who said it)? Did he say it originally in Russian? If so - what is the exact Russian expression he used?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I have seen this referred to/attributed to a couple of Tal's games. It is quite likely that he used the saying more than once. If you study enough of Tal's games, you'll see that he developed a technique of *not* retracting his (minor) pieces when they were en prise.

The first reference that I was able to find was in his **Havana-1966** game against Bjorn Brinck-Claussen. (Quite likely this position, where he's just moved Ra8!

```
[Title "Tal v Brinck-Claussen, Havana 1966 "]
[fen "R2r2k1/6pp/1p3pn1/3b2q1/3P4/P4QP1/BP3P2/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

The saying is also often attributed to his **1968 game against Chikovani**, where Tal plays 19 Bxe6 instead of retracting his dark-squared Bishop.

```
[Title "Tal v Chikovani, 1968"]
[fen "1qrr2k1/p3bp2/bpn1Bnpp/6B1/3P4/P1N2N2/1PQ2PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

As you can see, in both cases Tal leaves multiple pieces hanging, a psychological strategy that he's used to his advantage.

Hope that helps.

---
Tags: history, tal, quotations
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a large collection of random chess positions?
Does anyone know where it is possible to find a large number of chess positions in PNG, JPEG or any other image format? Quality, colour, size does not matter. The only thing that matters is that I'd prefer there to be some distortions in the image (like images scanned from books). Here is an example of a chess position such as I am looking for:

I am creating a tool which converts an image of a position to the board representation, and for this reason I need to collect a lot of different positions. Up till now I am getting them from PDF books I have.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The easiest way I can think of is to write your own scraper (say) in Python. I'd use `beautifulsoup` and aim at several sites, including Google Images (within whatever limits they impose)

If you are familiar with Python, this SO question is all you really need.

Start with Google Images, chessbase.com, and then make a round of the numerous chess websites that have tons of position images that you can scrape.

---
Tags: books, websites, studies
---


# Question
Title: How come chess prodigies seem to start at a young age?
I started looking into the history of a few grandmasters such as Fischer and Carlsen, so I wondered: why does it seem that chess "kings" and queens" start playing the game from a young age? Can anyone show me any grandmasters who started playing chess after becoming 18? Does this situation apply to other things such as physical sports or even more mental-focused skills such as doing math?

# Answer
> 17 votes
In pretty much any endeavor that requires one to develop or acquire complex sets of skills, be it chiefly intellectual or chiefly physical, starting young will generally be a huge boon simply because of the fact that younger brains are more plastic than older brains; they can more readily adapt to new sorts of tasks and information. Because of that fact, chess will be no different from sports or math or whatever, and those who rise to the very top will tend to have started quite young, as that makes much easier the ultimate task of acquiring the specialized knowledge and skills that are necessary in order to play chess with the very best. Even so, some remarkably strong players have indeed gotten relatively late starts.

Mikhail Chigorin first learned the rules of chess at the fairly late age of 16, and didn't really throw himself into chess until he was already 23-24. A quote from Wikipedia:

> He became serious about chess uncommonly late in life; his schoolteacher taught him the moves at the age of 16, but he did not take to the game until around 1874, having first finished his studies before commencing a career as a government officer.

All in all, I think Chigorin thus reasonably meets your criterion of having started after age 18. Technically, he was not a "grandmaster" in the sense of having that official FIDE title, but of course that's only because it didn't exist in Chigorin's day. He played two matches for Steinitz's world championship, and chessmetrics places Chigorin in the world's top 4 players throughout the 1890s (peaking at #2 behind Steinitz and Lasker at different times).

In addition, Howard Staunton apparently started playing chess only at age 26. Like Chigorin, he of course was not technically a GM in the modern sense of the word, but he is generally recognized as having been the strongest player in the world the 1840s, and is sometimes referred to as an "unofficial world champion" the way that Paul Morphy often is.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Wilhelm Steinitz learned **"how"** to play chess at the age of 12, but it was only after attending the Vienna Polytechnic that he actually began to play serious chess (sometime during his twenties).

Siegbert Tarrasch learned how to play chess when he was 15, but he was 20 when he first tried himself at a "Hauptturneier" (Chess Tournament) in 1882 at Berlin, he was eliminated from the tournament.

There should be more examples, but these two never really took chess serious before reaching their 20's, Siegbert Tarrasch was actually attending University of Halle-Wittenberg and at the beginning of his profession as a medical doctor he actually put chess in second place after his medical practice.

---
Tags: history, carlsen, fischer, grandmaster, talent
---


# Question
Title: Is there a tool to automatically download a player's latest ICC games (history) into a pgn file?
ICC stores your last 20 games, some of the clients also allow storing them into pgn files as you play. But if you use a client that does not support it, you then have to manually go and get each game out of history by hand into a pgn - one by one - at least in Blitzin. I want to get them all in one step into a pgn file as easily as possible.

# Answer
Unfortunately, if you want to download them, you have to do them one at a time. ICC does have a command "mailstored" which allows you to automatically have the games mailed to you in pgn or non-pgn format. Here is more info on that:

```
ICC Help: mailstored
Command:  mailstored
Examples:  "mailstored darooha 8" -- This mails game #8 in darooha's history.
           "mailstored darooha POTZY" -- mails the adjourned game.
           "mailstored 5" -- mails game 5 in your current search list.
           "mailstored %5" -- mails game 5 in your personal library.

```

This command mails you the moves of the game you choose. You can email games from histories, libraries, database (search list), and adjourned games.

To automatically email all the games you play right after you play them, type "set automail 1".

"set mailformat 1" to get the game in PGN notation. "set mailformat 0" to get them in a non-PGN format that also includes the move times. Or "set mailformat 2" to get them in PGN with the clock times (the time remaining after each move) in comments.

There is a limit on the number of games you can "mailstore", due to the load the mailing puts on the ICC CPU. The limit is approximately 50 games in 12 hours. The games you get from "set automail 1" do not count towards the 50. There is no command to mail many games with a single command.

For Dasher and Blitzin, you can have every game you play automatically saved to a PGN file upon completion.

For Dasher:

http://www6.chessclub.com/helpcenter/Dasher/AutoSave.htm

For Blitzin:

Place a mark next to "Log my Games" on your Game menu. This will cause each completed game to be saved to a .pgn file on your hard drive.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: In game 1 of the 2012 WCC between Anand and Gelfand, black ignored his passed pawn advantage. Why?
In the first game of the WCC 2012 between Anand and Gelfand, which was drawn, Gelfand had a *passed pawn on a6*. Could he not have exchanged the major pieces and then tried to win with it?

Why was the passer ignored and the draw accepted?

```
[Title "Viswanathan Anand-Boris Gelfand,Anand-Gelfand World Championship Match, Moscpw Russia, 5/11/2012"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "48"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.Bb5+ Nc6 9.d5 Qa5 10.Rb1 a6 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.O-O Qxa2 13.Rb2 Qa5 14.d6 Ra7 15.Bg5 exd6 16.Qxd6 Rd7 17.Qxc6 Qc7 18.Qxc7 Rxc7 19.Bf4 Rb7 20.Rc2 O-O 21.Bd6 Re8 22.Nd2 f5 23.f3 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bf5

```

# Answer
There's a great analysis of the game here: 2012 FIDE World Chess Championship: Anand vs. Gelfand - Game 1.

According to the video, it is easy for white to get one of his rooks behind that pawn especially when both players are left with 1 rook, 1 bishop each.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Why? Probably because of subjective pressure of the first game of World Championship match. From what I recall when watching this game - the commentators were also surprised that Gelfand offered/agreed to a draw. His advantage was also not only in the passed pawn (which could e either a strength or a weakness) but also in having two bishops.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, gelfand, anand, passed-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Should you let your opponent know if they have forgotten to press their clock?
I'm in two minds here.

The good sportsman says you should always let your opponent know (maybe limited to once per game).

The more hard-nosed part of me says that managing the clock is part of the game and rules like anything else. If you are playing seriously then you should treat the clock no differently to for example, the 'touch-move' rule and expect no help from your opponent.

Does it matter whether one is playing a club game or a tournament with prize money at stake?

# Answer
> 22 votes
In my personal opinion, if you have noticed that your opponent has forgotten to hit their clock, the unwritten rules of good sportsmanship dictate that you should advise your opponent of such. It can become distracting to both players, though, if you have to do this more than twice.

So the real question comes down to the legal technicalities.

**Are you even allowed to make your move before your opponent hits his/her clock?** The USCF rules, at least, are not very clear about this. But it does not seem to be illegal at all. Many people feel it is bad form to move before your opponent has pushed the clock, but such a rule would be unenforceable from a practical perspective.

**What about in sudden death?** Tournament Directors and Arbiters are generally directed to not interrupt the game to point out illegal moves when in sudden death. So even if this were a rule, it likely would be set aside in sudden death.

Other than information about time delays and time controls here is what the USCF says about the clock:

```
6.) Except for pressing the clock, neither player should touch the clock except:
   6a.) To straighten it.
   6b.) If a player knocks over the clock a penalty may be assessed.
   6c.) If your opponent’s clock does not tick you may press his side down and
        re-press your side; however, if this procedure is unsatisfactory, please
        call for a director.
   6d.) Each player must always be allowed to press the clock after their move is made.
   6e.) A player should not keep a hand on or hover over the clock.

```

Back in 2008 there was a bit of a controversy about these questions regarding the clock. For the most part things have just been left up in the air. So in summary, it is not your responsibility to advise your opponent, many people feel it is good form to do so. But if it appears that your opponent is habitually forgetting to press the click, I would just continue on with the game and not advise him or her more than twice. There is no reason that this should interfere with your enjoyment of the game and ability to concentrate. Ultimately, in the USCF, the rules put the onus on the individual to press his own clock.

**Kasparov v. Karpov, 1987** (pointed out by Tony Ennis) from the AP Archives

> For almost three minutes, members of Kasparov's delegation looked on helplessly as his time slowly ticked away. Under the rules, neither they nor the match arbiter could warn Kasparov of his mistake. When he finally noticed, Kasparov had less than a minute left for 14 moves. As he desperately played move after move, Karpov closed in with a crushing mating attack. "It's really a very bad psychological shock," Spanish chess writer Fernando Urias said. "Kasparov has not only lost right at the start of the championship, but he also lost playing with the advantage of white."

# Answer
> 16 votes
We are all humans and humans make mistakes. Including forgetting to press the clock when playing chess. Even top players. Personally, I was very impressed when I've read what Botvinnik did in such a situation.

The following is my free translation from Russian:

> In Nottingham (*Nottingham tournament, 1936*) I didn't make any difference between my former countrymen - Alekhine and Bogoljubov (*first one emigrated to France, second one - to Germany. Both were labeled as "traitors" by Soviet propaganda machine, Bogoljubov was said to be a Nazi supporter even*) - and other players. During our game Bogoljubov made a move and forgot to press the clock, I instantly told him about that. "Was?" did he ask in German (unfortunately, he wasn't thinking in Russian anymore), then said thanks and pressed the clock. Perhaps, Bogoljubov appreciated my sportsmanship and in last round resisted against the Cuban grandmaster, making a draw against him, which allowed me to share the first place with Capablanca himself.

This may be from the book referenced on Wikipedia as "Botvinnik, M.M. (2000). Neat, K.. ed. Botvinnik's Best Games Volume 1: 1925–1941. Moravian Chess. ISBN 807189317.", though I've read this in a Russian book named "Analitical and critical works 1923-1941".

# Answer
> 9 votes
¹ Don't tell him. His clock, his time-management. *Especially* if something's at stake.

Pressing the clock requires incredibly low skill, but do you tell your opponent every time he blunders, or is it just part of good play to never, *ever* make them ?

---

¹ I feel like an opinion is under-represented over here, so let's see what's it worth :)

---
Tags: rules, etiquette, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Can doping increase/decrease a player's level of play?
The reason I ask this is because according to this article, `Magnus Carlsen` is going to participate in `FIDE's` pilot project on doping test. `FIDE` says the reason behind it is that the organization wants to be considered as an Olympic sport by the `IOC` in the future, with anti-doping program set as a prerequisite.

I personally don't see how doping can increase the level of play, but I can see how it would decrease the level of play, but then there would be no point in doping. Also, is this a result of there has to be some anti-doping test for every Olympic sport regardless if doping has an effect or not?

# Answer
> 11 votes
One way to think about this - if there was no societal stigma or legality surrounding the issue, would the use of stimulants improve one's chess game?

A while back, there was a thread around this topic on chess.com, though be warned that a lot of it is just noise.

Seems like an interesting choice that has to be made - short-term increase in concentration (there are drugs for that: taking Adderall, Ritalin or caffeine) versus stimulants that enhance right-brain thinking that help one see increased connections.

When I read Jonah Lehrer's book *"Imagine"* I thought of possible connections to chess. The book covers this at some length, especially as it relates to Bob Dylan's creativity. This NYPost article covers it well:

> Stimulants increase the flow of dopamine, creating a state in which “the world is suddenly saturated with interesting ideas,” Lehrer says. “Dopamine makes even the most tedious details too interesting to ignore.”

So it is arguable that these dopamine stimulating drugs can make players see connections and become a better player, at least for a period of time. For concentration improving stimulants, with a lot of immediate incentives riding on it, a player might opt for the short-term gain, even knowing the long term deterioration.

# Answer
> 9 votes
Erythropoietin (EPO) is a banned substance that does not specifically makes you look like Žydrūnas Savickas, it is a glycoprotein hormone that controls the production of red blood cells, which are responsible for delivering oxygen to the entire body, more oxygen = better overall, not hulk.

EPO is produced endogenous (meaning inside our bodies) and it is the administration of the exogenous synthetic protein that is banned from sports competitions.

EPO plays a major role in the brain's response to neuronal stress and neuronal injuries. It makes perfect sense that FIDE wants to test for drugs like this.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Sacrificing Bishop for Two Pawns against Queenside Castling
Though queenside castling is less common, it is important enough to study. If your opponent has castled queenside, sometimes you have an opportunity to expose their King by sacrificing your Bishop for 2 pawns, as showed below. (I have removed other pieces from the board to avoid distraction.)

```
[FEN "2kr4/ppp5/8/8/8/4B3/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bxa7 b6 2.Bxb6 cxb6

```

What factors should one consider before deciding to offer this sacrifice? To put it another way, in what positions is this sacrifice favourable and in what positions would it be unfavourable?

**Edit** As per comment from xaisoft, I am posting a board with other pieces.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 d6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Qe2 Bd7 8.Nc3 Qe7 9.Be3 O-O-O 10.Bxa7 b6 11.Bxb6 cxb6

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'd argue you never want to play such a bishop sacrifice if your opponent is willing to take it.

Therefore, I think your question is rather “when can I take the undefended `♟ a7`”.

To answer this, I'd say you need

* Either a defense on the bishop (with a rook or a knight)
* Or a crushing attack if you can sacrifice it. A queen around, or a rook coming on the open c-file, with pieces supporting that are mandatory. If the king can't easily escape to `e8`, that's better.
* Nothing better to do. That's just a far pawn, and it takes 2 tempi to take eat if you want to save your bishop. Your opponent need not take bigger of an advantage in the meantime, that you could defend from before taking the pawn.

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: Reason(s) to play 5. Nf3 in the stonewall dutch opening?
I have heard that it is a good idea for white to trade dark-squared bishops because blacks pawns often end up on light squares leaving the dark squares vulnerable. In the scenario below, it seems `5. Nh3` is white's best move for reasons I will explain below, but are there any good reasons why white would choose `5. Nf3` over `5. Nh3`

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. c4 d5 5. Nf3 (5. Nh3) c6

```

If white does in fact play `5. Nf3` and play continues with `5...c6 6. O-O Bd6`, then if white's Knight were on `h3` instead of `f3`, white could easily prepare the move `Bf4` without worrying about getting a damaged pawn structure. With `5. Nf3 c6 6. O-O Bd6`, white's best move is `b3` aiming to exchange dark squared bishops with `Ba3`, but black's `Qd7` stops the dark squared bishop exchange for sometime.

Given the above, if white isntead decides to play `5. Nh3`, white is preparing `Bf4` for the exchange of the dark squared bishops and avoids the battery of the Bishop on `d6` and the Queen on `d7`.

Given that `5. Nh3` has known as long as the stonewall formation has been known and masters of the past have played it frequently, so why is `5. Nf3` more popular when it actually seems inferior to `5. Nh3`. Is it because `5. Nf3` just seems like a more natural move or has a more natural feel to it? Are there any other reasons to play `5. Nf3` over `5. Nh3`?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A couple thoughts:

1. After `Bxf4`, taking `gxf4` is acceptable. The g-file is open, black's ideas of `g5` are prevented, you have a lock on e5, and can fix the pawn structure with `f3`+`e4`.
2. After a `g5-g4` push, h4 is often a better square for the knight than f4, to stop `h5-h4`.
3. `f3` points at e5, a better square than f4. `f4` is vulnerable to an `e5` push, and the e6 pawn is rarely weak.

---
Tags: opening, dutch-defense
---


title: What is the best chess piece?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the best chess piece?
I'm new to western chess and am still learning the rules and how the pieces perform.

What is generally considered the best chess piece?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The queen has the most squares available to land on, I recommend you get well acquainted with the rules of the game in the official FIDE Handbook

# Answer
> 4 votes
This question is subjective as the "best" piece depends on many factors such as how active a piece is.

The most important piece is your `King`.

In most cases, the `Queen` is the most powerful.

As an example, a `knight` might be more powerful than a `Queen`, possibly in a position where you are going to promote your pawn, promoting to a `Queen` might end in stalemate, whereas, promoting to a `Knight`, would end in checkmate.

I urge you to do a search on `Chess Rules` or something similar like `Beginner Chess` and you'll find countless material.

---
Tags: pieces
---


# Question
Title: How can I frequently practice openings that are more than 1 or 2 moves long?
For a while, anytime I got the chance to play the `Scotch`, I would as long as my opponent (being black) played the moves. If they did not follow the move order, I would just continue with something else, but I noticed, the more I play an opening, the better I get at it (This is obvious).

Another way to view this question is, besides 1 or 2 move openings such as the `English`, `Caro-Kann`, `Sicilian`, `Pirc`, etc which obviously have been defined as being reached after 1 or 2 moves, how can I force my opponent and this may not be possible, it may just be by chance, to play moves up to the point where my opening is defined?

Certain openings I have found this actually works pretty well such as the `Ruy Lopez` because it has such a natural move order `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5.`, but in other openings, it is not so easy.

# Answer
This is where you have to understand the opening, not just play memorized lines. If your opponent strays too far from the most popular lines, he's probably made an error. It's up to you to understand the opening enough to punish him for it.

So you can't force him to play the line but you can make him wish he did.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


title: A free chess opening database?

text:
# Question
Title: A free chess opening database?
I'm looking for a chess opening database that is reasonably complete and computer-readable. It should be available either under a liberal free license (like, say, CC-BY, **no** GPL), or under reasonable commercial license.

Are there any?

# Answer
No.

The reason for a no, lies in your question. If you want "liberal free license" you are asking for free software and “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price, since you specifically said "(no GPL)" then your request is contradictory.

However, if you do want “free” (as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”) opening database, there are some options.

You can build small (1 MB), medium (25 MB), or large (58 MB) opening books for Crafty, that will give you enough material for a couple of years, maybe even more.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How to play against the Allgaier, Horny Defense?
The Allgaier, Horny Defense in the King's Gambit is given by the sequence:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qxg4 Nf6 8. Qxf4 Bd6

```

I'm a King's Gambit player, and I'm rated 1650 USCF, although I'm tactically much, much stronger (my biggest weakness is not knowing theory). This is a defense that my computer often plays against me (and assesses the position after the opening moves as +2 advantage for black, which doesn't seem reasonable to me), and I don't know how to deal with it. Any strategic/positional ideas that I should be aware of? I would also like to know how you guys would deal with the annoying

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7

```

as white. What kind of strategy should white adapt there?

Please don't berate my opening choice, and refrain from telling me to read up on theory. While that is a good idea, I am more interested in strategic ideas of this variation of the King's Gambit.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If you type your moves into Google it will actually find games that open that way. It's quite cool. I use the move numbers as well as the actual moves. Basically, a copy-paste of the first few moves. Your game seems to be a ECO "C30".

For your Qh4+ question, I get this link.

The gist is you get this continuation:

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Qh4+ 3. g3 Qe7 4. fxe5 d6 5. exd6 Qxe4+ 6. Qe2
Qxe2+ 7. Nxe2 Bxd6

```

And you really don't have a lot to worry about. In the games in the link above, White developed easily, Black's pawn structure was smashed, and White won pretty easy endgames.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Is there a collection of chess images in public domain?
I am looking for images of chess players, pieces, as well as any other graphics related to chess - public domain only.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Creative Commons search might be a good place to start:

http://search.creativecommons.org/

It allows you search other sites such as Flickr and Google Images, while making sure you can legally use what you find.

# Answer
> 5 votes
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/greatest-chess-photos

Has probably some of the most epic pictures in chess history

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: How do you search a chess database for exchange sacrifices?
I am looking for a way within any of the common chess packages to search for a specific maneuver, such as a rook capturing a protected. bishop. I've heard of CQL, but have never used it. I am curious if it supports something like this.

# Answer
Chess Query Language does do this very well. The following short .cql file works like a charm to find all games in input.pgn in which one side is up an exchange (while allowing a difference in the number of pawns for each side) for 4 straight moves (picked so as to rule out, say, situations in which an equal sequence of trades happens to begin with a rook taking a minor piece, or other such temporary pseudo-sacrifices).

```
(match
    :pgn input.pgn
    :output output.pgn
    (position
    :sequence(
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
    )
    :flipcolor
    )
)

```

Standard point values for pieces are used, so the `:powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5` condition means that Black has one more rook than White, while `:powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3` guarantees that White has exactly one more minor piece than Black. The `:flipcolor` at the end does the same search with the roles reversed. By default, CQL inserts a "MATCH" comment in the games of the resulting output.pgn at the positions that warrant their inclusion, so you can quickly locate the exchange sacs.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: software, sacrifice, cql
---


# Question
Title: Simple programs for recording chess games -- Like ECTool -- for Ubuntu and Windows
I should be able to google this, but I don't know what the name for this item is:

I'm looking for a simple program that can be used to record and play back a chess game. I'm *not* looking for a computer program to play against, and I'm *not* looking for a client to connect to an ICS.

I just want to record the moves of an old-fashioned postal game.

Any suggestions for free programs that do this? I'd like suggestions for both Ubuntu and Windows.

**Update:** I recall using ECTool for this purpose in a previous century, but it seems to be not maintained beyond Windows XP.

# Answer
It sounds to me like what you want is a chess database program. If so, the one I would recommend is Scid, which is totally free, and comes in Windows, Linux and Mac flavors.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I use Zillions of games to record moves for my correspondence games. Over a few years of playing, I have created more than 2,000 files. You can get it for free: http://www.zillions-of-games.com and it knows other games than chess - and it also plays games.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: What types or kinds of chess players are there?
I am often asked the question what type of chess player am I, but I am unsure how to answer this question because I do not exactly know what would define each type of player. Interestingly, I am only asked in particular if I am an attacker or a positional player, but surely, there must be more types of players than these. What are the types or different kinds of players? Also, if you could include a definition of each type and include any famous players as examples for types, that would be great as well.

# Answer
There are two broad-brush categories of players: positional and tactical. Positional players' styles tend to lead them to play moves that choke out their opponents. They are patient and bide their time. There's no better proponent of this type of play than Tigran Petrosian. He's recognized as one of the hardest players to defeat. A more recent example would be Anatoly Karpov, another player that was just so hard to defeat. Positional players keep taking their opponents' good moves away until nothing is left but bad moves. Aron Nimzowitch was the father of this type of play, though he did not invent it - he described and defined the style in publications such as My System.

There are more tactical players. These include pretty much all the darlings of chess - the ones scoring points with fireworks. They tend towards open positions with lots of complexity, relying upon their tactical skills to force an error onto their opponents. Examples include Rudolf Spielmann, a player from another age who made Tal look tame. Mikhail Tal is the more modern archetype - a player able to conjure devastating attacks from seemingly nothing at all. Then there is Kasparov, Fischer, etc the list is rather endless.

In short, *tactical* players do it to you. *Positional* players make you do it to yourself.

At any semi-professional level of play, both styles of player can uncork combinational *fu*. So this isn't to say that a positional player avoids combinations and sacrifices. You won't normally find one player who plays both styles; it is a philosophy sort of thing. They believe one way is best and sharpen their skills to this belief.
> 25 votes

# Answer
I don't think you will get a definitive answer that fits well into the structure of SA sites on this one, but you will find plenty of discussions threads online that cover this topic.

The problem is labels on chess style are open to interpretation, not mutually exclusive, and judged differently at various levels.

You have heard "attacker" and "positional player" the most because they are some of the more general terms and most players fit into one and not the other. Examples of other styles are

* Strong/weak opening
* Strong/weak endgame
* Great tactician
* etc

I think you could come up with a single list of terms that rarely overlap, then analyze various players to assign tags to them. As mentioned before though, this gets harder as you go up layers. I may think I have a strong endgame, but it is only relative to my other abilities. Sometimes being a positional player just means you are bad at attacking, sometimes it means you are good at attacking but truly excel at setting up position play.
> 10 votes

# Answer
After watching a video on chess.com (part 1, part 2) by GM Kaidanov, I learnt that players can also be classified into "fighters" and "scientists".

According to the video, a fighter is essentially a practical player, who values chess as played over the board, and isn't afraid to make positional/strategic concessions on the board in order to win. Such a player may purposefully choose a non-optimal way to win a game for the sake of beauty, or the resulting complications it would create for the opponent (i.e. exploiting the fact that your opponent is almost out of time). Nakamura comes to mind as a good example of a modern fighter. Carlsen as well, as he would often choose openings with "dubious" reputation, just to get opponents out of familiar territory. Of course, my favourite fighter would be Tal.

A scientist can be described as a methodical chess player, who would almost always try to find the (objectively) best moves possible on the board. Such a player may spend more time studying chess just to find slight improvements in games/openings/endgames that have already been accepted as "good", and will often employ "textbook" openings/moves in their games, as opposed to "slightly inferior or dubious" (as judged by modern chess engines) moves just to create complications for their opponents. You will find that most chess studies, notably endgame studies, come from the scientists. Petrosian, Kortchnoi and Karpov come to mind when thinking of such players.

Of course, you have a bit of both in most players, but if you were to classify players based on their methodology, then this would be one way to do so.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Electronic gadget chess opponent for children
I am looking for an electronic gadget that is a chess opponent, designed specially for children. I want to it be touch screen, where the pieces are large enough so you don't need to use a special pen to move the pieces. I also want the gadget to talk often, so the child feels interaction. It could say things like "Good move!", "Great Idea!", and so on.

The closest thing that I've seen is this. That thing does not look right, plus 1/5 review, so I was hoping for something better.

Anybody come across anything?

Feel free to edit the tags for my post. I really wasn't sure what to use.

# Answer
This iPad/iPhone app looks promising based on the reviews. I haven't tried it personally though, so I can't attest to its worth.

Here is the website of the developers. You can contact them to find out more about the features that they have. For instance, I couldn't find anything about whether it would speak to your child.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, learning
---