title: Black plans in Taimanov/Kan Sicillian?

text:
# Question
Title: Black plans in Taimanov/Kan Sicillian?
So anyways, I decided to take up learning Taimanov and Kan Sicillian so I was wondering if someone could just tell me what are the basic plans of this opening, what I've seen from my brief analysis is that black's black squares are going to get exposed since his attack on the c3 square seems inevitable, b5 and Bb7 looks quite tempting as a plan, and how afraid should I be of white's attack on the queenside? Also what are some good books to study for these variations?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The book The Most Flexible Sicilian by Delchev & Semkov covers both the Kan and Taimanov. Each part contains a section that presents the main ideas before going into detailed theory. A more interactive and better introduction to the Taimanov is given by Sicilian Taimanov by Emms. It is part of Everyman's Move by Move series which presents a Q&A style.

The Kan and Taimanov are not as theoretical as the other Sicilians but is still very flexible and discussing plans in different variations will be cumbersome. I have found that looking at annotated games of well known practitioners is useful in learning plans in the opening. Some practitioners of the Taimanov are Ulf Andersson, Anatoly Karpov and Mark Taimanov.

# Answer
> 1 votes
At present, the Taiminov is used as a transpositional system into the Scheveningen, because it avoids side lines with 3 BB5 via 2...e6 compared to 2...d6 or Nc6 while not allowing the Maroczy Bind via 4...Nc6 compared to 4...a6. This move order is preferable to Grandmasters, because the Scheveningen proper has to deal with the Keres Attack and the Najdorf has to deal with the more aggressive Bishop positioning such as 6 Bg5 or Bc4.

White's plan is to develop the Bishops to e3 and e2 in order to castle and expand in the center with f4. Here Black has to make a decision between continuing in the "spirit" of the Taiminov with Bb4 or transposing into the Scheveningen with Be7 - the latter is in vogue. Assumming you transpose into the Scheveningen with Be7, white will continue with his plan of f4, forcing d6, and then eliminate counter play on the queenside with a4 and play kh1 to prepare for a kingside attack.

The topical line is, 1 e4,c5 2 nf3,e6 3 d4,pxp 4 nxp, nc6 5 nc3, qc7 6 be2, a6 7 be3, nf6 8 0-0, and here is where the taiminov transposes into the scheveningen with be7 9 f4, d6 10 a4, 0-0 11 kh1 and black to play. I believe the current novelty is nxn for black and starting counter play in the center instead of allowing white to steam roll on the kingside.

The advantages of the opening in general is that it's simple, solid and doesn't allow white much room for much deviation or aggressive play earlier in the opening.

# Answer
> 1 votes
IMO Sicilian Taimanov, Move by Move is a good book.

Indeed, b5 and Bb7 is played in many variations.

A major theme is when to play d6 and transition to the Scheveningen in reply to f4. It's always possible, but not always necessary to play d6.

There are surprising and active variations with moves like h5 and Ng4.

IME, many club players play cautiously against the Taimanov, with moves like a3 and f3. You'll easily get an equal game against such moves. I'm currently going through Emms' book again to learn how I can play for a win when the opponent plays like that.

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, planning
---


# Question
Title: Earliest text which mentions the pawn promotion rule
My question is about the history of the pawn promotion rule (promotion to a queen).

> What is the earliest existing text (authentic written document in any language) which mentions the pawn promotion rule?

# Answer
According to H.J.R. Murray (in A History of Chess, 1913), the pawn promotion rule (specially named as 'shatpada' or six steps) is already found in the very first known ancestry of chess: chaturanga (an ancient indian four-handed dice game whose pieces were King, Elephant, Chariot, Horse and Pawn for each one of the four armies). Chaturanga exists in this form at least since the 7th century of our era. The subsequent forms of games related to chaturanga, including our western chess, have employed several different ways to promote pawns through the centuries (only to queen - or similar, like vizir or counsellor; only if the pawn reaches the 8th row at selected ranks - for example not in the 'e', 'b' or 'g' files; only to a previously captured piece; only to the piece originally related to the rank; etc), but this feature has been always present.

A History of Chess - Page 70 A History of Chess - Cover
> 4 votes

# Answer
I did not want to post this as an answer, due to the lack of actual proof (link to a site, can not be considered as a normal proof). But looking that it was not answered for few days, I decided to show what I have and if someone will be able to find anything better - he will improve/write new.

So, a couple of websites mentioning the same year: **1475**. This is when pawn was able to be promoted to a queen.

For example this one tells:

> What happened in 1475? Until then, there was no Queen... The King had a counselor who could move diagonally one square at a time. One other major difference concerned promotion. A pawn, reaching the 8th rank, could only become a counselor.
>
> Around 1475, the counselor underwent a sex-change and emerged as the powerful Queen with whom we are all familiar. Promotion rules changed to the modern European version. Another factor played an important role in stabilizing chess at this point in time: the printing press! Books were written and more freely distributed and within 100 years, modern chess (chess, as we know it) was an established fact with only minor changes (castling, promotion to more-than-one Queen, en passant) occurring through the 19th century.

And simmilar this one:

> that became popular after 1475. Until then the counselor was limited to moving one square diagonally at a time. And, because a pawn that reached the eighth rank could become only a counselor, pawn promotion was a relatively minor factor in the course of a game. But under the new rules the counselor underwent a sex change and gained vastly increased mobility to become the most powerful

Also interesting "fact" about the promotion to a queen can be found here

> In the 15th century, promotion to allow more than one Queen was considered improper because it symbolized adultery. In Spain and Italy in the 17th century, the Pawn could only be promoted to the rank of Queen. In France and Germany, promotion was limited to any piece which had been lost. In some countries a player could promote a Pawn to an enemy piece so as to force stalemate. The current law in Pawn promotion was established at the first International Tournament in 1851.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, history, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: White's non-e4 opening, do they all need a solid understanding of 1.d4 first?
I'm talking about the two major alternatives apart from e4/d4, ie c4 and Nf3. It seems to me that a lot of the lines will transpose to a d4 type. Sometimes white plays d4 and transpose. Sometimes black plays d5 and white goes into a Queen's pawn defense with an extra tempo.

So is it possible to learn any of these openings without a solid understanding of 1.d4 first? I feel insecure that black can always trick me into a Queen's pawn opening.

Also a related question. Is it possible to learn the English 1.c4 without first playing Sicilian as black myself?

# Answer
## The English and/or Reti without knowledge of the Queen's Pawn openings

As others said, there are some "pure" English lines that do not transpose into a Queen's Pawn opening. You are never truly **forced** to play d4.

However, it makes sense in a lot of situations. After all, even if you play in a hypermodern style, you'll still want to contest the centre sooner or later. Thus, never rule out to play d4 at a later move (or you somewhat cripple yourself).

The sweet thing is that **you** are the one who decides when that d4 thrust will happen. Thus, if you want to avoid specific Black defenses to 1.d4, you can bide your time with 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 and only play d4 later on when they have become infeasible. That way, you don't have to worry about the huge and menacing 1.d4 complex all at once (don't be foolish to think that 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 will completely absolve you of the need to learn theory though!).

Maybe a good idea is to start with a pure English/Reti setup, and add the Queen's Pawn openings to your repertoire over time by regularly analysing in which additional lines d4 might "fit" in your opinion.

## The English without knowledge of the Sicilian

The English and the Sicilian may look similar, but their character differs quite a bit (in most lines, anyway). For starters, if Black choses any other answer to 1. c4 but 1...e5 (like 1...c5, 1...Nf6 etc.), and that probably occurs in the majority of games, you are in completely un-Sicilian territory already.

Even if 1. c4 e5 does happen, you don't really need specific knowledge from the Sicilian. Sure, the pawn structures may tend to look the same, but still the way both colours play around them will often differ a lot! In general, while the Sicilian is sharp and tactical, the English tends to be more quiet and positional. For example, it is very common in the Sicilian that the players castle on opposite sides and White starts attacking Black's kingside with his pawns. That sort of thing does not happen nearly quite as often in the English.

In my opinion, learning 1.c4 e5 does not require you to learn 1.e4 c5 (and vice versa). It's nice to combine them (I do), but by no means necessary.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There are c4/Nf3 lines where White never plays d4 (such as the reverse Dragon or the King's Indian Attack). They are solid but not top-tier openings. Additionally, they do not feature much diversity of pawn structures, which can impede learning.

Specifically after 1. c4 e5, this is less relevant because the game does not usually return to 1. d4 structures.

My advice to a player that is trying to improve would be to play 1. d4 for a while first, or learn enough of the d4 transpositions that there is no fear of being tricked.

If not trying to improve, then almost anything is a reasonable choice.
> 4 votes

# Answer
You can play the English/Reti without transposing to d4 lines. Marin's three volume series on the English (Grandmaster Repertoire) is pure English/Reti and has lines against all responses. You can then add d4 transpositions to suit your tastes.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Best move for black

text:
# Question
Title: Best move for black
```
[FEN "8/R7/4k3/3nP3/3p4/P2K4/1P6/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

What is the best move for black?

# Answer
> 5 votes
At tournament level, Black can safely resign. If you wanna play some more moves, taking a pawn with 1...Kxe5 looks reasonnable.

I see no trick with stalemate nor with the d-pawn, e.g. 1...Nf4 2.Ke4 \[2.Kxd4+-\] d3 3.Kxf4 d2 doesn't promote because of 4.Ra6+ Ke7 5.Rd6 +-

1...Ne7 can be a trap \[2.Kxd4?? Nc6+ with a probable draw (or not even, see Annatar's comment)\] but it is easily beaten by 2.Ra6, 2.b4 or the simple 2.Rxe7.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Unless your opponent is really, really weak (and presumably you are even weaker since you've got a completely lost position) then "resigns" is the best move.

If you want to see if your opponent knows how to win the position then you could try Kxe5 when black will play Ra5, pinning the knight, exchange off the knight and then push the a and b pawns and queen one of them. Other moves by you are equally futile.

If your opponent was good enough to get this completely won position then he is probably also good enough to know that he just needs to exchange his rook for your knight to have a trivial win and there is little you can do to stop this.

---
Tags: knight-endgame
---


title: The genders of the pieces and pawns

text:
# Question
Title: The genders of the pieces and pawns
Historically, what, if any, are the genders of the pieces and pawns? Is the king male and the queen female, etc? What about promoted pieces?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Chess originated in India and in the Indian armies of those times, it was common to have elephants, camels, horses and the like. Even now in rural India, the rook is the "elephant", the bishop is the "camel" and the knight is the "horse". The king is still the king, the queen is the "wazir" or vizier, and pawns are foot soldiers. In fact there was a recent Indian movie called Wazir, themed on chess and the Wazir was portrayed by a male character.

Traditionally, the armies fought mostly with men, however, even Indian history has had female warrior queens (for example Rani of Jhansi). The Wazir, however, is not a queen, but a powerful minister in the kingdom, maybe even the king's prime minister or right-hand-man (person?). Traditionally, this would be a male. Similarly, the elephant riders, camel riders, horse riders and foot soldiers would traditionally be male with females being the exception to the norm. The king is obviously male.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Think about this. When pawns reach the other side they become Queens. Are the females? Or was this the first look on transgender people?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Depends on the language. E.g. Russian words for pawn and Rook are feminine. On the other hand, Russian words for (real life) infantry, cavalry, etc. are also feminine.

# Answer
> 0 votes
" Men are from Mars . Women are from Venus " . Quite an abstract Quote related to this Q . Isn't it ?

Ok why I say the above is because Chess originated as a game of war where there are two Kingdoms fighting against each other . In earlier days and even to this day a major portion you would see it is the men who always fights or takes part in Battle field compared to Women . True Women are somewhat competing with Men and showing good results but in medieval World this was almost prohibited .

So as Chess is as good as War so the Pieces/Pawns participating are all Males . In ancient Roman religion Mars was the god of war so men are categorised to fighting machines and that's the reason it implies the Gender is Male .

---
Tags: pieces
---


# Question
Title: Arbiter ignored cheating, and I signed the scoresheet. Did I lose my right to object?
I am currently playing in an ELO tournament.

Today, while I was playing, my opponent occasionally got up and walked around. At first, I did not care much. Then, I realized that some people were behind me, examining the game very carefully.

At the moment there was a critical position, my opponent was not at the board, and three or four guys came around, and began to speak among themselves. I looked for an arbiter but there was only one and he was sitting at the other end of the tournament room.

I made my move, and went to the arbiter. This is when the weird things happen. I told the arbiter that my opponent is never at the board, and there are some people coming when he's away. There are cameras everywhere, so he is free to check.

When I and arbiter were walking back, there were three people around the board, talking to each other and pointing at the game, and **my opponent was also at the board, listening to them.**

I immediately said that I demand a rematch at the least, since this is not the first time. Arbiter spoke to my opponent and his response was "he said that they were speaking about something else, I warned him, and this will not repeat again."

He also told me that if I don't sign the scoresheet, it counts as I did not play the game, and I cannot claim anything. So, I completed the game, signed the sheet, and told the arbiter that I will write this to FIDE.

I have written a mail describing this situation. But I'm not sure if something will change. In case such situation happens again, how should I proceed?

# Answer
According to the 2017 version of the Laws of Chess, rule 11.10 says:

> Unless the regulations of an event specify otherwise, a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, even if the player has signed the scoresheet (see Article 8.7).
> 84 votes

# Answer
Writing to FIDE will make you feel better but is otherwise a waste of your time.

Let's step through and see why.

First, getting up and walking around is perfectly acceptable behaviour.

Here's what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say -

> 11.2.1 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
>
> 11.2.2 The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played.
>
> 11.2.3 Only with the permission of the arbiter can:
>
> 11.2.3.1 a player leave the playing venue,
>
> 11.2.3.2 the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area.
>
> 11.2.3.3 a person who is neither a player nor arbiter be allowed access to the playing area

When it is your turn your opponent is allowed to get up and go anywhere in the "playing" venue. This includes the toilets, smoking area, refreshment area.

When it is your opponent's turn he is still allowed to get up and wander around the "playing area", basically the room or rooms where the tournament is taking place.

Secondly, if the people watching your game were not players then they would only be allowed there if spectators were allowed, but this is normal practice. If, as spectators they behave "badly" - disturbing the players, discussing the game - then the arbiter can ask them to leave. He cannot penalize either of the players for this behaviour by third parties.

Thirdly, if a player has a complaint against an arbiter's decision in a FIDE rated event then an appeals committee should be set up, normally 3 or more players, possibly the organizer, to hear the player's complaint and come to a decision. Only if this is unsatisfactory can you take it further, although "further" probably means your national federation.

If you receive a reply from FIDE it is likely to be to tell you to take up the matter with the event appeals committee or your national federation.
> 18 votes

# Answer
A short answer to the title of your question would be that you do not lose the right to appeal against any of the arbiter's decisions by signing the scoresheet.

But also notice that you did not use your right to appeal anyway, therefore, you have, most likely, already lost it. Every tournament has an appeal committee and players wishing to appeal must do so usually within an hour of the end of the game or maybe within an hour of the end of the round or something like that, you can check with the arbiter. FIDE is not the appeal authority thus sending a letter to them did not serve any other purpose than to merely complain about the arbiter without having actually used all the means that were available to you.

What to do next time. If you suspect that your opponent is cheating - a very strong accusation that you should not make lightly, you could actually be penalized by FIDE for a false accusation - then talk to the arbiter as soon as possible and several times if necessary. However, notice that if you insist that your opponent is cheating then you will be required to make this claim in writing. There is a form that you need to fill in, sign it, and it will be sent to FIDE.

When you complain to the arbiter, there is only so much they can do, however. While they will take your complaint seriously, they will not accuse your opponent of cheating without having a good reason, i.e. they will need to see some evidence of highly suspicious behaviour themselves. In practice this means that the arbiter will attempt to observe the player for the rest of the game (and possibly even in the next rounds) but you cannot expect the arbiter to forfeit the player on your request. In my view, based on your description of the situation, the arbiter did the right thing - they inspected the situation and they warned the player.

Your opponent talking to other people. This is somewhat tricky, although it is forbidden to take advice from anyone during the game players always talk to other people in the playing hall. This is very common and you do not want to forfeit everyone who you observe talking to someone. Being strict makes sense in some important tournaments and less sense in leisure tournaments. I am not saying that the arbiter should not act, they should. But most of the time it is difficult for them to establish how innocent the conversation was and what (if any) damage was done. Thus the appropriate course of action is to warn the players and perhaps keep an eye on them.

What you did not mention is that your opponent was a ten-year-old child and I guess the other three or four guys you mention were similarly aged children. In theory this does not matter, in practice, however, it is unrealistic to expect children to stay focused for a number of hours and not to talk to anyone. And you certainly do not want to forfeit the child for mere talking to someone (or even worse for others talking to him), no children would play chess then. With children, most of the time it is enough to warn them. And if you do not like them gathering at your board and talking to your opponent then tell them. Most children have respect from adults.

A personal story. Once I played a league and my opponent was not happy about losing his advantage in the game or something like that. He made a move, left the room and then I heard him complaining about the game to other people outside. Not a big deal but it was disturbing me. Thus I went out and told them to go to talk about it somewhere else where I couldn't hear them. They were very embarassed, problem solved.
> 14 votes

# Answer
# Is it really that certain that your opponent cheated?

The key facts that I extract from your question:

1. Opponent chatted with others on a regular basis

I often do this too, and I do not talk about the game at hand just other things. As such I would say this does not even imply something going wrong.

2. At some point the game was discussed, presumably too close to the board.

This is of course not supposed to happen, however as you mention that your opponent was merely sitting at the board and did not seem to have asked for advice or anything, it is likely the audience that is doing something wrong. Even if your opponent benefitted from this (which may or may not be the case) there is no punishment listed for him.

# What to do in practice

If you hear people discussing the game (especially common with less experienced audiences) give them a hint that they should not do this. A very simple statement should be enough:

> Shh, we are still playing

If this does not help, then the arbiter can warn/remove the audience, but refrain from claiming that your opponent was cheating unless your opponent was a clear active party in this.

---

# Precedent

To help you focus on the game in further situations, I will bring in this unusual anekdote for which I unfortunately do not recall the players name.

A number of years ago a strong player (master/grand master) ended up in a tricky endgame and decided to consult a book about this on the toilet. The arbiter actually caught him, and gave him a warning. Afterwards he apologized and used his newly refreshed knowledge to win the game.

I am not implying that this is normal, but just trying to provide reference for not focussing on trying to claim the win, as this is very rarely given for a first infraction.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, cheating, arbiters
---


title: Meaning of ! and ? in Stockfish output?

text:
# Question
Title: Meaning of ! and ? in Stockfish output?
I've just installed Stockfish 8 and in the engine output, I see it has started to put `!` and `?` in various places (after certain moves and scores). Example output:

```
    mover viewpoint     fewer / Multi-PV setting = 1 / more
exclude: none best +tail
dep score   nodes   time    (not shown:  tbhits knps    seldep)
 24 +7.48   19.8M   0:12.09 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 Nd7 Bd4 Rac8 Nc3 Nxc3+ Bxc3 Rc7 Ke2 Nb6 Rad1 Nd5 Be5 Rcc8 Ne4 f6 Bh3 Rc6 Bd4 b6 c3 h6 Kf2 Kf7 Rhe1 Ne7 Kf3 Nf5
 23 +7.42   14.4M   0:08.71 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nc6 c3 Nce7 Nd4 b5 a3 Rab8 Kc2 a6 Rad1 Rbc8 Rhe1 h6 N2f3 Rd6 Kb1 g6 Kc2 Kg7 Nd2 Rd7 Ne4 Rdd8 Nf3 Nf5
 23 +7.25?  11.2M   0:06.78 Rd8+ Nd2?
 23 +7.16!  10.9M   0:06.62 Rd8+!
 23 +7.27!  10.7M   0:06.51 Rd8+!
 23 +7.34?  9.48M   0:05.73 Rd8+ Nd2?
 22 +7.27   7.93M   0:04.76 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nc6 c3 Nce7 Nd4 b5 a3 Rab8 Kc2 a6 Rad1 h5 N2f3 g6 Ne5 Rbc8 Rhe1 h4 Nef3 hxg3 hxg3
 22 +7.30?  6.70M   0:03.99 Rd8+ Nd2?
 22 +7.22?  5.96M   0:03.56 Rd8+ Nd2?
 21 +7.15   5.11M   0:03.04 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nd7 c3 N7f6 Bf3 a6 Kc2 b5 a4 Rac8 axb5 axb5 Bd4 Ne8 Rhd1 Nd6 Ra7 Nf5
 20 +7.14   2.80M   0:01.65 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nd7 c3 Rac8 Kc2 N7f6 Bf3 a6 a4 b5 axb5 axb5 Bd4 Rd7 Bxf6 Ne3+ Kc1 gxf6 Nd4 b4 Bc6 Rdc7 cxb4

```

It did not do this previously. What do these mean?

# Answer
> 6 votes
OK I just realized that I upgraded Winboard at the same time and it's actually Winboard that is now adding the `!` and `?`. The meaning seems to be given on this page:

> A question mark as the last character in the pv field should be used to indicate the reported score is from a fail low, and thus represents an upper bound only. Similarly, an exclamation point should be used to indicate a fail high / lower bound.

---
Tags: stockfish
---


title: 1. c4 vs c3 Sicilian

text:
# Question
Title: 1. c4 vs c3 Sicilian
I am a chess player ranked at around 1400. As white I play 1. e4 and am confident playing against most responses except for the Sicilian. I don't want to go into the main lines so I am studying the c3 Sicilian, but am realizing that there is a lot of theory I need to learn. A friend of mine recommended that I play a new opening altogether, 1 c4 that avoids a lot of theory. .

My question is this, would it be easier to learn how to play 1 c4 instead? What are some of the openings I need to know?

# Answer
I think you should stop being afraid of your theory book, and concentrate on fighting your opponent in a *game* of chess. Especially rated at 1400, you need to experience interesting tactical battles, attacking chess, and basic strategic ideas.

Edmar Mednis wrote "A number of students have told me that they like to play 1.e4 except against the Sicilian. Such a 'complaint' makes no chess sense to me. I mean, 1.e4 is for those who like active, attacking play. Because the Sicilian delays black's kingside development while ignoring white's active development, attacking players should jump for joy when they see Black play 1...c5." (Practical Opening Tips)

He then goes over some lines involving: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 ... 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 ... 5.Nc3 ... 6.Bc4 against the main Black systems. Some of these Fischer used to play. The 2.c3 variation is also a good one.

Don't be afraid of main lines. Get an interesting position on the board (that's all a main line is - a position so interesting lots of people have played it) and **fight it out**. You will learn loads. Develop your tactics, and start to see the strategic ideas by playing the opening. Seek inspiration from your own games and those played by other people - not theory books.

(I had the same problem myself. I'm around FIDE 2050 now, and a 1.d4 player. All my life I've been afraid of the Slav. I got a book a few years ago advocating to play the main lines. So I plunged in with minimal preparation - my opponents never challenge me in a book line! But we get some interesting games, much better than the exchange Slav I relied on all this time.)
> 7 votes

# Answer
Don't let anything chase you away from 1.e4! If you want to minimize your theory you can consider a couple other options:

* 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 with 3.c3
* 1.e4 c5 2.f4 or 2.Nc3 and 3.f4 heading for Grand Prix Attack lines
* 1.e4 c5 2.d3 heading for King's Indian Attack
* 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 heading for closed Sicilian
* 1.e4 c5 2.d4 heading for Smith-Morra Gambit
* 1.e4 c5 2.b4 heading for Wing Gambit.

At 1400 you should work on tactics so I recommend the Smith-Morra Gambit.
> 6 votes

# Answer
There is a line against the Sicilian on which, as far as I know, there is almost no theory. In some order it involves the moves e4, Nf3, c3, Bd3. It will probably induce your opponent to underestimate you, but you continue with Bc2 and d4 and he will be surprised to see that you have quite a nice game. It does not give you much of an advantage but you can play it on general principles and I think that is what you want. Also, it probably wont be the typical Sicilian sort of game that your opponent was looking forward to.

If you have been building up a repertoire based on 1.e4, what you need at the moment is some kind of shield against ..c5. The shield should keep you safe while you improve to the point of playing, if you wish, main lines.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The move 1. c4 is the English opening and it certainly does not "avoid a lot of theory". There is a lot more theory in the English than the Sicilian as much as anything because there are tremendous transpositional possibilities. You can start with 1. c4 and a few moves later you are playing a Queen's Gambit Declined or a Dutch or a Reti.

That said playing against fellow 1400 players they are very unlikely to know much theory against 1. c4 and your ignorance will be matched by their ignorance. Stronger, more experienced players are another matter altogether. They will have at least one response if not several prepared and you will find life very difficult.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is generally a poor idea to change your whole openings (even your first move!) just because of one line. There are a lot of ways handle the Sicilian, and the Alapin variation is a very decent choice.

Of course, there is a lot of theory after 1.e4 c5 2.c3. Scores of books and DVDS are devoted to that variation, and probably even more to the English opening. But it is very important to have in mind that:

1. You do not need to know all the theory to get sound and interesting positions.
2. Your 2000- opponent won't know much theory either.
3. The Alapin is a solid variation for White. With some ideas about the plans and general rules (develop, castle, grab the center...) you won't be in any danger of being worse at move ten. And if you play well or if your opponent is imprecise, you might well get an advantage...
4. Nothing stops you from actually learning a bit of theory, either now or later when you will already have some experience in this system. A good habit, for instance, could be, after each of your games, to check a grandmaster's game that followed the same line. Very soon, you will not be annoyed when your opponent goes for 1...c5 anymore, but be eager to try the last idea you saw...
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have used Smith-Morra gambit against Sicilian successfully up to 2000+ level, so it is a sound opening. If you are afraid of Sicilian Theory I strongly recommend starting with it and playing a bit of Sicilian yourself. This is how I learned how to play and fight the Sicilian. Currently I have abandoned Smith-Morra in favor of more mainline approaches, as they may have some theory, but are mostly pleasant to play for white!
> 1 votes

# Answer
One advantage of playing 1. c4 is that it may give you practice playing a quasi Sicilian opening as White. That is, if Black responds 1. ... e5, you may head for a "Sicilian" with you on move. That will give you deeper insights into how to play this position, how Black is likely to respond, and the value of the first move in situations where one player has moved the e pawn two squares, and the other player, the c pawn two squares. I would especially do this with stronger players, considering the first move as a "handicap."
> 0 votes

# Answer
I had exactly the same issue in the past. For me the solution was the closed Sicilian. You just need to remember some variations depending on what you opponent is playing. But the most moves are straight forward no matter what your opponent does. The general composition is (only whites moves):

```
1.e4 2.Nc3 3.g3 4.Bg2 5.d3 6.Be3 7.Qd2 8.Nf3 9.0-0

```

Of course you need to differ the sequence depending on what black is playing. Here some important notes:

* If black is playing g6 and Bg7 you relay want to trade you Bishop against his by playing Bh6 (after Be3 and Qd2 of course)
* If black plays Nf6 instead of Ne7 you need to avoid Ng4 (exchanging your Be3) you need to make sure he cant by playing h3
* If black rolls his Pawns on Queen-side don't be afraid you can normally easy hesitate by some late(!) Pawn moves (a3 or b3).
* You might want to roll your own pawns on King-side for this it might be helpful to develop your knight to e2 instead of f3 or play f4 before Nf3.
* Your Bishop on g2 is a big threat for unprotected pieces on the long diagonal so be aware of some combinations where you can move your e5 Pawn and or you Knight on f3 for winning material.

Here it needs to be mentioned that this will normally not give you a huge advantage from the opening but at least you should be equal and have attacking opportunities (King-side). Often you even have a time advantage because most players on 1400 are not familiar with this opening.

I hope that this helps.
> 0 votes

# Answer
At a rating of 1400 I wouldn't be worried so much about an opening repertoire because games at your level are very often decided by tactical blunders in the middle game.

Consider that if you play an opponent in your rating range s/he will be probably be as lost as you are in complicated and varied openings. If your opponent's rating is much higher than yours, you are likely doomed whatever opening you choose to play.

Also you and your likely opponents are not (yet, hopefully) sophisticated enough to be capable to exploit fully opening inaccuracies, so sticking to general principles (do not create weaknesses, complete your development, and so on) should be enough to allow you to reach playable positions once the opening phase is over.

Instead of using time to study and memorize opening lines, I would recommend going over fully commented (grand)master games trying to make sense of the players' strategy and studying books about general chess strategy.

Also, improving your endgames technique may be useful in a very concrete way.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, sicilian-defense, english-opening
---


title: Origin of Blitz

text:
# Question
Title: Origin of Blitz
For some time now, blitz (in any of various formats) has been a very popular format of chess.

It is obvious that in order to play blitz you need to have a chess clock and these have been around for about 150 years.

When did people start playing blitz games? It was right after chess clock were introduced or the habit took a long time to catch?

In particular, does anyone know when is the earliest reference of blitz? Not talking about the game's score or even the players' names, but just the earliest mention of games played at a fast time control.

# Answer
Wikipedia Fast Chess

> Before the advent of digital clocks, five minutes per side was the standard for blitz or speed chess.
>
> Before the introduction of chess clocks in the mid-1950s chess club "rapid transit" tournaments had a referee who every ten seconds called out.
>
> The Washington Divan (2445 15th St. NW) had regular weekly games and used a special clock that beeped every ten seconds to indicate the time to move. Players had to use their full ten seconds and move on the bell.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, blitz, chess-clocks
---


title: where are the revision logs for asmFish

text:
# Question
Title: where are the revision logs for asmFish
Please help because I can't find the revision logs on any website. I want to download version 051117 but I literally cannot get any website to have it.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> https://github.com/lantonov/asmFish

gives you all the revision logs for each and every single commit. The version 051117 is just the latest version registered on 05.11.17.

---
Tags: engines, software, uci
---


title: What is a base chess engine?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a base chess engine?
For the asmFish 2017 11 05 there is one option as a base bmi2 and popcnt. What does base mean? Is it just a weaker version of the correct one or is it the fully capable engine https://github.com/lantonov/asmFish/tree/executables/Windows

# Answer
The `base` version is for everybody, all Windows users. The `other` versions are built for specific hardwares, and should outperform the base version if you have the hardware.

Try the `bmi2` and `popcnt` versions, if they crash on you fall back to the base version.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software
---


# Question
Title: Can one import FENs of positions involving checkmate into Droidfish?
I recently copied the following curious position (from this answer) to clipboard, and tried pasting it in Droidfish.

```
3b1q1q/1N2PRQ1/rR3KBr/B4PP1/2Pk1r1b/1P2P1N1/2P2P2/8 w - - 0 1

```

However, the situation involved a checkmate and when I tried pasting it, Droidfish displayed an error message (**King capture possible**).

## My question

So can't I load the FEN of any position involving a checkmate in Droidfish?

# Answer
Apparently the FEN is wrong. In the position it should be black to move next, so in the FEN there should be a "b" instead of "w". The correct FEN would be:

3b1q1q/1N2PRQ1/rR3KBr/B4PP1/2Pk1r1b/1P2P1N1/2P2P2/8 b - -
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, fen
---


# Question
Title: Sites which provide annotated openings (preferably interactive)
I'm looking for a site that provides **well-annotated openings**, giving at least the first 15-20 moves of major openings and allowing me to explore their main variations and lines (by clicking on the relevant moves on an online chessboard).

For example, if I am learning Queen's Gambit Declined, I'd expect it to display something along the lines of this (more detailed and expertly annotated, of course, and with a diagram)

> **1. d4** A popular opening move, which gives White a solid position. **1. ... d5** Black's reply is quite common, and preserves the symmetry of the situation. **2. c4** This is the Queen's gambit - if accepted, it can provide White great momentum and development. **2. ...e6** Black turns down the gambit and prefers to keep the position interesting. *2. ...dxc4* is not really got for Black as White can get the pawn back soon by \[sequence of moves\] followed by a bishop move.

And if I play **2. ...c6**, I'd expect something like this (but again more detailed and with a diagram to help.)

> **2. ...c6** This changes the opening to the Slav defense.

## My question

Is there any site online that provides **detailed, annotated openings at least 15-20 moves deep** and allows me to explore **variations and lines (also annotated)**?

## Note

The site needn't focus on other parts of the game. I'm focusing on the opening for now.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Wikibook Chess Opening Theory has similar aims but I don't think it quite meets all of your requirements. Still, it's the website closest to meeting them that I can think of, so I hope it helps. Being a wiki, it's still evolving and of course one can always wonder about the expertise of the authors.

---
Tags: opening, online, annotation
---


# Question
Title: What is considered the current main line for Black against the Smith-Morra gambit?
I am referring to main lines where the pawn sacrifice is accepted.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Most reference books will give the main line as

```
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nf3 d6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qe2 0-0 9.Rd1 e5

```

Followed by either 10.Be3, 10.h3, 10.Bg5, 10.a3 or even 10.b4.

They usually evaluate this 'main line' as a dynamic equality.

Repertoire books often offer other ideas for Black (with...g6, or ...Ne7, or ...Bb4, or ...a6 and ...b5, or 3..e5 or refusing the gambit right away).

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nf3 d6 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 e5

```

---
Tags: opening, smith-morra-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Why is Chinese chess (xiangqi) harder for computers than international chess?
Why is Chinese chess (xiangqi) harder for computers than international chess?

When one looks at Chinese chess in comparison to international chess, one cannot help but notice how extremely limited several of the pieces are:

1. Kings are confined to 9 positions overall (the palace) and have 4 possible moves at most (only 1 step orthogonally).
2. The two advisors are confined to 5 shared positions overall (diagonals of the palace), where except for the central palace position they are confined to 1 move.
3. The two elephants are confined to 7 shared positions (two touching diamonds side by side, like an 8 on its side), due to having a move that naturally restricts them to a quarter of the board (only every other square the same color as its starting square (on a checkered board)), but then also being restricted to not move across the central dividing river which cuts it down to an expected 1/8. In fact the 7 positions out of 90 which the elephants can reach is an even worse ratio than 1/8 which is due to the specific board dimensions penalizing it even further.

Is there something about the two horses, two chariots (rooks), two cannons, and five chinese pawns that makes this game harder for computers than international chess? Or is it mostly due to the larger board size, 90 vs 64? Or is there some other consideration that I have overlooked?

# Answer
> 16 votes
As far as I can see there is no fundamental difference between chess and xiangqi that would make xiangqi more difficult for a computer.

The state space complexity of chess is somewhat higher, whereas the game tree complexity of xiangqi is higher. Also the branching factor of xiangqi is 38 compared to 35 for chess, not much of a difference.

I suspect that while chess has been in the focus of computer research for many decades, there just weren't the same resources devoted to optimising xiangqi engines.

Possibly the slower game (because of the weaker pieces) requires the calculation of longer variations (see game tree complexity), increasing the hardware requirements, but I think that should only be a minor difference compared to demonstrably more complex games like shogi or go.

It is a bit difficult to find out precisely how strong xiangqi engines are right now, but any of the two factors would explain if they lagged one or two decades behind.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Xiangqi has more theoretical complexity mainly due to larger board. So if you need to do exhaustive search, it has larger search space.

Xiangqi is also more positional. For attacking each side has two rooks, 4 knight-strength pieces, and 5 pawns. So for a crude comparison with western chess, Q+3P are replaced with 4 purely defensive pieces. We know positional chess is difficult for computer.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Xiangqi is very tactical, not positional, doesn't have chains or pawns for a long time. The difficulty to computers is the many positions available to the pieces, and the board is 10 x 10.

I think makruk or international chess is more more positional than xiangqi and shogi.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Xiangqi is less "connected" than western chess. For instance, the five pawns cover only every *other* file; they're not side by side. There is no "queen" that unifies both lateral and diagonal movement. And the defensive pieces are either limited to the palace (advisors) or to patrolling the surround countryside (elephants); they cannot be used to help attack the opposing king. Lastly, there is no pawn promotion, which means that it is hard to win if too many pieces have been exchanged.

Because of the above "disconnects," it is harder to construct viable winning combinations, or even winning positions than in western chess. In the latter, for instance, with queening, the win of a pawn in an otherwise level position means winning the game. That's not necessarily so in Chinese chess.

---
Tags: engines, game-complexity, xiangqi
---


# Question
Title: Do Stockfish and the tablebase work together or independently?
I use Arena GUI together with stockfish in engine games. I want to download a 6-piece tablebase but that is just a lot of work (and perhaps unnecessary). If I download the tablebase (syzygy), does stockfish work with it or just waits for the board to have 6-pieces and then the tablebase makes its moves?

# Here is what I mean in more detail

### Stockfish working with the tablebase

I assume I have the following position:

(Note: currently I am not talking about the best moves, just an example)

```
[Event "Computer Chess Game"]
[White "Stockfish 8"]
[Black "Wais Kamal"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k4b/3r4/8/8/1Q1q4/8/4R3/2KB4 w - - 0 1 "]

1. Qxd4 Rxd4 1-0

```

Stockfish consults the tablebase about what happens after Qxd4 Rxd4 (without continuing to evaluate the rest of the line). If this line is winning it goes for it.

### Stockfish working alone

Stockfish continues to play the game until six pieces are left on the board, then the tablebase makes the moves.

Which one of these actually takes place?

# Answer
> play the game until six pieces

Stockfish doesn't do that, that's not what tablebase is for. Briefly, tablebase boosts engine search well **before** six-men position reached on the board.

Let's do an exercise, add the board 5 pieces. Now you have 10 pieces on the board, and it's not something you can find in any tablebase. However, during the engine search **whenever Stockfish trades down to 6 pieces**, it can instantly use the tablebase information. The tablebase information gives Stockfish whether's the position is a win/loss/drawn without ever going down to anything like 5 pieces. Therefore, the search is faster and more efficient.

**EDIT:**

The relevant code is https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/search.cpp:

```
// Step 4a. Tablebase probe
if (!rootNode && TB::Cardinality)
{
    int piecesCount = pos.count<ALL_PIECES>();

    if (    piecesCount <= TB::Cardinality
        && (piecesCount <  TB::Cardinality || depth >= TB::ProbeDepth)
        &&  pos.rule50_count() == 0
        && !pos.can_castle(ANY_CASTLING))
    {

```

`TB::Cardinality` is by default 6. Stockfish checks how many pieces, if it's no more than 6 it consults the tablebase information. Otherwise, regular search.
> 19 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Traps and tricks for White in the 4.Bf4 variation vs the Grunfeld
I read in a book (I no longer remember what book) that there are a few traps for White in the `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4` variation vs the Grunfeld, and that the line is somehow popular among GMs, Black has no easy equality, etc. etc. Is anyone aware of what a few of these tricks / traps for White might be?

For example please notice GM Kavalek's comments after Bf4 in this article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lubomir-kavalek/the-most-treacherous-defe\_b\_991426.html

# Answer
> 1 votes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX9Ax29jZ1k is video 1 of 4 explaining this system. Mike Virgo has the links to the rest of the series.
One of the comments is: "It is a good video, however, Roman makes one mistake. at 15:45, he forgot to place pawn on h3 back to h2." Many minor errors show in most chess videos, so ensure you understand the moves.

# Answer
> -2 votes
There are always tricks and traps, in every possible chess opening, not just the Gruenfeld. It has to be noted, though, that 4.cd5 Nd5 5.e4 is much stronger than Bf4, white has tremendous performance with that at the highest level, namely the TCEC top engine chess competition.

From what one might infer the Gruenfeld is an altogether dubious opening with perfect play(not so many KID lines). Of course, if you miss the best continuations, the Gruenfeld might also score well for black.

---
Tags: opening, grunfeld-defense
---


title: How to study chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How to study chess?
I am a beginner, I have been playing from time to time with friends since I was a child, but I never studied seriously. A couple of months ago I decided I want to become better, to play more seriously, understanding in a deeper way the game of chess. I have bought some books, I usually look videos on youtube and, of course, I play also online.

My question is:

> How can one *study* chess? I am looking for suggestions about *method*. When reading a book, of course I set everything on the chessboard and I try to guess the right moves. But the point is that if I try the same puzzle a couple of days later I already forgot the solution. And I totally forget also the puzzle, meaning that I do not remember how to put the pieces in the initial position.

This it seems to me that I am wasting time, as I do not remember anything. I am really used to studying and learning (I do it for my job, as I am a mathematician working at university). I am really looking for method of learning.

At work, the best I can do is usually to write down stuff (theorems, proofs etc): the process of writing helps me in fixing stuff in my brain. Should I also write in chess? I am not totally used to notation (I know how to read it but I am slow and it takes me quite a lot). Could drawing diagrams be an idea? But how, is there any kind of software that could help me? I want to explicitly remark that I do not care about time, I mean it is not important to me to become a better chess player "in two weeks" (I have read tons of post on this website asking for that), I am just looking for an efficient way of learning.

# Answer
> 8 votes
There are a number of ways to study, the most efficient route isn't always the one most people can commit to though. It's best to do something you can sustain consistently for a long time.

Generally chess study can be broken up into sub categories.

You can solve puzzles. Generally tactics puzzles are best since they have an easy to understand answer, gaining material or checkmate for example. 303 chess tactics and 303 tricky checkmates both worked very well for me when I was weaker. There are also some sites with free tactics like chesstempo online. Repeatedly going through the books can be valuable but after 4-5 times it'll start having less efficiency in improving your game.

It's necessary to know some basic endgames and how to checkmate with only your king and a rook or a queen as a beginner, and deeper understanding of endgames will only improve your play. Silman's Complete Endgame Course is really all you'll need for endgame until a very high level and it's quite readable. There are probably some YouTube videos you could find for more advise about endgames if you wanted.

For openings there are lots of books, but they are way too high level and hard to understand for a beginner. It's better to search something like general opening principles on youtube. Once you've learned the general principles you can maybe look up a couple youtube videos on an opening your interested in. However I'll warn you opening study is the biggest trap in chess, efficiency wise. It's fun, you get positive feedback by playing games and recognizing what's going on the first few moves, but at max it will only get you a slightly better position than using general principles, and any particular variation doesn't have a high chance of coming up in your game. Even if you get the slightly better position you still have to play a strong middle game and endgame to win. Also other players will deviate from "theory" and then you can't use what you learned.

Middle game study, this can be broken down a bit into tactics and strategy, but the puzzles take care of the tactics. Fir strategy there are numerous books, but the one that worked the best for me was the Amateurs Mind by Jeremy Silman. It's not a perfect book but covers important concepts like maximizing your pieces, restricting your opponents, timing and gets a little bit into pawn structures. His thinking method isn't necessary but it can help until you nail down the knowledge into your subconcious. The best way to learn middle games is to study annotated master and grandmaster games. It's challenging though because they are hard to understand until you are a strong player. Still even if you don't understand seeing various piece maneuvers and the flow of the game will improve you. Also I'm sure there's a lot on YouTube about this.

Now as far as playing is concerned, I'd suggest one 10+ minute game a day. Probably lichess, chesstempo, or chess dot com would be the place to play, I'd recommend lichess. After your game look it over and think about where you went wrong and what you could have done better.

To get the very fastest improvement it's best to hire a coach, but that can be pricey.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Don't worry too much about forgetting the concrete positions of the puzzles. Most of the club players I know (myself included) cannot even correctly replay their own rated games just from memory on the next day (only with a lot of "wait, did he play this or this first? Hm, and this piece lands on that square at some point now...how did that happen again?"). This is after working for hours on these moves.

What matters is **learning the underlying patterns** behind the puzzles (either tactical motives or strategical plans). Unfortunately, learning them only comes from experience, read: A lot of repetition. You are at the start of that process, so it is natural that you still have trouble. Your method is the commonly recommended one though (besides **playing a lot of practice games and analysing them afterwards**, nothing can replace that!), so keep it up and after a while you will begin to see the fruits of your work. My former Logic professor used to tell us that (formal) logic is a lot like chess: The basic rules are deceptivly simple, but combining them efficiently requires a lot of experience. You have to **train your "eye"** over years of study.

If you are a "writer" learning type, it will definitely help to **write things down** (you will get used to the notation). Many patterns are deeply linked with specific moves or squares. If I merely write "Bxh7+", any advanced player reading it will immediately have an image popping up in his mind (almost like a Pavlovian dog - we can't suppress it). This specific move is linked to a classical sacrifice. The interesting thing is that this sacrifice is possible in various concrete positions, as long as certain conditions are met (obviously, the white bishop has to be able to take on h7, there has to be no black knight on f6 who defends h7, White's pieces, most importantly the queen, can quickly join the attack, Black's pieces can't interfere). Some similarities to mathematical proofs there.

Another thing that is very helpful is trying to **join a local chess club** (maybe your university has one?). Not only does that offer an opportunity for practice, but also, invaluably, a lot of instant feedback (I guess you know from you background how beneficial learning with a tutor can be).

# Answer
> 3 votes
What works for one person might not work for another, but still a few thoughts....

A beginner should focus on:

1. not blundering pieces in one move
2. not falling for simple tactics
3. have a basic idea about general principles
4. some simple mates such as king + rook vs king

Regarding "1", you should always stay alert on what pieces are attacked. In order not having to check the whole board after every move, you can go with an iterative approach, i.e. to note what changes the last move created to the situation of attacked pieces. Most of the time a move will only affect a tiny portion of the board. The moved piece will attack new squares from the destination square (but also stop attacking squares which it did from the original square). Also the move can open or close rows/columns/diagonals for other pieces. To give you an example, the first white move pawn from e2 to e4 will open diagonals for the white queen and bishop and also the pawn from e4 will attack squares on d5 and f5.

With a board full of pieces it might help you to visualize the attacked squares as some kind of "danger zones" or "fences" or something like that, particularly for rooks and bishops which create horizontal/vertical and diagonal "fences" respectively. This method is not only useful for quickly seeing attacked pieces but also when it comes to mating in order to see how to take away squares from the enemy king.

Regarding "2". Just about any chess site has tactics puzzles and some of the better ones (e.g. lichess) also do "spaced repetition" (showing you the same puzzle again after a while). When solving tactics puzzles it is very important to realize and undersand the tactical motif (or motives) that is (are) involved. For a beginner, I find the tactics section on chesstempo.com particularly useful, because after you solve (or fail to solve) a puzzle it will show you the tactical motives for this puzzle as "tags". You can then try to find them back in the solution. Also, it can be useful if you remove all the unnecessary pieces from the problem, so that you are left with the essence of the tactic, which is easier to remember, because you know what to look out for.

Regarding "3": Occupy the center, develop pieces, don't waste time moving pieces twice (unless you have to), castle, improve piece activity... This is more about self-discipline than learning things (at least at the beginner level).

Regarding "4": This you should be able to find in books. As with the tactics, you should not learn the actual moves by heart, but rather the pattern. For instance for the King+Rook vs King endgame you should remember that the idea is that the rook creates some kind of "fence" horizontally and vertically which the enemy king cannot cross. With the help of your own king you can make the area that the opponent king has available smaller and smaller. see this

And the best would be to have a stronger player look at your games and point out things that should be improved.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are some thoughts that are well expressed by Annatar that I would like to expand on a little.

Chess players use the term "sight of the board" as in "he/she has a quick sight of the board" to describe someone who can take in at a single glance which pieces are attacked, what pawns are blocked, what forks and skewers are looming. Acquiring a quick sight of the board may be the most valuable advance that a beginner can make.

It is widely held that the route to this is the art of "Chunking", a term used by psychologists for increasing memory or processing by organising the available information into "chunks" of related stuff. That Knight seems to protect my Pawn but it is pinned by his Bishop. The Knight,Pawn and Bishop and whatever the Knight is pinned against form a chunk, and instead of remembering where they each stand, you remember their relationship. I think this is something that you could practice, while playing as well as when studying. It is a separate game of "Spot the chunks". Eventually the chunks should get bigger, but never too big.

P.S.An empty square can be part of a chunk!

# Answer
> 1 votes
The number one best way to *study* chess is to *play* chess. This is particularly true for beginners.

Join a club if you haven't already done so and go down there regularly and just play games, friendly or otherwise, against other human beings.

# Answer
> -1 votes
You can only learn better chess from a teacher. The better the teacher, the faster you will learn. Nowadays, the strongest(and freely available at that) chess tutor is Stockfish, so just install some chess software, install Stockfish, and start playing/analysing games with it, while looking at its output. This will allow you to understand which moves are good and bad, and why some moves are to be avoided. Take as many moves back as you wish, check different lines, this will only be of use.

Second good thing to do is to browse master games, browse as many as possible. Of course, don't study the games of weaker players, they will only teach you bad/imperfect moves.

But before all, you should learn chess notation, no way around this.

There is no way to magically master the game in a few weeks, but you can significantly shorten the learning time by referring to stronger/more experienced tutors.

---
Tags: learning, study, diagram
---


title: D4 D5 C4 NF6 Continuation

text:
# Question
Title: D4 D5 C4 NF6 Continuation
I'm a quiet and positional player rated in the 1400's and play exclusively online correspondence chess. I always play D4 with white as first move and usually C4 after that.

One opening I come into quite often is D4 D5 C4 NF6

After this what is the most solid play for white to get a strategic advantage for long term correspondence play?

# Answer
This opening **1.d4 d5 2.d4 Nf6** is known as the *Marshall Defense* of the Queen's Gambit Declined. White can get an advantage with **3.cxd5** resulting in an advantage, such as **3...Nxd5 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.Nbd2 Nf6 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.g3**.

However a lot of those lines involve wide open tactical play, and you are looking for a quiet positional alternative. Therefore simply **3.Nc3** when Black can choose between several different openings.

* The main line Queen's Gambit Declined with **3...e6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3**.
* The Slav with **3...c6** can get tactical, so maybe play **4.e3 Bf5 5.Nf3 e6** when **6.Nh4** is popular, to get the advantage of two Bishops.
* The Queen's Gambit Accepted **3...dxc4 4.e3** or **4.e4** and you should easily regain the pawn.
* The Grünfeld Defence **3...g6** can also get quite tactical. **4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Rc1** is one way to steer the game away in a quieter direction.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: positional-play, correspondence-chess
---


title: Stockfish is cheating?

text:
# Question
Title: Stockfish is cheating?
I am using the Arena GUI to run Stockfish. I set up the following position.

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/2p1bppp/p1n5/1p1pP3/3Pn3/1P3N1P/1P3PP1/RNBQR1K1 w - - 0 11"]
[SetUp "1"]

```

At a search depth of 16 half moves stockfish gives the following analysis:

```
Nc3 f5 exf6 Nxf6 Bg5 h6 Qe2 Qd6 Qe6+ Kh8 Qxd6 cxd6 Bf4 b4 Na4 Nd7 Bg3 Rc8 Rc1 Kh7 Re6

```

As it stands, the line above consists of 21 half moves. I thought it was a problem with the GUI so I ran the same position into stockfish from the command line and again it gives a line with 21 moves. How is this possible? Is it a configuration from the engine to search at a depth higher than the specified?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Computers are really stupid, they can't evaluate a position that contains exchange threats. When the program reaches the expected depth and there are exchanges present in the position, the computer performs a Static Exchange Evaluation, which is hard to program correctly, or it extends the search depth until the exchanges and other factors are eliminated.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, depth
---


# Question
Title: Make Arena send last move to chess engine
I am building a chess engine using AI and have succesfully connected it to the Arena Gui, by implementing the UCI protocol.

My goal is to train my AI by facing other AIs that Arena offers. Everything works well except the checkmate part where one of the engine loses. More specifically Arena does not give the last move made(that ended the game) to the losing engine,but instead it starts a new game when in tournament mode.

eg(from Arena debug):

```
2016-09-13 14:48:26,119-->2:position startpos moves d2d4 d7d5 a2a3 e7e6 a3a4 b8c6 a1a3 f8a3 e2e4 a3f8 b2b4 f8b4 c2c3 b4a5 f1e2 d5e4 g2g3 c6d4 e2d3 e4d3 c1g5 d4c2 d1c2 d3c2 g5d8 c2b1q e1e2 b7b6 g1f3 c8a6 c3c4 a6c4 e2e3 b1b3 e3e4 c4e2 d8g5 b3f3 e4d4
2016-09-13 14:48:26,119-->2:go wtime 295296 btime 231219 winc 0 binc 0
2016-09-13 14:48:26,121<--2:info score cp 3343 lowerbound depth 1 nodes 1 time 0 pv f3h1
2016-09-13 14:48:26,123<--2:info score cp 3343 depth 1 nodes 2 time 0 pv f3h1
2016-09-13 14:48:26,126<--2:info score mate 1 lowerbound depth 1 nodes 5 time 0 pv a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,128<--2:info score mate 1 depth 1 nodes 6 time 0 pv a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,129<--2:info cpuload 0
2016-09-13 14:48:26,130<--2:bestmove a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,130*2*Found move:Ba5-c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,290********Game end: 0-1 {Mate}
2016-09-13 14:48:26,291********Last game won by AnMon 5.75 with Black in 20 moves

```

In the example above my engine lost to its adversary(AnMon). As you can see the opponent gave the move a5c3 to the interface, and Arena just ended the game without sending a message to my engine before beggining a new game.

The problem lies in the fact that my goal is to train my engine's AI and to do that i need the last move made so that i can determine who won and who lost. Is there a way to make Arena give me that information?

If not what other engines that meet my needs would you reccomend?

# Answer
I think for this you actually want the XBoard protocol, which specifies:

> **result RESULT {COMMENT}**
>
> **After the end of each game, xboard will send you a result command.** You can use this command to trigger learning. RESULT is either 1-0, 0-1, 1/2-1/2, or \*, indicating whether white won, black won, the game was a draw, or the game was unfinished. The COMMENT string is purely a human-readable comment; its content is unspecified and subject to change. In ICS mode, it is passed through from ICS uninterpreted. Example:
>
> `result 1-0 {White mates}`
>
> Here are some notes on interpreting the "result" command. Some apply only to playing on ICS ("Zippy" mode).
>
> If you won but did not just play a mate, your opponent must have resigned or forfeited. If you lost but were not just mated, you probably forfeited on time, or perhaps the operator resigned manually. If there was a draw for some nonobvious reason, perhaps your opponent called your flag when he had insufficient mating material (or vice versa), or perhaps the operator agreed to a draw manually.
>
> **You will get a result command even if you already know the game ended** -- for example, after you just checkmated your opponent. In fact, if you send the "RESULT {COMMENT}" command (discussed below), you will simply get the same thing fed back to you with "result" tacked in front. You might not always get a "result \*" command, however. In particular, you won't get one in local chess engine mode when the user stops playing by selecting Reset, Edit Game, Exit or the like.

(emphasis mine)

UCI protocol is designed to be stateless, so an engine does not know when a game begins or ends, but is merely given a position to search.

As a compromise, you *could* trigger learning on a `ucinewgame` command, but this is not nearly as useful, because UCI does not send you the winning move. Perhaps perform a depth-1 search to see if there was a mating move, then assume they made that.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Arena is closed source, so I don't see any possibility for you to force the GUI to send you the last move. In fact, I don't think chess GUI should send the move to you because there wouldn't be anything for your engine to do.

If you really need the last move, maybe you want to use Cutechess? It's open source so you can do whatever you want once the game is over.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think SmallChess is right and the Chess GUI is not supposed to send any more moves to a UCI Engine when the game is over by definition of UCI.

UCI Engines do not analyse Chess Games, but only single Chess Positions, so saving, storing or analysing a complete Chess Game is up to the Chess UI and not the UCI Engine.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone recommend a free strong and good chess engine for endgame?
I am looking for good and chess engine for endgame but unfortunately when I test engine with competitive chess players in online,it fails with calculation ability. Please recommend apart from fish family chess engines.Please note I have made ground search in google. thanks for your time

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish with Syzygy 6-man tablebase.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Current top engines almost have no problems with endgames, with the exception of some fortresses, so either one of the best 3 will do just fine. Years ago it was possible to beat top chess engines even in simple pawn endgames, but not anymore. Tablebases improve engine play with a small amount of elos, depending on time control and the set used. 5-men would add +5-15 elos, 6-men up to 30, so this is still something, but nothing to marvel at. 7-men would do fine job, but still only commercially available.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Is there a chess GUI that gives an evaluation of each move?
I'm looking for a chess GUI that shows the evaluation of each possible move rather than the top move.

# Answer
In most GUIs you can set up top x moves. The reason why there is no program showing all moves, is that it would be terribly slow if you would make it show a lot of moves because of the engine.

All engines use some version of Alpha-Beta Search, without getting in the details of it, the point is, if a move is outside the interval of Alpha-Beta it is not examined further, so you can't really decide if it's right out of the window, or way off. If the engine wouldn't use this filtering, than it would need to check all branches, making it way too slow.

tl;dr

I don't think there is a GUI like that, if there is than the results it shows are completely bad, they would have the strength of a chess program from the 50s.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes! **Lucas chess** gives the evaluation for all the moves you play. Download latest version.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Is Fritz 15 a better chess software than Deep Fritz 14?
I can only afford one. Would Fritz 15 be better to get than Deep Fritz 14?

I would like to use Fritz to study opening theory.

# Answer
> 6 votes
While I'm not sure what exactly Fritz 15 will offer (because it hasn't been released), but it's almost certain that there will be a "deep" version. Look at this ChessBase online search, so it's pretty safe to assume there will be Deep Fritz 15. My suggestion: wait for the upcoming version.

However, I don't think Deep Fritz 15 will offer you anything that Deep Fritz 14 doesn't. If we're talking about the user-interface experience, there shouldn't be much because ChessBase always ship an almost-identical software every year.

The most obvious change is the engine, unfortunately, this is not very interesting because Fritz is quite far behind Stockfish and Komodo. If you're looking for the strongest possible engine to study opening theory, you might as well download Stockfish and use it with any compatible client. It's free and plays better chess than Fritz.

You'll need to decide what exactly you want: an easy but expensive bundle from ChessBase or the strongest free chess engine.

**EDIT (after product release)**

It's nice ChessBase finally drops the "deep" term and it makes perfect sense, who is still using 32 bits in 2015? There is no Deep Fritz 15, just Fritz 15.

# Answer
> 3 votes
There will be no Deep Fritz 15, because Fritz 15 offers Multi-Core.

# Answer
> 3 votes
2017 post update:

I tested both of them and they are almost the same and Identical in engine tests. just less than 10 percent difference in game win rate. I also tested many other engines against fritz which most of the time they win it easily. (engines like: Sugar , Houdini 6, Komodo 11, Stockfish 8, adnsacs). I added the bullet games table here. Anyway even with longer time controls fritz loses.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Actually it will be interesting to see, because the Fritz 15 engine is brand new, and written by Vasik Rajlich, the programmer that previously wrote the Rybka chess engine. The London chess shop's webpage for Fritz 15 lists some features, but doesn't speak to anything specific about the engine.

http://shop.chess.co.uk/Fritz-15-64-bit-multiprocessor-version-PC-DVD-p/pre-order-151187.htm

# Answer
> 1 votes
Considering the change in programmer I would think fritz 15 would be stronger than Fritz 14. I can be almost positive without actually testing it that it will be.

To learn opening theory you probably would need an opening database rather than just the chess engine, however to find innovation in the opening and get better move choices then a better chess engine is required.

**What is a core?**

*A multi-core processor is a single computing component with two or more independent actual processing units (called "cores"), which are the units that read and execute program instructions.*

Thus a core is a processing unit (a cpu or just the pu). Multi-core means more work can be done by the computing device simultaneously. This enables Fritz to analyze quicker and therefore deeper.

* Better objective choice would be Fritz 15.
* Better subjective choice would probably be Fritz 14. The reasoning behind this is due to who you are aiming to beat with this opening knowledge. If its not FM/IM/GMs then it hardly matters. Of course the price paid must be less than the cost of Fritz 15.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is no Deep Fritz 15... it is already multi-cores.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Fritz 16 is now available. I have Fritz 15 and do not plan on getting 16. You should buy the version you can afford, but Fritz is a great learning tool, be warned if you're not computer savvy Fritz is a difficult program.

---
Tags: software
---


title: Between chess and music

text:
# Question
Title: Between chess and music
Among the world champions, at least Capablanca and Tal have suggested that chessplayers sit closer to musicians than logicians.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Mark Taimanov, WC contender in 1971, was a world-class concert pianist.

Here is a duet he played in 1957.

One more. I don't know when it was played. This one shows he and his partner playing.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Former world champion Vasily Smyslov was an opera singer who gave up opera for chess. Judge for yourself how good he was - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAvrT52VXOI .

More recently (and more mundanely) Nigel Short on guitar accompanied Elizabeth Paehtz's vocals at a Kasparov supporters' rally before the 2014 FIDE elections.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Magnus Carlsen can also sing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVS-NIkkUrA

# Answer
> 4 votes
The 18th century French player Philidor was a renown opera composer as well as the best chess player of his day.

According to Jewish legend King Solomon, whose father was King David the great psalmist, was the inventor of the game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Perhaps it's because both music and chess requires patience, disciplined work and tons of efforts.

I was also an amateur but serious musician and chess player, then I quit both of them for computer engineering. Sad. :)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Judging if a move fits the position correctly or goes along well with the flow of the game, is likely similar to judging what note to play in the middle of a song.

# Answer
> 2 votes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bb6e0gFdS4

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca6.html

Instead of mathematicians I refer to logicians, so that I can imply the scientific mind per se. As for musicians, chessplayers make a difference through composing and performing at the same time, with the possible exception of opening theoreticians.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It was Grandmaster Siegbert Tarrasch who wrote, "Chess like love, like music, has the power to make men happy.

Many, not all, good chess players have a musical bent because of the "analogies" between the two.

# Answer
> 2 votes
For the most part I see logic mainly used in chess theory, it can elaborate why a certain move can be beneficial even when it would be implemented beyond your calculations, such as color affinity, but that's about the only part that takes intense logic.

The rest of the game has aesthetic appeal, I always imagine I am painting a picture, where each major piece is a different element and while certain art styles may incorporate different elements, such as abstract vs realism,the knight is harder to predict while the bishop is sharp and succinct.

I haven't researched, but I feel it's a general consensus among many chess players that the game has an aesthetic appeal. You often hear players call checkmates "beautiful" or certain plays amusing and part of this may be predictability.

In music a strong move is to create something unexpected, like you can create a gentle increasing rhythm, which is anticipated by the opponent and in the song abruptly change with a sharp strike of the violin leading into a face paced "attack" with greater speed and intensity. Of course certain musicians can predict a shift so you work to create a melody that has balance, flow, and unexpected turns to wow the audience.

This beautiful rhythm, that is a game of chess, has personality, flow, direction, even logic, as in chess theory, becomes a mature, beautiful aspect of the piece, where the famed melodies, such as immortal game, are replayed and remembered. And while this may not explain it in the most fundamental way, I feel these are easiest to relate to.

Haven't you ever got a bit excited, humored, or had a spine tingling moment in chess?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Every talent you have/learn develops also your chess skills, as it develops your brain. For example, I am not a musician, but having studied 5 or 6 foreign languages definitely helps a lot with recognising patterns on the board. Fischer said that chess has more in common with good memory rather than logical thought, but this is only true in half. The human brain is like a computer, the faster processor/brain it has, the larger memory it needs.

But that is all too philosophical...

---
Tags: talent
---


title: Why wasn't this strategy chosen?

text:
# Question
Title: Why wasn't this strategy chosen?
In the below position, White chose to activate his Knight with Ne4. Of course, he will have to play g4 to prevent …f5, and that requires the moves Kh1 and Rg1. These were the moves played in the game.

```
r2qrbk1/1pp3pp/2n1bp2/p2np3/8/PP1PPN2/1BQNBPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

```

In the game, Black played Qd7-f7 and Rad8. Although this does put pressure on the b3 and d3 pawns, it cannot be sufficient to warrant a capture. This also weakens Black's hold on the a5 pawn.

Instead, Black can play Nb6-d7-c5, attacking b3 and -- more importantly -- d3. This also places the knight on a better square, as it was doing nothing on d5. An alternative is also Nb6-d7 and f5-f4. What recourse does White have here?

# Answer
The game you refer to is Bobby-Fischer - Ulf Andersson, Siegen 1970.

It is famous for Fischer introducing the impressive plan Kh1,Rg1,g4,Rg3,Rag1 that has often been used since in hedgehog position, mainly for Black.

> *White chose to activate his Knight with Ne4. Of course, he will have to play g4 to prevent …f5*

Actually ...f5 is pretty hard for Black to engineer in that kind of position: he has to prevent Neg5 and Nc5, to provide support for his Pe5, and he won't be threatening ...e4 nor ...f4 any time soon. Note that the Re8-Bf8 dispositif is better suited for queenside play while keeping a solid f6-e5 center, the plans would be different in a position with Bb6 and Rf8 for instance.

Fischer's g2-g4 is actually is much deeper plan than just securing the Ne4: it more generally grab space on the kingside (e4 but also f5 for a Knight, g3 for a rook) and threaten g4-g5 at a suitable moment to open the long diagonal for the Bb2 and the g-file for the rooks.

> *Black can play Nb6-d7-c5, attacking b3 and -- more importantly -- d3. This also places the knight on a better square, as it was doing nothing on d5.*

This is reasonnable enough, but White can hold on b3 and d3 without too much trouble. In later years, Qb1-Bd1-Bc2 would even become fashionable, even if it probably wasn't in Fischer's mind back in 1970. This regrouping secures both pawns and adds pressure on the diagonals toward the kingside when the game opens up, most often with d3-d4.

Moreover, after White's Ne4, it is not sure that Black Knight will reach c5 at all. Supposing it does, it would still be sensitive to tempo-gaining freeing move like b3-b4 and d3-d4.

Finally, I beg to differ about the Nd5. Although it is screening the pressure on the d-file, it is not "doing nothing": control of b4, e3 and f4 stops White from trying the most agressive plans with b3-b4 or f2-f4. Generally speaking, central squares that your opponent's pawns can't control are considered good spots for your knights.

> *An alternative is also Nb6-d7 and f5-f4.*

This however is a very bad plan. Even if Black was granted four free moves to achieve it without White moving at all, it would result in passive pieces (Nc6,Nd7,Re8) holding to the backward pawn on e5 that will be firmly blocked (Ne4) and under fire (Bb2, Nf3, possibly Qa1 or Nc4).

And what do you try to gain with f5-f4 ? An attack on Pe3 ? For that purpose you wouldn't want to retreat your Nd5 to d7. Opening the f-file or the a7-g1 diagonal ? Well, you have Re8-Bf8, not Rf8-Bb6. I see no reason for White to be afraid of f5-f4.
> 5 votes

# Answer
White can play d4! And in the line you gave with Ne4, the idea of preparing g4 is not the only plan. The knight can head to c5 himself.
> 0 votes

# Answer
This is not NN-NN, but Fischer-Andersson from 1970. Fischer played Kg1 here. The position is complex, but white definitely has the afdvantage due to his better/more compact pawn structure, although the pawns are unadvanced. I guess Fischer chose the best plan, however, in general, the Nimzovich-Larsen Attack, starting with 1.b3, is a bit dubious. In above game, Andersson played 3...Nf6, which is inaccurate, black should have continued with 3...g6 and then Bg7 instead, to neutralise the b2 bishop. After played Nf6 and Be7, the white bishop on b2 already targets the knight on f6 and the g7 shelter square. In case the black bishop had been developed on g7, all those threats would not have existed. Another very salient feature of above-posted position is that white has 2 central pawns, on e and d files, while black only 1, on the e file. Central pawns are very valuable, so the d3 white pawn is very strong, although unadvanced. Andersson later made a positional blunder with d7-d5, and Fischer captured cd5, but that was theory at that time and maybe still is. Top GMs made an awful lot of positional mistakes at those times...
> 0 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Is this endgame winnable for white? (Knight vs two connected passed queenside pawns)
I would like to know if this endgame is winnable for white. Black to play.

Any help would be greatly appreciated :)

# Answer
## EDITED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT MADE BY MEMBER *DagOskarMadsen*:

Endgame remains a draw, but there was a mistake in my analysis-I hereby thank member *DagOskarMadsen* for pointing it out. I have updated my answer with the proper drawing move, and have left the bad variation as a sideline and marked it with `??` so it can be noticed more easily. I have also more thoroughly analyzed other sidelines which can be seen in my updated comments-some of the variations are highly instructive. I again apologize to viewers of this post for my mistake.

## FINAL EDIT:

I just had a hunch that Black can make a draw based on his strong king-so I had to try finding a solution again. I will post my findings in the section with variations. Also, I will leave the old variations so previous comments will not become useless.

## EDIT:

Edited analysis and the final conclusion in response to member's *DagOskarMadsen* comment.

---

In endgames raw calculation strength comes secondary-the most important skill is to see "the big picture" and your first task is to make **a long term** plan of action. To do that you must analyze the position thoroughly. Only after you have made a plan, you can **verify its correctness** with raw calculation of lines. So let us start analyzing the position above:

The most obvious characteristic is that White has a knight for a two pawns. **However**, that knight is **so badly positioned**. It blocks Blacks pawns, but it is a **weak knight** rather than good one. Why? What is the difference between this knight and a good one? A good knight can block the pawns **and support the execution of the overall plan**-this knight can not do that since Black's pawns will queen if he leaves them unchecked. Whites king is **weaker** than Black one. Whites `g5` pawn has achieved **maximum efficiency**-tying down the entire Blacks king side, but `e3+f2` pawns are weak and are **restrained by one Black pawn**.

As for Black, he has achieved **maximum efficiency** on the queen side, he can not advance further since he has no entry points. His `e4` pawn has achieved **maximum efficiency** as mentioned before ( this pawn also **takes away `d3` square from the White king** which is important for Black's defense-it **reduces** Whites options for *zugzwang*, **disables** White king from penetrating to the king side, and **disables** White from **reorganizing** `e` and `f` pawns for proper defense ). Black pawns on `a4` and `b3` **tie down to defense both king and knight** and have achieved **maximum efficiency** at this moment.

## *Black's plan:*

**Black has advantage** on the queen side, but can **not** capitalize on it. In this situation it is usual to **trade this advantage for the new one**-Black will trade queen side advantage ( `a` and `b` pawns ) for the initiative on the king side.

## *White's plan:*

**White needs to improve his knight's position in order to win**. Knight should **stop Black's counter-play** by **cooperating with his pawns**, allowing king to take all of the Black's pawns. Ideally, White will block **the entire** position and use *zugzwang* to take Black's pawns one by one.

## *The "Big Picture":*

White will need to remove black `a` and `b` pawns in order to be able to free the knight to execute the above plan. To do that White will **lose 4 tempos**-he will need to play `Kb4+Kxa4+Kb3+Kxb2` since Black will surely play `b2!` as soon as he loses `a` pawn. Why? Because if he does not, White will lose only one move to take the `b` pawn by playing `Kxb3` but after `b2!` he will need two moves to do that-`Kb3` and `Kxb2`. **In this position every tempo counts since both sides race to reach the king side first**. We also know that **it is Black's turn to move** so this **adds another tempo**. With **5 tempos ahead**, **a stronger king**, **pawn weaknesses** and **holes** on the light squares-**especially one on `f5`**-we can safely evaluate that **Black will be able to fulfill his plan**\- but whether White will have time to improve knight's position and to win the game requires **precise calculation and a strong endgame technique**.

## *The calculation:*

Now is the time to try and verify our conclusions-here are the variations:

```
[FEN "8/5p1p/6p1/2k3P1/p3p3/1pK1P2P/5P2/1N6 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kd5 2.Kb4 Ke5 3.Kxa4 b2! 4.Kb3 ( 4.Nd2 Kf5 5.Kb3 b1=Q+! 6.Nxb1 Kxg5 7.Nd2 Kh4! 8.Nxe4 f5! 9.Nd2 Kxh3 10.Kc4! Kg2 11.f3 (11.f4 h5! 12.Kd3 Kf2! 13.e4 fxe4+ 14.Nxe4+ ( 14.Kxe4 h4 15.Nf3 h3 16.f5! gxf5+ 17.Kf4!! Kg2 18.Ke3!= ) Kf3 15.Nf6! Kxf4 16.Nxh5+!= ) h5! 12.e4 fxe4 13.fxe4 h4= ) Kf5 5.Kxb2 Kxg5 6.Nd2 Kh4! 7.Nxe4 f5! 8.Nf6 ( 8.Nd2 Kxh3 9.f3 ( 9.Kc3 h5 10.f3 h4 11.e4 fxe4 12.fxe4= ) ( 9.Nc4 Kg2 10.Kc3 Kxf2 11.Kd4 h5 12.e4 fxe4 13.Kxe4= ) 9...g5!! ( 9...Kg3?? 10.Kc3 h5 11.e4 fxe4 12.fxe4 +-) 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 Kg4= ) h5 9.Nd5 ( 9.f3 Kg3 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 Kf4 12.Kc2 Ke5 13.Nd7+ Kxe4= ) Kxh3 10.Nf4+ Kg4 11.Nxg6 Kf3 12.Kc2 Kxf2 13.Kd3 Kf3=

```

`14.Kf3` is **the only move** that draws.

The point is that in all variations Black is able to create sufficient counter-play **with the h-pawn** which results in White being forced to give up knight for him ending in a drawn pawn end game or Black simply manages to exchange all pawns.

All the positions were checked with tablebase from this site, so when I put =, it means that I have consulted the **tablebases** as well. I also fully stand behind my evaluations, so if anybody has a question or a comment feel free to ask/comment-I will respond as soon as possible.

The above sample is good enough to give the reader an idea how to save the game. The rest is omitted in order to preserve space.

/*****\*****\*****\**** BEGINNING OF THE OLD POST *****\*****\*****\******/

*This was the old calculation and is left for the sake of not making previous comments ( especially one made by the member **DagOskarMadsen** ) useless. Also, I believe that the variations are highly instructive.*

```
[FEN "8/5p1p/6p1/2k3P1/p3p3/1pK1P2P/5P2/1N6 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kd5 2.Kb4 Ke5 3.Kxa4 b2! 4.Kb3 ( 4.Nd2 Kf5 5.Kb3 b1=Q+! 6.Nxb1 Kxg5 7.Nd2 f5? +- 8.f3 exf3 9.Nxf3+ Kh5 10.Kc4 g5 11.Nd4!+- transposes ) Kf5 5.Kxb2 Kxg5 6.Nd2 f5? +- 7.f3 exf3 8.Nxf3+ Kh5 9.Kc3 g5! 10.Nd4!+- Kg6 (10...g4 11.hxg4+ fxg4 ( 11...Kxg4 12.Kd3+- ) 12.e4+- )( 10...f4 11.exf4 gxf4 12.Nf3+- ) 11.Kc4 Kf6 ( 11...g4 12.hxg4 fxg4 13.e4 Kg5 ( 13...g3 14.Kd5 g2 ( 14...h5 15.Nf5! g2 16.Nh4+) 15.Nf3+- ) 14.e5 g3 15.Kd5 g2 ( 15...Kf4 16.Ne2+! Kg4 17.Nxg3+- ) 16.Ne2!+- ) 12.Kd5 h5 13.Kd6! g4 ( 13...h4 14.Nf3 g4 15.hxg4 fxg4 16.Nxh4 Kg5 17.Ng2! Kf5 18.Kd5 g3 19.e4+ Kg4 20.Kd4! Kf3 21.Ne3+- ) 14.h4!

```

with decisive *zugzwang*.

There is not enough space to show all winning moves **entirely** so I have stopped my analysis **as soon as position arising can be solved with tablebases**. Hopefully you will understand.

/*****\*****\******* END OF OLD POST *****\*****\*****\*****\*****\*******/

## CONCLUSION:

> Is this endgame winnable for whites?

No, it is winnable for White.

Again, I apologize for giving you false information, but I believe that the end game is **highly instructive** and just could not leave it without **thorough** analysis.

Hopefully this answer will help you to learn something new-**I know I certainly did!**

Best regards.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Here's a partial answer explaining why Black should abandon his queenside pawns.

Black has no moves on the kingside, so white can take the a and b pawns by using zugzwang: If Black tries to keep his ab-pawns, here's what might happen:

1...Kb5 2.Na3+ Ka5 3.Kc4 Kb6 4.Kb4 and white takes the pawns or 3...b2 4.Kc3 and 5.Kxb2

If black starts with anything other than 1...Kb5, White has to watch out for the following idea:

1...Kc6 2.Kb4 Kd5 3.Kxa4 Kc4 and now White is suddenly in trouble. (This might be a win for White after all, but these complications are not necessary)

However, after 1...Kc6 2.Kb4 Kd5, White can just play 3.Na3 again and the Black king is blocked on the queenside.

So whatever Black plays now, he's only idea later will be to go to the kingside and start taking White's pawns. And it makes sense to say that that idea should be employed as quickly as possible, starting with 1...Kd5 and 2...Ke5. I assume White has a win even if he loses the gh-pawns but I wouldn't trust it without further calculation.
> 2 votes

# Answer
That endgame is winning for white, all white has to do is get rid of the pawns a4,b3 and try to preserve at least one pawn on the kingside and make it a passed pawn, the knight plays an important role by cutting all black ideas of promoting any pawns

1. Kd5 2. Kb4 Ke5 3. Kxa4 Kf5 4. Kxb3 Kxg5 5. Nd2 f5 6. f3 exf3 7. Nxf3+ Kh5
2. Kc4 g5 9. Kd5 g4 10. hxg4+ fxg4 11. Ng1 Kg6 12. e4 Kf7 13. e5 Ke7 14. Ne2 h5
3. Ng3 Kf7 16. Nxh5 Kg6 17. Ng3 Kg5 18. e6 *

You should aim for something like this
> 0 votes

# Answer
Yes. Na3 wins this for white. Black's king is forced back, white's king advances, captures the a4 pawn, and the writing is on the wall for black.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The answer would depend on the side to move. If it is white's turn, white wins with Nd2. If it is black's turn, it is a draw, the black king picks up the loose g5 and h3 pawns and then the remaining material in insufficient for a win. It is very dangerous to decide on games outcomes without knowing the side to move. There are positions in which, depending on the side to move, each player can deliver his opponent mate.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, knights, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: In engines vs engine game, both think "optimistically": that they are in better shape than what their opponent thinks the evaluation score is
I observed in many Tcec games of season 10 (and possibly repeats trough seasons) that white evaluation score of a position is always greater (not in terms of absolute value, but in terms of the "\>" math relation) than what their oponent thinks.

Now, the engines don't both evaluate the same position, they evaluate only their own moves, so to compare, I'm comparing with the previous and following move, in average.

You can see for yourself that in the Tcec link at the beginning, down there is the "Evaluation" graph. And the white "curve" is over the black in most game most of the time.

What causes this phenomena?

Is that after making a move the position is improved for our side and the evaluation changes accordingly?

I don't think, evaluation shouldn't depend so much on side to move. Is that a engine always do the things he likes, which the opponent maybe likes but maybe not and thus differing in the evaluation?

# Answer
> 1 votes
It doesn't really matter what the absolute scores are, they really only serve to compare moves internally so only their relative values matter.

With one exception: positions that are evaluated at a draw get 0.0 by all these engines.

So this "optimism" factor is tuned to create a difference between a position that is merely equal and one that is a draw; if it's set to +0.1 for an equal position, then a position must be worse than -0.1 before taking a draw becomes preferable.

The usual name for this is the "contempt" setting. The current TCEC Rules say that the engine's default setting is used, so it can be set by the programmers before the tournament, and updated versions of the program can be entered for later stages of the tournament.

I think that in stage 1, an engine that has too many draws won't qualify for stage 2, so I'd expect some slightly higher than normal contempt, and this effect should be clearly lower in later rounds. But I'm a complete layman and this may be wrong.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Is that a engine always do the things he likes, wich the oponent maybe likes but maybe not and thus differing in the evaluation?

Yes, if you replace "like" with "judge as the only correct move".

First, "Optimism" goes in both ways: If White thinks that it stands better than Black thinks it does, then Black also thinks that it stands better than White thinks it does.

They may be a half-move away from each other in their evaluation, but modern engines are blunder-proof enough that their evaluation score usually doesn't just wildly jump around after each new move, so you can usually safely compare the average between White's evaluation of move N-1 and the one of move N+1 with Black's evaluation of move N.

The case that both sides are "optimistic" occurs much more often than the case that they are both "pessimistic" because usually, both sides employ the Minimax-Algorithm in one way or the other. In theory, if one side plays perfectly, the evaluation score will **never** actually improve for it on its own move: "Perfectly" entails that they will not be "surprised" to find a better move. If one exists, it will already be incorporated in the current evaluation and thus not change it. The only way that this evaluation score changes if the opponent makes a mistake.

Modern engines don't play perfectly (yet), but the idea is the same: If one engine plays a move, there are only two ways the other engine will judge it: It either agrees that this was the correct move (the difference between their evaluation scores stays the same), or it will disagree because it thinks there was a better move *that it used as the score for the position until now* (the difference between the scores will increase in the "optimistic" direction). The third case that it disagrees "the other way round" (and the difference increases in the "pessimistic" direction) never happens, as that would mean that it until now intentionally used a score of a move that it judged non-optimal.

Engines never "like" the opponent's moves - they only judge whether or not they were mistakes. And as soon as both engines disagree over that, both will begin to think that the other has taken a path that is worse for them, causing what you call "optimism".

What does indeed happen is reevaluation based on the now deeper search horizon, and that blurries the effect a bit again (maybe the engine to move saw something which the other couldn't see yet on its previous move, so the other actually does have to decrease its own score). But as said, most modern engines are able to avoid large jumps in their evaluation (because they realize that they missed something) for the most part, so the "optimism effect" is more influential.

# Answer
> -1 votes
This is normal because White has the first move advantage. Most standard openings would give very slight advantage for White due to space advantage and better pieces.

In fact, Stockfish would give you a slight advantage for White in the initial position. Try it yourself!

Please take a look:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move\_advantage\_in\_chess

White has better winning statistics - both human chess and computer chess.

# Answer
> -3 votes
That is simply not true. In a lot of positions, black is 'more optimistic' than white. Those are just 2 separate evaluating entities with their particular evaluation terms and understanding of the position. I guess you simply happened to browse games, where white was more optimistic.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---