# Question
Title: Four player chess (team): is there some opening theory written somewhere?
I am an active player on four player team chess on chess.com (my Elo is currently 2095). I am planning to write something about theory of opening of this chess variant. Question is, do you know if something like this already exists ? I find nothing on the internet. Moreover, I am also a programmer and I have this project to code a CPU for this kind of chess, do you know if somebody has already coded one ? I think it will be very difficult to write one (essentially for the CPU to evaluate the position) so that's why I am looking for pre-existing code.

# Answer
I doubt there is any existing theory for four player chess, because it is not widely played or analyzed. I'm not sure if there even exists any serious investigation of the overall strategy or tactics of this variant, as it is mostly a novelty game played casually. It's pointless to analyze openings when even the basic strategies of a game are largely unknown.

I also suspect that the game itself is not really well suited to opening analysis in general, due to the increased size of the board and number of pieces. This also makes writing an engine significantly more difficult.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, chess-variants, programming, team
---


# Question
Title: Why would trading this bad bishop be a bad move?
When running a game I played through the analysis engines, I get that my 12th move, `12.Ba3`, was an inaccuracy (-0.3 -\> -1.3).

Since my center pawns are on dark squares, I assumed my dark bishop was a bad bishop and trading it by black's dark bishop, that can also pin my knight on c3, would be a good idea.

What was wrong with this move? Is a tactical error or a strategic one, and why?

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Let's Play!"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.05.15"]
[White "me"]
[Black "other"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C02"]
[WhiteElo "1472"]
[BlackElo "1492"]
[TimeControl "1/604800"]
[EndDate "2018.06.11"]
[CurrentPosition "r1b1kb1r/3q1pp1/ppn1p2p/3pPn2/P2P4/BPN2N2/5PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 2 12"]

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7 { C02: French Defense: Advance, Paulsen Attack, 5...Nge7 } 6.Bg5 Qd7 { (-0.51 → +0.17) Inaccuracy. A better move was 6... h6. } ( 6...h6 7.Bd2 7...Qb6 8.Qb3 8...Qxb3 9.axb3 9...cxd4 10.cxd4 10...Nf5 11.Ra4 ) 7.b3 h6 8.Bc1 cxd4 9.cxd4 b6 10.Nc3 a6 11.a4 Nf5 12.Ba3 { (-0.11 → -0.95) Inaccuracy. A better move was 12. Be2. } ( 12.Be2 12...Bb4 13.Bb2 13...O-O 14.O-O 14...Bb7 15.Rc1 15...Rfc8 16.Na2 16...Be7 ) 12...Nb4 { (-1.00 → +1.62) Blunder. The best move was 12... Bxa3. } ( 12...Bxa3 13.Rxa3 13...Qe7 14.b4 14...Nh4 15.Nxh4 15...Qxh4 16.a5 16...Qxd4 17.Qxd4 ) 13.g4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 h5 { (+1.02 → +2.10) Inaccuracy. A better move was 14... Qc7. } ( 14...Qc7 15.Nce2 15...Qxe5 16.Bg2 16...Bc5 17.Qd2 17...Qd6 18.f4 18...a5 19.O-O ) 15.gxh5 { (+2.81 → +0.58) Blunder. The best move was 15. Ncb5. } ( 15.Ncb5 15...Qd8 16.Qd2 16...axb5 17.Bxb4 17...bxa4 18.Rxa4 18...Rxa4 19.bxa4 19...Bd7 ) 15...Bb7 { (+0.72 → +2.09) Inaccuracy. A better move was 15... Qc7. } ( 15...Qc7 16.Nce2 16...Qxe5 17.Bg2 17...a5 18.O-O 18...Ba6 19.Ng3 19...Bxf1 20.Bxf1 ) 16.Na2 Nxa2 17.Rxa2 Bxa3 18.Rxa3 Rc8 19.Ra1 { (+2.29 → +1.44) Inaccuracy. A better move was 19. b4. } ( 19.b4 19...Qe7 20.Qd2 20...Rxh5 21.f4 21...Qh4+ 22.Kd1 22...Kf8 23.Be2 23...Rh8 ) 19...Qe7 { (+1.36 → +2.49) Inaccuracy. A better move was 19... Qc7. } ( 19...Qc7 20.Be2 20...Qxe5 21.O-O 21...Qf4 22.Bg4 22...O-O 23.a5 23...bxa5 24.Rxa5 ) 20.Rg1 { (+2.56 → +1.50) Inaccuracy. A better move was 20. Be2. } ( 20.Be2 20...Qc7 21.Qd2 21...Qxe5 22.O-O 22...Qf6 23.f4 23...O-O 24.Qb4 24...Qd8 )  1-0

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
**Tactics.**

Trading dark-squared bishops is useful in the long run, but a4-Ba3 is a bit too slow to exchange the Bf8 that hasn't moved yet; Also you weakened the *dark* square b4 in the process. Black can take advantage of the misplaced Ra3 to attack the weak pawn on d4.

After 12...Bxa3 13.Rxa3 Qe7! {eyeing both a3 and h4}, any rook retreat or protection would allow 14...Qb4, when you cannot parry the simultaneous attacks on Nc3 and Pd4.

14.b4!? is slightly more stubborn but also lose a pawn to either 14...Nxb4 or 14...Nh4.

The game continuation, 12..Nb4??, on the other hand, deprived Black's Nf5 of any retreat square that wouldn't block the Bb8-Nb4 connection. Your smart retort, 13.g4!, won a piece.

By the way, earlier at move 10 you had a possibility to ensure the bishop trade without any weakening: 10.Ba3!? and trade on f8 once the Ne7 moves.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, bishops, bad-bishop
---


title: Where did I go wrong? QGD loss as black

text:
# Question
Title: Where did I go wrong? QGD loss as black
```
[fen ""]
[Date "6/8/2018"]
[White "Anonymous"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2146"]
[BlackElo "1874"]
[Opening "Semi-Slav Defense"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Qc2 h6 8. Bf4 O-O 9. e3 Nbd7 10. Bd3 Re8 11. O-O Nf8 12. a3 Ne6 13. Bg3 Bd7 14. Ne5 Bf8 15. Bh4 Be7 16. Bg3 Nf8 17. b4 a6 18. Na4 Nh5 19. Rab1 Nxg3 20. hxg3 Bf6 21. Nf3 Ne6 22. Nc5 Qc7 23. Rfc1 Ng5 24. a4 Nxf3+ 25. gxf3 g6 26. b5 axb5 27. axb5 Rab8 28. Nxd7 Qxd7 29. bxc6 bxc6 30. Rxb8 Rxb8 31. Qxc6 Qxc6 32. Rxc6 Be7 33. Rc7 Kf8 34. Ba6 Rb1+ 35. Kg2 Bd6 36. Rb7 Ra1 37. Bb5 Rc1 38. Rd7 Rb1 39. Bc6 Be7 40. Bxd5 Rb6 41. Ra7 h5 42. Ba2 f5 43. Bc4 Rc6 44. Bd5 Rd6 45. Ba2 h4 46. gxh4 Bxh4 47. Bc4 Rc6 48. Rf7+ Ke8 49. Rh7 Rxc4 50. Rxh4 Ke7 51. Rh7+ Ke6 52. Rb7 Rc6 53. Rb5 Rd6 54. Kg3 g5 55. Rb1 Kf6 56. Rb5 Ke6 57. f4 g4 58. Re5+ Kf6 59. f3 gxf3 60. Kxf3 Ra6 61. Ke2 Ra2+ 62. Kd3 Ra4 63. d5 Ra6 64. Kc4 Rd6 65. Kc5 Ra6 66. Re6+ Rxe6 67. dxe6 Kxe6 68. Kc6 1-0

```

My rating: 1874

My opponent's rating: 2149

Feel free to address these points or any other important bits of analysis throughout the game:

* I've saw some recommendations after the game of 6...h6 7.Bh4 Bf5.
* Perhaps I should play 7...O-O and Nbd7 straight away without 7...h6?
* 12...Ne6?! seems like it gave me some problems. Nxf7 followed by Bg6 can now be considered. What else should I be doing? Perhaps 12...a5 was better? How about 12...Bd6?
* Is 14...Bf8 a waste? I wanted to open the e-file and was struggling to find a productive move.
* 16...Nf8: I felt that my knight was misplaced due to the concerns with white taking on f7.
* Perhaps instead of 17...a6, I should be advancing on the kingside as quick as possible. Is this good thinking?
* Maybe 21...h5 instead of putting the knight back on e6?
* Was 27...Bc8 more stubborn? I think white could still seize control of the a-file.
* After move 32, I felt that I was lost. The d5-pawn can't be held onto forever. Maybe an opposite colored bishops ending with 2 extra pawns would've been a bit more unclear than the rook ending? But I felt it was still quite winning for white.

Thanks!

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'll go through the game and address your points.

* In the opening, you should have played 6...Bf5 (or 6...h6 then 7...Bf5, like you said). The reason for this is that in the Exchange QGD, your light-squared bishop is bad, while White's light-squared bishop is good. If White loses his light-squared bishop, playing the thematic b5 push of the minority attack becomes difficult. Back to the point: by developing your bishop to f5, White cannot bring his bishop to d3, or else you do the favorable exchange.
* 7...h6 is a very subtle mistake, for a few reasons. First, in the exchange QGD White would *prefer* to have his bishop on f4, not g5. The reason he doesn't play 6.Bf4 immediately is that you can answer with 6...Bd6! in one go. By playing 7...h6, you give White a "second chance" to play Bf4, and now you have to waste another move to counter with ...Bd6. The second reason 7...h6 is a mistake is that you can't play ...Ng6 in the middlegame, since the knight is not supported enough on g6 and White can just played Bxg6. In the Exchange QGD, playing ...Ng6 is *very important*. It's far better than ...Ne6, since it blocks White's Qc2+Bd3 battery, and also attacks White's dark-squared bishop on h4 or f4.
* 12...Ne6 is actually fine, given your options. After 13.Bd3, you should have played 13...g6, 14...Ng7, 15...Bf5. This is an important idea that lets you exchange light-squared bishops. Remember it, if you are only able to develop your f8-knight to e6 (normally, prefer the g6-square for the knight).
* 14...Bf8 is normally a good idea, but because White has 15.Bh4 it's not so good here. A better plan would be playing 14...Rc8 and 15...c5. This undermines the e5-knight's support from the d4-pawn, and exploits the White queen's position on c2.
* I don't think 16...Nf8 is that bad a move, given that you wanted to play ...Nh5. Playing ...Nh5 immediately would have dropped the knight due to Nxf7 Kxf7 Bg6+.
* 17...a6 was absolutely fine. By playing ...a6, you force White to waste at least a tempo playing a4 (since without this move he can't play b5 now, due to ...a6). Also, if White wants to play a4 then he must protect the b4-pawn, or else you'll play ...Bxb4. So ...a6 really ends up forcing White to waste about two tempi countering it.
* I like 21...h5! After playing ...h4 and exchanging everything, you end up with a queen on h4. Then, you can do a Rook lift with ...Re6 + ...Rh6, building a battery on the h-file. Another idea is even playing 21...g5!? followed by ...g4, forcing White's knight to move away, and then ...h5 and ...h4. The problem is that White can play 22.Bf5, but you can still play 22...g4 with an interesting game.
* I don't like 27...Bc8 because it breaks the coordination of your Rooks. After 28.bxc6 bxc6 29.Ra1, you're facing a difficult defence. Backing up two moves, I think 25...Re7 is strong, simply protecting the d7-bishop. After 26.b5 cxb5! 27.axb5 Bxb5 28.Bxb5 axb5 29.Rxb5, your e7-rook and queen protect the b7-pawn (which is passed, to boot). Note that on 27.Nxd7 Qxd7 28.axb5, you can play 28...a5! with a dangerous passed a-pawn. This trick of side-stepping White's b5-push with ...a5 is how Karpov once tricked Korchnoi in a game.
* You're right, the endgame was lost. The d5-pawn was too weak to be held on to, and then White's just up two pawns. An opposite-coloured bishop ending without rooks wouldn't have helped much. Opposite-coloured bishops are only good against two extra pawns if you can set up a blockade on the colour complex of your bishops. With all White's pawns so close together, they form a veritable armada that can keep control over the dark squares.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I completely agrees with most of Inertial Ignorance, however with the last three points I have to disagree.

Opening the h-file should only help white. If you allow a gxh4 Bxh4, white wouldn't trade the minor pieces, but chase the bishop away with g3, and continue with Kg2, Rh1, Rh2, and RBh1. With all this power on the h-file, your king will fee lots of pressure. There is no escape to the queen side, as those files will be opened easily.

Bc8 does disorganize you pieces, but it allows the your opponent's knight to shield your weakness. This isn't a long-term solution. However, instead of 25...Re7, I would suggest Rec8. This gives more support to your weak c6-square and allows for Be8 allowing the bishop to support two weaknesses.

Even with a two pawn advantage, the ending can still be drawn. Connected pawns on the 5th rank can be stopped. Pawns one file apart can also be stopped. The further seperated, the further advanced, and the more pawns there are the harder it is to draw the game. However, you have the chance to create an outside passed pawn, and this restricts white's options and white has doubled pawns, so you had a good chance to draw.

Edit: Allowing an engine to analyse 37...Rb1, which I was going to suggest, the computer gives e4 as the best repy. This comfirms that the double pawns do hinder white and that the extra pawn gained by Bc6 and (eventually) Bxd5 doesn't give white any more winning chances. The move e4 was given the evaluation of +0.75 while Bc6 was the fifth choice with an evaluation of +0.66. However, computers are bad at endgames--or they were.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can look up the opening mistakes with a database and some players have already made comments here regarding them. Although I will comment if you play a quick Bf5 you always need to be prepared for Qb3 as the most complex response, if you can play qb6 then you are usually okay, but you should still calculate that out.

In my opinion 16.. Nf8 was a significant mistake, and before that you were doing fine. If you look at the board after 16.. Nf8, it's the same position as what you had on move 12 except it's his move and his knight has moved forward to e5 and his bishop to relative safety on g3, whereas you moved your bishop to d7 which is not a significant improvement. After this move he is 2 tempi up, which is a huge strategic deficit for you. This whole bg3-h4 nonsense is him playing "chicken" with you. He is just seeing if he can get you to make a weakening move to avoid the draw. As the lower rated player you need to call him on his bluff and have him deviate away from the 3 move repetition, not you. As a rule only shy away from these kind of repetitions if you have an advantage or your opponent is much lower rated than you. Certainly don't move your knights forward and backwards without accomplishing anything. Bf8, g6, Ng7 Bf5 seemed like a decent game plan, it would have been a much better try. In that vein, not playing Bd7 seems like a better try as well since that just gets your bishop to f5 a move slower.

Luckily your opponent took big pressure off you playing Na4 instead of aiming for faster a4-b5 minority attack stuff, letting you back into the game.

Something like 23... Rad8 was better as that rook should be centralized and your bishop can retreat to c8 if needed without separating your rooks. Rac8 is also a conceivable alternative, trying to anticipate situations involving cxb5. His knight on f3 wasn't doing much, so there wasn't a reason to hunt it down and force a trade. Instead your knight was better on e6 to potentially take c5 if he ever started pushing his queenside pawns and the opportunity presented itself after say cxb5. Since the knight wasn't there he just steamrolled you with the queenside pawn attack.

The position is very bad after you lost c6, borderline lost, and you really were lost after losing d5. Kudos for trying to fight for an opposite color bishop draw though.

Main lessons: 1) protect your precious tempi, don't waste them frivolously. They are game changing. 2) Gain greater awareness of middle game strategies in the qgd. The a4-b5 push is very common and you should learn the common ways black counteracts it ( allowing bxc6 and making sure it's possible to play Bxc6 in response, counter play on the kingside, or even c5 in a few cases I think, and maybe 1 more that I'm not remembering since qgd is not something I normally play). 3) learn more piece maneuvers in the Qgd like Nd7-re8-nf8-ne6-g6-ng7-bf5 among many others. That way you'll see some things you can do without wasting tempos. 4) Trading is good when your position is cramped but make sure you trade with your opponents useful pieces. Ng4-xf3 traded a piece that was doing work against his qside plans with a knight of his that wasn't involved in the main fight.

Hope this didn't come across as harsh, gl in your future chess endeavors.

# Answer
> 0 votes
First, if you understand the ideas of this variation you will struggle less with your first 6 bullet points. This line of the QGD has been played countless times and there are a ton of GMs games you can look over to get a sense of things. White is playing a "minority attack" on the queen-side. The idea is to trade pawns there and leave you with a weak pawn that he can pile up on and win.
There are various ways Black tries to counter that. You can suffer patiently and try to hold the position. For example on move 23 you could have played 23...Nxc5 with the idea of Rad8 and Bc8. But the fun way is for black to seek counterplay on the kingside, sometimes even sacrificing a Rook in e3! I urge you to look over GM's games.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What is Alpha Zero's Play Style? (Including its Openings and its Middlegame)
If you want to read about its opening strategy, it is down below the link. If you want to read about its middlegame strategy or basic play style, it is at the top

I want to know how I can play more like Alpha Zero. I think if we can see the main ideas that Alpha Zero uses (like fianchettoing his bishop) and put them into our own games, we could understand chess better and play better overall. Listed below are some few styles I learned from Alpha Zero, and below that are questions to spark your imagination about the different styles to look for in Alpha Zero's plays.

1. It tries to immobilize pieces. Particularly the light square bishop is most of its games but it can be implemented on other pieces too.
2. It prefers position over the material. (Unlike other chess engines, Alpha Zero is fine sacrificing a material to get an advantage, such as sacrificing a pawn to immobilize a light-squared bishop.
3. It prefers fianchettoing his light-squared bishop and castling kingside. This could be because most of the games were against The Queen's Indian Defence with Stockfish, but I still think it prefers this idea.

Here are some questions to spark your imagination! Would you describe Alpha Zero plays positionally of aggressively or anything in between? Does Alpha Zero prefer bishops or knights more? Does Alpha Zero use his f-pawn to attack the center or does it reject this idea? Does Alpha Zero Move his Queen to c2 often? I've seen it played in some of its games and I don't know the purpose why?

I also suggest you look at this link: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/alpha-zero-vs-alpha-zero-10-lesser-known-alpha-zero-lines

This link shows the openings that Alpha Zero plays if it has the black and white pieces. You can see that it doesn't barge into the center. One theory, for this reason, is that it plays flexible moves like c4 that attacks the center and waits for his opponents to barge into the center so it could pressure the center. Since white already attacks the center, the black pieces which are now in the center will have a lot of tension and fall. Also, it is a more flexible move and the formation in which to attack the center could be changed by what your opponent plays. (we still don't know what is the best way to attack the center once we found our opponents reply, we need help on that. ) In this time, it seems like white is trying to get kingside safety. There are still much more openings to explore (d4 and e4) and see the main ideas for the white and black side.

Anyway, my point is that we got a lot to learn from this information and it is going to take a long while for me to sort this out. For the chess community, let's collaborate and learn from this beast that is also known as Alpha Zero.

# Answer
> I want to know how I can play more like Alpha Zero. I think if we can see the main ideas that Alpha Zero uses (like fianchettoing his bishop) and put them into our own games, we could understand chess better and play better overall.

I don't think AlphaZero is any useful for teaching us chess. While I understand your enthusiasm, you learn more from your local master than a supercomputer.

> Here are some questions to spark your imagination! Would you describe Alpha Zero plays positionally of aggressively or anything in between? Does Alpha Zero prefer bishops or knights more? Does Alpha Zero use his f-pawn to attack the center or does it reject this idea? Does Alpha Zero Move his Queen to c2 often? I've seen it played in some of its games and I don't know the purpose why?

There is absolutely no way to infer from just 10 public games, but generally all modern engines prefer bishop a little better.

**What we actually learn:**

We haven't improved our chess playing strength from AlphaZero. What we learn is - machine learning works well with chess engine programming. Leela is a good example.

I've voted to close the question for too broad. If you can pinpoint your question to something more answerable, I'll modify my answer.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, strategy, alphazero
---


title: What is %eval syntax in PGN

text:
# Question
Title: What is %eval syntax in PGN
I've seen two formats of `[%eval]` syntax in PGN:

* `[%eval 250,5]` meaning white is +2.5 pawn up at depth 5
* `[%eval +0.25]` means white is 0.25 pawn up

Is any of those mentioned by some PGN standard? Which one is more popular?

# Answer
The PGN standard is found here; it does not mention the `[%eval]` syntax at all. It specifies comments starting with `[` and ending with `]` but no format for what's inside; that means that program are free to export and import these comments the way they want, without necessarily being compatible.

The only other places where evaluation is mentioned in standard, §13.8 and especially §16.2.5.6, centipawns are used (which would favor the first option):

> ### 16.2.5.6: Opcode "ce": centipawn evaluation
>
> The opcode "ce" indicates the evaluation of the indicated position in centipawn units. It takes a single operand, an optionally signed integer that gives an evaluation of the position from the viewpoint of the active player; i.e., the player with the move.

It does not mention the ply depth at all.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, pgn
---


title: Move my king to check

text:
# Question
Title: Move my king to check
My rook was targeting the opponent's king but her knight was in between I moved my knight to the check place checked by same knight Can I move my king to that place

# Answer
> 2 votes
> My rook was targeting the opponent's king but her knight was in between

This is what is called an (absolute) pin in chess, i.e. the knight is pinned by the rook and cannot move, because it would put the king in check (which is not allowed).

> I moved my knight to the check place checked by same knight

The way I understand it, what you mean is something like: *I moved my knight to a square attacked by the pinned knight.* Of course this is perfectly legal as there are no restrictions put on the movement of your knight.

> Can I move my king to that place

No, you cannot move your king to a square attacked by an enemy piece, even if the piece is pinned.

If you think of "winning in chess" as "who captures the enemy king first", all of this makes sense. Specifically, the pinned knight would move first to capture your king, just before you could capture her king (which is now under attack since the knight has moved).

If you search a bit on stackexchange you will find many questions regarding this problem, such as: this question.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


title: Why Qd1 is the best move?

text:
# Question
Title: Why Qd1 is the best move?
As per subject, why Qd1 is the best move and all other moves for queen like Qd2 and Qd3 are not? I understand that it’s important to cover d column but why 1 and not 2 or 3?

Also why Rd1 is not a good move?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Qd1 hits the bishop on d6 and the knight on h5. One of those will be won.

Btw, I think this a famous game between Larry Christiansen and Anatoly Karpov. Famous, of course for this early blunder. Here, you can see the whole game and maybe find out more about the players.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Qd1 wins a piece attacking both d6 and h5.

---
Tags: stockfish, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: English opening exchange-sacrifice compensation
Evaluation of exchange sacrifice: How good is White's compensation after the exchange sacrifice on move 19? Seems the position is about even to me but Black might have more issues to solve. I am thinking it is Whites best winning chance as opposed to having just liquidated the queen-side pawns.

```
[FEN ""]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 c5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d3 a6 9.h3 Rb8 10.a4 Ne8 11.Be3 Nd4 12.Rb1 Bd7 13.b4 Ne2 14.Nxe2 cxb4 15.Rxb4 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Qb1 Nc7 18.Rc1 Na6 19.Rb5 Bb5 20.axb5

```

# Answer
This exchange sacrifice would be good if you could coordonate your pieces in order to support the passed b-pawn. In this given position, however, it looks like you are one tempo short and the pawn will be a target: 20...Qa5 and then

21.Nd4 \[21.Nc3 is quite the same\] Bxd4 22.Bxd4 Rxb5 and Black should win.

21.b6 Nc5 22.Bxc5 dc5 23.b7 \[I see nothing else to hold on the pawn\] Qa7 \[or 23...e5 to prevent the opening of the g2-b7 diagonal\] 24.e5 Bxe5 and the big passer gives practical chances but Black is clearly for choice.

Probably White would have reached a much better version of the game with 18.Nd4!? instead of 18.Rc1.
> 2 votes

# Answer
That's not an easy question. At this point in the game the compensation must come in terms of concrete continuations. Simply relying on intuition is not enough. Ok, well, white has got the two bishops and the passed pawn. But are there objective plans to push forward? This has to be analyzed deeply to provide a deterministic answer. Otherwise it will be eyeballing only.

There are ideas of Nd4 aiming for c6. Idea of e5 push to immediately utilize the light-colored bishop. But as I said, one must come up with concrete follow-up after ...Nc7
> 0 votes

# Answer
I would say that the rook sac was correct. Retreating to b3 just allows bxa4, attacking the rook with tempo and creating a very strong passed pawn that has a lot of support. The fianchetto'd bishop on g7 even controls it's queening square. Giving up a rook for a bishop and pawn, and creating a passed pawn of their own is the best option for white.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: english-opening
---


title: What is the result? (Rules + puzzle)

text:
# Question
Title: What is the result? (Rules + puzzle)
\[EDITED to include followup - EDIT 2 to include definition of position\]

This is in part a genuine question on the FIDE Laws of Chess, and in part a small puzzle to solve.

Suppose that during a long time control tournament game under FIDE rules the endgame is reached. **Black tries to make a move to reach the following position, but the flag falls before he manages to press his clock.**

```
8/8/8/8/k7/8/1K6/q2N4 w - - 0 1

```

The arbiter is called. Naturally, the arbiter needs to know the details of exactly what happened in the last moments. The sequence of events is exactly as follows, no more and no less:

* White pressed her clock after moving, completing her last move.
* Black placed the queen on a1 and released it.
* Black's flag falls and white calls it.

**The arbiter rules that white wins. (This is my understanding.) Why?**

The main argument for giving a draw is that in the diagram, white can never checkmate black, so under 6.9 black might draw.

I disagree with this; I argue that under article 4.7, the actions black took were not enough to complete his move, so the diagram position was not reached and 6.9 doesn't apply. (Yes, I am saying that releasing the queen on a1 is not enough to be considered having made the move!)

---

## Edit 1 (light spoiler)

So the first part is fairly easy to figure out: to reach the diagram, black must have been trying to play ...a2-a1=Q. (The queen can't legally come from anywhere else.)

The scenario is therefore that black placed the queen on a1, and the flag fell before the pawn on a2 was removed. Now comes the part about applying the FIDE Laws. There are two arguments for a draw:

Annatar makes the argument that invoking 4.3, black has "moved" the queen onto the board, and so must promote to a queen. By 6.9 therefore black can claim a draw.

RemcoGerlich cites a different article, 4.4.4, to justify that when promoting, "the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion", so again black has finalised the choice of a queen and under 6.9 a draw can be claimed. (This was the other argument I had in mind when posting the question.)

My viewpoint is different. Looking at article 4.7.3, a promotion move is considered to have been made if "the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board". Black has not removed the pawn here, so the move has not been made.

Then looking at 6.9 in more detail, it says "the game is drawn if *the position* is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves". It refers to "the position", which is not defined as such in the Laws, but I would interpret as the board position plus information such as side to move and castling rights. Now, despite that black has "finalised" the promotion to queen (I don't dispute that), the move has not actually been made, so I argue that "the position" remains the one with a black pawn on a2 and no queen on the board. And from here there does exist a helpmate (...a1=N/B/R, etc.) so I would conclude that white wins.

So, to refine the question: **which interpretation is correct? And have there been precedents for similar situations?** (e.g. Article 4.3, touch-move, about to play the only legal move with the piece - mate - but flag drops before releasing it.)

tl;dr

* Argument for draw: Under 4.3/4.4.4 black has indicated intention to promote to queen. Then draw under 6.9 assuming black "obliged" to promote to queen in all legal sequences.
* Argument for white win: Under 4.7.3, the promotion was not made. Therefore under 6.9, "the position" means the one with a pawn still on a2. From this position black can underpromote for a helpmate, so white wins on time.
* Which is right?

---

## EDIT 2: Further clarification

In the comments, IA Petr Harasimovic has helped to further clarify the issue and narrow down exactly where my disagreement with a draw lies. (A draw seems to be the intuitive outcome.) I take issue in particular with the term "position" referenced in 6.9 - nowhere in the FIDE Laws is this term defined (strangely enough). So my working definition is:

> The location of units on the board, plus side-to-move, castling rights, e.p. and 50-move information - a purely abstract notion, and no clock information. And for me, a position is changed only when a complete move is made - i.e. in full accordance with article 4 \[and 3\], and without reference to article 6.

(Quoted from a response to Laska's answer.) I mention when I consider a position changed as a kludge fix to avoid illegal moves changing the position in nonsensical ways. (I should also mention that article 3 is a given?)

I feel that this might not be everyone's understanding of the term, and so to determine exactly what article 6.9 means I want to ask for clarification: **What is the definition of a "position"?**

I also want to apologise for the amount of text this question has engendered - seems like it's not exactly straightforward.

# Answer
> 7 votes
**There is still a pawn on a2, and it wasn't touched.**

The queen can only be on a1 due to a promotion, but you don't state the pawn was ever touched, and you say that nothing more than that happened.

Now the puzzle becomes extremely technical, and I don't think the FIDE laws are precise enough to decide. Of course we're talking about

> **6.9** Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Since the pawn is on a2 still, the move ...a1=Q *was not made*.

But is it still legal for black to make another move?

First, I am sure that *if this were still an ongoing game, black would not be allowed to make any other move anymore*. Namely,

> **4.6** The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
>
> \[...\]
>
> **4.6.2** removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.

and

> **4.4.4** promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalize when the piece has touched the square of promotion.

Because the queen touched the square, it is now a touched piece on the board, putting a piece on the board is a legal way to start a promotion, and the choice is finalized. So no other piece can be moved anymore and the choice stands (no solutions to this puzzle involving minor promotion, sorry).

What I am in doubt about is connecting this definition of legal move involving touched pieces to the one used in 6.9, to decide whether the game is lost or drawn. Rule 6.9 does not mention something like "the series of legal moves must start with a move by a touched piece, if applicable", or so.

Let's quote the Preface as well, my favourite part of the rules:

> The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

My judgment is that they *can* be interpreted to be the same meaning of "legal move", and that it is in the spirit of the laws to do interpret the rules like that here (with the queen on the board, arguing for a win based on a move other than ...a1=Q is unreasonable in my opinion). The alternative would be to give white a win based on a series of legal moves that black wouldn't be allowed to actually play, in my view that would be worse.

Therefore I say that the result is a **draw** as after ...a1=Q white has no series of legal moves to checkmate black.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Yes, I am saying that ***releasing the queen on a1*** **is not enough to be considered having made the move**!

4.7 explicitly states that:

> When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. **The move is considered to have been made in the case of**: (...) **promotion**, when the player's hand has ***released the new piece on the square of promotion*** and the pawn has been removed from the board.

Thus, the

> pawn

"cannot be moved to another square on this move".

Thus, the "possible series of legal moves." from 6.9 HAS to start with this move (any other move could not be considered legal, as it would conflict with 4.7) and the game is drawn.

---

Edit:

To further back up my opinion that Black HAS to "move" the queen, I invoke 4.3a:

> Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved

All requirements are met:

* Black touched the chessboard with a piece with the intention of moving (obviously)
* It's his own piece (it's a *black* queen)
* the touched piece can be moved (there is one legal way to move it)

So he still has to make a move involving the queen in some way (to make his first legal move in the possible move sequence). And there is only one option for that.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, the solution to the first part of the puzzle is

> that the position above can only be reached if Black's last (non-completed) move is a2-a1=Q+. Therefore, before this move there was a position in which White still has enough material to win (when both sides are cooperating); Black needs a minor promotion for that to work.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I will provide a different perspective on this problem than the other answers. This is meant to be a puzzle on the laws after all so here is a couple of alternative scenarios.

Since nowhere in the question you say that all preceding moves were legal the move `a2-a1Q` is not the only possible move. I can easily imagine moves like `Qc1-a1` or `Kb5-a4` resulting in the same position (although you say the Queen was put on `a1` so not the latter). If that was the case then the arbiter would rule to return the game to a position before the illegal move was made and the game would continue from there. They would also adjust the time on the clock as they deemed appropriate. Theoretically, though, white could lose the game for having made a second illegal move.

Or there might have had been a white piece on `a1` that was captured during the promotion in which case the promotion would be an illegal move. Then the move would be taken back and black would be required to make a move with his King. However, since they ran out of time and it was their fault (no reason for time compensation), the game would be declared lost on time for them since underpromotion would still be possible and white would have two pieces anyway.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I am not surprised that such an excellent loophole exists in the FIDE laws, or that Remellion was the one to find it.

To summarize: bPa2 was never removed, although the move could only end with that action. Moreover, the clock was never pushed. So by 6.2.1 the move was not complete. The key question is whether an illegal, unfinished move has any impact on position evaluation.

In a FIDE tournament, such a question is resolved by one respected person's opinion: the arbiter's. Different arbiters might in principle have different opinions in different games, but that does not detract from their legitimate authority.

But here in chess.stackexchange, we promote reason over opinion. And, when reason gives out, we admit that the question has no answer. Instead, I think this interesting novelty should be sent to the FIDE Rules Committee. The Laws are improving over time, and this may be of help and interest to them.

I do want to say why I (a problemist mainly focusing on retros) think it's more coherent to rule that White has lost. This is because it's an important principle, not properly articulated until it comes into question as here, that moves are atomic. Except in joke problems, a move either happens or it doesn't, and until it is complete, it never happened.

An arbiter in a tournament may choose to extrapolate what "must happen next" in the move, but breaking atomicity in this way creates more problems than it solves. Let me illustrate.

A subtle question is *why* the arbiter extrapolates. Is it because he wants to complete the move so that 6.9 can be applied at the beginning of White's move? Or is it because he applies 6.9 immediately, in the middle of Black's move? In either case, there is an unhappy implication:

```
8/8/8/8/8/2k6/p7/q1K5 w - - 0 1

```

If the arbiter is allowed to intelligently extrapolate to the end of the move before applying 6.9, why shouldn't the same apply to checkmate? Here the clock has fallen. But if the arbiter is allowed to extrapolate to the end of the move, then bPa2 will be removed, there will be checkmate, and under 6.2.1 there is no need for Black to hit the clock! So Black wins.

```
8/8/8/2p5/8/k1P5/p7/K7 w - - 0 1

```

Alternatively, if the arbiter can start evaluating under 6.9 in the middle of a move, then why should the same not apply to the dead position rule 9.6? In this case, with no clock issues, if Black touches bPc5, the game is immediately over, because under touch move rules the draw is inexorable.

These absurd situations result from undermining the principle of atomicity. The real solution is for the Laws to state the protocol for different actions in a turn. 90% of the job is done, but arbiter's discretion, although a practical necessity, is no substitute for a high-level sequence of play that exists for any other serious table game (bridge, monopoly, go, magic the gathering etc). Atomicity is a key simplifying principle in such a protocol.

**EDIT** The FIDE definition of "position" appears in 9.2.2 (draw by repetition). It aligns with what Remellion proposed, and because it includes player to move, I feel it can't be invoked in the middle of a move. Petr effectively came down on the same side of the fence by commenting that:

> ...by putting the Queen on a1 the player committed to making the a2-a1Q move (there is no other move the player can make according to the Laws), hence, I think that the commitment has to be honoured (as long as the move is legal) and the position that is being examined must include that move.

So we are looking at Case 1. The problem now is to explain why an arbiter would "honour a commitment" to move when it results in a 6.9 draw, but not when it results in checkmate. Maybe some "advantage rule" like in football exists but has never been mentioned? And this implies the arbiter evaluate the position comprehensively before he decides whether to "play on" until the end of the move. All very vague and unsatisfactory. It's not fair on the arbiter to be put in such an individious position, when the loophole could easily be cleared up so no opinion is needed.

---
Tags: rules, fide, chess-clocks, retrograde-analysis, loopholes
---


title: Strange 16-move semi-slav loss (black)

text:
# Question
Title: Strange 16-move semi-slav loss (black)
```

[FEN ""]
[Date "6/9/2018"]
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2217"]
[BlackElo "1874"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb4+ 9. Ned2 O-O 10. a3 Ba5 11. Qc2 Nd7 12. O-O-O c5 13. Ne4 Qf4+ 14. Kb1 cxd4 15. Rxd4 Nf6 16. Nd6 1-0

```

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2217

This was an odd game with a quick blunder but I found myself not understanding much of the opening. Feel free to go over the following points or any other important pieces of analysis that I left out:

* I understand from looking over some of the theory that it's best to play c5 sooner than later. 9...c5 would have been straight to the point or maybe even I could have played 10...Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 c5.
* Perhaps 10...Ba5 was a mistake because if white played b4 then he would have superior control over the c5 square
* Once again 11...c5? Or is playing Nd7 first plausible?
* White's queenside castling almost comes unexpected to me because of all the open space there. Should my plan still be to play c5 like I did in the game or should it shift to something else with perhaps a b5 push? I feel like white may be the one who is now better prepared to handle c5.
* 13...Qf4+ seems a little odd, maybe Qe7 instead?
* Maybe I can try holding with 14...b6 instead of taking so soon in the center? With the rook on d4 I find that my only actual safe square is b8.
* Obviously 15...Nf6 seems to be a blunder and I should have pulled my queen out of harm's way immediately.

Also, no computer analysis please unless there's something that can hardly be explained or justified without it. Thanks!

# Answer
Considering c5: Yes at some point Black needs to break in the center with c5 or e5 but you need to prepare such breaks. You are behind in development at move 12 and should consider that before moving a pawn twice.

While 14...cd4 spends another move and brings White's rook to a threatening square. In general you made too many pawn moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
9...c5 seems too early to me. Castling into safety is better.

10...Ba5 is reasonable. It's often played in the Marshall Gambit of the QGD.
I prefer Bd6 to maximize it's potential and to protect the center dark squares.

11...Nd7 is fine. I think c5 first is wrong as after 12. dxc5 Nd7 13. Rd1 (or 0-0-0) the threat of b4 forces you to give up your two bishop advantage.

12...b5 looks very interesting; opening the lines even at the cost of a pawn is worth it. c5 is also fine, I would consider e5, just to get my LSB to e6.

13...Qf4+ seems best, as it puts more pressure on white--especially the f3-knight. 13...Qe7 may have problems after 14. d5. This requires much calculation with many nuances.

I definitely prefer 14...b6. The LSB needs to get active and out of the way to the rooks. However, you must still watch for dxc5, with a discovered attack on the knight (after the bishop moves), and d5 with problems getting your pieces to an effective square.

On move 7, opening the center while behind in development is not recommended. Qd8 is better on general principles, but hard to make OTB. 7...Bb4 is an option.
> 1 votes

# Answer
12...b5! is the correct pawn break here. You see this theme in the Caro-Kann as well.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Alpha Zero vs Stockfish, French Defence, is this move for Black better?
I'm referring to the French Defense (C11 ECO code) game where Alpha Zero played 30. Bxg6 ! , sacrificing a bishop for a better position. After Alpha Zero's move 30. , I couldn't find any good moves for Black. However, after the earlier move by White 28. Rc2, Houdini suggests after many hours the reply 28... Qe7 instead of 28... Kd7 which was played by Stockfish. And if 29. Ng5 , then 29... Bh6. All in all, analysis with the Houdini chess engine strongly suggests that 28... Qe7 is a much better move than 28... Kd7 for Black. Am I missing anything?

The position after 28. Rc2 is:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "3kqb1r/1b3p2/1p2p1p1/pP1pP3/P2P1PQP/3BKN2/2R5/8 b - - 3 28"]

```

=====================
Added: Dec 18, 9am
I'm doing an infinite analysis on 4 threads using Houdini 6, with 2 Gb of hash memory. After 4 hours and a depth ~= 33, Houdini still prefers 28. ... Kd7 for Black, with an evaluation of +0.15 .

Eventually, Houdini 6 had 28. ... Ba3 as its first choice for Black. Moving the Bishop from the f8 square to the a3 square allows the Black Queen and rook to connect on the back rank. It also allows moving the Queen to the f8 or g8 squares...

Perhaps Alpha Zero's play is too deep, some of the time, to get reasonnably accurate evaluations in a few hours. Or, to simulate Alpha Zero's play could take an inordinate amount of time per move...

P.S. I upgraded to Houdini 6 today, and at 4 hours of infinite analysis with it, it's a lot less than the time spent analyzing before the upgrade.

# Answer
If you analysed for hours on end with Houdini, chances are its recommendation is stronger than what Stockfish played. There are two main reasons:

1) Stockfish didn't have hours to think during the game with AlphaZero.

2) Stockfish isn't especially renowned for how well it evaluates positions. Its main strength is how deep it can look ahead in such a short time. Larry Kaufman himself said that Komodo would be superior to Stockfish if it weren't for Stockfish's speed (I'm paraphrasing). Since the diagram you posted is very positional and involves quiet maneuvers, Stockfish must rely on its evaluation abilities more. In this domain, Houdini could very well be equal (or possibly better).

You're right though that AlphaZero's play is too deep for a normal engine like Stockfish/Houdini to fully understand. Through machine learning, AlphaZero developed an extremely intelligent intuition, which cannot usually be matched by brute-force calculation (especially in such a strategic position that you posted).
> 1 votes

# Answer
It is quite possible that Qe7 holds black's position better than Kd7.

Qe7 at least gets white to pay attention to a4 pawn.

That said, black is still worse, as that poor bishop on b7 is boxed in forever.

So A0 would be able to evaluate when it is worth giving up a4 pawn and be able to press on for many moves.

At best black(Stockfish) grovels on for a draw.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


title: Placing the bishops on the right square

text:
# Question
Title: Placing the bishops on the right square
I have always been curious about how I can determine whether the bishop is better on e7 or on d6 playing with Black (of course when c5 and b4 are not possible or satisfactory). I will provide some games of mine:

For instance, in this position the bishop has to retreat either to e7 or d6. The difference in the valoration is not huge but the bishop on e7 has a greater advantage for black (0.7) whereas on d6, where I think the bishop is more active as it controls the central square e5, the computer says Black only has an advantage of 0.4.

In this postion which is more similar to the point I am referring to, Black can choose both of the squares but putting the bishop on e7 is slightly better.

All I want to know is what is the nuance between them that makes the assessment of the positon vary a little. I have provided these two games but I would really appreciate advices for ANY similar situation regarding the squares e7 and d6.

# Answer
> 7 votes
In both diagrams, the bishop is better on e7, because the d-file is likely to become an open file, and the bishop would block the rook's activity.

The first example has the future activity of the bishop to consider. As the bishop isn't going to exchange on f4 or needed to protect an e5 push, its activity will have to come after moving to f6. Here it will exert pressure on white's queen side.

The second example has breaking the pin as a consideration. Without the bishop on e7, the queen would be tied to the defense of the f6-knight. If the pin remained, Ne5 would be a strong move as the capture is now more dangerous--providing another attacker upon f6.

As a general rule, the more squares the bishop can attack on the opponent's half of the board, the more active it becomes. However, especially as black, the more passively placed king's bishop is needed for other reasons, mostly defensive needs.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'd add that the bishop on d6 would be restricted by white's pawn on g3 in the first diagram - whenever white has a fianchettoed king bishop, ceteris paribus, it's better to put it on e7 than d6

# Answer
> 2 votes
A bishop on d6 blocks Black's queen from protecting the d5-pawn.

A bishop on e7 doesn't block Black's queen from doing this. Also, the e7-bishop breaks any pins White may set up by playing Bg5.

In your first diagram, playing ...Bd6 might be met with c4!, attacking the d5-pawn and now your queen cannot defend it.

In the second diagram, you want the bishop on e7 to break the pin, allowing your queen to move away without having to take back on f6 with your pawn if White plays Bxf6.

---
Tags: bishops
---


title: Looking for a specific chess book

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for a specific chess book
My father taught me chess at a young age. I am still not very good, though. Now, we have started again playing against one another and analyze positions. He remembered a book, which he possessed but lost, and is desperate to find it again. Hopefully one of you will help me identify it. Here is what I know:

* old book, from the 70s or before
* Russian author, or at least Slavic-sounding name
* included the very beginning of chess, legal moves, main principles etc for total beginners
* introduced different mini-games, including the 'game of 8 pawns', played only with the pawns (no king, the goal is to reach promotion)
* the cover included some white and green, and some chessboard but angled 45 degrees

Sorry, this is all my ageing father can remember. He says it is the best chess book he has ever read.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The first thing I would suggest is going to an old book site, like Abebooks.com and putting in chess titles or keywords that come to mind. They show covers with the old books they have for sale. A key thing you left out, soft cover or hard back?

Check "Comprehensive Chess Course series" of books by Lev Alburt and his coauthor Palatnik, Sam. They comment in one of them about rules for the "pawn game". He apparently references the Soviet Chess Program or schools as the source of the game. One Title of the series: The King in Jeopardy: The Best Techniques for Attack and Defense (Comprehensive Chess Course Series) Alburt, Lev, Palatnik,Sam.

I have seen the cover you are describing in my searches for books but I do not remember who it was I was searching. I commonly look for Chernev and Botvinik so it may be one of theirs. I will keep looking. I too have a favorite book I learned from "Fireside Book of Chess" by Reinfeld.

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Why can I only move my Queen vertically?
I'm playing a game on chess.com and I want to move my Queen to h7. The website won't let me move it there. I tried moving it to other places but the only way I will let me move it is vertically. Is there a rule or something I'm missing, or is this a bug in the game?

# Answer
> 9 votes
The Rook on `e8` is pinning your Queen against the King. You cannot expose your King to check.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As pointed out, your Queen is in what is called an "absolute" pin. It absolutely cannot move off of the file, in this case the "e" file because the black Rook is controlling the squares on that file up to the point of your King. It appears that your only choices in the position you are in, if it is white to move, would be 1. Qxe8+ expecting the response 1....Bxe8 or 1...fxe4. Also you could move 1.Be3 (to block the Rook's pin) expecting the response to be either 1....Rxe4 allowing you to recapture 2. Bxe4 or less likely 1...dxe3 which would leave the King un pinned but the Queen still under attack.

A second form of pin is "relative" pin where the piece behind the directly attacked piece is something other than a King. In other words, something you value but not something that would create an illegal move if it were moved. Imagine in the setting above that the White Queen were a Bishop and the White king were a Queen. You would not want to move the Bishop to expose the Queen which is much more valued. The Bishop is therefore in a relative pin (to the queen).

Hope this helps.

---
Tags: rules, queens
---


# Question
Title: Petrov Defense, 8...Bg4 easy equality for Black?
When I analyze the 8...Bg4 Petrov it always seems like Black gets an easy equality. For example:

Garry Kasparov - Patrick G. Wolff New York/London simultaneous 1984

```
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8.
Re1 Bg4 9. c4
   9. c3 f5 10. h3
      (a) 10. Qb3 Rb8 11. Nfd2 Bh5 12. Nf1 (12. f3 Nxd2
13. Nxd2 O-O 14. Qc2) 12... O-O 13. Ne3 Nxf2 =
      (b) 10. Qc2 O-O 11. Nfd2 Bd6 =+
      (c) 10. Nbd2 O-O =
   10... Bh5 11. Qb3 Rb8 =
   9. Bxe4 dxe4 10. Rxe4 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Nxd4 12. Qd3 Ne6 =
9... Nf6 10. cxd5 (10. Nc3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Nxd4 12.
Qg3 dxc4 13. Bxc4 O-O 14. Bg5=) 10... Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Qxd5 12. Qg3 !? (12. Qxd5
Nxd5 13. Nc3 Ndb4 14. Be4 Nxd4 15. Be3 Ndc2 16. a3 Nxa1 17. axb4 Nb3 18. Bd5
O-O 19. Bxb3 Bxb4 20. Rc1 $11) 12... Qxd4 13. Nc3 O-O =+

```

Kasparov ended up outplaying Wolff in the middlegame, but out of the opening Wolff was at least equal. All the other lines seem to quickly end in equality as well.

Is playing 3.d4 the only try for an advantage in the Petrov?

# Answer
> 7 votes
No, it is not "easy equality". It is "complex fight where Black has good chances for equality, with theoretical debate still going on".

Anyway, 3.d4 won't be the only try for an advantage in the Petrov. 3.Nxe5 is still the main field where White looks for advantage. He can deviate from this game Kasparov-Wolff in several ways, including **5.Qe2** (recently renewed by Carlsen and Kramnik), **5.Nc3** (the main try for an imbalanced position, see Karjakin-Caruana, 1-0, in this year's Candidate tournament), or later **8.c4** (a lot of heavy-weight fights involving Anand, Kramnik, Leko or Naiditsch in the 2000-decade).

# Answer
> 3 votes
I hope I am not going to get into trouble for posting a piece of a free newsletter by GM Alex Colvic on the subject you asked about. This is the entire email from April 28,2018. Alex's answers the emails at the address alex@alexcolovic.com

The main advantage of the Petroff over the Berlin is that it is more practical. The Petroff arises already on move 2, thus avoiding very important White options after 2...Nc6 such as the Scotch, the Italian and also the Ruy Lopez with 4 d3.

The return of the Petroff is of course thanks to Fabiano Caruana's success with it at the Berlin Candidates. Usually considered a boring opening aimed only at playing for a draw, Caruana actually managed to win quite a few games with it: two at the Candidates (against Kramnik and Grischuk) and also one in the Grenke Classic against Vitiugov.

Another positive aspect of the Petroff is that there are only a few critical lines against it. In what has traditionally been called the main line, after 3 Ne5 d6 4 Nf3 Ne4 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3, Caruana's choice has been the move 6...Bd6, instead of the previously considered more solid 6...Nc6. The reason for his choice is that after 6...Nc6 7 0-0 Be7 8 Nbd2, a move previously considered harmless, manages to pose unpleasant problems to Black in a symmetrical position.

Worth noting here is that the Chinese players have their own way of treating this line. They introduced the move-order 6...Bf5 7 0-0 Be7 (or 6...Be7 7 0-0 Bf5). One of the ideas of this move-order is to be able to play ...Nd6, exchanging the light-squared bishops.

Caruana demonstrated that Black is theoretically OK in the main line with 6...Bd6 and that is probably the way to go.

The second critical attempt is 3 Ne5 d6 4 Nf3 Ne4 5 Nc3. Here taking on c3 is most popular, though there is something to be said for the retreat 5...Nf6, when White doesn't have the active plan with c4 at his disposal. After 5...Nc3 6 dc Be7 7 Be3 Nc6 Black usually castles queenside and should be fine. But this position is deceptively simple, as White can find small ways to keep the pressure on, demonstrated by Caruana's only loss in Berlin to Karjakin. Black has also plans with short castling in this line, as Hou Yifan played against Caruana himself and almost beat him.

The third attempt is to play 3 d4. Now both moves, 3...ed and 3...Ne4 are possible. Caruana's choice was the latter, and after 4 Bd3 (Grischuk and Vitiugov played 4 de in the above-mentioned games) d5 5 Ne5 (5 de is another possibility) Nd7 Black again is theoretically fine.

The interesting part with the Petroff now is that it comes back after a certain period of being not very popular. This means that the old lines and recommendations are ripe for re-evaluation. The improved engines will suggest new moves (check out 5...Qd7 in the game Vitiugov-Caruana) and new ideas and variations will appear. This is the usual process when an opening "comes back" after some time spent on the sidelines.

This is how modern theory evolves. The latest engines start suggesting moves and ideas and they inject new life in the old openings, once considered boring or harmless.

Perhaps it is time to take up the Petroff!

Have a great weekend,

Alex

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


# Question
Title: Loss as black in 4.e3 English / rook ending
```

[FEN ""]
[Date "6/10/2018"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2383"]
[BlackElo "1874"]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Be7 5. Qb3 O-O 6. Be2 d6 7. d3 Rb8 8. O-O Bg4 9. a3 Nd7 10. Qc2 f5 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Nf6 13. b4 Qd7 14. Bd2 g5 15. b5 Nd8 16. d4 Nf7 17. Rad1 g4 18. hxg4 Nxg4 19. Bxg4 fxg4 20. Ne4 Qf5 21. Rc1 exd4 22. exd4 Ng5 23. Nxg5 Bxg5 24. Qxf5 Rxf5 25. Bxg5 Rxg5 26. Rfe1 Rf8 27. Re7 Rf7 28. Re8+ Rf8 29. Rce1 Rg7 30. Kh2 h5 31. Kg3 Rgf7 32. Rxf8+ Kxf8 33. Re4 Rf6 34. a4 Kf7 35. a5 b6 36. a6 Rf5 37. Re2 Rf6 38. f3 gxf3 39. gxf3 Rf5 40. f4 Rf6 41. Rh2 Kg6 42. Kf3 Rf5 43. Ke4 Rf6 44. Rg2+ Kf7 45. Rh2 Kg6 46. Rh1 Re6+ 47. Kd5 Rf6 48. Rh4 Rf7 49. Kc6 Rh7 50. d5 Kf5 51. Kb7 c5+ 52. Kb8 Ke4 53. Ka8 Kf5 54. Rxh5+ Rxh5 55. Kxa7 Rh1 56. Kxb6 Ra1 57. Kb7 Kxf4 58. a7 Ke4 59. a8=Q Rxa8 60. Kxa8 1-0

```

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2383

I felt that I played strongly in this game but faltered due to a lack of understanding in the endgame. Any critique on the middlegame is also appreciated. Feel free to address any of these points or anything else that is important that I did not mention:

* After 7...Rb8, my plan is to develop the bishop to g4 and eventually expand with f7-f5. Is this the right thinking? Perhaps my bishop doesn't belong on g4, or perhaps I could achieve my plan quicker without spending time on ...Rb8 and ...Bg4.
* After 10...f5 11.h3 I am losing the bishop pair due to 11...Bh5 12.Nxe5!; was there a better way around this?
* 14...g5!? was what I felt was the only way forward. Would I be better off preparing this with something like ...Kh8 and ...Rg8?
* After playing 17...g4, again perhaps I'm pulling the trigger too quickly.
* Instead of 20...Qf5, should I consider 20...d5?
* Maybe I could've played 21...Rbe8 and sat for a little longer before starting to liquidate this position.
* For some odd reason I felt compelled to play 35...b6 in light of white eventually creating some sort of a pawn breakthrough, but perhaps this isn't a worry with rooks on the board? Keeping my original pawn formation could be important later.
* My opponent said 39...Rg6+ was definitely drawing because the kings can't really go away from the f-pawn. Allowing 40.f4 may have been the critical mistake. After that I'm not sure the best defense against white's king march.
* And I missed the 54.Rxh5+! trick in advance.

Also please no computer analysis unless something cannot be justified without it. Thanks!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Let me try to cover your bullet points:

* After 7...Rb8, ...Bg4 idea: First I don't see the connection of Bg4 with pushing your f-pawn. Your pawns are on dark squares so trading your light square bishop is not a great idea either. How about 8...h6 with the idea of 9...Be6 and 10...d5.
* After 10...f5 11.h3 I am losing the bishop pair: You didn't properly calculate your Bg4 idea. What did you think was going to happen with Bg4?
* 14...g5!?: this is fine. White floundered the last few moves so attacking is good.
* A 17...g4: I would strongly consider 17...e4! You have 2 knights and no light square bishop so closing the center with a space gain and tempo looks correct. You can follow with c6, or h5 and g4.
* Instead of 20...Qf5, should I consider 20...d5? I would definitely calculate d5, but why open the whole board for the battle when you have space by his king. I like throwing pieces to the king-side.
* Maybe 21...Rbe8: 21...exd4 is where you start going wrong with the idea of liquidating. Why do you want to liquidate? At this point you should be asking yourself "What does White want to do?" The answer is liquidate! Nc3 is probably his next move. I'd be look at ...Bh4 here.
* compelled to play 35...b6: First, lets go back to move 26 where you should have played 26...Kf7 and have no worries. You can't let him double rooks on the open file for free. Of course 35...b6 is horrible.

# Answer
> 1 votes
About the rook endgame:

* At move 33, the game is not over but it should lead to a draw with best play.
* You played it very passively, which is not what rooks are good at. A psychological trap must have played a role here: "I feel it must be a draw, so I will just try to hold it". Very often rook endgames are drawish because you pick your opponent's pawns while he picks yours, not because you just sit and wait.
* Instead of 33...Rf6 (what for ?), Kg7-g6-g5 looks natural.
* 35...b6 is not mandatory (sure, in a pawn endgame you would have to be careful about a c5-b6 break), but it is not a mistake either. In the game, White exploited the weakness on a7, but you could have avoided that.
* After the pawn exchange on f3, pawn endgames are now better for you because of the outside passed pawn. You should have exploited this with 39...Re6!? when 40.Rxe6 Kxe6 41.Kh4 Kf5 42.Kxh5 Kf4 43.Kg6 Kxf3 44.Kf5 Ke3 45.Ke6 Kxd4 46.Kd7 Kxc4 47.Kxc7 d5 48.Kb7 d4 49.Kxa7 Kxb5 50.Kb7 d3 51.a7 d2 52.a8Q d1Q 53.Qa6+ is just a draw. (*This a long line, so you better check it with engine, even if it seems quite straitforward to me*) and 40.Rh2?! Kg6 is definitely not a winning try for White.
* 39...Rg6+ indeed looks like a draw too, but even allowing f4 doesn't put you in danger yet.
* 42...Re6, controling the central file, doesn't seem to work because of 43.f5! Kxf5 44.Rxh5 Kg6 45.Rh8, heading for the weakness on a7.
* However, you could have stoped the white King triumphant march to the queenside with 43...Kf6 (planning Kf6-e6-f6 ad vitam aeternam, or possibly d6-d5+ when the king is on e6). I don't think White could have tried much, for instance 44.Rh1 Ke6 45.Rg1 h4 45.Rg7 Rh5 46.Rxc7 h3 is clearly too slow.
* After you let the wK reach c6, you are in trouble. I might miss some defensive ressources but I think White is winning.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Why does Stockfish give a negative score in a theoretical win for white?
```
8/3k4/8/3K4/3P4/8/8/8 b - - 0 1

```

(Black to move)

This is a theoretical win since White has the opposition and the king is in front of the pawn.

I have downloaded the Windows version for Stockfish 9 and followed the UCI protocol.

Stockfish:

```
Stockfish 9 64 by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

```

Input:

```
uci

```

Stockfish:

```
id name Stockfish 9 64
id author T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

option name Debug Log File type string default
option name Contempt type spin default 20 min -100 max 100
option name Threads type spin default 1 min 1 max 512
option name Hash type spin default 16 min 1 max 131072
option name Clear Hash type button
option name Ponder type check default false
option name MultiPV type spin default 1 min 1 max 500
option name Skill Level type spin default 20 min 0 max 20
option name Move Overhead type spin default 30 min 0 max 5000
option name Minimum Thinking Time type spin default 20 min 0 max 5000
option name Slow Mover type spin default 89 min 10 max 1000
option name nodestime type spin default 0 min 0 max 10000
option name UCI_Chess960 type check default false
option name SyzygyPath type string default <empty>
option name SyzygyProbeDepth type spin default 1 min 1 max 100
option name Syzygy50MoveRule type check default true
option name SyzygyProbeLimit type spin default 6 min 0 max 6
uciok

```

Input:

```
position fen 8/3k4/8/3K4/3P4/8/8/8 b - - 0 1
go depth 1

```

Stockfish:

```
info depth 1 seldepth 1 multipv 1 score cp -4276 nodes 5 nps 2500 tbhits 0 time 2 pv d7e8
bestmove d7e8

```

Why is the evaluation -4276?

# Answer
Because Black is to move, and for *Black* the position is evaluated as being 42.76 pawns behind.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, evaluation, uci
---


# Question
Title: Chess environments for reinforcement learning
I want to try some reinforcement learning techniques (borrowed from AlphaZero, etc.) and so I need a chess environment in order to run games.

I code in python, so I found python-chess but unfortunately it is too slow to generate a large amount of games. Playing 100 games with random moves (average length of ~400 moves for a random game) takes 8 seconds, which doesn't scale to higher orders of magnitude well. My profiling shows that over 99.9% of the time taken is with the library as opposed to other code, so I can't optimize any further.

Is there already an existing chess environment that is faster than this in python?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Generating high volume of data directly in an interpreting Python environment is a bad idea. Furthermore, the `python-chess` package is not made for high performance; the package is not a wrapper for native C/C++.

If you want to generate hundreds and thousands of games quickly, you don't have any reason for avoiding native coding such as C++. Take the Stockfish code base, modify it for making games. That was what the `Leela` project had done, and it worked!

Please consider going into C++. Mutlit-threading if you haven't done it already.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Is there a way to get MANY and FAST (but not deep) position evaluations in javascript?
I am working on a statistical chess project that needs to evaluate many (about 20-30) different positions per turn. They do not need to be deep but fast.

Is there a possibility to use engines (stockfish is preferred because I am familiar with its evaluation system) that receives a fen as an input and gives me a fast evaluation of the position (probably with a given deepness, e.g 10) as output.

It should run in a web browser. So I assume the official Stockfish is not suitable, because it is written in C++.

I found this and this, but there is no hint how to use them, so I would appreciate for some hints if I should use them. Does somebody has experience with this implementations? Could you advise me something else?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Stockfish JS is a Javascript port of the Stockfish engine. It should be useful for your project. You might want to learn the UCI protocol.

Hint:

Use Stockfish JS. Consider:

* Send MultiPV for a position. You will get an evaluation for the moves.

OR

* For n legal moves, play them one by one. Ask Stockfish for an evaluation on each of those possibilities.

The second approach is slower but more accurate. If you just want shallow search, try the first one.

If you could multithread, do it. If you could run positions independently, do it.

---
Tags: engines, software, stockfish, programming, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Does Magnus Carlsen have any openings/opening variations named for him?
Does Magnus Carlsen have any openings/opening variations named for him?

The last world champion I know of to have an opening variation named for him was Anatoly Karpov (e.g. Caro-Kann, Karpov Variation or Karpov Variation in the Ruy Lopez).

# Answer
In the old days variations were named after players who did serious theoretical work and/or played one line consistently over a longer period.

As openings got more and more analyzed it got increasingly more difficult to find new variations comparable to those old masters. Nowadays the top players might find a novelty around move 20 or so. If you want, you could call those lines *variation* and credit them to the player. I am sure some websites do just that, but personally I see a big difference between say the Najdorf variation and those side lines.

So yes, probably somebody somewhere called something a Carlsen variation, but whether you consider it a variation is up to you. Also, perhaps it needs some more time until a line is called variation and maybe in 10 years people will agree to call a line Carlsen variation.
> 10 votes

# Answer
The following variation:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd2!? Nf6 6.b3!?

```

Was recently introduced by Carlsen in Carlsen - Wojtaszek, Gashimov Memorial april 2018. It's currently becoming popular with other grandmasters and Chess Publishing has started referring to it as the Carlsen Variation.

If it turns out to be more than a fad for this season, I think that name will stick. Nobody played it before and the world champion introduced it to win a game in a top tournament.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Also, after Karpov, Kasparov has a variation in the Queen's Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3) and Kramnik has a weird variation in the Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4) I didn't find anything for Anand and Carlsen, though.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: How are chess engines able to rank a Mate in X above a Mate in X+Y?
According to an engine, a mate in X moves = +infinity, since it is a forced win for it.

Also according to an engine, a mate in X+Y moves = +infinity, since it's a forced win (just more moves, but an engine doesn't care about this).

Due to the pruning in the minimax algorithm, if the engine first examines the "mate in X+Y moves" branch, it will see it's a forced win and then prune all the other branches.

Due to this pruning, it wouldn't examine the mate in X moves branch.

However, engines like Stockfish always rank a mate in X moves above a mate in X+Y moves. I refuse to believe these engines *always* know intuitively which branch to look at first (if this was the case, then the engines would first look at the mate in X moves branch first, and then prune the rest, which would make sense).

**Question**: Given this, how do engines always rank a forced win/mate in X above a forced win/mate in X+Y, if they sometimes look at the latter first?

# Answer
Engines don't use "infinity", usually they provide the value of position in centi-pawns, a queen will cost about 1000 centi-pawns and the price of the king is something about 30000 centi-pawns. When you are close to the mate, you get the evaluation at around 30000 minus about 1 queen for every move to reach the mate, to make it reasonable to sacrifice the queen for delaying the mate.

"mate in 1" becomes 29000, "mate in 2" becomes 28000 an so on, so engine has quite clear picture which move to make.

And reaching "mate in 10" only makes the engine to prune all branches that evaluate in anything less valuable, so "mate in 8" still stays on the table.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, checkmate, stockfish, evaluation, calculation
---


title: Weak and strong squares

text:
# Question
Title: Weak and strong squares
I somewhat understand the concept of attacking the king and pieces, but "attacking" squares is a bit of a vague concept for me.

What are weak and strong squares? When do you use them? How do you create them?

# Answer
> 1 votes
A square becomes weak when a pawn cannot protect it. For example, after white plays e2-e4 followed by c2-c4, the square on d4 becomes weak for white. Yet, the square on d4 becomes weak only when black has at least one piece that can use this weakness. In this example, the square on d4 is best used by a knight or bishop. To create a weakness, you should force your opponent to move a pawn forward. Make sure you have at least one piece that can take advantage of the created weak squares.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Weak squares are squares which cannot be defended by a pawn. \[1\]\[2\]
>
> ... that all of the squares behind the pawns are weak by default.
>
> Counter-intuitively: *Strong squares are squares which are defended by a pawns.*

These square are very powerful places for opponents Knights or Bishops. No pawn can attack to these pieces. In below position, square `d6` is a weak square for black and also strong square for its opponent.

```
1r1q2k1/1pbr2pp/2pNp3/p1P1Pp2/PP1P4/3R1QP1/6KP/1R6 w - - 0 1

```

or square `f5`, `h4` and `e6` are some weak squares for black and also `f3` and `d4` for white (however it's too late for black to put his Knight there)

```
1n3q2/p6p/1p1p1pk1/3PpN1p/4P3/1PQ3P1/P4P2/6K1 w - - 0 1

```

They're useful to place a Knight or Bishop in near the heart of opponents position. Usually making a weak square in the opponents land needs long term strategy. You have to force the opponent to pass its pawns...

# Answer
> 0 votes
A weak square is a square that can no longer be protected by one of your pawns, or more generally, a square that can no longer easily be protected by one of your pieces.

In this example, the highlighted d5 square is weak for Black because they will never be able to control it with one of their pawns (this is actually a familiar sicilian pawn structure)

The concepts of weak squares are useful even to World Champions. In the following position, Botvinnik managed to exploit his opponent's weak squares in a few moves only:

I describe how in this explanatory video about weak squares: https://youtu.be/AZG4PU\_ejK0

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Where can I download and how do I set up a 5-man tablebase in Arena GUI?
So, I want to download a 5-man tablebase (I have no disk space for a 6-man one) and set it up so that it works with Stockfish in Arena GUI. Where can I download the tablebase, and how do I install it in Arena GUI?

# Answer
> 1 votes
https://sites.google.com/site/gaviotachessengine/Home/endgame-tablebases-1 This tablebase was installed with arena 3.5.1

http://contentdb.emule-project.net/view.php?pid=1629 has Nalimov 5-man tablebases separated into the various 4-man configurations.

http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/tablebases-online/ has online databases, but you must install eMule to download.

# Answer
> 2 votes
http://www.cruxis.com/chess/manual/end\_game\_table\_base\_support.htm

This is from the developers of Houdini's site.

---
Tags: tablebases, arena
---


# Question
Title: Am I too late to be a professional in chess?
I am at the age of 32 and my current rating is 1600. Is it too late to be professional in chess? I love chess from my whole heart, what should I do?

# Answer
Sorry to put this bluntly, but you have absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming a professional **player** if you are rated only 1600 at age 32. This is not a realistic ambition. People improving from 1600 to grandmaster level in their 30s and beyond is something that simply never happens. It's very rare to reach grandmaster level if you are only 1600 at the age of 18, never mind 32.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Assuming you want to be paid enough to live I am afraid it IS too late. Younger minds are easier to be taught. You develop much faster when you're younger. But hey, that's a good news! Professional chess players spent long years, lots of money for coaches, tournaments etc. Now, 99% of them earn pennies - how frustrating!

This is a very brutal truth, chess is a beautiful game that requires a lot of work, austerity, time and in return there's... the satisfaction. I am very happy that I got to know chess and dedicated my young years to it. Chess taught me really a lot. But I would advice against dedicating the whole life (professional).

However, if you want to make money with chess, in my humble opinion, the best way is to teach kids - it doesn't require that much chess skill, rather more of a pedagogical attitude. I am pretty sure you are able to do that.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Most chess "professionals" teach. You might be qualified to teach kids the rules. There are plenty of bad chess players that make a living teaching kids. So, if you go that route you can work on your game and scrape a living teaching. And maybe one day you might actually be qualified to teach, but you are unlikely to even make master.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you mean "professional" as "making a living" (earning money) -- your chances are quite slim. You need to hold a title (GM, IM, WM, CM, etc) to play money-earning tournaments or to be considered as a professional chess coach.

Besides that, since the invention of the chess computers, the chess (as a game) is currently in decline, less interest from the people, less money involved, etc. You'll be fighting for your chance with the already established people and there are just too many of them to fill the available spots.

What should you do? -- Just have fun. Learn to play better, play with people, enjoy chess as much as you can. It's just a game after all =)
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm kind of with the others that have stated it is too late. Only because of the examples of the top players and how basic research shows how long they've been playing and the talent they've shown their entire career in chess. They are the examples of what it takes so to put it bluntly, if you aren't on that same path then there's a strong chance that when you are in your 30's and your not there, may not happen. Becoming a teacher of chess is probably more obtainable goal.

Think of how the game has changed. You have to be prepared for the increased difficulty in the game due to chess engines and AI.

Here are some areas I think are good to consider for your own life and your ability to accomplish them.

1. Become a FIDE member
2. Score the required norms in FIDE registered tournaments and the norms can be defined by the specific tournament so you may not know what that "norm" is until the tournament.
3. Pay for the expenses of those tournaments. Entry fees, lodging, food, transportation.
4. Reach the 2500 rating to become a grand master. The money that takes to jump from where you are at, my prediction could be steep, specifically with preparation so you can beat the competition out there because you are not the only one dreaming to become a professional chess player. A 900 rating jump is not a mole hill to climb in the world of chess. The complete expenses of the tournaments to get your rating up. The chances are low that you going to get much return financially in the process in the beginning.
5. The personal time that is needed to invest into getting to that point, do you have? Do you have obligations in your life that are more important than chess? Most people do.

Not meaning to squash your dreams but there's quite a bit to take in to become a professional chess player.

There's no shame in being in your 30's and a rating of 1600 or teaching chess to people. You never know, you could be a part of the process for someone else to be one of the top ranked players.

However if you choose to seek becoming a professional player I do hope the best. Here's a link to FIDE's for Title Regulation effective July 1st of 2017 to give you more detailed answers.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=198&view=article
> 0 votes

---
Tags: careers
---


# Question
Title: Getting Stockfish to find all mates-in-n
How do you make Stockfish find all mates in 2 or 3 from a given position? I know I need to use Scid, but not much beyond that.

# Answer
Could not be any simpler, run `stockfish`, turn on `MultiPV` option to view all variation, not the only one, then run analysis and you'll get your output, for example for all mate-in-2 I could do this:

```
$ stockfish
Stockfish 09-06-13 64bit by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
uci
id name Stockfish 09-06-13 64bit
id author Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski

option name Use Debug Log type check default false
option name Use Search Log type check default false
option name Search Log Filename type string default SearchLog.txt
option name Book File type string default book.bin
option name Best Book Move type check default false
option name Contempt Factor type spin default 0 min -50 max 50
option name Mobility (Middle Game) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Mobility (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Middle Game) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Space type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Aggressiveness type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Cowardice type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Min Split Depth type spin default 7 min 4 max 12
option name Max Threads per Split Point type spin default 5 min 4 max 8
option name Threads type spin default 8 min 1 max 64
option name Use Sleeping Threads type check default true
option name Hash type spin default 32 min 1 max 8192
option name Clear Hash type button
option name Ponder type check default true
option name OwnBook type check default false
option name MultiPV type spin default 1 min 1 max 500
option name Skill Level type spin default 20 min 0 max 20
option name Emergency Move Horizon type spin default 40 min 0 max 50
option name Emergency Base Time type spin default 200 min 0 max 30000
option name Emergency Move Time type spin default 70 min 0 max 5000
option name Minimum Thinking Time type spin default 20 min 0 max 5000
option name Slow Mover type spin default 100 min 10 max 1000
option name UCI_Chess960 type check default false
option name UCI_AnalyseMode type check default false
uciok
position fen 8/k1K5/2R5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
setoption name MultiPV value 100
go depth 10
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6c1
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6c2
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6c3
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6c4
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6c5
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6b6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 7 pv c6d6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6e6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6f6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6g6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6h6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 12 pv c7c8
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 0 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 0 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1b1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 0 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7b8
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7a7
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7a7
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 0 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7b8 c5b6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 0 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6b6 a7a8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d7c6 b8c8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6d7 b8a8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 0 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8318 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6d7 b8a8 d8c7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8313 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a8 c5b6 a8b8 c6c7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8313 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 0 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score cp 0 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score cp 0 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score cp 0 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info nodes 15888 time 12
bestmove c6b6 ponder a7a8

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---