title: Overprotection and prophylaxis

text:
# Question
Title: Overprotection and prophylaxis
My understanding (and I may be wrong there) is that prophylaxis is a wider concept than overprotection, and so there are some prophylactic moves that don't have anything to do with overprotection (like advancing one of the castling pawns to defend against 8-th line mates).

I also think I get the point of overprotection in term of enhanced piece mobility. However when it comes to prophylactic moves **not** involving overprotection (like the pawn advanced discussed above) is it really just a fancy name for not having the time to find a way to take the initiative?

# Answer
> However when it comes to prophylactic moves not involving overprotection (like the pawn advanced discussed above) is it really just a fancy name for not having the time to find a way to take the initiative?

Not quite! Sometimes, in order to fight for the initiative or even maintain the initiative, you have to make prophylactic moves to minimize your opponents counterplay or initiative. Have you considered that the move `5...a6` in the Sicilian Najdorf is actually a prophylactic move?

```
 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]

 1...a6!?

```

The move a6 **prevents** (prophylaxis) White from giving a check on `b5` in the main line of the Najdorf after 6...e5. It also prevents White from playing the dangerous Keres attack with `6. g4`, which is normally playable after Black plays `5...e6`.

Now let us consider what happens if Black doesn't play a6 and tries to "take the initiative" with `5...e5`.

```
   [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]

   1...e5?! 2. Bb5+! Bd7 (2...Nbd7 3. Nf5!) 3. Bxd7+ Qxd7 4. Nb3

```

In this final position, White is already slightly better. He has exchanged Black's good light-squared bishop. Black is now left with a **bad bishop** on `f8` and a **hole** on `d5`, with only the knight on f6 to cover it and no light squared bishop. Overall, Black's idea to press on with `e5` in an attempt to take the initiative backfired because of a lack of prophylaxis.

Compare that position with this position which occurs in a popular line of the Sicilian Najdorf.

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3
   Nbd7 9. O-O Be7 10. f3 O-O

```

Here, Black securely guards the `d5` square with Bishop and Knight and his bishop on `e6` is much stronger than its counterpart on `e2`. If white attempts to occupy the hole on `d5`, Black simply exchanges knights, eliminates the hole on `d5` and keeps the position in the balance. Note that the presence of the bishop on `e6` prevents White from recapturing with the queen and maintaining the hole on `d5`.

```
    [FEN "r2q1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2pbn2/4p3/4P3/1NN1BP2/PPP1B1PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 11"]

    1. Nd5 Nxd5 2. exd5 Bf5

```

The reason why the Najdorf Sicilian is one of the most popular openings is because it allows Black to fight for the initiative instead of simply trying to neutralize White's initiative. That's all made possible by this naive looking prophylactic move `5...a6!`
> 4 votes

# Answer
No. A prophylactic move dissuades your opponent from carrying out his natural plans. For example, if it would be a good idea for him to induce a pawn trade in front of his queen, you might put a rook opposite the queen, so that he can't clear out those pawns without repercussions. That might easily be the best move on the board. It doesn't mean that you haven't bothered to find a move that takes the initiative.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Prophylactic simply means that you foil your opponents plans...you knock down everything they try to build or create...ideally, in doing this, you're also waiting for them to make a mistake for you to capitalize on - in doing so, you win when that mistake is made and you take advantage of it.

Karpov was big at this....often, some theorize, frustrating his opponents till out of boredom or frustration, they error, and he pounced on them.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics, positional-play, defense
---


# Question
Title: I would like to know if this game is winnable for black?
Black to move but unsure of the pieces that would give black a better advantage. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

```
r5k1/pp1qpr1p/3p2p1/2pP4/1n2P3/1P2N1Pb/2PQ1P1P/3RR1K1 b - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Black has an overwhelming advantage and should win easily. Being up by a whole piece is a huge advantage that basically can't be overcome by purely positional considerations.

The most straightforward way for Black to win is to try to trade pieces and end up in an endgame where he has one piece to White's zero; a win at that point would be trivial.

He could also try for a kingside attack, since White's light squares are very weak.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The above position is 100% won for Black-White will need a miracle to scrape a draw, not to mention win!

How do you win this?

The best rule **in a won position** is to destroy the opponents counter-play.

Here White has no counter-play whatsoever, but could try something with `f4+Nc4` so he can push `e5` and try to "get lucky".

I would start with `1..Rf3` since the rook can not be dislodged from this post. White will have to exchange it but this is good for Black.

Remember, when you are a piece up always exchange pieces **but avoid exchanging the pawns** as this helps the weaker side to achieve draw.

Anyway, after `1..Rf3` White must try `Nc4` and push `e5` to get some play, but as soon as knight lands on `c4` Black plays `...b5` and again White has no counter-play.

After that, Black needs to improve the position of the weakest piece in his setup-here it is knight on `b4`. I would post it on `e5` or `d4`.

After reaching this setup you will win by a tactical sacrifice.

Here is a sample line that could illustrate how things would go:

```
[fen "r5k1/pp1qpr1p/3p2p1/2pP4/1n2P3/1P2N1Pb/2PQ1P1P/3RR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Rf3 2.Nc4 b5 3.Ne3 Raf8 4.Re2 Na6 5.Ra1 Nb8 6.Qa5 a6 7.Qb6 Qc8 8.c4 b4 9.Qa5 Nd7 10.Qxa6 Qxa6 11.Rxa6 Ne5 12.Ra7 R8f7 13.Ra1  Ng4 14.Nxg4 Bxg4 15.Rb2 ( 15.Rb1 Rxg3+ 16.hxg3 Bxe2-+ ) 15...Bh3! 16.Rd1 Kg7! 17.Rdd2 Kf6 18.Rd1 Ke5 19.Rdd2 Rf8! 20.Rdd1 Ra8! 21.Re1 Ra3 22.Reb1 Kxe4 23.Re2+ Kd3 24.Reb2 ( 24.Rxe7 Ra2! ) Kc3 25.Kh1 Ra1! 26.Kg1 ( 26.Rxa1 Kxb2 ) 26...Rxb1 27.Rxb1 Kc2 28.Re1 Rxb3 29.f4 Rb1 0-1

```

This example contains some highly instructive moments. Pay attention how Black limits White's counter-play and how he constantly improves his inactive pieces-his knight, rook and king. Once he activated all of his pieces, tactical blows came naturally and Black was able to win effortlessly.

In a won position your main goal is to suppress all active moves your opponent has. Once you do that, your decisive advantage will "kick in" eventually. You see, once your opponent has no counter-play all you have to do is improve the position of your inactive pieces and the rest comes naturally.

This was just a sample line-I have no space to analyze all possible continuations but by following my advises you can learn on your own how to win this position.

If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.

---
Tags: middlegame, evaluation, beginner
---


title: Is this endgame winnable (for White)?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this endgame winnable (for White)?
I ran into this position during a game against a computer, but I'm not sure if its winnable (I'm, White). Also, any comments on my play/computer's play would be highly appreciated.

I'm not sure how to use this site's chess diagrams, so I'll just post the PGN file here:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c3 Bd6 5. g3 Ne7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. Nf3 Re8 8. O-O Nbc6 9. Be3 Nf5 10. Re1 Nxe3 11. Rxe3 Rxe3 12. fxe3 Qe7 13. Qe2 Bg4 14. Nbd2 Re8 15. e4 f5 16. Re1 fxe4 17. dxe4 Ne5 18. Qe3 Bxf3 19. Nxf3 Nxf3+ 20. Qxf3 c6 21. a3 Qe6 22. b4 Kh8 23. Qd3 Bc7 24. Kh1 Kg8 25. Qd4 Bb6 26. Qd3 Bc7 27. a4 b6 28. Qd4 Qe5 29. Kg1 Qe6 30. Qd2 Qe5 31. Re3 Re6 32. Qf2 Re8 33. Kh1 Qe6 34. Qf3 Kh8 35. h3 Kg8 36. Kh2 c5 37. Qg4 Qe5 38. Qd7 Rd8 39. Qf5 Qxf5 40. exf5 cxb4 41. cxb4 Kf7 42. Rd3 d4 43. Be4 Be5 44. Kg2 Kf6 45. g4 Rc8 46. Kf3 Rc4 47. Bd5 Rc1 48. Bg8 h5 49. Bb3 Rf1+ 50. Kg2 Rf4 51. Bd1 a6 52. b5 axb5 53. axb5 Re4 54. Ra3 Re1 55. Rd3 Re4 56. Ra3 Re1 57. Rd3 hxg4 58. hxg4 Re4 59. Kf3 Rf4+ 60. Kg2 Ke7 61. Kh3 Rf2 62. Kh4 Kf6 63. Rf3 Rxf3 64. Bxf3 d3 *

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
> I'm not sure how to use this site's chess diagrams

First off, to learn how to make chess diagrams here **read carefully** answers to this post.

As for your question, I will give you brief comments about the game first, and then analyze the endgame.

> Also, any comments on my play/computer's play would be highly appreciated.

Since SO hasn't added written commentaries to follow a move, I will refer to the move, and then comments will follow.

If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.

Let us start:

Your opening play was not precise, but you still had a playable position until `15.e4`. After that move Black had a small advantage and an initiative. I do not play `1.e4`, nor do I play the *French defense*. Even if I did, I would advise you to prepare your openings well by consulting an opening book. That should remedy the mistakes you made in your game.

Although Black was better, you still could count on a draw. `21.a3` seems desperate-it looks like you had no idea what to do, and it is a pointless move. You have no advantage at the queenside so there is no reason to start action there. This would also be slow plan and would weaken you more than helping you. At this moment it was crucial to somehow break the pin. One idea would be `Rd1` after `b4`-something like this:

```
[White "namehere"]
[Black "Computer player"]
[fen "4r1k1/pp2q1pp/2pb4/3p4/4P3/2P2QP1/PP4BP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 a6 2.Rd1! dxe4 3.Qxe4! Qxe4 4.Bxe4 Rxe4 5.Rxd6

```

with some chances to draw.

At move `23.` you had a chance to execute my combination and get back into the game. At the end of the combination the opponent's king would be threatened by mate, so you could get a slight advantage there. After missing this chance, you had to struggle for a draw-I would try to reorganize my pieces like this:

```
[Title "Suggestion for piece placement"]
[fen "4r1k1/pp2q1pp/2pb4/3p4/4P3/2P2BP1/PP2R1KP/4Q3 w - - 0 1"]

```

so I can achieve `exd5` and equalize.

The rest of the game the computer played pathetically and squandered the advantage.

> Is this endgame winnable(for White)?

As for the endgame, it is a draw-Black plays `Bf4` and enforces blockade on the dark squares after which White has nothing. It will look something like this:

```
[Title "Endgame analysis"]
[fen "8/6p1/1p3k2/1P2bP2/6PK/3p1B2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Be4 d2 2.g5+ Ke7 3.Bc2 Bf4 4.Kh5 Kf8 5.Kg6 Be5 6.f6 gxf6 7.gxf6 Bd4 8.f7 Bc3=

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Obviously, white can't win. Let white do any move except g5+ (Kh5, for example) 65... g5 66. fxg6 Kg7 Now black bishop will move on squares c5 and g1 and white can't do any progress because pawns are blocked.

Moreover, I like black's position more,

---
Tags: endgame, evaluation, bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Paul Morphy vs Henry Bird missing games.
The Historical Chess Ratings page claims that Paul Morphy played 12 games with Henry Bird, with a final score of `10.5 - 1.5` (Kasparov's book My Great Predecessors Part I also mentions this (page 55), claiming Morphy won 10, lost 1 and drew 1). However, I was able to find only  of these games online. Do we have a record anywhere of the moves of the other 7 games?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The five games mentioned might be the only games between Morphy and Bird that are preserved. Collections that claim to include all known Morphy games, only contain those five between the two, see for instance The full Morphy. Also, written accounts seem to suggest that the games they played were not part of an official match, they just played some games while Morphy was waiting for a reply from Staunton (Link).

---
Tags: history, morphy
---


# Question
Title: Push e and d pawns in semi open openings
I recently met the French defence as white which turned into the advanced version.

In short, I got crushed in a humiliating way, kicked while lying and spat on.

So now I am reforming and reconstructing my life. Why do I push my E and D pawns in openings? I do this sometimes before moving minor pieces. Am I a pawn-push addict? Am I better off with the pawns on the 4th and 5th ranks than on 3rd and 4th? This can happen in the Sicilian, Caro-Kann, Scandinavian, Nimzowitsch and the French. I need group therapy/feedback.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Perhaps you would find it useful if I tried to explain the pros and cons of playing the advance variation in the French defense for white. Let's look at its starting position

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

```

> Why does white choose 3.e5?

1. To control the squares e5, d6 and f6
2. Prevent black from developing with Ng8-f6
3. Lock down the f7-pawn to attack it later
4. Make the h7-square weaker to attack it later (Nf6 usually protects h7)
5. Make the black Bc8 worse by locking it behind the f7-e6-d5 pawn chain

> What are the downsides of 3.e5?

1. White releases the e4-d5 tension
2. The white d4-pawn becomes a target for attack
3. The white e5-pawn becomes subject for the thematic f7-f6 break
4. White makes an extra pawn move and sort of loses the extra tempo

> What should black do?

1. Attack the d4-pawn
2. Do the f7-f6 break
3. Activate the Bc8 at some point, e.g. via Bc8-d7-e8-h5
4. If white is sloppy, go for a quick attack on the enemy king

> What should white do?

1. Have a strong control over the dark squares d4, e5, f4 and e3
2. Make sure the king is safe
3. Keep the strong control over the center
4. Attack the enemy king

For example

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 a5 7.Bd3 Bd7 8.O-O cxd4 9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Nc3

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
> So now I am reforming and reconstructing my life.

First of all, calm down. Hey, it's just a game! You sound as if your whole life depends upon whether you win or lose! You might want to read this post about how to deal with losses.

> Why do I push my E and D pawns in openings?

I would caution you against criticizing your opening (or any other aspect of your game) based on the outcome of just one humiliating defeat. Many top players have got crushed and humiliated. Look at Deep Blue vs Gary Kasparov, 1997, Game 6; perhaps the most humiliating defeat of Gary Kasparov's career; yet he still remained number 1 in the world for the rest of his career. Also consider Botvinnik's humiliating defeat against Tal in game 6 of their match in 1960, where Tal played an unsound sacrifice and still beat Botvinnik. Botvinnik lost that match, but came back stronger in the rematch and crushed Tal (+10 -5 = 6).

> Am I a pawn-push addict? Am I better off with the pawns on the 4th and 5th ranks than on 3rd and 4th?

Only you can answer the first part. For the second part, you may or may not be better off with pawns on the 4th and 5th vs pawns on the 3rd and 4th. It depends upon the position and also your playing style. Pawns on the 4th and 5th rank often occur in these type of configurations-

```
     [FEN "4k3/pp3ppp/3p4/2pP4/4P3/8/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 6"]

```

Benoni Type Structure (White plans e4-e5 break at some point)

```
     [FEN "4k3/ppp2ppp/4p3/3pP3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 3"]

```

French Type Structure (White plans kingside attack and maybe even f4-f5 break)

```
     [FEN "6k1/ppp2p1p/3p2p1/3Pp3/2P1P3/8/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 7"]

```

King's Indian Type Structure (White plans c4-c5 and queen side attack)

The advantage of such pawn structure is obvious- White has more space whereas Black has less space to move pieces. The disadvantage is that it's often easier for Black to attack White's pawn chain than for White to do the same (except in case of the Benoni). The simple reason is that it is easier for Black to make moves like `c5` and `f5` to attack the central d4 or e4 pawns which support the pawns on the 5th rank, than for White to try to play `f4-f5` or `c4-c5` to undermine the `e6` or `d6` pawns that hold Black's position. Moreover, White has to make additional moves like `c3` or `f3` to support the pawn chain, whereas Black's pawns often support the chain from their natural squares like `c7` or `f7`.

To determine whether these positions are "good" (suitable to your style of play) for you, you must examine some sample games in these structures to see if they fit your style.

Sample games with these structures - Benoni, French, King's Indian.

If not, you will definitely be better off placing pawns on the 3rd and 4th ranks most of the time. In those cases, you have to note that you will not be able to maintain the pawn center for long. You either have to push your pawns to the 5th rank or exchange pawns when Black attacks.

Some sample structures -

```
       [FEN "4k3/pp3ppp/4p3/2p5/3P4/2P5/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 5"]

```

Alapin Sicilian Type Structure (White usually gets isolated pawn on d4 but great piece activity)

```
       [FEN "4k3/pp3ppp/4p3/3p4/2PP4/8/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 5"]

```

Panov Attack Type Structure (Might lead to isolated pawn. White plays on the kingside or queenside depending upon how Black continues)

```
       [FEN "3qk3/ppp2ppp/8/3p4/2PP4/8/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 4"]

```

Exchange French Type Structure (Might lead to isolated pawn. Black is in no real danger)

```
       [FEN "4k3/pp3ppp/2p1p3/3p4/2PP4/4P3/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 4"]

```

Queen's Pawn Opening Type Structure (Flexible. White may play on the kingside or the queenside depending upon how the game proceeds. White may try e3-e4 or cxd5 exd5 and b4-b5 if Black allows)

```
       [FEN "4k3/ppp2ppp/3p4/4p3/3PP3/2P5/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 3"]

```

Ruy Lopez Type Structure (White plans d4-d5 at the opportune moment and kingside attack)

You can look up these openings in a similar way. The advantage is that your pawn center is not that easily attacked and your "mobile" pawns can prevent Black pieces from activity in the center. The disadvantage is that your opponent's center is often strong too. Besides, in such positions, White can often acquire an isolated pawn, which may become a disadvantage in the endgame.

**The important think to note is, you can't simply win by maintaining pawns on the 3rd and 4th ranks**. Your pawns either have to advance or exchange with enemy pawns to create advantages of space, mobility, outposts, backward pawns for opponent, etc. It's knowing when to push to the 5th rank that's important. That comes with experience and studying games with different pawn structures.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are two conflicting ideas at play here. White's idea is to push his e and d pawns, grab more space and get an open play and try to cramp black's position. Black's idea is the so-called 'hypermodern' approach which is to allow white to set up a pawn center and then try to demolish it. Both sides have a plan, and whoever carries out their plan better will win!

In the french defence, black is able to generate sufficient counterplay by bringing enormous amount of pressure on white's d4 pawn. This pressure will appear to be formidable especially in the hands of a french specialist. However, white does have a few tricks of his own! The advance variation is playable but you need to be well versed in theory in order to carry out the maneuvers precisely as often one wrong step can spell doom for white.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In my experience really early in the opening, without specific diagrams to address, it is ok to push the E and D pawns to the 4th and 5th rank as long as you have the Nc3 out.

---
Tags: opening, theory, pawns, pawn-structure, center
---


# Question
Title: How many depth should require to get a draw decision?
I've assumed about depth to take moves, it seem to be unqualified question because no precise rule to define them.

As I played with chess engine, it seem return some value with can be defined as draw position, win position, and lose position.

Win or lose still can't be defined because it should take all optimization of evaluation, but how about draw??

As chess deploy on board, it seem to believe that it still draw at first position.

Is there some fixed depth value to generalized that we can say, "**It still at draw position**"??

# Answer
> 1 votes
Combinational Game Theory tells us that **solved** games will always result in a draw if both players play optimally. With non-solved games like chess, one can make a "draw" assumption safely in the start position : **no side has played a sub-optimal move ... or any move for that matter.**

There are some famous players who have postulated this rigorously but when it comes to computer evaluations, you have to take what the engine says with a grain of salt. They are great at analytical positions but are hit-and-miss in other places including the opening.

Most engines will give White an evaluation of around +0.30 at the start (3/10ths of a pawn) but that is not significant to predict that White will be able to sustain a draw if he tries to **only play for one** even at Master level play. Nor has Engine vs. Engine competition ever seen a near perfect record of draws **all the time**. There is too much uncertainty when dealing with complexity like the kind in chess or Go.

In short, the answer to your question really should be "no". There is no such yardstick for draw-depth nor is there any value of attempting to statistically analyze a million games for inferences.

Practically, a draw occurs at the highest levels of play when there is mutually nothing worth playing for (without incurring undue risk).

# Answer
> 1 votes
Loss, draw and win are the final results of a game. The evaluations of a position can be "better for white", "equal" and "better for black". Positions with a perpetual check, stalemate and not enough material to win are easy to judge as being a draw. Other positions are more difficult to evaluate all the way to the final result. Tablebases do cover a large range of endgames. But beyond this coverate, the evaluations will be as stated above.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Chess openings together with games played using this opening
I am looking for a resource where I can get a list of chess openings (the more comprehensive the better) together with games that were played using this opening. Up till now the only good thing I was able to find is chesstool. It is really good in terms of the number of openings and also it has quite a lot of games for each opening. The only bad thing is that apparently it does not have games after 2010 year.

Alternatively is there a place where I can get all (ok, I know that all sounds ridiculous) but at least all fide rated chess games in PGN format?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Try TWIC, each week they release at least the top-rated FIDE games.

http://www.theweekinchess.com/twic

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think this (http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html) might help (PGNs of various openings) though not sure how current the games are.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can try the Chessbase Online tool:

http://database.chessbase.com/js/apps/onlinedb/

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is a very good site: http://www.365chess.com/

Free Javascript tool at http://www.chesslive.de/js/apps/onlinedb/

You can get Chessbase online App for your Android at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=chessbase.android.chessdb&hl=en or iphone at https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chessbase-online/id417726752

---
Tags: opening, database
---


# Question
Title: What web-based Content Management System (e.g. Blogger) has the best support for chess content?
I am contemplating starting a website/blog, and trying to choose between Blogger, WordPress, and Drupal (but open to others). My needs are mostly blog-like - to post static pages and regular updates, and I'd like to choose a platform that has good support for embedding FEN/PGN strings/files out the box and generating diagrams and replayable games. I'd also like to link to a static pgn file with many combinations and have a gadget that would display a diagram with a "Daily Tactic". So far I looked into Blogger, and it does not have much support out of the box, and actually makes it difficult/impossible for me to embed Javascript that I have pre-generated with something like PalView. What are my other options?

# Answer
Have you looked at pgn4web? http://pgn4web.casaschi.net/home.html

It supports adding PGN for replay and I believe Tactics too. Also supports major platforms like WordPress, blogger. I have published a simple replayable game with it on blogger and it works like a charm. http://mychessapps.blogspot.in/2013/12/my-3-min-blitz-game-on-fics.html

Note that pgn4web for Wordpress requires a hosted version of Wordpress on which you can install the plugin; it will not be compatible with a blog hosted at Wordpress.com
> 0 votes

# Answer
I am writing for a Chess Blog (Blogger) from time to time, using KV Chess (former Chess Flash) to generate replayable chess games. Thus, the viewer is embedded as flash code. I did not manage to use PalView, it seemed a bit too complicated and had bugs. Perhaps it is better today? Cheers.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn, chess-blog
---


# Question
Title: Has the success of computers reduced the stature of chess as an 'intellectual' sport/game?
As human beings, we know that there are different aspects of intelligence. Often, innovation and creativity are considered to be higher levels of intelligence, whereas the ability to calculate is considered to be a lower level of intelligence. Mere calculational ability alone does not imply intelligence. For example, even a top scientist may not be able to compute the square of an 8 digit number, but a computer would be able to do it in a fraction of a second. However, a computer cannot do many of the things which humans are capable of, like invent a new device, or discover new science. It is a credit to the human intelligence that he is able to invent a device - the computer - to do things he would not be able to do ordinarily, just as other devices such as cars, aircraft, etc. have been invented.

Computers don't use real intelligence for playing chess, they just calculate millions of moves until they find an advantageous combination. Does this prove that chess is just about calculational ability and does not really involve any real intelligence?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Firstly, I think it is fallacious to consider chess a measure of intelligence (even though that is the general view). Chess ability, like almost any other skill-based activity, is a function of hard work and dedication far above raw talent. Wikipedia has an entry on this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Chess\_and\_intelligence) - researchers have found that there actually exists a somewhat inverse relationship between chess ability and intelligence amongst novice players - the reasoning being that smarter chess players do not work as hard on their skill as their less-gifted contemporaries - and in the long run, hard work pays off.

Secondly, you have to consider that computers and humans play chess very differently. Where a computer engages in millions of raw calculations, humans rely more on experience and pattern recognition to evaluate positions. The fact that computers can beat humans are essentially meaningless, as we are not comparing a like-for-like ability.

To say that chess computers have diminished the human skill of chess is, in my opinion, equivalent to saying that auto-mobiles have somehow diminished the skill and ability of marathon runners.

# Answer
> 3 votes
My view is the following

> When a computer program can do something that a human can, it is the success of the people who built it, not a flaw in human abilities.

To automate a manual or semi-automatic process happens all the time. Fortunately, chess isn't an industrial process or part of a product line. It is a battle of minds that millions of people enjoy. The engines help to excavate and dig deeper in positions. Yet, chess is still chess, especially for those who don't use engines (I image this goes for the majority of the human population).

The general reaction is still the same

> Wow, you play chess? You must be really smart!

As far as I can see, chess still holds a strong status of being a clever activity, and will do so for many years to come.

---
Tags: engines, history, human-versus-machine
---


# Question
Title: How do you checkmate with the pair of bishops?
How do you checkmate with the pair of Bishops and King versus King?

Are there any stalemates to look out for?

What are the key ideas / positions / tricks to make it work?

Thanks!

# Answer
I always like to explain this in a visual way.

**Basic Idea**: Keep the bishops *together*. They form a large *net* (restricted area) from which the opponent king cannot escape.

**Step 1: Push Opponent's King To Edge Rank or File**

Keeping the bishops together and using the king for support, make the restricted area smaller to push the opponent's king back to an **edge** rank or file.

```
     [FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/8/8/K2BB3 w - - 0 1"]

    1. Bd2 Ke4 2. Be2 Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3 Kd5
    7. Bd4 Kd6 8.Be4 Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11. Be5 Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7
    13. Kc6 Kf8 14. Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8

```

**1. Bd2 Ke4 2. Be2**

**2...Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3**

**6...Kd5 7. Bd4 Kd6 8.Be4**

**8...Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11. Be5**

**11...Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7 13. Kc6 Kf8 14. Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8** (note: I intentionally chose the **13...Kf8** line because that is more instructive. For the **13...Kd8** line, please see the sample mates provided at the end).

**Step 1 Accomplished!**

**Step 2: Push the Opponent's King to a Corner**

In the above position, we shall choose the **h8** corner. The key is to keep the opponent's king on the back rank while slowly taking away squares from the other side.

The idea now is to move the king over to the right hand side via **Kc6-d5-e5-f5-g6** to cover **f7** and then move the bishop to **d7** to cover **e8**, thereby pushing the opponent's king to the corner.

```
   [FEN "5k2/8/2K1BB2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 16"]

   1. Kd5 Ke8 2. Ke5 Kf8 3. Kf5 Ke8 4. Kg6 Kf8 5. Bd7 Kg8

```

Now, we can take control over **f8**, thereby pushing the opponent's king to the corner.

```
   [FEN "6k1/3B4/5BK1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 21"]

   1. Be7 Kh8

```

**Step 2 Accomplished!**

**Step 3: Checkmate the Cornered King**

Here, it is important to be careful to avoid a common **stalemate** that occurs in this position.

We observe that White has to make a **waiting move** in order to challenge the **g8** square **with check**, so that then after **Kh8**, **Bf6+** would be mate.

And now the mate is easy.

```
    [FEN "7k/3BB3/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 22"]

    1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bf7+ Kh8 3. Bf6#

```

Below, I have included other types of checkmates that can occur if Black play's differently. I've also included the fastest mate from the original position which starts with **1.Bc3!**

```
    [FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/8/8/K2BB3 w - - 0 1"]

    1. Bd2 (1. Bc3 Ke4 2. Kb2 Kd3 3. Bf3 Ke3 4. Bd5 Kd3 5. Be5 Kd2 (5... Ke3) 6.
    Bd4 Kd3 7. Bc5 Ke2 8. Kc2 Kf1 9. Kd3 Ke1 10. Bg2 Kd1 11. Bf2 Kc1 12. Kc3 Kd1
    13. Bf3+ Kc1 14. Be3+ Kb1 15. Kb3 Ka1 16. Bd1 Kb1 17. Bc2+ Ka1 18. Bd4#) 1...
    Ke4 2. Be2 Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3 Kd5 7. Bd4 (7. Bf4 Kc5
    8. Be4 Kb5 9. Be3 Ka6 10. Kc4 Ka5 11. Bc6 (11. Bb7 Ka4 12. Bb6 Ka3 13. Kc3 Ka4
    14. Bc6+ Ka3 15. Bc5+ Ka2 16. Kc2 Ka1 17. Ba4 Ka2 18. Bb3+ Ka1 19. Bd4#) 11...
    Ka6 12. Bc5 Ka5 13. Kd5 Ka6 14. Kd6 Ka5 15. Kc7 Ka6 16. Bb4 Ka7 17. Bb5 Ka8 18.
    Ba5 Ka7 19. Bb6+ Ka8 20. Bc6#) 7... Kd6 8. Be4 Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11.
    Be5 Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7 13. Kc6 Kf8 (13... Kd8 14. Bd6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kd8 16. Bf7 Kc8
    17. Be7 Kb8 18. Kb6 Kc8 19. Be6+ Kb8 20. Bd6+ Ka8 21. Bd5#) (13... Ke8 14. Bd6
    Kd8 15. Bf7 Kc8 16. Be7 Kb8 17. Kb6 Kc8 18. Be6+ Kb8 19. Bd6+ Ka8 20. Bd5#) 14.
    Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8 16. Kd5 Ke8 17. Ke5 Kf8 18. Kf5 Ke8 19. Kg6 Kf8 20. Bd7 Kg8
    21. Be7 Kh8 22. Be8 Kg8 23. Bf7+ Kh8 24. Bf6# *

```
> 26 votes

# Answer
The basic idea is to constrain the enemy king with the bishops working together on a pair of diagonals, just as with a rook you work with ranks and files to push the enemy king to the side of the board.

With two bishops you need to drive the king to one of the corners.

We'll first start with the ending moves to know where you want to go.

```

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Checkmate with two bishops"]
[Black "example"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3k4/8/1K6/1B6/1B6/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. Bd6 Kc8 2. Be7 Kb8 3. Bd7 Ka8 4. Bh3 Kb8 5. Bd6+ Ka8 6. Bg2# 1-0

```

Here is a longer example using the bishops to block along diagonals to force the opponent to the side, then the corner.

```

[Event ""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Another two bishops checkmate"]
[Black "example"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4k3/8/8/8/2B1KB2 w - - 0 0"]
[PlyCount "39"]

1. Bd3 Kd5 2. Bb2 Kd6 3. Kd2 Kc5 4. Kc3
Kd5 5. Kb4 Kd6 6. Bc4 Kc6 7. Bd4 Kd6 8. Kb5 Ke7 9. Kc6 Kf8 10. Bf6 Ke8 11. Kd6
Kf8 12. Be6 Ke8 13. Ke5 Kf8 14. Kf5 Ke8 15. Kg6 Kf8 16. Bd7 Kg8 17. Bc3 Kf8 18.
Bb4+ Kg8 19. Be6+ Kh8 20. Bc3# 1-0

```

Note that 10. Kd7 would be stalemate. You want to keep your king two squares from the side till near the end.

The last few moves, it is good to check the king into the corner mate, so that you don't stalemate by accident.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, bishops, elementary-mates, bishop-pair
---


# Question
Title: Pawn structure in king's indian or grünfeld
I'm trying out kings indian against d4 openings but there is one problem... I get mated.

I can't defend after castling under the h7 g6 f7 pawn structure. Somehow it works as an opening with an opening for infiltrating enemy attackers. I.e. the a1-h8 diagonal seems like it is built by traitors on my team.

Now my question to you is, what am I overlooking? How do I defend the g7 square? How do I stop enemies from getting too close to this strange triangle of mine (f6 and h6)?

To be precise: it is this pawn triangle that I can not defend when I have castled under it. Does not matter if it is with white or black pieces, queen side or king side.

EDIT: since I know now what it is called, I am talking about the "*house*". I am not talking about some specific game or in the opening. It is later in the game, the bishop has probably been sent off for patting nearby pawns. The king is left in the house-of-holes.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**Attacking/Defending the empty house**

This is going to be a long answer that will require several edits to complete, but I wanted there to be an answer started.

Not moving a pawn in front of the king leads it to be vulnerable to back rank mates. Moving a pawn in front of the king (making luft) creates holes that can be exploited (particularly by knights). Each disturbance has its own peculiarities. CJS Purdy wrote an article that started to outline the weaknesses of the various pawn structures, but he barely scratched the surface of the problem.

In this **first example** Judit Polgar defends a piece with tactics. Her opponent takes the piece, giving up her fianchettoed bishop, and is promptly punished for the crass materialism. It is important when winning material with the use of the bishop, to check that you are not leaving yourself open. Particularly if your opponent retains his corresponding bishop. I wrote a blog post that expands on this example here

```

[Event "Thessaloniki"]
[Site "Thessaloniki"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Judit Polgar"]
[Black "Pavlina Angelova"]
[ECO "B31"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "33"]

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.O-O Bg7 5.c3 e5 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4
Nxd4 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.e5 Ne7 10.Bg5 O-O 11.Qxd4 Nc6 12.Qh4 Qb6
13.Nc3 Bxe5 14.Rae1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qxb5 16.Qh6 Qf5 17.Qxf8+ 1-0

```

White will mate with Bh6+ and Re8#. This is a variety of back rank mate.

In this **second example**, a current line from the Catalan Opening, White gives up his fianchettoed bishop for a pawn, but leaving black with the corresponding bishop and better development. All white has is the pawn, but this position is considered a slight edge for white.

```

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Open Catalan"]
[Black "Theory Line"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "27"]

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O dxc4 7. Ne5 Nc6 8.
Bxc6 bxc6 9. Nxc6 Qe8 10. Nxe7+ Qxe7 11. Qa4 e5 12. dxe5 Qxe5 13. Qxc4 Be6 14.
Qd3 *

```

White will block the long diagonal with f2-f3 and e2-e4 as needed. He will defend the g2 square with heavy pieces, and eventually gain pressure on blacks c7-pawn. White may need to return the b2-pawn.

---

**h-file attack**

This is the way many approach prying open the fianchettoed king. The variation against the Pirc defense is named the 150-attack after the British rating system for about 1700 ELO. It fails miserably against the Gruenfeld, because the center is too open for a wing attack, and has trouble against the KID, because white's c2-c4 move is mostly wasted, and makes the white king less safe on the queenside, but if black plays passively, it can work. This plan is most famous in the Yugoslav dragon, but black has found many resources that have caused white to shift to more flexible plans in the Yugoslav.

The key elements are:

1. a bishop and queen battery on e3 and d2 respectfully, The bishop will go to h6 and trade off the bishop on g7
2. pawns on e4 and f3, that protect the battery and support g2-g4
3. queenside castling to allow both rooks to come to the h-file
4. the advance of the h-pawn to trade on g6 and open the h-file
5. one or more rook sacrifices on the h-file to open things up.

Here is a manufactured game that shows the basic plan. Black plays many time wasting moves that modern players of the Dragon would not play.

```

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sicilian Dragon,Yugoslav Attack"]
[Black "Too slow, too late"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "47"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Nc6 7. f3 Bg7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. h4 Qa5 11. g4 Rfc8 12. Nb3 Qc7 13. h5 Ne5 14. Be2 b5 15.
hxg6 fxg6 16. Bh6 b4 17. Nd5 Nxd5 18. Bxg7 Kxg7?? 19. Qh6+ Kf6 20. g5+ Kf7 21.
Qxh7+ Kf8 22. Qh8+ Kf7 23. Rh7+ Ke6 24. Nd4# 1-0

```

To handle this attack, it is of critical importance for black to get an attack rolling quickly on the queenside or the center, and not to panic. 18...Kxg7?? is a huge blunder, while 18...Ne3 saves, as 19.Qxe3?? Qxc2#

Other ideas to keep in mind:

* open up the center. This is one way that KID players try to disrupt the Saemisch
* sometimes h7-h5 can be played to block the opening of the h-file. This is risky if white has a bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal
* trade or divert white's bishop from the c1-h6 diagonal.

---

Next edit will talk about the f-file attack.

---
Tags: opening, theory, fianchetto, kings-indian, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there a standardized chess test that can measure one's chess playing condition?
Chess players often say that in a given tournament they were "in good shape", or the opposite. One tournament goes well, another goes horribly wrong. One can also sometimes feel that your head is working well, and tactics are calculated more easily than usual. There are days when it feels the opposite. Is there a test that can tell me "how well is my head working today"? The goal is not to measure relative skill of several players, but rather to measure the day-to-day condition of a single player, whose overall chess experience and strength is roughly stable.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do not know of any such standardized chess test.

But here are some general questions you should ask yourself. The "correct" answers are provided in parenthesis. If you answer all correctly, you should be in good shape.

**Physical Preparation**

> 1. Have I had enough sleep? (Yes)
> 2. Have I had enough food to give me sufficient energy for the game? (Yes)
> 3. Have I over-eaten? (No)
> 4. Do I feel stressed out? (No)
> 5. Is my body in good shape without any kind of aches? (Yes)
> 6. Are my eyes relaxed? (Yes)
> 7. Do I feel sick? (No)
> 8. Do I feel fresh? (Yes)
> 9. Do I feel tired? (No)

**Mental Preparation**

> 1. Is anything bothering me? (e.g. angry exchange with co-worker) (No)
> 2. Is there something else on my mind that can be a distraction (e.g. date with girlfriend)? (No)
> 3. Do I have a headache? (No)
> 4. Am I under the influence of alcohol or any such other drug? (No)

**Chess Preparation**

> 1. Have I made good opening preparation for the game? (Yes)
> 2. Am I afraid of my opponent? (No)
> 3. Have I practiced chess tactics recently? (Yes)
> 4. Am I confident that I can play well? (Yes)

If you answered all "correctly", you're in really good shape.

P.S. (I'll add more to the list as and when I remember)

# Answer
> 1 votes
From what I've learnt, the only way to find out how good you are today is by finding out how good you are today. IOW, there is no substitute for playing some games of chess to find out how good you are.

Matthew:out

---
Tags: tactics, statistics, calculation
---


# Question
Title: How can I train myself to become more observant of all my pieces?
This is always what gets me. I want to find a way to train myself to become more observant, and able to look at every piece that's about to murder me.

# Answer
> 9 votes
As I mention here, **not having any undefended piece** greatly helps.

* Each move, you have to check out for all your pieces, and after a few games of paying attention, it'll most probably become natural to know what pieces of yours are under somehow in peril, and not.
* In case you missed some tactic, didn't count attacks and defenses well enough, whatnot, you always have at least one defender.
* You'll start noticing overloads, which is probably a tactical trick beyond your level right now.

Eventually, you'll **constantly have a map in your mind** telling you :

* this is attacked twice, defended by this and this : ✓
* this is attacked once and defended by that : ✓
* I can be put in check in various ways by his queen, but all my pieces are defended at least once : ✓
* **He just played this move, so *this* and *that* are threatened.** I must find a move that defends both of them, e.g. moving one to defend the other, and I'll be fine.

Then, go look for problems that arise after multiple moves.

# Answer
> 7 votes
This is a matter of discipline. When it's your move, look at every one of your opponent's piece's moves. Look at every capture, look at every check. There should never be a time when you're surprised by a one-move "peewee" shot.

This flows into a discussion on tactics, of which I am sure there are many questions already posed.

Anyway, when you're looking at captures and checks, be wary of moves that can pull your queen into the same line as your King, or pull a defending rook off the back rank.

If you post an example, we can give more concrete advice.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Another useful is to always, before committing a move, check briefly what would be the best opponent's reply.

---
Tags: learning, training
---


# Question
Title: What is the approximate number of unique positions added by each practical game of chess?
The average number of moves in a game of chess is about 40. This would be an average of about 80 positions in each game, but many positions are shared between games. More sharing occurs at the beginning and end of the game.

New positions arise as games are played. As we add new games to the database of chess games, how many new positions will be added by each game?

In probability terms, if the number of new positions added by a game is a random variable, what is the expected value?

The practical result of this answer might be how large a key would a position table need in a database.

# Answer
The total number of possible positions in chess is estimated to be 10^43, so the key would need to be extremely large.

As to how many new positions you could expect from an incremental game load, that would depend highly on the current state of the database. For example: the first game would necessarily be all new positions, the second would share at least one position with the first (the starting position) and could otherwise either completely duplicate the first game or deviate entirely.

What seems certain is that as your n rises for positions, the expected value of new positions from an incrementally loaded game would decrease heavily. If you had somehow loaded every game of chess ever played (recorded or otherwise), the expectation of a new position occurring in the next loaded game would be very small indeed.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Typical large databases like chessbase, chess-db.com, etc. contain up to 10 million chess games in total, which is roughly about 500 millions positions. Thus, if you want to encode/enumerate them in some way it would require at least 32 bit key.

On the other hand, something like the Zobrist hash (see this or this) is a one way hash function considered to perform well in encoding chess position in 64 bits without collisions.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: statistics, database
---


# Question
Title: Computer evaluations: How trustworthy are they?
Fritz 12 with Rybka gave a friend of mine an evaluation of +3 for white in this endgame position,

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/8/8/3k3p/3P3K/2P3R1/8/7r w - - 0 1"]

```

which turned out to be a draw. But I've heard that +3 from a computer means a guaranteed win with perfect play. Did I just hear wrong? How should computer evaluations be interpreted in general? What do opening advantages of \<.5 even mean?

# Answer
There are a couple of things here.

First, each program is going to have its own way of evaluating positions so the scores can't be directly compared. For example, I was running StockFish against Rybka recently and found Stockfish's scores were about double those of Rybka. I was surprised by this, but it's pretty clear that a score of 1 doesn't always mean "1 pawn." I think what we should look at is how the score changes. Another curiosity I saw yesterday (while answering one of your other questions, coincidentally) was that Stockfish's evaluation algorithm doesn't like odd numbers very much. In fact most scores were multiples of .04. Given that the magnitude of the value is arbitrary, I would not assume any certain value means "a sure win" unless the machine is claiming it found a mate.

Second, end game tablebases were created because solving end games requires a lot of search depth. Computers playing at tournament speeds just don't do it well. I was working through a different game a few days back and announced on this site that one side had an advantage. Ed used a tablebase to show there was no mystery left in the position - it was theoretically drawn. Of course, there's a huge difference between drawn-with-perfect-play and drawn; the players have to find the right moves.

---

The small value generally given to White in the early stages of the game basically means white can claim more valuable real estate. For example, on move 1, White can claim e4 and attack e5 and f5. Black can counter. But then White can play Nc3 and attack/bolster a4, b5, d5, and e4. But Black can counter. So it means very little.

---

Finally, to answer the question in your subject line - the evaluations are very trustworthy as they are based on hard facts and an impressive search depth. Of course, the machines aren't infallible. But we b-players must remember that Stockfish (or Rybka) play at GM strengths on modest hardware. On the best *common* hardware, they estimate their ratings at FIDE 3200. This is so high that only the best humans have a slight chance of not losing.

Consider what this means; I (USCF 1650-ish) have *no* chance against a person (say, USCF 2050) who has *no* chance against a person (say, USCF 2450) who has a *no* chance against a person (say, USCF 2850) who has a *sliver of a* chance against a top-flight commercial program (FIDE 3200).

Thus, when Stockfish says one move is better than another, I usually take it at face value. When I hook up the endgame tablebases this thing's gonna start announcing mate-in-30s, lol.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Different engines have different "scales" for their numerical evaluations. For instance, in a typical middlegame position with plenty of play left, when Houdini says +2.00 or better, it is highly probable that White has a winning advantage (though even here I've included qualifications for a reason). But consider: one could modify the source code of Houdini and double the absolute values of all numbers involved in evaluations; one gets an engine of identical strength that produces identical play, but now +4.00 means what +2.00 used to mean. This illustrates that one shouldn't expect a uniform numerical threshold *across engines* that typically indicates a winning advantage.

More than this, though, it's important to understand that a numerical engine evaluation of a position (as opposed to an outright declaration of inevitable mate) *never* strictly translates to "a won game," even for a single, fixed engine. A key point is that numerical evaluations have no clear-cut "meaning" in broad chess terms, and are rather just a substitute for sentient thought that is used to mechanically guide an engine toward generally desirable outcomes by influencing which move it selects at each point in the game; in this light, what is ultimately most important to an engine's play is just the *difference* in evaluation assigned to potential moves, rather than anything about the *absolute values* involved. The numbers are useful to the engine itself, which needs something that concrete in order to make a decision for one move over another, but we humans shouldn't be too quick to read more meaning into the magnitudes involved with thoughts like "+X means a win."

In particular, the further and further we get toward an endgame as opposed to a middlegame, the less we can use a rule of thumb (like my +2.00 for Houdini in middlegames above) about a certain threshold being enough for a win. One key reason for this is the difficulty that engines have recognizing fortresses, where an abundance of extra material still isn't enough to win. For instance, when I feed Stockfish this position,

```
[FEN "5k2/6p1/5r2/3Q3P/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

after a couple minutes thought it is giving an evaluation of about +7.00, and in a typical position, when Stockfish says that, you almost certainly do have a win on your hands. Nevertheless, this is a dead draw, and a human can see this easily once the fact is realized that Black can just shuffle the rook between f6 and h6, and so (1) the h-pawn is useless, and (2) the white king will never be able to help the white queen attack. *Eventually*, Stockfish will recognize a draw here too, once it butts up against 50 moves, say, or finally runs out of different moves to try and finally can't avoid a repetition, but those events are way down the search depth line.

The endgame position from your earlier question that you linked to is akin to this sort of fortress, in that the extra connected passed pawns White has there are nice and all, but ultimately not quite enough to win in that position. If an engine were to calculate for enough time to see as much information as is contained in tablebases, then its evaluation would come down to 0, but in the meantime, its evaluation algorithm has nothing better to go on than to give a + for that extra material (that it doesn't yet know is meaningless).
> 15 votes

# Answer
I think this picture describes the situation quite well. It was created from 400k games, and considers only plain piece material.

Source: Pawn Advantage, Win Percentage, and ELO
> 10 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, software, statistics, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Pawns in the center: strength or weakness?
In most openings, pawns typically end up at some of the centre squares. There is really no other way to open up the long diagonals(c1-h6,a6-f1) for the bishops. However, how desirable is this? Hypothetically speaking, assuming there were some special rules in chess which allowed bishops to be developed along these long diagonals without having to push away the e and d pawns, would these pawns still end up getting pushed onto the centre squares?

# Answer
Yes. The main reason to move your d- and e-pawns forward is to control the center with them. The fact that they allow the bishops to be developed is secondary. (Often bishops are fianchettoed anyway.)
> 4 votes

# Answer
Pawns that stand on or guard a central square (e4, d4, d5 or e5) are said to control the center. For example, the white d-pawn has the its maximum center control on d4. Yet, after d2-d4, it loses the potential control over c4 and e4 (the move d2-d3 is no longer possible). So yes, the d- and e-pawn will move forward. Yet, this can create weak squares in the center.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The hypermoderns thought that pawn centers were weaknesses subject to attack. Thus came about defenses designed to "entice" center building while developing a way to undermine them. See defenses like the Alekhine or the King's Indian where this is exactly what is done. This is still an undecided question, although current theory believes that occupying the center with pawns is a strength, not a weakness.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: pawns, positional-play, pawn-structure, center
---


# Question
Title: How do you hold a draw with a bishop against a rook?
Bishop and King versus Rook and King is a draw. Yet it is easy to go wrong and lose. How do you hold a draw?

# Answer
> 6 votes
*INTRODUCTORY NOTE:*

Examples and instructions are taken from the book:

*Y.Averbakh - Comprehensive Chess Endings Volume 2.*

## RELEVANT POSITIONS FOR PLAYING THIS ENDGAME SUCCESSFULLY:

I will quote the introduction from the above book:

"It is impossible to win against correct defense, even if the defender's king is driven back to the edge of the board. When retreating under the pressure of the opposing pieces, all he must do is to reach the corner of the opposite color to the bishop. We will call this the safe corner".

```
[Title "Weaker side holds balance"]
[fen "7k/R7/7K/8/8/1b6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ra8+ Bg8=

```

White can't improve his position, since moving his king or moving rook along the 8th row will lead to *stalemate*. Black maintains balance **by keeping his bishop on `a2-g8` diagonal.**

Again, quoting the same resource:

"If the defender's king is in a corner of the same color as his bishop, a win is normally possible. We will correspondingly call this the dangerous corner."

The following position demonstrates winning method when weaker side has king in "the dangerous corner":

```
[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/5R2/6K1/8/3b4/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Bg1! ( 1...Bc5 2.Rc7 Bf8 3.Rc8+-) 2.Rf1 Bh2! 3.Rf2 Bg3 4.Rg2! Be5 ( 4...Bh4 5.Kh5++- ) ( 4...Bd6 5.Rd2 Be7 6.Rc2!+- ) 5.Re2 Bd6 6.Re8+ Bf8 7.Rd8+-

```

Black must hide his bishop as in the main line, and we saw how to flush it out and win. The sub-variation shows what happens when he refuses to do so.

Here is another important position, **where the result depends on who's turn to move is:**

```
[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

With the kings in opposition mating threats are in the air and if White moves first he is able to win. For the moment bishop is hiding behind the opposing king, but with the above rook maneuver White can flush it out:

```
[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rg3 Be4 ( 1...Bh5 2.Rh3 Bf7 3.Rh8+ Bg8 4.Kg6+- ) ( 1...Bc6 2.Rc3 Bd7 3.Rb3! Kg8 4.Rb8+ Kh7 5.Rb7+- ) 2.Re3 Bg2 3.Re2! Bf3 4.Rf2+-

```

But if it is Blacks turn to move he saves the game by running with his king:

```
[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Ke8! 2.Ke6 Kd8 3.Kd6 Kc8=

```

Since the `c6` square is inaccessible to the White king he is unable to make any mate threats.

These are **the basic positions** required to know in order to play this endgame well.

In the above book were provided *studies* which were complex, but can be solved with the knowledge of the above covered positions.

To keep this post clear, concise and useful I will omit them.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 3 votes
*First answer, I am hoping that there will be better answers with nice diagrams*

Your goal should (could) be to get your king to a corner that is not the colour of your bishop. Your friend stalemate welcomes you there. White can chase you out of the corner, but not without letting you escape to center and eventually into the corner opposite the original corner. Of course if you enter the ending in awkward manner, for example with your king on the edge of the board, some other tactics/strategy may save your life.

This site explains the defence in the corner quite well.

Elsewhere on the same site there is also a tactic for the party with the rook to win if you are near the wrong corner. If you are on the edge of the board, but not near a corner, I think there are cases where you have to play very carefully/accurately.

---
Tags: endgame, draw, rooks, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Caro-Kann, Smyslov variation : Can Black punish early 5.c4 in this position?
Recently I have posted a question about declining the Marshall Gambit in the QGD, and asked if Black can transpose into another solid opening, as one way of defense.

After analyzing the first position in the below diagram, I have realized that it can crop in a up specific Caro-Kann move order. What raises my hopes even higher is that White does not play `5.c4` but `5.Bc4` there, which means that `5.c4` is weak and has its drawbacks.

Compare the following diagram:

```
[Title "QGD, Marshall gambit"]
[fen "r1bqkbnr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/8/2PPN3/8/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]

```

and this one:

```
[Title "Smyslov variation ( B17 ) after 5.c4"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bqkbnr/pp1npppp/2p5/8/2PPN3/8/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 5"]

```

Although in the second diagram Black has better moves than `5...c6`, I believe that favorable transposition can still be achieved.

To determine if this is true, I need to know **how Black refutes** `5.c4`.

**Under refutation I consider Black achieving at least a fully equal position.**

Hence these questions:

1. Can Black equalize or achieve advantage in the position from the second diagram?
2. If answer to the first question is positive, can you demonstrate it with concrete lines?

Thank you.

Best regards.

# Answer
`5.c4` is bad in the Smyslov variation because black can equalize instantly with `5...e5! 6. dxe5 Qa5+` and `7...Qxe5`. Black is not better though, it merely gives black an easy game with the queens off.

For the complete line:

```
[Fen ""]
[Title "Smyslov Variation"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. c4 e5 6. dxe5 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxe5 8.
Qe2 Nc5 9. Nxc5 Qxe2+ 10. Nxe2 Bxc5 *

```

In the line you give with `5...e6`, white retains a comfortable advantage. White can play the standard plan of `Nf3` and `Bd3` and either try to keep the knights on the board with `Nc3` after black plays `Ngf6` or swap a pair of knights with a good position based on black's bad light square bishop.

Some example lines that give white an edge:

```
[Fen ""]
[Title "Marshall Gambit"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. c4 e6 6. Nf3 Ngf6 7. Bd3 (7. Nxf6+
Nxf6 8. Bd3) (7. Nc3 c5 8. Be2 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bb4) 7... Nxe4 8. Bxe4 Nf6 9. Bd3
Bb4+ 10. Bd2 *

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: How do you hold a draw with a knight against a rook?
Knight and King versus Rook and King is a theoretical draw. Yet, you might lose if you don't know the method. How do you hold a draw?

# Answer
The weaker side needs to keep Knight **close to his King** in order to achieve draw.

There are some special cases where the stronger side wins even in those situations, like when Knight is cornered or pinned in such a way that puts weaker side in *zugzwang*.

If the Knight is far away from the King then the result of the game depends whether or not the defending side is able to connect his pieces.

Here are some demonstrations:

## Typical example:

```
[Title "Rook vs Knight, typical drawing plan"]
[fen "3nk3/2R5/8/4K3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd6 Nf7+! ( 1...Kf8?? 2.Rc8 Ke8 3.Ra8+- ) 2.Ke6 Nd8+ 3.Kf6 Kf8 4.Rd7 Ke8 ( 4...Nc6?? 5.Rd6+- ) 5.Re7+ Kf8 6.Re1 Nb7 7.Ke6 Ke8 8.Rb1 Nd8+ 9.Kd6 Nf7+ 10.Ke6 Nd8+ 1/2-1/2

```

It is useful to mention that in these position the defender **should not allow vertical opposition**( `e6-e8` in the above example ), but **should strive for the diagonal one**( `e8-f6` or `e8/d6` ).

Even in the following position, Black is able to maintain a draw:

```
[Title "Drawing plan in a difficult position"]
[fen "5nk1/4R3/8/6K1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kf6 Nh7+! 2.Kg6 Nf8+ 3.Kh6 Kh8 4.Rf7 Kg8 5.Rg7+ Kh8 6.Rg1 Nd7! ( 6...Nh7?? 7.Kg6! Kg8 8.Rg2 Nf8+ 9.Kf6+ Kh8 10.Kf7 Nh7 11.Rg8#) ( 6...Ne6 7.Kg6! Nf8 ( 7...Kg8 8.Kf6+! ) 8.Kf7 Nh7 9.Rg8# ) 7.Kg6 Kg8 8.Rd1 Nf8+ 9.Kf6 Nh7+ 10.Kg6 Nf8+ 1/2-1/2

```

## Winning motifs for the stronger side:

We already saw one above-the decisive pinning of the knight that leads to *zugzwang*:

```
[Title "Decisive zugzwang"]
[fen "R2nk3/8/3K4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1.Rc8 Kf7 2.Rxd8+-

```

These motifs happen **due to bad positioning** of the King:

```
[Title "Defenders pieces are badly positioned : Cornered King"]
[fen "6nk/5R2/8/7K/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1.Kg6+- ( 1.Kg5+- )

```

or badly posted Knight:

```
[Title "Defenders pieces are badly positioned : Knight is away from his King"]
[fen "5k2/3R4/2n2K2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rd6 Ne7 2.Rd8# 1-0

```

Another important motif is **cornering the Knight** :

```
[Title "Cornered Knight"]
[fen "6k1/5n2/6K1/8/8/3R4/8/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1.Rd5! Nh8+ 2.Kf6 Nf7 3.Rd7 Nh6 ( 3...Nh8 4.Ra7+- ) 4.Kg6+-

```

Sometimes defenders units are not badly placed but just separated. In that case stronger side can win if it can push Knight away from the king since then it will be able to trap it. Here is an example:

```
[Title "Knight is too far from his King"]
[fen "8/8/8/2k1K3/8/3R4/4n3/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1.Re3! Ng1 2.Kf5! ( 2.Kf4? Kd4! 3.Re1 Nh3+ 4.Kg3 Ng5 5.Kf4 Nh3+= ) 2...Kd4 3.Kf4 Kc4 4.Kg3 Kd4 5.Re1+-

```

## SUMMARY:

The defender must keep his pieces together and avoid being cornered. Maintaining **diagonal** opposition with kings is desired.

The stronger side has several winning motifs:

1. Corner the opposing King and then execute double attack with the rook which threatens mate and attacks the Knight.
2. Corner the Knight and create *zugzwang*.
3. Push away the Knight as far away as possible from his King and then trap him.
4. In some special cases, exploit bad piece coordination to create decisive *zugzwang*.

*NOTE:*

Examples and instructions are taken from the book:

*Y.Averbakh - Comprehensive Chess Endings Volume 2*.

Best regards.
> 21 votes

# Answer
In analyzing and studying this endgame, I believe I have found a very simple way to explain the defensive technique (for this example, we will consider the defender to be Black). Once I learned this technique, I played some blitz Rook vs Knight endgames vs top chess programs and drew all of them.

**Knight's Box**

I found it useful to visualize the technique in term's of a box. Consider the knight on d1 (below). The knight can be visualized in a vertical box either to its left or right as shown. Note that the box is always vertical to the base of the knight.

In my analysis and study, I found that if Black can place its own king in the knight's box, and keep the opponent's king out of the box, then Black can hold the draw.

Note that the knight's box only works on a **non-corner** box. Thus, the green boxes below work, whereas the red ones don't.

Another exception is when the knight is pinned by the rook and the opponent king also attacks it at the same time, or when the opponent king attacks the knight and also checks the king with the rook.

Here is a sample blitz game I played against an engine that demonstrates this technique.

```
    [FEN "2R5/8/8/8/8/1K6/1n6/1k6 w - - 0 1"]
    [White "Engine"]
    [Black "Wes"]

    1. Rb8 Nd1 2. Re8  Kc1  3. Re2 Kb1  4. Kc4  Kc1  5. Kd3 Nb2+  6. Kc3  Nd1+
    7. Kc4  Nb2+  8. Kd4  Nd1  9. Rh2  Nb2  10. Kc3  Nd1+  11. Kb4  Nb2
    12. Re2  Nd1  13. Ra2  Kb1  14. Kb3  Kc1  15. Rc2+  Kb1 16. Rd2  Kc1
    17. Rh2  Kb1  18. Kc4 Kc1  19. Kd3  Nb2+ 20. Kd4  Nd1  21. Ke4  Nb2
    22. Ke3  Nd1+  23. Kf4 Nb2  24. Ke4  Nd1  25. Rg2  Nb2  26. Kd4  Nd1
    27. Kd3  Nb2+  28. Ke4  Nd1  29. Kd4  Nb2  30. Ke3  Nd1+  31. Kf4  Nb2
    32. Kf3  Nd1  33. Rh2  Nb2  34. Kf4  Nd1 35. Ke5  Nb2  36. Re2 Nd1
    37. Kd4  Nb2  38. Kd5  Nd1 39. Kc5  Nb2  40. Rh2  Nd1  41. Ra2  Nb2
    42. Kb4  Nd1 43. Re2  Nb2  44. Kb3  Nd1 45. Ra2  Ne3  46. Kc3 Nd1+
    47. Kd4  Nb2  48. Ke3  Nd1+  49. Kd3  Nb2+ 50. Rxb2  Kxb2 1/2-1/2

```

**Not ALWAYS close to the King!**

Although it generally helps to keep the king and knight together, it should be noted that there are some tricky positions where it is **not desirable** to keep the knight and the king together. This usually happens when the knight is on the **b2**, **b7**, **g2** or **g7** squares as shown below.

```
   [FEN "2R5/8/8/8/8/1K6/1n6/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

```

This is an important position in Rook vs Knight endgames. Here, after White plays **1. Kc3**, the move **1...Nd1**, which keeps the knight somewhat close to the king, loses. Instead, **1...Na4+** draws.

```
   [FEN "2R5/8/8/8/8/1K6/1n6/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

   1. Kc3 (1. Rc7 Nd1 2. Re7 Kc1) 1... Na4+ (1... Nd1+ $4 2. Kb3 Nb2 3. Kc3 Nd1+
   4. Kd2 Nb2 5. Ra8 Nc4+ 6. Kc3 Nd6 7. Ra4 Nb5+ 8. Kb3 Kc1 9. Rc4+ Kd2 10. Kb4
   Na7) 2. Kb4 (2. Kb3 Nb2 3. Rd8 Kc1!) Nb2 3. Kb3 Nd1 4. Rc7

```

Here, we reach another critical position, where keeping the knight close to the king loses -

```
   [FEN "2R5/8/8/8/8/1K6/8/1k1n4 w - - 0 1"]

   1. Rc7 Nf2 $3 (1...Nb2 $4 2. Rd7 Kc1 3. Rc7+ Kb1 4. Kc3 Na4+ 5. Kc4 Nb2+
   6. Kd4 Nd1 7. Kd3 Nb2+ 8. Kd2 Ka2 9. Kc3 Nd1+ 10. Kc2 Ne3+ 11. Kd2 Ng4
   12. Kc3 Ne3 13. Rd7 Kb1 14. Rd3 Nf5 15. Rd1+ Ka2 16. Re1 Nd6 17. Re5 Kb1
   18. Kb3 Kc1 19. Rc5+ Kb1 20. Rd5 Kc1 21. Rxd6) 2. Re7 Nd1 3. Rd7 (3. Re1 Kc1)
   3... Kc1 (3... Nf2 4. Rd2 Ne4 5. Rd1#) 4. Rd8 Nb2 (4... Nf2) 5. Rc8+ Kb1
   6. Kc3 Na4+ 7. Kb4 Nb2 8. Kb3 Nd1 1/2-1/2

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: endgame, draw, knights, rooks
---


title: Alpha-beta safe on incomplete tree?

text:
# Question
Title: Alpha-beta safe on incomplete tree?
I'm writing a simple chess program from scratch on a hobbyist basis. I think there is something fundamental I'm overlooking or don't understand.

I read the following http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Alpha-Beta, as well as other articles, e.g. the Wikipedia one. I've also implemented alpha-beta blindly before just by following pseudo-code. I believe I understand how alpha-beta can guarantee no unsafe pruning takes place on a complete search tree, i.e. if you have the whole search tree, and there are no unexplored nodes beyond the horizon.

What I don't understand is how alpha-beta can guarantee no unsafe pruning takes place on an *incomplete search tree* which does contain such unexplored nodes beyond the horizon, which chess always results in, unless evaluating endgames with a small enough tree.

Consider the following explanation from: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Alpha-Beta

> Say it is White's turn to move, and we are searching to a depth of 2 (that is, we are consider all of White's moves, and all of Black's responses to each of those moves.) First we pick one of White's possible moves - let's call this Possible Move #1. We consider this move and every possible response to this move by black. After this analysis, we determine that the result of making Possible Move #1 is an even position. Then, we move on and consider another of White's possible moves (Possible Move #2.) When we consider the first possible counter-move by black, we discover that playing this results in black winning a Rook! In this situation, we can safely ignore all of Black's other possible responses to Possible Move #2 because we already know that Possible Move #1 is better.

This seems to be false to me, exploring further nodes on the branch of "Possible Move" #2, e.g. a couple more ply, could result in black being guaranteed checkmate?

Hence pruning away this as a possible move is not safe.

What am I missing?

I know this ties in with the horizon effect and quiescence search, however I don't understand how alpha-beta alone, when used in this way on an incomplete search tree can be considered "safe". But I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking and it would be great with some pointers.

# Answer
As far as I can tell, you are crystal clear conceptually, and you aren't actually missing anything. I think the source of any apparent conflict between your understanding and the quoted passage is that you may be reading the passage to be claiming more than it really is. Here it is again, with some added emphasis:

> Say it is White's turn to move, and **we are searching to a depth of 2** (that is, we are consider all of White's moves, and all of Black's responses to each of those moves.) First we pick one of White's possible moves - let's call this Possible Move #1. We consider this move and every possible response to this move by black. After this analysis, we determine that the result of making Possible Move #1 is an even position. Then, we move on and consider another of White's possible moves (Possible Move #2.) When we consider the first possible counter-move by black, we discover that playing this results in black winning a Rook! In this situation, **we can safely ignore all of Black's other possible responses to Possible Move #2 because we already know that Possible Move #1 is better**.

I think that the only point being made here is that in this particular situation, "we already know that Possible Move #1 is better" *as far as our limited depth search is concerned*. That is, we have fixed this depth of 2 ply for our search in advance, that is as far as our knowledge is going to go, and the information discovered in the scenario does conclusively show that *within the scope of the next 2 plies* Possible Move #1 is better than Possible Move #2.

Your worry that something crucial might be being missed beyond that limit is absolutely correct, of course, and is why ideally such an algorithm would search all the way to the end of the entire chess game tree. That would be the only way to know that we have no "unsafe pruning," or in other words that we are playing optimally. But going that far isn't feasible (except for e.g. certain endgame positions, as you note, or say positions that are close to a forced conclusion of a game), so in whatever reasonable, finite amount of time an engine will have to search, it will only make it to some particular depth N that is insufficient for complete certainty. The point being made in the above passage isn't that we know Possible Move #1 is *truly* better than Possible Move #2 (i.e. with respect to the entire game tree), but only that we know it is definitely better with respect to the fixed depth N we actually get to search. But that's OK, as that's all we could possibly be sure of, which is exactly your point.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: Kramnik - Karjakin in the FIDE Candidates 2014, was 8...f5 correct?
In the game between Kramnik and Karjakin shown below, the opening was a bit strange and the resulting position was odd. I am wondering, was 8...f5 correct? Was it a novelty of sorts or when did the game leave the established opening theory in this line? Thanks!

```
[Event "FIDE Candidates Tournament 2014"]
[Date "2014.03.14"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Karjakin, Sergey"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bxc4 Nb6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Be3 Nb4 8. Be4 f5 9. a3 fxe4 10. axb4 e6 11. Nc3 Bxb4 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Qg4 Bxc3+ 14. bxc3 Qd5 15. Ne2 Bd7 16. O-O Qc4 17. Ng3 Bc6 18. Ra5 O-O-O 19. Rc5 Qb3 20. c4 Kb8 21. Qxe6 Rde8 22. Qh3 Nxc4 23. Rxc6 bxc6 24. Nxe4 Nb6 25. Nc5 Qd5 26. Rc1 Ka8 27. Na6 Kb7 28. Nb4 Qf7 29. Qg4 Nd5 30. Nxc6 Re6 31. Na5+ Ka8 32. Qe4 Rb6 33. g4 h5 34. Rc5 Rd8 35. Nc6 Rxc6 36. Rxc6 hxg4 37. Rf6 Qh7 38. Bg5 Qg8 39. Rxg6 1-0

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
**8...f5** is no novelty. It is a well known line and has been played successfully before by strong players like Adams, Salov and Karjakin himself.

**8...f5** is absolutely the correct move in the position, because it practically forces White to either surrender his strong central pawn on **e5** or give up his strong light squared bishop for Black's knight on **b4**. I demonstrate a line below showing what happens if White tries to avoid both these possibilities with **9. Bf3**.

```
   [FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/1n6/4Pp2/1n1PB3/4B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK1NR w KQkq f6 0 9"]

   1. Bf3 f4! 2. Bxf4 Qxd4 (2... Bf5!?) 3. Qxd4 Nc2+ 4. Kf1 Nxd4=

```

Thus, in the above position, White is practically forced to concede one of the two advantages.

Normally, White players preferred to play **9.exf6** for "obvious" reasons like the light squared bishop is stronger than the knight on b4 and is White's most valuable piece in launching a kingside attack.

Thus, in this position the move **9. a3!?** must have come as a complete shock to Karjakin. It has never been played before at Grandmaster level and was only played once before in Janczarski,M (2335)-Bartel,M (2273) Warsaw 2013 (source here).

```
   [FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/1n6/4Pp2/1n1PB3/4B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK1NR w KQkq f6 0 9"]

   9. a3!?

```

Whether **9.a3!?** is good or bad is a different question. It seems to me that after

```
   [FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/1n6/4Pp2/1n1PB3/4B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK1NR w KQkq f6 0 9"]

   9. a3 N4d5 10. Bf3 Nxe3 11. fxe3 g6 12. Ne2 Bh6!

```

Black is perfectly fine.

Conclusion: **8...f5** is correct!

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, kramnik, karjakin
---


# Question
Title: Has the King's Indian Defense been refuted at the Grandmaster level?
I know about b4 in the bayonet and the Kramnik-Kasparov games of course.

# Answer
Short answer - no.

Plenty of strong grandmasters like Radjabov and Caruana still play it.

Latest games
> 5 votes

# Answer
No, Black has trouble equalizing, but it is still a dynamic opening with lots of decisive games. Black wins less often than white, but it is a good choice if you want to win more than draw.

Nakamura beat Anand with it in London 2011, below is my annotations on that game. This viewer does not show my comments, which you can see in my blog version here.

```

[Event "London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2011.12.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "V Anand"]
[Black "Hi Nakamura"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E97"]
[WhiteElo "2811"]
[BlackElo "2758"]
[Annotator "Fritz 12 (120s)"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2011.12.03"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7.
O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Ne8 10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 Nf6 12. a4 (12. cxd6 cxd6 13. Ba3
Bh6 14. exf5 gxf5 15. Nc4 Ng6 16. b5 Ne8 17. b6 a6 18. Bh5 Rf6 19. Bc1 Bxc1 20.
Rxc1 Nf4 21. Bxe8 Qxe8 22. Ne2 Ng6 23. f4 Bd7 24. fxe5 dxe5 25. Ng3 Qf8 26. Nh5
Rf7 {Postny,E (2591)-Nataf,I (2592) Evora 2006 0-1 (40)}) 12... g5 (12... Kh8
13. f3 Bh6 (13... g5 14. Nc4 g4 15. fxg4 dxc5 16. bxc5 fxe4 17. d6 cxd6 18. g5
Ne8 19. cxd6 Ng6 20. Nxe4 Be6 21. Ba3 Rf4 22. Rxf4 exf4 23. Rb1 b6 24. Bb2 Rc8
25. Bxg7+ Nxg7 26. Qd4 Rc5 27. Nxc5 {1-0 (27) Petran,P (2386)-Werner,D (2362)
Budapest 2004}) 14. Nc4 Bxc1 15. Qxc1 f4 16. a5 g5 17. b5 Ng6 18. b6 dxc5 19.
Nb5 Ne8 20. Nxa7 Bd7 21. Qb2 cxb6 22. axb6 Qf6 23. Nb5 Rb8 24. Nc7 h5 25. h3
Nd6 26. Rfc1 Nxc4 27. Rxc4 {Schussler,H (2420)-Ivarsson,J (2355) Stockholm
1980 1-0 (37)}) (12... f4 13. Nc4 Kh8 14. Ba3 Ne8 15. a5 Ng8 16. f3 Rf7 17. Qb3
Ngf6 18. b5 Nh5 19. Rfc1 dxc5 20. Bxc5 Nd6 21. b6 Nxc4 22. Bxc4 cxb6 23. axb6
a6 24. d6 Rf8 25. Nd5 Bd7 26. Nc7 Rb8 27. Ne6 {Lekic,D (2390)-Filipovic,M
(2121) Budva 2009 1-0 (34)}) (12... fxe4 13. Ndxe4 Nf5 14. Bg5 h6 15. Bxf6 Bxf6
16. Bg4 Bg7 17. b5 Rf7 18. c6 bxc6 19. bxc6 h5 20. Bh3 Ba6 21. Re1 Rb8 22. Rb1
Rxb1 23. Qxb1 Bh6 24. Nb5 Kg7 25. Ng3 Nxg3 26. hxg3 Bd2 27. Re4 {Gleizerov,E
(2405)-Temirbaev,S (2375) Uzhgorod 1988 1/2-1/2}) 13. Nc4 $146 ({fritz opening
book variations} 13. a5 f4 14. g4 (14. f3 Ng6 15. a6 b6 16. Bb5 g4 17. Bc6 Rb8
18. Nb5 g3 19. h3 Bxh3 20. gxh3 Qc8 21. Re1 Qxh3) 14... Ng6 15. f3 h5 16. h3
Rf7 17. Rf2 (17. Ba3 Bf8 18. Nc4 Rh7 19. Kg2 Be7 20. b5 Qf8) 17... Bf8 18. Ba3
Rh7 19. Nf1 Be7 20. Rc1) 13... h6 $6 {wastes a tempo as ...f4, f3 is going to
happen anyway.  IMHO,13...f4 was called for. OTOH,  Nakamura is a much better
player than I. The engines give 13...h6 as black's best move, but white has a
clear advantage} (13... f4 {gets back into a main line} 14. f3 Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7
16. b5) (13... h6 14. f3 fxe4 15. fxe4 Ng6 16. Ba3 Nf4
17. Bf3 b6 18. cxd6 cxd6 19. Rc1 g4 20. Be2 h5 21. b5 Ne8 22. g3 Nh3+ 23. Kg2
Rxf1 24. Qxf1 Bh6 {0.58/25}) 14. f3 f4 15. Ba3 Ng6 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 Rf7 18.
a5 h5 19. b6 g4 20. Nb5 cxb6 21. axb6 g3 {Though the pawn chain pointed at
White's king looks threatening,  Nakamura is a long way from finishing his
kingside attack. Anand has a tremendous advantage, but needs to play actively
to bring the point home.} 22. Kh1 $2 {Not a losing move, but much too timid.
Anand was trying to secure his position by making sure that ...gxh2 did not
come with check. Preventing ...gxh3 with 22.h3 would allow the thematic ...
Bxh3 sacrifice that is usually bad for white.} (22. Qc2 {Does not look all
that active, but keeps all of White's threats in the air, and positions the
queen for invasion of Black's position along the c-file, frees the Rf1,
provides defensive support to g2, support for the Bc5, and support for a
knight posted on f5 (via d6, which is not a square the knight wants to rest on,
as it blocks the d-pawn, the Bc5, and the other knight.} a6 (22... gxh2+ 23.
Kh1 {is safe enough, as both black knights are far from g3. White might be
able to take on h2, but that requires a lot of calculation, that might be
better spent on other lines.}) 23. Ncd6 Rd7 24. Nf5) 22... Bf8 23. d6 {I think
this is premature. White can maintain control of d6, so the pawn is not going
to be blockaded, soon.} ({Fritz likes} 23. Rxa7 Rb8 24. Ncd6) 23... a6 24. Nc7
Rb8 25. Na5 Kh8 26. Bc4 Rg7 27. Ne6 Bxe6 28. Bxe6 gxh2 29. Nc4 $2 {Where is
this knight going? If Anand felt the need to shore up the d6 pawn, then I
think 29.Ra2 would have been better.} ({Fritz 12:} 29. Bh3 Nh7 30. Qd5 Nf6 31.
Qd3 Nh7 32. Nc4 Ng5 33. Bf5 Nf7 34. Qd5 Qf6 35. Qe6 Qg5 36. Ra2 {2.39/25})
29... Qe8 30. Bd5 $2 (30. Bh3 {would stifle any black attack on the kingside,
and keep control of c8}) 30... h4 31. Rf2 h3 32. gxh3 Rc8 33. Ra5 Nh4 34. Kxh2
Nd7 35. Bb4 Rg3 36. Qf1 Qh5 37. Ra3 a5 38. Be1 Rxc4 $1 {This exchange
sacrifice allows Nakamura to activate his dark square bishop and bring it into
the attack.} 39. Bxc4 Bxd6 40. Rxa5 Bc5 41. Be2 $2 (41. Rxc5 {returning the
exchange this way allows Anand to keep the Rf2} Nxc5 42. Be2 Ne6 43. Kh1 Ng2
44. Qxg2 Rxg2 45. Rxg2 {and things are pretty grim for white, but if he can
exchange off the rest of the pawns, he might be able to hold.}) 41... Bxb6 42.
Rb5 $2 Bd4 (42... Bxf2 $1 {I was screaming at my computer as I watched this
game live. It also would have worked on the previous move, but I did not see
it then.} 43. Bxf2 Nxf3+ 44. Bxf3 Qxf3) 43. Bd1 $2 (43. Rxb7 {would have
lessened the damage.}) 43... Bxf2 {finally, this move would have worked on move 41 and 42} 44. Bxf2 Nxf3+ 45. Bxf3 Qxf3 46.
Rb1 Rg6 47. Rxb7 Nf6 48. Rb8+ Kh7 49. Rb7+ Kh6 {White must give up material,
or the e4-pawn will fall and white cannot stop the black pawns.} (49... Kh6 50.
Rb6 (50. Rb8 Nxe4 51. Rb2 Rg3 52. Re2 Qd3 53. Bxg3 Nxg3 54. Qf2 Qxe2 55. Qxe2
Nxe2 56. Kg2 Nd4) 50... Ng4+ 51. hxg4 Rxb6) 0-1

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, grandmaster, kings-indian, refuted
---


# Question
Title: "Parity" of "insuficient mating material"
What is sufficient mating material?

I found this question and must pose my own as a response.

I you have a chess computer on easy (or the Kasparov Team Mate - anyone who has played one will know the "why did it do that?" -\> "Oh, if we don't trade knights, then bishops, then our other bishops and a rook, I'll lose!" it loves to swap and the above has actually happened) you will probably end up with most of the pieces off the board.

Sometimes you can see a checkmate, but you can never get to it because of the square the king is currently on. BUT you may only checkmate if black skips a turn.

The algebra of this behavior coupled with intuition suggests that if you think of a move as a 2 element tuple (white's move followed by black) that these are from groups with an LCM of their orders of 2. Which is why no number of moves will give a checkmate, thus meeting the 50 move draw at most.

My question is this, what is the algebra behind this? I'm pretty sure it deals with cosets of orbits of board layouts. My Algebra isn't strong enough to analyse this but there is SOMETHING at play.

Secondly, imagine you could "bump" the board, so your knight shifted without anyone noticing one square horizontally. Now it is on a different colour, this should adjust the parity (illegally, albeit) and now you should be able to mate.

Now this raises the question of "if this happens a lot, play to protect the other knight, as it starts on a different colour (thus is the opposite parity), then you should be able to win)" This would make which knight you have left the deciding tool between stalemate (accidentally making it so they cannot move their king (with nothing else left) but not checking him) and checkmate.

Chess is a hobby of mine, I am quite new to the established realm of it, I sort of learned myself from electronic boards (which I still do, I have some strong ones! (Kasparov Turbo s24k, the one after this famously played Kasparov, a GK2000, a GK2200, a Kasparov Cougar (ELO estimated by enthusiasts to be 2100, manufacturer claimed 2250 IIRC) -I say this to try and show I'm not a noob).

I hope somebody can parse what I'm trying to say, I do apologise for the poor quality of this question. I'll try and play an example tonight and edit it in if no one can understand this.

# Answer
It is a little unclear exactly what you are after, but the following portion of the question points to an area where something directly mathematical is going on:

> Sometimes you can see a checkmate, but you can never get to it because of the square the king is currently on. BUT you may only checkmate if black skips a turn.

This describes a situation known as *mutual zugzwang* (or, *reciprocal zugzwang*), which is where we have a position in which it is detrimental for either side to have a move. A prototypical example comes from K+P vs. K.

```
[fen "3k4/8/3KP3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.e7+ Ke8 2.Ke6

```

White has no better than to allow this stalemate, whereas if Black had the move, White wins by `1...Ke8 2.e7 Kf7 3.Kd7` and queens.

Much more complicated examples exist, of course. In the following position, for instance, Black to move will lose, while White to move has no better than a draw:

```
[fen "8/q7/5q2/8/8/8/6QQ/k6K w - - 0 1"]

```

The above example was discovered by computer, actually. It is mentioned in Lewis Stillers' "Multilinear algebra and chess endgames" (PDF link), and **that article gives a fair amount of background on the group-theoretic considerations involved**. For further reading on the matter, you might try to get your hands on "Chess art in the computer age," *American Chess Journal*, 1(2):48--52, September 1993. I haven't seen the text myself, but this piece is referenced in Stillers' article, and it is by Noam Elkies, who is a world-class mathematician and a chess master (not to mention the 1996 World Chess Solving Champion). I know for sure that the article at least touches on the topic at hand, because it includes a composed study that is based on the mutual zugzwang above:

```
[fen "5Q2/5P1b/8/7K/8/1q4k1/1p4B1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Elkies"]
[Black "Study"]

```

White to play and win (solution indicated in Stillers' article).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: What are some good middle game plans or strategies?
The objective of the opening is quite clear - develop your pieces quickly, castle and bring your king to safety, etc. Once this phase is over, and you are into the middle game, the question arises - now what?! What are some good plans to pursue in the middle game? Generally, I go for an all out attack on the enemy king. If played well, it could result in some advantage - either the opponent gets checkmated or he is forced to give up material in order to avoid a checkmate. However, in some cases the opponent king is heavily fortified - for eg. there is a doubled f or c pawn on the side where his king has castled, or there is a fianchetto bishop on the same side as the castled king which gets in the way of a mating attack. In such situations, is it advisable to still go for a mating attack? Or are there some other plans which can be pursued? How to gain an advantage? What are some common plans/strategies?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Although your question is quite broad, the general ideas in the middlegame are the following-

> 1) Improve the **position of your pieces**\- knights on outposts, bishops on open diagonals, rooks on open files, etc.
>
> 2) If a piece is badly placed and cannot be improved, see if you can **exchange** it for one of your opponent's better placed pieces.
>
> 3) Create **weaknesses** in your opponent's pawn structure, by provoking certain pawn moves. Note that every pawn move is irreversible, thus you must watch out for opportunities where you can provoke pawn moves from your opponent that would weaken their position.
>
> 4) If you yourself have weaknesses, see if you can eliminate them; if not, guard them well.
>
> 5) Keep your pieces **co-ordinated** and see if you can disturb the co-ordination of your opponent's pieces.
>
> 6) Keep your **king safe** and see if the opponent's king position can be compromised.
>
> 7) Look for **transpositions into favorable endgame positions** (e.g. two bishops vs two knights or two bishops vs bishop and knight in open positions).

With respect to your particular approach, attack's on the opponent's king are not always justified. It may work at the beginner level, but a stronger opponent will be able to refute an **unfounded** attack. In order to attack, first of all, there must be something to attack- **weaknesses**. If your opponent has no weaknesses, then your attack will come to nothing and you risk ruining the co-ordination of your pieces.

The better approach therefore is to work for the **accumulation of advantages**. A single advantage (like a knight on a good outpost) is often not enough to win. You must try to accumulate as many advantages as you can before you can deal the lethal attacking blow. Of course, if the opponent makes a mistake or blunders, then the lethal blow can come quickly. If not, slow yet constant improvement of your position is the best way to go.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In addition to Wes answer, try also to play and examine the games of chess grand masters. By watching their games you can get a bunch of ideas on how they perform an attack. Check out these sites:

Another good place to learn "chess planning" is by watching annotated chess games in Youtube where every move is explained, including the plans behind the moves. Check out these Youtube Chess channels:

My two cents ;)

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: What are electronic chessboards used for?
I once saw a GM on YouTube using an electronic chessboard, a board that could be plugged into a computer. I liked the idea. What is it used for? When should one consider buying it?

# Answer
I assume you are referring to DGT-style electronic boards.

I think the main purpose of those boards is to broadcast chessgames - e. g. on a beamer in the playing venue or on the internet. It is also useful (if it doesn't fail) for blitz games or, more generally, in any game situation where none of the players write down their moves any more if you need to comprehend the course of the game as an arbiter.

I don't see lots of uses outside a tournament context. The GM you referred to may have used it to record what he did on the board. Some people feel better analyzing on a "real" board rather than using the chessbase broadcast or some screen-capture method.

The only reason I could see to buy one as a person that does not intend to do the things mentioned above would be if you were too lazy to write down what you play in practise games or if you want to practise blitz games (although even here I could think of much cheaper alternatives if I look at the prices they sell at).
> 5 votes

---
Tags: chessboards
---


# Question
Title: Do people who handle blindfolded chess play at reasonably the same strength given enough time to think?
If time is not a problem, can someone who is playing blindfolded chess play with (at least) the same strength than normal chess?

I have heard some people that mastered blindfolded can even play multiple games at the same time, so this makes me think they can actually get to play at their normal strength. Are there any studies on this?

# Answer
In my experience and opinion

1. Having more time is not really an advantage when playing blindfold
2. You have a clearly higher risk of blundering when playing blindfold

Let me try to expand on this.

1. Playing blindfold in a single game for more than an hour for the entire game is a huge effort of concentration. Playing blindfold for two or more hours on a single game might be too much to handle, unless you have some special method or extreme stamina. So having more time isn't great from the stamina point of view.
2. There is a clear risk of losing track of something (e.g. a pawn) on the board or forgetting to register one of the moves and later pay for this mistake. The risk for blundering is clearly higher when you don't see the board and the pieces.

My conclusion is that you will definitely play below your full strength. How much below, depends on how well trained you are in playing blindfold chess. If you play on two or more boards simultaneously, I predict that your strength drops even more. My guess is that you can come up to 80% of your full strength when playing blindfold (after a lot of training and practice). Even then, your risk of blundering will be higher!
> 4 votes

---
Tags: elo, blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: How many games should one play online per day or week?
I participated in a tournament on `chess.com` and I have to play like 12 games, 3 days per move, although it's plenty of time, I can't concentrate, I noticed that when I play many games, I lose because I make mistakes.

The thing is when you have 12 games to be played, you often find yourself, not playing at all or playing all the games simultaneously, to just get over with it, and do something else other than playing chess.

So in an ideal situation, what is the best number of games to be played per day or week for average users?

A side question, is it good to play such tournaments? I mean when you have many games to be played, you'll lose concentration (at least I do) so isn't it better to play live tournaments (15 or 30 min for each player) isn't that a better way to concentrate on the moves?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Since playing chess is not a job for most of us, it may not make much sense to ask how many games **should** you play. Some people relish the adrenaline rush of 1 minute chess, some can play for hours, some like to play three games at once... and then some others like to play once a week. The answer depends on who you are, but since it seems that online tourneys stress you out, it may be better for you to attend live ones.

I know this is not much of an answer, but I think it is closest to the truth.

# Answer
> 4 votes
This is like asking "what is the ideal number of hours to read each week".

The answer is: it depends on the person.

The only solution is to experiment with different numbers and see what works best for you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Don't get so many games that you lose concentration. Play a few games, but keep it enjoyable. I find I do well with 18 or 20 games, but 40 or more makes me a little crazy. Just do what you are comfortable with. It is different for every person, so we need to find our own level. And, of coarse, how much time you have to play is a big factor.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As a regular chess.com player I stick with 10 to 15 daily games of 3days per move. I do not play greater than 15 games as I cannot concentrate on it.

I suggest stick only with games that you can accommodate, games which you can ANALYZE better without a rush.

I you got bored with your opponents in "Daily move chess" try to log and play in blitz or 15mins per move games until you get satisfied.

---
Tags: online-chess, websites, online
---


title: B50: Sicilian Defense 3. Bc4

text:
# Question
Title: B50: Sicilian Defense 3. Bc4
**First a bit of background:**

I really like playing the Sicilian Defense as Black and it is my preferred choice of action against `1. e4`. I prefer the `Open Sicilian` with `Dragon` and `Najdorf` being my favourite variations.

**Now to the question itself:**

At my skill level my opponents often play the following variation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4!?

```

Here I find `3. Bc4` to be a sub-optimal move and I usually continue with my plan and go for the Dragon variation, since I don't think `a6` achieves much, at this point.

On the other hand he is clearly aiming at `f7` and moves like `Nf6` and `g6` do nothing to counter his threat.

What is your evaluation on this opening position? Can you give me some pointers at what is the best way to exploit White's last move?

Thanks!

# Answer
> 12 votes
This variation is uncommon, but it's certainly not unheard of. I don't know of a particular name for it, and rather than get bogged down in the endlessly-analyzed lines, let's just take a quick, objective look at what this move accomplishes, and what it gives up.

## Advantages

* `3.Bc4` aims, as you said, at the `f7` pawn. If allowed to remain on the diagonal, this Bishop could provide pressure against the Black kingside in the midgame.
* It develops the Bishop quickly, allowing White to castle kingside immediately if he so chooses.
* It may avoid trading away the Bishop for Black's QN or QB like we see in the Canal-Sokolsky Attack (`3.Bb5+`) or other variations where White's KB lands on `b5`.
* It grants White some additional influence over the light central squares weakened by Black's first two moves (`c5` and `e6`).

## Drawbacks

* By developing to `c4` so early, this move appears to invite Black to play `...e6`, immediately limiting the Bishop's scope and possibly requiring a future relocation.
* On `c4`, the Bishop is vulnerable to space-gaining queenside maneuvers via `...a6` and `...b5`, or `...Nc6-a5`.
* This move does not provide any immediate threats, so Black is free to continue to choose a system as he pleases.

## Ideas

Looking at these two lists, a picture begins to form of the themes for both sides.

**White** will likely try to hold onto this Bishop, to assist in his kingside operations. He will likely play `4.d3` to keep the position closed, and to cement his hold on the light central squares.

Meanwhile, **Black** may use the Bishop's placement as a convenient way to make his thematic land grabs on the queenside. Black is not compelled to respond in any particular way, though my database suggests that a Dragon-like setup with `...Nf6, ...Nc6, ...g6, ...Bg7` is slightly more popular in this line than the `...e6` variants.

```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2np1np1/2p5/4P3/1BPP1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w - -"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. c3 g6 6. O-O Bg7 7. Bb3 O-O

```

---

## Conclusion

This third move choice from White, while unusual, does not seem to be downright inferior. It suggests a tense, positional midgame, with each side operating on his better flank. Good luck!

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


# Question
Title: What are the benefits of becoming a chess (player, team or tournament) sponsor?
It is probably well known that Magnus Carlsen is sponsored by Arctic Securities. An example of a tournament sponsorship is the Annual Rilton Cup sponsored by the Rilton Foundation. What are the benefits of sponsoring and becoming a partner of a chess player, team or tournament? Additionally, can you think of any more examples of sponsorships in the present and past?

# Answer
How about this benefit?

> It is probably well known that Magnus Carlsen is sponsored by Arctic Securities.

Being well known is the benefit. One minute ago I had not even heard about arctic securities. And now I know, as well as may be thousand of other people watching/reading about the game. Why Vodaphone or whatever is sponsoring football? Do they care, do they have any connection to football? - No.

The idea behind sponsorship is always the same - let people know about you or see your sign.

**Answer to Rauan's comment:**

I do not want to disappoint you, but there is nothing unique about sponsorship in chess. In business all that matters is money / revenue / stock prices / public awareness.

Why did IBM gave half a million in 1996 to Kasparov for a match with a machine? They did not care about chess, they cared about advertising and stock market price. That's why they cared so much about the rematch in 1997 giving $1.1M for it and offering $0.7M to a winner. Not a lot of chess players who know about the matches, know how this ended up for IBM

> IBM estimated it received $500 million of free publicity from the match, and IBM stock prices went up over $10 to reach a new high for the company.

I think this is one of the best money investments.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: tournament, grandmaster, super-grandmaster, team
---